by Judith Curry
David Rose has published an interview with me in the Spectator.
The title of the piece is ‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed‘. Subtitle: For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic. David’s originally proposed title was ‘Climate Heretic’, and hence the title of this post. In case you are unaware of Part I of the Climate Heretic saga, see this previous post from 2010 [link].
Be sure to link to the article, there is an astonishing cartoon.
Excerpts from the article:
It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.
Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’
She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’
Climate heresy
To provide some context for my so-called heresy, take a look at this presentation that is being given by IPCC lead authors to the Canadian PM in preparation for the Paris talks [link].
My latest public talk on climate is now on youtube [here]. My talk was given in Ocala, Florida, at the the Institute for Human-Machine Cognition (IHMC). This is a FASCINATING and unique organization, I encourage you to take a look at their web site. There were 250 people in attendance at my talk, which was followed by a very nice dinner with 22 individuals.
The people at the dinner had a broad range of political perspectives, but I think all came away thinking about this issue in a new light. I was particularly struck by one of the comments at dinner, something like this: “What you are doing is science: evaluating the evidence from both sides.” This was remarked as something being highly unusual in the climate debate.
It is indeed a travesty that climate science has become so politicized and that a large majority of the scientists visible in the public debate on climate change are partisans. For the sake of science, not to mention the policies that are being driven by the science, we need to open up the debate on the causes of the warming and scenarios of climate change for the 21st century.
Pingback: Climate Heretic. Part II | Enjeux énergies et environnement
“The people at the dinner had a broad range of political perspectives”
Now you are ready to win Thanksgiving. ;)
And on that note, a Happy Thanksgiving to Climate Etc.
Andrew
I take strong exception to labelling Judy a “heretic”. She’s a “heretic priest”, which is far worse.
Hi Richard, pray tell what is a ‘heretic priest’?
I think Richard is joking, Judy, or I hope so. You do have many followers, including me.
I think he means, jokingly, that you aren’t just part of the congregation.
I think what Richard means is that you were previously perceived as a “high priestess of global warming”. Heresy is bad enough, but you committed the far worse sin of converting from prominently preaching the faith to prominently questioning it and its adherents. Unforgiveable!
http://fomorianchronicles.wdfiles.com/local–files/keraja-high-priestess-of-the-earth-mother/Keraja.jpg
“The Heretic Priest (Age of Waking Death #2)
by C.N. Faust (Goodreads Author)
3.6 of 5 stars 3.60 · rating details · 5 ratings · 3 reviews
“You fool, he has betrayed you. And now he is toying with you.”
The war between gods is nowhere near over. As Azrael and Saldon continue to pit their favorites against one another, the stakes are raised; deals are made and alliances are shattered.
While Pharun and Encarz prepare to war against each other, Felix is left to pick up the pieces of his life. Lonely and betrayed, he finds himself giving up everything he knows to follow a god he never cared for. In these trying times, who should step up to offer friendship but the angel of an unlikely god?
Even though he is trying to start over, Felix knows one thing … Pharun will never stop using him. (less)
http://www.blackcaviar-bookclub.com/images/fantasy-horror-the-heretic-priest-21730357.jpg
I’ve always wondered what Dr. Curry’s climate high priestess robes looked like and whether they made her turn them in when she was excommunicated.
Others have indeed clarified what I wrote. Ordinary denizens are supposed to belief. People like you are supposed to preach.
I always hoped heretic priestesses wore Victoria’s Secret instead of robes, but that’s just me.
Nope, yoga pants and T-shirts
yoga pants and T-shirts
Ah, a practical priestess.
Yoga pants and T shirts.
You and almost every other woman Dr Curry. That’s my wife every morning. Although she does change for work.
yoga pants and t shirts? You obviously have your heating turned up way too high. Don’t you know that heating causes carbon pollution and you will fry the poley bears?
tonyb
Reblogged this on The Ratliff Notepad.
Very nice piece by Rose. When the global warming fever finally breaks, you and Lindzen will be among very few whose reputations will remain unsullied. Schmidt, Karl, Hansen, Mann, Hayhoe, … will live in infamy forever as the history of this scientific aberation gets written.
Not if written by the eminent Science Historian Naomi Oreskes.
In a future edition of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, the fear of global warming will have its own chapter.
Better change that title to . . . the Madness of Eliites.
RICO-CHET.
OMG, that Government of Canada website should be renamed to: “Here is one way of looking at the Science of Climate Change”.
It is the “received wisdom” of our nation. And the new government of the guy whose only other job has been part time, substitute, primary school drama teacher is about to introduce billions of new carbon taxes. Well we get the government we deserve. BTW these are the same scientists who have been screaming about the former Conservatives who shackled and silenced them with antiquated anti science attitudes.
“…her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.”
Great thinkers and leaders usually have little comfort among servile followers of dogma who almost certainly have ephemeral legacies. Leaders are usually the most lonely and isolated in their pursuits of excellence or the unknown, they are remembered the most.
“It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it.”
—A. Hodge
“Subtitle: For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic. David’s originally proposed title was ‘Climate Heretic’, and hence the title of this post. In case you are unaware of Part I of the Climate Heretic saga, see this previous post from 2010 ” – JC
Vital context – Judith was never “branded a heretic” by any scientific colleagues. That’s just the title of the story that a journalist decided to run with.
Though clearly, Judith loves the idea of being “branded a heretic” and refers to it as often s possible.
Well, i was certainly appalled at ‘heretic’ in 2010 (Scientific American article). At this point, i don’t care what people call me. I am trying to promote a more nuanced discussion of the science and policy options. I am not trying to promote myself as ‘heretic’, personality, or whatever. I hope that as a result of this article, i will get a few more twitter followers and followers of Climate Etc.
“Heretic” came from a journalist.
Th only quoted critique from scientists in the article amounted to “straw men” and “sloppy thinking”. Shocking.
The “heretic” label that you were so “appalled” by, and are now so fondly attached to, was just journalistic window-dressing.
> i was certainly appalled at ‘heretic’ in 2010
The word “heresy” may not sound that appaling vintage 2010:
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/31/climate-etc-s-greatest-hits-for-2010/
By October 2010, that Judy has been “immune to criticisms” is already public knowledge. See the Heresy post for more on that.
Turning oneself into a character is the first step toward politics.
Hokey
What’s your point, willy? When you come back from a long absence to remind all of us what a useless nuissance you are, you should start off by making some discernible point. Just for appearances sake.
The point is that there’s nothing to be appalled about Lemonick’s trope, Don Don:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/
It was even complimentary.
How it turns into more victim playing can be understood by Judy’s political turn.
Please, do keep yapping.
Tell us more about Judith’s political turn, willy. While you are at it, tell us about how Judith has profited politically, monetarily, personally from being labeled a serial disinformer and being cast out of the climate science club.
Don, well consider all of the public speaking engagements, op-eds, congressional testimony, etc. She is the new darling of the “skeptical” movement when otherwise she would have been a nobody.
Happy Thanksgiving Willard!
According to your records what has been the biggest AGW score since 2009? I don’t remember.
Joseph | November 26, 2015 at 5:02 pm:
“She is the new darling of the “skeptical” movement when otherwise she would have been a nobody.”
With a PhD and over 200 peer reviewed papers to her name, nobody but a completely no-account nobody like you could possibly refer to her as a “nobody”.
You’re a few sheets light of a bogroll, Joseph!
I would think that the less one respects the orthodox majority, the less abrasive the title heretic seems.
> Tell us more […]
First you share how happy you were with my absence and now I’m supposed to bring you room service, Don Don. How fascinating.
If there hasn’t been a political turn, I don’t think you’d spend that much time providing Judy’s of your protection services.
Which makes me think of an hypothesis: could there be a correlation between Judy’s political turn and your first comments here?
These alarmist drones would have us believe that Judith is somehow advancing her personal interests by pointing out the excesses of the consensus goons and suffering the career consequences. It seems the little critters think she has political ambitions. Maybe she is just seeking fame and fortune. Skeptic blog proprietors do enjoy the adulation of millions of denier denizens and those BIG checks from BIG OIL.
I guess it’s understandable that these dogmatic, rabid alarmists would hang around here to harangue her for straying from the reservation. What’s funny is that they think they are doing the cause some good. Pathetic.
In the long and often sorry history of science, being a heretic usually means being right.
Well folks, it looks like zero for Willard. All this talking over six years and not even a Neo Polar Bear story. The Hiding heat in the oceans is not much help, if it does not want to be found. The game gets old as we get older and wiser.
AGW Scientist buy tin foil caps to protect themselves from the effects of Cosmic Rays!
Walter Kaufman wrote a book called “Faith of a Heretic” and another called “Critique of Religion and Philosophy.” These things go in cycles. Critique became a word of honor again by 1960 whereas theology was dominant in the 1950’s. The word heretic by itself means little.
I think what Judith perhaps objects to is the personal attacks from political hacks such as Sou (the Whopperette) who is really as bad as the average political attack dog and people like Ken Rice, who is not really a climate scientist. More disturbing are the attacks from the likes of Mann and other politicized climate scientists. One could argue that global warming and environmentalism is the new theology and critique is not a word of honor for Oreskes, Lew, and their fellow travelers. However, I would argue that the environment is worse than the 1950’s when few in the media really cared about theology that much. Today there is a smear machine out there ready to attack those who don’t tow the line.
@Michael nor was she ever branded a fatuous twit, unlike some in present company.
You go, mikey. Tell her to stop the whining. She’s damn lucky this Inquisition is being run by humanistic peronista progressives. A few hundred years ago she would have been burned at the stake.
Isn’t science itself a heretical process, Galileo,
Newton and Einstein undermining commonly
held beliefs, imagining new universal laws
regarding the motion of things, at odds with
Aristotle and the church?
““Subtitle: For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic. David’s originally proposed title was ‘Climate Heretic’, and hence the title of this post. In case you are unaware of Part I of the Climate Heretic saga, see this previous post from 2010 ” – JC
Vital context – Judith was never “branded a heretic” by any scientific colleagues. That’s just the title of the story that a journalist decided to run with.
Though clearly, Judith loves the idea of being “branded a heretic” and refers to it as often s possible.”
################################
I wish people who believe in AGW would stop being so dense.
1. The article claims that “Subtitle: For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic. ”
A) note the passive voice. the article does not state who branded her
this way
B) the heretic moniker was first used in 2010. As the article stated
“But over the past year or so she has become better known for something that annoys, even infuriates, many of her scientific colleagues. Curry has been engaging actively with the climate change skeptic community, largely by participating on outsider blogs such as Climate Audit, the Air Vent and the Black¬board.”
2. Arguing that No scientific collegues branded her as a heretic is rather dense.
A) we all KNOW THAT.. we all KNOW that the writer of the article did the
Branding.
B) At the time people Argued whether or not this branding was correct.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/24/pielke-sr-defends-judith-curry-in-sa-heretic-characterization/
C) The real argument is this. Is she being treated as a heretic?
and is that wise?
“Some disinterested commentators agree. One is S. Alexander Haslam, an expert in organizational psychology at the University of Exeter in England. The climate community, he says, is engaging in classic black sheep syndrome: members of a group may be annoyed by public criticism from outsiders, but they reserve their greatest anger for insiders who side with outsiders. By treating Curry as a pariah, Haslam says, scientists are only enhancing her reputation as some kind of renegade who speaks truth to power. Even if she is substantially wrong, it is not in the interests of climate scientists to treat Curry as merely an annoyance or a distraction. “I think her criticisms are damaging,” Haslam says. “But in a way, that’s a consequence of failing to acknowledge that all science has these political dynamics.”
3. Does Judith Love being branded a heretic and refer to it as often as possible?
A) does she refer to it as often as Possible? Err No.
B) does she love being branded?
Evidence is split here.
Initially she didnt like the moniker.
on occassion she has embraced it
http://www.thepostathens.com/news/article_0e4b72a2-6956-11e4-8ec1-1f0f7d62cefc.html
But the word does apply to her, IMO:
her·e·tic
ˈherəˌtik/
noun
a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
synonyms: dissenter, nonconformist, apostate, freethinker, iconoclast; More
antonyms: conformist, believer
a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=define+heretic
Yep Jim, heretic does apply.
Neoenvironmentalistic religion. People in fact have died and essentially been burned at the stake for being non adherents, historically speaking of course.
“I wish people who believe in AGW would stop being so dense”
Hmm…
Branding a fellow scientist a “serial disinformer” is worse than branding her a heretic. But we don’t expect little anonymous warmest trolls to get it.
@jim2
I find this definition of heretic much more reasonable in this case:
Here is Wikipedia´s definition of heretic:
“Heresy is any provocative belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs. A heretic is a proponent of such claims or beliefs.
Heresy is distinct from both apostasy, which is the explicit renunciation of
one’s religion, principles or cause, and blasphemy, which is irreverence toward religion.”
I was going to say something snarky about Mosher’s AGW believers and dense comment but I’m in a charitable mood with the Detroit Lions leading 45-7 and having one of their better Thanksgiving Day games since their drubbing of the Packers in 1962. Now the only question is which
will occur first- the Lions in the Super Bowl or Al Gore’s house being covered with glacial material.
The house is a goner. I watched the 1962 game.
can any of you follow an argument?
even when I number his claims you cannot stay on track.
Steven Mosher,
Someone wrote that effective English expression should be concise, clear and correct.
My excuse for for ignoring these rules on occasion, is that I have no tertiary English qualifications. What’s your excuse?
Cheers.
Mosher
Are you telling me that the Lions score was not more exciting than what you had to say? Must be a Bears fan.
Michael:
whats your point? that you feel qualified to opine on just what Dr Curry “loves”?
Thanks for defecating on this comment thread repeatedly…
Happy Thanksgiving to everybody, and may the next one be more enjoyable.
Thank you, Professor Curry.
Happy Thanksgiving to all! I recall the crazy days of Thanksgiving 2009, when I spent all weekend writing my
‘Open Letter’ http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/a-climate-scientist-on-climate-skeptics/?_r=0
And remember, Thanksgiving is the holiday where climate alarmists take transcontinental flights to berate their kin about the environmental damage caused by industrial turkey farming.
Their first mistake is assuming there’s a problem.
I was half hoping to run across the student protesters pushing for fossil fuel disinvestment, today when my wife and I walked Stanford campus.
Must have flown / driven home for turkey dinner
That presentation by our government makes me cringe. And to further extend cringeworthy news out of Canada now that the left is in charge, David Suzuki, the great Canadian icon and “environmentalist” of the left, recipient of numerous awards and multiple accolades, has recently compared anyone working in the oil industry as being on the same moral level as anyone who was involved in the slave trade. (http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/david-suzukis-comments-equating-oil-industry-to-slavery-are-ridiculous-brad-wall-says) And yet Suzuki is often referred to as a scientist. Why, I don’t know unless certain people in media and government have no idea what the difference is between a scientist and political ideologue.
Even United Nations have no idea of the difference between science and ideology.
IPCC was heavily biased from the very beginning
“Even” the United Nations? I would say “Especially” the United Nations. UN Watch noted that the UN passed six resolutions condemning Israel, drafted by Syria and the Palestinians this past week. The UN had no resolutions on China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, ISIS, or any other human rights situation. If they are so utterly corrupt, biased and clueless about Human Rights, why should anyone in their right mind think the UN knows anything about science? The UN is a corrupt and totally useless organization that is an embarrassment to humanity and their whole climate change industry is just one more example of it..
The great irony is that by it´t charter, United Nations was supposed to: “achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character”
Now, United Nations has become an international problem of an economic and cultural character.
On the cultural character of the problem:
United Nations were supposed to solve problems of an international cultural character – not to become one!
The economic character of the problem should be evident from the vast amount of resources which is used on United Nations climate theory. Resources which could have been used, within it´s charter, to ease human suffering by known and real causes.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
— Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961
“….The UN is a corrupt and totally useless organization that is an embarrassment to humanity….”
Yep, a rogue’s gallery of thugs out to get their hands on first world money. Funny thing, Israel is a lively democracy with passionate and contentious politics. You don’t see that in the thugoverse.
My favourite photo of Israel is two women on the beach near Tel Aviv, both young and beautiful, both dancing in the surf, one in a full hijab and body covering, the other in a string bikini.
A number of prominent emancipationists kept slaves even as they speechified against slavery. Other emancipation advocates profited outrageously from slave labour with just a degree or two of separation…
And David Suzuki has his jet trails, his four properties (but only one tops 8m), his shares, his money pile and his five children…though, unlike Gaddafi, David gets his all-female bodyguard chucked in for free when doing speaking engagements.
But Suzuki does have an unrehearsed common touch. When starring at conferences and other gabfests he manages to know less about his subject than the guy passing round the sandwiches.
And all done with the rambling incoherence of a drunken sailor at shore-leave’s end! No wonder the common urban greenies and grass-roots activists love the guy. But for the millions, he could be one of them.
Best description I have read of the man to date.
Dear Dr. Curry — I thought that only Kim was allowed to use words that most people have to look up — such as “Manichean”.
——
Thank you for all you do. Happy Thanksgiving.
“,,,there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do.”
Ah ha. When one follows the money backwards, that is how scammers, con-artists, fraudsters and other criminal enterprises are identified and prosecuted. The Chicago gangster Al Capone was imprisoned, not for murder or loan sharking but income tax evasion.
In this modern world of climatology, about to have its moment of ecstasy at taxpayers expense amongst the red light districts off the Champs Elysees, the exchange of money for indulgences will take place. The money comes from the same place where research grants are reviewed by the select few, doled out by sympathetic bureaucrats for papers that mimic the views articulated by the highest of high leaders. The money is also available to support NGO’s that implement and finance the faithful.
Not being a member of the faithful then leaves little resources to be received from the official and sanctioned treasury. Such has become the process of science funding with reaches into academia and the private sector research institutes.
Hope springs eternal I guess that in 15 years the tide will have changed by several cycles of government policy. However, as long as there is a Civil Service and a Public Sector Service Workers Union that can protect sympathetic bureaucrats, the change in funding will occur, just as the paradigms in science change, one funeral at a time.
I am in moderation. Two times in one week? Am I saying bad things or just using bad words?
Perfect.
You forget how they make donations to the political party that pays them.
There is nothing that captures better the essence of what Judith is doing than say, to paraphrase, I am standing up for science.
Whenever she is accused of advocacy, I have always thought this was the centerpiece of her thought process and actions. Being accused of advocating for such a principle should be universally viewed as a badge of honor.
In 2030 I think it will be.
Curry has been reluctant to stray too far from the views of the climate establishment CAGW herd. The reality is that the earth has just passed a millennial cycle temperature peak ( about 2003) and the general trend will be down until about 2650.This exchange with professor Freeman Dyson summarizes the current situation
E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page
Houston
Professor Dyson
Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
Best Regards
Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,
Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.
Email 4/9/15
Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
> Best Regards Norman Page
E-Mail 4/9/15
Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
for asking. Yours, Freeman Dysone situation.
So, Dr. Curry is not heretic enough for your taste. Instead of lurking on the outskirts of the consensus herd, she should have nailed down 2003 as the peak of a millennial cycle temperature peak. It’s reality.
Now we have proof that Freeman Dyson is senile. Good work, Norm.
Since Dyson is in fact in very good shape – where does that leave you ?
Just check the data and discussion linked in the exchange.
Don,
There is putting ones foot in ones mouth and then there is stepping on ones crank.
Which do you think you just did?
The article raises an interesting quandary for the low-sensitivity skeptics regarding the INDCs and the 2 C limit. On the one hand using the IPCCs central estimates the INDCs won’t work in keeping the temperatures below 2 C, unless stronger reductions occur through the rest of the century, but with a low-ball sensitivity, the INDCs have a much better chance of working. Yet, the skeptics still oppose the INDC policies to restrict temperature increases despite their chance of working according to their own numbers. Nothing in the article says what Judith wants instead of INDCs except this idea of stopping the UN doing anything and just focusing on “more research” before even starting on a policy, as though that “research” will yield a different result rather than just repeating all the research and conclusions so far. All that is achieved by that route is a delay in a time-critical policy issue.
Let’s review –
The US came pretty close to meetings it’s Kyoto targets by free market forces without entering into a binding treaty or placing massive burdens on our industry. Someone figured out how to extract and deliver natural gas to much of the country for less then the price of coal.
To meet the ‘end of century’ IPCC targets someone is going to have to figure out how to build and deploy nuclear for less then the price of coal or natural gas.
The IPCC and it’s pals in the enviromental movement are not going to be able to figure out ‘cheap nuclear’…all they can do is come up with a plan to ‘share the pain’ if no one figures out cheap nuclear. Every UN plan to ‘share the pain’ has always been ‘make the US pay’.
The Gen IV Nuclear Initiative is working on cheap nuclear.
Nuclear is part of the answer. In Europe, France, which is largely nuclear, backs up both Germany and the UK, when their power supply falls short, and ideally those countries would have their own backups, nuclear or otherwise. Energy storage or biomass backups for renewables and carbon sequestration technologies for fossil fuels offer ways forwards too, and perhaps long-range transmission can be improved too. There are many ways apart from nuclear and, just as today, it will be a mix depending where you are more than anything rather than any single solution, which is why nationally self-determined INDCs and the state-level self-determined approach of the EPA’s CPP make the most sense.
ideally those countries would have their own backups, nuclear or otherwise.
You cant’ have nuclear backing up nuclear –
France needs it’s neighbors to have fossil fuels because at night, it has excess nuclear generated capacity.
Jim D: but with a low-ball sensitivity, the INDCs have a much better chance of working.
With a low-ball sensitivity, the INDCs have a much better chance of being completely unnecessary, hence a waste of time, energy, money and manpower.
That’s where you are making the separate judgement that larger than 2 C is OK, because continuing emissions, even with low sensitivities gets us through at least 1.5 times a CO2 doubling by 2100, so this is up about 2.5 C. So you have two big assumptions rolled together in the no-policy opinion.
Jim D: but with a low-ball sensitivity, the INDCs have a much better chance of working.
Jim D: continuing emissions, even with low sensitivities gets us through at least 1.5 times a CO2 doubling by 2100, so this is up about 2.5 C.,
I disagree. I am taking the situation now as beneficial (compared to 1880), and not agreeing with any claim that 1.5 times doubling from the current concentration will occur by 2100. 1.5 times doubling from 400 gives a concentration of 1000 or 1200 (1.5 times doubling could be 1.5 factor after doubling to 800, or 1.5 times 400 added in.) If sensitivity is in the “low ball park”, the INDC pledges are worthless, and costly if actually enacted.
I mean 1.5 times a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, so it would be 600-700 ppm or 6 W/m2 by 2100, and even low sensitivities give 2.5 C for that. If Tol is right, 1 C, where we are now, is at the peak of “beneficial” and it is all downhill from here. Better to minimize damage in that case.
Exactly Jim D, any way you look at it, trying to control the outdoor temperature with greenhouse gases is stupid.
Why would we even want to control outdoor temps over such long time scales?
Exactly, aaron, near-term mitigation is the way to go. Adaptation over longer time scales costs so much more.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 4:53 pm |
I mean 1.5 times a doubling of pre-industrial CO2, so it would be 600-700 ppm or 6 W/m2 by 2100, and even low sensitivities give 2.5 C for that.
The problem with this is we are running out of rainforest. Indonesia’s is almost gone. Once the rainforest burning stop the CO2 emissions drop 10% and the absorption (since we aren’t burning up carbon sinks) increases. The flattening of the emissions increases (which is currently happening) also attenuates the rise in CO2 since the rise in absorption doesn’t attenuate proportionally.
About the only way to hit 600 PPM is massive uncontrolled fires in the temperate zone or nuclear war. Nuclear war – which reduces emissions long term and raises CO2 short term – but nuclear war also increases aerosols and by the time they decline so does the CO2.
But good luck with that. If I can figure out a way to hit 600 PPM without toasting all the vegetation like a marshmallow I’ll get back to you.
@Jim D:
No Richard Tol thinks around 2C from pre industrialof which we are at about 0.8. As we get closer to 2 C the benefits and disadvantages converge and then beyond that it is net harm.
Jim D: If Tol is right, 1 C, where we are now, is at the peak of “beneficial” and it is all downhill from here.
Do you agree that where we are now is the peak of beneficial?
So far I haven’t seen net beneficial. Perhaps we missed it.
Jim D: So far I haven’t seen net beneficial. Perhaps we missed it.
So you disagree with Richard Tol, whom you cited.
Yes, I don’t think you can put a number on this type of thing. How you quantify “beneficial” depends how you weight impacts on various populations globally. If 10 people die, but 100 people get more food, is that good or bad. To me, this “beneficial” stuff is in the eye of the beholder.
Jim D | November 27, 2015 at 11:04 pm |
So far I haven’t seen net beneficial. Perhaps we missed it.
I guess you are just uniformed.
As I’ve mentioned mentioned before, the global warming warming program (the other $20 Billion) should be terminated and the science program $ 2.54 billion turned over to studying just the benefits of CO2 and measuring the increase in plant growth and estimating the yearly benefit to within a few percent. They should apply the global warming harm rules and include even the most ethereal benefits and grossly overestimate any real benefit. This would allow the benefit and harm estimates to be compared on a dollar for dollar basis.
The NASA portion of the $2.54 climate science is $ 1.5 billion. Most of that is satellites which should be dedicated to measuring plant growth increases, coming up with large estimates of the increase in ice sheet volume in Antarctica, and estimating static or low growth in Greenland. Basically the inverse of the current lying.
If the current algorithms don’t show ice growth in Antarctica and Greenland they should be rewritten so they do.
Grant recipients that returned studies showing no or little plant growth or benefit would effectively be debarred from further participation. Pretty much the same as happens with harm studies today.
The NASA computer systems for global climate modeling should be turned over to NOAA so they can do half-way decent forecasting and some time reserved for skeptics to do climate modeling. The existing NASA climate modelers should be furloughed without pay. The existing GCM models and data would be maintained/used by skeptics. The skeptics would be challenged to reproduce the 20th century climate record with a 1°C TSR.
After 5 years of studying the plant growth and monetizing the value to humanity we will be able to make cost/benefit decisions on CO2.
The current state of information is the common estimate that there was a 50% growth increase in the 20th century. CSIRO did a satellite survey that indicated an 11% increase in growth from 1982 to 2010 which was twice what their models predicted and would support something in the 50% range for the 20th century.
Given that there has been an estimated+measured 60% increase in plant growth since 1900, claiming that CO2 and warmth haven’t been beneficial is either ignorant or dishonest.
After 5 years in a benefit study only regime with zero to negative funding to study CO2 harm the direction of the climate program and the state of the science can be reassessed.
PA, since the Republicans want to stop NASA from using their satellites to look at earth, and just focus on Mars or something else, you need to make a case for this. Watching plants grow is very important to their case.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/republicans-outraged-over-nasa-earth-science-programs-that-reagan-began/
Jim D: Yes, I don’t think you can put a number on this type of thing. How you quantify “beneficial” depends how you weight impacts on various populations globally.
So your reference to Richard Tol was pointless.
I quote Tol because skeptics listen to his kind of economics and when two skeptics disagree it is interesting to see which side the others take. Based only his 1 C peak value, I would guess most skeptics have now dumped Tol and his economics model, and are actively looking for someone with a higher value that they would prefer to be true. It’s an interesting process to watch.
But Jim, he doesn’t have a 1C peak value. And I haven’t heard skeptics disagree on this point. Skeptics generally make the point that there are benefits as well as harm to increasing temperatures and for the warming we have see and may well see more of, the effects are a net benefit.
Richard Tol says the value is about 2.2C above preindustrial. We have had 0.8 C, so there is about 1.4 C to go. And that is irrespective of whether the heating is anthropogenic or not.
Jim D: Yes, I don’t think you can put a number on this type of thing. How you quantify “beneficial” depends how you weight impacts on various populations globally.
How you quantify “harmful” depends on the same factors as how you quantify “beneficial”. There has been net benefit if, when you look at the history in reverse order, the change from 2015 to 1880 produces net harm.
Jim D: Based only his 1 C peak value, I would guess most skeptics have now dumped Tol and his economics model, and are actively looking for someone with a higher value that they would prefer to be true.
You do a lot of guessing.
Jim D: I quote Tol because skeptics listen to his kind of economics and when two skeptics disagree it is interesting to see which side the others take.
No, you did not quote Tol. You put a number by his name, with no quotation or citation. I have noticed before that you make up a lot of stuff. Did you make that up as well, or is there a citation?
MM, OK, maybe you were not aware that I was referencing what Tol said in the BBC interview with Roger Harrabin, that Harrabin compared and contrasted with an assertion made by another skeptic.
Sensitivities are low because that’s what we observe and demographics indicate further slowdown, not because of low sensitivity, but because of decreasing emissions.
The best observational fits between CO2 and temperature are 2+ C per doubling. Emissions per capita and population are still both rising. The hoped-for policies are aimed at reducing emissions per capita, because that won’t happen by itself. You have to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and nowadays this important fact is at least being realized.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 4:18 pm |:
“The best observational fits between CO2 and temperature are 2+ C per doubling.”
No they’re not. It is unlikely to be as high as unity.
Without water vapour feedback – and all three analyses – Vonder Haaar, Humlum and Solomon et al – of NASA’s NVAP data show there is none, the whole high sensitivity water vapour feedback driven catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is dead in the water.
Live with it.
If these line up, it is over 2 C per doubling (1 C per 100 ppm) based on the last 60 years of CO2 measurements. Scientists say this will hold. Skeptics say it won’t, but the data is not helping them so far. The hoped-for pause due to 1998 didn’t materialize.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 8:17 pm |
If these line up, it is over 2 C per doubling (1 C per 100 ppm) based on the last 60 years of CO2 measurements.
No, just no.
http://s9.postimg.org/recefss1b/CO2_Forcing_at_SPRC_Feldman_2014.png
The IPCC direct forcing is 45-50% higher than the measured forcing. We will use 45% since we are feeling generous..
The measured forcing should actually be compared to the TSR which is 2x the direct forcing.
So the IPCC forcing estimate is 45% (DF) to 290% (TSR) too high.
And even the GISS temperature curve with 0.25°C of CGAGW is tapering off.
And the near linear rise in co2 level is driven by exponential emissions increases which are ending.
The real question should be when the temperature is going to plateau because it is increasingly obvious it is going to plateau. And that ends the sea level rise issue which is primarily steric.
PA,
According to the paper the Feldman result is for surface forcing while the theoretical calculation is for TOA forcing. Not the same thing. Surface forcing from CO2 is expected to be considerably smaller than TOA forcing.
The best observational fits between CO2 and temperature are 2+ C per doubling. Emissions per capita and population are still both rising. The hoped-for policies are aimed at reducing emissions per capita, because that won’t happen by itself. You have to leave fossil fuels in the ground, and nowadays this important fact is at least being realized.
Observational fit is of 1.6 C per doubling.
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/TCR.png
Global emissions per capita are rising but very slowly.
In the US per capita emissions have been falling for forty years and are likely to continue falling, even without government meddling:
http://www.krusekronicle.com/.a/6a00d83451b14d69e2017eea794549970d-450wi?type=.png
And global population will follow declining fertility rates.
TE, since you are using total GHGs without aerosols, your value of 1.6 is just a lower limit, and aerosols could easily bring that up to 2 C per doubling, and that is just TCR with ECS being up to 50% larger. This graphic does a lot to disprove low-ball ECS values.
TE, since you are using total GHGs without aerosols, your value of 1.6 is just a lower limit, and aerosols could easily bring that up to 2 C per doubling, and that is just TCR with ECS being up to 50% larger. This graphic does a lot to disprove low-ball ECS values.
Well, you can make up whatever you want to about aerosols.
The last IPCC reduced aerosol influence significantly.
But, more significantly, aerosols and CO2 are likely to move in tandem.
So I don’t think you can make up scenarios beyond what we observe.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 4:18 pm |
The best observational fits between CO2 and temperature are 2+ C per doubling.
paulski0 | November 27, 2015 at 2:48 pm |
PA,
According to the paper the Feldman result is for surface forcing while the theoretical calculation is for TOA forcing. Not the same thing. Surface forcing from CO2 is expected to be considerably smaller than TOA forcing.
The IPCC forcing estimate is 45% (DF) to 290% (TSR) too high.
The 0.2 W/m2 of forcing in 11 years is the likely maximum for the remainder of the century. Just for grins we will compute it until 2100:
0.2 * ln (570/400)/ln (392/370) = 1.23 w/m2 in 2100
You can do your dancing on this all you want. You don’t have an equatorial hot spot, you don’t satellite or radiosonde data to indicate any upper atmospheric warming. Further it is really hard to make the case CO2 GHGing is more than a surface effect (lower 450 meters) and that is the only place the effect is observed.
The self absorption and atmospheric self-radiation both decrease rapidly with altitude.
The TSR is in the oney range. Not a chance in hell that it is two. It might get to Dr. Curry’s 1.33 but that doesn’t look likely. Since the CO2 levels aren’t going to be much above 400 PPM on century time scale the ECS is irrelevant.
Either prove the upper atmosphere is warming or concede that the TSR (and the warming sensitivity) is around 1.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 8:17 pm |
“it is over 2 C per doubling (1 C per 100 ppm)”
So you are now claiming that the heat delaying effect of CO2 on heat transfer to space is linearly related to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, correct?
Dear me, you don’t even understand the concept of a logarithmic relationship, do you?
No – according to that post – the concept of climate sensitivity being related to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, ie each doubling of CO2 concentration produces the same increase in surface temperature.
Clearly, that leads to the temperature curve approaching the asymptote, hence the effect becomes saturated.
You are clueless…
In this range it is roughly linear as you can see from the plot. In a small enough range a log is approximated by a line, but this gradient corresponds to 2.4 C per doubling which is where the log function comes in as an estimate based on its average gradient over the last 60 years.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“In this range it is roughly linear as you can see from the plot. In a small enough range a log is approximated by a line, but this gradient corresponds to 2.4 C per doubling which is where the log function comes in as an estimate based on its average gradient over the last 60 years.”
Don’t you think it would be better to confirm the wild Warmist guesses by simple experiment? The magical warming properties of CO2 should be able to be easily demonstrated by even the most cloth eared substandard climate scientist, I assume.
It’s supposed to be physics, after all.
Cheers.
The peak backward looking trend is 1.7C per century ( 1974 throuh 2014 ). Trends have fallen since that time indicating a deceleration of warming, which makes sense given that rates of radiative forcing have been declining since the 1970s also.
Jim D is correct about a number of things, but he can’t seem to accept:
1. Warming is less than GISS & IPCC have declared, and
2. Warming is not accelerating, but is decelerating
MF, yes, the results of the experiment are in and here they are. The hypothesis was that the temperature and CO2 should line up like this for over 2 C per doubling, and for the last 60 years that hypothesis has stood up to the experiment, which continues.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:12/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25
2. Warming is not accelerating, but is decelerating… – TE
But the deceleration is rapidly decelerating… meaning resumed acceleration and a run up back to .18C is not far away.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“MF, yes, the results of the experiment are in and here they are. The hypothesis was that the temperature and CO2 should line up like this for over 2 C per doubling, and for the last 60 years that hypothesis has stood up to the experiment, which continues.”
Actually, I was talking about a completed experiment, which could be reproduced, and gave reproducible values, to the limit of precision in metrological terms.
When your experiment has been finalised, and the results confirmed, I might pay attention. So far, all you have is another Warmist denier fantasy.
Cheers.
MF, so you mean instead of using the real earth for the experiment we use a model or something? Be specific.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“MF, so you mean instead of using the real earth for the experiment we use a model or something? Be specific.”
If you do not understand the meaning of science, or experiment, I understand. Warmists prefer fantasy to reality.
A simple physical experiment to show the ability to raise the temperature of a body simply by wrapping it in CO2 would do. I am aware that Warmist pseudo scientists refer to outputs of their amateur toy computer programs as “experiments”.
Any real scientist treats such foolish posers with the derision they so richly deserve. You may be confusing correlation with causation, and deluding yourself that this is an “experiment”. Experimental results show that CO2 has many physical properties. Miraculous warming is strangely absent – mainly because it doesn’t exist.
Stick with your trivial toy computer models if it gives you solace. It’s a cheap way to escape reality, I guess. The Government obviously doesn’t mind stumping up billions for something that has demonstrated a complete lack of utility, apart from providing amusement for many. Enjoy it while it lasts. I would.
Cheers.
MF, the good thing about taking the real earth experiment results is that you can verify the role of CO2 by looking at the IR spectra from the surface and space, and these also agree with the hypothesis, showing that CO2 is a major player in setting the temperature.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“MF, the good thing about taking the real earth experiment results is that you can verify the role of CO2 by looking at the IR spectra from the surface and space, and these also agree with the hypothesis, showing that CO2 is a major player in setting the temperature.”
Complete nonsense. No experiment at all. You cannot say what the “role” of CO2 is. Just another Warmist denier attempt to avoid admitting that nobody anywhere, anytime, has ever shown how CO2 manages to set the temperature of anything.
You may be unaware that in the absence of an external energy input, all matter, including CO2, will continuously emit radiation until it reaches absolute zero (or very close it, at least). CO2 cannot even warm itself, let alone anything else. I suspect you will now twist yourself in knots, pretending that physical laws relating emitted EMR wavelengths to temperature, don’t actually apply in the real world. Amateur toy climatological models apparently trump fact!
Typical Warmist denier fare. You don’t accept reality, so you substitute your own. Show a real experiment. Warm something using the magical power of CO2? What a joke! At least it keeps everybody laughing.
Cheers.
You may be unaware that in the absence of an external energy input, all matter, including attic insulation, will continuously emit radiation until it reaches absolute zero (or very close it, at least). attic insulation cannot even warm itself, let alone anything else.
MF, it is just real world observations explainable by known science. It may still be a headscratcher for you and your ilk, but everyone else has moved on because there are bigger problems.
Jim D,
You wrote –
“MF, it is just real world observations explainable by known science. It may still be a headscratcher for you and your ilk, but everyone else has moved on because there are bigger problems.”
More Warmist WeaselWord Waffling. There are bigger problems? Bigger than non existent CO2 induced global warming? Maybe halitosis, or dandruff. Either is more of a problem than global warming, according to you.
I agree. You win.
Cheers.
“It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.” — David Rose
“What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.”
Actually what’s more troubling is that JC says that she is neither a warmist nor a skeptic in terms of data. She always points out that uncertainty can lend itself to lower bounds and upper bounds (paraphrasing).
But he does go on …
“In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their ‘intentional nationally determined contributions’, to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the ‘dangerous’ threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise.
Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn’t. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.”
… “because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.”
4.5°C Oh My!
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02398/drought_2398818b.jpg
Oh IPCC, here’s grounds fer heresy..
https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-models-vs-observations-annotated.png
More shape-shifting basis for heresy, Michael’Mann’s
algorithim applied to a controversial set of tree-ring
records that the publishing scientists ( Graybill and
Idso,1993 ) warned should not be used for temperature
reconstruction.
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf
https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/judith-curry-climate-changes-rorschach-test/
CNBC has busily been serving up apostle soup:
2015 to be hottest year on record…until next year: WMO
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/25/2015-to-be-hottest-year-on-recorduntil-next-year-wmo.html
2015 to be the warmest year on record: UN
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/25/2015-to-be-the-warmest-year-on-record-un.html
World Bank: $16 billion needed to fight climate change in Africa
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/26/world-bank-16-billion-needed-to-fight-climate-change-in-africa.html
jim2
“World Bank: $16 billion needed to fight climate change in Africa”
Slush fund to be robbed by politicians and their cronies.
The Republicans also don’t want to give $3 billion to the Green Clmate Fund for poor countries. So much for caring about their resilience and adaptation – the Republicans don’t. Some are looking to shut down the US government over this – no surprise there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-obama-climate-summit_5654d95ae4b0d4093a599b89?utm_hp_ref=climate-change
Compare the Pope to the Republicans today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-paris-climate-talks_5657259fe4b072e9d1c1d2e9?utm_hp_ref=climate-change
That’s the Greenie Climate Fund for the care and feeding of third-world dictators. They need to be bribed to pretend that AGW is he biggest threat to mankind. In the countries they rule, they are the real and present danger to their citizens.
Finally, a pathetic progressive peronista pope that is useful to the huffpo crowd.
It’s tough to do resilience and adaptation without money, Don. If you don’t trust them, do matching funds and loans, send in workers. There are ways.
We have already poured too many billions into third-world to be eaten by dictators , yimmy. The people need freedom from oppression, not freaking adaptation.
So, Don, your answer is let them starve and suffer until the leadership changes? And, anyway, not all poor countries are ruled by dictators,
You have very nasty habit of putting ugly words in other people’s mouths, yoey. My answer is to use the power of the greatest and most beneficent nation in the history of the earth to knock the crap out of vicious dictators, wherever they live. That is opposite to subsidizing and legitimizing them. Are we clear now, yoey.
Sorry, Joseph, but it’s not the job of the US to fix all the problems of the world.
The Republicans are not deluded – they know the money will be, at best, poorly used or, at worst, stolen.
So, you think they know better than the UN and Pope, yet they can’t figure out the ship and buoy thermometer stuff.
Endless war and occupations until things get straightened out, eh? I bet that is going to cost significantly more than the aid we send there on a yearly basis. Not to mention the numerous lives of our troops we would lose in the process. But who cares about them. Are you going to volunteer, Don? And when we do leave eventually that doesn’t mean they aren’t going to still need aid or it will fix things. Other than that I don’t know how else we could use our power to effect that kind of change. And you seem to have forgot about the part about not all of these countries are ruled by dictators.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 3:50 pm | Reply
The Republicans also don’t want to give $3 billion to the Green Clmate Fund for poor countries. So much for caring about their resilience and adaptation – the Republicans don’t.
Well, no that is backward.
Guilt payments to 3rd world countries are dumb use of resources.
The fact that the climatatistas want to make guilt payments with other people’s money is par for the course.
The bible is quite clear that buying “good deeds” (and we are referring to them as good deeds just for the sake of argument) with other people’s money doesn’t get you any brownie points. The climatatistas should feel just as guilty after the proposed sin payment as they did before.
If the climatatistas were honest (a big if in their case) they would spend their own money for guilt payments.
However most scholarship on indulgences is fairly negative. But at least they will have done something.
So the Republicans don’t want to waste money just to make a few neurotics feel good. Well, good for the Republicans. I frequently believe no one in government has any brains or common sense and am delighted on the rare occasions where there are indications I might be wrong.
Claiming the Republicans don’t care is rather silly. The Republicans do care about their fiduciary duty not to waste taxpayer money.
The Pope has a somewhat responsible view that understands that climate change hits the poor the most and that climate change and poverty are inseparable. Likewise, the UN closely ties its battle against global poverty and for sustainability in vulnerable communities to climate change impacts that may reverse the progress they have made so far. Republicans have other ways to prioritize, and it is in keeping with their moral values that its everyone for themselves, and perhaps they will put a dollar in the church donation box to reduce their guilt about doing nothing.
I have done way more than my share of the fighting and the bleeding, yoey. That’s what soldiers do.
I won’t waste my valuable time debating serious issues with clueless anonymous clowns. Just think about what life on this planet would be like without American power.
It seems that little yimmy has recently converted to peronista catholicism. The huffpo drones love this pernicious peronista pope.
I am not religious, but what the Pope has is called Christian values. You may want to look into it.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 11:25 pm |
I am not religious, but what the Pope has is called Christian values. You may want to look into it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence
Buy your way to heaven has a track record.
He is a nice guy but as a protestant I disagree with his theology (95 theses worth).
The pope has peronista values, yimmy. Look it up.
Jim D,
Do you attend Mass regularly? I don’t propose to speak on what is on the Pope’s mind, but it is fairly clear to Catholics that the Holy Father is focused on improving the quality of life of the poorest of God’s children. The recent encyclic made that clear. It should also be obvious that Pope Francis has little to none in the way of science background or understanding. He deferred to advisors. All one need do is look at who those were. What is surprising to me is that he failed to notice that many of those he sought advice from also believe in the concept of the earth having limited carrying capacity. In other words a belief directly contrary to church doctrine.
I can see that his concerns match those of the UNDP that fights poverty with some success. These people know the livelihoods in vulnerable areas, having worked there, and they can see how climate change at their regional locations will affect them in real terms, whether it is sea-level, temperatures, fresh water supply, food, pests and diseases, wildfires, extended droughts, worse storms, etc.
jim2 | November 26, 2015 at 12:37 pm | Reply
CNBC has busily been serving up apostle soup:
I don’t believe that they can adjust up 2016 to be a record.
2017 might take extreme measures to keep out of the 20th century temperature range.
“I was tossed out of the tribe”. I think Judith tossed herself out of this so-called tribe by accusing everyone else of being cultish or tribal, having groupthink, religiously indoctrinated, politically or economically motivated, etc., with none the 97% capable of coming to their own honestly held conclusions on the reality of the magnitude of the AGW effect. Nor are the mainstream allowed to criticize skeptical arguments without being accused of suppression. Judith, in her op-eds, has shown,as far as I can tell, no respect for any mainstream scientist and their views if they are within the consensus, and is more likely to criticize them all under names like groupthink. Outside of op-eds she has had positive things to say about Jon Nielsen-Gammon, Tamsin Edwards, and maybe Isaac Held, whose blogs she links to, but this is just too rare, and I am sure they don’t like their views being categorized in dismissive terms such as being just a religion, or only convenient for job security, as though they are incapable of having their own thoughts on the topic, especially if it agrees with the scientific mainstream.
Very good Jim D! Nice character assignation! What a nasty ol’ witch we have to deal with here. Since you are sooo scientifically mainstream perhaps you can tell us why you think she thinks the 97% are unable to have honestly held conclusions on the reality and of the magnitude of the AGW effect when she herself is of that ilk? Left you a big opening there :-)
Terms like groupthink and cult convey that this is how she thinks of the rest, especially if they hold views similar to those expressed in IPCC reports with higher sensitivity numbers than hers. She has a very dim view of climate scientists that she expounds at every opportunity, and it is always in general terms, tarring everyone with the same brush, no exceptions. No wonder they don’t like it. She excommunicates herself with this type of over-generalized language, by perceiving a tribe where in fact there is a wide range of opinions every bit as based on science as she thinks hers is.
Indeed this calls for a nice thanksgiving day celebration:
Ding dong the witch is dead! the witch is dead!! Munchcins, including Jim D, celebrate the demise of the witch!
Just because someone separates themselves from a majority, it doesn’t make them a witch, although the picture with the article is a bit witchy.
This is three days in a row that little yimmy has sunk to a new low. Just how low can the little creepy crawly fella slither? Stay tuned, folks.
And this makes three days in a row that you have made a fact free argument that Jim has sunk to a new low.
Glad you’re paying attention.
Right, Jim, not to mention her allusions to the climate consensus police (whoever they are).
I was referring to Donny boy, Ordvic.
Appeal to consensus is an example of groupthink.
Ideas occur only in an individual brain, not a group or consensus.
We can communicate ideas, but whether or not they are accurate can only be critically evaluated one brain at a time.
When people get lazy and accept an idea without critical thought, that is ‘group-think’.
That’s how we get nonsense like global warming caused Syria, or ‘there will be cannibalism’ or ‘half of all species could go extinct’. People react to their emotions without expending the effort to test ideas.
Donnie, You better get you’re facts straight, you’re being watched!
What’s the problem? Has it been four days in a row? Sometimes it hard to tell when little yimmy has sunk to a new low. He is always hovering near the bottom. And I have the responsibility to do it all by myself. Maybe we should form a technical committee.
But, TE, Curry is applying the “groupthink” label to scientists and I have seen few if any appeal to consensus to justify their position.
TE, I am sure you appeal to consensus on many other areas of science. Do you consider that to be groupthink on your part or just trusting he scientific process?
Some climate scientists are quite happy to let others say there is a 97% consensus and quietly just sit there grinning.
I think Judith tossed herself out of this so-called tribe by accusing everyone else of being cultish or tribal, having groupthink,
One of the biggest cognitive biases is thinking you don’t have a cognitive bias. Where does that put you?
( of course that probably means I’m harboring my own ).
But anyone who indulges the fantasy that the Syria crisis was in any significant way influenced by ‘global warming’ is probably a stark raving lunatic.
Eddy, Eddy, by inference, you’re saying that the next King of England is: ” probably a stark raving lunatic” Off to the Tower.
AUIP
Is there or has there ever been any doubt? Has he ever said or done anything that remotely identifies as coming from a capable human brain? I love the UK and it is difficult to think of him as King.
Richard
What about those of us who think it probably prevented the Syria crisis from being worse?
Jim D: accusing everyone else of being cultish or tribal, having groupthink, religiously indoctrinated, politically or economically motivated, etc., with none the 97% capable of coming to their own honestly held conclusions on the reality of the magnitude of the AGW effect. Nor are the mainstream allowed to criticize skeptical arguments without being accused of suppression.
I have not read anything like that in her writings, that I can recall. Do you have some supportive quotes?
Perhaps you don’t read the types of things she selects as main posts here. It is all psychology on consensus, confirmation bias, groupthink, academic suppression, silencing minority opinions, overconfidence, political and economic motivations of science, etc., general accusations that the scientific community supports and even organizes all this stuff in the name of something never quite specified. It is highly generalized and vague, and is just reeled off based on the latest news items and op-eds. Take any of the last few guest posts that she applauds as examples of this.
Did you miss Zeke and the SkS Kid’s guest post, yimmy? Would Judith be happy to host a post by Gavin Schmidt, or that clown Mann? I bet she would. Do you see any difference at all between Judith’s willingness to engage in constructive discussion as compared to the “debate is over” consensus side, yimmy?
Jim D: Take any of the last few guest posts that she applauds as examples of this.
You made the claim I challenged, you back it up. The quotes are required to clarify your meaning, as well as back it up.
Where, for example, has she claimed that [none of the 97% were capable of coming to their own honestly held conclusions]? Nowhere. Where did she [accuse everyone else of being cultish, etc]? Nowhere. Where did she [deny the right to skeptical arguments without being accused of suppression]? Nowhere.
MM, don’t you get the impression from her op-eds and quotes that she is disparaging the whole of climate science as being in some way unequal to any other field of science, and having to start over from scratch? She claims the APS is making statements based on some internal extremist opinions rather than just going along based on the science itself, same with the IPCC.
Jim D: MM, don’t you get the impression from her op-eds and quotes that she is disparaging the whole of climate science as being in some way unequal to any other field of science, and having to start over from scratch?
I do not get that impression. The impression I get is that you wrote a series of false claims, and you can’t back them up because they are false.
Will you at least give Judith credit for tolerating continuous insults and sniping from little climate alarmist huffpo trolls?
@Jim D
Matthew is quite correct. You cannot support your characterisation of Judith because evidence is not there.
Seriously Jim, I find some of your comments very perplexing, if often very useful for illiciting good responses from other commentators. Judith is a scientist, and science by it’s very nature is skeptical, critical, and questioning. You have been hanging around here long enough to be able to honestly characterise the objections to the consensus view of the climate. You have heard the arguments and seen the evidence – do you seriously, seriously believe there is nothing to object to? That there is nothing to question?
You may still remained convinced of the orthodox view if you feel that it can be rationalised, but how can you possibly claim to be objective when, in the light of the discrepancy between models and observations (for example), you think that these things are not worthy of being questioned?
Or, perhaps you do think they are worthy of being questioned, but they aren’t resolved to conform to your beliefs? If you DO think they are worthy of being questioned, then that suggests that there are uncertainties surrounding their veracity with implications for policy. Or do you think that they are worthy of being questioned, but we shouldn’t question the huge political and economic consequences of getting the science wrong?
So if you do think the science is worthy of questioning, it follows that what to do about that understanding should also be questioned….surely? Do you think Judith would be right to highlight and criticise those who will not tolerate any criticism of the science and by extension the policy?
You can see from the emphasis here, it is about the people, not the papers. Even when a paper is the focus, like Karl’s, it becomes about a conspiracy that Smith should look into rather than whether the increase buoy data really does affect the trend. Even after Zeke’s contribution, there is no concession that Karl could have been right after all. With the APS, it was about their people, that she refers to as activists, when they chose to go with the moderate scientists’ view rather than her wing’s. It’s just a constant drumbeat of attacking what she considers to be a tribal view, driven by politics or funding, rather than just being a majority view derived from the evidence in climate science per se,
“Even when a paper is the focus, like Karl’s, it becomes about a conspiracy that Smith should look into rather than whether the increase buoy data really does affect the trend.’
You consistently lie, yimmy. That’s why you have no credibility. There has been plenty of discussion on whether and how the increase in buoy data affects the trend. And it goes on. Judith posted the freaking story from Zeke and the SkS Kid, didn’t she? Have you seen that thread? Please explain why you are doing here is not trolling.
Don, Zeke’s article supported Karl’s adjustment independently. This is the kind of thing that the thinktanks Judith listens to should be doing, but so far nothing from them on the data.
Jim, instead of responding to my questions you deflect them to another issue.
The point of the Karl et al paper and why it should be criticised is because of the timing and the spin. Of the one hand, the adjustments it made to the temp series were tiny, and on the other it was just enough to allow a slight warming trend to be considered statistically significant.
We have the recent experience of climategate for the whole business surrounding that paper to teach us to be highly suspicious. It’s not irrational or unreasonable. Explain to me why not if you don’t agree.
Considering Judith’s number one priority in all of her blog posting and career direction in climate science is to advocate for greater scientific integrity, you can see clearly (surely you can?) that the issue surrounding this paper, the statistical treatment and the motivation behind should be very critically examined. Due diligence my boy.
Yet, like a good scientist, she still has to be open minded about whether the adjustments are valid. Thus, she would, and did, publish a blog posting arguing that they are so we can examine the scientific arguments and carefully scrutinise them.
Ultimately though, since there is an overwhelming and most unfortunate bias in MSM and from PRS releases from governments world wide, and a tendency towards bias in mainstream climate science, a lot of what Judith is going to post here will be a pushback against that.
It’s truly extraordinary that despite her saying that over and over over the years, you can still characterise what she is doing as some sort of character assassination. Jeez.
matthewrmarler | November 26, 2015 at 6:09 pm |
“The impression I get is that you wrote a series of false claims, and you can’t back them up because they are false.”
Given that I have just pulled Jim D up on a claim that the temperature increase is linearly related to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, you might well say that!
See here: Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 8:17 pm |
If these line up, it is over 2 C per doubling (1 C per 100 ppm)
Jim D’s key phrase – as far as I know
As we all know, the distance that reaches is equal to what a snail covers in 60 seconds.
Sou has termed Judith a ‘denier martyr’ in her latest objective piece of work
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/11/turned-not-tossed-judith-curry-denier.html
Tonyb
Interesting critique of the Rose piece here. Apparently Sou considers the CE denizens are a little more upmarket than those at WUWT. Makes you proud, doesn’t it?
Yes, our monthly subscription to CE is worth every penny if others think of us in such a favourable light.
Tonyb
You would be much happier over there at Souies’ place, yimmy. Birds of a feather. You are an odd duck here. Or should we say buzzard.
Actually it is a zoo over at WUWT. You are fairly lucky that people are permitted to debate without too much hounding here. Having said that WUWT does have a decent piece today by Ferdinand Englebeen on explaining CO2 variations. Salby fans will not be happy.
Jimd
Yes, that is a good article by Ferdinand. You do realise that he is a sceptic, in as much he accepts that human emissions are causing the rise in co2 but that co2 has a very limited effect?
Tonyb
tonyb, yes, I realize that WUWT would likely screen out non-skeptics from posting, so he must be, but he generally keeps to the carbon dioxide in anything he writes about, so I haven’t seen those other views anywhere, even when he has posted here sometimes. He has always been very reasonable.
“tonyb, yes, I realize that WUWT would likely screen out non-skeptics from posting,”
New low alert!
Jim D: I realize that WUWT would likely screen out non-skeptics from posting,
What you “realize” is false. However, posts supporting IPCC claims, for examples of “non-skeptics”, are likely to be critiqued. Almost no actual proposition goes unchallenged, and certainly personal attacks do not go unchallenged.
I mean main posts like Englebeen’s. WUWT’s guest bloggers are always skeptics as far as I can tell.
You accused Anthony of screening out non-skeptic posts, yimmy. Do you know of any non-skeptic posts that have been submitted that were not posted? Englebeen’s post is non-skeptical on the central issue of human caused CO2 increases. Do you think that Anthony would screen out a post by Gavin Schmidt, or that clown Mann? I bet he would be happy to post it.
I don’t think Mann or Schmidt would be particularly interested in posting at WUWT. They would get nothing for their efforts but abuse. Look at what happened to Lovejoy when he posted here. He might have expected a rational debate on a statistical study of temperature records, but a debate it was not. Word gets around about how the “debate” is handled on these blogs, and it ain’t pretty.
So, you admit that Anthony is not screening out non-skeptics. Thank you for being inadvertently honest, yimmy. You do slip up now and then.
Don, main postings at WUWT are obviously screened by Watts. However, even posting Englebeen’s article without comment has tacitly thrown Salby under the bus, which is a step in the right direction, and why I was encouraged by this article being put up there.
The real reason why the consensus crowd wan’t engage with skeptics:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/559-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/559-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis
Schmidt et al. got their clock cleaned in front of a sympathetic NPR crowd. No more debates, after this debacle. Click on results.
The problem with live debates is you can make stuff up and the audience can’t fact-check. See Trump. This does not work for science.
“Don, main postings at WUWT are obviously screened by Watts.”
More dishonesty, yimmy. Show us some evidence for Anthony screening out non-skeptic posts, or STFU. You are really pathetic.
OK, point to a main WUWT post written for them by a non-skeptic. Apparently Englebeen is a skeptic, but that is only according to tonyb. Maybe you disagree with him.
Don
Anthony does little screening and does not always agree with the articles posted. A number of people are provided with the means to post articles without reference to Anthony and they have comprised probably the majority of the articles posted there the last fewmonths.
I met with Anthony in Bristol when he was over here last year, the day after his meal with Richard betts and Nic Lewis. I know he was very effected by the opportunity of being a Conduit for dialogue between sceptics and warmists.
It hasn’t turned out that way though. I think since winning his various blog awards that the audience has changed and whilst many are knowledgeable there is a good proportion that seem quite right wing and less interested in an open discussion.
Personally I value people like jch and you to ensure we don’t end up simgimg from the same hymn sheet here at CE . By the way, what do you fear about long temperature records? I don’t think I saw yOu commenting on my article yesterday
Tonyb
Jimd
I have actually had the benefit of meeting with Ferdinand when he was over here in he UK .
We went to a conference held at Southampton university to a talk given by dr Iain Stewart who present climate wars on tv. We both asked questions of him in the following session. We then went for a drink, so I do know his views which were reinforced when he went to Greenland a few years ago and saw the Viking remains.
The climate has been this way before and it would greatly help the scientific discussion if we stopped this charade that today’s climate and weather events are unprecedented.
Tonyb
tonyb, I don’t think anyone is denying that periods in regions like Greenland have been as warm before, but the trajectory we are on with 1 C globally already and several more times than that to come within a century is an unprecedented rate and magnitude, along with the faster rising sea levels that will threaten coastal communities and cities. The past is no guide to this future trajectory.
Jimd
A large part of the argument is that today’s climate is unique when clearly it is not. The physics case needs to be made much better instead of relying on people just accepting that today’s climate is the worst ever.
Tonyb
It’s more about what the climate of 2100 will be like. If today is just starting to push the limits, 2100 is beyond them.
Argument by assertion of unsupported opinion.
Sure, maybe you can read what the people who study this for the World Bank or UN say about future climate effects with either indifference or disbelief and denial of any of that being even possible, or maybe you stay away from reading those reports. It is hard to tell.
Jim D: “Sure, maybe you can read what the people who study this for the World Bank or UN say about future climate effects…”
Crass, even by your astonishingly high standards.
That would be the World Bank that utterly failed to predict the economic crash of 2008 would it?
As for the UN, there’s a reason why it is commonly referred to as the ‘Useless Nonentity’.
See if you can guess what it is…
catw, I noticed your posts often get deleted due to containing complete nonsense, so I won’t even bother.
“catw, I noticed your posts often get deleted due to containing complete nonsense, so I won’t even bother.”
Thank you for admitting you have no answer to that.
Why should anybody care what people like that say? They’re engaging in propaganda supported by cherry-picked “science” for the sake of a political agenda. Nothing to do with real science.
Climate Etc never seems to have posts on impacts, either. Some mentions of adaptation, but nothing on what needs to be adapted to. It certainly is a gap here.
Jim D: I mean main posts like Englebeen’s.
Thanks for the clarification.
Jimd
Having been reading up on 13th century Britain for my next article i can confirm that Today’s weather is not anywhere near ‘pushing the limits’.
Tonyb
There are parts of the world where the locals will disagree with you.
climatereason | November 26, 2015 at 3:50 pm |
Jimd
Yes, that is a good article by Ferdinand. You do realise that he is a sceptic, in as much he accepts that human emissions are causing the rise in co2 but that co2 has a very limited effect?
Tonyb
This “emissions are causing the CO2 rise” is partially wrong.
https://i.imgur.com/9RBCG9X.png
The climb to 316 happened with virtual no emissions help. It wasn’t until 1951 (when the curve starts up again at about 60 GT of emissions) that emissions clearly have any impact on the CO2 level. The CO2 level was 276 in 1751.
So arguably 30-50 PPM of the CO2 rise is due to ocean heating or other influences.
Not sure what you are saying. It is easy to justify from its growth rate that about 1/4 of all emissions occurred prior to 1950, and would account for the fact that 30 ppm which is 1/4 of the CO2 rise was also before 1950.
jimd
but those other parts of the world don’t have records back to the 13th century do they? Humanity tends to think climate is what happens in their own lifetime.
tonyb
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 7:30 pm |
Not sure what you are saying. It is easy to justify from its growth rate that about 1/4 of all emissions occurred prior to 1950, and would account for the fact that 30 ppm which is 1/4 of the CO2 rise was also before 1950.
From 1940 to 1950 the CO2 level declined in the face of increasing emissions. Emissions in the 40s were about 50% higher than emissions in the 30s.
I guess more emissions lower the CO2 level some of the time.
Emissions certainly reduced in wartime as it does during recessions. CO2 levels were not well enough measured, but I have not see anyone suggest that the CO2 level went down in any decade of the industrial era unless they were using faulty data that was not representative of the global mean at the time.
tonyb, so you only look for the lost keys under the lamppost. Maybe you can spot the fallacy there. Arctic permafrost areas that have been frozen thousands of years are defrosting. Sea level is higher now than since the Eemian, and only rising faster with time. You don’t need human written records to spot these trends. The mean temperature rise rate in the last two centuries is twenty times faster than the mean cooling rate in the last 2000 years. It is clear to most that we are in an exceptional period and that we are doing this. At this rate it leads to climates not seen for millions of years just in the next century. This is cause for concern rather than the favorite pastime here of blaming the messengers who point to these things.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 7:58 pm |
…
Sea level is higher now than since the Eemian, and only rising faster with time. Sea level is higher now than since the Eemian
Are you reading this stuff off your cheat sheet? Because it simply isn’t true.
in 2011 the CU Sea Level Research Group had to start adding 0.3 mm/y of nonexistent sea level rise to the sea level to keep it rising. It is hard to make the case from the chart on their site that it is accelerating. In 2017 it is going to be easy to make the case that the rise in sea level is tapering off. And you can convert the “CU sea level” to “real sea level” rise by subtracting 0.3 mm/Y and multiplying by 2/3rds.
The MWP sea level was 6 inches higher as was discussed on this site in the past. The MWP occurred after the Eemian.
This is the kind of context you need, and note that 3mm/yr is 3m/millennium to compare with this scale.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png/300px-Holocene_Sea_Level.png
Jim D
Are you basing your comments on hysterical headlines or have you looked at the individual tide gauge data? Certainly there will be cities threatened at some point in the future. But, invariably if you research why their rate of rise is higher than others in the general region, subsidence is the culprit. Solutions that are more cost effective lie outside the CO2 sphere.
Jim D,
According to marine fossils sea levels have dropped in the area of the Himalayas, by up to 6000 m.
I agree this is terrible, as there is no guarantee that sea levels won’t return to where they were in the past. How far will CO2 levels have to be reduced to stop sea levels from rising 6000 m?
It seems a bit silly, but I’ll believe you. If you say CO2 affects sea levels, it must be true!
Cheers.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 9:52 pm |
This is the kind of context you need, and note that 3mm/yr is 3m/millennium to compare with this scale.
There is context and there is context…
http://www.sott.net/image/s9/188227/full/compton_2001_holocene_sea_leve.jpg
What really amazes/amuses me is how the MWP has gotten steadily cooler and the sea level in the MWP steadily higher.
Now all they have to do is revise out the Eemian.
Hmmm…that’s not the MWP. That would be the Holocene Optimum just before the Milankovitch cooling phase that we are in now. See Marcott’s temperature reconstruction for example. The MWP is a small blip in the general descent around 1000 years ago.
Tony
“A large part of the argument is that today’s climate is unique when clearly it is not. The physics case needs to be made much better instead of relying on people just accepting that today’s climate is the worst ever.”
Its not a large part
There are two arguments.
1. The argument that C02 has ANY effect
2. The Argument that C02 has large ( >50%) Effect
Argument 1. Argument 1 has NO NEED WHATSOEVER of historical data. In short, we knew in 1896 that C02 had an effect, Nothing discovered SINCE THEN has changed those fundamental physics
Argument 2 Argument 2 is about the Attribution of Current warming to
Man or natural variability or to be more precise Determining How Much of the 1C of warming since 1850 Is due to man and how much is due to unknown and poorly understood natural variability.
Note… This question ALSO doesnt need any data before 1850 to form and answer.. Obviously data before that time might help, but there is no absolute need for it.
I will end with this. There are two groups that fool themselves when it comes to poorly understood natural variation.
The Brown Group
The Green Group.
Even though natural variability is poorly understood the brown group claims that it “explains” everything. Earth was warmer before or colder before… ergo.. its the poorly understood thing thots dunnit. In other words, the past we dont understand explains the current situation.
Or take the green group.. They proceed as follows, natural variability is poorly understood, but it should sum to zero over long periods.
Assuming this, we can show that it’s man thots dunnit.
thats a gross generalization but captures the fundamental overconfidence of the browns and the greens.
Steven Mosher: I will end with this. There are two groups that fool themselves when it comes to poorly understood natural variation.
there are more than two. There is at least one other group that fails to understand that past data can be useful for estimating the effects of any persistent process that may have generated the apparent periodicity in the temperature record. A short-term record, say the next 30 years, or the most recent 200 years, just is not long enough. Your phrase “fool themselves” is a little imprecise, and may include telling yourself that no such process can exist because it isn’t known fully yet. There may be no such process; given the data that we have, it would be unwise to reach a conclusion with confidence.
JimD said
” Sea level is higher now than since the Eemian, and only rising faster with time. You don’t need human written records to spot these trends. ”
Credible citation please
tonyb
…or maybe not. See the graph from PA above. The caveat is that this is one site, not global. The plot I showed did not indicate that the Holocene Optimum sea level was meters higher. Perhaps other sources do. It would make some sense because the Holocene Optimum was warm relative to the late second millennium, and it would be consistent with the Marcott temperature variations. This may indicate a tight connection between meters of sea level change and subtle temperature changes of order half a degree, which I find interesting.
Mosh
Either you use strange colour choices for your analogy, or you are directly referring to-and misrepresenting-me when you talk about the Brown and Green group
As I said in my article just the other day, concerning the recent decline in CET;
‘Do the results demonstrate that once you get to around the 300ppm level that the law of diminishing returns sets in as the logarithmic curve of CO2 versus temperatures takes effect? Does it illustrate nothing at all and the current downward CET slope is merely a blip from the 1990’s ‘hump’ that will increase sharply again as more CO2 is added.’
I can not be more explicit. Our knowledge of past climates seems to suggest that at 350 and 400ppm that we are still within the temperature variability exhibited at around 280ppm and similarly with weather extremes. There is nothing in any of the documentation I read that shows extremes quite as bad as they were in the 13th century.
It does not help the debate when the past is airily waved aside as if it is irrelevant. A mistake that Phil Jones admitted to in 2005 when he confirmed that natural variability was greater than he had hitherto realised. The Met Office take natural variability more as a factor than they did 4 or 5 years ago when their web site explicitly excluded it.
Make your case for radiative physics, I am listening, but do not make it on the basis that current co2 levels are ‘proving’ something regarding climatic extremes, because, as yet, they are not.
tonyb
It is also consistent with the Holocene Optimum being warmer than the following 6 to 8 millennia that sea levels would have long continued rising albeit at a diminishing pace. That’s because the ice-sheets will not have been immediately equilibrated when the maximum Milankovitch forcing was attained. Likewise, regionally and seasonally, snow cover always reach a maximum some time (about a month?) after the winter solstice and not together with it. The Laurentides, Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets have much more inertia just because they as much thicker than seasonal snow cover (or sea ice).
(cont) …and likewise with snow cover minimum and summer solstice, which is the tighter analogy in this case.
Why wade through that muck pit? Miriam O’Brian should be ignored. Fitting reward for a bitter and nasty person.
Jim D | November 26, 2015 at 3:40 pm |
“… Salby fans will not be happy.”
A statement that – possibly more than any other I’ve seen you make – epitomises your whole approach to the concept of scientific enquiry.
You believe it is some sort of popularity contest, nothing whatsoever to do with ferreting out the state-of-the-art relationships between a myriad of often conflicting variables.
It’s just a beauty contest to you, how shallow is that?
Don’t you think Englebeen at WUWT completely destroyed Salby’s argument. Am I not allowed to state my opinion that he does? In fact, at WUWT the Salby fans were not happy with Englebeen’s post, just as I predicted.
Jim D | November 29, 2015 at 7:01 pm |
“Don’t you think Englebeen at WUWT completely destroyed Salby’s argument.”
Congratulations on your Olympic standard of utterly missing the point.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, no I don’t believe Englebeen destroyed Salby’s argument.
But that’s because unlike you, I don’t decide such matters as a beauty contest according to what my emotions and preferences for this or that side tell me, I decide based on my grasp of the science employed by both sides of the debate.
I don’t expect you to understand how that works, of course.
Yes, if you were making a point, I do not see it.
Judith Curry: “I’ve been tossed out”
Miriam O’Brien: “No, you haven’t, you ignorant good-for-nothing liar”.
Priceless!
Well… tsk-tsk.
The good news is that Dr. Curry has the moral high ground.
Sou (from a google search), reportedly lives down under a bridge.
“Sou (from a google search), reportedly lives down under a bridge.”
You have to wonder about the mental state of a woman of – er – let’s say “a certain age” who is preoccupied with Hot Whoppers…
For people who might not have realized it, Richard Tol made up that quote. It’s kind of weird.
For people who might not have realized it, Richard Tol made up that quote. It’s kind of weird.
For people who might not have realized it, you, BS made up the above quote. It’s kind of weird.
Two days ago Sou wrote what she is claimed to have wrote.
From a google search index entry:
HotWhopper: Turned not tossed – Judith Curry denier martyr …
blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/…/turned-not-tossed-judith-curry-denier.ht…
2 days ago – Sou: “No, you haven’t, you ignorant good-for-nothing liar”. ReplyDelete. Replies. PG November 27, 2015 at 8:02 AM. Curry was only briefly in …
Wow, really? There’s a certainly level of idiocy I just don’t expect from people. PA posted a quote Richard Tol fabricated to paint the blogger Sou in a negative light. I pointed out Tol had fabricated the quote. PA responded:
A person might wonder why quote a Google search result rather than an actual web page. Similarly, they might wonder why not just link to the page where Sou supposedly said this, if she did say it. I’m not going to. I’m just going to link to the page PA didn’t link to and point out what caused that search result:
That’s right. PA quoted Richard Tol fabricating the quote as proof he didn’t fabricate the quote. Anyone who actually visited the page he found with his search would have seen the quote didn’t exist anywhere else on the page, but this did exchange did:
Brandon
I think Richard indulged in ‘scare quotes’ which I think we are both agreed have no place in any civilised discourse, as they are purely made up but others are not to know this.
It is somewhat ironic in this instance as Sou regularly indulgences in this misleading practice.
I wish Richard, Sou and others would stop doing it or make it rather clearer that they are not actually quoting the person.
tonyb
tonyb, scare quotes are supposed to be used to indicate when a word or phrase is being used in a non-standard way. That’s not what Richard Tol did. Tol fabricated a quote, placed it in quotation marks and put a person’s name in front of it. He did absolutely nothing to indicate to the reader the quote wasn’t a real one. I’m sure Tol would say he just paraphrased Sou, but you don’t paraphrase a person then portray your paraphrase as a quote.
Either Tol made a really stupid mistake and somehow didn’t realize he was portraying the sentence as a real quote, or he intentionally misquoted Sou. The former would be incredibly boneheads; the latter would be incredibly dishonest.
Personally, if it’s a real quote (copy/paste) I would make it in italics as well as the quote marks.
But if I were saying something like that, I would probably do this:
Miriam O’Brien [my paraphrase]: “No, you haven’t, you ignorant good-for-nothing liar”.
Or perhaps this:
Miriam O’Brien: “No, you haven’t, you ignorant good-for-nothing liar” [my paraphrase].
So, EDGAR has it’s final 2014 numbers.
Consistent with, though not completely stalled, like the IEA.
And some questions about China – past revisions were upward, but China coal stocks and imports indicate a larger slow down than Edgar.
Is it heretical to point out that to just maintain constant warming, exponential increases in emissions are necessary and that data indicates slow down?
Thanks for the link TE. So, 35.7 Gt CO2 (0.5% increase ) or almost 10 Gt C in 2014 without land use CO2 emissions (~4 Gt CO2). 40 Gt CO2 is 5.2 ppm. Atmospheric growth is 2.2 ppm/year (2011 – 2014 average) and that makes AF roughly 42%.
Wonderful work Judy. Got a kick out of the Canadian link (though I’ve not watched the presentation to the PM as of yet – the turkey is on the smoker).
Interesting here, that they make no reference to man-made, man-enhanced, anthropogenic, human influenced . . . simply, they assume that all climate change (whether it’s actually occurring in the moment, is caused by man — and that they can stop it.
“Their presentation, which can be accessed from this page, covers several key topics including the climate system, evidence of climate change, the cause of climate change, and future climate projections.”
#NatureNotNOAA
http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/
El Ninos do happen.
So do La Ninas.
And some decades have more of either.
Probably better perspective not to get excited by either.
Or the fact that there is still a negative trend in MSU LT & MT:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/2001.png
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1CAHqX4RCAw/SRsLl9EV2fI/AAAAAAAACls/bD2oSznEhuc/s320/nature.jpg
“It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it.”
—A. Hodge
thanks to Zeke and Tony and our hostess for the past two posts
it was great fun to read (OMG what’s happened to me?)
the discussion was outstanding
this very week I was told by a friend that the mere act of educating myself about this subject was an indication that I have become right wing and anti-science (since it’s settled)
left leaning people have lifted ‘climate change’ to quasi-religious status
to question is to doubt truth
I’m taking another bite of the apple
the use of the word heretic is appropriate
I am thankful on this day for the virtual good company of the heretics at CE
and the believers who venture in to try and save us
@David Rose…
S/B “Mannichean simplicity.”
“Mannichean duplicity?”
COP 21. Conniving, grandstanding, self-congratulation and self-loathing. A grand thing to miss.
“Then fool’s approval stings and honour stains.”
mosomoso,
If they feel the need to preach to the masses, will mass debating be indulged in, or will the delegates be doing this on an individual basis?
Possibly in a circle, combined with mutual ego stroking? The mind boggles!
Cheers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69fPof-ZTnU
Andrew
Now that Canada has elected its double-cheese Matthew McConnaughy and Australia suddenly has an unelected PM with the support of every serious tennis-playing doctor’s wife…I doubt that any kind of debate will disrupt the harmony of COP 21. Marvellous how these things work out.
Pity about the actual world and the geopolitics and the humanity. Such a bore when one is trying to focus on a two degree warming limit through some judicious waste and impoverishment. Why did God make a world when he could have just made a model?
Mosomoso
According to David Mackay, former chief scientist at DECC, if Britain gives up the 21st century we can avert a temperature rise of 2000th of a degree. Obviously well worth the sacrifice and expense just in case it might get as warm as the MWP again.
tonyb
There is another sad attack on Judith by Sou based on this article by Rose. As usual its the name calling and bigoted demonization that we have come to expect from the Whopperette. This is the kind of mean and nasty attack we see by the least ethical political operatives. It is proof that what Judith says about the politization of climate science is true. Even sadder is that no one will condemn such attacks, and in fact some wink at them in the hope they will silence inconvenient views.
oh, the usual club of climate scientists are retweeting Sou
Who are these climate scientists retweeting this nonsense?
Attacks from low quality critics are a complement..
Why does anyone listen to Sou? Does she do any analysis, say like Willis or Lewis? Does she have any sort of degree in any kind of non-social science? Why does she even matter? Or does the hockey team tell her what to say?
Sou is a useful idiot for those who like to stay clean but to still have the dirty work performed by someone they can secretly cheer on and publicly maintain silence. I have to admit, Sou is extreme even by the standards of modern politics.
ATTP also has good comments.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/there-is-no-tribe/
Don’t you ever feel even a little bit of shame for abusing Judith’s hospitality, yimmy?
New low.
I don’t know how anyone can get past the first paragraph of that post. It is laughably bad. It’s one of those things that is so bad nothing really needs to be said about it, though I couldn’t resist.
The short version is, Anders claims science shouldn’t be about tribalism, therefore there isn’t tribalism. Yes, it’s that stupid.
If there’s tribes, where is the dividing line? It’s a spectrum. At one end is Mann, at the other are the dragonslayers. Judith is somewhere on the low end of the spectrum, probably in the 25-50% group. Here’s a poll. Is she in the same tribe as the 51-75% group, or are they part of the mainstream tribe because they allow for 51% manmade, which is a politically sensitive divider to Judith because of the IPCC statement.
https://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_fig1a.jpg
Brandon,
Does the “S?” stand for strawman? If it doesn’t, it probably should.
I’m guessing ATTP thinks Mann’s work is second to none.
ATTP, don’t see why it’s a strawman. Curry claims there’s a tribe, and she was in it, then cast out of it. You claim that there can’t be a tribe, or shouldn’t be. All irrelevant, and she would obviously know better than you. Brandon seems to be right.
Then you go on in your article (and in the comments) spending time and effort criticizing the statement that her publications are “second to none”. Which was, like, a compliment from the author of the original post. Horrors. No, it’s third to none! Trenberth is ahead of her! Jeepers.
Then you criticize “A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century.” Because it depends on how much we emit, and the ranges of projected warming already include 2.5. Which is wrong: even if the ranges include it, picking a value below the central estimate yields a smaller result. Regardless of how much we emit. That’s what happens when you estimate from a probability distribution, and then pick an actual value. This is obvious; your criticism just makes no sense. Whether it’s “much less likely” takes more calculation, but you didn’t address that. I won’t repeat the insult with which you finished that paragraph (and repeated a third time at the end of the article), but mocking someone else for your own mistake doesn’t reflect creditably on you in two different ways.
Then she says that as a result of the focus on AGW, study of other sources of natural variability is being neglected. Your refutation: “No it’s not”. Well, a scientist in the field thinks that a premature closing rank on an issue is interfering with studying other possibilities. That doesn’t mean that no study is going on, it means that there is less than there should be – in her opinion. Thank you for offering your contrary opinion, but I have no idea what you base it on. You didn’t say, and after all you’re not in the field.
In short, you said that she offered “numerous examples of nonsense”, but every example you gave you got wrong.
The whole post, filled with sarcastic insults, and the large number of comments that jumped on the opportunity to knock down someone they apparently hate, is a pretty good demonstration of the tribalism that you deny. Curry is an enemy, so it’s okay. Can’t be that she just disagrees with you.
Jim D: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/11/26/there-is-no-tribe/
Thank you for the link. It could be worse.
“Second to none” really should be “among the best of her generation”. I do not know how much of “Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of CLOUDS” anyone has tried to slog through, but it is packed full of interesting information, qualitative and quantitative, and it might indeed be “second to none” in its field. It is a result of many years of collaboration between Vitaly Khvorostyanov and Judith Curry.
ATTP:Firstly, a sensitivity (ECS, I assume) of 2.5oC does not make it much less likely that we will see 2oC during the 21st century. Not only do the ranges of projected warming already include the possibility that the sensitivity might be 2.5oC, but what we will see depends largely on how much we emit. Also, the target is fixed in the sense that it is defined according to giving us some chance of keeping warming below 2oC; normally a 66% chance. It already includes the uncertainty about climate sensitivity and uncertainty about carbon cycle feedbacks. Maybe when Judith questions this, she gets slagged off for apearing to not understand this basic concept; something a scientist with a record that is apparently second to none should be able to understand.
Judith questions “this” could be more precise.
“Apearing[sic]” to whom?
Anders says:
Leaving aside that he has said something like, 18 times now, that he’ll never respond to me again, I have to love that he vaguely accuses me of using a strawman argument while doing absolutely nothing to support his accusation. Normally if I feel someone has misrepresented what I say, I tell people what I actually said.
Anders apparently feels it is better to just make derogatory remarks… because that will convince people he’s right?
No, sometimes I make derogatory remarks simply because I feel like making them. Given that I didn’t say what you claim I said, and given that – in my experience – you are absolutely convinced of your omnipotence, it’s about all that worth’s doing.
Anders:
Oh, okay. Sorry, my bad. I’m glad we were able to resolve that misunderstanding thanks to you being so open and honest about trolling. I was trying to assume there was some legitimate reason for you posting that comment, but… I guess I shouldn’t have bothered.
You did say what I claim I said, and I’m confident most people with basic reading skills can see that for themselves. I’m also confident you choosing to resort to trolling as a response isn’t likely to convince anyone I am wrong.
Jim D: “ATTP also has good comments.”
You missed off the /sarc tag.
Pingback: Judith Curry, Climate Change’s Rorschach Test | The Lukewarmer's Way
Thank you, Professor Curry, for adhering to the basic principles of science. There is, of course, no convincing evidence of AGW.
There is evidence falsehoods were inserted in the foundations of nuclear and solar physics after WWII, probably in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
That may have caused some of the confusion.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283722819_The_Begining_of_the_World
Further on the information fed to the new Canadian government the document compared wild fires in 1999 and 2012.
Interestingly enough, 1999 was recognized as a most unusual year – very few wild fires compared to average.
“Nineteen ninety-nine will go down in the record books as the quietest fire season this decade. ”
And 2012?
“The 2012 fire season saw activity that was 20 to 25 percent below average, both in the total number of fires across the province and the amount of hectares burned. ”
This is from: http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm
Now I have to wonder if the diagram shown for 2012 was accurate here:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/sc-cs/Default.asp?lang=En&n=A5F83C26-1#_s08
I have to wonder if the impact would have been the same if they showed the wild fire map for 2011:
http://bcwildfire.ca/history/fireatlas/?year=2011&type=all
If you want to see other years for comparison simply change the year in the above link.
It is all very sad for truth in science when data is cherry picked to make a point.
Reporting from Vancouver, BC (Canada)
Judith,
What do you mean by “not have increased all that much”? By 2030, we could have increased anthropogenic forcings by 1W/m^2 relative to today. If we haven’t warmed much that would imply that we’d be accuring energy at the rate of 1.5W/m^2. Can you explain how we can do so without the surface warming all that much?
You’re assuming your own conclusion.
It was a question. Given that, it’s unclear how I can have assumed my own conclusion. Maybe you’re assuming your own conclusion?
ATTP,
You don’t appear to have become any less foolish with the effluxion of time. I assume you meant “accruing” rather than “accuring” but the use of either is nonsensical, anyway.
You’ve never managed to force anything to accrue any heat by heating it for half a day, and then exposing it to outer space though a small amount of atmosphere for another half a day, over a complete year. It won’t start the following year any warmer at all!
Nature’s been trying for four and a half billion years with no success whatsoever. I know you think you can do better, but I’ll bet against it.
Another Warmist living in denial of reality. As long as you don’t become a danger to others, I suppose there’s no harm done.
Cheers.
I’m assuming that you dispute the OHC measurements? If so, you should probably be careful of accusing others of living in denial of reality.
ATTP,
Assume what you like. You might care to read what I said. I’m not sure why you think I should be probably be careful, or why I should care what you think.
Facts are facts. They don’t care what you think.
In relation to OHC measurements, nobody has ever measured the ocean heat content, and maybe never will. Neither you nor anybody else has the faintest idea of how much heat enters the ocean through thermal vents, sub sea volcanism, or directly through the crust. Pretend all you like. Deny all you like – you really have no clue.
Silly, silly, silly.
Cheers.
I did. It appears that you don’t understand the concept of a planetary energy imbalance.
By 2030, we could have increased anthropogenic forcings by 1W/m^2 relative to today.
And if wishes were horses all men would ride.
Well, gee. From 2000 to the end of 2010 (2011 in other words) US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory measured the change in forcing 370-392 PPM change, 0.2 W/m2 change.
There are 15 years until 2030. The CO2 annual increase might be above 2 PPM/Y but even that isn’t certain.
What the hey, we will use 2.5 PPM/Y just to be safe because safety first as they said at school.
2.5 PPM * 15 +400 = 437.5 PPM
0.2 * ln (437.5/400)/ln (392/370) = 0.31 W/m2
Survey says 0.31 W/m2. That’s less than 0.1 °C. Not 1 W/m2. Not 2/3rds of a w/m2. Just 31% of the claimed increase. At the 2.0 PPM/Y I expect it is 0.25 W/m2 (1/4 of the claimed increase).
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
https://i.imgur.com/LyGUpFL.png
Given the error bounds is a chance we might actually know if 2030 is warmer.
It depends on our emission pathway. If we do indeed follow a low emission pathway then the change in forcing by 2030 will be smaller than if we follow a high emission pathway. I’m trying to understand why Judith thinks we won’t have warmed much by then. Is it because she thinks we’ll follow a low emission pathway? If so, why? Is it because she thinks the climate will respond differently to how many think it will, even if we follow a high emission pathway? If so, why?
I thought my question was pretty straightforward and simple. Strange that everyone seems to want to criticise the question, rather than simply answering it. It’s not meant to be a trick question.
Okay, more precise numbers are here. Under RCP8.5, the forcing would increase by about 0.8W/m^2 by 2030. Under RCP6.0 it would increase by about 0.4W/m^2 by 2030. The question still stands, though. Why does Judith think we won’t warm much by 2030. Is it because we’ll follow a low emission pathway? Is it because the response to the change in forcing will be smaller than many think? Is it something else?
“It depends on our emission pathway”.
Well, it depends on how much you think it is going to increase.
Two flat emission years, China’s emissions apparently declining and absorption increasing
At 437.5 PPM the environmental absorption will have increased around 1.5 GT/Y.
Is the emissions going to be 1.5 GT higher? 1.5 GT higher is a wash and the CO2 level will be rising 2.2 PPM/Y or less.
Who exactly is going to be burning this fuel? You do know the Chinese coal plant capacity factors are around 50% and they will have 175 GW of additional nuclear. Given they are going through a replacement cycle of their old coal plants to newer more efficient facilities they could be burning less coal in 2030.
They are only emitting 2.8 to 3.0 GT/Y now. It is choking the life out of its citizens, and the natives are restless or useless or something..
They are going to increase 50%? Really. Do tell.
I can’t see a 2.5 PPM/Y CO2 rate of increase in 2030. It might be 2.2 PPM/Y – but even that is dubious.
The reality is the displeasure of the Chinese citizenry is going to force a reduction in coal consumption by 2030.
None of that answers my question which was basically to understand why Judith thinks that temperatures won’t rise much by 2030.
The change is going to be within the error bounds of the global temperature index (they aren’t really measuring temperature), IE not much.
RCP this and RCP that is fine – but 2-4 years from the 2011-2013 writing/updating of the RCPs they already have the rate of increase wrong.
Which gets to another point – why are they adjusting the modern temperatures up? Compared to 10 years ago there shouldn’t be much TOB or instrument or any other bias – why keep jacking them up?
ATTP: Strange that everyone seems to want to criticise the question, rather than simply answering it. It’s not meant to be a trick question.
I gave an answer. I have produced the calculations behind the answer here, and you can read them on my ResearchGate page.
I am pretty sure that the effects of changes in the non-radiative cooling processes have been mostly ignored. Romps et al produced a calculation regarding changes in the combined convective and evapotranspirative cooling rates, but they applied them to calculating lightning discharge rates, not limits on Earth surface cooling rate. If you can find publications addressing the effects of changes in non-radiative cooling of the Earth surface, effects on Earth surface temperature change, I would appreciate it.
What is it you actually want done about it?
What the end-game?
There is a more basic problem.
Lets look at the effect of temperature increases (IPCC)
0.1°C – Beneficial
0.2°C – Beneficial
0.3°C – Beneficial
0.4°C – Beneficial
0.5°C – Beneficial
0.6°C – Beneficial
0.7°C – Beneficial
0.8°C – Beneficial
0.9°C – Beneficial
1.0°C – Beneficial
1.1°C – Beneficial
1.2°C – Beneficial
1.3°C – Beneficial
1.4°C – Beneficial
1.5°C – Beneficial
1.6°C – Beneficial
1.7°C – Beneficial
1.8°C – Beneficial
1.9°C – Beneficial
2.0°C – Beneficial
2.1°C – Beneficial
2.2°C – Beneficial
2.3°C – Beneficial
2.4°C – Beneficial
2.5°C – “Low Confidence of harm”
PA, that isn’t what the IPCC says, nor is it anything we could actually know to be true based off sound science.
Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos) | November 27, 2015 at 6:41 pm |
PA, that isn’t what the IPCC says, nor is it anything we could actually know to be true based off sound science.
Read harder.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=32
Important advances in research since the SAR on the direct effects of CO2 on crops suggest that beneficial effects may be greater under certain stressful conditions, including warmer temperatures and drought.
Most studies indicate that mean annual temperature increases of 2.5ºC or greater would prompt food prices to increase (low confidence)
Plant growth has increased 60% since 1900. That is a benefit worth trillions per year.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf
Beneficial impacts would include reduced heating costs andmore
navigable northern sea routes.
…
Modelling results for a range of sites find that, in temperate regions,
moderate to medium increases in local mean temperature (1 to
3°C), alongwith associated CO2 increase and rainfall changes, can
have small beneficial impacts on crop yields.
…
What overall picture emerges from the results reviewed here?
It appears that moderate levels of atmospheric CO2 rise and
climate change relative to current conditions may be beneficial
in some regions (Nemani et al., 2003),
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
CSIRO found that their models underestimated the increase in plant growth by 220% (5% vs 11%). So the IPCC information grossly underestimates the benefits of more CO2.
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2013/07/CO2-fertilization-effect.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg
aTTP:
Your rate of energy accrual and surface warming worries are contingent upon other things remaining the same. But if the ceteris do not remain paribus the looming catastrophe you foresee might be postponed or averted entirely.
And to anticipate your most obvious reply, the debate isn’t resolved by resort to “things could be even worse than expected” because, of course, they could actually turn out better than expected. That is really the basis of the debate you have with people like Prof. Curry.
You should look up strawman.
Don’t know why you’ve added the word “worries” in there. I didn’t express any. You’re kind of right, though. The rate of energy accrual will depend on whether or not other things stay the same. This is what motivates my question. Why does Judith think that we will not warm much by 2030? Judith expressed this view. I’m interesting in knowing what motivated it. This is not a trick question.
aTTP:
I’m glad to know that you are not worried about future warming, despite years of blogging about it.
You really should look up strawman. Well, I’m assuming here that you’re not doing it intentionally. I might be wrong.
aTTP:
And you should look up red herring. I’m pretty sure you do it on purpose.
No, I really would like to know why Judith thinks that we won’t warm much by 2030. It’s a simple enough question based on something that Judith has actually claimed. Presumably there is a reason why Judith thinks this will be the case.
I responded to Ed Hawkins on twitter. Consider my possibility distribution talk
http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/19/uk-us-workshop-part-v-broadening-the-portfolio-of-climate-information/
Here are the individual scenarios that would point to cooler
1. Lower climate sensitivity. Climate model sensitivities range from 2.2 to 4.7, which are used in the 21st century projections. The AR5 argues essentially that sensitivities down to 1.5 are in the likely range, with lower than 1C extremely unlikely. Nic Lewis latest calcs http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/19/implications-of-lower-aerosol-forcing-for-climate-sensitivity/ give range of 1.1 to 2.2. Now whoever was in charge of fig 11.25 in AR5 (looks like it was Ed Hawkins) wisely lowered the projections to 2035 to account for hiatus and apparent lower sensitivity. I don’t think this was lowered enough.
2. Ocean oscillations. If the AMO and PDO behave as expected, we will be in cool PDO through 2030 and AMO will flip to cool probably before 2030. Yes there are short term wiggles in these indices, and yes they could ‘misbehave’. But the expected behavior circa 2030 would be cool AMO and cool PDO
3. Solar. Many solar physicists are predicting that we are headed towards a solar minima ~ mid century. The two recent solar cycles seem to support this. Note, I have had several previous posts on this.
4. Volcanoes. Total wild card, but a possible scenario would be several large eruptions, such as was seen around turn of 19th century.
Individually, I think scenarios 1-3 are likely, with scenario 4 being a possibility. I am not seeing any natural variability scenarios that would act in the direction of warming over this period (other than zero volcanoes).
The IPCC only considers emissions scenarios, they do not consider scenarios of natural variability, which will probably dominate the climate out to 2030
** sigh **
Red Herring, I thought obviously, refers to your taking umbrage at “worries” and tossing a few bales of straw into the debate.
Now it’s your turn to take umbrage at “taking umbrage”…
Despite these detours I suspect Dr. Curry’s publications (e.g., Lewis & Curry 2014) would be a good place for you to start figuring out why she thinks warming circa 2030 will be less than you (apparently) do.
ATTP, I’m bewildered why you feel the need to ask. Are you another doubter in the existence of the AMO?
‘There’s growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum,
Well,, her TSR is 1.33 and ECS doesn’t apply to 2100.
So I expect that the “it isn’t going to warm much” is based on a TSR of 1.33 (which seems to be high).
She is also the original stadium waver.
If she has other reasons – you’ll have to ask her.
Low TSR + not much CO2 change (in PPM) = Not much warming.
There are number of scientists who believe things will be flat to 2030 because of climate cycles and/or the low TSI.
https://i.imgur.com/5J5CcKC.png
The rise in CO2 looks to be flattening out around 2.3 PPM/Y. This is happening with an exponential increase in emissions. If emission flatten – which they have to because of resource and structure limits – the rate will go down.
AMO? Did somebody mention the AMO? Look at the massive red blow the negative AMO landed on the GMST and the PDO. Until this moment, I had not realized the totality of the AMO’s immense negative power. Global cooling by 2030? I fear aTTP’s rising hopes are sunk.
Might as well start the stadium wave. Your section first.
PA
Original Stadium waver?
‘…a third prominent feature of the European climate during the high middle ages was its general stability, there was none of the great storminess which characterised the period after about 1250 (lamb, Britton)
All of these conditions occurred in various degrees in different parts of medieval Europe and it is at least possible that they occurred in regular patterns shifting from west to east and back again…”
http://images.library.wisc.edu/WI/EFacs/transactions/WT1975/reference/wi.wt1975.rrring.pdf
tonyb
whoops
One volcano (among many) to keep an eye on for the next few years is Cotopaxi in Ecuador. It might be waking up again.
http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/cotopaxi/news.html
Judith,
1. Lower climate sensitivity. Sure, if climate sensitivity is low then we probably will not warm as much as if it were high (although variability could still play a role). However, this is simply a truism and doesn’t really explain why you think we won’t – other than you believe your results more than those of others.
2. AMO/PDO or some other ocean cycle. This doesn’t explain how – if we have a planetary energy imbalance today of around 0.5W/m^2 and could increase anthropogenic forcings by 0.5 – 1W/m^2 by 2030 – we could sustain a planetary energy imbalance in excess of 1W/m^2 without the surface warming.
3. Solar. Okay, if we go into a grand solar minimum it could negate a few tenths of a W/m^2 of anthropogenic forcing. However, a high emission pathway would probably still see anthropogenic forcings increase. We’d still probably have a planetary energy imbalance in excess of 0.5W/m^2.
4. Volcanoes. Well, sure, if we have lots of volcanic activity or an asteroid strike, that could negate anthropogenic forcing increases. Again, this would simply delay warming, rather than stop it all together.
So, your reasoning seems to be that you think that either climate sensitivity will probably be lower than many other estimates suggest, or that some variety of natural events will offset anthropogenic warming?
If you read the IPCC AR5 WG1 report, they declined to give a best estimate of climate sensitivity owing to the disagreements between the different methods. Bjorn Stevens at Ringberg argued that sensitivity range should be 2-3.5C. The fat tail on sensitivity is shrinking. The observational estimates are increasingly lower, largely owing to clarification that aerosol forcing is not large. So yes, I am betting on climate sensitivity less than 3C.
Regarding your #2, clouds have a huge impact on TOA radiation balance, and natural variability (e.g. El nino) substantially changes the cloudiness and geographical distribution.
Regarding #3, the IPCC acknowledges that they ignore many solar indirect effects on climate, its not all about W/m2.
And re 4, we are talking about 2030.
So I present 4 scenarios for cooling. If more than one of these transpires in the coming decades, then we would have less warming than the IPCC predicts. What are the odds of none of these 4 transpiring? I think 3 of them are likely.
Between now and 2030 you could have continued stasis in the AMO peak… because it’s going to be difficult for it to go down.
You could have a peak in the PDO followed by a slow decline in the index – because that is one of the ways it behaves.
Because of the above possibilities, the lower bound of climate sensitivity could be driven above 2.0.
Solar scientists could be wrong.
Volcanic activity could be unusually low.
Add it up…
climatereason | November 27, 2015 at 9:25 am |
PA
Original Stadium waver?
I’m sure there were “theater wavers”, and “ballroom wavers” and such before.
The “Stadium wave” term as far as I can tell, first appeared as a posting by Sergey Kravtsov of a preprint of the, “Wyatt, Marcia Glaze , Sergey Kravtsov, and Anastasios A. Tsonis, 2011” paper that was Wyatt’s 2012 thesis topic.
Dr. Curry blogged about her paper in progress and the Wyatt et al. paper 2 months after the Wyatt et al. paper was published.
This paper in progress is presumably “Marcia Glaze Wyatt, Judith A. Curry. Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century. Climate Dynamics, 2013”
So technically Dr. Curry is the first “surfer” on the “Stadium Wave”.
…and Then There’s Physics | November 27, 2015 at 7:16 am |
You really should look up strawman. Well, I’m assuming here that you’re not doing it intentionally. I might be wrong.
On the subject of pseudo argument.
1. The 2000-2011 trend actually measured by real scientists with real instruments (unlike pseudo-scientists with their computer models) is 0.182 W/m2/decade.
2. Eight and a half decades is 1.49 W/m2 which according to the common (but seemly incorrect) 3.7 W/K conversion is 0.4 °C.
3. From a previously posted table
0.4°C – Beneficial
If the disaster envisioned by warmers strikes, and man fails to stop burning fossil fuel, the result “oh no woe is us”, is we are benefited and are better off.
We have plenty of time to fix things if indeed in 2100 we get tired of the benefits of more CO2 and more warmth.
> I responded to Ed Hawkins on twitter
Including a tweet to cite the abovementioned discussion might have been nice, since it’s hard to search the Twitter. Here’s how:
https://twitter.com/BVerheggen/status/670157755811012608
It doesn’t imply any such thing.
Another “scientist” who doesn’t understand the science.
Given that we have a planetary energy imbalance today of about 0.5W/m^2, and could increase anthropogenic forcings by something close to 1W/m^2 by 2030, I’d almost be interested to know how – if we don’t have concurrent surface warming – we wouldn’t then have a planetary energy imbalance of around 1.5W/m^2. However, I doubt I would understand the answer, but that’s mainly because I don’t speak goobledygook.
You’re building in the assumption that albedo changes — due, for instance, to changes in cloudiness — couldn’t occur independently of “forcing” from CO2
Yep. As I said, “another ‘scientist’ who doesn’t understand the science.”
I’m building in the assumption that if temperatures don’t change, we’re unlikely to see any feedbacks. I guess there’s the possibility that we could see some change in the spatial distribution of temperatures that somehow leads to a feedback response that is globally negative while producing no net change in global temperature. I guess anything is possible, which appears – by and large – to be the theme of this post.
“Feedbacks” are a myth. At least, at a global scale, where “temperatures [that] don’t change” don’t mean temperatures don’t change in many parts of the world. Just that the overall “average” doesn’t change.
But large changes to regional distributions of currents, temperatures, rainfall patterns, etc. are generally associated with changes to regional distributions of cloudiness. Not to mention heights of clouds, which influences their greenhouse effect as well as albedo.
I find it hard to believe that major state changes in such as the AMO and PDO wouldn’t be accompanied by changes to distribution, and probably amount, of cloudiness. Certainly the assumption that the total albedo would remain unchanged during such changes is totally unwarranted. Indeed, such changes may well be associated with the global temperature changes observed WRT these phenomena.
ATTP, it isn’t that you wouldn’t understand gobbledygook since you seem to be quite fluent in it. I have linked literature at you before that explains how changes in ocean heat transport affects the energy budget in substantial ways. The fact that you refuse to read anything that doesn’t support your assumptions is nobody’s fault but yours.
I have no memory of you ever doing that. Of course, given that I decided a long time ago that you were someone best ignored (and I’ve seen nothing to convince me that that wasn’t a sensible decision) I may have simply missed it.
ATTP, that was a good decision on your part. It is much smarter of you to be making arguments that show a complete ignorance of the published literature. Good job with that.
ATTP: Given that we have a planetary energy imbalance today of about 0.5W/m^2, and could increase anthropogenic forcings by something close to 1W/m^2 by 2030, I’d almost be interested to know how – if we don’t have concurrent surface warming – we wouldn’t then have a planetary energy imbalance of around 1.5W/m^2. However, I doubt I would understand the answer, but that’s mainly because I don’t speak goobledygook.
Who has yet has said that we will not have concurrent surface warming? The claim (that you keep referring us back to) is that it will probably be less than an amount predicted by IPCC, and probably be less than any amount to be alarmed about. According to Isaac Held (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2015/01/20/55-tropical-tropospheric-warming-revisited-part-2/; and references) the higher altitudes are supposed to warm about 2.5 times as much as the surface.
Maybe, maybe not, but the argument is not “goobledygook” [sic]
A question for you. Do you think that the estimate of a global planetary imbalace of 0.5W/m^2 is reliable? I think it is a figure written in the vapors, so to speak.
…and Then There’s Physics | November 27, 2015 at 10:10 am |
Given that we have a planetary energy imbalance today of about 0.5W/m^2
Gee. What is the error bound on that?
https://i.imgur.com/LyGUpFL.png
We only know surface temperature (measured from the surface) to about +/-0.1°C
.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1100&context=nasapub
The Ceres coverage has 2-3% uncertainty (see page 1490)
That doesn’t include nonradiative energy inputs or outputs.
Claiming the earth energy balance is off by 0.5 W/m2 would appear to be a “hotwhopper”.
ATTP: By 2030, we could have increased anthropogenic forcings by 1W/m^2 relative to today.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Standard calculations ignore the increase in non-radiative cooling of the Earth surface that results from surface temperature increase. The actual surface temperature change resulting from a hypothetical increase in radiative forcing of 1W/m^2 at the surface might not be “all that much”. Might be closer to 0 than to any IPCC estimate.
You start by saying anthropogenic forcings COULD increase, and then you point out that if they do, but temperatures don’t rise, then the increased energy has to have gone somewhere else. Well, duh.
Of course, maybe the forcings won’t increase as you suggest. Or they could, but the extra energy could go into changes in atmospheric humidity, or wind speeds, or even into ocean temperatures. Any of these are possible, at varying probabilities, generally poorly understood.
Really Ken, this is thin stuff even for you.
Whoops, wrong place – this is in reply to ATTP at 4:54 above.
Ken, as has already been noted up-thread, you have merrily rounded up to 1W/m^2 compared to your own cited IPCC scenarios.
The wider point is that your apparently rhetorical question to Judith was phrased so as to suggest you found the very idea of no warming in the face of increased forcing absurd.
I see Judith has already provided her own answer above, but the point I was making is that there are far too many unknowns to simply suggest that an increase in forcing necessarily leads to an increase in atmospheric temperatures. As has been demonstrated over the last couple of decades.
Damn, replied in the wrong place again.
JA,
The question was really just intended to be a “how can we increase anthropogenic forcings without warming”, but my apologies, I do keep forgetting that I’m dealing with pedants. I shall have to remind myself of that in future.
Also, if you appeal to various possibilities – some more likely than others – then maybe we won’t warm. If we have a significant increase in volcanic activity or a major asteroid strike (I hope not), then clearly we won’t warm as much as if we didn’t. If the Sun goes into a Maunder-minimum-like state, then that will offset some anthropogenic warming. However, maybe you could consider the other possibility. We don’t have an increase in volcanic activity, we don’t have an asteroid strike (which I rather hope we don’t have an asteroid strike), the Sun doesn’t return to Maunder minimum-like conditions, and the oceans don’t go into a cycle that can somehow magically accrue energy without warming the surface. What then, or is considering this simply just beyond your capabilities? All you can possibly consider is that we won’t warm?
Ken, you wrote
“By 2030, we could have increased anthropogenic forcings by 1W/m^2 relative to today. If we haven’t warmed much that would imply that we’d be accuring energy at the rate of 1.5W/m^2. Can you explain how we can do so without the surface warming all that much?”
This clearly suggests that if anthropogenic forcings increase, so must temperatures. It simply can’t be read any other way. I then pointed out that this is not only simplistic but clearly wrong, which apparently makes me a pedant. Oh well.
At least we both agree that asteroid strikes are a bad thing. Ain’t the internet wonderful?
No it doesn’t. It was a very simple question. If there is a planetary energy imbalance of 0.5W/m^2 today and we continue increasing anthropogenic forcings by – potentially – something close to 1W/m^2, how can we sustain an even larger planetary energy imbalance than today without the surface warming? I was looking for an answer to that question.
Of course, there are natural events like volcanoes, asteroids, and reductions in solar flux that could offset this increase in anthropogenic forcing. So, that is one possibility. However, this doesn’t change that if these don’t occur (and we’d probably hope that we don’t have a major volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike) then an increase in anthropogenic forcing, without a concurrent rise in temperature, means we would be somehow accruing more energy than today without the surface warming.
Then there are ocean cycles, but if that doesn’t somehow offset the change in forcing, we have the same issue – how can we be accruing maybe 2 – 3 times as much energy as we are now without the surface warming? One possibility – I guess – is that there is a change to the spatial distribution of the temperature that produces a negative feedback but that doesn’t change global temperatures. Hmm, possibly, but then we seem to be getting into the realm of “anything’s possible” which isn’t wildly scientific.
ATTP: The question was really just intended to be a “how can we increase anthropogenic forcings without warming”,
Not so. Prof Curry did not assert that there could be increases in “forcings without warming.” She said she thought they would be much less than projected (for example, by IPCC.)
As a pedant, what exactly is your objection to pedantry? You know that almost anything you write in correction or objection of anyone else will likely be checked, or compared to other knowledge and ideas. Are you saying that you alone have a right to write sloppily?
how can we sustain an even larger planetary energy imbalance than today without the surface warming?
As it turns out, warming aloft is more effective than warming the surface for reversing imposed radiative forcing at the tropopause.
I’ll have the model runs available sometime soon if you’re interested.
Now, warming the upper troposphere without warming the lower troposphere is very much possible but I don’t think it’s very probable. Indeed, the opposite appears to have happened – more warming at the surface than aloft. But it is possible.
JA,
Firstly whether or not the forcing increase depend on what we decide to do about emissions. If – as many here think we should – do nothing and carry on as we are, then we will continue to increase our emissions and the anthropogenic forcing will increase, potentially by 1W/m^2 by 2030. Consequently I would like to know why Judith thinks temperatures won’t rise by much by 2030. Does she think we’ll suddenly start reducing our emissions? If so, why? Does she think the climate won’t respond as many think it will? If so, why?
I didn’t suggest that they would. I’m asking what happens if they do, which we would expect to be the case if we continue to increase our emissions. If you think we shouldn’t reduce our emissions, at least accept that not doing so will lead to an increase in anthropogenic forcings. Suggesting otherwise is regarded as a form of science denial.
Well, if it goes into wind speed, this would have to dissipate to produce heat/thermal energy or the winds would simply get stronger and stronger. It could indeed go into the oceans, but that’s what motivates my question. It can’t really go into atmospheric humidity without an associated increase in atmospheric temperature. So, how can we sustain a planetary energy imbalance of around 1.5W/m^2 with all of the energy somehow bypassing the surface.
Really, JA, this is pretty standard stuff for you.
ATTP; ” Suggesting otherwise is regarded as a form of science denial.”
Suggesting that natural forcing influences global warming is NOT denial. It is as scientific as AGW.
That isn’t what I said. I said that if we don’t reduce our emissions it will lead to an increase in anthropogenic forcings. Suggesting otherwise would typically be regarded as a form of science denial. At least criticise what I actually said, not what you think I said.
Didn’t want to say it myself (given how people object so strongly to the term) but it certainly seems that way.
I knew you wanted to say it, but you don’t have the guts. Look at Trump, kenny. He speaks his mind, doesn’t hide behind a goofey alias and he has made many $BILLION$ and will likely be the leader of the free world in about a year. Say what you got on your mind, kenny. Use your own name. Stop sneaking around. People will respect you for it. Judith got guts, you don’t.
Don Don,
I don’t need to use my own name. I’ve got you to shout it from the rooftops for me.
Attp
It’s good that you poke the deniers hornet nest once in a while as it ensures we don’t get complacent.?..
How do you view the 15 year long decline in CET? Presumably it means the skiing up at cairngorm or glen shee is getting better? I haven’t been up there since the temperatures were at the same levels as today back in the md 1980’s
Tonyb
Well, at least you realized that stalking Anthony Watts while hiding under a rock was unseemly and beneath your dignity. Or maybe you had another reason for slightly changing your style. Are you a proud blogger now, kenny?
tony,
I have no real thoughts about the CET record. My understanding is that it is for a particularly small region of the planet.
Don Don,
I decided that being associated with Anthony Watts was unseemly and beneath my dignity, so you’re partly right.
That it proves any theory espousing it as a global proxy is worthless?
You weren’t associated with Watts, kenny. You were stalking him from under a rock. That was your choice. Do you feel better about yourself, now?
Hey verytroll guy, what about the decline in the hockeypuck lonesome pine tree proxies? Does that render them useless as a global proxy? Or do we make exceptions for the cause?
Hi Don!
Are your questions always rhetorical?
Just because you don’t want to answer a question doesn’t make it rhetorical, verytrollguy. Did you come here just to make a fool of yourself? Really, we want to know.
Ah, just asking questions. Carry on please.
Thanks for slumming with us, verytrollguy. It’s been very informative. You and little wotts are some of our favorites.
ATTP: So, how can we sustain a planetary energy imbalance of around 1.5W/m^2 with all of the energy somehow bypassing the surface.
I’ll repeat my question: who has said that ALL of the energy somehow bypasses the surface?
Are you suggesting that we could have enhanced evaporative energy transport without an increase in surface temperature? Basically a temperature independent lapse rate feedback?
Very tall guy
Those with an inquiring scientific mind, like yourself, will no doubt be musing that the global average temperature was obviously a very blunt tool and would be wondering how many other data sets are, like CET, also showing cooling.
Tonyb
Tony,
Yes, regional climate is interesting. Did you know, for instance that climate models are not, as is commonly assumed, tuned to historical co2/temp but rather assessed against their ability to replicate current climatology.
But seriously, you always claim cet is a good proxy for global temp. Doesn’t your current data clearly show that not to be the case?
ATTP: Are you suggesting that we could have enhanced evaporative energy transport without an increase in surface temperature?
I did not say that. I said that the amount of surface temperature increase will be less than has been predicted.
Then I don’t understand your point. If surface temperature rise slowly (or not at all) and we continue to increase anthropogenic forcings, then we will produce an increasing planetary energy imbalance – potentially 2 or 3 times greater than we have now. I’m interested in understanding if Judith, for example, thinks this is actually possible and – if so – why.
Very tall guy
No, I don’t say that. I repeat what scientists say, such as this note in my last article
“The Met office, KNMI, Mike Hulme, Hubert Lamb and Mike Lockwood were amongst those believing CET had a wider significance as a reasonable (but not infallible) temperature proxy that might reflect European Wide, Northern Hemisphere or even some sort of Global proxy. However, it is not the intention of this paper to claim that its findings and observations are relevant to any region other than Britain, although this is obviously a topic that warrants further examination at some point.”
I don’t see where I claim that CET is a good proxy for global temperatures. I see the words ‘reasonable’ ‘ not infallible’ ‘might’ and ‘some sort’.
If you look at the longer CET record you can see the pause developing from the 1990’s , but as with all these things it depends on what period is used and what statistical analysis is made.
Glad to hear of your interest in regional temperaturs. Do you know offhand of any other regions that are cooling, rather than warming?
Tonyb
No.
CET is a proxy for climate generally, not globally. Climate is wildly variable in in linear direction and in cycles, short and long term, and this is clearly shown in human and geological records, CET being an example of a useful human record. That’s one (not the only) reason you now have to walk miles inland from the shore to reach certain major ancient and even later seaports.
Which is to say: the hockey stick is the most outrageous bunk and should have been recognised immediately as such.
ATTP: Then I don’t understand your point.
Surface temperature increase will be much less than has been predicted for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Antarctica
From the “I’m not sure of these results at all but it pays the bills” department (Jim2 emphasis):
…
“…The human brain is changing in a way that is as serious as climate change threatens to be,” he said. “I believe the lack of omega 3 is a powerful contributory factor to such problems as increasing mental health issues and other problems such as dyslexia.”
…
Best Oils to Replace Corn and Canola
If you’ve been using any of the aforementioned vegetables in your cooking there are healthier options according to the study. Many vegetable oils are not only genetically engineered (canola/rapeseed, corn and soy are all usually GMO) but they also have a tendency to become rancid when they sit in warehouses and are left exposed to sunlight for long periods of time.
In place of these oils you may want to try grass fed butter, lard, olive oil (better at low heat typically), and of course the winning oil in this study – coconut oil. Coconut oil was found to have the lowest levels of these harmful chemicals, and studies have shown that coconut oil maintains its integrity even after 6 hours of continuous deep frying.
With so much at stake there’s really no excuse to make the switch. Grootveld actually found that a “typical meal of fish and chips” contained as much as 100 to 200 times the safe amount of aldehyde chemicals set by the World Health Organization.
“This major problem has received scant or limited attention from the food industry and health researchers,” Grootveld said. “Evidence of high levels of toxicity from heating oils has been available for many years (but most people and government agencies still haven’t noticed, sadly).”
…
http://althealthworks.com/8675/oxford-scientists-officially-link-cooking-with-vegetable-oils-to-cancer-brain-damage/
From the article:
…
The world is losing interest in “global warming” a survey has found on the eve of the UN’s COP21 climate talks in Paris.
Most people in most of the 20 countries surveyed say they don’t want their leaders to set ambitious climate targets.
Fewer than half describe climate change as a “very serious” problem.
The survey, conducted by GlobeScan for the BBC, could scarcely have come at a worst time for the global environmental movement. After the disastrous failure of the last major climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, they have been pulling out all the stops to make the talks which begin in Paris next week a success.
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/27/eve-cop21-paris-talks-world-just-doesnt-care-global-warming/
Judith You say above
“The IPCC only considers emissions scenarios, they do not consider scenarios of natural variability, which will probably dominate the climate out to 2030”
This is the basic schoolboy error which makes the entire IPCC – UNFCCC – CAGW scare a bad joke and scientific disaster. Any forecasts which do not incorporate the millennial cycle ,which has just peaked ,are simply non-starters.
. See the post at and links at.
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/04/climate-and-co2-exchange-with-freeman.html
See also
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-epistemology-of-climate-forecasting.html
I think naturally occurring behavioral “uncertainty” is what Judith and many others, who have posted here and elsewhere, have harped on and on about. My latest http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/16/400-years-of-warming/#comment-744146 shows the natural behavior as presented in the Vostok Ice cores.Unless you have modeled the past to a high degree of confidence then you can hardly expect to know whether any change in the future is nothing more than the uncertainty of your ability to predict the future, much less whatever mankind can be adding to the mix. One of my figures of Nov 17 (http://pages.swcp.com/~jmw-mcw/Curry_future_natural_heating_event.jpg – currently downloaded over 5000 times) questions just how you could tell whether a warming event in the future (yellow added curve) was natural or man-induced? How could you be predict, with any certainty, that it would be man-caused and not just another natural event like the many that have occurred in the past? It would be interesting to have the models duplicate the practically “flat” global temperature for over 11,000 years (with some of its LIAs and warmings) and when the models would predict the next super freeze will beginning. If mankind can have a significant influence on global temperature, it might want to start thinking about how it is going to get thru the next 100,000 years of big chill.
Hopefully the figure reproduces here, as it did not above
http://pages.swcp.com/~jmw-mcw/Curry_future_natural_heating_event.jpg
Well, from the chart it was 3°C 9000 years ago.
Is the any archaeological evidence to indicate if man tried to stop 3 °C “harmful” warming 9000 years or did he just continue to burn fossil fuels?
The black curve is the one for us currently; the red one was for a one that ended 110000 years ago. The data are smoothed 10 or 5 running average, so there is attenuation. Below is the smoothed data. +/- 2C over the past 10,000 years (highest in 8135BP and lowest in 2766BP); cooler, on average, than the previous global “warm” period. Are the Ice Core “anomalies” of the exact same magnitude as the ones that are being bounced around? “0” here is set to be that of the past 100 years; the average for the past 3300 is -0.55C.
http://pages.swcp.com/~jmw-mcw/Curry_unsmoothed.jpg
130 thousand years ago, there was enough water in the oceans to supply enough moisture to put enough ice on land to cause a major ice age.
Now, the water is contained in ice on Antarctic, Greenland and Mountain Glaciers. There is not enough water in the oceans for a major ice age.
It did not get as warm as 130 thousand years ago because the water that was trapped on land at the end of the last major ice age entered the oceans soon enough to get the ocean at the perfect level to turn on snowfall before major warming occurred. The Antarctic and Greenland and Mountain Glaciers were keeping the extra water stored as ice.
The climate of the past ten thousand years is the new normal climate.
Understanding climate is all about understanding ocean levels, ocean currents and ice storage on Antarctic, Greenland and Mountain Glaciers.
We don’t even need to understand it, all we need is to look at the temperature data and see what is happening. What has happened for ten thousand years is the new normal and it will continue.
If you want to understand, look at the data.
It always snows more when it is warm and the oceans are thawed.
It always gets cold after that.
It always snows less when it is cold and the oceans are frozen.
It always gets warm after that.
ten thousand years ago, sea level stopped rising because the necessary water was already trapped in ice on Antarctic, Greenland and Mountain Glaciers..
one hundred and thirty thousand years ago, sea level kept rising because less water was already trapped in ice.
This is a new thought that came out of this thread.
When it snowed during the major warm periods, some of the ice was placed on Antarctic, Greenland and Mountain Glaciers. It did not all melt, especially on Antarctic. Each time, more and more Ice was stored in Polar Regions, where it could be protected during warming cycles. Ten thousand years ago, enough ice was stored to stop ocean rise near current levels and the new normal was born.
Here’s a plot to think about.
http://pages.swcp.com/~jmw-mcw/Sea_level_and_GTA.jpg
It is included in the paper “On Sea Levels and Global Temperature Anomalies” http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Climate%20Studies/Download/6137
they do not consider scenarios of natural variability, which will probably dominate the climate out to 2030”
they do not consider scenarios of natural variability, which will probably dominate the climate forever.
And Then There’s Data:
…
Coccolithophores–tiny calcifying plants that are part of the foundation of the marine food web–have been increasing in relative abundance in the North Atlantic over the last 45 years, as carbon input into ocean waters has increased. Their relative abundance has increased 10 times, or by an order of magnitude, during this sampling period. This finding was diametrically opposed to what scientists had expected since coccolithophores make their plates out of calcium carbonate, which is becoming more difficult as the ocean becomes more acidic and pH is reduced.
…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/27/increased-carbon-dioxide-enhances-plankton-growth-opposite-of-what-was-expected/
Actually, increasing of coccolithophores, and decreasing of diatoms (also mentioned) will actually cause ocean acidification, along with forcing CO2 into the atmosphere.
It’s not impossible that this change is responsible for some part of the increase in pCO2 since 1950; perhaps most of it. It appears to be as good a correlation as with human emissions.
Don’t have time to dig up links, maybe later, if somebody else doesn’t beat me to it (hint hint).
Well, I haven’t actually been able to discover an explicit peer-reviewed source for the fact that coccolithophores tend to produce ocean acidification and release CO2, however one good source I found [Rickaby et al. (2007)] makes this statement:
Their reference 7 is Archer & Maier-Reimer (1994), an older paper that models the role of CaCO3 deposition, ocean alkalinity, and atmospheric CO2.
A better, if non-peer-reviewed discussion may be found here
Ref’s
Archer & Maier-Reimer (1994) Effect of deep-sea sedimentary calcite preservation on atmospheric CO2 concentration by Archer, D. & Maier-Reimer Nature 367, 260-263
Rickaby et al. (2007) Coccolith chemistry reveals secular variations in the global ocean carbon cycle? by R.E.M. Rickaby, E. Bard, C. Sonzogni, F. Rostek, L. Beaufort, S. Barker, G. Rees, D.P. Schrag Earth and Planetary Science Letters 253 (2007) 83–95
I’ve mentioned whales and whaling before, as a possible cause (or partial cause) of the increase in atmospheric pCO2 usually attributed to fossil emissions, but this research [Rivero-Calle et al. (2015)] sort of fills in the last missing piece.
The basic schema is this: baleen whales eat a variety of small zooplankton, especially including copepods of the genus Calanus [Berge et al, (2012)], which in turn feed massively on coccolithophores [Hopkins <i<et al. (2015)].
As Rickaby et al. (2007) (cited above) mention, coccolithophores are a critical component in the balance between CO2 sequestration and calcium removal. Furthermore, [Sanders, et al. (2014)]:
The variation in species (and strains) of Calanus can be strongly influenced by the specific nature of predation [Berge, et al, (2012)]:
[…]
[…]
[…]
[…]
What do we know about the changes in response to the near extinction of baleen whales, or the “further selection towards high fecundity, short life cycles and smaller size” that may well have followed on? Both evolutionary and relative population changes within Calanus and other zooplankton will probably influence the “trophic mismatch in peak abundance between producers and consumers” [Sanders, et al. (2014) quoted above], influencing, in turn, the “fraction of primary production that is ultimately exported”.
The progressive extinction and near extinction of the majority of baleen whale species, along with evolutionary responses in Calanus and other zooplankton, could well have as good a correlation to the recent growth of the atmospheric pCO2 as fossil emissions. The (apparent) fact “that coccolithophore occurrence in the North Atlantic increased from ~2 to over 20% from 1965 through 2010” [Rivero-Calle, et al. (2015)]; that one of the primary food sources for Calanus and other key copepod species has seen substantial population increase exactly during the period of response and adjustment to baleen whale extinction, adds substantial credibility to the notion.
Something to think about.
Ref’s:
Berge, et al, (2012) Evolution of the Arctic Calanus complex: an Arctic marine avocado? by Jørgen Berge, Tove M. Gabrielsen, Mark Moline, and Paul E. Renaud J. Plankton Res. (2012) 34 (3): 191-195. doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbr103
Rivero-Calle, et al. (2015) Multidecadal increase in North Atlantic coccolithophores and the potential role of rising CO2 by Sara Rivero-Calle, Anand Gnanadesikan, Carlos E. Del Castillo, William Balch, Seth D. Guikema Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa8026
Hopkins, <i<et al. (2015) Phenological characteristics of global coccolithophore blooms by Hopkins, J., S. A. Henson, S. C. Painter, T. Tyrrell, and A. J. Poulton Global Biogeochemical Cycles 29, doi:10.1002/2014GB004919.
Sanders, et al. (2014) The Biological Carbon Pump in the North Atlantic by Richard Sanders, Stephanie A. Henson, Marja Koski, Christina L. De La Rocha, Stuart C. Painter, Alex J. Poulton, Jennifer Riley, Baris Salihoglu, Andre Visser, Andrew Yool, Richard Bellerby, and Adrian P. Martin Prog. Oceanogr. (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2014.05.005
Ed Hawkins and I have had an interesting exchange on twitter:
https://twitter.com/ed_hawkins/status/670298562283110400
I agreed that the revised red box is probably a realistic representation of ‘likely’ climate change out to 2035
It’s remarkable that people call each other names and get upset over fairly small differences of scientific opinion.
curryja: I agreed that the revised red box is probably a realistic representation of ‘likely’ climate change out to 2035
Would you put more “personal probability” in the upper half of the red box, or the lower half of the red box?
“Unless”
I was moderately positive about Judith Curry’s initial reflections on the climate debate in the beginning of 2010: https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/judith-curry-on-climate-science-introspection-or-circling-the-wagons/
But since then she started to base her arguments more and more on unfounded accusations and poor reasoning. My opinion changed as a result: https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/judith-curry-building-bridges-burning-bridges/
She wasn’t tossed out of anything. She moved away from mainstream science all by herself via the abovementioned behavior.
Bart
What would it take for you to accept Judith back into the fold? A repudiation of the uncertainty monster perhaps? A move back into the mainstream consensus?
Tonyb
At this point I don’t care about the IPCC tribe. I’m interested in having productive discussions with open minded scientists. I just had such a discussion on twitter with Ed Hawkins.
Tonyb,
Let me rephrase your question as what would it take for me to regain respect for Judith Curry as a serious scientist and science communicator (it’s not about “accepting” into “the fold” or “the tribe”). As a start, solid scientific reasoning (not just handwaving) and no unfounded smears/allegations against pretty much a whole profession would go a long way if you ask me. The old adagium should however also be kept in mind: “Trust comes on foot, but leaves on horseback”.
Regarding your other question, in the Netherlands the media may be less prone to false balance as e.g. in the US, but also here contrarian voices are often amplified in many media, relative to the prevalence of said opinions in the scientific community.
Bart
Thanks for your answers
Tonyb
Judith separated herself from the sheep, not the science.
Bart
In your second article you say this;
‘This couldn’t be further from the truth. The media has actually suffered from the opposite, creating an image of false balance by giving minority viewpoints equal footing with the mainstream evidence based outlook.’
I find that a simply incredible thing to say. I had always taken you to be Dutch. I see no sign of the media in Europe-the EU- giving minority viewpoints equal footing. Quite the opposite. Both Britain and Holland in particular have the media very firmly in the IPCC camp
tonyb
“I find that a simply incredible thing to say.”
Call it a lie, Tony. That’s what it is. And they wonder why they are taken seriously.
She wasn’t tossed out of anything. She moved away from mainstream science all by herself via the abovementioned behavior.
You got some of that right. She moved away from mainstream alarmism She recognized that they had moved away from science.
That is how the maintain the 97%, they toss out everyone who disagrees. It is only 97% and not 100% because they cannot toss them out fast enough. Their numbers are getting smaller and this will get easier for them.
They are not actually doing any actual science. There is nothing worth going back for.
the media may be less prone to false balance
Well, science, as you are intimating, doesn’t have a balance.
Facts are what they are.
However, people, by their nature do create polarization which drifts away from the facts.
I’ve read some things you’ve written, and I believe you are no different in this regard.
When you write about ‘worse than we thought’ you are drifting away from facts, because warming has been less than modeled.
When you write about ‘accelerating global warming’ you are drifting away from facts because both radiative forcing and temperature trends have been decelerating, not accelerating.
We who are not scientists, but who have a capacity for logical independent reason, could always see this scam for the reason mentioned in this article. The governments with their money to dispense, surround themselves with “scientists” who beg at the table for grants. All the “scientist” has to do is fall in line, repeat what is desired to be heard, and money is granted. It’s quite the obvious corruption.
A “scientific” finding that creates new “scientific” policy which doesn’t merely allow but compels the government to act to “save the world.” And what an interesting coincidence, the method of saving the world means the government will have to confiscate more wealth, create more regulation, control more of life, and grow more in size. This means more jobs for the government, more prestige for the government class.
What a wonderful coincidence that a “scientific” finding means that both the government who feeds the “scientist” and the “scientist” who grants credibility to the government, both benefit from agreeing with one another that the people must be fleeced.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
The word “sensitivity” has been used 26 times in this discussion so far. I can only repeat myself: How do you measure “sensitivity”? What is a range of experimentally established values? If the only way to determine a sensitivity is an “educated guess”, then it depends on where you got your education. In any case, use a sensitivity estimate, and you are building your castle on sand.
If Professor Curry turns out to be right, and the “thousands of climate scientists” turn out out to be wrong, then individual climate scientists have demonstrated that they are about as dumb as box of hair.
The wrath that seems to be unleashed upon Professor Curry, seems to be like that of the lemmings who insist that all rush towards the cliff of scientific stupidity – any who endeavour to think for themselves are obviously against mass suicide.
How would you define gross incompetence? 144 climatologists’ efforts to prove you can warm an object by surrounding it with CO2.
How would you define gross ignorance? 144 climatologists claiming that wrapping an object with CO2 causes its temperature to rise.
God created climatology to make astrology and phrenology appear respectable.
Cheers.
Sensitivity is not the only vague word thrown about countless times. “Forcing” and “feedback mechanism” is repeated ad nauseam.
You don’t see conservation, as in conservation of energy too often. I’m still trying to figure out how a radiating body warms itself.
Assuming the output from the Sun remains stable, as well as our orbit about the Sun, could our temperature fluctuations be as simple as cloud cover variations. Less clouds means more sunlight reaches the surface means higher temp? More clouds means less sunlight reaches the surface means lower temp?
Could it possibly be that simple? I know correlation does not mean causation, but there is a heck of a lot more of correlation of temp to sun activity than to CO2.
vernroberts,
/sarc on
You wrote –
“You don’t see conservation, as in conservation of energy too often. I’m still trying to figure out how a radiating body warms itself.”
Keep talking like that, and they’ll toss you out of the cult. You must believe “forcings”, “feedbacks”, “back radiation” and the magical “energy multiplying” properties of CO2. Climatology has nothing to do with science! You must believe! Believe, I tell you! Bow your head before the awesome blinding intellect of Mann, the awesome predictive powers of Hansen, the juggling skills of Schmidt!
/sarc off
Clouds, aerosols, umbrellas – let the full heat of the Sun pour down upon your unprotected self, and you’ll pretty soon be wishing for a little less sunlight. A bit of shade from insolation exhibits a powerful cooling effect. Reduce the shade, and you’ll definitely experience warming. You’re right.
I think clouds are one factor. I think there many others as well.
Cheers.
Thanks Judith, for a nice compact review of our uncertainties regarding CC, especially as it relates to the imminent global conference on dividing up the blame, responsibility, and response, and to apply accurate goals and numbers to a chaotic future that will be either hotter or cooler — apparently depending on one’s political leanings.
Great blog. Good reading. Thanks for all the work involved.
Pingback: Ep. 555 A Climate Heretic Speaks Out | Tom Woods