Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback during the historical period. [link]

Can game theory help solve the problem of climate change? [link]

The IPCC’s priorities for the next six years: 1.5C, oceans, cities and food security [link]

Big increase in paved surfaces in DC area 1984 to 2010. This affects our climate: [link]

Research shows Professors work long hours and spend much of day in meetings [link] …

Do seasonal to decadal climate predictions underestimate the predictability of the real world? [link]

New #climate consensus study by Cook, Oreskes et al. [link]

This is how scientists *should* react to data that contradicts their views. [link]

Michael E. Kraft:  Climate change deniers deserve punishment [link]

Now in NatureClimate – Opinion An IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C should focus on resolving fundamental scientific and political uncertainties, not fixate on developing unachievable mitigation pathways. [link]

10 ways negative emissions could slow climate change [link]

Stripping a professor of tenure over a blog post [link]

Jonathan Haidt on the creeping of ‘bullying’ criteria in academia [link]

Not dead yet:  great barrier reef coral cover up 19% in 3 years [link]

Melting Ice And Shifting Rain Patterns Causing the North and South Poles to Drift [link]

Bob Tisdale: Do the Adjustments to Sea Surface Temperature Data Lower the Global Warming Rate? [link]

Factcheck: Are climate models ‘wrong’ on rainfall extremes? [link]

Why science in Africa needs honest brokers as well as Einsteins  [link]

New paper finds natural 60 year cycle challenges the anthropogenic global warming theory [link] …

“ECMWF Tropical Cyclone Forecasts for Days to Weeks Ahead” – [link]

How do influxes of moist air into Arctic affect temperature & #seaice concentration? [link]

Know this first:  Risk perception is always irrational [link]

How to pinpoint the sources of NWP forecast errors @ECMWF [link] …

@BillNye “Science Guy” open to jail time for climate change skeptics [link]

Principles and criteria for assessing urban energy resilience: A literature review [link] …



203 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Know This First: Risk Perception Is Always Irrational.

    Wow. Global warming in a nutshell.

    • I call bull. AGW is way down the list where it belongs. Not all risk perception is irrational. Most people in advanced, rich western countries manage risks well.

      There are some examples of mass irrationality, like fear of terrorism. However, most westerners use good seat of the pants judgement. Chemo- and Radio-phobia can be examples of localized irrationality of significant populations directly exposed. The anti-vax movement does not impact the majority of westerners.

      The title should be: “risk perception is always irrational for a vocal minority, but we need to imply it impacts society at large in order to keep the click-bait smelling fat and juicy. “

    • David Springer

      I worry that I worry too much. But not about climate change.

  2. Variation in sensitivity and feedback in GRL. Two observations.
    1. Only in ‘climate science’ would running a model be called an experiment. 2. Input observed ocean and sea ice changes, and the models compute ECS ~1.5 similar to observational energy budget studies. Hardly surprising that when better parameterized, models produce a more realistic result.
    A back door admission that natural variation matters, and that the CMIP5 set is fatally flawed by the attribution problem inherent in the unavoidable parameterization.

    • 1. Only in ‘climate science’ would running a model be called an experiment.

      Incorrect. It’s called “numerical or computational experiments” in other fields, too. Or just “experiment” for short. I’ve personally seen it in my field, materials science, as well as physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

      2. Input observed ocean and sea ice changes, and the models compute ECS ~1.5 similar to observational energy budget studies.

      Out of curiosity, got a citation for that? The surface temperatures are currently tracking along with a sensitivity of about ~2.8C.

      • Sure. Lewis and Curry 2014. Used AR5 inputs. Lewis 2015, redoing with Steven’s newer aerosol numbers. Both papers posted here previously. There are several others like Otto 2013 not posted here.

      • “1. Only in ‘climate science’ would running a model be called an experiment.”

        Incorrect. It’s called “numerical or computational experiments” in other fields, too. Or just “experiment” for short. I’ve personally seen it in my field, materials science, as well as physics, chemistry, and mathematics.

        Yes, perhaps most famously, Einstein’s thought experiments.

        It’s not the theoretical nature of climate models so much as:
        A. inability to model weather from which climate is derived.
        B. Numerous invalidations to date ( notably the Hot Spot, increasing Antarctic Sea Ice, cooling Eastern Pacific, cooling Southern Ocean ).

        “The surface temperatures are currently tracking along with a sensitivity of about ~2.8C.”

        Simple correlation of temperatures versus greenhouse gas forcing yields about 1.7K per CO2 doubling. That correlation excludes any forcing finding it’s way into the oceans, but should include the largest feedbacks ( presumably including water vapor feedback ):

      • In serious science “numerical or computational experiments,” unless based upon experimentally validated formulations from first principles, are usually called simulations.

      • Steven Mosher

        “In serious science “numerical or computational experiments,” unless based upon experimentally validated formulations from first principles, are usually called simulations.”

        It depends. called them both experiments and simulations

        nobody whines about thought experiments

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “nobody whines about thought experiments”

        Richard Feynman said –

        “And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?”

        How does one know if a thought experiment is repeatable? Are we supposed to believe two or more bearded balding bumbling buffoons, who claim they have duplicated each other’s thought experiments? I suppose you might, but I might ask for a confirming physical experiment. Maybe the thought experimenters were merely deluded or deranged.

        Your odd statement that nobody whines about thought experiments is completely irrelevant in the context of Feynman’s repeatable experiments as part of the scientific process.

        CO2 Warmists cannot produce any repeatable physical experiments to back up their notions, so once again they resort to the Warmist tactic of deny, divert, and confuse.

        Surrounding an object with CO2 or H2O will not raise its temperature. Try it. Think as hard as you like. It won’t make any difference. Run as many computer experiments as you like. Still no temperature increase.

        What results do you choose to believe? Reality, or something that exists only in your own mind? I’m for reality. What about you?


      • “How does one know if a thought experiment is repeatable? ”

        Ask Feynman or Einstein . they did famous thought experiments.

        Dont be illiterate.

      • Steven Mosher: Ask Feynman or Einstein . they did famous thought experiments.

        That does not answer the question, does it? How can you tell if thought experiments are repeatable? It’s hard enough to tell whether two thoughts are the same thoughts.

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “Ask Feynman or Einstein . they did famous thought experiments.”

        Warmist deny, divert, confuse. As you know, both are dead. I see what both wrote, however. Neither’s writings support your nonsensical assertions.


      • In climate science though when a thought experiment (aka running models to determine climate sensitivity) ends up with a paradox (that’s not what we observed) it doesn’t seem to matter.

      • David Springer

        Steven Mosher | April 16, 2016 at 12:35 am |

        “nobody whines about thought experiments”

        Mosher writes this despite the fact that he is responding to someone who was whining about thought experiments thus being provably and obviously wrong as soon as he pecked out the little missive.

        In Mosher’s world if he doesn’t whine about thought experiments then nobody whines about thought experiments. That’s because Mosher’s definition of “nobody” is “no one who matters”. Mosher of course is the arbiter of who matters and who does not.

        Mosher’s primary value is in demonstrating the aberrant psychology that fuels the warmist mind set. He’s very good at it.

      • Alas, “thought experiments” involve only questions of logic–not questions of empirically demonstrated fact. Can’t expect mere wordslingers to grasp that vital scientific distinction

      • “…nobody whines about thought experiments.”

        Very few scientists accept thought experiments on the same level as actual experiments. One of the most famous thought experiments is Maxwell’s Demon, which seems to prove something that’s likely false: that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be violated.

        A paper titled “Thought experiments considered harmful” “whines” in a way you deny occurs (actual experimental; proof that you’re wrong). The paper notes: “Accordingly, I do not want to say that the use of thought experiments by scientists is harmful, because I think they generally use them properly [e.g,, to generate hypotheses or
        to show inconsistency in competing hypotheses]. Philosophers, in contrast, have often operated under the illusion that thought experiments alone can provide evidence for their theories.”

      • Steven Mosher

        “That does not answer the question, does it? How can you tell if thought experiments are repeatable? It’s hard enough to tell whether two thoughts are the same thoughts.”

        The same goes for any experiment.
        In fact you cant repeat any experiment, exactly, now can you?

        Think about it.

        Now think again.

  3. This cycle appears in phase with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

    The AMO is the gift that just never stops giving. Temperature goes up; AMO goes up. AMO goes down; temperature goes way up. Clue?

    Yet another 60-year scientist steps up and swings and misses.

    • You have misrepresented the abstract. We will know in a few years whether this new paper (a different spin on stadium wave) is likely correct by whether Arctic summer sea ice recovers further from what may have been a cyclic low in 2007 (2012 was cyclone influenced). The DMI and Russian summer ice records do suggest about a 60 year cycle from peak to peak summer ice. AMO should be an Arctic sea ice influence.

      • JCH: How does “Jump Around” by “House of Pain”, played between the 3rd and 4th quarters at Camp Randall, fit in with the Wave? It rocks the stadium.

      • We got the stadium wave going during the 4th Quarter at Roracle impatiently waiting for the buzzer to make the 73-9 Dubs official in the record books. Never seen that at an NBA game before.

      • Horst

        I didn’t understand a word of that. Please explain it to a Brit.


      • Sorry tony. JCH provided a video of a stadium wave at an American football game at an open air stadium with ~90,000 people. This wave phenomenon was very popular in the States at football and basketball games during the 1990’s. Also, to my knowledge, was not usually done at a basketball game at an indoor arena with ~20,000 people and I had never seen it done before at an NBA game.

        My local National Basketball Association (NBA) team, the Golden State Warriors (the Dubs), just set the all-time record for victories during the regular season 73-9. The former 72-10 record was held by the 1996 Chicago Bulls (Michael Jordon??) and was said to be unbreakable, so this was a big deal for SF Bay Area Sports Fans.

        Our arena is name-branded by the famous Anglo samurai billionaire Larry Ellison and is called Oracle Arena. The NBA Warrior fans are considered to be the loudest fans in the league, although I think Oklahoma City fans might take acceptation to that. Because we are so loud, we call the arena Roracle (roar-get it).

        Because this situation was so unusual, the crowd broke out in a stadium wave during the 4th Quarter at a point where the victory was no longer in jeopardy. This was noteworthy because I had never experienced it and it was completely different than a football stadium wave. The RPM was significantly faster and it was much louder because of the confines and acoustics.

        If one were into stadium wave analogies, the high intensity of the close quarter basketball arena version is more like the Atlantic Ocean and the massive football “Coliseum” version is more like the Pacific Ocean.

      • Tony

        The best I could figure out what Horst is talking about is that he is watching a National Basketball Association game at Oracle Arena, apparently nicknamed Roaracle (lame) while the Golden State Warriors (Dubs) are setting an NBA record of 73 wins in a season, surpassing Michael Jordan’s Chicago Bulls record wins of 72 games.
        I just started watching Premier League Soccer recently after trying to ignore it for years. Rather enjoy the singing of the crowd. Not as exciting as American Football but not as boring as I used to think.

      • Horst I’ve seen the wave at several NBA games – both Portland and Seattle (when the Sonics were still in town).

      • Thanks for the interpretation guys.

        In Britain we call it the Mexican wave but I guess that doesn’t sound as good a phrase for a scientific paper.

        If its excitement you want you need to watch a cricket test match. They last five days and even then they are often drawn…


      • Ristvan – What does the AMO and/or the stadium wave have to say about the current anomalously early decline of sea ice area in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas?

        The Beaufort Gyre Goes Into Overdrive

        What effect do you suppose the “Great 2016 anticyclone” will ultimately have? What if 2007 wasn’t a “cyclic low” at all?

      • “Stadium waves” are seen only in sports stadia. In nature, we have very much different, non-anticipatory, mechanisms that produce oscillations.

    • Danny Thomas

      the balance of what he suggested:”The last maximum of the sinusoid coincides with the temperature plateau observed since the end of the 20th century. The onset of declining phase of AMO, the recent excess of the global sea ice area anomaly and the negative slope of global mean temperature measured by satellite from 2002 to 2015, all these indicators
      sign for the onset of the declining phase of the 60-year cycle. Once this cycle is subtracted from observations, the transient climate response is revised downwards consistent with latest observations, with latest evaluations
      based on atmospheric infrared absorption and with a general tendency of published climate sensitivity. The enhancement of the amplitude of the CO2 seasonal oscillations which is found up to 71% faster than the atmospheric
      CO2 increase, focus on earth greening and benefit for crops yields of the supplementary photosynthesis, further minimizing the consequences of the tiny anthropogenic contribution to warming.

      This 60-year scientist? http://climat-sceptiques.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1-s2.0-S0012825216300277-main.pdf (the full paper, cites Lewis/Curry)
      Same as this one: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214500957

      Didn’t Chambers suggest a similar vein w/r/t slr?

      How much of a body of evidence (equally peer reviewed) does it require to be worthy of consideration? I dunno, but sure would like to.

      • Danny Thomas

        And please take a look at the citations within.

      • Steven Mosher

        you realize the analysis is crap.

      • Danny Thomas

        “The” analysis? Which “the”? There seems to be a recurring theme in many works w/r/t 30/60 year cycles and from numerous ‘named’ sources on the more concerned side. This, I find intriguing. Couldn’t much much work from this particular author but give some value as it is peer reviewed. Don’t take it as gospel, but then that’s the case with most new work as I’m discovering substantiation or refutation comes with time.

        But your comment is of no value as it provides zero specificity. I think you could add some value if you chose to, but as it stands it’s non existent.

      • Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “you realize the analysis is crap.”

        Are you making a pronouncement from ignorance or malice, or maybe just from a perverted desire to be gratuitously offensive?

        If your assertion was supported by a fact or two, people might believe you to be other than what you appear to be. I’m trying to be bit obscure, of course.

        How did I go?


      • t is important to point out that even if a 60-year
        oscillation is occurring in GMSL, it is still a small fluctua-
        tion about a highly significant rate of rise. Modeling a
        60-year oscillation does not change the estimated trend in
        any reconstruction time-series of GMSL by more than 0.1 mm yr
        (Table 1), which is lower than the uncertainty.
        Thus, it does not change the overall conclusion that sea level
        has been rising on average by 1.7 mm yr over the last 110 years.
        – Chambers

      • Danny Thomas

        Thanks for that. Nice to see your choice of evidence being the product of Chambers and yet (presuming I recall correctly) didn’t you also suggest that you didn’t ‘believe’ Chambers to be correct and that there is/was no 60 yr. sea level cycle. Not sure how this jives.

        Additionally, your citation dated 2012 clearly states 1.7mm/yr. There seems to be some discrepancy between this and 3.2mm/yr. The work uses ‘unadjusted’ tide gauges and I’ll quote: ” Although the tide gauge data are still too limited, both in time and space, to determine conclusively that there is a 60-year oscillation in GMSL, the possibility should be considered when attempting to interpret the acceleration in the rate of global and regional mean sea level rise.”

        Within section 3 (Discussion) somewhat in support to the ‘crap’ (as Mosher calls it) this is found:
        “Some climate model experiments have found that forcing with combinations of external forcing (greenhouse gases, solar variations, volcanic aerosols) cannot reproduce the observed multi decadal variation in surface temperature [Andronova and Schlesinger, 2000], but that a coupled climate model forced with only climatological fluxes and run over 1000 years will reproduce a quasi 60 year oscillation in surface temperature that is related to fluctuations in the thermohaline circulation in the model [Delworth and Mann, 2000]. This suggests the multi decadal oscillation is an internal mode, and not externally forced.”

        For this already too long a post: “While there is growing evidence of a near 60-year natural climate oscillation and our analysis indicates that some regions have a strong, quasi 60-year variation in sea level, this alone does not mean that there is a detectable GMSL signal.”

        All so very confusing and uncertain. Would be interesting to hear Mosher tell Chambers his work was ‘crap’.

      • Steven Mosher

        Danny . Read the paper.
        Get the data he refers to.
        Try to replicate.
        If you cant see the immediate problem, then
        You have no business refering to the paper.

        Heck read the citations and if you cant spot the problem
        Then read harder and comment less.

      • Danny Thomas

        Note the difference. I did read the paper. I researched the author. I’ve read some of the citations, and I made zero unhelpful assertions (and likely no helpful one).
        As suggested in this comment to JCH, I’d love to watch while you tell Chambers his work is ‘crap’: https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/15/week-in-review-science-edition-37/#comment-778402

        I’m not a mind reader and cannot ‘spot the problem’ as it appears in your mind. If you have a specific(s) hearing it would be appreciated. Some of what he suggests follows the work of others.

        It is helpful when you elaborate. It is unhelpful when you assert and preach.

      • Danny Thomas

        I’m not quite sure what to think about your proselytizing so in an effort to pin you down and see if you’re just full of bluster or being serious about your science I’ll ask this. Since this work has been available since late February and you’ve elected here to state emphatically that it’s ‘crap’ I’d like to know if you’ve practiced what you’ve preached to me. Have you:
        Read the paper?
        Gotten the data he refers to?
        Tried to replicate?
        If so, please provide so I (& others) can learn.

        If not, then “If you cant see the immediate problem, then
        You have no business referring to the paper.”


      • Danny Thomas

        I have no idea of the route this paper took in it’s 5 months of review, but route taken by papers in general according to Elsevier https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

        if the basic science is off the work is supposed to be rejected.

      • FYI Danny, in Climate Science, “crap” is a technical term.

      • Danny Thomas

        Thanks. I learn new jargon frequently. Thought maybe he’d meant carp but that didn’t quite fit either.

        Need a guide book I guess. Interesting that this is the 2nd paper I’ve seen with a blog as a reference.

      • Steven Mosher

        I see you didnt read the paper Danny.
        Its’ pretty dang simple.
        go read harder.

      • Danny Thomas

        Poor assumption for a ‘fitted’ study. Can only presume you didn’t read my comments. And, as per usual, you’re willing to preach and not willing to practice (or at least provided evidence that you have) by addressing any of your own questions posed back towards you.

        Elements of the paper follow 30/60 year cycles evidenced in other works (cited within this one). This work is peer reviewed so followed the premise of ‘basic science’ detailed in Elesevier’s peer review policy.

        “On inspection of a risk of anthropogenic warming thus toned down, a change of paradigm which highlights a benefit for mankind related to the increase of plant feeding and crops yields by enhanced CO2 photosynthesis is suggested.”

        It appears to have been wrangled thru the system by one with a skeptical thought process meeting valid enough science to pass peer review and maybe this just causes you irritation, is a psychological hurdle for you due to human resistance to ‘paradigm shifts’. Or maybe it’s all just funded by ‘big oil’?

    • Can someone explain this sentence? To me it looks like gibberish.
      “The enhancement of the amplitude of the CO2 seasonal oscillations which is found up to 71% faster than the atmospheric CO2 increase, focus on earth greening and benefit for crops yields of the supplementary photosynthesis, further minimizing the consequences of the tiny anthropogenic contribution to warming.”

      • Danny Thomas

        See section #4 “Enhancement of amplitude of CO2 seasonal oscillations”: http://climat-sceptiques.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/1-s2.0-S0012825216300277-main.pdf

        It’s a bit long to post, but details how that segment of the abstract is deduced.

      • Has he just “discovered” that seasonal CO2 variations are larger than the CO2 variation at that time scale, but not realized that CO2 emission is responsible for twenty times the seasonal amplitude in background growth. I was puzzled by what he views as “tiny”, and 71% faster than what exactly? Emissions are 2000% the seasonal oscillation in the last century or so.

      • Danny Thomas

        Further: “the purpose of this paper is to parameterize a major component of the natural variability of climate in Section 2 and, once this contribution is
        removed from observed climate change, to estimate in Section 3
        which fraction remains attributable to the warming of residual anthropogenic

      • …and does he come up with 2000% or what?

      • Danny Thomas

        ” latest evaluations of TCR lying between 0.6 °C and 1.4 °C
        (Harde, 2014; Lewis and Curry, 2014; Skeie et al., 2014; Lewis, 2015),
        consistent with Eq. (2) and with the low side of AR5 (2013) TCR

        “. The temperature increase in each ascending
        phase of the cycle in the 1930s and in the 1990s, indeed is 0.6 °C as
        shown in Fig. 2(b) although CO2 emissions were ~6 times lower in the
        1930s compared to the 1990s. CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate models
        which fit data in the second ascending phase conversely are unable to
        reproduce the observations in the first ascending phase from 1910 to
        1940 as shown in Fig. TS.9(a) of AR5 (2013) and after 1998. The slope
        of the linear contribution observed since 1880 in Fig. 2(b) is 0.6 °C per
        century although CO2 emissions have been multiplied by ~10 in the
        meantime. In particular, no detectable change of slope is found before
        and after the onset of large CO2 emissions around 1950.”

        “At the present rate of
        0.005 yr.−1 of CO2 increase, a TCR of 0.6 °C implies a warming of
        ~0.3 °C in 2100. This is so tiny compared for example to the diurnal or
        seasonal temperature variability, or to that related to latitude, that the
        replacement of the observed mean value of 0.005 yr.−1 by the estimate
        of anthropogenic residual of 0.0014 yr.−1 observed in 1992 would not
        much change the conclusions.”

        Trying to provide extractions w/o losing context. And attempting to not misrepresent. Seems strong recognition of the increase in anthro CO2 contribution..

      • If you take the last 60 years as a whole, you cancel out the cycle, because we are in the same phase now as 60 years ago, and what is left is the background warming. This part is at least 0.7 C according to the temperature records. Did he think of doing that?

      • maksimovich1

        You forgot to attribute aerosol sulphate cooling ,which had a significant impact on the suppression of the T record some 60 yrs past.

        Global dimming is well described in the literature.

      • Yes, it is worse than we thought because some warming was hidden.

      • Danny Thomas

        Well, maybe: “The correlation of yearly CO2 increase, therefore, appears
        not with MEI or SOI but with global mean temperature to which El
        Niño and La Niña contribute. This temperature/CO2 correlation may be
        tentatively explained, at least partly, by the solubility of CO2 into
        water which decreases with temperature, consistent with sea pH
        maps (Byrne et al., 2010). Warm temperature fluctuations favor CO2 release
        from the oceans which contain 60 times more CO2 than the atmosphere
        (AR5, 2013), whereas cooler fluctuations favor its oceanic
        capture. The very small CO2 increase of 0.14% yr.−1 observed in 1992
        might be viewed as an upper estimate of the residual anthropogenic addition
        in the atmosphere after action of carbon sinks favored by low

        The author appears to take in to account impacts of El Nino/La Nina and oceanic sink/sources too.

        So was it worse than we thought, or not?

      • Very Salbyesque.

      • Danny Thomas


        Nice. Attributed to the person and not to the work. If a skeptic had associated in this fashion would you be as accepting?

        The only reference other than citations list which was found: ” The very small CO2 increase of 0.14% yr.−1 observed in 1992 might be viewed as an upper estimate of the residual anthropogenic addition in the atmosphere after action of carbon sinks favored by low temperatures. The correlation of yearly CO2 increases with temperature fluctuations, and their lag of several months (Humlum et al., 2013) were discussed elsewhere (Park, 2009; Beenstock et al., 2012, Salby, 2012, Gervais, 2014).

        Please make note, three additional references other than Salby. Got anything to suggest about them?

        Mosher says do the work, read more, comment less. Even though he’s shown zero evidence as to having done the work himself, have you?

      • Someone above mentioned it was cr@p. This is also my opinion of those ideas that deny that adding so much CO2 doesn’t directly lead to so much CO2 added.

      • Danny Thomas

        Did you read the work? Is that what he said, or did he discuss effects? I think his argument lie elsewhere.

        “The plot concentrates on the past
        22 years because (i) the previous period displayed in the inset shows
        peaks related to major volcanic eruptions which complicate the analysis,
        (ii) 22 years correspond to not less than 50% of the CO2 increase
        since 1959 measured accurately at Mauna Loa (NOAA, 2015) and to
        ~40% of the CO2 increase estimated since the beginning of the industrial
        era. In spite of this large CO2 increase, no temperature change is observed
        after 1993, although it is measured at the altitude where the
        most marked signature of temperature change predicted by radiative–
        convective models is expected.”

        Think he referred to 1.99 ppm avg 1995-2014. Discussed fluctuations due to sea oriented changes.

        While I’m not defending the work (it’s too early) I won’t be a denialist like you and Mosher and reject it out of hand either.

      • Why did he think there was no temperature change after 1993?

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,

        Did you read the work?

        “After the onset of the temperature rise from 1980 to 1998,
        models abandoned dominant cooling by aerosols and rather insisted
        on CO2 greenhouse warming. However Ring et al. (2012) recognize
        that the internal climate variability is primarily responsible for the
        early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945 and for the subsequent
        cooling from 1945 to 1975. They focus on low values of climate sensitivity.
        The higher values and the large extension of the TCR uncertainty
        partly comes from the supposed positive feedbacks of water vapor
        and clouds which might increase ΔTCO2 × 2 of Eq. (2) in the form.”

        “The temperature increase in each ascending
        phase of the cycle in the 1930s and in the 1990s, indeed is 0.6 °C as
        shown in Fig. 2(b) although CO2 emissions were ~6 times lower in the
        1930s compared to the 1990s. CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate models
        which fit data in the second ascending phase conversely are unable to
        reproduce the observations in the first ascending phase from 1910 to
        1940 as shown in Fig. TS.9(a) of AR5 (2013) and after 1998.”

        “The key points of Harde
        (2014) deal with several mechanisms pointing towards the almost saturation
        of CO2 warming. In particular, since the CO2 infrared linewidth is
        broadened by pressure in the low troposphere, there is no earth radiation
        left for the wings of narrowerlines at the TOA because it is absorbed
        below. In addition, the overlap of the CO2 band at 20 THz and of the
        water vapor spectrum minimizes the additional absorption. Harde
        (2014) reports a warming of 0.6 ± 0.1 °C in case of CO2 doubling. This
        is consistent with the absence of temperature change for the CO2 concentration
        range displayed in Fig. 5, whereas a TCR much larger would
        be hardly compatible with observations.”

      • No, but so far it seems he hasn’t even done the first test which is to look at the 60-year trend to find the background warming. You also said he didn’t see any warming after 1993 (yikes). He doesn’t seem to believe in much anthropogenic CO2 (double yikes). You have given me no incentive to waste my time on this paper.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim D,
        It’s not up to me to incentivize you to read the paper. It’s intriguing on it’s own as should be all peer reviewed scientific work for those curious without a predetermined disposition. If I wouldn’t even read Hansen or Mann (for example) , how would you ‘frame’ my positioning?

        It’s your choice to be a ‘science’ denier and not even take some time to evaluate a work alternative to your belief.

        I’m not advocating, but I am open minded. Others, apparently, are not. I didn’t ‘say’ anything and tried to only provide excepts.

      • Danny Thomas

        The author of the work did indeed take volcanic aerosols in to account: “The earth indeed experienced in 1992 a temperature drop as large as −0.5 °C due to the aerosols emitted by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo volcano which momentarily attenuated the solar flux.” (as one example)

      • 30 up; 30 down:

      • Danny Thomas

        30 up, 30 down is better than 60 up can we agree?

        Still a cycle.

        You’ve offered only SL but not the balance of what the work represents. Did you subtract the smidgion which Chambers suggests may be cyclical?

        Any thoughts why some of the works presented in the first chart are outside (below) the error bar? Especially the later works?

      • JimD said “If you take the last 60 years as a whole, you cancel out the cycle, because we are in the same phase now as 60 years ago, and what is left is the background warming. This part is at least 0.7 C according to the temperature records. Did he think of doing that?”

        Interesting approach.

        Let me try that.

        Take the sea level rise of 120 meters over the last 20,000 years.

        That works out to 6 mm / year.

        Our current sea level rise rate is about 3 mm / year.

        Therefore, the human contribution has cut the natural rate of sea level rise in half.


      • OK, you may already see where you went wrong, but I’ll help. No one claimed sea-level rise is a cycle, especially over 20000 years. We can take sea-level in 50-year increments, and during the 20th century it rose 7-8 cm in each of the first and last half of the century. It rose another 7-8 cm in just the last 25 years. This marks a doubling of the 20th century trend, and now you realize that.

      • JimD:

        Of course sea level rise is a cycle. Have you ever heard of Milankovitch cycles. Sea level falls during cooling and rises during warming.

        I also find it amusing that you look for the background rate during the last 60 years – when you claim that humans have caused 110% of the warming during that same period.

        Perhaps you now see the problem with your approach.

      • Since the Holocene Optimum about 8000 years ago, we are in a cooling phase of a Milankovitch cycle, yet sea level is rising, and twice as fast in the last 25 years as in the 20th century. The downward trend in temperature through the LIA was in keeping with the Milankovitch cycle. The so-called LIA recovery is counter to that expectation and obviously has another cause as does the accelerated sea-level rise.

      • JimD:

        Perhaps you can help me out.

        When I look at this graph (very carefully):

        I see that 125000 years ago, the peaks of the green and red proxies occurred while summer insolation at 65 N was dropping.

        So the fact that we were in a cooling phase of the milankovitch cycles doesn’t mean we cannot still be warming, at least for a while.

        Perhaps we are still warming naturally, while insolation is dropping (at 65 N), just like the last couple of interglacials?

        Perhaps even without humans ever existing, the temperature would still be rising today (with wiggles along the way of course) and sea level would still be rising?

        After all, it was warmer than now during the last interglacial and the sea level was higher than now before we started cooling.

        How do we know we have hit the peak warming during this interglacial?

        From what I have read – we do not know this and cannot know that.

        Just in the last 8000 years, it has gotten warmer and cooler several times, all occurring naturally (not due to rising CO2).

        Of course I agree humans are impacting the climate – but by how much?

        That is the $64,000 question.

        I think science is still answering the question of how much of the warming from 1880 to the present or even 1950 to the present is caused by nature and how much by human.

        I really doubt the last word on the subject will be that all of the warming since 1950 was caused by humans.

        It is as plain as the nose on my face (at least to me) that el nino added about .2C ish of warming just in the last year (moving heat from the ocean to the atmosphere). El nino is natural warming and not caused by humans – so I reject the notion that natural warming has ceased, and only natural cooling exists going forward (the 10% in the 110%, which is blamed on aerosols) and humans are warming the Earth at 110% (countering the 10% cooling)..

        Still – I will be reading the science as it unfolds and we will see what we will see.

        All I know is that we are in the middle of an interglacial and we have been warming since 20,000 years ago and the sea has risen 120 meters during that time, and based on history we have a smidge to go – and I cannot understand how we can simply assert that this natural trend is not still in place.

      • Your figure didn’t show up, but yes there may be a residual effect of warming as the glaciers recede because they have a slow response time. This slow response may account for why sea level was still rising, if only slowly, during the last millennium even as the temperature was going down slowly until the LIA. As glaciers melted the albedo change maybe helped some warming in the period you mentioned. Albedo feedback is an important component in Milankovitch cycles. If we attributed it all to CO2 it would be 10 C per doubling, so clearly it was magnified by the albedo changes as glaciers receded.

  4. If I remember correctly the Space Shuttle, was to be able to fly almost every month or something like that. Turns out that nasa, was wrong. They discovered that there is lots of wear and tare with each launch.


    So for only 146 million more,… however it will be a steal this time.

    • 1. The spacecraft is a robot.
      2. The target payload weight is 408 kg not 27,500 kg.
      3. The shuttle was designed for NASA and DOD needs and the engineering compromises to do both meant it didn’t do either very well.
      4. The shuttle could have had a metallic bottom coating that eliminated the refurb of 35,000 mostly uniquely shaped tiles between flights.
      5. Technology has changed in 35 years.

      The two projects are so different there is little basis for comparison.

      We’ll see what comes out of this. Single stage to orbit would be nice.

  5. New #climate consensus study by Cook, Oreskes et al. [link]

    Pretty fascinating, actually, how this consensus view of truth and reality comes directly from Marxist, materialistic, collectivist thinking. Will try to get a link later (book at home).

    Couple that with these:

    -@BillNye “Science Guy” open to jail time for climate change skeptics [link]
    -Jonathan Haidt on the creeping of ‘bullying’ criteria in academia [link]
    -Michael E. Kraft: Climate change deniers deserve punishment [link]
    -Stripping a professor of tenure over a blog post [link]

    and I’m feeling like we are all boiling frogs. There is obvious tyranny afoot. Will it be only a ‘soft ‘ despotism as Tocqueville predicted (is there even such a thing) or will these measures succeed and usher in a full state of ruin for anyone who doesn’t agree with the government ideological mandate? To some extent we are already there.
    If you can’t pursue your career because your ideology is not constrained; not the America I grew up learning about….

    There is some push back. Interesting times.

    • Cook and Oreskes have no relevant science background so they provide no insights but simply count opinions of opinions. Little else seems as worthless.

      Bill Nye doesn’t have much else to offer either except it’s more clear that speaking fees and talking head appearances provide him motivation.

      • Dear Turbulent Eddie,

        Right on Cook, wrong on Oreskes. She has a strong background in geology, getting her bachelor’s degree (First Class Honours) from the Royal School of Mines, Imperial College, London. She worked as a geologist for Western Mining Corporation in Australia (on the geology of what became the world’s largest uranium mine, Olympic Dam). She was a teaching assistance in geology at Stanford, eventually getting her PhD in “geological research and the history of science”.

        In those days, she wrote sensible, even intelligent analyses. For example her paper in Science, Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences (see http://science.sciencemag.org/content/263/5147/641 0.

        Read the abstract: “Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always nonunique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic.”

        Few have said it better.

        How and why she changed from intelligent analysis to propaganda I don’t know. I had some correspondence with her more than a decade ago, and it was possible to have a reasonable discussion even when we disagreed. Now she has become the minister of propaganda.

        On a personal note, a suggestion – think and read more, bloviate less.

      • Steven Mosher


      • Cook and Oreskes have no relevant science background so they provide no insights but simply count opinions of opinions. Little else seems as worthless.

        Right on Cook, wrong on Oreskes. She has a strong background in geology, getting her bachelor’s degree (First Class Honours) from the Royal School of Mines, Imperial College, London. She worked as a geologist for Western Mining Corporation in Australia (on the geology of what became the world’s largest uranium mine, Olympic Dam). She was a teaching assistance in geology at Stanford, eventually getting her PhD in “geological research and the history of science”.

        Well, it’s true that background is not always necessary for the advancement of scientific theory. Wegener, of course was a meteorologist sticking his nose into geology with the theory of continental drift.

        And, geology can certainly be pertinent to the atmosphere, most significantly in topography. Also the uptake and volcanic emission of carbon dioxide certainly involve geologic processes. And geological proxy records provide our understanding paleo-temperature. But all of these processes are significant on geological timescales. None of these processes are significant to climate change from increased CO2 for the next century.

        Geology, by itself, does not provide relevant background for the the understanding of the atmosphere or climate change that might ( or might not ) be induced by increased carbon dioxide. Oreskes publications do not provide any significant contributions to understanding climate or the atmosphere.

        “Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always nonunique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic.”

        This an interesting quote, but hardly new or a contribution to understanding climate change. The unpredictability of the atmosphere has long been known to those deriving the equations.

        How and why she changed from intelligent analysis to propaganda I don’t know. I had some correspondence with her more than a decade ago, and it was possible to have a reasonable discussion even when we disagreed. Now she has become the minister of propaganda.

        For what it’s worth, I did not write that I thought Oreskes, or even Cook for that matter lacked intelligence or even scientific background, but that they lacked the relevant scientific background to contribute to the advancement of climate science specifically with respect to theorized climate change from increased greenhouse gasses. I could be wrong, they may have achieved such education outside of their formal education, but their publications offer no such examples.

        That being said, I would be embarrassed to have a Harvard position, and a title involving History of Science and to have anything to do with publications involving “Consensus on Consensus”. This is an affront to reason, logic, and process. The scientific method does not involve consensus. Inductive, deductive, nor abductive reasoning have anything to do with consensus. Nature is a dictator, not a democrat and only reproducable results to testable hypotheses matter, and polls of papers don’t.

        On a personal note, a suggestion – think and read more, bloviate less.

        This is a blog comment section, after all, but given your response, I’ll chalk this one up to being ironic.

      • The main point was to answer criticism of the previous Cook paper, specifically by people like Tol who don’t want to give more weight to expertise in polling, and those who think that papers that don’t explicitly say that there is human-caused global warming count against the consensus. They make the point that by that measure continental drift would also not be an accepted consensus if you just look at geology papers searching for an explicit mention of it, and the same for many other accepted ideas.

    • As the books burned Goebells said :

      ‘The era of extreme Jewish intellectualism is now at
      an end. You do well in this midnight hour to commit
      to the flames the evil spirit of the past.


  6. Re Cooke & Oreskes, 97% Consensus!

    This is a pretty entertaining article: humor presumably unintended by the many, many authors. Lew & Nuticelli are among them, giving a good idea as to the credibility of the effort. And Bart Verheggen, who should know better.

    WUWT links Brandon Shollenberger’s analysis of the truly remarkable chart in the article, plus a cool Josh cartoon. Published in Environmental Research Letters, a respectable journal, who also should know better. It would be interesting to see the reviewers comments. It’s really quite remarkable that this house-of-cards is still standing….

    Peter D. Tillman
    Professional geologist, amateur climatologist

  7. 97% Science:

    NASA: There is far too much focus on the gold standard of measurement for Doomsday Global Warming.

    WaPo: When doubters began polluting a thread started by Bill Nye “The Science Guy” about his rejected attempt to place a bet about global warming, the Facebook account “NASA Climate Change” decided to pounce.

    NASA Climate Change then directed commenters to multiple independent analyses of temperature data which show global warming while reminding readers: ” There is far too much focus on surface temperatures. They are but one measure of warming. All other measures . . . continue unabated.”


    > Wait. What? <

    Gavin Schmidt, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
    That’s not to say the satellite measurements don’t provide some value, but it is an indication why the surface temperature data analyzed and reported by NASA, NOAA and others is viewed as the gold standard.

    . . .
    Man fined for dud doomsday warning

    “A SELF-STYLED prophet has been convicted of “spreading rumours” for saying a quake would destroy Taiwan.

    He was fined Tw$40,000 ($1320) for his botched doomsday prediction, a court said.”
    . . .
    I too, am guilty of the crime of wishing jail time, but on Bill Nye.
    And for different reasons.

  8. Not dead yet. The GBR has been an alarmist trope for many years, especially in Australia. Crown of thorns starfish has nothing to do with CAGW. Acidification was to be a death knell. Except Fabricius’ paper comprised academic misconduct by not discussing the hydrogen sufide poisoning on the pH 7.8 seep, which her water sample info in the SI showed. And more recent studies show coral can epigenetically adapt to variation in pH. Natural bleaching is transitory and usually associated with water temp as the piece points out. It is bad if runoff pollution induced; in that case the culprit is again hydrogen sulfide from organic pollutant decomposition. H2S is highly toxic to marine life. The LD50 for corals, shrimp, crabs, and the like is about 30 ppb! Works just like cyanide in mammals, shutting down oxygen transport.

      • Stephen Segrest,

        The brightly coloured graphic seems to predict zero chance of coral bleaching for the Great Barrier Reef. Did NOAA use the wrong graph, or did I read it incorrectly?

        Please let me know if I made a mistake.


      • Danny Thomas

        That I’m aware, no one is suggesting bleaching is not occurring. What I’m not familiar with is how much has it done so in the past vs recent focus.

        Second, there is this side of the coin: “Our results, in combination with recent findings suggesting range expansions of tropical coral-reef associated organisms, strongly suggest that rapid, fundamental modifications of temperate coastal ecosystems could be in progress.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL046474/full#

        Does our mother earth balance things out? I dunno, but she responds.

      • Stephen Segrest,

        The Great Barrier Reef lies off the NE coast of Australia. I can’t see any yellow, orange or red at all in the area, no bleaching worries?

        What have I missed?


      • Perhaps Dr. Curry could ask Dr. Kim Cobb (of Georgia Tech) to write a guest article on this at CE. Would the CE Denizens be polite and ask “good faith” questions — or would a significant number be abusive, verbal bullies, and combative? (e.g., like I’ve noticed when Zeke guest posts)

      • Curious George

        My old horse has never died – until now. Global worming!

    • Regardless, the only place that the AIMS report (cited in the “Not dead yet..” article) refers to a “19% increase” is in the first row of Table 1, which shows that the percentage increase in the percentage of coral cover has increased by 19.3% That is, coral cover over the 2012-2015 period increased from 16.6% to 19.8% which is a 19.3% relative increase or a 3.2% absolute increase.

      However, this report is already out of date, and only a reporter as ignorant and disreputable as Andrew Bolt would cast this as a “good news” story.

      Andrew Bolt is essentially Australia’s Rush Limbaugh. I’m rather surprised that Dr. Curry would consider his insane scribblings as worthy of note.

  9. David L. Hagen

    Efficient Professors Needed
    In Deep Work, Cal Newport contradicts the conventional paradigm academic time use
    Deep Work:

    professional activities performed in a state of distraction-free concentration that push your cognitive capabilities to their limit. These efforts create new value, improve your skill and are hard to replicate.

    Highly recommended.

  10. This is how scientists *should* react to data that contradicts their views. [link]
    Why does “ego depletion” seem to resonate so well with “phlogiston depletion?”

  11. Michael E. Kraft: Climate change deniers deserve punishment [link]

    “Scientific findings and associated uncertainties should be scrutinized carefully and debated vigorously within the scientific community and among the public.”

    It seems that this Political Science professor has learned all the right words regarding science, the words that one hears in Congressional testimony by sacrosanct alarmists or in the campus lecture halls or public forums by invited speakers, yet it is the Guillotine as the backdrop that seems to truncate any notion of “careful” debate. I guess careful means: watch your step in this case.

    This Political Science Professor mixes in the tobacco smoking issue as being similar to the present “CO2 is a poison” mantra used by our present administration’s EPA perspective. Now, thirty years ago I don’t believe there were many people saying that atmospheric CO2 was a poison to human health or to any other creature on earth. So the Professor’s analogy of long standing fore knowledge of danger and eventual destruction of the human race can not be made with regards to fossil fuel. Even the well known health hazards of tobacco smoking are not readily apparent for 10 cigarettes a day or less to cigarette smoking people. So the notion of danger that CO2 doubling from pre-industrial times to a century away was apparent and known but hidden from the public is specious.

    The only remedy that I see for this Professor’s draconian measures is that these recommendations be ignored and let time take its eventual toll.

    • Did you check the comments in Kraft’s piece? They all pretty much hand him his head.

    • Kraft’s screed is part of a much larger effort to inculcate the public. Kraft is not espousing anything new, and his screed emphasizes all the same points that Sheldon Whitehouse, Naomi Oreskes, and others have emphasized. The repetition is spread out by different voices all voicing the same opinion as a method of inculcation. Ironically, their efforts are far more effective on those who haven’t read their repetitive plea for tyranny, but whom are aware of the calls to criminalize “deniers”.

      Ignoring this is probably not a good idea. There is good news and bad news when it comes to influence peddling. The bad news is that people are easily influenced. The good news, on the other hand, is that people are easily influenced. Whether it is good news or bad news depends upon who’s winning the influence game.

    • The Kraft article “Climate change deniers deserve punishment on punishment” is mostly about investigation of fossil fuel companies to determine whether they mislead the public on risks of climate change, but it closes on another question.

      “Some ask whether such inquiries should be limited to fossil fuel companies. What about extending the liability, they say, to certain think tanks and advocacy groups?”

      CEI, which was recently subpoenaed to cough up its files on climate matters, comes to mind. A subpoena is a demand for information, similar to a freedom-of information request to a government agency. CEI is saying the subpoena amounts to denying freedom of speech, but it seems to me the issue is privacy. I think CEI is in a lose lose situation. On one hand, CEI revealing what it knows could be damaging to it and its donors. On the other hand, if the organization is successful in quashing the subpoena, some will say it has something to hide whether it actually does or not.

      Grist writer Melissa Cronin has observed that climate change deniers like to subpoena but don’t like being subpoenaed. The following quotes were excerpted from her article in Grist.

      It’s become a go-to strategy for climate change deniers to demand subpoenas and documents from scientists whenever they get a whiff of a potential controversy. But they like it less when the same tactic is used on them.

      Libertarian and conservative writers at at The Blaze, American Thinker, The Washington Times, Bloomberg View, and Cato Institute have criticized the subpoena, calling it the product of “hysterics,” part of an “absurd climate inquisition,” and a chapter in “Al Gore’s climate witch hunt.” CEI itself called the move “an affront” to its First Amendment rights, adding that if Walker succeeds, “the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another.”

      Where was this outrage when right-wing politicians were doing the same, but to scientists?


      • The supposed investigation of fossil fuel companies misleading the public on climate change is, on its surface, suspect. If Exxon misled the public on climate change then that would have to have been public and this public display of misleading rhetoric readily available to any investigator without the need for subpoenas of documents. The subpoena of documents is a fishing expedition in water notoriously bereft of any fish.

        The reason CEI claims it amounts to an infringement of speech is because the investigation of CEI has become a liability for their fundraising efforts. When State’s AG’s demand lists of donors for the purpose of investigating companies that could then be sued under RICO, it is not difficult to understand how this might give future donors pause. CEI is a non-profit organization whose existence is predicated on the mission of spreading free market ideas, and they rely upon donors to help them accomplish this. Whispering rumors do their damage, and it matters not if nothing at all comes from these investigations, the damage has been done.

        I should clarify that it would not give donors pause because if CEI released their documents it could be damaging to CEI and their donors, but because donors will wonder if donations made to CEI will result in subpoenas from ambitious AG’s. This is a chilling effect on speech. So, on the one hand you have dubious claims of authority to issue a subpoena, hopelessly reliant upon science that itself is hopelessly dependent upon an on and off again correlation between Co2 and warming, abstractions such as global average temperatures, and models that cannot be tested to justify the coercive power of the state. On the other hand, you have a private organization who has already been damaged by this coercive power just because the subpoena has been issued.

        In terms of Cronin’s arguments; the issue is not whether or not subpoenas should be issued. As always, the issue is whether or not there is any constitutional and/or lawful authority to that subpoena. Let’s compare Lamar Smith’s subpoena of NOAA and that of the State subpoenas of Exxon.

        Rep. Lamar Smith is the chairman of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology whose jurisdiction is over the NOAA as well as several other agencies. The NOAA is under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and answerable to this committee. In 2014, the NOAA, with its lead author Tom Karl published a paper; Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus. Despite the fact of countless papers before it discussing, analyzing, and attempting to explain the hiatus, Karl, et. al., concluded; “These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

        The timing of release of that paper – coincidentally or not published shortly before the Parish climate conference – and the fact that this paper attempts to erase a hiatus long recognized by scientists is suspect and should raise more than just an eyebrow from the chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Congress was not created by the NOAA, nor does Congress work for the NOAA, it is the other way around and the subpoena is of the NOAA is wholly appropriate given the politicization of this issue. Governments represents all people, not just the alarmists.

        When you compare this investigation to that of Exxon’s, where no single paper funded by Exxon is the subject of the subpoena, we can see a clear difference. In fact, the investigation of Exxon is to find out if Exxon has any incriminating documents, opposed to the NOAA investigation that is all about Tom Karl’s paper. Tom Karl, nor the NOAA have any customers or stockholders they have to please, and it shows in their petulance, pouty protests of a subpoena that can do no damage to Karl nor the NOAA.

        As to Shukla, this man drew attention to himself when he already had a big circular target on his back. Shukla has placed himself in a position where, if there is a good explanation for it, he now has to explain what appears to be he double dipping in salaries. Shukla’s non profit IGES has been very good to he and his wife financially.

        Should the NOAA have been investigated by the committee in charge of them for a paper that is still being challenged, not by skeptics, but by other warmists, such as Fyfe, et. al., Making sense of the early 2000’s warming slowdown. There is certainly controversy involved with Karl’s paper, but really, how controversial is it that Exxon has endeavored to challenge oppressive climate policies?

      • Jean Paul, thank you for your thoughts.

        The law is the law, and CEI is not above the law. CEI will be successful in getting the subpoena quashed or modified, or not.
        Either way looks like a lose-lose outcome for this organization.

        It’s hard to understand how the subpoena amounts to an infringement on freedom of speech when CEI has been so vocal in complaining about it. The objective of the subpoena is to get the organization to open up, not shut up. If the complaint is CEI needs money to exercise its freedom of speech, well I don’t know, but I see a lot of speech freedom being exercised on blogs like ClimateEtc which seem to get along without money from participants. I’ve never given Judith Curry a penny.

        CEI being subpoenaed may scare off contributors to CEI, which would weaken the organizations ability to subpoena. That seems just to me.

      • “Where was this outrage when right-wing politicians were doing the same, but to advocate scientists?”

        There – fixed it for you.

      • Max,

        The law is indeed the law. Under American jurisprudence there is a system of checks and balances in place to prevent government from abuse of process and malicious prosecution, among other things.

        “Process” includes any summons, mandate, subpoena, warrant or other written demand issued by a court. Abuse of process is the improper use of legal procedure – criminal or civil – for unintended, malicious, or lascivious reason.

        Because New York passed the Martin Act, AG Schneiderman has a wide breadth of authority and because of this act has the power to issue subpoena’s without showing intent or knowledge of wrong doing. New York’s “blue sky” legislation is the most severe in the nation, and no other State’s AG has anywhere near the power AG Schneiderman has to go fishing for something, anything, even if it means taking innocuous documents out of context kind of fish.

        This is probably why Exxon was fairly quiet about their legal strategies regarding Schneiderman’s subpoena and why they are so vocal now in regards to AG Walker’s subpoena. Walker does not enjoy the protection of law that Schneiderman does, and this is why Exxon is asking the court to declare Walkers subpoena abuse of process. Because it sure looks like abuse of process, and if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

        Why does it look like abuse of process? Well, as Exxon argues, the Virgin Islands have no jurisdiction in the matter, to begin with. Further, AG Walker is relying upon Virgin Islands CICO Act to justify the subpoena, but the CICO Act comes with a five year statute of limitation and Exxon has very publicly and widely acknowledged that the risks of climate change on people and ecosystems could be significant for more than decade now.

        Exxon has not engaged in any conduct in the Virgin Islands that could be construed as giving rise to any violation of law within the Virgin Island and AG Walker has no demonstrable probable cause to issue a subpoena. So, if the AG of the Virgin Islands has no jurisdiction over Exxon Mobile, and certainly no jurisdiction over CEI, and there is no probable cause then what is it you are talking about Max, when you claim this subpoena is to get CEI to open up not shut up?

        The spread of rumors does not rise to probable cause. It should be understandable why I, and certainly understandable why Exxon and CEI see this effort as an attempt to silence these organizations for having the audacity to enter the public debate regarding anthropogenic climate change and relevant policies.

        Without jurisdiction and without probable cause, these subpoenas smack of due process violations and unreasonable search and seizure, and Max I know you agree that the law, after all, is the law. We know from case law that corporations do have the right to political speech and the protection of the speech becomes more robust when a corporation is speaking on “general political issue that materially affects a corporation’s business property or assets.” (First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti), and without any substance to these rumors you seem to enjoy spreading, what reason is there to investigate these two organizations?

        The law is the law.

      • Yes, Jean Paul, the law is the law, but you and I don’t decide the outcome of the CEI subpoena. My guess is the subpoena will be quashed, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

      • The subpoena issued by the US VI AG, instigated by the NYC meeting, is very likely a criminal violation of 18USC241. Makes it a civil and criminal offense to conspire to deny anyone any constitutional right. Was originally part to the civil rights movement. Is now directly applicable to CEI in re first amendment (most formal organization have legal standing as persons). Hope CEI hits back very very hard to stop this ‘Mercants of Doubt’ fishing expedition.
        Exxon cannot use the same reasoning against the NY AG Schneiderman subpoena, which is pursuant to a broad, vague, state statute concerning shareholder disclosure.

  12. In November, Bill Nye said this in an interview with Salon:

    Part of the solution to this problem or this set of problems associated with climate change is getting the deniers out of our discourse. You know, we can’t have these people – they’re absolutely toxic.


  13. I wonder what Bill Nye thinks is appropriate punishment for someone without a science degree or background posing as a “science guy” in front of an audience of children?

    I also loved his comment about how “deniers” are impacting his quality of life. I’d be very interested in hearing just what those impacts are. (My money is on him being afraid of losing speaking gigs – i.e. income – once it becomes obvious to everyone what a poser he is.)

  14. Stripping a professor of tenure over a blog post [link]

    Stripping a professor tenure requires that s/he: 1) have sex with the student(s) and/or 2) absconds with grant funds to which the university has yet to take its 50% cut. All else is political, and, subjected to the winds of the day. And, like ether, these tenure terminating issue evaporate as soon as they are let out into the open air.

    • I strongly disagree. If the graduate student had been physically harmed the professor could have been criminally liable and the university perhaps so as well (note the UCLA case where the chemistry professor did not provide adequate training and the university as well as the professor were found guilty). Logic:
      1) He had named individuals at least twice before and both times they were threatened.
      2) Therefore he should have recognized that naming the student/instructor in his blog was equivalent to painting a target on her back.
      3) This would seem to be a clear case of reckless endangerment – he should have known.
      4) As mentioned in the article, this would provide cause for loss of tenure according to the university’s policies since the liability would carry over to the university.
      I am all for free speech, but my freedom of speech ends at your nose.

      • So recounting a political discussion and names of the participants
        makes one responsible for threats against the named participants?
        Painting a target?
        Reckless endangerment?
        Methinks the bloke that violates your nose is responsible.
        Not the one who says you’re unpopular.
        What is happening?
        I think I have to go with nickels up thread.
        Tyranny afoot.

      • plodinec

        Whoever thought that a university setting was a “safe place” of emotions and intellectual thought has rocks in their heads. The university setting is precisely the place to let it “all hang out” to quote a popular aphorism. Many students, being away from home for the first time, test conventional wisdom to which they are subject as well as their own limits. The university environment isn’t a place where people who have low self-esteem or are clinically depressed should be out stoking the fires of controversy, nor should they engage in intellectual and emotional struggles on a large stage and them expect to be protected by “the University” from contrary, and at times hurtful opinions.

        It is in the university setting where one learns “to pick your battles”, “gird your loins” and “shelter in place” when threatening ideas come to your door. In short, one learns to…cope. Cope with the world of ideas, persons, and possibly unjust situations. One learns what piece of the idea one wants to address and struggle with.

        If one is walking around with a target on one’s back, strap on your back a shiny shield, and, by such reflection, turn the menace to stone.

  15. Michael E. Kraft: Climate change deniers deserve punishment [link]

    So, enforce consensus and punish deniers even if, in history, consensus has frequently been enforced and people punished and the consensus was more often wrong than right.

    A gas that is barely more than a trace, is barely more than the minimum that sustains life, is causing problems that have not happened yet and people are going to be punished for not warning everyone that nothing was going to happen. If this ever goes to court, I hope to be picked for jury duty.

  16. popesclimatetheory

    “If this ever goes to court, I hope to be picked for jury duty”

    Alas, if only it could be so. You would be vetted and found to be wanting, irrevocably biased against the trace gas radiative transfer hothouse theory and sent out of the courtroom with a judicial rebuke. Your parking meter will still have time on it, yet, you will have a parking ticket and then, in a court of consensus, have to prove you knew forehand, that these matters are of grave importance to the climate cabal, and you didn’t respond in a responsible manner.

    Apology needed for even showing up.

    • You may have this right, I might not get picked. But, I don’t have to prove anything to the climate consensus alarmists, Mother Earth is taking care of that for me. They have no actual data on their side, they only have flawed alarmist theory and models.

  17. Can game theory help solve the problem of climate change?

    Like decision analysis and risk analysis, etc, it is another conceptual scheme for which the inputs needed for conclusions are not known.

    • Agree. Studied game theory. In law school as part of a course on negotiations. Even tried to read Von Neumann and Morgenstern (emphasis on tried…).
      Totally predictable prior to COP21 that China would game the UNFCCC system, and India would refuse to play. And Obama’s ‘game face’ announcing his China deal was pathetic.

  18. 10 ways negative emissions could slow climate change [link]

    Or, reworded, 10 ways to waste time and money doing something that is not necessary or even desirable. There is lots of proof that more CO2 makes green things grow better with less water. There is no proof that CO2 has caused the dangerous warming that has not happened yet and no proof that it will cause the dangerous warming that is extremely unlikely.

    • “10 ways negative emissions could slow climate change [link]”

      I guess I need to read the link to know what the other 9 might be…

  19. Game theory for climate change? Some ill-defined academic fluff to be hurled against an ill-defined fashionable phobia? Absolutely. Can’t think of anything we need more. Herds of journalists and graduates could be forced into real jobs without this sort of innovation. (And I do mean herds, with moo answering moo.)

    And the Guardian even gives you a pic of masked Asiatics scuttling past a coal plant, with some of that “smoke” billowing.

    But seriously. Someone please give the Guardian another fatcats-offshore scandal before it starts losing money again.

  20. From the article:

    Tell Congress: Stop the dangerous new anti-encryption bill.
    62% We’ve reached 47,077 of our goal of 75,000.

    Sign the petition to Congress:

    “Stop the Burr-Feinstein Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 and any other legislation that would put Americans’ privacy and security at risk by undermining encryption.”

    You’ll receive periodic updates on offers and activism opportunities.

    Tell Congress: Stop the dangerous new anti-encryption bill.
    “The most ludicrous, dangerous, technically illiterate tech policy proposal of the 21st century so far.” – Kevin Bankston, Director of New America’s Open Technology Institute.1

    Privacy advocates and security experts are widely denouncing new anti-encryption legislation as a radical assault on privacy that would make the American people less safe.2, 3

    The Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016 (CCOA) would undermine Americans’ privacy, make encryption illegal and force companies to weaken the security of their products and services. We need to make sure this dangerous legislation doesn’t gain any traction in Congress.


    • I should have added some detail. The bill would make JPEG images illegal. From the article:

      Bruce Schneier, the writer of the books on modern cryptography, said the bill would make most of what the NSA does illegal, unless no such agency is willing to backdoor its own encrypted communications. “This is the most braindead piece of legislation I’ve ever seen,” Schneier told The Register. “The person who wrote this either has no idea how technology works or just doesn’t care.” Schneier says cryptographic code will be affected by this legislation, as well as “lossy compression algorithms” that are used to reduce the size of images for sending through email, which won’t work in reverse and add back the data removed. Files that can’t be decrypted on demand to their original state, and files that can’t be decompressed back to their exact originals, all look the same to this draft now. He said even deleted data could be covered in this legislation.


  21. Can game theory help solve the problem of climate change?


  22. “The IPCC’s priorities for the next six years: 1.5C, oceans, cities and food security”

    United Nations climate panel IPCC should have just one priority – only one priority – and that is to start acting in scientific manners.

    What characterizes the scientific method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but to expose them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.

    An idea, hypothesis or theory is corroborated by the severity of the tests it has been exposed to and survived – and not at all by inductive reasoning in favor of it.

    • “The IPCC’s priorities for the next six years: 1.5C, oceans, cities and food security”

      It’s revealing that energy security is off their agenda!

      • And the fight against energy poverty. United Nations is breaking their back in pushing both climate scare mongering and awareness about the adverse effects of energy poverty at the same time:

        ” Energy is central to nearly every major challenge, and opportunity the world faces today. Be it jobs, security, climate change, food production or increasing incomes , access to sustainable energy for all is essential for strengthening economies, protecting ecosystems and achieving equity.

        Worldwide, about 1.2 billion people have no access to electricity and the development benefits it brings, and 1 billion more have access only to unreliable electricity networks. Nearly 3 billion people rely on traditional biomass (such as wood and charcoal) for cooking and heating.

        This lack of modern energy services stifles income-generating activities and hampers the provision of basic services such as health care and education. In addition, smoke from polluting and inefficient cooking, lighting, and heating devices kills an estimated four million people a year and causes a range of chronic illnesses and other negative health impacts. These emissions are also important drivers of climate change and local environmental degradation.”


        It´s an absurd mixture of realism and idealism.

        It would have been funny if it wasn´t so sad.

      • Science of fiction.

        Thanks you excellent point and useful link for use elsewhere. I knew the facts, but the link to UN is great.

        Gee, those who like to call themselves ‘Progressives’ have a lot to answer for. Electricity could have been 1/10th the cost of what it is now if not for the ‘Progressives’ blocking progress for the past 50 years https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/ . In this case the world would have been much better off now – much few people without reliable electricity. Much more and and cheaper electricity. Your quote from UN shows how much better off people could have been.

      • By its charter United Nations was first of all supposed to:
        – To maintain international peace and security …
        – To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people
        – To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,

        United Nations is far out of line with it´s charter.
        “The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”
        — Dag Hammarskjöld, Secretary-General from 1953 to 1961

        War is hell – Christina Figures (United Nations climate chief – unelected bureaucrat) vision of imposing a new economic model upon our society is an attempt to take mankind to heaven by the flawed method of inductive reasoning:
        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for the, at least, 150 years, since the industrial revolution,”
        – Christiana Figueres, who heads up the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change

        United Nations are bringing about enormous costs related to the climate scare mongering, while the kind of things United Nations were put up to provide, international peace and security, has not been achieved:
        «United Nations officials have officially launched their biggest-ever appeal for humanitarian aid to cope with the spiraling Syrian refugee crisis amid growing donor fatigue and renewed Russian air attacks that are making the humanitarian disaster worse. The appeal asks global donors to ante up $9 billion for Syria and surrounding countries for 2016, a $600 million hike from the appeal goal last year — a goal that came nowhere near being met.»

        “Aestheticism and radicalism must lead us to jettison reason, and to replace it by a desperate hope for political miracles. This irrational attitude which springs from intoxication with dreams of a beautiful world is what I call Romanticism. It may seek its heavenly city in the past or in the future; it may preach ‘back to nature’ or ‘forward to a world of love and beauty’; but its appeal is always to our emotions rather than to reason. Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth it only succeeds in making it a hell – that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.”
        ― Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies

        Who will bring about glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”) in United Nations? (Glasnost and perestroika was Gorbachev’s policies of reorientation of Soviet strategic aims which contributed to the end of the Cold War.)

        Who will be the one speaking to the United Nations General Assembly and tell the general assembly what it need to be told?

      • Thank you Science of Fiction. Interesting and noted.

      • “Through the Looking Glass and What
        Christiana Found There.” … ‘ It’s a simple
        relation; more carbon means more poverty.’

      • Well said. Love your clarity.

  23. “Do seasonal to decadal climate predictions underestimate the predictability of the real world? ”

    there is evidence of dependence in temperature data.
    violation of the independence assumption of OLS regression renders OLS trends spurious particularly in the short term.


  24. Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback parameters during the historical period http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068406/abstract

    Climate sensitivity = 2 K

    Climate sensitivity keeps coming down!

    Furthermore, climate alarmists are beginning to recognise they’ve been overstating the case for dangerous climate change. For example:

    1. Overstating climate sensitivity, by perhaps a fact of 2
    2. Overstating the amount of recent warming that is caused by humans – probably by a factor of 2 or more
    3. Overstating the likely human caused GHG emissions this century – i.e. using the highly unlikely worst case scenarios (RCP8.5) in analyses for projecting future warming and damages
    4. Overstating the impacts
    5. Not including the reduction of risk of abrupt cooling – the risk of cooling is being reduced by humans’ GHG emissions.

    All this supports my view that the case has not been made that we should spend money on CO2 abatement policies.

    If a convincing case could be made that GHG emissions are damaging or that the benefits of GHG emissions abatement will exceed the abatement costs, the case would have been made long ago. It would be clearly stated on one page and backed up by a succinct, coherent explanation of the relevant evidence. IPCC would have presented it long ago. The fact they have not been able to do so after 30 years of trying is a pretty clear demonstration that the arguments for damaging human caused climate change cannot be supported.

    It’s time to move on from CAGW. There are far more important issues to deal with.

  25. From the article:

    Bigger shrubbery and warmer temperatures across the Alaskan tundra enabled a dramatic expansion of the moose population over the last century, according to a new study. The paper, published in PLOS ONE, challenges an earlier theory that the absence of moose in northern and western parts of the state over the 20th century was mainly caused by hunting pressure.

    Ken Tape, an ecologist with the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, led the study, which used historical temperature data to estimate how tall willow shrubs would have grown back to 1860. The researchers estimate that the plants would have grown about 3.5 feet tall in 1860, compared with 6.5 feet in 2009. The height of shrubbery is important because moose need plants to chew on that is accessible above the snowpack in the late winter. If snow comes up nearly as high as the vegetation, moose populations have little to eat and also have little cover from predators.


  26. Can game theory help solve the problem of climate change?</i?

    Applying the mathematical principle of studying models of conflict and cooperation between groups could help us rein in global warming

    Yea, right. What game theory can show us is the probability of UN climate conferences succeeding. See Richard Tol’s analysis here:
    Global climate talks: If at the 17th you don’t succeed http://voxeu.org/article/global-climate-talks-if-17th-you-don-t-succeed

    Figure 1. The expected probability of negotiation success (solid line), its 95% confidence bound (dashed line) and the annual costs of climate negotiations (triangles).

    • Peter Lang,

      I’ve noticed that if you point a loaded firearm at someone, negotiation tends to rapidly resolve itself in your favour.

      Warmists threatening to make non Warmists into criminals, is a not so subtle form of the above mentioned negotiating tactic.

      I like the graph.


  27. I hope Richard Tol, will make a comment on this new paper by John Cook:

    The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.”

  28. ==> Stripping a professor of tenure over a blog post [link]



    Stripping a professor of tenure for publishing the name of a graduate student/graduate instructor on his blog along with posting her comments from a conversation recorded w/o her permission, and for which she received threatening mail and hate mail, after having been previously warned by the administration numerous times in the past about publishing the names of students on his blog.

    Which is it?

  29. From Haidt:

    ==> But victimhood cultures don’t emerge in the most racist or sexist environments – they tend to emerge in institutions that are already highly egalitarian (such as Emory and Yale)…

    Like at Fox News, where TV personalities wail about loss of freedom of religion if someone wishes someone else “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas?” Or blogs in the “skept-o-sphere” where fainting couches need to be ordered by the gross if a “realist” calls a “skeptic” a “denier?”

    Haidt seems to have been studying the art of selective reasoning so prevalent in the climate wars.

  30. Re Predictability in the real world.

    “Met Office scientist wins international award for ‘landmark’ climate science

    Met Office scientist Rosie Eade has received international recognition and an award for her landmark research on the predictability of Atlantic climate seasons for years ahead.”

    In one fell swoop, a redefinition of climate, from 30 years to one year apparently, and an award for research claiming predictability of something quite unspecified. This is obviously landmark climate science! Sciencey, anyway.

    “The team of scientists find that current climate models can agree well with the real world, but that the chaotic element within the model itself can make it hard to see the year-to-year variation of the North Atlantic Oscillation.

    If a climate model is run enough times resulting in multiple predictions for a single event – for example, for next winter’s NAO index – then averaging over all the runs can give a useful ‘ensemble’ forecast, and these agree well with the real world even though the strength of the ‘signal’ may initially appear low.”

    Once again, the devil’s in the details. Models “can agree well”. But may not. And you can never know, until the future occurs. Running the simulation innumerable times just means you are creating at best, one correct answer, and innumerable incorrect answers. Hoping that an average of a chaotic system will be useful may not be particularly helpful. Merely saying that an average can give a useful ensemble forecast, implies that it also may not, with no way of knowing in advance which will be correct.

    In any case, predicting an index does not seem to bear much relationship to climate (as per the IPCC and WMO definitions). What is the relevance of the year to year variation of the North Atlantic Oscillation to climate in a particular area or location?

    Or is the research aimed at long range weather forecasting? What is the relevance to climate?

    I realise that the article is just Met Office PR, but it just seems like a restatement of the usual Warmist wishful thinking, with bold claims about the possibility of escrying the future by means of computer simulations based on history.

    It doesn’t seem to bear much relationship to reality.

    As Richard Feynman said –

    “Finally, there is a physical problem that is common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been solved. [..] Nobody in physics has really been able to analyze it mathematically satisfactorily in spite of its importance to the sister sciences. It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids.

    If we watch the evolution of a star, there comes a point where we can deduce that it is going to start convection, and thereafter we can no longer deduce what should happen. A few million years later the star explodes, but we cannot figure out the reason.

    We cannot analyze the weather.

    We do not know the patterns of motions that there should be inside the earth [which cause earthquakes].”

    There are still prizes, awards, and world wide acclamation for solving this basic proble.

    Maybe the Climate Establishment could more profitably try to investigate the basis and operational principles behind the NAO. Unfortunately, this might involve actual science, which seems to be a foreign concept to the Warmist community.


    • Curious George

      Mike – right on. The climate modelling community is run by people with no modelling experience – except their own. You can ask them “how long do your model’s predictions hold?” The answer will be “Initial conditions are not perfectly known”. OK, assume initial conditions happen to be perfectly known – how long do your model’s predictions hold? They don’t really know. I can estimate the missing answer: 100 hours. Not 100 days. Certainly not 100 years.

      • The question here is more related to, if you add 1% to solar forcing, how much does the earth warm? It is a boundary problem, not an initial problem, and these are easier because they refer to equilibrium climates under various forcing scenarios.

      • It is a boundary problem, not an initial problem, and these are easier because they refer to equilibrium climates under various forcing scenarios.

        Equilibrium” (in this context) is a myth.

      • So, if the sun warmed by 1%, you don’t think the earth would warm to a new equilibrium. Interesting.

      • So, if the sun warmed by 1%, you don’t think the earth would warm to a new equilibrium. Interesting.

        It might. Or it might go into an ice age. Or re-stabilize in any of a number of other pseudo-equilibria.

      • Well, I can tell you it would warm. Even the solar 11-year cycle has a measurable temperature response and that forcing cycle is only about a tenth of a percent. I could also mention the Maunder Minimum, and other extended weak solar periods being cooler, but you wouldn’t believe it.

      • Even the solar 11-year cycle has a measurable temperature response and that forcing cycle is only about a tenth of a percent.

        Just because there appears to be a (somewhat) linear response to variations of “about a tenth of a percent” doesn’t mean there would be a similar response to a percent variation. Much less when the actual solar cycle variation is around 1/14 of a %

        Solar irradiance varies systematically over the cycle,[43] both in total irradiance and in its relative components (UV vs visible and other frequencies). The solar luminosity is an estimated 0.07 percent brighter during the mid-cycle solar maximum than the terminal solar minimum. Photospheric magnetism appears to be the primary cause (96%) of 1996-2013 TSI variation.[44] The ratio of ultraviolet to visible light varies.[45]

        You clearly don’t understand anything about the behavior of complex non-linear systems.

      • AK, yes, there may be tipping points, but those tend to go in the same direction as the forcing (see the Ice Ages). The known responses are amplifiers, the most obvious being albedo. Even greening is a positive feedback because it darkens the surface. We learn about these things from paleoclimate.

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “Well, I can tell you it would warm.” Bravo, Jim D. Increasing the amount of energy absorbed by a body generally results in an increased temperature. However trying to relate this phenomenon to the Earth, in any useful and measurable sense, is not possible, due to various physical processes.

        This has been known for quite a long time. Keep at it. The next step might be to realise that the rest temperature of a body, in the absence of external energy is absolute zero.

        As you can’t even define the wondrous “equilibrium” to which you refer, your comment is just so much irrelevant and gum bumping tosh!


      • Crikey Mikey!

  31. From the article:

    CROWN-OF-THORNS STARFISH ARE the zombies of the sea. They won’t die even if you cut them in half. To kill one, you must dismember it completely—or inject it with poisonous (to them) bile salts. Instead of braaains, these zombies munch coral, and off the coast of Australia, infestations of the beasts are damaging the Great Barrier Reef at an alarming rate. Enter COTSbot. In development since late 2014, the underwater droid identifies and assassinates the ravenous stars—autonomously. Unlike a human diver, the COTSbot can work safely in rough seas for eight hours at a time and doesn’t ask for a paycheck.


  32. stevenreincarnated

    Kraft wants to punish those that purposely mislead the public about climate change. We are not kicking out murderers and thieves from our prisons in order to make room for environmentalists and climate scientists. This guy is nuts. At least Nye will be safe since the word purposely will exclude the clueless.

  33. Geoff Sherrington

    With proper regard to a busy web hostess, the “Science” edition of Week in Review is increasingly dealing with the communication of science and social events involving scientists with concomitant reduction in the actual science content.
    This seems to be a general trend in the scientific community. Am I being pessimistic to observe that the standard of science among the climate community, with notable exceptions, appears to continue its lamentable downward trend?
    Is it really acceptable to submit papers that have a surmised content larger than the observed content? With grossly inadequate treatments of uncertainties? On topics of little interest for the advancement of science?
    My views might be jaundiced after a career wherein funding came from the profits of our success, rather than from large, distant sources able to be influenced politically.

  34. This ‘Science guy’ Bill Nye sure knows how science works best. Oh yessir. It’s by jailing those who don’t subscribe to what politicians tell them is the correct scientific view.

    Goodness, he sure talks a load of nonscience.

    • Yes, As a taxpayer and voter, the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen

      Poor little science guy – head filled with extreme doubt.

      Embarrassing for him not to realize doubt provides the very focus for science – investigate that which we do not know.

  35. How to make a small fortune (in retrospect) –

    Start with a very large one, and buy shares in SunEdison.

    ” . . .shares have lost 99 percent of their value as investors questioned its strategy.”

    Investing in renewable energy occasionally has a downside, it would seem.


  36. Example from the effect of pollution on infant health in Mexico: http://voxeu.org/article/air-pollution-and-infant-health#.VxHTzl0IevY.twitter

    This ties into the Pope’s message on AGW of protecting the poor through actions of “Fast Mitigation” (smog, black carbon, methane, HFCs). Two of the Pope’s key science advisors on this are Dr. Molina (Nobel Prize) and Dr. Ramanathan.

    • BTW — I’m still looking for people here at CE to provide links to arguments that refute Dr.’s Molina’s and Ramanathan statement:

      If we reduce our emissions of methane 50%, black carbon 90% and fully replace HFCs by 2030, then we’ll cut in half projected global warming over the next 35 years.

      • bedeverethewise

        What do they/you propose to replace HFCs? Many old refrigerant/propellants options were replaced by HCFCs due to safety and or performance issues, do we move forward to something better, and if so what? Or do we need to compromise safety and performance and move backwards?

      • The thing about short-lived drivers like methane and black carbon is you get the same final benefit in global temperature whether cut them within 20 years or do it more slowly. For long-lived CO2, the sooner the more benefit because its effect is cumulative. People who use these arguments risk taking their eyes off the real ball unless they also advocate cutting CO2 emissions because CO2 undoes all their effort over time.

      • For long-lived CO2, the sooner the more benefit because its effect is cumulative.


        The best benefit involves a focus on ambient CO2 extraction now, for profit. Later, if necessary, a mature extraction industry can be turned to sequestration.

      • AK, extraction, you and what technology? That is not a near-term, if ever, solution. The only sure solution is reducing emissions, which is easy enough with existing and currently developing technologies. The best future bet for extraction that can be done to useful purposes is via BECCS, basically bio-energy with carbon sequestration.

      • AK, extraction, you and what technology? That is not a near-term, if ever, solution.

        Wrong again!

        There are several extraction technologies on the table, suitable for combination with electrolytic hydrogen to make liquid fuels at costs as low as $ 3/gal. ($0.79/litre) with current technology.

        And that (above) assumes energy costs based on current nuclear reactor costs. Assuming solar PV at ~1/4 its current cost, along with substantial learning curve for the extraction technology itself, it seem very likely that with proper incentives a mature CO2 extraction industry could bring the actual cost down by at least one, probably two, orders of magnitude.

        This is near-term technology we’re talking about. The Navy’s process depends on bipolar membranes, another technology that’s experiencing rapid learning curves.

        A likely scenario is that within 2-3 decades most or all of the gas and liquid hydrocarbon fuels used in the world could be based on carbon from ambient CO2, using solar (and perhaps wind) power for both extraction and electrolytic hydrogen production.

        Even if solar PV fails to continue its exponential price decline, the same could be done with nuclear energy, assuming learning curves similar to what Peter Lang has discussed. IMO PV will out-compete nuclear, but even if it doesn’t this technology will be feasible.

      • AK, I am not sure I understand why someone would use extracted CO2 for anything when they can much more cheaply use chemically produced CO2.

      • I am not sure I understand why someone would use extracted CO2 for anything when they can much more cheaply use chemically produced CO2.

        Well, it depends on when you’re talking about, and what path the incentives followed.

        Thirty years from now, for instance, with a mature CO2 extraction and conversion to fuel industry, a modest carbon tax that didn’t apply to fuel based on ambient carbon would probably be all that’s needed.

        Today, that tax would probably have to be in the $200-500/ton range. Which is clearly not happening.

        The key, IMO, is providing the right incentives at the right times. For instance, by analogy with the current “biofuel” mandates, if some local polity set up a $20-30/ton carbon tax, but excluded fuels that contained at least 1% fuel entirely from ambient carbon (no burning fossil fuels to run your farm equipment), the total cost of that additive (including transport, etc.) could be up to ~$20-30/gallon to break even. (Conversion utility here.)

        Over time, as the cost of such ambient-sourced carbon fuels decreases, the required percentage could increase, keeping the cost roughly break-even with the carbon tax.

        Given that many polities (and sub-polities) have already implemented carbon taxes at the above level, taxes with little chance of working by themselves, allowing this option to drive a market for CO2 extraction could be done at no additional cost. (Except removing taxes from governments that shouldn’t be getting them anyway.)

      • If you are doing it that way, why not just fund the extraction without the pretense of an otherwise non-profitable industry at the back end. That would be just corporate welfare. The extraction is the important part and is a worthwhile use of a carbon tax, if a cost-effective means is found. It seems with a carbon tax, the extraction can count at the same rate but as a negative tax, so industries can get a rebate. But I think it will be a long time before you can extract at a price that makes that pay.

      • If you are doing it that way, why not just fund the extraction without the pretense of an otherwise non-profitable industry at the back end.

        Two reasons:

        First, once the industry becomes mature, it will (probably) be competitive with fossil fuels. This will avoid the issue of huge sunk costs in hydrocarbon storage and distribution systems. Systems that are going to be built in the very near-term future to support global improvements in lifestyle.

        Nobody but a few delusional fanatics believes this build-out can be prevented. It may be possible to steer it almost completely to gas rather than coal, but stopping it just ain’t in the cards.

        Second, this approach avoids letting governments pick winners. Instead, there is a general requirement for a certain fraction of such fuels to be fossil-neutral,* but a completely level playing field how it’s done. All the technologies go into the hat, and the winners are the ones that combine the best investments with the best feasibility.

        Government subsidies just can’t do this.

        *Actually, not even a requirement for that if it’s used as an alternative option to paying a “standard” carbon tax.

      • A negative carbon tax is incentive enough and results based. If they can’t do it for that price (maybe $40 per tonne) it is not worth the cost.

      • A negative carbon tax is incentive enough and results based.

        Nope. Taxes are one of the worst ways to incent technology.

        If they can’t do it for that price (maybe $40 per tonne) it is not worth the cost.

        Demonstrating extreme ign0rance of how technology growth operates. A clear demonstration why socialists shouldn’t be allowed a say in the economy.

        Soviet Russia, and Red China, weren’t enough proof evidently. You want to try it again, this time with the whole world, so there won’t be anybody to out-compete your incompetence.

    • Why don’t you email the President of Mexico and suggest that he do that? It’s up to Mexico to control their pollution.

  37. For laymen in understanding climate — Rossby waves and extreme weather: https://youtu.be/MzW5Isbv2A0

  38. Can I support stripping Prof. Kraft of his tenure for advocating criminalizing political disagreements about climate and restoring tenure to Professor McAdams for criticizing “criminalization” of disagreements about the ethics of gay rights? I think the answer is yes.

  39. Research findings over my own career (1960-present) confirm Kuroda’s report of little-known events at the Imperial University of Tokyo on the afternoon of 13 June 1936: NUCLEAR PHYSICISTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND ASTON NUCLEAR PACKING. See tribute to Paul Kazuo Kuroda (1917-2001):

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Tribute_to_Paul_Kazuo_Kuroda2.pdf or Paul K. Kuroda’s autobiography:


  40. Very very sad news today. A giant in atmospheric science and a powerful voice for the CAGW skeptics has passed away. Bill Gray, with every year that goes by, we realize more and more that you were right and they were not.

    We just don’t make meteorologists like that anymore.

  41. David Wojick

    The IPCC just wrapped up its latest meeting. Here is a lengthy summary by relatively neutral observers:

    • Steven Mosher

      Not Good

      “REVIEW OF THE IPCC COI POLICY: This item (IPCC-XLIII/Doc.3) was first considered on Tuesday. Following discussions, the Secretariat introduced a revised document (IPCC-XLIII/CRP.3) for consideration by the Panel.

      IPCC COI Committee Chair Youba Sokona reported that the COI Policy had been operational and working quite well for three years. However, he said consistent concerns with the small amount of information provided in disclosure forms posed challenges in the COI Committee’s evaluation of potential conflicts of interest and led to the recommendation for the establishment of a sub-committee with the mandate to: revise the COI disclosure form; consider expanding a rule so that a curriculum vitae (CV) accompany all COI disclosure form submissions; consider the pros and cons of downsizing or changing the composition of the COI Committee; consider the advantages and disadvantages of retaining or changing the role and involvement in the COI process of the Expert Advisory Group for Advice on COI Issues (EAG); and consider the need for and/or desirability of retaining or changing the COI processes of the WGs.

      During discussions, the US, Switzerland, Germany, the UK and Mali supported establishing the sub-committee. The US asked for clarification about expanding the solicitation of CVs and the need for CHF30,000 in the budget for advisory services. Mali requested an assessment to evaluate the performance of the COI Policy thus far. COI Committee Chair Sokona indicated the Committee would take up all these suggestions.

      Saudi Arabia also supported a sub-committee, but requested further work on the points in the mandate regarding CV requests and the composition of the Committee before taking the decision, and suggested the Bureau further elaborate on these points at its next session.

      On Wednesday IPCC COI Committee Chair Sokona clarified the recommendations (IPCC-XLIII/CRP.3). Saudi Arabia requested deleting the two recommendations on the role of the EAG and the need/desirability of retaining or changing the COI processes of the WGs. The US recommended that the term “downsizing” be replaced with “evaluating changing the composition of the Committee” to avoid prejudging the outcome.”

      So the plan is to downsize ?? and the US suggests changing language to make it look like that is not the plan.??

      As we move toward taking action on the climate it is paramount to understand that there will be winners and losers.
      Given that there will be winners and losers COI disclosures need to be more rigorous and more in depth.


    • thx for this link

      • David Wojick

        IISD is the semi-official chronicler of all green UN treaty meetings. They have some good newsletters too. Nice folks from Winnipeg.

  42. Hopefully many of you will participate in the London GeoEthics Conference on 8-9 Sept 2016,


    This is an opportunity to review our individual and collective responsibilities to help society understand the real forces that control human destiny and sustain our lives.

  43. The ~65 year cycle is absurdly easy to spot in surface temperatures


    There is virtually no CO2 signature in the temperature data at all. It’s just a trend with a ~65 year cycle superimposed, and that pattern has existed since the exit from the LIA.

    Proponents of AGW are just stupid beyond measure. It fails on every count:

    1) we are not having a significant impact on CO2 levels, it is mostly governed by temperature such that the rate of change is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature


    2) Even if we were, there is no evidence that it is a significant driver of Earthly temperatures, rather the reverse

    3) Even if we were and they were, warmth is good, and CO2 is good, and life on Earth benefits from both.

    This is the dumbest fake alarm to come down the pike since… I don’t know if it can be matched anywhere or any time. It’s amoeboid level thinking. Just dumb as rocks. Dumb as asphalt. Just, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

  44. Hmmmm … this reminds me of another area of science, what was it … from the article:

    “The more we study them, the harder they look to predict, and “there’s a shortage of instrumenation.” But today the Telegraph newspaper concludes that we actually have two problems: first, “science is hopeless at predicting earthquakes and, second, we keep building cities on major fault-lines…”


  45. Yet another article on how science is broken. No mention of climate science, although that seems like a huge oversight.