Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

In the news

Hard to measure impact of melting ice when it doesn’t melt. AGW study on hold because of too much ice. [link] …

Greenland summer 2015 melt so far, explained @NSIDC [link]

Rapid climate change doomed mammoths rather than humans, study suggests [link]

Nuclear test 14C is almost completely gone from atmosphere [link]
Why this proves short CO2 lifetime: [link]  …

“Abrupt [natural] climate change may have rocked the cradle of civilization” [link]

Scientists find active life 2.5 km beneath the sea floor [link]

Was the global warming pause a myth? David Rose examines the evidence: [link]

Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway. [link]

X-Prize awarded for first accurate, reliable, &affordable ocean pH measurement technique [link]

New journal paper by Nick Stern on the economics of climate change since the Stern Review, commissioned 10 years ago: [link]

Tweet from Richard Betts ‏:Interesting seminar by Dick Dee of @ECMWF today. In ERA-interim reanalysis, 2014 is *not* warmest year, due to relatively cooler Antarctica.

Study: wide-ranging species will have an edge in warming seas [link]

Scientists have just documented the big role planktons play in regulating the Earth’s climate [link]

Exciting progress! Researchers have moved one step closer to a one-dose malaria cure: [link]

New papers

Multi-millennial-scale solar activity and its influences on continental tropical climate: empirical evidence of recurrent cosmic and terrestrial patterns [link]

Improved stochastic physics schemes for global weather and climate models [link]  …

New paper claims positive North Atlantic Oscillation occurs 2 years following large volcanic eruptions [link]  …

Effects of volcanism on tropical variability [link]

New paper finds drought & aridity has decreased in US from 1893-2013 [link] Statistics – where words & numbers combine to create a fresh sort of hell! Statistically Funny [link]  …

A new paper in JGR-A by Emanuel, Mann et al disagrees with Emanuel 2005 on hurricanes & clim chg [link]

Natural plankton aerosols ↑ summer “reflected solar radiation in excess of 10 W m–2 over parts of the Southern Ocean” [link]

“Local-To-Regional Landscape Drivers of Extreme Weather and Climate:Implications for Water Infrastructure Resilience [link]  …

A 20 year decline in solar photospheric magnetic fields [link]

Another excuse for ‘the pause’ – it’s a ‘blip’ from volcanoes [link]

Ocean nutrient pathways associated with the passage of a storm [link]

New paper suggests Arctic sea ice may be more resilient to global warming than previously thought: [link]

New paper finds ocean floor microorganisms produce much more CO2 than previously thought [link]  …

New paper: Warmer temperatures “counterbalance” decreased pH/”acidification”→no net effect on Arctic plankton strains [link]

Arctic and Antarctic Sea-Ice Area Index Records versus Measured and Modeled Temperature Data [link]

Impact of ocean acidification on structure of phytoplankton communities [link]

About science

Fascinating paper on peer review and physics in 1920s Britain [link]

NASA’s social media strategy is genius & kind of maddening for journalists. [link]

Climate skepticism and western conspiracies in China [link]  I find this pretty interesting since CE has a very large following of Chinese and Chinese/American atmospheric scientists [link]

Former U.N. climate chief (Pachauri) ousted from Indian think tank [link]

Politicising Scientific Research: Meanings of responsible research in the University [link]  …

Of relevance to possible/plausible: Quantifying probabilistic expressions [link]


How Academia Resembles a Drug Gang  [link]

Social networks are important source of agricultural knowledge [link]

“You can’t say that”. Mick Hume of @spikedonline on the ‘Reverse Voltaires’ [link]

24 UK professional & learned societies issue a “Climate Communique” on climate risks & opportunities ahead of @COP21: [link]  …

Environmental journalists on climate change “still profess belief in objectivity even as they reject or redefine it” [link]

Self-proclaimed experts more vulnerable to the illusion of knowledge [link]  …

Review: Conflict in the Academy: A Study in the Sociology of Intellectuals [link]

What happens when machine learning and big data replace gut instinct and human decisions? [link]

JC NOTE:  I am planning a post on Jim Hansen’s new paper, hope to have it posted sometime Monday

258 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Max Planck recognized a “conscious and intelligent Mind” directing the force that creates and sustains atoms, lives and planets . . .

    the same force that endowed humans with inalienable rights to self-governance in order to insure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”


    That is why I am confident the current totalitarian rulers of the world, BIG BROTHER is going down!

  2. Pingback: Week in review – science edition | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  3. “Local-To-Regional Landscape Drivers of Extreme Weather and Climate:Implications for Water Infrastructure Resilience [link]

    With all that warm surface water in the Pacific Ocean, many Californians are hopeful for a lot of rainfall this winter to put a dent in the record-setting drought. Such a magnificent rainfall would cause $$$ billions in damage: road and bridge washouts; dike and levee washouts; flooded farms, homes, schools and grocery stores. This happens every winter on smaller scales; just a few days ago a rare July rainfall took out a bridge on I-10. I think that California is unprepared for such a rainfall. If anyone has information to the contrary, please let me know. Such preparation has not been a priority of the Brown Administration.

  4. Look forward to the post on hansens new paper as it would be good to pin down certain people here as to the amount that Hansen believes that sea level will rise by 2100

    BTW, Hansen has been mentioned here quite a few times in the last few days. Whatever happened to A fan of more discourse?


    • Why would he stay at this hellhole?

      • I liked Fan. Always interesting and polite even if we always disagreed .
        Anyway, if it’s a hellhole what are you doing here?


      • I grew up fist fighting in 4-H in the Dakotas. I pretty much can deal with anything the abc-holes of the earth can bring.

      • Sorry, I am completely unfamiliar with that term. Is it this?



      • Yes. Although I’m sure the specifics vary from place to place.

        I’m certain, though, that in no place is fist fighting part of the official program. It’s basically about children learning the ways of a farm.

      • And, of course, he didn’t actually answer your question as to why he’s here. Only why he doesn’t run away. Not the same thing.

      • JCH

        “I grew up … in 4-H in the Dakotas.”

        Now that sounds cool…totally different from my experience. You mentioned hay and some other rural things previously. I bet there is a good story or two in there. You are still deluded about CAWG, but that’s ok.

      • David Springer

        Fanny and R.Gates both left when Curry turned on registration. Like turning on a light and watching cockroaches scatter…

    • For how long and by how much does Hansen have to keep being proven wrong before he is considered irrelevant to the climate discussion which by the way he is.

      • Good luck with that.

      • Well, he is part of the 97% consensus who are alleged to believe that CO2 is going cause us to fry like bacon..

        If the 97% claim was true, to fix climate science you would have to fire everyone and start from scratch.

        It sort of is what it is. He is about as accurate as many of his compatriots and doesn’t seem to be an outlier. There are published scientists that are less accurate than Hansen.

        The IPCC – which includes thousands of scientists – thinks the CO2 forcing is three times higher than reality. Climate science seems to have a mob mentality.

        I actually like Hansen – he is a pretty serious guy and anyone who chains himself to the White House is kind of entertaining.

    • Secret life of Jim Hansen?

  5. Hard to measure impact of melting ice when it doesn’t melt. AGW study on hold because of too much ice. [link] …

    Given the “Akademik Shokalskiy” farce this is just too funny.

    At least they didn’t rack up a $400,000 rescue bill.

  6. Regarding the tweet t from Richard Betts, here is the link to the interim data that showed that 2014 was not the warmest year on record



  7. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL050168.pdf

    This article is good but it needs to emphasize the prolonged minimum solar /volcanic climate connection( which it does not mention ), and other prolonged minimum solar climate connections such as an increase in galactic cosmic rays more clouds, a more meridional atmospheric circulation due to ozone distribution/concentration changes (which it does not do ) which all lead to cooler temperatures and more extremes .

    In addition they do not factor the relative strength of the earth’s magnetic field.

    When this is added to the context of this article I think one has a comprehensive explanation as to how the start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period may have taken place and how like then (around 1275 AD) is similar to today with perhaps a similar result taken place going forward from this point in time.

    I want to add the Wolf Solar Minimum went from 1280-1350 AD ,followed by the Sporer Minimum from 1450-1550 AD.

    This Wolf Minimum corresponding to the onset of the Little Ice Age.

    John Casey the head of the Space and Science Center, has shown through the data a prolonged minimum solar event/major volcanic eruption correlation.

    Today, I say again is very similar to 1275 AD. If prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched (similar to the Wolf Minimum) accompanied by Major Volcanic Activity I say a Little Ice Age will once again be in the making.

    Milankovitch Cycles still favoring cold N.H. summers if not more so then during the last Little Ice Age , while the Geo Magnetic Field is weaker in contrast to the last Little Ice Age.

    I would not be surprised if the next Little Ice Age comes about if the prolonged solar minimum expectations are realized in full.


    Once my low average solar parameters are attained we will see if this line of reasoning on the climate going forward is correct. I think it will be and that is the danger because mainstream keeps pushing global warming.

  8. Sunspot numbers do not matter it is much more about the solar flux number, solar wind speed and ap index.

  9. CLIMATIC THRESHOLDS -needs to be brought out and is not being addressed. The question is will any climatic thresholds be reached? Answer is unknown at present.

    This is the tie in to my previous post which is why it is going to be a wait and see game. That said the global temperature trend from this point in time on should be in a jig saw down pattern with a possible step down in temperatures if thresholds should come into the picture.

    I think prolonged minimum solar activity,increase in volcanic activity,ice feedback as a result of this, plus increases in cloud cover, a greater meridional atmospheric circulation, along with favorable Milankovitch Cycles, and a weakening geo magnetic field set up the ingredients for global cooling going forward.

    We shall see.

  10. Curious George

    Regarding carbon (C14) dating: Historically the C14 levels in the atmosphere varied, for reasons not fully understood. We have to use corrections derived from wood samples of a known age (tree-ring dated). Also the concentrations might vary locally; an excellent example is an uncertainty of a mega-explosion of Santorini volcano. Radiocarbon datings there are supposedly influenced by a strong presence of a local volcanic CO2.

  11. Mammoth extinction down to climate? Doesn’t make sense to me because mammoth habitat already included so many different climates:

    The preponderance of human feasting on mammoth remains, however, would seem to be a factor.

    • It is very important for this to be true for some under-represented peoples of North America. To challenge the climate change killed the mammoth mantra is insensitive. /sarc

      • Actually, to blame climate is racist. Everyone knows that Native Americans invented the revolutionary Clovis point and perfected group hunting of large mammals with it. Perhaps it was the warming mild climate that allowed the hunter-gatherers to relax enough to dream up one of the biggest technology advancements in the history of man.

      • Interesting that the moose survived…I guess swamps are tough places to hunt with skeeters and all…

  12. The Rose piece on Karl is a must read gem. Masterful.

    • Someone has to explain to me why the raw data is being slowly mutated into the model data and what the justification is.

      An obvious point that doesn’t seem to be grasped by some climate scientists that there can’t be significant surface warming without it showing up in the TLT satellite and radiosonde data.

      Since the satellites and the radiosondes are in close agreement – there is something suspect in the surface adjustments. Perhaps UHI is not being handled properly.

      There is pretty clearly a massive UHI effect. The peak IR from an asphalt road is up to 600 W/m2 at the latitude of Kobe Japan (Little Rock Arkansas)
      Grassland has between 180 W/m2 and negative sensible peak heat loss depending on the grass and the location.
      A Turkish study found a 4°C change between rural and urban areas from 1965 to 2006.

      • Danny Thomas

        I’m guessing it’s still covered under the ‘anthropogenic’ criteria.

      • Is this the warming pattern you expect from UHI, or does the pattern by itself effectively kill that idea?

      • Jim D | July 24, 2015 at 10:36 pm |
        Is this the warming pattern you expect from UHI, or does the pattern by itself effectively kill that idea?

        It is an interesting chart. It does illustrate that chopping down rainforest creates warming. There are the issues of accuracy and resolution so I’m not sure what it tells us.

        I’ve downloaded data from Wabash Lake A in the orange Canada region and will plot it out to see if it matches their picture. Environment Canada seems to think it is accurate.

        It seems that except for deserts and burned rainforests the tropical/subtropical area hasn’t warmed much.

      • As aside in general your map looks wrong.

        This is what I would expect (another post 1950 map).

        Perhaps someone can explain why these maps don’t show urban hot spots. Is it lack of resolution or homogenization or something else.

        The DC area show glow on a real map of post 1950 temperature change.

      • Jim D:

        It is always disappointing to me to see temp anomalies estimated with 1200 km Hansen and then mapped to a Robinson projection. Though I suppose it has the intended effect.



        Anomaly temps are not measured directly (unlike UHI). They are calculated in reference to a long-term climatology (typically 30 years).

        By utilizing 1200 km infill (or even 300 km infill, which is more defensible on a global scale), urban heat can infuence anomaly calculations over large areas (and vice versa). The most I would expect to see on a global anomaly map would be a widely dispersed residual influence, depending on the grid scale.


      • “1200 km Hansen” should be “1200 km Hansen correlation”.

      • Perhaps someone can explain why these maps don’t show urban hot spots. Is it lack of resolution or homogenization or something else.

        I ran across this image recently.

        I think what you’re after is the UDEL analysis ( I haven’t gotten familiar with it yet ). This goes to Mosher’s point about the data sets being a model, they are models of how temperatures vary in between actually observed points. The objective analysis scheme makes a difference. I ran into this doing plots for surface obs. Most schemes ( Barnes, Cressman, et. al. ) would draw contours that would violate the station value and forecasters get crazy about that. But there are schemes that treat each point as being valid, which evidently the UDEL uses and you can see hot spots and cool spots.

        Of course, if one is emotionally inclined for a particular result to occur, there is subjectivity in which ‘objective’ analysis is correct. ‘The great thing about standards is there are so many to choose from.’

      • Regarding UHI, I have no doubt it can be significant, based on the one city ( Phoenix ) that I regularly observe and that has ‘official’ reporting stations around the periphery. There are lots of ‘unofficial’ stations you can get from wunderground.com but I’m sceptical of the quality.

        However, most of the planet is ocean.

        The explanation of why temperature trends appear to decrease with height rather than increase with height as modeled probably is a reflection of this trend:

        For the last 35 years, the Eastern Pacific and the Southern Ocean have cooled, not warmed as modelled. The pattern in the Pacific ( the two warming ‘bullseyes’ with cooling around them, would seem to indicate a dynamic change of circulation ( because they lack the uniformity as modelled ). Is this dynamic shift ‘natural’? Would it have occurred anyway, regardless of CO2 forcing? Would it have occurred, but had a different intensity? Nonlinearity and uncertainty mean no one can know.

        But, I think this pattern explains why the lack of the Hot Spot.

        FWIW, here’s a GISS model for the same period:

      • Perhaps the Eastern Pacific has cooled for the last 35 years because the PDO has been going negative since around 1983.

        Something that it appears is almost impossible to get climate scientists to recognize.

        Which is why I was looking for the PDO to go positive starting around 2014 – 2017. Because on a peak-to-peak of ~40 years, its positive phase would be due to fall upon us right about then

        “But the AMO looks like it’s doing something!”

        Well, consider that it ain’t doing a damn thing. Start there. Work up to it does a little bit, and quit.

      • Turbulent Eddie:

        Ugh. Cylindrical Equidistant projection is even worse.

      • Regarding ENSO, PDO and AMO, perhaps none of them exist, at least as named, because they all include ‘O’ ( oscillation ) in their names.

        Oscillation ( ‘regular variation in magnitude or position around a central point.’ ) implies cycles and regular periods. Since there are back-to-back El Nino years and La Nina years, it would appear that neither ENSO, nor PDO, nor AMO are actually oscillations.

        ‘Fluctuation’ ( ‘an irregular rising and falling in number or amount; a variation.’ ) may be a better term.

      • FWIW, here’s a GISS model for the same period:

        TE. Let’s do a what if.

        The CO2 level has changed 61 PPM since That is 0.57 W/m2. The models will use 3 times that or 1.71 W/m2.

        So if you subtract 1.14 W/m2 or about 0.33°C from the GISS map they aren’t a lot different.

  13. The pause cause ‘volcanoes’ paper was eviscerated in 24 hours by Eschenbach. The interesting thing is that it published in the first place It is in direct conflict with all known volcanology, awrosol, and optical septh observations. Essay Blowing Smoke in eponymous ebook. And, it claims to also find what Solomon and Santer could not in two previous peer reviewed papers exploring the same hypothesis. In other words, double wrong.
    It appears climate papers are getting shlonkier as Paris approaches. Hansen’s newest SLR nonsense being an example to be chewed on hopedully next week thanks to JC. Essay and previous guest post Tipping Points.

  14. Ocean microorganisms CO2 paper. Disappointing read. Been known a long time that Archaea are the primary methanogens breaking down complex carbohydrates. Even My dairy cows know this, which is why they burp methane from their first (ruminent) stomach before chewing their cud. And that higher order carbohydrates or equivalents (cellulose, lipids) when decomposed by Archaea produce both methane and CO2. Sad when a paper unraveling the Archaea enzymatic pathways for this process gets detoured into CAGW, aka Climate Change.
    Main takeaway is how distorted published science has become thanks to the CAGW meme. Interesting microbiology and organic chemistry in this paper, then utterly polluted by global warming implications.

    • David Springer

      Do you have a chapter in a published ebook on cow burps? Enquiring minds want to know!

  15. “Self-proclaimed experts more vulnerable to the illusion of knowledge”

    You can find us here, on the WUWT, on the RC blogs, we are everywhere.

    • Danny Thomas

      So where do you stand on what you know about Hansen’s latest?

      • Danny

        I have been asking jch that all week. I hope you have better luck than me with getting a reply.


      • It has to go through peer review. I checked a few minutes ago, and there are no shredder comments. Lol. He’s assembled an impressive team of authors, and they often work with an even more impressive group of scientists. Like author Hearty, who does work with Raymo and Mitrovica.

      • Danny Thomas

        Okay. That’s fair enough. Would you be willing to offer your impressions of the impressions of those such as Mann (et al) who have commented on the offering?

      • Could someone forward copies of their emails?

      • “In that 2012 study, they reported that Greenland lost about 200 billion tons of ice per year over the seven-year study period. Assuming that rate continues, they estimated that it would take 13,000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet, resulting in at least a 21-foot rise in global sea levels.”
        .21 feet per 130 years. The link says Antarctica is losing about a 1/10 of this amount.

      • Danny Thomas

        Ragnaar & JCH,
        And it states most in in the West “As indicated by the red area in the map, most of the loss was found to be occurring in West Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea region” (http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html)
        “According to Simons, this study conclusively shows that the Antarctica ice sheet is melting, and while the study can’t prove the cause, global warming is certainly suspect. “With the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change.”

      • It seems he has backed off of the doubling time for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets being between 5 and 10 years and now think it is in the 10 to 40 year range, but closer to 10 than 40.

        Is non linear, so estimates based on current linear rates may not be supported by the evidence.

        If the current rate of sea level rise is sustained to the end of the century, it is one foot or so, but it does not take much acceleration to get to 1 meter.

        Even if it is true that the doubling rate is 10 to 15 years, it still will take a few decades to see the increase, but by the end of the century, it could be quite impressive.

        weasel words and all.

        That is my opinion just from the abstract, may take a bit longer for a deep dive.

      • Danny Thomas

        I’d actually give much credit and more respect should the uncertainty be acknowledged along with the acceptance that “THE SCIENCE” isn’t settled after all. From my view, I don’t find it settled at all.

      • If the current rate of sea level rise is sustained to the end of the century, it is one foot or so, but it does not take much acceleration to get to 1 meter.


        The IPCC only claims 1 meter from 1900 from what I can tell.

        But what the heck lets compute a 1 meter rise from 2000.

        The current sea level rise is 3.0 mm/y (the high end satellite number). The 0.3 mm of virtual sea level rise (GIA) is being ignored because it is virtual.

        3.0 mm *100 is 0.3 m. That leaves 0.7 m to account for. We will assume constant acceleration because it is better to be consistent than to be right.

        0.7 m in 85 years requires an acceleration of 0.194 mm/y2 or 1.94 mm/D2 (per decade per decade). In 2025 the sea level rise would have to be 4.94 mm/y. In 2100 the rate would be 20 mm/y (6.7 times higher than today).

        To me that doesn’t seem likely.

      • Starting with 1 mm/yr which we can attribute to the polar glaciers, you can get to a meter in 85 years with a 15-year doubling time of their melt rate and 5 meters with a 10-year doubling time.

      • JCH,
        are you implying that you believe the SL rise max will be just 1.2m above the 1700 level (only ~1 meter above current) in 2100 as the worst case? That is what the 1700-2100 graph you posted without commentary would indicate? Pretty mild considering the stuff “alarmists” are predicting!

      • I think it’s the current IPCC take on it.

      • Is your prediction the same as the SL rise on the graph you presented?

      • People who think SLR will be nonlinear cannot make predictions on 2100.

        There is no means for doing so.

        In the past in similar conditions they seem to agree SLR increased by 6 meters and up.

      • Are you going with 6+ meters or the 1 meter IPCC prediction? It is not a question about what other people think/believe. I have indicated what I believe on Climate, Etc and in my posting on the web. Since you are giving out plots, etc, and thus, presumably, indicate that you are top of it all to data/scenarios/etc, I am asking what you think it will be.

      • JCH,
        I’ll check for your 6+ or 1 meter answer in the morning, so yo have plenty of time to decide. I’m off to get a good night’s sleep.

      • I think it is going to be nonlinear.

      • JCH,
        I take it you are trying to be as evasive as possible. “Non-linear” actually has “down-turn” possibilities; although they do not seem to be considered in all of the hoopla. The SL was 115m lower 20K years ago and could return to that level in some x*10K years. “Non-linear” trend advocates seem to be favoring 4m and up (a range of possibilities) in 85 years. Are you in that camp? Or in one that says “I don’t have the foggiest idea of what it is going to be”?

      • You’re like Tony.

        Paleo seems to be resting on 6 meters being the minimal SLR in similar climatic conditions.

        Physicists cannot estimate how quickly the ice sheets will melt, but you expect me to. Lol.

        Meanwhile, Dutton hints that physicists are working very hard to quantify dynamic ice collapse. Some of that is in the IPCC graph. As their work comes in, sometimes the number gets a lot bigger and sometimes it gets a little smaller.

      • JCH mentioned Jerry X. Mitrovica a while back (without links: bad JCH). However, at his web site I found Collapse of polar ice sheets during the stage 11 interglacial Raymo, M., and Mitrovica, J.X., Nature, 483, 453-456, 2012:

        Contentious observations of Pleistocene shoreline features on the tectonically stable islands of Bermuda and the Bahamas have suggested that sea level about 400,000 years ago was more than 20 metres higher than it is today[1, 2, 3, 4]. Geochronologic and geomorphic evidence indicates that these features formed during interglacial marine isotope stage (MIS) 11, an unusually long interval of warmth during the ice age[1, 2, 3, 4]. Previous work has advanced two divergent hypotheses for these shoreline features: first, significant melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, in addition to the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Sheet[1, 2, 3]; or second, emplacement by a mega-tsunami during MIS 11 (ref. 4, 5). Here we show that the elevations of these features are corrected downwards by ~10 metres when we account for post-glacial crustal subsidence of these sites over the course of the anomalously long interglacial. On the basis of this correction, we estimate that eustatic sea level rose to ~6–13 m above the present-day value in the second half of MIS 11. This suggests that both the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed during the protracted warm period while changes in the volume of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet were relatively minor, thereby resolving the long-standing controversy over the stability of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet during MIS 11.

        Their Figure 3(Predicted relative sea-level changes across the model MIS 11 interglacial) shows what I estimate by eye to have been 10 meters rise in about 2000 years.

        This is equivalent to 5mm/year. Obviously, the relationship between prior inter-glacial temperature fields and the evolution of “the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet” cannot be used as a predictive analogy for the present day. Last time I looked at the energy requirements for melting all that ice, IIRC it seemed small compared to warming, but it seems likely that there would be quite a bit of inertia.

        4 meters in 80 years (i.e. by 2100) would require an average 5cm/year, 10 times that proposed rate for melting during “the model MIS 11 interglacial”.

        This would seem like a reasonable upper bound for plausible “non-linear” sea-level rise, at least for policy purposes. Highly(?) unlikely but not impossible (from what’s known today).

        4 meters by 2100 would hardly be a “catastrophe” “It’s not a problem; it’s an opportunity!”

      • 1 meter by 2100 and 6-9 meters overall, eventually if we do not reduce emissions soon.

        Seems to me uncertainty is all over Hansen’s new paper, with the uncertainty in the doubling times for ice loss from the ice sheets, giving an uncertain prediction of when sea level will rise by several meters, either before 2100, about 2100 or as late as 2200.

        How the boulders got to the top of the Bahamas is interesting though.

    • The reaction to his paper has not been universally favourable.i note Trenberth intends to have a piece in the conversation next week about the hiatus.

      Hopefully Judith can bookmark it for the next week in review.


    • “rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.”

      “They do not seem at all realistic to me.”

      “There are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies,” Trenberth wrote.

      • My hero Kevin Trenberth is now everybody’s hero. The genuineness of it warms my heart.

      • I have corresponded with Trenberth. He seems a reasonable peron.


      • He’s been slimed to death by skeptics. Who are you trying to kid?

      • Like some, for instance, accused him of violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which, well, absurd. There were a couple of us here who defended him against that smear.

      • You have a very strange idea of sceptics. We dont all go round sliming scientists.

        And it’s not as if warmists never slime people such as lindzen or spencer.


      • My hero Kevin Trenberth is now everybody’s hero. The genuineness of it warms my heart.

        Cynics have no heroes.

        I just like the cat fight.

      • “peron” as in he argen ini? My keyboard gives out misprin s, too. Go a real s icky ” “. On he issue of “more s udies” I am reminded of many skep ics who indica e ha some medical effor s are no o find a cure for a disease, bu o look for a cure. I suspec here will be lo s of looking af er Paree.

      • On the other hand, if you judge by the company one keeps…

      • I hope that’s not environmentally unfriendly bottled water on their table. And surely those can’t be throwaway cups?


      • Danny Thomas

        Plastic bottles?

      • Oh sure; Trenberth has somebody even more alarmist than he is to shelter him from charges of extremism/alarmism. But Just because Hansen is worse doesn’t make him a hero. He’s still perverting science for the sake of his political agenda, even if he isn’t quite as extreme at it as Hansen.

      • When Trenberth was continuing his search for the missing heat the more extreme Hansen said there was no missing heat.

      • Oh sure; Trenberth has somebody even more alarmist than he is to shelter him from charges of extremism/alarmism. But Just because Hansen is worse doesn’t make him a hero. He’s still perverting science for the sake of his political agenda, even if he isn’t quite as extreme at it as Hansen.

        It will be interesting to see if it’s as bad as Trenberth’s comments make out.

        But that’s the thing – Hansen ran to the press before the paper was even public. And there’s not likely to be a headline on how the paper is a joke ( ‘not to be taken seriously’ ). So, for riling up the public, mission accomplished. And evermore reason for cynicism.

      • AK: Oh sure; Trenberth has somebody even more alarmist than he is to shelter him from charges of extremism/alarmism.

        Trenberth is a more interesting case than that. While he generally supports a degree of alarmism, he repeatedly draws attention to the inadequacies of the evidence and arguments, and undercuts the extremist claims by Hansen, Mann and others.

    • Mann believes in the AMO; I don’t.

    • Both Hansen and Arrhenius’ initial work are based on finding the absolute maximum possible impact of CO2. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but when you shoot for a maximum, you cannot assume a Gaussian probability distribution around a worst case estimate. Well, you can if you have some other motivations, but not if you are curious about what the future might actually hold.

      • When you have observations that the Antarctic and Greenland melt rates have doubled in the last ten years and now contribute to half the sea-level rise rate, you can take that as evidence of an accelerating process, and it is better than ignoring it completely or assuming some kind of recovery which goes against expectations. In another ten years these could dominate the sea-level rise rate.

      • Danny Thomas

        Um. W/r/t Antarctica I don’t think it can fall into the “settled” arena. It’s just not acting as was “projected” and indeed volcanic activity most certainly is playing a role in what “melting” is occurring. Then one should consider the whole area coverage portion, eh? Grace should help with understanding in the future, but don’t think we’re at the point we can say there’s much understanding of in now.

      • GRACE shows this so far. Open to interpretation I guess.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        I understand that Grace is indicating mass loss, but does not measure extent. Additionally, to what level does Grace differentiate ice loss due to volcanic activity vs. alternatives? I’m not aware that it does hence the reasoning behind my comment.

      • In terms of W/m2, the volcanic effect is a small one compared to CO2, but you can believe what you want.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Would you care to back up your assertion with links and references? I’m referring specifically to Western Antarctica so wondering why your assertion would have differing impacts on two regionally relatively physically close areas. But I suppose you can believe what you want (I’ve heard that somewhere).
        “The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is the largest of Antarctica’s ice sheets, and has a very different behaviour to its counterparts. Its dynamics and geography are distinctive, and the East Antarctic Ice Sheet behemoth warrants a closer look in its own right.”

        ” The West Antarctic Ice Sheet (the WAIS) is capable of rapid change as it is a marine ice sheet and therefore could be unstable. ”
        “Combined with geothermal heating at the base, this is sufficient to allow glaciers to slide rapidly:”

      • It is very easy to find articles like this that debunk the geothermal idea. It’s just quantitative, so skeptics won’t be having any of it, of course. It’s the warmer oceans that cause the ice sheets to collapse, not volcanoes.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,

        From your offering: ““If you want to understand how the glaciers are changing, you can’t just look at the ice, you can’t just look at the climate system, you can’t just look at the geology, you have to look at the whole picture,” he said.”
        And: “While this form of geothermal heating does contribute to glacial melting, it does not necessarily mean “climate alarmism has suffered yet another devastating setback.”
        And: “According to Schroeder, Rignot’s paper, and another that came out in May, show that warm oceans are currently the main cause of glacier loss at the edge of the ice.”

        So please tell me how this answers my questions about Grace and Antarctica (or even only West Antarctica).

        It appears from your response that ‘you believe what you want to believe’, and I believe what the authors of your offering states in that you have to look at the entire picture.

      • I thought you were asking about volcanoes, or did you give up on that?

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Can you say “geo” and “thermal”?
        “3. Where Is Geothermal Energy Found?

        What does geothermal energy look like? Some visible features of geothermal energy are volcanoes, hot springs, geysers, and fumaroles.”

        But I’m guessing that maybe, just maybe, you’re aware of this already.

        I’ll remind you of the initial question here: “Additionally, to what level does Grace differentiate ice loss due to volcanic activity vs. alternatives?” https://judithcurry.com/2015/07/24/week-in-review-science-edition-14/#comment-720608

        So to address your question, yes, I’m still on volcanoes and how you perceive that Grace can differentiate from mass loss due to volcanic activity (including geothermal) and alternatives.

      • So, I gave you this article before where it said (apart from the title itself), “”It is true that there are active volcanoes in West Antarctica, and so there may have been some local changes, but in most cases, at most times, volcanoes are not erupting under the ice,” Richard Alley, a geologist at Penn State, told VICE News. “This paper is exciting for modelers and geologists who focus on Antarctica, but it doesn’t tell you anything about why the ice is now thinning.”
        The oceans are more important in the process which why the ice shelves are collapsing at a regular rate. There is a mechanism where the fresh melt water on top is aiding this too.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Fine. But, do volcanoes have to erupt to generate heat via contact with glaciers, and or heating water and generating melting of sea ice. And, can Grace be of benefit in differentiation?

        You specifically stated “n terms of W/m2, the volcanic effect is a small one compared to CO2, but you can believe what you want.”

        I ask again for substantiation of this assertion. I don’t find that it exists. Heck, we just discovered the undersea/ice volcanoes a few years ago (as I understand it)!

      • Some time ago when this came up before I found a reference that geothermal forcing below Antarctica was tenths of a W/m2 and it wasn’t clear it had changed much recently either. Meanwhile CO2 forcing increases globally by this amount every decade, so as an energy input, geothermal is not a big player. You can that it is the warm water around Antarctica just by the way the ice shelves are collapsing. This is not volcanoes.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Well, I guess you can believe what you want to believe. Grace doesn’t work well with sea ice (asserted by you). Sea ice extent has gained (to what mass level?) to the chagrin of IPCC who projected differently. Volcanic activity is being recently ‘discovered’ (and who knows if fully understood as well as it’s impacts?). We aren’t discussing ‘global’ Antarctica, we’re discussion regional Antarctica. So the assertion that it’s the hot wat dun it I can buy, but the source of the hot and it’s causes and effects in no way fall in the category of “settled”.

        And why you chose to put forth a chart of the Grace readings makes no sense if you yourself are not comfortable with it’s application w/r/t total ice extent in Antarctica (land and sea). Guess it’s time to move along now.

      • There’s a good physics reasons why GRACE doesn’t see sea-ice changes. Clue: the density isn’t much different from water and it displaces its own mass. GRACE shows you what matters which is how much land ice goes to sea level elsewhere. Maybe that aspect doesn’t matter to you, but most people are concerned. Hansen has a whole paper on this that is receiving attention.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        Sounds like you’re a committed Hansonite and that all science associated with Antarctica is known to you (or as far as you’re concerned). Guess it is all settled after all, eh? No reason for further study there?

      • JimD, “In another ten years these could dominate the sea-level rise rate.”

        In another ten year frogs could evolve wings. Greenland’s melt has a lot to do with albedo and weather patterns. In the past few years Greenland has actually had a fairly dramatic deceleration of melt.

      • Jimd

        Like many aspects of climate science our knowledge of certain things is often exaggerated and ice melts falls into that category.

        It was only five years ago that the met office ran an advert saying this was a very new science and our knowledge of it was very limited. They were looking for an expert to join their team and better quantify how much melt Was coming from both poles

        I would also point out that the two warmest consecutive decades in Greenland are the 1930″‘s and 1940’s. We will have to wait until 2021 to see if the current periods beat it.


      • But then there is this recent report. I wouldn’t get too comfortable about Greenland.

      • JimD, I believe the DMI data is just about as current as you can find. It shows both the “speed up” mentioned in your link and the “slow down” not mentioned.

      • Well, I can notice a trend.

      • JimD, I 12 years long enough for a “statistically significant” trend?

        It could be that from 1945 to 1990 that there was a different trend. I just noticed there is a downward trend in my checking account!! Oh wait, I paid the rent. Never mind.

        But seriously though, I believe that James the Hansen mentioned at one time that black carbon could be more significant that he had previously thought. Before you jump on killing coal, organic carbon can also be “black” carbon. Jason “I am retiring to Greenland” Box among others have done studies of albedo change impacts on melt.


        Since the darkened ice melts faster you would have acceleration during any melt period. If enough clean snow accumulates, you have a deceleration of melt. If you don’t want melt, you don’t want dirty snow. If temperature alone is driving the melt, the dirt don’t matter.

      • The volcanos may not be brand new ones. If not, it appears a lot of ice accumulated around the volcanos, so maybe the volcanos cannot reduce the ice by themselves. To do that may require a warmer ocean.

      • Danny Thomas


        And maybe you’re a unicorn?

        Have you heard that there are times when volcanoes are active and times when they are not, having nothing to do with surrounding land temps or surrounding water temps?

        Once again, I suggest that it’s a bit premature to place Antarctica in the “settled” science file. A few to many ‘may’/’maybes’ wouldn’t you say?
        But someone did suggest to me that “you can believe what you want”.


      • captd, yes, increased forest fires like in Alaska and Canada now are a feedback effect via the black carbon that they produce. It’s not all coal, for sure.

      • It’s not new, either.

      • Here’s a longer depiction of Earth’s ice. A longer period is better since it puts things in perspective. Anyway, 30 years or more is supposedly required to detect a climate tread. Personally, I think 300 is much better.

      • Danny Thomas: I understand that Grace is indicating mass loss, but does not measure extent.

        That is a puzzle, isn’t it? What theory supports the simultaneous loss of mass and increase in areal extent?

      • Jim D: Well, I can notice a trend.

        That’s a short-term decline in an oscillatory process that has periodicities of multiples of decades. Any time series shorter than 100 years is inadequate to judge whether anything new is happening. Ignorance of long-term variability in the processes producing climate has been a plague in this field from its inception.

      • Sea ice changes don’t show up in gravity changes measured by GRACE. The mass loss is the glacier ice that has gone elsewhere, i.e. towards global sea level.

      • The sea-level change rate in the last 30 years has been twice the average rate of the 20th century, and it is largely this type of change that you need to account for that. It is a leading cause and it is not stopping but accelerating with the reason why being fairly obvious.

      • Look at the IPCC report. Rate of the sea level rise for the past two decades was equal to or smaller than rates in the 1930’s.

      • As with the warming, this sea-level rise has been on top of that and twice as much.

      • Look at the IPCC report. Rate of the sea level rise for the past two decades was equal to or smaller than rates in the 1930’s.

      • As with the pause, it is just wiggle-ology.

      • Jch

        Your graphic is comparing apples with oranges. The tide gauges measure coastal locations the satellite data doesn’t measure to the coast.


      • Actually, this is the graph:

      • Danny Thomas

        Looking at that graph makes me wonder if Chambers isn’t on to something w/r/t a 60 year sea level cycle? Know you’re all in on Hay, but who knows……………?

      • Nobody has ever placed it in the settled science file. Well, there is one that says “Cold as H, Settled”.

      • Matt, a simple decrease in accumulation in the interior. Last ivory would cause ice to spend out over time.

      • Plasticity would cause ice to spread out over time.

        I also think plasticity and pressure affect the dissolution of gasses in ice giving us the implausible low and stable CO2 concentrations in ice bubbles.

      • Danny – well, I think Chambers is also all in on Hay. As for cycles, I see a lot of evidence there for the PDO and ACO2, and none for the AMO and magic.

      • Danny Thomas

        I never asserted “magic” so not sure your reasoning for bringing that up.

        What makes you comfortable that Chambers is also all in on the Hay work?

      • Until an accurate accounting is made of the contribution from groundwater
        abstraction/impoundment factors nothing can be concluded. This had a
        net negative impact on the rate several decades ago. In more recent decades it is a net positive. There were some excellent graphs depicting this on other posts recently. Also, the millions of acres of land paved over in the last century have expedited precipitation coursing back to the oceans . Loss of groundwater recharge areas is going to have an ever growing detrimental effect on society. It is only in the early stages.

      • Yes, I put up the best one. It hit net zero in 2105, and will be progressively positive going forward. Unless we build some damn dams.

        And the work continues to point to the same thing: acceleration.

      • JCH – is this the non-linear acceleration in the sea level rise that you are touting with the data plot you posted? Differentiate the eq for the rate of increase.

      • First term is power of 2 (corrected in the version when the figure is clicked on)

      • JCH

        You have sent the posse after the wrong bandido, pardner. If groundwater abstraction is partly responsible for the new rate of rise then all the extrapolations assuming that CO2 is the culprit in the acceleration of SLR are incorrect. And if groundwater abstraction is part of the problem then the conventional solution involving CO2 is also misguided. No longer can the focus be only on OHC and glacial melt, including and excluding Antarctica and Greenland. Addressing the increase in groundwater abstraction requires new approaches for combating SLR.

      • Cerescokid.

        On another post I asked: Anyone have any info on the rise of the floors of the oceans? Joel Williams | July 21, 2015 at 1:32 pm | Reply

        The intent of that Q was to point out the need for an absolute measure of BOTH land and sea levels to determine what is actually being affected.

        I received a big “Good gawd… read Mitrovica. If you think they missed something that erases the problem, think again. ” from JCH

        Vaughan Pratt | July 21, 2015 at 11:41 pm | Noted in response to a posting by @RS: Changes in land height are usually much greater than changes in sea level at most locations
        that “Hardly surprising given that height of anything is measured with respect to sea level.”

        Seems folks need to pay attention and be on the lookout for “sink holes”. Lots of water (fresh ALMOST ubiquitously), gas, oil being pumped out of the ground.

        So, there needs to be an absolute measure of land and sea levels, if there is to be a separation of effects. But JCH seems to think all bases are covered.

      • Steven Mosher

        JimD, I 12 years long enough for a “statistically significant” trend?

        STUPID question.

      • Re land vs sea movement measurement – CNN (a big pusher of the extreme rise in sea level and the dreaded +2C) posts 1-4 feet by 2100. The land under Washington DC is going to sink 6″ by then. Quote: “The area is going through what geologists call a “forebulge collapse,” also known as the reason for many of Washington’s foreseeable geological woes. During the last ice age, a mile-high ice sheet pushed the land under the Chesapeake Bay region up. When the ice sheet melted 20,000 years ago, the bulging land began to settle back down.”


        At least there is some acknowledgement that both can and do happen. 1-4 feet ! is a bit of a come down from the dreaded 1-5 meters that is being tossed around.

  16. Exciting progress! Researchers have moved one step closer to a one-dose malaria cure: [link]

    One of the truisms of medical science is that “breakthroughs” many times do not outlast their press release. The science of the human organism is as complex as climate science. Like an onion, peeling back one layer only reveals yet another layer. Prognostications of the future are as doomed to failure as the current crop of Modelers and evidence modifying observers.

    I don’t want to dismiss the Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation providing financial backing to research that would otherwise go wanting in the current climate of National Science Foundation and National Institute of Health priorities. Developing drugs and screening compounds that may be effective with high throughput methods requires the Patients of Job for all the blind alleys encountered.

    However, studying drugs which target proteins for reproduction, even in that of the parasite Plasmodium may have far ranging ramifications in humans. The human organism is reproducing in many and varied ways all the time from the gut, the immune system to the brain. The impact on the parasite may not be the only one that is relevant.

    In spite of my trepidation regarding drug impacts on children, I am disposed to the philosophy of Admiral Farragut “Damn the Torpedoes, Full Speed Ahead particularly in the face of the genocide inflicted upon Sub-Sahara African Children by Rachel Carson and her distorted science editorial book: Silent Spring. 1/2 million Sub-Sahara children killed each year from malaria. Un-imaginable numbers of mothers grieving for their loss of their child every year.

    Silent Spring: Rachel Carson, a story picked up and pursued by environmentalists, sentenced more children to death that all the ovens in Auschwitz , the Soviet Empire’s Red Rule, and China’s Great Leap Forward.

    So, full speed ahead to find a silver bullet, though the unknown unknowns are many and diverse and will be encountered over time.

    • My Dad survived malignant tertian malaria. It’s very interesting how the military came to have the drug that saved him.

      He caught malaria after months of spraying DDT all over their seaplane base and the jungle around it. They drenched their uniforms and their bedding and their tents with it. They took DDT showers.

      Silent Spring was picked up by everybody.

      • “He caught malaria after months of spraying DDT all over their seaplane base and the jungle around it. They drenched their uniforms and their bedding and their tents with it. They took DDT showers.”

        Sounds like and over reaction to a poorly understood threat.

      • JCH

        I am glad your dad survived malaria. Most likely the parasite was Plasmodium falciparum, one with many complications and is lethal, especially to children causing cerebral accesses.

        In the USA, malaria was endemic and in major part eliminated by the nineteenth Century drug, DDT, aerial sprayed until malaria was eliminated from the US by the 1940’s. Most people in the US now alive do not remember malaria and its toll on the human condition. Only tales from long gone general practitioners seem to be left to be remembered.

        The “science” of the effects of DDT on eagle eggs does not seem to have survived the test of time. Of course, indiscriminate use of most powerful and useful drugs can have bad outcomes. Rules do need to be thought through and monitored once implemented. Its just the application of a global ban that had the effect of sentencing millions of children to death, which continues as I write. And the crunchy granola crowd, the same concerned citizens, doctors and scientists are worried about school children spreading a pat of butter on their bread. What a contrast in priorities. Do these crusaders realized their vehement exhortations have a downside?

      • of course the parasite accesses the brain but the word that I had meant was: abscess; as in cerebral abscess.

      • So you think Charles Broley was wrong?

  17. –snip–

    The Fifth Assessment Report six years later admitted this has not been happening: since 1998, it revealed, the increase, at 0.05C per decade, has only been a quarter as great.


    Dan David Rose get through an article without spinning it that when climate scientists speak of the full range of data, they are “admitting” something?

  18. Two interesting talks about antibiotic resistance, both of which make reference to climate change:

    The first speaker talks of taxing antibiotic use in a way that’s similar to the idea of taxing carbon emissions.

  19. Related to plankton:
    Cascading top-down effects of changing oceanic predator abundances
    Are the ocean Eco-systems predator or bottom up driven? It seems top down situations are being identified while most thought is with bottom up control. There’s a lack of data. We hear it’s climate change, when another species population changes. It might be changes in commercial fishing harvests. By controlling to the point of collapsing fisheries of the top species on the food chain, we might be controlling phytoplankton.

  20. Hard ter measure the impact of melting ice when it
    doesn’t melt… Deja vu all over agin. Last Wednesday,
    ice breaker research vessel CCGS Amundsen on its
    way ter Hudson Bay re-routed ter rescue ships stuck
    in ice..

    Hard ter measure melting ice when yer stuck in it.
    December, 2013, Chris Turney Climate Change
    Expedition stuck in ice in the Antarctic.


    • Interesting that Mawson didn’t have any parking problems in Commonwealth Bay.

      • Would yr care ter elaborate, moso?

      • I’m just sayin’ that Mawson got about better than Turney. Maybe there was less ice back then, or maybe Mawson wasn’t so surprised by ice in the Antarctic.

        For once I’ll quote Wiki. From their list of Antarctic expeditions:
        ‘2013−14 — Chris Turney led an expedition, entitled “Spirit of Mawson”, aimed at highlighting the decline in sea ice due to climate change. The expedition was abandoned when its Russian ship became stuck in unusually large amounts of sea ice.’


    • +1 “December, 2013, Chris Turney Climate Change
      Expedition stuck in ice in the Antarctic”

      Too funny! You can’t make that stuff up! :)

  21. “Why this proves short CO2 lifetime”

    That refers to the Gösta Pettersson paper from a couple of years ago. When Dr. Pettersson gave the blog-post version, his conclusion was disputed in comments from Ferdinand Engelbeen, Willis Eschenbach, and others.

    Christopher Monckton then penned a post in which he championed Dr. Petterson’s position. Since the ensuing discussion became rather confused, I wrote a post setting forth the mathematical bases for both sides.

    My Fig. 2 depicted the model on which Petterson’s position was based, and my Fig. 1 depicted what I saw as the opponents’ model. Viewed in light of my post and in particular my Fig. 2, what I consider the best explanation is Ferdinand Engelbeen’s first comment in response. I commend that comment and those of his that followed to the attention of anyone interested in the issue.

  22. The latest Stern look:

    The two defining challenges of this century are overcoming poverty and managing climate change.

    It’s comforting to know that we’ve eliminate war for the rest of this century…

  23. > David Rose examines the evidence: […]

    I thought David interpreted the interpretations.

    • blueice2hotsea

      Just another damn meta-commenter, right? How to ever get to the bottom of it all. /sarc off

      • > Just another damn meta-commenter, right?

        Blue’s self-reflection will never cease to amaze.

      • blueice2hotsea

        You were known as a master meta-commenter before ever arriving at Climate, etc. Your style is rhetoric, semantics and kindness – thought by some, not me, to be worth more than a thousand truths!

    • Yup

      David examines the evidence and then interprets the interpretations.

      He is a conscientious, experienced and knowledgeable reporter and all in all he does a good job.


      • Which evidence does David examines, TonyB?

        Speaking of conscientiousness:

        The Observer’s position was strongly influenced by Rose’s reporting. Though others warned that his sources should not be trusted, Rose’s articles for the paper uncritically reported the claims made by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Chalabi later admitted that they were incorrect.


      • Tony –

        What do you think of David’s repeated pattern of characterizing what scientists say about evidence as “admissions” when it serves his rhetorical purpose in doing so?

        “Skeptics” often complain about what they considered to be biased reporting – that is slanted to serve an agenda. Regardless of the accuracy of those claims, it would seem that “skeptics” should not be supportive of reporting about climate change that is clearly slanted.

        Judith is on record as justifying Rose’s slant as a way of balancing out what she considers to be reporting that is slanted in the opposite direction. Do you go along with her reasoning there?

        IMO – it is perfectly reasonable for “skeptics” to expect scientists to discuss the full range of uncertainty in the evidence. However, it then seems to me to be counterproductive if “skeptics” then go along with playing rhetorical tricks with scientists’ discussion of uncertainty.

      • Why didn’t you highlight the bit where Rose admitted he had got things wrong as regards Iraq, as did the UK Govt?

        David Wrote for the Guardian some years ago and very recently so they cant think he is that bad can they?

        Here is a fairer summary of him and his career


        He isn’t going to get 10 out of 10 but he does pretty well, all in all..


      • The article by David Rose is a well written and fair comparison of recent findings. I find it interesting that he notes a contrary article by a respected scientist in a prestigious journal would go unmentioned in the MSM, while the alarmist findings were trumpeted all over the place. Curious that! It gives me pause…

      • Joshua

        ‘Admissions, sources said, it was revealed, it is understood,’ etc etc etc.

        Those are purely phrases used every day in UK newspapers for all sorts of stories.


    • Just wait till Don gets back…you’ll be sorry….:)

  24. Dr. Veronica Nieves of CalTech publishes in peer-reviewed paywalled prestigious serious science journal SCIENCE that the pause is real. The science is settled so I’m walking away from the table. “Your winnings, sir,” he says as he places the laurel about my neck. “One more game”, plead the warmunistas, hoping to win back some of their credibility. They were hoping the world would end in fire and riot, but now they will trudge home for a bowl of humble pie

    • Over at Sou’s is this extraordinary story that Peter Wadhams, accomplished Arctic Scientist, believes he was targeted by a denier death squad


      I provide a non pay walled link to the full story a few comments down


      • I find this topic fascinating:


        A friend of mine was absolutely convinced that the CIA was after her and that they talked to her through her car radio. I was so shocked I didn’t know what to say, she looked so normal. Eventually she got medical treatment for the auditory hallucinations and she is doing very well. You would never guess if you met her.

      • Seems Wadhams believes his attempted murder was carried out by a hit squad financed by oil companies



      • I’m an old tech support guy and we have a saying: “If you hear the sound of pounding hooves, assume horses and not zebras.”

        I think someone is assuming zebras.

        From your link:

        ‘Wadhams was criticised recently after a report contradicted his prediction that Arctic ice was melting at an alarming rate. The study states that the total volume of ice had increased by 40% in 2013. However, Wadhams maintains his claim that the Arctic could be without ice by the end of this summer.

        The professor said there were just four people in the UK, including himself who were “leaders on ice thickness in the Arctic”.

        Those he named all died in 2013. Professor Laxon died after falling down stairs at a New Year’s Eve party, while Dr Katharine Giles was killed in a cycling accident with a lorry. Police reports state that Dr Tim Boyd died after being struck by lightning while walking in Scotland.

        According to Wadhams: “It seems to me to be too bizarre to be accidental but each individual incident looks accidental, which may mean it’s been made to look accidental.”

        Fiona Strawbridge, Professor Laxon’s partner dismissed these claims as those of “ridiculous conspiracy theorists”.

        She called it an “appalling tragedy and it’s really not helped by these ludicrous theories”.’

        I’m curious how the fossil fuel cabal can strike their political enemies with lightning and make it look like an accident. Now that is a trick I would like to learn, but just for treetops and tall antennas. ;)

      • I’m curious how the fossil fuel cabal can strike their political enemies with lightning and make it look like an accident.

        Maybe it’s a demonic conspiracy. Maybe the whole “global warming” thing is a demonic conspiracy, and these “melting ice” nuts were making “global warming” look too silly.

      • It can happen very quickly from taking certain antibiotics. Very rare. Not a reason to not take them, but something doctors need to know. It resolves soon after the antibiotic is withdrawn.

      • Curious George

        They should engage Prof. Lewandowsky, a conspiracy expert. He would prove that Prof. Wadhams is actually a climate skeptic.

  25. Read about this fine scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab! Sadly, the MSM ignores her paper that the hiatus lives – it is mentioned for the first time in Daved Roses article. She even used NOAA’s data! Maybe they don’t like the idea of a woman rocking the boat in the rising waters of global warming ( lets use the real word, shall we boys). Other than Judith and her Stadium Wave coauthor I don’t see too many women in this cub scout pack: Schmidt, Hansen, Mann, Lindzin, yada yada yada…


    • David Rose is a good investigative reporter.


      • Maybe he’ll tell Justin how many women co-authors helped write Hansen’s latest paper.

      • Maybe, but

        If you don’t understand that the error in the measurement of the global trend in temperature varies inversely with the length of the period studied, you have no business commenting on the pause.

    • Nieves work received attention and is well summarized here.
      This work was related to how warming is accumulating below the surface, especially in the Pacific, and has no reliance the surface buoy data because they are looking at the volume heating in Argo.

    • richardswarthout


      Nieves’ paper appears to be related to the following:

      Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years

      Rosenthal et al (2013)


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


      • So, one paper says the hiatus lives, the other says OHC is increasing because of global warming…meh

        Life goes on…

      • richardswarthout


        The “global warming” description is a minor conjecture, two words in a paper that had to shock the consensus. The highlight of the paper is that the intermediate waters (100-900m) of the Indian-Pacific are warming, as confirmed by Nieves, but during the MWP those same waters were warmer than today. The paper also concludes, using ocean flow evidence, that the intermediate waters of the area represent the entire Pacific at that depth.


  26. “Was the global warming pause a myth? David Rose examines the evidence”

    This is freakin’ hilarious. First, notice the past tense. “Was” the pause a myth. So the pause that was denied to even have existed for 15 years, then was acknowledged after about 18 years, is now in the past because we have the makings of an El Nino. So much for weather not being climate.

    And I’m sorry, the consensus spent that 15 years adjusting their data, cherry picking their start and end dates, and arguing over data sets, before finally waiving the white flag on their science denial that their own reported temps were not showing a statistically significant increase in surface temps, aka global average temperature.

    Funny, there has been all this warming going on unabated, and yet the geniuses at Climate Science ‘R Us couldn’t find it. Why was Trenberth looking for the missing heat if it wasn’t missing? If the heat was already right there,and they couldn’t find it, why should we believe anything they say. (Spoiler alert – we shouldn’t.)

    Globalclimatewarmingchange stopped being science in that congressional hearing room in 1988. This drivel is just post modern propaganda.

    • “Overall, the ocean is still absorbing extra heat,” said Willis, an oceanographer at JPL. “But the top couple of layers of the ocean exchange heat easily and can keep it away from the surface for ten years or so because of natural cycles. In the long run, the planet is still warming.”

      I’m just a person of average intelligence, but I think this stuff is just too hard for you to understand.

      • Does that mean that Trenberth hasn’t been searching for the missing heat? Or that the MET Office and NASA have not acknowledged the hiatus/pause? Or are you just a science denier?

        Whatever your intellectual insecurities may be, surely your intellect is sufficient to read what the consensus scientists themselves have been saying the last 3-4 years. Perhaps you could focus your razor wit on explaining their acceptance of the pause in their own “GAT” data, rather than worrying about my level of understanding?

      • JCH
        You mentioned fist fighting in the Dakotas. Based on some of your comments, I’m wondering if you confused that with getting too close behind one of those infamous Dakota mules. They sure pack a wallop. More than one good man ended up dingee for the rest of their days.

      • I saw very few mules in the Dakotas. Are they famous for that? I don’t think so. My Great Grandfather raised mules in Missouri. He had two of the biggest mules ever raised, and they were shown at some sort of world’s fair. I actually have a photograph of them. Between Missouri mules (known for it) and English breeds, he became rich. He sold English bulls all over the American West.

        The Dakotas have very large fields and short growing seasons, so tractors caught on very early there. Steamers.

  27. On the new Hansen paper:

    “One of them — Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research — strongly criticized the study, saying that ‘there are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies.’”


    Now if he could just get his head around the fact that that is true of globalclimatewarmingchange in its entirety, he would be a real scientist.

    • Is this strong criticism?

      “I strongly agree with some of the conclusions with regard to the need for immediate actions to reduce emissions…”

      • “… but it seems that this study has gone out of its way to make the case, stretching credibility.”

        Funny how you left that bit out

  28. Here’s a “slider” that allows one to compare two different month/year drought conditions. Just pick the time and move the slider with your mouse or finger.


  29. From the article:

    Three scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims

    Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams suspects the deaths of the three scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence


    • it’s the stress jim or then again it could be that 10-20% are just plain nutz just like the general population.

    • Unfortunate and we have respect for the deceased.

      However, the causes of death would appear to be quite explainable and witnessed by others?

      Professor laxon fell down a flight of stairs at a New year’s Eve party at a house in Essex

      while Dr Giles died when she was in collision with a lorry when cycling to work in London.

      Dr Boyd is thought to have been struck by lightning while walking in Scotland.

      It’s also a reminder that ‘global warming’ is relatively safe, while regular daily life is quite treacherous indeed.

  30. The GWPF report linked by Rose has Hughes basically saying “The lesson is that no study should rely upon trends over selected short periods of time to make claims about a series with as much variability over time as global temperatures.” While he was trying to say that Karl et al can’t claim significance for their adjustment, he also showed that the “hiatus” is within past natural variability itself, and doesn’t satisfy any significance test of being more than just another fluctuation on a background trend. It is basically an own goal on the hiatus.

    • JimD, “It is basically an own goal on the hiatus.”

      If Rose had defined the “hiatus” you would be right, however, Rose defined the “plateau” or “pause” in his article and that “plateau” or “pause” relates to Hadley Center / Met Office projections and products. If you want to kill the “pause” find a Met Office “projection” that agrees with the Hadley Center “product”.

      The “Hiatus”, “Standstill” whatever, have different possible definitions but generally are related to the lower than “projected” rate of warming not dependent on any particular “product”.

      “This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
      But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
      ‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.”

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html#ixzz3gwFrVm74
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      • Hughes suggest that the hiatus is not statistically significant. Things that aren’t significant are not worth discussing in a climate change context because they are in the noise. It fluctuated to a hiatus and just as easily has now fluctuated back to the long-term trend.

      • JimD, “Things that aren’t significant are not worth discussing in a climate change context because they are in the noise.”

        I agree completely, the “hiatus” is not statistically significant and neither is the “global warming”.

      • The long-term trend is statistically significant because, being long-term makes it very robust. Hughes had that part too, but did not emphasize it for some reason.

      • JimD, “The long-term trend is statistically significant because, being long-term makes it very robust. ”

        That “long term trend” is about 0.6 C per century +/- a touch and appears to be about 300 years long.

      • According to Hughes and everyone, the 62-year trend is over 1 C per century, and is different from zero by several standard deviations.

      • I didn’t cherry pick a time. How does the 62 year trend compare with the 162 year trend and say the 92 year trends?

      • The last 62-year trend is larger than those other trends, and the 30-year trend has been about 50% more than the 62-year trend (1950-2012) steadily for the last few decades. This shows a trend in the trend.

      • JimD, “The last 62-year trend is larger than those other trends, and the 30-year trend has been about 50% more than the 62-year trend (1950-2012) steadily for the last few decades. This shows a trend in the trend.”

        If you allow for that long term secular trend you get a “sensitivity” to CO2 equivalent only of about 1C per doubling. Don’t allow for that trend you get about 1.65C per doubling. The longer this “less than project” rate of warming continues, the lower sensitivity will become. The lower sensitivity becomes the less likely Demon Carbon is your silver bullet.

      • The trend since 1950 supports 2 C per doubling as a TCR. Recently land alone has been warming at nearer 4 C per doubling.

      • JimD, “The trend since 1950 supports 2 C per doubling as a TCR. ”

        It supports 1.0 C better and that “land” is pretty complicated. 60S-60N is getting to be real popular.

      • 1 C per doubling only accounts for half the temperature rise.

      • JimD, “1 C per doubling only accounts for half the temperature rise.”

        Yep. The warming with respect to the secular trend would have it’s own feedback. Now if you want to assume it is all CO2 all the time you get into the “worst” case estimate which would mean you have to skew your probability curve. Unless of course you have an agenda.

      • The “secular” trend is forced, and there is an imbalance left over as evidence that it is far from done yet.

      • JimD, “The “secular” trend is forced, and there is an imbalance left over as evidence that it is far from done yet.”

        Probably, but you don’t know that or if it is, what might be forcing it. You don’t know what “normal” optical depth should be or what the “normal” surface temperature should be with enough accuracy to be of much help. If you assume that all away and put it on CO2 you have again skewed you error probability. Assume it is all CO2 you have about 4C maximum for the 60S-60N part of the globe. I believe James Annan and Jules Hargreaves would support that 4C limit.

      • captd, if you go along with even the likes of Lewis and Monckton, at least 80% of the forcing is CO2, with most of the rest due to other GHGs minus aerosols. The inescapable logical conclusion is that since the forcing is manmade and all the warming so far is still short of the forcing, because of the remaining imbalance, all the warming and more to come is manmade.

      • JimD, btw, whatever isn’t CO2 should get roughly the same amplification unless of course it is related to NH glacial retreat which would have a larger amplification. That MWP being a “regional” thing is kind of interesting because that particular region has a larger amplification.

      • JimD, “. The inescapable logical conclusion is that since the forcing is manmade and all the warming so far is still short of the forcing, because of the remaining imbalance, all the warming and more to come is manmade.”

        That “inescapable” logic requires a number of “worst” case assumptions that tend to skew the error probability. Now that is “inescapable”. The rate of Ocean Heat Uptake and its SH dominance should indicate a precessional forcing that wasn’t very well considered. That OHC increase is also consistent with the secular trend.

        Now if you ignore contrary evidence, you are again skewing the error probability and at some point motivations will start being considered. If you decide to pick just the worst cases, you need to cut off the fat tails.

      • What there is of precessional forcing favors Greenland ice, and we know how that is working out. Clearly other factors are dominating the forcing change at this time, and as I mentioned even some famous skeptics know what they are.

      • JimD, “What there is of precessional forcing favors Greenland ice, and we know how that is working out.”

        Yes, it does favor increasing NH ice and increasing SH ocean heat uptake. However, no we do not know how that is working out. Man is pretty good at getting rid of ice so we don’t know what a zero human influenced climate might be. If you neglect those other human impacts you are again skewing the CO2 portion. CO2 makes a convenient reference but it isn’t magic.

      • OK, you are saying GHGs are not the dominant anthropogenic forcing, and you appear to be very certain of that. I and actual science won’t convince you otherwise.

      • JimD, “OK, you are saying GHGs are not the dominant anthropogenic forcing, and you appear to be very certain of that.”

        I am saying that GHGs are the only well known anthropogentic forcing which provides a reference, ~1 C per doubling. Anything thing other than CO2 would have about the same amplification as CO2 equivalent gases except for land use changes in the NH higher latitudes which should have a higher amplification.

        So basically, anything you are wrong about is multiplied. The models indicate there are a number of things wrong so they are worse than you think. Now if you grossly overestimate your impact then try to add additional scary uncertainty, you will either end up looking foolish or worse.

      • captd, GHGs have so far provided about 2-3 W/m2 of forcing and this is rising by 0.3-0.4 W/m2 per decade. If you have another forcing source, this is what you need to compare it with. That there is a positive imbalance even with effectively 2 C per CO2 doubling implies a positive feedback to the net forcing change that is somewhat in line with the amplifying effect in AGW.

      • JimD, the imbalance is about 0.5 Wm-2 which is at the barely discernible level with the +/- 0.4 error margin. Not to long ago it was estimated at 0.9 +/- 0.18 Wm-2. Just a few years ago the ~3.7 Wm-2 was “projected” to produce 1.5 C of surface warming with everything else held constant, now it is 1-1.2 C. Everything is moving away from the grossly overestimated initial “projections”. “Sensitivity” is going south on ya.

      • With the manmade forcing changing 0.3-0.4 W/m2 per decade and the temperature rising 0.15-0.2 C per decade, it is on pace for the AGW type of sensitivity.

      • JimD, “With the manmade forcing changing 0.3-0.4 W/m2 per decade and the temperature rising 0.15-0.2 C per decade, it is on pace for the AGW type of sensitivity.”

        And what direct measurements we have put it at about half of the 0.4 Wm-2. You are estimating a worst case scenario meaning CO2 related mitigation should have about half or less than half of the impact that you expect. Conversely, other approaches will likely have twice the impact you expect.

      • captd, those are point surface measurements, not global average TOA, and only make it worse from your point of view even if you take them as a global average TOA.

      • JimD, “captd, those are point surface measurements, not global average TOA, and only make it worse from your point of view even if you take them as a global average TOA.”

        Those are surface points in locations that should have considerable amplification. “Globally”, CO2 forcing is extremely less than uniform and some cases actually can reduce “surface” temperature. Again you are basing your “judgement” on an “ideal” model that is in effect a “worst case”.

      • Just saying, if you are halving the forcing you are doubling the sensitivity. Are you sure you want to make that argument about these being globally representative of TOA?

      • JimD, The “TOA” imbalance is about 0.5 Wm-2 +/-0.4 Wm-2 which is perfectly consistent with a precessional cycle imbalance without snow albedo feedback. That imbalance or at least a large fraction, appears to have existed for 300 years.; Zero “TOA” imbalance is an ideal approximation in need of relevant time scales.

      • captd, not sure where you get your imbalance number from, but 0.5 W/m2 is near the lower limit.

      • What there is of precessional forcing favors Greenland ice,

        That’s not correct, or rather, is too simplistic.

        Greenland snow/ice accumulation rate ( at the core sites ) is positively correlated with temperature over time.
        Accumulation rates are much greater than they were at the last glacial maximum. Now, at the periphery, summer time temperatures will melt, but summertime temperatures at the periphery were much higher during the Holocene Climatic Optimum for thousands of years, not just the few years of measurements you are attracted to, and yet Greenland Ice persisted.

      • Turbulent, JimD tends to confuse Greenland ice with NH ice during a glacial. The current stage of the precessional cycle would favor retention of NH glacial ice, however, darkening due to black carbon (organic or fossil), dust, some types of volcanic ash etc. plus various snow/ice removal methods tend to reduce the chance of ice retention. I am sure he believes the former Soviet Union fleet of icebreakers have zero impact on the stability of sea ice and that spreading peat, dirt or other darkening agents on fields to inspire early snow melt is completely negligible as well.

        JimD also believes that fires are purely the result of ACO2 along with just about anything else. Then when you try to estimate what impact “other” things might have, they play the ABC card.


        I personally think there might be a few minor “other” things to consider.

    • JimD, Stephens et al has 0.6 +/- 0.4 Wm-2 if you like. That is the current best estimate.

  31. “New paper suggests Arctic sea ice may be more resilient to global warming than previously thought”

    Increased forcing of the climate increases positive NAO/AO and cools the Arctic. The accelerated warming of the Arctic since 1995 is effectively an amplified negative feedback to declines in solar plasma forcing since then.

  32. Danny Thomas

    I suggest there are things out there we may not even be considering in the climate conversation: http://www.livescience.com/51703-earth-magnetic-field-age.html