2015 → 2016

by Judith Curry

Ringing in the New Year at Climate Etc.

It’s time to reflect on the previous year’s activity at Climate Etc.

Greatest ‘hits’ for 2015

Here are the 20 posts at Climate Etc. that received the most ‘hits’ during 2015.  If you missed them the first time around, take a look:

Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?
Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data
Conflicts of interest in climate science 
Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann 
Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge
‘Warmest year’, ‘pause’, and all that
Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2
Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma
New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science
Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters
Charlie: Challenging free speech
Bankruptcy of the ‘merchants of doubt’ meme
Raw politics of climate change in the U.S.
The albedo of Earth
Understanding adjustments to temperature data
Hiatus controversy: show me the data
Draft APS Statement on Climate Change
400(?) years of warming
Hansen’s backfire

Some of my favorite posts (including guest posts) didn’t make the top twenty list.  What was your favorite post?

Blog stats

End of year stats from WordPress.com:

  • Views: 4,852,079
  • Visitors: 787,335
  • Comments: 90,204

Views and Visitors are up slightly from last year; comments are down by about 15%, owing to registration and moderation.

WordPress has not yet sent me the list of top commenters, I will let you know who the ‘winner’ is for 2015.


A few cartoons as we head to 2016.

From the Economist:

Alan Longhurst sent me this cartoon from French artist Christian Verdun:



Speaking of cartoons, if you must insult someone, Bugs Bunny cartoons is an acceptable way to go.  Alternatively, try Shakespearian insults.

Thank you

The end of the year is an opportunity to thank the Denizens for their participation here, via commenting (or lurking).

Special thanks to those that have provided guest posts in 2016: Craig Loehle, Jim Steele, Bob Tisdale, Frank Hobbs, Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Larry Kummer, Davis Swan, Nic Lewis, Peter Lang, -1=e^i pi, Tony Brown, Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Andy West, Lucas Bergkamp, Vaughan Pratt, Marcia Wyatt, Alan Longhurst, Dave Rutledge, Planning Engineer, Rud Istvan, Phil Salmon, Fred Haynie, Steve Koonin, Tom Quirke, Euan Mearns, Roger Pielke Sr, Phil Klotzbach, John Christy, Dick McNider, Michael Kelly, Robert Rohde, Steve Mosher, Greg Goodman.

Wow, that is quite a list!

Wishes for the New Year

I wish each of you the very best for 2016.  I am very appreciative of the many nice emails that I have received.  This one is the most meaningful to me:

Hi Judy,

I am VERY IMPRESSED by your science and braveness in fighting RICO20.

You have won the support and respect from oceanographic community.

Thank you and I support you by my whole heart.

As new year approaching, I wish you and Peter wonderful happy, healthy, and prosperous 2016.

185 responses to “2015 → 2016

  1. Judith, thanks for all your hard work this last year and best wishes for a great 2016. It will be interesting to see in this national election year how much “climate change” enters into the political debate and how the election results affect the national perspective on “climate change” and associated regulations.

  2. Pingback: 2015 → 2016 | Enjeux énergies et environnement

  3. A huge and consistent work I refer to for credibile comments.

    One question/comment: on the Feb review of the Berkely review of impact of adjustments, the comment conclusion was that the potential disputes basically averaged out. If most balance out, will the resultant trend reflect the remaining few that don’t? Is that how Mann was able to have one small subset of Yamal trees dominate his hockey stick trend? And why would we assume/understand that the “positive” adjustments are equally invalid as the “negative” adjustments we might disagree with?

    If there is a warming bias to adjustments (or cooling) remaining unrecognized invalid corrections will dominate the preferred trend. I’m not sure that strict mathematical protocols will cancel out human-determined biases.

    • I am not sure if I understand you question but let me give you the lay of the land.

      First Some basics.

      1. We have no control over history. That means if the powers that be decided to change measurement methods, we have to live with that change.
      2. Changing the measurement methods can introduce Bias. For example,
      if you move a station from a grass field to the top of a building, you
      can introduce a bias.

      3. A measurement has these characteristics: There is a device. There is a place. there is a time. Any change to these can introduce a bias.

      4. Given that changes in device and time and place can introduce bias we are left with these choices.

      A) throw out all measurements where there is a chance that any
      of these things changed.
      B) Do no adjustments and hope that positive bias equal negative bias
      C) Do adjustments

      Option A we can call “only use good stations” approach. It looks attractive until you realize that the information you want to use to
      classify stations as “good” is itself suspect and not really open to.
      The bottom line here is you end up not being able to say anything much
      about the past. Certainty is the enemy of the probable. Perfection, the enemy of the good.

      Option B . If you apply option B as a Matter of principle, the effect
      will be to WARM the GLOBAL record. Raw SST and RAW SAT when combined give us a WARMER history than adjusted records.

      Option C: do adjustments; Do adjustments and show your work.
      In t his case you end up with 2 records: Raw and adjusted. Adjusted
      is an ESTIMATE of what would have been recorded had uniform measurement practices be used. History is not changed. Our estimate
      of history differs from the “actual” recordings.

      At Berkeley Earth we decided to do C, but to do it in way that hadnt been done before.

      Step 1. Suppose a station was located at 0 feet ASL. Then we read a metadata record that says the station was moved to a new location or a new height. Unlike other systems we do not ADJUST for this move.
      We simply say “Hey this is a new station”. Other folks have to do an adjustment because they need long records, like 30 years.. But we dont
      need that. We just say what is true. there are actually two stations. One measured position X for 10 years, the other measured position Y for 20.
      No suppose that metadata is wrong? suppose the station didnt move?
      Well then, we are in a better position because we didnt apply a adjustment!
      The same goes for changes in TOB or changes in instruments. We just slice the record. So mistakes in metadata dont lead to spurious corrections. Then we go one more step. We look at the data for Jumps
      and radical changes. Suppose the metadata is wrong. Suppose they changed the instrument but didnt put it in the metadata. if that change has an effect of the data recorded, then we see it in the data.. and we say “he this station is different” These are called “empirical breaks”. The end result is a collection of shorter station records and more stations.
      Take a pause here to reflect. We’ve trusted metadata to make slices
      and we have analyzed the raw data to make slices. later on we will
      test both of the decisions. What happens if we require BIG breaks in data to determine slices? What happens if we require small breaks? What happens if we ignore metadata altogether? These are sensitivity tests.
      We do them to make sure our decisions dont skew the answer.

      Step 2. Now that we have sliced station data it is time to apply the adjustments. Lets take an extreme case. We have a station that has 10
      years of data and shows a trend of .4C per year. It warms by 4C over that 10 year period? What the heck? maybe somebody poured concrete by it?
      We dont know. We look at its neighbors. It has 200 neighboring stations.
      some really close, some farther away. We see a couple neighbors that
      show -.2C of cooling.. we see a couple that show no warming,
      and we see 190 stations that show warming of .1C per year. The algorithm
      will then adjust the odd balls so they look more like their neighbors.
      You can then check that. What do you see.. Oh, the station that was trending hotter than all its neighbors was actually in a growing town!
      So it gets adjusted down to “match” its neighbors. There is no explict decision by a human to make this change to the record. An algorithm decides. What is one potential problem with this? Well, what if you have one good station surrounded that ALL bad apples. Obviously we could construct an artificial case to show that the bad would infect the good.
      In reality we can check it by looking at what happens to stations like CRN
      which are a “gold standard” of sorts. Do the surrounding “bad” stations cause the algorithm to adjust the good? In a small number of cases<10%, yes.But they appear to balance out sometimes the good apple gets cooled, sometimes warmed.

      We can also test the algorithm on synthetic data. You create a perfect world of data. Then you introduce all sorts of Bias.. Then you run the algorithm to see if it can move the data back TOWARD the truth..

      Adjusting records will be an on going process. Some folks will take the human/historical approach. station by station, hand adjusted to create long records. people will always be supicious of this. Other teams will apply
      statistical methods. Others,, hybrid approaches. With the land record all this bickering amounts to a fight over a couple of 1/10ths

      Bottom line.

      When we look at 70% of the world (SST) and apply adjustments, the adjusted data is COOLER than the raw data.
      When we look at 30% of the world (SAT ) and apply adjustments the adjusted data is warmer than the raw data.

      when you combine them the final answer (adjusted) is cooler than the raw data.

      When it comes to land data (SAT ) there are a few arguable points

      1) do we "pollute" good station data when we adjust. Initial looks say no.
      folks can disagree, but they have to publish data to be effective.
      2) can adjustment codes "catch" slow incremental bias? Answer it depends.
      3.) Do adjustments "smooth" our view of climate? probably, but quantifying that is really hard.
      4.) should the land record "match" the satellite record? Good tough

      What is not arguable

      1. Adjustments are needed
      2. NET adjustments for the Global average COOL the time series
      on the whole.
      3. if the goal was to warm the record, they failed.

      • if the goal was to warm the record, they failed.

        What I want to know is this: did the adjustments make it look more like CO2 caused the warming?

        Thus, if a set of adjustments makes the warming from 1910 to 1940 look more gradual (i.e. with a lower rate) while making the warming from 1970 to 1998/present look steeper, then I’m going to be suspicious.

        Not that I’d throw them out, but IMO a change that supports the ultimate political agenda of bureaucratic agencies with a strong incentive to provide justifications rationalizations for their own continued existence/expansion deserves substantial suspicion.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Oh dear. You wrote –

        “What is not arguable

        1. Adjustments are needed . . . ”

        And yet you say one option is to do no adjustments, but you reject this because it will not produce the result you wish. Really?

        You have determined what people want (telepathically, one assumes), and then proceed to give them what they want.

        Why not just accept that the historical temperature is not of much use for anything? So yes, I’m arguing that your own reasoning seems a bit flawed. You obviously don’t agree. If it keeps you content, press on by all means.

        There is no CO2 greenhouse effect, so I suppose it really doesn’t matter, does it?


      • “First Some basics.”

        The algorithm will then adjust the odd balls so they look more like their neighbors.
        Code for that area was too low due to cloud cover, lets adjust it to the warmer ones, We know they are right!
        No room for cloud cover and 50 degree hotter or colder air pockets is there?
        Not to mention making up the data for over half the sites in the USHCN
        since the operators have died/ the sites are out of action/ or we need sites where there are no sites to give a grid so we will make them up from neighbouring data in the spots we want.

        “We can also test the algorithm on synthetic data. You create a perfect world of data. Then you introduce all sorts of Bias.. Then you run the algorithm to see if it can move the data back TOWARD the truth.”

        Please, for an intelligent man use intelligent arguments.
        There is no truth in synthetic data.
        there is a synthetic data base.
        Then there is a synthetic data base that you have altered.
        there are algorithms to try to go back to the synthetic data base.
        Which is pure guesswork.
        If you are applying known biases on the other hand then you are simply reversing the artificial assumptions you put in. Of course it must move back toward the original if you reverse the known bias you put in. Unfortunately Climate doesn’t follow artificial biases and has unpredictable natural variability which you have just ignored and eliminated.

        ” this bickering amounts to a fight over a couple of 1/10ths ”

        So this would be 25% of the total temperature rise last century? [Centigrade I guess you mean?]
        25% is a lot more important than a couple of tenths would you not agree?

        “When we look at 30% of the world (SAT ) and apply adjustments the adjusted data is warmer than the raw data.”

        No, No, No. A cute move and all but your correct statement is
        “When we look at 30% of the world (SAT ) and apply adjustments the adjusted data is always cooler than the raw data in the past and equal to the raw data as collected in the present”

      • David Wojick

        The real problem is that there are no SST stations. Even worsen SSTs are merely proxies. So all this talk of stations is irrelevant. The surface statistical models are crude estimates at best. No conclusion can be drawn from them.

      • David Springer

        “Then we go one more step. We look at the data for Jumps and radical changes.”

        A step too far. These should average out. If they don’t then the detection is almost certainly problematic. If they do then it’s unnecessary to do it.

        An oft repeated claim of yours is that many of the adjustments, station selection criteria, etcetera have no effect one way or the other on the resulting trend. If “the fix” isn’t fixing anything then why are you doing it?

        I suspect at this point that gradual deterioration (read darkening) of exterior surfaces of cotton region shelters introduces a long term warming bias into that station’s record. When a CRS is replaced, cleaned, or painted it appears in the record as a “jump or radical change” in the cooling direction. That cooling should be incorporated into the record as it compensates for the undetected long term warming bias. But it isn’t.

        This is all more or less moot in any case because GAT is dominated by SST measurements and those are seriously messed up in other ways.

        The bottom line is there’s nothing really trustworthy enough to use in surface station measurements with the exception of ARGO and USCRN and those are both too new to reconstruct a record going back far enough to discriminate between multi-decadel natural oscillations and human-driven effects.

        The satellite record is where to look for the best data and at 36 years long now it’s becoming useful for a true GAT trend.

    • This seems like such a pointless discussion. All science is the manipulation of data. Every single set of data/results in every scientific field requires that the data be parsed in some way to extract meaning. The simplest of these processing such as placing one data point into a control group and another into the test group or discarding a third is a manipulation of the data that affects the outcome.

      Simply dismissing adjustments as “human-determined biases” is lazy. Every adjustment is justified by a certain reasoning, if you dont agree with that reasoning then come up with a better reasoning, explain why its better, and show how that affects the result. If you arent going to do that work then leave the debate. It seems like all climate adjustments are explained and reasoned in the literature or at the data processing centers. Some sceptics (and non-sceptics) seemed to have done the work to look at these adjustments, they all outline how their works affect the conclusions but from what I can tell none of them come to the conclusion that the data has no value, which seems to be the conclusion reached by a worrying number of people here who havent done a stitch of work on the subject.

  4. “What should ye do then, should ye suppress all this
    flowery crop of knowledge and new light sprung up and
    yet springing daily in this city? Should ye set an
    oligarchy of twenty engrossers over it, to bring a famine
    upon our minds again, when we shall know nothing but
    what is measured to us by their bushel? … Give me the
    liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according
    to conscience, above all liberties.”

    John Milton speech to Parliament defending free speech
    in 1644. Judith Curry into the breach, 2015. Thanks and
    Best Wishes for 2016 from a grateful serf.

  5. stevefitzpatrick

    Happy New Year Judith! I will raise a glass to you tonight.

    Let’s hope the RICO20 letter represents the lowest point in the climate wars, and that 2016 brings more humility, humanity, and circumspection on both sides. We can be optimistic for at least one night. Cheers.

  6. Views: 4,852,079
    Visitors: 787,335
    Comments: 90,204

    WOW! You are making a difference, Thank You!

  7. Dr Curry, Thanks for all good work in the year gone by.
    Happy New Year

  8. Happy new year to you and yours Judith


  9. https://judithcurry.com/2015/03/10/the-albedo-of-earth/

    The hypothesis that “NH and SH albedo is about the same” would appear to be the only case where mainstream climate sceptic theory advances an alternate, rather than null, hypothesis.
    Are there any others of note? Also, what is warmy position on this result, do they call it coincidence?

    They mostly ignore it. They really don’t study actual data that goes back that far, they only study their Hockey Stick Climate Model Output.

    The Albedo in the NH and SH did change over the past ten thousand years. The tilt and orbits changed such that 40 watts per meter squared did move out of the NH and into the SH, outside of 60 degrees north and south.

    In that time, temperatures stayed regulated in the same bounds in both hemispheres, so, the IR out stayed about the same and the Albedo out in the NH did decrease and the Albedo out in the SH did increase.

    This is simple math.

  10. Professor Curry, thanks for your courage and energy in working to return good science, clear reason and honest discussion to climate science. You are making a difference, and history will be very kind to you and your efforts. Best wishes for 2016!!

  11. Happy New Year to all. I do recognise that those down the back end of the world, those dragging the chain, those behind the times, so to speak are a year and a day behind those of us up the front, leading the world, so to speak. I sometime wonder if you’ll ever catch up. :)

    Anyway, have a great 2016, and I hope Judith, CE and it’s denizens can achieve even more effective communication and enlightenment for those interested in the relevant facts about human caused climate change than has been achieved in 2015 and previous years, all of which have been fantastic.

  12. Curious George

    p.f.2016, and thank you for your work, including this blog.

  13. This was my favourite post and the one of forwarded most frequently:

    “Hearing: President’s UN climate pledge”

  14. Every good wish, Judy, for 2016. My website has been going since the middle of 2012, and at the end of the year there had been 130,000 sessions, with 320,000 page views, and 48,000 discrete users. What is more, 75% of the users were under 45, and 45% were women. Maybe the message is getting through, even here in the Antipodes!

  15. Thank you, Judith, for sharing your thoughts and for the forum.

    Cheers to the New Year.

  16. I struggle to see the daylight, as the sun has yet to rise.

    I struggle to hear a bird chirp before its time.

    I struggle to feel the first breath of wind off the ocean.

    At the dawning of knowledge, I am not comforted by what I know, yet excited by what is yet to come.

    I look forward to a New Year..

  17. For me, the most interesting posts are the ones that a repolicy relevant: for example they deal with:
    – impacts
    – cost-benefit of proposed/advocated policies, such as renewable energy and carbon pricing
    – all posts about energy matters, especially electricity system
    – electricity system technology options analyses and comparisons
    – total electricity system costs for proper comparisons with different technology mixes

    11 excellent posts on electricity systems contain a wealth of valuable insights by the highly experienced and credible ‘Planning Engineer’ (one was joint authored with Rud Istvan). The 11 are listed in the first link, and they are listed individually below:

    Myths and realities of renewable energy

    More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve

    All megawatts are not equal

    Taxonomy of climate/energy policy perspectives

    Clean Air – Who Pays?

    What should renewables pay for grid service?

    True costs of wind electricity

    Solar grid parity?

    Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics

    Microgrids and “Clean” Energy

    Transmission planning: wind and solar

  18. Professor Curry,

    All the best to you and yours for 2016, and 2017, and . . .


    • Hold the presses. News just in – rumour has it that climatologists confidently predict that 2016 will be the warmest, coldest, wettest, driest, bestest, worstest year EVAH!!!!


      “We’ll all be rooned”, said Hanrahan. – J O’Brien.


      • AK,

        “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.” – Ghandi.

        You could save time and effort by just going to the part where I win.


      • You could save time and effort by just going to the part where I win.

        Why? Let’s wait and see…

      • AK,

        Fair comment. You may stick with ridicule if you wish, but I should let you know I’ve been ridiculed by experts. Your attempts are a little amateurish by comparison.

        If you want some tips on effective ridicule, sneering, sniggering, or even the art of gratuitous insult, I’d be glad to help.

        Professor Curry has graciously provided a link to Shakespearian Insults. I commend it to you. If you want, you may hurl Shakespearean epithets at me, and I shall do my best to respond without resorting to the words of the Bard.

        Or maybe you could lay me low by providing the odd fact, rather than mad Warmist assertions. Your choice. Don’t be a Warmie-man. Show some backbone! Fight for your beliefs!


      • You may stick with ridicule if you wish, but I should let you know I’ve been ridiculed by experts. Your attempts are a little amateurish by comparison.

        It’s not “ridicule”. I’m simply expressing an opinion as a public service to society. Sort of like when I post a link to an open-access version of a scientific document that has previously been linked only to paywalled versions.

        Professor Curry has graciously provided a link to Shakespearian Insults. I commend it to you.

        She also expressed reiterated approval of “Bugs Bunny cartoons

        Speaking of cartoons, if you must insult someone, Bugs Bunny cartoons is an acceptable way to go.

        My target audience certainly won’t take my word for it, but the casual visitors among them will likely keep it in mind while reading your comments, which will save them some time deciding they agree with me.

      • David Springer

        Thanks AK. +1

  19. Thank you to all the commenters and posters. I have learned much from all of you. The biggest thank you goes to Judith for restoring my faith in science. It was on the ropes having read all too many accounts and quotes of how some in the establishment conducted themselves. There can be worse things than standing up for science.

  20. Thanks for all your excellent work, and tonight may we acknowledge that we haven’t fully quantified the short and long term atmospheric effects that fireworks produce.

    And with the welcome arrival of 2016, we can all look back on 2015 with the certainty that its average temperature will keep fluctuating at least until the end of the decade.

  21. Happy New Year Judith, Peter, and denizens. 2016 should prove an eventful year, with Ma Nature having our collective back.

  22. Happy New Year JC et al.

  23. Happy New Year Everybody! :)

    Is the Global Warming Hoax still not over yet? ;)


  24. All the best for 2016 to all who visit Judith’s pages with special wishes for Judith in her efforts to bring climate science up to speed and more relevant for informing policy on climate change.

  25. The Greening of Planet Earth… featuring Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, and Donald Graybill. Brought to you by big coal, this 1991 video shows that the future holds great promise because of increasing CO2 levels.

    • Horst Graben,

      Given that removing all the CO2 from the air would kill us all, don’t you think there is a chance that maybe more could be better?

      What’s your scientifically based calculation of the optimal atmospheric CO2 concentration? If you find it hard to give a logical answer, resort to the Warmist mantra of deny, divert, obscure.

      Or just make a wild guess. Steven Mosher said easy, peasy – anything over 100 ppm. What do you think of that? 1000 ppm is over 100ppm. Was Steven Mosher just being silly? He’s a scientist, you know.

      Don’t you like plants? Maybe you follow Breathairianism, whose practitioners believe food is not necessary. I wonder where the CO2 they breathe out comes from, in that case?

      You have raised some interesting questions. I am sure you can provide some interesting answers.


      • What a bung-hole you are Mike. I posted this video just for you and you get all hissy.

      • Horst Graben,

        Sorry. Please explain who this Big Coal person is who brought the video to us. Is he or she like the Big Apple, or maybe the Big Kahuna? Maybe it’s a US term, not used in the civilised world.

        I’m not sure what you mean by bung-hole. Is it a term of endearment? If so, just saying that you agree with me about the desirability of more CO2 in the air, is demonstration enough of your affection.

        Thanks once again for the support, although you don’t really need to bother.


      • “anything over 100 ppm.”

        No… whatever the optimum is ( if it exists) is over 100. easily over it..
        easily over 180.. assuming you like plants..

        The notion that there is an optimum is kinda silly. nobody assumes that.

        optimum for what?

        Here is what we know. IF we are interested in preserving the species
        then there is a figure we cannot go above.
        if we are interested in preserving plant life, there is a figure we shouldnt go below.
        But the notion that there is an “optimum” is silly.
        there are safe zones and danger zones.

        over 400 we are heading into a danger zone for civilization as we know it. How much danger? hard to say. Since we have alternatives to spewing too much c02 into the atmosphere it would be wise not to cross too far into the danger zone… since we dont know what is “optimal”

      • Steven Mosher,

        Are you pulling the Warmist ploy of deny, divert, and obscure? Are you going to deny what you said on a previous occasion, or claim you didn’t really mean it, because you were really talking rhetorically?

        You mention 400 ppm as somehow dangerous, but of course you cannot say how dangerous it might be. We just have to take your word for it that we all need to do is obey the nearest Warmist hand waver.

        More CO2 seems positively beneficial. Maybe you have evidence to the contrary?


      • Seven Mosher,

        On an objective basis, the optimum temperature and CO2 concentration would be those the temperature when the planet had the most carbon tied up in the biosphere – i.e. the thickest, densest most productive vegetation and most/largest animal life. I understand that was during the Mesozoic Era and Early Tertiary Period.

        I also understand these times were some 5C to 8C warmer than now.

        Also, there seems to be some evidence the climate was less variable when warmer, and when there are no ice sheets at the poles, and more variable when the climate was colder.

        All these seem to suggest the optimum temperature is much warmer than now.

        I accept there are some adaption costs, but are they greater than the benefits of warming? That’s my question of 2016.

      • No Free Lunch, CO2 increases Carbs, lowers Proteins. Pick your poison

      • David Springer


        Total yield is up more than protein per unit of yield is down. Therefore total protein production rises. Carbohydrate production rises faster. Pick your ambrosia there is no poison.

      • David Springer

        Steven Mosher | December 31, 2015 at 10:15 pm |

        “The notion that there is an optimum is kinda silly. nobody assumes that.”

        Who died and made you speaker for everyone? Teh hubris, it burns!

        You’re patently wrong in any case. Vast hordes of Birkenstock-wearing flower children, free spirits, bohemians, and other assorted moonbats believe the optimum is 280ppm or in other whatever mother nature does absent human influence.

        If you think about what you write before you write it may I suggest a New Year’s resolution for you: think harder.

      • “You’re patently wrong in any case. Vast hordes of Birkenstock-wearing flower children, free spirits, bohemians, and other assorted moonbats believe the optimum is 280ppm or in other whatever mother nature does absent human influence.”

        david, clearly you don’t understand. Nobody, thinks that 280 is the optimum. Nobody with a brain.
        Joshu@ tried the same trick with Judith when she said “nobody thinks c02 doesnt have an effect” and of course folks here were quick to point out what we mean when we say “Nobody believes that the GHE doesnt exist” of course there are idiots.

        Now that you’ve descended to Joshu@ level of argument on the first day of the year, there is nowhere to go but up

      • over 400 we are heading into a danger zone for civilization as we know it.

        Since you can’t actually enumerate, much less validate any risks, this appears to be an appeal to emotion.

        That’s not unusual, but it is an indictment of how irrational the movement is.

      • Steven Mosher: over 400 we are heading into a danger zone for civilization as we know it.

        I don’t think you can provide evidence that even 800 ppm is a danger zone for civilization as we know it. Even if we are “heading” in that direction we might not get there.

      • Are we certain that C02 measurements are accurate?


      • I agree. ACO2 should be more like 425 ppm.

      • Mosher, “over 400 we are heading into a danger zone for civilization as we know it.”

        seems like civilization as “we know it” ends a lot. Almost every year.

      • richardswarthout


        “Nobody, thinks that 280 is the optimum. Nobody with a brain.”

        Is that the official position of the UC Berkeley Institute of Cognitive and Brain Sciences? “Thinking” has a new meaning.

        Have a great 2016.


      • David Springer

        So Mosher, the english majorette blog warrior extraordinaire, better defines those he represents. It’s not everyone, just everyone with a brain.


    • At the Denver American Chemical Society meeting in August 2011 there were two symposia on global warming hosted by the “SCHB” Division. Several speakers at the morning symposium were from the nearby NREL. I asked about “optimal’ CO2 level, and one speaker told me the 280 ppm pre-industrial level was far from desirable. Mike Flynn’s question is completely legitimate. Nature has so many processes for effectively removing CO2 from the biosphere, as evidenced by oil, gas, coal and limestone deposits.

      • I would argue that 400ppm is a perfectly reasonable level of CO2 world-wide cropwise (see fig below) and MUCH preferred over the 280 pre-industrial level without significant problems for human health [atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people —- Happer (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/06/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases)%5D. Setting the global goal for CO2 at the pre-industrial of 280ppm is wasted effort with NO BENEFIT. Particulates, smog, and other airborne contaminates are the problem for “clean” air. Put the effort ($$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$) where the problems are.

  26. May you all have a healthy and prosperous New Year, and warmists have another preposterous one :)

  27. Have a safe and happy New Year Dr. C and Denizens. I recommend using this term more often in the new year, FIIK. It is the proper answer to so many of life’s problems :)

  28. “WordPress has not yet sent me the list of top commenters, I will let you know who the ‘winner’ is for 2015.”
    As the ‘reigning champion’ from 2014, I wish everyone else good luck, but despite my New Years resolution, I have put the same effort in for 2015, so I think I have another shot at it this year.
    Happy New Year to all.

    • 2014 was the warmest year. 2015 is the warmest year. The Met Office is saying 2016 will be another warmest year. NASA and NOAA both indicate the El Nino ain’t goin’ away for many more months. You are looking like a possible threepeater.

      • And we are probably not all going to die from this horror.

      • No, but some smart people could be exposed as complete fools. Nothing new there.

        2017 could see another El Nino. Not impossible.

      • You mean get accepted into the group you are a founding member of?

      • BTW,

        Could use some of that warmest ever right now in Oregon. It’s about 30F in the sun and the furnace crapped out a few days ago. Warmest is a lot easier to deal with.

      • Yes, there is always some knob who steps forward with “but it’s cold where I am.”

      • JCH, “The Met Office is saying 2016 will be another warmest year. ”

        I would say that just about guarantees that it won’t be. :)

      • BTW,

        Could use some of that warmest ever right now in Oregon. It’s about 30F in the sun and the furnace crapped out a few days ago. Warmest is a lot easier to deal with.

        Yes, my locale had a snow storm that took out the power ( and heat ) overnight.

        Never did the sound of the electric company’s chainsaws revving at 5 AM sound so sweet ( and the subsequent resumption of power and heat ).

        I don’t think anyone was clamoring to turn the heat back off because it was fossil fuel based.

        Electricity is decentralized, so none of us care about the generation provided it’s cheap, reliable, and available. Renewables are fine if they meet those three criteria – but availability is an inherent problem and either storage or backup mean cost must necessarily also rise.

      • Yes, there is always some knob who steps forward with “but it’s cold where I am.”

        Yes. That’s because there’s always some place that is cold.

        That doesn’t falsify global warming – it’s real.

        But it does exemplify how irrelevant global warming is.

      • It does no such thing.

      • It does no such thing.

        One may ask – why does a rise of global average temperature matter?

        I’ve done some radiative transfer model runs and found that for a given global atmosphere, doubling CO2, warming 2.4 degrees C, humidifying the atmosphere, and removing some and even all of the Arctic Sea Ice doesn’t materially change the radiative deficit in the high latitudes and radiative surplus in the tropics.

        This arrangement occurs because earth is an orbiting spheroid.

        CO2 does not change the shape of the earth, and thus, does not change climate.

        Global warming is real,all right, but climate change is not.

        Now go and change your underwear.

      • Not what I said JCH. But not surprised you twisted it.

        It’s currently cold. With the furnace out one becomes very aware of the cold. Without electricity we would be huddled by the fireplace.

        Dealing with the “hottest day of the year is a piece of cake in comparison.

    • You Definitely Deserve the Dubious Distinction, yimmy Dee.

  29. Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this blog of Judy.

  30. The post, “Quantifying Petrochemical’s Contribution to the Rise and Wellbeing of Humanity” didn’t make the top 20?

  31. Happy New Year, Judith.

  32. Happy New Year to Judith and all reading this. Despite sniping from various politically motivated propagandists, Climate Etc. continues to be a good open forum where moderation does not impact free expression of ideas and scientific content. That’s quite an achievement compared to the host of other climate blogs, such as ATTP’s, where rudeness and equivacation is punctuated by obscure references to a weird game called ClimateBall invented by Lord Bertrand Russel’s squirrel (he knows who he is) and meaningless, obscure and quite long but scientifically vacuous searches for inconsistencies by Jo$hua. At least when Rice shows up here he can’t delete inconvenient but correct comments. Climate Etc. is still beating the competition.

    • The climate is kicking the crap out of Climate Etc.

      • This is the blog where 2014 was going to be the high-water mark for the GMST. The AMO, or some other religious fantasy, was about to go south.

      • Let’s hope that 2016 rewards the perverse warmista clowns with another opportunity to celebrate The Warmest Year Evaaaah!

      • Yes, it’s good to celebrate physics.

      • Like Foot Baal on Sun Day!

      • OK. Next year take your Warmest Year Evaaaah! physics, squander another $200 million to gather a mob of 40,000 alarmists together for a big soiree and you can get another useless non-binding agreement to do nothing meaningful.

      • The weather is kicking the crap out of the alarmists

      • No it’s not. Sit at a restaurant. All around you people will be talking about how warm it is. 2015 was a great year for alarmists. 2016 could be as well.

      • I’m currently sitting in a restaurant (enjoying a bowl of dduk gook) and I can assure you no one is talking about how warm it is.

        But that might be due to it being sub freezing and windy.

        Must be tough going through live scared of the thermometer.

      • “I’m currently sitting in a restaurant (enjoying a bowl of dduk gook) and I can assure you no one is talking about how warm it is.”

        happy new year.

        You will enjoy this

      • timg… haha.. 국물 맛이 되었습니까?

      • What I’ll enjoy more is when the little platoon of reactionary misfits fails to beat the greenies.

      • dduk gook?
        Korean New Year, Solnal, is greeted with steaming bowls of rice cake soup called duk gook – “comfort food,”

      • Steven,

        I still need subtitles, but you it looked interesting.

        This afternoon we have friends coming over for the Seahawks game and will be serving another traditional New Year’s meal – black eyed peas (in a sausage stew), collards and cornbread.

        A happy, healthy new year to you and the rest of folks at Climate Etc.

    • David Springer

      If the climate were kicking the crap out of Climate Etc you’d be gone by now. Your statement is therefore very unlikely to be correct.

      • David Springer

        Wow. That IPPC scale requires rote memorization. Who would guess that a scale which contains “very likely” wouldn’t contain “very unlikely”. Those boys can’t even rationally construct a stupid scale. Of course when a group of scientists feels compelled to construct so dumb as that scale in the first place we have to wonder how firm their grip on reality.

  33. Thank you again, Prof Curry, and keep up the good work. I am looking forward to the 2016 postings at ClimateEtc.

  34. Happy New Year Judith, and to all the Denizens too.

    I thought that the post ‘Scientists speaking with one voice: panacea or pathology?’ was a good one highlighting fundamental problems with the climate change domain, and I liked very much the post ‘we are all confident Idiots’ too. Has been a pleasure and a privilege to post here; have nothing on the deck at the moment, but hopefully will come up with more in 2016.

    And thanks too for your great attempts to improve climate science integrity at the political level, via the congressional hearings. You did a great job.

  35. Judith, congrats on the best scientific blog on the Internet. Happy New Year!

    Someday there will be a JudithCurty Prize for scientific integrity.

  36. Bill Hooke has an excellent new years essay:

    From history’s rearview mirror, it seems we may have placed too much effort too early trying to jolt political leaders and the public into specific actions with respect to climate change. Hard to tell but it seems some of our exertions polarized and alienated these audiences rather than unifying and galvanizing them. The result may have been a delay in the kind of global groundswell that may finally be materializing from the Paris climate-change summit. In any event, this seems to be not just a hole but a vast pit where as a community we might stop digging and return to our science and see where that takes us.

    • Who do you think is the “we” he refers to? The AMS? The climate science establishment? As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger when confronted with an Indian attack “what do you mean we white man?”.

      Seems to me that he should be addressing his comments to the “learned societies”. The hole they have dug for themselves is pretty deep and steep sided.

    • I don’t any signs of a public groundswell against action on climate change. A small minority in the “skeptic” population may be alienated. But I don’t think it has had or will have much impact on policy.

      • There hasn’t been any meaningful action on climate change, yoey.

      • It depends on the country, Don. A number have been able to get their emissions below 1990 levels. But yeah China, India, and other developing countries have been increasing their emissions, so we do need them to do more along with us.

      • So we got it made, yoey. More fracking for gas and more nuclear will be essential. Oh, wait! The greenies won’t go for that.

      • More fracking for gas and more nuclear will be essential.

        I am sure we will get more and already are seeing more of all of the above including renewables which I notice you conveniently forgot. China is already moving on nuclear and if they do it safely, then more power to them. But I am not the kind of person who feels that I should dictate what a particular country does to reduce their CO2 emissions. I think I will leave that for the people of that country to decide.

      • I told you what is essential, yoey. Renewables are a sideshow. You are misguided and not very bright, but you seem to have good intentions. I bet all those countries will be relieved to know that you are not the kind of person to dictate to them what they need to do to reduce their CO2.

        Happy New Year!

      • I told you what is essential, yoey.

        I didn’t know you were an energy expert, Don.

      • A non-expert with basic knowledge and good sense is still way ahead of someone who is misguided and not very bright, yoey. I am trying to help you.

      • A non-expert opinion, in this case, is basically worthless. But go ahead, Don.

      • Richard, are you talking to yourself again?

    • Joseph, There is lots of evidence that the general public considers climate change a tertiary problem after the economy and even cultural issues. That is shown by poll after poll. The European elites are on board, but so far the only real progress has been substitution of natural gas for coal. A lot of the renewables action has been counterproductive such as cutting down American forests so Britain can claim reductions in net emissions. This is phony accounting. Paris will be a wait and see thing.

      There is certainly net benefit from switching away from fossil fuels to clean alternatives. In reality, nuclear and continued expansion of natural gas are the only viable ones on the scale needed. The public in general public doesn’t care that much. Investments in energy research is another avenue that activists should be pursuing above all else as its unlikely that anyone will volunteer to reduce their carbon footprint first, as the huge footprint of our elites shows. That hypocrisy also guarantees that ordinary people will not care to volunteer to go first.

      For the elites, climate change has assumed the ideological position left vacant by fascism and communism, the favored elitist dogmas of the 20th century.

      • For the elites, climate change has assumed the ideological position left vacant by fascism and communism, the favored elitist dogmas of the 20th century.

        That’s quite a creative interpretation their, dp. The important difference being that the communists and fascists acknowledged that their positions were based on their ideology. But now I don’t think any legislator would say they support action to deal with climate change solely because of their ideology. In fact, in almost all cases that I know of they appeal to the science to make their case that something needs to be done.

    • curryja,

      A lone commenter wrote –

      “Your global groundswell is real. There is unanimous agreement to say anything and do nothing. Your New Year’s advice about holes is being taken.”

      Certainly many of the world’s inhabitants are too busy avoiding the potholes of everyday life to worry about climate change chasms which may or may not be around the corner, should they live long to get there . . .


  37. Trying to get a food fight started early in the New Year huh?

    “The result may have been a delay in the kind of global groundswell that may finally be materializing from the Paris climate-change summit.”

  38. A quick scan of the Shakespeare insults suggest alot are more cutting than anything written here. Although there have been some fun one’s written here, problem is I cant remember any I’ve read here. Anybody remember their favorite insult written in comments?
    (apologies JC if this is encouraging bad behaviour ;) )

  39. You have won respect, JC.

  40. Dr. Curry

    This statement:

    “it seems we may have placed too much effort too early trying to jolt political leaders and the public into specific actions with respect to climate change.”

    appears to me to be a lament that warmers were unable to control other people with their narrative.

    From Steve Mosher:

    “…over 400 (ppmv)we are heading into a danger zone for civilization as we know it.”

    comes science by assertion.

    Is this the science you want to get back to?

    At least for humans, 40,000 ppm is the norm. Tell me again why the human species is going to vanish a tad above 400 ppm?

    It looks to me just another narrative to control others. The urge to control and manipulate people just can’t be resisted.

    • Maybe 2016 is the year Dr. Curry can leave her pesky Warmerisms in the dustbin. We can only hope.


    • RiHo08,

      I wonder if 40,000 ppm (4%) might be a typo. This level is approaching the point where CO2 actually becomes poisonous,

      I believe the following quote to be correct –

      “Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]”

      Strangely, there don’t seem to be many studies on the subject available through PubMed or Academic search. I no longer have a reference, but some years ago navies were concerned about sudden deaths occurring amongst divers using rebreather equipment, which is used because it leaves no trail of expired air.

      It turned out that the divers didn’t die of suffocation, (they were breathing more than 20% oxygen), but rather acute CO2 toxicity. I seem to recollect that 7% will kill quite quickly. Not 100% sure, of course.

      I await with some relish the attack from the “Science by Photoshop” brigade. Any challenge to their Warmist fantasies must not go unpunished! Maybe they could try a picture of Scott Mandia in a Superman suit, brandishing a hockey stick with hand drawn scary temperatures on it.

      That would be scary, really scary! My care factor would probably change from nil to nothing at all.


      • Check out all the WW2 submarine movies. In one of them the alarmists show the needle on the CO2 gauge moving ever closer to the danger zone.

      • Stop the Press. News Flash! Admiral Rickover was wrong.

        The nuclear trigger is in the hands by submariners who live within nuclear powered submarines in a toxic world that makes them dumb, poor decision makers, and manually unable to function. Armageddon is just around the corner. Who would of thunk it after these lo and 65 years? And we have yet another Berkeley Lab’s unreproducible psychological research on a couple of university students to prove it!


        And for those who prefer rat data:


        And for those who want a simple narrative on the comparison of human exhaled CO2 concentration and other little known facts:


        Now if you want original source data, you may need to read German and some English language papers which looked at blood gas studies for both submariners and aviators. These studies were performed precisely because of concerns about prolonged exposures to environmental gases of submarines running on electric motors and diesel engines. Some studies were published 100 plus years ago. The real dangerous gas in a submarine way back then was hydrogen from the lead acid battery storage system. Kaboom!

        As for your oxygen rebreather SCUBA and a limit to the depth of one atmosphere, the Italians studied this as well as the French: Cousteau. It turns out it is a CO2 problem, only at the molecular level in the brain, the Henderson Hasselbalch equation doesn’t operate as written and there was no mitochondrial off-loading of CO2 onto Hemoglobin because the 4 Hgb receptor sites were still occupied by oxygen.

        Lots of arcane studies were used to address the habitability of nuclear powered submarines and its ability to remain submerged 6 months at a time, or until the groceries ran out and the crew mutinied. It appears that Rickover thought of that too.

      • Slight correction:

        Henderson-Hasselbalch works fine, it’s the Bohr Effect that is in operation as well.

      • David Springer

        Ever heard of google?


        All you ever wanted to know about it and more.

      • The gauge you refer to is most likely the depth gauge numbnuts.

        US submariners had more seriously things to worry about.

        Largest risk factor for not coming back was having an aggressive CO.

        Largest factor for coming back from a successful patrol (ie tonnage sunk, all fish expended) was having an aggressive CO.

    • CO2 at up to 10,000 ppm seems to be OK:
      National Research Council: http://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5

      I posted a long post with quotes but it disappeared into the ether. I can’t be bothered doing it again.

      Here’s another short table of example values: http://www.examiner.com/article/co2-data-shows-nobody-s-dead-from-a-little-carbon-dioxide

      “The following summarizes levels of CO2 under various conditions:

      40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people.

      8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines

      2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city

      2,000 ppm: The point at which my CO2 meter squawks by playing Fur Elise

      1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere over the past 550 million years

      1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses

      1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students

      600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my husband in it

      490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone

      390 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air

      280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of “CO2 famine” for plants

      150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2 starvation

      (all of these data vary a little with size of the space, ventilation, wind, and the like)

      What does it mean?

      There’s a lot more data out there, but this simple list says it all. Carbon dioxide is present in our outside air at about 390 ppm.

      – A little less than that and our plants start to suffer.
      – A little more and there’s little effect on people while plants proliferate.
      – A lot more and there’s still not much effect on people.

      Nowhere in the list of numbers do people get dead. Well, except for those submarines that never surface. You get the point.”

    • I haven’t watched the movie since it came out, but it may have been Das Boot.

  41. David Springer

    2016 suggestion for Dr. Curry

  42. This seems to be insulting ocean cycles:

    [Thou] shall stand in fire up to the navel and in ice up to th’heart, and there th’offending part burns and the deceiving part freezes.

  43. 2016 will be the year when Physics Departments of most major universities throughout the English/German/French speaking world will be notified by our group regarding the false physics in the Greenhouse Radiative Forcing conjecture.

    Whilst the mean ocean surface temperature is indeed due to solar heating, it is important to understand that the “solar heating” is not achieved by way of direct solar radiation reaching the ocean surface and (mostly) passing through the first meter or so. Stefan-Boltzmann calculations readily confirm this.

    Instead, the ocean surface receives the required thermal energy by means of the non-radiative “heat creep” process that I have been first in the world to explain based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The science of heat transfer lies totally within the realm of physics, and so only those with a sound knowledge and understanding of entropy and thermodynamics will understand what I have explained at http://climate-change-theory.com

    In summary, the old 20th century Greenhouse Radiative Forcing conjecture cannot explain the required thermal energy transfers and the reason why a planet’s surface temperature rises each planetary morning. The process of entropy maximization is totally ignored and there is a false assumption that separate sources of radiation (the atmosphere and the Sun) have a compounding effect so that (they think) the sum of the fluxes can be used in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. That is wrong, but it is indeed what those energy budget diagrams imply. If it were correct and one electric bar radiator could raise an object to 350K, then 16 such radiators would raise it to 700K. That doesn’t happen, so the greenhouse conjecture is totally and utterly debunked.

    The correct 21st century “heat creep” hypothesis is, instead, based on the laws of physics and it explains the morning warming for planets like Earth and Venus, as well as the observed temperatures. You cannot prove it wrong. Nobody has in nearly two years, despite the AU $10,000 reward on offer for doing so.

    • itsnotco2,

      I agree with you in one respect about the inability of Warmists to appreciate reality.

      For example, a square kilometre of glacier is radiating around 300 MW of energy at any instant. The world’s finest climatologists are unable to provide me with instruction on how to use a fraction of this energy to brew up a nice cup of tea.

      Maybe there are Warmist Watts, and useful Watts.


      • David Springer

        You are confusing quantity with quality.


      • David Springer,

        From your link –

        “Ohta said that, “the only electrical energy which exists in natural circumstances is lightning, . . . ”

        That would be apart from the electrical energy generated by the electric eel (more than 800 volts at 1 ampere), or the electrical energy generated internally by every organism with a nervous system. Totally unnatural, according to you?

        There are many other examples of natural electrical energy, ranging from electrolysis to piezo-electricity.

        Maybe you could stick to Bugs Bunny cartoons. At least the fantasy is not presented as reality, eh?


      • David Springer

    • David Springer

      “2016 will be the year when Physics Departments of most major universities throughout the English/German/French speaking world will be notified by our group regarding the false physics in the Greenhouse Radiative Forcing conjecture.”

      • You, David Springer, are obviously not qualified in physics, or, if I’m wrong, you have never understood the process of maximum entropy production which always tends to occur according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which law virtually all climatologists totally ignore. And, by the way, the temperature which black body radiation achieves in another black body never exceeds the temperature of the source body.

      • Now I suggest you go back and read the rest of the comment above and some of the linked material. Get back if and when you wish to discuss the entropy maximization process which explains temperature observations in tropospheres, crusts, mantles and cores of planets and satellite moons throughout the Solar System.

      • David Springer

        Let’s see who’s “qualified” and who isn’t using the scientific method.

        I hypothesize that you’re an easily recognizable crank and your notifications to physics departments at major universities will be ignored.

        Let me know how that works out.

      • And still no valid physics presented by David Springer in support of the easily recognized carbon dioxide hoax that he and others like him (with a pecuniary interest) continue to promulgate. Where is your experiment with 16 radiators producing twice the absolute temperature that one does, David Springer? Did you win a scholarship from a university physics department as I did about 50 years ago? Demonstrate that you understand the process of maximum entropy production, and thus (using your “understanding”) pinpoint where you think my hypothesis fails.

  44. “NCEP 01/01/2016 is .54C.”

    And Saturn’s in the Third House. Who cares about made up numbers?


  45. Political and religious leaders after WWII joined forces in supporting the strange Big Bang proposition that this universe originated in a cipher and aimlessly rushes nowhere.

    • as opposed to what?

      • The proposition in the US Declaration of Independence that humans were “endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and to establish and/or abolish governments that protect and/or destroy those basic human rights.

  46. Did SciMed Sceptic appear on the blogroll recently? The author has some curious ideas about HIV/AIDS.

  47. richardswarthout


    Two score ago a friend at work started a project involving the programing of microprocessors, and kept boasting that it would be done in 6 months; I bet him it wouldn’t and won. He than bet that it would be done in 6 more months and I won again. This continued for 2 years until he finally won but I made out in the long run. Back then software/firmware typically took much longer and took much more memory than predicted; it was an easy bet for me. Hopefully you do not have much riding on your predictions but it seems you have an obsession in doing so, whatever the reason. Have a great 2016.


    • Funny then that you can’t see the pattern that is working against you. The GHE never stops. It’s like termites chewing through the skeptic framework night and day, and they apparently don’t even know it.

      • richardswarthout


        There is no pattern working against me because I’m not riding in that rodeo; only a spectator. I am a bit concerned that the prognosticating is diverting attention from needed research.


  48. If a prize could be awarded for the poster who consistently contributed the highest quality comments, if not the largest quantity, and this prize could be awarded posthumously, then Pekka Pirilä would win hand down. His expertise, intelligence, wisdom and kindness will be missed in the whole climate-related blogosphere.

    • Oh no, i hadn’t heard of Pekka’s passing, huge loss. this is all i could find

      • Hi Judith

        More importantly, have you heard of entropy maximization and how that process explains the required transfers of thermal energy which, in turn, explain all temperatures in tropospheres, surfaces, crusts, mantles and cores of all planets and satellite moons in the Solar System and no doubt beyond? This is the revolutionary paradigm shift in our understanding of climate, and you can of course study it at https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com and in the linked sites.

      • With respect, Judith, there is a lot to be learnt regarding recent developments in the understanding of thermodynamics and entropy …

        I quote from http://entropylaw.com ….

        “According to the old view, the second law was viewed as a ‘law of disorder’. The major revolution in the last decade is the recognition of the “law of maximum entropy production” or “MEP” and with it an expanded view of thermodynamics showing that the spontaneous production of order from disorder is the expected consequence of basic laws.”

        and from the linked page on the Second Law …

        “The key insight was that the world is inherently active, and that whenever an energy distribution is out of equilibrium a potential or thermodynamic “force” (the gradient of a potential) exists that the world acts spontaneously to dissipate or minimize. All real-world change or dynamics is seen to follow, or be motivated, by this law. So whereas the first law expresses that which remains the same, or is time-symmetric, in all real-world processes the second law expresses that which changes and motivates the change, the fundamental time-asymmetry, in all real-world process. Clausius coined the term “entropy” to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis.”

        and from  Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927) …

        “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. … if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

        Climatologists disregard the Second Law and that’s why they get it all wrong. What really happens is explained here and you won’t get the full picture (including the explanation of the required energy transfers in all planets) from anyone else.

      • Pekka was a gentleman and a scholar. His knowledge,patience and integrity was highly admirable.

    • We (including Pierre-Normand) had a robust argument here on the gravito-thermal thread in December 2014. We never agreed in the end, but it was a good argument. From what I could find from translated pages, he died in November, never recovering from an ischemic stroke four months before. He was 70. Very sorry to hear about this.

      • The empirical support for the gravito-thermal effect is now far more robust with modern experiments producing temperatures as cold as 1K. Correct physics explains why it occurs and also the resulting heat transfers that are restoring maximum entropy. Planetary data also supports the “heat creep” hypothesis: otherwise you have no alternative explanation for planets where no significant solar radiation penetrates to the base of their tropospheres. I have been first in the world to explain the relevant heat transfer processes. Take it or leave it: your beliefs are your business: correct physics is mine.

        See: http://www.climate-change-theory.com/WUWT.html

      • I’m also very sorry to hear of Pekka’s passing – he will be sorely missed.

        But it’s just a pity that some insensitive skydragon-slayer chooses to post their inane comments on this particular subthread.

      • David Springer



    • I first read about Pekka passing a few weeks ago at aTTP It’s too bad… great guy.

    • I’m very sorry to hear that. He was an uplifting force on the blog.

    • Pekka was always a welcome comment or. Sorry to learn of his passing.

  49. Mike Flynn,

    With an appropriate IR lens the glacier can heat your cup of tea.

  50. Ever looked up and wondered how nature can create an anti-gravity machine but we can’t?

    That old moon still working its way against gravity away from us.

  51. Happy New Year, Judith and denizens.

  52. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #208 | Watts Up With That?