by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
JC in the news
My interview on TheDailyLedger Show @oann [link]
The Brave Judith Curry: One plus the truth equals a majority [link]
Climate anger: the last refuge of the alarmists. Gina versus Judith [link]
In the news
Pollen may help clouds form, increase precipitation [link]
Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon increased between 2001 and 2004, and declined substantially thereafter [link]
Fjords are unexpected natural allies against climate change [link]
Warm oceans caused hottest Dust Bowl years in 1934/36 [link]
“Massive Rewrite” Of Maine Climate History [link]
New papers
Nonlinear Dynamics for Planet Earth: lots of nice articles in a Focus issue of Chaos, free to download [link] This is a very interesting group of papers.
New on abrupt changes: How long does it take Antarctica to notice the Northern Hemisphere is warming [link] Interesting article, but as per email discussion there are concerns about the dating of the proxies.
Sociology of science
Very good article by Oliver Geden in Nature: Climate advisors must maintain integrity [link]
Michael Mann doesn’t like Geden’s article: Scientists are being accused of pandering to politicians who want to delay action on climate [link]
Scientific American on Geden’s article [link]. It has clearly managed to upset a lot of people.
On the culture of physics -with wider implications [link]
Fixing the problem of liberal bias in social psychology [link]
New book: Climate change as social drama: [link]
Naomi Oreskes’ recent Congressional testimony [link]
Pseudoscience
New paper by Oreskes and Lewandowsky: Climatologists investigate pause because deniers seeped them, not because global warming has inexplicably paused [link]. In other words, the science is settled, so scientists should stop doing science in case it becomes unsettled
University author(s) perform somersaults to avoid accepting notion of global warming “hiatus” [link]
A more thoughtful post on this issue: Embracing scientific boundaries in flux [link]
Lukewarmers
Tamsin Edwards essay in the Guardian on Lukewarmers [link]. The comments are interesting also.
Blair King responds: On a Broader Definition of a “Lukewarmer” [link]
Reiner Grundman: How ‘Climate Skeptic’ became a bad word [link]
Maybe this explains how ‘climate skeptic’ became a bad word – Cook: “I already am a climate skeptic because skepticism is a good thing” [link]. Cook and Skeptical Science have perverted the meaning of skepticism.
…
“Warm oceans caused hottest Dust Bowl years in 1934/36”
The AMO has a major impact:
Key role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in 20th century
drought and wet periods over the Great Plains:
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/GRL.AMO.Droughts.August.26.2011.pdf
Damn it!
Can we at least phrase it ‘the same circulations that led to warm oceans led to the Dust Bowl?
The fact that Stephan Lewandowsky can somehow extract a living with his worthless “scholarship” is an affront to every minute I spend working. The fact that he is commissioned with teaching young people makes me wish for an alien invasion.
+ 100. I’ve put out telepathic appeals to Alpha Centauri, where fortunately sensible energy policies prevail. Rapid Response Unit en route!
+100.
Same point re Naomi Oreskes. At freaking Harvard yet. Makes me want to cry. Actually makes me want to start a revolution.
Well Naomi Oreskes gets funding from the National Science Foundation, doesn’t make you wonder too hard to understand why Congress wants to cut NSF social sciences.
She is why HU will not get a further dime until gone. Been explicit in writing and in person. Last three HU solicitors are having a hard time understanding that their choices have consequences.
Lewandowsky might be a worse scientist than Mann. And that’s saying a lot.
Don’t be too hard on him.
Almost everyone that has a job now works, in one way or another, for Big Brother.
Well at least Mann is a climate scientist. Lewendowsky is a phsycologist.
@fizzymagic
Actually, bias, even chronic bias and desperate need to avoid cognitive dissonance, is domain orientated. Lewandowsky’s work from a while back and outside the climate domain, seems reasonable; is also v much more mainstream and so far less edgy and high profile. For instance, a string of papers with other authors about cognitive bias effects is very useful, because all these effects can be demonstrated to exist within the climate Consensus, showing that it can only be massively biased! The series below at WUWT explains this in some detail:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/06/wrapped-in-lew-papers-the-psychology-of-climate-psychologization-part1/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/08/wrapped-in-lew-papers-the-psychology-of-climate-psychologization-part2/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/09/wrapped-in-lew-papers-the-psychology-of-climate-psychologization-part3/
The advantage of demonstrating huge Consensus bias using papers from avid promoters of CAGW, is that no-one can possibly accuse the source references of containing skeptic bias!
Yes lewandowsky’s arguments work much better against the ‘consensus’
Interesting. Your comment would seem to suggest that his research is having some kind of impact, which would then seem to make it interesting. I don’t think I’m aware of many – or any – researchers who do worthless “scholarship” and yet seem to extract such virtiolically heart-felt responses from those who object to what his research suggests. Almost seems like something worth studying in its own right.
The ‘appeal’ of lewandowsky’s research (to those that it appeals to) are the ones pushing the merchants of doubt meme and the evil skeptics (i.e. politicians and scientist/advocates). It is not a scientific appeal; in fact it provokes a strong negative reaction from other social scientists and physical scientists.
Yes, I realise. My point was more that such a negative reaction is – itself – interesting. In my experience, rubbish research is simply ignored.
This isn’t difficult to understand. Here in America, there was a wildly popular tv show called ‘Jersey Shore’ featuring a group of the most obnoxious people in existence. In normal circumstances, we would not be forced to suffer through this display of stunted development. However, due to a large population of mindless entitlement-generation trainwrecks, the entire country was saturated with images and soundbites of Snooki and Jwoww. Even President Obama gave them publicity.
The analogy here is obvious, even down to the President’s endorsement of junk science. When people can’t avoid being inundated with garbage like Lewandowsky’s narcissistic fantasies, it becomes offensive. He is the Snooki of academia.
P.S. I like how you block me on twitter for pointing out technical failures, but replied to my comment here.
A fair point, I guess. I shall not do so again, especially as I suspect the irony of your most recent comment is probably not something you’re likely to ever recognise.
Poor weary Ken Rice is so above all this. As per.
And he can see the irony that you can’t. It must be so lonely for him, being the only one who is right all the time.
Thankfully, there was an opportunity afforded me recently to vote against the likes of darling Ken.
Bye bye.
I was going to respond with “Tory scum” but I’m guessing you wouldn’t see the funny side?
“In my experience, rubbish research is simply ignored.” You have not experienced Stalin and Lysenko.
Indeed, I have not. I suspect you haven’t either?
Your comment would seem to suggest that his research is having some kind of impact, which would then seem to make it interesting.
Lewandowsky is an expert on emotional bias, so it is hardly surprising that he is attempting to use emotion (shame, in this case, trying to associate disagreement with the so-called consensus with a variety of emotionally-laden negative terms) to advance his cause.
The only problem is that it’s just not science.
…and Then There’s Physics : |“In my experience, rubbish research is simply ignored.”
Not in the field of climate science, clearly.
Rubbish science is accompanied by a big press release, which is then further distorted in the media. The skeptical blogosphere takes it apart within the week, but people only remember the distorted media reports. And the original authors keep citing their own flawed research, along with their graduate students and others working in adjacent fields who are looking for ‘impacts’ of the flawed research.
Nature Climate Change has had a particularly bad run of publishing high profile, rubbish papers.
One bit of rubbish research “ignored” by the media at large was the “97%” one. No one’s ever heard of that, I’m sure.
Dear .. and Then There’s Physics: Re our little exchange, “You have not experienced Stalin and Lysenko. Indeed, I have not. I suspect you haven’t either?”
I have. And I have survived. Treasure your limited experience. You don’t believe that devil really exists.
I stand corrected. I do think, however, that anyone who is apparently critical of the work of Stephan Lewandowsky should really avoid telling others what they believe, or what they’ve experienced. You know as little of me as I know of you.
Interesting link about “Climate Anger.” Some joke –e.g.,
“Hate hurts the hater more than the hated… [e.g.,] Consider President Obama, who has so little to crow about these days. At the White House Correspondents Dinner last month, the president used the (otherwise) lighthearted occasion to shout at those who doubt his climate-change narrative. ‘It is crazy! What about our kids? What kind of stupid, short-sided irresponsible bull…’ said the president before comedian Keegan-Michael Key jokingly cut him off.”
Judging by the first three entries (JC in the news) in response to Judith’s congressional testimony, I think it can be said that Judith Curry had a Great Week, and I’m pleased the public is finally waking up. Congratulations.
However, don’t get complacent. an anonymous quote explains why: “Never get complacent – that’s when things you do go wrong”
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
” Cook and Skeptical Science have perverted the meaning of skepticism.”
No, they have merely run a campaign using a technique of using the other side’s labels to cause confusion.
Schoolboy “smart”.
Any true skeptic running across his site will probably die laughing.
Mission accomplished.
His latest and brightest offering is an exercise in self aggrandizement that will make more people turn off him than ever.
Well at least 97% of them.
Kinda’ like Plato’s word games in ‘The Republic’
where ‘justice’ becomes defined as ‘the right
hierarchical order.’
“Maybe this explains how ‘climate skeptic’ became a bad word ”
No.
Climate skeptic is not a bad word.
Presenting the arguments in a reasoned and sensible fashion, such as you have been doing and recently super succeeded at the Senate hearing.
Presenting reasoned and sensible arguments as you have done will work in time for all people prepared to think.
I think it is literally the label ‘skeptic’. Not skepticism per se, or other labels such as contrarian etc.
I think you might find it’s polticial/ policy contrarianism and blinkered anti-environmentalism ideology trying to pass itself off as scepticism, that has turned ‘skeptic’ into an epithet.
Michael |
“I think you might find it’s political/ policy advocacy and blinkered environmentalism ideology trying to pass itself off as skepticism, ”
fixed for you.
Pro environment, but anti blaming AGW.
Change the world, fine but not under false pretenses
I think you might find it’s academic ineptitude in climate science research and publication for the last 3 decades, always trying to pass off any challenge to their various incompetences – hockey stick, paleo proxies etc CIMIP5 models etc – as being ‘contrarianism’ rather than plain old skepticism – that’s what’s led to the word skeptic being a bad word in some circles. Idiotic people have used it in the wrong context. (Skeptical Science website being Exhibit A.)
That and the blinkered chunk of the media who is reliably and unthinkingly left-wing, acting as stenographers of those incompetent academics, instead of 4th estate interrogators.
Especially good point about the media
The newest fashion is a “climate denier”.
“Pollen may help clouds form, increase precipitation”
Charles Darwin and the Royal Navy used plants to create rainfall on Ascension Isle almost 200 years ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11137903
The Geden piece has certainly brought out desperate loonies. The Mann partial reply was incomprehensible, and not just from Mann. The Sci Am piece relied just on one responder plus no real data. Hard to know how to respond, other than what part of the consensus wrong predictions do they now retract?
Judith – I’m very pleased to see the article “The Brave Judith Curry: One plus the truth equals a majority”. Well deserved shout out to you.
Pingback: Week in review – science edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement
Very good article by Oliver Geden in Nature: Climate advisors must maintain integrity [link]
“Scientific advisers should resist the temptation to be political entrepreneurs, peddling their advice by exaggerating how easy it is to transform the economy or deploy renewable technologies, for instance.”
THE IMMODERATE PUBLICITY OF SCIENCE
JAMA. 1925;84(17):1274. doi:10.1001/jama.1925.02660430032015.
The bauble of notoriety, fame and ultimately political fortune allures those whose integrity is not only questionable, but is open for purchase: grant me funds, I shall do your bidding. There is little new under the sun and climate science practitioners are but the newest crew on the block for holding out their hands for alms. Touting present and future accomplishments aims its thrust to the “peoples pockets”. Exaggeration and visionary forecasts are but borrowing from the fortune teller’s shtick. Models produce their wares, all for the task of extending the mythology. Maintaining resources is the name of the game.
True in 1925 as true today, science is distorted to substantiate the whim of its political body.
Judith Curry
I’m in moderation as a consequence of…what?
random catch, sometimes it is pretty mysterious
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Get all the climate news, not just that which the alarmists wanton to have.
Hi Prof Curry, I think there’s a typo in one of the headers – ‘Pseudoscience’
oops thx
WRT the link Pollen May Help Clouds Form, Increase Rainfall , this is a drum I’ve been beating for a while.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/14/probabilistic-estimates-of-transient-climate-sensitivity/#comment-112597
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/29/what-is-internal-variability/#comment-371906
http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/08/vitaly-khvorostyanov-responds/#comment-626366
Nice new title:
Judith Curry, “the fearless one-woman truth seeker”
I have not read “Climate change as social drama” but I love the title. So far as I can tell this massive science and policy debate is unprecedented in history. Every day I ask “what’s going to happen today?” (apologies to the Eagles) and I am seldom disappointed. But I will not be surprised if the book misses the point, by choosing sides.
Yes it looks to be a pro-CAGW book. Ironically the abstract starts off with a rhetorical trick, saying climate change is a fact, while meaning AGW or CAGW. Yet they claim to be studying the rhetoric of the debate. Speaking of which the term “consensus” used to mean CAGW is a trick, since there is no such consensus. When skeptics use this term they are unwittingly supporting the semantic scam.
“Fjords are unexpected natural allies against climate change.” Let’s put it another way: there are many natural influences on climate, including some by animals, including man. There are some grounds from historical and paleo records to suggest that these influences tend to constrain climate within fairly modest bounds.
Tamsin wrote “Widespread acceptance that humans do affect climate means we can focus on the genuine open questions in science and policy.”
Humans affect the environment, sometimes extremely.
There is a big difference between the environment and the climate and they are often confused.
Climate is the big picture, global warming, global cooling. numbers of hurricanes and tornadoes, rainfall and clouds and currents.
Humans do not and cannot affect the climate in any significant way to date. It is not that we cannot do it but like putting oxygen in the air in the first place it takes hundreds of millions of years.
We do not see it because we are so “important” but in context the number of people and their activities in the world represent a non entity in terms of scale.
Forget about CO2 being a trace gas. Humans are a minutely small trace component of the earth.
For a small comparison AGW sites promote 2 billion hydrogen bombs of heat since 1998.
In reality the “cold war” that would have decimated human kind and wrecked the planet for a millennium or more involved less than 2000 bombs.
So 2 billion extra bombs cannot even raise the temperature of the earth?
What hope a mere 7 billion microbes.
The dustbowl article said there was unusally warm oceans from Alaska to So California and at the same time off the coast of Maine. Just as we’ve had this past year. It seems like forever that we’ve waited for El Nino. It looks like it has finally struck? Blasting into Columbia, Ecuador and Peru:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.5.7.2015.gif
Has El Nino finnally arrived?
it actually rained here last night and today in SoCal with pretty good showers. Cold and overcast now.
According to NOAA, it arrived last year. That one weakened. BoM still bass it at alert.
has it at alert
The surface is about to roast.
And the satellites measurement of land is completely lost.
What a difference a few months make:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.6/to:2015/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014.6/to:2015
A month or so ago I was told right here the little down slope you’ve found was the beginning of global cooling.
I suggested it was just the seasonal cycle, and that the current heat wave would continue.
Anything else you wanna teach me?
So, a month later, you decide to use the same stoopid argument yourself
This place embraces all stupid arguments.
Over the last three months, the thermometers have the land surface at 2nd warmest in the record after an upward trend since the 2010 El Nino warmest year; the satellites have it with a steep negative over the last three months with a negative trend since 2010. Only one of them can be right. Any skeptic should be highly suspicious of the satellite result, but they are not. They tend to think the satellites are highly accurate. Given what they’re showing, it appears they are inaccurate at estimating the surface air temperature when there is an imbalance between El Nino events and La Nina events.
Well, besides the fact that you’re showing SST whilst talking about land temperatures, have you considered that they might both be ‘wrong’ – or at least not showing what you think they’re showing
The SST is backed up by other lines of evidence. The RSS scientist says RSS is not as accurate at measuring surface air temperatures as the thermometers.
So you believe that those records reflect actual temperature?
That being the case, it should be easy to point out on the graph when the highest (and lowest) temperatures ever recorded occurred.
No?
Assume that high atmospheric CO2 levels are sustained by lush and abundant biotic activity. Life forces carbon into the atmosphere. Without biotic remobilization carbon levels dwindle.
Dustbowls inhibit resuspension of condensed carbon.
Remember that atmospheric CO2 levels change much faster than global average temperature. The specific heat capacity of the ocean is enormous
Climate effects atmospheric CO2 levels by altering the distribution of life across the planet.
From the article:
39 Societies Sign Declaration: Nuclear Power Vital to Fighting Climate Change
…
The declaration urges all countries to access “the widest possible portfolio of low-carbon technologies available, including nuclear energy, in order to reduce CO2 emissions and meet other energy goals.” It further calls on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) protocols to “recognize nuclear energy as a low-low carbon energy option, and to include it in its climate funding mechanisms, as it he case for all other low-carbon energy sources.”
…
http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2015/05/04/39-societies-sign-declaration-nuclear-power-vital-to-fighting-climate-change/
Is it too little too late for those of the alarmist persuasion?
Nuclear arms proliferation Armageddon VERSUS Climate Change Apocalypse.
It makes for a nasty fight for top ‘Crisis’ threatening humanity
After having fought climate change, and won, the climate stops changing. How boring.
What climate will California have forever after? I hope it’s not drought.
“Climate Change as Social Drama”
From the blurb I’m guessing this is more patronising drek written in the most up to date academese with some pop management-speak for the common punter. Plenty of consensus insinuation, of course, via slob terms like “climate change” and “global warming”. Did you know climate change is not JUST scientific fact? Oh no, everything is much deeper than that…and this is where Aristotle comes in. Culture, doncha know.
It’s all about keeping the climate industry going, finding a niche where there’s less fatigue, a last bit of juice to wring.
Well they can go and unpack their deeper social meanings on somebody else. Or get a real job.
If pollen can contribute to increased precipitation, why then wouldn’t/couldn’t a “dust bowl” do the same? Surely particulate sizes would reach across the spectrum.
Unless something turns around pretty fast, science in the West is dead.
The only hope is for another Age of Enlightenment, but I will be dead
The only hope is for another Age of Enlightenment, but I will be dead
Well written.
Thanks, but I didn’t contribute to it either.
I fear that misery and poverty will be the only impetus
I reckon that ‘more thoughtful post’ on Lewandowsky’s latest paper about ‘seepage’ proves Lewandowsky right.
First, some definitions:
– Lewandowsky’s argument: that climate science research into the hiatus has not occurred for any reason other than ‘seepage’ from the ‘contrarians’ i.e those outside climate science consensus groups.
– hiatus: global temps are not going up by 0.2 per decade in the early decade of the 21st century as projected by IPCCAR4 in 2007 as a result of man-made CO2 emissions – we know this because CO2 emissions are off the chart and temps are static, hence ‘hiatus’ in warming.
The author of the ‘thoughtful’ post is climate scientist Sophie Lewis at Melbourne Uni. Consensusville. She writes about the the period leading up to IPCCAR5 2014:
“…many scientists countered that we never claimed that the rate of global warming would be linear, with the same increase in heat recorded in each successive decade…”
and
“But if the hiatus is so unsurprising, then why did it precipitate a blizzard of high-profile research papers?”
Wrong on both counts:
1. consensus climate scientists DID claim the rate would be linear. IPCC AR4 in 2007 – the gold standard of climate science – stated straight up that we’d get 0.2 per decade warming in the early decades of the 21st century with the man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions we’re adding to our world. ( http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/15/on-the-ar4s-projected-2cdecade-temperature-increase/ ) 0.2 per decade linear warming didn’t happen between 2007 and IPCC AR5, while man-made carbon dioxide emissions have been skyrocketing.
2. consensus climate scientists WERE surprised by the hiatus. See above.
So Lewandowsky says consensus climate scientists have only produced a bunch of hiatus papers because of ‘seepage’ about the hiatus into consensus science community from ‘contrarians’. He is right. His use of the word ‘seepage’ is a pretty transparent attempt to characterise ‘contrarian’ hiatus evidence as pollution of a pristine climate science cloistered world i.e ‘contrarian’ blogs, comments, papers, opinion articles etc are pollutants, things that are bad for you, harmful to the consensus body.
An objective word would be ‘percolate’.
Does Mr Lwandowsky have any regret for the harm he causes?
No. None of them do. Nor ever will.
I agree, the hiatus was driven by the skeptical blogosphere, and David Rose gave it a major push in the MSM
Is there any better metric on credibility or specifically the lack there of, than to reference or support Lewandowski or Cook?
I have a more valid claim to being qualified in the field of climate science than either of them.
The most recent food allergy outbreak seems to be Warmists seriously affected by American Curry.
Symptoms include frothing at the mouth, uncontrollable rage, unintelligible gibbering, and spewing vile invective.
The only treatment for those allergic to American Curry is to practice a strict regime of avoidance and denial.
It isn’t Curry it is See-Oh-Too in the air
Causing the worst outbreak of paranoid schizophrenia in recorded history
And while I’m at it.
According to the metrics used by Warmists in the past to demonstrate cause and effect, CO2 levels are rising, but temperatures are not.
Either the Warmists chose the wrong metrics due to lack of knowledge, or rising CO2 levels do not cause warming.
Time for new metrics or a new theory, maybe?
Or, the last pause was no different from others in the last 60 years, just the skeptics decided to adopt this one as a cause.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
Are you talking about the pause that is killing the cause, small jimmy?
Greenie journalist says, what everybody already knows:”This coming December, the world’s nations will gather in Paris to figure out how they will avoid dangerous climate change. To say that expectations are low is putting it mildly.”
Skeptics have to now use the past tense with pause because it has ended as you can see. Good for a few newspaper articles, I guess. Takes the mind off the 50% Arctic summer sea-ice decline of the last decade. However, hard as the skeptics tried with the distraction, the public did notice the Arctic too, and that long-term trend is still going.
“Skeptics have to now use the past tense with pause because it has ended as you can see.”
In the above, I meant to say, “INCURABLE” paranoid schizophrenia
The pause has already killed the cause, little jimmy. It’s too late for your crowd:
“This coming December, the world’s nations will gather in Paris to figure out how they will avoid dangerous climate change. To say that expectations are low is putting it mildly.”
You have labored and belabored mightily for years and years with your tedious blogathon, yet I would bet that you have turned more people against the CAGW dogma than you have converted. Probably around 40:1. Keep at it, yimmy. We are amused.
The public have shifted in the opposite direction to the denizens, and most, even in the US, now want some kind of climate action. I am trying to bring that bit of reality here, but these pockets are becoming increasingly isolated from the real world out there. It is to an extent that looks beyond hope, as they start even grasping at the CO2 emission record now, and that is a rabbit hole into their own Wonderland.
Jim D,
Is there a pause you prefer to “adopt as a cause”? Know you’re in love with since 1950, but what about since say 1700?
75% of the CO2 increase has been since 1950, so I think this is where the signal is above the noise. It would have resulted in 2/3 of the warming by the log rule. The first 1/3 was spread over more than a century, so it would have been harder to see against the background solar and volcanic effects.
You are really not doing well, jimmy. I am your only friend here. Trying to help you. Read the polls. The public are not worried about climate change. Last on the list of major worries. Fact. Now I know you are just engaging in wishful thinking, but the rest of them will think you are again being jimmy DISINGENUOUS!
Even the greenie alarmist journalists are admitting what everybody knows:”This coming December, the world’s nations will gather in Paris to figure out how they will avoid dangerous climate change. To say that expectations are low is putting it mildly.”
Jim D,
So, from time to time CO2 increases are not always accompanied by temperature increases, but only sometimes, and unpredictably.
What is the theory behind this? If the breakdown in correlation can’t be predicted, what is the point of saying rising CO2 causes rising temperature except when it doesn’t?
Are you being serious, or just having a laugh?
Jim D
I see a blossoming cottage industry in your future. It is called Rent-A-Theory. Within a decade the pause will have everybody talkin’ and scientists will be running out of excuses and they will be in the market for imaginative and unique theories on what went wrong.
I’m sure there are some Angel investors out there who can see the potential for great returns. And then comes the IPO and you ringing the bell at the NYSE. It’s all about seeing the future with clarity.
Skeptics have to now use the past tense with pause because it has ended as you can see. Good for a few newspaper articles, I guess. Takes the mind off the 50% Arctic summer sea-ice decline of the last decade. However, hard as the skeptics tried with the distraction, the public did notice the Arctic too, and that long-term trend is still going.
Arctic Sea Ice volume: Increasing for eight years.
Arctic Sea Ice Age: Increasing.
LandOcean teamperature trends near zero for the last 15 years.
Dunno.
The public have shifted in the opposite direction to the denizens, and most, even in the US, now want some kind of climate action.
There are gullible people everywhere. Thinking are more skeptical.
I am trying to bring that bit of reality here, but these pockets are becoming increasingly isolated from the real world out there. It is to an extent that looks beyond hope, as they start even grasping at the CO2 emission record now, and that is a rabbit hole into their own Wonderland.
CO2 emissions stalled – is it the peak? Could be.
Population trends indicate the low end scenario.
Exaggerating things in science has another name – lying.
Don’t be too hard on Jim D. Why can’t he have it both ways?
Jim D and hiatus lovers of all stripes,
The bottom line is that anomaly versus date plots like the one shown (and trendlines) will always be irrelevant to policy decision-making because they can not reliably predict. They inform us about the past but not about the future. This is underscored by the inability of the GCMs–where current understanding of causal aspects are incorporated into the models–to match the evolving anomaly in sufficient detail.
Don says he is Jim D’s only friend here. Well real friends try not to let friends make an a$$ out of themselves.
I have tried that with Jim, without success. So now I figure all that is left is not to make fun of him.
Jim D | May 9, 2015 at 1:44 am |
“75% of the CO2 increase has been since 1950, so I think this is where the signal is above the noise.”
? why
It would have resulted in 2/3 of the warming by the log rule.
?? why
“The first 1/3 was spread over more than a century, so it would have been harder to see against the background solar and volcanic effects”.
? why
Can you add some meaning to this comment. >100 years ,lets say 105, rest since 1950 so 65 years.
So over 170 years, your statement, all the warming that has occurred is due to AGW from CO2 increase [the time span allows natural attrition of “the background solar and volcanic effects”].
33% of warming occurred over 105 years due to the 25% CO2 increase.
66% of warming occurred over 65 years due to the 75% in C02 which fits in with some unspecified log rule?
Why did temperatures change 200, 500, 1000 , forever years in the past when humans were not producing CO2?
Does the temperature have to stay stable for you?
What temperature do you recommend?
Actually instead of 2/3 it is more like 70% of the forcing from CO2 is since 1950. That means for all the time before 1950, it is 30%, and for that after it is 70%. The majority of that 30% before 1950 would have been spread over the 100 years from 1850 to 1950, but you can go back further too. Anyway this gives you an idea of how much the rate increased, which is the signal. Before 1950, you can see some cooling periods like before 1910, and warming like 1910-1940. After 1950, cooling periods are very muted and almost flat instead. Solar activity now is like 1910, and instead of a cooling period, we only get a pause in the warming. That’s the difference made by CO2 forcing rates of change, which is eight times faster now than then.
What the public is worried about during a pause is really irrelevant. What the public will be worried about at the end 2015 will be relevant, because they are going to be pissed off about the people selling them that pause thing:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomnight.5.7.2015.gif
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/last:60/trend/plot/gistemp/last:48/trend/plot/gistemp/last:36/trend/plot/gistemp/last:24/trend/plot/gistemp/last:60"the pause gasping for air
JCH
While tasty those trend-lines in your [second] graph say nothing about the future. To extrapolate you have to assume that the model holds outside as well as inside the interval containing the data used to build it. Certainly an additional constraint when one wishes to extrapolate a mathematical modelfor the purpose of predicting future physical events is physical validity or reasonableness from the perspective of causality, e.g., the anomaly increases with CO2 and in the figure the date/time is actually a proxy for the latter.
Wanting to show a positive acceleration? That is similarly constrained by the choice of interval used. Consider this little exercise–use the same slopes to post-predict what happened in the preceding years. Does it work?
(Of course the reader has to guess that you show the linked graph in order to suggest an acceleration because you do not state what the graph means to you. Forcing people to infer the point that one wishes to make with a graphic or text is not a good idea. So put the graph up and say how it supports an assertion.)
Eventually you get close enough to the future we get to see it.
But yes, if the Chinese are coming, the KimiKamiKaze could come and save our kim</b?onos
Sixty years later, shoe-pounding Khrushchev wins – Communism buries West.
My father told me it would happen – it happened
The West seems to have been its own worst enemy in recent decades.
For those interested in examples of how the thinking process may go hilariously wrong, I do recommend the Oreskes and Lewandowsky paper.
Thanks for pointing it, Dr. Curry. It’s a gem.
The lukewarmers commenting on lukewarmers suck ballz. How about you can stay inside the realm of the theory and still have very different, viable views regarding this whole thing.
Simple line of reasoning; Uncertainty within the theory, 1-6 C. trending downwards.With this in mind the heaviness of proposed actions must stem from either the precautionary principle or political goals.
Political goals will be denied so it must be the precautionary principle.
If this is the case then the how cautious should we be is a valid arguing point (Björn Lomborg). Lots of tributaries available in this line of reasoning.
Debate their weakest point first, leaving doubt on things further upstream.
Sorry that should be the comments not the people themselves :/
Climate alarmism labored mightily and brought forth a mouse.
“Wee, sleekit, cow’rin, tim’rous beastie,
O, what a panic’s in thy breastie!” — Robert Burns,To a Mouse,
When you are interviewed or speak, what’s the harm in you saying something that I’ve heard you say numerous times over the years that “your best guess of human influence is probably about 50%”.
This may be a niggling point, but “Science of Science” might be a better heading than “Sociology of Science.” A lot of other sciences are looking at the debate, such as psychology, cognitive science, political science, economics and communication science, plus semi-sciences like policy analysis and philosophy. For example, I know next to nothing about sociology. Never took the course.
Agreed, not sure what to call this, but it tends to be a social science category, broadly defined
Science magazine calls their column’s topic the “world of science policy.”
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider
There is also the Science of Science Policy: http://www.scienceofsciencepolicy.net/
Speaking of social Dr Curry, I had hoped to carve out time last week to see if I could meet you. I was in Atlanta all week for a conference.
Could have tried Friday, but wanted to get over to SC to visit with a couple of my brothers, one of which is a Tech grad, along with two of his daughters. (per their mom at least one appears to know who you are)
Hi Tim, unfortunately I’m out west (on my sabbatical), sorry to have missed meeting you
On the name issue, given that science is a human endeavor involving lots of people, the science of science would indeed be a social science. But it leaves room for a lot of different specific social sciences.
David,
“For example, I know next to nothing about sociology. Never took the course.” I suggest you might just be experiencing it right here.
Not really Danny. Sociology is a very technical discipline, which I have seen very little of here. I do know what it looks like.
David,
Just having a giggle. No offense intended. I get a kick outta the “sociology of climate conversation” (oooooh, book title?) which often occurs.
“Sociology is the scientific study of social behaviour, including its origins, development, organization, and institutions. It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order, social disorder and social change.”
Following the British General Election the leaders of three main opposition parties have resigned due to the terrible humiliation they received at the hands of the electorate as the leaders chose to believe the opinion polls and thought the acclamation of the party faithful at their political rallies was the same as acclamation from the general public.
Anyway, The party that was in coalition with David Cameron-the Lib Dems- were reduced from over 50 MP’s to just 8. They are now looking for a party leader from the remaining MP’s. One of those being touted is none other than Norman Lamb, son of renowned Climatologist Hubert Lamb. Its a funny old world.
tonyb
See http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=0850f14f58&e=afdd0fd99c
Here’s hoping the US elections go the same way.
Politics and policy coming up later today, UK elections and US presidential candidates are the big topic (sorting thru all of this today)
Since 2008:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/192/politics-agw
Which scientist has ever said the science is settled and we should stop doing science?
Many activist scientists have said the science is settled enough to justify extreme policies. None has ever said it was settled enough to stop funding it. That is the de facto contradiction. There is also a lot of paradigm saving going on, which means not funding research that might weaken the case for CAGW.
Which scientists and what exactly are these “extreme” policies? Every credible major review I have seen indicates that we are already changing the climate and if we continue at our current rate we risk severe consequences. Based on that fact I am surprised when a scientist doesn’t see climate change as a problem that we should tackle.
Joseph,
What you refer to is opinion, not fact. Science based fact involves empirical data, not data that is produced or derived from computational models. To date you have yet to reference anything but opinion
Put another way, if the point of the research is to answer the policy question and that question has been answered then there is no point in doing further research. This is science policy 101.
How ignorant..
The point of the science is to better understand the climate. That is how it always will be. You can speculate about motivations all you want, but I can assure that more research will be done and our understanding will be clearer. I can’t think of an area of science where that isn’t the case. Can you?
Joseph, I can assure you that the only reason US climate research is getting $2.5 billion a year is to answer the policy question. As pure science it would get perhaps a tenth of that.
Joseph:
“I can’t think of an area of science where that isn’t the case. Can you?”
Yes, of course!
Climate science.
Joseph: “Which scientist has ever said the science is settled and we should stop doing science?”
Lord May, President of the Royal Society – to Roger Harrabin, BBC science correspondent – for a start.
“I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10178454
But he did not and would never say that we should stop doing climate science. The RS is a science advocacy group.
“The RS is a science advocacy group.”
Ah, but only if it’s the right sort of science!
Professor Oreskes’ written statement mentions “President Bush” re the Montreal Protocol. Actually, that would be President Reagan. Reagan’s EPA director Wm Ruckelshaus spearheaded the Protocol’s development, and Reagan signed the treaty in 1988.
But then, why would an eminent Harvard historian have to get her historical facts straight?
Hilarious confusion in the “Fjords” article, even including breakdown of carbon in their waters. Must be advanced nuclear processes going on. (A particularly interesting one is [H + B → C12 → 3He4]. See LPPhysics.com for an application.)
I’m surprised no one has commented on the Maine data rewrite article. I’m curious what people think. I thought I might see something from Mosher saying it’s irrelevant because the results match BEST, or something like that. But nothing….
jorgietom: “I’m surprised no one has commented on the Maine data rewrite article.”
I’m not.
As Steven Mosher pointed out, you have to change history in order to predict the future.
Yes, he did use the word “predict”.
It’s really pretty simple. Once you have decided the future, you adjust the past to ensure it happens. Hopefully.
At least someone commented….
Why do they tinker with land surface temperature records when it is so clear that oceans make temperature changes?
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/empirical-evidence-oceans-make-climate/
I hit the link on the Lewandowski and Oereskes article and two paragraphs into it I knew it was a mistake.
I at least knew better than to hit the Cook link.
The world needs scientific rationalism.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rolf-dieter-heuer/the-world-needs-scientific-rationalism_b_7241410.html
Consider this title from the special issue of Chaos (abstract is online for those interested, and the full pdf is available for download: Striped pattern selection by advective reaction-diffusion systems: Resilience of banded vegetation on slopes E. Siero, A. Doelman, M. B. Eppinga, J. D. M. Rademacher, M. Rietkerk, and K. Siteur
I think this illustrates where the use of chaotic dynamic systems is now, and now far they are from generally explaining or describing climate chaos. One of the articles is co-authored by Henk Dijkstra, whose books I have recommended.
How (and what) does this tell us about how far they are? This article is about vegetation. I do not see the relevance. There are several interesting articles about climate.
Oreskes paper was, of course, completely lacking in even a single creative insight, no surprise.
Bradley paper was great.
Love Geden’s quote:
“The best that scientists can hope for is ‘evidence-informed policy-making’. They are not, after all, democratically elected.”