Blog topics discussion thread

by Judith Curry

I’m pondering future blog topics, and I thought I would throw this open for discussion.

Climate Etc. is one of the few climate blogs that discusses a range of topics, beyond climate science (that is what the ‘etc’ implies).

In Week in Review, the topic categories have evolved into:

  • policy and politics
  • energy, food, water
  • science and research (broadly defined to include sociology and philosophy of science)
  • climate and science wars
  • humor

I think this is a pretty good description of the scope I am targeting.  I find it interesting to see what articles in week in review people actually click on:the New Scientist and Salby articles received the most clicks, then energy policy related articles.  International politics and climate wars received relatively few clicks.

In recent weeks, posts on climate research have dominated.  The actual distribution of topics in any given week depends on newsworthiness (climate wars have been a hot topic the past month), volunteered guest posts, my schedule (in terms of whether or not I can spend 4+ hours on a post with original content), and whim (what I feel like writing about).

So I am seeking feedback from the Denizens on:

  • preferred topic areas, or specific topic suggestions
  • frequency of posts: are more frequent posts desired (with the understanding that ‘filler’ posts will not be original content from me, e.g. something like the Christopher Essex post)
  • Week in Review: is it about right, or too many items? Would you prefer fewer items, with more commentary from me?
  • any other suggestions/discussions related to content of the posts

I am developing a weekly schedule of sorts:

  • Saturday: Week in Review
  • Sunday:   Some sort of discussion thread
  • Mon or Tues:  Main post for the week, original content
  • Later in the week:  guest posts or newsy items

Comments and moderation

The number of comments has decreased somewhat, which I regard as a good thing; once comment threads get over 400, it is difficult to read.  More frequent posts tend to keep the comment threads from getting too long.

As a result of moderation, a few previously prolific commenters have now left; and some new people are commenting.  I am continuing to moderate more heavily than previously.

I did turn off the need to register; I became convinced that anonymity and not feeding the ‘big brother’ scrutiny of twitter and Facebook was preferable.  I will turn it back on if spammers return.

My schedule

I have a big report due in mid-May; I don’t know how much of my time this will take, but it will probably eat in to the time I have for blogging.

Of note, I have two interviews with Fox News this week (one requiring a trip to New York City); I will keep you posted as to when these will air.

I am traveling to the UK in mid June, I will be giving a public lecture in London (details to follow).

369 responses to “Blog topics discussion thread

  1. For me the schedule is fine to a bit busy. These are complex posts that require a lot of reading to absorb and often that means background reading as well. I would like to see guest posts on other factors carbon dioxide cycling which may potentially change the modelling outcomes if they are added in, such as diatoms and their role in the oceanic biological pump.

  2. While some don’t like him, I appreciated ATTP’s input into the discussion. I know you don’t have control over this, but input from more professional scientists would be welcomed.

    I would like to see more exploration of climate sensitivity and the role of water, especially clouds.

    I feel the question of the actual magnitude of uncertainty bounds around the BEST temperature construction hasn’t been well answered. But that’s a pretty big heap of data and code to dissect.

    It would be good to explore climate feedbacks that damp climate response. It seems the focus it always on feedbacks that accelerate the response to a forcing. That doesn’t seem realistic given that we should experience a runaway greenhouse effect and we don’t.

  3. As a non-climate expert, I, as a social scientist greatly appreciate discussions relevant to the philosophy/sociology of science as it impacts climate research and policy: data manipulation, smearing of sceptics, issues of falsifiability and the like. As I have posted, I find you and your posts “a breath of fresh air in a swamp.” Since I cannot fathom many of the technical issues of the science, you and your posts of other experts’ evaluations provide a great service to we non-experts.

    FYI I was able to include a figure showing the discrepancy between alarmist models and satellite temperature measurements over the past 18 years in the last chapter of the 12th edition of my introductory sociology text Human Societies (2015).

    Thank you for what y’all do!

    • Why would you include a figure “showing the discrepancy between alarmist models and satellite temperature measurements over the past 18 years”? Why 18 years? Where did you get this ‘figure’ from? Or did you create it yourself? Why only satellite measurements and not ocean or surface measurements or any of the other many parameters in climate models?

      Or are you using this ‘figure’ as an example of the unethical and deceptive practice of cherry-picking to support an ideological position rather than an evidence-based position?

  4. Also, it appears to me that most paleo proxies tend to average the data, whatever the proxy is for, over time. This tends to deaccentuate past climate swings and makes the instrumental record appear exceptional.

  5. John Carpenter

    FWIW, I think the week in review has too many links now, though I like the way you categorize them. I would like to see WIR pared down to the topics/items you found most interesting along with a few of your thoughts. It might make the reading list a bit more manageable and keep discussions a bit tighter.

    I like your weekly schedule. I like to read new things frequently instead of one post lingering for too many days. Though it requires more of your time. I would say on average the frequency of new posts here is about right and fits in with your proposed schedule.

    I have no issues with the moderation

    • I counted 61 links in wir

    • Yes, I had noticed this too. Some of the fluff pieces could be eliminated, but it is good to have the thoughtful articles and thankfully also these are not one-sided. However, usually you can tell from the title whether it is worth clicking on.

    • I rarely disagree with your comments John but in this instance I believe that the links should continue to be provided if that is not taking up too much of Judith’s time. We readers always have the option not to follow up with subjects that do not interest us at the time but recognising that other readers might wish to know about these links and that Judith’s interests may occasionally not be reciprocated by some denizens.

      • John Carpenter

        I do not disagree that generally more information to choose from is better than less. It was just an idea to try to focus discussions. In the end it may really be a problem of herding cats.

      • Peter davies,

        I agree. Got to make it easy or I probably won’t go looking for the links for most of the items. i go a lot out of the weeks WIR.

      • I agree that the more links the better. I often find the links very useful, completely apart from whether I am inclined to post on that topic. I can’t see any benefit from reducing the number. Nobody has to click on them, and it seems like the notion of focusing discussion is out the window from the start with this kind of presentation.

      • I’m with Peter Davies here.

        I think if it were possible, organizing the comments by article would facilitate the related discussions w/o cutting back on the diversity of the articles linked – although I can’t imagine how that could be pulled off, logistically.

  6. Interview on Fox…

    Quite the racket…Since you’re not going to get an interview on ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, or perish the thought MSNBC, you’re limited to Fox…. which they then go on to contemptuously dismiss as big oil drenched, conservative propaganda.

    Their case for CAGW is both shamefully weak and admirably airtight.

  7. Tetragrammaton

    Beyond climate wars. If one were to say, or think, for the sake of argument, perhaps, that the “alarmist” meme of “climate change” is going to fall apart sooner or later, maybe here are some fun topics and sub topics:

    Sooner? or Later? or Never?
    Gradually (years) or more quickly (months?)
    Driven by politics (republican?) or science?
    What will happen, or should happen, to “scientists” who are then deemed to have been acting unscientifically? Fired? Pensions docked? Put in the stocks? Nothing?
    What will happen to “climate science” funding from governments? From philanthropic institutions?
    When will the IPCC be disbanded?

    I can think of some denizens who will be titillated by these topics, and others whose hair will stand on end. However, the potential mechanisms and timescales are worthy of serious discussion, in my opinion.

  8. S.C. Schwarz

    I wonder if you might have time to comment on this report:

    http://www.voxeu.org/article/myth-europe-s-little-ice-age

    • I agree with S.C. Schwarz: I too would like to see comments on this report. I’d like to know the source of the data and how they were obtained. The lower part of Figure 1 certainly looks like just noise, so based on that, I would have to agree with Kelly and O Grada that “In every case the mean and variance of the series remain almost constant until around 1900” except that I would add that I see no difference after 1900. But that does not mean a lower amplitude signal is not hidden in the noise.

      Guess I’ll have to dig through the original paper, which does not appear to be pay-walled.

    • agree that this is interesting, some discussion on twitter

    • One for tonyb. Surely with these other long European records we can have a better idea of which wiggles are larger scale. There may be randomness, but there are also signals that you can’t get out of only one site.

    • S C schwarytz

      The two professors of Econmics might have found it iusefyol to have read Fagans The Little Ice Age that they cited. Also Jean Groves book of the same name various books of Hubert Lamb contain long rfeferences to his scholarly work on the subject and E Roy Ladurires majrestic book times og feast times of famimne might have helped inprive their know;redge of the pereipod.

      I dealt with the LIA in a recent article here. Iyt woiuld be more helpful tp consider it as an intermittent series of extremely cold events.rayher than one centuries long monolithic period of cold.

      https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/19/the-intermittent-little-ice-age/

      I had ptreviously dealt with the period hjere

      https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

      At the end of the doxument is a klionk to some

      tonyb

      • S C Schwartz

        Sorry, the reply seems to have posted itself! Here is the correct version

        The two professors of Econmics might have found it useful to have actually read Fagans The Little Ice Age that they cited. Also Jean Groves book of the same name, various books of Hubert Lamb contain long references to his scholarly work on the subject and E Roy Laduries majestic book ‘times of feast times of famine,’ might have helped improve their knowledge of the period.

        I dealt with the LIA in a recent article here. It woiuld be more helpful to consider it as an intermittent series of extremely cold events rather than one centuries long monolithic period of cold.

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/19/the-intermittent-little-ice-age/

        I had previously dealt with the period here

        https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

        At the end of the document is a link to some 100 references relating to the era.

        Smoothing and averaging data hides the extremes. The LIA consisted of many extremes, both very warm and very cold.

        tonyb

      • Sort of a ‘madhouse’ climate, eh?
        ==============

      • climatereason wrote: “The two professors of Econmics might have found it iusefyol to have read Fagans The Little Ice Age that they cited.”

        I don’t know why you say they did not read that. They seem fully aware of that, but are challenging the conclusions based on the data they analyze.

        I took a quick look at the Netherlands data and see a possible reason for their result. The data are very noisy, so perhaps there is indeed too much random noise to allow one to find the underlying signal. Ane they say nothing about their detection limit.

      • AK –

        ==> “That’s what they’re here for. We know they haven’t got a scientific case. ”

        A scientific case for what? I will heartily agree that I haven’t got a scientific case to prove arguments that other people assign to me but that I never argued and don’t believe. I don’t have a scientific case to prove a straw man.

        Or maybe I’m wrong and what you said is accurate. If so, go ahead and accept the challenge. Don’t slink away. What are you talking about? What is this scientific case that I don’t have?

      • I will heartily agree that I haven’t got a scientific case […]. I don’t have a scientific case to prove a straw man.

        Exactly! You don’t have a scientific case, even one as ign0rant and obsolete as Jim D’s.

        Which is why you constantly pollute the discussion with questions of motivation.

        Oh, and why did you answer on a different thread? Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

      • There little ignorant or obsolete about Jim D’s case. Why he hangs around this complete nuthouse is a mystery.

      • It’s a paradigm thing.

      • ==> “Oh, and why did you answer on a different thread? Did you think I wouldn’t notice?”

        Lol! Yeah, that’s the ticket. I was answering your comment in the hope that you wouldn’t see my answer to your comment.

        Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the logic of a “skeptic.”

        Too funny.

      • Ladies and gentlemen, […]

        Exactly! You’re not talking to me, you’re posturing for the audience. Dialectic at its finest.

      • > Dialectic at its finest.

        That would be rhetoric, AK.

        One does not simply probe minds and pretend to deal into dialectic, BTW. So one of the memes have to go, as least as far as dialectic is concerned, and contrary to another stance you took earlier regarding meme consistency.

        Yup.

      • AK –

        ==> “You’re not talking to me, ”

        hmm.

        If so, [why don’t you] go ahead and accept the challenge. Don’t [you]slink away. What are you talking about? What is this scientific case [that you are asserting]that I don’t have?

        Lol! Yeah, that’s the ticket. I was answering your comment in the hope that you wouldn’t see my answer to your comment.

        I addressed my comments to you and I addressed you first.

        Then I addressed my comments to the “audience.” As if anyone else really cares. heh.

      • Then I addressed my comments to the “audience.” As if anyone else really cares. heh.

        I’ll admit I spent a few minutes puzzling over the exchange, trying to figure out what the heck you guys were talking about. If there’s substance hidden away in there somewhere it’s beyond my poor skills to find it.
        I offer no insult in saying this and hope none is taken. Many of my posts don’t even rank against amateur comic strips. If there are such things. :)

      • Mark –

        ==> “If there’s substance hidden away in there somewhere it’s beyond my poor skills to find it.”

        Mine too.

      • > If there’s substance hidden away in there somewhere it’s beyond my poor skills to find it.

        That’s a fair question, MikeB, and the answer is yes, there is substance behind all this.

        The “audience” is the target of rhetoric:

        Rhetoric (pronounced /ˈrɛtərɪk/) is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.

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

        According to Aristotle, there are three main branches of rhetoric:

        Chapter Three

        Introduces the three genres of rhetoric: deliberative, forensic, and epideictic rhetoric. Here he also touches on the “ends” the orators of each of these genres hope to reach with their persuasions – which are discussed in further detail in later chapters (Bk. 1:3:5-7). Aristotle introduces these three genres by saying, “The kinds of rhetoric are three in number, corresponding to the three kinds of hearers.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric_%28Aristotle%29

        Dialectic can be interpreted as a subset of the deliberative mode:

        This dialectic was formed as follows:

        The Question to be determined
        The principal objections to the question
        An argument in favor of the Question, traditionally a single argument (“On the contrary..”)
        The determination of the Question after weighing the evidence. (“I answer that…”)
        The replies to each objection

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

        ***

        AK’s dismissal of Joshua’s stance as mere rhetoric is therefore suboptimal. It is also inconsistant with his constant blaming, which may pertain to the epideictic mode. Here would be the appropriate mode for this kind of tactical trick, to which Essex alluded to the other day:

        An eristic discussion (also referred to as “sophistical dialogue” by Walton 1998, p. 195) forms an highly adversarial and competitive kind of conversation where each party tries to create the impression on the part of an attending audience that it is he who is the most clever and skilful discussant, in a shared attempt to settle upon an appropriate intellectual hierarchy between the participants.

        http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=ossaarchive

        I call the a sub-genre of eristic ClimateBall. Eristic is less uncool as it seems. Otherwise, Judy’s would not be that popular. Both the posts and the comment threads are polemical, adversary, and competitive.

        If you have any question, feel free to ask.

        Hope this helps,

        W

      • Willard, thanks for this, until now i’ve had no idea what the heck you were talking about re ‘ClimateBall’

      • Danny Thomas

        Huh. I was under the impression it was “I” win, “You” lose! Come to think of it, I still am under that impression.

      • Very nice summary. Thanks Willard.

      • Willard, you’re a diamond! :) I blush to admit I’d no idea Aristotle wrote on rhetoric. I’m excited and looking forward to reading it.
        And here I thought I knew something about rhetoric. Heh!

        This aside, OK. Without having read Aristotle’s material in question, still I think I get the sense of your point, and sure. There’s always substance behind how and why people conduct discourse, even (or maybe particularly) in cases when the conversation itself appears to be of little consequence to anything.

        BTW – sorry Joshua, I thought it was AK I was responding to initially. I’d probably respond in much the same way if someone started claiming an ‘argument’ I hadn’t explicitly made had no scientific basis.

        Anyways!

      • Thanks Mark –

        I’d probably respond in much the same way if someone started claiming an ‘argument’ I hadn’t explicitly made had no scientific basis.

        Wow!

        It’s a nice (and unfortunately rare) treat to know that my comments don’t always miss the “mark,” (heh) and at least sometimes get interpreted as I intended them.

        I look forward to reasonable exchanges with you in the future.

      • So one of the memes have to go, as least as far as dialectic is concerned, and contrary to another stance you took earlier regarding meme consistency.

        Nope. That’s not how memes work.

        AK’s dismissal of Joshua’s stance as mere rhetoric is therefore suboptimal.

        Why, given it’s true?

        Rhetoric ([…]) is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.

        But what I said was:

        But if they can convince naive newbies that their nit-picking and arm-waving is all the debate is about, they’ve contributed to their cause.

        As for Joshua’s complaints about “this scientific case that I don’t have?”, I’ve often seen him admit he doesn’t understand the science. He just picks away at motivations.

      • John Carpenter

        Willard, that is a nice taxonomy of rhetoric, however as a derivation of where climateball comes from, I find it sub optimal. For Judy’s sake I will interject that the idea of climateball is more closely borrowed from the imagination of a six year old boy in the form of a comic in which the main character invents a game called “Calvinball”… a game where the rules are made up as the game goes on and can never be played the same way twice (much to the chagrin of his best pal Hobbes). Please give credit to Bill Waterson where credit is due. The adoption of climateball from that origin was clever and aptly illustrates the nature of discussions found about climate change around the web-o-sphere.

        http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball

        For extra credit, I used the term ‘chagrin’ intentionally. Anyone know why?

        Thanks

      • […] climateball is more closely borrowed from the imagination of a six year old boy in the form of a comic in which the main character invents a game called “Calvinball” […]

        I don’t agree entirely. IMO it started as an attempt to portray everything McSteve was doing as akin to “Calvinball”, and grew from there to an attempt to portray the entire scientific debate over “Global Warming” as “ highly adversarial and competitive kind of conversation where each party tries to create the impression on the part of an attending audience that it is he who is the most clever and skilful discussant, in a shared attempt to settle upon an appropriate intellectual hierarchy between the participants.”.

      • Thank you MarkB, Carrick, Judy, and AK. Notice the abstract of Van Laar, cited above:

        How does the evaluation of argumentation depend on the dialogue type in which the argumentation has been put forward? This paper focuses on argumentative bluff in eristic (or: polemic) discussion. Any arguer conveys the pretence that his argumentation is dialectically reasonable and, at least to some degree, rhetorically effective. Within eristic discussion, it can be profitable to bluff that these claims are correct. However, it will be defended that such bluffing is dialectically inadmissible, even within an eristic discussion.

        Emphasis for AK.

        ***

        > Please give credit to Bill Waterson where credit is due.

        Already done, JohnC:

        People have asked how to play Calvinball. It’s pretty simple: you make up the rules as you go.

        https://climateball.wordpress.com/about/

        ***

        The game might not asridiculous as Bill and you seem to presume, since it alludes to radical holism:

        Neurath’s boat is a simile used in anti-foundational accounts of knowledge, especially in the philosophy of science, which was first formulated by Otto Neurath. It is based in part on the Ship of Theseus which, however, is standardly used to illustrate other philosophical questions, to do with problems of identity. It was popularised by W. V. O. Quine in Word and Object:

        We are like sailors who on the open sea must reconstruct their ship but are never able to start afresh from the bottom. Where a beam is taken away a new one must at once be put there, and for this the rest of the ship is used as support. In this way, by using the old beams and driftwood the ship can be shaped entirely anew, but only by gradual reconstruction.”

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

        Making rules as we go may very well be the human predicament. It is certainly the predicament of moderating climate blogs comment threads. If you are interested to know more about the concept, there are lots of notes on that thread:

        http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/climateballtm/

        ***

        The ClimateBall ™ can refer to many kinds of ways to play. I say “play” because there are no fixed set of rules, no judges. So the very idea of “scoring point” may only be allegorical. To play ClimateBall ™ to “score points” would be suboptimal.

        Sometimes, ClimateBall ™ turns into some kind of comedy of menace (look for Harold Pinter) while waiting for Godot (look for Samuel Beckett), It could be ClimateClub ™, but I can’t say anything more, as I swore never to tell about that. My favorite interpretation would be a dance:

        Ballroom. Shmallroom. Dance woman! And damn all convention! Its not about the points. Its never been about the points.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/7803496090

        While I’m not sure it takes at least two to tango, ClimateBall ™ would be less interesting without Denizens.

      • > IMO it started as an attempt to portray everything McSteve was doing as akin to “Calvinball”

        The Auditor already came with its own portrayal, AK. The “audit” is only a metaphor, and you might be surprised to see what you get if you’d paid due diligence to it. That the Auditor is the fiercest player in the history of ClimateBall ™ was discovered after the allusions to this concept:

        Imagine a football game with many teams. There are more than two teams, but each teams has two roles. (We do not need the concept of team, only the concept of role, but I think the teams are imposed by the role. More on that another time.)

        A team can play offense or defense. When a team plays offense, it has to move the ball forward. When a team plays defense, it has to prevent the ball to move. Ideally, it needs to get the ball, but that is not necessary. (We could argue that it must, but not now.)

        Here is another important point: offense cannot grab, defense can. Like in American football, so it’s not hard to understand. So the roles are not symmetrical, both in the ends and in the means.

        Now, let’s transpose that into what I said earlier about theories. Coherence is not being able to grab. Non-coherence (yes, there is an alternative to incoherence) is being able to grab. Moving the ball is akin to building a theory.

        I hope this explanation and this allegory helps. What I am saying so far is not very polemical. It would be possible to enter into a polemic by transposing what I said into rhetoric.

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/384966743

        As you can see, it was a way to speak of holism all along.

        ***

        Thanks to Danny Thomas, I am now developing the idea of a more specific game. The working title is RHETORICS ™. I’ve started to explore it in the previous thread, and I think it has potential.

        More on that later.

        Due diligence,

        W

      • Danny Thomas

        Willard,
        “Thanks to Danny Thomas, I am now developing the idea of a more specific game.”
        I am so honored I may actually be blushing just a bit. As I feel I’ve gained so very much as a witness of (and maybe even unintentional participant of) {can’t say the term as it seems it’s trademarked but initials are C.B.) please just imagine my restlessness while awaiting the new development. One question, if I may, do I get a least a mention on the box lid? :-)

    • Judith Curry

      As to Blog Topics, this is the kind of contrarian papers that I like to read and have comments upon.

      The only trouble with edging into statistical assessments: who do you believe? Obviously, there can be charlatans and I wouldn’t be able to tell.
      It is helpful when scientists start with and show raw data and proceed from there. Kinda makes them more believable.

    • Quite interesting. One thing to look into is borehole articles, see if they hold water, because if they do, the LIA was evident on six continents.

      • John

        Here is the official repository of borehole data held by the university of Michigan.

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

        I corresponded with the author a few months ago.

        What is interesting is that they show temperatures rising for 300 plus years which is what the temperature reconstructions such as CET illustrate. In other words the direction of travel is the opposite to the hockey stick, which heads downwards until 1900.

        I agree it would make an interesting topic for a post

        tonyb

      • More on borehole articles, including…Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt’s involvement:

        Mann and Schmidt (2003) suggested that borehole studies aren’t reliable temperature measures. They critiqued articles by borehole experts. The experts struck back. Then Mann and Schmidt published another paper, 6 years later.

        For those denizens interested in the back and forth, here are links, with some quotes for the second link:

        1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL017170/abstract

        “Ground vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions”, Mann and Schmidt, GRL, 2003

        2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL019054/epdf

        “Comment on ‘‘Ground vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions’’ by M. E. Mann and G. Schmidt”, Chapman et al., GRL, 2004

        Quote (first page, right hand column): “Our conclusions about GST and SAT are, therefore, opposite to those of Mann and Schmidt [2003]. We suggest the differences are based in a bias, not inherent in SAT and GST phenomena, but in selective and inappropriate presentation of model results by Mann and Schmidt. Rather than restate conclusions from our own observations, we show that, analyzed inan appropriate way, the Mann and Schmidt [2003] model results support rather than contradict findings from field observations.”

        Quote (2nd pg., right hand column: “A second misleading analysis made by Mann and Schmidt [2003] concerns inappropriate use of end-points in reaching a numerical conclusion….It is based on using endpoints in computing changes in an oscillating time series, and is just bad science. For example, had they chosen thet ime period 1975–1996 the equally erroneous end-point analysis would have lead to an opposite conclusion” (John – sound familiar?)

        Quote (2nd page, right hand column): “In conclusion, the Mann and Schmidt [2003] modeling study provides additional and strong support for field [Harris and Chapman, 2001] and observatory [Putnam and Chapman, 1996] studies that demonstrate how well ground temperature and air temperature changes track each other at time scales relevant to climate change reconstructions. These studies, showing good tracking of air and ground temperature, affirm that borehole temperature investigations remain an important complement in the arsenal of methods used to determine climate change.”

        3. http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/SchmidtMann-GRL04.pdf

        “Reply to comment on ‘‘Ground vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions’’ by D. Chapman et al.”, Schmidt and Mann, GRL, 2004

        4. http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MannetalGRL09.pdf

        “Potential biases in inferring Holocene temperature trends from long-term borehole information”, Mann et al, GRL, 2009

      • John, ““A second misleading analysis made by Mann and Schmidt [2003] concerns inappropriate use of end-points in reaching a numerical conclusion….It is based on using endpoints in computing changes in an oscillating time series, and is just bad science. ”

        Paging Nick Stokes and Willard, Nick Stokes and Willard, please report to the Mann defense desk.

      • Interesting how much snow cover distorts the borehole record. I did not know that.

      • JimD, There seems to be pretty of distortion to go around.

        I am a fan of subsurface temperatures, they have that natural smoothing thing going for them that comes with higher heat capacity than air. That reconstruction was picked since the central Alps might be a bit snowy at times.

      • Snow is a good insulator, so the borehole temperature is much higher than the annual average surface air temperature when there is snow cover for much of the year, and as a temperature proxy for long-range climate change it is distorted. However, I expect tropical or sub-tropical boreholes would be fine.

      • to JCH:

        the “relevant” link doesn’t work.

      • JCH, “However, if the results of the climate model are transferable to the real world, the drawback of a possible seasonal bias or of the influence of other disturbing factors such as snow cover, seems to be of minor importance at decadal and centennial time scales.”

        That transferablity is a bit of an issue, but subsurface temperatures whether boreholes, caves or SST which is actually a subsurface, tend to smooth out much of the seasonal “distortion”.. Surface air temperatures, especially summer are tightly linked to precipitation which is one of those confounding factors for tree rings doncha know.

      • The link didn’t work for me, but the Mann 2009 link was the one I saw.

      • > Paging Nick Stokes and Willard, Nick Stokes and Willard, please report to the Mann defense desk.

        Is that an invitation, Cap’n?

      • Willard, Yes indeed. You and Nick have done such a wonderful job of defending the Mann-O-Matic method I thought you might enjoy defending the Mann Y Gavin approach to discrediting borehole reconstructions.

        What we have is a number of paleo methods that appear to have some sort of fatal errors involved since they don’t agree all that well with Mann’s reconstructions, especially his latest “global” one.

      • > You and Nick have done such a wonderful job of defending the Mann-O-Matic method I thought […]

        I don’t recall ever having done that, Cap’n. What episode of ClimateBall did you have in mind when you called me at the desk?

        Not called. Invited. Sorry.

      • Once upon a future time we may not be able to find anyone who ever defended the Piltdown Mann.
        ==========

      • Willard,

        https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/29/the-ghost-of-present-climateball-tm/

        Diverting the debate from “Mann’s Method” to Climateball(TM) would be a defense I believe. I am not sure what defense you would call it, but “if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle then with BS” comes to my mind.

      • > Diverting the debate from “Mann’s Method” to Climateball(TM) would be a defense I believe.

        Let me get this straight, Cap’n: one can defend something or someone by diverting away from that thing or that one. Is that what you’re saying?

        That’s an amazing claim you got there, and you know what they say about amazing claims.

        ***

        Also, I thought the topic of that post was how the Auditor decided to play Humpty Dumpty with the concept of ClimateBall ™. I also thought that my main point was that this was a quite splendid ClimateBall ™ move. In other words, I was under the impression that this post was ClimateBall ™ all the way down.

        How does it divert the debate exactly?

        ***

        Finally, please note that the debate is a nice ClimateBall ™ move. It’s like “yes, but the issue” or “yes, but the question” or any kind of move to shift the focus on what the ClimateBall ™ player fancies to discuss. In other words, the “but the debate” move is a way to divert from what is being discussed.

        I hope you notice the delightful irony.

        ***

        Thank you, Cap’n. Please, do continue.

      • Willard, “How does it divert the debate exactly? ”

        What, creating a strawman then invoking climateball, is pretty simple. When M&M critiqued the Mann-O-Matic it was a critique of the method which involved a number of steps, not just PCs. Nick defended parts of the method, not the sequence, then climateball was declared.

        I have to admit it was better than the original, “His method was wrong, but he got the right answer.” and “When we use the proxies he selected and a similar method we can confirm his results, sort of.”. Now though there are younger players in the game, so the hockey stick reconstruction that doesn’t matter but keeps appearing to matter since now it reconstructs ocean dynamics, needs to be laid to rest.

        I just thought you would like to be on record as a staunch defender of the Mann-O-Matic.

      • I always love the arguments about who is “diverting” issues, and when they’re doing it.

        Tell me, Cap’n – do you have such a low opinion of “skeptics” as to think that they can’t determine for themselves what they’re interested in? Or are they just like kittens who chase after loose threads of yarn?

      • Are you calling Willard’s precious climate ball a ball of yarn? Well, if you aren’t, I will.
        ===========

      • No kim. I’m saying that “skeptics” ought to stop playing the victim card and start stepping up their personal accountability.

      • > What, creating a strawman then invoking climateball, is pretty simple.

        Come on, Cap’n. Have you read the post?

        First, everything I said has been documented. The Auditor’s claim has been quoted. His ClimateBall ™ moves have been described. Saying words like “BS” and “strawman” may not suffice to make your case.

        Second, the backstory wasn’t about MM05b, but about Nick’s analysis of the Wegman report. Now, think again about what this implies: you’re offering me to discuss the Wegman report. I don’t think you want that.

        This is a fair warning. You’re messing with somebody else’s business right now. Here’s where this has been left:

        http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/103392804494

        Please think before you type.

        ***

        When you’ll finish up reading, I’ve got a question for you. It might become an interesting blog discussion topic.

      • Is that card the Jack with the Big Boy pants on or the yellow card on foul play in Climateball?
        ========

      • Hoo Hah, Willard’s got his Wegman on. He bought it at his local echo chamber, that credulous casbah. And now he’s in BUSINESS!
        ============

      • Joshua, “Tell me, Cap’n – do you have such a low opinion of “skeptics” as to think that they can’t determine for themselves what they’re interested in?”

        Naw, the skeptics are doing fine, it’s the “believers” that are in trouble. there is no real side for skeptics or believers, btw. Skeptics are ready to question anything as are believers ready to believe anything.

      • But for the collected coterie, the Piltdown Mann’s Crook’t Stick would have received a proper funeral and burial a decade ago. Instead, it still roams the land, wreaking destruction widely and leaving a devastated trail of disinformation behind it.

        It doesn’t need Wegman to point out the problem. You can just get over your small business.
        ===============

      • Willard, “Second, the backstory wasn’t about MM05b, but about Nick’s analysis of the Wegman report.”

        MM05b and Wegman both were illustrating issues with Mann’s method. The story, back front and both sides is Mann’s method and “but Wegman” is a diversion.

        Are you a stanch defender of the Mann-O-Matic or not?

      • Everything in all the possible worlds is six degrees of separation away from the rock upon which the auditing sciences has been built, Cap’n.

        ***

        So here’s my question. It relates to contrarian memes. I know you’re good at both. So here it is.

        First, there’s this “stick to the argument” meme:

        The bottom line is that rather than invoking authority, they’d be well advised to stick to careful argument.

        https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/04/argument-and-authority-in-the-climate-fight/

        Second, there’s this “activist!” meme:

        Cowtan & Way are SkS activists and it is far from clear that their GMST timeseries is to be preferred to HadCRUT4 even over shortish timescales.

        http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/#comment-436578

        Both memes seem contradictory to me. The first rejects appeals to authority. The second uses an appeal against an authority.

        Which meme would you prefer contrarians use?

        Many thanks!

        ***

        If you can’t distinguish MM05b from Nick’s analysis of the Wegman’s report, I’d stay away from this. If you don’t trust me, ask Judy to start a thread about it.

      • Willard’s toy monitor still lets him swing at the ball but the crowds in the stands have already gone home. There’s no joy in Alarumsburg tonight, Mighty Mann has struck out.
        ==========

      • When you have to make up stuff to support your thesis, what does this say about your thesis? C’mon Willard, this is elementary school philosophy.
        =====================

      • Willard, I don’t much care for meme.

        “If you can’t distinguish MM05b from Nick’s analysis of the Wegman’s report, I’d stay away from this. If you don’t trust me, ask Judy to start a thread about it.”

        Okay a thread on the “hockey Stick Index” and humor would be nice.

        As for Cowtan and Way, their method has merit but only for 1979 on possible 1950 on if there is enough military data to fill in the polar corner. .

        Prior to that there is a noticeable reduction in variability that is most likely related to the reduced number of data points. Both poles are a problem not matter what method is used prior to 1950.

        Should the AMO shift, and once UAH makes adjustments, many “skeptics” will pick HADCRUT.C&W as their go to reference.

      • > I don’t much care for meme.

        Unless you’re being careless or carefree when you use some, I doubt it, Cap’n. For instance, there are two interesting memes you and Koldie have played in this subthread, related to the M-word:

        First, there’s your “you defend Mann!”

        You and Nick have done such a wonderful job of defending the Mann-O-Matic method I thought […]

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/29/blog-topics-discussion-thread/#comment-688411

        Second, there’s Koldie’s “you don’t defend Mike!”:

        Once upon a future time we may not be able to find anyone who ever defended the Piltdown Mann.

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/29/blog-topics-discussion-thread/#comment-688423

        If we take these two memes together, we get a double bind:

        A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.

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

        I don’t know about you, Cap’n, but using memes that act as a double bind like that doesn’t look good on Denizens. I think Denizens ought to choose between playing “you defend Mike!” and “you don’t defend Mike!,” don’t you think?

        ***

        In any case, good to see that you’ve returned to showing shots from your fishing expeditions. Fishing graphs does you good. Sticking to graphs suits you best.

        Until next time,

        Due diligence,

        W

      • Danny Thomas

        Willard,
        If one were to be a fan of Climateball, one might say this kind of thinking has a hold in it: “A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.”

        One can always answer “MAYBE”!
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybe

      • > Maybe

        I thought it was “maybe, just maybe,” Danny. Interestingly, “maybe, just maybe” sounds less maybe than “maybe”.

        You know, I got to thank you for making me think about how we need to commit to memes. Memes are double edge swords. Musashi’s saying might apply here, at the very least it refers to a kingdom Cap’n likes to game:

        Whatever you do, you must drive the enemy together, as if tying a line of fishes, and when they are seen to be piled up, cut them down strongly without giving them room to move.

        What you say applies to dillemmas, where no choice is good is available. The M meme is one example of that. It doesn’t apply to the authority memes: it is possible for Denizens to decide if they play the man, or not. They simply can’t do both, notwithstanding gems like yours yesterday:

        I don’t care for strictly appeals to authority, but having said that, I don’t reject them out of hand.

        You, Danny, need to choose if you care for authority, or if you don’t. I say you should care for authority, since all points out to the fact that you do. What you should say, then is that you don’t care for the authority of those you distrust.

        So much the worse for Judy’s bottom line that “rather than invoking authority, they’d be well advised to stick to careful argument.” But then, if we ditch Judy’s meme, does it mean we disregard her authority regarding authority?

        Food for thought.

        Most obliged.

        W

      • Danny Thomas

        Willard,
        I made you think! Wow!

        As far this goes:”You, Danny, need to choose if you care for authority, or if you don’t.” I can only say sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. Or a resounding………..maybe. Kinda like when I pay the tax man knowing some of my money won’t be used in ways I’d chose to use it personally but yet I respect the authority of the tax man being in a position to collect that tax from me. Hmmmm. Does that mean I “care for authority” or not? Looks kinda like “maybe” to me.
        I’m all about substance ya know! Have a great night W!

      • Danny, Maybe and FIIK are under utilized in climate politics.; Double binds, not so much.

        https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt. D,
        I only hope someone somewhere had a giggle. Climateball seems such a serious game.

      • It was kind of amusing watching Willard play dodgeball, weaving around among Mann and Wegman. Dare he defend Mann? Well, that’s his business.
        ============

      • ==> “Skeptics are ready to question anything as are believers ready to believe anything.”

        And as long as you live in cartoon land, you can think that’s what’s going on. Look around here, though, and you’ll lots o’ gullible “skeptics” and skeptical “realists.”

        At any rate, stop trying to change the subject, Cap’n. Let’s get back to your bogus “diversion” nonsense.

        Do you really think that willard controls what “skeptics” do and don’t think about? C’mon, Cap’n. Step up your game. Be accountable.

      • > Kinda like when I pay the tax man knowing some of my money won’t be used in ways I’d chose to use it personally but yet I respect the authority of the tax man being in a position to collect that tax from me. Hmmmm. Does that mean I “care for authority” or not? Looks kinda like “maybe” to me.

        Either you pay your taxes or not, Danny. You can’t say “I pay my taxes, maybe”. If sometimes you appeal to authorities, then you can’t pretend only looking at the arguments.

        One meme has to be deprecated.

        ***

        Being “about substance” would mean you only look at the arguments, BTW. Therefore, maybe you are. Just maybe.

        Nite,

        W

      • catweazle666

        Willard: “Being “about substance” “

        Ah, “substance”, that explains it.

        What substance are you smoking Willy-boy, and can I have some?

        Pretty please?
        .

      • David Springer

        +1 on paleo temperature from boreholes

        Unlike proxies boreholes are direct temperature measurements to produce a time/temperature series. No dubious tree ring to temperature conversion necessary. It’s also not susceptible to time-of-observation bias, station moves, instrument changes, and so forth.

        Boreholes don’t lie.

      • You don’t seem to take ClimateBall seriously, Big Dave. Danny seems of two minds about this. On one thread, it was “playing games” and now it’s “serious games”. Just like you may be a man of moderation, Danny may be a man of contradiction. Maybe you and him, in your own lovely ways, are playing ClimateBall a bit more than you may be willing to admit.

        Maybe Cap’n invited me here, and maybe you don’t own the place.

        Just maybe.

      • David Springer

        And maybe you’re just a contemptible little prig with delusions of being interesting.

      • 4. Conclusions
        [8] In the climate simulation the coupling at interannual
        timescales between deep soil temperature and surface air
        temperatures is weaker in winter than in the summer
        months, thus supporting the hypothesis put forward by
        Mann et al. [2003]. …

      • captain

        can you put extended CET to 1538 against the Central Alps/Warm pool graphic?

        tonyb

      • I try to make a topical comment to a reasonable request for a borehole temperature series and find the response buried underneath a ton of climateball nonsense from Willlard and Joshua.

        That’s what they’re here for. We know they haven’t got a scientific case. They know it. But if they can convince naive newbies that their nit-picking and arm-waving is all the debate is about, they’ve contributed to their cause.

      • > We know they haven’t got a scientific case.

        That’s an interesting meme you got there, AK.

        Maybe mind probing does not belong to a scientific mode of communication.

        Maybe vigorously waving your arms using concepts 10 feet above your comfort zone does not any scientific case make.

        Maybe you will have to choose between memes soon.

        Maybe it’s a paradigm thing.

      • Maybe you will have to choose between memes soon.

        Doesn’t work that way.

        Maybe it’s a paradigm thing.

        Yup.

      • The AMO is shifting…

        Upwards.

      • Looks like another 15 years to me.

    • This article calls into question the issue of smoothing. Smoothing has been used in many different professional fields, not just temperature histories.

      I’m not a statistician, but it seems to me that you need to have some ability to detect trends in a series that “looks” like white noise.

      If these authors are correct, then shouldn’t we be using the “eyeball test,” instead of using a statistical method, like smoothing, that enables a trend to be seen?

    • You can start by reading this which is one of the better reports I have found
      on the subject :

      http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

    • You want to see a comment on that report: RUBBISH!

      The authors clearly don’t have a clue about noise/natural variation and this shows in the way they’ve inverted the logic to suggest that because something is “noise” is should be ignored.

      The simple fact as they show is that it is both noise and that there are periods of cooling/warming with dramatic effects.

  9. I’d like to see more analysis of the very precarious position climate realists inhabit, simply because the chaotic system of climate itself could turn against them. It seems that nature has been kind to us for the last two decades, suspending the gradual warming of the last 300 years, and placing some egg on the face of climate extremists by demonstrating the fallacies of their computer simulations. It is a glaring weakness that #AGW as a theory has utterly no predictive value. However, warmer and colder are simply a coin flip – the climate will eventually go one of the two directions. My fear is that there is a mounting head of political intolerance of science that will break loose and be quite implacable if warming returns for the next 5 years, with 0.1 C or some similar amount of warming. It would not be a catastrophy for the planet – but it could well spell the end of rational, apolitical climate science as we would all wish to see it.

  10. Jaime Jessop

    The whys and wherefores of geo-engineering – increasingly (and worryingly) being taken very seriously by climate alarmists as an option to avoid the ‘worst’ effects of climate change. Expect to have to moderate furiously.
    I agree that comment threads on Climate etc. can become very long and off-putting to those people who just want to get a few basic points across.

  11. Perhaps this could be fodder for “Etc.” http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/4928/20150327/large-hadron-collider-prove-existence-star-treks-parallel-universe.htm IF there are gravity leaks, what affect on Climate?

  12. You made a couple of “teasers” recently that piqued my interest. One was to warming since 1600s and a hint of a turnaround in the Arctic. I want to say I would like to see an “impartial” synopsis of the science of these areas but that may be impossible. Your perspectives are always welcome. Those of us on the outside read the full gamut of opinions on the work of many

    scientists and value your views over many who are less qualified.

    As an example, Salby was called a “fool”. He may be a fool, But I am more interested in whether his theory has any merit.

    Being a non-conformist doesn’t mean the science is wrong.

    The entire debate about the solar role could not be murkier. I would like a point counter point discussion between experts on both sides of the role of the Sun.

    The present schedule of topics is about right.

    You are providing a great service. Thanks.

  13. richardswarthout

    I posted this yesterday but do so again:

    1. I would like a primer in paleo reconstructions; what’s available and a brief description of each, and what are the limitations of each. I am also curious as to why limitations are sometimes ignored and publications proceed when this is done.

    2. Cloud Dynanics; there appears to be some new research. Is there any hope of new knowledge in this area? Is there a cloud research overarching plan?

    Thank you,

    Richard

  14. Michael Edwards

    The week in review has too many citations, and no info about whether these are honest or BS. I find I open 10 or 20, and close them rapidly as nonsense. Please filter to those that actually make sense – for or against – I do not care. Most cannot pass the smell test.

  15. I appreciate the choice to stop requiring a registration. I tried to make one but I failed for personal reasons and I must say even though I don’t count myself a heavy commenter I was still missing the ability to comment here.

    Regarding topics, I appreciate the science the most. There’s a lot to learn and unbiased science was what pulled me here in the first place. Introduction of new interesting findings in proper context and some pointing out of errors on both sides would be very nice. I’m feeling lack of criticism of the skeptical side as of late and I’m sure there’s some due.

    Another thing I liked a lot was the insight into the psychology of the “battle”, the understanding of differences in motives and aims of both sides. I’d like to see it extended in the direction of “how to start and maintain constructive dialog and mutual understanding”.

    I have no opinion regarding frequency. Just post whatever you like as often as you like. The one person that we need to feel happy about the blog is you. And for many people strict schedule is very strong deterrent of happiness.

    • I tend to agree with all your points Kasuha with only one exception: the psychology of the “battle” has been a bit overdone in recent posts IMO but there are a few denizens who seems to more interested in these topics than in the actual AGW issue. I am not particularly interested in examining other people’s motives and much prefer to engage with other denizens on the issues alone.

    • Kasuha –

      ==> “Another thing I liked a lot was the insight into the psychology of the “battle”, the understanding of differences in motives and aims of both sides.”

      That’s interesting. What insight did you gain about the differences in motives and aims of both sides? Did you learn how to judge people’s motives? Their aims?

  16. A couple of ideas:

    1) What does it really mean for climate forecasts that the climate system is a “non-linear, chaotic” system?

    The IPCC seems to acknowledge the fact. Why isn’t it more important?

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-says-climate-prediction-impossible.html

    and

    2) Intellectual Dishonesty and Mischaracterizing the Debate

    Nobody seems to truly be a “Climate Change Denier”, yet reporters often mischaracterize the debate in those terms: Climate Change Denier vs. Science. Why isn’t that mischaracterization intellectually dishonest? Here’s David Legates characterization, which seems much more accurate to me:

    “At the outset, let us define what the debate is not about. The debate is not about whether our climate is changing; indeed, it always has changed on timescales ranging from decades to millennia. It is not about whether humans can influence the Earth’s climate; they certainly do. It is not about whether global air temperatures have risen over the past 160 years; they have. The real questions that define this debate are:
    (1) To what extent are humans responsible for the climate change we see?
    (2) What are the future consequences of climate change, from both natural and anthropogenic sources?
    (3) How should we respond?”

    Recent example of this intellectual dishonesty at the LA Times:

    http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-how-should-reporters-treat-candidates-who-deny-climate-change-20150324-column.html

    Thanks!

  17. Given that Essex has written a paper on ‘Does a Global Temperature Exist’ to which I’ve found no credible criticism and given that he points out the following:

    “Climate, as the scientific field we know today, is very young. It was cobbled together from pieces of a number of established fields and elevated into the limelight only very recently as science goes. It was particularly vulnerable to antirational inroads because there was no core body of scientific knowledge, like say physics or chemistry have. Before the great climate fervor, the term “climate science” was virtually unheard of. Instead, climatology was a tranquil, narrow, and descriptive area, with little funding and few practitioners. Today’s version, climate science, is driven as much by trumped up public fears as traditional scientific objectives. I have heard many times that what we scientists should work on “depends on what policymakers want.”

    The fields and methodologies of climate science are a disjointed collection that few have anything approaching a universal command of, let alone a universal command from which to form a knowledgable consensus. Is climate research the gathering and description of data? Is it statistical time series analysis? Is it meteorology extended by supercomputers? Is it molecular spectroscopy? Is it oceanography, glaciology, geology, thermodynamics, physics, orbital mechanics, computer science, survey research, economics, biology, dynamical systems theory, solar physics, or much more? It is easy to say “all of the above,” but specialists in these subfields often wonder privately what the other specialties are actually there for. For example, “do we really need complex models when greenhouses are so simple?” Or, “We modelers can help paleontologists more than they can help us.” There are many such examples.”

    I’d like to see someone generate an overall architecture of the science.

    What are the fundamentals and are they all verified with empirical data or are there fundamentals being used that are best guesses by ‘experts.’ What kind of foundation does this science rest on? What are the parts and how are they interconnected? What is the evidence for each part? How sure is anyone that the evidence is solid?

    Are the CLOUD experiments at CERN completed or ongoing? Have they reached any conclusions? Are the oceans warming or cooling or both? How do we know? How reliable is the data?

    There seem to be fights over the use and abuse of statistical methodology, over how best to understand and apply thermodynamics, over radiation and energy budgets and water and clouds and all of that doesn’t even begin to deal with what we don’t know and what we don’t know we don’t know. It seems that the words ‘settled’ and ‘science’ when it comes to climate are light years apart.

    Creating a coherent structure out of this huge rambling enterprise seems difficult without even asking if what is said is true or not. Just working out a progression from fundamentals to higher orders of thinking and organization and how all the parts interrelate seems a Hurculean task.

    So maybe an architecture wouldn’t be complete. How about a scaffolding to show where we’ve been and what is emerging, what is missing, what is deeply troubling or just completely missing from our understanding? EG, is water vapor a positive or negative feedback, what are the implications of either and is it both depending on the variables involved and the time of day?

    Perhaps it’s my rank ignorance but it seems there are far too many missing pieces to attempt any kind of global policy. Hubris seems to be marching miles ahead of ability. Every one taking care of local matters on local levels would seem more wise and economical in both intellectual effort, consequences and money spent than chasing planet wide agreements by cobbling together poorly understood ideas to force agreement.

    It would be a boon to understanding to get an overall look at this gigantic, messy problem. Or have I missed this already having been done?

    • Perhaps it’s my rank ignorance but it seems there are far too many missing pieces to attempt any kind of global policy.

      Actually, the policy sort of came first. Then a scientific “paradigm” was built to justify rationalize it.

      The primary intersection of “climate science” and policy is CO2: the purpose is mostly just to provide excuses for interfering in national economies in the interest of “CO2 mitigation”, especially with enough urgency to forestall any effort to think the problems through.

      Given all the uncertainties, along with the fact that hyper-complex non-linear systems do have a habit of making sudden, (more or less) drastic jumps, and the fact that both the climate, and the global ecosystem in general, are hyper-complex non-linear systems that involve atmospheric pCO2 as an important boundary condition, one that apparently hasn’t been at current levels for millions of years, it’s hard to deny a risk of some sort, even though it’s not quantifiable.

      So from a policy standpoint, IMO, climate issues can almost be eliminated: we know there’s a risk, we don’t know the probabilities, although even the worst that could happen probably wouldn’t be an existential risk to the species (ours).

      Thus, steering the technical/economic course of our global “civilization” (or whatever) in a direction that will eliminate, or optimally reverse, the dumping of fossil carbon into the system would be highly desirable.

      As long as it doesn’t cost too much.

      The relative costs (financial, social, political, and libertarian), risks, and probabilities of success of various “mitigation”, “remediation”, and “geoengineering” schemes (or not) are what the debate is really about.

      IMO

    • Daniel,

      Excellent thoughts and observations. The “rank ignorance” is a trait of those that claim the science is settled.

  18. Topic:

    By What Method Is Natural Climate Change Distinguished From Anthropogenic Climate Change.

    Seriously.

    Andrew

    • ah i have post on this planned, called muddy fingerprints. will be a few weeks before i get to it tho. issue of key importance

    • It’s the forcing. On the natural side, we have solar and volcanoes. On the anthropogenic side we have GHGs and aerosols.

      • But what method is used to distinguish, Jimmy? Jimmy apparently doesn’t know.

        Andrew

      • Correlation over time. For example, you can see the 11-year solar cycle and volcanoes in the temperature record, and the global rise in temps shows you can also see the GHGs having their growing long-term impact. The sizes of these effects on temperature are in proportion to their expected forcing.

      • “Correlation over time.”

        How long of a time? Come on, Jimmy. Get Sciency on me.

        Andrew

      • I want an answer the original question, which Jimmy seems unable to address with any kind of certainty.

        Andrew

      • It’s the forcing. Return to above…

      • “It’s the forcing”

        I want a detailed, scientific answer. Not 3 a three word poem.

        Andrew

      • It’s the forcing.

        Wrong.

      • Even models have unforced variation

        P.S. Don’t call the site I linked a denier site. Even aTTP admits it (sort of).

      • catweazle666

        JimD: “Correlation over time.”

        Please write out 100 times:

        Correlation does not imply causation”.

      • richardswarthout

        Jim D

        WG1_AR5_Chapter 10, Section 10.2 Evaluation of Detection and Attribution Methodologies says this:

        “The definition of detection and attribution used here follows the terminology in the IPCC guidance paper (Hegerl et al, 2010). ‘Detection of change is defined as the process of demonstrating that climate or a system affected by climate has changed in some defined statistical sense without providing a reason for that change. An identified change is detected in observations if its likelihood of occurrence by chance due to internal variance alone is determined to be small’ (Hergel et al, 2010).”

        So, there is no change to the surface temperature, according to the IPCC, if there was no observed forcing. This may explain why the IPCC discounts the historical, pre-industrial, warm periods.

        Richard

      • AK, are you arguing that unforced variation leads to climate change? Neither your reference nor anyone suggests that, but maybe you are defining El Ninos, PDOs, etc., as climate change. Read the question.

      • Richard, in the pre-observation era there were natural climate changes due to solar and volcanic variations, as well as the general Holocene decline due to precession. These have not been discounted. The Maunder Minimum and various volcanoes are well documented. In fact, the paleoclimate of the last billion years is only explainable in these terms.

      • @Jim D…

        AK, are you arguing that unforced variation leads to climate change?

        I don’t see why it wouldn’t. It would depend on details of how the climate functions as a complex system. Changes on the scale of decades to centuries could certainly be due to unforced variation. Such changes could easily be perceived as “climate change”, especially if an important metric seems to shift from one reasonably steady state to another.

        WRT attribution of the 1970’s to 1998 warming to Anthro- vs. Natural, certainly part, all, or even more than all of it could be due to unforced variation. (Granted, the “more than all” would require a negative “TCR”, which is highly improbable. But not impossible.)

        As I’ve repeatedly repeated, the assumption that the climate can be modeled as a “perturbed equilibrium” is completely unwarranted.

      • @Jim D…

        Even models sometimes do it.

        Spontaneous abrupt climate change due to an
        atmospheric blocking–sea-ice–ocean feedback in an unforced climate model simulation
        by Sybren Drijfhout, Emily Gleeson, Henk A. Dijkstra, and Valerie Livin PNAS December 3, 2013 vol. 110 no. 49 19713-19718

        Abrupt climate change is abundant in geological records, but climate models rarely have been able to simulate such events in response to realistic forcing. Here we report on a spontaneous abrupt cooling event, lasting for more than a century, with a temperature anomaly similar to that of the Little Ice Age. The event was simulated in the preindustrial control run of a high resolution climate model, without imposing external perturbations. Initial cooling started with a period of enhanced atmospheric blocking over the eastern subpolar gyre. In response, a southward progression of the sea-ice margin occurred, and the sea-level pressure anomaly was locked to the sea-ice margin through thermal forcing. The cold-core high steered more cold air to the area, reinforcing the sea-ice concentration anomaly east of Greenland. The sea-ice surplus was carried southward by ocean currents around the tip of Greenland. South of 70°N, sea ice already started melting and the associated freshwater anomaly was carried to the Labrador Sea, shutting off deep convection. There, surface waters were exposed longer to atmospheric cooling and sea surface temperature dropped, causing an even larger thermally forced high above the Labrador Sea. In consequence, east of Greenland, anomalous winds changed from north to south, terminating the event with similar abruptness to its onset. Our results imply that only climate models that possess sufficient resolution to correctly represent atmospheric blocking, in combination with a sensitive sea-ice model, are able to simulate this kind of abrupt climate change.

      • i remember seeing this, agree that it is v. interesting

      • AK, they seem to have represented a tipping point in their model. There is a lot of interest in these because they are such a nonlinear process. They are made more likely by forcing changes, but they are not predictable. What is going on now with the cooling in the North Atlantic could be a precursor to one. When these happen, the global temperature doesn’t trace the forcing as linearly as it has been so far. They most often go with albedo changes, like a loss or gain of surface ice somewhere, which then modulates the global temperature.

      • AK, they seem to have represented a tipping point in their model.

        I’m not sure it’s called that. If so, it’s an internaltipping point”.

        They are made more likely by forcing changes, but they are not predictable.

        Unwarranted assumption. Unless you can cite something purporting to prove it? My guess is if you do it’ll turn out to be begging the question.

      • Sounds like we need to keep our nuke arsenal up to date. Never know when we might want to blow some ice back from whence it came.

      • Prof. Curry, here’s something else that’s interesting (though I suspect you’ve seen it):

        Adjustments in the forcing-feedback framework for understanding climate change by Forster, Piers; Sherwood, Steven; Bony, Sandrine; Boucher, Olivier; Bretherton, Christopher; Gregory, Jonathan; Stevens, Bjorn Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 2014

        The traditional forcing-feedback framework has provided an indispensable basis for discussing global climate changes. However, as analysis of model behavior has become more detailed, shortcomings and ambiguities in the framework have become more evident and physical effects unaccounted for by the traditional framework have become interesting. In particular, the new concept of adjustments, which are responses to forcings that are not mediated by the global mean temperature, has emerged. This concept, related to the older ones of climate efficacy and stratospheric adjustment, is a more physical way of capturing unique responses to specific forcings. We present a pedagogical review of the adjustment concept, why it is important, and how it can be used. The concept is particularly useful for aerosols, where it helps to organize what has become a complex array of forcing mechanisms. It also helps clarify issues around cloud and hydrological response, transient vs. equilibrium climate change, and geoengineering.

      • Yes i did see this, to me seems more like reshuffling the deck rather than adding any new cards.

      • There are about 8 or 10 blogposts in that Forster 14 paper. I note Bjorn Stevens as the last author.

        With respect to that first paper with the extraordinary cooling event, my thought was that it was an extremely imaginative scenario, but if those were emerging phenomena, there may be clues in amongst all the blues.
        =========

      • AK, also it is not clear what the impact of this regional change was on the global temperature. It may not have been much unless the albedo changed over a significant area. Given the area of the anomaly, it might be as much as 0.1-0.2 C, similar to the decadal variability of other ocean oscillations. Do we count that as global climate change? Maybe regional climate change, which is a separate but valid concept.

      • , all, or even more than all of it could be due to unforced variation.

        So you think it is possible that CO2 emissions are not contributing to global warming?

      • Remotely. If whatever passes for “TCR” is negative. Which in turn is remotely possible, if very unlikely.

      • This feedback required the ability of sea ice to quickly grow and expand the sea-ice margin. The presence of a strong, southward flowing current (East Greenland Current), and a source of sea ice upstream of the current were crucial. Therefore, it is tempting to speculate that this feedback only works in a climate that is cold enough, which would preclude the occurrence of similar abrupt cold events in present-day and future, warmer climates.</B. The projected decline of the AMOC in warmer climates, however, affects SST and SIC patterns (29). Together with increased freshwater forcing from mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet and changing precipitation patterns, it cannot be ruled out that in a future climate strong spatial correlations may occur between SIC and SLP anomalies, leading to spontaneous growth of sea ice. …

        Turn up the “ACO2 control knob” and let’s see what happens.

    • Danny Thomas

      +100

    • @ Bad Andrew

      “By What Method Is Natural Climate Change Distinguished From Anthropogenic Climate Change.

      Seriously.”

      By way of unchallenged and unchallengeable ex cathedra proclamations from a self-selected cadre of ‘climate experts’ whose sole common qualification is that they agree that ACO2 is causing the temperature of the earth to rise rapidly and that the temperature rise will prove catastrophic unless world wide, coordinated action is taken to drastically reduce or eliminate ACO2.

      Seriously.

  19. I have observed that in general, the topics we understand the least get the most discussion. That is why we talk about climate so much.

  20. khal spencer

    All the public hears about is carbon dioxide, which to me, misses the bigger picture. I think there needs to be a discussion, pitched at the level of people with a college degree, of what else controls climate on the decadal and longer scales, what the uncertainties are on feedbacks, why we have things like “the pause”, and why we cannot better constrain things like sensitivity.

  21. Week in review is outstanding, does not have too many links. Great stuff.

    • Yes, one doesn’t have to follow every link. I look at those which might be most interesting for me in the time available. Others will find different links most interesting.

  22. I’d like to see some discussion of basic scientific principles as they impinge on climate issues. From my interactions with the “climate scientists” at the RealClimate blog, it would seem that their grasp of such principles are primitive at best. I had the impression they had a much better grasp of the mechanics of climate than fundamental issues such as correlation, causation, the principle of sufficient reason, etc., and was especially disappointed at their almost total ignorance of what a principal so basic as Occam’s Razor is all about. I decided to write on Occam’s Razor on my blog, as a corrective and would be very interested to learn what Judith and others posting here might think: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/ See especially the last three posts.

  23. I mostly lurk here, but since you’re asking:

    It seems to me there’s little acknowledgement/exploration anywhere with respect to the benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 aside from the occasional plant fertilizer reference. Surely there’s more benefits to a warming world than “just” (LOL) greening the planet. A post or two from a climate science perspective concerning what could be some benefits we might expect by 2025, 2050, 2100 would be very interesting to me.

    • There is a lot of history about how good life was during the Roman and Medieval warm periods. We are witnesses to the good life in this warm period. There is a lot of history about how tough life was during the Little Ice Age.

      The good about more CO2 and warmer and the bad about less CO2 and colder is well told in history and present day.

    • Green things will grow better while using less water.
      It don’t get better than that.

    • The good news is that these years, 2025, 2050, 2100 will be warmer years with more CO2.

      The bad news is that after that, it will get colder and CO2 will reduce.
      That will be a bad time.

    • +1

      This is the issue that started me on my humble little journey from unthinking alarmism to full blown, much better informed doubt. Surely, there has to be some benefits to a warmer climate. You can’t tell me the longer growing season isn’t a good thing for some people, unless of course we’re talking about roasting to death., which seems quite unlikely. So why wasn’t I reading anything to this effect? The bias eventually became obvious to me..

      • catweazle666

        aneipris: “Surely, there has to be some benefits to a warmer climate.”

        There are many, of course.

        There are advantages to higher atmospheric CO2 concentration too.

        In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm

      • This has been an almost completely neglected side of the debate. Richard Tol is gradually coming to terms with the fact that any warming is good and any cooling bad, net. There is ample evidence in paleontology of the benefits of warming and detriments of cooling.

        A warmer world sustains more total life and more diversity of life.

        Our risk is far greater to the cold side than to the warm side. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
        ==================

  24. I think Climate Etc. is at its most exciting…and rises to its highest purpose…when there’s a vigorous debate ongoing between scientists. My suggestion is to find ways to encourage this, perhaps by express invitation. The big name alarmists of course won’t deign to debate with unwashed skeptics, but I’m not sure that extends to blogs necessarily. I see Gavin for one, getting his feet dirty from time to time. I think the temptation is sometimes too great to pass up.

    • Yes, rather than the usual suspects, there’s more to learn from, more thought-provokingness, in such exchanges. But it requires a willingness to engage here, on the blog of that dreaded non-consensual Judith Curry. Everyone of note in climate science must know that this blog exists, what will make them see merit in engaging here?

  25. Judith,

    I’d really like to see a post (or guest post) on moist enthalpy and other measures of atmospheric energy content as opposed to just temperature.

    Also more stuff on hemispherical albedo and the balancing mechanisms thereof.

    Thanks.

  26. Danny Thomas

    Dr. Curry,
    First my many thanks for this enterprise and the participants.
    Having taken a chaotic, non-linear approach to the topic of CC myself I’d like to see a building blocks segment. Having been characterized as a “science illiterate” and “ignorant” is eye opening. I don’t think I’m quite as bad as that, but recognize serious shortcomings. So for those such as I who lack the science background might there be room for a primer on “the basics”. There are even some apparent disagreements within these areas and their applications, and for some it my be a valuable refresher from school days from before.
    W/R/T WIR it does seem a smaller number of offerings might lead to a more detailed discussion.
    Finally, this observer has serious challenges with the acceptance of the entirity of the of IPCC reports so thinking along the lines of the questioning/responses in the APS presentation a structred A-Z review of the nuts and bolts might be a good evaluation and filler. Might even find some (uh, oh he isn’t gonna say it is he) common ground.

  27. I’d be very interested in your views on Murray Selby’s research. I recollect a while back you said his research/him would be a subject of a future post.

  28. Dr Curry, I’m glad to see you doing interviews. I hope you might consider a book or biography for a general audience. Perhaps another writer could do a collaboration. Looking at all the climate figures in the blogosphere, I don’t think any of them have as interesting a story as you. I think it might even make a good docudrama.

    AFAIK nobody has written a major book on the climate blog phenomenon. There’s a great opportunity just waiting for some good author. I just think of all the mileage Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes seem to get from their crappy books.

  29. I would like to see some analysis of how it is possible to measure temperatures to hundreds of a degree when older style thermometers
    weren’t that accurate nor were their remotely enough of them, so that
    most of the world temperature record is basically infill from a temperature reading
    hundreds of miles away.

  30. Am I the only one who feels “so much to read, so little time”?
    What I don’t pay attention to today will be lost in the noise tomorrow.
    Today’s journal articles are the raw material for tomorrow’s textbooks.
    What is the proper end for today’s blog articles?
    After the hundreds of discussion comments, someone should summarize the best of the debate. The best points should at least get into a wiki which isn’t politically manipulated.

    The social science of the climate science and its politics is very important.
    The history of how easily nations get into wars which nobody really wanted shows that when the stakes are huge, optimism is not a good strategy.

  31. I’d like to see the motives of the protagonists behind AGW explored. Just because JC is not a political scientists does not mean she has no experience in this area.

    Obviously the AGW fraud was not designed to harken the socialist transformation that Naomi Klien promises. Nor to foster environmental improvement as so many naive people hope. The carbon tax agenda hardly makes sense as the primary imperative when critically analyzed. It can’t all be about Goldman Sachs’ schemed carbon credits trading. And it did not just arise organically as a mistaken concern.

    Who dunnit? And why?

    I have some theories ( https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/) but it would be good to see how others might explain the rise of the well orchestrated movement.

  32. Pete Finnegan

    Dr. Curry: This is my first post on your blog, which I have been aware of for a fairly short time. I appreciate your takes on these issues.

    I am interested in the topic of satellite measurement of climate parameters. I recently became aware of this NOAA page http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/marineocean-data/extended-reconstructed-sea-surface-temperature-ersst-v3b which includes this statement:
    “The newest version of ERSST, version 3b, is optimally tuned to exclude under-sampled regions for global averages. In contrast to version 3, ERSST v3b does not include satellite data, which were found to cause a cold bias significant enough to change the rankings of months.”

    My impression on use of satellites is that NOAA farms out collection and interpretation of data to UAH and RSS, and does not devote sufficient resources to advance the science, resulting in moving backwards by removing satellite data from the records, as stated in the quote above.

    Why can’t the science of satellite measurements be advanced to the point where it can become a reliable proxy for surface measurements? Wasn’t that the point of the development of weather/climate satellite technology in the first place?

    Thank you.

    Pete Finnegan

    P.S. I ask myself: If satellite data had not changed the rankings of months, would it have been excluded?

    • Hi Pete, for what is IMO the best sea surface temperature data set, it is the UK data set, see this paper by John Kennedy https://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/

      The UAH/RSS datasets, the measure atmospheric temperatures (well above the surface)

    • David Wojick

      There are no surface measurements of global temperatures. These are complex statistical models of questionable accuracy. The satellites are the only measuring instruments.

      • Pete Finnegan

        Thought the GHCN stations, though small in number for global coverage, were nevertheless the starting point for what you describe as the “statistical models of questionable accuracy”. Or do you mean the GHCN is an untrustworthy representation of global temps?

      • David Wojick

        The GHCN are a poor representation but that is just the beginning of the problems with the surface statistical models. Statistics are not measurements, they are estimates, in this case crude estimates.

  33. I’m and actuary, not a scientist, but I appreciate most the scientific topics. They provide discussions that are not available elsewhere.

  34. Prof. Curry…

    If you’re interested in more posts on the carbon cycle, I found what looks like a good resource:

    The Ocean Carbon Pumps How do the oceanic carbon pump control atmospheric pCO2? Theory and Models. Bibliography and discussion by Irina Marinov, Oct 2011

    The bibliography below shows some of the most recent developments in our theoretical understanding of the ocean carbon pumps. We discuss, in order, the organic carbon pump, the carbonate pump and the solubility pump. We end with a discussion of how the carbon pumps will respond to future climate change, and he resulting feedbacks in the system.

    Also, while looking into the site hosting that survey, I discovered that your associate Prof. Annalisa Bracco is giving a talk at the Conference on Complex Networks and Climate Variability hosted by the MCRN in a couple weeks:

    Tropical teleconnections in CMIP5 simulations: Network connectivity from the recent past to the twenty-third century

    We have developed a new methodology based on complex network analysis to assess the performances of state-of-the-art climate model simulations, quantify uncertainties, and uncover changes in global linkages between past and future projected climates. In this work we focus on a suite of models in the CMIP5 catalog.

    The network properties of modeled sea surface temperature and precipitation over 1956–2005 are constrained towards observations or reanalyses, and their differences quantified using two metrics. Projected changes from 2051 to 2300 under the scenario with the highest representative and extended concentration pathways (RCP8.5 and ECP8.5) are then determined. The network of models capable of reproducing well major climate modes in the recent past, change little during this century. In contrast, among those models the uncertainties in the projections after 2100 are substantial, and are primarily associated with divergences in the representation of the modes of variability, particularly of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, and their connectivity, more so than with differences in the mean state evolution.

    Furthermore, we present preliminary analysis of a limited number of those models focusing on the representation of the time-lag relationships between different modes of climate variability.

    Personally, I’m highly interested in applications of network theory to climate (as to every other type of complex non-linear system), and would love to see more posts on this subject. Would it be possible for you to persuade her to provide a guest post discussing the subject of her talk?

    • thx for the ocean pump ref. In additional to Bracco, my GT colleague Yi Deng is also applying network theory to climate, agreed this would be a good topic for a post

  35. Judith – Many thanks for running such a brilliant blog. My suggestions:
    – Keep the pressure on climate science. There is still a big risk that waning public interest will let the shonks get away with it.
    – Energy is tied up with the climate nonsense, together with absurd optimism about “renewables”. We need a place where all forms of energy are discussed on a level playing field.
    – Science in general can benefit from greater exposure. There are the big remote items like the origins of the universe, down to specific controversies such as vaccination.
    – And then there’s anything else that you have a particular interest in. Whatever you apply your balanced thoughtful approach to will surely benefit. And after all, it is your blog.

  36. Hi Judy – Your weblog has evolved into a premier world class weblog on climate science and related issues. You have been enormously effective at presenting much needed views on this subject.

    I support and look forward to your framework of:

    Saturday: Week in Review
    Sunday: Some sort of discussion thread
    Mon or Tues: Main post for the week, original content
    Later in the week: guest posts or newsy items

    The only item I recommend you reconsider is permitting completely anonymous comments. I agree this is essential for those who are at risk when they speak out (and you and I both know such colleagues). However, I suggest that you still know who they are and agree with them to keep confidential.

    Best Wishes on your well deserved success! I look forward to continuing to learn from the posts.

    Best Regards

    Roger Sr.

  37. Dr. Curry — I’d like for you to “TEACH us about clouds in layman terms. Gosh, this should only take you a couple of minutes to develop a monthly post on clouds (in layman speak).

    • “I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
      From up and down and still somehow
      It’s cloud’s illusions I recall
      I really don’t know clouds at all.”

      Another Judy’s observation still applies.

  38. George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA

    I wouldn’t change the list. However, I have a suggestion for a new topical area:

    How many posters here have considered dropping memberships in their so-called “scholarly scientific” societies and why, particularly those who have become too enamored with AGW and politically correct ‘science.’ Could we even post copies of resignation letters here for those of us that are considering such a step?

  39. For my part, I’m happy to talk about whatever comes up. Thanks for asking though Dr. Curry. I’m here more because this seems the best place to talk with people of diverse views than to discuss any specific set of topics. Well, that and the fact the Blackboard isn’t busy these days.
    FWIW I think your moderation changes have caused a positive improvement here, congratz and thanks.

  40. > I became convinced that anonymity and not feeding the ‘big brother’ scrutiny of twitter and Facebook was preferable

    Thank you Judith

    Your comment here is precisely true

    My view on which topics to examine ?

    The “97% consensus”, while thoroughly eviscerated by (eg) Dr Tol, still remains unassailably potent in propagandaland. The best riposte to this are the threads from Planning Engineer

  41. That our hostess can make such inquiry is perhaps a metric of the quality of this blog. There are bloggers who wouldn’t dare to, some who
    wouldn’t care to, and those for whom the concept is foreign.

    Dr C: Any of us, dissatisfied, are free to browse elsewhere. I didn’t. Make no major changes on my account.

    To those wishing shorter (better?) WIR lists: I suggest that one must make up one’s own mind (and I conjecture Dr C inclines to that), although
    it can be a schlep. Select-lists can be found elsewhere, at peril of the self-reinforcement dynamic that has captured so many apparently capable minds.

    There’s an issue I haven’t seen as such elsewhere, that might be timely. Your recent posts present the Climate Establishment as (temporarily)
    unreachable, but threatening scientific values. Meanwhile, we need a forum which maintains the traditional values independently; eminently, this site (and its brains-trust). You might consider some initiatives properly the province of the Establishment, vis:

    The Climate Establishment is rife with bad language, needing critical review. On the principle that if you don’t have the vocabulary, you can’t
    discuss it, I propose such a review here. The new terms need to be precise, apt, and also distinct (as politicians and media persons aren’t
    always meticulous with their words). I have in mind here the poor bemused public (some of whom may visit).
    > Pre-eminently, “climate change” in science properly is the natural sort, as Nature has priority. We should be talking of “climate change” and
    “unnatural variability”. This amendation presents “climate change” (nat) in its true form of a clear and present danger (as it has been before). Note that this distinction exists recognisably in the original UNGA Resolution, so has precedent.
    > “forcing” currently doesn’t distinguish between force and negotiation.
    > “greenhouse effect” – we now can ask “which one?” (I’m up to four and counting; to anticipate – no, they may not be aggregated)
    We’re probably stuck with “back-radiation”, though I live in hope. There’s no shortage of other terms to consider.

  42. Hi Dr Curry –

    More about format than about content, but anyway … How about a series of invitation-only discussions, each one leading off with a substantial post by yrself or somebody else, and comments restricted to people with some relevant credibility whom you invite to take part?

    (There could be an associated snake- oops sand-pit thread for a parallel free-for-all, for those interested.)

    I don’t know how well that fits with what you want to do with yr blog, or how practicable it would be. I suppose the process of deciding who gets anointed as “credible” and who doesn’t could be contentious and it might be hard to get the right people to participate. But I’d really like to see something like this and maybe there are a bunch of other mainly-lurkers who would too?

    • I find it hard to believe anyone who’d find me credible, but I can wriggle alright.
      ===========

    • This strategy was tried at climate dialogue, whereby approved experts could comment in one comment thread, and the rest in a different thread. Sort of worked, but CD had huge difficulties in attracting experts to participate, particularly ones that disagreed with each other. Bottom line is that few scientists are comfortable/willing to take part in blogospheric dialogue. Unfortunate

      • I would particularly like to know which of the originally chosen topics could not attract a consensus scientist to discuss it.
        ===============

      • Interesting.

        Wonder if it would make much difference if it was done as part of a blog with existing high-traffic/high-profile like this one? Could be better or worse, I suppose, in terms of getting people to participate.

        (How many academics have community engagement KPI’s these days, and could participation count towards these?)

        Then I think of the recent discussions of M&F at CA, CLB , ATTP etc, which seemed to get participation from a reasonably expert & diverse group, amongst all the noise. I guess I’m looking for that kind of discussion, with less noise.

      • Yes, definitely experts at CA, ATTP, but not actual academic climate scientists. It will be difficult to get academics to participate since they don’t want to spend the time and they are leery of participating in public debates.

      • Heh, even the advocates among them are leery of public debates. Press releases, there, that’s the ticket.
        ============

      • i like the idea. Maybe it just depends on picking the right topics and not overdoing it. If you do it occasionally, provide a level playing field, and stick to subjects that people feel passionately about, you might get some takers. With Paris coming up, perhaps it’s worth a try.

        I’d gladly take my seat with the rowdies in the peanut gallery.

  43. Please state your position on Salby and please look at all the icons of so called CAGW, like SLR, polar bear numbers, extreme weather events, polar ice, is Greenland gaining or losing ice, OHC, PDO and ENSO, temp adjustments, humidity, clouds etc, etc.
    And comparing pre 1950 to post 1950 changes would be required to check whether there has been a stat sig change?

  44. Judith,

    I like the frequency of posts as you have them now. I like the Week in Review pretty much as it has been but it is getting to include perhaps too many links. My interest is in policy relevant posts – especially relating to: energy, economics, improving human well-being globally and climate science that has policy relevance (especially damage function, climate sensitivity and abrupt climate change). I really like excellent invited posts you sometime have like those of Planning Engineer (electricity system), Michael Cunningham (Stern Review and the one yet to come? on discount rates … hint :) ).

    I have three suggestions for future posts:

    1. What science needs to provide for rational policy analysis

    2. ‘Wicked mess’ versus ‘Pareto’s Principle’

    3. Systems Engineering and Project Management approach

    1. What science needs to provide for rational policy analysis

    Explain how science can provide the inputs needed for rational policy analysis. I’d suggest pdfs for the following would be a significant contribution:

    • time to the next abrupt climate change event

    • direction of the next abrupt climate change (to warming or cooling)

    • duration of next abrupt climate change event

    • magnitude of the total change

    • rate of change

    • damage function

    2. Wicked mess versus Pareto’s Principle

    2.1 Wicked mess

    Extremely complex, it’s all too hard…. etc.

    2.2 Pareto’s Principal (or the 80/20 rule):

    • “for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes”
    • “vital few and trivial many”
    • “The 80/20 Rule means that in anything a few (20 percent) are vital and many (80 percent) are trivial.”
    • “20 percent of the defects cause 80 percent of the problems”
    • “The value of the Pareto Principle for a manager is that it reminds you to focus on the 20 percent that matters.”

    • Simplify the problem to the doable bits that can provide the largest benefits
    • Find and fix the a small number of key inputs/issues that, once fixed will fix a large proportion of the consequences
    • Find an implement the fixes that will give the greatest return for money, time and effort invested.

    Example:

    Consider India as an example of the problem that will confront virtually all of the developing world as they strive to catch up with the developed world over the course of this century. Refer to these two articles:

    Briefing: India’s energy and climate change challenge: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/briefing-india-energy-and-climate-change-challenge/

    India to Rich World: Give us Cash and We’ll Cut Emissions Faster: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/india-to-rich-world-give-us-cash-and-we-ll-cut-emissions-faster

    rich nations should finance climate technologies just as they backed moves to provide life-saving drugs to the poor.

    The USA can lead the developed nations to compete to develop low cost, small, nuclear power plants for developing nations. This will save lives and get power to the poor faster. For those concerned about GHG emissions, this can do more to reduce the rate of growth of human caused global GHG emissions than any other single policy. And it can be done at no net cost. It’s just a matter of removing the impediments (mostly caused by unjustifiable regulations) that have massively increased the cost of nuclear energy and stalled progress for decades. Once the spotlight is put on the unjustifiable regulatory impediments that have been placed on nuclear energy – such as the allowable radiation limits being set two to three orders of magnitude below what is justified based on best available evidence – the public begin to rethink the basis for their concern about nuclear power.

    Addressing this is an application of the Pareto’s Principle.

    3. Systems Engineering and Project Management approach

    Treat policy design and policy implementation as a project. Analyse the requirements and design the solution using Systems Engineering processes.

    Suggestion: Invite some high level systems engineers and project managers to provide posts.

    3.1 Requirements

    1. Economically rational

    2. Nearly every sovereign state must be better off over the short and medium term

    f. Increase the rate that human well-being is improving

    g. Lift people out of poverty faster

    h. Better access to fresh water, food, energy, communications, health, education, etc.

    i. Reduce toxic pollution

    j. Reduce inequality

    3.2 Project Management

    A project is a temporary endeavour undertaken to create a unique product, service or result.” [Project Management Body of Knowledge]

    Designing and implementing a policy is best treated as a project and managed using formal systems engineering and project management processes.

    3.2.1 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

    A deliverable oriented grouping of project elements that organises and defines the total work scope of the project. Each descending level represents an increasingly detailed definition of the project work. ” [Project Management Body of Knowledge].

    • peter, i need some help with pareto principle, seems interesting the way you describe, but on wikipedia it seemed like something else. Do you want to do a guest post on this?

      • Hi Judith,

        I couldn’t do a good job of that. I suggest there would be CE denizens who could write on Pareto Principle: application to climate and energy policy far better than I could. Some that come to mid are: Latimer Alder, MWGrant, Planning Engineer; another would be Adjunct Professor John Morgan. He would do an excellent job of this if he has time. For some background here are two very interesting recent posts he’s done on BraveNewClimate:

        John Morgan, 2014, The Catch-22 of Energy Storage http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

        John Morgan, 2013, Zero emissions synfuel from seawater http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

        IMO a better title would have been Unlimited transport fuels from seawater

      • “Michael Cunningham (Stern Review and the one yet to come? on discount rates … hint :)”

        Peter, I’m afraid you will have to stop waiting. I’m not currently able to produce that work, my limited energy is going into more basic things and my capacity at the serious paper level is very low.

        Judith, the Pareto Principle in economics is that welfare is optimised at the point where no one person could be made better off without another being made worse off. A policy implication of this is that, if you really want to help people you perceive as somehow disadvantaged, you should adopt economic settings which maximise the size of the economy and then re-distribute, rather than (as is generally the case) adopting economically sub-optimal policies under which wealth, and therefore the capacity to help targeted groups, grows more slowly. In short, don’t keep cutting from the golden goose (wealth-creators) or you will diminish their incentives to create further wealth and, in a mobile world, they might fly off to a more congenial environment. The EU and Australia 2002-2013 are classic (and salutary) examples of ignoring the Pareto Principle while pursuing goals which would be more easily reached with greater economic growth.

        The policy responses to alleged CAGW to date have also been a gross violation of the Pareto Principle, those who support them in the name of helping poorer countries are either seriously ignorant, totally hypocritical or concealing a different agenda.

        Peter is talking of the 80-20 rule, which seems to be supported by empirical evidence, but is not the Pareto Principle.

      • ‘seriously ignorant, totally hypocritical, or concealing a different agenda’. Excellent. I would only replace ‘or’ with ‘and’.
        ===============

      • Oops, 2007 – 2013 under Rudd and Gillard.

        Kim, your appreciation is appreciated. I am perhaps giving the benefit of the doubt in that remark; you might be correct that there is none.

      • Michael,

        There are different the way the Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) is now used and interpreted. i am using it in the way it is commonly used in engineering and quality management, not the way you have stated it.

        Pareto Analysis is a simple technique for prioritizing possible changes by identifying the problems that will be resolved by making these changes. By using this approach, you can prioritize the individual changes that will most improve the situation.

        Pareto Analysis uses the Pareto Principle – also known as the “80/20 Rule” – which is the idea that 20 percent of causes generate 80 percent of results. With this tool, we’re trying to find the 20 percent of work that will generate 80 percent of the results that doing all of the work would deliver.

        http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_01.htm

      • Peter, in economics, I’ve only ever seen Pareto Principle used in the way I described – in that sense, it is fundamental to a lot of economic analysis. I’ve known of the 80;20 rule for many years, but I’ve never (until googling just now) seen the PP defined as in 80:20. I don’t have a formal economics definition to hand, but will see if I can find one – google’s first page seemed to be all 80:20.

      • Peter, okay, memory loss. From wiki: Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off. Given an initial allocation of goods among a set of individuals, a change to a different allocation that makes at least one individual better off without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement. An allocation is defined as “Pareto efficient” or “Pareto optimal” when no further Pareto improvements can be made.

        Pareto efficiency is a minimal notion of efficiency and does not necessarily result in a socially desirable distribution of resources: it makes no statement about equality, or the overall well-being of a society. If economic allocation in any system is not Pareto efficient, there is potential for a Pareto improvement—an increase in Pareto efficiency: through reallocation, improvements can be made to at least one participant’s well-being without reducing any other participant’s well-being.

        – This is what I, and I suspect Judith, was thinking of, and what my related comments alluded to.

        Michael Cunningham aka Faustino aka Genghis Cunn, WP keeps limiting my choices. Not optimal.

      • Michael,

        So just to clarify for other readers your comments refer to an economists terms:

        “Pareto efficiency, or Pareto optimality, is a state of allocation of resources in which it is impossible to make any one individual better off without making at least one individual worse off.

        whereas I was referring to Pareto Principle as it is commonly used in engineering, quality management and general management. Googling it shows many hits which explain this. Here is an example from the first link I clicked on:

        13 Examples Of The Pareto Principle

        In 1906, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto noted that 80% of Italy’s land was owned by 20% of the people.

        He became somewhat obsessed with this ratio, seeing it in everything. For example, he observed that 80% of the peas in his garden came from 20% of his pea plants.

        The 80:20 ratio of cause-to-effect became known as the Pareto Principle.

        Definition: Pareto Principle

        Pareto principle is a prediction that 80% of effects come from 20% of causes.

        The pareto principle has become a popular business maxim. It has been used to describe everything from economics to projects.

        Common business examples of the pareto principle include:

        Projects

        80% of value is achieved with the first 20% of effort
        Project teams commonly report that a task is almost completed after a short time. A long time may pass after that before they report any further progress.

        80% of project politics come from 20% of your stakeholders
        Political struggles often originate with a few of your stakeholders.

        Program Management

        80% of problems originate with 20% of projects
        Some projects are far more problematic than others.

        Management

        80% of work is completed by 20% of your team
        The observation that there is often a wide performance gap between your top performers and the rest of your team.

        Technology

        80% of software problems are caused by 20% of bugs
        The observation that most problems are caused by a handful of serious bugs.

        80% of customers only use 20% of software features
        Most users don’t use power features. In many cases, they find power features to be annoying (e.g. complex interfaces).

        Sales & Marketing

        80% of sales come from 20% of your clients
        Many businesses are dependent on their largest accounts.

        80% of sales come from 20% of your products
        Product diversification may have limited impact on your business.

        80% of sales come from 20% of your salespeople
        Killer salespeople aren’t easy to find.

        80% of your complaints come from 20% of your customers
        This is a commonly cited customer service rule of thumb.

        Wealth Management

        80% of wealth is owned by 20% of people
        Pareto’s 1906 observation that 80% of Italy’s wealth (land) was controlled by 20% of people has held up extremely well. Today, 20% of the world’s population controls 82.7% of wealth.

        General

        80 percent of success is showing up
        ~ Woody Allen
        The idea that much of success is jumping through the hoops. It has a grain of truth to it. If you consider that “showing up” is 20% of effort — it’s an example of the pareto principle.

        http://management.simplicable.com/management/new/examples-of-the-pareto-principle

        Forbes on the Pareto Principle: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davelavinsky/2014/01/20/pareto-principle-how-to-use-it-to-dramatically-grow-your-business/

        This is more relevant, especially the last paragraph:

        Pareto’s Principle

        the 80-20 rule, pareto’s law, or pareto theory..

        The Pareto Principle, or ’80-20 Rule’ (among other variant names) is surely one of the simplest and most powerful management tools on the planet.

        It’s a remarkably quick easy way to assess, understand, and optimise virtually any situation involving distribution or usage of some kind.

        The potential uses therefore cover most aspects of work, business, organizational development and personal life.

        Pareto’s Principle is named after Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), an Italian economist-sociologist, Professor of Political Economy at Lausanne, Switzerland, who first discovered and described the ’80:20′ effect.

        The Pareto Principle is known by many different names, including:

        The Pareto Law,
        Pareto’s Law,
        Pareto Theory,
        The 80-20 Rule (or 80/20 Rule, or 80:20 Rule, or 80 20 Rule),
        The 80-20 Principle, (or 80/20 Principle, or 80:20 Principle, or 80 20 Principle)
        Pareto’s 80-20 Rule (and variations of this)
        The Principle of Imbalance,
        The Principle of Least Effort (a term coined by George Zipf in 1949 based on Pareto’s theory),
        The Rule of the Vital Few (an interpretation developed by Joseph Juran in the field of quality management),
        and many other variations/combinations of these expressions.
        There is no ‘correct’ version. Popular usage (and indicated by Google) tends to prefer:

        Pareto Rule,
        The 80-20 Rule, and
        Pareto’s 80-20 Rule…
        …although actually any combination of ‘Pareto’ and/or ’80-20′ with ‘rule’, ‘law’ or ‘principle’ will be recognised and acceptable among people familiar with the concept.

        Technically ’80:20′ is most correct numerical presentation of the rule because this is the usual format for expressing a ratio in mathematics, although not even a statistical purist would insist on this in a Pareto context.

        You may notice that lots of variations of the Pareto Rule name are used in this article, mainly to illustrate the variability of the term, and also to enable web searching (where every version imaginable is used) in finding this content.

        understanding and using pareto’s 80-20 rule

        The Pareto 80/20 Rule is commonly used (and also ignored at considerable cost) in many aspects of organizational and business management.

        It is helpful in specialised quality management such as six sigma, planning, decision-making, and general performance management.

        Pareto theory is also an extremely helpful reference or ‘check’ in business/organizational planning and project management too.

        Leadership is a lot easier and effective when Pareto principles are kept in mind, and this applies to every form of leadership theory and approach.

        The Pareto principle is extremely helpful in bringing swift and easy clarity to complex situations and problems, especially when deciding where to focus effort and resources.

      • The 80-20 rule seems to be pretty universal in its applicability. In the fields of management theory and economics, however, this concept should not be confused with the principle of Pareto Optimality that Faustino refers to.

        In the context of blog commentry, I can truly say that 20% of the comments that I read provides me with 80% of the value of Judith’s blog. The trick is to be able to calibrate my BS meter so as to get to read less of the 80% of comments that do not add much if any value.

        In general, I try not to comment at all unless I believe that I can add value to the thread, and when I do comment, I try to to be concise and to the point.

      • Peter Davies,

        I’ve tried to sort that out. The Pareto Principle is the 80/20 rule! That is the widely used meaning of it. Google it an read for yourself. Read some of the quotes I posted above. Read many links so you don’t just read one about Pareto Efficiency or Pareto Optimization which is what Michael Cunningham was talking about.

      • I am arguing that the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule) can/should be applied to developing and implementing climate policies. Here’s why and how:

        Electricity contributes some 30% of global GHG emissions now and that proportion will increase throughout this century as electrification continues.

        Most of the emissions of electricity could be avoided by replacing most fossil fuel electricity generation with low emissions generation.

        We know that emissions from electricity can be reduced by about 90% at no net cost because France achieved it about 30 years ago and has been demonstrating it ever since with near the lowest emissions intensity and cheapest electricity in Europe. So it can be done with well proven, commercially available technology.

        The Pareto Principle says we can solve 80% of the problem by finding and fixing the 20% of causes that are responsible for 80% of the problem. Applying this to global GHG emissions, replacing most electricity generation with near-zero emissions electricity generation globally can reduce emissions intensity of electricity by say 80%. That could be done at no net cost (over time by removing the regulatory impediments that have caused nuclear power to be far more expensive than it could and should be).

        By the time most fossil fuel electricity generation has been replaced by cheaper-than-fossil-fuel, near-zero-emission electricity generation, electricity will have displaced a significant proportion of fossil fuels used for heating and transport fuels. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that this policy alone could reduce global GHG emissions by around 50% IF the appropriate policies are implemented. The USA needs to lead the world on this.

      • I agree that in the way you suggest, the 80-20 principle can indeed be a useful guide for ensuring we get the best policy bangs for our bucks.

    • Another post I’d welcome would be a critique by William Nordhaus or his co worker Paul Sztorc or Richard Tol of my replot of his DICE2013R results, my added scenario for 1/2 the Copenhagen participation rates and the conclusions I’ve drawn.

      Why The World Will Not Agree to Pricing Carbon (Part I) https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-tax/world-not-agree-pricing-carbon-1/

      Why The World Will Not Agree to Pricing Carbon (Part II) https://www.masterresource.org/carbon-tax/world-not-agree-pricing-carbon-ii/

      The main chart I’d like critiqued is this:

      • I too, am paying attention to this discussion. Peter L is probably more informed on policy issues than just about any other denizen of this blog. While I still harbour some doubts as for the need for reduced fossil fuel electricity generation, especially in the developing countries, I would like to see a lesser human pollution footprint on this planet.

      • Apologies. The above comment related to the discussion between Ianl8888 and peter Lang downthread.

    • @ Peter Lang

      I have in the past regarded some of your earlier posts as a bit, well, naive in that you seemed then to have underestimated the singlemindedness of the activists. Perhaps, you may even have thought then that these people were open to rational persuasion through countervailing fact

      Your posts have evolved to the stage where they have become interesting enough to me – primarily because I have been now long convinced that the political/propaganda war is well and truly won by the activists (the various complex, chaotically interactive elements of science have very little to do with it now)

      Given this conclusion, the next logical step for a rational person is how to help ameliorate the damaging vandalism being progressively inflicted upon the national power grids – amelioration for survival of me and mine

      So posts like yours and threads from Planning Engineer, with hard factual content, I think are of real importance. I’ve put a lot of my own effort into this area over the last 30 years, with increasing intensity over the last decade. When (if) I am convinced that posting some of this material will not damage my colleagues, I may do so

      Although some may see this as surrender, the propaganda is now completely overwhelming of the general public. Simply put, a majority of the various populations believe it. The aim of informed dissent now is to preserve a modicum of civilization – the barbarians are already well and truly through the gates

      As an aside, a long-standing question (for me) has been answered by this high-tide of almost global irrationality. From early-middle childhood, I used to wonder how beliefs as irrational and insane as those embodied in various religions could become so widespread and entrenched against all empirical evidence. Now I’ve seen such a thing take root and grow, all in my single lifetime. All that is needed is some small fact as basis (however trivial) and some cynical opportunists to nurture it with hubris – this may not succeed, but it stands a goodly chance, so it does

      • Ian,

        Thank you. I’d suggest and alternative you might consider to my earlier posts being naive. Consider that I may be trying to get to different audiences at different times and trying different approaches to make headway. Having been in policy analysis and providing policy advice to government since 1991, and also having worked for politicians at Parliament House (including working on Australia’s policy position to take the the 1992 Rio Earth Summit), I believe I have a better understanding of what it takes to achieve policy success than most people recognise. It is very difficult, and the Ministers are not the mugs most people believe. They have different skill sets than other disciplines – skills that are essential for achieving policy success in a democracy.

      • Strong words re global irrationality, but necessary, Ian. Thing really are that bad. We have got to the point where a large mass of people are in a hurry to downgrade, damage and ridicule the very things to which they owe most.

        The first thing celebrants do after Earth Hour is lunge for the switch and fossil fuel energy they have just spent sixty minutes protesting against. (The fossil fuel which kept their drinks cool and smartphones charging while the lights were out – and which didn’t miss a beat.)

        I too pay attention to Peter Lang’s posts, because he is at least willing to make a strong case for an energy source which is truly potent. I pay attention to your posts for the same reason, though the energy source may be a different one.

        Since we cannot terraform and alter climate to make hydro available to all, there must be coal power for those who have coal available and nukes for those who, like France, lack significant supply of fossil fuels. If energy poverty is a good thing for the soul let people experiment on their own souls. But soul-improvers tend to be like Borgia popes, content to improve the souls of others while they roll in the good stuff they condemn.

        And if an alternative comes along, it won’t need any promoting. Potency promotes itself. It’s the feeble, wasteful, peashooter stuff that needs to be piously “believed in” and have candles lit for it.

      • I think an important aspect of this struggle is not to let the activists get away without debating. In the NPR Intelligence Squared series of debates, they do a before and after poll of the audience to see who changed the most minds. The good guys clearly won on these two energy related debates:

        http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/558-clean-energy-can-drive-americas-economic-recovery

        http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/607-major-reductions-in-carbon-emissions-are-not-worth-the-money

        Facilitating debate looks like it is in Pareto’s effective 20 percent.

      • Mosomoso,

        there must be coal power for those who have coal available and nukes for those who, like France, lack significant supply of fossil fuels.

        I agree 100%. I have to keep repeating that I advocate for the least cost way to achieve the requirements of the electricity system of which the three most important are:
        1. energy security (over years and decades)
        2. reliability of supply (over seconds, hours, days and weeks)
        3. Cost of electricity to the consumers

        Just to repeat, I advocate the least cost option that meets requirements. I do not advocate for subsidies – except as necessary to level the playing field (see previous comments on this, e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/28/week-in-review-51/#comment-688380 )

        I do not advocate nuclear power unless it is likely to be the least cost option over the life of the plant
        .
        What I’ve trying to explain for the past 25 years is that the cost of the current generation of nuclear power designs has been raised by around a factor of eight by regulatory ratcheting. Nuclear power has the potential to be much much cheaper than fossil fuels given its energy density is 20,000 greater than fossil fuels now and 2 million times greater when used in fast reactors. So the potential for cost reductions is huge.

        I am saying to those who are concerned about GHG emissions the solutions to your issue and to many other issues as well is available. But you are blocking progress and it is you who needs to advocate for it if you are genuinely concerned about GHG emissions.

        Hope that clarifies what I am advocating, Mosomoso and ianl8888

      • Peter, I hope you and Ian keep battling along. Some of us are paying attention.

        We may disagree on details, but I think we have one thing very much in common: confidence in potency. For me it’s also a conservation issue, since I see most green fads as anti-conservation.

      • Mosomoso,

        It’s good to know some Aussies are paying attention. But what is really needed – to save the planet – is for Obama to listen to the wise Aussies. :)

      • I’ve taken a while to reply – Judith just keeps turning this damned registration crap on and off like a light switch. Very, very IRRITATING – I will not ever hold my privacy hostage to In Your Face, Twithead and other adolescent muckups …

        @ Peter Lang

        I do not think politicians (Ministers) are necessarily stupid – I do think, and I’ve had as much contact with them as you say you’ve had, that they become cynical abusers of power. Faustino (Cunningham) ran this same straw man as you on a similar comment I had made earlier

        Running straw men against me is just insulting. If I were to return the favour, I’d wonder why Aus policies are still as messy, or even worse, after decades of advice from you – but I’d never say that out loud

        Of course I understand what you are trying to do. I am suggesting that in your earlier posts you may have naively underestimated your opposition. You appear to have rectified that now.

        I’ve evolved from that. Trying to “edumacate” the general public on non-linear, complex science/mathstats issues is a game with no hope of a win. Trying to imprint a base for grasping what base load means may have some traction (I hope), but my considerable experience says that most people do NOT understand what loss of reliable base load power really entails; a blackout for a few hours or a day or so is the hard limit to their experiences and they simply cannot extrapolate this beyond a very short timescale

        Lunacy awaits us …

      • I got spammed by 10 messages last nite from David in TX impersonating other posters, so I turned it back on. I will do my best to manage this situation, but it is not simple.

      • ianl8888,

        Running straw men against me is just insulting.

        No strawman was intended. I understand what I said that you regards as a strawman.

        I detect you are frustrated with the security changes on CE, but I don’t understand why you took such offence at my comment. None was intended.

      • ianl8888,

        I’ve had as much contact with them as you say you’ve had

        “Contact” is not the same as working for them and in the system. It’s very different than meeting them to brief them and push your own naive beliefs – i.e naive that you think your’s is the most important aspect and information to push and those who do not share your ‘understanding’ and beliefs in misguided, ignorant, naive, etc.

        You get a different understanding when you’ve actually worked for them and in the system, and traveled worth them around the country listening to all the different interests.

  45. John Vonderlin

    Dr. Curry,
    While “Don’t Mess With Success,” is my general view of this excellent blog, I’d suggest a change in the Week in Review. I appreciated the great number of links to a wide spectrum of aspects and POV of issues related to climate science this week. However, the quantity tends to dilute the commenters’ conversation about any one issue, something I also value. Worse, various denizen’s reflections on any given link may be spread haphazardly through hundreds of comments. Wading through the crazed or obsessive commenters’ comments to find the comments I’m interested in can be discouraging.
    Could you split it into a “Weekend in Review” and “Week in Review?” Maybe Science-related stuff on the weekend and political stuff on Wednesday would work. Could you easily have comments about a given link be clustered under the link? The last thing I want to do is make more work for you, so I’ll be happy with whatever you offer us. Thanks.

    • This is a good idea, let me think about how i might do this.

    • Rather than using links as the main filter for comments, my thoughts are that Judith’s blog sub-categories would be more appropriate. The WIR should continue to provide links and Judith’s remarks (which I always find to be valuable) but that any comments should only be provided in an open thread under the appropriate sub-category.

      • I support your first sentence (the way I interpret your meaning) but not you second sentence. I have seen on other blog sites that people are reluctant or can’t be bothered to post their comments on a different thread from where the read the post or link. So, I’d suggest Week in Review be three or more threads:

        1. policy and politics
        2. energy, food, water
        3. science and research and the rest

      • Thanks for responding Peter L. Your suggestion to reduce the number of sub-categories into 3 groupings for the purposes of enabling interested readers to more readily access the comments that interests them would still entail quite a lot of searching on their part.

        My suggestion was based on what readers are assumed to do when they are simply browsing in areas of their interest and or their expertise but I accept that the categories that Judith uses are extensive and often overlapping.

    • David Springer

      Putting a muzzle on science illiterates would certainly help but then she’d be accused of being another group think like “and Then There’s Physics”, Real Climate, Skeptical Science, and the other usual suspects where none but consensus parrots are encouraged to participate.

  46. ==> “I find it interesting to see what articles in week in review people actually click on:the New Scientist and Salby articles received the most clicks, then energy policy related articles. International politics and climate wars received relatively few clicks.”

    Is that a pattern that has played out over the course of multiple weeks? My guess would be that # of clicks is less a factor of the category of an article as opposed to interest level in the specific issues, topicality, etc. Perhaps even the lead-ins that you write would be a factor.

  47. –So I am seeking feedback from the Denizens on:

    preferred topic areas, or specific topic suggestions–

    Broadly speaking, the future of Climate science.
    And more specifically, the use of space environment as it is related
    to advancement of Climate science.
    The use of satellites to measure average global temperature
    has been example of important aspect related to climate science.
    And US government spends billions each year related to developing
    space assets which used by climate science, and this decades long trend
    will continue and perhaps be more important to climate science in the
    future.
    So the use of space environment related to climate science is a bit of
    an elephant in the room. So bits of elephant might be addressed, particularly in terms of the future.
    Such as what kinds of satellite are most needed, could one aspect of elephant.
    What needs most public support. What are promising new directions. Or whatever aspect of using the space environment one has most interest in.
    Maybe review of the history of it, in terms of indicating a path forward.

  48. Keep doing what your doing Doc!

    I don’t think we thank you enough for this forum. Thank You!

    This is one of the few destinations that actually tries to separate science from politics. Mordantly accurate too….

    There is one area I would welcome deeper discussion.

    CO2 saturation levels and LWR etc…?

  49. Flip Wingrove

    I much prefer posts on current state of climate science, with a minimum of biased opinions, political observations, or personal attacks no matter how mild they may be.

  50. Reasonable Skeptic

    Since I am not nearly the intellectual giant that climate scientists are I can’t pretend to know much more than the basics, if even that. What I am more comfortable with is the process side.

    Have you thought of applying quality assurance techniques to models to see if they are valid ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_rules

    What about Demmings Plan Do Check Act as it applies to the IPCC and climate models (they fail check/act and are too slow in my estimation)

    • RS, we’ve over the years had a number of good comments from posters with relevant expertise, might be worth another visit. Climategate indicated severe failings in this field, which prompted much of the QA response.

    • By every known standard of validation the AGW hypothesis has already been falsified. The global warming debate has for years been outside science and inside the realm of the likes of David Koresh and Waco’s apocalyptic death cult of the Branch Davidians. Any society that gives Obama two terms and flirts with handing presidency to Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, with John Kerry their VP, is on a death march to Greece.

  51. Personally, I find the Bjørn Lomborg articles, such as this one from Slate illuminating and interesting, along his other observations that subsidized solar may be economically attractive to well off people, but increases the cost of energy including to those who can least afford it.

    Other articles of this nature include ones such as mitigation methods in Africa to cut down on Carbon production such as clean cookstoves are interesting. I’m not aware of too many advocating this. It seems to be “Solar, Wind,” and oddly, even “Wood burning” are trumpeted as solutions when they really don’t appear to be very cost effective compared to alternatives.

    If CO2 is a serious issue threatening lives and the environment, looking to ways that will meaningfully reduce it seems pretty important, rather than I questionable ways the western countries are trying at present.

  52. Can we please give the whole Michael Mann obsession a rest? I mean let’s see how the case goes and discuss that but do you really need to discuss him as much as you do?

  53. A difficult topic to broach — i.e., harder than the global warming debate as that is just a subset of the real problem — in the increasing irrelevancy of government-funded education, at least at the federal level. No one can be honest about it and yet, if it’s not addressed, it’ll drag us down like a stone.

    • Wag, there are attempts to address this in Australia, but it is extremely difficult because of the politicisation of the school system for 40 years and the overwhelming preponderance of left-wingers and post-modernists in relevant areas of academia, and the methods of teacher-training adopted. I agree that this is a very serious problem.

      [For Australians, ACTU scion and Communist Laurie Carmichael and then Victorian left-wing Education Minister, later Premier, Joan Kirner, determined in 1975 that their views would never prevail through the normal electoral process, they had to start to mould opinions within the school, a process which has been very successful. For the record, I shared a pot of tea a couple of times with Carmichael, a lovely but misguided man, and had lunch with Kirner, of whom I do not have a good opinion.]

      • The only chance conservatives have of changing the dominant progressive culture is to do what the progressives did starting in the 60s. Fight for control of the schools, starting with the universities and particularly the educational colleges.

        Then there has to be a conservative alternative to the uniformly progressive news media. If all people learn in school is progressivism, and all they hear in their daily news is regurgitation of the same, there is little chance of conservatives doing anything more than win the occasional election.

      • Those are good ideas, Gary. Tell us your plan for taking back the universities.

      • There’s not much that can be done other than a Founders version of following in the footsteps of Chairman Mao –i.e., cut the funding and pack all of the school teachers off to the farms for reeducation.

  54. David Springer

    I’d like to see an article discussing the implications of changes in solar power spectrum. It is well known that TSI changes only 0.1% over a typical sunspot cycle. What is not known is that power in UV wavelengths and higher waxes and wanes by as much as 50% depending on the frequency while power in some lower frequency gains or loses so that TSI remains relatively constant.

    High frequency components of solar spectrum tend to have large effects in stratosphere chemistry where strong absorbers such as ozone are involved. When high frequency components wax the power in lower frequency components that warm the troposphere and ocean wane.

    In sunspot cycles it probably doesn’t matter much because it’s fairly predictable and cancels out every 11 years. My question is what happens if power spectrum changes for many decades or centuries in events known as solar grand maximums and minimums.

    Your expertise in atmospheric chemistry seems particularly suited to analysing what climatic consequences, if any, could manifest in those situations that are largely overlooked because of the misleading small change in total solar insolation.
    .

    • I’d be interested in this too.

    • It is well known that TSI changes only 0.1% over a typical sunspot cycle.

      It is also equally well known that the difference in TSI due to orbital forcing during the waxing and waning of glaciations is 0.1%,a constraint from using global metrics.

    • David Springer

      Maksimovitch

      TSI change in glacial cycles isn’t a significant factor. Change in geographic and temporal distribution of TSI is the big deal. IIRC when orbital mechanics conspire to make northern hemisphere winters warmer and summers cooler this is advantageous for glacial expansion. The warmer winter encourages lots of snowfall as the warmer air evaporates more water off the ocean surface which precipitates as snow over land. The cooler summer then melts less of the larger winter frozen precipitation.

      This wouldn’t apply to either long or short solar cycles which aren’t correlated with earth’s orbital mechanics.

  55. My personal preference is solar. Especially anything pointing to the next solar cycle prediction and affects of less solar forcing (the science). I choose this topic for my own education copy/pasted all solar from the AR5 and have read hundreds of papers. My general feeling from the lit I’ve looked at solar seems to get a lot more papers past peer review as long as they add the late 20th century AGW caveat somewhere in the paper. It’s not real important to me since I’m usually on the hunt anyway but I think solar will become more of a focus if the next cycle goes flat.

  56. Two of the topics for discussion should be Richard Toll discussing the Cook 97% paper which is full of statistical holes.
    ATTP might turn up to defend it.
    He has run an interesting blog with lots of hits purely attacking Toll, not his work.
    Sou has done the same.
    The put down is very personal and seems very concerted.
    Yet the consensus appears to be “We refuse to looks at or admit Cook has done anything wrong
    But.
    Even if he has, he got the right answer
    So. It does not matter if he did things the wrong way.
    This is the prevailing argument at SS, Sou and ATTP.
    At least ATTP does not attempt to support this nonsense, he just encourages it to run supported by Joshua

    The second is negative feedbacks, albedo and aerosols and volcanoes, trade winds, solar variance etc. For each argument put forward for moderating influences lists another cause that models do not take into account. Are they persistent, variable or temporary?
    CAn the earth’s self healing get through this latest test?

  57. rogerknights

    I’d like to see one- or two-line descriptions of the Week in Review items. It’s frustrating not having them.
    The GWPF fails in this regard too.

  58. Most blog topics appear to concern problems with:
    1. The Science
    2. The Academy
    3. The Government

    I fear the latter two have already ripped past an Orwellian tipping point and require Article V convention for remediation. We can complain as we will about the tides, but they are not going to change in my time.

    Science, however, is a cottage industry requiring only pen, paper and imagination and, so far, no authoritative imprimatur. A recent topic here was Chris Essex’s essay of ‘bad’ science. In several videos he has cited specific examples of bad science. It is the basic science, not the uncertainty for plugged-in parameters, that is at issue. Examples:

    1. The distinction between equilibrium and steady states. Without dissipation, the latter become perpetual motion devices. What dissipations are built into climate models?

    3. The distinction between processes dependent on temperature vs. temperature gradients. Whatever happened to convection as a transport variable?

    4. Feedback functionals. If OLR is a function of surface temperature, why isn’t it also a function of the entire thermal profile?

    5. Bonus ?: How can we define temperature in non-equilibrium systems? What constraints are imposed? Pfaffians and chaos?

    A review of bad science rather than bad scientists should prove provocative. Chris, as far as I can tell, is the only one who has seriously questioned the fundamentals of consensus methodology rather than their implementation.

  59. Would linear regression capability have changed astrology to more resemble climate science?

  60. One suggestion:
    Those who follow your blog closely have, I think, a fairly clear view of your actual thoughts on where climate is going.
    However, because your view is much more nuanced and subtle than most, I think it would be helpful to find some way to reiterate this for relative newcomers or infrequent readers.
    One way is a sticky where your position is clearly laid out, another would be to more explicitly note how the research you cite agrees/differs with your personal views. The latter is more helpful in communicating the sometimes very wonkish differences, the former is easier to access and can be used to quickly and effectively answer common questions (or to note that you don’t know/don’t focus on specific issues).
    For example, I am curious as to your views regarding LIA recovery vs. anthropogenic role in climate change vs. CO2 specific anthropogenic climate change.

    • Typical of most scientists, JC’s views may change from time to time. Let’s not pin her down.

      • That’s a reasonable point – and one which argues for a clear definition which is easily accessible and changeable, vs. a web of past posts and commentary which is much less so.
        It is my view that a clear delineation of the full subtleties of Dr. Curry’s position would help rather than hurt.
        After all, isn’t blunt instrument mischaracterization exactly what calling people deniers is intended to accomplish?

  61. I would like a discussion or guest post on why ecological disaster themes are so quickly accepted/trusted/believed by people. Why did/do Silent Spring, The Population Bomb and other such items resonate with the masses?

    • @ Rich Hume

      “Why did/do Silent Spring, The Population Bomb and other such items resonate with the masses?”

      ALL of the named (and other) disaster themes are WHOLLY inventions of the left and are ALWAYS cited as justification for increases in taxation, regulation, and in general an increase in government power and a concomitant decrease in the personal autonomy of the citizenry at large.

      They are believed (not by old geezers like me, Cripwell, manaker, et al) because the source of the disaster cries is the group which has been the ‘information authority’ for every aspect of the lives of those who have grown up in the West since the 1960’s. Schools, news, entertainment, government, EVERY source of intellectual input experienced by my children and grand children has been controlled by ‘progressives’ from the time they were first plopped down in front of the cartoon network as infants until they defended their PhD theses in front of committees totally controlled by progressives. See the call from ‘Bill Nye, the Science Guy’ for income redistribution, government control of everything, and a massive reduction in human population, beyond the reductions achievable by war and ebola:
      http://www.blacklistednews.com/Bill_Nye%3A_%27We_need_carbon_tax_to_redistribute_wealth…need_gov%27t_to_run_things…everyone_else_should_shut_up%27/42984/0/38/38/Y/M.html

      So it is not at all strange that they should ‘believe’ OR that they, just like their lifelong mentors, should demand that those who do not be punished as ‘enemies of humanity’. After all, that what ‘progressives’, given power, ALWAYS do. And the current generation now passing through our institutions of ‘higher learning’ are, if nothing else, progressives.

      • As I thought about my question, it also must be true that there are folks that immediately dismiss any large possibility of ecological harm. So there is probably enough blame to go around. Might it not boil down to accepting or rejecting anything that doesn’t resonate with one’s closely held beliefs? Maybe my question ought to have been, where do the closely held beliefs come from? Your response might tie to that. :-)

    • You don’t have to look very hard to see that these are all well written, emotional driven agitation pieces. It takes a particularly nasty person to look at pictures of dying baby birds and automatically think that this is pure propaganda – even when it is.
      In contrast, to actually dig into whether Silent Spring is real or not takes a significant amount of effort.
      This is not to say that everything Silent Spring says is false – but it is abundantly clear now that the banning of DDT worldwide caused millions and tens of millions of 3rd world deaths.

  62. Dr. Curry – There are several “lynchpins” of the CAGW alarmist argument and it would be good to see you systematically address/debunk them all. You, better than I, would be able to identify the short-list. An example would be the existence of a Global Medieval Warming Period (MWP). If the MWP was global this weakens the CAWG argument because it was a time of warming without increased CO2. Some data suggests evidence of a global MWP (example: warming in both Greenland and Alaska during this period).

  63. Dr. Curry – another topic of great interest is the ECS or TCR which is generally discussed as some constant times the logarithm to base 2 of the CO2 concentration. However, If I have learned anything on your blog, it is that climate is an extremely non-linear, complex problem with unknown feedbacks. This suggests that the concept of an ECS or TCR has limited value. In fact, the concept of a TCR may even be misleading. Ice core data appears to support this conjecture. Dr. Alley, in “The Two Mile Time Machine” discusses periods of rapid climate change with temperature switching between high and low extremes as if a petulant child had taken control of a light switch. How could a thing such as a TCR even exist in an environment so chaotic and unpredictable? It appears as though the climate is “pre-loaded” to spring (on a geological time-scale) from one extreme towards the other where unknown (to me) negative feedbacks appear to halt further temperature excursions. This is quite evident in GISP2, Epica, and Vostok ice-core data over the last 800K years.

    Example here: https://oz4caster.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/climate-reconstructions-1-million-years.gif

  64. The global warming debate has come full circle. AGW theory of Western science has shown a spotlight on the house of cards we call government-funded public education and we now know the real issue: how do we realistically hope to rid academia of systemic incompetence? The emails of CRUgate and Mann’s hockey stick science are bad — real bad — but, nothing can prepare a civilization for how it all turned out –i.e., “Cook’s 97% consensus paper shows that the climate community still has a long way to go in weeding out bad research and bad behaviour” (e.g., see, Richard Tol, writing in the Australian).

  65. Judith,

    Long-time denizen. I have several questions and/or areas of interest.

    1) Why has so little focus been given to the long-term cycles? We know they exist. We know they are significant. We are fairly confident that they happen independent of CO2. Is it too hard to model or just inconvenient?

    Also… It appears like we should be approaching the end of a warming cycle. If you cannot account for this mechanic, how can you know if (a) We have been warming and CO2 simply has less of an impact; or (b) we hit the maximum in 1997, and the cooling has been masked by CO2 warming

    Philosophically – If we were to start cooling tomorrow, would it not be wise to attempt to find ways to maintain existing temperatures for the next 100,000 years +/- and hope we dont run out of fossil fuels?

    2) What role (if any) could pollution from industrialization have had on global temperatures from 1940-1970?

    I see some scientist using the warming from 1970-1997 as a means to argue a deviation from past warming. Could clean air initiatives that started in the 1970s not have played a significant role in the rapid heating from 1970-1997 (due to a fairly rapid reduction in PM concentrations that plateaued in the last 1990s)?

    My apologies in advance if these topics have already been discussed or are incoherent. I’m just a casual observer in this field.

  66. How about a topic that lists the titles of all the topics covered so far and invites suggestions as to how such a list could best be organized as a reference? What should be the major categories and sub-categories. Then after the categories are decided on, another on the categories to which the topics should be assigned, the final result being a list of clickable links. Perhaps a topic containing a number of good posts on X could be assigned to X topic (among others) even if the connection to X might not be apparent just from the title, with that entry being given an asterisk or something.

  67. Thanks to everyone for your suggestions. Some sort of organized list would be very good; one problem is that I don’t know how to delete individual ‘categories’ in wordpress, i would really like to redo these. Another possibility is similar to SOD roadmap: http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/

    Note, the About page has been revised, giving links to some key policy-relevant posts https://judithcurry.com/about/

  68. Topic, the responsibility of the media. The media now advocate more than ever and do due diligence in preparation less. Perhaps because of the competition.

    Generally Bad news is good news and good news is no news. In general, the media leans very much to the left. That is something I did not understand until I actually started studying the multiple factors of the climate change ideology six years ago.

    Case in point. When Richard Muller stated he changed his mind (about the temp record) it made big splashes in the media. Never mind that about two years earlier he stated in a Grist report that CO2 increase may be one of greatest threats facing mankind. Compare that to when someone with the credentials of Lennert Bengsten changes his mind and spoke out.

    An example of how the media reports, and often does it terribly can be seen in the events in Ferguson MO. The media actually used the word of a thug as evidence that ‘He had his hands up, don’t shoot’.
    Then that caused the outpouring of ill advised sentiment around the Country. Athletes, Media, Hollywood, rioters and more all raised their hands, in a show of so called solidarity. Never mind that it was totally wrong.
    Now the thug who lied has a job given to him in St. Louis and the police officer is without a job. Only Fox News on the right stated that we should wait until we find out all the information. I am sure a fraternity in Virginia would agree with that.

    But there is an even greater responsibility beyond that. Dozens of businesses in Ferguson were destroyed. The average home value their was cut in about half. Many have lost homes and their livelihood destroyed. Much of that was the result of the media magnifying a single event. Will anyone in the media ever take responsibility?

    Now back to the climate change ideology. There are many negatives when inaccurate reports become the norm.
    Better adaptation may be a positive outcome-whatever happens
    Some negatives—–
    poor prioritization
    Real environmental problems will be overlooked
    Eventually good science with integrity and accuracy will not be trusted
    Energy needs will be biased and will not meet the needs of many IE Europe
    Money and resources wasted while real needs are overlooked
    and on and on. Will the media take responsibility?

  69. I like the idea of science WIR and politics during the week. Posting the science one on Friday night would be good, IMO.

  70. Occasional book open reviews/discussions. Go to the bookshelf and pull down classics, workhorses, and newly published books. Put the focus in these posts on the books and not as an introduction to discussion of technical, societal, or political topics. Look at the discussion a post on your recent book generated.

    Similar posts on the body of works of individual might prove interesting and informative.

    Consolidation goes in tandem with cutting-edge.

  71. “Week in Review: is it about right, or too many items? Would you prefer fewer items, with more commentary from me?”

    It’s fine, a great selection, and easier to scan through without commentary.

  72. A post on the future of climate control could be interesting. I have been thinking that if it were physically possible, influencing ocean modes would be far more influential than atmospheric approaches. Such as controlling overturning rates at key locations like the Achilles heel of the North Atlantic south of Greenland.
    And exploring how glaciation may be limited in the Northern Hemisphere, again by controlling overturning rates, and possibly destruction methods for growing ice shelves threatening to inhibit regional overturning/drifting and the warm flows into the Arctic.

  73. Judy, the following items about your schedule drew my attention: ” …I have a big report due in mid-May … I have two interviews with Fox News this week…” I think what I have included here will substantially improve your arguments for the report and the two upcoming interviews.
    First, I will take up the falsification of global temperature data that has now reached the hallowed halls of AR5 report. What has happened is that the total lack of global warming in the eighties and nineties has been covered up by fake warming. I discovered this while doing research for my book “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change (2010).” My estimate is that from 1979 to 1997 there was no temperature change, an 18 year stretch of hiatus comparable to present day lack of warming. It is shown as Figure 15 in the book. Same thing happened then as now: atmospheric carbon dioxide kept increasing but global mean temperature did not. I even put a note about it into the preface of the book but nothing happened. Climate scientists involved seem pretty incompetent in keeping track of what their temperature actually is. The false warming amounted to about one tenth of a degree over an 18 year period. That is sufficient to make it seem that temperature from the eighties up was a smooth rise when in fact there was an 18 year horizontal step carved out of this make-believe warming. This temperature stretch includes an ENSO wave train of five El Nino peaks with La Nina valleys in between. Determining global mean temperature involves three steps. First step is covering the temperature curve with a red magic marker to suppress the fuzz from cloudiness variables. Second step is marking the midpoints between El Nino peaks and their neighboring La Nina valleys. These are the yellow dots in the graph. The third step is connecting the dots. There is some scatter but a horizontal straight line is a good fit. It proves that there was no warming. It just happens that the middle one of these five El Nino peaks is the one that Hansen called the warmest point ever observed to the Senate. The temperature graph he used in 1988 had such poor resolution that you could not see that his highest peak was just one of five equally high peaks. Two volcanoes also erupted on this time interval, El Chichon and Pinatubo. Pinatubo eruption was coincident with the forth El Nino peak and is followed by a distinct valley. That valley is a regular La Nina but was allocated by “experts” to volcanic cooling from Pinatubo. El Chichon picked a La Nina period to erupt in and can be seen in the first La Nina valley on the left. Somewhere in the book is a graph showing both volcanoes but I don’t remember where because I am not home. I am doing all this from memory because I am in Tallinn where my brother has an important art exhibit coming up on Wednesday. Anyway, El Chichon is followed by an El Nino peak, not by a valley, which rules out volcanic cooling entirely. Pinatubo does no volcanic cooling either simply because all volcanic cooling valleys in our temperature curves are nothing more than misidentified La Nina valleys. Look up the section about it in the book. The ENSO wave train is followed by the super El Nino of 1998. It is twice as high as the average of the previous five El Nino peaks. It is not part of the ENSO oscillation and is very sharply defined, so I left off the color.. To the right of it is a La Nina depression at 1999. A sharp step warming begins there and raises global temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius in only three years. Beyond that point the platform of the present hiatus begins. For seven years there are no regular ENSO components until the 2008 La Nina shows up. It is followed by the 2010 El Nino. The effect of the 1999 step warming was to make all 21st century temperatures higher than the twentieth century temperatures were. Hansen took advantage of that and declared that nine out of ten highest global
    temperatures belonged to the first decade of the twenty-first century. Naturally that idiot, being ignorant of the laws of physics that govern the greenhouse effect, attributed it all this to his favorite boogey-man, the greenhouse effect. More abuse is involved with naming 2014 warmest ever, but I must leave this until I get back.

    Arno Arrak

  74. Judy, the following items about your schedule drew my attention: ” …I have a big report due in mid-May … I have two interviews with Fox News this week…” I think what I have included here will substantially improve your arguments for the report and the two upcoming interviews.
    First, I will take up the falsification of global temperature data that has now reached the hallowed halls of AR5 report. What has happened is that the total lack of global warming in the eighties and nineties has been covered up by fake warming. I discovered this while doing research for my book “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change (2010).” My estimate is that from 1979 to 1997 there was no temperature change, an 18 year stretch of hiatus comparable to present day lack of warming. It is shown as Figure 15 in the book. Same thing happened then as now: atmospheric carbon dioxide kept increasing but global mean temperature did not. I even put a note about it into the preface of the book but nothing happened. Climate scientists involved seem pretty incompetent in keeping track of what their temperature actually is. The false warming amounted to about one tenth of a degree over an 18 year period. That is sufficient to make it seem that temperature from the eighties up was a smooth rise when in fact there was an 18 year horizontal step carved out of this make-believe warming. This temperature stretch includes an ENSO wave train of five El Nino peaks with La Nina valleys in between. Determining global mean temperature involves three steps. First step is covering the temperature curve with a red magic marker to suppress the fuzz from cloudiness variables. Second step is marking the midpoints between El Nino peaks and their neighboring La Nina valleys. These are the yellow dots in the graph. The third step is connecting the dots. There is some scatter but a horizontal straight line is a good fit. It proves that there was no warming. It just happens that the middle one of these five El Nino peaks is the one that Hansen called the warmest point ever observed to the Senate. The temperature graph he used in 1988 had such poor resolution that you could not see that his highest peak was just one of five equally high peaks. Two volcanoes also erupted on this time interval, El Chichon and Pinatubo. Pinatubo eruption was coincident with the forth El Nino peak and is followed by a distinct valley. That valley is a regular La Nina but was allocated by “experts” to volcanic cooling from Pinatubo. El Chichon picked a La Nina period to erupt in and can be seen in the first La Nina valley on the left. Somewhere in the book is a graph showing both volcanoes but I don’t remember where because I am not home. I am doing all this from memory because I am in Tallinn where my brother has an important art exhibit coming up on Wednesday. Anyway, El Chichon is followed by an El Nino peak, not by a valley, which rules out volcanic cooling entirely. Pinatubo does no volcanic cooling either simply because all volcanic cooling valleys in our temperature curves are nothing more than misidentified La Nina valleys. Look up the section about it in the book. The ENSO wave train is followed by the super El Nino of 1998. It is twice as high as the average of the previous five El Nino peaks. It is not part of the ENSO oscillation and is very sharply defined, so I left off the color.. To the right of it is a La Nina depression at 1999. A sharp step warming begins there and raises global temperature by 0.3 degrees Celsius in only three years. Beyond that point the platform of the present hiatus begins. For seven years there are no regular ENSO components until the 2008 La Nina shows up. It is followed by the 2010 El Nino. The effect of the 1999 step warming was to make all 21st century temperatures higher than the twentieth century temperatures were. Hansen took advantage of that and declared that nine out of ten highest global temperatures belonged to the first decade of the twenty-first century. Unfortunately he ignorant of the laws of physics that govern the greenhouse effect, attributed it all this to his favorite boogey-man, the greenhouse effect. More abuse is involved with naming 2014 warmest ever, but I must leave this until I get back.

    Arno Arrak

  75. Not climate science.
    But related:
    “Now we can add bogus and fake scientific papers to this fountain of misinformation and confusion. This decidedly unscientific process might produce “consensus science” but it does not produce understanding. Science should be a rigorous process, dependent on the validity and quality of published literature. Too few have read and critically thought about the patchwork of models, conjectures and hypotheses that too often are accepted as “understanding.” Science has always been a social construct, but more and more it seems to have become a mutually supporting social network, conducted without understanding or informed by wide reading and critical thought.

    Even though these articles are not specifically oriented toward my own field, I found them to be relevant and timely. Perhaps if more people are made aware of the deterioration of the process of scientific inquiry, we can begin to reinstate the techniques that have served us so well in the past. Journals need to stop accepting and publishing worthless contributions, and the community needs to stop writing them. The current literature should be read carefully and thoroughly. Knowledge obtained from Internet searches must be treated with skepticism—whether incomplete or completely false, the results will be the same. You cannot add to the discussion if you don’t understand the conversation.”

    Read more: http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/science-publishing-some-skepticism-required-180954871/#YpAAZGvm1YHogkzU.99
    Save 47% when you subscribe to Air & Space magazine http://bit.ly/NaSX4X
    Follow us: @AirSpaceMag on Twitter

  76. Pingback: Climate Change: the Facts – Part One | Izuru

  77. Got thinking about water vapor flux, CO2, plant stomata, and the increasing water efficiency of plants as CO2 rises. That would seem to predict NO INCREASE in tropospheric Humidity over the Continents, and therefore no warming amplification by CO2.

    First off, 80 to 90 per cent of terrestrial water flux comes from plant evapotranspiration. As CO2 increases, plants require less stomata to exchange gases (mainly CO2, O2 ). Plants become more drought tolerant as CO2 rises, because the number of stamata is inversely proportional to the amount of CO2. As CO2 rises, plants grow less stomata, which makes them lose less water vapor as they exchange gases. That should lead to a DECREASE in water flux over the continents as CO2 rises

    “Here we use the distinct isotope effects of transpiration and evaporation to show that transpiration is by far the largest water flux from Earth’s continents, representing 80 to 90 per cent of terrestrial evapotranspiration.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/full/nature11983.html

    “Terrestrial plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, a process that is accompanied by the loss of water vapour from leaves1. The ratio of water loss to carbon gain, or water-use efficiency, is a key characteristic of ecosystem function that is central to the global cycles of water, energy and carbon2. Here we analyse direct, long-term measurements of whole-ecosystem carbon and water exchange3. We find a substantial increase in water-use efficiency in temperate and boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere over the past two decades.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7458/full/nature12291.html

    Study Contradicts Claims that increased CO2 is supposedly warming the climate by increasing water vapor!
    “This study shows no up or down trend in global water vapor, a finding of major significance that differs with studies cited in AR5. Climate modelers assume that water vapor, the principle greenhouse gas, will increase with carbon dioxide, but the NVAP-M study shows this has not occurred. Carbon dioxide has continued to increase, but global water vapor has not. Today (December 14, 2012) I asked a prominent climate scientist if I should release my review early in view of the release of the entire second draft report.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/another-ipcc-ar5-reviewer-speaks-out-no-trend-in-global-water-vapor/

    Chris Shaker

  78. just a test, trying to see if I can convince WordPress not to mess up metadata by some device.

    —–Are there five (5) dashes there?—–

    —–How about now—–
    —–Or now—–

  79. hmm.

    -----how about that?-----

    -----or that?-----

  80. One or two more simple tests.
    Say my public key is:

    -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
    Version: GnuPG v1
    
    mI0EVS/lXwEEALFiOjdXkgniyr81Wq+BBSto0tf0Zc65qEn5K04gAs5+Z4//xb2m
    aohL8BQ6PMHCsyZguap0MqBYqxQ/gbhSLcQJiBj+V5IH7+dwZ4wHNYlRkATBRexT
    h2GPqZXTw8r64MnsoSfSqsppGc4dDBD7dH9I+E9Ukw7cGa5zPlfMKM/vABEBAAG0
    Rk1hcmtCb2ZpbGwgKFRoaXMgdmFsaWRhdGVzIE1hcmtCb2ZpbGwgc2lnbmF0dXJl
    cykgPG5vYm9keUBub3doZXJlLmNvbT6IuAQTAQIAIgUCVS/lXwIbAwYLCQgHAwIG
    FQgCCQoLBBYCAwECHgECF4AACgkQQSSWwxQ2/3H/DAQArM7ZSNyW5w/nRthvc3Uj
    6mLosObqqfApWPHwDAdSqT8A4tfi5VbBuX3HBdI/ZkNii5j1QZdsGivnWSQzCIPn
    0mrvexdTkS0gdNkQatwkzgT7ZJcbti7qFX3pHLnN5h2UUdWc9E2YKY49EwnLpErb
    9uypd/xsLeqd0CwxhcI3LpA=
    =L7yf
    -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
    

    Say we cut and paste this following for validation:

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1
    
    MarkBofill wrote this 04/16/2015 at 12:30 PM
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1
    
    iJwEAQECAAYFAlUv9sYACgkQQSSWwxQ2/3G7LAP/VjJMzu3DEPk7TWOeV6SFNENP
    DGPcvZD53RDbmP7e2Sppzj646p1EBmtpgXY1K8WW3OWKl5ECXkHXlWlukAoaRYVm
    Hk9JBp4ej9EOd6nSwcoXincFMpFRLxJyaAP/fzGNul16twoet26w5PRq1fLtcXF5
    fDsLfx2ZOi+sTryfRUU=
    =hT7h
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    

    So, if I post, cut, paste, save, validate, does that work?

      • I’m sure that’s very impressive. Whatever it is. Mind translating?

      • It’s Springer again, joshie. He’s just messing with your mind. He’s everywhere.

      • lol. Sure.

        All of this is about identifying / authenticating that the person who wrote a post is the person you think it is. The basic idea is to use public key signatures. I figured people could generate public / private key pairs (it’s extremely easy with gpg on linux or wingpg for windows), paste their public keys into a blog entry under their ‘Denizens’ comment (course Denizens is closed now, would need a new Denizens page I guess). Then anybody who cared enough could import that public key into their gpg ‘keyring’ and use it to authenticate authorship of signed messages.

        At the bottom of the current ‘Hearing’ thread, I posted this, which was a failed experiment in using gpg public key encryption for validating signatures. It turned out that WordPress likes to change stuff; we type in 5 dashes in a comment and WordPress changes that into 2 big dashes or something when it displays the comment. This messes up the metadata, the ‘BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE’ ‘END PGP SIGNATURE’ headers that the gpg program needs to figure out what it’s looking at.

        On further experimentation, I found that there are formatting tags one can put in comments to prevent WordPress from doing this. Here’s a link to what I’m talking about.
        So, this could actually be done. I’m thinking about writing a blog post on my currently useless for-climate-etc-authentication-only blog about how to do this. There’s a learning curve, but I don’t think it’s too steep for the average intelligence around here.

        The windows version of GPG actually lets you authenticate messages on the clipboard; so one could even just copy a comment and tab over to gpg (Kleopatra seems to be the name of the windows GUI version, actually), click on the clipboard button, select decrypt/verify and voila! It tells you if the signature is authenticated.

        What can I tell you Joshua, I’m a geeky software engineer. It’s what I do. :)

      • :(
        Be nice Don. Geekery like this ought to be a neutral zone, don’t you think?

      • Mark –

        ==> “There’s a learning curve, but I don’t think it’s too steep for the average intelligence around here.”

        Well good for them, but what am I going to do?

        I’m not sure why registration creates problems for people trying to comment (there was a shallow learning curve there to get past a few wrinkles), and personally I think it’s kind of funny when Springer get so obsessed that he writes comments under my nic and many others in one of his s*ckp*uppet frenzies – but at least if we were to adopt a verification procedure it would alleviate Don’s hilarious confusion that there’s no solid evidence that the s*ckp*pputeer is Springer.

      • Danny Thomas

        Joshua,
        I really don’t think Don’s confused especially since ds has started signing his puppetry with ………..well………..the initials ds.

      • Well good for them, but what am I going to do?

        :p
        If I couldn’t write up a clear explanation in a blog post with clear instructions on how to download, install, and operate this stuff that you or anybody here would understand I vow I will eat the shoes I’m wearing right now. Mud and all.

        But yes, you’re right. I haven’t really thought it through, but I don’t get why anybody is scared away by the verification procedure. I think that … Roger Pielke Sr was it? … posted a comment recently that seemed to imply that the verification procedure required denizens to let Dr. Curry know their RL identities. I haven’t taken the trouble to figure out if that’s so or not, as I don’t hide my RL identity. I guess it’s important to some.

        The trouble is, I don’t know that anybody would bother to adhere to the convention. Signing your posts is only useful if a reasonable number of people can differentiate a true signature from a forgery; if most people don’t take the trouble to install gpg, forgeries would still go mostly undetected.

        I’d take the trouble (it’s not really that much trouble) but I’m dubious that it’d catch on.

      • ==> ” Signing your posts is only useful if a reasonable number of people can differentiate a true signature from a forgery; if most people don’t take the trouble to install gpg, forgeries would still go mostly undetected.”

        Yeah – I doubt that would happen.

        I just always assumed that the whole point of asking for an email and username from commenters before their comments post was to verify the match (and to prevent s*ckp*ppeteers like Springer from making comments under someone else’s nic) . Strange to find out that wasn’t the case

      • Strange to find out that wasn’t the case

        Definitely don’t take my word for it, I don’t know what I’m talking about on that. Maybe the problem is entirely different, I really don’t know how and why the current verification thing with wordpress works for this purpose.


      • -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
        Hash: SHA1

        Danny,

        Yeah. But anybody can initial anything they want with 'D.S.'. Much harder to fake this!

        :)

        Mark

        -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
        Version: GnuPG v1

        iJwEAQECAAYFAlUwIy0ACgkQQSSWwxQ2/3ERZgP+MIIsPMzVDl94N5AvOzU1s7UX
        st23c2XmylxeRz47knmupgnpX6JCLiqP71w6ydlNVRt25pYqOiNJ+hEO4HLqI+/1
        wjufVpl1pc74wOe0ms3r6MVt+VxrBfYot7pLVdLg2efMaqKwAo9RgnXxbbHrElWT
        uyXgwbv87asQmVI57mI=
        =7OfW
        -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

      • Danny Thomas

        Mark,
        You mean it’s been Joshua this whole time? :-)

      • It’s been me I tell you, ME! It’s my mad scheme to get PGP into widespread use on blogs! Muhhahaahaahhaa!!! …What?!? No, I don’t need a tranquilizer! (Hang on a second Danny.) Get away from me with that syringe! NooooooOOooOOo!!!!!

      • ===============>>>>>”and personally I think it’s kind of funny when Springer get so obsessed that he writes comments under my nic and many others in one of his s*ckp*uppet frenzies – but at least if we were to adopt a verification procedure it would alleviate Don’s hilarious confusion that there’s no solid evidence that the s*ckp*pputeer is Springer.”

        What’s funny is that an obsessed evidence demanding self-confessed braggart troll won’t cite the solid evidence he keeps claiming to have. What’s also funny, joshie, is that the clown using your pseudonym is far more interesting than you are. You should just pretend that all the “Joshua” comments are yours. Better yet, pretend that the ones made by s*ckp*pputeer are yours and the ones you actually make are made by vice versa joshie.

        I suggest you stop whining about what you allege Springer is doing to your tattered reputation and put on your big boy points. The unintentional irony of a self-confessed braggart troll whining about a s*ckp*pputeer spoofing him is really funny.

        Danny, (if that’s who you really are)

        Do you think a s*ckp*pputeer can be relied on to sign his puppetry with his own initials?

        Come to think of it, I have been making some comments lately that I don’t remember actually writing. Some of them are very good. So, I am not going to whine about it to Judith.

  81. or is it better to do it this way…

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1
    
    Danny,
    
    Yeah.  But anybody can initial anything they want with 'D.S.'.  Much harder to fake this!
    
    :)
    
    Mark
    
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1
    
    iJwEAQECAAYFAlUwIy0ACgkQQSSWwxQ2/3ERZgP+MIIsPMzVDl94N5AvOzU1s7UX
    st23c2XmylxeRz47knmupgnpX6JCLiqP71w6ydlNVRt25pYqOiNJ+hEO4HLqI+/1
    wjufVpl1pc74wOe0ms3r6MVt+VxrBfYot7pLVdLg2efMaqKwAo9RgnXxbbHrElWT
    uyXgwbv87asQmVI57mI=
    =7OfW
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    
  82. hmm yeah. The tag protected block didn't validate. The

     one (just above, the one that's nicer anyway without the line breaks in the PGP signature) validates just fine.

  83. Whoops. Meant to say,
    The code tag protected block didn’t validate. The pre tag protected block validates just fine.