Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

New paper:  Norther hemisphere temperature patterns the last 12 centuries [link]

EOS: Atlantic sea ice could grow during the next decade [link]  …

Workshop Report: Sea level and ice sheet changes during past warm periods [link] …

The collapse of El Nino is underway: [link]

Rainforest regrowth boosts carbon capture [link]

The Atlantic Ocean Is Acidifying At A Rapid Rate [link]

Climate shifts upended the lives of prehistoric humans in Europe, according to scientists [link]

Hurricane Patricia’s top winds were 215 mph, 15 mph higher than previously thought. [link]

Climate scientist Richard Betts speaks: ‘It’s a bit complicated.’ [link] …

Arctic climate hype versus reality [link]

The fate and age of carbon – insights into the storage and remobilization dynamics in trees [link]

Researchers want a better system for fixing bad science [link] …

Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-a-tragedy-of-errors-1.19264

An interesting review of peer review [link]

Bob Tisdale: How well do models simulate Earth’s climate? [link]  …

#ClimateAudit  shows more climate cherrypick. “Circumvent” divergence by sites 800 km distant [link]

Impact of unforced climate variability on TOA energy flux at local and global scales  [link]

On distributionally robust extreme value analysis [link]

Why some research can affect policy and some does not:[link]

Trends in atmospheric water vapor: where’s the positive feedback? [link]

How do you study the relationship between ice sheets and past sea level rise?
[link]

Good @CarbonBrief article on surface and satellite temps by @RozPidcock with @ed_hawkins @dougmcneall and Zeke [link]:  …

UC-Irvine is offering faculty up to $1,200 in “incentives” to attend a workshop..re: putting AGW in their courses [link]

Drilling for clues. Experts want to see the impact of one of the Earth’s strongest currents [link]

“THICK spring ice due to natural causes is currently the single biggest threat to polar bears”  [link]

How “Snowball Earth” volcanoes altered oceans to help kickstart animal life [link]

“Science journalists are not science advocates. And scientists aren’t science.” Great piece by @brookeborel. [link]

NAS Statement: The Architecture of Intellectual Freedom  [link]

If more social science professors start to behave like scholars, @JonHaidt will deserve much of the credit. [link] …

“No Dissent Allowed: U.S. Senators introduce amendment to muzzle climate ‘denial apparatus’ – Bernie Sanders  co-sponsors [link] …

 

194 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. No Dissent Allowed: U.S. Senators introduce amendment to muzzle climate ‘denial apparatus’ – Senator Bernie Sanders co-sponsors

    Welcome to Medieval times and possibly, a climate to match.

    • At the very end of the video of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, he concludes,

      And regrettably, it’s working.

      So Whitehouse identifies the root of the problem: In the marketplace of public opinion, the warmists are losing.

      What to do?

      “Censor the enemy,” comes the response.

      For as James Madison noted, “All governments rest on opinion.”

      So if public opinion is going the “wrong” way, it’s time for the state to step in and silence the enemy.

      “The results of such experiments when undertaken by those in possession of the means of violence are terrible enough,” Hannah Arendt concludes in Lying in Politics, “but lasting deception is not among them.”

      • Curious George

        I like the “apparatus” part – reminds me of a “paraphernalia”, and a guy who is about to be sentenced for a possession of drug paraphernalia:
        – Your Honor, please sentence me for a rape as well.
        – Did you rape anybody?
        – No, but paraphernalia I have.

    • MAX_OK, Citizen Scientist

      What a disappointment! This silly bill wouldn’t “muzzle” climate denying liars. It would just expresses disapproval of climate denying liars. I doubt it passes. Why would Congress disapprove of lying?

    • These words from politicos? “obscure their role, that deliberately cast doubt on……………..” I thought pretty much all politics went this route.

    • Also an eyecatcher: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246801331500008X .
      It’s a long rebuttal of Rahmstorf et al. (2015) http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n5/full/nclimate2554.html . The paper made a great rumble also at “Climate Audit”. From the conclusions: ” Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation”.

  2. The Left has declared America and capitalism guilty of causing global warming until proven innocent?

    “…disapproves of activities by certain corporations and organizations funded by those corporations to deliberately undermine peer-reviewed scientific research about the dangers of their products and cast doubt on science in order to protect their financial interests… and urges fossil fuel companies to cooperate with active or future investigations into their climate-change related activities and what the companies knew and when they knew it.” (from Sheldon Whitehouse’s Amendment)

    What did they know and when did they know it? Us folks in the middle of the political spectrum see it for what it really is. The wants government in everyone’s business, which is why they will even politicize the weather… by using silly-science to legitimize whoppers that would make a Piltdown Man hoaxter blush brighter than George Bush passing gas in front of the Queen. I think we all knew global warming was a hoax and a scare tactic even before 2009.

  3. New paper by Zeke Hausfather et al
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2015GL067640/abstract

    “Numerous inhomogeneities including station moves, instrument changes, and time of observation changes in the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) complicate the assessment of long-term temperature trends. Detection and correction of inhomogeneities in raw temperature records have been undertaken by NOAA and other groups using automated pairwise neighbor-comparison approaches, but these have proven controversial due to the large trend impact of homogenization in the United States. The new U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) provides a homogenous set of surface temperature observations that can serve as an effective empirical test of adjustments to raw USHCN stations. By comparing nearby pairs of USHCN and USCRN stations, we find that adjustments make both trends and monthly anomalies from USHCN stations much more similar to those of neighboring USCRN stations for the period from 2004-2015 when the networks overlap. These results improve our confidence in the reliability of homogenized surface temperature records.”

    • Statisticians understand that smoothing raw data results in a loss of information and a resultant loss in degrees of freedom (df). In statistics df is central to understanding the accuracy of our estimate about reality when we know our estimates are based on but a sample of the observable reality around us. For example, our estimate of the number of people in the world with sun bleached hair will be wildly inaccurate if based only on the population of California’s Pacific Beach. A shrinking df is a big problem because we already lose df with parameterization.

    • Another Fine Butt study.

      If the comparison was to USHRN stations in areas at least as rural or more rural than the USCRN station the study would be interesting and have some value. As it is we don’t know the criterion for picking the paired stations. If more urban stations were cherry picked the result wouldn’t be surprising or meaningful.

      Until the USCRN is replicated using “pristine” only sites, a USPCRN” with NO rural or urban sites, the actual warming trend of the US will only be speculative, and the claims UHI is removed should be regarded skeptically. There is no reason to put a climate station within miles of any human influence or artifact.

      Further climate station sensors should be by law required to be built and tested to a fixed detailed engineering standard and replacement sensors should be required by law to conform to the same fixed standard. A stake should have been driven though heart of the sensor migration vampire a long time ago.

      • wrong.

        Do you even understand what zeke did? I think not.

        Explain, in your own words what Zeke Did and what skeptical concerns he was addressing.

        Let me help:

        here is a graphical version of ONE typical skeptical argument. thre are others.

        It’s Anthony’s Pollution argument.

        Basically, in homongenization, the bad stations pollute the good.

        That is TESTABLE

        There are other skeptical claims testable as well since we have CRN

        Every year we collect CRN data more and more skeptical claims become testable.

        Every year you will invent more and more silly objections.

      • Seems to be a great obfuscation of issues.

        Those advocating political action ( which is, in, and of itself, irrational and unscientific ) affirm the temperature record as all the proof ( of harm ) that they need.

        Those opposing political action ( which is also, in, and of itself, irrational and unscientific ) cite obvious and likely problems with the surface temperature record as reason to question the theory.

        But SST ( even without artificially gluing on some fudge to the buoy record ) indicates warming consistent with surface land. So do RAOB and MSU. So there’s warming. And it’s consistent with warming theory.

        But it’s consistent at the low end. The land/ocean indices as produced still indicate deccelerating rates of warming from a peak of 1.7C/century. That’s less than the IPCC AR4 low end scenario and less than Hansen C for the period since 1979.

        And warming alone does not constitute harm! In fact there are benefits,
        and benefits that would be identified if we had a truly objective IPCC.

        AGW theory has been around a long time and so have the theories of climatic effects. Most theoretical effects are marginal, so much so that they’re not observed even after we’ve had warming.

      • Steven Mosher

        “There is no reason to put a climate station within miles of any human influence or artifact.”

        Sure there is.
        1. To study the urban climate
        2. To validate the use of older historical sites that were in non disturbed areas.
        3. To show that skeptics need to be more skeptical about uhi effects.
        4. Urban stations are used to feed weather forecasts.
        5. To study the effects of climate change on uhi.

        But you illustrated that skeptics are not really interested in data.

      • The basic problem is the CRN has UHI (or at least anthropogenic artifacts). Some of the siting (next to the balloon pad for example) appears to be deliberately perverse.

        Rural settings aren’t UHI free. There is a lot more pavement in the farming community I grew up in than there is today with virtually no change in population. Homogenization cross-contaminates contaminated data.

        A “pristine only” network of sites 1+ mile from any human influence (and not down wind from population centers) would provide a check. The population density within 1 mile of a climate station should be zero.

        The inclusion of Menne in the author list is problematic. This is Matthew J. Menne the father of homogenization. Much like a James Hansen study of CO2 forcing the study would seem doomed to produce a predictable outcome..

        Since the study is paywalled what constitutes a more similar trend or anomaly is left to the imagination.

        Until a homogenization study is done by independent scientists who are dubious of the method and not associated with temperature blenders I will remain skeptical of homogenization.

        If an engineer tests his system and says it works good, he may or may be right. If someone who doesn’t like the designer tests the system and says it works good, I am more inclined to be a believer.

      • “independent scientists”

        is there a link for such folks ?

      • Rural settings aren’t UHI free.

        Right, and it’s not a static issue ( one time check of rural or urban ) but a dynamic one: rate of change of contaminating effects.

        And, a station which moves from the urban center to the suburbs would appear good at the time, but as the strip malls build up, it’s the trend that matters.

        Unfortunately, humans care about the temperature where humans are, making it kind of an uncertainty thing: the observers will corrupt the observations.

      • The lack of temperature increase should have produced a larger radiative imbalance, particularly with the large increase in GHG concentrations. The reality is that temps didn’t rise as predicted nor did radiative imbalance. In fact, the radiative imbalance may have decreased.

      • Perhaps we should rename it the Economic Heat Island effect.

      • Steven Mosher

        Nobody asserts temperature as proof of harm.

      • What is the ‘Aim’ of AGW science again? You seem to have forgotten.

      • Nobody asserts temperature as proof of harm.

        I believe they do – I believe you do it.

        See, it’s warming, we gotta do something.

      • Steven Mosher: “That is TESTABLE”
        That would appear to be a usage of the term ‘TESTABLE’ that is unique to climate “science”.

        It certainly bears no relationship to its usage in engineering.

      • Reply to Turbulent Eddie ==> “But SST… indicates warming consistent with surface land. … So there’s warming. And it’s consistent with warming theory.”

        SST do not == climate warming. They indicate sea surface water temperature, which is NOT necessarily caused by an increased in the temperature of the air above the sea. Most sea surface temperatures change is related to up- and down-dwellings and other factors of the fluid dynamics of the oceans.

        Ocean Heat Content will someday (when there is enough data across a long enough period of time) tell us if the oceans are warming — but not why. Oceans are heated both from above (energy from the sun) and from below (heat from the Earth itself, volcanism, etc).

      • Sun does not care what the air temp is above the surface. The sun drills energy into the upper layers. OHC goes up when less sun energy goes out than than went in. The current, unrelenting build up in OHC is congruent with Minnett’s notion of how GHG warm the oceans. If his theory did not work, energy from below would just shoot out and be gone.

      • “The basic problem is the CRN has UHI (or at least anthropogenic artifacts). Some of the siting (next to the balloon pad for example) appears to be deliberately perverse.”

        1. I checked all 200+ CRN and RCRN stations with the most precise
        satellite data. That is how I found the baloon pad.
        Its the only one. You could ALSO go look at all the site photos.
        2. you should actually check that series. you are wrong.

        “Rural settings aren’t UHI free. There is a lot more pavement in the farming community I grew up in than there is today with virtually no change in population. Homogenization cross-contaminates contaminated data.”
        1. Mere assertion.
        2. Rural means “no BUILT” enviroment.. if a farm has pavement
        it will register as non rural.
        3. you are wrong about cross contamination.

        A “pristine only” network of sites 1+ mile from any human influence (and not down wind from population centers) would provide a check. The population density within 1 mile of a climate station should be zero.

        1. Been there done that.. NO built pixels within 20KM

        The inclusion of Menne in the author list is problematic. This is Matthew J. Menne the father of homogenization. Much like a James Hansen study of CO2 forcing the study would seem doomed to produce a predictable outcome..

        1.I’ve worked with Matt. your accusation is sickening
        2. he is not the “father” of homogenization

        Since the study is paywalled what constitutes a more similar trend or anomaly is left to the imagination.

        1. The code is there. RUN IT

        Until a homogenization study is done by independent scientists who are dubious of the method and not associated with temperature blenders I will remain skeptical of homogenization.

        1. Nobody cares about your skepticism.
        2. when I started BE I was a registered skeptic of homogenization.
        independent. paid by no one.

        If an engineer tests his system and says it works good, he may or may be right. If someone who doesn’t like the designer tests the system and says it works good, I am more inclined to be a believer.

        1. Mattts code was DOUBLE BLIND TESTED
        2. ours was as well

      • Steven Mosher | February 7, 2016 at 11:35 pm |
        “Rural settings aren’t UHI free. There is a lot more pavement in the farming community I grew up in than there is today with virtually no change in population. Homogenization cross-contaminates contaminated data.”
        1. Mere assertion.
        2. Rural means “no BUILT” enviroment.. if a farm has pavement
        it will register as non rural.
        3. you are wrong about cross contamination.

        Rural means “no BUILT”
        Yet another dubious assertion.

        http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feart.2015.00024/full
        Most cities do not border on the rural space, but rather on periurban zones, rururban ones, etc…, which are influenced to some extent by the city. Even rigorous studies make use of somewhat vague expressions such “nearby rural area” for the non-urban point or sector

        “Rural” seems to be a badly defined concept. The above article details the problems. Even farming communities have asphalt roads and have converted most or all of the natural cover. To claim this doesn’t have a UHI effect is fairly silly.

        Other authors also assume that the rural, or reference, point must possess less than 10% of constructed surface

        Allowing up to 10% constructed surface makes a mockery of the “rural” claim.

        Until we insist that “pristine” or “natural” areas are the reference for UHI we are just homogenizing areas with varying levels of UHI.

    • “Steve McIntyre Picking Cherries in the Gulf of Alaska*
      Wiles et al “target[ed]” sites where the “trees appear to still be responding positively to temperature” to avoid “bias[ing]” their results:
      .dendrob Posted Feb 4, 2016 at 3:03 AM but we don’t sample randomly – “.
      Nor does Zeke homogenize randomly.
      Since the USHCN data “complicate the assessment of long-term temperature trends.” because some of it has been hard to homogenize properly we will homogenize it [target sites] with already homogenized data to avoid biasing our results [getting results that do not agree with our biases].
      As McIntyre points out post hoc selection of the temperature data that agrees with your preconceptions and throwing out or modifying the data that doesn’t will produce hockey sticks and confirmation bias every time.
      A comment *, modified greatly , says it all
      “How can it be that so many in this subdiscipline are so bereft of the most cursory and superficial understanding of the foundations off statistical analysis?
      These efforts entail discarding those times series that dont correlate well , with no real rationale other than they do not convey the right temperature signal…
      One can only ask you again to employ an individual with a robust background in applied statistics, and pay them for an hour or two to explain to you just why your procedure is guaranteed to produce spurious correlations.”
      Apologies to the real poster but they were lovely quotes.

      • Well, if you pick your stations and methodology before you see any data, it is a scientific study.

        If you pick your stations and methodology after you see the data, it is similar of those paint by numbers coloring books they give to kids.

        Just because a study produces a result, does not mean a study produces a meaningful result.

    • New paper by Zeke Hausfather…

      …is paywalled.

    • “These results improve our confidence”

      Poetry. TLC improved my pancakes this morning.

      Andrew

      • | February 7, 2016 at 3:24 pm |
        In the meantime Think about all the arguments people have made about adjustments.
        1A). Adjustments artificially warm the record.
        They artificially cool the past records which is the major concern.
        The problem is made worse by only talking in anomalies rather than an actual figure.
        adjustments generally * do not alter the thermometer value so generally * cannot warm the current record.
        1B). Adjustments pollute the good records with data from bad records.
        They alter the good records with algorithms [lower the past land temperatures], [raise the current cloudy area temperatures].
        Warm is good, cold needs to be homogenized away with neighbouring warm areas.

        1E) Raw data is better, never adjust
        Like one of my kids, exact maximum damage with an absolute statement.
        Skeptics understand adjustments need to be made at times.Lewindowsky however keeps 32,000 year old men in his data base unadjusted, Mann has upside down data unadjusted.
        Raw data is raw data, there is no “better” involved.
        Would you make up data [Cherry pick is your word] instead to be “better”
        I guess you would at that.
        That is models.
        Why do you want to chuck the real data out for modeled data when they do not agree?
        Adjusting data means modifying it for a specific purpose. That modification is user dependent and may be all right or in the case of tree ring sampling involves throwing out all the tree rings that do not agree with the temperature signal.
        Which temperatures does Zeke’s new algorithm chuck out because they do not fit the CO2 meme?

        1F) This one adjustment ( cherry pick) is wrong, therefore
        we cant trust the whole lot.
        But hundreds and thousands of wrong adjustments are not cherry picking, are they?

    • Robert,
      I encountered this in Steve Mosher’s description of what Best were doing : seperate the Tmins and Tmaxs from location. One can get some serious reductions in variance by using pairwise statistics for say the measurements for the same person before and after an event, or say temperature the for same location. Admittedly my university stats was 40 years ago but the idea of “pairwise” had never been imagined in this fashion, Is this something new in statistics ?

      Just asking.

      • new?

        No, I’ve done a couple of studies with Zeke on UHI and other things and pairwise is an approach that is always on the table. He’s really good at it.
        Off the top of my head I think Peterson did pairwise a while back.

        In the meantime Think about all the arguments people have made about adjustments.

        1. The skeptical argument(s) go something like this.

        1A). Adjustments artificially warm the record.
        1B). Adjustments pollute the good records with data from bad records.
        1C) Adjustments are not perfect
        1D) Adjustments can’t be explained case by case
        1E) Raw data is better, never adjust
        1F) This one adjustment ( cherry pick) is wrong, therefore
        we cant trust the whole lot.
        1G) I can’t believe it works
        1H) The uncertainty has to increase after adjustments.

        any more?

      • Steve

        Can you point me to an approved methods procedure for adjustments. For many environmental measurements there are approved methods that go thru rigorous peer review. I haven’t seen anything like that for adjustments in climate science.

        Thanks

      • 1I) All of the above. ^¿^

      • 1H) The uncertainty has to increase after adjustments.

        The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is described in more detail in the Appendix. Or maybe it isn’t.

      • “Can you point me to an approved methods procedure for adjustments. For many environmental measurements there are approved methods that go thru rigorous peer review. I haven’t seen anything like that for adjustments in climate science.”

        That’s a really smart question.

        It’s unclear what you mean by an ‘approved” procedure. There really isnt a ‘body” or organization that would approve methods.

        What you have is scientists at various institutes doing their best to come up with methods to handle the wide range of biases that are encountered.

        Some are easy
        Some are hard.

        Some are manual, some automatic, some semi automatic.

      • Thanks SM

        The field should consider a standard method for doing so. I can go look up the same for GC or GC/MS analysis concerning approved procedures for identifying a complex mixture. Doing likewise for temperature adjustments would move the debate forward.

        Until such is done, skeptics have a powerful line of argument.

    • Curious George

      Steven Mosher – it is nice to know that things are testable. Have, you, or anybody else, actually tested them? If so, please give us a link.

  4. David L. Hagen

    Bernie Sanders advocates Lysenkoism
    Sanders seeks to destroy scientists who dare challenge the Consensus, apply the scientific method and challenge the unvalidated over cooked global climate models. His tactics directly mirror Trofim Lysenko’s political witch hunt in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.

  5. “The Atlantic Ocean Is Acidifying At A Rapid Rate”

    Uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the subpolar North Atlantic Ocean declined rapidly between 1990 and 2006.
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n2/abs/ngeo1680.html

    • Your reference article stated that less CO2 uptake was occurring because the surface temperature was warmer. Less CO2 is going into solution because of the warmer temperatures. Less carbonic acid.
      Small point, the ocean is not acidic and will never become acidic. Stating that it is acidifying is not a proper use of the language. It might become less alkaline. Alas, that correct description of state of the ocean is unlikely to create hysteria, hence the use of “acidification” to further the “climate change” religion.

      • True, which is why learning National Geographic is no better than a supermarket tabloid is about like learning God is dead and there is no tooth fairy–e.g.,

        Seven is neutral. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries.

        Ocean Acidification — Pristine Seas — National Geographic

      • “Small point, the ocean is not acidic and will never become acidic.”

        Another small point, we are talking about the pH of the ocean, an aqueous solution. What pH is, is the negative log of the concentration of the H3O+ ion, which is present in all aqueous solutions. So all aqueous solutions are measurably acidic, even concentrated lye. If you are measuring the pH as you are lowering the pH, you don’t suddenly change what you are measuring when the pH goes through 7.

        Smart people are not afraid of the acidic term, it is in common use describing the taste of wine, coffee and other beverages.

        We need less comments from people who didn’t take even high school chemistry.

        But it is really not about acidity, but the solubility of calcium carbonate, which increases with lowering pH.

      • Because we don’t fully understand the bio-chemistry of the oceans, it is easy to get away with the assertion that every change will “make things worse.”

        With regard to pH levels, there seems to be an assumption among many that the calcium carbonate utilized by shell-forming creatures is taken directly from sea water. Therefore, we need to “protect” current levels of calcium carbonate by reducing CO2 emissions.

        However, biological processes (outside of poorly designed lab experiments) may not be that sensitive to pH. An important consideration is that it appears CaCO3 typically enters sea water from the biota, rather than the other way around. And recent studies suggest that CO2 (i.e., plant food) is stimulating greater growth of coccolithophores, rather than reducing their productivity.

        Surface waters are generally supersaturated with respect to CaCO3. However it is rare for CaCO3 to precipitate inorganically because of complex ion-ion interactions, which inhibit the Ca2+ ion. Magnesium (Mg2+) is one of the “competing” ions that depresses a spontaneous inorganic formation of CaCO3 as expected from thermodynamics (e.g. Rushdi et al., 1992). Thus it is through biological processes that CaCO3(s) is formed in the ocean.

        http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/2421/2009/bg-6-2421-2009.pdf

      • With regard to pH levels, there seems to be an assumption among many that the calcium carbonate utilized by shell-forming creatures is taken directly from sea water. Therefore, we need to “protect” current levels of calcium carbonate by reducing CO2 emissions.

        However, biological processes (outside of poorly designed lab experiments) may not be that sensitive to pH. An important consideration is that it appears CaCO3 typically enters sea water from the biota, rather than the other way around. And recent studies suggest that CO2 (i.e., plant food) is stimulating greater growth of coccolithophores, rather than reducing their productivity.

        First of all, there is no calcium carbonate dissolved in the ocean(s). There are calcium (Ca+2) ions, as well as carbonate (CO3-2) and bicarbonate (HCO3-) ions. Also some carbonic acid (H2CO3) and CO2. There are also chloride, magnesium, sodium, and many other ions. Salts precipitate (or, sometimes, not) when the saturation level for that salt is reached.

        The primary way (AFAIK) in which “CaCO3 […] enters sea water from the biota” is through the shedding of coccoliths, which are precipitated calcite (CaCO3) originally from sea-water. This is a very common behavior of several coccolithophores, which tends to produce ocean acidification and raise the local pCO2 in heavy blooms.

        I would assume such blooms approach an equilibrium with the coccoliths dissolving at roughly the same rate they are being shed. (Note that this behavior can impact both the local ocean albedo and atmospheric pCO2.)

        There have been many speculations regarding the functions of coccolith shedding, my guess would be a combination of driving local acidification to suppress competing species, along with increasing local light intensity in the layers where they reside.

        Another possible function for coccoliths in general (shed or not) would be to increase the pCO2 within the cell (at the expense of Hco3-) as an aid to C3 carbon fixing (i.e. to suppress photorespiration).

      • AK:

        I quoted from, and provided the link to, a paper that surveyed northern ocean surface waters for calcium carbonate saturation (both aragonite and calcite). Perhaps you should correspond with the authors to provide them a correction.

    • Smart people don’t talk around the main issue, which is large changes in CO2 uptake in the North Atlantic due to ocean surface temperature.

  6. “New paper: Norther hemisphere temperature patterns the last 12 centuries”

    The link is to a paper published in 2011. Is there another more recent paper that should have been linked?

    • i spotted it on twitter, didn’t check the date

    • With as few as 2 data points per century, isn’t it a little difficult to infer with much confidence the rate of warming on a sub-centennial basis. Did all the 25 to 30 year movements get picked up in the analysis during the MWP? To conclude the rate of warming recently is unprecedented it seems quite a leap of faith that the pattern of warming and cooling in the 20th century
      also occurred during the MWP. Anything less than decadal data points 1000 years ago makes for some interesting conclusions about short term warming rates.

      • Looks to me that more than half of the proxies are composed of annual data, so where did you get the 2 data points per century?

        Didn’t recognize Ljungqvist?

        You can face-palm now

      • “…we accepted records having as few as two data points per century.”

      • Did you read why they used the proxies with as few a 2 records per century?

        How do you know that the warming rates were as great as recent during the MWP.

        There is always too much uncertainty in short term warming rates to make any interesting conclusions about them anyway.

      • So you did in fact read harder. I’m not looking for excuses. My question was whether only 2 data points per century hampers detection of short term trends and inflection points. Thrill me with your acumen and give me the answer and the rationale for it and quit whining about all their difficulties.

  7. MAX_OK, Citizen Scientist

    Waggy says he’s now in “the middle of the political spectrum.” His shift to the left may not stop in the middle. Imagine “Waggy for Bernie.”

  8. “Arctic climate hype versus reality”
    Quote: “In the map below (Figure 2), the green dashed line shows extensive warming in the Barents Sea in 1769..”

    Horrible cold on CET through the 1760’s:
    http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat

    “Greenland was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period”

    Greenland was at its second coldest period in the Holocene in the 8th century, which was the warmest century for Europe in the MWP.

  9. “The Atlantic Ocean Is Acidifying At A Rapid Rate ”

    but no correlation with fossil fuel emissions
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2669930
    in fact, no correlation between fossil fuel emissions and any climate variable
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743

    • wrong

      • Hardly a correlation, except both are generally rising, which we knew.

      • DW – you want more study of natural variation. Pick an oscillation. AMO. How does the AMO either warm or cool the atmosphere. What is the mechanism? Just the basics. The AMO warms and cools the atmosphere how?

      • Good question, JCH.

      • It does it the same way anthropogenic greenhouse gases do it.

      • Somehow I doubt that, JCH. Still a good question.

      • JCH
        The answer is very simple, as anyone from the H. Spain to Norway will tell you. Westerly are the prevailing winds in the N. Atlantic. Southwesterlies in the winter strip warm surface layers of some of its heat (more the further north you go, up to 200W/m2) north west of Scotland (few weeks ago N. Scotland had temperatures equalling those of south of France). Winter winds enhance evaporation carrying lot of moist clouds across European continent and further, result torrential rains causing widespread flooding in the UK, where in the winter months southwesterlies with clouds and rain means warm, clear skies and sun are most often from north east and continent equals cold.
        UK summer since 1660 to 2015 has nearly zero trend line, while highest uptrend is the is in winter about 0.4C/century, put together with spring and autumn averaging about 0.27C/century

      • both are rising = a correlation

      • And why do you think CO2 doesn’t do anything in the summer months?

      • Without an imbalance, there will be no change in the global surface air temperature. Imbalanced cold water makes you jump out of the shower; imbalanced hot water makes you jump out of the shower.

      • No idea what you are on about.

      • Steven Mosher

        Actually a pretty good correlation.
        You can model the temperature rise easily with co2.
        Also his solar series looks to be out of date.

        Face it. If co2 looked like the solar series you guys would be laughing.

      • Neb, you say that both rising is a correlation, but only in the vaguest possible sense. That is if you stand far enough back and close one eye. For example, some temp series indicate no warming for almost the last two decades, when CO2 levels have increased by something like 30%. nota correlation by any means, right?

      • Hi Steven
        CO2 isn’t enough on its own, add to it LOD 10 years delayed and you are in the business

        OK for the low thermal capacity air at 6ft above ground , CO2 isn’t much good for ocean 3ft depth due to its high thermal capacity, CO2 can warm the air but not water.
        (what a heck am I saying, just forget it).

      • If you cherry pick slice and dice the records you can find flat subsets.

        The totality of data, the big picture, shows warming correlating with increased co2.

        this is unsurprising given AGW is effectively a scientific fact

    • ~0.0021 ± 0.0007 year−

      Time for some math. The CO2 level will increase for about 35 years. We’ll be generous and say 50 years because that is just the kind of generous people we are.

      -0.0021 * 50 = -0.015 PH or an average Ocean PH of 8.195

      Interesting. Might even be true. But I can find clams in 5.6 PH water in Lake Michigan.

      The ability of shellfish to form shells is related to the amount of energy (food) available. Even an insignificant increase in energy/food availability would compensate for the tiny PH change.

      http://www.counselheal.com/articles/16485/20151130/rise-planktons-oceans-co2-levels.htm
      Oh, 10X coccolithophores increase. These are shellfish food – and they have a calcium candy shell 10X increase, gee, they must not be having problems making shells.

      Which raises a question, was the minute PH drop supposed to cause a population explosion?

      “What is worrisome, is that our result points out how little we know about how complex ecosystems function.”
      The poor little plankton are so ignorant they didn’t know acidification was supposed to be bad.

  10. The collapse of El Nino. I guess the 2011 La Nina collapsed as well. ENSO is collapsible. This is alarming.

    Ouch, the specter of a La Nina… oh my, it’s a chilling thought. Especially if it’s like the ones after 1998. Two years where the GMST was about the same years prior to 1998, and then not seen, so far, again. .42C… those were the days. Maybe the stadium will wave it back.

    The forecast I would like to see is for the PDO. Is anybody trying that?

    • JCH

      How do we conclude whether the climate is changing in a positive or a negative manner. What are the key “climate characteristics” of a specific region? These characteristics vary greatly in different places.

      Is the “climate” better or worse in the USA (or the world) now than it was in the past? What are the agreed upon metrics to measure the trend?

      Those who fear AGW want to spend very limited resources to reduce CO2, but they seem to have no clue as to whether that will have a positive or negative impact. Seems like hysteria and not science.

      • What makes you think I fear AGW? There is a list of the 10 coldest cities in the lower 48. I grew up in one of them.

      • What makes you think I fear AGW? There is a list of the 10 coldest cities in the lower 48. I grew up in one of them.

        Yeah, I’ve got a friend who grew up in Indiana.
        Ran away from home to California.
        Ran a fishing boat in Alaska.
        Then retired to Arizona ( and golfed in the Phoenix summers ).

        He experienced lots of climate change by moving to different climates.
        He seems to have done ok in each one.

    • Ouch, the specter of a La Nina… oh my, it’s a chilling thought. Especially if it’s like the ones after 1998. Two years where the GMST was about the same years prior to 1998, and then not seen, so far, again. .42C… those were the days. Maybe the stadium will wave it back.

      Wave theory is well known in enso dynamics as a concurrent delay of wave reflection and instability to phase inversion [ Ghil and Zailpin 2015 in press]

      Delayed oceanic wave adjustments: Compensating for Bjerknes’s positive feedback is a negative feedback in the system that allows a return to colder conditions in the basin’s eastern part [65]. During the peak of the cold-tongue warming, called the warm or El Ni~no phase of ENSO, westerly wind anomalies prevail in the central part of the basin. As part of the ocean’s adjustment to this atmospheric forcing, a Kelvin wave is set
      up in the tropical wave guide and carries a warming signal eastward; this signal deepens the eastern-basin thermocline, which separates the warmer, well-mixed surface waters from the colder waters below, and thus contributes to the positive feedback described above. Concurrently, slower Rossby waves propagate westward, and are reflected at the basin’s western boundary, giving rise therewith to an eastward-propagating Kelvin wave that has a cooling, thermocline-shoaling effect. Over time, the arrival of this signal erodes the warm event, ultimately causing a switch to a cold, La Ni~na phase

      • It will not be cold enough for long enough or for often enough to help you. The record from 1974 to present has a bunch of La Nina events. Guess what? Going forward, ACO2 is North of 400ppm, and Natural variation has so far shown zippo of its former ability to cool the GMST. The last time natural variation truly cooled the earth was the first decades of the 20th century – over a century ago. You just got natural variation’s best shot, the negative phase of the PDO, and almost the entirety of its work is already erased.

        So is the GMST going to start going down in 2016. Of course. Oh my gawd, the thought is, well, sadness for a mighty part of the climate system is like that old, punched-out boxer. He’s got nothing left. It really should be called off. Maybe he’ll get in a round or two in at .70℃. No big deal. Then ACO2 knocks him out, and we’re mostly above GISS .87℃ from then on.

  11. “Tentatively, he and his colleagues have recommended making full data sets more easily accessible, creating a clear process for corrections, and asking experts to scrutinize statistics before they make it into print.”

    Solid point of departure suggestions.

    From the Verge Researchers Want a Better System article. Nice find Dr J. The good news is people realize the system is so broken that it is perpetuating bad science. The bad news is that it is sooooo bad, it has a long way to go. Situations like this often result in catastrophic failure before attention, resolve and urgency move the rock up the hill.

    You’ll know science is better when failed experiments are eagerly published.

  12. Who knew it may after all be an ‘invasive species’ issue after all. Not GMO’s, not ’round-up’, not G.W.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/02/05/scientists-say-humans-certainly-caused-the-spread-of-the-virus-thats-killing-honeybees/

    • There is so much Zohnerism about global warming it is wise to assume any “global warming did it” claim is wrong.

    • DT, I read that report the other day. It is actually a more complicated and interesting example of how man mucks with nature. The deformed wing virus is spread by varroa mites. The virus was endemic to some colonies of wild European honey bees (Apis mellifera) in Europe, which had some immunity. The varroa mite was endemic to Asian honey bees (Apis cerana), which had developed tolerance. Varorra jumped species in the 1970s in the Phillipines, where domesticated mellifera mixed with wild cerana. In two decades, varroa mite spead globally in mellifera. Very bad problem for beekeepers, and killed one of the wild colonies on my farm about a decade ago. Now, thanks to global trade in mellifera, the deformed wing virus has spead globally in mellifera, as well as jumping species to cerana. Double dose of anthropogenic invasive species.

      • Rud,
        Might I ask where you found the study? I could not locate via G. Scholar (maybe because I’m not licensed?) and found no link in the article. Sent this to my CAGW buddy and he says ‘insecticides’ even after reading this. It’s tough to communicate and find common ground as SS states.

  13. More wisdom from Richard Betts :‘It’s a bit complicated http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/02/04/a-climate-scientist-speaks-its-a-bit-complicated/ted’
    I just finish reading it.
    And all this by a man who didn’t know how to correctly calculate England’s annual temperature.

    • Vuk

      I have met Richard Betts, he is a very nice man who is interested in climate history. The miscalculation in CET long predates his appearance at the Met Office

      Tonyb

      • Hi Tony
        I am sure that most of people behind the AGW hypothesis ‘agitprop’ are nice people.
        Quote: Richard Betts @richardabetts:
        So, yes there was a ‘pause’ / ‘hiatus’ / ‘slowdown’ in *surface* warming, but it’s not a big deal in long term. Overall, warming ongoing 3/3

        He is ignoring reality. Reality, according to data used by him and the MetOffice is:

        out of 160 years of CRUTEM4 temperature data for 112 years or 70% of the time has been static across three pauses, including the present one, while it has risen only twice in two short bursts one of 19 and the other of 24 years, or 43 years in total .
        From this it could be concluded that a pause is a ‘natural state’ , so to claim that pause “it’s not a big deal in long term” (what that long term might be?) is not reflection of reality as it is presented. Propaganda should be separated from the facts.
        Maybe he considers past records as irrelevant.

      • Your crutem4 graph is horrendously out of date. Recent months go off the chart in defiance of any idea of a “pause”. More like an acceleration in fact

      • nebakhet
        “horrendously out of date”
        ? !
        Not so, the last entry is for 2014 (chart was done in 2015).
        One year data does not make or break pause !

      • David Springer

        Sorry, no. That’s land-only temperature, nebratski. The pause is calculated on global temp. Here, using global temp record:

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2004/to:2016/trend/detrend:0.065

        That’s 0.65 in 12 years which is a rate of 0.54C/decade. In order to be statistically significant the rate of increase needs to be 0.10C/decade or more.

        Nice try but no cigar. The pause is alive and well. I suggest you use satellite records in any case. Surface coverage with thermometers is entirely inadequate for measuring global trends.

      • So the pause now starts in 2004 does it? Used to be 1995 (and later 1998). It’s dying then. Your graph also doesn’t show 2015 which may lead you to not appreciate how doomed the pause is

    • And what makes you think it is not going to dive down again when elNino is over in few months time?

      • Will the GMST anomaly go down if there is a new record warmest La Nina in the instrument record?

        Yes. And then the next year there could a new record warmest La Nina in the record, and the GMST would go up.

        La Nina is just not likely to help you guys. The 2010-2011 La Nina was moderately strong, and it was followed by another La Nina, and it got warmer. And now its affect is all but vanished. Since 1950, there have been a handful of moderately strong La Nina events. You’re not betting on the Cubs, but sure as heck are not betting on the Yankees..

      • No, JCH. It would depend on whether albedo decreases. We should be spending more time looking at winds, hydrology, and radiation at various wavelengths.

      • The only wind I’m worried about is the Kimikamikaze.

        2010 El Nino winding out, very warm water on the EBU zone of Africa:

        Packing warm water along coast of Brazil:

        That may have touched off the Kimikamikaze.

    • Steven Mosher

      Did he give you the tools to find his mistake. Yes.
      Can anyone figure out your approach to solar analysis?
      No.

      I trust folks who give me the tools to find their errors.
      Your work is just ink on paper. Pixels on the screen.
      Not reproduceable. Not science.

  14. Merci pour les infos…
    Thks for sharing (sorry for my bad english)

  15. I am working on describing an alternative climate research program, focused on natural variability. Something Congress can fund. Here is my tentative list of research topics. Comments welcome.
    1) Low climate sensitivity to CO2 increases
    2) Sun-climate mechanisms, especially indirect effects
    3) Ocean circulation
    4) Long term natural oscillations (LIA, MWP, etc.)
    5) Negative feedbacks (Lindzen’s Iris, etc.)
    6) Chaotic oscillations
    7) Alternative model parameterizations and assumptions
    8) Other hypotheses and known unknowns 
    9) New approaches.
    10) Modeling the above. (It will be important to do new modeling, to explore these hypotheses and their potential impacts on climate. The existing models are useless in this regard, as AGW is built into them.)

    • David:

      I would add indirect effects of the sun on the Earth’s climate. Magnetic coupling or changes in the solar systems heliosphere for example. We should research that a bit more I think.

    • DW:

      Good concept but given the way Congress funds basic science research (generic topic rather than specific result) it could (will?) be argued they already fund most of your list.

      As you refine the natural variability research concept, I suggest you carefully consider how to avoid having the current climate bureaucracy co-opt the funding. I suspect it will be extremely difficult.

      • They do not in fact fund this list, as no USGCRP program addresses it. Quite right about co-option though. There are various studies claiming to show that these processes are irrelevant. Ironically, when NASA tried unsuccessfully to launch their sun-climate research program one of the lead authors was Mann. no wonder it did not fly.

      • They do not in fact fund this list, as no USGCRP program addresses it.

        My simple search for “natural climate variability” at globalchange.gov returned 29 links. That doesn’t mean that they HAVE funded the aspects of natural variability you wish to explore, but it does, IMO, suggest they will CLAIM they are “already doing it.”

      • Opluso, they have indeed funded research on short term natural variability, in order to explain away the hiatus. The claim is that AGW is being temporarily masked by natural variability, and all that. But NSF, which anchors the USGCRP, actually says that longer term variability (basically dec-cen) does not exist, so they have funded no research on that time scale.

    • David, I think I would start with 4) which would lead into most of the rest especially ocean circulation If climate science had started with the oceans things would be a lot different.

    • One item would be “sanity checking” climate proxies.

      The tree proxies go back to the MWP in some cases (as misused for the hockey stick).

      The sites should be visited and searched for residue of trees from the MWP above the current tree line.

      If there is 1000 year old dead tree remnants (the MWP tree line) a discernable distance above the current tree line, either the calibrated proxies should show a warmer MWP or they aren’t a valid proxies and can be regarded as just trees growing on a mountain.

      The Siberian tree lines which were 100-140 meters or more higher in the MWP illustrate the situation. Scandawhovian tree lines show a similar effect. with a maximum of a 200 meter higher tree line. Russian dwarf something or other are found 60-80 meters higher in the MWP.

      Only sites that have been “sanity checked” should be allowed in government funded studies that claim to estimate the MWP.

      • Models used to invest money have to show the ability to predict the future based on the past. The better you can do it, the more money investors will invest in your proposal. Current IPCC models would be laughed out of any investor gathering. Ignoring or altering evidence of the past would be quickly challenged. While that’s a simple observation, it reminds me of how corrupt this whole charade has become.

      • Well, yeah.

        ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_annmean_gl.txt
        The global CO2 level is below RCP4.5. The emissions are close to RCP8.5.

        And the divergence happened in just 4 years (the RCPs are from 2011).. The RCP8.5 CO2 level in 2011 matches the actual CO2 level in 2011. The RCPs have nothing to do with reality.

        We are below RCP4.5 CO2 levels right now. Without doing anything we will hit RCP3 or less eventually. The claim in RCP4.5 that with a 538 PPM CO2 level and 4.2 GT emissions the CO2 level will rising in 2100 is just laughable. The absorption in 2014 with a 397.16 PPM global average CO2 level was 7 GT.

        The RCP writers seem to be ignorant. I was going to say that they were ignorant of the relationship between absorption and and CO2 levels, then realized that the writers were just generally ignorant.

        The world (whether the warmists and the US wants it or not) is going nuclear by mid-century unless something cheaper comes along. So the RCPs are a child’s finger painting fantasy at best.

    • Steven Mosher

      Agw is not built in.

      But amuse us.
      Tell us what data will be used in this project.
      What do you trust and why?

    • Curious George

      Please keep us posted.

  16. Judith and others

    Here is a paper explaining why the GHE on Venus is a myth.

    “6. Alternatively, the delay that a molecule of carbon dioxide causes to the emission of electrons and
    photons, after having absorbed a photon, is measured in attoseconds (as), i.e. 10^-18 of a second;
    consequently, there is no way for the atmospheric carbon dioxide stores energy for periods longer than 20
    ± 5 as. (ref. 12 and 13)

    “This analysis demonstrates that the ―greenhouse‖ effect on Venus is a myth.”

  17. The interview with Jon Haidt sheds light on an apparent truism. If Progressives continue to progress, and work real hard on their research about human and social systems, they eventually will have made so much progress to have actually caught up with conservatives. The world will be a better place if they do. Some values are timeless. Being for change does not equate to being better.

    • JONATHAN HAIDT: But let me be clear that I am absolutely horrified by today’s Republican Party – both in the presidential primaries and in Congress. If they nominate Trump or Cruz, I’ll vote for the Democrat, whoever it is.

      As Corey Robin notes in The Reactionary Mind, today’s conservative movement is actually made up of several diverse ideologies, “a fragile coalition of libertarians, traditionalists and free-market enthusiasts” he calls it. Each of these distinct ideologies is in some ways antithetical to the other two.

      So when one talks of “conservatives,” it’s not that easy to know what one is talking about.

      Nevertheless, it seems like any balanced polity would need a healthy representation of each of the ideologies which fall under the rubric of “conservative.”

  18. RE: “If more social science professors start to behave like scholars, @JonHaidt will deserve much of the credit”

    You have to look at the degree to which a field has a culture of activism. Anthropology is a very activist field….

    Anthropology and sociology are the worst….

    Haidt needs to take a look at the field of climate science.

  19. What’s most alarming, perennially and moreso than the climate issue, is the notion that those who do not hold the feelings and views of others, like Robert Kennedy and Bernie Sanders appealing in cheap populist fashion, should be thrown in tried in court or thrown in jail. It’s curious and surprising that both of the public figures -Kennedy and Sanders, both skilled in their fields- would be falling into this method of dealing with dissent and opposing views..

    • jhprince,

      Well actually there’s quite a long philosophical and political tradition which informs the politics of Sanders and Kenedy.

      Whether we speak of Fichte’s scholars, Hegel’s civil servants, Marx’s proletariat, Nietzsche’s “Master class,” the Russian nihilists’ peasants, W.E.B Dubois’ “talented tenth,” Samuelson’s “scientific managers,” or Friedman’s “Chicago Boys,” in every case we’re talking about people who believe they are part of a revolutionary vanguard, and that the revolution cannot be achieved without the leadership of world-transforming supermen like themselves.

      These leaders conceive of themselves as a kind of monastic order ready to give up their lives in the great moral crusade of human liberation.

      Samuelson, the “apostle of scientific managment” as Robert H. Nelson called him, was “faithful to the progressive vision that the scientific managers of society should be given the necessary power and can be counted on to act with it in ‘the public interest’.”

      Eliza Wing-yee Lee goes on to elaborate in “Political Science, Public Administration and the Rise of the American Administrative State.” Progressivism, she observes, offered a “vision of scientific management as morally uplifting” that went “far beyond the idea of making public administration more businesslike.”

      Leading political scientists see their mission as “to reform the liberal state through science.”

      As Lee writes, Progressives assumed that there existed a one true “natural science of society” whose knowledge would provide the technical basis for governing. In this way, it would be posible for “the truth and objectivity of science” to substitute for the interest-group favoritism of “the unenlightened majority.”

      This would stimulate a new “sense of political community” in the United States, based on “the adoption of science as the common language of discourse, bringing about an end to irraitonality, rivalry for power, and authoritarianism.”

      It reflected a view that the tasks of government administration are mainly “objective, universal, natural, altogether devoid of historical and cultural contexts, and dictated only by scientific laws.”

      The “sociological significance of science” was that it would now provide “the legitimate basis of public authority” for American government. And scientists would be the world-transforming supermen, acting as a self-sacrificing priesthood to preside over “the ordinary people who cannot be expected to live their lives to the same high standards as the scientific elite.”

      There’s nothing novel about this. All 18th-, 19th-, 20th- and 21st-century Utopian visions such as Samuelson’s “scientific management” invariably harken back to the philosophy of Johann Gottlieb Fichte.

      Michael Allen Gillespie elaborates on Fichte’s philosophy in Nihilism Before Nietzsche. According to Fichte,

      Not all men, however, are capable of freedom…

      Already in the first introduction to the Science of Knowledge, Fichte argued that there were two types of human beings, those who had raised themselves to the consciousness of freedom and those who had not. Only the former act uniformly according to their moral will. The others must be constrained to act morally… Thus coercion may be employed to modify the behavior of individuals who are driven by caprice….

      On the surface, this extensive reliance on coercion seems to undermine Fichte’s goal of universal human emancipation, but from Fichte’s point of view this conclusion is mistaken, for coercion is employed against only…unfreedom, not freedom… Our humanity is thereby not constrained, but set free. In Rousseauian fashion we are forced to be free.

      Even if such coercion is compatible with freedom, one might legitimately wonder if Fichte is not overly optimistic about the morality of the leaders who will guide men to freedom. How can we be certain that they themselves will not act capriciously? What is to prevent them from becoming tyrants who will use the enormous, totalistic powers of the state to satisfy their own desires under the pretext of securing human freedom?

      Fichte is opposed to the separation of powers characteristically employed in such circumstances to prevent these kinds of abuses…. Fichte is ultimately convinced that such constraints are unnecessary, because the ruling class will be a noble cadre of scholars virtuously devoted to the cause of freedom.

      The foundation of Fichte’s political theory is his argument for the rule of scholars. Indeed, this class makes his state possible. The goal of universal human emancipation requires the comprehensive administration of things and total education of human beings.

      • Climategate informs us on what tyranny of scholars would look like.

        As a resident of the DC area it is obvious what a tyranny of bureaucrats would look like.

        Fichte’s [insert long string of expletives here] political theory is merely the misinformed rantings of an ideologue.

        The founding fathers were wiser that Fichte and others in the “we know better” crowd will ever be.

      • Well, no.. not novel either. It remains alarming whether it is not novel or it is novel.

      • rather, distastefully alarming….

  20. Prein, et. al. in AGU – Running dry: The U.S. Southwest’s drift into a drier climate state

    I like the use of the ‘Weather Types’, but I suspect if the data set included the droughts of the Dust Bowl, 1950s, and 1970s, the conclusions would be reversed.

    Also, from the conclusions:
    “Projected changes of a poleward extension of the subtropical dry zones simulated by climate models and the corresponding decrease of precipitation in the U.S. Southwest have not been found in observations to date because of the large natural climate variability.”

    I’m not sure of the physical basis for poleward extension of the subtropical dry zones and precipitation occurs from discrete events, not statistical average ‘zones’.

  21. EOS: Atlantic sea ice could grow during the next decade [link] …

    from the link:
    The researchers analyzed simulations from the Community Earth System Model, modeling both atmosphere and ocean circulation. They found that decadal-scale trends in Arctic winter sea ice extent are largely explained by changes in ocean circulation rather than by large-scale external factors like anthropogenic warming.

    I am a great fan of models, but is that one any better tested than the others? Meaning, does it have a track record of accuracy within some standard of error or tolerance? For example, 5 years ago did it accurately predict the past 5 years of winter Arctic sea ice?

    • Right – anomalous circulation explains a lot of the Arctic sea ice decline, but what basis is there for predicting that the anomalous circulation reverts to the mean as opposed to continuing for some period?

      • Is a model that predicted the unpredictable 5 years ago any better than a model that failed to predict the unpredictable 5 years ago?

  22. Re: “Workshop Report: Sea level and ice sheet changes during past warm periods”

    …the last interglaciation (LIG; 128,000 to 116,000 years ago) … had a climate similar to the present, and GMSL is estimated at 6–9 meters higher than at present.

    Constraining the contributions of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to LIG sea level remains an active research topic.

    What is most interesting to me is the fact that sea level is still several meters lower than it was during the LIG. Although melting the continental ice sheets is the obvious source for higher sea level back then, explaining how/why the remaining ice caps added enough mass to reduce sea level by 9 meters is a rather crucial question.

    Debate over Holocene era fluctuations, though on a smaller scale, suggest we still have a poor understanding of the driving forces and feedbacks involved.

  23. In last week’s blog George Washington’s Winters, Dr. Curry asked a question: “Which Climate do we want?”

    I gave an opinion saying: “The optimal World climate is one that has the least potential to put poor regions under stress. I did add — like the Southern Hemisphere which has a lot of poor countries lacking infrastructure to adapt. This was my complete statement — nothing else.

    I gave a link to a very current Washington Post story which is relevant to my statement:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/05/why-climate-change-is-really-really-unfair/

    I thought my statement was non-controversial. But it was attacked — with people demanding that I defend the accuracy of the WP Study cited, and that I’m just making stuff up that even the IPCC ARs never says.

    OK — From the IPCC’s 4th AR report:

    “Low-latitude, less-developed areas are at most risk of experiencing negative impacts due to climate change.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch19.html

    So, my horrible error was not saying low-latitude.

    • No, SS, your mistake was in not digging into the basis for the WaPo article. A self serving and nonsensical DARA report funded by those very same supposedly climate threatened nations. In my previous thread comment I explained how foolish DARA was concerning Vanuatu and Gambia, because those were the countries WaPo specifically called out. Both supposedly threatened by SLR as one of the three biggest climate threats. But the sea level at Port Vila, capital of Vanuatu, isn’t rising thanks to tectonics. And Gambia has almost no coastline; it is a country defined by the meanders of the Gambia river which falls 1400 feet over its 700 mile length.

      • Rud, let’s say for discussion sake that the folks behind the DARA report are 100% partisan hacks.

        Does this refute my opinion that an optimal climate: “is one that has the least potential to put poor regions under stress” (like in low latitudes)?

      • Perspective:

        If reducing CO2 is intended to set the clock back to an optimal climate, which decade’s climate would that be?

        No such thing as an optimal climate?

  24. The warmunist Takepart piece on rapidly acidifying Atlantic is based on a paywalled paper. The abstract says based on regression from 4 cruises to measure dissolved surface seawater CO2. Then they calculate ( but DID NOT measure) the presumed “rapid” change in pH: -0.0021/year. Which would be -0.2 in a century IF carbon sinks did not increase, half the rate of mistaken AR4, and less than the diurnal pH cycle in fertile ocean waters. But last week we had a paper showing that a major Atlantic ocean sink, coccolithophores, has increased about ten fold over 40 years of phytoplankton sampling. So the result will be less than -0.2pH in a century.
    Another fine example of MSM warmunist propaganda, rather than holistic objective science reporting.

  25. An interesting review of peer review [link]

    “There are scientific communities where open collaboration, articulating critique well and accepting it too, are not only the cultural norm, they’re what propel successful careers. That needs to spread widely. I think it will happen one scholarly community and journal at a time. However the rest of science catches up, I doubt it can happen behind closed curtains.”

    We ain’t there yet and probably won’t get there soon until/unless members of the scholarly community recognize the errors of their ways. That is most likely to happen when the money runs out and the piranhas go elsewhere to feast, leaving the minnows and a few adult fish alone to work in anonymity.

    • The money running out is one scenario. Another is the “concensus” being so wrong about a “scientific belief” that they become the butt of many a joke or worse yet, cause harm to a large chunk of da peoples.

      Perhaps another wakeup scenario is the loss of billions to investors who staked their future on the “concensus”.

      “Science” will not fair well under the above scenarios. The loss of credibility will roll thru the profession affecting not just climate scientists.

  26. The Borel piece on science journalism– scientists aren’t science–is well written. The problem I have is that those high journalistic standards are almost never applied to mainstream climate science. Especially not as reported in the Guardian. Look at Chris Mooney at WaPo as another big example. Monbiot at BBC. Craig Welch at Seattle Times with his Sea Change series on ocean acidification, reporting academic misconduct and ‘knew or should have known’ academic negligence as truth (book essay version of Shell Games).
    A thoroughgoing PC double standard.

  27. Judith, thanks for noticing my thick spring ice post. I think the issue is one that could use your attention.

    In a previous post (several years ago now), I looked to see if any sea ice researcher had tried to explain the almost bizarre regularity of this phenomenon of thick ice development in the eastern Beaufort but found they hadn’t. I did my best to explain WHAT happens, but could not really explain why it keeps happening again and again almost like clockwork every 10 years or so since the 1960s at least:

    “…it seems to me, the thick multiyear ice being driven south by the wind-driven currents of the Beaufort Gyre compress the shorefast ice (which develops along the shallow coast of the continental shelf over the winter, 20 km wide in places, see Fig. 1) against the Eastern Beaufort/Yukon mainland coast and the west coast of Banks Island. Under the most extreme of these conditions, the shorefast ice becomes very thick, with fields of buckled ice and pressure ridges (see Fig. 2). These conditions make it difficult, if not impossible, for ringed seals to maintain their breathing holes: they have little choice but to move elsewhere, or perish.”

    http://polarbearscience.com/2013/06/28/why-is-it-that-every-decade-eastern-beaufort-sea-ice-gets-really-thick/ [see ICE references therein]

    This happened for sure in 1974, 1985, 2004 (and by inference, in 1962 and 1992). The two worst incidents (for polar bears and seals) were the 1970s and 2000s events, when most cubs starved to death the year of the worst thick ice and for several years after (e.g. 1974-76; 2004-2006).

    I have been unsuccessful in predicting when these conditions might happen again using sea ice thickness maps.

    Given the former regularity of the phenomenon up to 2004t, another incident should have occurred in 2014 or 2015.

    We’ve had no reports in the media that such a starvation event took place in 2014 or 2015. Did the low September ice levels in 2007 and 2012 break the cycle? If so, when will conditions return to what appears to be “normal” for this region? Will it be this year (2016) or still a few years off?

    This might make an interesting future post for you, if you have time to investigate a bit. Most of the papers that cover the issue regarding polar bears and seals are listed in my Arctic Fallacy paper, download here: http://polarbearscience.com/2015/06/08/my-new-arctic-fallacy-paper-sea-ice-stability-and-the-polar-bear/

    Links online to many of them here: http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/04/great-polar-bear-red-herring-in-the-southern-beaufort/ AND
    http://polarbearscience.com/2015/02/13/polar-bear-biologists-try-again-to-blame-s-beaufort-thick-spring-ice-on-global-warming/

    Ice references are listed in the first post link provided.

    See what you think,

    Susan Crockford, zoologist

  28. Enviro-Whackos strike again, it’s not just nuclear plants anymore … from the article:

    After years of its backers of doing everything the state of Hawaii demanded in order to get permission to build the Thirty Meter Telescope, a state judge today ordered that the whole process should start over again. Since this order was instigated by the protesters, and that it appears the government favors those protesters, it appears that there is no chance TMT will ever get approval to build in Hawaii.

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/16/02/07/1834248/thirty-meter-telescope-likely-never-gets-built–in-hawaii

  29. Have a comment in moderation

  30. Stay strong in pursuit of objectivity and truth

  31. “No Dissent Allowed: U.S. Senators introduce amendment to muzzle climate ‘denial apparatus’ – Bernie Sanders co-sponsors [link] …

    Traitors. This is exactly why the Alt Right is sharpening its guillotines.

  32. Inaugural issue of Nature Energy on future energy sources:

    http://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy201520#a-gradual-decline

    “The overwhelming factor shaping the future of nuclear power is its lack of economic competitiveness. ”

    Enjoy!

    • “The overwhelming factor shaping the future of nuclear power is its lack of economic competitiveness, which is due largely to irrational fear whipped up by hysterical Greeny Chicken Littles ”

      • Don’t forget the lawsuits!

      • Thanks for the editing, justin:

        “The overwhelming factor shaping the future of nuclear power is its lack of economic competitiveness, which is due largely to irrational fear whipped up by hysterical Greeny Chicken Littles, and don’t forget the lawsuits.”

  33. Judith again has forgotten the “Week in review-politics and policy edition” in this momentous election cycle that will determine climate policy for probably most of the next decade, so I’ll put this here. It’s about the settled science and how it must direct national security planning and execution, from strategic and operational planning, to tactical battlefield execution:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/7/pentagon-orders-commanders-to-prioritize-climate-c/

    I got sick about halfway through, but I assume they will be assigning Political Commissars down to the rifle squad level to make sure they root out any deniers, who may not be reliably counted on to hold their fire unless and until the alleged defense of their lives is deemed to be a righteous shoot by the EPA watchdogs, back in D.C.

    This is just another layer of politically correct BS that the war fighters will have to deal with as long as Obama is Crown in Chief. And we can expect the same or worse from hilly-billy, or Bernie. Maybe grin and shuffle Biden would be better.

    In December, we lost 6 people for no reason other than self-serving politics and vanity. Obama can’t get completely get out of Afghanistan, because he would look weak and get blamed for the Taliban takeover that is almost sure to come soon after we have left our Afghan “allies” virtually alone. Iraq; deja vu all over again. So he leaves a token force that cannot defend itself. And he knows that.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/12/23/us-military-brings-home-six-airmen-killed-in-afghanistan.html

    A lady Air Force Major and five senior sergeants, who belong in offices, on a foot patrol in a dangerous area that is only loosely controlled by unreliable Afghan semi-security forces. There should be battalions of U.S Army and/or Marine combat soldiers doing these jobs. They are gone. The patrol is gone.

    This is gross criminal negligence. It’s crazy. And I bet most of you people never heard of it. Many could care less. Vote your conscience.

  34. climateaudit’s post had the nice result that the authors of the Wiles study showed up and argued in the comments. I, at least, couldn’t follow what they said. Did any others sort it out and draw conclusions?

  35. On this subject – “Trends in atmospheric water vapor: where’s the positive feedback? http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4517 Gavin Schmidt engaged on my twitter and presents evidence of an increase in atmospheric water vapor.

    However, visually, the NVAP global figure and Clive Best’s post seem to contradict. It would be informative if others would get involved in this discussion and either further confirm Gavin’s conclusion or present evidence to refute.

    I have been told by two senior climate scientists that the models have too much water vapor increase, but this is just hearsay unless they document publically.

    Roger A. Pielke Sr @RogerAPielkeSr

    • Heh, Pere, I told Andy Revkin in 2008 that the models exaggerated water vapour feedback. Public document, end of his blockbuster 1200 comment AGU thread on DotEarth from January of that year. Would he could have listened and further spread the news.

      Of course, I stole the knowledge from the likes of you.
      ==============

      • Hi Kim – Our paper

        Wang, J.-W., K. Wang, R.A. Pielke, J.C. Lin, and T. Matsui, 2008: Towards a robust test on North America warming trend and precipitable water content increase. Geophys. Res. Letts., 35, L18804, doi:10.1029/2008GL034564. https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-337.pdf

        included the suggestion that

        “that atmospheric temperature and water vapor trends do not follow the conjecture of constant relative humidity over North America.”

        This finding has not been refuted to my knowledge.

        Nevertheless, whether Gavin is correct or not regarding the GISS and NVAP requires further study.

        Our only other paper relevant to this topic is for summers in the Northern Hemisphere 1979-2012.

        Gill, E.C., T.N Chase, R.A. Pielke Sr, and K. Wolter, 2013: Northern Hemisphere summer temperature and specific humidity anomalies from two reanalyses. J. Geophys. Res., 118, 1–9, DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50635. Copyright (2010) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/r-341.pdf

        where Figure 6 presents ”

        NCEP reanalysis spatial global temperature trends in (a) degree Kelvin per decade and (b) SD change per decade and specific humidity trends in (c) g/kg per decade and (d) SD change per decade”

        Roger Sr.

  36. Dated Feb. 8. “The late antique little ice age”. Tony B might find this of interest even though it falls a bit earlier than the study of the 1300’s.

    Climate and impacts (on the cool side). Warning. Involves tree rings.

    http://phys.org/news/2016-02-ice-age-coincides-fall-eastern.html

    • In 2006 they still did not have a model. All they had was intuition. So their intuition was the ice sheets are in trouble, but that could not go into the IPCC report… therefore, around a foot according to the IPCC. So Boing Dimberg goes in front of our congress says see, no problem: a real profile in zero courage. Since then they have collected data and have better models. The estimates went way up, and then they have come down (Pfeffer and Zwally as examples).

      • JCH,
        Playing catch up so apologies if the thought process thread is off but wanted to ask why ‘their intuition’ would have lead them to believe the ice sheets were in trouble? Emperical evidence (don’t think so) or expectations due to ‘global warming’? Methinks it would be the latter more so than the former and it concerns me that that kind of expectation might mislead one not looking at evidence (thinking in the broader picture).

      • JCH,
        It would take ‘greater courage’ to go counter to the expectation and go with the evidence wouldn’t you say?

      • Because they were looking at a great deal of melting. Still are. Zwally confirmed that.

      • JCH,
        Thanks for that, but Zwally’s results were an indication of increased ‘mass’ correct contrary to GRACE, correct? Increased melting while mass was increasing (http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses) is a phenomena which was not expected.
        But that was not my comment. ‘They’ (whomever that is/was) had expectations (increased ice mass loss) which were not observed in 2006. The observational evidence was contradictory and following that path as opposed to the expectation was what I was referring to. Zwally looked there and viola` “But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally.” Might is a mighty big word.

      • JCH,

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

        it means Hay didn’t balance anything after all, did she?

  37. I have revised my draft list of long term natural variability research topics, see below. Also I have been checking recent NSF grant awards on variability and while they have made over 200, none is on long term processes. All are on scales ranging from decade to seasonal.

    Natural variability research areas (draft 2)
    1) Low climate sensitivity to CO2 increases

    2) Sun-climate mechanisms, especially indirect effects

    3) Natural oscillations (ENSO, AMO, PDO, etc.)

    4) Ocean circulation (upwelling, Gulf Stream, conveyor belt, etc.)

    5) Long term natural variations (LIA, MWP, etc.)

    6) Negative feedbacks (Lindzen’s Iris, convection, etc.)

    7) Chaotic oscillations

    8) Alternative model parameterizations and assumptions

    9) Other hypotheses and new approaches

    10) Modeling the above. (It will be important to do new modeling, to explore these various processes and hypotheses, and their potential impacts on climate. The existing models are useless in this regard, as AGW is built into them.)