Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye the past week.

The mysterious ‘cold blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean is starting to give up its secrets [link]

Some good news: Ozone Hole Shows Signs of Shrinking, Scientists Say [link]

NSIDC:  Greenland’s three melting surges rival 2012 [link]

Have 1 in 5 UK academics fabricated data? [link]

How social media can distort and misinform when communicating science [link]

Mann: “…small grain of truth to what [@curryja] is saying, but it really isn’t much more than a grain of truth” [link]

Hijacked! How Obama and the Left Killed NASA: The journey from the Moon to radical activism [link]

Antarctica Expert Dr. Eric Steig: “Evidence Antarctic Glacier Retreat Due To AGW “Is Weak” [link]

Sahel rainfall recovery linked to warming Mediterranean, study says [link]

Researchers say CO2 could by used instead of water in hydraulic fracturing [link]

What would we really have to do to cap #GlobalWarming at 2 degrees? We’ve got your options: [link] …And we’ve got them in a form you can play with! [link]

Breathing space for the Gulf Stream [link]

TV maker Panasonic says it has developed the world’s best weather model [link]

A thought provoking essay on the state of universities [link]

Fed Energy Lab Forced To Close After ‘Disturbing’ Data Manipulation-[link]

People Deem Feminine Women Less Likely to Be Scientists -[link]

Interview with Ravetz: Democratizing Science in an Age of Uncertainty [link]

The Arctic observation gap and why US Arctic satellite observations
matter [link]

Paul Voosen’s profile on Dan Kahan: Seeking a climate of change [link]

U.S. Professors Investigated For Presenting Opposing Viewpoints [link]

“Contribution of large-scale circulation anomalies to changes in extreme precipitation frequency in United States” [link]

And yet another unaccounted for climate variable: snow algae accelerates melting of Arctic glaciers [link]

Status of U.S. numerical #weather prediction: Still a mess, according to UW’s Cliff Mass.[link]

NGeo: Freshwater from melting ice is not affecting the ocean conveyor – yet. [link]

Hurricane wind frequency and intensity in China down over past half century
[link]

A built-in oceanic phenomenon helps explain rapid termination of #ENSO events. [link]

MIT/Univ. of Washington study pegs likely cause of delayed rise in Antarctic sea temps. [link]

he Antarctic Has Been Warmer Than Now For Most Of The Last 8000 Years
[link]

Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations [link]

Study Finds More Evidence ‘Urban Heat Islands’ Are Warming Up Weather Stations [link]

Melt ponds suggest no Arctic sea-ice record this year [link]

A rant on peer review [link]

 

 

 

241 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. I deem feminIST women more likely to be propagandists than scientists.

  2. What about the 9 of 10 that know zip about statistics?

    “A small survey of UK academics… estimated that 1 in 7 had plagiarized from someone else’s work, and nearly 1 in 5 had fabricated data.”

  3. The mysterious ‘cold blob’ in the North Atlantic Ocean is starting to give up its secrets [link]

    From the abstract of the report referenced in that story (by Chris Mooney, so watch the bias):

    We show that the strong local atmospheric forcing is predominantly responsible for the negative sea surface temperature anomalies observed in the subpolar North Atlantic in 2015 and that there is no evidence of permanently weakened deep convection.

  4. Bit bemused by the ozone hole story. 2015 was the fourth largest ozone hole since the satellite record began. The peak size is generally reached in October as the sunlight and cold reach their maximum.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php

    Can somebody explain on what basis this claim has been made

    Tonyb

    • The basis of the claim is crappy models and a willful obliviousness to the simple fact that the Sun’s ultraviolet output naturally varies so the ozone layer naturally varies. “Over Washington, D.C., ozone varies annually by 25 percent, some 80 times greater than the stated anthropogenic decline.” ~Sallie Baliunas

      • Wagathon

        It has been on the news on the BBC. But the claim simply doesn’t seem to add up. There must be some scientific reason for making the claim the ozone hole is healing thanks to the Montreal protocol…mustn’t there?

        Tonyb

      • If you look at, “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate: A Workshop Report,” by NASA (Updated/Added to NTRS: Jan 30, 2013), you will see a tacit admission that the variability in the Antarctic ozone like climate change itself may be effected more than we realized by even a small variability in solar activity (and, no solar activity)– i.e, the sun is just fluxing with us.

      • Note that they didn’t say they MEASURED the Ozone Hole getting smaller. They said there are FINGERPRINTS that it is smaller thanks to the Montreal accord.

        The full article is paywalled to me, but I can make a guess that they have a model that shows the hole would have been much larger if not for Montreal.

        Really, the Climate Faithful could learn a lessons from this. Instead of making predictions that have a chance of failing, just show what the temperature WOULD have been if not for all the windmills and solar panels built.

        I’m sure they could show they have already saved us from destruction.

      • More for Wagathon:

        STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT T. WATSON, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, DC

        […]
        Since the late 1970s, ground-based, balloon and satellite data have documented significant decreases in column content of ozone over Antarctica, about 60 percent, as shown in one of my figures in my testimony, and drastic changes in the vertical distribution, close to 100 percent loss of ozone at certain altitudes.

        The Antarctic ozone holes in 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1994, were the most severe on record.

        As we speak today, and as expected, satellite, balloon, and ground-based data show that the Antarctic ozone hole is once again developing in the fashion similar to the last few years.

        There is absolutely no doubt that the springtime Antarctic ozone hole is due to the increasing concentrations of anthropogenic chlorine and bromine. This conclusion is based on combining extensive ground, aircraft, balloon and satellite data with laboratory data and theoretical modeling.

        […]

        With respect to global ozone, the observational data, as I’ve shown in figure 4 of my testimony, provides conclusive evidence that ozone depletion is occurring at all latitudes, except the tropics, and in all seasons.

        Analysis of extensive ground-based Dobson and TOMS data through 1994 has shown that column ozone has decreased by 5 to 6 percent in summer in the northern hemisphere, 9 to 11 percent in winter/spring in the northern hemisphere, 8 to 9 percent in southern mid-latitudes on a year-round basis.

        Figure 5 in my testimony also shows the seasonal and latitudinal trends, illustrating the very significant trends at middle and high latitudes.

        In each case, the natural periodic and episodic fluctuations are taken into account — ***SOLAR CYCLE***, season and volcanic activities.

        The weight of scientific evidence strongly suggests that the observed mid-latitude ozone trends are due in large part to anthropogenic chlorine and bromine.

        Yup, looks like “willful obliviousness to the simple fact that the Sun’s ultraviolet output naturally varies” to me.

        Not. Trot out more claptrap about what atmospheric scientists allegedly don’t understand again, and you and I can have a nice little chat about whether or not your ignorance is willful or not, hey?

      • brgates, 1995? In 2015 they were still trying to figure out how the BD circulation dynamics caused twice as much NH mid-latitude O3 than in the SH.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063052/full

      • captdallas,

        brgates, 1995?

        Yup, 1995, same year … same House hearing … where Dr. Sallie Baliunas stumped for natural variability as a potential reason for observed ozone trends:

        Now because they cover a longer interval of time than the satellite data, these data more clearly reveal the extent of natural variability. The record also indicates the level of natural variability before the 1970s, before any substantial anthropogenic impact on ozone.

        Now ozone levels change by a large amount every year between spring and fall. Over Washington, D.C., ozone varies annually by 25 percent, some 80 times greater than the stated anthropogenic decline. An average season has been subtracted from the data in Chart 1, leaving other natural factors — for example, changes in the sun’s ultra-violet output or changes in the upper atmosphere wind patterns of the earth, and any other trends.

        In 2015 they were still trying to figure out how the BD circulation dynamics caused twice as much NH mid-latitude O3 than in the SH.

        If because don’t know everything and it follows that we don’t know nuffin’, it would be premature to chalk up ozone trends solely to natural causes then, donchathink?

        In the meantime, I’m gonna go with the data from the late-1950s to 1995 which show an unambigous decline in ozone and since then a moderate recovery as CFC use worldwide has declined … just as Dr. Watson testified in 1995 it should. I do apologize that prior theory and subsequent observation agree with Dr. Watson’s science over Dr. Baliunas’ speculations, but them’s the breaks.

      • “…ozone is produced by ultraviolet radiation: If there were no solar UV, there would be no ozone. Since solar UV rises and falls with the 11-year cycle of sunspots, ozone concentration should do likewise. Indeed it does.” ~Sallie Baliunas

      • brgates, “In the meantime, I’m gonna go with the data from the late-1950s to 1995 which show an unambigous decline in ozone and since then a moderate recovery as CFC use worldwide has declined .”

        I guess living in the past is comforting, but the impact of stratospheric circulation has become a hot topic since Solomon tried to reconcile stratospheric water vapor and ozone changes that appeared to be responsible for the less than anticipated warming a few years ago. Most modeling groups have raised their model lids because things appear to be more complicated than they were in 1995.

      • I guess living in the past is comforting […]

        Nobody’s living int the past, Captain. I cited data up to the present which extends into the past showing a prior prediction being correct according to theory still on the books in the present. You need to deal with what the data say, not some twisted around version of my own words. Title of that hearing was: Scientific Integrity and Public Trust: The Science Behind Federal Policies and Mandates: Case Study 1 – Stratospheric Ozone: Myths and Realities

        Let’s show some Integrity deal with realities of observation, not myths about scientists “ignoring” the 11 year solar UV cycle. Thanks ever so kindly.

        Most modeling groups have raised their model lids because things appear to be more complicated than they were in 1995.

        Sounds like Integrity on the part of the modeling groups to me. However, Solomon et al (2016) is about recovery of the so-called ozone hole, not a proposed Cause of Teh Paws. Changing the subject when your buddies make hash of an argument doesn’t show a lot of Integrity.

      • brgates, my comment was on your choice of an outdated source.

        I don’t see this as convincing evidence of a strong recovery of Antarctic ozone.

        I don’t find this impressive either. So news of the resurrection of the polar ozone might be a bit premature, IMHO

      • Ozone superstition may not have changed but neither has the science: there is no observed change in global ozone concentrations outside the bounds of natural variability. (Baliunas)

      • Wagathon,

        “…ozone is produced by ultraviolet radiation: If there were no solar UV, there would be no ozone. Since solar UV rises and falls with the 11-year cycle of sunspots, ozone concentration should do likewise. Indeed it does.” ~Sallie Baliunas

        Yeah, read that already, as well as a good portion of the rest of her full testimony. There are some other interesting tidbits:

        Dr. Singer: Starting with the ozone hole. The ozone hole, as I mentioned before, was not predicted by the theory. This is why I’m skeptical of the present theory.

        The present theory cannot even predict what the hole will be like next year, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now. The reason for this is that the hole is pretty much controlled by climate changes and not by ozone concentration — sorry — ^by chlorine concentration at this stage.

        The hole, as I mentioned before, is genuine. It’s a transient phenomenon.

        Now the question of global ozone is quite different from the question of the Antarctic hole. The question is what was the global ozone like before 1957?

        My answer is I wish we knew. But we do have some idea because we have sunspot number observations and we know that ozone depends on the sunspot number in some way. The more sunspots you have, the more ozone you have in the atmosphere.

        And that’s why, since sunspots have an 11-year cycle, you see an 11-year cycle also in the ozone in the last 35 years.

        Now, you may know that sunspots have varied tremendously over the last two hundred years. There was a period of time around 1700 when there were no sunspots for many years, for some reason. We don’t know why.

        Actually, Sallie Baliunas is probably a greater expert on this than I am and will tell you that this is so.

        And my supposition is that ozone should have varied by tremendous amounts naturally because of these large natural variations in sunspot number.

        Mr. Olver: I have a feeling that I could understand this.

        Mr. ROHRABACHER. That’s the opposite feeling that I have.

        [Laughter.]

        As the Chairman, I’m going to use the Chairman’s prerogative to give Dr. Watson 30 seconds to summarize his reaction to that last statement, out of fairness, and then to call a halt to this panel.

        Dr. Watson: Two quick questions. Dr. Singer is right. We only have about 30 years or three solar cycles of global ozone. We have some individual stations like at Rosa that go back to 1930, six solar cycles.

        So when we’ve analyzed over six solar cycles

        Mr. Olver: Where?

        Dr. Watson: At Rosa in Switzerland. When we take that data and all the satellite data and all the global ground-based data, we tend to believe, based on a lot of analysis, that the maximum solar variability is only 1 to 2 percent.

        And yet, what we’re observing in many latitudes is ozone depletions of 5 to 10 percent.

        So the solar variability is small compared to the observed trends.

        Mr. Olver: It’s a correction that you make.

        Dr. Watson: It’s a correction and it’s taken into account in all statistical analysis.

        Again, compare Dr. Watson’s statements to yours from above:

        The basis of the claim is crappy models and a willful obliviousness to the simple fact that the Sun’s ultraviolet output naturally varies so the ozone layer naturally varies.

        His statements are sort of the opposite of “obliviousness”, wouldn’t you agree?

        Now, here’s ozone since 1957 in Dobson Units:

        The data for the Halley (Antarctica) series are here. The TOMS data can be obtained from KNMI Climate Exploder.

        Here the sunspots estimates from 1750 (also from KNMI):

        You know, the sunspot trend from the late 1950s just doesn’t fit the ozone observations. Funny, that.

      • brandonrgates,

        Just in case you miss it elsewhere –

        brandonrgates,

        What a lot of tosh! Healing? What was the patient suffering from? More Warmist redefinition!

        Ozone holes? That’s about as silly as saying a lake has a hole in it, when the optical thickness decreases! In case you don’t know, ozone is created from oxygen by light (EMR) from the sun.

        There’s a never ending supply of the stuff! NASA and other silly pseudo scientists seem to think there’s a fixed amount. Nonsense.

        And who cares anyway? Worried about very energetic UV getting to the surface? No chance – it’s energetic enough to interact with many things, including plain ol’ O2. None of the really short UV makes it to the surface.

        What gets through is bad enough. As the song says –

        “In tropical climes there are certain times of day
        When all the citizens retire
        To tear their clothes off and perspire
        It’s one of those rules that the greatest fools obey
        Because the sun is much too sultry
        And one must avoid its ultra violet ray “

        Mad dogs and Eglishmen – and maybe Warmists – go out in the midday sun. Apologies to the English, of course. No offense intended. Blame Noel Coward!

        Cheers.

      • captdallas,

        brgates, my comment was on your choice of an outdated source.

        It wasn’t my source, it was Wagathon’s, quoting Sallie Baliunas. He’s still at it:

        “…ozone is produced by ultraviolet radiation: If there were no solar UV, there would be no ozone. Since solar UV rises and falls with the 11-year cycle of sunspots, ozone concentration should do likewise. Indeed it does.” ~Sallie Baliunas

        That quote comes from this paper published by the George C. Marshall Institute in 1994. Why does he not give proper citations to this stuff I wonder?

        I don’t see this as convincing evidence of a strong recovery of Antarctic ozone. […] So news of the resurrection of the polar ozone might be a bit premature, IMHO

        This really should be the end of the discussion:

        And yes, also as per theory, solar activity does have a discernible effect on the residual:

      • The real takaway is that, following the discovery of the ozone hole in 1886, 30 years later we learn it ain’t so scary; and, 30 years from now, Leftists will still hate free enterprise capitalism and business and push fear of climate change to stab America in the back but AGW will be a lot less scary.

      • Wagathon,

        I think you meant 1986 (1985, really). That aside, you’ve outdone yourself with the leaps of logic: AGW will be nothing to worry about because the ozone hole — which was successfully addressed by policy — turned out to not be a problem.

        Now, I’ll grant that extreme leftists loathe free market capitalism. This more moderate lefty likes making money just fine. The idea of addressing AGW is to protect the economy of the future from the deleterious effects of last-ditch adaptations. You know, prudently planning ahead while there’s still time to do so. Foreign concept to some, I realize, especially folks like you with a penchant for thinking in single bit binary and who routinely substitute political science for physical science because the latter is overwhelmingly against them.

      • It’s obviously more political than scientific or it wouldn’t be a Left vs. right issue now, would it?

    • The basis of the claim is Susan Solomon trying to declare CFC victory as support for COP21/Paris accord. The statistics behind the claim are crappy, utterly unpersuasive. Embarassinglynbad for MIT. Tried to blame 2015 on the Calbuco VEI 4 eruption in Chile on 4/22/15. The problem is, the amount of SO2 injected into the stratosphere was very small, and there is no way to model the ozone hoe effect except heuristically. So they waved their hands, rejected 2015 as a volcanic anomaly, and declared victory.

    • Mike Flynn

      Climatereason,

      I think NASA is demonstrating the ability to believe propaganda in lieu of fact. UV creates ozone from oxygen. The UV thus absorbed is not then available to reach the surface.

      CFCs also are broken down by high energy UV. That UV is also unavailable to reach the surface.

      NASA personnel who write rubbish are still employed and believed. This might say something about their employer. I believe NASA also employs people such as Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician who describes himself as a climatologist.

      I’m with you, I believe. In regard to ozone holes and the like – much ado about nothing, and mass ignorance displayed in all directions.

      Cheers.

    • Could someone provide a link to peer reviewed papers published in noteworthy scientific journals that refute Dr. Molina’s Nobel prize winning work on ozone. Thanks.

    • Tony — I’m not referencing the Solomon or any other current articles. I’m referencing comments that I see a lot here at CE refuting Dr. Molina’s Nobel prize winning work. Can people reference peer reviewed papers written in noteworthy scientific journals refuting Dr. Molina’s work? Thanks.

    • climatereason,

      Bit bemused by the ozone hole story. 2015 was the fourth largest ozone hole since the satellite record began. The peak size is generally reached in October as the sunlight and cold reach their maximum.

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/ozone.php

      Can somebody explain on what basis this claim has been made?

      The NYT article links to Solomon et al. (2016):

      Abstract

      Industrial chlorofluorocarbons that cause ozone depletion have been phased out under the Montreal Protocol. A chemically-driven increase in polar ozone (or “healing”) is expected in response to this historic agreement. Observations and model calculations taken together indicate that the onset of healing of Antarctic ozone loss has now emerged in September. Fingerprints of September healing since 2000 are identified through (i) increases in ozone column amounts, (ii) changes in the vertical profile of ozone concentration, and (iii) decreases in the areal extent of the ozone hole. Along with chemistry, dynamical and temperature changes contribute to the healing, but could represent feedbacks to chemistry. Volcanic eruptions episodically interfere with healing, particularly during 2015 (when a record October ozone hole occurred following the Calbuco eruption).

      Your reference NASA’s Earth Observatory website reads:

      This series of images shows the size and shape of the ozone hole each year from 1979 through 2015 (no data are available for 1995).

      […]

      As the images show, the word hole isn’t literal; no place is empty of ozone. Scientists use the word hole as a metaphor for the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson Units.

      […]

      The series begins in 1979. The maximum depth of the hole that year was 194 Dobson Units (DU)—not far below the historical low. For several years, the minimum concentrations stayed in the 190s, but beginning in 1983, the minimums got deeper rapidly: 173 DU in 1982, 154 in 1983, 124 in 1985. In 1991, a new threshold was passed; ozone concentration fell below 100 DU for the first time. Since then, concentrations below 100 have been common. The deepest ozone hole occurred in 1994, when concentrations fell to just 73 DU on September 30.

      Records in depth and size haven’t occurred during the same years (the largest ozone hole occurred in 2006), but the long-term trend in both characteristics is consistent: from 1980 through the early 1990s, the hole rapidly grew in size and depth. Since the mid-1990s, area and depth have roughly stabilized (see the Ozone Hole Watch website for annual averages). Year-to-year variations in area and depth are caused by variations in stratospheric temperature and circulation. Colder conditions result in a larger area and lower ozone values in the center of the hole.

      […]

      Scientists estimate that about 80 percent of the chlorine (and bromine, which has a similar ozone-depleting effect) in the stratosphere over Antarctica today is from human, not natural, sources. Models suggest that the concentration of chlorine and other ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere will not return to pre-1980 levels until the middle decades of this century. These same models predict that the Antarctic ozone layer will recover around 2040. On the other hand, because of the impact of greenhouse gas warming, the ozone layer over the tropics and mid-southern latitudes may not recover for more than a century, and perhaps not ever.

      Wagathon,

      The basis of the claim is crappy models and a willful obliviousness to the simple fact that the Sun’s ultraviolet output naturally varies so the ozone layer naturally varies.

      Read harder.

      schitzree,

      Note that they didn’t say they MEASURED the Ozone Hole getting smaller. They said there are FINGERPRINTS that it is smaller thanks to the Montreal accord.

      Nice quotemine. Check out the previous sentence:

      Observations and model calculations taken together indicate that the onset of healing of Antarctic ozone loss has now emerged in September.

      Where’s the Integrity, Denizens?

      • brandonrgates,

        What a lot of tosh! Healing? What was the patient suffering from? More Warmist redefinition!

        Ozone holes? That’s about as silly as saying a lake has a hole in it, when the optical thickness decreases! In case you don’t know, ozone is created from oxygen by light (EMR) from the sun.

        There’s a never ending supply of the stuff! NASA and other silly pseudo scientists seem to think there’s a fixed amount. Nonsense.

        And who cares anyway? Worried about very energetic UV getting to the surface? No chance – it’s energetic enough to interact with many things, including plain ol’ O2. None of the really short UV makes it to the surface.

        What gets through (the stuff unaffected by ozone) is bad enough. As the song says –

        “In tropical climes there are certain times of day
        When all the citizens retire
        To tear their clothes off and perspire
        It’s one of those rules that the greatest fools obey
        Because the sun is much too sultry
        And one must avoid its ultra violet ray “

        Mad dogs and Eglishmen – and maybe Warmists – go out in the midday sun. Apologies to the English, of course. No offense intended. Blame Noël Coward!

        Cheers.

  5. Steven Mosher

    “”We have made a lot of additional modifications to the cloud physics, radiation model, air-ocean coupling, and especially the observation quality control,” he said. “The EnKF allows us to calculate impact per observation in real time, so we can remove observations that are causing negative impact before we kick off a model run.”
    An independent meteorologist familiar with the Panasonic model, Ryan Maue of Weather Bell, said he was encouraged to see a private company move into actually operating its own global model. “A private company is more agile and able to test ideas than the federal government,” Maue said. “While it’s hard to declare a winner in any so-called model wars, or to say Panasonic is better than the GFS or ECMWF, it’s clear it has a competitive model that is valuable for its customers.”

    drone data as well

  6. The study about energy use being responsible for temperature change in Britain is interesting.

    I commented on the half a degree drop in cet since the start of the new century here.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/

    After I had written it We then had a record breaking december which came out of nowhere as until then the year had been quite chilly. We then had a warm January and February making this the second warmest winter in the entire CET record. It was beaten by 1869 .we then had a couple of cold months followed by a couple of warmer than average months.

    This makes me think this was natural variation as surely energy changes can’t swing around that much or do we need to average things out over a prolonged period?

    Tonyb

    • Steven Mosher

      “The study about energy use being responsible for temperature change in Britain is interesting.”

      simply test the hypothesis with data from other Islands..

      Isle of Man
      Ireland
      Tiawan

      pretty funny

      • Mike Flynn

        Steven Mosher,

        There has been a peer reviewed paper previously referenced on this blog which did just that. Actually, from memory, Japan was used. Maybe it’s a group of islands, rather than just one, but it still seems appropriate.

        The article mentions Japan, but maybe you don’t consider Japan an island.

        As to “Tiawan”, this should be right up your alley. Just get the data, and see whether the hypothesis proposed is born out by reality and observation. Might be an opportunity for you to do something halfway scientific.

        Might it be appropriate for me to admonish you to “read more, learn more, do the science yourself, comment less, get a clue, and don’t be quite so stupid”?

        I agree with you, you do appear to be pretty funny at times. Funny peculiar rather than funny ha ha, if you take my meaning.

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        yes mike. they used the UK and then japan.
        They made a bunch of other mistakes as well.

        go read my comments. then go get the data.
        takes about 15 minutes

      • Steven Mosher,

        But, but . . .

        It’s been peer reviewed, and published in a reputable journal (unlike your choice of predatory vanity journal).

        Don’t you accept that the AGU is a reputable scientific organisation?

        Please don’t get upset if I ignore your repetitive commands. The authors seem to have done a good job. Better than your endless and pointless averaging of the same contrived data, without even a(n) hypothesis from which to proceed. Completely nonsensical.

        Keep issuing those instructions. Somebody might obey. Good luck.

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        It is simple Mike.
        go read my comments.
        go get the data that I pointed folks at.
        even the guys at WUWT found the problem
        The only authority I rely on is the data. and the data says they are wrong.
        sorry.

      • Mike Flynn

        Steven Mosher,

        Appealing to your own authority, regardless of how copiously you do it, doth not a single fact change.

        Maybe you might do better demanding that the authors retract their paper.

        Or maybe write your own paper rebutting their conclusions, using the same data the authors used, and getting it published in the same journal.

        It doesn’t take a giant intellect (even yours would do) to appreciate that CO2 doesn’t cause temperatures to rise. Heat does.

        Keep shrieking, bellowing, and demanding – maybe you’ll convince someone one day.

        Cheers.

      • Steven Mosher

        Not my authority Mike.
        the data.
        go look.
        you wont.

    • Steven Mosher

      If you want to get a sense of how much human activity can impact a record look at Tokyo weekdays versus weekends.

  7. “Kahan concedes that point. People can be manipulated, and he’s not yet sure they can be protected against it.”

    Golly. What if Dan were to do his own manipulating? By way of protecting us, needless to say. Virtuous manipulation. What’s that, Dan? You’re way ahead of me?

    “He’s taken some steps to test how his insights can be applied. Already influential is work he did on climate engineering, which found that when global warming was posed as a problem that could be solved through human ingenuity, not by limiting growth, hierarchical-individualists were more likely to support action.”

    No doubt about Dan. While other warmies are forcing the door down Dan is delicately pouring the goodness in through the letter slot and under the door. Those hierarch…hierarcher…well, you know what I mean…they’ll just get worn down till they moan with pleasure.

    We can’t wait to buy white elephants when Dan is doing the advertising. When will those old style proto-warmies learn?

  8. It appears that the Austrian presidential election, won by the greens candidate by a whisker, to many peoples surprise, is to be rerun because of possible serious voting irregularities.

    https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/25/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperature/

    The loser is very enthusiastic about Brexit and should he win next time around, once they learn how to count postal votes correctly, it may be he will call for a referendum

    Tonyb

  9. If you believe government scientists saved the world from DDT, overpopulation, acid rain, the ozone hole — just as they have rescued polar bears from the brink of extinction and stopped the seas from rising — then, I have a photograph you might want to buy of George Bush and Big Foot playing hockey on the Whitehouse lawn.

    • It appears that the reason for the inconvenient fourth largest ever ozone hole in 2015 was because of a volcano. These volcanos are capable of everything it seems.

      Tonyb

      • I see your volcanic aerosols and raise you changes in TSI, spectral variability, particle events and cosmic-ray variability.

      • I raise you Brexit. Game over

        Tonyb

      • Now hold your horses. Brexit doesn’t trump everything else just yet. First we need to see if Great Britain ACTUALLY makes it out of the EU.

        Just because it’s the will of the people doesn’t mean the Politicians can’t find a way out of it.

      • –e.g., Politicians may find a way out of the public’s will and find their way back into a burning house?

      • First we need to see if Great Britain ACTUALLY makes it out of the EU.

        There’s always the question of whether there’ll be an EU for Great Britain to make it out of.

      • A politician will often tie themselves to the mast of a sinking policy to show their faith in it. But not before handing out bailing buckets to everyone else and cutting loose the life rafts to inspire diligent bailing.

        They may go down with the ship, but they won’t be going alone.

  10. Some good news: Ozone Hole Shows Signs of Shrinking, Scientists Say [link

    ““We (Susan Solomon) are seeing the planet respond as expected to the actions of people,” she said. “It’s really a story of the public getting engaged, policy makers taking action, and business getting engaged.”

    I recall reading a paper 3 to 4 months ago on ozone in the Arctic and Antarctic and its relation to CFC concentrations. What I recall, that the CFC(s) concentrations have not diminished all that much since the Montreal agreement on banning CFCs.

    The rebuilding of the stratospheric polar(s) ozone concentrations (i.e. the so-called ozone hole getting smaller) was ascribed to a mechanism I didn’t quite understand irregardless of CFCs.

    Query: does anybody remember such a paper recently? Dr. Solomon’s editorializing in the mass media did not sit well with me, but, what the hay?

    • There appears to be solar “fingerprints” that can be detected in climate time series in other parts of the world with each series having a unique time lag between the solar signal and the hydro-climatic response… with various lags from 0 years (Indian Ocean) to 34 years (Mississippi river flow) and 70 years (Labrador Sea ice)… [and] the top-down stratospheric response of ozone to fluctuations of shortwave solar forcing and the bottom-up coupled ocean–atmospheric surface response, acting together, can amplify a solar cyclical pulse with a factor 4 or more. ~Jan-Erik Solheima

      • Wagathon

        Thank you. I further Googled Jan-Erik Solheim and found the 2012 article I have referenced below.

    • Rih008

      We have been discussing that above and it was just on the BBC news. It is very difficult to see how this claim can be justified

      Tonyb

      • climatereason

        Thank you, I missed the discussion up thread.

        Since I don’t listen to the BBC, just read the online news from it, I wonder if there was an accompanying citation?

        I pursue Wagathon’s response further.

      • Rihoo8

        This was the article referenced but it goes to a pay wall

        http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/06/30/science.aae0061

        Tonyb

      • Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
        Volume 80, May 2012, Pages 267–284
        The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24
        Jan-Erik Solheima, , , Kjell Stordahlb, , Ole Humlumc, d,

        “Satellite observations by the Spectral Imager Monitor (SIM) indicate that variations in solar ultraviolet radiation may be larger than previously thought, and in particular, much lower during the recent long solar minimum. Based on these observations Ineson et al. (2011) have driven an ocean–climate model with UV irradiance. They demonstrate the existence of a solar climate signal that affects the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) and produced the three last cold winters in Northern Europe and in the United States.”

        This article is 17 pages and available.

    • Can someone provide links to peer review papers published in noteworthy scientific journals that refute Dr. Molina’s Nobel prize winning work on ozone? Thank you.

      • Segrest,

        Why are you so intent on clowning yourself?

        Ozone hole:
        1- not where models predicted
        2- not much change since Montreal
        3- no idea if it existed prior to being found
        4- way over hyped as to effects

      • catweazle666

        timg256: “3- no idea if it existed prior to being found”

        According to a US officer working at the listening station at Menwith Hill in the UK who O met in the mid 1970s, their extremely sensitive radio receiving equipment detected it due to alteration in reflection from the ionosphere and it was known in such circles long before the atmospheric scientists twigged on to its existence.

  11. This warming is considered the main reason for the increasing number of extreme precipitation events in the US.

    It certainly depends on how one defines extreme.

    I took a look at the GHCN precip data ( without a lot of background or knowledge on the possible biases or systematic issues ).

    But FWIW, since 1930, what I found was:
    1. the average number of days with any precip in the CONUS increased.
    2. daily precip events of 5cm or more have increased.
    3. there is no significant change in daily precipitation of 15, 20, or 30 cm or more ( though these events are infrequent to begin with ):

    • Nice analysis. Hit back with facts.
      Your data could also be interpreted as a single step change about 1975. Reminiscent of the step change in EF1-2 tornados with the advent of Dopplar radar in the 1980’s. I suspect there was some sort of a precipitation measurement change causing the visually apparent step. Might want to look into that and do a simple guest post.

    • Steven Mosher

      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

      Section 2.5

      “For the longest common period of record (1901–2008) all datasets
      exhibit increases in globally averaged precipitation, with three of the
      four showing statistically significant changes (Table 2.9). However,
      there is a factor of almost three spread in the magnitude of the change
      which serves to create low confidence. ”

      basically stay away from the data unless u know what you are doing.

      • basically stay away from the data unless u know what you are doing.

        Says the man who tells everyone to download the data themselves…

      • Well, that’s CONUS, not GLOBAL. Given the TMAX GLOBAL record, I’m pretty sure the PRCP GLOBAL record is a similar pile of poo. But damn it Mosher, now I’ll have to go look.

        But, if you define extreme precip as more than 5cm daily, there’s an increase. If you define extreme precip as more than 10cm daily, there’s no increase in CONUS.

        More importantly to me is the increase in frequency of precipitation may be the reason that there’s a decrease in extreme heat in CONUS.

        Measuring precip surely has problems.

        TOBS? if an observer waited till afternoon to read gauges, more would evaporate.
        Instruments? even old school gauges were probably reasonably designed.
        Observation bias? did observers fail to observe extreme precip days because the roads were flooded?

        All of these and more, no doubt, including the measurements people just made up because they were absent or hungover.

    • They must be claiming warming affects precipitation differently than the rest of the world. Analysis of measured rainfall at stations worldwide does not support their assertion.

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/07/data-vs-models-2-droughts-and-floods/

  12. Here are some interesting factoids which should interest those who smooth, adjust and homogenise old min/max data.

    In the long record of my town in NSW (1907-2014) the warmest August by mean max was 1946. You might think this stuck in my mind because it was so far in the past, me being a skep ‘n all. In fact, it stuck in my mind because all the other months had their highest mean max between 1910 and 1919!

    No need to deduce anything from this. Not only did some NSW places have their warmest months by mean max in the 19th century, some of them have had them quite recently (but we won’t start on that UHI thing again).

    Because not only do you get drastically different highs and lows crossing hills or by moving east or west, even adjacent regions show big differences. Which ought to make one a little cautious about adjustments for eg Rutherglen based on records in a distant and different geography. (But very cautious and pernickety data types sometimes will take any old data in a pinch. They crave their data so much – and who’ll notice once the numbers have been stewed up together?)

    Now, I said the warmest August in my town by mean max was 1946 in a 108 yr record. Can you guess what was the coldest August by mean min in that entire 108 yr record? Well?

    The coldest August by mean min was…August 1946!

    That’s right. Our record warmest August in 108 was our record coldest August in 108 years. (I won’t qualify my terms when speaking of “records” because I’m practising to be a climate expert.)

    So the hottest in 108 years was the coldest in 108 years. How did it do this trick?

    Well, I happen to know that August 1946 was the last month of our driest winter in 108 years. Being a local I can guess that there were lots of inland westerlies blowing in that El Nino year.

    Now some might say it all balances out, this min/max thing. Somehow, I don’t think it’s as neat as that. I think something has been scrambling our numbers forever and I think I know what it is.

    But I won’t say the C-word!

    – ATTC

    • Mike Flynn

      mosomoso,

      Just for fun, is there any reasonably geographically close record of cloud cover (type, base, and octas) for the month in question?

      I hate to stick my head above the parapet, but I will hypothesise that a reduction of cloud will result in higher temperatures during the day, and lower temperatures during the night.

      Seems logical to me. As to the reasons for cloud variations, another question entirely. I’ll just put it down to chaos in action. Not disprovable, so I should be safe from ill-aimed Warmist missiles.

      Cheers.

      • Mike, you used the C-word!

        Well, now the cat’s out of the bag…

        Three years later, in 1950 when our town and most of Eastern Oz had its wettest known winter, that mean max for all of August was a whopping 5+C cooler than in 1946 and the mean min was almost 7C warmer. That’s for the whole month.

        And that’s why I’m such a believer in climate change. You get some of that white or grey woolly stuff parked overhead for a season or two and your whole climate changes.

        Note that I politely avoid the C-word.

        – ATTC

  13. CO2 fracking. Ridiculous. Paper based on ‘preliminary models’. There is no doubt that super high pressure CO2 could frack as well as high pressure water. The only technical problem is water is incompressible while CO2 is compressible, so much higher CO2pressures would be needed to create equivalent forces. But that is not why the idea is stupid.
    Fracking uses massive amounts of sand as proppant. The sand grains hold the pressure created fractures open after the fluid is withdrawn. Proppant ‘props’ the fractures open. Else they will close and the whole exercise fails. Proppant sand is suspended in the water using mainly guar gum (a food thickener). How are these ‘geniuses’ going to suspend proppant sand in a gas when there is little flow?

  14. A small rain of Curry:

  15. The key to everything is not just that a small variability in solar activity effects everything but that in addition, no solar activity does too–

  16. David L. Hagen

    Michael Mann’s makes a minescule mole hill out of a mountain!

    • Mann bemoans the politicization of climate science and then calls Spencer and Christy denialists.

      Too funny!

      • Mike Flynn

        cerescokid,

        Mann’s definitely a bit funny. Quite a lot funny, in fact. Claimed to be a Nobel Laureate and all. How funny was that?

        Cheers.

  17. Sign of the times…

    Psycho-social hazard #1: Increasing by ppm the dangerous chemical, CO2 into the atmosphere is a looming man-made disaster and should be stopped no matter how inconvenient it may seem now to put a halt to modernity.

    Psycho-social response #1: Western academia saw the problem and warned us about it and we should forever be indebted to them for saving us from ourselves and do everything we possibly can to shelter them from the inevitable consequences of falling into economic ruin when we follow their advice.

  18. Steven Mosher

    Melt ponds suggest no Arctic sea-ice record this year [link]

    best site for ice

    http://neven1.typepad.com/

    long time lurker at this awesome site

    • SM, you need to read up on Arctic ice. Microwave vs. Optical. 15% vs. 30%.
      Microwave meltpool problem illustrated in essay Northwest Passage.

    • Thanks Mosh, I use the Cryosphere today and it’s been out of commission for some time. I like this guys style. +++++

    • M

      I stopped reading when I came to “unprecedented”. Really? Since maybe 1979. How about since MWP? Who knows. Certainly not the author.

    • Curious George

      Absolutely awesome. With a Hiroshima bomb counter (and counting) at the top right. No doubt it is absolutely objective. Right now, the counter has a relative precision 1:2,373,177,750. I love reliable climate news.

      • Curious George

        That’s 1,180 bombs within 3/4 mile from where you live, even if you live on a ship in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. Please start noticing, before it is too late.

    • Wow. I am really surprised; the summer Arctic ice was so remarkably low that I thought it would set a record this year if ever. Guess we’ll see.

  19. “Some good news: Ozone Hole Shows Signs of Shrinking, Scientists Say”

    the size of the ozone hole does not tell us much about chemical ozone depletion. if the rowland-molina theory of ozone depletion by cfc is correct we should see a decline in latitudinally weighted global mean total column ozone (tco). no such decline can be found in the data.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2748016
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757711

    also the rowland-molina theory depends on the “long life” of cfc in the atmosphere of up to 40 to 150 years. this means that if we had completed the ban on ozone depleting substances in the year 2000 we are not likely to see any change in tco until the year 2040.

    the claim that the ban worked and we are seeing results in 2015 and 2016 is inconsistent with rowland-molina. it would not be too harsh to conclude from all of the above that the ozone depletion problem was probably invented by the UNEP to serve its own purpose.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991

  20. Kudos to the scientists who attributed the cold blob temperature phenomenon to natural variability contradicting other , more in vogue, interpretations.

    In lieu of Nobel prizes, scientists who follow the science and take on the establishment should receive the Anadromous Fish Swimming Upstream Against The Current Award for extraordinary display of Kahunas.

  21. Evan Jones

    Beyond misinformation, hype, and other forms of scienceploitation on social media, there is at least one other serious threat to the effective communication of science online: the lack of civility in online and social media forums.

    Understatement, much?

    Online, is of great advantage to science in that it hugely enhances independent review. I have benefited immensely from pre-publication review
    regarding Anthony’s surface stations project. I need the other side. Otherwise I am just bouncing around in an echo chamber.

    But in order to speak with those who oppose your hypothesis, you need to be on speaking terms with them.

    • Well, the North Atlantic some of the saltest ocean waters are getting cold. 800 decibars is a little less than 800 meters.

      800 meters in the North Atlantic has gotten 1°C colder since 2004. The surface has gotten even colder. No sign of the trend changing.

  22. The link above for this is not working:

    Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations

    “The Atlantic overturning circulation is declining8 and the AMO is moving to a negative phase. This may offer a brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures…”

    The AMO fakes out another one.

    • The authors in this linked study talk about the continued acceleration of sea level rise along the NE coast of the US.

      This NOAA chart does not show that for the last 5 years in NYC. Looks more like a precipitous drop to me.
      http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
      And reviewing other locations along the NE coast of the US the same kind of drop can be seen.

      I wonder if the authors had the charts upside down. Or did they have a trapeze installed in their office and they have been hanging from their knees.

      The tidal gauges along the NE coast do not support that statement in the linked study.

      • Apparently you are not even a C student, at least not in Geography. Your two links focus on two distinct and different areas. The NE US coast, for which I have provided the NOAA tidal gauge graph at one of the locations. Others are in Massachusetts, Connecticut, RI, NY, New Jersey.

        This latest non-responsive mis-direction link is about the Mid-Atlantic States coastline. This region, including the Chesapeake Bay area, is famously infected with the warmests’ worst nightmare, subsidence on a grand scale.

        Any sea level discussion has to first address one by one the individual tidal gauges which show long term trends below the CU GMSL 3.4 mm/yr. As I have shown previously here there are dozens of NOAA tidal gauges with very small rises, but more importantly, they show no acceleration. If someone wants to discredit all of those records, great, since I’m a reasonable guy I will listen.

        But, so far, no takers.

      • Mike Flynn

        JCH,

        Warmists apparently claim to have instruments of unsurpassable accuracy. I’ve even seen claims of sea level rises measured to 0.01mm. This is less than half the thickness of a fine human hair.

        I’m not sure whether Warmists realise that even 0.1 mm is about four thousandths of an inch (for people who haven’t caught up with the scientific units used in the civilised world).

        In my area, the tidal range is over 7 m. Even over 24 hours, this is around 5 mm per minute. And Warmists claim average sea levels can be measured to within 0.1 mm?

        Completely delusional. Too much time playing computer games indoors, and living in a fantasy world. These bumblers should get out a bit more. Go to the beach, watch the waves. Feel the wind, look at the clouds. Move into the sunlight. Go back into the shade. Make a fire in the desert at night to avoid freezing.

        Are you delusional, or just gullible? Feel free to take offense if you wish. CO2 warms nothing, and is essential for the continued survival of humanity. Do you really believe you can stop the climate from changing? Good luck!

        Cheers.

      • flynn – shove it up your shady portal.

    • What the studies are about is a theory that variations in the AMOC and the Gulf Stream can cause an increase/decrease in sea level along the Atlantic coast of the US. There is evidence it happened in the past, the studies are suggesting it happened again in the 21st century.

      Your graph demonstrates nothing other than you have no clue what the claim of acceleration in sea level along the east coast was all about: natural variation.

  23. Re: Ocean impact . . .

    “In this case, the negative AMO is associated with a continued acceleration of sea-level rise along the northeast coast of the United States . . . “

    Really? Localised sea level rise due to the influence of CO2, maybe? Or maybe nothing to do with AMOs or other Warmist alarmism.

    Maybe the coastal regions are subsiding – GPS measurements seem to say so. But when do facts ever intrude into Warmist fantasies? Not often, it would seem.

    Cheers.

  24. Peter Lang

    I project catastrophe on a grand scale within 3 years.

    The Roy Spencer chart shows global average lower troposphere temperature has dropped 0.5 C in 5 months http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2016-0-34-deg-c/ .

    At this rate, we’ll be at glacial temperatures in 3 years from now.

    Be concerned! be really concerned!!

    • The atmosphere is the working fluid for a heat engine.

      I’m constantly puzzled that high temperatures in the atmosphere are interpreted as warming. It depends on what is happening at the surface energy wise. If the net energy at the surface is negative or neutral and atmospheric temperature is high massive cooling is occurring.

      The North Atlantic is cooling, has been since 2004. Presumably this means the deep ocean is cooling.

      I’m going to be following the ocean heat content on KMNI. The data is only available through March.

      The recent heat content seems driven by surface temperature.

      The recent UAH temperature is plunging at a record rate.

      Solar Flux is at least at 1900 levels.

      I’m not in the glacier camp yet. Solar Flux has to plunge 1810 levels before I climb on board.

      But I think all the post 2013 warming is going to be lost. If the ocean does cool significantly and CU Sea Level Research Group continues to claim their current 3.4 mm/Y sea level rise this would raise significant doubt that they know what they are supposed to be measuring.

      • It says: North Atlantic:

      • The atmosphere is the working fluid for a heat engine.

        Perhaps, a little bit. The real working fluid is water: vapor (as part of the atmosphere, I’ll admit), and liquid (much of it suspended in the atmosphere).

      • Steven Mosher

        “But I think all the post 2013 warming is going to be lost.”

        And when it is not lost… how will your ideas change?

        not one bit I predict

      • JCH | July 2, 2016 at 12:23 pm |
        It says: North Atlantic:

        Not sure what you’re point is. UC masks about 0.7+ mm of land rise and guesses that the ocean floor is sinking 0.3 (they probably compute it from the land rise) so they add that to the sea level. The sea level is the sea surface, not the sea bottom, relative to land. So they start out 1.0 mm/y higher than any sane definition of sea level.

        Global warming scientists have mastered the art of creating technically correct estimates that are useless for the purpose intended.

        The steric sea level rise has to match the change in temperature profile pretty closely on a global scale. Further, even NASA has admitted the Antarctic is gaining ice. From the NASA admission (and Length of Day studies) the sea level rise is pretty tightly constrained and the UC 3.4 mm/Y guesstimate (since guessed values are added to measured values) just isn’t viable.

        Further, your numbers are weird. You can’t GIA correct a spot in the open ocean. This follows from the disturbed thinking that if the sea floor sinks a foot and the ocean rises a foot the sea level is one foot higher. No, it isn’t. If the ocean floor sinks in one area a depression doesn’t form on the surface of the ocean. If you drill a 10 foot deep hole in the ocean floor a permanent 10 foot deep pit doesn’t form on the ocean surface. UC computes the estimated change in ocean depth for reasons known only to them. It is a figure no one cares about.

        Sea level is referenced to land. That is the only way the measurement makes sense. If there wasn’t any land the sea would be level and that is all you care about.

      • Steven Mosher | July 2, 2016 at 1:41 pm |
        “But I think all the post 2013 warming is going to be lost.”

        And when it is not lost… how will your ideas change?

        not one bit I predict

        Well, if it is stolen, damaged by accident, etc. that would still count.

        I’m not a solar warmer per se. Further the ocean is a pure play where the lying about ALW being negative doesn’t come into play.

        It is just CO2 vs the sun.

        Anyway, the global warmers would contend none of it will be lost and that ocean surface 0-700 or 0-2000 energy will build from the current level.

        Don’t see that happening but that would imply strong forcing.

        I’m a weak forcer so I see retrenchment and am interested in how far it retrenches and at what layers of the retrenchment occurs.

        But yeah, if the Argo data showed continued heat content rise and surface temperature rise, I might be less resistant to strong forcing.

        But it doesn’t look like UAH is going to have a record year. And the outgoing long wave anomaly is going positive. And the ERSSTv4 is starting down. So your concern appears to be theoretical.

      • Peter Lang

        PA,

        I’m not in the glacier camp yet.

        If the trend continues for 5 years the planet will be a snowball Earth temps. Clearly, We’re doomed. It’s the end of life on Earth as we know it.

      • We do not have a cooling problem, the atm can easily lose 4F/hr, and if it’s dry enough it can lose almost 40F in one night. All of these cooling rates are irrelevant to the amount of co2 there is, and in fact there no signs at all its relevant in the cooling since 1950.
        Water vapor however is relevant at all timescales and all locations.

    • Peter Land: I project catastrophe on a grand scale within 3 years.

      It’s a projection! I get it.

      I predict that the decline will bottom out, a la the 97-98-99–2002 excursion. How big the final rebound? Of that I make no prediction or projection. Except one: I predict that the change from here to 2021 will be ambiguous with respect to discriminating (or making a differential diagnosis) theories.

    • Steven Mosher

      UAH gives you the temperature at approximately 700hpa.

      we dont live there.

      That is why UAH isnt policy relevant

      Also, you forgot the uncertainties.

      • Who says we don’t live there. I experience people with their head in the clouds every single day.

      • Steven Mosher

        haha.. ya..

      • we dont live there.

        That is why UAH isnt policy relevant

        It’s at least as relevant to the TOA “energy budget” as the surface.

        The fact that “global average temperature” is used in so many different ways, with so many different definitions, is why the whole thing is a myth.

      • Part of why.

      • we dont live there. That is why UAH isnt policy relevant

        Whether the temp at 700hpa is rising, and the rate at which it is rising if it is, are tests of the CO2 theory.

        I agree with you that surface climate is most relevant for policy. It’s why I don’t give a lot of weight, in thinking about policy, to the ocean heat accumulation. Also, not that much lives at the poles, so except for the possibility of meltwater, I don’t give a lot of weight, in thinking about policy, to “polar amplification”. About “life”, the measures that are most important are the measures of actual changes in the planet’s flora and fauna, and about that there is more and more evidence accumulating from ongoing research.

        Living on the surface, that’s what is most important in the policy debates.

      • Well, there are a number of people in China, India, Nepal, Peru, etc. that live above the 700 hpa line.

        La Rinconada, Peru is in the 506-526 hpa range.

        Just because you don’t live there doesn’t mean it isn’t important.

      • Peter Lang

        Mosher,

        We’r doomed, just like you and your loony mates have believed for 30 years.

    • The Roy Spencer chart shows global average lower troposphere temperature has dropped 0.5 C in 5 months

      The Roy Spencer chart produced from an unknown methodology that hasn’t been released and can’t be reproduced?

      …right.

      This isn’t just “he won’t release the data”. He won’t even release the methodology. That isn’t science.

      • Peter Lang

        1st, it’s been submitted for publication and has been in peer review for ages. Second, he’s been producing these analyses for decades and in in the 6th major revision. He is recognised as one of THE authorities. Dummy!

  25. ulriclyons

    “The Atlantic overturning circulation is declining and the AMO is moving to a negative phase”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/abs/nature14491.html

    That’s backwards, the AMOC was faster in the 1970’s with the cold AMO. The low MOC events both ends of 2010, summer 2012 and March 2013 etc are during strongly negative NAO/AO episodes, and negative NAO/AO drives a warm AMO.
    http://www.rapid.ac.uk/

  26. Cliff Mass on NOAA/NWS. What a mess. And now adding not invented here concerning the next generation model. Disappointingly typical in my experiences with government agencies.

  27. Danny Thomas

    At a bit of a loss as to how Stieg and Hansen see Antarctica so very differently: Steig “I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this.” – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/28/antarctica-expert-dr-eric-steig-evidence-antarctic-glacier-retreat-due-to-agw-is-weak/#sthash.ZUEpdz6c.gnOvyp8a.dpuf

    Then: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/07/20/the-worlds-most-famous-climate-scientist-just-outlined-an-alarming-scenario-for-our-planets-future/

    Neither disputes retreating glaciers, but the mechanisms are so much in question.

    • I believe they settled on different parts of the science

      • Danny Thomas

        Capt.
        Isn’t that what happens here on a regular basis? So which one’s the ‘skeptic’? By tendency I’d presume it would have to be Steig, but it’s a ‘label’ thing.

      • You need a consensus to determine who is the skeptic. 50-50 is a coin toss so you get to decide. Personally, since they both seem to agree that the Antarctic glaciers are retreating and that is debatable, I think I will vote none of the above :)

      • The consensus does have the Antarctic losing mass, so you have to decide whether it is glaciers or melting around the edges based on that. This is where the debate is.

      • Danny Thomas

        JimD,
        Steig states glacier specifically with a 50/50 anthro (or not) cause. No question in his view there.

      • Yes, the observed melting has other causes too, like a warming ocean, and sea-level rise occurs anyway.

      • Danny Thomas

        None of which have more than an 50/50 anthro/natural component?

      • How do you even determine that?

      • Danny Thomas

        JimD,
        How did Stieg? Those were his words, I just posted them here. Original question stands. How can those two view the same ‘science’ and come up with such different views? It’s not like either is considered a skeptic.

        Where’s the uproar about a skeptics view being so much in the forefront?

      • They don’t contradict if Antarctica is melting from the outside in, via loss of ice shelves that let glaciers flow out, and there are indications of that rate accelerating. Remember Hansen is taking about the next century, not now. Many recent studies show that AGW doesn’t lead to direct warming in the Antarctic interior (unlike Greenland). The damage is at the coast.

      • Danny Thomas

        JimD,
        Well, they kinda do if Zwally is correct (cannot suggest he is or isn’t as I”m a bit underqualified, but although others suggest he’s an ‘outlier’ no one yet (TIKO) has completely refuted.

        “which is the equivalent of about one inch per century of sea level rise contribution” (If Zwally is incorrect) (Did you read the offering?)

        From the link: “Buried in the comment section of this same essay — comment number 26 to be specific — was an admittance by Dr. Eric Steig (moderator of comments) that the evidence that the Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) responds to anthropogenic global warming, is “weak.” Not only that, he acknowledged that about half of scientists agree with him on this.” (Stieg did not differentiate interior/coast)

        So on a 50/50 ‘consensus split’ which side would one chose and why?

        I remember Hansen is gazing in to the future, but isn’t his most recent work also an ‘outlier’?

        And finally, are you suggesting sea ice contributes to SL? If Zwally is correct (+100Gt) vs. alternate (-100Gt) could not a ‘true’ value lie in between additionally affecting the numbers?

        One of those two is wrong. Which one is it?

      • Like I said, Zwally opens up a water budget problem that doesn’t exist otherwise (consilience). Second, the paper I remember on Antarctic AGW said it depends what season you look at, as to the sign of AGW there. The net annual aggregate was not clear, so being near zero makes it 50/50, I suppose. Third, ice shelves hold back flows from the continent, so their loss is only a first stage. Antarctica also has several glaciers flowing into the ocean. You can read more in what looks like a good recent National Geographic article I found here, if interested.
        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160412-ice-sheet-collapse-antarctica-sea-level-rise/

      • Danny Thomas

        “The net annual aggregate was not clear, so being near zero makes it 50/50, I suppose. ”

        Okay, so you agree with Steig. Now that that’s out of the way. Hansen is the outlier. Others have suggested the same.

      • Like I said, Hansen is talking about the next hundred years, and current glacier melts, though not from rising CO2, may be accelerated by warmer oceans and maybe you don’t want to define warmer oceans as AGW because it is not the direct GHG effect. It’s a bit academic because it is melting anyway.

      • Danny Thomas

        “It’s a bit academic because it is melting anyway.”

        It is? Antarctica in question as to volume of loss, if any (Guess Nasa could be wrong). Arctic, sure. Greenland, apparently.

        And then toss in that ‘academic’ question about the amount of man’s contribution in Antarctica.

        Steig. That skeptic. And academic.

      • Larsen C is on the route to collapse, and maybe you don’t want to call it AGW despite its unprecedented nature and its certain fate in the current climate, but I would because the climate is already not favorable for it. Not sure what Steig says about these collapses, if anything. National Geographic wouldn’t doubt the cause.

      • Danny Thomas

        JimD,
        “maybe you don’t want to call it AGW”. Boy, oh, boy. Where was I not clear those were Steig’s words? He commented he, based on his own opinion; ‘the literature being mixed’; about 50% of experts (according to himself?) agreeing that the literature is mixed; that they do not find evidence for anthro contribution to ice melt (is weak, their word). (Which Zwally/Nasa state is net no loss by the way) . Just repeating what I’m finding.

        The quote: “I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this.”

        Maybe they will keep looking?

        The linked article goes further:
        “The admission that Antarctica may not respond to CO2 emissions, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in general, has been affirmed several more times in other recent scientific analyses. The most recent example is a peer-reviewed paper by Smith and Polvani (2016) published online just last week. These scientists set out to determine if anthropogenic forcing can explain why West Antarctica has warmed substantially in the last few decades, or why East Antarctica has not warmed substantially during the same period.

        After analyzing the factors involved for the warming of West Antarctica and the peninsula, Smith and Polvani concluded that an anthropogenic signal is “completely absent” when “natural climate variability” is included. In other words, “natural climate variability” is the driving force behind the West Antarctica and peninsula warming, and “there is little evidence of anthropogenic SAM-induced driving of the recent temperature trends.”

        I dunno Jim. You tell me. I can only offer what the science says.

      • Yes, they are looking at surface temperatures, not why the ice shelves keep collapsing. Bit of a blind spot where they only look at the interior. They need to talk to the ice shelf scientists for a bigger picture.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim,
        Dr. Steig (Eric’s) words here: “[Response: That’s raising a bigger question. Of course, there is the Gillett et al. paper in 2008 that says ‘yes’, this is anthropogenic — Antarctic temperature trends that is. I think the jury is still out, because the data is still (even with these reconstructions) too short. Except perhaps on the Peninsula where the 100-year warming trend makes ‘natural variability’ a bit harder to believe. In any case, proving Antarctic is warming due to ‘global warming’, or proving it isn’t, will not have very much bearing on understanding global temperatures in general.–eric]

        He doesn’t say it isn’t warming. He says it’s not attributable. Seems a reasonable train of thought.

        From R.C.

      • Danny Thomas

        “The recent observed positive trends in total Antarctic sea ice extent are at odds with the expectation of melting sea ice in a warming world. More problematic yet, climate models indicate that sea ice should decrease around Antarctica in response to both increasing greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion. The resolution of this puzzle, we suggest, may lie in the large natural variability of the coupled atmosphere‒ocean‒sea‒ice system. Contrasting forced and control integrations from four state‒of‒the‒art Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models, we show that the observed Antarctic sea ice trend falls well within the distribution of trends arising naturally in the system, and that the forced response in the models is small compared to the natural variability. From this, we conclude that it may prove difficult to attribute the observed trends in total Antarctic sea ice to anthropogenic forcings, although some regional features might be easier to explain.”

        Problem with the models? http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50578/abstract

        Steig didn’t suggest only the sea ice, but here’s the reference from the article regarding a piece of the puzzle which apparently he’s gotten correct. Literature contrary to expectation of AGW vs. nature.

      • Well, it might be coincidence that ice shelves that have been there for the whole Holocene choose now to collapse, but I suspect it is more than that. A tipping point related to Holocene record temperatures in that part of the world. National Geographic and the whole public tend to attribute these collapses to global warming. Ask anyone.

      • Danny Thomas

        “National Geographic and the whole public tend to attribute these collapses to global warming. Ask anyone.”

        Okay. I ask Dr. Steig: “He has published more than 100 peer-reviewed articles in international journals.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/eric-steig/

        Has maybe a bit of cred? http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/steig/

        Again, all I’m doing is pointing out what I’m reading. Not sure you should be arguing with me. Maybe your argument is with another?

      • Danny Thomas

        Even your Nat. Geo refers to warming. Not attribution.

      • Steig mentions century-long warming is probably an anthropogenic signal, so you can interpret that how you like.

      • Danny Thomas

        Jim,

        Probably would indicate to me that there is more than a ‘weak’ (or no) evidence to support a case for anthro. So are you arguing with Steig or suggesting he’s arguing with himself?

        I don’t ‘need’ to interpret anything. He was pretty durn clear in his own words.

        The question is why do YOU ‘need’ to interpret his meaning as opposed to acceptance of his words?

      • From what he is referencing he is talking about surface warming only as AGW. It is not the whole story. There are other factors, especially when you start thinking about the ice shelves and the longer term trends.

      • Danny Thomas

        “From what he is referencing he is talking about surface warming only as AGW.”

        What is he referencing?
        Surface as AGW? (except for the weak case part).

      • Yes, surface warming from GHG changes in Antarctica is weak. He references those studies.

      • http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
        We are about to figure out if it’s losing or gaining mass. Progress after that will be exponential.

      • JimD, “The consensus does have the Antarctic losing mass, ….”

        Right, that makes Zwally a skeptic and since I am a skeptic I agree with Zwally :) Since Hansen and Steig agree with the consensus, they aren’t skeptics, just confused.

      • JimD, “Yes, the observed melting has other causes too, like a warming ocean, and sea-level rise occurs anyway.”

        Glaciers tend to flow and the edges that end up in the ocean tend to break off from time to time as mass builds further inland making them a dynamic system that doesn’t really require excuses. You probably need a few centuries worth of data to tell if anything has changed.

      • It’s not that the instability is due to anthropogenic factors; it’s that the pre-existing instability poses a dangerous vulnerability in the context of sustained anthropogenic warming.

        [Response: Yes, exactly. –eric]

        So what do Hansen and Steig disagree on?

      • JCH, “So what do Hansen and Steig disagree on?”

        How strong the case is that AGW is causing the nearly immeasurable change in Antarctic ice mass.

      • Zwally’s big problem is that his estimate conflicts with sea-level rise, and he has to look for glaciers melting elsewhere to compensate, and I don’t think he has found them yet. The consilient evidence of sea-level rise supports the consensus on the Antarctic mass loss.

      • JimD, “Zwally’s big problem is that his estimate conflicts with sea-level rise, and he has to look for glaciers melting elsewhere to compensate, and I don’t think he has found them yet. The consilient evidence of sea-level rise supports the consensus on the Antarctic mass loss.”

        Probably a waste of time looking. The amount of sea level rise estimated to be due to Antarctic ice melt is less than the uncertainty in land water storage.

      • Jim D | July 2, 2016 at 3:14 pm |
        Zwally’s big problem is that his estimate conflicts with sea-level rise, and he has to look for glaciers melting elsewhere to compensate, and I don’t think he has found them yet. The consilient evidence of sea-level rise supports the consensus on the Antarctic mass loss.

        Huh? If you do the math the steric component is 1.0 to 1.4 mm/Y depending on what temperature water you are expanding.

        The LOD studies support 1.2-1.4 mm/Y.

        The satellite estimate has a false 1.0-1.1 mm/Y bias. If a third of their estimate is smoke and mirrors the rest is suspect.

        Estimates by normal scientists as opposed to “global warmer” scientists are in the 1.5-1.9 range. If you don’t assume location bias, estimates run to 2.4 mm/Y.

        Your “Antarctic Consensus” was based on bad GIA modeling/information. Now that we know the consensus is wrong, that makes it like any other “global warming” consensus.

        “consilient evidence” – go get some real evidence. LOD is known many orders of magnitude more accurately than any other measure of polar melting. It is extremely sensitive to pole to equator mass transfers, and it is going the wrong direction.

      • It is 75 mm since 1990 and only having significant melting from both polar glaciers helps to account for that. This is the point.

      • Danny Thomas

        “only having significant melting from both polar glaciers helps to account for that”

        Someone has some math to do. Show your work.

        Natural contribution. Anthro. Arctic. Antarctic. Greenland. Thermal Expansion. Subsidence. Groundwater (recently done for you: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-groundwater-contribute-sea.html) SLR at 1990. SLR today.

        https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_level.html

      • OK, so your second link already answers your question for you (the last figure for example).

      • Danny Thomas

        You mean the blue areas showing SL loss, the red areas showing gains, or the green line?

        (hoping image pastes)

      • What was the question?

      • Danny Thomas

        Are you being purposely obtuse or am I that tired?

      • The graph shows that Greenland and Antarctica are both significant contributors and bigger than the groundwater effect you mentioned.

      • I would say he’s saying he thinks the retreat is being caused by the circulation of warm water far below the surface, and that the evidence that warm water, and its delivery to the glacier, was caused by AGW is, so to speak, currently weak. Hansen is saying that in a prior time of warming, there is evidence of rapid sea level rise because of the collapses of antarctic glaciers.

      • Danny Thomas

        “Hansen is saying that in a prior time of warming, there is evidence of rapid sea level rise because of the collapses of antarctic glaciers.” And then he goes further to state that future ‘projected’ collapses would be as a result of Anthropogenic G.W. The case for which Steig indicates is weak.

        This is not unclear.

      • AGW certainly can add on top of the exit from the last Ice Age in terms of effects on the glaciers. They don’t exclude each other. In some measures the effect should be larger as we go towards 2100, which is where Hansen comes in.

      • Danny Thomas

        JimD,
        “AGW certainly can add on top of the exit from the last Ice Age in terms of effects on the glaciers. They don’t exclude each other. In some measures the effect should be larger as we go towards 2100, which is where Hansen comes in.”

        Sure it can. But according to Steig, the case for it in Antarctica is ‘weak’.

        Should be larger? Pretty strong assumption if the current evidence is that it’s not clear that it’s occurring now. Could it alternatively be less?

      • The direct forcing effect is weak. Meanwhile the oceans warm and the shelves collapse, so there are ways it is happening and will continue to as the ocean warms more.

      • Danny

        I enjoyed your phys.org link for 2 reasons. First, it seems that this might be Wada’s third or fourth revision of his estimate for groundwater contribution to SLR. I take no position as to whether he is right or wrong. Only that apparently he believes he was wrong previously.

        Second, I note he stated that in the 21st century SLR is 1.7 mm/yr which is below other sources such as CU and other experts. You might want to encourage JCH to touch base with Wada so he can set Wada straight. Or the other way around whichever way gives them a buzz.

      • Danny Thomas

        Cerescokid,
        I noticed that but decided one discussion at a time. Apparently there is a challenge with Steig’s skeptical argument. I sure hope he keeps looking.

        Wonder if Wada is also skeptical?

      • Revising estimates triggered a thought that probably belongs on another post. I have a semi-retired researcher who confided in me that his government grant funded research was not doing anything new and had been covered in some ways over his decades long career, he did need to supplement his pension. And as long as it was accepted by grant agency officers, who may not have been born when he did his original research, what was the harm.
        I’m not asserting anything untoward about the referenced author, I just wonder how many revisions of revisions of revisions in research are made given that they get a bigger return on time invested than breaking new ground entirely.

    • The “the Antarctic is melting” claim is absurd on its face.

      LOD got shorter in the 21st century in the face of constant lunar and solar drag.

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000059
      My understanding is Zwally is relying on GPS measurements and 3D in stead of 1D models that indicated some of the viscosity related uplift/downlift assumptions were incorrect.

      30 foot pole at the south pole with 20 feet sticking out would tell us in a decade or so, or accurate precipitation measurement.

      The GIA adjustment estimates had a greater error than the satellite measurements.

      A consensus expert opinion based on bad data is as useless and misinformed as a public consensus based on bad data.

      This is why global warmers are so frantic to keeping pushing bad data out there. The public needs to be misinformed to worry about global warming.

    • Danny – read it again.

      • Danny Thomas

        Sorry JCH. Not clear as to which it?

      • I don’t think he is saying 50% anthro; 50% natural. He’s saying 50% of the scientists agree with him that evidence for anthro is weak.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,
        I wrote poorly and didn’t mean to indicate that. Apologies. Your suggestion is correct by my reading. But the implication is that if warming/ice melt is occurring and the scientists perception is they don’t have evidence for an anthro contribution then from where do the impacts come?

      • Well, 50% think it is weak, but apparently 50% think the evidence is stronger than week… on current retreat. Steig is not a fake skeptic.

      • Danny Thomas

        So what does that make Hansen?

        Again, how can two, such as these, view the same evidence/literature and come up with such varying results?

      • Where is there a varying result?

      • Danny Thomas

        Weak (or no) anthro in the Global (polar) warming vs. all anthro in the Global (polar) warming. Seems a variance to me.

      • Steig referenced two papers, neither of which calls into question AGW.

      • Danny Thomas

        JCH,

        Then why do you suppose he chose to state that making a case for anthro contribution was ‘weak’? What was his reasoning?

  28. Jacobs piece “Renewing the University” is excellent. I see climate and energy discussions as becoming or already a part of those things which can not be discussed. With this movement there will be no tolerating a gadfly – because of the presumed danger and inherent ignorance attribute to their position.

  29. Mann: “…small grain of truth to what [@curryja] is saying, but it really isn’t much more than a grain of truth” [link]

    That’s an improvement over Schmidt’s “serial disinformer”. I think it signals that the “grain” of truth has in fact germinated and is growing well.

    • I’m thinking of starting a pool to take bets on how many decades before we will again hear the incessant drone of “warmest year evah”.

      • If you’re interested in more serious bets, try James:

        https://twitter.com/jamesannan

        Show him your mad econ skillz.

      • I’m a C student. How many decades is it until January 2017… when they’ll announce that 2016 was the warmest year evah?

      • Nice try. 2016 has already been written off as hottest evah. That is ancient history. Reset. Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.

      • It’s a nonlinear system, so it won’t be a pie until January 2017. If the PDO remains in its ramp-up phase, there will probably be at least one more warmest year before 2021.

      • Annnnnny day now. Yep, the cooling is about to start. Okay, maybe not this year but next. Or if not that one, the year after that.

        If it cools, that proves us right. And if it warms, it proves that scientists are cooking the books. Either way, we’re right and global warming is a fraud.

      • cerescokid: I’m thinking of starting a pool to take bets on how many decades before we will again hear the incessant drone of “warmest year evah”.

        If the 2015-2016 El Nino produces a subsequent mean temperature fall and then rebound like the fall and rebound after the 1997-1998 El Nino, then it will be a while before there is a new warmest year ever. That’s incidental to the theory of overall CO2-induced warming; but it isn’t incidental to forecasts that every year from 2015 onward would be a new “warmest year ever”.

        I don’t know the future, but I am collecting forecasts, predictions, expectations and other model extrapolations.

      • </i?Previous climate model projections of climate change accounted for external forcing from natural and anthropogenic sources but did not attempt to predict internally generated natural variability. We present a new modeling system that predicts both internal variability and externally forced changes and hence forecasts surface temperature with substantially improved skill throughout a decade, both globally and in many regions. Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record. – Smith 2007

        2008 – La Nina
        2009 – La Nina; El Nino
        2010 – warmest year evah
        2011 – La Nina
        2012 – La Nina

        However, in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record. ” – Smith

        2013 – 4th warmest year
        2014 – warmest year evah
        2015 – warmest year evah
        2016 – high probability of becoming the warmest year evah
        2017 –
        2018 –
        2019 –
        2020 –

        With a positive PDO (El Nino dominance: weak-butted La Nina,) the IPCC’s .2 ℃ per decade for the first two decades of the 21st century is in range.

      • JCH: However, in the absence of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding the current observed record. ” – Smith

        We have forecasts for cooling, forecasts for warming, and forecasts for not much of anything for the next decade. It all depends on what happens next, so to speak.

  30. Mike Flynn

    Jim D,

    Ice shelfs do not collapse. That’s a Warmist alarmist redefinition. Scary, scary, collapsing shelf, spilling all your goodies onto the floor.

    Ice floats. When enough gets pushed from the land out to sea, big chunks break off. Floating ice doesn’t “push back” as NASA or NOAA might have you believe. No more than a giant ocean tanker pushes back against the wharf to which it is secured.

    If the outflow from a glacier becomes grounded, the glacier just keeps flowing, like a river. If its elevation is high enough, nothing will prevent it flowing from high to low. It will carve valleys out of solid rock, if conditions are right.

    A decent glaciologist will just snort with derision at the lunatic posturings of some self styled climatologists.

    Antarctica was once ice free, large parts of Europe were once glaciated. Things change, whether climatologists want to stop the climate changing or not.

    Cheers.

  31. In the real world where the data is even modestly scrutinised, not the kind of imaginary mal-constructed number series, as the so called global temperature is, the CET data is among the best or perhaps the best long term data set we have.
    The most recent data shows that the short term average temperature has followed the fall in the solar activity with about five years delay. It may be of some concern that this is the sharpest fall since 1870.


    here I used 11 year (solar cycle length) low pass filter, but a very similar result is obtained by 11 year moving average, the LPF processing is preferable since the moving averages introduce some minor artefacts.

  32. Plants’ ability to slow climate change depends on their fungi: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_30-6-2016-12-25-24

    A key point is the “law of limiting factors” as used in Ag.

  33. On the UHI effect: there’s an unintended experiment going on now on the road toward Las Vegas from Los Angeles.
    The Ivanpah solar plant is right beside the highway, near Primm, Nevada.
    Now, I’ve been driving to Vegas for going on 30 years. Since Ivanpah came into operation, the amount of rainfall and clouds in that area appears to have changed significantly. Several times, I have been caught in downpours of 1 inch or more – in otherwise literal scrub desert. I’ve even seen pools of water so deep that they’ve persisted for several days.
    Perhaps just weather, not climate, but nonetheless a very strong anecdotal change.

  34. Excellent paper from Rahmstorf and two other Potsdam guys, professionally describing just how nuts they are.
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3013.html

    Actual quote:
    ‘Impacts research indicates that unbridled anthropogenic climate
    change would be most likely to play out in a disruptive and irreparable way. This becomes clear when one moves from the conventional, yet valuable, realms of analysis (“How will wheat yields vary with changes in local temperature, precipitation, insolation etc?”) to the macro-components, mega-patterns and super-ecosystems that determine how the climate system functions as a whole’

  35. Over on the WUWT Mr. Michael Carter July 3, 2016 at 1:13 pm asks an important question, often raised by other readers.

    “The monthly means from November 1722 onwards are given to a precision of 0.1 °C. ………
    What is you view on the “precision of 0.1 C” from 1722 onward”
    This is an important point often raised. In this graph:

    – blue colour represents the monthly CET data as quoted to one decimal point precision.
    – red colour represents the monthly CET data rounded to the nearest integer (whole number)
    Graph shows that for the practical purpose of the ‘climate change’ research it makes very little difference.

  36. click on the image to enlarge and see the error time line.

  37. Looking at something else and finding myself here:
    https://judithcurry.com/2014/08/24/the-50-50-argument/
    I decided to try to reconcile two things from the IPCC.

    Sensitivity:
    “Likely > 66% probability”
    “the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C” – IPCC

    Attribution:
    “Extremely likely > 95% probability”
    “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” – IPCC

    With sensitivity we have X to 3X with 66% certainty.
    With attribution we have roughly Y to 2Y with 95% certainty.
    The question is, does sensitivity drive attribution? As you can see the range seems to tighten as we move to attribution. 66% says to me we could be wrong. 95% says we’re right. It’s at the financial audit level of confidence.

    What if we do this? Take their attribution as a given. Now work backwards to determine sensitivity. The Sensitivity numbers might tighten up.

    • We have had 1 C from half a doubling, so even with a sensitivity of 1 C per doubling that is 50% attribution, and hardly anyone claims much likelihood of 1 C per doubling.

      • Jim D, what do you think the Sensitivity is to solar?
        And is there any way co2 can be higher than solar?

        2 questions.

      • The 11-year cycle points to almost 1 C per W/m2 for the solar cycle. Almost 0.2 C for 0.2 W/m2 oscillations. CO2 may be comparable, but the solar effect is quicker.

      • The 11-year cycle points to almost 1 C per W/m2 for the solar cycle. Almost 0.2 C for 0.2 W/m2 oscillations. CO2 may be comparable, but the solar effect is quicker.

        If you compare the daily change, and the day to day change in temperature to solar forcing, both appear to be about 0.02F/kWhr or less.

      • Yep, thermal inertia does that. Try doing a one-minute budget in the morning hours. It’s even lower. Even over long periods TCR is less than ECS, and it is thermal inertia.

      • Thermal inertia?
        Temps drop before sunset, and drop more than 4F/hour, as much as 40F in one night if the dew point is low enough, what thermal inertia?
        Water? Water itself is much slower, and it is the biggest natural variable influence on surface air temps, but even near water a little inland many places air temps still drop like a rock at night.
        The sensitivity values are for both a single night and the 4 months or so between the peak daily warming to peak daily cooling, and the 4 months back. In those 4 months a good portion of each hemisphere freezes.

      • Do you notice that the ocean warms slower than the land under the same forcing. That’s thermal inertia. There is a delay, especially for something the size of earth. The 11-year cycle gives a surprisingly high sensitivity given the short period. Temperature drops you measure are just in a skin layer with little thermal inertia. When you talk about seasonal and annual changes, it is a much deeper layer with more thermal inertia and more relevant to climate change which also has to affect deep layers.

      • Daily time scales. The ocean hardly changes at all in a day. Thermal inertia. You need to look at multi-year time scales like with the sunspot cycle, and then sensitivities start to look more like climate sensitivities.

      • Daily time scales. The ocean hardly changes at all in a day. Thermal inertia. You need to look at multi-year time scales like with the sunspot cycle, and then sensitivities start to look more like climate sensitivities.

        Where were you when I said it’s over a 4 month period, one for positive changes, and a different 4 month cooling period, so it’s the linear trend over 4 months, not a day.
        I also record the slope of that linear trend each year, in this case since 1940.
        So your arm waving complaint is baseless.

      • So, solar input at a location can change by over 100 W/m2 (when daily averaged) from summer to winter, and are you assuming that a 100 W/m2 annual oscillation should give the same response as 100 W/m2 sustained forever? Let’s assume earth somehow stopped in the summer part of its orbit. You say the temperature just stays at the summer temperature rather than steadily rising to even higher temperatures as the oceans warm more.

      • I’m saying that with a small change in solar forcing as the length of day changes you can measure it’s impact on temperature, it’s effect is quite small per watt.
        LW absorption is more selective than SW absorption, so LW forcing would likely not be as effective, at least in respect to temperature. And the watt is either thermalized, captured in a non thermal process, or lost to space forever.
        In this respect this is a reasonable proxy for a co2 forcing, and it’s impact to temperature.

        There is no case for a continuous 100w forcing.

      • Longwave is where all the insulation effect is. Take away the GHGs and the surface plummets 33 C to 255 K with the same solar forcing. Don’t underrate it.

      • Mike Flynn

        Jim D,

        You mention ocean warming in a somewhat misleading fashion.

        A properly constructed saline solar pond can reach temperatures in excess of 90 C during the day. This is salt water. It doesn’t matter how big you make it, it behaves the same. Where is the thermal inertia?

        Maybe you need to more adequately explain why ocean surface temperatures do not vary much between day and night.

        Just waving your hands and crying “thermal inertia” doesn’t explain much.

        Cheers.

      • OK, try finding a 100 m deep lake that warms that much. The depth makes a difference. The ocean is deeper.

      • Mike Flynn

        Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “The ocean is deeper.”

        More Wobbly Woeful Warmist Waffle. True, completely irrelevant, and singularly pointless. Next you’ll be telling me the sky is blue.

        Cheers.

    • Now work backwards to determine sensitivity.

      Or you can take it from measurements from solar forcing?
      https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/measuring-surface-climate-sensitivity/

    • To add to my above:
      I will try to do this using simple math.
      1950 assumed to be CO2 310 ppm.
      2010 pretty close CO2 385 ppm.
      A 24% increase.
      From an IPCC chart, the increase in C was about 0.5 C.
      From the attribution statement, we caused from 0.25 to 0.50 temperature rise. I rounded away from 51% and 99%.
      So we may have, half of what happened, 0.25 C to all of it, 0.50 C from a 24% increase. Rounding to a doubling of a 100% increase, we just multiply by 4. So we may have 1.0 C to 2.0 C for a doubling of CO2.

      I have attempted to use the attribution of the IPCC to drive the sensitivity value. I decided to use what they are more certain about to shed light on what they are less certain about. I’ve used simple math. 4 times 24% may not equal 96% or 100%. I have some concerns about a log scale.

      I’d appreciate your comments and criticisms.

  38. Remarkable claims in a paper on statistical software used to interpret MRI scans. Demonstrates the importance of validating models. Also criticizes “lamentable archiving and data-sharing practices” within the field. Sound familiar?
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/06/27/1602413113.full

    Functional MRI (fMRI) is 25 years old, yet surprisingly its most common statistical methods have not been validated using real data. Here, we used resting-state fMRI data from 499 healthy controls to conduct 3 million task group analyses. Using this null data with different experimental designs, we estimate the incidence of significant results. In theory, we should find 5% false positives (for a significance threshold of 5%), but instead we found that the most common software packages for fMRI analysis (SPM, FSL, AFNI) can result in false-positive rates of up to 70%. These results question the validity of some 40,000 fMRI studies and may have a large impact on the interpretation of neuroimaging results.