Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

New paper: Unreliable climate simulations overestimate attributable risk of extreme weather and climate events [link]

New blog post from Isaac Held: Clouds are hard [link] …

Doug Hoffman: Another little ice age discovered  [link]

Tom Hartsfield challenges the ‘religion’ of climate modeling [link] …

Mitigation of Coral Reef Warming Across the Central Pacific by the Equatorial Undercurrent [link]

Are massive tree farms bad for climate change? @NatGeo explores their effects of GHG emissions. [link]

New paper documents important role of land use change as first order climate forcing – [link]

How to better quantify snow water equivalent from space? [link]

World’s #CarbonBudget Is Only Half as Big as Thought [link]

Peter Gleick on Arctic warming: Rapidly increasing temperatures are ‘possibly catastrophic’ for planet [link]

The causes of rapid night-time warming  [link]

Lord Stern ‘Economics: Current climate models are grossly misleading.’ [link]

Fewer tropical cyclones form after volcanic eruptions [link]

Scientists develop faster way of pulling water vapour out of the air [link]…

New paper by @KenCaldeira group on coral reef calcification recovery after ocean acidification reversal [link]…

Mark Cane: No evidence for ocean circulation driving the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO): [link]

The Greenland ice sheet is growing thicker in the interior, while melting at its edges  [link]

NatureClimate – Comment ‘Keeping the lights on for global ocean salinity observation’ [link]

Dubai construction alters local climate [link]

These tiny creatures could cause huge trouble in the Arctic [link]

Drones and tethered balloons give 3D data on evolving Arctic atmosphere [link]

Paul Homewood:How The Arctic Climate Has Changed Since The MWP [link]  …

Warming oceans could mean typhoons are 14% stronger by 2100, study says [link]

Untangling the complex science on tropical storms & climate change [link]

The 60-Year Oscillation Of Arctic Sea Ice Extent [link]

Another “blob” of warm ocean water discovered, this one ancient [link]

New in Reviews of Geophysics: Late Holocene climate: Natural or anthropogenic?[link]

“New Findings Show Sun, Natural Factors Linked To Sudden Climate Change, Famine, And European Social Collapse” [link] …

Evidence for link between modeled trends in Antarctic sea ice and underestimated westerly wind changes [link]

Rising CO2 Levels Are Likely Cause Of Global Dryland Greening [link]

Ice streams waned as ice sheets shrank [link]

In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer-Reviewed Papers! Doubt AGW [link]

2016: Already 50 New Peer-Reviewed Papers Refuting Alarmist CO2 Science …Nat. Cycles Indisputable! [link]

Consequences of policy for multi-millennial climate & sea-level change [link]

A new chemotherapy approach – fighting cancer to a draw instead of going for the outright win:  [link]

The (Political) Science of Salt by Gary Taubes [link]

About science and scientists

BRAVO: Let’s stop trying to minimize uncertainty in #climatechange studies, say scientists. [link]

Pierrehumbert: Oxford’s Halley Professor on How the Climate Challenge Could Derail a Brilliant Human Destiny [link]

Climate memoir “MyClimateChange”by @Revkin [link]

Among climate scientists, a clear consensus that the climate science gravy train should roll on  [link]

The IPCC further tortures climate scientists. If driven by scientific curiosity, we would probably not work towards a 1.5C Special Report now, says Jim Skea #IPCC [link]

The role of psychology in supporting progress on the climate. [link]

UK “restrictions on research grants will have an immensely damaging impact on … fighting climate change.”  [link]

Do the natural sciences need a justification? No. Curiosity, wonder and beauty are enough. NYTimes [link]

Some interesting papers in Evidence & Policy: ‏ Don’t miss our 10 free articles – the most read of 2015 – to read during February: [link]

‘US children are currently being presented w a false debate. This needs 2 end’ [link]

F*cking good article: Where does swearing get its power and how should we use it [link]

 

209 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Tom Hartsfield challenges the ‘religion’ of climate modeling [quote] …
    “Numerous modelers have told us that the Arctic polar ice would be completely gone by now. It’s still there. Many models now seem to skew in the opposite direction, predicting more ice than we see today.”

    The models indicated increasingly positive AO/NAO with increased greenhouse gases, though I don’t see how increased +AO/+NAO is supposed to warm the Arctic.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html

    • The models severely underestimated the Arctic ice loss rate prior to 2007 happening.

      • Curious George

        Most models neglect the temperature dependence of a latent heat of water vaporization, thus overestimating an energy transfer by water evaporation in tropical seas by 2.5%. NCAR did not provide an estimate how this influenced the quality of model results. In an absence of their estimate, I make my own estimate: model results become unreliable after 100 hours.

      • Hartsfield’s other example was about hurricanes not getting stronger with global warming, but we see another link from the list that now supports the idea of stronger storms, so Hartsfield went 0 for 2 in his examples. Perhaps he can quit while he is behind.

      • Jim D: “The models severely underestimated the Arctic ice loss rate prior to 2007 happening.”

        It’s a double-think estimating an Arctic warming when the circulation models are unanimous that more CO2 will increase positive NAO/AO.

    • Gleick on the Arctic:
      “What is much less clear is the complex consequences. We are, effectively, conducting a global experiment on the only planet we have. The interconnections with weather patterns, sea-level, and more are real.”

      The Arctic warmed since the mid 1990’s due to increased negative NAO/AO, that is in full contradiction of a human influence.

      • ulriclyons | February 27, 2016 at 12:47 pm |
        Gleick on the Arctic:
        “We are, effectively, conducting a global experiment on the only planet we have.”

        As long as anthropogenic CO2 continues to soak up almost all resources to the exclusion of albedo, land usage, population increases, water resource misuse, aerosols, and similar issues, that “global experiment” will continue completely unmanaged. A holistic approach seems in order.

      • @pmhinsc
        As long as anthropogenic CO2 continues to soak up almost all the postulates on Arctic warming, it will still be in contradiction to the models that say more CO2 increases positive NAO/AO, because in reality it takes increased negative NAO/AO for the Arctic to warm.

  2. The scientific failure here isn’t that models are inaccurate – it’s that the models are presented as undebatable apocalyptic predictors, harbingers of certain future catastrophe. Omens that compel us to rethink our lives. If we take issue with that, we’re heretics. (~Tom Hartsfield, Climate Models Botch Another Prediction)

  3. The Arctic sea ice ~60 years quasi oscillation is at least qualitatively correct. There is an effort to further document this using whaling ship logbooks going back to 1800 or so. Its important, because satellite ice extent coverage began in 1979, coincidentally near an oscillation apex if the previous nadir was in the 1940s. Recovering Arctic sea ice would be as damaging to CAGW as the pause has been.

    • Ships logs report great loss of Arctic sea ice in and around 1816 in the Dalton Minimum, and the AMO was warm during the Gleissberg solar minimum of the 1880/90’s. It’s that pesky negative NAO again, the reverse of what AGW should be doing to the NAO, and is what has been happening again since the mid 1990’s with the increase in negative NAO, in line with the decline of solar plasma strength since then:

    • The paper is not very good rud.

    • “Recovering Arctic sea ice would be as damaging to CAGW as the pause has been.”

      yes, neither comes close to touching the core physics.

      • Climate scientists have done very little to ‘touch the core physics’.

      • David Springer

        “neither comes close to touching the core physics”

        Experimental science left the building a long time ago, Mosher. Evidence isn’t gathered it’s manufactured. You being one of the factory drones of course.

      • Like this?

        Or this?

        Talk to me about core physics.

      • Note that attacking me is also not an attack on the core physics. The core physics survived the faux pause and would survive an increase in Arctic ice ( it’s so unlikely to increase that no sane skeptic will take a bet on it )

      • Steve-

        How does the “core physics” relate to the climate getting worse than it is today?

        Core physics indicates warmer, not a worse climate

      • mosher, “yes, neither comes close to touching the core physics.”

        Isn’t the core physics still a doubling of CO2 will cause ~ 1.0 C of warming provided everything else remains constant? Oh wait, the core physics was ~1.5 C provided everything remains constant. Oh wait, wasn’t that provisional on “average” surface temperature being 15.0 C and that the effective radiant energy at 15.0 C being equal to the ideal 390 Wm-2 when the TOA incoming energy was based on 1365 Wm-2 which has been reduced to 1361 Wm-2. Pretty amazing that constants seem to vary but confidence remains high :)

      • Steven Mosher: yes, neither comes close to touching the core physics.

        Right, the “core” physics. Is that distinct from the physics that drives the weather and the climate changes? Is it defined circularly, as “the physics” that would be untouched by oscillations in Arctic sea ice coverage?

        As always, you are free to decline to answer the questions. They are my “passive aggressive” way of asserting that you have written another idiocy.

      • The core physics explains why the surface temperature is 33 C warmer than the radiating temperature, which is no mystery and explained via the radiative effects of GHGs necessarily including CO2 having a major impact. You can’t get that 33 C in a no-CO2 atmosphere, and being non-condensing, its level is the control knob while H2O merely responds to and amplifies the resulting temperature. That is all core physics. Where is Andy Lacis when you need him? He used to drum on this.

      • JimD, “The core physics explains why the surface temperature is 33 C warmer than the radiating temperature…”

        Actually, the core physic explains that the surface will be warmer than otherwise and 33 C is an assumption of “normal” or equilibrium GHE at 15 C degrees and between 250 to 300 ppmv CO2 roughly. 285 ppmv seems to be a good guess at “preindustrial” but the real “preindustrial” average surface temperature is a bit of a mystery. The rest of the real physics kinda depends on a more accurate notion of what “normal” should be or else you have an initial value problem before you can get into the boundary value problem.

        I know I have said this a few hundred times but what the heck.

      • Steven Mosher: yes, neither comes close to touching the core physics.

        The Achilles heel of GCM climatological experiments is the dynamic core and its well advertised hydrodynamic constraints.

      • Here is the argument.

        1. Increasing Arctic ice will damage cagw as much as the pause.
        2. I agree since neither damages the core physics.

        When you guys want to engage the argument, feel free.

      • Mosher your assurance that no Arctic recovery is in our future has been duly noted in my 2020 calendar.

      • Jim D: Where is Andy Lacis when you need him?

        Andy Lacis always declined to answer my questions.

      • Steven Mosher: 1. Increasing Arctic ice will damage cagw as much as the pause.
        2. I agree since neither damages the core physics.

        with or without cagw (with or without the “c”), the “core” physics will be unaffected. The “core” physics is not adequate to the task of modeling future warming.

      • captd, even you understand that CO2 is needed to explain the global surface temperature, and on top of that H2O depends on the temperature and is not an independent variable. This goes back to the core physics of Arrhenius, and is now quantified very well in weather and climate models, which not only explain the current climate, but the effects of perturbations, such as an increase of 1% in the forcing. The core physics used in GCMs for at least the last three decades is a lot more quantitatively correct than you think. Until “skeptics” produce a GCM of their own, even if is of the 80’s vintage, they will lack a foundation for arguments about core physics.

      • “The “core” physics is not adequate to the task of modeling future warming.”

        Sure it is.

        It has been for some time

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/

        You can model the future warming every easily.

        Here is what is harder

        1. Projecting emissions
        2. Getting High levels of accuracy at a regional level.

        Of course its adequate. The question is this: is it good enough to INFORM policy?. yes, it can inform policy. It already is informing policy

        It is weird that skeptics argue that things cant be done, which are already being done.

      • JimD, ” Until “skeptics” produce a GCM of their own, even if is of the 80’s vintage, they will lack a foundation for arguments about core physics.”

        Guy Calendar had a pretty good basic model of the “core” physics but no one has a pretty good model of the core dynamics. No matter how reverently you invoke physics, the problem cannot be resolved with simplistic “ideal” physical models which happen to be the “core” of climate science.

        If the “core” physics were actually useful as in complete enough to describe the entire system, then sea ice observations that differed from expectation could “shake” the foundations. As it is, Climate Science has no freaking clue how to project Climate.

      • David Springer

        Mosher you’re so full of crap with this “core physics” thing I bet your eyes are brown.

        What does the “core physics” say is the warming produced by a CO2 doubling? Last I checked the “very likely” span was 1.5C to 4.5C. The former was no cause for concern and the latter disastrous.

        Physics on the scale of sub-atomic particles is uncertain. Physics on the scale of planets is not. You’d know this if you weren’t and English majore pretending to be a scientist. Let me know when the so-called “core physics” can refine that range and do it with surety, dimwit.

      • Steven Mosher: Of course its adequate. The question is this: is it good enough to INFORM policy?. yes, it can inform policy. It already is informing policy

        It is weird that skeptics argue that things cant be done, which are already being done.

        Fair enough. There is no demonstrated public record that the models are sufficiently accurate to inform policy well; or that it is already being done well. The record is that the forecasts of global mean temperature have been consistently too high, hence the occasional denial that they were ever intended as forecasts in the first place (a denial that rather undercuts the claim that they were capable of “informing” policy.)

        The core physics, for example, are inadequate to modeling the multidecadal oscillations in Arctic ice cover — or at least there is no public record that they have ever done so. Likewise with the “slowdown” (aka “pause”, “hiatus”): there is no public record of its having been accurately forecast by the “core physics”. The theory that has been promoted is that warming of the atmosphere caused by accumulation of more CO2 will cause warming of the surface — but the warming of the atmosphere has not happened as forecast (the missing “tropospheric hot spot”).

        One prediction that seems to have come true about CO2 and atmosphere is that increased CO2 will cause net cooling of the stratosphere. If the record amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will ever warm the troposphere, the troposphere is certainly lagging.

        Back to the core physics: Has it in fact produced predictions and post-dictions of the waxing and waning of Arctic and Antarctic ice accumulations? Does the core physics make a quantitative prediction about what will happen on the oceans’ surfaces if they receive an extra 4W/m^2 of downwelling long wave radiation? Has there been a better model than mine published about the net change in Earth surface cooling that would result from a 1C increase in mean surface temp, based on “core physics”?

        You could really use some reading in the other science besides what you call the “core physics”.

    • I understand that sea ice is hard water floating in soft water. I get that part of it.

      Why does it matter if the Arctic is frozen or not. If it is just one of these canary things who cares? I don’t like canaries, anyway..

      Does less sea ice cool the deep ocean or warm the deep ocean? What does an Arctic with less sea ice affect?

      • Less summer ice, lower albedo, more warming, even less summer ice, even lower albedo, etc., also known as a positive feedback loop that has its point of no return because at that point, the loop can keep itself going regardless of other factors until the ice is gone.

      • Jim D, except it is not happening.

      • And it is just fine for you to believe that.

      • Less winter ice,less retained ocean T, a negative winter feedback,

      • Then there is that enhanced co2 ocean sink due to decreased arctic ice,

        http://yyy.rsmas.miami.edu/groups/biogeochem/Publications/60_Hansell.pdf

      • Jim D,
        When is minimum sea ice? When is maximum insolation? What is the impact of angle of solar incidence on the albedo of water? What is the peak angle of incidence above 80 degrees north?

        There is definitely a positive feedback as the polar ice expands to lower latitudes. However, first principle physics does not support a significant positive feedback from the existing initial conditions.

      • You cannot make it up as you go along, the data shows a negative feedback occurring. Seasons with very low minimum sea ice extent like 2007 and 2012 are followed by much stronger rebounds to the next maximum, than seasons with a higher minimum. Maybe the exposed water surface is cooling more to the atmosphere than it is getting warmed by sunshine.

      • It isn’t feedback per se. It is a cycle.

        1979 was basically 0 degrees. We are at roughly 210 degrees. In about 20 years we will be back to normal.

      • On the observational side, the positive ice albedo feedback was a major part of the warming from the last Ice Age. If it was just CO2, the sensitivity would have been about 10 C per doubling. It wasn’t. The other part was the positive albedo feedback as the glacier area reduced.

      • On the observational side, the positive ice albedo feedback was a major part of the warming from the last Ice Age.

        That’s true. ( it was also a major part of the cooling ).

        But consider where that feedback came from – as far south as Illinois, where lots of sun shines:

        The Arctic by comparison is a much smaller area, on which much less sun light falls annually, and has a diminishing amount of feedback left.

        Arctic albedo feedback is real, but it does not change the global mean very much because it has a very small effect ( ~0.2 W/m^2 ) in the global mean.

      • TE, I was not arguing that the ice still causes a feedback consistent with what it has been for the last 12k years because it has been reduced to the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica. Of those the next area to reduce is the Arctic sea ice that is probably not supported by CO2 levels above 500 ppm, and the loss of that hammers Greenland’s temperature locally, so it is like a domino leading to the Greenland tipping point.

      • Over 2/3rds (about 6°C) of the Eemian decline in temperature occurred before any change in CO2 (IE it was not the cause) and corresponds to lower insolation. The CO2 level didn’t decline until the ice buildup started. Thus much of remaining decline is due to reflection (less net absorption) It is hard to make the case CO2 had any impact but we’ll assume the IPCC direct forcing 2.4 W/m2 was present just to be charitable. Note that the roughly 1.8 W/m2 greater current forcing (using the IPCC direct forcing not the measured forcing that is 1/3 less) hasn’t made the current time as warm as the Eemian.(2-3°C warmer).

        that is probably not supported by CO2 levels above 500 ppm
        Where does this 500 PPM come from? How did they prove this if it is hard to prove CO2 does anything, er other than about 0.2 W/m2 for 22 PPM?

      • PA, paleoclimate tells you at what CO2 level Arctic sea-ice came in, and probably about 15-20 million years ago it dropped below 500 ppm, and some time after that the first Arctic sea ice was formed. There was very little Arctic glaciation above 500 ppm, and above 600-700 ppm the globe was ice-free.

      • David Springer

        ulriclyons | February 28, 2016 at 9:34 am |

        “Maybe the exposed water surface is cooling more to the atmosphere than it is getting warmed by sunshine.”

        CORRECT! Tell the man what his prize is, Captain Dallas.

      • Jim D | February 29, 2016 at 1:56 am |
        PA, paleoclimate tells you at what CO2 level Arctic sea-ice came in, and probably about 15-20 million years ago it dropped below 500 ppm, and some time after that the first Arctic sea ice was formed. There was very little Arctic glaciation above 500 ppm, and above 600-700 ppm the globe was ice-free.

        Really?

        That is all you have?

        Read up on plate tectonics. The Isthmus of Panama was forming during this period the Himalayas were developing and the Antarctic was glaciating.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene
        There is evidence from oxygen isotopes at Deep Sea Drilling Program sites that ice began to build up in Antarctica about 36 Ma during the Eocene. Further marked decreases in temperature during the Middle Miocene at 15 Ma probably reflect increased ice growth in Antarctica. It can therefore be assumed that East Antarctica had some glaciers during the early to mid Miocene (23–15 Ma). Oceans cooled partly due to the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, and about 15 million years ago the ice cap in the southern hemisphere started to grow to its present form. The Greenland ice cap developed later, in the Middle Pliocene time, about 3 million years ago.

        The Antarctica glaciation and the Himalaya glaciation reject a lot of energy into space. The disruption of ocean currents and air current patterns cools the poles. The Himalayas are still growing about 5 mm per year. Cooling the poles leads to currents that cool the deep ocean.


        The CO2 level declined from 2500 to 500 PPM with no visible effect on temperature. 3.48 * ln (2500/500) was a 5 W/m2 change in forcing that had zero effect on temperature.

        Did the CO2 drop make it a little easier to glaciate? Probably. Would it have happened anyway? Sure.

        In the Carboniferous period there was a landmass at the South pole and a strip of land that went to the North pole and it got cold. It didn’t get cold until the tectonics were right.

        The Ordovician had massive cooling when all the land was clustered near South pole at 4000 PPM of CO2. When the land moved away from the pole the cooling ended.

        Tectonics explain temperature. CO2 as best increases “hysteresis” of the tendency of a tectonic induced change to persist.

      • Springer, ““Maybe the exposed water surface is cooling more to the atmosphere than it is getting warmed by sunshine.”

        CORRECT! Tell the man what his prize is, Captain Dallas.”

        It is amazing how much you and JimD are alike. “Cooling” to the atmosphere actually distributes heat poleward. Since the atmosphere is not the ultimate heat sink any more than the oceans are the ultimate heat sink, you have to consider the ENTIRE system not some arbitrary subsystem that makes you case of the day.

        This is why Stephens et al. very specifically lists latent and sensible as “heating” the atmosphere which just so happens to be the actual “surface” supposedly being modeled.

        Now the fun part is that atmospheric “heating” is almost balanced by upper atmospheric “cooling” ,but since it contributes to polar amplification it is hard to determine just how well balanced it is. Kimoto provided a simple estimate indicating the net will be about 0.7C per doubling.

        JimD likes the land surface temperature because that gives him a bigger bang for his propaganda buck.

  4. Taubes article on salt/hypertension is an amazingly close analog of the climate wars. Right down to faulty (animal) models. Fascinating read.

    • Curious George

      Could it be related to the fact that estimated 95% of college faculty are left leaning?

    • “Taubes article on salt/hypertension is an amazingly close analog of the climate wars.”
      One analogue may be that it was written in the same year as MBH98. Not sure what it is doing here.

    • It seems a curiosity that abundance leads to suspicion.
      Salt makes food taste good.
      When it was less abundant, our sinful glutenous desires were held in check.
      Now abundant, we may get out of control.

      Life is short.
      Eat good food if you got it.
      Fly to exotic places if you can.
      Stay warm if it’s cold and cool if it’s hot.

      The folk who wear white frocks and wave their fingers at us today, are the same lot that wore black frocks and waved their fingers a thousand years ago.

    • I agree, and it might be worth spelling out a bit.

      1. The conjecture or hypothesis that salt intake is directly related to blood pressure was originally not bad, as conjectures go–there were physiological reasons to expect this to happen.
      2. No experimental results, if proper constraints are applied, support the hypothesis. This becomes more true, not less, with the passing of time.
      3. People who believe in the hypothesis–and the practical outcome, reducing salt intake will reduce blood pressure–keep doubling down; the only reason for controversy, we are told, is that bad/lazy/incompetent people stir things up, and Big Business funds bad studies.
      4. Their fall-back position is: even if the actual risk to an individual or a small group is small (and that is why it is so far, er, undetectable), there is good reason to believe it is real, so we must keep up this expensive and intrusive campaign to reduce salt in food. A slight risk, magnified by a large population, could be killing hundreds of thousands of people.
      5. Conveniently, no one studies the possible harm caused by a low-salt diet. Are people being hospitalized because of all the well-meaning advice to cut salt in the diet, perhaps mistakenly believing there is no such thing as too little salt?
      6. Epidemiology is supposed to start with something real–obesity might be an example, or diabetes, or the sheer intake of too much of every kind of food, which is probably related to these two–and then use statistical methods to extrapolate. How bad is it? How bad is it going to be? What are the mechanisms by which it spreads, how are they changing, what are the populations most in need of protection? Instead of all this, they cling to a hypothesis in the face of all the best evidence, saying salt still might be bad, and use rivers of government money to keep up an expensive campaign. Even for a rich country like the U.S., this surely takes resources away from factors that are actually harming and killing human beings.
      7. It also discredits science as presented in politics and the media. A reasonable person might conclude it’s all bullshit in the technical sense Lucia has been discussing.
      8. None of this requires using words like “fraud” or “hoax.” Believers can go on believing they are searching for something that just hasn’t been found yet; they mean well; they think they are probably saving lives somewhere, in a way that is not detectable today. There is dishonesty in not admitting to uncertainty, in not admitting how government funding shapes research agendas, and in not asking awkward questions; but there is also plenty of genuine ignorance.

      • David Springer

        My BP goes up/down quite predictably from 140/90 to 115/75 with high and low sodium diet respectively. It’s easy to test with a low-cost BP monitor that you can wear on your wrist like a big watch. I’ve done the test several times on myself.

        BP regulation is complicated. I suffer from an uncommon condition called orthostatic hypertension. My BP rises 15 pts diastolic and 30 pts systolic going from prone to standing. This becomes a critical measure depending on what the prone base BP is. A standing diastolic up 15pts from 75 to 90 isn’t too worrisome. Up 15 pts from 90 to 105 is bad. Moderating sodium intake is a lot easier and healthier than taking BP lowering medications which have all sorts of undesirable side effects. High to low sodium diet consists primarily of avoiding processed foods that are high in salt. I can eat unprocessed food all day and all night without getting too much sodium. Anything processed I need to scrutinize.

        If the rest of your diatribe is as mistaken as the first part it’s not worth the time to read it. So I won’t. How’s that for a hypothesis?

  5. re Stern …‘Economics: Current climate models are grossly misleading’ article in Nature. Great lead-in picture of child in underpants walking along road with ravaged countryside in “Sathkira District, Bangladesh, still flooded a year after 2009’s Cyclone Aila.” Aila was a ‘relatively strong’ tropical cyclone resulting in extensive damage in India and Bangladesh, killing over 300 persons and leaving a million homeless. So Stern and apparently Nature Publishing are suggesting that Aila was caused by anthropogenic global warming. Stern says “the twin defining challenges of our century are overcoming poverty and managing climate change. If we can tackle these issues together, we will create a secure and prosperous world for generations to come. If we don’t, the future is at grave risk.” Stern has been consistent, with his focus on catastrophic events. The entire analysis using Page was biased to give alarmist results, for one using unacceptably high values for the social discount factor.

  6. I meant to say that Stern used very low discount factors which results in quite alarmist conclusions. Stern did not reveal his discount factor in the original report and it was only weened out with considerable effort some time later… I believe by Richard Tol.

    • Stern did not reveal his discount factor in the original report and it was only weened out with considerable effort some time later

      Similar to Michael Mann withholding data and models from Steve McIntyre for years – except that Mann was blatantly deceptive, misleading and dishonest, even resorting to sending wrong data (I seem to recall).

      But it’s not just the discount factor that is a problem. It’s the assumptions about the damage function which, I suspect, has much greater uncertainty than there is about climate sensitivity.

  7. David L. Hagen

    EPA Chief: ‘We don’t have to prove that any reduction’ in CO2 makes a difference in ‘global warming’
    Government has succumbed to political coercion contrary to the scientific method and the public good!

    • One more reason to not trust climate contrarians. Quote part of what a person said to make it seem like she meant something other than what she meant.

      • David L. Hagen

        max10k What basis for your assertion?
        Listen to EPA Chief’s actual testimony.
        How does that differ factually from that quoted? She claims fenefits of initiating political action – but not having any effect > 0.01C or how that is beneficial compared to the costs of doing so.
        See the full testimony/video.

      • David, she means EPA doesn’t have to prove each source of greenhouse gas
        (in this case some specific tar sands in Canada) will “make a precipitous difference in and of itself.” In your post you quote her as saying only “We don’t have to prove that any reduction’ in CO2 makes a difference in ‘global warming.,” which implies any reduction from all sources. I think you can see the difference.

        Read the following from your link:

        ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “You know what? You would do that with every single source of greenhouse gases, and we had that argument at the Supreme Court, and we won decisively. Which was that we don’t need to prove that every single source is going to stop greenhouse gas emissions, but if the attitude is that that’s the challenge for us, we will never stop global warming. We will never stop climate change. And, so that has just never been the case for EPA. We don’t have to prove that any reduction will actually make a precipitous difference in and of itself, but we have to admit that there is a lot of efforts need to be done to get at this issue, and it is that combined effort. But, every step, the first step– this is a marathon, and if you don’t take the first step, you ain’t getting nowhere baby.”

  8. VOLCANO WATCH: Mauna Loa, Earth’s Largest Active Volcano, is Still Stirring

    http://bigislandnow.com/2016/02/26/volcano-watch-mauna-loa-earths-largest-active-volcano-is-still-stirring/

    • That’s an amazing coincidence Canman! Anthony Watts is simultaneously holding several of my comments to his climate memoir in moderation:

      http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-dmigate-dodo-is-pushing-up-the-daisies/#comment-213614

      You will no doubt note that in my case they aren’t “shrill fire breathing rants”.

    • Cayman, your letter to Revkin raises a lot of dated issues previously addressed by many. Why not use Google rather than asking Revkin for a summary? It would mean more work on your part, but the exercise could be edifying.

      • I pretty much know everything I want to know about the dated issues I bring up. What I don’t know is what Andrew Revkin has to say about them. Has he ever made it clear whether he thought the hockey stick was good science or crap. Does he have anything to say about Lewandowsky’s sham moon landing paper? How about Mann vs Steyn? Cook’s cooked 97% study? I think he’s ignoring a lot of issues in the hope that they will go away.

      • Canman, if you wanted to know what Revkin thinks about what you think, insulting him probably wasn’t the best approach. He now may not care what you think, and he may think you are a crackpot. I suggest writing him another letter using a different name, but this time be nice.

  9. Climate memoir “MyClimateChange”by @Revkin

    Revkin is a very talented writer and appears to have plied his trade earnestly and conscientiously throughout his career. In this piece, however, he explicitly demonstrates the point which is made by critics of the mainstream press: the selection of stories to be written and how they are slanted is an express product of the writer’s bias and the bias of his management.

    The Times and Post will argue the point, but their products are hardly unbiased journalism. They are products of an activist mindset driven by philosophical prejudice and the desire and economic need to fit in to the sociological landscape of the news industry.

  10. The Mark Cane link goes to a very interesting AGU seminar. However, Cane is the outlier in his view of AMO. Johns, Zhao et al., as well as Johnson et al base their interpretations on empirical measurements of change in ocean heat content. In their views, the ocean still rules.

  11. Skeptics clicking on the Peer-Review papers links will be sad to see that the abstracts do not live up to the headline. They neither doubt nor refute AGW, and just talk about other climate effects that may add but they never say they dominate over AGW (at least the ones I sampled). If someone finds even one that lives up to the headline it would be interesting, but they are sure firing a lot of blanks with these lists.

    • Jim D, “They neither doubt nor refute AGW”. No one does that anymore. Besides they probably wouldn’t pass the review if they did. You’re wasting you’re time if that’s the only reason you’re reading them. Maybe you should actually read them you might learn (heaven forbid) something.

      • The list is a waste of time because it is not as advertised. If Gosselin wants to claim these papers all “doubt” and “refute” AGW, it backfires once people study what he has listed. Perhaps he hoped they wouldn’t. I don’t know.

      • Jim D: The list is a waste of time because it is not as advertised.

        The advertising may overstate the case (“Nat. Cycles Indisputable!”), but the papers are worth reading.

        They neither doubt nor refute AGW

        The net effect is to cast doubt on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity. This is work that ought to have been completed before anyone made any causal assessments of recent warming or predictions about future warming. For example, before someone like Hansen testified as Hansen did before the Senate in 1988, it would have been informative to have a good review of this and all other evidence concerning the natural variability.

        Most skeptics accept that increased CO2 ought to produce some increased warming somewhere. At least Christopher Monckton (well known) and I (obviously less well known) have written as much. Such skeptics will not be disappointed because no one ever disproves “AGW”.

      • “The net effect is to cast doubt on the higher estimates of climate sensitivity. This is work that ought to have been completed before anyone made any causal assessments of recent warming or predictions about future warming.”

        That would make sense if the models were meant to actually predict future temps instead of promoting (then) current policy,

        Now that the models are shown to be over 90% wildly wrong on the hot side, the modelers, instead of saying “whoops we messed up”, blame the deep ocean and change their predictions to a minimum 30 years out.

      • Jim D

        Skeptics aren’t expecting a head shot. Rather, the cumulative effect of this list added to numerous studies preceding this group amounts to death by a thousand cuts. A few years ago warmists were adamantly denying many of the accepted findings of today. These papers do nothing more than simply confirm there is a lot more that is unknown than is known.

    • its really funny how skeptics lose their ability to think skeptically when it comes to anything that mentions the word ‘sun’ or ‘cycles’

      • Steven Mosher: its really funny how skeptics lose their ability to think skeptically when it comes to anything that mentions the word ‘sun’ or ‘cycles’

        I think you have some trouble with some concepts: (a) balancing all the evidence; (b) jumping to a conclusion in the absence of thorough examination of all factors is not a respected part of the “science”, but a lamentable human fallibility. Neither CO2 effects nor solar influences have been well enough studied, nor clouds nor water vapor nor internal oscillations, to permit reliable predictions of the future effects of future CO2 accumulation..

        It isn’t “funny” to point out that CO2 opponents are denying reams of vexing evidence for no adequate reason.

      • It’s not losing the ability to think skeptically as much as a reaction to having any solar ideas being rejected reflexively and on a wholesale basis with the authors being accused of everything short of bestiality. Who knows what the ultimate findings will be. Given the near unanimous closed mindedness of the establishment, it will be a miracle if we ever know.

      • An Australian found changes in the earth’s temperature lagged changes in the sun by 11 years, except when they didn’t. The exceptions resulted from other things. I can’t remember his name, but I think his wife has a climate blog.

      • They had an ability to think skeptically? When?

      • The Skeptic’s Society, an organization for true skeptics, says skepticism is not a position. A climate skeptic is taking a position.

      • max10k, ” A climate skeptic is taking a position.”
        If that is the case then hasn’t the consensus scientists taken a position as well?

      • The Skeptic’s Society, an organization for true skeptics, says skepticism is not a position. A climate skeptic is taking a position.

        What do the gullibles do?

      • The better term is dismissers. They have not adopted this for themselves, but that is what they are. Perhaps they think that the term “skeptic” looks more intellectual and open-minded, but open-minded is not what the majority here are.

      • You are ‘gullible’. It looks more like ‘seagull’ too.

      • ordvic said on February 28, 2016 at 10:30 am |
        max10k, ” A climate skeptic is taking a position.”
        If that is the case then hasn’t the consensus scientists taken a position as well?
        _____

        Sure, but the consensus scientists take a position because of compelling evidence, not because they are skeptical of climate skepticism. The scientists are more than skeptical of climate skeptics, they think the skeptics are wrong.

      • “I think you have some trouble with some concepts: (a) balancing all the evidence; (b) jumping to a conclusion in the absence of thorough examination of all factors is not a respected part of the “science”, but a lamentable human fallibility. Neither CO2 effects nor solar influences have been well enough studied, nor clouds nor water vapor nor internal oscillations, to permit reliable predictions of the future effects of future CO2 accumulation..”

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

        Sure they have.

        http://climateaudit.org/2013/07/26/guy-callendar-vs-the-gcms/

        these old predictions are pretty reliable

        hansens predctions were pretty reliable.

        Every set of GCM runs are extremely reliable.

        Reliability is of course never black and white. But to illustrate from Callendar onwards the models have reliably predicted that rising c02 will result in rising temperature.

    • All kinds of global warmer bad news.

      The Greenland ice sheet is growing thicker in the interior, while melting at its edges

      The Holocene snow is 3 times harder than the snow from the previous interglacial. The interior of Greenland is thickening, stiffening and slowing down.

      This would tend to refute claims of runaway future melting. And with the Antarctic gaining ice mass would put fork in the runaway melting theories.

      Rising CO2 Levels Are Likely Cause Of Global Dryland Greening

      This is getting proven so often it isn’t even debatable any more. Greening of deserts is sort of the death knell of global warming since faster plant growth over more area limits any future CO2 rise. 29% of the non-Antarctic land area is desert.

      • PA, Observations will never shake the faith of true believers, three Hail Hansens and installing a LED porch light will provide absolution if it does.

      • OK, so forget sea-levels rising a meter in the next century affecting large coastal populations or urban heatwaves and rural droughts becoming more frequent and intense, because there’s parts of Africa where almost no one lives where it is now greener? I can kind of see how the skeptics are thinking here, but help me out.

      • OK, so forget sea-levels rising a meter in the next century affecting large coastal populations
        Sea levels are rising slowly, didn’t slow down even with the cooling from 1945-1975, and most people alive today will be dead before it’s an issue.
        People emotionally react to a 1meter rise today, but that’s not what’s happening. It is not a problem.

        urban heatwaves and rural droughts becoming more frequent and intense
        There is no physical basis, much less theory, much much less proven theory for heatwaves becoming more frequent. Why? Heatwaves are a product of the circulation of the atmosphere, not CO2. Now, the Urban Heat Island should increase temperatures in cities, but that, like CO2 is

        Similarly, there’s no physical basis for predicting drought changes because droughts are determined by circulation. And the satellite data indicate less global drought, not more, so this is just another falsehood promulgated by gullibles.

        because there’s parts of Africa where almost no one lives where it is now greener? I can kind of see how the skeptics are thinking here, but help me out.

        You may remember from biology class that life on earth is carbon based. Everything alive today would not be here but for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it holds everywhere including Africa.

      • TE, the point is that the continental summer temperature shifting by many standard deviations by 2100 alone will have large impacts on populations, and for all your rosy co2-is-good-for-plants projections, the net is a negative, and that is even before talking about increased disruptions from droughts, storms, and floods, and accelerating sea-level rises that you probably also deny are even possible.

      • TE, the point is that the continental summer temperature shifting by many standard deviations by 2100 alone will have large impacts

        Well…

        1. You don’t have any evidence the forcing is greater than 2/3rds of the IPCC direct forcing.

        2. You don’t have any evidence the CO2 peak is going to be much greater than 460 PPM. Roughly 2.2 PPM per constantly declining (because of a steady 10 GT/Y of emissions) until 2050 just isn’t going to do it.

        3. The Eemian at some point was 3°C warmer, so up to 3°C warmer is “natural”.

        You haven’t proved warmer temperatures are bad or that CO2 forcing will be high enough to push temperatures more than trivially higher.

        Since CO2 makes plants more heat tolerant and cuts water consumption it is likely they will actually grow better.

      • TE, the point is that the continental summer temperature shifting by many standard deviations by 2100 alone will have large impacts on populations

        There’s no evidence that will happen – it sounds like something else you’re just making up.

        Certainly summer temperatures are less variable than winter temperatures and tropical temperatures are less variable than temperate or polar temperatures, so this may be just more emotional appeal.

      • I’ve been to Williamsburg, 2°C south of me – and the weather is wonderful.

        This is twice the IPCC 2°C limit, which is 2°C from 1900 temperatures.

        The claims that 1°C or even 2°C warmer than today is harmful are just asinine.

        Further, that IPCC 1°C or 2°C is 2/3rds at night. Even if you are gullible enough to believe it is 1°C warmer than 1900 – that is only 2/3rds or 0.66 °C warmer in the daytime. The IPCC is claiming that a 1.33°C daytime temperature increase is harmful and that is just absurd. That isn’t even a drive to Richmond.

      • The summer temperature in northern continental areas has already shifted by one standard deviation compared to the 1951-1980 baseline (Hansen et al.2012). The European heatwaves, Russian firestorm, and Texas droughts were examples of things with vanishingly small probabilities (3-sigma events) earlier in the 20th century now happening with more likelihood in the 2000’s because of this shift. A projected further shift of 3 standard deviations puts those hot events as colder than the mean by 2100. This is the quantitative perspective to look at it from because you can visualize how far from the norm Texas 2011, for example, was, and then think of that as a cold summer by 2100.

      • Jim D | February 28, 2016 at 5:21 pm |
        The summer temperature in northern continental areas has already shifted by one standard deviation compared to the 1951-1980 baseline (Hansen et al.2012).

        Gee, never saw a study of harm vs standard deviation.

        Since the Eemain was 6 or so standard deviations warmer I guess we have 5 standard deviations to go.

        We are coming out of the little ice age. Yeah, its warmer.


        The Texas drought and that nonsense… Texas hasn’t been this dry since the last time Texas was this dry. It isn’t as dry as the 50s in Texas.

        We aren’t at MWP temperatures – the tree lines prove that. And I’ve been to Richmond (two deviations south of me) and the heat isn’t killing them.

        2/3rds of a degree daytime centigrade is a 44 mile south drive.

        I can drive many increments of 44 miles south and find no disaster.

        Your “projected shift” by 2100 is more virtual nonsense. They use too strong forcing and too high CO2. The RCPs show an increase in CO2 with 4.2 GT of emissions – when current absorption is in the 6-7 GT range. The RCPs are misinformed nonsense. Who is the source of your “projection” anyway and what are they assuming?

        The current BAU is 10 GT to 2040-2050 then some sort of tapering off. There isn’t any way to combine that with 0.2 W for 22 PPM and create a problem.

        It is going to get a little warmer. But you have two problems – your projected temperatures are absurd when compared to estimates based on reasonable consumption/CO2 level trends and empirically measured forcing,, and you still haven’t proved harm from warming, and just have a claim “more is bad”.

        There is no doubt the early part of the interglacial was warmer than the Roman period which was warmer than the MWP which was warmer than today. We aren’t going to be setting records anytime soon.

        I can make a reasonable argument that 2100 will be the same temperature as today. The last solar cold period lasted 80 years.

      • Jim D: continental summer temperature shifting by many standard deviations by 2100

        many That’s not going to happen, is it? You made it up.

      • Jim D: OK, so forget sea-levels rising a meter in the next century affecting large coastal populations

        Again with the meter of sea level rise. If the rate of sea level rise doubles over the next century, expect 60 cm of sea level rise. For that to happen, something other than anthropogenic CO2 would have to be the cause.

      • For continental areas the standard deviation is about 1 C, and around 2100 the land warming would be 3-5 C, if the global warming is 2-3 C above the 1951-1980 baseline, which is many standard deviations.

      • MM, the sea-level rise rate doubled in the last 50 years, so it could double twice in the next century, and that is conservative because the glacier melt rate is increasing at a faster pace.

      • Well you need to cage up your standard deviants and not let them run around so much.

        The empirically measured forcing is basically 3.48* ln (C/Co) from extrapolation of the 0.2 W/m2 = 22 PPM study.

        3.48* ln (460/400) = 0.486 W/m2 or roughly 0.13°C

        So there is no reason to do anything until we hit 460

        Global Warmers think we will hit 460 PPM.in 2033.

        I claim we won’t hit it until after 2045 if ever.

        If global warmers are right in the next 17 years CO2 has to increase at a rate of 3.53 PPM per year. It is currently around 2.2 PPM/Y.

        The three year La Nina that is likely staring in June is going to be interesting. The longer the CO2 increase rate hangs around 2 PPM the more impossible these projections become. If the CO2 rate of increase drops below 2 PPM/Y you can forget global warming as a problem. , It’s toast, stick a fork in it, It’s done

      • Jim D | February 28, 2016 at 7:55 pm |
        MM, the sea-level rise rate doubled in the last 50 years, so it could double twice in the next century, and that is conservative because the glacier melt rate is increasing at a faster pace.

        You only have 170,000 km3 of glaciers. If you melted it all that is less than 1/2 meter.

        The core of Greenland is stiffening, growing, and getting locked in place. Antarctica is net growing according to NASA.

        ” sea-level rise rate doubled in the last 50 years”

        You don’t get that from the tidal gauges.

        You don’t get that from ocean warming.

        By 2020 after a 3 year La Nina the sea level rise trend should be in the dirt.

      • Jim D: MM, the sea-level rise rate doubled in the last 50 years,

        More figments. Really, the stuff you make up.

      • MM, accepted numbers are a rise rate of 14 cm in the 20th century and 7 cm in the last 25 years. Do the math. Only 50 years periods in the 20th century even approached 7 cm.

      • MM

        JimD is always making stuff up. But now with Don AWOL, he thinks he can double down with some really outrageous claims. He tried to blow smoke past me last year about Antarctic contribution to GMSL rise, saying IPCC didn’t use .27mm/yr. Of course it did, as other papers have noted. Since then his street cred has cratered.

      • GMSL is not determined by adding up the sources.

      • Now it’s a three-year La Nina. So what? What would it do? Nothing other than set two new records for warmest La Nina event in the instrument record. For once, come up with something stout. You need the La Nina from H: pick your H, a biblical La Nina.

      • Jim D: MM, the sea-level rise rate doubled in the last 50 years, so it could double twice in the next century,

        If the rate of sea level rise were 4 mm/yr now (higher than almost all estimates), and if it gradually doubled to 8 mm/yr over the next century (as it has gradually increased over the past century), then the mean rate over the century would be 6 mm/yr, yielding 600 mm total over the next century. The multimeter sea level increase forecasts (warnings, models, expectancies, or whatever you want to call them) over the next century are in defiance of the accumulated evidence.

      • The rate from 1900 to 1990 was, per Mitrovica, 1.2mm per year. The current rate, since 2008, is 4.34mm. Since 2008, it was over 4mm per year before the current El Nino started.

      • JCH | February 29, 2016 at 7:48 am |
        GMSL is not determined by adding up the sources.

        Yeah, right.

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7535/full/nature14093.html
        Here we revisit estimates of twentieth-century GMSL rise using probabilistic techniques9, 10 and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year (90% confidence interval). Based on individual contributions tabulated in the Fifth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this estimate closes the twentieth-century sea-level budget.

        Even Mitrovica compares his estimate to the computed-from-sources sea level budget to demonstrate the loop is closed.

        The LOD anomaly says that there isn’t a pole to tropics mass balance transfer in the 21st century, in fact quite the opposite. You can dance around that all you like.

  12. I guess I’ll call something Late Holocene when I know the epoch is over. Recent Holocene will do.

    I was just listening to a podcast by Bernard Lugan, France’s best known Africanist. Just as an aside while talking about North Africa in the classical period he remarks that historians of his ilk are amazed by the notion that radical short-term climate change is in any way new. Climate change in the centuries before and after Christ has long been a major “given” amongst African historians and pre-historians.

    Most scholars now would prefer to duck, I suppose, if the matter was raised too pointedly. But Bernard Lugan never ducks.

  13. “World’s #CarbonBudget Is Only Half as Big as Thought ”

    uncertainty in natural flows is too large to measure the effect of fossil fuel emissions in the carbon budget
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191

    • Another garbage in garbage out study.

      1. They claim that sea level rise is the threat.
      2. They assume “business as usual” will exceed 2°C in 2040.

      The CO2 rise is slower than the RCPs. The sea level rise hasn’t changed much.

      At our current emissions level we can burn fossil fuels until we get tired of it.

      Yet another silly writing exercise.

  14. RE: “Among climate scientists, a clear consensus that the climate science gravy train should roll on”

    This reminded me of the Chick-fil-A billboard:

    Eat more chicken.

    5 out of 5 cows agree.

  15. The Gleick article is emblematic of what is wrong with climate science. He takes on the role of an activist/alarmist and sets aside his scientist hat. Using misinformation about threats to the polar bear scores no points. Neglecting to put the Arctic warming into historical perspective undercuts his credibility. Citing the California drought as proving AGW when even NOAA has admitted it is not
    unprecedented makes him look foolish.
    Where are the other scientists calling out these sophomoric tactics?

    • Gleick after the Heartland episode is such damaged goods reading the article is a pointless exercise.

      He hadn’t been honest in the past, it is a forlorn hope he will be honest in the future.

      • Gleich exposed Heartland by misrepresenting himself. Climate contrarians, who previously excused computer hacking (theft) were appalled at Gleick’s behavior. This could be interpreted in one of two ways, (1) climate contrarians have progressed morally, or (2) they are hypocrites. I lean to believing the latter.

  16. RE: “Pierrehumbert: Oxford’s Halley Professor on How the Climate Challenge Could Derail a Brilliant Human Destiny”

    Climate scientists are playing with fire when they sacralize/politicize climate science to the degree Andrew C. Revikin and friends have. It raises the question as to whether government should be in the business of funding a secular stealth religion, electoral politics and political advocacy.

    Revkin links to another article at the bottom of the referenced article that shows just how sacralized and politicized climate science has become:

    Because we have such trouble connecting the vastness of climate change to the limited horizons of our lived experience, we have trouble caring….

    This is especially true at a time when current events are measured in “hours since Donald Trump last said something stupid,” when the #content torrent is so unending and unmanageable that it can lead to “popcorn brain,” a difficulty concentrating on extended chains of reasoning….

    So let’s try an imaginative exercise. Let’s talk long-term climate consequences and then try to connect them to our current political moment…..

    Climate change is, for all intents and purposes, forever….

    The US presidential election will matter for 10,000 years….

    “The decisions we make about climate change today will reverberate for millennia. No pressure.”

    http://www.vox.com/2016/2/15/11004086/climate-change-millennia

    Here’s a photo from the story:

    • Arts funding followed a similar trajectory.

      In the 1980s advocates of public arts funding sacralized and politicized the arts. They believed making the arts more controversial — morally, religiously, politically — would attract more attention, and in turn more government funding, to the arts.

      The number of articles covering the various art controversies in major newspapers exploded by almost an order of magnitude.

    • Also see Lindzen here: ‘Global warming and the irrelevance of science’ http://euanmearns.com/global-warming-and-the-irrelevance-of-science/

      Excerpt:

      “The current issue of global warming/climate change is extreme in terms of the number of special interests that opportunistically have strong motivations for believing in the claims of catastrophe despite the lack of evidence. In no particular order, there are the

      – Leftist economists for whom global warming represents a supreme example of market failure (as well as a wonderful opportunity to suggest correctives),

      – UN apparatchiks for whom global warming is the route to global governance,

      – Third world dictators who see guilt over global warming as providing a convenient claim on aid (ie, the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries),

      – Environmental activists who love any issue that has the capacity to frighten the gullible into making hefty contributions to their numerous NGOs,

      – Crony capitalists who see the immense sums being made available for ‘sustainable’ energy,

      – Government regulators for whom the control of a natural product of breathing is a dream come true,

      – Newly minted billionaires who find the issue of ‘saving the planet’ appropriately suitable to their grandiose pretensions,

      – Politicians who can fasten on to CAGW as a signature issue where they can act as demagogues without fear of contradiction from reality or complaint from the purported beneficiaries of their actions. (The wildly successful London run of “Yes, Prime Minister” dealt with this.) etc., etc.

      All of the above special interests, quite naturally, join the chorus of advocates. “

      • Linden used to think blowing cigarette smoke on babies was ok. If he changed his opinion on second-hand smoke, he can change it on global warming.

      • Lindzen, not Linden. He was a smoker. He was accused of sucking up to Big Tobacco.

      • max10k:

        Linden used to think blowing cigarette smoke on babies was ok.

        Utter BS. Jim Hansen lied about Prof. Lindzen in his book. Lindzen has correctly noted that the “second-hand smoke” science produced no statistically significant connection to cancer. Nuisance impacts, yes. Sensitive individuals (e.g., asthmatics), yes. An example of good science? No.

        http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/webextras/richardlindzen_transcript.pdf

      • opluso said
        “Lindzen has correctly noted that the “second-hand smoke” science produced no statistically significant connection to cancer.”
        _____

        So, according to Linden, blowing cigarette smoke in a healthy baby’s face would be OK until the smoke caused the baby to be unhealthy.

      • max10k: So, according to Linden, blowing cigarette smoke in a healthy baby’s face would be OK until the smoke caused the baby to be unhealthy.

        That would possibly be a true statement if the “second hand smoke” in the studies of “second hand smoke” had consisted entirely of blowing cigarette smoke in healthy baby’s faces.

        I think you misunderstand: If there is no evidence that second-hand smoke actually damages the public health, then government power ought not be increased to combat it. As has been seen, laws restricting second hand smoke have not measurably improved the public health. I prefer the smoke free environments, but I think Lindzen was correct that the prohibition of public smoking would produce no improvement in public health. Certainly nothing remotely commensurate with curtailing lead in the atmosphere.

      • MRM:

        For the record, I think pre-existing government power allowed for cessation of public nuisances, which could potentially include smoking. That doesn’t mean I accept intentional distortion of the science (whichever side you are on). In the case of second-hand smoke, the record is clear that EPA made a decision and cherry-picked data to support it.

        And note that EPA was not delegated indoor air regulatory power. But that never seems to stop their political crusades.

    • Since the discount rate is pretty much negative, the damage function is pretty much a non-starter for a manufactured crisis.

    • “The US presidential election will matter for 10,000 years….”

      I realize that the alarmists are now getting cagey enough to make predictions for results no closer than 30 years out but this is ridiculous.

  17. But the effect on public funding for the arts was not the desired one, as cuts to federal funding to the arts continued and with time became draconian.

    • Some Republicans were offended by nudity in art.

      • Some democrats are offended by free speech.

      • Blabber-mouths abuse the right. Just because a person knows how to talk doesn’t mean he or she has anything worth hearing. bla bla bla and more bla bla bla

      • Knock at the door.
        Mister Galileo, I’m here from the Committee Against
        Blabbermouths of Science and we …

      • beththeserf,

        Most “liberals” these days have so perverted the word “liberal” that its original meaning has now all but been lost.

        …to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions whIch he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical….

        — THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1786

      • And this, Glenn,

        ‘That our civil rights have no dependence on our
        religious opinions any more than our opinions in
        physics or geometry.’
        – Thomas Jefferson.

        Oh Consensus Church of Climate Science.

      • “Some Republicans were offended by nudity in art.”

        Those weren’t campus republicans complaining about the offending “bias incident” of the snow penis at the U of Michigan last week.

      • harkin1, thank you. That’s funny. Someone said if it took too long to melt, university health services should be called.

      • max10k: Just because a person knows how to talk doesn’t mean he or she has anything worth hearing.

        So what? That does not justify government-enforced speech restrictions.

      • http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/university-of-michigan-launches-investigation-into-snow-penis-after-it-was-reported-as-a-bias-incident/

        “Based on this definition, it is unclear if the bias incident report was generated because of the perceived white male privilege displayed by the pearly member rising out up from the ground or because of inadequate sex representation as no efforts had been made to create a snow vagina,” Review writer Erin Dunne joked.

        I am beginning to understand why liberals have driven conservatives out of psychology (0.43% or less conservative), despite conservatives being 40% (almost a majority) of the population. Given liberals higher rate of various mental afflictions the studies almost write themselves, as is evidenced by stories like this.

        Knowing the difficulty in finding black snow (or brown snow) to construct similar edifices the claims of bias would seem unwarranted.

  18. Could some one reference literature that explains why higher latitudes are warming faster than low latitudes? Thank you.

  19. Regarding:
    “New blog post from Isaac Held: Clouds are hard [link] …”

    That is an informative blog post on clouds in climate models. E.g.:

    “When you change one part of a model, like the sub-grid convective microphysics, you often have to change another aspect of the model to retain a top-of-atmosphere (TOA) energy balance sufficiently realistic to justify coupling it to ocean and ice models and using it in climate change studies. The sensitivity of the resulting model is often a consequence of the change in model formulation needed to rebalance the model as well as the original modification motivating the change.”

    This is the kind of openness and honesty we would like to see more of – be kind everybody, so we don´t loose it.

    • Thanks for calling attention to this. Went and read it. It says something much more important than clouds are hard. AR4 and 5 both said that. Essay Cloudy Clouds. Held in effect says the models are jury rigged houses of cards. If you improve one aspect of the model physics (here cloud microphysics), you should simply improve the model, period. Not find that you have to go change something else (here, convective parameterization) to keep the model from going haywire.

    • Science or Fiction: This is the kind of openness and honesty we would like to see more of – be kind everybody, so we don´t loose it.

      I agree.

      I recommend that everyone interested in the CO2 and climate discussion read Isaac Held’s blog.

  20. Nicholas Stern’s article opens with a statement of belief.

    Nicholas Stern calls on scientists, engineers and economists to help policymakers by better modelling the immense risks to future generations, and the potential for action.

    This demonstrates he is biased and captured by the alarmists. His views and analyses should be considered in this light.

    Australia’s Professor Ross Garnaut is another example. He shares Stern’s beliefs in CAGW and his analyses for the Australian Government to justify the carbon tax (now repealed), were hopelessly biased.

    • Curious George

      He is calling on a wrong audience. Hollywood would comply happily.

    • I think needing over 600 pages of mental acrobatics to come up with even a remotely plausible scenario where gw isn’t beneficial did his credibility 10 years ago.

  21. “In providing results from the first seawater chemistry manipulation experiment of a natural coral reef community, we provide evidence that net community calcification is depressed compared with values expected for pre-industrial conditions, indicating that ocean acidification may already be impairing coral reef growth.”

    No they don’t. They just add some sodium hydroxide to sea water, measure some small unremarkable physico-chemical changes over a short time period, and draw unjustified conclusions. Standard global-warming science. No real biochemistry or biophysics worth mentioning at all.

    • Outstanding. Paper shows corals love Drano. Not.
      This is exactly the sort of poor lab ‘ocean acidification’ technique that was seriously critiqued recently, a commentary even picked up and noted in Nature. Something between half and 3/4 of all the papers reviewed had problems like this. Not to mention the Fabricius field work hydrogen sulfide malfeasance exposed in essay Shell Games.

    • Fine.

      I have been advocating we dump coal ash in the mid-ocean for a while.

      This would be successful since it is just a large scale repeat of their experiment.

      Since they have proven the wisdom of my plan we should start now. Given the low mass of ash to coal it would be a fairly cheap plan and would eliminate the whining about coal ash disposal on land.

      Plus it will stimulate plant growth in a lifeless part of the ocean.

      A win-win-win that will please environmental whiners!

    • I think needing over 600 pages of mental acrobatics to come up with even a remotely plausible scenario where gw isn’t beneficial did his credibility 10 years ago.

  22. Swearing gets its offensiveness by assuming permission has been given for that language register when it has not been given.

    • Swearing reveals our emotions, with the niceties of manners withdrawn, red in tooth and claw.

      • That’s disproved by swearing among close friends being not offensive at all.

        Related: when do you know somebody? When they think you do. Otherwise presuming you know them is offensive itself.

        The permission from the other guy governs what kind of behavior is appropriate, all over the place.

        I think the insight must have come from Erving Goffman, who spots that kind of thing, but I’m not sure.

      • rhh: No, it’s _proved_ by swearing among close friends being not offensive at all.

        If I sit down for a drink with my brother, the closeness of our relationship means the niceties of manners are not required.

      • Right, but that shows that emotions have nothing to do with offensiveness. It’s assuming that permission to use that register has been granted, as among friends, when it has not been.

        Like assuming that you know somebody when he hasn’t decided that you know him.

      • David Springer

        Some people swear out of habit. Doesn’t mean jack f*cking sh*t.

  23. This poll doesn’t define the category of latino, don’t know if they are likely voters or what, but this sample seems to epitomize the definition low information person since a significant number don’t know who Cruz or Rubio are.

    From the article:

    But the road to the White House is not clear for Clinton. There are Latinos who significantly have a very negative opinion of the former New York senator. Twenty percent of Latinos said they have a “very’ negative view of her, higher than the 10 percent that hold a “somewhat” negative view. While 14 percent were neutral towards her, 27 percent have a “very” positive view and 24 percent were “somewhat” positive.

    http://www.latinpost.com/articles/100760/20151209/presidential-polls-2015-latinos-view-donald-trump-very-negatively-dont.htm

  24. Trump seems to be gaining ground against Hillary in the polls. Some of the more recent results show him with a national advantage over Hillary. Too soon to call it a trend, but it could turn out to be one. Time will tell.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/

    • David Springer

      There is no indication of gaining ground in those polls. No consecutive poll results for the same poll (same region and/or same polling organization) that I could find.

  25. I apologize for the political posts. It was an accident.

  26. The article about clouds in the models just adds to their enigma. What with cosmic rays ability to modulate low clouds, the enigma just grows.

  27. New paper by @KenCaldeira group on coral reef calcification recovery after ocean acidification reversal [link]…

    Link does not say exactly how they “restored” the lagoon to the pH of 100 years ago. Did they add a base or a buffer that served as a nutrient to the coral, or to the things that the coral feeds on? A common confound in these ocean pH studies is that they manipulate more than the CO2: adding sulfuric or hydrochloric acid, say, or adding calcium carbonate.

  28. The greens ain´t gonna like this:

    “… drylands are the largest terrestrial biome on the planet, home to more than 2 billion people… analyses using satellite-based vegetation indices … have found extensive areas of dryland greening in areas of the Mediterranean, the Sahel, the Middle East and northern China, as well as greening trends in Mongolia and South America ..

    The researchers examined the sensitivity of soil water change to varying levels of carbon dioxide, finding a significant positive change in soil water along the carbon dioxide enrichment gradient.

    Studies including Wang’s earlier work in Africa have shown that even small changes in soil moisture in drylands could be significant enough to cause large changes in vegetation productivity.”

    Rising CO2 Levels Are Likely Cause Of Global Dryland Greening [link]

    • David Springer

      No. They couched the greening by saying it might be a bad thing. Nature wouldn’t have published it otherwise.

      “We know from satellite observations that vegetation is greener than it was in the past,” Wang said. “We now understand why that’s occurring, but we don’t necessarily know if that’s a good thing or not.”
      In some regions, greening could be caused by species change, with greener invasive plants replacing indigenous ones or bushes encroaching on grasslands that are used to graze cattle, Wang said.

      A gratuitous nod to the potential evils of aCO2 is comparable to secret handshakes that members of secretive clubs use to identify themselves to each other in public.

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

  29. –snip–

    Doublethink is the act of ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts.[1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is cognitive dissonance, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

    George Orwell created the word doublethink in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984).

    –snip–

    So, then, “pal-review” prevents any papers that don’t fit the global warming dogma/religion from getting published. We know that climate scientists are rigging their research because the only way they can get funded to do studies is if their results are in line with the global warming hoax.

    yet.

    In 2015 Alone MASSIVE 250 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS!!!!!!!!! Doubt AGW and 2016:ALREADY 50 NEW PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS Refuting Alarmist CO2 Science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I lurve me some climate “skepticism.”

  30. Hartsfield’s article is absolutely right on the money. It’s about time for us to see this kind of honest discussion

    • Information flow. Interesting. Lots of trails to follow. Thanks for the paper.
      One note of interest is the paper indicates your PDO is not such a beast after all.
      “For the known major natural modes, the information flows between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) from and to the global surface temperatures are close to 0.0, so essentially no causality relations could be identified here, in contrast to the significant correlation between AMO and GMTA time series (Table 1).

      • Danny, what I have said is perfectly congruent with what they are saying.

      • Wrt to the PDO. As for the AMO, they fall into the same trap as almost all climate scientists. Temperature is correlated to temperature.

      • This becomes,this. It’s the sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic. Big whoop. The AMO does not do much other than follow around the GMST like a puppy. The PDO, on the other hand, gets in big fights with the GMST. Fought it to a slowdown, but then gave it up and now February 2016 is in as butt kicker hot.

    • What do you reckon the paleo guys think?

      • Physics says 19th, 20th, and 21st-century warming was/is caused by the activities of human beings, and that ocean cycles average to zero.

      • 19th century as well? The topic BTW is paleo evidence of CO2 and temp behaviour. Which follows which?

      • It does not matter. ACO2 is the big control knob of the present climate. Remember all that talk of the napping sun? It’s napping, and wrt current climate, the nap is a great big Snoozer February 2016 is off the charts hot. What is that consistent with? For one, it’s consistent with my notion that the PDO was working against ACO2 warming, and that when it finally entered its short-lived negative phase, it finally manged to slow it down… for a brief, irrelevant moment. Now the PDO is positive, and the warming rate is nuts. Just a few more years, and we’ll have a 30-year trend in excess of .2C per decade.

      • A few years more, if the people who helped bring us AGW get their way, Que SST, will have a chance to fly one more time for the masses.

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/29/nasa-unveils-supersonic-airliner-future/81132346/

        Damn the Global Warming, 100 people need to move faster.

      • Just a few more years, and we’ll have a 30-year trend in excess of .2C per decade.

        I thinking not.

        Why?

        1. Rates of Radiative Forcing have been declining since 1989. If the higher rates of RF in the past did not create 0.2C/decade, why would the lower present and future rates of RF do so?

        2. Observed 30 year temperature trends are diverging from 0.2C/decade. Temperature rates did almost reach 0.2C/decade in 2004, but do recall, that thirty year trend began from the end of the 1970s cooling – won’t get that head start anymore. Lacking causality for a reversal of this tendency, lower rates appear more likely.

        For their part, the IPCC did forecast that 0.2C/decade rates were a lock for the present time. Oops.

      • You’ve had the PDO working on your side since, possibly, the mid 1980s… your cool Eastern Pacific.

        Jan 1998 – .61 ℃
        Jan 2016 – 1.13 ℃

        Feb 1998 – .88 ℃
        Feb 2016 – ? (looks to be as high as 1.30 ℃)

      • ACO2 is the big control knob of the present climate.
        1. ACO2. is the “fine tuning’ control knob just to the left of the big control knob.

        2. 0.03 W/m2/y for GHG (and this is probably the peak this century) is 3 W/m2/century or 2.55 W/m2 by 2100. This foredooms us from ever reaching the cherished 1°C “disastrous for some fanciful reason with no evidence behind it” threshold so beloved by global warmers.

        3. Physics says 19th, 20th, and 21st-century warming was/is caused by the activities of human beings
        Now you are just making things up.

  31. Hi Judith, you have noticed the some similarities between the “salt wars” and the “climate wars” and linked to a paper from 1998. There are many similar issues in these debates, not least of which are ignoring contrary data and demonizing opponents. There have been lots of developments in the “salt wars” and some recent commentaries have just been published.

    John Ioannidis is a highly respected professor at Stanford, with appointments at the Department of Medicine and Department of Health Research and
    Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, and the Department of Statistics also at Stanford (and author of the widely cited paper “Why most published research findings are false”) (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 ).

    He recently edited an issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology and wrote a commentary titled “Salt and the assault of opinion on evidence” (see http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/02/17/ije.dyw015.extract , open access). Some quotes will sound familiar to climate battlers.

    “When IJE invited commentaries on the paper from leading scientists, that polarization was immediately evident. One scientist whom I admire declined our invitation saying that ‘the paper . . . is rubbish . . . there doesn’t seem to be any realization that the majority of those papers that are against salt reduction are funded by the food or salt industry, just like the tobacco industry did (or still does for that matter) for cigarettes . . . I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with it’. Sound familiar?

    Another aspect:
    “Several major issues are confounded in this controversy. There are potentially millions of lives jeopardized, and the Damoclean moral argument is that whoever is wrong may be dooming those people to death intentionally or unintentionally.
    Then there is also my personal pet topic: the industry distorts the evidence in its favour, and as an academic and public health researcher I want to rise to the occasion and defend the community against corporate greed. At the same time, there are also clearly strong academic opinions here and allegiance, confirmation and other academic bias can sometimes be worse than financial allurement”.

    And on evidence:

    “Trinquart and colleagues have meta-analysed the network of the published evidence plus the published comments and interpretations on the evidence, but this published corpus is just the selective end product of a long
    manipulative process. How that primary evidence and its comments and interpretations have accumulated is akin to sausage making (hmm, talking about sausages, another hot public health debate). It gives me pause when I wonder how it is decided what studies are done, how they are conducted,
    how they are analysed, how they are reported, how they are interpreted, how they are seen by reviewers and editors and rejected unless they fit to their world view and what changes in analyses, results, must-cite references
    and interpretation are potentially imposed by the editors and reviewers as a condition for publication. Sometimes I wonder whether published observational epidemiology is simply reflecting a power-weighted vote count of the opinions of epidemiologists”.

    And personal attacks”

    “As I am demonstrating the grand power of uncertainty and bias, I wonder if people think that I have been funded by the salt industry and should be burned to the stake as a non-believer. I have not been funded, please spare my life. Plus I do confess that I do think that too much salt is bad for your health, amen. However, I also don’t know what would be the relative effectiveness of various interventions that might try to reduce excess salt intake in real life. Even if salt kills people, will having a moustache-carrying minister of health or some erudite public health officials broadcast
    ‘cut down on salt’ suffice to save lives? I doubt it. I also lament the lack of some pivotal long-term pragmatic randomized trials to answer questions in the contested borderland between believers and non-believers. I hate being a believer or a non-believer, I went into science because I did not want just to have to believe”.

    We’ve just seen an open discussion of ocean acidification exaggeration in a major marine science journal. I’m confident we’ll see more of these scientific issues on broader climate issues as well. I recommend to read the Ioannidis commentary (and if you’re interested in topic then read other related papers in press in the same journal).

  32. Why are most people ignoring this strong evidence that the Sun influences the Earth’s climate on time scales from 50 to 9400 years.

    Evidence that the Sun has always had an important influence upon climate change

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/evidence-that-sun-has-always-had.html

  33. Probably because it is not enhanced.

  34. Maybe I should have said: Why are most people ignoring this strong evidence that long-term variations in the Sun has always had an important influence upon climate change.

  35. A record UAH February! The question now is will this be another step-up change like 1998, or will it trend down over the years.