Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

2016 Arctic Report Card Highlights Dramatic Changes in Region [link]

Hottest Arctic Hype: ‘Nothing is actually happening that justifies the apocalyptic headlines’ [link]

Desertification Effects, Causes, And Examples : Top 10 List [link]

Scientists confirm that warm ocean water is melting the biggest glacier in East Antarctica [link]

Find out which 2015 #ExtremeEvents were related to #climate in the new @ametsoc special bulletin. [link]

Climate change is starting to jam the world’s ocean circulation system  [link]

Impact of #climatechange on agriculture may be underestimated [link]

Researchers dial in to ‘thermostat’ in Earth’s upper atmosphere [link]

Watts and Eschenbach presentation at AGU: Challenging climate sensitivity: ‘Observational Quantification of Water Vapor Radiative Forcing’ [link]

Bat Guano: A Possible New Source for Paleoclimate Reconstructions [link]

Researchers, #ski safety experts develop new tool that maps potential #avalanches.  [link]

Mapping the Speed of Ice [link] …

ClimateChange Is Melting ‘The Roof Of The World’ – #Glacier Collapse [link]

Earth’s Magnetic Fields Could Track Ocean Heat, NASA Study Proposes [link] …

Why Space Exploration Represents the Best of Humanity -[link] …

Shrinking mountain glaciers are ‘categorical evidence’ of climate change [link] …

A new NASA project is tracking the movement of glaciers and ice sheets to show how fast they are melting [link]

From Morocco to Libya, the desert oases of the Saharan are disappearing as temperatures rise and rainfall decreases. [link]

Methane from food production might be the next wildcard in climate change [link] …

These conical ice mounds behave like mini artificial glaciers, slowly releasing water in the growing season [link]

Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report [link]

Global and Full-depth Ocean Temperature Trends during the early 21st century [link] …

Positive Trend in the Antarctic Sea Ice Cover and Associated Changes in Surface Temperature [link] …

Interactions between land use change and carbon cycle feedbacks [link] …

Observed southern upper-ocean warming over 2005–2014 and associated mechanisms (open access) [link] …

Effective radiative forcing and climate response due to increased CH4 (open access) [link]…

Reconciling Theories for Human and Natural Attribution of Recent East Africa Drying [link] …

Indian Ocean might also be part of the story in the recent global warming hiatus [link] …

Narrowing range of future climate projections using historical observations of atmospheric CO2 [link] …

Ocean acidification lowers calcifying phytoplankton productivity-> positive feedback to climate? [link] …

Sea ice thickness and recent Arctic warming [link] …

US daily temperature records past, present, and future [link] …

Decade-long deep-ocean warming detected in the subtropical South Pacific [link]

Land Surface Temperature over Global Deserts: Means, Variability and Trends [link] …

Improved retrieval of land ice topography & volume-change estimation of Greenland Ice Sheet [link]

Correcting Urban Bias in Large-scale Temperature Records in China, 1980–2009 [link] …

Policy and social sciences

Will the Social Cost of Carbon be transformed into a Social Benefit of Carbon under Trump? [link] …

‘Demand-Side Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation’ [link] …

Impending collapse of the global warming scare? [link]

Factors influencing general public about taking protective action against severe weather [link] …

Climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, adaptation behavior of Midwestern U.S. crop farmers [link] …

About science

New chief editor at Science off to a nice start–> Science’s rightful place [link] …

Ecomodern Dispatches: Science Versus Politics  [link]  …

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change [link]

The right shuts down free speech, too [link]

On Climate Change, Who Will Censure the Censors? [link]

“Plagiarism & other forms of intellectual theft are far more common in science than one would like to think” [link] …

Wonderful interview with Freeman Dyson! “My Life with the Physics Dream Team” [link]…

VICTIMHOOD CULTURE’S IMPACT ON ACADEMIC EDUCATION AND SCIENCE [link]

329 responses to “Week in review – science edition

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

  2. Judith (and Angech) – Not a lot of people know that Paul Homewood is “snow blind”:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/paul-homewood/

    Why do you link to his Arctic “spin” with apparent approval?

    • Listing is not endorsement, far from it in this list. It is for discussion.

      • Yes, that is correct. I provide links to things that are being discussed on twitter (mostly). My goal is to promote discussion and insights.

      • Judith

        this just reported on politico. The title says it all. How is this playing amongst the anti Trump and the environmental brigade? Must say I am against drilling in the Arctic.

        http://www.politico.eu/article/exxonmobil-helped-defeat-russia-sanctions-bill-rex-tillerson-donald-trump/

        tonyb

      • richardswarthout

        Tony

        1. Every large corporation in America has lobbiests in DC for the purpose of representing their interests. They do this mostly, IMO, by presenting information to congressional and agency staffers that is favorable to them; there will also be lobbiests that present opposing information. I say this from the perspective of a former US Army staffer. I do not deny that gifts and donations play a role, but with so many people involved, I believe the final congressional vote depends more on a sensible conclusion than on graft (for my part, it would be jail for accepting even a small gift).

        2. The bill in question, the Stand for Ukraine Act, was introduced in the House and referred to various committees on 4/28/16 and mark-up action taken by the House Foreign Affairs Committe on 7/14/16, just prior to the congressional August recess. It was the passed by the House and sent to the Senate on 9/22/16, just prior to the October recess. When congress returned after the elections there was a lot on its plate, including stop gap funding and committee assignments. I think the Stand For Ukraine Act was more the victim of the congressional calendar than a victim of Exxon lobbying; after all, it did pass the House in spite of Exxon.

        3. In the week or so prior to the US elections I believe most anti-Trump conservatives moved toward Trump; the percentage of Republicans supporting Trump went from about 80% to about 90%, same as most elections. Therefore, almost all anti-Trumpers today are Democrats.

        Cheers,

        Richard

      • Understood Judith. Hence my “apparently”.

        However I am interested to hear Angech’s take too, since (s)he accused me of “spin[ning]… as a world class bowler.” on here recently:

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/12/15/the-latest-climate-conspiracy-theory/#comment-830942

        And then there was the “cherrypicking responses” too, just for good measure!

    • Judith & David – Isn’t it strange how everything goes quiet in here when the desire is to “promote discussion and insights” but evidence for alleged “alarmist spin” is requested?

      On the other hand I can offer plenty of evidence for “skeptical spin”. Where would you like me to start?.

  3. “Desertification Effects, Causes, And Examples : Top 10 List ”

    That’s pure rubbish to go and attribute the past 8000 years of climate change to humans. Unbelievable. Not only that, but to start off recognizing that the term desertification itself is of some debate, they go on about the top 10 causes, effects, and examples.
    Yes, primitive farming practices changed the climate when it forced the extinction of the unicorns and pegasuses…

  4. Professor Curry, thank you for providing an eclectic collection of links. The scienceheathen.com link “Desertification Effects, Causes, And Examples” caught my eye. They describe the desertification effect on the demise of the Roman Empire in the words of Plato.

    The only catch is that Plato predates the decline of the empire by some 1,000 years. I have to assume that their other examples were researched equally carefully.

    • ‘The only catch is that Plato predates the decline of the empire by some 1,000 years’

      I don’t think that’s too much of a stretch, George. The 800 year lag between rising temperature and increasing CO2 didn’t cause Mr Gore or any of our distinguished climate scientists any issues and, indeed, brought the unimportance of sign to chronology as an exciting development that added to Einstein’s earlier (later?) work.

  5. “Nature (2016, August 23) Giant, deadly ice slide baffles researchers. Accessed September 2, 2016.”

    Says it all really. Must be due to global warming, eh?

    Were they really baffled? If so, claiming the ice slide was due to global warming was obviously fake news. Shock! Horror! Outrage!

    On the other hand, one of the scientists may be a clueless academic –

    “The origin of the meltwater in the Aru range is as yet unknown, but Thompson said the cause is clear.

    “[G]iven that the average temperature at the nearest weather station has risen by about 1.5 degrees Celsius [2.7 degrees Fahrenheit] over the last 50 years, it makes sense that snow and ice are melting and the resulting water is seeping down beneath the glacier,” he said.”

    Read it and weep.

    Cheers.

  6. The Eschenbach and Watts study is flawed by failing to account for the fact that temperature also contributes to what they are correlating. The change of 2.2 W/m2 per kg/m2 is partially and possibly mostly temperature, because there is more water vapor where it is warmer. For a given amount of PW, its effect in W/m2 would be larger over a warmer surface even if it absorbs the same fraction. This probably explains why their result wildly overestimates the sensitivity compared to radiative transfer programs like MODTRAN where you can put in the 5% observed increase in water vapor since 1988 and see the actual effect.

    • I thought MODTRAN was a model, not an observation.

    • Modtran results are flawed because it’s an average atm profile, but the daily temperature cycle at no time dose it really match this, and the key time if during the cooling cycle which has unique atm of changing parameters that average doesn’t even come close to matching. This is an example of the improper use of a modeling tool.

      • MODTRAN can be used to explain the outgoing longwave anywhere based on GHGs present and the temperature profile. The online MODTRAN is a very limited subset of what it can do.

      • Is that not what I SAID? That people don’t know how to use it and ask it nonsensical questions, and don’t understand they got useless results.

      • OK, so it wasn’t addressed to my comment at all.

      • Sorry, should have copied your text. So yes it was addressed to your comment, you can’t take the 30 year average air parameter dump them into MODTRAN, increase water vapor 5% , and get anything useful.
        Because the radiative properties change as temp changes during the cooling cycle. Another case where you can’t use an average and get anything but nonsense.

      • You would get a similar result whichever of MODTRAN’s profiles you used, and these cover the range from polar to tropical. It has robustly less effect than asserted by the AGU poster, and that is explained because they have conflated a temperature effect as a water vapor effect.

      • You would get a similar result whichever of MODTRAN’s profiles you used, and these cover the range from polar to tropical. It has robustly less effect than asserted by the AGU poster, and that is explained because they have conflated a temperature effect as a water vapor effect.

        But that is not a 24 hour cycle either, you would need to do a 24 hour cycle from pole to equator, and use a range of starting weather conditions, and then calculate the optical response.

        The default setting are junk, it does not do this, and all those people who use the default Modtran setting, because they don’t understand what they are doing, nor do they understand modeling and simulations. This was the take away for 15 years supporting over a dozen simulators and creating models for most of them, and then having engineers confirm the results by actually building the stuff.

        Now, I don’t know that everyone using MODTRAN are idiots, but I do know the ones running the default atm are.

      • The defaults give you diurnal averages which is what you need for climate. I don’t think you can defend the assumption made by Eschenbach and Watts that surface temperatures don’t contribute to their regression, and what you have said so far doesn’t even address it. Remember there is no mystery about either outgoing IR or water vapor feedbacks. They are trying to explain the already explained, but in a confused way, which seems to be a waste of time.

      • The defaults give you diurnal averages which is what you need for climate. I don’t think you can defend the assumption made by Eschenbach and Watts that surface temperatures don’t contribute to their regression, and what you have said so far doesn’t even address it. Remember there is no mystery about either outgoing IR or water vapor feedbacks. They are trying to explain the already explained, but in a confused way, which seems to be a waste of time

        As I’ve tried to explain a diurnal average does not replicate the dynamic transition of the atmosphere over night, and a snapshot, which is what you are advocating, leads to nonsense. When it cools at night, it cools and as it does the actual conditions change, and the models has changed, and it does this a few couple thousand times each night. Until someone does that with modtran, well an average atmosphere is not going to detect the dynamics.
        As for Willis and Watts, I think they are detecting from space, what I see at night looking up, as it too follows the same sort of variance in water vapor.

      • Do you attribute all your change to water vapor and not temperature, the way they do? I don’t see a parallel, but anyway that would be a question for you if you do.

      • Jim D,

        I hope MODTRAN shows that objects on the surface get hotter during the day, and cool down at night. With any luck, winter will be colder than summer.

        Mind you, any reasonable twelve year old can tell you the same thing.

        I presume MODTRAN points out that the hottest places on Earth have the least GHGs? Interestingly, so do the coldest places on Earth.

        Foolish Warmists. No GHE. Fantasy, not fact.

        Cheers.

      • Eschenbach and Watts are rediscovering what MODTRAN could already have told them. Water vapor behaves as expected over the globe. No one is surprised.

      • You would get a similar result whichever of MODTRAN’s profiles you used, and these cover the range from polar to tropical. It has robustly less effect than asserted by the AGU poster, and that is explained because they have conflated a temperature effect as a water vapor effect.

        But that is not a 24 hour cycle either, you would need to do a 24 hour cycle from pole to equator, and use a range of starting weather conditions, and then calculate the optical response.

        The default setting are junk, it does not do this, and all those people who use the default Modtran setting, because they don’t understand what they are doing, nor do they understand modeling and simulations. This was the take away for 15 years supporting over a dozen simulators and creating models for most of them, and then having engineers confirm the results by actually building the stuff.

        Now, I don’t know that everyone using MODTRAN are clueless, but I do know the ones running the default atm are.

        Mod, you can delete the copy stuck in moderation.

      • Oops, sorry for the duplicate, it was still showing in mod. when I posted the second.

      • Water vapor behaves as expected over the globe. No one is surprised.


        Then you don’t understand this.

    • For a long time in Cuba, only government officials could have an internet connection. Think on that before you try to impale your socialist policies into the body politic.

  7. Why does it seem impossible for journalists to provide quantifiable information when writing articles about glaciers being melted by warm water in East Antarctica ? Just a little, like in the last 60 years the deep waters affecting the Totten glacier have gone up by X degrees. Otherwise any clear thinking person would naturally think it has always been that way, since water is warmer than ice. But the article is instead infected with inductive inference, the disease prevalent in contemporary climate science.

    • One definition of a glacier –

      “A huge mass of ice slowly flowing over a landmass, formed from compacted snow in an area where snow accumulation has exceeded melting and sublimation.”

      Journalists are obviously reporting fake news. The ocean cannot melt a glacier.

      A glacier sits on a landmass. Ice floating in the ocean is not a glacier.

      Floating ice of glacial origins will calve from its parent, as the water is unable to support ice on its surface, unlike the land. Ice sheets cannot collapse, either way.

      I’ve stomped over a few glaciers, and seen many more. Seen the results of glacial action, and what they leave behind.

      If you have complete belief in the competence of scientists, you’d probably be a prospective customer for a ticket on the next Ship of Fools. Good luck.

      Much of what academics apparently believe comes from an addiction to brightly coloured crayons. No Virginia, warm water does not magically creep ashore, and insert itself under glaciers. The ocean does not push back laterally against floating ice, either. Forget the brightly coloured pictures. Leave them in kindergarten, where they belong.

      Cheers.

      • Mike,

        Journalists. Meh.
        Scientists chose different words:
        “Mass loss from the West Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers has been linked to basal melt by ocean heat flux. The Totten Ice Shelf in East Antarctica, which buttresses a marine-based ice sheet with a volume equivalent to at least 3.5 m of global sea-level rise, also experiences rapid basal melt, but the role of ocean forcing was not known because of a lack of observations near the ice shelf. Observations from the Totten calving front confirm that (0.22 ± 0.07) × 106 m3 s−1 of warm water enters the cavity through a newly discovered deep channel. The ocean heat transport into the cavity is sufficient to support the large basal melt rates inferred from glaciological observations. Change in ocean heat flux is a plausible physical mechanism to explain past and projected changes in this sector of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and its contribution to sea level.”

        http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/12/e1601610

        “Ice shelves form where the Antarctic Ice Sheet reaches the ocean and begins to float.”

        It’s reasonable as a ‘climate skeptic’ to question the work. This involves actually looking at the work.

        Here’s the full: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/12/e1601610.full

        Crayons not required.

      • Danny

        The study only establishes warm water. It doesn’t rule out the same warm water having the same effect 100, 200 years ago. It doesn’t speak to how much warmer. Looks to me as if the same process has been going on for thousands of years.

      • Ceresco,

        Thousands of years? May one ask on what this is based?

        From the work: “observations suggest that increased ocean heat flux may have already initiated the unstable retreat of some West Antarctic glaciers (4, 7, 8). Therefore, the future evolution of the Antarctic Ice Sheet is tightly linked to change in the surrounding ocean.”

        Then: “The heavy sea ice conditions that had prevented previous expeditions from reaching the ice front relaxed briefly during a period of southwest winds, allowing for access through a narrow and short-lived shore lead. Fast ice prevented access to the western 30 km of the ice front, where geophysical data (15) indicate shallower seafloor depths (Fig. 1A). Temperature, salinity, and oxygen were measured from the sea surface to within 8 m of the seafloor at 10 stations along the calving front and fast ice edge.”

        If ‘heavy sea ice’ prevented previous expeditions what conditions involving southwest winds to allow access. Strictly winds, winds and water temps, or alternatives? Recent El Nino (assuming)?

        While it’s found that an understanding of Antarctica is lacking even when Steig is involved (50% or so ‘unsettled per his words) there are ‘trends’.

        Not comfortable that ‘thousands of years’ is more justifiable considering lacking observational evidence when ‘today’s’ evidence isn’t fully understood. Surely one would be reasonably ‘skeptical’ of a ‘thousands of years time frame’.

        Mike’s choice was to question ‘fake news’. Maybe the ‘news’ wasn’t fake and the issue was the reporting. Nitpick? Maybe. But was it the ‘news’ or the reporting. Those are two differing considerations.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Love the brightly coloured pictures. Not quite so keen on the modelling, inferred values, estimations and assumptions, however.

        Did you actually read the full paper? I’m not sure how fresh water remains liquid at temperatures below freezing. Maybe the authors are confused about the chemical composition of glacial ice. Not a lot of salt in precipitation from the sky.

        “Models suggest a substantial contribution to future sea-level rise from both the Wilkes Subglacial Basin and the Aurora Subglacial Basin in East Antarctica if greenhouse gas emissions remain high”

        More magical thinking. I’m reasonably sure that freshwater ice remains frozen at less than the freezing point.

        Cheers.

      • Mike,

        Did I read the paper? Indeed. Fresh water?

        “The warm water in the deep trough is saline and low in oxygen, characteristic signatures of mCDW (Fig. 2, B and C). The Winter Water (WW) overlying the mCDW is cooler, fresher, and higher in oxygen. However, the salinity and oxygen of WW are lower (by >0.03 and >10 μM, respectively) in front of the western ice shelf than those observed further east, consistent with outflow from the ice shelf cavity of a mixture of low-oxygen mCDW and fresh glacial meltwater. Additional meltwater outflow may occur in the inaccessible area west of station 34.”
        (mCDW= Modified Circumpolar Deep Water as I gather)

        Do I misunderstand ‘saline’?

        “sa·line
        ˈsāˌlēn,ˈsāˌlīn/Submit
        adjective
        1.
        containing or impregnated with salt.
        “saline alluvial soils”
        noun
        1.
        a solution of salt in water.

        The suggestion of the paper as you quoted in ‘future casting’ may be in question. However, the ‘current’ casting of the ‘basal melt’ might explain the reduced salinity (meaning still saline, less so than sea water but more so than fresh due to fresh water from ice melt dilution of sea water, maybe?).

        Still no crayons required.

        ” I’m reasonably sure that freshwater ice remains frozen at less than the freezing point.” Reasonable theory. What does ‘freshwater ice’ do when impacted by ‘warmer’ saline sea water?

        “We estimated the heat transport out of the cavity by multiplying the total outflow by the mean potential temperature in the layer with salinity less than 34.3 at stations 34 to 37. The difference between the ocean heat transport into and out of the cavity was the heat flux used to melt the base of the ice shelf. The heat flux estimated in this way was sufficient to produce 2.8 ± 0.9 mSv of meltwater.”

        While it’s recognized that it’s cited as an ‘estimate’ contribution to reduced localized salinity is a reasonable result presuming……..with skepticism not unquestionable.

        Alternative works with comparatively similar results? http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12577

        Chastisement of the reporting is different than chastisement of the science.

        Even a blind squirrel finds a nut at times. Presumably you consider all climate scientists blind squirrels. Are they allowed to stumble upon a nut occasionally?

      • Danny Thomas,

        Maybe I misunderstand. They are talking about basal melting of freshwater ice of glacial origin. This is not possible with saline water below 0 C, the freezing point of freshwater.

        What is the actual temperature of the “warm” sea water at the base (as in basal) of the glacial outflow?

        Glaciers are composed of fresh water. An ice shelf of glacial origin is likewise composed of freshwater. How you manage to raise it above its freezing point at its base by means of seawater at less than 0 C, is a mystery to me.

        Magical physics, perhaps?

        Cheers.

      • Mike,

        “Magical physics, perhaps?” Hmmm. Most certainly not my area of expertise but as I read it the ‘basal’ melt was below sea level at the grounding line. IIRC water temps were in the 2-4C area. Doesn’t come across as ‘magical’ but I’m certainly open to further edification.

        http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-ocean-interactions/grounding-lines/

      • Mike Flynn just has to be named President Trump’s science advisor.

      • Danny, my only point is they didn’t show that this warming was a recent trend that did not exist 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 1000 years ago. All I am asking is for the study to quantify how MUCH the water has warmed in the last X decades.

        This is not a weakness of this study. Other articles and studies just present arguments that warm water is affecting glaciers. Great, I get that. But the next logical step is to show this is new.

        Not done here.

      • Ceresco,

        ” But the next logical step is to show this is new. ” No argument. The concern was towards the ‘fake news’ framing and this just does not appear to be the case. Your perspective is (as always) valued.

      • Not a weakness of JUST this study……

      • When I read a paper I look at the references, usually provided, many of the related articles, and, if it has been cited, the papers that have cited it. And I do the same for some of those.

      • JCH

        You mean one of the supplemental papers that says “Decadal trends in the properties of seawater adjacent to Antarctica are poorly known…..”?

        Got it.

        Most of the other 1000+ papers I’ve read cite a conclusion from the other paper. Maybe a shrug and palms pointing to the sky is not the kind of thing that exudes confidence for other scientists.

      • richardswarthout

        Ceresco

        “….my only point is they didn’t show that this warming was a recent trend that did not exist 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 1000 years ago. All I am asking is for the study to quantify how MUCH the water has warmed in the last X decades.”

        A resource for you might be the Antarctica2k working group:

        http://www.pastglobalchanges.org/products/7090-24-1-towards-a-reconstruction-of-antarctic-climate-over-the-last-2000-years

        From my reading of Ocean2k and Antarctic2k, data and plots say that the oceans as a whole, and the Antartic as a whole, have been cooling; for ocean2k, there has been a slight uptake in the last 100 yrs, but still below year 1000 CE. Climate Audit wrote on this last year (Sep 15).

        Richard

      • Richard & Ceresco,

        No where near the time frames desired but a couple of recent focused works:
        Cooling: http://oceans.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/southern-ocean-cooling-in-a-warming-world
        Warming: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-antarctic-seawater-temperatures.html

        Ah, yes. Climate science. But something has to explain ‘the changes’ including basal melt and microorganisms.

        Steig’s suggestion of +/- 50% uncertainty seems reasonable w/r/t Antarctica and climate science.

      • Danny Thomas,

        You wrote –

        “IIRC water temps were in the 2-4C area.”

        That’s why I asked if you actually read the paper. Warmists often appear to have vague recollections, rather than being able to back up their assertions with actual quote from the supposedly authoritative papers linked to.

        Could you quote where saline water at 2-4 C was measured flowing along the grounding interface – glacial ice and sea bed? Or under the base of glacial ice floating in the ocean and still attached to its parent glacial source?

        As you probably know, I prefer facts to Warmist recollections, which occasionally (almost invariably?) prove to be wrong.

        Cheers.

      • Mike,

        Well not being a ‘warmist’ unless ‘lukewarmers’ are enveloped in your definition of same this is the quote I’d recalled: “The temperature of the mCDW near the seafloor in the deep trough exceeds the in situ freezing point by more than 2.2°C (the in situ freezing point decreases with increasing pressure) (Fig. 3A). If this warm water can access the grounding line at a depth of 2300 m (15), the temperature would exceed the local freezing point at the grounding line by 3.2°C.”

        2-4C seems to fit reasonably. Did I do okay?

      • MF, also from the paper “The temperature of the mCDW near the seafloor in the deep trough exceeds the in situ freezing point by more than 2.2°C (the in situ freezing point decreases with increasing pressure)”. There’s your answer.
        The new thing about this paper is those in situ measurements near the glacier.

      • MF will either now disappear or say, wow, those Antarctic glaciers really are in trouble with all that warm water near them.

      • Jim D – MF will either now disappear…

        Ha. MF is like that drunk at the bar that won’t go home because he thinks everyone needs to hear what he has to say. He’s here for the duration, I’m afraid.

      • Jim D,

        Minor problem. Warmist Weasel Words. “Exceeds in situ freezing point by 2.2 C” doesn’t tell you what the actual temperature is. Nor does it say what the in situ freezing point in C is for the seawater in question.

        The authors have gone to a fair bit of trouble to avoid acknowledging that freshwater below 0 C does not become liquid while floating.

        “The warmest water is found at the seafloor at stations 34 and 35 [potential temperature (θ) = −0.405°C], with slightly cooler water (θ = −0.569°C) in the deepest channel. . . “

        Maybe you can invoke some CO2 magic to melt freshwater ice by warming it to below the freezing point of freshwater.

        As to your requests, commands or demands, I’ll take option 3 – pphhht!

        As always, I’ll offer a fulsome apology if I am mistaken. It doesn’t happen all that often, so I don’t mind.

        Cheers.

      • Are there any givens?

      • Image didn’t contain the caption.
        “Fig. 3
        Temperature above freezing and along-trough velocity.
        (A) Temperature elevation above the in situ freezing point at stations 34 to 37 (western trough) and 41 (eastern trough). (B) Velocity from the LADCP rotated in the along-trough direction [35° east of north for the western trough (stations 34 to 37) and 0° for the eastern trough (station 41) (15)].”

      • Pat Cassen,

        You’re correct. As long as people confuse fantasy with fact, and preach Scientism instead of practising science, I’ll continue to put my point of view, I guess.

        If this offends you, feel free to take all the offence you can carry. My care factor is zero.

        Cheers.

      • I drive to Austin and back, and Mike Flynn becomes an even more perfect match for President Trump. I thought that impossible. These two may be twins separated at birth. Dr. Ben Carson could switch around the lobes, and there would be no change whatsoever.

      • MF, they refer to measurements of the melt rate, so that is occurring anyway. Their contribution is on the origin of the warm water capable of doing this. They also observed fresh meltwater in the same area. You may prefer to think melting isn’t happening, but it was observed here in previous studies from a few years earlier.

      • Danny Thomas,

        The warmest water found was -0.405 C. Are you now saying this is not true?

        Which is the fake news, and which the real news?

        Brightly coloured diagrams? Water at the surface above the freezing point of sea water or fresh water? This is supposedly about basal temperatures!

        Load of nonsense. Models, assumptions, inferences. Unfalsifiable hypothesis proposed to explain something that happens irregularly all over the actively volcanic Antarctic continent, for purely geological reasons.

        I believe there is a volcano or two beneath the area, according to real scientists. Of course, climatologists exclude real physics and science, and substitute wishful thinking. Sea water at -0.4 does not melt freshwater ice.

        Warm water at depth does not come from insolation. Warm water floats on cooler water of similar composition. Hence convection currents.

        No GHE due to CO2. Not even a falsifiable hypothesis to that effect. It would be too silly on the face of it, even claiming that putting CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source makes the thermometer hotter.

        Your Totten Ice Shelf paper? About as pointless as most Warmist papers.

        Cheers.

      • Mike,
        “I believe there is a volcano or two beneath the area, according to real scientists. Of course, climatologists exclude real physics and science, and substitute wishful thinking. Sea water at -0.4 does not melt freshwater ice.”

        I believe you’re correct about volcanoes in proximity.

        As far as sea water a -0.4 does not melt freshwater ice? While I’m not a physicist maybe it’s majik?

        Doesn’t adding salt change the equation?

        “Although the saltiness of ocean water varies, often ocean water has about 35 grams of salt for every 1,000 units of water. This lowers the freezing point of ocean water to about -1.8° C or 28.8° F. So ocean water will freeze. It just needs to reach a lower temperature.”
        “When ocean water freezes, though, only the water part freezes. The salt molecules are pushed below the surface of the ice. As a result, polar ice ends up being freshwater ice that can be melted for drinking water!”

        -0.4 might be just warm enough. Not clear how pressures at depth affect the response. Open to further education. Quite likely I’m off base here.

        Also found this in discussion for keeping beer cold.

        “Melting point is a property of solids. The melting point is simply the temperature at which the solid turns into a liquid. For example, the melting point of normal ice is 0°C at standard pressure.”

        “For completeness let’s look at this from the perspective of melting point. When salt is added to ice it lowers the melting point. In other words the ice begins melting at a temperature lower than 0°C. This is why salt is added to ice on the roads in the winter. It causes ice, that would have otherwise remained as a solid in sub-zero temperatures, to turn to water. Note that the temperature of the water has not changed. It’s still at a sub-zero temperature but, as mentioned above, the salt allows it to remain as a liquid at the lower temperature. Don’t think that just because the salted-ice has become water the temperature has risen.”

        Suddenly I’m thirsty.

      • MF, you have neglected that the freshwater melting point decreases with increasing pressure (which is why ice skates slip). These are the temperatures they are comparing with. At those depths it can be a few degrees. Does this help your understanding?

      • MF, if you look at the paper, they tell you the numbers and they have been quoted here by me and Danny too. If you don’t believe the numbers for pressure-affected freezing points in the paper, that’s your problem, not mine. Those depths are at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure. Freezing temperatures are affected.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Fresh water by definition is not salty. It’s fresh.

        If fresh water ice is surrounded by anything at all below its freezing point, it won’t melt. It may sublime, but not if it’s surrounded by sea water, obviously. Vapour pressure and all that.

        Unfortunately, surrounding an ice sheet with sea water won’t make the ice salty. It’s solid – frozen. The salt water can remain liquid below 0 C, but the frozen freshwater will just float – frozen.

        The paper is nonsense. Unfalsifiable hypothesis to provide a bizarre GHE explanation for natural occurrences explained by known physics.

        Antarctica used to be ice free. Due to an ancient GHE? If so, no human intervention. Just Nature. If it becomes ice free again, and once again supports abundant flora and fauna, why would you think this is a man-made disaster?

        It might be excellent – more food, nice scenery, long coastline. Weather changes, and as a result, so does climate. Glaciers advance and retreat, mountain ranges rise and fall, continents wander about.

        Just being realistic.

        Cheers.

      • Mike,

        Of note in reading your response.

        1.) The paper is nonsense. (Okay)
        2.) If fresh water ice is surrounded by anything at all below its freezing point, it won’t melt. (Anything? Really? Might this be a recollection issue? After all, it’s been clearly pointed out that recollection isn’t citation. Please cite evidence that surrounding fresh water ice by ‘anything’ and it won’t melt is in fact accurate.)
        3.) The salt water can remain liquid below 0 C, but the frozen freshwater will just float – frozen. (Unless maybe, just maybe, there’s a physical process causing it to not float. Noticed that since I went to get a beer after the last post when I put an ice cube in it and held it below surface with my finger it stayed there until that physical process was removed. Then it floated. Might be representative of an expressed concern about ice shelf {fresh ones at that} phenomena in Antarctica.)
        4.) bizarre GHE explanation for natural occurrences explained by known physics. (Kinda lost me here. I didn’t speak of GHE, did you? Oh, and what ‘natural occurrences’? Fresh water ice at grounding line melting with surrounding sea water at -0.4? That ‘natural occurrence? The one that’s not happening?)
        5.) Antarctica used to be ice free. (Come on Mike. That old saw? What used to be used to be. Just because it was doesn’t mean it will or won’t be again. Focus, please.)
        6.) why would you think this is a man-made disaster? (Where did I say that?)
        7.) It might be excellent? (What might be excellent? Warming? I’d agree. And I’d note a ‘warmist’ weasel word you used there…….might……..indicates you think ‘it’ might not.)

      • The paper is nonsense. – Mike Flynn

        The only this could possibly be better:

        The paper is nonsense. – Mike Flynn, President Trump’s science advisor

        I’m certain that Professor Curry agrees one of her most prolific science commenters, Mike Flynn, is correct that the paper is nonsense because of a fatal error to do with the freezing point of fresh water. Mike Flynn, obviously a genius at the very least, just has to be named President Trump’s science advisor. Peer reviewers missed this error; Mike Flynn did not. He rocks.

      • I think I have read all the links provided.Where they discussed warming trends (in one case 50 years) the focus was on West Antarctica, the location of geothermal activities.

        But the original discussion was Totten Glacier in EAST Antarctica. I accept that warm water is eroding Totten Glacier.

        No one has shown that warm water was NOT eroding Totten Glacier in 1900 or any other time in the distant past.

        In other words, no one has demonstrated the erosion is unprecedented.

      • Ceresco,
        If it’s ‘presidented’ (had to do it) or not is an interesting question. And if El Nino is involved. Finally, cause.

      • “In other words, no one has demonstrated the erosion is unprecedented.”

        It’s worse than we thought.
        Not only has no-one demonstrated “unprecedentedness” (never happened before), they can’t even show “unusualness” (only rarely seen before) or even “non-normality” (not what usually happens)
        They sure can find plenty of surprises though – which is surprising in itself, given that they are scientists working in an area with a distinct lack of historical hard data. I would have expected they would presume to be surprised because they are among the first to even look.
        They should check for spherical cows – makes the math much easier, ya know.
        Kudos to them for actually going the extra mile and collecting data though – certainly useful for future scienticians to compare against models (and maybe even “correct”, eh? Eh?)

    • cerescokid,

      Sorry. Wasn’t referring to you when I wrote”you”. I’m agreeing with you. Accidentally posted as reply to your good self.. Arrgh! Fat finger syndrome strikes again!

      Cheers.

  8. The social cost of carbon and the climate debate in two quotes:
    ” Putting a specific value on it, Holmstead says, “gives artificial precision to something that is highly uncertain.”” (With which I personally agree).

    Then: ” “It comes down to whether or not you value the future,” she says. “Arguing for a lower number means you inherently don’t.”” (With which I personally don’t).

    Sigh.

    • And I totally agree with your assessment. Two things have occurred over the past 4-5 years: a) our awareness of the magnitude of uncertainties in long range forecasts have become more apparent (although not necessarily understood), b) the administration’s assessment of the social cost of carbon projections has increased 60% across the board (over time and across discount scenarios). SCC is all about “long-term forecasts,” e.g, using global emissions/temperature projections and e.g., IAM models, discounted by chosen discount rates to produced year by year “SCC value” curves. The last update to the “official” SCC in 2013 increased the values (vs. the previous assessment in 2010) by 60% (for all discount scenarios)… The latest update was issued prior to rollout of the president’s Clean Power Plan and during the run up to the Paris COP21 meeting. The EPA technical report for the 2013 SCC indicated that the latest update used several IAMs – was based IPCC forecasts; however acknowledging that our understanding of natural causes is limited (!). Importantly, the SCCs do not allow any way to reflect the uncertainty of the projections used in their determination. This is something like … precautionary on top of precautionary … its just fine to allow not quantifying uncertainties in the long term SCC determinations.
      .

      .
      The second figure below is the ratio of the SCC curves 2013 div. by 2010.
      .

      • Danley,

        Would you be willing to approximate some level of SCC with which you’d be comfortable based on your understandings and towards a manner of ‘risk management’?

        Recognizing ‘uncertanties’ and ‘precision’ are impossible under current knowledge but asking towards a ‘political’ solution.

  9. “Consensus” claim. Reasonable article even considering the potential for bias. It will be interesting to see if in the next few years there is a modification (or not) to the claimed percentages.

    • Danny Thomas, re “Would you be willing to approximate some level of SCC…” NO. Given that the SCCs are based on IAMs with driving forces being temperature growth from AR5 forecast – models based on what we now know having high climate response / equilibrium climate sensitivity. My point about the built in uncertainties – there is no way to reduce SCC to a meaningful single value when the underlying climate modeling uncertainties are not even defined. As the Bloomberg article linked in this blog (…under policy and social sciences heading), the approach under the now almost previous administration by Cass Sunstein and Michael Greenstone was intended from the beginning to devise a means / tools to avoid going through Congress to further / push Obama’s climate policy agenda. The concept is good in broad principle but the data absolutely do not justify use of the resulting SCC and further the substantial increase in the SCCs right before the Clean Power Plan was rolled out and the Paris COP21 meeting. This is Wizard of OZ behind the curtain stuff.

      • Of course they might choose the most extreme IPCC forecast to plug into the DICE model to give the most extreme damage function which would be (precautionary principle) squared. The technical report did not tell us which one they used.

        I wonder if the mainstream media stop will reconsider using the demagogue terms “denier” and “skeptic” to describe honest questioning of science under the new administration?

  10. Nuisance flooding in Port Orchard, Washington was evidence of human influenced climate change per NOAA. Yet the 7 Tidal Gauges in Washington showed the following long term trends in mm/yr: -1.73, .14, .25, .40, 1.12, 1.82 and 2.01. Quite a variance for one state.

  11. …shrinking of mountain glaciers in five continents could almost certainly not have happened if the Earth wasn’t warming up.

    Which is how we know there was global cooling since Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants. The Alps were forests both 2,000 and 4,000 years ago not just 10,000 years ago and the reasons for their demise obviously did not include us moderns injecting our CO2 into the atmosphere.

  12. In the “melting ‘the roof of the world’ glacier collapse” piece, CNN uses an image of the Opera House in Sydney to show how it will be gurgling under water from a 2 C temperature increase. The problem is that Sydney SLR long term trend is .65 mm/yr and not a hint of acceleration in the rate. It is virtually the same level as it was in 1910.

    Does anyone at CNN do their homework? Why make it so easy to be discredited? But it is CNN after all.

  13. http://www.sciencealert.com/a-controversial-new-gravity-hypothesis-has-passed-its-first-test

    “The team, led by Margot Brouwer, looked at the distribution of matter in more than 33,000 galaxies, and said that what they say could indeed be explained without dark matter if they used Verlinde’s hypothesis of gravity.

    Testing this involved studying something called gravitational lensing – the way galaxies closer to us bend the light of more distant galaxies. This is a well-established way of measuring the amount of dark matter in galaxies.

    But the team found that if they just factored in Verlinde’s modified gravity, then their results made sense without them having to add in the idea of dark matter.

    The team compared their results to the predictions made by Einstein’s general theory of relativity and those made by Verlinde, and found that both fit.

    But they found that Verlinde’s predictions matched their observations without needing to use any free parameters – which are values that can be tweaked to make observations match a hypothesis. The presence of dark matter, on the other hand, required four free parameters.

    “The dark matter model actually fits slightly better with the data than Verlinde’s prediction,” Brouwer told New Scientist. “But then if you mathematically factor in the fact that Verlinde’s prediction doesn’t have any free parameters, whereas the dark matter prediction does, then you find Verlinde’s model is actually performing slightly better.”

    Importantly, this is just one very early test of Verlinde’s hypothesis, and it’s going to take a lot more than that to throw out over a century of accepted thinking on gravity and dark matter.

    Also, Verlinde’s hypothesis might get rid of mysterious dark matter, but it doesn’t match up with everything else we see in the Universe, either. String theorist Lubos Motl recently took down Verlinde’s ideas a blog post, saying: “I wouldn’t okay this wrong piece of work as an undergraduate term paper.”

    • At least in a normal field of scientific endeavour no one’s calling them gravity deniers…. plus MOND type ideas have been around for a while…. I’ll bite….. The point of the post?

    • Steven:
      From what I’ve read on Motl’s Blog re climate science, I wouldn’t “OK this piece of work as an undergraduate term paper”.
      Didn’t know he was a string theorist, and that further confirms my suspicion that certain “egg heads” have no common sense.

    • Mosh, Thanks for that link

    • I went to Motl’s site and found this:

      http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/12/severe-inaccuracies-in-media-stories.html

      Severe inaccuracies in media stories about Verlinde’s speculations

      Last month, Erik Verlinde released another speculative paper that he intended to sell as a breakthrough to the media. It’s his version of what I coined as the holographic MOND paradigm. Dark matter doesn’t really exist.

      Instead, the effects attributed to it result from some modification of the usual laws of gravity that is guaranteed by “fundamental physics” in combination with dark energy (or cosmological constant). One consequence is that the parameters controlling the observations displaying “dark matter” and those displaying “dark energy” aren’t independent. Verlinde uses different details in the justification but they’re as speculative as holographic MOND and have similar observational consequences as other MOND papers.

      The Dutch media have persuaded themselves that it’s the greatest event in science since the Big Bang. The journalistic class of the Netherlands – and other countries – is an echo chamber where some amazing group think is nurtured. I’ve been asked for interviews by 4 Dutch science journalists and rejected those offers for various reasons. The hype in the English-speaking media is much weaker than the hype in the Netherlands but it’s still excessive.

      To show some serious problems with the current state of the science journalism, let me pick two articles that quote a sentence of mine:
      Nude Socialist, Mark Anderson: First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter, 2 days ago

      Science Alert, Fiona Macdonald: A controversial new gravity hypothesis has passed its first test, today
      One thing you can notice is that these two articles are extremely far from being independent of each other.

      They copy not only the plausible “reporting” about the “news”. They share most of the mistakes, bizarrely picked details, and misinformation. To see that, start with the sentences that contain my name. New Socialist wrote:
      String theorist Lubos Motl savaged Verlinde’s ideas in a recent blog post: “I wouldn’t okay this wrong piece of work as an undergraduate term paper.”
      Science Alert told us:
      String theorist Lubos Motl recently took down Verlinde’s ideas a blog post, saying: “I wouldn’t okay this wrong piece of work as an undergraduate term paper.”
      The difference is that one journalist wrote “savaged” and the other one wrote “took down” while the word “recent” was changed to “recently” and moved to a different place of the sentence. ;-) That’s the kind of “qualified editing work” for which these journalists are being paid hundreds of dollars per day.

      Try to quantify the probability that these two sentences arise from two independent journalists’ evaluation of the actual stories that they observe in the real world. Needless to say, this degree of similarity is implausible. There are over 7,000 blog posts on this website, a dozen is about Verlinde’s speculative ideas, and each of them contains a large number of sentences.

      And I am obviously not the only person who has criticized Verlinde’s ideas.

      What is your estimate of the probability that two journalists pick exactly the same sentence from the same critic of Verlinde’s ideas and introduce it in almost the same way? The probability is tiny. In other words, the evidence that what is going on is actually a form of plagiarism is extremely strong, much stronger than the evidence for any speculative ideas of Verlinde’s.

      I don’t want to single out Fiona Macdonald. Journalists – and perhaps especially science journalists – are copying stuff from each other all the time. Most of the stuff they copy from each other is garbage.

      OK, I was critical and they could have informed the readers about the criticism. Another problem is that the content of the criticism is reported completely incorrectly by both of them. If you read my actual text about the term paper, you will see:
      I wouldn’t okay this wrong piece of work as an undergraduate term paper but he got 6.5 millions of euros for this absolutely worthless pile of feces so many people who are impressed by the money but don’t have an idea about science – which includes virtually all journalists – started to think that Verlinde is a top physicist.
      The point is that the comment about the “term paper” wasn’t a comment about the recent Verlinde’s paper at all. It was a comment about an old idea – namely the “entropic gravity” that Verlinde has gotten lots of money for years ago. You don’t need to read the whole context of my blog post. The sentence they “quoted” is absolutely self-sufficient and makes it clear that I am talking about some older work by Verlinde. They just ignore this self-evident fact. Independently of my sentences, both of these journalists have been completely unable to notice that it’s two totally inequivalent ideas by Erik Verlinde that we’re looking at. They have completely conflated them.

      In 2010, Erik Verlinde incorrectly wrote that gravity arises from the physical objects’ desire to increase the entropy i.e. gravity is an entropic force. A month ago, he wrote about emergent gravity that unifies the dark matter and dark energy phenomena. The words “entropic” and “emergent” may sound the same to a very sloppy journalist but they’re not the same at all. These two papers are in no way equivalent.

      And the newer paper is in no way building on the assumptions made by the earlier paper. The 2010 paper is the reference [14] in the new paper and the only place where the paper [14] is referred to in the new paper are the sentences:
      In this way it was proven [10, 11] that the entanglement entropy indeed obeys (1.1), when the vacuum state is divided into two parts separated by a Killing horizon. This fact was afterwards used to extend earlier work on the emergence of gravity [12, 13, 14] by deriving the (linearized) Einstein equations from general quantum information theoretic principles [15, 16, 17].
      So a month ago, Verlinde was just reviewing some vaguely related speculations about the possible non-fundamental character of gravity and his 2010 paper was one of them. But this 2010 paper isn’t really an “important pillar” underlying the new 2016 paper. In fact, they’re probably incompatible with each other. You may conclude that the journalists are writing about two totally different speculations and they don’t see the difference. It’s like a journalist who writes about Einstein’s special relativity and identifies it with Einstein’s theory of the photoelectric effect.

      This sloppy culture of journalism may be seen not only in science journalism. These days, a really crappy journalist in a no-longer-credible daily, e.g. the Washington Post, writes something and tons of similar inkspillers copy it into all of their own media. Many stupid readers think that when the media and journalists have many names, the information was confirmed by independent sources and must be true. But that’s a totally wrong assumption. The writing of these cliques of journalists totally fail to be independent. In fact, you can often be almost certain that a piece of illogical junk will be uncritically copied from AB to CD and EF and GH if AB happens to write it.

      Now, the Nude Socialist and the derived Science Alert stories celebrate a fresh paper
      First test of Verlinde’s theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements
      by Margot Brouwer, Konrad Kuijken, and 20 other astronomers. They say that a graph one may extract from some lensing is consistent with the predictions of Verlinde’s 2016 paper – which has no parameters. Note that this Brouwer et al. 2016 paper only builds on Verlinde 2016. The paper Verlinde 2010 or 2011 (on entropic gravity) is just vaguely mentioned along with Ted Jacobson’s papers and others, just like it’s just vaguely mentioned in Verlinde 2016.

      What is the character of the agreement? Look e.g. at Figure 3 on Page 11 of the 22 astronomers’ papers. There are four graphs of ESD, the excess surface density, as a function of the radius. The empirical data points (crosses) agree with the predicted curves – basically straight decreasing lines with the same slope – rather well. But the agreement in all the quantities amounts to a “correctly predicted ESD up to a factor of two in one direction or another”.

      I think that this test is basically equivalent to the usual “numerological” tests of MOND theories and doesn’t strengthen the case for MOND or any version of it – like Verlinde’s version – at all. I do think that a MOND-like paradigm is plausible and may have a justification. But the whole MOND paradigm also has somewhat serious problems that could very well be proofs that the paradigm is wrong. Papers like this one don’t really change the situation if you look at it carefully. They’re looking at the same class of observations where MOND has “sort of worked” and, not too surprisingly, still “sort of works” – and they are satisfied with the usual unimpressive accuracy – while they ignore the places where “MOND doesn’t seem to be too healthy”.

      The positivity of the message in the Nude Socialist and derived Science Alert articles is excessive. But the journalists aren’t experts and maybe they should be forgiven, you might suggest. Maybe they’re not deliberately deceptive, they just don’t quite understand what’s going on. However, some titles are just outrageous and you may be sure that they were used to deliberately deceive the readers. The title of the Nude Socialist article reads:
      First test of rival to Einstein’s gravity kills off dark matter
      Oh, really? So Verlinde’s ideas are so great that you just pick the first test and it not only validates Verlinde’s theory but also “kills off dark matter” as a side effect – one of the most famous concepts of the 20th century cosmology is just ruled out easily. The test surely cures cancer, too. Is the Nude Socialist’s summary of the article by 22 astronomers accurate? Well, let’s ask one of the 22 astronomers who actually wrote the paper:

      The headline is totally misleading, Kuijken says. A short discussion under his tweet agrees that the quality of Nude Socialist wasn’t good for many years and the headline is a typical example of “click bait”. The paper by 22 astronomers clearly doesn’t make any statement that would in any way imply that they have “killed off dark matter”.

      The dark matter paradigm – or a model with a somewhat larger number of parameters than Verlinde’s MOND – is obviously consistent with the lensing data studied by the 22 astronomers. Nude Socialist and Science Alert know that. Brouwer has told Nude Socialist that Verlinde’s MOND has fewer parameters but dark matter fits the data better than Verlinde’s formula. If it fits better, it couldn’t have been possibly “killed off”, could it?

      “Click bait” has become omnipresent in the media that pretend to be science media – such as Nude Socialist. They are trying to attract as many readers and clickers as possible. Titles such as “quantum mechanics or string theory or supersymmetry or dark matter is killed off” sound like “intriguing stories” for them play an analogous role as the headlines “look at the celebrities who have aged badly” – except that the texts about the celebrities, while annoying, are much more true than the claims about physics. The “science journalists” just don’t give a damn that their titles are complete lies.

      So you can easily prove that both pop-science authors knew that the observations are compatible with dark matter. But that didn’t prevent Nude Socialist from picking the title saying that the test “killed off dark matter”. They are just lying straight into your face. And this is extremely far from being the only major lie in these articles. They also tell you, among other things, that Verlinde basically discovered MOND. The quality of the science journalism in Nude Socialist, Science Alert, and lots of similar “mainstream” media has collapsed beneath all tolerable threshold. These inkspillers have turned into a stinky worthless cesspool.

      Posted by Luboš Motl at 9:10 AM | comments (8)

  14. Impact of #climatechange on agriculture may be underestimated, by Brown University. Their data come from Mato Grosso, Brazil – I guess that it is much better documented than the U.S. agricultural regions. Or there may be another factor – “per diem”.

  15. You forgot one. The services for John Glenn today provided a reminder of when science was far less politicized and, arguably, far healthier. We had the heroes in NASA and the Manhattan Project to look up to. Nowadays…not so much.

  16. This link not working: “Climate change is starting to jam the world’s ocean circulation system [link]”

  17. From the article:

    In 1997, theorist Lewis Larsen looked at some of this data and noticed a similarity to elemental abundances he had learned about while a student in Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar’s astrophysics class at the University of Chicago. Larsen suspected that a neutronization process was occurring in low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Physicist Allan Widom joined Larsen’s team in 2004, and in 2006 they published a theory in the European Physical Journal C – Particles and Fields.

    The Widom-Larsen theory has nothing to do with fusion; the key steps are based on weak interactions and are consistent with existing physics. The theory explains how nuclear reactions can occur at or near room temperature through the creation of ultra-low-momentum neutrons and subsequent neutron-capture processes. Such neutrons, according to the theory, have a very large DeBroglie wavelength and therefore have a huge capture cross-section, explaining why so few neutrons are detected. Many-body collective quantum and electromagnetic effects are fundamental to Widom and Larsen’s explanation for the energy required to create neutrons in LENR cells. Crucially, such reaction-rate calculations are based not on few-body interactions but on many-body interactions.

    Perhaps most surprising is that, in the formative years of atomic science in the early 20th century, some scientists reported inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations. In the 1910s and 1920s, this research was reported in popular newspapers and magazines, and papers were published in the top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science and Nature. The experiments, using relatively simple, low-energy benchtop apparatus, did not use radioactive sources so the results defied prevailing theory. Several researchers independently detected the production of the gases helium-4, neon, argon, and an as-yet-unidentified element of mass-3, which we now identify as tritium. Two of these researchers were Nobel laureates.


    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/its-not-cold-fusion-but-its-something/

  18. Biggest East Antarctic glacier melting. This is more warmunist science distortion. See my guest post on Totten glacier for the ‘truth’. Boy, the increasingly desparate warmunists must think we have no memory or analytic ability.

    • Maybe, but they found the water deeper under the ice shelf than it was thought at the time of your post.

      • And maybe they forgot there are underwater volcanoes

      • Timg56

        Are you sure that the volcanos are erupting recently?

        When was the last time these volcanos erupted and how close are they to the Totten glacier?

        My take is not recent and not close

      • “And maybe they forgot there are underwater volcanoes”

        Yep, and that’s the current “with one bound he was free” *sceptic* get-out for the Arctic too.
        Funny how these “undersea volcanoes” never seemed to melt ice and warm Arctic waters en mass before.

      • Tony banton

        I attended a Cambridge university dinner a few years ago and sat next to a volcanologist who told me they suspected there were ten thousand times more underwater volcanoes than had hitherto been realised.

        I have not seen any recent studies that tells us whether or not even the increased number of volcanoes we suspect are out there can possibly warm water materially.

        However if the 1258 volcano and a couple of other ones a few decades later cited by giss miller and Mann as likely precipitating the LIA , together with the other eruptions said to be more frequent during this period can have an impact, surely underwater ones can also be more active at one time than another?

        Tonyb

      • Ontong Java, maybe you guys have heard of that.

        Now that was an undersea volcano that could change climate.

        And another thing, are we talking about active volcanos?

        There are only two active volcanos that we know about in the Antarctic region.

      • Bob

        You slinked away on the “Factiness and Truthiness” post without successfully refuting my point about decadal and multidecadal oscillations, so why don’t you give a big swing on this one.

        First, an active volcano is not necessary to impact the basal melt process of glaciers as pointed out in Schroeder, et al, 2014. That paper states “….large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift associated magma migration and volcanism. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.”

        They also suggest that the subglacial water system of the Thwaites Glacier may be responding to heterogeneous and temporally variable basal melting driven by the evolution of rift-associated volcanism.

        A Mount St Helen event is not necessary to have effects on basal melting of glaciers.

        But this is my real point. Provide citations that prove the Totten Glacier erosion by warm water is unprecedented. Do you know that in 1900 or any time before, the same kind of processes was NOT happening? No one else has been able to challenge that hypothesis, so why don’t you give it a go. Good Luck.

      • Tony:

        They are undoubtedly there but why should they make ice melt now?
        Someone at Spencer’s the other day was attributing 0.25C of warming in Arctic waters to them.
        Now the Arctic holds 18,750,000 x 10^12 kg of water.

        So that x SH water (4181 J/Kg.T) x 0.25 C =~ 2×10^22J

        Now from:
        http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040301/full/news040301-1.html

        We find that…..
        “Robert Wright and Luke Flynn from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu used the NASA satellite MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) to measure the heat emitted by the world’s 45 most active volcanoes, which are responsible for the majority of the Earth’s volcanic heat.

        Over 2001 and 2002, these volcanoes kicked out about 5 x 10^16 joules per year – enough to power New York city for a few months.”

        So all the world’s volcanoes gave out a heat output that is 6 orders of magnitude less than that necessary to raise the temp of the Arctic ocean by 0.25C, and only enough to power NYC for a few months.

        And did these land/surface based volcanoes add to atmospheric heat?such that we noticed globally, especially given that it takes 4000x more energy to heat water to the same degree as the atmosphere.

        You must also consider how that heat will spread/dissipate.
        Using the surface based ones as an example, we see that they dissipate via violent convection, straight up to the Tropopause and beyond (as do violent TS).
        SO where are the convective caps on the oceans/holes in the ice/boiling/bubbling on the surface.
        Then it has to diffuse through the body of the ocean.
        If there is anything close to being sig in terms of adding heat – it would have been observed as obvious.
        And notice I didn’t calc the melting of ice in the above either.

        Sorry, another ABCD squirrel got shot.

      • Tony Banton,
        May I ask a few questions?

        1) “Someone at Spencer’s the other day was attributing 0.25C of warming in Arctic waters to them.” What does that .25C of naturally attributed warming do to the Arctic’ climate specifically and is that a static measurement or does it change & timing?

        2) Of the “all the world’s volcanoes gave out a heat output that is 6 orders of magnitude less than that necessary to raise the temp of the Arctic ocean by 0.25C, and only enough to power NYC for a few months.” Is that a static contribution to the system, or does it increase and decrease naturally? Associated effects?

        Your continuing points add value to considerations but think we could expand the line of questioning.

      • Correction:
        Was thinking of the whole world’s oceans relative to the atmos (1000×4) (MassxSH).
        Obviously doesn’t apply to the Arctic alone.

      • They don’t have to prove it is unprecedented.

      • Let me help you with that.

        They can’t prove it is unprecedented.

        There, fixed it.

        JCH demonstrates for the world what inductive inference on steroids looks like.

        In the meantime, real scientists seek out the truth.

      • Tony Banton,

        You quoted –

        “. . . which are responsible for the majority of the Earth’s volcanic heat.”

        Handwaving assertions masquerading as fact?

        Roughly 70% of the Earth’s surface is ocean. Nobody’s got the faintest notion how much heat enters the ocean from beneath.

        According to geophysicists (who presumably know more about such things than self proclaimed climatologists), approximately 20 tonnes of matter within the Earth is converted to energy per annum.

        As e=mc2, that’s a fair amount. Added to primordial heat, frictional heat within the Earth, and so on, even more.

        All this heat escapes through the crust to space, eventually. It transfers through the oceans, soil, atmosphere etc., on the way. The Earth has cooled over the past four and a half billion years, in spite of far greater internal heat production from radioactive decay (there being far more radioactive isotopes).

        Anybody who disputes that the Earth has cooled, is possibly off with the fairies, and probably believes in the GHE, or the planet heating properties of CO2!

        Maybe your quoted statement was someone’s idle speculation, but not noted as such.

        Still no GHE. Not even a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. An inconvenient truth, wot?

        Cheers.

      • Wouldn’t know Bob, I’m not an underwater vulcanist.

        My time underwater was spent following Ivan. When we weren’t clearing our slow big brothers or reminding the SW community their primary classification was target.

      • Ceresco Kid,

        I must have missed your point about multidecadal and decadal oscillations, probably because there isn’t any real evidence of long enough periods to establish the period and magnitude of same.

        They measured the greater heat flux under the Thwaites glacier and found it to be up to about 200 mw per square meter, I’ll let you do the math and tell me how much ice that is going to melt.

        Has it always been that high? If it is due to rifting, it has probably been doing it for a while geologically speaking, but it has only increased melting since we have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

        As to your last question, you do know that Antarctica has had smaller ice sheets before, right.

      • Bob

        Do you have studies identifying the melting rates prior to CO2 effects. I would love to see them. You know, a before and after comparison would be nice.

      • cerescokid,

        I assume you have heard of Zwally?

    • analytic ability

      I think your lens is entirely political. Same for Professor Curry.

  19. How Climate Rules Might Fade Away
    Obama used an arcane number to craft his regulations. Trump could use it to undo them.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/how-climate-rules-might-fade-away

    Obama’s top regulatory officer, decided that the executive branch needed to figure out how to estimate the economic damage from climate change.


    Over the next year, a team of economists, scientists, and lawyers from across the federal government convened to come up with a dollar amount for the economic cost of carbon emissions. Whatever value they hit upon would be used to determine the scope of regulations aimed at reducing the damage from climate change. The bigger the estimate, the more costly the rules meant to address it could be. After a year of modeling different scenarios, the team came up with a central estimate of $21 per metric ton, which is to say that by their calculations, every ton of carbon emitted into the atmosphere imposed $21 of economic cost. It has since been raised to around $40 a ton.
    This calculation, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), serves as the linchpin for much of the climate-related rules imposed by the White House over the past eight years.

    There are other ways for Trump to undercut the SCC. By tweaking some of the assumptions and calculations that are baked into its model, the Trump administration could pretty much render it irrelevant, or even skew it to the point that carbon emissions come out as a benefit instead of a cost.

    This seems like a justifiable approach. Let’s get an impartial, objective estimate of SCC.

    Can any CE denizens run FUND and produce sensitivity analyses on the following inputs:

    1. ECS = 1.65 (after Nic Lewis 2015)

    2. RCP6, instead of RCP8.5, for central estimate

    3. Damage function (what is the damage function that can be justified based on valid evidence)?

    a. Sea level rise – assume realistic costs for replacing infrastructure given that their use-by-date is in the order of 50 to 100 years, so they would be replaced in that time anyway

    b. Energy consumption – use the long term of declining real costs of energy to project future costs – do not assume a transition to high cost energy, like renewable energy.

    4. Discount rate: use the global rate used in the real world for making decisions as to which infrastructure projects to invest in. Don’t use the current unusually low rates (lowest in 3000 years). Use the rate that prevailed last century. I’d suggest use a central rate of 10%.

    • Restate my question more clearly:

      Can any CE denizens run FUND to produce charts showing the sensitivity of estimated SCC to the following inputs:

      • Can’t a damage function assessment show a net benefit to society?

      • Jim2,

        Yes. It is entirely possible that a vaild damage function could give a negative SCC. Many authors have said that is possible. This is all part of my argument that we need a reliable, valid damage function. It is the most uncertain parameter for estimating SCC. Until we have a valid damage function (with reasonable uncertainty limits) the whole argument that GHG emissions are doing more harm than good, or will in the future are not supportable. This is why I argue reviewing the methodology and evidence needed for determining the damage function is the most important research needed in climate science. The priorities are wrong and have been for 30 years. Trump should change the priorities for public funding for climate research.

      • There is no such thing as a negative social cost unless you can confiscate profits from agriculture to put into building sea walls, which I don’t think can happen. Profits stay where they are produced and costs stay as they are. Similarly some countries will profit, many will lose. How do you redistribute the wealth? This is the issue.

      • Jim D,

        Of course you can have a negative SCC. A negative SCC means GHG emissions are net-beneficial. App programs that are net beneficial have positive net benefts = negative net costs = negative social costs.

        You should read some reports and analyses other than produced by the climatariate and CAGW alarmists.

      • What I mean is that the benefits won’t show up but the costs will, and there are costs.

      • Why won’t the benefits show up show up in future, as they have done over the past 100 years?

      • The benefits don’t keep up with the costs, changing the net. Furthermore the people getting the benefits may not be the same ones incurring the costs, and it is not clear they can offset each other without some kind of wealth transfer. So the social costs should be kept separate. Benefits are already figured in the price. Costs are not.

      • Jim D,

        The benefits don’t keep up with the costs, changing the net.

        WRONG! Clearly, you don’t understand what negative cost means.

        Regarding apportion costs and benefits of GHG emissions to those responsible is not part not what SCC is about. As I said to Ragnaar, who gets the benefits is a different issue. The US doesn’t get much benefit from the US cutting back it’s emissions; the world gets the benefits.

        It is clear you don’t have much understanding of the subject area – as you have demonstrated in previous exchanges we had on this.

      • You need to illustrate how the benefit manifests itself in the world economy. It is easy to visualize cost items, but benefits get absorbed in the system somewhere and maybe very few reap them or they are used to offset other costs like from population growth. It’s apples plus oranges to try to put them together.

      • Jim D.

        You need to illustrate how the benefit manifests itself in the world economy.

        You’ve changed your argument for the third time without once admitting you were wrong with your previous wrong assertions.

        Now what you are arguing is that we need the evidence to validate and justify the damage function. I’ve been saying that all along. We agree on this. Now admit you were wrong with your first two assumptions. See 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty No.5: https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/

      • I have simply been trying to convey to you that cost and benefit streams of money ate different, and I still don’t see how one can be used to offset the other.The costs are there and someone (mostly governments) has to pay them. Do they get at the benefit money to do that? Unlikely.

      • What I say to Ragnaar is, yes, the benefits go to some people who have not caused global warming, but the costs are all to do with global warming. How can these two be tied together in any way? I don’t know. I am asking. If the benefits are supposed to offset the costs, how? Who pays the costs and where do they get the benefit from?

      • Jim D it’s a different subject and dealt with by economists and IAM developers. Its not the subject I am talking about here and that you wrong claimed “There is no such thing as a negative social cost”. I refuted this incorrect assertion but you have not yet acknowledged you were wrong.

      • The meaning of this is, as I said, the cost is there whether someone gets a benefit or not. The social cost has to be paid. The social benefit does not help with payment unless it goes to the government somehow. “Negative cost” implies an automatic offset of cost that does not exist.

      • I am only asking how you transform the benefit into a payment of cost. You don’t like the question. I won’t ask it anymore.

      • Good, because you don’t understand waht SCC is, your first comment was WRONG! and you have not acknowledged that yet and since then you have tried to change the subject – both are a clear signs of intellectual dishonesty (as you have displayed may times previously).

        It’s well understood that SCC could be negative – it entirely depends on the input parameters used in the analysis. Richard Tol shows SCC is negative throughout the last century and, if we exclude cost of estimated increased energy consumption caused by AGW, potentially positive up to about 4C warming (see Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf )

      • Yes, it can be net negative. I went beyond that part because there are important questions about what that means.

      • The important questions you refer to applies to all polices. All polices have costs and benefits where costs are not to the same people as get the benefits. The policies are justified on the basis that overall people will be better off. In the case of negative SCC, this means (by definition) the benefits of GHG emissions exceed the damage costs. That is, overall people will be better off overall with no GHG mitigation policies. That is the point!.

      • The benefits last until about 1 C, which is where we are now. From there it goes downhill, and it is best to put the brakes on by 2 C. Best not to be shortsighted, because to prevent that, we have to start now. This is what it is all about.

      • Jim D,

        You are just making baseless assertion and repeating the CAGW alarmist mantra. That’s not an objective, rational debate, it’s belef and religion.

      • I could say you are doing the same, but not backed up by economists in your case.

      • Jim D you will say anything to dodge and weave. It’s your way when beaten. I supported the point I made – i.e. that SCC can be negative. You apparently did not read the link.

      • A negative SCC doesn’t mean no harm. You have to think more broadly than that one number.

      • You disagree that a negative SCC means there will also be harm? I happen to care about the harm too, so this is far from irrelevant to me. There are costs and benefits and different people and countries will have different nets. The global net is only of academic interest, but one idea is you could tax all the benefits to pay for the costs, if you can quantify the benefits in any way, otherwise you do end up with losers who are paying for the true cost of carbon.

      • Yes, it can be net negative. I went beyond that part because there are important questions about what that means.

        It means that the estimated benefits of global GHG emissions exceed the estimated global damage costs.

      • …which doesn’t mean some people are not left with only costs and no access to the benefits, right? This is the point.

      • Irrelevant to the point, for the sixth time!

      • For one thing, it doesn’t mean that there is no cost to anyone, and I have tried to convey why.

      • I’ve already addressed this at least three times. if you don’t understand it, it’s your problem.

      • Clearly the way you addressed it was of no use in resolving the question I had.

      • Your question is irrelevant to the point. Go and do your homework and make your point elsewhere. it’s not relevant to the point I made that responded to with an incorrect assertion.

      • A Midwestern farmer makes more money because he grows more corn because of global warming. This lowers the cost of corn.
        A farmer in Mexico makes less money because he grows less corn because of global warming. This raises the cost of corn.
        Assume production losses equal production gains. Where is the social cost?
        While one benefits and the other loses, the Midwestern farmer did not cause global warming. It is doubtful that all the Midwestern farmers together caused more than 0.2 C of warming to date. I can’t see that they’ve done anything wrong that requires them to compensate someone else. They simply got favorable climate conditions.

        If the issue is sea level rise, the farmers didn’t cause that either. But sea level rise would be a social cost of carbon, at least some of it depending on CO2’s contribution to it. But that might be offset by things such as increased tree growth leading to cheaper lumber. Increased vegetable production in California where by the way, will need some people to work in the fields.

        Fossil fuels have transformed farming to allow less people to grow more food. As that happened of the past 100 years or so what was the social cost of that? Cheaper food. Not having to walk behind a horse with a one bottom plow for weeks. I have a painting of the farm my Mother grew up on. Shocks of grain in the fields. How does that work? Cut the wheat with a scythe. Gather it up, tie it up. Come back later and put it on a wagon. Bring it to the threshing machine which went from farm to farm. The liberation that fossil fuels did bring to farmers and their children, it’s over an order of magnitude. Some social cost of carbon.

      • Ragnaar,

        Your comment is not about SCC, it’s about how to apportion blame. That’s a different topic altogether.

      • Ragnaar,

        Sorry for my previous comment. I misunderstood who you were responding to and what point you were making. I now think you were responding to Jim D and explaining (correctly) that SCC is an estimate of the net overall costs and benefits of GHG emissions (which are global). It is not about how to apportion benefits and damages.

      • Peter, were the SSC negative, does that mean the government must pay hydrocarbon producers? Or coal fired power plants? :)

      • Jim 2,

        If the net benefits of GHG emissions were demonstrated to be positive (with all consequences properly taken into account), there would be a valid justification for policies to encourage GHG emissions, or at least to remove all disincentives. This is stated in various reports. One recent one was the critique of the EPA’s estimate of SCC and the comparison of the results from various IAMs.

      • Jim D’s assertions:

        1. “ There is no such thing as a negative social cost unless you can confiscate profits from agriculture to put into building sea walls, which I don’t think can happen.” WRONG!

        2. “ What I mean is that the benefits won’t show up but the costs will, and there are costs.” WRONG!

        3. “ The benefits don’t keep up with the costs” WRONG (if SCC is negative benefits exceed costs).

        4. “ Furthermore the people getting the benefits may not be the same ones incurring the costs” . IRRELEVANT to the point under discussion. Furthermore this applies to all policies. All policies have winners and losers. Policy is implemented if it is expected to be net beneficial and more beneficial than if the fuds were allocated to alternative priorities that could be implemented instead– such as for health education, infrastructure, etc.)

        5. “ A negative SCC doesn’t mean no harm. You have to think more broadly than that one number.” You’ve changed the subject again! If your comment is true the reverse is also true – i.e. a positive SCC doesn’t mean harm.

        6. “The meaning of this is, as I said, the cost is there whether someone gets a benefit or not. The social cost has to be paid. The social benefit does not help with payment unless it goes to the government somehow. “Negative cost” implies an automatic offset of cost that does not exist.” I responded to this previously; this is irrelevant to the subject of this sub thread. Your argument applies to all policies. All policies have winners and losers. Policy makers have to decide if the expected overall benefits is likely to exceed the expected overall costs. Positive SCC says damages from GHG emissions are expected to exceed benefits. Negative SCC says benefits are likely to exceed costs. SCC does not address the distribution of costs and benefits and how to compensate losers and penalise winners. Other policies are implemented address these issues when deemed necessary. To finish, compenation for winners and losers ofmitigation policies is not something SCC addresses and is not the topic of this sub-thread. You made an incorrect statement and have not acknowledged that, instead you diverted the discussion.

      • Peter Lang:

        Yes I was responding to Jim D.

        “It is not about how to apportion benefits and damages.”

        I was arguing against doing that to Midwestern farmers. If climate change benefits them I don’t like the idea of taking their money.

        While they have contributed to climate change, busting up the carbon rich prairies and keeping them that way, they did that many years ago and the sinks probably absorbed a lot of that carbon many decades ago.

      • Jim D:
        “The meaning of this is, as I said, the cost is there whether someone gets a benefit or not. The social cost has to be paid. The social benefit does not help with payment unless it goes to the government somehow. “Negative cost” implies an automatic offset of cost that does not exist.”

        Here would be a cost: Running the A/C more often because of global warming in the South.
        Here would be a benefit: Running the Furnace less often in International Falls because of global warming.
        Here would be a cost: People move from Texas as it’s too hot lowering real estate prices.
        Here would be a benefit: People move to Iowa as it’s not so hot, raising real estate prices.

        If people move, there can be a price signal for them to do so. Do we take away the price signal and instead give them money to be miserable in Texas? That’s what costs are, they tell you to do stuff. Does your house in Bangladesh keep floating into the ocean? Move.

        Here is a negative cost: The change in GMST that occurred during the last 20,000 years. A cost would be descent into another glacial period. Even the negative cost here had some losers. The oceans advanced, taking some productive land out of service. Let’s say it was CO2 that brought us this current warmth of the last 10,000 years. A negative cost of carbon. People did move North about maybe 13,000 years ago to all this empty land that used to be cold. That was not a cost but a benefit. They could hunt buffalo and have lots of land. Should someone have paid them to stay in the South? I’d have paid them to leave. Get out of here. We got too many people already.

      • Well said. Just about anyone should be able to understand that.

      • Ragnaar, even your simple scenario of people abandoning cheapening houses in the south (or on coasts) for more expensive houses in the north (or inland) looks like a net loss.

    • P. L.
      You might be right or wrong about the SCC attack on things like CPP. There are many other legal issues, and I find most published analysis woefully legally deficient. What I can say is that appointing Oklahoma AG Pruitt to head EPA is brilliant. Pruitt led the anti CPP charge, somis legally best positioned to know how to proceed.

      • Thanks Rud

      • Rud,

        You might be right or wrong about the SCC attack on things like CPP. There are many other legal issues, and I find most published analysis woefully legally deficient.

        I am not competent to discuss the legal issues. However, it seems to me, if the estimates of SCC are redone using impartially derived input parameters derived from valid evidence, then the current estimates of SCC may not stand up. It may well be that SCC should be set at zero as stated here: http://reason.org/files/social_costs_of_regulating_carbon.pdf

        That is why I hope someone who can run FUND may do as I suggested above. If it can be shown, using justifiable evidence that SCC is zero or small, then the whole case for CAGW, IPCC, UNFCCC and for government intervention in climate disappears.

        I suggest, the reappraisal of SCC is a really important issue that needs to be tackled urgently – i.e. re-estimate SCC using properly justified input parameters based on valid evidence.

      • Given that SCC requires 300 year projections of climate change, the physical impacts, economic development and the damage thereto, plus technological development, I see no way to make valid estimates. The idea is fundamentally absurd. Malthus personified.

      • David,

        While your statement may be correct, it needs to be demonstrated and widely accepted by the climatariate and policy makers. No one has achieved this yet. Therefore, the alternative I am suggesting is to show what SCC calculates to if you use the inputs as explained in points 1 to 4 in my comment that started this thread. Changing the discount rate alone is sufficient to make SCC calculate to negative. Changing ECS from 3C to 1.65C I suspect would make SCC calculate to negative. Getting justifiable parameters to describe the damage function may make SCC calculate to negative – see: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826495

    • Correction: “1. ECS = 1.65 (after Lewis and Curry, 2015).

      Also see comparison of 15 recent ECS estimates in Figure 1 here: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa801.pdf

  20. Biggest glacier melting in East Antarctica. We delt with that canard in a previous guest post here on the Totten research. Repetiton of media lies still does not make them true. To find my guest post, search Judy’s ‘Search’ for totten. Easy peasy.

    • Rud,

      Please assist. “We delt with that canard in a previous guest post”. Is your view subject to modification depending on more recent input?

      This work postdates the above reference by some 7 months: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/12/e1601610.full

      Does it in any way change anything? I become more skeptical, while bowing to your greater experience, when new science is applied in backdated fashion.

      Steigs level of ‘uncertainty’ as NASA scientist in study of Antarctica gives credibility, but he implies a ‘past performance does not guarantee future results’ approach. Not all alarmists conduct in this fashion. We should take heart in this approach.

      Not alarmed, but this is science building on science. Your input is valued.

      • Just got back. No, the new paper changes nothing. About 2014 JPL made the same claim for Thwaites glacier in the Amundson embayment (warm seawater undercut). Turns out itnwas mostly a model, and IF correct the time frame to instability was >800 year. Main point on Totten was the time frames were 2000 and 3000 years respectively. Very slow processes with much uncertainty.

  21. There’s an awful lot of rubbish that gets published and doesn’t deserve to be classed as science.

  22. “Positive Trend in the Antarctic Sea Ice Cover and Associated Changes in Surface Temperature ”
    No evidence that year to year changes in minimum sea ice extent (sep in arctic and feb in antarctic) are related to surface temperature
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2869646

  23. “From Morocco to Libya, the desert oases of the Saharan are disappearing as temperatures rise”
    maybe
    but no evidence that cutting fossil fuel emissions will help
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2845972
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2862438

    • Neither evidence that it is not due to the increase in population and water use.

      In Saudi Arabia they started to use their subterranean fossil water from the last Green Sahara period (precession cycle between 12,000-6,000 years ago) to water wheat crops in the desert. They had to stop because it was an horrendous waste of a precious resource. They are still thousands of years from their next monsoon.

  24. “Watts and Eschenbach presentation at AGU”

    It could well be a warm AMO driven increase in water vapour, which would say nothing about climate sensitivity to rising CO2.

    • It could well be a warm AMO driven increase in water vapour, which would say nothing about climate sensitivity to rising CO2.

      And this is exactly what it appears to be.

  25. Shrinking mountain glaciers are ‘categorical evidence’ of climate change [link]

    I’ve been saying this all along. Glaciers are very sensitive to the effect of CO2 because of very dry air above them. The retreat of world glaciers is unprecedented in 5,000 years and it is proof that CO2 does cause warming. But how much?

    Because glaciers (and this article) clearly demonstrate that there is a natural warming taking place that predates and continues along CO2 warming. And natural warming could easily be as strong or stronger than CO2 induced warming, as the similarity between early 20th century warming and late 20th century warming, suggests, and the pause confirms.

    So yes, glacier melting is proof both of CO2 induced warming and natural warming. How else would you explain this?

    Glacier melting has been taking place very intensively since 1850 (as the article also shows), with little help from CO2 for the fist 100 years.

    “Centennial glacier retreat [is] categorical evidence of regional climate change”, but not of its causes. Both natural and anthropogenic warming have contributed to it.

    • I thought their spaghetti graph was a stronger case for natural variability than AGW, just as you said.

      • I have posted this graph before where I compiled the advance and retreat of glaciers over the last 1000 years from well documented sources

        I have also continued this graphic back some 3000 years. During Roman times the alpine glaciers were smaller than today and in some cases didn’t exist. The Minoan warm period before it was likely even warmer.

        So not sure I agree with the contention that the retreat of glaciers is unprecedented in 5000 years. they have waxed and waned during the holocene and seem to be in one of their frequent periods of retreat since at least 1850 and earlier in some locations

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        I don’t know what your data says, or how inclusive it is, but almost every expert in the field disagrees with you, and after looking at their publications, and being a skeptic by default, I tend to agree with them:

        Relevant bibliography

        1. J. Oerlemans. Holocene glacier fluctuations: is the current rate of retreat exceptional? Annals of Glaciology, Volume 31, Number 1, January 2000, pp. 39-44(6)
        http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2000/00000031/00000001/art00008
        “Integrations for a 10 000 year period, driven by random forcing of a realistic strength, show that the current retreat cannot be explained from natural variability in glacier length and must be due to external forcing.

        2. Johannes Koch, John J Clague and Gerald Osborn: Alpine glaciers and permanent ice and snow patches in western Canada approach their smallest sizes since the mid-Holocene, consistent with global trends. The Holocene 2014 24: 1639
        http://kochj.brandonu.ca/ho_2014.pdf
        “Glacier retreat in western Canada and other regions is exposing subfossil tree stumps, soils and plant detritus that, until recently, were beneath tens to hundreds of metres of ice. In addition, human artefacts and caribou dung are emerging from permanent snow patches many thousands of years after they were entombed. Dating of these materials indicates that many of these glaciers and snow patches are smaller today than at any time in the past several thousand years.”

        “The global scope and magnitude of glacier retreat likely exceed the natural variability of the climate system and cannot be explained by natural forcing alone. This departure is best explained by the ascendancy of another forcing factor – the increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

        3. Goehring, B. M. et al. 2012. Holocene dynamics of the Rhone Glacier, Switzerland, deduced from ice flow models and cosmogenic nuclides. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 351–352, 27–35.
        http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/download/fedora_content/download/ac:152773/CONTENT/j.epsl.2012.07.027.pdf

        “After 5 ka, the Rhone Glacier was larger than today, but smaller than its LIA maximum extent. The present extent of the Rhone Glacier therefore likely represents its smallest since the middle Holocene and potential climate warming will lead to further rapid retreat of the Rhone Glacier.”

        4. B. K. Reichert, L. Bengtsson and J. Oerlemans: Recent Glacier Retreat Exceeds Internal Variability. Journal of Climate 15 (2002) 3069.
        http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/courses/EVAT795/Reichertal-JClim02.pdf

        “Preindustrial fluctuations of the glaciers as far as observed or reconstructed, including their advance during the Little Ice Age, can be explained by internal variability in the climate system as represented by a GCM. However, fluctuations comparable to the present-day glacier retreat exceed any variation simulated by the GCM control experiments and must be caused by external forcing, with anthropogenic forcing being a likely candidate.”

        5. O. Solomina, W. Haeberli, C. Kull, G. Wiles Historical and Holocene glacier–climate variations: General concepts and overview. Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 1–9

        “The finding of the Oetztal ice man in the uppermost part of a small glacier in the Austrian Alps clearly illustrates that Alpine glacier volumes (not lengths!) have become smaller now than during at least the past about 5000 years.”

        6. Bakke, J., Lie, Ø., Dahl, S.O., Nesje, A., Bjune, A.E., 2008. Strength and spatial patterns of the Holocene wintertime westerlies in the NE Atlantic region. Global and Planetary Change 60, 28–41
        http://folk.uio.no/joh/GEO4011/Bakke_07GPC.pdf

        “The retreat of maritime glaciers along western Scandinavia over the last century is unprecedented in the entire Neoglacial period spanning the last 5200 yrs.”

        I don’t believe globally glaciers were more retracted than now during the Medieval, Roman, or Minoan warm periods.

      • Javier

        My references were taken from a variety of sources including Pfister and primarily le Roy ladurie. He examined thousands of records ranging from church records to municipal ones to those of landowners as well as travellers. these were encapsulated in his book ‘times of feast times of famine.

        These references are far more numerous than the few you have quoted but I will read them if they are not pay walled. There are also excellent works that I personally reviewed in the met office library and archives. These include lithographs and the actual statements by such as peasant farmers who were asking for relief from taxes as their farms were overwhelmed by ice and interesting accounts as to how years later the farms became useable gain

        Did you ever read the account of the ‘green glaciers’ covering the roman period in the alps. The Romans mined such metals as silver and these mines are only just being uncovered.

        Tonyb

      • “During the 19th century a majority of Alpine glaciers – including the Lower Grindelwald Glacier and the Mer de Glace – have been affected by impressive glacier advances. The first maximum extent around 1820 has been documented by drawings from the artist Samuel Birmann, and the second maximum extent around 1855 is shown by photographs of the Bisson Brothers. These pictorial sources are among the best documents of the two glaciers for the 19th century.”

        There’s plenty of other info around. Glaciers advance, glaciers retreat. Every time someone someone announces retreating ice is revealing buildings, people, or animals, they forget that those things were once ice free. So ice free, then ice covered, then ice free . . .

        I wouldn’t mind a reasonable explanation for the sudden apparent snap freezing of many woolly mammoths here and there. They seemed to be extremely well adapted to cold conditions. However –

        “The animal still had grass between its teeth and on the tongue, showing that it had died suddenly.”

        Recovered frozen in permafrost. If this is true, it’s interesting.

        Cheers

      • Tony,

        If you limit yourself to Europe you can only get a regional answer, not a global one. For example during the Spörer minimum glaciers did not grow much in Europe despite intense cold because of low precipitations, while they grew elsewhere.

        And if you limit yourself to historical accounts that are mostly of a qualitative nature, then quantification becomes problematic.

        I can provide by email my bibliography on glacier paleoclimatology, about 20 articles, if you want them and still use your freeserve account. I can also provide a reasonable amount of articles on the subject that you are interested but cannot get for free.

      • Mike,

        “Glaciers advance, glaciers retreat. Every time someone someone announces retreating ice is revealing buildings, people, or animals, they forget that those things were once ice free. So ice free, then ice covered, then ice free . . .”

        Organic remains that are uncovered by melting, and thaw, do not survive for very long, and very specially those coming from small permanent ice patches. A few seasons at most and they are gone.

      • Javier

        Yes please to your information.

        The freeserve account is still in use

        Tonyb

      • Glaciers are still larger today than they were during the most of the Holocene.

      • Edimbukvarevic

        As far as I can see from the thousands of references I have looked at, glaciers advance and retreat with some regularity. Obviously these are not of equal duration. The lia seemed to be a period when they were at their biggest this side of the Holocene. They are currently declining from that high point.Their current length does not appear to be out of the ordinary

        Considerable melting also took place during the MWP , the roman period and the bronze age. Actual visual records and evidential remains seem to decline considerably prior to this period and there is considerable reliance On models using novel proxies which is why I have not researched that period.

        There has undoubtedly been a general melting during the past 150 plus years, with sporadic melting for 100 Years prior to that. High sea water stands around 1600, 1200 and 400 AD also seem to support the melting that took place amongst the colder periods.

        I am reading javiers references, unfortunately the first one is pay walled, the second does not lead anywhere and the third is highly ambiguous and seems to rely heavily on Chinese data WherEas I was referring primarily to alpine and European glaciers which tends to be quite observation rich.

        It’s an interesting topic which merits an article here at CE as so many other climate related matters centre on it such as likely temperaturEs, insolation and sea levels.

        Tonyb

      • Edimbukvarevic,

        “Glaciers are still larger today than they were during the most of the Holocene.”

        That most of the Holocene includes the Holocene Climatic Optimum. On average, glaciers haven’t been this small for the last 5000 years.

  26. I laid out the solar parameters. The sun has not met those parameters with the exception of years 2008-2010 and now it looks like it is happening again.

    Lag times and sustain very low solar conditions are needed to have a significant impact on the climate, as well as those very low solar parameters following years of sub solar activity in general which we have had since year 2005.

    This time around if solar parameters reach the criteria I have come up with and sustain at those levels I expect it will have an impact on the climate.

    Even now global temperatures are only about +.2 c above normal. This is over the last week or so. I know ENSO is having a big role which of course proves my point that it is not AGW.

    As far as solar I think it is more the secondary solar factors which I think will drive terrestrial items (moderated by the geomagnetic field ) that govern the climate toward modes which will cause the albedo of the earth to increase slightly which is all that is needed.

    In addition very low solar should cool the oceans.

    Solar being pretty low right now and yet the expected solar minimum this cycle is not expected until year 2019, so we are very low taking that into consideration.

    I have mentioned the terrestrial factors many times

    They are global cloud coverage, global snow coverage, volcanic activity , surface ocean temperatures, global sea ice, atmospheric and oceanic current changes etc.

    • “Perhaps most surprising is that, in the formative years of atomic science in the early 20th century, some scientists reported inexplicable experimental evidence of elemental transmutations. In the 1910s and 1920s, this research was reported in popular newspapers and magazines, and papers were published in the top scientific journals of the day, including Physical Review, Science and Nature. The experiments, using relatively simple, low-energy benchtop apparatus, did not use radioactive sources so the results defied prevailing theory. Several researchers independently detected the production of the gases helium-4, neon, argon, and an as-yet-unidentified element of mass-3, which we now identify as tritium. Two of these researchers were Nobel laureates.”

      • Curious George

        “localized conversion of gamma radiation to infrared radiation.” It sounds too good to be true.

    • Jim 2, one of the more interesting examples in The Arts of Truth is LENR. Another is Rossi’s E-CAT scam. There is much experimental support for Widom-Larsen LENR bia weak force interactions. The question is whether the net energy production will be sufficient to be useful. So far that is in doubt. Brillouin Energy is trying, but not much success yet.

    • Our dear Scientific American banned equations years ago. Now it apparently banned references as well.

      • CG, there are lots of Lenr reference footnotes in The Arts of Truth. The SciAm opinion writer has made a cottage industry out of tracking LENR and debunking Rossi (ECAT was cold fusion scam not LENR). Kravitz blog does not link to some of the best most trustworthy stuff. For example, the Microscope palladium splash image in SciAm evidencing local very high LENR temps is from a series of paper by a research group at Navy SPAWR in San Diego. Other recent good stuff includes the many Mitsubishi transmutation experiments reported at a two day LENR colloquium at CERN, and a NASA research effort to confirm Widom-Larsen using laser generated surface plasmons on a MEMS device.

  27. Glacier melting and glacial flow is different things and not connected.
    Glacial flow has more to do with precipitation, and you need a reference years back to deduct anything.

    Methane has gained a lot of attention lately. Is that because CO2 has been used too much, so that new scaries are needed. Even the GW has lost ground, because the temperature has not changed so much as predicted.

    • because the temperature has not changed so much as predicted.

      Yes it has. In 2015-2016. We will have to wait 3-4 years to really know where temperatures stand, as they are so affected by El Niño and La Niña. But this last Niño has been very opportune to those at the catastrophic warming side of the debate. It has bought them several years and the possibility that another step in temperatures takes place after ENSO settles.

      • Yes it has. In 2015-2016. We will have to wait 3-4 years to really know where temperatures stand,

        If you’re relying on the results of a few years, you’re already doing it wrong. Look at the 30-year trendlines. For GISS, that’s 0.18 +/- 0.05 C/decade.

      • “If you’re relying on the results of a few years, you’re already doing it wrong.”

        You mean if I do like GISS and NOAA that rely on last 12 month data for their fearmongering when there is an El Niño?

        But you are wrong. If people had to wait 30 years to detect a change of trend it would not be possible to invest in the stock market. Changes of trend are detected just fine with a suitably long moving average.

  28. Southern ocean warming. Read it, but dont get it yet could not spot an obvious flaw. Oceans are warmed by incoming solar, and cooled by evaporation and IR emission. They are not warmed by GHE IR ‘backradiation’. If Southern hemisphere ocean is warming but not northern hemisphere, then either warming or cooling must be different on a hemisphere scale. Now Webster et. al. showed a couple of years ago that albedo is remarkably similar in both hemispheres. This can also be observed at TOA for reflected solar. So it logically cannot be solar warming, leaving cooling. But over ocean near surface humidity observationally follows Clausius Capyron in both hemispheres, suggesting it isn’t evaporation. But TOA observation of outbound IR shows no hemisphere differences. Something does not add up.

    • Changes of albedo are mostly caused by clouds. Daytime clouds cause cooling, nighttime clouds cause warming. One number for albedo is meaningless.

    • Oceans are warmed by incoming solar, and cooled by evaporation and IR emission. They are not warmed by GHE IR ‘backradiation’

      The oceans are cooled by IR emission, not warmed by IR back-radiation? O.o

      Greenhouse gases slow the rate of IR cooling.

      • Yes, in the atmosphere but not in the oceans.

      • Not in the atmosphere, at the surface, ocean surfaces too.

      • Jim D, you need to learn more IR physics. No wonder so confused.

      • Benjamin Winchester,

        Only by the miracle of Warmism is cooling transmogrified into heating.

        As in “Hottest year EVAH!”.

        “Most slowly cooling year EVAH!” doesn’t have quite the same ring, does it?

        Objects heat in sunlight, cool in its absence. It’s as clear as night and day to most people.

        Cheers.

      • ristvan, the net radiation affects the surface temperature. Clearer skies mean more cooling. More cloud or GHGs mean less cooling. This is all IR. This is why the cooling rate of the ocean depends on the GHG levels in the atmosphere. It warms by day, cools by night. The temperature is the balance which clearly depends on the amount of greenhouse effect. Which part do you disagree with?

      • Yes, in the atmosphere but not in the oceans.

        Y’know, heat has this way of diffusing around.. And it turns out that the oceans abut the atmosphere. They’re right next to each other. So for the oceans to cool via IR, they have to cool through the atmosphere.

      • Benjamin Winchester,

        IR from the Sun reaches the surface directly. IR casts shadows, just like visible light.

        IR photos of the surface are regularly taken by satellites. The atmosphere absorbs little IR.

        All this ERL or TOA nonsense is just climatological folderol, to a greater or lesser degree.

        No GHE involving CO2. Just normal physics.

        Cheers.

      • MF, the earth and atmosphere emit significant amounts of IR too. At the surface, several hundred W/m2 of IR comes from emission by the atmosphere day and night, in fact.

      • IR photos of the surface are regularly taken by satellites. The atmosphere absorbs little IR.

        It depends on the wavelength of the IR, of course. In some bands, the optical depth is quite low, with most light being absorbed within meters. Others, not so much.

      • Benjamin Winchester,

        Maybe you could specify the wavelengths of light to which you refer. Also providing a percentage of the total energy they transmit would help.

        But of course, Warmists have problems with numbers. Sort of joking, of course.

        Anyway, specific endpoints for your specified IR band, roll-off slope, and percentage of total power received via, say, insolation normal to the Sun, at the equator.

        Or any other location, as you wish. You would need to specify how the total insolation energy was measured, what the frequency limits were, and so on.

        If your final calculation shows a proportion significantly different from the scientific measurement known as “bugger all”, you might care to check your calculations.

        It doesn’t really matter. There is still no GHE. An object on the surface heats during the day, and cools at night. It’s generally colder in the winter, and warmer in the summer.

        Cheers.

  29. “Indian Ocean might also be part of the story in the recent global warming
    hiatus”

    The abstract has this line: “pronounced global warming hiatus in the first decade of the 21st century”

    Appears to be written by a NOAA guy.
    So I guess there was, or is, a “hiatus'”?
    Sounds pronounced..

    I guess when Trump’s minions erase the evidence we’ll be able to go back to the unabated warming narrative.

  30. “The projections of the ratio are somewhat higher than the empirical projection from observations, continuing a positively biased trend in daily record high temperatures in the 20th century in the models, which we link to less-than-observed summer precipitation and evapotranspiration. “

  31. Really enjoy seeing the spot-on thoughts of Hottest Arctic Hype. I’m still wondering daily if we are being fed fake news after fake news.

    • Yeah, better to look at longer-term trends in temperatures and ice extent. A year here or there doesn’t matter much.

      I’m not crazy about the Hottest Arctic Hype analysis, though. He compares the yearly UAH with the monthly running HadCRUT data, which means we can’t really visually tell if the HadCRUT data is hot, either.

      Plus, HadCRUT interpolates a lot more data than UAH. Surface stations are sparse in the Arctic.

      Nor is N. Hemisphere snow extent relevant for what the Arctic is doing. The Arctic can be warmer than average while southern Canada and northern US is cooler than average. But they’re all in the N. Hemisphere.

  32. I wonder if NOAA will continue putting out this junk under the new admin?
    http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/scientists-strong-evidence-human-caused-climate-change-intensified-2015-heat-waves

    Who funds this pseudoscience?

  33. A long list of the type of paid for news releases one expects from any industry, in this case, the globalclimatewarmingchange industry.

    I have a message for those who have been feeding at the CAGW trough for years, from Donald Trump.

  34. There is a new MIT study some of you may find interesting. It is “Utility of the Future.” From the Executive Summary “The MIT Energy Initiative’s Utility of the Future study presents a framework for proactive regulatory, policy, and
    market reforms designed to enable the efficient evolution of power systems over the next decade and beyond.” The link is http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Utility-of-the-Future-Executive-Summary.pdf

  35. re: Impact of #climatechange on agriculture may be underestimated [link]

    “The study found that, if the patterns from 2002 to 2008 hold in the future, an increase in average temperature in Mato Grosso of just 1 degree Celsius will lead to a nine to 13 percent reduction in overall production of soy and corn. ”

    These nice folks looked at satellite images to do their study….

    Actual production figures for soy in Brazil:
    2000 2005 2007/08
    32.82 51.18 60.1 million metric tons

    For corn:
    2000 2005 2006
    32.32 35.13 41 million metric tons

    The study says “We model the change in agricultural output associated with the response of crop yield, crop frequency and crop area to year-to-year climate variability in Mato Grosso (MT), Brazil, a key agricultural region.”

    Year-to-Year climate variability? You mean, the weather?

    It is no surprise that the weather greatly affects agricultural crops — today, tomorrow, a thousand years ago…..

  36. Pingback: Roundup Dec 19 | Catallaxy Files

  37. Running The Data On PolitiFact Shows Bias Against Conservatives

    Mitt Romney did not seem to be a particularly egregious liar, nor does Hillary Clinton seem the single most honest politician to run for president in the last 10 years. Yet PolitiFact says it’s true.

    During the 2012 election season, PolitiFact assigned Mitt Romney 19 “Pants on Fire” ratings. For comparison, for every single Democrat combined from 2007-2016 the “Pants on Fire” rating was only assigned 25 times.

    This seems to indicate Romney wasn’t just a liar, but an insane, raving liar, spewing malicious deceit at every possible opportunity. In the mere two years he was in the spotlight as a Republican presidential nominee, Romney somehow managed to rival the falsehoods told by the entire party of Democrats over the course of a decade. Or it is possible that PolitiFact has a slant in their coverage.

    […]

    If we decide we’re okay using PolitiFact’s aggregate fact-checking to declare Republicans to be most dishonest than Democrats, we have also committed ourselves to a metric in which Hillary Clinton is more honest than Barack Obama.

    I could go on, but read the article. It actually applies metric to something intuitively obvious to any objective reader with much exposure to the site.

    • Do I read this correctly? Word count = ‘truthiness’? Low counts = more likely to be true, high count more likely to be bending to imply ‘pants on fire? ” If we look at how many words it takes to evaluate a “Mostly False” position, we find that every speaker who has an above-average word count is a Republican.”

      Then: “But we see something else interesting here: Donald Trump and Mike Pence, two of the most frequently fact-checked Republicans in the last year, buck this trend substantially. In fact, they buck this trend across all truth categories. We thought this was something worth investigating. In the next piece, we’ll look at the curious case of Donald Trump and PolitiFact.” Which implies DT & MP are less ‘truthy’ but will be treated as ‘special cases’ (just tossing it out here as a guess that it will be evidence counter to the ‘word count metric’).

      Maybe I used too many words in this comment.

      • Curious George

        Word count as truthiness. Ingenious. Makes sense. You can pack only that many lies in a limited number of words. (Of course, the underlying idea is that everybody always lies. Read Goebbels or listen to RT.)

      • Curious,

        “You can pack only that many lies in a limited number of words.” That’s why Twitter was born! :)

        Which ‘RT’?
        Thanks,

      • Thanks CG, assumed that but …….well…….you know.

    • Do I read this correctly? Word count = ‘truthiness’? Low counts = more likely to be true, high count more likely to be bending to imply ‘pants on fire? ”

      NO.

      Read harder.

      • AK,

        Read it as ‘hard’ as I did first time: “The most interesting metric we found when examining PolitiFact articles was word count. We found that word count indicates how much explaining a given article has to do in order to justify its rating.”

        Word count=’truthiness’. Pretty darn clear.

        For the second part: “We found this pretty consistently. If you look at the shortest 10 percent of all fact-checks, two thirds of them are rated as “True” or “Mostly True.” Conversely, of the longest 10 percent of fact checks two-thirds are rated “Half True” or “Mostly False,” ratings we typically found to be fairly subjective.”

        My synopsis: “Low counts = more likely to be true, high count more likely to be bending to imply ‘pants on fire? ””

        Howaboutthat!

      • If you have something you’d like to state, state it. If not, I rest my case.

  38. OT, but interesting political fact. California alone gave Billary the popular vote. Trump won the popular vote everywhere else. This election has affirmed my faith in the Electoral College.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-hillary-clinton-supporters-need-to-quit-whining-about-the-electoral-college-2016-11-30

    • A little imprecise.Hillary did win popular vote in 20 states and DC. Trump won popular vote in the rest of the country. However, should California secede (as many are considering, in a nice display of bipartisanship and a division healing), Trump would have won the popular vote.

      Remember, he is Donald J Trump, not Robin Hood.

      • Curious George

        The article was a little ambiguous. Did Hillary actually win 20 states each with a popular vote and the electoral college votes that go with them?

        As the article says, if the system had been different the parties would have fought this in a different manner.

        Have the ‘absentee votes’ been counted yet as collectively I understand they tend to favour republicans. Also, has it been sorted out if many ‘illegals’ voted in sanctuary cities?

        Tonyb

      • The article meant if you exclude California, Trump won the popular vote total in the remaining States and DC.

        Due to the fact that Dimowits fight tooth and nail any attempt to ensure only citizens can vote, we will never know how many illegals voted.

        Hillary is almost 3 million votes ahead of Trump if you include California.

        One interesting outcome of Steins attempted recount in Michigan is it came to light in Detroit that in very many voting districts more ballots were in the ballot box than voters registered in the district.

        I hope the Redimowits can make progress to ensure only citizens can vote, the vote can’t be hacked, and each citizen can vote once and only once – also no dead people can vote :)

      • Tony, in many states if the votes remaining to be counted (provisionals, absentees) are less than the margin of victory in those counted, the count stops since it cannot change the outcome. In close states obviously everything gets counted.
        It is clear there was voter fraud in Detroit (precincts had more votesnthan registered voters. How many might have voted illegally in California is hard to know. You can register there over the internet in two minutes. You don’t have to provide photoID like drivers license at the polling place. I looked up their standards for registering and voting and they are very lax. In Florida you have to provide proof of citizenship (e.g. Passport) and residency (e.g. Driver license) in order to register, and that must be done in person. Then to vote you have to provide photo ID (e.g. Driver license) and be checked off the computerized register to get a ballot. Makes it very difficult to vote illegally and impossible to vote twice as apparently happened in Detroit.

      • Rud & Tony,

        Actually, it’s not clear that it was voter fraud.

        “Whether the result of machine malfunction, human error or even fraud, the unexplained voting discrepancies in Detroit last month were not sizable enough to affect the outcome in Michigan of the presidential election, according to a new Free Press analysis of voting precinct records.”

        “Most of those overages were by small amounts — on average about 3 votes — with the largest being 12 votes in a single precinct. Those small numbers, which add up to 782 total spread out across more than 200 precincts, tend to point to human or machine malfunction as the culprit, rather than widespread fraud.”

        “In 158 precincts, the number of ballots tabulated by the optical-scanning voting machines was inexplicably less than the number of people who signed in to vote. At least 362 ballots were not counted in those precincts, even though the voters had been listed in poll books.”

        “Machine malfunctions also may have played a role; on Election Day, more than 80 optical vote scanners broke down in Detroit.”

        It’s possible, but by no means ‘clear’.

        http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2016/12/18/detroit-ballots-vote-recount-election-stein/95570866/

        State issued ID’s have a magnetic band embedded. Providing them at no cost to registered voters would be an easy fix, address handwriting issues since they could be scanned like credit cards, and reduced the likelyhood of individual voter fraud. Still won’t address vote buying, nor official misconduct a much more likely method to have an actual impact.

      • Curious George

        Tony, DJT himself stated that his campaign concentrated on winning the presidency, not the popular vote. Reasonable.

      • Jim2,

        Lefty BS by me? I quoted the article and linked. 80 machines crashed on election day. The attribution IN THE ARTICLE was ‘more likely’ machine malfunction due to the tenancies. Since it’s counter to your preferred narrative that must make it more ‘lefty BS by me’, huh?

        You’re so transparent.

      • Lefty BS, irregardless of genesis, is still lefty BS.

      • Arm wave it away, Jim, since you quite obviously and as usual have zero evidence to refute the article. It’s so easy to recognize the discussion and the results don’t fit your preferred narrative so you have to label it (and me) in derogatory fashion and feel like you walked away a winner. Good on ya mate.

      • Actually; I, Trump, and the American people walked away winners. And, yes, I’m lovin’ it.

      • And I could with as much support and substantiation call you a fraud right now. But that’s not the most appropriate approach. Will wait for evidence.

      • Jim2

        Actually; I, Trump, and the American people walked away winners. And, yes, I’m lovin’ it.

        I hope you are right. I am hopeful, but cautious. Harrywr2 made an excellent comment up thread stating he has 2 years to develop a good working coalition with Senate and House of Reps, or he will fail like Obama failed. I hope he can succeed. If he does, the whole world will benefit, not just USA and its citizens. This could be the catalyst to restart the high economic growth rates that prevailed before 1970. The benefits could be enormous; human well-being globally would improve more rapidly.

      • P.L. You may have not been keeping up with Trump of late, but he is reaching out to many different people, including the tech billionaires who spent millions to get Billary elected and said a lot of nasty things about him. He has gone on a “thank-you” tour of the states that helped put him over the top. He has reached out to his Redimowit rivals and has talked a few companies into keeping some jobs here in the US.

        As I said at one time before the election, as concerns a given problem he will get the various stake holders together and negotiate. That’s how he rolls.

        I’ve been very encouraged the way he is conducting himself and I still like he is a fighter who doesn’t lay down at the first sign of adversity. We need a strong leader, and I believe he is one.

        Time will tell, but obviously, I’m optimistic.

      • Jim2,

        As you say. Time will tell.

      • We have this recent article that says voter fraud has been insignificant in this election.

      • Given the sloppy methodology some states use, anyone who claims to know how much fraud there is is lying.

      • Or the result doesn’t fit a narrative.

      • This is probably another case where the right have tried a study, but not found any different from the mainstream, so they just stay silent.

      • “…also no dead people can vote ”

        Sheesh! You right-wing nut-jobs just don’t know when to stop, do you? First it was complaining about genderless toilets to appease <3% of the population, then it was complaining about illegal immigrants not having to face the consequences of their own choice to by-pass US law, now you want dead people struck from the voter roll. What's next? Complaints about the up-coming anti-speciest legislation that makes it illegal to compare low-life humans to creatures that cannot defend their own honor? Heathans, the lot o' ya!

      • Re voter fraud. One of those issues I don’t get terribly worked up about. I believe it happens and that if we had a foolproof method of ensuring ballot and voter integrity, the meter would definitely swing in a certain direction, but I also believe that only in the most closely run elections might, again might have an impact. History buffs think Cook County cemeteries contributed to Kennedy winning over Nixon.

        Here is the part I don’t get is the solution is so simple, and I have yet to see a good argument for not requiring voter ID.

      • Tim;

        “Here is the part I don’t get is the solution is so simple, and I have yet to see a good argument for not requiring voter ID.”

        There is no good reason not to require voter ID. Voting is not an unalienable right it is a civil right People are not born with the right to vote – a darn good reason why voters cannot vote away unalienable rights- voting is a legal right and what can be legally granted can be legally taken away. While I don’t favor disenfranchisement, the hard reality is that legal rights are really just privileges. Privileges granted by the state and as such are subject to the regulations and whatever other whimsy and capriciousness the state is inclined to do.

  39. Is it just me or is there an uptick in the number of climate related articles in the Washington Post? There was an interesting one this morning that connects global warming with last year’s extreme weather events. It’s interesting that toward the end of the article the writer admits that the authors of the report say that, “the results of these studies are ‘necessarily probabilistic and not deterministic.'” I wonder how many WaPo readers read the headline AND the disclaimer?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/15/scientists-are-tying-more-and-more-extreme-events-to-a-changing-climate/?utm_term=.31244e794f9c

  40. Danny Thomas,

    Your comments, my responses.

    “Mike,
    Of note in reading your response.
    1.) The paper is nonsense. (Okay)”

    Glad you agree.

    “2.) If fresh water ice is surrounded by anything at all below its freezing point, it won’t melt. (Anything? Really? Might this be a recollection issue? After all, it’s been clearly pointed out that recollection isn’t citation. Please cite evidence that surrounding fresh water ice by ‘anything’ and it won’t melt is in fact accurate.)”

    The freezing point of freshwater is nominally 0 C. As to evidence, any phase diagram for water will provide what you seek. In point of fact, the triple point of water is used as a calibration reference for all those thermometers on which climatologists base their nonsense.

    You’ll find –

    “The triple point of water is one of the most accurately realizable of the defining fixed points. Properly used, the triple point of water temperature can be realized with an accuracy of +0.0 C, -0.00015 C.”

    Just in case you’re after a gotcha, ice will sublime to vapour when surrounded by gas at more than 0 C. That’s not melting.

    “3.) The salt water can remain liquid below 0 C, but the frozen freshwater will just float – frozen. (Unless maybe, just maybe, there’s a physical process causing it to not float. Noticed that since I went to get a beer after the last post when I put an ice cube in it and held it below surface with my finger it stayed there until that physical process was removed. Then it floated. Might be representative of an expressed concern about ice shelf {fresh ones at that} phenomena in Antarctica.)”

    And a bicycle with an extra wheel is a tricycle. What part of my statement are you disagreeing with?

    “4.) bizarre GHE explanation for natural occurrences explained by known physics. (Kinda lost me here. I didn’t speak of GHE, did you? Oh, and what ‘natural occurrences’? Fresh water ice at grounding line melting with surrounding sea water at -0.4? That ‘natural occurrence? The one that’s not happening?)”

    The paper contains references to warming related to emissions into the atmosphere. Usual Warmist diversion – something that necessarily involves the GHE – or some other magical mechanism.

    “5.) Antarctica used to be ice free. (Come on Mike. That old saw? What used to be used to be. Just because it was doesn’t mean it will or won’t be again. Focus, please.)”

    What part of the statement are you disagreeing with? I’ll ignore your demand that I bend to your will. Take as much offence as you wish. I don’t care.

    “6.) why would you think this is a man-made disaster? (Where did I say that?)”

    What part of my question do you not understand? If you don’t believe increased heat of human origin will result in quantifiable harm, just say so – or provide evidence to the contrary if wish.
    “7.) It might be excellent? (What might be excellent? Warming? I’d agree. And I’d note a ‘warmist’ weasel word you used there…….might……..indicates you think ‘it’ might not.)”

    I can’t peer into the future. Neither can foolish Warmists, nor anyone else. I’m happy to assume that Ohm’s law will give the same results as yesterday, and that the triple point of water will remain constant. So far so good!

    The paper is Warmist rubbish. Glaciers advance and recede. Ice shelves form, and disappear. The crust develops wandering hot spots, the reasons for which are not clearly understood. Continents move, and the atmosphere behaves chaotically.

    No demonstrable GHG influence. As a matter of fact, there is no falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. The reason is fairly obvious – there is no GHE. None, not even a tiny little bit. Placing CO2 between a thermometer and a heat source reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer. It cools.

    Deny all you like. It’s true. Calculate using your favourite radiative transfer equation if you like.

    Cheers.

    • Mike,

      1.) No I don’t ‘agree’. Just not worthy of debate.
      2.) How about we surround that ice with let’s say……fire. Fire’s ‘anything’. Since you insisted on an accurate quote from me w/r/t water temps thought pointing that out was only fair. So maybe that was ‘Just in case you’re after a gotcha’. Insisting on specificity should require specificity in return dontcha think?
      3.) “What part of my statement are you disagreeing with?” Just pointing out that you omitted that the ‘grounding line’ to which the work referred was noted to be under water, at depth involving pressure, and surrounded by ‘salt’ water of a stated temperature.
      4.) There was no discussion on my part regarding ‘GHE’. The process of melting the ‘fresh water ice’ at the grounding point with salt water was the discussion. Bringing in extraneous and likely undetermined (GHE caused the melting by implication) points which were not part of my argument is considered a strawman. Shoot them down all you wish, or not.
      5.) Not disagreeing. Just not pertinent. I take as much offence as you do of ‘bending to my will’.
      6.) Understood it all and will ask again: “Where did I say that?” If I didn’t say it then you’re arguing with someone/something else other than I.
      7.) “Glaciers advance and recede. Ice shelves form, and disappear.” Okay. By what mechanisms? Might relatively warm sea water at a grounding line be worthy of consideration as to cause? You may prefer assertion w/o explanation. I prefer explanation. Makes the world go ’round.

      Not sure what you think I’m ‘denying’ and it really matters not. Keep tilting at your favored GHE windmill all you care to. I was and will continue to discuss this grounding line destabilization all that I choose.

      Cheers backatcha!

      • Danny Thomas,

        2. Unfortunately you can’t surround ice with fire, even if you wanted to. But more to the point, if you you can show that your “fire” is below the freezing point of water, I’d be surprise. Maybe it’s magic CO2 fire, below 0 C. Doesn’t matter does it? Water below its freezing point is frozen. Under reasonably normal conditions, say in an Antarctic Ocean, this means it is solid. Ice.

        3. By definition, ice sitting on the crust cannot be surrounded by sea water. Especially the part on the ground. Salt water below 0 C will not melt freshwater ice, unless the magic of Warmist physics is invoked – voodoo science, if you wish.

        “. . .the hypothesis that warm ocean waters can reach the ice shelf cavity and drive basal melt.”

        Hardly grounded ice, is it?

        Volcanos have erupted beneath the ice before, and the resultant warm ocean waters created definitely melt ice, being above freezing point. Ice heated beyond its freezing point (currently 0 C, as far as I know) melts. What’s the point of restating something already known to real scientists, and calling it a hypothesis? Or did they really mean something else, in the best Wriggly Warmist Weasel Words tradition?

        4.Maybe you need to read the paper again.

        “Models suggest a substantial contribution to future sea-level rise from both the Wilkes Subglacial Basin and the Aurora Subglacial Basin in East Antarctica if greenhouse gas emissions remain high.”

        Maybe the authors threw this in quite by accident, and meant to imply nothing at all? Just wasting everyone’s time. No connection between the paper and climatology dependent on the GHE effect at all, you might claim.

        5. I usually decline to take offence. When I do, I’m left with the problem of what to do with it.

        6. I merely asked a question Answering it optional, of course.

        7. I agree. Water above the freezing point of glacial ice, such as is found in volcanically active areas such as Antarctica, causes the ice to melt. The top surface of ice sublimes in sunlight. Physical processes involved are well known amongst real scientists.

        The authors have not shown water above the freezing point of glacial ice to be impacting such ice, and have chosen to overlook any proposed mechanism to explain the presence of such warm water if it actually existed. CO2 magic heat, perhaps?

        Oh well, you can believe any fantasy you like. The GHE, ice sitting on the land melting from nonexistent water beneath it. Mysterious ocean currents of unexplained origin suddenly appearing.

        What’s the point?

        Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis. Pointless rubbish paper. Waste of money, although the taxpayers will probably never find out. Pity.

        Cheers.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Sorry. Obviously missed a closing slash or something.

        Changes nothing. Still no GHE.

        Cheerd.

      • Danny, I don’t think MF has yet understood that the melting point of fresh water is lower than 0 C at higher pressures such as at 2 km below sea-level. We can wait for him to catch up when that penny drops.

      • JimD,
        Yep. I’m gonna go put another ice cube in a freezing cold beer and hold it down and see what happens. Maybe I’ll add some salt. I’ve got a lot to learn not having a science background so research is required. :)

      • Jim D,

        H2O phase diagram indicates no discernible change in freshwater ice melting point at pressures approaching 1 kbar.

        Seems like real science to me. Not a lot of ice at those depths, anyway. I’ll let you calculate the actual depth at that pressure. Not only that, the paper refers to a floating ice shelf. Floating ice has the greater proportion of its bulk below the surface. Work out how high the ice would need to be above the surface, to achieve the depths you claim.

        Complete nonsense Jim D. Like most foolish Warmists, hand waving and unsubstantiated assertions, with nary an actual number in sight. Truthiness and factiness.

        Still no GHE, and the paper is still nonsense.

        Cheers.

      • MF, OK, so you don’t believe it when they talk about grounded ice at 2 km depth. I see.

      • Jim D,

        Straw man – to which I can only respond “Liar, liar, pants on fire!”

        ‘The shipboard bathymetry data reveal a deep trough in front of the western TIS cavity, with a maximum depth of 1097 m and a maximum width of 10 km at a depth of 600 m”

        No glacial ice at that depth, of course. You made that up, did you?

        Just keep making stuff up. Like the GHE. It still won’t make fact out of fantasy!

        Woeful Wayward Warmist Waffling – not a fact to be seen.

        Deny, divert, confuse – well, attempt to, anyway. I win you lose. So sad, too bad. Bye bye for now!

        Cheers.

      • MF, you are just thrashing about now. Did you miss this part of the paper?
        ” If this warm water can access the grounding line at a depth of 2300 m (15), the temperature would exceed the local freezing point at the grounding line by 3.2°C. Velocity measurements collected by a lowered acoustic Doppler current profiler (LADCP) confirm that the warm water at the bottom of stations 35 and 36 flows strongly (>0.2 m s−1) into the sub–ice shelf cavity (Fig. 3B).”

      • They bored holes and found intelligent life!

      • Jim D,

        And if my aunty had testicles, she’d be my uncle.

        If you’re silly enough to believe nonsense, even second hand nonsense, you should clearly reap the appropriate reward. I wish you luck with your efforts to perpetuate the GHE nonsense.

        It’s not science, so it must be climatology.

        Cheers.

      • MF, that paper didn’t work out so well for you, did it?

      • Jim D,

        You wrote –

        “MF, that paper didn’t work out so well for you, did it?”

        Indeed it did. Anyone who was interested has no doubt checked the facts. You might have noticed a dearth of people leaping to support you. The paper proposes an unfalsifiable hypothesis to explain something already well known – ie., ice melts if raised above its melting point. Antarctica is rich in geothermal heat sources, both on land and beneath the ocean. Hence deep ocean currents and so on.

        Hydrothermal vents release unknown quantities of water up to 400 C from the seabed in Antarctic waters. Foolish Warmists seem to be unaware that this water travels upwards, and is quite capable of melting an ice sheet from below.

        However, trying to melt ice with saline solution below the freezing point of ice is doomed to failure. Furious hand waving might generate a little heat, but not enough to melt much ice.

        Nothing to do with CO2. No GHE. Nothing new. Nonsensical waste of time. No matter – I didn’t pay for it, and nobody else cares, do they?

        Maybe you could find a few facts to go along with your fantasies.

        Cheers.

      • MF, every detail you complained about ended up being right and you wrong. I think it was because you didn’t read it carefully at all, or check the background science. This is a common story with “skeptics”. Luckily they have a sense of humor about being wrong all the time.

  41. JCH,

    You wrote –

    “I’m certain that Professor Curry agrees one of her most prolific science commenters, Mike Flynn, is correct that the paper is nonsense because of a fatal error to do with the freezing point of fresh water. Mike Flynn, obviously a genius at the very least, just has to be named President Trump’s science advisor. Peer reviewers missed this error; Mike Flynn did not. He rocks.”

    Thank you so much, for your wonderful, not to say fulsome, encomium.

    I’m a modest chap, and don’t feel the need to claim that I was awarded a Nobel Prize.

    As to peer reviewers missing egregious errors, how many computer generated nonsense papers were accepted by prestigious journals after peer review? If you can be bothered looking, the number might surprise you.

    Narrow it down a bit. How many papers was Nature forced to retract after publication? Peer reviewed, editorially approved, but still so bad they had to be retracted. They were rubbish.

    Just a taste –

    “17 retractions from SAGE journals bring total fake peer review count to 250”

    Thousands of papers retracted in total. The rate is increasing as more papers are exposed to real, rather than just academic, scrutiny. Peer reviewed nonsense is still nonsense.

    No GHE.

    Cheers.

    • Peer review is an imperfect filter. The reviewers determine whether or not a study deserves to be placed in front of the scientists who work in that area, and they weigh it. I doubt there is a better way.

      Your retraction list… you should be retracted. But I still support you to be President Trump’s science advisor.

      • JCH,

        Peer review is often completely pointless, not to say dangerous. It may result in people accepting fantasy as fact, and wasting billions as a result.

        The impossible, invisible, and non-existent GHE is an obvious case in point. Some of its proponents actually discussed changing the nature of peer review to censor opposing views.

        Religion, rather than science.

        Reviewers cannot, and should not, decide which studies deserve to be placed in front of other scientists. Would you really trust a Warmist study reviewed by an undistinguished mathematician posing as a scientist (Gavin Schmidt), someone too thick to know whether they received a Nobel Prize or not (Michael Mann), or a self identified delusion carbophobe (James Hansen)?

        You obviously haven’t found Steven Mosher’s missing clue, and remain clueless.

        As to your proposal that I become President Trump’s science advisor, I’m not sure that he pays much attention to GHE enthusiasts. Thanks for the support anyway.

        Cheers.

      • “Peer review is an imperfect filter. The reviewers determine whether or not a study deserves to be placed in front of the scientists who work in that area, and they weigh it.”

        Just never mind the Sokal Affair. Never mind Hoss Cartwright formerly of the International Journal of Agricultural Innovations and Research or Borat Sagdiyev of the University of Kazakhstan, or Peter Uhnemann of the Journal of Molecular biology. Just never mind SCIgen and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Pay not attention to the man behind the curtain. Pay no attention…

        (A little dog pulls the curtain open)

        “Oh Toto.”

  42. Jimd

    To illustrate that we do not know everything about the earth I present this article featured on our news today

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116536-molten-iron-river-discovered-speeding-beneath-russia-and-canada/

    It concerns a molten river of iron currently moving under Russia

    I am not claiming it has any effect on climate or anything just presenting it as an interesting thing that adds to our limited knowledge of our planet

    Tonyb

  43. As the Obama era fades to black I think a quiz might be in order.
    As of 2016…

    During the Obama administration the EPA budget has:
    A: Expanded by 12 billion
    B: Expanded by 3 billion
    C: Stayed about flat
    D: Shrank by 600 million

    The number of open cases by the EPA is:
    A: About the same.
    B: Up 20%
    C: Up 100%
    D: at a 20 year low.

    The number of employees at the EPA has:
    A: Decreased
    B: Stayed the same
    C: Increased

    Answers @ http://www.commercial-news.com/news/with-fewer-agents-epa-cuts-back-on-cases/article_6651af46-6503-58ec-b94d-1b21b8418371.html

    • Interesting stats Jack. Thanks for that link.

      • Danny

        Ask yourself why the base year was 2010 in the article for comparing the budget. Maybe because in 2008 and 2009 the budget was $8 Billion. In 2010 it increased to $11 Billion and in 2017 it is $8.7 Billion. So, if you want one narrative you choose one year. If you want another narrative you pick another year.

        This is from the Obama budget.

        Budgeteers can cherry pick too. I did it for a couple of decades.

      • Ceresco,

        Thanks for providing perspective. Apologies for delay in response.

        Your thought made me look further. EPA has not grown as much as many entities. It’s a behemoth but not nearly ‘the’ behomoth. The ‘narrative’ IMO speaks for itself.

        Budgets since 1970: https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget
        Spike in 1979 to $5.4B, but didn’t look further.
        Since about 1999-2016 range was +/- $7.5B-$8.5B.If one is looking for a narrative, that might be it.

        Unusual spike to 2010 raising to over $10B which had me questioning. Found this (ending the excerpt at the climate change point with an extremely most involvment): {To summarize. $3.9B for water. $475M for Great Lakes. $19M for climate.}
        “The FY 2010 Budget requests $3.9 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) to fund water infrastructure projects for states, tribes, and territories. This 157% increase will help states and communities meet the challenges of
        updating our nation’s water infrastructure. The Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs provide grants to states to capitalize their own revolving funds, making water infrastructure more efficient and supporting green jobs in the 21st century. Since repayments and interest are recycled back into the program, SRFs generate funding for loans even without Federal capitalization. EPA estimates that for every Federal dollar
        invested, approximately two dollars in financing is provided to municipalities.
        This historic investment will support critical projects that rebuild and enhance America’s aging clean water and drinking water facilities. Combined with $6 billion provided through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act in FY 2009, a total of over $11 billion will be invested through Federal capitalization grants into the Clean Water and
        Drinking Water SRFs over the course of two years. This investment will encourage efficient water delivery and “green infrastructure” projects to further promote clean water. In addition, the Administration will pursue program reforms that will put resources for these program’s ongoing needs on a solid foundation. EPA will continue to work with state and local partners to develop a sustainability policy. This will include
        management and pricing for future infrastructure, encourage conservation of resources, provide adequate long-term funding for future capital needs, and provide equitable consideration of small system customers.
        1
        Overview
        Accelerates Great Lakes Restoration
        The Great Lakes basin, which is home to 34 million people in the U.S. and Canada, holds 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water, has 10,000 miles of coastline, and contains a diverse array of biological communities. The FY 2010 Budget requests $475 million for programs and projects that strategically target the most significant problems
        in the Great Lakes region, such as aquatic invasive species, nonpoint source pollution, toxics and contained sediment, and habitat and species loss. This Initiative represents the Federal government’s commitment to significantly advance Great Lakes protection and restoration. Consequently, the Initiative will use outcome-oriented performance
        goals and measures to target the most significant problems and track progress in addressing them. EPA and its Federal partners will coordinate state, Tribal, local, and industry actions to protect, maintain, and restore the chemical, biological, and physical
        integrity of the Great Lakes.

        Initiates a Comprehensive Approach to Slow Global Warming
        The FY 2010 Budget includes a $19 million increase for EPA to work on a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions inventory and work with industry sectors to report high-quality GHG emissions data. This increase will also be used to develop environmentally sound methodologies needed to implement a possible cap and trade program, which includes offsets, as well as strengthen climate partnership programs. FY 2010 funding supports the Administration’s effort to develop a comprehensive energy and climate change plan to support America’s transition to a clean energy economy, and slow global warming.”

  44. Will the Social Cost of Carbon be transformed into a Social Benefit of Carbon under Trump? [link] …

    I’d ask this question a different way:

    “Would SCC be positive (i.e. net-damaging) or negative (I.e. net-beneficial) if valid, justified inputs and uncertainties were used for the analysis”?

  45. Observed southern upper-ocean warming over 2005–2014 and associated mechanisms (open access) [link] …

    Thank you for the link. I am glad that it was open access and I could read the whole thing.

  46. Climate change is starting to jam the world’s ocean circulation system

    This classic shibboleth of the CAGW cult rests on the fantastic notion that the world’s ocean circulation is primarily driven by the sinking of dense water rather than by global winds. Since that cult lacks properly trained and experienced dynamic oceanographers, the fact that the Gulf Stream and other major currents do NOT depend upon thermohaline effects for their existence remains terra incognita in their myopic world view.

    • Warm water doesn’t sink and fresh water is harder to sink. Both are in more abundance with climate change, and any amount of wind can’t sink them.

      • What a dense comment! There’s precious little effect upon surface currents or global heat transport by dense water gradually sinking. As long as Earth continues to rotate and winds blow, the truly important ocean circulation–which is horizontal, not vertical–will continue to operate just fine.

      • There is a meridional overturning circulation in the Atlantic that many consider important for the Gulf Stream.

      • The notion that the AMOC is dynamically “important for the Gulf Stream” is promulgated by “climate scientists” with scant comprehension of ocean dynamics. Physical oceanographers universally recognize that the major surface currents are wind-driven, quite independent of any ancillary thermohaline effects.

      • If water is not able to sink, the surface layer just stagnates and so do the deep return currents.

      • The notion that without any sinking the wind-driven surface layer stagnates is dynamically delusional. But that’s par for the course in “climate science.”

      • Maybe you also have issues with upwelling cold water being part of a vertical circulation.

      • The only issue I have is your inability to comprehend that ocean surface currents are driven primarily by wind-stress, not by gravity. The vertical circulation is but a weak-sister adjunct to the horizontal.

      • There is no disputing that wind helps drive the currents, but there are large areas of upwelling off the west coasts of continents, and in the Southern Ocean, that contribute, so deep layers take part in a fully three-dimensional circulation.

      • Upwelling, which is likewise wind-driven, is a total red herring in this discussion of the purported “jamming” of major surface currents. Give yourself Christmas present: let go of senseless shibboleths.

  47. Starless and bible black.

    Crickets in the distance.

    The 11th Key Science Moment of 2016

    The last refuge of the scoundrel?

  48. “None of this means that Totten is contributing much to sea-level rise – yet. The large loss of ice from the ice shelf doesn’t raise seas because that ice is already afloat. But the weakening of the ice shelf is troubling because the shelf holds back Totten’s more dangerous ice, and when it goes it will allow that ice to flow more easily into the ocean.”

    Truthiness or factiness?

    The ice shelf is afloat, and yet it is supposedly holding back dangerous ice (presumably as opposed to non dangerous ice), obviously by the miracle of CO2 and the GHE.

    Floating ice holds back nothing. It’s floating – it’s ice that has been pushed into the sea by a glacier. The world’s biggest ship doesn’t hold back a wharf that it’s touching. It’s floating. A light wind can blow it away from the wharf.

    The article also admits that the warm water is actually below freezing, but uses a bit of factiness to overcome this – pointing out that the freezing point of water changes at extreme pressures. Unfortunately, it fails to actually specify how deep water has to be before pressures of 1000 atm. or so, are reached, and by how many hundredths of a Kelvin the freezing point of ice changes.

    Misleading, nonsensical, but about par for some researchers and the MSM.

    Cheers.

  49. Concerning the loss of Antarctic ice due to warmer deep ocean temperatures, my geothermal hypothesis explains the phenomenon quite well. Please see http://www.co2science.org/articles/V19/aug/a7.php

    • Dr. Viterito,

      Thank you for the link. I see you’re a policy advisor.

      May I take the liberty to ask if you’d seen similar policy oriented suggestions in alternative scientific publications as you’ve included in your recent work? Quoting: “To ameliorate the problems of rising global temperatures, legislative and taxing initiatives are currently being proposed and evaluated by governing bodies around the world. Most of these initiatives are designed to curb GHG emissions. However, this study shows that we may want to delay such actions until all of the climate system’s inputs are fully accounted for.”

      If I may be so bold this seems like advocacy and not science. Were one more CO2 climate concerned to add a statement towards policy which suggested reduced emissions was an immediate need would you be supportive of the platform if not the policy?

      To be clear, IMO geothermal activity bears further discovery.

      • Thank you for your thoughtful reply. My intent here was to point out that policies are being formulated without the benefit of knowing all of the inputs to the system. In light of my findings, I do not think this would be a wise course of action. As to your question, the answers is yes, I have seen policy issues discussed in other scientific publications. For example, see the “Policy Implications” section of the article tiled “If Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions Cease, Will CO2 Concentration Continue to increase?” (Journal of Climate, December 2013).
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00751.1

  50. Thoroughly entertained by this quote from Chris Mooney’s article: “Recently I checked in with one of the major skeptics of all of this — National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Kevin Trenberth………..” (Trenberth, a ‘skeptic’……hope he’s treated well)

    From here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/23/the-arctic-is-behaving-so-bizarrely-and-these-scientists-think-they-know-why/?utm_term=.20e92c219e9d

  51. “Waaijers and others are using freedom of information laws to force Dutch universities to make public how much they pay publishers under the licensing agreements. Most of the universities and publishers have released that information, but Springer and Elsevier resisted until a court ordered them to do so. On Monday, in response to a request from an Amsterdam student, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands released data on payments that its 13 members made to publishers between 2011 and 2015. Waaijers wants information on the current contracts as well; he says he has received it from eight Dutch universities so far. A case he has brought against the University of Amsterdam to force it to release the prices of its current agreements is expected to be decided in January 2017.”

    Some scientific publishers seem terrified of transparency, claiming privacy, confidentiality and so, in order to prevent taxpayers realising how much “research” funding goes to support the tens of billions of profit that the publishers take in.

    The winds of change are blowing. Might be a good thing.

    Cheers.

  52. Our own Dr. C.

    “One of the leading questioners is climatologist Judith Curry, who accepts that Earth is warming but isn’t sure of the links between human activity and climate change. She’s incredulous about whether scientists can make any meaningful connections about global warming and weather-driven disasters.

    “It becomes voodoo once you start trying to attribute regional extreme-weather events to climate change,” said Curry, a professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “When it gets down to regional extreme events, like droughts in California or hurricane landfalls in Florida or wildfires in Canada, then it becomes compounded by the fact that you need hundreds of years of data to really make sense of the statistics.””

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-science-20161220-story.html

  53. Something on what Tillerson has and has not done for Exxon’s view on climate change.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rex-tillerson-exxon-mobil-climate_us_585d6ca1e4b0eb5864863a13

  54. “A physicist formerly based at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California has been sentenced to 18 months in prison for faking data.”

    Excellent first step. I wonder if creating new temperature records by adjusting actual records to create something which doesn’t really exist, might be considered faking data?

    Maybe data faking might be broadened to include claiming to be a scientist without justification, claiming to have shared a Nobel Prize if you didn’t, or even claiming that climatology is a science. All could be considered data, which some might foolishly believe, to their detriment.

    Only half joking.

    Cheers.

  55. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/26/warming-by-less-upwelling-of-cold-ocean-water/

    Here’s what I think the idea is. Ocean upwelling cools the surface by placing cooler water at the surface. It then emits less warmth to the atmosphere. Lessen this upwelling and the surface is warmer, emitting more warmth to the atmosphere. Increase this flow, with La Nina conditions and the atmosphere is cooler than it otherwise would be.

    Global ocean temperatures to their full depth would be warmer with increased upwelling as cool water that receives sunlight will keep more of it when compared to warmer surface water. It evaporates less. Ocean temperatures with decreased upwelling would emit more warmth from evaporation so they would be cooler if everything else is equal.

    A La Nina circulation would be vertical from the ocean depths and then horizontal along the equator. It would involve some of the coolest liquid water in the best place to warm it. We know the ocean depths have sustain with their massive thermal reserves.

    The oceans have warmed as has the atmosphere. So I think this line of thought cannot explain why both have occurred at generally the same time. However if upwelling was high, the oceans would warm while slowing GMST rise. There is a saying, The hydrological cycle speeds up with warming. If this is the case, change may be limited or moderated.

    Let’s now apply this to the glacial/interglacial cycle. A descent into a glacial would involve oceans cooling. Less upwelling, more emission to the atmosphere. The system slows. This cools the oceans. The oceans are less efficient at warming themselves. Compare this the efficient warming during a La Nina.

    An ascent to an interglacial involves oceans warming. Upwelling increases efficiency by placing the cool water in the tropics to be warmed. As the oceans cooled during the descent their loss of energy actually increased future efficiency of warming.

    • You have to have a kimikamikaze wind. Basically, in this record only happened:

      • What are you saying, the winds are not be enough?

        http://landscapesandcycles.net/ocean-acidification-natural-cycles—uncertainties.html
        Would you expect the Hadley Cell circulation to become weaker with global warming?
        “The Hadley system provides an example of a thermally direct circulation. The thermodynamic efficiency of the Hadley system, considered as a heat engine, has been relatively constant over the 1979~2010 period, averaging 2.6%. Over the same interval, the power generated by the Hadley regime has risen at an average rate of about 0.54 TW per yr; this reflects an increase in energy input to the system consistent with the observed trend in the tropical sea surface temperatures.”

      • During the period in the graph there have been two “coolings”: ~1943 to ~1951 and ~2006 to 2013. I’m not really a fan of the IPO as is reeks of AMO credence, and it has almost none, but it is close enough to the PDO to work here. In the period ~2006 to 2013 there were anomalously strong winds (see read on bottom graph)… the kimikamikaze… (read history of Japan and the divine winds.) Outside of the kimikamikaze, there is no reason to believe cooling of the earth is possible with ACO2 at the levels it has been since 1952… unless the klimate religious successfully pray for the return of a sustained kimikamikaze.

        Otherwise, we’re warming, and it’s currently nonlinear… exceedingly fast.

        The kimikamikaze is named after kim, the denizen who repetitively assures folks that we’re kooling, only he don’t know when.

        From your reference:

        … Upwelling also varies on millennial scales. During the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and the Current Warm Period, La Nina-like conditions with stronger trade winds dominated (Salvatteci 2014) causing above average upwelling and higher productivity. During cooler periods like the Dark Ages and Little Ice Age, the Pacific was dominated by El Nino-like conditions with less upwelling and lower productivity.

        2015 and 2016 are not warmer because of the El Niño. That is just balderdash.

      • 2015 and 2016 are not warmer because of the El Niño. That is just balderdash.

        Well it’s not from co2 either.

      • JCH:

        “… Upwelling also varies on millennial scales. During the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and the Current Warm Period, La Nina-like conditions with stronger trade winds dominated (Salvatteci 2014) causing above average upwelling and higher productivity. During cooler periods like the Dark Ages and Little Ice Age, the Pacific was dominated by El Nino-like conditions with less upwelling and lower productivity. …”

        When it’s warm, La Ninas dominate. Warming the ocean and cooling the atmosphere more than otherwise. The oceans act as if they know not to overheat the atmosphere. When it’s cold, El Ninos dominate. Cooling the oceans and warming the atmosphere. The oceans act as if they know a too cool atmosphere isn’t good.

        El Nino domination has less upwelling. There is less vertical circulation from where the upwelling occurs. As lake does in Winter in Minnesota, it is more stratified that is, less goes up to the surface. This would tend to preserve energy even though the oceans are cooling. When they are warming with La Ninas, the opposite occurs. Vertical circulation increases.

        The quote says, lower productivity. With warmth comes food from the ocean depths. Without it, not so much. It is stored for when the warmth comes back. Life is sensitive to warmth. Add some warmth and there’s increased life.

    • Only one has happened…

Leave a Reply to Jim Hunt Cancel 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