Georgia politicians cool to global warming

by Judith Curry

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution asked a dozen of the state’s top elected officials and the director of the agency tasked with the state’s environment whether they believe the globe is warming, and whether they think pollution caused by human activity is a cause.

The title of the article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution  is Ga. politicians cool to global warming, written by Ariel Hart. Read the whole article;  Ariel Hart did a very good job. Excerpts:

[Newly-elected Republican Representative Rick] Allen vehemently rejected the idea that warming is an established fact. “The science if definitely NOT settled,” he said in an email. “Limiting debate to one side is not the same as being conclusive. …

“I am not convinced and I am certainly not ready to destroy jobs and whole industry sectors in order to tax industries liberals don’t like and send the money to sectors that they do like.”

Loudermilk struck similar themes. “I believe that climate change is a function of nature; the climate has been changing as long as the Earth has existed,” he said.

“We absolutely should be good stewards of the planet, and I am very much opposed to reckless pollution and disregard for the environment, but I also know that some politicians and bureaucrats believe in whatever theory gives them an opportunity to take money from the energy sector and spend it themselves in the name of saving the planet.”

At the state level, Georgia’s top official deferred to leaders in Washington. “This is more of a national and international policy issue,” said Brian Robinson, a spokesman for Gov. Nathan Deal. “Not one where we should or would weigh in.”

Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, a Republican from Blue Ridge, provided a written statement.

“While some are eager to proclaim that human-caused climate change is ‘settled science,’ there are many others who remain skeptical,” Ralston’s statement read. “Claiming that the debate is over helps advance a particular agenda and disregards the fact that the only provable result of policies proposed as a result is the export of American jobs to countries with abysmal environmental practices.”

To support his view, Ralston cited Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech. Curry believes the Earth is warming — except for a current “pause” — and told the AJC in an interview that, among scientists, “everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming.” However, she chastises other climate scientists for overstating how much humans are to blame and the certainty of likely consequences.

Jack Murphy, a Republican of Cumming, who chairs the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee and sits on the powerful Rules and Appropriations committees, was skeptical that global temps are rising.

“I still haven’t seen anything that’s positive proof,” Murphy said. “Until I do, I’m going to have to say, well, if it is changing, it’s changing at such a minute stage that I don’t know what the long term effects are going to be.”

Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle would not plant his flag in the warming camp, but said he could still support sound environmental policies.

“While scientist(s) will argue over this issue, it does appear that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles,” Cagle said in a statement provided through a spokesman. “I will leave it to scientific experts to determine what the causes of those changes are, but either way we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of the creation with which we have been entrusted.”

I-am-not-a-scientist was a popular refrain.

“You know, I’m not a scientist,” said Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Steve Gooch. “So I have to base my decision making on information that I get from other people, so I guess it’s hard for me to say for sure.”

However, he added, “I think we have a duty as citizens to protect Mother Earth and try to pass it on to our next generation as good as or better than we found it.” He thinks we’re on the right course to do that, he said, without federal interference.

The chair of the House Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee, Don Parsons, a Republican of Marietta, also remains unconvinced. “As far as global warming, I have read so many  different things, so many different reports from different scientific studies that come to different conclusions, I don’t know,” Parsons said.

“I’m not one of those people who just sits and rejects the idea, but I’m just not convinced.”

Ga. Tech prof cited by climate-change skeptics

Among climate scientists, one often held up as a dissenter on global warming is right here at Georgia Tech: Earth Sciences Professor Judith Curry.

One science magazine even dubbed her a “climate heretic.” But look carefully at her statements — including some quoted by GOP politicians — and Curry, too, believes the earth is warming, and that human activity is a cause.

“Everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming,” Curry said in an interview with the AJC.

That said, she does differ in important ways with scientists who urge immediate action to counteract the Earth’s warming trend. She thinks the earth is warming at a slower rate than computer models predict, and she’s not at all sure that man-made pollution is the primary cause. She differs with many of her colleagues on the meaning of a current pause in surface temperature warming.

She thinks fostering new energy technologies to replace fossil fuels is wise, but that weaning us from carbon-based fuels is a project for the long term. Most jarring for her colleagues, she doesn’t think climate change is an emergency. She loathes false certainty.

She is willing, however, to appear alongside politicians and pundits who flatly reject the basic tenets of climate change that she embraces. On once recent program cited by Georgia House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, Curry was interviewed by conservative CNBC personality Rick Santelli, who suggested that mainstream climate scientists have “bamboozled” the American public.

“I think there’s nothing to be gained by not talking to people,” Curry told the AJC.

JC comments

Georgia is a ‘red’ state; dominated by Republicans (except for Metropolitan Atlanta which is dominated by Democrats).  None of the politicians interviewed voiced acceptance of proposed federal mandates that would reduce the nation’s output of greenhouse gases.  At the same time, none of the politicians made irrational statements, other than possibly Jack Murphy, who is skeptical that global temperatures are rising (it depends on which time period you are considering.)

Ariel Hart contacted me as a result of the written contribution from David Ralston that referred to me.  Apparently Ralston had heard of my views from a recent interview that I did for Rick Santelli’s show on CNBC [link]. If you don’t know who Rick Santelli is, among other things he catalyzed the formation of the Tea Party movement.  I really don’t like to do live TV interviews: I don’t feel I am effective and they are very time consuming (especially if they get cancelled).  I agreed to do this one because it was a 10 minute segment, and also for a personal reason.  Rick Santelli and I grew up in the same neighborhood in a Chicago suburb; in fact we lived on the same street and he was good friends with one of my brothers.  My Facebook friends from high school got a big kick out of the interview – what are the odds of two kids from Edgewood Ave. talking to each other on NBC news.  (Note, Santelli did not realize this connection when he invited me – he spotted my WSJ op ed).

Well, apparently this interview reached people that I haven’t hitherto reached.  As far as I can tell, I have had zero impact on any Georgia politicians (although in 2007 – during my ‘consensus’ period – I had a one hour briefing with then Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss).

Does my employment at a University in the state of Georgia make it easier for me to challenge the consensus on climate change?  Probably.  There is at least one person in the Georgia Tech administration that doesn’t like my position on climate change, but in the broader context I would say that it is easier to challenge the AGW consensus from a ‘red’ state.  Is it somehow ‘politically’ advantageous for me in the state of Georgia  to challenge the AGW consensus?  Not in any way that I have been able to figure out.

In any event, I am very willing to serve as an information resource for any Georgia politicians (or any others), should they choose to seek me out.

803 responses to “Georgia politicians cool to global warming

  1. Great job Judith, its apparent that for TV Rick wants the sound bites and this type of show not the best venue for a thoughtful climate discussion. The message that the sky is not falling is getting out.

  2. ==> “Everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming,”

    Right. Well, except for those who don’t agree.

    • It would surely be surprising if humans weren’t contributing something to what global warming there is — space heating, electrical generation and consumption, automobiles, aircraft — anything that burns fuel creates some heat.
      The big question is whether that is enouigh to make a material difference. The eco-activists say it is because they want to bring civilisation and progress to a halt. I think increasingly the evidence is against them.

      • Human total heat generation is 20-25 terawatts and 20-30% of the land area has been resurfaced or altered.

        There is good evidence GHGs make some difference.

        People are heating the planet.

      • Underestimated the direct human direct heating. The human heat generation is about 40 terawatts (thermal power generation is about 1/3 efficient). This is the equivalent of the heat transfer of one hurricane per year.

      • @PA
        ‘Human total heat generation is 20-25 terawatts and 20-30% of the land area has been resurfaced or altered.

        There is good evidence GHGs make some difference.’

        The surface of the earth receives 86 thousand TW of solar radiation, of which 43 thousand go into heating, and 41000 into evaporation.
        25/43000 adds 0.058% to the natural heating, not much at all.
        R.

      • russellseitz

        Roberto, you’ar off base by two rders of magnitue, as anthropogenic albedo forcing vastly exceeds combustion heat.

        Even at the low end of the range, each 1% increment of human surface albedo reduction equals ~ 58 TW

      • Roberto | January 4, 2015 at 5:10 am |
        @PA
        ‘Human total heat generation is 20-25 terawatts and 20-30% of the land area has been resurfaced or altered.

        There is good evidence GHGs make some difference.’

        The surface of the earth receives 86 thousand TW of solar radiation, of which 43 thousand go into heating, and 41000 into evaporation.
        25/43000 adds 0.058% to the natural heating, not much at all.
        R.

        Well, the nuclear/coal/oil power plants generate much more heat than power (gas generates more heat than power as well). The additional third world power generation in recent years will put humans in the same class as the flux from the earths core 47 TW since over 10 TW of electric power generation is roughly 33% efficient thermal sources, around 3.5 TW is 50-60% efficient gas, and there is a lot of human thermal generation (think cars) that isn’t grid connected..

        Humans are at the 0.1% barrier in terms of direct thermal energy generation vs solar surface heating.

    • Judith –

      You say that [among scientists] “Everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming,”

      First, it is interesting to note your repeated tactic of “consensus-messaging.” Does that strike you as being ironic, perhaps unintentionally so?

      Second, it is interesting to note that you are employing the kind of rhetoric that you criticize [from others] as fallacious “appeal to authority.”

      Third, It is interesting that despite your claims and those of your fellow “skeptics” – that all scientists agree that warming is taking place don’t doubt that humans contribute to warming – a majority of conservatives nonetheless think that there is no warming taking place, let alone that human contributions are dominant. Why do you suppose that your appeals to authority and consensus-messaging aren’t working particularly well?

      • Steven Mosher

        noting as a fact that everyone [ that matters] agrees it is warming is
        different than arguing that you ought to believe its warming because everyone else does.

        As judith has made clear she believes its warming because it is in fact warming.

      • Joshua

        Please provide the scientific data that shows a majority of conservatives think there is no warming taking place. Is that a national poll or an international poll. Was the sample size adequate? What were the polling questions?

      • CD –

        see the links and my comments to david W below.

        I will admit to being a bit hyperbolic in the statement about majority. I don’t really have that level of confidence about the quality of questions and other ambiguity with the polling.

        but I do think that there is enough evidence to show that large numbers of conservatives in America doubt that any warming is taking place.

      • Even if you reduced AGW to a dozen factors what contributing “weight” for lack of a better word you describe human co2 contributions Joshua?? Please include links if you have any quantification and spare me the experts on toothpaste result testimonials that are the basic framing of the IPCC “science” super structure. I and many aren’t that interested in expert “opinions” but are looking for empirical proofs of claims that of course have never been produced.

        Dr. Curry approves and condones consensus authority all the time Joshua, why would you find the unquantified reference to “everybody agrees” particularly surprising or ironic?

        “Everybody agrees” looks like quackery when clearly it’s “we don’t know”. The back hand is a reference to a radiative heat claim that isn’t quantified in the atmosphere and can obviously be overshadowed by other forces. Feedback discussions, obliterated. Hence every advocate driven model has overstated human co2 impacts. Politically the AGW movement bet on simple minded concepts for public consumption like “everybody agrees” long ago because they thought the keys to the city (science authority) and the subsequent policy authority were in hand long ago. Now in the longer game it’s like swimming with an anvil around your necks.

        Why hide behind this framing Joshua?, you want a central planning authority (government) over carbon interests. The actual science isn’t really important to you at all. Radiative heat claims to human co2 are contrived and even tolerated in serious science discussions about the Earths atmosphere because of the common political compass driving you, many academics and in fact Dr. Curry. Moderate Greens arguing straw with radical Greens of many stripes such as yourself.

      • Joshua, “but I do think that there is enough evidence to show that large numbers of conservatives in America doubt that any warming is taking place.”
        You can believe that if you like. It might be better to replace “any” warming with “significant” warming though. Especially in the Southeastern US.

      • Joshua doesn’t like Judith’s true statement (I would phrase it as “Everyone who is sane agrees that humans are contributing to warming,” but that’s just me) because it goes against his “Skeptics are all DEEENYERZ” narrative.

        It’s exactly the promotion of that narrative that has made rational discussion of climate issues with the general public effectively impossible. Either you believe that the sky is falling, and soon, or else you are a denier.

        IMO, the so-called scientists and so-called journalists who push this false narrative have done worlds of harm to the serious discussion.

      • Steven, Judith has repeatedly said it is not warming. How could u miss all of her talk of “pause”?

      • Cap’n –

        The point is that most people won’t think that there has been warming if they don’t experience warming.

      • Wrong again, Joshua.

        “Most” people believe it’s warming catastrophically because they’ve been told it is by the media and the government. Evidence to the contrary is denied by those who believe in CAGW.

        Given the present “pause”, many of them become “deniers” without understanding that they are.

      • jhprince2014

        I doubt you know if large portios of conservatives dismiss warming as real. I don’t think conservatives think warming has not happened: I think they have a different take on warming and its implications which seem far less catastrophic and hopeless than how liberals have painfully and petulantly viewed it.

    • Curious George

      What a deep thinker is gracing this discussion:

      ==> “Everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming,”
      Right. Well, except for those who don’t agree.

  3. Hank Zentgraf

    It is no wonder that politicians are circumspect in their answers to AGW. The consensus community moved the debate into the policy arena prematurely. Without fully understanding the science of climate the AGW supporters pushed the funding, publishing, and promotion toward AGW and muted skeptical efforts. In 1988 climate scientist said “the temperature rise must be caused by CO2 because we have looked at all alternatives and CO2 is the only possibility”. Does that sound conceited to you? Now some 30 years later we have an unpredicted plateau in warming and alternative science positions are creeping into the dialog. The massive investment in climate science modeling can only be classified as a colossal investment failure. We have lived through a time when model outputs are claimed to be “data”, cherry picking is acceptable, hiding data is common, and the use of circular reasoning is rarely challenged. Shame on all of us!

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      A Politico article says Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe is the Democrats’ favorite denier. The following excerpts are from the piece:

      Now that he’s about to take charge of the committee that oversees environmental policy, Democrats aspire to make Inhofe the face of GOP know-nothingism, while at least one Republican consultant says his style of skepticism could create headaches for candidates up and down the ticket in 2016.

      “Leave it to today’s GOP to put someone who doesn’t believe in basic science at the helm of the committee that oversees environmental protection,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in an email Monday, putting the party’s private smirking on the record. “It’s unfortunate that Republicans continue to put more stock in their rigid ideology than science and what’s best for the country.”

      The turnabout threatens to put Republicans, who lately have deployed the artful dodge of “I’m not a scientist” when asked whether humans are altering the climate, in a tough position: Are you with Inhofe or are you with science?

      Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/jim-inhofe-112757.html#ixzz3NgYpCdnf
      _________

      When asked “Are you with Inhofe or are you with science?” a Republican politician could just say I’m giving careful consideration to the science” or simply “I know nothing.”

      /www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiThRIHwQDE

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        I know nothing.

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        ordvic, thanks. I hadn’t seen that one. I need to explore old sitcoms.

      • Max

        Fawlty towers was set in my next door sea side resort of Torquay. Our village cafe has a Fawlty towers night later this month. If you can make it over I will buy you a ticket…

        Tonyb

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        Tony, thank you. I appreciate your offer.

        Fawlty Towers is among my favorite Brit sitcoms, along with Are You Being Served, Keeping Up Appearances, and Black Adder.

      • Politico is good place to observe leftist media meme coordination. This is another form of Gruberism of the traditional kind, liberals smart and conservatives stupid. Eisenhower we were told for generations wasn’t the smart or curious…it’s a timeless media standard. When not propositioning hatcheck girls or interns JFK and Bill Clinton closet Einsteins.

        It was old 40 years ago Max.

      • Manuel is sad because, taking commenters here at their word, he left his pet rat in a room full of harmless plant food.

        In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be sent to mnestheus@paypal.com

      • Scott Basinger

        “Manuel is sad because, taking commenters here at their word, he left his pet rat in a room full of harmless plant food.”

        So we’re all going to suffocate now? “It’s worse than we thought!” Keep at it – before you know it you’ll be going on about the hazards of dihydrogen monoxide.

  4. Note that when a lay person says they do not accept global warming that usually means they question or reject CAGW, not that there is no warming. The framing of the question often implies this policy related meaning as well. It refers to global warming in the sense that action is required. This is a policy issue.

  5. “everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming.”

    This statement uncharacteristically appears to put words in the mouths of others. In context it appears to refer specifically to emissions of CO2 not other mechanism (e.g. albedo changes, waste heat, etc.)
    I would prefer to let William Happer, Freeman Dyson, James Lovelock, Roy Spenser, John Christy, and Richard Lindzen among thousands of other highly credentialed scientists speak for themselves.

    • And which of those six do you think disagrees with that sentiment? I can recall statements from four of them indicating that they would agree. I suspect they would all concur with Dr. Curry that there is a human contribution to warming (from greenhouse gases as well as other sources which you mention), and also that climate change is not an emergency.

      • The problem out the gate Harold is that AGW is sold on a radiative heat impact that if you add more of something (co2) you get more of something else (heat). Obviously in the open set Earth it’s way more complicated to a point that the observation about a 3% human co2 contribution and undefined co2 sink boarders on quackery. It’s a linear claim not proven by any model or observation and the margins of the measurement discussion are trivial.

        None of this actually changes if you accept the “everybody agrees” point above or not. Isolating human co2 as a climate driver was political goal not based on complex science involving feedbacks etc. If someone uses a meaningless science statement either way in a debate what is it fair to think?? Yes, it’s a political posture. So how is AGW really like gravity that can be measured in the real world to begin with??

        What makes climate science Post-Normal are statements like “everybody agrees” to a simple minded claim as if the Earth were a fish tank.

      • Steven Mosher

        “The problem out the gate Harold is that AGW is sold on a radiative heat impact that if you add more of something (co2) you get more of something else (heat). ”

        Wrong.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Steven Mosher: “The problem out the gate Harold is that AGW is sold on a radiative heat impact that if you add more of something (co2) you get more of something else (heat). ”

        Wrong.

        Wherein is that statement wrong? That is the simplified theory behind the policy recommendations, is it not? All the calculations of future warming ignore the non-radiative cooling of the Earth surface by dry and moist thermals, do they not? If I am wrong about the second, where are the published calculations of the change in the hydrological cycle and the associated energy transport rate that is an expected consequence of CO2 increase, other than my own? (as yet published only here.)

      • Curious George

        Steven – do you know what CARB is? The California Air Resources Board. A carbon tax (CO2 tax) on fuels kicked in yesterday. Rush to fill your tank with a cheap gasoline – producers will undoubtedly pass the tax to consumers.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Wherein is that statement wrong? That is the simplified theory behind the policy recommendations, is it not?”

        the statement is wrong.
        Adding C02 raises the ERL.
        When the ERL is raised earth radiates from a higher colder point in the atmosphere.
        This LOWERS the rate cooling to space.

        The policy recommendations are driven by the belief that SLOWING the rate of cooling to space, will result in a warmer surface.

        Here is a clue. When someone says “heat trapping” they are being stupid.

      • Matthew,

        This is Mosherism. I’m relating the AGW claim as it is delivered to the street levels and exposing a rather obvious contradiction. Steve wants to ignore the public Gruberesk claims of a generation and tell me what they “really meant”. I become the idiot in his narrative rather warming advocates.

        The sales job was and is about “radiative heat”. There a dozens of back stories but more human co2 was suppose to make the Earth warmer but somehow was outweighed by reality. So we really can’t even define what we are talking about that “everyone” might even agree to as a start. You’ll note in these consensus claims how much can’t even be agreed to about what was said now or in the past. Yes, clearly more co2 warming is a radiative heat claim as delivered to the public.

        We might ask Bill Clinton here to define “is” for us. Of course “heat trapping” is stupid but it’s the framework of the Green AGW meme for decades. I should Mosher’s dirt for observing the quality of the AGW junk mail for the past 35+ years?

      • Curious George

        Steven: “Here is a clue. When someone says “heat trapping” they are being stupid.” I am stupid enough to believe you – only you are saying that it is an indirect effect, not a direct one. What difference does it make at the gas station?

      • Matthew R Marler

        cwon14: Matthew,

        This is Mosherism. I’m relating the AGW claim as it is delivered to the street levels and exposing a rather obvious contradiction. Steve wants to ignore the public Gruberesk claims of a generation and tell me what they “really meant”.

        I agree with you: the details cited by Steven Mosher in his answering post are not the basis on which the policy has been sold — I doubt even 10 of the Democratic members of Congress could explain that to their constituents. The policy was sold via simple “greenhouse” and “blanket” analogies.

      • “The policy recommendations are driven by the belief that SLOWING the rate of cooling to space, will result in a warmer surface.

        Here is a clue. When someone says ‘heat trapping’ they are being stupid.”

        What would you call someone who incessantly says “CO2 always warms the atmosphere?”

      • When someone says “heat trapping” they are being stupid.

        When someone says “When someone says `heat trapping’ they are being stupid” they are being stupid.

        In the same vein as, when someone says “When someone says `suction’ they are being stupid” they are being stupid.

      • “This LOWERS the rate cooling to space.”

        “Here is a clue. When someone says “heat trapping” they are being stupid.”

        Mosh you are just being pedantic, since in normal experience, nothing is a perfect insulator, heat trapping is just lowering heat loss. Ie heat trapping does lower the heat lost to space.

        But I’d also like to point out that at the surface according to station measurements, there is no loss of cooling.

      • @SM: the statement is wrong.
        Adding C02 raises the ERL.
        When the ERL is raised earth radiates from a higher colder point in the atmosphere.
        This LOWERS the rate cooling to space.

        Steven, two questions.

        1. By ERL do you mean ELR (environmental lapse rate)?

        If not, ignore the following.

        2. Do you have a source for this effect of CO2 on ELR?

        If not, let’s calculate the expected effect.

        At 300K the specific heats c_p of dry air and CO2 are respectively 1.005 and 0.846 kJ/kg. So a mixture by weight of .9996 air and .0004 CO2 (corresponding to 400*28.97/44 = 263 ppm of CO2 by volume) will have a c_p of 0.9996*1.005 + 0.0004*0.846 = 1.00494 kJ/kg/K.

        Doubling the CO2 to 0.0008 decreases the c_p to 0.9992*1.005 + 0.0008*0.846 = 1.00487 kJ/kg/K.

        Why c_p? Well, the corresponding lapse rates are given by g/c_p, namely 9.807/1.00947 = 9.7588 °C/km and 9.807/1.00487 = 9.7595 °C/km for 263 and 526 ppmv CO2 respectively. Doubling CO2 (in this case) therefore increased the lapse rate by 0.0007 °C/km/K. (More accuracy in g won’t change this.)

        Assuming no change in surface temperature, the expected decrease in air temperature at 10 km resulting from a doubling of CO2 will therefore be 10*0.0007 = 0.007 °C.

        Using dF = 4*F*dT/T for a change dF in flux responding to a change dT = 0.007 in temperature, and taking T = 200K, F = 100 W/m2 at altitude (since round numbers will suffice to make the point), dF = 4*100*.007/200 = 0.014 W/m2.

        So the effect of doubling CO2 on ELR, ignoring other effects, is to reduce the radiation to space by perhaps 10 or 20 milliwatts per square meter.

        Were that all there is to the greenhouse effect the oceans would be frozen solid.

        Instead, doubling CO2 heats the planet by trapping more of the radiation escaping to space. ELR does play a central role in this (can expand on this), but not by increasing.

      • Vaughan Pratt –
        ERL = effective radiating level.
        See e.g. here.

      • Thanks, Harold. That makes more sense. (So ignore my calculations.)

      • What kind of scientists are advising the leader of the free world, Mosh?

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change

        “Now, scientists had known since the 1800s that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide trap heat, and that burning fossil fuels release those gases into the air.”

      • Steven Mosher

        Vaughan

        if you dont know what the ERL is then

        Effective Radiating Level

        http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld001.htm

        this is beginner stuff.

      • Doc knows his stuff, Steven. He gave the most elegant explanation of the GHE I have ever seen, on that thread about his AGU poster, about the semi-gaptooth thing.

      • Vaughan Pratt | January 3, 2015 at 8:19 pm |

        @Steven Mosher: the statement is wrong.
        Adding C02 raises the ERL.
        When the ERL is raised earth radiates from a higher colder point in the atmosphere.
        This LOWERS the rate cooling to space.

        The higher colder point in the atmosphere depends on a constant lapse rate. If the lapse rate is smaller then the higher level is not necessarily a colder level.

        The problem with that higher colder radiating level hypothesis is that the lapse rate does indeed get smaller. Increased back-radiation evaporates more water which injects more water vapor into the atmosphere which in turn lowers the lapse rate.

        This is a known negative feedback called “lapse rate feedback” and the latest studies attempting to measure it have shown it to be greater than predicted by models. Oopsie.

        This is intermediate/advanced stuff that pushes past Mosher’s understanding because it brings hydrology into the picture which drastically complicates the simple radiative transfer model that Mosher naively believes is all that’s needed to understand AGW.

        We live on a water world not a gray body. Heat budget in the troposphere is driven by water in all its phases. Latent heat transfers dominate over radiative almost 2:1. Albedo changes are largely driven by water in all its phases. CO2 doesn’t change the earth’s albedo from the ~0.12 of lunar surface to ~0.33 of earth. Clouds do that. Conversely when there;’s no clouds the earth’s albedo is lower than the moon’s because ocean surface is very close to black. Roughly 70% of the eartth’s surface has cloud cover at any one time. That;s a lot of frickin’ clouds. Water vapor, due to cloud formation, has a negative feedback when the surface is not frozen. Coming out of an ice age when vast areas are frozen year round then water vapor amplification works as advertised until there are so many clouds they starve the surface of the shortwave energy from the sun that evaporates water in the first place.

        You should probably write down the bit about earth being a water world not a grey body.

      • ” Roughly 70% of the eartth’s surface has cloud cover at any one time. That;s a lot of frickin’ clouds. ”
        And under most of that 70% Co2 adds no additional forcing, since the cloud bottom already returns the majority of the upwelling IR.
        And under clear skies, as the surface radiatively cools, rel humidity at the surface rises, as the starts to get over ~80% cooling slows, another non-Co2 derived limit to surface cooling.

      • Water makes the world a full spectrum body, kaleidoscopically, chaotically.
        =============

      • Well, the models predict the ERL (effective radiating level) but the models are wrong.

        That would make what the models predict, an IRL (ineffective radiating level).

        http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aos121br/radn/radn/sld001.htm
        The global warmers say that, “Because CO2 acts like a blanket, surface and lower atmosphere cool by infrared radiation to space from upper troposphere (ERL= effective radiating level)…”

        The warmer say CO2 is a blanket. Then they model CO2 like an electric blanket with a thermostat knob and everything. This is why the models are wrong. It is just a blanket – it isn’t a blanket + heating coils.

      • By far the more common term is “effective emission height”. I like to think of it as the atmosphere’s photosphere for each wavelength.

        @DinTX: The problem with that higher colder radiating level hypothesis is that the lapse rate does indeed get smaller. Increased back-radiation evaporates more water which injects more water vapor into the atmosphere which in turn lowers the lapse rate.

        Springer raises a good point. The crucial question here is whether this decrease in lapse rate driven by increasing absolute humidity (quantity of water vapor) overwhelms the greenhouse effect or is too tiny to be significant.

        The theoretical decrease in lapse rate for a global warming (increase in surface temperature) of 10 °C is plotted on the left of Figure 5 of An Analytical Model for Tropical Relative Humidity by David Romps, J. Climate, 27, 7432-7449 (1 Oct. 2014). Romps plots two cases: no evaporation of precipitation (α = 0), and 50% evaporation (α = 0.5).

        α = 0: A surface temperature of 300K drops to 175K at 15 km for a lapse rate of 8.3 whereas 310K drops to 175K at 17.5 km for a lapse rate of 7.7, a reduction of 0.6 K/km, or 0.06 K/km for each additional degree of surface temperature.

        α = 0.5: 300K drops to 175 at 16 km so a lapse rate of 7.8, while 310K drops to 175 at 18.5 km, a lapse rate of 7.3. In this case the lapse rate decreases by 0.05 K/km for each additional degree of surface temperature.

        This is a known negative feedback called “lapse rate feedback” and the latest studies attempting to measure it have shown it to be greater than predicted by models.

        Given that theory predicts that each rise of 1 °C in surface temperature decreases the lapse rate by a mere 0.05 or 0.06 °C/km, and that the opportunity for actual measurement has to be over a rise in surface temperature well under 0.5 °C, even if this effect is twice what theory predicts it is going to be swamped by an ECS of even 1 °C/doubling, let alone 3 °C.

      • Excellent work, Dr. Pratt. Mosher is still looking for it.

      • Vaughan Pratt –
        The Romps paper is very interesting, thanks! [Non-paywalled version is here, by the way.]

      • I don’t think lapse rate feedback is overwhelmed, Vaughn, and the way it’s being measured is straightforward – average height of cloud tops. If we presume that relative humidity is constant then clouds will condense at the same temperature but at a higher level. If we use the dry lapse rate then a 1C increase in surface temperature would push cloud tops up 100 meters, the new level where adiabatic cooling reaches the unchanged dewpoint temperature.

        The warm cloud top, the same temperature as before, is now 100 meters higher which means there is more greenhouse gases below it to resist back radiation from reaching the surface and less GHGs above it to impede radiation to space.

      • @DinTX: The warm cloud top, the same temperature as before, is now 100 meters higher which means there is more greenhouse gases below it to resist back radiation from reaching the surface and less GHGs above it to impede radiation to space.

        Where the back radiation ends up is irrelevant to global warming because the surface temperature is governed by the atmosphere’s temperature profile, not by the back radiation. (This is particularly clear for Venus.)

        The only radiation relevant to global warming is the amount escaping directly to space. Clouds radiate much broad-spectrum FIR, both down (which is why cloudy nights are so much warmer than clear) and up. It is the upward FIR (OLR) that can reach space directly, and when the cloud tops are higher there is less CO2 above the cloud and hence more of the cloud’s broadband FIR can escape directly to space.

      • … which leads to the same conclusion (higher clouds –> more cooling) but via a mechanism that is easier to calculate with than the back-radiation mechanism. I’ll do the math later (time out for guests).

      • > Heat budget in the troposphere is driven by water in all its phases.

        It’s a women’s world:

        http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/do-women-really-control-80-of-household-spending-1054/

      • @HW: The Romps paper is very interesting, thanks!

        The most interesting part of the paper for me is his simple formula RH = δ/(δ + γ) for relative humidity as a function of detrainment rate δ and water vapor lapse rate γ, which explains a lot about water vapor. He gave an invited 15-minute talk on the last day of the AGU meeting that packed a remarkable amount of the paper into a clear exposition of the main ideas, without which I would not have been motivated to look at the paper.

      • In reference to Romps, I was reading a these by Barrett in the UK on modeling issues with mixed phase clouds. Super cooled liquid water in mixed phased clouds have a subtle impact on RH estimates, the difference being RHvp versus RHice.

        Not something that really jumps out as significant, but with liquid topped clouds at a temperature in the range of -15C you would be approaching the maximum difference between water vapor saturation and ice vapor saturation. That would have some interesting effects on detrainment and re-entrainment dealing with two phase changes. I used to relate it to an atmospheric heat pipe effect. According to Barrent, adjusting for mixed phase clouds would reduce climate model sensitivity to around 1.6C per doubling.

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

      • Matthew R Marler

        Vaughan Pratt, : Springer raises a good point. The crucial question here is whether this decrease in lapse rate driven by increasing absolute humidity (quantity of water vapor) overwhelms the greenhouse effect or is too tiny to be significant.

        The theoretical decrease in lapse rate for a global warming (increase in surface temperature) of 10 °C is plotted on the left of Figure 5 of An Analytical Model for Tropical Relative Humidity by David Romps, J. Climate, 27, 7432-7449 (1 Oct. 2014). Romps plots two cases: no evaporation of precipitation (α = 0), and 50% evaporation (α = 0.5).

        thank you for the link to the Romps paper

        From the abstract: An analytical model is derived for tropical relative humidity using only the Clausius–Clapeyron relation, hydrostatic balance, and a bulk-plume water budget. This theory is constructed for radiative–convective equilibrium and compared against a cloud-resolving model. With some reinterpretation of variables, it can be applied more generally to the entire tropics.

        The principle limitation of these lapse rate computations is that they are based on a thermodynamic equilibrium (C-C) that never exists. There is a persistent transfer of energy and water (hence latent energy) from the surface to the upper troposphere via evaporation and wet thermals, and none of the models is a model of that rate of energy and water transport. The total energy transported that way, evapotranspiration, is greater than the energy transported by radiation (Stephens et al, Trenberth et al energy flow diagrams), so the omission is non-negligible. How that transport changes with CO2 or temperature change has hardly been studied. The Romps et al science paper on changes in lightning strike rate is just one of only a few beginnings. The C-C approximation is not necessarily always bad (may be good on cool, sunny, cloudless days), but it is wretched when there are squalls, thunderclouds, and rain storms — i.e. when the rate of non-radiative transfer of energy from surface is greatest.

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @Rob Starkey: What is important is TCR. What Vaughan seem to get wrong is forecasting TCR over specific time periods. What will TCR be over the next 25 years? If someone claims to really know what is happening in this complex system, let them tell you now what TCR will be to CO2 over the next few decades?

        Excellent point. My personal road to hell is paved with the good intention of making a straightforward connection between ECS and TCR based on ocean heat capacity above and below the main thermocline. Real soon now, as the saying goes…

      • Matthew R Marler

        Harold W:
        The Romps paper is very interesting, thanks! [Non-paywalled version is here, by the way.]

        thank you for the link.

      • SkepticGoneWild

        Mosh,

        The guy with a B.A in English Literature and Philosophy is lecturing us on science? We already know the IPCC propaganda line. No need to repeat it.

        Where is the evidence the ERL has risen?

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @MM: There is a persistent transfer of energy and water (hence latent energy) from the surface to the upper troposphere via evaporation and wet thermals, and none of the models is a model of that rate of energy and water transport.

        But that transfer is precisely what Romps’ paper models. In what way is his model not a model of what he claims to model?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Vaughan Pratt: But that transfer is precisely what Romps’ paper models. In what way is his model not a model of what he claims to model?

        In addition to the quote from the abstract that I provided, consider this from their discussion: A simple, analytical theory has been given here for the relative humidity in radiative–convective equilibrium,
        its changes with atmospheric warming, and its relationship
        to the precipitation efficiency

        A great deal of the energy and water transfer that I referred to takes place when the conditions are far from equilibrium, during squalls, thunderstorms, and such. What he derives is a relative humidity profile that is accurate during mild conditions (when the equilibrium hypothesis is least inaccurate), not the rates of energy and water transfer, nor their changes as DWLWIR and temperature increase.

        For another: Let M denote the convective mass flux (units of
        kgm^-2 s^-1), e and d denote the entrainment and detrainment
        rates (units of kgm^-3 s^-1), and c denotes the
        condensation rate (units of kgm^-3 s^-1). We can then
        write down the following equations for the steady-state
        convective mass flux M, the humidity within clouds

        That again is a steady-state approximation, whereas a large portion of the mass and energy transfers take place during non-steady-state conditions. As far as I can tell, the mass and energy flux rates themselves are never estimated, and the moist lapse rate is shown to be nearly independent of those fluxes, as long as the system is in steady-state.

        By contrast, in the Romps et al paper on lightning discharge rates, the energy flow rate was obtained by multiplying the CAPE by the measured rainfall rate, and multiplying that by a .constant of proportionality.

        I respect the work, mind you. But I think it comes up short of telling us whether cloud cover will increase or decrease, whether the rate of evapotranspirative cooling will increase sufficiently to throw the results of the radiative balance models off (I think they will), or whether the increased DWLWIR on the ocean surface will warm it or merely increase the evaporation rate.

        For another quote: Therefore, Eqs. (12) and (19) form the
        analytical model that we sought: given the pressure p,
        temperature T, entrainment rate e, and detrainment rate
        d at some height in the atmosphere, this theory gives G
        and RH at that height.

        To calculate RH, they compute its value over a grid of values of e and d, but these and other rates are never derived nor are their changes with changing surface temperature derived.

    • Perhaps Prof. curry will clarify what she means when she says, “everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming.” Is the science now settled? Is this an appeal to authority (“everybody” sounds authoritative to me)? Are there no longer any room for descent and other scientists can no longer speak for themselves? Is this a long journey that is not over? From believer in CAGW to questing the “consensus” to declaring a consensus? Words (e.g. everybody agrees) do have meaning.

      • PMHinSC | January 2, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Reply

        “Perhaps Prof. curry will clarify what she means when she says, “everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming.” ”

        Everybody *should* agree. The waste heat alone from fossil fuel combustion is significant enough to raise urban surface temperature. Is there anyone with more brains than God gave a goose who disputes that human activities causes urban heat islands? If there are, I fart in their general direction, which activity is also AGW given how powerful methane is a GHG.

      • Will Janoschkas

        PMHinSC | January 2, 2015 at 1:35 pm | Reply
        (“Perhaps Prof. curry will clarify what she means when she says, “everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming.” ””
        David in TX | January 4, 2015 at 1:34 am |
        “Everybody *should* agree. The waste heat alone from fossil fuel combustion is significant enough to raise urban surface temperature. Is there anyone with more brains than God gave a goose who disputes that human activities causes urban heat islands?”
        Certain localized places with higher temperature offset by those with lower temperature?
        The total power converted to heat by earthlings is 7.5 x 10^9 watts. 1.5 ppm of the 5.3 x 10^15 watts continuously supplied to this Earth and its atmosphere by the Sun. Outside of possible nuclear destruction, earthlings have no possible effect on anything this Earth may wish to do, with temperature, or anything else. God loves roaches, that produce more heat and CO2, than earthlings can ever do.

      • Will there’s a fly in your ointment. Anthropogenic waste heat is hugely concentrated in small areas. Thus the very places where we live are warmed the most by our activities. That’s anthropogenic warming and there’s no good reason why there should be any compensatory cooling outside the urban environment.

        Everybody should agree that anthropogenic activity causes urban heat islands and while the effect diluted over the entire earth’s surface is small it is still non-zero.

      • HaroldW | January 4, 2015 at 11:05 am |
        PMHinSC —
        Thanks for clarifying. But Dr Curry’s statement is all about “the physics that says it [CO2] should” warm…note the phrase “[i]f all other things remain equal”.

        I respectfully disagree. Perhaps I need lessons in reading comprehension, but my understanding is she is saying that “everyone agrees” anthropogenic CO2 IS warming the environment; no that the physics says CO2 SHOULD warm the environment. I would agree that the physics says that more CO2 (anthropogenic or otherwise) SHOULD warm the environment. Perhaps I missed the class where it is taught that data is no longer required in the scientific process.

      • I would agree that the physics says that more CO2 (anthropogenic or otherwise) SHOULD warm the environment. Perhaps I missed the class where it is taught that data is no longer required in the scientific process.

        But we have the data, for both CO2 and temperature. Furthermore the climate, when defined as the 20-year running mean of temperature (the blue curve in the figure below, namely what the IPCC uses in the definition of transient climate response), tracks log(CO2) (the green curve) very well modulo a well-documented fluctuation (the red curve) commonly associated to either the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) or the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

        When the physics says CO2 should warm the environment, and one observes the environment warming with rising CO2, you need a more nuanced objection than simply that there is no data to support the physics.

      • Basil Newmerzhycky

        “When the physics says CO2 should warm the environment, and one observes the environment warming with rising CO2, you need a more nuanced objection than simply that there is no data to support the physics.”

        Vaughn, Well said.

      • Basil Newmerzhycky commented

        “When the physics says CO2 should warm the environment, and one observes the environment warming with rising CO2, you need a more nuanced objection than simply that there is no data to support the physics.”

        To me, this is at best the starting place for a hypothesis, but the attribution of weird weather, or even rising temperatures isn’t proof Co2 is the “cause”. Nor is “we can’t think of anything else that could do it” , science.

      • Vaughan writes: “But we have the data, for both CO2 and temperature.”

        Vaughan- LOL If only CO2 drove temperature change you would have what you need to make accurate forecasts.

        The truth is that it is a complex system. As Vaughan wrote earlier ECS is a theoretical number that may not be important over timescales meaningful to humans.

        What is important is TCR. What Vaughan seem to get wrong is forecasting TCR over specific time periods. What will TCR be over the next 25 years? If someone claims to really know what is happening in this complex system, let them tell you now what TCR will be to CO2 over the next few decades?

      • Vaughan Pratt,

        Based on your chart “normal” climate would be 1860s and we are in Abby-normal climatesville now. That is what the data says right?

        Natural variability is miraculously limited to a +/- 0.1 C range. Land use has zero impact. Black carbon has zero impact. Volcanoes have zero impact. CO2 is the only significant climate variable. I must say this climate science stuff is remarkably simple.

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @cd: Natural variability is miraculously limited to a +/- 0.1 C range.

        Does 20-year global climate usually vary considerably more than that over any given 145-year period? If so then I would agree that it would seem miraculous. Otherwise I wouldn’t.

        Land use has zero impact.

        Land use has a quite significant impact on CO2. The analysis takes this into account by using all atmospheric CO2 including that attributable to land use.

        Black carbon has zero impact.

        Black carbon has a very significant impact on CO2. I’m viewing log(CO2) (the green curve) as a proxy for all anthropogenic emissions including black carbon because we have more data for CO2 since 1800 than any other form of anthropogenic emissions. If it could be shown that significantly more than half of the green curve was the result of absorption by black carbon then this would take the pressure off CO2. Mark Jacobson’s work on this may shed some light here.

        Volcanoes have zero impact.

        There have been on the order of a hundred significant volcanic eruptions since 1850, not one of which has had a discernible impact on 20-year climate. If you’re referring to the sustained-volcanism theory, that’s at best a correlation with insufficient quantitative evidence of a significant impact on 20-year climate.

        CO2 is the only significant climate variable.

        As I said I’m only using it as a proxy for the impact of industry. By all means propose an alternative proxy for which we have enough data to make it usable.

        I must say this climate science stuff is remarkably simple.

        If you can show how making it more complicated improves our understanding, I’m all ears. I love complex theories if (and only if) they shed additional light.

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @Rob Starkey: What is important is TCR. …

        Answered here. (I wish WordPress had an easy way of working back to the correct Reply button.)

      • Matthew R Marler

        Vaughan Pratt: When the physics says CO2 should warm the environment, and one observes the environment warming with rising CO2, you need a more nuanced objection than simply that there is no data to support the physics.

        Well said. I referred to it without citing it explicitly or explicitly referencing the post.

      • Changes in poleward ocean heat trnsport could complicate issues

        http://water.columbia.edu/files/2011/11/Seager2005OceanHeat.pdf

        If only there were evidence there had been any

        http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n6/fig_tab/ncomms1901_F5.html

      • Vaughan Pratt | January 5, 2015 at 11:33 am |

        “But we have the data, for both CO2 and temperature.”

        Yes but the data for the past 17 years shows no decline in rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 with no concomitant increase in temperature.

        The data disputes the hypothesis.

        “When the physics says CO2 should warm the environment, and one observes the environment warming with rising CO2, you need a more nuanced objection than simply that there is no data to support the physics.”

        Yes but when one observes the environment not warming despite relentless emission of aCO2 into the atmosphere you need to consider the possibility that the physical explanation proffered is either wrong or incomplete.

    • I would prefer to let William Happer, Freeman Dyson, James Lovelock, Roy Spenser, John Christy, and Richard Lindzen among thousands of other highly credentialed scientists speak for themselves.

      AFAIK, all of those people agree with Dr. Curry’s statement.

      There is a world of difference between believing that CO2 does not have a warming effect and saying that the warming effect of CO2 is not a good justification for proposed policies.

      Remember, the majority of the warming predicted by GCMs is a result of water vapor, in a very-difficult-to-predict positive feedback loop. Not CO2. Questioning the accuracy of the GCMs is entirely rational and what one would expect from real scientists, like those you brought up.

      On the other hand, claiming that human-emitted CO2 (and methane, and land use changes) have no effect on climate is, indeed, anti-science.

      • “fizzymagic | January 2, 2015 at 8:50 pm |
        On the other hand, claiming that human-emitted CO2 (and methane, and land use changes) have no effect on climate is, indeed, anti-science.”

        Just for the record I made no such claim. My claim is that there is no empirical data supporting the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is having an effect on the climate. Until there is it is unwise to say “everybody agrees…” is a scientific fact. I understand and don’t dispute the physics that says it should, but understanding physics is not enough.

      • PMHinSC —
        Thanks for clarifying. But Dr Curry’s statement is all about “the physics that says it [CO2] should” warm…note the phrase “[i]f all other things remain equal”.

      • Matthew R Marler

        PMHinSC: . My claim is that there is no empirical data supporting the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is having an effect on the climate.

        Unless there is another mechanism responsible for the warming since 1850, then the co-occurrence of warming with CO2 increase is empirical evidence supporting the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is having an effect on the climate (see Vaughan Pratt above). No convincing evidence for such a mechanism has been reported: modeling such as Scafetta’s that finds periodicities in the global mean climate is evidence that such a mechanism (or set of mechanisms) exists, but a complete account of how the mechanism works has not been proffered. We are stuck, in my opinion, with the most perplexing situation: the evidence does not clearly support any particular explanation for the warming since 1850.

      • Where is your proof that feedback from water is a net positive one?

    • There have been justified complaints that “consensus” has no place in science. Without defining what she means, Dr. Curry is now claiming consensus when she says, “everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming.” This sloppiness devalues her arguments; particularly considering her previous statement “If all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet; however the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal.” Am I to conclude that CO2 is contributing to warming (that arguable hasn’t occurred for 18 years) but we can’t measure it because it is nullified by negative feedback? A minimum scientific standard should demand the ability to measure the link between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature (where is the “human signature in the atmosphere?”). IMHO Harold W contradicts himself when he says 4 out of 6 agree “everybody agrees” and then goes on to claim that they all agree to an undefined statement about what they agree on. Just the number of commentators with disparate views supporting the “everybody agrees” statement is a testament that it means everything to everybody and it will be used by everybody for everything. Once you have to explain what you mean by “everybody agrees,” you have lost the argument. It is not possible for anyone to be as public and have spoken and written as much as has Prof. Curry and not contradict herself, or misspeak. I hope this is the case and she will clarify what she means.

      • I am puzzled that you think Dr. Curry is unclear, when you cite her: “If all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet; however the real difficulty is that nothing remains equal.” As I wrote, I can recall statements from 4 of your 6 scientists explicitly agreeing with this sentiment, and would be rather surprised one of them does not.
        “Am I to conclude that CO2 is contributing to warming (that arguably hasn’t occurred for 18 years) but we can’t measure it because it is nullified by negative feedback?” We can certainly measure the extent warming and estimate the role of greenhouse gases such as CO2. It’s been done in many places, e.g. Otto et al. (2013). GHG warming is not, to my knowledge, being nullified by negative feedback; it is being reduced by a natural cycle which is currently in its cooling phase. [I avoid “nullified” because only one dataset (RSS) shows such a long period of zero linear trend. All others show small positive trends over that interval.]

        I subscribe to the view that “all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet”, and we are adding more CO2, hence I see no reason to expect that any interval of zero temperature change will last indefinitely. The key question is not whether temperature will increase, but how much, how fast. Some believe the rise will be swift, large, and cataclysmic. I see it as being slower and “not an emergency”.

      • “HaroldW | January 3, 2015 at 11:13 am |
        I am puzzled that you think…”

        I am looking for science not “estimate the role of greenhouse gases such as CO2…I subscribe to the view…I see no reason to expect [or] …some believe.” The first data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 Mission was presented in Dec, there is no data showing man’s signature in the environment, the cart is clearly before the horse, and it is premature to declare the theory to be confirmed. Please note I have not expressed my opinion or stated that the theory is not true; just that there is insufficient science to declare it as confirmed. I am looking for science not premature declarations of “everybody agrees” quibbling over degree.

      • HaroldW | January 3, 2015 at 11:13 am
        “I am puzzled that you think Dr. Curry is unclear, when you cite her: “If all other things remain equal, it’s clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet; …. ”
        Please give any evedence that “adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet” This is but a fool claim made by erronious modeling.

  6. AGW has been a central planning, Marxist in subtext political meme offshoot of green activism from inception. The trouble for both advocate and skeptic tactically is that most voters don’t care deeply enough and are scientifically insecure to embrace the political realities associated with something form formed from the academic left. Each time advocate become a political critical mass the logical reaction and resistance can stop or slow the “policy” which in fact isn’t based on science at all. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough logic or public science self-confidence to root out the political fringe of the green culture in either academia or culture beyond stopping them at major moments. The political risk of being “anti-environmental” was conceded generations ago in the political class so there is very little leadership or incentive to change this status quo.

    Climate “science” and specifics are analogous to the average voter as might be debate over accounting rules or tort reform which can become very partisan among small even self-interested parties. Most voters can’t absorb those complexities either but a set of dogma is created. Of course the scale is very different when neither side might be predicting world wide catastrophic events unless power and control are ceded to their policy wishes (Although the reader might research a discussion of “mark to market” banking asset rules circa 2008). Green political ambitions are Messianic in structure and completely culture driven in many segments.

    The deficiency of particular opponents to science political corruption and agenda (the basics of the broad climate science, warming enclave movement) shouldn’t be the singular focus. AGW activism needs to be related to the overall schism hostages found in academia, media and popular culture as a whole. Those are the dots that need connecting, not the weakness of the Party that markets itself on defending individual rights….often poorly to be sure. True to form Dr. Curry seems preoccupied with her relative standing inside the Green Culture as she struggles with their excesses. Another false goal post submerged in the infirmities of the Georgia GOP AGW resistance. The GOP polls are hair-splitting and weak relative to those somewhat more interested in the AGW agenda is neither a surprise or that informative. None of it addresses the broad abuse of “science” for a political agenda that the AGW movement represents or the comparatively weak reaction Dr. Curry and her many followers have maintained in the process. Finding weak GOP postures is no excuse for what the AGW movement (or Dr. Curry’s position in the debate) is or ever was being the main point.

    • Steven Mosher

      “AGW has been a central planning, Marxist in subtext political meme offshoot of green activism from inception”

      in 1896? really?

      • Greenpest.
        ========

      • Steve, were they arguing to regulate J.D. Rockefeller in 1896 because he was warming the Earth??

        No, “they” hated him then and now for many common reasons that are obfuscated under the guise of the climate “science” debate today. If you took a proper look at the roots of the “Green” movement you could certainly go back to 1896 or many other social cultures for the roots. Collective man hating man as the center of social and economic ills? Isn’t that the center of Marxist framing? Just a coincidence it’s embraced with advancing certainty based by academic left-wing political ideology today? Do you need a graph to acknowledge this?

        Do you seriously think all of this is rationalized by a 3% human CO2 contribution that has yet to be defined (quantitatively) in impact?

        Steve, somewhere there are serious scientists doing real science and frankly no one cares much because they wouldn’t care a hoot if “everyone agrees”. Plenty do care, which is a reflection of the science decline involved here. The political movement of AGW is very real and dwarfs in importance the obscure nature of what has been proven regarding human co2 emissions. It’s past time technical skeptics cross that bridge as a basic starting point.

      • 1961 – World Wide Fiend for Nature.

      • @cwon14: Steve, were they arguing to regulate J.D. Rockefeller in 1896 because he was warming the Earth??

        For the benefit of those who rely on Wikipedia to decrypt SM’s cryptic acronyms and dates, I’ve added an entry for Arrhenius at Wikipedia’s article on 1896.

        I’ll add an entry for the acronym ERL for Effective Radiating Level when the term appears somewhere in Wikipedia. Currently not even the more common terms Effective Emission Height and even more common Effective Emission Level (defined on p.1650 of this 1999 article by Schneider, Kirtman, and Lindzen) appear. (No, not that Schneider, yes that Lindzen.)

        What does appear is the term I’ve been using, photosphere, as defined in terms of optical depth for “the optical path from the observer’s altitude to outer space”. Schneider et al’s 1999 temperature-based definition of EEL is essentially equivalent to the astrophysicist’s definition of an optical depth of 2/3 for a star’s photosphere, with visible light replaced by far infrared.

      • Steven,

        I’m sure John Tyndall and Karl Marx met each other. London was a small world in those days. With the Communist Manifesto being published in 1848 and John Tyndall being professor of physics at the Royal Institution from 1853 to 1887, they must have at least heard of each other, if only in the British Library.

  7. John Smith (it's my real name)

    “Georgia is a ‘red’ state; dominated by Republicans (except for Metropolitan Atlanta which is dominated by Democrats)”

    look at any voting map of the last election
    it’s true throughout the country
    almost exacting to the city boundaries
    this is important
    a stark economic and cultural divide
    exemplified in the climate debate

  8. This is a good post. It’s refreshing to read that there are elected officials that seem to be thinking clearly about these issues and they are seeking advice from experts. The reporter didn’t quote anyone that would echo the progressive green meme that “the science is settled, the time to act is now and the planet is doomed if we don’t”. Has Obama lost all sway in Georgia politics?

    • The reporter did quote Andrew Dessler

      • I saw that and thought it was one of the most bizarre statements I have seen recently and Dressler is from Texas A&M. I guess he has never considered getting a second or third medical opinion before subjecting a loved one to life threatening invasive surgery. Did the reporter have to go all the way to College Station to get this?

    • “seeking advice”?? or Getting cowed and submitting to the authority of the Climate Eunuch class as “science”??

      Submit or be labeled “irrational” or anti-science and if you have dissent it better conform to approved standards.

      Like any cartel, the left-wing climate science deference has to be exposed and depoliticized. Not likely near term and the article reflects it.

  9. It’s curious the Jack Murphy gets close to the “irrational” label for even alluding to “temperature records”. That seems to be a political Holy Grail that warming advocates simply aren’t going to tolerate…even Dr. Curry. It’s not my priority but it takes us back in time in the debate when in fact the debate was more generally rational and the political blood lust of warming advocates was generally acknowledged. So again we get politically correct spectrum of topics of discussion from either the “consensus” or its affiliates.

    • Steven Mosher

      there was a Little Ice age. I dont know why so many skeptics want to Disappear the Little Ice Age.

      • I think our understanding of past climates, and how they might have been shaped, would be improved if we recognised that neither the MWP or the LIA were monolithic unbroken periods of warmth or cold lasting hundreds of years.

        Whilst each period could be characterised as being often warm or cold there were plenty of periods within each with the opposite characteristics.

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        Tony.

        why do you let skeptics get away with denying that there was a cooler period in our immediate past. Regardless of its twists and turns and nooks and crannies, the LIA was in general ( pick a random spot) cooler than today.

        Stop denying your own work

      • Sorry mosh, but you have lost me there

        Of course there was a mich cooler period in our immediate past it’s just that it didn’t last unbroken for five hundred years at a perishimgly cold level whereby the Thames was continually frozen.

        Tonyb

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        Steven Mosher
        ?
        when I last heard of the LIA , it was a skeptic argument for natural variation
        when did skeptics start to “disappear” it?
        I missed that
        this comes across to me as yet another rhetorical reset from the warm side

      • Mosher I dont know if you are being facetious or what but all I hear from skeptics is that there was LIA and the other side is trying to get rid of it for obvious reasons. Sometimes your logic or thought process has too many sub text themes involved to follow.

      • Ceresco,

        The basic thing about Mosher to me is that he really believes the debate will be settled with spaghetti charts. It’s the black hole of back bench skepticism that maintains political denial of the actual academic culture involved with AGW advocacy or as in the case of Dr. Curry apologists and facilitators.

        I appreciate his and similar efforts at times but it is fundamentally obtuse to the core of the AGW movement and the resistance.

      • Tony, Ceresco, John

        Mosher may be experiencing a type of anxiety disorder, with the record breaking California Freeze heading his way. He needs to be assured that an Arctic Parka is not necessary; dress in layers.

        Richard

      • tonyb, Mosher is just messin’ wid ya. As far as “global” temperature goes, the LIA was around 0.9 C cooler than today and the MWP was about the same as today. Regionally, temperature swings more than offset most of the weak “global” climate signal especially when longer term averaging is used.

        When you use the tropics, the real heat source for “Global” temperatures,

        Which happens to have a 94% correlation with GISS global btw, even though it it is only 44% of the globe, you get a better picture of what is going on than with CET or kriging to the nether regions of the poles.

        Since there are a few pretty good tropical ocean reconstructions you can get a better idea of what the “global” MWP/LIA temperature range was.

        Now Mosher and the minions will make a case that nether regions of the poles matter since you have to have a real “global” anomaly and once you include Arctic Winter Warming and Sudden Stratospheric Warming and convert sea ice to land, without weighting for actual energy involved, temperatures match theory better, but they are running out of nether region locations to manufacture data for aren’t they? So unless they krige up a new “global” where CET has a higher than 94% correlation, the tropical oceans and especially the Northern Indian Ocean are the teleconnection sweet spots.

      • Steven Mosher

        Skeptics Deny the LIA

        “Allen vehemently rejected the idea that warming is an established fact. ”

        Jack Murphy, a Republican of Cumming, who chairs the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee and sits on the powerful Rules and Appropriations committees, was skeptical that global temps are rising

        .

      • Steven Mosher

        It’s pretty simple guys.

        Skeptics deny that its getting warmer.
        on the other hand
        Skeptics argue that the warming is natural.

        You see they are not interesting in finding the best explanation, they are only interested in denying what the other side says.

        If I say its warming since the LIA, all manner of skeptics of skeptics will
        say “thats not settled”
        If I say the warming since the LIA is due in part to man, they will say
        No the warming we deny is natural.

        Their goal is not to find the truth and state it with the appropriate caveats and uncertainty estimates. Their goal is to say Not X. Anyone can say not X. Takes no study whatsoever, all you need is a commitment to say no.

      • Mosh, don’t you think you’re being just a wee bit disingenuous there?

      • Out of context and not a direct quote.

      • Mosher

        There are many at CE who respect your contributions, me included. However these recent comments are not helpful, and are off the mark; your descriptions of skeptics are totally distorted.

      • Steven Mosher | January 2, 2015 at 2:26 pm |
        It’s pretty simple guys.

        Skeptics deny that its getting warmer.
        on the other hand
        Skeptics argue that the warming is natural.

        This is bs.

        1. It is much warmer than it was 200 years ago.
        2. The ocean takes a long time (century scale) to come equilibrium, so all things being equal the ocean will continue warm for a while. The warming of the atmosphere was basically an impulse change relative to the ocean response rate.
        3. Most of the warming is natural and preceded the CO2 change.
        4. The percentage of natural vs man made warming is a matter of some debate.
        5. The man made source attributions are fairly well known. About 3/4 of emissions is from burning things we find in the ground and 1/4 is from burning things we find on top of it – the “on top of it” part incidentally destroys 0.5 gT/y of sinking capacity.
        6. The natural vs man made contribution to the CO2 increase is a matter of some debate.

        If we shot everyone living in the tropics, the CO2 increase would stop in about 8 years. If we stopped using fossil fuel the CO2 level might stabilize depending on how fast we burn forest.

        If we level off in the 12 gT/y range for emissions the CO2 level will plateau in the 500-550 PPM range This means we have experienced the bulk of CO2 induced warming.

      • rls, Yep, Mosh is trying to make a philosophical point to a practical crowd. There is no skeptical handbook and no organization of skeptics, just people that have diverse opinions. To some, 1 degree of warming over one and a half centuries isn’t really warming, especially when the past 20 years haven’t warmed much at all. Georgia in particular hasn’t experienced any warming, in fact most of the Red states are blue temperature wise. The UK hasn’t experienced any significant warming as tonyb and his extended CET seem to indicate. “Global Warming” requires very specific attention to detail and careful kriging or adjustment to tease out. Not something your average “not a scientist” can do.

        The guys and gals from Georgia probably just see this.

        It takes a true scientist to see this.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        Steven Mosher
        “skeptics deny that it is getting warmer”
        jeez, nobody says that
        everyone acknowledges the hiatus is the flattening of a general trend
        even me, and I’m a Luke Skydragon

        it’s just that the end of the world is not near

        thanks for explaining your statement though
        I’ll need a few minutes to untangle my brain

      • @cd: the MWP was about the same as today

        Where “today” is defined as some point in time since 1900. Some say 1925, some 1940. Is there anyone who says 1998?

      • The issue here is that most alarmists have dropped the C from CAGW. They are getting very quiet about looming disaster and tipping points and no longer mention Catastrophes.

        So what do we have now? Slight and Mildly Annoying AGW? .. . Or Pleasant and Barmy and Mainly Harmless AGW?

        It is clear Mosher belongs to the school of ‘Pedantically and Technically Correct But Who Knows if There is Really a Problem AGW’.

      • The issue here is that most alarmists have dropped the C from CAGW.

        The term CAGW is a straw man invented by those protesting the conclusions of climate science. It cannot be found anywhere in the climate science literature unless you count literature protesting its conclusions.

        The only possible “catastrophe” mentioned by the IPCC is that associated with methane, which they assess as highly unlikely.

      • Pratt pretends to only read the academic litchurchur. His pretense is catastrophic and anthropogenic.
        =============

      • Oh, chirrun, grand and great, there never was no catastrophe, never. That was no strawman, though, that there was mirage, a will o’ the wisp, which landed the haymaker on your ancestors’ civilization with panic stricken policy.
        ============

      • Pratt brings catastrophe down with a bump, like the bass fiddler killer catching the lady’s parrot. ‘Polly want a crackertastrophe’.

        Don’t look now, but Gore sports an instrument case chakra full of MegaFranklins.

        You and yours are sad and tragic jokes, Pratt. Bright, but what good is that to the world’s destitute? You coulda been a contenduh. And we are laughing now.
        ======================

      • I’d join the crowd saying Mosher is losing it but I never thought he had it in the first place.

      • Matthew R Marler

        tonyb: I think our understanding of past climates, and how they might have been shaped, would be improved if we recognised that neither the MWP or the LIA were monolithic unbroken periods of warmth or cold lasting hundreds of years.

        I agree with you. The MWP was warmer than now, on the average, and the LIA was cooler than now, on the average, but a well-defined LIA with a clear beginning and end does not seem to have existed — that was the message of the paper by Kelly and O’Grada in vol 8 of the Annals of Applied Statistics.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Steven Mosher: Their goal is not to find the truth and state it with the appropriate caveats and uncertainty estimates. Their goal is to say Not X. Anyone can say not X. Takes no study whatsoever, all you need is a commitment to say no.

        Once in a while you are just plain wrong, and this is one of those occasions. All kinds of skeptics say all kinds of stuff, but you have not quoted any of them in particular or any particular claims, or any particular evidence with respect to those claims or your claims about them.

        I, for example, have written that the Earth “has warmed”, but that it may not “be warming”. I have also written that the case that CO2 has caused the warming to date is full of holes, and I have cited some of the research about those holes.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Vaughan Pratt: The term CAGW is a straw man invented by those protesting the conclusions of climate science. It cannot be found anywhere in the climate science literature unless you count literature protesting its conclusions.

        Are you serious? Scientists have regularly been prediction CO2 caused warming-induced catastrophes since they stopped predicting catastrophes due to global cooling. Whether the alarmists themselves use the word “catastrophe” does not matter, it is no straw man to call them “catastrophists” or to refer to “catastrophic” AGW.

      • Matthew

        I agree with your surprise at vaughans comments. The science literature is riddled with references to how serious future climate will be due to man

        Here is an example from uk met office where they talk of ‘An increase in more extreme events’

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/i/e/MO_COP_brochure_72dpi_1_.pdf

        I expect to visit the met office later this month to talk about this exact subject as the past looks to have much more extreme events than anything currently claimed to be unprecedented or given as proof that man is responsible for a sharp deterioration in climate

        Tonyb

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @MM: Whether the alarmists themselves use the word “catastrophe” does not matter, it is no straw man to call them “catastrophists” or to refer to “catastrophic” AGW.

        Like Springer, you and Tony are conflating science and mitigation. Though there are notable exceptions such as Hansen, most scientists strive for objectivity. Labels such as “alarmist” and “catastrophist” insult their objectivity.

      • The issue is a substantial number of scientists that are ‘issue advocates’; their objectivity is questionable given their advocacy https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/20/climate-scientists-joining-advocacy-groups/

      • Matthew R Marler

        Vaughan Pratt: Labels such as “alarmist” and “catastrophist” insult their objectivity.

        Maybe so, but Hansen, Ehrlich, Schneider, Holdren, Jackson and others have prominently sounded the alarms and warned of catastrophes. Are you denying that they have done so?

        You said that the “C” in “CAGW” was a straw man, but plenty of scientists are on record warning of catastrophes if humans do not reduce fossil fuel use by a large amount and rapidly. Your claim that it is a straw man is contradicted by many examples.

      • Vaughan

        I endorse what Matthew said.

        Are you really unaware of the alarmist advocates who are also scientists?

        Tonyb

      • Please don’t flush your credibility down the toilet, doc.

      • Doc, google “climate scientists warn of catastrophe”

      • Don

        You can eliminate any doubt by googling

        ‘Climate scientists Rm of catastrophic warming.’

        On my search engine the first result that comes up is from Australia’s own prof sherwood.

        Tonyb

      • Fercrisakes Vaughn, Hansen has been hauled off in handcuffs multliple times at climate protests. You’re defending the indefensible and in the process giving faculty in liberal academic institutions a reputation of having no integrity and being unworthy of public trust. That will be your legacy.

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/jim-hansen-risks-jail-research-clear/

        Hansen:

        “We really should be aiming to keep CO2 no higher than about 350 parts per million and possibly somewhat less than that if we want to maintain stable ice sheets and stable shore lines and avoid many other issues. That would require starting today. We’d have to reduce CO2 emissions at six percent a year if we began next year. If we began five years ago, it would’ve been three percent. If we wait until 2020, it becomes 15 percent. So if we’re hoping to maintain a planet that looks like the one that humanity has known, we’re out of time right now.”

      • Vaughan Pratt

        Maybe so, but Hansen, Ehrlich, Schneider, Holdren, Jackson and others have prominently sounded the alarms and warned of catastrophes. Are you denying that they have done so?

        Of course not. Those five are among the ones that have crossed the line between science and advocation of mitigation. The IPCC works hard to maintain that line by keeping WG-I and WG-III separate, without however being judgmental about the distinction.

        You said that the “C” in “CAGW” was a straw man, but plenty of scientists are on record warning of catastrophes if humans do not reduce fossil fuel use by a large amount and rapidly. Your claim that it is a straw man is contradicted by many examples.

        Every such example is a mitigationist (if you’ll permit me to coin yet another label). The IPCC report’s WG-III is all about mitigation, whereas WG-I is about the science. Please indicate where in WG-I there is any warning about catastrophes.

      • Vaughan Pratt

        Ok, let’s boil all this down to its simplest possible terms.

        If I calculate from all the available data about past temperature, CO2, and ocean structures and currents, that the global mean surface temperature in 2100, averaged over 20 years, will be three degrees above the global mean for 1960-1990, independently of the value claimed by climate scientists for equilibrium climate sensitivity, whether 3 degrees or 6 degrees per doubling of CO2, does that make me an alarmist? A catastrophist?

        @curryja: The issue is a substantial number of scientists that are ‘issue advocates’; their objectivity is questionable

        Exactly so.

        @tonyb: Are you really unaware of the alarmist advocates who are also scientists?

        What on earth did I say that would suggest I wasn’t?

      • Vaughan Pratt

        On my search engine the first result that comes up is from Australia’s own prof sherwood.

        So?

        You underestimate how much Google knows about your druthers, methinks.

      • I am with Dr. Pratt, on this one. Mitigation gots nothing to do wit da science. The IPCC’s job is to keep all that separate. Climate scientists get in big trouble, if they cross the line. That’s why 97% of climate scientists agree that they ain’t worried and they never heard of mitigation. Thanks for straightening these guys out, doc.

    • The LIA is a temperature record. The MWP is a temperature record. 2014 is a temperature record. Just watch what is about to happen.

    • Mosher writes—“It’s pretty simple guys.”

      But then Mosher mistakenly tries to define how all skeptics think.

      Humanity can be contributing to the climate being warmer than it would have been without humans, but that does not mean that the IPCCs suggested actions make sense.

      • The fact “skeptics” quibble here often bitterly over the smallest of side details or the largest of blind spots imaginable in his case indicates Mosher is incorrect.

      • Steven Mosher

        Rob

        has it warmed since the LIA?

        Why dont you go call out the idjits who deny the LIA?

        What do you think of congressmen who say

        “I’m no scientist, and its hasnt been warming”

        Huh? write them a letter.

      • nottawa rafter

        Mosher, unless you have special powers and can insert yourself into the individual’s neuronal synaptic connectors, how could you possibly know the intent of the statement vs the literal interpretation of such a statement. Warming has become shorthand for a variety meanings, as explained in a few comments above. You just made a huge over reach.

        You know the questions and answers are much more nuanced than you are letting on.

      • “What do you think of congressmen who say

        “I’m no scientist, and its hasnt been warming”

        Huh? write them a letter.”

        Read harder.

        There is no time frame attached to this assertion.
        Are you a “pause denier”?
        When they got told it was “unstoppable” because it was “already in the pipeline” (remember that?) and it doesn’t happen, is it not fair comment to say “it hasn’t been warming”?

  10. The worst mistake science made was to allow the politicisation of the issue.
    Scientists are about as adept at politics as politicians are at science, so we end up with a situation where scientists are out of their depth in the political arena, and politicians don’t have to know much about science, because they’ve made the science part largely irrelevant.

    • As the economic mass of the Post WW2 education and science establishment reached excess they couldn’t stop themselves for embracing central planning (left-wing) ideology at many levels. It was in their self-interest to be paid and validated as “experts” and climate science is just one ugly authority drivel example. If they didn’t support this structure they wouldn’t be funded or socially relevant as a starting point. All of this is self denied of course, the ideology is really that strong and self-indemnifying but declaring it a “mistake” misunderstands the event itself.

      • What I meant is that scientists playing politics are no match for politicians playing politics.
        And politicians don’t have to do science.

    • The problem with scientists is that they are not really good at science. They proved that when they settled for a consensus on something they are wrong about. Their model output disagrees with real data and they still think they are right.

      • As Dr. Lindzen is well quoted regarding IPCC research from INCEPTION; Paraphrasing; “They made up their minds before the first research report was ever produced”.

        Politics overcame science generations ago. We live now in the world of that design.

    • Curious George

      The worst mistake? You are an optimist. It is not a mistake; it is a design.

    • The worst mistake science made was to allow the politicisation of the issue.

      What should/could science have done to prevent it?

      Rhetorical question. Obviously science should have anticipated what the politicizers are going to demand the science should look like, and preemptively changed it accordingly so as to avoid all this arguing.

      • It might well have been scientists themselves that started the politicisation process, depending on who you listen to, but the point is that once started, politics rapidly adopted the role of driving the science.

      • It might well have been scientists themselves that started the politicisation process, depending on who you listen to

        According to the politicisers themselves , they started the process, see
        United Nations General Assembly A/RES/43/53 of 6 December 1988 , “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind”.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Vaughan Pratt: What should/could science have done to prevent it?

        They could have (a) avoided the repeated and ongoing exaggerations and (b) avoided the conspiracy of silence concerning doubts and qualifications. Scientists, you may recall, asserted that Katrina was a harbinger of things to come and that hurricane seasons would perpetually be more severe than they had been up to that time. Scientists wrote of the death spiral of Arctic ice, and the disappearance of snow from British and N.E. American winters. Scientists tolerated (and reproduced) Lisa Jackson’s ludicrous demonstration of “ocean acidification” by dipping chalk into vinegar. Scientists could have avoided writing stuff such as Schneider wrote about shading the truth in order to support the alarm, and they could have rigorously avoided the pejorative and baseless “denier” insult.

        There are lots of things that the scientists ought to have done differently, and most of these have been pointed out repeatedly since Hansen’s, Schneider’s, Holdren’s and Ehrlich’s first exaggerated public announcements.

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @MM: They could have (a) avoided the repeated and ongoing exaggerations and (b) avoided the conspiracy of silence concerning doubts and qualifications.

        “They?” You tar with a broad brush, Matthew.

        Certainly those scientists who exaggerate or conspire to cover up are an embarrassment to science. Pretty much every branch of science can point to examples.

        But the implication that this is how climate science standardly operates is just as offensive as the implication that all politicians are crooks based on the bad apples that the mainstream media gets so much mileage from.

        Scientists wrote of the death spiral of Arctic ice … they could have rigorously avoided the pejorative and baseless “denier” insult.

        If you’re not denying that Arctic ice is in an ongoing decline (since you said “baseless’), is your complaint with the phrase “death spiral”, or what?

        Scientists tolerated (and reproduced) Lisa Jackson’s ludicrous demonstration of “ocean acidification” by dipping chalk into vinegar.

        You have this backwards. She merely reproduced a commonplace in chemistry.

        What is your concern here? That the acid in vinegar, acetic acid, is not the same one as in ocean acidification, namely carbonic acid?

  11. Didn’t read all of the responses, but most, and I find them heartening. Once again Judith, your impact on this important issue is undeniable. There are certain people in the world who by means of a rare courage and manifest integrity, inspire us to want to do better. The arrogant, utterly “certain” alarmists are afraid of you… and with good reason.

  12. At the state level, Georgia’s top official deferred to leaders in Washington. “This is more of a national and international policy issue,” said Brian Robinson, a spokesman for Gov. Nathan Deal. “Not one where we should or would weigh in.”

    That was said by a leader that no states needs.
    When the national policy and international policy goes down a wrong path, that is exactly when the states must weigh in!

  13. “Everybody agrees that humans are contributing to warming,” Curry said in an interview with the AJC.

    I strongly disagree with that. Human caused warming cannot even be measured. There is no way to separate it from natural variability. I have read and listened to many scientists who say our CO2 has done no harm and has not caused the natural warming that was going to happen anyway.
    A warm period has followed every cold period in the past ten thousand years and inside the same bounds.

    • Steven Mosher

      ““Every sane person agrees that humans are contributing to warming,”

      • Mosh

        I think that Hubert Lamb got it about right when he wrote this foreword to one of his revised books shortly before is death;

        “The idea of climate change has at last taken on with the public after generations which assumed that climate could be taken as constant. But it is easy to notice the common assumption that mans science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environnment must be due to us. It is good for us to be more alert and responsible in our treatment of the environment, but not to have a distorted view of our own importance. Above all, we need more knowledge, education and understanding in these matters.”
        Hubert Lamb DEC 1994

        tonyb

      • Matthew R Marler

        Steven Mosher: ““Every sane person agrees that humans are contributing to warming,”

        Sane estimates (i.e. estimates derived reasonably by sane people) of the human contribution to the warming since 1850 range from 0% to about 110%. Each estimate confounds the effects of diverse human impacts, such as deforestation and urbanization.

      • Steven Mosher

        Mathew.

        Do you deny that deforestation changes albedo and thus contributes to
        change?
        Do you deny that black carbon contributes to the melt in greenland?
        Do you deny that adding C02 will have any effect? Do you assert that it must have zero effect.
        Do you deny that changing aerosols in the atmosphere has any effect?
        Do you deny that building huge cities that suck water from their rural surroundings have any effect?
        Do you deny that building dams, changing rivers, have any effect?

        Finding morons that say zero EFFECT ( not zero net, but ZERO effect whatsover) is evidence of one thing. Stupid people exist.

      • It’s not that I can’t speculate with the claim and agree…..it’s simply “we don’t know” is more logical. There are cloud feedbacks, ocean feedbacks etc. etc. and the sink isn’t defined.

        The real point is that the claim could well be trivial in scale. That’s even likely.

        “More human co2 doing “X”” is a soundbite for an agenda more times then not. So when it is brought up it looks l more like political superstition then a logical science claim. We’re touching on the dichotomy of activists. They claim it’s “simple” like gravity but when the dirt is dealt with it becomes “complicated” with Gruberism all over it. You’re too stupid to understand and do what we say. “We all agree” fits right in.

        There are no proofs or tests in climate science, conclusively. The solution was to re-engineer the science method and society that accepts
        on belief not evidence. Sadly the success of that culture is found everywhere around the AGW claim. If it isn’t proven then the correct answer is “we don’t know”. “Everybody agrees”…..we’re right back to toothpaste dentist endorsements……a far cry from “science” in my book.

      • Matthew R Marler

        When JC and other skeptical scientists say that “humans are contributing to warming” it is an acknowledgment IMO of the human contribution, but not the whole story. They read the IPCC reports and see only guesstimating for the amount of natural variability; they do not, as opposed to consensus scientists, accept the conclusions of the IPCC.

        Regards,

        Richard

      • Steven Mosher

        according to cwon

        “There are cloud feedbacks, ocean feedbacks etc. etc. and the sink isn’t defined.

        So, when humans burn stuff and create black carbon, and that black carbon ends up on greenlands ice sheet, and when Anthony watts argues that this contributes to the ice melting.. you think anthony is full of crap?
        Go tell him.

        When Roger Pielke Sr. argues that changing land use changes the temperature records, you think he is full of crap?
        go tell him.

        When a skeptic argues that the climate is sensitive to initial conditions and chaotic, I note you are there to tell him that he is full of crap.

        So, your position is that it we cant know if it was warmer in the LIA?
        The Thames froze magically at above zero?
        Treelines moved cause trees are in on the hoax?
        trees are blossoming earlier for the hell of it
        species are migrating cause hell its fun.
        The sea level is rising because water is magically being created somewhere..

      • Steven Mosher

        Lamb was wrong

        “But it is easy to notice the common assumption that mans science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environnment must be due to us.”

        1. there is no common assumption or consensus that ANY change is due to us.
        2. There is an occasional skeptic who ASSERTS that climate science claims this. But the science actually doesnt.

      • Mosher, “Lamb was wrong”

        but how wrong?

        And who do you think has it right?

      • Captain

        I am bemused that apparently we have managed to spend billions and get up to AR5 and yet man has not been fingered as the culprit according to mosh.

        We might as well all go home and Judith can close down climate etc.

        As regards Lamb, he is mostly right but I think greatly underestimates the warmth of the first half of the 16 th century which was indistinguishable to much of the MWP. According to documents I have seen in the Scott
        Olar institute in Cambridge it seems possible that the Northern sea route opened up. The period around 1540 had three or four of the warmest years in the extended CET record.

        Tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        captain

        That chart?

        Lamb thought it was wrong.

      • Steven Mosher

        more BS from tony

        Lamb

        ‘“But it is easy to notice the common assumption that mans science and modern industry and technology are now so powerful that any change of climate or the environnment must be due to us.”

        NOBODY thinks that this is a COMMON assumption.
        Nobody thinks that ANY change is due to us.

      • In rubbishing the late great Hubert Lamb mosh inexplicably claims;

        ‘Nobody thinks that ANY change is due to us.’

        Would you like to elucidate? Did you really mean to say this? What have the last twenty years of the ipcc, the Kyoto protocol, action by various governments been all about?

        Tonyb

      • Mosher, “Lamb’s Thought was wrong.”
        Which thought, that at this point in the precessional cycle that a new ice age is possible or that we might experience some “global” warming before that?

        It looks to me like there are a few wannabe climate scientists that aren’t qualified to hold Lamb’s jock strap.

      • The coach, worried over disappearing grey teeshirts, warned the team that athletic equipment didn’t grow on trees. My brother decorated the tree in the coach’s front yard with jock straps for Halloween.
        =========================

      • Everybody knows, duhduh duh duh duhduh,
        Well there’s 95 per cent probability that humans
        are responsible for global warming, according to
        the IPCC 5th ASSessment Report.

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        Steve Mosher says
        “1. there is no common assumption or consensus that ANY change is due to us.
        2. There is an occasional skeptic who ASSERTS that climate science claims this. But the science actually doesnt.”

        wow…multiverse theory is true
        I not only woke up in a new year
        but also a parallel universe

        help! where am I?

      • nottawa rafter

        I think Mosher made a New Year’s Resolution to be more humorous for the benefit of all CE denizens. I, for one, appreciates his consideration for the rest of us.

      • I am pretty sure Mosher means “any change” in the sense of “every change”. No one believes that every climate change has been due to mankind. Prehistoric climate makes that obvious. Lamb made a false generalization if you read it that way.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Steven Mosher: Mathew.

        Do you deny that deforestation changes albedo and thus contributes to
        change?
        Do you deny that black carbon contributes to the melt in greenland?
        Do you deny that adding C02 will have any effect? Do you assert that it must have zero effect.
        Do you deny that changing aerosols in the atmosphere has any effect?
        Do you deny that building huge cities that suck water from their rural surroundings have any effect?
        Do you deny that building dams, changing rivers, have any effect?

        Finding morons that say zero EFFECT ( not zero net, but ZERO effect whatsover) is evidence of one thing. Stupid people exist.

        that’s an example of confounding everything possible that produces an estimate that humans have produced more than than 100% of observed climate change. What I assert is that (a) the quantitative estimates of the diverse effects that you hypothesize are poor and (b) there is no case to be made that reducing anthropogenic CO2 will reverse albedo changes caused by deforestation.

      • @cd: Mosher, “Lamb was wrong” … but how wrong?

        Capn, if your accompanying figure is using the data from Figure 3 of Oppo 2009 (Nature, titled “2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool”) then it is grossly misrepresenting that figure.

        If from elsewhere then please say where.

      • Vaughan Pratt, ” then it is grossly misrepresenting that figure”

        How is it grossly misrepresenting either figure?

      • @cd: How is it grossly misrepresenting either figure?

        In Oppo 2009 Figures 3(a) and (b) both contain the blade of a hockey stick. Your figure is labeled “Lamb with Oppo 2009 overlay” but the overlay completely omits Oppo 2009’s hockey stick blade.

      • Vaughan Pratt, “In Oppo 2009 Figures 3(a) and (b) both contain the blade of a hockey stick. Your figure is labeled “Lamb with Oppo 2009 overlay” but the overlay completely omits Oppo 2009’s hockey stick blade.”

        The Oppo 2009 data ends in 1955 and that plot includes data to 1955. The data is archived here.
        http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/climate-reconstruction
        under Sea Surface Temperature-Pacific

        You can do your own overlay if you like.

      • Vaughan, Since you mentioned the hockey stick, here is a little trivia. Oppo 2009 is roughly 50 year smoothed core samples binned to ten year data points to make combination to other records easy. The 50 year smoothing is natural, i.e. the sedimentation doesn’t produce annual resolution.

        That is the Oppo 2009 data “spliced” with the Indian ocean temperature data with both annual and 50 year smoothed versions. 50 year smoothed which matches the natural smoothing of the reconstruction, not much of a hockey stick. Annual or monthly instrumental data produces a nice hockey stick. How large of a hockey stick would you like?

      • Careful Cap’n, he’ll dream up catastrophic sticks during his nap.
        ===========

      • @cd; The Oppo 2009 data ends in 1955 and that plot includes data to 1955. The data is archived here.

        Thanks, capn. That was the answer I was looking for to my “If from elsewhere then please say where.”

        So the apparent discrepancy with Figure 3 (a) and (b) of Oppo 2009 disappears when the red curve in those figures is removed, right?

      • Vaughan, “So the apparent discrepancy with Figure 3 (a) and (b) of Oppo 2009 disappears when the red curve in those figures is removed, right?”

        Right, I thought that would be a better comparison for Lamb, who didn’t have much paleo data available.

      • Vaughan

        The captains chart closely follows the borehole data from the university of Michigan and the CET data. We have been warming for some 300 plus years. The giss and Hadley figures are merely staging posts of warming and not the starting post.

        Tonyb

      • @tonyb: The captains chart closely follows the borehole data from the university of Michigan and the CET data.

        The Michigan borehole data, averaging 837 sites around the world, is given by the red curve in

        The shaded area is one standard deviation on each side.

        To my eye it looks like a smooth monotonically rising curve. Both Lamb’s and Oppen 2009’s curves in cd’s chart for 1500 onwards are all over the place by comparison. What is your criterion for “closely follows”?

  14. Thanks for calling attention to the article, itself something of a MSM rarity. Interesting that most of the Georgia politicians responses focused on the science not being settled, unwillingness to simply extrapolate ‘catastrophic consequenses’, and practical policy consequences (job export to China) rather than some simple (and wrong) Republican ideology like Inhofe’s “hoax”. Much more thoughtful than, for example, Kerry, Obama, and Holdren. Your influence shows, and is hopefully growing.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Rud Istvan: ) rather than some simple (and wrong) Republican ideology like Inhofe’s “hoax”.

      One of the improvements that I expect for 2015 is better reporting, possibly mostly confined to Republican-Majority states and districts, on the multiple objections to a policy of extreme CO2-reduction. That article is an example, and I expect many more such examples.

    • Rud, everything about the debate at the public distribution level was simple and wrong on the part of advocates from the very beginning. Yet, the meme of Inholf as the knuckle dragger in the story is MSM doctrine. I actual don’t like the term “hoax” because it’s so benign as if there really isn’t a left-wing science and academia community to observe in the story. Generally Inhofe is far more correct then where Dr. Curry leads the debate.

      • Cwon, actually not. Inhofe wrote and published a 2012 book, The Greatest Hoax, citing Genesis 8:22 and his faith that ‘God’s still up there’ as evidence that it is ‘arrogance to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate’. That is regretably clear religious based true complete denial, not a scientific statement about natural variability in relation to whatever warming impact GHG like CO2 have.
        You can see him actually say this on Youtube EKd6UJPghUS. Another reason I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

      • Rud,
        Agree completely. Agw’s a hoax, and paeans to God’s wisdom in creating an atmosphere lowly man could not injure, do much harm. There are times I wish Inhofe and Rush Limbaugh and the like would keep their mouths shut.

      • Inhofe rocks, at least his prayers have been answered. So, there is that.
        ==============

      • So, Rud, you believe God wouldn’t impose natural variability? Could you elaborate? :)

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        there is no God
        you just crash rocks together for 14 billion years
        and out pops a Lamborghini Countach

    • Steven Mosher

      As long as there are republicans claiming a hoax
      As long as there are republicans denying any warming
      there can be no science debate.

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        I am not a scientist. Let’s debate science.

      • Yes, what a wonderful world it would be if only we could get rid of those danged Republicans. I’m not a particularly intelligent person, which might explain why I actually somewhat believed that.

        It was funnily enough, the global warming circus that wised me up. Obama, whom I actually voted for, did more to change my views than I thought possible for a single person, even a President.

      • “As long as there are republicans claiming a hoax”
        That depends on which hoax.

        Hoax A: There is no radiative forcing from CO2.
        Hoax B: Global warming extent and impacts are exaggerated.

        Though it remains uncertain how much RF is realized, those contending Hoax A are probably wrong.

        However, I find Hoax B to be spot on.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Hoax B: Global warming extent and impacts are exaggerated.”

        Actually you cant know they are exaggerated.

        If I KNEW they were minimal and then LIED and said they were not, that would be a hoax.

        See.. If we are uncertain, then there cant be a hoax.

      • We do know that observed trends ( BEST and otherwise ) are at rates which are less than the low end rates predicted.

      • Climate is like a hoax of chocolates, You never know which one you’re gonna get. Moshe reads the label, and weeps.
        ==============

      • Steven Mosher | January 2, 2015 at 6:00 pm |
        “Hoax B: Global warming extent and impacts are exaggerated.”

        Actually you cant know they are exaggerated.

        If I KNEW they were minimal and then LIED and said they were not, that would be a hoax.

        Fine. We can eliminate the uncertainty.

        The global warmers should be given 1 year to bound the climate sensitivity to +/-20%. If they can’t bound sensitivity they are incompetent, we should then terminate the $ 22+ billion in US annual funding for global warming activities ($2,658 billion for climate science) because it is wasted money.

        If they do bound it – then we will know the change is minimal and the global warming extent and impacts are exaggerated.

        See.. If we are uncertain, then there cant be a hoax.

      • The last sentence should have read:

        See… if we are certain – then it is a hoax.

      • nottawa rafter

        “As long as there are republicans……. there can be no science debate.”

        Now with that statement I agree totally.

        I wish they would raise their game to a more intellectual level. I personally think they have more science on their side than they are aware of. By dumbing down the debate to an emotional level, they open themselves to justified criticism from the dimwits on the left.

      • Well if you read the NRO article linked above by Judith it sounds like there wouldn’t need to be a belief by Republicans in AGW to get a carbon tax. A nuetral carbon tax now with gas prices plunging is an ideal solution for tax fairness taking the burden off payroll taxes (and increasing pocket book wealth) and properly transferring it to consumption. A win/win for everyone.

      • A revenue nuetral carbon tax, I meant to say

      • @Lucifer: However, I find Hoax B (global warming extent and impacts are exaggerated) to be spot on.

        Since you didn’t say whether they are exaggerated by 10%, 100%, or 1000%, would you mind clarifying “spot on”?

        I’m having difficulty seeing how all three of those levels of exaggeration could be equally “spot on”.

      • “hoax of chocolates”
        Nice, Kim. But I do wish I could get the two hours back I so foolishly wasted watching that nauseatingly bad movie.

      • The global warmers should be given 1 year to bound the climate sensitivity to +/-20%.

        If you mean equilibrium climate sensitivity, this has little bearing on the likely global temperature in 2100 as it refers to an equilibrium temperature that may not be reached for many hundreds of years.

        If you mean the more relevant transient climate response, we’re already there as your range of +/-20% would be met by a range of 1.5-2.1 °C/doubling. Typical estimates of TCR are around 1.8 °C/doubling and you’ll be hard pressed to find any TCR estimate that is more than 0.3 °C/doubling above or below 1.8.

      • So, V, no catastrophe, eh? Whoever came up with that hoax of chocolates? Oh, nevermind, your box of journals musta been eaten by the ‘C'(ats) Word.
        =============

      • Don’t confuse a TCR of 1.8 °C with an ECS of 1.8 °C. The former entails a much higher temperature rise by 2100 than the latter.

        What the rise turns out to be will depend among other things on the trajectory followed by CO2.

    • ERSST V4 increased the SST trend over ERSST v3b about 0.02°C per decade.

      That is an warming adjustment of about 0.003°C per decade per year. Applying the simple math that they have been doing this for 14 years and altering 10 decades of temperature – the effect is 0.003*14*10 or about 0.42°C of warming is generated by computer.

      If the adjusters and versioners quit adjusting historic temperatures we might take them more seriously.

      Half of AGW is CGAGW (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming).

    • Hoax is a weak word as the ability to play a false reactionary narrative indicates. It’s not hard to see why, even if neither of us might endorse it, we see a religious response to a movement that is more built on political and cultural faith then science. That response is also easy to twist in a culture with a strong secular predisposition. So this is literalism without context.

      It’s curious the secular views are often so offended by religiously based parties who are no where the center of the policy in question and the authority it invokes. I’m not going to go into the rabbit hole of what “God as Man” rejection is being invoked by other religiously based responses and what they might mean. I get the symbolism of the argument without believing Inhofe or others are imposing theocratic science as the basic argument. That’s a quote mine of misinformation and straw. It’s also a huge double standard that worshiping of a politically motivated science isn’t very much a modern replacement of the theological predispositions you might be critical of. Why one without the other?

      If you’re trying to say these are equal faults that’s very false. People aren’t executing science policy in the mainstream to suit biblical preferences. This simply isn’t a social problem where as a radical statist ambition is very much in the DNA of the AGW movement. Religious response is a form of dissent to attitude that is prevalent. Romans could have rejected Pagan beliefs on their own merit but in the end made other choices. I’m sorry that anything comes up that can be twisted such as religious commentary or the word “hoax”.

      There are plenty of flaming secular, Marxist sympathizing academic lefty’s on this board on a regular basis. I’m mean they’re on every thread in drag or not. I can’t recall anyone making bible as science quotes here so I think your point about Inhofe isn’t in context to where the debate actually is. There is something about fanatical mainstream AGW belief systems, religious and political excess that naturally impacts people in very fundamental ways. I no more condemn Inhofe then I would soldiers holding a bible service in Afghanistan as if this isn’t willfully misinterpreted as the West imposing Christianity on Islamic peoples by parties in conflict. The anti-religious posturing isn’t surprising and to a degree on the surface something effective for AGW advocates. I would just argue it’s based on simplicity and to a degree cultural bigotry. We hear religious scientists smeared all the time in this fashion so what exactly are you embracing? Then again, this is the risk of making religiously based comments outside a group so wholly unsympathetic to ones belief system.

      I simply want climate Paganism destroyed, I don’t need climate Christianity to replace it and I really don’t think that’s the point for most political skeptics of the AGW cause.

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        I never thought of science as a religion. Who is the Pope of Science? Is there a God of Science? Are there Ten Commandments of Science. Is there a Science Heaven and a Science hell? Any religious holidays for worshippers?

      • The Ten Commandments of )Climate) Science:

        1. I am a scientist, thou shalt not think any thoughts that contradict me, nor place false skeptical views before mine.
        2. Thou shalt not take the name of Michael Mann (or his holy writ, the Hokey Stick) in vain (lest ye be sued).
        3. Remember Earth Day, keep it holy.
        4. Honor thy climate scientists and government apparatchiks.
        5. Thou shalt not kill the CAGW meme.
        6. Thou shalt not have relations with skeptics.
        7. Thou shalt not steal the emails that show how corrupt we are.
        8. Thou shalt not tell the truth about Mann, Gleick, Schneider….
        9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s government grant.
        10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s jet fuel guzzling Lear jet.

      • Thanks to Inhofe, I’m a believer in miracles. In front of my eyes his basket of bread turned into a basket of roses.
        ==================

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        Gary, you have creative talent. Can you do a Denier’s Ten Commandments?

      • Max,

        You keep putting your tongue in your cheek like that and it’ll get stuck permanently one day.

        But just for you ….

        1. I am not a god, I will not pretend to know things for which I have no real data.
        2. Thou shalt not take the name of science in vain by labeling every random political thought you have as “science”.
        3. Remember the Alamo.
        4. Honor thy skepticism, and the ability to think for yourself.
        5. Thou shalt not kill the global energy economy based on faulty computer models.
        6. Thou shalt not suck at the government teat.
        7. Thou shalt not steal others’ tax money to fund your junkets to Cancun.
        8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against or otherwise torture innocent data.
        9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife (unless he’s Brad Pitt, and then let’s face it, every conservative guy wants Angelina Jolie).
        10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s freedom.

        (I was gonna just post the real Ten Commandments, but not all skeptics are smart enough to believe in God :-) )

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., spokesman for the conservative Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, believes in God and has some interesting thoughts on what’s wrong with climate science.

        ‘The problem is in thinking that science is “the basis for knowledge.” It isn’t. It never has been. It never can be.’

        “That is because science—in terms of scientific method, testing hypotheses by real-world observation—cannot justify any truth judgments based solely on empirical observation.”

        “Science will restore its trustworthiness only when, and only to the degree that, its practitioners rediscover, and re-embrace, the Biblical worldview that is its only firm foundation.”

        For more, see:

        http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2014/07/23/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-that-explains-the-spate-of-fraudulent-science-publications-n1865201/page/full

      • 6. Thou shalt not suck at the government teat.

        More succinctly, cut science funding.

        Australia seems to be taking the lead there.

      • “6. Thou shalt not suck at the government teat.

        More succinctly, cut science funding.”

        Not necessarily–Not spending more than available requires tough choices. Spending on everything only requires fantasy

  15. I am sorry I missed the interview. I have watched Santelli for many years and enjoy this debates with economists. He is truly a free market adherent. For some reason the link to not provide the video but I am sure it is my fumbling around and will keep trying since it is shown on the screen but not turning on.

    If politicians are going to weigh in, I wish they would at least cite some data or graphs or references to MWP or LIA or anything that demonstrates a little understanding of what the issues are between the climate scientists.

    I am extremely pleased you are getting some well deserved recognition by the more mainstream media. You can bet the financial pros watch CNBC so after the WSJ piece and this interview they are getting to know you.

  16. “I-am-not-a-scientist was a popular refrain.” should be followed by, and nor do I listen to most of them, especially the clear majority who say that humans are contributing most of the warming with GHGs. Greenhouse gas increases have added nearly 3 W/m2 to the pre-industrial forcing. Even with a low sensitivity this easily can account for the near 1 C of warming, and that is excluding the negative effect of aerosols. Adding in aerosols, the sensitivity increases. By any measure, humans have contributed enough forcing to account for nearly all the warming even with the lowest sensitivities, so the correct statement is not just “most” but “nearly all”.

    • 1C of warming starting when? Did CO2 cause “nearly all” of the warming prior to 1950 when the anthropogenic CO2 levels were too small to contribute much warming?

      • Even with low sensitivity, GHGs can account for up to 1 C. If the actual warming due to GHGs is less due to other factors such as the so-called LIA recovery, that means it accounts for more than “most”.

      • The higher the sensitivity, the colder we would now be without man’s effect.
        ========

      • Even kim might prefer a 350 ppm climate to a 700 pm one. This is the choice we face at this time. Closer to 350 or closer to 700. Policy matters.

      • I prefer…
        not to freeze to death in winter,
        to have mechanized agriculture so the world has plenty of food,
        to use machines to build buildings, roads, bridges and infrastructure,
        to have instant on lighting in my home,
        to have a world of information at my finger tips,
        to be able to safely travel around the world,
        to cool my home in the summer,
        to have a supply of raw materials for manufacturing
        to have machines that can manufacture an extraordinary amount of stuff

        I would also prefer to have all these things without changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. But the reality is that we have all these things and nobody wants to give them up. And this high standard of living that we have is based on our ability to burn fossil fuels. And at this time, there is no reasonable substitute for fossil fuels. So if you want to stop the increase in CO2 you need to work on the energy problem, so start inventing solutions.

      • Dick H, you give up too easily on human ingenuity. Support their efforts. Don’t sit at the back and throw things at the ones who try.

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        Dick fears he will be denied fossil fuels immediately and demands immediate solutions. I would be alarmed too if I thought like Dick.

      • Jim, I work at one of the most innovative companies in the world. My colleagues are working on direct solutions to many energy problems. I see new ideas becoming reality all the time. I support anything that works. I will profit from their success. I don’t support false solutions and green washing or choosing the wrong technology for the wrong reason. I would love to see a cheaper, better non carbon energy infrastructure. But I understand what that means and the challenge it presents.

        Max you couldn’t be more wrong, but don’t worry, it’s normal, you are usually that amount of wrong.

      • Jim D | January 2, 2015 at 3:09 pm |
        Even kim might prefer a 350 ppm climate to a 700 pm one. This is the choice we face at this time. Closer to 350 or closer to 700. Policy matters.

        I prefer 700 PPM to 350 PPM. 350 is far too close to the 200 PPM starvation level and requires much more water. The claims that pathetically low levels of CO2 are good for plants are deluded and misinformed.

        Unfortunately we can’t raise the CO2 700 PPM and it is starting to look like a little over 500 PPM is the limit.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
        December 2014: 398.78 ppm
        December 2013: 396.81 ppm

        NOAA is reporting a 1.97 PPM increase as a 2.32 PPM increase. It is sad that all government data has to be “adjusted” to make global warming look viable as a theory.

        The 1.97 PPM increase at the time of the greatest emissions growth and highest emissions in history is fairly pathetic for a kinda El Nino year.

        The CO2 increase is due to a 40 GT/y (at 280 PPM levels) decrease in carbon sinking (67 GT at current CO2 levels). That is the amount of sinking lost by burning rainforest which incidentally injected 170 GT of carbon into the atmosphere. The increase in CO2 has little to do with emissions.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jim D: Greenhouse gas increases have added nearly 3 W/m2 to the pre-industrial forcing. Even with a low sensitivity this easily can account for the near 1 C of warming, and that is excluding the negative effect of aerosols.

      How much has the rate of non-radiative cooling of the Earth surface increased in consequence of the warming?

      Have there been important negative consequences of the warming?

      Have there been important positive/negative consequences of the CO2 increase itself?

      Hopefully scientists in 2015 will devote more of their research resources to providing better answers to these questions than what is available to us now.

      • It is a major difference in climate, comparable with entering a different geological period if we get to 600-700 ppm by 2100 as would be expected with continued emission per capita growth on top of population growth. Restraint is needed rather than experimenting with the earth’s climate in this way. Given the state of knowledge on rapid climate change, anything else is just reckless.

      • “It is a major difference in climate, comparable with entering a different geological period if we get to 600-700 ppm by 2100 as would be expected with continued emission per capita growth on top of population growth. ”

        If you assume gravity is zero or a zero inertia (light speed) cannon you could hit the moon with a baseball. But those aren’t good assumptions, and your’s aren’t either.

        Old energy is about $10/barrel to extract, new energy is about $50/barrel. Coal prices are steadily increasing.

        If statements about projected alternate energy source costs are even half-witted we aren’t going to be increasing fossil fuel use for the majority of the century. More than 3/4ths of fossil fuel emissions come from countries with a flat/declining emissions growth rate or massive nuclear programs.

        The following chart shows the situation (except for China – the Chinese projection is just daft in view of their nuclear program and agreements)

      • PA, you have to remember that China and the other countries, US and EU, are only going to be motivated to reduce per capita CO2 by global agreements such as Paris. This is not automatic and only results from seeing climate projections that have been made, such as by the IPCC. Support these agreements if you want China to feel more pressure, and also to stop transitioning to more reserves of fossil fuels that can be made available if the technology goes in that direction. The whole realization about CO2 levels is what is driving the right choices for future fuel and power.

      • Jim D…

        The US has about 30% environmental crazies. There is a major green party presence in Europe and they are sort of leftist anyway.

        There are protests and riots in China over the pollution.

        Domestic politics are going to limit the amount of fossil fuel consumption.

        The carbon credits were sort of a disaster. They were an excuse for Europeans to do nothing and were 90% fraudulent.

        We might have to disagree on this.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Jim D: Restraint is needed rather than experimenting with the earth’s climate in this way. Given the state of knowledge on rapid climate change, anything else is just reckless.

        Given all of the uncertainties, this is a good time to restrain the urge to increase the power of government, especially to restrain the urge to increase government power to redistribute wealth. The people who have invented and developed fracking have done more to help the world’s poor than all of the energy-related government mandated wealth transfers to date, practically all of which have gone to cronies of the people in government.

      • JimD – Neither you nor anyone else “knows” what the climate will be like if CO2 levels reach 700 ppm.

    • ““I-am-not-a-scientist was a popular refrain.” should be followed by, and nor do I listen to most of them, especially the clear majority who say that humans are contributing most of the warming with GHGs. ”

      Jim D,

      You need one more modification;

      ‘and nor do I listen to most of them, especially the clear majority who say that humans are contributing most of the warming with GHGs’ , but I’m very keen to listen to the few who says things that allow me to cling to my preconceived notions.

  17. Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

    Judith said: “There is at least one person in the Georgia Tech administration that doesn’t like my position on climate change”.
    I wonder if this comment could reach that person in GT’s administration:
    I understand that, nowadays, universities have to compete: for students, for projects, for researchers, for higher quality educators, etc. Georgia Tech is in all top 20 lists of best engineering and technology universities worldwide, as it is ETH Zurich. But I just want to focus and compare a sample of the public work of only two individuals from these high techs: Judith Curry vs. Reto Knutti.
    Reto has written a lot but I am focusing in his: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti12natcc.pdf document, where in the abstract he ends: “the uncertainties should not stop decisions being made”.
    On the other hand, Judith, has written a lot in her blog. Being one of her most important writtings about uncertainty and its role in the climate change scientific basis.
    So far, both opposed views seem to be equaly respectable.
    But now please read the first line in Reto’s linked abstract “Estimates of impacts from anthropogenic climate change rely on projections from climate models”. This is a crazy statement. But may be you, administrator in GT, cannot understand the craziness in this issue, so let me translate into plain english: “I, Reto Knutti, have set invented climatic scenarios based in invented greenhouse gases concentrations and in their invented relations with global temperature. And the impact of humans in climate change is, in this writting, based on the projections given by those scenarios (that were based in the invented impact due to humans)”. To put it clear: this is called “circular reasoning” and has nothing to do with science, nor technology.
    Now, administrator in GT, tell me: between Judith and Reto what professional would you prefer for your high tech university?.

  18. Judith, do you have a personal position statement on Climate Change for politicians? It seems that someone in your position, someone who is being quoted (used) by politicians, should make it very clear what their position is. I am thinking of a very clear and concise statement written at scientific level that non-scientist politicians can understand (6th grade level). Something that lists the facts as you see them, the opinions, areas where you have a policy preference areas where you don’t.

    • Dick, my two recent congressional testimonies is I think the most useful for politicians:
      https://judithcurry.com/2014/01/16/senate-epw-hearing-on-the-presidents-climate-action-plan/
      https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/curry-testimony-2013-il.pdf

      I try to avoid personal policy preferences in my public statements, rather I discuss the efficacy (or not) of proposed policies and their unintended consequences. My focus on the policy arena is more general, in terms of how to approach decision making under deep uncertainty.

      • That’s great for me and most of the people here, I am interested in the topic and I have been reading your blog for years, I know your position, but I am thinking about for the average Joe politician. One page, brief clear statements, written for a specific audience, non scientists. Statements that cannot be misinterpreted or misused.

        One of the most difficult things about communicating to a wide audience is being able to understand how different people think, or to think at their level. Most politicians, on either side of the issue, are going to have a very limited base of information. You need to understand that and communicate in a way that allows your target audience to understand where you are coming from before they get lost. They may get lost if the text is too long or if it is too technical. If they get lost, they may fill in some of their blanks themselves. But clear and concise at a high level prevents them from getting lost. Then if they want to learn more you can point them to the docs you linked.

      • Dick, as an economic policy officer, I often had to do one-page briefs on extremely complex subjects. It is an art which is not easily mastered; and some subjects can not sensibly be dealt with in one page. This art has never been relevant in Judith’s work, and when she engages publicly she seeks to get across more complex ideas reflecting her understanding in a clear and comprehensible way. Good for her, good for the debate. People like me like to encapsulate Judith’s knowledge and good sense in, for example, letters to the editor, to inform a broad audience at a simple level. Judith’s work has also clearly influenced the main environmental writer of The Australian, who writes lucid and relevant pieces comprehensible to a large and educated audience. I think that Judith’s doing a great job, don’t expect her to do everything.

      • Faustino,

        I find the suggestion of a one page policy statement on an issue regarding control of the global energy economy about as helpful as a claim you can predict the future “global average temperature” of the Earth based on a calculation done on the back of an envelope.

        Fake simplicity is as dangerous as fake certainty. In fact, I think they are flip sides of the same coin.

      • Gary, I agree, it always seemed to me that those who demanded one-page briefs (Premiers, Cabinet Ministers, Heads of Department) lacked the capacity to comprehend the issues on which they made determinations, or even to realise that a one-pager could not be a sensible basis for discussion and determination. I submitted an old but relevant and uncirculated paper of mine to Australia’s current competition policy review, I pointed out scathingly in my covering note that the one-page summary was demanded by the client, Queensland Treasury (and was probably all that most people read). In QT, the person with the expertise who’d penned the one-pager was rarely invited to discussions. Probably the best Minister I’ve come across in Australia, Hawke era Finance Minister Peter Walsh, always insisted on the officer who’d done the work, however junior, being involved in briefings. But that was rare, although when I worked for a body chaired by Hawke, I got to sit across the Cabinet table from him so was available if required.

        I don’t think that it is Dr Curry’s role to produce one-page briefs.

      • Faustino, thanks for your insight. I get it. My only concern is that I feel there are politicians our there who might latch on to Dr. Curry for the wrong reasons. Or others who might vilify her unfairly. A clear and concise statement might alleviate some of that.
        However, she can communicate as she sees fit. I respect that.

    • Common strategy in pushing political agendas like warmunists have on offer is to make it so complicated no one understands it. Look at climate change. People who dedicate their lives to it have vastly different opinions. None of them know. It’s all pretense. So some of them then pretend to understand it and ask for your trust to speak for you and/or to parrot them to others.

  19. “I-am-not-a-scientist was a popular refrain.”

    As an excuse for deferring to scientists, an unfortunate comment.

    In view of the wide range of disciplines that have their noses in the climate-science tent, few of the thousands who style themselves climate scientists are much more likely than the guy at the next bar stool to be right about the important issue, which is whether the want, misery, and death caused by denying ourselves the benefits of fossil fuels will be less than the want, misery, and death that using it will. And it doesn’t take a climate scientist to see that most of the huge reduction over the last century or so in weather-caused suffering–as well as in other non-war-related suffering–has in one way or another resulted from exploiting fossil fuels.

    So a legislator who votes for burdening that resource’s use just because scientists say we should is abdicating his responsibility.

    • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

      Joe Born’s lofty praise of fossil fuels got me to thinking about the importance of beasts of burden.

      It doesn’t take a scientist to see how much human misery has been reduced by our quadruped friends, horses, burros, mules, oxen, elephants, and camels. Sure, a team of men could pull a heavy wagon or plow, but after such a back-breaking feat those poor wretches wouldn’t feel like going home and showing their wives much attention.

      Who believes he could pick up a thousand pound log with his nose? Also, who thinks he could saddle-up another person and ride him at break-neck speed across the continent to deliver letters to California? And who wants to herd cattle to Dodge on foot?

      We should be thankful our four-legged servants have helped advance our civilization and saved us from the misery of sore muscles, torn tendons, achy joints, and early arthritis. Many have also been our affection companions. Remember how much Trigger loved Roy Rogers.

      I forgot to include llamas and sled dogs.

    • Joe Born

      Perfect. Any politician that does try to cripple the economy with such nonsense will last no more than one term in office. Only starry-eyed true believers will support the no-fossil fuel agenda.

      Neither India nor China will cut back fossil fuel consumption significantly, and that is about 2.5 billion people.

  20. Nice job Doc. You did very well in the rapid paced interview.

    I find it quite troubling how many folks feel CO2 and Temp have some linear relationship. There is very little discussion of saturation points and IR.

  21. Interesting, “I’m not a scientist” seems to be a popular qualification now when it comes to expressing counter opinions to the “consensus” on climate causation by politicians. Perhaps there’s a change in the cultural superstructure going on reflecting changing fortunes, or the lack there of, in the economic substructure? Accountability can be a bitch. Pretty soon we’ll be hearing more denials, I’m not an economist. I never met Mr. Gruber. I’m not a democrat, I’m an Independent. I don’t know the man or woman, he or she must have been a minor functionary. Dr. Mann who? It’s almost Biblical, like the three denials of Peter before the crucifixion. Denialism can be contagious when shit doesn’t happen as predicted and the hammer and nails come out.

  22. Steven Mosher

    when was the last time a republican refused to increase defense spending cause he wasn’t a general and wasnt sure about the future threats.

    I’m not a general.. ya, you hear that one all the time.

    • http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/12/03/feckless-and-cowardly-republicans-join-democrats-in-cutting-military-benefits-n1926785

      Apparently there are a few feckless and cowardly Republicans that vote with the feckless and cowardly Democrats on military issues. Most Republicans are not feckless and cowardly.

    • David Wojick

      Smart politicians avoid detailed defense issues as carefully as detailed climate issues, or detailed economic issues. It is the climate scientists who mistakenly think they know all about policy issues.

    • Democrats are much better. They take pride in their ignorance.

    • Steven – you remind me of a dear San Francisco Democrat friend who preached to me about all the defects (and worse) of the Republican Party. After the third pitcher I asked him, What makes the Democrats different? Unfortunately, he died ten years later, and I will never get my answer.

    • Mosher

      Most of the top level decisions in government and business are made by people who are not educated or experienced in the technical fields at hand. They depend on men and women who are experts and must listen to and question those with the requisite knowledge and with different opinions. If a government official is asked about climate change and that official has not yet been briefed on the subject an answer related to “I don’t know” is legitimate.

      • The ultimate decision of who is to run the government, and thus make those decisions, is made by the voters. And neither Mosher nor any other elitist/progressive can stop them in a democracy.

        Yet.

      • There was something called common sense that guided people, alas it has greatly deteriorated in the progressive age. Ignoring the obvious political tilt and self-serving nature of the experts involved is either ignorant/willful or both in some combination.

      • GaryM

        They tried but they are now out of office, but they will try again.

    • Being against military spending can and does result in American soldiers, or worse civilians, maimed and killed. War and conflicts that have been avoided with shows of force and some that haven’t because of lack of force. In short with military spending comes tangible near-term results and experience with the results of long term decisions in an uncertain future. US has almost 250 years experience with the pros and cons of military spending.

      Being against spending on climate change mitigation means jack diddly squat. Any adverse consequences are decades, if ever, in the future while the spending on it causes near-term harm in other programs that could have better used the funding. Plus we’ve no experience whatsoever in cost-benefit of climate change mitigation because it’s never been done before.

      So on one hand we want to avoid the death and destruction we know happens from military conflict and on the other hand we have a threat that has never materialized and spend money to stop the imaginary threat on actions which have never been shown to have any positive effect.

      Is that too difficult for Mosher to grasp? Apparently so.

    • Steven Mosher

      you’al have missed the point.

      when it comes to the climate, your republican politician says

      “well, I aint no scientist, and I am not sure, so let’s do nothing. Can’t be spending money unless we are sure there is a problem”

      When it came to building defenses for the “next war” of course generals
      told us it would be a two front war, one in the Fulda gap and the other
      somewhere in Asia. Now, these republicans didnt say

      “well, I aint no general, and I am not sure, so let’s do nothing. Can’t be spending money unless we are sure there is a problem”

      Nope. they didnt that at all. They allocated money for a B2, for star wars, for an ATF, for a multi role strike fighter, for a whole host of stuff that proved worthless on 9-11.

      When ole colin Powell stood before the UN and laid out the “evidence”
      you didnt hear my right wing friends clamoring for more transparency, or second opinions, or certain proof. Nope none of that.
      And when folks decided that a campaign in Afghanistan was the right thing to do, none of you would have listened to a historian tell you about the prospects of winning there. Na, you listened to the generals who told you
      this time would be different. you listened to the general cause you aren’t a general.

      • Mosher

        You’ve missed the point. The politicians are not buying the l#es of the so called scientists. The politicians can read the IPCC reports and can independently conclude that the scientist have no clue regarding internal variability; that by following the reference trail you find it is all based on a 1996 paper using proxy estimates. And they know about Mann-ufacturered proxy estimates.

        The politicians can hear the voices of level headed scientists that tell them the science is not settled.

        Richard

      • Mosher

        “Nope. they didnt that at all. They allocated money for a B2, for star wars, for an ATF, for a multi role strike fighter, for a whole host of stuff that proved worthless on 9-11.”

        You left out Katrina and the Great Recession. Your words and thoughts need to be buried in Berkley. What has happened to you?

        Richard

      • I didn’t miss a damn thing Mosher. We know war happens and we know military hardware, force level, and force readiness reduces the adverse consequences of waging war.

        We don’t know that anthropogenic climate change happens, we don’t know what effect our mitigation spending will have.

        If you can’t understand the simple difference between military wars and climate wars then you are hopelessly inadequate in critical thinking capacity.

  23. “She is willing, however, to appear alongside politicians and pundits who flatly reject the basic tenets of climate change that she embraces.”

    “Basic tenets?” Since when is the product of multiple computer models, using estimated, kriged, pseudo data a “basic tenet of climate science?”

    Even if the incredibly poor temperature reports, based on sparse data, limited global coverage, and more than a,little guess work, do come close to reflecting an actual increase in “global average temperature (oh please!), that is not a “basic tenet of climate science.”

    Now, CAGW is a basic tenet of progressive politics. It is a central factor in the dogma of the Church of Global Warming. It is the foundation from which western governments are seeking centralization of control over the energy economy. But “global warming”, and its poor step-brother, climate sensitivity, are at best the end products of a scientific process, not a tenet, basic or otherwise, of that science.

    • 1+

      Look I cringed reading the whining local GOP cast whimpering in fear of being called anti-science or a Holocaust Denier and this meriting the praise of Dr. Curry but it was to be expected.

      Many people are cynical of Keynesian economic theory of the way to reduce debt is for the state to sponsor more debt with printed money. Of course on camera they have very little to say when the economy is growing. We’ve reached another level of social dishonesty and politicians are going to play the hobby horse AGW meme in a very similar fashion. They’re not going to see their share of climate funding and perks proportionally singled out and nothing serious is going to impact actual carbon production.

      It will die on its own weight although it should be dead long ago.

  24. If the climate thing fizzles politically, the Guardian-perusing classes can always go back to plastic shopping bags or stickers on apples as a focus for their free-floating indignation. That should sate the activist urge till some global cooling or Montreal-resistant ozone take hold.

    So long as they stay with green philosophy: Think tiny, but act expensive.

  25. I am no dragon slayer by far, but there is one question that should be answered once and for all.

    A question that both alarmists and sceptics both see to agree is already answered:

    The question is the following, and it is more interesting and less certain than one would think:

    When and by whom was it proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if so – to what extent is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

    NASA, on their website only hints at Tyndall in the 1860’s “recognizing the greenhouse effect” and “suggesting” that changes in CO2 could change global temperature” and Arrhenius in the 1890’s “speculating” that changes in CO2 could alter surface temperature.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    So NASA are still presenting speculation from the 18th century about the role CO2 might might have regarding global temperature.

    This is NASA’s foundation on the mechanics of global warming.

    Surely better research has been done since the 1800’s, and surely we have a better understanding of how CO2 “traps” energy/heat today, more than 100 years later?

    So what are the seminal and ground breaking scientific papers that NASA have left out?

    In what 20th -century experiments and in which scientific papers were the heat-trapping properties of CO2 established once and for all? And at what magnitude?

    The scientific papers must exist. Surely we can’t still be relying on 150 year old speculation..?

    Can anyone help me out here?

      • Good page, Mosh, but I am still looking for the seminal scientific papers on how CO2 traps energy/heat and to what extent.

        Surely there must be some peer-reviewed science on the subject?

        Not only historical anecdote?

      • Steven Mosher

        start with the history which you have wrong.
        If you cant read the history, then you wont get the science.
        Then, learn to fricking search

        First

        In what 20th -century experiments and in which scientific papers were the heat-trapping properties of CO2 established once and for all? And at what magnitude?

        1. C02 doesnt trap heat. you dont even understand the basics
        2. The best experiment is the one we are doing now by adding c02
        to the atmosphere. no lab experiment can help you. We are
        doing an uncontrolled experiment on our planet. There is no
        second earth to use as a control.

        your very question shows you wont understand the answer.

      • We are gently, reversibly, geo-engineering the atmosphere and climate, to the general net benefit of man and the biome.
        ==============

      • John Smith (it's my real name)

        rufus1000
        accept that CO2 is evil
        you will be assimilated
        resistance is futile

      • Great link Mosher, the links page recommends Real Climate, Skeptical Science and the drones at Climate Progress. Critical thinking at its best.

      • nottawa rafter

        I can’t help thinking what a wonderful experience it would have been to have had Mosher as a college professor. But only if you had first played for Bo, Woody and Bear.

      • “In what 20th -century experiments and in which scientific papers were the heat-trapping properties of CO2 established once and for all? And at what magnitude?”

        Mythbusters, special episode.

        I saw it on TV so it has to be true.

      • Mosher is stuck for an answer so just calls people stupid, unable to learn, unable to read…

      • That’s a nice link Mosher

    • A good video on the history is given by Ray Pierrehumbert at the 2012 AGU meeting. It’s an hour worth watching for anyone who is genuinely interested in the scientific development of the ideas.

      • Jim D:

        Still no peer-reviewed science proving CO2 to be a greenhouse gas capable of globale temperature change.

        Not even close.

      • rufus, huh? Did you not see the papers he listed back through the 20th century? What were you looking for? Do you know why the earth’s surface temperature is 33 C warmer than its radiative temperature? It’s the greenhouse effect that explains the temperatures we have. Do you know why the radiative temperature has to be 255 K? How far back are you starting from? Do you know why CO2 radiates in the IR, or physics stuff like that? How about thermodynamics like Clausius-Clapeyron or atmospheric lapse rates? Try the video first and say which parts you are questioning.

      • JimD, don’t you mean 32K. Perhaps you missed the memo but the general consensus is that 15 C was a bit high.

      • captd, 33 K now, global warming has made this more correct, and headed towards 36 K.

      • Now, JimD, I saw just the other day a climate scientist published that the global surface temperature was 14.45236712 C +/- a touch. Since that 33k “discrepancy” analogy is as old as the climate science hills, don’t you think it might be time to revise some of the basic talking points?

        I think the ~255K also has a couple of assumptions involved like a fixed albedo and a perfect black body.

      • captd, you can find 15 C just as much as 14 C. This is a complete sidebar, and you need to be telling rufus that even the skeptics accept that the greenhouse effect has this real-world effect of 33 K that is observable and understood in terms of basic physics. No mystery about the 33 K.

      • JimD, What I can tell Rufus is that a doubling of CO2 equivalent will produce about 3.7 Wm-2 of additional atmospheric resistance to heat loss which if all other things remain equal would increase surface temperatures by between 0.8 and 1.2 C. That’s about it though, most everything else requires considerable speculation.

      • captd, some implied denial there, it seems. Or maybe you are saying you yourself don’t understand the 288 K surface temperature in terms of a greenhouse effect, even though the scientists do.

      • JimD, “captd, some implied denial there, it seems. Or maybe you are saying you yourself don’t understand the 288 K surface temperature in terms of a greenhouse effect, even though the scientists do.”

        I understand a lot more than you might think. 288K was an assumption as is assuming that 390Wm-2 is exactly the expected radiant energy of that assume 288K. The 33K versus ~150 Wm-2 GHG effect is a simplified illustration not a take home absolute relationship. There is no 255K/240Wm-2 radiant surface. There is an effective radiant layer, meaning and average. There is no clear surface to TOA 40 Wm-2 “window”. There is a roughly 40Wm-2 “window” from above the atmospheric boundary layer, but water vapor and clouds, especially mixed phase clouds dominate radiant transfer below the ABL.

        You should step up your game.

      • captd, OK, an improvement on your previous statement. That is 150 W/m2 of greenhouse effect, equivalent to that 33 degrees.

      • nottawa rafter

        Rufus
        You have to excuse Jim D. He trades in the currency of inductive reasoning. If you are looking for nominees for Logician of the Year, the climate science establishment usually comes up short.

      • JimD, “captd, OK, an improvement on your previous statement. That is 150 W/m2 of greenhouse effect, equivalent to that 33 degrees.”

        Equivalent to the simplified explanation of the GHE. There are other GHGs and Manabe, considering the influence of those thought the greenhouse effect could be as high as 100 C. That would make the ~340 Wm-2 estimated DWLR, the total GHE or about 100C per 340 Wm-2. The interesting part would be the poles where below -29C CO2 doesn’t have much impact so water vapor and ozone are the big dogs. Pole ward advection of water vapor and solar generated ozone from the equator would play a larger role meaning solar cycle peculiarities would also have a greater role. Other than the confusion over how solar does its job, solar and volcanic forcing variations tend to correlate with most respectable paleo reconstructions than CO2 which tends to have that lag issue. Mysterious changes in ozone and stratospheric water vapor have been included in the list of what ate my warming items.

        It could be pretty exciting what that ~5% of the atmosphere neglected in most model actual does.

      • captd, it is about 150 W/m2 and various energy budgets (Trenberth, Stephens) agree on this much. This is the state of the science and it has converged on this type of number despite your best efforts to blur things.

      • JinD, “captd, it is about 150 W/m2 and various energy budgets (Trenberth, Stephens) agree on this much. This is the state of the science and it has converged on this type of number despite your best efforts to blur things.”

        As an average, it is in the 150 Wm-2 range, but as Stephens et al point out there is +/- 17 Wm-2 of uncertainty at the “surface”. That is more than 4 times the estimated impact of a doubling. While you think it is an attempt to blur things, that is serious issues that needs to be clarified.

        If you look at the MODTRAN results for the subarctic winter, CO2 has very little impact so energy advected pole ward is lost more easily as CO2 concentrations increase. There is a hole in your CO2 blanket. If “all things remain equal”, there isn’t an increased rate of advection, then CO2 would have a stronger impact, but with increased advection the efficiency of CO2 at retaining energy is reduced. So you have both convection and pole ward advection as negative feedbacks to increased CO2 forcing.

        To figure things out you have to up your game to a Manabe perspective and consider those “other” greenhouse gases and the dynamics of the Stratosphere. It is just another layer of complexity JimD. Nothing that the true geniuses of climate science cannot handle right?

      • captd, forcing leads to warming, but not necessarily uniform. There are good reasons for the Arctic to be warming faster as is currently observed. Continental land also warms much faster than the tropical oceans. These are not necessarily reprieves of any kind. If the globe has to emit several W/m2 more, something has to warm, either small areas warm a lot, or large areas warm less. Currently the warming focus is nearer the poles where ice albedo feedbacks help restore the balance as the sea-ice goes away. A short-sighted view is that it is great if the polar areas are warming faster.

      • captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2 | January 2, 2015 at 6:53 pm |
        JimD, What I can tell Rufus is that a doubling of CO2 equivalent will produce about 3.7 Wm-2 of additional atmospheric resistance to heat loss which if all other things remain equal would increase surface temperatures by between 0.8 and 1.2 C. That’s about it though, most everything else requires considerable speculation.
        —————————————————-

        You can’t define resistance in units of power.

        Try thinking of it as an albedo change to the surface. A doubling of CO2 in clear dry atmosphere in effect changes the albedo of the illuminated surface (dirt, rocks, plants, water, snow, ice) i.e. more incoming solar power is absorbed than re-radiated until new equilibrium temperature is attained. It’s pretty simple that way. Problem is the surfaces stray pretty far from grey bodies when latent cooling becomes a factor. Ocean surface cools largely by latent cooling not radiative. Conductive is inconsequential because SST and near surface air temperature are very close on average hence little conduction. The difference between ideal and actual absorbers and emitters is too great for simple radiative transfer solutions to give practically usable answers. It’s a water world where surface cooling is dominated by latent heat transfer not radiative or conductive.

      • JimD, “There are good reasons for the Arctic to be warming faster as is currently observed.”

        Well of course it is. You get an anomaly twofer with Arctic winter warming. That is not an indication of more energy being retained though. , it is actually an indication of negative feedback as more energy is being lost to space. That is one of the biggest flaws of the “Global Mean Temperature Anomaly” metric. All the minions go “lookie there! It is warming!! Yeah, from -30 C to -25 C in winter while 45 to 55 North cools by about a degree. Here is a blast from the past.

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/significant-warming-of-the-antarctic-winter-troposphere/

        The real climate boyz in search of “significant” Antarctic warming. Doubling CO2 actually increases the rate of Antarctic heat loss. Not much about 0.5 Wm-2 per doubling, but it is an increase.

        Texas,

        I generally use R values when thinking of atmospheric resistance to heat loss kinda like it is an insulation. BTW, conductive transfer is peanuts on short time scales but it is an order of magnitude greater than the impact of a doubling of CO2. If you remember the Kimoto paper I have referenced, latent, sensible and non-CO2 spectrum radiant will all increase as the CO2 spectrum becomes more restrictive.

    • Dear Rufus: to see that CO2 is a greenhouse gas all you have to do is to look at its infrared spectrum. Your question should be posed slightly differently:
      We know that on a planet with no water an addition of CO2 into the atmosphere would cause a warming. A calculable warming. Unfortunately, no one has supplied us with such a planet yet.
      What we want to know is what influence a CO2 has on the Earth. Please calculate a warming that an addition of a 0.01% of CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere would cause. Bear in mind, that ice core data shows that low temperatures seem to lead to a desertification.

    • I offer this example for the debate.
      I am not a ‘climate scientist’ in anticipation of incoming from Mr Mosher.

      Experiment on the Cause of Real Greenhouses’ Effect – Repeatability of Prof. Robert W. Wood’s experiment

      GENERAL CONCLUSIONS:

      The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.

      The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable.

      In average, the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings causes an increase of temperature inside the greenhouses of 10.03 °C with respect to the surroundings temperature.

      PLEASE, READ THE PDF OF A WHOLE DESCRIPTION OF THE EXPERIMENT.

      http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html

      http://www.biocab.org/Experiment_on_Greenhouses__Effect.pdf

      • This was meant for replies @rufus10000 | January 2, 2015 at 5:23 pm
        below.

      • This is a straw man argument. To climate scientists, the greenhouse effect is a figurative term, not a literal description of what is happening.

        . If you want a real description of how CO2 causes global warming, which comes with the proof that it is happening using satellite observations of the escaping IR radiation from the top of the atmosphere read this:

        http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

        Of course if you prefer ignorance, you can continue to believe what you believe and ignore the real science.

      • eadler2,

        Thanks for the link. I like the graph of the data from the Nimbus 4 satellite.

      • Steven Mosher

        the atmosphere is not a box.
        the experiment doesnt even test the hypothesis.

        1. Adding C02 will raise the ERL

        The box cant test this.

        You need an actually atmosphere to test the theory

      • Thanks for the replies.
        eadler2 was first off the abuse blocks with “straw man & claims of ignorance.”
        Quote:
        “If you want a real description of how CO2 causes global warming …”

        General links to ‘doomsday settled science’ sites with might be the yardstick for battling ‘ignorance’ for you eadler2, but, a rebuttal of the repeatable experiment was all you needed.

        Any site that has a Kevin ‘Linus” Trenberth diagram of heat hiding in the deep oceans , waiting to return like the Great Pumpkin, is pathetic.

        Mr Mosher.
        Thanks for your time.
        I have a 5 line answer for you:

        There was an old man named Arrhenius
        Whose physics were rather erroneous
        He recycled rays
        In peculiar ways
        And created a “heat” most spontaneous!

        Quote: “You need an actually atmosphere to test the theory”

        Finland introduced the first carbon(sic) tax in 1990.
        25 years of carbon(sic) taxing worldwide.
        http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/10/29/factbox-carbon-taxes-around-world

        The time has come for proponents like you to correlate the data to show you can control the climate with action on carbon(sic).
        The data exists.
        The experiment has been going on for 25 years now.
        More or less extreme climate over 25 years?

        How many years of taxing are required (answer= infinity)
        No more wishy-washy hand waves like “You need an actually atmosphere to test the theory”. Pathetic.

        Australian PM Tony Abbott just gifted the UN-IPCC with $200M to stop extreme doomsday climate change, yet we are still having bushfires.

        There is your ‘experiment.’

      • Mosher: “Adding C02 will raise the ERL”

        A tropical tropospheric hot spot by any other name – one that has yet to be shown by direct measurement to exist. It would appear that reality has different ideas. Of course, please advise if I’m wrong about that.

      • “There was an old man named Arrhenius
        Whose physics were rather erroneous”

        He was in fact a Nobel Laureate. And he was 37 when he published his theory. Poetic licence, I guess.

      • NIck

        Yes, good scientist but he didn’t get his Nobel directly for his climate theory. He also substantially revised his temperature calculations 5 years after he got his Nobel

        tonyb

      • nottawa rafter

        If you are 18, then 37 indeed is an old man. Considering life expectancy then and now the perception of what is old has changed dramatically. My grandmother looked 80 in 1944, when in fact she was 50. I can’t imagine her at 50 being able to join Tina Turner on stage for Tina’s last concert tour at 70. At 37, I’m not sure I could have joined Tina on stage either.

      • Life expectancy was low then because of high infant mortality. 37 was about 37.

      • JCH | January 8, 2015 at 9:45 am |

        “Life expectancy was low then because of high infant mortality. 37 was about 37.”

        Only partially true.

        Following table is life expectancy in US by age starting in 1850 up through present.

        http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

        In 1850 a newborn boy could expect to live to age 38 while a 20 year-old in that year could expect to live to 60 years of age.

        In 2011 the newborn could expect to live to 76 while the 20 year-old could expect to live to 77 years of age.

        So despite the almost complete disappearance of infant mortality as a factor life expectancy at the beginning of adulthood increased by over 17 years.

        Always check your facts first then admit to the world second lest you appear to be someone who just makes things up as they go along.

      • You are using averages. He was a man of means. That’s my family tree. It’s full octogenarians going back to England.

      • JCH

        Your family tree may be filled with octogenarians but Arrhenius died at 68 years of age.

        Doh!

        Fact check first, post second.

    • Rufus,

      You have asked a legitimate question about the central dogma of climate science, to which Mosher replies with the website version of a book about AGW – a very weak reply. The website, in turn, refers to the work of Arrhenius, which appears, at first glance, to consist of models.
      Arrhenius, arguably the father of AGW theory, based his work on the measurements of Tyndall. So, you have asked a good question.

      Does anyone have a link to a modern, at least 20th century, peer reviewed paper on the IR absorption properties of CO2? I’m not saying the idea is bogus, I would just like to see the work, out of curiosity. If I find any I’ll post the links. Still looking.

    • rufus

      Here is a website, entitled “CO2 Science”, that contains a list of the papers that appear to provide the justification for the central dogma of AGW. I am not endorsing the conclusions or claims, I am just providing the link – doing my due diligence. Note that the site describes some DIY CO2 experiments.

      http://www.co2science.org/subject/questions/1999/co2history.php

    • Basil Newmerzhycky

      Rufus asked:
      “Still no peer-reviewed science proving CO2 to be a greenhouse gas capable of globale temperature change.”

      As some here have recently posted, the ability of CO2 (as well as Methane and some other gases) to be much more lenient to incoming short-wave radiation (sun) than long wave radiation (think heat from ground below) has been well documented over 100 years ago. Its as basic a principle as “fresh water at standard atmospheric pressure freezes at O deg C”.

      There is no recent “peer reviewed” articles on either topic. I doubt one could go to a major physics journal and get a paper published on how water freezes at 0C. Same with CO2 long wave radiation trapping.

  26. I am no dragon slayer by far, but there is one question that should be answered once and for all.

    A question that both alarmists and sceptics both see to agree is already answered:

    The question is the following, and it is more interesting and less certain than one would think:

    When and by whom was it proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if so – to what extent is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

    NASA, on their website only hints at Tyndall in the 1860’s “recognizing the greenhouse effect” and “suggesting” that changes in CO2 could change global temperature” and Arrhenius in the 1890’s “speculating” that changes in CO2 could alter surface temperature.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    So NASA are still presenting speculation from the 18th century about the role CO2 might might have regarding global temperature.

    This is NASA’s foundation on the mechanics of global warming.

    Surely better research has been done since the 1800’s, and surely we have a better understanding of how CO2 “traps” energy/heat today, more than 100 years later?

    So what are the seminal and ground breaking scientific papers that NASA have left out?

    In what 20th -century experiments and in which scientific papers were the heat-trapping properties of CO2 established once and for all? And at what magnitude?

    The scientific papers must exist. Surely we can’t still be relying on 150 year old speculation..?

    • This shows a decrease in certain IR frequencies emitted when viewed through a narrow aperture in specialized equipment.

      http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/321/Harries_Spectrum_2001.pdf

      The broad spectrum monitoring shows IR emissions increasing in the period. What is really being measured is an increase in absorption and emissions in the atmosphere. Molecules absorb photons and emit in all directions – and so increasingly miss the aperture as CO2 rises. But it does provide observational evidence of the effect.

    • I do have a question on the topic.

      What is the correlation of temperature and forcing?

      One would expect that warming would have a positive water vapor feedback because of higher specific humidity. This would give small changes in solar a high multiplier.

      • That’s a great question, Another BIG LIE is that all forcings are equal. By that I mean the narrative that a watt of power in visible sunlight has the same warming effect at the surface as a watt of power in infrared coming downward from a warm cloud.

        This is just physically untrue. Earth surfaces aren’t black bodies that absorb all frequencies equally. Surfaces such as snow are great infrared absorbers but poor visible light absorbers. Water is completely transparent to visible light and opaque to infrared.

        All forcings are not equal.

        Write that down.

      • Another BIG LIE is that ECS (amount od warming from one doubling of CO2 ppm) is a constant. It isn’t. It varies with the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which tends to vary with the temperature of the surface. This in an ice age ECS is high. In an interglacial it’s low. It’s high in a warm desert and low over a warm ocean. In a wet tropical climate ECS is small because it competes for absorption of the same photons with water and water vapor in the atmosphere. CO2 is well mixed, water vapor isn’t. So where and when there is the most water vapor there’s the least opportunity for CO2 to increase the GH effect.

      • ** CO2 is well mixed, water vapor isn’t. So where and when there is the most water vapor there’s the least opportunity for CO2 to increase the GH effect.**
        And most of energy of the sun goes into the tropics- tropics is 40% of surface area of Earth, per year gets most sunlight.
        So tropics has 3 to 4% water vapor, rest world about 1 % or less.

        Or extend 23 degree north and south of tropics to 40 degrees north and south- that more that 50% of surface area of Earth- rest world has much less sunlight and water vapor.

    • “Actually, it (the effect) has been observed. The NASA AIRS instrument flying for over 10 years on Aqua has measured the decreased IR emission to space with increasing CO2 in certain spectral bands, and have retrieved the (gradually increasing) CO2 content based upon those measurements…”
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/#comment-73738

      • Yup. But the effect is small and made smaller in the presence of water and water vapor which overlaps CO2 absorption bands.

        The best way to understand it is in terms of albedo. Greenhouse gases make the atmosphere “darker” in non-visible portions of the spectrum thus heating atmosphere through the absorption of energy that would otherwise not be absorbed.

        The caveat is that the troposphere is already heated almost everywhere by latent heat released from condensing water vapor. So the tropospheric heating effect of non-condensing greenhouse gases is redundant. The net result is we observe more non-condensing GHG heating where and when there is the least water on the ground and in the air. We see this most in that AGW is greater in higher latitudes than lower because higher latitude air is colder and holds less water, it’s greater in winter than summer, greater at night than day, greater over land than ocean.

        Where the BIG LIE starts is so-called water vapor amplification. CO2 supposedly causes more water vapor to go into the air and water vapor, being a greenhouse gas, causes even more GH warming. Supposedly twice as much as the original increase in CO2. The lie is made plausible by proposing that the net effect of cloud cover is warming, not cooling. If you have more water vapor you must have more clouds too. If the net effect of clouds is cooling instead of warming then the amplification is bogus.

        The strongest evidence I can find of the net effect of the water cycle is cooling not warming because of clouds shading the surface. The critical observational evidence is that tropical deserts have the highest mean annual temperature of all climate types. They also have the fewest clouds and water vapor in the air of all climate types. QED

      • David says:

        “The strongest evidence I can find of the net effect of the water cycle is cooling not warming because of clouds shading the surface. The critical observational evidence is that tropical deserts have the highest mean annual temperature of all climate types. They also have the fewest clouds and water vapor in the air of all climate types.”

        Do you have links to papers for that?

      • Here are some links for you:

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

        Lot of water vapor/clouds/rainfall in tropical rainforest Palembang, Indonesia. Moderates the temperature. Check the TOA insolation month-to-month, note rainfall; 2.59S 104.45E:

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/ar5/srlocat.html

        Now compare that with very dry desert Dallol, Ethiopia; 14.14N 40.18E:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallol,_Ethiopia

        You can look at these pairings all day long, same result. Water rules, CO2 drools.

      • Por ejemplo, compare the TOA insolation for July, in Dallol with February in Palembang. Bout the same. Look at the temps.

      • It’s basic earth science. Temperatures are observed.

        http://www.earthonlinemedia.com/ebooks/tpe_3e/climate_systems/tropical_desert.html

        Distinguishing Characteristics

        Temperature

        The tropical desert has the highest mean annual temperature of any climate on Earth. The high temperatures are a result of the high sun angles throughout the year and having the highest percentage of sunshine of any climate. No month has an average temperature below 18oC (64.4oF) and many places have consecutive average monthly temperatures in the mid 30os Celsius (90oF). Daytime temperatures can reach 50oC (120oF) at low elevation inland deserts.

        The sky in the tropical desert remains cloud-free due to the subsiding air of dominant high pressure resulting in large amounts of insolation. The cloudless skies during the day lets insolation in, but also lets much heat out at night. Without the absorptive blanket of clouds, longwave radiation emitted from the Earth readily escapes to space, chilling the nighttime desert air. The high energy input during the day and large loss at night results in an extremely large daily temperature range.

        Precipitation

        Precipitation in the tropical desert is very irregular and unreliable. Low latitude deserts average less than 25 cm (10 in) in a year. An entire year’s worth of rain may fall in one downpour. The continental location of many tropical deserts places them far from a source of moisture, the ocean. Combine continentality with the strong subsidence of the subtropical high and you have one of the driest places on earth. Air subsiding from the subtropical high is adiabatically warmed which reduces the relative humidity of the air. Relative humidity can drop to 10% or less. The extremely low relative humidity causes evaporation of what little surface water there is. The subsiding air also promotes atmospheric stability, further inhibiting precipitation.

        Climatologists describe the desert as an “arid” climate. An arid climate, as defined on the basis of the soil moisture balance, is one in which the annual precipitation is less than half of the annual potential evapotranspiration. In the tropical desert the only substantial source of surface water other than exotic streams is an oasis, where the groundwater table is near the surface.

      • I also have questions about the amplification effect on water vapor caused by additional CO2. I think it goes:
        CO2 > + Temperature > + water vapor > continue to equilibrium > stop
        So why would not this also be true:
        + Temperature > + water vapor > continue to equilibrium > stop, when + Temperature is caused by a decrease in albedo or any number of reasons? The whole process of an initial change amplifying itself in almost all cases until it eventually stabilizes looks to me like ‘before’ is almost always a peak and ‘after’ is almost always a valley. Then the valley of the new equilibrium turns back into a peak, and is now unstable. ‘Before’ is highly sensitive and ‘after’ is hardly sensitive. Then ‘after’ becomes the next ‘before’, and goes from stable to unstable. While I am saying I don’t get how this works, it does remind me of chaos peak and valley diagrams so it may actually make sense. So an amplification effect may require this peak to valley to peak to valley evolution and perhaps that sensitivity is variable. Maybe I am the only one that finds it amusing that chaos theory might help their amplification theory work.

      • Ragnaar, what would happen to the local weather/climate if you dug a 1000 sq mile hole about 1000 ft deep in the middle of the Sahara and built a pipeline from the sea to keep it filled it with water?

      • Don Monfort:
        “…what would happen to the local weather/climate if you dug a 1000 sq mile hole about 1000 ft deep in the middle of the Sahara and built a pipeline from the sea to keep it filled it with water?” The new lake would store and release heat thereby dampening things. It would cool the days and warm the nights. There would be humidity changes. I believe you could get daily stratocumulus clouds as we often get on Minnesota summer days. Some of these things might be described as negative feedback/low sensitivity. Dry air might be described as more of a positive feedback/high sensitivity effect. Am I following? Sound like a fine idea. To see if we could make the deserts a bit more useful for mankind. And back to the peaks and valleys chaos diagrams, we’d take a peak, and make it more of a valley. I am in favor this project.

      • Don Monfort:
        Also you’ve me thinking, and now it seems glaringly obvious to my slow self why, as it has been pointed out that the land temperatures appears to lead the sea surface temperatures. The SSTs are more of a valley (of stability) whereas the land temperatures are more of a peak (of instability).

      • […] what would happen to the local weather/climate if you dug a 1000 sq mile hole about 1000 ft deep in the middle of the Sahara and built a pipeline from the sea to keep it filled it with water?

        It would depend what you did with the fill. It’d be a pretty deep hole: Lake Chad (at the bottom of one of the biggest “depressions” is around) 280 meters above sea level. The shores of the ancient Lake Megachad were at around 335.

        OTOH if you pumped sea water up to that level, my (very quick) calculations say you could do it in a year with 1 terawatt. At 50 watts/square meter from PV, averaged over days, that’s 20,000 square kilometers, small potatoes compared to Lake Megachad:

        These shorelines suggest that its peak the palaeolake Megachad had an area of at least four hundred thousand square kilometres, bigger than the Caspian Sea, the biggest lake on Earth today (Figure 2.7). Subsequent desiccation of the palaeolake is recorded by numerous regressive shorelines. Of these, there is a prominent shoreline at around 329m (Figure 2.7) where the geomorphology is preserved around the vast majority of the palaeolake that has been radiocarbon dated to 6,340±250 14C years BP (Thiemeyer1992) that calibrates with a two sigma range to 7,500-6,940 BP.

      • That’s what I am thinking, Ragnaar. Given enough water to evaporate in all that heat and you get clouds, rain and cooling. Eventually, maybe a rainforest.

        AK, we don’t have to worry about where to put the dirt. It’s a thought experiment.

      • Well, no dust from the Boedele Depression in the eon of Lake Megachad. I wonder how the Amazon Basin handled that.
        ===================

      • @Don Monfort…

        AK, we don’t have to worry about where to put the dirt. It’s a thought experiment.

        Thank you for telling me that; I wouldn’t have realized otherwise.

      • I was just funning ya, AK. Don’t be like Brandon.

    • Scientific papers certainly exist. If you are interested you can read an account of the history of global warming science on the American Physical Society web site produced by Spencer Weart:

      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

      A brief oversimplified summary of the narrative is that after Arrhenius did his work, a lot of scientists discovered a lot of reasons to be skeptical that CO2 could cause further warming of the atmosphere. It wasn’t until the 1950’s that definitive observations were made of the propagation of IR in the atmosphere that the today’s theory of how CO2 works was discovered.
      The Physicists who looked at the data and discoverd how this works were Lewis Kaplan and Gilbert Plass who was used newly developed digital computers to do his work. You can read more at the web site.

      If you want to see modern observational evidence and see rudimentary calculations of how the effect works read this link.
      http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

    • Rufus,

      Here is a link to a 20th century paper that has a little math in it:

      Regions of validity of various absorption-coefficient approximations by Gilbert N. Plass (1953)

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281954%29011%3C0163%3AROVOVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    • rufus,

      Here’s another paper for you. Unfortunately, it’s paywalled, which bugs me no end.

      Gilbert N. Plass (1953)

      A Method for the Determination of Atmospheric Transmission Functions from Laboratory Absorption Measurements

      http://www.opticsinfobase.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-42-9-677

    • Rufus,

      Here is reprint of the 1959 article, not a prp, entitled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate” by Gilbert N. Plass.

      I don’t think anyone is looking at these, I might be peeing into the wind. Anyway, here it is:

      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

  27. Need I say it again? Has there been ANY recent scientific study using empirical evidence to solidly state in its conclusion that atmospheric temperatures will increase more than about 2 degrees C for any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

    Send me the reference, please.

    Without that link, all else is just window dressing!

    • Steven Mosher

      your question shows you wont understand the answer.

    • This is a good starting point. Maybe Chapter 10 would be good for you. Lots of studies there.
      http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

      • David in Cal

        Jim D. — Thanks for the suggestion. I looked at the Exec Summary of Chap 10 and I wasn’t impressed. Two problems jumped out.

        One early quote said, “The consistency of observed and modeled changes across the climate system…points to a large-scale warming
        resulting primarily from anthropogenic increases in GHG concentrations.” First of all, “points to” isn’t the same as “proves”. Secondly, the rise in temperature over time has been quite inconsistent.

        Another quote: “Solar forcing is the only known natural forcing acting to warm the climate over this period but … is not consistent with the expected response to solar irradiance variations. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) could be a confounding influence but …does not project strongly onto 1951–2010 temperature trends.” In other words, they can’t explain the rise in temperatures since 1970, so they claim that the warming must be anthropogenic.

        This is poor reasoning in general. Why would they expect to be able to explain the warming since 1970? But, in this specific case, the reasoning is even worse. We know there was rapid warming during the early part of the 20th century. Science has no explanation for this warming. Therefore, one cannot rule out the possibility that the same unknown factor that caused the planet to warm early in the 20th century also caused it to war in the period 1970 – 1998.

      • David in Cal, they looked at the largest known alternatives, solar and internal ocean variations, and these don’t account for much of the warming, if any. If you can think of something comparable with these two effects, you need to say what it is. So far they have anthro, solar and oceans. What have they missed that has similar magnitudes in the historic record?

      • Medotheth he knowth

    • Meknows he doth.

    • Steven Mosher

      Try again,

      “Has there been ANY recent scientific study using empirical evidence to solidly state in its conclusion that atmospheric temperatures will increase more than about 2 degrees C for any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?”

      Key misunderstanding???

      ANY increase.

      There are stupid questions. you just asked one.

      • Charitably, ‘any given increase’. Any question can be made stupid, by the clever.
        ============

      • Steven Mosher

        thats just the first half of the stupidity

        I should ask him

        “Have you done an experiment to test whether having vice clamped down
        on your tender parts will cause any damage. I predict that his tender parts will suffer no damge, so lets test it.”

        I propose the following to settle this matter of C02 warming the planet

        Let’s take all the C02 out of the atmosphere and see if it cools. Until you guys show me the paper documenting this experiment I will cling to my belief that C02 is a trace gas and no amount of increase or decrease will have any effect.

        I want an experiment where we remove all the C02. because experiment is how science works. We only know what we know by doing experiments, controlled double blind experiments. They alone provide knowledge.

  28. How many more times do I have to say this? In the 20th century there were two periods when average global temperature increased: 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 1997 and no increase in the 21st century. It is like[y that the second increase was just a consequence of the first, delayed by the propagation time of the oceans. If the rise had been mainly due to human action it would have been a steady monotonic rise since 1910, not just two periods in the 20th century. Does anyone seriously dispute these statements?

    • Natural changes in temperature due to both terrestrial and solar causes, predictable and not so predictable (volcanoes and extended solar mins and maxes are examples of not so predictable) can mask any background warming of human origin so one can’t expect to see a monotonic warming. Some human activity works to cool the planet and warming/cooling activities aren’t always in the proportion. For instance aerosol production cools the surface by reflecting sunlight and there was far more aerosol production before things like the US Clean Air Act of 1964 started reducing that particular human caused cooling factor.

  29. Steven Mosher, try me. I can understand a lot. I have been looking for an answer to this question for quite some time, without any luck. Try stating the answer without using GCM output as empirical ‘evidence’.

    Thanks

    • Steven Mosher

      “Steven Mosher, try me. I can understand a lot.”

      Simple. here is a test.

      What is wrong about your question. See if you can get that right.

    • Mosher doesn’t understand the different answers out there so instead of letting himself be cornered into one of them and having to explain why it’s right he deflects by telling you you’re stupid and go find the answer yourself.

      JC SNIP

  30. So Mosh.

    You are still dodging the question:

    What is the peer-reviewed scientific foundation for the “global greenhouse effect”.

    Is it the speculations of the 18th century, or can you show us the peer-reviewed scientific paper where CO2 was once and for all established as a gas heating the earth, and to what extent.

    A link to this all-important scientific paper, Mosh.

  31. “Georgia politicians cool to global warming”

    This is the same kind of cooling as global “cooling”..

    We have mostly Repub politicians expressing the same views they’rve always had.

    All they’ve done is discovered a new justification in the form of Judtih.

  32. “Georgia politicians cool to global warming”

    In contrast politicians of the major European countries led by UK, France and Germany have fixation about their CO2 emissions and CAGW.
    Latest data from the NASA’s OCO2 satellite surveillance shows that the industrialised Europe, i.e. UK, Germany, France, Italy show ‘nothing’, while impoverished Balkan peninsula least populated, least developed, least industrialised has excess of CO2 !

    The red lines indicate boundaries between different tectonic plates which are outlined by the repeated occurrence of earthquakes (white dots). This area is tectonically active: “Italy sits at the boundary between the African and Eurasian tectonic plates where the Adriatic plate is being deformed”. East boundary of the plate is rising, and could be that the CO2 is seeping from the Earth’s interior. I was born and grew up just few miles from one of those red lines; to me they mean more than just lines on the map The earthquake of 15th April 1979 at 07:19 AM (local time) had Richter magnitude of 7.0 and caused catastrophic destruction.
    Let’s remember that the CO2 at the ground level is benevolent gas.
    HNY

  33. “It is like[y that the second increase was just a consequence of the first, delayed by the propagation time of the oceans.”

    How could the first increase be a cause of the second? What caused the first increase? Why did it stop?

    “If the rise had been mainly due to human action it would have been a steady monotonic rise since 1910, not just two periods in the 20th century. Does anyone seriously dispute these statements?”

    Why does human-caused imply that the rise would be monotonic? If natural variability is large, why would you not expect to see it modulate (or even swamp temporarily) the signal of human-caused temperature increase?

    Your statements don’t make much sense to me.

  34. Jim D:

    Hahahah.

    For en flokkgjenger.

    Tenk selv.

    Det er skremmende, men uansett verd det.

    • Norwegian for “For a herd gangs . Think for yourself. It’s scary , but anyway worth it.”
      I was only asking how much of the basic physics you know, but typical of the i-am-not-a-scientist types, denialism trumps trying to even understand how the greenhouse effect works in today’s climate. You sent questions as though you were trying to understand, but that appears not to be the case. We see this a lot on this site. Very few want to actually understand the science, sadly.

    • Science of Doom…. blech… more blog science. Up your game.

  35. Through the Lens (@woodyjohn1)

    The truth is “We just don’t know”
    They’ve been burning scientists “On the stake” for centuries. They now just dismiss the one’s they don’t agree with and try to end their careers.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/

    Science should be about scepticism, questioning and challenging the norm. They one’s that don’t are not true scientists.

  36. Politics can make strange bedfellows. The merging of Right with Left ideologies around climate catastrophe is not going to happen. There are too many people who understand the stakes in the warming game. Bargaining issues is where the danger lies. A critical misunderstanding regards to what is being traded requires vigilance on the part of observers and recognizing the poewer structure who can go off inadvertently. Currently Obama is the loose canon on the environmental ship of state. Keeping he and his staff from wrecking havock for the next several years seems to be the first priority awaiting the proposal of a coherent energy plan.

    • It’s the first Battle of the Alamo and we have to hold out for 2 years. It’s gonna get real ugly pardner. Keep yer powder dry and don’t waste yer ammunition.

  37. Dr. Curry, is the world warming?

  38. Politicians claim climate science is about liberals redistributing wealth and you say this is rational Dr Curry?

    • You bet it’s rational. You didn’t know much of politics is about redistribution of wealth? What did you think happens to tax revenues?

      • > What did you think happens to tax revenues?

        Redistribution like this:

        http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

        Redistributing tax breaks may be tougher.

        Tax loopholes are the toughest.

      • “…redistribution of wealth…”

        He who robs Peter to pay Paul can expect the support of Paul. Here in the US, with the expansion of disability, food stamps, Obamacare, etc, the number of Pauls is growing. To verify, check out the labor participation rate.

      • Labor participation wealth:

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/

        The title says it all.

        By chance the 85 have JustinWonders to cover their back

      • Max_OK, Citizen Scientist

        The labor force (LF) participation rate is for the age 16 and older population. Unless the number of young workers entering the LF is as great as the number of older workers leaving for retirement, the latter would have a negative influence on the LF rate. I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I suspect retirements of boomers may already be affecting the rate. This has been expected.

        There has been a small decline in the LF participation rate for prime working-age population, but more for males than females, which some analyst believe reflects growth in the number of stay-at-home dads.

        Among the age groups, the 16-19 year-old group has had the sharpest decline in LF participation rates.

      • Willard – “By chance the 85 have JustinWonders to cover their back”

        You couldn’t be more wrong. How did you come to that erroneous conclusion?

      • nottawa rafter

        Willard

        The increase in the Military budget is peanuts compared to Social Programs. In the last 20+ years the Military budget has gone from $300 Billion to $600 Billion. Social Programs budget has increased from $700 Billion $2.7 Trillion. Guess which one is causing the Debt to explode?

      • The military budget was closer to $800 billion than $600 billion last year. Social program spending includes money for V.A. why are you against veterans nattawa?

      • > Guess which one is causing the Debt to explode?

        Let me guess: a few trillions for Irak occupation, a speculative bubble that wasted more than 50 trillions, and various aggressive subsidies to rent seekers.

        Speaking of which:

        How big is this implicit subsidy to large banks? Bloomberg News – that bastion of ultra-left thought – calculated that taxpayers give them an astonishing $83bn subsidy every year. Their study, based on calculations by two IMF economists, also found that without taxpayers, many of the largest banks aren’t even profitable. As Bloomberg’s editorial board wrote:

        “[The] billions … they allegedly earn for their shareholders [are] almost entirely a gift from US taxpayers.”

        http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/05/28/bank-bailout-cost-us-taxpayers-nothing-think-again

        But food stamps, of course, of course

  39. There are very few climate scientists who would claim human caused GHG emissions are not warming the planet. The best estimate is about 3%.
    Calling this a hoax is the last refuge of people who are set on denying this for personal/ideological reasons and don’t have the understanding of the science to make real arguments.
    The next two issues is how much warming where, and what are the consequences. There is uncertainty in the figures for warming as the IPCC report admits. It is a matter of judgement about what are the most probable outcomes. Judith Curry feels the numbers should be lower than the IPCC has set, but she seems to be in the minority among climate scientists in this.
    The figures I am familiar with from a poll done after the AR4, by Pielke and Annan, is that about 50% of climate scientists agreed with the IPCC report, 20% said it understated the risk, and about 20% said it overstated the risk.
    So Prof. Curry is somewhere in the 20% who feel the risk is overstated.

    Next we have to look at the policy question. Eventually fossil fuels will run out and we will have to find substitute energy sources which will be non GHG emitting. We have the choice of doing this sooner and reducing the risk of climate change which 70% of climate scientists believe are damaging,
    or risking severe climate change which can be very damaging for hundreds of years that the CO2 will remain in the atmosphere, and make the transition to non emitting sources when the fossil fuels run out.

    http://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/what-if-we-burn-all-the-fossil-fuels/

    These are the choices. For the sake of my children and grandchildren and all of the life on the planet, making the transition to non emitting energy sources as quickly as possible seems like the right thing to do. In my mind the judgement of Georgia Republican politicians and Judith Curry are deeply flawed.

    • The best estimate? You are an optimist. That’s not an estimate, it is a fake.

    • eadler2 | January 2, 2015 at 10:40 pm | Reply
      There are very few climate scientists who would claim human caused GHG emissions are not warming the planet. The best estimate is about 3%.

      —————————————————————–

      Given a fart in a hurricane qualifies as human GHG emissoin that warms the planet to some small degree the big surprise is that anyone at all who disagrees that human caused GHG emissions are warming the planet. The salient question is how much warming?

  40. It is so odd that yet-another-warming phase of the Holocene can attract so much fear and expense.

    While past warmings were not beneficent everywhere (eg Medieval Warming Period in California), consider what cooling Bond Events can do and have done in the not very distant past (2200 BC ring any bells?). I’m sure the climate scientists in our midst know of those doozies. (Or what’s a climate scientist for, right?)

    We know what just a bit of cooling can do to eg Africa, China, drought-wise especially. We know what a lot of cooling can do to most of us, drought-wise especially. I greatly prefer the cool, but I’m not so sure of the benefits of living in a cooling world. It may be just as well that those who fritter money and resources on cooling the planet are frittering in vain. (I know “frittering” implies “in vain”, but I’m told one can’t be emphatic enough when delivering a “climate message”.)

  41. JC SNIP

    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS463US463&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22heat%20trapping%22%20co2

    We find many august sources from physics texts to NASA and NOAA to Andy Dessler referring to greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, as “heat-trapping”. Dessler goes on to say, in addition, that water vapor is not just heat-trapping it’s heat-amplifying.

    Wow.

    JC SNIP

    First

    In what 20th -century experiments and in which scientific papers were the heat-trapping properties of CO2 established once and for all? And at what magnitude?

    1. C02 doesnt trap heat. you dont even understand the basics
    2. The best experiment is the one we are doing now by adding c02
    to the atmosphere. no lab experiment can help you. We are
    doing an uncontrolled experiment on our planet. There is no
    second earth to use as a control.

    your very question shows you wont understand the answer.

    JC SNIP

    I can explain the greenhouyse effect to you but you wouldn’t understand.

    It’s really simple. GHGs lower the planet’s effective albedo in a roundabout manner by making the air “darker” to infrared frequencies. The roundabout way is that the sun doesn’t produce much longwave infrared for the atmosphere to absorb but visible light that makes it to the surface is absorbed, translated into longwave infrared emitted upward, which is then absorbed by the air near the surface because greenhouse gases trap a portion of it.

    Thanks for asking even though you can’t understand the answer.

    For reference see here what real scientists, not internet poseurs, write about it in physical astronomy, which science knows a thing or two about electromagnetic radiation and gases:

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

    The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object. For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming.

    Meh.

  42. “The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object. For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. The greenhouse effect, by trapping infrared radiation, can lower the albedo of the earth and cause global warming. ”

    Which only shows that you can’t believe everything you read on the internet. The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with changing the albedo (reflectivity) – except as an indirect effect, if the warming melts the polar ice.

    • ‘The geometric albedo is defined as the amount of radiation relative to that from a flat Lambertian surface which is an ideal reflector at all wavelengths. The bond albedo is the total radiation reflected from an object compared to the total incident radiation from the Sun. The bond albedo for the Earth is given as 0.29 by de Pater and Lissauer, compared to their value of 0.37 for the geometrical albedo.’

      Please check the reference before confirming our opinion.

    • What you refuse to believe, elisat, is a highly acclaimed, award winning online hypertext physics reference.

      I’d sooner dismiss an anonymous blog commenter like you than hyperphysics, [shrug]

  43. Hmm… I might have mentally inserted the word “reflected” before “radiation relative to that from…”. So does the geometric albedo include radiation emitted as well as reflected? If so, I stand corrected, but I still think it’s a very misleading way to word it.

  44. Hello guys; do you want to enroll and get a diploma in climatology, for $50, or $150 bucks? If you a Warmist – but if you are not, use that offer, to expose the scam!:
    https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VJOzeTAOog

  45. I had to look it up since I’ve only ever used the Bond albedo. Answer: no it doesn’t, it’s the ratio of *reflected* intensity at theta=0 to incident flux.

  46. ‘Say, are yer pro albedo or anti albedo?’

    • I’m pro-albedo, as troublesome as it is, for without it there wouldn’t be any people around. Albedo is one of those things that keep me awake at night. :)

  47. Wonderful irony again here at CE.

    Judith says that everyone accepts the basic of warming…..and all her little sky-dragon ‘skeptics’ come fluttering around.

    • If I fart in your general direction, which I do at every practical opportunity, I’m demonstrating the basic tenet of anthropogenic warming, unless I’m farting at you on a day where the outside temperature is greater than 98.6F in which case I’m then demonstrating the basic tenet of anthropogenic cooling.

      The simple statement that “everyone accepts basics of AGW” is false on the face of it because “everyone” is categorically not true except perhaps in a small UN/IPCC conference room where there’s show of hands. Without a committment to magnitude of AGW then of course “everyone” (+-10%) accepts the basics. If I light a kitchen match it’s anthropogenic warming, Duh. It’s a throwaway, meaningless statement without defining who “everyone” is and what constitutes “the basics”. In other words its a safe, politically correct cop-out answer that means exactly nothing.

      • Are you suggesting that Judy makes no sense, Big Dave?

      • I’m suggesting that “everyone” and “basics of AGW” need to be defined otherwise the postulate is meaningless as I demonstrated by a fart in a hurricane is small measure of AGW (or cooling depending on ambient temperature).

        I realize you have little reading comprehension so please don’t torture me with endless questions about something a precocious child would understand right away.

        Thanks in advance.

      • ” If I light a kitchen match it’s anthropogenic warming, Duh. ” – David.

        No wonder Springer is confused about so many things.

      • Michael, instead of addressing, underlines an absurdity. Did you miss the point, even though it’s right there where you lit the match?
        ==========

      • kim and Springer – a fine pair.

      • > I’m suggesting that “everyone” and “basics of AGW” need to be defined otherwise the postulate is meaningless

        Has Judy defined what you call a “postulate, Big Dave?

        Beware the sheep and the goats.

  48. Douglas Cotton 

     

    We read in the above post “the agency tasked with the state’s environment whether they believe the globe is warming, and whether they think pollution caused by human activity is a cause.”

    The answers to both questions are explained succinctly with correct physics in this page.
     

  49. I am surprised at Lt. Gov Cagle’s relatively enlightened (for a Republican) views. He seems open to the possibility that we may need to take some action.

    I am fairly dismayed at the understanding of the science on both sides of the aisle. Progressives too often perform a sort of sleight of hand where they jump from the science that human are contributing to warming to we must take drastic action or catastrophe will result. Conservatives don’t want to consider the possibility that even moderate action might be necessary.

    I would be very interested in know what the sides of this issue felt to be the relative probabilities of various scenarios.

    For example, probabilities of human caused global warming in this century producing the following: (I’ll put my estimates in parenthesis)

    1- Ecosystem catastrophe (1%)
    2- Mainly negative effects but not catastrophe (39%)
    3- Some positive and some negative effects – on balance a wash (50%)
    4- Mainly positive effects (9%)
    5- No negative effects (1%)

    The challenge of providing the probability estimates I asked for are that you really need to consider three separate factors:

    1- How much additional greenhouse gas will increase global temperatures
    2- How much additional greenhouse gas will humans put into the atmosphere
    3- What will be the consequences of #1 and #2

    • +many

      • David

        When mosh apparently went mad in the first half of this thread I had unkindly thought you had been masquerading as him. Someone else suggested Mosh had developed a sense of humour. However, reading his many comments basically saying that no one has claimed man has caused the warming I will settle for the mad theory.

        Hopefully he will be reappear and able to explain just what he was going on about yesterday because I think most of us were confused.

        tonyb

      • Attribution, she’s a bitch;
        Don’t know how just scratch that itch.
        Puff the Magic Climate
        Lived by the CO2;
        Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
        ======================

    • The way the IPCC does this is to consider the effects for each temperature increase. For example, how would your percentages change between a 1 C increase and a 4 C increase? The difference is the benefit side of mitigation.

      • The higher the temperature increase the more likelihood of negative effects, although I assume somebody could have the opposite assessment that more increase would be positive.

        This obviously isn’t an effort to disentangle factors that could affect policy. It actually requires you to consider all of the factors at the same time and weigh their likelihoods.

        BTW, I wasn’t totally clear but my intent was this assessment should be done with the consideration that no significant policy action will be done with respect to climate change. This is not the same as business as usual because we might believe (as I do) that human contributions to greenhouse will decline through economic and technological forces without any deliberate climate related action.

        So my assessments are based on climate sensitivity at the lower end and economic forces reducing human influence.

  50. Concerned Citizen

    1- Ecosystem catastrophe (0.005%)
    2- Mainly negative effects but not catastrophe (1%)
    3- Some positive and some negative effects – on balance a wash (58.995%)
    4- Mainly positive effects (38%)
    5- No negative effects (2%)

    • When I posted this question on another blog (not climate related but it veered into the topic on one post) some of the alarmists ended up with a significant percentage in the middle.

      I am wondering if we might by surveying a broad cross-section we might come up with “sweet spot” of consensus.

  51. Ward of the wood

    Edim

    Sorry to sound dumb but the simplistic energy balance that you describe is meaningless the earth breathes, by day and by night, by the seasons and on larger timescales too. I see no real benefit of looking at a dynamic planetary breathing in a static way or am I missing something that you can help me with.

    Thanks

    • Ward, I don’t know if averaging the cycles is meaningless. Maybe. However, if it’s plausible, then it should be done properly, according to the physics of (multimodal) heat transfer.

  52. Ok, Mosher, I’ve been thinking about your challenge: ‘what is wrong about your (MY) question?
    Firstly, I am not a trained scientist, so I may not explain myself the way you would. Secondly, I don’t spend all of my waking moments on this subject (i.e., I have a life). i think this riddle has so many facets, it can be argued from many sides without rebuttal – just because.
    However, since you are not straight foreward with me, I can only assume you have the knowledge and won’t share it…and won’t have any discourse with me, after all – why should you care what I think?

    So, my answer is: my question presupposes a proper experiment can be laid out whereby one can ascertain the reason and importance of CO2 as it relates to atmospheric temperature. If one cannot design such an empirical experiment, then you must go about it another way. The empirical experiment must include all the elements of our global circulation system, therefore, it cannot be so designed, since we cannot go to the outside and observe. It is global in nature and we cannot exit.

    However, I have been thinking that some aspects can be isolated in such a way as to be able to observe parts of the system. Since we are talking about and comparing to a greenhouse, why don’t we do experiments within a greenhouse? Say that we are able to isolate the greenhouse from the earth’s atmosphere, so there is no interference. Steve, has this been done? You could do an experiment in there with different concentrations of CO2 in the greenhouse ‘atmosphere’ to verify the findings of the models.

    I don’t have the funds or backing to do it myself, but, certainly someone connected to the US Government could. I think the results would be very influential in our discussion.

    I don’t want to make this too long. Can you comment on my experiment design? I’ll check back later this afternoon, after I go to the store for my wife….

    Thanks
    Jeff

    • We might need to wait until 2021, Jeff:

      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/25feb_greenhouses/

      Such experiments seem to require an atmosphere, though.

    • Your proposal is based on a misunderstanding of how additional GHG’s act in the real earth’s atmosphere. The mechanism cannot be reproduced in a small enclosed space like a greenhouse. It requires 15 KM of atmosphere to demonstrate the effect. There is data on the transmission of radiation through the earth’s atmosphere from satellites which shows how the so called Greenhouse Effect warms the earth, so no additional lab experiment is needed.
      Read this link and you will see data which demonstrates what is happening.
      You need to understand the Stefan Boltzmann and Planck equations which determine the rate of radiation versus wave length and temperature, which is college physics. Here is the introduction. You need to read all the sections to understand how it works.

      http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

      • How high is the Top Of Atmosphere today, above your town? What is the temperature there? Is it by any chance increased by an absorption of an outbound IR radiation by CO2?

        This logic is a fairy tale masquerading as a theory. But I may be wrong. Please give me a link to a radiative theory correctly predicting stratospheric temperatures.

    • Steven Mosher

      “Since we are talking about and comparing to a greenhouse, why don’t we do experiments within a greenhouse? Say that we are able to isolate the greenhouse from the earth’s atmosphere, so there is no interference. ”

      another mistake.

      1. you cant do a controlled experiment. there is no second earth to use as a control.
      2. You cant use a controlled box to represent the atmosphere because
      the box lacks what is most important, an ERL

      Seeing the flaw in 2 is easy. Suppose I showed you a “greenhouse” effect in an enclosed structure. What would a good skeptic say? A good skeptic would say “Well, the atmosphere is different than a small enclosed box”.

      As you said, you are not scientist.

      Start with the history I pointed folks at.

      Observational science is different from experimental science.

      • Steven – I just did a short search for ERL, my favorite result was Buy it from Amazon. I’ll assume that it is an Effective Radiative something. How high is it in Berkeley now? Does it change with the time of day? With seasons? With a location? What is the temperature there? Can your equations predict it?

      • Curious George,
        You need to improve your search technique or search engine. ERL is effective radiative level. This is the effective height where upward radiation that originates in the upper troposphere makes it into outer space without being reabsorbed.

      • Curious George

        eadler2 – thank you for supplying the letter L – Level. I agree that I should improve my search technique; I used an iPad on a slow connection; promise to avoid it if possible.

        As you seem to be an expert on ERL, answering my other questions which eluded you should be a piece of cake: How high is it in your town now? Does it change with the time of day? With seasons? With a location? What is the temperature there? Can your equations predict it?

      • Jeffrey Eric Grant

        Steve Mosher
        I’m sorry, I spent the day with my family and could not respond.
        Well, you have verified what I’ve suspected for a long time — there have been NO recent empirical studies that conclusively conclude that atmospheric CO2 increases atmospheric temperature significantly.

        To state that there is some anthropogenic component is foolish. I don’t know of a single skeptic scientist that does not agree with that. The disagreement comes from the attribution percentage. Without a complete analysis, including natural sources, such an attribution would be premature.

        We don’t know what we don’t know. To state that all the important factors have been incorporatred into the GCM programs is not correct. Very few of the natural factors are included. The world’s weather patterns and even the 30 year history (average) have multiple factors that need to be studied – that have not been.

        Follow the science to learn that the AGW conclusions have not deviated for the past 30 to 40 years….what kind of active science is that? The recent discussion concerning the cause for the 21st century pause is tacit agreement that the GCM’s need to be corrected.

        Remember the Biosphere? Such a closed system, if big enough, could host a study of the CO2/temperature question.

        Hey, I’m just an Engineer and couldn’t possibly know your business. But I am a critical thinker and have yet to find the evidence you say is there. Interestingly, not one AGW scientist has been willing to point me to the study I’m seeking. Instead, they call me names and tell me my logic is full of error! As Mike Mann told me — go do your own research!

        Steve, you have helped me a bit, though. By your responses to me, you have confirmed where the science is lacking. And this is very crucial to the conclusions you seek. At this point, the only conclusion I can take away is: Limiting atmospheric CO2 will not affect global temperatures and all money and time devoted to the task is, therefore, completely wasted!

        What a shame….

  53. Climate scientists kind of cherry picked the back-radiation from CO2, although they do note it cools parts of the stratosphere. But, just because they have shined a light on tropospheric CO2 does not mean it might not show up in other terms of the climatic differential equation.

    Clouds are often cited as a large uncertainty due to albedo effects. But how does the extra CO2 affect the dynamics of clouds. Does the internal energy of the molecule cause more heat to be released near the tops of thunderstorms? Could it cause the water vapor in the storm cloud to condense or form ice at higher altitudes that it would without the extra CO2? Could this extra altitude effect the release of more heat into space?

    It seems some climate scientists have looked at aspects of greater CO2 concentration only if that aspect makes the warmista case.

    • The questions you ask don’t make physical sense. I don’t see any reasons why climate scientists should pay attention.

    • “Climate scientists kind of cherry picked the back-radiation from CO2, although they do note it cools parts of the stratosphere.”
      Sorry but they didn’t cherry pick CO2. They also look at CH4, N2O and CFC’s.

    • Heat of condensation is released at the tops of thunderstorms as result of condensation of water vapor into droplets. The presence of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere have no bearing on the condensation phenomenon. If the CO2 molecules were adding energy to the water vapor condensation would slow down and less heat of condensation would be released. That is why the premise of your question is wrong.

      Your assumption that climate scientists are biased is ignorant. They are working from data that shows CO2 is suppressing emission into outer space of IR wave lengths in its absorption spectrum.
      http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

      • Funny they can’t predict the amount of meaasured warming if they know how much warming X amount of CO2 will cause.

        No remote possibility they have something serious wrong or missing in the global warming hypothesis?

      • David,
        “No remote possibility they have something serious wrong or missing in the global warming hypothesis?”

        The best understood phenomenon is how CO2 and other GHG’s including water vapor cause the earth to warm. The climate sensitivity for CO2 in clear air is the best understood and quantified part of the global warming theory. This is the iron clad part.

        What is uncertain are the actions of other parts of the system – clouds, volcanoes, melting glaciers, ENSo and other ocean current phenomena, and aerosals. Also, solar irradiance is not predictable. That is what climate scientists are wrestling with to improve the models, and the reasons the models are not useful for accurate annual predictions and why the total climate sensitivity is so uncertain.

        That is why claiming that the science is wrong about CO2 seems ridiculous to people who understand what is going on.

      • Yer iron clad hypothesis produced climate models running seriously too hot buddy boy. Time for you to maybe wake up and smell the coffee.

      • eadler2 – it is your idea that energy carried by CO2 can’t affect condensation that is non-physical. CO2 molecules can release their internal energy via collision which will heat the molecule it hits. Eventually, just about all the water will condense, so it will eventually release any heat picked up from the extra CO2 molecules. That, or the CO2 will radiate directly into space. CO2 can also radiate and that radiation can excite a water molecule. I’m not seeing the non-physicality of any of this.

  54. A HuffPost commentary on congressional Republicans to show what the US is in for in the next couple of years.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-zombeck/the-2015-gop-clown-car-bi_b_6402678.html

    • Shame on me for stereotyping, but I always took you for a rabid HP devotee. I liked this article that they ran this morning stating that 31 governorships and 68 or the 98 state legislative bodies are controlled by the Grand Old Party. Power to the People!

      I have to admit to reading HP articles quite a bit. But with a different motive. I want to get inside the brains of the economic illiterates.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/03/gop-states-gov-plan_n_6409330.html#comments

      • Obama didn’t know that here are 50 states. I think he said 52. In any case, had Sarah Palin said that the press would have lampooned her mercilessly for years.

        The Huff and Puff post is pure garbage. What’s her name was ingenious, devious, and predatory in her ability to get lightweights to write articles for free. What an idea! Create a business where the “employees” don’t get paid! Then she sold the whole enchilada, made millions, and paid the writers nothing, nada, zip. There’s a lefty hero for ya, get your money for nothing and the labor for free!

      • Medicaid expansion tears them between supporting the people versus supporting the Party, doesn’t it. More red states are shifting towards the people and away from the Congressional GOP wishes, and this is because of how well the new healthcare works in the blue states. Not having to answer to the congressional GOP leadership makes all the difference. Some movement on minimum wage too.
        Also a recent poll has put the nation’s biggest problem now as Congress itself, which has overtaken the economy for the #1 spot. The people are getting restless. They need a Congress that functions and passes legislation for them.

      • Socialist Obama’s “healthcare” system does suck. I don’t believe anything out of Paul Krugman’s mealy mouth. If people wise up, they won’t replace Socialist Obama with Socialist Hillary.

      • Socialist Obama’s “healthcare” system does suck.

        Oh no.. Jim you do realize that Obamacare is essentially the same plan that was proposed by conservative Heritage Foundation? A more socialized system would really be one like Great Britain’s where the government runs the system, followed by single payer systems, and then by the public option which involved the government providing it’s own plan on the healthcare exchange. The public option was rejected before the bill was passed. Obamacare has more to do with providing more help to poor and lower middle income people to make insurance more affordable and regulating the health insurance markets. And if you think “subsidies” are examples of Socialism then I you must think the mortgage and charitable deductions are also examples of Socialism .

    • JimD

      Your conclusion is not warranted. If the Congress did pass legislation about 50% wouldn’t like it, but most people would still agree that Congress is bad but for different reasons. Congress, like the people, is divided.

      • Congressional approval is probably near 10% because they are not passing anything. Immigration would have passed, but the Republican leaders were afraid to put that up because they knew that. Democracy inaction.

      • Gee Jim D, now that dingy harry is no longer the Senate majority leader, congress will now be able to function the way it is supposed to and Odumbo will no longer be protected from having to deal with legislation he does not like.

      • I expect a continuous stream of joke bills with enticing names like the Pay Everyone More Bill or Give Everyone a Job Bill, or the Kill the Job-Killing Healthcare Bill to come to the Senate and many will still fail to reach a vote there. This has been the House pattern so far.

      • Nice try Jimmy Dee, if they were all joke bills, then dingy Harry could have at least taken them to the floor for debate and defeat. He was too busy protecting Obama to, you know, actually do anything productive.

      • It’s far better to pass a kidney stone than another socialist piece of garbage law.

      • JimD

        If the Dems wanted immigration reform they could have done it without a single GOP vote in either the senate or the house in 2008 -2010. They didn’t do it because it is a third rail issue. Note that many repubs also want “IR” but they aren’t going to do it either for the same reason. Obama did a mini version with his phone and pen, after his last election when he had that flexibility he talked about with Vlad’s emissary.

    • Thanks for the link. It is spot on.
      The AGW denial statements by the Ga Republicans are good examples of what Zombeck is talking about in his post. The echoes are here in this Climate etc. blog.

      • Meh, all in all, remarkably clear thinking by a bunch of state Republicans. Do not send to know for whom the skies clear, they clear for you.
        ===================

  55. He said 57.

    Scott

    • Not one of those states speaks Austrian natively, either. How insular! Or parochial! Or chauvinistic! I’ll settle for Ubuic instead of Obamic.
      =================

      • When Obama compared himself to Lincoln, my friend Peter Bocking speculated since Obama is sort of a Eurosocialist, that perhaps he is a Lincoln Continental.

        This same Peter riffed that were Al Gore’s hair to catch on fire it would provide enough heat and light for a small English village.
        =================

  56. WHY THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING
    The information below came from either books or downloaded from the Internet
    Please pass this information around to friends. Take Care, Harold

    People in the USA, are being told by the U.S. government and media that global warming is man-made. If that is true, how can the government and media explain the high temperatures the earth has experienced in past years when there were far fewer people? Let us look back in the world’s history: for example, between roughly 900AD and 1350AD the temperatures were much higher than now. And, back then there were fewer people, no cars, no electric utilities, and no factories, etc. So what caused the earth’s heat? Could it be a natural occurrence? The temperature graph at the bottom of this article shows the temperatures of the earth before Christ to 2040.

    In the book THE DISCOVERERS published in February 1985 by Daniel J. Boorstin, beginning in chapter 28, it goes into detail about Eric the Red, the father of Lief Ericsson, and how he discovered an island covered in green grass.

    In approximately 983AD, Eric the Red committed murder, and was banished from Iceland for three years. Eric the Red sailed 500 miles west from Iceland and discovered an island covered in GREEN grass, which he named Greenland. Greenland reminded Eric the Red of his native Norway because of the grass, game animals, and a sea full of fish. Even the air provided a harvest of birds. Eric the Red and his crew started laying out sites for farms and homesteads, as there was no sign of earlier human habitation.

    When his banishment expired, Eric the Red returned to congested Iceland to gather Viking settlers. In 986, Eric the Red set sail with an emigrant fleet of twenty-five ships carrying men, women, and domestic animals. Unfortunately, only fourteen ships survived the stormy passage, which carried about four-hundred-fifty immigrants plus the farm animals. The immigrants settled on the southern-west tip and up the western coast of Greenland.

    After the year 1200AD, the Earth’s and Greenland’s climate grew colder; ice started building up on the southern tip of Greenland. Before the end of 1300AD, the Viking settlements were just a memory. You can find the above by searching Google. One link is:

    http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/kultur-sjael/historie/vikingetiden/erik-den-roede.aspx

    The following quote you can also read about why there is global warming. This is from the book EINSTEIN’S UNIVERSE, Page 63, written by Nigel Calder in 1972, and updated in 1982.

    “The reckoning of planetary motions is a venerable science. Nowadays it tells us, for example, how gravity causes the ice to advance or retreat on the Earth during the ice ages. The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons. Every so often a fortunate attitude and orbit of the Earth combine to drench the ice sheets in sunshine as at the end of the most recent ice age, about ten thousand years ago. But now our relatively benign interglacial is coming to an end, as gravity continues to toy with our planet.”

    The above points out that the universe is too huge and the earth is too small for the earth’s population to have any effect on the earth’s temperature. The earth’s temperature is a function of the sun’s temperature and the effects from the many massive planets in the universe, i.e., “The gravity of the Moon and (to a lesser extent) of the Sun makes the Earth’s axis swivel around like a tilted spinning top. Other planets of the Solar System, especially Jupiter, Mars and Venus, influence the Earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit, in a more-or-less cyclic fashion, with significant effects on the intensity of sunshine falling on different regions of the Earth during the various seasons.”
    Read below about carbon dioxide, which we need in order to exist. You can find the article below at:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html.

    FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE.

    Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

    At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth’s atmosphere–less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth’s current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

    CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life– plants and animals alike– benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

    CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there, but continuously recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth’s oceans– the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

    If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions and all other government proposals and taxes would have a negligible effect on global climate!

    The government is lying, trying to use global warming to limit, and tax its citizens through “cap and trade” and other tax schemes for the government’s benefit. We, the people cannot allow this to happen.

    A temperature graph normally goes here that shows the Earth’s Temperature from -2400 to guesses in +2400.

    If the Earth’s temperature graph is not shown above, you can see this temperature graph at the link:
    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

    • I think you’ve nailed it. I have never heard of any of this before.

      Do you have anything on how the government took down the World Trade Center towers? Or what they are really hiding in Area 51?

      • Yeah, we’ve been lied to, officially, officiously, offensively, well awfully awfully. Will the officials, the judges in the Steyn/Mann case figure this out? Speech yet unheard will flow freely, whether they do or they don’t.
        =============

    • Wow Harold,
      You have managed to post the most illogical argument on the internet against the idea that CO2 is causing global warming. To make a long story short, you claim:
      In the past there have been other drivers for global warming, Milankovitch cylcles and such, so this time it cannot be CO2. This is a totally fallacious and illogical argument. Anyone who is objective can see that.

      In fact the evidence that CO2 is currently warming the planet is incontrovertible if you know anything about the physics of electromagnetic radiation and its relationship to temperature. Here is a detailed and physically correct description of the evidence.

      http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html

      The fact that CO2 is recycled by nature doesn’t negate the fact that human emissions on top of natural process are adding to CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact in an average year natural process absorb about 1/2 the CO2 emitted by human industrial processes. The rest remains in the atmosphere. I don’t see how you can blame the CO2 increase on nature.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

      • Really – you cite SkS as your source for rebutal? You must be one of the 2 or 3 people who actually still reference the site.

      • Note I won’t sink to the level of biased blog science, eadler. I wanted to get down in the mud and wrestle with pigs I’d use WattsUpWithThat as a reference.

        Wikipedia won’t accept SkS or WUWT as sources and neither should you.

        Up your game.

      • Actually, SKS is not the source of my rebuttal. It is a place where I can find graphs taken from peer reviewed papers, which is what I did to explain how human emissions of CO2 have resulted in increases of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
        Personally, if you used Wattsup as a reference, I would take the trouble to show how your reference is mistaken, and then make a disparaging comment. I wouldn’t mind if you did that also, In this case you have no rebuttal and are looking for a way to hide it.

      • Eadler2, your statement that “The rest remains in the atmosphere” is a common misconception, and the cause of the CO2 increase would not be an issue if this statement were true. The fact is that our emitted CO2 molecules, like the much greater mass of naturally emitted molecules, are all gone in just a few years. That is, the concentration increase is not made up of our emitted molecules, which “the rest remain” incorrectly implies.

        Thus the oft heard statement that just half of our emissions are absorbed is a misstatement of the fact that the increase is equal to roughly half of our emissions. It is an interesting question whether this misstatement is deliberate, since it nicely hides the attribution issue.

      • SkS produces many of their own graphics, charts, etc. If it comes straight from the literature without alteration then at least cite the original source.

        Or don’t, I’ll just continue ignoriing blog science. Wikipedia is as low as I’ll go and they don’t cite blogs either. Up your game.

  57. Barnes | January 3, 2015 at 3:09 pm |
    “Really – you cite SkS as your source for rebutal? You must be one of the 2 or 3 people who actually still reference the site.”

    Just because global warming deniers don’t like SKS, doesn’t prove they are wrong.

    If you are so smart, and they are so dumb, explain why this graph doesn’t prove that human emissions aren’t the cause of the increase in CO2 seen in the atmosphere.

    • I score.
      You score.
      We all score
      The Ice Cores.
      ==========


    • This a chart of the derivative of surface station temp, where global minimum temp is made from large regional swings of temp, where maximum temps of the same station does not show any such change.
      At the bottom of the url in my name are the same sort of graph for individual continents. They also show you when you calculate the slope of temp for both warming and cooling during the year.

    • I don’t argue with SkS. I don’t argue with my ex. In five minutes she can say things that I would need five days to prove wrong.

      How about turning the tables? Can’t I consider SkS wrong until they prove themselves right – but my question never made it through moderation.

      • You can do what you like. No one can force you to reply to what SKS says.

        So you are saying that you are unable to counter the message of the graph I showed. It says human emissions are being absorbed by natural causes and 46% end up in the atmosphere to increase the CO2 level.

        Since you can’t counter it, and don’t want to accept the evidence of the graph, you simply prefer to assume it is wrong without proof. This doesn’t seem reasonable. No wonder your marriage broke up.

      • No one can force SkS to reply to what I say. You seem to be rather obtuse.

      • Dave in TX,
        “I’m afraid a residency time of only 1000 years won’t be sufficient to avoid the next ice age. 10,000 years would be a more comfortable hedge.”

        We will probably have to wait about 30,000 years for the next ice age. If we want to use them to avoid the next ice age, we should save the fossil fuels for the time when we need them, not expend them too soon.

      • eadler’s in with the crew who know when we’ll need them, which can’t be now, for sure. Yes, that is certain.

        So put the toys at play, rain, rain go away. Set your course, Climazbub, lest you fall off the rim of the tub.
        ==================

      • eadler2 | January 4, 2015 at 10:43 am |

        “We will probably have to wait about 30,000 years for the next ice age.”

        Really. More Skeptical Science prognostications or is that your own stupid wild assed guess instead of theirs.?

    • The salient question is why does less than half of manmade CO2 emission stick around in the atmosphere? Will the sink that’s lapping it up half as fast as we can dig it out of the ground continue drawing it down at same rate if we cut emission level?

      • According to the work of Susan Solomon published in the PNAS, higher levels of CO2 will stick around in the atmosphere for 1000 years after emissions cease, but there will be an initial decline from the peak.

      • Higher CO2 levels will recruit new negative feedbacks. Bet on it.
        =================

      • Kim,
        “Higher CO2 levels will recruit new negative feedbacks. Bet on it.”
        You comment has aroused my curiousity.
        I am familiar with positive feedbacks to temperature – water vapor concentration melting glaciers, reduction of summer sea ice in the Arctic, increasing atmospheric methane from clathrates and permafrost.
        In addition higher water temperatures will reduce the absorption of CO2 by oceans.
        Can you list and explain the negative feedbacks that will occur as a result of high CO2 levels, or is this simply an unsupported belief that all will be well?

      • The biome, and she do it NOW.
        =======

      • @eadler

        I’m afraid a residency time of only 1000 years won’t be sufficient to avoid the next ice age. 10,000 years would be a more comfortable hedge.

        If we weren’t increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere already we’d be forced to invent some way of doing it.

        Glaciers a mile thick covering half the northern hemisphere continents is going to suck. Big time. Write that down.

      • According to the work of Susan Solomon published in the PNAS, higher levels of CO2 will stick around in the atmosphere for 1000 years after emissions cease […]

        That work is highly defective. It makes the unwarranted assumption that humans won’t turn around and drag it back out again…

      • @Kim
        I asked you for a list of the negative feedbacks you claimed would cancel the warming effects of CO2. I was genuinely curious about whether you actually knew anything or whether your belief in this was unsupported by any information that you had. This is your answer.

        @kim | January 3, 2015 at 11:38 pm |
        The biome, and she do it NOW.

        So it is clear that this is religious faith unsupported by any real information.

      • eadler2, among those negative feedbacks are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns. There’s a list you could own. Heck, I’ll even throw in unknown knowns, like all the stuff you know that just ain’t so.
        ==============

      • eadler2 | January 4, 2015 at 11:49 am
        “I asked you for a list of the negative feedbacks you claimed would cancel the warming effects of CO2.”

        Well…

        1. Pretty curves from Susan Solomon. They show that the likely low 500 PPM (somewhere in the 520 PPM range) that is likely CO2 maximum doesn’t cause a hill of beans worth of warming. There isn’t much to explain.

        2. The unknowns driving temperature include ice cover, snow cover (98% is in the Northern Hemisphere), specific humidity low level, specific humidity high level, evaporation, clouds low level, clouds high level.

        The stratosphere is warming from CO2 and cooling from reduced specific humidity. Many of the other measures have a similar good news/bad news profile.

        The CO2 warming calculations assume more CO2 and all other things being equal (a static analysis). The atmosphere is dynamic and things aren’t so pretty.

        Solar on the other hand appears to have strong positive water vapor feedback and water vapor increases exponentially with real (TSI) external heating.

    • Eadler2, I think you mean “explain why this graph doesn’t prove that human emissions are the cause of the increase” not “aren’t the cause.” First of all, at most it would be evidence, not proof. Second, it is quite possible that the ice core proxy data is faulty and hides large natural oscillations, for which there is some evidence. This is a well known problem. Absent the ice core data you merely have two roughly linear tends, so of course there is a correlation, since all linear trends are correlated.

      • David,
        There is also an ironclad equation that shows this. If we divide sources and sinks of CO2 into human and natural mechanisms, and use the best data we have, the human emissions into the atmosphere are positive. Using the law of conservation of matter, the natural mechanisms must be absorbing the CO2 emitted by humans. This is true whether the plot is linear or exponential.

        If you want to limit the time frame by taking out the ice core data, you would come to the same conclusion. There are oscillations shown in the ice core data on CO2, but also in the modern CO2 data.

        Unless you doubt conservation of matter, there is no doubt that human emissions are the source of close to 100% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times. People who doubt this have some agenda in mind besides understanding the science.

      • Unless you doubt conservation of matter, there is no doubt that human emissions are the source of close to 100% of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times.

        Not the source. Maybe the “cause”.

        Except that “cause and effect” is a myth.

      • I doubt my agenda is other than understanding the ocean and warming. Yours? Ain’tcha got no curiosity? It don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that schwing.
        =================

      • There isn’t an ironclad equation that proves it unless you also have proof that anthropogenic sources don’t change the sinks. If it does that would make them anthropogenic sinks and now you are arguing over how much they change them as to whether or not the increase in CO2 is primarily anthropogenic. I happen to agree that it likely is but that is from inductive reasoning and is not deductive in nature.

      • @Steven,
        Good point. It is definitely true that humans are reducing the effectiveness of the natural sinks. One example is setting fire to the rain forests which would otherwise sequester carbon from CO2 that they absorb from the air. This would lead one to say that human activity is the cause of the increase in CO2, which is a more inclusive way to express what is happening, than human caused emissions are the cause of the increase.

      • I’m not sure that was my point at all but I’m certainly not prepared to argue the increase in CO2 isn’t human in origin. There isn’t proof was the point I was making. I’ve seen claims of proof before but it wasn’t well thought out.

      • The effectiveness of the natural sinks seems to be increasing, and yes, it’s likely because we’ve raised the CO2 level.

        Note too, encouraging natural sinks through your biomass would better entail restricting burning forests rather than restricting burning fossil fuel. Mebbe you could settle the whole mess, wash that dirty baby, before throwing it out with the bathwater.
        ==============

      • Eadler2’s argument has a number of flaws:

        The land based carbon sequestration is about 115 GT per year.

        The atmospheric carbon increase is only 4.2 GT/y (2 PPM/y) and over 2 GT/y is from destroying carbon sinks.

        Since the atmospheric CO2 level is close to in balance (and had to be in balance 200 years ago) and the 115 GT/y includes a 50% CO2 fertilization bonus – we know that in the last couple of centuries we destroyed about 38 gT/y (115/3) of carbon sequestration. Further this 38 GT/y would have benefited from the CO2 fertilization so it is really 57 GT/y of sequestration that was lost.

        This ignores the 170+ GT of carbon released while destroying the carbon sinks.

        So right now 2.2 GT per year of carbon is going into the atmosphere from fossil fuel emissions because 57 GT/y of carbon sinking was destroyed, and the emissions are the problem???

      • @PA
        “The atmospheric carbon increase is only 4.2 GT/y (2 PPM/y) and over 2 GT/y is from destroying carbon sinks.”
        Where do you get that figure for the effect of destruction of carbon sinks.
        The observed reduction in carbon sinks is totally in the ocean. From what we know, global warming due to CO2 reduces the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, and so does an increase in CO2 already dissolved.
        According to this study,
        http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full
        “Changes in the long-term efficiency of the natural sinks in removing atmospheric CO2, as measured by the ratio of sinks to emissions, are indicated by the proportional trend in the AF [(1/AF)dAF/dt]. Over the period 1959–2006, this was +0.25 ± 0.21% y −1”
        You are claiming 100 times the annual rate of destruction of carbon sinks compared to what the paper says. Your claim is about 25% of the human emissions vs the 0.25% cited by the paper.

    • @Kim.
      “The effectiveness of the natural sinks seems to be increasing, and yes, it’s likely because we’ve raised the CO2 level.”
      It seems that you are making this up.

      This graph says that the efficiency is decreasing – the atmospheric retention went from 40% to 45%, while the amount retained by the oceans decreased between 1958 and 2008.

      http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866/F2.expansion.html

      • Emissions rising logarithmically, atmospheric levels rising linearly.
        ====================

      • Emissions rising logarithmically, atmospheric levels rising linearly.

        Actually exponentially. Or perhaps quadratically, there isn’t enough resolution to tell.

  58. but I also know that some politicians and bureaucrats believe in whatever theory gives them an opportunity to take money from the energy sector and spend it themselves in the name of saving the planet.

    Do these politicians really believe that those politicians who want to do something about climate change are not relying on the IPCC, the numerous scientific organizations, and vast majority of scientists who believe that climate change is a problem that need to be addressed? Who should should they rely on and why? Dr Curry? The NIPCC?

    • “Who should should they rely on and why?” The accountants. Because a lot of the problems and proposals come down to money. The results so far dollar wise, haven’t been much to brag about.

  59. You go, girl!

  60. A pre-BIG LIE explanation of CO2 warming (I agree with everything in it):

    Note the author of this 1959 paper was Judith Curry’s PhD advisor.

    http://journals.co-action.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9364/10973

    The Influence of Carbon Dioxide Variations on the Atmospheric Heat Balance

    By LEWIS D. KAPLAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    (Manuscript received August 20, 1959)

    Abstract

    Net fluxes of radiation in the IS micron carbon dioxide band at the top and bottom of the atmosphere have been calculated for several atmospheric models and with various cloud heights.

    The variation of the fluxes with carbon dioxide amounts is determined, and its effect on temperature discussed. Plass’ estimate of a temperature drop of 3.8′ C due to a halving of the carbon dioxide concentration appears to be too high by a factor of two or three.

    • Hey! I already posted that! Aren’t you reading my posts? I’m very very disappointed! :)

    • “Plass’ estimate of a temperature drop of 3.8′ C due to a halving of the carbon dioxide concentration appears to be too high by a factor of two or three.”

      There are a number of things “too high” about global warming theory including some of the warmists themselves.

    • Over 50 years ago Kaplan and Plass’ produced estimates of CO2 doubling causing as little as 1.2C warming and as much as 3.8C warming.

      As of now the range hasn’t been narrowed.

      Zero progress in climate science since 1959.

      EPIC FAIL

    • David, I hope you understand that the science the data and tools have progressed a lot since then. That is what science does in a society where technology gets better and better. But the basic understanding of the greenhouse effect has been around over a century. The greenhouse effect is not a hoax. It is a solid scientific explanation based on physics. AGW is based on an almost certain fact until proven otherwise.

  61. Over 50 years ago Kaplan and Plass’ produced estimates of CO2 doubling causing as little as 1.2C warming and as much as 3.8C warming.

    As of now the range hasn’t been narrowed.

    Zero progress in climate science since 1959.

    EPIC FAIL.

    • Plass simplified his problem, by neglecting .clouds. For CO2 doubling he actually got a figure of 3.6C for the temperature increase.
      It is interesting that the IPCC estimates that values in the range 1.5 to 4.5C are the most probable, with estimates as low as 1C and as high as 6C possible. The range hasn’t really changed, despite the fact that computers are getting more powerful, because more and more factors are being included in the calculations.

      What this shows is that calculation of climate is a difficult problem. It doesn’t show that scientists are incompetent or stupid. These are intelligent people doing the best they can on a difficult problem.
      The problem is an important one for humans to understand, because the stakes for the planet and civilization are so high.

      • The problem is an important one for humans to understand, because the stakes for the planet and civilization are so high.

        That’s right. There’s an “urgent need” to “do something about anthropogenic CO2” before everybody realizes that the problem is solving itself: the price of PV is coming down (exponentially) to the point it will be cheaper than fossil, no need for any big world-spanning bureaucracy with enforcement powers.

      • On the other hand, and to paraphrase Lindzen, if you cannot find it after all these years and billions in research then it probably is not there. That is, the climate need not be sensitive to CO2 levels. They never found phlogisten either.

      • Gad I hope that sensitivity is high enough to stave off the next ice age. But the higher the sensitivity the colder we would now be without man’s effect. Damn, chilled if we do and chilled if we don’t. Who will rid me of these troublesome choices?
        ==============

      • Heh, famous ‘who will rid me’ speeches of the past.
        ‘Who will rid me of this troublesome MWP?’
        H/t Deming Testimony.

      • eadler2 | January 4, 2015 at 11:18 am | Reply

        “What this shows is that calculation of climate is a difficult problem. It doesn’t show that scientists are incompetent or stupid.”

        NO progress narrowing down uncertainty in ECS range in 50+ years. That is indeed incompetent. The very definition of failure. The models developed from all this are getting everything wrong from too little Arctic warming to too much global warming. FAIL FAIL FAIL pack up your trash and go home, your’e fired.

        “These are intelligent people doing the best they can on a difficult problem.”

        And producing nothing practical just endless debate over non-falsifiable narratives. Just-so stories out the wazzoo.

        “The problem is an important one for humans to understand, because the stakes for the planet and civilization are so high.”

        Spare me the melodrama. There are a many looming catastrophes that are better understood, more immediate, and getting far less attention.

        A repeat of the 1859 Carrington Event (Coronal Mass Ejection) can fry the electrical grid on an entire continent causing potentially hundreds of millions of deaths because it would take years to repair. No one is stockpiling the critical large transformers that have manufacturing lead times of a year that get destroyed. Imagine no fuel for transportation, no electricity for water and sewer pumps, no electricity for hospitals, no electricity for refrigerators. Civilization would collapse in a matter of weeks.

        An asteroid could wipe out civilization like it did the dinosaurs. A supervolcano could blow its stack laying waste to millions and millions of square miles and plunging the earth into a global winter that lasts for decades.

        A virus could mutate into something that wipes out half of humanity like the black plague.

        Climate change is nothing to worry about in comparison. It’s all just a bunch of ideological junk science being leveraged for social engineering. Paul Erlich’s population bomb renamed and dressed in cheap suit. Pathetic really.

      • The full catastrophe.

      • eadler2,

        There is conflicting evidence about solar vs CO2 correlation with temperature. I’ve read many papers that show a closer correlation with solar than CO2. You state “Other effects such as solar radiation have been ruled out by measurements. By whom? You also state; “Many features of the predicted effect of CO2 on global temperature have been found … as well as the trend in temperature increases especially since 1975”.

        There is just as much of the trend in temperatures since 1975 following solar after all this occured during a solar maximum:

        Here is an article that suggests both are in play with CO2 less than commonly believed:

        http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK

        You can also read:

        New paper finds strong evidence the sun has controlled has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years not CO2.

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html

      • @ordvic | January 4, 2015 at 3:07 pm |
        eadler2,

        “There is conflicting evidence about solar vs CO2 correlation with temperature. I’ve read many papers that show a closer correlation with solar than CO2.”

        The paper from the Hockeysthick blog says that the analysis excludes the current industrial era. The 11,000 year period starts at the beginning of the Holocene period so, It also excludes the warming at the end of the last ice age, which was not triggered by solar irradiation but by Milankovich cycles involving earths orbital precession and axial tilt. To quote the abstract.

        “These results indicate that solar activity might have potential influences on the long-term change of Vostok’s local climate during the past 11,000 years before modern industry.”

        The paper you are quoting is irrelevant to the argument. Climate scientists are not claiming that CO2 was the dominant factor in the determination of climate in the period covered by the paper.

        Shaviv’s cosmic ray theories have been totally debunked, and the data in his orginal paper was manipulated to get agreement with his theory.

        http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/nope-cosmic-rays-still-not-driving-global-warming-continued/

    • Steven Mosher

      Epic Fail?

      history of the measurement of a simple constant. the speed of light

      1638 Galileo: at least 10 times faster than sound
      1675 Ole Roemer: 200,000 Km/sec
      1728 James Bradley: 301,000 Km/s
      1849 Hippolyte Louis Fizeau: 313,300 Km/s
      1862 Leon Foucault 299,796 Km/s
      Today: 299792.458 km/s

      Neutrino

      http://t2k-experiment.org/neutrinos/a-brief-history/

  62. For a reprint of an article coauthored by Plass on the earth’s climate, followed by a biography of Plass, which shows the significance of his contributions to climate science, check out this link. He did significant work which shattered some of the misconceptions about the IR spectrum of which made some scientists doubt that its concentration could have much effect on climate.

    http://afil.tamu.edu/Readings%202012/CO2%20and%20Climate.pdf

    • Plass wrote:

      “…the carbon dioxide theory is the only one that predicts a continually rising average temperature for the remainder of this century because of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of industrial activity. In fact the temperature rise from this cause may be so large in several centuries that it will present a serious problem to future generations. The removal of vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would be an extremely costly operation. If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise and in addition measurement also shows that the atmospheric carbon dioxide amount has also increased, then it will be firmly established that carbon dioxide is a determining factor in causing climatic change.”

      • I’ve long called this grand social delusion the greatest example yet of the ‘Post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ logical fallacy. Thank you, RGates for bringing a founding error to our attention.
        =============

      • The removal of vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would be an extremely costly operation.

        Argument by (questionable) assertion. Work is in progress…

      • True or false, and I don’t know which, this is the central dogma of climate science.

      • Well, AK, we suspect hydrogenating will be costly. Mebbe if we just called CO2 ‘unsaturated carbon’, and spread the word, extol its benefits, butter that bread on the only possible correct side.
        ======================

      • OK, OK, ‘dehydrogenated carbon’. Isn’t hydrogen some sort of man made pollution? Omigod, we’ve drowned the universe in it.
        ==============

      • Well, AK, we suspect hydrogenating will be costly.

        Plants do it for free. So do methanogens. If you have the hydrogen.

        As for ” removal of vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere”:

        There are several ways this can be done so its not pie in the skyism as some resident hopeless fear mongers presume. In fact, capture is part of IPCC projections at 2050. Depending on the technology you see costs that run less than a couple hundred dollars per ton, an effective cap on any carbon tax. Direct air capture is several hundred dollars per ton. Get that below 100 per ton, and game changed instantly. Lastly, Suggest carbon capture and folks who dont dare cross the thin greenline will flip out. That signals something about their real agenda. Its not about carbon.

        Per Steven Mosher

      • For free? Omigod, such ingratitude. Those hydrocarbon bonds were much too lovingly formed to throw away just for the energy within them. We need them for structure, to house and clothe humanity, and for boxes to store our stuff in.
        ==============

      • Scale Model WWII Craft Takes Flight With Fuel From the Sea Concept

        Using an innovative and proprietary NRL electrolytic cation exchange module (E-CEM), both dissolved and bound CO2 are removed from seawater at 92 percent efficiency by re-equilibrating carbonate and bicarbonate to CO2 and simultaneously producing H2.

        […]

        “In close collaboration with the Office of Naval Research P38 Naval Reserve program, NRL has developed a game changing technology for extracting, simultaneously, CO2 and H2 from seawater,” said Dr. Heather Willauer, NRL research chemist. “This is the first time technology of this nature has been demonstrated with the potential for transition, from the laboratory, to full-scale commercial implementation.”

        It’s been linked before, but…

      • I know that some day this might be a viable option to make jet fuel, but the current price is less than $2 per gallon. The only reason it might never be a viable option is that some other non-fossil fuel source for jet fuel could be found. It looks like a good idea, nonetheless.

        From the fuel article linked by AK:

        The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years. Pursuing remote land-based options would be the first step towards a future sea-based solution.

        Jet fuel futures:

        JAN 2015____1.6536
        FEB 2015____1.7272
        MAR 2015____1.7479
        APR 2015____1.7510

        http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/energy/refined-products/gulf-coast-jet-fuel-platts-calendar-swap.html

      • Here’s some commentary from John Morgan at Brave New Climate:

        Not everyone has the Navy’s interest in manufacturing at sea. What if the process were operated from a land based site? The largest capital component in the Navy costing is the floating platform, which adds a huge $650m to a 200 MWe power plant. If the platform cost were taken out, the fuel cost drops to a bargain basement $0.79 per litre, and the carbon capture cost drops to $37 per tonne!

        […]

        Table 1 shows synfuel and carbon capture costs for median and low end electricity costs for established nuclear power, and for the low end of current Chinese nuclear builds. The cheapest Chinese cost gives synfuel at just $0.82 per litre, and carbon capture at just $39 per tonne.

        […]

        There is substantial equilibration between ocean and air on a timeframe short enough to be relevant to climate. There is a complicated tradeoff between marine and climate impacts of CO2 emissions, but it appears carbon capture from either reservoir would be beneficial.

        Something to keep in mind is that the intermittency of solar PV, as well as its DC output (probably, IMO) become non-problems for extracting both hydrogen and CO2 from the sea.

        Given the exponential cost reductions for solar PV, and assuming “learning curve” cost reductions for the capital expense, this is something that really ought to cause “folks who dont dare cross the thin greenline” to “flip out.”

      • Kim,
        Where do you get the idea that Plass made a logical error? His theory predicts a temperature increase due to CO2. He developed the theory on the basis of more accurate measurements of the absorption spectrum of GHGs. He produced the theory at a time before there was a systematic collection of global temperature records. No scientific theory can be proven totally logically. Any scientist knows that.

        The words firmly established mean confirmed by multiple sources of data. In fact this has happened. Many features of the predicted effects of CO2 on global temperatures have been found, including characteristics of outgoing radiation measured by satellites, increase in height of the tropopause, as well as the trend for temperature increase especially since 1975. Other effects such as solar irradiance have been ruled out by measurements.

      • You’ve barged into the wrong subthread here, eadler2, but ‘temperature rise after CO2 rise, therefore because of CO2 rise’ is the construction. We’re both commenting from elsewhere where I show that Plass misapplied ‘Post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ to make it fallacious with respect to attribution of causation of temperature rise, a founding error in climate science that RGates was gracious enough to point us toward.

        This is plain, eadler2. I’m shocked that such logic is going on around here.
        ==========

      • OK, right subthread. The problem, still unsolved, which seems to be such a mystery to you, is of attribution.

        Think too, how cold we’d be without man if attribution to man is high.
        =====================

      • @Kim,
        “You’ve barged into the wrong subthread here, eadler2, but ‘temperature rise after CO2 rise, therefore because of CO2 rise’ is the construction. We’re both commenting from elsewhere where I show that Plass misapplied ‘Post hoc, ergo propter hoc’ to make it fallacious with respect to attribution of causation of temperature rise, a founding error in climate science that RGates was gracious enough to point us toward.”

        You are repeating the point that you made regarding Plass’ statement, but you didn’t acknowledge the point that I made in opposition to your claim that Plass committed a logical fallacy. I will repeat it here.

        Plass had predicted the increase in temperature with increasing CO2 based on his calculations involving IR absorption spectra of CO2 and H2O. In effect what he was saying is that a rise in CO2 would confirm the theory that he had calculated independent of any observed rise in temperature. Looking at the article he wrote, it is clear that he was not simply advising people to attribute a cause and effect solely to the correlation between CO2 and temperature rises. People would see that his theoretical predictions were confirmed giving his theory credence. That is how science progresses. This process is not a logical fallacy.

      • Sure, only fallacious if not causative as apparent. We are arguing about causation, which is unknown. Plass’s proof is worth the circular word it is printed upon.

        Always the same question, the same question; ignorant or disingenuous? But if ignorant, why so persistent?
        =========

  63. It strikes me that most of the folks here know a lot about science but very little about politics. The statement “I am not a scientist” is simply a way to avoid being dragged into a technical debate the speaker cannot do well in. It is a variant of “no comment.” This is necessary because, unlike you and me, the politician has enemies (plus the press) who are actively looking for ways to make him or her look bad.

    More broadly, thinking that all politicians are dishonest is like thinking that all scientists are insane. Both ways of thinking are common, and wrong.

  64. JC SNIP

    Vaughan Pratt | January 4, 2015 at 8:34 am |

    “The term CAGW is a straw man invented by those protesting the conclusions of climate science. It cannot be found anywhere in the climate science literature unless you count literature protesting its conclusions.

    The only possible “catastrophe” mentioned by the IPCC is that associated with methane, which they assess as highly unlikely.”

    ————————————————————————-

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch2s2-2-4.html

    2.2.4 Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change

    The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change, with potentially catastrophic consequences, cannot be ruled out (Meehl et al., 2007). Disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (See Meehl et al., 2007), if it occurred, could raise sea level by 4-6 metres over several centuries. A shutdown of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (See Meehl et al., 2007) could have far-reaching, adverse ecological and agricultural consequences (See IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 17), although some studies raise the possibility that the isolated, economic costs of this event might not be as high as assumed (See Meehl et al., 2007). Increases in the frequency of droughts (Salinger, 2005) or a higher intensity of tropical cyclones (See Meehl et al., 2007) could occur. Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans (See Meehl et al., 2007), which would add to the mitigation required.

    JC SNIP

    • Ignorant or disingenuous, it’s always the same question, the same question.
      ============

    • The fact is that the IPCC report uses the words “possibility …cannot be ruled out”, to characterize the catastrophic events that would occur. In the case of the ice sheet melting which has actually started, the sea level rise will take centuries.

      In the case of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation Overturning, there is evidence that it happened during the famous Younger Dryas period.
      http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Thermohaline+circulation

      It may be your judgement that these events are impossible, rather than a “possibility that cannot be ruled out”. The scientific literature says otherwise.

      • > In the case of the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation Overturning, there is evidence that it happened during the famous Younger Dryas period

        Ah yes, that period well-known for the huge increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions

        Lake Agassiz became unblocked by ice as it melted coming out of a glacial epoch [with the freshwater lowering the salinity of the northern Atlantic, so the hypothesis goes]

        The planet is currently in an inter-glacial epoch. A Lake Agassiz event does not have the necessary pre-conditions, in fact 180o from it. A Lake Agassiz does not currently exist – you may speculate that a melted Greenland ice sheet will serve the purpose … perhaps so, but over many millennia during which no conditions will remain unchanged

        Kim is right, you are just arguing with circularity. And I know from long experience that I shouldn’t bother here as it will make no difference

    • Certainly the climate mitigation literature speaks in terms of catastrophes (or used to — you had to go back to AR4 for an example). After all it’s what motivates mitigation in the first place.

      However climate mitigation is not climate science, any more than mechanical engineering is physics. Climate mitigation is an engineering subject motivated by real or imagined catastrophes. You won’t find anything about possible future catastrophic climate change in the IPCC’s science literature, neither AR5 nor AR4, other than a brief dismissal of it in AR4 (in connection with a possible MOC shutdown) as “mere speculation”. (I didn’t check AR3 and earlier.)

      But I see I should have said explicitly that I was referring to the climate science portion of the IPCC report, namely WG-I. I would only pay attention to WG-III if it had something to contribute to climate science beyond what’s in WG-I.

      • What’s the motivation for your interest in climate science, doc? Would you be here, if you didn’t believe there is some need for mitigation? Would climate science be at all interesting, if not for the alleged potential for human caused catastrophe? Were you just passing by and decided to drop in to see what’s going on?

      • None of the above, Don. My training was in physics (which included a little material on the greenhouse effect as standardly understood), and logics both standard and nonstandard was a big part of my career. Climate skepticism stresses the standard logic of global warming. I want to see where that sort of stress can reliably take the reasoning underlying climate science: what are the best arguments on each side (of possibly many sides), what are their weak points, and so on.

        Blogs like CE are a good place to explore this interactively. Blogs like RC and OM avoid such stress like the plague and are therefore useless for this purpose. ATTP is more open to stress but hasn’t attracted a critical mass of skeptics so far, perhaps because they find it a more hostile environment than CE. The density of physics-related material is too low on CA for this purpose, and besides what does SM know about radiation physics compared with JC’s decades of professional experience? AW runs a commendably tight ship on WUWT but is as wedded to his viewpoint as the proprietors of RC, OM, and ATTP are to theirs, whereas Judy occupies a more middle ground.

        I find it all very fascinating, as well as educational.

        Would you be here, if you didn’t believe there is some need for mitigation?

        Mitigation involves engineering and economics, neither of which (save for low-power electrical engineering) I have any ability for or understanding of. I would be spinning my wheels addressing mitigation issues, which I’m more than happy to leave to others. But I’m interested in their conclusions and how they arrived at them.

        Would climate science be at all interesting, if not for the alleged potential for human caused catastrophe?

        Would Formula 1 racing be at all interesting, if not for the chance to witness a spectacular wipeout? (Don’t answer that.)

      • @Pratt

        http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/UNEP_Opening_Statement.pdf

        AR5 provides conclusive scientific evidence that human activities continue to cause unprecedented
        changes in the Earth’s climate with the conclusion that we need to elevate the level of political
        commitment and action if we are to efficiently manage the catastrophic impacts of climate change.

      • Vaughan Pratt | January 4, 2015 at 8:34 am |

        The term CAGW is a straw man invented by those protesting the conclusions of climate science. It cannot be found anywhere in the climate science literature unless you count literature protesting its conclusions.

        The only possible “catastrophe” mentioned by the IPCC is that associated with methane, which they assess as highly unlikely.

        I agree it’s invented but you got the rest of it wrong.

      • A “statement” might not be what Vaughan had in mind when he was speaking of “climate science literature,” Big Dave.

      • Thanks for participating, doc. You are a scholar, a gentleman, and a good sport.

        I find the case for CO2 causing up to 1.5C of warming, without feedbacks, to be believable. The multiplication by the strongly positive water vapor feedback not believable. What can you tell us about the alleged positive water vapor feedback, doc?

      • @DinTX (quoting from a speech): we need to elevate the level of political commitment and action if we are to efficiently manage the catastrophic impacts of climate change.

        See you later, mitigator.

        David, you seem to be grasping at straws. Your proposed instance of climate science literature is a speech by an unnamed representative of the UN Environment Program addressing the opening of an IPCC session on October 27, 2015 [sic]. His or her call to action to “efficiently manage the catastrophic impacts of climate change” is a concern of climate mitigation, not climate science.

        I agree it’s invented but you got the rest of it wrong.

        As I said, I should have been more explicit that I was referring to the climate science literature when I mentioned the IPCC report, namely science (WG-I), not mitigation (WG-III). Evidently I put too much reliance on the context set by my previous paragraph.

      • @DM: I find the case for CO2 causing up to 1.5C of warming, without feedbacks, to be believable. The multiplication by the strongly positive water vapor feedback not believable. What can you tell us about the alleged positive water vapor feedback, doc?

        Thanks for the support, Don. To be honest I don’t yet have a quantitative understanding myself of how the labour of global warming is divided up between no-feedback CO2 and the various feedbacks, though it’s on my agenda to explore this at the level of detail you’ve seen me using with other questions..

        In the meantime I look for explanations of the past 165 years of global temperature that take into account the physics of such phenomena as solar cycles, rising CO2, fluctuations in length of day (LoD), geomagnetic secular variation (GSV), heat capacity of the oceanic mixed layer (OML), and heat transport mechanisms into and back out of the deep ocean. I addressed some of these at the 2013 and 2014 AGU Fall Meetings, in respectively oral and poster sessions, and am continuing to work on them. More later, sorry not to be more informative just now.

      • Vaughan, i missed your 2014 AGU contribution. Any interest in a guest post?

      • To be honest, others also ‘don’t have a quantitative
        understanding of how the labour of global warming
        is divided up between no feedback -CO2 the various
        feedbacks,’ though the process and guvuhmint policies
        ensuing have cost the cits (and serfs) HEAPS.

      • Vaughan

        Hope to catch up with you down here as the reply button to your other comment seems to be located about 300 miles north.

        The Chart that Captain posted, Extended CET to 1538 and the borehole data all point to temperatures rising for the last 300 to 400 years.

        I contacted the author of the Michigan paper some months ago and he agrees that anything prior to 1600 has resolution problems and modern data can not yet be accurately calculated.

        My point was that Dr Mann’s material shows a decline over that period then a sharp uptick in 1900.

        The evidence however shows a steady upwards trend to temperature for hundreds of years.

        At some point prior to that the curve would show a downward trend which I would put at around the 13th century (briefly) and in turn there was an upwards trends starting around the 9th Century.

        Do you agree the Cet and proxy evidence shows this long slow thaw from the 17th century which really needs explaining before we attribute the very recent warming to man?
        tonyb

      • Beththeserf,

        I’ll help out by adding an estimate to what HEPS actually means in Australia
        (Note this was written before the repeal of the carbon tax and ETS legislation, but many of the costs remain).
        • ETS = $1,345 billion to 2050
        • RET = $30 billion to 2020

        What would [carbon pricing] cost every Australian?

        According to Treasury estimates, the ETS would cost Australia $1,345 billion dollars in total to 2050 [Henry Ergas[i], Gary Johns[ii], Treasury, Chart 5:13[iii], ‘Medium global action‘ minus ‘SGLP core’ ].

        That is $58,000 for every person living in Australia now (assuming 23 million population). This is what it will cost if we pay at current prices in installments over the 37 years to 2050. However, the discounted cost – i.e., for those who choose to pay a lump sum up front and ‘no more to pay’ (assuming no more changes to the rules) – is $17,000 per person (or $68,000 for a family of four). In return for this up-front payment you hope to get $5,400 per person of benefits, as climate damages avoided, over the period to 2050.

        How many are prepared to pay $17,000 per person as a lump sum now, or prepared to pay $58,000 over 37 years, in the hope of gaining an intangible benefit of $5,400 in ‘reduced climate damages’ over the next 37 years?

        But the ETS is just part of the cost we are committed to pay to reduce ‘carbon pollution’. Another is the Renewable Energy Target.
        http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/in-the-next-37-years-labor-will-spend-60000-per-australian-to-change-the-weather/

      • Thx Peter fer yr costs accounting, a horror story, the
        tangible costs of stupid policies. And then there’s the
        intangibles, impossible ter measure,opportunities
        squandered fer nought. Back ter serfdom we go. (
        bts

      • Putting aside the real and current energy wars – commercial, cool and hot – which are shifting interests and alliances all over, can anyone imagine that a general stifling of industry and transport in the developed West will create a neat drop in the supposed global thermometer, as if the planet behaves like a glass receptacle in Arrhenius’ lab?

        Think things are as neat as that in the real world? Pretend for a moment that the claims of people like Oreskes are true. (Only a moment now!) Coal/uranium/bauxite rich Australia can’t afford to run an aluminium smelter, but it can still have massive wildfires through under-resourcing and still waste mountains of coal by failing to maintain, improve and modernise its fossil fuel power (on which it will continue to depend absolutely). You can achieve lots of emissions with poverty and de-industrialisation. You just stop counting ’em, that’s all.

        I’m sure the Great Depression caused a lot of emissions to drop and even stop. How did that go? The only good thing for Australia in the aftermath was that a World War took our minds off the crippling mid-century drought.

        The reason to save emissions is THRIFT (a virtue), not control of climate (a racket as old as the tribe and shaman). The way to save emissions is conserve, maintain, modernise. And make real dough! Our Green Betters are heading us into waste, mess…and a renewed exposure to the worst of geopolitics.

      • @Willard

        Vaughn clearly believes the science says catastrophe is unlikely. Therefore agencies very closely related to the science are lying about what the science says.

        @Vaughn

        As a scientist how do you feel about the fact that people in highly public places such as the opening speech by the UN Environmental Program at the Copenhagen Climate Conference are lying about what the science says? You don’t come off as remorseful. In fact you seem to be blissfully unmoved by the lies and in my opinion it’s because the lies are convenient props for the typical left coast liberal agenda you share with Stanford peers epitomized by characters like the late Stephen Schneider,

      • > The Chart that Captain posted, Extended CET to 1538

        Has it extended Central England beyond 21 by 34 miles, tonyb?

        Cf.

      • @DinTX: Vaughn clearly believes the science says catastrophe is unlikely.

        That’s ridiculous. I believe no such thing.

      • Willard

        A happy new year to you.

        Sorry, but I don’t know the context of that tweet.

        CET is derived from a very much larger area than quoted.

        http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf

        It is also said by many to be a good proxy for a much large geographic area. This includes the Dutch and uk met offices, mike Hulme, lamb, bliss and others.

        Tonyb

      • Pshaw, tonyb, the trunk of one tree in Yamal has bigger dimensions than that.
        =============

      • @tonyb: Do you agree the Cet and proxy evidence shows this long slow thaw from the 17th century which really needs explaining before we attribute the very recent warming to man?

        CET is a superposition of global and regional (CE) temperatures. Since a large proportion of the industrial warming of the 17th century was concentrated in Central England, one should expect a disproportionally high temperature in that region relative to the rest of the world. Hence the onset of industrial warming should be visible earlier here than for the world as a whole.

        Oppo 2009: Another series with a strongly regional component, in this case the neighborhood of the Java Sea. This region is separated from the tropical Pacific by a shallow shelf acting like a swimming pool skimmer, making it hard to estimate the size of the region of influence on the two places from which came the sediment cores on which the reconstruction was based.

        How good is the correlation with CET (which starts in 1659)?

      • Vaughan

        England had a population of 5 million in 1650 of which some 2 million lived in central England. I hardly think they would have made a material difference to industrial warming. If they did, modern day uhi explains all the warmth we can currently observe

        I can’t find the oppo 2009 graph again Can you locate it?

        Tonyb

      • Vaughan Pratt, “How good is the correlation with CET (which starts in 1659)?”

        That is an interesting problem. Since the Oppo 2009 reconstruction has uncertain natural smoothing, its correlation with CET and BEST is difficult to determine. The region where Oppo 2009 was sampled has a high correlation with “global” surface temperature, ~75% and and excellent correlation with global SST, ~90%.

        I did a “scaled” comparision of GMSL, CET, BEST, the Indian Ocean and 0-700 meter OHC. BEST and CET required scaling since land warming rates are higher than ocean warming rates. While the utility of scaling can be questioned, atmospheric forcing “over-riding natural forcing” circa 1950 should stand out I would think.

        If you just compare the 0-700 meter vertical temperature anomaly to Oppo 2009, the rate of ocean heat uptake is consistent with warming starting in 1700AD.

        If you try to average or smooth instrumental to determine a correlation, you pretty much won’t have many statisticians backing you up. You are kind of stuck with eyeballing and physics. How fast do you think the oceans can warm?

      • One doubts that smelting in Coalbrookdale and subsequent industrial developments in England’s North could explain much about the CET, or about anybody’s climate. It’s like the yarn about re-forestation of Europe post Black Death bringing on the LIA. Sounds okay in a pinch, but really, it’s comic book stuff.

      • Captain

        Slap the borehole data over that and they could be temperature triplets marching upwards in lockstep from 1650 . Giss and Hadley do not record the start of the Centuries long warming but merely the later stages of it.

        Tonyb

      • tonyb, I know, but there is a lot of less than stellar paleo in “peer reviewed” literature. You need a convert. Some one in the crowd to grow a pair and say wattsup.

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @tonyb: England had a population of 5 million in 1650 of which some 2 million lived in central England. I hardly think they would have made a material difference to industrial warming.

        1. I’m not suggesting England’s 18th century produced a significant amount of CO2, which as a well-mixed gas should have rapidly dispersed.

        What seems more likely to me is that it produced a significant amount of black carbon during the 18th century. By the early 19th century this had become a major concern in England, as the cause of pea-soup fog. The lead-up to that throughout the 18th century could easily account for the rising CET during that period.

        2. The appropriate population count is not that of central England, assuming those are the producers, but of their consumers, which could easily be an order of magnitude more. One producer serving ten consumers will emit a disproportionate share of industrial aerosols.

        If they did, modern day uhi explains all the warmth we can currently observe.

        Excellent point. I would answer this by asking whether 17th century temperature observers were as alert to this concern as present-day observers.

        I can’t find the oppo 2009 graph again Can you locate it?

        It’s Figures 3 (a) and (b) of Oppo 2009. If you encounter a paywall you can extract the graph from the thin blue line here.

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @cd: The region where Oppo 2009 was sampled has a high correlation with “global” surface temperature

        Very interesting. Can you elaborate? (I have no idea how to verify this.)

      • Vaughan

        CET has a high degree of corroboration with global or at least NH temperatures which is why I concentrate on it and find it useful (I have referenced the many scientists/organisations who confirm this many times)

        CET plus the warm pool, plus bore holes, (plus BEST as far as it goes) all show a 300 year plus warming.

        You seem to have switched from a focus on the 17th century to one on the 18th. The argument you are pursuing is a bit of a red herring as either it confirms the possibility of UHI even through small numbers of population or the possibility that black carbon is a hugely important source of melting/pollution/temperature change

        tonyb

      • Vaughan, Pratt, “Very interesting. Can you elaborate? (I have no idea how to verify this.).”

        I just did a spreadsheet correlation of the region with the global temperature records, no lags. There are quite a few papers that discuss regional teleconnection to climate. In fact, Oppo 2009 discuss the important of the region in that respect.

        The correlation with land only temperature is less obvious due to the amplification of both global and regional “noise”.

      • > It is also said by many to be a good proxy for a much large geographic area.

        Thanks, Tony. How many 21 x 34 miles would that much larger area be?

        The context of the tweet is the usual one: people arguing that Lamb’s London proxies and temps indicate a global MWP. The graph that Edward Wegman, under oath, said to be a cartoon.

      • Willard, “The context of the tweet is the usual one: people arguing that Lamb’s London proxies and temps indicate a global MWP. The graph that Edward Wegman, under oath, said to be a cartoon.”

        Apples and oranges Williard. Wegman was providing a critique of Mann’s method not trying to reconstruct climate. Lamb was using very limited data to produce a very limited reconstruction of climate.

        That chart compares Lamb’s attempt to the Oppo et al 2009 attempt where Oppo is using the Indo-pacific Warm Pool because of that regions high correlation to global climate. CET because of a strong marine influence also has a relatively high correlation to Northern Hemisphere climate and due to industrialization would likely have a high correlation to anthropogenic climate impacts. A thermometer in less that one square foot of space can represent 100s of kilometers of “climate” and a single paleo reconstruction from a 3″ diameter hole in the ocean floor may represent the climate of the entire globe The twitter source you cite obviously has limited understanding of the issues.

        Ever think of possibly stepping up your game?

      • Moderation? Cool! I wasn’t even half as sarcastic as I could have been :)

      • Carbon black warmed England how? Was it with the fog or the melting ice?
        ==========

      • Willard

        I set out the CET area and the various scientists who believe CET to be a good but not perfect proxy for NH and Global temperatures here

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

        The area is roughly triangular with a height of 250 miles and a width of 110 miles. The Met office The Dutch Met Office, Mike Hulme and a variety of other scientists all believe there to be this correlation

        In this article I also examined Lambs graphs in some detail. Cartoon? In the respect that they are not computer generated or as sophisticated as modern ones. I think his representation of the warmth around 1500 is understated and being a representation it doesn’t show the variability.
        I see one of the tweeters was the guy who runs desmogblog and the other was John Mashey.

        tonyb

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @cd: How fast do you think the oceans can warm?

        That is an interesting problem, capn. ;)

        Over the past couple of weeks I’ve been doing some naive modeling of ocean warming, on the premise that the benefits of more sophisticated modeling are offset by the uncertainties of the additional parameters whose estimation rests on an elephant resting on an elephant resting …

      • Vaughan Pratt

        @cd: I did a “scaled” comparision of GMSL, CET, BEST, the Indian Ocean and 0-700 meter OHC. BEST and CET required scaling since land warming rates are higher than ocean warming rates. While the utility of scaling can be questioned, atmospheric forcing “over-riding natural forcing” circa 1950 should stand out I would think.

        Spot on, capn.

        Those who consider pre-1950 natural forcing to be atmospheric (radiative) forcing attributable to volcanism (the “rad pack”) would be puzzled by your “over-riding”. Those who consider it to be internal forcing of some kind such as NOA whiplash (the “int kids”) would be just fine with it. (Full disclosure: I’m an int kid who rejects the whiplash theory.)

        I ran into a member of the rad pack while walking AGU’s endless poster alleys at their fall meeting last month. I’d forgotten just how wedded to the volcanism theory some people can get when they’ve never been shown a plausible alternative.

      • > Cartoon?

        There are 18 occurences of that word in the transcript of the Barton Hearings. Here’s the first hit, in context:

        MR. STUPAK. Well, then you must have at least discussed this temperature profile.

        DR. WEGMAN. The temperature profile that was published in 1990 I believe was related to the European temperatures and was a cartoon–essentially a cartoon. […]

        MR. STUPAK. Were you endorsing 1300 as being a real high temperature time? Were you endorsing it in your report?

        DR. WEGMAN. No, we have not said that.

        MR. STUPAK. What was the 1990 IPCC temperature profile based on? Basically what was this based on? You are a statistician.

        DR. WEGMAN. This–

        MR. STUPAK. Was this based on data?

        DR. WEGMAN. As I just said moments ago, this was a cartoon I believe that was supposed to be representing a consensus opinion of what global temperature was like in 1990 as published by the IPCC.

        MR. STUPAK. Well, is this cartoon then–again, I am on page 34, I am reading now from your report, discussion you have underneath this cartoon. Last line: “The 1990 report was not predicated on global warming scenario. It is clear at least in 1990 the medieval warm period was thought to have temperatures considerably warmer than the present era.” Is that your discussion?

        DR. WEGMAN. Yes.

        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm

        As you can see, DR. WEGMAN referred to a “cartoon” and said that it represented “European” temperatures. The storification of this “cartoon” persisted a bit more duringthe Deming Affair.

        Thank you for clarifying that we’re speaking of a triangular area “with a height of 250 miles and a width of 110 miles.”

        ***

        Which apples and which oranges, Cap’n?

      • Sorry Willard but I think we may have different definitions of the word cartoon in this context

        http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cartoon

        I was meaning ref 12 in as much it was a simplified version, that was Also of its time.

        Yes I agree, having around three different temperature points in a fairly large geographical area is better than a single location, especially when it is On an island that many scientists believe is something of a weather vane for a much wider region because of its geographical position

        Tonyb

      • > I think we may have different definitions of the word cartoon in this context.

        By “we,” you mean DR. WEGMAN, MR. STUPAK, and other people in the Barton Hearings, TonyB. For instance:

        MS. SCHAKOWSKY. And you talked about the cartoon that was in the Wall Street Journal article and then my understanding that the graph or whatever you call this, this drawing that it in your report, is it not true that it ends in 1975?

        DR. WEGMAN. I think that is approximately accurate. But again, I–this also appears in the National Academy report as well as the Wall Street Journal. I did not have the original data for that cartoon, for that graph, and so I had no way of knowing what the full range of the time frame was for that.

        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm

        Not sure to which WSJ article or editorial it refers.

        I like this idea that a cartoon can be “approximately accurate.” Do you?

      • Willard

        I am not sure I understand your point. lamb himself said that with regards to historic temperature reconstructions you can understand the tendency but not the precision. So approximately accurate is the best that can be done and that may be stretching a point at times, for example, as I mentioned, I don’t think lamb had sufficient information to recognise the likely warmth in the first half of the 16 th century or felt unable to represent it with the tools he had available.

        We have come to something when highly controversial interpretations of complex statistical analysis of such novel proxies as tree rings are believed by some to show highly accurate representations of Northern hemisphere or global climate, esciecially as the techniques used removed the annual and decadal variability that was apparent in my article I referenced earlier.

        I am sure you don’t believe that Dr Mann’s representations are a highly accurate annual picture of some sort of global or NH climate stretching back 1000 years.

        Tonyb

      • My point was that “approximately accurate” looks like an oxymoron, TonyB.

        Here’s another hit for “cartoon”:

        The scientific debate over the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) has been on the same trajectory for at least 20 years, with early indications that the MWP was not a globally coherent event becoming more solid over time. The MBH99 reconstruction represented an evolutionary step-not a revolutionary change-in this established trajectory. The 1990 IPCC figure that Mr. McIntyre, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and Dr. Wegman have used in their own assessment of past climate is a cartoon, as stated by Dr. Wegman in his testimony last week. I have confirmed this with a number of individuals who were involved with the 1990 IPCC report or with versions of the schematic that pre-dated the 1990 IPCC report. The schematic is not a plot of data and is inappropriate as a comparison to MBH. The text of the 1990 IPCC report clearly states that the figure is a “schematic diagram” and that “it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global” (p. 202). Furthermore, only three sources of information were cited and those sources conflicted on whether the Northern Hemisphere was warm or cold: “The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries… appear to have been exceptionally warm in parts of western Europe, Iceland and Greenland… China was, however, cold at this time, but South Japan was warm…” Clearly, this report certainly did not paint a picture of any consensus regarding a Medieval Warm Period as a hemisphere-wide phenomenon and characterizing it as such reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of climate science.

        http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm

        This is the kind of paragraph that the promotion of Lamb’s work is countering, I submit. In fact, I do think that most of your work over the years fits into this story. Why else would you glorify the accuracy of the farmers’ description as an “approximatively accurate” proxy for going back beyond the instruments measures?

      • Willard

        You said

        ‘Why else would you glorify the accuracy of the farmers’ description as an “approximately accurate” proxy for going back beyond the instruments measures?’

        I fear you have lost me with your references to glorifying and farmers.

        Various people attempt reconstructions. Lamb, amongst others, used a variety of sources from observations, diaries, manorial accounts, crop prices and yields. I have seen some of his work as I have tried to follow the climate of historic times. He consulted very widely with scientists and organisations all over the world. I therefore do not understand an earlier reference to London proxies.

        His work can be no more than approximately correct in as much the trends he has shown appear to be reasonable, but the fine detail is missing as would be expected from a cartoon in the sense that I referenced it i.e it is simplified.. Over the years others have added to the volume of knowledge we have and I try to utilise that whilst finding my own original or little known or forgotten sources.

        I think an over reliance on the science of tree rings and an expectation that they and other novel proxies can produce a highly accurate representation of a ‘global’ climate is mistaken. That they need to be statistically manipulated in ways that are controversial means I prefer to rely primarily on the other sources we have, that you will no doubt term anecdotal. But by using the formula used by such as Van engelen and Buisman they can be turned into temperature ranges that have a value.

        Phil jones utilised this formula in his book ‘history and climate.’ He also said in his 2006 paper-referring to the very warm decade of the 1730’s- that natural variability was much greater than he had hitherto realised.

        I think my main concern with many reconstructions is that they don’t reflect natural variability that is apparent in decal and annual records but doesn’t appear to the same extent in 50 year smoothed novel proxies.

        tonyb

  65. What can I say. Judy is a luke-warmist but with this exception she is a rational and independent thinker. For me the biggest climate problem is official approval of pseudo-science. By a political maneuver the activists have managed to designate carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is an insane move, lifting pseudo-science above science with a legal trick. Acting on it means acting contrary to laws of nature, on the basis of faith alone. That scientific-sounding talk you hear from them is called pseudo-science, not science. Any “scientific advisers” who supported this move are pseudo-scientists, not scientists, and should not be working for the United States government, but they are. The ultimate aim of this warmist faith is elimination of the burning of fossil fuels which generates that carbon dioxide they malign. And they absolutely don’t care if that destroys the material basis of our civilized life. In the service of this faith our government lies to our people about the facts of warming. One of their devices is to calculate how much global temperature will rise when the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is doubled. It is measured in degrees Celsius and is called sensitivity. Politicians have decided that if sensitivity goes higher than 2 degrees Celsius global warming is dangerous. The first person to calculate this doubling effect was Svante Arrhenius. In 1896 he determined that doubling CO2 will raise global temperature by 5 degrees Celsius. It was later recalculated using modern day parameters, and this brought it down to 1.1 degrees Celsius. Since that is less than two degre limit it was not dangerous. What was done to create dangerous warming was to bring in water vapor, another greenhouse gas, as a CO2 helper. It works like this. First, carbon dioxide warms the air. Warm air can hold more water vapor than cold air does. And the additional absorption from the increase of water vapor content can double or even triple the basic Arrhenius warming. This device brings the doubling effect up above 2 degrees Celsius and justifies the anti-pollution measures they want. It served its political purpose well until nature just put a stop to it. All global warming simply came to a halt and there has been none for the last 18 years. If you are a scientist and your theory predicts warming but you get nothing for 18 years in a row you know that this theory has failed and belongs in the waste basket of history. Worse yet is the fact that atmospheric carbon dioxide kept increasing all this time without being able to cause warming as their theory requires. This is not just an instrumental problem but a complete failure of the scientific case for greenhouse warming. It is an observation of nature telling us that the greenhouse effect does not exist. The Arrhenius theory that predicts warming is just completely wrong. The only greenhouse theory that does explain it is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. According to MGT water vapor and carbon dioxide form a joint optimum absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR, just as Arrhenius says. But this will increase the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness ia restored. This is a complete reversal of their claim that water vapor increases warming. The introduced carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming is possible. And that explains is why increasing carbon dioxide has been unable to cause warming for the last 18 years. Where does CO2 sensitivity fit into this scheme? It is defined as the warming observed upon doubling of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. According to the Miskolczi theory doubling of carbon dioxide content does not cause any warming of the atmosphere. Hence, the true value of CO2 sensitivity is zero (0). There is no such thing as greenhoyse warming. But the entire enterprise of global warming is built upon the existence of the greenhouse warming that does not exist in nature. More specifically, that greenhouse warming in turn is supposed to be the cause of the alleged anthropogenic global warming or AGW. But since the greenhouse warming does not exist, AGW likewise does not exist. Furthermore, since it does not exist the huge sums spent trying stop CO2 from causing it are a total waste of taxpayers money. All these projects must be defunded and all organizations put in charge of them shut down. This includes IPCC as well as national organizations working in parallel with it. They were all established fraudulently with pseudo-scientific arguments cooked up by activists.

    • Arno Arrak,
      The scientific part of your post is quackery, especially when you invoke Miskolczi.

      • “For me the biggest climate problem is official approval of pseudo-science. By a political maneuver the activists have managed to designate carbon dioxide a pollutant. It is an insane move, lifting pseudo-science above science with a legal trick. Acting on it means acting contrary to laws of nature, on the basis of faith alone.” Amen.

      • Ferenc Miskolczi, (CV http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/attachment.php?aid=123) is a theoretical astrophyscist, with two PhDs one in physics and another in earth science. The work in question was published in Energy & Environment.

        I find it laughable that a little anonymous Skeptical Science quoting parrot like eadler2 would call someone else a quack, call Energy & Environment a publisher of quack science, and the referees by extension quacks or incompetents.

        FYI eadler the alleged TOA imbalance is so small, if there’s any imbalance at all, that Ferenc’s saturated greenhouse hypothesis is supported by data as well as anything else.

        LOL

      • I’ve spotted the new Miskolczi paper, denizens pls let me know if you would like a discussion thread on this

      • If Miscolzi is right it would explain a lot. Now, could we tolerate the desiccation of the atmosphere?

        There’s no evidence to the contrary that can’t be masked by the wondrous molecule, H2O, multiphasic as she be.
        ==================

      • Judith

        the previous paper was rubbished by alarmists because of an alleged mathematical error. I for one would appreciate the opportunity to take another look. The guy turned up here a year or so again so might be persuaded to participate.

        tonyb

      • Perhaps this is why plants need less water with higher CO2. That antique old biome has had time to adapt this adaptation. Dontcha love teleology or whatever it is?
        ===========

      • If Miskolczi was wrong it would explain a lot too.

      • nottawa rafter

        I would welcome all ideas even if they go against orthodoxy. I have heard derogatory comments about very impressive scientists for years all because they were not part of the consensus.

      • There is not as much power in a wrong explanation as in a right one. Is that trite enough for your kindergarten, willard?
        ===========

      • Looks like there was spirited discussion of the 2010 paper on Roy Spencer’s blog. It would be interesting to see discussion of the 2014 paper.

      • http://www.seipub.org/des/

        Note that the Miskolzci paper is the most downloaded paper (864 downloads) at Development in Earth Sciences. I’m not sure what that means, but it is interesting.

      • It would be a good thing to have Miskolczi’s latest paper as a topic for a future post. I found the paper quite technical to read and would appreciate your thoughts and those of both sides of the AGW debate.

        JustinW has posted the link above in this subthread.

      • Post on this coming tomorrow

      • Whoa, quick work Judy. I’m gonna have to update my old couplet about Delta Tau.
        ==========

      • Bottom line from this Miskoczi paper
        “In our view the greenhouse phenomenon, as it was
        postulated by J. Fourier (1824), estimated by S.
        Arrhenius (1906), first quantified by S. Manabe and R.
        Wetherald (1967), explained by R. Lindzen (2007), and
        endorsed by the National Academy of Science and the
        Royal Society (2014), simple does not exist.”
        Let’s just say – interesting.

      • Ferenc Miskolczi Born in Budapest,Hungary in 1947. At the Eötvös Loránd
        University, Budapest, he earned an MS degree in nuclear physics (1971), and a PhD degree in astrophysics (1975). At the Hungarian Academy of Sciences he earned another PhD in Earth Sciences (1981). He also holds a diploma in high-level computer programming.
        He specialized in the experimental and theoretical aspects of
        infrared atmospheric radiative transfer. During the 80s, and
        90s, he taught and did research at several universities. Before
        his international career, he was the head of the Department
        of Atmospheric Radiation at the Institute of Atmospheric
        Physics, Budapest (Hungary). He was a research associate in
        the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste
        (Italy), a research scientist of the University of Maryland
        (USA), BSRN Staion Scientist in Ilorin (Nigeria), and a senior
        principal scientist at the Raytheon STX Corporation (USA).
        He worked as Co-Principal Investigator on several NASA
        projects related to the problems of atmospheric remote
        sensing and planetary radiation budget. In 2003 he dis-
        covered and established the equations governing the
        infrared radiative transfer in semi-transparent atmospheres.
        In 2006 he resigned from NASA in protest due to unresolved
        publication issues related to his AGW related results.
        Recently his research interest has been the planetary green-
        house effect. His new idea of the greenhouse effect is getting
        more and more widely recognized. He is Foreign Associate
        Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

      • Miskolczi’s credentials are impressive and so are those of many contributors to this blog. The validity of any of the arguments IMO need to be assessed on the strength of the argument and not rest on the reputation of the author, otherwise its an appeal to authority and just another form of ad hom.

      • He’s up there with Salby in having a good resume and then derailing somehow.

    • Well, AA is part right.

      To borrow from Mark Twain:
      Only an idiot or an environmentalist, but I repeat myself, would label CO2 as pollution.

      However satellite data seems to suggest that CO2 increases particularly in the stratosphere do have an effect on the emissions spectrum which means it does have an effect.

      • Miskolczi’s saturated greenhouse hypothesis postulates an effect from CO2. The effect is that it reduces water vapor by an amount that makes the greenhouse warming from CO2 exactly negated by the amount of water vapor loss.

        I don’t know if the hypothesis is correct or not, it’s supported by historical radiosonde data showing a decrease in relative humidity, but like so much else in climate “science” the data is not of high enough quality to discriminate the vanishingly small effect of CO2 increase from 300 to 400 parts per million.

        Saturated Greenhouse Hypothesis

        http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

        Review by Roy Spencer, PhD, Meteorology

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2010-controversial-greenhouse-theory/

        Spencer is no quack either:

        Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

      • nottawa rafter

        Before I knew of Spencer, I read numerous criticisms about him none having to do with his scientific work. Then I investigated his credentials and was impressed. After that I stopped paying attention to the you know who’s. These same people think religious views somehow denigrate the validity of scientific findings. Let the science speak for itself.

      • Oops, this is where Tartuffe was supposed to strut on stage, mann of the moment.
        ========

      • David in TX,
        Spencer’s critique says that on key assumption that Miskoczi makes in his paper is incorrect. It is equivalent to assuming thermal equilibrium for the entire atmosphere, which is not a correct assumption. Here is what he says:
        “On the theory side, much of what he claims depends upon the validity of his statement,

        “for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”
        ….
        This appears to fly in the face of people’s real world experiences.

        Nevertheless, Miskolczi’s (and previous investigators’) calculations of a NEAR-equality of these IR flows are quite correct, and are indeed consistent with current greenhouse theory. Others trying to understand this issue need to understand that greenhouse theory already “knows” these flows are almost equal. If the imbalance between them was not small, then the temperature changes we see in nature would be much larger than what we do see.

        But it is their small departure from equality that makes all the difference…”.

        One also needs to ask why Miskolczi is the only researcher in climate science who focuses on the optical thickness of the atmosphere. Plass wrote his paper in 1959 and thousands of papers have followed. None but Miskolczi have found any use for this parameter.

        Energy and Environment where Miskolczi published his papers is a journal specifically created to publish AGW skeptic or denier papers. It is not a real peer reviewed journal.

      • SkepticGoneWild

        Spencer also seems to think cold bodies can warm a warmer body despite the 2nd Law and heat flow equation which say no. His criticisms of Miskolczi are ludicrous in light of this.

      • Miskolczi’s optical thickness is how much of the surface emitted IR radiation reaches the top untouched and is equivalent to 15%. If you think about it, this would be the sum of the window regions, and not surprisingly this would not be affected by GHGs. There seems to be no realization that his optical thickness is designed in such a way as to ignore the GHG effect, and has no relevance to IR emitted by the atmosphere where the GHG effect resides. So, he defined a quantity insensitive to GHGs, and, voila, no effect of GHGs were seen in that quantity. Many were fooled.

      • “And let’s even assume the temperature of the woolen blanket was extremely low — just above absolute zero.
        Some of the IR radiation you emit, instead of being lost to the depths of space, would then be intercepted by the blanket. This would raise the temperature of the blanket. As that happened, the inside of the blanket would begin to emit some IR energy back toward your body, while the outside of the blanket would emit energy to outer space.
        As a result, the temperature of your skin would remain higher than it would without the blanket — even though the blanket would remain at a lower temperature than your skin.” – Spencer.
        Spencer can write clearly for a broad audience. It’s cold in your bedroom. The extra blankets are cold. You get into bed for the first time in 16 hours. You think this sucks, I am still cold. 10 minutes later, it’s better. In 10 more minutes, it’s fine. The extra blankets hold it for a bit then let it go. All the time more heat is coming in. When we balance the books any additional heat we find in the blankets is temporary. We can assume it will be there as long as the source remains the same. So it looks like a timing difference. When pay our bills on the last possible day without incurring a late charge, we can inflate our cash balance. We are holding onto our cash as long as possible. That’s the greenhouse effect. The Earth paying its heat to space, as late as possible.

  66. Judith you really need to ban the serial thread abusers (chief among them being expert troll Mosher). When this blog started out there quite were a lot of sensible comments but now it is sheer blather from end to end. Remember you are being associated with these people whether you like it or not.

    • Moliere roll your deyes, reverse Tartuffe. The first refuge of these scoundrels is anti-religion.
      ===================

      • First, last, quel difference, vraiment? The irony with religion is holy.

        Well, holiarious.
        ===========

  67. russellseitz

    Are the views of Georgia Representative Paul ” All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.” Broun’s representative of our Georgia Tech hostess?

    They certainly recall those of her recent Heartland Conference hosts!

  68. It really doesn’t matter whether Georgian politicians believe in ‘global warming’ .

    South Eastern US Electric Utilities are on the forefront of ‘new nuclear’ in the US. Given two new nuclear units in Georgia under construction, 2 new nuclear units in South Carolina under construction and a new nuclear unit in Tennessee ,substantial efficiency improvements in commercially available air conditioning units along with a market driven switch from coal to natural gas it’s hard to imagine South Eastern US CO2 emissions not going down substantially.

    • Nice to see you back, harry.

      • Common ground, Willard; harrywr2 is very reliable.
        ===================

      • Thanks Willard,Kim.

        While politicians and air conditioning manufacturers argue as to whether the ‘minimum’ energy efficiency standard for Air Conditioners should be SEER 13 or SEER 14 the manufacturers of air conditioners will offer ‘top models’ that exceed SEER 30 in 2015.

        I would note the Energy Act of 2005 offered tax credits for ‘super efficient’ SEER 13 air conditioners.

  69. The largest problem illustrated in the GA GOP is how it relates to the total ambivalence and fear of the national GOP to the academic left;

    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/228053-for-gop-a-new-refrain-im-not-a-scientist

    Appeasing the monster of liberal claims to intellectual authority brought us to the junk science road traveled to begin with. Sure, it doesn’t help that 90%+ of the broader science organizations don’t identify with the GOP out of the gate. It always becomes a shouting match and the political odds are 15 to 1 at least in accepting or rejecting many left-wing policy solutions. It doesn’t even matter about “science” or how committed people are to considering climate science for example.

    So the GOP is taking the Earth Day neutralization approach, co-op or murky dissent on the margin but trying hard not to make it focus issue or party difference. As in the 70’s it’s a mistake. So they’re only going focus on Green extremes and focus on pro-growth rather then take on the underlying political culture that drives the AGW meme. Yes, the Stupid Party.

    • I’m more optimistic. The left has gone so far off the deep end that, politically, it makes much more sense for issues like this to simply stand back and watch them implode. That strategy is working, for example on the issue of GMO food. Any GOP statement on GMO will simply get reported as coming from “industry stooges,” but the left wing activists’ demands and claims are so loopy that it is the Democrats who finally got around to telling them to take a hike. Ditto vaccination freaks and even the anti-nuke set.
      We are seeing that to a certain extent with AGW as well. Global warming was the most important issue ever when George Bush was president and the last thing on the list when Obama and the Dems took over in ’08. There, again, the demands of the activists are so extreme (and ineffective) that you really don’t have to say anything about the science – just point out that the GOP supports the only two alternatives to fossil fuels that reduce GHG emissions: natural gas exploration and nuclear power development. And note, politely, that the Dems can’t even bring themselves to propose the things the activists want.
      This is the only path to depoliticizing AGW and it speaks volumes that the warm would rather have their political fun than any coherent action.

      • Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

        Well, some of ’em.
        =============

      • I hear the point JeffN and you stated it well. My argument is that all the little intellectual/academic hills and swamp land conceded to Greens from the 60’s on for example are why AGW was able to reach critical mass. The IPCC endorsement blunder, Thatcherism and wedging coal unions politically, “National security” (anti-OPEC) populism which included many GOP members, the docile acceptance of left-wing expert enclaves. This is all in the history of the AGW meme and reflects GOP weakness or confusion.

        You can’t just judge Greens failures but look at the total growth in academics, media, popular culture to the policy of indifference. This is the same GOP that surrenders the urban poor, race issues, monetary policy and numerous others topics as Democratic culture “turf”. By conceding the intellectual authority ground and pandering with “I’m not a scientist” it is self-defeating for the society at large. Again, at some point the GOP conceded University life, educational infrastructure at the same time it was massively expanded and funded by governments. Now they are largely arms of the DNC. Notice how it replaces influence at the same time other past enclaves like traditional media or unions have declined.

        AGW political dogma is sickeningly instructive of the social schism as a whole. The unopposed Green fringe is a rich recruiting area and look no further then the oft times brain dead “Millennial Generation” to see the impact it has had in the past 40 years. There is more to it but “I’m not a scientist” has a certain rhyme with “I’m a useful idiot” if carried too far and in many cases we are there already. There is no indication to me that basic institutions such as Universities, educational layers or government funded science aren’t becoming more politicized (left-wing indoctrination) not less. Rather then be aggressive and demand social reforms via an anti-science corruption message the GOP is punting rather trying to win.

      • cwon14, I think the GOP just recognizes that sometimes you have to let people fail before they learn. As you can see from our friend eadler2 below, leftists have to fail multiple times before they realize they’re wrong, but it’s instructive to the rest to watch it happen.
        Historically 17-22% of people self-identify as liberal. Walter Mondale lost 49 states just 20 years ago and Obama was the first Democrat since 1976 to reach 50% of the national vote- and he did it by promising he wasn’t a liberal. Being consumers of news, where liberal voices are over-represented, we tend to forget how clearly liberalism was rejected by the overall populace.
        One quibble- Academia is going to fun to watch over the next 5-10 years because it’s less funded by government and more funded by personal check and debt. It’s no secret that universities are left-wing enclaves, but it’s become no secret that like most blue-model services the cost has gone up exponentially while the quality has gone down. It stuns me that there are still people willing to blow $40-$50,000/year of their own money (or to borrow that amount) to send their kids off to institutions that revel in such idiocies as “rape culture” fanaticism and anti-Israel non-sense. That which can’t go on, won’t.
        Ditto Europe, where simple demographics means that anyone capable of basic math realizes the modern welfare state is at the end of it’s tether. Sure there will be last gasps of economic anti-intellectualism, such as in France and Greece, but would you have thought in 1990 that Germany would be pushing Euro “austerity” and China would be an economic powerhouse? On economics, the left has lost soundly, globally. On social issues, yes and no. We’re all officially much more polite, but society is also recognizing that there are serious downsides to saying screw the nuclear family and “personal responsibility” is for tea party freaks.
        Greens? meh. The environmental movement went off the rails a long time ago and the new meme is how to restructure it to get it out of the hands of the nuts. European nations that bought green idiocies about renewables are running away as fast as they can. Once people catch on the fact that they blew billions they don’t have on “solutions” that don’t solve anything, the politics of backtracking cautiously will be fun. To paraphrase Animal House: broke, stupid and drunk on ideology is no way to go thru life.

    • The GOP is tacitly admitting that they are the party of people with low IQ’s by repeatedly using the statement “I am not a scientist”, which appeals to their anti-science base. They instinctively know what psychological science has discovered as a result of research:

      http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

      “The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience. ..”

      Of course this connection is only about averages and this correlation doesn’t constitute a rule.

      • Great, a pompous arrogant leftist enclave (Livescience) with “research” confirming all the possible elitist predispositions in one action. Is the IPCC report really any different without shouting their bigoted views as eadler2?

        Gruberism #101.

        The Nazi Party shared many of the same rationalization about those opposed them. In short, Greenshirts are genetically superior and skeptics are subhuman with lower intelligence.

      • cwon14
        I realize that you don’t like the results of the study or the source. But it is backed by data, and from more than one study. If you have data that contradicts it, you would have a valid point against it. But your post is all invective which is based on your resentment of “leftists”. A hollow emotional and lame post.

      • @steven,
        I guess you got me there. The studies I quoted didn’t look at the difference between social conservatives and libertarians. The libertarians do have higher IQ’s than the traditional liberals.

      • eadler2 | January 6, 2015 at 2:43 pm |

        “The libertarians do have higher IQ’s than the traditional liberals.”

        My fault. I’m a libertarian with an IQ of 153.

  70. I am a scientist (chemist) who respects the scientific method from learning the hard way what I was already taught: It is exceedingly easy to fool yourself when testing your own hunches. The most efficient indicator I have found in evaluating for a careful scientist is noticing tell-tale humility, their offering sources of possible error in their work, citing challenges to their new assertions and how they are working to overcome them in light of respected contradictory views. I see none of this in hours spent in reading Michael Mann’s articles. As primary author of the hockey stick graph, which he sticks by, I can’t get around that he spliced recorded temp data at the end of a graph that was led by 1000 years of filtered, padded and dampened tree ring data, with the clear intent to contrast and accentuate the graph line’s sudden rise as it shifted to un-dampened direct temp recordings from 1960-1998. This alone would have invalidated him as a scientist in my view. But more outrageous is that if the tree ring data had not been truncated at 1960 it would have been clear it did not follow temp as predicted, which invalidates it’s use as a proxy baseline. Even though this got revealed by Steve McIntyre in 2003 and 2009 “Climategate” emails (about “hiding the decline,” deleting emails and other data possibly subject to McIntyre FOIA requests) in 2015 Mann is held in the highest esteem by “mainstream” climatologists. I think we need more like Judith Curry who show more respect for the discipline than to be part of that crowd.

    • How doe you explain that about a dozen other papers by different researchers produced similar graphs using different statistical methods some without tree rings?

      Splicing the modern temperature record since 1960 into the graph was not done secretly and revealed by McIntyre. .It was clearly labelled on the graph in his paper. It was clearly the right thing to do, because it was known that for those dates the proxy record was not a good indicator of temperature after 1960.

      There was some criticism of the statistical methods of Mann’s original paper. The work of McIntyre was totally wrong and full of errors. An investigation by the National Academy of Sciences said the despite the errors that they found, the conclusions of the paper were basically correct.

      Based on the history of Paleoclimatology since Mann’s paper, it seems to have been a ground breaking pioneering work, rather than a big mistake. To those who followed the demolition of his criticism, it is McIntyre who should be ashamed of himself. McINtyre’s claim that the use of non-centered Principal Components Analysis by Mann invalidated the Hockey Stick paper, was totally wrong. McIntyre made a fundamental error in his application of centered PCA analysis in drawing his conclusion. He used only the first principal component to draw his conclusion, instead of using the correct number of principal components which was 5, to represent the historical record accurately. Done correctly the Centered Principal Components applied to the Mann’s data set, gives the same results as the non-centered analysis used by Mann.

      In addition McIntyre claimed that when a large number of randomly generated noise data sets processed by noncentered PCA would provide hockey sticks. In order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them. This hardly seems like an honest mistake.

      http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

      • You are either way behind the curve or bending it in an attempt to break it.
        =============

      • eadler2, ” In order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them. This hardly seems like an honest mistake.”

        It doesn’t does it? Do you think it was dishonest as in fraudulent or dishonest as in fooling yourself?

      • Why do you believe the proxy record was not a good indicator of temperature after 1960? If it’s not a good indicator now, why do you think it would be a good indicator before 1960? Why didn’t Mann point out the data was truncated? Why did it take an email leak to discover that inconvenient truth??

      • eadler2, “Done correctly the Centered Principal Components applied to the Mann’s data set, gives the same results as the non-centered analysis used by Mann.”

        Close to the same if you use the data sets selected by Mann. The selection process, that 100 out of 10,000 was a major part of the MM analysis as they were trying to illustrate the issues with Mann’s selection process. A lot of arm chair statisticians tend to gloss over the fact that Mann/s method is a sequence not just centered or decentered PCA. Though one of the pioneers of PCA noted that Mann’s de-centered use was highly questionable.

        I am sure though that deepclimate is the cutting edge source for “novel” statistical methods and since most subsequent reconstruction kinda sorta look like Mann’s with a tad more variability, a bit larger MWP and a bit deeper LIA, Mann has to be a statistical genius. An icon of creative paleo climatology.

      • In addition McIntyre claimed that when a large number of randomly generated noise data sets processed by noncentered PCA would provide hockey sticks. In order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them. This hardly seems like an honest mistake.

        This statement is totally untrue. Like most of the criticisms of M&M’s work, it’s all arm-waving BS, as anybody who’s actually dug into the subject will understand. Typical alarmist smear job.

        Links have been posted in comments here many times, I’m not going to waste my time doing it again.

      • Capt. Dallas.
        The failure of northern area tree ring proxies after 1960 was well known to Climate Paleontologists before Mann wrote his paper. All tree ring proxies tracked between 1880 and 1960.
        Your defense of McIntyre’s process is lame. The whole purpose of selecting proxies is to select those that correlate reliably with the temperature record. That is what Mann did for the Hockey Stick paper.
        That is a different thing from using the principal components statistical method to reduce noise from the variations in the proxies to pick the best linear combination of proxies to represent the noisy data. McIntyre claimed that he could use non-centered PCA on a data set generated by RANDOM NOISE and get a hockey stick. The code he released shows that after the proxies were generated by random noise, he used an algorithm to select the100 data sets that most looked like hockey sticks out of the 10,000 randomly generated data sets, and then used non-centered principal components on them for his demonstration. So McIntyre’s claim seems to have been fraudulent.

        Finally even though the outcome of centered PCA was slightly different from non-centered PCA that Mann used in his paper, it was clear that the use of non centered PCA was not responsible for the Hockey Stick, contrary to McIntyre’s claim.

        Your reply to the points made by DeepClimate is lame to say the least.You need to read his post more carefully.

      • @Jim2,
        “Why do you believe the proxy record was not a good indicator of temperature after 1960?”
        This was mainly a problem for northern tree rings. Experts suspect that it due to aerosals from industrial growth.

        http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende/cherubin/index_EN/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf

        “…Another possible cause of the divergence described briefly herein is ‘global dimming’, a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades,
        to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. It is theorized that the
        dimming phenomenon should have a relatively greater impact on tree growth at higher northern latitudes, consistent with what has
        been observed from the tree-ring record…”

      • eadler2, “Your defense of McIntyre’s process is lame. The whole purpose of selecting proxies is to select those that correlate reliably with the temperature record.”

        Mcintyre used his hockeystick (HSI) index instead of the temperature record to illustrate you can pick out what you want from random noise. Nick Stokes has done the same thing on his blog, but seems to miss the humor involved with the HSI.

        As for the divergence problem being known before Mann’s first paper, it was a fairly small group that was in the “know”. The splicing of temperature records to proxy data was also “known” by a select group but not documented vary well for the arm chair statisticians in fact it came as quite a surprise to some like Muller.

      • eadler2, If you watch the Muller video note the laughter in the background. HSI was supposed to be humorous in that dry Canadian way. Humor, laughter, laughing stock, hide the decline, “mike’s nature trick” get the point?

      • eadler2

        (what happened to eadler1?)

        Two questions.

        WHY do you believe that a novel smoothed proxy such as tree rings have any merit in exhibiting a NH temperature record bearing in mind their considerable shortcomings as regards micro climates and that they only show a record of anything during the short growing season, and that is precipitation.

        Also do you believe that boreholes (another popular proxy) have merit to indicate the general trend of temperatures?

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        Unrelated, but you might be interested in the current SSW event going on.

        The vortex has been disrupted (actually split) by this event, but one lobe has gone south, over the N. Atlantic, forming a large upper level high bringing upper level winds from the W or NW over your lovely country:

        http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-64.57,67.36,315

        Remember, sometimes the vortex splits or is displaced over Asia, bringing easterly to north easterly winds over N. Europe and very cold air, but not this time (yet). You can see the SSW event evolve here:

        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml

      • Matthew R Marler

        eadler2: McIntyre claimed that he could use non-centered PCA on a data set generated by RANDOM NOISE and get a hockey stick. The code he released shows that after the proxies were generated by random noise, he used an algorithm to select the100 data sets that most looked like hockey sticks out of the 10,000 randomly generated data sets, and then used non-centered principal components on them for his demonstration. So McIntyre’s claim seems to have been fraudulent.

        Where is the fraudulence? McIntyre showed exactly what he claimed that he showed: that even in the absence of an actual signal, the procedure produced a hockey stick. In the statistical language of “p-values” and “statistical significance”, McIntyre showed that the hockey stick result had a very high p-value.

      • Capt. Dallas,
        It is my understanding that experts on tree rings can often determine what has determined the growth – moisture, vs. temperature vs CO2. In modern times human caused aerosals have been a factor, as a result of dimming of sunlight. This is believed to be the cause of the divergence problem of the northern hemisphere tree rings. Up until 1960, the southern and northern tree rings tracked for 1000 years, and correlated with temperature since 1880’s. So the decision not to use the NH tree proxies since 1960 for calibrations was not simply an attempt to make things fit at any cost as some people would like to believe. There were valid scientific reasons to make the decision.

        In addition the red curve in the Mann’s original plot is clearly labeled raw data, in his original paper to distinguish it from the reconstruction during the calibration period. There is no chicanery involved in this on the part of Mann.

        http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf

        In the video Mueller is lambasting whoever used the Hockeystick plot in the IPCC report. .

      • @AK
        Here is some analysis by moyhu that shows that only the cherry picked 100 most hockey stick like data sets, out of the 10,000 randomly generated data sets, produced hockey sticks either with centered or non centered PCA analysis. The curves were slightly different but definitely hockey sticks curving upwards..
        When randomly chosen data was used, no hockey sticks were found when centered PCA analysis was done. When non centered analysis was done, equal numbers of upward and downward curving hockey sticks were found.
        http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html

      • eadler2, “It is my understanding that experts on tree rings can often determine what has determined the growth – moisture, vs. temperature vs CO2.”

        That’s what I have heard. Rob Wilson is probably one of the most knowledgeable and he called some of Mann’s work “a crock of $hit”. there are lot more folks that are critical of some of Mann’s work other than your typical skepical/denier/republican/oil-money-tainted Neanderthals. You can believe whatever you chose to believe, but some of Mann’s work sucks. He does have a few papers that don’t involve “novel” methods that are worth while.

      • @eadler2…

        I’ve seen it. And endless discussions of the “cherry-picked” slander.

        Here for instance. And here. And follow the links therein.

      • @eadler2…

        Or here (What Nick Stokes Wouldn’t Show You):

        Some ClimateBallers, including commenters at Stokes’ blog, are now making the fabricated claim that MM05 results were not based on the 10,000 simulations reported in Figure 2, but on a cherry-picked subset of the top percentile. Stokes knows that this is untrue, as he has replicated MM05 simulations from the script that we placed online and knows that Figure 2 is based on all the simulations; however, Stokes has not contradicted such claims by the more outlandish ClimateBallers.

        In addition, although the MM05 Figure 2 histograms directly quantified HSI distributions for centered and Mannian PC1s, Stokes falsely claimed that MM05 analysis was merely “qualitative, mostly”. In fact, it is Stokes’ own analysis that is “qualitative, mostly”, as his “analytic” technique consists of nothing more than visual characterization of 12-pane panelplots of HS-shaped PCs (sometimes consistently oriented, sometimes not) as having a “very strong” or “much less” HS appearance. (Figure 4.4 of the Wegman Report is a 12-pane panelplot of high-HSI PC1s, but none of the figures in our MM05 articles were panelplots of the type criticized by Stokes, though Stokes implies otherwise. Our analysis was based on the quantitative analysis of 10,000 simulations summarized in the histograms of Figure 2. )

        To make matters worse, while Stokes has conceded that PC series have no inherent orientation, Stokes has attempted to visually characterize panelplots with different protocols for orientation. Stokes’ panelplot of 12 top-percentile centered PC1s are all upward pointing and characterized by Stokes as having “very strong” HS appearance, while his panelplot of 12 randomly selected Mannian PC1s are oriented both up-pointing and down-pointing and characterized by Stokes as having a “much less” HS appearance.

        Over the past two years, Stokes has been challenged by Brandon Shollenberger in multiple venues to show a panelplot of randomly selected Mannian PC1s in up-pointing orientation (as done by the NAS panel and even MBH99) to demonstrate that his attribution is due to random selection (as Stokes claims), rather than inconsistent orientation. Stokes has stubbornly refused to do so. […]

        When Brandon pointed out that Mann himself re-oriented (“flipped”) the MBH99 PC1, Stokes simply shut his eyes and denied that Mann had “flipped” the PC1 (though the proof is unambiguous.)

      • > And endless discussions of the “cherry-picked” slander.

        If you want endless, AK, search for “Jones” on this page.

        The cherry-pick has never been disputed, so the “slander” claim is mere posturing.

        The latest on this episode is here:

        http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-climateball-at-climate-audit.html

      • The cherry-pick has never been disputed, so the “slander” claim is mere posturing.

        It was disputed in the excerpt I blockquoted above.

        More arm-waving from the nasty little alarmist echo-chamber. Steve’s comment is here.

      • > It was disputed in the excerpt I blockquoted above.

        “It” refers to a red herring the Auditor constructed to feign having addressed Nick’s argument, which was

        As you’d expect from the above table, even with reorientation, they look similar. But the left has no decentering. The HS is created just by selecting the 100 top HSI out of 10000.

        http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-climateball-at-climate-audit.html

        The Auditor’s red herring about orientation only deflects from the fact that the whole argument rests on a peculiar notion of hockey stick.

        The “it” does not seem to be what eadler2 said.

      • Or see here:

        Steve: if you believe that proxies are temperature plus low-order red noise, then it’s hard to provide a mathematical justification for lower order PCs. Nor, as we discussed at the time, does Preisendorfer’s Rule N (see our contemporary discussion of Preisendorfer) say that Rule N establishes a lower order PC as a temperature proxy. Nor,
        contrary to disinformation from Mann and others, now apparently including you, did we argue that the MBH hockeystick arose from red noise. We observed that Mann’s assertion that the HS-shaped PC1 was the “dominant pattern of variance” was false and attributed this false belief to him misleading himself through his incorrect methodology. We then analysed what the erroneous method did when applied to the NOAMER network in controversy: it pulled the Graybill stripbark chronologies into the PC1. Given the importance attributed by Mann to this pattern, we then analysed specialist literature to see whether it agreed that stripbark chronologies were uniquely accurate measures of world temperature and found that specialists had said that the growth pulse was not due to temperature. If Graybill stripbark chronologies are not valid proxies, then Preisendorfer’s Rule N cant make them so. At the end of the day, Mann’s salvage techniques, which you are again espousing, are nothing more than backdoor efforts to include the stripbark chronologies. And despite your repeated false statements otherwise, we discussed the permutations and combinations relating PC retention schemes to reconstructions in MM05-EE. By the way, there is convincing evidence that Mann did not use Preisendorfer’s Rule N in MBH98 as it does not replicate other network retentions. If Mann v Steyn goes forward, I anticipate that Mann will be asked to produce evidence supporting his claim to have used this method for tree ring networks and evidence of his actual methodology will be non-existent by then.

      • More red herrings and deflection. None of this responds to the cherry-pick, for cherry-pick there was.

        I’ve reposted my comment who went into moderation:

        http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-climateball-at-climate-audit.html?showComment=1420643468784#c2374998573269779285

      • More red herrings and deflection. None of this responds to the cherry-pick, for cherry-pick there was.

        Actually, it does. There was no cherry-pick to “prove” what McSteve proved. And the claim that there was is the slander (IMO). Which my excerpt from his comment shows him responding to.

      • > Which my excerpt from his comment shows him responding to.

        Which my excerpt shows that this response is unresponsive to Nick’s demonstration that cherry-pick there was. The “slander” defense does not apply to eadler2’s claim, but to “what people say,” which amounts to a red herring.

        All AK has is to repeat the Auditor’s “it does not matter” defense. The two horns of his dilemma is quite clear. Either he accepts that there was cherry picking, or he needs to argue the alternative.

        In other words, AK’s repeating the Auditor’s racehorcing against Nick.

      • All AK has is to repeat the Auditor’s “it does not matter” defense. The two horns of his dilemma is quite clear. Either he accepts that there was cherry picking, or he needs to argue the alternative.

        False dilemma. I’m not concerned with whether there was “cherry-picking”, only that the accusation that “In order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them” is a slander. He used all 10,000, as he said.

        Further, Willard’s claim that the “cherry-pick” was not addressed is false, as Steve addressed it in the excerpt I blockquoted. It may not suit Willard, but it backs Steve’s claim that no “cherry-pick” was involved in his proof.

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        eadler2 is just making things up when he says:

        Here is some analysis by moyhu that shows that only the cherry picked 100 most hockey stick like data sets, out of the 10,000 randomly generated data sets, produced hockey sticks either with centered or non centered PCA analysis.

        Nick Stokes never claimed only the “100 most hockey stick like data sets” “produced hockey sticks.” He wouldn’t because it’s a stupid claim. Only somebody has no idea what Stokes was actually trying to show would say it.

        In no way does “cherry-picking” the top 1% and finding a signal mean you will only find that signal in the top 1%.

      • > I’m not concerned with whether there was “cherry-picking”,

        This matters for what follows, nevertheless.

        Also, let it be noted that AK does not dispute that fact.

        ***

        > only that the accusation that “In order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them” is a slander. He used all 10,000, as he said.

        False dilemma.

        There was a 1:100 cherry pick. It is in the code, and in the paper. There’s a figure based on the cherry pick, and a sibylline comment on it if I remember well. All these were used to prove the case.

        The slander claim has no merit.

      • > Nick Stokes never claimed only the “100 most hockey stick like data sets” “produced hockey sticks.” He wouldn’t because it’s a stupid claim.

        This is correct. Nick rather said:

        The undisclosed selection is about as effective in creating HS appearance as decentering.

        http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2014/09/more-climateball-at-climate-audit.html

        After a solid round of fallacy fallacies against a newbie, Denizens should move on. There are better ClimateBall episodes to rehash. This one is unwinnable. Better yet, fabricate news ones.

        The audit never ends.

        PS: Next time, keep your head up, eadler2.

      • There was a 1:100 cherry pick. It is in the code, and in the paper. There’s a figure based on the cherry pick, and a sibylline comment on it if I remember well. All these were used to prove the case.

        Steve says not. You said that the “cherry-pick” slander had never been responded to:

        The cherry-pick has never been disputed, so the “slander” claim is mere posturing.

        Right after I’d blockquoted an excerpt in which he responded to it. The question on that table was never whether there was a “cherry-pick”, I don’t believe there was but don’t intend to waste time arguing over it. The question on the table was the slander that “In order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them.”

        The slander claim has no merit.

        The statement that “eadler2” repeated was slander (IMO, of course). Whether he repeated it out of ignorance or as deliberate deception, it was a lie, one even Nick Stokes wasn’t prepared to tell. But he never corrected those who used his posts to support it.

        The audit never ends.

        You don’t even know what the word means. What you mean by it is your arm-waving obfuscation, straw men, and red herrings.

      • After a solid round of fallacy fallacies against a newbie, Denizens should move on.

        The fallacies were all the “newbie”‘s. He’s entitled to an opportunity to see the truth, then he’s responsible for whether he believes your arm-waving obfuscations, or looks into the matter himself.

        There are better ClimateBall episodes to rehash. This one is unwinnable.

        Once it gets into constant bickering over details only an expert would understand, most people give up and choose sides on tribal grounds. That’s exactly what an “auditor” like you is after.

        Better yet, fabricate news ones.

        That’s more your role.

      • “The question on that table was never whether there was a “cherry-pick”, I don’t believe there was but don’t intend to waste time arguing over it”

        The fact that M&M selected the top 100 out of 10000 is not denied. Neither has anyone pointed out where they disclosed that. Brandon’s defense is just that
        “The fact McIntyre and McKitrick “cherry-picked” the strongest examples to show what their strongest examples looked like is completely unremarkable.”

        I do not believe any of the following have been disputed:
        1. The code used for M&M 2005 GRL, provided with the SI, made provision to select the top 100 profiles by HS index from a collection of 10000 and place them on an archive.
        2. When that paper said:
        “Computer scripts used to generate simulations, figures and statistics, together with a sample of 100 simulated ‘‘hockey sticks’’ and other supplementary information, are provided in the auxiliary material.”
        the sample placed there was thus selected. That is clear also from the fact that they are all positively oriented. The selection was not disclosed.
        3. Wegman used profiles from that archive to plot his Figures 4.1 and 4.4 in the Congressional Report. Here is Fig 4.4:

        Note the caption. Again, no mention of the selection.

      • […] the sample placed there was thus selected. That is clear also from the fact that they are all positively oriented. The selection was not disclosed.

        There you go with that “positively oriented” straw man again.

        Look! A squirrel!

        So Nick, have you ever stated that the actual results of either MM05 paper were influenced by that selection? Not what was provided for display, but the conclusions WRT the fact that the Mannian method mines for “hokey-sticks”?

        For that matter, have you ever actually addressed the science involved, or only what you claim was a biased display of extreme results for (presumably) purposes of illustration?

        BTW, I asked where you were below, didn’t realize you were stuck in moderation.

      • In addition McIntyre claimed that when a large number of randomly generated noise data sets processed by noncentered PCA would provide hockey sticks. In order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them. This hardly seems like an honest mistake.

        From one of McIntyre’s responses to this slander:

        The result is that Mannian PC1s “nearly always” (97% in 10% tails and 85% in 5% tails) produce series which have a “statistically significant” difference between the blade (1902-1980) and the shaft (1400-1901). If you are trying to do a meaningful analysis of whether there actually is a statistically meaningful difference between the 20th century and prior periods, it is impossible to contemplate a worse method and you have to go about it a different way. Fabrications by ClimateBallers, such as false claims that MM05 Figure 2 histograms were calculated from only 100 cherrypicked series, do not change this fact.


        Figure 1. Histograms of t-statistic for difference of 1902-1980 mean and 1400-1901 means showing centered PC1s (light grey) and Mannian PC1s (medium grey). The curve is a t-distribution (df=180). The red lines at +- 1.65 and +-1.96 correspond to 90% and 95% two-sided t-tests. [Original caption.]

      • > Steve says not.

        Not in the quotes above. Somewhere else perhaps? Since a cherry pick there was, AK accusation has no merit and the Auditor’s saying would be unseeming.

        That AK proffers it right after disavowing his interest in it is only par for the course.

      • > From one of McIntyre’s responses to this slander:

        What the Auditor did not show in his response he used to straw man Nick:

      • Notice that the bottom panel in the above illustration, using a centered PC algorithm, shows that the Medieval Warm period was slightly warmer than today.

      • That AK proffers it right after disavowing his interest in it is only par for the course.

        From the original post at the blog so often linked by alarmist stooges:

        Clearly, there is also a strong appearance of HS shape. But this has nothing to do with the decentered mean. It is the result of the prior selection for HS shape that Wegman used.

        […]

        1.   Wegman, using the code of MM05b, claimed that the technique of MBH (decentering) would yield hockey-stick shaped PC1’s even from red noise input (1st fig above).

        2.   The 2nd fig above (first below) confirms this. However, the effect is part due to MBH, and part due to a very artificial selection in the MM05 code, where a subsample (100 from 10000) was selected for HS shape prior to display.

        3.   The third fig above shows that this artificial selection will itself create HS shapes without decentering – no MBH effect

        4.   The fourth fig above shows how Wegman’s Fig 4.4 should have looked, without the artificial selection. Some HS effect, but not nearly as much.

        5.   The final fig above just confirms that with no selection and no decentering, the HS goes away.

        As best I can interpret this, that post admits that the Mann code produces hockey-sticks from red noise, while:

        •     Attacking Wegman rather than the MM05 conclusions (either paper).

        •     Attacking him (and by implication the MM05 code) for accentuating the effect for display.

        Perhaps since the author of that post has shown up here, we’ll get more arm-waving (or whatever) from him on the subject.

      • > Notice that the bottom panel in the above illustration, using a centered PC algorithm, shows that the Medieval Warm period was slightly warmer than today.

        “Today” usually means something more recent than that. More importantly, notice the absence of any “hockey stick effect.” Where are the mined hockey sticks?

        Instead of following up on that point, AK dumps the puck into the opposite end zone, the “very-late-MWP.”

        Coming up next: the “not my job to reconstruct” bag of tricks.

      • More importantly, notice the absence of any “hockey stick effect.” Where are the mined hockey sticks?

        There’s a “hockey-stick”, it’s just got a slightly tilted handle.

        More importantly, since the whole purpose of the “hockey-stick” is to back the claim that 20th century temperatures are “unprecedented”, the fact that the “centered PC algorithm” fails to back this fundamental claim leaves you “hoist on your own petard”.

      • BTW, Nick Stokes has shown up. He’s been in moderation since 5:49.

      • > Attacking Wegman rather than the MM05 conclusions (either paper).

        The good ol’ “but science” switch.

        Nick’s criticisms applies to MM05b, and the part in the Wegman report which reran MM05b’s code and copied one of his figures.

        “Under oath,” as Auditors would say, Wegman dissembled about his so-called “replication,” among other misconducts. For more criticisms on the Wegman Affair, see:

        http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/10/dummys-guide-to-strange-scholarship-in.html

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/wegmanaffair

        ***

        ­> Attacking him (and by implication the MM05 code) for accentuating the effect for display.

        AK almost admits that cherry-pick there was.

        There’s no “by implication”: it’s the same code as in MM05b.

      • AK almost admits that cherry-pick there was.

        Willard almost admits that the claim that “[i]n order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them.” was slander.

        Then links to another attack on Wegman (not McIntyre) for WRT completely unrelated issue.

      • > There’s a “hockey-stick”, it’s just got a slightly tilted handle.

        With enough heat, any hockey stick will bend like that. Usually, it takes minutes. Not much hockey sticks would survive to this much heat for more than ten years.

        Thanks for playing.

      • > Willard almost admits that the claim that “[i]n order to prove this out of 10,00 randomly generated data sets, he cherry picked 100 data sets that looked like hockey sticks and analysed them.” was slander.

        Right after having conceded that the shape remains in MM05a, no less, AK returns to a statement which describes fairly well what was done in MM05b.

        In the previous iteration, AK’s dodged that the 1:100 cherry-pick had a similar effect to decentering. Will he try the same dodge once again, and if he does, will he start to boldly hammer his accusations on his keyboard?

        Tune in tomorrow for another episode of ClimateBall ™!

  71. @eadler2,
    “This was mainly a problem for northern tree rings. Experts suspect that it due to aerosals from industrial growth.”

    The global dimming hypothesis is one of several causes that have been proposed for the “divergence problem”. Others include environmental stresses due to high temperatures and reduced moisture, other unknown factors, even sampling bias.

    Isn’t the larger question whether we can trust the northern tree ring record to tell us anything reliable about temperatures in the pre-instrumentation era? Until we understand the cause and can say confidently that it only affects the post-1960 record, how much weight should we give to reconstructions that rely on the affected species?

    • I am not an expert on tree rings.I am a layman and so are you. Some of the scientists who participated in writing the paper are experts on tree rings and had written many papers on the subject prior to the Hockey Stick paper. They sorted tree ring data into those that are determined by temperature, vs those that are determined by other climate factors. One way they did this was to use the northernmost location of a tree species, because this would be the most likely to be influence by temperature rather than other factors. They decided not to use NH tree rings after 1960 as proxies. Their calibration period was 1880 to 1980.

      Other proxies have been used besides tree rings to create a temperature record. There is a lot of noise in the data, but they all show a Hockey Stick.
      It has been pointed out that the Hockey Stick graph is not required to show that GHG’s are currently causing global warming.

      Because his graph was used as an icon, Mann has been made a villain by Global Warming Deniers, and has been the subject of legal harassment by politicians.

      • Eadler2

        The considerable shortcomings of tree rings was explained at great length in this 1996 paper by Phil jones and Briffa of CRU. If you don’t have time to read it all have a look at the conclusions.

        http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/Briffa1996.pdf

        The science was over promoted in the 1998 Mann et al paper which got made into an icon by the IPCC report. The paper had many flaws and given time Dr Mann, a perfectly reasonable but by no means great scientist, might have addressed them, but he became preeminent so early in his career through his 1998 work and would presumably have found it difficult to subsequently admit its shortcomings.

        Tree rings are a very coarse highly smoothed proxy through which annual and decadal and longer natural climate variability falls. They are highly subject to the micro climate around them and only recreate a signal of some sort during the short growing season. How does that make them a thermometer able to gauge a year round temperature over a wide area?

        Bore holes don’t show the same temperature profile as do tree rings. They demonstrate the temperature has been rising for over three hundred years in which case Giss can be seen to be merely a staging post of warming and not the starting post.

        In 2006 Phil jones admitted that natural variability was much greater than he had hitherto realised when examning the remarkable warming of the 1730’s decade which came to a grinding halt in the extremely harsh 1740 winter. The period 1690 to 1739 demonstrate a much bigger hockey stick than the modern version.

        Tonyb

      • @eadler2, As I’m the who reignited a string here that clearly has played before, (the Mann hockey stick was just recent news to me,) and with great appreciation to those who responded on both sides who clearly have more hours of research in the area than I do, I offer the following: My point was that caution is warranted after learning that a small group who were trusted to be allowed to sound a global alarm bell, leading billions to date, and possibly trillions of dollars in future response, that this close group have been revealed to have been more cautious about their internal doubts and data problems getting into hands of critics than they were cautious in their pronouncements. A scientist should be modest, shy of spotlights and hype, completely honest about and neutrality to facts. And, above all, highly highly phobic of data self-selection.

        Mann and Jones should expect a sharp push back. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” -Sagan

        Slapping law suites on critics for criticizing because you have the public funding to do so is revealing and should sound alarm bells.

        This is an important matter and we need to get to the bottom quickly. There is much work, clearly, to be done in expanding research into proxy temperature indicators to establish a baseline and its historic amplitude of oscillation. Once we have that we can compare it to evidence of CO2 lags, vulcanism, cosmic impacts, solar cycles, orbital cycles, continental configurations, ocean currents and all interdependent factors, equilibriums and feedbacks. Because as of 2014 the mean projection of warming for the climate models I believe has fallen out of it’s uncertainty blanket after 17 years of no net increase by satellite measured temperature.

      • R Graf, “This is an important matter and we need to get to the bottom quickly.”

        It appears that it is gradually being worked out. Unfortunately, iconic peer reviewed literature doesn’t just go quietly into that good night, especially when the likes of eadler2, Nick Stokes and Willard pick nits to defend by not realizing the “hockey stick index” is a humorous substitution for “calibration period”. It doesn’t matter if the sticks are right side up or upside down, they get used.

        Similar issues are being recognized and corrected in the Pages2K reconstructions. Paleo in not a “proven” science but a developing one, and that is what is happening.

      • Capt: “Paleo in not a “proven” science but a developing one, and that is what is happening.”

        You mean hi freq paleo <1500 years long. The Pleistocene paleo based on marine sediments and ice cores is pretty much settled science.

      • Howard, “You mean hi freq paleo <1500 years long. The Pleistocene paleo based on marine sediments and ice cores is pretty much settled science."

        Settled to a reasonable margin of error. Dating of some of the marine sediments can be off by a few thousand years, Ice cores can have issues as well. So high frequency and high accuracy are issues and both are being pushed to extreme limits.

      • Eadler2

        Thank for your reply, but please read what I said

        ‘The science (of tree rings) was over promoted in the 1998 Mann et al paper which got made into an icon by the IPCC report. The paper had many flaws and given time Dr Mann, a perfectly reasonable but by no means great scientist, might have addressed them, but he became preeminent so early in his career through his 1998 work and would presumably have found it difficult to subsequently admit its shortcomings”

        The very considerable uncertainties in tree rings were expressed by Dr Manns peers. His icon got promoted by the IPCC. It needed to be revised but the circumstances of its promotion meant that never happened. Where in any of that I am trying to ‘destroy his reputation?

        He is a mediocre scientist but he is not a bad one. His peers know the shortcomings of this sort of work. Tree rings are not a reliable proxy. Did you bother to read the document I sourced for you? WHY should tree rings give us a reliable temperature signal?

        Did you have any comments on the borehole proxies which don’t show the same results as tree rings?

        tonyb

      • No wonder tree rings give you a nice flat hockey stick handle. There were long slabs of the MWP in the western United States and beyond where nothing could do much growing.

        However, it, er, wasn’t the cold which put the squeeze on the Anasazi. Or on the tree rings, for that matter.

      • Eadler2 – do you believe that calls to destroy emails belonging to a scientific institution is:

        1. Normal science.
        2. Post-normal science.
        3. Abnormal science.

        Cook won’t have this question on any of his surveys.

      • @tonyb,
        “Tree rings are not a reliable proxy. Did you bother to read the document I sourced for you? WHY should tree rings give us a reliable temperature signal?”

        I did read the conclusions of the paper you recommended. It said that tree rings need to be used with caution to estimate climatic conditions over long periods of time, but could be useful for analysis if done properly.
        .
        The title of Mann Bradley and Hughes’ 1999 paper reflects this advice.
        It is clear that MBH was not a perfect paper, and they made some mistakes. The NAS committee that reviewed what he did pointed them out.

        The scientific process works to correct these errors. Subsequent papers using different proxies came to pretty much the same conclusion as MBH 1999, with more noise in the data than was shown by MBH 1999.

        The harrassment of Mann and the claims that he was dishonest were unjustified. If Mann wants to sue under libel laws, it is his right.

      • eadler2

        You do not answer my question as to WHY tree rings should give a reliable mean average temperature for the NH. Perhaps you could provide the tree ring data that Dr Mann used so we could check it out and see which ones he selected?

        In the meantime here is borehole data at variance to the tree rings which show a steady temperature rise for over 300 years. Temperature rise is not a new thing.

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

        the data used is available by clicking on the countries at the foot of the page.
        tonyb

    • “Until we understand the cause and can say confidently that it only affects the post-1960 record, how much weight should we give to reconstructions that rely on the affected species?”

      I just read today’s article at CNSnews.com that 2014 was the greenest year for overall global crop yields as well as every type of vegetation cover and that it is directly attributable to CO2 level. I don’t believe this is proven but it certainly makes sense from the aspect of CO2 being a limiting factor in vegetation growth as well as light, moisture, warmth and essential minerals. When Briffa dismissed his 1960-present NH tree rings as being tainted by pollution effects, did he count CO2 as a pollutant? I believe CO2 is a global fertilizer rather than a pollutant, at least for trees. And for the unprecedented greening last year, temperature was very flat last 17 years. Is it just possible that the reason for the ice core record showing CO2 lagging temp is that vegetation increase raises atmospheric CO2 with greater decay rates matching greater growth? Remember that the CO2 level wiggles semi-annually following NH autumn decay, the “Earth breathing,” as Al Gore puts endearingly. Perhaps our planetary pulse just beats much more strongly in warmer eras.

      • Scientists who study tree rings know that increased CO2 promotes tree growth. There are other factors besides temperature which affect growth.
        There expertise is required to sort these factors out, and choose the locations of the trees used to study temperature accordingly.
        http://www.climatedata.info/Proxy/Proxy/treerings_introduction.html

      • i have read that the reason CO2 concentration increases lagged temperature increase at the end of the ice ages is understood to be that ocean warming happened first. CO2 was emitted as the oceans warmed. This was a feedback effect causing increased warming of the earth.

    • @tonyb,

      The title of Mann’ Bradley and Hughes’ 1999 paper is “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations”.
      Clearly they didn’t have the intention of overselling their conclusions. They were well aware of the limitations of the proxies they were using. It is disgraceful that climate change deniers are trying to destroy his reputation, because they didn’t like the conclusions that his group came to.

      • Matthew R Marler

        eadler: They were well aware of the limitations of the proxies they were using.

        That was in the title of the peer-reviewed paper. The overselling and other infractions came later.

        It is disgraceful that climate change deniers are trying to destroy his reputation, because they didn’t like the conclusions that his group came to.

        The damage to his reputation has come from the inconsistencies in his presentations, such as blog posts that contradict the supporting online material for his papers; and from other flaws detailed at the blog Climate Audit.

        This constant invocation of the phrase “climate change deniers” is dishonest — very few people deny climate change, certainly not those who contend that the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period were warmer than now, and not those who assert that the warming since 1850 has been largely beneficial.

      • @eadler2 “They were well aware of the limitations of the proxies they were using”
        I think this is the point. They may not be guilty of promoting their work as being more important than it was, I don’t know, but they sure did nothing to impede the political ones that grabbed the horn to blow for them. After all this graph was used as the cover of many reports disseminated to politicians in committee, who knew nothing of the uncertainties of tree ring proxy data and problems with selecting northern hemisphere forests that provided adequate adherence to the projected model (after padding and smoothing.) They just saw a big red thermometer going off the top right-hand corner and were told our best scientists are sounding a serious alarm.

        “It is disgraceful that climate change deniers are trying to destroy his reputation…”

        If Mann et al is wrong he will have helped to destroy the reputation of the western world and it’s scientific community, not to mention to have cried wolf for the second time in a quarter century about man-caused climate doom. If you value your reputation I would suggest being sure, absolutely sure, before you join the others in yelling fire.

        I happened to be descended from the same ethnic group that created the term denier to denote those who did not acknowledge the truth of the most documented atrocity in human history. To equate someone who does not share your degree of certainty of Earth sensitivity to a .04% increase in CO2 is a disgraceful and disrespectful to millions especially if you turn out to be changing your tune over the next ten years if the pause continues.

        How certain are you now? Tell me again.

        -respectfully

      • @eadler2, “Clearly they didn’t have the intention of overselling their conclusions.”
        Doing a little more research on this shows that Briffa selected trees who’s rings followed in general the recorded temperature pattern from 1890-1960 and made the assumption that these were 1000-year thermometer trees among the groves of non-thermometer trees. I think all can see how silly this is without getting into scientific prohibitions against selection based on a dependent variable. But to add further insult to this the prized thermometer trees stopped working from 1960-1998. But, chop the tree proxy down completely one must add that even if the trees correlated to present day they still were not a valid temp proxy because CO2 was also rising, which could never be eliminated as a confounding interference. In other words there was just as much chance Briffa had discovered a few CO2 detectors rather than thermometers among the groves he searched. This seems especially relevant since the rings tracked historic C02 levels, which they naturally should. In other words, they were perilously close if not at zero scientific method. If so, it would be better for them to claim they were not aware of the degree of uncertainties.

      • eadler2 – sorry dear. Climategate exposed their motives and unethical practices especially Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline.

      • @Graf,

        “If Mann et al is wrong he will have helped to destroy the reputation of the western world and it’s scientific community, not to mention to have cried wolf for the second time in a quarter century about man-caused climate doom. If you value your reputation I would suggest being sure, absolutely sure, before you join the others in yelling fire.”

        Since 97% of scientists who publish climate science papers accept the theory that humans are causing global warming through deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, based on solid observational data and physical theory, Mann’s paper is not essential to acceptance evidence of AGW at all. Anyway, about a dozen papers have been published which show similar Hockey Stick graphs from different combinations of proxies and statistical methods.

        History shows that AGW denial began with a few scientists funded by right wing libertarian think tanks, who opposed government regulation of all sorts. It is these political forces who have been attacking the personal integrity of Michael Mann. Some of them even have the temerity to claim that people who argue that humans are causing global warming Nazis. In the US, I am free to call these people AGW deniers. I expect that our children and grandchildren will call them even worse names.

      • Matthew R Marler

        eadler2: Since 97% of scientists who publish climate science papers accept the theory that humans are causing global warming through deforestation and burning of fossil fuels, based on solid observational data and physical theory, Mann’s paper is not essential to acceptance evidence of AGW at all. Anyway, about a dozen papers have been published which show similar Hockey Stick graphs from different combinations of proxies and statistical methods.

        You might want to research why the IPCC put Mann’s hockey stick on their web page and the cover of a document, and why they later removed it. Only Mann’s hockey stick purported to show that the handle of the stick was horizontal and flat, indicating no MWP. Besides a careful and thorough read of ClimateAudit, you might want to invest the time and effort to read the article by McShane and Wyner, and the extensive discussion, that was published in The Annals of Applied Statistics. I don’t know what will happen to Mann’s reputation in the future, but his record to date is full of misquotations, contradictions, prevarications and other problems. Pointing those out is a signal service to the science and to the polity.

        Almost everyone agrees that land use changes have contributed to measured warming, and almost everyone agrees that the Earth has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, though that end is a little difficult to date well. What is at issue are the relative contributions of diverse causal agents, and an evaluation of how much of the climate change would have occurred without human intervention. The claims that human agency is responsible for all the warming, and that human CO2 is responsible for any of it, and the claims that future warming will be severe and damaging, are all full of holes. Surely you are not denying that there are serious limitations in the evidence and the theoretical structures?

      • Brandon Shollenberger

        I wish people would quit pretending the problem with Michael Mann’s work is how his work was used, not what the papers said. I just saw comments like:

        Clearly they didn’t have the intention of overselling their conclusions. They were well aware of the limitations of the proxies they were using.

        The overselling and other infractions came later.

        This is beyond wrong. The original, 1998 hockey stick paper explicitly stated its results were robust to the removal of tree ring data. As acknowledged in Mann’s book, shortly after the 1998 paper was published, the authors realized that claim was completely untrue. Despite that, they made no effort to correct the record when, in 1999, they extended their reconstruction back 400 more years.

        Their 1999 paper is built entirely upon their 1998 paper. That they knowingly let this false claim stand while building upon the paper, knowing it would make their work seem beter than it was, is inexcusable. It is fraud.

        This problem is highly related to the fact the hockey stick failled basic statistical tests performed by Mann and co-authors. This should have been a clear indicator they needed to check the validity of their results. Instead, they simply hid the results. They published only the results of tests which were favorable. They went so far as to publish results of tests for one portion of their reconstruction (which were good), but hid adverse results from the same test for longer portions of their reconstruction. They literally used the same test multiple times and only published the results they liked. That is inexcusable. That is fraud.

        The reality is Michael Mann and his co-authors “were well aware of the limitations of the proxies they were using.” That’s why they covered those limitations up. That’s why they made false claims about the robustness of their results and never attempted to correct those claims. That’s why they covered up adverse results of statistical tests they performed. They did it all because they knew their results were dependent entirely upon a tiny portion of their data, and if they told anyone that, they’d be laughed out of the room.

        The only reason to keep defending Mann’s actions at this point is blind loyalty to a cause. This is not a difficult subject. If you have an hour, you can learn all you need to know about it. That’s how long it should take you to read the simple summary I published:

        http://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars-Introduction-ebook/dp/B00RE7K3W2/

        Which not only makes these issues clear, but provides clear documentation to show the malfeasance.

      • Steven Mosher

        “The title of Mann’ Bradley and Hughes’ 1999 paper is “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations”.
        Clearly they didn’t have the intention of overselling their conclusions. ”

        1. That is not at all “clear” from the title. Nothing is clear except the promise that these ISSUES will be discussed.
        2. Reading intentions by proxy of words ( rather than behavior) is not
        robust.

      • This eadler character is a real gift. The perfect foil.

      • nottawa rafter

        Eadler

        Take some advice. Drop the drivel about the right wing groups starting the denial. You run the risk of being just another toady for left wing extremists. If you want people to take you seriously just stick to the climate science. Your kinds of comments are what motivated
        me and many others to start to question the settled science. The science eadler, the science.

      • nottawa rafter | January 7, 2015 at 5:07 pm |

        “@Eadler: Take some advice. Drop the drivel about the right wing groups starting the denial. You run the risk of being just another toady for left wing extremists. If you want people to take you seriously just stick to the climate science. Your kinds of comments are what motivated
        me and many others to start to question the settled science. The science eadler, the science.”

        Too late. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS463US463&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=carolina+e+adler

      • The real problem is Mann wasn’t calibrating against “adjusted” data.

        The “adjusted” data since Mann’s pre 2000 papers has increased variability of temperature used to “calibrate” the proxies over 50%.

        So you have to readjust the Mannian graph with a “Mannian Multiplier”.

        The pre-1900s peaks are 50% higher and the cold periods are 50% lower.

        Using the “Mannian Multiplier” lets you adjust historic temperatures from proxy based papers to be compatible with modern “adjusted” temperatures. When the adjusted temperatures increase the 20th century trend again (as they will every year) you can revisit the historic papers and bring them up to speed.

      • nottawa rafter | January 7, 2015 at 5:07 pm |

        “@Eadler: Take some advice. Drop the drivel about the right wing groups starting the denial. You run the risk of being just another toady for left wing extremists. If you want people to take you seriously just stick to the climate science. Your kinds of comments are what motivated me and many others to start to question the settled science. The science eadler, the science.”

        Too late. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS463US463&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=carolina+e+adler

      • David

        Then it is worse than I thought. Just another reason to wonder what kind of quality of individuals are in climate science. Making the kinds of statements and assertions that she did just degrades the entire establishment. Actually the tone that she was taking made me think she was a sophomore in college parroting the Liberal line of her professors. She will catch on in a decade or two.

  72. Rick Santelli said people who purchased risky mortgages were ‘Losers’ and kicked off the TEA Party of old dinosaur fossils, I’m sorry but this is just ludicrous… what about this Presidential cowboy running around telling everyone that ‘trickle down’ would lead to this great economic expansion? That his ties to the oil & gas industry would keep energy prices low. How we’d have a $5.6 trillion surplus in 10 years, he said this in 2001. Buy things, he said, everything is great!!! These Mortgages didn’t look so risky back then.

    You sure didn’t hear Rick running around warning that Dubya was ignoring the warnings of the plot to fly planes into the WTC. That laissez-faire has always preceded the worst crashes. That after 35 years nothing has ever trickled down except the little people paying for more and more expensive things. No he wasn’t saying that, gosh, that might make Goldman Sachs mad… The Tea dinosaurs can’t afford to do that, being how the bankers have it all covered!

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/09/ted-cruz/

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rand-paul-gets-private-audience-at-goldman-sachs-20141217

  73. Boston Fed.
    ========

  74. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/

    Time to push back against the global warming Nazis
    February 20th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

    When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

    They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

    Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

    I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

    The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

    They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

    Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

    Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.

    Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

    I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

    I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

    They invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

    This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

    So, as long as they continue to call people like me “deniers”, I will call them “global warming Nazis”.

    I didn’t start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

    NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.

    DISCLAIMER: Any views expressed here are my own, and unless otherwise stated, are not those of my employer, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, or the State of Alabama.

    • http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/

      Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

      Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

    • Well…

      I would prefer to use less emotionally charged titles. Using WWII-derived epithets by either side isn’t generally helpful and is so last century.

      A bigger problem is warmers debating tactics. There was a good article on how to spot a global warmer:
      https://designmatrix.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/10-signs-of-intellectual-dishonesty/

      Since they are advocates of government intervention and control it is more accurate to call them warmistas or warmunists. I generally just call them warmers or global warmers.

      • Fascists actually, which is what N azi’s are, but no one has thought of anything as catchy as warmusta or warmunist AFAIK.

      • Alarmists. Who minds warmers, lukewarmers in mufti? They’re just a little further from understanding that warming is good, esp. any attributable to man, and greening is great.
        =============

  75. Over 50 years ago Kaplan and Plass’ produced estimates of CO2 doubling causing as little as 1.2C warming and as much as 3.8C warming respectively.

    As of now the range hasn’t been narrowed.

    Zero progress in climate science since 1959.

  76. ‘noting as a fact that everyone [ that matters] agrees it is warming is
    different than arguing that you ought to believe its warming because everyone else does.

    As judith has made clear she believes its warming because it is in fact warming.’

    Note to Steve Mosher (IF you ever see this): I appreciate it when you speak sensibly. Give us more! ;)