Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this week.

Does CO2 mean increased  crop water productivity? [link]

Carbon isotopes characterize rapid changes in carbon dioxide during the last deglaciation [link]

Climate alarmism and the muzzling of independent science [link]

Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE [link].  A third of the world’s basins are under stress.

Nature:  Recent improvement and projected worsening of weather in the U.S. [link]

Guardian: Warmer, more agreeable weather undermining U.S. climate action [link]

What is the polar vortex, and how does it influence weather? [link]

Richard Muller: Classifications of Climate Change Thinkers [link]

Scientists compare climate change impacts at 1.5C and 2.0C [link]

Faulty climate models: Drought forecasts are barely trustworthy [link]

Pachouli finally sacked by TERI [link]

When Americans thought hair was a window to the soul [link]

Columbia University begrudgingly admits the benefit of CO2 on crops [link]

The replication crisis in science has just begun [link]

Study claims: Ancient tectonic activity trigger for ice ages [link]

New lit review finds “population susceptibility to heat has been decreasing” [link]

New post from Steve McIntyre: Gavin Schmidt and reference period ‘trickery’ [link]

Scientists Asked to Boycott Major Conference After AGU Votes to Retain Exxon Ties [link]

Acidification of East Siberian Arctic shelf by river and terrestrial inputs, not atmospheric CO2 [link]

Book argues that faculty members should actively resist the ‘culture of speed’ in modern academe [link]

People are either ‘insightfuls’ or ‘analysts’ when it comes to problem-solving [link]

Scientific regress [link]

Who says bacon is bad? [link]

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, revisited [link]

Big science is broken [link]

Weather and climate in megacities [link]

The Southern #Ocean is cooling while the world warms. One MIT grad finds another possible culprit that’s not GHG. [link]

GOES R Launch Date Set: Will Revolutionze Weathr Forecasting

The reproducibility crisis is good for science [link]

RIP Bill Gray [link]

Experts assess whether #NegativeEmissions technologies are realistic in practice | [link]

Alexander von Humboldt: the man who predicted harmful human–induced climate change in 1800 [link]

The role of the worm in recycling waste water [link]

Donors decline to back more fracking research after study finds no link to water contamination [link]

Scientists discover new coral reef at the mouth of the Amazon River [link]

Solid-state photochemistry as a formation mechanism for Titan’s stratospheric ice clouds [link]

Five strategies for when decisions are really hard [link]

199 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Pingback: Week in review – science edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. typo…his name is Pachauri. Pa[t]chouli smells very nice though :)

  3. Negative impacts of greenhouse warming on the biosphere are undoubtedly greatest in regions where species are close to maximum temperature tolerance limits. Such impacts may be at least partially balanced by improved opportunities for productive life in other regions. Also the “fertilization” effect on crops due to increasing atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases may have impacts besides that of temperature change. – Columbia University, 1988

    • JCH,
      If you are going to quote, give the URL link and at least the prime author! This quote did NOT show on easy Google searching!

      • James E. Hansen, 1988

      • Joel

        You will usually find the source if you copy and paste a line or two into your browser window. However, I do agree it is easiest if someone provides a link themselves


      • Tony,
        I did lots of cuts and pastes. None showed specifically. Hansen has lots of 1988 pubs. So easy to actually give the proper ref without having readers do searching!
        JCH is a frequent abuser of just tossing out quotes without links, from my observations.

        Judith, you should make citing links to anything a person chooses to quote as a condition for participating in your blog!

    • From the link Judith provided

      ” It suggests that elevated CO2 concentrations could partially offset global yield losses and reduce agricultural water usage by 4 to 17 percent.”

      Partially offset?

      OK that means on the whole increased CO2 is bad.

      that’s what I thought in the first place

      • bobdroege: ” It suggests that elevated CO2 concentrations could partially offset global yield losses and reduce agricultural water usage by 4 to 17 percent.”

        Partially offset?

        OK that means on the whole increased CO2 is bad.

        The “global yield losses” were assumed rather than documented. They assumed “water scarcity”, which also has not been a demonstrated result of warming (models and some empirical studies show increased rainfall with warming). They modeled warming with and without CO2, whereas the relevant case is warming contingent on CO2; a relevant instance is the greening of the Sahel over the past few decades..

      • MM, correct. And most of the observational yeild studies are deeply flawed. Two examples I wrote about.
        The US maize study by countyleft out a crucial interaction term in the multiple regresssion, water plus heat. Yield does not go down if there is sufficient water during a hear wave. Shredding that paper was my first guest post here in 2011.
        The other from Standord analyzed several hundred CIMMYT studies in Africa to develop more regionally adapted maize (corn). But the adaptation is to insufficient water! Corn needs 4-5 months to mature; the MAM rains in Kenya last three. On average, all the tests plots worked with 40-60% of what the US would consider normal. That paper basically worked backwards from a foregone conclusion. Some of the worst ‘science’ I have ever seen.
        It is results from from papers like that that went into the Columbia models. Despite GIGO they had to acknowledge CO2 fertilization.

    • Well, gee.

      I just checked Hansen’s bio and he does not have a degree in horticulture. His degrees are in mathematics/physics, astronomy, and physics.

      The PHD is in physics.

      Since the peak photosynthesis temperature rises with CO2 the “oh noes more CO2 will cook the plants” claims would appear to be baseless particularly given the temperature change is below RCP2.6 model runs.

  4. Some now say bombogenesis instead of polar vortex because… it sounds cooler!?

  5. Bacon link is missing/broken.

  6. RE: “When Americans thought hair was a window to the soul”

    When I was a teen back in the 1960s, and given the knockdown dragouts some of my friends had with their parents over their hair length and sytle, one might think Americans still do think hair is a window to the soul.

    It’s amazing the things that have been used as social markers througout history. Here’s an example from the 16th century:

    Each European town of any size had its miniature Fugger, a merchant whose home in the marketplace typically rose five stories and was built with beams filled in with stucco, mortal, and laths. Storerooms were piled high with expensive Oriental rugs and containers of powdered spices; clerks at high desks pored over accounts; the owner and his wife, though of peasant birth, wore gold lace and even ignored laws forbidding anyone but nobly born to wear furs.

    In the manner of a grand seigneur the merchant would chat with patrician customers as though he were their equal.

    Impoverished knights, resenting this, ambushed merchants in the forest and cut off their right hands. It was a cruel and futile gesture; commerce had arrived to stay, and the knights were just leaving.

    — WILLIAM MANCHESTER, A World Lit Only by Fire

    • Glenn Stehle,

      Interesting about the Fuggers. I’d forgotten. Maybe someone could make a movie about them. It could be called “Meet the Fuggers”, maybe.

      In Nepal, there’s a remotish village called Marpha. Social status and wealth can be quickly assessed by seeing the height and extense of the piles of split firewood ringing the flat roof (of the older traditional dwellings).

      Depositing your money on the Bank of Roof, so to speak. Rough justice used to be handed out to wood thieves. Some of the wood has been there for many generations. I believe the old customs are dying out, as society changes. Don’t they always?


  7. RE: “Climate alarmism and the muzzling of independent science”


    The article hits the nail firmly on the head:

    Before Gore’s tenure as vice president, the majority of scientists with some knowledge of the subject firmly rejected climate alarmism.

    During his two terms almost in the White House, Al Gore and the academic liberals executed a quiet purge. They packed the scientific establishment with environmentalists, defunded inconvenient research fields, removed distinguished scientists, and bullied others into silence or equivocation.

    Huge budgets allocated to climate studies (even before Gore) produced hordes of worthless PhDs, incapable of making a living outside of climate alarmism.

    But a large segment of scientists and professionals versed in science are independent in a free society, deriving their income from private business. Al Gore and other climate alarmists had a problem….

    Not only the opposition to Climatism has been suppressed, it has been suppressed stealthily….

    [T]hose who had the rare combination of scientific knowledge, concern for their fellow citizens, and the guts to oppose climate alarmism have been lulled into the false belief that the situation was a problem of the energy industry alone. In fact, climate alarmism is not an industry problem and not even limited to economic policies. It is a juggernaut rolling over American science, education, religious freedoms, and independence itself.

    • The only real solution is to criminalize climate activism.

      It is the only way to deal with a dishonest group of win-at-all-costers.

      • “The only real solution is to criminalize climate activism.

        It is the only way to deal with a dishonest group of win-at-all-costers.”

        Criminalization does not promote honesty. Criminalizing drugs created a black market to supply that demand and people less than willing to be honest about that. Further, “activism” is speech. There is no lawful basis to criminalize “activism” anymore than there is to criminalize skepticism.

        There is, however, a lawful basis for reigning in government expenditure and prohibiting government from using tax dollars extravagantly.

      • PA,

        The thing is to get the government out of the business of climate activism, which comes to us beguilingly dressed up in scientific drag.

        Why should the government fund climate activism?

        Why should the government take sides in a political dog fight?

        But the government’s climate scientists do take sides, and in the most unabashedly biased and blatant way. There’s not even an attempt to cultivate the appearance of impartiality.

        Climate science in the United States reminds me of democracy in Mexico. Mario Vargas Llosa once called it “the perfect dictatorship.” It has all the bells and whistles of democracy, all the appearances, but none of the content.

      • PA,

        So paraphrasing Mario Vargas Llosa,

        Climate science in the United States is the perfect religion. It has all the bells and whistles of science, all the appearances, but none of the content.

      • Glenn Stehle | April 24, 2016 at 7:31 am |

        So paraphrasing Mario Vargas Llosa,

        Climate science in the United States is the perfect religion. It has all the bells and whistles of science, all the appearances, but none of the content.

        Any suggestions on how to remove CAGW (the Cult of Anthropomorphic Global Warming) from their positions of power in the government funded climate arena?

        They are producing Greenpeace propaganda with government funds which is unconstitutional. Supporting CAGW violates the establishment clause.

      • PA,

        I agree. When the state funds climate science, it funds a stealth religion. And this violates the estalbishment clause of the United States Constitution.

        However, the CAGW cult doesn’t call its religion “religion,” it calls it “science.”

        So that’s the rub: The name the CAGW faithful give their messianic political program is “science.” And state funding for science is not illegal.

        Maybe the Australians got it right. If climate scientists and those in government who make climate science funding decisions can’t clean up their act, and get back to doing science and not politics and religion, then maybe the solution is to yank state funding for climate science.

      • Glenn Stehle | April 24, 2016 at 10:37 am |

        However, the CAGW cult doesn’t call its religion “religion,” it calls it “science.”

        Global Warmers picked science as their religion deliberately.

        The obvious name for their religion is “Scientology”.


        Since the Church of Scientology already exists and “Scientology” is one of the Church’s registered trademarks this leaves us without a good name for the global warming religion.

    • David Wojick

      Then when Bush came in he left the Gore activists in place, because he had no interest in the issue. I collaborated with the Cooler Heads Coalition at the time and we were astounded at the stupidity.

  8. Have been enjoying McIntrye’s post on Gavin’s ‘hide the gap’ hysterics. The Secretariat and Steph Curry analogies are priceless. Even funnier were comments from some of the usual suspects trying to defend Gavin.. Josh has just produced a nice cartoon using the Secretariat analogy. Gavin earned the ridicule.

    • Just because all basketball players start the season with 0 made three point shots and all the horses in a horse race start at the same distance from the finish line doesn’t mean the error in a temperature measurement at a given time from two different indices are the same.

      One of the worst analogies I have seen today.

      The way that is being lapped up is priceless.

      • The post had nothing to do with error ranges. It was exclusively about Gavin’s silly baseline hissy fit. His way hides half the model observation discrepancy. The temperature ‘race’ comparison between CMIP5 and satellites starts in 1979, at the sat beginning. NOT half way to 2016. Like Secretariat in the starting gate with the other Belmont horses. Like Steph’s 3s at the beginning of the season.
        You must not have read the post. Or are severely comprehension challenged.
        Steve says he is going to do a separate post on comparative error hisrograms since that’s what Gavin urged on Judith. Even gave her his version. Sort of a Fyfe et. al. redux. That should give you something else not to like.

      • Definitely bob.

        Picking the same starting point can’t possibly be good, when we all know real science requires one to chop, slice, dice, manage and massage the data until it comes out correct.

      • There is no error range in the number of threes Curry hits in a game or season, that’s why the analogy fails.

        If a measurement, like the satellite temperature data series, has an error, you must compensate for it by choosing an appropriate baseline, that is just sound science, something Timg56 and Ristvan have no experience with.

        Steve might do some science, after all, I have been waiting for that for a long time, so I will check it out when it comes around.

        I note that Steve has not provided the latest data points in the satellite record in his latest post.

        What about Hansens model to data discrepancy, how’s that doing lately?

      • BD, you have just proven your are really stats/logic challenged. HUH on Curry.
        A piece of friendly advice from the Army. Rule one of holes. When in one and want to get out, first thing is to stop digging. You keep digging.

      • Ristvan,
        It is you who are in a hole and digging deeper.

        The set of integers and the set of real numbers have different properties and should be handled differently in statistics, or is that concept beyond you?

        So tell me then, what is the error in the number of threes Curry makes in a season?

        I say it is zero, with a capital Z.

        A temperature measurement has an error, correct?

      • BD, you have clearly lost the plot. Yes, a temp measurement has an error. Surface more than sat, for reasons Surface Stations.org laid out. Which has nothing to do with comparative baselines.
        FWIW, measurement error in Steph Curry’s recorded 3s is zero. Exactly. Cause we watched them all, and can review them all on ESPN replay. Data archiving honored in the breach by warmunists. Supposed mandatory data archives warmunists adamantly will not provide (cue Phil Jones and Climategate). Steph’s shots went in, or they did not. No TOBS adjustments, no regional expectations, no LIB to MMTS adjustments, aka no NOAA GISS fudges. Just a 3 basket or not a 3 basket, from beyond the 3 point arc which was painted onto the courts this whole season. No karlization of bouy temps is possible.

        HUH? Man, you should stop digging bigger holes on ever more irrelevant topics. OTOH, please keep on going, because you just get funnier and funnier discrediting your warmunism. So, hope you reject my advice to stop digging, and keep digging. What a giggle you now provide in indelible writing.

        The fact that your previous missive was completely off post topic (as is this riposte) has maybe deranged you? Stuff like that does happen to delicate warmunist souls.

      • Bob,

        GCE, if I recall your background you will understand the acronym, base lining isn’t the issue. Slope of models versus slope of observation is the issue. Base line makes no difference. The entire base line issue is a silly diversion IMO..

      • Doug,

        I would say that both the trend and the baseline matter, baseline the more so in the way Christy plotted his graph.

        If he just plotted the trends, it wouldn’t matter what the baseline is, but he didn’t do that.

        Lucia used to be the star of the models vs data comparisons but she stopped doing that once it was pointed out that you need to consider the uncertainties in both the data and the models, and when you do that the model data discrepancy disappears because there is overlap in the uncertainty ranges which prevents a scientist from declaring that they are different.

      • The significant variance in the outliers in a group of climate models does not signify mathematical uncertainty. As a modeler, all I would have to do is throw in more outliers to stay with any uncertainty range of real numbers. BTW, your low range occasionally overlapping someone’s high range proves nothing.

        Dave Fair

    • Another point for me Ristvan,

      Before the start of the season, the number of threes Curry has cannot be estimated by any statistical tool, but the temperature of the troposphere can, so it goes that you want to use a baseline that minimizes the error.

      Not picking one that maximizes the error, which raises the spaghetti graph of the model runs and lowers the plot of the satellite and balloon measurements.

      To use your analogy, the race doesn’t start at some point in time, it starts when the errors in both are minimized.

    • 1979 is instructive
      steph curry starts at 0. no error
      monthly temp starts at 2.43C no wait.. with uncertainty 2.3C no wait

      ya uncertainty matters when aligning time series.

      Best approach is histograms of trends as I mentioned before, including all uncertainty

      Satellite uncertainty is huge

      For a quick peek at structural uncertainty– look at the differences you get when you change methods


      • Mr. Mosher, I’m sorry your temperature reconstructions consistently run over those of satellites and weather balloons. Criticizing the other guy’s work does not make up for your own failings. Dave Fair

  9. Amazon mouth coral reef. This is a fascinating discovery. Shows dramatically how Nature evolves and adapts to special circumstances. That reef system developed/evolved in the Holocene, since 100-300 meters deep now and strong current dependent. 18000 years ago it would have been dry land (SLR about 140 meters since the melt started) , or so shallow the turbid Amazon would have smothered it.

  10. RE: “Alexander von Humboldt: the man who predicted harmful human–induced climate change in 1800”

    Already in 1807, Humboldt wrote:

    I thought that if my Naturgemälde were capable of suggesting unexpected analogies to those who study its details, it would be capable of speaking to the imagination and providing the pleasure that comes from contemplating a beneficial as well as majestic nature.

    Last year the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art (Walton family museum?) hosted a blockbuster traveling exhibition that helps put von Humbolt in perspective.


    Von Humbolt had enormous influence on intellecutals in Latin America.

    Nevertheless, he seems to have been in a minority when it comes to the European and Anglo-American artists and intellecutals who visited the Americas during his day and age. Most of the art produced was more like agit prop for colonialization and exploitation of the land.


    Nevertheless, it appears Humbolt did form a part of a rump group of dissidents:


  11. Steve McIntyre’s post in re to choice of reference periods is correct and he on point.in noting Gavin Schmidt’s inappropriate, crude smears of Judith Curry and John Cristy’s work. But that is not surprising. Of course the choice of reference period is important … important if you are using the reference period to drive the model parameters, and important visually for the reference framing it provides. We are now approaching 20 years of temperature hiatus and 20 years of any significant direct correlation of temperature vs.CO2 correlation (e.g., on a x-y scatter plot) , which are different but related. McIntyre’s discussion on Stephen Curry’s performance in 3-point shooting is a good analogy making the point. It is noteworthy that greens do cheer Gavin’s crudity and attacks on others who express opinions .. because it is part of the messaging.

    • “We are now approaching 20 years of temperature hiatus”

      This claim is not supported by surface temperature data, which shows a clear upward trend. The approach of starting a plot at 1998, a record hot El Nino year, is obviously incorrect. Starting at the top of a mountain, you must go down initially. Even if you do make that error, we are now nearing the end of another El Nino that tends to counter the first error. Regardless, you should look at a 30 or 50 year trend, not the graph following the 1998 El Nino. So, here is what a longer term (1960-2016) trend of global average surface temperature looks like.


      I expect the comeback will be that “satellite data are the best data we have.” This is not true for two reasons. One is that ground temperature measurements are much more accurate. Satellite data are not direct measurements. They require processing by a “data retrieval” model to infer temperature from radiance. The chain of calculations introduces uncertainty. Second, some of those models have contained errors that have been since corrected, but the previously reported errors persist in the blogosphere. Specifically, John Christy and Roy Spencer got the sign wrong in an orbital decay term that resulted in warming looking like cooling.

      For details of satellite vs. surface temperatures, watch this, a video produced by experts in the field:


      Regardless of what you may think of satellite data, it is unscientific to ignore other data.

      • Regardless of what you may think of satellite data, it is unscientific to ignore other data.

        Of course, at least one of Christy’s graphics also displayed the gap between CMIP5 and HADCRUT4.


      • Peter, incorrect. There are two ways to measure. One is simply trend. Less robust. The 2014 answers were Hadsst 20 years, HadCrut4 17 years, Giss 16 years. Note, you work back from present to find the last year of zero trend.
        The other is statistically significant trend. That must be done carefully because significance is affected by autocorrelation in temperature time series. McKitrick did it correctly, published in Open Journal of Statistics 4: 527-535 (2014). HadCrut4 19 years no statitically significant positce trend.

      • Peter, thank you for your opinions. However:

        Both surface and satellite temperature trend data show significantly lower 21st century trends than do the models. Therefore “hiatus” terminology in reference to the 1970’s to end-of-century “hot” trend is apt. BTW, do not mistake high and low model outliers as true error bands.

        You are going to have to provide some proof that surface temperatures (sparse, gathered using differing methods, adjusted opaquely, mixed together with incomprehensible geographic methods and confusing ocean water temperature readings with land air temperatures) is more accurate than satellite remote sensing using explicit, replicable adjustments, and being consistent with radiosonde (weather balloons) measurements. Your mentioning past, corrected errors in the satellite measurements could indicate an unhealthy attempt to mislead others.

        You are correct that ignoring other data is unscientific. Satellite and all of the surface temperature datasets show that models do not replicate (even in 20/20 hindsight!) late 19th and very early 20th century cooling, early 20th century warming (about 40% of total 20th century warming), mid-century cooling and the lack of an appreciable 21st century warming trend. Using models “tuned” to the relatively steep trend of the end of the 20th century (ignoring other temperature data), alarmists speculated about CAWG in the future. Does that unscientific behavior bother you, Peter?

        Dave Fair

      • Opluso,

        How’s that graph look if it is updated to present data?

        Then it doesn’t look so bad for the models, does it?

      • Peter Smith | April 23, 2016 at 4:06 pm | Reply
        “We are now approaching 20 years of temperature hiatus”

        This claim is not supported by surface temperature data, which shows a clear upward trend.

        That claim isn’t accurate.


        If you detrend the surface data by the post 2008 (Obama era) adjustments there isn’t a lot of difference between the satellite and surface record (other than the troposphere has more variability).

        The current CGAGW (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming) adjustment rate of 0.3°C per decade (0.24°C over 8 years) means 2050 will be 0.75°C warmer even if the real temperature doesn’t change.

        There has been no scientific study showing virtual warming has the same effect as real warming.

      • Peter you will note that no one, not even Rud, dares to do the
        “calculate the trend backwards” with the current data.

        Too funny.

      • bobdroege:

        Depends on the type of smoothing you apply. Obviously, ending in an El Nino year without smoothing would bring the curves even closer together.

        Rest assured that none of that matters for We Are All Doomed™.

  12. New post from Steve McIntyre: Gavin Schmidt and reference period ‘trickery’

    Interesting essay and discussion, imo.

  13. Thank you, Professor Curry, for your resistance to efforts to ban independent thinking. There is probably no greater human right than that. The American Thinker correctly asserts that “Punishing businesses for funding researchers is simply a ban on independent science,”


    • It is not as clear cut as you imply. There is an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists on the mechanisms and essential effects of current global warming and its relationship to man-made CO2.


      If someone wants to refute the science or the consensus, they need to publish their refutation in peer-reviewed science literature and see it it sticks. I have not seen the alleged refutation anywhere other than blogs. American Thinker is a case in point. It is a vehicle for conservative thinking.

      As for “punishing” independent science, that is certainly not the case. (1) any scientist is free to publish their work, preferably in peer-reviewed science journals; (2) it is not scientists and thinkers who might be punished. It is fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobil who understood the science but chose later to deny it, creating deliberate disinformation. They have done this through front organizations like the Heartland Institute. It is exactly the same thing as Big Tobacco, only now it is Big Carbon.


      • New repetitions of old l1es. Like selling stale bread as fresh.

      • Peter, you repeat a warmunist canard. Pal review closes much out. You are like a medieval latin scribe resisting the movable type printing press and Guttenberg bible. The internet is the modern scientific equivalent. And ebooks are way better and easier than printing presses.
        OTOH, Mann was thoroughly refuted in peer review. Observational ECS 1.5-1.8 is several peer review papers. Models dont do clouds is IPCC WG1 itself. McKitrick careful autocorrelation corrected analysisnof HadCrut4 ( above reply to you on sat vs. surface) is peer reviewed.
        Think how important peer review isn’t. Karlized pause disappearance is peer reciewed. So is Mann et. al. (15 authors) paper saying pause is real.
        Marcott’s 2013 academic misconduct paper (just compare his thesis to his Science paper) was peer reveiwed. So was Oleary’s SLR academic misconduct in Nature GeoScience. So was Fabricius corals/pH acad emic misconduct (hydrogen sulfide, not pH) peer reviewed in Nature.

        Your warmunist tactic no longer works. Truth does not hide inside peer review. It just is, for all to see who look. See this post items Science regress and Replication crisis, if you need further education as to why your ‘publish or it does not count’ consensus defense has utterly failed.
        Its 2016. The world has not meaningfull warmed this century yet save a 2015 El Nino spike now rapidly cooling as after 1998.

      • Peter, you have stepped into it again. Do you really believe any of the tripe you are regurgitating? Note:

        Your assumed consensus about “essential effects of current global warming” is utter nonsense. The climate has not changed with the little bit of warming since the Little Ice Age. No worsening of storms, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, sea level rise and so on. You might put a little bit on top of a heat wave, but nothing noticeable. Look it up. Anyone stating “this extreme weather event is consistent with climate change” is a huckster/hustler/trickster and all the other negative verbiage one could heap high. Those “97% studies” have been shown to be what they are: Mendacious constructs to sway those with no ability/interest in reading for themselves the various and sundry material.

        Do a little bit of study concerning your vaunted peer review. The Climategate emails pretty much destroyed any credibility the climate establishment may have had. Their perversion of the peer review process is unarguable. Additionally, the IPCC procedures ensure non-conforming work is ignored or suppressed. Read something other than political and green press releases.

        Have you actually read anything produced by the fossil fuel companies or the Heartland Institute? What, exactly, did their scientific studies say about the certainty of CAGW? Certainly not what Big Green says they say. Again, read.

        Dave Fair

      • You link to a garbage paper authored by people who are making a career out of trying to “prove” the consensus and the “non-partisan” Inside Climate News and then expect to be taken seriously?

        Peter, why is it that some people are trying very, very hard to prove the consensus exists? If the 97% is as these people keep trying to tell us it is, then the remaining 3% could just be ignored. That’s a rhetorical question, as the answer is obvious and the chances of you actually answering it slim anyway.

      • Consensus does not equal science. Strikes me as more like speculation than logical investigation and testing.

      • Peter, you repeat a warmunist canard. Pal review closes much out.

        And saying something based on no evidence is just speculation. I would like to see a list of papers that deserved to be published but couldn’t because of this so-called PAL review for starters.

  14. “We find a larger percentage of land area with relatively wetter conditions in the ninth to eleventh and the twentieth centuries, whereas drier conditions are more widespread between the twelfth and nineteenth centuries.”
    I am reading possible confirmation of the MWP in the Northern Hemisphere.
    “However, the intensification of the twentieth-century-mean hydroclimate anomalies in the simulations, as compared to previous centuries, is not supported by our new multi-proxy reconstruction.”
    So the paleo data is saying it is wetter but not as wet as the models say it should be? I didn’t see in the supporting graphs any hockey sticks.

  15. Re: The Southern #Ocean is cooling while the world warms. One MIT grad finds another possible culprit that’s not GHG.

    They used GCMs to explore ozone depletion’s hypothesized ability to temporarily mask warming. Sea surface temps respond to the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) oscillations so they introduced a step increase (via models) to a pre-industrial state. Whether or not they’ve actually found a physical climate effect they did highlight the differences among models. For example:

    However, there are large differences across the CMIP5 ensemble. In some models the step response function never changes sign and cooling persists, while in other GCMs the SST anomaly crosses over from negative to positive values only three years after a step increase in the SAM.


  16. Nature: Recent improvement and projected worsening of weather in the U.S.

    one liability of that paper is that they compare decades worth of actual data to model results for the future, even though the models are running hot.

    A second liability of that paper is that they assume the unrealistic RCP8.5 CO2 future.

    They were specific enough that their projected worsening can be tested against actual developments at reasonable intervals, say every decade. That is certainly an improvement over the mindless “snow will disappear” sort of projections that have been popular in the past.

    • MRM: That is certainly an improvement over the mindless “snow will disappear” sort of projections that have been popular in the past.

      What I meant was that the paper was an improvement over the mindless projections that have been popular in the past.

    • I agree that is is an improvement over mindless projection, but it still seems like speculation:
      «Using previous research on how weather affects local population growth to develop an index of people’s weather preferences, we find that 80% of Americans live in counties that are experiencing more pleasant weather than they did four decades ago.»

      «Climate change models predict that this trend is temporary, however, because US summers will eventually warm more than winters. Under a scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions proceed at an unabated rate (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5), we estimate that 88% of the US public will experience weather at the end of the century that is less preferable than weather in the recent past.»

      In other words: The observation is that the global warming has brought more preferable weather in the United States. Projections based on an unrealistic concentration Pathway and notoriously unrealistic models, project that further warming will bring less preferable weather.

    • Five problems:
      1. While we temporarily are near RCP8.5 emissions levels we are headed toward RCP4.5. 3 years of static CO2 emission levels are distorting the emissions picture.
      2. We are below the RCP4.5 CO2 track (in PPM).
      3. We are below the RCP2.6 models in performance.
      4. The study uses inaccurate models.
      5. The scientists appear to be badly mistaken and misinformed..

      In green areas (particularly the middle of large fields) the CO2 level goes into the ground just after noon. The level over corn fields gets so low the corn stops growing. The study may be partially correct if we pave every square inch of land.

      The measurement of CO2 forcing (downwelling IR) is a damning condemnation of their study

      There isn’t much summertime effect. The reason summers aren’t affected much is that is when CO2 is the lowest and the effect is weakest. And there isn’t much effect at the equator.


      Dr. R.A. Pielke Sr. (a real climate scientist, as opposed to a global warming climate scientist) documented this effect a while back.

      Further, the maximum downwelling IR is at night.

      The use of an invalid RCP and presumably invalid models is troubling. The US should really discontinue its GCM model program since their only apparent use is to generate Greenpeace/WWF propaganda. And funding religious propaganda is unconstitutional under the establishment clause.

      Use of the accurate Russian INMCM4 model should be mandated by law for studies claiming to project future temperatures and RCP4.5 or RCP2.6

      • PA: The US should really discontinue its GCM model program since their only apparent use is to generate Greenpeace/WWF propaganda.

        I prefer that they continue to develop GCM models until they start getting some that are accurate. I see this as a case of “normal science”, but on a large scale.

        I liked the rest of your post.

      • It is pretty simple (I welcome refutation), the US models have CO2 forcing torqued up too high for political reasons which means some of the other parameters have to be misadjusted.

        If they are going to play politics we don’t need their input or models.

        The Russians as I understand it use lower CO2 sensitivity.

        If I was Trump, after I was sworn in, I would appoint outright deniers to head NASA, NOAA, and the NSF, and explain that I didn’t want any models funded that didn’t reproduce the pause. The models would get reigned in.

        Asking that models actually model what they are supposed to model is not the unreasonable request global warmers think it is.

        Appointing a denier to head the NSF would get some absurdly biased climate grant RFPs cleaned up. Appointing a denier to head the EPA would clean up a source of even worse grant RFPs.

      • It is pretty simple (I welcome refutation), the US models have CO2 forcing torqued up too high for political reasons […]

        AFAIK CO2 forcing is generally calculated using HITRAN which has been verified against satellite readings and lab experiments.

        Most likely, the source of the error is invalid parameters for generation of cloudy air (as well, perhaps, as evaporation). To which I would add an invalid system of parametrization itself. That is, not just wrong numbers, but a wrong (highly simplistic) framework of what types of numbers to use.

        AFAIK (again) different models use different frameworks, but IMO they’re all highly simplistic.

  17. And Team Green and the Peak Oilers continue to ring the death knell for fossil fuels.

    Is all the cheerleading and rejoicing over the death of fossil fuels premature, or misplaced?

    It’s not looking good for the global fossil fuel industry.

    Although the world remains heavily dependent on oil, coal and natural gas—which today supply around 80 percent of our primary energy needs—the industry is rapidly crumbling.

    This is not merely a temporary blip, but a symptom of a deeper, long-term process related to global capitalism’s escalating overconsumption of planetary resources and raw materials.

    New scientific research shows that the growing crisis of profitability facing fossil fuel industries is part of an inevitable period of transition to a post-carbon era….

    The imperative to transition away from fossil fuels is, therefore, both geophysical and environmental. On the one hand, by mid-century, fossil fuels and nuclear power will become obsolete as a viable source of energy due to their increasingly high costs and low quality. On the other, even before then, to maintain what scientists describe as a ‘safe operating space’ for human survival, we cannot permit the planet to warm a further 2C without risking disastrous climate impacts.


    After the death of fossil fuels, they envision a paradaisical post-carbon world of equality and egalitarianism:

    Large top-down national and transnational structures will begin to become obsolete due to the large costs of maintenance, the unsustainability of the energy inputs needed for their survival, and the shift in power to new decentralized producers of energy and food.

    In the place of such top-down structures, smaller-scale, networked forms of political, social and economic organization, connected through revolutionary information technologies, will be most likely to succeed. For communities to not just survive, but thrive, they will need to work together, sharing technology, expertise and knowledge on the basis of a new culture of human parity and cooperation.

    All the predictions of the glorious future sound great, but what are the chances of it actually coming true?

    • Spoken by people who apparently can’t distinguish between science fiction and reality.

      Also, one does not have to be a geologist or an economist to evaluate if the fossil fuels infrastructure is crumbling. One only has to fill up at the gas station. $2 a gallon gas does not square with rapidly dwindling oil.

    • Glenn Stehle | April 23, 2016 at 4:52 pm | Reply
      And Team Green and the Peak Oilers continue to ring the death knell for fossil fuels.

      Is all the cheerleading and rejoicing over the death of fossil fuels premature, or misplaced?

      They are cheerleaders for a losing cause. You don’t expect them to be objective or guided by evidence (and they aren’t objective or guided by evidence).

      They are basically the same as Cleveland Browns fans. Is all the cheerleading and rejoicing during games by Cleveland Browns fans premature, or misplaced?

  18. From the article:

    Instead of lithium, researchers at UC Irvine have used gold nanowires to store electricity, and have found that their system is able to far outlast traditional lithium battery construction. The Irvine team’s system cycled through 200,000 recharges without significant corrosion or decline. However, they don’t exactly know why. “We started to cycle the devices, and then realized that they weren’t going to die,” said Reginald Penner, a lead author of the paper. “We don’t understand the mechanism of that yet.” T


    • Jim2, nice catch. Since I am an actual SME in energy storage with several issued patents, let me demystify this misleading PR. In short, Penner does not know what he is talking about. The clue is in the last paragraph of your link, “the longer the gold nanwire, the greater the surface, the more the storage”. I paraphrase rather than copy exact. He did not build a battery. he built a complicated electrochemical capacitor. And does not know it.

      Batteries rely on various oxidation/reduction electrochemistries. Zinc and coper stuck in a lemon does very nicely for elementary school examples. The exception is LiIon, which is a ‘rocking chair’ Li Ion intercalation that has the same electrical/ionic effects without the associated redox chemical changes. Which is why it lasts longer and is ubiquitous.

      Capacitors rely purely on charge storage surface area. Very well established physics. Feynman even had a section in his Lectures on Physics concerning BT, the highest capacitance solid then known: volume 2, chapter 11.7. Beautiful physics. The highest energy density are the activated carbon based super caps, which rely on Helmholtz double layer formation between two phases of matter, the exact same charge storage mechanism that creates lightning in thunderstorms. What these researchers have is a super cap using a lithium electrolyte. LiPF4 has been studied as a super cap electrolyte salt for almost 3 decades.

      Capacitors last a LONG time since there is no electrochemistry involved, just electrostatics. The best commercial super caps (up to 3000 Farads!) are guaranteed for 1 million full discharge/charge cycles. Depending on their temperature regime and quality of manufacture (both involving residual humidity in aprotic electrolytes), they readily can serve 2 million full discharge cycles to 80% of original capacity.
      Alas, they also only store about 1/10 as much energy as a LiIon battery.

      More ignorant energy storage “Much Ado about Nothing” in honor of the Bards’ 400th death anniversary.

    • Here’s the paper.
      Rud, it appears that the researcher is not as clueless as the press release and slashdot story make him out to be. He knows he’s studying capacitors. I leave it to you to know if this is old knowledge or material research of material value.

      • Charles t M. I respect you, so here is a longish reply as you seem interested. I only read Jim2’s link so regret asserting the PI did not know the difference between batteries and caps. More really bad MSM reporting. My apologies.
        Here is the core issue (technical deep dive done shallowly). Supercaps have two figures of merit in addition to cost and tau (tau is a power density metric related to how fast it charges and discharges, very relevant for things like engine start and regenerative braking). Gravimetric energy density (farads/gram) and volumetric energy density (farads/cc). Now, it is easy to make high F/g. Cook the H out of any activated carbon until it is mostly nano dust. But the F/cc will be horrible. Ditto carbon nanotubes. Unless vertically aligned (super expensive and not scaleable, think a carpet being manufactured at nanoscale) great F/g, and utterly horrible F/cc. Carbon nanotubes DO NOT BEND much. They have a modulus of elasticity approaching diamond. You try densifying a jumble of raw spaghetti that will not ever break into smaller fragments. Children’s ‘lincoln logs’ stuff. Very basic physics.
        Gold nano wires are MUCH more pliable than CNT. They will bend (deform) like cooked spaghetti. So should produce an F/cc much better than CNT. Just smush them together. (A highly technical scientific term for volumetric compaction).
        But. We are talking gold, not carbon. Cost! My issued patents describe a material derived from ordinary rayon (advantages, chemically pure, ~uniform green diameter), which provides 140-155 F/g, tap density ~0.5g/cc, electrode density ~0.61 g/cc (depends on process and conductive additives–I need less in a simpler process), and F/cc over 0.85F/cc.
        And with tau half of conventional activated carbon particulates thanks to void tortuosity. (OK, another ‘new’ physics/math idea. Particulates of different sizes (a polydispersion) pack densely because the little ones fit into the spaces between the big ones. Yup. But when an ion tries to run the remaining open wet electrolyte path to form the Helmholtz layer, it has to make lots of zigs and zags. LOTS. Path length (nominally from the separator) is equivalent to conductance in siemens. Turns out short fiber fragments pack as densely as polydispersions (surprise), and their void tortuosity is about halved. Long straight shots for all those lovely migrating electrolyte ions forming the Helmholtz double layer. Hence half the tau, so twice the power density, in my material. Simple function of inherent, now patented, void geometry mathematics of packing of spherocylinders. And that is a proven math theorem.
        All experimentally shown at lab and now at pilot scale. A (very) minor energy storage revolution using cheap used women’s underwear as the precursor, not gold. (Ok that last sentence was partly a joke. We buy rayon staple from manufacturers like Lenzing before sizing and BEFORE it is spun into thread and then woven into underwear. Saves much cost.)

        This paper is materials research, yes. Of any value, no. Just more publish or perish useless MatSci from a not yet wet behind the ears Ph.D candidate.
        Energy storage is really, really tough basic physics and chemistry. Been hammering on it for now >20 years. Devil is always in the details. I know for a fact that APlanningEngineer agrees. Or we would not have been collaborating on joint guest posts.
        Highest regards.

      • Thanks Rud, Too much, but thanks.

      • Unless vertically aligned (super expensive and not scaleable, think a carpet being manufactured at nanoscale) great F/g, and utterly horrible F/cc.

        Saying goodbye to batteries by Nancy Stauffer Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2006)

        While ultracapacitors have many uses, they can’t compete with batteries when it comes to storing lots of electrical energy, noted Schindall. But a few years ago he read a journal article about vertically aligned nanotubes and began to wonder what would happen if he replaced the activated carbon with nanotubes. While the pores in activated carbon are irregular in size and shape, a nanotube “forest” might provide straight pathways so the ions could come in and out easily and pack together neatly—like sucking up paint with a paintbrush rather than a sponge.

        Schindall and his colleagues have now developed a technique for growing nanotubes on an aluminum electrode. They put down droplets of a catalyst on the surface and pass a hydrocarbon gas over it at high temperature. The droplets grab carbon atoms out of the gas, and carbon nanotubes start growing upward, just like hair. Within ten minutes the surface is covered with millions of vertically aligned nanotubes, each one a thirty-thousandth the diameter of a human hair and 50,000 times as long as they are wide. By controlling the size and spacing of the droplets, they have made samples in which the nanotubes are just two ion-diameters apart—ideal for dense ion packing.


        Schindall expects to have a working prototype finished in the next few months. If all goes well, the new nanotube-enhanced ultracapacitor could be on the market within five to ten years.

        A novel ultracapacitor – Energy when and where you need it by Nancy W. Stauffer, Energy Futures: Spring 2012

        In the race to develop the perfect energy storage solution, ultracapacitors are an exciting horse to bet on. They deliver energy quickly, can be recharged in seconds, and have a long life span—but their capacity for storing energy is limited. An MIT startup company has now unveiled a novel version that can store twice as much energy and deliver about 10 times as much power as a conventional device can. Equipped with carbon-nanotube-coated electrodes, the new ultracapacitor uses low-cost, domestically abundant materials and a manufacturing process similar to those used at large scale by the solar industry. […]

        The latest FastCAP ultracapacitor stores twice as much energy as its competitors can and delivers 7 to 15 times more power. It also costs less. It uses raw materials that are both inexpensive and abundant within the United States. (The electrode material, for instance, costs about one-fiftieth as much as that used in conventional capacitors.) The manufacturing process is based on methods used for large-scale production of solar photovoltaic components. As a result, it is both low-cost and scalable—and as a bonus, the necessary equipment and expertise are highly developed and readily available. [my bold]

      • AK,

        They certainly got bags of money. Nothing particularly useful seems to have come to fruition.

        I cannot access the website, but the PR seems to concentrate on the ruggedised aspect. From the PR –

        “These are the world’s only ruggedized ultracapacitors with rated operation up to 150°C, and high shock and vibration tolerance,” said Dr. John Cooley, CTO of FastCAP Systems. “To date, FastCAP has successfully demonstrated the utility of these components in harsh oil and gas drilling conditions where they provide high power bursts of electromagnetic telemetry signals from thousands of feet underground.””

        Nothing terribly new here. Another niche market seeker, trying to differentiate itself from competitors. I agree with Rud that “Energy storage is really, really tough . . .” , and that, as usual, the Devil’s in the details. Still, somebody will come up with an answer, usually by accident, and usually catching everyone flat-footed, as usual.

        Everything from glass to glazed pottery to refined metals, even useable electricity seems to have been discovered by accident. Oh, how I wish I could escry the future! But of course, I can’t – and I don’t believe anyone can either.

        It keeps life from getting boring – on with the silly climate wars, eh?


      • Gold nano wires are MUCH more pliable than CNT. They will bend (deform) like cooked spaghetti. So should produce an F/cc much better than CNT. Just smush them together. ([…]).
        But. We are talking gold, not carbon. Cost!

        Well, no. These gold nano wires are actually grown by photolithography/electrodeposition:

        Au@δ-MnO2 Nanowire Fabrication. Here we provide a detailed process flow (Figure S1)
        and description of the procedure for fabricating Au@δ-MnO2 Core@Shell Nanowire Capacitors. Starting with 2” × 0.5” glass squares, a 40 nm layer of nickel is thermally evaporated. A positive photoresist layer (PR, Shipley, S1808) is then deposited on the nickel film by spincoating and soft-baked (90°C for 30 min). The PR layer is then photo patterned using a chromium/quartz contact mask in conjunction with 365 nm UV light source equipped with a shutter and alignment stage (Newport, 83210i-line, 2.3 s). After exposure, the nascent pattern was developed for 20 s in developer solution (Shipley, MF-319). Then the nickel was removed from this patterned surface by etching with 0.8 M HNO3 for 5 minutes (step 1). This step removed exposed nickel and also created an undercut at the edge of the PR. This undercut forms a horizontal trench which can be used to template the growth by electrodeposition of gold nanowires. Electrodeposition is accomplished by immersing the lithographically patterned region into a gold plating solution (Clean Earth SolutionsTM).

        Gold nanowires are then deposited within this trench by potentiostatic growth at a potential of – 0.9 V versus SCE (saturated calomel reference electrode) for 1000 s (step 2). After electrodeposition is complete, the PR layer was removed using acetone (step 3). Photolithography is also used to prepared [sic] gold electrical contacts as shown in steps 4,5. Photoresist is then applied as in insulator atop the gold current collectors. These insulator layers are hard baked at 190 °C oven for a 30 minutes, rending the photoresist layer impervious to organic solvent. [my bold]

        But I doubt that matters either way. The key discovery in the original paper was extended stability of “up to 200 000 cycles with 94−96% average Coulombic efficiency for symmetrical δ-MnO2 nanowire capacitors […] in a poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) gel electrolyte”, vs. “from 2000 to 8000 cycles” without.

        But multi-walled carbon nanotube–manganese oxide (CNT–MnO2) core–shell structures can also be used for supercaps.

        The capacitance values for CNT–MnO2 and MnO2 are 185 F g^−1 and 145 F g^−1, respectively, at a scan rate of 5 mV s^−1. The high specific capacitance value for CNT–MnO2 is due to high utilization of the porous space and good conducting channels. At the high scan rate of 100 mV s^−1, the capacitance values for MnO2 and CNT–MnO2 are 96 F g^−1 and 117 F g^−1, respectively. It should be noted that the rate performance of CNT–MnO2 is similar to that of MnO2 with an improved capacitance value (figure 5(c)). The better capacitance performance of CNT–MnO2 is attributed to the synergy of the components in the nanocomposite with proper utilization of materials.

        Life cycle was consistent with the unmodified gold nano wire based product in the Thai et al. paper linked above.

        The life-cycle test is an important characteristics for high performance supercapacitors. For the ASC, the capacitance retention was found to be 94% after 2000 charge–discharge cycles (figure S4).

        It will be interesting to see whether the use of “a poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) gel electrolyte” can similarly stabilize the “multi-walled carbon nanotube–manganese oxide (CNT–MnO2) core–shell structures”.

        And even more interesting to see whether this can be combined with the “millions of vertically aligned nanotubes” from Schindall’s process.

      • I cannot access the website, but the PR seems to concentrate on the ruggedised aspect.

        I guess you never noticed how Rud’s always reminding us how delicate nanotube-based supercaps are.

        I would suppose they’re emphasizing what people really familiar with the field will be most impressed by.

      • Growth of Manganese Oxide Nanoflowers on Vertically-Aligned Carbon Nanotube Arrays for High-Rate Electrochemical Capacitive Energy Storage by Hao Zhang, Gaoping Cao, Zhiyong Wang, Yusheng Yang, Zujin Shi, and Zhennan Gu Nano Letters October 2008

        Manganese oxide nanoflower/carbon nanotube array (CNTA) composite electrodes with hierarchical porous structure, large surface area, and superior conductivity was controllable prepared by combining electrodeposition technique and a vertically aligned CNTA framework. This binder-free manganese oxide/CNTA electrode presents excellent rate capability (50.8% capacity retention at 77 A/g), high capacitance (199 F/g and 305 F/cm3), and long cycle life (3% capacity loss after 20 000 charge/discharge cycles), with strong promise for high-rate electrochemical capacitive energy storage applications.

        I wonder how much improvement the use of “a poly(methylmethacrylate) (PMMA) gel electrolyte” can similarly stabilize the “multi-walled carbon nanotube–manganese oxide (CNT–MnO2) core–shell structures” could make to the cycle life here.

        Of course, they are growing their nanotubes on a tantalum foil rather than the aluminum of Schindall’s process:

        The reason for using Ta foils is that Ta is very stable in acidic MnSO4 precursor solutions, which does not influence the measure of mass load of manganese oxide deposits.

        I can’t tell from this whether aluminum wouldn’t work, or would just interfere somewhat with their precise measurement of “of mass load of manganese oxide deposits.

        Either way, I’m sure some way could be come up with during conversion to production status to protect a much cheaper aluminum foil from corrosion.

        I also suspect the gel could be stiffened enough to make the whole thing very rugged.

        This was published almost 8 years ago. I wonder how far along they are towards mass production.

      • Steven Mosher

        “I only read Jim2’s link so regret asserting the PI did not know the difference between batteries and caps. More really bad MSM reporting. My apologies”

        1. read more comment less.
        2. Charles isnt owed the apology, the PI is.
        3. Triumphalism, triumphs again.

      • read more comment less.

        In “asserting the PI did not know the difference between batteries and caps” He appears to have been exposing his ign0rance about a whole field of supercapacitors: pseudocapacitors.

        Pseudocapacitors store electrical energy faradaically by electron charge transfer between electrode and electrolyte. This is accomplished through electrosorption, reduction-oxidation reactions (redox reactions), and intercalation processes, termed pseudocapacitance.[1][2][3]

        A pseudocapacitor is part of an electrochemical capacitor, and forms together with an electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC) to create a supercapacitor.


        A pseudocapacitor has a chemical reaction at the electrode, unlike EDLCs where the electrical charge storage is stored electrostatically with no interaction between the electrode and the ions. Pseudocapacitance is accompanied by an electron charge-transfer between electrolyte and electrode coming from a de-solvated and adsorbed ion. One electron per charge unit is involved. The adsorbed ion has no chemical reaction with the atoms of the electrode (no chemical bonds arise[4]) since only a charge-transfer take place. An example is a redox reaction where the ion is O2+ and during charging, one electrode hosts a reduction reaction and the other an oxidation reaction. Under discharge the reactions are reversed.

        The mechanism under discussion is actually a hybrid of capacitor and battery. That may be why he thought Penner was confused.

      • “The mechanism under discussion is actually a hybrid of capacitor and battery. That may be why he thought Penner was confused.”

        The point is this.

        Rud is an expert in storage. No denying that.
        Charles is an expert in reading carefully before he opens his mouth.
        Rud is a part of the “storage consensus” He can tell you everything.
        So, its funny to watch him post before he reads.
        In this case Rud wasnt a very good skeptic. Meaning, he didnt doubt
        his own knee jerk initial assessment.

        That he attacked Penner personally was even funnier.

      • Rud is an expert in storage. No denying that.

        I’m a lot more skeptical about that than I was before I read your comment and thought about it.

        Rud is a part of the “storage consensus” He can tell you everything.

        Yeah, like this?

        Capacitors rely purely on charge storage surface area. Very well established physics. […]. The highest energy density are the activated carbon based super caps, which rely on Helmholtz double layer formation between two phases of matter, the exact same charge storage mechanism that creates lightning in thunderstorms. What these researchers have is a super cap using a lithium electrolyte.

        Let’s take a look at the parts I’ve bolded:

        •       Capacitors rely purely on charge storage surface area.

        According to the Wiki article I linked above:

        Pseudocapacitors store electrical energy faradaically by electron charge transfer between electrode and electrolyte. This is accomplished through electrosorption, reduction-oxidation reactions (redox reactions), and intercalation processes, termed pseudocapacitance.

        A pseudocapacitor is part of an electrochemical capacitor, and forms together with an electric double-layer capacitor (EDLC) to create a supercapacitor.

        Pseudocapacitance and double-layer capacitance add up to a common inseparable capacitance value of a supercapacitor. However, they can be effective with very different parts of the total capacitance value depending on the design of the electrodes. A pseudocapacitance may be higher by a factor of 100 as a double-layer capacitance with the same electrode surface.

        There is an apparent contradiction here: Wiki says this type of supercap uses more than “charge storage surface area.”, while he says they “rely purely on charge storage surface area.

        Which is it? How can he qualify as a domain expert when he clearly contradicts not just Wiki, but a number of peer-reviewed papers describing research into pseudo-capacitance?

        •       The highest energy density are the activated carbon based super caps, which rely on Helmholtz double layer formation between two phases of matter

        Is this true? A simplistic reading of the Wiki article would suggest that supercaps with higher energy density exist that also use pseudo-capacitance.

        •       What these researchers have is a super cap using a lithium electrolyte.

        Yes, but not the kind of “super cap” he appears to be discussing, based on the first item.

        Having compared what he said against what’s present in Wiki and the various research papers (some of them linked above), I’m very skeptical of his qualifications as “an expert in storage.

        Whatever “storage consensus” he’s part of would seem to be one that involves going off half-cocked on the basis of incomplete knowledge.

        What seems funnier to me is your response: you consider him and “expert”, part of the “storage consensus” on what basis? Perhaps the same basis you, and folks like Jim D, consider the likes of Mann and Trenberth “experts”? Part of the “climate consensus”?

        To me, he seems to have forfeited any presumed “expert” status in the field until I have a plausible (to me) explanation of the apparent contradiction.

        Just as I fully deprecate any presumed “expert” status people like Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, etc. might claim until I have a plausible (to me) explanation of their apparent ign0rance of the real behavior of complex non-linear system. I don’t have to be that much of a domain expert myself (in climate) to see the (apparent) contradiction, any more than I have to be an “expert” on batteries to see that (apparent) contradiction.

  19. Whoops!

    From the incorporated video:

    Maybe an unrealistic picture has been painted of just how strong the demand for electric cars in China is….

    Depending on the results of this investigation, we may find that a large percentage of the sales increase in electric vehicles we saw last year was a result of companies commititng fraud….

    Fraud Leaves China’s Electric Car Demand in Doubt


  20. Can anyone educate me, or provide articles, on the reliability of global temperatures from… let’s say… the 1880 period? It seems that many parts of the world would have had sketchy reporting back then, and even sketchier the farther you go back in time. At what time in the past do scientists have to rely on proxy data to approximate global temperatures.

    • “It seems that many parts of the world would have had sketchy reporting back then”
      With possible exception of the continental US.
      It is my understanding that these records are at least complete enough to apply the magic of data adjustments to draw a respectable conclusion.
      Low and behold. taken alone, they show no warming for the entire period.
      I’m pretty sure that even James Hansen has said so.

      I think an important group of records had to be recovered from a land fill.
      As Richard Muller says in the fine post linked above …
      we’re looking at 0.64 C.
      Close for a sketchy and short data set.
      Really close for proxy reconstructions.
      Not to mention buckets tossed over the side.

    • daveandrews723,

      From the Australian Bureau of Meteorology –

      “Temperature measurement from before approximately 1910 used a wide variety of non-standard configurations and are therefore not directly comparable to modern measurements.”

      If I was of a cynical frame of mind, I might think that this was done in order to make events like the well documented heat wave of 1896 disappear.

      Interestingly, I think that the CRU in the UK believes and uses the same temperature records that the BOM finds unreliable. Stevenson screens were installed in parts of Australia from the mid 1880s, and as far as I know, the liquid in glass thermometers were about the same accuracy and precision as those in use nearly 100 years later.

      Additionally, pre 1910, both population, and energy use per capita were both vastly reduced. It’s quite possible that temperature readings were far less influenced by the presence of humanity, at that time.

      I hope this is of some assistance. You might care to check if my assumptions are correct.


      • MF, I think your skepticism about suppressing the pre 1910 heat waves in Australia are well placed. Mind, no personal knowledge. Rely on Jo Nova, Jen Merohasy, and Kens Kingdom.

      • Rud

        The reason BOM don’t use pre 1910 records is because that is the change over date when they reckon all Australian temperatures were taken using a Stevenson screen. Prior to that there were four or five different sorts of screens that they reckon could be inaccurate


      • 1896 is yet to be matched for known heatwave in Eastern Australia. (Interesting that the Eastern US had its killer heat the same year.)

        Like the southern shocker of 1908, the 1896 NSW heat was observed, recorded and reported over a wide area, and the death toll from 1896 remains the second-highest for any natural disaster in Australia. (Highest by one or two deaths was the heatwave of 1939, but population was greater and reportage more efficient.)

        Here’s an interesting description of 1908 published in the wake of the 1939 heat disaster:

        Regardless of claims about Stevenson Screens (which, as Mike says, were pretty widespread by the late 19th century, because Australians are very keen adopters of such things) the BoM under activist David Jones hates old data which does not fit the script. They have ways of making it not-talk.

        The New Man at Year Zero is not to bother his head with musty old climate data and anecdotes. His Green Betters will tell him via the ABC media behemoth or through the pages of HuffPo and the Guardian all he needs to know about climate. (Hint: It’ll be worse than we thought.)

      • Mosomoso

        1896 and 1980? What a shame! Just missed the cut off point for definitively accurate gold plated Stevenson screen readings.

        Anyway, prior to 1910 they would be wildly exaggerated anecdotal accounts anyway, probably complied by drunken monks.


      • Tonyb, the 1908 heatwave was remarkable for its length. Certain inland readings are, in fact, hard to believe, but the official stories are grim enough.

        Some good came of it: after 3000 bodies had tried to cram into St Kilda Baths at the same time, mixed bathing was allowed thereafter.

        Amazingly, an England-Australia Test Match was going on. England won, against the likes of Victor Trumper, thus proving a certain old adage about mad dogs.

        There were savage heatwaves during the Tests of 1883 and 1898, both won by England. Judging from the killer Melbourne heatwaves of 2009 and 2014, things aren’t getting better…so keep sending your most rabid canines.

      • Bright-side-dark-side ter warming:

        e.g. Bright-side, more planet -greening. )

        e.g. Dark-side, more economy-draining subsidies
        on intermittent renewables (

        Flashback Eastern Oz heat-wave, 2008:

        e.g. Bright-side,’Some good came of it: After 3000
        bodies had tried to cram into St Kilda Baths at the
        same time, mixed bathing was allowed thereafter ).

        Dark-side: ‘Amazingly, an England-Australia Test Match
        was going on. England won, against the likes of Victor
        Trumper, thus proving a certain old adage about mad
        dogs.’ (

    • There are few instrumental records dating back even to the 1880s. TonyB’s “The Little Ice Age Thermometers” http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
      Covers them, as would be expected, there’s a fair number in Europe, from the far north of Norway (Vardo) across to Iceland ( Stykkisholmur, ), down to Gibraltar & Malta. A few in the North America, from Hudson Bay down to Nassau, limited data from Lima 1700+/- 50 years, then Beijing as Asia’s representative (Boy, does that show UHI or what?) then data from the Murray-Darwin Basin, Now, you can see why the Oz BoM don’t want to admit that’s even vaguely accurate!
      Temperature Data for Murray-Darling Basin, Australia
      The best one, is arguably the Central England Temperature record.
      That’s your lot. Any reconstructions of global temperatures going back that far are frankly wishful thinking or fraudulent.

      • “What is your problem Steven, with a pre homogenized global series of pristine proxies that covers 420,000 years?”

        Same problem I have with unicorns and leprachuans

        Vostok aint the globe.

    • Steven Mosher

      “Can anyone educate me, or provide articles, on the reliability of global temperatures from… let’s say… the 1880 period? It seems that many parts of the world would have had sketchy reporting back then, and even sketchier the farther you go back in time. At what time in the past do scientists have to rely on proxy data to approximate global temperatures.”

      The papers on the global temperature index will give you the uncertainties
      involved. But basically there are 2.

      1. The uncertainity due to measurement error ( which is small )
      2. The uncertainty due to coverage. which is large but gets smaller.

      #2. is the hardest for people to understand, but basically it comes down to this. Let’s say I have one station ( like CET) and I observe that it is
      3C in England. Can I use that information to PREDICT the temperature in other locations? Yes. That prediction will have an error. So I could take CET for the last 30 years, and use it to build a field of predictions. I can then go back 60 years ago and test that prediction. Turns out that predictions like this work pretty good out to 1000km or so, depends on the seasons and the direction. In the artic for example during the winter, the length might shrink to a 500km. or you might find your predictions have an east/west bias.. ( the wind blows hehe ) Moving on. Suppose I add an second station. If its within that 1000km ring around CET the error within that ring shrinks and the total area covered grows. As you go back in time the size of the error grows. ( see our paper for how HUGE it is in 1753 )
      So, reliability is really the wrong word. We rely on things for a purpose.
      So you cant assess reliability without defining a purpose. Its better just to speak of uncertainty or better yet prediction error. If I know X ( the measured temp at position xyz) how accurately can I predict the temperature at all unmeasured locations? And then what is my average error of prediction.

      “At what time in the past do scientists have to rely on proxy data to approximate global temperatures.”

      At ALL TIMES.

      1. Satellites dont measure temperature. They record digital counts.
      Digital counts have to be transformed and adjusted and infilled to create
      an approximation of temperature.
      2. Thermometers dont measure temperature. For example a LIG thermometer measures the expansion of liquid in a sealed tube
      3. Natural proxies.. same thing

      Each of these proxies has different issues.

  21. “I, (Richard Muller) for example, am not only convinced that global warming is real, and caused by humans, but I can make a compelling case that it is so…”

    And then, he claims being closest to being a “lukewarm.”, someone who knows the science and believes there are uncertainties.

    “Global warming is caused by humans”. I am perplexed, The known science to which Dr. Muller alludes: global warming is caused by humans, from my understanding seems to be where the greatest uncertainties lie. He acknowledges, yes, there are uncertainties. My query: are these uncertainties in the how much category? Or, what?

    He goes on to ask if others would view him as a denier, with the obvious retort that he is not. After all he is a scientist who speaks and convinces others of his viewpoint on AGW.

    Maybe those close to Dr. Muller know the nuances of such logic and would share his thinking. Or maybe Dr. Muller himself would arrive on this stage and provide a soliloquy on how humans are the cause of global warming.

    After all, given the Guardian’s article on how life is getting more pleasant with milder winters and really no increase in steamy hot and still summers, we all would like to know the science to which he is obviously privy that would convince, not only us here at Climate Etc., but the Northern Hemisphere population in aggregate, that his viewpoint is correct.

    • RiHo08,

      I wonder if there’s a bit of CYA here (by Muller).

      It would appear logical that humans affect the atmosphere, and hence the weather, as Lorenz pointed out so eloquently. Butterfly, tornado, and all that.

      Humans produce lots of heat from their activities, and this must be measurable, above the natural background, if one can establish what the natural background consists of.

      Therein lies the rub. We are dealing with a group of presumably chaotic systems, from the Earth’s core outwards. The fact that the Earth may cool overall (as it has done for billions of years), doesn’t preclude ephemeral warming and cooling events at differing locations, and of different magnitude.

      Not just on the surface, either. Heat under the surface changes intensity and location. Hot spots in the crust come and go. Are magma plumes the reason? Does the number of geothermal vents affect land surface temperatures via the sea? I don’t believe anyone knows – but some express their opinions as incontrovertible fact.

      I believe humans affect their environment, hence the weather, hence the climate. Where, when, how, and in what degree, I cannot say.

      Nor, by the look of it, can anyone else, no matter how much they stridently pretend otherwise. Just my opinion, of course. It’s worth what you just paid for it.


      • Mike Flynn

        “It would appear logical that humans affect (sic) the atmosphere, and hence the weather, as Lorenz pointed out so eloquently. Butterfly, tornado, and all that.”

        When you place you money on a roulette table number, you assume the wheel turns fair and that the house odds, even with its “0” and “00” to the house favor, that you have a chance. And yet you bet.

        No less true are the bets being placed on the climate global temperature graph, that, there is a connectivity of rising atmospheric CO2 and global temperature rise. What seems to make one want to take one’s bet off the table once the wheel is spinning, are the factors that may influence global temperatures such as: crops, forest clearing, ocean sequestration, tectonic plate movement, thermal vents, Milankovitch cycles, ocean circulations, abrupt climate changes as well as a host of not yet well characterized global climate influences.

        The prediction of the future of global temperatures a hundred years hence, is fraught with uncertainty and yet it seems, that scientists remain willing to trust their “gut” feelings, gut feeling characterized as such by labels like lukewarm which over-ride any scientific analysis. This reminds me of adolescent girls who continue to co-sleep with their infant children, lay their infants on their stomach against the advice of the medical establishment, believing their notions of child care are correct because they can feel it in their bones.

        Dr. Muller, in spite of protestations to the contrary, prefers to absorb himself into the climate consensus, because, he can feel it in his bones.

      • You have alluded to something I have been pondering for awhile: What is it that motivates the certain belief that, not only does man significantly affect temperatures, but that temperatures will increase exponentially into climate chaos in the future? That somehow the current climate has been altered such that some or all weather extremes are caused by man’s release of CO2?

        As background, it seems to me that in the last of the 20th century UN politicians, global environmental groups, and the large anti-capitalist movement saw a common cause. It was based on some simplistic models of the warming properties of greenhouse gasses as they might affect temperatures, extrapolated into extremes. With the warming trend of late-century, it seemed like the models had some validity. With no real pushback against rank speculation and sensationalist media depictions of extinctions, weather extremes and the like, many jumped on the bandwagon, especially liberal politicians.

        The momentum built rapidly and massive governmental funding began; not only to like-minded NGOs and scientific “experimenters” but also to growing groups of green business interests. The current unholy alliance of large governments, one-worlders, save-the-planet greens, childlike anti-capitalist movements and big business interests together assured massive, well-funded propaganda. With the addition of a liberal and sensationalist media drumming the constant refrain, little wonder significant numbers of people have swallowed the CWAG meme.

        Since the early part of the 21st century, lack of predicted warming levels and a growing educated and skillful skeptical blogosphere presented the beneficiaries of the current system with a messaging problem. So began the real pushback: IPCC escalation of obfuscation and misdirection. Massive national and international political propaganda (Obama and others’ exaggerations and outright lies). Political interference (John Holdren and various U.S. executive branch heads) with the government’s research and publications (NASA, NOAA, etc.) and preferential funding of compliant educational institutions. A large network of well-funded “bimbo eruption” teams are now in place to leap on any contrary studies or other information. This last has led to paid and unpaid character and career assassination of honorable climate science workers of every stripe.

        I am not confident that any minds will be changed in the near term. There is just too much damned inertia built up in the current body politic. Radical temperature declines are not to be hoped for.

      • And yet, the evangelists of CAGW would have us believe that their only agenda is the search for truth, the search for truth being the holy grail — the alpha and the omega — of all human existence.

    • global warming is caused by humans, from my understanding seems to be where the greatest uncertainties lie.

      That’s not my perspective.

      If you examine the all else being equal scenario ( same temperature profiles, humidity profiles, and cloud profiles ), then adding GHGs reduces outgoing radiance, which increases temperature, until higher temperatures restore the imbalance from the additional GHGs.

      Now, natural variability of global temperature is thought to be about +/- 0.5C. Temperatures are now crossing the +0.5C for the satellite era. There will always be variance, of long and shorter durations. But the tendency toward warming appears likely.

      But, temperature change is not climate change.

      Desertification appears to have been more common during the last glacial maximum than present. This is a contrary data point to the AGW=desertification claim.

      Winds appear to have been greater during the last glacial maximum than present. This is a contrary data point to the AGW=intense storms.

      Summer temperatures are less variable than winter temperatures. This appears to be contrary to the AGW=extreme temperatures meme.

      There are lots of falsehoods with the GW scares to be corrected, but warming appears likely.

      • Turbulent Eddie

        From your moniker, I would assume that you have an interest in fluid dynamics and the Navier-Stokes equations. As such, you are aware of the inadequacy of these concepts to explain our climate as incorporated in the General Circulation Models of climate.

        May I suggest, that the down dwelling radiation concept, part and parcel of the GCMs; i.e., one can add water vapor and CO2 radiation blanket effect together and “add up” to some projected temperature effect a hundred years hence, may be somewhat naive. It is assumed that most of the relevant factors and their mechanisms to the so-called Green House Effect are known and characterized.

        Physics is a wonderful intellectual and mind pondering set of principles, and when used, have guided many civilization advances. And yet, personally, I have a “yes, but” sense that all is no yet known, and, it is this nagging unknown unknowns that suggest to me at least, that much more is yet to come and be more relevant than anything we have seen in the past.

        If there is a need for action or inaction of some sort, that is a political posture to be fought over at conventions, board rooms, and “smoke filled boiler rooms.” (Pierre water instead of whiskey and incense instead of cigars).

        Given what little I know, and given the vast amount I don’t know, I am willing to entertain the possibility that there is much more to this story of heaven and earth that makes what appears to be a simple mathematical manipulation an error.

        Hence, my reluctance to accede that a complex system can be governed by one control knob.

    • Steven Mosher

      “Or maybe Dr. Muller himself would arrive on this stage and provide a soliloquy on how humans are the cause of global warming.”


      • Maybe you did not see my question to you, on what you would make of the Vostok Ice? As a proxy.

      • Steven Mosher

        I presume you are speaking in Dr. Muller’s stead.

        Thank you for the BEST rendition of Global Surface Temperatures.

        I am interested in the red downward spikes in the CO2 conc./volcanic activity portion of the graph. As I interpret what is presented, the injected materials into the Atmosphere including the Stratosphere by volcanos consistently produces a downward spike. This suggests to me that each volcanic release always produces albedo enhancing sunlight reflection and that the water vapor and CO2 and whatever else GHG are insufficient to mitigate, each and every time the global cooling effect of the sulfates and particles. The consistency of this observation is interesting.

        I also notice that there is not another spike upward; i.e., after the eruption particles rain out of the atmosphere from the CO2 remaining in the atmosphere; i.e., a heat spike. As I understand it, CO2 is a long lived gas in the atmosphere and I would have expected at least some residual CO2 influence as recorded in BEST. I expected the albedo influence as being always evident and somewhat surprised that the post eruption green house gas influence at least once in a while be evident.

        Again, thank you for your providing, at least for me, food for thought.

      • “Maybe you did not see my question to you, on what you would make of the Vostok Ice? As a proxy.”

        Its a proxy

        As a continent antarctica has a low correlation with the rest of the globe
        ( around .8 )

        North America has a correlation of .98 ( for comparison )

        I’d also look at EPICA

        The point being this. Antarctica aint the globe.
        and if you use it to predict the globe, well there is error involved.
        The same as if you used the temperature at your house to infer the temperature at my house.
        The amount of error depends on the correlation.

      • If the information collected is consistent, as to CO2 levels and a value for Temperature over 420K years, you don’t even worry about a global T. It’s just the plot on the graph, see the waves? There you go. You all want to see a thousand points of light when all you need is one candle.

      • The two graph do not fit, save for extreme volcanoes.

      • The cooling resulting from the volcanic eruptions in the graph could have resulted in a slight initial reduction in atmospheric CO2.

      • In the timescales we are talking about they should all naturally smooth out as time passes. Cycles of eruptions might be discerned but I think CO2 & T value should be the basis alone. The fewer the variables the more consistent the record…

      • maksimovich1

        The point being this. Antarctica aint the globe.
        and if you use it to predict the globe, well there is error involved.

        Mosher in denial again. The territory precede the Map!
        ie SCAR.

        A detailed understanding of past climate is essential for a more complete understanding of climate variability and the forces that control future change and responses to change. As the continent most remote from direct human influence, Antarctica is an ideal location to study local-to-global scale climate change. There is no other approach or experiment that can provide perspectives across a range of time scales other than deciphering past climate change through proxies archived in ice and sedimentary records.

        As Baudrillard suggests with the rise of the Mosherians.

        The transition from signs which dissimulate something to signs which dissimulate that there is nothing, marks the decisive turning point. The first implies a theology of truth and secrecy (to which the notion of ideology still belongs). The second inaugurates an age of simulacra and simulation, in which there is no longer any God to recognize his own, nor any last judgment to separate truth from false, the real from its artificial resurrection, since everything is already dead and risen in advance

      • Steven Mosher

        Mosher in denial again. The territory precede the Map!
        ie SCAR.

        Been there done that.

        The correlation between the continental temperature of antarctica and the globe is .8
        For North America its .98

        Just the facts.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Correlation does not imply causation.

        Particularly so, if you are examining something like purported surface temperatures (which they aren’t, of course), which obviously depend on energy absorbed and emitted by the surface.

        By dint of amateurish calculation of temperatures, and amateurish assumptions about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, one might come up with a short term correlation which is, in fact, a correlation which provides precisely no explanations. It is probably completely meaningless, and if this be the case, then anyone claiming otherwise is either a fool, or a fraud.

        There are many factors which affect the instantaneous temperature of the “surface”. Standing in the Sun, walking barefoot on a dark road surface, walking barefoot in the snow, or on the sand of a tropical desert at midday or midnight, might provide some inkling into the non effect of CO2 on daily temperatures, or even seasonal temperatures.

        Why do you not try doing some real science (rather than realclimate science)? Some repeatable experiments, which provide measurable confirmation of calculations derived from your hypothesis? If you have none, then you are promoting Feynman’s cargo cult science, or employing sympathetic magic in an attempt to divine the future.

        Do some science. If it doesn’t support your hypothesis, you erred. Repetitious manipulation is of past temperatures is not science. Anybody claiming otherwise is probably proclaiming themselves to be a climatologist or a climate scientist, or both. How hard can it be to do some real science?


      • Mosher

        Thanks for the .98 correlation for NA. Do you have similar correlations for the other continents such as SA, Asia, Europe and Australia?

      • > As Baudrillard suggests

        Go po-mo team Denizens!

  22. Pachauri dismissed. I suppose you’d say he got his
    come-uppance, though with a lump sum to send him
    on his way, hmmph.

    • Beth, I would have sent him packing from any of my organizations long ago. No severance. Never had to deal with this directly, because we were always on watch for it in the US and everybody knew fatal consequences.
      Sometimes, senior business people SHOULD be ruthless. This was definitely one of those times. Lump sum severance indeed!
      Regards from an older semi-retired US senior business type. I figure responsible for about 14000 dismissal ‘blood on my hands’ severances in just two corporations over my career covering four corps. Once had to let 14 people go personally in one afternoon. Face to face. Long day. And, you know what, they all knew they ‘deserved’ it, all knew it was ‘coming’, and only one tried to mount a feeble protest. Some things you never forget.

      • Rudd,
        Even a serf understands that things hafta werk
        or the centre does not hold. Say, how will Europe
        sack the unelected brussels-men?

      • Sorry, ‘Rud.’ … No wunder I’m unemployed.

      • Beth

        Unemployed? Has your master not sold you on to a new Lord? Has he died? Do you still have access to your land where you can grow turnips?

        “The serf’s feudal contract[change | change source]

        The serfs had a feudal contract, just like a baron or a knight. A serf’s feudal contract was that he would live on and work a piece of land held by his Lord. The serf would get protection in return.

        During that time, people said that a serf “worked for all”, a knight or baron “fought for all” and a churchman “prayed for all.” Everyone had his place and all was right with God’s world. The serf did not have as good a position as the knights or barons, but was better than slavery. Serfs had some rights in the feudal contract.

        A manorial Lord could not sell his serfs like Romans can sell their slaves. If his Lord sold some land, the serf of that land went with it to serve their new Lord. A serf could not leave his lands without permission. A serf could not sell his lands.”


      • Tony,
        Will you represent me at law? I could pay you in
        … umm …turnips and truffles.

  23. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, revisited

    Wow! That is quite a review. And not paywalled.

  24. Just as a matter of curiosity.

    If you burn something like coal (with enough air, of course), you get at a minimum, CO2 plus H2O. Unsurprisingly, these are the things necessary for plant life.

    The emphasis seems to be on CO2, even though the ratio between the two varies between one to one, and approximately one to three.

    I wonder if this is due to the apparent Warmist fixation on burning dirty, evil, coal, and realising that it’s easier to demonise CO2 because it contains filthy, black, evil carbon.

    Would they as likely demonise common salt because it’s made of highly flammable sodium, and the deadly terrorist mad dictator killing his own people poison gas chlorine?

    I doubt it. Delusional loonies, Warmists. Want to rid Gaia of parasitic humanity, but are too terrified to state their real intentions.

    Take the CO2 from the atmosphere, and we all die. Oh happy Gaia!


  25. Trends. They end.

    Our extrapolators won’t even give them a decent burial, but grab a new lot of trends to squeeze while the corpses of the old are barely cool. They always say it will last this time! This time will be different!

    Our extrapolators have one-track minds. Bunch of alley-cats.

  26. I believe there is a serious flaw in Richard Muller’s post ‘The Classifications of Climate Change Thinkers‘.

    The flaw is that his response is all about down-in-the’weeds science that is of no use for policy analysis.

    He classify’s the people who “consider the alarmists’ proposals dangerous threats to our economy” as ‘Deniers’.

    On that basis I would suggest Richard Muller’s classification demonstrates he is “ignorant” of what is relevant for policy analysis. Since Muller is a repetitive advocate for policy action to combat human caused climate change and to reduce GHG emissions, but clearly has no understanding of what information is relevant for policy analysis, I’d suggest it is Muller who is the “Denier”. He is a denier of the relevant facts.

    The relevant facts are that:

    1. There is no convincing evidence that advocated mitigation policies will do more harm than good

    2. There is no convincing evidence that the advocated mitigation polices will deliver any benefits in terms of reduced climate damages at all;

    3. However, the economic costs of the advocated mitigation policies could total in the hundreds of trillions of dollars globally by 2100 (in 2012 US$). If the acceleration in the cost of “the Climate Industry” continues as it has been, the total cost for no benefit) could total around a quadrillion dollars globally by 2100.

    Ignoring these realities are true “Denial” (in my humble opinion of course).

    • The link to Richard Muller’s post ‘The Classifications of Climate Change Thinkers‘ is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/the-classifications-of-cl_b_9729598.html

    • That is so scary. That many trillions.

    • I disagree with opinions like Mr. Lang’s. When one couples two things: (A) Dr. Curry’s views on TCR (a lukewarmer view); and (B) “Fast Mitigation” (which Dr. Curry also has spoken highly of) — one has a very positive story.

      This week, USA Today has an article on “Fast Mitigation” (methane, black carbon, smog, HFC’s): http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/22/paris-climate-agreement-super-pollutants-soot-ozone-column/83280116/

      The detailed UN Study which provides science based arguments (encompassing health benefits of less polluted [e.g., PM] air) for “Fast Mitigation” is at: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/BlackCarbon_report.pdf

      Still looking for people here at CE to refute Dr. Molina’s (Nobel Prize on ozone depletion) 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.”

      • Another “Low to No Regrets” policy — The French proposal to increase soil carbon levels by 0.4%: https://youtu.be/NxqBzrx9yIE

      • The French proposal (increasing soil carbon levels 0.4% each year) says that we could store 75% of GHG emissions. Can anyone refute this?

        One obvious question would be in soil science — where there are two fractions: (1) a stable fraction (like biochar from substoichiometric biomass gasification); (2) an active fraction (e.g., green chop material).

      • Segrest,

        I disagree with opinions like Mr. Lang’s

        But you didn’t say why you disagree. Your rant is irrelevant to my point. Clearly you have no valid reason for disagreeing, because, if you did, you would have stated it and supported your opinion with valid, relevant evidence.

      • Can anyone refute this:
        It’s implementing it. A lot of farming is row crops, a corn and soybean rotation, and no cover crops. That’s one way to make money. I buy it that carbon has left the soil. Of course big oil might be less liable. When did farmers know of this? Adding wheat into this two crop rotation is going to have some advantages. Might help restore some soil. My second cousin and least talked of a sweet pea/soybean double crop and I know it does happen in Renville County, thank you Green Giant. Wheat is what they used to call drilled into the ground. I suppose you can plant grass the same way. Wheat seems to meet the definition of a ground cover. To look at trying to adapt and make money and have valuable soil there’s soybeen/winter wheat double cropping:
        The above is in Missouri where it’s pretty warm. Might be a stretch for Minnesota. Then there’s corn to ethanol. Got windmilled on that one. Corn seems to extract carbon from the soil. To my list of cautions that should have been taken let’s add ethanol subsidies.

      • To add to what I wrote, I know of a farmer who sold a permanent easement. He has to grow grass and only that. Without really knowing, I explained it as rebuilding the turf that I suppose was there 200 years ago. The land was assumed to be fertile grassland back then. Seems this farmer is helping with the war on CO2 and rebuilding the soil. His land has a Minnesota River tributary running through it which probably why the easement was offered. There are some cattle on the land which I suppose are acting as stand in Buffalo. Perhaps they could the farmer some more money by building a dam or meanders to flood some low land automatically in the Spring to relieve flooding pressure seen along the Minnesota River. This seems like low tech, understood, settled science that can be rolled out now.

    • Steven Mosher

      Muller is a proponent of Nuclear.
      read more. comment less

      • Mosje3r,

        How on earth is that stupid comment a relevant response to the point? Learn to read before making stupid comments, dummy.

      • Peter Lang,

        As suggested in another post, he may be employing wrongthink, or fakethink. I’ll go with warmthink – that way, anything he says can mean anything he wants, at any time he wants.

        Convenient, huh?


  27. It’s not so much that independent science is muzzled but that climate science isn’t science at all.

    It’s the motions of science but with no adult peer review.

  28. David Wojick

    Regarding http://www.thegwpf.com/faulty-climate-models-drought-forecasts-are-hardly-trustworthy/
    “Hardly trustworthy” is a gross understatement. They found no evidence of the predicted changes. Normally this would simply falsify a model but not in the climate game, where models rule. I have semantic evidence that more than half of all the modeling done in all of science is done in climate. That is a huge level of concentration. We need more actual science and less modeling.

    • David,

      You mean we need a science based more on evidence and less on theory?

      Stephen Toulmin, I believe, would agree:

      The victory of Rationalism was regarded as confirming Pythagoras’ insight that any theory of mathematical power and elegance will have practical application in human experience.

      In the three hundred years after 1660, the natural sciences did not march along a royal road, defined by a rational method. They moved in a zigzag, alternating the rationalist methods of Newton’s mathematics and the empiricist methods of Bacon’s naturalism.

      The triumph of Newtonian physics was, thus, a vote for theoretical cosmology, not for practical dividends; and the ideas of Newtonian theory were shaped by a concern for intellectual coherence with a respectable picture of God’s material creation, as obeying Divine laws….

      Using our understanding of Nature to increase comfort, or to reduce pain, was secondary to the central spiritual goal of Science. Rejecting in both method and spirit Bacon’s vision of a humanly fruitful science, Descartes and Newton set out to build mathematical structures, and looked to Science for theological, not technological, dividends.

      — STEPHEN TOULMIN, Cosmopolis

      • David Wojick

        Not exactly. I mean science not based on an entrenched paradigm. On the theory side there is still plenty to do, especially exploring the various hypotheses related to natural variability. This is how models should be used. But yes there should be a lot more empiricism.

        The real problem is that the modelers have shifted into a sort of operational mode, leaving scientific research behind. They are trying to be forecasters. Most of the so-called research is focused on improving the existing models for the purpose of forecasting. See http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ which coordinates international modeling..

  29. “Global surface temperatures are likely to warm by between 0.3 °C and 4.8 °C by the end of this century relative to the end of the last, depending on modelling choices which reflect differences in the amount of anthropogenic forcing in different scenarios”

    Am I reading this the wrong way? The likelihood of temperature increases is dependent on model choices? It seems the likelihood is what it is, and is independent of the models or model choices. One may estimate a likelihood based on models.

    I think it’s an important distinction. Saying the likelihood is based on model choices gives too much power, a kind of clairvoyant accuracy, to the models.

    To write this better, I would state:

    Models indicate temperatures are likely to warm by between 0.3 . . .


    • The bigger problem is “temperature inflation”.

      GISS has increased temperatures 0.24°C in the last 8 years (0.3°C per decade). By 2050 GISS CGAGW (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming) will increase global temperatures a further 0.75°C for a total of 0.99°C. By 2100 GISS “adjustments” will have increased the temperature a further 1.5°C for a total of 2.49°C.

      We would have to actually cool the planet over half a degree by 2100 to stay under the IPCC 2°C target, let alone have any additional warming. This makes the IPCC target unviable.

      Until the problem of temperature inflation is solved it is pointless to do anything about global warming.

      • The bigger problem is “temperature inflation”.

        GISS has increased temperatures 0.24°C in the last 8 years (0.3°C per decade). By 2050 GISS CGAGW (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming) will increase global temperatures a further 0.75°C for a total of 0.99°C. By 2100 GISS “adjustments” will have increased the temperature a further 1.5°C for a total of 2.49°C.

        PA, this might be where the heart of the conspiracy lies. If you control the data, you don’t have to worry about being wrong The alarmists have taken over the surface data sets except for UAH. I wouldn’t be surprised if they are manipulating the other datasets such as sea level rise to promote the cause. Scary stuff

      • https://i.imgur.com/sQq6c4I.gif

        I just love this graph. It shows that the adjustments are yet another Obamanation.

        It isn’t a conspiracy per se. When the commander and chief tells the executive branch to jump, some jump immediately (like NOAA), some like GISS, ask “How high?”

        Like anything involving bureaucrats it is ugly and amateurish.

        But in the end they all jump.

      • You mean the administration conspired with NOAA to increase the warming found in the data? I am not clear on what you are insinuating. Can you be more specific what the orders were?. I also wonder who knows this is all fraud and wouldn’t people who work in the agency have to conspire to generate the fraudulent results?

      • Joseph | April 24, 2016 at 3:22 pm |
        You mean the administration conspired with NOAA to increase the warming found in the data?

        Huh? You haven’t been around DC much.

        1. If you want to claim that the changes are “innocent” you have to explain why the data wasn’t adjusted during the Bush Administration. And it provably wasn’t jacked up 0.24°C during the Bush Administration.

        2. The NOAA debacle illustrates the problem. There was no reason for it to be like pulling teeth to get information from NOAA. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) was largely correct. Still took him a long while and wasted a lot of his time.

        The action by NOAA was to some extent the equivalent of a “brushback” in baseball, to discourage further digging.

        The solution is simple. Mandate by law the installation of an online read-only portal to all the NOAA email servers so everyone can read their emails and next time the Honorable Mr. Smith won’t have ask. This would also make NOAA more responsive to polite requests in the future. There is no reason all of NOAA’s email isn’t available online. That is real transparency.

        3. Since this is to some extent a policy question involving the current oval office occupant and his discussions with his deputies he could claim executive privilege and drag this out ’til doomsday (and the NOAA debacle indicates this is exactly what would happen).

        So, after Trump is elected we might get the real skinny.

        1. What was done wasn’t illegal.
        2. Adjusting data within the error bounds (mostly) of a fictitious index with some CYA justification is at worst a little embarrassing.

        Obama ignores the constitution, to him tweaking data to support policy is small potatoes.

      • If you want to claim that the changes are “innocent”

        What do you mean by “innocent?” They weren’t justified?

        Adjusting data within the error bounds (mostly) of a fictitious index with some CYA justification is at worst a little embarrassing.

        So no fraud? You are arguing they are merely a bunch of incompetents. And I am still not seeing the connection between the adjustments by NOAA and Obama.

      • https://i.imgur.com/Q9DZHKp.gif

        Obama took the public oath of office January 20, 2009 (a Tuesday). He was sworn in privately in the Map Room on January 21.

        February 2009 is 12 days after January 20, 2009 and 11 days after January 21.

  30. The drive is on to pin the blame for the Zika outbreak on AGW:

    Carried by the Aedes aegypti mosquito, Zika apparently arose in Uganda in the 1940s and occurred only episodically until 2015, when it began to spread explosively in Brazil, mainly in densely crowded urban areas.

    Like other mosquitoes, which are vectors for many diseases, Aedes aegypti thrives in a warm climate, and, as nearly all experts now agree, the world’s climate is steadily growing warmer because of human activity.



    The author then recites the entire litany of talking points Team Green has cooked up in the past:

    The…increase in greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere, causes the climate to warm, and sea levels to rise as glaciers melt. Atmospheric carbon dioxide, the most important of the greenhouse gases, reached a record 398 parts per million (ppm) in 2015, up from 285 ppm in 1850. Much of the carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans, which causes them to become more acidic and threatens the marine food chain on which we all depend. Droughts are more frequent and deserts are expanding. Floods and severe storms are also more frequent as the atmosphere warms.

    And look at the credentials of this “expert”:

    Marcia Angell, M.D. is a senior lecturer on social medicine at the Harvard Medical School and former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine.

    But that doesn’t keep her from trotting out the same old hackneyed list of scapegoats that have prevented the “transition” from happening:

    Nearly everyone now acknowledges that global warming is real and caused by human activity. There are very few “deniers” left, except among paid consultants to oil companies and on the Republican side of the aisle in Congress….

    Proposals to accomplish a serious transition to a sustainable economy are invariably countered by massive lobbying by business elites and more general objections that this will cost jobs and limit economic growth.

    Angell finally works around to the ultimate goal:

    We need a shift that radically reconceives prosperity and how we define it. To survive as well-functioning, civilized communities in a static global population, there will inevitably have to be some redistribution of wealth, both within countries and across them. We might have to make do with less—certainly with less as traditionally understood—and distribute it more equitably. Just as the notion of the supreme nation-state needs modification, so, too, does our devotion to unfettered capitalism and the grail of GDP growth. While politically, my solutions are a nonstarter, that could change….

    I do know that we cannot continue as we are now, and that small efforts at the margins are not enough. My purpose is to convey a sense of urgency and the reasons for it.


    • Except for the fact the folks alarmed about global warming have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to through out any sort of scary claim, no matter how much or how little real evidence exists to back them up, I would be amazed at how a thoroughly false story line like the spread of tropical diseases is still being trotted out.

      Does anyone here truly believe zika “exploded” in Brazil because it is a bit warmer? And because it is a bit warmer mosquitos are thriving where before they didn’t?

      I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with Brazil’s dense population or their recent economic problems.

      Now if we could only figure out a method to kill mosquitos.

  31. The two links about more pleasant weather and milder winters in the U.S. covered the years 1974 to 2013. This leaves out two of the more unpleasant winters in recent times fin 2014 and 2015. That might have been justified but cutting off the date prior to memorable winters reminds me of another paper released in the last year that showed how the SLR had accelerated dramatically at several locations along the east coast for several years leading up to the cut off period of 2009. Being the skeptic that I am I looked up the NOAA tidal gauges for those sites in the study. And what did I find? Since 2009 the sea levels had dropped equally as dramatically. Given the cyclical nature of SLR that is to be expected. But .how many readers of the breathless press releases and articles in the MSM know that. The authors did get their 15 minutes of fame, though, regardless of the significance of the study.

    • Could we please have your 150K year plot?

      • Just as soon as you have a point.

      • Oh, that’s right.

      • Steven Mosher

        global temperature exists Arch?
        for 150K years?

      • Read Harder Steven, I hope the link that I provided some time back showing the 420K Vostok plot. CO2 and a value for temperature, it is a random location which produces data without bias and has been studied by qualified scientists who look like they worked in controlled conditions. Based on their best efforts they have provided a plot that I feel meets the needs to understand AGW. When anyone looks at their representation of climate using their graphs you see cycles repeated over and over again in the past. Showing us that 1750-2015 will never be enough consistent data to understand the weather system and how it moves or why over thousands of years changing the climate wherever it goes. Do you mind telling me what the problem is with Vostok?

      • Never mind that. What’s the linear trend 1996 to 2001?

      • I mean in Virginia Key high water level anomalies. How do they compare to the last 5-year trend?

    • JCH,

      The paper’s behind a paywall, but –

      “We also find that the average vertical motion for the 147 locations measured by GPS is subsidence, whereas the average GIA prediction is zero.”

      Once again it appears scientific predictions may go astray. Even, as appears in this case, where they are based on real science. As for unreal science, or realclimate science, the predictions may be even more inaccurate.

      Maybe you can check it out, and get back to me. I don’t know where the 147 locations are. Any in Florida?


  32. The four links depicting various problems with science should be no surprise to anyone familiar with the social sciences. The fidelity of findings and replication challenges have dogged psychology and social research for a long time. I see no reason why the hard sciences and particularly climate science should feel immune to weaknesses long identified in other fields. When IBM gets Watson to take over the sciences, maybe we will feel secure. Until then, humans with all the emotional baggage and aberrant behavior inherent in their research still rule.

    • Cerescokid,

      I agree. However, the links show that the replication crisis has expanded beyond the social sciences. Nutrition and biomedical research are as severely hit.

      The problems in biomedical studies are especially disturbing because it’s among the most methodologically sophisticated (in some ways).

  33. San Francisco will require new buildings to install solar panels

    The solar power industry is about to get a big boost in San Francisco. On April 19, the city’s Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to become the first major US metropolitan area requiring that new buildings install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels on their roofs….

    The Better Roofs Ordinance, introduced by supervisor Scott Wiener, is expected to add 50,000 solar panels and avert 26.3 million tons of carbon dioxide annually—equivalent to emissions from 5,000 cars driven for a year—just based on construction already in the pipeline, according to the bill’s supporters.

    Only two other US cities, Lancaster and Sebastopol, both in California, have similar laws on the books. New York is considering mandatory installation of PV on some of its 4,000 municipal buildings.

  34. Steve
    Your 6 points are a combination of facts and your conclusions.

    “The rise in c02 is due to man”-It is true that humans started the process but it is also true that additional CO2 is released naturally when temps start to rise.

    “The Best estimates for warming are 1.5C to 4.5C of doubling – If you wrote “Best” as associated with “Berkeley Earth” that may be factually correct but fairly meaningless. I disagree that 1.5 is the appropriate lower range for the estimate.

    You seem to consider that the probability of more CO2 leading to a worse climate to be similar to an ISIS terrorist causing harm. I do not.

    The overwhelming percentage of “net harm” predicted to result from warmer conditions comes about due to the predicted very significant increase in the rate of rise in sea level. There is no reliable evidence that this feared change is occurring. If the current rate of rise does not more than double it is hard to build a credible case that AGW is harmful.

    “. Climate change poses a risk.”—I agree. Imo the best, most cost effective solution is the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure.

    “it still makes sense to push for less coal and more nuclear.” – Generally I agree, but would put a higher priority on energy independence than CO2 reduction.

    “ In short there are things we should be doing anyway that also protect against the hard to quantify risks of climate change.” – Agreed again generally. Generally, spending much to mitigate CO2 emissions is a poor use of limited resources.

    • Steven Mosher

      ““The Best estimates for warming are 1.5C to 4.5C of doubling – If you wrote “Best” as associated with “Berkeley Earth” that may be factually correct but fairly meaningless. I disagree that 1.5 is the appropriate lower range for the estimate.”

      Nobody Cares if you disagree. Do science. Doubt your own conclusions.
      publish your work (anywhere). Then explain why everyone else is wrong.
      Then people may read what you write and respond to the claim.
      If you make a compelling case people will shift to your position.
      If its not compelling, your work will collect dust.
      who know you might be Galileo, but you know he actually stood up for what he believed and showed his work.

      • Maybe you don’t like the name, Vostok?

      • davideisenstadt

        Whats up mosh?
        Between projects at work?
        Really getting pissy over someone who feels that recent estimates based on observations are more accurate than the product of GCMs is juvenile.
        You really dont know that “Nobody Craes if you disagree”
        There may be in this universe one sentient being other than him who cares that he disagrees…

        “What are you, a God?
        “Then Die!”

        apologies to ghost busters, of course.


      • “Then explain why everyone else is wrong.”

        Steve- Everyone does not conclude that the bounds for warming are 1.5C to 4.5C for doubling- you obviously do- and that is your opinion. It is by no means undisputed science and it is no nearly as important as what occurs where as a RESULT.

        People claimto be sure of far more when it comes to the climate than is appropriate

    • “It is true that humans started the process but it is also true that additional CO2 is released naturally when temps start to rise.”

      The evidence would appear to be just the opposite. Net of all reservoirs, as temperatures have risen, nature is taking up, not releasing, more CO2:

      That would appear to be because of the additional availability of CO2 for life forms ( especially phytoplankton ) to use ( fertilization ) and not because of temperature, never the less, the correlation of uptake and global average temperature persists.

    • “. Climate change poses a risk.”
      This is a claim not based on climatology.

      Weather and climate are not significant causes of death.

      Real significant causes if death: diabetes, cancer, heart disease et. al. all have behavioral aspects made of choices. Thus humans living freely are a hugely more significant risk to themselves than climate change is,
      so many people completely lack perspective. Temperatures are rising, to be sure, but it’s not even clear that warming at present rates is not a even a net benefit to humans for a century or two.

      In any event, it doesn’t really matter. Population has already started to bust. Climate change is nothing more than a distraction for the misguided hysterical.

      “it still makes sense to push for less coal and more nuclear.”
      It’s largely irrelevant. Cheap natural gas has already made coal irrelevant. Between shrinking population, aging population, technology, and natural gas, nearly all advanced economies already have falling CO2 emissions, and the undeveloped economies are imitating the advanced, so the trends are clear.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Weather and climate are not significant causes of death.”

        non sequitor

      • Climate change is nothing more than a distraction for the misguided hysterical.

        I believe someone who is truly skeptical would not be so certain about something that your side claims is surrounded by uncertainty.

      • Joseph,

        Climate is the average of weather, according to the IPCC. Weather changes, therefore so does climate.

        Absolute certainty. Only a misguided hysterical would believe otherwise – for example, a Warmist. Maybe you are using the Warmist definition of climate, which is defined as anything you want it to be at the time.

        I’m on the side of fact. Anything else is wishful thinking, wouldn’t you agree?


  35. David Wojick

    Fish will be “struggling to breath”, latest scare says. From the master scaremongers at NCAR (funded by NSF):

  36. RIP Bill Gray [link]
    I have met and talked to Bill Gray twice. I explained my short version of Pope’s Climate Theory, last year, at the Heartland Climate Conference in Washington DC. He did not say it is correct, but he did say it is plausible.
    When bad weather threatened Houston, I heard Dr. Neil Frank say on TV, that he called Bill Gray to consult about it. He was not a speaker at this conference, but he did ask questions and make comments.