Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed

by Judith Curry

I’ve just returned from China, the first thing I did in the U.S. airport on my layover back to Atlanta was to check twitter.

I’m feeling pretty brain dead after my flight and the 12 hour time change.  Checking my twitter notifications that have accrued over the past 11 days while I’ve been in china (behind the great Chinese internet firewall) was very entertaining.

Overall my WSJ op-ed seems to have been well received.  Below are some of the more interesting or entertaining of the critical responses.

Bart Verheggen

My post on the Lewis and Curry paper was reproduced at the Climate Change National Forum, Bart Verheggen responds [here].  Excerpt:

I’m pleased that Dr. Curry acknowledges that “uncertainty in itself is not a reason for inaction”. I do find that conclusion slightly at odds with her frequent calls to put less effort in mitigation. Curry says that “deep uncertainties remain”, while at the same time apparently basing her anti-mitigation viewpoint on the assumption that climate sensitivity (ECS) is low. If this deep uncertainty however extends to ECS, one would think that the risk of substantial warming entails a substantial risk that is worth hedging against. Is she so sure that ECS is low and impacts benign? In short, I sense some inconsistencies in her approach to uncertainty. 

It appears to me that Dr Curry is at times inflating the uncertainty, to the point of creating the appearance of ignorance. I think that does a disservice to the prospect for “a more meaningful dialogue on how to address the complex challenges of climate variability and change”, which is a goal she frequently expresses to strive towards. As an example of inflated uncertainty, it is imho well established that the warming since 1950 is predominantly anthropogenic, and likewise is the projection that the warming will continue with continuing emissions very robust. There are uncertainties and ranges of probability, but the impression that this is totally up in the air is mistaken, to my mind. Perhaps in her (to my mind mistaken) belief that uncertainties are frequently ignored, she started over-compensating in the other direction?

JC comment:  My seeming contradictory stance on the uncertainty issue is a valid point to raise.  We have very little justification (and no demonstrated skill so far) for predicting the climate of the 21st century.  That said, within the framework of how the IPCC is framing the climate problem and has defined ‘climate sensitivity’, the only justification for values of ECS (greater than 3 C) is climate models that that do not adequately account for natural internal variability and when compared with observations seem to be running ‘too hot.’   So, could climate sensitivity be very high?  Yes, but we have no reliable methods for inferring very high climate sensitivity, other than climate models that are demonstrably running to hot and dubious analyses of the paleoclimate record.

The paleo-estimates are interesting in the sense that from a variety of time periods and from a variety of studies and methods, ECS appears to be in the range between 2 and 4 degrees C. It thus seems that when someone advocates for a value lower than that, they have some explaining to do as to why such large temperature swings occurred in the (deep) past?

JC comment:  Yes lets use dubious paleo estimates to falsify estimates from the relatively reliable instrumental record, and also lets forget that climate sensitivity is state dependent.

Rapid Response Team

Michael Mann, John Abraham, Scott Mandia, Peter Gleick and Richard Somerville have penned a response at HuffPo:  Curry advocates against action on climate change.  Excerpts:

So the piece repeats the same tired claims about lowered sensitivity, using the “pause” meme and her own study as justification for delaying action. According to her (and of course the contrarians) a limited set of studies using a single incomplete methodology are reason enough to put off getting serious about climate change.

To summarize the article, it turns out that even if one assumes these recent studies are correct, this buys us only a decade of extra time before crossing the internationally agreed-upon limit of 2°C of warming. This means that even if Curry’s correct, it may just be the difference between bad and terrible consequences of our inability to get emissions under control.

This understanding is shared by all the mainstream climate scientists who have examined the breadth of the scientific literature.

Esoteric and academic arguments about the response of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 may be interesting for those steeped in the peer-reviewed literature, but for the public and policy makers the important and unfortunate fact is that climate change is continuing unabated. This was the hottest September on record, after the hottest August on record (yielding the hottest summer on record), and the oceans continue to warm rapidly. In fact, some parts of the ocean have been shown to be warming even more rapidly than we thought.

JC comments:  Pause denial is getting more and more difficult with time.

In the end, Curry’s claims fly in the face of what we know. Quite literally, according to the largest scientific organization in the world and publisher of the journal Science. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) released this year a report titled “What We Know” that shows that taking action now reduces both the cost and the risks associated with our warmed world.

Regardless of whether Curry is right about the climate being slightly less sensitive to CO2 (something that hundreds of thousands of years of paleoclimate records suggest is false) the fact remains that the sooner we reduce emissions, the less damage we will endure. And interestingly, Curry admits that the only substantial worry is from a high emissions scenario. But if we listen to her argument for inaction, that high emissions scenario is exactly what we’ll get.

 JC comment:  The signatories on this op-ed are interesting; in the old days the Rapid Response Team would have been able to pull a larger number and more impressive names as signatories.  This is really a very content free op-ed, they didn’t even manage to insert any good ‘smears.’

Union of Concerned Scientists

Union of Concerned  Scientists has an article: Wall Street Journal offers a skewed climate change perspective from Judith Curry.  Excerpts:

I asked my colleague Peter Frumhoff—our chief scientist, a former IPCC lead author, and the co-author of a recent study on climate science and policy—if I could share his reaction to Dr. Curry’s argument.

Here’s what he wrote:

The ocean is absorbing much of the excess heat from human emissions. If the model Curry and colleagues discussed had incorporated the latest ocean heat content data, their relatively low best estimate for climate sensitivity would have been more in line with previously reported, higher estimates.

It would be a mistake to set policy based solely on low estimates. That’s why we have advisory bodies like the IPCC and National Climate Assessment that examine all the available science, including higher estimates. The risks of far greater climate sensitivity can’t simply be discounted or dismissed.

The bottom line is that we know enough about where we’re heading to reduce emissions even as scientists grapple with homing in on precisely how much the Earth is expected to warm.

DeSmog

DeSmog blog has a guest post by Climate Nexus  Judith Curry is back advocating for inaction in the Wall Street Journal.  Excerpts:

Curry provides a highly biased and skewed overview of climate sensitivity studies, which makes sense for publication in the Wall Street Journal. In reality, the IPCC sensitivity estimate remains the most reliable and comprehensive expression of the state of knowledge on the topic, and scientists agree that this sensitivity range implies an urgent need for climate action.

Curry has growing ties to denier groups and her consulting business serves fossil fuel companies. She recently participated in a forum held by the discredited, fossil-fuel funded George Marshall Institute, which advocates outright climate denial and has denied the link between tobacco and cancer in the past. Her consulting company has received funding from the fossil fuel industry since 2007, at her own admission. Finally, her work has been repeatedly criticized by reputable scientists including those at RealClimate and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

JC comment:  Well if you can’t come up with any real arguments, you can also try playing the fossil fuel card.

Lewandowsky

Lewandowsky has an article in the Conversation Why climate uncertainty is no excuse for doing nothing.  Relevant excerpt:

Paterson is far from alone: climate change debate has been suffused with appeals to “uncertainty” to delay policy action. Who hasn’t heard politicians or media personalities use uncertainty associated with some aspects of climate change to claim that the science is “not settled”?

Over in the US, this sort of thinking pops up quite often in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal. Its most recent article, by Professor Judith Curry, concludes that the ostensibly slowed rate of recent warming gives us “more time to find ways to decarbonise the economy affordably.”

Lucia notes the inconsistency in a post Lew: Curry’s paper suggests LESS uncertainty not MORE!   As I stated above, with the confines of the narrow way that the IPCC frames the climate change problem, the evidence is growing that we can chop off the fat tail of previous high sensitivity estimates.

Greg Laden

Greg Laden has a post Mark Steyn and Judith Curry.  Relevant excerpt: “Two items related only because these two seem to like each other and there are coeval happenings.”

JC comment:   I guess if you don’t have any real arguments against my article, you can always criticize me for the company I keep.

 The Australian

The Australian has a superb article by Graham Lloyd: A pause for this message:  climate change numbers aren’t adding up.  Excerpts:

It is a crucial time for science. Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and chief executive of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, fears the rise of “postmodern” science. In the world of postmodern science, he says, results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs, and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. “Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately man­ipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the politics of the government of the day,” Paltridge says.

At this point, Australian ­governments and their climate agencies are standing firmly behind the IPCC. But respected US climate scientist Judith Curry agrees with Paltridge. 

Curry has been a strong voice in the climate change debate internationally and is at the centre of new research that questions ­climate sensitivity. She argues the sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is a central question in the debate on the appropriate policy response to ­increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the US, she says, a climate policy dialogue is starting to open up, with discussion of the 2C threshold, lower sensitivity and the hiatus.

Inquirer put a series of questions to Australia’s high-profile ­climate change bodies asking them to comment on Curry’s research on climate sensitivity, the hiatus in global surface temperatures and model predictions. Former climate commissioners Will Steffen and Tim Flannery were unavailable to answer but Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie says “vested interests have been using the ‘so-called pause’ to spread doubt and misinformation”. “The Earth continues to warm strongly,” she says. “Since 1998 human activities have introduced two billion Hiroshima bombs’ worth of heat into the ­atmosphere.”

Responses from Australia’s key science organisations show they remain in lock-step with the IPCC and their advice is accepted by Environment Minister, Greg Hunt. Helen Cleugh, science director at CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, says measurements do show that the rate at which global mean surface temperature has warmed in the past decade is less than the previous decade. However, while the rate of increase is lower, the temperatures are not lower, she says.

Measurements across the oceans and Earth system as a whole show that warming has continued unabated. “A reduction in the rate of warming (not a pause) is a result of short-term natural variability, ocean absorption of heat from the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions, a downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, and other impacts over a short time period,” Cleugh says.

After taking advice from the Bureau of Meteorology, Hunt tells Inquirer the warming of the climate system is “unequivocal”. “The climate system, which ­includes the atmosphere, oceans, land and ice has continued to ­accumulate heat over the last 18 years,” Hunt says. Although there has been a slower rate of atmospheric warming during the past 18 years, this does not undermine the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models or the estimates of climate sensitivity.

Greens leader Christine Milne says she does not accept the pause. “There has been a slowdown in the speed of the rise but global surface temperatures have still continued to climb,” Milne says. “There are strong indications through observations and models that the ocean is absorbing more of the heat than it has in the recent past.”

In Britain, the Met Office has acknowledged the pause and debate about its significance. “Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013,” the Met says. “This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that this is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously,” the Met says.

But the Met Office says research shows the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. “Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific bases of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity,” the Met says.

Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology says the rate of warming in global surface temperature during the past century has not been uniform, with some decades warming more rapidly than others. “This is a consequence of variations in heat exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans, and other decade-to-decade changes like variations in solar forcing and the solar dimming ­effects of pollution and volcanic eruptions,” BoM says. “The pattern that results is one of steady warming of the oceans, accompanied by alternating periods of fast and slow rises in air temperature.”

There is dispute over whether increased ocean heat can fully explain the absence of surface warming during the past 18 years. Recent papers have claimed greater deep ocean heat in the north Pacific, Atlantic and ­Southern Ocean to explain the “missing” heat. According to Curry, the bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and “there is no particularly convincing evidence that the “missing heat” is hiding in the ocean.

“The three studies represent careful studies using conventional assumptions relating to climate sensitivity, addressing the question ‘where has the heat in a warming earth gone?’ ” Asten says. “An alternative approach which I predict will come, although not without opposition from ‘consensus scientists’, is to postulate that the ‘missing heat’ was never here; that is, a reduced climate sensitivity will be estim­ated for the Earth, at or below the low end of the range currently published by the IPCC.”

Asten says the trend of climate sensitivity estimates made across the past six years from meteorological, satellite and ocean sediment records has been, with very few exceptions, to produce estimates at or below the low end of the range published by the IPCC. He says low values of climate sensitivity will still affect global temperatures as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise, but increases in temperature may be of similar magnitude to naturally driven temperature cycles, a scenario that has strong implications for how we manage causes and consequences of climate change.

Paltridge says that the prospect of “missing heat” being located in the oceans is a double-edged sword. “We are being told that some internal oceanic fluctuation may have reduced the upward trend in global temperature,” he says. “It is therefore more than a little strange that we are not hearing from the IPCC that some natural internal fluctuation of the system may have given rise to most of the earlier upward trend.

“In light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seri­ously overstating the climate problem in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

JC reflections

Climate science has been thrown into disarray by the hiatus, disagreement between climate model and instrumental estimates of climate sensitivity, uncertainties in carbon uptake by plants, and diverging interpretations of ocean heating (in the face of a dearth of observations).  ‘Certainty’ arguably peaked at the time of the AR4 (2007); perception of uncertainty is arguably greater than any time since the FAR (1991).   Yes of course we know more about the climate system than we did in 1991, but more knowledge about the complex climate systems opens up new areas of ignorance and greater uncertainty.

In context of the way climate sensitivity is defined by the IPCC, uncertainty in climate sensitivity is decreasing as errors in previous observational estimates are identified and eliminated and model estimates seem to be converging more.   Climate model simulations, when compared with 21st century observations seem to be running too hot, giving creedence to the lower observation-based sensitivity values.

What do the lower values of climate sensitivity imply for policy?  Well slower values of warming make it easier to adapt, and provide time to develop new technologies and new policies.  But the true believers such as Mann et al. call adaptation, developing new technologies and policies as ‘inaction.’  The policy logic apparent in the essays critical of my op-ed are rather naive.

So we are left with science in disarray and naive logic regarding policy.  And the ‘warm team’ wonders why people are yawning?

 

 

 

833 responses to “Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed

  1. I think SciAm has reprinted the goofy Lew paper. See them all in a row. This is fun.

      • I don’t have the stomach to read the article, but that they’re finally talking about uncertainty strikes me as a major victory. It’s almost funny.

      • “Yes lets use dubious paleo estimates to falsify estimates from the relatively reliable instrumental record, and also lets forget that climate sensitivity is state dependent”

        Loving the new-found edge. Passion, the occasional expressions of outrage and sarcasm, you wear them all quite well Judith.

    • I have been banned from Unscientific American for point out where their articles are biased and inaccurate.

    • David Springer

      The US is mitigating CO2 emission. Near zero growth since 1990. What are we supposed to do, go to war with China and India to stop them? I suggest the nattering nabobs of negativity focus on means of stopping those countries with rapidly growing emissions.

      • Dave a great graph and point. It is the epitomy of arrogance that Mand and his crew somehow believe we can do it all ourselves. If they think the U.S can influsence CHine and India to do anything, then not only are they arrogant, but foolish and naive as well. Perhaps they should go to China and convince them to cut their emissions. They would laugh him out of the country if they didnt throw his hund end in jail. Maybe he can sue them.

      • Mann I meant. Bad eyes.

  2. Our host must have hit a really raw nerve. That an op-ed article can provoke so many ad hom responses indicates the paucity of the opponent’s arguments. The warmists’ team mantra seems to be either name call or “If you can’t dazzle them with science, baffle them with bullshit”

  3. Sigh.
    ===

  4. Regarding the Rapid Response Team: first there is a reference to consensus, “…mainstream…” and then the appeal to authority, “…AAAS…”.

    This is an appropriate opportunity to review Feynman’s letter of resignation to the National Academy of Sciences:

    “I am sorry that you had to be bothered by this matter of my wanting to resign my membership in the Academy. It must be quite a job worrying about all the peculiar whims of all the strange birds that make up your flock…
    “My desire to resign is merely a personal one; it is not meant as a protest of any kind, or a criticism of the Academy or its activities. Perhaps it is just that i enjoy being peculiar. My peculiarity is this: I find it psychologically very distasteful to judge people’s ‘merit.’ So I cannot participate in the main activity of selecting people for membership. To be a member of a group, of which an important activity is to choose others deemed worthy of membership in that self-esteemed group bothers me. The care with which we select ‘those worthy of the honor’ of joining the Academy feels to me like a form of self-praise. How can we say only the best must be allowed in to join those who are already in, without loudly proclaiming to our inner selves that we who are in must be very good indeed. Of course I believe I am very good indeed, but that is a private matter and I cannot publicly admit that I do so, to such an extent that I have the nerve to decide that this man, or that, is not worthy of joining my elite club…”

  5. Welcome back!

    Interesting how the critics of your work so often resort to personal attacks, something which you don’t do when writing or speaking for the media. They must be getting pretty desperate. Instead of engaging with your arguments, they prefer to engage with you, it seems.

    Kudos for your appearance on (Aussie TV show) Catalyst, BTW. I’ve had some feedback from others who watched it, and they were favourably impressed.

  6. “If this deep uncertainty however extends to ECS, one would think that the risk of substantial warming entails a substantial risk that is worth hedging against. Is she so sure that ECS is low and impacts benign? In short, I sense some inconsistencies in her approach to uncertainty.”

    When the facts are on your side pound them. When they’re not, pound the precautionary principle. What I see are a bunch of opportunists, careerists, and rent seekers watching to their horror, that the science is not going their way. Well how about turning the precautionary principle around a bit. Maybe we shouldn’t send ourselves back to the dark ages to head off a problem that with every passing month is looking more and more fantastical…

    • Sorry. “Realizing to their horror…”

      • AK,

        Agreed. If you’re a fan of low regrets options, the great global warming debate has already been won. The few countries that have actually taken a step or two down the green brick road to economic ruin, are now waking up. We’re simply not going to impoverish ourselves for a problem the nature and extent of which grows more uncertain by the day.

      • Quote Rob Ellison:
        “‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritise?”

        Can Rob post the stock manifest of the planet’s resources?
        Please include all unknown discoveries.
        This will help with prioritising decisions.

    • Maybe we shouldn’t send ourselves back to the dark ages to head off a problem that with every passing month is looking more and more fantastical…

      More binary logic: there’s a host of “low-regrets” options, especially along the R&D lines. As long as the alarmists are allowed to get away with claiming not “send[ing] ourselves back to the dark ages” is “doing nothing”, there’s not going to be anything resembling consensus on policy.

      They should be forced to explain why their “solutions” to the fossil carbon problem have to include raising the price of energy. Let’s see how well they justify rationalize their hidden agenda(s).

      • >They should be forced to explain why their “solutions” to the fossil carbon problem have to include raising the price of energy

        Won’t happen … loses too much support

        The most pointed response to pushing accountability is to reply that “demand management” be implemented. The circularity of this escapes most people

      • There is no “host of low-regrets options.” By definition, a no-regrets policy would be one with a risk-adjusted rate of return equal to or better than the best alternative use of resources (which for government would often be reducing taxes). A low-regrets option would imply a return modestly lower than the opportunity cost. If there were a host of such options, there is sure to be an entrepreneur who figures that he might be able to turn a satisfactory buck on one or more of them and will explore it/them further. Government support for such policies make sit easier to make a buck by gaming the system, which happens constantly, particularly in the emissions reduction field. Approach alleged LROs with caution.

        Pokerguy, good post, mine below takes a similar line.

      • @Faustino…

        There is no “host of low-regrets options.”

        Of course there’s a host of low-regrets options. Most them may not be easily visible except by hindsight…

        By definition, a no-regrets policy would be one with a risk-adjusted rate of return equal to or better than the best alternative use of resources (which for government would often be reducing taxes). A low-regrets option would imply a return modestly lower than the opportunity cost.

        I’m talking about the real world here, not modelling fantasies. Any “risk-adjusted rate of return” looked at in your modelling world would be dependent on a new, different host of assumptions. Questionable assumptions whose probability would then have to be estimated and incorporated into the model. In the end, IMO, you’d be left with a morass of interlocking probabilities, a cloud of uncertainty.

        If there were a host of such options, there is sure to be an entrepreneur who figures that he might be able to turn a satisfactory buck on one or more of them and will explore it/them further.

        IIRC you claim to have extensive experience in public policy. Surely you’re aware of the difference between the technological options to be considered by an investor, and the policy options that contribute to determining the return on any specific investment.

        Want an example? Consider the story of Sun Catalytix:

        For years Sun Catalytix worked on a catalyst that would use sunlight to split water molecules and harvest hydrogen. The company received a $4 million grant from the Department of Energy in 2010 to help fund the research. In 2011, the company unveiled a sample device made of a solar cell, cobalt and nickel that could split water and harvest hydrogen in a fuel cell. But the company soon realized it would take many more years and a lot more investment capital to bring the technology to market. Sun Catalytix CEO Mike Decelle told MIT Technology Review last year that raising the needed capital for an untested technology like this is “a tough pitch.”

        So Sun Catalytix put its “artificial leaf” development on hold and focused on so-called flow batteries that can store solar and wind energy, or provide multiple hours of backup power to buildings in the event of a power outage. The company claims it can deliver one megawatt of power for up to four to six hours using a battery roughly the size of a shipping container at a cost significantly lower than the current long-lasting batteries used in municipal power grids.

        While not as innovative as a solar panel that could split water molecules, the flow battery technology and Sun Catalytix’s bevy of patents are what captured Lockheed Martin’s attention. The defense contractor says Sun Catalytix will be renamed Lockheed Martin Advanced Energy Storage LLC, and will operate through the company’s Missiles and Fire Control business area. The deal includes Sun Catalytix’s approximately 25 employees. Lockheed Martin didn’t say how much it paid in the acquisition.

        So is the original artificial leaf something more worth developing than another type of flow battery (which many competitors are already working on)?

        I don’t know. But what I do know is that there are ways that policy changes could “tilt the balance” towards longer term investments of this sort, probably without either spending collected tax money or interfering with the “free” market in capital.

        Government support for such policies make sit easier to make a buck by gaming the system, which happens constantly, particularly in the emissions reduction field. Approach alleged LROs with caution.

        Well, I can’t argue with your last sentence. As for the previous, seems to me you’re confusing policy options with investment options, but I may just be misunderstanding. Want to clarify?

      • I’m not talking about “picking winners” here, so much as making the prize bigger for winning marathons over sprints.

      • ‘By definition, a no-regrets policy would be one with a risk-adjusted rate of return equal to or better than the best alternative use of resources (which for government would often be reducing taxes).’

        By definition no regrets is a project that has a benefit to cost ratio greater than unity without considering any costs of climate change. The rate of return is relative to the benefit to cost ratio. There are in principle endless no regrets policies and you do the ones that make sense.

      • No confusion between policy and investment options, AK. The same applies in both: if you deliberately choose an option which does not meet its opportunity cost, you are not maximising the returns, whether for a firm, individual or community. The main differences are that private investors have greater incentives to make optimal choices. Governments and public servants can get away with bad choices, which reduce community welfare, without cost, except that a run of egregious decisions can lead to a change of government. I can recall many government decisions which I advised against on the basis of detailed analysis, often including CGE modelling and financial analysis as well as CBA, which went ahead. My analysis was never challenged, never shown to be flawed, the only counter was “It’s a done deal, Mike,” “The minister wants it, Mike”. The ministers got kudos, the bureaucrats got promoted. When as I predicted, the projects etc failed, no one carried the can. I was involved in “real world” decision-making at high levels for many years, I used modelling only as a tool to support good decision-making.

        In the instance you cite, the private firm decided that its long term option would not receive backing. In other words, venture capitalists, who flourish or fail on their capacity to succeed with a decent (though usually small) proportion of projects they back would not support it. I have never found in government the capacity to make such decisions, they are generally clueless compared to venture capitalists, but will back things because they have no skin in the game and the ventures have “announcement” potential.

      • Rob, the point is that a government concerned with maximising community welfare will support he options that best do that. (Of course, we have many recent and distant examples of governments failing to do that, e.g. the NBN and desal plants.) So the best projects will proceed under the normal course of government, whether or not CAGW is an issue. The argument for “no regrets” policies as you define them is that government will have left on the table projects that it should have pursued. Optimally, if it had a choice of projects with >1 benefit to cost, and taking account of risk, it would have chosen the best ones. If there are options remaining with > 1 btc, they must still be concerned with alternative uses of the funds/resources, including tax cuts. That is, governments should already be “doing the ones which make sense,” which means that advocating “no regrets” policies is meaningless.

        And I would question your assertion that there are in principle endless positive return policies. I have assessed many allegedly positive return policies which were far from that; what is endless, in my experience, is governments’ capacity to make bad decisions, for a host of reasons, often unrelated to optimising community welfare.

      • In the instance you cite, the private firm decided that its long term option would not receive backing. In other words, venture capitalists, who flourish or fail on their capacity to succeed with a decent (though usually small) proportion of projects they back would not support it.

        What would have had to have been different for them to support it?

        Leave aside, for the moment, whether or not the project would have succeeded. Assume it would have (will). The problem was too long a time to return. Why is investment so short-sighted? They’re not dumb, they see something in the current situation(s) that puts a premium on quick returns.

        What do they see? Could it be changed so that investors would be willing to support development pointing to a 3-5 decade return? Could that change be made within the current political system? How.

        Asking government bureaucrats to pick investment opportunities is like asking for a host of Solyndras. Even expecting them to buy off on changes to the IP laws is probably pointless. But the latter type of change could be accomplished at a societal, legislative level. (In the US, where democratic representation primarily affects legislation.)

        Could it be done right? I don’t know. Perhaps.

      • AK, “The problem was too long a time to return. Why is investment so short-sighted?” As you know, investors and non-investors prefer present resources to future ones; that’s why we have (normally) positive interest rates and discount future income. Even if we make the “will succeed” assumption, which of course is more uncertain the longer the time-frame involved – someone might have implemented a better idea in the meantime – you are forgoing income streams from projects with quicker returns if you choose the very long-term one. Let’s say you choose the quicker return projects: then as they mature you have more resources to invest in further projects, and the uncertainties regarding your first idea will be reduced. Lots of incentives to choose that earlier-returns option, no reason, to me, why government should help out with the longer-term one.

        Interestingly in the alleged CAGW context, the investments with the longest time-horizons tend to be resource projects. You find a potential source to explore, go through regulatory hoops to gain an exploration licence, if you find a potentially viable source, you go through more RHs – in Australia, home of some of the greatest resource extraction and processing companies, it can take several years to get the go-ahead through the regulatory processes of states and feds, more years to bring it on-stream – and at each stage seek finance, from financiers who generally prefer shorter term and more certain returns, then . Until you finally get near to production for market, you have no idea what market conditions you will face when you are finally producing; and you know that from then on, you will face highly variable market conditions. (One of the biggest hurdles to resource investments in Australia is environmental activists with vexatious litigation, who at times get governments to “lock up” the resources you expected over many years to exploit.) So I would suggest that a firm in the situation you describe should best seek backing from the resource industry! I think, in fact, that many resource companies are invested in long-term alternative energy projects, though I can’t cite cases.

      • ‘In a world of limited resources, we can’t do everything, so which goals should we prioritize? The Copenhagen Consensus Center provides information on which targets will do the most social good (measured in dollars, but also incorporating e.g. welfare, health and environmental protection), relative to their costs.’ Copenhagen Consensus

        Within the range of actions developed by the Copenhagen Consensus are those have direct and indirect CO2 mitigation outcomes. These are no regrets options involving high priority social and economic objectives.

    • These people have no understanding of the concept of hedging.

  7. “What do the lower values of climate sensitivity imply for policy? Well slower values of warming make it easier to adapt, and provide time…”

    Nope. That’s just warmism with an extension. What got us into this mess won’t get us out of this mess. Replacing the bolsheviks with mensheviks is just making the klimatariat respectable for a bit longer.

    No more assumptions, no more white elephants based on assumptions. The IPCC etc can tell you less than the Nile Priesthood, who were only betting on one good thing annually.That does not mean future climate is unknowable. Just not known. It would be truly wonderful to have a science of climate, but in the meantime…

    Engineer for everything, just like a real civilization does.

    • + lots of bamboo.

      • Lots of bamboo, of course. And shiny new coal power stations. And Diesel Landcruisers that aren’t too old. And gigantic dams. And new autostrade. And lots of phone/internet towers. And fresh gnocchi swimming in Gorgonzola cream sauce…

        Did I mention bright new power stations for our luscious black coal?

  8. A push of the uncertainty button is taken as an affront to climate science infallibility. You are barking at dogma

  9. “Curry has been a strong voice in the climate change debate internationally and is at the centre of new research that questions ­climate sensitivity.”

    How far you’ve come on your journey, Judith. Been a privilege to have been witness to some of it.

  10. It is interesting that Garth Paltridge should highlight the decline in trust as the real risk faced by climate scientists. He has a point. The debate over CAGW and to a lesser extent AGW has produced some of the slimiest vitriol I have ever seen. The lows to which opponents of skeptics are willing to sink underlines a total lack of integrity. Climate science is now in the same position that health science was in during the 80s and 90s when researchers warned us of the supposed dangers of dairy products, eggs and meat. Charlatans ruled then and charlatans rule today. This is not science as I was taught 40 years ago.

  11. Climate science has been thrown into disarray by the hiatus, disagreement between climate model and instrumental estimates of climate sensitivity, uncertainties in carbon uptake by plants, and diverging interpretations of ocean heating (in the face of a dearth of observations).

    That is definitely your opinion. I’m not sure it is widely held view in the climate science community.

    • They are optimistic in their pessimism. .

    • Someone could produce a list of peer reviewed papers that include, “pause”, “hiatus” and “stand still” I guess. lat I heard there were about 50 explanations for what isn’t happening :)

      • …and the skeptics have already dismissed all of them as not even remotely possible as far as I can tell.

      • You miss the point, Jim D. The issue here is that up until 2 or 3 years ago, people pointing to the hiatus were dismissed as deniers. Then it seems, the dam broke. That article came out in a liberal magazine…The Economist I think it was….conceding that the pause was indeed happening…and suddenly the climate establishment was running for cover. Ad hoc explanation followed ad hoc explanation followed ad hoc explanation, in a desperate and transparent attempt to paper over the abysmal failure of the models on which this whole dog and pony show is built.

      • Without 1998, you have no pause. The recent trend is consistent with the trend before 1998. It is a very fragile concept that relies on one year of extreme natural variability.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1970/to:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:12

      • Then why all the attempts to explain it?

      • In the SH you can extend prior to the El Nino excursion,which is greater then the Santer constraint ie >18 yrs.

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.6/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1996.6/mean:12/trend/plot/none

      • ‘Using a new measure of coupling strength, this update shows that these climate modes have recently synchronized, with synchronization peaking in the year 2001/02. This synchronization has been followed by an increase in coupling. This suggests that the climate system may well have shifted again, with a consequent break in the global mean temperature trend from the post 1976/77 warming to a new period (indeterminate length) of roughly constant global mean temperature.’ https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/uah/plot/rss-land/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/from:2002/trend

        I use the satellite data – it avoids the problems of drought artifacts in the surface record. Unfortunately – we can’t say which is right – but neither show a positive trend since 2002. The relevant start date for the new regime. One which is very likely to last 30 years.

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

        That this is not understood seems more cognitively dissonant than rational.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: …and the skeptics have already dismissed all of them as not even remotely possible as far as I can tell.

        Quote somebody specific. I thought that the paper on the accelerated thermohaline circulation was credible: needing confirmation and quantification, but worthy of researching. It was also ad hoc, and not to be believed, but to be considered possibly true.

      • Actually, JimD is right, there isn’t a “pause”, just a continuation of about 0.10 C per decade for most of the world.

        The only “pause” is when you compare reality to projections :)

      • Matthew Marler, WUWT are keeping the list, and their people and articles have not yet subscribed to any of them being remotely correct. They know that if the pause was a natural variation, they can’t then say it was a problem with the CO2 sensitivity. It really is an either/or, and they prefer the “or” and don’t want to hear about any of the 50 “eithers”. It is like that here at CE too. It just can’t be natural variation because that destroys the low sensitivity theory.

      • captd, see my post below. Projections depend when you look at them. For the period 1984-1998 the models were running cold, and now by running warm they are just catching up with nature. This bigger picture view is little commented on by skeptics, of course.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: …and the skeptics have already dismissed all of them as not even remotely possible as far as I can tell.

        Jim D: WUWT are keeping the list, and their people and articles have not yet subscribed to any of them being remotely correct

        WUWT occupies the no man’s land between “dismissing” them and “subscribing” to them, a land mostly of derision because they are all ad hoc and untested.

        The person who clearly dismisses all of them is you, as you repeatedly remind us that the pause has not happened and is not happening.

      • Matthew Marler, the pause does not show up in 30-year trends because it was preceded by a sharp rise. If you are focused on 15-year periods, you need to consider natural variability more seriously because that time scale does not cancel them out as much. Just like if you look at annual averages you have to consider that you will see ups and downs due to ENSO. In the big picture these self-canceling oscillations are just distractions.

      • Jim D
        “Matthew Marler, the pause does not show up in 30-year trends because it was preceded by a sharp rise. If you are focused on 15-year periods, you need to consider natural variability more seriously because that time scale does not cancel them out as much. “

        Well, fortunately in 2030 when the pause turns 32 it will show up in 30 year temperature trends.

      • Cooling and warming shows up in regimes in the 20th century..

        1909 to 1944, 1945 to 1976, 1977 to 1998, 1999 to ?

        There is no chance that the pattern will be repeated in the 21st.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: Matthew Marler, the pause does not show up in 30-year trends because it was preceded by a sharp rise. If you are focused on 15-year periods, you need to consider natural variability more seriously because that time scale does not cancel them out as much. Just like if you look at annual averages you have to consider that you will see ups and downs due to ENSO. In the big picture these self-canceling oscillations are just distractions.

        You have written that before, and that is why I wrote that you dismiss all of the “explanations” of the “pause”. You and other believers, not skeptics.

        Whether the cancellations will recur in the future, like the question of whether the ca. 1000 year period represents a persistent process, we can’t tell yet.

        Meanwhile, no one predicted the “apparent pause”, even people who now claim to believe in the reality of the short-term “self-canceling” oscillations. That is why WUWT and contributors deride the many explanations.

      • Matthew Marler, you only have to look at the past record to see the reality of short-term self-canceling oscillations. They are known about and this one is not exceptional. It is helped a lot by the presence of 1998 which was exceptional, preceded by an exceptional rise, not coincidentally, and followed by a succession of warm years. Any honest analysis of the pause has to include the period preceding the 1998 step because the pause line by itself is discontinuous with the previous record. Carrying the previous rise rate forwards, we find that most of the pause has been above that trend line.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend

      • Jim Owen, you just perfectly illustrated my previous comment that “the pause line by itself is discontinuous with the previous record.”

      • Jim D | October 18, 2014 at 9:40 pm |

        Matthew Marler, WUWT are keeping the list, and their people and articles have not yet subscribed to any of them being remotely correct. They know that if the pause was a natural variation, they can’t then say it was a problem with the CO2 sensitivity. It really is an either/or, and they prefer the “or” and don’t want to hear about any of the 50 “eithers”. It is like that here at CE too. It just can’t be natural variation because that destroys the low sensitivity theory.

        Cognitively dissonant much?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: Matthew Marler, you only have to look at the past record to see the reality of short-term self-canceling oscillations.

        You only have to look at the past record to see the reality of an oscillation with a period of about 1000 years. You get to “pick and choose” which parts of “the past record” you believe represent persistent processes useful for predicting the future. At this point, I doubt there is a reliable way to distinguish between “honest” and “dishonest” evaluations of the past record.

        Going forward, we have diverse models (conceptual and mathematical) with extrapolations (forecasts, projections, expectations, predictions, etc) into the future. All will be shown to be inaccurate to some degree, and after 20 more years (and at least 20 more classes of models) we might have one with a credible claim to an accurate prediction for 2050.

        I should mention that I appreciate your persistent politeness. I think you are the best representative on this blog of a point of view I have come to discredit, and I always look up your comments. I have a suspicion that if I read something that makes me revise my overall judgment back to what it was, you’ll have written it.

      • Jim D –
        “Jim Owen, you just perfectly illustrated my previous comment that “the pause line by itself is discontinuous with the previous record.””

        Yup, that’s exactly what I said – here and in a later comment. The record is discontinuous. Why? And yet you insist on running a linear trend through that discontinuity. Bad dog – no cookie.

      • So the “pause” is really a jump-and-pause. It makes no sense on its own.

      • Jim D –
        “So the “pause” is really a jump-and-pause. It makes no sense on its own.”

        If it makes no sense on its own, as a scientist you should be asking WHY? That statement is the essence of science – it raises questions without providing convenient answers. “Science” is about finding those answers.

      • The jump-and-pause makes sense as a cycle of natural variation that self cancels in 30 years leaving the long term trend as it was. The pause is a half-cycle.

      • Jim D – You’re stating the obvious conclusion without offering the underlying explanation for anything. I think you “may be” right about the cycle. But that can only be proved by time.

        But that begs the question as to why this (98) was a Super El Nino or why the temp slope changed after it happened (the pause) or what causes El Nino at all, let alone the Super variety.

        Regardless, we DID have the 98 El Nino so the statement that “if there were no El Nino” is a non sequitor and a waste of bandwidth.

        And now I AM late. Good night.

      • The slope change suggests that the temperature rose above the equalibrium temp, and still is.

    • “without 1998 you have no pause”

      Jim D.

      You would be pause deniers are a dogged bunch. So fine, for the sake of discussion let’s stipulate that there’s been no pause. What counts here is it looks like the warming has been significantly over-estimated, Paper after paper is coming out with the same general conclusion, that climate sensitivity is looking much less dire. I simply cannot grasp why you seem to dismiss these things as unimportant.

      • Yes you can. Most of us can grasp why. You are just being polite. ;-)

      • PG nails the key point. I have thought for some time that the term “pause” did more to offer critics a chink to attack and thereby skip over the real point – that the models run hot.

      • I would call it jump-and-pause. You can’t have one without the other. 2014 shows whatever it was is over.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2014/mean:3

      • Jim D, do you perhaps not realise how comments like that make you appear?

      • Skeptics don’t realize what the actual temperature trend data makes them look like. It rises 0.17 C per decade instead of 0.2 C and they make a big deal of the 0.03 difference when they would have expected less than 0.1 C per decade over this period, and don’t make a big deal over their own larger error.

      • Jim D, you take a 12-month mean of a data series, and then tack a short 3-month mean onto the end of it, and then try to pretend that it means something.
        You’re not impressing anyone.

      • That’s to show what 2014 is doing so far, and how we are already breaking monthly and seasonal records that were set in an El Nino year. It’s only because the trend is still going strong. Thanks for asking.

      • Pierre-Normand

        pokerguy wrote:

        (Quoting Jim D.) “without 1998 you have no pause”

        “You would be pause deniers are a dogged bunch. So fine, for the sake of discussion let’s stipulate that there’s been no pause.”

        There is a failure in logic there. If I claim that without HIV there would be no AIDS, that doesn’t make me an AIDS denier. That’s because I am not denying that there are HIV infections. Likewise Jim D isn’t denying that there has been a large El Nino warming in 1998. He rather is reminding forgetful skeptics that *this* likely is the largest contributor to the pause.

    • The climate science community is in denial. The pause is killing the cause.

    • The :”science community” may be the last to acknowledge the confusion and shambles the discipline finds it in these days. With dozens of explanations for the hiatus or temperature stasis, for example, any fair-minded, objective observer would reasonably conclude “disarray” is a mild and accurate judgement about the State of Climate Science.

    • The “science community” may be the last to acknowledge the confusion and shambles the discipline finds it in these days. With dozens of explanations for the hiatus or temperature stasis, for example, any fair-minded, objective observer would reasonably conclude “disarray” is a mild and accurate judgement about the State of Climate Science.

    • Try following the discussion Joseph. And try increasing your perceptive abilities. Then you might pick up on the a) limited nature of the respondents to Dr Curry’s piece (i.e. few top researchers) and b) the personal attack mode most of the responses took.

  12. The IPCC AR5 points out too that models were running cold in 1984-1998, and as Paltridge pointed out, very little attention was paid to that warming period being partially due to natural variability which peaked in 1998 because it was faster than CO2 could explain by itself. That exceptional year is, not surprisingly, responsible for the models running cold before it and hot after it, but taking the 30 years total, they are about right in the big picture.

    • Curious George

      Oh, we treasure those good reliable models of old ..

      • duh, it’s the same models.

      • The rate of warming is 0.07 degrees C/decade. The rate of warming from 2002 is zilch and much more likely than not to persist for decades..

        Models are tuned but still don’t get end points right so you can always make silly and arbitrary comparisons.

        Models don’t have unique solutions.

        It is the usual groupthink silliness from Jimbo.

      • Jim D – It is NOT the “same” models. If you believe that, then you have no idea how modelers work – or how models work. Or how the inputs changed or the models were “adjusted”.

      • It’s the CMIP5 models in all three plots. What are you talking about?

      • I didn’t realize we had such good computing in 1950.

    • I’ll see it when I believe it.

    • I have pretty much accepted C&W and Best on Arctic heat. The only problem with it is that it does not explain why the Antarctic is so damn frozen. Well I have the answer and it’s not CO2. It is very simple, the earth is more than three miles further out in orbit during the SH summer.
      “Earth comes closest to the Sun every year around January 3. It is farthest from the Sun every year around July 4. (For a table of these dates for various years, see Apsis.)
      The difference in distance between Earth’s nearest point to the Sun in January and farthest point from the Sun in July is about 5 million kilometers (3.1 million miles). Earth is about 147.1 million kilometers (91.4 million miles) from the Sun at perihelion in early January, in contrast to about 152.1 million kilometers (94.5 million miles) at aphelion in early July. Because of the increased distance at aphelion, only 93.55% of the solar radiation from the Sun falls on a given square area of land than at perihelion. As winter also falls in the southern hemisphere at the same time as aphelion, this decrease in solar radiation due to the aphelion plus shorter periods of daylight causes, in general, less heat from the Sun to hit the southern hemisphere in winter then solar radiation hitting the northern hemisphere during its winter but perihelion six months later.
      When Earth is closest to the Sun, it is winter in the northern hemisphere and summer in the southern hemisphere. Thus Earth’s distance from the Sun does not affect what season occurs. Instead, Earth’s seasons come and go because Earth does not rotate with its axis exactly upright with respect to the plane of its orbit around the Sun. Earth’s axial tilt is 23.4 degrees. This puts the Sun farther south in December and January, so the north has winter and the south has summer. Thus winter falls on that part of the globe where sunlight strikes least directly, and summer falls where sunlight strikes most directly, regardless of Earth’s distance from the Sun.”

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

      Refer to the table for this year’s dates:

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

      You can also see how the same phenomenon during the Eemian interglacial and how it affected it:

      Duncan Steel has a paper related to this very subject.

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

      Although I don’t come to the same conclusion (I’ll go with JCs 50/50) it certainly explains the Antarctic freezer better than some CO2 induced trade winds (LOL):
      Perihelion precession, polar ice and global warming
      Duncan Steel
      Email: pppigw@duncansteel.com
      Summary: The increase in mean global temperature over the past 150 years is generally
      ascribed to human activities, in particular the rises in the atmospheric mixing ratios of carbon
      dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution began. Whilst it is thought
      that ice ages and interglacial periods are mainly initiated by multi-millennial variations in
      Earth’s heliocentric orbit and obliquity, shorter-term orbital variations and consequent
      observable climatic effects over decadal/centurial timescales have not been considered
      significant causes of contemporary climate change compared to anthropogenic influences. Here
      it is shown that the precession of perihelion occurring over a century substantially affects the
      intra-annual variation of solar radiation influx at different locations, especially higher latitudes,
      with northern and southern hemispheres being subject to contrasting insolation changes. This
      north/south asymmetry has grown since perihelion was aligned with the winter solstice seven to
      eight centuries ago, and must cause enhanced year-on-year springtime melting of Arctic (but not
      Antarctic) ice and therefore feedback warming because increasing amounts of land and open sea
      are denuded of high-albedo ice and snow across boreal summer and into autumn. The
      accelerating sequence of insolation change now occurring as perihelion moves further into boreal
      winter has not occurred previously during the Holocene and so would not have been observed
      before by past or present civilisations. Reasons are given for the significance of this process
      having been overlooked until now. This mechanism represents a supplementary – natural –
      contribution to climate change in the present epoch and may even be the dominant fundamental
      cause of global warming, although anthropogenic effects surely play a role too.
      Page 2 of 23
      Duncan Steel: Perihelion precession, polar ice and global warming
      Introduction
      Record melting of Arctic sea ice over the past year (Schiermeier 2012) has been widely presumed
      to be a consequence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and yet a natural mechanism
      exists that may be responsible, at least in part.
      The widespread belief that AGW is the fundamental cause of present-day climate change is
      predicated on the apparent correlation between rising levels of carbon dioxide and the increase
      in mean global temperature over the past two centuries. Simple considerations of the effect of
      carbon dioxide, water vapour and methane on the infra-red opacity of the atmosphere lead to an
      expectation that as the proportions of those gases rise, so should the temperature. This provides
      a reason to think that in this case the correlation has a cause, and is not simply a coincidence.
      Correlation, however, does not demonstrate causality, and the possibility remains that this
      is either a coincidence, or that some other factor(s) may be involved in the warming. The case for
      AGW being the dominant cause of climate change would be weakened should some other
      causative agency be identified that also has a temporal correlation with the rising temperature.
      In this article I present prima facie evidence that the ongoing natural increase in spring
      insolation occurring at high northern latitudes, coupled with the positive feedback effect of the
      resultant snow and ice loss reducing the region’s mean albedo over summer, comprises just such
      a causative agency. This concept frames a working hypothesis in which the melting of Arctic ice
      is not so much a consequence of global warming as its cause. In this picture AGW due to rising
      levels of greenhouse gases remains as a contributor to the overall warming, but is not necessarily
      the dominant influence.
      The changing insolation theory (CIT) mooted herein is capable of explaining various
      observed phenomena which the AGW hypothesis has not yet been able to accommodate.
      Specifically, what has been observed and is pertinent here are the following:
      1. A gradual rise in mean global temperature over the past two centuries;
      2. Accelerating spring and summer melting of Arctic sea ice reaching an extent not
      previously witnessed;
      3. No substantial loss of Antarctic sea ice, and actually a small growth in its extent
      (Shepherd et al. 2010; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012);
      4. The greatest rises in regional temperatures (and temperature variability) being at
      high northern latitudes (Liu et al. 2007; Wu et al. 2011).”

      IT’S THE APISIDAL PERIHELIAN PRECESSION STUPID!!

      • FIRST PARAGRAPH Should read ‘more than three million miles.’

      • IT’S THE APISIDAL PERIHELIAN PRECESSION STUPID!!
        But AGW CO2 CONTROL KNOB is so much easier fer
        CAGW STUPIDS ter git their heads around and pronounce,
        ordvic, it’ll never take-off on twitter.

    • Jim D, your example plainly does not understand the difference between in sample (b), mostly out of sample (a) – bothnowing to the CMIP5 tuning period– and a long average whichnis neither but happens to be convenient for your narrative. Statistical fail. Please read the essay An Awkward Pause in my new ebook Blowing Smoke, out yesterday. Foreward by our gracious hostess. Then read the companion essay Hiding the Hiatus. Then get back if you can with counterfacts.

      • How did you explain the underwarming of the models in 1984-1998?

      • An Awkward Pause in my new ebook Blowing Smoke, out yesterday,

        It’s like an ongoing marketing campaign..

      • “an ongoing marketing campaign”

        Global Warming™

        Andrew

      • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

        Good one, Bad Andrew. Indeed it is.

      • Jim D | October 20, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
        “How did you explain the underwarming of the models in 1984-1998?”

        That isn’t too difficult. The early models were running too hot so they adjusted them down. After a while they were running too hot so they adjusted them down again. Since you are trying to match the past and the rate of warming is decreasing it requires that your models run cool at earlier times. Don’t forget the expected rate of warming from AR1 was 0.3 C/ decade with the lowest warming expected in any one decade being 0.2 C.

      • Steven commented
        “That isn’t too difficult. The early models were running too hot so they adjusted them down.”

        My understanding is that what they’ve been doing to adjust model output is to adjust aerosols to until output matches surface records. They have not been adjusting the positive feedback from Co2 to humidity.

        Also , max temps have gone up All of 0.001F since 1940.

      • Yes, they adjust the aerosols among other things but aerosols are probably the main one. So if the models are running too hot you adjust the aerosols up either by quantity or effect and they aren’t running hot anymore. You can also adjust the estimated forcing or the sensitivity and both have been. I’m sure they have made adjustments to feedbacks also but I can’t think of any specific ones off hand and they are probably minor and vary model to model. As a bottom line though I would say your comment is right and the adjustment of aerosols is probably the main climate control knob, to steal a phrase.

      • steven commented

        Yes, they adjust the aerosols among other things but aerosols are probably the main one. So if the models are running too hot you adjust the aerosols up either by quantity or effect and they aren’t running hot anymore. You can also adjust the estimated forcing or the sensitivity and both have been. I’m sure they have made adjustments to feedbacks also but I can’t think of any specific ones off hand and they are probably minor and vary model to model. As a bottom line though I would say your comment is right and the adjustment of aerosols is probably the main climate control knob, to steal a phrase.

        My understanding is that they couldn’t get the models warm enough until they, I think allowed for super saturation of air near the boundary of water, this is the positive feedback they built in. I don’t believe they’ve changed this because it’s key to consensus climate science, and the models don’t warm enough if they do.

      • Let me rephrase that. They have adjusted some feedbacks and thus the sensitivity but I’m not sure which ones. That’s why the range of estimated sensitivity has changed.

      • I’m not sure about the supersaturation issue. I remember reading comments about it but never checked it out myself.

  13. Wasn’t the last big group author skeptic bashing published in the Times or something a with a bit more impact than the Huff and Puff?

  14. Thankfully the “pause” distraction is coming to an end, so we can get back to focusing on the long-term trend of the last 40 years. Monthly data suggests we are already back on the 40-year trend line, and it isn’t even an El Nino yet.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2013/mean:3

      • Works too. Mean trend = .162 C per decade still going even through the somewhat hard to discern “pause”.

      • Yes, you can fit an OLS linear trendline to any data series.
        But it only tells you anything if there actually is a linear trend in the data.
        Just like you can fit a linear trend to a segment of a circle, but it doesn’t tell you anything about the circle.

      • And now … for the pause that refreshes.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jim D: so we can get back to focusing on the long-term trend of the last 40 years.

      Select your intervals and select your models. Why restrict yourself to 40 years and a linear trend?

    • “Thankfully the “pause” distraction is coming to an end,”

      Right, JIm. Better we all burn than you having to suffer the embarrassment of being wrong.

      • The pause is a whole misguided debate to be forgotten in a few years. It is just a sidetrack to avoid talking about the real issue.

    • Jim D, if 1.62C turns out to be the amount of global warming in this century, what actions do you advise?

      • Jim D, just to follow on a bit, I believe the highest decadal warming has been about 1.9C, in the decade ending in 2003. Nothing before or since has approached it. Given that we now have 70 years of decent records since the period when anthropogenic contributions of CO2 are judged sufficient to contribute to global warming,

        Zeke Hausfather computed the decadal warming for every year since then and found what I cited above, the highest level being 1.9C for the ten years ending in 2003. Most decadal totals were about 1.6 to 1.7C.

        Is it time to have a rational discussion based on the very real possibility that global warming is real and significant, but not likely to be as high as some predicted over the past 25 years?

      • Attn: decimal.
        ====

      • Thanks, kim. What Zeke actually computed was the century trend (eg 1.9C per century) at a decadal level (.19C for the ten years ending in 2003).

        Attn: haiku request.

      • Linear extrapolation would be just a lower estimate. The warming rate has been doubling every few decades with increasing fossil fuel use. The people who want increased fossil fuel use need to pay attention to this kind of thing.

      • Like the tangent to
        A circumnavigation.
        Centuries to see.
        ============

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: The warming rate has been doubling every few decades with increasing fossil fuel use.

        Clearly that requires some detailed clarification. It isn’t now warming twice as fast as it was in1980, or twice as fast as in 1935.

      • Pierre-Normand

        The background warming rate in the 1930s is attributed to CO2 and solar forcing in roughly equal measure. Both forcing changes are roughly the same. In the more recent period, the solar forcing contribution is slightly negative so CO2 seems to be responsible alone. Accounting for aerosols further improves the match between temperature and total forcing in the mid-century period between the two sharp rises.

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1875/mean:12/mean:360/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1875/mean:12/mean:360/scale:0.01/offset:-0.6

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1875/mean:12/mean:360/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1875/mean:12/mean:360/scale:0.01/offset:-0.6

      • The trend at the end of the 20th century was twice the average trend of the 20th century, and AGW would predict that ratio based on the CO2 growth curve.

      • Umm, JimD, I think the last two decades argue powerfully against your claim that the warming rate has been ‘doubling every few decades.’

      • The climate sensitivity doubles every two weeks. Yeah, that’s it!

      • Weather has been known to be chaotic since Edward Lorenz discovered the ‘butterfly effect’ in the 1960’s. Abrupt climate change on the other hand was thought to have happened only in the distant past and so climate was expected to evolve steadily over this century in response to ordered climate forcing.

        More recent work is identifying abrupt climate changes working through the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Artic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and other measures of ocean and atmospheric states. These are measurements of sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure over more than 100 years which show evidence for abrupt change to new climate conditions that persist for up to a few decades before shifting again. Global rainfall and flood records likewise show evidence for abrupt shifts and regimes that persist for decades. In Australia, less frequent flooding from early last century to the mid 1940’s, more frequent flooding to the late 1970’s and again a low rainfall regime to recent times.

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

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

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

        The background warming between 1944 and 1998 is 0.4 degrees C and 0.07 degrees C/decade. This is the warming over both a warming and cooling regime. So the residual that might be anthropogenic.

        Data shows IR cooling of 0.7W/m2 and SW warming of 2.1W/m2 between the 1980’s and 1990’s. The 2 relevant satellite sources say pretty much the same thing and it is confirmed by ocean heat.

        Knowledge of the global energy budget changes prior to that is totally lacking.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: The trend at the end of the 20th century was twice the average trend of the 20th century

        On the other hand, the trend of the 21st century is 0, which is twice the rate of certain selected previous intervals that had a warming rate of 0. You pick your ratios, then choose the intervals for which those ratios work out as you choose.

    • Jim D | October 18, 2014 at 7:14 pm
      “Thankfully the “pause” distraction is coming to an end, so we can get back to focusing on the long-term trend of the last 40 years.”

      I love how the warmists cheer for doom and gloom.

      Well, there are three camps:
      1. Warmists say it is getting warmer.
      2. Wavists say it is getting cooler.
      3. Solists say it is getting cooler.

      Don’t see how CO2 can inflate temperatures more than 0.5°C above the 2014 standard. Some 600 PPM or less number for equilibrium CO2 just isn’t going to change temperatures a lot. And NOBODY has posited a non-fantasy mechanism for getting CO2 over 600 PPM.

      I don’t know who is right… but I have my popcorn out and am waiting for 2020. If we are having the same hiatus discussion in 2020 then everybody is partially right.

      • PA said “If we are having the same hiatus discussion in 2020 then everybody is partially right.”

        If this were to happen and if I were a betting man I would say that this scenario is more likely than not, then we will have not progressed at all and that the science of climate change would be dead in the water.

      • Climate change is a political position not a science theory. From what I can tell there never was any “science” to climate change.

        A credible scientific theory has supporting evidence.

        Broadly speaking the climate changes, But that is like observing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

      • What I think is going to happen by 2020, is that all the 30 year trends in global temperature will increase.
        If you look at the trends since 1990, which would be the start of 30 year trends in 2020 even RSS is above 0.1. The 24 year trends are all positive and they include the hiatus period.

        The RSS satellite’s orbit could continue to decay and the RSS trend could continue to be the outlier.

        If CO2 trends higher like it has then the trends will trend higher.

      • Whatever you try, you can’t make it stop looking like a rising trend for 40 years that even fits today after the pause.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Jim Owen, Jim D is right. The big El Nino explains the discontinuity. After a big El Nino is over, though, surface temperatures are expected come back down. CO2 explains why not only did they fail to come back down but kept on rising in spite of the combined cooling effects of ENSO (recent La Nina episodes) and the Sun (negative TSI trend).

      • Pass Jim D another turtle.

      • Without data it is all just narrative nonsense.

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

        What we see is a change in albedo in the 1998/2001 climate shift – an increase in cloud that results in reduced IR emissions and increased reflected SW. Increased surface temps and reduced ocean warming.

        What we see here is cooling in IR between the 1980’s and 1990’s and warming in SW. The IR peak in El Nino reflect the higher tropospheric temperature and relatively reduced cloud cover in the central Pacific.

        Clouds change decadally increasing in cover to the to the end of the 20th century – a step change – and not much change since.

      • Most of the other skeptics keep quiet about the clouds reducing during the rapid warming from 1970-2000, because that is exactly opposite to their hopes of a negative cloud feedback, and supports the positive feedback idea more. We would have heard a lot more about this if the clouds had been behaving as a negative feedback, but instead, silence.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: Most of the other skeptics keep quiet about the clouds reducing during the rapid warming from 1970-2000, because that is exactly opposite to their hopes of a negative cloud feedback, and supports the positive feedback idea more. We would have heard a lot more about this if the clouds had been behaving as a negative feedback, but instead, silence.

        How do you get that? The reduction in cloud cover is an ideal explanation for the subsequent warming, with warming producing a subsequent increase in cloud cover that squelched subsequent warming. Again with the unnamed “skeptics”, when skeptics have in fact written this. I, for example, wrote that at least once before, and I think I am considered a “skeptic” (despite the fact that I quote science sometimes and support the “basic radiative physics” as the emission/absorption spectra of H2O and CO2 are sometimes called.)

      • MM, when the clouds only explain a small percentage of the warming it is either a positive feedback or coincidence, but not the cause.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: MM, when the clouds only explain a small percentage of the warming it is either a positive feedback or coincidence, but not the cause.

        Maybe, but that does not support your claim that anybody has been keeping quiet about the reduced cloud cover of the last warming epoch.

        If cloud cover was reduced during that last warming epoch, and if the “pause” followed an increase in cloud cover, then the cloud cover change “explains” most of the observed mean temp change of the last 40 years. It all depends on how you model the effects of clouds.

      • MM, people have yet to find a way for clouds to drive climate, but you can check into GCRs and Spencer’s various thoughts on cloud forcing and see how much you believe them.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: MM, people have yet to find a way for clouds to drive climate, but you can check into GCRs and Spencer’s various thoughts on cloud forcing and see how much you believe them.

        You and I just outlined a way for cloud cover changes to effect temperature changes, and for temperature changes to effect cloud cover changes. whether clouds amount to some definition of “drivers of climate” is a different consideration. If it is true, as you asserted, that something in the climate system produced a subsequent epoch of reduced cloud cover, then it is possible (as I wrote) that the epoch of reduced cloud cover produced a subsequent epoch of warming. If you focus attention on the last 40 years, then the cloud cover change “explains” a large fraction of the temperature change.

        {You might recall that a lack of wind to blow away cloud cover was presented in a paper here some time back as a reason why there has been a pause (the paper focused on clear vs cloudy skies in ENSO, then generalized to the world at large.)}

        I am not saying that it really worked that way, only that it might have.

        Also, that (a) you didn’t think of the consequences when you wrote about the cloud cover change and (b) you didn’t think of the implications when the focus was restricted to the last 40 years.

        It is widely acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature that cloud cover responses constitute one of the “known unknowns”. I maintain that there is no good rationale for the way that you pick and choose subsets of the historical record.

      • Jim D seems to think (twice now) that –
        “Whatever you try, you can’t make it stop looking like a rising trend for 40 years that even fits today after the pause.”

        But that only works if you run your linear trend through the discontinuity. What would your math professor have to say about that?

        You can run a linear trend on a segment of a sine wave or parabola – what does it tell you? In this case, it requires TWO linear trends. If they have the same slope then your contention may be correct. But they don’t. So the conclusion is that the data on the two sides of the continuity is “different” and the question is: WHY?

        You haven’t answered that question.

      • P-N – You failed to examine the complete temp record, which did exactly as you expected – up to a point. The temp came back down and then stayed down for some time before rising again to a different level. You’re partially right – but not right enough.

        Do I have answers? No. But I have lots of questions – and if you blow the questions off, I lots MORE questions.

      • Jim Owen, I would be more interested in the discontinuity itself. It’s not natural, and probably implies something about the way the trends are separated.

      • Jim D – Last shot – I’m running out of time.

        Yes, the discontinuity needs to be explained, but WITHOUT CO2 as a driver. Super El Ninos have occurred periodically for thousands of years and long, long before CO2 was a factor. There are archaeological records that confirm this. Problem is that, IIRC, there is no mathematically correct, scientifically accurate explanation for El Nino – of any size.

        Note – I am NOT claiming superior knowledge here. I’m only asking questions that I’ve never, in any forum, heard voiced before. Nor have I heard the answers to those questions. But I have heard a lot of “explanations” that explain nothing and obscure the inconvenient facts.

      • Jim Owen, so you want a different explanation from the standard one that the 1998 El Nino was a big one that jumped well above the warming trend line, and residual heat stayed in the system for a while after it (a period known as the pause), until finally the warming caught up with it after some La Nina periods around 2014 which itself was an ENSO neutral year that has a chance of exceeding all preceding El Nino years including 1998.

      • It’s just starting.

        La Nina is higher salt content.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jim D: so we can get back to focusing on the long-term trend of the last 40 years.

      Only for you is “the last 40 years” a “long-term”. If you look at the last 11,500 years, the current warming is approximately “on time” (with no CO2 effect whatsoever), and the warming peaks display a downward trend since the “Holocene Optimum”.

      • Agreed. Even though the last 11500 years is a very small time period in the context of the extended trajectory of Earth’s climate from its genesis. Trends can only be inferred from each observation set and prediction based on such trends are inconclusive.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Suppose a river has been flowing at a steady rate for 10,000 years. Then we construct dam and thereafter the river flow is halved during the following 10 years. However, 10 years is such a short period compared to the previous one, we can nary conclude anything at all about the effect of the dam on the river flow in the past decade, or in the coming decades. Maybe the dam has no effect at all and the reduction of flow that occurred after it was built was entirely natural. The buildup of water upstream of the dam (or cooling of the stratosphere, sea level rise, etc.) is irrelevant.

  15. Pingback: Back from the twitter twilight zone: Responses to my WSJ op-ed | Latest News

  16. Yes, Judith, the world is in disarray over the prospects for future climate, Yes, the IPCC has masse a mess of its climate deliberations. I still believe that this mess could have been avoided if they had done a proper evaluation of the 1940 singularity which would have shown for the first time the on/off nature of climate change. Can anyone deny it now?

    • Yeah, the Chinese and Indians are concerned about ramping up economic output. They accept AGW for whatever it might prove to be.

  17. Judy, to those of us who are scientists in fields remote from climate science but who follow the debate from far, your style of arguing is much more appealing than that of your (warmist) opponents. Thank you for keeping it in spite of attacks you are sometime enduring,

    • Well, Dr. Curry seems to have staked out the objective middle ground and tends to discuss climate and address critics with fact based approach using relatively neutral language.

      This is to be commended.

      A dispassionate and factual presentation is much more persuasive than the loud and negative tone of much of the climate debate – and much more pleasant to read and ponder.

    • Steven Sullivan

      Speak for yourself, bacpierre. You certainly don’t speak for all ‘scientists remote from climate science but who follow the debate from (a)far”

      • Nor do you, but you sure speak like a lot of the alarmists do.
        =========

      • But unlike bacpierre, I don’t claim to, kim. Personally, I dodn’t findy Curry’s ‘style’ to be all that different from her ‘warmist opponents’ (if by which we mean other climate scientists blogging and op-ed-ing, most of whom,oddly enough, differ with her). She certainly can be as snarky as they. She tolerates rather more copious and vicious denigration of the ‘the other side’ on her blog than they do on theirs.

  18. The last paragraph of Pancost and Lewandowsky:

    The deeper the uncertainty, the more greenhouse gas emissions should be perceived as a wild and poorly understood gamble. By extension, the only unequivocal tool for minimising climate change uncertainty is to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions.

    The scent of the precautionary principle in full panic and no sense of a comparison of different risks associated with possible policy alternatives. Strange.

  19. JC, I think you’re awesome so I say this with all due respect. But usually you are very level headed against criticism, but this post seems to have more bite than normal.

  20. David L. Hagen

    Re: “Pause denial is getting more and more difficult with time.”
    Ross McKitrick finds the duration of the current unpredicted temperature “pause” “to be 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used.”
    **McKitrick, Ross R. and Timothy Vogelsang (2014) “HAC-Robust Trend Comparisons Among Climate Series with Possible Level Shifts” Environmetrics DOI: 10.1002/env.2294. 

    By “So called pause” – “Global surface temperatures continue to rise” etc., True Believers Mann et al. depart from reality and the objective scientific method.

  21. ‘Union of concerned scientists!’ Case of wolves in charge
    of the flock, lemmings in charge of the science.

  22. The climate change scene is no longer a one horse race and its about time the debate centres on the science rather than on decarbonisation of the western economies for the benefit of the emerging economies.

    The science of climate change should be based on meteorology and not numerology around a mythical concept of global temperature response to the doubling of a trace gas. This parameter is a vector in any case, depending on extraneous influences about which little is known.

  23. Judith,

    Your willingness to engage the idiocy is entertaining. However, you have earned the right to not tolerate fools gladly (ala Lindzen).

  24. DeSmogBlog is a wretched piece of work. I am not surprised that they had the most vacuous, vitriolic, and ad hominem response.

    • I can’t think of an alarmist blog that isn’t a wretched thing to behold. Sneering in tone, morally bankrupt, and deeply, deeply dishonest, every single one of them (that I’m aware of anyway).

      • I find ATTP to be a thoughtful and polite (mainly) blog – certainly above the line.

      • And then there’s everything else.
        =========================

      • That’s because they are all warmists stroking each other’s egos. There’s nary a sceptic to be found there!

      • Pierre-Normand

        Agreed about ATTP.

        Rated on a 1 to 10 scale scale, as manifested by the general attitude towards interventions or queries on behalf of the “other side”, I would rate some popular blogs/forums roughly thus:

        ATTP: 9
        RealClimate: 7 or 8
        Lucia’s Blackboard: 7
        SkepticalScience: 6
        Climate Audit: 6
        Climate Etc: 4
        HotWhopper: 2
        WUWT: 1

        Moderation seems paramount.

      • No need to get excited about contrary opinions when you can just start deleting comments. Moderation makes a wonderful pacifier.

      • Peter

        I’ve seen some interesting discussions on ATTP (I’ve even occasionally contributed) but I like the site because (ISTM) that it is more concerned with discussing the issues, rather than “laying down the party line”.

        You do not have to agree with people to find them interesting. Nor does either “side” have a monopoly of insight.

      • WFC ATTP seems to be “thoughtful and polite” because they are discussing one party’s line.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Pierre-Normand: Rated on a 1 to 10 scale scale,

        Is 10 “best” or “worst”? I perceive WUWT and RealClimate as having opposite biases in terms of the works they choose to present and the beliefs of the people who maintain the sites, but WUWT provides fairer treatment to people who write dissenting views.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “Is 10 “best” or “worst”? I perceive WUWT and RealClimate as having opposite biases in terms of the works they choose to present and the beliefs of the people who maintain the sites, but WUWT provides fairer treatment to people who write dissenting views.”

        My ranking was about civility, not fairness. Fairness as a criterion would yield a different ranking and would be much more dependent on the bias of the ranker.

        RealClimate may sometimes be unfair but pays a high moderation price for a quite high signal to noise ratio, especially regarding technical topics where I find much to learn. I think ClimateAudit and the Blackboard also offer reasonably high signal to noise ratios, albeit focused on rather narrowly selected nitpicks on the science.

        I view WUWT rather as a madhouse. Voices of calm reason, such as Stokes, Zeke or Engelbeen (and voices of impatient reason such as Mosher) are *completely* drowned in a bottomless pit of angry paranoid illiterate nonsense — so that layman lurkers can hardly discern them among all the confused and confusing pseudo-science. One of the main moderators is among the worst offenders. If you’re already informed about the topic, then you can find some value if you carry a machete to make your way through the jungle. But I may be biased.

        Climate Etc may also be paying, in the interest of fairness and balance, the price of a lowered signal to noise ration. That’s fine with me. That creates interesting discussions and furnishes a middle meeting ground. When I need to find information, or gain genuine understanding, on technical topics, I move to the less fair blogs, mainstream scientific fora, or to the *totally* unfair world of scientific textbooks and articles.

      • Agree about ATTP. I have enjoyed my visits there.

    • Pierre-Normand said:

      Rated on a 1 to 10 scale scale, as manifested by the general attitude towards interventions or queries on behalf of the “other side”, I would rate some popular blogs/forums roughly thus:

      ATTP: 9
      RealClimate: 7 or 8
      Lucia’s Blackboard: 7
      SkepticalScience: 6
      Climate Audit: 6
      Climate Etc: 4
      HotWhopper: 2
      WUWT: 1

      That list is most interesting. I believe that it corresponds perfectly to how much you agree with the point of view of the blog in question. SO your perception of “openness” really boils down to how much you agree with the content.

      As a physicist, I find even the title of AATP dismissive and disrespectful. RealClimate and SkS are completely unwilling to even hear opposing viewpoints, generally representing them as caricatures, since they ban the actual voices from posting. OTOH, Climate Audit directly addresses opposing viewpoints, allows those who disagree to post in the comments, and keeps the discussion at a technical, instead of personal level.

      I would like to suggest as gently as I can that your perception does not even come close to reality.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “That list is most interesting. I believe that it corresponds perfectly to how much you agree with the point of view of the blog in question. SO your perception of “openness” really boils down to how much you agree with the content.”

        I didn’t consider “openness” at all, only civility, and I was careful to abstract from my agreement with the blog owner, or with the majority of regulars. One can be close minded to — and even rightfully dismissive of — a viewpoint one regards as not remotely likely to be true and still debate courteously. I agree strongly with most opinions expressed on HotWhopper but ranked it dismally low (almost as bad as WUWT). I disagree strongly with most opinions defended on Lucia’s but ranked it higher than SkepticalScience. I also ranked Climate Etc quite low due to the abuse coming from both sides.

        I am actually very sensitive to abuse from warmists directed against skeptics, often complain about it, and do my utmost never to reciprocate when targeted by skeptics myself. That’s because when one becomes abusive, then one forfeits the right to be listened to by the person targeted. As for the precise ranking of the sites, you mileage may vary. But I suspect you misunderstood my criterion.

      • I went to ATTP tonight and this is from the top post:

        If, however, you read Richard Tol’s response to this, it appears that his critics are all wrong and that it is all some kind of left-wing conspiracy. At this point I’m probably supposed to make some comment about Richard’s behaviour, but I really can’t be bothered. As Joshua would say, it’s just the same ol’ same ol’.

        I guess you just have a different definition of “civility” than everyone else in the world.

      • Speaking of blogs, Tamino (Open Mind) has been missing since July, and no one knows what happened, as far as I know.

      • “RealClimate and SkS are completely unwilling to even hear opposing viewpoints, generally representing them as caricatures, since they ban the actual voices from posting.”

        That’s a plain misstatement of fact, as a visit to most any RC thread will show. ‘Opposing’ (i.e., more or less denialist) viewpoints are rather common. That they don’t tolerate as much *content-free* ‘opposing viewpoint’ posts as Judy Curry does, does not reflect badly on them.

        Why do people here keep lying about RC? I’ve noticed this is a recurring phenomenon. Do they threaten you that badly?

      • Steven:

        Either you are new to the debate (have you been following for more than, say 3 years?) or you are a shill.

        RealClimate is famous for two types of edits: the first just deleting comments and the more insidious – editing the content of a comment and then answering the modified comment. Unconscionable.

      • P-N,

        RealClimate and SkS can afford to be “polite” as they edite, block or delete almost any comment that they don’t like or disagree with.

        Bet you’d be right at home in 1950’s Birmingham Alabama.

  25. Wittgenstein has an analysis of certainty with respect to religion, which seems to apply here as well, namely that the certainty of faith is that very faith, not something else; and it is love that seizes on that faith. It is believed lovingly.

    I think that’s lurking in the problem.

    see Culture and Value p.32-33

    • A point my teacher Goenka often made was that faith without understanding, without wisdom, was insufficient. To be valuable and worthwhile, faith must be based on a clear understanding of reality; reality as it is, not as you believe or wish it to be. Something too often overlooked by faiths of all kinds.

    • Well, sidestepping W adeptly, show me the love in this epidemic of social mania called catastrophic man guilted change.
      ==================

  26. Matthew R Marler

    from Mann et al: Esoteric and academic arguments about the response of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2 may be interesting for those steeped in the peer-reviewed literature, but for the public and policy makers the important and unfortunate fact is that climate change is continuing unabated. This was the hottest September on record, after the hottest August on record (yielding the hottest summer on record), and the oceans continue to warm rapidly. In fact, some parts of the ocean have been shown to be warming even more rapidly than we thought.

    For the public and policy makers, the important and unfortunate fact is that there is no solid evidence that anything we try with fossil fuels will affect climate change. That is why the esoteric and academic arguments (and evidence) about the effect of doubling CO2 are so important beyond just those scientists steeped in the peer-reviewed literature.

    Some parts of the ocean are warming less rapidly than we thought, and the overall rate of warming is less than the models projected (modeled, etc.)

    • ” there is no solid evidence that anything we try with fossil fuels will affect climate change.” A major reason why warmist-supported emissions reductions policies are wrong. Even if we had such evidence, it would not of itself dictate ERPs, there are far superior approaches which would additionally better address both existing real issues and as yet unknown issues which emerge over time.

    • “Battling climate change” continues to sound absurd to me. To my ear, it sounds vaguely crazy. When Obama proclaimed that “this is the day the oceans stop rising and the planet begins to heal,” all I could think was this is the kind of thing one might hear in a nut house, not the White House. I find it frightening, the staggering ignorance demonstrated by the so-called leader of the free world.

      • So-called “leader of the free world”?! Nah … at this point we have six years of evidence that the only “leadership” he’s ever demonstrated is that which he accomplishes with his chin – as it predictably and mechanistically moves from side to side, while he holds his nose in the air and spews juvenile, inane (and often contradictory) teleprompted platitudes.

        View from here is that his greatest “strength” is his ability to bamboozle his (much delayed but) rapidly declining legion of fans and excusers.

      • Politics is a terrible waste of the mind. It makes people say silly things for simpleton minds. Please continue to bring forth relevant facts, Judith…

      • Agreed Hilary. The man who ran on hope and change, who promised a new age of transparency, and honesty, and governmental competence (major oxymoron) has turned out to be a fraud of the first order. What a staggering FAIL.

  27. “…and the oceans continue to warm rapidly. In fact, some parts of the ocean have been shown to be warming even more rapidly than we thought.”
    – Rapid Response Team

    Schmidt writing in 2011:
    “The Meehl et al study looked at the changes in ocean heat content during these occasional decades and compared that to the changes seen in other decades with positive surface trends. What they found was that decades with cooling surface temperatures consistently had higher-than-average increases in ocean heat content.”
    “Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous).”
    “…the surface temperature records are the longest climate records we have from direct measurements and have been independently replicated by multiple independent groups. I’m not aware of anyone who has ever thought that surface temperatures tell us everything there is to know about climate change, but nonetheless in practical terms global warming has for years been defined as the rise in this metric. It is certainly useful to look at the total heat content anomaly (as best as it can be estimated), but the difficulties in assembling such a metric and extending it back in time more than a few decades preclude it from supplanting the surface temperatures in this respect.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/

    It looks like ocean circulations change perhaps on decadal scales. Sequestrating the heat apparently for a long time. It’s there but not much a factor given the mass of the oceans. The Team warns us that it’s still happening but the heat has been given a long term jail sentence. If these ocean surface cooling cycles occur half the time at their current strength, to halve the sensitivity value seems to provide the most useful number.

    Schmidt points at the surface temperature as the arguably better metric and mentions the weaknesses of the total heat content. I agree with his, not ‘in the pipeline’ remark because I think it accurately counts it as not a short term threat. It is a liability so far into the future we might give it a zero value. Same as if I promise to give you $100 in 100 years. That’s not worth much.

    • If the heat has gone swimming then surely it is not “sequestered” or in “jail”. Nor is it a short or long term threat. If it has gone into the oceans, then it (or, rather, all but a tiny part of it) must have gone, permanently. Not “jail”, but the chair.

      The reason is this. If 3 degs of atmospheric heat goes into the ocean, it will heat the ocean by only 0.003 degs (ish). If so, then the only heat that can or will be given “back” to the atmosphere from the oceans, therefore, is that 0.003 degs.

      So the 3 degs of atmospheric warming will have been permanently changed to 0.003 degs atmospheric warming. Which is not in the slightest bit scary, nor worth spending a penny on to mitigate.

      Am I missing something?

      • Pierre-Normand

        “Am I missing something”

        Yes, the reason there is much heat to be sequestered in the first place is the top of atmosphere imbalance caused by the increase in external forcing. Since the increase in the rate of heat sequestration (and the concomitant reduction in the rate of surface warming) likely is mainly a result of cyclical internal variability, when the cycles will switch to the opposite phase, the surface warming will resume even faster. Only the surface warming can cancel the top of atmosphere imbalance.

      • Pierre,

        Let me see if I have understood you correctly:

        (A) you agree (notwithstanding the word sequestered) that such heat as has gone into the ocean has (all but a tiny amount) gone for ever? That it cannot and will not return, Godzilla like, to the atmosphere? (As some have suggested)

        (B) you believe that this state of affairs cannot last, and that at the end of the cycle (when?) the energy imbalance will again impact on surface temperatures?

        If so, then (given the fact that ACO2’s forcing effect is not open-ended – that there comes a time when additional ACO2 will make no difference) the fact (if fact it is – which is not certain) that the oceans are capable of “diluting” the effect must have an impact on the overall (ie, now until saturation) forcing effect of ACO2.

        Do you agree?

      • Pierre-Normand

        WFC: “(B) you believe that this state of affairs cannot last, and that at the end of the cycle (when?) the energy imbalance will again impact on surface temperatures?”

        When? Just about right now. The ENSO cycle has been in La Nada mode for a few months and the surface and troposphere, that both normally lag ENSO by a few months, indeed already are back on the 40 year warming trend. The pause seems over.

        “If so, then (given the fact that ACO2’s forcing effect is not open-ended – that there comes a time when additional ACO2 will make no difference)”

        The logarithmic on the CO2 concentration to forcing relationship is taken into account in projections for 2100 given various scenarios.

  28. Welcome back! From the responses you featured, I couldn’t help wondering why your critics (for want of a better word) have learned so little in the last 5 years that (notwithstanding the new technology at their disposal) they continue to operate as though we’re all still living in the (pre-Internet) early ’90’s. During which time they virtually ruled the international decision-making world.

    The view from here is that these once-upon-a-time movers and shakers are now flailing and drowning in the shallow oratorical pools of their own devising.

    The UNEP seems to be in equal disarray with so many contradictory soundbites and mini-mantras-in-the-making … Almost as if they’re grasping for something that will take them back to the good old days – when relatively few took any notice of their copious word salads. They’ve even shifted from their longterm messages of “doom and gloom” to everything’s coming up roses and opportunities!

    So I thought it was rather interesting that after five years, the former UNFCCC head honcho, Yvo de Boer, actually acknowledged that Copenhagen 2009 was a “failure” – and that (essentially since Climategate 1.0), “the climate process fell into a coma”. Something that Christiana Figueres, his inept successor, is probably incapable of realizing. Notwithstanding the fairly recent assignment of old-UNEP-hand Joe Alcamo to assist her!

    Furthermore, the UNEP (and its many “children”) has been creating an ever narrowing bridge between “climate change” and “sustainable development”. Both of which, of course, demand megabucks in international funding (which has not been forthcoming, notwithstanding the creation of a multiplicity of “innovative” funding “mechanisms”)

    At the end of Sept., Fred Pearce (IMHO, notwithstanding the fact that he’s still riding the dreaded CO2 bandwagon, probably one of the most rational of enviro-journalists) had a piece in yale360 (picked up by the U.K. Guardian, as well):

    Beyond Treaties: A New Way of Framing Global Climate Action

    As negotiators look to next year’s UN climate conference in Paris, there is increasing discussion of a new way forward that does not depend on sweeping international agreements. Some analysts are pointing to Plan B — recasting the climate issue as one of national self-interest rather than global treaties.
    […]
    The United Nations Climate Summit in New York last week passed with many promises, but no firm pledges.
    […]
    But behind the scenes, some are asking what happens if there isn’t a deal in Paris. Or even how much it matters whether there is such a deal. Failure is possible, after all. The political winds are even less propitious today than they were five years ago.

    [followed by a disappointingly uncritical recitation of Stern2.0’s “new” Economics and other not so disappointing stuff … but Pearce concludes:]

    If the economists who note the benefits of moving to a low-carbon economy are right, and if we fail to halt the danger, then politics will be more to blame than economics. But if self-interest is the route to saving the climate, then maybe we still have a chance.

    Note the “if’s”, btw!

    Also of interest, is the current perspective (or at least it was this week!) of Todd Stern, an old and politically powerful hand who is very much committed to “sustainable development” – and very well-placed within higher US gov’t circles – who recently gave a presentation at Yale.

    He reports to Kerry; and, IMHO, he really should be doing a better job of “educating” his oh-so-foolishly-alarmist boss. But, for all intents and purposes, as “Special Envoy for Climate Change”, Stern would appear to be the U.S. head honcho on the “climate front”.

    So, as I recently wrote after taking a trip down my memory lane, and a few days later watching Stern (the latter, not the former) in action:

    It’s worth noting, IMHO, [as …] Stern at least acknowledges (at approx. 24:30) that it is the split between the UNFCCC’s Annex 1 (i.e. developed) and Annex II (i.e. not so developed) countries is “the singular fault line”. This may be why Stern is now trying to steer things towards the concept of each country making up its own mind. Certainly no less costly to anyone, nor is there any consideration of the damage that has been done (and continues to be done, on so many fronts) by the UN and its many tentacles of self-aggrandizement and discord-sowing.

    Bottom line for me, is that while such journalists and powers that be may not be publicly acknowledging the validity of your voice, perhaps your recent papers and essays here, along with your WSJ Op Ed are making a (positive) difference :-)

  29. When are people going to get serious about calling them out on the ‘90% of AGW is going into heating the oceans’ claim? It is in the atmospheric temperature record that we must firstly observe the AGW signal for it is the atmosphere where the perturbation occurs. If the oceans are actually warming in response to elevated CO2 levels then the atmosphere has to warm as well (globally, of course).

  30. Welcome back to the western (modern) world. A good summary from a woman with jet lag (a hellish thing).

    Opinions as expressed in the media are always interesting as they reflect their readerships point of view. I guess they also inform it, in-so-much as they feed a point of view rhetoric.

    A main weapon to turn the tide of policy and the direction of scientific research is public opinion. There are many believers out there (I suspect they will be last to change their views), there are also many people who dislike appearing contrary (this group are there to be swayed) persuading people that it is alright to assess for themselves the evidence is fundamental to changing the direction of the political & scientific consensus.

    Evidence works and evidence will increase as time passes. I believe in the end people will associate CAGW hysteria as a peculiar thing, something that will be studied by the sociologists and anthropologists and politics scientist, of the future. The physical evidence will persuade them.

    Until that happens the damage caused by policy will accumulate. Damage to the environment by the creation of wind farms. The damage caused by technologies like LED light bulbs. The damage caused by impeding the advancement of the developing world by restricting access to reliable energies. The opportunity cost of society expending vast resources on a mistaken belief.

  31. The responses to the WSJ article show the weakness of the CAGW camp regarding policy. Bart Verheggen says that “one would think that the risk of substantial warming entails a substantial risk that is worth hedging against;” Judith responds: “We have very little justification (and no demonstrated skill so far) for predicting the climate of the 21st century.”

    Even disregarding Judith’s caveat, and even if there is “substantial risk,” such risk does not per se justify any action. This always come back to alternative uses of resources and costs and benefits. And even if there is substantial risk, I have argued repeatedly that there are better policy options than emissions reductions. This argument also applies to the concerns of Mann et al and UCS, and Judith’s response on policy is appropriate.

    • Faustino | October 18, 2014 at 8:38 pm
      “Even disregarding Judith’s caveat, and even if there is “substantial risk,” such risk does not per se justify any action. This always come back to alternative uses of resources and costs and benefits.”

      Well… For people outside of the twilight zone, new energy facilities are justified on a cost/benefit basis. Since CO2 is beneficial, in theory there should be a penalty for renewable technologies.

      However, I am fine with any technology deployed that is cost competitive – including renewable technologies, even though there is a current and future opportunity cost associated with reducing CO2 emissions.

    • @ Faustino

      The warmunists continually warn about the ‘risk’, so far not in evidence, of ‘climate change’, meaning of course the risk to our civilization created by our burning fossil fuels to sustain it.

      They are not so keen to warn of the ‘risk’, or rather the certainty, of the damage to our civilization that would be incurred should their recommendations for MITIGATING climate change be adopted. I. e., by sharply curtailing our use of fossil fuels, and taxing and regulating the activities for which fossil fuels would continue to be permitted.

  32. I hope you enjoyed your visit to Nanjing. The pollution gods were kind recently…

    It’s disappointing to see Bart Verheggen’s public statements grow more dogmatic, although the core of his position has not changed. He has always been a gentleman and I hope his recent writings do not reflect a change in disposition.

    The overall reaction of the consensus luminaries is predictable and unconvincing. It amounts to ‘we had a hot summer so you’re wrong’, a tactic they have objected to when for example ‘we have had a cold winter’ has been employed in the debate.

    More interesting to me is the make-up of those commenting publicly on your recent publications. Peter Gleick is a thief and a forger. Michael Mann is a mercurial hot-tempered scientist desperately trying to defend his reputation. Stephan Lewandowsky is a psychologist who published laughably false propaganda in a complaisant journal before having to withdraw it.

    Scott Mandia posed in a Superman uniform to announce his participation in the ‘Crusher Crew’, a group of like-minded souls who monitor climate conversations on the internet and attack opponents using prepared extracts from alarmist dogma.

    Gavin Schmidt is a legitimate opponent. However, as Mac points out at Climate Audit, he is enmeshed in a decade-long defense of his friend and colleague Michael Mann, and cannot be expected to provide an objective viewpoint.

    The takeaway seems to be that although I think you have done an amazing job of reviving uncertainty and assigning to it its proper role, it’s not because of the quality of your opponents. Many of us feel like you see further in regards to this debate, but in fact that’s because you’re surrounded by dwarves.

    • “… I think you have done an amazing job of reviving uncertainty and assigning to it its proper role … you’re surrounded by dwarves.”

      Good summary. No one really ever seems to step up to the plate, do they?

    • Tom,
      When Judith committed the cardinal sin of deigning to question the the dogma and more importantly the “authority” of the CAGW Priesthood :)

      The advantages of dogma
      When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. Who are these priests of the IPCC?
      https://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/

      the “Defenders of the Faith” such as Joe Romm and Bart Verheggen quickly rose up in Holy Indignation!!

      Defender of the Faith: Bart Verheggen
      http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/judith-curry-building-bridges-burning-bridges/

      Furthermore Bart’s view on the importance of conning the public with the “consensus” (anti-scientific) argument is pretty clear :
      https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/20/climate-scientists-joining-advocacy-groups/#comment-562969

      There was an earlier article naming Lindzen as someone the warmers would dearly love to , but cannot dismiss (ignore).
      I think Judith is also now in the elite ranks of those who cannot be dismissed :)
      Forget 30:1 Curry Factor. The Ratio must be a lot higher now :: ))

    • Hi Tom,
      Of course you can feel free to sling all kinds of accusations in all directions. No need to back up statements around here apparently. As long as they suit the prevailing dogma I guess.

      • Bart the Bitter, Gentleman at Alarms.
        ===========

      • Hi Bart

        I hope you’re well and that things are going very, very well for you. I would have stopped by your blog but it doesn’t load in China.

        As I doubt that you object to my ‘accusing’ you of being a gentleman, I assume you’re not happy that I find your writings more dogmatic than in the past. I’m sorry if what I wrote offended you, but it does seem to be the case.

        Obviously that’s just my opinion. Had I said ’emphatic’ rather than ‘dogmatic’ would you have been as offended?

        As I get ‘assailed’ (too strong a word) from commenters here quite frequently, I can only say that this site is a regular kennel, hosting dogmas of all type with no discrimination, including mine.

        Congratulations on the survey–I hope it provided you with useful information about the state of scientific opinion on climate change. And good luck on Climate Dialogue.

      • I think it is Judith’s position that has shifted, while the AGWers react to these new positions consistently with the shift away from their position. Remember when Judith started the blog she could not be drawn to a sensitivity more precise than 1-10 C, but now she seems almost certain that it is 1-1.5 C with almost no chance (in her own words) of even being the 2 C that would allow for 100% attribution of the warming to CO2 since 1950. This is a large shift, and the reaction to it is becoming predictably stronger as her uncertainty error bars go down while at the same time she makes this very rigid, almost intolerant, view more public.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: Remember when Judith started the blog she could not be drawn to a sensitivity more precise than 1-10 C, but now she seems almost certain that it is 1-1.5 C with almost no chance (in her own words) of even being the 2 C that would allow for 100% attribution of the warming to CO2 since 1950. This is a large shift, and the reaction to it is becoming predictably stronger as her uncertainty error bars go down while at the same time she makes this very rigid, almost intolerant, view more public.

        Since Prof Curry started this blog, she has, among other things, co-authored a major review of the evidence. Your characterization of her view as “very rigid, almost intolerant” is not substantiated by her writing. The upper tails of the earlier distributions of the climate sensitivity were driven primarily by Bayesian posterior distributions derived from very broad uniform priors that put substantial probability (sometimes more than 50%) for the range above 4C. Those priors had no substantiation in evidence. The more closely the estimates hew to the data, the smaller are the estimates, on the whole.

      • Judith has characterized 100% CO2 attribution since 1950 as very unlikely. This is the central IPCC estimate, so she has said in effect that the IPCC is almost certainly wrong in the center of its uncertainty range. It used to be within her error bars. Now it is outside. Lewis and Curry give it better odds, but the 100% attribution is at or beyond the 83% end of their range. The LC central attribution is about 66% CO2 which disagrees with Curry’s own 50/50 idea.

  33. We need mitigation alright, but not of CO2 … from the article:

    How would the region, which continues growing and sprouting waterfront condos, stand up to a massive surge of water like those produced by Hurricane Katrina or Superstorm Sandy?

    “It won’t survive,” Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Craig Fugate says bluntly.

    That makes the Miami metropolitan area the second-biggest sitting duck in the country. A study by CoreLogic estimates more than $103 billion worth of property is at risk from hurricane storm surge — only New York City has more exposed property.

    USA TODAY
    Some cities try to stem the flood in South Florida
    Miami’s vulnerability is well known, but emergency planners say generations of political leaders have failed to invest the billions needed to keep flood-control systems up to date.

    “This is not something that just occurred overnight,” said Fugate, who dealt with nearly a dozen hurricanes as Florida’s emergency management director before joining FEMA. “A lot of decisions by a lot of people over a long period of time. It’s a shared responsibility. The question is: Is there the political will to start addressing that?”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/10/18/miami-hurricane-flood-control/13170817/

    • jim2
      “We need mitigation alright, but not of CO2 … from the article:

      How would the region, which continues growing and sprouting waterfront condos, stand up to a massive surge of water like those produced by Hurricane Katrina or Superstorm Sandy?”

      Well… many people in the coastal areas are doing the equivalent of jumping into traffic. The subsidence rate of many coastal areas is high – 5 to 10 times the mythical “sea rise”.

      Places like New Orleans that used to be part swamp, sink when the waters are dammed up and the swamp pumped dry. The city is a pile of silt in a flood plain. Ground water extraction just aggravates things.

      There are areas on the coast that are building up. There are areas that are sinking. Since America is headed southwest the east coast will generally be sinking.

      The solution is to stop government insurance programs for some of the coastal areas and make them too expensive to live on. The government is doing the equivalent of paying people to play in traffic. That isn’t rational.

      • No, they want to make coal and gasoline too expensive to buy. But they want their rich friends on the coast to have flood insurance on us.

        I’m sick of the government being controlled by the rich and companies. The R’s want to throw US workers under the bus with amnesty. They are no better than Dimowits on that issue. I’m amazed they don’t understand they will simultaneously throw themselves under the bus.

        Oh well.

  34. HuffPo: “This was the hottest September on record, after the hottest August on record”

    February 2014 was colder than February 1878.

  35. HuffPo: “This was the hottest September on record, after the hottest August on record”

    In the USA September 2014 was the 68th coldest.

    • Yeah.

      But it was really really hot in the parts of the Antarctic which don’t have any temperature gauges. That’s why there’s so much more ice down there than there used to be.

  36. ”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
    Timothy Wirth is the Vice Chair of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund. Both organizations were founded in 1998 through a major financial commitment from Ted Turner to support and strengthen the work of the United Nations.

    Moderates neither need no want societal or economic transformation. What we want of government is to manage interest rates to prevent asset bubbles, defend the weak from the strong, to defend against both external enemies and natural disasters and to succor the population in need. At some 22% of GDP. Within that much is allowed in the cut and thrust of democracy and the evolving social contract.

    Fringe extremists have some other agenda.

    • REALITY CHECK, to the extent that is possible on this issue:

      Sensibly addressing geologically radical atmospheric alteration to mitigate our ongoing additions is far from fringe; not doing so with a head in the sand based upon desire, and macroeconomic fear, dressed up as the “new” ‘science, kind of is. Treasury Secretaries and Wall Street Giants Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson (Bush) both agree, and they’re huge advocates of the market, and hardly fringe, to put it mildly.

      @22% of GDP a fine idea. No need to expand to address, and little need to over regulate. But a big need to find a way to level the playing field between those processes that contribute excessively to ongoing long term atmospheric alteration, and those that don’t, so that the latter are on more of an equal playing field, when consumers and businesses both make decisions.

      Fear of economic transformation,in response to changing information, is not “moderate,” it is reactionary.

      • “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
        Michael Oppenheimer

        Science is not as John Carter imagines. The world is not warming. The Arctic – and the US and parts of Europe are cooling. Warming is not guaranteed. Climate is utterly unpredictable and climate surprises are inevitable. This is where science leads – time and again. It is not even clear that CO2 levels
        are higher than early in the Holocene.

        They are not capable of processing anomalous information and this is a symptom of the psychopathology.

        The real issue comes from another direction entirely – from the dynamical mechanism at the heart of climate. There are rational responses to the issue – but they are about is transforming societies and economies. Rational response is not part of the plan. .

        Rational responses include energy innovation. Building resilience to climate variability that will happen regardless remains a central objective of rational policy. Economic development is the core of building long term resilience. Fast mitigation is not merely possible with reductions in population pressures and emissions of black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane, CFC’s and nitrous oxide – but are outcomes of health, education and economic development strategies. We may also reduce carbon emissions by building soil fertility on agricultural lands and conserving and restoring ecosystems. There are practical and pragmatic approaches that provide real no regrets policy options.

      • I’d suggest a reality check but I don’t think he is capable of it.

      • There are two ways to transform an economy.

        (A) when people find better, cheaper and more efficient ways of doing something, thereby bringing about economic change because the old ways no longer make any sense to the people operating it – which change is often brought about in spite of, rather than because of, the state and its desires (feudalism to capitalism)

        (B) when idealists and governments decide to remake an economy by trying to force people into ideological templates (Bolshevism, African Socialism, Autarchy etc).

        The latter type of change has a poor record of success.

      • “Science is not as John Carter imagines”

        Nor are all of the world’s leading climate scientists who professionally study this issue, except for Richard “cigarette smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer” contrarian Lindzen.

        Just the commenter above and a bunch of politically connected and fossil fuel loyal interests, including a few tangential scientists, and the rare actual climate scientist like THIS GUY

        P.s, someone in response to Kim (best commenter here IMO) that Carter only likes “his biases.” I have no biases, I want this issue to be much less significant than it is. I do think fossil fuels pollute, but it ain’t my style – as it is popular to conflate, and mangle climate science,, as a way to head off redress that one is afraid of – to use something incorrect or stretched. AT ALL.

        It would be far preferable that a small increase in gg gases (over billions of years,geologically huge for us) was no big deal for us. FAR PREFERABLE. Looking at the issue, wishing it, doesn’t make it so or skew my assessment of the issue, as it does with most commenters here.

        And the proprietor of this site, who is riding the coattails of a solidarity issue, and keeps getting the issue wrong. (And all the commenters here, and the aforementioned groups keep driving and reinforcing it.)

      • Matthew R Marler

        John Carter: And the proprietor of this site, who is riding the coattails of a solidarity issue, and keeps getting the issue wrong. (And all the commenters here, and the aforementioned groups keep driving and reinforcing it.)

        That doesn’t make any sense.

  37. Juith, welcome home. Your sea ice posts were fascinating. Your responses to warmunist counters/detractors more so. If that is what you can do with severe jet lag, I would not want to debate you when fresh. Nicely done.
    The tide is definitely turning, and you and climate etc have been a big part of it. You and Richard Lindzen are true climate scientists.

    • > The tide is definitely turning …

      I wish I could believe it … this comment does not imply Judith C has not been courageous in her defence of objective, rational analyses, only that irrationality is indeed a very difficult beast to tame. Susceptibility to irrational fear is highly contagious, as the warmista know very well, and it is a very long way off being beaten back

      • @ianl8888

        Can’t speak for everybody else, but for myself, and several scientists whose work I am familiar with, who use the word as a term of art, I don’t “fear” cc in the least. And they don’t. Diff; from being greatly concerned, for logical reasons and objective assessment.

        The “fear”: thing is another sort of red herring used to simply dismiss the relevant analysis, and help perpetuate the false idea that concern over a geologically radical alteration of the atmosphere is not rational, but dismissal of it, is.

        The real fear, and it tends to be highly correlated (studies keep showing, anyway) with strong “conservatism” and even more, with authoritarianism (at least libertarians, once they get a great grasp of the facts, if not zealots, can start to change their perspective on CC) is both fear of change, and fear of a wildly myopically presumed macroeconomic harm.

        Both of these are irrational. And incorrect. But apparently not recognize, nor how much fear, in multiple forms, is driving so much anti climate change science zealotry and sentiment.

      • Matthew R Marler

        John Carter: Can’t speak for everybody else, but for myself, and several scientists whose work I am familiar with, who use the word as a term of art, I don’t “fear” cc in the least. And they don’t. Diff; from being greatly concerned, for logical reasons and objective assessment.

        What is your assessment of the effects of climate change to date, since the end of the Little Ice Age? How about the likely future effects of future CO2?

        The real fear, and it tends to be highly correlated (studies keep showing, anyway) with strong “conservatism” and even more, with authoritarianism (at least libertarians, once they get a great grasp of the facts, if not zealots, can start to change their perspective on CC) is both fear of change, and fear of a wildly myopically presumed macroeconomic harm.

        Whatever is that about?

    • Rud,
      I was delighted that Kobo carried your new book, Blowing Smoke:
      http://store.kobobooks.com/en-CA/ebook/blowing-smoke-3
      Just got it last night.
      I’ve read Arts of Truth, which was available on Kobo,(Gaia’s Limits was not) and it was a very worthwhile read
      cheers
      brent

      • Brent, glad you liked Arts. Gaia’s Limits was published before Kobo. It is available at Apple iBooks, Amazon Kindle, or B&N Nook. You can download a Kindle app to any computer platform to read it. Necessarily a Bit of a data slog. Blowing Smoke is more of a fun set of reads, parts guest posted here previously. Regards

  38. You ought to have better things to spend your time on Judith than most of those people. Alas.

    I’m looking forward to your accounts of the orient.

  39. “The Australian has a superb article by Graham Lloyd…” -JC

    The same Graham Lloyd who’s been writng utter nonsense on station temp adjustments in Australia.

    Ideology holds sway at The Oz.

    • “utter nonsense”? How about some links proving it?

      • AK,

        Lloyd had similar article years ago – same premise, just a different straw to clutch at.

        I don’t blame Judith for thinking this was something – i’m sure that she had no idea that Lloyd has ben singing the same tune for years.

        It’s groundhog day…again, at The Oz.

      • No links I see.

      • AK,

        The Oz has,thankfully, hidden most of its stuff behind the paywall.

        Continuing on the theme of GroundHog day…..Lloyd wheels Michael Asten out again, for a reliably predictable – ‘it’s-all-wrong-so-nothing-to-worry-about’.

        Asten has been on-call to trot out the same old stuff for years. It’s typically spectacularly wrong.

        This time Graham opts for a more sublte angle.

        First it’s;
        “momentum is building behind the controversial view that the numbers don’t add up”
        then
        “A rising chorus of literature in the world’s best scientific journals and most prestigious opinion pages has argued the climate change math is flawed”
        and
        “For climate scientists, irritating questions from “sceptics” about the “pause” have now become peer-reviewed papers…”
        which is the intro for Michael Asten as the first quote for the article.

        The casual reader might well think they are then geting an opinion from one of these “rising chorus of…..climate scientists”.

        Maybe if Graham has made clear that Asten’s expertise is……mineral exploration…..the reader might be in a better place to contextualise what comes next;
        “While opinions on causes differ, existence of the pause is settled; only activists dare claim the pause in global temperature does not exist,” – Asten.

        Ah, damn those ‘activists’.

        Though I did enjoy Grahams attmepts some years back to protect us from the vey harmful health effects of low-frequency noise from those stanic mills (AKA wind turbines).

        The Oz – different day, same cr@p.

      • Jennifer Marohasy has been whipping the BOM for its adjustments for a while now.

        She is somewhat critical of the lies and deceit of the environmental movement (they do lie and deceive).

        I did look at a BOM adjustment of a station a couple of years ago and they added 0.8°C during station moves, for no particular reason, compared to surrounding stations showed no change in temperature.

        I believe the homogenization and pasteurization of land temperatures to make them politically safe is a bad idea.

      • Inconveniently for Jennifer, adjustments down are also made.

      • “adjustments down are also made”

        Yes. The old “Yes, I shoplifted, but I also paid for stuff” argument.

        Andrew

      • Andrew seems to be arguing that the only adjustment that is valid is down??

    • No, the same Graham Lloyd who has shown documentary evidence, such as long-term station records, which show how BoM has distorted reality. The BoM has, I believe, been forced to backtrack, to reconsider its “adjustment” processes and to be more transparent about them. Lloyd of course was the reporter rather than the instigator, blame others for producing records which contradicted the BoM’s adjusted data.

    • “Andrew seems to be arguing…”

      Only if you are a mindless Warmer.

      Andrew

  40.  
    There still exists a huge government-education bureaucracy driven to forever be unreasonable. What motive could there be?

  41. Pingback: Red Cross trashes alarmist cause … | pindanpost

  42. Another illogical statement by @jcurry

    “We have very little justification (and no demonstrated skill so far) for predicting the climate of the 21st century.”

    ______

    Come on followers of Curry, THINK.

    Predicting the general long term climate range – WHICH IS WHAT THE ISSUE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALL ABOUT – is remarkably different than being able to precisely model over a shorter periods the exact path of change. (Which would be a little ridiculous to do, but the more we try, the more we learn, and we use models to try and quantify, and people can relate more easily, than to complex multi range concepts.)

    THINK.

    @jcurry writes op eds for the WSJ, and testifies before the U.S. Congress, and makes these kinds of statements.

    THINK.

    There is a supreme bias here, driving it, and I’ve pointed it out many times, and @jcurry simply ignores it.

    The fact is, most people really don’t know what the actual climate change issue is, let alone know a lot of detailed, accurate information about it, so all these strong “opinions” – most at odds with the the assertions of the scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue – is another indicator that bias and desire and an enormous host of misinformation drives perception on this issue. And with a lot of support from it, it’s driving @jcurry, who ought to know better.

    • Steven Mosher

      “There is a supreme bias here, driving it, and I’ve pointed it out many times, and @jcurry simply ignores it.”

      The best explanation is that you are wrong.

      • The supreme bias is… not seeing dowsing as legitimate science. People who believe in the scientific method narrow-mindedly refuse to accept the witching rod.

      • @SM

        “The best explanation is that you are wrong.”

        That’s actually the worst explanation. Read the comment you are responding to, and THINK. If you did that, you would begin to see this from that alone. Curry misconstrues the issue, as well as what it is really based upon.

        Not to mention, that with that explanation that I am wrong, automatically comes the attachment that almost all of the world’s leading scientists in a directly related discipline who professionally study this issue are also wrong.

        And Curry, who gets the issue wrong, who erroneously thinks that climate change is a linear and contemporaneous response, who completely misconstrues what the “pause” actually is as well as it’s relevance, is right.

        The best explanation is that your response enables the perpetuation of the same “belief” on this issue – both reflected and somewhat insularly self reinforced here – that I am talking about in the first place.

      • John Carter

        I replied to a comment of yours on the other thread this morning. Look forward to your reply.

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#comment-638948
        tonyb

      • Perhaps even more importantly regarding Curry’s statement, while we may not be able to precisely predict, contrary to what Curry’s position on this issue supports (and her statement here implies as well),and what the crux of the issue is all about:

        We have a LOT of reason to know that the Climate of the 21st century is likely to change in a way that is statistically outside of the norm, and likely to represent change in a direction that will vastly, and increasingly, impact our world.

        The bias here is a simple refusal to accept this, and an attempt to wrangle around with various ways to seemingly refute it, with each one more illogical, more irrelevant, more issue misconstruing, or more misrepresentative, than the last. Such as turning the “pause” into some sort of important refutation, or great mitigation of, the the basic climate change theory – see middle part: http://theworldofairaboveus.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-crux-of-climate-change-issue-and.html

        So when Curry says “We have very little justification … for predicting the climate of the 21st century,” to the extent this refers to the idea of generally predicting a likelihood of a certain range of change, it is an extremely reckless or, more likely (and ironically enough, given all the “study” on this issue) ill informed or ill thought out statement.

      • John Carter
        “The bias here is a simple refusal to accept this, and an attempt to wrangle around with various ways to seemingly refute it, with each one more illogical, more irrelevant, more issue misconstruing, or more misrepresentative, than the last. Such as turning the “pause” into some sort of important refutation, or great mitigation of, the the basic climate change theory – see middle part:”

        “Sigh”.
        1. CO2 has existed naturally at over 17.5 times (1750%) of the current level or 25 times (2500%) of the alarmists 280 PPM gold standard.

        2. 280 PPM is dangerously close to the starvation level (200 PPM) for plants where they simply stop growing. People who claim 280 PPM is a useful target for CO2 are deluded or misinformed.

        3. The warmers were right for about 17 years and have been wrong for 17 years – on average the warmers are at best 1/2 right.

        4. The claims of possible 800+ CO2 levels (“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that recent … concentrations to reach about 940 ppm by 2100”) are simply lies. There is no way short of a asteroid or volcanic disaster, to get the CO2 level which is trending toward 577 PPM, to be higher than 600 PPM by 2100, if ever.

        Where does this leave us? 3.5°C is the IPCC best guess (it seems to vary between 3.5 and 4). We will use 4°C. The IPCC overestimates CO2 net forcing effect by at least a factor of 2. The IPCC overestimates CO2 levels massively and there will be at worst 1/2 of a doubling of CO2.

        4°C * 1/2 * 1/2 = 1°C. 1°C is as bad as it is going to get and is a useful number for planning purposes.

        The period since 1900 has featured 0.4°-1.0°C depending on who you believe or which adjusted data set you use. Since 1900 the natural plant growth rate has increased 50% and even CSIRO says the deserts are blooming.

        CAGW enthusiasts are in the uncomfortable position of having to claim that while 1°C of warming has provably benefited the planet, 1°C further warming in the 21st century will be an unmitigated disaster. The burden of proof for the CAGW claim of harm has not been met.

      • PA, even a conservative average of 3 ppm per year gets us to 650 ppm by 2100, and then you add the 20-30% net effect of other GHGs and aerosols which brings it up to the 800-900 ppm CO2-equivalent range, where you are now talking about the RCP6 scenario. That is a scenario of weak or failed mitigation.

      • ““Sigh”.
        1. CO2 has existed naturally at over 17.5 times (1750%) of the current level or 25 times (2500%) of the alarmists 280 PPM gold standard.

        2. 280 PPM is dangerously close to the starvation level (200 PPM) for plants where they simply stop growing. People who claim 280 PPM is a useful target for CO2 are deluded or misinformed.”

        _____

        Making things up – or posting things that are completely irrelevant to the issue and actually believing they are relevant (such as no 1 above in particular, – I mean DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IS RELEVANT? If you do please desist from even having an “opinion on this topic, let alone commenting, because you don;t know the basics of the issue), or grabbing them from sources that have all but made them up because it fits the above described agenda, is a great way to perpetuate,, and in fact self seal, belief:

        http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/161-self-sealing-argument

        Though the above commenter will probably read that in a self sealing fashion.

        As for the claim that “warmists’ hav been “right” for 17 years and wrong for 17 years, this misconstrues the issue far worse than Curry does. READ THIS PIECE. Yeah, I wrote it, but the support – and there are dozens of links – from the world’s leading science organizations. NOT hard core anti fossil fuel response think tank funded organizations. Or armchair ideologue scientists from other disciples, the rare few out of many who join the fear of macroeconomic,energy and agricultural transformation, change in general, and don’t understand the issue and self reinforce the mistake.

      • ‘Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
        Paul Ehrlich,

        Social and economic transformation is something to be deeply mistrustful of. Energy innovation – cheap and abundant energy is the goal. As is rational social and development policy in which environmental goals have their place. There is a stark choice between policies of failure and despair – and the positive policies we offer for humanity and the environment.

      • JimD, carbon sinks appear to be rising exponentially (with a lag) commensurately with estimated human emissions.

        I’ve read plenty of times in the past about “carbon sinks saturating”, but there seems to be no evidence.

        It seems laughable that people are fretting about the “climate sensitivity” of a CO2 doubling when that looks increasingly hard to achieve.

      • michael hart, that may be, but as the emission rate rises, the equilibrium level where they balance rises too, and we are well below the equilibrium level even for the current emission rate.

      • On John Carters climate blog where the posts are so long, etymologists are working on a more extreme saying several orders of magnitude beyond “verbal diarrhea”.

        Below is a nugget of his superior THINK

        For instance, in the Eastern Atlantic Seaboard, temperatures are moderately cold during winter months. Yet jet 3000 miles west, …… (the West Coast of the U.S.A…………the winters tend to stay temperate; largely due to warmer ocean currents, which also highlight the importance of ocean temperature on climate.

        I can’t wait to throw away my wetsuit and swim in the balmy warmth of the California Current. Those east coasties are oh so jealous swimming in the freezing Gulf Stream.

        Thanks John Carter!

      • Jim D October 19, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        “PA, even a conservative average of 3 ppm per year gets us to 650 ppm by 2100, and then you add the 20-30% net effect of other GHGs and aerosols which brings it up to the 800-900 ppm CO2-equivalent range, where you are now talking about the RCP6 scenario. That is a scenario of weak or failed mitigation.”

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
        Week beginning on October 12, 2014: 395.56 ppm
        Weekly value from 1 year ago: 393.60 ppm
        Weekly value from 10 years ago: 374.23 ppm

        Time for math.
        395.56-393.6 = 1.96 PPM/year
        395.56-374.23 = 21.33 PPM/decade (2.13 PPM/year).

        In September the rate was 1.77 PPM/year.

        So a conservative estimate is 2 PPM per year or less not 3 or more. The higher pCO2 concentration in the air – the greater the rate of diffusion (since the rate is dependent on the concentration differential) into sinks and conversion to biomass.

        Methane has a 9 year lifetime and just doesn’t build up much in the atmosphere. It doesn’t look like CO2 has a long lifetime either and 5-15 year estimates from studies seem to be in the ball park.

        Further – we are at 400 PPM and the world is wonderful. The amount of time to get to 400 from a higher level is pretty trivial. About 1.6 times as much “excess” CO2 is being absorbed by the environment, than is staying in the atmosphere. So the CO2 level will go down much faster than it went up.

        Oh, and 2 * 85 = 170 or a 570 PPM 2100 CO2 level. Now, even that isn’t a conservative estimate – since we will be using different energy technologies in 2100 than we are today. China will hit peak coal in 2030 and there just isn’t a feasible way to keep increasing CO2 emissions to the level needed to maintain a 2 PPM annual CO2 increase.

      • Steven Mosher

        John

        you are wrong

        “And Curry, who gets the issue wrong, who erroneously thinks that climate change is a linear and contemporaneous response”

        She thinks the opposite.

        Look.
        you cant read
        have havent read
        you dont get the science

      • Steven Mosher

        John Carter

        ‘A while back, University of Alabama at Huntsville Scientist Roy Spencer managed to get a study published under an implicit theory that “clouds drive climate,” rather than also serve as a response to it.

        Wrong.

        His argument is not that clouds DRIVE climate change.

        you cant read.

      • Steven Mosher

        John Carter

        ‘ And these ice sheets are also now melting: And melting at an accelerating rate, at both ends of the earth.”

        Wrong.

      • PA, current rates are 2.5 ppm per year and increasing. If you think 2 ppm going forwards is good, welcome to the world of mitigation. There is a hope of reducing emissions by 20% in the next decade or so, back below 30 GtCO2/yr, and that may get us to 2 ppm/yr again. You are talking mitigation scenarios here. It won’t just happen without mitigation. A lot of your people are very upset about being asked to reduce 20% even over a decade. You should tell them how easy it is to emit at 30 GtCO2/yr and see how that goes. They will say you are trying to collapse the global economy or something.

      • That’s what i was thinking, but Mr Carter isn’t exactly the clearest of writers, so it makes it tougher to conclude he’s wrong when one can’t determine what he’s saying.

      • PA, how are you going to get billions of people out of poverty in this century, if they are going to rely primarily on fossil fuels for economic growth, and not dramatically increase CO2 emissions?

      • @PA,

        @Howard
        What, to be able to persist in so called “climate skepticism,” did you scour my blog (not even the piece linked to) to see if you could pull out some mistake, irrelevant to the actual issue, used to suggest a tangential point?

        I’m sure I could find a few too. It’s a blog. But let’s see, vetted scientific journal papers, they pretty much all support the central points you will find therein, and the data comes from leading science institutions and organizations,and those directly involved in the research, not some professor somewhere in Washington State who takes the data and simply changes it and then it is dispersed to about 50 million people through 10,000 channels and quasi new ideological sites, and 10m comments on the Internet in various forms as new “truth.”

        Yet no vetted science journal papers actually support the notion – apart from the separate but conflated idea of various specific uncertainties – that the underlying “theory” of a a significant shift in climate from a significant net input of energy to the earth lower atmosphere system of time, is wrong or even sketchy.

        But you found a tangential assumption on my blog buried deep in one of the earlier pages, so, yay! Climate change not real or significant, or suggestions I make here – all backed by most of the world’s leading climate scientists (as well as logic) fly out the window.

        Congratulations. You’ve found another way to continue the self reinforcing process of a false belief, by focusing on that which doesn’t really go to the underpinning of the belief itself. Thereby helping you ignore points such as the one just made above, about papers, so long as we’re scouring sources, published in leading, vetted, Science journals. I’m sure, just as “Carter wrong because I found a mistake on his blog somewhere!” you find a way to dismiss that fact as well, and in fact all that get in the way of true “climate change” skepticism, which is the basic nature of it.

        Let’s also contrast that with the direct claim by some climate skeptics that much of the warming is due to “ocean heat.” If warming is due to ocean heat, not ocean heat via more atmospheric re radiation as well as more directly through atmospheric re radiation, then the oceans would have to be cooling if more heat was leaving. Ocean heat comes from the atmosphere, so if heat was being lost, they would be cooling. They are warming. Geologically, at a very rapid rate. Which means they are pulling more heat out of the air – a lot more – than they emit back.

        The basic point and the one relevant to climate change, is still relevant – oceans still have an enormous moderating effect on temperature over time (though if there is a huge increase or decrease in re radiated atmospheric heat it is going to then affect the oceans initially). So if oceans continue to rise in heat, and the atmosphere continues to trap a much higher amount of heat (let alone, as GG levels continue to rise, more and more of it) current air temperatures don’t come close to representing a stases condition, and can’t.

      • Joseph | October 20, 2014 at 4:34 pm |
        PA, how are you going to get billions of people out of poverty in this century, if they are going to rely primarily on fossil fuels for economic growth, and not dramatically increase CO2 emissions?

        Uhhh, just why would we want to stop CO2 emissions?

        CO2 isn’t pollution and at the practical levels we can drive it too I’m not sure there is any risk of negative effects. The 20th century had a 50% increase in plant growth and that’s a benefit.

        Most of the emitted CO2 (9.8 carbon Gt/year) is going into the ocean at the poles (90+ carbon Gt/year) where the pCO2 effective concentration is about a 1/3 of the atmospheric level (I could look it up for a better number). The drift speed at the bottom of the ocean is cm/s. I see numbers in the 5-10 range. Upwelling CO2 (about 6 carbon Gt less than goes in at the poles) at the equator is from the time of Jesus or earlier (for 10 cm/s the time delay is about 3170 years). The time delay makes the ocean virtually an infinite sink. I welcome input from professional oceanographers on the mean time delay between absorption and emission since this isn’t my area of expertise.

        I can’t tell at this point who is right about CO2 forcing plus feedback but right now the low enders are winning. Until we get better data – knee jerk panic driven policies will have the same impact knee jerk panic driven policies usually have, and this is something to be avoided.

      • I am glad you are willing to admit that we can’t move the developing world out of poverty (relying on fossil fuels) without increasing CO2 emissions. Your opinion on the effect of those emissions is practically worthless.

    • The issue of climate change dogma is about the decarbonisation cause being slowly hung out to dry. The supreme bias belongs to the defenders of the cause while the bulk of the misinformation is in fact being pedalled by them, fuelled by recurrent grants which now looks like drying up as well.

      • “The issue of climate change dogma is about the decarbonisation cause being slowly hung out to dry. The supreme bias belongs to the defenders of the cause while the bulk of the misinformation is in fact being pedalled by them, fueled by recurrent grants which now looks like drying up as well.”

        This is accurate.

        And pigs fly.

        As for seeing what one believes, the thing about science is to remove as much of that as possible, and to work to see, to draw conclusions from observation and analysis, not the other way around.

        IT is exactly the other way around that largely drives this site, and which drives almost all of the massive misinformation on this issue. Example after example after example is given, and the same process of seeing what one wants to see,continues.

        Thus, John Cook’s reasonably even handed and often understated site,skeptical science, which gives example after example after example – based upon the actual science, and vetted science papers – of the multiple fundamental myths that drive the great bulk (if not to some extent, ALL) climate change naysaying, is thus dismissed (and Cook himself – see some of the other anti climate change sites, for instance – repeatedly denigrated) . so a person can thus continue to see what they believe, or want or feel they need, very much to believe.

        http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/alabama_state_officials_we_wont_comply_with_the_epa_because_god_gave_us_coal/
        As just one example, fueling (no pun intended) massive support, easy on such a complex futuristic multi dimensional probability range complex strategic assessment requiring issue, for misinformation, misconstruction, and excessive rhetoric passed off as science and logic.

      • the bulk of the misinformation is in fact being pedalled by them, fuelled by recurrent grants which now looks like drying up as well.

        Are you saying that the very large majority of climate scientists who accept AGW are promoting “misinformation” rather than actual science? Who really believes this? Why should anyone believe this? It’s getting close to the AGW is a hoax meme.

      • John Carter Cook | October 19, 2014 at 12:45 pm

        Example after example after example is given,

        And it only takes a single example to prove it all wrong(hint follow the url in my name).

        Thus, John Cook’s reasonably even handed and often understated site,skeptical science,

        LOL

    • John Carter, people, being people, will see what they believe.
      And nobody is immune to that particular bias – not scientists, not me, and not you.

    • OK, we’re getting close. ‘a supreme bias’. In 20 words or less, what is that bias?
      ==========

      • People’s propensity to see what they believe

      • …and to not see what they don’t believe

      • Well, yeah, but I was wondering about the ‘supreme bias’ that John detects here, and in Judy. I can tell you my perception of John’s bias. He has bowed to mistaken authority and is needlessly frightened.
        ===================

      • I think I just inadvertently proved my own point …

      • Every time I start to see my biases clearly, the kaleidoscope turns again.
        ============

      • World disasters are down – fewest catastrophies and deaths in 10 years – but, the amount would lower with less AGW.

      • “OK, we’re getting close. ‘a supreme bias’. …what is that bias?”

        That we cant much affect the natural world. That the earth adjusts for us, rather than vice versa, so major gg changes and the huge increase of lower atmospheric/earth energy input will self regulate in a way conducive to our evolution and not ultimately reflect the new energy balance irrespective of us. That the economy depends on fossil fuel and not our own industry. That our legislative response to the problem will be bad, so, since it’s an abstract one that we can’t really see or feel anyway, there is instead probably just no real problem.

        “He has bowed to mistaken authority and is needlessly frightened.”

        You are talking about the wrong person, to put it mildly, but this is the assessment that need be made, to continue perpetuating the same self reinforcing belief on this issue, and memes to dismiss legitimate scientific concerns and claims by leading scientists,as simple misplaced “alarmism” or other.

        On the second part of the two, however, if by “frightened,” you mean “concerned” or “caring,” than yes. If you mean frightened, than no.

        I do think a lot of people are frightened, actually frightened, or fearful of, both change, the idea of transforming our economy, and of macroeconomic affect, based, not upon pretty basic science that is easy to castigate if there’s an underlying (and on this massive misinformation issue CONSTANTLY REINFORCED) need or desire, since it can’t be fully “proven” until after the fact, but upon wild assumption- on yet another subject (economics) that people are much less conceptually adept at than they implicitly presume – regarding future macroeconomic progress and transformation

        Somewhat akin to bees that ultimately perish, because to a partially open but crystal clean window which they can’t see, they keep flying into the glass.

        So, somewhat similarly, we believe, that to “progress” (and turning the term into an oxymoron) we need to harm our world (from our perspective anyway,when it comes to radical climate shifts, and often from any perspective, when it comes to a lot of pollutants and excess and often ultimately needless carcinogens), and since we DONT want to NOT progress, we argue that we are not really harming our world. (Or giving ourselves cancer. Or for years that the absolutely crap food we ate was good for us. Or that air pollution we can’t see is irrelevant to the quality of our existence until, like in China, we can literally see and feel it.)

        And easy to self delude on – harsh as that term is – on this issue of climate change, most of all, and,most ironic of all, because it represents a pretty massive potential change, that people are STILL not getting bc it is an abstract “air” and more geologic time frame oriented,, complex, and until well after the fact, largely hidden, thing.

      • So three ‘supreme biases’ in less than 2,000 words. I’ll stick with ‘bowed to mistaken authority and needlessly frightened.’
        =================

      • I can tell you my perception of John’s bias. He has bowed to mistaken authority and is needlessly frightened.

        I think his supreme bias is that he needs to be frightened.

    • John Carter – “the scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue” have gut feelings. Even they know they don’t have proof that meets the traditional standards of science.

      • “””John Carter – “the scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue” have gut feelings. Even they know they don’t have proof that meets the traditional standards of science.”””

        I think a BIG part of the problem (maybe almost all of it) that drives the misconstruction of this issue so desired is the failure to adequately assess exactly what the issue is, and integrate that into a coherent framework analytical assessment.

        The issue is not about “PROOF>” We don’t know what will happen, nor can we. We can now with a high to extremely high degree of probability that the climate will shift in a significant to radical way. That is very different from proof, and requires a completely different analysis of the issue.

        There is only one earth. No sister or “Control” earth”s. No history of a similar course on an otherwise identical planet (or many) with one of the variables controlled for, etc. Climate is a powerful long term expression of inputted energy, that over the short run (~50 years, ~150 years, ~10 years, depending on context) is extremely hard to pinpoint. Thrustin an enormou external forcing of a geologically major magnitude upon it, is even more so.

        Yet on these sites (and in the media, and even by a few semi related scientists who kinda keep an eye on the issue or are semi involved) treat it as if it is some sort of both immediate, and linear, contemporaneous correlation between increased lower level atmospheric re radiation, and increased (or changed) global ambient air temperatures, which is absurd, and belies any real deep understanding of the actual issue.

        Amazing yet how so many are an “expert” on this issue such as to have such a zealous opinion, and don’t even really know what the issue is about.
        (This includes Curry, who should know better, but clearly doesn’t., and has become swept alone in the solidarity entrenching tide against “the man” (irony of ironies, since the most profound basis for that tide is severe authoritarianism and reactionaryism)

        Point being, that, not to sound like Peter Sellers in “Dr. Strangelove” (rent it if you haven’t seen it, it’s kinda brilliant and hilarious), THE WHOLE POINT IS that it can’t be proven until after the fact. That does’t mean the risk, which is wholly different concept, is not real, highly significant, and high.

      • @kim

        “I have read John Carter ’til my eyes bleed(no, I have no fever), and I haven’t figured out what he means by ‘supreme bias’, despite his telling me numerous times.”

        Are you sure you don’t have Ebola?

        Have explained it, read, but maybe, I don’t know, maybe, just maybe, like most people with strong opinions on this issue YOU ARE NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, OR CUT OUT TO BE ONE.

        @andrew

        Good comment. I still hope Manziel goes somewhere that he gets to play, you know, just to see. (by the way, click on name link, It was a stupid call, but I wrote the Jags were gonna upset the Browns. Voila.)

      • John Carter,

        In your opinion, given the progress to date, do think that a total expenditure of 30 billion dollars on so called climate science, for no results to date – no breakthroughs, no predictive ability, no benefit to mankind – was a better use of funds than, say, trying to find a prophylactic for Ebola, or even a cure?

        Or is throwing away scarce resources on complete and utter nonsense to be greatly admired and even emulated by populations with demonstrably more sanity?

        Waste your own money. I can look after my own. How do you know I am not wiser, or even more intelligent than you, in this regard? Warmists have faith and assumptions. I don’t believe I have to be part of their fantasy. Worship the Warm in your own time, at your own expense, if you would be so kind.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Kim,

        Are you sure you don’t have Ebola?

        He gets the joke, but still doesn’t get it. Very amusing.

      • John Carter says:
        The issue is not about “PROOF>” We don’t know what will happen, nor can we. We can now with a high to extremely high degree of probability that the climate will shift in a significant to radical way. That is very different from proof, and requires a completely different analysis of the issue.
        *****

        We don’t know what will happen, but we are highly certain we know there will be a shift in a radical way. Hmmm ….

      • The issue is not about “PROOF>” We don’t know what will happen, nor can we. We can (k)now with a high to extremely high degree of probability that the climate will shift in a significant to radical way. That is very different from proof, and requires a completely different analysis of the issue.

        *****

        We don’t know what will happen, but we are highly certain we know there will be a shift in a radical way. Hmmm ….

        ———–

        You know, is it just possible that most people aren’t good scientists, and yet are formulating opinions as if they are?

        The above also wildly misconstrues. “We don;t know what will happen is consistent with the idea of a high risk of very significant climate shift, but the commenter, missing the entire point, phrases it the opposite. That is the whole point on this. IT is a risk range.

        It is also not 100% that the ultimate change falls into that risk range. =- depending on how wide or how narrow, ( as well as what time frames) are used.

        Given those two, if “we don’t know what will happen” refers to “We don’t know exactly what will happen, but that there is a range or risks – then it is not only true, IT HAS TO BE>

        That is the whole point of risk.

        This subject is complex, and the analyses even more complex, as it not only involves the direct science involved but the concept of variation, probabilities, and ranges (and types) of shifts over time.

        Yet we have commenters – most – commenting on it who don’t understand this (or don’t want ot, or their skepticism is getting in the way of even being able to intelligently entertain the idea) yet who are profession opinions routinely on this site as if they have more knowledge on the subject than the world’s leading climate scientists, or are simply better scientists than them.

        Yet don’t understand what a probability of a risk range actually means. Let alone why on this issue we couldn’t begin to know precisely how much and along what time line global climate will precisely shift, nor know why that is consistent with the issue itself given what the actual problem is. Most don’t even know that (the actual problem) either.

        In short,, though simplified, its the confusion of non certainty of an outcome with belief therefore that there is no relevant knowledge about the range of outcomes, or that that knowledge can not support the existence of a problem or challenge that would be highly counterproductive to not address. Which is remarkably illogical.

        And which, at its core, if seemingly complicated on this issue (and highly colored by non recognized bias, ideological belief, conflation of the topic with fear of redress, and a remarkable sea of misinformation) is about as basic a mistake as can be made. And it drives (or at least serves as a vehicle for, including by @jcurry) much of climate change “skepticism.”

        And, though not simplified, but also in short, most people DON”T understand the issue. This, from the many posts I’ve read here, includes Curry (although not as much as many, as she has a lot of detailed info but doesn’t really understand what the issue IS). And I’d go through the posts and show why in a detailed analysis, with substantial support if it could be read by more than 15 people (and ideally our U.S. Congress); while Curry in the meantime is testifying before the U.S. Congress (along with many other who are misinformed, because our congress reflect us, in an increasing sea of rhetoric and talk radio information we are electing less and less qualified individuals, and they call in “experts” that support their biases and beliefs, that mirror ours in society).

    • I have read John Carter ’til my eyes bleed(no, I have no fever), and I haven’t figured out what he means by ‘supreme bias’, despite his telling me numerous times.
      =================

      • Kim

        When John Carter says supreme bias he means someone else’s bias, bias that he doesn’t like. Hs own bias he likes just fine. The difference between his bias and my bias is that his bias takes up more blog space.

      • John C is certainly biased in favour of the AGW hypothesis being true but I doubt if he could quantify the extent to which natural variability contributes to the measured increases in global warming over the past 50 years. So far there has been no work on this apart from that of very few dedicated souls with no axe to grind.

    • Look!… On The Internet!… It’s!…

      Johnny Climateball­™

      Andrew

    • Perhaps the er …cart before the force.
      The Vostok proxies suggest a different story to that of
      the control knob modelling narrative.
      http://www.co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php

  43. Pierre-Normand

    Judith Curry wrote: “Yes lets use dubious paleo estimates to falsify estimates from the relatively reliable instrumental record, and also lets forget that climate sensitivity is state dependent.”

    I thought the paleo-climate based estimates of climate sensitivity actually were accounting for the global ice albedo part of state dependency. I couldn’t comment because I don’t know enough about the topic. However I just read this comment by Joel D. Shore on WUWT:

    “More importantly, these estimates allow us to estimate the warming that occurs with each W/m^2 of forcing….with that value somewhere around 0.75 C per (W/m^2). And, this, along with the universally agreed-upon forcing of ~4 W/m^2 per CO2 doubling leads to the conclusion that the climate sensitivity is somewhere around 3 C per doubling. In fact, as Hansen points out, this is the forcing one obtains if one assumes that albedo changes due to ice changes are a forcing rather than a feedback. Since they play the role of a feedback in our current climate “experiment”, the actual sensitivity could be higher…Hansen thought perhaps even about double that…although hopefully that is not true in our current climate state when there is not that much ice to melt.”

    So, Judith may have a point. If one makes proper account of the state dependency of climate sensitivity, then the paleo-climate estimates usually quoted are overly conservative. It may be reasonable to expect ECS to be somewhat larger than 3°C/CO2 doubling (as a center estimate).

    • Thanks P-N. I can hardly wait until JC and her team here grasp this amusing point about the ‘dubious’ paleoclimate estimates (read: Mann’s damned hockey stick). Which card will they play? Will they deny the universality of ~4W/m^2 per 2xCO2? Will they go ‘but, Hansen!’ Or will it be ‘but, ‘hide the decline!’ (which Judy already seems to have played, really, but it’s such a popular card).

    • There are so many different sensitivities that keeping track with all gets cumbersome.

      ECS is normally defined to exclude effects of changes in albedo from shrinking ice and snow cover. A separate sensitivity ESS (Equilibrium Systen Sensitivity) includes those as well as feedbacks.

      When we consider sensitivities like ESS (and also ECS) we must remember that they are theoretical concepts that assume constant CO2 concentration over very long periods, but constant CO2 concentrations at elevated levels are not a credible future. In reality we have first increasing concentrations and then decreasing. Both are likely to occur during a time span shorter than getting very close to the equilibrium would take. For that reason one more sensitivity has been added to the palette: TCRE (Transient Climate Response to Emissions), which relates the peak temperature to the cumulative total of emissions. TCRE is perhaps the most relevant for estimating the future of the Earth climate.

      • Ya – these are all theoretical formulations that can never be measured.

        The suspicious mind believes that the IPCC is now shy from making predictions/projections/estimate that involve actual temperatures because when they last did ( IPCC4 ) they got burned with the 0.2C decadal rate and the low end 1.8 C century rate.

        I don’t have much use for TCRs or ECSs or even the RF which is also a theoretical but not measurable.

  44. “Lucia notes the inconsistency in a post Lew: Curry’s paper suggests LESS uncertainty not MORE!” As I posted at Lucia’s site, the incongruity of Lewandowsky’s post is great enough that I just wonder if he mixed up your post with Steve Koonin’s – especially because I think you have expressed views agreeing with Koonin’s as well. That would be pretty funny.

    Of course, his post quotes your article, which seems to spoil my scenario, but that could be the other author grabbing a quote without either one really thinking about it…

    • Pierre-Normand

      This narrowing of the sensitivity range still is inconsistent with an anthropogenic attribution of the warming since 1950 that is lower than 50%. In order to reconcile her claims about 20th century warming attributions with the Lewis&Curry paper, Judith has to dismiss the L&C result and maintain her endorsement of a wider uncertainty range.

      • I thought she was fairly clear about this anyhow. She doesn’t (necessarily) believe in climate sensitivities, she’s into Stadium Waves and other stuff, but this paper was an attempt to show what result the IPCC should have gotten had they done the math correctly. If you trust the IPCC’s assumptions, use this sensitivity instead of theirs.

      • Heh, the sensitivity to anthropogenic fear is plummeting, and has the potential of being shown to be negative.

      • Much ado about sensitivity:

        http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2014/10/much-ado-about-sensitivity.html

        miker613 will copy-paste Judy’s arguments at James’ in a moment.

      • Lewis and Curry carefully chose baseline periods around 1940 and 1870 that were at peaks of natural variability. If they had done a linear fit to the whole record (as we saw with Lovejoy for example) they would have found transient sensitivities more in line with the IPCC range. It wasn’t as objective as they try to make it seem.

      • “miker613 will copy-paste Judy’s arguments at James’ in a moment.” Why? I follow Annan; it’s been clear for a long time that he agrees that sensitivity estimates need to come down, and he says so here too. He is “deeply unimpressed” with the way the climate scientist community is dealing with the Pause, and has always said that too.
        As usual, I am happy when climate scientists stick to climate science. I will take care of mitigation/adaptation decisions myself, thank you.

        I don’t really understand what you have been doing recently, Willard. What is the point of jumping on people involved in an argument and shouting, “Aha – just caught you making an argument!” Do you do the same to those who agree with you? Do you do the same with what you are doing yourself? It doesn’t come across to me as a position of strength, but as a move of desperation.

      • > it’s been clear for a long time that he agrees that sensitivity estimates need to come down,

        It’s also been clear for a long time that James finds Lewis’ work underwhelming. Speaking of which, the article ends up with:

        Finally, it is also amusing to see Judith “we don’t know anything” Curry to put her name to this new paper: it is unclear what she might have added, as Nic has been presenting analyses of this nature for some time now. But that’s a minor matter.

        Too minor for miker613 to copy-paste it here, no doubt.

        But then we hear lots of good things about traceability.

      • > It wasn’t as objective as they try to make it seem.

        This hints at a related point made by James elsewhere:

        Nic uses the emotionally appealing terminology of “objective probability” for this method. I don’t blame him for this (he didn’t invent it) but I do wonder whether many people have been seduced by the language without understanding what it actually does.

        http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/objective-probability-or-automatic.html

      • I thought there was no such thing as completely objective in Bayesian statistics. However, James has railed against the use of uniform priors as not a good choice.

      • “It’s also been clear for a long time that James finds Lewis’ work underwhelming.” For most of us, the climate sensitivity is important, and Annan’s personal view of Curry and Lewis is not. That would be why the public face of climate science is trying so hard to distract us from that issue. Here’s how they talk: “A _slightly_ lower estimate”, “_maybe_ we have an extra decade” – that kind of stuff. If Lewis and Curry – and Annan – are right, the paleo estimates are wrong, and badly wrong. The higher sensitivity estimates are ruled out completely. A simple acknowledgment of the major impact of that would be appreciated. But not expected.

        The most recent survey I saw showed that there sure isn’t a 97% consensus on high climate sensitivity. A very sizable bloc thinks that it’s at the lower end of IPCC estimates.

      • Paul S had this to say in the comments:

        A [Nic & Judy want to stick as close to IPCC data as possible] isn’t really true since the IPCC give sensitivity estimates which they chose to ignore.

        B [they would certainly use C&W if reviewers questioned it] suggests they knew their results were biased low and underestimated uncertainty but made a deliberate attempt to push the paper through without disclosing this. I recall someone recently arguing such a thing could reasonably be described as fraud.

        http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2014/10/much-ado-about-sensitivity.html?showComment=1412445560975#c8976498537364008131

      • Hee, hee.
        =======

      • “Paul S had this to say in the comments:…” Near as I can see, neither his A nor his B make any sense.

      • Let’s see if Willard can explicate A and B in his own words and thoughts.
        ==============

      • > Near as I can see, neither his A nor his B make any sense.

        Which part of “the IPCC give sensitivity estimates which they chose to ignore” do you not get, miker613?

      • Hee hee hee HEE haw. I was disappointed in Paul S, but not surprised by Willard, pounding along several lengths behind the leading racehorse, but riderless.
        ============

      • Don’t anyone explain it to him. Make him read the paper.

        Disclaimer. I haven’t.
        ===============

      • ‘Which part of “the IPCC give sensitivity estimates which they chose to ignore” do you not get, miker613?’
        My first comment above: “this paper was an attempt to show what result the IPCC should have gotten had they done the math correctly. If you trust the IPCC’s assumptions, use this sensitivity instead of theirs.” Am I supposed to think that Paul S is clueless, has reading comprehension issues, or just doesn’t care about actually understanding those he opposes?

      • Aw, you make it too easy for him. Mebbe now he can do the chronology with C&W.
        ==========

      • Global temperature vs Log([CO2]) using HADCRU4 and ice dome/Keeling, including the data up to last month

        A climate sensitivity of 1.9 for 2x[CO2] is the best you can get.

      • Willard, Paul S I think is just a little off here. Curry and Lewis uses a method from many previous studies and updates the forcings, etc. based on AR5. They don’t ignore anything.

        I believe I saw Lewis say that C&W will increase their central value by less than 0.1.

        Not everything in their paper is perfectly correct and further evidence will come to light. What’s so unusual about that?

        All in all, Annan too has said the IPCC is overestimating sensitivity especially with their use of uniform priors. That’s in the main what Curry is saying too.

      • 2.5 is still fine by me, though I wouldn’t be surprised by a value a bit lower or higher. I don’t think the recent decade really changes the best estimate all that much, but it helps to confirm what sensible people were saying several years ago about extremely high values :-) – Annan in 2013

      • since we’re having an Annan quote-fest
        ” Of the three GMST datasets cited in AR5, only HadCRUT4 (Morice et al, 2012) covers the 1859–1882 and 1850–1900 base periods used in this study; it is therefore employed.” L&C, section 3.3

        “Lewis & Curry should have used C&W in addition to, or instead of, HadCrut4. C&W warmed about 8-9% more over the instrumental period. “- deeplclimate, on Annan’s blog

        “Yes, a direct comparison of HadCRUT to model global data is certainly a mistake. Normal procedure is to mask model output.” – Annan’s reply

      • I can’t seem to find a citation for the C & W temperature reconstruction in AR5.

        They all seem to be in the same general uncertainty range. Perhaps the proponents of C&W should publish their own peer reviewed paper?

      • she’s into Stadium Waves and other stuff

        lol That’s a good characterization of the response to Dr. Curry’s theory about the most significant natural variation. It’s either that or crickets..

    • Or maybe he’s just stupid? (Lewandowsky, that is)

  45. Richard Scott

    Judy, welcome back
    A quote Lincoln
    If I were to read much less answer all the attacks made on me. …I do the very best I know how, the very best I can and I mean to keep doing it to the end. If the end brings me out alright what is said about me will not amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference

  46. Please please can someone explain the mechanism whereby heat hides in the ocean but does not increase the temperature of the ground and hence the air temperature?

    • Pierre-Normand

      Stacey, there never is any significant flow of heat from the atmosphere to the oceans. The Sun warms the oceans and the heat flows from oceans to atmosphere (only a small amount diffuses down) though conduction/convection, evaporation and radiation (and some also flows back directly to space). But this flow from the ocean surface is highly variable as a result of internal variability. When the rate of cooling of the oceans is temporarily reduced, the oceans heat up, because they don’t shed as much of the energy received from the Sun, while the atmosphere cools. This is what occurs, for instance, when there is a La Nina episode.

      • “When the rate of cooling of the oceans is temporarily reduced”

        Why should atmospheric CO2 alter the rate at which the surface brine radiates and cools?

    • Pierre-Normand

      “Why should atmospheric CO2 alter the rate at which the surface brine radiates and cools?”

      Radiating and cooling are two different things. Only surface temperature determines the infrared emission power. The cooling rate depends on all the fluxes, including also conductive/convective, latent heat, and back-radiation from the atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration increase the back-radiation but it’s not primarily this that explains the reduction of the surface cooling since other fluxes also vary.

      It’s rather the top-of-atmosphere (or tropopause) forcing change — and the consequent reduced ability the system as a whole to shed radiation to space — that’s responsible. By conservation of energy, and because of the low heat capacity of the atmosphere, the surface flux tends rapidly (within weeks or months) to match the TOA flux. It is this necessary radiative-convective adjustment of the fluxes at the surface, and the whole atmospheric column, that explain the reduced rate of cooling of the surface, and why it must eventually warm up to restore the TOA balance.

      • This explanation still does not describe the mechanism whereby the TOA imbalance is adding heat to the oceans, specifically the deeper oceans (700 to 2000 m) without warming the effective surface first Pierre.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “This explanation still does not describe the mechanism whereby the TOA imbalance is adding heat to the oceans, specifically the deeper oceans (700 to 2000 m) without warming the effective surface first Pierre.”

        As I said, no heat is directly added by the increase in back-radiation at the surface. Rather the *net* upward longwave flux (emission minus back-radiation) is reduced. One effect among many is to reduce the temperature gradient within the skin layer of the ocean and hence reduce the rate of cooling of the upper mixed layer (the first few meters of which are warmed by the Sun) to the atmosphere and also, radiatively, through the atmospheric infrared window, directly to space.

        My main point, tough, was that there is no reason to doubt the effectiveness of the TOA imbalance. An increase in Solar radiation can create it just as effectively as an increase in atmospheric CO2 does. And once this TOA imbalance is created, it’s impossible for it to be sustained without the heat flux *out* of the oceans being reduces, lest you believe that the climate system has the power make energy disappear. Whatever occurs in the atmosphere and surface layer must either reduce the TOA imbalance *or* oceans must heat up.

        I know much less about heat transport below 700m, but I think its caused mainly by large scale scale circulation and Ekman transport much more than downward diffusion.

        You can get much more details in Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”. There also are very many good explanatory blog posts and discussions of those two main topics (the greenhouse effect and the mechanism of ocean heat increase) on RealClimate, ScienceOfDoom, SkepticalScience, Roy Specer’s blog and even WUWT. There also was an interesting guest post by Donald Rapp on Climate Etc., but unfortunately the ensuing discussion had a pretty low signal to noise ratio and Rapp understandably didn’t stay for very long.

        I can dig up specific links if you wish.

      • “You can get much more details in Pierrehumbert’s “Principles of Planetary Climate”. There also are very many good explanatory blog posts and discussions of those two main topics (the greenhouse effect and the mechanism of ocean heat increase) on RealClimate, ScienceOfDoom, SkepticalScience, Roy Specer’s blog and even WUWT. There also was an interesting guest post by Donald Rapp on Climate Etc., but unfortunately the ensuing discussion had a pretty low signal to noise ratio and Rapp understandably didn’t stay for very long”

        Having sat through all of those schooling’s you present, there is undeniable error in the amount of energy accruing at the depths presented to be all from those small CO2 related mechanisms. The discussion here about Rapps’s article raised many unanswered questions. Rapp deals with the surface boundary layer. It is the sun and wind and clouds that regulates ENSO, a mechanism that can warm the oceans deeper than surface currents. Kudos to Donald Rapp for an excellent article.

      • The reduced rate of cooling at the TOA not at the surface is what you meant.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “Having sat through all of those schooling’s you present, there is undeniable error in the amount of energy accruing at the depths presented to be all from those small CO2 related mechanisms.”

        There are errors? OK. Sorry about that.

      • Pierre-Normand

        dailyplanet: “The reduced rate of cooling at the TOA not at the surface is what you meant.”

        No. I really meant what I wrote. What’s the trouble? The TOA imbalance minus the net surface flux (from *all* fluxes, latent, radiative, etc.) gives the rate of change of the atmospheric energy content. Because of the low heat capacity of the atmosphere, this means that the TOA imbalance must soon match the net surface flux lest the atmosphere becomes extremely hot. This is just from conservation of energy.

      • You are not making any sense Pierre

        “No. I really meant what I wrote. What’s the trouble? The TOA imbalance minus the net surface flux (from *all* fluxes, latent, radiative, etc.) gives the rate of change of the atmospheric energy content. Because of the low heat capacity of the atmosphere, this means that the TOA imbalance must soon match the net surface flux lest the atmosphere becomes extremely hot. This is just from conservation of energy.”

        If the effective TOA is slightly cooler then the effective surface needs to radiate at a higher temperature.

        You are still handwaving the heat into the deeper ocean absent heating of the lower atmosphere. I am sure Gates will help you handwave. If CO2 is heating the oceans it should show up in the near surface waters and result in a shift to greater evaporative cooling. This should result in greater atmospheric heating. I am more or less paraphrasing Lacis or Santer or Hansen. What is the method or mechanism for increasing ocean heat content from CO2 if the atmosphere is not heating first?

      • The ocean’s heating is from the sun and cooling is from net IR and fluxes, so the added CO2 reduces its cooling rate, and it becomes warmer than it would be with less CO2. Think of it like insulation.

      • It is much more complicated than insulation Jim D.

        The ocean can rapidly transport heat up through itself by convection and only slowly transport heat down by conduction. Radiation is a much smaller form of heat transport from the surface compared to evaporation. If the CO2 was the entire cause of warming due to back radiation would not the atmosphere need to be warming in lockstep with the oceans? This is why the ENSO process and other large heat flows independent of CO2 seem to be at least as important if not more important for the variability of OHC. The fingerprint of CO2 should show in the first 100 meters of the ocean warming and lower atmosphere temperature should be tightly coupled.

        Instead we have the deeper ocean warming and no lower tropospheric warming over oceans except in the far north.

      • dalyplanet, if you add more insulation to your house, it doesn’t have to warm to keep your house warmer. It provides a larger temperature gradient to the outside, and helps the surface to retain its warmth from the sun better.
        The ocean water does not stay at the surface. There are areas where it goes down and others where it comes up. When the colder upwelled water spreads across the surface as in the PDO cold phase, the warmer surface water area is reduced and the warm water gets deeper. This changes the ocean temperature profile in the ways seen. You have to think of the ocean as circulating vertically too, not just in circles on the surface.

      • CO2 does not act like insulation at all. Saying CO2 acts like insulation is completely an incorrect visualization. If you believe that CO2 is insulation then you do not understand my question.

        Show me the links to peer reviewed papers or even a reliable blog that show this transport of ocean heat content Jim D. If you show papers that describe ENSO then my point about ENSO and the sun and the wind and the clouds strengthens the argument that CO2 has little to do with deep ocean heating.

      • dalyplanet, insulation is important because the ocean loses 75% of its heat via IR emission, and any way to reduce that is going to have an effect.
        I am not sure what you are asking about ocean circulations. Do you not believe in vertical ocean circulations or that warm water can be transported down by these? It’s not diffusion, if that is what you are thinking. It is downward transport en masse in various locations around the globe. One of these was just referred to in connection with the Southern Hemisphere potentially being another location for ocean heat storage that was not sampled well by Argo. Others are in the West Pacific where heat is stored between El Ninos, and North Atlantic where the Gulf Stream ends.

      • Here is a post I have looked at for more than half a decade

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/

        Notice the heating is in the upper ocean, scienceofdoom has 4 posts with the last being the mist interesting, from several years ago also.If there is large amounts of heat being retained in the upper surface of the ocean then this warmer surface must heat the atmosphere, the ocean physics imply greater lower atmosphere heat.

      • I am asking for the mechanism that a surface phenomena, driven by less than a half a percent calculated change in flux is heating the oceans below a few hundred meters. The oceans have absorbed more energy since we started measuring in 2004. Show me how it is all from CO2 and not from clouds or winds or deep ocean currents or some combination.

      • dalyplanet, why do you not think the atmosphere above the ocean warms in response to the surface warming, and the surface itself warms in response to the changing energy balance there? AGW says that the atmosphere responds to surface warming to maintain the lapse rate. This is a central part of it.

      • The forcing from CO2 has been about 2 W/m2 so far. Half of it is offset by earth warming enough to radiate it back out. The other half is stored mostly in the ocean. 1 W/m2 applied continuously is about right to account for how much the ocean has been warming. Note that this is unsustainable because the top of atmosphere is still 1 W/m2 out of balance, and that won’t be removed until the surface warms enough to radiate out the full 2 W/m2 which itself is growing with emissions. If the imbalance remains, the ocean just keeps warming which eventually becomes difficult to do without the surface warming, although there are temporary periods where the surface doesn’t keep up and the imbalance grows.

      • Have to explain how the ocean is storing heat while the surface of the oceans have been cooling since 2001.

      • It is just a God awful climate extremist narrative.

        Oceans warm and cool. This means that the radiative balance is finely tuned. The change in ocean heating follows closely the change in net radiative flux.

        It shows part of a period of SW warming of 2.1W/m2 and 0.7W/m2 IR cooling between the 1980’s and 1990’s.

        While it was warming a little in SW last decade – and the Sun cooling somewhat less.

        There is now no trend in net CERES TOA radiant flux.

        CERES anomalies provide a new precision in measuring changes in TOA radiant flux. The changes in the record exceed the entire greenhouse gas nominal forcing for the last century. There is no confidence that we know by how much it will change this century.

      • The surface isn’t cooling. It has been the hottest ocean on record. Anyway, there are variations in the surface warming rate due to ocean circulations and other natural variations. Remember that part of the ocean circulations brings up deep cooler water to the surface and this rate varies which is why the surface temperature varies. Is this type of natural variation hard to understand? I don’t know what the problem is.

      • Talking to me? That a mistake.

        I assume it is about right. Pre-Argo is dicey – the splice is unreliable – Argo is dominated by natural variation – most of it was reflected SW changes. Some of it from the Sun.

        If you have some data – for God’s sake discuss it and not simply talk about how hot it is.

        Ocean heat follows net CERES – there is no trend currently.

      • I think Ellison is closer to correct with his post above Jim D. The ocean, well she has a full dance card and is not going steady with CO2 forcing. So far Jim D and Pierre you have not put up anything for a proof that CO2 is the cause of all ocean heating.

      • dalyp, as I said, the 2 W/m2 forcing change explains why the ocean has been warming and the ongoing imbalance explains why it still is. It’s just the long-term energy balance, and it matches the rate of change well enough given observation uncertainties. The scientists understand this much, but many of the skeptics like yourself have fallen down at this hurdle (not Judith who seems to understand because the LC paper outlines the idea in section 2). If you have further questions, you should refer to the parts of the LC paper you don’t follow or agree with.

      • Jim D says
        “dalyplanet, insulation is important because the ocean loses 75% of its heat via IR emission,”

        but DaSilva Young and Levitus 1995 show that oceans lose most heat via latent heat loss and radiation loss is about half of latent heat loss except near the poles.

      • Yes the 2.1 W/m2 change in SW warming explains ocean heat in the last part of the century very well.

        ‘The interannual variability of the net flux
        anomalies in Fig. 7 from the ERBS Nonscanner WFOV
        and CERES Scanner agree very well with the interannual
        variability of the ocean heat storage data. The
        agreement is within the ocean heat storage sampling
        uncertainties, with 1-sigma difference in the anomalies
        of 0.4 W m2. The two times series are in phase with
        each other, consistent with the constraint of planetary
        energy balance.’ http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Wong_ERBEreanalysis.pdf

      • Jim D

        Lewis and Curry made an adjustment to OHC about 60% if I remember correctly, they were making no discussions of the specifics of this discussion. Can you link to some literature that makes this deep ocean heating from the CO2 the focus that is not a modeling study of the hypothetical missing heat?

      • dalyp, you are confusing net IR with emitted IR. Excluding the absorbed part from the sky, which maybe you dispute anyway, the emission is hundreds of W/m2, as would be expected for a water surface radiating almost like a black body. It is a very efficient emitter, and IR is the main way of losing heat.

      • The Wong paper is quite informative Rob. I was looking at it again last night.It stimulated my desire to post something in response to Pierre

        Jim D, you are devolving into fuzzy fizzicks. All the peer reviewed papers I have read use the net Qlw

      • dalyp, These are different processes dependent on different factors. The absorption part, for example depends on GHGs and occurs at specific wavelengths, while the emission part only depends on surface temperature and is across wavelengths. You may as well include solar absorption or its IR part if you want to really muddle things together. Then the radiation has a net warming, a large part of which (more than half) is due to GHGs in the atmosphere. Does that view help?

      • Lewis and Curry don’t alter the IPCC numbers much. They say more than 2 W/m2 of forcing is now occurring and that significant amounts are going into OHC by means that seem to perplex you. They have an imbalance which is why their TCR is less than their ECS, just like everyone else’s.

      • Jim D | October 20, 2014 at 8:46 pm |
        “dalyp, you are confusing net IR with emitted IR. Excluding the absorbed part from the sky, which maybe you dispute anyway, the emission is hundreds of W/m2, as would be expected for a water surface radiating almost like a black body. It is a very efficient emitter, and IR is the main way of losing heat.”

        Accord to “Global Warming and the Future of the Earth”, by Robert G. Watts, 168 W/m2 is absorbed by the surface, the surface emits 390 W/m2, the atmosphere emits 324 W/m2 back (net 66 W/m2), there is 78 latent heat loss (evaporation) and 24 sensible heat loss (convection).

        Other studies come up with similar but different numbers…

        You are right about the black body – IR emissivity is 0.97/0.96 for land/ocean from numbers I find.

      • I think I am less perplexed than you Jim D, but that is not saying much. The point is that you have certainly offered no proof that it is all CO2 driven. Rob on the other hand shows there is significant changes to OHC from clouds.

      • “”
        Interannual Rates (Since 2005)
        Over the past 8 years (2005–2012), the median SLS or WLS trend for OHC 0–700 m is 0.21 ± 0.20 W m−2 (Figure 14f). Individually, trends vary from 0.16 W m−2 [Levitus et al., 2012; von Schuckmann and LeTraon, 2011] to 0.39 W m−2 [Domingues et al., 2008], and uncertainties are larger for the shorter periods. In addition, an updated estimate from von Schuckmann and LeTraon [2011] finds a WLS trend of 0.3 ± 0.1 W m−2 for the 10–2000 m layer, based on their Argo analysis for 2005–2012. Although these trends seem to be consistent with those estimated for the multidecadal periods, they are unlikely to represent long-term changes in global upper OHC. Linear trends are particularly sensitive to the periods being analyzed [Lyman, 2012], and over such a short 8 year interval, changes in upper OHC can be strongly influenced by fluctuations in the state of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) [Roemmich and Gilson, 2011] and other short-term variations in the ocean state. Specifically for the ENSO events observed during 2004–2011, the global ocean tends to lose heat at a rate of >1 W m−2 during El Niños, mainly through evaporative cooling [Trenberth et al., 2002], and to gain a similar amount of heat during La Niñas [Roemmich and Gilson, 2011]. These net changes in OHC associated with ENSO are an order of magnitude larger than the multidecadal changes estimated for 1970–2012. They depend on the east-west oscillation of the tropical Pacific thermocline, which adiabatically redistributes heat between the surface (~0–100 m) and subsurface ocean (~100–500 m) and thus allows the near-surface ocean to significantly alter its net heat exchange with the atmosphere depending on the phase of ENSO [Roemmich and Gilson, 2011].

        “”
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/full

      • dalyp, sure, the oceans have been warming for a century, and Rob E’s satellite data can explain that to your content in terms of clouds. So easy to please. I won’t get in the way of your fantasy.

      • My fantasy Jim D was that you could or would provide some useful information as to the source of your beliefs. Apparently I just have to take the assertion that the CO2 is warming the deep oceans possibly to the very bottom as a matter of faith.

      • Daly

        ‘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.’ http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf

        Try this one if you haven’t already – latest I know of.

        They have no data – and simply fall back on climate extremist narrative and calling the data they don’t agree with nonsense. Satellite anomalies data is unusable – for instance – because of absolute calibration errors. Convenient that – and so wrong.

        Well done – you last comment was the best of the post.

      • The world has been warming for more than a century – much of it quite natural and about to turn around.

      • dalyp, why don’t you challenge Lewis and Curry on their OHC assumption? You don’t see that the forcing from GHGs is enough to warm the ocean as much as it has, even when numerically it is. What else is there to do? It is surprising what even 1 W/m2 over the whole earth averaged over a century can do to the system’s temperature. Where do those W/m2 come from? Again, ask Lewis and Curry. It’s the change imposed by emissions.

  47. Stacey

    Both ocean and ground temperatures have been increasing for hundreds of years and they have also warmed prior to this era. This concerns warmer oceans in the past;

    “bserved increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.”

    This concerns rising ground temperatures.

    http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html

    I think we need to know WHY ocean and ground temperatures have been warming for hundreds of years and have warmed previously to greater extents than today. This will help to put modern temperatures into their proper context

    tonyb

    • climatereason:“This concerns rising ground temperatures….

      I think we need to know WHY ocean and ground temperatures have been warming for hundreds of years and have warmed previously to greater extents than today. This will help to put modern temperatures into their proper context”

      Fun graph:

      The chart illustrates the point that about every 1000 years it gets warmer for a decreasingly short period of time, then gets cooler again.

      This time we have been warmer for about 130-150 years. I expect we have 50-100 years before it gets really cold again. And it will get much colder than the little ice age, barring interference by man.

      I don’t know why there is a 1000 year oscillation in temperatures. Don’t have theory to cover it. But it is going to get colder – perhaps dangerously cold – perhaps catastrophically cold, unless we take some action to mitigate a potential future disaster. To stop catastrophic natural global cooling (CNGC) we need to pump out all the CO2 we can as a “precaution” to mitigate some of the effects of cold – which are much worse than the effects of warm.

      • Given present evidence, we can’t pump enough to make much difference.
        =============

      • This graph is useful in a cartoon sort of way, though I did note the sudden cool down it showed around 1257, which is of course the point at which on of the largest volcanoes of the past 2000 years went off.

      • Rgates

        No it turns down well after 1300, long after the short lived affects of this volcano have worn off (but that’s only contemporary observations of course which aren’t as good as tree rings,)

        tonyb

      • Hi Tony,

        Yes, I know you hate the idea that a few very large volcanoes played a role in the LIA. Ocean heat content paleodata, which is far more critical and relevant to climate than CET, would tell us that indeed, the mega-volcanoes of 1257 and 1453 played major roles in the LIA. But this is a dead horse for you…so why beat it?

      • Rgates

        We have no evidence from working living peoples accounts that the 1257 volcanos caused a long term problem. If you think tree rings are more reliable you must stick to your beliefs.

        As I have said before, I have no opinion on the 1453 event as I have not studied it.

        Tonyb

      • Gates, volcanoes cause a lot of things. They are as handy for excuses as anthropogenic aerosols. I’m just trying to figure out how volcanoes caused cooling in the LIA but none of the warming now yet were able to devastate the world with all the warming they caused earlier while having no effect on life from their cooling. So how do you explain what seems a lack of consistency of argument?

      • Steven,

        I had a bit of a hard time figuring out exactly your point. We had the two largest volcanoes of the past 2000 years in 1257 and 1453. Ocean heat content plummeted and we were in the LIA. Effects of large mega volcanoes stay with the climate system for a long time through sea ice feedbacks and ocean thermal inertia.

      • Gates, you shouldn’t have had a hard time since I have posed this question to you before. If warming from volcanoes caused mass extinctions previously, why is the only noticable effect from recent volcanoes cooling? Have they adapted?

      • Steven,

        You seem to be referring to the period of massive volcanism which elevated CO2 levels in Earth’s past. The Siberian traps were a likely source for this. This type of volcanism has a net warming effect over the long run because of the amount and height of sulfate ejection into the atmosphere versus the amount of CO2, which lasts far longer in the atmosphere. Suggest you read about the volcanism of the traps versus the type we saw from the 1257 and 1453, which eject lots of sulfate high in the atmosphere.

      • The siberian traps were the equivalent of one large volcanic eruption every year for a million years. You contend that a couple of large eruptions can put us in a LIA but that sort of eruption pattern causes warming because of the CO2 released? Since you have done the research why don’t you link me the paper explaining how much different those volcanoes were.

      • I think we should use strategically placed explosives to trigger the methane bomb.

        After people see the small, temporary response to 6x methane levels, that it rains out quickly and becomes fertilizer, people will be all on board with increasing CO2 concentrations.

  48. “uncertainty in itself is not a reason for inaction”. No, but in the UK it has played no role. Rather it has been assumed that dangerous global warming is certain and imminent. The resulitng panic renewable policy has not worked but has proved very expensive. Kick away the prop of approaching disaster (the “pause”) and it comes to look not only very expensive but very stupid. That is why amongst the policy elites a retreat is now underway.

  49. Paleo climate sensitivity is conceptually simple.

    dF = d(GHG) + d(albedo) + d(aerosols)

    Greenhouse gases and aerosols are determined from ice cores. Albedo from modeling.

    ‘Unfortunately, we have no direct information concerning the past global surface albedo from the ice core data. Consequently, we have to rely on past modeling results. The radiative forcing due to the surface albedo changes (extent of ice sheets, sea ice and snow cover, exposure of a new land in a low sea level state, change in surface characteristics and vegetation cover) has been estimated by several authors to be between 3 and 4 W/m2 with most results clustering around 3.5 W/m2 [Hewitt and
    Mitchell, 1997].’ http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Chylek-Lohmann-GRL2008.pdf

    Aerosol forcing is treated as an unknown in 2 equations.

    The problem is in both the ice core data and the modeling. If CO2 changes are underestimated then the sensitivity is much less.

    The increase in temperature from 1944 to 1998 is 0.4 degrees C. If we assume 50% of that was anthropogenic we get a TCR of 0.9 degree C.

    !944 and 1998 are of course chosen on the basis of climate shifts – involving changes in the trajectory of surface temperature.

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

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

    This suggests a whole new definition of climate sensitivity.

    Michael Ghil’s model has two stable states with two points of abrupt climate change – the latter at the transitions from the blue lines to the red from above and below. The two axes are normalized solar energy inputs μ (insolation) to the climate system and a global mean temperature. The current day energy input is μ = 1 with a global mean temperature of 287.7 degrees Kelvin. This is a relatively balmy 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

    The 1-D climate model uses physically based equations to determine changes in the climate system as a result of changes in solar intensity, ice reflectance and greenhouse gas changes. With a small decrease in radiation from the Sun – or an increase in ice cover – the system becomes unstable with runaway ice feedbacks. Runaway ice feedbacks drive the transitions between glacial and interglacial states seen repeatedly over the past 2.58 million years. These are warm interludes – such as the present time – of relatively short duration and longer duration

    The model shows that climate sensitivity (γ) is variable. It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society. The problem of abrupt climate change on multi-decadal scales is of the most immediate significance.

    • When it comes to CO2, it may well increase the probability of such shifts. It may increase the probability that such shifts will be more extreme than otherwise. But such shifts have happened before and will almost certainly happen again. Thus, with or without CO2 concerns, the focus should be on adaptive resilience to them when they happen.

      Of course, that doesn’t eliminate the importance of fossil carbon being dumped into the system. Part of it accumulates in the atmosphere, with unknown influences on the climate, as well as existing ecosystems and opportunistic species, including weeds, destructive insects, and other threats to human crops.

      We don’t even know where all the rest is even going, much less how much damage (if any) it’s doing along the way. Most of the threats from dumping fossil carbon into the system are probably like those to the climate: increasing the risk of a sudden, unexpected change too rapid for easy adaptation.

      Given that the magnitude, and nature, of those threats is unknown, it would be f00lish to pick a “cure” that’s orders of magnitude worse than the “disease”: any major reconstruction of the world’s socioeconomic system presents far worse risks of destabilization than any plausible outcome of fossil carbon.

      The best options, then, are minor “tweaks” to the system that incent effective technological solutions within the current framework of corporate, “free”-market capitalism. There will be winners and losers, it’s incumbent on those trying to deal with the problem politically to structure their policy solutions such that the winners are corporate and individual investors who focus on real-world research and development.

      While those who focus on crony-“capitalism” and manipulating the bureaucracy need to become losers.

      • AK, it is just as likely to reduce these shifts. More so, it is likely to do both increase and decrease shifts on varying timescales. Even more likely, it doesn’t make much difference.

        As for biology, that is a constant battle. We happen to be doing well at the moment. No matter the biological response to CO2, there is a big war and tech is our best chance at not losing.

    • Rob, +1000

  50. “dubious paleo estimates” – Dr. Curry throws this kind of comment in every so often, but I don’t really know what she is saying about them. Does she have posts on this? What are the paleo estimates that we are referring to, and are they dubious, and why?

    • My guess is poor resolution and sketchy knowledge of the forcings.
      ==========

    • miker, Quality of paleo reconstructions is a major issue, remember Mann et al? James Annan and Jules Hargreaves have several papers on paleo sensitivity and have noted that the reconstructions that “aren’t reliable” as in not approved by the team, tend to work better than the manipulated reconstructions. They came up with about a 4C maximum paleo “sensitivity” and are still involved in improving paleo modeling.

      • “So when JimD or R. Gates start waxing all prophetic about CO2 forcing millions and millions of years ago, they are either ignoring the science or attempting to blow smoke up something.”
        ——
        No Capt., I simply read the latest research, which increasingly confirms the strong role of CO2 as a control knob for the climate, and the unparalleled ( at least for some 55 million years) spike in GHG’s that the HCV has caused.

      • I simply read the latest research, which increasingly confirms the strong role of CO2 as a control knob for the climate, and the unparalleled ( at least for some 55 million years) spike in GHG’s that the HCV has caused.

        Confirmation bias?

      • R Gates, “No Capt., I simply read the latest research, which increasingly confirms the strong role of CO2 as a control knob for the climate, and the unparalleled ( at least for some 55 million years) spike in GHG’s that the HCV has caused.”

        None of the research indicates that CO2 was THE control knob, in general CO2 is credited with less than 50% of the climate control and since CO2 tends to follow temperature not lead, it should be considered more of a regulator than a control knob. Compared to the impact of the Drake Passage and Panama closure, CO2 may not even be in the same league as ocean heat transport. CO2 does have an impact and humans are contributing to CO2, but beyond the original no feedback sensitivity, it is all supposition.

        I have shown that a few times. Other than the northern 25% of the global, “Global” sensitivity is very close to the no feedback estimate. It is getting pretty obvious that “other” than CO2 is a major factor in the region with the greatest warming.

      • captd, your argument seems to be that because Arctic amplification exists, global warming doesn’t matter.

    • Well, to start with, any hyper-complex non-linear system is going to be highly sensitive to all boundary conditions, not just initial conditions. For example, the closing of the Panama Strait:

      The closure of the CAS changed the boundary conditions of the oceans and created a new state of the oceanic and atmospheric system. The Isthmus blocked the exchange of tropical water masses between the Atlantic and Pacific. The closure of the circumtropical seaways is assumed to have triggered and/or strengthened the North Atlantic Deep Water production, initiated the Caribbean Current, strengthened the Gulf Stream, and, therefore, changed the global distribution of deep-water masses, heat and salinity (Haug & Tiedemann1998). The intensification of the circulation caused the build-up of sediment drifts in the Caribbean (Anselmetti et al.2000) and later in the North Atlantic (Wold 1994)

      Similar, less noticeable, events have probably occurred within the last million years or so, meaning that any estimates of “sensitivity” from before that time are highly questionable.

      And, given the ability of even tiny changes to have impacts out of proportion to their size, the same could be said about even the last few thousand years.

      • AK, the Panama Closure and Drake Passage opening both had large impacts on climate. Drake Passage opening resulted in a about a 3C global cooling with the SH cooling while the NH warmed resulting in the NH oceans being about 3 C warmer than the SH oceans, based ot Toggweiler et al. with the GFLD.

        So when JimD or R. Gates start waxing all prophetic about CO2 forcing millions and millions of years ago, they are either ignoring the science or attempting to blow smoke up something.

      • So when JimD or R. Gates start waxing all prophetic about CO2 forcing millions and millions of years ago, they are either ignoring the science or attempting to blow smoke up something.

        That was sort of my point.

        Not to mention the evolution of tropical C4 savanna grasses during this time. IMO most of the major clades already existed as forest floor small-niche species, but they expanded into the sunlight, and probably drove the reduction in pCO2 to present levels. How these eco-system evolutionary developments interacted with changes to continent structures and circulation patterns: who knows?

      • AK with the NH and most of the land mass warming by about 3 C, plant growth in general would have had a massive impact. Since the longest term ice cores are in the Antarctic, I doubt that they are all that great as “global” thermometers.

        Another thing not often discussed are ice dam cycles. There is evidence of a rough 60 year cycle in the Pacific Northwest, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods that would have a large impact on the regional climate plus beaver over harvesting had to have had a large impact in wilderness areas all across their range.

      • […] plus beaver over harvesting had to have had a large impact in wilderness areas all across their range.

        This sort of anthropogenic influence tends to get short shrift in modern CO2 discussions. I often mention whales, specifically baleen whales, whose feeding patterns almost certainly affect the species mix in oceanic plankton differently from a more short-stepped pyramid of productivity. And most species of which are either extinct, or threatened with extinction, a process that occurred during the early Industrial Revolution.

    • Some skeptics think it is just coincidence that the high CO2 periods in paleoclimate were iceless hothouses, like the Eocene and whole of the Mesozoic era. Not only that, but the amount of CO2 we may have by 2100 is comparable with those periods. I have never understood that groupthink dismissal by skeptics as anything but just as those particular facts being inconvenient to their viewpoint.

      • JimD, ” I have never understood that group think dismissal by skeptics as anything but just as those particular facts being inconvenient to their viewpoint.”

        I don’t think skeptics are as much into group think as they are into reality. Since we were discussing the changes related to the Panama closure and the Drake Passage opening, periods prior to those events would not have the same sensitivity to any forcing. That is due to change in the ocean circulations that increase the rate of heat loss with increase pole ward flow. It is pretty simple, the poles are the heat sinks. The more energy transferred to the heat sink the more energy sunk.

        Here is a link yet again to the relative importance of merdional and zonal temperature gradients. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1324186/

        Not put your thinking cap on.

      • Some skeptics think it is just coincidence that the high CO2 periods in paleoclimate were iceless hothouses, like the Eocene and whole of the Mesozoic era.

        It’s important to remember that the assumption of a “greenhouse effect” was built into these paleoclimate models. Thus the whole paleo thing is begging the question.

      • For example, The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of terrestrial ecosystems by Wolfram M. Kurschner, Zlatko Kvacek, and David L. Dilcher, PNAS January 15, 2008 vol. 105 no. 2 449–453:

        In addition to geochemical CO2 proxies, stomatal frequency analysis on fossil leaf remains represents a terrestrial proxy for CO2 that is based on the inverse relationship between atmospheric CO2 and stomatal frequency (22). In the present study, stomatal frequency is expressed as the stomatal index (SI), which is calculated as SI (%) = [SD/(SD + ED)] X 100, where SD is the stomatal density and ED is the epidermal cell density. Because SI normalizes for leaf expansion, it is largely independent of plant water stress and is primarily a function of CO2 (22, 23). Calculation of SI provides a robust method for estimating CO2 levels on short (24) and geologically long time scales (25, 26). Because the stomatal frequency response to CO2 is species-specific, quantitative estimates of CO2 are limited to extant species. Here we present a CO2 reconstruction based on a multiple-species stomatal frequency record from leaf remains of two extant lineages of laurel species (the Laurus abchasica and Laurus nobilis lineage and the Ocotea hradekensis and Ocotea foetens lineage), maidenhair tree (Ginkgo biloba), and an extinct laurel species (Laurophyllum pseudoprinceps). For each extant species, the stomatal frequency response has been independently calibrated based on historical sets of herbarium leaf material, using standard protocols (27). [my bold]

        The assumption that a “species” from millions of years ago has the same “stomatal frequency response to CO2” as a modern one that looks like it is totally unwarranted. They assume this because it’s consistent with what they’re trying to prove:

        Our data show striking CO2 fluctuations of ~600–300 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Periods of low CO2 are contemporaneous with major glaciations, whereas elevated CO2 of 500 ppmv coincides with the climatic optimum in the Miocene. Our data point to a long-term coupling between atmospheric CO2 and climate.

        Begging the question.

      • captd, there was a lot more continental drift than your Drake Passage issue in the last billion years, and a lot of the CO2 change was related to volcanic periods (addition) and mountain building (depletion) due to that, but in the end the correlation is with CO2 not continental configurations.

      • AK, “begging the question”? That’s like say things fall and Newton’s theory expains it, but his theory is just based on things falling, so it is begging the question.

      • JimD, of course there is.

        http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/how-the-isthmus-of-panama-put-ice-in-the-arctic

        Paleo provides examples of major impacts. You have to consider those to estimate partial impacts like variations in sea ice, fast ice and average surface wind velocities.

      • captd, you can have the ocean water flowing around in all kinds of ways, it doesn’t change the mean surface temperature, only redistributes it. Glaciation has not occurred with CO2 levels much above 500 ppm at any time since the Permian. It is a major barrier to it for obvious reasons.

      • JimD, “captd, you can have the ocean water flowing around in all kinds of ways, it doesn’t change the mean surface temperature, only redistributes it.”

        right, and if you remove the water from your radiator the car will run just fine.

        http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~ernesto/F2011/EP/MaterialsforStudents/Chan/Bartlett1996.pdf

        Back to basics Jimmy D.

      • captd, you can have the ocean water flowing around in all kinds of ways, it doesn’t change the mean surface temperature, only redistributes it.

        What an uninformed statement!

      • I think it’s back to basics. Greenhouse gases warm the climate. Doubling or tripling CO2 has a major effect in paleoclimate, like that or not. Just because you are willing that to be wrong, it won’t be.

      • JimD, “. Just because you are willing that to be wrong, it won’t be.”

        Willing to be wrong is about the same as willing to try and learn. A doubling of CO2 “all things remaining equal” will produce about 3.7 Wm-2 of additional resistance to heat loss or about 1C of temperature increase IF the average global temperature responding to that 3.7 Wm-2 is 15 C degrees. All things remaining equal means just that, no cloud response, no increase in latent, convective or advective cooling. That is what you got Jimmy D.

        Since the initial condition, “pre-industrial” was likely 1 C cooler than “normal” initially and closer to 2 C cooler above 30N (all that ice doncha know)” you have an initial inequality, below normal conditions.

        A little BEST action to look further back. Notice how SST and BEST wander off in different directions around 1900. Now did Mosh and Muller screw up or is there something else involved?

      • Greenhouse gases warm the climate. Doubling or tripling CO2 has a major effect in paleoclimate, like that or not. Just because you are willing that to be wrong, it won’t be.

        Argument by assertion. That’s just your opinion. The “facts” aren’t in yet.

      • Dang it! I got all parenthetical and mentioned Mosh in the same comment. That is gonna leave a mark :)

      • Oh and JimmyD, Jimmy d Hansen revised that iconic 15 C which was part of that 33C discrepancy to “about 14 C”, so even the grandest of climate poohbahs didn’t initially consider the LIA. Imagine that?

    • Really, it’s because the paleoclimate data is pointing to the 3C per doubling of CO2 as being a pretty good number. We are getting a new wealth of data from the mid- Pliocene, and perhaps Judith is not completely up on the multiple proxy data pointing more consistently at 3C remaining quite a good estimate for CO2 at 560 ppm.

    • Trying to sort through the various answers here. From all your comments, I would say it does sound dubious.
      Even in the last century, where we have a fair amount of measurements – whoa! We only just discovered to our great chagrin that we should been measuring deep ocean temperatures for the last century so we missed a essential component of the picture.
      I have enough experience with bogus medical studies that confuse correlation with causation to be concerned. But again, that’s just based on the few comments here; maybe they really did a better job. But, maybe we should stick to studies on the part of the timeline where we have more complete data.

  51. Peter Hartley

    Judith — welcome back and congratulations on your op-Ed. If the above are the “best” counter-arguments of your critics their case is weak indeed.

    I have one minor comment on the potential policy implications of a lower climate sensitivity to CO2. You say

    “Well slower values of warming make it easier to adapt, and provide time to develop new technology.”

    More than that, if the CO2 component of climate change is smaller the natural component becomes relatively more important. This raises the value of adaptation policies relative to controlling CO2 emissions. At best, the latter will do something about just one (small it seems) part of climate change while the former will defend against significant weather shocks no matter what the cause of the change in distribution of weather patterns. As estimates of sensitivity to CO2 decline, reducing CO2 emissions at great expense and to little effect (especially when the Chinas and Indias of the world cannot be dragooned into forgoing their right to develop)

  52. Pingback: Same ol’ same ol’ | …and Then There's Physics

  53. Judth,
    As the ” hiatus” seems to be a central point in your idea that climate sentivity might be lower than certain models indicate, I am wondering about your thoughts on what this warm non-El Nino year means. Other past record warm years (1998, 2010) have all been El Niño years, where lots of latent and sensible heat poured from ocean to atmosphere and spiked tropospheric trmperatures, 2014 might very likely break those records without the El Niño kicker. Furthermore, 2014 could become the warmest single year out of the warmest decade on record. Given that the oceans drive the atmosphere and the oceans are running at record OHC levels, this is not surprising. There was no “hiatus” in net energy accumlumulation in the climate system. A record warm 2014 without an El Niño kicker and record warm oceans should be factored into discussions and estimates of climate sensitivity to the rapidly increasing GHG’s.

    • Yes, her bottom line, summing up her view, in the WSJ piece was exactly that.
      “This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now”
      It doubles down on the pause in no uncertain terms.

      • JimD, “This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now”

        Exactly, but compared to what sense of urgency? 350.org exploding heads need to get ‘er done yesterday? Grogg Laden screw the economy full speed ahead? When someone makes a rational statement “alarmists” tend to twist it into something else, isn’t that right Jimmy D?

        Most likely there is a 50 to 100 year time line regardless of green fantasies. Some things can be done now, particulates and black carbon, some things require technological advances and green flexibility. So far the push for now has backfired pure and simple.

      • Right CD. And everyone knows we are running out of fossil fuels anyway. What’s the problem?

      • C’mon Capt. The “hiatus” has been a big part the justification to ratchet down sentivity estimates, supposedly buying us time. If the trend line in rising temps reverts back to the mean, as it has in 2014 without an El Niño kicker, or even shows an upward polynomial growth curve the next ten years, then the extra time we thought we had becomes time we should have doubled down on decarbonization of the energy system.

      • Based on the last 30-40 years, the rise rate is 0.5 C per 30 years (pause and all). This alone gets it well above 2 C by 2100 (given we already had 0.8 C by 2000). If the 30-year rate continues to be 0.5 C per 30 years, is Judith going to kick into something-must-be-done mode or find some other metric to cling to for not doing anything just yet?

      • R. Gates | October 19, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
        “… the extra time we thought we had becomes time we should have doubled down on decarbonization of the energy system.”

        Before destroying the world economy by “decarbonization,” it would be prudent to demonstrate (with some data) that anthropogenic “carbon” is indeed causing harmful “global warming.” Hand waving, pencil whipping, rationalization, argumentation, and calculations are not an adequate substitute for data, which seems to be missing or hidden in places we can’t see it. There is no other field of science where this would be tolerated.

      • Actually it doesn’t do much to global GDP, but that is a common problem with skeptical thinking that seems to have ingrained itself and disables their ability to think clearly about possible paths forward.

      • Actually it doesn’t do much to global GDP, […]

        According to the tendentious models you prefer.

      • Like climate models (even GCM’s), economic models leave out a host of “feedbacks”. Great for post facto analysis. Horrible for policy.

      • They leave out the beneficial feedbacks of a stabilized climate.

      • Jim D | October 19, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
        “Actually it doesn’t do much to global GDP, but that is a common problem with skeptical thinking that seems to have ingrained itself and disables their ability to think clearly about possible paths forward.”

        Thank you for putting an exclamation point on my statement that “Hand waving, pencil whipping, rationalization, argumentation, and calculations are not an adequate substitute for data, which seems to be missing.” If the data existed Jim D or another commenter would share it with us rather than change the subject.

    • From a scientic standpoint, as opposed to political purpose, the best result of the “hiatus” might be to begin to account for the full flow of energy in the climate system as climate sensitivity is being evaluated, versus simply looking myopically at sensible tropospheric heat. Deep ARGO will also help in this effort. The hiatus is a flee that has ridden on the tale of the ocean, but certain people have chosen that flee to be a good proxy for full climate sentivity. Amazing.

    • R.Gates, So you want to fund many more Solandras and have more of the filthy rich driving Telsa while passing out more CFLBs? If there was a “consensus” to have China turn on their scrubbers the Asian brown cloud would be halved almost over night. China believes the warm and fuzzy greenies will pay them tribute to get them to stop. That is why they are building the crap out of coal and stock piling other people’s fossil fuels. China don’t play warm and fuzzy. Even Germany is going coal because of the fear of nuclear.

      If the alarmists had ever come up with a workable game plan other than tax it to death, there would be no skeptics. Since the Alarmists have proven they can’t lead, the next stage is to get out of the way.

      • I don’t recall talking about funding anybody. There are smart ways and dumb ways to turn off or at least turn down the HCV. Lining the pockets of Washington’s corporate masters would be a dumb way.

      • R. Gates, “Lining the pockets of Washington’s corporate masters would be a dumb way.”

        Of course it is the dumb way and lining the pockets of the “Global” corporate (re: nationalized) pockets is even dumber. That is what has happened under the “green” watch, can I get a kumbaya?

      • The global corporate masters and the Washington corporate masters are one and the same. There are few meaningful political boundaries. Only markets and politicians to buy.

      • R. Gates, “Only markets and politicians to buy.”

        but of course, where do you think you are, climate fairy tale land?

        So the Greenies are obviously the wrong people to even consider for getting anything done cost effectively.

      • I don’t think one’s position on renewable energy has any bearing on their business acumen. Successful “green” capitalism is blossoming worldwide.

      • Successful “green” capitalism is blossoming worldwide.

        Mostly hothouse weeds fertilized by tax-supported subsidies.

        But there is, IMO, a small contingent of properly competitive endeavors, just as there was during the Internet craze of the ’90’s.

    • Steven Mosher

      “As the ” hiatus” seems to be a central point in your idea that climate sentivity might be lower than certain models indicate, I am wondering about your thoughts on what this warm non-El Nino year means.

      Err no.
      The idea that sensitivity might be less than the models is driven by
      these things.

      1. The models have over estimated the warming. That needs explaining.
      A lower sensitivity is a possible explanation.
      2. Her and Nics paper suggests it is lower.

      This warm el nino is consistent with a lower sensitivity. Absolutely consistent with it.

      • This warm el nino is consistent with a lower sensitivity. Absolutely consistent with it.

        Everybody needs to keep in mind that the observational evidence being “consistent with a lower sensitivity” doesn’t prove it. In fact, the observational evidence being “consistent with” anything doesn’t prove it. It just shows that it doesn’t disprove it.

      • “The models have over estimated the warming” or have they?

      • “This warm el nino is consistent with a lower sensitivity”?
        How about a warm year with a non El Nino?

      • “The models have over estimated the warming” or have they?

        Yes of course they have:

        IPCC4:
        “A temperature rise of about 0.2 °C per decade is projected for the next two decades for all SRES scenarios.”

        “Best estimate for a ‘low scenario’ is 1.8 °C” ( per century )

        Observed range is from UAHMT 0.5C to GISST 1.6C all less than the ‘low scenario’.

      • “This warm el nino is consistent with a lower sensitivity.”
        —-
        Except we are not in an El Niño and the past two record warm years of 1998 and 2010 were and that is what kicked those years to record highs. What we are seeing is all that record OHC affecting tropospheric temps in a non-El Nino year. The heat that was going to be harmlessly diffused throughout the ocean…yeah, not so much.

      • Lucifer, the graphs I showed were AR5 and more up to date. I think you showed some model runs from the 80’s that the skeptics are still complaining about after all these decades. They need to catch up a bit. Or if you insist on using 1980’s predictions try this one from 1981.

      • Steven, what about the fact that model runs that are consistent with the ENSO cycle do have skill in modeling global temperatures? They only run hot when that natural variation is not taken into account.

      • Joseph, “Steven, what about the fact that model runs that are consistent with the ENSO cycle do have skill in modeling global temperatures?”

        Which models would those be? I mean before hand, some have “reanalyzed” things to near perfection, after the fact of course.

      • Joseph, the first was discussed on Climate Etc. By adjusting the ENSO region temperatures to actual values, they were able to model the pause. The problem with the models prior to the pause is that they didn’t “project” actual absolute surface temperatures very well, +/- about 3 degrees which is way off considering latent heat is critical. The second link I haven’t seen yet, but it is also post dicting. Only time will tell if they are on the right track. WHOI also have a model that “projects” a centennial scale Pacific oscillation pretty much what we are seeing, but also showed up a bit late to the party.

        Since there aren’t any models that predicted the pause, that is a pretty clear indication that there is something wrong in the models which adjusting surface temperatures after the fact isn’t likely to fix. As it is, they all run hot which is still useful, climate is likely less sensitive to CO2 forcing that previously thought. When compared to the energy balance sensitivity estimates, the model ensemble could be an upper bound,not a bad thing to have handy. It would change the policy priorities I would think which is the main issue.

      • Jim D

        I agree that the IPCC5 lowered the ‘estimates’ of earlier failed work to include the low end warming observed.

  54. I am looking forward to the blizzard of scientific papers from Curry’s critics articulating the meteorology that supports their opinions described above. Perhaps we will learn more about the neglected natural variations in our climate. Will they cool down the models? I am not holding my breath!

  55. ‘So the piece repeats the same tired claims about lowered sensitivity, using the “pause” meme’.

    “Pause meme”. May damnation rain down on those who abuse language. Meme my hat.

    • The “hiatus” is a real tropospheric event, with temperatures flattening at the the warmest 10 years on instrument record, with the last year of that ten year period (2014) potentially being the warmest of all and potentially the warmest on record. The meme becomes the political interpretation of what these facts mean in terms of policy. Judith’s interpretation made Owner Murdock and the WSJ editors very happy. They have a lot riding on keeping the HCV running full tilt for a long long time.

      • “Judith’s interpretation made Owner Murdock and the WSJ editors very happy. They have a lot riding on keeping the HCV running full tilt for a long long time.”

        Gates, I used to respect you. I can no longer recall why.

      • What instrumental record are you referring to Gates? If you mean the surface thermometers, none of them are in the troposphere. Nor do any of them record the global temperature. Your so-called “record” is actually the output from some really strange area averaged statistical models operating on questionable data.

        On the other hand the satellites really do measure the troposphere and they show no significant warming 1978-1997 nor 2001-today, just a small step warming in between these two flat periods and that is coincident with a big ocean event. In short they show no GHG warming whatever for the last 36 years.

        Your so-called instrumental warming record is the real myth here.

      • “In short they show no GHG warming whatever for the last 36 years.”
        ——
        It is comments like these that remind me why ignorance is enemy of intelligent dialog.

      • What ignorance are you referring to Gates? It sounds like yours. I am merely pointing out the structure of the UAH temperature record. Unless you can point to a capacitor like mechanism that stored GHG induced increased heat from 1978 until 1997, then suddenly released it during the big ENSO cycle, then started storing it again, there is literally no evidence of GHG warming in the entire UAH record. None. Is this what you call ignorance, your having no explanation?

      • “Unless you can point to a capacitor like mechanism that stored GHG induced increased heat from 1978 until 1997, then suddenly released it during the big ENSO cycle, then started storing it again…”
        —–
        You may want to take a very long look at the dynamics of ocean heat storage as well as the role of latent and sensible heat flux from ocean to atmosphere in supporting sensible tropospheric heat. The ocean is precisely a large heat capacitor, and the failure of some to ignore the central role of the ocean in Earth’s climate is the cause of much frustration in trying to have a conversation with the ignorant.

      • R. Gates – I think you have a problem. You have yet to explain the operation of the “capacitor analogy”, yet you present it as implied fact. Specifically, the question is – what triggered the capacitor discharge and why. Nor does the Global SST data support the analogy in the first place – there is no capacitor-like energy build-up, but rather a spike (a discontinuity).

        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1970

        Discontinuities are always problematic in science – and engineering. So are explanations that fail to adhere to known physical laws.

        I will agree that the role of the oceans has been neglected in the past, but then so has the role of the Sun. Which form of neglect is more egregious?

      • “Judith’s interpretation made Owner Murdock and the WSJ editors very happy. They have a lot riding on keeping the HCV running full tilt for a long long time.”

        In the past I have confused you as being reasonably intelligent but somewhat confused but that will not happen in the future.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “R. Gates – I think you have a problem. You have yet to explain the operation of the “capacitor analogy”, yet you present it as implied fact.”

        That’s really quite simple. The Indo-Pacific Warm Pool (IPWP) can either warm up and deepen during the negative phase of the ENSO cycle, or bounce back and spread out to a vast area of the tropical Pacific (Google up “Kelvin wave”) during an El Nino episode, thus releasing much of the accumulated heat to the atmosphere in a relatively short period. There always is a flow of heat from ocean to atmosphere but the rate is much more variable than the rate of accumulation of solar energy. Hence the IPWP acts effectively as a heat accumulator. Other modes of internal variability of ocean atmosphere interaction in other (or larger) areas and longer time-scales may satisfy roughly such a description. Ask Judith about this metaphor and the Stadium Wave.

      • “R. Gates – I think you have a problem. You have yet to explain the operation of the “capacitor analogy”, yet you present it as implied fact.”
        _____
        While uncertainties abound about the exact amounts of energy being stored or discharged from the ocean (especially below 2000m), the dynamical mechanisms involved in storing and releasing energy from the ocean (i.e. the capacitor effect) is less of a mystery. The ENSO cycle in particular is a good example of charge/discharge of energy from the ocean, and this is related to wind, thermocline tilt, upwelling and downwelling. During classic El Nino’s, more net sensible and latent heat comes from the Pacific ocean, and this could be considered as the “discharge cycle”. During La Nina’s, the opposite is true, and the ocean gains net energy. Right now, with the increasing forcing from GH gases, over multi-decadal periods, while the ENSO cycle still exists, it is a “charge/discharge” cycle running on top of a longer-term rising OHC.

      • Pierre Normand,

        Excellent description. Few here realize that the IPWP has been gaining energy and expanding for the past 60+ years, or that what is considered as anomalous warmth in the Pacific used to define the comings and goings of El Nino’s has been constantly revised upwards over the past several decades to account for the continuously warming ocean. See:

        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_change.shtml

      • El Nino peaked in the 20th century in a 1000 year high.

        More salt is La Nina in a high resolution Law Dome ice core proxy.

    • Me too, Jeremy. The “pause meme,” as if the now 18 year hiatus is no more than some urban legend.

      Meme this, all you warmist memesters.

  56. Lewandowsky has a very interesting political position which he doesn´t show in certain venues. For example here´s a quote from his breathless description of Naomi Klein, the ubercommunist speaking at Oxford:

    “Opposition to neoliberalism, and its ultimate demise, may therefore be the only way in which climate mitigation can be achieved. On that view, any action that nibbles away at the prevailing neoliberal paradigm and its underlying fundamentalist view of free markets may indeed be considered climate activism.”

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyKlein.html

    I have seen enough of Naomi Klein to realize she´s a carefully painted over communist, and it seems to me Lewandowsky is using the climate issue as a political weapon or trojan horse. They seem to cover their tracks very carefully when they publish in Scientific American and similar publications, but their political slant really shows up when they write elsewhere.

    I couldn´t care less if a scientist was a devoted Marxist if the issue didn´t get involved in his or hers “scientific position”, but this is clearly what seems to happen with many of these individuals, their objective seems to be mostly to upset the apple cart using the climate as a weapon. Which seems to be quite foolish, all it does is generate political opposition and it definitely doesn´t get them additional political support.

    When they stray so far from the fundamental scientific/technical/economic issues (such as the fact that renewables aren´t cost effective and most countries can´t afford extensive deployment), they get completely out of their safe environment, which means their “solutions” become utter nonsense.

    • “I have seen enough of Naomi Klein to realize she´s a carefully painted over communist…:

      This is the woman who asserts that open-mindedness is the wrong approach to global warming…a disgraceful position for an academic and purported intellectual.

      I’d have scoffed at the communist thing a few years ago, but I no longer have any doubt that for a fair enough sized minority, global warming is their best opportunity to do away with capitalism.

      • Sure you’re not confusing her with Naomi Oreskes

      • Sorry, AK, yes, Naomi Oreskes. My bad. No wonder I couldn’t find the link I was looking for…

      • Let’s just find some Naomi or another we can vent our faux-skeptical diatribes on, eh?

      • There are people from every political persuasion who use an issue to advance political goals. And that doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong about the issue.

      • ‘In her most provocative book yet, Naomi Klein tackles the most profound threat humanity has ever faced: the war our economic model is waging against life on earth.’

        It is more than apparent that the rhetoric – superficially in the objective idiom of science – is a facade for a fringe extremist agenda.

      • How about Naomi campbell?

        Tonyb

      • Klein and Oreskes are clearly both Marxist stooges. But AFAIK Klein isn’t claiming to be a “scientist”

      • RE: Joseph’s “There are people from every political persuasion who use an issue to advance political goals. And that doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong about the issue.”

        Finally something we can agree on 100%.

        FYI – Neither of the Naomi’s are likely to be “right” with regard to the topic of climate.

    • ‘Forget everything you think you know about global warming. The really inconvenient truth is that it’s not about carbon—it’s about capitalism. The convenient truth is that we can seize this existential crisis to transform our failed economic system and build something radically better. 

In her most provocative book yet, Naomi Klein tackles the most profound threat humanity has ever faced: the war our economic model is waging against life on earth.’

  57. The mystical powers of the one element, CO2, and the force this one idea has on the scientifically week minds of global warming alarmists, really does make this one element, the One.

    Let Us Pray…

  58. Pingback: Judith Curry’s WSJ Op-Ed | Transterrestrial Musings

  59. Judith,

    In response to my critique at CCNF (http://climatechangenationalforum.org/uncertainty-doesnt-imply-nothing-is-known-or-nothing-should-be-done/ ) you write:
    “My seeming contradictory stance on the uncertainty issue is a valid point to raise.”

    Could you expand on that? How do you reconcile very large uncertainty re climate science in general with apparently very limited uncertainty re ECS and impacts (you seem very sure both are small)?

    Furthermore, I wrote:

    “The paleo-estimates are interesting in the sense that from a variety of time periods and from a variety of studies and methods, ECS appears to be in the range between 2 and 4 degrees C. It thus seems that when someone advocates for a value lower than that, they have some explaining to do as to why such large temperature swings occurred in the (deep) past?”

    to which you replied:

    “JC comment: Yes lets use dubious paleo estimates to falsify estimates from the relatively reliable instrumental record, and also lets forget that climate sensitivity is state dependent.”

    That’s a strawman. I may as well say “Yes lets ignore climate changes in the past and what we can learn from them and only go with the tremendously uncertain aerosol forcing, and also lets forget that feedbacks aren’t necessarily constant in time.” by which I’d also make a slight caricature of your opinion.

    Different methods for estimating ECS have different pros and cons. I deem it unwise to put all your eggs in one basket regarding ECS estimates, and ignoring other (inconvenient?) evidence, on the assumption that they are vastly inferior. The state-dependence you mention gives rise to a lot of questions, e.g. would you expect warm periods in the past to have higher ECS than cold periods? Is that what we’re seeing? Why or why not? But not, let’s not ask any of those questions and just ignore that field of research altogether.

    • Assuming (just for the sake of discussion) that the “ECS appears to be in the range between 2 and 4 degrees C”, why should anybody assume it’s within that range today?

      Start by assuming that you assumed the “ECS” was a fixed, constant, number, the actual range implied by your evidence is far larger than “between 2 and 4 degrees C” when you allow for it to vary depending on continental configuration. Then, it could easily be as low as 1° C or less. Thus, what’s needed is evidence from today regarding what it is.

      All the paleo evidence is thus deprecated.

    • Bart, I’ve always found it odd that people give much credence to ECS estimates based on proxy data from 24000 years ago. Surely modern data is much more accurate. Proxy reconstructions seem to be hugely controversial and there have been some quite prominent errors found by McIntyre in some of Mann’s work and even PAGES2K. That’s OK, but the modern data is much more reliable.

    • Bart, in my blog post i discussed the meta uncertainties surrounding all this. My op-ed is about the discrepancies between models and observations, including evidence that the models are running too hot.

      I regard the paleo estimates as less reliable than instrumental or climate models, for a variety of reasons. The IPCC seems to, also.

      My own eggs regarding this issue aren’t in any basket, i have problems with the whole idea of the CO2 climate control knob, I think natural climate variability is at least as important, and we have very little idea of how the 21st century climate will play out.

      • “i have problems with the whole idea of the CO2 climate control knob, I think natural climate variability is at least as important, and we have very little idea of how the 21st century climate will play out.”

        I’m no scientist. I’m not even all that bright. But the control knob metaphor struck me as absurdly simplistic when I first heard it a year or so ago, and I’m almost certain it would have done so 5 years ago when I was still a dewy eyed warmist. Around that time I became more and more mystified as to how they could distinguish current warming as somehow different from past warming, How could the IPCC be so certain? How could the APC state that the evidence was “incontrovertible.” The word seemed out of place, more suited to the rhetorical excess of a prosecuting attorney than a sober scientific assertion regarding something as immensely complicated as the climate.

        Turns out in my muddle-headed, foggy layman’s way, I was onto something.

      • Sorry. “APS.

      • lemiere jacques

        the very idea of an ecs is not obvious, so the idea of an ecs witch doesn’t depend of state of the systemis hard to accept.

      • Many papers now have directly related climate change to forcing changes, either by measurement or just assuming it as an obvious given to make sensitivity calculations. Increasing CO2 does lead to a forcing change, 2 W/m2 already, and maybe 6 W/m2 by 2100 unless something is done to slow down. Six W/m2 is very large, being more than ten times even the largest estimates of solar variations that have been thought to occur through the millennium including the Maunder Minimum and more comparable with forcing changes that lead to different geological epochs, periods or even eras. These quantifications put CO2 changes in context and make it a control knob.

    • Steven Mosher

      funny.

      I read Ar4 and Ar5 on sensitivity. I read all the comments by reviewers.
      In these years long assessments of the state of the science, I find no
      record of people weighing the various methods and appproaches to estimating sensitivity. To wit: the method Judith and Nic used was just fine
      when it yielded higher numbers.. Now, it’s somehow suspect.

      Further, every time I push into Paleo data and methods I find the following.

      1. incomplete archives
      2. untested methods.
      3. almost no code.

      Take Hansen on the LGM. Quality check 101.
      a) what value does he use for additional forcing due to doubling c02
      b) can you replicate his result

      Bottom line. the study of ECS needs to do some basic 101 stuff.

      I propose the following. If a paper on ECS cannot be replicated, if the author cannot BOTHER to archive his code and data for this momentous question, then that paper is JUNK.

      Step one: get rid of the junk and do a proper job.

      This is your cue to defend shoddy science.

      I dare you.

    • Bart, I’m going to have a lot of fun watching people on your side disown C & W once the AMO is negative, the ice recovers, and C & W show the most cooling of the data sets. Good to know in advance you will be sticking with it thick or thin.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Steven, that would only be fair since warmists already have had their fun seeing skeptics squirm and disown thee efforts of Judy’s own BEST team to produce a land surface record that incorporates many more stations, and implements better algorithms, in order to correct alleged warmist biases in the CRU record, only to discover that the CRU warming trend was biased low.

      • Pierre-Normand, see, you know exactly how much fun I’ll be having.

      • Pierre-Normand

        I embrace my Karma.

  60. One can easily think of reasons why ECS might be less today than 24000 years ago. There is a lot less ice so albedo feedbacks are much more limited in extent. They there is dust and aerosols. Bart, do you really think its possible to estimate today what their effect was on huge ice sheets, tundra in North America, or Asia?

  61. http://news.yahoo.com/britain-threatens-internet-trolls-two-years-jail-110001348.html;_ylt=AwrBJR_DD0RUZCgAnGjQtDMD

    The link says it all.

    I wonder if we can extradite some of our more, shall we say, loquacious commenters from the US to Britain?

    On a serious note, other than credible threats of violence, I think this is a really bad idea.

    • GaryM

      To put this into perspective, as well as the examples listed there are various other examples of extreme trolling including threats of ra*e and maiming and other campaigns of sheer hatred.

      Personally I steer clear of social media as some of it is very unpleasant but I don’t see why we should have to put up with these extremely unpleasant and potentially dangerous trolls, some of whom have caused their victims to commit suicide.

      tonyb

      • I’d say the issue is where to draw the line, Tony. We can all agree that threats of violence shouldn’t be tolerated, but it’s easy to see how in these nanny state, politically correct times, this could be dangerous.

        Statements like this from the article bother me as dangerously broad: “This is a law to combat cruelty — and marks our determination to take a stand against a baying cyber-mob”

      • Pokerguy

        We are talking about extreme trolling here with extreme results such as stalking, credible threats of violence and actions that cause suicide.

        Tonyb

      • tonyb,

        According to the article:

        “Prosecutions can currently be brought under a number of different laws, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) last year introduced guidelines to address any confusion.

        It said messages sent via social media could be a criminal offence if they contain ‘credible threats of violence’ or target an individual in a way that ‘may constitute harassment or stalking.'”

        Let me show you the worrisome part of this:

        “…messages sent via social media could be a criminal offence if they…target an individual in a way that ‘may constitute harassment….'” (“Or” can be a very dangerous word in criminal statutes.)

        This suggests that prosecution will not necessarily be limited to “threats of ra*e and maiming and other campaigns of sheer hatred.”

        Harassment is a very broad term. Without seeing the statute in question, I can’t say for sure, but it certainly seems the British prosecutors believe they can prosecute for harassment, not just credible threats. And if the last ten years have taught us anything, it is that terms like “harassment” can be defined extremely broadly.

        You might currently have a putatively conservative government over there, but eventually there will be hard core progressives in charge again. Just imagine how they will interpret the term. Up to 2 years in prison if a progressive prosecutor thinks your tweets constitute harassment. As I said, a really bad idea.

      • “some of whom have caused their victims to commit suicide.” No, Tony, that is entirely down to the individual concerned, and their reaction to external stimuli. I’ve twice been very close to suicide, and when older and wiser was assessed to be for several months at a level of depression normally associated with suicide, but suicide was never an option for me then. Yes, people may be brutal, vicious and contemptible in their behaviour, but the response is down to the individual. We can’t control the external world, we can control the way we respond to it.

      • Faustino,
        I commend your courage. And wisdom. The liberal impulse is to sanitize the world from all perceived threats. We most especially want to be sure that nobody’s feelings are hurt. This growing impulse has led to a new class of crimes…”hate crimes” which we are to believe are more heinous that just regular crimes, even when involving the same level of violence.

        We’re already a good way down the slippery slope to full on absurdity. High time for the pendulum to swing the other way, imvho.

  62. As much as I read in this blog, I’m more convinced that earth climate is a sort of these various balls toys, who are fuelled by batteries (sun), but with a lot of subsystems that haven’t still been well captured by models. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1RokwR5fO8
    Another idea is that by the moment, models are in some way in hands of only one side of the players,it would be interesting if other ideas could be introduced in those models, as a “what if…”, including even what are now considered phantasious theories. The democratization of access to models, in order to use them to test those ideas would be very desirable. Maybe with next generations of computers that will be possible. Having an standard model (not many that use practically the same equations and introduce the same inputs) that includes many variables that you can change “on line”. Maybe this post is naif, but….

    • Pepe, the supercomputers on which climate models necessarily run are so expensive that theynare only feasible in the hands of government funding. And those governments (US, UK, Germany) are firmly warmunist.

      But there is not need to try. There are mathematical fatal flaws in all the models that cannot be overcome even if supercomputers improve by an order of magnitude, and if Rob Ellisons nonlinear dynamic chaos concerns can be overcome by enough ensemble runs to discern their main climate strange attractors.
      The core problem is that essential heat convective processes (Lindzen’s adaptive iris) occur at scales at least an order of magnitude smaller than the smallest grid cells now computationally feasible. And shrinking those cells by an order of magnitude raises the computational requirements by roughly two orders of magnitude, since the time steps must also shrink accordingly.
      These issues are illustrated in the essay Models all the way down, in ebook Blowing Smoke, which appeared yesterday with a foreward from our hostess.

  63. Stephen Segrest

    CaptnDallas — Could you lay out your argument in bullet form why you are so negative on solar, and pro-active on nuclear? Could you limit your argument to the U.S. (not the EU). Thanks.

    • I am not particularly pro or negative on anything other than the way policy tries to pick winners ahead of time. I think grid connected solar is not a great idea yet and that stand along solar is a better way to develop the technology. I like smaller scale nuclear only because the reduced decay energy makes it much safer to operate. I left my crystal ball someplace so I can’t tell you what will win. I can tell you it is likely to be a bit of a surprise. I foresee more pleasant surprises when government mandates aren’t involved.

      • Stephen Segrest

        Articles from not exactly your “Wild Eye Liberal” sources — Forbes Magazine and Georgia Power.
        Whether Georgia Power and the PSC made a good decision one could assume that either (A) they did a detailed system planning study using load shape curves, engineering economics on stacked dispatch, probability assessments on fuel diversity, ect. or (B) The Liberal Socialists made them do it. Wagathon will of course choose that it was Option B.

        Key quote from the PSC was it was a good fit in meeting peak load requirements.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/10/17/theres-a-sunnier-life-after-coal-in-georgia/

        http://www.utilitydive.com/news/georgia-power-inks-solar-contracts-for-less-than-65-centskwh/321898/

      • Steven, South Carolina also has a reasonable plan to integrate solar with their distribution system That plan was developed by the state and the state utilities. That is how it should work. The homes installing solar though are not guaranteed some large fixed buy back rate like some states. The plan in SC is flexible, which is intelligent.

        Here in the Keys there are utility scale solar projects that are being evaluated. The Keys has an issue with potential wind and salt damage. It doesn’t make much sense to go hog wild on solar if it can’t withstand the environment. Since the price of solar is dropping, lower cost will reduce risk. It is simple local decision making.

        If you think west Florida and Duke power can max out solar, invest in it. Just don’t force the FKEC to follow suite.

        It really boggles my mind that you can’t accept that people are smart enough to make their own decisions without your or the federal governments help. The federal government has a role, but not a mandate to think for everyone.

      • Stephen Segrest

        Captdallas — I’ve consistently said I oppose a “Federal” Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (an example of Liberal top/down, command/control, one-size-fits-all policy approaches like carbon taxes and cap and trade which I also have been clear I oppose).

        I believe renewable energy decisions should be made at State and local levels — looking for the “right fits” that make sense (i.e., peaking loads, as the Forbes article on Georgia discussed).

    • Stephen: With these new solar projects Georgia will have about 3% of its power come from solar. Remember the comment on another thread about planners being overruled by committees for political correctness? And did you know that Georgia is a huge recipient federal dollars? Multiple military installations, the CDC, etc; three Army bases in GA are getting 30 MW solar sites each. Looks like 3% was deemed just right to keep the $$ rolling in.

    • Stephen Segrest

      rls — Your comment would require a “conspiracy theory” which in today’s world of open public access to things like Utility integrated resource planning and especially “Request for Proposals” would be puzzlesome. It would require System Planning engineers being told to “manipulate” their models (and then be able to hide it in any public forum) so that solar wins. I personally never experienced anything like this.

      Now some assumptions used in engineering economics models would be “subjective” and totally at the discretion of management that could favor solar. An example of this is what EPA regs to use on things like future mercury and low level ozone emissions.

      Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an EPA reg on low level ozone (developed under the George W. Bush Administration no less) that Industry had appealed in the Courts for about 6 years:

      http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/219853-supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-epa-ozone-standard

      Now, I could buy-in to the subjective assumption of what future EPA ppb will be (that would clearly effect engineering economics models) — but this wouldn’t be a “conspiracy theory”.

      • Stephen Segrest

        rls — another example in engineering economics assumptions is the importance of having a diversified fuel mix. Some Utilities feel very strongly about this (as to weighting of importance) — and sincerely believe this in their justification of nuclear power. But in making assumptions say on the price of natural gas, the Utility must be consistent in assumptions in their resource planning. In evaluating nuclear they couldn’t use one set of assumptions on natural gas, and then on solar to use another set of assumptions.

      • China is putting in 58 nuclear plants by 2023 (one every 2 months) with no shutdowns of old plants.

        The new plants include some Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.

        It is pretty obvious that bureaucratic interference and regulatory obstacles makes nuclear power much more expensive than it should be.

        There isn’t any reason for the US to switch to renewables – the massive installation of nuclear power plants by India and China will significantly slow the rate of CO2 increase. China and India combined produce twice the CO2 that the US does. The emissions increase in the last decade was driven by China with a little help from India.

        The slower the rate of fossil fuel consumption – the lower the maximum CO2 level will be.

      • Stephen: My comment was not nearly related to conspiracy theories. As a retired government engineer I know first hand what government does with your money; the sound advice from engineers/planners is regularly overruled for political reasons. Forget about documented evidence; confuscation is a valuable skill that elevates those in the forth branch of government. Wake up!

      • PA,

        Southern Company has been sending people to China to help with the learning curve on construction of the AP1000 plant.

      • timg56 | October 20, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        PA,

        Southern Company has been sending people to China to help with the learning curve on construction of the AP1000 plant.

        From what I can tell at least 4 AP1000 reactors will be installed by Westinghouse as part of a technological cooperation agreement with the Chinese.

        People of Han Chinese descent are statistically the smartest people on the planet … Perhaps they are following a wiser path than the US.

    • Why not follow the lead of France? They’re Leftists who also hate free enterprise capitalism and Americanism.

    • Stephen – You seem to be on a one man campaign for solar with a one data point – Georgia Power – anti-nuke counter example. How boring. Do you work for the solar industry? If it’s so great why don’t go out and buy a system, without a subsidy, and then tell us all about it.

      If you know how to use Google you can find all the articles you need to explain the costs to every to integrate intermittent power sources like solar into the grade.

  64. “JC comment: Yes lets use dubious paleo estimates to falsify estimates from the relatively reliable instrumental record,…”

    How do you include aerosols, for which there isn’t enough data? The 5AR estimates (with “low confidence”) they create -1 W/m2 of forcing, with an uncertainty of about +/- 1 W/m2, with GHGs forcing of about 3.2 +/- 1 W/m2 (5AR WG1 Figure T.6). Without good aerosol time series, how can you use the 20th century to infer equilibium climate sensitivity?

    I still don’t see how you and Lewis justiify leaving aerosols out of your recent paper.

  65. ‘During enclosure, the trapped air is subjected to processes that alter the CO2 mixing ratio ultimately preserved in the ice (Anklin et al., 1995; Schwander, 1996; Trudinger et al., 2003). Diffusion through the firn layer and gradual enclosure in the bubbles leads to smoothing of the record and, thus, underestimation of the amplitude of the CO2 changes (Trudinger et al., 2003).

    file:///C:/Users/Robert/Downloads/16555-47845-1-SM.pdf

    The carbon dioxide narrative is fundamental to climate extremism – and it is wrong. Carbon levels were as high as today at the beginning of the Holocene.

  66. The biggest error of all the errors in the physics of the radiative greenhouse conjecture is that they “explain” the surface temperature of 288K using Stefan-Boltzmann calculations based on the direct solar radiation PLUS about TWICE as much supposed thermal energy input from the colder atmosphere. The real solar flux of about 161W/m^2 would “warm” an Earth that is fully paved with asphalt to -35C. Yes that is MINUS 35C. It is so blatantly obvious that there has to be a lot of additional thermal energy fed into a planet’s surface by convection and conduction on the sunlit side. I have shown how that is in accord with the laws of physics.

  67. If a molecule has an upward component in its free path movement between collisions then some of the translational kinetic energy in that molecule (M.Cp.dT) supplies the additional gravitational potential energy (M.g.dH) that it acquires by virtue of its additional altitude. Vice versa for downward motion. Equate the two and you have the temperature gradient dT/dH = g/Cp which should not be hard to understand.

    Because the laws of physics can be used to explain this gravitationally induced temperature gradient, the fact that the surface temperature of a planet is higher than the radiating temperature of the planet is fully explained (and confirmed empirically) by this autonomous temperature gradient.

    There is no need for any other explanation as is supposedly presented in the false radiative greenhouse conjecture.

    • We have been through this before and it has no relation to the topic in hand.

      But – in a ‘parcel’ of air molecualr motions are random and so there is no global change in potential energy.

      The correct expression for the change in kinetic energy in a volume is –

      du = m.Cv.T

      Cv does not equal Cp in a compressible
      gas.

      So 2 basic errors in two expressions and Doug is striking out wildly. Globally in the hothouse that is climate blogging – does anyone believe you Doug? Didn’t think so.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison: “Oh – yeah. My view of thermal stratification under gravity is that it may or may not happen. The physical mechanism seems reasonable enough.”

        What is “the physical mechanism” that you are referring to? It would seem that the imprecisely stated mechanism that you have waved your hands in the direction of is debunked by Maxwell’s direct argument about sameness of speed distributions. You mechanism seems to amounts to simply loosing track of the relevant molecule populations. The argument from the second law just reinforces the conclusion that M-B speed distributions (and hence kinetic temperature of ideal gases) must be invariant with height.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      D C [rants and raves his non-standard theories]

      FOMD’s Thermodynamic Conundrum

      On the surface of the airless Moon sits a box of ordinary Earth-air at standard temperature and pressure. Upon the box’s top surface is a pinhole leak, from which the molecules fly upward and (eventually) fall back (without interacting with one another during flight).

      Question  Of those molecules that fly one kilometer high or higher, what is their average kinetic energy as they pass through a height of one kilometer? Through two kilometers? Through three kilometers?

      Answer  The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.

      At larger heights there are fewer molecules … but the average per-molecule kinetic energy is unchanged.

      Recommendation  Don’t take FOMD’s word … calculate the molecular-energy distribution for yourself, straight from first-principles Newtonian dynamics!

      It is a pleasure to dynamically amaze you (and Climate Etc readers) D C!

      \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}

      • Internal kinetic energy is a statistical concept and has a Boltzmann distribution. God only knows what happens to a stray molecule on the moon.

        But any mass in a gravity field has a total energy.

        TE = KE + PE = mgz + 1/2mV^2

        Total energy is conserved.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Awesome thought experiment Fan! I had never thought of that. So I just Googled the phrase: (vertical temperature profile of a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium) and immediately found a relevant Wikipedia hit:

        “If several systems are free of adiabatic walls between each other, but are jointly isolated from the rest of the world, then they reach a state of multiple contact equilibrium, and they have a common temperature, and a joint total internal energy, and a joint total entropy.[4][5][6][7] Amongst intensive variables, this is a unique property of temperature. It holds even in the presence of long-range forces. [b]For example, in a system in thermodynamic equilibrium in a vertical gravitational field, the pressure on the top wall is less than that on the bottom wall, but the temperature is the same at top and bottom.[/b]” (My emphasis). Wikipedia — Thermodynamic Equilibrium.

      • Wow. Wikipedia is the height of reliable and relevant information.

        If the molecule is simply a free mass in an airless environment moving a kilometre up and then falling.

        TE = KE + PE

        So FOMBS is just wrong on the most basic level of the laws of motion.

        Is P-N talking about the zeroth law and moving on to the gravito-thermal effect? Gravity removes kinetic energy from molecules moving up and adds to those moving down. So in a closed column there are more molecules and a higher temperature at the bottom than the top – seeing as net movement is down. Which is where Wikipedia seems to have got it wrong – although I haven’t done the experiment. In the real world – as Maxwell said – convection and turbulent mixing rule.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob, Fan didn’t say anything about the total energy of individual molecules.

        Sure, individual molecules conserve energy (in between collisions) and their KE diminishes as they rise. But the gas parcels in lower level don’t rise uniformly as they are postulated to do in the dry adiabatic expansion case. Rather they individually move up at various speeds. Hence only some fraction of the molecules that are travelling up and cross some level L1 get to reach any specific higher level L2. This allows for the velocity distribution to remain constant in spite of the fact that the individual molecules *that* manage to reach the higher level (before falling back down) have reduced velocity.

        It’s like having a bunch of marathon runners with a (fat tail) distribution of running speeds that all tire and slow down uniformly as they run until they stop and collapse. Those who cross the finish line may collectively have the same speed distribution as the full set that departed (as it departed) since the slower runners didn’t ever make it and thus the distribution of the ‘winners’ gets skewed back up to where it was when they started (as part of the larger set).

      • Pierre-Normand

        Of course this will only work for some specific velocity distributions. Fan’s challenge was for the reader to calculate that this is indeed the case for the actual velocity distribution (or KE distibution) in a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium.

      • Question Of those molecules that fly one kilometer high or higher, what is their average kinetic energy as they pass through a height of one kilometer? Through two kilometers? Through three kilometers?

        Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.

        We are talking the moon – so nothing to hold it up. The assumption is that it shoots out at 300 m/s travels up a kilometer or two slowing down against gravity and eventually stops and starts to fall. At all stages total energy is equal to kinetic plus potential.

        I ignored the rest of your tedious and pointless divagations.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison: “We are talking the moon – so nothing to hold it up.”

        That’s quite irrelevant. Molecules that cross back a given level after crossing it once on the way up come back with the same scalar velocity and hence the same KE as it did on the way up. So the fact that they fall down doesn’t change the velocity (and KE) distribution at that level. And the molecules that never even made it that high up don’t come back down through that level either.

        Rob: “The assumption is that it shoots out at 300 m/s travels up a kilometer or two slowing down against gravity and eventually stops and starts to fall. At all stages total energy is equal to kinetic plus potential.”

        So? What does that agreed point have to do with the velocity distribution of *different* sets of molecules at various levels?

        In any case, are you denying that for a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium, within a tall adiabatic enclosure, within a vertical gravitational field, there is a pressure gradient but no temperature gradient? Or are you agreeing but you have an alternate explanation? Or are you merely agnostic?

      • Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.

        It is not true by the laws of motion. Simple as that.

        That’s quite irrelevant. Molecules that cross back a given level after crossing it once on the way up come back with the same scalar velocity and hence the same KE as it did on the way up. So the fact that they fall down doesn’t change the velocity (and KE) distribution at that level. And the molecules that never even made it that high up don’t come back down through that level either.

        Bizarre ratiocination purporting to prove that black is white and white is black. The reality is that at any level.

        TE = KE + PE

        So in no sense is kinetic energy independent of height – nor is the velocity necessarily the same at the height on the way up as the way down. This is true only at the midpoint of a vertical trajectory. Totally hopeless.

        Rob: “The assumption is that it shoots out at 300 m/s travels up a kilometer or two slowing down against gravity and eventually stops and starts to fall. At all stages total energy is equal to kinetic plus potential.”

        So? What does that agreed point have to do with the velocity distribution of *different* sets of molecules at various levels?

        In any case, are you denying that for a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium, within a tall adiabatic enclosure, within a vertical gravitational field, there is a pressure gradient but no temperature gradient? Or are you agreeing but you have an alternate explanation? Or are you merely agnostic?

        It’s the phucking moon you maroon – stop wasting everyone’s time with this crazy cr@p. There is no gas in thermodynamic equilibrium. No insulated container. There are individual molecules rising and falling.

        In an insulated container there is a temperature gradient – http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4101

        However – in the real word – as Maxwell said – convection and turbulent mixing rule.

        There is a weird pseudo physics that comes out of these guys.

      • And now I suppose he will go to the mat defending something he read in Wikipedia. I suppose we could rehash the whole Loschmidt – Maxwell debate. But not even Mazwell disputed the thermal gradient.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison: “So in no sense is kinetic energy independent of height – nor is the velocity necessarily the same at the height on the way up as the way down. This is true only at the midpoint of a vertical trajectory. Totally hopeless.”

        Yeek! By your own acknowledgement, for any given molecule, total energy TE = KE + PE, where ‘TE’ is conserved throughout the free fall trajectory. Since when the molecule comes back at any level L with the very same potential energy that it had on the way up at that level, and since TE is conserved, KE, (and hence also scalar velocity,) must *also* be the same. If it were different, since PE is the same, then TE would not be conserved. That’s true for any level along the molecule’s trajectory and not just the midpoint of the whole vertical trajectory.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison,

        You also keep missing the point by a mile. The issue isn’t about the KE of a given molecule, or a given set of molecules. Of course KE diminishes for any given molecule on the way up. But for any given set with a Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution, only a fraction of that set gets to any higher level from their own impetus (that is without help from collisions). So the issue is about the comparison of velocity distributions at different levels from *different* sets of molecules — namely all those molecules that ever get to that higher level at all starting from the lower one. TE = KE + PE is assumed for individual molecules.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “I suppose we could rehash the whole Loschmidt – Maxwell debate. But not even Mazwell disputed the thermal gradient.”

        OK. I looked that up. Thanks for the reference. Maxwell argued that there is *no* gradient when the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium withing an adiabatic enclosure. Loschmidt argued that there ought to be a small gradient (not of any practical relevance to the tropospheric lapse rate that is dominated by out of thermodynamic equilibria convective and/or radiative processes.) Also you own argument seems identical to Doug C.’s and bear no resemblance to Loschmidt’s own.

      • ‘Yeek! By your own acknowledgement, for any given molecule, total energy TE = KE + PE, where ‘TE’ is conserved throughout the free fall trajectory. Since when the molecule comes back at any level L with the very same potential energy that it had on the way up at that level, and since TE is conserved, KE, (and hence also scalar velocity,) must *also* be the same.’

        TE = KE + PE

        Is a consequence of the 1st law. FOMBS argues that KE was independent of height – and you are arguing it is independent because what goes up must come down.

        Trivial nonsense masquerading as something of any interest.

        You also keep missing the point by a mile. The issue isn’t about the KE of a given molecule, or a given set of molecules.

        On the surface of the airless Moon sits a box of ordinary Earth-air at standard temperature and pressure. Upon the box’s top surface is a pinhole leak, from which the molecules fly upward and (eventually) fall back (without interacting with one another during flight).

        Naw – it’s a stupid idea about molecules on the moon. Which P-N insists somehow makes sense if there are a lot of them. It doesn’t regardless of the velocities of different molecules. It is straight up laws of motion.

        TE = m.g.z + 1/2(m.V^2)

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison, you still are missing the point by a mile. Neither Fan, nor me, nor James Clerk Maxwell ever argued “that KE was independent of height” for individual molecules. It’s an arguments about velocity distributions of different sets of molecules. This seems a very difficult argument for you to comprehend. Maxwell certainly thought that the KE distribution, and hence the kinetic temperature, is independent of height when the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium. And he thought long and hard about the problem and never was clearly *shown* to be wrong from what I gather from recent searches. (That’s not an argument from authority as much as a plea for you not to dismiss the argument carelessly as a trivial blunder from a random Climate Etc. poster).

        Are you yourself arguing that the the average KE of the molecules diminishes with height such that avg_KE(z) + PE(z) is a conserved quantity that does not vary with z? That is, the average kinetic energy of molecules at height z, plus its potential energy at that level, is a conserved quantity?

        Maybe you can just state, mathematically, what you think is the incidence of the conservation law TE = KE + PE for the vertical gradient of temperature of a gas in equilibrium in a gravity field of strength g. Can you calculate it at all?

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison,

        Also, do you stand by your claim that “[…] nor is the velocity necessarily the same at the height on the way up as the way down. This is true only at the midpoint of a vertical trajectory.” ?

        For convenience you may simply check the appropriate box:

        [ ] Oops, sorry. I goofed there.
        [ ] Yes. I stand by my claim.
        [ ] I may or may not have goofed but I’ll just duck the question and try not to think about it any more because their is no way in Hell that I’ll ever acknowledge a mistake.

      • ‘OK. I looked that up. Thanks for the reference. Maxwell argued that there is *no* gradient when the gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium withing an adiabatic enclosure. Loschmidt argued that there ought to be a small gradient (not of any practical relevance to the tropospheric lapse rate that is dominated by out of thermodynamic equilibria convective and/or radiative processes.)’

        It is called an insulated container. Adiabatic is pretentious claptrap. P-N reminds me so much of Feynman.

        “There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — and pompous fools drive me up the wall. Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools — guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus — THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible! And that’s what I got at the conference, a bunch of pompous fools, and I got very upset.”

        ‘Also you own argument seems identical to Doug C.’s and bear no resemblance to Loschmidt’s own.’

        He is suddenly an expert in something he didn’t know about 10 minutes ago?

        ‘In an isolated system the temperature of the walls depend on the speed of the impinging molecules. The average of their speed is lower at the top than at the bottom as each molecule gets accelerated on its way downwards and decelerated upwards. Through this energy is transported from the upper to the lower wall until equilibrium is reached.’ http://www.firstgravitymachine.com/temperaturedifference.phtml

        Graeff (2006) provided the first experimental result we know of – http://www.firstgravitymachine.com/temperaturedifference.phtml

        Frønsdal 2014 provides a fascinating discussion in which the experiment described by Clive Best is proposed.

        Some features of hydro- and thermodynamics, as applied to atmospheres and to stellar structures, are puzzling: 1. The suggestion, first made by Laplace, that our atmosphere has an adiabatic temperature distribution, is confirmed for the lower layers, but the reason why it should be so is difficult to understand. 2. The standard treatment of relativistic thermodynamics does not favor a systematic treatment of mixtures, such as the mixture of a perfect gas with radiation. 3. The concept of mass in applications of general relativity to stellar structures is less than completely satisfactory. 4. Arguments in which a concept of energy plays a role, in the context of hydro-thermodynamical systems
        and gravitation, are not always convincing. It is proposed that a formulation of thermodynamics
        as an action principle may be a suitable approach to adopt for a new investigation of these matters. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4990.pdf

      • ‘Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.’ FOMBS

        ‘Rob Ellison, you still are missing the point by a mile. Neither Fan, nor me, nor James Clerk Maxwell ever argued “that KE was independent of height” for individual molecules. It’s an arguments about velocity distributions of different sets of molecules. This seems a very difficult argument for you to comprehend.’

        Velocity distributions consists of molecules at different velocities. Velocities of groups of molecules on the moon ‘flying freely’ are not independent of height.

        ‘That’s (TE = KE + PE) quite irrelevant. Molecules that cross back a given level after crossing it once on the way up come back with the same scalar velocity and hence the same KE as it did on the way up. So the fact that they fall down doesn’t change the velocity (and KE) distribution at that level. And the molecules that never even made it that high up don’t come back down through that level either. ‘

        So – the velocity of the molecule is independent of height because they pass back through a point (KE + PE) on the way down?

        We start with a scenario that is obviously wrong and get deluged with quite spurious dissimulation. Does he believe the cr@p he spouts?

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison wrote: “It is called an insulated container. Adiabatic is pretentious claptrap. P-N reminds me so much of Feynman. “There were a lot of fools at that conference — pompous fools — […]”

        OK. This after we both used the term “adiabatic” to mean “no matter or heat flow through the system’s boundary” one bazillion times each in the previous discussion. I guess this content free reply was your backhanded way to check the third box, and also avoid committing yourself to anything precise about the implications of your own view regarding the vertical temperature gradient at thermodynamic equilibrium.

      • No – it is called insulated because that is the key property of the isolated column. It is a matter of the simplest terminology as opposed to high sounding claptrap that is in fact incomplete.

        Oh yeah – the kinetic energy is independent of the height because it goes up and then goes down. Incorrect and trivial.

      • Oh – yeah. My view of thermal stratification under gravity is that it may or may not happen. The physical mechanism seems reasonable enough.

        Maxwell relied on the second law – because otherwise we could build a difference engine that would be a perpetual motion machine. It would actually be a very small difference engine powered by gravity. Whatever gravity is.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison: “Velocity distributions consists of molecules at different velocities. Velocities of groups of molecules on the moon ‘flying freely’ are not independent of height.”

        That point is granted from the get go. It’s indeed essential to the demonstration (which shows that you haven’t been paying attention at all to what Fan had said). They come out of the box with a Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution. Since they are free falling in the Moon’s gravity field, not only are their KE falling off linearly with height, they also don’t all have enough KE to climb to some level z where their potential energy would be PE(z) = m * g_M * z, where g_M is the acceleration of gravity at the Moon surface. They just don’t all have enough KE to get that high. Hence, as you look at the speed distribution of the molecules that have climbed to height H, you only are considering a *subset* of the molecules that exited the box. (Which also was the point of my marathon runners analogy, which may be easier for some to picture).

        Though molecules from *this* subset now have kinetic energies uniformly lowered by the value PE(H), compared with the kinetic energies that *they* had when leaving the box, there were many more molecules leaving the box that aren’t part of this subset. So, Maxwell’s result essentially is that the *subset* from the molecules leaving the box *that* make it to height H have the same M-B speed distribution (at height H) as had the *full* set while it left the box (at height 0).

        (We can quibble over the fact that molecules only are coming out within the upper half solid angle of the the full isotropic M-B speed distribution, or that some have escape velocity and don’t fall back down, but that’s inessential to the core argument. One just has to track the relevant sets (ignore molecules on their way down) or imagine the “Moon”‘s gravity g_M to be much stronger.)

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison: “Oh yeah – the kinetic energy is independent of the height because it goes up and then goes down. Incorrect and trivial.”

        What? Who said KE is independent of height?

      • ‘Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.’ FOMBS

        It is where it started and no amount of digression, dissimulation or diversion will change it. The average kinetic energy at any height is inversely related to the potential energy.

        Now go away and bore someone else with your obvious nonsense.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison wrote: “We are talking the moon – so nothing to hold it up. The assumption is that it shoots out at 300 m/s travels up a kilometer or two slowing down against gravity and eventually stops and starts to fall. At all stages total energy is equal to kinetic plus potential.”

        I think I have answered this objection now through stressing the statistical nature of the speed distributions and that they apply to changing collections of molecules. However I forestalled another objection and this threw you off. Sorry for that. I had said that:

        “That’s quite irrelevant. Molecules that cross back a given level after crossing it once on the way up come back with the same scalar velocity and hence the same KE as it did on the way up. So the fact that they fall down doesn’t change the velocity (and KE) distribution at that level. And the molecules that never even made it that high up don’t come back down through that level either.”

        This was a response to your: “We are talking the moon – so nothing to hold it up.” (which I quoted specifically). Here I was not arguing that the KE distributions are height independent *because* the molecules are falling back down through the same height with the same KA. (This would actually be a non sequitur). I rather thought the fact the molecules pass through the level L twice rather than once was a worry for you. (I now see that that was not your worry. You were merely making a point about *your* reason for believing that speed distributions are height dependent). So I merely pointed out that *once* we have established the speed distribution of the molecules going *up* through the surface, and that this distribution can be the same irrespective of height, then it is irrelevant that there also are molecules coming back down through this surface because their distribution is the same as those going up. But this is not the main argument. It’s just my response to the perceived objection aforementioned.

        And then, we were thrown further off course when you made your goofy assertion: “nor is the velocity necessarily the same at the height on the way up as the way down. This is true only at the midpoint of a vertical trajectory.” A goofy assertion that you seem unwilling to either stand by or retract.

      • ‘Question Of those molecules that fly one kilometer high or higher, what is their average kinetic energy as they pass through a height of one kilometer? Through two kilometers? Through three kilometers?

        Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.’ FOMBS

        ‘Rob Ellison: “We are talking the moon – so nothing to hold it up.”

        At some height it actually has gravitational potential energy – unlike in Earth’s atmosphere where it has buoyant potential and bulk kinetic energies.

        Total energy = kinetic + potential

        ‘That’s quite irrelevant. Molecules that cross back a given level after crossing it once on the way up come back with the same scalar velocity and hence the same KE as it did on the way up. So the fact that they fall down doesn’t change the velocity (and KE) distribution at that level. And the molecules that never even made it that high up don’t come back down through that level either.’se at all

        This is an argument for KE being independent of height.

        ‘Of course this will only work for some specific velocity distributions. Fan’s challenge was for the reader to calculate that this is indeed the case for the actual velocity distribution (or KE distibution) in a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium.’

        That molecules speeding past a kilometer high o n the moon has an average kinetic energy independent of the height? Simply not true – and thermodynamic equilibrium simply is ludicrous.

        This bears no relation at all to the point FOMBS was erroneously making – and manages to make no logical sense at all. It is so difficult with this person to maintain a grasp on reality under the deluge of nonsense.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison:

        ‘Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.’ FOMBS

        It is where it started and no amount of digression, dissimulation or diversion will change it. The average kinetic energy at any height is inversely related to the potential energy.”

        You are misreading FOMD’s carefully constructed sentence because you are completely ignoring the context, ignoring the argument, ignoring my explanations, and mistakenly parsing it as if it were written thus:

        “The average kinetic energy of a set of molecules [as they] freely fly to higher heights is independent of that height”

        But this is not what FOMD has written.

        It’s as if someone wrote: “The average income of the employees *who* move to any *given* level of the corporate ladder is independent of that level”

        And you insisted to read it thus: “The average income of a set of employees *as they* moves through the corporate ladder is independent of the position”

        However it’s possible for the first sentence to be true while the second one (the strawman that you are attacking) is false.

        This second sentence indeed is false if all employees that moves up receive a pay raise.

        This may be the case while the first sentence is true because, even though each employee that moves up gets a pay raise, only the lower paid from previous corporate level get promoted at all, while those who have the highest salary get demoted.

      • Pierre-Normand

        As I was researching Loschmidt’s gravito-thermal theory, I found some discussions by Pekka on an earlier Climate Etc thread:

        https://judithcurry.com/2012/11/28/clouds-and-magic/#comment-272521
        https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/observation-based-attribution/

        Pekka: “Referring also to some comments of DocMartyn it’s interesting to note that without molecular collisions in the atmosphere and radiative effects the atmosphere would be isothermal in a very peculiar way. The starting point is an assumption that the surface has some constant temperature and that gas molecules leave the surface with a Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution that corresponds to this temperature. [P-N: Note that this is essentially FOMD’s starting point] That means that lighter molecules would on average have a higher velocity than heavier ones. Each molecule would go as far up in the gravitational field as it’s original vertical speed allows, those staring with higher speed would go higher than slower ones.

        Under these assumptions the velocity distribution would be identical at all altitudes in spite of the fact that every molecule slows down when going up and speeds up again while falling. That’s possible because only the molecules with high original vertical speed reach ever the high altitudes. The selection of initially faster molecules cancels precisely the slowing down with altitude.”

        P-N: And this is exactly FOMD’s argument (and from the Wikipedia article) as I understood it.

      • ‘The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.’

        ‘The average income of the employees *who* move to any *given* level of the corporate ladder is independent of that level’

        It is really quite odd. The kinetic energy of any projectile in the moon’s gravity is inversely related to the distance the mass was moved against gravity. It works for any number of projectiles. At one level they collectively have higher kinetic energy and lower potential energy than a point higher up.

        Hard to imagine such fuzzy thinking and fuzzy descriptions has much purpose other than to deceive deliberately.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison wrote: “The kinetic energy of any projectile in the moon’s gravity is inversely related to the distance the mass was moved against gravity. It works for any number of projectiles.”

        It works for each one of them separately since they are independent. The *set* of molecules moving up from a lower level doesn’t move as a whole in between levels. It spreads out randomly at various speeds in an isotropic fashion (within the upper 2pi steradian solid angle, the lower half is ignored because it’s not relevant to the higher level).

        “At one level they collectively have higher kinetic energy and lower potential energy than a point higher up.”

        This makes no sense since they “collectively” have a M-B speed distribution. Some are moving fast, some slowly. Some are moving up, some down. So the collection as a whole *never* makes it to the higher level and you can’t make the comparison that you purport to make. Only a *subset* of the collection makes it to the higher level and this *subset* has the same KE distribution as the initial full *set*. Why? How is that even possible? It’s possible because of *two* compensating effects on the change in distribution between levels.

        (1) Since TE = KE+PE, the molecules making up the subset that makes it to the higher level are slowing down while moving up in the gravity field. This skews the KE distribution down. *Those* molecules now have a lower KE than they had when they were at the lower level. (This is the only effect that your tunnel vision seemingly allows you to see.)

        (2) Because several among the *slowest* molecules from the original set never make it to the higher level, the distribution of the subset that does make it to the higher level is skewed up. Several among the slowest molecules don’t contribute to the M-B speed distribution higher up because they never get there. They simply fall back down before reaching the higher level. This has the effect of skewing *up* the KE distribution of the subset relative to the full set of molecules that initially were moving up.

        So, there are two opposite effects that relate the KE distribution of the smaller *subset* of molecules that rise all the way to the higher level to the KE disribution of the *full set* of the molecules that were moving up from the lower level. What Maxwell has shown simply is that when the speed distribution at the lower level is a M-B distribution, those two effects cancel out exactly.

        Now you have to stop pretending that we are denying the first effect and, also, stop denying the existence of the second effect yourself. Then you will understand the significance of Maxwell’s result.

      • Think about this for a second.
        In a gravity well, all the particles can fall, even those without zero kinetic energy, but only a few on the left hand side of the Boltzman distribution can go up; because they have both the velocity and vector to rise against the gravity well.
        You can place a thermometer on a helium balloon and note that as it rises temperature falls.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Pierre-Normand [after a lucid explanation concudes] “And this is exactly FOMD’s argument (and from the Wikipedia article) as I understood it.”

        You have understood everything, and cited sources for all the arguments, and in general explained the whole problem, much better than I could have! Thank you Pierre-Normand!

        \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}

      • I have to copy it out or get lost in mad verbiage.

        Rob Ellison wrote: “The kinetic energy of any projectile in the moon’s gravity is inversely related to the distance the mass was moved against gravity. It works for any number of projectiles.”

        It works for each one of them separately since they are independent. The *set* of molecules moving up from a lower level doesn’t move as a whole in between levels. It spreads out randomly at various speeds in an isotropic fashion (within the upper 2pi steradian solid angle, the lower half is ignored because it’s not relevant to the higher level).

        It is escaping out of a pinhole in a box on the moon. So the molecules escape upwards at some velocity it had in the Maxwell-Boltzmann.velocity distribution for a real gas. A molecule emerges from the box and shoots away. We certainly don’t need to assume that entropy doesn’t change. Like steradians – it is pretentious nonsense that means nothing and he thinks sounds clever. The molecules escape out the hole in the top I presume. They each emerge as as projectile – so Newton’s laws of motion apply and not kinetic theory of gases – and head in a direction without colliding with other molecules because the moon is airless.

        “At one level they collectively have higher kinetic energy and lower potential energy than a point higher up.”

        This makes no sense since they “collectively” have a M-B speed distribution. Some are moving fast, some slowly. Some are moving up, some down. So the collection as a whole *never* makes it to the higher level and you can’t make the comparison that you purport to make. Only a *subset* of the collection makes it to the higher level and this *subset* has the same KE distribution as the initial full *set*. Why? How is that even possible? It’s possible because of *two* compensating effects on the change in distribution between levels.

        Each of the molecules has a velocity and a mass. FOMBS suggested that a calculation of molecules passing 1km, 2km etc would show that the velocity was independent of the height in the gravity field. This is not the case for the laws of motion.

        So instead we have this idea that some molecules don’t pass go so the remaining molecules have a higher kinetic average velocity that compensates for the gravity effect. It is stated that this reduced set has the same kinetic energy as the larger set – even though they all have higher potential energy. There is no proof of this but verbiage – no proof is in fact possible – and the fact the kinetic energy of all the molecules is lower at the higher height and so the kinetic energy is not independent of height.

        (1) Since TE = KE+PE, the molecules making up the subset that makes it to the higher level are slowing down while moving up in the gravity field. This skews the KE distribution down. *Those* molecules now have a lower KE than they had when they were at the lower level. (This is the only effect that your tunnel vision seemingly allows you to see.)

        Yes they all have a lower KE – and so are not independent of height.

        (2) Because several among the *slowest* molecules from the original set never make it to the higher level, the distribution of the subset that does make it to the higher level is skewed up. Several among the slowest molecules don’t contribute to the M-B speed distribution higher up because they never get there. They simply fall back down before reaching the higher level. This has the effect of skewing *up* the KE distribution of the subset relative to the full set of molecules that initially were moving up.

        Now it turns to that a molecule will travel at a most probable velocity of 400m/s at 273K – and move some 80km straight up on the moon. This is way beyond 1 or 2km. So I think the ides of molecules falling back under 1km is moot at any rate.

        http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4

        So, there are two opposite effects that relate the KE distribution of the smaller *subset* of molecules that rise all the way to the higher level to the KE disribution of the *full set* of the molecules that were moving up from the lower level. What Maxwell has shown simply is that when the speed distribution at the lower level is a M-B distribution, those two effects cancel out exactly.

        Maxwell shows nothing of the sort.

        Now you have to stop pretending that we are denying the first effect and, also, stop denying the existence of the second effect yourself. Then you will understand the significance of Maxwell’s result.

        Wasn’t it Boltzmann who generaised Maxwell’s distribution to real gases? It is simply a statistics of velocities of the gas in the box. It says nothing about molecular projectiles on the moon.

        There is no second process. We have the magical idea that somehow the average kinetic energy at every height is equal to the average kinetic energy of every height lower. Supported by nothing but extreme verbiage. I think we would need some experimental or at least mathematical demonstration.

        It seems utter wierdness that something so obviously untrue – that the kinetic energy of molecules on the moon is not independent of height – is twisted into this strange corollary of kinetic theory to insist that indeed it was true after all.

      • AFOMD,

        You will need to be careful where you place your box. Make sure you place it where it can be assured of sufficient outside energy to keep the contents gaseous. On darker parts of the Lunar surface, the temperature is below the freezing point of nitrogen.

        Maybe you could provide your little demon who ensures that only speedy gas molecules exit normal to the surface (so they can fall back), whilst simultaneously holding back really speedy molecules above escape velocity (otherwise they will escape the gravitational field, and be lost forever), with a tiny insulating jacket. On the other hand, the poor little chap will be working up a sweat complying with your conditions, and trying to push the box around the surface in order to maintain standard temperature etc., by finding a source of energy to keep your gas gaseous.

        Try your calculations at a very low temperature – below the freezing point of the relevant gas. Alternatively, if you must use Warmist physics, use an ideal gas at absolute zero.

        How silly. Without a continuing source of external energy, your gas and so on keep cooling to ambient. Kinetic energy is purely dependent on your frame of reference, and can be quite misleading. A frozen comet travelling at several thousand meters per second has quite a lot of kinetic energy. The frozen gas molecules on it are also energetic. Calculate their temperature based on their average kinetic energy, and then try and explain why they remain stubbornly frozen.

        Additionally, Brownian motion needs to be taken into account in an atmosphere, even a Warmist one. Silly, silly, silly.

        It is obvious that the majority of people have no real understanding of heat, energy, temperature, and so on. Most scientists would be hard put to define heat or temperature in a rigorous form, and even defining energy unambiguously is often difficult.

        No gravito thermal effect. None. Anyone who thinks otherwise is somewhat deranged, unless they can verify it experimentally. Just as silly as believing that the temperature of an externally heated object can be raised by surrounding it with CO2!

        When you have repeated your thought experiment without an unstated external energy source being present, let us all know your results. I leave you to contemplate your thin smear of solidified gas at your leisure.

        No thanks necessary.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Climate Etc readers can verify for themselves the absence of a gravito-thermal effect by modifying the (free!) Mathematica notebook Molecular Dynamics of Lennard-Jones Particles Using the Velocity Verlet Algorithm to include a gravity effect.

        The altered lines are

        g = -1.0; (* at the beginning *)
        
        (* this line appears in one place
           we make the velocity 5x bigger *)
        listVel = 5* Table[{RandomReal[{-1, 1}], RandomReal[{-1, 1}]}, {n}];
        
        (* this line appears in two places 
           we add the gravitational force *)
        listForces = Table[
            Sum[forceTable[[j, particle]], {j, particle + 1, n}] - 
            Sum[forceTable[[particle, j]], {j, 1, particle - 1}],
            {particle, 1, n}] + Table[{0, g}, {particle, 1, n}];
            
        (* this turns off the thermostat that maintains constant energy
           (it replaces a more complicated expression *)
        rescaleFactor = 1.0;
        
        (* convert the output cell to StandardForm! *)
        

        Regrettably, a Mathematica license is required in order to make these particular modifications. However, computationally literate Climate Etc readers will have no problem translating the code into their favorite language.

        It is a pleasure to help free Climate Etc readers from the gravito-thermal illusion!

        \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}

      • ‘Proposed by Sir John Edward Lennard-Jones, the Lennard-Jones Potential is a mathematical approximation that illustrates the energy of interaction between two nonbonding atoms or molecules based off their distance of separation. The equation takes into account the difference between attractive forces (dipole-dipole, dipole-induced dipole, and London interactions) and repulsive forces.’ http://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4990v3.pdf

        If both FOMBS and Flynn the hairy are agin it – it is probably right.

        ‘Proposed by Sir John Edward Lennard-Jones, the Lennard-Jones Potential is a mathematical approximation that illustrates the energy of interaction between two nonbonding atoms or molecules based off their distance of separation. The equation takes into account the difference between attractive forces (dipole-dipole, dipole-induced dipole, and London interactions) and repulsive forces.’

        This applies a very little bit to real gases – the molecules are usually assumed to be far apart enough in gases to negate attractive forces.

      • Pierre-Normand

        DocMartyn wrote: “You can place a thermometer on a helium balloon and note that as it rises temperature falls.”

        That’s because of the adiabatic expansion of the balloon as it is lifted to a lower pressure altitude. Some internal energy from the helium is lost to work for expanding the balloon. That’s the exact same thing as the energy lost to pushing out the piston in the second stage of the Carnot cycle. It has nothing to do with gravity but everything to do with the variation in ambient pressure.

  68. Wow Dr. Curry! Did you notice how everyone wrote a lot of meaningless words, but no one actually challenged your work that concluded that the best estimate of climate sensitivity (ECS) of only 1.6C using IPCC data?

    This is such a tiny sensitivity factor that it becomes crystal why the IPCC chose to hide it, unlike in all their previous reports.

    • Herewith homespun homilies that may yet prevail :

      ‘Modre will out, that we see day by day.’

      ‘Trouthe is the highest thing that man may keep.’

      H/t A nonne’s priest and a franklynne.

    • Pierre-Normand

      Freedomfan, it did get challenged in the comment section of the recent blog post where Judith presented the L&C paper. Others and I offered criticism in other threads as well. There is no need to rehash the same arguments in every thread.

      • Glad you found Dr. Curry’s mistatke and have a better ECS number. What is it again?

        Oh and be certain to share it with Mikey Mann who seems to be clueless.

    • Evolution, climate and vaccines. At least 2 out 3 of the progressive catechism. Opposition to vaccines is fairly widespread – it involves deliberately taking a risk or taking your chances. A difficult sell to a parent. Evolution doesn’t God? Not true. In a four dimensional space/time continuum God doesn’t need evolution. The version of climate science promulgated by climate believers lacks so many subtleties that it may well not be science as we know it. Rather a narrative superficially in the objective idiom of science as a façade for political and economic extremism.

      • Evolution doesn’t (need) God…

      • As someone who has seen polio, diphtheria, and hooping cough and its aftermaths, the risk taking pubic has no idea about its consequence. As someone who had seen how families cope with their decisions in the aftermath of their children developing polio, diphtheria, and hooping cough, they, to a person, deny their culpability. Instead blaming the health system for not rescuing their children from this preventable plague. They assume no responsibility. They are justified in their original decisions.

        In short, they justify their decisions and blame others for their children’s death, or disability.

        Like climate change warmists, they cannot acknowledge their culpability for poor decision making. Knowledge does not influence their decision making. They are fanatical in their mind-set.

      • I had not considered a parallel between climate science and vaccines, but if there is one, it is that both have a side that risks against taking a recommended precaution due to having some conflicting non-scientific belief system.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “I had not considered a parallel between climate science and vaccines, but if there is one, it is that both have a side that risks against taking a recommended precaution due to having some conflicting non-scientific belief system.”

        Consider also which side is most worried about “government control”. Though, when it comes to worry about big corporations, some liberals also tend to be anti-vaxxers. So, it’s not a perfect analogy. There tends more to be irrationality on both sides in this case.

      • The connection is in the polemic you linked to Jimbo. Vaccines themselves are a balance of personal risk versus statistical benefits. .

      • It is another case where the risks of a preventative measure are blown out of proportion to their actual size as an excuse to not do any prevention.

      • No – with vaccines it is a case of understandable disquiet of parents – mostly the chattering classes it seems.

        With climate it is a matter of ambitions to dismantle industrial economies in the service of an ideologically extreme agenda.

      • RE, you have the wrong end of the stick on both issues.

      • Jim D
        “It is another case where the risks of a preventative measure are blown out of proportion to their actual size as an excuse to not do any prevention.”

        CO2 is beneficial. There is a real measurable cost to limiting CO2. The chattering classes haven’t made a realistic argument that the degree or so of warming we might see is even harmful. The 20th century warming was beneficial to the tune of trillions of dollars, not harmful.

        The solution of CAGW supporters amounts to cutting off a leg to avoid the potential chance of future gangrene.

        They are proposing an insane cost for a minimal risk (I hate to call it a risk since CAGW acolytes can’t even show likelihood of net harm) .

      • PA, if you think 600 ppm is more beneficial than say 350 ppm, make the case for it, and see how many followers you get. You can start 600.org, perhaps. Maybe you can promote rising sea levels as an added bonus benefit. Who needs beaches anyway? Warmer countries have a lower GDP than cooler ones, so this would even that climate advantage out a bit more. There’s all kinds of ways you can market 600 ppm.

      • “No – with vaccines it is a case of understandable disquiet of parents…” – Rob

        Really? Tell us more about what is understandable?

      • I don’t want to stress the point – It is easy to make a decision at a distance on a balance of risks. But vaccines have risks and not understanding the trepidation it is approached with by anxious parents is to not understand the human condition.

        Instead of making progress on multiple fronts on a multi-gas strategy – and on energy innovation – it is proposed to double energy costs to little effect other than on global economic development. There is much to suggest that this is the real objective of fringe climate radicals.

      • My 1 yr old just had all her shots?

        What am I missing from this distance??

      • Lots of kids get immunized. You want a medal?

        There are both real and perceived risks with vaccines – and I’m not sitting in judgment.

        http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/11/05/par.vaccine.kids/index.html?eref

      • Jim D | October 19, 2014 at 11:26 pm |
        “PA, if you think 600 ppm is more beneficial than say 350 ppm, make the case for it, and see how many followers you get. You can start 600.org, perhaps. Maybe you can promote rising sea levels as an added bonus benefit. Who needs beaches anyway? Warmer countries have a lower GDP than cooler ones, so this would even that climate advantage out a bit more. There’s all kinds of ways you can market 600 ppm.”

        1. It won’t reach 600 PPM, looking at the current Mauna Loa numbers I despair of even reaching 550 PPM even if we try hard and do a lot of exploration.

        2. It won’t stay at 550 for long. When we run out or switch away from fossil fuels the CO2 level will come down 1.6 times faster than it went up.

        3. 400 PPM CO2 (120 PPM since 1900) gave us 50% more water-conserving people-feeding plant growth – a benefit worth trillions per year.

        4. 550 PPM will cause a 0.314°C increase [using the IPCC 5.35ln (C/C0) and plugging in to Boltzmann law], a little less than the 0.35°C that a 120 PPM increase (to 400 PPM) caused. The net increase in temperature in 2100 compared to 1900 temperatures, due to 550 PPM CO2, will be about 0.664°C.

        The warming since 1900 has been beneficial. The 21st century warming will be less than the 20th century. Since CAGW aficionados claim up to 0.7 °C of 20th century warming, using their funny numbers there will be about 0.6°C of warming in the 21st century. Please make the case that less than a 1°C increase will be on net harmful.

      • PA, if you think it will stop at 550 ppm anyway, you would think that even a little mitigation would stop it at 450 ppm instead, and then be on the same page with the IPCC. However 550 ppm is sadly misguided for the burn-it-all scenario even ignoring new resources yet to be opened up (Arctic Ocean, methyl clathrates, more tarsands, fracking, etc.), and ignores that other GHGs add 40% to the CO2 forcing, only some of which is offset by aerosols.
        As for your temperature estimates, the land temperature has already risen 1 C from 1900-2000, a sensitivity of 3 C per doubling. So when we hit 550 ppm by 2070, the land rise will be 3 C already.

      • “Evolution doesn’t [need] God? In a four dimensional space/time continuum God doesn’t need evolution.” This is the most entertaining crackpottery I’ve seen here today. You win, Rob Ellison.

      • ‘Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.’ Albert Einstein

        Not up on a four dimensional God? Or just pompous enough to think that evolution doesn’t need God is clever?

      • Ib>Jim D | October 20, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        “PA, if you think it will stop at 550 ppm anyway, you would think that even a little mitigation would stop it at 450 ppm instead, and then be on the same page with the IPCC. However 550 ppm is sadly misguided for the burn-it-all scenario even ignoring new resources yet to be opened up (Arctic Ocean, methyl clathrates, more tarsands, fracking, etc.), and ignores that other GHGs add 40% to the CO2 forcing, only some of which is offset by aerosols.
        As for your temperature estimates, the land temperature has already risen 1 C from 1900-2000, a sensitivity of 3 C per doubling. So when we hit 550 ppm by 2070, the land rise will be 3 C already.”

        So much wrongness … “sigh”…

        1. “Mitigation”. Why? If CO2 is beneficial and mitigation is horribly expensive why bother? China and India are deploying the nuclear reactor solution big time. Since the two biggest contributors to the increase are taking steps to cut back what is the point? I guess some more nuclear reactors in the US would help and I am on-board with that.

        2. “However 550 ppm is sadly misguided for the burn-it-all scenario”
        All the fancier methods of resource extraction have a higher marginal cost. When the marginal cost gets too high – alternative power sources will be used.
        Further, Roughly 6.2 gigatons of the 9.8 gigatons of annual carbon emissions is being transferred into the environment going into the ocean or plant life. The current equilibrium value of CO2 is about 300 ppm for 1°C warmer temperatures. The differential is about 100 PPM. A rough estimate of environment loss is:
        (CO2 PPM – 300)* 6.2 GT/100 = CO2 environmental absorption

        At 550 PPM the annual loss to the environment will be in the neighborhood of 15.5 GT carbon (56.9 gigatonnes of CO2). Since the primary sink, the ocean, already has 38000 gigatons of carbon (139460 gigatons CO2 equivalent) the sink isn’t going to saturate.

        Assuming a linear rise in CO2, 15.5+6.2/2 * 85 = 922.5 gigatons of carbon (3385 gigatons of CO2) will be absorbed by the environment. The total known reserves containing a potential of about 2860 gigatons of CO2 (roughly 780 gigatons of carbon) will be more than completely absorbed by environmental sinks. Not all of the reserves are economically or practically recoverable. 150e-6*1.48*5.15e6 = 1143.3 gigatons net of carbon dioxide is needed to hit 550. So 526 gigatons (the CO2 deficit) + 1143.3 = 1669 gigatons of CO2 from new reserves is needed to hit 550 PPM by 2100, assuming we use all our existing reserves, which we can’t.

        3. “ignores that other GHGs add 40% to the CO2 forcing”
        The other significant greenhouse gas is methane and only has a lifetime of 9 years in the atmosphere.

        4. “the land temperature has already risen 1 C from 1900-2000”
        Huh? The temperature rise preceded the CO2. Cause has to precede effect. It is hard to make the argument that even the nameplate CO2 warming of 0.36°C occurred but 0.36°C is definitely in the realm of possibility. If the 1°C claimed since 1900 was entirely due to CO2 (which it is obvious it wasn’t) a hiatus wouldn’t be possible.

        Other than those points your post is fine.

      • PA, starting with the land-temperature rise. 0.8 C of that 1 C was in the last quarter of the century, somewhat in line with the way 3/4 of our emissions have been since 1950. You need to rethink your sensitivity and the effects of your wildly optimistic 550 ppm BAU scenario.
        Currently our emission rate doubles the earth’s ability to keep up, and as the emission rate grows it maintains this gap. If we kept emissions flat at 36 GtCO2/yr, I think we would even off at 520 ppm where the natural absorption finally balances emissions. None of the BAU scenarios say our emissions will be flat. Growing population and growing per capita CO2 due to development mean at least a doubling of emission rates, and then the equilibrium becomes 760 ppm, and that is just CO2. You may notice that methane is also growing because we are outpacing its natural time scale too. Other GHGs account for a large part of the current forcing, and that fraction is maintained going forwards because their production rate grows as fast as CO2’s.

      • Jim D

        Well… I tend to think the CO2 sensitivity is lower since I subtract the 1880-1940 rate from the 1940-2010 increase and see about a 0.36°C increase that could be due to CO2.

        As far as the rate of CO2 increase… we’ll see.

        Hip pocket calculations seem to indicate that we can’t drive CO2 high enough to have a drastic effect on temperature.

        I’m not in the CO2, waver, or solist camps and am waiting to see what happens by 2020. There doesn’t seem to be a reservoir of heat accumulating anywhere so if warming resumes it will probably be at the 1990s rate or less. Too early to be concerned or dismissive. I would like to see which pony finishes first.

    • From the article. These are the hallmarks of the anti-science narrative. Many are familiar here.
      “*Scientists have been wrong in the past and thus should not be trusted now
      *Scientists are biased by personal prejudices, financial incentives, and the desire for personal or professional success, and therefore their conclusions are suspect
      *Scientific results are not certain, and therefore they can be discounted
      *Science is just another way of knowing that should not be given primacy over other ways, such as intuitive knowledge or personal experience.
      *Some scientists disagree with the consensus view so there is no way to assess who is right.
      *Science is the cause of the problems resulting from technology and therefore suspect.
      *Policymakers may ignore science on the grounds that they, themselves, are not scientists.”

    • Rob,

      What is it,
      “It is easy to make a decision at a distance on a balance of risks.”
      or
      “Lots of kids get immunized. You want a medal?” ?

      Make up your mind.

      Though you are close to the mark with the first one.
      On the balance of real risks it’s quite an easy decision. Tiny risks with vaccination and significant risks without.

      What’s similar in comparison to AGW delayers is the moving the burden of risk onto others – with vaccines, relying on most other parents to get their children vaccinated to reduce the risk to your chil dand with AGW, letting futue generations deal with the fall-out of our activities.

      • ‘But despite their misguided beliefs, they have some reason on their side that ought to be acknowledged, even if only to better guide public health programs.

        The first is that there are some risks associated with immunisation. Maybe not the risks identified by the anti-vaccinators, but risks nonetheless. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the public health agenda asks individuals to sacrifice their rights to the greater good. Is this just?

        Perhaps it helps to make this personal. If you or your child suffered the rare adverse reaction to a vaccine, is it fair that you bear this burden for the greater good?

        Public health practitioners have to act pragmatically but promotion efforts are likely better guided by a realistic view of the intended audience. And such practical matters shouldn’t prevent scientists, philosophers and academics continuing to debate these important issues.’ http://theconversation.com/preaching-to-the-unconverted-immunisation-risks-and-public-health-11007

        And it is not a matter of ignoring the rare risks in a system that has dynamical mechanisms at its core – but of designing practical, pragmatic and workable solutions for humanity and the environment.

      • What is it,
        “It is easy to make a decision at a distance on a balance of risks.”
        or
        “Lots of kids get immunized. You want a medal?” ?

        Make up your mind.

        What it is is arrogant and stupid to ignore the feelings of parents – however poorly informed you think they are. Of course vaccinations make sense from a public health perspective – but that’s at an emotional distance. The choice is not mine to make – I have no skin in the game.

        Do you really not see the difference between me making an on balance decision and that of a parent making a decision about their world?

        I don’t want to go into the philosophical dimensions – you are obviously incapable of the empathy required. It is a failing of pissant progressives generally.

      • “Perhaps it helps to make this personal. If you or your child suffered the rare adverse reaction to a vaccine, is it fair that you bear this burden for the greater good?” – Rob

        Life ain’t fair…..but i did just a few week ago take that risk.

        And really there is no ‘greater good’ argument at play here.

        I had my child vaccinated because the risks of non-vaccination far outweigh the risks of vaccination.

        “What it is is arrogant and stupid to ignore the feelings of parents….” – Rob

        What is stupid is to not present the best information we have to parents – and that is that the risks of non-vaccination far outweigh the risks of vaccination.

        Anything else is failing the real issue here – that a baby that can’t make this decision for itself and is reliant on someone else to make a good decision oh his/her behalf.

      • I was of course quoting – did I not provide the link?

        Do you not get the concept of jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft on the premise that if you don’t it might crash?

        Climate extremism has crashed and burned. Good riddance.

      • I’m not sure what this last comment means.

      • Well I am sure that your point was that I was an irrational anti-vac activist. Other than that – your nonsense is the usual attempts at gothchas, moralising and snark. An utter bore – based on the original premise of the article linking climate, vaccinations and evolution.

        Vaccines themselves are a balance of personal risk versus statistical benefits – is what I said. It is still true whether you understand it or not.

        So is the statement that the space-time continuum doesn’t need evolution. Have a problem?

      • No, that wasn’t it at all.

        More that the point about the “greater good” argument has it wrong.
        Self-interest is the key – vaccination is the lower risk option.

        Interesting that you then present a loaded and inaccurate dichotomy – “…are a balance of personal risk versus statistical benefits”.

        Why not statistical risk vs personal benefits?

        But the risk vs benefit equation is crystal clear in favour of vaccination.

      • A balance of personal risk versus statistical benefits is what I started with. Perhaps immediate risk and intangible benefits is a better way of putting it. Being deliberately obtuse on an irrelevancy the best you can do Michael? Come to think of it – of course it is.

      • Rob, Micheal and JimD are gullible minions. I doubt either have a clue how useless some vaccines are and how essential others are. Just because there is a vaccine, doesn’t mean it is slam dunk no brainer.

        The HPV vaccine for example is roughly 20% to 50% effective but cervical cancer has been declining for decades due to PAP smear testing. In 2011 there was about 12000 diagnosed cases of CC with about 4100 deaths for the entire US. More of those deaths would have been avoided with PAP screening than with the HPV vaccine. Lumping HPV opt outs with “anti-vaxers” is stupid. People can read and think for themselves.

        If you are over 55 the flu vaccine cocktail is only about 10% effective, less if taken in “flu” season. The combination flu and pneumonia vaccine taken well before “flu” season is much more effective. Surprisingly so, to the point that researchers are amazed. That amazement is due to it being about twice as effective, ~20%. When a vaccine is only 20% effective, there are plenty of confounding factors like discovered in Nurses Survey.

      • “f you are over 55 the flu vaccine cocktail is only about 10% effective, less if taken in “flu” season.” — captain

        “CDC’s mid-season VE 9(accine effectiveness) estimates measured adjusted VE of 52% (95% CI: 2-76) among people 65 and older against flu A and B in the United States this season. This is slightly lower but generally similar to the vaccine benefits measured in other age groups this season. Adjusted VE in this age group against the 2009 H1N1 virus was 53% (95% CI: 2-78), suggesting the vaccine is providing protective benefit in the elderly against the predominant flu virus this season. This data is reassuring when compared to the substantially lower VE in the elderly measured last season (2012-2013) against then predominant H3N2 viruses. ” – CDC, on the 2013-2014 flu season

      • Steven, the 50% adjusted efficacy I believe is for ages 50 to 65 with greater than 65 being 9%. That particular year was more effective than the previous but still the efficacy drops sharply around age 55. Every year is a bit of a crap shoot.

        “Confirmation of the protective benefits of the 2012–13 influenza vaccine among persons aged 6 months–64 years offers further support for the public health benefit of annual seasonal influenza vaccination and supports the expansion of vaccination, particularly among younger age groups. The nonsignificant adjusted VE of 9% against A (H3N2) among persons aged ≥65 years is similar to the estimate in a recent interim report from Europe (6) and reinforces the need for continued advances in influenza vaccines, especially to increase protective benefits for older adults.”

        A lot depends on the type of study which is generally doesn’t look for the critical age range. Since they are based on prevented hospital visits, 55 and above are more likely to take the time off to pay a visit while the younger workers tend to suffer through it to pay bills. That would be a confounding factor poorly considered in the studies.

      • Rob,

        That’s a very odd idea that the benefits are “intangible”, yet the tiny risks are “real”?

        Are you the ‘lukewarmer’ of the anti-vaxxers?

      • …and capn, you’re just babbling.

        Clueless.

      • Michael, “…and capn, you’re just babbling.

        Clueless.”

        Nope, when the minions such as yourselves make blanket statements that imply anyone that considers not being vaccinated for any reason is an Anti-Vaxer, someone needs to set you straight. opu can live your life anyway you want, but I prefer not to blindly accept “science” that isn’t very well done.

        The Harvard Nurse’s Study on the Pill and health risk is one of many examples were studies done by intelligent, scientific people turn out to be complete BS because they aren’t qualified statisticians. The Efficacy studies for both the HPV and “flu” vaccines appear to over state results due to the same improper methods. It is getting to the point that “science” is becoming a joke because of minions such as yourself.

        Instead of blindly labeling people, you should consider thinking on occasion.

      • Steven and Michael, this might be of interest.

        http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2011/11/flu-vaccine-efficacy-time-revise-public-messages

        That would be the center for infectious disease research and policy. They noted in 2011 how grossly overstated effectiveness of Flu vaccines were stated. What was once billed as 70% to 90% effective is now 30% to 60% effective in the large age group. One of the biggest problems with the studies was how to figure out if a hospitalized patient had the flu. So they lumped Pneumonia, Chronic Broncitus and influenza together for their “flu” admissions. Many of the “flu” shots included pneumonia vaccine. Of the “flu” cases, about 75% were actually pneumonia cases. The pneumonia vaccine which includes 23 strains happens to be effective but the “flu” vaccines were getting the credit. Imagine that?

        So I highly recommend the pneumonia vaccine with a second close to 65, but I am not all that excited about the “Flu” shot and would not recommend the “flu” inhaler for an adult. That is based on pretty easy to locate studies for the curious.

        I was searching for another study that “surprisingly” discovered that the effectiveness of the “flu” shot with pneumonia was about twice as effective if taken very early in the season than close or into flu season. Can’t find it so how about a little Johns Hopkins?

        http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gec/series/pneumococcal_vaccination.html

      • capn, at least you’ve moved on from your earlier claims.

        Flu vaccine varies in effectiveness from year to year.

        And effectiveness is always lower in older peple.

      • Michael, “capn, at least you’ve moved on from your earlier claims.

        Flu vaccine varies in effectiveness from year to year.

        And effectiveness is always lower in older peple.(sic)”

        I haven’t moved anywhere, that was my original claim only with 55 and older instead of 65 and older. I am not yet 65 and older so I tend to look for the proper data before leaping to conclusions.

        The studies were simply flawed and you perpetuate the myth like a good minion. Bottom line, keep your pneumonia shot but the “flu” portion is likely to be ineffective.

      • capt,

        Babbling again.

        The 9% figure was for one year, and for one particular strain of flu virus.

        And what studies are flawed??

      • Michael, “And what studies are flawed??”

        You obviously only snipe for the sake of it.

        http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2011/11/flu-vaccine-efficacy-time-revise-public-messages

        Basing “flu” efficacy on hospital admissions for pneumonia isn’t useful. The pneumonia shot is close to 70% effective across all age groups and the younger are less likely to get pneumonia to begin with. The studies based on “avoided” hospital admissions are flawed.

        You should read up, it is actually very interesting.

      • Capt,

        Did you mean to put in some other link?

      • Michael, “Capt,

        Did you mean to put in some other link?”

        Nope. That link mentions there is a problem with over stated effectiveness ( about 50% over stated) and that some would rather keep the public in the dark to get the “herd” vaccinated. I think it is a perfect link.

        If you want to know why, the results were original overstated to the point the actual results fell completely outside the uncertainty interval, a big no no, you have to dig for yourself.

        Since the original results relied on “flu like” hospital emissions instead of specific “flu” strains results, the methodology was flawed. That is all there is to it.

        If you happen to fall into the 50 and over “high risk” group, you might wonder why efficacy is generally given in a range from 19-65 years instead of for risk groups. You already know that for ages 65 and over the efficacy is ~ 9% which is basically insignificant, why would you think it would be ~60% for ages 55 to 65?

        Use you mind. Where is the problem with these types of studies that “smear” risk groups to get higher efficacy?

        It is not a “conspiracy” btw, it is just SOP poor statistics.

      • “You already know that for ages 65 and over the efficacy is ~ 9% which is basically insignificant, why would you think it would be ~60% for ages 55 to 65? ” -capn

        You keep repeating this but it’s not true – it was the result for one particularly strain, one year.

  69. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Judith Curry asserts a skeptical catechism  “The paleo estimates [are] less reliable than instrumental or climate models … we have very little idea of how the 21st century climate will play out.”

    Just to review the bidding:

    Fundamental thermodynamic arguments predict AGW.

    • Paleo data (of multiple independent forms) affirm a strong CO2-climate correlation

    • Paleo data (of multiple independent forms) affirm a 20th century “hockey stick blade” of warming.

    • As CO2 increases, the oceans warm, the polar ice melts, and the sea-level rises … all without pause or evident limit.

    Conclusion A  (most scientists) Multiple independent lines of scientific evidence show that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating.

    Conclusion B  (a diminishing minority of contrarians) “We have very little idea of how the 21st century climate will play out.”

    Key Question  Judith Curry, what proportion of climate-science students embrace Conclusion B’s Climate of Doubt“?

    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}

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      “Just to review the bidding:
      • Fundamental thermodynamic arguments predict AGW.
      • Paleo data (of multiple independent forms) affirm a strong CO2-climate correlation
      • Paleo data (of multiple independent forms) affirm a 20th century “hockey stick blade” of warming.
      • As CO2 increases, the oceans warm, the polar ice melts, and the sea-level rises … all without pause or evident limit.”

      1, Fundamental whatever…
      Skeptics don’t argue that CO2 won’t have some effect. However the positive feedback driven out-of-control warming predicted by the CAGW is just delusional. In fact the performance of the climate in the last 17 years has even surprised some skeptics. Every new year dims the prospects of significant CO2 warming.

      CO2 in a vacuum (by itself) should in theory cause 3.7W of generalized low atmospheric long wave radiation for a doubling of CO2 or about 0.7°C of warming. What happens in the real world where CO2 only affects 1/3 of surface heat loss is a matter of some investigation, debate, and conjecture.

      2. Paleo Smaleo Part I. When the oceans warm the partial pressure increases and there is net diffusion into the atmosphere. The CAGW argument that CO2 drives climate is basically arguing that a boiling pot of water turns the stove on.

      3. Paleo Smaleo Part II. Before science articles became political tools the medieval warming period was thought to be as warm, to perhaps a degree warmer than today.

      4. Let me correct that statement:
      “As the oceans warm, CO2 increases, , the polar ice melts, and the sea-level rises … until the ocean cools, and the CO2 decreases, the ice reforms and the sea level drops”. Climate has always be cyclical in the past – it will always be cyclical in the future. The climate will get warmer until it gets colder.

      • Pierre-Normand

        PA wrote: 4. “Let me correct that statement:
        “As the oceans warm, CO2 increases, , the polar ice melts, and the sea-level rises … until the ocean cools, and the CO2 decreases,[…]”

        It sounds like, in your view, ocean warming has caused the release of CO2 and this natural release explains most of the 120ppm atmospheric increase since pre-industrial times. But if that’s true, how can you explain that cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions have been *twice* the atmospheric increase? If we’ve put out twice as much CO2 as nature, and we didn’t significantly contribute to the atmospheric increase, where did our emissions go?

      • “Every new year dims the prospects of significant CO2 warming.”
        ——
        Seems blatantly denialist. There is a strong possibility that 2014 will become the warmest year on record and the first time such a new record was set in a non-El Nino year. The significance of this seems lost in denialist fog.

      • Pierre-Normand
        “It sounds like, in your view, ocean warming has caused the release of CO2 and this natural release explains most of the 120ppm atmospheric increase since pre-industrial times.”

        Huh? … Let me think about that… Nope, I wouldn’t go that far.

        Coming out of the LIA will raise the background CO2 level about 17-20 PPM per degree of change. The LIA was 1.5K-2K cooler than today so the natural CO2 level should be about 305-320 PPM. There isn’t a compelling argument that most of the CO2 since 1900 is due to warmer climate particularly due to fact that the emissions exceed the CO2 level increase by a significant margin, 270% in 2013.

        R. Gates
        ‘“Every new year dims the prospects of significant CO2 warming.”
        ——
        Seems blatantly denialist. There is a strong possibility that 2014 will become the warmest year on record and the first time such a new record was set in a non-El Nino year. The significance of this seems lost in denialist fog.’

        Mr. Gates seems to ignore 26 years of the environmental movement using the thermostat analogy. Temperature was supposed to follow CO2 like room temperature follows a thermostat. This was a transparent lie.

        After 17+ years of no warming, the jokes about the pilot light going out, the furnace running out of fuel, the thermostat is broke, or the furnace is down for maintenance are the natural reward the CAGW aficionados should expect and do deserve after 26 years of BS.

        By raw temperatures or lower tropospheric temperatures it is nothing special.

        By adjusted temperatures… If we adjusted my 100 meter sprint time using global warming computer technology, adjusting for wind speed, wind direction, angle of the sun, relative degradation of track surface, latest survey of track vertical deviation, change in earth orbital velocity, etc. etc., I would be a world class sprinter.

        The non-El Nino is a red herring. The heat release of a major El Nino occurred without the trade winds cooperating.

        But back to the 17 years. The IPCC says that 110% of the post 1950’s warming was due to CO2 forcing. For 17 years that is 110% of 0. The long the pause the lower the CO2 sensitivity.

        However 17

      • “The non-El Nino is a red herring. The heat release of a major El Nino occurred without the trade winds cooperating.”
        ____
        Classic. We had an El Nino without an El Nino actually happening.

        Oddly, the latent and sensible heat flux that has warmed the troposphere so nicely in 2014 has not been focused on the area of the Pacific where El Ninos occur, but has been in other regions of the planet, with record OHC on a global basis.

      • “After 17+ years of no warming…”
        ____
        Hmmm…odd way to characterize the warmest 10 years on instrument record which were the past ten years, with the warmest six months of those 10 years being the past six months we’ve just experienced.

        Strange kind of “no warming”.

      • R. Gates | October 20, 2014 at 10:55 am |
        ‘Strange kind of “no warming”.’

        Well, the usable instrument record really starts in 2003 (Argos). The thermometer record from NCDC/GISS goes back to about 1880. The processed satellite record goes back to about 1979 (UAH and RSS). This is roughly 1/41272727272nd, 1/3388059701st, or 1/129714286th of the temperature record of the earth.


        The US climate reference network (USCRN) shows the US is cooling.

        The “adjusted” data shows the US warming. So what? The adjusted data shows whatever they want it to show.

        In a period of static temperature that is at a near term high in a very tiny window of coherent reliable observation – any positive short term displacement is a record. However – it is telling that if 2014 sets a new record for highest average annual temperature it will only be a record in “adjusted” temperatures – not by any other standard.

      • Here’s your El Nino.
        Seems to have canceled in July:

        Snapshot of the moment looks like some serious cooling:

      • Pierre-Normand

        PA wrote: “Huh? … Let me think about that… Nope, I wouldn’t go that far. […]”

        OK. I had misunderstood your argument. Sorry. Thanks for the clarification.

    • ‘Now imagine that you have never seen the device and that it is hidden in a box in a dark room. You have no knowledge of the hand that occasionally sets things in motion, and you are trying to figure out the system’s behavior on the basis of some old 78-rpm recordings of the muffled sounds made by the device. Plus, the recordings are badly scratched, so some of what was recorded is lost or garbled beyond recognition. If you can imagine this, you have some appreciation of the difficulties of paleoclimate research and of predicting the results of abrupt changes in the climate system.’ National Academy of Sciences

      What a mish mash of hopelessly incompetent narratives from the usual suspects.

      • Now imagine that device is your own life-support system, and you are deciding whether to give it a pretty big whack to see if it still works afterwards.

      • Many simple systems exhibit abrupt change. The balance above consists of a curved track on a fulcrum. The arms are curved so that there are two stable states where a ball may rest. ‘A ball is placed on the track and is free to roll until it reaches its point of rest. This system has three equilibria denoted (a), (b) and (c) in the top row of the figure. The middle equilibrium (b) is unstable: if the ball is displaced ever so slightly to one side or another, the displacement will accelerate until the system is in a state far from its original position. In contrast, if the ball in state (a) or (c) is displaced, the balance will merely rock a bit back and forth, and the ball will roll slightly within its cup until friction restores it to its original equilibrium.’(NAS, 2002)
        In (a1) the arms are displaced but not sufficiently to cause the ball to cross the balance to the other side. In (a2) the balance is displaced with sufficient force to cause the ball to move to a new equilibrium state on the other arm. There is a third possibility in that the balance is hit with enough force to cause the ball to leave the track, roll off the table and under the sofa.

        The approach is still the same – energy innovation – we have no problem with cheap and abundant energy – and a fast mitigation multi-gas strategy in the context of rational social and economic development strategies. Actual humanitarian and environmental progress which contrasts starkly with the expressed ambitions of climate extremists to overthrow capitalism and democracy.

      • Analogies and metaphors–the death of dialogue, especially with regards to climate issues.

    • ‘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.’ IPCC TAR 14.2.2.2

      Natural CO2 flux is much greater in the science they reject than the science they don’t – even in the 20th century. Sensitivity is markedly less. .

      Climate changes abruptly at decadal scales through internal and emergent behavior.

      A cooler influence seems quite likely as the Sun declines from a 1000 years high.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

      It is quite likely that solar variability is amplified through terrestrial systems.

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antarticalawdomeicecoresaltcontent.jpg.

    • It is always the warmest this or the warmest that as if that is going to end the pause. It is isn’t – the pause will last for decades by the nature of these regimes.

      Randy spent some time on the warmest something or other in Australia. This was a drought artifact in the surface record. It doesn’t show up in the troposphere – because it is just a change in the balance of latent and sensible heat at the surface – which all balances out in the troposphere.

    • Gates- Differentiate what is going on now with all the indicators leading up to the top of the MWP. Can’t do it? I thought so. You need to work on how this is unprecedented. So far just a lot of arm waving. No substance and no data.

      • The difference between you and I seems to be that you think the climate is some kind of random walk whereas I believe in the basic physics behind the forcings that cause the climate to change over longer or shorter time frames, depending on the forcing. Each period (MWP, LIA, current warm period) has a unique combination of forcings (and related feedbacks). Climate tends to be the sum of all forcings. The MWP saw the lowest level of volcanic activity in the past 2000 years – from about 700 AD to about 1225 AD. Thus, a clearer atmosphere with lower sulfates allowed more net radiation to enter into the climate system. Additionally, there as slightly higher level of solar activity than the period of the LIA. also giving a bit more energy to the climate system. The MWP came to a fairly rapid end as the period of 1225 to 1275 saw the most active 50 year volcanic period of the past 2000 years, punctuated by the mega volcano of 1257. The large amount of sulfates ejected into the atmosphere reduced ocean heat content greatly and for and extended period of time. Additional volcanic activity and some solar minimums (Maunder, Dalton) continued to keep ocean heat content low, and we did not see the ocean heat content recover to MWP levels until nearly 1900. Our current climate is being warmed by increased GHG’s, which represent a greater net positive forcing than either anthropogenic or natural aerosols, or the current rather sleepy sun.

    • Fan

      You will remember that we had a long discussion about boreholes which in effect started here and went on for quite a few posts

      https://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/#comment-627451

      I contacted the keeper of the Boreholes data at the University of Michigan several times.

      The point was that boreholes show a different temperature profile to Tree rings-the first steadily ascends for the last 500 years, the latter descends for this period until the last century.

      Having now looked at boreholes (several hundred profiles from around the world), Tree rings and corals (ditto) the inescapable conclusion must be that you can prove whatever you want by selecting an appropriate number of profiles .over a particular time scale in order to illustrate what you want.

      I like borehole data as they seem to reflect real world observations and instrumental records which demonstrate that temperatures have been rising for some 300 years, not just the last century. Because of the method of sampling they become less accurate the further back you go.

      They do appear to have some merit however in the science they employ, how much is open to honest debate

      Tree rings however are not thermometers but at best an indication of moisture that pertains in their particular micro climate

      Now, just because borehole data suits my own belief in the general trend of temperatures doesn’t make them correct. I could change the temperature profile completely by being somewhat selective.

      If you think that multi proxy paleos indicate what you think they do you really ought to look at them individually and objectively and see if they deserve the praise you heap on them

      tonyb

    •  Doug Cotton 

      Yes we do. In the 21st century the current slight cooling will continue till 2028 or 2029. Then there will be about half a degree of warming until about 2058. Then 30 years of slight to moderate cooling and the start of 500 years of long term cooling. I predicted this over 3 years ago.

  70. JC wrote: “Pause denial is getting more and more difficult with time.”

    You know, the temperature data model isn’t sacrosanct – it to must be scrutinized for errors. (Remember the UAH fiasco, which UAH fought tooth and nail? And lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temperature_dataset#Corrections_made).

    Cowtab and Way is clearly a better way to calculate surface temperature, because it uses more information (i.e. UAH LT), and kriging (rather than extrapolate over large areas).

    C&W’s temperature change over the last 15 years is +0.17 C (trend*interval), +0.29 C for the last 20 years. (And both trends, you certainly know, are too short to be indicative of climate change.) These are hardly a “pause,” just a slight slowdown from the long-term trend for the last 50 years (+0.16 C/decade). When you consider that the ’80s and ’90s trends were ABOVE expectations, it’s clear the long-term trend is considerable.

    Judith, it is really shocking to see how you do science now. You’re as much of an activist as anyone. But worse is your paper with Nic Lewis, which seems to go out of its way to get a low ECS by purposely not using the best data available for surface temperatures, ocean heat content, and with no consideration of aerosols at all.

    I once thought you would be too much of a real scientist to pull tricks like that. And yes, they do seem like “tricks,” like dirty-dealing — and frankly, even lies by omission — tricks you and Lewis went out of your way to pull off, all the while with the cheap rhetorical trick of saying you’re using the same data as the IPCC 5AR. (Which is false — since they consider aerosols.)

    Your WSJ op-ed didn’t even mention that new data has come out since then, like you didn’t want anything to upset your low-ECS claim. For a scientist not to use the best data — or not even mention that new data exists — is unethical, pure and simple. More lies by omission.

    Maybe the fossil fuel companies you consult for are looking for their money’s worth. Maybe you like writing op-eds in big papers and getting called to Congressional hearings. But the way you have to do “science” to get those is not just disappointing, it’s detestable.

    • ‘Put your best brains – like Rob – on providing a number.’ the mad, naked Emperor Moshpit

      David has a Bose-Einstein meltdown – such as made famous by the redoubtable webbly. Who has not turned up since basically. Can we get so lucky with David.
      A Bose-Einstein meltdown is characterized by a deeply emotive rant heavy with spite and rancour and based on spurious quibbling.

      Sensitivity studies are not something I waste my time with usually – but they are conceptually simple.

      γ = T/F

      Now as I understand it the forcings from AR5 – including aerosols – were used – along with the uncertainties. Temperature was determined from one or more of the global surface temperature datasets and an attribution between anthropogenic and natural variation. Substituting C&W is certainly not going to double the sensitivity calculated. Are there are bigger problems with surface temperature data than krigging in the Arctic can solve. The changing balance between sensible and latent heat being the big one.

      None of these numbers for sensitivity are credible indicators of climate evolution this century. The point really is that sensitivity is dynamic – γ in Ghil’s zero dimensional energy balance model.

      It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society. The problem of abrupt climate change on multi-decadal scales is of the most immediate significance. The pause is more likely than not to persist for decades given the past behavior of these regimes.

      The probabilities of unpredictable outcomes of chaotic shifts I assume are something like a log-Pearson type III probability distribution. A preponderance of low impact high probability outcomes and a long tail of high impact low probability events.

      It is the maths of probability – and extreme change – such as we have not seen in the 20th century will happen. It is not necessarily carbon dioxide related.

      To avoid repeating myself yet again – https://judithcurry.com/2014/09/21/an-unsettled-climate/#comment-632081

      Rational responses are based on risk management. Building resilience to climate variability that will happen regardless remains a central objective of rational policy. Economic development is the core of building long term resilience. Fast mitigation is not merely possible with reductions in population pressures and emissions of black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane, CFC’s and nitrous oxide – but are outcomes of health, education and economic development strategies. We may also reduce carbon emissions by building soil fertility on agricultural lands and conserving and restoring ecosystems. There are practical and pragmatic approaches that provide real no regrets policy options.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Part of the problem is that Climate Etc‘s fringe-thermodynamics community (D C, Rob Ellison, etc.) never code-up their own molecular simulations. In consequence, their faulty thermodynamic understanding never gets reality-checked against statistical mechanics calculations.

        Recommendation for Thermodynamical Denialists  Code-up the exercises in any well-respected textbook on molecular simulation. Cognitive abnormalities in respect to thermodynamics will be corrected swiftly, thoroughly, and rigorously.

        Conclusion  No amount of thermodynamical rhetoric suffices to compensate for deficiencies in basic computational skills.

        Needless to say, similar considerations apply to climate-change skepticism that is founded solely upon statistical considerations.

        @book{Address = {San Diego}, Author = {Frenkel, Daan
        and Smit, Berend}, Publisher = {Academic Press},
        Title = {Understanding {M}olecular {S}imulation: from
        {A}lgorithms to {A}pplications}, Year = {1996}}
        

        \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}

      • Sure I did FOMBS. I showed how the kinetic energy of a molecule on the moon is not independent of the height. Pure Newtonian physics that.

        What he deems to be statistics is Earth sciences. What he knows about hydrodynamics and thermodynamics could be written on his pinhead. His pretension to computational skills is just that.

        FOMBS is a bore who turns cluelessness into an art form in the service – quite openly stated – of climate extremist ambitions to overthrow capitalism and democracy. It is in stark contrast to rational and workable policies for social and economic development and environmental stewardship.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “Sure I did FOMBS. I showed how the kinetic energy of a molecule on the moon is not independent of the height.”

        Thanks so much for demonstrating this because it’s an explicit premise of Maxwell’s argument. Without it — if the molecules weren’t slowing down and falling back down — then the population that we track on the way up would be the very same through every higher level and our argument wouldn’t carry through. So, now that you have validated one essential premise, maybe you will be able to look at the other ones and the inferences that they support.

      • Question Of those molecules that fly one kilometer high or higher, what is their average kinetic energy as they pass through a height of one kilometer? Through two kilometers? Through three kilometers?

        Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height. FOMBS

        This is on the moon where a molecule of oxygen or nitrogen may actually have a gravitational potential energy – as opposed to on Earth where it may have buoyancy potential and internal kinetic energy as well as bulk kinetic energy.

        FOMBS had an air filled box on the moon. The molecules escaped through a pinhole – and did not interact after that. In the box – we have kinetic theory with a generalised Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecular kinetic energies.

        Outside the box we have projectiles with a mass moving under moon gravity. Let’s assume they don’t have escape velocity.

        The kinetic energy of each molecule is not independent of height. The average kinetic energy of a number of molecules is not independent of height. Fuzzy narratives and even more fuzzy thinking notwithstanding.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “The kinetic energy of each molecule is not independent of height.”

        I insisted several times now that the height *dependence* of the kinetic energy of each molecule is a *premise* of our (Maxwell’s, FOMD’s) argument. I not only not ignore this. I insist on it.

        “The average kinetic energy of a number of molecules is not independent of height.”

        Strawman.

        We’re not talking about “*a* number of molecules”, but rather are comparing the *several* *different* sets of molecules that *each* cross any *given* level. *Those* have the same KE distributions since as the molecules slow down while moving up, the slowest molecules *drop* from the collection (since they can’t get to the next level up at all and fall down before reaching it). And this drop-off effect *skews* the KE *distribution* of the remaining molecules right up to where it was at the lower level. Thus the resulting isothermal vertical profile, and the negative vertical pressure gradient that is due to, precisely, the drop-off.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        LoL … now install a gravitational potential:

        • Many more molecules will bounce off the bottom than the top (because the density of the gas is larger near the bottom).

        • But the mean-square velocity of the molecules that *DO* hit the top will be precisely the same as the mean-square velocity of the molecules that hit the bottom.

        Conclusion  The temperature of the top and bottom of the box is the same … even in a gravitational field.

        Thank you, Rob Ellison, for helping Climate Etc readers to appreciate intuitively why there is no gravito-thermal effect!

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

      • ‘The kinetic energy of each molecule is not independent of height.”

        I insisted several times now that the height *dependence* of the kinetic energy of each molecule is a *premise* of our (Maxwell’s, FOMD’s) argument. I not only not ignore this. I insist on it.’

        Maxwell has nothing to do with this – it is pure Newtonian. FOMBS got it wrong in saying that kinetic energy was independent of height.

        “The average kinetic energy of a number of molecules is not independent of height.”

        Strawman.

        Generalising from a single to multiple projectiles.

        ‘We’re not talking about “*a* number of molecules”, but rather are comparing the *several* *different* sets of molecules that *each* cross any *given* level. *Those* have the same KE distributions since as the molecules slow down while moving up, the slowest molecules *drop* from the collection (since they can’t get to the next level up at all and fall down before reaching it). And this drop-off effect *skews* the KE *distribution* of the remaining molecules right up to where it was at the lower level. Thus the resulting isothermal vertical profile, and the negative vertical pressure gradient that is due to, precisely, the drop-off.’

        So we have a set of molecules in those annoying and unnecessary * – and bizarre ratiocination intended to prove that if you have air escaping form a box on the moon you you get an isothermal atmosphere and a pressure gradient. All this to show that the kinetic energy of molecules as they rise is independent of height by reason of tortuous reasoning about velocity distributions. It is totally insane.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Rob Ellison froths “It [consensus statistical mechanics] is totally insane.”

        Thank you Rob Ellison, for asking [in effect] “Who’s sane? Lev Landau (and his hundreds of scientific colleagues) or Rob Ellison (and the rest of the denialist community)?”.

        \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}

      • Temperature is the result both of the average kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules hitting a surface. So do we assume a gravito-thermal effect on FOMBS say so? No – it is just superficial nonsense.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Rob Ellison claims [wrongly] “Temperature is the result  both  solely of the average kinetic energy of the molecules  and the number of molecules  hitting a surface.

        Error by Rob Ellison, correction by FOMD.

        Please review the distinction between temperature and pressure, Rob Ellison … your remarkable scientific claims are falling regrettably short of Landau’s theoretical minimum.

        \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}

      • ‘Answer The average kinetic energy of the molecules that freely fly to any given height is independent of that height.’ FOMBS

        You having a Bose-Einstein meltdown FOMBS?

        Denying what you said? Pretending it says something else? Indulging in civil discourse?

        Or just waffling about statistical mechanics – when the problem of a mass on the airless moon is purely a problem of mass and velocity. Pure Newtonian.

        But climate is of course hydrodynamics, physical oceanography, chemistry, hydrology, mechanics, biology, geomorphology, quantum mechanics, kinetic theory of gases, chaos theory, etc.

        The problem with climate extremists is that they don’t have any education in any these and are total wankers to boot.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “Temperature is the result both of the average kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules hitting a surface.”

        A very dense gas may have the same temperature as a very tenuous gas of the same kind; and they have the same kinetic temperature T if and only if they have the same the same average molecular KE. That’s because the average kinetic energy just is 3/2kT, where k is the Boltzmann constant. It doesn’t depend on the rate of collisions on an adjacent surface. Pressure does. Did you goof again?

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Pierre-Normand</b wonders "Did you [Rob Ellison] goof again?"

        Overlooking the bizarre physics, personal abuse, statistical quibbles, conspiracy theories, and ideological rants leaves scant remainder … of *ANY* denialist arguments.

        \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}

      • There are a 10 or 12 goofs here. The first was in stating the kinetic energy of a molecular projectile on the moon was independent on height. The second was in in saying that this had something to do with rising and falling. The third was that velocity distributions were involved. No it was a stuff from the start – and you are here resolutely defending the indefensible in some totally mad way.

        Molecules impart energy to surfaces they bounce off. So in general there are two considerations – the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules. It is a matter of generalizing to lower and higher pressure in the atmosphere.

      • • Many more molecules will bounce off the bottom than the top (because the density of the gas is larger near the bottom). FOMBS

        How big is this phucking box? But more hitting the bottom would impart more energy to that surface.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Rob Ellison: “How big is this phucking box? But more hitting the bottom would impart more energy to that surface.”

        The box is an “insulated container”, remember? There isn’t any heat flow through the wall. It doesn’t matter that more molecules hit the bottom wall than than the top wall. The statistical speed distribution of the molecules isn’t affected by the wall collisions. Contrary to what you said, the kinetic temperature is a function of average KE (per molecule) only, and not a function of the rate of collisions (per unit of surface area), though pressure is a function both of the rate of collisions and of temperature.

        So, your statement that “Temperature is the result both of the average kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules hitting a surface.” can’t be made much sense of, so far as I can see.

      • ‘The box is an “insulated container”, remember? There isn’t any heat flow through the wall. It doesn’t matter that more molecules hit the bottom wall than than the top wall. The statistical speed distribution of the molecules isn’t affected by the wall collisions. Contrary to what you said, the kinetic temperature is a function of average KE (per molecule) only, and not a function of the rate of collisions (per unit of surface area), though pressure is a function both of the rate of collisions and of temperature.’

        You are confusing FOMBS box with the gravito-thermal setup. I am assuming it’s just a tin box and cooling rapidly. Real world collisions do affect the KE – but let’s assume that the walls are perfectly elastic.

        Collisions impart energy – what else would happen when a molecule hits the wall at 400m/s?

        These are yet more examples of your utter incompetence and devotion to triviality.

      • Pierre-Normand

        “You are confusing FOMBS box with the gravito-thermal setup.”

        Since FOMD’s thought experiment seems perfectly clear to me, but it confuses you no end, because you are unable to focus on its relevant features, or even grammatically parse correctly its simplest claims, I propose we only discuss the “gravito-thermal setup”. DC will be so overjoyed to have gained you as an ally.

        However, in order to stop bothering our other fellow Climate Etc participants with this off-topic brawl, I propose we postpone this to the next open thread.

      • ‘Molecules impart energy to surfaces they bounce off. So in general there are two considerations – the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules. It is a matter of generalizing to lower and higher pressure in the atmosphere.

        Let’s just remember that this is the bottom line.

        The lower and higher pressure isn’t at issue. If one inserts a thin and stationary horizontal adiabatic wall (well… ok, “insulated wall”) at any height L within a gas column at equilibrium (no net diffusive, radiative or convective heat flows within this column) then the pressure on both sides of the wall integrated over its surface match the weight of the column above. That is, unless the box is closed on top, but we can neglect this for simplicity.

        So we have the definition of pressure in a round about way. It is the weight of the atmosphere above on a 1m2 surface.

        It is called a Pascal and defined as 1 Newton/m2.

        ‘The issue isn’t about pressure. Rather it is about the specific effect of gravity on the KE distributions at various heights. It *isn’t* about its effect on any given set of molecules that starts off at some height and then diffuses up and down. It’s about the comparison of the distributions for different sets of molecules. Fan’s Moon experiment isolates the contribution of one level (the level of the box standing at lunar surface) to the various levels above it where some of the molecules are able to shoot up in free fall. It then considers the different distributions of those different sets of molecules that have been acted upon by gravity on the way up.’

        You repeat for the 20th time is it that the average KE of the molecules in equal at every level Z because some don’t have the energy to travel further. These molecules would travel most frequently to 80km. Not 1 or 2 km. Each of these molecules loses KE as it rises.

        The original statement was a misconceived attempt to claim that KE is independent of the height. You offer an unlikely in the extreme theory that the average kinetic energy is the same at every level because some molecules don’t make it – without the slightest evidence but extreme verbiage.

        One only needs then to connect the dots and generalize to a close box within a vertical gravity field (or an atmospheric column with no convection or conduction). The KE distribution of the molecules at any given height L (with thickness dz, say) just is the sum of the distributions of the molecules that got to that height from all the other levels (as they got there). If the drop-off effect (not all the molecules from a lower level can get to a given higher level) is accounted for, then this effect cancels the loss of average KE from the more energetic molecules that come from below.

        So you say – but the usual standard is to provide a reputable source or a competent mathematical expression.

        Here’s a start – http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4

        “You are confusing FOMBS box with the gravito-thermal setup.”

        Since FOMD’s thought experiment seems perfectly clear to me, but it confuses you no end, because you are unable to focus on its relevant features, or even grammatically parse correctly its simplest claims, I propose we only discuss the “gravito-thermal setup”. DC will be so overjoyed to have gained you as an ally.

        However, in order to stop bothering our other fellow Climate Etc participants with this off-topic brawl, I propose we postpone this to the next open thread.

        You have laboriously created a fantasy around what was was simple misstatement of the laws of motion occurring in the context of Doug erroneous equating of potential and internal kinetic energy in the atmosphere.

        mgdz = mCvdT – I deliberately restate it in terms of constant pressure specific heat.

        This is of course the lapse rate (nearly) in the atmosphere – on the moon we would say that:

        Total energy = kinetic + potential = 1/2(m.V^2) + m.g.z

        Which is the dynamic equation for a projectile of mass m.

        So what you are saying is that at every level –

        1/2(V1^2 +V2^2+ … +Vn^2) = constant

        So go ahead – prove it – or show a standard derivation in the literature for a box on the moon. Is that what you meant FOMBS – go ahead do the calculation you challenged others to do. Bizarre nonsense is what it is – intended only to mislead and dissimulate. Lies and fraud all of it. .

        And here is the proposed setup – http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4101 – which you have already along with this one – http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4990 – for anyone with any actual capacity and interest. That excludes Flynn of course.

        If you want to stop – you just need to stop repeating yourself endlessly.

      • Rob Ellison,

        You wrote –

        “And here is the proposed setup – http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4101 – which you have already along with this one – http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4990 – for anyone with any actual capacity and interest. That excludes Flynn of course.”

        First, proposed setups or proposed experiments don’t count for much. Even more so when the results from real experiments contradict them.

        I see that you do not have the capacity and interest you believe necessary. Like myself you wouldn’t bother wasting time money and effort to engage in such nonsense.

        Nor does anyone else. The proponents of such nonsense continually exhort others to achieve what they cannot achieve themselves.

        Maybe you can take out a loan, and show me that the gravito thermal effect exists outside the minds of the slightly unbalanced. I wish you the best of luck. Let me know your results. I will be in awe of your demonstrated capacity and interest. Until then, it is all just so much airy persiflage, isn’t it?

        In anticipation.

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • I did point to the paper which would seem to suggest that reading a quite fascinating but difficult paper would require some interest and capacity. Flynn the murky washes out on both counts.

        But keeping an open mind rather than something dank and dismal is conducive to a cheerful equanimity.

        life’s too short for bad coffee

        Robert I Ellison

      • Rob Ellison,

        You wrote –

        “I did point to the paper which would seem to suggest that reading a quite fascinating but difficult paper would require some interest and capacity. Flynn the murky washes out on both counts.”

        I am sorry that you found the paper difficult. I did not. I disagree with some of the writer’s speculations. Indeed, he indicated he would be much more satisfied if experimental verification was possible. Alas, to date, no.

        Maybe you have washed out again, yourself?

        Live well and prosper,

        Mike Flynn.

      • Pierre-Normand

        Mike Flynn wrote: “I am sorry that you found the paper difficult. I did not. I disagree with some of the writer’s speculations.”

        It’s been a while since I’ve studied thermo and GR at an undergraduate level and we covered nary anything at all of the interaction between those two fields in the GR course. So, if I get round to reading this paper, and encounter some problems, I possibly will rely on you for some help.

      • ‘In the absence of gravity the result is standard. In particular, the equations of motion allow for stationary states with uniform density and temperature. The effect of gravity was included
        by adding the gravitational potential energy to the hamiltonian; which is standard practice. The result of that modification is that, in the presence of the gravitational field there are no longer any stationary solutions with uniform temperature. Instead both density and temperature decrease with elevation. This should be welcome as being in agreement with what is observed in real atmospheres. The fact that a portion of the atmosphere of the
        Earth exhibits the same temperature profile is a surprise; it suggests that the temperature gradient is not a product of radiation.’

        So perhaps Flynn would just go through adding the gravitational potential to the Hamiltonian for us. That should be amusing.

    • David Appell

      Clearly you think the problem here is the inferiour Hadcrut data set, Judith crime ( or sin) is using it. Presumably when you finished mauling Judith you’re going to move on to all the other climate scientists still using Hadcrut and harass them about their clearly biassed science thats ignoring Cowtan&Way.

      Can I make a suggestion. Write to the Hadcrut authors and demand they remove their dataset from public use that way we don’t get any more climate scientists straying onto the wrong path. It might save a lot of time.

      The reality is C&W has been cited twice in journal papers, one of those co-authored by Cowtan. While the warmist blogosphere has embraced it, climate science as a whole ( not just Judith) have yet to do so. You are making extraordinary accusations towards Judith for something that is completely in line with how her peers are behaving.

      Btw all this from a sceptic who would like to see The Lewis and Curry work repeated with the C&W dataset but doesn’t quite see why the failure to do so by L&C is such a damning inditement of Dr Curry character.

    • Sad comment, in so many ways.

      ‘JC wrote: “Pause denial is getting more and more difficult with time.”
      …Cowtab and Way is clearly a better way…+0.17 C…These are hardly a “pause,”…’ It is a pause because the climate models, all of them, have failed validation. It doesn’t matter much if the slope is zero or significantly greater. What matters is that we have no validated climate models left.
      David, whether you have noticed it or not, there is a consensus in the climate science world that the pause is a real big problem. There is an opposite consensus in the Public Face of Climate Science that there is no pause, nothing to see here, move along, another lie by the Fake Skeptics. Too bad that you have chosen to be part of this group of Deniers, denying the current consensus of real working climate scientists.

      ‘Judith…seems to go out of its way to get a low ECS by purposely not using the best data available…’ The paper said clearly what it was doing – redoing the IPCC calculations using the same data and better math tools. The code is all available; you or anyone is free to redo it using your preferred data set. Dr. Curry has already said that she prefers BEST to C&W. If you disagree, that doesn’t make her a hypocrite. That makes you disingenuous for pretending that she agrees with your preferences.

      ‘I once thought…’ Sure you did. This comment proves otherwise. You are choosing to see everything in a negative light, because she is an opponent.

      ‘Maybe the fossil fuel companies you consult for are looking for their money’s worth…’ Shameful comment. Perhaps the commie environmentalists who pull your strings are looking for their money’s worth. Or maybe, your inability to understand anything but your own point of view is not anyone’s fault but your own.

    • David Appel said “Maybe the fossil fuel companies you consult for are looking for their money’s worth.”

      David, exactly where does your income originate?

    • Pierre-Normand

      “Molecules impart energy to surfaces they bounce off. So in general there are two considerations – the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules. It is a matter of generalizing to lower and higher pressure in the atmosphere.”

      The lower and higher pressure isn’t at issue. If one inserts a thin and stationary horizontal adiabatic wall (well… ok, “insulated wall”) at any height L within a gas column at equilibrium (no net diffusive, radiative or convective heat flows within this column) then the pressure on both sides of the wall integrated over its surface match the weight of the column above. That is, unless the box is closed on top, but we can neglect this for simplicity.

      The issue isn’t about pressure. Rather it is about the specific effect of gravity on the KE distributions at various heights. It *isn’t* about its effect on any given set of molecules that starts off at some height and then diffuses up and down. It’s about the comparison of the distributions for different sets of molecules. Fan’s Moon experiment isolates the contribution of one level (the level of the box standing at lunar surface) to the various levels above it where some of the molecules are able to shoot up in free fall. It then considers the different distributions of those different sets of molecules that have been acted upon by gravity on the way up.

      One only needs then to connect the dots and generalize to a close box within a vertical gravity field (or an atmospheric column with no convection or conduction). The KE distribution of the molecules at any given height L (with thickness dz, say) just is the sum of the distributions of the molecules that got to that height from all the other levels (as they got there). If the drop-off effect (not all the molecules from a lower level can get to a given higher level) is accounted for, then this effect cancels the loss of average KE from the more energetic molecules that come from below.

    • Correction: Lewis & Curry did consider aerosols. My apologies.

      But they did omit some important science about aerosols from earlier this year:

      D.T. Shindell, “Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity”, Nature Climate change, vol. 4, pp. 274-277, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2136

      I stand by the rest of my comment.

      • David,

        I ask again… what are the source(s) of your income?

      • “I stand by the rest of my comment.” Then I must stand by mine. Your complaints are unreasonable, turning quibbles into claims of fraud. One of them you have admitted was just wrong (so where did you get it from?). Nothing is left but, I don’t like the result. Based on that, you gave a scurrilous insult to the author. Sad.

  71. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Observation A  No amount of common-sense thermodynamic arguments will convince denialists (D C and Rob Ellison, for example) that their nonstandard thermodynamic cognition is just plain wrong.

    And the more simply and plainly this is explained, the more abusive the thermodynamic contrarians become.

    Why is this? Not even Kim knows!

    ————-

    Observation B  No amount of common-sense economic arguments will convince denialist-politicians (Rand Paul for example) that their market-fundamentalist cognition is just plain wrong.

    And the more simply and plainly this is explained, the more angry the market-fundamentalists become.

    Why is this? The world wonders!

    ————-

    Observation C  No amount of integrative scientific arguments will convince pure-statistics “scientists” (Judith Curry, for example>?) that their pure-statistics climate-change cognition is just plain wrong.

    And the more simply and plainly this is explained, the more irritable the pure statisticians become.

    Why is this? It’s a puzzle!

    \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}

    • ‘Observation A No amount of common-sense thermodynamic arguments’ – and he links to P-N lauding his clearly incorrect musing about molecules on the moon and quoting Wikipedia.

      ‘Observation B’ – FOMBS is dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism and democracy. Good luck with that fringe obsessions.

      ‘Observation C’ – for statistics read Earth Sciences.

      And the world is still not warming FOMBS. So sad too bad. It has to do with the dynamical mechanism at the heart of climate. I am sure it is beyond the cognitive abilities of some people.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      The celebrated two-volume textbook Statistical Physics, by Landau and Lifshitz, provides good advice to Climate Etc thermodynamical contrarians

      Preface

      Statistical physics and thermodynamics together form a unit.

      All the concepts and quantities of thermodynamics follow most naturally, simply, and rigorously from the concepts of statistical physics.

      Although the general statements of thermodynamics *can* be formulated non-statistically, their application to specific cases always requires the use of statistical physics.

      We have tried in this book to give a systematic account of statistical physics and thermodynamics together, based upon the Gibbs method.

      Advice The thermodynamical understanding of contrarians will improve in proportion to their investment in carrying through concrete statistical mechanical computations (numerical simulations especially)!

      \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}

  72. Greg Laden

    Greg Laden has a post Mark Steyn and Judith Curry. Relevant excerpt: “Two items related only because these two seem to like each other and there are coeval happenings.”

    JC comment: I guess if you don’t have any real arguments against my article, you can always criticize me for the company I keep.

    A better response would be, “Actually, Mark Steyn is Michael Mann’s buddy.”

  73. The extent of illogicality and contradiction that can co-exist in a the minds of mainstream climateers is always quite amazing..

    “…one would think that the risk of substantial warming entails a substantial risk that is worth hedging against….”
    a) Only if the risks outweigh the benefits. But the world is actually greening due to the warming (despite any deforestation) and there are substantially bigger risks in swapping cheap, reliable energy with expensive intermittent energy.
    b) “uncertainty in itself is not a reason for inaction”
    Since the mode (most probable value) is much closer to 1.5 than 4.5 and since the sensitivity is continually dropping then yes it is a very good reason not to act until we can actually predict something correctly!

    “…when someone advocates for a value lower than that, they have some explaining to do as to why such large temperature swings occurred in the (deep) past.”
    Classic circular reasoning! CO2 is assumed to be a climate driver because there were otherwise inexplicable heating events BUT they just ignore the cooling events that cannot be explained by CO2. If it isn’t needed for the cooling then it isn’t needed for the heating either! It is more scientifically correct to conclude that past events are nothing to do with CO2 at all.

    “..it is well established that warming since 1950 is predominantly anthropogenic”
    This is is only a model-derived assertion based on an assumption of declining natural variability, that was utterly refuted when the models were found to have too little natural variation. Assign more dominance to natural variation and there is no need for manmade CO2 to fill any artificial gap between reality and nature.

    “this buys us only a decade of extra time ”
    Only if you assume that natural variation goes away again after having dominated already the last 150 years – which is a plainly dumb assumption.

    “..something that hundreds of thousands of years of paleoclimate records suggest is false”
    ‘Suggest’ is a typical weasel word. The records suggest rather more that nature can vary all by itself so todays minor warming of 0.6K/century is nothing unnatural or anything to be concerned about.

    “The risks of far greater climate sensitivity can’t simply be discounted or dismissed.”
    But by all means lets ignore the far more certain risks of restricting fossil fuel use which we absolutely know will cause much pain!

    “..her consulting business serves fossil fuel companies”
    Let the one that doesn’t use fossil fuels cast the first stone. The hypocrisy is stunning. Yes it might be wonderful if fossil fuels were easily replaced but how many people have to die before the blowhards realize it isn’t so easy as they pretend!

  74. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Fortunately, there are some good examples out their of public discourse that is civil, accurate, fair, and well-reasoned:

    Curry Advocates
    Against Action on Climate Change

    Conclusion  Ultimately, we all wish that Curry is right, and climate change won’t be as costly as the mountain of evidence suggests.

    Unfortunately, the science so far shows that if anything, we’ve been underestimating the scale of the impacts.

    The Wall Street Journal does its audience a disservice by portraying a ten-year reprieve (at best) as though it was a full pardon.

    Signed:
    Professor John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
    Dr. Peter Gleick, MacArthur Fellow, hydro climatologist
    Professor Scott Mandia, Suffolk County Community College
    Professor Michael Mann, Pennsylvania State University
    Professor Richard C.J. Somerville, University of California, San Diego

    Good on `yah all — Curry and critics alike — for providing good models of civil rational public discourse!

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

    • Well evidence is anything in support of a proposition so you can call anything evidence even if it is blindingly obviously wrong. The only evidence of value is that which agrees with mother natures facts and these facts currently support the skeptics in saying that there is no discernable change outside of a long-term natural variational up-cycle that had been gravely underestimated thanks to motivated reasoning by the same types that overhyped acid rain.

      If the world had continued cooling then Hansen would have continued predicting a new ice age along with his fellow opportunist Schneider.

  75. “I guess if you don’t have any real arguments against my article, you can always criticize me for the company I keep.” – you got the real arguments so now, for some, the only interesting question is who bought you and why did you trash your academic career so bad.

  76. If the missing heat is indeed going into the deep ocean, warming it by .001 degrees, who cares? Good riddance! We won’t see it for 1000 years. That would be a dandy safety mechanism for the Earth’s climate.
    Mann et al’s rebuttal that only “a handful” of studies find a lower sensitivity is disingenuous. It is about 15 studies, and it is ALL the empirical studies. Only those based on models get the high IPCC sensitivity.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Craig Loehle claims [wrongly, and without citations] “Only those [studies] based on models [or on paleo data] get the high IPCC sensitivity.”

      Bizarre assertion by Craig Loehle, factual correction by FOMD!

      Summary  Multiple theoretical analyses, dynamical simulations, and paleo studies, by many groups over many decades, independently and collectively affirm that anthropogenic global warming is real, serious, and accelerating.

      Thank you, Craig Loehle, for helping Climate Etc readers to a better appreciation of this sobering scientific reality!

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

      • You don’t address his claim.
        To do so properly you must
        1. Cite the range of gcm sensitivity.. 2.2 to 4.4
        2. Cite the range of paleo studies
        3. Cite the range of feedback studies
        4. Cite the range of observed change studies

        Then note we have no way to effectively judge these different methods.

        We have data uncertainty and method uncertainty.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Steven Mosher argues “We have data uncertainty and method uncertainty [regarding the tobacco-cancer link and in the CO2-warming link]”

        Why is the CO2-warming debate so sadly recapitulating the tobacco-cancer debate?

        Scientifically, statistically, economically, legally … morally …

        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}

      • FOMBS,Why is the CO2-warming debate so sadly recapitulating the tobacco-cancer debate? ”

        Because both abuse statistics. Second hand smoke was the abuse, not cigarette smoking, in general btw. Try to keep up.

        Remember that it appears most of the “deniers” look at the verifiable values not the oversold values. So far CO2 can’t be verified to be greater than the no feedback sensitivity. The doubling of the doubling by H2O is the issue so it isn’t really “CO2 warming” being debated but the “value added” over sold feedbacks.

        It is nice to see how you play the gross generalization as reality card so often. Now perhaps you and Appell can get with D C and perfect your perpetual motion apparatus,.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        Second-hand smoke  guilty epidemiologically and guilty biologically.

        It is a pleasure to acquaint Climate Etc readers with these overwhelming scientific findings!

        \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

        I replied to your 10.28 but it didn’t land where I expected so am trying again;

        —– —–

        You will remember that we had a long discussion about boreholes which in effect started here and went on for quite a few posts

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/#comment-627451

        I contacted the keeper of the Boreholes data at the University of Michigan several times.

        The point was that boreholes show a different temperature profile to Tree rings-the first steadily ascends for the last 500 years, the latter descends for this period until the last century.

        Having now looked at boreholes (several hundred profiles from around the world), Tree rings and corals (ditto) the inescapable conclusion must be that you can prove whatever you want by selecting an appropriate number of profiles .over a particular time scale in order to illustrate what you want.

        I like borehole data as they seem to reflect real world observations and instrumental records which demonstrate that temperatures have been rising for some 300 years, not just the last century. Because of the method of sampling they become less accurate the further back you go.

        They do appear to have some merit however in the science they employ, how much is open to honest debate

        Tree rings however are not thermometers but at best an indication of moisture that pertains in their particular micro climate

        Now, just because borehole data suits my own belief in the general trend of temperatures doesn’t make them correct. I could change the temperature profile completely by being somewhat selective.

        If you think that multi proxy paleos indicate what you think they do you really ought to look at them individually and objectively and see if they deserve the praise you heap on them

        tonyb

      • “Why is the CO2-warming debate so sadly recapitulating the tobacco-cancer debate?

        Scientifically, statistically, economically, legally … morally …

        The world wonders.

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

        huh.

        1. We have uncertainty in the data. the science says so
        2. we have uncertainty in the methods. the science says so
        3. The EXISTENCE of uncertainty doesnt tell you what to do or not to do.
        4. Policy can be made in light of uncertainty, or despite of uncertainty, or by taking No notice WHATSOEVER of uncertainty.
        5. Stating that uncertainty exists, has no logical bearing on one’s policy position.

        Let me put it this way.

        1. Despite the uncertainty I think we should take action.
        2. The actions taken can be INFORMED by the uncertainty.
        3. Discussing the uncertainty should not be TABOO.

        In short, FOMD and his ilk want to criminalize the mere discussion of uncertainty. If you mention the TABOO word uncertainty, then you are
        akin to the murderous tobacco farmer Wendell Berry.

        Ask yourself,, since when in science has it become Taboo to mention
        uncertainty?

        Since nutjobs like FOMD came to positions of power.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        TonyB notices [correctly]  “You can prove whatever you want by selecting an appropriate number of profiles.”

        Yes, TonyB, undoubtedly the denialist practice called “cherry-picking” just plain works.

        Yet a different picture emerges from the data considered in toto:

        borehole data  affirm “we’re in a warming blade”
        tree-ring data  affirm “we’re in a warming blade”
        coral-growth data  affirm “warming blade”
        migratory birds  affirm “warming blade”
        plant-blooming dates  affirm “warming blade”
        carbon-dating  affirms “warming blade”
        sea-level data  affirm “warming blade”
        ocean-temperature data  affirm “warming blade”
        polar ice-mass data  affirm “warming blade”
        mountain-glacier data  affirm “warming blade”
        borehole data  affirm “warming blade”
        —————
        energy-balance climate-science  predicted “a warming blade”

        RESULT  Year-by-year, every well-read scientist in the world has adjusted their Bayesian probability that “Hansen is right” higher-and-higher.

        COROLLARY  Year-by-year, climate-change contrarians focus more-and-more upon conspiracy theories, statistical quibbles, and personal abuse.

        That’s why young scientists overwhelmingly reject denialism, eh TonyB?

        *EVERYONE* understands these ever-stronger climate-change realities, eh Climate Etc readers?

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

      • Fan

        Yes, a warming blade from about 850ad to 1190 ad then a cooling blade for a century, then a warming blade for a century, then ups and downs for. A Century or two Then around 1700 we see the warming blade reappear which has continued, with ups and downs to the present day

        It is not a one way street is it?

        Still, if you are calling me a young scientist I will overlook the lack of historic context in your post

        Tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        The blade is NOT the issue.

        The issue is the shaft, only the shaft, and nothing but the shaft.

        what the science says:

        Screening proxies by matching the blade, biases our understanding
        of the shaft. It is a wiggle suppressor. You can prove this for
        yourself or just read the literature.

        1. If you dont cherry pick proxies by finding those that have good blades
        Then you get floor to ceiling uncertainty in the shaft.
        2. If you do select proxies that have good blades, then you necessarily
        damp the wiggles in the blade.

        BUT, to understand sensitivity we need precision in the wiggles.

        tough problem. It’s not made any easier by making the word uncertainty TABOO

      • Mosh

        I think we are talking at cross purposes.

        To any english speaker except an American the blade would refer to that of a cricke bat, which you call a shaft.

        Yes, we need more precision in the wiggles of the blade/ shaft which the nation that onvented cricket can provide by extending CET To give a better approximation that through the use solely of proxies

        Tonyb

      • David Springer

        FOMB: “every well-read scientist in the world”

        No true Scotsman fallacy.

        FAIL

      • Tony: I don’t think it’s a translation glitch. I’m American and agree that the blade is the part of the hockey stick that is suppose to strike the puck.

      • Tony: Here is link that confirms my description above. The misnaming of blade vs shaft is universal in the media and probably the result of somebody’s wild *ss guess.

        http://www.dubuquehockey.org/page/show/114969-hockey-stick-dictionary

      • Rls

        Here is a cricket bat. The blade is the largest part of it and it is connected to a handle

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_bat

        This equates to the shaft of a hockey stick , that is to say the long part which the players grasp.

        The bit that hits the puck ( or if it’s ice hockey the player) I would call the head.

        The shaft or blade of the Mann hockey stick shows a declining temperature over the last 900 years with a sudden uptick ( the head) from around 1900 .this is at variance with borehole data and observational evidence which follows the pattern I gave above.

        In their words the blade/shaft is not straight but comprises lots of sections that pont in different directions at different times

        Tonyb

      • Matthew R Marler

        a fan of *MORE* discourse: Why is the CO2-warming debate so sadly recapitulating the tobacco-cancer debate?

        It isn’t. but of all the scientific and public policy debates of the last few centuries, the tobacco-cancer debate is the one that most draws the attention of Naomi Oreskes. Why a historian of science would intentionally ignore the rich history of scientific debate must remain a mystery, for at least a while.

      • Edim

        Yes, my point was that the blade of a cricket bat equates to the shaft of a hockey stick. The blade of a hockey stick is what we would term the head.

        Tonyb

      • Tony: You and I are on the same page. Whoever started describing Mann’s hockey stick when it was first introduced did not know the shaft from the blade and, inexplicably, the misuse of the terms caught on.

        On another note, I live a short distance from the main campus of the University of Michigan, where the borehole database is kept, and would be pleased to help you if needed. The weekend before last I was there with my 5 and 12 year old granddaughters and visited the UM Museum of Natural History; didn’t know that so many different types of dinosaures existed.

      • rls

        thanks for that.

        Having looked at the borehole data it seems apparent that it doesn’t follow the same temperature trend as the hockey stick in as much the shaft of it (or the cricket blade) points downwards until the last century, whereas the borehole data illustrates that the earth has been warming for at least 300 years.

        Consequently I therefore have it in mind to look at the individual proxy groups to see what they show. Fan described them above as follows;

        ——- —–

        “borehole data affirm “we’re in a warming blade”
        • tree-ring data affirm “we’re in a warming blade”
        • coral-growth data affirm “warming blade”
        • migratory birds affirm “warming blade”
        • plant-blooming dates affirm “warming blade”
        • carbon-dating affirms “warming blade”
        • sea-level data affirm “warming blade”
        • ocean-temperature data affirm “warming blade”
        • polar ice-mass data affirm “warming blade”
        • mountain-glacier data affirm “warming blade”

        —— ——
        Nobody disputes that the short head of the hockey stick (fan’s ‘blade’) shows warming. It is the 1000 year long shaft that is the interesting component.

        Here is the web site. It is worth having a browse through

        http://www.earth.lsa.umich.edu/climate/

        The name of the person who looks after the database is Shaopeng Huang . He kindly answered some questions I asked of him.

        He is mentioned in the citation details as follows;

        —– ——
        •Huang, S., Pollack, H. N., and Shen, P.Y., 2000. Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures. Nature, 403: 756-758.
        •Pollack, H.N., Huang, S., and Shen, P.Y., 1998. Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures A Global Perspective. Science, 282 279-281.
        •Huang, S. and Pollack, H.N., 1998, Global Borehole Temperature Database for Climate Reconstruction. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center-A for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #1998-044. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
        ——– ———

        Next time I am at the met Office library (next week) I will see if the papers cited and any books on the subject are available and can then decide where to go to from here (if anywhere)

        Thanks for your offer. I will catch up with you after my visit to the Met office.

        tonyb

        .

      • Fomd,

        Are you up for a discussion of the second hand smoke papers you linked to early.Particular the one under the link ” guilty biologically” (this one- http://www.fasebj.org/content/26/5/1845.full.pdf ). I think I spot a great big whopping mistake that seems to have serious consequences for the conclusions.

        My background is genetics/molecular biology, i don’t know to what extent you understand the science in the paper but I think the mistake is so basic it should be clear to most what I’m saying.

      • A fan of *MORE* discourse

        What part of the literature review is hard to understand?

        “Many of the carcinogens present in mainstream smoke are known to exert their effects through a genotoxic mode of action, which is based on their ability to induce DNA damage and mutations, although an epigenetic mode of action, e.g., through aberrant DNA methylation and histone modifications, is also beginning to emerge for a few of these carcinogenic compounds.”

        “The genotoxicity of mainstream smoke carcinogens manifests as mutations occurring in key cancer-related genes, i.e., proto-oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes that control crucial cellular functions, e.g., growth and survival, in lung tumors of active smokers.”

        Common-sense conclusion  An effective way to harm animals and children is to blow toxic smoke and chemicals into their lungs.

        It’s pretty amazing that institutions like the Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute have consistently defended this grotesquely toxic practice.

        Why is this? The world wonders.

        Judith Curry, take notes on your associates!

        \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}

      • FOMBS, Your first SHS link is just about perfect.

        “The small and somehow disputable risk of lung cancer development in relation to SHS exposure exemplifies the intricacy of establishing human cancer etiology when omnipresent carcinogens are concerned. Because of temporal variabilities in source, composition and concentration of SHS, conventional exposure assessment using indices of SHS, as measured in the ambient air or in the body fluids of exposed individuals, at certain times has failed to estimate long-term SHS exposure 10.”

        The dispute is how small is small? It is not that cancer exists and SHS contains bad stuff.

        “Concluding remarks
        Environmental factors play a determining role in human cancer 34. Many cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) are present in the air we breathe, in the food we eat, and in the water we drink 34,45. Humans’ constant and to some extent unavoidable exposure to environmental carcinogens makes investigation of cancer etiology extremely complicated. The complexity of human cancer etiology is particularly challenging for those types of cancer with long latency, which are associated with exposure to ubiquitous environmental carcinogens 34. The small and somehow disputable risk of lung cancer development in relation to SHS exposure exemplifies the intricacy of establishing human cancer etiology when omnipresent carcinogens are concerned. Because of temporal variabilities in source, composition and concentration of SHS, conventional exposure assessment using indices of SHS, as measured in the ambient air or in the body fluids of exposed individuals, at certain times has failed to estimate long-term SHS exposure 10. Consequently, although the causal link between SHS exposure and lung cancer development is well-established 1–3, the estimated risk for developing lung cancer consequent to SHS exposure remains somewhat debatable.”

        With a “small” risk it is pretty hard not to have a debate. So you have a causal link, SHS does contain bad stuff, but then so does about everything else, so it gets back to exactly how small? When other factors are as bad or are worse than SHS, why focus on the close to insignificant? Could it be the depth of pockets?

        I enjoy Biscuits. I am sure there are or could be plenty of papers that show that fresh buttery biscuits with country sausage gravy have to knock at least a year of two off my “projected” lifespan. Notice I used “Buttery” not Transfatty, that could be a confounding issue :) but there isn’t A big biscuit with deep pockets is there? How about Big Wheat?

      • Fan if your comment following mine was intended as a response then I guess you don’t want to