Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Observed and simulated fingerprints of multidecadal climate variability [link]

Scientists accidentally turn pollution into renewable energy [link]

AER winter forecast for the US [link]

Current Solar Cycle Fades, Continues To Be Weakest in 200 Years  [link]

New Scafetta paper finds radiocarbon evidence for planetary gravitational control of solar activity & climate [link] …

Dr Roy Spencer: “New Santer et al. Paper on Satellites vs. Models: Even Cherry Picking Ends with Model Failure” [link] …

“The thermodynamic effect of atmospheric mass on early Earth’s temperature” [link] …

Are we witnessing the beginning of the end for the Greenland ice sheet? [link] …

Maybe not. Greenland Temperature Trends 1873 – 2015 [link]

How climate change triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes [link]

New paper finds “Evidence for the effect of sunspot activity on the El Niño/Southern Oscillation” [link] …

New map reveals where ice-rich permafrost could collapse [link]

The myths of negative emissions [link] …

It’s Official: Injection of Fracking Wastewater Caused Kansas’ Biggest Earthquake [link]

Policy and Social Sciences

How Republicans reshaped the House Science Committee [link]

Of “landmark” climate deals and New Year’s Resolutions: how Kigali actually weakens Paris. [link]

“Global Warming Doesn’t Actually Cause Wars, Scientists Say” [link]

The impact of academia on Parliament: 45 percent of Parliament-focused impact case studies were from social sciences [link]

Overcoming barriers to broaden scientific discovery in the Congo [link]

The case against a US carbon tax [link]

Matt Ridley: Climate policy is doing more harm than good [link]

Good piece on whether the new Montreal Protocol deal on HFCs could get held up by the US Senate. Key point here: [link] …

Thousands of people didn’t evacuate before Hurricane Matthew. Why not? [link]

Forest biomass, carbon neutrality and climate change mitigation. From Science to Policy [link]…

There’s a neurological reason why fearmongering is such a powerful political tool [link]

About Science and Scientists

What are your rights & responsibilities as scientists? @theAGU seeks your thoughts for a new position statement [link]

Academic freedom? Gone—And Good Riddance [link]

“By undermining science’s objectivity, postmodernists laid philosophical foundation for authoritarianism.” [link]

What are the best and worst colleges when it comes to academic freedom and viewpoint diversity? [link]

In embracing ‘cognitive capitalism’, universities have moved from knowledge generation to income generation. [link]

UNC philosophy professor warns: ‘Progressive privilege’ abounds in academia [link]

The grey zone: How questionable research practices are blurring the boundary between science and misconduct [link]

Plato for plumbers @markbessoudo Winner of New Philosophers Writers Award [link] …

“much of the theorizing that happens in psychological science is interpreting noise” [link]

Afraid to speak up: In the era of trigger warnings, a tenured professor stays silent [link]

 

109 responses to “Week in review – science edition

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

    • I am turned off by the radiation diagram with incoming solar radiation 342 W/m2. I thought we were past a flat nonrotating Earth model with a zero heat capacity.

      • Solar constant So = 1360.0 W/m2, incoming solar radiation in annual global mean ISR = 1360/4 = 340.0 W/m2, reflected solar radiation RSR = 99.8 W/m2, albedo = RSR/ISR = 0.293, absorbed solar radiation ASR = 240.2 W/m2, outgoing longwave radiation in the annual global all-sky mean OLR(all) = 239.4 W/m2. Data source: NASA CERES Aqua and Terra satellites, time period 2000 – 2016. Which data is wrong?

      • Curious George

        Miklos, you don’t model day and night, summer or winter. What accuracy do you expect?

      • George, the CERES Data Quality Summary says: “The purpose of this document is to inform users of the accuracy of this data product.” The annual global mean fluxes are computed over 1° × 1° grids, the basic algorithms derive the properties from radiances measured four times a day. I expect an accuracy which is sufficient to determine the long-term behavior of the fundamental annual global mean physical parameters: planetary emissivity, atmospheric LW transparency, normalized clear and cloudy greenhouse functions, total cloud area fraction, albedo.

      • Steven Mosher

        george save your breath and time.

        Here is a simple rule.

        Go the conclusions.

        You see that they are wrong.

        There is no need to find the error along the way.

        If I passed you a large book, and the last sentence was

        Therefore 1+1=3,

        Would you read the book to find the error? probably not.

      • Curious George

        I have not followed the CERES Data Quality Summary lately. Is there still an unexplained a 5W/m2 discrepancy in CERES data?

      • George, the data set is at least self-consistent, and accurate enough to recognize the internal flux patterns and relationships shown in my Conclusions:
        http://globalenergybudget.com/#Concl

    • “The Earth’s climate is broadly regulated by three fundamental parameters: the total solar irradiance, the planetary albedo and the planetary emissivity.”

      I would stop at: “The Earth’s climate is broadly regulated by single fundamental parameter: the total solar irradiance”

      Climate scientists and many others declare that since the TSI changes only fraction of percentage point that the sun can not be a principal driver of climate change.
      Climate change as seen through the global temperatures periscope is result of a finely balanced system, which can be disproportionally thrown off from its natural tendency towards equilibrium even by the smallest of changes.

      No need for a PhD in brain surgery to understand the above analogy.

  2. Link for “The case against a US carbon tax” is missing…Is it http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa801.pdf ?

  3. Elizabeth Kolbert’s piece on Greenland in The New Yorker has a few interesting bits ..

    Natural Climate Variability is real!
    Archeologists have since determined that the Western Settlement failed around the year 1400 and the Eastern Settlement a few decades later. In climatological terms, this timing is suggestive. The Europeans arrived in Greenland during the so-called Medieval Warm Period, and they vanished not long after the onset of the Little Ice Age.
    [ … ]
    But Dansgaard also turned up something totally unexpected. It appeared from his analysis of the Camp Century core that, in the midst of the last ice age, temperatures on Greenland had shot up by fifteen degrees in fifty years. Then they’d dropped again, almost as abruptly. This had happened not just once but many times.
    [ … ]
    Over the next forty years, five more complete cores were extracted from different parts of the ice sheet. Each time, the wild swings showed up.

    Global warming is good for some.
    Though Greenland’s independence movement has nothing directly to do with climate change, indirectly the links are many. For Greenland to break away, it would have to sacrifice the annual grant from Denmark, which would leave a gaping hole in its budget. The island is rich in minerals, and the theory is that these will become easier to get at as winters grow shorter and harbors remain ice-free year-round.

  4. Judith

    Your link to Ridley ends up on an Australian Newspaper subscription only page.

    Here is a direct link and transcript to his talk at the Royal society

    http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

    You get a mention

    Tonyb

  5. The ethanol from carbon dioxide article caught my eye. I predict that the ethanol from carbon dioxide result will die because it solves the carbon dioxide emissions problem and removes the need for abolishing coal and fossil fuels and taxing air. I say it will die because there is a political war going on in Canada right now because the Federal government has ordered all provincial governments to start imposing carbon taxes or the Feds will impose their own. The backdrop to this is Ontario Hydro has gone “green” with the result that Ontario households are now paying 18 cents per kilowatt hours and “transportation” fees of about half that. This leaves the typical Ontario household with bills for electricity in excess of $1000/month to pay for green energy initiatives based largely on wind power. (In contrast I pay 8 cents per kilowatt hour in Manitoba and no electricity transportation fees.) The high cost of electricity has effectively destroyed Ontario’s manufacturer base. Ontario has also imposed hefty new regulations on the rural and northern areas making it impossible for people to continue heating with wood and forcing them onto electricity for which they pay an even higher transportation fee on top of the 18 cents/kw hour. Saskatchewan’s premier Brad Wall is arguing his coal plants will be completely clean and there is no need to put a carbon tax on Saskatchewan which he estimates will cost each Saskatchewan family $1200/year. He says the premise is wrong because Sask is already doing so much to be carbon neutral (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskpower-set-to-unveil-clean-coal-technology-1.2784876), it is just not going the wind and solar route the easter Liberal parties want. He claims that Saskatchewan is being attacked by the carbon tax for ideological and political reasons not any rational attitude about carbon dioxide emissions because of everything Sask is doing to stop those emissions. So solving the carbon dioxide emissions issue is not the problem. The problem, at least in Canada, is having a good excuse to tax air.

  6. “On the astronomical origin of the Hallstatt oscillation found in radiocarbon and climate records throughout the Holocene”

    I don’t anything on what Scafetta says the mechanisms are, but on the period itself, half of the 4627yr grand synod has been talked about widely, but on proper inspection, there is also a repeat at one third of 4627yrs at around 1540yrs.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/28/solar-variability-and-the-earths-climate/#comment-2310039

  7. Uexkull and other researchers did find that there’s some evidence that droughts in particular can have some influence in starting a conflict, but that the effect is extremely modest compared to other factors. Such research isn’t likely to stop green politicians and environmentalists from claiming that global warming is the root cause of wars.

    i.e., global warming is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic– it’s more politics than science and mostly, science-free.

  8. If I read it correctly the Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. (AER) and MIT winter forecast is predicting Sudden Stratospheric Warming contributing to N. American winter weather. I never heard of Sudden Stratospheric Warming prior to 2004. These IR radiation events must be ejecting huge amounts of energy into space. I have been looking for graphs of satellite time series data to see if this might be an emergent feature of higher GHG.

  9. Scientists accidentally turn pollution into renewable energy

    This is the latest result of a long research effort. Only a detail was “unanticipated”, namely that the entire reaction occurred on the catalyst surface. As with the other efforts, a commercial product will depend on the cost of mass producing the catalyst and the other components of the production system. Hopefully, humans would not remove so much CO2 as to harm agriculture and the natural biota.

    Probably the technology would have greater value for producing plastics — in the distant future.

  10. What is revealing is the total denial by the mainstream media that it is the sun which controls the climate and I am going to keep hammering this point over and over again until proven otherwise which is not going to happen.

    No one has ever been able to challenge my assertions as being wrong in any meaningful way.

    All I have received from those who have a different view point is you are wrong you do not know what you are talking about but they can not back up anything they say.

    Now that the sun is starting to head toward the criteria I have stated we shall see just how correct I may be.

    My prediction is the denial is so deep that those that oppose my climate concepts will continue even in the face of lowering global temperatures in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions.

    I will send my thoughts and criteria in the next post.

    • What is revealing is the total denial by the mainstream media that it is the sun which controls the climate and I am going to keep hammering this point over and over again until proven otherwise which is not going to happen.

      The sun provides all the energy worth considering. There is no feedback to the sun to tell it when we need more or less energy.

      The amazing stability we have must be caused with internal thermostats and cooling that can be turned on and off as needed.

      Most of the cooling of earth occurs in the tropics where energy is radiated out with energy that is a function of temperature to the forth power, that is powerful but it has no fixed thermostat set point.

      The polar regions cool using a process that has thermostats set to the temperature that polar oceans freeze and thaw. It snows more when it is too warm and it always gets cold. It snows less when it is too cold and it always gets warm. This explains the amazing stability and bounding of temperatures in the NH and SH.

  11. Now the sun is starting to reach my criteria.

    My claim is the 11 year sunspot so called normal cycle and the climate will not show a relationship because the noise in the climate system obscures the slight solar changes not to mention the variations within the 11 year sunspot cycle from maximum to minimum conditions cancel each other out.

    Only when the sun enters extreme prolonged periods of inactivity or activity for that matter are those two issues nullified and hence a solar /climate connection is able to be established. It is no longer obscured.

    I have come up with the minimum solar parameters needed in order to accomplish this by looking at the historical climatic record and how it has responded to solar activity. It shows each and every time the sun enters a protracted period of extreme inactivity the response in global temperatures has been down.

    That is fact and until data shows otherwise I think the case for a solar/climate relationship is strong.

    In addition the sun drives the climate therefore logic follows that any change in solar conditions has to have an effect on the climate to one degree or another. The point is how large is the effect and is it large enough to overcome the noise in the climate system which can obscure small minor solar changes.

    The other side is what are the extreme solar changes in regards to degree of magnitude and duration of time needed to change the climate through solar activity changes themselves and associates secondary solar effects?

    I am sure every one agrees that if solar changes are extreme enough there would be a point where a solar/climate relationship would be obvious. The question is what does the solar change have to be in order to be extreme enough to show an obvious solar/climate relationship?

    Again I have listed the solar parameters which I think satisfy this issue.

    I have put forth those solar parameters /duration of time which I feel are needed to impact the climate and I think gong forward the solar parameters I have put forth will come to be which will then manifest itself in the climate system by causing it to cool. I dare say I think it has started already.

    How cool it is hard to say because there are climatic thresholds out there which if the terrestrial items driven by solar changes should reach could cause a much more dramatic climatic impact.

    Terrestrial Items

    atmospheric circulation patterns

    volcanic activity

    global cloud coverage

    global snow coverage

    global sea surface temperatures

    global sea ice coverage

    ENSO a factor within the overall global sea surface temperature changes.

    Solar Parameters Needed and Sustained.

    cosmic ray count 6500 or greater

    solar wind speed 350 km/sec or less

    euv light 100 units or less.

    solar irradiance off by .15% or more

    ap index 5 or lower

    Interplanetary Magnetic Field 4.5 nt or lower

    Solar Flux 90 or lower

    Duration of time over 1 year following at least 10 years of sub solar activity in general which we have had going back to year 2005.

    We should know within a year as prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched.

    • Salvatore del Prete: We should know within a year as prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched.

      Let us know your caveats.

      Everyone else: mark your calendars!

    • We should know within a year as prolonged minimum solar conditions become entrenched.

      you are kidding, right? A Roman or Medieval Warm period lasted several hundred years, the little ice age lasted several hundred years, the transition between these warm and cold periods lasts for several hundred years. There are warmer and colder smaller cycles on top of these longer cycles. You expect to know some significant result from all this in one year. I don’t think so. There may be some cold glitches, but we are in a warm period that will last several hundred years. The solar cycles are little blips in the data. Milankovitch cycles are big blips in the data.
      The major cycles are ice cycles, it snows more in warm times and then it always gets cold. It snows less in cold times and then it always gets warm. This never fails.

      • popesclimatetheory

        you said;

        ‘…the transition between these warm and cold periods lasts for several hundred years. There are warmer and colder smaller cycles on top of these longer cycles.’

        I was surprised at the intermittent nature of the Little Ice Age when I studied it, which, whilst characterised by cold was also at times very warm. It may well be that the Medieval warm period, whilst characteristically warm, was punctuated by cold periods. So there is a transition from one state to the other (warm to cold; cold to warm) but no state is the ONLY climatic condition.

        As you say these are very long cycles of hundreds of years. I would expect the current warm period to last several hundred years which doesn’t mean that during that period there won’t be some cold periods in amongst the warm.

        History also shows us that the norm is for there to be severe weather events. Our climate has been relatively benign for decades and sooner or later we will experience periods of great turbulence and extremes

        tonyb

    • I am sure every one agrees that if solar changes are extreme enough there would be a point where a solar/climate relationship would be obvious.

      No, Milankovitch cycles have removed solar in to the NH and added it to the SH, 40 watts per meter squared, from the NH above 60 deg and added to the SH below 60 deg and ice core temperatures in the SH and NH kept cycling in the same bounds. The earth water, in all of its states, responds and keeps temperature in the same bounds. Many things push temperature around but none of those things push temperature out of bounds.

    • I do like your list of things that influence climate.

    • Have a chat with Leif Svalgaard on WUWT Salvatore.
      He’ll alleviate you of that misconception.
      Meanwhile try this….

      http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html

      “In plain English, the small change in sunlight reaching the Earth during a new Maunder minimum wouldn’t be enough to reverse climate change. For the technically minded, even a 3 W per m2 change in irradiance corresponds to a radiative forcing of just 0.5 W per m2 (because the Earth is a sphere and not a flat circle), which is less than the radiative forcing produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
      To be blunt: no mini ice age for us. The real story of the impending mini ice age isn’t about climate at all. It is a cautionary tale, of how science should and shouldn’t be communicated.”

      Oh, and how much do you reckon that volcanic aerosol caused of the “1.3C reduction in temp”.
      And what proxies do you trust as the basis for that?
      Given, of course that the *sceptic* community rejects all used for the dozens of studies that came after MBH98 in construction of “hockey-stick” like global temp reconstructions.
      Were they coincident world-wide?
      And to what degree do you reckon that the disturbance of the NH winter Polar Strat jet had on regional temp?
      Principally over Europe (with commensurate WWA elswhere of course).
      There being no TSI absorbed reduction due to decreased UV having it’s influence over the strength of said Stratospheric vortex.

      • Tony I have talked with Leif many times and sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not.

        Tony it is the secondary effects associated with solar changes which is the basis for my arguments and Tony the historical climatic record supports my point of view.

      • Tony your arguments are feeble at best and you will be one of the last hold outs as the global temperatures trend lower in response to prolonged minimum solar conditions which probably has already started.

        Time will tell Tony , I have plenty of company that are in support of my views not yours or Leif’s.

  12. If this was posted above I missed it. A very nice speech/presentation from 10/17 at the Royal Society. Not only about global greening but also a nice bit on alarmism and the lack of unbiased climate science and reporting on same.

    Matt Ridley: Global Warming versus Global Greening

    http://www.thegwpf.com/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening/

  13. Tony the AO index will be negative this winter if solar activity becomes quiet enough for example AP index 5 or less Solar Flux 80 or lower.

    Why, because the distribution of ozone will change in response to very low solar activity which will cause the polar regions to warm relative to lower latitudes.

    • “Tony the AO index will be negative this winter if solar activity becomes quiet enough for example AP index 5 or less Solar Flux 80 or lower.
      Why, because the distribution of ozone will change in response to very low solar activity which will cause the polar regions to warm relative to lower latitudes.”

      I know that Salvatore, and I am expecting there to a be a largely -AO this winter (chiefly during the first part).

      The mechanism is that less UV causes less Strat warming in the low latitudes and so weakens the polar vortex. The snow advance index across Eurasia is also proceeding quicker than normal and we have the open Arctic water feedback. Taken with an LN- like tropical E Pacific … That’s the way it’s pointing – doesn’t mean it will happen though, far from it.

  14. Shawn Otto equates disagreements over science with post modernism. People disagreeing with the status quo are dubbed “authoritarians”. This quote sums it up:

    This vertical tension between experts and authoritarians helps explain what is going on in both the Republican Party and in the European Union with the Brexit vote and the rise of a new authoritarianism, and why it is so corrosive to science. The argument is between antiauthoritarians who support science and evidence, and authoritarians who have had enough of experts.

    In his Amazon review of Michael Mann’s latest book, he swallows Mann’s version of the Hockey Stick whole:

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R36YORKS3P47HB/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0231177860

  15. Frackwater Kansas earthquake. Ecowatch does not understand oil and gas production, and the article displays their ignorance. Frackwater volumes are small, and the water is often reused to save on chemical additives. A fracked well is by definition a tight formation, else it would not need fracking. All oil and gas production also coproduces saltwater, since almost all oil and gas is produced from marine organisms. You have to dispose of the saltwater. In conbentional reservoir formations, it is reinjected into the bottom of the reservoir whence it came, to support further production.
    That is not possible with tight fracked formations. So coproduced saltwater is injected via a disposal well into some other porous formation deep underground. What we are learning is that those formations and locations need to be chosen carefully to minimize seismic potential. The state with the most problems and complexity is Oklahoma because there is an ancient fault system that is under strain. They are developing the most advanced disposal well siting regulations as a result.

    • “Ecowatch does not understand oil and gas production”

      With a name like “Ecowatch” that’s hardly surprising…

    • Sometimes water is injected in the aquifer, but in the onshore USA, Argentina, China, Russia, etc it is usually injected into the oil zone.

      Offshore operations tend to use seawater and dump produced water and a tiny amount of oil into the ocean (seawater is easier to filter and has no oil whatsoever).

      The “shales” are so tight it’s almost impossible to inject water into them for disposal. I think the Oklahoma problem arose from incompetence by both the regulators and the industry. I’ve supervised fields where water was disposed into non reservoir sands, we used very thick high permeability reservoirs, monitored pressures, and I personally tried to limit each disposal well to 10 kbwpd, to avoid having wells with giant tubulars and putting all our eggs in one basket.

  16. Cru kid Dimowits!! From the article:

    A federal judge Thursday ruled against a Democratic initiative in Florida that sought to allow individuals to take advantage of early voting even if their registration eligibility is not yet verified.
    United States District Judge Mark Walker ruled against this so-called rapid verification process, preventing it from taking place during early voting in Florida, which starts Monday in several key counties.

    After the three-hour hearing, Judge Walker sided with Florida Governor Rick Scott’s Secretary of State Ken Detzner against the Democratic party’s request.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/21/federal-judge-rules-against-democrats-in-florida-voter-id-verification-case/

  17. “By undermining science’s objectivity, postmodernists laid philosophical foundation for authoritarianism.”

    Let me get this straight.
    By graciously giving the unwashed the right to question the elites, the elites have unwittingly allowed the mob to ignore them. .
    Brilliant that lot.

    I didn’t know that there was no authoritarianism before postmodernism.

    I think we’ve entered the “posteriormodernist” period.

  18. Re scientists turning CO2 into something to burn, so it attracts the appellation “renewable”, and grant funds gush forth. I have a revolutionary idea.

    Use CO2 to feed trees. Burn the trees, and use the CO2 to grow more trees. Renewable and sustainable! You can even convert the trees into houses, or furniture, or cricket bats. All made from CO2!

    If you have too many trees, grow grass, or wheat, or flowers. If you’re short of CO2, brew more beer. Chock full of CO2 goodness! Heavy breathing also produces more CO2.

    I know there must be a catch. It all seems too easy.

    Cheers.

  19. Total column ozone data from satellites and ground stations do not show any evidence of a decline in mean global ozone
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2843032

    The ozone depletion movement got its start in the 1960s and gained momentum with the Rowland-Molina paper and the Farman paper, the latter having to do only with ozone levels over the South Pole.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291833573_ozonePaperResource

  20. This looks like, possibly, a good model for climate science. From the home page:

    Core Principles

    Within our research institutes, the Allen Institute for Brain Science and the Allen Institute for Cell Science, we rely on a set of core principles to govern how we approach our unique brand of science.

    Team Science

    Teams at the Allen Institute are composed of scientists, engineers, mathematicians, physicists and computational scientists—each bringing a new perspective to the scientific challenges we face. We operate on open communication, sharing ideas in progress, in programs and working groups that cross disciplines and departments. This continual collaboration ensures that we are leveraging our diverse experience and insight to tackle our most challenging scientific questions.

    Big Science

    Much of the work at the Allen Institute is focused on generating big data sets. Our ambitious projects yield rich, robust data that give users the power to explore and find common threads in a way that cannot be done on a smaller scale. But there is no point in collecting enormous amounts of data without ways to share, investigate and analyze it. We embrace “big science” as a community movement, integrating powerful technology into each phase of our data collection to make sure that our data sets can be readily explored. Our data is big not only in scope, but also in its utility to the global scientific community.

    Open Science

    We cannot do our brand of big science without the spirit of openness. We share our data, tools and knowledge with the scientific community through venues like the Allen Brain Atlas data portal as soon as it is useful—whether we have published on it or not. Open science is a core principle of the Allen Institute’s identity and an integral part of our goal to accelerate the pace of science worldwide.

    https://www.alleninstitute.org/about/core-principles/

  21. Another WIR on science and policy and still no posts or discussion on whether or not GHG emissions are or will do more harm than good.

    We know that life thrived in the past when GMST was much warmer than at present. We also know that life struggled when GMST was less than at present. There seems to be no credible evidence to show that warming will be dangerous or net harmful eventually, although there are always costs associated with change even when the overall change is beneficial.

    Why do those who are interested in debating climate change avoid this key issue – are GHG emissions net beneficial or net harmful?

    Judith, could we have some informative posts on this topic that is critical to estimating SCC and to justifying expenditure on mitigation policies?

    • To be clear, the subject I am asking about is the empirical evidence to calibrate the damage function and the uncertainties on the damage fuction – equivalent to the empirical evidence to calibrate the ECS and TCR and the uncertainties on them.

    • I blame it all on CR Steven, what do you think causes it to happen?

  22. The piece about the neurological reason for why fear mongering is such a powerful political tool is very insightful.

    I won’t be able to read another CAGW fearmongering article without thinking about how astute the authors are.

  23. Finding out the Ducks are at the bottom of the scale for campus freedom of thought is not surprising. Eugene is as pink as it gets.

  24. steven mosher 23. October 2016 at 12:45 AM
    “As an example, The GCMs all currently consider:
    1. Changes in Solar Forcing ( both sunspot related changes and orbital changes)
    7. Changes in methane and other GHGs
    and yes Changes in c02 In fact the science SHOWS that its not just C02
    So why the focus on C02”

    1. It’s the largest contributor -Wrong
    2. Once in the atmosphere it lasts a long time -Immaterial
    3. We have choices about how much to emit -about as much choice as whether to breathe or not.
    Your argument ignores water vapor , the biggest GHG so it is a plain untruth.[1.]
    The amount of time a GHG spends in the atmosphere is not important, it is the amount of the GHG over whatever time period you wish to specify.
    Water vapor precipitates out but is constantly renewed thus being at much larger amounts than CO2 all the time for now and the foreseeable future.

    In selectively picking facts and then distorting facts one makes arguing untenable.
    If you cannot argue on the basis of correct facts, see above, you should not resort to propaganda tactics.

  25. angech

    interested in this comment

    ‘3. We have choices about how much to emit -about as much choice as whether to breathe or not..’

    Presumably Mosh emits no co2 as he will have been in a position to readily amend his lifestyle. Well done.

    It would be interesting to know the carbon footprint of others urging us to change our ways.

    tonyb

  26. angech

    I wouldn’t want to take Moshs comments in vain. Just checked and couldn’t see your reference. Was it on this thread? Can you link to it?

    tonyb

    • Sure
      steven mosher 23. October 2016 at 12:45 AM
      at Current Solar Cycle Fades, Continues To Be Weakest in 200 Years …Likely Foretelling Global Cooling By P Gosselin on 18. October 2016
      From Judith’s
      Current Solar Cycle Fades, Continues To Be Weakest in 200 Years [link]
      at the top.
      Click on link
      F3 mosher should come up
      ” So why the focus on C02
      1. It’s the largest contributor
      2. Once in the atmopshere it last a long time
      3. We have choices about how much to emit”
      anything extra I added. but all 3 of his points are made in a very biased way for a change.
      It is like there are two people, one using facts appropriately and one on a mission

    • I too wondered from where it came.

      From the blog rules for Climate Etc:

      Respond to the argument, not to the person. What another participant stated on another blog in another context should not be used to discredit or otherwise challenge the participant. Changing your mind in response to new evidence and arguments is valued here. …

      • jch

        its a good rule although perhaps flaunted by several commentators here.

        tonyb

      • its a good rule although perhaps flaunted by several commentators here.

        Yes, I remember the recent attack on Ralph Ellis by several commentators (between them Steven Mosher) in the glacial dust article for his unrelated interests. Pretty hypocritical to claim the rule afterwards.

      • JCH the quote came directly from the article linked to by Judith. How much more straightforward can that be?
        article proposing global cooling (sun related)
        Denial of proposal based in untruths about GHG and totally misleading comment on residence time of a GHG (water) in the atmosphere trying to fool people that turnover times instead of amount of GHG in the atmosphere is important.
        Sheer desperation.
        It was not brought up randomly or in contradiction of blog guidelines.

  27. The current cult of capitalist/communist “reality builders” is obvious in today’s NYTimes headlines: http://tinyurl.com/jk337rc

    This comment is also posted on: http://tinyurl.com/z3fbvtg

  28. Current Solar Cycle Fades, Continues To Be Weakest in 200 Years

    This is just a centennial low, that happens once a century. It’s effect on climate should be moderate, but its effect on the political debate about climate change could be humongous, as it could produce a continuation of the pause or even a slight cooling, that would be a death sentence to current paradigm.

    • No death sentence I am afraid. Huge research money going into explaining away the pause as a temporary natural blip that will average out.

  29. The IPCC just wrapped up its 44th meeting. Photos plus a detailed summary available here: http://www.iisd.ca/climate/ipcc44/.

    I see that stabilizing the climate is on the agenda. Too funny.

  30. Here is what I think will happen which is the sun will be quiet enough to have the climate cool from here on out. I do not know by how much but I think this process has already started and will continue going forward and accelerate to some extent.

    The weakening geo magnetic field will compound given solar effects upon the climate.

    As I speak solar is quite low with flux values sub 80 and it is still only year 2016 which is 3 years from the forecasted minimum.

    I think we could have a period of solar quiet greater then was the 2008-2010 period moving forward, which by the way no one saw coming.

  31. I want to see how this cooling evolves to see just how much is solar induced.

  32. How climate change triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes [link]

    “Does this all mean that we are in for a more geologically active future as well as a hotter and meteorologically more violent one? Well, no one is suggesting that we will see a great surge in the number of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. As always, these will be controlled largely by local geological conditions”

    From the pressure of a handshake.

    The melting of the great ice sheets with earth’s crust rising along faults. The monsoon rains, flowing into the Indira Gandhi flood plain pressuring tectonic faults below. Submerged mountainous landslides causing tsunamis, responding to earthquakes and tectonic plate movement.

    Some scientists say, all this and more may happen: “…from the pressure of a handshake.”

    Of course, nobody is suggesting….

  33. Socialistic American:

    The population is growing exponentially

    Wrong. It’s growing asymptotically. If economic growth is allowed to proceed freely, with affordable energy, then population will level of and even fall. Sci-Am (ScAm) are still disciples of the buffoon Paul Ehrlich, they should instead be listening to Hans Rosling.

    Resources are running out

    If this was true, no action on CO2 would be needed, fossil depletion would run down emissions. So why all the genocidal rhetoric directed at fossil fuel mining companies?

    The exhaust gas of our activities is warming the planet

    Maybe. It is also greening the planet.

    • Resources are running out

      If this was true, no action on CO2 would be needed, fossil depletion would run down emissions. So why all the genocidal rhetoric directed at fossil fuel mining companies?

      Well, they are clearly running down. There was a time when oil used to come out by its own pressure, nowadays you have to frack the rocks to get a trifling of oil coming out. look at the frenzied drilling activity and its result:

      I don’t know how far we are from the bottom of the barrel but it doesn’t look very encouraging.

      So why all the genocidal rhetoric directed at fossil fuel companies? Perhaps it is a masquerade. They cannot tell us that oil is running out, but they need to get us out of oil before it does.

  34. Are we witnessing the beginning of the end for the Greenland ice sheet? [link] …

    NO, we are in the early part of a warm period. That is when oceans are thawed and snowfall rebuilds ice on land. Warm times are natural, normal and necessary.

    AER winter forecast for the US [link]
    http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/22/early-europe-winter-and-greenland-sees-record-12-billion-tonnes-ice-growth-in-a-single-day/

    We are warm now and the ice is being replenished.

  35. Before this decade is out global temperatures will likely be off some .5c from where they have been this past summer.
    AGW theory will be obsolete.

  36. The .91 C is false data and the data I use which is the most accurate from Wx. Bell shows this current month running +.39c above normal with the average global temperatures over the last week about +.20c.

    Wx. Bell data also shows for this year global temperatures are +.47c above average.

  37. The correct data for what the global temperature picture is and has been.

  38. The plus .91 c is BS PERIOD!

  39. S. Ocean still below normal in temp

    Antarctica still showing no warming.

  40. It is early the sun is just starting to reach the criteria I have called for which would promote global cooling.

    The question for me is not if global cooling will occur if the sun reaches my criteria but rather will the sun reach it (which I think it will) but how long will the duration be which is the bigger more important question which I do not know the answer to.

    The reason why Javier I hope global cooling will occur is so we could finally put this scam of AGW behind us and concentrate on what really matters when it comes to earth’s climatic system and why and how it changes.

    Also global cooling would probably bring people together because adversity tends to achieve this, if not at the very least have people have a greater appreciation of nature and the power it still and will always have over us.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s