by Judith Curry
In view of recent controversies, numerous criticisms have been made about my ‘role,’ with expectations of things that I ‘should’ be doing.
From twitter:
“I do think JC should take a bigger role in reeling in hoaxers/denialists that use her as a guide.”
From email, an important person in our field whom I like and respect:
I have to express my disappointment in the way you have handled this issue with Bates. Irrespective of the data management issues raised by Bates, you have had an opportunity to provide an objective assessment of the article written by Rose, as well as the press release posted by the House Science Committee, and you have apparently chosen not to do so. I had always admired that you sought to set the record straight no matter what, but I am no longer seeing that and I am sorry that science has lost that voice.
JC’s role
My public statements on the blog and the twitter relate to things that I find interesting and/or important, constrained by the time I have available for such things.
My overall goal with the blog is to open the dialogue on climate science, policy, and related issues. I am trying to provide an open place for an honest debate, with the hope that my posts and discussion will provoke people to think outside of their own little box.
In terms of my Congressional testimonies and media interactions, my overall goal has been to bring policy makers and public away from ‘hoax’ and ‘science denial’ to a more rational and defensible understanding of climate science and its uncertainties (which is now being referred to by alarmists as the ‘new climate denial.’)
I have also tried to open up the discussion on policy options by using the framework of decision making under deep uncertainty.
Here is what I most definitely do NOT try to do:
- Be a one person fact checking machine for media articles and statements by politicians
- Take responsibility for what anyone else says or thinks, who also happens to quote me
- Set myself up as an authority on ‘facts’
Time constraints and realities
On a good week (when I am not too busy), I try to allocate 10 hours per week to the blog and twitter (much of this time is on the weekend). So far, my so-called retirement hasn’t resulted in any more time for this.
About half of that 10 hours goes into reading and keeping up with what is going on (I am a very fast reader; I couldn’t do this otherwise). I really appreciate it when people email interesting links to me, or flag something for me on twitter.
A Week in Review post takes about 2.5 hours to put together. A guest post with a bunch of figures or that is very long or needs editing or formatting takes 1-2 hours to put together. Then if I am getting a lot of requests from reporters, that further cuts down time I have to spend on the blog.
You do the math. There is only so much that I can do. I receive no funding for this blog, and manage the blog entirely on my own (I am grateful for the contributions from guest bloggers). Recently, one senior climate scientist told Peter Webster that I had to be taking money from the energy companies to support the blog, since no one could write that much on their own. Peter Webster set him straight, who happens to have first-hand knowledge of where my $$ comes from.
This past week with the breaking story on John Bates, we were inundated with media requests. My bandwidth for responding to any of this was minimal: apart from preparing proposals for potential clients and preparing for two important meetings next week, I’ve been suffering from a bad case of bronchitis.
Media interactions
I get frequent invites for radio interviews, occasional invites for TV interviews, tons of queries from reporters, and occasional invites for op-eds. I respond to these when I can, and I go out of my way for several reporters who I find do a thoughtful job on their articles. I’ve become much better at being able to filter who I should interact with.
I am frequently criticized for my interactions with David Rose of the Mail on Sunday. I like David Rose, and I actually trust him (which is not easy for me after the ‘brain fossilization’ fiasco). I regard him as an independent, important investigative voice on climate and energy issues, who operates outside of the echo chambers on both sides of this debate. I agree that the Mail editor often goes ‘over the top’ with headlines etc., which doesn’t help the article’s credibility; after all, the DM is a tabloid. However, I take no responsibility for any DM articles that happen to quote me (I am invariably correctly quoted by the DM).
On the Hill
I have continued interactions with staffers from the Science Committees in both the House (chair: Smith) and Senate (chair: Cruz).
With the election of President Trump, my ‘role’ is potentially elevated. I have been contacted by several different transition teams in the Trump administration. I have made it very clear to all that I have no interest in a full-time position or in living in Washington, DC. However I would be happy to serve in advisory roles. We will see if any opportunities materialize.
One person from a transition team stated: “Your country needs you.” Maybe. But I think I can be most effective at doing what I am doing, which is analysis, assessment and communication.
It will be very interesting to see who gets appointed to the key science positions in the Trump administration.
Quality of life
Putting yourself out there in the middle of a big controversy doesn’t help your quality of life. I realize that there are people in the media and politics that live and breathe this stuff in an addicted way. But very few scientists have the temperament for this. Mostly, it requires a very thick skin so that the potshots and insults don’t get to you. But more importantly it requires a very carefully thought out framing for how you approach the controversy, so that you are broadly consistent in your approach while incorporating new evidence into your thinking.
Ironically, the scientists that do have the temperament for this are those with an ‘agenda’ of some sort (e.g. activist/advocate). Unfortunately, these are not the objective scientists that we need in such positions.
The way that I manage to keep sane in the midst of controversy is that I can turn it off by not paying attention to social media or email. In the comfort of my own home. This gives me an element of control, that a paid government employee or journalist doesn’t have.
Mostly, I like to learn about new things, and integrate these new things into what else I know.
I don’t have an agenda for influencing policy, largely because I have no particular wisdom or political preference related to energy and climate policy, beyond the obvious peace, health and prosperity for everyone.
Judith, you will occasionally make a mistake. Only people who do nothing don’t make mistakes. You don’t have a particular wisdom; I wish I had a half of it. Thank you a lot.
re; Curry, her role, and climate science in general.
All I gots to say about that is:
https://i.imgflip.com/l89ay.jpg
Judith, you have a large number of followers who appreciate your honest objectivity. Please don’t change that. We also appreciate the time you are able to share with us. We couldn’t ask for more.
Thank you!
David
Agree absolutely.
+1,000
Pingback: Discussion: JC’s ‘role’ – Enjeux énergies et environnement
Judith, I wouldn’t change much about the blog or your public engagement.
The climate science debate is so poisonous that you will be unable to avoid being attacked by the usual suspects. That noise from the activists and the media (who are being increasingly subjected to the same scrutiny they apply to everyone else and being shown to be quite biased) is just that: noise. The internet age means that the elite (and self-appointed) media are increasingly less powerful. There is viscous cycle that increasingly emotional and biased coverage results in more loss of trust. The American corporate media is now a lot less trusted than Trump to tell the truth.
So the best advice, I believe, is to simply ignore the noise. Also making honest mistakes is not something to fear either. Every human being has made mistakes and rational and balanced people are willing to forgive a lot. The point is that the truth will emerge from a robust debate and open public dialogue. Your contribution to that dialogue is quite important and widely valued.
+1
You have done a tremendous amount to set the science straight on the topic of warming– and on what science should be. You could drop out of the debate right now and you won’t owe a damn thing to anyone.
Thank you. And try to enjoy your “retirement.”
+1
I support whatever works for you. I would hope you can be a public sniper, deployed where you can do the most damage to bad science and scientific discipline. I guess, outside the cossetting bubble of acedemic privilege, you can already see that many of those debating esoteric points, with no practical substance or grasp of the consequences for ordinary people, have MUCH too much (taxpayer funded?) time on their hands. Nearly as bad as book/film reviewers on the radio. If you can get real work that addresses the realities and removes the bogus linkages between energy policy and CO2 related climate change, that the new administration values and wants to make into policy that benefits real people, great. Don’t have to love the enablers of good science, the Medicis weren’t the nicest folk.
Good luck with whatever you choose, there are only you, and yours. Gather ye rosebuds, etc. Nihil illigitimi carborundum! etc.
I know the answer to this diffiicult philosophical question. Same as that to:
What does an 800lb Gorilla do? :-)
I retired in April 2007 because we had several trips planned and I would have used all of my leave that I could carry over.
I attended a climate lecture by Tom Wysmuller about Ewing and Donn Climate Theory in April 2008.
I have studied climate, attended lectures, presented my theory, for almost 9 years.
We have six grandchildren, age 5 to 12, living in the area and we have activities with them. We are keeping them overnight tonight.
I don’t know how I ever had time to work.
:-)
The voice of reason is always going to get kicked in the *** by the unreasonable. Keep up the good work – it is appreciated.
I personally don’t think David Rose is particularly egregious or any more often wrong than most other media reporters. Certainly as Fabius Maximus points out the recent Atlantic article is full of nonsense and falsehoods, one of them straight from the mouth of Dr. Gavin Schmidt. Comparing climate science policy implications (Just that phrase says a lot) with the predictions of gravitational orbital mechanics s completely wrong and very misleading. What you do see is that the “rapid response team” of climate alarmists feels the need to jump on every small mistake immediately and blow it out of proportion.
> What you do see is that the “rapid response team” of climate alarmists feels the need to jump on every small mistake immediately and blow it out of proportion.
My daily dose of irony.
Imo… you have recklessly defamed several NOAA scientists and administrators. A great deal of the damage is irreparable. It was just plain nasty and mean.
Tried to warn you that like to do it too much; you didn’t listen.
Smear smear, smear smear, oh what a joy it is.
Atone; pull the plug on this cesspool.
JCH, You have been getting a lot more biased recently. There is an honest dispute about the NOAA methodology and results. Covering it up is dishonest and not healthy.
“There is an honest dispute about the NOAA methodology and results.”
There may be. But we learnt nothing of it in John Bates’ post, nor in the article in the Sunday Mail. The closest we got in the article here was the 90% issue, where Bates just displayed ignorance. He hadn’t read where K15 explained that it was following WG1, and he hadn’t read Chap 2 of the AR5 (Observations) where in the introduction they set that as the default level they use.
Instead all we got was a whole lot of fussiness about whether a file was correctly named at the time, and whether the archived data was “machine-readable”.
“Instead all we got was a whole lot of fussiness about whether a file was correctly named at the time, and whether the archived data was “machine-readable”.
Actually, what Bates said was:
“That is, the folks who did the processing for K15 and saved the file actually used the correct naming and versioning, but K15 did not disclose this. Clearly labeling the dataset would have indicated this was a highly experimental early GHCN-M version 4 run rather than a routine, operational update. As such, according to NOAA scientific integrity guidelines, it would have required a disclaimer not to use the dataset for routine monitoring.”
So it wasn’t simply a matter of correctly naming a file (the data processors did correctly name it), it was Karl et al’s coyness to reveal the identity of the (highly experimental) dataset which would in turn have required them to issue a disclaimer as to its use – which they failed to do. That’s poor procedure, possibly resulting in bad science, so I don’t think Bates was being ‘fussy’ in pointing it out.
“There may be. But we learnt nothing of it in John Bates’ post …”
This is a rather ignorant statement. We absolutely did learn something, quite a bit in fact. We learnt alot about John Bates’ side of the dispute, of which he is a central figure. He was responsible for developing the QA methodology under which the NOAA is supposed to operate. As a US govt agency, I would expect the NOAA to adhere to its own internally-developed QA methods and not to willy nilly adopt a UN/IPCC QA method without a formal approval process.
Nick, I actually learned something about it both here, at your blog and from Paul Matthews. I appreciated your responses at your blog incidentally. This will play out in time and I am confident the truth will come out. Controversy is not a bad thing except to those who have a preferred outcome or want to spin everything.
willbo1
“We absolutely did learn something, quite a bit in fact.”
So what did you learn about “NOAA methodology and results”? You may have learnt about paperwork methodology. But what did you learn about any scientific dispute?
“So it wasn’t simply a matter of correctly naming a file (the data processors did correctly name it), it was Karl et al’s coyness to reveal the identity of the (highly experimental) dataset which would in turn have required them to issue a disclaimer as to its use – which they failed to do. That’s poor procedure, possibly resulting in bad science, so I don’t think Bates was being ‘fussy’ in pointing it out.”
There was no Coyness
From the abstract
“Third, there have also been advancements in the calculation of land surface air temperatures (LSTs). The most important is the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) databank (14, 19), which forms the basis of the LST component of our new analysis. The ISTI databank integrates the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN)–Daily data set (20) with more than 40 other historical data sources, more than doubling the number of stations available. The resulting integration improves spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have increased rapidly in recent decades (1). We applied the same methods used in our old analysis for quality control, time-dependent bias corrections, and other data processing steps (21) to the ISTI databank in order to address artificial shifts in the data caused by changes in, for example, station location, temperature instrumentation, observing practice, urbanization, and siting conditions. These corrections are essentially the same as those used in the GHCN–Monthly version 3 data set (22, 23), which is updated operationally by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). To obtain our new global analysis, the corrected ISTI land data (14) were systematically merged with ERSST version 4 (13), as described in the supplementary materials.”
ANYONE WHO WORKS IN THIS FIELD KNOW ISTI !!!!
we know when it was formed and why it was formed, and have followed its progress.
We KNOW that ISTI isnt a NOAA operational product. Folks who work in the area prefer the ISTI data because it includes a lot of data that NOAA DOnt
Do you know When and WHY ISTI was formed>?
Can you say CLimategate 1? for chrisake have you people no memory of history?
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/exeterworkshop2010
Peterson makes it clear at the very start of the process
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/exeterworkshop2010/1_3Tues_Peterson-Exeter-Introduction.pdf?attredirects=0
“That’s poor procedure, possibly resulting in bad science”
What Mosh said. I sometimes wonder if Bates even read K15. The paper was quite explicit about the data set it was dealing with – it was ISTI, well known and published. It was in transition to becoming the base for GHCN V4, and Bates hangup seems to be that the internal file nomenclature used this in filenames before it should have. But the paper itself was quite explicit. Apart from the abstract that Mosh quotes, there is this from the main text. It couldn’t be more explicit:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2017/02/k15.png
Bates’ issue, as stated in the blog post, was that there was a 0.1C discrepancy between ITSI and GHCN in early decades of the 20th century. He correctly stated that you can’t just throw those two datasets in the blender without understanding the discrepancy
Apologies – I see that Mosh and I have quoted the same text. Anyway, it is all there. See if you can relate it to what Bates said.
Judith,
“Bates’ issue, as stated in the blog post, was that there was a 0.1C discrepancy between ITSI and GHCN in early decades of the 20th century.”
I couldn’t see that in the post. And I also don’t see what it means? Which version of GHCN? GHCN and ISTI are collections of station records – does he mean every station? or some kind of average?
But in any case, K15 makes clear that it is using ISTI. If there is a discrepancy with something else, that is a different issue.
Nick Stokes,
I don’t want to rehash John Bates’ post (I’m sure we’ve all read it at least once), and I don’t want to try and second guess what you mean by “paperwork methodology”, but the dispute that I saw in his post was over the NOAA’s data management processes. To summarize, mistakes had been made in the past resulting in bad data. John had been tasked with the job of preventing these mistakes from happening in the future. He therefore developed QA processes for data and software management to:
– Ensure the quality and consistency of NOAA products;
– Prevent such errors from happening in the future;
– If any errors did creep in, to facilitate their correction.
NOAA formalized these processes. John has identified an instance where these processes were not followed and he attributes the reason to political motivation.
That’s the dispute from the perspective of John Bates as I see it. Let me know if you see something different.
willbo,
“NOAA formalized these processes. John has identified an instance where these processes were not followed and he attributes the reason to political motivation.”
What he actually said was:
“Unfortunately, the NCDC/NCEI surface temperature processing group was split on whether to adopt this process, with scientist Dr. Thomas C. Peterson (a co-author on K15, now retired from NOAA) vigorously opposing it. Tom Karl never required the surface temperature group to use the rigor of the CDR methodology, although a document was prepared identifying what parts of the surface temperature processing had to be improved to qualify as an operational CDR.”
I think what he means is that Bates formalized a process, but Peterson and Karl, who were actually in charge, wouldn’t adopt it for their section. “Split” means they wouldn’t buy it. Maybe they just thought is was too time-consuming, and maybe for too little gain.
Nick Stokes,
According to John, although NCDC/NCEI initially refused to adopt John’s procedures, they were having data management problems and were directed to do something about it:
“Dr. Mary Kicza, then the NESDIS Associate Administrator (the parent organization of NCDC/NCEI in NOAA), noted that these repeated errors reflected poorly on NOAA and required NCDC/NCEI to improve its software management processes so that such mistakes would be minimized in the future.”
NCDC/NCEI went on to develop their own QA methods that borrowed heavily from John’s work. For the incident in question, these NCDC/NCEI methods weren’t followed.
One other part of the post that goes to the base of the discussion was the idea that certain data sets are more important wrt being used to support and guide policy than other data used more for acedmenic research and interest. The idea that policy decisions should be driven by data that has been exposed to a higher level of QA procedures compared to general acedemic interest (certified if you will). Climate scientists may trust the data more implicitly as they have a better understanding of how it was derived and rightly understand that inconsistencies in procedure of archiving do not change the end result to any real significance (well Judy takes some exception here). The broader issue at stake is the general publics perception of credibility. If procedures were not followed, then is the result credible? The scientific community close to the data say yeah, we don’t think this is a big deal. The general population who is not close to understanding the details, and importantly certain POV within that population, will focus on the procedural aspect and whether it was followed and will conclude that if procedure was not followed…. It’s a wrong result. One of the biggest mistakes I see the scientific community make is being cavalier wrt perception of what they are doing behind the curtain by the general population. Engineering folks tend to take this aspect of their work much more seriously because often times people’s lives depend on how well they followed procedures and processes to build products that don’t fail. Airplanes falling from the sky, however rare, is very unsettling to the general populace and the trust of the general population relies on everyone in the engineering and manufacturing sector of doing their jobs per specification and as instructed. If someone fails to do this and it results in accidents and/or death, people go to jail. So there is a larger argument of credibility at stake. For those who dismiss this idea, you have forgotten any lessons learned from climategate. Ask yourself, did policy making for CO2 mitigation get easier in the wake of that fiasco? Did the credibility of climate science improve in the years after? Trust is easily lost and tough to earn. Knowing this, why would the pertinent climate scientific community make the mistake again and then take the position that the procedure doesn’t really matter because the answer doesn’t change?
Hey John –
long time no “talk’ to.
=={ The broader issue at stake is the general publics perception of credibility. If procedures were not followed, then is the result credible? }==
I think that you are simplifying this. The public’s determination of whether procedures are being followed is largely influence by spin. You say the public will focus on whether procedure was followed…but I disagree…they will focus on the related spin. So they read Rose’s article that talks of throwing out data and puts up misleading graphs. They focus on Fox News that talks about climate scientists “cooking the books.” The focus on things such as Judith’s radio interview where she is asked point blank whether Karl committed a criminal offense, and doesn’t answer the question.
The nuanced questions related to the context of how to determine whether procedures were followed or whether the procedures were realistic of scientifically useful will be completely lost.
=={ . One of the biggest mistakes I see the scientific community make is being cavalier wrt perception of what they are doing behind the curtain by the general population. }==
I don’t think that they are cavalier about that. i think that they don’t have some kind of direct control over those perceptions, however.
=={ For those who dismiss this idea, you have forgotten any lessons learned from climategate. Ask yourself, did policy making for CO2 mitigation get easier in the wake of that fiasco? Did the credibility of climate science improve in the years after? {==
And this gets the point. For all the noise among dedicated climate combatants, what is the signal w/r/t public opinions on climate change that can be attributed to “Climategate?” As much as there are assumptions made in the “skept-o-sphere” in that regard, the data I’ve seen is ambiguous at best (and more likely indicates little effect).
Do you think that there was a meaningful # of people who changed their views w/r/t climate change or even trust in climate scientists as the result of “Clmategate?” Longitudinal studies of views on climate change and trust in scientists don’t seem to support such a conclusion (read Gauchat and Kahan).
What the evidence does show is that for all the exploitation of “Climategate” by partisans, the effect of “Climategate” was primarily to give people an excuse to justify their preexisting opinions.
=={ Trust is easily lost and tough to earn. }==
No doubt. But gaining trust in a highly polarized context is extremely complex and does not likely have a single control vector….if significantly changing trust is possible at all.
=={ Knowing this, why would the pertinent climate scientific community make the mistake again and then take the position that the procedure doesn’t really matter because the answer doesn’t change? }==
I don’t think that the science community is arguing that attempts to undermine trust in the science by pointing to putative procedural violations has no effect. I think you are conflating such an argument with a scientific argument about the meaning of the procedural methodologies that are being equated to fraud.
My reply to Jo$hua is stuck in moderation, any chance for release?
“So what did you learn about “NOAA methodology and results”?
We learned that NOAA is a political organisation, not a scientific one. We can now discount everything they say as being based on their political beliefs, not on any science that may accidentally be involved. Note that I say “may be”, because when your approach is to support your pet theory by cooling the past and warming the present, you have to say that there is no actual science here.
No. That is your long-held opinion. You didn’t learn it from John Bates article. Any whiff of it was expunged in the later back-tracking.
We learned that Stokes and Mosher are Warmist Trolls. Again.
Andrew
The “rapid response team” is still fully deployed, I see.
Hey guys, why don’t we re-litigate Judith’s last blog post over again. You have a bodacious team put together. Maybe this time we can reach 1000 comments.
If you think it is a cesspool, JCH, then please do leave. This blog would be the better of for it.
ICH or whoever you sare – NOAA deserves to be taken down a peg or two. They falsified global temperature in the nineties to create a phony temper54ature rise. At the time I was working on the global temperature for my book “What Warming?” and realized that there was an eighteenn year flat temperature region in the eeighties nd nineties. Today wee would call it a hiatus. I showed it as figure 15 in my book. But miraculously that flat temperature stretch turned into a rising warm temperature stretch they named the “late twentieth century warming.” I protested but was completely ignored. Since nothing was done I put a note about it into the preface of my book when it came out. That was calso completely ignored and the fake warming has been part of the official temperature record of GISS, NCDC(NOAA)_ and the Met Office for the last six years. Its effect is to raise the global temperature from that point on by a tenth of a degree Celsius per decade whichmeans a full degree Celsius per century. That is more than the total temperature rise that has been claimed for the entire twentieth century. They are quite aware of what they are doing – increasing a fake temperature rise of the twenty-first century. One result of it is to raise the peak of the 2015/2016 El Nino higher than that of the 1998 super El Nino of 1998 which is not likely to be true. This is not the only upward adjustment they have done, just the most egregious one that I know of.
JCH, your’re so dramatic. What damage do you imagine is irreparable? I would like to remind you that JC has covered the topic of sst for years. Do yoirself a favor and pour through the many pages on this site which address the topic. JC’s coverage is no flash in the pan. Nasty and mean, thats science. Nobody is required to coddle you, or to comfort and care for faulty ideas.
JCH, your’re so dramatic. What damage do you imagine is irreparable? I would like to remind you that JC has covered the topic of sst for years. Do yoirself a favor and pour through the many pages on this site which address the topic. JC’s coverage is no flash in the pan. Nasty and mean, thats science. Nobody is required to coddle you, or to comfort and care for faulty ideas.
Judith, as a long time follower of the debate, you even responded to my “wish you luck email” when you stood up(must be 6 or 7 years ago now) and acknowledged there should be a debate.
You have been a lighthouse in the night, a beacon of hope that I havent good mad with my belief system.
Good Luck, I always enjoy reading your blog, I hope you continue to pursue your heart. Scott
For what it’s worth I think you’re doing a super job regarding the admirable goals you’ve set yourself for Climate Etc and a wider engagement. Nor do you need to be doing anything folks think you ‘should’ do. Such things stem from their own values and aspirations, which in a contentious domain you are bound to tread on now and again. Very easy to demand behavior from someone, especially someone high profile; much harder in a contentious world to maintain one’s own behavior appropriately and also accommodate others with grace. Hope the bronchitis is diminishing.
Well said.
Dr. Judith, just a note to say a couple things.
First, thanks.
Thanks for the blog. Thanks for the clarity. Thanks for the light moderating. Thanks for standing up what you believe in. Thanks for offering a platform for ideas that you might not agree with but find interesting. Thanks for speaking truth to power. And thanks and thanks and thanks again for the focus on uncertainty, the part the alarmists love to ignore.
Second, you only live once, so I strongly support whatever way you wish to proceed from here. Get more involved in the climate discussion? Less involved? Involved in some other way?
Whatever you might choose, you have my support and I suspect the support of the majority of your readers.
All the best to you,
w.
+1
Agreed.
Willis Eschenbach: First, thanks.
I add my thanks.
There is always criticism and complaint, and when you write and speak out in public, then the criticism and complaints are public, practically unending. It was good of you to do this work, from which we have all benefited.
Thank you again.
The nice thing about being in a long and distinguished career is that you can do pretty much what you please without explanation. You’ve been a great resource and I hope you find the time to keep up the good work.
You are doing a great job. It seems to me that any topic you post gets a thorough vetting by all sides. Because of that, I don’t see why you personally have to bless it either way. We can read the comments, follow links, decide what information reflects reality, and make our own evaluation.
It seems some want to use you as a source for the appeal to authority fallacy.
Your last sentence particularly struck me — I think you are correct. I am trying to be the anti-authority scientist: let it be about the evidence and the arguments.
Then why when faced with people who deny that humans have any effect ( Mark Levin in one case, and your most recent interview in another case) can you not clearly say:
“Look. There is no hoax. Look, you dont advance science by claiming “hoax”. Look there is plenty to argue about inside the uncertainties, but claiming there is a certain hoax or certain fraud, is just stupid. stop it.”
You choose to speak only about the evidence that is uncertain and remain silent or even assist people who make wild claims about hoax and fraud. I have no issue with you allowing crazy people to speak, but at some point you need to say. That’s crazy.! At some point you need to realize that there are still many prominent thought leaders who argue that it is a hoax and that noaa is a fraud, and they rely on you being silent about this or burying your objection in some weasel worded comment.
The folks who claim it is a hoax and who claim there is scientific fraud Rely, count on, and benefit from your near silence on the issue. They rely on you to not call them out. They rely on you to allow the misdirection away from the real uncertainties while they suck the oxygen out of the room with claims of fraud. The end result is that the real questions you have about natural variability are also going to be lost in the conversation.
Which is more important, facts or propaganda? Based on my experience over the last 10-15 years propaganda…unfortunately.
Mosher, You of course know the answer to your silly question. When I deal with anyone who I disagree with about something, should I just automatically seize them by the throat and say “you are wrong, you fool?” Respect dictates that when you talk to someone you allow differences of opinion and treat that with respect. Maybe Judith is just more polite than you are.
BTW, I saw your tweet response to McIntyre’s plots of data vs. GCM’s and its just totally wrong headed. Aero design modeling for fighters in the past has been very crude anyway, using linear methods adjusted with test data. Mostly it was done with wind tunnel testing. With climate change we can and should expect a lot better.
“BTW, I saw your tweet response to McIntyre’s plots of data vs. GCM’s and its just totally wrong headed. Aero design modeling for fighters in the past has been very crude anyway, using linear methods adjusted with test data. Mostly it was done with wind tunnel testing. With climate change we can and should expect a lot better.”
I wasnt talking about Aero Design Numbnuts
I was talking about Models you could never look at without a clearance.
The first models for radar cross section ( basically “stolen” from the russians and implemented by a clever guy in the skunk works, Later
The models would be improved to handle more complex surfaces by a chinese national ( who fled PRC) who worked at Pico Rivera. The more complex surfaces ( still somewhat limited to particular geometries) can be seen in the B2 if you know what to look for.
Any claim that the science is settled when the science is not settled is a HOAX and a FRAUD…
To clarify. When public safety is at stake as in climate and commercial aircraft for example, we do and should expect a high level of confidence in our models if they are to be used in place of test data. A fighter aircraft can have problems as severe as wings falling off and still be successful. Recall the f18 wing drop problem.
Name calling Mosher again? I guess science communication begins and ends with disrespect for you. The models of RCS used on the F-117 are totally irrelevant to climate, CFD or any other relevant issue. RCS is governed by Maxwell’s equation, a well posed problem that is imminently computable. Turbulent and chaotic fluid dynamics is ill-posed. There is no analogy that is valid between them. You keep saying this and its just words with no depth or substance.
Steven Mosher,
Stop saying what Dr. Judith Curry should say or shouldn’t say. As anybody else she has the right to say whatever she wants, and she can never be judged by what she doesn’t say. You pretend to be a scientist when you are not, and constantly ignore its most important principles, like absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot make anything for what Dr. Curry hasn’t said at a particular occasion. Your debating skills are worth exactly zero in the world of science.
Climate alarmism is a combination of a failed hypothesis, augmented by fraud (or hoax) perpetrated about that hypothesis. If the data are ever collected that unequivocally show human impact on climate then the hypothesis may have some merit. Until then, not.
Steven Mosher
You CANNOT prove “there is no hoax”!
So why be so foolish as to assert that?
One CAN refer to the available evidence, its uncertainties and how models differ from that evidence, and compare that such differences to the uncertainties involved. Remember Richard P. Feynman:
Thanks JC, for your rigor. Nullius in Verba!
Take a few deep breaths, Mosher. Some people say climate change is a hoax, others say it’s a certain catastrophe. Which of them is more wrong for policy purposes?
Meanwhile, the dark night of fraud accusations seems to be ever falling on heroic and persecuted government scientists but somehow only lands, with a thump of dubious legality, on Exxon.
Judith: “A Week in Review post takes about 2.5 hours to put together. A guest post with a bunch of figures or that is very long or needs editing or formatting takes 1-2 hours to put together.” Goodness, that’s a half day per week of your valuable time, needs to be done but not very productive … can you get some help ? From my understanding I would agree that having a full time position within the Trump administration is not a good idea for several reasons – to maintain independence, avoid potential constraints of being an insider – and a political fixture, and avoid becoming more fodder targeted by the climate left. You can influence while maintaining independence. Some corners are calling for Trump to name a science advisor with creds in the key focus areas such as climate, nuclear energy, alternate energies… I think this is not the best thing not a requirement and rather like someone who has strong general background and is not a political hack like Obama’s Holdren. That would be consistent the president’s approach to most issues. Certainly not to have a sci-prop standing beside himself at photo-ops to refer to as “his Nobel award winning physicist” as in the last presidency. All the best.
Dr. Curry ==> After the first year of this blog, you knew the price you would have to pay for honesty in climate science. I heartily admire your willingness to pay that price — and though I think that in a better world you would not have been asked to pay that price — I am convinced that you have purchased something of value by it — honest, clear, fearless communication of your own understandings about Climate Science and a safe space for others, like myself, to make their voices heard. And that, Judith, is PRICELESS.
Thank you, Kip Hansen
Judith,
I thank you too. I dread the day you finally retire from this blog. It has been and still is a fascinating insight into a climate scientist’s perceptions of other climate scientists, government/UN policy and the science.
While this blog is your own work, I also find the points of view in the replies to the opening post to be interesting too. It’s often a case of I do not understand the opening post well enough and then try to decipher the meaning from the replies. That’s usually (my) inadequate knowledge/understanding background meeting head on people that know climate science much better. Your blog has changed my opinions about things many times. I do recommend your site to anybody I meet who has the slightest interest in climate science. For climate science you are the star to guide me by. Much warmth and well wishes.
Steve
To me your blog has been an almost lone bastion of sanity. Don’t change it. Not “Take[ing] responsibility for what anyone else says or thinks, who also happens to quote me” is very important in addition to being sane and rational.
If some doesn’t like your blog they can go start one of their own.
On the question of who will be Trump’s science advisor. As of a couple weeks ago David Galertner was at the top of the list. A good article in The Hill: “David Gelernter is a professor of computer science at Yale University. He was one of the originators of the ground-breaking technique known as “parallel computing” and is widely hailed as a genius….Gelernter is clearly more than your run-of-the-mill computer nerd — far more.
He is an avid painter (his works are on display in galleries), historian, philosopher, and professor of religion. He specializes in Judaica, the study of Judaism. But he is most widely known for his criticism of modern-day higher education, which he dismisses as watered-down liberal nonsense. He says that today’s students are, in fact, ignorant. The New Left, he argues, has conspired to produce whole generations of uneducated graduates. According to Gelernter, the New Left faculty members have diluted education, morality, attitudes, and patriotism with cynicism. Students nowadays, he says, have become ignorant of alternative thought — they have been instructed to repeat back what they hear, not question it. One cannot deny the astonishing mix of his knowledge and skill, from the forefront of computer software design to philosophy, art, and religion. He is truly a unique and gifted individual.
” He was one of the originators of the ground-breaking technique known as “parallel computing””
And Al Gore invented the internet.
He did, actually, contribute significantly to this area of computing, but saying he was one of the “originators” of “parallel computing” is ridiculous. Google “tuple space coordination.” He really was the driving force behind it, and it is still taught in many universities to the day.
The worst part of that claim was the fact that the initiative Gore was talking about was just an early effort to define network protocols.
Sure, it would have been hard to go anywhere without them, but the road signs were hardly a key technical innovation in the creation of the Interstate Highway System.
Judith, Don’t let the “Bastards”s get you down. Keep doing what you are doing and don’t change a thing about how you go about doing what you do.
Shakespeare said it best when he wrote, “To thy own self be true and thou shall’t not be false to any man” or woman or child.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
You are awesome. Thanks for what you do.
“I have to express my disappointment in the way you have handled this issue with Bates.”
You allowed the man his say.
You acknowledged the criticisms and allowed him to respond.
This is a problem how?
Free thought seldom hangs with respectable company,
Judith, please don’t stop. Give ’em hell.
No pressure.
They don’t stand a chance.
If it helps, I deny that you’ve had any influence on my denialism.
:)
The problem is she didnt ask him the basic questions before lending him her credibility.
basically you cant unring the bell.
Even Anthony had the sense to get rid of Goddard and do a modicum of vetting for posts.
Steven Mosher: The problem is she didnt ask him the basic questions before lending him her credibility.
His writing here was publicly scrutinized and he responded to criticism. Anyone had the opportunity to ask questions that you think are basic, including you. That’s good. That’s very good.
I for one did not find your responses informative. Maybe you could rewrite what you think are your best posts, clearly and on point.
Right…because that’s how scientists normally give testimony: “I, personally, do not think the theory of gravitation is a hoax”.
Mosher ==> Read Judith’s Backstory from the original Bates post? She says she has been in discussion with Bates about this since “..shortly after publication of K15”. And that they “began discussing our concerns about the paper.” She reports that she has “known John Bates for about 25 years”. Further, she opines “There is no one, anywhere, that is a greater champion for data integrity and transparency.”
None of that adds up to “she didnt ask him the basic questions before lending him her credibility“.
Thank you Kip.
You just made it worse.
How did the AP get Bates to admit that there was no fraud?
How did EEtimes get him to admit that all the paper needed was a disclaimer?
Judith had months… During those months we took her suggestions and compared K15 to other datasources.
in short, rather than listening to Bates words, as she did, we did the science thing. We checked the data, and we published the results.
we tried to overturn the science, by you know, doing more science.
A) The difference between K15 and prior NOAA work is DOWN TO SST
not the change in land datasets.
B) the change in ERSST V4 had Nothing to do with Karls Thumb.
C) the changes to ERST v4 are in line with all other data– data that Judith and her readers Effin suggested we look at .
So, she never asked him if was he accusing Karl of fraud
She never never asked him if he thought the data was manipulated
She never asked him what he made of the confirmation done by Zeke
She never asked him about his prior employment history with Karl and his demotion.
She never reached out to Thorne, or extended any of her fellow scientists common curtosy
Bottom line we dont want to move on from batesgate.. we want to know why certain questions were not asked until dirt was thrown on Karl
Mosher ==> Judith is not responsible for Bates’ data or Bates’ statements, interviews, personality, or dress choices. Your unwillingness to accept her statement of her role in this thing is … in two words…childishly impatient.
Mosher I fear tends to the Jihad theory of blog interaction. On this thread the Fatwah is against Judith for being tolerant of differences of opinion and not being as rude and intolerant as Mosher wants her to be. How dare Judith even talk to Mark Levin without dressing him down about one of his statements? Hint to Mosher, Judith is an adult and far more expert in climate science than you and doesn’t need your nannying.
Steve Mosher: “How did the AP get Bates to admit that there was no fraud.”
Steve, Did Bates ever claim fraud? If not, then it seems pretty reasonable to clarify to that to the AP. An investigator using his authority to brush aside the rigors of protocol for expedience may be a poor quality in the view of someone in charge of setting up the protocols. That seems reasonable.
K15 was very controversial and still is, notwithstanding Hausfather et al. I would not be surprised at all if Karl actually conferred with the ERSST4 authors — by chance, maybe in the hallway at NOAA. If Karl did have his thumb on people and approvals that makes sense of why he would allow himself to be in the spotlight of the “pause-buster” paper. It’s always looked bad but i never ready Judith or anyone calling Karl a fraud. Yet, I still would really like to see more research about the engine intake temperature SST and how its extraordinary bias evaded science for 90 years until that method was retired from use, thus its cooling only affects the past.
” I never
readyread Judith or anyone calling Karl a fraud.”According the Matthews(2013) part I and part II the engine intake temps EIT slight warm bias by slight residence time in the ship hull was generally offset by the depth of the intake averaging 7-10 meters, well below where buckets and buoys measured. The canvas bucket temperature observations had virtually no bias unless there was a delay in taking the readings. Then the bias was cool for 0.1C per minute on average, and the average time in experiments was about 2 minutes.
If the above were true then the past data that relied heavily on buckets needs to be warmed, not cooled. I asked Peter Thorne if they considered Matthews(2013). He replied earlier Monday: “I’m on the road at present but believe that Matthews papers were cited in Huang et al. ” I checked and there was no citing.
I’m sure it was just an oversight, Steven, I know they were in a hurry.
Kip, what Mosher is having difficulty understanding is that Karl et al 2015 has a rather large attribution problem; and it doesnt matter that Karl’s paper was built using peer reviewed analysis and methodology. In short it doesnt matter from where the ofal was shoveled, Karl’s paper implemented the ofal and shortly after so did ersst. Resulting in a skewed policy backstory. Dr. Curry was well aware of this attribution problem and made herself heard shortly after Karl’s paper found daylight.
“Mosher I fear tends to the Jihad theory of blog interaction. On this thread the Fatwah is against Judith for being tolerant of differences of opinion and not being as rude and intolerant as Mosher wants her to be. How dare Judith even talk to Mark Levin without dressing him down about one of his statements? Hint to Mosher, Judith is an adult and far more expert in climate science than you and doesn’t need your nannying.”
Its’ pretty simple.
Judith has no problem coming down into the comments to correct me,
but no time to simply correct other more important people. weird.
Now I faced this argument before. It was in climategate 1. When folks asked why I was so critical of Mann and Jones.
The Point is this. If you want to make a space for the rational discussion of evidence, and theory, then you have to be willing to set boundaries.
If you think, as Judith does, that natural variability has been ignored, then you dont foster a discussion of that by remaining silent while the people
you want to have this dialog with are wrongly accused.
None of you complained when I attacked people who accused McinTyre and Watts of taking Oil money. In my mind people on my side of the debate who tried to derail the conversation by false charges are not helping science. So, its simple.
I am not suggesting that Judith be rude. I’d just like to see her stand up for what she believes. She doesnt believe that its a fraud or a hoax, and when she is interviewed by people who do claim this, I’d like to see her state clearly, and forcefully and politely… that “No. it’s not a fraud”
Or you could look at it this way. In the past I have defended her plenty of times against what I thought were groundless accusations, even though its not my “role” to do this. Folks gave me grief for that.. so what.. In my mind its wrong to remain silent while folks are wrongly accused, whether that is Judith, Anthony, McIntyre, or Karl. Its especially wrong if you have some understanding of the science. And it’s wrong to remain silent when folks spew garbage science, whether that is david rose or Michael Mann.
Short answer: I’m busy and I’m sick. To add insult to injury, I need to spend all day today traveling.
When I’m busy I don’t read every comment; simply glance at the first 20 on my wordpress page
Mosher,
You aren’t the Climate Blog Police. Give it a rest.
Andrew
Mosher, I know you have a strong track record of self-importance and rehashing your importance in supporting or attacking this or that person. Judith doesn’t need your advice and being rude about it doesn’t help.
I know you have been ill and have been unusually rude and silly, e. g., about electromagnetic scatter methods and your stupid story about the F-117. However, the question is this: Is it someone’s responsibility to “correct” everything another person believes that you disagree with when you talk to them? That is just legalistic and silly and an impossible standard. It does remind me of a Fatwah. You would be better served by first removing the beam in your own eye before removing the speck in Dr. Curry’s eye.
Steve Mosher: If you think, as Judith does, that natural variability has been ignored, then you dont foster a discussion of that by remaining silent while the people
you want to have this dialog with are wrongly accused.
Nobody could possibly have time to address everything — inaccurate, wrongly accused, wrongly critiqued, wrongly quoted, elided, confused, whatever. You have chosen some, and Prof Curry has chosen some.
Perhaps after you have corrected every false claim or exaggeration regarding the dangers of CO2-induced global warming — of which there have been hundreds, if not thousands — then you could criticize someone for being, in your opinion, incomplete.
JC , you weren’t busy and sick when you were speaking before memebrs of Congress.
As Mosh syas, “I am not suggesting that Judith be rude. I’d just like to see her stand up for what she believes. She doesnt believe that its a fraud or a hoax, and when she is interviewed by people who do claim this, I’d like to see her state clearly, and forcefully and politely… that “No. it’s not a fraud”
Why was/is this so hard for you to do?
@Steven Sullivan;
“Why was/is this so hard for you to do?”
Because it’s not that simple. If she doesn’t believe that it’s a fraud or a hoax, then the best she could do is politely state: “I personally don’t believe it is a fraud or a hoax.”
Right….…because that’s how scientists normally give testimony: “I, personally, do not think the theory of gravitation is a hoax”.
Gosh, someone has a theory that explains gravitation? Sorry I missed it. WOW! How does it work, please? Can you generate gravitational fields yet? Now we can travel in space and time. Woopee! Please send references ASAP. The people should be told. Noble prizes for all.
I didn’t realize scientists were being called before Congress to give testimony about the theory of gravity! Are people in Congress claiming the theory is a hoax? What happened? Gravitygate?
We don’t hear many demands to disavow the notion anthropogenic climate change is a certain catastrophe, in fact such unsubstantiated claims are not just mainstream but fiercely protected by scorn and subsidy… a situation which some values of the term “hoax” (that we are so self-righteously instructed to abhor) might reasonably be held to describe.
Dr. Curry:
Permit me to second all that Willis said, with my own “thank you” and the observation that your moral compass is quite as well directed as anyone’s.
Three cheers for Judith Curry.
For those scientists who are whining about the Rose article, how often have you complained about articles which went to the other extreme and gave an hysterical, warmist slant which was not warranted given either your interview or the press release about your study?
I have read countless pieces that hyped up the findings and spoke about the detrimental of global warming or the implications of the study way beyond what was actually found. Did you call the news outlets to complain about the exaggerated article? Did you ask for a retraction? Did you write a letter to the editor to set the record straight so all the readers would know about the erroneous information in the piece?
Did you? No , I didn’t think so. You’ve got a planet to save. Forget about the integrity of the science.
Exactly!
Rose misrepresented what Bates was saying. If someone misrepresents somebody’s point for political reasons, they deserve criticism whichever side they are on. Maybe you can come up with an example of this type of misrepresentation on the other side.
Jim
I used the word “countless” purposely since I have been reading examples for several years. For you, I will make a mental note and as I come across further cases I will go OT and bring them to your attention.
Yes, look for where a journalist has misrepresented someone on climate change, and serial-offender Rose doesn’t count.
Jim
Literally the first story I just looked up.
CBS News story about SLR hitting US disproportionately. From the middle of the story…
“What’s behind the growing concern about sea level rise? A major factor, scientists say, is the rapid melting of Arctic ice due to global warming. ”
I’ll check to see if any scientists correct the record in the next few days.
Arctic ice could refer to Greenland which is melting year by year.
Or the arctic ice that has trapped icebreakers and ships in port.
http://siberiantimes.com/PICTURES/OTHERS/Ships-stuck-in-Peek/inside_electricity_1.jpg
Yes, Jim, it could. But normally scientists distinguish between Greenland and the Arctic especially since one is involved with SLR discussions routinely and the other isn’t.
The other possibility is that the reporter made many notes from the interview, put them in the pocket where they got mixed up with the Wal-Mart receipts and bar napkins and forgot what was actually said. In trying to reconstruct the conversation, said reporter may have had trouble remembering which Arctic is home to Santa Claus and which Arctic hosts penquins.
Such is the level of knowledge by a lot of journalists covering these stories. They are given an assignment with a deadline knowing their editor doesn’t know much more about the subject than they do.
However the main headline here was a correct report on sea-level rise and its consequences for the US. It was not a distorted headline of the form David Rose had. You had to look deep into the paragraphs to find a quibble, but that wasn’t the main story, which you likely don’t disagree with.
Jim D
Literally the second story I just looked up
In the Guardian about Antarctica’s contributions to devastating SLR it says “Sea levels respond directly to……The melting of ice shelves….”
No, they don’t. It is the ice sheets that may become unstable eventually with deteriorating ice shelves. Has this been corrected? I found no evidence it was.
One scientist, to their credit said ice sheet loss could take up to 7,000 years.
Was that the headline? Of course not. No one scares the bejesus out of people with anything 7,000 years in the future. Instead, the headline was this “Sea levels could rise by six to nine meters over time, new study warns”
Much better. Sells papers. Keeps up with the traditional scare tactics. Keeps the wackos off your back. Keeps the establishment happy. What’s not to like.
Again, not the headline. You can quibble with how a journalist interprets some aspect, but not with the main scientific message he was trying to convey which itself was not distorted, nor was anyone accused of fr@ud. Maybe you don’t see a distinction between this type of thing and what Rose does or Smith in his press releases, but I do.
It’s a little more complicated than “sea ice is floating so if it melts it doesn’t affect sea level” -anonymous internet meme
In the Arctic, wherever there is sea ice on the surface, the temperature of the sea is 28 F or -2 C, as measured by myself in the 80s, locations of measurements classified, but I was in a submarine under the ice.
When the ice is melted, then it has the possibility of warming above 28 F, which lowers its density and thus raises sea level through thermal expansion. Sea water has sufficient salinity such that it is different from fresh water which has a density max at 4 C.
Similar story with ice shelves, yes they are floating and breaking off and becoming ice bergs and then melting does not affect sea level, but they do slow down the calving of glaciers and when they are gone, the glaciers will flow faster to the sea.
Another way to look at it is, is an ice free arctic correlated with higher sea levels?
Well yes, because they are both caused by the same thing.
https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/when-climate-scientists-criticise-each-other/
https://twitter.com/climateofgavin/status/513995826553946113
There was a lot of backlash to the Rose article (not just the headline) and the House Science press release that came from it. The silence from Judith in response to the backlash was deafening, and could be taken as a sign that the backlash was deserved. We will never know for sure. Bates had to set the record straight to separate himself from Rose’s piece and preserve his own integrity. No defense of him from Judith either. This posting could have been a reflection on all that happened since Bates posted here, but no.
In my view we got several insights from this episode
– how certain elements of the press like David Rose create fake news
– how certain people in high places like Lamar Smith fall for it
– that in fact the SST data was right and Bates admitted as much, so the hiatus was dead as soon as ERSSTv4 came out, and Karl was right to point that out
– that Bates, Rose and Smith were wrong on the effect of this on Paris. People who attended said the paper had no effect.
It would have been great if Judith had addressed any of the above points, but she won’t.
Did you actually read the Bates article? Because it certainly looks like you didn’t. Bates destroyed Karl-15 as the political hack work it was. He demonstrated that there was no science in it, just an exercise in cooling the past and warming the present.
In a similar timeframe to the Bates article, several posts came out demonstrating, using captures of past documents, the results of NOAA cooling the past, specifically removing the 1930’s warming. Did you somehow miss them?
His CE article was down in the weeds about who can release what data and when and how. That was his business in NOAA. He didn’t like the land data, which had little effect in K15, but regarding the ERSSTv4 which killed the hiatus, Bates even wanted that out earlier than Karl. He has nothing against that dataset. It had already passed his controls. Many seemed to have missed that on reading his article because so many irrelevant details on land data dominated. Rose actually wrote the opposite and seemed confused by all the data being considered.
“Bates destroyed Karl-15 as the political hack work it was. He demonstrated that there was no science in it, just an exercise in cooling the past and warming the present.”
Did you somehow miss Mosher?
“However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.””,/i>
Nick Stokes gets was I was up to
On a thread a Judiths I posted ( spammed) the board with Bates
retraction.
How many actually read it and understood it
Judith needs to understand THIS effect before she randomly hosts guest bloggers
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/how-curiosity-bursts-our-political-bubbles/514451/
Mosher, The Atlantic piece is an interesting choice, “And though the conservative, science-curious participants still thought global warming and fracking were less of a big deal than their liberal counterparts, the more science-curious they were, the more of a risk they considered it.”
Nice linking global warming and fracking, bias much?
Stephen February 11, 2017 at 6:25 pm
As noted in the article this work of Kahan’s is nascent indeed, and there are possible other explanations. Nonetheless the possibility that science curiosity negates to some extent partisan interpretation of knowledge, seems perfectly plausible. This would reduce polarization yet not increase the net tendency towards a right answer. The possibility that science curiosity is a ‘reasoning proficiency’ that can tend towards the right answer no matter what (in this admittedly brief summary article the ‘risk’ of GW and Fracking is subtly framed as the ‘right’ answer), would be radical to say the least. Science curiosity is not science knowledge, so even at the RH end of the scale if these SC folks who are not particularly knowledgeable apparently have an inner compass towards the right answer for any disputed science issue, at that point we wouldn’t need science, we’d just ask them which party in the dispute is right.
There are 2 things happening here. 1) The reduction in polarization, which for instance could be explained by cultural bifurcation of knowledge bases. So for the science curious who are not knowledgeable we would expect parallel *flat* railway tracks in the RHS graphs, which is a feature of lack of knowledge not increasing curiosity. 2) The rising of the parallel tracks, which for instance can be explained by increased engagement with the emotive side of the science issue (curiosity is more normally treated as an innate / emotive behavior than a reasoning proficiency). It so happens in the charts shown that the major emotive drive in the GW case is with the scientific consensus, and in the fracking case against it; the rising tracks in each case may merely be following this cue. Kahan kindly re-ran some data to look at 1) above, but it was not conclusive for either hypothesis.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2016/3/7/wsmd-ja-do-science-curious-people-just-not-know-enough-about.html
(which also links to the prior first post on the topic).
Captain
you missed the point.
case one.
Trump says his crowd was bigger.
Believers gotta believe.
Show them a picture and they will say black is white.
Bates says thumb on the scale
Believers gotta belive
Show them Bates retraction and they cannot read it.
Mosher, didn’t miss anything, say fracking in dangerous, believers believe it, say tars sands are game over for Earth, believers believe it. Say 6 million people die per year due to air pollution with a photo shopped coal power plant behind you, believers believe it.
Doesn’t matter that fracking produces natgas which has lower emission than coal, or that coal power plants replacing coal brickettes for cooking and heating reduces air pollution or that tars sands refined in the US will produce less emissions than tar sands refined in China. I mean after all that is “The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity.”
Oh, btw, the inauguration pictures also had an estimated crowd for Trump of less than 200,000 provided by the pickup hating tweeter that works for the NY times, that doesn’t get much mention. There is no accurate estimate, but 500,000 to 600,000 is in the ballpark which is better than past Republicans. I believe Trump responded first to the less than 200,000 non-sense and then the picture comparison non-sense started after than. All pretty much non-sense, like blocking the natural gas lines into Mexico because of evil fracking, fear of Avocado harvested by peon labor price hikes and focusing on Flint water when half the northeast is in the same boat.
I could fall for that “but Atlantic piece” squirrel, Cap’n.
Just for you, and because the Auditor’s analysis was crap.
Everyone knows that climate changes. Srsly?
Editor, not Auditor. Damn autocorrect.
No doubt it’s journalistic license, but unfortunately the Kahan studies referenced don’t really inform the Inauguration numbers / photo issue used as the lead-in to the Atlantic article. In his own words, Kahan says the increase in polarization with more knowledge (per his OSI scale shown, Science Knowledge), is ‘old news’. Indeed so, no issue there. The ‘new news’ is *potential* effects with increasing Science Curiosity, per my note above. Maybe issues. However, inauguration numbers are not a science topic anyhow, so neither an increasing SK or SC is likely to be relevant to this scenario.
Willard, squirrels are prolific breeders strawmen though are constructions.
One this Bates versus NOAA issue here is my little illustration.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AytR-ph-QUQ/WKBhpdAj4UI/AAAAAAAAOug/_5Pi_pfBWaQQlbHvVLGC0kjuwumT5hhSgCLcB/s1600/tropical%2Bdifference%2Bv3b%2Band%2Bv4.png
Sea ice versus no ice, okay that is an issue. Sparse coverage versus good coverage, yep, valid issue. Pause versus not, valid issue to some, others not so much. But 4 tenths of a degree change in ice free, well covered and pause free regions is a bit unexpected for such a professionally maintained product.
btw, if that happens to be an error caused by rushing, should someone be held responsible or is that just part of no scientist left behind policy?
Interesting counterfactual thinking you got there, Cap’n. A pity you missed the boat. It’s now a bit late for all these questions.
But do continue. The truth is out there.
Please learn the difference between a squirrel and a strawman.
Willard, “Interesting counterfactual thinking you got there, Cap’n”
Yep, pretty much why there is a populist movement world wide, intellectuals cannot answer simple questions because they haven’t the time.
For the inauguration issue, the claim that less than 200,000 attended was the issue, the photos the strawman.
For Bates, the issue is procedure and the huge differences in the early record. Nick Stokes diligently explains how the 0.12 offset would not cause a change in trend, when the question is why there is a change in trend not what didn’t cause it, Nick’s strawman.
Simple questions like the one about the no scientist left behind policy, Cap’n?
A more plausible explanation for the rise of populist crap is austerity. First you impoverish, then you blame otters.
As if Redneck physicist were part of the plebs anyway.
cap’n
I am bemused at the derision heaped on the numbers who attended trumps inauguration. As I understand it some 93% of the voting population of Washington DC vote democrat. Surely then a democrat president is much more likely to be supported by large crowd numbers than a republican one, whose supporters would have to be bussed in from outlying areas?
tonyb
tonyb “I am bemused at the derision heaped on the numbers who attended trumps inauguration. As I understand it some 93% of the voting population of Washington DC vote democrat, ”
It is a conservative wasteland and a working day is more difficult for the employed. Binyamin Applebaum was the New York Times correspondent and pickup truck hater that appears to have started the inauguration twitter war.
Back to the subject though, this much impact on just the tropical oceans changing from v3b to v4 is worthy of some conversation if someone is capable of maintaining focus.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AytR-ph-QUQ/WKBhpdAj4UI/AAAAAAAAOug/_5Pi_pfBWaQQlbHvVLGC0kjuwumT5hhSgCLcB/s1600/tropical%2Bdifference%2Bv3b%2Band%2Bv4.png
I thought the bemusement was about teh Donald’s #AlternativeFacts regarding the attendance. For instance when teh Sean, who may be seing his last days as the Press Cop, was saying it was the biggest attendance in herstory. For instance:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/trump-inauguration-crowd-sean-spicers-claims-versus-the-evidence
You wouldn’t squirrel away from that bemusement, wouldn’t you?
willard, “#AlternativeFacts regarding the attendance.”
right, Applebaum tweeted his estimate of the crowd size as less than 200,000, Trump said the crowd looked to be close to a million. Neither are facts, but opinionated estimates. There are no official estimates because of these silly assed opinions. Then media focused on the photo estimate of the “crowd” while Spicer diverted to “audience.” Huge tempest in a teapot.
for the tropical oceans, this is the range between the alternate facts.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AytR-ph-QUQ/WKBhpdAj4UI/AAAAAAAAOug/_5Pi_pfBWaQQlbHvVLGC0kjuwumT5hhSgCLcB/s1600/tropical%2Bdifference%2Bv3b%2Band%2Bv4.png
Fake news is fake news – over hyping and under fact checking are unfortunate aspects of media in the internet age. As for the effect it had on Paris, what effect would there have been if the US data had indicated less than anticipated warming while trying to get other nations to commit extreme emissions reductions? Having all the temperature products on the same page tends to reinforce consensus. Karl et al methods.are one thing, motivations are another, in somewhat intense political times.
Paris was never about the hiatus. It was about the 1 C we have already had and where we are headed. They look long-term. In this case, fake news got called out very quickly by almost every other media outlet, and Bates corrected the record on his own behalf in later interviews with other people.
Paris is about the politics and science of climate change. The Hiatus would be news that could have impact on politics. Politics tend to be short term.
Jim D, a slight clarification. The hiatus was never alive before ERSSTv4, at least not in a scientific/statistical sense.
It was simply an illusion manifesting in the minds of confirmationally-biased people eyeballing a graph and ignoring the existence of ‘noise’ in the global temperature record.
Yes, I have stated here before that 15-year temperatures are all over the place. As recently as the 15 years ending in 2000, its trend was 0.3 C per decade. It should not be used for climate trends. It has too much signal from the solar cycle for one thing. The 30-year temperature, on the other hand, has had a steady trend of 0.17 C per decade since 1980, not even a blip for the “pause”. Noise does cancel on that time scale.
“It was simply an illusion manifesting in the minds of confirmationally-biased people eyeballing a graph and ignoring the existence of ‘noise’ in the global temperature record.”
Climate may or not be warming on any particular time scale, but irony abounds in every age.
Also, Santer said it would disprove the models if it happened, and then it happened. At some point everyone might as well be citing Harold Camping.
I don’t know what you meant about “hoaxers/denialists that use her as a guide” because you didn’t give any examples. However, if my supposition is correct, what those people mean is that non-believers in the CAGW religion have been able to find out the truth about the science, politics and outright religion that is CAGW. They then start to query the authority of the government and NGOs that are forcing extreme green policies onto the general public.
Good on ya. Keep it up as long as you can. Don’t let the hyenas define your role for you. Only you can choose that.
Your readers believe in you JC so don’t change a thing. Be true to yourself and if someone doesn’t have the same respect any longer then so be it. You can’t people with closed or one track minds. Best of luck with the future and I believe that the Trump administration would do well to listen to you and others regarding climate change and other science issues.
*Her readers* believe, like she does, that AGW is *not* a hoax? Hmm, I must be reading an *alt* version of her comment threads then. I see wild claims like that all the time here.
Judith,
Your are doing a fantastic job. You have probably saved the world billion or trillions of dollars by helping to inform members of Congress about the relevant facts of climate science, encouraging people to challenge their beliefs, IPCC and EPA to think outside their boxes, and giving non-elites the confidence to vote for a change of direction by voting for Trump.
“There is an honest dispute about the NOAA methodology and results. Covering it up is dishonest and not healthy.”
J.C
From Bates ….
“So, in every aspect of the preparation and release of the datasets leading into K15, we find Tom Karl’s thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming and minimize documentation. ”
And:
“Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”
The ONLY thing that matters re honesty in this study is that the data were uncorrupted and independent of the authors.
Thus making the study reproducible. They were.
So Karl had his “thumb on the scale” did he?
So Karl wanted to “maximise warming” did he?
So Karl wanted to “discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus“ did he?
The reason this is a dishonest attack on Karl15 is the quotes he makes in the post that YOU facilitated here and Rose *embellishes* in the DM.
Rose is a known dishonest reporter of facts re climate science – Just for starters read the UKMO blog posts with the Q & A he had with them and his blatant disregard of what he was told.
Then of course we have this episode which cements his dishonesty.
Do you think that the man really thought that his “graph” was correct?
I don’t know which is worst – that he did or that it was deliberate, and meant to deceive.
If the man had been ignorant then why the f*** is he reporting on climate science?
“rush to time the publication of the paper “ when PR took 2 months longer than normal?
So we have a nothing story, re dishonesty of the science, blown up to become a fact in the minds of many readers of the DM via the biased and dishonest reporting of Rose ….. “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships.”
(as a supposed Bates’ quote).
Which Bates denies (?).
(JC): “The fundamental issue is this: data standards that are ‘ok’ for curiosity driven research are NOT ‘ok’ for high impact research of relevance to a regulatory environment.”
A none issue re the veracity of Karl15.
The data was independent and the study therefore reproducible with methodology archived, whether “by the book” or not.
Karl15 has been confirmed as correct by Zeke Hausefather et al in a recent paper.
(JC): “The key issues of concern are in John Bates’ blog post (not what David Rose wrote).”
No.
Without Rose this wouldn’t have had any legs at all, as it was it didn’t get around the track once before they were shot from under it.
That’s in the minds of the discerning.
Trouble is a certain L Smith is not, and he would rather take his *science* from the DM than from the scientists making it.
Strange/bizarre but true.
(Thorne Blog): “Insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation”
Response(JC): “Thorne has not been on site (NOAA NCDC) for years and not during the final few years when this took place.”
So you do not support Thorne’s “maximised warming” rebuttal?
To wit: “Dr. Tom Karl was not personally involved at any stage of ERSSTv4 development, the ISTI databank development or the work on GHCN algorithm during my time at NOAA NCEI. At no point was any pressure bought to bear to make any scientific or technical choices.”
(Thorne Blog): “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out […]”
Response (JC): ” Verbiage used by David Rose is not the key issue here. The issue is the substantial adjustment of the buoy temperatures to match the erroneous ship values, and neglect of data from the Argo buoys.”
“The issue is the substantial adjustment of the buoy temperatures to match the erroneous ship values, and neglect of data from the Argo buoys.”
Temperature were not substantially adjusted.
(See Thorne’s response to Bates above).
I agree with Judith in this regard: “The fundamental issue is this: data standards that are ‘ok’ for curiosity driven research are NOT ‘ok’ for high impact research of relevance to a regulatory environment.”
Those scientists who want their results to drive policy have to realize that they have to meet the highest standards. The timing and implications of the Karl paper should have to meet those high standards even if it is the opinion of the loud voices here that the issue was only paperwork.
“I agree with Judith in this regard: “The fundamental issue is this: data standards that are ‘ok’ for curiosity driven research are NOT ‘ok’ for high impact research of relevance to a regulatory environment.”
Those scientists who want their results to drive policy have to realize that they have to meet the highest standards.”
Except when Judith and Christy Advise congress THEY USE BETA DATA.
Is that your idea of integrity.
NOAA has to use a CDR process which basically means 2 year research, but Juditha nd Christy get to use data that hasnt even been peer reviewed.
So its V&V for Noaa
and
Wing it for Judith
When testifying before Congress, I provide them with the data for the most recent year, extending the published datasets by adding a new data point. I use diagrams created/updated by the authors of the original dataset/papers (e.g. Spencer, Hawkins, HADCRUT4, even Zeke/Mosh).
When publishing a new dataset, and drawing important scientific conclusions from that data set and it is judged to be highly influential science, there are well established rules for government publications. Further, publishing a dataset (which is operations) versus publishing a research paper that draws conclusions that are highly significant are different ball games. The mission of NOAA NCEI is
NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) hosts and provides access to one of the most significant archives on earth, with comprehensive oceanic, atmospheric, and geophysical data.
It is not to do research. It is my understanding that the budget line for NCEI is operations, not research.
“When publishing a new dataset, and drawing important scientific conclusions from that data set and it is judged to be highly influential science, there are well established rules for government publications. Further, publishing a dataset (which is operations) versus publishing a research paper that draws conclusions that are highly significant are different ball games. ”
1. They drew no important scientific conclusions. They Pointed to potential biases in their Operational products.
2. Publication of the data was REQUIRED by the journal, so they published it as non operational data. None of us were confused.
3. You seem to be arguing that some of the most qualified people in the world running one of the most important archives should be barred from doing research or publishing research data and should be relegated to managing archives instead. Further, The operational datasets Should be subject to outside peer review which entails publishing in research journals
Busting the pause wasn’t an important/influential conclusion? This paper (and the conclusion) was cited in the briefing material from dozens of scientific organizations provided for COP21 delegates.
I will leave it OMB and others to decide the appropriate/legitimate activities for NCEI.
You seem to be arguing that some of the most qualified people in the world running one of the most important archives should be barred from doing research or publishing research data and should be relegated to managing archives instead.
The resulting spreads in the reconstructed data
continued … is at error against historical data say sea level rise,which in turn enhances the error in the so called reconstructed data it is a legitimate problem and has been called out.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-016-9405-z
“Busting the pause wasn’t an important/influential conclusion? ”
There was no pause to bust.
Scientifically it wasnt very influential. Those of us who worked with the data know that NOAA was low, same way we know HADCRUT was low and that when they fix their cool bias the paws will be even more of a nothing burger.
I would say your paper with Lewis was more important to science,
K15 was not important to paris or policy or science,, great blog fodder.
but hardly paper of the year
“I will leave it OMB and others to decide the appropriate/legitimate activities for NCEI.”
Well, you DIDNT leave it to them. You weighed in and suggested otherwise,
So simple question,
You encourage citizens and denizens to think and research for themselves, to argue the evidence… kind of a champion of folks who dont have a voice.
But you are cool with OMB silencing the experts on temperature.?
Seems to me you’d want the best minds on the important problems and not appeal to OMB experts on who should get to be curious?
Stephen: ‘There was no pause to bust.’
Lewandowsky et al 2015 (L2015) points out that in addition to two 2014 special issues/sections of Nature journals devoted to the “pause” or “hiatus” (Nature Climate Change, March 2014, No. 149; and Nature Geoscience, February 2014, No. 157), and with the IPCC adopting the term “hiatus” in its Fifth Assessment Report ( Stocker et al., 2013), the number of scientific papers devoted to this alleged “hiatus” is large and growing rapidly (e.g., Allan et al., 2014, Balmaseda et al., 2013, Bao and Ren, 2014, Brown et al., 2014, Cazenave et al., 2014, Chen and Tung, 2014, Clement and DiNezio, 2014, Crowley et al., 2014, de Boisséson et al., 2014, Desbruyères et al., 2014, Dong and Zhou, 2014, Drijfhout et al., 2014, Easterling and Wehner, 2009, England et al., 2014, Estrada et al., 2013, Fyfe et al., 2013, Fyfe and Gillett, 2014, Goddard, 2014, Guemas et al., 2013, Haywood et al., 2014, Hawkins et al., 2014, Held, 2013, Huber and Knutti, 2014, Hunt, 2011, Kamae et al., 2014, Kaufmann et al., 2011, Kosaka and Xie, 2013, Laepple and Huybers, 2014, Lean and Rind, 2009, Lin et al., 2014, Lorentzen, 2014, Lovejoy, 2014, Lu et al., 2014, Macias et al., 2014, Maher et al., 2014, McGregor et al., 2014, Meehl et al., 2011, Meehl et al., 2013b, Meehl et al., 2014, Meehl and Teng, 2014, Palmer and Smith, 2014, Ridley et al., 2014, Risbey et al., 2014, Santer et al., 2011, Santer et al., 2014, Schmidt et al., 2014, Seneviratne et al., 2014, Sillmann et al., 2014, Smith, 2013, Solomon et al., 2010, Solomon et al., 2011, Tollefson, 2014, Trenberth, 2009, Trenberth and Fasullo, 2013, Trenberth et al., 2014, Triacca et al., 2014, Tung and Zhou, 2013, Watanabe et al., 2013, Watanabe et al., 2014 and Wayman, 2013).
L2015 does not claim that this list is exhaustive, and adds that ‘the IPCC represents the thoroughly vetted consensus view of the scientific community, and its treatment of the “hiatus” as a phenomenon worthy of explanation confirms that its existence has entered the mainstream scientific discourse.’
L2015’s explanation for this is that ‘contrarian memes’ have ‘seeped’ into mainstream climate science and effectively re-framed its position. Given per your statement above you do not believe that the ‘hiatus’ is real and physical, do you agree with this explanation, or do you have a different explanation as to why the concept became part of mainstream climate science?
Link to L2015. All papers in the above list are linked inside it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015000515
Mosher: “There was no pause to bust.”
“Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends,” said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
Andrew
:Pause or No Pause?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/images/global%20temperature%20trends_300.jpg
Andrew
RE: Steven Mosher | February 11, 2017 at 6:30 pm |
“NOAA has to use a CDR process which basically means 2 year research . . .”
Unless it doesn’t. See previous posts here . . .
What Mosher meant to say is that in his mind there was no pause. Dude has deteriorated. Anyway, for the next 8 years Mosher could get a steady gig doing silly impersonations of Steve Bannon on SNL.
TB – you are a meteorologist I believe you said.
If you go to this web site, you can chart sat temps for, say, 2012. If you compare the 14,000 foot level with the higher levels, you will see that the annual variation is less the higher up you choose.
Why is that?
https://ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov/amsutemps/
Thank you for standing up. To learn you need to speak to those of differing opinion as you mostly know what you think your self. The debate can be successful only when all parties listen constructively. Keep going and we may reach true discussion.
Your country needs you.
Think of the children.
Won’t someone please think of the children?
Today’s post is not about Bates….it is about Judith Curry. I find it incredible that some denizens, in response to this post by Judith’s, a very personal post about her roles and outlook, instead of commenting on topic, are still doing nothing but arm waving and shouting, “Move One Move On, Nothing To See Here” about Bates’ article and the furor about it. Senseless and insensitive.
We are not saying Move on about Bates.
rather we are asking for full accountablity and transparency.
Why did it take the AP to get an admission from Bates?
Why didnt Judith ask him if it was fraud?
Why didnt she ask him How he squared the claim of thumb on the scale
with Zeke’s paper? A paper that, by the way, was partially engendered
by Judith;s suggestions of how to check karl’s work
So yes, the post is about Judith and in particular the roll she played or should have played in the NothingBurgerGate or batesGate
It is disheartening that you are so willing denigrate a long-time colleague because she isn’t a journalist — if she had been, your criticism would be valid — and I would join you.
But she is not a journalist, she was and is Gates’ colleague and friend.
She explains her role in this clearly and very personally above.
Mosher, the data did show a pause. Are you waiting for an embarrassing array of links now?
We were all staring at the same data. And for that matter; we were all staring cross eyed at the uncertainties each dataset contains. I for one Suspected Karl biased his choices in making K15. Its an easy assumption to make when faced with his ludicrous buoy adjustments.
Did you reproduce his numbers? Sure, who cares. The foundations are suspect and thats being as nice as ive every been. So what exactly did you reproduce? Maybe it was a steaming pile of something?
” Its an easy assumption to make when faced with his ludicrous buoy adjustments.”
So much certainty with so little analysis! In fact, the arithmetic of the buoy adjustments is very simple, and not really due to Karl. Kennedy and others established that buoys measure 0.12°C cooler than ships. Over two decades, data has gone from 10% buoys to 90% buoys. That makes an artefact trend of -0.05 °C/decade, caused by change in measuring device, not climate. Correcting it creates an uptrend of 0.05°C/decade, which is about what they get. You can work that out without consulting CDRs, filenames etc.
Yes we did work it out Nick. The more accurate buoy data
was adjusted to the less accurate to the less accurate ships – creating a warm bias over the entire record. Data rigging 101.
The really fraudulent thing – deceiving the public for gain – is the circus around using surface records – and annual averages at that – as the symbol of global warming. A fraction of the global energy budget.
You do know we are are in the 19th year of a 20 to 30 cooler Pacific regime? I don’t think they do. It’s crossing their fingers and hoping it’s anything but that.
I’m putting it out there for a yet cooler shift sometime soon.
And here’s my thinking – I’m not just pulling it out of my arse.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet
Excuse my typos – time for a cup of tea.
And that was the wrong link – https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/01/12/an-earnest-discovery-of-climate-causality/
“The more accurate buoy data was adjusted to the less accurate to the less accurate ships – creating a warm bias over the entire record. Data rigging 101.”
Wearily, yet again, it makes absolutely no difference. The “warm bias” is a constant 0.12°C over the whole dataset, relative to that if ships had been adjusted to buoys. And immediately after the adjustment, grid cell anomalies are formed by subtracting the base period mean, which of course is also 0.12C higher. Net, result – zero difference. And only anomalies are used thereafter.
Nick, yes the math is fine if you are accepting that within the buoy data an elephant sized bias lurks. The multidecade overlap(buoy and fleet) is evidence for what? First, there is a difference in average between the buoy and fleet 1and2, (Im using fleet 1 and 2 because bucket data is a departure in quality from engine intake). Both fleet datasets contain known biases, and attempts to quantify and qualify those biases (though useful) render out noise and information at once. Lets be clear, fleet data is useful to percieve historical mean trend with very poor resolution.
Bucket data has been demonstrated to cool the record and intake data warms the record, the biases are known but signal and noise can never be fully distinguished in either case. Buoy measurements are a different animal, designed for purpose. Its logical to calibrate all individual ss datasets to the buoy data. Period. As well, the error bands must accompany the subsequent trend lines to illustrate uncertainty, which is significant prior to ARGO.
I dont care who authored Karls foundational material. It doenst matter. Karl was employed by the people, and he was reponsible for the choices made in K15. As public funds were provided to him in trust, he is charge with making reasonable scientific choices. He failed, and worse. A 5 year old could spot the spurious buoy treatment. Karl knew how the adjustments would affect the mean trend. Did he not? And as he is not a five year old, I suspect he had his thumbs on the data.
Judith,
I agree with all of the commenters here that thank you for this blog. I think you have made a difference and hope you can continue to do this in your retirement.
Roger
After reading the “97% of the scientists..” journal article, I have grave concerns about how data are now gathered and interpreted by those whose jobs are dependent on those (the club?) who review proposals and control the money for proposals that question the status quo.
What I really meant to say. My brain is being Bannonified and Trumped.
After reading the “97% of the scientists..” journal article, I have grave concerns about how data are now gathered and interpreted by those who review proposals and control the money for proposals that question the status quo.
Steven Mosher, Nick Stokes,
Bates was well aware of the fact that the authors had indicated in their paper that they used the ISTI dataset.
“In K15, the authors describe that the land surface air temperature dataset included the GHCN-M station data and also the new ISTI (Integrated Surface Temperature Initiative) data that was run through the then operational GHCN-M bias correction and gridding program (i.e., Step 2 of land air temperature processing in Figure 2). They further indicated that this processing and subsequent corrections were ‘essentially the same as those used in GHCN-Monthly version 3’.”
So why would he then say that the authors failed to indicate that they were using a highly experimental early version of a GHCN-M v4 run? It doesn’t make sense to me. Are you saying he contradicted himself within the space of a few short paragraphs? Does the use of ISTI automatically reveal which version of GHCN-M was being used?
Lots of paperwork on GHCN-Mv4 submitted in September and November of 2016.
Marica McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences reminds us that K15 has now been certified with a “platinum test,” withstanding the scrutiny of a confirming paper.
I would love to see K15 withstand the scrutiny of a certain retired Canadian geologist. That would be the platinum test. Zeke is a fine scientist but, (sorry Marica,) his confirmation is more like the “no criticism from the choir test.”
First understand some history.
For a long time Skeptics were criticizing NOAA for dropping data from the GHCN-M data set.
This “controversy” was called the great march of the thermometers.
Some skeptics wrote papers on it. They wrote a large report, slapped Anthony’s name on it and charged NOAA with fraud. When challenged they backed down and the report has since been taken off line.
A few of us ( Zeke, Myself, Nick stokes ) wrote about this fake controversy
and debunked the science. Even posted at WUWT. Still the zombie argument lived on.
After Climategate and charges of losing data and dropping data continued two efforts were put in place
Berkeley Earth, funded by conservatives
ISTI,
Basically both groups wanted to go it ALL of the data they could lay their hands on and build a reference dataset outside of NOAA.
GHCN-M has about 7000 stations.
Berkeley earth has in excess of 40,000 stations
ISTI has about 35K ( last I check)
There is even more data out there, its a huge task to organize it all and deconflict it.
To your question. The paragaph I cited was from the abstract. The Abstract makes clear that they use ISTI.
ISTI is a Superset
Nobody, absolutely NOBODY, who works in this field would Mistake ISTI for an operational NOAA product.
I dont know why Bates thinks they needed a disclaimer.
your next question
“Does the use of ISTI automatically reveal which version of GHCN-M was being used?”
ISTI is a separate collection.
Today NWS and other entities send data to NOAA.. daily data hourly data and monthly data. NOAA builds that into various data products
Like GHCN-M
For a long time GHCN-M has been a joke. 7000 stations of monthly data.
Personally, I use GHCN-D daily data, as there are 10s of thousands of stations of daily un adjusted data. From that I build my own monthly data.
ISTI also collects data from various sources. They have a different process than NOAA.
Currently NOAA are building an operational version of GHCN-M that will have 26K stations. you can track the progress , by going to their ftp site
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v4/documentation/
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v4/documentation/GHCNM-v4-VandV-20160928.pdf
Best is to read the ATBD
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v4/documentation/GHCNM-v4-ATBD-20161114.pdf
Time to give it up, Mosher.
It’s all over for you dodgy temperature database dealers.
You’re going to have to get a proper job.
Try practising saying: “Would you like fries with that, sir?”
sorry cat
Trumps NOAA is compiling version 4 using A Judith Approved
CDR process.
When that is done NOAA will have a Trump approved, Judith approved,
bates sanctioned land record.
You are now the establishment funding and directing the science.
Very shortly we will have a temperature record complete with the Donalds stamp of approval.
Temperature is my hobby .
Audits never end
Sometimes, it’s a good thing.
We get Sound Science
Hence the need to be thankful for all the concerns
Including the contrarians’
Sometimes we get into INTEGRITY ™
This seldom ends well when it ends
And when it doesn’t, for it could be a kind of audit
It never is a Good Thing
Bigly sad
Thanks for the history lesson and the links. I’m still somewhat confused by this issue of an ‘unverified version’ of GHCN-M and the use of ISTI. However, Bates’ response on Judith’s post ‘Response to Critiques’ throws some light on the subject, as does your last link re. GHCNM-v4. From the former:
”
‘The paper relied on a preliminary alpha version of the data which was never approved or verified’
The land data of Karl et al., 2015 relied upon the published and internally process verified ISTI databank holdings and the published, and publically assessable homogenisation algorithm application thereto. This provenance satisfied both Science and the reviewers of Karl et al. It applied a known method (used operationally) to a known set of improved data holdings (published and approved).
Response from John Bates:
Versioning of GHCNmv4 alpha – So, after I sent my formal complaint on K15 to the NCEI Science Council in Jan 2016, I pressed to have my concern heard but sessions were booked. I pressed on at the end of one of the meetings and specifically brought up the issue of versioning in additional to not archiving. Russ Vose Chairs the Science Council and Jay Lawrimore, who runs the GHCN code, were in attendance. I made my argument that the version in K15 was in fact V4 alpha and should have been disclosed as such whit the disclaimer required for a non-operational research product. I said that the main reason for changing the version number from 3 to 4 was the use of ISTI data per what Jay Lawrimore had briefed. Moreover, plots of raw, uncorrected ISTI vs GHCN 3 on the ISTI page (will find link after I send these thoughts) show that there are 4 decades in the late 1800 and early 1900s where there is a systematic difference of 0.1C between the two. The reason for this has to be explained before the data are run through the pairwise, and so since there is not GHCNv4 peer article doing this, provenance is lacking. The notion that the ISTI peer article does this is wrong. ISTI web site specifically says it is not run through pairwise and that is a later step.
I concluded, thus K15 uses GHCN v4 alpha consistent with the file name. Russ Vose then said, ‘no it’s version 3’. However, then Jay Lawrimore said, ‘John’s right, it’s version 4’. There was some awkward silence and, since the meeting was already over time, folks just left. So, contrary to Thorne I do meet with these folks and I discussed this very issue with them AND Jay Lawrimore who actually runs the GHCN data said I was right. Thus, Thorne is wrong.”
The take home message from this seems to be: “I made my argument that the version in K15 was in fact V4 alpha and should have been disclosed as such whit the disclaimer required for a non-operational research product. I said that the main reason for changing the version number from 3 to 4 was the use of ISTI data per what Jay Lawrimore had briefed.”
i.e. the version used was a non-operational research product which should have had a disclaimer, but that, to those in the know, the mention of the use of ISTI data was probably sufficient info to conclude that the non-operational GHCN v4 alpha was the dataset used. However, those who should have been in the know insisted that the product was operational and fully tested and verified, e.g.
“I concluded, thus K15 uses GHCN v4 alpha consistent with the file name. Russ Vose then said, ‘no it’s version 3’. However, then Jay Lawrimore said, ‘John’s right, it’s version 4’.”
Your link confirms that GHCM v4 makes use of ISTI data:
“In large part GHCN-M v4 uses the same quality control and bias correction algorithms as v3. The greatest difference from the previous version is a greatly expanded set of stations based on the large data holdings in GHCN-Daily (Menne et al. 2012) as well as Global Historical Climatology Network-Monthly Version 4 ATBD Page 5 additional station data collected as part of the International Surface Temperature Initiative databank effort (ISTI; Rennie et al. 2013).”
From which one can probably conclude that Karl et al, though declaring the use of ISTI, didn’t make it absolutely clear that they were using a non-operational GHCN-v4 alpha, which would have technically required a disclaimer. One can argue maybe that the declared use of ISTI was indication enough but obviously, some scientists even so were seemingly not aware that it was v4 alpha and were under the impression apparently that the dataset was operational and fully verified.
Dr. Curry,
Sometimes we forget the simple things.
Measure twice. Cut once.
Slow is fast.
Breathe.
When faced with stress, pressure, and limited time, it can be difficult to make the optimal choice.
Slowing down enough to allow your judgement to operate properly is key.
Judith, thank you for everything you do. I am happy to read your pointedly relevant views on climate change.
Judith, Your unselfish dedication to the scientific process, allowing all sides of the climate debate to have a voice is greatly appreciated. You have been horribly and undeservedly attacked ever since Scientific American and Nature branded you as a “Climate heretic” and spun good critical thinking as “Judith Curry turns on her colleagues”
By embracing and posting alternative explanations, by highlighting that great uncertainties, you have helped to reinstate the scientific process as a process that we should trust only when its vets all hypotheses and undergoes critical debate from many perspectives. Otherwise the politics of climate science and the pressures of group think would continue to denigrate the scientific process, such that the validity of hypotheses is sadly based only on who can shout (post) the loudest and longest.
What a refreshingly candid post. I can only imagine the intense rings of fire you go through when blogging about climate change. Thank you for doing what you do.
Do AGW alarmists’ 97% consensus claims have all the earmarks of a hoax or are they more accurately described fake news or nothing more that the result of poor research technique?
Very well said Judith. The time it takes to prepare blogs and give them the same respect and quality as journal articles is taken for granted by people who read them but have never themselves blogged. But the impact you have has a value far greater than any journal editor.
One thing you had forgotten to mention that I am sure takes a good deal of your time. The follow-up, comments, emails with people you’ve never met must factor into your time immensely. Your page is probably one of the smartest places on the Internet, and it stays that way for a reason. From my own experience (in the Brussels mudpit), I get the amount of time it takes (personal time, unlike most activists who clock on and write their dogma from scripts) and respect you enormously for it!
David
Very well said. Your service has gone well ‘above and beyond.’
Dr. Curry, I plead with you with all my strength: Go to Washington, D.C. Join our Federal Government. Our country needs you. Please, please.
You’re bothering people on both ends of this debate. That’s the surest sign that you’re following a scientific compass through a maelstrom of sacred cows.
Historically, those following ethical paths have done civilization a great service but usually not fared so well themselves. While history is generally kind to them, current life circumstance is usually challenging and sometimes tragic.
I would add that yours is the most consistent, cogent and balanced voice on this subject I’ve found. (And I have looked a good bit.) Since my field is engineering and my time is also limited, when I want to know what I think about climate I come to this blog.
Finally, we all must balance our vocations (broadest sense) against our responsibilities. That can be very very complicated math. Don’t be surprised if that gets away from you on occasion.
Thanks for pursuing truth as best you understand and as best you can. It is clear that is your intention and from out here, your foremost accomplishment.
a new Global Land Surface Meteorological Databank. Organized under the auspices of the International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI), an international group of scientists have spent three years collating and merging data from numerous sources to create a merged holding. This release in its recommended form consists of over 30000 individual station records, some of which extend over the past 300 years.
The GHCN is one of the primary reference compilations of temperature data used for climatology, and is the foundation of the GISTEMP Temperature Record. 7,280 fixed temperature stations . Sites that are actively updated in the database (2,277) Parts of the Pacific and other oceans are more isolated from fixed temperature stations, but this is supplemented by volunteer observing ships that record temperature information during their normal travels.
The GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) is an estimate of global surface temperature change. Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using current data files from NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST v4 (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations),The scheme was based on the finding that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. This fact proved sufficient to obtain useful estimates for global mean temperature changes.
ISTI databank design starting from the original observation to the final quality controlled and bias corrected products.The initial focus is on the collection of temperature data on the sub-daily, daily, and monthly timescale essential to ensuring the preservation of the original observations.Essential to ensuring the preservation of the original observations. Only 37 of 58 sources list raw data.
Because of the emphasis the ISTI places on data provenance, the stage 3 databank holdings are envisaged to constitute as close to the raw data as possible. A bit hard given 2/5ths are not raw data.27,300 sources of 30000 are GHCN data anyway.
Rud has presumably analysed these assumptions. I think it is time to put some hard demands in the data base programmers.
“Only 37 of 58 sources list raw data.
Because of the emphasis the ISTI places on data provenance, the stage 3 databank holdings are envisaged to constitute as close to the raw data as possible. A bit hard given 2/5ths are not raw data.27,300 sources of 30000 are GHCN data anyway.”
wrong again.
37 of 58 represents the fraction of data sets, not the fraction of raw data,
Its pretty simple.
Some datasets have large numbers of stations ( 20K+)
others have small numbers of stations ( 100, 1000 ) and they
overlap.
So what you want to count is raw months.
But why am I talking to you, You have denied for years that there are more than 5000 stations in the world and even Bates could no convince you
I did say “Only 37 of 58 sources list raw data”.
“37 of 58 represents the fraction of data sets”,
yes that is exactly what I said.
–
” not the fraction of raw data,”
I did not make that claim.
–
I will make this claim
The fraction of raw data is likely less than 5%,
Those 37 data sets include.
ghcnd is 27300 “stations ” of the approx 30,000 stations used by the international surface temperature initiative global land surface databank.
Yet GHCN-Daily NCDC DAILY is QC, that is quality controlled, not raw data.
JMA CRUTEM and NSIDC are all homogenised.
So virtually almost none of the data is raw.
Shoot that down
–
“You have denied for years that there are more than 5000 stations in the world ” ?
–
I have denied the number of active stations in the world with real raw data is very high, Unless you can specify this number I can claim without fear of rebuttal that it is less than 5000 for data sets such as GCHN and GISS.
Q. “Does the use of ISTI automatically reveal which version of GHCN-M was being used?”
A “ISTI is a separate collection.”
–
Which just happens to include,
GHCN-Daily NCDC DAILY QC Y Y N
GHCN-M v2 NCDC MONTHLY QC Y Y Y
GHCN-M v2 Source NCDC MONTHLY Raw N N Y
“Nobody, absolutely NOBODY, who works in this field would Mistake ISTI for an operational NOAA product” or know which version of GHCN was used. But they are not going to tell people outside the field anything.
But why am I talking to you, You have denied for years that there are more than 5000 stations in the world.
–
GHCN-M has about 7000 stations. For a long time GHCN-M has been a joke. 7000 stations of monthly data.
Personally, I use GHCN-D daily data, as there are 10s of thousands of stations of daily un adjusted data. From that I build my own monthly data.”
–
The Global Historical Climatology Network – Daily (GHCN-Daily) dataset integrates daily climate observations from approximately 30 different data sources. about two thirds of which are for precipitation measurement only.
Version 3 contains station-based measurements from well over 90,000 land-based stations worldwide [2\3 rainfall only]
Over 25,000 stations are regularly updated with observations from within roughly the last month.
Therefore under a third are regularly updated for temperature. 8000 stations. Hence the claim of “10s of thousands of stations of daily un adjusted [temperature] data.” cannot be right. You do claim to be downloading temperature data,right.
Worse, only some of the data is daily, that is what ” regularly updated with observations from within roughly the last month”
lets say 4000 stations .
Worse, when you use data from multiple sources it is possible to have up to 10 different stations that are actually the same station. That is why the joke of GHCN takes out so many stations after vetting them to prevent duplicate use.
–
“From that I build my own monthly data.”
Yessss. Well done. Just like Karl and just as reliable.
Finally
some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive
data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records).
How many stations [ Berkeley earth has in excess of 40,000 stations
ISTI has about 35K] are actually for historical use only and how many are actually active?
That is to have a historical network many stations are used to build up the past history and many are no longer actually in use.
So do the Berkeley stations represent real current active stations , all 40,000. GHCN has only 2000 active stations. How many active monthly stations does Berkeley Earth have?
“So do the Berkeley stations represent real current active stations , all 40,000. GHCN has only 2000 active stations. How many active monthly stations does Berkeley Earth have?”
We Post the data so that YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF and so that we dont have to change your diapers for you.
Here.. like so.
library(data.table)
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)
fn <- "C:\\Users\\steven\\Desktop\\BEJan\\data.txt"
raw <-fread(fn,showProgress=TRUE,skip=111,drop=c(2,5,6,7))
setnames(raw,c(1,2,3),c("Id","Date","Temp"))
setkey(raw,Id,Date)
raw <- tbl_df(raw)
Summary % group_by(Date) %>%
summarize(StationCount = n())%>%
arrange(desc(Date))
ggplot(Summary, aes(x=Date,y=StationCount))+geom_point()
download the data. run the code,
18-19,000 per Month
At Month end, there are roughly 15000 stations reporting Live data for the current month.. a few weeks later another 3-4000 will report.
So.. In Jan 2017, our December 2016 will have 15000 stations.. the Non real time data will trickle in and then Dec 2016 wll have 18000 -19000 stations like every other month in 2016.
To be exact….
1 2016.958 15034
2 2016.875 18025
3 2016.792 18466
4 2016.708 18491
5 2016.625 18432
6 2016.542 18303
7 2016.458 18524
8 2016.375 18615
9 2016.292 18644
10 2016.208 18887.
Steven Mosher “So do the Berkeley stations represent real current active stations , all 40,000″‘
Thank you for your explanation, Nappy changing for you, information I struggle to get otherwise.
“At Month end, there are roughly 15000 stations reporting Live data for the current month”‘
GHCN only has 8000, does this imply another 7000 from other sources?
These are daily and monthly, mostly monthly so you could at best have only 50% daily
Being charitable only gives you 7500 stations.
And if you include multiple other inputs you have up to 10 duplicate stations, same station from different sources. reduce by 50%, no charity gives < 5000 stations.
""You have denied for years that there are more than 5000 stations in the world".
Real Stations.
–
Well, comments like
" there are 10s of thousands of stations of daily un adjusted data"
can be quite misleading when you want them to be.
Dr. Curry – so critical that you hang in there and do everything you can to keep the conversation intelligent and balanced. One quite elementary piece of advice which you could pass along to the administration is in how to respond the the simple and usual baited question, “what are your views (or, do you believe) in climate change (or, global warming)?”
Advise them to never answer with a Yes, or No answer; rather, try this.“Sorry – I’m not clear as to exactly what you are asking. Are you asking me about my views (or whether, or not, I believe) in CC/GW? It might help if you were more specific. Did you mean to asked what my views were on if some additional GW, most believe to be caused by AGC, had yet led to any scientific evidence of additional changes – perhaps worsening – to other forms of climate change (drought, floods, TC’s, accelerating SLR, etc.) – different then what is expected to occur within the natural variability of Earth’s climate . . or, do you mean to imply at some point and time in the future? Let’s be clear — GW and AGW as and CC and ACC/CACC, respectively, are not the same things. You do know that, do you not?”
It’s time to make the media, et. al, think about that which they do not understand about the climate – and weather.
Steven Mosher | February 11, 2017 at 6:15 pm |
Then why when faced with people who deny that humans have any effect ( Mark Levin in one case, and your most recent interview in another case) can you not clearly say:
“Look. There is no hoax. Look, you dont advance science by claiming “hoax”. Look there is plenty to argue about inside the uncertainties, but claiming there is a certain hoax or certain fraud, is just stupid. stop it.”
[….]
——————————————————————–
Absolutely. Unfortunately, whenever I look at this site these days, it just seems like more tedious propaganda.
The “uncertainties” are philosophically misplaced to somewhere that can’t be argued about sensibly.
It’s a displacement of the real argument that climate science isn’t a science at all, which I think is going a step too far even for JC. “Uncertainties” is a cover.
Pieces of what is climate science can be done as science, but not the assemblage. Those bits are things that are isolated enough to be curious about.
I don’t think a scientist who is not in climate science has any trouble saying that climate science isn’t a science at all.
JC’s great value is that she has the climate credentials to avoid credentialism dismissals, but she is also committed to the field being a science.
“I don’t think a scientist who is not in climate science has any trouble saying that climate science isn’t a science at all.”
too funny an appeal to authority gone meta
Power can be imperium, officium, auctoritas or potestas.
There’s more potestas outside of climate science, more imperium inside.
Power to do vs power to command.
Dr. Curry
I have a question. Right now the current administration is planning to roll back Obama environmental regulations that were designed in part to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (there were a host of other environmental reasons also).
Do you think this is a good idea?
Well I do. They will do no good whatsoever and immense harm.
That’s a policy question – ask policy officers such as Peter Lang and me, who have been following this issue since the 1980s. Like Peter, I think that this is a far-too-belated sensible idea.
Ok, I will ask. In the United States there is a much cleaner alternative, natural gas, that is much cleaner that is roughly equivalent in cost. As coal production has declined natural gas production has increased, mostly in the economically depressed portions of Pennsylvania. Natural gas generation plants are opening at about the same rate as the coal generation plants close. The net effect on employment is U.S. employment minimal. The net effect on the economy is minimal. While some lose jobs others gain jobs.
So we can have a cleaner environment (less mercury cleaner streams,etc and slow down AGW at close to zero net economic costs. Why is this not converting from coal to natural gas a great idea?
Bob Wert, “Ok, I will ask. In the United States there is a much cleaner alternative, natural gas, that is much cleaner that is roughly equivalent in cost. ”
Currently, natural gas is much cheaper than coal but things tend to change. Having mixed fuel sources is a hedge against change. Mine to mouth coal power at greater than 40% efficiency and emissions well below rational regulation with the potential to increase efficiency and further reduce emissions is just another tool in the the toolbox. Nuclear is cleaner than natural gas, but over reliance on nuclear isn’t smart either.
New York State already knows what works on the energy supply engineering facts, which is a useful criteria when considering grid energy supply, and plans what works, gas and hydro plus current plus 4 new nukes, with some token icons for the less fortunate folk on Long Island, no doubt protecting Mahattan with asymetric thyristor arrays, as the Poles and Czechs now protect themselves from the unwanted German wind of energiewende.
Story HERE – they did it so I don’t have to: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?utm_source=alertscalledoutcomment&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20170217
31% nuclear, 44% gas, 18% hydro, 3% wind when available, plus bits. Negative solar? NOW! I feel a post on how the future must actually pan out, as ye cannae change the laws of physics, they will win when they meet Obamapower and Gorenewables. Watch this space for some informed OPINION AKA my “model’ not fact or consesnus, justan informed guess, of an energy future as fossil declines.
Loadsa polar bears BTW. More than ever measured before by a clear margin. As with the nuclear accidents, “Thousands Still Not Dead!” (of LNT disease).
How stupidly denying of actual joined up data and generation physics will the real science deniers become before they appear ridiculous to ordinary folk, even inside their own thick bubbles? Just asking. Discuss. I await the knock and the number “You are number 6” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalndXdxriI
Brian, “Story HERE – they did it so I don’t have to:”
I hope you would have done a better job. The first sentence uses a standard heat rate to determine grams of CO2 per kwh. A 6% increase in coal heat efficiency produces ~12% reduction in CO2 per kwh. When you consider all the energy sources used for a regional electric authority you get a better carbon efficiency and when the energy is reliable and inexpensive it reduce residential use of less efficient sources like biomass, fuel oil etc. New York State is lucky with its hydro power, other places aren’t so lucky, so one size fits all logic is flawed.
.
The transition plan won’t change much – essentially gas to nuclear.
http://www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/Transition_Plan.pdf
And the irony of three Australians replying is not lost.
Robert,
Australians respond because of blackouts of power in South Australia.
Good on You.
Go Nuclear.
Scott
How sterling is NOAA’s reputation for scientific integrity?
http://junkscience.com/2015/12/exclusive-ocean-acidification-not-a-current-problem-top-noaa-scientist-insists-in-foia-ed-e-mails/
If there was no pause, why are there dozens of papers trying to explain it, including this one by Mann et al?
http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=rO_LAj7Squh3f_qt6natqdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9ble9FcNagQ1ss5L1V0KiWd-xzbFQjp8p3e-nUsgU7jNuUykRRWZpgMltUfROWf3xSKeGSSY7TvMiWdaeBCmNzlbQKCodQ3ivWje8eZYAs8Dr1uu8L-i3CHt8f_jYiil5eUpRpdxdWDCSCvqts_NYB_l8yUG-b6Qu0dtrZLMnaUyec%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
If unicorns don’t exist, why can say “unicorns don’t exist”?
=={ Either way, pause or no pause, ( its uncertain) the pause/faux pause is a nothingburger, largely semantic. }==
Doesn’t the conclusion necessarily depend on the definition?
Does the “pause” mean a pause in global warming? Seems to me that someone might believe that if they think that ACO2 does not warm the climate. If they accept the GHE, however, then how can they think there is a “pause in global warming” if we’re adding ACO2 to the atmosphere?
If someone means a short-term slowdown in the rate of increase in surface temps only, then why would anyone call it a “pause in global warming?” Shouldn’t they instead call it a short-term slowdown in the longer-term rate of increase in surface temperatures only?
If someone means a short-term slowdown in the longer-term rate of global warming, not including OHC, then why would someone call it a “pause in global warming” instead of calling it a short-term slowdown in the longer-term rate of surface warming only?
If someone means a short-term slowdown in the longer-term rate of global warming, then wouldn’t it be necessary to include measurements of OHC?
If someone means a short-term slowdown in the longer-term rate of surface temperatures only, that doesn’t include OHC, then why would they argue about its scientific significance until they have long term data with which to analyze whether it is signal or noise within the longer-term framework?
Hmmm…
Steven: February 11, 2017 at 9:33 pm
“There was no pause to bust.”
Steven: February 12, 2017 at 5:24 pm
“Either way, pause or no pause, ( its uncertain) …”
“Unlike Judith, many people who look at the pause data, see UNCERTAINTY. Yup, she misses the uncertainty monster when she wants to make a point.”
Judith: November 6, 2015
Hiatus controversy: show me the data
“The uncertainties in the various global temperature data sets are substantial relative to defining the existence (or not) of a warming hiatus and in assessing whether the observed trends are significantly lower than the model projections. I have stated this several times before: I think the error bars/uncertainties on these data sets are too low, particularly given the magnitude of the adjustments that are made.”
What happened to replies to this?
I guess some folks cant stand the heat.
Too funny..
I used to have to worry about getting moderated by RC
Steve, I’m doing you and the people reading these comments a favor. You have been making a fool of yourself. You are not impressing the people you want to impress with your inane insults. I will let through your substantive comments. Congratulations, you are now sharing rank with Joshua.
Steven, firing from the hip so much is bound to go wrong now and then, as it did here. Why not slow up a little to get more considered / consistent points? Would help your lines of argument in the long run.
Why did Bate’s allege Karl had his “thumb on the scale” only to recant it? This certainly isn’t something Dr. Curry could have foreseen. The problem here is Bates, not Dr. Curry.
What with all the supposedly intelligent people here, logic seems to escape the discussion.
A simple question on her part would have cleared it up.
John, are you accusing karl of Fraud?
You know DUE DILIGENCE… like the AP did
I mean seriously you only have to do a modicum of due diligence to surpass the quality of the MSM
All can plainly see what Bates wrote about Karl. It’s just that he contradicted himself later. She took him at his word, he recanted after the post.
He is the problem here, not Dr. Curry.
I’m waiting with Bated breath to see what develops next.
Judith – you do a remarkable job and I appreciate your competence, honesty and transparency.
I’m not sure if your country needs you to fill a position in the administration, but I do know science needs many more people like you and many less people like Michael Mann.
Keep up the great work and get well soon.
Judith, what you do is entirely up to you, no one else can make a call on it. And what you have done and are doing has been of great service to the world. I hope you keep it up, but I certainly don’t demand it. Thanks!
Those who have no credibility often seek to borrow the credibility of those who do. I think it is quite admirable that Dr. Curry resists the attempts to borrow hers.
I agree that our country needs her, and those like her, who insist on reminding the public that we humans just don’t know as much as we think we do. Our country is drowning in the vanity of experts.
I think she has been doing great work in service to our country since she took off the establishment blinders of climate orthodoxy, and how (and if) she does so in the future is her concern.
credibility?
She states that almost no one believes that humans have no effect when
A) her commenters here say this with regularity
B) she interviewed with Mark Levin who argues it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans to effect the climate
C) She interviewed last week with another Hoax believer.
Steve, this is really getting tiresome. I realize that you are trying to make yourself important, but you are continuing to insult me with very weak arguments. Try to make your comments interesting and well argued.
Judith,
I think Steve is making a very important point. You seem to regard yourself as someone who has an important role to play and yet you seem to have avoided clarifying misconceptions even when you had the opportunity to do so and when – in fact – it might have been regarded as your responsibility to do so (i.e., when being interviewed). Why would you avoid clarifying these misconceptions when it would have been quite easy to do so?
“You seem to regard yourself as someone who has an important role to play …”
As do you too, Rice.
Difference is, Professor Curry really has, and you don’t, not even slightly.
Read my post. I feel no obligation to clear up anyone’s misconceptions (there are millions of them). I write about things that I think are important. I am massively busy, and under the weather to boot.
So she should be preaching to the choir? I know, she should ban dissenting opinions. Oh wait, since Nic and her paper indicated ~1.6C TCR they should be banned as well.
In the mean time, I am still wondering why all those bucket adjustments by Dr. Kennedy are being thrown under the bus.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AytR-ph-QUQ/WKBhpdAj4UI/AAAAAAAAOug/_5Pi_pfBWaQQlbHvVLGC0kjuwumT5hhSgCLcB/s1600/tropical%2Bdifference%2Bv3b%2Band%2Bv4.png
You seem irrational Mosher.
Yes, it’s been getting more and more pronounced of late.
It’s his ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ playing him up, it does that to some people, a guilty conscience has been known to seriously exacerbate it.
Well, yes, this is indeed the case. Hence my question to Judith.
Mosher, Your argument is very weak and insulting. I expect you to stand up at ATTP’s and correct his many errors and misconceptions. Right now and be rude about it too. Your just being a pushy dick and a hypocrite to boot.
I looked up Levin’s climate position and its mostly about political outcomes and defense of freedom, not science. Why do you care so much about what he says anyway? There’s plenty of people who give the alternative point of view.
And then we have the spectacle of Ken Rice instructing Judith about what to touch on in interviews. I hope Judith ignores your sanctimonious advice Ken as its her choice as an independent and very smart scientist how to conduct herself. She knows far more than you do anyway.
Judith,
Sorry you’ve been unwell. I wasn’t suggesting that you go around correcting misconceptions all the time. I was asking why, when you get an easy opportunity to do so, you seem to choose not to.
Ken Rice, Perhaps you will be taken more seriously when you start correcting on your blog some of the falsehoods in the media and from scientists about extreme weather, droughts, etc. Hypocrisy doesn’t make you look good, but merely like an activist pursuing your goal.
DY,
FWIW, if I ever started doing things that led to you taking me more seriously, I would be genuinely worried and would go back and double check what I had done.
Judith isn’t your problem, kenny. Trump rules! Alarmist hysteria is inoperative. The pause killed the cause. NOAA under new management. Karl et al. 2015 is moot. But you will always have Paris. A fond, but non-binding memory.
No.
“Difference is, Professor Curry really has, and you don’t, not even slightly.”
cat:
You think it takes much to influence Lamar?
Anyone with the merest whiff of scientific credentials will do – if they are “sceptics”.
Whereas ATTP simply supports the science.
IOW: one of the 97 versus 1 of the 3.
That that eludes you is of course a self-fulfilling prophecy.
These baying defenders of the alarmist climate science orthodoxy are wasting their time snapping at Judith’s ankles. The consensus goons have already taken her chair and hounded her out of academia. You can’t hurt her any more. She can have interviews with whomever she pleases. It would probably be wise for you sore heads to stop harassing the lady. She might start fighting back. Anyway, hysterical alarmists have a much bigger problem. Trump rules! Paris non-binding non-agreement is not even serviceable as window dressing.
You look sharp in that shiny armor, Don Don. Black is a wise choice.
If the plating is too cumbersome for your fight to save America’s freedom, Boein g is working on the lightest and shiniest materials.
I’ve got a contact there if you’re interested.
That Ken would be the same reaction an activist partisan grudge bearing person might have
Nice story about armor, willie. We take note of the fact that you don’t disagree with my cogent analysis of the sad situation in which alarmist goons find themselves. Out in the cold. Powerless. Impotent. Butthurt. Reduced to yapping at Judith’s heels. Gnawing at her ankles. Etc. etc.
“Trump rules! ”
Not the world he doesn’t.
If you want him to take you backwards, then fine.
However the world will move on without you.
A cogent analysis would certainly be a good idea, Don Don. Please let us know when you find one. Meanwhile, let me remind you and Denizens of JohnB’s conclusions:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
Not only America needs to be saved, Don Don, but it seems that the world awaits teh Donald to put his trifling thumb on the scale of Science to make INTEGRITY ™ great again. Are you willing to fight for our freedom, Don Don? Have you got what it takes?
Tony, Tony
I assume you are talking about the world moving on with the non-binding token window dressing mitigation schemes that were sort of agreed to at the extravagant Climategaters’ Soiree de Paris.
I don’t believe you really speak for the world, tony. Watch what happens as The Most Powerful Man in the World emancipates and energizes the U.S. energy industry. Drill baby drill! Frack baby frack! A pipeline under every snowflake’s bed! Oh, the humanity!
The big cynical energy producers and consumers-Russia China-who had no intention of doing the non-binding crap anyway, are going to follow the reversed course set by The Most Powerful Man in the World and go backwards with us. I guess you could call that real and effective leadership from behind. You are going to be out there in front moving on by your lonesome, Tony.
I put in my time fighting for our freedom, willie. I don’t think I am going to need to return to the field as long as Commander in Chief The Donald is in charge. Are you going to be among the hysterical namby pambys who will not survive ***8 more years!*** without some serious mental health intervention? Canada didn’t work out for you?
“I assume you are talking about the world moving on with the non-binding token window dressing mitigation schemes that were sort of agreed to at the extravagant Climategaters’ Soiree de Paris.”
Don:
Are you views on climate science related to your political views by any chance?
I mean, does the former stem from the latter?
I say this because you seem to be a trifle overwrought with patriotism.
Even for the average US citizen.
And no, you assume wrongly – I don’t mean the bits of paper that may/may not have been signed.
I mean in realization of the outright common-sense in moving on from fossil.
In the continued research into tech to facilitate renewable usage, even into renewing safe nuclear (here in the UK FI). In battery/storage.
Do you think kids in school now think going back to shovelling coal and creating more Deepwater Horizon disasters and letting Putin add more billions to his personal wealth is the way to go.? (rhetorical sarc)
It will take time but it’s unstoppable now.
China leads.
(and of course their version of NOAA has *cooked the books as well*)
(more sarc)
Shame, it used to be the US that lead the way.
You seem to be hung up on “the way we were” as though “make America great again” was ever feasible via going backwards.
China is king now, India will be close behind.
Europe is going nowhere economically because of the EU.
Africa will be ever corrupt and S America not far behind.
The Aussies are just the Aussies.
Russia is going nowhere. All they can do is dig up fossil and blackmail parts of Europe to sell it. Putin’s personal coffers inflow will suffer badly in time and so will Russia’s.
Fossil is dying.
Why?
Because it’s dawning on the planet (except for certain countries that have live fossils as citizens and one in particular that has one as it’s leader) that all of the above and more makes it inevitable..
As you US citizens say.
Have a nice day.
(or a nice spell until Trump really does blow it).
Dreaming of past glories, while you got it alone and put your collective heads i the sand whist shouting “la la la la”.
TB – DM’s level of patriotism is just about right, IMO.
As far as renewable energy goes, maybe it’ll make a dent about the time fossil fuels become to expensive to use, many years from now. In the meantime, this chart will continue to move from the lower left to the upper right, powered by fossil fuels.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2a.jpg
Little tony gets angry. To the overwrought left loon internationalists any patriotism is too much. Especially the patriotism of Americans. I am guessing this tony is a furrinner. Undoubtedly, enjoying his freedom in one of the countries Americans have saved from totalitarian beasts multiple times with our lives and treasure.
Little tony like most left loons is a big fan of the Red China Thugocracy. The vicarious communists slobber over Red China’s alleged miraculous success as some sort of justification for their fanboy clinging to Marxism. Never mind that the workers in China are low wage slaves still living in poverty and oppression, while the industrious Chinese folks living just about anywhere else in the world are enjoying freedom and prosperity. Compare the per capita income of the Red China Thugocracy to Taiwan, Singapore, San Francisco Chinatown.
Red China is the king all right. King of coal and hellish pollution. Can’t breath the air and can’t drink the water. Google “China pollution”. You well get sick just looking at the photos. Oh, did little tony mention Putin? Batteries blah blah blah and whatever. That’s all the time I have for little overwrought tony.
Mosher lies with impunity on this blog, but claims Dr. Curry has no integrity because she answers questions from people with whom Mosher disagrees.
I used to keep a list of examples of Mosher taking both sides of numerous questions, frequently on the same day. Since both couldn’t be true, he was clearly lying half the time. I remember one was his first claiming that climate models were tested against “ground truth.” When questioned about what he meant by the term, he referred to other computer generated data, which is the exact opposite of ground truth as the term is used, by everyone not Mosher. A couple days later, he denied there even was such a thing as ground truth.
On a recent thread here (Respopnse to Critiques….”), Mosher falsely accused Dr. Curry of herself falsely accusing Bates of “data tampering”, “data changing”, and “maliciousness”. When called on his lie, Mosher fell back on this very same “guilt by granting an interview” BS.
There were other funnier examples, but the point is that Mosher is a progressive obscurantist who uses his experience as a marketer to derail discussions and support the CAGW agenda. That is why a discussion about Dr. Curry’s role in the Bates debate becomes fodder for attempting to impugn her integrity by references to Mosher’s disagreements with others.
Mosher lies himself on this very blog to attack Dr. Curry’s integrity. Dr. Curry is sometimes interviewed by people with whom Mosher disagrees. And by Mosher’s math, that gives him the right to impugn her integrity.
Kinda disgusting.
Veritas Vos Liberabit.
Judith, your bravery has shamed me into to using my real name in discussing climate science.
Since you mention you are interested in relevant papers in climatology, I refer you to Belda et al, Climate classification revisited: from Köppen to Trewartha
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v59/n1/p1-13/
ABSTRACT: The analysis of climate patterns can be performed separately for each climatic variable or the data can be aggregated, for example, by using a climate classification. These classifications usually correspond to vegetation distribution, in the sense that each climate type is dominated by one vegetation zone or eco-region. Thus, climatic classifications also represent a convenient tool for the validation of climate models and for the analysis of simulated future climate changes. Basic concepts are presented by applying climate classification to the global Climate Research Unit (CRU) TS 3.1 global dataset. We focus on definitions of climate types according to the Köppen-Trewartha climate classification (KTC) with special attention given to the distinction between wet and dry climates. The distribution of KTC types is compared with the original Köppen classification (KCC) for the period 1961-1990. In addition, we provide an analysis of the time development of the distribution of KTC types throughout the 20th century. There are observable changes identified in some subtypes, especially semi-arid, savanna and tundra.
End of abstract ***
I analyzed the published results using Excel and found 8% of about 50,000 geographic cells had changed KTC climate category mainly by getting wetter.
Following publication, the CRU (UEA) announced that they had revised the dataset that Belda et al had used to remove wet bias, which would have the effect of reducing the percentage of cells that changed category over the 75-year period.
Belda et al. demonstrated that between the two 30-year periods 1990-1930 and 1975-2005 the change in climate was not negligible, but neither was it much ado about anything. But as usual they could not come right out and say so.
I conclude, that we have to dig deeply into peer-reviewed papers to learn what the researchers have actually discovered because if they come right out and say so in plain language their paper risks not being published.
***
As a side note for readers not familiar with Koppen. He was the mentor and later father-in-law of Alfred Wegener. Wegnener kept alive the discussion of continental mobility (continental drift). In her book, on continental drift.
Naomi Oreskes cited abusive treatment of Wegener. The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science, Oxford University Press, 1999
(Dr Oreskes has also explained why a specific theory of isostacy was able to sustain Werner’s “Neptunian” view of Earth’s formation so long after Hutton’s “Plutonism” had been accepted and why this was fundamental to the rejection of continental mobility.)
The abuse included a letter published in Science that called his theory of “continental displacement” (Wegener’s early term, 1912) His theory was called “Teutonic pseudoscience”, in the letter written by Bailly Willis of the USGS. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_Willis
The Chamberlins, father and son, also had a go at Wegener arguing that academics would have to revise their entire theory of the Earth if they accepted Wegener’s theories. (The consensus would be over-turned, so the theory must be wrong.)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continental-drift-was-considered-pseudoscience-90353214/
Wegener’s untimely death showed a different aspect of his courage: he died while going to the aid of explorers stranded in the Arctic without food.
Oddly, Emile Argand did not suffer so much abuse as Wegener, perhaps because his work on the formation of the Himalayas and of the Alps was able to be ignored more easily. Possibly, also his work was ignored because his theory of continental “mobilism” was the only possible explanation for the Alpine nappes.
Even today, few have heard of Argand’s work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Émile_Argand
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nappe
Some people are abused for their scientific work while others are not. Depends on the level of the threat to the prevailing orthodoxy.
“Judith, your bravery….”
Eh!
In sitting on the fence and not condemning lies and distortions, that Bates himself says in his post on here ( but who rebuts elsewhere).
Odd.
Doesn’t she find that odd also ( Bates about turn )?
Worthy of comment even (Sarc)?
Also it’s just not good enough to say that Rose was ever so nice when communicating her views, and ignoring blatant lies and deception of his article in the DM (in spinning Bates even more than his pre-retraction elsewhere).
I say again – see the post at the MetO that gives their answers to him and what he actually had printed.
Same again here.
No one reporting as a “science correspondent” could be so ignorant as to print a graph such as that.
So you still do not criticise either Bates or Rose Judith?
Especially as the affair is being doubled down on them with a piece in today’s edition.
Even the Mail’s “correction” fails to properly explain why the graph was deceptive – just some weasel words along the lines of the two curves using different base lines … “we corrected this immediately on our website”.
As if 99% of readers would be aware of how the graph would look if they were on the same BL. I.E. They would be superimposed… Therefore … completely negating thier “story”. IOW: The graph was vital visual impact needed for the attention deficient, which the majority of confirmation bias grazers would be, to imprint Roses bias on the reader.
It stinks to high heaven.
Tony Banton
Personally I think this has been a storm in a teacup and quite why it has evinced so much comment I don’t know. I do not think there is much of a story, let alone a sceptical bombshell on a par with climategate
My reading would be that Rose was put in touch with Bates (by a mutually trusted third party-Judith) who had been mulling over his long standing irritation that Karl had not exactly followed the procedures which seem important to Bates and probably had a number of other issues..
I have met David Rose and spent several hours in his company on a non climate change related issue. The dark picture drawn of him is way off. He is charming, funny and highly knowledgeable . I found him to be an accurate and conscientious reporter. He would have had no say on the lurid headline that accompanied the article. That is not to say he is 100% correct about everything of course or isn’t capable of making mistakes, but he doesn’t warrant the opprobrium thrown at him
My reading would be that Bates was flattered to be interviewed by an interested and knowledgeable internationally known journalist and that Rose was known to Judith, thereby ensuring trust existed. As a result he got drawn in and said more than he had intended. When he realised the story had longer legs than he had thought and that all sorts of controversy had been stirred up, he toned his message down in the interview he gave the following day.
As I say, I think this story has been overblown by both sides trying to make more of it than is warranted,
tonyb
tony –
=={ Personally I think this has been a storm in a teacup and quite why it has evinced so much comment I don’t know }==
I suspect that it has evinced so much comment because of reactions to Judith’s post and David’s article…such as this:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/07/federal-scientist-cooked-climate-change-books-ahead-obama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html
and this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-science-chairman-sees-liberal-cover-up-on-warming-pause/
In the end, the SST data itself was not the issue for Bates. Rose made it the issue by himself. Judith has yet to correct that distortion for her readers. She can also choose not to, which could be a political decision that would serve her better in the future. She seems very careful not to criticize some things in writing at least.
Tonyb,
“I found him to be an accurate and conscientious reporter. He would have had no say on the lurid headline that accompanied the article.”
So what about his latest article. Headline
“DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth.”
That can’t be excused as tabloid editors; the text immediately takes up the theme:
“They were duped – and so were we. That was the conclusion of last week’s damning revelation that world leaders signed the Paris Agreement on climate change under the sway of unverified and questionable data.
A landmark scientific paper –the one that caused a sensation by claiming there has been NO slowdown in global warming since 2000 – was critically flawed. And thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower, we now know that for a fact.”
David Rose may be a charming fellow. But he lies. It’s his job, it seems.
“David Rose may be a charming fellow. But he lies. It’s his job, it seems.”
Coming from a climate “scientist”…
Heh, Ironic or what!
Nick
Firstly, I hope that your ban from wuwt has been rescinded. You are needed over there.
As regards David rose, I speak as I find. He does not warrant the stream of invective being hurled at him.
His latest article today confirms there was no tampering but that figures were used selectively to minimise and discredit the hiatus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html
The met office had meetings about this at the time with a variety of scientists and issued a number of reports on the slowdown/hiatus/pause.
As it happened I had several meetings there at the time and reference in passing was made to the hiatus or pause and no one tried to pretend it didn’t exist. It fizzled out as temperatures rose again and it could be dismissed as not long enough lasting to warrant being called a trend.
Tonyb
His latest article is called How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth. It is a steaming load of nonsense that implies scientists are being dishonest, and you think he doesn’t deserve the invective hurled at him? What would it take for it to be deserved?
tonyb
Keep pushing Nick and ATTP to stop lies claims and move to straight forward discussion. I too found the Rose and the NOAA retiree credible and also think he modified his position in the face of legal threats.
Let the next investigations sort this out and Dr. Pielke or others can check the modifications of observations. I still support going back to original observations and then adding separate sets of adjustments. Tony Heller seems credible when he publishes graphs from way back machines of temperatures and then modified changed observations all within the NASA and NOAA published figures. I just don’t know who to believe.
Scott
ATTP,
I saw a lot of articles discussion the pause by your colleagues and then one that changes buoy numbers to bust it. What about the ones discussion the heat going to the deep ocean and the other reorganization of global winds and zones like TE discusses.
Scott
WRT the Rose article, the onus is, again, on Bates.
“I too found the Rose and the NOAA retiree credible and also think he modified his position in the face of legal threats.”
Bates was quite explicit. He said, inter alia,
“However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.””,/i>
Now if he’s saying all that just because he perceives legal danger, how can you say that he is credible?
Personally, I think Bates is more credible than Rose, whose report he described as verbiage.
Tonyb,
“He does not warrant the stream of invective being hurled at him.”
He is very well aware that his witness has recanted, and that the story is now no more than an argument about NOAA paperwork. And yet he writes a new story under the heading:
“DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth.”
And the excuse that the headings come from editors is feeble. He has worked with these editors for many years. To write under a lying headline would be dishonorable enough. But he follows up with text in synch.
Bates rightly describes Rose’s reporting as verbiage. I think we may hear something stronger soon. That is, if we hear again from Bates at all. Remember, he is one of those “global warming scientists” that are smeared en masse.
Thanks for the good wishes re WUWT. I haven’t tried lately, but I was on moderation for most of 2015, so my expectations are not high.
climate reason, I actually do somewhat agree that David Rose is not worse or really better than mainstream journalists generally. Probably the Mail is interested in selling papers and exaggerates its headlines, pretty much standard practice. The Atlantic article that was the subject of Judith’s last post was full of distortions and misrepresentation, including one from Gavin Schmidt himself. I personally think that what is happening in the US is instructive. The media are far less trusted to tell the truth than Donald Trump. The media partisanship and bias has gotten worse and worse over the last 30 years. There are consequences for that. Now Trump doesn’t harm himself by attacking the media in harsh terms and many cheer.
There is lots to pick apart in the Establishment press. What this shows is that there is a professional class of “science communicators” who like to try to “correct the record” whenever anything is published that doesn’t support what they are advocating for. They remain silent as church mice when the “permanent drought” meme is peddled repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly ad nausium or there are other vastly more damaging errors.
Frederick Colbourne ==> Welcome, Dr. Colbourne. I’m glad to see you speaking out here under your own name — a positive attribute, regardless of your positions on climate science. If you haven’t made an entry in the Denizens section, please do so to introduce yourself to the rest of us.
Judith has re-organized her life recently and, in regards to this blog, has stated that she “will be relying on guest bloggers to provide more technical analyses”. Your comment above makes it obvious you could provide some interesting insights as Guest Posts — normally emailed to curry.judith (at) yahoo.com (from her About page.) I look forward to reading some of your writing here. – Kip
Sorry for the typo.
Belda et al. demonstrated that between the two 30-year periods 1900-1930 and 1975-2005 the change in climate was not negligible, but neither was it much ado about anything. But as usual they could not come right out and say so.
Thank You an unlimited vast amount of Thanks, Dr Curry for ‘just’ being the person You are. You have a lot of followers on this side of the Atlantic.
Brgds from Sweden.
//ThomasJ
The land data wasn’t really the problem. Was it? Although it has other problems. The problem was adjusting more accurate buoys to less accurate ships. Run of the mill data manipulation to obtain the right result. The really big problem is using land records – and annual averages ones at that – as the global warming metric for public consumption. Now that is fraudulent.
And then there are models. Below is a perturbed physics model using a nid-range no mitigation emissions scenario. It shows thousands of diverging solutions that is the defining property of these chaotic models that have at their core nonlinear equations of fluid transport. The thick black line is temperature observations. The thick blue lines are the one standard deviation limits. The red lines are the IPCC range derived by an entirely different method. The range of the perturbed physics ensemble (PPE) is even greater than the IPCC range.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/ngeo1430-f1.jpg
The IPPC opportunistic ensemble uses a single solution from 50 odd models – a solution arbitrarily chosen from 1000’s of plausible solutions, graphed together and a fake statistics fabricated over the top. They have known this (e.g, IPCC TAR 2001, McWilliams 2007, Slingo and Palmer 2011) since Lorenz in the 1960’s. It is as crude as that. The use of this method strongly suggests incompetence or fraud.
It is all intended to deceive in support of a cause. That’s where science ends and propaganda begins.
Paris was an immense fraud. They locked in increased emissions from energy and declared it a miracle. This is classic misdirection intended to deceive the world. And it worked on gullible fools at least.
The consensus is a massive misdirection intended to deceive the public that 97% of climate deniers don’t believe this. Simply not even close to true. It is a deliberate lie intended to deceive the public for personal gain. The definition of fraudulent.
The disagreement was always about the scope and depth of natural variability, on the point where data adjustments become statistical manipulations, on gaps and uncertainties in data, on the proper use and limitations of models and on chaos in climate and models. None of it ever quite got through the circled wagons – and they are still fighting a quite pointless defensive action. But far and away – disagreement was always about energy and development. In every instance we have been on the right side of science and policy. We want a high energy planet and don’t much care how it is done. The risks of not doing it far exceed the alternative.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet
So really – you’re screwed anyway. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of smug, tendentious, sententious d..kheads.
.
Links to your purported model data?
Seconded
I genuinely don’t get how someone who can talk about perturbed physics ensembles doesn’t get that adjusting the buoys to the ships is exactly the same as adjusting the ships to the buoys. Ultimately what is presented are anomalies and it doesn’t matter whether you adjust one dataset up, or the other down. The offset is a constant.
Wow. Some of you scientists and mathematics prodigies around here should really get out from behind their desks and computers sometime and step into reality.
How any smart person can defend the adjusting of the buoy data with data taken from temperature gauges crudely measuring engine cooling water temperatures, is beyond me.
Any engineer (or scientist who touches steel every now and again instead of only paper) knows instinctively that this ship data is unfit for purpose.
And no fancy statistical tricks can fix that!
Why this ship data is unfit for purpose is clearly explained here:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-climate-data/#comment-837117
“Any engineer (or scientist who touches steel every now and again instead of only paper) knows instinctively that this ship data is unfit for purpose.
And no fancy statistical tricks can fix that!”
Yes, of course ship intake temps were never meant to be used for climate study, just for operational meteorology.
So what do you propose otherwise then?
Throw up our hands, shout hopeless and throw it out?
Or do like they did, and compare ship intake temps close by buoys for enough samples to come up with a statistically useful offset.
(sensible) answers on a postcard to …..
>”Yes, of course ship intake temps were never meant to be used for climate study, just for operational meteorology.”
I did not say they “were never meant for climate study”, I said they are unfit for that purpose.
>”So what do you propose otherwise then?”
I propose to not use them because they are unfit for the purpose.
Then you’re essentially proposing ignorance. In a sense, this is the fundamental point about making adjustments. Without adjustments, the dataset would indeed probably be unfit for purpose. The whole point of the data analysis procedure that ultimately adjusts the data is to take a dataset that is – without adjustments – unfit for purpose, and turn it into one that is fit for purpose.
These temperature gauges are likely never calibrated ever again after installation and have a limit of error in °C per DIN EN 13190 of ±2 deg C. or ±4 deg. C for a class 2 instrument.
Why do people think this data is fit to “correct” the readings from buoy instruments specified to a limit of error of tenths or even hundreds of a degree C?
My own conclusion is that these people have been so bogged down into theoretical considerations from behind a desk in an ivory tower somewhere, that they have lost their grip on the real world. The real world does not consist of paper or ones & zeros, but is filled with lots of steel, grease, sweat and temp gauges that are only ever looked at to make sure the cooling water is still flowing.
>”Then you’re essentially proposing ignorance.”
Proposing not using a dataset that is unfit for the purpose is proposing ignorance?
Indeed. It is possible to extract relevant information from that dataset. Therefore proposing to completely ignorance it implies that you have selected being ignorant over being informed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
My bold.
How can usefull information (in this case determining sea temp changes to a tenth of a degree) be extracted from a set of crude cooling water intake measurements, measured with instruments with an error of +/-2 degrees C (when they were new)? Said gauges were probably never again calibrated after installation. So how do we know that these gauges are registering absolute values correctly, let alone any changes in temperature? They could for instance register a 2 degree change (or only 0,5 a degree, or 5 for that matter) when the water only changes 1 degree. So the absolute values are useless but also any anomalies/deviations/trends/offsets are useless. Because how do you know these are characteristics of the medium measured and not simply the result of the crappy instruments and the inconsistent way these crappy instruments are installed, read, maintained and calibrated.
Unfit for purpose.
The key thing is changes. We’re not really trying to accurately determine the sea surface temperatures, we’re trying to estimate how they might be changing. As long as there are enough measurements you can do this, even if the individual measurements are not all that precise. Think error on the mean.
A recurring problem in climate science from MBH98 to present is that of the heavy hand of data processing required to find the desired signal in crude data. This issue should have been anticipated with strict protocols from the start. Even if Bates’s quality protocol is late to the game, it should have been followed. Many of us share his dismay.
Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.
VTG, the problem is that with such crude data and complicated processing there are hundreds of choices presented to the investigator, each one an opportunity to put his/her thumb on the scale. In science it is not up to skeptics to prove that they did so. It’s up to the investigator to demonstrate they show respect for protocol and the hazards of their own bias.
In the specific case of the ship and buoy adjustments in Huang15, (used by Karl15 a few months later) is that there were many alternatives that were simpler, like directly adjusting each instrument type using the research product of Matthews(2013), which did in situ testing of each ship instrument temperature bias. Not only did they not use Matthews, they did not cite it, despite that co-author Peter Thorne said they did (according to his recollection.) Instead, Juang et al used a night time air temperatures from Hadley, an even weaker database in a complicated processing scheme that produced what we know was Karl et al’s desired result. Is there anyone that disputes Karl’s bias?
Ron,
This isn’t really a problem. It’s called science. Trying to extract signals from data that was not designed to easily produce such signals is difficult. Just because it is a complex process doesn’t imply some kind of problem. The alternative is to either use data that has not been properly analysed and that therefore produces results that are not likely to be representative of reality, or decide to simply remain ignorant despite there actually being data that can provide relevant information.
Additionally, we might desire to extract a signal from some data, but this doesn’t mean that we somehow desire a particular signal.
Let there be wailing and gnashing of teeth!
Ah, yes, “something must be wrong”. Where have I heard that before?
http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443/html#d2e903
And a neverending audit to prove this, no doubt.
There needs to be more quality controls, not less. For example, there should be some requirement to test and refute prior adjustments that had been accepted into the operating product. Not only should prior adjustment schemes be mentioned, they should be analyzed to demonstrated where and why they were flawed.
It is perilous to habitually throw away the product of the prior investigator in charge of the database. I’m sure non-skeptics will become skeptics if a new administration radically changes the data without demonstrating the flaw with the old process.
Ron,
Who would do this? Let’s see. We could have other people working on the project and checking what is done. Oh, they already exist; they’re called co-authors. Okay, what about people who independently check what is done? Well, the problem here is that having people working on a project but not being co-authors probably violates some basic scientific ethics – not only should those involved get credit, we also need to know who was involved. Also, if these people are good enough to check the study, they could do their own. Oh, this already happens. If you want to fund more research, that might be a good idea, but I don’t see how you can institute some other kind of check that doesn’t involve an independent study, or doesn’t involve those who do the checking becoming co-authors.
But it’s not because they were flawed; it’s because a better method was developed. This is how science progresses. Continually developing methods is a good thing to do and does not mean that the earlier methods were somehow flawed. It’s a process of continual development and even the older methods that we might replace play a positive role in this process.
ATTP: It’s called science. Trying to extract signals from data that was not designed to easily produce such signals is difficult.
Science is not just finding signals. There is also validation of hypotheses by demonstrating predictive skill gained over the null hypotheses. Climate science pays far too small attention to this, IMO.
Ron,
But you can’t do the science unless you have signals that can be used to test the hypotheses. That it is difficult to extract these signals is not some kind of indicator that there is a problem. I would probably be more worried it people claimed it was easy.
ATTP, just as bloodhounds and sharks detect weak signals of hemoglobin people are superior at crunching numerous variables to divine information naturally .The breakthrough of science was providing a method of validation to avoid being fooled. We still get fooled though, but it’s not by science; it’s by mis-labeling what is science. David’s examples of Eugenics and Phrenology are examples of whole disciplines that were falsely labeled (we can see now clearly).
Bates’s alarm is valid but there should be more checks, particularly where an area of science gets dominated by those of one mind and skeptics are cleansed rather than allowed to audit.
When they merged the ship and buoy data, they weighted the buoy data much more due to its smaller error bars. This was a part of the process that they described.
=={ The disagreement was always about the scope and depth of natural variability, on the point where data adjustments become statistical manipulations, on gaps and uncertainties in data, on the proper use and limitations of models and on chaos in climate and models. }==
Really?
http://www.culturalcognition.net/display/ShowImage?imageUrl=/storage/beliefinclimate.png
=={ The really big problem is using land records – and annual averages ones at that – as the global warming metric for public consumption. Now that is fraudulent. ==}
Perhaps you should talk to Judith about how she measures a “pause in global warming,” and about her Congressional testimony on the subject of a “pause in global warming” and the importance of recognizing “uncertainty” — where she neglected to mention anything about OHC?
So let’s go with the PPE that has an even broader range – and a complete absence of a way to calculate a probability density function over the range. There is no way of telling a priori the solution – if any – that is most likely. The other problems are that there is no way to model abrupt changes in the Pacific state and actual emissions are overwhelmingly likely to diverge from IPCC emission scenarios. Climate will continue to diverge from models – almost certainly cooler.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n4/abs/ngeo1430.html
Really? Yes really.
I am pretty sure she already knows – unlike Joshua and Banton – and my advice is not to play that game.
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-290.pdf
“The land data wasn’t really the problem. Was it? Although it has other problems. The problem was adjusting more accurate buoys to less accurate ships. Run of the mill data manipulation to obtain the right result. The really big problem is using land records – and annual averages ones at that – as the global warming metric for public consumption. Now that is fraudulent.”
Since I do that are you accusing me of fraud?
For the record.
You must answer that question for yourself – I made a general comment and I am really not going to personalise it.
We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously. “At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,” says Ioannidis. “There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
And if you really don’t understand the problem – it’s not fraud – you’re just wrong.
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-290.pdf
For the record.
RE: Steven Mosher | February 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm |
“. . . Since I do that are you accusing me of fraud?”
I thought you said it was just a hobby?
For the record.
Robert, i have an idea that i think will please all parties. In line with the methods employed in K15; lets build a super set using RSS and UAH, since they line up nicely, give them 75% weight (since coverage is nearly total) and throw in GISS as the other 25%. That will be our new superset. It’s fine to adjust land and sst and balloon down and RSS and UAH up as the trend doesnt change. How does that sound to you. Hey maybe Zeke and Mosher and Stokes and others can confirm the math affecting trend?
op, cit.
To my knowledge, we have one international climate blog that is run by a Climate Scientist which is regularly updated, has a weekly report of important new science, and that has a large audience of both laymen and Scientists in a forum with a liberal and fair moderation. Climate etc.
Dr. Curry, please continue this important work. But that said, I don’t think Your handling of K15 has been good, and in my view it started as early, as the first blogpost back in 2015. You have a high standing and what You say and do not say has a impact. For years I have been told all these stories about Scientists cooking the books, I have been looking for evidence, but each time the accusations was based on misunderstandings or fuss about nothing. That was until a week ago.
A senior NOAA officer accusing Karl & Co for Thumbs on the scale and this to promote some (unnecessary) action in Paris? In all cultures “Thumbs on the scale” means some kind of fraud, either it’s a butcher or a gold trader, it’s all about one party shortchanging the other party. And the scale of the fraud is a matter of economical value. And since doing anything about CO2 reduction always involve zillions of $, Bates in the original post informed us about the largest “Thump on the scale” operation in human history. Well that’s what the hordes over at WUWT will have us to believe, and still want us to believe, it’s hard the get the genie back in the bottle.
I realize that, for a climate scientist, the design, structure, and input data of an Integrated Asset Model (IAM) isn’t that important. However, the IAM is used to forecast future CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations as far as 2100 (or 2300).
The IAM has an extremely simple description of the energy complex, and this includes a coarse, crude, barely documented handling of fossil fuel resources/reserves. It also fails to treat the cost evolution of alternatives (nuclear, renewables, efficiency) to the use of fossil fuels. In some models, asphalt and plastics are assumed to be biodegradable.
And this leads to absurd CO2 emissions forecasts (or “pathways”), which lead to exaggerated CO2 concentrations. These in turn lead to pretty funny damage functions used to justify irrational policies.
I don’t know if this can be said to be “scientists cooking the books”. I tend to think it’s intentional neglect of an important module in the overall IAM structure. Sometimes I get frustrated, describe it as fraud, sometimes I think it’s just a result of the “professional in the box” syndrome, whereby a very complex problem is mishandled because nobody is really in charge. Or maybe the ones in charge have an agenda, and they set up a work flow which allows this to happen?
Above, I’ve read several comments which list severe problems with the IPCC structure, work methods, and conclusions. I think Dr Curry can help a lot by counseling government officials how to remedy the problems which seem to crop up in all these discussions. And I hope they do change the way future CO2 emissions and concentrations are forecast.
On your side Judith all the way.
Like many others I am in awe of your clear thinking and your ability to express yourself as such. I look forward to your future comments.
GeoffW Sydney
Since when is uncertainty an excuse for doing nothing?
Kyoto failed – and COP21 locked in a 3.7 billion tonne increase in energy emissions to 2030. This is less than doing nothing. The world has quite deliberately chosen a high growth and high energy future.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/our-high-energy-planet
But the world is also going down pathways with great promise for people and the planet.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/02/08/the-climate-problem-and-the-solution/
You may get on board or be left behind. Your choice.
Since when is uncertainty an excuse for doing nothing?
I’m thinking you are a poor candidate for owning a firearm.
David Appell: Since when is uncertainty an excuse for doing nothing?
a. If a demonstrably effective corrective is not known.
b. when there is much else to do: for example, CA might have upgraded the Oroville Dam and other irrigation/flood control instead of building the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant. Shortcomings of the system have been written of for decades, as well as recommendations for better maintenance.
Hardly anyone advocates doing literally nothing.
Thank you for hosting this blog. IMO, it is the best place to get reliable information and useful comments.
The Bates posts weren’t quite as clear as usual. I don’t find David Rose credible. However, you know far more about these subjects that I do. If I happen to be right about these minor problems, I certainly don’t feel like criticizing you.
I’ve listened to your appearance on Richie Allen and other forums including Congressional hearings. Unlike your blog, in those forums you don’t have the time to compose a balanced position. When someone is trying to get you to say that climate change is a hoax, I DO wish you had a memorized answer that you gave to everyone. It is a tricky subject. For me, the answer begins:
“That depends on what you are calling a “hoax”. Rising CO2 and other GHGs slow down the rate at which heat escapes to space. The law of conservation of energy demands that this slowdown produce some warming. I (and most other skeptics climate scientists) are among the 97% of scientists who agree about this subject. Attribution of some warming to man is not a hoax. (Furthermore, the slowdown in warming during the first decade of the 21st century – the Pause or Hiatus – isn’t proof that rising GHGs don’t cause warming.)
The critical question is HOW MUCH warming will result from rising GHGs – not whether ANY warming will result. There is no scientific consensus about HOW MUCH warming will occur or what should be done about it. IMO, it is a hoax to claim that there is any scientific consensus about these subjects.”
If nothing else changed on our planet except GHGs and temperature, fundamental science indicates that there would be about 1 degC of warming following a doubling of CO2 – not enough to worry about. However, we know that humidity increases with temperature and water vapor is also a GHG. Rising humidity and changes in cloud cover with warming may or may not significantly amplify the warming caused by rising GHG’s. The rise in GHGs and temperature over the past 130 years provide a best estimate for the warming from doubling CO2 of 1.6 degC, but the uncertainty in this data is consistent with any value from roughly 1 to 4 degC. Computer models predict more warming – from a little more than 2 degC to almost 5 degC. The high end of this range – which is often called as catastrophic warming – gets all of the publicity and dominates calculations of how much money we should spend to reduce CO2 emissions. If climate change means that 4 degC of CERTAIN warming by the end of the century, then climate change is a hoax. If climate change means: sea level will certainly rise at least 1 m by the end of the century, that the US will probably be struck by hurricanes like Katrina every year, that extreme droughts and flooding will become commonplace, that polar bears will become extinct – certainty about these subjects is a hoax (IMO).
Via the AP:
“However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”
“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
“It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”
David:
Unfortunately, as we see via Rose and the DM. The “alternative facts” win in the media wars.
To you and I and anyone with a whiff of common sense and/or knowledge the story is a trumped-up none story that the ever desperate naysayers are ususing as the last resort.
Once “out there” the alt-facts have a life of their own.
It does not surprise me that Rose/DM have doubled down on their accusations (lies) even though Bates has rebutted them.
So should JC.
Tony – A shiny new look into the heart of darkness. Alternative Facts Wetware™. You may wish to start here?
http://AFWetware.org/2017/02/12/how-trump-won/
Abel discovered that many other motives were involved, among them a sense of the decline of Germany, a desire to rediscover past greatness, a fear of social disorder and the longing for a strong leader.
We would argue that the same is true of those who supported Trump.
Judith wrote: “One person from a transition team stated: “Your country needs you.” Maybe.”
Here is what the most respected public servant (IMO) of this generation had to say about this subject:
https://charlierose.com/videos/29745 16:16-17:50.
http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/books/excerpt-from-duty-by-robert-m-gates-1.6837454
Well, JC was helping Mr Bates come through with his hurt feelings toward the bad guys. Karl & co “busting the hiatus” is of no interest in the bigger picture. Lack of rise in air temperature over 20 years is the most natural phenomenon, when you stop believing in model predictions. What matters is to try to diminish uncertainty.
JC’s role? Talk to Lebedev…Manderley will not be pleased!
Do what you want – no explanation needed. I learn because of your intellect and will still follow this blog regardless.
“In view of recent controversies, numerous criticisms have been made about my ‘role,’ with expectations of things that I ‘should’ be doing.”
IMHO Dr, Curry, you are the epitome of what a scientist should be. The problems in Climate Science weren’t created by you, and the truth will eventually come out as it always will. Just look at how the Soviet and Chinese Politicized Science experiments turned out. The Climate Gestapo will eventually get their due. What you best represent if the purity of science, and you should never apologize for that. The current generation has no examples of real scientists, and you can offer them that. When I was a child, we were putting a man on the moon, we had scientific heroes. Today we have activists playing scientist. Eventually, the truth will be known.
Climate Science Behaving Badly; 50 Shades of Green & The Torture Timeline
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/climate-science-behaving-badly-50-shades-of-green-the-torture-timeline/
Did Bates do this to discredit Dr. Curry and/or the blog?
Did he fold to pressure after posting here and recant?
Why didn’t he participate in the discussion after he posted?
Something smells fishy here.
Why didn’t he participate in the discussion after he posted?
Legalities?
Did he fold to pressure after posting here and recant?
Just being careful answering the questions, Legalities again.
Did Bates do this to discredit Dr. Curry and/or the blog?
No, but there are enough upset warmists trying very hard to attack a silly David Rose graph rather than face the real issues.
Investigation hopefully in the next 2 months of Karl et al.will clear it one way or another.
If legalities were such a huge concern, he shouldn’t have posted here in the first place. I’m not buying it.
=={ No, but there are enough upset warmists trying very hard to attack a silly David Rose graph rather than face the real issues. }==
Silly? Interesting characterization.
But it wasn’t only the graph. It was the many misleading statements. It was thew lame “correction” of the graph (which didn’t address how it remained misleading). It was how the entire narrative of the article contributes to the problematic aspect of the public discussion of climate change (e.g., how it leads to top of the page headlines at Fox News’ website, along with videos, that talk about how climate scientists “cooked the books.”)
Step up to the plate, angech.
“Legalities”
I am sure Bates is well aware of Mann v CEI, NA and Mark Steyn. Allegations against the consensus get punished. Bates may not have wanted to use his retirement savings on a defense attorney.
What I don’t understand is why Peter Thorne and Zeke H. do not right articles that are somewhere between the arcane peer reviewed journal and tabloid garbage put out by the MSM. Huang(2015) could have been digested into form that the lay climate experts could understand and thus have alleviated suspicions of slight of hand (that still hold).
In studying Huang15 I see a large number of tenuous assumptions were used to adjust the ocean record, which is 2/3 weight of the climate record.
The raw data was adjusted about a dozen different steps, including using the IPCC general circulation climate model GFDL CM2. Each step assumed the reference database of the prior to be pristine. For example, the models were created on the assumption that adjusted climate data was pristine. Then the model output is assumed to be unbiased for other adjustments that get applied back to the adjustments that go into the new official record.
In Haung(15) instead of correcting the engine room intake (ERI) and bucket temps directly using a paper like Matthews(2013) they used a newly formed (freshly warmed) nighttime sea air temperature database from Hadley called NMAT2. How they did this I am still studying, but it looks like they took used NMAT2 nighttime air temps as a proxy for day and night SST. Now, NMAT2 is not without problems; they had to correct for assumed increased deck heights as ships got supposedly higher over the past 100 years, supposedly cooling the readings. Also, they already know that the trend for NMAT2 is 10% higher per century than SST.
Huang:
Also, I don’t understand this quote since the whole SST trend is only 0.7C century-1. That would make 0.08C more than 11%. Is this the 0.1C that Bates was talking about?
The 0.08C steeper trend is actually logical if one knows that the nighttime temperature is a proxy for Tmin, which has been increasing more rapidly (for the last 130 years) than Tavg, which is the average of day and night.
I guess that must make me an “upset warmist” angech!
And Mr. Rose is hiding his head down a cave rather than answer the questions posed by my “smoking gun”!!
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/831050419065462784
Of course it does:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html
The last nail in a straw coffin.
That particular coffin belongs to Bates.
Patience, grasshopper.
Have faith in Kip’s village of whistle blowers.
The evidence is mounting as we speak.
“Did Bates do this to discredit Dr. Curry and/or the blog?
Did he fold to pressure after posting here and recant?
Why didn’t he participate in the discussion after he posted?
Something smells fishy here.”
He probably got good legal advice about metaphor’s like
“Thumb on the scale”
Any publisher of his comments would be wise to take a strong clear
position on this statement. unless they have deep pockets
Agreed
Steven,
If you you were forced to route for either Mann or Steyn which one would it be now?
Dr Curry, one thing you may want to try it to do what I am trying to do at CO2isLife. The science blogs speak way above the head of the average reader. The arguments are way too technical, and the average persons simply won’t pay attention long enough to understand it. You understand the issues very well, and you’ve been a victim of the Climate Gestapo’s attacks. You’ve seen what politicized science looks like from the inside. You have been given a gift that you should share with the world. You know the truth where many others don’t. Tell your stories, break down the arguments into easy to digest talking points. At CO2isLife I created a “Smoking Gun List.” You should do the same, and tell the stories about how you were suppressed, censored and attacked. You are the perfect person to tell a real-life David and Goliath story.
Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/22/climate-bullies-gone-wild-caught-on-tape-and-print/
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/
As David and Goliath stories go I much prefer this one CO2:
“Save Our Surf Forecast Campaign Launched!”
Discover how “the Land of the Free” has morphed into “TrumpLand” in a matter of weeks.
A show trial of the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Congressman Lamar Smith presiding!
Show trial? Don’t know if exposing corruption counts as a show trial.
At the risk of repeating myself:
“Where’s the pause? Where’s the corruption?”
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Zeke-Temp-Comp-768×614.jpg
Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
Thank you once again for your integrity Dr. Judith Curry.
It is very likely that there will be an official investigation into Tom Karl’s role leading to the publication of Karl et al., 2015. The US republicans are very aware that the climate issue has been used politically against them, and are not going to let it drop. The new NOAA administration is expected to fully cooperate into that investigation. If everything was done according to the rules, as some defend in this blog, there will be no problem. If not, as John Bates defends, the investigation will assign responsibilities. The rest is just opinion from people that don’t have the facts and are just trying to dissect what everybody is saying.
I have no way of knowing if Bates is correct or not, so I will withhold my judgement until the conclusions from the likely investigation come out.
But I do know that since 2003 the modifications that have been made to the surface databases have had the effect of separating them from the satellite databases. It is already 14 years, and the reason for that separation ought to be seriously investigated, because it is not possible to believe that surface and lower troposphere are following divergent temperature trends. There remains the possibility of a bias in surface adjustments to compensate for an inconvenient hiatus, of which Karl et al., 2015 would just be the last chapter so far.
http://i.imgur.com/uhdz4Sr.png
Actually UAH 5.6 agreed with the surface trend since 1998, but UAH 6.0 didn’t. If you want to talk about adjustments, this one was a doozy.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah5/from:1998/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend
No, I don’t want to talk about adjustments, because that talk is unproductive. I want to talk about a very significant trend difference that it is unsustainable.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/BarChartsForDifferentDataSeries.gif
The largest warming is in the Arctic Ocean, and these datasets ignore that (HADCRUT and satellites) or interpolate across it (GISTEMP). This explains a lot of the difference. In fact the Arctic Ocean is warming as much as the land around it, so GISTEMP likely has the better assumption.
What Arctic ocean warming are you talking about Jim D? Are you inventing it? Argo says there is no Arctic ocean warming at any relevant depth.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoCircumArcticSince200401%2055N-65N.gif
Open ocean versus sea ice by itself has an enormous effect on surface temperature. The Arctic surface is the fastest warming part of the globe taken over the last few decades.
Jim D, the satellite coverage is according to Wikipedia: “…97-98% of the earth’s surface, excluding only latitudes above +85 degrees, below -85 degrees…” And, in the antarctic the coldest latitude is -70 deg; surprisingly -90 deg is warmer. The satellite polar blind spot bias is a myth.
The Arctic Ocean surface temperature has increased 2-3 C since the 1951-1980 baseline in GISTEMP with the peak being in that 1000 km circle that is missed. This is several times the global average.
Jim D,
“Open ocean versus sea ice by itself has an enormous effect on surface temperature. The Arctic surface is the fastest warming part of the globe taken over the last few decades.”
I don’t think you know what you talk about. Except for Greenland and some islands, the Arctic surface IS the ocean surface. Argo contradicts your claim of fastest warming for the Arctic surface.
Once the winter night extends over the Arctic, the ice extends above the ocean acting as an insulator and reducing the amount of heat lost from the ocean surface to the much colder atmosphere. Every bit of heat above the ice is lost to space for the simple reason that it has nowhere else to go. That the Arctic atmosphere is warmer during the Arctic winter is irrelevant to the climate system. All that heat (or more properly lesser cold) is lost by the system as IR radiation to space. All of it, as it is permanent night there for six months.
Argo shows that the Arctic argument is bogus and doesn’t explain anything. That’s why we are having warmer year after warmer year and yet September Arctic ice is not declining and we have more last September than in 2007.
Here’s what I am talking about. There has been several degrees of warming in recent decades largely because the air temperature over ice is much colder than over open water. The length of the sea-ice season likely has the biggest impact on this. Most of the warming is in Fall and Winter.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv4_1200km_Anom112_2000_2016_1951_1980_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps.png
There you go. Judith’s role in a microcosm. Beautiful.
“Here’s what I am talking about.”
You are talking about a pretty map with red color in an area where the only system measuring surface temperatures, Argo, says that there is no warming.
Clearly I am talking about evidence and you are talking about kriging, infilling and all sorts of fancy ways of inventing data when there is no data to begin with.
Unless you have some real evidence this is not worth my time.
Argo is only water temperatures. Some of the water is below ice. Argo doesn’t tell you that the air over the ice is much colder than freezing in the Arctic, and that area is decreasing. This is a major signal over the last few decades, and it lasts beyond Fall into the Winter each year.
Verytallguy,
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_area_v2.txt
year mo data_type region extent area
2007 9 Goddard N 4.32 2.79
2016 9 NRTSI-G N 4.72 2.81
It’s a fact.
Of course it’s a fact. You’ve got the biggest, most beautiful facts.
Judith’s role. Right there in your “fact”.
“What Arctic ocean warming are you talking about Jim D? Are you inventing it? Argo says there is no Arctic ocean warming at any relevant depth.”
Javier is showing ARGO 55 – 66N, by no definition is that “Artic.”
Take a look at the real Artic.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SSTanomaly%20Global.gif
Conveniently, the SST ignores all the sea ice area you have there in the winter. Show an atmospheric anomaly to be on topic. Global warming is about surface air temperatures, of course, and that includes land and sea ice areas too.
“What Arctic ocean warming are you talking about Jim D? Are you inventing it? Argo says there is no Arctic ocean warming at any relevant depth.”
Yep, that figures.
We’ll ignore the climbing OHC for the planet despite any so called “pause” in atmospheric surface temps …. and instead focus on the Arctic Ocean which is (allegedly) cooling to prove that the Arctic atmosphere is not warming.
How to hold two mutually exclusive ideas in the head at the same time eh?
As for:
“That the Arctic atmosphere is warmer during the Arctic winter is irrelevant to the climate system. All that heat (or more properly lesser cold) is lost by the system as IR radiation to space. All of it, as it is permanent night there for six months.”
Of course it is relevant to the climate system and “all of it” is not “lost”, as it is air temps that form and thicken the ice NOT SST’S, with less energy required to melt the lesser ice the following summer in warmer winters and with a greater albedo contributing more SW absorbed.
It is I who “don’t think you know what you talk about” my friend.
Rune Valaker,
“Javier is showing ARGO 55 – 66N, by no definition is that “Artic.”
Take a look at the real Artic.”
Yes, very impressive anomaly, but still no warming in East Greenland Sea, West Svalbard Sea and Barents Sea 70-80N since 2003, according to NODC
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20EastGreenlandOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1955%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20WestSvalbardOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1955%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NODC%20BarentsSeaOceanicHeatContent0-700mSince1955%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Where is Arctic amplification when you need it?
Arctic amplification. Not hard to see.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_ERSSTv4_1200km_Anom112_2001_2016_1951_1980_100__180_90_0__2_/amaps_zonal.png
Tony Banton,
“Of course it is relevant to the climate system and “all of it” is not “lost”, as it is air temps that form and thicken the ice NOT SST’S, with less energy required to melt the lesser ice the following summer in warmer winters and with a greater albedo contributing more SW absorbed.”
Except that it doesn’t work that way. After 7 of the 10 warmest years on record since 2007, there is no less summer sea ice. Ice forms below freezing and it is always below freezing in the Arctic winter. Water temperature is actually crucial for ice formation, and paradoxically the less sea ice in summer, the more heat and humidity is lost in fall-winter by the ocean, and the more sea ice is formed. That is why there was a phenomenal sea-ice rebound after the 2012 outlier that surprised most cryologists. In most professions that you are surprised in your area of expertise is considered a bad sign. According to you with less energy required, and greater albedo, 2013 rebound should not have happened. Most alarmists have a blind spot for negative feedbacks.
So I also think that you don’t know what you talk about, my friend.
Facts are stubborn, however.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/255/31752304360_d63c0194d1_o.jpg
The theory is polar amplification,here it is correct 50% of the time.
Jim D,
“Arctic amplification. Not hard to see.”
Specially if you look at it with your imagination. Arctic surface data shows no warming since 2003. Unusual air temperatures are not that unusual since they have been registered for decades. See for example 1976, when Arctic air temperatures got warmer than this year.
A lot of people show a surprising lack of understanding about heat transport mechanisms within the planet. As Antarctica is isolated by the circumpolar currents and the Southern Annular Mode, the Arctic is the main net heat exit gate from the planet. The more heat gets transported to the Arctic, the more heat leaves the planet there. When the planet needs to get rid of heat (interglacials) it gets rid of sea ice, and when it needs to preserve heat (glacials) it expands sea ice. It is part of auto regulation. Albedo contribution is very small as sea ice and sunlight are anti-correlated, and atmospheric albedo is a lot more important than surface albedo.
Rather than being alarming, sea ice changes are part of normal auto regulation mechanisms. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum there was no or little sea ice in the Arctic during summers.
The albedo feedback is very important and is the main driving factor in Ice Age cycles, for example. Don’t underestimate albedo.
Jim D,
“Facts are stubborn, however.”
What is stubborn is the constant goal post moving. As September Arctic sea ice extent is no longer decreasing, now the new relevant measure is average yearly extent. Say what? We are suppose to care about the minimum, because as we have been told repeatedly, Arctic summers free of sea ice are around the corner. But if the September minimum doesn’t go down since 2007, and the March maximum doesn’t go down since 2006, why is it now important a yearly average? Just because no other measure shows a decrease to keep us sufficiently alarmed?
It is really funny to see you all moving to a new metric at the same time.
Why not look at the annual average? Individual months are driven more by weather, so the annual average averages the weather out more. 2007 had anomalous weather on top of the background warming trend.
Jim D,
“The albedo feedback is very important and is the main driving factor in Ice Age cycles, for example. Don’t underestimate albedo.”
That’s absolutely incorrect. Obliquity is the main driving factor in the Glacial Cycle.
http://i.imgur.com/5h2TSo3.png
You think NH sea ice has nothing to do with it? Interesting.
Jim D:
https://web.nersc.no/WebData/arctic-roos.org/observation/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png
I’ll call the green plot, what the system returns to each Winter. Yes the annual excursions have been growing as seen in the red plot.
It’s starting to cycle. The excursions used to be smaller from the green plot. This cycling is likely to be additonal cooling during warmer conditions. And what Karl found. I’d suggest this cycling is similar to synchronization where the Arctic Ocean gets to the job of keeping things from getting too warm partly by removing sea ice thickness and area to help cool the oceans. Cycling may also be seen in your stubborn facts plot above.
Jim D,
“Why not look at the annual average?”
Curious. You appear to ignore that sea ice has an opposite role during the summer than during the winter. Sea ice acts as an insulator. During the Arctic winter sea ice prevents heat loss by the ocean, while during the Arctic summer sea ice prevents heat gain by the ocean.
The relevant metric is Arctic sea ice extent during the melting season. Using an annual average shows a poor understanding of Arctic climate issues and is done to advance unjustified alarmism.
You are making assumptions of what I think. Decreasing sea ice is a metric of climate change. Warmer climates have less almost all year. It is that simple.
Javier:
The Arctic ocean does gain joules in the Summer but I think those are lost in the Fall. I ran across a study that said something like that, but can not locate it again after a number of attempts. When it was colder say in 1950, more ice and insulation up there. I favor insulation over albedo for the Arctic. Of the two, I think the more important thing is the insulation. While the equatorial oceans absorbs all kind of joules, most of them are emitted to the atmosphere. Watching sea ice as has been all the rage, is watching a control mechanism in my opinion based on some properties of water, freezing and melting. Someone said it here, Water in all its forms moderates the climate.
“Except that it doesn’t work that way. After 7 of the 10 warmest years on record since 2007, there is no less summer sea ice”
Ever heard of “weather”?
Just 10 years there and to identify a trend we need ~30.
Both winter and summer matter.
Winter is where AGW warming is most acute
And there patently is less ice than 30 years ago
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/detect/detection-images/ice-seaice-extent/N_09_plot_2016.png
Summer melt crucially depends on Spring warmth to lower albedo with melt pools for the following summer.
Last happened in 2012
Just 4 summers ago.
“Ice forms below freezing and it is always below freezing in the Arctic winter”
Actually a bit lower than that due salinity.
The Arctic is very salty and that is important (see below).
So the extent of the depth of the cold (air) does not matter?
Like -35C is *icier* than -20C ((meant) to be rhetorical).
It’s a thermodynamic balance between conduction from the ocean below and cooling of the ice from above.
All it needs is for the ice in contact with the ocean to be colder than it’s freezing point.
The Arctic has always been cold enough in spades to achieve that, just becoming less so with time.
Note I do not say that SST is unimportant just that the air temp will dominate ( at normal Arctic levels).
“This does not apply to sea water. The addition of salt to the water lowers the temperature of maximum density, and once the salinity exceeds 24.7 parts per thousand (most Arctic surface water is 30-35), the temperature of maximum density disappears. Cooling of the ocean surface by a cold atmosphere will therefore always make the surface water more dense and will continue to cause convection right down to the freezing point – which itself is depressed by the addition of salt to about -1.8°C for typical sea water. It may seem, then, that the whole water column in an ocean has to be cooled to the freezing point before freezing can begin at the surface, but in fact the Arctic Ocean is composed of layers of water with different properties, and at the base of the surface layer there is a big jump in density (known as a pycnocline), so convection only involves the surface layer down to that level (about 100-150 metres). Even so, it takes some time to cool a heated summer water mass down to the freezing point, and so new sea ice forms on a sea surface later in the autumn than does lake ice in similar climatic conditions.”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic-zone/essay_wadhams.html
And
http://oceans.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/annurev_marine_perovich_richter-menge_loss_arctic_seaice.pdf
“Water temperature is actually crucial for ice formation,”
It is important but not “crucial” and the colder the air the less important.
See above.
“and paradoxically the less sea ice in summer, the more heat and humidity is lost in fall-winter by the ocean, and the more sea ice is formed.”
There *may* be some truth in that (something like a glass of warm water freezing quicker than a cold one when placed in a freezer)
However no, less sea-ice into autumn results in overall less winter ice formation (as the season is shortened)
There will be quicker rebound in ice formation anyway when there is more ocean surface available for it to form (as happened this last one – and hilariously Watts fell for it).
“According to you with less energy required, and greater albedo, 2013 rebound should not have happened. Most alarmists have a blind spot for negative feedbacks.”
Lower albedo.
If the season was exactly the same as the 2012 melt one – then yes, obviously. With EXACTLY the same thermodynamics, and with exactly the same timing (at the correct early time crucially to form melt ponds).
There wasn’t.
Again it’s called “weather”.
“So I also think that you don’t know what you talk about, my friend.”
Tell me something I don’t know please.
That comes with the territory of being a naysayer.
In fact the more knowledgable the science advocate the more contempt they usually have.
All part of the DK syndrome you see.
Or rather you don’t.
OK, let’s compare dicks.
Your history/career/education on climate science is?
I think you know mine, but if not just ask.
Surprise yourself – may learn something.
“Even so, it takes some time to cool a heated summer water mass down to the freezing point, and so new sea ice forms on a sea surface later in the autumn than does lake ice in similar climatic conditions.”
We have a shortened ice on sea water season on average. Thinner ice as well. Caused by open water warming. Thinner ice will insulate less allowing more ocean heat to pass through it, often into bitter cold air during Winter. With maximum ice extent decreasing maybe 3 percent a decade, Northern currents must travel a small additional amount before reaching the ice, cooling it is assumed during that time.
I think the problem of a too warm ocean melting sea ice is solved by, a too warm ocean melting sea ice and allowing more than before Fall and Winter cooling of the Arctic ocean. Sea ice lose may be the answer and not the problem.
Javier, Your comment is the most sane one on this entire thread I’ve read so far. There will be an investigation and this will become clear with the disinfecting sunshine.
This issue of divergence between the satellite data and surface data is an interesting and important question. Do you know of a good and objective analysis/study of the issue?
Not specifically. Most people just choose their preferred dataset to support their point. That’s what happens when a scientific debate gets politicized. There is an ongoing attempt. so far unsuccessful, to discredit satellite measurements using crappy radiosondes data, which are as inadequate measurements as ship ocean temperatures or worse. However global positioning satellites radio occultation provides a completely independent confirmation of microwave sounding units.
From:
Gleisner, Hans, et al. “Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low‐latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data.” Geophysical Research Letters 42.2 (2015): 510-517.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/591958-1.jpg
Heller posts a graph of the divergence on his blog. GISS versus UAH and RSS. He even shows how GISS was further warmed Nov last year after the first version was posted. Is just a simple numbers plot comparison.
Javier, Thanks, that’s an interesting paper.
Start here.
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/guest-post-surface-and-satellite-discrepancy/
Here are my Guideposts for a Good analysis.
1. Do they discuss masking and mask appropriately? If no
then JUNK IT
2. Do they look for spatial differences, Land versus Ocean?
If No, then JUNK IT
3. Do they look for differences before and after the Big sensor change
( MSU to AMSU ). If No then Junk it
Now why do I focus on these?
Simple I read the RSS and UAH CDRs and find the areas that are most concerning.
A) coverage drop out in satellite and land surface.
B) Different approaches for land and ocean
C) Unsettled questions about the MSU to AMSU transition
So.. If you see a Single line comparing Satellites to Surface, Then RED FLAG .. have they masked properly? did they consider that the land and ocean are treated differently by BOTH systems? and Did they look at the differences before and after the AMSU elephant in the room?
If they didnt do this.. then its a huge red flag and I would not put much weight on it
” There is an ongoing attempt. so far unsuccessful, to discredit satellite measurements using crappy radiosondes data, which are as inadequate measurements as ship ocean temperatures or worse.”
But in Christy’s congress testimony from a year ago, radiosondes were brilliant confirmation:
“That the satellites measure temperature is evident by the following chart which compares our UAH satellite data with temperatures calculated from balloon thermistors. A”
That also had the famous plot showing that balloons (suitably selected) showed with satellites how bad models were.
“However global positioning satellites radio occultation provides a completely independent confirmation of microwave sounding units.”
It’s misleading to cut off the bottom plot – here is the whole picture (Gleisner):
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/01/gleisner.png
What RO confirms (if anything) is HADCRUT, and UAH5.6. Not RSS or UAH6.0.
I say if anything, because they are all different regions. RO is mainly above 300mb; TLT is between 300 and 850 mb, and HADCRUT is surface. There is no particular reason why they should agree. But insofar as they do, it is UAH6.0 and RSS that is the outlier.
Nick Stokes,
“What RO confirms (if anything) is HADCRUT, and UAH5.6. Not RSS or UAH6.0.”
Indeed all of them show a significant reduction of warming trend, so we can perfectly say that they all fit the definition of hiatus. Different techniques, same result. And they all contradict Karl et al., 2015.
It is not misleading to cut off the bottom plot. I was comparing one satellite measurement with another satellite measurement.
Javier,
“Indeed all of them show a significant reduction of warming trend, so we can perfectly say that they all fit the definition of hiatus”
But your claim was
“However global positioning satellites radio occultation provides a completely independent confirmation of microwave sounding units.”
And it doesn’t. Along with HADCRUT and UAH5.6, it shows an essentially zero trend. RSS shows a substantial downtrend, and UAH 6 is similar (not shown in this 2015 paper). That agrees with the surface data, and with UAH5.6, which also goes with surface, and is in contrast to the TLT data now quoted.
“And they all contradict Karl et al., 2015.”
No, they don’t. The trend period shown is 1/2002 to 12/2013. Trends for datasets were:
Nick Stokes,
“And it doesn’t [provide a completely independent confirmation]. Along with HADCRUT and UAH5.6, it shows an essentially zero trend. RSS shows a substantial downtrend, and UAH 6 is similar (not shown in this 2015 paper). That agrees with the surface data, and with UAH5.6, which also goes with surface, and is in contrast to the TLT data now quoted.
No, they don’t [contradict Karl et al., 2015]. The trend period shown is 1/2002 to 12/2013. Trends for datasets were: “
We must not be reading the same article.
Figure 3 shows how close the measurements of Radio Occultation are to Microwave Sounding Units measurements.
http://i.imgur.com/wBEvQCA.png
HadCrut performs relatively badly over polar regions as we all know, so you are using debating arguments by reducing the evidence to a single number to claim RO is more similar to HadCrut than to satellites. Now that is misleading.
And regarding Karl et al., 2015, it seems I have to remind you that their main conclusion was that there was no hiatus.
Well, RO supports the hiatus as much as satellites MSU and HadCrut, so yes, whatever way you want to spin it, master spinster, GPS RO supports the hiatus. As they say:
“We have investigated two independent satellite-based tropospheric data sets, and a global surface temperature data set, and compared latitudinal distribution of temperature trends during the hiatus and the prehiatus time periods. We find that the three types of data (surface, MSU/AMSU, and RO) show an overall agreement, pointing out low latitudes as the source region for the temperature hiatus. The new RO data set has a global coverage, and the existence of a hiatus in these data suggests that data gaps are not a dominating cause of the hiatus.
The hiatus time period is distinctly different from the prehiatus time period, and the differences are much more pronounced at low latitudes than at middle and high latitudes. We have shown that the hiatus is mainly due to a relatively small negative trend at low latitudes which dominates over a larger positive trend in the Arctic.”
So 3 different techniques contradict Karl et al., 2015 and its buoys to buckets adjustments. Isn’t that consilience of evidence?
Javier,
“so you are using debating arguments by reducing the evidence to a single number to claim RO is more similar to HadCrut than to satellites. Now that is misleading.”
You introduced the graphs with trends, and even digitised the trend numbers and marked them on the graph. I just pointed out what those trends were actually confirming. They agree with HADCRUT and UAH 5.6, not RSS 3.3 or the later UAH 6.0.
“But in Christy’s congress testimony from a year ago, radiosondes were brilliant confirmation:
“That the satellites measure temperature is evident by the following chart which compares our UAH satellite data with temperatures calculated from balloon thermistors. A””
Yes indeed Nick.
And here is UAH TLT vs RATPAC A sonde data.
Showing where it diverged circa ’98.
http://postmyimage.com/img2/792_UAHRatpacvalidation2.png
=={ If everything was done according to the rules, as some defend in this blog, there will be no problem. If not, as John Bates defends, the investigation will assign responsibilities. }==
Yes. Once the Republicans have investigated and made their conclusions, we will know what the truth is. Because we know that the outcomes of Republican investigations always arrive at the truth. Not to mention that Republican politicians leading investigations into science will finally free us of the politicization of science.
Sarcasm aside, I’m sure you and the politically attuned nonscientists will be able to separate fact from politically motivated alternative facts. And that’s the point. Further evidence will help people make up their own minds. You might have to learn a little science first though.
=={ urther evidence will help people make up their own minds. }==
Except that isn’t what happens in such polarized context. In such contexts, further evidence confirms biases. People filter the evidence through identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors.
OK, Joshua, so then no political entity should ever investigate anything because the outcome will just be filtered through everyone’s partisan tribalism and not convince anyone? What a cynical and silly view. If we just give up, no light will ever be shed on any topic. Leave science to the scientists because they are a new priesthood who are so pure and superhuman as to be above politics? That worked out so well in the Middle Ages didn’t it?
Here’s Steve McIntyre’s rendering of the trend evidence with the most recent data. Once again McIntyre is the most trustworthy source for data.
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/830124744716464128/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
What is he plotting? What datasets?
I await McIntyre’s CDR
If it is Richard Betts’ diagram, the surface one is HadCrut4 but instead of yearly data using monthly data.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4ZckkaWQAE6IP8.jpg
The information is in the figure. The models are actually RCP4.5, not 8.5. Their failure is evident. Using a strong El Niño to claim their success is shameful.
Javier:
“The information is in the figure. The models are actually RCP4.5, not 8.5. Their failure is evident. ”
Actually rcp 4.5 and 8.5 do not diverge until some time into the future and observations are currently above the mean for cmip5 rcp 8.5 runs as well.
See Nick’s graph here…..
https://moyhu.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/current-global-temps-compared-with-cmip.html
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2014/01/fig-nearterm_all_UPDATE_2017-panela-1.png
“Using a strong El Niño to claim their success is shameful.”
And using a “strong EN” (stronger actually as the higher temp attained in the recent one was added to ongoing AGW)
Therefore a straw man….
To justify a *pause* (The Lord) isn’t?
Using a a Trop data set instead of surface to boot.
Their failure is evident. Using a strong El Niño to claim their success is shameful.
And using back-to-back La Niña events, one quite powerful, to claim their failure is not shameful? Don’t bother.
“But I do know that since 2003 the modifications that have been made to the surface databases have had the effect of separating them from the satellite databases”
The reason for the separation isn’t modification of the surface databases. Look at UAH in this plot. V5.6 agreed with GISS, V6 doesn’t. RSS 3.3 doesn’t, but its makers say it has a known cooling bias. V4 TTT is much closer. From WFT:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/2017/02/gissuah.png
” It is already 14 years, and the reason for that separation ought to be seriously investigated, because it is not possible to believe that surface and lower troposphere are following divergent temperature trends.”
It’s hard to blame the surface data for the separation when the satellites are so wobbly.
A case of the pot calling the kettle black.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISS%20Jan1910%20and%20Jan2000.gif
“A case of the pot calling the kettle black.”
No, just saying that you can’t use satellite data to prove surface wrong when it varies so much, sometimes agreeing with surface, sometimes not. But your plot is a cheat diagram – cutting out a whole chunk of the y-axis to make the variation look large. And it is a cherry pick; 1910 is a peak year for deviation. Here is the whole story (from the GISS History site) of changes in versions since 2000. Note the bump at 1910.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2017/01/GISS_version_history.jpg
Nick Stokes, I realize what he said could be interpreted in different ways. modifications since 2003 could be taken to mean modifications of 2003 onward temperatures or it could mean modification done since 2003. While I have not followed this issue real closely recently, most modifications I have seen to the temperature record has been in cooling historic temperatures. Thus the issue probably should be looked at from a “climate” length record, instead of a “weather” length record, don’t you think? Yes the weather does change.
Bob,
“I realize what he said could be interpreted…”
Yes. But if you look at Javier’s graph way back there, the divergence in the plot does mainly show after 2003. So whichever he meant, that is still the part of the plot to look at.
Its abundantly clear we are not looking a climate data though. As I recall there was a lot of handwringing and adjustments going on when ARGO was introduced to close a similar gap. Seems fair sport to deeply question adjusting the superior observation platform once again without having ever vetted the original adjustments except by yet another inferior dataset.
I genuinely do not know how to respond to someone who thinks that this is the way in which we should establish the veracity of a scientific study. It genuinely seems as though they’re happy with politicised science as long as the politics is acceptable to them. In fact, it is very hard to interpret it in any other way.
ATTP,
“I genuinely do not know how to respond to someone who thinks that this is the way in which we should establish the veracity of a scientific study.”
Who is that someone? I am merely stating a situation that it is likely to develop. I am not guilty that in the US the climate debate has become so politicized. And in any case I don’t think that the issue between Bates and Karl is so much a scientific issue, but one of policies and regulations within NOAA.
So I think you are doubly missing your mark.
Javier,
Except you suggested that there would be no problem. I don’t think any group of politicians investigating a scientific study is likely to be “no problem”.
Indeed, I actually agree with this. However, to those on the outside of the organisation, this is largely irrelevant. If someone publishes a paper that doesn’t satisfy some internal procedure, then those outside of that organisation probably won’t care unless this implies something with respect to the veracity of the study itself. Since this appears to not be the case, then it should have no bearing on the actual publication.
Ken Rice, You will be able to read the report of the committee yourself and make up your own mind, assuming that it is not already made up. They will at least get testimony from the principles and perhaps those other whistleblowers. I don’t know really how to respond to someone who seems to be uninterested in this information, or perhaps to have prejudged that there is nothing to pay attention to here.
David,
I think an investigation of a scientific study by politicians of any political perusasion is the wrong way to determine the veracity of a scientific study, and runs the very serious risk of politicising science. It would seem that you disagree. Would you be happy with this if those doing the investigating were Democrats?
The Democrats on the committee will get a chance to write a minority report and call their own witnesses. I will wait to see the output rather than prejudicing it beforehand. What I am most interested in is the mystery “whistleblowers” other than Bates.
Given the poor track record of science generally over the last 60 years, I’m not sure I would trust the literature either. It does sound like NOAA has some internal disagreements that need to be adjudicated somehow outside the agency itself. Would you rather just have Trump’s new administrator handle it secretly?
I think what you really mean is “given that – over the last 60 years – science has produced results I don’t like, I don’t trust the literature”.
If anyone had reason to doubt the Republican political class’ commitment to data analysis, just look at them lining up to argue against the Trump administration’s widespread analysis of data regarding millions of illegals voting in the last election.
I am so glad that they are demanding to see raw data and questioning procedures in how Trump at al. handled data in their seminal publication (Trump17).
oh. Wait.
nevermind.
You can’t stay out of mind reading can you? I mean things like the dietary fat fiasco. Remember, being a dick about is not good science communication.
In other words, something completely irrelevant.
Remember that I happened to disagree with what was suggested in the post to which you’re referring (especially given that the author was largely ignoring their own advice). That you mostly agreed with it, didn’t really help the credibility of the argument being made.
ATTP: I think what you really mean is “given that – over the last 60 years – science has produced results I don’t like, I don’t trust the literature”.
What I and many in the US and elsewhere have come to realize that journalists, college professors, actors and climate scientists are many times not afraid to use their profession to advance partisan causes, whether it be biased news or biased science. This used to be frowned upon but now we have to acknowledge that we have it. The question is what to we do about it. I think this is the root of what has brought Dr. Curry to the question posed in this blog.
It is for certain that everyone is justified in being skeptical about all information provided through all sources. It’s a shame. But the best solution I think is demanding sunshine and friendly debate (like here at CE).
Ron,
Why do you select these groups only? As far as I can tell, most people who want to promote something will use whatever credibility they may have to do so. However, there’s a difference between people who want to promote a cause using their profession to do so, and suggesting (as you seem to have done) that many in that profession are trying to promote a cause.
Indeed, but the issue here is mostly to do with a political investigation of a scientific issue. If you object to the partisan promotion of a cause, then this would seem to be something that we should discourage, not accept.
Ron, As I have come to expect, Ken seems to be against more information since he has already made up his mind. The problem here is what’s the alternate to Congress investigating? I’d be quite happy to let Trump’s new NOAA head straighten this out and write a public report. I am surprised that Ken would not prefer Congress where Democrats get to have input.
Ken is perhaps a little confused about bias in science. The dietary fat fiasco is indeed totally relevant to the biases in science that need to be corrected and why better accountability is indeed needed, most emphatically including at NOAA. As to why politicians should be discouraged from looking into bias in science, I don’t know where Ken gets this. The problem is when scientists politicize their science. That’s the problem in climate science for example.
As to “being a dick,” it is incontrovertible that being a dick is a counterproductive “communication” strategy. Especially if you are a scientist and want to retain credibility. Perhaps you Ken disagree because “being a dick” is your MO and you are a little defensive/guilty about it.
Ken and Ron, This issue of political advocacy by seemingly virtually anyone who is famous (or wants to be) is it seems to me a cultural degradation. Progressives used to want to get politics out of science (and all government public service jobs). There are actually laws governing advocacy by Federal employees. In Ken’s world, if someone wants to advocate a cause they will do whatever they can to do so. No ethics, no ideals of unbiased professionalism. Teddy Roosevelt was wrong. Corruption in government and science is a really really good thing.
Interesting that David, who writes blog comments perhaps daily? about categorical differences between how “progressives” think, approach issues, are affected by bias, etc., (check out Lucia’s) would weigh in on the issues related to political biases affecting science, without controlling for biases in his own comments.
Unless, of course, the association between his own ideology and his perspective on how ideology affects bias in scientists is purely coincidental.
I suppose that is possible, eh?
David,
Do I take it that your goal is not to communicate?
No Ken, I have no illusions of communicating anything to activists like yourself. I am trying to learn. But for you whose goal seems to be using science communication to advocate for your cause, you should be concerned about whether you are helping or harming your cause.
David,
I too don’t really have any expectations of communicating with certain people. Bear in mind that you were the one who started this, not me.
David, I have found Ken (ATTP) to be polite considering the implied assumptions he carries for skeptics. I hope we can all make progress holding wholesome thoughts about one another will engaging in intellectual combat.
ATTP: Why do you select these groups only? As far as I can tell, most people who want to promote something will use whatever credibility they may have to do so.
I believe its unprofessional to use one’s profession to influence a political cause unless they are making it clear they are not representing their institution or profession. So everyone knows Madonna is not a scientist. But the other examples I posed I believe are breaching ethics by slanting their communication product to promote a cause.
To paraphrase Feynman, I think scientists have a special obligation to refrain from advocacy, be the suppliers of their hypotheses’ best counter-arguments, welcome skepticism, refrain from using technical jargon in the presence of lay people, or to assert an appeal to their own authority.
However, there’s a difference between people who want to promote a cause using their profession to do so, and suggesting (as you seem to have done) that many in that profession are trying to promote a cause.
I don’t see a clear difference. Please elaborate.
… the issue here is mostly to do with a political investigation of a scientific issue. If you object to the partisan promotion of a cause, then this would seem to be something that we should discourage, not accept.
Whether politics has been corrupted by science, or visa versa, I think the solution is the same: investigation. In doing that one needs both political authorities and expert ones to collaborate.
Joshua, What tripe you spread. My concerns about science and bias are not connected to political ideology as a moments research would show. Those concerns have recently been expressed in Nature, The Lancet (probably half of our results are wrong), The Economist, The New York Times, and many other science journals. Get back to me after you do the research. I have about 30 links in my folder on this. Better yet since you are probably too busy searching out minute and almost invisible tribal affiliations to do it, here are some links for you. Dr. Ken Rice as our resident apologist for science might benefit from a little read too.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong/
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161208-why-vitamin-supplements-could-kill-you
http://www.nature.com/news/the-pressure-to-publish-pushes-down-quality-1.19887?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600
Ken, Who started what? School children complain that they didn’t start it. The issues are bias in science and trust in our establishment institutions as well as political advocacy by scientists and other professionals.
Ron, My main point (and I’ve made it before and got no response) is that your description of the proper role of professional scientists is nothing new, but originated in the Progressive era when the calls for reform of a corrupt civil service filled with political hacks and partisans finally gained traction. The idea was to separate politics from science and other professional responsibilities. My inference is that Ken disagrees and thinks the corrupt and partisan federal bureaucracy of the Gilded age was just fine.
Ron,
I largely agree, but there is a difference between someone using some kind of professional position to advance a cause, and someone who is advancing a cause highlighting their expertise.
All I mean is that just because you can, for example, find a scientist who is choosing to be an activist, does not mean that all scientists are activists.
I disagree. If that investigation includes politicians then it’s hard to see how it won’t enhance the politicisation of science.
ATTP: All I mean is that just because you can, for example, find a scientist who is choosing to be an activist, does not mean that all scientists are activists.
I’m glad you clarified because I think most everyone can agree with that. I am not against a scientist promoting their work. I am not even against a scientist promoting a divisive political cause through their work if they are not using public funds.
I said: Whether politics has been corrupted by science, or visa versa, I think the solution is the same: investigation.<
ATTP said: I disagree. If that investigation includes politicians then it’s hard to see how it won’t enhance the politicisation of science.
I agree there is no need for governmental investigations to vet privately promoted scientific findings (unless they are falsely and directly marketing for profit). OTOH, I think governmental science that is used as a basis for the use of trillions of public dollars does warrant the authority of official investigation, especially when there is a whistleblower. But that’s just me.
“That summer sea ice hasn’t decreased for 10 years and ocean surface hasn’t warmed for 15 years supports that the planet is not getting rid of more heat. In other words it supports that we were and still are in a hiatus period.”
What nonsense. Artic Sea Ice has undergone a continually decrease both in area and volum for at least the last 38 years. Talking “about since 2003” or “the last ten years” is without meaning in a climatic sense. The long term trends is not negotiable. There has been a lot of cherry picking exercises in an attempt to find some sign of trend change, beside the Wattsrecovery after some cold weather in 2013 and 2014, we had a new one last october:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/07/evidence-that-multidecadal-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/
Regarding artic temperature we have Gillet et al (2008), since then, it has only gone one way. For instance, Svalbard has had more than 70 consecutive overlapping months with high anomalies.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/images/ngeo338-f1.jpg
biomedical research
To date, there is not one shred of evidence that the Obama administration exerted any influence at all over the Karl paper. Smith has had a large number of emails and other documents for a very long time. Bates’s admitted it was a guess. It was not based on any evidence at all.
The general gist of ATTP’s argument seems to be that politicians looking into science and its manifest problems will “politicize” science. If scientists won’t address the very real problems, which cost many lives incidentally, then who will do it? Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives were quite keen in looking into pseudo-science in their day such as social Darwinism, a dangerous political “cause” that led to eugenics, racism, and the dark side of science. That’s no doubt a chapter of history that science apologists want to ignore and whitewash. Politicians are going to be involved and its not necessarily a bad thing, except in the weird world of scientist apologetics. Or perhaps more succinctly, polarization of science is quite good, as long as it leads to the outcome activists want in their view. Politicians must be involved when science intersects with public policy. Unless the idea is that scientists will become a new elite priesthood who simply dictate what science says and its policy implications. That’s undemocratic and actually dangerous I would argue.
Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Politicians should, of course, be the ones who decide what to do, given the information provided, but they shouldn’t – IMO – be the ones who decide on the scientific credibility of a scientific study.
Politicians should, of course, be the ones who decide what to do, given the information provided, but they shouldn’t – IMO – be the ones who decide on the scientific credibility of a scientific study.
The question of who decides what is credible for public policy, funding, publication, allowing association are all good questions. I think libertarians want those decisions to be dispersed among leaders and citizenry. Debate and sunshine on public information need to be always encouraged, not discouraged.
ATTP, it troubled me when you posted last summer:
Who should bar the meetings of those we regard promoting pseudo-science? Should they be barred from public or private campuses or both? If a university club invited Bates to speak would you protest?
Ken, What you say would be true in an ideal world where scientists were honest and not activists and science didn’t produce such poor quality results. You can’t have it both ways. If you want politicians to trust scientists, scientists must stop the whitewashing and lying.
Ron,
Of course I wouldn’t protest if Bates spoke, he’s not a pseudo-scientist. The point that I was getting at there was that there is a difference between an organisation trying to use a university facility, and researchers within that university organising a meeting. A university is not obliged to allow anyone who wants, to use their facilities. That’s not an academic freedom. What would be an academic freedom issue is if they prevented some research from taking place simply because it was regarded as pseudo-science. The latter would be wrong, IMO.
DY,
A final serious comment. Collectively scientists are not – IMO – whitewashing and lying. That you can find some examples of poor practice does not mean that scientists (collectively) are behaving in this manner. I genuinely think that you making these claims reflects entirely on you and illustrates your extreme bias. It says nothing about science and scientists. For once, try to think about this before responding with another one of your invective laden comments.
ATTP, I understand and agree with your point that university sponsored forums should be should be labeled differently from university located events. But that brings up the question as to exactly how many faculty does it take to petition the sponsoring of a debate. Who are the pseudo-scientists, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, Roger Pielke Sr. or Jr.? Is Bill Nye (“The Science Guy”) a real scientist? I agree there is a difference but it’s not an easy to decide who gets to decide. Should universities bar so-called scientists working on cold fusion from a forum? One doesn’t have to believe or endorse an idea to allow it to be debated. And, if universities are known to share that policy there would be little danger of mis-branding of their controlling faculty’s endorsement of particular ideas.
Ken, Your bias is coming through. In response to Joshua I posted a half dozen links to documentation of the very serious problems in science. If you can’t engage this discussion, then you are just whitewashing the obvious truth. I know you want to downplay any problems, because you have adopted the role of apologist. Apologetics is also not honest.
Perhaps lying is too strong a word. A better one might be biased, dishonest and wrong results. You can’t expect people to just ignore the long and rather staggering history of very poor science that has affected public health and policy. The saturated fat issue is a prime example. In that case Keyes was very dishonest. Just to make it easy on you, here are the links.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915-most-scientific-papers-are-probably-wrong/
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/9/160384
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161208-why-vitamin-supplements-could-kill-you
http://www.nature.com/news/the-pressure-to-publish-pushes-down-quality-1.19887?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews
http://www.nature.com/news/beware-the-creeping-cracks-of-bias-1.10600
This same comment is in moderation with a repeat of all 7 links. They are in my response to Joshua above.
Ken, You are just ignoring the elephant in the room, or are you whitewashing it? In response to Joshua I posted a half dozen links to documentation of the very serious problems in science. I suspect you want to downplay any problems, because you have adopted the role of apologist. Apologetics is also not honest. I’ve never seen you address this, you simply change the subject. That’s a tactic of misinformation.
Perhaps lying is too strong a word. A better one might be biased, dishonest and wrong results. You can’t expect people to just ignore the long and rather staggering history of very poor science that has affected public health and policy. The saturated fat issue is a prime example. In that case Keyes was very dishonest. Just to make it easy on you, here are the links.
Pretending there is not a problem will just result in a further degradation of the reputation of science. Your choice of course.
DY,
I’ll try to explain this one more time. There are thousands of researchers in the world. They work in a large variety of different disciplines and, even within some disciplines, work in different areas. They work in different countries and, within countries, in different institutions. That you can find some examples of poor practice (and even some of clear misconduct) does not justify calling scientists (collectively) liars/dishonest. Pointing this out to you is not apologising for poor practice, it is simply pointing out something patently obvious. Researchers (collectively) are not somehow responsible for poor practice/misconduct in areas with which they have no formal link. This is not even all that complicated a concept; not buying into your invective laden rants about scientists/researchers doesn’t mean that someone is apologising for poor practice, it simply means that someone isn’t buying into your simplistic, poorly thought out, narrative.
Ken, Well that’s mostly a dodge. Scientists should be alarmed if 50% of published results are wrong. I don’t think climate science is any better than that. All the pause studies for example. Some say the pause didn’t really exist and the other half say it existed and propose an explanation.
You are not personally responsible for other scientists who publish shoddy studies with very poor statistical power. An example might be the use of uniform priors in observational studies of ECS. But climate science as a whole was shoddy in not seeking out expert opinion on the statistics.
What I have noticed however, is that you criticize intensely people whose views might be opposed to your activist agenda and remain silent about obvious examples of bad science when they support your agenda. I will leave it to the reader to judge this as the record is clear. You exercise “selection” of what you want to draw attention and its not based on objective criteria.
Did you actually read any of the 7 articles I linked? Do you have any detailed technical response other than platitudes? I would welcome it if you do, but I am not holding my breath.
Here I just took the warm outliers – and there is a broad range. The more interesting divergence is the global/land surface records.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/berkley-trend1.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/noaa-land.png
It’s a drought artefact. Thermometers measure sensible heat. It is time to drop the surface records as climate metric.
Where is Arctic amplification when you need it?
Well, It’s not hard to find it for the people living there, they are a bit tired of being told by Fancy Boys from Hunstville Alabama that it’s not showing up.
https://met.no/filestore/TAMA_S99840_0_500_NO4.jpg?size=500×345
Trend last 50 Years; 0,65 C/decade
https://met.no/Svalbard+lufthavn+p%C3%A5+Spitsbergen.9UFRHWYI.ips
Rune Valaker,
“Well, It’s not hard to find it for the people living there”
Except that most of the Arctic is ocean, and Arctic and Circun-Arctic ocean surface does not show warming for the last 15 years. I suppose there is a reason why we bother to take ocean surface temperatures and include them in the surface temperature record datasets.
So it turns out that Arctic amplification is a lower atmosphere phenomenon that is poorly reflected on ocean surface temperatures and mid and high-troposphere temperatures. If that increased heat isn’t warming the ocean surface, which is obvious as the ocean surface is actually warmer, it is also obvious that its destination is outside the planet. The poles are heat sinks towards space.
Once more we, surface creatures, are misinterpreting what is happening, as in the case of El Niño. This is because we just measure temperatures, like the pretty picture in the Svalbard report that you link shows, and not heat flux. Where does that heat originates and where is it going.
Being in a warm period means more heat has to leave the planet. Polar heat sinks, specifically the Arctic one, can increase as much as needed. They do that by reducing sea ice cover and moving more heat through the atmosphere to the pole.
That summer sea ice hasn’t decreased for 10 years and ocean surface hasn’t warmed for 15 years supports that the planet is not getting rid of more heat. In other words it supports that we were and still are in a hiatus period.
It has to be noted that Karl et al., 2015 contributes to the separation between surface and lower troposphere records, and thus contributes to the problem, not to the solution.
Judith, simply carry on. Nobody wins them all. Bates said the land algorithm was unstable. Paul Mathews showed an example of that discovered in 2012, and now Steve McIntyre has separately confirmed it. And more dodgy GHCN raw/final in missing data/ suspect repeating data is being discovered by others, for example in Ireland. And Huangs ERSST5 is cooler than ERSST4 so something WAS awry with the Karl pausebuster paper. Rep. Smith said his subpoena was based on whistleblowers (plural) so there is more than just Bates. The furious reactions suggest that where there is smoke, there is fire.
I have no further bandwidth for this at present. I will let things play out (a number of things have been set into motion), will probably comment again at some point in the future.
Here’s your role right there, J.
Pingback: Discussion: JC’s ‘role’ – NZ Conservative Coalition
I see a role for you Dr. Curry. You have been at the forefront of this uncertainty issue. I have worked as an policy analyst and see the uncertainty issue as a key issue regarding the use of science in advising policy. It really is a new phenomenon in my area (not climate change) that science is being used as a key element in establishing policy. Forty years ago science in my arena, ocean resources, simply was non-existant. Today its a very important part of successful management. Its been a shaky ride as post normal science has intervened in not a positive way. Truthfully the issues addressed by post normal science need to be considered at the policy level and not at the science level, though it is true there are very big issues in drawing that line between science and post normal ideas of science.
The same problem exists in financial reporting. Dealing with uncertainty is by far the largest issue today in financial reporting. But abuses of uncertainty have largely been tamed via standards, licensing, and assignment of liabilities of financial reporters.
Not so in the field of science where academic freedom allows a complete disconnect from responsibility in places where science is being used to inform policy.
The solution in financial reporting was found within the field of financial reporting. Almost all standards are promulgated by the profession itself. The solution of how uncertainty can be treated in science needs to primarily rise out of where you have the most experience, in academia, in a key area of uncertainty, and from somebody who has a grasp of the problem.
The issues are different in a way that would make the solution different. Financial reporting is almost an entirely private enterprise with licensed professionals working for private investor interests. Liability is conventional.
But since in the government policy arena does not have a similar conventional liability model where recourse to work not meeting standards can be compensated to the harmed individuals.
But I doubt there are any experts in that arena now for science. The expertise that exists is in the work itself which you have both a lot of experience in and a solid grasp of the problem.
One more Bates claim down the tubes
““Typically, NOAA officials can publish research that relies partially on experimental data, as long as the data are properly identified ”
And this was denied by a NOAA administrator:
“But Mike Tanner, director of NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at NCEI, says there’s no NOAA policy that requires such a disclosure. “There’s nothing. That doesn’t exist,” he says.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study“
Well thats a huge issue in itself Steven. Not having a written policy on such an important issue means that the door is wide open to having such a policy applied at will, politically. Disclosure in dealing with true uncertainty is by far the most important tool an agency can have. Having zero written policy in the matter leaves the door wide open to abuse and corruption.
So, should have Dr.Curry asked this question before allowing Bates to post? How many questions does a submitter have to answer before being allowed to post?
Thanks Judy for providing opportunities for open science, open debate, and fresh air.
Above the important the details, the overriding issue is what did IPCC Predict versus the actual temperature trends?
Lord Monckton summarizes:
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/clip_image008.jpg
This is another of the dishonest Monckton graphs which shows projections of surface temperatures, and then “observed”, which turns out to be troposphere satellite data. If you want to compare IPCC Predict versus the actual temperature trends, then the only honest comparison is with the actual temperatures they were predicting. There they did well, getting better with time.
One example.
https://i1.wp.com/journals.ametsoc.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/ams/journals/content/bams/2015/15200477-96.8/bams-d-13-00255.1/20150904/images/large/bams-d-13-00255.1-f2.jpeg
Like this Nick Stokes?
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n3/fig_tab/ngeo2098_F1.html
“Like this?”
No, that is troposphere data.
With a pause from 1993 on (peer reviewed).
And a pause from 1995 on for the lower stratosphere.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015JD024039/asset/image_n/jgrd52692-fig-0003.png?v=1&t=iz5mdqux&s=2905071816277a96006d20006a7b6638d5dfae6b
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JD024039/full
Just in – a follow-up article by David Rose. Not backing down!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html
Yes, like the Black Knight. Lost his witness, but goes on smearing regardless.
The global energy budget is very simple.
Δ(O&Aheat) = energy in – energy out
It is a differential equation if you are unsure of the derivation. It is the change in ocean and atmospheric heat content – and net energy change as the difference between energy in and energy out. Energy in and energy out are measured as radiant (power) flux over one second – i.e. the instantaneous energy flux.
The instantaneous rate of increase in greenhouse gas forcing is 1E-9 W/m2. Over time and over the planet it is an appreciable number.
Greenhouse gas warming increases the energy content of the planet at the speed of light. The planet accumulates additional energy, warms and restores the nominal balance of incoming and outgoing energy. How long does this take? My guess is that it is a fast process rather than slow – and that limits any accumulation of radiant imbalance.
In atmospheric temperature changes – where satellite instruments are much to be preferred – there is huge variability and natural regime changes at 20 to 40 year and slow greenhouse gas warming. The next regime change is due in a 2018-2028 window. How exciting.
In ocean heat content. Where in a limited period of relatively precise data it is impossible to tell where small greenhouse gas warming takes over from large natural variability. The problem of a small signal superimposed on a very much larger signal.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/argo-to-december-2016.jpg?w=638&h=182
I got out my sanitary engineer slide rule yesterday. We have some 0.05C increase in ocean temperature. I get 2W/m2 warming? That is – most Argo ocean warming was something else entirely. Mostly secular changes in outgoing energy. Remember the instantaneous rate of increase in greenhouse gas forcing is 1E-9 W/m2. I have checked these very simple Fermi problem calcs several times – but I have been wrong before. If you can show me where I am happy to correct myself.
There is no precision in absolute values of power flux in either incoming or outgoing energy. Anomalies are much more precise and can tell us a little.
Energy in from the sun was a little warmer in past few years in the upswing of the 11 year Schwabe solar cycle.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/energy-in.jpg
Every little bit counts.
Net flux is a combination of emitted infrared and reflected shortwave. Net upward is warming by convention. There has been a little warming since 2004.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/energy-out.jpg
I am in the process of re-graphing this similar to the Ole Humlum Argo graph above.
What can be concluded? That there is a small signal in a hugely variable signal.
Does anyone actually believe that we can divine anything of any relevance from the temperature at 2m?
Here’s the Argo again.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/argo-to-december-2016.jpg
Mr. Ellison, we are well aware you have your climate science theories. Are you aware those are completely off topic for the important subject of this post? Please stop.
You want to publish your ideas, write them up coherently and succinctly and submit to Judith as a possible guest post. If she doesn’t have the time to vet, I hereby volunteer to do it for her and will provide you and her my findings and recommendation.
Fermi problems are classic dimensional analysis and approximation (getting in the ballpark). Your 1E-9w/m2 ‘instantaneous’ GHE flux estimate isn’t. The actual TOA delta flux imbalance measured by satellite is 0.6w/m^2. (I like the Stephens 2012 paper in ngeo. Footnote 7 to essay Sensitive Uncertainty in ebook Blowing Smoke. You might want to read it.) To a first order approximation (0.6~1.0) that puts you E+9 off. You have a Fermi problem. Fix it before you write up the suggested guest post.
The subject of the surface temperature raised its hairy head again – and in relation to J C’s role in the Bates affair. It would seem fair play to address the broader energy issues.
I don ‘t have a theory – I have a hypothesis. Thye prediction based on said hypothesis is that the next Pacific climate shift – due in a 2018-2028 window – will be to a cooler pacific.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/01/12/an-earnest-discovery-of-climate-causality/
Knock yourself out.
“In physics or engineering education, a Fermi problem, Fermi quiz, Fermi question, Fermi estimate, or order estimation is an estimation problem designed to teach dimensional analysis, approximation, and such a problem is usually a back-of-the-envelope calculation. The estimation technique is named after physicist Enrico Fermi as he was known for his ability to make good approximate calculations with little or no actual data. Fermi problems typically involve making justified guesses about quantities and their variance or lower and upper bounds.” Wikipedia
I was providing a clue as to methodology – but perhaps a bit subtle for other than the technically trained.
The estimates of ‘radiant imbalance’ tend to come from ocean heat data. It cannot be observed by satellite. I calculated 2W/m2 from Argo data.
“Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture,”
The instantaneous rate of increase in greenhouse gas forcing is something different.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/climate-forcing-figure1-2016.png
We have an increase in forcing of some 0.8W/ms over 25 years – 1990 to 2015. so the instantaneous increase in forcing is 1E-9W/m2. The earth heats at the unit energy rate of 1E-9 J/m2.
I am happy to correct myself – but you need to understand the conceptual framework of this Fermi problem.
Here is your problem. I do understand it, think you are wrong, and have requested that you explain your alt view clearly and succinctly so it can be appropriately evaluated. Math is good, solid data even better. (Cause maybe in your disjointed posts I missed something.) Two reasonable requests to you.
Even simpler. Explain why your GHE E-9 forcing estimate is E+9 off satellite observations of same. Start with Feynmann’s observations about ‘true’ science.
Imbalance cannot be measured in satellite observed radiative data. The large variability and large measurement error in absolute flux values precludes anything of the sort. Yopu do not understand.
It is determined from ocean heat. The rate of warming over the Argo period I calculated it as 2W/m2 – which is a unit rate of warming of 2J/m2. But I don’t assume that it is all greenhouse gas forcing for a minute.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/climate-forcing-figure1-2016.png
You divide the increase in forcing by the number of seconds in 25 years to get a unit rate of increase. Yeah – I guess you did miss that as well in my disjointed posts.
Your gratuitous rudeness and ignorance is just getting a little too tedious – and I’ll take my leave.
Your retraction says: Thanks. For taking your leave. Come back when you have something of substance, observationally supported.
BTW, I sincerly hope your feelings are hurt. Very hurt.
Oh for God’s sake – that is so childish.
Mr. Ellison, you stated above that ghe energy imbalances cannot be observed by satellites. Lets try that again, Earth is bounded by space. Space is essentially a vacuum, so the only in/out energy transfers must be radiative (no convection or conduction in a vacuum, as Thermos bottles show). Ok, so on planetary long time scales, only TOA radiative imbalance can explain the net of all the complicated stuff happening below in the armosphere and ocean, where convection and conduction most definitely count. So how do your arrive at your clearly dubious view? Try high school physics for starters. Explain any Fermi problems along the way. I think you cannot. Hence my challenge. Got cards, time to showem.
There’s a crucial distinction between what Bates SAID about NOAA’s data practices and what those practices actually DO (especially in GHCN3) to station records that is being muddled in this discussion. Regrettably, it proceeds with scant recognition of what is required for serious scientific vetting of time-series–a glaring lack endemic throughout “climate science.” Worst of all, the discussion is dominated by self-styled oracles on data quality who rely upon the most egregious ex ante oversimplification of the spectral structure of climate signals for the justification of the gross “adjustments” made to measured temperature values by their overly-ambitious algorithms. In other words, it’s largely a polemical exercise, rather than a scientific discussion.
John, most of ‘climate science’ has proven to be polemics rather than science. The Bates kerfuffle likely exposes polemics soft underbelly. Look how MSM touted the pausebuster that ~ 60 other papers had sought to explain. There can be no objective doubt that this paper was politicized to remove the pause talking point prior to Paris. Bates has a view on how, whichnmay or may not be correct. There can be no doubt about why–its all on the indelible internet.
For a fun partial satirical review of the ~60 pause explanation papers, essay Missing Heat dumps on one and essay Unsettling Science dumps on several others.
I keep reading that Bates has recanted, which I see no evidence for. He has not back-pedaled on his basic complaints set out on this blog, only cautioned against the more lurid claims being made about the Karl et al paper. What seems obvious is that the timing of the release of the paper and ERSSTv4 was very probably politically expedient and that correct procedure was not followed probably as a result.
Yup. That is how I read the situation also. The kerfulle itself is the point, and Bates should avoid Mann like legal exposure. The pointnis being made. Watermellon heads exploding everywhere.
I keep reading the same thing, too. I think some of the regulars here may have accidentally fallen down the rabbit hole and decided to keep commenting anyway.
> I keep reading that Bates has recanted, which I see no evidence for.
That’s good news for anyone who’d say after reading JohnB’s hit piece:
It’s also good news for anyone who’d conclude:
That’s also good news for anyone who’d respond to that “inappropriate behavior” comment:
Even better news for someone with higher senses:
Best is for someone who’d clearly see corruption:
To pad that “corruption” allegation:
JohnB’s non-backpeddling is very good news indeed.
If Bates was scared off by legal threats, his point might be true. Maybe we’ll learn more as the story plays out. He certainly seemed to believe Karl has his thumb on the scale in the post. If he withdrew that over fear of a lawsuit, then it does not negate what he wrote earlier.
It would be great if Judith could have Bates back to explain what he meant or means now, but I suspect he has bolted from this type of exposure.
JD, there are alternative explanations. Besides, what he set in motion is just starting, lets see what emerges. Me, am sit backed, relaxed, and enjoying. You, maybe not so much.
I think it is quite fun too.
Stokes: “I was on moderation for most of 2015”
That’s what happens to trolls, brainiac.
Andrew
Andrew,
It seems to be what happens to people who inconveniently counter the current furore. As to trolling, I have never seen you make a substantive comment.
Nick, i read the comment where Anthony to you to STFU. Or something to that regard. It was a lumpy moment for me. Anthony may not be aware of how effective you are at clearing out baseless notions. You are definately needed on this or any blog and i respect you deeply for venturing into unfriendly waters, often for the sake of others(as i see it). I will lump Mosher in with you in that regard. A healthy xchange of ideas is the point. I also desire that You are given free reign where ever you post.
CA DWR – Oroville Dam emergency spillway may fail in the next hour – holy cats!
The Sheriff said that his decision was motivated in part by a lack of modelling. They have no model for what will happen if the erosion leads to a failure of the emergency spillway. Uncertainty is not your friend.
A Sheriff, a non hydrologist, makes the call.
Apples and oranges Mosh. The dam is an acute problem. Not so avec CAGW. You should know better. Think before you comment.
I wonder if they did a model for retaining so much early winter precipitation. I hope the “permanent drought” delusions from the governor did not sway their decisions.
Oroville being evac’d – Goodness gracious.
Butte County sheriff: “This in NOT A Drill.”
5 p.m.
The Butte County Sheriff’ Office released the following statement on Facebook:
This is an evacuation order.
Immediate evacuation from the low levels of Oroville and areas downstream is ordered.
A hazardous situation is developing with the Oroville Dam auxiliary spillway. Operation of the auxiliary spillway has lead to severe erosion that could lead to a failure of the structure. Failure of the auxiliary spillway structure will result in an uncontrolled release of flood waters from Lake Oroville. In response to this developing situation, DWR is increasing water releases to 100,000 cubic feet per second.
Immediate evacuation from the low levels of Oroville and areas downstream is ordered.
This in NOT A Drill. This in NOT A Drill. This in NOT A Drill.
Chris Orrock, a spokesman for the Department of Water Resources, told The Bee the failure happened as the bottom of the emergency spillway began to erode.
“It happened quickly,” he said.
Sutter County also put out an alert on Facebook:
We have received information about the potential for increased flows in the Feather River of as much as 100,000 cubic feet per second. We are gathering as much information as possible and will be providing additional information as soon as it is verified.
Officials warn of “imminent failure” at Oroville Dam’s emergency spillway
4:45 p.m.
Officials are warning those living downstream of Lake Oroville’s dam to evacuate because of a risk that the dam’s emergency spillway could collapse.
“They have what they expect to be an imminent failure of the axillary [sic] spillway,” said Mike Smith, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “What they’re expecting is as much as 30 vertical feet of the top of the spillway could fail and could fail within one to two hours. We don’t know how much water that means, but we do know that’s potentially 30 feet of depth of Lake Oroville.”
The Department of Water Resources, which operates the dam, said in a 4:42 p.m. Twitter post that the emergency spillway could fail within the next hour.
“Oroville residents evacuate northward,” the Tweet said.
Didn’t mean to hijack thread folks but this is an absolute shocker – especially to those (NYTimes, Wired, Governor Brown, Bill Nye) who claimed as recently as a few weeks ago that CA was now in permanent drought.
Perfect example. Thanks
I didn’t realize that they had said that. They’ve fallen for their own Big Con. It only took a little research to find out that droughts are not increasing in duration or intensity. NOAA even spoke of 200 year droughts in California.
I love listening to the epic intelligentsia, like Tom Friedman and Geoffrey Sachs call skeptics ignorant when their knowledge of climate history ends with Super Bowl I.
ck
Starts with superbowl I. It ends with the pause bust and then children will never know snow and goes back to permanent drought except for the period 900 to 1250 AD or any others that can be discovered. What shallow fools.
Scott
Im waiting for Ristvan to smack you down.
We get tired also. This nonsense was refuted far above. Once thought to suffice. No longer ?
On a previous thread Mosher assured us all that v4 was spot on because of a study by Zeke Hausfather et al that showed strong correlation between ERSSTv4 and (supposedly) “instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades”. I say supposedly because the abstract shows that the Argo readings were discarded and the satellite readings were not from homogeneous sources. But that is beside the point; now that the new ERSSTv5 shows a different trend than v4, what happens to the conclusion that K15 is pure?
Richard
On a previous thread Mosher assured us all that v4 was spot on because of a study by Zeke Hausfather et al that showed strong correlation between ERSSTv4 and (supposedly) “instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades”. I say supposedly because the abstract shows that the Argo readings were discarded and the satellite readings were not from homogeneous sources. But that is beside the point; now that the new ERSSTv5 shows a different trend than v4, what happens to the conclusion that K15 is pure?
Richard
“But that is beside the point; now that the new ERSSTv5 shows a different trend than v4, what happens to the conclusion that K15 is pure?”
Well, the trend difference is not that big. But what concern me the most. Do You think we ever will have “a spot on” ERSST? That won’t happen, it’s all about finding the best one. And a difference between vx and vy is no proof of anything. The v4 was pure with what the scientists believed was the best data and best metode when they submitted v4. V5 is the purest they can give us now. Even when ERSST18 is being submitted in june 2076, there will be a purer one som years later. A new version is no proof of a thump on the scale.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ersst_v4_hisres-1024×591.png
Rune, its a nice but a spurious argument you make. For exaple its not outside of the realm of possibility that greater-not lesser uncertainty forwards through the ersst incarnations. All it would take is a false assumption made during historical data analysis.
Here’s ERSSTv4 vs. HadSST3 (common baseline 1961-90, but calibrated to fit), annual means of global SSTa, from 1970 to 2016:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/ersstv4-vs-hadsst3-b1.png
Same, only from 1997 to 2016:
https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/ersstv4-vs-hadsst3-a.png
Those are quite frankly some striking (and pretty revealing, I might add) differences between two datasets that ought to be close to equal, considering they’re both adjusted upward using the very same 0.12K buoy-ship discrepancy argument (Kennedy et al., 2011 & Huang et al., 2015).
Keep up the good work Judith, in your retirement. As a metrologist, for whom uncertainty is grist for the mill, I appreciate your insights.
From an astute media reader, JC, don’t be swayed from your approach.
Pingback: Discussion: JC’s ‘role’ | privateclientweb
“One person from a transition team stated: “Your country needs you.” Maybe. But I think I can be most effective at doing what I am doing, which is analysis, assessment and communication.”
I’m not sure I can recall ever having heard a clearer declaration of integrity and public-spiritedness.
Overall, your post does a beautiful job of outlining exactly what your silence on any particular issue should be construed to say. (Not much.) Thanks.
Pingback: Prior discovery – Stoat
Oh Look! Man-made warming 170 times more powerful than warming due to natural causes! Wow, just WOW!!!
***
Humans are changing climate 170 times faster than nature, say researchers
***
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/humans-are-changing-climate-170-times-faster-than-nature-say-researchers.html
“Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects.” http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
We know that the Grand Climate System warmed the Earth between 1977 and 1998 and is a cooling influence since. If you don’t – the task of educating you in a blog comment is simply too Herculean. You can discover this for yourself on the interweb – if not I don’t care.
The Grand Climate System is a termed coined by Anastasios Tsonis – as far as I know – to describe the choreographed dance of climate phenomenon across the planet.
“These indices represent regional but dominant modes of climate variability, with time scales ranging from months to decades. NAO and NPO are the leading modes of surface pressure variability in northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, respectively, the PDO is the leading mode of SST variability in the northern Pacific and ENSO is a major signal in the tropics. Together these four modes capture the essence of climate variability in the northern hemisphere. Each of these modes involves different mechanisms over different geographical regions. Thus, we treat them as nonlinear sub-systems of the grand climate system exhibiting complex dynamics.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288/full
It has been described as a signal propagating systematically through climate components – like a stadium wave – with the whole being greater than the parts. I have seen it described as tremendous energies cascading through powerful sub-systems.
And it seems it is driven by solar UV, ozone and movements of great masses of polar air. That should make you humble.
But fascinating as all this is – it is no longer relevant to public policy. Kyoto and COP21 have failed. Kyoto saw an increase of 10 billions tonnes of emissions. COP21 agreed to an increase in energy emissions of 3.7 billion tonnes by 2030. The world has definitively chosen a high energy and high growth path. If you want a ‘solution’ to greenhouse gases – you need to seek it elsewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBeCHZNf2L4
For me greenhouse gases and global warming are irrelevant. Most of the warming last century was quite natural and we will lose that energy this century. Starting with the cooling Sun and a shift to a cooler Pacific in the next climate shift – due in a 2018-2028 window. But if it helps to re-wild the world with people in a vibrant landscape – I am totally on board.
http://www.clc.org.au/articles/info/fire-management1
Simple water technologies can restore soils and ecologies across whole swathes of northern Africa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjzcfPax4As
The Climate War is over – that lost battalions fighting the same battles over and over on the same worthless bit of climate science is a bit unsettling – but the rest of the world has moved on.
That should make you humble.
And yet, not you.
Today’s BOM update;
El Niño or ENSO-neutral for 2017
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral, with virtually all indicators close to their average values. In recent weeks, the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean has shown surface warming, and climate models suggest this warming is likely to continue during the southern autumn. In marked contrast to last year, western Pacific sub-surface temperatures are up to 5 °C warmer than at the same time last year, indicating La Niña-like conditions are unlikely in 2017.
As this is the time of year when ENSO and climate models have greatest variability, some caution must be taken when using recent conditions, such as central Pacific warming, to determine likely conditions in winter. Hence either neutral or El Niño are considered the most likely ENSO state for the southern winter and spring.
I should have expected someone to drop in pseudo science rather than deal with the comment.
Here’s something else to think about.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-015-2789-5
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep36344
Try something a little more reliable than models at this time of year – SOI as a 7 month leading indicator. It is still pretty much guesswork – based on pressure differences between Darwin and Tahiti of course. Figure out the implication of that if you decide to understand some real physical oceanography.
Over the much longer term.
‘This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long-term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL025052/full
What happens in the Pacific in the next few months – and neither you or the BOM can pick it – isn’t at all relevant. Other things are.
https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Iriai/posts/1182638705185723
Dunno what this has to do with NOAAGate, but since the conversation has turned to my specialist subject:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/david-roses-climatic-alternative-facts-and-deceptions/#comment-218184
The NSIDC daily Antarctic sea ice extent metric is at the lowest level EVER in their records going back to 1979. JAXA concur.
What’s more Arctic sea ice area has reduced significantly over the last few days:
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/UH-Arctic-Area-2017-02-12-768×530.png
In the middle of the Northern Hemisphere winter.
Right, winter sea ice area is down while Greenland accumulation is up. Which one people focus on seems to depend on the potential points scored.
https://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/b/m/s/d/e/accumulatedsmb.png
Why do you choose to focus on Greenland SMB Capn’ Dallas?
Jim Hunt, Well, sea level is a major issue and glacial mass change is one factor to monitor if you are concerned with that, sea ice doesn’t impact sea level. Sea Ice extent seems to have some influence on Greenland accumulation, so the relationship between the two interests me, especially in years with strong Sudden Stratospheric warming events which tend to reduce polar vortex stability. Some ascribe to a warm arctic – cool continent theory, some to a stadium wave and some just use a radiator analogy, but less winter sea ice tends to release a crap load of energy, that is a technical term for significant amounts.
The rate of sea level rise just resumed its upward trend, so when all that returns to the oceans it will be an even happier time.
I’m impressed by the recent SMB trendline for Greenland, JCH.
It reminds me of the F-16 takeoffs at the nearby AFB.
Cap’n – Have you met Grace?
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GreenlandGrace-20170213.png
I guess sea level is rising?
Your chart does not take in to account calving?
But otherwise good boss.
Jct
You are as bad as a fan of more discourse who was always willing sea level to rise faster. Where is this acceleration hiding?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/2016rel4-global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
Tonyb
WP seems to have cached a see through version of my graph! Let’s see if this one works:
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GreenlandGrace-20170213-1.png
As Bob said. Don’t forget about calving.
Jim Hunt, I am fairly sure that the mass on top of Greenland is due to snow accumulation, so an increase in the rate of accumulation could be considered a good thing if you are you are looking for a reduction in the rate of sea level rise due to reduced total mass. However, common core might indicate otherwise.
Reducing albedo related melt caused by black carbon might even be a worthy cause and a bargain chip to used against a couple of nations I know of.
Where is this acceleration hiding?
I didn’t say “acceleration”.
Over the satellite era, the rate is 3.27 mm/yr. Over that last ten years, it’s 4.12 mm/yr. Over the last 5 years, it’s 4.92 mm/yr. Fasullo thinks an acceleration is imminent. In the fall the rate was dropping, but it has now resumed an upward trend.
jch
you said;
‘The rate of sea level rise just resumed its upward trend, so when all that returns to the oceans it will be an even happier time.’
if it has resumed an upwards trends that surely implies that previously it was static. therefore any change must be an acceleration?
anyway, are you now trying to claim trends as short as five years? we shall remember that for any selective estimates of climate data we might want to make in the future
tonyb
It’s a nonlinear system, so ignoring short trends could mean missing the fireworks show… or maybe not. I would guess Fasullo is popping his popcorn. The rate of SLR has been above the satellite era trend for a record number of months in a row.
The satellite trend itself is twice the average trend of the 20th century, so we don’t have to rely on short records to see the acceleration.
JCH
Parker & Ollier 2016
“The satellite altimeter GMSL models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless.”
The tide gauge trend is even higher.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/sea-level-download1-2016.png
The United States Navy sails the oceans blue. At Annapolis they train officer scientists. To fight on the oceans blue they have know more about the oceans than the enemy knows about the oceans.
Triple dare you to ask them about:
Parker & Ollier 2016
“The satellite altimeter GMSL models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless.”
Commentary on ‘Coastal Planning Should Be Based on Proven Sea Level Data’ by A. Parker and C.D. Ollier (Ocean & Coastal Management, 124, 1–9, 2016) …
A recent paper by A. Parker and C.D. Ollier (Ocean & Coastal Management, 124, 1–9, 2016), concerned with the use of ‘proven’ sea-level data for coastal planning, contained a number of incorrect or misleading statements about sea-level data sets and measurement methods. In this commentary, we address aspects of sea-level records that could have been misunderstood by readers of that paper. While we agree with the main point made by the authors, that the best possible sea-level data are required by coastal planners, we suggest that planners should base their work on wider and better informed sources of sea-level information. …
Wenzel et al 2014
“The mean centennial trend results to 1.77+-0.38 mm/yr….”
“….a nonsignificant positive acceleration of 0.0042+-0.0092 mm/yr..”
Jim
And just a couple of years ago the Antarctica sea ice was at its highest level evah.
I’m putting your comment on my Valentine’s Day No Never Mind list.
Nice try though.
You are very kind Ceresco.
What conclusion do you draw from that? What conclusion do you draw from this for that matter?
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/02/facts-about-the-arctic-in-february-2017/#Feb-13
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DMI-FDD-20170213.png
One might conclude the upper Arctic Ocean is cooling more than before.
JCH, I don’t know, Putin might be hacking it :)
Jim Hunt, rate of rise is questionable and impacts plenty of projects. For example, if the rate is 4mm per year and accelerating, attempting to restore the everglades is a lost cause, might as well plan on a mangrove forest. Sea level modeling has already produced a few delays.
Since black carbon is likely a major cause of reduce glacial mass and sea ice reduction in NH spring, summer and fall, focusing more policy efforts on reducing BC emission might need more priority than reducing carbon emissions. That could include changes in forestry practices to reduce the spread of wildfires in the NH along with getting China and much of the third world to reduce home use of coal and biomass for cooking and heating along with less slash and burn agriculture.
But is nice to know you are concerned with winter sea ice.
Tonyb
Do you know what happened to fan of more discourse?
Hasn’t been here in a while unless under a new guise.
Scott
Retired from commentating, I believe for a year or so. Was unhappy with treatment at skeptic sites.
good riddance. He was great at making statements and linking to documents or articles that had no relevance to what he was saying.
Tonyb
Wrong location below.
Do you know what happened to fan of more discourse?
Is he here under a new nome de plume?
Scott
If he is, he’s changed his spots. 😎 😇 😱 😋 😜
scott
As jch infers, if he is still commenting here he must have undergone a radical transformation as his style of writing and embellishments of his post was very notable. I sort of miss Fan.
tonyb
Yes, I miss FOMD. The last comment I can find is two years ago.
Or is it down what about 30% sea ice extent which last time was shown to be up until DMI removed it from publication
For educational purposes only Ward:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/dmigate/
Jim Hunt
Did you read this?
Accounts from 19th-century Canadian Arctic Explorers’ LogsReflect Present Climate Conditions (2003).
https://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf
John Bills – Not previously, no. Thanks for the heads up.
Did you read this?
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/04/the-northwest-passage-in-2016/
We’re not prepared. We know it as soon as we follow our Inuit companion, Louie Kamookak, onto the rocky shores of the Todd Islets. It is the oldest Arctic error, the Franklin error you might call it, immortalized in 1846 when Captain John Franklin vanished with his entire crew, two ships and 129 men in this area. How could he come here, to the fabled Northwest Passage, and not be prepared for every eventuality?
Actually on closer inspection I had previously read that article John.
Old age is a terrible thing!
The topic of this blogpost has been “JC’s ‘role’” And since one of the participants is JC, we could hope for some answers. This is what we have received so far;
“I have no further bandwidth for this at present. I will let things play out (a number of things have been set into motion), will probably comment again at some point in the future.”
and
“Read my post. I feel no obligation to clear up anyone’s misconceptions (there are millions of them). I write about things that I think are important. I am massively busy, and under the weather to boot.”
Why should we be invited to speculate on “JC role,” when the Editor in Chief of Climate etc. has the answer?
If You have time to smear Karl and NOAA, You must set aside some bandwidth and time to unsmear Karl & Co if that’s required.
“If You have time to smear Karl and NOAA, You must set aside some bandwidth and time to unsmear Karl & Co if that’s required.”
If it is true it is not smearing.
Time will tell, and the Republican inquiry..
Funny rune re the South Australian renewable energy crisis.
Everyone raise your hands and clap the new South Australian anthem.
What is the anthem?
Many hands make light work.
There is no evidence. None.
Judith,
This tempest was created in your teapot by a guest post by John Bates, which you could have moderated. I think it is disingenuous of you to say you don’t have the time to correct the misunderstanding that Bates’ post has created.
You could have followed where this tempest led, to the outrageous article by David Rose in the Daily Mail. Roses article propagated like wildfire throughout the deniosphere and all its clones have been linked back to you. I think you should have set the record straight in your blog.
As a minimum, I also think you should have asked John Bates to correct his record in your blog to reflect a clarification Bates made to EENews, to keep it all in one place.
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630
“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was. …..”
etc.
Judith needs to do nothing more than she already has done. To have a full understanding of what was said and what was meant, all one had to do was read everything that was provided by Bates and others who provided links. It wasn’t that difficult to sort out the significance of the Bates’ post.
If you have a problem with the Rose article, take it up with his employer.
No kidding, the whining volume is way too high.
RE: Peter Smith | February 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
“This tempest was created in your teapot by a guest post by John Bates, . . .”
This tempest was created some time ago. My understanding is that the NOAA had procedures &/or protocols in place specifically to avoid what’s happening now. Those procedures &/or protocols were ignored &/or circumvented so it should be no surprise what’s happening now.
If there were any issues with the procedures &/or protocols that were in place at the time they should have been dealt with first – not ignored &/or circumvented for convenience &/or perceived amelioration.
Re: Barn E. Rubble
“My understanding is that the NOAA had procedures &/or protocols in place specifically to avoid what’s happening now.”
My understanding is that the data archiving procedure pushed by Bates was intended (a) for satellite data (which Bates worked on) because they are so much more complex than SST data, and (b) for data sets that are published for external public consumption. My understanding is that there is no requirement that experimental data used in NOAA research papers be subject to Bates’ preferred archival procedure.
This article in Science Magazine explains the non-controversy about NOAA archival procedures quite well:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
In short, nothing was being ignored or circumvented.
This is exactly the type of due diligence that I think Judith Curry should have known about and commented on in order to minimize the blow-back from the Bates post.
Trump said in the campaign that he wanted to cut red tape, which means he wants to cut Bates.
Peter Smith, Zeke has put up a defense at ATTP worth a read. I will not comment there at the moment. Perhaps Judith could ask Zeke to put it up here for comments.
RE: Peter Smith | February 14, 2017 at 10:25 pm |
“My understanding is that the data archiving procedure pushed by Bates . . .”
Again, my understanding is that the procedures were in place and not just ‘pushed’ by Bates.
Perhaps I need clarification on whether this was in fact, ‘by the book’ or not.
Peter. We haven’t heard anything out of Karl himself. If there is an offense, he is the offended. I’m sure no one would stop him posting here to render his opinion. It’s not up to Dr. Curry to defend him from someone else, even if that someone posted the article.
Really, it’s not her problem that Bates said Karl had his thumb on the scales, then recanted.
You all should really suck it up and drive on.
I don’t see what was recanted. One can have their thumb on the scale without “tampering with the data,” all depending on how you find tampering.
If one has a dozen cherries to choose the sweetest one this does not mean one fabricated the cherry. But it sure can be a thumb on the scale, especially when there are dozens of bowls and each of them can amplify the entire bushel.
Clive Best just posted three valid reconstructions of global temp record all using the same data. Guess which one is CRU chose. You guessed it; the warmest.
Jim2,
Please read the Science Magazine article I linked to above for Barn E. Rubble. To repeat,
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study
The “thumb on the scales” statement is wrong. I am not going to “suck it up” when I am faced with what I think are unjustified attempts to bash the integrity of Karl and NOAA. It does not matter to me whether or not Karl has responded. I shall respond on my own.
Something else that may interest you is that the NOAA V4 series has been independently confirmed by Hausfather et al (2017) by comparison with three independent data sets. This confirmation renders the Bates complaints moot. Here is a brief explanation of it.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise
Peter Smith | February 14, 2017 at 10:42 pm |
“Something else that may interest you is that the NOAA V4 series has been independently confirmed by Hausfather et al (2017) by comparison with three independent data sets. ”
Is Hausfather independent of Karl?? I do not think so
Three independent data sets all incorporating GCHN??
matching one with GHCN in it.
Independent.
I do not think that word fits.
Trty M Mann’s Independent Hockey Stick reconstructions.
Everyone of them with M Mann or his co authors on them and all with the same data in.
Independent?
I think there are justified attempts to bash the integrity of Karl and NOAA.
Integrity means putting the data and programs on file in an form that can be used by others seeking to replicate the findings.
Not a printout.
It means not adjusting the overall tend up at a critical political time for political purposes.
It means not defending the indefensible.
Peter – all that doesn’t matter. Dr. Curry did allow Bates to post here. But that does not obligate her to make a judgement on the truthfulness of what Bates said. That is on him, not her. She has no way of knowing if his allegation of Karl having his thumb on the scale is true or not.
Your insistence that she rebuke him is crazy.
After having read the Science Magazine article, it does appear Karl did not disclose his data wasn’t “operational” to Congress.
The monthly sat temp is published within days of the end of the month, so I’m skeptical that it would have taken years to vet this new data. Compared to sat data, there isn’t that much of it. It’s obvious that Karl did rush the paper for political purposes.
What will the past flaps about not making data and methods available, I think Bates did climate science a favor here by highlighting yet another less than pristine effort.
Peter Smith,
Here’s an article that illustrates NOAA’s scientific integrity.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016/01/fishy-science-ocean-acidification/
Great essay again, Judy, and congratulations on an important story with the NOAA data shifts and such. But, boy, you really stepped in it with your last paragraph, when you said, “… beyond the obvious peace, health and prosperity for everyone.” Really, Judy? No Oxford comma?
History will judge you, I’m afraid, as being on the wrong side of this one.
The idea that global warming – let alone attribution can be determined from a surface record is completely dumb.
Try the Argo record – where the vast majority of the heat is.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/argo-to-december-2016.jpg
Even then you need some TOA radiant anomalies to make any sense of it. And a quantified idea of what the change in greenhouse gas forcing is.
Then there are surprises… just like the NAS said all those years ago.
On climate I am inclined to think that most 20th century warming was quite natural. With a dimming sun and associated resurgent La Niña activity suggesting a cooling influence this century. Starting with the next Pacific climate shift due in a 2018 to 2028 window. If you have not heard of this – I guess it will come as a surprise.
I’m pretty relaxed – and I love the faux moral outrage from sententious doofus hipsters echoing around the climate backblocks of the interweb. It is all immensely unimportant. The world has muddled on in the right direction despite all the nonsense paraded in press conferences as science – and then retailed by idi..ts full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Iriai/posts/1186433338139593
“The idea that global warming – let alone attribution can be determined from a surface record is completely dumb.”
+100
And the notion that a reliable surface record covering the past 100+ years can be constructed from a kludge of poorly controlled temperature measurements collected by thousands of individuals at tens of thousands of random locations is equally nuts.
Yet every post here about surface temperatures gets hundreds of nit picky comments from the same data molesters arguing about this or that change of tenths or hundredths of a degree.
This while our so called policy makers continue to make things worse in the name of saving the world. See this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/dieselgate-is-a-political-disaster-1487116586
We still have incomplete data – although a lot better since the turn of the century. The last ERBE correction in 2006 shows late 20th century warming to be mostly cloud radiative effect.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/wong-et-al-2006.gif
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3838.1
Closing the energy budget is still difficult – but there are clues. Large natural variability against a small increase in greenhouse gas forcing.
But even if there were a problem – it has zilch policy relevance. With COP21 in Paris in late 2015 – the world has definitively chosen to access whatever energy resource is needed to facilitate growth and development. COP21 locked in an increase in energy emissions of 3.7 billion metric tons by 2030. If they are looking for ‘solutions’ to emissions it will have to come from elsewhere.
On climate I am inclined to think that most 20th century warming was quite natural. With a dimming sun and associated resurgent La Niña activity suggesting a cooling influence this century. Starting with the next Pacific climate shift due in a 2018 to 2028 window. If you have not heard of this – I guess it will come as a surprise.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/01/12/an-earnest-discovery-of-climate-causality/
“Try the Argo record – where the vast majority of the heat is.”
You need heat capacity (J 10^22) …..
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_OHCdoublesinrecentdecades-Gleckler2016.gif
0.05C in 12 years is a damned lot.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Ocean-heat-uptake—Grantham-BP-15.pdf
“It is likely that changes in the ocean have contributed significantly
to the pause. Due to its large mass and high heat capacity, the
ocean absorbs a substantial amount of heat. It is estimated that
the earth gained 274 ZJ of heat energy between 1971 and 2010,
of which around 90% was taken up by the ocean.
According to one estimate, the top 2000 m of the ocean took up
240 ZJ of heat energy between 1955 and 2010, but only increased
in temperature by about 0.09°C due to its high heat capacity.
If the lower 10 km of the atmosphere were able to absorb this
same quantity of heat it would warm by 36°C. ”
“On climate I am inclined to think that most 20th century warming was quite natural.”
Really?
Well “I’m inclined to think” that you arrive at that conclusion for reasons other than thermodynamics.
Where is that OHC coming from if “natural”?
“I’m pretty relaxed – and I love the faux moral outrage from sententious doofus hipsters echoing around the climate backblocks of the interweb.”
Of course you are, that’s the case with the ideologically motivated.
No facts (real ones anyway, as “alternative” ones are always available) can intrude.
BTW: Don’t mistake this and other contrarian blogs/bloggers as important in any way.
It’s the experts that are talking to policy makers that matters.
The fact that there is a deranged leader temporarily in the WH makes no difference to the physics.
TB – don’t confuse policy blather with what is happening in the real world:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2a.jpg
Jim2:
Yes, I do know fossil usage is still rising thanks.
Tony,
As usual you are all over the place.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/argo-to-december-2016.jpg
Ocean heat is where all the action is. It shows large natural variability against which small greenhouse gas warming can’t be distinguished. There is nominally – based on emissions – a 0.032W/m2 increase in greenhouse gas forcing per year. And the world doesn’t even work like that.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/11/Fig1_a_forMedia1-1a-479×340.png
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428
What we have is a very large annual to decadal variability in ocean heat – and it is a very simple conversion of temperature to Joules – with cooling to 2008 and warming since. Your ideologically founded assumption that everything is greenhouse gases is completely mad. Trump looks good in comparison.
I am inclined to think that most – i.e. more than 50 % – 20th century warming was quite natural. With a dimming sun and associated resurgent La Niña activity suggesting a cooling influence this century. Starting with the next Pacific climate shift due in a 2018 to 2028 window. If you have not heard of this – I guess it will come as a surprise.
And you and your experts have lost any policy relevance – whatever your policies were. The world will get on with the real business of living without you.
https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Iriai/posts/1186433338139593
Judith, Zeke has put up a defense at ATTP worth a read. I will not comment there at the moment. Perhaps you could ask Zeke to put it up here for comments.
“At the end of the day what matters is not that ships were adjusted down to buoys or buoys up to ships, what matters is that the offset between ships and buoys was effectively removed. This is now done by all groups producing sea surface temperature records, including NOAA, the U.K.’s Hadley Centre, and the Japanese Meteorological Association.”
Otherwise known as hide the decline.
“the offset between ships and buoys was effectively removed”
Hide the cooling under the carpet.
I am ashamed to see Zeke publishing excuses like this.
They would have more credibility by just saying they had crap data and ditch it completely. Then they could start clean with the best methods available and accept they can’t provide a long term historical record.
The establishment never admits to their limitations. They can’t show humility like other professions. They will never say “We don’t know” Rather, they want to project an image of infallibility while the world looks on in disbelief.
O Socrates
O fallibility
O Feynman
O Western
Scientific –
Revolution
O funding
Sci – cli – fi
Influencing
Guv – uh – mint
Policy re
‘Qui – bono?’
O Cicero.
– hyphenating -serf.
‘Qui – bono?’
O Cicero.
Cicero would be horrified. It’s dative, Cui bono.
ck
they could say the ship data has gone up 0.01 *C plus or minus the error range of 2 *C plus or minus. Then they could use the short record of ARGO to say something about the real data available.
Scott
scott, “they could say the ship data has gone up 0.01 *C plus or minus the error range of 2 *C plus or minus. Then they could use the short record of ARGO to say something about the real data available.”
No, as an anomaly, they can say ship data has gone up by 0.01 C and the uncertainty would depend on the number of readings used to estimate that anomaly. The error range of 2 C is just for the temperature sensor which if it is mounted in the thermometer well without conductive paste, would add a bias, with thermal paste a wet well would have lower bias, insulated pipe would have a small bias etc., but anomaly should still be usable, just like surface stations. The only time engine room conditions should matter is changing from one style of measure to another, buckets to intakes to hull mounted or to something else.
So adjusting buoys to intakes shouldn’t change the intakes trend and adjusting intakes to buckets shouldn’t change the buckets trend and so forth as far as anomaly. Absolute temperature is another matter where you would need to consider the warm/cold bias of each class of measurement.
The big issue with ERSSTv4 is that trends changed indicating a problem with the current method or the previous method if the changes are outside of originally stated uncertainties. Fiddle farting around inside of uncertainty margins is pretty meaningless generally and if the uncertainty ranges become skewed, that is an indication of fudging.
Somebody said Zeke does not like this horrid cesspool. Based upon how he presents himself – a person of high character, how could he?
I have always suspected that you are a troll. Completely uninterested in having an intelligent conversation. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
“Somebody said Zeke does not like this horrid cesspool.”
=
“Zeke is chicken.”
Andrew
I have always suspected that you are a troll. Completely uninterested in having an intelligent conversation. Thank you for confirming my suspicions.
It’s an honor to not be like by the ilk who recklessly defame on guesses and other paranoid theories.
“guesses and other paranoid theories.”
Such as CAGW, you mean?
Tony Banton | February 15, 2017 at 10:29 am | Reply
“It’s the anomaly from the same base that is important.
Not least because of all the bleating on here about “instruments not fit for purpose”
They are if measuring anomalies.”-
Fact check, none of the instruments measure anomalies in the sense you have just described.
They measure real temperatures. Anomalies are something added afterwards and can be anything you like because as you said you can choose whichever baseline you like.
angech:
“Otherwise known as hide the decline.”
But there hasn’t been “a decline”
“Hide the cooling under the carpet.”
That hasn’t been done either.
Do you still not understand the concept of anomalies?
The decline was an artifact of going from lots of ships and a few buoys, to lots of buoys and fewer ships.
Both were following the same TREND parallel with each other but with the buoys at an absolute temp of ~0.12C lower.
So the total merged trend sloped towards the lower buoy anomalies at a LOWER absolute value.
So buoys up to ships or ships down to buoys by 0.12C puts both on the same baseline, with no skewing from the higher to the lower.
It really is quite simple.
It’s the anomaly from the same base that is important.
Not least because of all the bleating on here about “instruments not fit for purpose”
They are if measuring anomalies.
We could of course tune everything to the more accurate buoys – but that’s a whole new can of worms.
Tony Banton | February 15, 2017 at 10:29 am | Reply
“Do you still not understand the concept of anomalies?”
Only too well.
If you wish to lie,cheat and deceive with figures, use anomalies.
Why?
Because you never have to show the real figures they are based on.
Because you can change the different baselines different anomalies are graphed on and hide the real amount of warming or cooling.
The decline was the reality of going from lots of ships and a few buoys, to lots of buoys and fewer ships.
The truth is one set of figures was wrong, inaccurate, incorrect [ships] and instead of saying let’s go with the real figures you say the wrong figures are right, lets go with them, and adjust the right figures up so they can be wrong too.
Nit only do you not get it, you do not want to get it and you promulgate false information and a false argument.
right spot.
Tony Banton | February 15, 2017 at 10:29 am | Reply
“It’s the anomaly from the same base that is important.
Not least because of all the bleating on here about “instruments not fit for purpose”
They are if measuring anomalies.”-
Fact check, none of the instruments measure anomalies in the sense you have just described.
They measure real temperatures. Anomalies are something added afterwards and can be anything you like because as you said you can choose whichever baseline you like.
“Nit only do you not get it, you do not want to get it and you promulgate false information and a false argument.”
No.
It just basic common-sense my friend.
That you don’t see it is your problem.
“Fact check, none of the instruments measure anomalies in the sense you have just described.
They measure real temperatures. Anomalies are something added afterwards and can be anything you like because as you said you can choose whichever baseline you like.”
Two classes of instruments.
Both have the SAME trend (in anomalies).
One is simply at an absolute 0.12C lower than the other.
The 0.12C is NOT an anomaly.
It does not matter which baseline you choose.
“Because you can change the different baselines different anomalies are graphed on and hide the real amount of warming or cooling.”
“different anomalies”
But that is just the point!!
The anomalies are NOT different FFS
The “real” amount of warming/cooling IS the anomaly.
You WANT the anomaly.
Baseline they are “graphed on” is irrelevant
EXCEPT when shown on a graph such as the DM/Rose printed where it is DIFFERENT.
Whereby said “science correspodant” conveys to deceitful notion that the ABSOLUTE temp has been moved up to match the ships.
It hasn’t.
The warming trend is the SAME for both instruments.
It is the TREND that is the warming.
BOTH the SAME.
To merge the 2 trends together while at different bases skewed the trend lower.
I give up if you still fail to twig.
Hard to let go of a bone
“Tony Banton | February 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm |
As I’ve tried to explain (along with a few others) to angech. Given that the two sets of instruments are measuring the same thing, then the trend is the same, yes?”
Two wrong comments in one sentence pushing hard to make up a fiction.
–
First the two sets of instruments are both measuring temperature [not anomalies]. They are however not measuring the same thing.
One is measuring sea water temperature collected by ships,from different levels and heated and cooled by various other inputs on the way.
The other is measuring temperatures in sea water at a set level with hopefully the same sort of thermometer without ship and human interference.
They are apples and oranges to compare.
Second “then the trend is the same, yes?”
No.
Only like a broken clock or by human intervention
One is said to be measuring 0.12 C average lower than the other.
That does not tell you the trend of the two types at all
–
That would be an average of each trend over the same time period for the same number of ships and buoys.
It says nothing about the actual trend of each type over that time period.
One could be double the trend of the other but one could still say the average trend is 0.12 lower.
The trends are said to be similar,but this is not even superficially true. You need to specify the time intervals for comparison and it is obvious that two such disparate systems should rarely be in synchronicity as to trends.
Worse in this case there is no common period where one can truly compare trends Buoys go from 0 to 7/8 of the measuring system type used over 20 years. There are no true trends to compare.
Anomalies vs. Temperature
“tell what would be a trend you’d consider true.”
Simple,
There would be a trend for the Buoys, It would start off awkward with only 1 Buoy and as more are added one would have to merge [sigh] the data sets and this would give a buoy only trend.
One would already have a full ship only set of data which again would have to merge the ships as they begin to decrease in number.
Zeke has both of these.
Then to compare trends in general you could have the ship only trend and the buoy only trend.
Obviously due to the much longer ship data length, CO2 warming increase and natural variability these two trends will not match.
Next you could take the period where ship and buoy data are both available and truly compare their anomaly trends on the same baseline.
This also allows you to compare the difference in real temperature between buoys and ships.
This is the average temp over the time period of each data set and Zeke quotes 0.12 but does not give the period this must be quoted for.
It really should be for 30 years but it might be extrapolated out over 20 years of data I guess.
When I say “must be quoted for” I mean you cannot pick a point out in time at the start of the change and say buoy temps immediately dropped 0.12 C below the ships. It had to be worked out over time.
Here is the nub of the problem,
What I would hope to see is quite variable data with an overall match in trend*.
I would expect reasonably marked differences in the data from the two different ways of measuring and the various improvement/changes in ship measuring.
If we found an exact match I would hope everyone knows that is basically impossible.. If we found a highly correlated match we should be extremely suspicious mathematically. If we found quite variable data with an overall match in trend this would be very reassuring that the science is being done correctly.
The trends may be quite different because they are over a fixed time period but the difference in temps is simply the average difference over this time.
Again, like the pause [where one can always find a pause] but in reverse one can always find a matching trend in overlapping trends if they overlap twice while passing and you use those two points.
“Hiding” it by writing about it. Oh, they’re clever concealers, these climate scientists!
O serfs!
Sad to announce: Hans Rosling died in Uppsala 7 Feb.
He designed, built and successfully promoted GapMinder https://www.gapminder.org/world/ . His TED talks were fantastic. He should have hung around another 50 years.
Yes Peter.
…The dynamic Hans Rosling on data bases.
Myths versus real data…
More climate histrionics. From the article:
…
In case you’ve been under a rock for the past 20 years, the Arctic is melting super fast. Certain *ahem* governments are dragging their feet doing anything about it, which means the planet could be in for a spectacular meltdown within the next 20 years. But a clever bunch of scientists have hatched a plan to re-freeze the Arctic
…
https://science.slashdot.org/story/17/02/14/224251/scientists-propose-plan-to-re-freeze-the-arctic
Speaking of fossil fuels, no sign of runaway prices at the moment. From the article:
…
Motorists could soon be in for lower gasoline prices for a while. The national average price of regular unleaded climbed by a penny from last week to $2.28 per gallon. But with crude oil prices holding steady and stockpiles of oil and refined fuels building up in storage, we look for the price at the pump to ease by a few cents in the next week or two. Diesel, now averaging $2.51 per gallon, is unlikely to move much, either up or down, in the near term.
…
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/business/T019-C000-S010-energy-price-forecast.html
https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2017/02/image012.gif
Note US crude oil supply is up as is the rig count.
There are two great human projects this century. Rewilding the Earth with prosperous communities in vibrant landscapes and constantly innovating on 21st century energy sources.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2i3j9y_earth-a-new-wild-s01e01-home_animals
https://youtu.be/3kOeFHNpqV0
I don’t know what they want. I think it’s an urban doofus hipster thing.
I hope Trump eventually gets around to encouraging small, medium, and large nuclear reactors.
No worries, jim. The Most Powerful Man in the World will be building yuuuge reactors, big time. All the locations have already been selected. Nice spots in heavily populated left loon coastal cities of CA, NY and MA. In CA they will form the western anchor of The Wall.
Don
Welcome back. More sanity and common sense always add to the discussion.
With the leadership of Numero Uno, a ‘re-enlightenment and commitment to science with integrity is in our future.
“To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.
Obama’s COP21 strategy was to use cheap fracked gas and claim progress on climate change. He also had a published gas to nuclear transition plan.
The very beautiful wilding video has disappeared for some reason. It is freely available in many places – including at the daily motion link I put up. It is the first part of a series well worth watching. It is a key to carbon sequestration and many other things far more important.
You need to put the wider picture together Judith – carbon sequestration is certainly possible.
https://youtu.be/sBeCHZNf2L4
But the purpose is far more inspiring.
http://www.pbs.org/earth-a-new-wild/home/
Everyone should read Richard Muller’s article in Forbes.
What are some widely cited studies in the news that are false?
Answer by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, on Quora:
That 97% of all climate scientists accept that climate change is real, large, and a threat to the future of humanity. That 97% basically concur with the vast majority of claims made by Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize winning film, An Inconvenient Truth.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/meet-richard-muller-lukewarmist/
The bottom line on climate is impressively simple. There is an instantaneous rate of increase (nominally – see below) in greenhouse gas forcing of 1E-9 W/m2 – set against a background of immense natural variability. The 97% consensus on the first point is a misdirection intended to deceive the public that 97% of climate deniers don’t believe this. Simply not even close to true. The disagreement was always about the scope and depth of natural variability, on the point where data adjustments become statistical manipulations, on gaps and uncertainties in data, on the proper use and limitations of climate models and on chaos in climate and models. But far and away – disagreement was always about energy and development. In every instance we have been on the right side of science and policy.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/02/11/a-primer-for-climate-science-deniers/
Ron
Nice interview. All denizens should enjoy what he said. It should be said more often by high profile personalities. But most important it should be published more often.
I especially enjoyed the reference to subsidence in Florida which is almost never mentioned in stories about sea level rise in that state. Sinking land shouldn’t be a difficult concept, particularly for some of our friends here, but inexplicably it is.
My favorite part was when Muller said this:
A really good question would be: “Have you studied climate change enough that you would put your scientific credentials on the line that most of what is said in An Inconvenient Truth is based on accurate scientific results? My guess is that a large majority of the climate scientists would answer no to that question, and the true percentage of scientists who support the statement I made in the opening paragraph of this comment, that true percentage would be under 30%.
=={ My guess is that a large majority of the climate scientists would answer no to that question, and the true percentage of scientists who support the statement I made in the opening paragraph of this comment, that true percentage would be under 30%. }==
It’s always rather pathetic to see people reference Al Gore as a foundation for discussing what informed scientists think. A cheap, rhetorical trick.
What % of scientists would support Inhofie’s statements? 30%?
And yet:
https://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/consensus-messaging-slide-62.jpg
Muller is wrong about subsidence in Florida. See:
Increasing flooding hazard in coastal communities due to rising sea level: Case study of Miami Beach, Florida and many other analyses of Florida and East Coast sea level rise.
Subsidence is a problem in parts of Florida because Florida is made of karst. And sea level rise is regional.
Muller is not wrong about Florida subsidence,
http://www.ces.fau.edu/arctic-florida/pdfs/fiaschi-wdowinki.pdf
Pat
Key West just a short drive from Miami has no problem with 2.8mm/yr.
Miami has the Biscayne Aquifer sitting below it and groundwater abstraction and loading is exacerbating the subsidence. Key West and Miami are affected by the same ocean dynamics. The difference lies in the geomorpholgy at their respective locations.
Across the Gulf of Mexico, land near Houston and Galveston has sunk 10 feet since early 1900s. Try to match that with any sea level rise from the ocean.
Oddly one links to a paper that says Miami has a local subsidence problem – and the other links to a random page.
What is it with these people?
Increasing flooding frequency
in Miami Beach as an indicator for
accelerating rates of sea level rise
along the US Atlantic shores
Shimon Wdowinski,
• The accelerating rate of SLR in Miami is
consistent with similar rates found along
the US Atlantic coast, and are caused by
the weakening of the Gulf Stream.
•A similar period of accelerating rates of
SLR occurred along the US Atlantic coast
between 1930-1950. It is correlated with a
period of anomalously high surface air
temperature in Greenland.
•We suggest that the increasing rate of ice
melt in Greenland affects the AMOC,
weakens the Gulf Stream, increases the
rate of SLR along the US Atlantic shores,
and consequently increases flooding
frequency in Miami Beach.
The rate of SLR in Miami since 2006 is ~8 mm/yr.
JCH
Together, we just made great cases for Natural Variability. You showed the same thing happened 1930-50. That is called Natural Variability. I pointed out that you can ride your bike between Miami and Key West so the sea level rise is the same in both locations. One has problem, the other doesn’t. That is called logic and Natural Variability.
One place is sinking like a rock the other isn’t.
Isn’t it interesting that the information that you and Pat provided both neglected to mention the very obvious geologic factors at play in Miami. That is not unusual.
Glad we agree Natural Variability is the culprit here.
Natural variability is not your friend, nor is VLM… they’re just your sad excuses.
In my comment above, the link to the subsidence paper doesn’t go through. If you search on the FAU page for the paper “The contribution of land subsidence to the increasing coastal flooding hazard in Miami Beach”, you get a menu with a link that opens the paper (the very same URL). Strange.
Ron – I have not been able to access the paper from your link. However, I have contacted Prof Wdowinski, author of the most detailed study of Miami flooding, and he confirms that Muller’s statement
The huge “sea level rise” seen in Florida is actually subsidence of the land mass, and is not related to global warming.
is incorrect. He states that the measured subsidence rate in Florida is less than 1 mm/yr, except in some places where sediiment compaction is important, which is not Miami. He states that the high rate of SLR is due to global SLR + ocean dynamics, as quoted by JCH.
If you have contrary information, you mighty want to diuscuss it with Prof. Wdowinski.
cerescokid – I did not ask Prof. Wdowinski aboiut natural variability, and he did not offer an opinion in our correspondence.
Pat – it’s speculative, the NV component, but appears to be correct. The melting of NH land-based ice that could be slowing the AMOC, and now possibly the Florida current, likely has a significant anthropogenic component, so Muller is probably wrong at least twice. He’s catching up with Al Gore real fast!
His cheap shot on Al Gore… good for maybe getting more Koch/other deluded money so Muller can pay himself to prove himself wrong yet again. Good for him, I guess.
Pat
Please ask him to reconcile the Miami rate with Key West which is below 3mm/yr
cerescokid – Read the paper cited above:
Our analysis indicates that the rate of SLR in the two Gulf of Mexico stations (Key West and Naples) is moderate (5 – 6 mm/yr…)
Rates in Florida (and elsewhere) changed significantly around 2000; most of the trends derived from earlier data are the 3 mm/yr you cite.
Lots of flooding occurring in Key West.
I wrote a piece on Miami and SLR recently at WUWT — might add to this discussion Miami’s Vice.
Data on land subsidence (and rise) is available at the NOAA’s CORS Project. Time Series for Miami station (not Miami Beach) ZMA1 here. If anything, solid land in Miami is slightly rising over the last 14 years. Land that is fill or cut-up with man-made tidal canals would differ as soil is washed out from under homes and roads.
I suspect that Miami Beach would be a different story, but there is no CORS station there.
Houston is commonly cited as having a very high subsidence rate, which is true, but it is not uniform.
Galveston, on the other hand, is more stable. If not, it would not be there.
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~leeman/HoustonSubsidence.gif
I believe the 97% was based on this publication. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
I do not agree with the sampling method used, but the genie is out of the bottle and won’t likely go back in until after 2100????
The criteria was that greenhouse gases are credited with some warming potential. Yeah no problem. The way it is used is as a lie to deceive public and politicians about all sorts of other claims.
The paper can be accessed as I said above,
The contribution of land subsidence to the increasing coastal
flooding hazard in Miami Beach by Simone Fiaschi and Shimon Wdowinski
The paper concludes:
• Preliminary InSAR results detected localized subsidence, up to -3 mm/yr, mainly in reclaimed land located along the western side of Miami Beach. • Although the detected subsidence velocities are quite low, their effect on the flooding hazard is significant, because houses originally built on higher ground have subsided since the city was built, about 80 years ago, by 16-24 cm down to flooding hazard zones.
• The combined effect of subsidence and SLR further expose the subsiding areas to higher flooding hazard than the rest of the city
Let’s summarize the discussion about subsidence.
Richard Muller made a small point that SLR is exaggerated as a threat from rising CO2 emissions by referring to subsidence as a factor in Florida.
1. Sea levels have been rising for a very long time, according to tidal gauges, with scant evidence of any acceleration in the fossil fuel era.
2. The ocean is encroaching, especially is places like Miami Beach where the land is also subsiding.
3. People with buildings on property in such places will get no relief from efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.
(The huge “sea level rise” seen in Florida is actually subsidence of the land mass, and is not related to global warming.)
In some parts of Florida, land is rising; in some parts it is subsiding; and in some parts there is almost no change. Florida is experiencing high rates of SLR. A component of it is subsidence, but there is nothing to support Muller’s claim.
He’s wrong.
Nothing to support your claim that Florida`s SLR is due to global warming.
Ron
I saw the same 3mm/yr subsidence amount.
To further summarize and allude to Kip’s comments. There are some places at the razor’s edge and never should have been built into major metropolitan centers. Putting the AGW issue aside, Miami’s fate was sealed
150 years ago given its geology and coming out of the LIA. It was just a matter of time before what is happening was going to happen.
We can’t expect nature to stop doing what it does just because we want to live in certain areas. New Orleans is a prime example.
It seems, most of the contributors here start from a premise that GHG emissions and global warming will do more harm than good. But that is just an assumption. It does not seem to be supported by valid, persuasive evidence.
Richard Tol, 2013, The economic impact of climate change in the 20th and 21st centuries Figure 3 (bottom) (free pre publication version here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf) shows global warming is net beneficial up to at least 4C in crease in GMST (ignoring the estimated energy consumption increase). Warming is substantially beneficial for agriculture and health, slightly damaging for water and ecosystems, and negligible for sea level rise and storms.
Energy cost may be grossly exaggerated for reasons explained here: https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/29/the-threat-of-climate-change/#comment-836115
Historically of course, warming has always been regarded as a Good Thing. Arrhenius and Callendar were very clear about that.
“In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For instance the above mentioned small increases of mean temperature would be important a t the northern margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourably situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the deadly glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.”
A textbook in the 60s said that it was unfortunate that the early 20th century warming seemed to have come to an end.
Peter:
There is much scientific study that fingers possible dangerous climate change consequences of AGW.
Richard Tol is not a Climatologist……
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol
This is more like it …..
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648
Tony
The headline on your linked article reads as follows
‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’
The trouble is this invention of an ‘average global temperature’ is a very blunt instrument. What about those that are not going to be affected by dangerous AGW, such as the young citizens of our very own country? .
As you will be aware from CET, anyone born since 1993 will not have known an increase in overall temperature and anyone born this century must be concerned about the 0.31C decline in temperatures.
Most years this century I have found it more difficult to grow tomatoes, runner beans and various other fruit, vegetables and flowers.
tonyb
Tonyb
Talking to Banton with logic is pretty hopeless.
We all appreciate your taking on the challenge to stop his empty rhetoric from clogging the discussion.
Now we shall see a reanalysis of average temperatures and ocean heat content. Removing krigging massive increases in the Arctic and the global temperature has not gone up 0.01*C in 2016. We don’t have measurements over vast expanses of the globe.
Estimates and gueses. 1200 miles to the nearest thermometer and they claim increases based on -90*C to -70 *C !!
We can go back to observations where we have them, satellites and leave blank the information where the data is not available.
Scott
“Talking to Banton with logic is pretty hopeless.”
Scott:
I’m not aware you have.
But anyways if you are a died-in-the-wool naysayer – then that’s good, as I have never found them logical.
Tony:
Central England is NOT he world.
I know you will find quotes that says it is a proxy for it, but I do not subscribe.
It is far more in obeyance to Atlantic SST’s and the NAO.
The trouble is this invention of an ‘average global temperature’ is a very blunt instrument. ”
Sorry I disagree.
Else the various data series would be all over the place on an annual, never mind monthly basis.
And they are far less blunt than the sat temp series.
But yes Hadcrut is deficient in the Arctic, so it is warming quicker.
Is OHC a blunt instrument?
Aside from that just look at the flora/fauna evidence.
Just to be clear – you think that an economics professor is a better authority that any number of climatologists?
Tony Banton,
I am not dyed in the wool nasayer.
I hope to move the discussion to more observations and sciency things.
For instance, I propose using *C or *K rather than anomalies on temperature trends. I am skeptical of krieging from 1200 miles away to come up with arctic temperatures.
Iwas on a Navy ship that recorded intake temperatures in the engine room and am concerned about using that record to adjust ARGO and buoy data. I think intakes are + – 2*C so adjusting extremely accurate ARGO data seems inappropriate.
On the other hand, I am open to investigation of increases in temperatures and causes that have generally risen since 1880.
Some level of man made infuence is likely. Need to allocate Urban heat island impacts to the record. I am concerned about all the changes to teh historical records but appreciate Zeke efforts to document them.
I won’t call you names and request you don’t call me names. But open discussion is welcome. When you link to papers I follow but disparging other participants is impolite.
tonybanton
As regards CET as a useful-if not perfect-proxy for NH/global temperatures you are swimming against the tide. It is the position of the Met Office (if not you) right from the days of Hubert Lambs collaboration up to David Parker and Richard Betts today. The graphs show its usefulness, if not its infallibility.
Which doesn’t get away from the basic argument that a lack of knowledge by politicians concerning regional temperatures makes them all think everywhere is warming, which is not so. Your linked article is for example, completely wasted on young people from our own country and the many hundreds of places worldwide that are also cooling to some extent or other.
How is a policy fixated on the consequences of warming going to help them?
Ps I certainly do not think Richard Tol has any expertise in climate. I have always thought that, but mind you, I am even more biased now as he was extremely rude here about the mental capabilities of those of us who voted Brexit…
tonyb
Scott:
“….using that record to adjust ARGO and buoy data. I think intakes are + – 2*C so adjusting extremely accurate ARGO data seems inappropriate.”
But they are not adjusting as in absolute temp, they are just merging their anomalies.
That is, their trend from a common baseline.
As I’ve tried to explain (along with a few others) to angech. Given that the two sets of instruments are measuring the same thing, then the trend is the same, yes?
The problem comes when you merge the two together without equalising their baseline. There is ~0.12C difference. So the trend is skewed to become between the two, at a necessarily lower value. The greater the proportion of buoys then the greater the cooling bias relative to BOTH instruments trend (which is the same).
If it’s a difficult concept then think of 2 parallel lines on a graph rising at set trend. Both the same. Then a line equidistant in between. How can that be achieved on the ground?
By having the same number of ship measurements and buoys. Make that line a moving on the graph, starting with just a few buoys and lots of ships to just a few ships and lots of boys.
But you are moving along the x-axis in time so you would place your pencil on a moving point on those differentiated trend-lines as the proportion of buoys increased (going from the top to bottom line). You would then trace a trend of < than the one that both instruments share. That is where the bias came in. Not that the ships were too warm or that the buoys were cooler.
Also consider a normal distribution of engine intake thermos. Is it not likely then that there are as many reading, say +1C as reading -1C? Normalising the error.
Plus we know from ERSSTv4 that they average a diff of 0.12, I don't know what the variance is was though.
Tony Banton
thanks for the polite response.
I will digest it.
Scott
Tony
Well I’m with you on Brexit at least.
I voted out as well.
Yes, there are regions that are at least not warming as quickly, and in that sense then GMST is misleading. However it is what we can measure and it seems to be a stable metric (as I said the data sets seem fairly stable).
The OHC is where the VAST majority of the imbalance is going though. I know the data of extent/quality is relatively short, but that is an awful lot of heat that’s getting left in there, and simply cannot be explained by natural variation. (One particularly recalcitrant naysayer on WUWT actually said to me that it was simply coming out from hiding from decades/centuries ago FFS, pardon my French) no, just no.
The empirical science of what CO2 does in the Earth’s atmosphere is not up for argument AFAIAC. However the ECS is. My view is that it is near halfway the IPCC’s range of 1.5 to 4.5C, that is to say ~3C.
That would pose some sig. challenges for mankind down the line. If not this century then next. I beIieve that we should endeavour to mitigate that happening, even if it is for the benefit of several generations to come.
Scott:
Just seen this…
“I won’t call you names and request you don’t call me names. But open discussion is welcome. When you link to papers I follow but disparging other participants is impolite.”
Never fear.
When someone does that, in my mind they have lost the *argument*. And so would I.
I hate ad homs with a vengeance and even when I receive them (look up a “conversation” I had a while back with Okulaer). I just use sarcasm and or irony as a repost.
Tonyb.
I too have had issues with growing tomatoes, or rather getting them to set fruit because it is getting too hot in the summer where I live, but then I had one with thanksgiving dinner this year.
The Hansen paper offers no evidence other than assuming a certain temperature rise based on models. When a paper uses terms like Intergenerational injustice, you can assure yourself that it is about advocacy and not science.
Hi bob
Here are some useful tips for growing tomatoes in a hot climate
http://www.tomatodirt.com/too-hot-for-tomatoes.html
No, don’t thank me.
Now, if only we could get back to the warmer climate we enjoyed at the end of the last century I will be happy
Tonyb
So Tony, if there are dangerous consequences of AGW, how much of a temperature rise would be required to be dangerous? And why wouldn’t the minoan, roman, and medieval warm periods have also been dangerous given that all those periods were warmer than the modern warm period?
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
As Peter Lang has mentioned many times. there is strong evidence that a warmer world is a better world – it supports a greater abundance and diversity of life than a cooler world, as Kim used to point out. Also, as Happer points out, Co2 is good for the plants – so, if you want a greener world, you want more Co2 not less.
Tony Banton,
You are yapping about stuff you know nothing about. You are an ignoramus when it comes to matters of damages and benefits of global warming. They are not something climate scientists are competent in either. Tol is one of the main world authorioties on the subject. But rather than appeal to authority, why not address the actual arguments and deal with the evidence.
You clearly haven’t understood (probably didn’t even read) the links I provided that explain the issue.
Peter:
Peter:
That you provided a link to a paper by an economist on Climate, is enough for me to think that it is you that is the ignoramous here.
Only those expert in that field have any credence in that science. Sorry, but that to me is an obvious fact.
Further I find your statement ….
“They are not something that climate scientists are not competent in either”
Telling that you also consider them incompetent at the profession they studied for and have performed in their collective careers, and as such know more of it than anyone else.
This is basic DK syndrome my friend.
And that makes you unworthy of debate .
Ta ta
Tony Banton,
Your comment confirms what I said in previous comment. You don’t have a clue. You are ignorant. You seem to think climate scientists estimate damages and benefits of global warming? That’s shows how ignorant you are. That’s economists role, not climate scientists. You should do at least some basic study before making your comments. Try reading William Nordhaus A question of Balance http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Balance_2nd_proofs.pdf to get at least a little background to what is involved.
IPCC WG3 is about the economics of global warming.
IPCC AR5 WG3 on the damage functions
The damage function is an essential input for estimating the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), net benefist of global warming, costs and benefits of mitigation policies. Without a valid damage function, such estimates are meaningless.
IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 3 mentions ‘Damage Function’ 18 times http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter3.pdf . Some examples:
“Damage functions in existing Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are of low reliability (high confidence).” [3.9, 3.12]”
“Our general conclusion is that the reliability of damage functions in current IAMs is low.” [p247]
“To develop better estimates of the social cost of carbon and to better evaluate mitigation options, it would be helpful to have more realistic estimates of the components of the damage function, more closely connected to WGII assessments of physical impacts.”
“As discussed in Section 3.9, the aggregate damage functions used in many IAMs are generated from a remarkable paucity of data and are thus of low reliability.”
2016’s skinny little La Niña is being swallowed up. Niño 3.4 is shooting up. Pseudo El Niño already in place; real deal entirely possible by October. Regardless, hot year on the way.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2017/anomnight.2.16.2017.gif
But if you look at the more comprehensive MEI, this period doesn’t look outstanding.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ts.gif
I believe Wolters has said the current period is most like 82-83, which is in basic agreement with what I have been saying. We’re in a warming regime.
How long can it last? Nobody knows, but 5 to 10 years of surging temperatures is possible. We’re maybe 3 to 4 years into it. Right now, there is not a single observable that indicates cooling is in the offing.
“Looking at the nearest 12 rankings (+6/-6) in this season, and considering only the three cases where the previous three months saw a rise similar to this year, we find that one of them (1961) drifted into weak La Niña by the end of the year, one (1990) showed a weak spring peak only to drift back to ENSO-neutral later that year, and one (2002) that became a moderate El Niño later that year. Too early to tell which way it will go.”
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/soi-jan-17.jpg
OK – I’m predicting neutral to moderate La Nina as we move into the Austral spring.
In four instances since 1950, when a La Niña ends very early in the year, it has been followed by an El Niño later that year. In two of the exceptions, the El Niño did not start until the subsequent year… 1995 and 2001.
So, 1950-1951 La Niña ended in JFM 1951, and was followed by the 1951-1952 El Niño.
The 1964-65 La Niña ended in DJF 1964, and was followed by the 1965-1966 El Niño.
The 1967-1968 La Niña ended in MAM 1968, the latest of these, and was followed by the 1968-1969 El Niño.
The 1970-1972 La Niña ended in DJF 1972, and was followed by the 1972-1973 El Niño.
The 1974-1976 La Niña ended in FMA, and was followed by the 1976-1977 EL Niño.
The 1995-1996 La Niña was followed by the 1997-1998 El Niño.
The 1998-2001 La Niña was followed by the 2002-2003 El Niño.
The 2010-2011 La Niña ended in MAM and was followed by the 2011-2012 La Niña.
The 2011-2012 La Niña was followed by 32 months of ENSO neutral.
So 9 examples of early year ends of a La Niña:
Recap:
4 El Niño events the same year
2 neutrals to the end of same year; El Niño events the next year
2 La Niña events the same year
1 followed by 32 months of neutral
“2016 2.227 2.121 1.96 2.07 1.699 1.001 .312 .175 -.101 -.379 -.212 -.121
2017 -.055”
Your divination is not something I can cope with – read Klaus Wolter again – and please stop repeating this nonsense.
Dr Curry
I don’t know if you are still monitoring this thread or not and in particular whether or not you may still be interested in hearing what another denizen thinks regarding what your “role” should be in the coming climate discussions with the Washington DC crowd. I have refrained from comment as the EPA/Energy/Commerce heads are not all in place and some appointments may yet change. However, what seems necessary in the present DC environment is a Horse Whisperer:
“The techniques vary in their precise tenets but generally share principles of developing a rapport with horses,[3] using methods said to be derived from observation of the natural behavior of free-roaming horses[4] and rejecting abusive training methods.[1]” (Wiki)
The CLIMATE climate is mostly chaos right now and a lot of abusive speculations as to process and outcomes seem to be floating about. As a scientist, I imagine you would be against erasing any data no matter how suspect at this time. As a scientist, I imagine you would advocate research to be redirected into understanding Natural Variation. As a scientist, I imagine you would advocate scarce resources being focused upon accurate data and its collection as well as sharing with a global community. Further, a critical eye be cast towards eliminating “me too” human caused global warming stories. The peer review literature I am sure will follow along as well as large group societies who have hitherto fore been all to will to say “the sky is falling”.
The key for me at least regarding Horse Whispering is, “observation of the natural behavior of FREE-ROAMING HORSES…” ie, a mind, processing the nuances, body language, smells, sights and sounds that the environment demonstrates so that we are better able to begin to identify and quantify Natures mysteries.
When I walk outside at night before retiring, I stop, closes my eyes, take a deep breath in and listen, smell, and feel the night, the wind and the ground beneath me. When I open my eyes, I am in awe of the immensity of the sky.
Getting the DC crowd to also feel the night, even before feeling the day, may move the crowd’s appreciation for our world in its entirety, along.
Climatereason (the real Tonyb),
True. However, I suggest it is useful and valuable for big picture analysis. Could I urge you (and others interested in whether or not global warming is beneficial or a potential problem), to read and consider Scotese (2016):
Some Thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition for Icehouse to Hothouse Conditions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
particularly Figures 12, 13 and 15. These show that the planet is in an extremely cold period. The text of the document says average global temperature over the past 650 Ma was 7C warmer than now. This is the period that complex life developed and thrived. This does not suggest catastrophic consequences from mild warming. Even 3C warming would not get GMST up to the middle of the planet’s normal range of GMST.
Figures 12 and 13 show that global warming has little effect on the tropics but large warming in the mid and high latitudes. This is beneficial (milder nights, milder winters, longer growing seasons). The geological evidence presented in this paper, tells a significantly different story about the distribution of warming by latitude than the climate models would have us believe.
I’d urge those interested in the facts and issues that are most important for policy to read this paper, consider it carefully and digest it.
“Scientists measuring oxygen isotopes from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica… [report] temperatures were significantly warmer than today for most of the past 10,000 years.” ~James Taylor, Forbes (2016)
Wagathaon,
Thank you. The point I am trying to make is that the past 10,000 years is not very relevant as far as showing whether global warming is potentially dangerous or catastrophic. The past 10,000 years is a cold time in the past 10 million years and a very cold time in the past 650 million years. Only once before was it this cold, and that was 300 million years ago.
Context is important. Most people, without a background in geology do not understand time scales.
Warming is good. Cold is bad!
“Warming is good. Cold is bad!”
No, both are bad.
Staying where human civilisation developed/flourished at is (much) better.
…there’s a lot we don’t know as to, where human civilization developed/flourished,” as for example, as follows:
See: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209.fullhttp://www.pnas.org/content/108/13/5209.full
peter lang
Yes, I have read Scotese. I do not disagree. My main point is that I agree with Leroux who said the world has many climates.
At present not all of them are warming (CET is cooling) It is therefore unhelpful to to have a global average a it does not pick up on the many nuances, such as those places cooling, those places that are static and those that are very much warmer than average. What contributes to these differences? Currents? Wind direction? SST’s?
Its a bit like ‘average sea level. Building expensive sea defences based on that is not helpful as an average 3mm a year rise does not help those places whereby the rise is much greater or levels are falling.
tonyb
Agree with all that. However, those variations are very short term – e/g decades to multi-decades. I am interested in the justification for climate policies to mitigate GHG emissions and the belief that global warming is dangerous. There seems to be no valid justificaction for these beliefs given that:
1. The global average surface temperature averaged 7C higher than now since complex life began (See Ediacaran Period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacarand Ediacaran biota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota .)
2. When the planet warms the average temperature of the tropics experiences little change (i.e. not a serious problem) and the mid and high latitudes experience substantial – i.e. improvement in growing seasons and biosphere productivity.
Therefore, the estimates of SCC may be substantially wrong – they may be negative. And, GHG emissions may be net beneficial.
Link for Ediacaran period is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran
Peter
Again I agree. The trouble is that it is difficult enough to persuade people of influence to look further back than 100 years to previously warm periods in the human era let alone tens of millions of years.
tonyb
I agree. The whole dangerous climate change meme is extremely difficult to discuss. However, I don’t see that is a valid reason to avoid presenting the most persuasive evidence of why GHG emissions are not dangerous may not be damaging at all, may actually be doing more harm than good.
I should have mentioned a third reason:
3. The planet will not get out of the current cold-house phase until the tectonic plates realign so as to prevent circum polar cold currents and to allow warm current to circulate the globe in low to mid latitudes. The planet has been cooling for 50 million years. Ice began accumulating in Antarctica 30 million years ago. There was a rapid further cooling when North and South America joined.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-1.html
Tonyb,
To clarify my main point for other readers, Scotese (2016) says:
[i.e. about 7 ̊C warmer than now]. Life thrived in warm times.
My question to the Alarmists is: If life thrives at 7 ̊C warmer than now, why are we concerned about warming of 2 ̊C or 3 ̊C?
Scotese, 2016. Some Thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition for Icehouse to Hothouse Conditions : https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions .
“….The world has many climates…”
That is why it is disingenuous for some to argue against MWP etc, because not globally synchronous. Even today NH and SH have different rates and cooling exists in some localities.
Why place a different standard to 1000 years ago in determining global warming?
Time to just say no, no, no to the UN, IPCC and Climate Change Corruption in the public sector:
As for the Curry role, any marginally astute reader would long ago have figured out that she does not propose a party line for others to follow but is quite clear about her own beliefs and is willing, without endorsement, to give an airing to views that seem to her interesting or relevant. And, like many others, she often relies on personal experience with individuals in deciding whether someone’s views ought to be taken seriously.
In addition, I don’t know what the critics are complaining about with respect to the Bates/Karl issue–this is the only place where all sides could read the arguments for all positions in detail without excessive moderation. I am much more informed about the “nothing to see here” position on Bates’s claims than I would have been had she not hosted his post here and then allowed comments and refutations.
This is the best venue available to get skeptics to read contrary arguments and vice versa and to expect that the strongest arguments and data pro and con will be brought to bear , even if the engagement isn’t always a model of polite truth-seeking. If you don’t read C,etc. you don’t have a very clear picture of what the disputes are really about.
You hit the nail on the head! This is no echo chamber.
“In addition, I don’t know what the critics are complaining about with respect to the Bates/Karl issue–this is the only place where all sides could read the arguments for all positions in detail without excessive moderation. I am much more informed about the “nothing to see here” position on Bates’s claims than I would have been had she not hosted his post here and then allowed comments and refutations.”
There is certainly “nothing to see here” re the Bates/Rose affair. Except that we have a “science correspondent” who is prepared to distort and deceive in a national newspaper, it seems to me solely because of bias. His history with dealing with the UKMO is on record.
I find it hard to think that he was unaware that his “graph” was telling a lie. Increasingly sceptics have resorted to this (though Monckton has always done it via lectures) – it is effective in reaching the gullible, of which there are many among the DM readership. And then of course Lamar Smith gets the “story”. Well fantastic. That in itself is a win for him.
How Bates ended up giving his “story” to Rose I do not know. But at the very least he was ill advised.
more and more interesting this blog.
and, waow, 642 comments!
splendid!
Those who believe in the dangerous climate change meme are subscribing to an ideology, not rational analysis. There is no valid evidence to justify the belief global warming is dangerous. The surface temperature of the planet averaged 7C higher than now for the past 650 million years. Life thrived! It is currently about the coldest it has been in that time. For 75% of that time there was no ice caps at the poles.
It’s way past time to stop this ideological nonsense; it is seriously damaging the global economy and human well-being.
Defining “valid evidence” as “that which supports my position” is not rational. It is, in fact, a display of your ideology.
Global warming is impacting temperatures on a timescale approximately six orders of magnitude smaller than the timescale you choose to compare to.
IPCC WG2 contains plenty of valid evidence. That you disagree with it is fine – show a rational case why. That you instead armwave it’s invalidity shows the paucity of your case and it’s reliance on assertion rather than argument.
For your convenience, here is the summary.
WG2 does not estimate damages and benefits. You are referring to the wrong IPCC Working Group.
Peter, your post does not mention “damages” or “benefits”. It does mention “dangerous”, and demands “rational analysis”
The title of WG2 is “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability”
Which obviously covers “dangerous” impacts.
Your analysis seems very much ideological rather than rational.
VTG,
You haven’t a clue about this subject. Do some basic background reading. I gave a link to “A Question of Balance”. Start there.
Peter Lang advocates for clean, emissions-free energy production. The fact that VTG doesn’t consider him an ally is pretty much the climate change issue in a nutshell.
Unless Lang accepts the most extreme arm-waving in the service of the least effective policy choices, well then VTG just can’t think of anything else to do but wait around another 25 years for politics that more closely align with his own.
One of these two thinks climate change is urgent, can you guess which one? It’s a trick question. Neither do.
6 orders of magnitude?
so global temperatures are increasing at a rate one hundred thousand times faster than ever before?
And you question others’ rationality?
jeffnsails850,
Thank you for the clarification. However, I’s like to clarify further. I advocate for (in order of priority):
1. Secure energy supply – i.e. over years decades – such as through periods of trade and military disruption;
2. Reliable electricity supply – i.e. seconds to weeks – such as avoiding energy disruption by union strikes, grid failures, blackouts, etc.
3. Lease cost energy, especially for business and industry
4. Health and safety
5. Environmentally benign.
I have not seen a persuasive case to justify the belief that GHG emissions pose any significant threat. in fact there seems to be a lack of evidence to justify the belief they do more harm than good. I see not valid evidence to justify the belief that the Social Cost of Carbon is >$0. But certainly open to be convinced by valid evidence and rational analysis.
So health and safety concerns and environmental effects take a back seat to cost in all circumstances? Would you for example, support legislation to eliminate the requirement to put scrubbers on electricity generation plants?
Bob Wert,
Health and Safety concerns are included in the economic cost. Read how it’s done.
Furthermore, people show by their buying decisions they prefer:
– access to electricity (and other forms of energy) rather than no access to electricity (or other forms of energy)
– reliable electricity rather than unreliable energy supply )
– cheap rather than expensive energy
– all the above are more important than health and safety and environmentally benign comes last.
For example, coal fired electricity causes 600 times more deaths than nuclear (life cycle analysis), yet the rich elites in rich countries prefer coal to nuclear. Go figure!
Last question is silly. 1.2 billion people have no access to electricity. 4.3 million per year die from indoor air pollution and 3.8 million from outdoor air pollution. Think about priorities.
David,
That isn’t what he said. Read it again.
Peter,
Projecting, again?
ATTP,
Do you have a clue about the subject? I’ve never seen you demonstrate any comprehension of it at all. I’ve never seen you demonstrate you have any expertise in the necessary disciplines. Physics is irrelevant for estimating whether global warming is net beneficial or net damaging.
Therefore, if you believe global warming will do more harm than good, please explain how you come to that conclusion. BTW temperature is not a measure of benefits or damages.
This should be fun watching you squirm through this response – or avoidance of what is relevant.
Peter,
IIRC, about a year ago you did not even know that the greenhouse effect warmed the planet by 33K, so this seems a bit rich.
Physics can never tell us whether or not the consequence of something will be beneficial or damaging. However, it can tell us how a system will respond to changes. Whether or not those changes will be beneficial, or damaging, always involves some kind of judgement, thay physics – alone – can never define.
Link please. I certainly have known that since I was working on the Australian Government’s Ecologically Sustainable Development Program and providing policy advice for preparing Australia’s policy position for the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. I suspect you have the wrong person or are misrepresenting me. Please provide link to where you say I said that.
You seemed rather confused about it here.
ATTP,
At no stage did I dispute 33C GHG effect. You misrepresented me.
You said https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/08/are-human-influences-on-the-climate-really-small/#comment-691743 :
I was disagreeing that 1.5C to 2.5C change is a 4.5% to 7.5% temperature change. It is not. It’s a 0.5% to 0.9% temperature change. The numerator for calculating percentage change of temperature is 273.16K
Touche, PL!
Peter,
I certainly don’t want to start that discussion again (especially as you later managed to misrepresent me). However, you did spend a number of comments wondering where the 33K was coming from.
You’ve also managed to misrepresent me again, since I didn’t say a “4.5% to 7.5% temperature change”. The bit of mine you include in your comment explicitly says “4.5% to 7.5% of 33K”.
Anyway, my point was simply that you seem rather confused about some of this stuff, so it just seemed a bit of a stretch for you to call vtg clueless, when he clearly is not.
ATTP,
At no stage did I dispute 33C GHG effect. You misrepresented me, I suspect intentionally.
You have a habit of misrepresenting people. This demonstrates you are intellectually dishonest – https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/ .
As your comment here https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/#comment-839341 showed, you could not address the question.
You dodged the question! You have shown no understanding of the subject and no expertise in the matter of net benefits or damage of global warming.
You would have been wise to have said nothing instead of your troll comment here: https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/#comment-839246
Peter,
I didn’t say you disputed the 33K GHG effect. I said you seemed confused about where the 33K came from. That is how it seemed, however annoyed you might be by me saying it. Given that you’ve misrepresented me in two comments now, maybe you should also avoid going around accusing others of misrepresenting you? It does appear to be a tactic to distract from your own short-comings.
I didn’t dodge the question. Not giving an answer you like isn’t a dodge. Physics can’t tell us if some outcome will be harmful, or not. That requires some definition of what would be regarded as harmful. However, physics can provide information as to how the system will respond to changes, which can then be used to try and estimate whether or not their will be net harm. My understanding of analyses that do try to estimate net damages is that almost all indicate a net damage for future warming.
ATTP,
You dodged the question. You misrepresented me. You are incapable of admitting when you are wrong. You frequently demonstrate intellectual dishonesty.
FUND is the most sophisticated of the models for projecting net costs and benefits of global warming. See this https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/29/the-threat-of-climate-change/#comment-836115
Furthermore, run it at lower ECS, lower emissions rates over the century, less available fossil carbon, realistic discount rate, justifiable damage functions and with uncertainties on all these variables, and you’ll quickly realise there is no valid justification for the belief that global warming is a significant risk. In fact, changing any one of these can show that global warming is beneficial, as the geologic evidence suggests.
Well, yes, if the ECS is lower, or if we emit less, or if there is less available fossil carbon, the damages will be lower than if the ECS is higher, we emit more, and there is more available carbon. None of this, however, means that the ECS is lower, we will emit less, and there is less available fossil carbon. You’re almost arguing that if we do something to reduce our emissions, then we won’t then need to reduce our emissions. I hope you can see that this is rather circular argument.
The damage function is by far the greatest uncertainty. You are not even reading the links. As was clear from the start, you have no understanding of the subject. And, because you are habitually dishonest, anything you say is worthless. Just your believe based on your ideology, not supported by rational analysis and valid evidence.
I suggest you read up on the issue. Even then you don’t have the background or experience to understand it.
Indeed, I’m well aware of this. This doesn’t suddenly imply that we should expect their to be a net benefit.
If you believe global warming will do more harm than good, please explain how you come to that conclusion.
Peter,
If you believe that global warming will do more good than harm, please explain how you came to that conclusion?
So you haven’t been following.
Read my 12 comments starting here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826494 (and the links within)
And this (and the links within)
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/29/the-threat-of-climate-change/#comment-836115
Comment when you have something constructive to contribute (which, of course, will be never).
Peter,
Do you understand what a wet bulb temperature is?
If you do, do you know how much the maximum wet bulb temperature rises per 1K of warming?
Avoiding the issue again. Sigh #4 of the 10 of the signs of intellectual dishonesty.
I’m referring to this:
which you said in this comment. Now, will you indicate if you understand what a wet bulb temperature is, and – if you do – if you aware of how much we expect the wet bulb temperature to rise per 1K of warming?
The discussion is about economic estimates of damages and benefits. the fact you cannot engage proves my point. You have no understanding whatsoever about the subject. And haven’t even read the links I’ve referred you to.
For the benefit of others, I’ll clarify what I’m getting at. The wet bulb temperature is the temperature a parcel of air would cool to if it became saturated with water vapour, with the energy used to evaporate the water vapour provided by the air parcel itself. At the moment, the maximum wet bulb temperatures we’ve experienced is something like 31-32C. It rises at about 0.7K per 1K of warming. Therefore, if we were to warm by 7K (which Peter seems to think would be just fine) maximum wet bulb temperatures would rise to 36-37C. The human body (mammals in fact) cool themselves via evaporation of perspiration. However, at wet bulb temperatures above 35C, this stops operating and rather than us being able to transfer heat to the environment through the evaporation of perspiration, we would start to gain from the environment and would overheat. I’m no economist, but I think it’s pretty straightforward to conclude that warming the planet to the point where parts of it would no longer be habitable, would be reasonably regarded as a damaging outcome. YMMV, of course.
ATTP,
Your response is a diversion. Avoiding the question. You’ve demonstrated you know nothing about the subject. So instead of admitting your ignorance, you are trying to change the topic. And you misrepresented me again. I did not say 7K increase would be just fine. You continually demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty.
I asked you at the start of this sub thread https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/11/discussion-jcs-role/#comment-839340 :
Your response was to not answer, and instead asked the question back to me:
That’s avoidance. Sigh #4 of 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty.
I answered by referring to links to some of my recent comments. You clearly haven’t even bothered to read them.
Read my 12 comments starting here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/25/week-in-review-science-and-policy-edition-3/#comment-826494 (and the links within)
Then:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/29/the-threat-of-climate-change/#comment-836115
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbound-ii-the-dansgaard-oeschger-cycle/#comment-839343
https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbound-ii-the-dansgaard-oeschger-cycle/#comment-839231
And the links within each.
Now, it’s your turn to answer the question:
If you believe global warming will do more harm than good, please provide persuasive argument and valid evidence to justify your belief.
Peter,
Firstly, I don’t believe it will do more harm than good. My view is that there is a risk that it will do more harm than good, and that this risk increases the more we emit. The question we should be debating is whether or not we should take this risk, not whether or not the risk actually exists. Secondly, even if you were asking a valid question (rather than a strawperson question) it appears that there is no evidence I could provide that would convince you of this risk. Therefore, having explained the wet bulb temperature issue, I can’t see much point in wasting any more of my time.
ATTP
Your beliefs are irrelevant.
Do you really think the researchers why have spent 30 years developing impact functions and damage functions don’t know about the effects of temperature and humidity on productivity? You continually demonstrate your ignorance. Not a clue about the subject that is by far the most important for justifying any climate policy.
To save anyone wasting further professional time here, can you please give your qualifications, professional and academic/first degree, that can be independently validated? I suspect from reading your comments on the subject, in the name of the physics that they seem to deny, you don’t have any? Apologies if I am wrong. If none, better to read and learn serious content from serious sources than make it up from half understood fake science sites? Just sayin’ Eur Ing Brian RL Catt CEng, CPhys, MBA MIET, MInstP …………Membership cards available.
Peter,
Yes, I would suspect that they do. My suggestion was that you don’t.
Well, you must be a fool. You expect people to believe you about physics, but other disciplines don’t know about their area of expertise. And uyou haven’t evn read any backgound on the subject. you haven’t even looked at the comments I’ve posted and the links I provided. if you did, you might start to realise just how little you know.
Just to clarify, I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject. But I clearly know a hell of a lot more than you. You haven’t even got of first base.
Peter,
I have looked at the comments you’ve posted. It’s what motivated my response.
The comments may have motivated your response. Or more likely your response was set before you read them – judging by all your previous comments and dishonesty.
What points do you have to raise about this:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/29/the-threat-of-climate-change/#comment-836115
Clever and humble; a winning combination.
I am going to bed. You’ve got some time to do some homework.
Peter,
I’ve got better things to do. I’ve also written a response to your comment. I even quoted part of your comment. If you can’t even recognise this, then there’s not really much point in continuing.
Just for clarity, in this comment I was suggesting that they do understand the relationship between temperature and humidity on productivity.
ATTP: Perhaps part of Peter’s beef before he retired to bed is that, according to the prior comments he linked, the wet bulb thing is already addressed, albeit indirectly. The stuff he presents there claims the tropics to pole gradient is far less in a warmer world, so per the specific example he gives, a global 3C difference is only 1C at the tropics. I presume this might take the sting out of the wet bulb thing, as the tropics is where it would hit hardest. Anyhow, maybe the gradient claims would hence be a good area for more mutual focus and less confrontation?
Andy,
If he’s so clever, and every who disagrees with him is clueless, then it’s hard to see why he couldn’t have made this clearer.
However, here is a paper that says:
In one of Peter’s comments he says
Life probably did thrive back then, but there are indications that if the planet warms by 7K, some regions will potentially have maximum wet bulb temperatures that would exceed that that would allow mammals to survive. It’s hard to see how that could be described as “thriving”.
“Life probably did thrive back then, but there are indications that if the planet warms by 7K, some regions will potentially have maximum wet bulb temperatures that would exceed that that would allow mammals to survive. It’s hard to see how that could be described as “thriving”.”
ATTP:
This comes up often from naysayers.
They conflate Earth thriving with humans not suffering.
The two are not inclusive.
That the Earth was several degrees warmer whatever hundreds of millions of years ago you chose as “life thrived” – was a situation that was attained due slow natural changes that allowed evolution to pick those creatures best suited.
Humans “thrived” at 290ppm or less to the point we now have 7bn with a fair percentage living in cities at threat from sea-level rise (that had already happened at those high temps hundreds of millions of ya).
The ocean was not out of balance re ph back then as it will be with an increasing fossil burning scenario. Not to mention local aridity/flood and of course the theta w situation.
Tony,
Indeed, I’ve seen it myself a number of times. I still find it surprising that people would make that argument, especially someone who professes a superior understanding of the topic. It seems so obviously a weak argument. That life thrived when the world was warmer that it is today, does not mean that it would thrive today if we warmed to those temperatures, and certainly does not indicate that there are no risks associated with warming to those temperatures. Also, an important issues is the rate at which it changes. We may well be able to adapt to such changes, but can we do so if it occurs over a century, or so, rather than over many thousands of years? The changes are also probably irreversible on human timescales, so if we choose to take the risk, and we’re wrong to have done so, there is little we can do once we get there.
ATTP: This is what I meant by a genuine issue for discussion between the two of you. The first paper you quote seems to get its 0.75 per degree global temp from the difference between tropics and poles. Yet from Peter’s sources it appears this fraction would be much lower, as the pole / tropics gradient is shown reducing sharply with warming. Outside my domain really, but I wondered whether you both may be talking at cross purposes by missing this apparent difference in sources / evidence.
The dinosaurs thrived until they didn’t. It’s a quick changing climate that did them in. Quick-changing climates are not good for extant life because the changing conditions outrun evolution.
Yet more drivel.
Current thinking (since ~1980) is that the dinosaurs – along with around 75% of other species boyh plant and animal – were killed around 66 million years ago by the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) extinction event, ascribed to comet or asteroid impact, not climate change.
Stop making stuff up, it just makes you look foolish, not to say ignorant.
Ok, I give up. Too much nonsense that clearly is what peo[le believe, not what they have studdied and know. The last straw was this methane blob disaster scenario. Ain’t gonna happen. If it did, the possibility would be similar to a major asteroid strike or Yellowtsone Caldera collapse – also due sometime, as the Snake River hotspot melts its way through the Rockies. And Pompei is overdue, etc.
These catastrophic events have four things in common.
1.They are apocalyptic
2. They are VERY rare.
3. We probably can’t predict them
4. We almost certainly can’t do anything about them if we can predict them.
5. There will be the odd disaster, and a lot of people will die, more than from a puny little nuclear weapon or two. Billions, not millions. Continental scale wipe outs at least
The Human race has to develop to the point where it has the resilience not to be reset to hunter gathers by such an event. Given the quality of debate here, with some who claim knowledge still arguing the toss on well proven science matters of fact that are fundamental to everyday life, I am not hopeful of that. We probably need to genetically engineer the irrational fear and preferred tribal ignorance culture gene out of people to reach this goal.
IMO, hose who are qualified to understand and debate the facts rationally have better things to do with their time in the opportunity to protect what our version of humaity has achieved in side one inter glacial warm snap, from the accumulated surpluses that plentiful energy our technologies have delivered us has allowed us to create, that the Neanderthal’s never managed during the last warm snap.
Using time well includes not wasting it in trying to inform people who prefer their own delusions to understanding and facts, most of whom seem to lack the basic quaifications to do anything except listen rather than talk, and don’t see the problem in that. Pearls before swine. And because, in the end, only the laws of physics will work.
So I won’t waste any more. Can’t the moderator just remove the reobviousal science deniers, so at least those prepared to follow scientific disciplines and check their facts before expressing their opinions, have a fact based debate that applies proven science – and whose outcomes might be productive?
“The Human race has to develop to the point where it has the resilience not to be reset to hunter gathers by such an event.”
Absolutely.
Which is why it is a tragedy that for the past few decades NASA has been sidetracked into devoting all its resources to maintaining the con trick of CAGW instead of working on getting at least some members of the human race off the planet, because if we do not do so, then sooner or later we will cease to exist.
Hopefully, NASA will now revert to its original purpose of doing space stuff instead of fiddling climate data.
Well, AndyWest and ATTP and Peter Lang, It appears that 7C warming is pretty unlikely according to the IPCC. I think the issue here is adaptation. I seem to recall that the thinking is that during the age of Dinosaurs, mammals were adapted to being nocturnal. That might explain their keen senses of smell and hearing. Another ice age would be very damaging to mankind with large parts of the Northern Hemisphere becoming uninhabitable. Adaptation to under a mile of ice is pretty challenging. Fortunately that also appears very unlikely as well.
In any case, this argument is quite distant from reality I would say. However, AndyWest, it does illustrate the nature of the politics surrounding the issue. People like Al Gore become catastrophe mongers to feel good about themselves and to make money. The press also makes money off exaggerating possible disasters, extreme weather, droughts, massive fires, super volcanoes, etc. etc.. Its good click bait. The science is less interesting and less profitable. People like ATTP enter the fray to selectively debunk only those things that might call into question the activist narrative. Science of course is the loser in all this posturing. People also choose sides and science becomes a shibboleth of politics. Leftists tout science, conservatives question it. The truth is that science itself needs reform. This fact gets lost in the propaganda warfare. Or more accurately, the need for reform is whitewashed by those who use science to support their political agenda and those whose livelihood depends on the status quo.
ATTP says:
I’ve said it repeatedly. I’ve repeatedly pointed ATTP to the comments where I’ve said it. Yet, ATTP has not bothered to read them, not the embedded links.
Here is another example demonstrating ATTP’s ignorance of the subject:
First, I did not say, at any time, that a 7 C increase is “fine”. I did not even suggest it is feasible. In fact I’ve been continually arguing the opposite. I said that, according to Scotese, GMST over the past 650 Ma averaged 7C warmer than now and life thrived. GMST was up to 13C warmer than now and life survived. So the quote is another of ATTP’s misrepresentations. Read this: https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbound-ii-the-dansgaard-oeschger-cycle/#comment-839343
ATTP’s ignorance, or another misrepresentation, is demonstrated by his disingenuous implication that and 7 C increase represents an increase of 7C in maximum temperatures. It does not. Where temperatures and humidity are high (treopics), maximum temperatures will not rise by 7C. GMST was 7C higher than now 40 Ma ago (Scotese’s Figure 15). At that time average temperature of the tropics was about 1.33C warmer than now (Scotese’s Figure 13). Maximum temperatures would rise less than average temperatures – say 1 C rise of max temps in tropics for a 7C increase in GMST.
Study these three charts together: Source and explanation here: Some Thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition for Icehouse to Hothouse Conditions
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions
Figure 15:
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9mhexie60w4ho2f2/images/1-9fa3d55a6c.jpg
Figure 13:
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/22-20227bbb57.jpg
Figure 12:
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/21-975a2df8d8.png
Pity ATTP hasn’t bothered to read any of the links I’ve provided (including the links in the comments). He wouldn’t then continue to shows his ignorance of this most important of subjects for justifying climate policy.
dpy6629:
I’m aware of the nature of the debate, though I would and have expressed this in more fundamental terms (type my name into the search box). But this shouldn’t stop us from giving up all hope of genuine exchange or seeking to lessen misunderstandings where they occur. I think beneath the shells knowledge does sneak across the border in both directions here at Climate Etc. a good thing :)
Peter,
I realise that I’m wasting my time, but if you don’t mean that a rise of 7K (or 13K) will be fine, why do you keep saying things like this
As Tony Banton has pointed out, this is largely irrelevant, so if you don’t think it’s relevant, why do you keep pointing it out?
This isn’t what I said, or implied. Since you seem to worked up about others supposedly misrepresenting you, maybe you should try harder not to do it yourself (having said that, my view is that the reason you go around complaining about others misrepresenting you, is because it makes it harder for them to complain about your misrepresentations since they’re the ones on the back foot. David Young uses the same basic tactic, so you’re not alone). As indicated by the paper I provided a few comments ago, a 7K rise in average global surface temperature could lead to a rise in maximum wet bulb temperature such that some regions would have periods when they would become essentially uninhabitable.
I realise that you would probably just continue with your invective laden rants in which you highlight your own supposed brilliance and dismiss everyone who might disagree with you, but you could always try to prove my impression wrong. I won’t be holding my breath.
ATTP,
I said that, according to Scotese, GMST over the past 650 Ma averaged 7C warmer than now and life thrived. GMST was up to 13C warmer than now and life survived.
If you’d bother to read the links I gave, the answer would be clear.
The point is that life thrived when GMST was much higher than now. Therefore, 2C or 3C warming is not a significant threat. If you read the comments, and would stop and consider them, you’d also understand, as others have pointed, out that increases of 2C to 3C may actually deliver benefits than exceed damages (globally). Unfortunately, you do not have the expertise to understand any of this. Did you look at Figure 3 bottom here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf . I.e., GMST increase up to 4C is projected to be net beneficial, excluding energy consumption.
I’ve explained in comments I’ve linked to repeatedly in this discussion, that the projected damages from energy consumption may be exaggerated. Did you read that? Did you understand it? Did you refer to the links within the comment?
Let me just try to shine some light here. Stop complaining about what someone else says you said. Focus instead on the truth and the science. For ATTP, I’ve tried to get him to do this many times in the past. Please, gentlemen, lets focus like a laser beam.
Good point. I’ve been trying to get focus on this important issue for months. It is generally avoided. As many have found before, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with ATTP, so there’ll be no progress when the discussion is with him. I’d look forward to a rational, debate with those who can contribute to it constructively.
DY,
Might be nice if rather than you telling other people how to behave, you lead by example. Again, I’m not going to hold my breath.
Ken Rice, I have been doing that. You have not. Above you will find 7 links to references about the replication crisis. Im still waiting for you to respond. I would be interested actually. This is why many people find you to be uninformative.
Peter,
Not only did I read your other comments and it appears that I interpreted them correctly. The argument that because life thrived hundreds of millions of years ago when the world was warmer than today means that warming today does not present any significant threat is so bizarre that I can’t really bring myself to respond further.
A statement of your belief, unsupported by evidence or rational analysis. It’s based on your ideological belief. No science or economics involved.
Since when was 40 Ma “hundreds of millions of years ago”?
The fact that life thrived when GMST averaged 7 C warmer than now, and survived when it was 13 C warmer than now, there was no runaway greenhouse effect, the oceans didn’t not boil off (as James Hansen would have us believe they would), shows that catastrophe and dangerous climate is nonsense. The point that for a 3 C increase in GMST, average temperature in the tropics will increase by around 1C bur warm much more in mid and high latitudes suggest the benefits will exceed the damages – refer to explanation in link already provided.
That’s no loss. You didn’t bring anything of value to the discussion any way. You know nothing about the subject whatsoever. And you are habitually dishonest.
You don’t seem to be scaring these guys with your interminable arguments, kenny. It’s a good thing you aren’t holding your breath, or you would have been dead years ago. This foolishness is just about as effective as was your stalking of your friend Anthony Watts. Remember? You should put your efforts where they might better serve your purpose. Write one of those open letters that pompous people who think they are important write. Address it to POTUS, Commander in Chief, Most Powerful Man in the World, Donald J. Trump, The White House.
PS: And don’t forget to not hold your breath,
It’s climate change that kills, not climate per se, especially fast change. This occurs through previously rare 100-year events becoming 10-year events, and that makes the economic difference between rebuilding and abandoning and completely relocating. This applies whether you think of coastal communities, agriculture, food and water resources, flooding, fires, droughts, storms, etc. This on top of the effect to ecosystems. Poorer communities relying on local resources are affected most, but even wealthy communities can suffer losses.
Jim D,
Rubbish as usual. All belief and supposition. No facts. 10-year rapid warming doesn’t mean sea level rises any faster than it is now. And life levels warming, struggles with cooling! See Figure 15.21 here: http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf .
Ireland, Greenland, Iceland warmed from near ice age to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,600 years ago and in 9 year 11,600 years ago. Text shows that life thrived in each rapid warming.
“Figure 15.21 The stable isotope record (∂18O) from the GRIP ice core (histogram) compared to the record of N.pachyderma a planktonic foraminiferan whose presence indicates cold sea temperatures) from ocean sediments (dotted line). High concentrations of IRD from the Troll 8903 core are marked with arrows. After Haflidason et al. (1995). The transition times for critical lengths of the core were calculated from the sediment accumulation rates by the authors and these gave the following results:
Transition A: 9 years;
Transition B: 25 years; and
Transition C: 7 years.
Such rapid transitions have been corroborated from the recent NGRIP ice core data.”
You need to read what I wrote again. It was nothing about rapid warming. It was that climate change proceeds one disaster at a time, to coin a phrase. It’s not that gradual thing you seem to have in your mind. The leading edge of climate change is these unprecedented events at higher frequency, and these affect communities and ecosystems.
OK, to be more specific, that was in insurance terms, so maybe I should explain. As in the current climate, it is the tail events that cause the damage. Changing climate increases the frequency of tail events and also increases their extremeness and damage. Something that used to occur once per 100 years and could be recovered from by rebuilding, if it occurs every ten years would not be worth rebuilding. For example Sandy caused damage on the NJ coast, and there was a debate whether it was worth rebuilding those houses. Given that these storms are increasing in frequency that becomes a bigger question in the future. Other examples might relate to agricultural failures or river flooding. What frequency is tolerable, and what requires abandonment of the area?
Not sure what happened to the comments after this, but to reiterate my view. The climate damage problem is related to the actuarial problem. Damage, as in the current climate is related to tail events. With a rapidly changing climate, tail events and their damage become both more frequent and more extreme. An example of this was the question of whether to rebuild in NJ after Sandy. This kind of question becomes even more common with an increasing frequency of those types of events, and eventually the decision will be made not to rebuild. For 100-year events, rebuilding makes sense, but as they shift towards 10-year events, it makes less sense, and may even be uninsurable. Similar decisions would be related to agricultural losses or river flooding. Climate change occurs one disaster at a time. (Not the right thread for this so I will also post it on a more relevant one).
It won’t be any more relevant any place else, jimmy dee. There is a new Sheriff in town and he is a Climate denier. That’s gotta sting. Huh, jimmy?
He’s trying hard, but it looks fairly comical so far. The world gets to laugh at America for a bit, but we must remember Sweden, and we were just getting over Bowling Green. That was the highlight of yesterday, apart from his stage fan that salutes and talks to a full-size cardboard cut-out of him every morning. Maybe you do that too, Don. Great material, and that’s without talking about him getting all his numbers wrong on murder rates and electoral margins. He needs to fire his fact-checkers next.
Yeah, your hysterical crowd thinks he is going to be impeached for his alleged little errors, jimmy dee. The left loon mainstream media just has to keep hammering him with fake news and proclaiming that he is going to collapse, any minute. Like they did in the primary and the general election. How many times was he declared DOA, jimmy? Eight more years. In the meantime, you continue your efforts to bore every body here to death with your incessant alarmist hectoring. Sad.
Pingback: politics watch
Why do people suddenly think that change shouldn’t happen? Or did they always? Are they so selfish and/or ignorant they can’t imagine anything beyond their own short life span? etc.? Wasted education there. They can send me to school, but they can’t make me think.
Humans are SO puny and short lived compared to natural events. They should certainly leave things working on perioicities of liftimes alone, for fear of positive feedback, trying to control a planet you don’t understand the interations of by rate control on much less than one period/cycle of data is simply stupid, as any process modeller can confirm. Science fact..
This is a very big rock warmed by a tiny little bit of the energy of a much bigger fusion reactor 93 million miles away, etc. Enjoy it while it works, as it works, and take care to avoid the dangerous stuff.
Galaxy Song moment… can we last more than one inter glacial warm spell as a civilised species? With bugger all intelligent life down here on earth?
FACT: We have achieved nothing substantial to change the need to move and adapt to natural change, that involves forces far greater than any we possess. No flying cities yet. Adapt, invent, move and rebuild, has been a continuous process since the last ice age. Get used to it. Especially if you build in daft places. San Francisco, Naples, AIR Studios Monserat, etc.
There are historic flood lines and surveys you can check, disasters in recorded time. “remember the Tsunami” statues, etc. They didn’t, of course.
etc. “Irrational optimism can be fatal, or seriously damage your health, and wealth.” Can’t fix stupid? Anyway, seems we are all doomed, DOOMED, by the stupidity of self serving government and the vested interests of experts, and the greed of all at others’ expense, even if the rational understand.
nb: Feynman unknowingly coined a new collective adjective “An ignorance of experts”
Next big challenge, except drug resistant pague – can our necessary migrations driven before the ice be peacefull, if so we may even survive as a developed species for longer than a few 10’s of thousands of years.
Will we make it through the next one, or become the new Neanderthals? Neanderthal 2.0? How much climatte change will 10 Billion bodies cause? Probaly not much. Planet won’t change much. Fish will be happier.. Discuss.
Won’t the Donald change stuff, the Newt understands the fraud, he can smell the foul stench of malfeasance, , , needs guidance for his arrows, though. I volunteer to get the core facts down to politician level…I ended up communicating science to business and lay folk internationally. I am real expert, I know the physics and engineering of enrgy as well as the craft. Can actually imagine workable alternatives, not recite received wisdom or make it up..
When can I start?.
I saw the number of comments was at 666, so I didn’t want to leave it there.
I do indeed question the value of the Kyoto Protocol, and I do believe that adaptation though strong economies is the better way forward ~Philip Stott
Ignoring the climate concerned and drilling for natural gas allowed the United States to meet it’s Kyoto pledges, according to the Obama administration.
In other words, strong economic growth strategies are already proven paths to both adaptation and mitigation. As long as we continue to ignore the climate concerned there won’t be anything concerning about the climate :)
Fracking enabled the US to make a COP21 commitment – and Obama to claim credit. Without actually spelling it out. The hypocrisy of it all.
Judith – we need commentary like yours. I find AGW a fascinating topic however there are too many people out there that have really strong beliefs that AGW is a confirmed reality and that the world as we know it is ending.
This over the top alarmist attitude needs to have much more criticism than what is currently being stated. I think your blog is great but it’s such a small step in the tidal wave of arrogant support of a theory that has massive amounts of uncertainty in it.
Dr. Curry – I don’t know if you are still tracking this thread, but wanted to add that you are doing a valuable service by keeping up this blog and I think you should follow your own instincts and desires regarding your future – whatever it might be.
Should you continue this blog, or take a more active role in the new administration, I think it would be good to continue to look critically at how well renewable energy installations like Ivanpah, Crescent Dunes, Texas/Iowa/CA wind farms are doing from a total actual cost perspective, a review of their stated goals wrt meeting energy demand, how well they are meeting their goals, and how much they continue to rely on fossil fuels to operate.
As I think Planning Engineer quoted, there is a lot of renewable “porn” on the Internet, but if you dig deeply enough, you will find a lot of warts.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/21/worlds-first-247-solar-power-plant-powers-75000-homes-for-3-hours-per-day/
http://www.pe.com/articles/plant-823670-gas-ivanpah.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/10/11/the-great-texas-wind-power-boom/#21e88a35192b – while mainly a puff piece, it does point out some deficiencies with Texas Wind, but makes no mention of the benefit it enjoys from federal subsidies.
Greening of the Earth and its drivers
Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services1, 2. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. LCC contributed most to the regional greening observed in southeast China and the eastern United States. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
It’s a shame that you make such sweeping statements as this:
”Ironically, the scientists that do have the temperament for this are those with an ‘agenda’ of some sort (e.g. activist/advocate). Unfortunately, these are not the objective scientists that we need in such positions.”
Maybe some of the scientists have the temperament and some have an agenda – but you seem to be implying that all those with such a temperament have an agenda. It’s not unreasonable for one to vigorously defend scientific evidence, even if one happens to be a scientist. Better to tackle them on the evidence rather than implying they all have an ‘agenda’.
And you insist on calling people ‘alarmists’ – why not get over such pejorative language and name-calling?
Regarding the Daily Mail / Mail on Sunday: I’m not a climate scientist, but I have some knowledge on a different contentious area of science and the Mail routinely misrepresents the evidence in that arena. So I’m surprised at your relaxed attitude.
Article in the NYT entitled:
“How an Interoffice Spat Erupted Into a Climate-Change Furor”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/business/energy-environment/climate-change-dispute-john-bates.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1
It’s curious to observe how AGW devotees, while sitting in judgment on JC for climate heresy, temporarily abandon their tribal politically correct gender equality virtue signalling and in a few moments regress a hundred years to an age of condescending patriarchism, and imply she should defer obediently to the party line of the alpha male climate elite. Yet another hypocrisy-de-jour from the (evidently equal-opportunity) alarmist climate kitchen.