Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

New paper shows Powerful Relationship Between Solar Activity And Antarctic Climate [link]…

Motivated reasoning example: Green consumers rate “organic” Oreos as having fewer calories [link] …

New paper:  The climate change consensus extends bend climate scientists [link]

New paper – Communicating climate change: conduit, content, consensus [link]

Very interesting new paper by Shawn Lovejoy  finds response of models “too weak” to solar & volcanic forcing over past Millennium [link]

Matt Ridley’s new book: The Evolution of Everything [link]

Record warm global oceans on track to cause a massive coral bleaching event, with Hawaii particularly at risk [link]

‘A social scientist, physicist, and the Pope walk into a bar. What happens next? … Special issue on the Pope in Nature Climate Change [link]

Science Mag:  Extreme events under climate change – “it’s not possible to say whether an individual event would have happened without climate change” [link]

On The Bright Side: Declining Deaths Due to Hot and Cold Temperatures in Hong Kong [link]

Nearly half of U.S. seafood supply is wasted, study shows  [link]

“The pharmaceutical industry and medicine has the potential to blow up scientific research—in a good way”  [link]

Climate variability shapes the rhythms of glacier retreat in Peru and Norway [link]

“global cooling caused a significant decline in the number of crocodilian species over millions of years” [link] …

Nature Climate Change special issue on the Pope’s encyclical [link]  …

The Carbon Brief Interview: IPCC Chair candidate Prof Nebojsa Nakicenovic [link]

“H2O has decreased by 5-10 % in lower stratosphere, but about a 10 % increase is observed in upper stratosphere…” [link]

Hurray for American University: unanimous support for free speech, against trigger warning mentality:  [link]

New study: 92% non-climate scientists share human-caused #Climatechange consensus [link]

Nature:  Climate policy – democracy is not an inconvenience [link]

MacArthur Foundation ponies up another $50M for warmists [link] …

As Himalayas glaciers melt, pollutants buried under seep into #Ganga and north Indian plains [link]

Must read: Bison roam again west of Chicago. [link]

How Modern Academia Stands in the Way of Advancing Evolutionary Psychology [link]

Paper: Solar signals (QBO) detected all the way down to extra-tropical troposphere [link]

“ENSO’s impacts on the northern winter stratosphere: competing effect of SST forcing in the tropical Indian Ocean” [link] …

New paper finds UHI contributes 34-43% of hot extremes in megacity Shanghai [link] …

The Republic of Blogs: A new phase in the development and democratization of knowledge [link]

Duke Researcher Resigns: Fed up with the inner workings of academia  [link]

New paper:precession angle &seasonality of climatic forcings important, even when studying annual mean climate change [link] …

 

Solow in Science:  Extreme weather, made by us? [link]

85 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. “… and the Pope walk into a bar.”

    Yes, yes, conservatism has now become, ‘selective consumerism.’ Good morning Fidel, supreme leaders of sustainability Kim Jong-un, Brother Al Gore and may the Pope bless the UN and the EU and, No, no, no, not God Bless America, God damn America.

  2. The sea ice minimum for 2015 was likely 4th lowest, close to 3rd with 2011, and behind only 2012 and 2007.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    • “For both 2015 and 2007, the summer pressure patterns led to winds directed down the Fram Strait, helping to transport ice out of the Arctic Ocean into the East Greenland Sea.”

    • JimD

      No doubt you were wanting to make the valid point that this years extent is some 25% above the lowest ever recorded in modern times?

      tonyb

    • Indeed. I found it odd, a couple of years ago, that Judith Curry used the word “recovery” when she mentioned the Arctic sea ice minimum that year, because a scientist using a single data point to make that call is highly unusual. The “recovery” didn’t continue last year (which ended about the same as the previous year) and now we have the 3rd lowest, by some measures (5th lowest by others). Clearly, there was no recovery in Arctic sea ice.

      • I’ve long maintained that sea ice volume is a leading indicator of recovery, but every time I think about it I have a different reason it leads. I’ve even wondered if the Stadium Wave has enough precision to guess where.

        So, keep an eye on it.
        ==============

  3. “Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus…”

    These people are a great resource for consecutive c’s, and they’re so nice as recognise “residual” uncertainty for us residual skeps…

    But just remember that the dough and resources going into this word-pap are NOT going into the observation and understanding of the physical world. Granted, this sort of science is cheaper and requires no umbrellas or outdoor wear, but you can now get computer programs to string together useless abstractions and academese. Why are we still using humans?

    • Certainly a free people is way passé. He died in 399 BC and yet the Left is still afraid of Socrates: nothing is more terrifying to them than the open minds of a free people who are willing to take responsibility for their own futures and live by the creations of their own hands, wits, talents and hard work, official truth be damned.

  4. “A social scientist, a climate change physicist, and Pope Francis walk into a bar. What happens next?” The socialist asked about the demographics of global warming alarmism — like, what do the women that follow the Pope around think?” The climate change physicist noted that there were no women in the Pope’s entourage but we likely could model their beliefs with great accuracy. The Pope said he was pretty sure he already knew what most women thought about it.

    • This is from the pre-Berlin Wall falling days but I always loved it:

      A Russian, an Arab and a New Yorker are strolling outside the UN one afternoon. A pollster walks up and says “Excuse me, could you tell me what you think of the recent meat shortage?”

      The Russian replies: “Excuse me, but what is “meat”?”

      The Arab replies: “Excuse me, but what is “shortage”?”

      The New Yorker replies: “Excuse me, but what is “excuse me”?”

  5. Ridley link broken–goes to Lovejoy

  6. Some 10 million additional folks could be fed by the waste associated with the seafood supply chain from catch to consumer? That’s an incredible figure and makes me wonder about the non-seafood waste and similar impacts.

  7. Dr. Curry — There is not link to Ridley’s new book — link above repeats previous link.

  8. Two other papers look at the role of external forcing.

    The first is on the role of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles.(Ruzmaikin and Feynman 2015)

    The recent extended, deep minimum of solar variability and the extended minima in the 19th and 20th centuries (1810–1830 and 1900–1920) are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle (CGC), a 90–100 year variation of the amplitude of the 11-year sunspot cycle observed on the Sun and at the Earth.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715004901

    The second is a review of Energetic Particles and influences on atmospheric chemistry and climate structures .

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11214-015-0185-4

  9. “New study: 92% non-climate scientists share human-caused #Climatechange consensus”

    Two years ago I had the sense that things were breaking for the skeptics. Lower (safer) atmospheric sensitivity seemed (and seems) increasingly likely, which is really the whole ball game. Meanwhile, the pause was killing the cause.

    None of that seems to matter against the recent onslaught of warmist propaganda. I’m not saying the above study isn’t valid. I don’t know enough about it. What I am saying is, it shouldn’t matter. It does though.

    With Obama in the White House, it’s hard not to be depressed. Dark days heading into Paris.

    (aka pokerguy)

    • Well, Climate Change is a lot like the Organic movement, everyone is an expert.

    • Yep, all the Western leaders have now been sucked into Green Blob except Harper. Australia’s new PM loves the Blob and can’t wait to feed it lots of yummy dollars. Out here in the scrub it’s not so bad, but wherever a doctor’s wife is improving her backhand or a hipster is mulling a new fixed-wheel, Malcolm Turnbull is the messiah.

      Stephen Harper…you are our last Steve McQueen! Beware of the Blob!

      • Hopefully the really smart pollies in the National Party extracted the reported agreement from TurnBULL that commits him to Abbotts anti warmist policies. Climate Minister Greg Hunt, will have a huge expectation to toe the LNP line in Paris. So hopefully all is not lost.But a week is a long time in politiks.

  10. David L. Hagen

    Influence of cosmic-ray variability on the monsoon rainfall and temperature doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2014.11.005
    blockquote>We find that on an average during ‘drought’ (low ISMR) periods in India, GCR flux is decreasing, and during ‘flood’ (high ISMR) periods, GCR flux is increasing. . . .
    * Under suitable environmental conditions changing GCR flux influence precipitation.
    • Decreasing GCR flux may suppress the rainfall.
    • Increasing GCR flux may enhance the rainfall.
    • Rainfall and Temperature variabilities are inversely related at least in ISMR season.

  11. “Extreme weather, made by us?”

    Immediate Solar effects on NAO/AO states, predictable too. Rises in global mean surface temperature has not limited negative extremes of NOA/AO, daily negative values in 2009/10 and 2013 reached lows not seen since previous solar minima.
    Continental interior heatwaves are primarily set up by an increase in negative NAO/AO episodes, causing drying, and the heat events usually occurring on following positive NAO/AO episodes in summer months. Such as in Moscow in 2010. Especially if the AMO is also in its warm mode, the 1934 US dustbowl conditions being a good example.
    2013 summer heat waves effected more maritime regions and those that become drier under increased positive NAO/AO and La Nina conditions, such as California, south China and south Korea.

  12. “As Himalayas glaciers melt, pollutants buried under seep into #Ganga and north Indian plains [link]”

    Highlights the much neglected fact that there’s a lot of natural pollution.

    People refuse to believe that pollution exists without someone to blame.

  13. New paper: The climate change consensus extends bend climate scientists [link]

    Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference.

    A survey of scientists inside of universities should result in a high bias of people who conform to consensus. What else would you expect? If they disagree and don’t have tenure, they would possibly be dismissed or never get tenure.

  14. New paper – Communicating climate change: conduit, content, consensus [link]

    Finally, we point to more fruitful future directions for climate change communication, including more participatory models that acknowledge, rather than ignore, residual uncertainties in climate science in order to stimulate debate and deliberation.

    acknowledge, rather than ignore, uncertainties to stimulate debate and deliberation.

    No one on the consensus side is doing any of this.

  15. Dr. Curry,

    Is this Freudian? “The climate change consensus extends bend climate scientists “?

  16. “Nearly half of U.S. seafood supply is wasted, study shows”

    I never really thought that everyone was throwing out the fish sticks in the freezer that had been there waaaaay too long. I thought it was just me.

  17. “The pharmaceutical industry and medicine has the potential to blow up scientific research—in a good way” [link]

    “There’s a need for more study to identify models for data sharing in ways that respect personal privacy and security and enable companies to do well by doing good.”

    The fly in the ointment is patient confidentiality. The gay community, and in particular the HIV positive gay community made a push for confidentiality with the correct hypothesis that HIV positive gay men would be stigmatized by various institutions including the health professions and insurance companies.

    Congress obliged by imposing strict confidentiality requirements including not naming anyone in the waiting room or having a list of patients visible.

    We now have a draconian system of penalties for inadvertent revealing patient’s names or medical conditions. Specific rules are imposed upon the use of email between medical provider and patients.

    Data sharing poses the risk of patient/diagnosis disclosure. One has to think very hard about turning over names, dates of birth, social security numbers (necessary to bill Medicare) to the free wheeling internet. To admit it ain’t simple would be an understatement. There are people who post pictures of themselves nude and expect the distribution of such material to be constrained. The truth of course is that once on the internet, such information is available to everyone and these strangers can do anything with such images as they want. The comedy movie “European Vacation” shows how a home movie became a brothel headliner. Privacy is gone once it is posted to the internet. Next time you go job hunting, you can be sure your internet expose’ will be discovered by some Human Resource sleuth and will go into the equation of your suitability to be hired. Of Course this depends on what job you are auditioning for.

  18. At a time when the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one (forget about, for life) – is an anachronism, a Catholic Pope is about as relevant as a fart at a wedding.

  19. New study: 92% non-climate scientists share human-caused #Climatechange consensus [link]

    Again!
    Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities to determine the relative prevalence of belief in, and skepticism of, climate change in the scientific community.

    Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. A survey of scientists inside of universities would result in a high bias of people who conform to consensus. What else would you expect?

  20. Indonesia has pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 29 percent by 2030 through stepping up protection of forests and boosting the renewable energy sector, but observers criticised the plan as lacking in detail.

    Indonesia, one of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters, said it would reduce deforestation, restore degraded forests, and lift the share of renewable energy to almost a quarter of the national energy mix in a decade, according to the country’s official UN filing.

    http://phys.org/news/2015-09-indonesia-pledges-percent-emissions.html

    • Indonesia may have pledged that but the reality is far different. My flight out of Sumatra just 3.5 weeks ago was delayed by a day because the illegal forest fires reduced visibility to under 300 m. I think 4 airports on Sumatra were shut down due to the smoke and half the flights on the day before I was supposed to leave were delayed or cancelled.
      This leads me to one of the reasons that the fear-mongering by CAGW proponents angers me: we could do a LOT if we focused on the anthropogenic ENVIRONMENTAL impacts which are obvious and well-documented instead of pursuing some myth of CO2 as a great evil. Climate influences the environment but they are NOT the same.

    • I have a bridge to sell you…

  21. -“The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists”:
    No idea what it means but I find it striking that the strongest “believers” are astronomers and the weakest engineers. The more removed from practical considerations the stronger the belief?

    • In a way yes. Most astronomers are academics, hence pro-government liberals. A lot of engineers are more conservative.

  22. When you ” know” what the temperature should be at every spot on the earth based on its latitude and elevation and you program it into all the models you get this rubbish.

    Mosher
    “you can for example pick 110 PRISTINE sites in the US
    (CRN) and predict the rest of the country: Including
    100s of other pristine sites ( RCRN) and 1000’s of “bad” sites.
    What’s it tell you when you can start with 60 samples and get
    one time series… then add 300 and get the same,,, then add
    3000 and get the same…. then add 30000 and get the same?
    whats that tell you about sampling?
    Whats it tell you when you can pick 5000 and then predict any
    other 5000 or 10000?”

    Anyone want to tell him about sites that all agree with each other whether covered by clouds or not?
    Whether Pristine or not?
    Whether affected by UHI or not ?
    Anyone want to comment on the scientific method and why you can never get observational reports that all agree with each other?
    Why not????

    • Indeed, what Mosher describes is statistically impossible if there is any variance in the population being sampled and there is a lot in temperatures.

      • That is, when the variance is high, as it is in temperature series in different locations, the chances of two different sample sets giving the same result is very low. Sampling theory is based on probability theory. If BEST is getting these results then something is terribly wrong.

      • Wrong.
        You can predict the bad stations from the good stations.
        And yes Alice there is a prediction error.
        however the trends of pristine stations match the trends of ALL THE BAD STATIONS..

        Now skeptics had a belief: bad stations will spoil the record.

        That would mean bad stations should have different trends

        but they dont.

        Go figure

      • Why try to predict what the weather will be when we already won’t admit we are able to change it anyway.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye

        Melvin meant well.

      • “Why try to predict what the weather will be when we already won’t admit we are able to change it anyway.”

        simple. businesses that use weather predictions save money. are you anti free market

      • The contention that “the trends of pristine stations match the trends of all the bad stations” is sheer rubbish. Look at the trend of the discrepancy between urban and neighboring pristine small-town stations in the USA.

      • David Wojick | September 26, 2015 at 12:22 pm

        “Indeed, what Mosher describes is statistically impossible if there is any variance in the population being sampled”

        Thank you David.

        Where are Judith and Lucia when you need them?

    • “Anyone want to tell him about sites that all agree with each other whether covered by clouds or not?
      Whether Pristine or not?
      Whether affected by UHI or not ?
      Anyone want to comment on the scientific method and why you can never get observational reports that all agree with each other?
      Why not????”

      You still dont get it so let me explain.

      Take the 100 or so pristine sites,

      Calculate a MONTHLY AVERAGE temperature. MONTHLY… GET THAT!!

      Got that?

      Next.

      Create a regression

      T = f(Alt, latitude, season )

      Next, you collect the residual.

      You do that by subtracting the Fitted value from the actual value

      Call this W

      W = A-F

      You have some choices about what to do with this W term. You can grid it
      or you can krig it.

      Finally create a composite field

      T = F + W

      That is you have a final temperature field that is the Fitted value + the W field.

      Next. Pick a location for a bad site

      Plug Altitude and Latitude into the regression. You get a PREDICTED

      F.

      Next add W for that location.

      Do that for all 20000 bad sites.

      Compare your prediction to the actual.

      Guess what? They match.

      Now of course the match is never perfect.. its a prediction after all, so
      you will see error.

      Last:

      Take the field from the 100 pristine stations: Integrate it
      Take the 20000 “bad sites” average them:

      Compare the two.

      They match

      Not perfectly of course… its a prediction. and what you will see is that there is no substantive difference between using 100 pristine sites or 20000
      “bad sites”

      if you dont believe in the regression approach, then go criticize Ross McKittrick.. he used it for great results in his UHI study, so did spencer.
      Go attack Willis, he showed the approach works
      Go write a paper.. get a nobel prize and upset all of spatial stats.

      • BEST’s entire approach, wherein absolute temperature levels throughout the globe are simplistically “predicted” on the basis of latitude, elevation and season and the residuals are treated as “weather,” is a prescription for self-deception. It effectively marginalizes the year-to-year and decade-to-decade climatic variability by imbedding it in a static term that is orders of magnitude higher. Small wonder that discrepancies of temperature variation that are striking when viewed as deviations from a local long-term mean (aka “anomalies”) appear to be insignificant vagaries of “weather” in the minds of geophysical novices.

      • “Take the 100 or so pristine sites, Calculate a MONTHLY AVERAGE temperature.”
        Er, would it not be better to measure a monthly average temperature? not make it up, [ sorry, calculate it].
        You see , when you calculate it,based on your oh so clever [I mean scientifically correct latitude, altitude and time of year estimations plus 6% yearly inflation for rising CO2] you forget the actual little trivial details of climate and weather change that really matter.
        Like where the clouds were for which days and what areas for those MONTHS. Not the book answer of 13% cloud cover expected for 30% of the area for that time of the year but the real cloud cover. How much rain fell. How much the humidity changed because of that. What currents brought extra heat to those land sea interfaces that were running in a different direction when you cooked the books [sorry, estimated the conditions for that latitude, altitude time of year and carbon concern].
        As for your bait and switch, Suddenly it is not about temperature measurements but about monthly temperature measurements, as if that makes any difference young man to measurement [sorry estimation, I know you like that word].
        And how you achieve a residual and how if you all lump thousands of good and bad measurements together it suddenly all evens out. Well, thats Maths 101 is it not, not even new and utterly meaningless drivel to hide the fact that you said.

        “What’s it tell you when you can start with 60 samples and get
        one time series… then add 300 and get the same,,, then add
        3000 and get the same…. then add 30000 and get the same?”

        Then corrected yourself from perfectly to
        “They match Not perfectly of course… its a prediction.”

        What is obvious is that you input and derive a set state for your weather stations perfectly, Correct those that disagree to what they should be for that time of year, that latitude. that elevation and the CO2 correction because it must get warmer .
        Ignore the clouds and currents, Alter the stations that disagree [pesky stations] Fill in 2/3 of the grid with made up stations details [we know the elevation, latitude etc] Ignore reality.
        Hence a warming world. Pity those satellites disagree, still, when Spencer goes you can put a new cloudless CO2 algorithm in there to.

      • “BEST’s entire approach, wherein absolute temperature levels throughout the globe are simplistically “predicted” on the basis of latitude, elevation and season and the residuals are treated as “weather,” is a prescription for self-deception.”
        1. No its actually a proven approach.
        2. Go look at what willis did when he didnt believe it.
        3) latitude ( the sun) explains a great portion of temperture
        elevation(lapse rate ) get you up to 90% explained varianance

        “It effectively marginalizes the year-to-year and decade-to-decade climatic variability by imbedding it in a static term that is orders of magnitude higher. ”

        NO. the year to year and decade to decade is embedded in
        THE WEATHER FIELD which changes year to year and decade to
        decade.

        “Small wonder that discrepancies of temperature variation that are striking when viewed as deviations from a local long-term mean (aka “anomalies”) appear to be insignificant vagaries of “weather” in the minds of geophysical novices.”

        Go read the top geostats scientists.
        ask me their names since you don’t know them

  23. bedeverethewise

    I enjoyed the organic oreo paper. A key finding was that those who scored higher on a “pro-environmentalism” scale were more likely to be influenced by organic claims on calorie judgement. In others words (my words) people who score higher on pro-environmentalism are more gullible.

  24. The 92% belief of academics is a strong piece of evidence that the climate consensus is unremarkable. Academics are lefties and lefties believe in lefty religious/political beliefs. Global warming is one of the most important tenets of lefty political religion.

    Even if the 97% figure were accurate (instead of ridiculously manipulated ‘studies’), it would tell us very little if it merely mirrors the baseline political/religious instincts of the scientific academic population.

    [In other news, 92% of priests believe in God]

  25. The Lovejoy paper had a very interesting finding:

    …the models display another nonlinear effect at shorter scales: their sensitivities are much higher for weak forcing than for strong forcing (their intermittencies are different) and we quantify this with statistical scaling exponents.

    From my first reading I wasn’t clear on why they think this is so but it may be a function of the smoothing employed in model results.

  26. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.366/abstract

    They focus on ‘climate change communication’ and not
    the changing weather. Melbourne in Spring …

    Perverse Spring, always changing
    like a moody teenager, by the hour,
    now maverick sunshine, now passing shower.

    Full moon to crescent waning,
    last month’s blossom trees a cherry-pink riot,
    this month’s are snow drifts of transient white.

  27. How Modern Academia Stands in the Way of Advancing Evolutionary Psychology [link]

    Evolution, DNA, race are all minimized in the universities today. The diversity narrative proceeds from a pseudo Marxist perspective that all people are equal and any inequality is a result if systemic prejudice.
    The intellectual assinations by this camp are far worse than what the Evangelicals ever attempted.

  28. Nature: Climate policy – democracy is not an inconvenience [link]

    “As science advances, it tends to strengthen the idea that we should “aim at more deliberate and comprehensive control of all human activities”. Hayek pessimistically added: “It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom”10. We should heed his warning. It is dangerous to blindly believe that science and scientists alone can tell us what to do.”

    Not sure why (maybe James Kirk) but I never got struck by the science disease. Very dangerous stuff. Good paper. The mindless destruction of the anti-capitalists, spurred on by this ignoramus of a pope…ughhh

    • Appropriated while we were young.

      James T. Kirk’s test

      James T. Kirk took the test three times while at Starfleet Academy. Before his third attempt, Kirk surreptitiously reprogrammed the simulator so that it was possible to rescue the freighter. This fact is revealed in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, as Kirk, Saavik and others are marooned. Saavik accuses Kirk of never having faced the no-win scenario. Kirk replies that he doesn’t believe in such a thing. Despite having cheated, Kirk was awarded a commendation for “original thinking”.

      The moral of the story is that man is very ethical.

  29. Stop the presses! Climate scientist find ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) from the 1950’s. How? State-of-the-art climate models, of course.
    From the article:

    Our new study goes some way to answering this question. Using state-of-the-art climate models, we and our colleagues investigated the statistical properties of temperatures and precipitation to see if they have been radically altered by climate change and, if so, when this disruption became evident. We focused on extremes in climate, as these can have large impacts on society and ecosystems.

    We call the point in time when the human influence on climate becomes clear the “time of anthropogenic emergence”.

    https://theconversation.com/ground-zero-for-climate-change-the-tropics-were-first-to-feel-the-definite-effects-in-the-1960s-48012

    • Dr. M., would have been proud of their progress since1945.

      http://fusion.net/story/204316/darpa-is-implanting-chips-in-soldiers-brains/

      Red, blue, anybody?

    • Jim2,
      From your offering: “Interestingly, our models showed that the emergence of a human fingerprint on precipitation extremes has not happened yet. But there are indications that it will emerge in winter over much of Russia, Canada and Northern Europe during this decade and the next.”

      Any suggestion as to why an increase in temperature would not coincide with the capability of ‘the climate’ to be able to carry increased humidity which should have led (one would think) to increased precipitation?

      I’ve not yet read the study, just tossing it out.

      Thanks,

      • It’s my understanding that climate modelers have been calling for increases in humidity and more rain for some time now. I’m not too sure what’s so different about this model run than previous ones. But hey, the Popes over for a visit, good timing to bring it up again, no doubt.

      • Jim2,
        From the conclusion: “This study suggests that for much of the world, the anthropogenic emergence of temperature extremes has already occurred as of the present date, at least in model simulations. ” (Indicates that at least in ‘some of the world’ those temp extremes have not occurred).
        And this: “We show that by examining the TAE we may determine in which regions attribution studies are likely to find an anthropogenic signal as these results suggest whether or not emergence has already occurred. This information is useful in planning for and responding to the impacts of climate change.” (In fact states that TAE has not occurred in at least some places).

        I thought this was a ‘global’ conversation. Sigh.

      • It would be nice if it were data and not model output.

  30. A warm salty bubble from ocean deep melts artic ice. I’m curious as to its origin.
    From the BBC
    Oceanographers gather evidence of a ‘vicious circle’ of wind-driven turbulence in the Arctic Ocean, stirring up heat from the depths
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34324439

  31. I happen to think that vulcanism in the Gakkel Ridge in !999 punched a hole in the ice. Apparently clouds covered the area; I’d like to know if they were clouds normal for the time or a fog rising off the open water. The photos, I believe, are still classified.
    ===============

  32. Just in – “Blueing the Poles” – blame it on the bryozoa – massive new bio CO2 sink / negative feedback discovered
    http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/climate/as-polar-ice-melts-seabed-life-is-working-against-climate-change/