Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

“Arctic snow not darkening due to soot, dust” . Due instead to degraded satellite sensors. [link] …

Indonesian fires now on a par with Brazil’s total annual emissions [link]

Greenland interior thickens from more snow as periphery thins from more melt [link]

NASA:  Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses [link]

Ozone hole above Antarctic 3rd largest on record in 2015, over 30 day period. But no cause for alarm, says @WMOnews [link] …

Letter from Feynman on the importance of “trivial” problems in science. [link] …

This blog post rebuts @mattwridley’s  article on science funding (discussed last week) [link] …

Exxon Mobil refutes environmentalist claims it lied about climate change research [link]

Research on how to use CO2 as a raw material aims to reduce climate change [link]

Fascinating turn of events in NOAA (Karl et al.) v US House “science” committee. NOAA has refused to hand over scientists’ emails to Rep. Lamar Smith [link] …

Many posters/talks from last week’s CMIP5/CMIP6 workshop now available.  [link] …

New paper finds large differences between observational datasets and climate models on upward & downward solar flux & IR [link]  …

 

Stadium wave alert: Coastal sea ice in N. Pacific drives ocean circ. & climate [link]

Recent New York climate change: Warming is NOT due to (↑greenhouse gas radiation), but arises from increased SOLAR fluxes with ↓aerosols [link] …

New paper “reveals leads, lags, & drivers of” past 10,000 years natural climate variability “in great detail [link] …

German Climate Conference: Antarctica Temperatures Show No Warming Trend In 20th Century, models unable to reproduce [link] …

New paper. Climate change has made California drought less likely. [link] …

Study explains near annual monsoon oscillations generated by El Nino [link]  …

It may not be ‘ocean acidification’ killing coral after all – common chemical found in sunscreen is poisonous [link]

New paper by Xie: “Climate models suffer from long-standing biases including the double intertropical convergence zone ITCZ” [link]

Two degree Celsius warming locks in sea level rise for thousands of years — ScienceDaily [link]

El Niño Keeps Antarctic Sea Ice From Another Record Max  [link]

New paper finds climate model “trends of sea surface temperatures & air specific humidity are grossly overestimated” [link]

New paper finds “robust” natural ocean & atmospheric cycles lasting 2-5 years [link] …

Extreme solar storms could be more common than expected  [link]

Why and how to have students grapple with uncertainty [link] …

Academic writing: When plain English makes it obvious you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. [link] …

On how overvaluing prestige has turned universities into “freaks of aimless survival” [link] …

CATO event

On Friday I attended an event sponsored by CATO – Preparing for Paris: What to expect from the UN’s 2015 Climate Change Conference.

My ppt presentation is found [ Curry CATO Paris 1]

Mark Morano has an article with some highlights [link]

This was a very nice event, and I had the opportunity to meet several Denizens for the first time, and also Richard Tol and Chip Knappenberger.

 

455 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Will the Zhou & Xie paper lead to improved models? Let’s ask the modelers.
    ===========

  2. The urge to inappropriately bring this controversy into court may well backfire, even as the money brought perverts decisions.

    Hoi polloi understand that the rule of law has little concern with weather, and vice versa.
    ================

  3. Absolutely loved “The Needless Complexity of Academic Writing” Working in a genetics clinic with members of the lay public I was frequently forced to reduce complex ideas of biochemistry and genetics to plain terms for the subjects of my work. It really forces you to think your ideas through. I have since decided that if you can’t explain what you are doing in a way an intelligent kid in grade eight can understand, you are confused and probably wrong. Even so it is so easy to fall into the trap of jargon. My husband and I have a book in press called “Embryogenesis Explained” aimed at a lay audience. We spent many hours trying to reduce complex ideas into plain English. Even then, we got comments back from our readers complaining we were assuming background knowledge in some places and had to go back again. We had physicist read the book to make sure the physics part was correct and they complained about biochemistry part having too much jargon. And the biochemist complained about the physics section needing simplification and background. (Schrödinger’s cat for Dummies.) This usually meant we had to go back to the original source and reread it again and again to clarify details and get it right. Yup, saying it plain English is definately a test of the completeness of one’s understanding.

    • I was a submarine electronics tech.
      I truly understood how the equipment worked when I had to rewrite the curricula for advanced tech training.
      My students were above average intelligence but as you know, you have to know what you’re talking about to explain something.

      • richardswarthout

        Mikerestin

        As a USAF radar tech nobody could ever adequately explain to me how waveguides worked. Then 20 years after college a phd at Georgia tech answered; nobody knows.

        Richard

      • I was at an SCTE national seminar once and a distinguished scientist from Bell Labs explained digital signal propagation and trouble shooting by using analogies to black and white photographic effects.

        It was easy to follow and helped me tremendously. While I’ve always tested smart, electronics never really “clicked” for me as it did for most of my fellow engineers.

        But this very brilliant man was able to take a rather complicated subject and explain it to me at my level.

    • Curious George

      From https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Feynman:
      Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.”

    • I cannot stress enough the value of the approach you describe when you find yourself at a point where you feel you don’t know how to proceed, or are “going in circles”. The answer (for me anyway) is to seek advice from someone with a very limited understanding of your issue, forcing you to re-organise your thoughts in order to explain the position. Such re-organisations are, like breaks, a vital tool for tasks that are intellectually challenging, and I think they are much undervalued by many people. As a bonus, the different perspective of anothers mind can also help in these situations, so you get 2 for the price of 1, as it were.

      • Absolutely. We asked people from several different fields to read the book. In the areas they were experts we asked them to check out facts. In the areas they were not, we asked them to check if our explanations were clear enough for them. I was actually amazed sometimes to see things I thought were perfectly clear that came across as fuzzy to a reader.

    • bedeverethewise

      Tumbleweedstumbling,
      I think I can help simplify embryogenesis. I starts like this…

      When a man and a woman are in love thy hug each other, sometimes when they do this, they try to get as close to each other as possible….

      For accuracy, we may need to change love to like and hug to …… forget it simple is too hard.

    • I worked for an economic consultancy, writing reports for the Queensland government on national competition policy issues. I was instructed that the exec summary should be written for the Queensland grandmother, said to not read newspapers, preferably on one page. In fact, when I wrote Cabinet briefs for the Premier, other ministers and heads of departments, the one-page format was demanded, however complex the issue. This is a learnable skill: to convey the bare bones of a very complex issue so that a non-specialist can use it as guidance in making a decision. But I was a bit worried at the apparent capacity of those I briefed in such a format.

      • LOL! Oh my a heavy responsibility! Well at least I don’t have to worry about someone in government screwing over the nation because my brief isn’t right or they were too dim to get it.

  4. Greenland interior thickens from more snow as periphery thins from more melt… explained in great detail in comments by Mauri Pelto at RealClimate years ago.

    • It’s always useful to remember that the Greenland icecap sits in a bowl and can’t disastrously melt or slide off.
      =======================

      • Lol… George Rankin Irwin… my Uncle’s mentor… the surprising ways things break.

      • It is also useful to remember that freezing and thawing cycles of ice can crack rock. Greenland is also a group of large islands and parts of the interior are below sea level.

        To put it succinctly, your bowl theory is cracked.

      • That will probably really become a problem in a few hundred thousand years or so

      • The word “bowl” will do as a description, although the geological term is “basin”

        The other comments following yours are completely bereft of any knowledge of structural geology – and they’re not even funny

  5. From a thermodynamics view. I believe what we call climate is nothing more than entropy, because we live INSIDE a thermodynamic heat engine. What say you J.C.?
    http://phys.org/news/2015-10-evaporation-reviewand-global.html

    • I wish they’d speculate on just how this new insight might affect models.
      ==============

    • An interesting article Bobby, however the models they use don’t actually PROVE anything as the authors seem to suggest. This is what bothers me most with model “experiments”.

      Their results indicate that there may be flaws in our understanding of evaporation and that there is justification for renewed investigation and experimentation in a topic that was considered settled. This is a significant and laudable result, and IMO an appropriate use of “Models”, but it is not in itself proof of anything.

    • The study in my view goes to show that another paradigm is proved to be false. And that our understanding is woefully inadequate to understand one of the basic processes on this planet. So who do we think we are, that we have the ability at this point in our collective knowledge to predict such a complex process that we call the planets climate. As far as thermodynamics goes, call me when they have a computer model that can accurately model entropy.

      • i suppose when we can model it we’ll be able to beat it. It’s the leading cause of death y’know.

      • Curious George

        They discovered that the Hertz-Knudsen equation, valid under an assumption of zero wind speed, can not be used in windy conditions. Another paradigm proved to be false! Bobby – what the hell is the paradigm proved to be false?

      • This one Curious George.
        “There could only be one conclusion from this observation: the rate of evaporation and the vapour pressure, that is, the physical quantities that were previously considered to be closely related, were not so. For more than a century we had all been making a serious error in the theoretical description of the phenomenon of evaporation!,” says Dr. Litniewski.

        Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-evaporation-reviewand-global.html#jCp

      • Curious George

        Bobby: Let’s discuss a simplified situation. You drop a feather and it slowly careens downward. Now you introduce a side wind and the feather floats mostly sideways. “For more than a century we had all been making a serious error in the theoretical description of the phenomenon of a falling feather”.

        They misused an equation that does not contain a wind speed at all. They discovered a wind chill effect, to much fanfare.

        In agreement with you, I could not find an equation for a water evaporation in windy conditions. I wonder how climate models do it. But the link to entropy is as tenuous – or as strong – as for any other thermodynamic process.

    • Perhaps the issue of GCM models should be addressed from the other direction.

      “What do the GCM models simulate that has been tested against the real world and proven to be correct?”

      One would expect the models do a couple of things right…

      If there isn’t a long laundry list of GCM elements tested and proven correct, the issue of why we are using GCM models at all should be debated.

      • By the norms of modern science a model is merited by the tests it as been exposed to and survived. The model output can, at most, be relied on within the range of conditions it has survived testing.

        Personally I love the following statement by IPCC:
        “When initialized with states close to the observations, models ‘drift’ towards their imperfect climatology (an estimate of the mean climate), leading to biases in the simulations that depend on the forecast time. The time scale of the drift in the atmosphere and upper ocean is, in most cases, a few years. Biases can be largely removed using empirical techniques a posteriori. The bias correction or adjustment linearly corrects for model drift.”
        (Ref: Contribution from Working Group I to the fifth assessment report by IPCC; 11.2.3 Prediction Quality; 11.2.3.1 Decadal Prediction Experiments )

        Holy Moses!!!!
I
        Models drifts towards “Imperfect climatology” and biases can be removed
        by “using empirical techniques a posteriori”.

        To put the language straight:
        The model output becomes clearly wrong after only a few years but the errors can be removed afterwards.

        How can the this possible pass the extensive scientific and governmental review process without anyone being alarmed? It seems to be honest however, it seems to be a glimpse of realism, which just failed to alert the scientific reviewers, failed to alert Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and fails to alert the governmental reviewers. How can that possibly happen?

        The reviewers of this sections must have slept through their classes on logic and scientific theory – If they ever took such classes.The worst thing is that IPCC conclusion heavily relies on the result of such models. This falsifying experience is alone sufficient to suspend actions based on these models. (Expect ad hoc excuses to evade falsification).

        United Nations, can you please stop this nonsense and start using your effort to help those who already suffer – by known and real causes.

      • Won’t ever happen – too much intellectual effort invested in all the not quite correct mathematics.

  6. common chemical found in sunscreen is poisonous to coral

    So we have yet another unintended side effect of the CFC’s -> Ozone hole ->We will all die of skin cancer scare. First we find epidemic levels of vitamin ‘D’ deficiency…now we find we are killing the corals as well.

    • Every action has unintended consequences. In the end, you need to measure costs and benefits. Just pointing to “inintended side-effects,” without that balance, only amounts confirmation bias.

      We should also consider the “unintended costs” that never manifested: For example, the “economic collapse” as the result of reducing CFCs that were prophecized by many ideological soulmates of those who are prophecizing economic collapse that would result from ACO2 mitigation.

    • More like Chytridiomycosis all over again, only it isn’t just the researchers killing off the subjects, but the adoring masses as well.
      And by the way – when exactly do the models say the ozone hole is going to close after banning CFCs?

    • ideological soulmates … who are prophecizing economic collapse that would result from ACO2 mitigation.

      Ah yes, the people who fancifully imagine that renewables are much more expensive and inconvenient than fossil fuel, and are blind to the necessary supremacy of political correctness over objective correctness.

  7. My take away from the Cato conference is that nothing that happens or doesn’t happen in Paris matters (at least to those of us in the USA).

    The Science advances of the past few years (specifically on sensitivity) will be ignored by decision makers until the decision makers and their scientists are changed out. The beneficial effects of CO2 was not discussed much and seems to be falling on deaf ears in spite of recent efforts by Matt Ridley, Indur Golkany, Freeman Dyson and Bjorn Lomborg.

    Legally (again in the USA) all that really matters is the ultimate resolution by the courts of the challenges to the CPP unless we elect a Republican President with an open mind on CAGW next year. It was stated in the afternoon legal discussion that ultimately the Supreme Court decision depends on just one vote…..Justice Kennedy. A disturbing and sobering thought.

    Pretty much independent of the details of Paris, we are in for more decades of bureaucratic globe trotting, hyperventilating and money wasting (Richard Tol estimates that this has been costing around $100 million per year recently).

    Overall I am glad that I attended this conference. The panelists were all well prepared and engaging. Richard Tol’s talk was the highlight for me. He gave an amazingly frank description of the UNFCCC process and lack of any tangible benefits along with a very sanguine assessment of the potential for continual bureaucratic bungling to do more harm than good to the poor people of the undeveloped and developing world.

    Perhaps Judith could request copies of the ppt’ used by the other panelists and make them all available here. They are all worthwhile, particularly Tol’s and Knappenberger’s.

    • I was there too and I more or less agree. However, the political dimension was not covered. A Paris accord with US promises signed by the President may carry significant political weight here, especially if there is another Democratic takeover down the road.

      As for Tol, while he is skeptical of the UNFCCC process, he is also father of one of the three economic impact models used to compute the bogus US Social Cost of Carbon. All three use climate models with high climate sensitivity estimates, maybe 3.5 degrees C. It is hard to tell.

      However, it struck me during his talk that there may well be strong political pressure coming to adopt a lower sensitivity value. This is a way of claiming that the 2 degree goal has not been lost. It is all funny numbers, right? If the sensitivity is low enough then the present national pledges going into Paris may be enough to stay under 2 degrees. That would be very funny.

      • If they jinky the sensitivity to try to claim they are doing some “good”, it will be to protect their $100 million per year boondoggle.

        The entire thing is a pathetic sham. I found myself wondering how Harlan Watson could tolerate spending over 20 years of his life immersed in such a charade.

      • David

        All the uk meda the last couple of days revolves round the UN saying that they have worked hard for Patis and managed to get pledges from enough countries to bring likely warming from 3 .1 degrees down to 2 .7 degrees so still way above the 2c.

        Tonyb

      • David:

        As Fred Singer pointed out during the Q&A for Richard Tol’s presentation, regardless of selected sensitivity Tol’s model produces economic benefits during the initial stages of warming and is thus distinguished from the DICE model developed by Prof Nordhaus.

      • Opluso, true but irrelevant. Tol’s model, like the other two, runs for an absurd 300 years, finding horrendous damages hundreds of years from now from today’s emissions, technology be damned. The social cos of carbon is based on these 300 year predictions.

    • That $100 million per year is the estimated salary of those attending UNFCCC meetings plus their travel and subsistence. It does not include the time spent preparing these meetings, nor the support back home, nor indeed the costs of the rules and regulations that are agreed at those meetings.

      • Just imagine, folks, how much difference that $100 million plus per year could have made in the lives of the real refugees that (for most apparent intents and purposes) the UN has been ignoring … until quite recently.

  8. Could someone provide a link to the best information/data that shows that more atmospheric CO2 will result in net negative change in the overall climate or for the US specifically?

    • We only have evidence of the reverse. “There are huge, non-climate effects of carbon dioxide which are overwhelmingly favourable which are not taken into account. To me, that’s the main issue, that the Earth is actually growing greener. This has actually been measured from satellites. The whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, it’s increasing the forests, it’s increasing all kinds of growth in the biological world.” (Freeman Dyson)

      • A billion extra people fed now by the greening, and more to come.
        ============

      • Wag

        I am trying to demonstrate that those who want to spend limited resources to significantly reduce CO2 emissions have no reliable information to support their conclusions (beliefs).

        If someone believes that AGW will result in overall net negative changes in the climate the most logical response is the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure that is built to meet the needs of the specific changes that might occur in a specific area.

        Even if AGW is “net negative” over some timescales, it will not be universally negative. Many places will get net benefits. We have no reliable evidence to determine that the climate will be better with CO2 at 400 ppm vs. 450 ppm. We do know it will take away limited resources to drastically changes the shape of the CO2 growth curve.

        Costly CO2 mitigation actions are simply illogical.

      • [i]kim | October 31, 2015 at 12:26 pm |
        A billion extra people fed now by the greening, and more to come.
        ============[/i]

        The CSIRO study showed 11% increased growth from 1982 to 2010. The total effect since 1900 is much much greater. This also understates the effect on crops.

        A 1960s study showed that corn plants were shutting down from low CO2 during the peak of the day.

        In places like Iowa where the northern half is 20,000 square miles of solid corn fields (I haven’t driven through the southern half) the effect is magnified.

        If the estimates of 50% more growth from 1900 to 2000 are correct 42% (or more) of our food comes from more CO2.

      • I believe they still shut down at the peak of day.

      • JCH | October 31, 2015 at 1:04 pm |
        I believe they still shut down at the peak of day.

        They might if they grow fast enough. The “pause” or “hiatus” won’t be as long though.

        Corn is a C4 plant with a high tolerance for light and heat. If you are claiming either of those are responsible you need to post your research.

      • Humanity couldn´t have done anything smarter than to extract hydrocarbons from the deep ground, use it for energy production, reduce energy poverty and get fertilizer as a bi-product and increased biomass on earth as a consequence. Its brilliant!

      • As with deforestation and any form of pollution, it becomes even smarter at some point to just stop.

      • JimD, “As with deforestation and any form of pollution, it becomes even smarter at some point to just stop.”

        If you mean not converting conservation land to agriculture for biofuel crops like corn, sugar cane, palm oil and wood pellets I am inclined to agree. I am not a particular fan of more diesel engines to fight CO2 while increasing other pollutant emissions, but to STOP pollution would be impossible. .

      • Apologies. Buggar’d up that one.

      • buythetruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/photosynthesistemp.jpg

        The CO2 increase increases the temperature tolerance of plants. The peak productivity is at a higher temperature. Much higher than the future temperature increase.

        Red team (or simply honest) peer review would discredit these “warming and co2 is bad” studies.

      • The missing image (actually a better one).

        1. Any place C3 plants grow – C4 plants will grow better with more heat.
        2. C3 plants have better temperature tolerance (peak production at a higher temperature) with more CO2.

      • Red team…. not heard those words for a while :-)

      • Jim D

        Thanks for your response, but do you really believe that your link provides reliable data to justify action? Really?

      • Yes, given what we know already, burn it all, find more, and burn that too, would be unmitigated stupidity on the part of mankind. Only a few advocates of continued accelerating emissions are left now, so it won’t happen, however much you want it to.

      • Well this will probably here just dismissed most here without a blink , just like they dismiss most if not all of the research that show possible negative impacts from climate change (there are a lot!).

      • People who dismiss an economic statistical analysis without even doing one themselves are just saying stuff on blogs, and there is a lot of just saying stuff in response to the science too. You have to weigh these up by their value, and don’t take armchair blog commentaries as any kind of rebuttal to published work.

      • Jim D | October 31, 2015 at 7:12 pm |
        Yes, given what we know already, burn it all, find more, and burn that too, would be unmitigated stupidity on the part of mankind.

        Given that more CO2 will increase plant growth, reduce plant moisture requirements, improve plant temperature tolerance, benefit all the creatures of the planet, and possibly avoid future starvation…

        That would make it mitigated stupidity (perhaps mitigated many times over).

        Stupidity that mitigates itself many times over actually looks smart.

      • PA, you have made your decision for the world that moving on towards the new territory of a 700 ppm climate is net better than one we have always had as a civilization nearer 400 ppm, and that is up to you. Tell that to the people at Paris and see what kind of look they give you. In fact even Cato or Heartland might be a little taken aback by this approach being stated in words as a policy, even though it is what they imply.

      • JimD,

        Tell me, what was worse about the climate the last time CO2 levels were 700 ppm?

        If you don’t know, why the concern? It’s happened in the past, and the world still cooled, didn’t it?

        Cheers.

      • You mean apart from sea level being 200 feet higher?

      • JimD,

        A couple of points.

        I’m not sure if you’re saying that 700 ppm results in cooling plus 200 feet increase in sea levels somewhere unrelated to tectonic plate movements. Is that your position?

        The other point is that you have, in the finest Warmist tradition, completely evaded my question which related to climate, which is the average of weather. The fact that places currently at altitudes in excess of 6000 m were once below sea level does not appear to have much to do with CO2 levels.

        Neither do ruins of cities submerged in the Mediterranean and other places. Did those sea levels rise in response to falling levels of CO2? Maybe not?

        So yes, apart from sea level rises due to continental rise or fall, earthquakes, volcanism and the like.

        You haven’t answered yet, but I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.
        Another stupid Warmist misdirected non answer will do, if that’s all you’ve got. I understand.

        Cheers.

      • MF, you seem confused. It is warming, not cooling, that leads to sea-level rise, so your response is completely incoherent (again).

      • Jim D,

        The Warmist fantasy writ large!

        Do you really mean that the sea level rose as the CO2 levels dropped from 800 ppm to 700 ppm? Wouldn’t the temperature also drop, according to Warmist dogma?

        I’ll give it another shot.

        Why was the climate when CO2 was 700 ppm worse than now (as you say, disregarding crustal movements resulting in apparent sea level variations)?

        You may have indicated that your wife had a higher IQ than yourself. Might you ask her to explain the difference between climate, weather, and English to you? You seem somewhat confused.

        You seem to enjoy worrying about nothing. Keep it up, if it gives you satisfaction.

        Cheers.

      • Who said anything about 800 ppm? When CO2 was last at 700 ppm some time in the Eocene, there were no ice caps and sea levels were 200 feet higher, not by coincidence. This is the equilibrium state for 700 ppm. Since then it has cooled and sea levels dropped, and now we have reversed the trends of CO2, temperature and sea level, and are headed back to that 700 ppm state. The other part of your comment was something JCH said.

      • JimD,

        You keep avoiding the question of climate. It is possible people might prefer an Antarctica or Siberia without snow or ice, regardless of your assertion that present icy conditions are better in some way.

        Notwithstanding this, your hypothesis about the relationship of sea levels and CO2 might be awry. You have yet to explain numerous cities and villages which have been submerged by rising sea levels within the last 3000 years, or sea ports now well inland during the same period.

        You would be aware of fossil fuel deposits some hundreds and thousands of meters below present sea levels. As these fossilised remains are of land based origin, this shows that sea levels have obviously risen massively, as CO2 levels dropped, and the world cooled. Or maybe the land dropped?

        Some might say you are claiming that sea level falls and rises are both due to falling CO2 levels, or that decreasing temperatures cause sea levels to either rise or fall.

        I don’t believe that CO2 drives crustal movement, changes in relative sea levels, volcanoes, earthquakes, glaciation, or weather.

        You obviously do.

        Unfortunately, you appear not to believe the Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Such is life.

        Cheers.

      • MF, more complete gibberish, but thanks for trying.

      • Jim D | October 31, 2015 at 9:49 pm |
        PA, you have made your decision for the world that moving on towards the new territory of a 700 ppm climate is net better than one we have always had as a civilization nearer 400 ppm, and that is up to you.

        I haven’t made any decision. You are making a bunch of outrageous claims that are counter to the facts, to scare the weak minded into supporting stupid policies that can’t be justified on their own.

      • Over the past 150 years the global climate has slightly warmed and productivity ad output has exploded. Do you need a supercomputer to explain this?

        The Nature article starts from a fake premise (sharply rising global temperatures) and projects bogus answers. Ho-hum.

      • Jim D | October 31, 2015 at 9:49 pm |
        PA, you have made your decision for the world that moving on towards the new territory of a 700 ppm climate is net better than one we have always had as a civilization nearer 400 ppm, and that is up to you.

        Justify the 700 by the way. 700 is 3.5 PPM/Y. The worst you can justify is 570 (take the current 30 PPM in 15 years and extrapolate it linearly). And even that is high. The accelerated environmental absorption makes even 500 PPM unlikely.

        However – lets say you are correct – we might as well wait until the yearly average rise in CO2 levels is 3.0 PPM/Y – predicted by the IPCC in 2020.(RCP8.5). We don’t have anything to lose by waiting until the average yearly rise hits 3.0. The absorption rate in GT/Y is higher than the atmospheric increase in GT/Y. The 6.0 GT (and rising) environmental absorption will bring us back to safe levels (and 400 PPM is a safe level) faster than we got there in about a decade. It isn’t like it will take a century to feel safe again.

        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
        Oh, and by the way, the annual increase is currently around 2.3 PPM. The 1998 El Nino resulted in a 2.93 PPM CO2 increase. CO2 emissions have increased 50% since 1998. Given the biggest El Nino since 1998 a 4.4 PPM increase in the CO2 level in 2015 would be a reasonable projection. We are on pace for 2.3 PPM just like last year.

        The IPCC RCP8.5 predicts 3.0 PPM/Y in 2020. I predict 2.0 in 2020. We’ll see who is smarter.

      • I have justified it several times already. You take the population increase rate and the per capita CO2 increase rate due to development and you get 700 ppm by 2100 or thereabouts. Anything less means we have successfully replaced some fossil fuel burning by other means, mitigation in other words, and/or that you have restricted developing countries from increasing their carbon footprint somehow.

      • “spend it all, find more, and spend that too”

        Wow, by just replacing one word for another I was able to duplicate the democratic platform.

        And in this case most agree, it would be “unmitigated stupidity on the part of mankind.”

      • Jim D | November 1, 2015 at 5:50 pm |
        I have justified it several times already. You take the population increase rate and the per capita CO2 increase rate due to development and you get 700 ppm by 2100 or thereabouts. Anything less means we have successfully replaced some fossil fuel burning by other means, mitigation in other words, and/or that you have restricted developing countries from increasing their carbon footprint somehow.

        Really? Really?

        Good luck with that. The first time the annual CO2 rise hits 3.5 (your average) we can start taking that estimate seriously. Until then we will just file it away with the other failed global warming predictions.

        In 1959 emissions were 2.45 GT/Y.
        In 2014 emissions were 9.8 GT/Y.

        For people who are bad at math, the current emissions are 4 (four) times higher than they were.

        Now some more simple math:.the increase went from 0.85 to about 2.2 – which is 2.59 times. Emissions are increasing 50% faster than atmospheric CO2 rate. That is why the two curves bear no resemblance to each other.

        Further – the 90’s “hiatus” shows that at least a 1.5% annual increase is needed just to keep the annual increase at 2 PPM/Y.

        The predicted Chinese/India increase of 7 GT/Y (2 GT of carbon) by 2040 from the current 36 GT/Y of carbon dioxide is about 20%. This
        would mean an annual increase in emissions of 1.3% per year, down from the 21th century average of around 3% per year.

        The annual increase is going to hang around 2 PPM/Y (or less) like a broken speedometer.

      • PA, if you think emissions will go flat without even any policy, you are mistaken. They are only starting to flatten because of moves to reduce them through efficiency and less coal use, and these need to continue to bend the curve down. Your 2 ppm per year means that you have assumed a policy to reduce the footprint per person to counteract the rising population and growing development in the world which by themselves lead to an increase to 700 ppm by 2100. It is not going to happen by itself, but at least you are on board with reducing the per person CO2 and flattening the emissions, so maybe that is a start. Use of all the coal alone gets us above 1000 ppm, so you will have also conceded that much of it needs to remain buried, together with other unexploited fossil fuel resources of which there are many. So, in short, only by ignoring the population increase, global development, and existing resources, can you get your numbers, but otherwise fine.

      • Jim D | November 2, 2015 at 7:24 am |
        PA, if you think emissions will go flat without even any policy, you are mistaken.

        This is simply incorrect. The emissions are restrained by fuel costs. Fuel costs are increasing. The 3%/year increase from emissions from Chinese industrial growth is over. There is no major player in the temperate zone that needs to be spun up. The temperate zone has the highest energy requirements.

        The most likely scenario is 1.5% annual increase to 2030-2035 then a slow decline, action or no action. 12 GT per year is probably the maximum emissions. There is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels, it benefits the planet. It is irrational to terminate a benefit early. It is irrational to contend fossil fuel consumption will continue forever at the current level.

        Fossil fuels have slowly been replaced for a while now. The Chinese have been replacing their old fossil fuel plants with new more efficient ones – it isn’t clean energy but cleaner energy. As China and India put more nuclear reactors online all that clean energy (and in the case of thorium – renewable energy) will prevent or replace a lot of fossil fuel capacity.

        At 12 GT and 460 PPM over 70% of emissions goes into the environment and the rate of annual increase drops to 1.7 (1960 levels). At 12 GT and 480 PPM the rate of annual increase drops to 1.25 PPM/Y. By then we are to mid-century and emissions will be declining and the 10 GT/Y of absorption will halt the rise of CO2. The CO2 level is going to peak between 460 and 480 PPM of CO2.

        There is nothing wrong with that. CO2 is very beneficial to the environment. I don’t understand the irrational need to prematurely replace fuels that are beneficial to use. We just need to let nature (and supply and demand) take its course.

      • You may not understand why people are replacing fossil fuels, but almost everyone else knows exactly why and they have plans to do it even faster coming up at Paris in case you are not aware. The numbers speak for themselves. Half of emissions are staying in the atmosphere, which even staying at 40 GtCO2/yr, works out to over 2.5 ppm per year. At that pace we blast through your target by 2050. Look at the numbers sensibly.

      • Jim D | November 2, 2015 at 5:33 pm |
        You may not understand why people are replacing fossil fuels,

        Well… Let me think about that… It is sort of true.

        I know what their stated reasons are …

        The stated reasons are a horrible mix of misinformation and unreasoning orthodoxy. And they willfully refuse to inform their viewpoint.

        It is that mindset I don’t understand. Starving people for style points doesn’t make sense to me.

        In 2011 (updated in 2013) IPCC RCP8.5 indicates a 2.6 PPM 2015 and 3.0 in 2020.

        The 2015 projection is 25% too high. The 2020 projection is 50% too high. I don’t expect 2020 to have a more than 2.0 PPM increase. Relative to RCP 8.5 the atmospheric CO2 concentration is walking off a cliff while the emissions projection is pretty much on track.-

        If the CO2 increase in 2020 is 2.0 PPM you can forget about a “global warming” scenario and move on to your next pseudo-disaster.

        So let’s wait and see.

  9. In the link above, the counter-attack by Mobil reflects a realization that it has a target on its back as the Leftists attempt to apply the tobacco-model of taxation to the energy industry. The next Robert Redford is already practicing his lines in the green room for the movie about how oil excecs hid the truth about the catastrophic warming effects caused by the evil petroleum industry. Global warming is the ozone hole / nuclear winter / next ice age / DDT / cholesterol / gluten scourge of our age — the next wacky official ‘food’ pyramid based on views that saturated fats are evil.

  10. [i]Fascinating turn of events in NOAA (Karl et al.) v US House “science” committee. NOAA has refused to hand over scientists’ emails to Rep. Lamar Smith[/i]

    Perhaps someone could enlighten me on why scientists spend 10 to 100 times more effort to frustrate requests for information, that are covered by FOIA and should be disclosed, than it would take to respond to them?

    The climategate emails detail deliberate (and permanent) destruction of data records to avoid disclosing them and loading other data onto a laptop and scrubbing the data from the servers.

    All it takes to respond to the request is to have a server jockey who isn’t busy slam a tape or SD card into the server and dump the requested emails. This isn’t rocket science.

    Congress can request information that isn’t covered by policy from their servants (and they are civil servants) in the executive branch. People who accept money from the government are aware of the strings and the disclosure requirements. Bureaucrats subject to government oversight have to expect to be oversighted.

    Perhaps if we make the FOIA penalty firing (for government employees) or 10 year debarment (for grantees) this attitude will change.

    Anyway – failing to respond to legitimate requests for information makes the requestee look dishonest and guilty and should impact the credibility of their work – negatively. Could somebody explain a legitimate reason why global warmer scientists are so resistant to honest disclosure?

    • I suspect Judith would also refuse to hand over her emails if requested by a congressional committee. You have to thank NOAA for making a stand for all scientists. There is a principle here, and it applies to both sides equally.

      • If you’re publicly funded and the public ask for your emails. You might not like it, but legally you don’t have even a stump let alone a leg to stand on. The sooner those involved in climate studies get a handle on that the better. Public funding comes with responsibilities to said public bodies that provided it.

      • Karl is a NOAA employee. He doesn’t have that right anymore than Hillary did.

        The claim he has any right to refuse is fraudulent and without merit. Those are government servers and he is a government employee and it was a NOAA study.

      • It gets sorted out in congress. There is almost no restriction on the power of congress to investigate, but congress often self-restricts in the process, which is all that is going on.

      • JIMD

        What is the principle here? Could you please explain?

        At first glance it seems strange that publicly funded scientists should refuse to hand over their work to a (presumably?) legitimately formed govt committee.

        It has shades of Phil Jones who was said to be unwilling to pass over his data as they would only try to find something wrong with it.

        So, is it principle or is it a concern that the information may not be as robust as is claimed?

        As you know I am NOT a conspiracy theorist but I am struggling to think of the reasons for this lack of cooperation.

        tonyb

      • Wholeheartedly agree

      • Anybody has a right to refuse… some have spent time in jail. I believe there is actually a congressional jail.

      • If you spend time in jail as a result. Then you didn’t have the right to refuse. Surely even you can manage to understand that. It’s not a difficult concept…

      • JCH

        But WHY would you want to refuse? I don’t get it, so hope someone can explain the principle involved here and how they are making a stand for all scientists..

        tonyb

      • That is huffpo BS, yimmy. Have you clowns heard of FOIA? What makes you think that the FOIA law exempts scientists employed by the federal government? Why do you support the NOAA disregarding the law?

      • There are no truly private emails in either public or private industry. The corporation owns your desktop. They have complete access to all of its contents if they so wish to access it. If one gets fired, they don’t get to take their desktop or destroy its contents, it’s the property of the corporation. That NOAA believes they have private rights of email over public property best get real.

      • tonyb
        “legitimately formed gov’t committee”
        that’s the rub in here in the US
        Republicans currently control the US House and the committee hearings both sides put on are mostly political theater
        neither side accepting the other as ‘legit’
        our gov’t is capable of ‘legitimate’ oversight, if it takes place out of public view
        otherwise the circus clowns must put on a show
        partisan divide results in constant bickering
        with the various alphabet agencies taking the side of whichever party controls the executive branch
        I wonder if in the UK, you have a public service class that has a more ‘legitimate’ tradition than we do here and would be less likely to seek political cover
        the requested material will probably have to be produced and will magically appear after the public attention has moved on
        me thinks that ‘legitimate’ lives in the middle, and there ain’t much of that around nowadays as is exemplified in the experience of one Judith Curry

      • Rebelronin

        Thanks for that. We have the civil service who are govt employees who serve the government of the day and are expected to be non political.

        The closest parallel to your NOAA situation would be with our Met office who are civil servants as the govt owns the Met office through the MInistry of Defence. A throwback to the days when a knowledge of weather was considerd essential to fighting wars. dday being a good example.

        If the head of the Met office oR any of it’s emloyees was requested to appear in front of a Parliamentary commission to discuss temperatures I can not imagine any circumstances where they would refuse to produce requested emails. The newspapers over here would immediately suggest they had something to hide.

        I am still waiting for Jimd to tell me what the principle is that warrants the refusal

        Tonyb

      • It’s just a fishing expedition unless you first accuse someone of something and then ask for the emails to investigate that accusation. It is similar to property searches in that way. You should at least need a court warrant, and that should be based on a case with other evidence that says that this search is useful, not just fishing. In a clearcut scientific case, you would try to use the data to repeat the results, and that much was provided, and if that fails, you would investigate why. There does not seem to be a route to emails from there, unless some data was provided by email.

      • Very foolish, yimmy. You do know that the Congress has oversight responsibility for the NOAA and they have subpoena power. They don’t need a freaking court order. And the people have a right to information under FOIA. It’s a law, yimmy. There are nine exemptions, none of which says anything about government scientists being a protected class. Why do you advocate breaking the laws of the land, yimmy?

      • I’m used to seeing hypocrisy in the “climate-o-sphere,” but the amount that’s shown up on this issue really is something special.

      • Don, so is Congress just groundlessly asking for everyone’s emails all the time? No, they have to have a reason first and a specific thing they are looking for. Have they set up a congressional investigation of the Karl paper? No. That would be a first step, right? Next would be to look for wrongdoing in the data, then if emails look useful from that investigation, it will follow from that. If the data says what the paper says it said, that would be the end of that. Which is what I said.

      • Right,Jim, is there any precedent for demanding emails from scientists without evidence of wrong doing?

      • I find this whole thing baffling. I don’t see why people should want these e-mails, but at the same time, I don’t see how anyone can argue against them being released. As far as I know, there is no legal basis for refusing to release these e-mails. They would have to be released under an FOIA request; a congressional committee should certainly be able to obtain them.

        I don’t expect anything particularly interesting exists in these e-mails. I doubt there’s much value in requesting them or in trying to avoid releasing them. This seems like a colossal waste of time

      • Right now we’re undergoing an audit of multiple systems. No evidence of wrong doing.

        The reason for requesting information can be as simple as to better understand the processes.

    • You are blinded by ideology and you are willfully ignorant, yimmy:

      http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

      Start with “Congress’s Right to Investigate”.

      The oversight Committee has a right to the information it has asked for. They don’t have to declare an investigation, or name a crime, or any of the other crap that you are making up. They are not asking for everybodies’ emails. They are asking for the emails pertaining to a situation they have determined needs looking into. It’s their business.

      The NOAA is asserting a privilege that does not exist. Now explain why you think the NOAA can and should defy Congress. And explain why the FOIA does not apply to the NOAA. Show us what you got, clown.

      • So they have all the data for the paper that they are interested in and there is unlikely to be fraud there. Have they determined why they also need emails, or is it just to go fishing or to chill the government scientists who come up with inconvenient results for them? What do you perceive their purpose to be?

      • Have they determined why they also need emails, or is it just to go fishing or to chill the government scientists who come up with inconvenient results for them?

        Perhaps they’re looking for evidence that the “scientists” involved had already decided what results they wanted before they undertook their “science”.

      • You are a denier, yimmy. The Congressional Committee has very broad oversight investigation powers. They smell something fishy, they go fishing. The majority of the Committee gets to decide what is fishy. Get over it, clown.

        Government scientists are not exempt from Congressional oversight investigations. Period.

      • Are we allowed to ask for Lamar Smith’s emails to see why exactly he is asking for emails? I suspect not. This is a congressman from an oil state, so it may be obvious already, but the emails might seal the deal.

      • Jim D,
        I suppose one can ask, but as a government employee I guess he’s under no compunction to provide them, eh?

      • Maybe he can set an example.

      • Jim D,
        Maybe he could, were he asked. Hillary did.
        The only ones who haven’t are Karl and Mann. Hmmm. Wonder ’bout that.

      • That’s just the usual conspiracy thinking again.

      • Or, alternatively, it’s poor behaviour on the part of those climate scientists. Is that even in your wheelhouse?

      • What are they even hoping to find in those emails that they can’t find by looking at the original data and the paper?

      • Jim D,
        I doubt that there’s anything (no conspiracy thinking there). So all the more reason to just put them out there, right (I think that’s a better question)? Removes all doubt. Karl, specifically, is a government employee after all.

      • Whatever they put out, they will be accused of hiding the good stuff. See what happened with Hillary. It never ends.

      • As it is it’s certain that Hillary did put them out and Karl and Mann did not. It’s a reasonable question to wonder why, even if one expects nothing of substance. If I were of a conspiratorial bent, it would be fodder. I’m not, and it still makes me wonder. Doesn’t it you?

      • No, because it is a slippery slope to obtaining all your emails, and a lot of those will be with non-government employees. It just puts a chill on scientists for no good reason. If they suspect something, start out by saying what it is, or show good faith by releasing all of your own emails as a gesture.

      • Jim D,
        So as I understand things from the side of those more climate concerned the appropriate approaches are: Grijalva, RICO, Those inquiring must provide all of their communication, formulate policy based on uncertainty and ‘scientific evidence’, and allow those who put forth the science as public servants a pass on providing their information. I find this so very interesting. Especially the providing a chill ‘for no reason’ part. Guess I just have a suspicious mind.

      • In RICO, they would have a specific investigation and type of communication in mind, which is already much more than Smith has uttered. He is focused on the Karl paper, has the data to verify for himself, but appears not to be interested in doing that. When questioning science publications, it is actually a very simple and self-contained investigation because it comes down to the data and what they said about it in the paper. No need for emails on the face of it.

      • Jim D,
        Sounds to me like you’d be okay with any government employee denying access to work product and related communication. That’s just not how things should be IMO. Your choice.

      • Why is related communication so important? Science is about the data.

      • It belongs to us, Jim. That’s why it’s important. Again, I wouldn’t expect there to be anything of substance found, but it’s ours.

      • …and even more interesting would be your own congressman’s or the President’s emails, but we don’t ask for that, do we?

      • You equate Karl to a president? And we do get their communication, it’s just that it’s delayed. (I have no idea if it’s audited)

      • I am saying if you think all government emails are FOIAable, let’s get Smith’s while we are at it. Why would he possibly object to us trying to find out where his inquiry is coming from? This will help to set the context of his request, or to see if it is just an unfounded waste of time for everyone, as may be reasonably suspected given their track record.

      • You can’t handle the truth, yimmy. Elections have consequences. Your left-loon mob is not in charge of Congress. If they were, you would be happy to have them investigate and persecute deniers. Little transparent hypocrite.

      • I think Smith is smarting because his belief in and op-eds on the pause have proven groundless, and now he sees it as personal to go after the people that made him look like a fool. It is a natural response and fairly transparent, and I can see why he is doing this.

      • Very, very few people care what you think, yimmy. My guess is that Congressman Smith is not one of the.

      • There’s a stool in the corner for this armchair psychologist.
        =================

      • No, Jim D, science is not about the data. Science is what’s done with (and sometimes to) the data

      • Whatever they put out, they will be accused of hiding the good stuff. See what happened with Hillary. It never ends.

        And the less they put out, the more people will believe those accusations.

        Personally, I doubt there’s anything actionable there. These “scientists” would have to be pretty dumb to be explicit, after Climategate.

      • Would people like Judith to put her emails out there or is this just going to be a one-sided request? How about Spencer or Christy? We know that one of Karl’s co-authors got an angry email from Watts on this paper that made the rounds to Watts’ embarrassment. Do you want to see more of those types of emails, or what? Maybe some other skeptics have written things of that type to Karl that they would not want released. Do they get a say?

      • Yeah, Jim, it’s a slippery slope and you could say taking federal grants for research would subject them to oversight and thus access to emails. I am sure Dr. Curry has received federal grants.

      • NOAA scientists work for the government. They are subject to oversight by the Congress and they are obligated to comply with FOIA. There is no exemption for “scientists” from Congressional oversight, or from FOIA. You jokers are supporting them defying the laws of the land. Their emails related to the work product from their employment do not belong to them. Period. Yammering about Judith turning over her emails for no particular reason, is just whinging BS.

        You clowns are not doing the cause any good with this foolishness.

      • Well, Don, when the Democrats are in power they could start digging into “skeptical” scientists emails if they don’t like the results, right? Should I be able to get Dr. Curry’s emails, if I don’t like the results?. I would like to see them. But I don’t think it would the right thing to do.

      • The NOAA is blowing unicorn farts here. No legal leg to stand on. The government owns the docs, Congress gets them. This isn’t a close question. It isn’t a question at all. NOAA is simply in contempt.

        If I were Smith, I wouldn’t tolerate it for a day. Subpoena duces tecum for each one to appear personally and fire everyone and anyone who doesn’t produce everything demanded. Zero out the budget, impeach those who refuse to do the firing.

      • Oops! Another fed agency that serves Obama, instead of the people, needs to be investigated:

        http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/01/obamacare-premiums-to-soar-3-times-faster-than-feds-claim/

        “The Obamacare program’s federal exchange operates in 37 states where officials declined to set up state-run exchanges. Officials in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare Services, which manages Obamacare, only calculated price changes for the health insurance program’s Silver plan, thus ignoring data for the Bronze, Gold and Platinum plans.”

        I bet they calculated the price changes for all four plans and decided to tell what amounts to a lie.

    • hmmm I wondered if this tactic has been tried before? Yeo..

      http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/07/american-tradition-institute-freedom-information-law-climate-scientists

      The ultra-conservative American Tradition Institute has expanded its legal pursuit of climate scientists, using transparency laws to try to flush out potentially damaging emails…

      The strategy—used to seek records from prominent scientists such as Michael Mann—is seen by scientists as an excuse to try to dig up embarrassing or damaging communications that could be used to discredit climate science.

      At the very least, such open records requests are a distraction, said Hayhoe. “These types of requests are disruptive. They require a lot of attention to respond carefully and they take away time spent doing teaching, mentoring, or doing research. For a scientist who is happiest working in a lab or on a computer it is frightening to be accused of things that are completely without basis.”

      At the other extreme, such records requests represent an escalation of efforts to politicise climate science, said Dessler.

      “At some level it’s really dirty tricks what these people are doing. They are not using the open records request in any way it is meant to be used,” said Dessler. “It’s certainly reasonable to get a record of what transpired—how a decision was made, how a contract was awarded, why a university president was fired. But they are not trying to use it to figure out how decisions are being made. What they want to do is to find something embarrassing, something they can use in a political debate.”

  11. Article on CO2 being turned into an asset: stupidest prize ever.
    Winner should literally have been watching grass (or rice) grow.

    • People who do self satire like this have some sort of perceptual problem.

      If anyone suggests replanting the rainforest – they should be the winner.

      • People who don’t understand that the planet is greening because of elevated CO2 levels have some kind of perceptual problem, much less people who think that expending energy to artificially create extremely expensive fuels from CO2 is a positive development.
        Rube Goldberg never had it so good as all of these green subsidy harvest companies and researchers.

      • The guide used by greenhouses to set CO2 for maximum growth has been used for about 45 years. If CO2 didn’t increase plant growth you would expect that greenhouses would have noticed by now.

        Given all the rainforest that has been burned planting more trees would seem to be smarter than expensive rube goldberg technology. It is certainly cheaper and the trees can be farmed as a resource.

      • Burning all the fossil fuel supplies and reserves known to man this instant wouldn’t raise CO2 levels to the point where CO2 starts impeding plant growth.
        It won’t even reach the point of optimal plant growth.
        So what is your argument, exactly?
        Wow, what a completely idiotic response.

  12. This is a great nutshell:

    Agreement:
    Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
    Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
    Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

    Disagreement:
    Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes
    How much the planet will warm in the 21st century
    Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
    Whether we can afford to radically reduce CO2 emissions, and
    whether reduction will improve the climate

    • Turbulent Eddy, that is indeed a good nutshell.

    • I do not agree that we know that surface temperatures have increased since 1880. Some place warmed have while others have cooled. That is all we know.

      • Err No.

        if 100 people gained weight and one person lost weight
        you would be misleading people if you ignored the overall difference.

        plus.. point me a place that has cooled ? since 1880

      • CET has cooled marginally since 1994 and cooled quite strongly from 1998 and most of the gains made during the last few decades of ladt century has been lost this century.. Curiously however, autumn has bucked the cooling trend of the other seasons. Any physics for this?

        Tonyb

      • Alas, most of the long-record stations around the globe are at urban sites, which are subject to globally uncharacteristic warming.

      • Steven Mosher asks “point me a place that has cooled ? since 1880“.
        Well, that’s a tough ask, because not many places have temperature records from 1880. But anyway, I took a stab and the very first station I looked at (really) was 90015 Cape Otway Lighthouse (Australia), picked because it was the first obviously non-urban station in the list.
        Annual avg max’s:
        1879 18.9
        1880 19.6
        1881 19.3
        (1865 was the coolest pre-1880 at 18.1)
        2012 17.6
        2013 17.9
        2014 17.9
        (The last year above 18.1 was way back in 1900 18.2)
        Ah, I hear you say, I should have used the Min-Max average, not just the max. Well, that was 15.0 in 1880, and less than 15.0 in 2012 (14.55), 2013 (14.8), 2014 (14.85).

        While Cape Otway has cooled since the specific date you requested, and therefore satisfies your request, the overall picture is of a slight reduction in the Min-Max range and no significant change in average temperature.

        I haven’t time to look at any more stations, but if you want to, the data is at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

      • Steven Mosher,

        “if 100 people gained weight and one person lost weight you would be misleading people if you ignored the overall difference.”

        Very true, but if you tried to apply this overall difference to the remaining 7 billion you might be in error.

        The same is true of the ever limited, ever changing surface temperature record. You may calculate a difference but to assume it applies to the entire surface of the globe might be in error. Maybe.

        The uncertainty is large enough that while we may be fairly confident the overall average has increased, there may very well be regions where they’ve cooled.

        So both of you may be right. Scary.

      • Steven Mosher,
        Hasn’t Antarctica cooled since 1880?

    • Eddie,

      I would change

      “Disagreement: Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human causes”

      To “Disagreement: Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human CO2 emissions”

      This’ll enable Land-Use-Changes to be tackled by IPCC so that they don’t fear unemployment quite so much – with the side-effect of being useful.

      • To “Disagreement: Whether the warming since 1950 has been dominated by human CO2 emissions”

        This is a keen insight. The global warmers have been giving GHG credit for other peoples work.

        Reducing CO2 isn’t going to tear up asphalt or unburn rainforest. The land use effects (local) need to be separated from the GHG effects (global).

        Funding for GHG studies should be terminated and switched to measuring and attributing warming due to non-GHG effects. The GHG horse has been beaten to death and it is time to stop beating the hamburger that remains.

        It makes sense to fund monitoring stations in pristine areas upwind of major urban centers which would allow generation of a UHI-removed temperature trend.

  13. NOAA vs. House: If the dialog was on a government computer, the the government owns it. If it was done on a “private climate server,” then take a number behind the committee investigating another popular private e-mail server.

    • I think the subpoena is only directed at Federal employees.

      • Indeed, but those computers hold the conversations from all involved, inside and outside of government. Can’t be erased, but only a sledge hammer falling on the hard drive by some freak accident can get rid of the dialog.

    • Of note. Some 7000 pages of ‘another private e-mail server’ have recently been released (http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-due-to-be-released-1441045057). In comparison, how many has Karl offered?

      • Like Jim has been trying to tell you the only thing that matters is the final product, the published study and the data. If there is no evidence for wrongdoing, why does he need the emails, except as a fishing expedition?

      • There does not have to be evidence of wrongdoing. The power of a congressional committee to investigate is exceedingly broad. The courts will be reluctant to intervene unless the committee is wildly out of line.

        By kicking this upstairs, NOAA is seeking to negotiate limits on the scope. That will be totally up to congress and their lawyers.

      • Whether they have the right or not, I don’t think it sets a very good precedent and will lead to more politicization of science and digging into their emails.

      • Joseph,
        I didn’t say I like it. I did say I wouldn’t expect them to find anything. But I do advocate compliance with the law. It’s up to you to chose otherwise or when you ‘believe’ that compliance is appropriate. There are laws I don’t care for, but if/when I chose to not comply then I must suffer the associated consequences including a suspicion of impropriety.

      • What is there to be suspicious about? Are you worried NOAA scientists are “conspiring” with the administration to fool the public? The science done should speak for itself. If there is fraud then it should become apparent based on future research. All I seem to hear again are speculative theories with no substance.

      • “more politicization of science ”

        kinda like more dead or a little pregnant.

      • Joseph – the stewpudd thuggery of the committee will unfold during the highest temperatures in the instrument record. Embrace it.

      • It would be interesting to know why Karl ate all. made adjustments to erase the pause that the alarmists have been writing excuse papers about for years. It had not occurred to many other groups of scientists using the very same data to make those adjustments, when they have known about the issue with buoys and ships for many years.

        I think there is an email that says “We have to erase the pause, like we did with the MWP. We’ll be famous.”

        And another “We have to hide the flatline.”

        And “We have redefined peer review, so that’s not a problem. And Obama will invoke Executive Privilege, if those denier repubs in Congress get nosy. What could possibly go wrong? On to the partee in Paree! Oh, the humanity! We are definitely morally and intellectually superior to those untermenschen.”

    • will 2015 break a record?
      in the media it will.

    • Mosh

      Good news! As others here have observed, your recent analogies have not been too cool, so you are invited to purchase the latest ‘must have’, the analogy app ‘appalogy’

      Never have to apologise for an inappropriate or awkward analogy again

      Special sections on historic temperatures, computer models and CET Just feed in a one line comment and ‘appalogy’ will turn it into a well crafted and irrefutable analogy guaranteed to get your friends shaking their heads in admiration. Limited stocks.

      Tonyb

      • pardon me if I remain unimpressed by your fallacies?
        many people have issues with my analogies?
        well there you go tony, you just proved that consensus is useless.

      • davideisenstadt

        Mosh
        You write:
        “well there you go tony, you just proved that consensus is useless.”

        didn’t you recently write that you trust the wisdom of the crowd?

        of course a few days before that you derided counting the number of citations a paper garners writing in effect that you didn’t care if a paper had 50 cites you would instead trust one persons view more…that is, until that one person is Freeman Dyson…then its the wisdom of the crowd.
        Really, you should keep a record of your musings and ramblings, at least then you could attempt to achieve some consistency….
        My personal Mosh favorite:
        “science isn’t about probabilities”
        of course thats only true if your knowledge of physics is that of someone in the mid 19th century….

    • No matter how many attacks, Mosher ends up mostly right. That’s what happens when physics is on his side. Physics is not political.

      • for those who dont get the science, there are only analogies.
        I loved Pratt’s Milk example.. actually more than an analogy.

        As usually, these guys cannot address the substance.

        in the blog article I show them how the FAILURE to Interpolate leads to WARMER temps.

        that should fry the circuits in their heads

      • JCH: Mosher ends up mostly right. That’s what happens when physics is on his side.

        Physics is not always on his side. On BEST he is mostly reliable, on everything else he is mostly wrong.

      • Physics may not be political, but plenty of physicists are.
        Thoroughly inane, besides which Mosher has no need for such as ye to defend himself.

      • Show him the physics… he will back off instantly.

      • “Physics is not always on his side. On BEST he is mostly reliable, on everything else he is mostly wrong.”

        Lets see my core beliefs

        1. C02 is a green house gas
        2. If we increase c02 and hold everything else constant the planet will warm.
        3. ECS lies between 1.2 and 4.5C.. I’ll bet below 3C
        4. The HS is a piece of crap
        5. the models run hot
        6. UHI is real
        7. Its tough to decide which is more reliable UAH,RSS or surface records.
        8. Science is never settled.
        9. The IPCC probably over estimates the amount of warming caused by humans

        I guess I pissed matt off one day

      • We are not talking about physics, just shaky statistics, at BEST.

      • sorry David. wrong again.

        go ahead and test the statistical model.
        it works. your criticisms dont

      • Steven Mosher | October 31, 2015 at 2:59 pm |
        “Physics is not always on his side. On BEST he is mostly reliable, on everything else he is mostly wrong.”

        Lets see my core beliefs

        Nice list.

        The ECS might be as low as 1°C given the downwelling study.. JC/Lewis estimate seems to be the current front runner. Don’t have an estimate but it is on the lower half of the range somewhere.

      • Mosher manages to contradict himself on his “core” beliefs:

        3. ECS lies between 1.2 and 4.5C.. I’ll bet below 3C (just slightly below IPCC projections on the low end)
        5. the models run hot
        9. The IPCC probably over estimates the amount of warming caused by humans

        Mosher first agrees with the ensemble model projections in #3, then refutes the IPCC ensemble model projections in #5 & #9.

        SM “1. C02 is a green house gas”

        In name only for the improperly named “greenhouse effect”
        Greenhouses work by LIMITING CONVECTION. IR-active gases ACCELERATE CONVECTION via collisions with non-IR active gases, ONE BILLION times more likely than emitting a photon in the troposphere. Convection dominates radiative-convective equilibrium in the troposphere by a factor of ~8 times.

        SM: “2. If we increase c02 and hold everything else constant the planet will warm.”

        Not even wrong. First of all, the only place you can hold everything else constant is in a faux computer model. And here’s why doing that in a model, holding the lapse rate “fudge” constant, results in gross exaggeration of climate sensitivity:

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=kimoto

        Secondly, the “partial blackbody” CO2 absorbs and emits in the very low-energy fixed ~15 um band, equivalent to a true blackbody at an emitting temperature of 193K by Wien’s Law. The entire atmosphere surface to 100km edge of space is much much warmer than 193K. A “partial blackbody” at 193K cannot warm a much warmer 255K blackbody (atmosphere) or surface (288K). To do so would require net heat transfer from cold to hot, and IMPOSSIBLE decrease of entropy, both forbidden by the 2nd LoT.

        But, agreed on these at least:

        4. The Hockey Stick is a piece of crap
        5. the models run hot
        6. UHI is real
        8. Science is never settled.
        9. The IPCC probably over estimates the amount of warming caused by humans

      • Steven Mosher: 1. C02 is a green house gas
        2. If we increase c02 and hold everything else constant the planet will warm.
        3. ECS lies between 1.2 and 4.5C.. I’ll bet below 3C
        4. The HS is a piece of crap
        5. the models run hot
        6. UHI is real
        7. Its tough to decide which is more reliable UAH,RSS or surface records.
        8. Science is never settled.
        9. The IPCC probably over estimates the amount of warming caused by humans

        I am glad to see you write out your version of “the science”, since I have occasionally pointed out that seldom cite any of “the science” (even those) behind your claims.

        If you confined yourself to that you’d be mostly right. But then you get into “[statistical significance not being science]”, “[disputation is not a part of science]”, “[the answer is ontology]”, “[you don’t get to decide]” and such.

        On another occasion I wrote that you are mostly worth reading. I think you are mostly wrong, as you might possibly have inferred from my previous disagreements with what you had written..

      • mostly wrong?
        can you count?
        can you even quote?
        thought not.

      • Steven Mosher: can you even quote?

        I almost always quote when I write a comment. My indirect quotes (in []) are of what you have written previously. Are you backing off from or denying that you ever said Disputation was not a part of science?

      • Mosher

        Imo, you wrongly criticize David’s comment

        “We are not talking about physics, just shaky statistics, at BEST.”

        The thing that matters is what is actually done in response to the issue and the case for action supposes that more human released CO2 will lead to warming and that the related warming is going to cause a net worsening of the climate.

        The conclusion of a net worsening of the climate IS NOT largely physics based.

      • Curious George

        Steven – I like your religion. Is “ECS lies between 1.2 and 4.5C” a belief, or does it have any support in facts? Has anybody accounted for the effect of clouds?

      • matthew

        “If you confined yourself to that you’d be mostly right. But then you get into “[statistical significance not being science]”,

        1. Wrong. What I argue is that the Selection of a specific number
        is NOT derived by a scientific process. Statistical signicance, is a practical not a scientific decision. As you note different branches of
        science MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS by sgnificance. so that concept
        can hardly be described as ‘scientific” everyone who describes it argues
        that it is a practical matter.

        “[disputation is not a part of science]”,

        1. WRONG
        2. I have been pretty clear what I mean by science is not debate
        a) there is disagreement in science
        b) people present both sides or many sides.
        c) THAT is different than the type of public formal debate
        that skeptics seem to want.

        “[the answer is ontology]”,
        1. Depends on the question

        “[you don’t get to decide]”

        1. you dont get to decide

        In any case I count 4 things where you present a strawman version
        of my beliefs. I gave you 9 things, core beliefs, that you agree with.

        last time I looked 9 was bigger than 4.

        oh, thats another thing I mostly get right

      • Steven Mosher: . What I argue is that the Selection of a specific number is NOT derived by a scientific process.

        That came later, not in the comment I criticized. Selecting 6 sigma was certainly a part of the scientific process.

      • Steven Mosher: 2. I have been pretty clear what I mean by science is not debate
        a) there is disagreement in science
        b) people present both sides or many sides.
        c) THAT is different than the type of public formal debate
        that skeptics seem to want.

        Some clarity might have been provided by examples from the history of science such as the public debates about Darwinism, the public debates about the results of the Eddington Expedition, or the public debates between Einstein and Bohr. Instead you provide your subjective “that skeptics seem to want”, which removes all clarity, compounded by your not citing any specific skeptic.

        You want I should compile a running list of your mistakes and self-corrections in response to critiques?

        9 is bigger than 4, no doubt. But are “the” 9 and “the” 4 the only instances? Not hardly.

      • “Steven – I like your religion. Is “ECS lies between 1.2 and 4.5C” a belief, or does it have any support in facts? Has anybody accounted for the effect of clouds?

        1. yes
        2. yes

      • Here Matthew

        “debates are rare because science is not a debate, or more specifically, science does not proceed or advance by verbal debates in front of audiences. You can win a debate and be wrong about the science.Debates prove one thing. Folks who engage in them don’t get it, folks who demand them dont get it and folks who attend them dont get it.

        The science is settled doesn’t mean that the science is correct or flawless or certain. The science is settled doesn’t mean there is no room for doubt. Within science there is always doubt. The science is settled
        means that scientists no longer find doubting the science to be a productive use of their time.

        Given any theory there is room for doubt. So the question is “should I doubt this and try to over turn it?” Or
        should I use my time to build on it and improve it at the margins.

        Let’s take a simple question like sensitivity.

        Sensitivity is a measure of how the system as a whole responds to changes in forcings

        lambda = dT/dF

        There are two fundamental reactions to this scientific statement

        A) doubt. See willis’ work
        B) calculation. See Nic Lewis

        That is, faced with a theory you have these choices. You always have these choices, regardless of the theory.

        A) doubt the theory and try to show its wrong with the goal of substituting a better understanding.
        B) accept the theory and build on, refine it, improve it.

        What guides your choice? It’s largely pragmatic. Willis thinks he has a hope of showing the theory wrong.
        So he works on that. Longshot, but huge upside for him personally. The vast majority of working scientists in the field think that option B will be more practical. Both are rational.

        each,however, wants to represent his choice as the only logical one. Chances are Willis will fail. Not because he is provably wrong, but rather because of the large amount of work that others would have to abandon were he correct and also because he cannot assemble a replacement theory.

        Settled Science does not refer to epistemic criteria. It means simply that the vast majority don’t want to risk/waste their careers trying to overturn a body of work that they would rather build on than destroy.
        The science isnt settled by argument. It’s settled by folks who vote with their time. They wont spend their time
        doubting, because there is a low risk of suceeding and way too much science to re work.”

        #########################################

        ““Um, Steven [Steven Mosher], it is pretty clear that you’ve never been to a major physics meeting that had a section presenting some unsettled science where the organizers had set up two or more scientists with entirely opposing views to give invited talks and participate in a panel just like the one presented.”

        Wrong. But that’s not the kind of debate you or others are asking for. You in fact are invited to these kinds of debates all the time.

        The kinds of debates I am refereing to are these

        “1) Evolution: Huxley v. Wilberforce, 1860.
        2) Germ Theory of Disease: Lister v. opponents, 1879.
        3) Quantum Mechanics (cited above): Einstein v. Bohr, 1920s.
        4) Catastrophic Floods: Bretz v. opponents, 1927.”

        See?

        rare.

        ##############################################

        ‘ I have not only attended meetings of this sort, I’ve been one of the two parties directly on the firing line (the topic of discussion was a bit esoteric — whether or not a particular expansion of the Green’s function for the Helmholtz or time-independent Schrodinger equation, which comes with a restriction that one argument must be strictly greater than the other in order for the expansion to converge, could be used to integrate over cells that de facto required the expansion to be used out of order). Sounds a bit, err, “mathy”, right, but would you believe that the debate grew so heated that we were almost (most cordially :-) shouting at each other by the end? And not just the primary participants — members of the packed-room audience were up, gesticulating, making pithy observations, validating parts of the math.”

        Meetings.
        Now, did you argue at the meeting? Yup
        Was it a public debate? Nope

        1. who was the moderator
        2. who was the time keeper.
        3. How was the audience selected?
        4. was it open to the general public?
        5. Was it taped.?
        . Did the poll the audience before and after to see who won?

        So, are there meetings in science where scientists argue with each other at conferences on a “panel”
        yes. When we attend these do they ask us before and after what are views are? nope. Does the audience
        vote and say “Oh brown won” Nope.

        Here is what you guys typically mean by debate? Watch Gavin run from the debate.
        Hmm, what I see below is typically what you want. Not meetings at conference.

        If you play liberal like word games and call panels at conferences debates, then fine. But that’s not what I am talking about .

        ####################################

        matthew for YOU I will repeat myself

        1.science is NOT a debate
        a) there is no invited audience
        b) there is no time keeper
        c) there is no equal time between sides
        2. Scientists Argue and discuss
        a) in their offices
        c) at conferences
        d) through papers.
        3. On RARE occsions you will have Public debates
        a) these debates dont settled anything
        b) exceptions make the rule
        4. Skeptics routinely demand a public form of debate
        5. Skeptics also crow about the scientific method.
        6. The loser in a debate can be right on the science.

        You guys want a “debate” because
        A) nobody can find your office to talk to you
        B) you dont go to conferences
        C) you dont write papers.

        So all you have left is blogs and TV shows

      • matthew

        ‘That came later, not in the comment I criticized. Selecting 6 sigma was certainly a part of the scientific process.”

        OF COURSE IT IS PART OF THE PROCESS

        actually its part of ONE PROCESS, a process that is followed by a few

        other feilds use different values.

        So tell me which is scientifically correct?

        you cant, because the decision is PRAGMATIC.

      • matthew

        Your claim

        Mosher is Mostly wrong

        so

        “You want I should compile a running list of your mistakes and self-corrections in response to critiques?”

        To make a judgment about MOSTLY I think you should have the list at hand. How did you decide mostly?

        Oh ya, I believe 2+2 = 4..

        start counting I will stay ahead of you.

        You would have been SMARTER and more precise to say
        There are SOME THINGS I disagree with him about.

        That would be true.

      • Curious George

        Steven – can you tell a yes/no question? .. apparently not.

      • JCH, “No matter how many attacks, Mosher ends up mostly right. That’s what happens when physics is on his side. Physics is not political.”

        Here is your physics, a doubling of CO2 “all things remaining equal” will cause approximately 1C of warming “globally”. Most everything else is over simplifications of complex physics attempting to figure out that all things not remaining equal. Those estimates have been politicized and overestimated. That is the debate. Not the known physics, the abstract extrapolations that have been used politically to inspire drastic action.

        You need to stop confusing physics with BS.

      • Curious George

        “Sensitivity is a measure of how the system as a whole responds to changes in forcings: lambda = dT/dF.

        There are two fundamental reactions to this scientific statement
        A) doubt. See willis’ work
        B) calculation. See Nic Lewis.”

        Let me add a third one: A surprise. You define a sensitivity as a ratio of two quantities that you can not measure, not even in principle – unless you are blessed with an unlimited supply of planets and time. And you expect to be taken seriously.

      • richardswarthout

        Captain Dallas

        +1

        How do so many miss seeing the forest? Amazing to me that bias can be so strong.

        Richard

      • Curious George

        Two more comments. An unlimited supply of planets – they have to be decidedly un-Earth-like. Your definition presumes a zero natural variability. Ice ages strictly forbidden.

        Second, to base a fundamental article of your religion on an unknown is daring. To base it on two unknowns is a definite chutzpah.

      • Mosher’s understanding of physical systems is such that he fails to comprehend that his definition of “sensitivity” is nothing more than a simple static gain–wholly uncharacteristic of capacitive/inductive systems capable of storing energy, such as the earth’s oceans and atmosphere.

      • …the [six sigma] decision is PRAGMATIC.

        IMO very much.

        Setting the significance is an upfront decision taking in many factors when testing a hypothesis or informing a decision-maker. For example. statistical power has to be accommodated. Impacts in the greater picture where the statistical analysis is used can influence the choice of sigma. ‘Low risks involved so maybe we can be more sloppy’, etc. And of course there are many times use of sigma is just wrong.

      • Steven Mosher: debates are rare because science is not a debate, or more specifically, science does not proceed or advance by verbal debates in front of audiences.

        The examples that I gave you were indeed debates in front of audiences: T H Huxley debating in public, A. S. Eddington debating in public, Einstein and Bohr debating in public. As an aside, it is the refusal of “alarmists” to engage in open debate with opponents that is unusual. I grant you there was not much of a public debate concerning the discovery of the forage bees’ waggle dance, but almost all scientific claims have been subjected to earnest (to say the least!) debates in front of audiences.

        There are two fundamental reactions to this scientific statement

        A) doubt. See willis’ work
        B) calculation. See Nic Lewis

        What does any of that or the text following it have to do with the kind of debates that (unnamed) skeptics seem to want?

      • Steven Mosher: 1.science is NOT a debate
        a) there is no invited audience
        b) there is no time keeper
        c) there is no equal time between sides

        This is one of your attempts to define “debate” to your own satisfaction. Another was your reference to the kind of debates that skeptics seem to want. If you keep redefining “debate” you can find a definition that excludes exactly the number of scientific debates that you choose to identify as not “science”.

        Meanwhile, no one says that debate IS science, but it is a part of science, and it is very common.

      • Steven Mosher: To make a judgment about MOSTLY I think you should have the list at hand. How did you decide mostly?

        It was the same expertise by which I judged that most of your comments were worth reading.

      • I’m dubious that ECS is above 2C and even more so that we can sustain high concentrations long enough for ECS to matter. It is even more doubtful that ECS doesn’t vary considerably on any timescale we should be concerned about as a society.

      • The problem isn’t the physics. It’s the hubris and refusal to acknowledge the enormity of his ignorance.

    • Honestly Mosh, who cares….. by any measure it’s still not warm enough to endanger any sense of panic. Always respected both your work and your opinion. But it really isn’t anyway warm enough for our modelling friends. Something doesn’t add up and you’re well and truly bright enough to know that. Fat tails of sensitivity look more and more unlikely day by day. I know you crossed the floor once before. Maybe it’s time to cross back?

      • ?Honestly Mosh, who cares?

        If you are saying you dont care, and it doesnt matter, then please
        concede WRT to the issues surrounding temperature series.

        if it doesnt matter, if you dont care, then just concede

      • I’m okay with just about any series you pick. My issue is with the models. These are running hot by whatever measure you choose. Adjusted not adjusted makes little difference. In the complex heat engine that we happen to be lucky enough to inhabit…. The models that are supposedly modelling our climate are doing a very, and I do mean a very poor job…. back in the day you felt the same. Admittedly you focused on adjustments to the records rather than modelling. But I wonder where that mosher went sometimes…

      • No “they” are not running hot.
        the vast majority are, some do better.

        Still if they run consistently hotter that is no matter. If your home scale
        says you are 5lbs heavier than the doctors scale, you still use the scale at home.. you just account for the bias.

      • Steven Mosher: 5. the models run hot

        Steven Mosher: No “they” are not running hot. “they” refers to “the models” in the comment he was responding to.

      • Sadly the current set of models don’t come with a bias adjustment or disbelief button. You been asking recently what skeptics are for. Note that you used to be one of them. The answer is a simple one. We’re currently filling to role of the Bias adjustment button…. Personally I’m quite proud of that…

      • Mosh: “Still if they run consistently hotter that is no matter. If your home scale says you are 5lbs heavier than the doctors scale, you still use the scale at home.. you just account for the bias.”
        But the problem is you only have one scale (the “doctors”) and they won’t admit it is biased. You (governments) are being told to use their scale.
        As to “not all” the models running hot: it is the hot ones that are said to determine the risk. If it truly will go up 8 deg C in 80 yrs then I would be worried too. Just try to get the IPCC or Greenpeace to admit that the upper end warming scenarios are too hot. Hah!

    • will 2015 break a record?

      Coming out of a little ice age and 800 years of cold temperatures it would be very surprising if we weren’t setting records. And we haven’t hit the MWP peak temperature yet.

      The real question is: “will it be a statistically significant record?”

      • peak MWP?

        sorry, I havent seen a MWP reconstruction with annual resolution.

        in short, you are certain, but there is no evidence for your claim.

        second.. Statistically significant is a tradition. not really science

      • Steven Mosher: Statistically significant is a tradition. not really science

        There you go again, misrepresenting science. Scientists have always (well, almost always) been alert to whether observed patterns, estimates and so on might have resulted from chance variation. Only the particular phrase “statistically significant” and the associated error level are new, and they are not very new. Other standards are 5-sigma and 6-sigma, those being recognized as deviations not likely to have arisen by chance.

      • mathew.

        why not 95.1%?

        why not 5.8 sigma?

        the decision is PRAGMATIC and TRADITIONAL

        “The questions concerning how an interval expressing uncertainty in an estimate might be formulated, and of how such intervals might be interpreted, are not strictly mathematical problems and are philosophically problematic.[15] Mathematics can take over once the basic principles of an approach to ‘inference’ have been established, but it has only a limited role in saying why one approach should be preferred to another: For example, a confidence level of 95% is often used in the biological sciences, but this is a matter of convention or arbitration. In the physical sciences, a much higher level may be used.[16]”

        even wikipedia knows more than you.

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

        as I said it’s a practical matter.

      • Steven Mosher | October 31, 2015 at 1:52 pm |
        peak MWP?

        Well, sea level is a global proxy without the problems of other temperature proxies and identifying the “fill to here” line for the MWP isn’t that problematic.

        The MWP was supposedly 6.5 inches higher (one extra 1/2 inch for human groundwater consumption compensation).

        With all the carbon blacking and deforestation the accelerated glacier loss makes that an even higher number to get to the compensated (temperature equivalent) steric sea level.

        If we were as warm as the MWP we should without question have a higher sea level. There is evidence we are considerably under the MWP sea level.

        Why isn’t sea level used as a global proxy for temperature? It is global and responds predictably to temperature.

        http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c015433ac485d970c-300wi

      • PA..

        1. Read the actual paper your “graph” comes from..
        ( nice hatchet job on the editing” to make it misleading)
        2. Understand thermal LAG

      • Steven Mosher: as I said it’s a practical matter.

        That isn’t what you said, you said it’s tradition and not science.

        Statistically significant is a tradition. not really science

        “Practical matters” are inherent parts of science, for example the “practical matter” of whether a measuring instrument has been calibrated to be accurate enough. And whether the evidence for the Higgs Boson was at least 6 sigma away from what would be expected by random variation. There was the “practical matter”, somewhat disputed, of whether Kepler’s calculation had been done accurately enough to support his theoretical conclusions.

      • Steven Mosher | October 31, 2015 at 3:51 pm |
        PA..

        1. Read the actual paper your “graph” comes from..
        ( nice hatchet job on the editing” to make it misleading)
        2. Understand thermal LAG

        1. Thanks.

        2. I understand thermal lag…
        The real question is will the ocean keep warming at 0.2-0.3 W/m2 or will it come into equilibrium in a couple of decades.

        Until the current El Nino there were signs it was tapering off.

        ftp://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/misc/web/images/GMSL_TPJAOS_199209_201206.JPG

        Where the sea level is after the 2016-2017 La Nina will be instructive.

        And the above chart has 0.3 mm/year of computer generated sea level rise (GIA).

      • Steven Mosher:

        You quoted:

        “For example, a confidence level of 95% is often used in the biological sciences, but this is a matter of convention or arbitration. In the physical sciences, a much higher level may be used.[16]”

        Or, as in climate science, a lower confidence level may be selected when desired, such as 90%. This can be particularly effective when the decision to apply a more lenient standard is made after the data is analyzed.

        After all, if all climate studies were stuck with 95% and their results fell outside that 95% confidence interval, then they would have failed to reject the null hypothesis — and we can’t have that, now, can we?

    • David L. Hagen

      2015 record high temperature? Or record error?
      On June 22, 2015 Roy Spencer and John Christy predicted: 2015 will be record warm in surface temperatures – but still below model forecasts

      June 22nd, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
      With 5/12 (41.7%) of the votes counted, John Christy and I are now prepared to call 2015 as the winner of the Warmest Year in the Thermometer Record election. The latest exit polling of El Nino forecasts suggests an unusually hot turnout from the East Pacific region this year, which is why we are calling the election early.

      Of course, our UAH satellite data analysis (as well as the RSS analysis) for the lower troposphere continue to show nothing spectacular, although the current forecast for a strong El Nino this year will make 2015 one of the warmest years since 1979.

      BUT they give a reality check on models:

      But even with the highly controversial Karlization procedure applied to the data, the observed warming trend is still only about 60% of the average warming trend in the CMIP5 climate models for the global oceans (+0.18 C/decade for the models, +0.11 C/decade for the observations).

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Steven Kosher,
      Many points of disagreement.
      You say that –
      1.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas
      2. (All things being equal) if we increase CO2 the planet will warm. …

      If we increase CO2, that increased CO2 will warm. Then, various forms of energy change, transfer, etc will occur. When there is a loss of energy to space, the atmosphere will cool.
      You have to make a distinction between the first part of the overall, being increased CO2 will be warmed by IR, and the rest of an inexorable scheme.
      BTW, many Australian towns have newspaper reports of temperatures consistently higher than today. Yes, I know of the main complications of comparisons.
      Geoff

    • “will 2015 break a record?”

      Not where I live.

  14. Research on how to use CO2 as a raw material…

    is there any way to introduce calcium to the carbon burning process to produce CaCO3 as the end product?

  15. “Arctic snow not darkening due to soot, dust”

    Wait, you mean satellite sensors degrade? but but

    • Maybe they should try cloth buckets up there.

      • No use. The results would just be ‘adjusted’ to fit a narrative as opposed to actually correcting the instrumentation errors.

    • Entropy. It’s everywhere.

    • “Wait, you mean satellite sensors degrade?” I believe that is why there are calibration procedures, cloud masking, anisotropic adjustments and other quality control measures plus an error margin. It is almost like rocket science. Of course one paper could always overturn the “science” I suppose.

      • NO NO NO…we want only the raw data. raw data is SACRED !!!

      • Actually, I believe what most would like is consistency. You should be able to follow changes in satellite platforms, adjustments, field verification etc. in a neat lab book of sorts without running into lost homework and people crying that they don’t want you to see their data and emails like spoiled children.

        I could be wrong of course.

      • Captain has never looked at the code for UAH.

      • “Captain has never looked at the code for UAH.” No, I have looked at their platform changes and adjustment records though. I have compared their regional coverage with other products and after allowing for their estimating something other than a physical surface, they have been well within the error bars.

        I believe just recently that some “Surface” temperature guru’s discovered that their “surface” isn’t really a surface pretty much like I have been mentioning for oh, about a decade or so. So you have one damn fine product in search of a use.

      • This is what is called teats on a boar hog.

      • Well, from what information is available they seem to calibrate against a black target.

        The sensors were only supposed to have a fifteen year life and that is over for one and almost over for the other satellite.

  16. Here is Part B of my latest blog post:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/part-b-are-lunar-tides-responsible-for.html

    It shows that the quasi-decadal oscilation and the bi-decadal oscillation in the rate of change of the smoothed global temperature anomalies can both be explained by lunar tidal cycles.

  17. from the Nature article: Karl and his colleagues adjusted for known biases in ocean temperature readings from ships and buoys, while also adding measurements from other land-based monitoring stations — expanding the range of those stations into the Arctic. The revised record showed temperatures rising consistently.

    That’s one way to put it. Why did they adjust the buoy data to match the ship data, instead of the other way around, given that everyone thinks the buoy data are less problematical? Did they perform multiple adjustments, and report only the one that supports their beliefs? It is a very common practice, and well recognized as a source of error.

    • because if they change the ship data, skeptics would say they were changing the PAST.

      • Steven Mosher: because if they change the ship data, skeptics would say they were changing the PAST.

        Any adjustment requires a STRONG justification, and they did not present ANY justification.

        Adjust the PAST? Adjust the BUOYS? Adjust BOTH and report BOTH results or only ONE?

        Of course everything that is published is CHALLENGED. Only propositions that SURVIVE the challenge are candidates for being called knowledge. That’s how SCIENCE works.

      • There are other groups working on the same data. Have they objected?

      • “Any adjustment requires a STRONG justification, and they did not present ANY justification”

        really. it’s pretty well know from CO LOCATED bouys and ships that there is an offset.

        Spend a day with Icoaads.

        edumucate your self.

        Here is another clue. if you take icoaads data, mark every measurement
        with its metadata and then iteratively apply weights to the various differences in collection proceedure, minimizing chi squared, you will
        see that ships and bouys are different. Its bascially the approach suggested by Mcintyre.

        Just what? you have to adjust ships or bouys. doesnt matter which one

      • “There are other groups working on the same data. Have they objected?”

        we prefer HADSST

      • Steven Mosher: you will see that ships and bouys are different.

        I never said otherwise. My questions were: (1) why did Karl et al report the adjustment that they reported? (2) Did Karl et al perform multiple adjustments and report the one they preferred, a common reporting practice.

      • Mathew version 1

        ‘Any adjustment requires a STRONG justification, and they did not present ANY justification.

        Adjust the PAST? Adjust the BUOYS? Adjust BOTH and report BOTH results or only ONE?

        Matthew version 2

        ” My questions were: (1) why did Karl et al report the adjustment that they reported? (2) Did Karl et al perform multiple adjustments and report the one they preferred, a common reporting practice.”

        Question 1. Why did they report what they reported?

        Answer: THEY USED an adjustment developed in a prior paper.
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1
        Answer: Their adjustment is the same as one developed by CRU
        Answer: read the paper.

        “These changes have re-
        sulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record,

        and various corrections have been developed to account for

        the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed

        and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface

        Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analy-
        sis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the

        average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs.

        The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction

        which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in

        ERSST version 4. [Notably, IPCC (1) used a global analysis

        from the UK Met Office that found the same average ship-
        buoy difference globally, although the corrections in that

        analysis were constrained by differences observed within

        each ocean basin (18).] More generally, buoy data have been

        proven to be more accurate and reliable than ship data, with

        better known instrument characteristics and automated

        sampling (16). Therefore, ERSST version 4 also considers

        this smaller buoy uncertainty in the reconstruction (13).

        QUESTION: did they do multiple adjustments? There is ZERO evidence that they did. conspiracy minded folks have to think otherwise

      • davideisenstadt

        really…so Karl et al conduct their research anticipating just what “skeptics'” possible complaints might be?
        really mosh?
        Youre not on your game today.

      • Curious George

        Adjusting (manufacturing) data is always wrong. I don’t have a problem with publishing corrections to data, based on whatever theory the adjuster believes in, but they should be kept separate from SACRED (that’s my religion) data. The corrections should be traceable to underlying reasons for them. “The algorithm is the reason” is not an acceptable reason. Can’t you build an explanatory mechanism into the algorithm?

      • Steven Mosher: The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction

        which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in

        ERSST version 4.

        Possibly my question is ambiguous. Why did they make the adjustment that they made? Why did they apply the adjustment to the “buoy SSTs”?

        Performing multiple analyses and reporting on only a minority is a common practice. Conspiracy ideation hardly comes into play.

      • You have a measuring system where the type of thermometers used for the past run warm, and the type taking over for the present run cool relative to some middle baseline. Unless you account for the shift from one type of thermometer to the other over time, you are doing something known to be wrong with the trend. This is the idea that Karl is based on. It is neither adjusting the past nor the present, it is correcting the trend for a known bias due to changing instrumentation. This was explained in great detail at the time, but the skeptics are apparently still having none of it.

      • Steven Mosher, for the time being let’s end on some agreements, or at least close agreements. We can pick up our disputes later. It was most helpful of you to list these:
        1. C02 is a green house gas
        2. If we increase c02 and hold everything else constant the planet will warm.
        3. ECS lies between 1.2 and 4.5C.. I’ll bet below 3C
        4. The HS is a piece of crap
        5. the models run hot
        6. UHI is real
        7. Its tough to decide which is more reliable UAH,RSS or surface records.
        8. Science is never settled.
        9. The IPCC probably over estimates the amount of warming caused by humans

        As to 1, I agree but note that “greenhouse gas” no longer refers to a literal “greenhouse”, but to the absorption/emission spectra of CO2, H2O, and CH4. The GHGs do not make a real “greenhouse”, or “blanket”.

        2. Different parts of the planet will warm different amounts. Consider Isaac Held’s Blog: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2015/01/20/55-tropical-tropospheric-warming-revisited-part-2/

        3. ECS and TCS are nearly the same; or to put it differently, if a change in “forcing” produces a change in ECS, at least 95% of the change in ECS occurs in 4 years. “Climate sensitivity” depends on the initial state, and is not constant.

        4. The HS is “fraudulent”.

        5. The models run hot.

        6. UHI is real.

        7. I agree.

        8. I agree. But notice that claims that the science of CO2 effects on climate is settled come from people advocating large divestments away from fossil fuels, such as Marcia McNutt and Shaun Lovejoy.

        9. I agree. Moreover, they confound the effects of land use changes and CO2 changes.

        Til next time

    • Jim D: It is neither adjusting the past nor the present, it is correcting the trend for a known bias due to changing instrumentation.

      How was it known that the buoys had a bias that the old measures did not have? All that was demonstrated was that they did not agree over the short times when both were available. Had the old measurements been known to be correct, would the buoys have been deployed?

      • They measure different things, so the significance of the difference between them can be well established by things other than in situ comparisons too. Having established the significance, it is plain wrong not to use it.

    • Mathew,
      I find the very title of the work by Karl to be less than confident sounding: “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming
      hiatus”

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.short

      One of the things of note is that the IPCC is regarded as the ‘guru’ of climate yet this work contradicts IPCC and is accepted by those more climate concerned as near gospel. Yet when one known as a ‘skeptic’ (those less climate concerned) offers ‘Possible artifacts of data bias’ the response from those more climate concerned is ‘But, IPCC……..ya know…….the greatest minds and all’. I don’t get the dichotomy, but I’m not all that well educated.

    • The palpable sophistry lies in the phrase “known biases.” That would require some gold-standard time-series measurements of SST to quantify those biases in a spectrally comprehensive way. Such measurements are simply unavailable and there is nothing that has ever been done at Asheville to indicate that they posses the analytical expertise to “correct” reliably for biased low-frequency “trend” components in time-series.

      There’s no point with arguing with Mosher and others who have no concept of relationship beyond that provided by linear regression and cling to the illusion that long geophysical time-series can be reconstructed piecemeal from mere snippets of adjusted data.

  18. from Cao, Ren and Zhang: Comparing the observed long-term upward trend, the trends of LHF and wind speed are largely underestimated, while trends of SST and air specific humidity are grossly overestimated, which may be the origins of the model biases in reproducing the trend of LHF.

    I am glad that trends in LHF are being studied. Next question: how much would a 1C increase in sea surface temperature increase the LHF, and how does that compare to the 4W/m^2 increase in DWLWIR hypothesized to result from a doubling of CO2 concentration?

  19. Paleoclimatology often relies marginally-coherent proxies for variables of interest and becomes a rank guessing game when applied to processes that are far from well-established by direct observations. Thus the entire line of reasoning in Knudson’s study of the effect of coastal sea ice upon subsurface oceanic circulation is highly tenuous. It reveals a stereotypical overestimation of the importance of thermohaline effects that is ubiquitous in “climate science” conducted those without any serious qualifications in ocean dynamics.

    While the point that climate models fail to capture such small-scale features as coastal sea ice is well-made, the speculations about the effects of sea ice, which is prey to warm surface currents, upon orders-of-magnitude weaker “overturning” circulations are little more than academic hand-waving. Speaking of which, it’s noteworthy that there is no reference to “stadium waves” in Knudson’s study.

  20. David L. Hagen

    Will Anthroprogenic Warming Be Enough to Prevent the Next Glaciation?
    Curry provides an excellent presentation of the status of the climate debate and the major uncertainties involved. Looking out a little farther, Earth has been gradually COOLING since the Holocene Optimum. Geological temperature evidence suggests that “Soon” global temperatures will rapidly cool down to the next glaciation.
    Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in  Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
    Conventional climate models with high CO2 sensitivity predict rapid warming.
    However, Sherwood & Idso (2005) evaluate ice core data back 800,000 years:

    Clearly, therefore, it is temperature that is the robust leader in this tightly-coupled relationship, while CO2 is but the humble follower, providing only a fraction (which could well be miniscule) – of the total glacial-to-interglacial temperature change. . .
    when temperature leads CO2 by thousands of years, during both glacial terminations and inceptions (Genthon et al., 1987; Fischer et al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999; Clark and Mix, 2000; Indermuhle et al., 2000; Monnin et al., 2001; Mudelsee, 2001; Caillon et al., 2003), there is plenty of reason to believe that CO2 plays but a minor role in enhancing temperature changes that are clearly induced by something else, which latter italicized point is an undisputed fact that is clearly born out by the new ice core data.
    . . . we say it is “a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation.”  Why?  Because like Mary’s little lamb, and as evidenced by 650,000 years of real-world data, wherever temperature went over this period, CO2 was sure to follow, which by definition is “a very strong indication of the important role of climate in CO2 regulation” and not the opposite.

    New Antarctic Ice Core CO2 and Proxy Temperature Data Volume 8, Number 48: 30 November 2005
    Approaching cooling decades? Or mini-ice age?
    Don Easterbrook (2008) has predicted Global Cooling is Here: Evidence predicting global cooling for the next three decades
    Adapt 2030 collects info regarding: “Mini Ice Age 2015-2035, Covering the changes from here to 2035, how we need to adapt to survive a cooling planet. Content provided by http://www.oilseedcrops.org
    It suggests Baffin Island a Seed Point for Glaciation is Cooling | Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 (97)
    Instead of an ice free Arctic, ice is increasing in 2015, requiring ice breakers in mid summer.
    Hudson Basin 2015 – has the 4th MOST ice in modern records.
    Some glaciers are growing.
    Lower sensitivity?
    Curry’s presentation reports recent observational based climate sensitivity only 37% of the IPCC’s – (1.1°C instead of IPCC’s 3.0°C).
    These issues raise greater questions and uncertainties:
    Will anthropogenic warming be sufficient to cause increased warming?
    OR to stabilize climate?
    OR Will we rapidly descend into the next glaciation?
    3000 m thick ice from Canada will cause far more damage than 0.3 m higher sea level around Florida.

    Can we constrain climate sensitivity sufficient to quantitatively predict the next glaciation?
    With constrained fossil fuels, can we generate enough warming to prevent the next glaciation?

  21. Curious George

    Our discussion is a tribute to the spirit of Halloween.

  22. This article on Lithium-air batteries is in today’s FT.

    Sounds great for autos until you get to the last sentence.

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/149ca550-7e30-11e5-a1fe-567b37f80b64.html#axzz3qBWxJ2w6

  23. Posting early for the policy review: Christopher Booker on upcoming Paris flop. Booker shows the results of analysis of what “the 20 countries responsible for 81 per cent of global CO2 emissions are proposing as their “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” to cutting emissions by 2030.”

    “China, now easily the world’s largest emitter, contributing 24 per cent of the total, plans by 2030 to double its CO2 emissions, not least by building 363 more coal-fired power stations. India, now the third-largest emitter, plans by 2030 to treble its emissions. The fourth-largest emitter, Russia, despite slashing its emissions after 1990 by closing down much of its old Soviet industry, now proposes to increase them from their 2012 level by up to 38 per cent. Japan, the fifth-largest emitter, does claim that it will cut its emissions by some 15 per cent, but is still planning to build more coal-fired power plants. Although South Korea, the world’s seventh-largest emitter, claims that it will cut emissions by 23 per cent (not least by buying “carbon credits” that will allow it to “offset” its continuing production of CO2 for cash), even its proposed target will still be 100 per cent higher than it was 25 years ago.

    “As for the Middle East, the oil states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran (the eighth and ninth-largest emitters) have not yet submitted any proposals. But the United Arab Emirates, which have more than doubled their emissions since 2002, show no sign of slowing that increase, apart from a promise to invest in more “carbon-free” solar and nuclear power. As for Brazil, which as the 11th largest emitter has been rapidly increasing its dependence on fossil fuels, it sees its main contribution as being to slow the felling and burning of the Amazon rainforest. …

    “President Obama may talk the talk about his ambitious plans for the US, the world’s second-largest emitter. But there is no more chance of Congress agreeing to the proposed treaty than there was in 1997 … which leaves the EU as the only part of the world committed to cutting its emissions by 40 per cent within 15 years. Even here, Poland is already refusing to sign the treaty, as it builds more fossil-fuel power stations to keep its lights on, while Germany, the sixth-largest emitter does the same.

    “The only government in the world wholly committed to meeting that 40 per cent target by 2030 is Britain, the 14th-largest emitter, responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. This is less than China or India are now adding every year, as we shut down those fossil-fuel power plants that still manage to provide 70 per cent of our electricity.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11968064/Why-the-Paris-climate-treaty-will-be-the-flop-of-the-year.html

    • Faustino

      We here in Britain were the first to enter the industrial age and our Govt are determined to become the first true post industrial society by making it too expensive for companies to make anything here.

      We are proud to be well on the way to achieving that with the success in driving away our steel industry over the last couple of weeks, primarily due to energy costs, thereby allowing cheap Chinese steel to flood in using cheap Australian coal.

      Obviously this must be much better for the environment than the type of energy used by British Steel or else our Govt would be trying to do something about the situation. Wouldn’t they

      tonyb

      • Tony, I don’t know why the UK has adopted such destructive measures, the best spin I can put on it is that the various governments genuinely believe that CAGW is the most pressing problem and are being truly British in adhering to their commitments rather than speaking piously and not acting. But if that is the case, they haven’t been paying attention for the last ten years or so. Wake up UK, you are wrecking the joint!

      • Faustino

        What do we want?
        Destruction of our industrial infrastructure
        When do we want it?
        Now!

        tonyb

      • You can blame western capitalism and the free market, that outsources to cheaper providers of raw materials and manufactured goods in order to maximize profits. A truly patriotic company would insource their raw materials, have costly goods, and die in the free market unless they put up trade barriers. Your electronics and clothing would be six times as expensive, and you couldn’t export them, but at least you would have the comfort of being patriots. That is basically Trump’s mode of thinking when he says bring back the industries.

      • jimd

        I think there is basic economic infrastructure that needs to be protected (not coddled) AND THAT would include steel.

        Its not a level playing field due to energy costs and other factors including business rates and environmental safeguards. These are quite high here (and rightly so) but inexplicably countries without such high standards can sell those same goods to us which will be cheaper because of those lack of safeguards

        tonyb

      • …and a lower paid workforce who live in a cheaper country. That is the global free market for you. Take it or exit it.

      • Nothing inexplicable about that tonyb! Cheap labour and more modern technology makes a big difference!

  24. Geoff Sherrington

    One of the above references is about scientists not being able to use language to give a clear message.
    Another ref on Greenland ice and snow dynamics notes that surface ice grains get larger as they melt.
    Q.E.D.
    Geoff

  25. Oh well, I guess it has to be said.

    CO2 levels, in the past, of 350 ppm and above resulted in cooling. This is self evident, otherwise we wouldn’t have reached the global temperature we have now.

    Present CO2 levels of say, greater than 350 ppm, are supposed to be warming the globe.

    Can we then infer that past higher levels of CO2 resulted in cooling, but future higher levels of CO2 will result in warming? If so, what physics can be advanced to explain the CO2 warming/cooling duality?

    I’m sure Mosher can come up with an analogy involving AK47s, brakes, accelerators, weights, shoes, waterbottles, or any number of irrelevant items. Physics and logic don’t appear to be his strong points, so maybe a real scientist can explain the apparently contradictory nature of the operation of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Or is aCO2 warming just a collective delusion?

    Cheers.

    • “CO2 levels, in the past, of 350 ppm and above resulted in cooling. This is self evident, otherwise we wouldn’t have reached the global temperature we have now.”

      Ahh no. there you go again assuming correlation is causation.

      repeat after me.

      Temperature is a FUNCTION OF ALL FORCING

  26. And one more thing.

    Feynman wrote –

    “The theory of turbulence (I have spent several years on it without success).”

    I spent very little time on it, also without success.

    Does this mean that I’m smarter than Feynman (I only needed to spend 5 minutes to realise it was too difficult for me), or Feynman is as dumb as me (he had the same success as me – none), or that even towering intellects such as Feynman’s can’t find the answers to everything?

    Only joking.

    Cheers.

    • Curious George

      There is a discussion above about evaporation. In windy conditions. Strangely enough, a turbulence probably plays an important role. Maybe that’s why I can not find an equation for evaporation in windy conditions.

    • My wife’s IQ is way higher than Feynman’s, and Mike, you’re way smarter than she is.

  27. bedeverethewise

    http://energy.gov/articles/turn-your-halloween-pumpkins-power

    pumpkins to energy for Halloween. This is why you can’t trust the government to solve energy problems. How many people were paid to produce this nonsense. I guess the dept of energy’s brainstorming sessions don’t include the part where you tear down the silly ideas.

    The whole thing looks like a Jr. High report, where you don’t really expect any substance.

  28. Let’s talk about something else: ozone depletion. That the world’s scientific community recognized a problem with CFCs and the world’s governments acted quickly to ban the troublesome chemicals is often cited as an example of how the global warming debate should be resolved.

    But has anyone looked at the numbers (data) recently? Although CFCs have long residence times, measured concentrations of the well-distributed compounds show significant decline (ten percent by 2008 from a 1995 peak) – yet depletion this year is one of the highest on record (2000 and 2006 were the only years with greater depletion).

    I thought that this problem was solved but it appears that weather controls ozone depletion.

    Any thoughts?

    • jimeichstedt,

      I’m sure a real scientist will correct me if I’m wrong, but the creation of ozone in the stratosphere requires two things only –

      One, O2 molecules.
      Two, suitably energetic radiation (generally from the Sun).

      At night for example, ozone levels fall, as ozone reverts to oxygen.

      What is generally overlooked is that radiation energetic enough to create ozone is also energetic enough to break chemical bonds in compounds involved in temporary ozone depletion. This radiation, by being absorbed, is then prevented from reaching the Earth’s surface in any case.

      Any that is not absorbed, combines with oxygen lower in the atmosphere to form ozone anyway.

      An examination of the Earth’s elliptical orbit, and the inclination of the Earth’s axis, and the location of the Sun in relation to the poles, will no doubt explain to anyone except a climatologist or similar, that reports of imminent danger from ozone depletion are somewhat exaggerated.

      It might also be noted that for UVB or UVC to reach the ground at the pole through the ozone hole, it would have to execute a more or less right angled direction change from its average direction, which is very oblique to the poles.

      Not very likely, I would think.

      Cheers.

  29. NASA: Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than losses :
    Catastrophic sea level rise has of late been the number one bogeyman used by alarmists to scare people of late. Imaginary Antarctic melting is supposed to make NYC, London and many other coastal cities uninhabitable by 2100 according to Hansen and his coven. This study showing mass increase during the recent increase of CO2 drives stake through the heart of that bogeyman. I’m amazed GISS allowed this one to escape!

    • Not only that, but this in addition:”“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

      If that IPCC report is again wrong (See Karl above) then either the SLR is not occurring to the extent suggested, or there are alternative phenomena.

      • They are in contradiction with both GRACE and sea-level that are consistent with each other, so this needs to be worked out.

      • Curious George

        Jim, I’m glad to agree with you. Happy Halloween!

      • In a 2012 report on GMSL rise, NOAA pointed to the ice sheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica as representing the area of greatest uncertainties in their forecast for a 2100 rise of 8 inches to 6.6 feet.
        It is gratifying to see the .27 mm/yr reference. I remember Jim D not willing to admit the IPCC had that in AR5.

      • Cerescokid,
        Working under the assumption that when a paper such as Hay’s which modifies the work of IPCC and indicates an increasing SLR of +/- 1.2 mm/yr which ‘balances’ better with ice loss, they use equations which consider the mass loss in places such as Greenland and Antarctica and that when presented with new found information such as has just been offered they ‘rebalance’ and modify their results. Surely greater minds than mine can convert the mass loss in gigatons to an expected SLR and compare same with their findings.

      • I don’t think saying it it balanced better with ice loss is correct. It balanced better with the observations made up of tidal gauges, satellites, etc. Science/observations indicates the water is there. Physics indicates it hold be there. Present. It did not exist in 1901; it exists exists now. From where it came is something that is ongoing.

      • Should be there…

  30. “Stadium wave alert: Coastal sea ice in N. Pacific drives ocean circ. & climate”

    I can’t see sinking brine speeding up the thermohaline circulation in the north Pacific, the normal flow is upwards not downwards:

    • Curious George

      That is quite a revolutionary picture. No Gulf Stream any more! Warm water rushes over Indonesia! Link, please.

      • Yes warm water through Indonesia. Here’s your Gulf Stream back. The point I was making was the direction of circulation in the North Pacific:

      • Curious George

        I like your flexibility, glad to have my Gulf Stream back. Who generates these colorful pictures?

  31. “New paper “reveals leads, lags, & drivers of” past 10,000 years natural climate variability “in great detail”
    Quote:
    “A pronounced marine thermal maximum occurs between ∼7–5.5 kyrs BP, 3000 years after the terrestrial thermal maximum, driven by melt water cessation and an accelerating AMOC.”

    A fast AMOC (+ve NAO) will give a cold North Atlantic (AMO).

  32. “Extreme solar storms could be more common than expected”

    Apparently there was a large one in 1192 too.
    http://history.eserver.org/aurora-of-1192.txt
    775, 993 and 1192 all have a common Jovian astronomical thread. The inferior bodies play a critical role too, here’s 28 Aug 1859 (5th inner body is Ceres):

  33. Arrived here late due to travel.
    Two observations after just a quick scan.
    First, the usual nattering amongst the usual suspects gets ever easier to skip, since rehashed rehash. Folks, do you really think mere repetition adds credibility? IPCC tried that, and failed.
    Second, the very important Zwally paper goes almost uncommented. He has been savaged elsewhere, but I view him as a true scientist working best he can within the constraints of his environment. Essay Tipping Points. The conclusion of no Antarctic net ice loss has been growing in support. All good, considering the alarmism from NASA JPL comcerning the Amundsen Embayment. A trivially small part of Antarctica, as Zwally points out.

    • Rud,
      No only does Zwally indicate no net loss of ice mass, he indicates a net reduction of sea water volume as a result which remains as yet unexplained. This would indicate (should other sources be accurate) alternative reasons (also as yet unexplained) causing the reported net increase (increasing increase according to Hay) in SLR. Very interesting.

      • Zwally hits a sinking snow ball into the stands of uncertainty.
        ==================

      • Zwally says more water has accumulated on Antarctica than melted and ran off into the ocean, meaning the mm per year would be less unless some other source is underestimated.

        Hay found that other scientists were overestimating 20th-century SLR.; hence, her estimate of 1.2mm per year for the 20th century, which you don’t like.

        Perhaps Zwally is saying you probably should like it more!

      • JCH,

        I’ve told you before I have no quarrel with the results Hay found. Indeed if the expansion of ice mass in Antarctica has resulted in less SLR then another dilemma exists as to from where that water has come. In fact, it comes to mind if Hay is aware that the SLR numbers may not balance due to Zwally’s findings now (presuming Zwally is correct) so I’m curious if Hay may have overshot just a bit. Don’t you wonder? My issue has and will continue to be the changing of historic data which had been compiled consistently for over 90 years (don’t remember exactly at this moment) having been modified via an algorithm. Not observation.

      • Here is the takeaway. More uncertainty. Another reason to take a deep breath and think about what science really knows and what it only thinks it knows.
        Here is what I know. NOAA data show trend 2.33 mm/yr at Key West near Miami, which has been
        in 352 articles recently about its sea
        level rise problems. I also know groundwater abstraction at increasing rates from the Biscayne Aquifer, one the most permeable aquifers in the world, is causing major subsidence. Putting millions of tons of concrete adds compaction to the mix. And then given estimates of perhaps . 8 mm/yr from global groundwater withdrawal, what is the share from CO2 that can be attributed to Miami’s flooding problems. And then there are the very minor changes in temperature estimated for a reduction in CO2 emissions.

        Miami’s water problems were baked
        into the cake over 100 years ago.

        Helping Miami with a reduction in CO2 is de minimis. However, keeping Miami in the news for propaganda purposes is Daa Maximus.

      • The historic data has not been compiled consistently for the last 90 years. You write like the tidal gauge record came down from a mountain on a stone tablet. She has done nothing different than all of the scientists who came before her. She used math on the mess. He solution matches physics. She makes sense versus physics.

        This is the little problem about which few are talking – a spike in SLR over the last year or so:

        So Zwally is saying it is not coming from Antarctica. My hunch has been much of it is very warm water that was nesting in the Western Pacific where ARGO does not go – see debates between Paul S.(missing steric) and the Water Chef (no steric). The steric range can sort of swallow Zwally, so I think it’s unlikely there is less water in the ocean than the observation system, which includes those tidal gauges, is indicating. And I bet Zwally agrees… somewhat.

      • JCH,
        See here: https://judithcurry.com/2015/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-26/#comment-740233

        and I’d guess both Zwally and Hay (should) agree (somewhat) that the equation should be balance-able and it should be revisited based on the most current information which Zwally presents and leaves the impression it was somewhat of a surprise to find .23mm in SL loss. If we’re able to be this precise and able to justify the algorithmic modification to observable data, while accounting for continental movement, subsidence, and water attributable to underground aquifers (as you’ve corrected me on previously) then surely we must know how to convert the ice mass loss/gains to an expected SLR (or fall) as a comparison.

      • JCH, the spike in the rate of SLR is more likely related to drought and irrigation. There is still a background rate related to thermal expansion, but that rate should have slowed somewhat.

      • Seems to me that the GRACE gravity measurements should be more accurate, because if the mass is disappearing from the region, it can only be going away as water. Surface height measurements are confounded with bedrock rise or fall, firn compression, temperature, area changes, etc., and are just much more difficult to turn into actual water mass changes because they are not a direct measurement of mass.

      • Jim D,
        Well you’d think Grace (state of the art?) would be the way to go but I’m no longer sure when to trust what? I mean after all we have buoy’s to measure SST’s and we chose to use ships bucket methods. And we have satellites to measure temps and they’re considered unreliable (ask JCH). And we can’t use them to accurately measure SLR nor light reflectivity so who knows.

      • I just think, if you are measuring mass, it is better to use gravity than height. It’s from physics.

      • Jim D,
        There must exist some sort of algorithm to support/reject the variance.

      • I don’t think there is anything in Zwally that would modify Hay.

        I don’t think the spike is likely to be related to irrigation.

        We just experienced a physical event where the gigantic mound of hot water in the Western Pacific relaxed and sloshed back across to the Eastern Pacific, where the previously un-sampled hot tamales met some Argo boys. And just then, at that very moment, GMSL spiked.

      • JCH, “I don’t think the spike is likely to be related to irrigation.”

        I didn’t say just irrigation, drought and increased irrigation. Over irrigation and drought tends to compact aquifers making it more difficult to recharge them. All the malaria and flood control projects plus increased irrigation would have a large impact on water retention. If the land cannot hold as much water for as long as “normal” you would get larger variations in the SLR rates.

      • Both the dip and the spike in sat altimetry SLR in the chart above are likely just instrument error. The specification for JASON 2 (the newest bird) is random instrument drift not more than 1mm/year. Essay PseudoPrecision has a longer discussion plus the references.

      • ristvan, “Both the dip and the spike in sat altimetry SLR in the chart above are likely just instrument error.”

        Possible, but the rains in Australia are a good example of rainfall variation being pretty large. It’s my guess and I am sticking to it :)

  34. The biggest mistake in a GCM is assuming the “unphysical” conservation of radiative flux (which has no basis in real physics).

    Assume the earth has a molten core and there is no sun. Heat radiates from the surface to space. (Which GCM can model that?) The simple fact that there is a thermal gradient from the core to surface means that the earth must be net radiator of heat. No matter how much sunlight there is, the only way the earth cannot be a net radiator of heat is if the surface temperature can be raised to the core temperature.

    A physically correct model needs to be able to determine surface temperature if there is no sun. The answer should be warmer than the temperature of the dark side of the moon. Then sun and thermodynamics of atmosphere can added to the model.

    • Interestingly, if the earth is a net radiator of heat (seems to be undeniable fact by the evidence of the earth’s thermal gradient from core to surface), then reducing emissivity of the atmosphere should make the earth warmer and increasing it should make the earth cooler. This could also be verified on the ground with a simple physicss experiment.

  35. blouis79, you are on it. All the things unconsidered is way Mankind will sit in their happy homes and get smacked more and more by what they never thought could disrupt their Costco . Kroger and gas station connections. 10 years ago and about 30 million or more people later. Americans are starting to wonder if they are next.(Swim in drought Texas). This is not even foreplay when you really consider the numbers as the 3rd worlds come online and go 1st world. and we want to sell them coal instead of solar panels? Guess , sometimes we get a little of what we deserve by what we create.

  36. Northern cod population making strong comeback after years of decline: study (Newfoundland)
    The research, published Tuesday in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, suggests the cod is rebounding because of a similar rise in the availability of its key food source, capelin.
    Like the northern cod, populations of the small capelin plummeted due to cooler waters in the 1990s and possibly a depletion of plankton. Rose said warming water temperatures may help the capelin stock, along with an increased supply of plankton on which they feed.
    http://www.timescolonist.com/northern-cod-population-making-strong-comeback-after-years-of-decline-study-1.2096584

    Climate change hurting N.E. cod population, study says

    The rapid warming of the waters off New England has contributed to the historic collapse of the region’s cod population and has hampered its ability to rebound, according to a study that for the first time links climate change to the iconic species’ plummeting numbers.
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/29/climate-change-seen-contributing-collapse-cod-stocks-off-new-england/WIMPUHnYWBwNBDJ0QpcqWO/story.html

    Warmer oceans mean some cod stocks will never fully recover
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28420-warmer-oceans-mean-some-cod-stocks-will-never-fully-recover/

    Cod Could Recover in Warming Waters
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cod-could-recover-in-warming-waters/

  37. I’m going over the Dubrovnik CMIP5 & 6 workshop slides, found a slight error in a presentation by Corinne Le Quéré (Developing a community roadmap…) slide 3 of 13, shows 2014 emissions increasing. This presentation was given in September, but the source material was prepared in March 2015.

    By March 2015 the data showed global emissions rate of increase had slowed down during 2014, but the authors evidently didn’t seem to be well informed.

    I’ve been remarking for over a year that simple market forces will eventually lead to emissions reductions, but the 2014 emissions aren’t related to fossil fuel prices. The “market force component” shouldn’t start impacting fossil fuel use until ~2020 and become glaringly evident by 2035. So we have two effects taking place in the future: reductions due to somewhat ineffective and haphazard UN efforts, and more draconian market forces which will force changes due to fossil fuel prices being too high for developing nation economies.

    Here’s an article about 2014 emissions as a reference: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1f56f0d2-c8cc-11e4-8617-00144feab7de.html#axzz3qEh67W3v

    • What are the agreed to: ” draconian market forces which will force changes due to fossil fuel prices being too high for developing nation economies”?

      • “What are the agreed to:” Considering there is such an overwhelming consensus, it is a bit odd there aren’t any “agreed to” measures other than something has to be done and done now. There are hints like Obama’s they can build it but we will bankrupt them. triple electric rates in the greener governments, punitive taxes used to limit personal vehicles and fuel use etc. but there isn’t any definitive list of policies provided by either side. Not a lot of people stepping up to accept blame for some of the failing policy attempts either. It seems oddly political and not so scientific.

      • Forget 2020-2035 forecasts: sanity will prevail.

      • Catastrophic economic messaging is given all the time by the most vocal here at CE. They are given (mostly) a free pass. But when folks like me give any type of pushback — it’s like a dog seeing a squirrel.

        Conservative Greenies are messaging 5 areas that will not bankrupt economies: (1) Fast Mitigation [methane, black carbon, etc.]; (2) Renewables based on sound engineering economics; (3) Efficiencies (yes, including coal); (4) Trade incentives to Developing Countries for lower carbon products; (5) Increased Worldwide R&D [including tax credits as long as incentives result in impressive cost reductions like solar is doing].

        Many Greenie Conservatives strongly dislike (A) Carbon Taxes [regressive tax]; (B) Cap & Trade [another Wall St. financial derivative play-toy; (C) Federal Renewable Energy Standards [putting decision making in the hands of politicians rather than engineers].

        Why doesn’t this messaging have just as much weight as the catastrophic messaging of the most vocal here at CE.

      • We have discussed that Stephen. Investing in R&D works, tax credits though tend to be misused. Fast mitigation is basically a continuation of the clean air act meaning the ROW has to catch up, go talk to them. Soundly engineered and efficient renewables will sell themselves, no mandates and incentives required. For trade “incentives” you might want to talk to the bank of China since the ROW didn’t consider the developed world plans “incentives”. Efficiency, I have my led lights and an average monthly electric bill of $50 a month of which $30 is tax and connection fees, of course I do have propane hot water, heating and cooking because that doesn’t get interrupted during a hurricane. You want to increase my energy taxes to $100 a month or what?

        Now if you want effective energy legislation, make it progressive, pay a higher percentage with higher use. If you happen to be “green” double it, you shouldn’t mind paying more to save the world should you?

      • richardswarthout

        Captain

        Agree with you, but don’t know what ROW is. Is fast mitigation not already happening? What is needed? On wind and solar, SS castigates the Denizens but discounts their support of Planning Engineer, and discounts your very worthy comments.

        And BTW, SSs castigation of Fernando is like the pea castigating the pod.

        Richard

      • Another reason Greenie Conservatives don’t like U.S. Carbon Taxes is U.S. Manufacturing — i.e., the reduction in U.S. emissions would be offset by increases somewhere else producing the same product (probably in a developing country/economy).

        Greenie Conservatives don’t like this “wealth transfer” that accomplishes nothing in manufacturing emissions on a world-wide basis. In fact, emissions would go up because of much higher environmental standards in the U.S.

        Greenie Conservatives like the win/win concepts talked about by Jon Huntsman — Developing countries by U.S. energy technology to make lower carbon footprint products — then the U.S. gives “incentives” to the foreign products into our Markets.

      • richard, ROW, rest of the world is the problem. When a green initiative just shifts pollution from a developed nation to an under developed nation there is no real gain, though there is some dilution and economic benefits for the underdeveloped. Most of the developed nation trade initiatives forced “alternative” energy which is too expensive is a lot of areas and denied loans for more conventional thermal. China stepped in and is financing expansion of more conventional infrastructure and oil/gas exploration. That is actually good because it will reduce destruction of sensitive areas for palm oil and sugar cane but does nothing to slow down CO2 emissions.

        When things work, I am all for them, but failure to recognize failures is unforgivable.

      • Steven, my first ebook, (Gaia’s Limits) goes in considerable detail into the physical basis for market forces that will emerge in FL’s time frame. IN MY OPINION he is quite right about the future pricing of fossil fuels in a two decade time frame. Especially oil. There are also several essays on petroleum in Blowing Smoke. Then likely low sulfur/low ash coal (the rest is simply too expensive unless one ignores the pollution consequences, as China did but no longer can). And my coal assessment is much more optimistic than either Patek (U. T Austin) or Rutledge (CalTech). Natural gas is more optimistic, although whether China’s shale gas will be as productive as hoped remains an open question. Much of the Sichuan basin is folded and faulted for sure, presenting the Monterey shale problem. Nothing horizontal to be horizontally drilled. And other places of real shale gas hope have fizzled (Poland).

      • richardswarthout

        Captain

        Thank you. Appears the dysfunction of Washington DC is minor compared to the dysfunction of the ROW. Is there not a law that says More politicians = Less progress?

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        Steven

        The following post by Professor Rutledge is informative and has some usefull comments from Rud and others.

        https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/22/coal-and-the-ipcc/

        Bottom line, the demand for coal is declining drastically; being displaced by natural gas. One result is a market driven reduction in CO2 emissions.

        I’m not sure what Rud and Fernando are saying about the other aspects of future fossil fuel markets. It appears that their assessment is of higher coal and oil prices, perhaps due to lower return on investment and diminishing reserves.

        I, for one, listen to the words of Rud and Fernando; they are supported by evidence and are not “Catastrophic Economic Messaging”.

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        My last comment should have been addressed to Stephen. Sorry.

        Richard

      • Rud — I’ll ask my original question again: What are the agreed to draconian market forces that FL is referring to?

        Rud — Your opinion is quite different than FL’s statement.

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        You are not trying to understand what Fernando and Rud have stated. First, Fernando did not use the term “agreed to”. It perhaps is an opinion, but from what I’ve read it is based on evidence. And the evidence is easily available; try doing a bit of reading related to expected future supply and demand of coal, oil, and natural gas (the draconian market forces of which Fernando speaks). A start might be the post of Prodessor Rutledge, the link provided in my comment above.

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        Rud’s post “Another Hocket Stick” reveals why he agrees with Fernando’s timeframe. Peak production of oil, coal, and natural gas occurring in the first half of this century, and rapid decline thereafter. Low supply, higher prices; draconian market forces.

        Here is the link to Rud’s post:

        https://judithcurry.com/2013/02/01/another-hockey-stick/

        Richard

      • What do the terms “draconian market forces”, “2020”, “2035” refer to? Give me a break.

      • Stephen. Do you have ADD? They are referring to a diminishing supply of oil. It will at some point be too little of it to meet demand and the price will rise – a lot. It has to happen sometime. It’s just that predicting exactly when is tough to do. But, sooner or later, it will happen.

      • richardswarthout

        Stephen

        Fernando stated “The “market force component” shouldn’t start impacting fossil fuel use until ~2020 and become glaringly evident by 2035.”. It is obvious that he is describing a severe slowdown in fossil fuel production during this timeframe, which is further described by Rud in “Another Hockey Stick”. Fernando says that fossil fuel prices will rise to the point that they will be unaffordable to some. He describes the market forces; drastically falling production accompanied by much higher prices, as draconian.

        Richard

      • Stating an “opinion” like Rud or Professor Rutledge do of what they believe will happen long-term in fuel markets is fine. Of course, new technology breakthroughs could change these projections — such as not requiring so much water in natural gas & oil extraction (using other liquids).

        Interesting (but not surprising) that FL has not clarified his statement.

      • Of course, new technology breakthroughs could change these projections — such as not requiring so much water in natural gas & oil extraction (using other liquids).

        Or sea-floor methane hydrates. Of course, in his usual Chicken-Little style, Jim D makes it out as leading to catastrophe:

        If we found a way to extract methane from methyl clathrates we could do a pretty good imitation of the PETM. CO2 skeptics, however, may not see the harm in going in that direction. The arguments for what type of energy to use should be guided by CO2’s effects, and at least they are now a part of the conversation.

        Well, OK, so is methane extracted by CO2 replacement a different “type of energy”? As long as the CO2 comes from an ambient surface source?

        From recent work on the subject:

        Due to the favorable structural transition and resulting re-establishment of guest distributions, approximately 88% of the CH4 is recoverable from sH (CH4 + NH) hydrates with a CO2 injection. The hydrate dissociation and subsequent reformation caused by the structural transformation of sH to sI is also confirmed using a high-pressure microdifferential scanning calorimeter through the detection of the significant heat flows generated during the replacement.

      • Stephen Segrest | November 1, 2015 at 4:40 pm |
        Rud — I’ll ask my original question again: What are the agreed to draconian market forces that FL is referring to?

        Rud — Your opinion is quite different than FL’s statement.

        Well, the base cost of extraction has gone from $10/barrel for the texas/saudi arabia hole in the ground wells to $50-60, because we are running out of hole-in-the-ground wells.

        It is inarguable that the cost of oil will go up. If the oil is more expensive to produce, the price will go up. People do not produce oil for free or as a charity.

        Don’t have to be a rocket/climate scientist (or an engineer) to see the writing on the wall.

      • Stephen Segrest: I didn’t use the word “agreed”, when referring to market forces which will inexorably curtail fossil fuel demand. I come from a background in engineering, and specifically in the oil and gas industry, and I’m fully aware of how difficult it is to establish future resources.

        It’s difficult to convey what I’ve noticed over the last 20 years or so. To summarize: the industry is running out of ideas as to where to find new exploitable resources. What’s left to add on is mostly very expensive to extract, and requires a lot of resources to get it to the customer.

        Some are deceived by plots showing increasing “reserves”, but when we understand the fine detail we can see the resource adds come from known reservoirs or accumulations. We just don’t seem to have anything new that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg to extract. And as time goes by its going to get harder, more expensive and much more time consuming to get it out.

        And the thing is, there are many countries with weak economies. As prices increase they will simply be unable to buy these fuels.

        And I realize today’s low prices give many a false sense of confidence, but the current price levels aren’t sustainable. There is a war going on, I’m not sure what drives the Saudis, but they can’t keep it up. The USA shale industry, and associated contractors, is now undergoing a full crisis, and production is dropping at a fast rate. Other marginal producers are also hurting and losing production (most nations have declining oil production rates). In short order, the market will balance and we will see a price run up. And I suspect within 20 years prices will be so high we will see production reach a peak.

        The gas story is similar, the shale gas provides a breather, but the new resource pools aren’t really there, other than very expensive “shale” gas.

      • @richardswarthout 11/1 @ 8 pm, @ristvan
        Rud’s article looks very respectable to me.
        The only dynamic I see missing is the pogo effect: there is a well documented impact of exploration investment vs. future production. When prices are high as in 2008, massive investment goes into exploration *as well as* exploitation of unconventional oil. For that matter, “unconventional oil” definition changes over time (see depth, sea floor, salt etc).
        iTulip calls this Peak Cheap Oil – not Peak Oil: it isn’t that oil is running out in the 2020-2050 time frame, it is that the big oil fields which yield oil very cheaply are depleting. There’s plenty of oil out there still – it just costs more.
        This doesn’t detract from Rud’s view that the IPCC estimates are totally wrong – I’d bet that the IPCC looks at oil price peak production increases to extrapolate whereas a pure “conventional oil” Hubbert peak is the polar opposite.
        Reality will be more like a pogo between high prices – which drive exploration – which lead to low prices due to over supply – oversupply which is then fixed by field depletion leading to higher prices – rinse repeat.

      • @Fernando Leanme
        Uh, no. Shale gas has a very different profile than shale oil. Depletion rates for shale gas vs. “conventional gas” are not even close to as bad as shale oil vs. “conventional oil”.

      • There is also the problem of QE in the US, the commodities bubble, the mortage bubble rebound aversion to lending to home-buyers, and Dodd-Frank combined with political opposition to oil/gas plays in other countries channeling investment into high cost oil plays in the US too early. e.g. oil plays in Poland and Aus would have made more sense to do before lower margin plays in the US, but were prevented by environmentalists and russian influence.

    • richardswarthout

      The article “Cancel the Paris Climate Summit” says that the Paris Summit is not necessary because the 2C limit will be met by an already occurring market force and an already occurring reduction in the sensitivity estimate. The market force is the displacement of coal with natural gas, which emits half the CO2.

      Here is the link: http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/10/28/cancel_the_paris_climate_summit_1455.html

      Richard

      • Richard

        It is necessary because the developing countries want access to the $100Billion a year indulgences said to have been agreed for them at Copenhagen.

        Ironic, as the developing countries are the largest source of co2 and ought to be paying the West for the huge number of benefits they enjoy-from health to wealth-created through their use of fossil fuels since the industrial revolution

        tonyb

      • richardswarthout

        Tony

        Wasn’t the US rejection of Kyoto largely along the same lines? That Kyoto was a subterfuge transfer of wealth from free market countries to dictatorships? And BTW, this is an example of much that is wrong with the UN; nondenocratic and morally corrupt countries casting votes that are counter to the priciples free societies. I recall awhile ago an idea put forward that the democratic countries should have their own global organization.

        Hope things are well with you.

        Richard

      • It’s also necessary because the rent seekers want to continue collecting and the bureaucrats and other hangers on want to keep feeding.

      • Richard

        All is well here thanks.

        I do think the West needs its own organisation, but having said that how would the worlds less salubrious govts manage without the restraining influence of the West?

        As an example of the baffling and corrupt way in which the UN sometimes operates Saudi Arabia has again been appointed to head up the Human rights council…

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/united-nations-farce-saudi-arabia-to-head-un-human-rights-council/5477833

        tonyb

      • richardswarthout

        Tony

        The UN is, indeed, stuck on stupid.

        Richard

      • Richard: Perhaps it has always only had one gear…nature of the beast.

      • U.N. behemoth.

        the hunger of this U.N. behemoth is legendary
        it has taken in many victims
        back off from this goliath
        it has drawn in yer feet
        back off from this gargantua
        it has drawn in yer legs
        this polyphemus has had yer up to here
        belch
        this godzilla aint got no manners
        yer cant call our from this U.N. colossus.

        H/t ‘n apologies to Ishmael Reed.

    • The claims of future emissions increases seem completely unrealistic and uninformed.


      Neither China nor India are on the path for a massive increase in emissions.


      There don’t seem to be any realistic projections of future emissions informed by technology development. Past projections have been completely worthless and were about as accurate as the GCM models (like I said, completely worthless).

    • Stephen: another point, I don’t answer too fast or at all because I get put in moderation, this tends to discourage trying to exchange conversations. The amount of information one has to absorb to get how the system works is better presented in graphic format over a period of hours.

      Lately, I’ve started to visualize the interrelated systems (climate-emissions-fossil fuel dynamics-economy) as a huge flowchart moving in time. I think the integrated assessment models try to mimic the system, but they simply can’t do it. And I have a hunch the system reacts in a chaotic fashion.

      For example, not too long ago I read about a climate model group working on Antarctica’s ice shelves and ice flows. It seems their model predicted more ice loss over a long period of time if the emissions were cut back (caused by lower snowfall). Thus reducing emissions could lead to higher sea level and a double whammy economic loss.

      I don’t think the models are that reliable, but this particular point worries me. If they are right the moves we are making will backfire. But their model uses the RCP8.5, which I think can’t be achieved. So what I’m trying to accomplish is to tone down their high end emissions case, and learn enough to develop a smarter strategy (I don’t know what it is, but I do know what they have is weak and bound to fail). To me this is an impossible task, but maybe somebody will read what I try to convey and get them to do something more useful?

  38. What do readers believe is the most reliable science regarding the atmospheric residence time of human released CO2?

    • For married males who reached 65, it used to be until you would be 84 years old on average. WHO knows what the average lifespan for males will be by the year 2030 CE? Patterns being what they are today.

      • The issue is one of the most important in building a case for CO2 mitigation actions. I read through the 2011 Curry post and comments and it is interesting how disjointed and weak the case for mitigation is when examined

      • Rob, There really isn’t any useful estimate. The uncertainty in land and ground water sink change is huge. We do know though that conservation agriculture and water shed/wetland restoration will be more beneficial than once thought. That also has some nice fringe benefits, but since it is low hanging fruit it just isn’t sexy enough for the geniuses.

    • Rob

      I think Ferdinand Engelbeen has the best take on this-see section 3

      http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html#Conclusion

      He believes that the increased co2 does come from human sources but that the effects of co2 are exaggerated.

      Several years ago I went with him to a talk in Southampton given by the distinctly warmist Dr Iain Stewart of Climate Wars fame, where we both asked questions of the good doctor.

      tonyb

      • Tony

        That was not the question though.

      • Rob

        If you go to section 3 of my link as I suggested I think you will find the answer to your question which I took to be about the half life of Atmospheric co2

        Tonyb

      • Tony

        The link you posted stated-
        “That means that every single CO2 molecule from human or natural origin has a 20% chance per year to be incorporated in vegetation or dissolved into the oceans.”

        The conclusion was based on;
        “This was confirmed by the fate of 14C, increased due to atomic bomb testing, after the tests stopped.”

        I did a read of the study upon which the conclusion was based and it seemed flawed in that it assumed the degrading of the isotope being measured in the local area only occurred due to absorption. What about distribution via circulation?

        I am not writing that it is wrong, but I did not read that the issue was addressed.

    • Capt– Again I am only asking what readers think is the best science on a very specific topic. I don’t think conservation ag has a real impact

      • Land use impact is in the 400 to 1000 gigaton range and ground water only holds about 10 to 100 times more CO2 that the atmosphere which could put it in the 100 to 1000 gigaton range. Of course the ground water CO2 depends on the organic soil carbon in the recharge zone. Healthy soil would not only increase CO2 in the soil but could double or more the CO2 content of ground water. .

      • Sorry that should be total carbon not just CO2

      • Capt

        You believe those actions would have what percentage increase in total CO2 absorption planet wide. Sorry, but it would appear to be VERY small

      • “You believe those actions would have what percentage increase in total CO2 absorption planet wide. Sorry, but it would appear to be VERY small”

        Without the ground water factor I have seen estimates from 10% to 25% reduction in atmospheric CO2. Since NH atmospheric CO2 varies by around 40 ppm seasonally it makes sense. It isn’t a forever and ever thing though, you reach a saturation level if you don’t sequestrate the plant carbon and soil microbes/insects etc. can reduce efficiency. I believe around 30% of the land surface is degraded, so yes I believe those actions would have a significant impact.

    • start here.

      then read his paper

      • Steve

        Do you believe what was stated regarding “adjustment time” is accurate?

        It would seem to assume that the system does not change the rate of CO2 uptake as conditions change which seems inaccurate. Is CO2 uptake the same now as when at 280ppm? Uptake per plant increases right?

      • Steven Mosher,

        I can see why you might like this.

        Lots of green and red jellybeans.

        Discussion about how long it might (or might not) take for CO2 to return to pre industrial revolution levels. Whee! Why not consider how long it might take to return to historically higher levels? Healthy dose of subjectivity?

        Of course, no information as to why pre industrial levels of CO2 are particularly desirable.

        No attempt to show that CO2 warms anything at all. I wonder why? Possibly more baseless assumptions?

        Thanks for that Steven. It’s at least aptly titled. Denial. That’s what Warmists practice. Facts? Who needs ’em! Experimental verification of their delusional theories? We don’t need no stinkin’ experiments! We’ve got Mosher and Mann!

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn, A real scientist would have used m&ms.

      • captdallas2 +/-

        m&m’s ?

        Silly capt’n…I haven’t thought about it a lot but off hand I suspect m&m’s do not have asymmetric stretching modes…

      • Well, the biggest problem is that it is crazy to go back to the preindustrial level.

        Tossing 42% of our food into the sewer for no good reason is stupid.

        The “adjustment time” is pretty short – less than 18 years.

        The important thing is to have a plan in place to subsidize fossil fuel production so we maintain a steady 6 GT/Y of emissions to keep the CO2 level at 400 PPM.

    • Rob Starkey (@Robbuffy) | November 1, 2015 at 3:32 pm | Reply
      What do readers believe is the most reliable science regarding the atmospheric residence time of human released CO2?

      Response is here:
      https://judithcurry.com/2015/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-26/#comment-740366

      Basically NIST says 5.4 years. The is the mean lifetime. The really question is what is the lifetime of the excess CO2 from human emission above some reasonable threshold.

      A practical standard for the lifetime of the excess is 18 years.

  39. The less expensive and more satisfying way is to just ask Him for mitigation.

  40. NOAA response to Congressional Committee seeking its emails:“Because the confidentiality of these communications among scientists is essential to frank discourse among scientists, those documents were not provided to the Committee,” the agency said. “It is a long-standing practice in the scientific community to protect the confidentiality of deliberative scientific discussions.”

    I guess this line of thinking never occurred to Shukla and those seeking RICO investigations. If mostly government funded studies are exempt from disclosure, why are private scientists and corporations also not protected in their internal deliberations? Based on Climategate, Michael Mann, Peter Glecik and Shukla’s actions, there is no reason to presume that government funded actions or studies are conducted in good faith.

    JD

  41. Anybody else here miss the likes of Pekka?

  42. Here’s part of the problem. Looks like the billionaires want all the rest of us to live in the tyranny of socialism. From the article:

    The world’s richest man, Bill Gates, has said that the private sector is too selfish and inefficient to produce effective energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

    While announcing his plan to spend $2 billion of his own wealth on green energy during an interview with The Atlantic, the Microsoft founder called on fellow billionaires to help make the US fossil-free by 2050 with similar philanthropy.

    He said:

    There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems.

    Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.

    Since World War II, US-government R&D has defined the state of the art in almost every area. The private sector is in general inept.

    The climate problem has to be solved in the rich countries. China and the US and Europe have to solve CO2 emissions, and when they do, hopefully they’ll make it cheap enough for everyone else.

    http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/bill-gates-says-that-capitalism-cannot-save-us-from-climate-change–b1xNpbL8O_x

  43. There’s no fortune to be made. Even if you have a new energy source that costs the same as today’s and emits no CO2, it will be uncertain compared with what’s tried-and-true and already operating at unbelievable scale and has gotten through all the regulatory problems.

    Without a substantial carbon tax, there’s no incentive for innovators or plant buyers to switch.

    There is no incentive for being stupid unless we get stupid enough to tax the energy that we have access to and make it cost too much.

  44. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544293900178

    http://euanmearns.com/the-residence-time-of-co2-in-the-atmosphere-is-33-years/

    http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf

    Well, there is a bunch at 5 to 5.4, there is an article I can’t find that gave the half life as 11 years and the mean lifetime as 16. There are a bunch of people that like 30-33. The NIST paper says 5.4 so I guess it is 5.4 years.

    The atmospheric absorption (AA) is 5.5 GT/Y roughly changes as Xco2 – 285. So 500 PPM means about 11 GT/Y of absorption.

    From a practical standpoint at the current time if we stopped all CO2 instantly – in 0.9 years we would be back to the previous year’s CO2 level.

    Since the current 400 PPM is proven safe, it is a reasonable point to use for mean lifetime of the excess CO2 from human emissions. Only a fool would want less than 400 PPM of CO2. if we stopped all emissions next year the mean lifetime of the excess would be 0.9 years. If we stop at 430 PPM it is in the 10 year range. If we stop at 460 it is in the 18 year range. If we stop at 500 it is around 27 years.

    Since we are never going to drive CO2 over 460 PPM, I’m going with 18 years.

  45. I guess we are not having a dedicated Energy post this week from Dr. Curry. Here are some energy stories that caught my eye:

    Financial Times on Nuclear Power: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21677243-nuclear-power-emits-no-greenhouse-gases-yet-it-struggling-rich-world-half-death?zid=298&ah=0bc99f9da8f185b2964b6cef412227be

    I felt the story was especially interesting because of the discussion of market forces of natural gas in the U.S.

    More interesting stories on the over reliance of the U.S. on Natural Gas:

    (1) While NRDC overall conclusions of needed actions are not objective (only Renewables), the article is still interesting — just skip the last page: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/rating-the-states-on-their-risk-of-natural-gas-overreliance#.VjdN3NKrTs2

    (2) Washington Post’s article articulates the real “War on Coal” isn’t Obama’s CPP (that many “frame” as Draconian by 2030), its natural gas: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/28/how-super-low-natural-gas-prices-are-reshaping-how-we-get-our-power/

    Simply stated, from a needed System Planning engineering perspective, we always need a diversified portfolio of generation mix (fossil, nuclear, Renewables) to meet all loads — base, intermediate, and peaking.

  46. Republicans on climate change. The politicians are even more in denial than their supporters, and it is no surprise with the money pouring in for them to think just the way they do. If it is not God’s will, at least it is their donors’ will, and you need go no further because they really are that shallow.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/the-gops-faith—based-cl_b_8441080.html

    • Jim D: If it is not God’s will, at least it is their donors’ will, and you need go no further because they really are that shallow.

      It is ironic when a true believer writes that someone else is “faith based”.

      • As they say, it was the Church that repressed the scientists in the time of Galileo. While Inhofe may appear an anachronism today, many take his view on that side, and it is a continuation of the same to him.

      • As they say, it was the Church that repressed the scientists in the time of Galileo.

        Which makes it hysterical that scientists today (many of them Christians) are repressed by the Cult of Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW – the climate cult).

      • Jim D: While Inhofe may appear an anachronism today, many take his view on that side, and it is a continuation of the same to him.

        Maybe yes, maybe no. Either way, the proponents of the “alarmist” view of AGW (“the time for debate is over”, etc) have a belief that surpasses what can be supported by the evidence.

        That reminds me, do you still maintain that 50-100 years is the proper time frame for divesting from fossil fuels? I recall that you answered sort of affirmatively when I asked you before.

      • Jim D: As they say, it was the Church that repressed the scientists in the time of Galileo.

        Another of the ironies is that the legion of government-funded and government-employed advocates of the alarmist extreme of AGW think of themselves as Galileo, while acting as though they are the Church.

    • “Denial” as always meaning : failure to achieve the state of political correctness credulous truebeliever, as seen in the Reverend Jim D.

      • It is the first stage of grief. Some have moved on to anger, bartering (saying yes it is warming maybe it is good after all), depression and acceptance.

      • Heh, warming beats cooling, bargain as you may.
        ============

      • Jim D: saying yes it is warming maybe it is good after all

        What is the best interpretation of the evidence of CO2-induced warming to date? Has anything gotten worse to offset the increase in the net primary productivity of forests and savannas?

      • In paleontology, warming always benefits the biome, and the upper limit of that benefit has never been shown. On the other hand, cooling is always immediately detrimental.

        The 2 degrees C target is arbitrary and fantastical. Even further warming will be beneficial, not that we’ll get it.
        ===========

      • James Thompson

        mattthew asks “Has anything gotten worse to offset the increase in the net primary productivity of forests and savannas?”

        Fires, for one thing. Higher temps = worse fires. It’s not too mysterious.

        There are severe droughts throughout the world now, in South America, Central America, etc. Perhaps you’re unaware of them?

        You do know that a huge number of Syrians migrated to the cities due to severe drought, which was one factor in the destabilization there?

        You know, with warmer ocean temps, there’s larger storms, like Patricia. Again, it isn’t rocket science.

        What I suggest is you actually seek out some news, rather than just reading ‘skeptic’ sites, esp ones that focus more on sociology than actual events occurring in the world right now.

      • James

        Are you aware that serious droughts in Syria are a frequent occurrence? What is different this time is that Syria has a population of some 22 million people whereas 50 years ago it was 5 million.

        The country does not have a sufficiently well developed infrastructure of dams and irrigation to grow enough crops for this burgeoning population nor the foreign exchange to buy them in. This is all quite separate to the civil war and general fighting between factions that started to fray people’s lives years ago.

        Tonyb

      • James Thompson: What I suggest is you actually seek out some news, rather than just reading ‘skeptic’ sites, esp ones that focus more on sociology than actual events occurring in the world right now.

        I get most of my information from peer-reviewed journals and curated data sets. To date, the reviews in Science magazine have not concluded that cyclonic storms, droughts, floods, or fires have increased in frequency, intensity, or extent during the warming since 1880 — unless I missed some. If you can link me to reviews that say different, I’ll download them. As noted by Weart, some committee summaries such as those of the IPCC make claims beyond what can be supported by the data.

      • James

        As an example of droughts in south America shall we take brazil?

        This seems a reasonably balanced article which gives the actual reasons for the drought which includes lack of infrastructure and maintenance.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Brazilian_drought

        The drought is the worst in some 80 Years probably since 1926

        Again we can lay a large part of the reasons for the drought as being the huge numbers of people trying to use the water for home and industry

        The population was some 39 million in 1926 and a whopping 200 million now . Don’t yOu think that sort of growth in a poor country will have huge implications in the way that water has to be managed?

        Undoubtedly the deforestation of the Amazon has had a local impact on rainfall patterns. I ‘own’ several acres of amazon rain forest in order to help prevent deforestation. If you would like to take some practical action you might like to google ‘cool earth’ whereby you can ‘ buy’ your own tract.

        There are also a number of very good books on climate history which might enable you to view today’s events in the context of the past. I would recommend any book by Hubert lamb or le Roy laduries book ‘ times of feast , times of famine,’

        Tonyb

      • Yes, many are at the bargaining stage. Next is depression when you realize you are counting on something that is simply not true. It is a normal progression. Be prepared.

      • The D stands for Doomsayer. Poor thing must be very miserable.

      • “There are severe droughts throughout the world now,….”

        He says South America and Central America. We are sure he could go on because he said etc., but we know that there ain’t even droughts throughout South America and/or Central America. Who is this new clown?

      • As they come into the clubhouse straightaway they look to be neck and neck…

        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426452/political-correctness-peaks-social-justice-liberals

        missed it by that much?

      • James

        This is a cynical lot. They are cynical because they have heard it all before. They also have done their homework. Inductive reasoning doesn’t cut. Might I suggest providing a link. Two would be even better.

        This is not a chewing gum business.

      • Curious George

        changingminds.org – “How we change what others think, feel, believe and do.”
        No brainwashing, we just change what others think, feel, believe and do.

    • Jim D | November 2, 2015 at 8:44 am | Reply
      Republicans on climate change. The politicians are even more in denial than their supporters, and it is no surprise with the money pouring in for them to think just the way they do. If it is not God’s will, at least it is their donors’ will, and you need go no further because they really are that shallow.
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-north-patterson/the-gops-faith—based-cl_b_8441080.html

      I’m a little offended by this. I’m pretty sure I am more in “denial” than the politicians. I should get credit for being ahead of them.

      However, it is the global warmers who are really denial (they don’t CAGW – the cult of anthropogenic global warming – a cult for nothing). They religiously cling to the belief that CO2 and warmth are bad, facts and the truth be damned.

      More CO2 means plants tolerate more heat.

      • PA: I should get credit for being ahead of them.

        Indeed. I regularly write to my Congressman, attempting to persuade him to resist importunings of the AGW true believers. More or less along the lines of what I write here. Before long, I shall alert him (well, his letter openers and staff) of the “peculiar sort of science” paper by Spencer Weart, which ought to be required reading for anyone who supports or opposes the recommendations of the IPCC. One must be aware that they are flooded with information.

        Should Inhof begin to waver, I’d write to him as well. I think my two Senators are already lost to “the dark side”, but I have written to them also.

    • Wow! The democrats base everything on the few Climate Scientists who really make up the 97% and who use Climate Models of their best theory that provides output that always disagrees with Mother Nature.

      When the model output is wrong then the models are wrong and the theory is wrong. What is really going on with you alarmists? The Republicans are trying to save us from this madness. I don’t agree with everything the various Republicans say, but this is most important and they are right that manmade CO2 is good and not bad in any way.

    • James Thompson

      Re: Syria 2006-2011 was the worst drought on record.

      Re: Brasil No one (including me) stated the drought was solely caused by climate change. We call that in the business a Straw Man. However, a quick examination of the rainfall (or relative lack thereof) will make things clear. Of course, you’ll be at a loss to explain how ‘mismanagement’ caused the drought and crop failure in Guatemala.

      Re: Droughts in general in current events https://www.google.com/#q=drought+climate+change&tbm=nws

      Re: Fires Large fires have increased in number in all the western states of the US as compared to 1980-2000 (that latter time period is noted because forestry practices have not markedly changed since then)

      Re: storm activity. We just had a record number this year for the Pacific of category 4’s & 5’s

      I could type reams more, but if you were actually interested you would be seeking out data yourself. The commentator I was responding to was asking if there were ANY negative effects from global warming AT ALL. It’s quite amazing that anyone could seriously ask that.

      The planet is warming, and at least 50% of that is due to CO2 emissions brought upon by human activity. The planet will continue to warm, and you will see Europe flooded with migrants as larger parts of Africa become uninhabitable due to drought. More warmth = more drought. It’s really quite basic physics.

      • You are really not very good at this. I predict you won’t last long here.

      • James

        Syria’s high population growth rate and lack of water management policies and enforcement have set up the crisis in its agricultural community long before the current drought. Water tables have been dropping for decades from excessive groundwater abstraction rates for crop irrigation practices. This is basically a desert. Just like a lot of environmental problems poor stewardship of our resources eventually catch up bite everyone in the rear. The land could not sustain the demands being put on it. This was all foreseen long ago.

      • James

        Here are the physics;

        See the IPCC report for full context

        “As climate changes, several direct influences alter precipitation amount, intensity, frequency and type. Warming accelerates land surface drying and increases the potential incidence and severity of droughts, which has been observed in many places worldwide (Figure 1). However, a well-established physical law (the Clausius-Clapeyron relation) determines that the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7% for every 1°C rise in temperature. Observations of trends in relative humidity are uncertain but suggest that it has remained about the same overall, from the surface throughout the troposphere, and hence increased temperatures will have resulted in increased water vapour. ”

        https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-2.html

        There has been a general trend to drought in the middle East over the last century. The Syrian drought was the worst in MODERN times not ever. The area suffers from lack of rain, too many people, too little attention to infrastructure and deliberate acts of sabotage by leaders, of water courses, in order to restrict water use to enemies. a tactic that has unfortunately gone on since time immemorial..

        Here is an example of ancient epic drought;

        “The lamentation “The Curse of Akkad” was written within a century of the empire’s fall. It attributes Akkad’s demise to an outrage against the gods. Angered by a pair of inauspicious oracles, Naram-sin plunders the temple of Enlil, the god of wind and storms, who, in retaliation, decides to destroy both him and his people:

        For the first time since cities were built and founded,
        The great agricultural tracts produced no grain,
        The inundated tracts produced no fish,
        The irrigated orchards produced neither syrup nor wine,
        The gathered clouds did not rain, the masgurum did not grow.
        At that time, one shekel’s worth of oil was only one-half quart,
        One shekel’s worth of grain was only one-half quart. . . .
        These sold at such prices in the markets of all the cities!
        He who slept on the roof, died on the roof,
        He who slept in the house, had no burial,
        People were flailing at themselves from hunger. ”

        “For many years, the events described in “The Curse of Akkad” were thought, like the details of Sargon’s birth, to be purely fictional.

        In 1978, after scanning a set of maps at Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library, a university archeologist named Harvey Weiss spotted a promising-looking mound at the confluence of two dry riverbeds in the Khabur plains, near the Iraqi border. He approached the Syrian government for permission to excavate the mound, and, somewhat to his surprise, it was almost immediately granted. Soon, he had uncovered a lost city, which in ancient times was known as Shekhna and today is called Tell Leilan.

        http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/The_Curse_of_Akkad.html

        —- —–
        I have been to various of the lost cities in Iraq and Stria including Babylon..

        If you don’t want to read the works of proper historians like Ladurie,, Al Gore wrote a good book ‘earth in the balance’ chronicling these massive changes in climate that brought down civilisations. They are unfortunately, nothing new and today are greatly exacerbated by politics and over population.

        tonyb

      • James Thompson,
        Serious questions: “The planet is warming, and at least 50% of that is due to CO2 emissions brought upon by human activity.”

        What’s the cause of the other 50%? When did it start? When will it end? How much will there be? What can we ‘do’ about it (and should we)?

  47. I have been recently become more serious about understanding the respective claims of both camps. It fast became apparent the proponents of climate change do not want to discuss the issue.
    Sites where people are open to discuss issues such as this one bought me back to the real world.
    But what I find missing (maybe I have not been looking in the right place) is the WHY? I accept that the greens in Europe are particularly strong in their convictions but WHY have these governments jumped on renewable bandwagon? Yes there are domestic politics involved but that cannot explain it all.
    My WHY is seeking the economic rational of their position? I see an attempt to change world society at its core but who is to gain?
    The only broad explanation I see (and please correct me if there are others) for governments like those of Germany, France and the EU in general to go all in with a shift to renewables is must they figure they will end up with an economic advantage. The EU as a whole has a scarcity of fossil fuels. As the world supply of fossil fuels becomes tight due to global growth, they could see themselves becoming continually squeezed and in effect paying a large tax to other nations which would eventually render their exports uncompetitive in world markets.
    They could not jettison fossil fuels on their own because this would immediately render them uncompetitive in global markets. They needed a way to drag everyone else along with them and even develop a new export industry as an added bonus.
    David L

    • richardswarthout

      David

      IMO people (all people, regardless of wealth, intellect, position, and profession) form opinions largely from biases. So, to understand why politicians do what they do one must first understand how bias is formed. And, it appears to me, that bias is formed by the social experiences of individuals; related to family, community, schools, work environment, etc. Therefor it is not unexpected a politician from Europe would have biases different from you or I. Underlying all this are the distinctly different cultures of people around the world; the American culture is much different than the European culture.

      Richard

      • Richard, why do you call these biases, rather than beliefs? The term bias implies faulty reasoning, but there is no evidence of this. Different people just think differently.

      • people think different, people have biases, people have beliefs, people have opinions. where does one of these stop and the other begins?
        Americans came from everywhere and we have all the cultures plus what has evolved here. European cultures are not all the same and we have some of all of them.

      • richardswarthout

        David Wojack

        I agree that different people think differently, but they tend do so consistently. And that consistent tendency I call bias; if my boat tends to turn port side, it is biased in that direction.

        Richard

      • richardswarthout

        popesclimatetheory

        “Americans came from everywhere and we have all the cultures plus what has evolved here. European cultures are not all the same and we have some of all of them.”

        There may be some scholars that differ, at least in part. Suggest reading on the topics “American Culture” and “European Culture”.

        Richard

    • Curious George

      Read about The Club of Rome.

    • They could not jettison fossil fuels on their own because this would immediately render them uncompetitive in global markets.

      I don’t believe this is correct.

      People on the left tend to clump in groups and be incapable of logical rational thought, and because of the clumping thing, concepts go through the group like a plague and the whole group gets infected. Progressive global warmunism has all the hallmarks of a cult or plague.

      I have asked why they are so against fossil fuels. They tend to mumble statements that don’t make a lot of sense.

      I have concluded that “fossil fuels is bad” is a leftist religious belief. Trying to look for a rational or logical basis to their position is probably pointless. It is like aniimal farm and “four legs good, two legs better”. They have taught the sheep to endlessly chant the mantra and the damage is done.

      Burning fossil fuels really doesn’t harm anything and if you are using scrubbers about the only thing they put out in any volume is CO2. So the left had to demonize CO2. Demonizing a beneficial gas is so irrational and illogical a thinking person wouldn’t do it. This is why few on the right believe in global warming.

      There is no good reason to reduce CO2, just senseless unreasoning ideological ones.

      • I have asked why they are so against fossil fuels. They tend to mumble statements that don’t make a lot of sense.

        You clearly haven’t been listening very close. There are a number of reasons that make perfect sense, from various perspectives.

        Burning fossil fuels really doesn’t harm anything and if you are using scrubbers about the only thing they put out in any volume is CO2.

        Burning fossil fuels was what fueled the Industrial Revolution.

        So the left had to demonize CO2.

        Yes, because “the left”, or at least the socialists at the core of “the left”, are fundamentally opposed to the Industrial Revolution.

        Demonizing a beneficial gas is so irrational and illogical a thinking person wouldn’t do it.

        First of all, “beneficial” is a value judgement. It may help plant growth in greenhouses, and if it actually causes the projected warming it might render more of the boreal regions of the earth habitable, but it also introduces an added risk of destabilization and/or catastrophic (in the mathematical sense) change that otherwise wouldn’t happen. Changes in both climate and ecosystem.

        This is why few on the right believe in global warming.

        Both the “belief” in “global warming” by the left, and the refusal to “believe in global warming” on the right are totally anti-scientific and the product of m0tivated thinking.

        There is no good reason to reduce CO2, just senseless unreasoning ideological ones.

        Wrong!

        From a purely scientific perspective, adding CO2 to the atmosphere past the point it’s probably been at for many million years adds a risk that wouldn’t exist otherwise. Probably not existential. Even to “civilization”, much less the species.

        But the motivations of “the left”, while ideological, are hardly “just senseless unreasoning ideological ones.

        Leaving aside their self-serving l1es, socialism is, at its heart, an ideology that a person’s status in society should be entirely based on their ability to manipulate society. (“Ownership of means of production by society” is simply one manifestation of that ideal.)

        The Industrial Revolution, and especially the free market in both goods and capital, are totally at odds with that ideology. Consider a worker in a factory: the manager requires people who can follow directions and at best, understand how things work. Workers who demonstrate these abilities are going to get social status above and beyond their ability to manipulate society.

        Managers who fail to provide that status, and favor their friends and sycophants, will fail relative to managers who understand that need. Factory owners who fail to get good managers (by, say, hiring their own friends and sycophants) will fail relative to owners who hire good managers.

        The same logic applies to capitalists who lend them money, either as outright loans or in return for part ownership.

        If you examine the history of modern socialism, while remaining skeptical of their self-serving deceptions, you can see the pattern of its rise in response to the Industrial Revolution. Ayn Rand rightly called these people “Industrial Counterrevolutionaries”.

        When you take the socialist perspective on the Industrial Revolution, it’s easy to see the sense behind their opposition to fossil fuels: they think getting rid of fossil fuels will end the Industrial Revolution, which is what socialism arose in reaction to.

        That hardly means that digging up and burning massive amounts of fossil fuels isn’t a problem: adding that much fossil carbon to the global system (both atmosphere and available sinks) does involve a risk. It would be desirable to deal with that risk. This in addition to the environmental costs of mining coal, and the likelihood of running out of gas/oil mined by current methods.

        But the socialist use of “global warming” as a stalking horse for socialist agenda is another problem. While it would almost certainly be possible to solve the fossil carbon problem without advancing the socialist agenda, this isn’t what “the left” is after.

        That, IMO, is why you find radical CAGW types in bed with radical conservatives over whether fossil-neutral technology such as solar PV can solve the problem: both want to preserve the dependence of the Industrial Revolution on fossil fuels, at least in their own minds/beliefs.

        CAGW radicals don’t want to believe that technology, and the free-market Industrial Revolution, have essentially solved the problem they’re using as a stalking horse. Conservatives just don’t like what they’re not used to.

    • David, the EU is economically self-destructive, I can’t imagine that their policies on alleged CAGW are in any way driven by thoughts of economic advantage. If so, they are even more deluded than they appear.

  48. “There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.

    French policy on CO2 emissions is particularly stupid, since we are one of the countries with the cleanest industrial sector.”

    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf

  49. Nicely put.

  50. Thought fer Today:

    ‘ Wage, wage war against
    the lying and the fright! ‘

    H/T kim.

  51. The Cato event is available online.

    Preparing for Paris: What to Expect from the U.N.’s 2015 Climate Change Conference
    http://www.cato.org/events/preparing-paris-what-expect-uns-2015-climate-change-conference

    Video and podcast.