Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Influence of the Madden-Julian Oscillation on Northern Hemisphere Winter Blocking [link]

Polarization may cause climate communication to backfire [link]

Was Mars once host to hydrothermal springs? [link]

What’s going on with the Earth’s magnetic field? [link]

The impact of structural error on parameter constraint in a climate model [link]

Who’s downloading pirated papers? Everyone. [link]

Australia is getting a new climate research center.  Here’s why scientists are unhappy about it [link]

Atlantic Ocean showing signs of a significant long-term shift in temperatures from warm-to-cold [link]

Nature: Large parts of the Greenland ice sheet are melting from below [link]

Kingdom-busting volcanoes linked to the rise of the Roman Empire [link]

Great article about cognitive biases and how our brains constantly trick us [link]

What happens to water under Greenland’s glaciers? A new study looks at water pressure & flow paths: [link]

The psychology behind worries about the environment [link]

WaPo: Tuesday’s severe weather ‘bust’ (in U.S.) a communication wake-up call. by @angelafritz (former @curryja student) [link]

Tiny Ocean Animals Get ‘Drunk’ on Algae, Act Crazy [link]

Climate studies using 600 yr old data from Japanese monks: [link]

Modeling Claim: Widespread loss of ocean oxygen to become noticeable in 2030s [link]

Gambling has influenced scientific thinking, from game theory & statistics to chaos theory & AI. [link]

Studies suggest volcanic activity has profound long term impact on climate [link]

The World’s Best Long Range Weather Model Just Got Better [link]

Uncertainty is a fact of life. Get used to it. [link]

Reversing the legacy of junk science in the courtroom [link]

The Arctic is melting – and scientists just lost a key tool to observe it [link]

Teaching people climate science dampens public concern [link]

Idling diesel engines may produce dangerous pollutant [link]

Arctic sea ice could shrink to record low this summer [link]

Trial, error and the God complex [link] (interesting Ted talk)

Does knowledge drive climate concern? It depends what you mean by ‘knowledge’ – new in @NatureClimate [link]

Analysis by Andrew Montford: Droughts are not getting worse and they are not causing wars. [link]

Researchers discover fate of melting glacial ice in Greenland [link]

#JClimate paper analyzes hydrological cycle sensitivity to internal #climate variability vs human #climatechange. [link]

Who reads science blogs? The answer WILL surprise you: [link]

Bookmark this – never know when you might need it. How to survive as a whistleblower: [link]

There is an upward publication bias for estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity [link] …

In a nutshell, we’re trying to uncover the secret life of clouds” [link]

Las Vegas is betting that it can become the Silicon Valley of water [link]

Projecting the Impacts of Rising CO2 on Future Crop Yields in Germany [link]

 

 

310 responses to “Week in review – science edition

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

  2. “Australia is getting a new climate research center.
    Here’s why scientists are unhappy about it.”

    If anyone should have an idea on sea level rise, it should be the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS).

    No one there is in a hurry to move to the hills:

    “Construction of the new $45 million Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) building on Hobart’s waterfront is complete.
    Staff and students began moving into the building on Wednesday 11 December. 2013.”

    http://www.utas.edu.au/commercial-services-development/building-works/completed-projects/institute-for-marine-and-antarctic-studies-imas

    Then again, how happy can a Doomsday Global Warming scientist be when every day is potentially a 97% climate doomsday:

    Climate Change Is Already Here, Says Massive Government Report
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/national-climate-assessment_n_5270541.html?section=australia

    “If every person in favour of a carbon tax, and frets about over-population being a problem just went to their doctor for an assisted suicide note, the planet could be saved.”

    • Tell ’em to go and visit the Isle of the Dead, only 90 minutes
      minutes drive from Hobart, check out the historic sea-level
      bench mark showing zilch rise since 1846,.Obs trump mods.

      http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/

      • beththeserf,

        “By contrast, the vertical motion of the Australian continental crust is much less well known and observations and theory appear to be in conflict. Recent GPS measurements have suggested the vertical motion of the crust at about a dozen sites across Australia is between zero and -1 mm/yr (Altamimi et al., 2011; Burgette et al., 2013; King et al., 2012; Santamaria-Gomez et al., 2012). By contrast, large scale geophysical models and tectonic theory suggest the motion of the crust should be much closer to zero or slightly positive (Mitrovica and Milne, 2002; Tamisiea and Mitrovica, 2011). If the observations are correct this suggests the existence of an unknown large-scale geophysical phenomena; if the observations are biased they will in turn bias estimates of sea level change around the Australian coastline and suggest implications for such measurements globally.”

        At least real scientists (as opposed to realclimate scientists) compare the models with observations, discover disagreement, and admit a lack of knowledge about the cause. Not so climatologists. They change the data, claim that trees talk to them, and dismiss physical laws as irrelevant. If this fails, they endeavour to suppress dissent by calling for incarceration or even execution for dissenters.

        Ah, would that I were a climatologist. Omniscient, omnipotent, revered and worshipped by all! But then, I return to reality, unlike the climatologists who continue to live in their fantasy world.

        Yours in servility,

        Cheers.

      • In servility? Hey, quite right! )

      • Stop warmist honour shillings!

    • As an intransignet public ignores the climatariat’s warnings of pending apocalypse, and world oil demand creeps inexorably upwards, the weeping and gnashing of teeth reaches new heights.

      Thanks for the link. Some excerpts:

      Climate Change Is Already Here, Says Massive Government Report

      WASHINGTON -– Climate change is no longer a distant threat, but a real and present danger in the United States, according to a government report issued Tuesday.

      “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” the report says in its introduction. The full report, at more than 800 pages, is the most comprehensive look at the effects of climate change in the U.S. to date…

      The report includes regional and sectoral breakdowns of current and anticipated impacts, which have implications for infrastructure, agriculture, human health, and access to water.

      Those impacts include increased severity of heat waves and heavier downpours. On the coasts, sea level rise is already contributing to increased flooding during high tides and storms, the report notes. And in the West, conditions are getting hotter and drier, and the snowpack is melting earlier in the year, extending wildfire season….

      Heat waves are already the top cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S., and that will only get worse….

      But not to worry, there is salvation:

      While the outlook could be considered bleak, Radley Horton, a scientist at Columbia University Earth Institute’s Center for Climate Systems Research and the lead author for the assessment’s chapter on the Northeast, said the report “delves into much more detail about opportunities to address climate change.”

      “The climate hazards are looking as severe as ever, but I think there is a message contained in the report that our ability to respond is about getting going,” Horton told The Huffington Post. “The question is, are we able to meet the challenges, given the growing understanding of how much the climate could change this century?”

      The amount of climate change in the future, the report says, “will still largely be determined by choices society makes about emissions.”

      It all resonates of the stirring invitation hymns which were an essential part of the revival experience.

  3. There are encouraging indications that truth will out!

  4. ==> Great article about cognitive biases and how our brains constantly trick us

    Related….

    BENFORADO: I have mixed feelings about videotape evidence. Now, on the one hand, in the wake of many tragedies around the country in the last several months, there’s been a real push to make sure that all officers on the streets are wearing body cameras and that squad cars all have videotapes going at all times. And I think that, in part, that’s a good idea. There is good research which suggests that when people believe they are being monitored, that actually changes their behavior for the good.

    On the other hand, there is research on something that’s called perspective bias that gives me pause. So the particular context where this has been studied quite extensively is in the interrogation room. And the way these experiments work is they put a camera behind the person being interrogated, and they put a camera behind the interrogator. Now, if videotape presented objective reality, as we suppose that it does, that choice wouldn’t matter at all. But in fact it mattered a lot in these experiments. When people watched the footage shot from the perspective of the interrogator, they tended to say, well, this looks like a completely fine, voluntary confession. But when they watch the videotape from another perspective, through the eyes essentially of the suspect, suddenly they notice all of these coercive factors. And they tended to think, well, no, actually that confession cannot come into court because it is so badly influenced by the actions of the interrogator. And so that makes me worried about this broad movement right now to switch to videotaping everything.

    http://www.npr.org/2015/07/06/418585084/the-new-science-behind-our-unfair-criminal-justice-system

    Also a good listen:

    [audio src="http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/audio/podcast/cc_20150623_benfarado.mp3" /]

    • Related –

      A short video that fully explains the climate wars:

      This one does a pretty good job, also:

      http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html

      • Steven Mosher

        Huh.
        Selective visual attention explains nothing about skeptics refusal to admit that they see the gorilla.

        At best these visual analogies are just that.

      • Steven –

        I wasn’t being entirely serious. Of course visual analogies don’t explain anything, fully.

        That said, I question whether what’s going on is volitional “refusal.” Different people see different things because you have to make choices in where you focus your attention. You look for particular patterns, and lo and behold, you find them.

      • How well does the gorilla correllate with the number of passes we were supposed to count? Before the gorilla appeared there were less total passes. After there was more total passes. When you see a gorilla think Africa, not Planet of the Apes.

      • Steven Mosher

        No Joshua
        If skeptics merely missed the gorilla the video would explain it.
        But we have shown them the gorilla and many claim that it still doesn’t exist.
        I think it’s related but not the same.

    • Josh, I did a little thought experiment:

      Which is the better trait:
      To be compassionate?
      To be rational?

      So I see my niece go to the batters box hoping she’ll get a hit.
      Instead she strikes out!
      I feel terrible.
      But being struck out taught her a lesson.
      My rational side says being struck out was good for her.
      But the result still makes me feel bad for her!

      Now ask republicans and democrats which is the better trait:
      To be compassionate?
      To be rational?

      So I see people react to say Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
      Donald Trump says remove illegal aliens — more jobs for Americans!
      I fell terrible — for Americans.
      Hillary Clinton says legalize illegal aliens — show some compassion
      I fell terrible for — for illegal aliens.
      My rational side says removing illegal aliens is good for Americans.
      But the result still makes me feel bad for illegal aliens.
      My compassionate side says legalizing illegal aliens is a good thing.
      But the result still makes me fell bad for Americans losing jobs.

      Which is the better trait:
      To be compassionate?
      To be rational?

      • ordvic – The most awful result of legalizing all those illegals will be the demise of the Redimowit party. Socialism will be too deeply ensconced to root out when that happens. What does your rational side vs compassionate side have to say about that.

      • So instead ask people just give the illegals green cards.
        I still feel bad for Americans losing jobs.
        So I propose a third solution create an enterprise zone on the border and allow illegal aliens to cross for jobs. In other words create more jobs.

      • So instead ask people just give the illegals green cards; With the proviso that they can’t become citizens.

      • It seems kind of silly to do that when they can already apply for work papers in the US.

      • Well you could change the rules such that ONLY those in Mexico can work in the enterprise zone

      • Jim2, well underneath this thought experiment would be the bias. What Trump has supposedly tapped in to. The rational side says are you a true patriotic American — America first! The compassionate side says true American values show compassion for all people.

      • It seems to me there are many, many, more aspects to the immigration problem than just two or three. Preservation of our national heritage, like this, from the article:

        Nonaggressive nationalism is another story entirely. I trace the beginning of that idea to the highly influential 18th-century philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder.
        Herder virtually invented the idea of belonging. He believed that just as people need to eat and drink, to have security and freedom of movement, so too they need to belong to a group. Deprived of this, they feel cut off, lonely, diminished, unhappy. Nostalgia, Herder said, is the noblest of all pains. To be human means to be able to feel at home somewhere, with your own kind.
        Each group, according to Herder, has its own Volksgeist — a set of customs and a lifestyle, a way of perceiving and behaving that is of value solely because it is their own. The whole of cultural life is shaped from within the particular stream of tradition that comes from collective historical experience shared only by members of the group.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/europe-refugee-rejection_b_8197248.html

      • ordvic –

        I don’t think that the dichotomy you set up is very realistic.

        Compassion and rationality don’t exist in mutually exclusive states, IMO.

        For your niece, there might be any number of factors that translate into the effect of her striking out. It would likely depend on much of the context, her personal story, what stage she is in along many developmental lines, etc. Trying to impose some binary, generic frame makes little sense to me.

        Likewise with the immigration issue. IMO, both Clinton and Trump exploit a binary, simplistic mindset for personal gain. There is no clear line of distinction between “compassion” and “rationality” w/r/t illegal immigration. For example, the impact on Americans, on jobs, on the economy, is multi-factorial – with the direction of effect not being particularly aligned across different factors. Rationally, there are positive and negative effects from illegal immigration. In terms of compassion, there are compassionate reasons that support a variety of policy orientations.

        Although Clinton and Trump like to exploit fear-mongering and demonizing for the sake of political expediency, that doesn’t mean that compassionate and rational people can’t line up on both sides of the issue, just as in-compassionate and irrational people can line up on both sides.

      • Good answer

      • Draw the line from north of Long Beach, all the way to New Orleans, then Mexico, will have to deal with red China for the next hundred years. No problem.

    • Steven Mosher

      Too funny.
      It’s much easier to just say cops are always wrong.
      Weird that a scientist would generalize from the interview process to other situations.

  5. “The entire ocean–from the depths to the shallows–gets its oxygen supply from the surface, either directly from the atmosphere or from phytoplankton, which release oxygen into the water through photosynthesis.

    Warming surface waters, however, absorb less oxygen. And in a double whammy, the oxygen that is absorbed has a more difficult time traveling deeper into the ocean. That’s because as water heats up, it expands, becoming lighter than the water below it and less likely to sink.”

    Presumably, this is supposed to fit in with the CO2 ocean acidification story. CO2 absorbed by the oceans is used as food by appropriate organisms, which produce additional O2 as a result. What acidification?

    I am heartened by the admission that as water heats up, it expands, and becomes lighter than the water below it. It floats. It doesn’t sink, carrying heat with it. No missing heat in the depths.

    The oceans managed to cool since they were last boiling. Still are, in general. If not for the warm Earth beneath, they would freeze. Sea ice indicates the surfaces of oceans are quite capable of freezing in full sunlight. The fact that the abyssal depths are not frozen, (in the complete absence of sunlight), should indicate that surface heat affects the depths not at all.

    I’m guessing that the authors of this work identify as climate scientists.

    Cheers.

  6. Regarding climate sensitivity

    I am sure that the relationship between atmos CO2 concentration and surface temperature is important to know but the great leap from there to a call to reduce fossil fuel emissions requires empirical evidence that changes in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.
    That evidence does not exist.

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2770539
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639

  7. I can’t get past the first two paragraphs of Chris Mooney’s Washington Post piece on the psychology behind worries about the environment.

    More and more, attempts to explain why people behave the way they do in politics have turned away from the actual substance of issues and toward the traits of individuals themselves. Thus, this election season, there has been considerable focus on why Donald Trump appeals to voters, with psychologists noting that traits like “authoritarianism” — a preference for clear, unambiguous and decisive answers — help to explain the phenomenon.

    So what about other political identities — like, say, being a major tree-hugger? Clearly, such people aren’t authoritarians, but then, what are they?

    Tree-huggers “clearly” aren’t authoritarians? I think George Will makes more sense:

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will042516.php3

    Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.

    and

    These garden-variety authoritarians are eager to regulate us into conformity with the “settled” consensus du jour, whatever it is. But they are progressives, so it is for our own good.

  8. Since 93% of the energy of global warming is stored in the ocean, our observational-based results indicate that the ocean component of the earth’s heat imbalance of ~0.38 [0.33, 0.43] Wm-2 from 1970 to 1991 and ~0.75 [0.71, 0.80] Wm-2 from 1992 to 2005. With 0.07 Wm-2 for the other 10 components (Trenberth et al., 2014), the implied average energy imbalance after 1970 is 0.45 [0.40, 0.50] Wm-2and 0.82 [0.76, 0.88] Wm-2 after 1992. For the period 1970-2005, our new value is about 15% larger than the central estimate of Rhein et al., (2013) over the same period and could have important implications for closure of the sea level budget.

    • From your link –

      “Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, increased emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have resulted in an accumulation of thermal energy in the climate system (Trenberth et al., 2014;”

      Of course, this is about as silly as saying you have stored the heat from your stove in the kettle you just boiled. True, but meaningless. I think it was Trenberth who said ” . . . we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

      There is no heat imbalance. More climatological Cargo Cult pseudo science – untestable, of course. Things heat up, things cool down, according to more or less well understood physical laws.

      The only people silly enough to believe this sort of heat imbalance thing would be those unable to think for themselves – climatologists, politicians, journalists and so on. Luckily, not all! At the moment, the gullible are in the ascendancy. As to the future? You’d have to ask a climate scientist. All knowing, all seeing. All somewhat removed from reality.

      Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn,

        I think it was Trenberth who said ” . . . we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

        Yes, in Oct. 2009. Not being able to account for all is not the same as not being able to account for any.

        There is no heat imbalance.

        I’m sorry, who is being silly?

      • What is more interesting is the 2005 end date. Now why would they pick 2005 I wonder?

      • “Now why would they pick 2005 I wonder?”
        Really? Looks to me like it ends 2011. Which is what you expect with data to 2013 with 61-month smoothing.

      • Went over to KNMI and plotted annual GISS Sea temperature.

        It looks interesting. Given that half the forcing change since 1975 (the start of “globular warming”) occurred after 1998 that isn’t the curve you would expect. Since 1975 it almost looks like a log curve.

        Look forward to 2017. I sense an adjustment for buoy color, or probe oxidation, or water color, etc. coming. Still not sure if 2015/2016 is a trend or an aberration.

        Tried the 61 month mean also and some would make the the argument that it indicates SST has almost topped out.

      • PA said:

        Look forward to 2017. I sense an adjustment for buoy color, or probe oxidation, or water color, etc. coming.

        Yep.

      • Yes, in 2017 there might be yet another in a long line of “warmest La Nina event evah!!!!”

        A La Nina will do nothing.

        I’ll try to help. You need Matt England’s anomalous wind and La Nina dominance. Okay. You need the return of the Kimikaze. It needs to last a long time with back-to-back La Nina events. A kooling from hell. The divine wind is the only thing that can save you from the alarmist armada.

    • PA, strictly you should have been looking at ocean heat content to answer that paper, but never mind.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Yes, OHC is what they are looking at. As usual they don’t ask the most obvious question: what was so special about the years of calibration to ARGO other than the fact that they were switching to ARGO to cause so much additional OHC added in such a short period of time?

      • stevenreincarnated

        My mistake, they actually did explain it. They made up data where there was none. Works for me.

      • It is certainly going against the skeptic hopes, so no surprise they don’t believe it one bit.

      • Jim D | April 30, 2016 at 9:20 am | Reply
        PA, strictly you should have been looking at ocean heat content to answer that paper, but never mind.

        Well, comes down to the same thing. The ocean is currently cooling.

        We’ll see.

      • PA, an up-is-down type of response.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, it might be true. It wouldn’t have any effect on my views if it were. It just looks very unlikely when you consider the OHC appears to be going up faster in the 80s than it is after the calibration period. So it was going up even faster in the 80s than it shows while recent measurements are the same? We must be having a lot of success with our mitigation policies?

      • Jim D | April 30, 2016 at 1:50 pm |
        PA, an up-is-down type of response.

        That is true. But the down type of response disappoints the global warmers,

        For the period 1970-2005, our new value is about 15% larger

        I love the way they are are to reanalyze and produce larger new values whenever they feel like it.

      • PA said:

        I love the way they are are to reanalyze and produce larger new values whenever they feel like it.

        Yep.

  9. brandonrgates,

    You wrote –

    “Yes, in Oct. 2009. Not being able to account for all is not the same as not being able to account for any.”

    What part of Trenberth’s quoted statement are you disagreeing with?

    You also wrote –

    “‘I’m sorry, who is being silly?.”

    Thank you. I accept your apology. I presume you are asking a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer you anyway – anyone who believes that CO2 warms anything. This of course includes so-called climate scientists, climatologists, Warmists, and anybody else silly enough to believe in the CO2 warming fantasy.

    I hope this helps, and, once again, thank you for your apology.

    Cheers.

    • “Thank you. I accept your apology. I presume you are asking a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer you anyway – anyone who believes that CO2 warms anything. This of course includes so-called climate scientists, climatologists, Warmists, and anybody else silly enough to believe in the CO2 warming fantasy.”

      You forgot (specifically)…

      Roy Spencer
      Anthony Watts
      Judith Curry

      But then you know better eh?

      • Tony Banton,

        I didn’t forget anyone, did I?

        If you wish to include anyone else, go for it! Anyone who believes in the CO2 warming fantasy is silly. What part of that statement didn’t you understand?

        Let me know, and I’ll do my best to help.

        Cheers.

      • If you wish to include anyone else, go for it! Anyone who believes in the CO2 warming fantasy is silly. What part of that statement didn’t you understand?

        You are correct.
        It is not a matter of “belief” – which is what seems to motivate yourself.
        It is a matter of empirical science.
        Science that has been repeatedly tested and not found wanting.

        PS: I’m sure our host here is pleased to be called “silly”.
        You do not get to reinvent the world in your world-view my friend.
        There is name for that particular psychosis.

      • Mike Flynn

        Tony Banton,

        You wrote –

        “It is a matter of empirical science.
        Science that has been repeatedly tested and not found wanting.”

        This is, of course, another assertion supported by wishful thinking, and nothing else.

        “In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.”

        Climatology has no rigorously expressed hypothesis. Obviously, such minor details as experimental constraints and controls are beneath the consideration of climatologists. “Climatologists don’t need no stinkin’ real experiments” seems to be the mantra (or Manntra).

        Keep believing. The Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism needs more believers. Congregations seem to be shrinking.

        Cheers.

      • mike flynn:
        “Keep believing. The Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism needs more believers. Congregations seem to be shrinking.”

        No, as I keep telling you.
        You believe.
        I follow the science based evidence.
        The real world vs your belief system.
        Must be great having the world meld to your own wishes.
        Makes life of so simple and les inconvenient eh?
        No matter how many times you come back with your hand-waving science denying rhetoric, it does not change things my friend.
        As I said – you have a psychosis.
        Evident in the absence of posters coming to your defence on here ( *sceptic’s* site).
        Sad.
        “Congregations seem to be shrinking.”
        Another symptom of the psychosis. The delusion that you hold the majority view, and that others are “shrinking” whilst the evidence of AGW becomes yet stronger.
        The internet is not science my friend nor does it reflect a majority view, and I am only conversing with you as a whimsy. To deny your world-view for others.

        Ta Ta
        And no doubt you will be back to try for the last word.
        Be my guest. Changes nothing and only serves to highlight your delusion.

      • Tony Banton, Do you think the Vostok ice core record of the past is accurate and fit for purpose, if not why?

    • Mike Flynn,

      Yes, in Oct. 2009. Not being able to account for all is not the same as not being able to account for any.

      What part of Trenberth’s quoted statement are you disagreeing with?

      I agree with Trenberth’s quoted statement implicitly. Which part of what I wrote above indicates that I do not?

      I hope this helps, and, once again, thank you for your apology.

      It’s always useful to me when an opponent displays sloppy reasoning and bad faith, Mike Flynn. Your case is no exception, and I surely appreciate it. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you, while at the same time requesting that you do continue it for my own further appreciation.

      Cheers.

      • brandonrgates,

        To me, agreeing implicitly, rather than explicitly, is just another example of Wriggly Warmist Weasel Wording. Some others may agree.

        I’m more interested in facts and quotes. This makes it easier to discuss points in dispute.

        You might point out the reasons for mentioning my supposed sloppy reasoning, and provide some evidence for your claim of bad faith. I am unaware of your special mind reading expertise. Many Warmists claim to have it, very few can provide evidence.

        Cheers.

      • To me, agreeing implicitly, rather than explicitly, is just another example of Wriggly Warmist Weasel Wording. Some others may agree.

        I like how you absolve yourself of the same behavior when you abused Trenberth’s quote to begin with, Mike Flynn; the evident duplicity of one’s opponent is always a good thing to have at hand, ripe for the plucking. As for what “some others may agree” to or not, well now, that’s weasel-wording in my book, and begs the question of a consensus to boot. I’m not sure it would be to your advantage to continue arguing along these lines.

        I’m more interested in facts and quotes. This makes it easier to discuss points in dispute.

        I agree. When you’re ready to put your words into action, you may demonstrate that you actually stand for the principles you claim to posses. Until then, I’m quite content to pick apart your nonsense as you present it — which is me being interested in the fact that you are commenting, and quoting your words so as to dispute points under discussion.

        You might point out the reasons for mentioning my supposed sloppy reasoning, and provide some evidence for your claim of bad faith.

        Please continue to insult your own alleged intelligence, Mike Flynn, it’s not good for your reputation. But since I’m such a nice guy, I can offer you a hint: going from your quotemined snippet of Trenberth’s once-private communication to concluding, “There is no heat imbalance,” was a dizzying leap of logic. Some might even say it was a leap of faith. [1] Either way, I still maintain that you are the one being silly.

        I am unaware of your special mind reading expertise.

        I don’t have to be a mind reader to point to your words on a page, thus no need to “prove” that I can read your mind. You’re not doing so well here, Mike Flynn. Please keep it up.

        Ta.

        ———————

        [1] Here I am of course, weasel-wording for rhetorical effect. I am not without my petty indulgences and own bad faith.

  10. Arctic icecap may recover as AMO moves from warm to cold.
    Periodicity as it used to be!

  11. Any model study that only finds insignificant change will not be published A(the result isn’t interesting or noteworthy). Logically then all papers involving models that are published will be at an extreme or have an unexpected claim.

    Published papers involving models therefore will always be worse than reality, because models forecasting normality will not get into the literature.

    • The solution is simple. Congress (after the current White House obstructionist is gone) should strip 100 million per year from the Climate Change budget. $100 million less waste is a good thing.

      They should use it to fund on online journal and to peer review published warmist literature that was government funded.

      The online journal would publish studies based on the INMCM4 model or studies that are insignificant that address global warming alarmism. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) or some other objective competent organization should be selected run the journal and organize the peer review.

      The papers would be throughly peer reviewed to verify that the result is insignificant and not a significant result that refutes some element of global warming alarmism.

      The authors would be paid sufficiently to encourage participation.

      The peer review element (besides reviewing the journal papers) would revisit published global warmer alarmism papers. The reviewers would get a 50% bonus for refuting a paper and a 100% bonus for finding evidence of misconduct.

      Having a journal that more or less takes all studies that can pass peer review ensures that well written papers have a home even if the results aren’t exciting.

  12. What’s going on with the Earth’s magnetic field? [link]

    In 1900 the Earth’s magnetic polarity axis had ‘ I ‘ while in year 2000 ‘ Y ‘ form. In geological terms this is an extremely short period of time.
    Wiki’s info on reversals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal

  13. Am I alone in thinking that this paper is appallingly bad?:-

    “American Meteorological Society
    The sensitivity of the hydrological cycle to internal climate variability versus anthropogenic climate change
    Ryan J. Kramer and Brian J. Soden
    Abstract
    In response to rising CO2 concentrations, climate models predict that globally averaged precipitation will increase at a much slower rate than water vapor. However, some observational studies suggest that global-mean precipitation and water vapor have increased at similar rates.[…]”

    So, the paper begins [above] by saying that climate models are out of kilter with observation. It then goes on to investigate by … running a model! A model, that is, which finds that the models are right and the observations are wrong!!!

    I despair that circular rubbish like this can be written, let alone pass review and get published by a reputable organisation like the AMS. (Well, I think they were reputable once, weren’t they?)

    • Mike Jonas,
      “Am I alone in thinking that this paper is appallingly bad?:-“

      Probably, if you don’t provide a link :(

      But with that, people can see that, no, they don’t find that the observations are wrong. They look at the time scales of the CO2-induced hydrology vs natural change, with modelling, and decide that the natural variability is large enough to mask the expected relationship in the short term.

      • re the link: It’s one of the links in Judith’s post; I didn’t think I had to provide it again, but I now note that Judith’s and the paper’s wordings were different. Apologies.

        The point is that the logic in the model they use is the same as the logic in the models that they are supposedly testing, so the whole exercise is circular and obviously they find for the models and against the observations. You say that “they find that the natural variability is large enough to mask the expected relationship in the short term”, but that is incorrect. They actively find that CO2 causes less precipitation : “We show that while global-mean precipitation is constrained by radiative cooling on both time scales, the effects of CO2 dominate on multi-decadal time scales, acting to suppress the increase of radiative cooling with warming. This results in a smaller precipitation change […]”.

        But they are using the models’ logic, So it’s all in the models, not in the actual climate, and not in the observations.

    • It is actually a very good example of a mechanistic explanation for why the precipitation rate may not increase as fast as the water vapor under CO2-forced climate change. I appreciate this kind of paper for putting forwards ideas and testing them to clarify the understanding.

      • They didn’t test them. They just ran a model with the same logic and got the same result.

      • The observation record is not long enough to show what the climate models do. They distinguish detectable changes from those that will need more time. It is important to make this distinction when evaluating long-term predicted trends, and not only that, they explain and test their ideas on why the signals differ.

    • Mike Jonas,

      We are not alone, as they say.

      Any paper that starts –

      “Understanding the response of precipitation to climate change has become a topic of great focus in the climate science community, given the potential societal consequences.”

      – indicates that the authors either don’t realise that climate is merely the average of past weather events, or are intentionally attempting to mislead readers who are not dedicated Warmists

      If this paper gets past peer review (or pal review), it will be yet another example of the increasing irrelevancy of the peer review process.

      Cheers.

      • David Wojick

        There is a lot of research that views climate change per se as a cause, rather than specific statistical changes. Bit of a muddle actually.

    • Yes, testing a prediction with another prediction would not appear to be conclusive.

      The process of precipitation ( transferring latent heat from the surface and realizing it aloft ) would be behind the Hot Spot which has not occurred for the satellite era.

      Does the Double ITCZ Problem explain the lack of the Hot Spot ( models have two Inter-Tropical Convergence Zones while reality has only one, less convergence and precipitation in the models? thus less heat transfer to the upper troposphere? ).

      • Or more convergence and heat transfer?

      • Or both?

        “most of the current state-of-the-art CGCMs have some degree of the double-ITCZ problem, which is characterized by excessive precipitation over much of the Tropics (e.g., Northern Hemisphere ITCZ, South Pacific convergence zone, Maritime Continent, and equatorial Indian Ocean), and are often associated with insufficient precipitation over the equatorial Pacific.”

        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0408.1

      • IMO the “Double ITCZ” in models is probably a secondary result of getting the monsoon effect wrong. See here:

        The double-Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) problem, in which excessive precipitation is produced in the Southern Hemisphere tropics, which resembles a Southern Hemisphere counterpart to the strong Northern Hemisphere ITCZ, is perhaps the most significant and most persistent bias of global climate models.

        […]

        Despite decades of work by modeling centers around the world, the double-ITCZ problem, in which excessive precipitation is produced in the Southern Hemisphere tropics resembling the stronger Northern Hemisphere ITCZ, remains the largest precipitation bias of most state-of-the-art global climate models. There has been little progress in reducing this bias over recent years (1⇓–3) (Figs. 1 A and B and 2A).

        Recent work in general circulation theory has suggested that one should not only look within the tropics for features that affect tropical precipitation. A set of idealized experiments showed that heating a global climate model exclusively in the extratropics can lead to tropical rainfall shifts from one side of the tropics to the other (11). They also showed that extratropical cloud responses are important in determining the magnitude of the tropical precipitation shift (12). The physical mechanism for extratropical connections is based on energetic constraints (11, 12) and essentially argues that tropical precipitation shifts toward whichever hemisphere is heated more at the surface or top-of-atmosphere.

        […]

        Comparing Fig. 1 A and B shows a range of precipitation biases in the multimodel mean (see Fig. S1A for the difference between Fig. 1 A and B). […] Models tend to overprecipitate over all ocean basins in the Southern Hemisphere tropics. The Northern Hemisphere tropical ocean basins behave differently: a negative precipitation anomaly exists in the Atlantic, whereas the Indian and Pacific have positive anomalies that are smaller than the positive anomalies south of the equator. In the immediate vicinity of the equator in the Pacific Ocean, there is a large negative precipitation anomaly. Central America, the Amazon, and India all have large deficits of rainfall in the multimodel mean, whereas Indonesia has too much rainfall. [my bold]

        A look at Fig. S1 of the Supporting Information would seem to support the hypothesis that the models are underestimating the ability of the monsoon effect to pull precipitation onto land from the Pacific.

        Here’s my question: if the models can’t get the monsoon effect right while emulating current “climate”, and they all fail in the same way, what possible rationale is there to assume they can correctly model the impact of increased GHG’s on it? Or anything else connected with it (monsoon effect), which would include just about everything about climate?

      • Yes. I wonder if the GCMs have added anything to the 1D models of a half century ago.

      • I wonder if the GCMs have added anything to the 1D models of a half century ago.

        Sure. They’ve added “certainty”. Look at all the work that’s been put into it!

        It’s like in the old days, the haruspex would sacrifice a perfectly white sheep, “without blemish”, found via great effort and searching (and expense), and by examining its liver come up with a better (more certain) prophesy than some farmer’s randomly grabbed chicken.

  14. RE: “Does knowledge drive climate concern? It depends what you mean by ‘knowledge’ – new in @NatureClimate”

    There have been a flurry of studies like this one.

    Invariably they subscribe to what Christopher Simpson called the “communication-as-dominaton” or “evangelical propaganda” model. We are the ones who have the technological knowlege.. We are the ones with the moral compass that tells us what’s best for mankind.

    The authors fancy themselves as the “engineers of consent.”

    As Daniel Yankelovich notes in Coming to Public Judgment:

    [T]hey impose their own value judgments on the country because they fail to distinguish their own value judgments from their technical expertise….

    The information-driven model leads to a concept of public education as a one-way process: the expert speaks; the citizen listens….

    Often they are graduates of elite colleges and universities, which indoctrinates them with a noneradicable feeling of superiority to the general public… [I]n their personal lives many have adopted the outlook of a ruling social class….

    They assume that they have much of value to communicate to the public, without imagining that the public has much of value to impart to them.

    • Invariably they subscribe to what Christopher Simpson called the “communication-as-dominaton” or “evangelical propaganda” model. We are the ones who have the technological knowlege.. We are the ones with the moral compass that tells us what’s best for mankind.

      You are a slow learner, Glenn Stehle. First you beg a question. Then you pretend to not be doing the thing which you beg. I couldn’t think of a better way for you to demonstrate that which you *claim* to despise than you actually doing it yourself. Please continue to destroy your own position, dear Glenn, it makes things ever so much easier on me.

      • This so reminds me of Joshua.

      • brandonrgates,

        The only problem with the fact-free fantasy world you live in is this:

      • The only problem with the fact-free fantasy world you live in is this:

        Running away from your own so-called argument is a rather good indication that you recognize its vacuity, Glenn Stehle. Thank you for doubling down on it, as such continues to demonstrate your learning disability I alluded to in my previous post to you. Keep going as you are, and you may even demonstrate for the class that yours is the tenuous grasp of reality. OTOH, it might also indicate that you’re simply dishonest. Either way, your behavior suits my purposes just fine.

        Given your apparently weak grasp of how to construct a cogent argument, you may need some specific help understanding what I specifically mean by the above generalities. Strawmanning me with Al Gore’s words is a bad faith debating technique. Not to put too fine a point on it, having Al Gore speak for me is a way of you manufacturing my thoughts for me, which is consistent with the pejorative concept of Thought Police.

        Indeed, you continue to betray yourself with every post, Glenn Stehle. By all means, please do continue behaving to my advantage.

      • Brandon- Would it have been beneficial if Al Gore’s suggested approach had been implemented?

      • Would it have been beneficial if Al Gore’s suggested approach had been implemented?

        I am no prophet, Rob Starkey, not even a retroactive one. I do know that Glenn’s reasoning is sloppy, his arguments poor, and that your question does nothing to rebut my previous points to that effect. It may not be in your best interests to continue with such distractions.

      • brandongates,

        The facts speak for themselves, and in this case they speak so loudly that all your rhetoric and spin doctoring are for naught.

        I certainly wouldn’t put my position in the position you’ve put yourself, attempting to defend the indefensible.

      • The facts speak for themselves, and in this case they speak so loudly that all your rhetoric and spin doctoring are for naught.

        Handwaving at unspecified facts and saying that they speak loudly to … something … is rhetoric and spin-doctoring, Glenn Stehle. I agree with you for once that it is all for naught. Thank you for again unwittingly making my point for me.

        I certainly wouldn’t put my position in the position you’ve put yourself, attempting to defend the indefensible.

        You’re a hoot. Let’s rewind from the beginning, since you’ve distracted yourself so. You wrote in part: Invariably they subscribe to what Christopher Simpson called the “communication-as-dominaton” or “evangelical propaganda” model. We are the ones who have the technological knowlege.. We are the ones with the moral compass that tells us what’s best for mankind.

        I responded in full: You are a slow learner, Glenn Stehle. First you beg a question. Then you pretend to not be doing the thing which you beg. I couldn’t think of a better way for you to demonstrate that which you *claim* to despise than you actually doing it yourself. Please continue to destroy your own position, dear Glenn, it makes things ever so much easier on me.

        That’s not me defending an indefensible position, Genn — it’s me attacking yours. The fact that you have been doing your level best to wriggle and writhe away from it ever since tends to demonstrate its indefensibility, while at the same time falsifying your above statement that you would not put yourself in an indefensible position.

        Please continue to be a slow-learner; people who learn from their mistakes and/or are honest enough to admit them make for much more difficult opponents.

      • Before we allow experts to put a price on carbon we need to filter out the experts that can’t tell good from bad.

        The experts should have to endorse what values are good and what are bad and publish the list with any study and use it as their criterion.

        There is a minority of the population that thinks more plant growth is harmful, bountiful food is dangerous, feeding people is a bad idea, etc.

        These people should be systemically excluded from cost/benefit grant studies and the IPCC.

        Their viewpoint is some sort of mental illness.

        If they don’t know good from bad, harm from benefit, there is no reason to allow them on CO2 harm/benefit studies. It makes as much sense as hiring Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan as your navigator.

        Any study that has “increasing future food supplies is harmful” or similar regressive claims in their list of values should be rejected for publication, and the authors should be flagged for further grant participation.

      • Before we allow experts to put a price on carbon we need to filter out the experts that can’t tell good from bad.

        All we need now are some experts to do the filtering, PA. Or were you volunteering?

      • brandonrgates,

        People just aren’t buying the logic-free, fact-free, morality-free Kool Aid you’re peddling anymore.

        You can rant and bloviate and blow hot air all you want, but you’re wasting your breath.

        If the climatariat was winning in the courtroom of public opinion, do you believe they would be clamoring for criimalizing free speech?

      • People just aren’t buying the logic-free, fact-free, morality-free Kool Aid you’re peddling anymore.

        Goodness Glenn Stehle, but do you get feisty when you’ve painted yourself into a corner. Let me again illustrate how you have done so. Here again is part of your opening argument:

        Invariably they subscribe to what Christopher Simpson called the “communication-as-dominaton” or “evangelical propaganda” model. We are the ones who have the technological knowlege.. We are the ones with the moral compass that tells us what’s best for mankind.

        Let the record show that your statement:

        1) Objects to statements of moral superiority on the basis of dubious technological superiority.
        2) Labels such a practice “communication-as-dominaton” or “evangelical propaganda”.
        3) Provides no direct evidence of you conclusion further down that “The authors fancy themselves as the “engineers of consent”, thus only begging the question that your conclusion is correct. Which is fallacious.

        Thus you are making a logic-free and fact-free statement about others’ morals (or lack thereof, which is the same thing). By your own definition you’re peddling Kool-Aid in the form of evangelical propaganda. Instead of recognizing that and taking corrective action, you continue to evade my point while churning out ever more of it thus unwittingly demonstrating my own point for me. You’re like that kid with one foot nailed to the floor crying, “Mommy mommy, why am I running in circles?” never bothering to realize that you’re the one who nailed his own foot to the floor in the first place.

        Do it again (and I predict you shall), and we can talk about how fun it is watching folk ineptly tie their own shoelaces together — self-inflicted faceplants never fail to amuse, especially when done sequentially and repeatedly.

        If the climatariat was winning in the courtroom of public opinion, do you believe they would be clamoring for criimalizing free speech?

        I’m not still beating my wife, Glenn, I’m a bachelor. Look up loaded questions and question begging. I don’t need to do any fact-checking at all to realize that people who do such things are selling snake oil. Please do continue doing it though, Freedom Fighters such as yourself betray their utter lack of good faith with such relentlessly repetitive spin-doctoring.

        Oh, BTW, you do understand that frequently using jingly little terms like “climatariat” is a propaganda technique, don’t you? As is popular in these parts, I’m just sayin’.

        Cheers.

      • Earth to brandonrgates!

        It’s not the climate skeptics that are calling for the global warming adherents to be burned at the stake.

      • It’s not the climate skeptics that are calling for the global warming adherents to be burned at the stake.

        Earth to Glenn Stehle: strawmanning me with a political cartoon is *your* propaganda. It begs the question that reality is the cartoon. Which is quite funny if you think about it.

        Once again you show who *you* are in a vain attempt to have others believe that the image you see of yourself in a mirror is someone else. This only works on people who, for whatever number of reasons, already believe what you do. I.e., all you are doing is talking to yourselves about yourselves.

        By the way, thanks for fulfilling my prediction that you’d again tie your shoelaces together and perform another epic self-induced pratfall. Your performance is truly all I could ever have hoped for. Perhaps you will soon learn that it’s hard to peddle crap when you can’t even straddle the bike. I have my doubts, however.

      • Steven Mosher

        dang brandon.
        that’s some good writing.

      • Thanks, Mosh. I fear that I’m only answering noise with more noise, but it was fun to write and got my juices flowing.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Thanks, Mosh. I fear that I’m only answering noise with more noise, but it was fun to write and got my juices flowing.”

        absolutely killing it on logic and style. I’d compare it to hitchens or buckley, but that would just go to your head.

      • Too late, especially since I admired both.

        I got Kerouac once, but only because I was humping around N. California staying in dive motels interviewing whomever would talk to me while taking copious notes on my laptop. I did get some incredible stories. The ex-Marine who did two tours in ‘Nam as an intelligence officer and stayed in through Tienanmen was the hands down best; I spent a week with him.

      • PS — I’m not seeing the Buckley, he was far more erudite. I think you’re effin with me. :-)

      • brandonrgates and Stephen Mosher,

        Now we have a love fest going on between brandonrgates and Stephen Mosher. Why am I not surprised? “Great minds” apparently think alike.

        What is it that you two guys don’t understand about the terms “communication-as-domination” and “evangelical propaganda”?

        Harold Laswell, one of the leading proponents of the tactics and strategies of communicaiton-as-domination, explained it this way:

        [S]uccessful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent.”

        You guys can knock yourselves out with all your twisted rhetoric, “logic,” and psychobabble, trying to make the factual realities go away. But the facts speak too loudly. It is the climatariat that is conducting the inquisition, not the skeptics.

      • There was a segment on CBS News last night that highlighted how “great minds” like Stephen Mosher and brandonrgates think.

        Are violent anti-Donald Trump protests helping him?
        http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/are-violent-anti-donald-trump-protests-helping-him/

        Protesters burn American flag at anti-Trump protest

        But while the protesters are burning the American flag, destroying police cars and hurling objects and insults at the police, they argue they are for peace, love and “no hate.”

        This is so typical of the thinking of “great minds.”

        WAR IS PEACE
        FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
        IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

      • Steven Mosher

        Not buckles style per se, but rather the combination of sharp logic and a consistent well polished style.
        That’s a rare combination.

      • Steven Mosher

        Glenn.
        You appropriate other people’s words and arguments.
        A hack.
        Brandon is a craftsman. It’s my job to spot the difference.
        Recall, I am the person who busted glIeck based on his style. You have none. You borrow, misuse, and abuse.
        Brandon creates. He and I don’t often agree. But I know good writing when I read it.

      • Steven Mosher

        Too funny glenn.
        I suspect Brandon and I will disagree on trump.
        Nice try.
        Continue your brand of propaganda.

      • Steven Mosher,

        We’ve had this discussion before, and other than ad hominem, you don’t seem to have any argument.

        in the end, your argument always ends up being about personal attacks, attempting to make the debate about me and nothing else.

        Why is that? Can you not make an argument based on, for instance, facts?

        For instance, how many prominent skeptics of CAGW can you name who have called to have warmists jailed?

        How about logic?

        If the climatariat were winning the debate in the courtroom of public opinion, do you believe it would be clamoring to criminalize free argument and debate?

        Facts, Mosher. Logic. You might try using them once in a while.

      • Glenn Stehle,

        What is it that you two guys don’t understand about the terms “communication-as-domination” and “evangelical propaganda”?

        I can’t speak for Mosh, and therefore won’t. I think I understand perfectly what you mean by those terms. The question you continually dodge is explaining why what you are doing does not conform to you own definitions of same. In short, until you explain why you are not doing something which you condemn, it raises (not begs) the question you actually understand those terms yourself. At best; here I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

        Responding AGAIN with another political cartoon strawmanning my position and/or begging questions of it is probably not your best next move.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Not buckles style per se, but rather the combination of sharp logic and a consistent well polished style. That’s a rare combination.

        Understood. I’m blushing here, thank you. A craftsman even [swoons]. Since I already go to my own head, I may never live this one down. God help us all.

        He and I don’t often agree. But I know good writing when I read it.

        I agree with you more often than I let on; I know good logic when I see it and that is by far the most important style of writing. Hence when you called me out on C13, I was most compelled to listen.

        I suspect Brandon and I will disagree on trump.

        Hmm. I have no insight on your views. Put it this way; I want him to win the nomination because I think he’s the least electable. Even if I didn’t, smashing police cars would not be my first choice in getting that message across.

        As far as flag-burning is concerned, that seems even less relevant to the anti-Trump concern. Yet even a Freedom Fighter such as Glenn here ought to be able to see how defiling a symbol of our nation is a form of political expression.

      • Mosh, PS: The TL;DR is, I think you are quite unique in this debate, which makes you a rarity. And that makes you interesting and much worth reading. These are my sincerest compliments, sir. I hardly need encourage you to keep up the good work.

        Cheers.

      • How about logic? If the climatariat were winning the debate in the courtroom of public opinion, do you believe it would be clamoring to criminalize free argument and debate?

        Ok, Glenn Stehle, let’s talk about logic. Please explain for the class where the so-called climatariat (a very politically loaded term, I might add) are attempting to criminalize freedom of political expression. Just saying they’re doing it with begged questions won’t cut it. Logical reasoning supported by detail is what we’re looking for here. Here’s a hint: leading off an argument with the conditional “if” is a big clue that a strawman and/or begged question will follow. True to your form as I have thus far seen it, that’s what happened. Again.

        Try something different if you know how.

      • Steven Mosher

        Glenn

        “Steven Mosher,

        We’ve had this discussion before, and other than ad hominem, you don’t seem to have any argument.”

        1. My argument was simple. Brandon cleaned your clock.
        2. That is not an ad hominum. That’s just me grading papers.
        3. Since you engage in propaganda, the salient question
        I have is this: does your style work?
        4. I assume you are a nice person.

        in the end, your argument always ends up being about personal attacks, attempting to make the debate about me and nothing else.

        1. Noting that brandon kicked your rhetorical butt and won
        with style points is not an attack on YOU.
        2. you are a nice person. But, you lost the contest.
        3. I prefer to talk about the science. Science is not a debate.

        Why is that? Can you not make an argument based on, for instance, facts?
        1. C02 is a GHG.
        2. Man is the cause of virtually all the increase in c02 since 1800.
        3. Increasing C02, the best science tells us, will increase not decrease
        temperatures.
        4. How much is the question.

        we can DISCUSS the science around #4. If you disagree with 1-3 there isnt much to discuss. Although you can debate 1-3, please note you can debate anything. Merely ignoring 1-3 or trying to debate it wont get you
        anywhere. The debate on 1-3 ended long ago.

        “For instance, how many prominent skeptics of CAGW can you name who have called to have warmists jailed?”

        1. The science doesnt care.
        2. The science doesnt care about my ability and willingness to name or not to name.
        3. Go and count. Do a search on Glieck, Mann, Jones, Hansen.
        doesnt really change the physics now does it?

        How about logic?

        If the climatariat were winning the debate in the courtroom of public opinion, do you believe it would be clamoring to criminalize free argument and debate?

        1. The physics doesnt care about the public debate
        2. The public debate is pretty much done, hence the move
        to jail the losers who keep talking after they lost

        Personally I disagree with this move by the AGs. Pretty much like dancing in the end zone. Poor taste, bad style.

    • Steven Mosher,

      Personally I disagree with this move by the AGs. Pretty much like dancing in the end zone. Poor taste, bad style.

      I’ve argued that it’s akin to throwing the book at Al Capone for tax evasion. Even though it’s absolutely true that Capone’s alleged rum running was illegal at the time (the alleged murders done at his behest are timelessly illegal AND immoral), the tax evasion beef was easier to prove in court. “Everyone” knows what the AGs would rather be ringing up Exxon for. The moral argument is a bit clearer than the legal one, but still arguable murky on both.

      The sensible desire from my perspective is to get Exxon et al. to knock off what I see as their counterproductive (if not hazardous) lobbying and propagandizing. One way to do that is to demonstrate that they speak with a forked tongue; one fork inside. Let the court of public opinion then decide. The best possible scenario for all parties seems to be that Exxon settles out of court, with public statements admitting no fault, but bringing their public statements about AGW risk in line with their private ones. Perhaps a few fines to be donated to some climate fund or other, not shareholders. This would then save them the damage dealt them by the release of rightfully private and potentially proprietary information into the public domain in the form of subpoenaed documents.

      The wildcard here is whether Exxon’s internal documents actually show that they spoke misleadingly to investors in their annual reports. If they didn’t, the case goes away. My sense based on Exxon’s actions is that this is NOT the case. They’ve instead thrown the Freedom Fighter card — not exactly the usual method of Pleading the Fifth, but there it is.

      If Glenn would settle down, he might realize that I’m not so opposed to his POV as he obviously suspects, and we might then have a conversation about what I think is actually quite an interesting moral and legal question.

      • r.gates, Exxon could just use the common sense card. Crude products and nat gas products have much lower carbon intensity than coal and a number of alternate fuels, like palm oil based diesel have increased tropical deforestation, and impacted food prices. They have fewer screwups since Valdez and their improved production of domestic nat gas would be setting industry standards.

        Personally, I think suing the EU for unintended consequences of their bio and conventional diesel policy might be much better theater.

      • If Exxon is a target, so also should be everyone who has ever burned hydrocarbons for warmth or transportation, or anything else. What a bunch of hypocrites.

      • r.gates, Exxon could just use the common sense card.

        Point of order, captdallas, I’m not that R. Gates … I wouldn’t want to besmirch his reputation. Call me B. Gates, BRG, or Ishmael for short.

        Crude products and nat gas products have much lower carbon intensity than coal and a number of alternate fuels, like palm oil based diesel have increased tropical deforestation, and impacted food prices.

        True true and true, but we’re looking for zero net carbon emissions. The lowest environmental impact liquid biofules are going to come from something like switchgrass in marginal soils or my odds-on favorite, lipids from genetically altered cyanobacteria. Gonna be some time before those technologies are viable. For the here and now I stump for more nukes in the industrialized world — far less hazardous than coal in the present by three orders of magnitude on a per unit power basis, and an already proven technology. Alls we need is for Greenpeacers to stop being bonkers about all but phantom radiation hazards, and to clean up some red tape at the NRC. Oh, and get rid of NIMBYism. And find a long-term storage solution for waste. Othewise, simples. Done. Next.

        Personally, I think suing the EU for unintended consequences of their bio and conventional diesel policy might be much better theater.

        I’m not the biggest fan of feeding moonshine to automobiles. That particular drama runs toward the likes of ADM. As Willard might say, beware your wishes.

      • What a bunch of hypocrites.

        Trolling the new guy already, jim2? Not very sporting.

        It’s a chicken-egg problem. If there hadn’t been so much foot-dragging in the Hallowed Halls of Congress to date, you guys might not get to call hypocrisy so much for things like folk using airline transport to get to COP21 … or Obama’s 747 fleet [1]. That’s one of them there whatchacallits … a self-fulfilling prophecy.

        ——————

        [1] If you really want to get into a partisan mud-slinging match, it bears pointing out that Obama inherited said form of transportation from his predecessor — who wasn’t even elected to office to the first time. Just sayin’.

      • brgates, “True true and true, but we’re looking for zero net carbon emissions.”

        Right, which is impossible, meaning “we” are irrational.

      • Right, which is impossible, meaning “we” are irrational.

        Finite resources … run out when voraciously consumed, captdallas. I am not so sanguine about prophesying my own species’ future doom for lack of creativity.

      • brgates, “I am not so sanguine about prophesying my own species’ future doom for lack of creativity.”

        I think you are doing a fine job. Keep seeking perfection and you doom creativity.

      • Keep seeking perfection and you doom creativity.

        Wrongggggg, captdallas2. Unlike some people on my side of the fence, I do understand time and money constraints … which are really the same thing, eh? Sitting on our hands until the crap looks about to hit the fan, or is already splattering all over the place to great effect, means more money in less time. I’m the more time less money option. Take it in easy steps toward the long-term end goal, radical disruptive changes not required, but planned and concerted accelerated effort much desired.

        Why folk like you don’t apparently get that boggles my feeble warmist brain like nothing else under the Sun. Penny wise, pound foolish with a largish dollop of strawman on your part I guess.

      • Brandon

        I think the energy market has got into a mess, mostly helped by Western Governments determined to be green at any price and the advocacy of certain green groups cheerleading immature technologies or demonising sources such as nuclear.

        Personally, I am not against renewable energy at all, but it must be within a broader context of cost and practicality and desirability. You don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside by, for example, placing ugly and noisy wind turbines in our finest upland landscapes then belatedly realising they then need damaging transmission lines and access roads

        As for practicality, we need to have the best renewable horses for courses. The UK pouring billions into solar energy is beyond crazy with our sunshine record. Tidal energy however would work well for us, being an island.

        I have always advocated a CERN type energy effort, whereby the finest brains would be allocated suitable sums of money over a long period with the specific aims of developing low cost, practical renewables and in particular such aspects as fusion. It would also have the remit of developing storage technology, as without it renewables are much less cost effective and practicality

        BTW its good to see you posting here. I miss your namesake with whom I had many interesting debates.

        tonyb

      • climatereason,

        I think the energy market has got into a mess, mostly helped by Western Governments determined to be green at any price and the advocacy of certain green groups cheerleading immature technologies or demonising sources such as nuclear.

        Personally, I am not against renewable energy at all, but it must be within a broader context of cost and practicality and desirability. You don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside by, for example, placing ugly and noisy wind turbines in our finest upland landscapes then belatedly realising they then need damaging transmission lines and access roads

        I’m quoting those together in full, tonyb, because I’m having difficulty reconciling them. I mean, I can; the logic flows, but it raises my eyebrows. Here’s my main problem — I don’t think the engineers doing wind projects belatedly realized anything about the need for access roads and transmission lines. Maybe, just mayyybe, some wind advocate/activists didn’t understand it from the get-go, but not the folks doing the projects.

        I’m not the biggest … er, fan … of windfarming. Ugly, alleged to be hard on the local avian species [1], vexing right of way and eminent domain issues for property owners … I get it that they’re not loved. Still … I’ll take them over coal.

        Now, if you want to talk about corn ethanol as the worst replacement *evar* for MTBE (and/or others), that argument I can get behind. I can really get behind not loving 170-proof “petrol” if moonshine is providing the E in E85. Dunno exactly what you lot are doing across the pond, but we here in the Colonies really just need to get off the ethanol quota if corn mash is the feedstock. (As an aside: I miss the smell of proper leaded petrol, in the morning, any time of day … ah, memories of innocent childhood lost.)

        As for practicality, we need to have the best renewable horses for courses.

        Well yes, I agree with that.

        The UK pouring billions into solar energy is beyond crazy with our sunshine record. Tidal energy however would work well for us, being an island.

        I can’t really comment on UK solar programmes, other than to say I’ve visited London and surrounds (loved it) so I understand from first hand experience that it’s not the sunniest place ever. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, so I’m no stranger to fog. But it, like, burns off by 10 am at the latest. Even the inland Tule fogs we get don’t stick around like the pea soups the N. Atlantic serves up for you in the Isles.

        When I was a lad, I was enthralled by tidal energy. Not so much now. Expensive, potentially disruptive to marine life and coastlines, high maintenance on corroded and/or fouled working parts (see again expensive) … I dunno.

        I have always advocated a CERN type energy effort, whereby the finest brains would be allocated suitable sums of money over a long period with the specific aims of developing low cost, practical renewables and in particular such aspects as fusion.

        Yes, fusion, another of my childhood fantasies. Been a decade away for five decades. Not that it shouldn’t be worked on, I think we’ll get it eventually, but I have ants in my pants. And there are plenty of things using economically viable and proven technologies we could be doing in much grander style than the piecemeal efforts thus far. For electricity, for me, that is fission. Thorium salt reactors, yes please, but Gen II(+) reactors are proven and economical when not facing political opposition and undue regulatory red tape. If your friends across the Channel can get the Gen III EWR designs working (and I’m hopeful they can) there is openness on my side of the pond from the likes of Union of Concerned Scientists to deploy them as a largely safer (or perhaps I should say, largely less dangerous) solution for our own use.

        TL;DR: we can wait around for the “best” future technologies to come on line forever, and not get anything done. I don’t think we have that option, and I realize that “your” side isn’t the only stumbling block. For nukes at least, the Greenpeacer opposition to all fission power still apparently, and self-destructively, holds some sway over warmist opinion.

        BTW its good to see you posting here. I miss your namesake with whom I had many interesting debates.

        I never interacted with the real R. Gates, but I have read him with much enjoyment. I respect you for thinking of him as a worthy opponent, I could only hope to live up to his reputation.

        Your handle is similar to that of Tony Banton, a UKer like you, but a warmist like me, who calls himself toneb at WUWT. I’ve sometimes been confused by the name similarity because the content is obviously quite different. Fun coincidences can be … fun.

        Tautologically yours, cheers.

        ——————

        [1] By various (widely ranging) estimates, avian mortality due to wind farms is less by orders of magnitude than collisions with downtown-area buildings, and much improved after care was taken to make the support towers less attractive for perching and nesting.

      • Brandon

        No, of course those carrying out the design and construction of wind farms are fully aware of all the construction needs. Politicians and many renewables activists however have until recently seemed to think wind turbines appear fully formed and ready to go. Until experience has shown otherwise they had not realised the extent of associated construction such as access roads, concrete filling for bases and sundry buildings . As turbines are very often erected in wild upland places they are often furthest away from potential consumers of the electricity, which then requires miles of transmission lines carried on metal pylons. I think they are very intrusive industrial technologies which are highly inefficient.

        As for tidal power (with associated wave and currents energy) it must be remembered that no where in Britain is further than 70 miles from the coast and that there are many cities on our coasts with already developed transmission lines.

        As for solar, my own area is one of the sunniest in the country and we get 1700 hours a year with very low sunshine levels and light levels during the winter when power is most needed and of course none at all during the cold winter nights. Solar might work in Spain or California but not over here.

        As for a CERN type energy project, I think we need only to look towards say the Apollo project to recognise that, given access to lots of brains, sufficient resources and clearly defined goals, that much could be achieved, whether refining existing renewable technology, finding new sources or creating suitable storage technologies.

        Yes, Tony Banton using toneb is rather confusing.

        tonyb

      • climatereason,

        No, of course those carrying out the design and construction of wind farms are fully aware of all the construction needs. Politicians and many renewables activists however have until recently seemed to think wind turbines appear fully formed and ready to go.

        I thought that’s what you were getting at, but wasn’t entirely sure. One of my prejudices is that folks on the … less gung-ho … for alternative energy solutions often self-contradict even when it’s pointed out to them. I’d tell you my own blind-spots if I saw them, but by definition often have to rely on others pointing them out. Ok, well I might cop to them in a reasonable discussion, in a mud-fest, not a chance.

        Anywho, I don’t wholly disagree with your observation. My counter-point is that activist-vision may tend to be skewed simply by the nature of how lobbying for policy works. Perhaps based on undue influence from that bias, I tend to think that in practise, wind is a viable part of the mix up to at least 20% penetration before things like storage or expensive revamping of the grid is required to handle intermittency.

        As turbines are very often erected in wild upland places they are often furthest away from potential consumers of the electricity, which then requires miles of transmission lines carried on metal pylons.

        I’m sure there are plenty of examples of this to demonstrate the point. When I look at overall numbers for levelized system costs per unit power, wind looks pretty good. Whether the supporting infrastructure costs are included in those numbers is not clear to me, but my main sources are US government reports which I would think would not tend to overlook such things. Understate, perhaps, but not wholly ignored. Something I should probably delve deeper into one of these years …

        The mills themselves are unsightly to my eyes, just as transmission pylons and lines are. But then so are the local above-ground power and communication lines right outside my front door. Ideally, we’d all have our own fusion reactors in the basement, and communications would all be wireless. Electric surface vehicles would use in-ground induction instead of batteries and be driven by computer. Rail transport would ride “on” and be propelled by room-temperature superconducting electromagnets. Raw materials would be mined from the moon and launched by railgun to space-elevator termini in geosynchronous Earth orbit for delivery where needed by fusion-powered surface ships.

        I was born centuries too early, alas.

        I think they are very intrusive industrial technologies which are highly inefficient.

        How about this, I don’t think they’re optimal.

        What are your thoughts on geothermal? I don’t think we’re giving it its due. Some on “my side” whom I respect tell me I’m dreaming, if you can believe that.

        As for tidal power (with associated wave and currents energy) it must be remembered that no where in Britain is further than 70 miles from the coast and that there are many cities on our coasts with already developed transmission lines.

        Understood. The best wind in my neck of the woods is offshore, where we don’t have that same benefit. OTOH, we’ve been doing undersea cables for communication for some time. I’m well out of familiar territory here though, offshore wind is not on my personal list of priorities.

        Speaking of offshore, taking advantage of the temperature gradient between the surface and deep ocean would seem to hold promise. Retrofitting extant offshore drilling rigs to serve as the surface platform would seem a viable first step as much of the required equipment and piping are already there, with a well-trained workforce to manage it. The working fluid would be one concern, refrigerants like ammonia and R-134a as well as CFCs and small-chain hydrocarbons are mentioned in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

        Solar might work in Spain or California but not over here.

        Canadians say the same thing. It’s also probably not quite as necessary, they have a lot of hydro … 63% of their domestic electricity production already comes from it. They’d need to do dramatically up that capacity for an all-electric economy and I’m dubious they could do it with less environmental cost than if they replaced fossil generation with nuclear.

        As for a CERN type energy project, I think we need only to look towards say the Apollo project to recognise that, given access to lots of brains, sufficient resources and clearly defined goals, that much could be achieved, whether refining existing renewable technology, finding new sources or creating suitable storage technologies.

        That’s what I think it will take for the US. The EPA and DOE don’t feel right to me as their roles are more regulatory, and often not great at that either. Energy being a strategic resource, I would not actually mind seeing a new agency created under the auspices of the US military. I’m here thinking about the Army Corps of Engineers prior successes (albeit, often controversial) in doing large-scale infrastructure projects. The administrative, technology development, project management, bidding, contract management, procurement and oversight skills already exist in the Pentagon. There have been some lemons (F-35 JSF, anyone?) but it seems like a good fit. It feels like the kind of nationalization that many Americans could get on board with because we’ve long been fielding a world-class and technologically superior armed forces.

      • Brandon

        Trains running on electromagnets? On my stretch of the coast Brunel built an ‘atmospheric railway’ back in the 1840’s, so everything is possible

        http://www.ikbrunel.org.uk/atmospheric-railway

        It failed as the rats ate the leather pipes but with new technology?. This illustrates that with regards to energy or transport-which I agree is a strategic resource-pooling brains in a co-operative Cern type fashion could yield great dividends with the goal of sustainable renewable cheap energy/transport for all, that is appropriate to the countries needs/technology/resources.

        Britain has invested billions in offshore wind. I had less objections to it than land (out of sight out of mind and always windier at sea) until I saw a BBC documentary on them. Fantastically expensive to build, the maintenance of them is also mind boggling. To carry out any maintenance a technician had to be winched by helicopter onto a small platform at the top of the turbine. Not cheap or very safe.

        The intermittency of wind will always be a problem, so it is only one of a basket of renewable resources.

        We don’t have the topography for much in the way of hydro. Geothermal is interesting. Britain is thinking of importing this from Iceland. I don’t think our topography makes it suitable to develop it here to any great extent. A friend of ours house in Switzerland is powered by geothermal and it mostly works well.

        Everything could be explored in an energy Cern type project. Sign up now and invest! I will give you details of my bank account shortly….

        Perhaps we can get your name sake Bill Gates on board, who appears to want to do something broadly similar and I suspect might be a tad richer than you.

        tonyb

  15. RE: “Great article about cognitive biases and how our brains constantly trick us”

    Besides being dependent on snacks and hating to wait, we’re also very bad at predicting the future, even if our minds convince us otherwise.

    Combining this with the criteria by which the public evaluates the experts — “the quality of expeert opinion is whether it proves to be right or wrong” (Daniel Yankelovich) — we can see why the credibility and legitimacy of climate science is in the toilet.

    • That study is itself skewed by very low sensitivity studies that self-reported high precision. We don’t know what these studies were and how they got such high precision on equilibrium sensitivity. The highest reported precision by far comes from one study with an estimate of less than 1 C (!).

      • When measuring a small effect you need much more precision to produce a usable value.

        Measuring 1 at +/- 1/2 is equivalent to measuring 3 +/- 1 1/2.

      • That’s exactly why their method of giving more weight to more precision fails unless you count precision as a percentage of the mean, which they don’t.

      • Jim D | April 30, 2016 at 7:29 am | Reply
        That study is itself skewed by very low sensitivity studies that self-reported high precision. We don’t know what these studies were and how they got such high precision on equilibrium sensitivity. The highest reported precision by far comes from one study with an estimate of less than 1 C (!).

        Huh?

        Did you look at the data plot?

        The high and low precision measurements should cluster around the same vertical axis, assuming random error. If they don’t, the “error” isn’t random.

        If more precision keeps pushing the measurement to the left – there is some bias that is pushing published results to the right: peer review filtering, misanalyzing the data, etc.

        The data trend indicates the actual value is less than 1.5. High precision measurements simply can’t be fudged enough to get the expected value.

        The really high precision value “high tail” measurement is less than one which matches with a curve drawn through the “low end” plot points and would indicate the value will ultimately be determined to be less than 1.

      • PA, you answered your own question. Lower numbers usually go with smaller error bars, so it gets skewed to low estimates when you plot it that way. It sure won’t be symmetric, unless the low estimates have similar error bars to the high ones, which arguably they should unless they are really more certain. The case in point is that the smallest error bars went to a study with an estimate of less than 1 C per doubling.

      • Jim D | May 3, 2016 at 12:27 am |
        PA, you answered your own question. Lower numbers usually go with smaller error bars, so it gets skewed to low estimates when you plot it that way.

        Say what?

        I know what you are saying. What you are saying is not something you can claim with a straight face. It isn’t correct.

        The highest precision measurement is below one and isn’t shown.

  16. OMG there’s another dreadful paper.
    http://qz.com/671971/for-600-years-japanese-monks-have-recorded-climate-data-that-scientists-are-using-today/
    “QUARTZ
    A FROZEN ASSET
    For 600 years, Japanese monks have recorded climate data that scientists are using today
    […] By looking at the two data sets side-by-side, the scientists found that both bodies of water were prone to freeze later, melt earlier, and have shorter ice-cover duration since the Industrial Revolution. […] Indeed, the warming climate’s effect on these bodies of water is shocking: Lake Suwa remained unfrozen twelve times in the 55-year period between 1950 and 2004, compared to only three times for a 255-year period from 1443 to 1700. And the Torne River experienced nine extreme warm years in the 14-year period between 2000 and 2013 and 10 extreme warm years in the 207-year period between 1693 and 1899. […]”

    Do they think that the Industrial Revolution retrospectively caused the Little Ice Age?

    • The article states that the post industrial period was from the 17th century to the 20th century. I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the industrial revolution, in Europe, at least didn’t commence until the mid 18th century.

      The industrial revolution began in Japan in around 1870 (19th century). The feudal system held sway in Japan quite a bit later than England.

      Claiming that changing climate in the 17th century was due to events in Europe in the 18th century, or in Japan in the 19th century, seems rather far fetched.

      The article contains a number of oddities in addition to these. It may be an example of wishful thinking, but doesn’t seem to be based on fact.

      Cheers.

    • David Wojick

      This is indeed evidence that the LIA was global, which many warmers deny. Perhaps they are addressing the imaginary skeptics who claim there has been no warming.

      • Before you can declare a warming or a cooling to have been global, somebody has to do the science. So far, nobody as done the science. Throwing dozens of individual studies against the wall is not doing the science. If there is science, compelling, then very few will say the events were not global.

      • Steven Mosher

        Funny proxies are few and far between.
        A convince sample on top of that.
        No meaningful statement can be made about global temps.
        Remember

      • Steven Mosher

        Damn auto correct. Convenience

      • This isn’t about global, it’s about Lake Suwa and the Torne River, and I think you will find that the places in which the LIA has been found do cover both of those.

        But that’s not at all surprising, because as David Wojick points out, the LIA has been found in a very convincingly large range of places.

      • Hey JimD, people are talking about the LIA!!
        Quick! Dispell these denier myths and tell them about Mann’s hockey stick!

      • The HS had the LIA, so I don’t know what your problem is.

      • In the beginning Steven,…I thought you all wanted to call the ‘convince samples’, ‘just adjustments’? I hope you can remember.

      • Steven Mosher

        Count the proxies in the LIA.
        You want to extrapolate from that?.

        Too funny.

      • You might try using the Vostok ice core history and see what you get for the last 20K?

      • I have some questions about the need to splice in Sat Data with the ice core numbers but with todays science the ice may need to age before you can read it. The older ice plots on T value don’t look too frightening to me.

      • Steven Mosher – you say
        “Count the proxies in the LIA.
        You want to extrapolate from that?.
        Too funny.”.

        Well, now there are two more.

        Too funny.

      • Steven Mosher

        Ya extrapolate from finland to Japan. Just a few kilometers. Too funny. So tell me.
        If it drops to 0 and ice forms on Nov 11 one year.
        And if the following year it drops to -10c on Nov 11..how exactly does a record of the day ice forms capture this 10 degree difference?

        In other words. Precision bro.
        U out can be relatively sure it’s below the freezing point.
        How far below?
        When ice ridges. .
        When ice breaks up.

        Interesting calibration problem.

      • My understand has been that precision was the number of samples in a period. Surely this has been a large variable over the years as far as collection is concerned. There must of been a whole lot of infilling going on.

      • Mosher is correct. People often jump to conclusions based on data that supports their beliefs.

      • “Count the proxies in the LIA.
        You want to extrapolate from that?.”
        http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
        Input these values:
        15
        85
        2000
        50
        Sample size is 23. May not translate as it’s assumed the survey asks yes/no questions. Temperature surveys do not return yes/no answers in most cases. It’s been over 25 years but I had a stats class that looked at small sample sizes. The idea was to learn what we could say working with them. Audits cost money and take time. Small sample sizes are sometimes considered. Science takes time and costs money. Small sample sizes are sometimes considered. When we reference CET, I think we are doing the same type of thing. Monks in Japan as well. The MWP all over the globe I suppose relies on small sample sizes being legitimate. When people talk of so much of the globe as not being directly measured I lean towards thinking, we still have a lot data points. Much more than 23. Our current number of data points is probably overkill if I ask, how many data points do we need?
        Input these values:
        5
        95
        2000
        50
        Only 323 needed. The 5 and 95 above are typical audit numbers. We are 95% certain we are within 5% of whatever the heck it really is. Done.

      • Just trying some real small sample sizes.
        Input this at the above link:
        25
        75
        2000
        50
        Sample size is 6. I am just an accountant and may have made mistakes here. As few as 6 proxies might tell us something.
        Input this:
        34
        66
        2000
        50
        We are 66% confident we are within 34% of whatever heck the global temperature was using these 2 proxies. Doesn’t seem plausible. I do recall my Prof showing us the numbers on a sample size of 2. I going to say that what I’ve been talking about are cases where you can count something easily. A proxy would seem to involve additional errors not faced by accountants.

      • Here’s my understanding of one of the things BEST does. Take a station’s data. The temperature so many kilometers away can be predicted adjusting for latitude and elevation. Now assume BEST is doing this with paleo data. Seems all data is good. It adds to what we think we know. We can dismiss paleo as not good enough. Might depend on our bias.

      • Steven Mosher

        what is even Funnier is that they extrapolate from
        the onset of cold weather ( winter) and the onset of spring ( ice break up)
        to the WHOLE YEAR..

        Now what if I did that with temperature records?

        Ask yourself.

        If I came on here with two records.. one showing it was 0C in the spring and argued that
        I could conclude something about the annual global temperature from that Skeptics would have a cow.

        So what exactly do these proxies do in an argument?

        they dont falsify the hypothesis that “it” was colder in the LIA
        That’s about it.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Here’s my understanding of one of the things BEST does. Take a station’s data. The temperature so many kilometers away can be predicted adjusting for latitude and elevation. ”

        And SEASON.

        and weather.

        But understand my deeper point.

        I am trying to point out how skeptics change the rules they play by
        when it comes to data they like:

        When it comes to thermometers
        A) they complain that 5000, 10000, 30000, etc is not enough
        B) they argue there is no averaging of temperatures allowed
        C) they whine about precision.
        D) they whine about infilling missing data

        When it comes to proxies..
        A) one ice core is enough
        B) they have no trouble arguing the global average existed in the LIA
        C) Precision? they dont even ask the question
        D) using one or two seasons? no problem.

        We need to be as skeptical about proxies as we are about thermometers.
        no more no less. just practice the same rigor and the answer will fall out.

      • D on April 30, 2016 at 3:16 pm
        The HS had the LIA, so I don’t know what your problem is.

        Rrright…

      • The seasons are way down under…

        with not a hint of Spring. How do you do it?

      • When a history of past weather conditions is frozen in time for the past 420K years and is also located in a very remote location where high winds thoroughly mix the atmosphere, you feel that one station that is consistent is not up to task? Instead you need to manufacture more data points to take your stab at global weather for the past 250 years? You may feel that is science but I don’t buy it at all. Vostok ice tells the truth about our recent past. It is all that is needed to answer the important questions. Fat tails don’t work there either.

      • Steven Mosher

        Arch.
        Would you accept one thermometer in Antarctica as a record for global temps?
        How well can you predict the temperature in Boston from that station?
        It’s aways about the uncertainty

      • “what is even Funnier is that they extrapolate from the onset of cold weather ( winter) and the onset of spring ( ice break up) to the WHOLE YEAR.”
        I think a lake can make a good sort of thermometer. This past Winter on Lake Minnetonka the ice fisherpeople had to wait additional weeks before getting onto the ice. Many of them wouldn’t drive their trucks onto the lake ice at anytime during the past Winter. With my expertise as an accountant, I attributed the situation to El Nino. Ice out is a discrete event. It reflects months of preceding weather conditions. Yes, it can still miss the mark when we interpret it. The new Monk data has value greater than zero if used properly. I agree the rules shouldn’t change when using proxies and weather stations to suit our position. The sample size of weather stations is good and for proxies it’s not bad. With infilling I am picturing a ring of known values surrounding a vacant area. On average it works. But it’s how the new GAT is then used. When the far North warms as it has, I think it’s the Earth cooling itself. If the Earth starts cooling the far North will then be cooler as the Earth tries to retain ocean warmth by making ice. It would be colder than we thought with infilling but that would be a good thing.

      • Steven, I want to save money, so no; with the Vostok ice core data you don’t even need the thermometer. All that is important at this stage is to accept the waves for what they are. If you just focus on a given value for T & CO2 what more do you need? The objective should be to review other ice core data to see if there is an understandable verification of samples taken from other sites. You should end up with a range for Temp. and CO2, than compare and see where we are today. I don’t think we are close to being out of the park

      • One more thing Steven, no splicing Sat data… ice core all the way down to yesterday.

  17. RE: “Trial, error and the God complex [link] (interesting Ted talk)”

    While the God complex is rampant in society as a whole, and most notably in the scientific community, it seems to have found an especially fertile breeding ground in climate science.

  18. Idling diesel engines may produce dangerous pollutant

    Here is another case where the “ready, fire, aim” policy toward “climate control” may have taken a wrong turn. Technology is like an onion. Once we are many layers into a technology the new onion nearby may seem very attractive… until we peel back a few layers.

    From the article:

    “Cigarette smoke, and smoke from wood and biomass burning are among the most common sources of isocyanic acid”

    But:

    “exhaust from idling diesel engines produces a significant amount of isocyanic acid when photons from sunlight help it react with other compounds in the atmosphere”

    “The new study suggests urban regions with large amounts of combustion from non-road diesel vehicles may be experiencing high concentrations of isocyanic acid that are potentially damaging to human health”

    “all non-road diesels produced after 2015 have selective catalytic (SCR) systems to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, a precursor to ground-level ozone. SCR systems have been shown to produce isocyanic acid in the process of reducing nitrogen oxides, and engines with these systems release more isocyanic acid than those without the SCR system”

    And this concerns “green power” because:

    “UK turns to diesel to meet power supply crunch”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f664c78-821b-11e5-8095-ed1a37d1e096.html#axzz47JcGERHB

    “Analysis of publicly available figures shows that companies have registered to build a total of about 1.5 gigawatts of diesel power under a government scheme to encourage back-up energy for the grid.”

    “The subsidies on offer are so appealing that even solar-power developers… are building diesel generation on their sites as a way of maximising their returns.”

    The first comment includes this info:

    “In Bristol, we are being faced with three new inner-city power plants, two diesel and one gas. One diesel plant has 64 generators and the other has 48. Although they are deemed ‘back up’, they are both scheduled to run every day between 7am and 11pm. The 64 generator site is expected to run one hour a day, the 48 site 200 hours each winter. The gas plant may run up to 1500 hours. All are in densely built up, poorer neighbourhoods with very poor air quality”

  19. The statistical treatment of the Japanese monk data is appallingly bad. See figure 1. A joke. Arbitrarily exclude the middle third of the data which is visually no different than the first and last thirds, then pretend no trend in the first third (have to agree, its a shotgun pattern) but a strong trend in the last third (have to disagree, its still a shotgun pattern).
    And the ice free years data of figure two is a visual cheat. All 50 year bins except the last, which is 64. So of course there is more; its a bigger bin. What figure 2 does show is natural warming up to 1950, merely confirming Japan is coming out of the LIA. Not the message the paper tries (but fails) to convey about Shinto monks recording AGW.

  20. Studies suggest volcanic activity has profound long term impact on climate [link]

    “Variations in CO2 concentrations or anthropogenic CO2 emissions cannot effectively explain the long-term cooling of the oceans (about -0.35 C per 1,000 years for the last 2,000 years per Ocean2k ). On the other hand, explosive volcanism and its dimming effect on surface solar radiation can much more readily explain decadal- and centennial-scale cooling and warming phases with both its presence (cooling) and absence (warming). – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/28/studies-suggest-volcanic-activity-had-profound-long-term-impact-on-past-climate-co2-is-no-explanation/#sthash.gP5UORXO.E6fF39b0.dpuf

    And then there is this, small continuous vents and small eruptions contribute to global atmospheric CO2.

    Pedone, M.; Aiuppa, A.; Giudice, G.; Grassa, F.; Francofonte, V.; Bergsson, B.; Ilyinskaya, E. (2014). “Tunable diode laser measurements of hydrothermal/volcanic CO2 and implications for the global CO2 budget.” (PDF). Solid Earth 5: 1209–1221. doi:10.5194/se-5-1209-2014.

    Continuing my inquiry into the contribution of volcanos to atmospheric CO2, I wondered (to myself and certainly not out loud) why we do not record global warming 2-3 years after major volcanic eruptions when the sulfates aerosols have all rained out. After all, CO2 is supposed to be a long lived atmospheric gas, and, along with water vapor is the second most abundant gas exhaled from volcanic eruptions. A consistent “bump” upward in the surface temperature should be observed. According to the BEST graph, that never happened. And then there is the global sea temperature cooling 0 – 700 m.

    All very curious to me which suggests that the theory: CO2 as a control knob for global climate may be a bit over-inflated.

    • Steven Mosher

      Control knobs means one thing. According to alley who coined the term.

      Big excursions in pale and the modern ramp cannot be explained by physics that lacks a co2 effect.

      Note. This does not mean every change can be tracked to co2

      • I hate to be the one to have to tell you this Steven, there are no knobs.

      • Steven Mosher

        Thank you for your input:

        “Big excursions in pale and the modern ramp cannot be explained by physics that lacks a co2 effect.”

        That CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas along with water vapor keeping earth warmer than it would otherwise be is certainly a plausible explanation. The importance of CO2 and its physics representing a radiative blanket seems to have some merit as well. And, as you have pointed out to others, and possibly myself, the question is: “How much?” And here is the rub.

        When earth belches a prodigious amount of CO2, and the physics that is involved would suggest an impact on global surface temperatures, I rightfully would expect to see an upward blip in GST after all the albedo aerosols have rained out. At least some of the time. The blip may be there and smoothed out by other calculations. We could be using models of future events that are all wrong. It could be CO2 is not a century lived gas, rather, is here today and gone in less than decade, maybe gone in 1/2 a decade.

        Or, “There is more to life than heaven and earth my dear Horatio.”
        And that is where I come down.

        It is really hard to argue that we don’t know enough to say the things we are saying are true. If everything being said about CO2 were true, then we should be able to predict what would happen if…..

        Show me the bump upwards in GST 2 – 3 years from atmospheric CO2 after a large volcanic eruptions.

        My eyes aren’t what they use to be. I need help with this one because I really can’t see it.

      • Steven Mosher,

        Warmists have no theory that relates to the CO2 effect. Just strident assertions, backed by more strident assertions, and repeated attempts to claim that the future can be ascertained from examination of the past.

        You can’t state the CO2 warming theory, in any testable way, shape, or form. The effect is just as real as N rays, phlogiston, or the luminiferous ether.

        So where is the theory? Can you state it in less than a page? Give it a try, if you feel like it. Make it even easier, just cut and paste it from somewhere. Up for the challenge?

        So far, it’s all wishful thinking with a good dash of Cargo Cult science thrown in.

        Cheers.

      • Big excursions in pale and the modern ramp cannot be explained by physics that lacks a co2 effect.

        The low sensitivity INMCM4 model far outperforms the American high sensitivity models.

        CO2 isn’t the control knob it is the small fine tuning knob right next to it.

        Americans are playing with the wrong knob.

      • I hate to be the one to have to tell you this Steven, there are no knobs.

        Has anyone abused Einstein on this thread yet, Arch Stanton? Nope. Here: “God does not play dice with the universe.” ~Uncle Al

        Surely Mr. Feynman will have an acceptable retort.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        “Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman described turbulence as “the most important unsolved problem of classical physics.”

        He also wrote (in relation to problems he thought worth solving) –

        “The theory of turbulence (I have spent several years on it without success). Plus all the “grander” problems of quantum
        theory.”

        The atmosphere seems to act in a turbulent fashion.

        Maybe you prefer the work of Albert Lorenz in relation to the possibly chaotic nature of the atmosphere. One paper –

        “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas? “

        It might be worth while to actually read his paper, before you start telling people what you think he really meant.

        Maybe Einstein was wrong, as he admitted about other things –

        “Once Einstein knew the universe was expanding, he discarded the cosmological constant as an unnecessary fudge factor. He later called it the “biggest blunder of his life,” according to his fellow physicist George Gamow.”

        I am inclined to agree with Feynman and Lorenz, rather than Einstein, in this regard. You?

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        More ad dickium and now ad einstienium.
        Next up ad galileium.

        Here is the clue. You don’t do science by wikiquotes.

      • Mike Flynn

        Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “Here is the clue. You don’t do science by wikiquotes.”

        You might want reconsider. Although you claim to have found your previously missing clue, you best not give it away, otherwise you will again be completely clueless.

        If you have ever done any science, as you so quaintly put it, you might care to show some evidence. The scientific method apparently includes such things as hypotheses, observations, experiments and so on. I am unaware of your participation in any field of scientific endeavour involving the application of the scientific method, as generally accepted, apart from performing some rather repetitive and ultimately pointless simple calculations.

        Calling yourself a scientist may well make you a legend in your own lunchbox, but may not actually garner much respect from real scientists, if that is what you desire. Just an opinion, which is worth what you just paid for it.

        Cheers.

      • More ad dickium and now ad einstienium.
        Next up ad galileium.

        You forgot the Lorenzium, Steven Mosher. Butterflies are the mothers of all squirrels.

        This is old territory for this blog, however. See Bengtsson vs. Lacis: https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/26/the-heart-of-the-climate-dynamics-debate/

      • I am inclined to agree with Feynman and Lorenz, rather than Einstein, in this regard. You?

        Feynman didn’t do work directly related to climate. Lorenz did, my favorite paper by him is Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow: http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Deterministic_63.pdf

        The “deterministic” bit is downright Newtonian, something Einstein I think was clinging to a mite too strongly even as his colleagues used his own work to overturn the notion of a strictly deterministic universe.

        Anyway, I don’t have a problem with Lorenz. Climate is all about the attractor, and climate scientists don’t have a problem with Lorenz either. Trenberth is a good example; Lorenz was his doctoral adviser.

      • Let us not forget the Planckium: We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up to now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.

        Between that and science advancing one funeral at a time, we really should just give up doing any science at all and hope for the best. Think of all the money we’d save.

      • brandonrgates

        I went back to your referenced May 2014 and the subsequently referenced October 2011 CE posts.

        The 2011 by Andy Lacis was the one I remember using “CO2 as a control knob” arguing that the major non-condensible radiative gases, of which CO2 was the major component, represented 25% of the greenhouse effect which was amplified by the short lived other greenhouse gas water vapor.

        Fluid dynamics, Navier-Stokes equations, turbulence, boundary vs initial conditions problems seem to dominate the discussions back then although the people who spoke about these components seemed to be more important now than the actual science.

        Yours and Mosher’s mentioning these people does not seem to move the science conversation forward.

        Has anything changed in the above mentioned science since 2011?

      • Erratum: Feynman didn’t do work directly related to climate.

        I had forgotten Feynman’s work on turbulence, which is nominally related to weather and hence climate. The problem with quotemining dead sages is that they’re not around to defend how we use their words as blog “science” ammunition. I had thought my observation to Arch Stanton that no one had yet abused Einstein on this thread was sufficient enough indication that my tongue was firmly in cheek … but apparently not.

        My point still stands that Arch’s “no control knobs” argument is silly. Things in a deterministic physical system don’t happen by accident (i.e., magic), and we don’t need dearly departed researchers’ words to tell us that when so many alive and kicking ones are. I mean, surely nobody would argue that solar output increasing or decreasing by 10% wouldn’t respectively warm or cool the planet on average. Would they?

      • RiHo08,

        The 2011 by Andy Lacis was the one I remember using “CO2 as a control knob” arguing that the major non-condensible radiative gases, of which CO2 was the major component, represented 25% of the greenhouse effect which was amplified by the short lived other greenhouse gas water vapor.

        He did invoke the control knob image, one that I don’t love because it is so often interpreted as saying CO2 is the ONLY knob. It just so happens to be the one humans have been cranking on beginning with the Industrial Revolution, and set to with a will in the mid-20th Century.

        Fluid dynamics, Navier-Stokes equations, turbulence, boundary vs initial conditions problems seem to dominate the discussions back then although the people who spoke about these components seemed to be more important now than the actual science.

        I don’t follow. I agreed, and still do, that whether climate can be treated as a boundary value vs. initial conditions problem is pretty much the whole ball of wax for modelling purposes. I don’t think it’s as contentious as Dr. Curry portrayed it; Bengtsson’s position is the minority opinion in the climate modelling community and the majority opinion is based on knowing full well that predicting weather multiple decades in advance IS a fool’s errand. To me, the value of that post was seeing the issues so clearly laid out on the same page by two experts at odds with each other.

        Yours and Mosher’s mentioning these people does not seem to move the science conversation forward. Has anything changed in the above mentioned science since 2011?

        Sometimes understanding past arguments helps understand present ones. Or as may be in this case, keeps us from wholly reinventing the wheel; I’m not aware that there’s been any significant change in these fundamentals since 2011.

      • stevenreincarnated

        “Big excursions in pale and the modern ramp cannot be explained by physics that lacks a co2 effect.”

        You are just an ocean heat transport denier.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        You wrote –

        “I mean, surely nobody would argue that solar output increasing or decreasing by 10% wouldn’t respectively warm or cool the planet on average. Would they?”

        What in blue blazes has that got to do with the alleged global,warming powers of CO2?

        Next you’ll be claiming that heat is responsible for heating things! Actually you’d be talking sense, unlike the mad Warmists who claim CO2 has the power to heat the globe.

        And still you cannot demonstrate this wondrous ability. Warmists figure that claiming CO2 causes floods, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps, increasing ice, decreasing ice, sea level rise and fall, pollution, coral bleaching, and all manner of silly nonsense, is enough.

        What absolute piffle! Where’s your experimental data of CO2s magical heating properties? Silly question, I know. You haven’t any!

        Cheers.

  21. Re: new Aussie research center:

    “In other words, he is running the science organization more like a venture capital firm, rather than an organization that funds science that provides a public good, such as climate modeling that enables individuals to make decisions on where to buy a house based on sea level rise projections.”

    Seriously?

    • Well…

      Good climate modeling may be a “public good”. The climate modeling we have gotten to this point is a “public bad” and should be defunded.

  22. Degener, J.F. 2015. Atmospheric CO2 fertilization effects on biomass yields of 10 crops in northern Germany. Frontiers in Environmental Science 3: 48, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2015.00048.
    ____

    Degener models the effect of elevated CO2 on crop yields given an IPCC climate change scenario to the year 2100, finds the CO2 raises yields despite the change in climate, but cautions the model doesn’t take everything into account and the results should be regarded as projections rather than predictions.

    I thought the model was an interesting way to explore the possibility of a net benefit in crop yield from rising CO2 in a changing climate. A more direct way might be to grow the crops in a greenhouse where conditions could be controlled according to scenario. As Degener points out, his model does not address changes in the nutritional value of crops or the negative effect of increases in ground level ozone on plants. In a controlled setting these things could be measured. Perhaps it has been done. I did not do a search to find related research.

    • M10k. This has been done in greenhouses for at least two important crops, C3 rice and C4 corn. Amongst the things tested were CO2 concentration (IIRC up to 700ppm or some such), average temperature (plus 3 C average), water stress, and heat stress (the latter two for corn). As expected, C3 rice improved yields more (on the order of 25-30%), and the change in average temperatures was immaterial (rice grows in Southeast Asia from lowlands (hotter) to highlands (colder), so cultivar matters). C4 corn responds less to CO2 (IIRC, on the order of 12-15%. Temperature response depends on cultivar; growing season length has a larger yield impact (5 month maturity produces more than 4 month maturity). Heat stress mostly unchanged. A bit more tolerant to water stress. Heat stress response much less pronounced in absence of water stress. CIMMYT also has done thousands of African test plots looking to improve yields in 4 month maturity corn, because the MAM rains only last 3 months, so the last month of kernel filling is usually severely water stressed. They have made real progress.
      The studies did not report on changed nutritional value, only yield.

      • ristvan, thank you. Any links?

        I forgot that in a green house setting it could be hard to account for the effect of climate change on plant pests and plant diseases. Maybe it wouldn’t be an insurmountable problem.

  23. Projecting the Impacts of Rising CO2 on Future Crop Yields in Germany

    That is an important result for people who trust the models. Hopefully, the work will be updated as more accurate models are developed in the upcoming decades.

  24. David L. Hagen

    ICEGATE?
    Breitbart posts: Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records

    here the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic – according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009. . . .
    NSIDC’s latest attempt to breathe new life into the corpse of the alarmist narrative comprised a press release a few weeks ago claiming that 5+ year old sea ice is at its smallest level on record. To prove it, they’ve produced a new chart that looks like this.

    Steve Goddard

    discovered is that NSIDC has been making some dramatic and unexplained adjustments to the record: about half the 5+ year sea ice which should be there, for example, has been mysteriously erased.

    Breitbart cites Steve Goddard’s post: NSIDC Busted April 23, 2016

    The map below is for week 41 2015. All of their previous 1984-2015 maps have been deleted from their archive. . . .
    NSIDC has deleted the original graphs, but seem to have forgotten to get rid of the copy. . . .
    Here is where they get in trouble. Besides deleting data, NSIDC also deleted a lot of older ice when they switched maps. Note inside the circle how the red five year old ice has disappeared in their new maps.
    The alterations are huge, and shown in the graph below. NSIDC deleted almost half of the five year old ice when they switched to the new maps. They also deleted about a third of the four year old ice, and some of the three year old ice. . . .
    It is bad enough that they switched data without telling anyone and used it to generate meaningless propaganda, but they also deleted all of the 1984 to week 36 2015 data from the disk. Fortunately they missed one map, which is the smoking gun. If the old data was that bad and needed to be deleted, then any comparisons made between the old and new data are extremely misleading- which is exactly what NSIDC was doing. They tracked that region of five year old ice for several years, and then suddenly decided it didn’t exist.

    See: NSIDC DAAC Updates EASE-Grid Sea Ice Age Data Set APRIL 8, 2016

    Version 3 of the EASE-Grid Sea Ice Age data set is now available at the NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center (NSIDC DAAC). The input ice motion data used for this data set is now derived from NSIDC-0116 Version 3 data, and the data were updated through 31 May 2015.

    Data Set DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5067/PFSVFZA9Y85G.

    These actions appear to violate NSIDC’s own policies:

    Data management: Our data management professionals and scientists work with data providers and users to create or publish data products, tools, and resources. We work to ensure that past, present, and future science data remain accessible for studying the Earth and its climate.

    This further appears to violate the Information Quality Act. While NSIDC is not a US Federal Agency, it is funded by US federal agencies.
    The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) Sponsors

    NSIDC’s research and scientific data management activities are supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other federal agencies, through competitive grants and contracts.

    US OMB Posts Agency Information Quality Guidelines
    The Information Quality Act: OMB’s Guidance and Initial Implementation CRS

    The Information Quality Act (IQA), sometimes referred to as the Data Quality Act, was enacted in December 2000 as Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554). The act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to issue guidance to federal agencies designed to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity” of information disseminated to the public. It also required agencies to issue their own information quality guidelines, and to establish administrative mechanisms that allow affected persons to seek correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agencies that does not comply with the OMB guidance.

    See the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Guidelines http://www.cio.noaa.gov/Policy_Programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Guidelines http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ocio/qualityinfo/peer_review.html
    National Science Foundation guidelines http://www.nsf.gov/policies/infoqual.jsp

    What gives? Can readers further unravel this?

    • I’m not sure that there is a bone to pick here. Unless NRL/Hycom is in on the act.

      If PIOMAS confirms in a few days that the volume is above 2013 and given the low Fram Strait losses:
      1. The max was arguably not the lowest (later max) but is intertwined with a couple of years.
      2. The minimum at this point given conditions that are better than 2013, looks to be around the 2013 level.
      3. After a hot winter the Arctic is sticking pretty close to normal.

      The ocean temperatures look like somebody pushed them out of a cargo plane The Nino 1-2 region is already in La Nina territory.

      So bottom line – I can’t see where the NSIDC did a lot wrong except for the usual disaster cheerleading. However a new sea ice minimum looks like a dubious bet.

      • David L. Hagen

        Thanks PA
        Any comments on the issues Goddard raised? e.g.

        NSIDC deleted almost half of the five year old ice when they switched to the new maps. They also deleted about a third of the four year old ice, and some of the three year old ice. . . .
        It is bad enough that they switched data without telling anyone and used it to generate meaningless propaganda, but they also deleted all of the 1984 to week 36 2015 data from the disk.

        What happened to keeping all data available for the public???

  25. David L. Hagen

    Etc. – Does eating breakfast help lose weight? – or Not?
    Tech Insider posts:
    The Claim:

    Skipping breakfast makes you gain weight, while eating it regularly helps you maintain a healthy weight.

    Facts:

    one of the largest studies of its kind, although observational, concluded last month that “breakfast consumption was not consistently associated with differences in BMI or overweight/obesity prevalence.” . . .
    And a randomized controlled trial from England, also published last month, found no differences in weight change between groups assigned to eat breakfast or to not eat until noon.

    Are global warming / climate science studies as accurate as dietary research?! How do we find unbiased objective studies?

    • I always find what I need, reading the Bible. Eat what you like and be sure to give thanks.

      • The Bible has lots of useful advice, such as the do’s and don’ts when selling a daughter into slavery.

        What makes you gain weight? Consuming more calories than you burn.

        How can you lose weight? Consume fewer calories than you burn.

        Is a big breakfast important? If that’s what you like. Otherwise, no.

        Is any breakfast important? If that’s what you like. Otherwise, no.

      • How can you lose weight? Consume fewer calories than you burn.

        The same sort of simplistic nonsense that gave us IPCC “climate science”.

      • max1ok, Have you gained weight sitting at your desk drinking Red Bull and eating your Snickers? When you buy yourself an VR set, you can always make your avatar slim. Your Brave New World is at the newsstands today.

      • David L. Hagen

        Arch Stanton: e.g., Micah 6:8

        He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

  26. AK, I didn’t mean to imply obesity is a moral failing. Some very successful people are overweight. Similarly, some very successful people are functioning alcoholics.

    • I wasn’t talking about “a moral failing.” How much you eat may be somewhat under your control, but how much you burn is in many ways sensitive to how much, what, and when you eat.

      It’s well known (find the links yourself) that metabolic rate will tend to drop considerably when somebody who’s been eating well cuts back. IMO it’s not just the basal rate, but also how much work the muscles do during any activity.

      And that leaves out entirely the effect of semi-voluntary exercise: the choice to get up from your chair or roll it, whether to jump up from a seated posture or get up with less exercise, etc.

      While the tendency (or not) to jump around and do extra work can be consciously overridden, AFAIK it’s strongly dependent on metabolic factors. It’s also dependent on mood, which in turn is dependent on metabolic factors.

      Which is why a simplistic statement like

      [… C]onsume fewer calories than you burn.

      … Is so simplistic and useless. Just like the IPCC’s “climate science”.

    • My mom used to say it was just until they could make sixty-two.

    • David Springer

      “Consume fewer calories than you burn.”

      Simple. Simple physics. True. Objecting because it’s difficult to determine number of calories burnt is a whine. It’s not difficult at all. If you are losing weight (given it isn’t dehydration) then you have consumed fewer than burned. If you go by the 3600 rule (3600 calories to the pound of fat) then you can easily calculate how many fewer calories were consumed.

      • Steven Mosher

        All other things being equal

      • All you have to do is look at photographs of groups of people who have been forced to starve. Among them, the ones with slower metabolism will be nice and chunky.

    • Obesity is carbon sequestration

  27. “Atlantic Ocean showing signs of a significant long-term shift in temperatures from warm-to-cold”

    Northern North Atlantic ocean heat content hasn’t fallen so much:

    There should another warming cycle of the AMO up to the next sunspot maximum, followed by a brief warming then transition into a cold AMO through the 2030’s. All previous Solar Minima see an increase in negative NAO, that means a warmer AMO.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise

  28. David Wojick wrote –

    “There is a lot of research that views climate change per se as a cause, rather than specific statistical changes. Bit of a muddle actually.”

    He is absolutely correct. I believe I have cracked the secret Warmist code, and can now reveal it to the world. It goes like this –

    The weather always changes, and climate is the average of weather according to the IPCC. Therfore, the climate also continuously changes, and this is called climate change.

    Now some Warmists claim that climate change causes the weather to change – for example, climate change causes weather events which affect the average of weather, leading to climate change.

    From this I deduce the basis of secret Warmist thinking – Climate Change causes Climate Change!

    Or, Climate Change equals Climate Change.

    To simplify, in mathematical terms, 1=1. Simple.

    Now Warmists might claim that Climate Change only causes Climate Change sometimes, and not at other times, and only a Warmist can tell when Climate Change is not actually Climate Change. If they did this, they would just be really, really, silly, wouldn’t they?

    Cheers.

    • Steven Mosher

      “Therfore, the climate also continuously changes, and this is called climate change.”

      Climate Change is the change in climate due to man.
      pretty ugly definition.

      It would be clearer to say

      Anthropogenic Climate change.

      but most literate folks get the shortened version.

      Please note Judiths objection: climate change as defined kinda rules out natural climate change. Fair enough point.

      Bottom line.
      More c02 warms the planet.
      words and marketing dont change physics

      • More c02 warms the planet.

        Maybe. Maybe even probably. Not certainly.

        But everybody’s going to keep arguing in circles as long as you let folks get away with defining “climate” as “the average of weather”. Try and come up with a more rigorous definition.

        And remember that if your definition includes words like “equilibrium”, it’s probably as wrong as Newtonian physics. The world is not a spherical chicken of uniform density.

      • “Climate change” is the weasel term for “global warming.” Global warming is a more honest term, but the alarmists were afraid the warming might not actually materialize as predicted, so they changed it. The fact is that to date, no one can pin any specific problem on “climate change” but we do see the benefit of a greener Earth That’s why a carbon tax must be based on future harm. What a crock, being taxed for harm that can’t be proven. Idi0ts.

      • “Climate change” is the weasel term for “global warming.”

        That’s one way of looking at it.

        Another would be that the climate could easily change in disastrous ways without any change to “global average temperature”. And it’s quite plausible that increased CO2 could produce such a change. (It’s also quite plausible that it wouldn’t, or whatever change it did produce would be too insignificant to matter.)

      • Steven Mosher

        But everybody’s going to keep arguing in circles as long as you let folks get away with defining “climate” as “the average of weather”. Try and come up with a more rigorous definition.
        #######
        People will argue regardless.
        Co2 will warm the planet.
        It doesn’t care about definitions.

      • Steven, What is your view on the ‘failings’ of the Vostok ice cores? Think of all the time you could have at your disposal to make newer models if only it would work for you?

      • Steve writes-
        “Bottom line.
        More c02 warms the planet.
        words and marketing dont change physics

        WRONG bottom line —Warmer does not generally equate to a worse climate. That is an unscientific claim. It depends on what conditions change at specific locations to determine if the change was good or bad. More often than not rainfall not temperature isthe most important

    • Mike Flynn

      Steven Mosher,

      You wrote –

      “Climate Change is the change in climate due to man.
      pretty ugly definition.

      It would be clearer to say

      Anthropogenic Climate change.”

      Are you trying to say that Anthropogenic Climate Change causes the weather to change, and thus causes Climate Change, or that Anthropogenic Climate Change causes Anthropogenic Climate Change?

      Or does Climate Change only become Anthropogenic Climate Change if you say so? Say for example, in 500 BCE, was Climate Change responsible for Climate Change? Or not?

      It seems like Warmists are confused, to a degree.

      Maybe they should just stick with 1=1. That’s clear enough even for a Warmist.

      Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        Mike.
        Are you trying to say that Anthropogenic Climate Change causes the weather to change, and thus causes Climate Change, or that Anthropogenic Climate Change causes Anthropogenic Climate Change?
        #######

        Are you trying to say that Anthropogenic Climate Change causes the weather to change?
        No.

        and thus causes Climate Change, or that Anthropogenic Climate Change causes Anthropogenic Climate Change?

        No. When you start with a false premise all Flynnisms
        Follow. Acc doesn’t cause anything in the physical sense. You want a word whose referent is the change in weather due to man? Anthropology climate change. It’s not the cause. It’s the effect.

        “Or does Climate Change only become Anthropogenic Climate Change if you say so? ”

        No. Being so is enough.

        Say for example, in 500 BCE, was Climate Change responsible for Climate Change? Or not?

        We have no evidence that the climate, the long term average changed in that year. So again false premise leads to any flynnism.

        Step one decide a peroid to average over.
        Step two decide variables of interest. Temperature rainfall hurricanes etc choose as many as you like.
        Step three. Establish norms.
        Step 4. Establish ranges.
        Step 5. Determine when there are changes from this range.
        Step 6. Try to determine the cause.

        Don’t like the choices ?
        Do your own choices.

        Don’t like the answer?
        Improve it.

      • Mike Flynn

        Steven Mosher,

        I asked –

        “Are you trying to say that Anthropogenic Climate Change causes the weather to change?”

        You responded –

        “No.”

        Which is as it should be, of course. Anthropogenic climate change is a term for a result, not a cause.

        However, our view is not shared by NOAA, for example. They say –

        “New report finds human-caused climate change increased the severity of many extreme events in 2014 – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration”

        As I say, some silly people claim that human caused (anthropogenic) climate change causes changes in the weather. This serves to confuse the issue, wouldn’t you agree? Of course, the NOAA quote was but one of many similar. Far more silly people appear to claim global warming causes extreme weather events, without a shred of evidence to back their claims up.

        It seems as though there is confusion between global warming and climate change in the minds of many (Warmists, obviously, where global warming is used).

        Maybe NOAA and similar bodies might take notice if you exhorted them to stop being silly. Bodies such as the Union of Concerned Scientists could also benefit from you telling them not to be silly, even though they use the term global warming in association with dire predictions of all sorts, rather than climate change.

        Maybe everybody should adopt the nomenclature adopted by the IPCC, myself, and bodies like NASA – climate is the average of weather. It affects, nothing and it is responsible for a change in nothing. It is an average of something else. What do you think?

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        Ah mike more illiteracy.
        You need to work harder at understanding.
        And understand:Press releases are not science.
        You cannot touch the science by looking at pr.
        You can only touch the science by doing science

        Read the science.

        Read more science.
        Comment less.
        Comment smarter.

      • David Springer

        Oh joy. A handbag fight between two equally unqualified blog dunces.

        Get a room, girls. *PLONK*

      • Mike Flynn

        Steven Mosher,

        I agree that PR releases are not science. Im not sure whether you are implying that the supposedly scientific bodies releasing them do not care whether the PR is correct or not. If you are, I find this strange, because Warmists often complain that scientists apparently have difficulty in communicating science to the public. No wonder.

        Have you considered advising bodies such as NOAA to provide factual PR releases, or are you just trying to have a cheap shot, because you have no facts to back up your nonsensical theory free “CO2 warms stuff” statements.

        Maybe you shouldn’t mindlessly accept the fantasies of people such as Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann. In lieu of simply believing fools (or frauds, possibly), you might feel like actually indulging yourself in some real scientific endeavour. Taking part in an actual experiment, from design, to final observations, might assist.

        Working in a scientist’s mailroom, or doing a scientist’s filing, doth not a scientist make.

        Cheers.

  29. “Earlier this month, a U.S. satellite known as F17 — which was primarily used for meteorological measurements — experienced operational failures that compromised the integrity of its data”
    Interestingly arctic Sea Ice Blog has graphs up purporting to show extent Arctic and Globally whereas WUWT site remains frozen without data.
    The data that is up is fluctuating wildly.
    JAXA meanwhile is running steady and low.
    Since some of the fluctuating data shows higher maximums than when NOAA declared it all over for maximum sea ice extent should they retract that claim and say we don’t know.
    Does anyone know if JAXA, now the only official satellite source had the lowest extent this year, or not?

  30. Does anyone know where there’s historical daily wind direction data from say Minnesota, North Dakota or Manitoba?

  31. Mike Flynn

    Unfortunately, people such as Steven “Gee, I really want people to think I’m a Scientist” Mosher believe the future can be divined from the past.

    This is a complete load of garbage. The endlessly repetitive adjustments of historical observations has precisely and absolutely no effect on either current or future weather. Cargo cult science at best (or BEST)!

    There is not now, and never has been, any experimental support for the ability of CO2 to warm anything. There seems to be a distinct lack of any sort of evidence to show a single positive effect of so called climate science to date, to humanity as a whole.

    So much angst, so little benefit. Possibly the fools, frauds, charlatans, and delusional psychotics, furiously pushing the empty barrow that is climate science, have personally enriched themselves at the expense of the rest of society. If so, they aptly deserve the opprobrium that their sociopathic behaviour brings.

    And if you ask me nicely, I’ll tell you what I really think!

    Cheers.

    • There is not now, and never has been, any experimental support for the ability of CO2 to warm anything.

      You may feel confident disagreeing with Al Gore, but…the Mythbusters!?! You, sir, have gone too far.

      • Mike Flynn

        opluso,

        Thanks for that. Maybe they should have read Tyndall and got some ideas on how a brilliant experimenter does things.

        He quantified the effects of IR absorption for a number of gases, but went a little further and measured the temperature of a target after the IR had passed through the gas.

        Surprise, surprise!

        The more IR absorbed by the gas, the less hits the target. Lower temperatures. This is observed on Earth. Around 30% of the Sun’s radiation never makes it to the surface, being absorbed by the atmosphere and eventually radiated back to space.

        Busted. Ability of gases to absorb radiation of varying frequencies, and heat as a result, confirmed!

        Cheers.

      • What was the air speed used in this demonstration, I was unable to see any flags flutter.

      • one degree warmer, green stuff is growing better using less water, the skeptic win this round, big time.

    • Steven Mosher

      “Unfortunately, people such as Steven “Gee, I really want people to think I’m a Scientist” Mosher believe the future can be divined from the past.”

      too funny. When Flynn predicts the future he calls it an assumption.

      Nobody divines the future or claims to. We make predictions.
      Predictions are nothing more than assumptions with numbers attached.

      I assume that when Flynn reads this, the words will be the same as when I wrote them.
      I assume that when he reads this 1+1 will still equal 2
      I assume that the laws of physics wont change between now and when he reads this in the future. I assign a probability of 1 to these last two assumptions. I could assume otherwise, but pratically speaking, that doesnt work very well.
      We assume that the laws of physics which tell us adding c02 to a planets
      atmosphere will keep it warmer than it would be otherwise will be true tommorrow as they were true yesterday. We calculate based on that assumption. We assume the laws of math used in making those calculations wont change. What we cannot assume is that Flynn will understand them. In fact, past evidence suggests he will repsond by denying that physics.

      Lets test that prediction.

      Flynn will deny, distract, confuse, or change the subject.
      he will not read the science.or do science himself.

      Pretty safe assumption/prediction

      • I hope that you responded Steven, Vostok may not be a perfect representation of the GMT (for example) however it is for all intent and purpose a consistent representation of our recent past. Really no comment at all?

      • Maybe you want higher latitude numbers because that is where all the tax payers all live?

      • Maybe there is a forest fire and he lost his cell and Wi-Fi service? Out.

      • “Unfortunately, people such as Steven “Gee, I really want people to think I’m a Scientist” Mosher believe the future can be divined from the past.”

        If you don’t learn from the past, you have nothing.

      • Mike Flynn

        Steven Mosher,

        Warmists change definitions to suit themselves. The mental capacity to ensure rigorous experimental controls, and correctly interpret what they observe as a result, seems beyond them.

        You wrote –

        “We assume that the laws of physics which tell us adding c02 to a planets
        atmosphere will keep it warmer than it would be otherwise will be true tomorrow as they were true yesterday.”

        You obviously assume that which has never been demonstrated, and can never be demonstrated. This is Warmist pseudo science, based on assumption, rather than observation and experiment, which is part and parcel of real science.

        Silly Warmists make predictions, as you say. The IPCC claim they don’t make predictions. They might not be real bright in some ways, but at least they got that right. You probably remember why the IPCC changed its stance.

        I use the word “prediction” in the scientific sense. I assumed (incorrectly) that someone who claims to be a scientist would have some grasp of the language commonly used by scientists to ensure clarity of thought and communication.

        “New theories make predictions which allow them to be disproved by reality.” is an example of my useage.

        Your apparent definition of science is perverse. Your statement that “Nobody divines the future or claims to. We make predictions.
        Predictions are nothing more than assumptions with numbers attached.” Is quite simply at odds even with the nonsense you promote as science.

        Maybe you went back to school and undertook a science course at tertiary level. Maybe you worked as a lab technician in an advanced physics lab, and learned about science, and the scientific method. I can’t see much evidence of it, however.

        Playing with words, redefining and conflating as you go, is the mark of the pretend scientist. No facts, just unsupported assertions, rooted in fantasy.

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        “I hope that you responded Steven, Vostok may not be a perfect representation of the GMT (for example) however it is for all intent and purpose a consistent representation of our recent past. Really no comment at all?”

        Huh?

        Consistent?
        representation?
        recent?

        Look at EPICA

        compare it to GISP

        But here is something you need to remember.

        before we drilled any ice, basic physics told us that c02 will warm the planet not cool it. we knew that in 1896. we still know that.

        Nothing in Vostok, EPICA, GISP….. any ice core can change basic physics.

      • Mike Flynn

        Steven Mosher,

        You wrote –

        “before we drilled any ice, basic physics told us that c02 will warm the planet not cool it. we knew that in 1896. we still know that.”

        I presume you are referring to the speculations of erroneous Arthenius. Of course, his speculations have never been confirmed by experiment. Repeatedly claiming miraculous heating powers for CO2 without experimental confirmation is just silly.

        Abusing me won’t really help your fantasy become real, but abuse away if it makes you feel better.

        Cheers.

      • Peter Lang

        Mosher,

        basic physics told us that CO2 will warm the planet not cool it.

        Do you agree that is good thing? If not why not?

        Do you agree:

        Anything we can do to warm Earth’s climate a bit is good, right?

        Anything we can do to get us out of the current coldhouse phase is good, right?

        Delay the onset of the next abrupt cooling phase is good, right?

        And reduce it’s severity when it does come is good, right?

        Warmer and more CO2 makes more food to feed the animals, which is good, right?

        Life thrived in warmer times and struggled in cooler times, right?

        Life loves warming and warmer, right?

        There is no significant risk from warming but great risk from cooling, right?

        If not for our CO2 emissions, we’d be in a much more perilous state now as we are past the peak of the latest interglacial period, right?

        This who deny thees facts are the real deniers, right?

      • before we drilled any ice, basic physics told us that c02 will warm the planet not cool it. we knew that in 1896. we still know that.

        Nope.

        “[B]efore we drilled any ice, basic physics told us that c02 will warm” a sperical chicken of uniform density. A spinning planet with oceans and continents not so much.

        Back in 1896, the science of the day assumed you could generalize from one to the other. Science has moved on. Quoting Arrhenius as an “authority” is as obsolete as quoting Darwin as an “authority” on evolution.

      • Steven, I suggested that the Vostok ice core samples were:

        1. Consistent, because the entire ice core taken was constructed in the same manner over time in the same location layered in a chronological manner. Better than Dendrochronology wouldn’t you say?

        2.Representation, because it has been pristine for 420K years and the numbers reflect the current conditions over time without any help from man. Wouldn’t ice cores taken from the general area verify the accuracy of the Vostok cores?

        Recent, because the Earth, is estimated to be 4.5 Billion years old, so my thought was that the last 420,000 years in the record were up for this job and it is certainly better then the 250 year bit you all go on about… your ‘thousand points of light theory’ we know now that it comes completely adjusted along with a high price. This means that the ice we are talking about would only cover the last 1/10,000 of Earth’s history, right?

        I feel you are making progress now, Steven.

      • Maybe you missed my comment above, Steven?

    • The endlessly repetitive adjustments of historical observations has precisely and absolutely no effect on either current or future weather. Cargo cult science at best (or BEST)!

      The fact that GISS adjustments are 0.3°C/decade (0.24 since 2008) against a general trend of 0.13°C basically guts any argument that global warmers might have.

      That most of the recent “increase” in CO2 forcing is done with a slider widget on a computer instead of a thermometer basically invalidates their whole argument.

      If GISS had subtracted their adjustments, the post 1900 increase would be 0.5 instead of 1°C.

      Until the majority of the increase since 2008 is real, not computer, there is no point in taking them seriously.

    • There is not now, and never has been, any experimental support for the ability of CO2 to warm anything.

      That’s because it is recognized that CO2 isn’t a source of energy in this context, Mike Flynn. Yer attacking the wrong argument: a made-up one.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        You wrote –

        “That’s because it is recognized that CO2 isn’t a source of energy in this context, Mike Flynn. Yer attacking the wrong argument: a made-up one.”

        Of course CO2 isn’t a source of energy. Warmists who believe that it is are fools. I agree absolutely. CO2 (and the atmosphere in general) absorb some of the insolation, and radiate most of it back to space. The net result is a subtraction of energy. How anybody can claim this process provides additional heat to anything is beyond me.

        Steven Mosher disagrees with you apparently. He wrote –

        “We assume that the laws of physics which tell us adding c02 to a planets
        atmosphere will keep it warmer than it would be otherwise will be true tommorrow as they were true yesterday.”

        The devil’s in the detail of course. Weasel words of the Warmist variety which imply that keeping something “warmer than it would be otherwise” actually result in an increase in temperature, require elucidation. The atmosphere acts as a rather poor insulator. During the day, it prevents the surface from heating up as fast as it otherwise would. At night, the opposite occurs. No magic, no global warming. No abnormal temperature increase. Verified by theory, observations, and measurements. Obviously, you agree.

        You might like to indicate the wrong, made-up argument to which you refer. I’m unaware of any.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn,

        Of course CO2 isn’t a source of energy. Warmists who believe that it is are fools.

        That the “greenhouse effect” as inaptly named as it is does not mean that all warmists who subscribe to it are fools, anymore than those of us who are sloppy when we say “adding CO2 to the atmosphere is warming the planet” are necessarily fools. It just means that like a lot of humans, we’re lazy and use inappropriate shorthand talking amongst ourselves about points which not under contention amongst our cadre.

        I agree absolutely. CO2 (and the atmosphere in general) absorb some of the insolation, and radiate most of it back to space. The net result is a subtraction of energy. How anybody can claim this process provides additional heat to anything is beyond me.

        Because the absorbed LW is re-radiated omni-directionally, i.e., not necessarily in the same direction from whence it was originally absorbed. Hence the much derided “back radiation” of Kiehl and Trenberth energy budget cartoon infamy.

        Steven Mosher disagrees with you apparently. He wrote – “We assume that the laws of physics which tell us adding c02 to a planets atmosphere will keep it warmer than it would be otherwise will be true tommorrow as they were true yesterday.”

        I don’t think he disagrees with me. He’s invoked a concept similar to the Thermos bottle thought experiments I outlined below. The key is “keep it warmer that it would be otherwise”.

        The devil’s in the detail of course. Weasel words of the Warmist variety which imply that keeping something “warmer than it would be otherwise” actually result in an increase in temperature, require elucidation.

        As Mosher keeps saying to you, I will reinforce: the primary literature is where those details are elucidated. You may wish to start from the beginning, Arrhenius (1896): http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

        Manabe and Strickler (1964) is another classic, this time with convection considered in an attempt to also account for the temperature gradient due to adiabatic heating and cooling, and a few other details in various layers of the atmosphere: http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf

        Stuff’s been around a long time. That “RealClimate blog science” doesn’t explain it to your arbitrary satisfaction is little excuse for you to pretend that Real Science science describing the very very gory details doesn’t exist.

        The atmosphere acts as a rather poor insulator. During the day, it prevents the surface from heating up as fast as it otherwise would. At night, the opposite occurs. No magic, no global warming. No abnormal temperature increase. Verified by theory, observations, and measurements. Obviously, you agree.

        No I don’t agree. Frex: Theory predicts that nighttime temperatures rise faster than daytime temperatures under an increasing CO2 regime for the very reason that CO2 is working 24/7/365, thus is always impeding net radiative loss from the surface and lower troposphere. Mosh would be the one to point you to observational evidence that such is occurring, it’s not in my bailiwick.

        You might like to indicate the wrong, made-up argument to which you refer. I’m unaware of any.

        I responded to it with a direct quote in my previous post, Mr. Flynn, let’s please not pretend I didn’t: There is not now, and never has been, any experimental support for the ability of CO2 to warm anything.

        The “real” argument is in primary literature. That’s not what the literature says. Hence, you are making things up, and attacking your made up argument, otherwise known as strawmanning. It’s just as bad faith a “debate” technique as the “weasel words” question-begging accusation you’re doing above. It might be in your best interests to knock it off.

        Ta.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        Arrhenius surmised – no experiment to be seen.

        Of course, Manabe and Strickler provide no experimental evidence. As they state, it’s all modelling and calculations. Maybe you need to read it again. Interesting to note that an actual observation shows the surface in one location about 13 C cooler than predictions based on clear sky.

        Once again, you claim “Theory predicts that nighttime temperatures rise faster than daytime temperatures under an increasing CO2 regime for the very reason that CO2 is working 24/7/365, thus is always impeding net radiative loss from the surface and lower troposphere.”

        Well, observations actually show that night time temperatures tend to fall, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Impeding radiation loss doesnt stop things from cooling, does it? Dewar flask, anyone?

        As to your insistence that primary literature is the truth graven in stone, if it’s not testable theories backed up by repeatable scientific experiments, it’s nonsense. Possibly well meaning, honestly believed, but nonsense nonetheless. Cargo Cult science.

        You seem to agree that CO2 warms nothing. Whence comes the global warming, so beloved of the disciples of the Warmist Church of Latter Day Scientism? The power of the accumulated Warmist intellects cogitating furiously, perhaps?

        Cheers.

      • Arrhenius surmised – no experiment to be seen.

        How does one run an experiment on a planet, Mike Flynn? He gathered evidence and drew conclusions. Next you’re going to claim that seismology isn’t science because plate tectonic theory hasn’t been “proven” under laboratory conditions. You’re done, baked, stick a fork in you, your argument has shuffled off this mortal coil and gone to visit the bleedin’ choir invisible. It is an ex-argument. No, scratch that, it was DOA, an argument that never was. You’re not even wrong.

        Pretty much no need for me to consider the rest of your tripe below this line because it’s the same turtles all the way down.

        Finis.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        You wrote –

        “How does one run an experiment on a planet, Mike Flynn? He gathered evidence and drew conclusions. Next you’re going to claim that seismology isn’t science because plate tectonic theory hasn’t been “proven” under laboratory conditions. You’re done, baked, stick a fork in you, your argument has shuffled off this mortal coil and gone to visit the bleedin’ choir invisible. It is an ex-argument. No, scratch that, it was DOA, an argument that never was. You’re not even wrong.”

        Actually, Arrhenius was looking for an explanation for ice-ages. His explanation was wrong, and his speculations about CO2 were also wrong, obviously. One might have said “Your conclusions were erroneous, Arrhenius!’

        I don’t know how one would run an experiment on a planet. You seemed to think that Tyndall showed warming powers for CO2. I pointed out he didn’t, so now you resort to the usual Warmist attempts to claim the warming abilities of CO2 can’t actually be demonstrated. I agree. They can’t.

        Your attempts at predicting the future and reading my mind simultaneously have failed. I believe seismology is science, based on sound physics, supported by repeatable experiment. Plate tectonic theory has so far been supported by measurements – GPS and satellite altimetry, in the main. Climatology, on the other hand, seems to have provided nothing of utility – ever. Sociopathic Cargo Cultism, possibly. Looks sciencey – but nonsensical upon closer examination.

        Proving a theory is largely impossible. If the theoretical predictions are borne out by repeatable experiments, the theory is acceptable. If not, the theory is disproven – it was wrong. Climatology, with its extraordinary claims about the warming properties of CO2, really needs extraordinary evidence to support its claims.

        So far – nothing.

        Cheers.

  32. The laws of physics say that if you increase CO2 and nothing else changes, you will get some warming.

    The laws of nature say that everything else changes, all bets are off.

    • Mike Flynn

      popesclimatetheory,

      You wrote –

      “The laws of physics say that if you increase CO2 and nothing else changes, you will get some warming.”

      You must be depending on realclimate physics, rather than real physics. Take a container. Measure its temperature. Remove the gas therein. Measure its temperature. Fill it with CO2. Measure its temperature.

      Warming? No. None.

      Fiction. Fable. Fantasy. Sorry, because I am largely in agreement with other things you have said here.

      Cheers.

      • Argh, you’re killing me here, Mike Flynn. Take two identical Thermos bottles save for one being mirrored on the inside, the other one not. Fill them with equal parts liquid water well above “room” temperature. Cap them and let them sit. The non-mirrored bottle will cool to room temperature more quickly. Why?

        Next thought experiment. Same two Thermos bottles, rigged with a small heating element with insufficient wattage to raise liquid water to boiling inside. Fill them with equal parts water, cap them, and switch on the heating elements. The liquid inside non-mirrored bottle will reach a lower equilibrium temperature than the mirrored one. Why?

        This is not just well-established radiative physics and 1st year physics, it’s everyday practical application physics that you can test in your own kitchen.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        First experiment. You can’t find a Thermos bottle without mirrored surfaces. That’s what creates the insulating effect. Also called a vacuum, or Dewar flask.

        But anyway. The water in both will cool, unless the surrounding environment is hotter than the water. Or put in frozen water. The water in both will heat (given the same caveat, with appropriate signs). In both instances, the contents, and the flask will achieve thermal equilibrium with a steady state environment. Water, flask, surroundings – same temperature. Insulation in action.

        Your second thought experiment is poorly thought out, of course. Think about it for while, if you wish. You’ve obviously never attempted the real experiments,

        But anyway. Put a hot rock in a Dewar. Fill it with CO2. It cools, of course. As has the Earth, over the last four and a half billion years – atmospheric CO2 concentration notwithstanding.

        Maybe, instead of wasting time and effort, you might devise a real experiment involving CO2, a heat source, a target, and a thermometer. Your experiment should show that placing CO2 between the source and the target results in a temperature rise. Removing the CO2 should result in a temperature drop. It doesn’t.

        Nobody’s ever managed to do it. Talking about blankets, heaters, furnaces, pot lids, CO2 lasers or blast furnaces is avoiding the question. CO2 warms nothing. The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere does not raise the temperature of the surface due to any interaction with insolation. End of story.

        Cheers.

      • First experiment. You can’t find a Thermos bottle without mirrored surfaces. That’s what creates the insulating effect. Also called a vacuum, or Dewar flask.

        First *thought* experiment, Mike Flynn. Someone with your self-proclaimed lab experience could jigger one up. You goofed however, by writing, “That’s what creates the insulating effect”, you confirmed the intended result without even running it. I hear tell that’s “bad science” from some quarters. Tsk.

        Since we’re splitting hairs now: the mirrored inside is *part* of what provides the insulation effect. The low thermal conductivity of the other materials does the rest.

        The water in both will cool, unless the surrounding environment is hotter than the water.

        The question wasn’t whether the water would cool. The protocol called for water warmer than ambient temperature. Dropping my qualifiers and specifics will not allow you to wriggle away from what you have already confirmed above — I pay too much attention to what I write, and what others write, to be distracted by the kind of chicanery you’re running right now.

        The question was about the first derivative of heat loss with respect to time, i.e., the *rate* of loss. You did not answer the question posed. Why?

        Your second thought experiment is poorly thought out, of course. Think about it for while, if you wish. You’ve obviously never attempted the real experiments,

        You’re right, I haven’t run them. I’ve screwed around with enough calorimeters in my time to have a basic sense that a real test rig as I described would be an easy enough apparatus for a junior or senior level undergrad to make work. Now perhaps instead of trying to pull alpha on me with your allegedly superior knowledge, you may wish to describe your greater wisdom for the class so that it’s no longer reserved.

        The theory is pretty basic of course. This really is undergrad textbook physics we’re talking about. I think it rather silly that this question is so continually challenged.

        But anyway. Put a hot rock in a Dewar. Fill it with CO2. It cools, of course.

        No dispute. Also not relevant to the point of the Thermos bottle thought experiment whose mirrored insides stand in for the total opacity of the real system’s atmosphere at 15 microns wavelength, many times over as one moves vertically away from the surface.

        Your experiment should show that placing CO2 between the source and the target results in a temperature rise. Removing the CO2 should result in a temperature drop. It doesn’t. Nobody’s ever managed to do it.

        Tyndall (1861): http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~vijay/Papers/Spectroscopy/tyndall-1861.pdf

        It’s just not looking good for you here.

        The balance of your tired zombie myths mercifully relegated to the bit bin.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        I see your understanding of the operation of a Dewar flask is sadly lacking. I will allow others to read for themselves the principle of operation, but in relation to “low thermal conductivity of the other materials” being necessary, I say rubbish!

        From Wiki (it’ll do) –

        “Vacuum flasks are usually made of metal, borosilicate glass, foam or plastic” Some flasks are made using stainless steel or aluminium. Aluminium in particular is not exactly a low thermal conductivity material. You decided to split hairs – I’ll accomodate you, of course.

        No matter.

        In relation to Tyndall, maybe you need to reread the link to which you directed me. It’s worthwhile actually paying attention, and reading carefully. You will notice his results directly contradict the Warmist assumption. For further information, maybe you might care to read (or reread) his “Heat considered as a mode of Motion” – the 1905 edition contains a few footnotes recording his changes of mind relating to matters left in the text. I assum this avoided the cost of resetting the body of the book.

        In any case, you are still unable to provide experimental support for the as yet unstated theory of global warming. More assertion, but repeated ever more stridently. Still nonsense.

        Cheers.

      • “Vacuum flasks are usually made of metal, borosilicate glass, foam or plastic” Some flasks are made using stainless steel or aluminium. Aluminium in particular is not exactly a low thermal conductivity material. You decided to split hairs – I’ll accomodate you, of course.

        Your amnesia is quite selective AND rapid, Mike Flynn. Not only do you not recall being the one to introduce the hair splitting here, now you’re off talking about aluminium being highly thermally conductive in the same paragraph as vacuum flasks made of foam or plastic. Never mind that the Thermos bottles I invoked in the beginning of this thread aren’t made out of solid copper. Good grief man, I passed kindergarten. [1] For the sake of your own dignity, please don’t continue pretending otherwise.

        You will notice [Tyndall’s] results directly contradict the Warmist assumption.

        So YOU say. G’wann, tell me again I’m the one endlessly repeating assertions. Cough up the quote, and explain to the lecture hall how it contradicts textbook radiative physics. Prettypleasecherryontop.

        ———————

        [1] It only only took me two tries, and possibly a small bribe … I mean donation. To the PTA [2]. Yeah. Anyway, a *little* credit to my literacy here would be nice.

        [2] Parent Teacher Association. Dunno the equivalent Down Under. I’m starting to wonder if you guys have even primary education.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        “So YOU say. G’wann, tell me again I’m the one endlessly repeating assertions. Cough up the quote, and explain to the lecture hall how it contradicts textbook radiative physics. Prettypleasecherryontop.”

        You asked me to tell you again that you’re the one endlessly repeating assertions. “You’re the one endlessly repeating assertions”. Without a shred of proof, to boot.

        May I gently point out you provided a link to Tyndall’s lecture – presumably, I thought, to support your assertions. You obviously cannot quote anything from your link that supports you. And of course, your comment about textbook radiative physics is a meaningless diversionary tactic. You cannot provide a radiative physics textbook which provides references to experiments demonstrating the heating abilities of CO2. Should you decide to, I will gladly quote Tyndall’s work in rebuttal, if it is appropriate. Obviously, you would love me to quote Tyndall’s thoughts on the existence of the ether, but I’ll stick to his experiments and measurements. Off you go, then.

        You’re making the assertions. I’m just saying without experimental support, they’re no better than speculation. Fantasy.

        No matter how alluring or seductive your theory is, if it’s not supported by repeatable scientific experiments – it’s wrong!

        Cheers.

      • Without a shred of proof, to boot.

        zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

        You cannot provide a radiative physics textbook which provides references to experiments demonstrating the heating abilities of CO2.

        This reminds me of an old Dilbert cartoon. The bossman asked him to print out a copy of the Internet so that he could get up to speed on it.

        Check out the 1st law of thermodynamics and ask yourself what happens when a photon is absorbed by *any* molecule. Oi vey, my head.

        No matter how alluring or seductive your theory is, if it’s not supported by repeatable scientific experiments – it’s wrong!

        Darwin disagrees with you, Mike Flynn.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        You wrote –

        “Check out the 1st law of thermodynamics and ask yourself what happens when a photon is absorbed by *any* molecule. Oi vey, my head.”

        And still no experimental evidence of the magical heating powers of CO2. I have noted your instruction. I hope you don’t mind if I ignore it. I am rather more aware of the interaction between light and matter than you, I think.

        I am sorry you have given yourself a headache trying to avoid producing experimental evidence of CO2 heating.

        While you are digging up a quote to show how Mr Darwin disagrees with me, here’s one from Mr Feynman which supports me –

        “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard P. Feynman. And so far, every experiment shows that CO2 raises the temperature of nothing at all. No global warming due to CO2.

        I’ll see your Darwin, and raise you a Feynman. It looks like you lose. Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory still appears to be a theory, albeit a very attractive one. On the other hand, the Lamarckian theory of evolution has not been disproven either.

        “Another study (Sano, 2010) wrote that observations suggest that acquired traits are heritable in plants as far as the acquired methylation pattern is stably transmitted which is consistent with Lamarckian evolution.” and so on. Maybe both are true, to one degree or another.

        I keep an open mind, for the present.

        Maybe you’ll give up, and produce a secret Warmist experiment demonstrating the magical heating powers of CO2. I look forward to it.

        Cheers.
        .

      • I am rather more aware of the interaction between light and matter than you, I think.

        Excellent, Mike Flynn. By your own standards of “proof”, you should then be able to readily provide the substantive experimental evidence supporting your knowledge as it differs from my own beliefs whilst I continue to handwave at my sacred textbooks.

        I’ll see your Darwin, and raise you a Feynman. It looks like you lose.

        I think not, for all we’re *both* doing here is appropriating the select words of sages out of context to our own ends in an attempt to lend ourselves credibility. It’s a game often played by those lacking confidence (and/or expertise) to defend their own beliefs. As dual-edged poleaxes abound in every other ideologically partisan spat I’ve ever observed, I give another of my favourite Feynmanisms with a bit of word substitution thrown in for relevance:

        For a successful [scientific theory], reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. ~Tricky Dick ‘aving a typically scathing larf at NASA’s Challenging hubris

        That was a minority report of course, no doubt earning him much favour amongst your compadres; especially for the efforts it took him to have it included against the consensus. Not to mention his external audit of NASA engineers’ (dis)ability to over-optimistically estimate catastrophic mission failure rates … hmmm … well maybe that’s an irony. You be the judge.

        Anywho, that snippet is also just as equally useful to me and my fellow rhetoricians in a self-perceived advantageous context. Zero-sum games can be fun, for certain definitions of fun. Climate tic tac toe especially so.

        Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory still appears to be a theory, albeit a very attractive one.

        Gosh, it’s almost as if I didn’t see that threadbare old trope coming. Say, did you know that the Standard Model cannot explain the mechanism of gravity? It’s just a humble and “unproven” theory gleaned from much anecdotal experience of things not floating above the ground so much as they appear to be almost glued to it with something infinitely elastic. Not to mention that there’s a “ground” and a “down” to begin with. Weird, no? As some talking heads on the American telly might say: You can’t explain that.

        On the other hand, the Lamarckian theory of evolution has not been disproven either.

        I don’t think I’ve read Sano (2010) but I did catch the rumblings out of the corner of my eye along those lines with some interest. Your allowance for both Lamarkism and Darwinism to be simultaneously true at least in part may yet give you hope in my eyes; much in the same way that I respect my professors for teaching me that the staunch gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium camps are likely to neither be completely wrong. Dichotomous logics drive me bats when mutual exclusivity is not indisputably apparent.

        And never forget the Third Way — the whole shootin’ match could be externally directed by some as yet unseen but erroneously understood Entity. I’ll leave the putative Benevolence or lack thereof ascribed to said hypothetical Being for the professors of philosophy … at least for purposes of the present discussion. [1]

        I keep an open mind, for the present.

        On some things, it appears. On AGW, my mind may be more open than you think, but only just. It’s more of a logical caveat very much along the lines of the Modern Galilean favourite, “science has been wrong before”, only not uttered as if to imply a QED. I wrote a rather longish post in reply to a seemingly more neutral observer going by the handle RiHo08. It’s currently in moderation, I presume due to length and/or dirty words, but here’s the linky if and when it pops out: https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/29/week-in-review-science-edition-39/#comment-782374

        Scan for CMIP5, and you’ll find the relevant passage.

        ***

        In the interest of consolidation, from a different note, you write:

        I believe seismology is science, based on sound physics, supported by repeatable experiment. Plate tectonic theory has so far been supported by measurements – GPS and satellite altimetry, in the main. Climatology, on the other hand, seems to have provided nothing of utility – ever.

        Ah. So “experiment” to you does include repeated observation, measurement, and I’m guessing also prediction. Good to know. This bears especial attention: Climatology, on the other hand, seems to have provided nothing of utility – ever.

        Surely you’re not weaselling, my Feynman-channelling friend. Of course you’re not. Only warmists do that.

        Oh hey, have you ever looked at the horrible track record of earthquake prediction models? Total rubbish. It would be an insult to sorcery for one to label the so-called “science” of seismology as witchcraft. Where’s your head, mate?

        Proving a theory is largely impossible.

        More common ground; we agree.

        If the theoretical predictions are borne out by repeatable experiments, the theory is acceptable. If not, the theory is disproven – it was wrong.

        Just when it was starting to look good; we don’t totally agree. In complex hard sciences like climatology, oft-times the old theory bites the dust when a new one comes along and replaces it by the means you describe. Newton —> Einstein is a canonical example, albeit with caveat: It’s worth noting that we still use Newton when more relativistic velocities aren’t part of the frames of reference.

        Climatology, with its extraordinary claims about the warming properties of CO2, really needs extraordinary evidence to support its claims.

        Sure, ok. Let extraordinary evidence happen, and then we’ll know for sure. Brilliant. I’m so glad of you to teach me the error of my ways.

        ———————

        [1] Damn me literally for my heresies, I can’t help but one note. Good and Evil are irrelevant concepts to an omniscient, omnipotent and timelessly eternal sentient entity. Think about it. Whoever wrote the book of Job sure did. Isaiah was far more concise, see 45:7 … with the caveat that King James’ translators may have been up to their typically creative interpretations of the “original” texts. However, as I’m best versed in that particular version, that’s the message which has stuck and will likely only be dislodged by meeting the Original Source face to … er, face … if then.

      • Actually, Arrhenius was looking for an explanation for ice-ages.

        In all my verbosity, I sailed right on by this one, Mike Flynn. I have RTFP you know, and as you also well know, he thought CO2-induced warming would be a Good Thing. I don’t entirely disagree from his perspective. In modern retrospect, the LIA was arguably a mite coolish for more temperate climes. This is one of those “too much of a good thing may not be” arguments. Frex; ingesting too much dihydrogen monoxide has proven fatal over very short periods of time, especially during fraternity rush week. Inhaling the nasty stuff in its liquid form whilst completely submerged causes unconsciousness and permanent brain damage after about 5 minutes depending on temperature, 100% fatal for more prolonged periods. And yet, like CO2, DHMO is plant food, hey?

        TL;DR, he was wrong about CO2 being the timing belt of glacial cycles. His findings were NOT inconsistent with CO2’s role as an amplifying feedback. He knew nothing of the PETM, which is one potential saving grace for his Ice Age hypothesis as written.

        His explanation was wrong, and his speculations about CO2 were also wrong, obviously.

        He grossly underestimated the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 mixing ratio due to industrialization. And his first crack at ECS was rather highish by modern standards — 4.9 K/2xCO2 for equatorial regions and 6.0 K/2xCO2 for the Arctic at 60-70 degrees north latitude. But darned if he didn’t suss out polar amplification. Not bad for late 19th century science.

        As all but inevitably happens, someone will likely cite his 1906 work alleging that he dropped ECS by half. I’ll nip that one in the bud right now: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf

        Here’s an oft quotemined passage: If one uses this correction, one finds that with a change in the quantity of CO2 in the ratio of 1:2, the temperature of the Earth’s surface would be altered by 2.1 degrees. It is assumed that the radiation that is absorbed by the water vapour is not influenced by the CO2.

        Arrhenius was a lukewarmer, oh noes! The assumption about there being no overlap in the absorption spectra of water vapor and CO2 is of course wrong — we have much better spectroscopy now than we did in 1906. What Arrhenius (1906) cherry-pickers generally leave out is the next two paragraphs:

        For this disclosure, one could calculate that the corresponding secondary temperature change, on a 50% fluctuation of CO2 in the air, is approximately 1.8 degrees C, such that the total temperature change induced by a decrease in CO2 in the air by 50% is 3.9 degrees (rounded to 4 degrees C).

        My first calculation of this figure gave a slightly higher value – approximately 5 degrees C. In this older calculation, the influence of CO2 was too large, for that the influence of water vapour was valued too low, as Ekholm already commented. This situation was caused in general from Langley’s data, where the quantity of CO2 increases with the quantity of water vapour, so that a slight shift in favour of one results in experimental errors. However, the resulting errors compensate each other for the most part.

        Still “hot” by the modern canonical central estimate of 3 K/2xCO2 but firmly inside the AR5 1.5-4.5 K/2xCO2 range.

        Let’s review what he got right:

        1) The proposed mechanism.
        2) The direction of the change..
        3) A decent central estimate of magnitude by modern standards.
        4) Polar amplification.

        … and he did so about 80 years in advance of these effects becoming detectable outside the range of natural variability. Since we all know correlation does not necessarily entail causation, you of course are hammering away at the theoretical underpinning in (1). Which is odd, because if you know what you say you know about photons interacting with matter; you know damn well that electromagnetic radiation imparts kinetic energy to matter when it is absorbed.

        Otherwise known as “warming”. No lab experiments required to test this, it’s part of every day normal living amongst light bulbs and radiative electric space heaters. Oh, and sunny days outside. Almost forgot that one.

        Watching you flop about trying to twist away from this awful truth is simultaneously hilarious and horrifying. I begin to understand how Schrödinger’s cat might have felt if there were a 50% chance of a comedic farce or a slasher movie [1] playing on a viewscreen inside her box at any given time.

        For the life of me, I cannot figure out how guys like you have managed to keep your heads from exploding from the dissonance.

        ———————

        [1] Easily accomplished by simply looping the Evil Dead franchise through the projector over and over.

  33. Mike Flynn

    Peter Lang,

    A fellow who agrees with you about a warmer climate is the guy who said this –

    “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

    He may have been wrong about the warming capabilities of CO2, but he certainly thought warmer would be better.

    Warmists have probably heard of the chap – his name was Svante Arrhenius.

    Cheers.

  34. I have been enthusiastically following the exchange between Mike Flynn and brandonrgates, particularly, both invoking original sources like Arrhenius and Tyndall emphasizing particular passages of each source to make their points.

    After this particular post, I have decided that I am definitely on the side of: undecided. I have also decided that it is better not to be a soldier in this war. I remain a gawker.

    Better yet, I would like to be a general, like say General Eisenhower on the eve of the invasion of the European Continent: D-Day. He held two pieces of paper in his hand, both directed at the media and the public at large. On one piece of paper, declaring the success of the invasion and a thanks for all the sacrifice entailed. The second piece of paper, acknowledging the failure of the invasion, again acknowledging the sacrifice entailed. Further, in the face of victory, he gave credit to the soldiers who won the day; and, if there were a defeat, he accepted the blame for the failure of the invasion.

    It seems to me, and brandonrgates acknowledged, that there is no new physics that would change the course of the dialogue. Each proponent, using what physics there is, to further their argument. Here I am the gawker.

    The silly statement by Al Gore, our POTUS and other Governmental officials that “the science is settled” seems in part correct; i.e., there does not appear to be any new physics that can be applied to CAGW that might influence the direction of the contest: yea or nay.

    It appears to me that the science armada has been launched and we await the outcome of the projections. After all, it is the outcomes, as evidenced by observations that will determine the win or loss of the climate debate. Like General Eisenhower, I hold two pieces of paper in my hand, and, I Am Waiting:

    http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-am-waiting/

    It will be interesting for me to observe if those who espouse catastrophe (a rapidly warming world with all its declared cascading events) are believable, or, in the face of an adverse outcome to their cause (all natural variation), are singularly willing to acknowledge that they were wrong; i.e. the losers.

    I wonder why I don’t expect to see some evangelists coming forward in a decade or two?

    • After this particular post, I have decided that I am definitely on the side of: undecided.

      It takes a strong will and a good rational mind to remain neutral when one feels that evidence of a thing is lacking, RiHo08. I commend you for your wilful suspension of belief. If I may offer a hint that you very likely may not need: when evidence seems to be lacking, look for logical inconsistency.

      Presuming your enthusiasm in following this conversation is at least in part due to my end of it, I thank you for the compliment. I’ve had this one on the order of a hundred times online over the years, it is always a challenge to keep it fresh for me. Again, I’m somewhat gratified that at least one third party to this exchange is getting something useful out of it because, in truth, it’s a bit of a slog for me to have what I consider this pro forma and academic exchange with Mr Flynn.

      One point of order: only Mr Flynn has been quoting select passages. I have simply spammed the links to papers and asserted that they support my position. Some may consider this bad form, and it’s an arguable point. My justification is that, in my eyes, Mr Flynn has already acted in bad faith by contorting my words and arguing by repeated and unsupported assertion. Thus he does not deserve a better faith effort on my part. One might even say that I’m toying with him, which is admittedly trollish; however I maintain that his is the more ill behaviour. As well, in my readings of his conversations with others, he has a well-established pattern of doing the same.

      On one piece of paper [held by Ike on the eve of D-Day], declaring the success of the invasion and a thanks for all the sacrifice entailed.

      I have not drafted a concession speech per se but I have drafted and previously published what it would take for me to concede my position. It goes like this:

      Build a CMIP5-capable and -compatible climate model which is more skillful at GMST hindcasting than the extant ensemble, but which minimally invokes (or entirely excludes) the radiative effects of LW-active atmospheric species and you will earn my close attention. Replication of those results and widespread adoption of like models will earn my beliefs.

      This being Stadium Wave territory [1], such phenomena should be emergent properties of such a model, not input parameters. I.e., no curve-fitting functions to observation whose terms cannot be related to some set of distinct physical first principles.

      It will be interesting for me to observe if those who espouse catastrophe (a rapidly warming world with all its declared cascading events) are believable, or, in the face of an adverse outcome to their cause (all natural variation), are singularly willing to acknowledge that they were wrong; i.e. the losers.

      The idea is, of course, to not find out empirically. I think for the most part that the “we must have observational evidence” crowd probably understand the folly of such an experimental protocol, but instead rest their case that such a scenario is implausible, or IF it turns out to be true that human ingenuity will allow adaptation with minimal disruption. My stock response to the latter is to wonder out loud why we must insult our present-day ingenuity. That observation is often a conversation-ender or simply gets glossed over, which amuses me.

      I have also previously humorously observed that my opponents great-grandchildren might someday copiously reaffirm their belief that it’s all just natural variability on whatever future standing there is for blogs and the Internet whilst observing water taxis plying the ex-streets of downtown Miami — aptly renamed New Venice of course. Some zombie memes appear difficult to defeat, even with rhetorical metaphoric decapitation. Lop off one head and two more appear in its stead. It’s like fighting ISIS, or whatever it is they call themselves these days. Whatever the case, Freedom Fighters engaged in asymmetrical warfare against collective societal self-preservation can be annoyingly resilient even as their numbers dwindle and cornucopian in the creative ways by which they perpetually defy sound reason, logic and prudence.

      I wonder why I don’t expect to see some evangelists coming forward in a decade or two?

      I think you may have meant more evangelists. I certainly would expect more end-comethers to appear when the end is more clearly in sight. I am not yet so consistently gloomy, I believe there is still time to avoid the worst of the IPCC nightmare scenarios without undue panic and/or crash cart programs cobbled together in a last-ditch effort to control the bleeding. The IPCC is considered far too conservative by some prophets, and while I’m dubious of many of those utterances I find it difficult to rule out that my more optimistic belief is nought but forlorn hope.

      I try to play more the role of an encouraging PR flack, or propagandist [2] if the euphemism doesn’t convince (which it shouldn’t). As you observe, not all the science is settled and there is yet much to learn. The basics are fairly static, and as such the policy fight is decidedly engaged by all sides via the use of continually layered posters stapled to public billboards and utility poles. Out of sheer frustration, my darker nature tends to get the best of me and I often demonize. My scribbles above are full of just that. Trench warfare is hell, especially when the front lines don’t move.

      If I were you, I’d be on the lookout for the mechanized cavalry. I reckon the twenty state attorneys general pogrom counter-offensive against Exxon is but one harbinger of a much higher intensity and more mobile conflict. Who first reinvents the blitzkrieg will be interesting to see. Of course, nobody will agree on who was first so it’s somewhat of a moot point.

      Your poem was poignant and appreciated. I am always glad to speak with a fellow citizen who like me loves his own people and also like me is wary of hyper-nationalistic pride of the sort which may lead to dark hubris. However, we might quibble about the role of taxes.

      I should like to request your permission to copy it in full (with proper attribution) to my own blog along with the above note; I’m long past due for an article … writer’s block is a bitch.

      Best regards my fellow traveller.

      ———————

      [1] I am perhaps making this comparison unfairly, having noticed that Curry and Wyatt are at least proposing specific measurable physical phenomena which may explain the signal they’ve sussed out of the observational data. Someone will now surely bring up treemometers, etc.

      [2] It’s worth pointing out here that the original sense of the word “propaganda” was not necessarily disparaging, much in the same way that mental retardation lost way to the less descriptive, but … kinder … term “developmentally challenged”. [3]

      [3] I’ve no idea what congenital idiocy is called these days; I fear that “non-cognitively enhanced” or some other double plus ungood concoction is not far off the horizon. [4]

      [4] My footnotes sometimes have footnotes. Call it a recursive affectation.

      • brandonrgates

        Lawrence Ferlinghetti: I Am Waiting 1956

        Yes, of course.

        I did see you acknowledged Jack Kerouac. Would that be: On The Road?

        Not exactly my drinking buddy. His book, a first read for me while home, truant from school.

      • RiHo08,

        Thank you for the permissions, Lawrence. I’ll post a link to the post if’n that’s kosher by Dr. Curry’s ground rules.

        I did see you acknowledged Jack Kerouac. Would that be: On The Road?

        I believe that’s what the man was going for when we decided Hemmingway didn’t exactly fit. I’ve read neither. That trip I was heavily under the influence of a lot of things (ahem) but mainly Orwell’s Down and out in Paris and London with a splash of absurdity from his Farewell to Catalonia … a more lighthearted look at futility than Albert Camus’ The Stranger … a book I couldn’t even finish. [1] A lot of what I ended up writing ended up reading like, oh, Naked Lunch having an orgy with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas due to the aforementioned … er, environmental influences … at the time and place.

        If I had to pick a single author, single book, it would be Edward Abbey’s The Monkey Wrench Gang. Not for the militant environmentalism which I don’t particularly like — more the general irreverent rebelliousness as well as the the quirky characters, storytelling and sense of humour … particularly the scatological: The bladder aches. The highway is silent and deserted. Maybe the world has already ended. Time to tap a kidney, release that beverage. Hayduke unzips and sends a four-hundred foot arc of filtered Schlitz pouring down through space to the master stream below.

        It gets worse from there, but was great stuff when I was … when did I read that book … 15 maybe? I always remember it as “purified Schlitz” which to me is even funnier than filtered. I do recall that I near soiled myself laughing at that one and for me is one of the single most memorable two-word combos I’ve ever read. Hayduke, a one-man American beer pasteurization facility. What’s not to love.

        Not exactly my drinking buddy. His book, a first read for me while home, truant from school.

        Heh. I was truant from school even when I was physically in school. In fact, only time I can recall being truly truant was sneaking off campus for Subway at lunchtime with my older friends who could drive. I did much better at university; it was sort of amazing what happened when it was no longer faculty’s job to force me to be there but instead stood ready to help me stick around if (when) I so chose.

        ———————

        [1] Somehow I probably still got a, let’s call it a B, on the book report. I think my English lit teachers tended to give me bonus points for bull$hitting ability, which may have not been their wisest move with me.

      • David Springer

        Connecticut?

      • David Springer

        brandonrgates | May 2, 2016 at 5:53 pm | Reply

        “however I maintain that his is the more ill behaviour.”

        Are you writing with the belief that two wrongs make a right?

        I thought I’d placed you as a teenager in Connecticut circa 1970 but now I’m thinking I got it wrong by about 40 years.

      • David Springer,

        Are you writing with the belief that two wrongs make a right?

        More from the perspective that this isn’t a debate club event, but a real-world “debate” where Flynn knows quite well where to obtain the information he’s asking of me and is in my view only doing so to be a nuisance. Hence, without shame, I toy with him as I am wont to do with playthings. If you read closely (if you read at all), I get my digs in on other topics, so from my perspective he’s like a foil for talking about other stuff on this thread.

        I thought I’d placed you as a teenager in Connecticut circa 1970 but now I’m thinking I got it wrong by about 40 years.

        Cute. You did get the year of my birth exactly correct. The day of year is the same as the ever popular Mr. Feynman. [1] Wrong coast for the state, but it does begin with the letter “C”. Let’s see, that makes me 46 in 9 days. Damn.

        I’d never worked it out before, but my DOB is almost 9 months to the day of the original (only) Woodstock festival. Still, wrong coast.

        For the record, repetitive disingenuity of the type I think Flynn is running here is beyond the pale of innocent toddlers constantly asking “why?” Someone who actually cared about two wrongs not making a right would have the proper perspective here. But … thanks for playing.

        Ta.

        ———————

        [1] We are (were) also both left-handed, and share the same birth date as the younger (than Feynman) but longer-lived (alas) Louis Farrakhan. I’m nothing if not full of fun trivia.

    • Mike Flynn

      RiHo08,

      Undecided is good, I think. Time will tell. Just one single repeatable experiment would lead me to change my mind, of course. I guess my assumption that CO2 warming is a chimera is a minor application of Occam’s razor.

      So far, so good.

      Cheers.

    • RiHo08,

      As promised, I’ve copypasta’d our exchange to my own blog with your poem as the epilogue. I checked the blog rules here, and there I find no prohibitions about linking to personal blogs, so here’s the link: http://climateconsensarian.blogspot.com/2016/05/confessions-of-warmist-propaganda-artist.html

      Some of the formatting got wonky, which annoys my pedantry to no end, but I’m too tired to fix it. FWIW, you are my today’s article. Thanks for the inspiration.

  35. Mike Flynn

    brandonrgates,

    For all your sound and fury, no experimental support for the claimed magical abilities of CO2 to raise the temperature of anything at all, let alone the Earth.

    Warming due to CO2? – some people will believe anything!

    Believe away.

    Cheers.

    • Professor Curry has characterized some of things Flynn says as being incorrect, uninteresting, and not worth her time to refute.

      • Mike Flynn

        JCH,

        You wrote –

        Professor Curry has characterized some of things Flynn says as being incorrect, uninteresting, and not worth her time to refute.

        And your point is what, exactly?

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn,

        I can’t speak for JCH, but I’ll chime in: you might be more comfortable over in the WUWT echo chamber where your rhetoric is more widely accepted by the patron so long as you keep any overt Principia Scientific / Sky Dragon Slayer / Doug Cotton branding out of it.

    • Warming due to CO2? – some people will believe anything!

      Beats the hell out of invisible farting unicorns, Mike Flynn.

      Believe away.

      Yes, you were saying?

  36. Mike Flynn

    brandonrgates | May 2, 2016 at 10:42 pm

    You wrote –

    “Which is odd, because if you know what you say you know about photons interacting with matter; you know damn well that electromagnetic radiation imparts kinetic energy to matter when it is absorbed.”

    I am happy you are so sure that you think you know what I know.

    I’m not sure what your point is though. If you’re going to tell me that you can raise the temperature of something by heating it, pardon me if I’m less than totally amazed.

    You still can’t demonstrate the magical heating properties of CO2. You never could. If there are no experimental results to back up speculation, it remains speculation.

    Global warming due to the greenhouse effect is Cargo Cult science, also known as delusional silliness. Fantasy, not fact.

    Cheers.

    • I am happy you are so sure that you think you know what I know.

      I aim to please, Mike Flynn. Somewhere in this spaghetti thread I believe I did ask. I may or may not go looking because frankly there aren’t any other viable options short of completely throwing Planck (1914) into the pile and going all Bradbury (1953) on it. Standing ten meters back from a conflagration of that order you might begin to wonder why your skin was tightening up as it began to dry out, but by then it would be too late to have the theories of reality spoon-fed to you. You might [gasp] have to start thinking for yourself.

      I’m not sure what your point is though.

      Of course not. The only thing one can do is play dumb when unassailable logic and mountains of evidence disagrees with one’s own highly motivated thinking.

      You still can’t demonstrate the magical heating properties of CO2.

      As I obviously need to keep reminding you, it doesn’t. That would be the Sun’s job. You don’t seriously have a problem properly understanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics, do you?

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        Ah, finally you see it.

        You wrote (in relation to heating the Earth, presumably) –

        “That would be the Sun’s job.”

        You are correct. After four and a half billion years of continuous heat from the Sun, the Earth has managed to cool. Not so hard to understand, obviously. CO2 is not going to heat it up anytime soon, if the Sun can’t.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn,

        Ah, finally you see it.

        Can’t miss it. Rises in the east and sets in the west, every day. Also, was like the second or third thing I mentioned when burning your strawman to the ground upthread. That’s what “I obviously need to keep reminding you” was intended to convey.

        You’re the one running in circles here, not me, my new friend.

        You are correct.

        I’m glad we agree on that much. Next you’re going to tell me that one can melt lead on Venus’ surface for any number of the following reasons:

        1) It’s closer to the Sun.
        2) Adiabatic heating due to convection in its far more massive atmosphere.
        3) Similar to (2) but with some twists depending on the blog, the gravito-thermal effect.

        Hint: check the albedo.

        Or conversely, surprise me by actually telling me what I’m assuming wrongly about what you know and don’t know about radiative physics — which you’ve yet to do in all your clamouring for evidence you already know where to find.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        I’m not sure what Venus has to do with anything.

        You still can’t provide any scientific basis for the mad assertion that CO2 in the atmosphere somehow raises the temperature of the surface.

        All you seem to be able to do, is to randomly rush off in several directions simultaneously. That, I suppose, is the demented Warmist version of the multiple lateral arabesque move – avoid the point at all costs.

        Ah well, I might have to leave you in your fantasy world. Enjoy.

        Cheers.

      • I’m not sure what Venus has to do with anything.

        You’re not sure that Venus’ atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 by volume, and nearly 100 times more massive than Earth’s? You’re right, I couldn’t possibly see the relevance.

        All you seem to be able to do, is to randomly rush off in several directions simultaneously.

        I move the conversation forward while you run in circles with transparent disingenuity spouting the same assertions, Mike Flynn. By its albedo, Venus black body temperature is 184 K, compared to 254 K for Earth. Venus’ average surface temperature is 737 K, while Earth’s is 288 K.

        We can clearly rule out Venus’ lead-melting higher surface temperature being due to its relative proximity to the Sun.

      • brgates, The atmosphere of Mars is 1/100 as dense as Earth and 95% CO2 so I guess you cannot blame surface temperatures on the difference from the sun either? The Sky Dragons seized on these little tidbits and determined under constant volume you don’t really need radiant physics to explain temperatures. Of course we all know that ideal models have limitations when pressed to extremes.

        What neither Mars nor Venus has though is significant amounts of water vapor which forms clouds which were once thought to be only a positive feedback to CO2 forcing. Clouds and water vapor have turned out to be a bit trickier to model as are the oceans also made of water, the ice caps, frozen water, it is almost like water should ahve been given just a bit more consideration prior to declaring CO2 “the” control knob.

        Odd isn’t it that reality seems to be a bit more complex than the ideal models used by either believers or Sky Dragons.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        “I move the conversation forward while you run in circles with transparent disingenuity spouting the same assertions, Mike Flynn.”

        And still you cannot support your mad CO2 heating assertion with anything resembling science. Move your conversation forward, by all means. Erect your own arguments, and then conclusively refute them.

        I’m sure many people would prefer you to refer to some repeatable scientific experiments supporting the proposed heating effects of CO2. This is called science, which is apparently anathema to Warmist true believers.

        Your wondrous CO2 heating effect has all the reality of phlogiston, caloric, or the luminiferous ether. Unless you can demonstrate it exists by means of repeatable scientific experiment, I am perfectly entitled to assume it doesn’t. So far, history, Nature, and physics support my view. On your side, you have a loudly bleating ragtag mob of self proclaimed climate scientists.

        Nature wins all arguments about Nature. I am happy to abide by Nature’s decision. So far, I’m content with the Natural order of things.

        Cheers.

      • captdallas2,

        The atmosphere of Mars is 1/100 as dense as Earth and 95% CO2 so I guess you cannot blame surface temperatures on the difference from the sun either?

        The first thing always to do is calculate effective temperature based on solar constant and albedo. Then compare the difference in Ts to Teff. In Mars’ case, any given column of atmosphere has roughly 15x the number of CO2 molecules between the surface and TOA than on Earth, so it should be fairly warm, right? Wrong. It’s “greenhouse” effect is on the order of 5 K, whereas for Earth it’s about 33 K. [1]

        Ya’ gotta’ remember pressure broadening. At such low pressures, the CO2 in Mars’ atmosphere simply doesn’t intercept as much LW outbound from the surface as it does on Earth, even though CO2’s density is in fact greater on Mars than Earth.

        The Sky Dragons seized on these little tidbits and determined under constant volume you don’t really need radiant physics to explain temperatures. Of course we all know that ideal models have limitations when pressed to extremes.

        Yes, obviously.

        What neither Mars nor Venus has though is significant amounts of water vapor which forms clouds which were once thought to be only a positive feedback to CO2 forcing. Clouds and water vapor have turned out to be a bit trickier to model as are the oceans also made of water, the ice caps, frozen water, it is almost like water should ahve been given just a bit more consideration prior to declaring CO2 “the” control knob.

        You’re strawmanning “the” control knob. It’s been The Control Knob since about 1950 because that is the dominant forcing, anthropogenic or not. Like I said previously, I don’t love the metaphor for its tendency to be abused by both sides when leaving out particulars as I have just included (restored, really). On the order of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, the main driver for the past million years or so is orbital forcing, i.e. Milankovitch. On those timescales, CO2 is generally a response variable but also serving as a positive amplifying feedback for surface temperature along with methane, ice sheet albedo, cloud feedback, etc. And of course we also have solar variability, volcanoes, changes in ocean circulation, etc.

        Put it this way, I think it would be hasty of you to discard what’s written in literature and in IPCC ARs. I don’t necessarily think you have; you’re obviously aware of the complexities and their attendant uncertainties. You obviously just don’t believe it. Not much I can do about that really, it’s your choice to believe or not.

        Odd isn’t it that reality seems to be a bit more complex than the ideal models used by either believers or Sky Dragons.

        I don’t think so, actually. It’s a complex science of a massive and complex system. I wouldn’t expect the average layperson to know what I do about it — even though what I think I know and understand is orders of magnitude less than a working domain expert.

        When I do impart what I’ve gleaned from my readings of literature, I do it in stepwise fashion. Milk before the meat as it were. You get a Gold Star for being ahead of this particular curve.

        ———————

        [1] As you rightfully point out, neither Mars nor Venus have significant water vapour. On Earth, the total GHG effect due to CO2 amounts to about 20% of the total on an *instantaneous* basis, e.g. 33 K * 0.2 = 6.6 K. Water vapour and clouds make up about 75%, with 5% due to ozone, methane, CFCs, etc. These are *very* approximate figures.

      • I’m sure many people would prefer you to refer to some repeatable scientific experiments supporting the proposed heating effects of CO2.

        Except for you, Mike Flynn, because you basically exist to troll [1] warmists who stumble across your path. That’s ok, I like playing with trolls. You’re getting boring and repetitive though. Up your game if you’d like to keep playing.

        ———————

        [1] Hint: I’ve already given you the references to get you started. You’ve already read them prior to meeting me, and have already rejected them. Do you know the meaning of the word “disingenuity”?

      • brgates, “I don’t think so, actually. It’s a complex science of a massive and complex system. I wouldn’t expect the average layperson to know what I do about it…”

        The “ideal” model reference perhaps is a bit deeper than you think. The higher end no-feedback sensitivity was initially based on an idealized response and has decreased with time. The higher end estimate of ECS has also decreased with time and with a bit more involved cloud parameterization and adjustment for initial conditions, climate models tend to agree with the lower end of the original “projections”. While the system may be complex, humans not so much, which is why there are many more political issues discussed than the basic science.

        When you consider scientific inertia, dramatic policy decisions to mitigate a problem that is becoming less problematic and is somewhat being resolved without so many creative ways to “manage” global affairs that tend to have potential costs on the order of a trillion dollars per 0.25 C degrees. The “problem solvers” need to be reminded that the solutions can be more complex than the problems. So if your “personal” goal is zero emissions, perhaps you should read more and comment less?

      • The “ideal” model reference perhaps is a bit deeper than you think. The higher end no-feedback sensitivity was initially based on an idealized response and has decreased with time.

        How far back are you going, captdallas? The 3.0 +/- 1.5 K/2xCO2 range has been the “consensus” view since the late 1970s by my readings.

        But these are quibbles. Of *course* science doesn’t get all the complexities correct the first time out of the box. It would be nice, but it doesn’t happen. It’s why we have to do science in the first place.

        While the system may be complex, humans not so much, which is why there are many more political issues discussed than the basic science.

        Cool story bro. I have another one: it’s a political issue because of the global policy ramifications.

        The “problem solvers” need to be reminded that the solutions can be more complex than the problems.

        Begging the question that they aren’t. Second begged question in a row now, Cap’n, you’re not doing so well.

        So if your “personal” goal is zero emissions, perhaps you should read more and comment less?

        Setting aside that my respiration rate doesn’t change whether I’m fencing with luckwarmers and Freedom Fighters vs., say, reading a book or watching Tee Vee: If I shut up, will you?

        No, I didn’t think so. You did give it the college try, however; I can’t begrudge you that much.

      • Capt, I like the example of Pluto. It’s 10C cooler than would be calculated by radioactive physics because of the 3 state phase change of Nitrogen.

  37. Mike Flynn

    Climate science at its finest?

    New York Times –

    “Resettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees’

    . . . That earth is now dying, drowning in salt and sinking into the sea, and she is ready to leave.”

    Real scientists measure the subsidence. The NYT acknowledges this, but portrays it as a result of climate. Misrepresentation at best, outright lying at worst. I suppose the NYT agrees that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

    Powerful stuff, that CO2, or climate change, or something. Even causes subsidence and salt intrusion. Maybe brandonrgates could blame it on Mercury, Venus or Mars. Climastrology at its finest!

    All good fun.

    Cheers.

    • Maybe brandonrgates could blame it on Mercury, Venus or Mars.

      No oceans on those planets, Flynn. Maybe you should check *your* horoscope?

      And yes, real scientists do check subsidence. Their editors also tend to be more rigorous than those at the New York Times, and the articles are often too technical for most lay readers like me to fully comprehend. It’s no small wonder you’re struggling.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        “I’m sure many people would prefer you to refer to some repeatable scientific experiments supporting the proposed heating effects of CO2.”

        Except for you, Mike Flynn, because you basically exist to troll [1] warmists who stumble across your path. That’s ok, I like playing with trolls. You’re getting boring and repetitive though. Up your game if you’d like to keep playing.”

        You’ve provided precisely no references to repeatable scientific experiments demonstrating the heating effects of CO2. None.

        If you are attempting to avoid the fact that the Warmist CO2 heating effect doesn’t exist, you might attempt to duck and weave by attempting to be gratuitously offensive. You would no doubt be as ineffective as you are trying to talk the heating effect of CO2 into existence. Oh, wait . . .

        You also wrote –

        “I don’t think so, actually. It’s a complex science of a massive and complex system. I wouldn’t expect the average layperson to know what I do about it — even though what I think I know and understand is orders of magnitude less than a working domain expert.”

        I assume you are referring to climatologists, rather than attempting a semantic trap.

        It’s fairly obvious that what you think you know and understand is unrelated to reality. If you think that working climatology domain experts know orders of magnitude more than you do, you must be very dim indeed. It doesn’t doesn’t take much intelligence or effort to average a series of numbers. Climate is the average of weather, according to the climatology domain experts. If you find that very difficult, you might consider upgrading your abilities.

        For my part, I don’t see that climate science is complex at all. Self proclaimed climate scientists, (a disparate collection at best), have difficulty in calculating averages. They seem to keep reanalysing historical data, adjusting and creating as they go, which changes nothing at all. Alternatively, they write trivial amateur computer programs, which enable them to produce more incorrect scenarios in ever decreasing amounts of time, as they waste more and more expensive computer time.

        The result is – nothing of utility to man nor beast. Some science!

        Vague claims of unspecified future doom. The province of cultists, particularly Cargo Cultists pretending to be real scientists. Live your fantasy by all means. I would be grateful if you don’t expect me to contribute anything to support it.

        Cheers.

      • You’ve provided precisely no references to repeatable scientific experiments demonstrating the heating effects of CO2.

        And you’ve recycled that argument with me at least five times now, Mike Flynn. My response now is as it was the first time you regurgitated it on your keyboard: the planet is too small for your lab bench. There have been repeatable, repeated observations. You know this. You are only asking for references to be a nuisance. Which is dishonest. Thanks for playing.

        Get some new material.

      • Mike Flynn

        brandonrgates,

        You wrote –

        “My response now is as it was the first time you regurgitated it on your keyboard: the planet is too small for your lab bench.”

        As usual, you parrot the standard Warmist faith based argument when the science doesn’t support you. “Trust me – I’m a climate scientist”. Of course, and the check’s in the mail, and you’ll still love me in the morning.

        Cargo cult science. Wishful thinking. If you ever find a repeatable scientific experiment showing the heating powers of CO2, let me know. I won’t hold my breath while I’m waiting.

        Cheers.

      • Pat Cassen

        Mike (No global warming due to CO2) Flynn, brandonrgates is right, it’s time for you to find new material. You’re getting yawns instead of guffaws, empty seats, even before intermission. And you’re being upstaged by brandonrgates and blueice2hotsea.

        Why not try something different? – a riff on the second law (you know, Gerlich and Tscheuschner) or gravitational heating (HockeySchtick or Stephen Wilde), or something like that.

        Better yet, a new venue. You’d go over great at Denial Depot. Give it a shot.

        Incidentally, for readers less cynical than Flynn, these experiments (especially numbers 3 and 4) demonstrate the warming properties of carbon dioxide and other IR absorbers. (Corrections for different specific heats can be derived from data found here.)

      • Pat Cassen

        Link for specific heats.

      • As usual, you parrot the standard Warmist faith based argument when the science doesn’t support you. “Trust me – I’m a climate scientist”.

        Ah, but I maintain the science does support me, Mike Flynn. Premier for-profit journals protect their bottom lines and reputations by not habitually publishing pal-reviewed crap. Like so many ideologically-motivated folk opposed to mainstream scientific conclusions, your strawmanning here is a fallacious special pleading. Your rhetoric is little different from those who insist that the Earth is no older than 6,000 years. Your endlessly regurgitated clamouring for “repeated experiments” and arbitrary, impossible standards of evidence, or “proof”, are effectively the same: unadulterated rubbish.

        You fool nobody but yourself and your like-minded cohort. And in this case, to society’s possible future detriment — there are zero policy ramifications for the personal choice to believe that the planet is not actually on the order of 4.5 billion years old, or that the Big Bang is the popularization of atheist post-normal scientists [1] uncomfortable with the responsibilities imposed on them by the God of ancient Hebrew desert-dwellers.

        I’d ask you to repent for the sake of your fellow man. You will of course just whack me again for my unwarranted and irrational “faith”. Or wishful thinking. What crock of a joke that one is. Have a look at the four fingers pointing back at you right now.

        Of course, and the check’s in the mail, and you’ll still love me in the morning.

        Everyone’s gotta eat, Flynn. Personally, I every day enjoy the fruits of the knowledge gained by the collective works of publicly-funded professional scientists. Perhaps eating raw meat killed with wood and stone weapons huddled a damp cave more befits your rugged personality. I myself like modern conveniences. Yes, they were largely obtained by way of combusting stored solar energy in the form of anciently-deposited carbon compounds. But we can do better. There’s no time like the present to continue our advance, and thereby more fully insure our future generations will keep and improve on same grand style to which we’ve become accustomed …

        … that is, only if we have also not become complacent, soft, and lazy. Wake up and, if not join the future, at least get up to speed with the present.

        ———————

        [1] Especially ironic to those of us familiar with the history that a Jesuit-trained astronomer, physicist and priest, Georges Lemaître, first proposed it. Perhaps if Hubble hadn’t become the namesake of the constant Lemaître himself first derived, things might be different. But I doubt it.

      • Pat Cassen,

        You’re getting yawns instead of guffaws, empty seats, even before intermission. And you’re being upstaged by brandonrgates and blueice2hotsea.

        Thanks for that. The entertainment value for me has gotten a little thin, and I’m about out of material myself … there are only so many ways to rebut the same nonsense. Watching guys like Flynn unresponsively recycle the same pre-scripted lines over and over again no matter what variety of rebuttals are given them is like watching a slow-motion train wreck: I want to look away. But I often can’t even though I know I probably should for the sake of my own humanity.

      • John Carpenter

        “As usual, you parrot the standard Warmist faith based argument when the science doesn’t support you. “Trust me – I’m a climate scientist” – Mike Flynn

        So the converse is to trust you and your faith based assertion because you are Mike Flynn. There is no GHE because Mike Flynn says so. You surely can show it since you also assert the physics is on your side (by virtue of your claim that there is no physics behind the GHE). Please enlighten us with your evidence Mike Flynn. You have provided precisely no references to repeatable scientific experiments demonstrating there is no GHE. None.

      • Mike Flynn

        Pat Cassen,

        You wrote –

        “Incidentally, for readers less cynical than Flynn, these experiments (especially numbers 3 and 4) demonstrate the warming properties of carbon dioxide and other IR absorbers. (Corrections for different specific heats can be derived from data found here.)”

        You have not shown the ability of CO2 to heat anything at all beyond the heating from the heat source involved. Anybody can heat air (a mixture of nitrogen, oxygen and others) with a simple hair dryer. No magic involved. Your experiments demonstrate that CO2, like any other gas, can be heated. No magic.

        Cheers.

      • Mike Flynn

        John Carpenter,

        You wrote –

        “So the converse is to trust you and your faith based assertion because you are Mike Flynn. There is no GHE because Mike Flynn says so. You surely can show it since you also assert the physics is on your side (by virtue of your claim that there is no physics behind the GHE). Please enlighten us with your evidence Mike Flynn. You have provided precisely no references to repeatable scientific experiments demonstrating there is no GHE. None.”

        Of course, you may trust whom you like. There is no GHE. Uri Geller cannot bend spoons with the power of his mind. Unicorns do not exist.

        I spend precisely no time or effort trying to prove the non-existence of things that don’t exist. You might consider why it is that approximately 30% of insolation doesn’t show up at the surface when the Sun’s rays are normal to the surface.

        Maybe the magical properties of CO2 operate in reverse on incoming sunlight? What do you think?

        Cheers.