Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

 

 

New paper finds 4 out of 8 Scandinavian glaciers increased in mass 1950-2010 [link]

New paper finds strong correlation between Wolf numbers of sunspots & temperatures at 818 weather stations 1855-2010 [link] …

Green lessons from gay marriage:  “they can assert their own identity through joyous hunts for climate deniers” [link]

 

Phil Klotzbach’s  latest blog on El Niño and its impact on Atlantic hurricanes. [link]

Tisk communication needs around the “world’s most dangerous volcano” Vesuvius. [link]  …

Drought stunts tree growth for four years [link]

Increase in Legionnaires’ Disease 2000-2009 blamed on climate change [link]  …

A model for the evolutionary dynamics of “thinking fast and slow”  [link]

A new paper by Cowtan et al. addresses model – surface temperature comparisons [link]  …

“Arctic ice loss brings extra snow in Siberia.” Arctic albedo decrease “could be recouped elsewhere” [link]  …

A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students [link]  …

New Paper: “Timing and climate forcing of volcanic eruptions for the past 2,500 years” [link]  …

Great news: Fears that El Niño would leave India without much-needed monsoon rains prove false. [link]

New paper: Does AMOC explain mystery of 41,000-year ice age cycle in the past? [link] …

New research trying to grasp the North American carbon cycle [link]  …

“The Precautionary Principle” revisited – Inexact Change [link]  …

Physican Journalists—Responsibly Meeting the Challenges of Accurate and Reliable Reporting [link]

Extremely intense hurricanes: revisiting Webster et al. (2005) 10 years on Journal of Climate [link]

How does the joint occurrence of rainfall and storm surge lead to compound flooding? [link]

The 97% consensus of climate scientists is 47%. [link]

“Carbon sink” detected underneath world’s deserts – [link]”It’s Not Climate Change — It’s Everything Change” | @MargaretAtwood considers its impacts [link]

“good science, blunt talk, and paradigm shifting ideas” @MichaelBTI on #PeterKareiva: [link]

New paper urges broader climate policy “Climate Relevant Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Policies” [link]  …

New Study Finds Long Term Solar Cycle And Predicts Global Cooling https://shar.es/1sOmMF

Testing Skeptical Science: is Roger Pielke Sr. a climate misinformer? [link]

The UN @IPCC_CH intentionally lied about Himalayan Glaciers. [link]

Why I’ve sometimes shied away from writing about uncertainty in vaccine science  [link]  …

A loss of trust in science, creating a vicious cycle that could undermine everything. [link]

#Media willingness 2 treat fringe #Climate activists as if they were unbiased representatives of mainstream discourse [link]  …

Rick Lewis introduces the topic of #science and #ethics in our current issue ‘Science and Morality’ [link]

Whence do numerical weather prediction errors arise? [link]  …

Interesting article based on semantic analysis of online media regarding climate change/global warming [link]  …

New paper “contradictory to prevailing view of global warming in which both cold & warm temperatures…increase” [link]  …

“Salon Mag. discusses using courts to punish ‘climate deniers’”
Who denies climate? [link]  …

“Analysing ocean mixing reveals climate insight ” [link]

“Green totalitarians try to ban free thought at a second university | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog”  [link]  …

Amazing images: 13 of the World’s Most Remarkable Rice Terraces: [link]  …

US vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud [link]  …

“Research shows optimists can find solutions where pessimists do not.” [link] …

Protecting Patchy:”pressure & intimidation from some Teri employees..late-night visits to the home of panel members” [link]  …

Arctic sea ice showing great resiliency: [link]

Forests May Be Our Last Chance to Slow Climate Change: [link]

Former UN Climate Chief PK Pachauri Ousted, Blames “Climate Sceptics” For His Fall [link]  …

Cambridge professor Peter Wadhams insists three scientists have been ASSASSINATED [link] …

You Don’t Have To Be Venal, Weird And Creepy To Work In Climate Science. But It Certainly Helps [link]  …

Climate Change Threatens 50 Years of Global Health Gains, Says New Lancet Study – [link]

Australian academics & politicians going into another round of apoplexy on Lomborg-[link]

Nature: Speakers for IPCC tried to downplay the ‘pause’ & “this incoherence led to confusion” & condemnation by media [link]  …

Maintaining atmopheric and water balance within reanalysis [link]

JC note:  A busy (family) weekend; hence only 25% (relative to normal) of time spent on this post.  Apologies in advance for broken links, duplicates, etc.

 

339 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. “Increase in Legionnaires’ Disease 2000-2009 blamed on climate change”

    Of course. I think they should just stipulate in advance, that every bad thing that happens in the world from now on is because of climate change. That way they can avoid making fools out of themselves over snd over again. Better to do it once and be done with it.

    (aka pokerguy)

  2. Fabius Maximus takedown of SkS on Pielke Sr. is masterful. Another example of how SkS plays climateball.

  3. “US vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud”

    Can’t help thinking that mucking with the temperature record in order to influence global energy policy has to be worse than whatever this guy did.

    • The “fraud” of mucking with temperature records – or the real fraud of presenting basic recalibration (erroneously done or not) that’s a routine part of science, as done only in one direction to create a completely false picture (or reinforce a belief), and as fraud – also to create a completely false picture (or reinforce a belief)? See full indented paragraph in particular.

      More importantly, criminalizing advocacy (by anyone, good advocacy or bad, including skeptic advocacy, even when blatantly erroneous or self deludingly deceitful), is fascism.

      As for the researcher, he did something wrong, but the punishment was excessive. It was research, he should have lost his job, and maybe even pay since he knowingly did it. It was authoritarian Senator Charles Grassley – who used rhetoric to make an extremely inconsistent example of it. It doesn’t send a message not to fake test tubes – since often issues aren’t that clear cut. What it does is chill scientific research, and impose more adherence to conformity, probably Grassleys (and, in fact fascists) sort of world and an ultimate antagonist to liberty, creativity, and the potential of mankind and each individual’s most basic, inherent rights.

  4. “Climate Change Threatens 50 Years of Global Health Gains, Says New Lancet Study”

    Yeah, milder winters will no doubt kill millions.

    • The Lancet has no credibility in my books whatsoever since their publications on Gaza where they just published the crap put out Hamas shills uncritically and ignored all other factors, including how Hamas lies all the time. So it doesn’t surprise me they would leap on yet another band wagon of insanity.

  5. Steven Mosher

    “We used the series of the average monthly temperatures for the calculations. These were measured at 818 weather stations of the Northern Hemisphere from 1955 to 2010. This is the most complete archive of global data on surface temperature in the public domain. The archive is updated regularly in the Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets. For the same time interval, the series of the monthly average
    Wolf numbers were taken on site at the Pulkovo Observatory.”

    wrong.

    • David Wojick

      Nice grunt, SM. I don’t suppose you would deign to tell us mere mortals what is wrong? Surely not every sentence.

      • David

        Its wrong. Just accept it. No explanation needed. Even the full stops and commas are wrong. And the words are in the wrong order.

        tonyb

      • Have you forgotten about when you asked Moshpit a leading question, TonyB? There does not seem to be any interrogative demeanour in your sarcastic remark.

      • Willard

        Unfortunately you spoilt the punch line which was to point out that Mosh did manage to get the years of the study correct. Judith was not so correct.

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        “These were measured at 818 weather stations of the Northern Hemisphere from 1955 to 2010. This is the most complete archive of global data on surface temperature in the public domain. “

      • Steven Mosher

        “I don’t suppose you would deign to tell us mere mortals what is wrong?”

        Here is what I make of a person who can read that paragraph and NOT spot the error.

        I think they dont read. Or they lose the ability to read critically. They see me say wrong, and that actually blinds them to seeing the error.
        Because if they saw the error they would have to agree. So they cant see the error for themselves.

        However, if say “tonyb” posted that and said wrong.. people would look to find the error themselves.

    • Steven Mosher

      The first thing to look for in ANY solar study is is the temperature series they correlate against.

      Some guys use global temps; one bit at the apple
      finding nothing some guys then look at the hemispheres.. two bites
      Finding nothing, they look at land only, three bites
      Finding nothing, they look at a subset, 4 bites.

      So, 818 land only sites which covers NH land only,, which is a pitiful
      percentage of the entire planet.

      And we wont even discuss that the method they use is untested.

      Warning sign number ONE that we learned from reading mcintyre.
      beware a finding were a new method is used to find an interesting result.

      New methods should be proven out independently.

      Now, of course, here I find myself in agreement with Mcintyre (for example) and with Willis ( who does a great job debunking solar stuff)

      • David Springer

        The first thing to look for in ANY solar study is is the temperature series they correlate against.

        Some guys use global temps; one bit at the apple
        finding nothing some guys then look at the hemispheres.. two bites
        Finding nothing, they look at land only, three bites
        Finding nothing, they look at a subset, 4 bites.

        So, 818 land only sites which covers NH land only,, which is a pitiful
        percentage of the entire planet.

        And we wont even discuss that the method they use is untested.

        Warning sign number ONE that we learned from reading mcintyre.
        beware a finding were a new method is used to find an interesting result.

        New methods should be proven out independently.

        Now, of course, here I find myself in agreement with Mcintyre (for example) and with Willis ( who does a great job debunking solar stuff)

        Wrong.

  6. “Former UN Climate Chief PK Pachauri Ousted, Blames “Climate Sceptics” For His Fall”

    I hear there’s a new study in the works proving that climate change increases narcissistic tendencies.

    • Apparently cite change also causes unwanted sexual advances on women. Who would have thought it?

    • Pachauri on July 30 denied he had been ousted, claimed to still be chief of Teri

      • Yes, he did deny that he had been “ousted” – at least according to the somewhat brief http://www.ibnlive.com/news/india/i-have-not-been-removed-as-the-chief-of-teri-rk-pachauri-1028031.html.

        However, it seems to me that if Pachauri had an ounce of decency, shame – or even understanding of the 2013 Act** under which he has been charged – he would have resigned gracefully and oh-so-quietly, as he did from his role as head honcho of the IPCC.

        OTOH, perhaps some of the “blame” (for want of a better word!) can be attributed to the various and sundry arms, legs, and fingers of the UN which has long been notorious for paying little more than lip service (if even that!) to the principles and practices it claims to espouse. In this particular instance, those pertaining to “gender equity”.

        So, considering his long association with the UNEP and his rise through the ranks of the decreasingly-relevant IPCC, he’s probably far more accustomed to tossing up word-salads laced and suitably dressed with buzzwords of the hour, day, week or year than he is with considering the consequences of his choice of actions.

        Hence, perhaps, his (and/or his PR handlers’) utterly ludicrous recent knee-jerk speculation that the “complaint against him might be backed by ‘climate sceptics'”

        ** Mileage of others may vary, but until I read:

        Now that the council has acted, it must also put in place an appropriate mechanism within the organisation to ensure that similar delays do not recur. Harassment at workplaces is a problem the best of companies worldwide have faced. That is proof of the seriousness of the issues involved. Public bodies in the private as well as government sector must inculcate a culture that deals with offences in offices with the sensitivity they deserve. As more and more women join the workforce, the issue will require greater attention. Passing of laws will have little effect if the spirit behind them is ignored.

        in the July 28 issue of the New Indian Express, I for one was not aware that the applicable rules, regulations and/or legislation in India are relatively recent.

      • Aaack! My kingdom for a built-in WP preview:-( Every time I take a shortcut and fail to compose via my own WP, it seems that I fail to properly close some tag or other… last para should read:

        in the July 28 issue of the New Indian Express, I for one was not aware that the applicable rules, regulations and/or legislation in India are relatively recent.

    • If narcissistic and self absorbed people had not taken over psychiatry there would be numerous articles on climate changers documenting several common personality defects.

  7. Steven Mosher

    “A new paper by Cowtan et al. addresses model – surface temperature comparisons [link] …”

    Models not so bad after all.. once you do it right.

    good auditing by Cowtan

    • “Models not so bad after all.. once you do it right.”

      Less bad isn’t good. Having an “outsider” find a potential fundamental issue isn’t impressive. Some “skeptics” have been comparing apples and apples for a while. You figure out how to fit that corner problem at the poles yet or are you just happy with your results?

      • Steven Mosher

        Less bad isn’t good. Having an “outsider” find a potential fundamental issue isn’t impressive. Some “skeptics” have been comparing apples and apples for a while.

        wrong.

        1. a few insider papers have done it right before.
        2. Mann is a co author. he was working on the same problem at the same time and the two teams joined forces.
        3. I can find NO EXAMPLE of a skeptic publishing this approach.

        Less bad is better.

        The models just got better.

      • Mosher, “3. I can find NO EXAMPLE of a skeptic publishing this approach.”

        You don’t need an “approach” to point out that (Tmax+Tmin)/2 + SST isn’t a “surface” temperature. It is a convenient metric with poor thermodynamic characteristics. .

        btw, their “approach” doesn’t fix this.

        Though using RPC8.5 in a meaningless example has to earn someone someone brownie points.

      • Now that the Arctic ice is looking better, the alarmists point at the Cowtan paper and say, “Look, a squirrel!”

      • Now we have the “Cowtan Death Spiral!!!”

      • David Springer

        1. a few insider papers have done it right before.
        2. Mann is a co author. he was working on the same problem at the same time and the two teams joined forces.
        3. I can find NO EXAMPLE of a skeptic publishing this approach.

        Less bad is better.

        The models just got better.

        Wrong.

    • This still doesn’t fix a fundamental model flaw. GHG is logarithmic,. Increasing amounts have a decreasing effect. The models are going asymptotic toward the vertical axis – they should be going asymptotic toward the horizontal axis (they need to flip the curve about the trend line).

      • PA the models are going asymptotic because 1, the “projected” emissions are an absolute worst possible case for effect and 2, they parameterize water vapor response for an even less plausible worst case effect.

        You can’t sell AGW without it. Why do you think so many liberal arts majors are involved?

  8. “The 97% consensus of climate scientists is 47%.”

    I fully expect that this will be covered in detail in tomorrows New York Times. Front page, above the fold.

    • David Wojick

      The odds are 97% against that, or more.

    • David,

      +1. An eminent climate scientists reviewed a draft of my article and said pretty much the same thing. He was correct, as usual.

      There was a long Twitter exchange about it with several climate scientists. It was quite strange. For example, several cited as expert confirmation that AR5 WG1 authors supported the keynote statement of AR5 WG1. No reply to my reply that this might just show institutional cohesion.

  9. judith

    Climate Change Threatens 50 Years of Global Health Gains, Says New Lancet Study – [link]

    Check link…

  10. About that Bloomberg story “Monsoon Defies El Nino Forecasts, Answering Prayers of Indian Farmers“. While astonishing those believing the confident forecasts about certain disaster, it did not surprise those who listened to those advising about the difficulty of making reliable forecasts of El Nino’s effects. Such as “this by Dan Satterfield at the American Geophysical Union’s website” (23 July 2015). The bottom line:

    “If you just look at really strong El Nino’s then we really only have a sample size of two to base a forecast on, 1982-83 and 1997-98. A sample size of two is just not enough to base a forecast on, and just look at the image above, this one is already different from 1997!”

    Of course, in America today clickbait headlines usually drown out the voices of expert advice.

  11. 99% or the world’s 7.3 billion people couldn’t care less about the catastrophic climate change agenda of the elites in rich countries.

    • Polls around the world directly conflict with this.

      The “elite” will also be less affected by climatechange than anyone else.

      Climate change “agenda” is a self reinforcing tautological invention of cllimate change “skeptics” to mischaracterize the basic idea over concern of a now multi million year shift upward in earth’s insulation layer.

      But I’ve learned that pointing things out here is near pointless, but for the few that may be reading that are not zealot skeptics, who write ridiculous things like “99%” of the world’s population couldn’t care about climate change (or its
      falsely or cherry pick stereotyped “agenda”).

      A lot do, and most to almost all would if they understood the issues. And didn’t have on ideological blinders being reinforced by along with many other things, websites such as this that in this post above carefully cherry pick an extremely lopsided potpourri of links – many of which draw ridiculous conclusions or use tautological logic – that perpetuate the misconception of basic climate change clung to here.

      And the great majority of those inthe world who don’t, aren’t aware of the issue, and are predominantly in its poorer countries – the same ones that will be most affected by an unpredictably shifting climate.

      • David Wojick

        A “self reinforcing tautological invention”? What a concept! Or not. If you want to advertise your blog you might try being coherent.

      • It’s self reinforcing in that it is used to reinforce a belief. Namely, the belief, without evidence or even coherent, rationale, theory, that a multi million year increase to earth’s insulation layer somehow nevertheless isn’t relevantly altering earth’s key climate affecting systemsa>, and ultimately its climate.

        Although here’s an example of just the type of “theories” that ARE used.

        A tautology is essentially circular. Hence circular logic- there’s a consensus so let’s avoid that reality (rather than show why it’s wrong) and label it “monopoly,” to perpetuate the above described
        belief of non relevant anthropogenic effect, despite the extensive geophysical record of atmospheric alteration in comparision with the paleo record, basic physics, general climate scientist assessment, and even now significant overall corroborating signs.

        As for “invention,” it refers to the inventiveness of turning the basic fact of consensus (which doesn’t prove AGW is real but does establish that that’s what almost all climate scientists who study the issue believe) into “monopoly.” And as yet another way to simply attack and disparage everything else on climate science and discussion that doesn’t line up with the way the issue is (IMO, extremely inaccurately) represented on this site and other forums that this site agrees with or supports.

        Sorry you didn’t follow that. And thanks for the insult. Hope it helped you ignore, dimiss or castigate away the relevant substantive points: as seems to be the desired pattern here, when they conflict with the ironically labeled and hopeful butlargely support-less BELIEF of agw “skepticism.”

        A belief clung to by heavily cherry picking and continuing to misconstrue the issue and “invent” belief reinforcing tautologies, for example. (Although in Curry’s case it’s not assessment that climate change isn’t real, only apparently that there isn’t enough information to know it’s sensible to effectively redress the issue; but enough to constantly disparage science and climate scientists and in general people that disagree with her (let alone point out the pattern of errors in her arguments) on it.

      • Wrong!, the poles are answered by the rich elite, not the world’s population. You need to get out a bit

      • Polls suggest that in most countries, most who are aware of it, are concerned – a far cry from 1%. Which was only a point in response to your WAY out there statement saying 99% of the world doesn’t care care about climate change or your conflation of it with “agenda.”

        Many in those countries, and in the few more skeptic ones (U.S., Austr,Can) reinforce through a lot of misinformation. Huge Example and <a href="economic presumption leading to economic alarmism, that’s being conflated with, or perpetuating a desire to chery pick or misread on, the geophysical issue itself.

        The same reply also noted that a large percentage of the world (though the very recent worldwide study ref’ it linked to might have taken a while and been drawn from older data) – around 40% – had not heard of climate change. Predominantly in poor areas, and the same people likely to be most affected by the atmospheric altering habits of other nations.

        That’s also a far cry (and it may be even lower now) from 99%. And that isn’t a lack of care, it’s a lack of even being aware.

      • A, you’re being silly for multiple reasons. First, you cannot, show any poll with 73 million people responding that climate change is aof any concern to them at all. They have much bigger concerns

        Secondly, your belief in catastrophic human caused climate change is a religious belief, not based on objective analysis. Most advocates in this religious belief are deniers of the relevant facts. My impression is you are one of them. So no rational debate could be held with such people.

      • “””First, you cannot, show any poll with 73 million people responding that climate change is aof any concern to them at all.””” I guess you just don’t know what polls are.

        This discussion is senseless. Go ahead and believe that 99% of the world doesn’t care about climate change. And in unicorns.

        As for catastrophic, that’s your word, not mine. I think the risk range is huge, and I’ve dispassionately and objectively stated the reasons why.

        They conflict with what you want to believe. And an easy way to dismiss those points (as with those points by man climate scientists) is to simply – and quite ironically, project outward and label it “religion,” when it’s anything but.

        Religion is belief. There is no belief, there is an assessment, for dispassionately assessed reasons, as to why a geologically radical – that is both geologically sudden yet multi million year worth – and ongoing jump in earth’s insulation layer is impacting climate, and presents a high risk of significant shifting.

        You “believe” otherwise. As almost no practicing climate scientists support that belief, the total picture of corroborating change must be cherry picked to do so. And as there is also no real theory whatsoever as to why such belief would be true (namely why the earth wouldn’t simply respond as a matter of physics to the changes upon it – but there are wacky tautological ones such as this one), the dismissal of agw and clinging to the belief it’s not real or relevant, despite the paleo and geophysical record and basic physics, is closer to a religion.

        Assessment of it, even if “skeptics’ like to falsely conflate it with the quasi pantheismistic love of nature, is the opposite.

        Your belief seems to be almost completely self sealing (so thus this comment will be read, dismissed, misinterpreted, as with all others, to fit consistently with those predetermined beliefs). But hopefully a few at least less fervent readers who do not so blindingly cling may at least be able to consider a different perspective.

      • David Wojick

        If it is odd blog week I offer this from my animal cognition blog:
        http://horsecognition.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-amazing-cow-circle.html
        There are certain parallels between the cow circle and the paradigm protecting practices of some in the climate science community.

      • A:
        “…that is both geologically sudden yet multi million year worth…”
        You seem to be saying CO2 levels will be elevated for millions of years.

      • No.

        Am saying that ice core drilling shows CO2 levels likely far higher than at any time in close to a million years.

        Not just higher, far higher. And it would be unlikely if they were somehow nevertheless just as high (as today) shortly before that, but possible.

        The assessments by paleo scientists studying this puts it at about between 3.5 and 5.6 million years or so since levels have been as high as they are now. (This is just CO2, CH4 has also followed a similar path. More here – and it’s kind of key.)
        Here’s a few links: http://bloom.bg/1wD9V02
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/abs/406695a0.html

        One more recent study – also, like the last link, in likely the world’s leading science journal – put it at 10 to 15 million years, though it didn’t get too much publicity, and it’s more likely only one end of a range.

        There is almost no vetted assessment that it’s less than 2.5 or 3 million.

        So the point is that in a matter of an extremely short geologic time period (almsot instantaneous) concentrations of long lived GG molecules – particularly when CH4 is factored into the equation, see above link – shot up to levels not seen in millions of years.

        That’s a tremendous change. Just because it isn’t suddenly all desert/ tropical forest, etc or been a sudden 6D spike in ave global air temps doesn’t mean the ongoing accumulation of that change, as it affects net ocean, ice sheet permafrost land and subsurface land temps, isn’t highly significant.

        And in fact signs of relevant change to earth’s overall systems, from a geologic perspective anyway, have been fairly rapid. And could easily suddenly shift within a matter of years if threshold points of permafrost or sea floor bottom melting are reached, or if ocean current shifting suddenly stops it from being a huge sink for long term energy accumulation, leading to massive precip changes and spiking temperatures that would in turn affect permafrost fields, etc etc.

      • The first 120 ppm increase seems to have gone well. Now, how cost effective is mitigation? There are pressing economic concerns to weigh

      • The first 120 ppm increase seems to have gone well. Now, how cost effective is mitigation? There are pressing economic concerns to weigh

        You make two presumptions. One is definitively incorrect, the other likely is.

        We are not seeing the results of the “first 120 ppm.” Climate is not an instantaneous response to an atmospheric change. That change changes energy, which effects earth’s systems. While this is geologically fast (if also somewhat unpredictable) it seems slow to us. Huge amounts of energy have already gone into, and are going into, the oceans. This is not just a ‘store” but helps to drive future climate, in conjunctionwith the raised atmospheric levels, as well as changing earth albedo levels from ongoing net ice melt. Etc. Essentially it’s an ongoing accumulation of energy (not from RISING Co2 levels, but already risen levels, raising them more is only a nice gasoline pour…) that will increasingly change earth, likely in more volatile ways, until a new general stases is reached.

        If GGs leveled off today, the earth would not be at a new, relative ‘stases” or balance point (where change would then be somewhat random in either direction, likely on average far more slowly as in the historical past, for any random say small discreet period of geologicl time – say 100 years, and not the rare changes cherry picked by skeptics over the past million years to incorrectly argue climate always changes just like we “coincidentally” are already seeing right now), for probably decades and decades, if not more.

        As to how effective is cost mitigation? Huge, for some highly practical reasons, and detailedly answered here. Conceptually, strategically, in terms of the big picture – and what’s actually relevant – not made up 80 projections posited as some sort of fact, but which are complete speculations and could be off by an order of magnitude or more.

        As for pressing economic concerns, this presumption is likely a mistake. there are “always” pressing economic concerns, it is the nature of man. More relevantly, everything we do is also part of econmomic growth,and the conflict between improving our world (which is ultimately what economic growth is for) and economic growth and jobs, is therefore in the long run likely a false one, particularly when a big part of that improvement will also be the simultaneous creation of jobs as other jobs phase out and change. (But, along with minimizing unnecessary government dictate, maximizing choice, efficiency, and consumer and market motivation and market abilities it’s part of why my recommendation is this, which can actually help businesses and employees that might be unduly affected short term, and is revenue neutral.)

        Arguably the two leading Treasury Secretaries the U.S. has had in a while, Robert Rubin (Clinton) and Henry Paulson (Bush), essentially argue the same thing. As do many others. Even several major energy companies – who also know we’re changing the planet, and for purposes of business planning – are asking for at least something (though possibly a lamer version that gives them initial credits) along the same lines.

      • A | August 1, 2015 at 5:22 pm |
        No.

        Am saying that ice core drilling shows CO2 levels likely far higher than at any time in close to a million years.

        Not just higher, far higher. And it would be unlikely if they were somehow nevertheless just as high (as today) shortly before that, but possible.

        This again.

        If there were two gallons of milk in my fridge the amount of milk would be higher – far higher, than it had ever been before.

        This is a observation not a problem. It would mean there is a little less spare space in the fridge – and custard pie might be in my future.

        http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFMPP21B1168P

        The history CO2 level for the longest period of time – most of the planets history was about 0.3 Bar or 30,000 PPM. It was that way for about 4 billion years – the earth had a carbon dioxide polar cap when there was land at the pole – much like Mars. 30,000 PPM is normal.

        30,000 PPM is the natural CO2 level of the planet. Anything less than that is strange and unnatural. 280 PPM was far too low – over 100 times lower than it should have been and was provably harming the planet. The well-documented evidence of increased plant growth is clear evidence of that.

        The recent increase in CO2 is a welcome return to a more normal planetary atmosphere.

      • Nothing you wrote is relevant to the issue.

        I was also answering the specific question as to what was meant by several milllion years, as I was asked if I meant CO2 would “stay high” for several million years.

        Separately, dictating what the “natural CO2 level” of the planet is, is also patently absurd.

        Put another way, you are saying we evolved in “strange and unnatural” earth times. Then for us it’s not strange, and unnatural, and is what we’re (and at least for the time being at least some of the less quickly adaptable species we also directly and indirectly depend on) designed, and have so built, to live under.

        Your argument is about as logical as saying that 400 feet of sea level rise would be fine bc for much of earth’s history the sea was 400 feet higher.So current levels are “strange and unnatural” and so therefore climate change, representing a risk of shifting from those levels,, is either not real, or not relevant. Which is, again, also patently absurd.

        Fine if you are arguing that there is nothing “independently bad” about suddenly higher CO2 levels. But not – and again in fact completely illogical although I don’t expect you to see that given your comment – if you are arguing that therefore climate change -or suddenly geologically spiked CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels – are fine for or don’t present a risk range, for us. Much like sea levels suddenly 200 or 400 feet higher is fine for us.

        Not saying sea levels will rise 200 or 400 feet, but that the argument that “earth was x” for a billion or several billion years is a ludicrous one to address the issue of whether an extremely sudden change to earth’s net accumulating energy balance is helpful for us (and our progeny) here on earth, now.

        The suddenness is also as important, if not more so, than even the geological context of the amount. In terms of the climate we evolved and built under, not only is a multi million year increase enornmous, but it has happened radicallly fast, making the likelihood of accumulating earth response far different than if such a change occurred over a longer time period and ultimately giving man far more time to slowly adjust, particularly in advance.

      • A | August 2, 2015 at 5:46 pm |
        Nothing you wrote is relevant to the issue.

        1. People are concerned because they are misinformed.
        a. The CO2 is going into the ocean, land plants, and surprisingly per a recent study, the ground. The CO2 that is being carried underground by irrigation and precipitation isn’t coming back.
        b. About 6 GT per year (and rising) is going into the environment.
        c. The post 1900 CO2 increase has rewarded us with 55% more plant growth and reduced water consumption by plants.
        d. There is a CO2 effect but the only study that measured it (published in February) found a weak effect equivalent to about 1.05 W/m2 since 1900.
        e. The Atmospheric CO2 annual increase is headed for 2.0 PPM in 2020 instead of the IPCC 3.0 PPM – which is a 2011/2013 estimate.

        f. The newer fields are increasingly expensive which will put constant upward pressure on prices.
        g. Higher prices will limit consumption, far below IPCC estimates.

        Summary:
        a. Supply and demand pressures and rising production costs ensure that consumption isn’t going to increase much more. The 21st century saw a rapid increase due to Chinese extraction of indigenous coal that could be delivered cheaply to local power plants. A one time increase that won’t be repeated.
        b. Emissions will decline in 2045 when China runs out of coal (sooner if they burn it faster)..
        c. The effect of a constant emissions level on atmospheric CO2 levels will dwindle to zero in a few decades as absorption rises to meet emission.
        d. The forcing is about 1/3 of the IPCC TSR and is a surface effect (Satellites/radiosondes show a true hiatus for the lower troposphere).

        If people were fully informed of the facts they would be worried about other issues.

      • I guess you don’t mean “fully informed” like the 97% plus of climate scientists who professionally study this issue and overall have the most relevant expertise on it. And fully disagree.

        But instead, this blog, and your assessments, and the cacaphony of self reinforcing belief led climate change “skepticism” that nevertheless has essentially zero papers out of the thousands published that show how or why man isnt relevantly and increasingly changing climate.

        Well, except for W Soon and C Monckton in a Chinese journal arguing that climate is very stable, that all energy change is instantaneously translated into climate (the first directing contradicting a main skeptic argument that we’re not changing climate, its just freakishly chaning on its own bc it ‘changes so often and so easily,” and the second is geophysically patently absurd ), and then created a model to fit into their already arrived at conclusion, ignoing all relevant known information. Or spencer, arguing that the ephemeral short term ever changing ongoing weather and climate phenomenon of water vapor wasn’t one of the effects of climate (going against accepted science wisdom without even bothering to mention said wisdom or even illustrate why, resulting in such “error and borderline fraud” that when the OFF topic journal remote sensing that published it found out, the editor resigned over it) but the driver of it…and so on and so forth

        Almost alll of the things you wrote in your reply above are simply made up, or misconstrue the issue. And all are just created to fit into an already arrived at belief or desire.

        For instance, “most CO2 is going into the ground.”

        Why would you write that??

        It makes no sense. The issue is the net impact of our emissions on the atmosphere. This is easily measurable by now long term measuring of atmospheric levels.So the fact that some is or isn’t going into the ground is irrelevant in this sense.

        As for the amount going into the ocean, same thing. Unless that Co2 going into the ocean isn’t a good thing for ocean life, which, with increasingly acidification (some studies put the rate as high as its been in many millions of years, one puts it at the fastest acidification rate in 300 million years), it isn’t.

        Most of the rest of the points, some more subtly, some not, are similar. Or simply made up.

        Many experts say arguing or discussing logically with climate change “deniers” (I say refuters/disavowers) is senseless because of self sealing belief (everything is re interpreted, dismissed or cherry picked solely to reinforce the already arrived at belief), so I don’t know if it’s worth bothering to reply, but at least it gives readers some different perspectives to consider, if there are any who aren’t compete “skeptics” and will just come up with argument after argument, rather than objectivey considering, in order to reinforce or perpetuate a belief, without even realizing it.

      • A:
        The ‘results’ is a semantic question. Call it realized and unrealized gains. We’ve had scientific, medical, wealth and food production gains. Unrealized future gains may include increased agricultural productivity and better land use practices. A 0.2 C increase in the average temperature of the oceans which I think is the real thing to watch, is not alarming to me. The current realized average ocean temperature is the result of the last 100,000 years of climate, and its history and trajectory is not so easily hijacked by man. I also don’t think 1% loss of the ice sheets somehow triggers the next 99% to follow with certainty. This water so far has been the epitome of stability.
        I see the choices as predominate mitigation or adaptation. Reshaping environments to be more resilient to storm and flood conditions. Physical improvement to deal with water as its old self and not trying to fix things by controlling its CO2 medicinal dose.

      • You did catch a typo. It should been much not most.

        http://news.agu.org/press-release/carbon-sink-detected-underneath-worlds-deserts/

        However it is massive.

        The 97% attribution isn’t honest so there isn’t any point going further.

        From the Verhwhatever study it could be concluded that less than 1/2 of real climate scientists believe it is over 50%.

        They included non atmospheric scientists and found them by searching for global warmer and climate change. Only 58% of about 95-98% believe in strong (over 50%) forcing – from a group selected by surfing for “global warmer” and “climate change”.

      • I guess you don’t mean “fully informed” like the 97% plus of climate scientists who professionally study this issue and overall have the most relevant expertise on it. And fully disagree.

        I was enjoying your posts, but then you post this and any respect I had for your positions vanished. If you’re going to quote this result with such confidence, I can immediately conclude you are not competent to discuss the issues.

    • catweazle666

      As it happens, courtesy of the UN’s 2015 My World survey of causes for concern, we have the opinions of no less than 7,700,065 respondents on the subject.

      As a cause for concern, Climate Change comes flat last, 16th out of 16 causes for concern.

      http://data.myworld2015.org/

      • catweazle666,Yes, thank you for that reminder. I’d seen it before, but forgot about it.

        I expect “A” will reply and, as an honest, objective citizen he believes he is, will acknowledge he hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about when it comes to objective facts. He could go further and admit that the 7.7 million people who responded to the UN survey, i.e. 0.1% sample of the world population, are a sample that is probably biased towards the most informed and involved people of the world. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely “A” can produce evidence of 73 million people who rank human caused climate change as a priority concern for them. I look forward to “A”‘s response. It will be a sign of his intellectual honesty/dishonesty

      • Lang’s point was that 99% of the world “doesn’t care.” Caring about other thigns more doesn’t mean not caring. Nor does a 16th ranking mean all respondents or even most ranked it 16th, which is phenomenally differant than Lang’s statement that 99% dont care, not to mention his stereotypical characterization of it as an “elite agenda” without mentioning it’s one that will help the poor the most (as climate change will hurt the poor the most) while not only ignoring every single relevant point in reponse so far, but going on to esentially argue against statistics, taking issue wtih statisticians across the country in saying that if you dont ask everyone in a population, a represenative sample doesn’t give you any info. And then missing the key point that the poorer countries, the least likely to be aware of the issue and those most concerned, are also among the least informed on it, with again 40% of the world not evenhaving heard of the issue. (Pollsters were able to find that information out, yet according to Lang’s logic are unable to reach anybody but the world’s rich in their polling.

        But I particularly like how he turns his red herring misassessment into some sort of arbitration on my “honesty/dishonesty.” It’s incredibly manipulative, and the game, without knowing it, that some zealots do, while at the same time crying out how simply saying there is a consensus and skeptics are wrong is stifling views. (Saying or showing why a view is wrong is not “stifling it.” it is a response.) While at the same time skeptics Like Lang manipulate and say anything, even personal, that they want, but thats ok.”

        Somehow my agreement with his twisted analysis (to put it kindly) that 99% of the world doesn’t in the least care about climate change, is not a measure of my perspective, but of “honesty.’ So Lang anytime you don’t fully agree with my points or someone else, that’s a referendum on your honesty/dishonesty (even if said points, as yours were, were extremely one sided). You don’t suddenly agree with said one sided points, you are herefore dishonest. Your ultimate measure of someones honesty being agreement with your extreme positions, extreme arguments, and contorted cherry picked assessments. More self manipulation to reinforce your clung to climate change is a hoax belief.

        ————
        It’s not a discussion. IT’s largely a self reinforcing echo chamber of belief driven ideologues who have self decived themselves into thinking they’re being objective on the issue.

      • catweazle666

        A | August 2, 2015 at 10:52 pm
        “belief driven ideologues who have self decived [sic] themselves into thinking they’re being objective on the issue.”

        Congratulations, you have just summed yourself up to absolute perfection.

        Now try to do something about it, it’s never too late.

  12. Climate change “skepticism” and models – the huge mistake being made, and the one being reinforced right here in this Climate Etc. post and many of the supposedly “real science” representative links offered: “Cherry picked data and misconstruction of the issue reinforcing links, presented as ‘week in review.'”

    • A: the huge mistake being made, and the one being reinforced

      That article did not accurately quote any particular “skeptic”, or any particular “skeptical” criticism. The link was to a wikipedia article on climate change denial.

      right here in this Climate Etc. post and many of the supposedly “real science” representative links offered: “Cherry picked data and misconstruction of the issue reinforcing links, presented as ‘week in review.’”

      Would you like to quote anything in particular! The dominant position here among those who do not accept the alarums of James Hansen, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and others is the “lukewarmer” position that the size and risks of the CO2 effects have been exaggerated. A single “week in review” necessarily presents only a small amount of data, but the discussants present alternate data, and Prof Curry occasionally links to people who disagree with her. If you think she is “misleading” us or something like that, this is the opportunity to set us straight.

      • “Lukewarmer?” Seems here the exception not the rule, and the term is rather loosely used.

        The discussions don’t present “alternate data.” The discussions present largely cherry picked links to point a false picture of “assessment” but that largely simply reinforce a view that essentially misconstrues the issue.

        You go through and figure out why, in relation to the relevant facts, and more particularly what climate change, is, covered in the second part, and in a few paragraghs here.

        Don’t conflate climate change concern and the need for redress with a few cherry picked names. (Although Hansen has been relatively sanguine, he just does see a fairly high end of the range as very likely – probably with more certainty that I would think exists – but the range is relevant.)

        As for Curry’s pattern, it was so done, and exhaustively, here. I believe it makes a number of good points, though self sealing belief will cause the immediate dismissal or castigation of all of them. True “lukewarmism” that is not just an excuse to cling to a belief without having to ludicrously contend that a massive multi million year atmospheric energy capture alteration isn’t affecting earth at all, won’t.

        Patterns aside, the link, incidentally, most relevantly addresses how Curry gets the entire issue and relevance of uncertainty, backward. (Perhaps being driven by her scorn for climate scientists.) Which is as huge as it gets, as it’s part of the crux of the issue.

      • Matt, he linked to his own blog. He’s just another rhetorical spin machine. Probably paid.

    • Judith Curry supports a rare commodity, common sense and examination of all the data and a notable lack of hysteria. I suggest sticking around and reading more.

      • I’ve read more than enough, and it seems to all follow the same pattern

        I think she writes with exceptional ability, and uses rhetoric that seems like analysis, and that most importantly helps reinforce a desired or already arrived at point of view, that the conventional climate scientist assessment (and I believe separate practical, non politically attached assessment of the issue, also warrants.

        I think the pattern, detailed here demonizes the integrity of those who disagree with her-particularly scientists-makes massive presumptions, and reinforces a circular belief that everything that simply doesn’t agree or expresses a different opinion is “quashing” her or similar views.

        This pattern has been near constant, either subvertly or overtly, and often with inflammatory rhetoric (that isn’t picked up here bc it helps reinforce the skeptic to borderline skeptic notion that from a look at thousands of comments now seems to represent about 90% to another 8-9% of them respectively) that castigates others as the bad guys simply because she doesn’t understand the point of view; and conflates a few cherry picked examples to further falsely stereotype the issue and mischaracterize what is really being said, and most importantly, WHAT is relevant.

        Most often there is the substitution of broad maxims and generalized, lifted paragraphs of prose that can be shaped to reinforce whatever view one wants, and that not only have nothing to do with the specific issue, but here help to mislead on it by constantly positing it alongside carefully self reinforcing cherry picked rhetoric in place of it.

        As for comnon sense, Curry gets even the basic idea of uncertainty backward:

        There is very little “positive” or good side to an overestimation by climate scientists – how much less could the earth possibly change from a multi million year insulation dump that now shows powerful increasing corroborate signs (and Im not talking about the also highly coincidental long term march upward in ave ambient global air temps)? It’s trivial. Metaphorically speaking, 2 and a half feet of sea level rise instead of the projected 3 this century. (Though that’s once again likely being revised upward, pre Hansen’s paper.) And unlikely. And Curry also, and even more notably, constantly takes the very extreme ends of ranges, ignores any relevant arguments that conflict with her conclusions, and posits them as the norm, to reinforce the “belief”that maybe we’re barely changing anything, when without exactly the type of cherry picking that goes on here, or misconstruction of the basic issue, it’s just not reasonably supportable.

        On the flip side, and far more importantly, the “negative” or bad, downside, the unknown of major climatic shifting, is enormous and – aside from being greatly uncharacterized – is far from the wild speculation it is often (at best, as usually it is just ignored or worse) treated as, here. (here’s an example that might even be starting now. (And we’re still increasing atmospheric levels, AND energy accumulation is still decades and decades from catching up to a new stases even reflecting just current levels)

        YET Curry says she’s worried about acting on climate (as if changing to otherwise more sensible less polluting agricultural and energy patterns is otherwise some terrible thing – which seems to be the driving belief here), which, from a common sense perspective – to again use your term – was obvious to do back in 1988, let alone today, precisely because of this “uncertainty.”

        In other words, not act, because of risk and uncertainty that we’re not radically altering future climate, and because of the largely manufactured hope or belief – “uncertainty” that maybe we’re not even altering it at all, which even if it posits something reasonably supportable by the science – which it doesn’t – still gets the basic EV and risk asssessment wrong.

        The beautiful, even poetic ability to write loquaciously and in many ways highly persuasively (if often a bit insinuatingly demonizing, and certaintly inflammatory under righteous boiler plate and often highly context misleading maxims and rhetoric) aside, this entire conclusion – central to the issue and assessment of climate change itself – is backward.. And about as far from common sense on the issue as could be had.

        But then from reading the ongoing pattern of these posts, it seems Curry isn’t letting herself learn what the issue really is, and now probably continues that pattern (and reinforced by all the astoundingly one sided comments here as well as the ongoing pattern, and belif it has led to, itself), d pattern of thedismissal of most others as those who “quash debate” and “monopolize” views), just to “defend” her views in her mind. When true wisdom has NO problem being wrong, even likes it, because it means, most valuable of all, one has both learned, and is now also closer to accurately assessing something than in the past – the two things that matter.

        Most people are not like that. And the belief that drives passion on this issue only amplifies this tendency many times over, and it’s been exhibited constantly here. And powerfully. If, apparently, and the whole point of self reinforcing belief – not very obviously, to say the least.

      • Just before my eyes glazed over, I saw the words “writes loquaciously” in there somewhere. Somebody with a very short name seems to be obsessed.

      • So A, despite your protestations, along comes the revelation that the Himalayan glaciers was just a con job, intended to influence policy makers. These stories simply reinforce the skeptics view about motivated reasoning and a whole host of dynamics in the climate establishment. And does anyone really believe this is the last such story?

      • A:
        “In other words, not act, because of risk and uncertainty that we’re not radically altering future climate…”
        “We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction.” – Curry
        How about we don’t have an accurate measure of the problems? The climate might radically alter itself, but we couldn’t help being at the scene of the crime. Climate changes. We can’t do much if anything to stop that.

      • Obviously a far far left looney liberal type. They tend to go on and on and on like that without ever making a point. You don’t like Judith. We get it. So go hang out somewhere else where everyone agrees with you.

      • David Springer

        Phuck. Another mouse wheel wore out trying to scroll through that long hideous stream of verbal diarrhea gushing out of “A”.

        Curry how about moderating the author (using the word loosely) until she can voluntarily limit the volume.

      • catweazle666

        A | August 1, 2015 at 6:15 pm

        So many words…

        So little content…

        YAWN…

      • The climate might radically alter itself, but we couldn’t help being at the scene of the crime. Climate changes. We can’t do much if anything to stop that.

        Self reinforcing belief. Climate scientist know otherwise.

        Climate changes is not relevant to the fact that we’re affecting climate now, and is part of the self deceiving rhetoric game skepticism plays to reinforce its belief. Its remarkably unusual for in any one 100 year period (go back 100,000 years and you have 1000 such periods to cherry pick from) there to be as much change as we’re seeing right now – not just air temp rise, but increasing polar cap melt, and acceleration,north and south, permafrost thawing, and most critically ocean heat energy uptake

        That aside, it would be even wilder to suddenly increase the long term insulation layer of the earth to levels not seen on earth in millions of years, and yet not have an effect on climate, at the same time that climate was just (bizarrely. “coincidentally”) showing just such general signs of change as we’d expect. ((Not to mention how these famous skeptics, to try and refute climate change any way possible no matter what, in a rare, but naturally off topic, journal piece, actually argued the very opposite: that in fact climate change is trivial because climate is “so stable” and essentially “doesnt’ change,” along with the more patently absurd assumption that any atmospheric change that does occur has to immediately be translated into our new long term climatic state: http://bit.ly/1deeOG1 ))

        But that’s logic. And not what goes on here. What goes on here is the opposite, under belief of logic.

        SO instead of, “good point, I didn’t consider it that way,” if any more responses they’ll also follow the same pattern of misconstruing the issue some more, cherry picking data. -For instance, someone above, now, suddenly, on the Himalayas, because some scientist on a precise projection I didn’t even agree with, or, regardless, even agree with him making since beyond broad time frames and general ranges it’s more of an educated guess than precise prediction and it would be misinterpreted – and voila), is somenow turned into a “revelation that the Himalayas was a con job”?! It doesn’t even have a whit to do with any of my comments here, let alone the one being responded to. The level of basic climate change issue misconstruction here (and wild cherry picking) is extraordinary.

        And of course…bad mouthing people that dont fit the skeptic or borderline skeptic groupthink doctrine; particularly if they make coherent arguments. Which, in turn, won’t be recognized as such, because to do so would cause the need to possibly re examine or soften said “skepticism.”

        And since skepticism is not skepticism at all, but a belief that a radical atmospheric alteration to earth’s energy recpature is SOMEHOW not relevantly affecting climate (With no evidence or theory to support this but wildly cherry picked data and issue misconstruction) clung to by any argument possible to reinforce it, that won’t happen.

        And not a whit of any sign of it in the responses here so far, by part of the group that apparently knows far more climate science than professional climate scientists, but can’t publish any papers showing why. Just constantly mischaracterize, cherry pick, impugn, bad mouth, and insult people.

      • A loquacious clown once said…

      • “A” hmm … so much verbiage, so much diatribe
        and claiming the high ground, all the while so much
        concealment behind a little letter, ‘A’ for ‘anonymous’
        or ‘absenteeism’. So little courage mon-non-brave!

      • “A” writes very much like John Carter did before he stopped contributing to Judith’s blog a few weeks ago.

      • A
        Whole, segments of the skeptic community are wondering how you measure ocean heat content. How do you do that again?

      • A is for agit-prop.

      • It appears A and John Carter are indeed the same. The tell tale signs are the vapid and vacuous run on sentences interspersed with excruciatingly painful overuse of parentheses. Sort of a first cousin to Jacques Smith with the ( ) thrown in for the dramatic effect.

      • The style maketh the man?

      • But who is John Carter and why does he have a 1 year old blog filled with 5 or more years worth of this drivel and a blogroll that only contain ATTP and this: http://climate.nasa.gov/

        (And why is that on a goverment website. NASA, FCS.)

      • Verbal diarrhea, as it’s colloquially known

      • aaron | August 3, 2015 at 7:16 am |
        But who is John Carter

        First google entry:
        http://movies.disney.com/john-carter

        From what I can tell John Carter is the protagonist of of number of Edgar Rice Burroughs novels.

        Apparently there were people on Mars in the early 1900s before global warming wiped them out.

    • I became a skeptic when I was looking at some data and I posted a question about confidence intervals. Being a retired, with a PhD in Genetic Epidemiology I have quite a bit more training in stats than most scientists and confidence intervals are rather important to me in assessing the validity of data. Instead of an answer, I got called a bunch of ugly names, I got accused of being in the pay of big oil, I got banned from posting again, and I was told I was not a scientist. I never did get an answer about the confidence intervals. I like it here because if I ask a question about confidence intervals I generally get an answer. I may not like the answer but I do get it.

      A you are doing the same thing as the people at that blog did. You are making long drivelling wild assertions about skeptics and our motivations and your answers run to pages about how right you are and how wrong skeptics are but I have yet to see anything specific in anything you say. You can’t win a here debate by having so many talking points that the no else get a chance to speak. Either say something substantive or go elsewhere where everyone will agree with you and applaud you.

      Now I am still waiting to hear why you have a problem with my assertion that more than just temperature may affect glacier growth and how warming may even mean bigger glaciers. Please answer that specific question in 2-10 sentences or I am going to simply ignore you as irrelevant from now on.

      • FTTW
        I also moved to the concerned column by the lack of confidence intervals and minute level of temp changes trumpeted as leading to massive CAGW disruptions. The Long Slow Thaw exists. The questions are concerning the recent acceleration in surface temp, then the changes to historical temp, rates of sea level rise increase above 7″/century and portioning of increase temps between CO2 and natural variation. Have not seen strong evidence in either direction.
        Enjoy your comments and skip long winded diatribes from the likes of A
        Scott

  13. I enjoy your reviews. You find some fascinating stuff. This time its the glacier issue. The glacier issue has always intrigued me because I was taught back in geology 101 that multiple factors influence glacier size so, for example, glacier shrinkage locally could be due more to drought (less snow) than to increased heating. Living on the prairies I know, as all prairie denizens do, that when it is -40C you don’t get snow because it’s too cold to snow. (Real -40C not -40C with windchill.) The biggest blizzards always come in late fall and early spring when it is warm enough for precipitation. If there was enough snow in an area due to an increase in temperature thereby allowing more snowfall, one could actually have more glacier growth due to warming in a local area. I visited Glacier National Park in 2010 and every single information display there has shrieking warnings about how global warming was destroying the glaciers in the park. Every talk and lecture for the public including warnings about the dangers of global warming and how we must fix it NOW. I wondered then if just warming was the full explanation but I decided not to make a fuss by asking.

    • Interesting. I guess when a movement has a global warming hammer everything looks like a nail, assuming assumptions aren’t driven by politics or commercial interests. Then there’s the overuse of familiar problem solving approaches:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstellung_effect

      I have found myself hammering away at a problem without success until I walked away from it and returned with a new approach.

      • Yes, forty years ago scientists said “We’re changing the atmosphere, it’s increasing net energy retention which is going to lead to more heat energy on earth overall.”

        The overall total picture of ice melt, along with everything else in total picture, is fairly comprehensive corroboration of what made basic sense from a physics standpoint alone (and the counterpart of which didn’t make any sense). But what happens? Cherry pick out some glaciers and how its noted climate change is effecting them, and it’s a suddenly an imagined nail.

        As for the effect of a mechanized state of mind you refer and wikipedia link to, wouldn’t that be the state of mind that ignores said total picture – and what is relevant – in order to chery pick, continue the same old misconstruction of the issue (we can’t predict exactly so it can’t be that relevant), and link to abstract broad maxims and principles that when desired can simply be applied to anything reinforce one’s own belief and pattern while dismissing all others?

        “Nah, of course not.”

      • A,
        I am insulted! I’ll have you know I cling to my biases just like everybody else. Einstellung is my new hammer and I’m looking for nails! ;)

        All that said, I have no expertise in climate change. Let the scientists duke it out. ITMT, they should stay out of public displays of policy advocacy. I have one vote and a scientist has one vote. If a famous scientist is going to get down and dirty in the game called politics, and use their well earned respect as a scientist to leverage their one vote into many, they can expect to get some feedback. Politics is a rough game and requires a thick skin. The IPCC is a political org birthed by another political org. When they publish pablum, they can expect to get pounded. That isn’t cherry picking, that’s life.

        A final note, the IPCC picked that plum, then they had to eat it, and it stained their shirt.

      • A I would appreciate it if instead of launching into a lecture about why physics prove you right and me wrong, you try stating precisely WHY you object to my specific observation that warming might actually make glaciers grow and that not considering that possibility is poor thinking on my part.

      • The disappearing glacier meme, like the Arctic Death Spiral meme, was based on extrapolation. Unfortunately, extrapolation does not constitute understanding how the climate machine works.

      • There is a couple problems with the glacier meme. About 1/2 of the glaciers (other than greenland and antarctica) are in the Himalayas.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/9206785/Himalayan-glaciers-growing-despite-global-warming.html

        The higher glaciers are growing.

        Kilimanjaro is shrinking due to deforestation and the resulting moisture loss.

        The lower greenland glaciers may well be melting – the combination of Chinese soot and Icelandic ash has lowered the albedo.

        However the actual CO2 forcing that is supposed to be affecting these things has been measured and it is 22 PPM causes 0.2 W/m2. IPCC TSR is 0.618 W/m2 for 22 PPM. I was surprised when scientists celebrated measuring TSR as proof of global warming.

        Suppose some scientist claimed that there was an effect called gravity, and the force was 100 ft/s2. Finally they get around to measuring it and it is 32 ft/s2 (the actual value). He goes nuts and starts celebrating.

        What I concluded is that the scientists really weren’t sure any warming exists (much like our gravity guy) and were relieved that something was measured. The fact that they were completely wrong and overestimated by a factor of three got lost in the shuffle.

        The fact the effect is only 1/3 the IPCC level means that the global warming projections are mistaken fantasies that just can’t happen.

  14. Also from the Verheggen survey you find that those who think it is more than 50% GHGs outnumber those who think it is less by 6 to 1. If you go to the raw numbers where the expertise by number of climate publications is separated, those in the top quartile have this ratio nearer 8 to 1. The 47% number just doesn’t tell that story.

    • > The 47% number just doesn’t tell that story.

      I doubt it’s within bounds of justified disingeniousness.

    • Jim,

      (1) “Also from the Verheggen survey you find that those who think it is more than 50% GHGs outnumber those who think it is less by 6 to 1.”

      Yes, I discussed that. But the point here is agreement with the full keynote statement given in AR4 and AR5.

      (2) “If you go to the raw numbers where the expertise by number of climate publications is separated, those in the top quartile have this ratio nearer 8 to 1.”

      First, that’s not a correct comparison to the 47%. I am comparing the responses from the survey questions 1a & 1b to the full AR4 attribution statement (both clauses). The EST paper shows what appears to be the publications for answers to 1a (it’s not clear). Neither the EST paper or the follow-up paper show the publications of respondents for both 1a and 1b.

      Second, where do you get “8:1”? Figure 3 shows the percent agreeing with Q1 (Q1a, I assume) is only ~75% for those with 31-300 publications (the highest category shown).

      (3) “The 47% number just doesn’t tell that story.”

      You’re kidding, right? No one number can show such a complex story. It’s science, not a fairy tale.

      • You are just doing spin. Of the 6 to 1 majority who had more than 50% GHGs, they are mostly in the two most certain categories, while hardly any of those with less than 50% were very certain, just averaging “likely”. So the certainty of the majority side is also greater than that of the minority side. The minority just look shaky too.

      • Jim,

        Your comment bears no relationship to the content of the article Prof Currry linked to, which makes it the very essence of spin.

        Try reading it. Then you can attempt a coherent rebuttal.

      • Beware your wishes, Editor.

        For starters, one does not simply handwave to “an eminent climate scientists [sic.]” If your appeal relies on his eminence, tell his name. If you insist in being obscure, try a “Senior climate scientist.” At least Denizens would be able to take a guess.

      • Willard,

        Save your fire for something serious. It was a small fun comment. No peer-review needed.

      • http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

        The above chart is educational. It purportedly means that more experienced scientists who are better informed are more likely to believe in global warming. This is an odd interpretation.

        What is more likely, as was proven in the climategate emails, is that it is clear and convincing proof of discrimination in the scientific publishing field against the skeptical viewpoint. A believer in strong warming is over 3 times as likely to get republished.

      • PA,

        I agree, but believe we can state that more strongly: the number of publications in such a broad pool of respondents is a weak measure of expertise. Studies discussing a call for mass action to prevent global destruction should require a higher level of evidence.

        For example…

        * Number of papers are not quality or influence. H-scores are much more accurate. Also, people challenging the dominant paradigm might get fewer papers published, but they might be unusually influential (cited).

        * Publication numbers vary by important aspects: your field of science, age, and if an academic or practitioner.

        Are younger scientists in more or less agreement with the AR4/5 keynote statement than older generations? Practitioners than academics? Given the lower agreement found in surveys of meteorologists, the latter might prove especially interesting.

      • “”No one number can show such a complex story“”

        How about this:

        “Man is not significantly changing the climate through prior and present actions.”

        Find all the climate scientists who say “agree.” What percentage would it be. Heartland et al has combed the globe to find, and publicize, and constantly rely upon, each and every single last one. And it’s a miniscule fraction. (Though of course “studies” and “papers” are constantly done of scientists in general, combing the world through millions and millions.)

        Or how about this:
        “Man is significantly impacting – altering – future long term climate through our past and present actions.” And then find the percentage of climate scientists who don’t agree. Again, miniscule fraction of all those who professionally study this isssue.

        Of course the more important fact is not that almost all climate scientists believe this, but the reasons why.

        It’s also almost silly to try and attribute a specific %, as the V study apparently does, to surface warming, as it’s impossible to know what it would be in the absence of our atmospheric alteration, and surface temperatures vary in conjunction (but not conformity) with ocean, ice and other trends; and surface warming is also not the issue – only a part of it.

        Also, the focus on CO2 as the cause of man caused atmospheric alteration impact upon long term climate, as the pie graph that starts out the link does, is not only mistaken, but egregiously so.

        Since pre industrial times, atmospheric CH4 has increased at about a 1 to 110 ratio as CO2. Roughly. It’s gone up from around 800ppb or a bit under, to 1800 -or 1000 ppb or 1 ppm. While CO2 has gone up from around 290 or so to around 400, or 110 ppm. But over just 20 yrs CH4 (which accounts for much breakdown of that CH4 already) is around 75-85 more potent than CO2 at trapping thermal radiation. Which in turn is only measuring the effect of CH4 that exists at this moment, projected forward in time, and wouldn’t be applicable for measuring the net impact so far upon total net recaptured atmospheric energy from our alteration. Or ongoing similarly high, or even higher, levels.

        So CH4 increases have played a far larger role than the short shrift they normally get. We may be greatly underestimating the effect if levels do stay high or go higher, and due to very specific and increasing signs of change, are likely to only go higher, possibly much higher.

      • A: Heartland et al has combed the globe to find, and publicize, and constantly rely upon, each and every single last one.

        that is not true. Almost all attendees at the most recent Heartland Conference (cheerfully reported by Christopher Monckton on a blog) agree with the statement that humans have been and are altering the Earth’s climate. Where they disagree with the “alarmists” like Hansen is in the assertion that the effect of CO2 specifically has been exaggerated. Both Bjorn Lomborg and Christopher Monckton have publicly endorsed the idea that increasing amounts of CO2 warm the climate.

      • A: Also, the focus on CO2 as the cause of man caused atmospheric alteration impact upon long term climate, as the pie graph that starts out the link does, is not only mistaken, but egregiously so.

        So you are a CO2 “denialist” or “lukewarmer”? Does your post imply that you oppose the large scale PR campaign to divest the human energy economy out of coal and other fossil fuels? Do you think that burning the waste methane at refineries is environmentally sound because it converts methane to carbon dioxide? Hardly anyone opposes economically capturing as much methane as possible and using it for fuel. And on the production side, agronomists have gone so far as to create a strain of rice that dramatically reduces methane generation in rice paddies.

      • I used the same source as the article. It was clear that the article was downplaying some very obvious things even within the results it presented, so I focused on that. However I do agree with this sentence. “Unless the skeptics form a theory, they’ll remain minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the public policy debate about climate change (they’re distinct, although often conflated).” So far most of them are not even very confident in their own view as your graphic showed, which is a problem. Confidence comes from doing the science rather than just sitting around talking about it.

      • Jim,

        “So far most of them are not even very confident in their own view … Confidence comes from doing the science rather than just sitting around talking about it.”

        I am writing a follow-up post which expresses a different but somewhat similar view. What does a scientist do if his (or her) work uncovers a global disaster coming? We’ve seen this film scores of times, starting with When worlds collide. They take their evidence to the UN and say “have the world’s experts examine it.”

        They don’t present their conclusions then spend the next 2 decades hiding their work, forcing FOI litigation (which they crush by inside machinations). They never say…

        “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

        No matter what the science is, such behavior suggests both a lack of confidence in their work, and low belief in their claims that it describes an urgent threat to the world.

      • For a while the Climategate skeptics thought they were onto something when the CRU temperature data wasn’t just handed over despite their FOIA hounding, but after redoing the work themselves (BEST) they showed there was no there there, so that particular complaint is now moot.

      • Jim D.

        “I used the same source as the article. It was clear that the article was downplaying some very obvious things even within the results it presented, so I focused on that.”

        Since you ignore what I said in the article, it’s impossible to take your comments about it seriously. That’s the obvious conclusion. Keep those eyes closed!

      • It is very clear that the article started with the headline and then tried to figure out how to filter the numbers to get there. The actual numbers show that by a 6 to 1 margin those with an opinion think it is more than 50% GHGs, and in that majority most of them say it is either virtually certain or extremely likely, spanning the IPCC AR5 view. As I said, your 47% doesn’t mean much, probably because it is excessively filtered. The numbers shown speak for themselves more along the lines I said.

      • The 47% is correct, yimmy. It’s simple math. You are the one doing the filtering. And as usual, you are not fooling anybody.

      • Jim D | August 1, 2015 at 5:45 pm |
        It is very clear that the article started with the headline and then tried to figure out how to filter the numbers to get there. The actual numbers show that by a 6 to 1 margin those with an opinion think it is more than 50% GHGs, and in that majority most of them say it is either virtually certain or extremely likely, spanning the IPCC AR5 view. As I said, your 47% doesn’t mean much, probably because it is excessively filtered. The numbers shown speak for themselves more along the lines I said.

        Only in climate science are the facts of the case determined by surveys of scientific opinion. We don’t do surveys of scientists to determine if gravity is less than 9 m/s2, between 9 and 10 m/s2 or greater than 10 m/s – we go out and measure it.

        There should have been 10 teams out there measuring downwelling IR.35 years ago.

        If Jonathan Swift was alive today “Climate Science land” would be one of Gulliver’s stops.

      • OK, if you want the 47%, how many think it is extremely likely less than 50% GHGs. It is about 2.5%. Compare those numbers then. So 97.5% don’t think it is extremely likely less than 50% GHGs.

      • You are dodging, yimmy. Like the man said:

        “But the point here is agreement with the full keynote statement given in AR4 and AR5.”

        It’s 47%, period. And the vast majority of the folks who populate this planet are not losing any sleep over alleged AGW. That’s why there has been no meaningful CO2 mitigation and there ain’t likely to be any, unless the alarmist clowns can up their game. Can you up your game, yimmy? You been at this for years. Do you think you are winning? Try to be honest. Surprise us.

      • Jim D,
        It simply doesn’t matter
        That’s the bit you don’t get
        (posted in the wrong place last time)

      • By the same filter, your side stands at 2.5%, Don.

      • peter, tell Maximus that at his site. It’s his post that this is all about. If you don’t want to talk about polls of experts, don’t keep talking about polls on these sites. Realclimate doesn’t feel the need to.

      • Jim D.

        What have we learned from your comments?

        (a) You didn’t read the EST paper correctly, since you said about question 1: “If you go to the raw numbers where the expertise by number of climate publications is separated, those in the top quartile have this ratio nearer 8 to 1.” Nope, that’s about Q3.

        (b) You gave one of the silliest rebuttals ever: “The 47% number just doesn’t tell that story.” Yes, that’s why my post was 1,044 words long.

        (c) Since I showed my math giving the 47% result, this shows your inability to understand simple multiplication: “The actual numbers show that by a 6 to 1 margin those with an opinion think it is more than 50% GHGs, and in that majority most of them say it is either virtually certain or extremely likely, spanning the IPCC AR5 view.”

        And best of all is your claim that “It is very clear that the article started with the headline and then tried to figure out how to filter the numbers to get there.”

        Padawan, you are not yet ready for the trials. Your inability to read minds shows a weak mastery of the Force.

      • Maximus, no, it is Q1 in the supporting information. I read beyond the paper. By your same filter we get 2.5% for those on the less than 50% GHG side and as sure of it. Just pointing that out for balance. You can put everyone who gave a percentage GHGs on a spectrum and it turns out that the IPCC statement is the median view, which is as it should be.

      • Jim,

        After a dozen rounds of reading your vague comments, I have lost confidence in your grasp of facts. Please give some sort of cite, not based on your mind reading or reading “beyond the paper.”

        Your previous comment, saying that I “don’t want to talk about polls of experts” is especially bizarre. Try replying to quotes, so readers have some idea what to what you refer.

      • The supporting information is linked with the paper. This is a paper that has been around for a while and it is surprising it is being discussed only now.
        http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es501998e/suppl_file/es501998e_si_001.pdf
        As for the other comment, it was addressed to peter, who thinks it is not productive to talk about polls to skeptics. I tend to agree.

      • Jim,

        If you are giving a fact, it is usual to state where you got it. Such as “page 5” or “figure 2b”. This is my 3rd reply about this small item, you still have not told me where you got it, and I’m not going to dig for it.

        As for your allusion to Peter, comments work better if you — like almost everybody else does here – state to whom you are responding.

        Making us guess about the source of your facts or the target of your response does not build confidence in your content.

        Perhaps if you followed such standard protocols you might find others are in fact talking sense — and others might begin to think that of you.

      • You have no cred, yimmy, because you won’t give in on the simplest and most obvious points:

        “But the point here is agreement with the full keynote statement given in AR4 and AR5.”

        Those in the survey who agreed with the full keynote statement given in AR4 and AR5 amounted to 47% of the total population surveyed, minus those who don’t have a clue. We could count them as not agreeing, but who needs them. That leaves 53% who did not agree. It’s that simple. Any other story you come up with is your usual transparent alarmist dogma BS.

      • Maximus, Figure S3. I forgot what the question was, however. That breaks Q1 into quartiles. Also my reply to peter started with the name, peter, as is traditional around here. Maybe your name is peter too, so you were confused(?). I don’t know and can’t guess what your problem was.

      • Don, if you take those that expressed a percentage greater than 50% GHGs, you find that the median is in the extremely likely range, same as the IPCC. Even if you lump in those that said less than 50%, the median stays in the extremely likely range because there are too few of those to move the median much. You can do all that with just the graphs shown on that blog page.

      • Richard Tol –

        ““Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”

      • Jim D.

        About figure S3 in the supplement: GHG contribution to recent warming by number of publications.

        “from the Verheggen survey you find that those who think it is more than 50% GHGs outnumber those who think it is less by 6 to 1. If you go to the raw numbers where the expertise by number of climate publications is separated, those in the top quartile have this ratio nearer 8 to 1.

        First, these are not quartiles (i.e., 4 equal groups).

        Second, S3 shows that of people with self-declared publications in the highest group: ~31% believe >100%, ~33% 76-100%, and ~14% 51-75%. That’s 80%, or 4:1.

      • Jim D, didn’t Mosher tell you to do your own damn science?

      • Maximus, those are as near to quartiles as they could get with integer numbers of publications, and 8:1 is the ratio of those with a percentage above 50 to those with one below it, which is how we got the 6:1 with the full set. Understand?

      • Jim D,

        So you are throwing out three categories of answers by experts with the highest category of publications? ~15% of responses by people with over 30 publications each. Hey, what do they know?

        You describe the categories as quartiles, although the supplement does not use the word?

        OK, now I understand why you believe people who disagree with you (“skeptics”) are not sensible. You see the world in a funhouse mirror and are puzzled that others do not see the same picture.

        I am done here.

      • > It was a small fun comment.

        Which one, Editor, that one:

        Try reading it. Then you can attempt a coherent rebuttal.

        ?

        If that’s your idea of fun, you might try to perfect your Very Serious Person act instead.

      • Maximus, they mention quartiles under Table S3, but I am done here too. Next time you mention the 47% perhaps you will at least think of your own 2.5% too.

      • You have been done here for years, yimmy.

      • David Springer

        J0shua | August 1, 2015 at 9:30 pm |
        Richard Tol –

        ““Published papers that seek to test what caused the climate change over the last century and half, almost unanimously find that humans played a dominant role.”

        ——————————————————————–

        Climate change in the last 150 years consists of recovery from the disastrously low temperatures of the Little Ice Age.

        I humans played a dominant role we had better continue playing that role!

      • Joshua,

        Re: Richard Tol’s statement

        I agree, see links to most of those surveys here.

        But this is science, not religion. Religion rests on binary statements of faith. Being science the IPCC gives confidence limits for its findings. The PBL survey is useful as the first to test for agreement of climate scientists with those confidence limits.

    • Maybe we should have an election where only climate scientists can vote on the settled science once and for all – no amendments!

      Were Newton’s laws selected by a vote? I was just wondering …

      • Part of the problem appears to be activism in the climate community.

        Government debarment from climate grants, of members of the WWF, Greenpeace, the AGU, Earth First, etc. (basically any hot bed of climate activism) would give us more honest and objective science.

      • Danny Thomas

        justinwonder,
        Uh, um……..exactly whom or what is the qualification for being a “climate scientist”? I still have no handle on that as everyone from economists to statisticians to biologist to historians seem to qualify. Meteorologists seem to be suspect for some reason unknown to me.

      • We don’t trust Meteorologists as they provide information that is useful.

    • Well, gee. Lets look at the survey.

      Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
      from their site:
      Principles:
      Ecological modernization Environmentalism Human impact on the environment Planetary boundaries Stewardship Sustainable development

      Government funded advocacy group… that’s not good. Further, from his website Bart Verheggen (not Bert Verhagen the football player) is a global warmer.

      Strike 1.

      http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
      Results are presented from a survey held among 1868 scientists studying various aspects of climate change, including physical climate, climate impacts, and mitigation. The survey was unique in its size, broadness and level of detail.

      What doesn’t get a lot of attention is a lot environment activists become climate. That the WWF and Greenpeace write parts of the IPCC documents and the some of their gray literature is included is troubling. That in fact was the source of the false glacier claim.
      https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim/

      The actual study – as they proudly emphasize – includes people in “impacts and mitigation”. People in impacts and mitigation might not be “real” climate scientists. Asking a biologist about climate science isn’t a lot better than asking your neighbor. Further, the impacts and mitigation fields are absolutely infested with activists.

      That is strike 2.

      The next issue is how they selected the contestants. They did a search on “global warming” and “global climate change”. They didn’t search for “climate scientist”. Further they supplemented the original 6000 with 2000 names from published literature. They sent out 8000 surveys and 1868 were returned – some partly completed.

      It is pretty obvious what happened. The literature gatekeeping (re: climategate ) guaranteed the 2000 literature based names were heavily pro-warming. The less than 1/4 participation means they got mostly activists.

      Strike 3.

      What is interesting is the amount of less than 50%ers in a loaded study. 12.3% less than 50%ers.
      21.8% “don’t know”/”don’t care”/”Can I have that donut”
      65.9% actually think it is above 50%.

      The number of publishers – especially heavy publishers is a small fraction of climate scientists. Around 95-98% of scientists are in the 0-3 category. The trend is more disbelief with less publishing – and of the 0-3s only about 58% believe in more than 50% CO2 warming

      Given the steps take to concentrate the participants and the overweighting in publishers 65.9 is high by some percentage – perhaps a factor of two but certainly enough to assure us that less than half of climate scientists believe in strong (more than 50%) CO2 forcing.

      A neutral organization should be picked to run a study that surveys a random sample of climate scientists (atmospheric scientists) and achieves at least 80% participation so we know it is a valid study. Hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge.

      • It is pretty obvious what happened. The literature gatekeeping (re: climategate ) guaranteed the 2000 literature based names were heavily pro-warming. The less than 1/4 participation means they got mostly activists.

        People criticizing papers (authors) means there is widespread literature gatekeeping? I am not following your logic.

      • The gatekeeping detailed in the climategate emails has several subtle effects.

        One is that if you poach a list of the top 2000 global warming authors you are going to get mostly global warmers because they have an easier time getting articles published (gatekeeping prebiases your sample with an excess of global warmers).

        The fact they were searching for “global warming” and “climate change” rather than “climate scientist” meant they were going to get mostly advocates. They really should have looked for “atmospheric scientist”.

        A survey of average run-of-the-mill atmospheric scientists would be interesting.

      • One is that if you poach a list of the top 2000 global warming authors you are going to get mostly global warmers because they have an easier time getting articles published

        Where do you get this from? Still trying to follow the logic..

      • This isn’t hard. We will use an example.

        An author of a skeptical paper has only 1/3 the chance of getting published as the author of a CAGW (cult of anthropomorphic global warming) article and may to relegated to a lesser journal. The peer review may include one or more CAGWers who will reject his article out of hand.

        A CAGWer will get published because he is given a pass on some of his data and methodology (this is how we get hockey sticks). Much like sharks treat lawyers the CAGWer is given a pass based on professional courtesy (in this case political courtesy).

        Now when you do a survey of the names of top publishers you are going to get about 3/4th CAGWers and 1/4 normal scientists. The gatekeeping will concentrate CAGWers among the top authors.

  15. I appreciate the posting examine the SKS criticisms of Roger Peilke Sr. Across views perpspectives and ideologies it seems to me that a large portion of the population has made up its mind on key issues and they are just looking for a technical reason to reject inconvenient information. If ” technically” rebutted the info and arguments can be discredited and discarded. I’ve heard people with now depth of knowledge casually state, that x or y was rebutted without knowing anything about what evidence supported the original position or the rebuttal-but end of dialogue for them case closed.

    Some of the rebuttals to Peilke were painfully weak, but evidently that’s good enough. On the one hand that should be a red flag and maybe such quick and easy and false rebuttals contain the seeds of their own eventual demise. On the other I fear our ability to retain and reject based on our initial presumptive positions will serve to entrench mistaken ideas and flawed approaches. But in either case, good shot Fabius Maximus Website.

    • Well…

      A February study came out with the first honest measurement of CO2 forcing. 22 PPM = 0.2W which implies 3.46 ln (C/C0) or 1.05 W/m2 since 1900, measured in Alaska and Oklahoma. Low level downwelling IR at the surface – the GHG effort.

      Now this is about halfway between the deniers and the strong warmers. This study is also about 35 years later than it should have been. GHG forcing should have been measured before we considered doing something about it.

      No one seems to address this study much. Which is odd. If the anthropogenic forcing is higher than this – the causes are something other than GHG and will be unaffected by GHG fixes.

      Since the forcing is moderate this means Pielke who is in the middle ground is going to be more right than any strong warmer (SKS).

      Since Dr. Pielke holds the factual high ground, “What the Science Says” responses are off target, tangential, or simply irrelevant in an ADD sort of way (“Look, squirrel”).

      As an aside I appreciate the posts Dr. Pielke makes at this website, and thank him for taking the time to engage.

      • CO2 forcing is not the whole stoory. . In fact it greatly understates the story

        See second half of this comment (and the two specific links therein), explains why. (The relevant part starts with “since pre industrial times.”)

        Its also very difficult to measure the exact forcing, because we can’t know the full energy balance of the earth, nor what it was, and it’s that change in the energy balance and its accumulating effects, that’s the real issue.

      • A: CO2 forcing is not the whole stoory.

        Very true, but it is the focus of a large and important public policy debate.

      • PA – I have great respect and appreciation for Dr. Pielke. Sorryif my post made it appear otherwise. I have not been impressed with SKS, but it seems to move many people.

      • aplanningengineer

        I didn’t mean to imply that. I can’t recall you ever being less than courteous and respectful.

        I’m sort of envious of your ability to maintain an objective, factual, and neutral tone.

        I share your respect for Dr. Pielke and confusion about SKS. I don’t know what people see in that site either. The posters at SKS seem to process information in a way that I regard as suboptimum and would not trust their engineering judgment if they were a co-worker.

    • A planning engineer,

      I believe the reaction to the SkS smear campaign has significance beyond it as some skillful propaganda by activists becoming accepted truth in their tribe.

      When in a Twitter thread about this with several climate scientists, one gave as rebuttal “Roger Pielke Sr is a climate misinformer.” The others gave this a pass, as they have to the SkS smear campaign.

      Is this in the best interest of science, or climate science, as institutions? My guess is that their tolerance of this mud slinging — with such weak basis — against one of their own reduces the public’s confidence in them. They look like just another gang of political activists, of the kind America overflows with.

      • I don’t know if my post was interpreted correctly, but I think what SKS is doing is unfair, amateurish and unfortunately effective. Maybe that is skillful propaganda, maybe mindsets have been developed so that propaganda does not have to reach that bar. Maybe it’s felt that giving passes to poor propaganda is ok because the cause is just.

        I appreciate what you are doing. I hope such efforts will prove effective.

        I don’t disagree with anything PA said either. I just wonder if evidence and rationality matter as people take sides.

  16. “The results indicated that years of low sea ice in the Arctic correlated with years of greater snow depth in southern Siberia.”
    If I was a Siberian farmer, I’d be for global warming. Snow works as precipitation and they are a bit geographically hindered in that department.
    What I am reading is an albedo shift to the South. Losses up North. Does it matter? Minnesota can have significant snowfall staying on the ground in mid April for a few days. Sun is pretty high in the sky then. What happens with global cooling? The albedo shifts North. In the contest of, does ice insulate more than it reflects energy, insulation just gained a bit.
    Stadium Wave. Local precipitation records. Might see it.

  17. I didn’t read it all, but the Salon link is a Marc Morano stream of conscience piece that just goes on and on, all in one paragraph. Is he OK?

  18. “The UN @IPCC_CH intentionally lied about Himalayan Glaciers.”
    What is a 2010 rant from David Rose in the Daily Mail tabloid doing in the week in review science edition?

    • Don’t get upset, nicky. She said she is busy. You could write up a formal complaint and submit it to the blog police.

      • Don, I know she is padding the “science review” with rightwing tabloid rants (Daily Mail x2, Breitbart x2, Morano, the American Interest), and I guess it saves time. I’m just curious how the one from 2010 is there.

      • Don

        Busy?

        It’s very disappointing that she would choose her family over her denizens. So so selfish…

        Tonyb

      • It’s a golden oldie, nicky. She’s testing new ideas for regular features. Year 2010 in review-red meat edition.

      • Nick Stokes: Morano,

        Morano links to a Dutch court case. It is worth the read.

        Breitbart x2

        Do you find Breitbart unreliable, in general or in these two cases? Breitbart has not, in my experience (of a few) been worse than The Nation or Salon.

      • Nick,

        Amrican Interest is far from right wing, unless you consider anyone that criticizes Obama as right wing.

      • mm,
        Breitbart – well, Delingpole’s headline
        “You don’t have to be venal, weird and creepy to work in climate science, but it certainly helps…”
        In a science review?

        Fun fact – our hostess works in climate science.

        I’m not even particularly concerned about reliability here – just about what it is doing in a science review.

        The Dutch case had a judgment demanding government action. Somehow Morano is twisting this into punishing climate deniers.

      • MS,
        OK, substitute Andrew Bolt.

      • There’s no need for alternative theories, only one that’s correct/ observable. Take what’s known, continue fighting about what’s ambiguous (a lot), do more science. Make the science unambiguous.

      • Wrong spot for previous post, oh well.

    • Nick

      Where in the article does it talk about lying? Why do you think it a right wing rant?

      I suspect that Judith saw the date at the top, today’s date and thought it was current instead of just the date it was pulled online from the archives

      Tonyb

      • “Where in the article does it talk about lying? “
        I’m just quoting from the head post. Judith’s term, not mine.

      • This is stuff that caught Judith’s eye, nicky. A lot of it apparently comes from skimming twitter chatter. Doesn’t mean she actually read it. The descriptions of the content are often not hers. Most of it can be ignored without missing out.

      • Nick

        Did you actually read the article? Or did you just assume It was right wing rant? The five year old article seems to have stood the test of time. David rose is a good conscientious journalist who mostly gets it right

        Tonyb

      • Tony,
        “Did you actually read the article?”
        I read it five years ago. I think Judy’s characterization in this post picked up the message. As to the reliability of David Rose, well, Deltoid has had a bit to say, but this will do for the moment.

      • Nick

        I would take deltoid as seriously as I take the guardian. That is to say not at all.

        Curious to see you linking to Judith. As far as I am Aware she has a lot of time for David rose. I do as well and,unlike you, have had the benefit of actually meeting the guy . We spoke of the Chinese adventuring. Like him I think le Roy ladurie is brilliant. Have you ever read the book cited?

        I contacted Gavin Menzies about six years ago regarding the Chinese story. At the time I completely poo poohed it. Menzies refused to release any data at all on what he found and was roundly condemned in several dedicated web sites.

        Having had the opportunity of visiting in the interim the Scott polar institute in Cambridge I found intriguing evidence of a substantial arctic warming and Russian expeditions to find the northern sea route around 1540 which seemed to suggest they may have found a way to china. The archival system unfortunately made it difficult to cross reference any supporting evidence so it remains intriguing but unproven.

        Whether there was a warming of the arctic a century previously I can not corroborate but these days I would not condemn Menzies outright as I did a few years ago.

        David rose is very knowledgeable on climate science and it’s history and is also a nice guy who follows up conscientiously. Being a journalist of course he is not going to be right all the time. They are writing to deadlines. However scientists aren’t right all the time either despite having much longer to prepare their data

        Tonyb

      • Tony,
        You could follow some of Deltoid’s links. Quite a few of people seem to find that David Rose misreported them. Here is Lal, featured in that 2010 story, as reported by Andrew Revkin. And here is our own Dr Pielke. George Monbiot lists a few more, with a reminder about Rose’s Iraq WMD reporting.

      • Nick

        Monbiot says

        ‘in May 2004, over a year after the war began, Rose, to his credit, admitted that he’d got it wrong.’

        May I point out that Chalabi amongst others were highly credible (to our idiot leaders) The UK is into its fifth year of an inquiry into the Iraq war that to date has cost £100million (the inquiry not the war)

        A journalist without the benefit of time or hindsight made a mistake that the Western powers-with all their resources-also got wrong. Rose was wrong and admitted it and I have already pointed out he is not perfect. He mostly does a good job and after meeting him I know him to be a good conscientious reporter.

        Your comments about le roy ladurie or 1421 mentioned in deltoids unpleasant little piece? You surely you don’t read that stuff or desmogblog do you?

        tonyb

      • Tony,
        I don’t read Deltoid much now, as they don’t have much new material. As to the link you mentioned, I’m not sure what I am expected to comment on re Ladurie or 1421. Many people feel the Chinese navy exploring the pole in 1421 is far-fetched and with shaky sources, so I suppose Lambert thinks that shows undue credulity. I can sympathize with that.

        What I thought was more telling credulity was Rose’s enthusiasm for the CENSORED-DATA furphy (” Surely this points to an egregious scientific scandal.”). This follows a sceptic pattern where scientists are held to know that it’s all a fraud, and if you listen and interpret closely, they are sure to let something slip. So in this case, Mann has a sort of portfolio in the attic where he puts all his guilty secrets, helpfully labelling them “CENSORED_DATA” and putting a copy on the web. Of course, in fact censored-data is simply standard statistical terminology for data with missing values subject to a one-sided restriction.

        And credulity re Iraq – well, he may have apologised, but it is still gross credulity (at best).

        But in terms of sloppy (and motivated) reporting, that post links (via Romm) to this, which starts:

        “The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.”

        That is untrue. Eminent climate scientists do not believe that. But Rose’s star exhibit was Prof Mojib Latif, who he quoted extensively. And here is what Latif had to say about that.

      • NIck

        Why not read the original story rather than someone’s version of it?

        Did Latif not say this in 2010?

        ‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

        Seems pretty accurate to me or is he now saying he was wrong? Rose makes it clear that Latif is a proponent of global warming and that any change is temporary.

        The reason I asked about Le Roy Ladurie is that a knowledge of past climates is very useful in order to recognise that todays events are not the startling departure from the ‘normal’ climate that some scientists believe.

        It would help people like Prof Wadhams for example to come to terms that the melt is nowhere near as drastic as he believes. He is only a few hundred yards from the Scott Polar institute in Cambridge where a browse of the extraordinary papers held there might help to put todays events into perspective.

        tonyb

      • Tony
        So Latif said
        “For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.”
        and Rose’s ‘accurate’ version is:
        “only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years”

        I haven’t read Ladurie’s book. But I wonder how authoritative it is on 15C arctic climate.

      • Nick

        You seem to be suggesting that Rose paraphrased them. But those are the words as quoted by Latif in the Mail report. Latif back in 2010 was accurate. Are you saying he was misquoted and Latif actually got things wrong?

        E Roy Ladurie did a highly detailed examination of world glaciers , specific glaciers, the Antarctic and the arctic. Some months ago I took the trouble of taking this extensive data and adding in such as pfister in order to come up with a graphic overlaid by MBH98

        . As always with glacier change there are many caveats so the advances and retreats we can observe over centuries should be seen as only indicative.

        https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9qkeglbck7h2fc/revised%20glaciers.docx?dl=0

        tonyb

      • “But those are the words as quoted by Latif in the Mail report.”

        The nearest thing quoted there is
        “They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.”

        He seems to have hybridised this with something quoted from Tsonis, who is not an eminent climate scientist, but a math professor. A respectable profession, I hasten to add, but not the same.

        I don’t myself know whether Latif was quoted accurately, but he sure seems unhappy about it.

      • Nick

        Are we reading the sae article?

        From the Mail online report comes this

        —— ——–

        “Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

        ‘They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

        ‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz3heNYVtA3
        Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
        —– —–

        That is exactly what I have been quoting but you don’t seem to see it ,hence my assumption we are not reading the same thing.

        Hope you found the glacier data useful as it helps put things into historic context. Mind you I could do a better job of incorporating Dr Mann’s graph if you could link to the data he used.

        All the best

        tonyb

      • Putting things into historic context is not something that Nick and many others are inclined to do. It messes with their world view and sort of upsets the Apple cart.

      • Tony,
        Yes, we are reading the same thing. I actually quoted the 2nd para in my previous comment, and the third para earlier. David Rose’s intro goes beyond that. As to whether the quote is accurate, and in context, I don’t know, but Latif was very unhappy with the way his views were presented. As with Judith, Roger… well shortage of time can only explain so much. And it’s quite inappropriate as an excuse for the Iraq WMD/Chalabi reporting.

      • The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

        It did no such thing. The scientists Rose is referring to wrote papers: Keenlyside.

        predictions:

        checkup:

      • What I learned reading Keenlyside-Latif papers and press is you had to be very careful to figure out whether or not they were talking about the globe or the North Atlantic region, as a negative phase of the “AMO” is cited as a cause of some pretty major changes in Europe’s weather that are not necessarily global.

      • ns, “Tsonis, who is not an eminent climate scientist, but a math professor.”

        Worse! From the looks of it he is a weatherman.

      • Tsonis, who is not an eminent climate scientist, but a math professor. A respectable profession, I hasten to add, but not the same.

        Have you actually looked at his CV?

        Ph.D., Dept. of Meteorology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (1982)

        UPPER LEVEL COURSES TAUGHT

        Atmospheric Thermodynamics

        Radiation

        Statistical Methods in Geosciences

        Introduction to Nonlinear Dynamics

        Nonlinear Time Series Analysis

        Seminar on Global Climate Change

        Selected (by me) publications:

        A.A. Tsonis, 1982: The Evaluation of Extrapolation Schemes for the Growth or Decay of Rain Area and Applications. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 126 pp.

        A.A. Tsonis, 1983: Examination of the Spectral and Spatial Characteristics of the Visible and Infrared GOES Images and Applications. Atmospheric Environment Service, Environment Canada, Internal Report N. ARPB 116P39. 84 pp.

        A.A. Tsonis, 1987: A Method for Inferring Aerosol Properties from Satellite Data. Atmospheric Environment. 21, 2467-2471.

        A.A. Tsonis and J.B. Elsner, 1989 : Chaos, Strange Attractors and Weather. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.70, 16-23.

        A.A. Tsonis and J.B. Elsner, 1990: Multiple Attractors Fractal Basins and Long-term Climate Dynamics. Beitr. Phys. Atmosph. 63, 171-176.

        J.B. Elsner and A.A. Tsonis, 1991: Do bidecadal oscillations exist in the global temperature record? Nature.353, 551-553.

        J.B. Elsner and A.A. Tsonis, 1994: Empirically derived climate predictability over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics, 1, 41-44.

        A.A. Tsonis, 1996: Widespread increases in low-frequency variability of precipitation over the last century. Nature. 382, 700-702.

        A.A. Tsonis and P.J. Roebber, 2004: The architecture of the climate network. Physica A, 333, 497-504.

        A.A. Tsonis, K.L. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288.

        K.L. Swanson, G. Sugihara, and A.A. Tsonis, 2009:Long-term natural variability and 20th century climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci (USA),doi/10.1073/pnas0908699106.

        A.A. Tsonis and K.L. Swanson, 2012: Review article “On the origins of decadal climate variability: a network perspective” .Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 19,559–568, doi:10.5194/npg-19-559-2012

        S. Kravtsov, M.G. Wyatt, J.A. Curry, and A.A. Tsonis, 2014: Two contrasting views of multidecadal climate variability in the 20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett. 10.1002/2014 GL061416.

        Oh wait! I get it! He’s “ not an eminent climate scientist” because you don’t like what he’s saying.

        D0lt!

        Note to Steven Mosher: Your “skeptics need an alternative theory” is building right under your nose. You just don’t see it because it’s primarily mathematical, not based on “physics”.

      • Tsonis is one of the people I have read most closely. When he made the 20-to-30 year comment, I groaned as there was/is no basis for it, including in his work.

        Tsonis is not an eminent climate scientist, and Nick Stokes is not a dolt.

      • Nick

        No, sorry, but it is entirely unreasonable to heap blame on David Rose regarding the Iraq war. It is our respective Governments who are entirely culpable. Here is the Chilcot enquiry site. PLEASE read it.

        http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/

        To date it has taken £100 Million, 5 years of time, undertaken hundreds of interviews-including with Tony Blair-and STILL it hasn’t reached any conclusions into the whys and wherefores.

        Why do you think David Rose -a mere journalist-had anything like the resources or time to have been able to suss out the background to a cunning liar such as Chalabi? Your prejudices are showing.

        David has his faults but having had the opportunity to read his other works over the years and talk to him for several hours he is not the bête noir you seem to believe.

        tonyb

      • > Why do you think David Rose -a mere journalist-had anything like the resources or time to have been able to suss out the background to a cunning liar such as Chalabi?

        That’s an interesting leading question, of the form: Why do you think X (only a J) had the power to be able to Y such a great Q as C?

        Let’s try it:

        Why do you think the IPCC […] “but Himalaya”?

        Let Denizens fill the dots.

        Go team!

      • Tsonis is not an eminent climate scientist, […]

        He’s a “Distinguished Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences”, which makes him “eminent”. His credentials as a “climate scientist” are clear from the CV excerpted above.

        Not just word games. His special areas of interest include “Nonlinear Dynamics”,“Climate Dynamics”, and “Networks”. These being key elements of real climate science, that makes him “eminentas a “climate scientist”.

        In fact, IMO anybody who cares about real climate science, as opposed to endless iterations of GCM runs to nowhere, would regard him as a preeminent climate scientist.

      • I regard Tsonis as a pre-eminent climate scientist

      • “I regard Tsonis as a pre-eminent climate scientist”
        Well, looking at his citations, he has a book on “Chaos: from theory to applications”. A Math text, which no doubt mentions climate in the applications. 444 citations. Then another math book, “Singular spectrum analysis: a new tool in time series analysis”. 379 citations . Then an ecology paper (genetics) 223 citations. The most-cited of his climate papers is “A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts” (2007). 173 citations.

        I don’t think this makes him an eminent climate scientist.

      • He’s changed the way people think about climate dynamics. Citation counts aren’t all that meaningful.

      • Jee whiz, Judith, to be an eminent climate scientist, one must produce a novel statistical procedure out of whole cloth that, while being fundamentally janky, produces hockey sticks that get a lot of publicity from Al Gore.

      • “to be an eminent climate scientist, one must produce a novel statistical procedure out of whole cloth”

        Well, you have to do something. What achievement of Tsonis do you think makes him an eminent climate scientist?

        1804 scientists cited MBH98.

      • nicky says: “1804 scientists cited MBH98.”

        Shame on them. The failure of the climate science establishment to criticize their own when it is obviously warranted is largely responsible for their lack of credibility.

      • Speaking of criticizing one’s own, Nick may recall that Tsonis has his name on the Stadium Wave paper:

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/09/28/two-contrasting-views-of-multidecadal-climate-variability-in-the-20th-century/

      • Steven Mosher

        “Note to Steven Mosher: Your “skeptics need an alternative theory” is building right under your nose. You just don’t see it because it’s primarily mathematical, not based on “physics”.

        Let me be more precise.

        Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the
        existing physical theory.

        math of course is used in theory building but is not a theory

      • My alternate physical theory is that there is not convincing evidence for the theory of strong positive feed backs. Get back to us on that.

      • David Springer

        Mosher’s so full of crap I bet his eyes are brown, Monfort. Why bother? There is absolutely no rule in science that an untested hypothesis must be supplanted with a better untested hypothesis. That status of true-until- -proven-false is reserved for well tested theory. CAGW is not even close to that point. It’s speculation and it’s failing in its major prediction. The pause is killing the cause. Big time.

      • Steven,

        “math of course is used in theory building but is not a theory”

        For physicists, the mathematical equations are THE THEORY. All their words are metaphors and aide-memoires for explaining the maths to the rest of the world.

      • 1804 scientists cited MBH98.

        I doubt it. They may have had PhD’s, but I doubt most of them were scientists.

      • Looks like JCH, Nick and Mosher join the Mighty Casey from Mudville. Three gargantuan Whiffs.

        You three might want to take up another sport too, called golf. The Pros are known to Whiff there too.

      • jim2

        “..produce a novel statistical procedure..

        If I might, I would suggest that a whole lot of Novels from statistical procedure can be found in the Climate Fiction section at your local Barnes & Noble Bookstore.

      • Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the existing physical theory.

        You’re not talking about Science here, Steven, but political perceptions of “science”.

        Real Science always speaks the language of mathematics. Was Newton an “eminent physicist”? Not until he developed a version of the Calculus so he could actually put numbers, mathematics behind his theories of gravitation. Putting it simply, things like velocity, acceleration, and position couldn’t be worked with using “algebra” (Arabic for “the geometry”).

        What Tsonis, among others, has been working on is the language of mathematical descriptions of chaos/complexity. While obsolete “climate” pseudo-scientists wave their arms and say there’s no problem.

        Let me reference more papers from his CV:

        A.A. Tsonis and P.A. Tsonis, 1987: Fractals: A New
        look at Biological Shape and Patterning. Perspect. Biol. Medic.30, (3) 355-361.

        A.A. Tsonis and J.B. Elsner, 1987: Fractal Characterization and Simulation of Lightning. Beitr. Phys. Atmosph. (Contributions to Atmospheric Physics). 60, 187-192.

        P.A. Tsonis and A.A. Tsonis, 1989: Chaos: Concepts and Implications in Biology. Comp. Apll. Biosc. 5, 27-32.

        A.A. Tsonis, J.B. Elsner and P.A. Tsonis, 1991: Periodicity in DNA sequences: Implications in gene evolution. J. Theor. Biol.151 (3), 323-331.

        G.P. Pavlos, A.A. Kyriakou, A.G. Rigas, P.I. Liatsis,
        P.C. Trochoutos, and A.A. Tsonis, 1992: Evidence for strange attractor structures in space plasma. Annales Geophysicae. 10, 309-322.

        A.A. Tsonis, J.B. Elsner and P.A. Tsonis, 1993: On the existence of scaling in DNA sequences. Bioch. Bioph. Res. Comm. 197, 1288-1295.

        Here we see evidence of his and others’ efforts to broaden the application of general mathematical techniques to multiple fields, allowing feedback from those fields to the general math.

        Do you suppose that, during the period while Newton was developing his Calculus language, his ideas about gravity were considered by most to be “an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the existing physical theory” of Ptolemy?

        But real scientists can look at the work in progress and see the implications. And that work in progress dates back to the ’80’s. Some of those implications are beginning to show up in recent work. Soon enough, “intuitive” descriptions will be worked out for the math-challenged politicians who want the cover of “Science” for their decisions.

      • Speaking of criticizing one’s own, Nick may recall that Tsonis has his name on the Stadium Wave paper:

        Here’s a statement that speaks for itself &dash; about the one who made it.

      • I read Tsonis, and have exchanged emails with him. One of Tsonis’ frequent coauthors is Kyle Swanson, who was a graduate student under Raymond Pierrehumbert, a contributor at RealClimate.

        I think his work is ground breaking.

        I think his conclusions, as expressed in the press, border on nonsense.

      • I think his work is ground breaking.

        Then you might want to reconsider your statement that he “is not an eminent climate scientist”. Scientists whose “work is ground breaking” are pretty thin on the ground.

      • Maybe he will follow his math and figure out where his math went wrong. Or maybe he’ll remain with his politics and remain wrong. Right now the 2015 GISS anomaly is above .80C, and I think it will be close to .90C at years end. And he did not see that coming.

      • > Real Science always speaks the language of mathematics. Was Newton an “eminent physicist”? Not until he developed a version of the Calculus so he could actually put numbers, mathematics behind his theories of gravitation.

        Real Science always speaks the language of mathematics. Was Newton an “eminent physicist”? Not until he developed a version of the Calculus so he could actually put numbers, mathematics behind his theories of gravitation.

        Therefore Tsonis’ the master of all Real Science.

        Therefore zoology, botanic, geology, geography, and all the other non-mathematized disciplines are not Real Science.

        You just can’t make this up.

      • catweazle666

        Willard | August 3, 2015 at 9:33 am
        “You just can’t make this up.”

        Willard old chap, I think anyone who has followed JC’s blogs for any length of time is aware that you can make anything up.

      • Steven Mosher

        I will try to keep it simple for you guys, jarheads too

        1. You need an alternative physical theory of the climate.
        2. that theory will contain math.. equations
        3. there will also be entities that are quantified.
        4. your theory has to explain past climate and predict future climate

      • Danny Thomas

        Steven,
        No one does “predictions”, only projections.

        As the GHG theory only incorporates understanding of ‘segments’ of ‘global climate’ it’s not a reasonable suggestion that alternatives must incorporate a comprehensive explanation of all past and future climate scenarios. Alarmists don’t comprehend that such a scenario does not currently exist under the GHG theory any more than it can be explained under an alternatives with today’s level of understanding.

        I’d fully agree if the current understanding incorporated all these factors, but as it stands, no way.

        So you go first!

      • well, the GHG crowd can’t predict future climate since they can’t predict solar variations, volcanic eruptions, or ocean oscillations. They assume these are unimportant, but they obviously aren’t.

      • 1. You need an alternative physical theory of the climate.

        Here Steven.

        2. that theory will contain math.. equations

        Yes.

        3. there will also be entities that are quantified.

        Such as “synchronization events”.

        4. your theory has to explain past climate and predict future climate

        It does and has. For instance, the current relatively level global temps will continue for another 10-20 years.

      • Well…

        Part of the problem is the right data isn’t available.

        1. 22 PPM for 0.2 W/m2 vs the 0.309 for the IPCC direct forcing and the 6.18 for the IPCC TSR. There were German and other studies that said the feedback would be 50% negative.

        The feedback is 50% negative.

        Further – this was all GHG (an IR measurement) and not just CO2 so it should have been a lot higher. So this is really the high end of CO2 forcing and the reality is less.

        2. The majority of the observed warming is due to some other combination of effects. That the source of the majority of the warming has not been measured, indicates the current understanding of climate physics is seriously flawed. The approach of atmospheric science needs to be rethought. Why would the source of most of the warming not be observed and measured?

        3. Further the surface data seems to be getting reworked on the assumption the models are right. The models aren’t right, which means the data is being corrupted.

      • My alternate theory of climate is almost exactly like the alarmist theory, except I don’t assume the strong positive feed backs. Without the strong positive feed backs we don’t need to worry about AGW. When I see some substantial evidence for the strong positive feed backs, I will join the alarmists and run around clucking like a Chicken Little.

      • Don

        These would be the much vaunted and modelled strong positive feedbacks that are impossible to discern in other equally warm or warmer periods such as the Minoan, Roman and MWP?

        tonyb

      • “well, the GHG crowd can’t predict future climate since they can’t predict solar variations, volcanic eruptions, or ocean oscillations. They assume these are unimportant, but they obviously aren’t

        1. Of course they CAN and DO predict future climate. The predictions
        may not and probably never will take into consdieration all
        factors and the predictions may have large errors BUT they
        CAN and DO make predictions. The only variable required to make
        a prediction is “t” or time.
        2. You use emcwf. It does not consider solar variations volcanic eruptions
        or ocean circulations, but they make predictions nonetheless.

        3. You can as a matter of fact include future solar variations. In the same
        way you can hypothesize a future emission of c02 you can hypothesize
        solar variations. you can use a solar constant as a base case, you
        can test a possible solar min, etc. Solar variation hasnt ben shown
        to have much of an effect.. oh ya except for correlation with random
        tree rings somewhere. Volcanos can also be including in predictions.
        Its easy. you can run cases with zero volcanos, you can run cases
        with historical patterns repeated, you can run worse case scenarios.
        Ocean oscilations are emergent properties
        4. We do not ASSUME that solar variations, and volcanos are unimportant. Let’s take volcanos. As you part of the explanation of
        the LIA IS volcanos. Also, some of the testing of GCMs relates
        to volcanic response. To be sure we can predict with accuracy
        the future levels of volcanic activity. BUT that same constraint
        exists for any other COMPETING THEORY. The same goes for
        solar variation. We dont assume its unimportant. All research to date
        shows that solar variation is of minor importance. An ALTERNATIVE theory would suffer from the same limitation until and unless it explained
        how exactly the sun causes the variation we see. We dont assume
        its unimportant, we demonstrate that.
        5. Oceanic oscilations. . We dont assume they are unimportant. The simulations exhibit these oscilations. The timing, amplitudes etc are
        not captured very well. But we dont consider them to be unimportant.
        They explain weather on regional levels and short time scales. What we ASSUME with good physical support is that over long time periods
        these oscilations will not create energy surpluses. They will not over long time periods create energy ex nihilo. To WIN an alternative theory
        will have to demonstrate that they do create energy. to WIN an alternative theory will have to do a better job of predicting them.

        When Dalton first proposed an atomic theory, there were things he got wrong and things he could not explain. The scientific reaction to this was to do more science, to improve, to enhance, to build on, expand and create a more complete more accurate theory. Nobody made a career out of merely pointing out that his atomic theory couldnt explain X or Y.

      • catweazle666

        Steven Mosher: “1. Of course they CAN and DO predict future climate. The predictions may not and probably never will take into consdieration [sic] all factors and the predictions may have large errors BUT they CAN and DO make predictions.

        And your point is?

        Mystic Meg CAN and DOES make predictions too, as do a myriad of astrologers and fortune tellers in practically every popular publication on Earth.

        But we are under no obligation to take them seriously.

      • Don

        ‘My alternate theory of climate is almost exactly like the alarmist theory, except I don’t assume the strong positive feed backs. Without the strong positive feed backs we don’t need to worry about AGW. When I see some substantial evidence for the strong positive feed backs, I will join the alarmists and run around clucking like a Chicken Little.”

        Theories do not exist in words alone.

        So, you dont assume the strong feedbacks. You need to specify which
        feedbacks and you need to specify certain levels.

        Next, you need to justify your different assumption

        Next you need to test your different assumption.

        here’s how.

        You need to plug your different assumption into a GCM and demonstrate that you SUCK LESS than the current assumption.

        Here is an example from my day job.

        I use GFS to predict the weather.
        I use the weather prediction to predict demand
        I use demand prediction to allocate inventory.
        The prediction is tested by looking at stock outs.
        Hmm.. its an ok prediction. it beats human beings
        but there are cases where it sucks.

        lets suppose you say..

        Mosher, you assume that GFS is the best. Try ECMWF.

        I do that.
        My prediction sucks less. I use ECMWF.
        My prediction sucks more. I dont use ECMWF.

        So re read the points above. you have to TEST your alternative theory
        and the theory has to SUCK LESS. cause all theory sucks.

      • Mosh

        I think ‘predict’ is possibly the wrong word as it makes climate science sound like astrology…

        verb: predict; 3rd person present: predicts; past tense: predicted; past participle: predicted; gerund or present participle: predicting
        say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.
        “it is too early to predict a result”

        synonyms: forecast, foretell, foresee, prophesy, divine, prognosticate, anticipate, see, say, tell in advance, project, speculate, envision, envisage, imagine, picture, estimate, conjecture, guess, hazard a guess;

        The word ‘estimate’ creeps in there reviving memories of your epic battle with Jim Cripwell to convince us all that estimate and measurement are the same thing.

        Possibly ‘predict’ should be substituted to ‘have no real idea’ or even ‘only a best guess’

        tonyb

      • PA

        ‘Well…

        Part of the problem is the right data isn’t available.”

        A) this is an assertion. you need to demonstrate that.
        B) No science starts with the right data.

        1. 22 PPM for 0.2 W/m2 vs the 0.309 for the IPCC direct forcing and the 6.18 for the IPCC TSR. There were German and other studies that said the feedback would be 50% negative.

        A) the existence of random supposed factoids doesnt
        constitute a theory.
        B) There were unicorns who said crap too.

        The feedback is 50% negative

        A) assertions are not theory

        Further – this was all GHG (an IR measurement) and not just CO2 so it should have been a lot higher. So this is really the high end of CO2 forcing and the reality is less.

        A) assertions are not theory
        B) you need to demonstrate how your asserrtion explains
        the past, present and future better than the current theory.

        2. The majority of the observed warming is due to some other combination of effects. That the source of the majority of the warming has not been measured, indicates the current understanding of climate physics is seriously flawed. The approach of atmospheric science needs to be rethought. Why would the source of most of the warming not be observed and measured?

        A) yes UNICORNS !!!!!
        b) yes all explanation is flawed.
        C) demands to rethink are easy and lazy
        D) you need to do your own damn science
        E) You assume that the source has not been measured or observed. I assert that yes unicorns have not been measured or observed. to Win you must identify CANDIDATE places to look. and predict what you will
        find.

        3. Further the surface data seems to be getting reworked on the assumption the models are right. The models aren’t right, which means the data is being corrupted.

        A) surface data is not reworked based on models.
        B) there are three surface datasets: SAT, MAT and SST. None
        of them relies on climate models. They rely on data models.
        C) there is one type of dataset that DOES rely on models: re analysis.
        According to Judith this type of data is preferred.

        next

      • tony

        “I think ‘predict’ is possibly the wrong word as it makes climate science sound like astrology…”

        1. No predict starts with a P, astrology starts with an A and climate science starts with a C. Predict doesnt make climate science sound like
        astrology. basic phonology seems to be your problem.
        2. Changing the word doesnt change the description. Astrology also
        makes predictions. They predicted I would find riches today. I can test that. I dont think so.
        3. In its rawest form a prediction takes on the following form
        a) time now equals x
        b) y is positive
        c) variable P will take on value N at time x+y

        verb: predict; 3rd person present: predicts; past tense: predicted; past participle: predicted; gerund or present participle: predicting
        say or estimate that (a specified thing) will happen in the future or will be a consequence of something.

        “it is too early to predict a result”

        synonyms: forecast, foretell, foresee, prophesy, divine, prognosticate, anticipate, see, say, tell in advance, project, speculate, envision, envisage, imagine, picture, estimate, conjecture, guess, hazard a guess;

        1. you lose. appealing to the dictionary to determine the meaning
        of a term that has a specific subject matter use is MIS USING
        a dictionary.
        2. Example: the common usage of the word anomaly differs from
        the usage in a specific field.

        The word ‘estimate’ creeps in there reviving memories of your epic battle with Jim Cripwell to convince us all that estimate and measurement are the same thing.

        1. That was NOT my position.
        2. My position was that they DO DIFFER
        a) the difference is qualitative.
        b) both have error
        c) both rely on assumptions
        d) mesaurements are more accurate
        e) measurements have smaller errors.
        f) There is no CATEGORICAL difference
        g) Our knowledge isnt limited to things we can meassure.

        Possibly ‘predict’ should be substituted to ‘have no real idea’ or even ‘only a best guess’

        1. No, we do have real ideas.
        2. At its heart science is a best guess.

      • Steven Mosher: Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the existing physical theory.

        The solar theories (e.g. Abdussamatov) and the CO2 theories (e.g. with and without various amounts of H2O feedback) are all incomplete and lacking a track record of successful prediction of out of sample data. Public enthusiasm for large investment to rid the world of anthropogenic CO2 is low; the Obama announcement, for examples, has goals for the future with plenty of opportunity for states and companies to postpone compliance, because even with a Democratic majority in Congress he got no legislation requiring CO2 reductions.

        So, it looks to me like who needs what for what purpose is largely undecidable. CO2 reduction enthusiasts need something more persuasive than what they have now if they want to move any larger body politic than California as far as a 33% renewable portfolio standard (not to mention reversing the backsliding of Japan, Australia, and Germany). Lots more people have voluntarily reduced their CO2 by switching from coal to natural gas than by all other methods combined. Solar theory forecasts of nonwarming/cooling lasting decades are getting more and more attention. China is increasing its CO2 production and will for decades yet; as will nearly all of the rest of the world that aims for a growing GDP.

        Your assertion that skeptics NEED an alternative physical theory to challenge the existing physical theory (CO2 based, but incomplete and inaccurate) does not have any evidentiary backing that you have provided, at least not relevant to the “need” to postpone potentially catastrophic hasty and futile divestiture from fossil fuels. Perhaps you have another “need” in mind, such as a “need” to persuade you personally that the CO2 theory is full of cavities.

      • Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the
        existing physical theory.

        When Pons & Fleischmann published ‘Cold Fusion’ and provided test procedures. Others following these procedures, produced falsifying results. They didn’t need a new theory of ‘Cold Fusion’ just to demonstrate that the existing theory was falsified.

      • Regretfully, Pons and Fleishmann were discredited for reporting information the collective world governments wanted to hide from the public.

        https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/shock-horror-2/

      • > Without the strong positive feed backs we don’t need to worry about AGW

        How so?

      • > The solar theories (e.g. Abdussamatov) and the CO2 theories (e.g. with and without various amounts of H2O feedback) are all incomplete and lacking a track record of successful prediction of out of sample data.

        This omits fact that the solar and other ABC theories can’t explain the observations very well. So much in fact that it is now virtually certain that we need to include CO2 in the explanation.

        If no theory has a track record of successful prediction of out of sample data, chances are that this criterium might be a bit farfetched.

      • willard: So much in fact that it is now virtually certain that we need to include CO2 in the explanation.

        In order to account for the periodicities in the temperature series, the CO2 theories need to add in some periodic process. When estimated so as to match the data, the effect of the CO2 is near 0. So your “certainty” is indeed “virtual”, i.e. dependent on which incomplete computational model you choose.

        If no theory has a track record of successful prediction of out of sample data, chances are that this criterium might be a bit farfetched.

        Why do you call it “far fetched”? It works well with Newton’s laws of motion and interplanetary exploration. If no theory has a track record of successful prediction of out of sample data the most common explanations are that the theory is incomplete or the parameters badly estimated, or both.

      • I don’t need to do anything, Steven. Climate science is not my job. I am among the vast majority of folks on this planet who are not sufficiently worried about AGW to go along with the alarmist’s costly and dubious mitigation schemes. The burden of proof is on them.

        However, I am concerned enough to spend time trying to understand the science so that I can make informed decisions on what policies to support and what policies to oppose. The big hole in the alarmist story is the strong positive water vapor feed back assumption. You know that.

        There’s a useful project for BEST. Find the evidence for the strong positive water vapor feed back. How hard could that be?

      • Don

        “I don’t need to do anything, Steven. Climate science is not my job. I am among the vast majority of folks on this planet who are not sufficiently worried about AGW to go along with the alarmist’s costly and dubious mitigation schemes. The burden of proof is on them.”

        1. you said you had a alternative theory
        2. IF you wish to be taken seriously you as a theory proponent
        need to do the things listed.
        3. You get the burden wrong. They dont have to prove anything to
        you. They have to CONVINCE those in power that their theory
        is better than other theories.
        4. They win by default. that is my point.

        However, I am concerned enough to spend time trying to understand the science so that I can make informed decisions on what policies to support and what policies to oppose. The big hole in the alarmist story is the strong positive water vapor feed back assumption. You know that.

        1. you make no decisions on policy
        2. the people you helped elect have not done their job.
        3. Having an alternative theory would make the people you helped
        elect be more effective.

        There’s a useful project for BEST. Find the evidence for the strong positive water vapor feed back. How hard could that be?

        1. Find evidence for how weak it is and do an alternative theory.
        how hard could it be

      • “When Pons & Fleischmann published ‘Cold Fusion’ and provided test procedures. Others following these procedures, produced falsifying results. They didn’t need a new theory of ‘Cold Fusion’ just to demonstrate that the existing theory was falsified.”

        Wrong.

        They were the alternative theory.

      • You are just wasting time and further diminishing your dwindling credibility, Steven. Instead of repeating and repeating that elaborate and useless lecture, you could have addressed the big issue.

        Where is the evidence for a strong positive water vapor feed back? $Billions$ have been spent on climate science research. They must have found something. Show us the evidence, or stop bothering us with the corny preaching. Go over to Berzerkeley and attend to some tired old warmed-over temperature data that desperately needs it’s weekly massage.

      • > They must have found something.

        Have you looked, Don Don?

        Start here:

        http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5

        Report.

      • You don’t have to be concerned about your credibility, willy. It cannot be further diminished. Mosher used to be somebody, before he got Svenagalied by that self-serving publicity hound, Prof. Muller.

      • of course Don didnt look.

        he gives homework.

        Here is a clue Don, if you are giving homework, you are relatively powerless in a debate.

        Your job is to move the powers that be. The powers that be wont step and fetch it for you.

        Start with the IPCC

        or here

        https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/papers-on-water-vapor-feedback-observations/

      • Don

        Mosh has referenced you a bunch of water vapour feedback papers in his link. It’s worth looking at Steve mcintyres examination of one of them by Garth paltridge who had trouble getting published

        http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/04/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/

        Tonyb

      • Thanks, Tony. I have seen that. Several years ago I came to the conclusion that the only issue that mattered in the climate debate was the strong positive water vapor assumption. I have been looking at the literature and asking questions about it on various forums since then. When the alarmist characters are challenged to present substantiating evidence they don’t produce a chart like the ones they have on speed dial showing CO2 and temperature rising together. They mumble, or they say look to the IPCC, or they link to a pile of papers from the usual suspects. They never make an argument for strong water vapor feedback.

        I have often referred to the NASA NVAP data, which doesn’t appear to support the strong water vapor feed back story as told by the Chicken Littles:

        http://gewex-vap.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Forsythe_GVAP_09102014.pdf

        They don’t have anything to say about the NVAP data.

        They think we have to convince them that they are wrong. Naive little characters.

      • Don,

        The science/technical argument all hinges on “strong water vapor feedback”.

        The rest is all about politics.

        This is the song that Lindzen (and others) have been singing for years.

        It still baffles me as to why you bother with Mosher.

      • My prediction sucks less. I use ECMWF.
        My prediction sucks more. I dont use ECMWF.

        OK, so here’s a suggestion:

        A:     Use both.

        B:     Use one or more neural network learning programs with all your basic inputs (including non-weather-related) and outputs of weighting factors between the two programs.

        C:     Run these as tests until one or more outputs (via weighting the forecasts according to the Neural network program) performs enough better than your raw formula that it’s decided to use the more complex system instead. If it does.

      • > via weighting the forecasts according to the Neural network program

        Neural networks are not really a program. There are different types of networks and different kinds of weighting mechanisms depending of the task required of them or the process simulated.

        Go team!

      • > Several years ago I came to the conclusion that the only issue that mattered in the climate debate was the strong positive water vapor assumption.

        You came to that conclusion all by your own, Don Don?

        If you could provide a quote and a cite of that assumption, that would be great.

      • I will help you, willy. In our country grown men are allowed to think, make decisions and come to their own conclusions. And we don’t need to show no stinking sheriff badges to annoying inconsequential navel gazers, who are obviously from some other planet.

      • You don’t need to be a grown up to think, make decisions and reach conclusion, Don Don. You don’t even need to be a troglodyte living in the best country in all the possible worlds.

        You have the right to reach decisions based on absolutely no relevant knowledge whatsoever. You also have the right to close your eyes and shut your ears and conclude that you have no evidence of anything that would ever change your mind. You could even conclude, based on your troglodyte intuitions, that your incredulous ignorance matters in the grand scheme of things, or that it represents the voice of the people.

        Your pause in scratching your own itch is killing your cause.

      • > It works well with Newton’s laws of motion and interplanetary exploration.

        What’s the relationship between these and global warming, again?

      • Steven Mosher

        AK

        OK, so here’s a suggestion:

        A: Use both.

        1. Did that.
        2. understand the only variable of interest is TMAX

        B: Use one or more neural network learning programs with all your basic inputs (including non-weather-related) and outputs of weighting factors between the two programs.

        1. did that.
        2. you are still missing the point

        C: Run these as tests until one or more outputs (via weighting the forecasts according to the Neural network program) performs enough better than your raw formula that it’s decided to use the more complex system instead. If it does.

        1. It didnt.
        2. Next

        The point is this AK. The job is to IMPROVE on the best you have.

      • Steven Mosher

        “This is the song that Lindzen (and others) have been singing for years.

        It still baffles me as to why you bother with Mosher.”

        Lindzens song is not a replacement theory.
        the proof of that is nobody in power listens to his tune.

        To recap.

        here is my argument:

        Skeptics will be bit players singing tunes nobody dances to UNTIL
        the come up with an alternative theory that SUCKS LESS than the standard theory.

        So far there has been no effective counter argument.

        This does not count as an effective counter argument.

        1. Standard theory sucks. That is a GIVEN in my argument.
        2. Somebody else has a theory. Of course, there are plenty of theories,
        what is needed is one that SUCKS LESS.
        3. Explain this problem with standard theory. This changes the topic.
        Its a given that standard theory sucks. Its a given it doesnt explain
        everything.
        4. We are not required to give a theory. True. But you will remain bit players.

        Lets repeat the argument.

        Skeptics will be bit players until they offer a superior alternative theory.

        Here is how you can argue against it.

        Argue they will be bit players regardless.
        Show how they are not bit players

      • Steve Mosher: Show how they are not bit players

        There is no mass effort to reduce fossil fuel use. The president’s recently released plan, to pick one example, gives the states and utilities plenty of opportunity to postpone compliance, and it’s an executive order that couldn’t get a majority vote even when the Dems had the majority in both Houses. The big players like China, Japan, India, Germany and others continue to increase their fossil fuel consumption. The countries that ratified the Kyoto Treaty (unanimously opposed by a sense of the Senate vote in the US, and never submitted for ratification) have been backsliding. California at great cost (appx doubling the retail cost of electricity) has made a tiny dent in the projected increase in its fossil fuel use via the renewable portfolio standard — most reduction has been the commercially successful replacement of coal-fired plants by gas-fired plants (though there was also the law prohibiting CA utilities buying from coal fired plants, it played a lesser role than the resurgence of natural gas.)

        Here and there are niche installations of solar and wind power where fossil fuel deliveries are unreliable. But increased investment in fossil fuel use for transportation, heating, and electricity generation continues apace with almost no letup.

        I await news reports from the meeting in Paris. I expect some empty promises like the Obama-China announcement of BAU with some decorative language, and some more wailing about how the “merchants of doubt” and others are impeding progress and need to be pilloried, tried, executed, jailed, etc. Some fancy new financing schemes that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will ignore outright, and few institutions will pay some lip service to. But that is in the future — perhaps the major players will have more impact than I expect. By then a few more companies will have moved from CA to TX, and others will have expanded out of CA and reduced their CA work force.

        Another note about CA: since the Kyoto Protocol, the last automobile factory in CA has shut down. CA now imports 100% of its automobiles, but excludes the CO2 produced by their manufacture from the CA carbon footprint. In other words, CA has actually increased its CO2 footprint, but outsourced its CO2 production, calling that a reduction. CA also increased its CO2 footprint (slightly) by reducing the agricultural segment.of its economy. Likewise, the EU has outsourced its CO2 production to China and India.

        How much of this do you need?

      • Steven Mosher: Show how they are not bit players

        You do not mention anyone in particular, but consider US Sen Inhof: he does not have an alternative theory worth mentioning, yet he is not a bit player. There are people like him in nearly every nation.

      • Try to be coherent, willy. You need a rest.

      • Steven’s stale schtick: “Skeptics will be bit players singing tunes nobody dances to UNTIL
        the come up with an alternative theory that SUCKS LESS than the standard theory.

        So far there has been no effective counter argument.”

        So far there has been no meaningful CO2 mitigation. Who is losing? Those who are demanding immediate and drastic mitigation, or those who want none of it? Think hard. I hope I don’t have to help you.

      • Thanks for posting the NVAP data, Don.

        Mr Mosher seems not to have noticed that the politicians that are ignoring sceptics are ignoring the alarmists even harder.

        CO2 reduction has become a convenient political football to kick at ideological foes, nothing more. Differing scientific theories mean diddly squat to such people.

      • > There is no mass effort to reduce fossil fuel use.

        How to switch from scientific to political concerns in one single step.

        Incidentally, this switch bathes in truthiness, e.g.:

        The Clean Power Plan is a Landmark Action to Protect Public Health, Reduce Energy Bills for Households and Businesses, Create American Jobs, and Bring Clean Power to Communities across the Country[.]

        https://judithcurry.com/2015/08/03/president-obamas-clean-power-plan/

        That’s just the next post to this current one.

        ***

        Cue to more concerns over the meaning of “mass effort.”

      • willard: How to switch from scientific to political concerns in one single step.

        This has been an ongoing discussion over several days in which policy and science have been consistently mixed. In particular, Steven Mosher has never focused on one versus the other.

        Obama’s is a sweeping etc plan that may reduce global temp by as much as 0.02C over a century; it is an executive order that could not have passed Congress even when both Houses had Democratic majorities. It contains postponed target “deadlines” with “major” opportunities to evade and postpone even those. If that is the model for the rest of the world (and we know China has committed itself publicly to business as usual), then the skeptics have won by a landslide. Meanwhile, estimates are that half of the proposed gain has already been realized by the market-led substitution of natural gas for coal.

    • Nick,

      “What is a 2010 rant from David Rose in the Daily Mail tabloid doing in the week in review science edition?”

      I know what you mean. That Rose guy then refers to the WWF pulling it from their site. Who cares what the World Wrestling Federation thinks about ice anyway? It’s so gauche…

  19. The explanation below is for the Little Ice Age and I think it can be applied to the YD, despite the fact Milankovitch Cycles were not that favorable at that time , but the Ice Dynamic for sure was and that changed the whole dynamic of the playing field and is the factor which made abrupt climatic changes to happen so frequently 20000 to 10000 years ago.

    The YD was just one of many abrupt climatic changes during that time period.

    This theory combined with my input for how the Little Ice Age may have started can also be applied to the YD, with the big difference being the all important Ice Dynamic at the time of the YD ,which made the climate more vulnerable to change with much less forcing.

    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.

    • Has anybody plotted planetary positions against the solar changes?

      The barycenter is outside the sun much of the time and the tidal forces would have to affect the internal solar operation as well as increase the earth orbital eccentricity.

      • David Springer

        Hmmm… I wasn’t aware the barycenter shifted around as much or as quickly. That’s gotta cause some odd sloshing around of the sun’s fluid mass and presumably its output power spectrum.

      • The main part is Jupiter’s 12-year orbit.

      • Minor effect on the sun, but far greater on the Earth traversing gravity min/max about every 13 months. All climate data are based (understandably and with the good reason) on the annual (12 month) periodicity.
        Cross modulation of two periods results in the QBO.
        You seen it here first!

      • David Springer

        Average sunspot cycle is 11 years but varies between 9 and 14. The major contributor to barycenter movement has a cycle of 11.9 years.

        Why would barycenter movement have little effect on the sun?

        Have there been any experiments performed on highly compressed plasma when gravitational motions are set up within them?

        Am I allowed to ask questions without Mosher frowning so hard it eclipses the sun?

      • David

        You know the rules. Direct questions are not allowed. You sort of have to present the request for information in a much more oblique manner as if you are having a complex discussion. Or something.

        tonyb

      • Gravitational tidal pull on the solar surface is of order of few cm (inch or two) while the solar electromagnetic ‘carpet’ has continuous undulations of one km or more.
        However, there is more significant effect caused by Jupiter/ Saturn magnetic fields, the Earth magnetosphere is by two orders of magnitude weaker, plugs into s.c. solar magnetic ropes (plasma streams), effect observed as geomagnetic storm and visible as aurora. One could consider sun as an electro-magnetic battery (source) and magnetospheres of the above mentioned planets as the ‘short circuit’ loads.
        http://www.nasa.gov/mpg/262351main_reconnect.mpg
        Solar scientists currently dispute existence of the feedback from the ‘load’ back to the source. I tend to disagree (see equations for the solar magnetic fields – toroidal (sunspot) an poloidal (polar).
        http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
        19.859 years is J/S synodic period.
        Equation devised in 2003 predicted SC24 to peak (rms) at around 80, so far so good, while at the same time and even up to 3-4 years later top NASA’s people Dr-s Hathaway & Dikpati where predicting the SC24 to be the strongest ever.

      • Vukcevic:

        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/

        I remember that. Any idiot can look at the umbral magnetic field strength and know cycle 24 was going to be weak. I don’t know what is wrong with these people. The lower the average umbral magnetic field the fewer sun spots.

        The next cycle is going to be weak too, even weaker than the current cycle, but not nonexistent like the speculation. The umbral field intensity seems like it is going to pull up and not plow into the 1500 gauss barrier.

        And NASA has learned and are predicting 25 to be one of weakest in centuries. I guess you can teach old dogs old tricks.
        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/

      • Hi PA
        I would agree with that. Both equations show that the SSN for the SC25max would be somewhere between 40 and 50 (low numbers are more difficult to estimate) on the old ‘classic’ scale, ignoring newly tailored metric.

  20. Increase in Legionnaires’ Disease 2000-2009 blamed on climate change [link]

    “…reviewed cases through 2011, also found disparities among race and ethnicity, with the highest incidents among non-Hispanic black residents,”

    There you have it, proof positive that climate change is causing health disparities between races.

    Who ever said that hubris sows the seeds of it own self destruction must have had climate change journalists in mind. I guess I just did.

  21. New paper “contradictory to prevailing view of global warming in which both cold & warm temperatures…increase” [link] …

    I hope that it escapes from behind the paywall. It looks like an application of quantile regression, which I am happy to see.

  22. New paper: Does AMOC explain mystery of 41,000-year ice age cycle in the past? [link] …

    No. The single climatic cause hence effect is not going to work.

    In addition the climate changes to fast and abruptly within it’s glacial or inter- glacial state to make this the cause.

    The next post will illustrate this.

  23. New Study Finds Long Term Solar Cycle And Predicts Global Cooling https://shar.es/1sOmMF

    Which brings out one of my points which is we do not really know the variability of the sun. I suspect from prolonged solar minimum periods to prolonged active periods it is upwards of .2% to .3 % as opposed to the .1% during an average 11 year sunspot cycle for solar irradiance.

    While other solar parameters varying by much greater amounts.

    I have come up with some low average variable solar parameters which I think if reached could have a climatic impact.

    The record is to short and full of contradictions as far as showing the extent of solar variability .
    They can not even get the sunspot number correct or to have one set of data.

  24. Thank you, Professor Curry, especially for the link to a new paper showing a strong correlation between Wolf numbers of sunspots & temperatures at 818 weather stations for the period 1855-2010.

    Are politically powerful popes and tyrants still trying to ignore the giant fountain of energy Copernicus discovered at the gravitational center of the solar system in 1543?

  25. Huygens synchronization of two clocks
    “Two coupling states are obtained, near phase and near phase opposition, the latter being stable.”
    http://www.nature.com/articles/srep11548#
    Phase opposition: Yin and Yang, the books balance, pluses offset minuses, stability.
    In Phase: Synchronization, significant change, regime swaps, instability. Negative feedbacks swamped by synchronized forces.
    Kind of helps with understanding synchronized chaos I think.
    “…this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed…” – Tsonis 2007

  26. Margaret Atwood sees a bright future based on the pet projects and intellectual kitsch of present day urban left. Lots of “we”.

    The dark future is, of course, based on “I” and the content of cheesy disaster movies and cheesy dystopian novels…conceived by the present day urban left.

    What Margaret really yearns for is a future based not on “We” or “I” but on “They”. “They” will decide on even on your underwear.

    You don’t meet many adults on the road to serfdom.

    • moso, never mind Atwood, an hitherto unpublished Dr Seuss book “What Pet Shall I Get?” has just been released. My response at Telegraph Online is not worthy of beththeserf; however:

      A new Doctor Suess?
      My mind’s gone to mousse!
      I’m going to fret
      ‘til I get “What Pet?”

      • The serf will decide on final quality, but the rhyming of Seuss with mousse could be the work of an obtuse moose on the loose.

      • A serf being anti –
        “Authority knows all,”
        Hesitates ter make the call,
        But peut-etre the great cunn
        May not have met his us-
        Ual standard with this verse,
        With ‘mousse and Suesse,’
        I have some iss-ews,
        Sort’ nervous convo-lew-
        Shuns, like Nervous Norvas,
        In need of ‘Trans-few-shun,’
        ‘ Shoot the juice to me Bruce.”

        (And this ain’t my best effort either.)

      • I was a voracious reader from an early age, and my vocabulary included many words which I had never heard pronounced. Years later, I found that my assumed pronunciation was at times not widely shared. That might be true of Seuss and/or mousse, which rhyme for me. Or maybe it’s the Geordie accent.

        Any more opprobrium and I might be forced to mention the war, I mean, the cricket.

  27. Peter Lang (et al) – Tsigaris & Wood’s “Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students” is intended as a teaching aid, but generates results consistent with more complex models. You’ve asked me to pursue discount rates before, which unfortunately I have not done. However, the paper throws some light on this and has policy-relevant comments which many at CE might note. The paper concludes (I’m omitting charts):

    “The reduction in per capita income of reducing emissions is difficult to show by just plotting the income path of BAU and the income path when the 2 degree limit is imposed. Instead Figure 8A shows the annual net benefits in present value of the 2 degree limit versus BAU over time assuming a 5% discount rate. The present value of total net benefits with a 5% discount rate is minus $449 per capita. However, the net present value depends critically on the choice of discount rate. The annual net benefits of the 2 degree mitigation policy are displayed in Figure 8B, but in present values using the 1.4% discount rate selected by the Stern Review. In this case, the future annual net benefits do not limit to zero by 2200 and the present value of total net benefits is positive ($40,665 per capita). The Internal Rate of Return for limiting to 2 degrees is 4.08%.

    “What is interesting to highlight to students between the two figures, is that the discount rate determines if the 2 degree mitigation target is a potential Pareto improvement, but not a pure Pareto improvement. For both discount rate values, the annual net benefits still show the inter-generational trade-off in which the costs of emissions reductions are imposed on early generations and the benefits of lower temperature increases accrue to later generations. Unlike with intra-generational policy evaluation, in this case there is no potential mechanism for a future generation to compensate earlier generations to make them at least as well off. Mitigation policy is not asking the current generation to incur costs to benefit their children; it is asking them to incur costs to benefit their great-great-grandchildren.”

    I hope that that last sentence will give pause for thought to anyone here advocating aggressive emissions reductions.

    Faustino

    • PS, I haven’t read the whole paper yet, so don’t know what they regard as BAU – there has been at CE discussion recently about IPCC-based BAU assessments not according to reality and therefore not providing a sensible basis for comparison.

      • PPS, the authors explain how they treat BAU, no issues.

      • Faustino

        Whats your opinion on the Edgbaston pitch? Too dry? Too Wet? To hard or too soft? Too green or too brown or perhaps too long? Perhaps mosomoso might like to give us his thoughts as it couldn’t be anything to do with quality of bowling or batting could it?

        tonyb

      • People following BAU should receive a stipend from low-emitters to compensate for the CO2 growth benefits the low emitters are getting for free.

      • PA, the paper’s BAU case seems reasonable for modelling purposes, but they do accept many of the alleged costs of warming from other sources such as Stern, rather than assessing them independently. Given that they are developing a model as a teaching aid, I don’t quarrel with that. However, it will tend to bias any costs upwards and ignores benefits of e.g. greater plant growth, so their figures would tend to be biased to the dangerous warming case. This strengthens the point they make that costs borne now would be to favour people several generations hence and several times richer per capita than us. That, to me, implies that they have reservations about the GHG-reduction strategy, but that is secondary to their aim of developing a teaching tool. They are not looking for policy-relevant conclusions.

        Faustino

      • England is officially the most inconsistent team in Test history. It is as well to get in the gloating before the next walloping.

        tonyb

    • tonyb seems to be off topic in the last few posts. Perhaps a bad case of gloating for which the best medicine will be a flogging at Trent Bridge? ;)

      • A flogging at Trent Bridge? Now that the Sheriff of Nottingham has a side strain, who knows? Hard to doctor a pitch just right for the Duke ball and swing when there are these team disruptions.

        But I couldn’t possibly comment. It would be o/t.

      • O/t
        Trent Bridge!
        Into the breach
        Go Oz Cricket Eleven.

      • I’m hoping that it will be A Bridge Too Far for the antipodeans. Lurking Panzer divisions overlooked and all that.

      • Oh no! It appears that Faustino might also be suffering from the same problem as tonyb. Oh well, off the field he seems a decent sort of fellow so I will let his comment pass to the keeper. :)

      • Panzers, hmm, maybe back to the climate change
        consideration of running out of driving energy.

      • The great grandmother responsible for making me one quarter Pom had her infant in Long Eaton, just a few miles from Trent Bridge, before removing him to Ireland.

        Apparently, the sticky play dough left behind by my grandfather went toward making the Trent Bridge wicket.

        But all of this is vastly off topic.

  28. “Winter precipitation was more important for maritime glaciers, whereas summer temperature was more important for annual balances of continental glaciers.”
    So with the Arctic ice death spiral, coastal regions of Greenland will add mass.

  29. Why I’ve sometimes shied away from writing about uncertainty in vaccine science [link]

    “We want to be pro-vaccine, and anyone who talks about something anti-vaccine, we want to ostracize them’

    It seems to me that journalists see themselves as imbued with a certain social responsibility, namely: framing the issue. And for that, journalists feel entitled to picking and choosing which portions of the issue to report. Now I know, it is very hard to have a set of incomplete facts and try to piece them together into a coherent story. That uncertainty and lack of clarity is where the “rush to judgement” seems to drive the story. Holding off on a story until more facts are obtained seems to be the wise choice. The journalist needs to be a critical thinker, and, frankly my dear, I have met just one, a next door neighbor who subsequently won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting.

    The editor on the other hand, is in the business of selling copy/script/papers/magazines/advertisement/etc. Taking a perfectly well written piece and scandalizing its headline is their primary focus; what sells.

    It is possible to do stories on newer vaccines that are truthful and can and should say: as far as present testing has shown, the vaccine is effective and the side effects are few. It is expected that with very large numbers of people receiving the vaccine, there my emerge side effects not yet observed in the numbers of people tested. Until very large numbers of people receive the vaccine, maybe into the millions of people vaccinated, will a better picture on the appropriate use and safety profile will become clearer.

    • Yr post makes a case for skepticism in science:
      ‘We do not know,’ though journalists and science
      activists seek to frame the issue that editors and
      certain institutions sell.

    • RiHo, I worked as a journalist at times 1961-64 and left because it was too dishonest. The story is the thing, not the sometimes inconvenient facts or concepts of balance. Not true of all journos at all times, but generally the case.

  30. So I read through the “A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students” link. I have a few concerns:

    – “A Simple Climate-Solow Model for Introducing the Economics of Climate Change to Undergraduate Students” The relationship is logarithmic. So there is a potential to misinform economics students here. The linear assumption also overestimates future temperatures.

    – Next, the paper assumes that a temperature anomaly of zero (i.e. per-industrial temperatures) are optimal. No basis for this is given, and actually this runs contrary evidence. Tol’s 2009 paper suggests optimal temperature is about 1.1 C above current temperatures.

    – The paper assumes a climate sensitivity of 3.8 C, which is inconsistent with empirical evidence.

    – The paper assumes that temperatures reach equilibrium levels with respect to atmospheric CO2 instantaneously.

    – natural CO2 uptake isn’t included in the model, although it is mentioned.

    – Increasing the depreciation factor in response to climate change as far as I can tell has no empirical basis. Let alone something as large as an increase in the depreciation rate by 1 percentage points per degree of warming above per-industrial temperatures.

    • Excellent points.

      I would add a few.

      — Any economic model that allows projections through the year 2200 should be considered, by definition, fatally flawed.

      — Introducing students to the “social cost of carbon” without simultaneously exploring the “social benefits of carbon” is a good way to produce bad outcomes. Obviously, the “social benefits” greatly exceed the “social costs” and tinkering with the balance can easily reduce net gains to society.

      That said, it is interesting to me that the authors find that efforts to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees [insert lengthy climate debate diatribe of your choice here] would produce total net benefits with a 5% discount rate of NEGATIVE $449 per capita. This contrasts with the ludicrous Stern Review’s result of a net present value of $40,665 per capita.

      Small changes (in taxes, regulations, depreciation rate, etc.) compound into large numbers in the distant future. This should provide a cautionary insight for students to distrust long-range projections. Yet this course seems designed to produce just the opposite effect.

      • @ opluso –

        I don’t see anything inherently wrong with trying to predict impacts as far as 2200. You just need a good model, good choice of discount rate, etc.

        For social cost of carbon, most economics students interpret that to mean net external cost of carbon dioxide emissions. They understand there are benefits, but most of these are internalized to the market. Although maybe some external benefits are overlooked (example: CO2 fertilization effect).

        But yes, it was interesting that despite all its issues, the 2 C target still couldn’t be justified. It just goes to show how absurd the 2C target is.

  31. Many climate change alarmists cite the increasing frequency and intensity of cyclones as a cause for concern. The latest analysis by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of data for 1990-2014 shows that in that period there was no significant change in the frequency of Category 4-5 hurricanes, and global Accumulated Cyclone Energy experienced a large and significant downward trend. NOAA finds that the earlier claims of increased cyclone activity were due to observational improvements at the various global tropical cyclone warning centres, mainly from 1970-1990, rather than an actual increase in activity.

    Let us hope that we will hear no more alarming claims about cyclones.

    (Journal of Climate link above)

    • Of the elite of cyclones which have measured 880hPa and below, four were in the 1970s, one in the 80s, one in the 60s and one in the 50s. Factoids, of course: ie, facts which indicate little but could easily be grouped/manipulated to mean much. Factoid: cyclones in the Western North Pacific Ocean are decreasing in intensity. Stupid, I know.

      As for frequency, as you say, more storms will be noticed. Paris would be a cold buffet without some factoids to prove stuff is Worse Than We Thought. COP 21 will need lots of WTWT between the lobster sandwiches and white elephant proposals. You don’t just blow a few trillion euros without some beating-up. One the other hand, skimming a few billion euros from the trillion is done quietly.

    • I can’t find the same graph (in the link above) that is current, but did find this:

      http://haveland.com/

      Wonder what happened to the original “death spiral” format from PIOMAS? No longer convenient?

      • David Wojick

        Seems we have a pause going. Also, Poimas is a model, not a measurement.

      • The whole “Arctic Death Spiral” was simply an exercise in data extrapolation. Data extrapolation does not constitute an understanding of how the climate works. We see a similar phenomenon in operation as alarmists point to the “adjusted” temperature record as evidence the CACO2 hypothesis is correct. It’s just more extrapolation in absence of understanding.

      • David Wojick

        Indeed, J2. For all their supposed complexity the climate models are basically just an extrapolation of the 1970s-1990s warming trend in the surface statistical models, assuming that trend was real and mostly due to CO2. I doubt both assumptions.

  32. Any ‘geologist’ out here can explain how the structure shown in the top image here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/S2.htm
    came about naturally (wind or precipitation erosion, earthquakes, volcanism, meteorite impact, succession of high and low temperatures, or any other natural process) .
    In the second, is that a 140km long meteorite trail or something else? Could it be “houston, we have a problem”.

    • Vulvec,

      Those lines are almost certainly structures in the rock, such as fractures, shear zones, faults. You can see this because there are other lines that are parallel – e.g. to the NW of the longest line notice the other linear trends trending SW-NE.

  33. New paper finds strong correlation between Wolf numbers of sunspots & temperatures at 818 weather stations 1855-2010 [link] …

    Reading that paper is quite an adventure.

  34. David L. Hagen

    For accurate work see:
    Effect of changes in temperature scales on historical temperature data P. Pavlasek et al. International J. Climatology, online: 19 JUL 2015 DOI: 10.1002/joc.4404

    . . .The present work deals with this issue for 20th century data by proposing a mathematical model to allow the conversion from historical scales to the International Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90). This work also presents the implementation of this mathematical model into a software tool, which can convert large files of historical records to the ITS-90. The correction equation is applied to example observations, and it is found that the correction becomes an issue in special cases involving aggregated temperature data. However, the corrections are significantly smaller than the global warming trend seen in the 20th century. The corrections applied have shown a level of change, which has not significantly affected the global warming trend.

  35. Steven Mosher: “Skeptics need an alternative PHYSICAL theory to challenge the existing physical theory.”

    Hello Steven, I rarely comment, but I’m hoping you can clarify for me your position on why skeptics must come up with a alternate theories. To explain what I hear when you say this, I’ll do an allegory:

    I come home to my place in San Francisco to find my front door pushed open and covered with large scratches. Inside, the kitchen is torn apart and bits of food are everyone. I ask you, my neighbor, to help me understand what happened. You tell me that it was certainly a bear since there are claw marks on the door, and bears tend to rip apart kitchens looking for food. I tell you that it could not have been a bear since bears do not exist in San Francisco. You tell me that that the only way for me to disprove that it was a bear is for me to come up with a better theory for what happened.

    OK, kind of silly, but that’s how I see your argument. Can you explain for me what I’m missing?

  36. A loss of trust in science, creating a vicious cycle that could undermine everything. [link]

    “Compounding the situation are internal problems rooted in the culture of science. Increased competition for funding has led science to drift from an emphasis on rigorous reproducible research to flashy high impact studies”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

    “Tensions between scientists and China’s communist rulers existed from the earliest days of the People’s Republic and reached their height during the Cultural Revolution (1966–76). In the early 1950s, Chinese scientists, like other intellectuals, were subjected to regular indoctrination intended to replace bourgeois attitudes with those more suitable to the new society. Many attributes of the professional organization of science, such as its assumption of autonomy in choice of research topics, its internationalism, and its orientation toward professional peer groups rather than administrative authorities, were condemned as bourgeois. Those scientists who used the brief period of free expression in the Hundred Flowers Campaign of 1956-57 — to air complaints of excessive time taken from scientific work by political meetings and rallies or of the harmful effects of attempts by poorly educated party cadres to direct scientific work — were criticized for their “antiparty” stance, labeled as “rightists,” and sometimes dismissed from administrative or academic positions.”

    “The adoption of the Soviet model meant that the organization of Chinese science was based on bureaucratic rather than professional principles. Under the bureaucratic model, leadership was in the hands of non-scientists, who had assigned research tasks in accordance with a centrally determined plan. The administrators, not the scientists, controlled recruitment and personnel mobility.”

  37. Steve Mosher writes–
    “1. You need an alternative physical theory of the climate.
    2. that theory will contain math.. equations
    3. there will also be entities that are quantified.
    4. your theory has to explain past climate and predict future climate”

    I disagree that any alternate theory is necessary. There are two key issues.

    1. Temperature sensitivity to additional CO2 – TCR

    2. How will climatic conditions change in different locations as a result of the answer to question #1.

    A lower sensitivity than the IPCC generally supports does not require a different theory. The IPCC’s projections of the future climate are unsupported by what has been observed. There is no great theory to support the claims that slight warming will lead to great net harms. There is only weak hypothesis.

  38. Steven Mosher says: Nobody made a career out of merely pointing out that his atomic theory couldnt explain X or Y.”

    The sub-thread was just to long – so I am starting a new one.

    The difference between the science Dalton did (and the response to it) is that people were not trying to reorder the economy of the entire world to mitigate or adapt to things the theory depended on.

    If Dalton had been advocating charging the world trillions of dollars to make food, fuel and energy more expensive for the entire world – with dubious plans which were not run through a proper cost/benefit analysis – and asking people to just trust him because he was an atomic physicist – people would have made a career out of pointing out what his theory couldn’t explain.

    If you want to spend other peoples money the burden of proof is on you (or the person advocating for it).

    If you just want bragging rights to see if your theory is correct 85 years down the line – no as many people will care.

    CAGW is different than other science because of the price tag.

  39. Steven Mosher said (I paraphrase) – The burden is on you because if you don’t prove it the default is that the scientists win because the policy makers will rely on them. I hope I didn’t take to many liberties with that – as I didn’t go back and find the exact quote.

    I disagree.

    I don’t see any evidence that the policy makers have done anything yet, based on the science to date.

    Ok – maybe Kyoto – but nothing since then.

    The USA didn’t even sign on to Kyoto.

    The recession doesn’t count as the USA doing anything affirmative to me.

    So I don’t see that the policymakers have agreed with the 97% and enacted legislation based on the 97% consensus.

    They are not convinced of anything yet and are getting less convinced everyday.

    I think the burden of proof is rising on the scientists, to show that all of their failed predictions and projections can be explained away, before they will take action.

    The executive branch is taking action – most of it illegal – but we will have to wait years for the court battles to play out on that action.

    But the executive branch doesn’t make policy – it just executes it (unless they act illegally of course).

    I won’t agree with you until I see legislation in the USA which phases out coal power plants over some legislated time frame.

  40. New Study Finds Long Term Solar Cycle And Predicts Global Cooling https://shar.es/1sOmMF
    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    “In particular, the research confirms a “Grand Minimum” for the period from 2050 to 2200 as forecast in 2013 by Friedhelm Steinhilber of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology. This minimum will be characterised by a sustained deficit in solar warming of 0.5Wm-2, according to Sanchez-Sesma.”

    What? ridiculous! We have entered a solar minimum already. Solar minima occur roughly every ten solar cycles (ask Leif S), so the following one will be starting around 2200. As for forecasting the duration, they have no certainty whatsoever without being able to explain the duration of each and every known past solar minimum.

  41. The NVAP-M was brought up. I’ve thought, we could just measure water vapor, and there’s our temperature. Here:

    I think supports the about 1998 climate shift and pause.
    Interesting plot here:

    At a certain temperature (about 27.0 C) the water column losses traction. However, the 27.0 limit would apply mostly to tropical regions. Reminds me of a certain citizen scientist over at WUWT. They may be right about water vapor, but perhaps without a risen temperature, CO2 can’t make the lift.

  42. How about this paper?

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/8/084002/pdf/1748-9326_10_8_084002.pdf

    Which has a rather “low profile” title…

    “Change points of global temperature”

    … but has an interesting statistical analysis/technique (Change Point) “proving” that there is no sign of a hiatus being under way?

    Comments anyone?

  43. Welcome to this blog robertoko6. While the paper that you have referenced is interesting and worthy of comment it is suggested that such papers should be introduced in an open thread, where Judith periodically invites people to raise topics of interest. In this way, it is hoped that comments on each thread remain topical to the papers that Judith has brought to our attention.