APS discussion thread

by Judith Curry

This thread is running parallel to APS members comment on climate change statement, which is open only to APS members.

This is a new format for Climate Etc., I am hoping to entrain APS members to post on the other thread, and I would like a clean record of the comments they are submitting to POPA.  Note, comments might accumulate slowly, since they are not due until May 6.

Thanks for your cooperation and patience in airing comments from the APS members.

557 responses to “APS discussion thread

  1. All I can say is that the APS statement is ‘fantastic’ in the old sense — it put forward a fantasy that runs against the observational evidence, as your APS fellows have pointed out. Why on earth would the APS publish such a vapid and unscientific statement? Of course, the same can be said for the Royal Society and the Australian Academy of Science,
    though the APS statement is, I hate to say, actually worse.

    • +1

    • “Why on earth would the APS publish such a vapid and unscientific statement? ”

      Relatively late in life I’ve arrived at a whole new level of cynicism. The global warming movement has shaken my politics, caused rifts with former friends, and instilled in me an uncomfortable and unhealthy anger. I’d formerly not have believed some of this stuff.

      • I share your feelings about this issue. I am a liberal who, as a result of my not being a believer, has experienced the same rifts. When I try to discuss the science, they do not want to be involved. They don’t care about the knowing the science. They are comfortable accepting others’ words, as in any religious belief. I guess that the only possible hope of having them change their mind is to wait and see if the possible cooling trend happens.

      • I empathize with you. While I still consider them friends, there are certainly some strains with a few guys that previously did not exist. This subject is almost like a touchy issue in marriage. When things are going well, neither side brings it up. But, when someone has miffed the other, then global warming comes up as retaliation. Then it becomes a contest in trying to better the other guy. Sort of junior high stuff.

        I have known some of these men for 40 years with few disputes about any topic But global warming has touched raw nerves like nothing ever before.

        Very strange.

      • Agreed, ck. As a lifelong, now former liberal, I have to say i totally get it. They’re absolutely and unshakeably convinced of their intellectual and moral superiority. I know I was. Any challenge to what amounts to second order beliefs are met with contempt, anger, and impatience.The NYT’s is telling them the science is settled, and the President whose alleged intelligence they revere, is telling them the debate is over. The notion that conservatives might be right on this issue, or any issue at odds with their orthodoxy, is inconceivable.

      • Same. Several other liberal issues as well.

      • Relatively late in life I’ve arrived at a whole new level of cynicism. The global warming movement has shaken my politics, caused rifts with former friends, and instilled in me an uncomfortable and unhealthy anger.

        I read that and thought , that’s me. Spot on.

      • climate grog, If we and several others here were able to cast off the progressive blinders, I don’t see why others out there can’t. I choose to think of it as a hopeful sign. Maybe we recovering liberals should ask ourselves what was it about us that allowed a certain objectivity to creep in? Maybe we can come up with some sort of common denominator. It might possibly be useful.

      • I am also liberally inclined politically and you comment resonates with me, and I sympathise with the supporting comments too. My interest in climate science is actually motivated by the amazement I feel at the extent which people have been able to fool themsleves, and how an idea can take hold and resemble so closely religious belief.

        I am not quite so cynical though. I have also come to realise that these memes have occurred through history and are part of the human condition, so to an extent CAGW or something like it would emerge as a belief eventually.

        OTH, what has shifted for me is I am far less certain about things than I was before. I was for years very worried about CAGW, and while for the time being the reasonable and rational skeptical arguments have persuaded me otherwise, I am on the look out for anything that could overturn them.

      • “I was for years very worried about CAGW, and while for the time being the reasonable and rational skeptical arguments have persuaded me otherwise, I am on the look out for anything that could overturn them.”

        A rare and beautiful thing, is a mind wide open.

      • I’ve struggled with wondering if I am moving away from progressives or if they are moving away from me. I don’t really feel any acceleration though.

      • This is a fascinating ‘mini-discussion’ … I am also a life-long Democrat (and will so remain for the foreseeable future). CAGW is, perhaps, the only area of serious and significant disagreement I have with progressives in general. (Although there are some other areas where I diverge from the most liberal among the progressives.) For me, it is a gift to have this disagreement, because it has become so much easier to spot the rhetorical patterns that one tends to fall into, on either side of the political spectrum. And so it helps me to maintain my natural skepticism, even in areas that have nothing to do with climate change. That is, clearly seeing the assumption-traps in climate science, that I am currently disposed to spot right away, keeps me on my toes when it comes to assumption-traps in other areas, where my critical thinking skills might not otherwise be engaged.

        It can actually be pretty amusing, seeing the more emotionally wrought exaggerations and evidence-less conclusions so often expressed on either side.

  2. Very good idea the APS members comment thread. Thank you.

  3. daveandrews723

    It’s great to read so many level-headed statements in the APS members comment threat. Maybe there is hope for climate science after all.

  4. APS: “… multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.”

    It seems that the APS lacks one “evidence”, judging by the bias it presents. That is, the most basic issue of convincing (not necessarily proof) evidence that 20th century climate variability was principally caused by, not only correlated with, CO2. The evidence should be a peer-reviewed paper discussing the physics and math involved. Because climate systems are so massive, it should also include evidence that CO2 precedes the temperature variability in the 20th century, but I am open to an equally scientific explanation that it doesn’t necessarily have to be so as long as it considers the massiveness of the system.

    It is a wonder that the APS would continue their obvious bias (political?) if this paper does not exist. As one trying to be objective about this discussion, I am anxious to be made aware of such a paper.

  5. If the number of comments that have been posted on the parallel thread to date is any indication, there are not that many dissenters game enough to come forward as yet. While the idea of a separate thread being created on Judith’s blog for the exclusive use of APS members seems novel and interesting, it seems to me to be a step in the wrong direction for an open blog such as CE. The APS members are able to vote with their feet and they should simply resign their membership in protest. There is no point in these organisations becoming involved in a very political and controversial issue which is outside of their general membership’s expertise.

    • The time scale for people to respond is expected to be a week or two. First, the member may not have ever heard of Climate Etc. (and may be completely unfamiliar with the blogosphere), and may have no idea this is going on. They may or may not be contacted by colleagues about this. They may not have yet prepared their statement to the APS, and may not be planning to write this for another week or two. And finally, some may not want to make their comments public. So we need to wait and see how this plays out over the next two weeks. Thanks for your patience.

      • Let’s hope the quality improves…the current comments include some gob-smackingly stupid statements.

      • David Springer

        You’re treating this most recent statement like a new development. It’s not. The science was as unsettled in 2007 as it is today. The scientific establishment represented by leading organizations such are this are the real deniers. The field is hopelessly corrupt.

        If other fields of science and engineering were as poorly performing we’d be having this conversation via handwritten letters delivered by pony express.

        Thank God climate science is an exception to rule, eh Curry?

      • My main interest in the APS statement is the fact that i participated in the superb Workshop for APS POPA in Jan 2014. The statement ignores this Workshop, Koonin was essentially booted out of the process, and alarmism as usual was the result. It is the Workshop and Knoonin’s resignation (w/WSJ editorial) that makes this statement noteworthy.

        Note, the field of physics is relatively uncorrupted by AGW alarmism. The APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate is quite good, and routinely invites skeptical scientists to present at their meeting.

        The APS POPA is being corrupted by a vocal core of activist scientists.

        This is why I think the evolution of the APS statement is interesting. I’m shining a light on this, hoping that the APS and other professional societies will learn something from this.

      • David Springer

        You’re in denial, Curry. All the major scientific organizations have similar climate change position statements. APS is the rule not the exception. Follow the money. All areas of science where funding comes primarily from government make these position statements. It starts with NASA and NOAA and flows downhill to other rent seekers from there. Back in the 1970’s when I was an electronics technician working for the NSSL it either wasn’t like this or I was too low on the totem pole to see the corruption. Having come of age during the golden years of NASA when the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo space programs were carried through science was glorious and the whole nation was behind it. Now it’s the butt of jokes and a never ending source of embarrassment. The Russians are having the last laugh.

      • Apparently the Geological Society of America did not renew its statement on climate change. There is some hope yet that the APS will do the same.

      • So, David, Is your suggestion to Ms Curry, and others who are trying to find and disseminate more info on the subject, to quit? Stop trying?

      • “The APS POPA is being corrupted by a vocal core of activist scientists.” – JC

        Damn those ‘activist scientists’ ……pushing their personal points of view at Congress and the like….

      • verytallguy11

        Judith

        Apparently the Geological Society of America did not renew its statement on climate change.

        A citation would be nice.

        This is their position statement according to their website. My bold:

        Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

        Of course, I may have missed the retraction

      • This is valuable and timely. As has been pointed out by others the organizational body’s leadership often don’t reflect the members views. And sometimes they are from marketing PR or non-profit backgrounds, not scientific ones. Regardless, they seem to feel it’s their professional duty to support the IPCC statements.
        This is exactly the low hanging fruit to start a reset.
        Dr. Curry, what do you know about the American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union statements?

      • Tall Guy

        Renewing and retraction could be two different actions, that are mutually exclusive.

      • David Springer

        http://www.geosociety.org/positions/index.htm#d

        It appears the current statement is still supported. You’re clutching at straws.

      • Ron Graf, the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement back in 2004. This hasn’t changed because it is still posted.
        http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/aip-endorsement-american-geophysical-union-climate-change-statement

      • “The field is hopelessly corrupt.”

        There in a Shakespearean nutshell, do we have it

      • David Springer | April 20, 2015 at 9:35 am |
        “You’re in denial, Curry…”

        Jim D | April 20, 2015 at 2:02 pm |
        “Ron Graf, the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement back in 2004. This hasn’t changed because it is still posted. ”

        aneipris | April 20, 2015 at 3:25 pm |
        “The field is hopelessly corrupt.”

        Lest we forget the actions of a few good people can have amplified effect with encouragement, theirs and ours.

        Dr. Curry, thank you for your seemingly tireless effort.

      • The basic problem with the APS Climate Change Statement is that except for the last line, which mentions physics and physicists, the entire statement could have been written by the IPCC or Greenpeace.

      • I’m seeing an every stronger response to the situation from Dr. Curry. I can recall a time when her opinions were a little softer and a lot more subtle.

        Someday, we may see an actual vent! But patience is probably an ok approach.

        Some basic advice though, climate science is a multi-hundred billion dollar industry with strength beyond that of a normal hundred billion dollar company as a company has much greater material expenses – and taxes. It will NOT bend easily. Even changing its course slightly in the face of its obvious failure is a challenge. Considering that there are trillions on the political side of the argument, it is no wonder that corruption is the norm.

      • I’m seeing an even stronger….

      • David Springer

        Ken Konetski | April 20, 2015 at 9:42 am |

        “So, David, Is your suggestion to Ms Curry, and others who are trying to find and disseminate more info on the subject, to quit? Stop trying?”

        Kvetching gets old, Ken. My suggestion is they get elected to leadership positions or work to get like minded others elected. Talk is cheap.

      • Jeff Id | April 20, 2015 at 7:46 pm |
        I’m seeing an every stronger response to the situation from Dr. Curry. I can recall a time when her opinions were a little softer and a lot more subtle.

        The debate team is a good analogy for what is happening.

        Rep. Raul Grijalva is the poster boy for the problem with Debate Team “A”..

        When debate team “A” insists on get almost all the funding and its “winning” tactics include:
        1. Claiming that debate team “B” should be ignored because the debate is over – as their opening argument.
        2. Having thugs bind and gag members of the opposing debate team.

        This tends to radicalize debate team “B”

        If trying win by silencing your debate opponents is your main strategy, it leads independent observers to conclude Debate Team “A” is some combination of incompetent, dishonest/unethical, and sore losers.

    • In Dr. Curry’s testimony before congress this week she described climate change as a wicked problem. A casual vernacular of describing something as wicked, like wicked cool, did not seem to fit the seriousness of the remarks. I hope the congresspeople’s staff also decided to Google the term and would find that it’s a social science term coin in the 1960s to describe a politically intractable problem. Examples are, drug abuse, nuclear weapons, poverty and aids. The last example shows a little dating of the Wikipedia citing. Aids it is now thought may be curable within 10 years (hard to imagine this day in 1982 in one of ABC’s Peter Jennings’ global doom countdown Aids specials.) Climate change was listed first but it is different from the others in that we are not even positive that it is a problem at all. There are lists of characteristics to define a wicked problem. Here is the shorter one:
      1) The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution.
      I would add the solution requires the expansion of government and regulatory powers.
      2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
      We will never be safe enough to disband the restrictions. Aids may not fit.
      3) Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong.
      Moral, ideological or religious belief must be entwined.
      4) Every wicked problem is essentially novel and unique.
      5) Every solution to a wicked problem is a ‘one shot operation.
      Eliminating the tool to trial and error for evaluation makes analysis of progress perpetually subjective and complex to quantify.
      6) Wicked problems have no given alternative solutions.
      If it didn’t require a massive sacrifice (security, liberty, wealth) it wouldn’t be a problem.

    • I think that the separate thread is a good idea, we can see the APS members’ views without wading through a great preponderance of non-APS posts. There might be other occasions on which a separation would be valuable.

      • yes this might be a good model. I envisioned this to be ‘routine’ on technical threads (a bit much), but some topics would benefit from this

    • Judith thanks us for our patience in respect of the idea of a separate thread for specific populations of commenters. It was never an issue for me and indeed I must thank Judith for hers for putting up with some pretty petty behaviour from people who post on her blog.

      While my comment that separate threads are not a step in the right direction has seemingly not gathered much traction, the basis of this opinion has been that Judith’s blog is the most open that I have ever been part of and to have it used on a one-off basis for obtaining feedback on a separate issue seems to have created some confusion among a few of our denizens, with some of them still commenting on that thread regardless.

      After all is said and done, however, its Judith’s blog and she can and will do with it as she wants.

  6. Pingback: APS discussion thread | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  7. http://sites.ieee.org/ny-monitor/files/2011/04/3_PDF_SASSON1.pdf

    The engineering organizations do “sane person” position statements.

    Why do the APS and similar organizations do “crazy person” position statements.

    • I am a 40+ year member of the American Chemical Society. The ACS position is equally crazy. I threatened to quit, and would but for the utility of finding consulting work through ACS.

      ““Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)

      • I threatened to quit, and would but for the utility of finding consulting work through ACS.

        This is typical Leninist strategy: seize control of the “leadership” cadre of large, semi-(or pseudo-)democratic organizations, and use them in support of a political agenda.

        Professional societies make an ideal target: because of their ability to add value to members’ careers through the connections they foster, it’s much harder for an unhappy membership to simply leave them behind.

        Personally, I let my membership lapse in the AAAS in about ’08, as I found the tone of too many “research” reports in their flagship publication offensive. “Contrarian” used as a derogatory term, for instance. In a magazine supposedly dedicated to Science.

    • The I.E.E.E statement does what you expect from a professional society. It stays within proven facts, stays within their core competency, and addresses the issue in a practical way.

      It is what you expect from professionals.

  8. “Vote with your feet.” “Run away.” I fail to see the difference between these two concepts.
    “Stand up and be counted” is the maxim I endorse.

  9. David Springer

    I suspect if you poll the APS membership about the statement asking whether the larger problem behind it is ignorance or apathy the majority of respondents would reply “I don’t know and I don’t care.”

    It’s certainly a very poor reflection on the fellows in any case despite the protests of a few.

    http://www.aps.org/membership/statistics/categories.cfm

    There are nearly 4,000 fellows in the APS. The preceding post contains protests from 0.1% of them. So make that VERY, VERY few.

    • I agree that the number of comments that the APS POPA receives may not be very large, and that most don’t know or don’t care. Which makes a statement from the APS on this topic even more pointless.

      • But not so pointless, as to not need multiple posts on the topic.

        Food fight!!

      • David Springer

        Ah. Michael sees it as a food fight. That is the best explanation I’ve seen for his presence here. Next time you get into a food fight, Michael, bring something more substantial to throw than popcorn.

      • Can never have enough popcorn here David.

      • I agree that the number of comments that the APS POPA receives may not be very large, and that most don’t know or don’t care. Which makes a statement from the APS on this topic even more pointless.Should there be no statement because the subject is outside the area of expertise of the APS, or because that would be better than the proposed statement? If the subject is not outside the expertise of the APS, and it is a matter of intense public interest, isn’t that exactly the subject on which they should make a statement, even if it is a statement of uncertainty or to say that the membership is split? Of course that may be the message of no statement, but it would seem that issuing no statement would simply make the APS appear pusillanimous, if this is an area of expertise.

      • Forget the popcorn for Michael. Bring him a carrot.

      • Brain food

    • David
      7 [8 counting Judith] out of 4000 is ?. 10 in a thousand is 1 %, 10 in 4000 is 0.25%, 8 is 0.2%, still small cheese but you ignore the ones who are to frightened to put their names up due to risk of loss of tenure and grants under the pro active Obama regime. Bet all those who have are secure in their jobs or older and not worried if they lose them.
      Happy to say 0.25% at the moment?
      If we get 120 we can say 97% of APS members are too frightened to express an opinion on AGW.
      If those with pro views take up the challenge we should get 97 consensus responses to each non consensus one?
      Where are they Michael?

      • David Springer

        Not all of those quoted are APS fellows so it’s something less than 0.2%. I rounded down to the nearest tenth of a percent.

      • David Springer

        Tenure by definition can’t be lost by wandering off the reservation. Pay and promotion can be frozen, lab access denied, and classes taken away however as happened to a late acquaintance of mine, a biology professor, who dared dispute the Darwinian narrative.

        How many APS fellows lack the backbone to follow their conscience? We can’t know without an anonymous poll. Maybe Curry and spined peers can do that. I suggest using Survey Monkey which we did in my hometown last year. The largest complaint was too much government. Instead of writing useless letters to those in control I instead got on the November 2014 ballot, wrote letters to residents of my district, and got elected to the city council. It’s a lot of work to actually step up and get elected. In comparison there’s almost no work involved in complaining.

      • I’m sure that most would prefer not to be pilloried or Hillaried and let sleeping dogs lie. With emphasis on the lie.

      • “If we get 120 we can say 97% of APS members are too frightened to express an opinion on AGW.” – angech

        Or we could be somewhat less conspiratorial and say that up to 99.75% of APS members can’t see what the fuss is about.

        We aren’t even dealing with a minority yet….heck they’re barely a fringe.

  10. You saw the cheesy Roland Emmerich disaster movie. Now read the APS statement.

  11. verytallguy11

    Judith,

    so, it seems that you have come to your senses and decided to campaign for the APS to have a sensible statement.

    It’s a cunning ruse of yours to use the device of deliberately bringing together the least reputable (1) and most obviously politically motivated (2) group of climate change “sceptics” you could possibly muster from within the APS to demonstrate how poor the intellectual case against their draft statement is. The over the top language of the objectors is most effective in undermining their position.

    I particularly liked the inclusion of two chapter reviewers from the Heartland Institute’s NIPCC report (3) and having the chutzpah to the openly praise that risible document. What better way to demolish the credibility of the exercise than from the inside in this manner?

    Well done.

    refs

    1) eg Godwin: In July 2014 Happer said, during a CNBC interview, that “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Views_on_global_warming
    2) Lewandowsky’s hypothesis that “endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science” – wading through them all is rather tiresome, but the ones I’ve checked have either written for, spoken at, or otherwise contributed to political lobby groups of this persuasion (GWPF, Heartland, George Marshall institute etc)
    3) NIPCC: http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Appendix-2-Authors-Directory.pdf

    • VTG –

      You should be careful of quoting Happer out of context – at least provide the rest of that comment:

      “The demonization of carbon dioxide is just like the demonization of the poor Jews under Hitler….Carbon dioxide is actually a benefit to the world, and so were the Jews.”

      We want to fully understand the range of Happer’s “synthetic expertise.”

      Let us consider more from this “synthetic expert.”

      “Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it’s a wonder that humanitarians aren’t clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.”

      So much for uncertainty, eh? So much for a focus on adaptation, eh? What we really should be “clamoring” for is more ACO2.

      And this, even though, Judith would never listen to Happer if Happer didn’t agree that we know that the climate is warming and we know that ACO2 contributes to the warming, but we just don’t know the magnitude of that contribution. Why would Happer say we should be “clamoring for more ACO2” if he doesn’t know the magnitude of contribution to warming?

      • “Why would Happer say we should be “clamoring for more ACO2″ if he doesn’t know the magnitude of contribution to warming?”
        Um, he said humanitarians, Joshua, not we.
        He feels more CO2 could lead to more , not less production of food and more water for farming and drinking.
        I.e a beneficial effect.
        Not knowing the magnitude of the contribution does not mean that such a contribution is unwelcome surely?
        Surely we, that is you and I, could agree with the humanitarians for once?

      • angech –

        You’re avoiding my point.

        If you are completely confident that something is good up ’till a certain point but could be bad after that, you don’t just advocate for more of it without talking about limitations.

        The implication behind the use of “humanitarian” by Happer was a rhetorical one, to mean those who are concerned about claim to promote human welfare but who act in contradiction to that claim. Of course, we all are seeking to promote human welfare, you and I and Happer alike. We’re all humanitarians in the non-rhetorical sense.

        Don’t shirk away from his polarizing, politicized, and tribalistic rhetoric. Don’t defend it.

      • Joshua | April 20, 2015 at 11:19 am |
        “angech – You’re avoiding my point. ”
        Picks self up of floor to reply.
        Perhaps Mr Happer could be excused on the grounds that those who promote catastrophe from rising CO2/Temp have rarely ever mentioned that there are good outcomes possible.
        He was making the point that CO2 could be beneficial if it goes up.
        Like I could say a glass of water slakes my thirst. I don’t have to go into the rigmarole about the dangers of water in large quantities [drowning etc] in order to taslk about the benefits of a glass of water surely?
        BTW he says we will have more water if the CO2/Temp goes up,
        A good thing you could agree.

      • angech –

        ==> “Perhaps Mr Happer could be excused on the grounds that those who promote catastrophe from rising CO2/Temp have rarely ever mentioned that there are good outcomes possible.”

        The only reason I can see to make such an “excuse” is to protect tribal boundaries.

        For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

        Your response reminds me of when Judith justified misleading reporting by David Rose by implying that it’s necessary to balance (what she considers to be) misleading advocacy on the other side of the great climate divide.

        That tactic works OK for food fights. For advancing pubic dialogue in highly polarized contexts, not so much.

        ==> “He was making the point that CO2 could be beneficial if it goes up.”

        First you justify the behavior that I was criticizing and then you pretend like it didn’t took place.

        ==> “Like I could say a glass of water slakes my thirst. I don’t have to go into the rigmarole about the dangers of water in large quantities [drowning etc] in order to taslk about the benefits of a glass of water surely?”

        You are completely ignoring the context. By your logic, we should tell children that red wine is good for them (without mentioning the risks involved in overindulgence).

        BTW he says we will have more water if the CO2/Temp goes up,
        A good thing you could agree.

      • “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

        In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”

      • > Happer’s “synthetic expertise.

        If our beloved Bishop and Steve Koonin are synthetic experts, I’d rather think that William Happer’s a synthetic synthetic expert, or an interpretative expert, a bit like the James:

    • veryoffensiveguy,

      Judith isn’t cunning.

    • verytallguy11: The over the top language of the objectors is most effective in undermining their position.

      Could you quote some of the over-the-top language and show how that would work?

      • verytallguy11

        Sure Matt.

        Let’s take it from the top with Cohen:

        What a craven and scientifically misguided statement this is. It wreaks of slogans, exaggeration, and distortions.

        Nice homophone to join the OTT language, adding to the sense of thrashing intellectual incontinence (note that this is a game for any number of players)

        future generations of APS leaders will come to regard this Statement and the fabricators that produced it as embarrassing reminders of how readily the Science Project could be corrupted.

        in which the seas of hyperbole are crisscrossed by the privateers of stray capitalisation.   

        This is fun!  Next up,  Douglass:

        Physics to me has always meant the search for scientific truth. 

        Nice start with perhaps a slight aftertaste of Nicene coming through. 

        For the past 15 years the concentration of CO2 has been increasing while the Earth “refuses” to warm.

        Beautifully offset against this wonderful unscientific political slogan.   And not even a hint of irony.   Poetic in its hypocrisy.  Finally:

        Do not issue a new climate statement! Let the issue die!

        Exclamation marks are a mark of thought and erudition!  Always!

        I think that’s enough.

      • The parts in italics are amusing. The other stuff is way overwrought and very pompous.

      • verytallguy11

        David Springer,

        your continued discrediting of both yourself and Judith’s blog is duly noted

      • David Springer

        Coming from you I consider that a compliment.

        What brings you out of your safe house at ATTP anyhow? Between you and Ken Rice suddenly showing up speaking volumes here it’s like “Invasion of the Comment Snatchers”.

      • verytallguy, in context those are not too bad, imo. Here is the first from Cohen:

        Roger Cohen

        What a craven and scientifically misguided statement this is. It wreaks of slogans, exaggeration, and distortions. For example: “In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.” You do not mention that the accumulating evidence is that this ‘connection’ is far smaller than we have been told by IPCC, that it has been revised DOWNWARD, and that any future warming will be correspondingly much smaller.

        The ott claim (as you called it) is immediately followed by a supporting example. The link to CO2 is poor, and the best estimates put the sensitivities lower than before.

        I can see how a more subdued point-by-point disputation, citing peer reviewed papers and the NIPCC report (complete with page numbers) might be more effective long-term in that audience. How important it is that some APS members know that these particular APS members are angry is something I can’t judge. That particular “ott” may serve as an alert.

        For the past 15 years the concentration of CO2 has been increasing while the Earth “refuses” to warm.

        That’s a reasonable assessment, at least until someone “finds” the “missing” heat. Multiple mechanisms have been proposed for Trenberth’s “missing” heat, the net results of which are to reduce confidence in any predictions. Exactly how close to exactly flat each temperature series has been for exactly how long might be discussed, but the overall conclusion is that previous IPCC predictions have not come true. The Earth has “refused” to warm as “instructed” (scenariod, predicted, expected, modeled, etc.)

      • verytallguy11

        Matthew

        The Earth has “refused” to warm as “instructed” (scenariod, predicted, expected, modeled, etc.)

        This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

        You might as well as a climate model to forecast short periods of time as ask a tide table to predict when a wave will break on the shore.

      • verytallguy11

        Dave, the comment was aimed at something you posted which seems to have disappeared, presumably moderated. Don’t worry, I won’t be a regular here. It’s not generally a pleasant environment.

        I only emerge from under my stone when I see that something particularly egregious is worth challenging.

        Like APS members extolling NIPCC reports under Judith’s careful stewardship.

      • verytallguy11: This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

        Your claim was that the language was “over the top”, and it isn’t.

        As for it’s being a misunderstanding, the model results (“instructions”, “scenarios”, etc) were presented as being accurate forecasts for the early 21st century. Only since the forecasts have been shown to be wrong has the “misunderstanding” of which you write been asserted. Not all the modelers agree with you, which is why there have been so many explanations of the lack of fit, and revisions in hopes of creating better fit over 10-20 year spans.

  12. Judith –

    You say:

    “The APS POPA is being corrupted by a vocal core of activist scientists.”

    Is William Happer an “activist?”

    If not, could you clarify which criteria you use to distinguish his input in the public debate about climate change from that of other climate scientists who comprise this “vocal core?”

    • There are some activists on the ‘skeptic’ side of the APS. They key difference is that they are not campaigning to have their perspective dominate a statement from the APS, but rather they are saying that APS should NOT issue a public policy statement on the topic of climate change.

      • ==> “…but rather they are saying that APS should NOT issue a public policy statement on the topic of climate change.”

        So then the people who are “activists” on this issue (such as yourself) were unified in not lobbying w/r/t the content of the statement – but only advocating that no statement be made? Is that why you attended the meeting? Was that the reason for Koonin’s WSJ editorial? Because it wasn’t a difference of opinion that you and he were advocating for, but that no statement should be made?

      • There are some activists on the ‘skeptic’ side of the APS. They key difference is that they are not campaigning to have their perspective dominate a statement from the APS, but rather they are saying that APS should NOT issue a public policy statement on the topic of climate change.

        So this makes you an activist?

      • Somewhat lengthy ‘Thought fer Terday.’

        ‘If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want:
        we shall for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look
        away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous
        to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to
        obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in
        favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would
        have been refuted.

        H/t Karl Popper. The Poverty of Historicism, Ch 29.

      • Congrats Judith.

        You just scored the triple crown of getting comment replys from the three donkey amigo’s.

      • Too late at night … ‘We shall *look* for’

      • FYI – not Beth, who’s comment came in while I was typing. The third was our favorite talking donkey – Michael. Who should condier following his own advice.

      • Phew… Since serfs are sometimes beasts of burden
        I thought …

    • Yeah, people who don’t agree with their viewpoint should just STFU.

  13. Dear Judy
    It was pointed out that .1% of the membership are openly expressing dissent. Doesn’t matter how small that number is. That’s to be expected given the sensitivities involved. What does matter is that you’ve laid the groundwork/opened a path for those sitting on the sidelines to participate in this very important discussion. I applaud your efforts in that regard.

    • David Springer

      I disagree. Given the mendacity of the statement coming from an organization representing the purest of scientific disciplines it’s an alarmingly low number that is quite unexpected. Apathy and corruption evidently run deep in the scientific establishment. These organizations need the equivalent of a Tea Party to set them aright. A few scientists who care enough to write nastygrams to the ruling bodies aren’t having any discernible effect. Accusations of political agendas roll off them like water off a duck’s back. Grass roots reform is needed.

      • Setting aside the fact that the “grass roots reform” you espouse takes considerable time, education and effort, what you appear to be overlooking are a few simple facts of non-profit organizational life.

        In most NP/NGOs by far the majority of “statements”, reports etc. are drafted by staff. If they’re lucky, the members of the committee in whose name such statements/reports are issued will actually have read – rather than skimmed – the full document, as opposed to the far shorter “Executive Summary” – which also may or may not have been read and/or fully comprehended by those whose “approval” results in documents subsequently being written in stone, so to speak.

        Furthermore, I’m not entirely sure why one should assume that “climate change” is even a high priority interest – let alone area of expertise – of any more than a very small percentage of the membership of the APS. Just as those with expertise in physics are a very small percentage of IPCC authorship roster.

        Much as the UN-ocrats would prefer the world to think otherwise – “climate change” (as one of the UN tentacles’ very own survey has repeatedly shown) is at the very bottom of their survey respondents’ priority list.

        So, I’m not sure why you would expect more of the APS membership or the membership of any number of high profile organizations – e.g. the UK Royal Society – all of which have issued very similar “statements”.

        In light of all the foregoing, I’m far more inclined towards supporting notwise in his praise of our hostess for her efforts to bring the range of dissident views to the fore.

    • There is a crack, a cracik in everythin’,
      that’s how the light gets in…

  14. Sorry, it’s Judith.

  15. The magnificent seven to date.
    And here I was thinking you were being hung out to dry on our own.
    No one [hardly] disputes the science that CO2 increases should lead to a small rise in global temperature.
    Many dispute the Sensitivity, feedbacks and effects that may occur.
    Science needs to sort out the facts first and we are a long way from certainty or consensus.
    Good on you guys.
    Look out for the attacks but everyone that puts their hand up for scientific method and research should be applauded.
    A public list like this of scientists should be extended to all those brave enough to take on the vitriol.
    This would be something that Joshua would agree with you on.

    • angech –

      ==> “Many dispute the Sensitivity, feedbacks and effects that may occur.
      Science needs to sort out the facts first and we are a long way from certainty or consensus.”

      Well, not Happer. He feels that it is basically a moral imperative that we “clamor” for more ACO2. Obviously, he must know the facts. No need to sort them out. The facts are that we need more ACO2. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a counter-humanitarian.

      It’s like Jews and N@zis, don’t ya’ know.

  16. What makes ‘global warming’ interesting to many is that the ‘global’ nature is not just spatial but global in processes and as such disciplines.

    Meteorology ( and its bastard child Climatology ), Oceanography, Chemistry. But wait, there’s also Biology, Geology, Astronomy. And also Economics and Agriculture. The list could go on.

    As such, the notion of ‘expert’ in the field is very incomplete because there are no ‘experts’ in all the necessary fields.

    One could understand completely the Radiative Physics of greenhouse gas absorptivity/emissivity but not fathom the Atmospheric Physics of fluid dynamics and come away with a limited ( and so, unduly intense ) perspective.

    One could understand the Physical Chemistry of CO2 emissions but be unaware of uptake processes due to Oceanography and Biology and be unduly alarmed.

    One not up to date on Economics and Demographics certainly can’t have a complete perspective on future emissions.

    Organizations such as the APS and the AMS feel obligated and pressured to have a ‘statement’ because they are ‘expert’ and for political reasons both internal to the organization and external. But these statements necessarily struggle to capture the entirety or veracity of nature.

    • Turbulent Eddie: As such, the notion of ‘expert’ in the field is very incomplete because there are no ‘experts’ in all the necessary fields.

      Well said. That was a good post.

  17. The magnificent seven to date.
    I hope we get to a dozen at least.
    “A few good men [and women]”
    would be another epic to hang on this

  18. APS: “… multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.”

    That is so blatantly false. All of the data thus far from historical to the present shows AGW theory is wrong. I am going to send the greenhouse gas score card to back up my claims which I have to keep making over and over again.
    Maybe it will have more meaning coming from a source other then myself.

  19. The APS POPA is being corrupted by a vocal core of activist scientists.

    I thought it was the “consensus enforcement” blob that had penetrated the APS and brainwashed the leadership? I am confused..

    • That’s ok Joseph. We’ve known you are confused for some time now.

    • Nope the only thing here I am confused about is Dr. Curry’s speculative theories about what is going on with the APS statement and the consensus view of the science.

      • That Dr Curry uses real observed temperatures vs the modeled temperatures the IPCC uses should be something even you could understand Joseph.

  20. I wonder what percentage of the members of the APS have sufficient first-hand knowledge to be able to make an informed judgement about climate change, as opposed to simply adopting the opinion of someone else. Would the first-hand knowledge necessary to be an informed skeptic be less than the knowledge necessary to be an informed alarmist, since the skeptic need only have knowledge of one fact or principle that makes the theory untenable whereas the alarmist must be able to grasp all facts or principles necessary to bring about the projected result?

    • Would the first-hand knowledge necessary to be an informed

      And what do most of the people with the first hand knowledge think?

      • And what do most of the people with the first hand knowledge think?

        I don’t know, except that the more first-hand knowledge a person has the more likely it is that his funding would diminish without climate change alarmism. But we hear about the ‘consensus’ and I wonder how many of those on either side of the scientific consensus are able to make an independent judgement and how many have an opinion that is no independently informed than that of the general public.

      • Most of the people with the necessary first hand knowledge to be informed would be in the ‘consensus’, right?

      • Most of the people with the necessary first hand knowledge to be informed would be in the ‘consensus’, right?

        Consensus about what? That we have experienced warming in the last 100 years? That CO₂ is a greenhouse gas and will likely contribute to some warming? That the prospect of global warming is a high-probablility serious and urgent emergency situation? What consensus are you referring to?

      • How many people do you see criticizing the IPCC reports or organization statements? Why has almost every relevant scientific organization in the world come out with similar statements and or reports?

      • Joseph | April 20, 2015 at 2:17 pm |
        “Why has almost every relevant scientific organization in the world come out with similar statements and or reports?”

        Because they are all stuck in the same fallacious geocentric climate paradigm and hence cannot explain any of it, let alone differentiate between forcings and feedbacks. And as such can only pontificate on how much they think aerosols and CO2 cool and warm the climate, innocently oblivious to the oceanic negative feedbacks to solar forcing that caused the 1970’s cooling, and the larger part of the warming since 1995, from when the pertinent solar metric declined.

      • Why has almost every relevant scientific organization in the world come out with similar statements and or reports?

        Which is why some see it as a scandal of unprecedented magnitude. How could formerly staid and reliable scientific organizations adhere so strongly to such a vacuous position, one for which the political rationale seems so obviously to predominate?

    • I most scientists with first hand knowledge would agree with the APS statement and the general conclusions of the IPCC.

      • I most scientists with first hand knowledge would agree with the APS statement and the general conclusions of the IPCC.

        It is unfortunate that there has been no poll or questionnaire that can verify that, or even verify it with respect to scientists in general, which brings us back to the original issue: how persuasive is the opinion of a scientist who has insufficient independent understanding and who is simply relying on the opinion of someone he believes to be an ‘expert’ the same as everyone else?

    • No, swood, it’s compelling evidence that there is a strong consensus around the IPCC conclusions.

      • No, swood, it’s compelling evidence that there is a strong consensus around the IPCC conclusions.

        Perhaps, but the problem is that it appears to be a political consensus.

  21. What do you trolls have to say about the comment on the APS members thread by:

    Samuel A. Werner, APS Fellow
    Curators’ Professor of Physics Emeritus, University of Missouri-Columbia
    & Guest Researcher in the Neutron Physics Group, NIST

    Take your time and see what alleged dirt you can dig up on him. And remember to not comment on his actual comment. Set up a parade of strawmen, first. Well, you know the routine. We await your foolishness.

    • How can someone who is bemoaning the scientific value of the APS statement say something like this

      The mean temperature of the lower troposphere has been flat for about 18 years.

      Absolute certainty, no caveats, no mention of the large uncertainties, no mention of a large ENSO event in 1998, no mention of decaying orbits, no mention of the difference between RSS and UAH trends. Call me unconvinced.

      • David Springer

        How about I call you a member of the global warming cult? The same instruments and metrics that were perfectly adequate when they were showing warming are suddenly unreliable and the lower troposphere temperature not such a good metric after all.

        Seriously? That’s your story and you’re sticking with it? You really don’t understand how transparently duplicitous it is?

        You’re a disgrace,

      • ATTP, you’re a physicist. Leave aside for the moment whether you agree with the particular opinions of these posters. What do you think about the APS making a statement that purports to represent them, and with which they strongly disagree? Does anyone have any idea what APS members feel about the various details of consensus AGW?
        Why don’t they do a survey if they want to speak in the name of their physicists?

      • Is that all you got, prof. kenny?

        I didn’t see the part where he said anything about absolute certainty. He made an assertion. You are welcome to tear it apart, as you always do with all the assertions made by your warmist brethren. I bet if we were bored enough to go read your blog, we would see you consistently making demand for caveats, uncertainties, error bars, character references etc. from your mateys. Right, kenny?

      • David,
        Balanced as usual.

        Miker613,
        I’m not quite sure what your point is. It seems statistically unlikely that any organisation with thousands of members could write a statement on a contentious topic that a fraction of the members didn’t object to.

        Why don’t they do a survey if they want to speak in the name of their physicists?

        How do we now that they aren’t? All we know is that they’re not speaking in the name of ALL of their members, but that’s no great surprise.

      • Don,

        He made an assertion.

        Yes, that’s kind of my point.

        You are welcome to tear it apart, as you always do with all the assertions made by your warmist brethren.

        Ahh, the someone else was wrong and I didn’t criticise them therefore this criticism is invalid argument. Brilliant.

      • The pause is now widely acknowledged in the scientific journals. See page 31 from 2 October 2015 (Nature) which states “the planet’s average temperature has barely risen in the past 16 years . . .”. I have seen similar statements in Science, Scientific American and NewScientist.

        So there seems to be a widespread consensus that there is a pause, and I am sure that is the basis for Samuel Werner’s opinion regarding the APS statement.

      • kenny, kenny

        The gentleman emeritus professor was writing a comment to the APS muckey mucks, who are presumably capable of telling an assertion from a claim of absolute certainty. He ain’t writing a paper for a journal. That’s a whole different thing. I don’t believe that would expect caveats and all that other crap to be included in a comment favoring the APS pronouncement on climate change.

        The APS thingy on climate is itself an assertion. Are you demanding they include caveats, uncertainties and the other crap you find heinously missing in the professor’s comment? You are really a trip, kenny.

        Don’t you have some work to do on figuring out how to form some planets and stars? We might need to form another planet if this global warming keeps up. We are counting on you and here you are making a fool of yourself.

      • Yes, I realise everyone here is perfectly happy with someone they agree with making an absolute statement with no caveats, uncertainties, or context. That’s fine. It does make it hard to take then seriously when they then complain that something else is political and not scientific.

      • “It seems statistically unlikely that any organisation with thousands of members could write a statement on a contentious topic that a fraction of the members didn’t object to.” Correct. But it is also possible that a _sizable_ fraction of the members object to the statement, and don’t have any way to get their objections heard. Or object to part of the statement. Or don’t want to take a position on something they haven’t studied in detail themselves. We apparently have no idea which of these is true.
        How would you feel if the APS crafted a statement against, say, GMOs or vaccines? What would you do? And even if you could do nothing, wouldn’t you feel that they had no right to use you that way?
        Do supporters of AGW not frequently say things like, _Every_ major scientific body on the planet…? What meaning do these statements have if the statement is crafted by some political group in charge, and was only crafted the way it was because they managed to outfight the head of their group through politics?

      • “The APS thingy on climate is itself an assertion. Are you demanding they include caveats, uncertainties and the other crap you find heinously missing in the professor’s comment? You are really a trip, kenny.”

        Answer the question, kenny. Never mind, we know the answer. Your hypocrisy is plainly evident.

      • miker613,

        Correct. But it is also possible that a _sizable_ fraction of the members object to the statement, and don’t have any way to get their objections heard. Or object to part of the statement. Or don’t want to take a position on something they haven’t studied in detail themselves. We apparently have no idea which of these is true.

        Except they can speak out. I don’t believe the whole “too afraid to speak out argument”. I don’t think scientists are this cowardly.

        As far as never knowing is concerned, we probably can’t ever know, so what does that really mean? Don’t write statements just in case, or just do the best that can be done?

      • Kenny, you are obviously never going to figure out how planets and stars are formed. Why don’t you work on something smaller and more practical. Try ridges, or knolls. We may need more ridges and knolls in the future.

      • Don,

        What do you trolls have to say about the comment on the APS members thread by:

        This was the question, right? I thought I had answered this. That you don’t like my answer doesn’t make it not an answer.

      • Yep, completely and totally fooled by the pause. The pause is fooling a lot of very intelligent people.

        Tsonis and Swanson are part of what is behind this.

        Swanson stated the warming trend between 1979 through 1997 is the AGW signal: .13C per decade. They concluded the trend from 1998 through 2008 is flat, and that the flatness would continue to be flat to 2020: the flat red line.

        The 30-year trend to 2009 is .17C

        The 30-year trend to present is .16C.

        Both of these trends are well above the .13C claimed to be the AGW signal.

        The reason this has happened is the claim that there has been no warming since 1998 is false. There has been a lot of warming since 1998. The reason the trend to present is .01C less is there was a slowdown in warming after 2008, which was caused by the brief period when the PDO index was in its cool phase.

        Fooled.

        The trend from 2009 to present is .014C per year, or, decadalized: .14C per decade. As David Appel lectured me, that is not scientific. But the reality is there could be an El Nino in 2015 and that trend could grow significantly. Go ahead and stand in its way. I think you holdouts are going to get snot-knockered (old-school physics term for a football hit that knocks you somewhere between seeing stars and stone-cold unconscious).

        So what is it? The pause theory looks to be on the brink of falsified to me. They were right to think ocean oscillations could hide the AGW signal. They were complete fools to think it could do so for decades. They blew their interpretation of the PDO, which is the king oscillation, but all but subservient to AGW.

        The APS will be correct if if it continues ignoring the skeptics.

      • “Except they can speak out.” They shouldn’t have to. No one should be speaking in the name of the whole collection of American physicists without some kind of check first that they have a general consensus.
        Certainly not, when the former head of the committee said just the opposite, and the only reason this is the statement is through political infighting.
        Probably as in any other issue, the tremendous majority will not speak out because they don’t care _that_ much. And then the wikipedia article will list the APS as one more scientific organization where all its members (except for those seven weirdos) agree.

      • I didn’t say you didn’t answer that question, keeny. You know that.

        “The APS thingy on climate is itself an assertion. Are you demanding they include caveats, uncertainties and the other crap you find heinously missing in the professor’s comment? ”

        Maybe you missed this the first two times. Is the question mark throwing you off, kenny? That one is rhetorical.

        Answer the question and I will go over to your blog and sign in. I will give you the satisfaction of banning me. That would make you feel good, kenny.

      • Don,

        I will give you the satisfaction of banning me.

        I banned you ages ago. Have you forgotten?

      • Yes, I had forgotten. I don’t remember all the obscure blogs where I have banned. Were you doing that silly rip off of WUWT, in those days? Anyway, I will give you a chance to do it again, if you answer the freaking question. I will throw in some pointers on how to get funding for your important research. We know that the backwaters of science aren’t getting funding these days, due to the hogging at the trough of the climate alarmism purveyors.

      • Don,

        Anyway, I will give you a chance to do it again, if you answer the freaking question.

        I have answered the freaking question and I have no interest in doing it again.

        I will throw in some pointers on how to get funding for your important research.

        Well, at least you have a sense of humour.

      • “The pause theory looks to be on the brink of falsified to me.”

        Thanks for your opinion, but: James Annan
        http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2014/10/much-ado-about-sensitivity.html
        ” And despite what some people might like to think, the slow warming has certainly been a surprise, as anyone who was paying attention at the time of the AR4 writing can attest. I remain deeply unimpressed by the way in which this embarrassment has been handled by the climate science insiders, and IPCC authors in particular. Their seemingly desperate attempts to denigrate anything that undermines their storyline (even though a few years ago the same people were using markedly inferior analyses of this very type to bolster it!) do them no credit.”

      • ==> “Well, at least you have a sense of humour.”

        Hmmm. Yes, Dan does write a lot of laughable comments. Not sure it’s explained by his sense of humor, however.

      • You are not being truthful, kenny. You have not answered the question. Just for the record:

        “The APS thingy on climate is itself an assertion. Are you demanding they include caveats, uncertainties and the other crap you find heinously missing in the professor’s comment? ”

        I am going to have to help you. The answer is no, you are perfectly happy with the assertions made in the APS thingy on climate.

        But I am still going to give you some pointers on getting funding.

        Title for proposed research paper:

        The Undoubtedly Adverse Effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change, on the Formation of Various Stars and Planets

        Do you know what an arroyo is, kenny/ Anyway, I have friends in the Defense Department. If you could write something up on the formation of ridges, knolls and arroyos I think you could make a buck or two. I can testify that many times my fellow soldiers and I could have used a handy well-placed ridge, knoll, or arroyo.

        It’s evident why you were mortified at being outted, prof. kenny.

      • We don’t know? Really? This may only be true in the sense that we can’t really know anything, but that is a remarkably odd thing for a scientist to say. We may not know, but we’re fairly certain that anthropogenic influences have dominated since 1950 and that it will continue to dominate if we continue to increase our emissions. That Judith failed to even acknowledge this is remarkable. ~ …and Then There’s Physics

        Really? You know, absolute certainty, no caveats, no mention of the large uncertainties, no mention of a large ENSO event in 1998, no mention of decaying orbits, no mention of the difference between RSS and UAH trends…

        Call me unconvinced.

      • Wagathon,
        In what way is that absolute certainty? I’m absolutely certain that I used fairly certain for a reason.

      • David L. Hagen

        See graphs at: Memo to our cousins at the American Physical Society: time to embrace reality

        1999-2014 IPCC 0.19-0.43C/decade
        1990-2014 actual 0.14C/decade
        Error ~ 100%.
        Model – Fail.

      • Warming since 1950: 0.7 C
        Warming expected from 2 C per doubling: 0.7 C
        Not that simple to dismiss, is it?

      • Jimmy, what happened to the warming we were supposed to get for the last 18 years? Squelched by natural variability? Did somebody mess with the control knob?

        How much of the 0.7C since 1950 was due to natural variability, jimster? Consult your little huffpo handbook and get back to us. (we have seen this a hundred times)

      • ATTP,

        ‘Except they can speak out. I don’t believe the whole “too afraid to speak out argument”. I don’t think scientists are this cowardly.’

        Is that right, Ken?

      • Many scientists see no reason to speak out to the public. They get no reward for it, they are unfamiliar with the process, and potential land mines for endless bickering and questioning. This does not mean they are ‘afraid’, but they see no point.

      • I’ve no idea, James, it’s just my view. That’s why I added “I don’t believe” at the beginning. If I’d thought it was defnitely right and that there was no chance of it being wrong, I would have used different words.

        I’m am guessing, though, that you were trying to make some other point. You could always just make it, if you wished, rather than insinuiting it.

      • Don M, yes, the 18-year flat trend was natural variability. Skeptics have trouble with this. In fact the last 15 years of this 18 years have been a new warming trend starting.

      • Don M, I will just say that the warming is nature’s response but the forcing isn’t natural. You can ponder that.

      • JimD,

        You can ponder that.

        It seems you have a sense of humour too.

      • Don M, OK, since you need more help, the positive sign of the imbalance means that for all the warming we have had, it has still not caught up to the anthropogenically dominated forcing, so to me your question was meaningless. The warming chases the forcing and the forcing is anthropogenic.

      • …and Then There’s Physics | April 20, 2015 at 1:58 pm |

        Wagathon,
        In what way is that absolute certainty? I’m absolutely certain that I used fairly certain for a reason.

        Sounds reasonable and yet, on your site – on the post where you take J. Curry to task for admitting there are things we don’t know, e.g., “The issue is how much of the change is caused by humans. We don’t know. We don’t know what the 21st century holds. The climate change may be really … unpleasant, and that may happen independently of anything that humans do. My point is that we don’t know how much humans are influencing climate and whether it’s going to dominate in the 21st century” – if I observe that nothing explains the level of certainty about AGW theory in the field of climatology that ultimately is not merely, cosmological, I get modded-out, despite the obvious fact that, AGW theory can never be reduced to a falsifiable hypothesis and therefore has no practical utility outside of making something that is unimaginably complex appear to be insanely simple: like modeling nature by fitting a least squares trend-line to a haze of points, tra-la.

      • Climate scientists may not know how much of the current warming to attribute to human emissions, but that’s not to say they don’t have an opinion.

        https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/bart-verheggens-survey-of-climate-scientists/

        66% of those surveyed said it was 50% or more. It won’t get much press because it isn’t the magical 97%, but this is actual research as opposed to fantasizing.

        Solid consensus, nothing approaching certainty, plenty of room for a valid minority report.

      • verytallguy11

        66% of those surveyed said it was 50% or more.

        12% of those surveyed said it was 50% or less.

      • David Springer

        …and Then There’s Physics | April 20, 2015 at 12:30 pm |

        “David,
        Balanced as usual.”

        Glad you noticed, Rice. Glimpses into the objective thinking of an informed participant must be a rare treat for someone as unbalanced and uninformed as yourself.

      • JCH:
        Comparing this plot to your above one from Swanson:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:15/from:1950/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979/to:1997/trend
        I think that the recent upward anomaly may turn out to be that. We are talking about either 1.3 C per century or 1.7 C per century. If we say it will be about 1.7 C, 1.3 C seems possible given the unknowns. 1.3 C would be interesting. 1.7 C, a bit more so.

      • and Then There’s Physics: The mean temperature of the lower troposphere has been flat for about 18 years.

        Absolute certainty, no caveats, no mention of the large uncertainties, no mention of a large ENSO event in 1998, no mention of decaying orbits, no mention of the difference between RSS and UAH trends. Call me unconvinced.

        The statement that you quoted is accurate. My question is: do the uncertainties, ENSO event, decaying orbits etc tend on the whole to increase confidence about CO2 involvement in climate change, as claimed by the APS statement? If not, they are not needed in the rebuttal statement, but could be provided in a long paragraph following it, or citation of page numbers in the NIPCC report. You are unconvinced — ought you be convinced by the APS position paper, by your critique of this quote? Of course not! You, like other readers of the disputants, ought to review the pertinent evidence and how it supports or does not support the APS position paper.

        What might be more informative would be to publish all of the climate-related grant proposals by members of the APS: those usually contain succinct, accurate, relatively thorough statements of unknowns, caveats, etc; and of the difficulties of acquiring adequate knowledge. Each grant proposal will review liabilities behind assumptions made by others; taking them all together you get, paraphrasing Churchill, the sum of all ignorance.

      • When people use numbers like 18 years, it has the appearance of a cherry-pick. Additional and useful information would be that the 30-year trend has remained around 0.16 C per decade during those 18 years, or that the last 15 years have a trend near 0.1 C per decade. It doesn’t take much to just add these snippets just to avoid the appearance of cherry picking if nothing else.

      • Jim D: When people use numbers like 18 years, it has the appearance of a cherry-pick.

        The original comment that was disputed is that recent evidence makes it ever more certain that there is a link between human CO2 and warming. The most pertinent evidence addressing that original comment is in fact the most recent evidence, where the CO2 levels have been increasing without the predicted increase in global mean temperature. Depending on which temperature series you look at, the most recent data show a flat line for 15 – 18 years during this most pertinent time. Some extensive reconciliations, such as including the older data, show that the data do not rule out a weak CO2-temperature link, but there is no way that the most recent, flat-line data, can be said to increase confidence in the existence of a strong link. As the disputant wrote, the most recent data do not support the APS position statement as written.

        Of all the ways of selecting data, selecting the most recent data during the highest measured concentration of CO2 is the least arbitrary. That basically is why you dismiss the pre-1950 data so frequently.

    • > Is that all you got […]?

      That’s a good question, Don Don. I suggest you go first and answer that one.

      Your protection is interesting, insofar as it creates something we could call black knighting. The problem here is that AT’s point is the very same as Judy’s against the SPM’s statement. Mr. T’s a designated hitter that swings both sides.

      As the Koonin said, it’s not science, but it’s important.

      • > Samuel A. Werner is apparently not the only person who is able to say this without the necessity of exceptions, caveats and disclaimers.

        Whoever says something without exceptions, caveats and disclaimers might need to have a word with Mr. T:

        A better way of saying it might have been “our best judgement based upon current evidence and background knowledge” and actually using the word “uncertainty.”

        https://judithcurry.com/2010/09/30/frames-and-narrative-in-climate-science/

        Frames and narratives.

        It might not be science, but it’s still important.

      • Now I fell guilty for not responding to your foolishness, wee willy. You waited over an hour and then felt compelled to reply to yourself. Pathetic.

      • > You waited over an hour and then felt compelled to reply to yourself.

        Actually, Don Don,the reply was for Swood. The mention of Samuel A. Werner might have provided you a hint. I’ve left another comment where this one was supposed to be.

        Your black knight protection only seems to require you to read a portion of the Denizens’ comments. Is it written in your contract that you need to read the comment you promised to ignore?

        ***

        Since you’re here, I need your opinion on these two statements:

        There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

        However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill.

        We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.htm

        Which of the two claims would Mr. T favor, Don Don?

      • ==> ” Is it written in your contract that you need to read the comment you promised to ignore?”

        Now willard. Don’s a stickler for evidence (as he’s demonstrated while chasing me around and calling me a “troll”), and I don’t think that you have evidence that he’s “promised.”

        Only that he’s said over and over and over that he would ignore, stop reading, stop responding to, stop wasting time with, blah, blah, blah, only to show up a couple of days later to show that he’s not a man of his word.

      • The little loquacious siamese twin trolls find me fascinating, but enigmatic. They are not big thinkers and they don’t get out much.

      • ==> “The little loquacious siamese twin trolls find me fascinating, ”

        Over three threads, recently, Don made 31 comments, with “Joshie” appearing 25 times.

      • Sorry – that should have been:

        “Skeptics” like to point out that GMATs were acceptable to “skeptics” “realists” as long as they were going up …

      • You seem to be laboring under the impression that we all care about the vocabulary you invented for your Climateball fantasy. We aren’t.

      • attp, ” What Isaac Held is pointing out (which is consistent with what I think you’re saying) is that if you want the warming to be driven by internal ocean cycles, then it has to emerge at the poles, where the ocean is least stratified.”

        That is a bit overly simplistic, but reasonable. Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are varying differently and there is an increase in the magnitude of Arctic sudden stratospheric warming events. In the Northern Hemisphere the ratio of land to ocean tends to amplify the changes which increases the variation in the jet stream. I believe there is a stadium wave paper that has a bit better discussion. So when you say “we are not seeing that” perhaps you should consider the “we”.

        Some of the “we” are in the background and some of the “we” are in the foreground. We seem to have different references.

    • “The mean temperature of the lower troposphere has been flat for about 18 years.”

      Samuel A. Werner is apparently not the only person who is able to say this without the necessity of exceptions, caveats and disclaimers. If you look at page 92 of the APS Climate Change Statement Review Workshop, you will see this statement by Dr. William Collins, head of the Climate Sciences Department, and director of the Center at LBNL for Integrative Modeling of the Earth System (CLIMES) at the Lawrence Berkeley National laboratory (LBNL), as well as lead author on the Fourth and Fifth Assessment of the IPCC:

      “Now, I am hedging a bet because, to be honest with you, if the hiatus is still going on as of the sixth IPCC report, that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door, because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 18 of 20 years are vanishingly small.”

      • Yeah, that’s the hiatus that doesn’t exist but they already have written a score or more desperate papers to explain it away.

      • Willard –

        Frames and narratives.
        It might not be science, but it’s still important.

        One potential distinction is that the remarks of Dr. Collins were directed to a scientifically astute audience. Perhaps he felt that in this context the addition of the standard ‘boilerplate’ language and caveats could be dispensed with.

      • > One potential distinction is that the remarks of Dr. Collins were directed to a scientifically astute audience. Perhaps he felt that in this context the addition of the standard ‘boilerplate’ language and caveats could be dispensed with.

        The distinction would be relevant if the APS statement was directed to a scientifically astute audience. Perhaps that’s not the case.

        ***

        Also notice Judy’s claim in the Mail a few years ago:

        There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

        Perhaps that statement was not directed to a scientifically astute audience.

        Perhaps the Mail readers will have problems interpreting such a double negatives.

        Perhaps that double negative leaves room for plausible deniability.

        Perhaps.

      • I must admit that I’m confused as to how Collins’s statement is one of absolute certainty. The only thing I can see that would be close is this

        because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 18 of 20 years are vanishingly small.”

        but even this isn’t a statement of absolute certainty. It’s an indication of what the recent literature is showing with regards to how long we could have a “hiatus”.

      • Willard –

        The distinction would be relevant if the APS statement was directed to a scientifically astute audience. Perhaps that’s not the case.

        But neither William Collins nor Samuel A. Werner was proposing that his statements should be found verbatim in the APS statement. Dr. Werner was giving it as one the reasons he disagreed with the proposed statement. Perhaps he felt that he was addressing a scientifically literate audience when he wrote on this blog. Furthermore, there is a distinction between a person expressing his opinion in an informal context and expressing his opinion as a formal statement.

        As far as how Judith was quoted in the Daily Mail, one does not always have complete editorial control over which parts of what one said will be used in the piece. If she had said “My best judgement based upon current evidence and background knowledge, and subject to scientific uncertainty, is that there is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped…” one would have expected them to drop all but the final part.

      • ==> “As far as how Judith was quoted in the Daily Mail, one does not always have complete editorial control over which parts of what one said will be used in the piece.”

        Judith has complete editorial control over how she responds if what she said to a reporter doesn’t appear as comprehensive or fair treatment in a newspaper article.

        She also has complete editorial control over how she portrays the state of the science in her Congressional testimony.

        “Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

        In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”

      • Well Joshua your memory is pretty feeble if you don’t recall how I have written numerous blog posts to clarify how my statements were presented and used in an article written by a journalist. The main point of all of my congressional testimonies since 2010 has been to present the IPCC conclusions and then provide arguments as to why those conclusions should be questioned. Exactly what ‘other side’ should I be discussing? Skydragons maybe?

      • I must admit that I’m confused as to how Collins’s statement is one of absolute certainty.

        But is the statement of Dr. Werner one of absolute certainty? Perhaps if he had released it as a formal statement one could criticize the absence of an expression of uncertainty but he gave it informally as a reason for his disagreement with the APS proposed statement. Few people expect their informal statements to be taken as statements of absolute certainty and I doubt if many people reading this would attribute absolute certainty to this one.

      • Judith –

        ==> “Well Joshua your memory is pretty feeble if you don’t recall how I have written numerous blog posts to clarify how my statements were presented and used in an article written by a journalist. ”

        I do remember that. I also remember when I asked you to respond to some of Rose’s misleading rhetoric, when you had this to say rather than acknowledging the misleading nature of Rose’s rhetoric:

        Well, Latif doesn’t get much attention in the public debate on climate change, whereas Rose does. Its difficult to be heard above the din of the consensus.

        ==> “The main point of all of my congressional testimonies since 2010 has been to present the IPCC conclusions and then provide arguments as to why those conclusions should be questioned.”

        Which I completely support in every way possible…

        ==> ” Exactly what ‘other side’ should I be discussing? Skydragons maybe?”

        But that’s the kind of rhetorical games that I feel are problematic – as if there are no other choices. It isn’t only the “Skydragons” who present arguments that fail to acknowledge uncertainty. We see it in these pages all the time.

        But more importantly, while you presented your disagreements with (what you characterized as) the IPCC viewpoint, the you didn’t present basic counterarguments and uncertainties related to your arguments.

        The most obvious example being that you talked of a hiatus?pause? in “global warming” without discussing the main arguments against that perspective: that global warming hasn’t “paused” and that you were conflating global warming with a slow down in the trend of increase strong> in only one metric of global warming.

        That such a basic counterargument that even someone as slow and ignorant as I can realize your failure to present both sides.

      • Oh I get it. I present the IPCC arguments/conclusions, then I present my own arguments/reasons for questioning the IPCC conclusions, then I restate the IPCC conclusions, and repeat the do loop. Instead, I present two different perspectives, then I say ‘time will tell which one is right.’

      • But is the statement of Dr. Werner one of absolute certainty?

        Well, it would clearly seem to be a statement of certainty. You seem to now be suggesting that we should excuse him because he thought we’d know what he meant. Also, if it were his opinion, why didn’t he express it as an opinion? My point was, however, that if someone is going to criticise another statement as being political and not scientific, you might expect them to be a little careful in how they expressed themselves.

      • Judith –

        ==> “.., then I restate the IPCC conclusions, and repeat the do loop. ”

        The point is not merely to report on how you disagree, but also to report how disagreements apply, specifically, to your arguments.

        IMO, in your testimony you had a responsibility to explicitly discuss OHC, as further informing the listener on the context to your assertions about a pause. hiaitus? in global warmin. You had an obligation to point out that it is not known whether or not OHC shows not a pause? hiatus? in “global warming” but a shift, perhaps temporarily, in the manifestation of a warming effect. IMO, you had an obligation to discuss, explicitly, how your observation of a pause? hiatus? in global warming was with reference to only one metric, and that it only reflected a short term slow down in a longer term rising trend.

        None of that would have prevented you from pointing out that in your view, those counterarguments were less probably valid than your arguments.

        Read again what Feynman said. Here, I’ll add some bold:

        Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

        In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”

      • Joshua, in ~10 pages of congressional testimony I can’t rewrite the entire IPCC report. Re ocean temperatures, I do not trust ocean temperatures below 2000 m (where the missing heat is allegedly hiding); there are virtually no observations, only model analyses. Reliable measurements between 700 m and 2000 m exist for only the last 10 years, so it is impossible to assess what is natural variability versus human caused warming. I go with the data sets that have the greatest maturity level (see previous post on maturity matrix). Arguments for missing heat in deep ocean are very weak.

        I challenge you to give it your best shot and present the broad scope of arguments on both sides for attribution/sensitivity, dangers and policy response in less than 15 pages.

      • You are not being fair, Judith. Joshie has trouble answering a true-false question in under 15 pages. And he doesn’t do science.

      • Judith –

        ==> “I challenge you to give it your best shot and present the broad scope of arguments on both sides for attribution/sensitivity, dangers and policy response in less than 15 pages.”

        Heh. Well there’s a safe challenge.

        But again, I think that you’re skirting the issue.

        The explication of arguments counter to the ones that you made would not have been terribly difficult. My point was, rather specifically, is that they would be easy to explain and so their absence becomes that much more problematic. The discussion about “pause” vs. “OHC” and GSATs vs. “global warming” are all over the Interwebs. For you to not mention the obvious caveats to the arguments you presented seems to me to be a problematic form of advocacy.

        This goes back to the exchange above between willard and 1000.

        1000 says this:

        One potential distinction is that the remarks of Dr. Collins were directed to a scientifically astute audience. Perhaps he felt that in this context the addition of the standard ‘boilerplate’ language and caveats could be dispensed with.

        Hmmm. Even though I find 1000s exclusionary criteria questionable, in this case you were not presenting to a scientifically astute audience.

        “Skeptics” like to point out that GMATs were acceptable to “skeptics” as long as they were going up – and in that, IMO, they have a perfectly valid point. But then “skeptics” such as yourself have all that much more of an obligation to not compound that sort of error.

      • “because recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 18 of 20 years are vanishingly small” but even this isn’t a statement of absolute certainty. It’s an indication of what the recent literature is showing with regards to how long we could have a “hiatus”.

        But why not subject Collins to the same strictness of interpretation? You say that “The mean temperature of the lower troposphere has been flat for about 18 years” must be construed absolutely since there is no conditionality expressed. So likewise Collins must be interpreted as saying that all recent literature has shown, and since not all recent literature has shown this we must condemn his statement as flagrantly untrue, and censure him. What’s the difference?

        My point was, however, that if someone is going to criticise another statement as being political and not scientific, you might expect them to be a little careful in how they expressed themselves.

        But you do recognize the difference between a formal statement and an informal one? One is not called upon to express himself with all the precision demanded by a formal statement just because he is commenting on a formal statement.

      • swood1000,
        I give up. Firstly, finding another supposed example doesn’t invalidate mine, and secondly Collins didn’t say “all”.

        Judith,

        it is impossible to assess what is natural variability versus human caused warming.

        Can you explain how natural variability can produce warming of the oceans without also being associated with a period of surface cooling?

      • The timescales of ocean circulations go out almost for 1,000 years (timescale of the conveyor belt). So we have modes of variability in the ocean from El Nino out to conveyor. In the current regime and at sub century timescales, we have the multidecadal oscillations (e.g. AMO, PDO). There are hints of 300 yr and 1500 yr oscillations also. So on the timescale of ~ a century, we wouldn’t expect all the natural internal oscillations to cancel out in terms of warm/cool.

      • ==> “But you do recognize the difference between a formal statement and an informal one? One is not called upon to express himself with all the precision demanded by a formal statement just because he is commenting on a formal statement.

        Well. there’s an excuse you could drive a truck through. All you need to do is make it as big or small as you want under any given circumstance.

        And it’s especially interesting as upthread, 1000 aid the following:

        ==> “One potential distinction is that the remarks of Dr. Collins were directed to a scientifically astute audience. Perhaps he felt that in this context the addition of the standard ‘boilerplate’ language and caveats could be dispensed with.

        All you need to do is balance assumptions about the contrast between the scientific astuteness of your audience and the formality of the context to get just the right mixture to either excuse or find fault with whatever degree of preciseness you find.

      • I think the odds becoming less vanishingly small after an anomalously high El Nino like 1998. Did anyone account for that?

      • Firstly, finding another supposed example doesn’t invalidate mine,

        True, but Collins is held in high esteem by the alarmists, and I have found that they therefore are usually reluctant to make the same accusations against him as they are ready to make against scientists they see as skeptics. In this case he did the same thing as Werner did – made an informal statement that omitted some aspects that were implied.

        and secondly Collins didn’t say “all”.

        In the case of Werner you are inferring the additional phrase “without exception” since he did not specifically qualify it. If it is proper to do it with Werner then we must also do it with Collins: “recent literature” without exception.

      • Steven Mosher

        what is lost in Feynmans directive is the sense of rhetorical situation and the sense of proportion.

        For example ‘then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it,” That is impossible.

        and

        “In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution;”

        that’s never done, also impossible.

        take something as simple as noting that “facts” about OHC may run counter to Judith’s position.

        Where does she start and where does she stop.. what counts as “all the facts” and ‘all the information?”

        This is a pretty simple game to play with people.

        Suppose I told you that Berkeley Earth agreed with GISS, but that some people judged the minor differences as important. is that all the facts?
        which stations differ? by how much, what do I know about all those differences, did I look at every one, do I have records of that? what is the extent of the overlap between our data? the “facts” and all the information can go on forever.

        Better yet is to look at what feyman did rather than what he preached.

        Let’s look at him in a rhetorical situation somewhat similar to the one Judith was in.

        One witness tells us what he believes.
        Feynman tells what he believes.

        You’ll note that he doesnt re iterate what the other side says, he doesnt present their position. They have spoken for themselves, just before he speaks. roll tape

        The situations where feynman would require you to tell “both” sides would appear to be situations where the other side is not present to speak, or where you are playing devil’s advocate.

        At least that is what he did in practice. Even in his lectures on physics he never gave the other side about his views on the experimental method.

      • swood1000,
        This is a statement of certainty

        The mean temperature of the lower troposphere has been flat for about 18 years.

        I don’t need to add without exception because there is only one lower troposphere. Either it has been flat for 18 years, or it has not.

        This statement

        recent literature has shown that the chances of having a hiatus of 18 of 20 years are vanishingly small.

        can be true even if not all recent literature has shown this. You could criticise Collins if there was literature that does not shows this and he had failed to point this out, but you can’t claim that what he said was a statement of certainty since it very obviously is not.

      • Judith,
        But none of that explains what physical mechanism is producing warming of the oceans without there being an accompanying cooling of the surface. The energy has to come from somewhere and has to be conserved.

      • The heat may be a redistribution in the ocean, or what is going on in oceans change atmospheric circulations and cloud patterns, which heat/cool. And of course there are solar and geophysical heat sources.

      • The OHC is especially important in the context of the pause. The global energy balance part of AGW allows for a pause during increasing forcing if the OHC is increasing. The observations support a rising OHC during the pause, and this should be mentioned in fairness in any pause discussion, because the pause alone does not go against AGW. To omit anything about the OHC when talking about the pause and AGW forcing is missing a major relevant fact, a third leg of the stool.

      • Two points:
        1. Climate models don’t simulate the pause, and therefore raises questions about their utility on time scales of 2 decades (including attribution of warming from 1976-1998)

        2. We don’t know if the deep ocean heat content is increasing. And we don’t know what the ocean heat content 700-2000 m has been increasing last 10 years because we don’t have a long enough record.

        So your argument isn’t all that useful.

      • Surely, if the OHC is increasing the way the measurements indicate, the whole pause meme is just destroyed. Energy is accumulating as the forcing is increasing, This isn’t about models, it is just observations. The other part is that the rising OHC indicates a positive imbalance meaning that any warming we have had is not so far enough to counterbalance the anthropogenically dominated forcing. The way I phrase it now is that warming is chasing the forcing and is far from catching up, as is shown by the positive imbalance.

      • The amount of energy being accumulated in the ocean (what is measured anyways) is not sufficient to account for the ‘missing heat’

      • That is where you can add in your solar, aerosols, volcanoes as well as ocean heat uncertainty and it comes within the error bars. The sign of the imbalance term seems out of the question (Trenberth has 0.5-1 W/m2), and that sign alone argues for anthropogenically dominated warming.

      • No trend above 0-700 m, but a small pos trend 700-2000 m. Any ideas on how GHG warming is getting down to mid ocean, bypassing upper ocean?

      • Since 2000, there is a fairly large 0-700 meter warming accounting for most of the total.

      • not in the latest and greatest analysis that I saw (not even in the AR5), I’ll try to dig it up

      • Judith,

        The heat may be a redistribution in the ocean,

        Well, that would seem to be suggesting that the measurements are wrong, or a lot of energy has come from regions without measurements, but if that is the deep ocean it would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics.

        or what is going on in oceans change atmospheric circulations and cloud patterns, which heat/cool.

        Well, this would suggest that these can produce a net positive radiative feedback which would then seem odd if the feedbacks to the anthropogenic forcings are small.

        and of course there are solar

        Well, the Solar insolation has been dropping, so presumably you mean something we haven’t yet discovered or don’t yet understand.

        and geophysical heat sources.

        My understanding is that the geothermal flux is about 5-10 times smaller than the net flux of energy into the oceans.

      • No time to deal with all these misconceptions. I suggest that you search for my previous posts this, search ‘ocean’

        The issue with feedbacks is that cloud feedbacks may be negative (i think they are), but climate models think cloud feedback is positive.

        Solar indirect effects are not included in climate models, a major deficiency

      • Steven Mosher:
        “Suppose I told you that Berkeley Earth agreed with GISS, but that some people judged the minor differences as important. is that all the facts?”

        I think if you read Brandon S’s post on Berkeley Earth you would consider that question carefully.

        “The situations where feynman would require you to tell “both” sides would appear to be situations where the other side is not present to speak, or where you are playing devil’s advocate.”

        Are you implying that IPCC side does not have an adequate voice? I believe in the atmosphere where professionals are in fear of being labeled a “denier,” by and organized movement trying create just that effect to shut down dissent Feynman would have another rule. He just did not live to know that it needed saying.

        Telling both sides is the best policy because honesty is the best policy in any case.

      • Joshua –

        Well. there’s an excuse you could drive a truck through.

        Look, your argument has become absurd. There are different requirements demanded by different contexts. If this is a formal statement or a published study people will expect a certain precision. However, even in the case of the formal statement the sentence “The mean temperature of the lower troposphere has been flat for about 18 years” is taken as an evaluation by the speaker. Nobody assumes that he is saying that this is a statement about which there is perfect certainty. Of course there is uncertainty. Satellites are fallible and so is both the information we get from them and the way we interpret it. But Collins used the term ‘hiatus’ which has the same meaning as ‘flat’ so if you’re going to fault Werner then you have to also fault Collins and everyone else who speaks informally.

        Suppose I told you that the temperature was above 80°F from 12:00 to 3:00. Would you take me to task because I didn’t also add “assuming that my thermometer is accurate and that I read it properly, and conditioned on the assumption that there were no sudden drops between the times that I checked it.” No, you would assume those things. Nobody demands or even expects an extensive recitation of the potential weaknesses of every statement.

      • Judith,

        No time to deal with all these misconceptions.

        You’re implying they’re mine, I guess.

        The issue with feedbacks is that cloud feedbacks may be negative (i think they are), but climate models think cloud feedback is positive.

        Well, yes, but you seem to suggest that they’re positive when driven by natural variability.

        Solar indirect effects are not included in climate models, a major deficiency.

        Could this be because we don’t have any convincing evidence that Solar indirect effects play any kind of significant role and, consequently, don’t have any plausible physical mechanism that could be added to climate models, even if modellers wanted to add them?

      • From what i understand, cloud feedbacks are negative – a stabilizing effect on climate whether it is warming or cooling

        Yours is an incorrect inference re solar indirect effects.

      • ATTP –

        but you can’t claim that what he said was a statement of certainty since it very obviously is not.

        Collins said that there has been a hiatus, which is defined as “a break or interruption in the continuity of a work, series, action, etc.” So he is saying that there was a warming trend followed by a break or interruption in that warming trend. He is saying that since the break or interruption began there has been no resumption of the warming trend, and that if this lasts until the sixth IPCC report we will have had 18 to 20 years of this hiatus. The fact of the hiatus is stated without qualification and as a certainty.

      • We have also had a 15-year warming trend, so it depends where you want to start.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend

      • Jim D –

        We have also had a 15-year warming trend…

        Not according to Dr. Collins, but you are entitled to your opinion.

      • Judith,

        From what i understand, cloud feedbacks are negative – a stabilizing effect on climate whether it is warming or cooling

        Okay, but if cloud feedbacks are negative how can natural variability produce ocean warming while surface temperatures increase? It would seem physically implausible.

        Yours is an incorrect inference re solar indirect effects.

        Are you really suggesting that there are physically plausible solar indirect mechanism that coud be included in climate models, but are not?

      • Regarding solar indirect effect, yes even the AR4 and AR5 have discussed these and acknowledge their omission from the climate models. I don’t understand your first question.

      • swood, Collins was quoting the favored cherrypick of the skeptics which currently stands at 18 years. I don’t think he would have chosen that for any other reason. I can choose 15 years of warming and be equally valid. Just a few years ago this was the skeptics’ favored period, although now they might denounce it as being too short to infer anything from.

      • w/r/t ocean heat
        ATTP: “Well, that would seem to be suggesting that the measurements are wrong, or a lot of energy has come from regions without measurements, but if that is the deep ocean it would seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics.”

        Dr. Curry: “We don’t know if the deep ocean heat content is increasing. And we don’t know what the ocean
        heat content 700-2000 m has been increasing last 10 years because we don’t have a long enough record. “

        w/r/t clouds
        ATTP: “Well, this would suggest that these can produce a net positive radiative feedback which would then seem odd if the feedbacks to the anthropogenic forcings are small.”

        Dr. Curry: “The issue with feedbacks is that cloud feedbacks may be negative (i think they are), but climate models think cloud feedback is positive. “

        w/r/t solar
        ATTP: “Well, the Solar insolation has been dropping, so presumably you mean something we haven’t yet discovered or don’t yet understand.”
        Here is a chart of sunspot activity from Little Ice Age to present.

        w/r/t geothermal
        “My understanding is that the geothermal flux is about 5-10 times smaller than the net flux of energy into the oceans. “

        Ron Graf: Geothermal heat may not be uniform in time or location and is certainly not easy to measure.
        w/r/t models not including solar
        ATTP: “Could this be because we don’t have any convincing evidence that Solar indirect effects play any kind of significant role and, consequently, don’t have any plausible physical mechanism that could be added to climate models, even if modelers wanted to add them?”

        Ron Graf: The IPCC GCM models have been evolving continually and have to date shown no predictive power.

      • Here are the things with the theorized increase in OHC.

        1. In the seasonal cycle, anyway, the warmer the surface gets, the more stable the ocean gets and so, the less mixing that takes place:

        More warming, but less mixing from AGW?

        2. The oceans are thought to store energy and now claimed that the abyssal deep is storing it. But the ocean appears to be much more adept at storing anomously cold water and poor at storing anomalously warm water. Indeed, the average temperature of the ocean is much lower than the average temperature of the surface. Isn’t the deep ocean claim akin to warm water sinks?

      • Jim D –

        swood, Collins was quoting the favored cherrypick of the skeptics which currently stands at 18 years. I don’t think he would have chosen that for any other reason.

        Then you are saying that Collins has switched sides and is now a skeptic? They invited him to give expert testimony to the APS in support of the IPCC side, not knowing that he was actually a skeptic! Man did they screw up.

      • swood, I think you know he was addressing the skeptic remarks directly by using the same period as they all do these days. I don’t think short trends are robust. An interesting thing is the following graph. This shows that the 30-year trend 1970-2000 to the beginning of the pause, and the one 1985-current to the end of the pause are almost the same despite the pause. Thirty-year trends are just so much more robust.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1985/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2000/trend

      • ATTP believes apparently that the Second Law’s dissipative effect should overpower that caused by gravity on a density gradient. I say let’s use more thermometers.

      • curryja | April 20, 2015 at 5:04 pm |
        ….
        Solar indirect effects are not included in climate models, a major deficiency

        Does this mean a 3X to 4X water vapor feedback isn’t included in the models for solar warming?

      • Jim D –

        swood, I think you know he was addressing the skeptic remarks directly by using the same period as they all do these days.

        Run that by me again. He said, in effect, this “If the hiatus has not stopped by the time of the sixth IPCC report then that report is going to have a large burden on its shoulders walking in the door.” This was not a statement beneficial to his side. Now explain to me again what you think his motivation was for saying this.

        Thirty-year trends are just so much more robust.

        The point of having an expert is that his opinion is given greater weight. Take another look at the qualifications of Dr. Collins. Does your level of expertise rival his? What part of what he said do you advise us to ignore?

      • The problem that Jim D & ATTP have is the same one that someone has when they buy a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle but after opening the box discover there are only 600 pieces. There too many missing linkages to bring it into a cohesive whole. Fill in the phantom gaps all you want but they still represent the unknowable. Impress yourselves all you want with the models, the conjectures and should be theories, but you are still missing knowledge about what earth did with similar conditions for the last several thousand years.

        But if it makes you feel good, then go for it.

      • puzzle analogy is a good one, discussed in one of my earliest posts
        https://judithcurry.com/2010/09/30/frames-and-narrative-in-climate-science/

      • swood, he is right, if you have a 20+-year trend starting in 1996 with no warming trend by the next IPCC report (maybe 2020), it would be somewhat surprising, but it is not looking like that will happen because we have an accelerating 15-year trend and a robust 30-year trend that didn’t even waver in the pause as I showed. Short trends are noisy and I think the skeptics rely too much on them for their solid-sounding conclusions, which are basically built on sand.

      • Steven Mosher

        Ron

        “I think if you read Brandon S’s post on Berkeley Earth you would consider that question carefully.”

        Since we already showed that our method is superior to GISS I already have considered the question carefully and methodically. Blogs are not science.

      • Judith –

        ==> “2. We don’t know if the deep ocean heat content is increasing.”

        So how can we say that “global warming” has “paused?”

        ==> “So your argument isn’t all that useful.”

        Useful? That’s an odd construction. It isn’t “useful” to talk about the uncertainties related to your hypotheses? Useful in what sense? As an advocate or as a scientist?

        ==> “The amount of energy being accumulated in the ocean (what is measured anyways) is not sufficient to account for the ‘missing heat’”

        On what basis do you say that, if…

        “We don’t know if the deep ocean heat content is increasing.”

        Well, yes, you say “what is measured, anyways,” but your statement also implies that “what is measured” is associated with significant uncertainties.

      • Steven Mosher

        Ron Graf

        “Are you implying that IPCC side does not have an adequate voice? ”

        I will allow you one stupid question. you just asked it.

        “I believe in the atmosphere where professionals are in fear of being labeled a “denier,” by and organized movement trying create just that effect to shut down dissent Feynman would have another rule. He just did not live to know that it needed saying.”

        There is no evidence that anyone lives in fear of being called a denier. They may feign outrage, but some embrace the term. You believe feynman would have another rule. Everyone gets an opinion. The facts show that Feynman did not follow his own guidelines. He is no example of consistency.

        “Telling both sides is the best policy because honesty is the best policy in any case”

        Yes, however there is no other side when it comes to the IPCC. There is no credible account of the science that could be offered as “the other side”
        There are substantial areas of uncertainty. And further there may be instances ( in paleo, in attribution ) where the uncertainties are not given the full attention they deserve, but there is no “other” side. And finally, Feynman was talking about doing science, not summarizing the state of science. The IPCC reports summarize science. they are not science.

      • David L. Hagen

        Joshua
        When you quote someone, please cite the person, year and link to the source to properly quote the person and show that you are not plagerizing.
        You quoted Physics Noble Laureate Richard Feynman from his 1974 Caltech commencement address “Cargo Cult Science”.
        Feynman describes the scientific integrity needed in proposing and justifying a scientific model. The IPCC has failed that standard.
        Challenging models against data is how scientists apply the scientific method. Judith has been raising issues that they failed to. It is not her responsibility to prove their models, only to review how they have failed and the uncertainties involved. I find she has been reviewing a wide range of uncertainties, far more than others have addressed. The NIPCC has raised further issues that the IPCC failed to address.
        When it comes to her own models, she has the duty to raise the issues that you quoted. I understand that she has been doing that.

      • David L. Hagen

        Steven Mosher
        Feynman is applying the scientific method of providing evidence that challenges the conventional model showing its inadequacy. In this case the model is that the o-rings were flexible and adequately sealed. He provided a simple test to show the fallacy of that model. (He is not presenting a full scientific model for the deformation of rubber.)
        Curry, Monckton, Salby and others are showing the divergence between the IPCC models and reality.
        Showing evidence disproving a model is essential to the scientific method. That is separate from the level of integrity Feynman raised in presenting a new/revised model. The IPCC has failed at both.

      • w/r/t Brandon’s blog post on BEST
        Steven Mosher: “Since we already showed that our method is superior to GISS I already have considered the question carefully and methodically. Blogs are not science. ”

        Blogs are a good place to debate science and I would be interested in you comment on Brandon’s blog post here.

        “There is no evidence that anyone lives in fear of being called a denier. They may feign outrage, but some embrace the term.

        Creating a derogatory label for a politically adversarial point of view serves one purpose and it aint about engaging in a wholesome debate. Scientific ethics should protect debate as debate is critical for healthy science. Nobody on this site has yet called me a denier but elsewhere yes. From what I’ve read of you I don’t think you use the term.

        w/r/t climate debate S. Mosher: “Yes, however there is no other side when it comes to the IPCC. There is no credible account of the science that could be offered as “the other side””

        I submit there is a robust other side within this thread and Nic Lewis Pitfalls in climate sensitivity estimation: Part 3

        S. Mosher on science: “Feynman was talking about doing science, not summarizing the state of science. The IPCC reports summarize science. they are not science.”

        I will allow you one stupid statement.

      • > Nobody assumes that he is saying that this is a statement about which there is perfect certainty.

        All that is needed for the double standard to obtain is to show that Judy’s own claims downplay uncertainty, e.g.:

        Back in the days, circa 2006/2007 when I was not skeptical of AGW, i did emphasize uncertainty in my public presentations, and I did not find that this lessened concern or left anyone thinking that this wasn’t a problem worthy of serious consideration. They left the room trusting me because I was honest about the uncertainties.

        […]

        As a result there is some pretty irresponsible public behavior by academic and think tank/advocacy group scientists, and there are absolutely no repercussions (I’m sure we can all think of examples).

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/10/21/ethics-of-communicating-scientific-uncertainty/

        Mr. T’s a mean cookie.

      • Ron Graf, I need to jump in real quick. In regard to one of the issues I raised with BEST’s homogenization (their empirical “breakpoints”), my blog which you cite says:

        Some people have said that difference doesn’t matter because it doesn’t disprove global warming. That’s silly. We’re talking about a difference of something like 20%. BEST publishes uncertainty calculations to the thousandth of a degree. You can’t do that then turn around and say a change in your results of 20% is irrelevant.

        Steven Mosher referenced this issue a couple weeks ago over at Anders’s blog, saying:

        No sweat, a while ago I caused Brandons head to explode by saying a 20% change was mousenuts.. technically interesting but nothing that would cause other people to go redo their
        calculations..

        Even leaving aside Mosher’s exaggerated rhetoric, this casts his claim BEST is better than GISS in an interesting light. Under Mosher’s position, a change in one’s results of 20% can be left undisclosed because it “doesn’t matter” to the big picture, but apparently BEST has:

        already showed that our method is superior to GISS I already have considered the question carefully and methodically. Blogs are not science.

        Because I guess.in Mosher’s eye, science is all about those unpublished, unverified changes to one’s results nobody else really knows about. It’s not about blogs where such details are discussed in an open and direct manner, free for anyone who is interested to examine.

      • …and Then There’s Physics | April 20, 2015 at 5:40 pm:
        “Are you really suggesting that there are physically plausible solar indirect mechanism that coud be included in climate models, but are not?”

        At the scale of weather, I have been producing very long range solar based NAO/AO forecasts since 2008 down to near daily scales, and hindcast back through many centuries at such scales where associated regional temperature records allow. The correlations are of such quantity and consistency, that plausibility is not an issue.

      • Steven Mosher

        Brandon you are free to take the code and the data, run it and write a paper proving your case.

        it may be interesting it may be relevant but you have to prove that. So far you havent.

        Now, Cowtan and Way did find a way to show that a minor difference could have impact.

        you havent done so yet.

        when you do send me the published manuscript.

        or easier show how RSM is a superior method. easy peasy.

      • Steven Mosher

        D Hagen


        Feynman is applying the scientific method of providing evidence that challenges the conventional model showing its inadequacy. ”

        DUH.

        It is not my argument that he WASNT.

        Here is my argument:
        1. people quote feynman and his argument that it is the scientists
        job to explain all the evidence and information that could contradict ones belief.

        2. feynman didnt actually DO what he recommended.

        in short, dont read what feynman Says you should do, look at what he actually DID. OBSERVE what he DID.. what you’ll find is that most of his proclaimations about how scientists behave is a fairy tale

      • Judith,

        Regarding solar indirect effect, yes even the AR4 and AR5 have discussed these and acknowledge their omission from the climate models.

        Yes, I realise that they’re not in the models. I’m just unaware of any physically plausible mechanism that could be included in the models if people did want to do so.

        I don’t understand your first question.

        I’m trying to understand how natural variability can warm the oceans in the way that we’ve observed. The data shows ocean warming down to 2000m at a rate of about 10^22 J/year over the last decade or so. This requires a planetary energy imbalance since the geothermal flux is too small and the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that it can’t come from below 2000m. If this planetary energy imbalance is a consequence of natural variability, then how does this work?

        There are two plausible ways I can see. An ocean cycle causes surface cooling, the reduction in surface temperature produces a planetary energy imbalance, the oceans warm. Okay, but we haven’t seen surface cooling over the last decade or so. The other is the ocean cycles cause some surface warming, there’s a feedback response (clouds, WV,…) which produces the planetary energy imbalance. The problem here is that if such feedbacks are positive and large enough to produce a planetrary energy imbalance, why don’t they respond in this way to anthropogenic forcings?

        Essentially, I can’t see a physically plausible mechanism in which natural variability can produce long term ocean warming (decade or so) while surface temperatres continue to rise. Happy to be convinced otherwise.

      • Joshua, editors don’t have complete editorial control over what appears in a publication. Journalists even less. Interview subjects? You gotta be kidding me. But then, reality doesn’t seem to have much to do with what you write–enough that there’s a way to twist anything to attack Curry.

        Why don’t you go back to harrassing Kloor in his final post? Then you can brag about it over at ATTP.

      • Hi Tom –

        How are ya”, my friend?

        ==> “Joshua, editors don’t have complete editorial control over what appears in a publication. Journalists even less. Interview subjects? You gotta be kidding me.”

        Heh. I think maybe you should go back and read what I wrote again? Seems that you’re confused about what I did and didn’t say. But thanks for your input, anyway. It’s always such a pleasure when you drop into posts were you make no other comments other than to express your opinions about me.

      • I love how Steven Mosher says this with a straight face:

        Brandon you are free to take the code and the data, run it and write a paper proving your case.

        Here’s a guy who has talked about the problems of people demanding work be published in the peer-reviewed literature to be considered, saying he’ll only pay attention to work which is published in the peer-reviewed literature. He’s said the same thing to me in the past:

        when you do send me the published manuscript.

        To make matters more entertaining, Mosher said someone from the BEST team would likely be a reviewer of any paper I might submit criticizing BEST. In other words, it appears Mosher expects for BEST to use the very same gate-keeping approach he has condemned to keep criticism of BEST out of the peer-reviewed literature, all while ignoring any work which doesn’t get published in the peer-reviewed literature.

        But you know what the best part of all this is? Most of BEST’s work is not peer-reviewed. There are tons of things BEST has done which it has never discussed anywhere, much less in a peer-reviewed paper. That means Mosher wants critics to publish papers to discuss parts of BEST’s work which haven’t been discussed in any papers. That means, according to Mosher’s view:

        Discussing issues on blogs: Not science.
        Not discussing issues at all: Science.

      • David Springer

        curryja | April 20, 2015 at 4:42 pm |

        “The timescales of ocean circulations go out almost for 10,000 years (timescale of the conveyor belt).”

        What? You must be referring to a complete overturning of the global ocean. Conveyor belt velocity is on the order of 1-2 meters per minute with some surface currents such as the Gulf Stream ten times as fast.

        It’s no wonder consensus climate science failed to predict how quickly excess heat in the surface layer could dissipate into the entire basin if your guesstimate is common.

        Accurate estimate of overturning is critical to climate response. At the current estimated rate of TOA imbalance (~0.5W/m2) that’s only enough to warm the entire ocean basin 0.2C in 100 years. If that energy is confined instead to the top 10% of the ocean’s volume then it’s 2.0C in 100 years in the 0-700 meter layer with very little change in temperature of the abyss.

        TOA imbalance could be so inaccurate that even the polarity is questionable but assuming it’s not that far off then the only thing that could be wrong to explain the models running so hot is badly underestimated speed of meridional overturning circulation. You should tending towards much faster overturning on the order of centuries rather than millennia.

      • typo, should be ~1000 yrs

      • Conveyor belt velocity is <10 cm/s. This is much slower than wind driven circulation

      • David Springer

        curryja | April 21, 2015 at 9:35 am |

        “typo, should be ~1000 yrs:”

        Glad to help. Note no one else caught the mistake.

        curryja | April 21, 2015 at 10:45 am |

        “Conveyor belt velocity is <10 cm/s. This is much slower than wind driven circulation"

        10 cm/s is 6 meters per minute. I wrote that conveyor belt velocity is typically given at 1 – 2 meters per minute which is indeed <10 cm/s. I don't understand your point unless it's another mistake because you simply confirmed the velocity I mentioned.

        Distance to be covered by the conveyor is about 20 million meters for a round trip tropics to pole. At one meter per minute that's 38 years. At 6 meters per minute that's under 7 years for the transit. I've used the faster figure before in calculating how long it takes a pulse of warm water (surface currents are faster) from the 1998 mother of all El Ninos to go from a warm pool in the tropical Pacific to melting ice in the Arctic ocean. About 18 months is the answer. That's precisely when Arctic sea ice extent started diminishing. The excess Joules in the Pacific warm pool match up fairly well with the latent heat of fusion required to melt the volume of ice lost in the following five years.

        The oceanic conveyor I believe is the key to several mysteries including why Arctic sea ice melted a lot faster than GCM-based predictions and also why the lower troposphere isn't warming nearly as fast as the same models predicted. The global ocean is overturning faster than parameterized in the models.

        Given we know the conveyor belt velocity fairly well through measurement of the upper, warm side I should think the source of the error is in the width and depth of the belt components.

      • Steven –

        I quote Feynman because “skeptics” love to appeal to Feynman’s authority (and freak out when you ask them to apply their interpretation of Feynman’s rhetoric to their own advocacy).

        What matters are the principles that Feynman was speaking about. Of course people don’t always live up to those principles, but they should be aspired to and they are good principles to use in evaluating someone’s advocacy.

        One of the things that Judith advocates for is the foregrounding of uncertainty. I agree with her completely about that and I happen to think that she should hold her own advocacy to the same standards of judgement that she would use for judging the advocacy of others.

      • Steven –

        Here. There are other authorities, other than Feynman’s, that we can appeal to – as willard showed us elsewhere in this thread:

        Back in the days, circa 2006/2007 when I was not skeptical of AGW, i did emphasize uncertainty in my public presentations, and I did not find that this lessened concern or left anyone thinking that this wasn’t a problem worthy of serious consideration. They left the room trusting me because I was honest about the uncertainties.

        The mistake is in thinking that you “lessen concern” by emphasizing uncertainty. Activists sometimes make that mistake.

      • attp, “Okay, but if cloud feedbacks are negative how can natural variability produce ocean warming while surface temperatures increase? It would seem physically implausible.’

        It is called mixing. The SST is always warmer than the average ocean temperature so it the mixing efficiency increases the rate of heat uptake increases. Thanks to density gradients we have some interesting combinations of mixing effects which includes the thermohaline circulation. If you increase the rate of subsisting cold water at the poles you increase mixing efficiency kind of like pouring a B52 cocktail too fast.

        Near the 30 degree latitude bands you have mixing driven by surface winds and those primary mixing bands can shift N-S, E-W as well as in intensity and can have things like stuck pressure ridges, shifting primary high and low regions, tropical cyclones etc. that vary mixing efficiency. I believe some describe that as a bit chaotic.

        So there is one hell of a lot of fluid dynamics you need to consider before thinking “physically implausible”. But you get to play with nifty terms like diapycnal.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008PA001624/full

      • Steven Mosher

        Brandon,

        Now that you’ve found the password that was always there for you, do your level best. You can’t. you won’t. You lack the focus and the commitment. You also lack the sense of what matters. Further, you don’t even get that I would love for you to find a problem.. that would only lead to improvement.
        Doing something and being wrong is a part of the business. Doing nothing is your gig. I got no time for that

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, if you had read the reference I linked to you regarding dynamic water vapor, then you would already know that it isn’t a requirement that OHC be lost to cause higher SSTs from internal variability since the redistrbution of heat changes the energy budget. I will give you the link again:

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

        There could be some very interesting differences between SW and LW radiation and how they affect the ocean. Here is a paper on SW attenuation depth:

        http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/25313

      • it isn’t a requirement that OHC be lost to cause higher SSTs from internal variability since the redistrbution of heat changes the energy budget.

        I don’t see how that answers my question. My question wasn’t about how internal variability can warm the surface (that seems quite possible), my question was about how can internal variability drive warming of the oceans (i.e., increasing ocean heat content) while surface temperatures continue to rise.

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, by increasing water vapor and decreasing albedo.

      • ATTP, by increasing water vapor and decreasing albedo.

        Okay, that’s physically plausible and – as I understand it – is indeed probably what drives some of the observed variability. But then we come to my next question. If the feedback response to internal variability if positive and sufficient to contribute to a significant fraction of the observed warming, why is the feedback response to externally forced changes, small or negative? The physical processes are the same (water vapour, clouds,, albedo, …)

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, climate is regional and so are feedbacks. Determining climate sensitivity to a dynamic process as compared to a static one is going to require regional analyses. It is plausible that the feedbacks in a static situation cancel, while in a dynamic scenario they amplify.

      • I can see that being possible but, as yet, I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that this is really how the system behaves. In other words, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the feedback response to externally driven warming is small or negative, while the feedback response to internally driven warming is positive and reasonably substantial (well, substabtial enough explain about half of our recent warming). As I understand it, the only plausible way in which this could occur is through some difference in how clouds behave and I don’t think that there is any evidence of such a difference.

      • Feedback signs are the same for either a warming or cooling perturbation (the magnitude may not be same, since cooling vs warming trigger some asymmetric feedbacks). While the main thermodynamic feedbacks (water vapor, cloud, lapse rate, albedo) are conceptually simple, they trigger circulation changes which make their final result and impact difficult to diagnose and predict.

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, a lack of knowledge and evidence to differentiate the effects of different forcing agents, be they internal or external, does not lead to the logical conclusion that there are none and we can ignore possible problems in our understanding. I can take this model

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/91JD00009/full

        and by making the assumption that the Gulf Stream is idicative of total poleward ocean heat transport, use this reconstruction

        http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/people/wcurry/Curry_pdf_files/nature05277.pdf

        to show that all the warming of the past 250 years can be attributed to a change in ocean heat transport. Now since I can do this I don’t see the attribution of warming as being on very solid ground and I’m not clear why anyone else would.

      • to show that all the warming of the past 250 years can be attributed to a change in ocean heat transport.

        Sure, but as I understand it, that would then be a scenario where the warming has been driven predominantly by albedo feedback. I don’t think that we have observations to support this. Bear in mind that variations in ocean cycles are likely to have their largest effect during glacial periods when the ice sheets are large, rather than during inter-glacials when they’re not. Consider Dansgaard-Oeschger events.

        You might also want to read this exchange beween Isaac Held and Steve Koonin. What Isaac Held is pointing out (which is consistent with what I think you’re saying) is that if you want the warming to be driven by internal ocean cycles, then it has to emerge at the poles, where the ocean is least stratified. That isn’t what we see. You can also look at other sections that discuss stratospheric cooling, a specific signature of CO2 warming.

      • Feedback signs are the same for either a warming or cooling perturbation

        Do you mean that the feedback response is always positive or always negative? That doesn’t seem right, if so. How can the water vapour response, albedo, or lapse rate be independent of whether the perturbation is warming or cooling?

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, as it is said co2 warming causes strtospheric cooling and natural cooling causes stratospheric cooling. It is claimed that natural cooling (which causes stratospheric cooling) is offsetting co2 warming (which causes stratospheric cooling) so the stratosphere should be cooling twice as fast now. It has been fairly flat since 1995. Look for a new fingerprint, that one is worthless.

        Held has views on ocean heat transport that are contrary to the bulk of the published literature.

      • where does it say this?

        it is said co2 warming causes stratospheric cooling and natural cooling causes stratospheric cooling.

        The document actually says:

        So essentially, we don’t know the physical mechanism for getting this dipole out of solar variations, volcanic variations. The only way that we can explain it is with well-mixed greenhouse gases.

        The basic idea – I think – is that well-mixed GHGs change the effective radiative height in the atmosphere, moving it to higher altitudes and cooling the stratosphere.

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, there are several hypotheses for whythe stratosphere isn’t cooling. Perhaps you could reverse some of those and find other ways of explaining why it was.

      • there are several hypotheses for why the stratosphere isn’t cooling.

        I’m confused. Are you suggesting that the figure on page 44 is wrong

        it is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.

      • …and Then There’s Physics | April 22, 2015 at 8:03 am |
        there are several hypotheses for why the stratosphere isn’t cooling.

        I’m confused. Are you suggesting that the figure on page 44 is wrong

        it is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.

        It sure looks like there are a couple of interpretations;
        1. The cooling was a “short term” 40 year trend due to
        2. The 1998 El Nino broke something.
        3. There is a matching stratospheric “hiatus” or “pause” as well (top and bottom match).
        4. Last 17 years are a bug on the windshield and it will go back to cooling soon.

        #4 looks to be the least likely.

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, if I said it has been flat since 1995 then why would you suspect I said since 1950?

      • Okay, sorry, I wasn’t concentrating

        It is claimed that natural cooling (which causes stratospheric cooling) is offsetting co2 warming (which causes stratospheric cooling) so the stratosphere should be cooling twice as fast now. It has been fairly flat since 1995

        I don’t think this is correct. I think the stratosphere cools as the troposphere warms and the effective emission height rises. If something is offsetting the CO2 warming, then I don’t think we should be seeing faster stratospheric cooling, I think it should be slower.

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, the stratosphere cooling isn’t a very good fingerprint of co2 induced warming if any source of warming causes it to cool.

      • the stratosphere cooling isn’t a very good fingerprint of co2 induced warming if any source of warming causes it to cool.

        But this is not the case (or, at least, my understanding is that it is not the case). Solar warming does not. Internally-driven warming of the surface should not unless it is also associated with some change in atmospheric composition. Reductions in volcanic aerosols should not. Why do you think any source of warming should cool the stratosphere?

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, make up your mind. Does the troposphere warming cause the stratosphere to cool or is it some other mechanism specific to co2? Any warming will change atmospheric composition. Think water vapor. The stratopsheric fingerprint argument deserves a big red X so find a new one.

      • attp, “But this is not the case (or, at least, my understanding is that it is not the case). Solar warming does not.”

        Solar varies stratospheric temperature as does volcanic aerosols. Remember solar in the tropics produces the ozone which is the cause of the stratospheric temperature inversion. Perhaps you should read more?

      • Does the troposphere warming cause the stratosphere to cool or is it some other mechanism specific to co2?

        I don’t think you’re reading what is said carefully enough. I didn’t say that tropospheric warming causes the stratosphere to cool, I said that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes the troposphere to warm and the stratosphere to cool (well, I think I said that and it is what I was intending to say). The basic idea is that increased CO2 (or well-mixed GHGs) increases the effective height in the atmosphere where we radiate to space, but doesn’t change how much energy we’re radiating since we’re still absorbing the same amount of energy from the Sun. Since the temperature at this height is fixed by energy balance it means that a consequence of shifting the temperature profile up is that the troposphere warms and the stratosphere cools. An increase in solar insolation doesn’t do this because such an increase is an actual increase in the amount of energy we receive from the Sun and hence can warm both the troposphere and stratosphere. Similarly for reductions in volcanic aerosols (since this also increases the amount of energy we’re actually receiving/absorbing). As I understand it, therefore, stratospheric cooling is a specific signature of warming through increased CO2.

      • Solar varies stratospheric temperature as does volcanic aerosols.

        Yes, but I don’t think that an increase in solar forcing (or a reduction in volcanic forcing) would cause the stratosphere to cool, it would cause it to warm along with the troposphere.

      • verytallguy11

        ATTP,

        my best explanation of stratospheric cooling is the heat balance in the stratosphere.

        To a first approximation, this heat balance is radiative. Heating is by ozone absorption of UV, cooling by CO2 emission of LW. Under increasing CO2, the former is constant but the latter rises at any given temperature/pressure, resulting in cooling to maintain heat balance.

      • attp, “Yes, but I don’t think that an increase in solar forcing (or a reduction in volcanic forcing) would cause the stratosphere to cool, it would cause it to warm along with the troposphere.”

        As I said you should read more.

        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/why-does-the-stratosphere-cool-when-the-troposphere-warms/

        Start with how not to describe stratospheric cooling by some of the best of the best :)

        Then look at the data. I have lower stratosphere inverted for easier comparison. Note SST is i9n there. Any change in SST has an impact on the lower strat and the volcanic influences stick out pretty well..

        Then you can move into the Brewer-Dobson circulation and sudden stratospheric warming, deep convective impacts on tropical ozone and stratospheric water vapor. btw, Susan Solomon has a paper where she stated that SST had nothing to do with recent changes in tropical ozone. I think she might be a touch off on that point.

      • As I said you should read more.

        Maybe you should read more carefully.

        A good counter-example is that of solar forcing. An increase in the sun’s irradiance such as occurs over the 11-year sunspot cycle (or potentially longer time scales) warms the stratosphere (due to increased absorbtion by ozone) but it also warms the troposphere.

        Unless I left some words out, that sounds pretty much like what I said. An increase in solar forcing warms both the troposphere and stratosphere. An increase in GHG forcing warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere. I’ll grant you that the aerosol effect might be more complicated than I realised, but that’s largely because I forgot that they’re injected into the stratosphere and as well as reflecting some incoming solar radiation it seems that they can also absorb some radiation and warm the lower stratosphere.

        Another important climate forcing, volcanic aerosols, can also give a similar opposing trend between the stratosphere and troposphere. In this case, large amounts of sulphate aerosols (small particles) are injected into the stratosphere by large explosive eruptions (the most recent one being Mt. Pinatubo in 1991). These aerosols are reflective and increase the albedo of the planet. This reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface and therefore cause a cooling in the troposphere. However, they also absorb some radiation, and so in the lower stratosphere, they actually cause a warming.

        when the same RealClimate piece discusses GHGs it says

        Even though the stratosphere has an opposite lapse rate to the troposphere because of the ozone absorption, the effect of increasing GHGs is the same, i.e. since it is above the effective radiating level, it will cool. The cooling will be greatest as you go higher.

      • stevenreincarnated

        “Yes, but I don’t think that an increase in solar forcing (or a reduction in volcanic forcing) would cause the stratosphere to cool, it would cause it to warm along with the troposphere.”

        So if natural forcing was causing the troposphere to cool it would cool the stratosphere and if it were causing it to warm it would warm the stratosphere. If co2 was causing the world to warm it would cool the stratosphere. This is what I said that started the entire conversation. You seemed to think it was wrong in some way then but now you seem to agree. Like I said: natural forcing causing cooling to offset the warming from co2 should be cooling the stratosphere twice as fast.

      • Like I said: natural forcing causing cooling to offset the warming from co2 should be cooling the stratosphere twice as fast.

        Well, no, because for natural forcing to cool the stratosphere it has to actually cool the troposphere. If it is simply acting to offset GHG warming so that there is no change in the troposphere, there should be no change in the stratosphere.

      • You can also look at other sections that discuss stratospheric cooling, a specific signature of CO2 warming.

        FWIW, stratospheric cooling IS a signature of CO2 forcing.

        But it is not a signature of CO2 warming or of warming at all.
        That doesn’t diminish the case for radiative forcing.
        But the process of stratospheric cooling is not determined by warming.

        Adding CO2 exerts a great decrease in the heating rate of the individual layers of the , particularly near the stratopause:

      • attp, “Unless I left some words out, that sounds pretty much like what I said. An increase in solar forcing warms both the troposphere and stratosphere.”

        Initially, volcanic aerosols can “initially” warm the stratosphere and the oceans. If the stratosphere and troposphere were perfectly stable, then you would see that ideal relationship. Fortunately, the atmosphere isn’t perfectly stable and you have circulations that determine the longer term impact. Reduction in Pinatubo aerosols appears to have caused stratospheric cooling and surface warming, which you said it would not do. As VTG said it is an energy balance problem and the oceans and sun are the primary sources of outgoing energy. Since both atmospheric and ocean circulations are involved along with considerable atmospheric chemistry it isn’t exactly a simple problem, so simple explanations don’t work all that well. Longer term you would need to consider the B-D circulation, SSW events and general advection of energy, ozone and water vapor pole ward in addition to the longer lived GHGs.

      • Should also note that the process by which the stratosphere cools, reduction in heating rate of the individual layers, is not the process by which the troposphere is theorized to warm.

        Indeed, the individual layers of the troposphere show very little change in Heating rate, especially compared to the great changes in the stratosphere.
        Rather, the net radiative imbalance for the troposphere as a complete layer is what is modeled to invoke warming – this is sound. But how does the accumulation of layers within the troposphere invoke forcing change while none of the individual layers show much heating rate change? Some of the difference is going into the surface, of course. And the mass of the troposphere is much greater than the mass of the stratosphere, so very small changes of each layer still represent a forcing difference at the tropopause.

        The point labeled a. distinguishes ‘RF’ from the point labeled b. which is the cooling rate ( negative heating rate ) imposed in the stratosphere.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Less energy reaching the stratosphere from the sun = cooler stratosphere. It seems like a direct effect to me. I don’t see why the troposphere would have to cool for this to be true.

      • Less energy reaching the stratosphere from the sun = cooler stratosphere. It seems like a direct effect to me. I don’t see why the troposphere would have to cool for this to be true.

        I don’t understand the context. If you meant that solar variability is offsetting GHG warming then yes, but I thought you were referring to internal variability (oceans cycles is where we started). I don’t think that the reduction in solar forcing is sufficient to explain the slower than expected surface that we’ve experience recently.

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, if you argue the pause is externally forced then it should be cooling twice as fast. If you argue the pause is internal variability and that the troposphere must warm first for the statosphere to cool due to GHGs then water vapor qualifies and you should get the same reaction from either source of warming. If the argument is only co2 in the stratosphere can cause cooling as the troposhere warms then what is countering it since it should be cooling regardless of if the troposphere warms or not?The argument is that the cooling of the stratosphere is a fingerprint of co2 warming. Where is the fingerprint? It has been missing since 1995.

      • if you argue the pause is externally forced then it should be cooling twice as fast.

        Well, I’m not. I don’t think the pause is externally forced.

        If you argue the pause is internal variability and that the troposphere must warm first for the statosphere to cool due to GHGs then water vapor qualifies and you should get the same reaction from either source of warming.

        Except, if the “pause”/hiatus/slowdown is something internal counteracting the GHG warming, then it has reduced the tropospheric warming and will also reduce the stratospheric cooling. You’re right – I think – that any GHG should produce tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, but the warming of the troposphere has to actually happen. If there is no/reduced warming of the troposphere, then there’ll be no/reduced cooling of the stratsphere.

        This has probably gone on long enough. The idea, though is that tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling is s signature of CO2 forcing.

      • stevenreincarnated

        So if internal variability cause the troposphere to warm and caused more water vapor it would cool the stratosphere? You agree with this based upon your understanding? If you do then it is rather difficult to state it is a fingerprint of anything besides warming. You are right. It has gone on long enough. The X is red and it is on the line of evidence called stratospheric cooling.

      • You are right. It has gone on long enough. The X is red and it is on the line of evidence called stratospheric cooling.

        Glad to see you’ve convinced yourself. Well done.

      • stevenreincarnated

        ATTP, I was convinced when I read several different hypotheses on why it wasn’t cooling. Something about not being sure why something isn’t happening indicating a lack of knowledge on why it was. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking about why you might be wrong about things. I suggest you start with changes in ocean heat transport. It is the one thing that can explain everything as well as co2 and in some ways explain things much better such as past climate changes, you know, for those of us who think climate used to change.

      • ATTP – you said, “Do you mean that the feedback response is always positive or always negative? That doesn’t seem right, if so. How can the water vapour response, albedo, or lapse rate be independent of whether the perturbation is warming or cooling?”

        I think you are misinterpreting what Judy is saying, when she talks about negative feedbacks. Negative feedbacks for a forcing attenuate the effects of that forcing; positive feedbacks amplify the effects. This is the case regardless of whether the effect itself raises or lowers the temperature. It sounds like you are interpreting “negative” to mean “reduce the temperature” rather than “reduce the effect.”

        When the oceans warm, evaporation is increased. This probably increases the number of clouds. Clouds are a negative feedback, because they block some sunlight during the day and help insulate during the night. However, it is likely that the cloud effect during the day is stronger, and so clouds also act as a negative feedback on the overall temperature increase. Note that when the oceans cool, there are fewer clouds, which would then attenuate the overall cooling. I.e., they mitigate the effect regardless of what direction the effect is.

    • How about that Don,

      Ask for it and you get it. ATTP, who is well practiced in the art of strawmen and slippery responses, throws together the first strawman in just ove 10 minutes.

    • verytallguy11

      Surprise, surprise, Werner is a signatory to a letter from the Heartland institute endorsing the risible NIPCC report.

      More grist for Lewandowsky’s hypothesis:

      “endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science”

      https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/scientists-oppose-global-warming-legislation

      His “actual comment” seems to be just whining about process plus “18 years without warming” talking points thrown in.

      So: he’s associated with hard right wing political lobbyists, endorses laughable antiscience and whinges a lot. Fits in well I guess.

      • Guilt by association.

        Classic invalid logic.

      • verytallguy11

        Richard Arrett,

        No, guilt by virtue of signing his name to a letter explicitly extolling the virtues of politically motivated disinformation masquerading as science.

        And posting an objection entirely devoid of scientific substance.

      • verytallguy11:

        I was referring to your logic, not Werner’s.

        Your opinion is your opinion.

        However, your argument that Werner’s opinion is wrong is entirely based on fallacious logic, and therefore entirely devoid of substance.

        Perhaps you would like to try again?

      • verytallguy11 | April 21, 2015 at 10:54 am | Reply
        ……..
        More grist for Lewandowsky’s hypothesis:

        Really? Rrrreeeeeaaalllllyyy?

        These “studies” (and I use the word studies loosely) have spent so much time in the woodshed at Climate Audit and other places I’m surprised anyone reads them, let alone quotes them.

        These studies have the same relationship to science or fact that theology has to religion, i.e. none to speak of.

      • verytallguy11

        PA

        These “studies” (and I use the word studies loosely) have spent so much time in the woodshed at Climate Audit and other places I’m surprised anyone reads them, let alone quotes them.

        Mistaking discussion at Climate Audit with the assessment of the scientific community would be an error.

      • The assessment of the scientific community is that Lewandowsky is definitely in the fine tradition of social psychology, whereas the Golgafrinchams regard it as quite good.

      • verytallguy11

        HAS,

        if you want confirmation of Lewandowsky, reading any Climate Etc comments thread should provide it.

      • verytallguy11, there’s little in Lew that would confirm anything.

        He’s just in it for the publicity so I guess the ends justify the means.

        It’s just a pity social psychologists have such low standards and he survives, but even if he got tossed out of there there’d probably be a marketing or journalism faculty that would have him.

        Come to think of it that’s where he gets some of his co-authors from.

      • HAS | April 22, 2015 at 4:59 am |

        It’s just a pity social psychologists have such low standards

        Social Psychologists have standards?

  22. Only APS members motivated to make a bold public stand will be commenting, it would seem, since doing so subjects them to reprisals and character assassination. Whatever they say will be put under a high-powered microscope and intentionally distorted. I wish there were a way around that.

    • Danny Thomas

      Just want to point out Dr. Koonin was apparently trying to make a less than “bold statement” and look how that turned out.

    • It’s better not to quit, but to stay on and be a pain in the rear until things change.

      • If you really want to be a “pain in the rear” why not spend some time digging into the careers and publication records of the Panel on Public Affairs? And, perhaps, the people responsible for selecting them:

        The Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) consists of a Chair, Chair-Elect, Vice Chair, immediate Past Chair, the Vice President, the Chair of the Physics Policy Committee (PPC), the Congressional Fellow(s) in the second year following the year of service, fourteen (14) members elected by Council to staggered three (3) year terms, and (1) member elected by the Forum on Physics and Society to a three (3) year term. The candidates for election as members of POPA are selected by the Nominating Committee.

        When the vast majority of membership of an organization assumes that nobody is subverting the rules of their organization, that just makes it easier.


      • Whenever I hear the word “central” WRT to committee manipulations, I’m always reminded of the “Central Committee of the Communist Party”.

  23. http://patriotpost.us/opinion/19138

    Here is more data. All of the atmospheric processes failing. That says it all.
    Despite this ,an in addition the greenhouse score card data showing over 30 blunders, the historical climatic data which shows climate changes many times more abrupt and greater in degree of magnitude then what has happened recently , this theory keeps lives on.

    What will it take to put this theory in the trash where it belongs?

  24. So far these articulate comments are slaying the hysteria machine quite nicely.

  25. I do not understand how the APS can make a statement when no one knows what the APS members believe. They did not vote on it, or have any real input. The demand should not be, Don’t make a statement. It should be, We want to vote on a statement, or on a number of pieces of a statement. Your statement does not represent us unless we agree.

    • David Springer

      A committee, under direction of the ruling body, constructs the statement. The committee then makes a recommendation to the ruling body to adopt the statement. The ruling body acts in executive capacity and unless convinced otherwise takes the recommendation of the committee and acts on it. Given that the ruling body appoints the committee members they are usually trusted and their recommendation accepted with little or no modification.

      • Except in the case when a Dr Stephan Koonin does not quite toe the PC line and tries to evaluate the evidence presented to the panel objectively
        Scott.

      • So it wouldn’t matter to you if, say, a third of the APS members strenuously objected to the statement? To me it is obvious that unless you have reason to think that the vast majority (97%!) of the members of an organization feel a certain way, you have no business speaking in their names.
        Would you have any problem with a survey being sent to all APS members saying, We want to check how our members feel about the following points in the statement…?
        Remember that the former _head_ of their committee holds very different views. Would you have a problem with allowing Koonin to send out his own request to all APS members describing his point of view and asking them which statement they would prefer?

      • David Springer

        Koonin resigned. He should have sucked it up and stayed the course making the ruling body look as irresponsible as possible in the process if they overrule the committee recommendations and remaining on the committee to set the agenda and cast a vote to influence that as much as possible too.

      • David Springer

        miker613

        “So it wouldn’t matter to you if, say, a third of the APS members strenuously objected to the statement? To me it is obvious that unless you have reason to think that the vast majority (97%!) of the members of an organization feel a certain way, you have no business speaking in their names.”

        The members of the ruling body are elected and thus empowered to speak for those they represent. Virtually all democracies are representative and function this way.

  26. Pingback: Memo to our cousins at the American Physical Society: time to embrace reality | Watts Up With That?

  27. I’m still waiting for the APS statement on clock radios.

    Andrew

    • They would probably get objections from a small but vocal cuckoo clock lobby.

    • Jimmy Dee,

      Indeed. The science of clock radios is more certain than ever.

      Andrew

    • I think the situation would be much the same for on any hot topic on campus, such as the ones where professors and students reflexively rush to see who can be the most politically correct, whether something about gender-identity inclusiveness, racism, obesity, foreign investments, or odd pets. If only ten members out of ten-thousand are jumping on the bandwagon, those will be the ones on the committee and they will browbeat the rest of the membership for not caring enough to address the vitally import issue.

  28. I commented on one sentence from the APS: “In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.” I was surprised by this statement since global temperatures have been flat for the last 18 years, which is diverging more and more over time from the standard global warming predictions. How is it possible for the APS to say “more certain than ever”?

    • I would agree and add that the multiple “explanations” regarding the recent pause surely has added to the uncertainty.

      And from a scientific standpoint, what usually is first suspected when data does not support a theory is that at least part of the hypothesis might be flawed. This is hardly addressed anywhere. Very curious.

  29. Thanks for your cooperation and patience in airing comments from the APS members.

    This is a most interesting innovation. I hope that it proves fruitful. I can conceive of it taking much of your time. Much. Would you allow members to post anonymously, after you verified their membership in APS, if they requested it? The result might confirm, or disconfirm, the hypothesis that many physicists are skeptical of IPCC claims but afraid of public punishment for saying so.

    • I’ll see if anyone asks to post anonymously, i would be ok with that

    • afraid of public punishment for saying so

      Tarred and feather, a flogging, forced to wear the dreaded “D” on their forehead, what?

    • What kills me about the whole “I’m outraged, outraged I say” reaction to “denier” is that many of the outraged also rail about “political correctness” if other people are sensitive about terminology which they find offensive.

      Well, that and the fact that so many of the “Outraged, outraged I say” about the term “denier” routinely use pejorative terms themselves.

      The term is a pejorative and thus it shouldn’t be used, IMO, but can we ever get a break from the drama-queening?

      • Josh. This will come as a shock to you, but sometimes scientists argue about science, sometimes vehemently. This means they are advocating a particular position or another. There is nothing wrong with it.

        Your tempest in a thimble arises because you are ignorant about scientists and science generally.

        You are an idealistic nitpicker who is a victim of his own ignorance.

        There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but we have to put up with you cluttering up perfectly good posts with this bilge.

      • afraid of public punishment

        You know there does seem to be some degree of paranoia involved in this for a number of skeptics. But you know if I really believed what they had to say, I would be a bit paranoid too. I mean you would have the government, politicians, scientists, and all exaggerating the risks of climate change for some unclear (at least to me) reason. I don’t know.. I am kinda glad I don’t live in that world right now.

      • Sadly, Joshua, your statement is not accurate.

  30. The APS is afraid, their members have been cowed by the cAGW political fear narrative (and they like the corrupt money the fear of others brings to their pseudo-research).

    • My question to you Mike Kenny is are you a Koch funded merchant of doubt or just a head-in-the-sand denier? Which is it? /sarc

  31. David L. Hagen

    Memo to our cousins at the American Physical Society: time to embrace reality
    Christopher Monckton, Guest Blogger, WUWT

    » Several members of the American Physical Society have contacted me to ask how they should respond to a tokenistic “consultation” by the Society’s “Panel on Public Affairs” about its proposed amendment to its existing daft “Statement on Climate Change”. They invited me to submit this to WattsUpWithThat for publication as a message to our American cousins. . . .
    Your note to APS members (which, incidentally, has not been sent to every member, as your rules require) does not even indicate that members who comment will get a reply. Again, the intention seems to be to stifle debate and keep control in the hands of a politically-correct gaggle of militants.

    Worst of all, there will be no ballot of the membership on whether the statement in its final form should be promulgated as an APS statement. Your rules do not require a ballot but they do not forbid one either. It would be sensible if you were to give all members a free vote on the statement so that, for once, it will be reflect the scientific opinion not of a clique miscalling itself a consensus but of many.

    Otherwise, the draft will not be a statement of or by or on behalf of the Society as a whole, and must not be presented as though it were. Instead, the document, if there is one, must state explicitly that your “APS statement” is the view of a single group of activists at the Society, and not a statement by the APS as a whole. . . .
    So to science. There is now a statable case that undue concern about our effect on the climate is misplaced. The original wild predictions on which that concern was built have proven much exaggerated. . . .
    Climate change: risks and rewards, benefits and costs

    Either: The following statement has not been voted on by the members of the American Physical Society. Accordingly, it may not represent their opinions.

    Or: The following statement was approved by a two-thirds majority in a ballot of the members of the American Physical Society on [date of ballot]. . . .
    The IPCC’s predictions have not been skillful. The underlying warming rate is small: the models did not predict the current near-stasis in global temperatures, and the oceans – ignoring the very poor resolution of the measurements – appear to be warming at a rate equivalent to only 0.2 Cº/century. . . .
    It is the APS’ role to be honest about science, not partisan about politics. To be honest, on the evidence now before us the certainty about the rightness of the IPCC’s profitably alarmist stance that the APS’ activists expressed in their previous statement on climate change was inappropriate.

  32. I would be quite interested to see more info about the MIT courses mentioned in the moderated APS thread. In particular I would love to see their discussion of modelling, a-posteriori error estimation, numerical integration, uncertainty, etc….

    Universities have less and less credibility by the day, if this course is indeed supposed to ‘inject the science back into climate seance’, one would hope it is not just another product of the university mission to rewrite history and advance the liberal agenda. My days of paying money to this lie machine are over else I would consider reading the course materials….

    • another way of looking at it:

      I am suspicious of the MIT course. If the end result of the course is that we are supposed to trust models (because of all the great climate physics info) then what is the point? That’s the failure of climate science today. Physicists trying to model without any appreciation of the fact that just writing a model and running it does not mean it has anything to do with reality.

      Is this course a tactic or does it have substance? I would have to see the modelling chapter. But I will not give a $ to the modern university with its plagues.

      • Not sure what is in Kerry Emanuel’s course, but in my conversations with him, he is not a fan of the big numerical climate models. Running simple climate models (radiative convective, energy balance) is a good way to learn qualitatively about climate sensitivity to various processes.

      • Ah, well hopefully my cynicism is unfounded then. Just always cautious.

  33. “Universities have less and less credibility by the day”
    http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=8333

  34. “Universities have less and less credibility by the day”
    http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=8085

    etc, etc….

  35. Who cares what scientists think anyway? Certainly not Americans who are obese, diabetic or hypoglycemic, overly medicated, drug indused, spoiled, self indulgent, uninformed, opinionated, brainwashed, living paycheck to paycheck, game obsessed and self-proclaimed standard of the world.

    A little cynical are we today Ordvic? Perhaps we should take a pill!

  36. I have to be convinced it’s a good idea for a scientific body to publish any statement that include suggestions, recommendations or even demands for certain policy or action.

  37. In light of the prestige ascribed by the non-scientific public to the APS, simply retracting their pseudo-scientific position statement seems wholly indequate. Nothing less than a public mea culpa will suffice.

  38. Judith Curry

    Casey Jones:

    Trouble with you is the trouble with me,
    Got two good eyes but you still don’t see.

    Jerry Garcia and The Grateful Dead.

    Jerry Garcia and maybe Casey Jones were high on cocaine which impaired their judgement of what was happening all around them and in particular, the ability to adjust and respond. For Jerry at least, highly likely.

    The continuation of the warming activist’s influence within APS may serve as the intoxicant that prohibits inclusion of Steve Koonin’s Workshop report into the latest APS position paper on climate change. “Got two good eye but you still don’t see.”

    This brings me to dealing with people who hold strong, but misguided beliefs as is surely evident in the APS case. Reasoning, and in this case the evolving science, will not alter their position. The energy, the investment in CAGW is all emotional, to their very core. Explanation of bad things happening to good people: “It’s God’s will”, or for the non-religious, the end justifies the means. There is no clear cut way to deal with this mindset, at least for their own group. The key to making changes, is to identify the less rabid fans of CAGW, moving then into a more inclusive group like the lukewarmers by “friending” them. The basis of movement is on the emotional level and not the reasoned level since differences are rarely to do with information, just whose group do you want to join.

    Currently, the catastrophists group of APS seems small. The idea is to make it smaller and then let them self destruct over escalating radicalism. Robespierre in the French Revolution.

    The question to ask of the less radicalized APS members you are trying to friend into the lukewarmer’s group: “Do you really want those flaming…. speaking for you and your views?

    “Comin’ around the bend…”

  39. Does anyone know the circumstances under which Dr. Steven Koonin left chair of this committee? I have heard resigned, left, booted out, etc.

    • He resigned. The SciAm article suggested that this coincided with ‘losing control of the committee’ and the entire POPA becoming the committee.

      • I have to say your approach to the area of climate and how it may or may not change is the most sensible level headed approach I have come across..
        It is a marvelous well balanced approach not to mention the way you conduct yourself.

        I think you are sincere and are after one thing, which is seeking the truth.

        I am of the same mind but do get to zealous from time to time.

        Keep it up.

  40. Pingback: Memo to our cousins at the American Physical Society: time to embrace reality | I World New

  41. Without knowing details, hard to say what the Koonin deal was. But as observer, survivor, and victim (once) of corporate politics, it sure looks the same. And that is neither science not its subbranch physics.
    Hope Judith’s sunshine effort pays out. Doubt it will, as the APS draft statement already shows no shame, nor respect for Koonin’s process. Very Mannian.

    • Steven Mosher

      he has gone on to a more interesting project that one of our guys spent some time on.

  42. Providing a forum for dissenting points of view, antithetical to the progressive political consensus? This is the kind of thing that made people like Limbaugh, Watts, Levin, et al. the targets of such vitriolic attacks from the left for decades. It is the forum for dissent, not the opinions of those who provide the forum, that the left rightly sees as the real danger.

    This is not like saying that the hokey stick was dishonest, or calling for an end to the IPCC. This is providing a platform for real scientific debate by directly undermining an ongoing progressive attempt to control the debate. It has the potential for participation by many scientists who never have openly voiced their dissent before. I cannot imagine it will go unchallenged.

    Kudos to Dr. Curry. And watch your back.

    • ==> “This is the kind of thing that made people like Limbaugh, Watts, Levin, et al. the targets of such vitriolic attacks from the left for decades.”

      GaryM makes an excellent point. Levin, Watts, Limbaugh, they’re such victims.

      ‘Specially Limbaugh.

      • GaryM didn’t use the word “victims.” But they are targets of the left.

      • I’m a leftist. I am happy to attack Limbaugh. I don’t know Levin. I consider Watts a friend. I think vitriol is in the eyes of the beholder. But I would agree that Limbaugh and Watts have been attacked with verve if not vitriol by my fellow Leftists.

        I’m saving my vivacious verve, vitriol, vim and vigor for Joshua.

      • Josh, try the other side for half an hour or a day.
        Chanel “Imagine”
        Imagine all the warmers chilling out and say
        Hey I’m glad I’m here,
        its such a lovely day
        Imagine all the models realigning to reality too
        Oh, you can become a skeptic
        and take the heat too.

      • I think vitriol is in the eyes of the beholder.

        Ahhh, okay, that explains a great deal. In fact, vitriol is in the eye of the beholder would be one of my choices for a motto for the online climate debate. The other, which is related, is Joshua’s favourite; if only those poopyheads would stop calling us poopyheads.

      • Thomas Fuller,

        Try comoing out of your protective bubble for just long enough to read this. (Shoot, I was able to read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kamp f in college. Surely you can take 5 minutes for this.) And then tell me where Limbaugh is wrong.

        And if you can, give me some examples of where your progressive colleagues (or you) are writing about it.

        http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/04/21/how_innocent_scott_walker_supporters_were_persecuted_in_wisconsin

      • Gary, That this can go on in the US and only a few conservatives care….well you wonder if there’s any hope. What most people don’t realize is that Rush is one of the most accurate news sources there is. He has to be . He has Media Matters and every liberal web page watching his every move. He’s partisan but very accurate.

    • Vitriol sounds like a prescription narcotic, so it cannot be in the eye of the beholder as Limbaugh wouldn’t have shared any of it.

      • Cute, but not sure what a man’s drug problem has to do with his politics.
        People suffer, people do stupid, self-destructive things. Let he who is without sin….

    • This is how the left increasingly attacks its opponents, even those who are not public figures.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417155/wisconsins-shame-i-thought-it-was-home-invasion-david-french

      • GaryM makes an excellent point.

        ==> “This is how the left increasingly attacks its opponents, even those who are not public figures.”

        What he describes there is certainly is “how the left” attacks people.

        “The right” doesn’t attack people, and even if they did, they would attack people in a different and better way. Their attacks would be more moral and the product of critical reasoning.

        Because, you know…well…you know….because.

      • This is how the left is using its control of college campuses to train ‘students’ to silence the speech of those who dare dissent from progressive dogma. Not quite as effective as the jack booted efforts of the prosecutor in Wisconsin, but not a bad effort for young minds full of mush.

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417256/how-censor-speakers-college-campuses-charles-c-w-cooke

      • Joshua…if there are any cases where republicans have done anything remotely like the cases Gary has linked I’d like to hear about them. And I would be just as disgusted.

      • ‘The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see
        them lit again in our life time.’

        Edward Grey, Memoirs 1925.

        Symbolic ain’t it, Earth Day advice ter switch off the lights…

  43. The fact that Willard has to resort to cheap shots like this speaks volumes on Dr. Curry’s integrity and case for her science.

    “All that is needed for the double standard to obtain is to show that Judy’s own claims downplay uncertainty, e.g.:’

    • > speaks volumes on Dr. Curry’s integrity and case for her science.

      That’s INTEGRITY ™, jim2.

      Beware your wishes, by the way:

      DR. CURRY: The issue is what showed up in the summary for policymakers.

      DR. LINDZEN: And the press release.

      DR. CURRY: And the press release, yes.

      DR. KOONIN: That’s not science, but it’s important.

      http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

      INTEGRITY ™ – It’s not Science, but It’s Important

      • Easy to sneer. Hard to do things that require courage. Most of us…and I include myself…are cowards.

      • Not a scientific counterfactual, but an important one:

        Until U.S. and UN policy makers (and other national governments) begin to understand this [acknowledging deep uncertainty], we will continue to have gridlock on climate policy, scientists will feel the need to be advocates, climate science will be politicized, and climate scientists will play the manufactured consensus game.

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/06/06/world-bank-on-understanding-climate-uncertainty/

        When we’ll all acknowledge Mr. T, the climate problem will stop being wicked.

      • Mr T. will ‘star’ in a post later this week

      • > Mr T. will ‘star’ in a post later this week

        Good!

        Can Denizens expect something about Kim Cobb’s work any time soon?

      • A post on Kim Cobb’s research is not high on my priority list. I generally steer clear of paleo research since it is outside my expertise and the topic is well covered at Climate Audit and RealClimate.

      • > A post on Kim Cobb’s research is not high on my priority list. I generally steer clear of paleo research since it is outside my expertise […]

        Fair enough. How about a post comparing your view on climate with Isaac Held? As you said recently:

        curryja | April 9, 2015 at 9:39 am | Reply

        My view is substantially different from held’s.

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/07/draft-aps-statement-on-climate-change/#comment-691841

        This discussion might be relevant in regard to this:

        DR. HELD: Some of the questions that came through in your background document I thought were a little off, if I can be frank —

        DR. KOONIN: That’s fine. We are not experts

        DR. HELD: — in the sense that they don’t conform to my picture of how the climate system works.

        http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

      • Well, this was evident from the text of the APS workshop. Held views the climate system as ‘simple’, dominated by external forcing (similar view to Gavin Schmidt and others). I view climate as a highly complex system, with external forcing projecting onto the modes of internal variability, which I regard to be of primary importance.

      • > I view climate as a highly complex system, with external forcing projecting onto the modes of internal variability, which I regard to be of primary importance.

        Justifying why you regard this (“this” referring either to “climate as a complex system” or “the modes or internal variability”) as of primary importance might be nice. This might even clarify why you consider detection and attribution important, besides that otherwise we would not be able to detect.

        Here was Isaac’s counterpoint, which immediately follows “in the sense that they don’t conform to my picture of how the climate system works”:

        So, I have my null hypotheses. And I have been doing this for over 30 years, so I have developed a lot of hypotheses. Some of them turn out to be wrong. I don’t like this argument from complexity saying oh, it’s a chaotic system. There is all sorts — you can get a nonlinear system to do nything you want. That just doesn’t tell me anything. But whenever I look at the forced response of the climate system, it looks linear to me. And what is the best example we have of forced responses? The seasonal cycle. Seasonal cycles are remarkably linear-looking.

        Such topics might deserve more due diligence than the political putsch we’re witnessing right now about a statement that may not deserve to be parsed to death for the incoming decade by ClimateBall ™ quarterbacks, Judy.

      • I’ve written about a dozen blog posts on this general topic. Held defends his perspective over at his blog. Curry versus Held was of minor interest in context of APS debate.

      • > Curry versus Held was of minor interest in context of APS debate.

        This implies that what you consider of primary importance is of minor interest in context of the APS statement debate, Judy.

      • The argument for complexity is of primary importance, I have made this argument countless times. The issue of Curry vs Held (i.e. the personalities) is of minor interest

      • Judith –
        Held views the climate system as ‘simple’, dominated by external forcing…

        Well, not quite. Held explains:

        ” … the attribution problem – the separation of the forced change from internal variability in observations and the partitioning of this forced component into parts due to different agents such as the well-mixed greenhouse gases or aerosol – is a tough challenge…The challenge to climate change research is to increase the credibility of the forced responses that theories and models predict, and to characterize internal variability well enough to appreciate which aspects of these forced response[s] have already emerged from the background of internal variability and which are likely to emerge in the future.”

        And he goes on to explain how one might extract an “underlying simplicity” from a hierarchy of models, including those that are, in themselves, “complex, chaotic dynamical systems”.

      • See previous post ‘how simple is simple’ https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/23/how-simple-is-simple/

        Tomas Milanovic critiques Held’s essay Simplicity amidst complexity.

        I side with Tomas on this one. See my reflections
        https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/17/simplicity-amidst-complexity/

      • While not necessarily an appropriate comparison, intuitively one would think that picking correctly all the winning teams in the NCAA brackets would be easier than identifying correctly all the interrelationships of the factors influencing long term climate forecasts. After all the teams are laid out on a piece of paper and each decision is binary. Climate forecasts? The variables and interrelationships are unknowable.

        As simple as picking a perfect bracket might seem in contrast to picking the climate, the probability of doing so is 1 out of 9.2 Quintillion.

      • > intuitively one would think that picking correctly all the winning teams in the NCAA brackets would be easier than identifying correctly all the interrelationships of the factors influencing long term climate forecasts.

        Intuitively identifying all the interrelationships of these factors would be relevant if it was, an assumption which begs to be justified.

        ***

        > See previous post ‘how simple is simple’ https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/23/how-simple-is-simple/

        Thank you, Judy. So we now have a shopping list:

        First, I don’t think the seasonal cycle works very well as an argument for external forcing. […]

        Second, it is not at all clear to me that natural internal variability and forced variability are easily separable in a linear way.

        Third, a truly complex system cannot be understood as a linear superposition of individual elements (discussed in my Uncertainty Monster paper).

        Fourth, the climate response to the relatively small greenhouse forcing may well be linear, but this linear response may be swamped by the natural internal variability.

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/17/simplicity-amidst-complexity/

        The first argument is a red herring, since Isaac simply wanted to illustrate that the chaos of weather did not preclude the cycles of seasons.

        The second argument begs the question that has yet to be answered, i.e. why should we care about detection & attribution.

        The third handwaves to an essay that contains no real argument, just another another shopping list.

        The fourth applies to any kind of “vision” we’d like to have.

        This list of arguments does not explain nor justify (yet again) why “this is the heart of the scientific debate on climate change, and why the hiatus (and how long it will last) is so important.” Does “the heart of the scientific debate” really refer to a vision? Mr. T seems to be involved, but it’s not clear how.

        I guess we’ll soon see.

  44. What is going on in the deep oceans is an enigma. Anyone that thinks they understand it is delusional. There is not enough money in the world to fund the science needed to understand deep ocean processes.

    QED

    • It’s not the delusional people you have to worry about; it is the ones who lie, steal, and cheat to work their political will.

    • You know the rule, Mark: the great bulk of earth doesn’t count. Bo-ring. Deep hydrosphere? Yawn. It’s probably a heat storage. Whatever.

      The people who have persuaded us to refer to the actual climate as “internal variability” long ago dismissed those two hot balls called Earth and Sun from their computations and prognostications.

      Now, on to the hard science. Let’s talk about the behaviour of certain gases within glass receptacles.

  45. It’s great to hear from some APS members, no matter how few. This is a good idea. I hope the turnout so far will inspire others to join in.

  46. It is good to hear from other members, “While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences on the climate are growing, especially in their contribution to warming temperatures.”

    That is one suggested wording that makes much more sense. Evidence of human contributions to “climate change” sans temperature are extremely weak and the recent direct measurement of CO2 forcing of roughly 0.2 Wm-2 per decade based on 2000 to 2011 would be consistent with the lower range estimates of temperature impact and the more recent sensitivity estimates.

    What is so difficult about saying, “you know, it really isn’t as bad as we thought”?

    • Capn, What are your thoughts on climate resistance being variable with temp? Does that fit with Dallas’s tropical SST threshold hypothesis? Check out Nic Lewis’s post today on CE is you can. I posed the question to Nic here.

      • Ron, “Capn, What are your thoughts on climate resistance being variable with temp?’

        If by climate resistant you mean sensitivity, without a doubt it is temperature sensitive. Deep convection depends on convective triggering temperature which is a modeled parameter (several ways of estimating btw) and varies with actual SST. So climate “resistance” varies with temperature and if models cannot get tropical SST right, they cannot produce a reasonable estimate of “sensitivity”

      • “…models cannot get tropical SST right, they cannot produce a reasonable estimate of “sensitivity”.

        I like to think of sensitivity as the reciprocal, resistance, for visualizing a direct relationship (through cloud albedo) with Clapeyron, which being logarithmic would make resistance non-linear to temp.

        You might back me up in the likely event Nic says no. ;)

      • There is a variable resistance that increases with time. This is basically the water vapor that acts as a resistance by blocking or undoing some of the Planck response. As the oceans get warmer, there is more of it, and the ocean warming is delayed by its various overturning circulations.

      • JimD, “There is a variable resistance that increases with time. This is basically the water vapor that acts as a resistance by blocking or undoing some of the Planck response. As the oceans get warmer, there is more of it, and the ocean warming is delayed by its various overturning circulations.”

        Those various overturning circulations can have various time frames of up to 1700 years or so. Deep convection tends to punch holes in “uniform” water vapor feedback and limit the maximum amount of that feedback. If you added mass to the atmosphere, like putting a weight on a pressure cooker, you could increase the water vapor limit, but water vapor reduces the weight of a volume of air. It isn’t really the iris effect, but has a similar effect.

  47. I am disappointed by the small number of comments from ATS members.

  48. A questionnaire could have been done based on these statements with options of strongly/somewhat agree/disagree and neutral. These would be the statements that can be made into questions. Some redundancy here.
    1 – Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe.
    2 – While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.
    3 – Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing.
    4 – The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.
    5 – The connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.
    6 – To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.
    7 – The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate.

    • Overall, I somewhat agree. Questions 5 and 7 I somewhat disagree.
      8) We acknowledge that Western industrialization must be curtailed in willing countries to the extent we are not able to replace energy with perpetually sustainable sources.
      9) Reparations for harm to climate and severe weather caused by AGW must be set aside to fund the afflicted victim countries on a continual basis.
      10) There is no need to have peer reviewed studies subjected to data disclosure or review by those not of acceptable stature in the scientific community.

    • 1 – Earth’s changing climate is natural..
      2 – While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have virtually no effect
      3 – Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain we can claim with absolute certainty human influences on the climate are diminishing.
      4 – The potential consequences of climate change are overblown and the policies of the next few decades will wreck human progress for centuries.
      5 – The connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is less certain than ever.
      6 – To better run round in destructive circles, the APS urges sustained pressure in climate politics.
      7 – The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases in an effort to wreck society.

      Is that better Jim D? Certainly Fixed
      [You had some minor typo’s].

    • David Wojick

      It is loaded questions like these that make the polling data pretty useless. In any case, the one essential response option is “we do not know” because that is the central issue.

    • 1 – Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe.
      Pretty vague – critical issue? significant disruption?
      Certainly warming is slow and of a century’s magnitude that is smaller than the Holocene Climatic Optimum which lasted millenia and what is likely to occur for most of the next 100,000 years.

      2 – While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.
      More goo – ‘dominant effect’? There has been warming, likely attributable to GHG forcing, which is likely to continue, though at lower rates. But most of climate other than global average temperature remains well within the ranges of natural variability. Temperature may not be all that significant to climate. That would stand to reason because of physics since average temperature is not a term in the equations of motion of the atmosphere and it is the motion of the atmosphere that determines the events from which climate arises.

      3 – Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing.
      The cumulative radiative forcing is growing.
      The annual rate of radiative forcing peaked more than two decades ago,
      has been flat at a rate lower than the low end scenarios, and is likely falling:

      http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2015/march/global-energy-related-emissions-of-carbon-dioxide-stalled-in-2014.html

      4 – The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

      5 – The connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever.

      6 – To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.

      7 – The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate.
      There’s no evidence that the emissions or slow rate of warming are harmful.
      Making political statements effecting the economic freedom of others is not within the purview of this organization and is certainly not a matter of physics.

    • Talking of questionnaires, there is another new survey out. March 2015 item in the link below. Over half think, assuming global warming is happening, it is human caused. Clear majorities would like world action, support for developing clean energy sources, regulation of carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Many other results below.
      http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/report/climate-change-american-mind-series-spring-2015

  49. russellseitz

    When Beththeserf invokes Karl Popper:

    ‘If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want:
    we shall for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look
    away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous
    to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to
    obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in
    favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would
    have been refuted.’

    is she referring to the NIPCC report ,or denialist blogs in general?

    Either way, it’s a hard case to falsify.

    • She is referrin’ ter consensivity, per se,
      as in 97 per cent of scientists say …
      never mind complexities, predictions of
      hot spots, positive feedback, indeterminate,
      misplaced confidence that we’ve arrived
      some place certain.

  50. bedeverethewise

    I liked Brian Burke’s comment. Especially where he was speaking about this part of the APS statement:

    The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.

    Burke said, “Finally, potential consequences should be said to be “substantial” instead of “great” and policies “may” determine influences on climate. Saying “will” implies an efficacy to policy that is simply unjustified. It is unclear that any politically achievable policy is capable of having a measurable impact on temperatures.”

    This kind of thoughtful and critical look at the language points out how a professional statement should be done, with words that mean something and represents facts. The statement as it stands appears to be about marketing first with very little substance behind the words, like a second rate toothpaste advertisement.

    Having said that, I think Burke leaves too much on the table. Even a word like “may” goes too far. Given current technology and the state of the world, I would say that it is pretty clear that there are currently no politically achievable policies capable of having any measurable impact on temperatures. We need to spend a few decades inventing before we can start engineering an solution that could have a measurable impact on temperature.

  51. Geoff Sherrington

    From the draft statement – “While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.”
    I have seen zero evidence to support this contention. The numerical attribution of temperature change to man-made on one hand and natural on the other has NOT been shown.
    It has NOT even been shown that the net effect of a change in GHG will lead to a change in atmospheric temperature. This is the fundamental premise of the GHG theory.
    One can imagine that a paper giving the quantitative, useful, mathematical and physical link between the two would be the Holy Grail of climate science authors, Nobel material.
    Yet there is no such paper. That is perhaps a consequence of the problem being wicked. If there is a problem.
    Never have I seen a field that professes to be science, that is so poor in comparison with the more established ‘hard sciences’. Sure science progresses with time, but dismantling important lessons from the past is not progress. I have not seen much progress in the forms of novel concepts, innovation, invention, new laws of physics, improved statistical methods and the like. There are some positive examples, but most of the lessons from older science have been downplayed in favour of a self-referential expression ‘arm waving’.
    Arm waving as in the quote above. “While natural sources of climate variability are significant……” Significant in respect of precisely what?

    • bedeverethewise

      I can’t decide if the language used in the statement was chosen in a sloppy thoughtless manner, driven by an emotional belief system, or if they were carefully chosen in the same way a marketing team or a political speech writer would choose words. In any event, it’s not worthy of a scientific organization.

  52. I read with interest the very reasonable comments by APS members. I regret that I am not surprised by the lack of support for the former statement. Those who are empowered by keeping this gravy train on the tracks will surely avoid this discussion. Shame on them.

  53. Interesting how willing ATTP is to enter debate on political issues and organizational bias here on Climate Etc, when over on his own site he pretty soon shuts it down if it goes against alarmist catechism, claiming the topic doesn’t interest him.

    • Yes, indeed punksta. Anders is a fascist who “censors” people that disagree with him. But what can you expect? He’s a lefty!

      I mean as a “skeptic,” surely you’ve considered whether there may be reasons other than “censoring” opinions that go against his “alarmist catechism” might explain his moderation policies.

      But you’ve rejected that other explanations might be possible because….well…er….because, well…..

      …um

      …er

      ..oh, because he’s a lefty. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    • Well go on then Joshua, tell us then why he
      – shuts down any questioning of the integrity of climate science on his own site, on the grounds the integrity topic doesn’t interest him
      – suddenly shows great interest in the topic when here on CE, where unlike for visitors to his own site, he is allowed free rein to comment as he pleases.

    • Let me tell you the logical explanation: he is in the business of consensus enforcement, not science and the pursuit of truth.

      • Punksta –

        ==> “Let me tell you the logical explanation: he is in the business of consensus enforcement, not science and the pursuit of truth.”

        If only everyone could be as pure as you in their search for “truth,” eh?

        Of course, don’t let the fact that there are “skeptics” who post there regularly w/o getting moderated get in the way of your theorizing. Clearly, it must be that you’re a victim.

        Gotta be. What other explanation could there be?

      • And yet again you duck the point : why does he feign no interest in examining the integrity of climate science when it it criticised, but suddenly gets interested on CE where open debate is allowed?

        And do please provide references for these alleged cases of people questioning the integrity of climate science. I lasted only about five comments before he decided he had to silence me.

      • Punksta –

        ==> “And do please provide references for these alleged cases of people questioning the integrity of climate science. ”

        Heh.

        Methinks that kind of goal-post moving is rhetorically consistent with why your comments landed in moderation.

        There are “skeptics” who continue to post there while making scientific arguments against the “consensus” and while making arguments that differ significantly with Anders’ politics.

        Believe it or not, Punksta, you have agency. Whether you get moderated is in your hands. You are not a victim.

        Man/woman up – whichever the case may be.

        Abide by the moderation rules and engage in good faith. See what happens.

      • ========> tedious

      • ======>I forgot sophomoric

      • Punksta > please provide references for these alleged cases of people questioning the integrity of climate science.
        Josuha > no examples offered.

        Joshua > Abide by the moderation rules and engage in good faith.

        I did engage in good faith. My point is the rules and biased and so inimical to science.

      • Punksta –

        Looks like we’ve reached a dead horse situation.

    • Punksta,

      Joshua is a is one of those beings that sits under the bridge. If you catch my drift. ;)

      Andrew

    • Steven Mosher

      huh?

      Let me tell you my experience with ATTP.

      First I was a bad boy walking the line of moderation.. and yup I got moderated. its easy to
      Second I tried to stay away from the line he draws for moderation. and guess what? he allows comments that go “against ” the catechism. wonder of wonders if you follow his rules for civility you can post. seems utterly reasonable to me. I might disagree with his line or whine about the ref, but when I choose NOT to do these things everything works

      So, you can play games about the moderation.. you can bitch and moan about it, or you can go make a reasoned argument

      Here is a guide.

      1. Dont mention anyone by name
      2. Dont overgeneralize about groups or organizations.
      3. make a cogent argument.

      • not mentioning anyone by name is a good one. at CE people land in trouble when they start sniping at other commenters here

      • A good guideline. Which I followed. Still not good enough.
        His bottom line is he doesn’t want to see challenges to integrity of the profession – ie any critical discussion of the “behaviour of climate scientists” as he says.
        A bit like RealClimate’s “stick to the science” as a way of studiously ignoring the deeper issue of how the science is actually organized and executed.

      • Punksta –

        ==> “His bottom line is he doesn’t want to see challenges to integrity of the profession”

        My guess is that is probably true. Making assertions about the integrity of “the profession,” in other words, impugning the integrity of tens of thousands? of people that you’ve never met is probably inconsistent with Anders’ moderation guidelines. My guess is that he finds vapid arguments about integrity-impugning annoying.

        There are plenty o’ blogs where you can post your comments that “challenge [the] integrity” of climate scientists as a profession – this among many others. You have virtually unlimited freedom to post your devastating arguments speculating on integrity and “truth” – seeking.

        It’s your choice to determine where you want to post your comments. Be accountable for your own decisions. if you repeatedly post comments at ATTP that are inconsistent with that the blog proprietor wants on his blog, you will land in moderation. Adjust and move on. My suggestion would be to stop taking your own comments in a blog comment section too seriously.

      • Steven Mosher

        Punksta
        I recall you failing on every aspect of my guide

      • My experience was different. I was banned before I began commenting there. Of course, they didn’t want to admit it, but that’s the case.

    • Interesting how willing ATTP is to enter debate on political issues and organizational bias here on Climate Etc, when over on his own site he pretty soon shuts it down if it goes against alarmist catechism, claiming the topic doesn’t interest him.

      Do I? All I can think of is that I pointed out on this post that it’s not surprising that some APS members are unhappy with the APS statement as it’s clearly a contentious topic and, hence, it would seem impossible to please all of their 4000 members. I guess it does qualify as entering the debate, but I don’t think I do so here very often. Plus, here it’s Judith’s rules, not mine. I don’t have to follow my rules on someone else’s blog.

      • It’s good to be the king!

      • Perhaps take a leaf from these open-minded rules of Judith that you clearly enjoy ?

      • Different blogs have different dynamics – a function of the blog owner, topics, moderation rules, and the people who comment. Even after I started my own blog, I used to comment pretty regularly at Keith Kloor’s, since I liked his group of commenters. So ATTP commenting here in a different mode than on his own blog makes sense; if CE was just like ATTP, what would be the point of him coming here (we do share a few commenters).

      • Ah, so we need both open-minded blogs like CE, and narrow-minded ones like ATTP? Science needs some narrow-mindedness to progress?

      • Judith pretty much hits the nail on the head. On my blog, I have to comment and moderate. On other blogs, I just have to comment. My one rule when I comment on other blogs is don’t complain about being moderated, or banned (don’t think I’ve been banned anywhere, but I might be wrong).

        This also isn’t quite right

        His bottom line is he doesn’t want to see challenges to integrity of the profession – ie any critical discussion of the “behaviour of climate scientists” as he says.

        This isn’t quite true. If someone were to post a comment about something specific with some actual evidence, that would be okay. What I’m not interested in are discussions along the lines of “person x did something questionable, therefore all of the people who I can associate with person x lack integrity”. I work in the same environment as climate scientists and refute the idea that I’m somehow responsble for, or could be judged because of, another physicist, working in another country – or at a different institution – doing something questionable. This isn’t to suggest that I would condone it, but that still doesn’t make me responsible or make it acceptable to judge me for what someone, who I may not even know, has done.

      • so we need both open-minded blogs like CE, and narrow-minded ones like ATTP?

        Having been exposed to your views, this would seem a little ironic?

      • I won’t mention any names:

        “So ATTP commenting here in a different mode than on his own blog makes sense; if CE was just like ATTP, what would be the point of him coming here (we do share a few commenters).”

        Naive.

      • I don’t get why ATTP is at issue here. Don’t like ATTP’s fuzzy moderation rules? Don’t participate there, what else. Don’t see what Anders commenting here or anyplace else has got to do with anything.

      • Agreed, I will delete subsequent posts on this topic

      • hypocrisy

        He’s here for the same reason as the rest of them. A certain female climate scientist has strayed from the reservation and has committed the unpardonable sin of “testifying for the Republicans.” She must be discredited. Her denizens must be poked with sharp sticks. He can’t do much damage on his own blog, cause nobody reads it. I am not taking any questions. As I have decided to avoid interminable pointless discussions, especially with the trolls.

      • ATTP scores lots of points in my book for coming over here to engage with me and others; vastly preferable to just calling me a denier on twitter like some others do. He seems to enjoy the debate over here, and asks a lot of questions.

      • ATTP : My one rule when I comment on other blogs is don’t complain about being moderated

        Given that on your site there IS viewpoint moderation, and on CE there ISN’T, I find that remark rather glib.

        There is of course there is no *right* to not be moderated, and so perhaps pointless to complain. It just sticks in my craw that those who close off debate on their own turf, get to enjoy free speech elsewhere. If nothing else this egregious double-standard needs to be publicized.

      • Punksta,

        Given that on your site there IS viewpoint moderation, and on CE there ISN’T, I find that remark rather glib.

        When you pay me to run my blog, or it gets funded as some kind of public service, I might care. Since you don’t and it isn’t, I don’t.

        It just sticks in my craw that those who close off debate on their own turf, get to enjoy free speech elsewhere.If nothing else this egregious double-standard needs to be publicized.

        As I’m quite sure you will, ignoring that my blog really is mine. Of course, by your rules, I wouldn’t be allowed to comment anywhere else that doesn’t have the same moderation rules as I do, which seems remarkably restrictive and somewhat against the concept of personal freedom. It might make your remark about free speech seem somewhat ironic? As I understand it, how I chose to behave and how I choose to run my blog is decided by myself, not by some random person on the internet who chooses to go by the name “punksta”. What you’re really doing is complaining because you don’t like my moderation rules and deciding that a consequence of this is that you get to accuse me of having double standards. Anyway, this is getting silly, so I’ll leave you to your quest to highlight my supposed double standards.

      • engagement = C/moderation where C is some constant. When moderation is zero engagement is infinite. When moderation is infinite engagement is zero.

      • Given that on your site there IS viewpoint moderation, and on CE there ISN’T, I find that remark rather glib.

        I think that ATTP has in mind for his site not a forum for competing ideas but rather a place where people can learn about and exchange ideas about sound doctrine. So he excludes many (but perhaps not all) viewpoints that to him are clearly mistaken, and that he believes can only be expressed as a result of ignorance or bad faith. Such a system has many virtues, such as fewer food fights, perhaps less animosity expressed generally, and fewer people misled by artful but disingenuous arguments. The downside is that there has to be less variety in the posts. I don’t really see a conflict if ATTP comes here for a little zest. A person may want to keep strict control over those he allows into his own house but also may like to occasionally take part in the rough and tumble atmosphere elsewhere.

      • Although there might be another term in engagement that depends on the moderation of others directly. i.e. if no one is moderated engagement could go down due to getting sick of being around a lot of trash….

      • .…and Then There’s Physics | April 21, 2015 at 4:13 pm |

        When you pay me to run my blog, or it gets funded as some kind of public service, I might care. Since you don’t and it isn’t, I don’t.

        Well, surprisingly I agree with ATTP…. Much like cards blogging is “house rules”. If it is your house you set the rules.

        Like Ricky Nelson used to sing,
        “You see, you can’t please everyone, so you’ve got to please yourself. “

      • JC says: ” (we do share a few commenters).”

        And there are some we would like to share even more with ATTP :)

      • …and Then There’s Physics | April 21, 2015 at 3:04 pm | Reply

        Do I? All I can think of is that I pointed out on this post that it’s not surprising that some APS members are unhappy with the APS statement as it’s clearly a contentious topic and, hence, it would seem impossible to please all of their 4000 members.

        If Dr. Curry put a poll on the APS members thread that would let even the timid or time challenged APS members register an opinion.

      • > if no one is moderated, engagement could go down due to getting sick of being around a lot of trash…

        If eg there is uncivilty etc, of course.

        But the issue in this case, is a blanket ban on discussing a whole idea – namely, that the body of climate science as a whole is the fruit of corruption.

        His stated intention amounts to keeping the site one-sided, by keeping this off the agenda and so out of peope’s minds.

        In a word : consensus enforcement. A characteristic of consensus thinking in general – ATTP being just the example immediately to hand.

    • The integrity of the thousands climate scientists not directly implicated in Climategate and suchlike, is indeed called into question by their defeaning silence on the matter.
      The more so (a) the silence continues, and (b) attempts are made bury to the story – as by ATTP.

      • Steven Mosher

        Huh?

        I work with climate scientists all the time who decided to stay out of the climate gate mess. None of them have any integrity problems. Choosing to remain above the fray is commendable.

      • I an with Steven on this one. You wouldn’t cops, for example, to criticize other men in blue suchlike. Doctors don’t go around calling other docs quacks. Keep that stuff on QT or you will undermine confidence in your profession and it could reduce the flow of grant money. Look what it got a certain female who spoke out against the shucking and jiving. Somebody took her chair.

      • No Mosh, staying above the fray to allow injustice (in this case the corruption of science) to prosper, to is not commendable.

        As in : “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

      • Well, that’s a little off base. It’s not like the climate scientists did nothing, in response to Climategate. They circled the wagons and protected their own.

      • Steven Mosher

        “No Mosh, staying above the fray to allow injustice (in this case the corruption of science) to prosper, to is not commendable.

        As in : “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

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

        Injustice?
        Evil.?

        you have no sense of proportion. It would be nice if every scientist lined up and made a proclamation about climate gate. they won’t. That doesnt make them evil or unjust. It doesnt mean their work lacks integrity.
        I imagine some feel loyalty. I imagine some dont want to add to the personal pain. I imagine some fear that their words will be used against them ( I get that all the time.. traitor mosher), so there is a thin green line of sorts.

        When some businessman goes to jail for embezzlement we dont demand that every one in business line up and throw a symbolic stone at them.

        cop shoots an unarmed black guy.. we don’t actually line up the police and demand that they all make a statement about how horrible it is

        It’s fun on occasion to challenge folks to disown the behavior of climategate, but it’s not much more. You can always figure that silence is their way of condemning. At most it shows they have concerns that rise above the need to pile on and condemn.

      • Are they supposed to criticize the inquiries that found nothing wrong? How would they go about that? They would have to devote time into looking into everything the inquiry did. It is not as easy as that to have an opinion on what appears to be a complex situation. Many bloggers have devoted hours and hours of their time digging into every tree-ring detail. Most scientists are just not so interested to spend that much time on finding out the details well enough to make a sensible comment.

      • The low reproducibility of studies means it really doesn’t matter. Punksta, you may be running around a cul-de-sac.

        Even when science is honest it isn’t very reliable or accurate. Dishonest science can’t be much less reliable or accurate.

      • Mosher:
        It would be nice if every scientist lined up and made a proclamation about climate gate. they won’t. That doesnt make them evil or unjust. It doesnt mean their work lacks integrity.

        It makes them tolerant of corruption. Which means as a whole the discipline is therefore suspect, hence not fit for purpose (of making policy). That those who do wish it used for policy will not condemn the climategate crooks, speaks volumes.

        But yes, speaking out against your funder’s vested interest is likely going to harm your funding.

        cop shoots an unarmed black guy.. we don’t actually line up the police and demand that they all make a statement about how horrible it is

        The police hierarchy is certainly expected to comment. And apply appropriate discipline – not whitewash.

      • PA:
        Even when science is honest it isn’t very reliable or accurate. Dishonest science can’t be much less reliable or accurate

        So just accept dishonesty as part and parcel of science now??

      • Punksta | April 22, 2015 at 7:11 am |
        PA:
        Even when science is honest it isn’t very reliable or accurate. Dishonest science can’t be much less reliable or accurate

        So just accept dishonesty as part and parcel of science now??

        Only about 11%-20% of honest studies are reproducible.

        A dishonest study could be able to achieve that level of performance by luck alone.

        And yeah, since it is mostly government funded science you have to accept a certain amount of dishonesty, and assume the RFPs tone and content would solicit research to support government policy (bias by the NSF/EPA)..

      • Punksta –

        It would be nice if every scientist lined up and made a proclamation about climate gate. they won’t. That doesnt make them evil or unjust. It doesnt mean their work lacks integrity.

        It makes them tolerant of corruption. Which means as a whole the discipline is therefore suspect, hence not fit for purpose (of making policy). That those who do wish it used for policy will not condemn the climategate crooks, speaks volumes.

        You can’t be saying that the failure to issue a public statement on an issue is tantamount to tolerance of either side. Many scientists work for organizations and the issuance of a personal statement might be taken as a statement on behalf of their employer. Many scientists just don’t follow this thing all that closely, especially if this is not their area, and they have no incentive to take the time to become sufficiently knowledgeable, especially since taking a public stand on a controversial issue tends to put one in the crosshairs. I am not in the habit of releasing public statements regarding scandals affecting organizations of which I am a member. Most scientists can perhaps be excused for believing that they can safely leave the handling of this type of matter and the public statements to the organizations designed for that purpose. Do you say that they cannot?

      • @swood
        re: official coverups and silence in response to Climategate

        You can’t be saying that the failure to issue a public statement on an issue is tantamount to tolerance
        Yes I am. How else can one understand people steadfastly looking the other way? At the very least the universties and professional bodies involved – but they of course choose coverup after coverup.

        Many scientists just don’t follow this thing all that closely
        There are many climate scientists who don’t know about Climategate?? Or the coverups? I very much doubt that.

        Most scientists can perhaps be excused for believing that they can safely leave the handling of this type of matter and the public statements to the organizations designed for that purpose. Do you say that they cannot?
        They can at least say something to such organizations – especially when they see the latter doggedly failing in their duty.

        It really is difficult to avoid the conclusion that bias and corruption are built right into the fabric here, so that systemic dishonesty and events like are regarded are regarded as unexceptional, par for the course, barely worth a mention.

        Desireable even, given that all the money for climate science comes from the state, and it is the state that stands to expand itself handsomely on the back of climate alarmism. Always a good idea to follow the money in such matters.

        So that what we have is essentially an ethics-free zone, with most members falling into one of two camps
        – those who approve of this corruption since it advances their ulterior objectives (leftist/totalirian ideology, soft funding)
        – and those nervous about theit career prospects were they to speak out, as dissent is purged.

        Our hostess and her like being the rare exceptions.

      • There are many climate scientists who don’t know about Climategate?? Or the coverups? I very much doubt that.

        OK, but outside of climate scientists it would not surprise me if most scientists weren’t following this very closely and can be excused for leaving it to climate scientists to clean their own house if it needed cleaning.

        As far as the climate scientists are concerned, I am one of the ones who believe that there are some serious conflicts of interest and/or brass knuckle tactics at work here. So I think that climate scientists are open to the criticism you are making but the scientists outside of that area understand no more of this science than does the average intelligent lay person and cannot be blamed for not taking a greater interest.

        As far as the average non-climate scientist is concerned does he have a greater obligation to write public editorials than does the average non-scientist? Climategate is not the only serious public scandal of the past ten years. On how many of them should one have taken a public stand to successfully avoid the charge of tolerance?

        According to Wikipedia (definitely not a straight shooter on this topic) “Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.” This does appear to provide some cover for those not knowledgeable in this area to assume that there was good reason to believe that maybe it wasn’t so serious.

        So it seems to me that only climate scientists together with those who have taken the time to look into the matter are open to such charges.

      • Oh yes – I’m sure non-climate scientists are much less aware of how politically-driven and biased climate science is.
        And yes, climate scientists ought to be the ones to depoliticize and restore integrity to their field.
        But isn’t that like expecting a junkie to clean up his act? Far from regretting the bias, they actively rejoice in it. So wouldn’t some nudges from proper scientists* be more likely to succeed?

        * ie in disciplines where the state doesn’t have a vested interest in the findings one way or the other, and is thus not prone to make biased funding decisions so as to favour findings more in line with its vested interest.

    • The part I don’t understand is the unwillingness to discuss problems in science except with a general “yes there may be problems.” It’s a little odd because problems with Judith’s science claims are discussed often and sometimes without much civility by the usual suspects. It is not a consistent attitude, but perhaps understandable because @TP’s day job is defending science generally and I’m sure trying to give it a positive public image.

      • Steven Mosher

        well, the unwillingness stems in part from the fact that every little new thing takes on huge symbolic meaning in the debate.

        my attitude.. the mails showed some severe ethical lapses.
        The science was untouched. you address the ethical lapses by taking some firm action. you dont address the ethical lapses by asking everyone to condemn individuals.. thats more useless symbolic CRAP.

        all the ethical lapses were are around data sharing and record preservation. easy to fix. fix problems, the blame will take care of itself

      • David Young: The part I don’t understand is the unwillingness to discuss problems in science except with a general “yes there may be problems.”

        I think that would be remedied if all funded grant proposals were posted online for interested parties to read in full. Those usually contain succinct, accurate and comprehensive summaries of what is not known about certain propositions, often propositions that are assumed with great confidence in other grant proposals. Even when discussing the disputed points that are debated with great acrimony in public, but specialist, meetings, the language is generally non-inflammatory yet direct.

      • Steven Mosher: the mails showed some severe ethical lapses.
        The science was untouched.

        What was not “untouched” was public trust in some “scientific” claims confidently made in public. Trenbeth’s “travesty” comment and some other demeaning comments alerted the public to the fact that scientists were not in fact solidly supportive of comments made in public. The revealed attempts to affect the peer-review and degree-granting processes alerted the public to the possibility that the published record might be severely biased — not merely “imperfect”, but severely biased.

      • Steven Mosher

        “The revealed attempts to affect the peer-review and degree-granting processes alerted the public to the possibility that the published record might be severely biased — not merely “imperfect”, but severely biased”

        huh?

        we suspected pal review BEFORE we got the mails.
        the bogus HS was exposed BEFORE the mails

        we learned maybe one or two things wort talking about

        So severely biased? .. hardly. you keeping taking the HS seriously.
        its a side show, a diversion

      • Steven Mosher: we suspected pal review BEFORE we got the mails.
        the bogus HS was exposed BEFORE the mails

        The number of people included in that collective “we” was increased. At least by 1: I did not know about Trenbeth’s “travesty” opinion, and how it was different from public testimony; I also did not know how much criticism of Mann there was among supporters of the AGW based CO2 mitigations. I read similar comments from other people. It became more generally understood that “the science” presented in Congressional testimony was different from “the science” as perceived by the testifiers — even if “science” was unaffected.

      • Steven Mosher

        You haven’t made a case Matthew. Pal review was widely publized.. Wegman.. And ya some guys privately disagreed with mann. Therefore line people up and demand that they disavow this… Right as if that will make people open their minds and read the science.

        The only people who have standing to ask people to disavow behavior are folks who already believe in the science.. Other folks are using the ethical issues as a cover for their disbelief

      • Steven Mosher: “The only people who have standing to ask people to disavow behavior are folks who already believe in the science.. Other folks are using the ethical issues as a cover for their disbelief”

        Steven, that sounds an awfully lot like you are justifying immoral and destructive behavior because of an assumption that no one who opposes the bad behavior has clean hands. And, the source of their uncleanliness is an assumed opposition to the consensus. And, the consensus views are always represent the greatest good. So you also believe the consensus views are the least biased? Do you also believe there is good reason to be withholding publicly funded information from the public in the name of good science?

        I do not assume these are your views. I just am having trouble understanding your posture and perhaps clarification would be in order. I honestly have a high opinion of you generally.

      • Steven Mosher | April 21, 2015 at 11:16 pm |
        You haven’t made a case Matthew. Pal review was widely publized.. Wegman.. And ya some guys privately disagreed with mann. Therefore line people up and demand that they disavow this… Right as if that will make people open their minds and read the science.

        The only people who have standing to ask people to disavow behavior are folks who already believe in the science.. Other folks are using the ethical issues as a cover for their disbelief

        “Sigh”. It is too much to hope for integrity from people who accept government grants. Government corrupts everything. I have seen the enemy at close range and it is alarming and dismaying.

        But you can get balance. AGW has thrived by choking off the opposition. A Republican congress can carve off half the “climate change” funds and have an external entity – say one of the oil companies – administer the grant process. The legislation would authorize RFPs for natural climate studies, proving the IPCC is wrong, proving that more CO2 is good for the environment, proving that there isn’t a chance in hell of the ocean becoming acid, proving that CO2 can’t rise more than about 100 PPM, detailing the model failings, doing model runs with sane parameterization, and investigating the integrity of AGWers. Basically a mirror image of what is getting done with the funds now.

        I’m not sure who is right. But a fair debate is always beneficial. Ala “A private little war” we just need to make sure both side are equally armed and we might even get some real science out of it.

      • Steven Mosher: Other folks are using the ethical issues as a cover for their disbelief

        Maybe. But there are people who look at the disparity between the public confidence in some assertions and private criticism of those assertions as reason to doubt the public assertions. The emails did not harm “the science”, but they diminished public confidence in the credibility of some statements made overconfidently by some scientists. Sure there were other reasons for discrediting that overconfidence, and the emails revealed more such reasons.

      • Mosher : “The science was untouched” (by Climategate)

        Misses the larger point. It’s not just about what scientists DO research and tell us about, but what they DON’T.

        Given the revealed readiness to cheat and slant, what other avenues and data might there be, that is ignored for fear of failing to boost the official CO2/catastrophist story?

      • Mosher : “The only people who have standing to ask people to disavow behavior are folks who already believe in the science..”

        So taxpayers paying for the science, and citizens of the world likely to be affected by policy based on the science, have insufficient standing to criticize dishonesty?

        And all that “folks who already believe in the science” not disavowing dishonesty shows, is that belief in the science and dishonesty are inextricably linked.

      • I’m not sure it is entirely a science problem.

        The RFPs are bad at NSF and are worse at EPA.

        The EPA has some science grant RFPs that basically say: “We know that increasing CO2 will turn the planet into a burning hell and destroy the environment, please prove it for us” (I’m paraphrasing).

        We are getting the science that the NSF and EPA are requesting.

        Read through some of the RFPs from NSF and EPA and see if there seems to be bias or logical fallacies vs a neutral viewpoint.

  54. There aren’t many comments (6) in the “APS members comments” post. It might be the lowest for any CE post, 2 orders of magnitude below normal. The idea of the post is excellent, but the response is disappointing. What does it mean?

    • I neglected to count the number of comments embedded in the post, but the numbers are still low.

    • It means that APS members are unfamiliar with the blogosphere, may not be aware of this post, or don’t like the idea of publishing their comments here. Most likely, it means that they haven’t prepared their comments yet for the May 6 deadline. Be patient, let it play out.

      • Would it be inappropriate for you to inform the APS members of your post?

      • Well I was under the impression that the 6 who originally contacted me were distributing this somehow. I did contact the executive members of the Topical Group on Physics of Climate.

      • bedeverethewise

        I hope that more APS members show up to comment. And it will be interesting to see if anyone shows up to defend the statement. Surely a statement that speaks for the entire organization will be defended by someone.

      • Well I was under the impression that the 6 who originally contacted me were distributing this somehow.

        Might not be that easy to do unless the APS has changed its policy in this regard. From the Hal Lewis resignation letter:

        “1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate.”

      • After poking around the APS website I did find this one blog with comments enabled. I posted a “test” comment and it is awaiting moderation, so either all comments are moderated or “test” is a bad word at APS. I hope it is not the latter.

        There are no forums on the APS website, and the Newsletter that I downloaded did not have a letter to the editors section. As far as I can tell, the APS website is bullet-proof to comments. Orwellian.

        http://physicsfrontline.aps.org/2015/04/21/aps-president-responds-to-america-competes-reauthorization-act/comment-page-1/#comment-169686

      • Danny Thomas

        Sent them an e-mail just over a month ago asking for an update on the statement (prior to the updates here and earlier). Did not receive a reply, and I was as courteous as I know how.

      • On the other hand a person who is a member of the APS can access a Member Directory.

      • Actually, what it means is that you are not going to get more than a very small response.

      • I’m afraid your not going to get much of a response. There’s not much of a potential upside but great potential downside. People are learning that anything controversial on the internet can be disastrous. There are armies set to destroy anyone that sticks there head up. It takes an unusually strong and principled individual to weather the storm…like you. I hope I’m wrong though.

      • The first few comments there have set an angry tone that may be too over the top for more moderate people to want to be associated with.

  55. Curious George

    Let’s consider a General Circulation Model attempting to predict a state of the planet 57 years (500,000 hours) from now. For any semblance of accuracy, the error in a 1-hour step should then be less then be less than 1/500,000 = 0.0002%. Modelers are unusually tight-lipped regarding the accuracy. I suspect that it is nowhere near the accuracy required.

    What happened to the idea of due diligence? We are more likely to get a tirade about drowning polar bears and homeless penguins than a good estimate of a model accuracy.

  56. Got this from my source in APS:

    ********embargoed until November 15, 2015********
    to:dues paid up members American Physical Society
    fr:American Physical Society, Panel on Public Affairs,

    The Panel’s review of the draft of the Statement on Climate Change has been concluded with a very gratifying result. After careful study and consideration of our Top Five favorite comments received from our most intelligent members, we have decided to put “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.” and to repeat it four more times. We are not going to go weak kneed on the most horrendous and scary problem in the history of mankind, just because a few physicists got their knickers in a twist over a freaking word.

    That’s all folks!

    (I am only half-joking.)

    • There seem to be a couple of words left out and some formatting issues there, But that makes it seem all the more authentic to me. My janitor friend said she retrieved it from the trash.

  57. The American Chemical Society (ACS) Public Policy Statement on Climate Change is due for review in 2016, on a 3 year cycle. it would be refreshing and unprecedented for the ACS to be quite as open as the APS was (even if it was meant by some as window dressings), but a similar set of posts for the chemists would be interesting.

    • I would certainly be happy to accommodate something like this if there was interest. Note I am not an ACS member, so I would need an ‘insider’ to feed me info

      • Usually undergraduates join the ACS, so you might be able to find a local chemist or chemist-in-waiting.

  58. Who has left the circle?
    Who has joined the circle?
    At ATTP he has much bigger blogs when he lets people put up dissenting views with some factual basis.
    This leads to a mutual attack on the dissenting views which is OK as it clears the air on the science , shows which arguments are sensible and allows a comparison of said arguments.
    The level of discussion gets quite heated and some of the attacks become personal which leads to said dissenters firing back and being moderated.
    I doubt there has been much change in personnel at ATTP or Climate etc in the last few years apart from WHT going there and a number of people do both blogs.
    ATTP will occasionally disagree with a warmist view that has no science to back it.
    Joshua did give Dana a rap on the knuckles in a similar vein.
    I am sorry Don is banned and Punksta but I understand it from both sides. Better to have both meet on semi neutral territory here where Full blown attacks defeat one’s intended purpose or are sensibly moderated out.
    More people have said they have left the extreme sites to come here than I have ever heard people say[blog] that they changed their minds and went to them.

  59. My bet is that an extra 4-14 people will write on the APS site Judith has put up. My hope would be that someone from APS will also put forward the reasons for their view.
    This is unlikely as the Mann/Lewindowsky tactic is to deny debate the oxygen it needs to flourish which is best done by sitting quiet and not engaging.
    We actually need an activist excited enough to break ranks.
    AlsoiIf we get a groundswell of people prepared to stick their necks out, minimum 50, a torrent could develop.
    The time is near but not right, I fear a la Le Miserables.

    • I think you’re going to have a big problem getting what you want. Your contention that Andy Lacis had the CO2 cycle wrong is an example. Physicists don’t mind sticking out their necks, but you’re asking them to stick their necks into a guillotine. No real physicist is going to ignore the fact that currently SSTs are at near record levels after several months of being at record levels, and that land temps are nearing record levels after a year of lagging SSTs. With a current 8-month anomaly of .76C, they’re going to be very circumspect about joining claims there has been an 18-year hiatus in warming as an El Nino appears to be in the cards. Unless, of course, they are radical libertarians who also practice extreme anti-green as a religion. And see, that is a tiny little cult that looks big on internet blogs, but in realty, it’s a tiny little cult. Texas is ultra conservative and Texas has more windmills than any other state. Criticize windmills in a cowboy bar in West Texas and you will get kicked out on your butt. The extreme anti-green extreme libertarians have no base.

      And by the way, as for our exchange 3 months ago, the first quarter of 2015 was the warmest 1st quarter in the instrument record. April will be a small hiccup, but it’s onward and upward. 2015 is for the marbles, and the warmunistas are winning.

      The American congress is about to get pile driven. This is going to be fun.

      • The SST record is too short and too sketchy to hang you hat on.

        A real physicist won’t be afraid to state his or her mind unless the CAGW political inquisition is in operation. And judging by the emails, there is one.

      • JCH. I got curious because of your comment here. I believe the sat temps are the most reliable, so I used those here. The UAH global temp seems to move in concert with sea surface temps up until the pause. This deserves more study.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        What makes you suggest this, by whom, and why? “The American congress is about to get pile driven. This is going to be fun.”

      • They are telling the American public that there has been no warming in ~18 years.

        What is the rate of warming over the last 5 years?

        Why will it stop?

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        Other than a 6 month longer time frame, what is different today than last November?

      • JCH:
        I think the record SSTs have to do with the Blob in the North Pacific. What’s odd is the jet stream looks more like a La Nina jet:

        With the high stuck in one place:

        So a La Nina jet with a positive PDO, hard to reconcile unless:

        The ball which is the high pressure area is almost over the hill where it would escape, but is stuck in the basin of attraction. Funny how the diagram includes differing jet streams and high pressure areas.
        “One of the most important and mysterious events in recent climate history is the climate shift in the mid-1970s. In the northern hemisphere 500-hPa atmospheric flow the shift manifested itself as a collapse of a persistent wave-3 anomaly pattern and the emergence of a strong wave-2 pattern.”
        I believe a wave-3 anomaly gets stuck more often than a wave-2 one. When this one does get unstuck, will we see a regime change or a resumption of the current one? That’s the fun of it all. Better keep an eye on all the butterflys.

      • What causes the warm phase of the PDO? What does the warm phase of the PDO look like?

        April 1998? Nope:

        July 30, 1996? Maybe:

        August 4. 1997? Maybe:

      • What causes the warm phase of the PDO? The Pacific Ocean trying to maintain an equilibrium for its seawater. It’s trying to neither boil away nor freeze into a solid block of ice. Though its water is not sentient that does not preclude it from acting that way. In its cold phase it sends warm water North and cool water South, but not necessarily for our benefit. Perhaps it is maintaining the correct temperature for the lower latitude oceans, consistent with preserving life where it has the best chance to thrive especially during glacial periods. During a glacial, the PDO might reduce its circulation greatly preserving its warmth and keeping out cold. That would be a warm phase. So during a cool phase it may be that the ocean is cooling itself and that indirectly causes the atmosphere to cool. During a warm phase it may be that the ocean is trying to warm itself and that causes the atmosphere to warm indirectly. We can think of it as exchange between the oceans and atmosphere where everything must balance. But we then add in indirect effects such changes in clouds and water vapor. The question might not be, is the atmosphere warmer or cooler but rather what is Pacific ocean trying to do in its own interest? A slowed North Pacific gyre would show Blob like temperatures as now as less cool Northern water is being transported South. The cool waters near Japan are probably cool because Southern water is not moving North as much. If the ocean has a narrow range of acceptable temperatures it would put a lot of what it doesn’t want into the atmosphere. That’s a thousand pound entity passing everything it doesn’t want through the 1 pound entity of the atmosphere.

      • It’s unavoidable, Danny, it’s getting hotter. A bunch hotter.

        BoM just upped the odds of an El Nino. Their model array has model runs with ONI at 2.0 by the end of the summer. We’re going to be frying eggs in the shade.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        LOL! “We’re going to be frying eggs in the shade.” Not much alarmism in that, huh? I’ve not tried frying an egg in .76c. How’s that taste?
        But what does that have to do with Congress being “pile driven”? Do you really expect that to happen? Seems like a short memory if one were to look back a mere 6 months. Wishful thinking?

      • JCH – “… Congress is about to get pile driven …”

        Pile driven? The American people don’t care about AGW relative to other issues.

      • The pause has made fools out of a lot of very intelligent people.

  60. The comment by APS member Ronald Sundelin that Judith has recently posted on the parallel thread make sense but it will most likely be ignored and that the statement will stand unchanged at the end of this “consultative” period.

    • Yep, I agree with that. This is probably just a token effort, the purpose of which is to put lipstick on this pig.

  61. jim2, to your point about SST and global air temperatures:

    The Oceans function as a Thermal Energy Flywheel

    I’m speaking metaphorically, since flywheels like the one pictured above store rotational energy, and thereby maintain a steady rate, resisting episodic fluctuations. It seems that oceans have the same effect on the climate, by storing thermal energy from the sun. That’s where most of the 1.9 days of accumulated solar energy is circulating.

    In the real world, radiative heat loss is determined by the temperature differential, fixed at the top of the atmosphere by the vacuum of space, and maintained at the bottom of the atmosphere by the oceans. The surface temperatures are noisy because the water is always in motion, made chaotic by flowing over and around irregular land masses. But the oceans’ bulk keeps the temperature within a remarkably tight range over the millennia.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/the-climate-water-wheel/

  62. Judith –

    If you wanted to add a mix of relevant opinions of probable APS members on this question you could reference some of those who responded to Koonin’s WSJ article, such as Raymond T. Pierrehumbert. Maybe this would spark some response from other members.

  63. What would be the effect of the proposed APS statement? How alarmist is it?

    Let’s say that this as a 10: “CO2 is a greenhouse gas; the actions of mankind have so far contributed to a rate of warming that is not alarming, but there is much that we do not understand and we need to be circumspect since the consequences could be profound. Although there is evidence that additional CO2 emissions are beneficial, to stay on the safe side and until we know more, we should try to cut back on the emission of GHS, consistent with the goal of a prosperous economy, and continue to study the question intently.”

    Let’s say that this is 100: “Attention! There is an urgent and dire emergency facing us. Failure to heed the warnings of the IPCC at this time will most certainly doom us and our descendants to a catastrophic, unfathomable and irreversible climate calamity. Do not say that you were not warned.”

    Where between these two points does the proposed APS statement lie?

    • On the one hand there is nothing overtly alarming in this one. On the other hand they do say

      “The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate.”

      which could be seen as incorporating by reference the dire tone of the 2007 statement , which included:

      “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

      “If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

  64. verytallguy11

    Judith’s attempt to discredit the campaign against the APS statement seems to be gaining ground. Now well in to outright denial:

    The APS has been fooled by climate astrology and bribed to abandon the Second Law of Thermodynamics in favor of environmental alchemy

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/20/aps-members-comment-on-climate-change-statement/#comment-696533

    Have a read of the rest of it, it’s quite an eye-opener.

    The APS thread is turning into a quite brilliant expose of the bizarre nature of the “skeptics”. Exceptional stuff.

    • VTG, you just beat me to it.

      Bizarre.

      Judith is doing a great job in shaking the nuts out of the tree.

    • “Judith’s attempt to discredit the campaign against the APS statement seems to be gaining ground.”

      I was wondering where you were going with that, until I read further. Nice touch, verysmugguy.

    • But for every strange skeptic, there are probably 10,000 credulous truebelievers in establishment climate ‘science’. Like the two commenters just above.

    • Your comment would make sense if you could provide a justification for choosing astrology and alchemy over the second law of thermodynamics.

    • “The APS thread is turning into a quite brilliant expose of the bizarre nature of the “skeptics”. Exceptional stuff.”
      Rhetorical shaming tactic.

      • Not such a great strategy to use in the home of those you attempt to shame.

      • More typically used in a cowardly manner tossed over the fence towards those you attempt to shame while huddling with ones cronies.

      • a whole palette to choose from, try one maybe more suited:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

      • verytallguy11

        Nickels,

        A little light mockery is hardly “psychic manipulation”. Mind you, just ‘cos you’re paranoid doesn’t mean the bastards aren’t out to get you ;-)

        Thing is, the views on that thread are so bizarre it’s hard to do anything other than mock them.

        After all, you surely don’t agree with Roy Clark, do you?

      • @verytallguy11 4/23
        After all, you surely don’t agree with Roy Clark, do you?

        RE Roy Clark, Curry: 4/23 8:56 am:
        There is simply no evidence in the climate record to support any role for CO2 induced climate change or any CO2 induced increase in ‘extreme weather’. Small changes in solar flux are sufficient to heat the oceans and changes in CO2 concentration follow the ocean temperatures.

        I am in total agreement. At least as a possible explanation to why the CO2 curve lags the temperature curve in the ice cores.
        I am a geophysicist (so there).

    • Well tall guy I was just trying to help. Mocking and shaming are used better as bullying techniques, where you and your buddies attack the outsider. They don’t really have teeth when you are the outsider and are mocking those around you, it just kind of backfires.
      But carry on….

  65. It’s interesting that there haven’t yet been any comments in support of the APS statement. Given the supposedly dire nature of this problem and the supposed overwhelming consensus on the science, it seems to me that APS members should be lining up to voice their support.

    • I, for one, am disappointed in the lack of responses in the APS-only thread. As of May 9, there are only 24 comments, plus the 7 in the head post.

      Lowell Brown’s May 6 post boils down to:
      1. APS statement is too self-contradictory.
      2. Give us more money to study the problem.

      • The deadline for comments was May 6, looks like this is all the responses we will get. I think there were two barriers: few have any comfort with blogs, and difficulties of contacting large numbers of members (no society-wide email lists). If I had to guess the total number of comments received by the APS POPA, I would guess it is less than 100. And people who like the statement as is would probably have little reason to comment. It will be interesting to see what the APS decides to do with this, I think the decision to accept or not is made at a level higher than the POPA

  66. verytallguy11

    Outright dental is the gift that just keeps on giving at Judith’s ongoing attempt to discredit APS “Skeptics ”

    Almost all relevant published data indicate that the feedback is mildly negative, on several time scales. Hence the warming due to doubling CO2 will be less than 1 deg C.

    A rather fishy comment this one,  from the aptly named George Herring. 

    • verytallguy11 | April 26, 2015 at 5:21 pm | Reply
      Outright dental is the gift that just keeps on giving at Judith’s ongoing attempt to discredit APS “Skeptics ”

      Almost all relevant published data indicate that the feedback is mildly negative, on several time scales. Hence the warming due to doubling CO2 will be less than 1 deg C.

      A rather fishy comment this one, from the aptly named George Herring.

      Well, the only actual measurement is 0.2 for 22 PPM.

      That is about 2/3rd of the 5.35 ln (C/C0) IPCC formulation and 1/3 of the TSR which is 2 X 5.35 ln (C/C0).

      That would indeed be less than 1°C for a doubling since the ECS isn’t really applicable to time frames shorter than 100 years and CO2 is supposed to double according to IPCC RCP8.5 long before 2100.

      The bigger problem is the CO2 level won’t exceed 500 PPM.

      It would appear the global warmers are much deeper in an Egyptian river than the skeptics.

  67. Slartibartfarst

    I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that we probably should not beat up on the American Physical Society (APS) too much on this matter. It might be, for example, that they have arrived at the same sort of crucial existential watershed that the Roman Catholic Church had arrived at in around 325AD, when, to avoid a schism and factions forming amongst the religion’s orders, the leaders of the RC Church hatched the brilliant idea of inventing the Nicene Creed as a method for compromise and cohesion – i.e., to encourage the separate factions to stay together under the Church. It was very pragmatic.
    Whether it worked or not is history, but Christians still recite that creed today, as an affirmation of their belief in the prescribed holy dogma.
    This is arguably what any sensible religio-political group might conceive of at such crucial times.

  68. verytallguy11

    Childish libellous implications

    Short-perspective objectives like hoping to raise research funding via fraud (like manipulated series of temperature data or suitably tampered model runs) will backfire for sure, and the whole idea is anyway utterly unethical from a scientific truth-seeking perspective.

    BACKED UP BY SHOUTING SLOGANS

    Also, most of the statement text is made up of POLITICAL buzz words rather than SCIENTIFIC statements.

    is certain to convince a scientific organisation to ignore not just you, but also the whole exercise you are involved in.

    Keep up the good work Judith.

    • A “scientific organisation” in verytallguy’s view, being one that unrepentantly hides data, sabtages peer review, hides the decline, ostracizes dissenters.