by Judith Curry
My testimony at the House Science Committee Hearing on Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications and the Scientific Method.
The text of my written testimony is here [Curry house science testimony mar 17]. I really enjoyed preparing this testimony, it provided me an opportunity to reflect on my writings over the past 7 years and synthesize them into an essay on the philosophy of climate science, including what went wrong and why, and some suggestions for fixing these problems.
I realize that this essay is a bit esoteric, but in my opinion these are the kinds of issues that need to be understood and confronted.
My verbal testimony attempted a simplified synthesis. The text of my verbal remarks:
I thank the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today.
Prior to 2010, I felt that supporting the IPCC consensus on human-caused climate change was the responsible thing to do. That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink in supporting the IPCC consensus. I began making an independent assessment of topics in climate science that had the most relevance to policy. I concluded that the high confidence of the IPCC’s conclusions was not justified, and that there were substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system works. I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t made. We therefore lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.
As a result of my analyses that challenge the IPCC consensus, I have been publicly called a serial climate disinformer, anti-science, and a denier by a prominent climate scientist. I’ve been publicly called a denier by a U.S. Senator. My motives have been questioned by a U.S. Congressman in a letter sent to the President of Georgia Tech.
While there is much noise in the media and blogosphere and professional advocacy groups, I am mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists. A scientist’s job is to continually challenge their own biases and ask “How could I be wrong?” Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purposes.
There is enormous pressure for climate scientists to conform to the so-called consensus. This pressure comes from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves. Reinforcing this consensus are strong monetary, reputational, and authority interests. Owing to these pressures and the gutter tactics of the academic debate on climate change, I recently resigned my tenured faculty position at Georgia Tech.
The pathology of both the public and scientific debates on climate change motivated me to research writings on the philosophy and sociology of science, argumentation from the legal perspective, the policy process and decision making under deep uncertainty. My analysis of the problems in climate science from these broader perspectives have been written in a series of posts at my blog Climate Etc. and also in 4 published journal articles. My reflections on these issues are summarized in my written testimony.
The complexity of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Why do scientists disagree about the causes of climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. There’s disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the value of global climate models and paleoclimate reconstructions. There’s disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence. And scientists disagree over assessments of areas of ambiguity and ignorance.
Policymakers bear the responsibility of the mandate that they give to panels of scientific experts. In the case of climate change, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the problem too narrowly. This narrow framing of the climate change problem essentially pre-ordained the conclusions from the IPCC assessment process.
There are much better ways to assess science for policy makers than a consensus-seeking process that serves to stifle disagreement and debate. Expert panels with diverse perspectives should handle controversies and uncertainties by assessing what we know, what we don’t know, and where the major areas of disagreement and uncertainties lie.
Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again.
This concludes my testimony.
JC note: I will write another blog post tonite about the hearing, including the testimony of other witnesses, the questioning and discussion, and the media coverage.
Pingback: House Science Committee Hearing – Enjeux énergies et environnement
Well done Dr Curry, everything helps when traversing this particular swamp.
Live stream
http://democrats.science.house.gov/hearing/climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and-scientific-method
Just saw the end of Judith’s answer to Lamar Smith, then the same from Christie and Pielke. Very crisp and to the point, not claiming too much. Now a Democrat has given Mann the platform to talk about Lysenko and crackpot theories. The irony’s too much. Well done the other three.
Yes. Things are pretty bad on the alarmist side when self-awareness seems like a superpower.
Lysenko went against the scientific mainstream, but was propped up for political purposes. If there is a parallel, it is the way Smith uses his skeptics to prop up his politically motivated view that emissions should not be reduced. It’s a puppet show.
But Lysenko was out there essentially trying to make a hotter chili pepper by screaming curse words at them, just as alarmists are trying to preserve the random climate they remember from childhood, as if that climate was perfect everywhere, whether they grew up in Arizona, New Hampshire, or Louisiana, because of course the natural climate was perfect everywhere until sinful humans angered the gods. The whole idea is nonsense, yet pushed by religious crusaders.
We’re supposed to be terrified that the temperature, which in my location can already see highs and lows that vary by more than 10 degrees between decades, is going to kill me if it warms by 3 or 4 degrees over a century. I called a guy I know in Tampa and said “Are you folks dying of heat down there?” He said “No. The weather is fantastic!”, so I figure I’m good for another 500 years at least.
I’m sure that sign off comment rustled many jimmies. Does anyone know if there will be a video of the hearing made available at some point?
Dr. Curry: Here is a link to a paper published in Nature about a study by Michael Mann and others. I could not make much sense out of it. Perhaps you could glance at it and comment.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242
Dr. C’s probably busy, though hopefully will weigh in.
In the mean time, fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
That paper appears to be along the lines of Francis and Varvus, 2015. The scenario is that:
1.) global warming occurs and gives rise to Arctic Amplification
2.) Arctic amplification reduces pole-to-equator temperature gradient
3.) Reduced gradient means weakens ‘thermal wind’ of the jet stream
4.) Reduced thermal wind means more persistent wave patterns
5.) More persistent patterns lead to drought ( persistent lack of precipitation in some areas ) and flood ( persistent occurrence of precipitation in other areas ).
Before considering any other aspect, consider that this sequence happens every year between winter and summer. Temperatures at the equator are close to constant year round. At the North Pole, temperatures are about -45C in winter and about 0C in summer. So the gradient between the two varies by about 45C in six months, every year:
http://geog.uoregon.edu/envchange/clim_animations/gifs/tmp2m_web.gif
Arctic Amplification occurs by latent heat of ice being out of phase with the seasons ( increased freezing in winter – the thinner the ice, the more freezing can take place – releases the latent heat of freezing in winter ). The result is greater temperature increase in winter ( say about 5C ) and much less in summer ( say about 1C ). 1C is not nothing, but that 1C is small on the effect of gradient compared to what happens seasonally.
Now, things are more complicated, and it is not really the temperature of the surface that determines the thermal wind, but the temperatures aloft. The jet stream is around 200 millibars ( higher near the tropics, lower near the Arctic ). The gradient deduced from temperatures there has changed very little, and if you examine the models ( the upper left plot ), the Hot Spot indicates in increase in gradient, not a decrease! The conception that global warming will decrease the temperature gradient is dependent on the models being wrong and not realizing a Hot Spot!
Another goof up with this line of thinking is that Hansen published the opposite thesis: gradients and kinetic energy would increase, not so much because of the Hot Spot, but because melting Greenland ice would cool the North Atlantic and speed up the jet stream, the opposite of the Francis and Mann thesis. Given diametrically opposed results, it’s hard to put too much stock in either outcome.
Another problem with the drunken jet theory is that proponents want to use it to explain drought and heatwaves during summer. But if you examine summertime precipitation in the US and count the number of summers in the US with less than 7.5 inches of precipitation, you will find the large majority of them occurred in the first half of the record. In other words, summer droughts, and the heatwaves they cause have become less frequent in the US. This is consistent with fewer stagnant episodes.
The idea of a weaker jet stream goes back at least to Manabe 1979:
“The reduction of meridional temperature gradient appears to reduce not only the eddy kinetic energy, but also the variance of temperature in the lower model troposphere.”
This follows both from reduced temperature gradients but also from increased water vapour, meaning more energy ( increased latent heat ) can be contained within a unit of air – in this way, the same amount of motion of air becomes more efficient at exchanging thermal energy.
Implicit in that statement are a number of benefits that might ensue from a weaker jet stream, namely fewer destructive winds, fewer strong tornadoes, and fewer extreme high temperatures.
As with warming, reduction in temperature gradient is a matter of degree. And there may well be more benefit than risk for certain amounts.
Mann’s analysis forgets that correlation is not causation.
The most extreme summer heat waves of the past decades – 2003 in Europe, 2010 in Russian (linked to flooding in Pakistan) and 2011 in the US (Texas) – were produced by unusually strong and stable undulations in the jet stream (Rossby waves); also called blocking events. Persistent blocking events also cause flooding. According to AR5 WG1 (Chapter 14, executive summary), climate models produce fewer blocking events than we currently observe and predict no increase in the future.
Mann has identified a “temperature fingerprint” (or correlation) between NH temperature and one type of summer undulation in the jet stream. His “temperature fingerprint” mostly consists of unusual warmth at high latitudes. Increased warming at high latitudes (Arctic amplification) means that this “temperature fingerprint” will occur more often in the future.
WHAT MANN DOESN’T KNOW IS WHETHER HIS “TEMPERATURE FINGERPRINT” PRODUCES UNUSUALLY STRONG AND STABLE UNDULATIONS IN THE JET STREAM OR WHETHER UNUSUALLY STRONG AND STABLE UNDULATIONS IN THE JET STREAM PRODUCE HIS “TEMPERATURE FINGERPRINT”. The stronger meridional winds associated with this phenomena could easily transport more heat to higher latitudes. He can’t distinguish between cause and effect. Therefore, he has no basis for predicting an increase in extreme weather, especially when the models themselves do not predict an increase.
Looking more deeply, theoretically work by others suggests that having exactly 6, 7 or 8 undulations in the jet stream may produce a type of resonance that amplifies and stabilizes these undulations. Mann developed his temperature fingerprint during periods with only 7 undulations. The historic extremes mentioned above involve 6, 7, and 8 undulations, but we don’t know if Mann’s fingerprint applies to all patterns or a cherry-picked subset.
Christy presented data showing the mismatch between data and models.
Then Mann waffled about the consensus and anecdotes about wildfires.
Christy as usual had little to say about the empiricl success of models in modeling the ~ 99.9% of the atmosphere’s volume that he customarily offers as a distraction- his vividly misleading graphsmanship cannot undo the mere fact that the upper middle reaches of the inter-rtropical convergence do not the world’s climate make- especially when the colleague sittting next to him points out why-
Just watch and see who prevailed in this debate !
99.9% of the atmosphere’s volume that he customarily offers as a distraction
Hmmm….
Looks like it’s a little bit more than 0.1%:
http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot2016.png
The significance of the failure of the Hot Spot for the satellite era is not that it contraverts global warming but that it contraverts the efforts to apply a dynamical model to the problem. The failure of the Hot Spot is presumably tied to the fact that the models create too much convergence, resulting in too much precipitation ( not to mention the ‘Double ITCZ’ ).
This is kindofa ‘gee whiz’, but recall that Manabe had a pretty good description with just a one dimensional radiative model. Then folks got wise and wanted to add convection. Well, humility for all, the models can’t do that! That’s not a surprise! Lorenz told you you couldn’t do that a long time ago!
Steve McIntyre has shown results very similar to Christys. It’s also surface temperature that falls outside CmIP5 ranges. You shouldn’t attack people so personally if you want to be taken seriously.
Many thanks for pointing out that this should indeed read .1%, as in :
” modeling the ~ 99.9% of the atmosphere’s volume that counts, not the >1% that he customarily offers as a distraction-”
The point is that while the tropopause in the turbulent intertropical convergence is indeed the among the hardest and most complex things GCM’s must address as they continiue to grow in resolution, the area, volume, and integrated energy flux remain orders of magnitude too small to figure significantly in global temperature trends.
Look again at the comparison image.
Models predict a Hot Spot ( from about 60S to 60N ) of more than half of the troposphere.
This is a big deal. If heat transfers to the Hot Spot are screwed up, so too are all the transfers elsewhere.
The hot spot is part of the negative lapse rate feedback. Without it, it’s worse than we thought. It should be strongest over the oceans where the water vapor supply is unlimited, but the balloons would be mostly over land where they are launched, so that may be an issue with balloon data. Does Christy consider this?
The hot spot is part of the negative lapse rate feedback. Without it, it’s worse than we thought.
Or, it’s not as bad as we thought.
The warming has been at the low end of projections – even without negative feedback.
This is the bifurcation that seems to continue – bad, good.
Worse than we thought, better than we thought.
These are both probably emotional contaminants to actually understanding.
It should be strongest over the oceans where the water vapor supply is unlimited, but the balloons would be mostly over land where they are launched, so that may be an issue with balloon data. Does Christy consider this?
The RATPAC-B stations are selected for quality and to be spatially representative. All of the temperature data sets are imperfect with uncertainties. But given the size of the modeled Hot Spot ( 60s to 60N ) it’s not likely that it’s there, just hiding. Here is a map I created of RATPAC trends over the UAH trends. You can see trends that don’t match which is probably a reflection of missing data of which there is a lot. I didn’t do a spatial analysis and sampling. You can also see the island stations in the tropics:
https://turbulenteddies.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/uahlt_ratpac_7001.png
Here’s the thing I hadn’t considered, though. The Hot Spot is implied by radiative considerations alone ( 2xCO2 causes the maximum RF in about the same area ). Evidently, the models not only exhibit a relatively greater RF from CO2 in the Hot Spot, they also include greater convective heat flux into the hot spot. But observations indicate either that has not happened, or has happened, but something else has happened ( clouds, increased water vapor lapse rate, etc. ) to make the hot spot area more effective at radiating.
As Christy said, we don’t know the future and perhaps the Hot Spot will appear. If you follow the worse than expected meme that would be a good thing, because surface temperatures would be less warm, right? But the satellite era is now almost 40% of a century. If we can’t model the atmosphere past 7 days, and we can’t model the atmosphere for 40 years, why on earth should we believe we can model the atmosphere for a full century?
TE,
you would like digging around in this https://sourceforge.net/projects/gsod-rpts/files/Reports/Ver%203%20beta/
These are both yearly, in some of the other folders there is daily averages and other area averages.
But I create a lot of data, all based on actual measurements, the only filtering is having a minimum number of station per year to be included. And it can be set to whatever is appropriate. These two are 360 days, or 365 days/year.
Christy forgot one part of the scientific method.
When the data don’t match the hypothesis (hint they never match exactly) there are three choices.
1. Modify the hypothesis. .As Christy notes
2. Reject the claim as Christy notes.
3. Re examine your data.
In some cases science does nothing for decades before figuring out which is which.
See feynman on the problem with neutrino counts..
When theory and data collided. ..He said we don’t know..
Later of course it was the data that needed work.
I suppose Mann was referring to you and your Berkley Earth cohorts when he mentioned a Koch funded group that confirmed the temperature trends.
Just saying!
With friends like that…………..
Oh, true, Mosh, true. You got that right. But sometimes those problems with the data are not what one expected they were.
I think you are correct that this sort of data needs to be adjusted. My gripe, in philosophical terms, is not that you are adjusting the data, but that you are not adjusting it enough. I think two statistically significant, systematic biases exist that need to be accounted for one way or another.
So, EvanJ, about that paper – has NG still got us covered?
Evan.
I am not talking about adjustments.
I am talking pure logic.
If the data doesn’t match the hypothesis…and it never does. .then there are three logical choices. And those choices are not mutually exclusive.
A. The hypothesis could be rejected.
B. The hypothesis could be modified.
C. The data could be wrong or incomplete.
Nothing in the mere fact of disagreement between hypothesis and data dictates or determines the choice.
The governing principles are pragmatic. If your data suggests super luminal velocities, then it’s easier to check your data and measurement device than it is to change fundamental physics.
There are actually more than 3 options but showing three is enough to expose Christy’s bias. He never questions whether it could be his data. I will say that the deeper I go into the satellite data and it’s comparison to models the more I’m convinced that folks are missing some important problems with the data…More to come.
So it’s far too early to call Christy’s conclusion settled science.. and its unscientific for him to represent only his conclusions and not all the things that could be wrong with it. Feynman 101
Sometimes the theory is rejigged to match the data – as in quantum mechanics. But neither neutrinos or quantized energy is overly relevant to the surface temperature record. The latter measures sensible heat at 2m – or over vast areas of oceans as sea surface temperature – and measures some 3% of the world’s energy content. It is influenced by changes in latent heat flux, urbanisation, changes in location and instrumentation and human errors of various types. So they are adjusted and averaged – not an especially inspiring science but necessary it seems. And not one I would complain about – given my penchant for lauding the the patient gatherers of data like sunspots or hairy-nosed wombat DNA as commonly un-celebrated heroes of science. Although Mosh – in contrast to the rule – tends to do quite a bit of celebrating of himself.
It tells us I presume that the world has warmed in the 20th century – but it doesn’t prove the hypothesis that carbon dioxide caused all or some of it. Climate is ultimately not just complex but dynamically complex. In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’ Surface temperature data is far too limited say much about anything interesting. We need a God’s eye view.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/ceres-net-13-month-running-average.jpg
This is just CERES with a 13 month running mean. Up is warming by convention. The rise in the last few years is due to cloud cover reduction. A reduction of albedo of some 0.3%.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/argo-to-december-2016.jpg
This is Argo with a 13 month running mean and showing annual variability due to north/south asymmetry. The latter has some implications for thermal inertia and hypothetical imbalances. A little cooling – from 1998 I presume from the previous generation of instruments – and some warming in recent years consistent with net radiant flux.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wong2006figure7.gif
This is lots of evidence that natural variability warms and cools and this just nails it. The pause is very real, is happening now and has immense implications for the future of climate.
Mosher forgot the there are 4 choices in the climate scientific method:
1. Modify the hypothesis. .As Christy notes
2. Reject the claim as Christy notes.
3. Re examine your data.
4. Adjust the data
Fixed that for ya, Steverino!
Moshur forgot the there are 4 choices in the climate scientific method:
1. Modify the hypothesis. .As Christy notes
2. Reject the claim as Christy notes.
3. Re examine your data.
4. Adjust the data
Fixed that for ya, Steverino!
Moshur forgot the there are 4 choices in the climate scientific method:
1. Modify the hypothesis. .As Christy notes
2. Reject the claim as Christy notes.
3. Re examine your data.
4. Adjust the data
Fixed that for ya, Steverino!
wrong.
1. Modify the hypothesis. .As Christy notes
2. Reject the claim as Christy notes.
3. Re examine your data.
If You find a Possible mistake with your data then you have choices
3.1. Adjust your data
3.2 Re do the experiment and collect more data.
You can of course nit pick and produce 1000 choices.
but 3 or 4 or 1000 is enough to Prove my point. So Thanks Springer for agreeing that Christy got it wrong.
You can Also IGNORE the discrepancy which is what Feynman and other did in some famous cases..
You can also add entities to the Theory
You can call the mis match noise..
Note in ALL of these that the choice is not Logically driven by the Mere fact of data/model mismatch.. And since data never perfectly matches model, you are always and foreever making pragmatic choices at the heart of science.
Ellision
you need to check all the versions of Argo.
Greetings to Willard the Peacemaker.
Answer: Yup, J-NG still got us covered. Glad you asked. #B^)
Which is why he said he uses 8 different sources of data that all basically agree, not just his.
“Which is why he said he uses 8 different sources of data that all basically agree, not just his.”
except they dont
Willard
‘So, EvanJ, about that paper – has NG still got us covered?”
The interesting issues will be.
1. The paper has taken LONGER THAN GERGIS to fix a simple
error of using the wrong data.
2. Steve mcintyre promised to run the tobs data after the error was pointed out. This is a 5 minute fix. What were the results of this quick test?
3. Will Up to date temperature data be used?
4. Will any “new” adjustment methodologies get independent double blind testing?
Thats just the proceedural stuff.
Most of all I look forward to the new classification as it will help me with some metadata work.. 5 YEARS is a long time to wait for data when the most important work ( the station classification) could have been published years ago
Oh Mosh, data assessment happens anyway, it’s not something you do when your hypothesis crashes.
Ugh. Pure logic? lol
Steve Mosher: The lessons you derived from solar neutrinos appear to be incorrect.
First, there is a big difference between particle physics (solar neutrinos) and climate change: If the sun produces too few neutrinos, a whole theory with substantial experimental validation would need to be DISCARDED, not modified. On the other hand, if radiative forcing has warmed the atmosphere too little, all we need to do is reduce our estimates of TCR and/or ECS. That means that we SHOULD BE discarding or underweighting the projections from climate models with climate sensitivity that is too high. If the observational data is refined, we can refined our estimates of climate sensitivity.
Another difference is that the confidence intervals around the observations and theoretical predictions did not overlap in the case of solar neutrinos, but can easily overlap if climate sensitivity is low. There is no theory that tells us what climate sensitivity should be, it is an emergent property of climate models (and our atmosphere) that depends on model parameters that are not known with any certainty.
As it turns out, the observations of electrons neutrinos from the sun were correct and the THEORY WAS WRONG! In theory, massless electrons neutrinos could not change into other “flavors” of neutrinos (tau and muon) that are harder to detect. We now believe that neutrinos have mass and do change flavor. The observations of ELECTRON neutrinos from the sun were correct; the theory that neutrinos were massless was wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
“Which is why he said he uses 8 different sources of data that all basically agree, not just his.”
except they dont
Let’s look at the picture again.
Of course, there are variations between trends of RATPAC,UAH,RSS.
All indicate a maxima over the Arctic.
RSS->slightly decreasing HotSpot lapse rate, RATPAC & UAH->no
All indicate cooling stratosphere, although RSS indicate warming stratosphere in the tropics and Northern mid-latitudes! The MSU strat product does smear a layer including both strat & trop, but this is probably in error – does it influence the correction they apply? Would seem to decrease the TTT trend. Bears looking into. This is using Stratosphere v3.3, TTT v4.0, and TLT v3.3, TMT v3.3 is closer to RAOBs in some ways, but worse in others.
http://mediaprocessor.websimages.com/http://climatewatcher.webs.com/HotSpot2016.png
Mann is right to point out that means there’s been no Lapse Rate Feedback, but probably wrong to assume that means higher sensitivity ( since transient response is still at the low end of past projections, and he’s ass uming that WV feedback is well constrained ).
In any event, the failure of the models to accurately move energy around casts doubt on any other pronouncement, because imbalance there means errors in energy transfers everywhere else.
I do wonder, though, is the modeled Hot Spot a dynamic feature? or a radiative feature? The failure of the models in producing too much low level convergence, and consequently too much precipitation explains the lack of the hot spot. But Radiative Forcing alone has long been known to have the same Hot Spot fingerprint.
https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen-1997-plate2-forcings-temperature-2xco2-annotated.png
It’s all being actively controlled by water vapor.
“I suppose Mann was referring to you and your Berkley Earth cohorts when he mentioned a Koch funded group that confirmed the temperature trends.
Just saying!
With friends like that…………..”
Weird. Mann has blocked me on twitter for defending some skeptics against his charges.
Muller refuses to read any Mann papers.
Friends?
Hardly.
But, despite the bad personal blood, when his work is solid I have no trouble separating the mann from the message.
He, appears to share that in some cases.
I dont need to like him to notice that he can be right about certain issues.
In the same way, I dont let friendship get in the way of attacking a bad argument.
Moshur,
Thanks for pointing out that “adjust data” which I added as #4 is really 3.b.
The real #4 is “delete contrary data”.
Then there’s also “substitute different data” but that may be either 5 or 4.b. Your call. Mann did this by deleting the remainder of the tree ring record and substituting instrument data and by just deleting a buttload of older contrary trees. Then The Hiatus, or Pause in Global Warming was of course erased by substituting ocean temperature from an exceedingly poor ocean temp record for a true global lower troposphere temperature.
You just can’t bring yourself to admit there has been cheating. I reckon’ that’s because you’re 1) trying to be an insider through sucking up and kissing ass to make up for your lack of science degree or relevant expertise and/or 2) because you’re an enabler at best and participant at worst in the cheating.
This game is over. Thanks for playing. Pick something you have a chance at winning next time which is to say not science or math.
Here is how you apply the scientific method.
91) Warmist science predicts a hot spot.
(2) Hot spot does not appear.
(3)Prediction is wrong
(4) Therefore science from which the prediction came from is wrong too and must be discarded.
(5) Journal references based on use of the hot spot must be amended to remove the impression that it refers to something real.
QED
(
> The interesting issues will be.
Wait. I thought the paper was published. It’s been a while.
Nobody clarified this.
I hope it’s not a case of denial by obfuscation.
Surface temperature trends since 1950 are matched by the models, and they need CO2 changes to do it.
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/sites/default/files/AR5_SYR_Box_1.1_Figure_1.png
No they don’t. They need a little negative feedback from water in its various phases. The whole enchilada hinges on the so-called evidently mythical water vapor amplification which ramps CO2’s ECS up from 1.1C to as much as 4.5C.
You know better by now. This has been drummed into your head for years. You’re just a dishonest person.
You do the math. This fit gives you 2.3 C per doubling, so it is not surprising the models can match the data in this whole period.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.2
Models have consistently forecast more warming than what was subsequently observed. There is no provenance given in your graphs without which they lack any credibility.
Myth. You have to cherrypick periods of 15-20 years to base that claim on and ignore that the models underestimated the warming in the previous 15-20 years at the same time and also ignore that the models account for the last century of warming, which they would not if they had a bias of any size.
Give me 5 minutes with Mann and I could crush his anecdotal wildfire claims, as it falls along the same lines of ignoring the history, just like their failure to recognize the natural variability.
doubtful.
The Roemmich-Gilson Argo Climatology updated by the Scripps Institute in the Global Marine Argo Atlas – and in this case graphed by Ole Humlum.
http://sio-argo.ucsd.edu/Temperature_2017.png
Which is consistent with CERES data and broadly with the tropospheric temperature.
https://wordpress.com/post/watertechbyrie.com
These are joined with records from a previous generation of instruments – which like the surface record gives an indication of warming and is as obsolete in the 21st century. It doesn’t tell you why. There are no error bounds. There is no indication of how smoothed they are. Obviously somewhat. This is what people imagine is the ocean data.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/large/public/2016-07/ocean-heat-figure1-2016.png
CERES data tell you why things are changing in terms of SW and IR at top of atmosphere as part of the most precise and comprehensive environmental observing system ever assembled. Argo enables estimates to be made of the changing energy imbalances at toa. Ocean warming in the past couple of years is the result of about a 0.3 decrease in planetary albedo with a cloud cover reduction.
And as I showed in a graph from Wong et al 2006 – where there are more detailed ocean temps to depth in the 1990’s – they correlate remarkably well with ERBS radiance data.
You are despicable
paul oberman: You are despicable
Who and in what ways?
Hillary’s insult that clinched Trumps elction was Deplorables, not Despicables. Google YouTube Trump Miami rally Les Deplorables for reference.
Despicable Me is a very good 2010 American computer-animated comedy film. Highly recommendable. It introduced the yellow minions that have become iconic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1komquMGko
“Despicable” word isn’t just the same anymore.
Paul
Could you try seeing “where you might be wrong ” instead of abusive comments.
I’m a regular lefty liberal Brit who used to worry about my carbon footprint and I feel I have woken up into medieval Spanish type inquisition.
Why is it dispicable to question that we all going to die or abandon industrialisation the IPPC position.
Kevin Martin.
No body expects The Spanish Inquisition.
“You are despicable”
Another entertaining contribution from the Minsters of Tolerance and Consensus.
.
meant ministers, but I guess minster kinda works too
Channeling Sylvester? Tweety has more brains.
She nonchalantly knocked the ball out of the park.
Thank you, Professor Curry, for reminding us how science is supposed to work.
“The complexity of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people.”
Alas, in much of what we do today, disagreement even among reasonable and intelligent people invites (and from many holding the “consensus” view requires) demonization of the skeptic. Somewhere along the way science was abandoned for superstition.
Roger Pielke talked about scientific integrity, the Grijalva witch-hunt, and the lack of increase in floods, hurricanes etc.
Utterly clueless questions from Mr Bera, who obviously wasn’t listening to Pielke.
Thanks Dr. Curry. Well written and spoken. Anticipating reading the others’ submissions.
Dr. Curry – That needed to be said so very badly, and your text should be required reading for anybody involved in research on anthropogenic climate change.
Alan Longhurst
Livestream http://democrats.science.house.gov/hearing/climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and-scientific-method
Reblogged this on ClimateTheTruth.com.
Thank you so much for attempting to bring science back to climate science.
btw-was Mann wearing his Nobel medallion?
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“…That all changed for me in November 2009, following the leaked Climategate emails, that illustrated the sausage making and even bullying that went into building the consensus.
I came to the growing realization that I had fallen into the trap of groupthink in supporting the IPCC consensus.”
Must read summary of Judith Curry’s Testimony at the U.S. House Science Committee Hearing on Climate Change (March 29, 2017) …
Chrsty’s written testimony is also a must read. Basically destroys CMIP5, then exposes the AR5 ECS conflict between models and observations, then notes the EPS endangerment finding and the SCC are all based on the CMIP5 stuff. Implication, both are wrong and need to be completely redone., as Trump ordered yesterday. Coordinated? Probably. Yuge.
He skipped a step in the scientific method.
Christy got his PhD in Atmospheric Science from University of Illinois.
Where’d you get your PhD in science and what discipline, Steven?
Agreed rivstan. And in passing I see once again Mosshher the Great and Powerful showing that he has no concept of science or logic. Just for him, pointing out flaws in the CMIP5 only requires evidence of error. It does not require the person pointing out the error to follow the scientific method.
A scientist would know these things. A data fiddler may not.
He skipped the scientific method.
In science the null hypothesis stands with the examined hypothesis fails its validation tests. It is not up to skeptics to prove the examined hypothesis false. The burden is all on the new hypothesis even if it has politically aggressive friends — especially when the new hypothesis has politically aggressive friends. Mann was a blind to the irony of him bringing up the lessons of Lysenko as he was for portraying himself as a reserved scientist being victimized by bullying and ad hom.
Where’d you get your PhD in science and what discipline?
There are many great self-taught scientists. Knowing science is not Steven’s weakness, it’s believing that highly credentialed scientists cannot be fooled by bias or that they could engage in consensus enforcement, even when they know such action is antithetical to science.
Ironically, Dr. Curry woke up the same year Steven became hypnotized.
“There are many great self-taught scientists.”
None are still living. Those days are in the distant past.
Hear, hear Judith!
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/847103358834020352
Yeah try to run a commercial wx forecasting company without sats. Curry is right but her motives are “conflicted”. Might be a “wicked” problem.
“Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.”
Wow. Just. Wow.
*scrolls back to the “despicable” thread above to clear head*
Learning to speak Trumpese relies on careful use of quote marks. It lets the reader align the meaning of the statement with their ideology. It’s like that favorite MSM phrase ‘some people say…’.
NOAA weather satellites have been flying constantly since TIROS-1 in 1960.
You might be talking about MSU instruments that measure global temperatures that OCD climate scientists love to hate. These began in 1979.
Are weather forecasts improved a lot in 2017 vs. 1979?
David – My particular “hobby horse” is “surf” forecasting:
http://www.SaveOurSurfForecast.org/
Jack – Unless I’ve completely misunderstood you’re alleging Judith has a pecuniary interest in weather satellites? Wash your mouth out with soap!
“Are weather forecasts improved a lot in 2017 vs. 1979?”
hey David
I found this site named google.. Its amazing.
ftp://ftp.cgd.ucar.edu/archive/jhurrell/Springer/Kirtman/Ch%2008_Kirtman.doc
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v525/n7567/abs/nature14956.html
read the whole thing
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1990061500
Public funding is, or should be, predicated on public need. What public need is served by a “surf forecast”?
You’ve moved my quotation marks David!
There are lots of surfers around the shores of the World’s oceans. There are also lots of commercial and military craft that sail those oceans.
Of course there’s also all those weather (and climate!) models that assimilate the data churned out by the assorted satellites.
Thank you for the essay.
Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken. As a result, we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal
vulnerabilities.
Practically, I thought that it would have been more helpful to the committee if you had elaborated the questions that haven’t been asked, and the investigations that haven’t been undertaken. I don’t think it is possible for the Congress to readjust the tension among competing hypotheses without more knowledge of what the competing hypotheses are, and what processes and evidence are necessary to the readjustment. I am sorry that this sounds crabby. You put lots of effort into the essay, and I am grateful for it.
Perhaps she did elaborate the uninvestigated matters in her longer written testimony. (I haven’t read it yet.)
+10
“I realized that the premature consensus on human-caused climate change was harming scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t made. We therefore lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate variability and societal vulnerabilities.”
“While there is much noise in the media and blogosphere and professional advocacy groups, I am mostly concerned about the behavior of other scientists. A scientist’s job is to continually challenge their own biases and ask “How could I be wrong?” Scientists who demonize their opponents are behaving in a way that is antithetical to the scientific process. These are the tactics of enforcing a premature theory for political purposes.”
JD
Judith’s written testimony was outstanding. I contrast that to Mann making a fool of himself wallowing in lowbrow, predictable ad hominem attacks on deniers, for which he was justly called out. It is unfortunate that the entire nation is not able to witness how true scientists approach the issue versus the Mann playground mentality of attacking others rather than attacking the science. He was the clear, anti-science loser of the day.
Heck, at one point (1:29:14) in the above live feed, Mann started going on about how you “get ahead” in science.
And the easiest way to show something different and something new is too just make something up and make sure your pals will publish it.
By George I think you’ve got something there. Now all we have to do is figure out how to get someone to pay us for it ;-)
Considering the Climategate revealed “team” approach of pal pier review and meddling to enforce the consensus on journal editors and science reporters, Micheal Mann is bold to lecture about the “way to get ahead” and the way you get an article in the journals Nature and Science. He is the poster-boy for politicized science.
Well done Dr Curry. There is plenty of draining to do before the scientific debate about climate change can be made great again.
Science is a process for understanding how nature works. The scientific process can be summarized as: ask a question or pose a hypothesis, set up an objective test or experiment, and make a scientific argument
– and then repeat. A scientific argument uses logic to combine assumptions and evidence. Science is often mischaracterized as the assembly and organization of data and as a collection of facts on which scientists
agree. Science is correctly characterized as a process in which we keep exploring new ideas and changing our understanding of the world, to find new representations of the world that better explain what is observed. Part of science is to do calculations and to make predictions, but another part of science is to ask deep questions about how nature works.
Scientific processes for acquiring knowledge are preferred over other processes for acquiring knowledge (e.g. introspection, the study of St Thomas Aquinas) because they produce the most reliable results. Steven Weinberg says this at greater length in “To Explain the World” where he explicitly justifies a “Whig history of science”. Newton, Huygens and Goethe all published their work on the nature of light; it’s kind of foolish not to mention that Newton and Huygens got better results than Goethe (even though Newton and Huygens had competing explanations), so their methods are the methods to emulate and build upon. Even though, as it has turned out, the wave-particle duality persists in the descriptions of light and the experiments and theories about it.
That’s a little esoteric for Congress, which needs more information on how likely it is that human actions can slow sea level rise. That’s a topic for which policy requires more assembly, organization, and presentation of “facts” about which the process has produced some reliable agreement. Could $1T of investment slow sea level rise by as much as 1 cm per year? What $ quantity of damage would thereby be offset?
I think you mean 1 mm/year, as the rise is between 0.8 to 3.3 cm per decade.
Anyway, I showed my math on sea level rise in an earlier thread. Based on utility costs of $0.10 per kWhr, for every 100 meters above sea-level of outlet height, it would cost about $10 billion a year per mm/year of sea-level rise abated to pump water onto the Antarctic, Greenland, Northern Canada, and Siberia, where it will stay frozen until the next interglacial.
George Turner: I think you mean 1 mm/year, as the rise is between 0.8 to 3.3 cm per decade.
Yes. Thank you for the correction.
Matthew, recent research cited by the GWPF has shown that waterside measurements show sea level rises of 1 mm or a little more, satellite measurements about 3 mm. Why should Congress pay any attention to sea level rise? (I thought I’d saved the paper or the link to it, couldn’t find other. Within the last two weeks or so.)
Faustino: Why should Congress pay any attention to sea level rise?
If proponents of CO2 reduction ask Congress for funds for this or that, I think Congress should ask them questions like I asked: for $1T of alternative investment, how much difference will it make to the rate of sea level rise? I think there are more important uses for the money than reducing CO2.
Just in case of it’s of interest to anybody I’ve discovered that Dr. Cara Augustenborg is “live tweeting” the hearing:
https://twitter.com/CAugustenborg
As indeed am I, when YouTube doesn’t let me down.
All informed observers can agree that the committee, Dem and GOP, were mostly too clueless to ask the right questions. They were more interested in giving their own uninformed testimony. Rep Lahood was astute though to point out Mann’s hypocrisy in calling for an end to ad hom.
Dr. Cara, Jim Hunt, we were all live tweeting to ourselves on every point. It’s easier when your not at the table.
The bigger question would any of us want the members of this committee making decisions on climate policy? Scientists are right to say other scientists can fool people. That is mainly because they can also fool themselves.
Which scientists on the panel are the one’s who clearly take Feynman’s words to heart on humble scientific communication?
Ron – I don’t think a hearing presided over by Lamar Smith is ever going to be the place for “humble scientific communication”, unless you’re telling him what he wants to hear!
Personally I rather liked Elizabeth Esty’s bit about “Let those of us making political decisions make them in that band of uncertainty”. Perhaps she should take over the gavel from Lamar?
Lamar seemed rather taken aback when Mike Mann mentioned the Heartland “ad hom” in Science!
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/lamar-smith-unbound-lays-out-political-strategy-climate-doubters-conference
Conversely Mike seemed rather taken aback when quizzed over his “affiliations”.
Jim, I agree we need an open debate without ad hom. This blog has done more to forward that cause than anything else I’ve seen. I hope we both can agree on that too.
Sorry Ron, I almost missed this in all the excitement!
Agreed to begin with, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on your final point. IMHO Judith gives far too much rein to “skeptical” nut jobs here.
On a personal note she also allows the likes of Anthony Watts to publicly call me names, whilst refusing to allow me the right of reply:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/03/dmigate-skulduggery-in-a-nutshell/
Jim, you are right in that we agree in principle but not in practice. I hear you saying we should not make ad hom attacks except against the “nut jobs here.” Hmmm.
BTW, if I one uses the slightest unflattering description of a non-skeptic or the “consensus” at places like RC or ATTP the comment is removed. Do it twice and you are banned. I don’t know if you realized your freedom here.
Ron – I didn’t say everybody who comments in here is a “nut job”.
Jim, you miss the point. There is no productive reason to call anyone a name, however crudely self-gratifying or tribe-building it is. Only reasoned debate advances understanding.
Ron – Alternatively perhaps you miss my point? I wasn’t calling anyone a name. I was endeavouring to succinctly answer your question.
One of those tweets from Dr. Cara Augusenborg includes her support for the movement to “ban fracking” – this would be the process that has allowed the United States to shift from dirty coal to natural gas and reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions.
Dr. Cara Augustenborg is a climate change denier.
I still can’t help but think about the Hegelian Dialectic, not the tool of reason, but the political understanding that people will adhere to a thesis or antithesis rather than the gradation between or some synthesis ( or rejection ) of both.
The implied thesis is ( CO2->AGW->climate change->[extremes, harm, &disaster] )
Mann, like many, says, see- warming – disaster, but that’s not demostrated at all.
That’s how political use of Hegel unfolds – if you make an emotional thesis, that emotion prevents reasoned synthesis.
Mann denies calling JC a denier!
Mann is a denier of his own testimony!?!
Wow. Mann completely nailed by Lamar Smith, reading out Mann’s testimony, which contradicts his verbal claim that he didn’t call Judith a denier.
TE – You obviously weren’t following along on Twitter were you?
https://twitter.com/AF_Wetware/status/847119183997517824
Sounds like weasel words of a denier –
Mann is in denial he’s a denier!
That was definitely a highlight when Mann sanctimoniously denied ever “calling anyone on the panel a denier” and Judith points out his opening statement. Mann denies it and then Chairman Smith reads the quote. Then without a blink Mann claims that “climate science” denier is completely a different animal than “climate change” denier. There was an example of quick thinking and in how one gets ahead in climate science.
I don’t think it was “quick thinking” on Mann’s part Ron. See his written testimony:
“Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry (I use the term carefully—reserving it for those who deny the most basic findings of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century – something Judith Curry disputes)”
Hilarious. Mann caught in a lie then executes the Slick Willy maneuver “well that depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is”. You can’t make this stuff up!
David – It doesn’t sound as though you’ve followed my helpful advice? I’ve written it out longhand especially for you:
The House Science Climate Model Show Trial
Can you see what I’m getting at yet?
Jim, you and Mann sound like young children who, when confronted with melted plastic on the stove, complained that I did not tell them to not fry basketballs on the stove, instead telling them not to use Tupperware on the stove. I wouldn’t want to live on the difference.
Jim, I listened to Mann’s intro as did Dr. Curry and the others. I think Dr. Mann is the only one who thought his distinction between types of “deniers” was meaningful of relevant in any way. When Mann says “the most basic findings of the scientific community” he is wrong, flat wrong.
He is trying to say that the only difference between a lukewarmer and one who does not believe in the enhanced greenhouse effect is climate “change” denier vs. climate “science” denier. Nobody ever heard of this. This is not informing the committee or the public on the state of the debate. It is dis-information. Hearing intentional false ad hom propaganda makes skeptics even more skeptical. He is hurting debate.
Jim, do you believe that Mann was saying anyone who is a lukewarmer is a “science denier”? If so, do you agree?
Ron – Have you read Mann’s written testimony yet?
Or my reprint of it?
It rather looked as though Lamar Smith hadn’t yesterday, did it not?
For the benefit of those unable to click a link, here’s a bit more of it:
Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry (I use the term carefully—reserving it for those who deny the most basic findings of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century — something Judith Curry disputes). That blog post and the Daily Mail story have now been thoroughly debunked by the actual scientific community. The Daily Mail claim that data in the Karl et al. Science article had been manipulated was not supported by Bates. When the scientific community pushed back on the untenable “data manipulation” claim, noting that other groups of scientists had independently confirmed Karl et al’s findings, Bates clarified that the real problem was that data had not been properly archived and that the paper was rushed to publication. These claims too quickly fell apart.
For more “thorough debunking” of “the Daily Mail story” please see the very latest “Shock News” concerning this sordid affair, hot off the GWC virtual presses:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/stale-news-mail-on-sunday-corrects-yet-another-david-rose-porky-pie/
Jim, thanks for supplying an excerpt again of Mann’s prepared letter for the congressional record. But before we get into that can you first answer my question? <
Jim, do you believe that Mann was saying anyone who is a lukewarmer is a “science denier”? If so, do you agree?
I use the term carefully—reserving it for those who deny the most basic findings of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century — something Judith Curry disputes
I don’t believe that Mann’s characterization of Dr. Curry’s position is even accurate. There are a lot of assumptions there.
1) Does Mann assign himself to speak for the scientific community?
2) Is the 97% the definition of scientific community?
3) Are all scientists who’s work contributes to climate analysis in one community? (To some it seems Mann has assigned himself to summarize all their work.) If Mann meant the IPCC AR5 he could have said that.
4) Is Mann asserting that Curry denies all the most basic findings of the IPCC? That is what he writes. This is clearly false.
5) Does Dr. Curry agree it’s more than 50% likely that the 20th century warming is >50% AGW? That is a tough call but it certainly is not same as denying there is any 20th century warming or there is any AGW. And it absolutely not a reason to denigrate.
6) Do 97% of climate scientists agree with Michael Mann’s assessments? That is what Mann was implying. It seems like Mann is the one who is denying reality.
Ron – I don’t know how you define “a lukewarmer”, but I disagree with you.
No doubt because he knew he’d be sat behind the same table with her, Mann explicitly singled out Judith quoting her “association” with the Daily Mail group (see above), plus:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/11/scott-pruitts-statement-on-climate-change/
and:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/
You’ll have to ask him who else he includes in his “climate science denier” category. Personally I thing Judith’s “affiliation” with David Rose was a big mistake on her part. See the Mail on Sunday’s latest “correction” to an alleged “correction” of one of his “climate science” fantasy fiction stories mentioned above.
For your viewing pleasure once again, an insight into how many people on this side of the pond view the Daily Fail:
https://youtu.be/5eBT6OSr1TI
Jim Hunt
Dan and Dan-who looks in his thirties but is obviously about 9, wrote a catchy song, but unfortunately completely forgot to mention that none of those Daily Mail headlines they display is actually true. So, fake news or what?
(but you like David Roses campaign against solar farms though?)
tonyb
Tony – Perhaps the “Fake news headlines” are all part of the joke?
I have never said that I “like David Rose’s campaign against solar farms”. However I have said quite vociferously things like:
One Objection to the Gold’s Cross Hill Solar PV Park in Devon
I invite you to join me in exercising your democratic right to vote to refuse this proposed development. In my professional opinion the “fine balance” is tipped against the proposal. The costs to sustainable development in this rural area if permission is granted are apparent, whilst the benefits (if any) are not.
Teignbridge District Council followed my advice! Who’d have thunk it?
Jim
When those bearded juveniles put up authentic looking front page headlines which must have taken some adults a bit of time to put together, it is reasonable to think that their intended audience will believe they are real headlines.
It is a bit like “scare quotes” when what is being attributed to someone wasn’t actually ever said but the casual reader is not to know that. We saw a lot of that with Mann/Steyn
tonyb
Tony – It seems we will have to agree to disagree about the intended audience of the “bearded juvenile(s)” and the intelligence thereof.
Jim Hunt: Ron – I don’t know how you define “a lukewarmer”…
For argument’s sake lets say it is one who believes in the validity of the enhanced greenhouse effect but believes the observational climate sensitivity over that produced by the IPCC models. BTW, Lewis and Curry(2014), having ~60% of the climate sensitivity of the CMIP5 ensemble mean, assumes HadCRUT is correct and also that AGW accounts for all of the warming.
Now you can answer my questions, including who is denying what.
Jim
But that was a nice turn of phrase you used for Teignbridge council.
Have you seen the latest DCC plans aimed at increasing housing quotas here by tens of thousands of properties? We will certainly need a proper sustainable development policy to sort out that lots needs, but I do not believe they know the meaning of the word.
tonyb
Ron – The conversation has moved on to the new thread.
In brief, whilst Alice F. does a pretty good job at it I am not a mind reader. I don’t know what Michael Mann thinks.
I do know that when it was asserted on Twitter that Michael Mann was my hero I vigorously denied it:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/847908571673133057
Tony – Yes, I am aware of that.
Then our previous glorious government drove a coach and horses through the carefully laid plans of mice and men. I was not a happy bunny!
http://www.V2G.co.uk/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-mel-stride-george-osborne-david-cameron-et-al/
Does anyone know if this from Steyn is correct about Mann’s tweets ““Crypto-denier #BjornLomberg… #climatechange denier #JudithCurry… #MattRidley in the London Times, ‘My Life as a Compensated Climate Change Denier’ (I tweaked the title…) #ClimateChnage denier #Roy Spencer… #AnthonyWatts climate change denier extremist…” ??
The reason I ask is that Mann’s oral testimony is that he called her a climate science denier, not a climate change denier. So, if the attribution is correct. He has called here both and his claim of being careful, and reserving is invalidated by his using both climate change and climate science denier to describe Dr. Curry.
In Mann’s written testimony “”as one of its original team members, climate change contrarian Judith Curry.”” and “”Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry (I use the term carefully—reserving it for those who deny the most basic findings of the scientific community, which includes the fact that human activity is substantially or entirely responsible for the large-scale warming we have seen over the past century — something Judith Curry18 disputes19).
Jim Hunt writes: “Can you see what I’m getting at yet?”
Yes, thank you. I see you’re a weasel just like Michael Mann.
Mann lied in his congressional testimony and was caught in the lie in the same hearing. Do you see what I’m getting at yet?
David – Oh no he didn’t! See Hunt v McIntyre op. cit.
Gawd, did the cause know just how damaging Mann would be to their case?
Eddie, scientists worthy of the name and people with an inclination and ability to think rationally will agree with you.
Unfortunately I am confident that the alarmist machine will declare Mann to have scored yet another great victory despite the forces of evil picking on him. I suspect though that the alarmist machine is getting closer and closer to throwing Mann under the proverbial bus.
Time will tell. Science will prevail.
The alarmist machine is marginalized where it belongs. De-funded, de-bunked, and de-stroyed.
David, I hope that what you say is not premature.
I’ll be more confident when I see funding for the UN boondoggle cease and funding cease for alarmism dressed up a science.
I think there are some nervous nellies in the US senate and congress who won’t want to side with the president. A lack of support in the senate and the congress will make the task that much more difficult.
My goodness. The “denier” thing between Curry and Mann. Brave Curry, great Curry.
You look at the ice core charts from the Antrctic and Greenland and say it shows that it took 110,000 years to form the ice and 18,000 years to melt the ice. I look at them and say it took 65,000 years to make the ice of the last ice age and 65,000 years to melt the ice and about 18,000 years ago we began the new ice age. The chart shows ice formed in the first 20,000 years or so and was the top layer when the new ice age began.
Judith is willing to risk the house burning down just so she can be certain the table is set properly. Were this uncontrolled experiment in atmospheric chemistry being done in a lab then being perfect in process would be good but with our only home as the subject it is the enemy of good.
CO2 emissions are already declining while Cost of Carbon indicates a benefit for some time. “Burning down the house” sounds like emotion, not reason.
Uncle Robot,
Your comment is poetic, but it doesn’t express anything scientific.
Andrew
Uncle Robot
Try seriously thinking about the founadational issues raised by Curry. Restoring that is critical to restoring academia to true science.
See Nobel Laureate Richard P. Feynman:
To begin to understand the issues try seriously studying Feynmann: Cargo Cult Science 1974
Someday you will realize Feynman is talking about you… and CargoCult Etc. … this place.
JCH
Then I highly recommend an eloquent thoughtful evaluation by Rick Wallace:
Reflections on Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” About Dr. Michael Mann.
Compare the reflections in the Mirror with those Alice saw in Wonderland.
The earth will be fine. It entered an ice some 4 million years ago, dummy. Atmospheric CO2 is near starvation level for green plants. Twenty thousand years ago NYC was beneath a mile of ice. Stop clutching your pearls. Man up and do something useful.
ice *age*
Some years ago, a woman in a village in Africa convinced her village that evil afflicting them could only be confronted by purity that would come from getting rid of all their cattle. They drove the cattle off a cliff and then starved. Just because someone says we are doomed I am not obliged to jump off a cliff without doing a little checking first. When I check, I find out that the Earth is greening and the models are dubious. Sorry, not going to jump.
Melania Trump Is honoring 13 women for their ‘Exceptional Courage,’ today:
Dr. J., you rock!
w.
Well said Willis!!!
Our hostess does indeed Rock
Terrific testimony both written and oral. Cannot wait to read the others.
Agree about Judith’s testimony. Mann on the other hand was just plain anti-science. More than anything else he illustrated Judith points with absolute clarity.
Written testimony of all four witnesses is here.
Paul Matthews: Written testimony of all four witnesses is here.
Thank you for the link.
Listening to Michael Mann produces a strong urge to punch him in the face,
Let’s bring back dueling at 20 paces. But this time lets use fully auto machine pistols. Technology, ya know.
Scott Pettigrew: Listening to Michael Mann produces a strong urge to punch him in the face,
Wasn’t that said before with reference to Pat Michaels?
Scott, I once felt like punching in the face (I’ve never actually done it) someone I didn’t know who made a comment on my lack of skill in handling a situation he’d been observing. We later became such great friends that I named my son after him. Beware – you and Mann might become buddies!
Judith,
Great job. Holding of your professionalism by you and Dr Christy in the face of denier slur by Mann deserves respect, even when he denied his own written testimony.
They should have picked the Admiral that testified last time, as he was much smoother, believable and likeable as a representative for THE CAUSE.
But wonderful testimony that will soon be twisted by the MSM.
All one can do is hold to the truth and eventually it will prevail in the long run.
But as Keynes said” in the long run we will all be dead”
I am rooting for a little ice age II to demostrate how little we understand of known unknowns and unknown unknowns of the massive and complex climate syste..
Scott
I’m rooting for AGW to stave off the nastier effects of a shift toward a mini ice age and the shortsighted energy policies of the past few decades and prevent world war 3 from happening.
Scientific American didn’t even wait to consider the testimony, they just called it ‘Alt-Science’.
The WaPo didn’t even reference the Climategate emails……but they did include this gem of a quote from the Mann himself:
“These folks [skeptics] start out with their ideology and then work backwards to decide which science they like and which they don’t……..But that’s not how scientific research works. It’s not a buffet where you get to selectively pick and choose what to believe. It’s not about belief. It’s about evidence.”
Priceless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/29/these-climate-doubters-want-to-create-a-red-team-to-challenge-climate-science/#comments
Yes, especially RP who recites chapter and verse from the IPCC.
Lindzen was right – people don’t read the IPCC reports. They don’t even read the summaries.
Curry was an Obama donor. McIntyre is a socialist who favors a carbon tax. Pielke Jr. isn’t a conservative either, AFAIK.
I think I’ve seen Steve called a Clintonian liberal but never a socialist. (The Clintons may of course beg to differ since his devastating post The Destruction of Huma Abedin’s Emails on the Clinton Server and their Surprise Recovery just before the election in November.)
Mileage on such labels of course frequently varies.
He’s a Canadian, so why would he be a Clintonian liberal?
I didn’t ask that tricky question of the person who once wrote that phrase. At least I think someone did. This I have found from Macleans in November 2009:
Worth looking at the context – and it’s a fine article generally. I wouldn’t say the man identified as a socialist there, though not as a libertarian or the Canadian equivalent of a Republican either. I think perhaps you need to provide a source for your claim that he’s a socialist.
I agree with the wider point harkin1, Turbulent Eddie and you are making. But I thought in your speed you slightly defamed one of the greats of the sceptic/lukewarmer scene.
James Delingpole wrote, “McIntyre is neither a man of the Right (he’s a socialist), nor a denier . . . .”
https://books.google.com/books?id=0JXmAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=steve+mcintyre+socialist?&source=bl&ots=x_o4fKFJ2E&sig=9-ceg8vDQIMYNfFjDUJfF-otTqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN5YeFvv7SAhUQ22MKHfI6BnoQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=steve%20mcintyre%20socialist%3F&f=false
OK, Delingpole calls him a socialist. Never read that book, nor that sentence. Be interested to know how it reads to the man himself!
Regarding WaPo’s critique of Judy’s red team suggestion: It would be harder to criticize a suggestion to establish a science court (or several) where both sides could assemble their best arguments and put them on the record for all to see, where they could cross-exam each other, and where respected and agreed-to judges could evaluate the presentations.
An issue tree diagram would do that nicely. Each side would specify its arguments and responses to the other side’s arguments and responses. The tree structure makes verbal argument of complex issues pretty useless.
@ David Wojick: I agree that arguments should not be oral (although occasional oral cross-examinations over the phone or Skype might save some time; they would then be transcribed, of course), but rather should follow the online-text style of the Climate Dialog site. As for an issue-tree diagram style, that sounds like a a good way to keep the debates on track and avoid diversions. Alternatively, or in addition, the court’s judges could moderate comments and chastise or block off-topic and irrelevant material.
Here are excerpts from my lengthy “science court” proposal, posted March 21 on Judith’s “Discussion thread – improving the interface between climate science and policy,” in which I favored online, long-term debating and the breakdown of complex AGW issues into subtopics:
“Regarding WaPo’s critique of Judy’s red team suggestion: It would be harder to criticize a suggestion to establish a science court (or several) where both sides could assemble their best arguments and put them on the record for all to see, where they could cross-exam each other, and where respected and agreed-to judges could evaluate the presentations.”
1. You assume there are two sides.
2. Science already has a way of handling wrong ideas.. Judith explained that we should just ignore fringe ideas ( I take science court to be such an idea )
3. In every issue I’ve been involved with, skeptics first agree to live with the results of independent judges, and then they complain when rulings go against them..
4. Science is not judged by people. Nature bats last.
5. There is no canonical procedure for closing an issue.
The only cool thing about it would be creating a mechanism for DISBARRING folks who brought false information to the debate and sanctioning them like lawyers can be sanctioned.
Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife. Cherry picker extraordinaire Michael Mann lectures others against cherry-picking:
https://www.google.com/search?q=mann%20cherry%20pick%20yamal&*&rct=j
My internet connection was sort of crapping in and out, but it was still worth the popcorn. I heard Mann claim that he coined the term “Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation”. I’m wondering if there is any truth to that, or if it is like his claim to a Nobel prize?
Canman
Great question.
AMO was around a long time.
Scott
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) was identified by Schlesinger and Ramankutty in 1994.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/pdf/367723a0.pdf
Scott
Thanks so much.
Scott
Scott4sf
(never had to put your full name before!)
Gordon Manley noticed these oscillations when compiling CET to 1660 around 1973 and remarked on them. Hubert Lamb referred to them a number of times in his various books from the mid 1970’s onwards..Plaut et al referenced them in 1995 in his work
Phil Jones says his 1997 paper on this topic was one of the most cited of any of his works.
Bearing in mind the relationship between Jones and Mann I wonder if Mann’s imagining he coined the term AMO came from his association with Jones at the time the former was concocting the Hockey Stick? (or perhaps he merely read Nature in 1994?)
tonyb
Climate Reason,
Likewise. I usually call you tonyb. But always appreciate your insight.
Could you view the hearing from Great Brition, ex of EU.
Hold you keep the scots of the north in Briton, by the way.
New oil discoveries in the NE offshore of Scotland.
I am looking through Climate, Past Present and Future. Can’t find an AMO discussion. When did you think the term became coin of the realm?
Scott
Scott
I have been out celebrating independence day at a French restaurant and drinking Italian wine to demonstrate my liking for Europe but my distaste for the EU.
Consequently I have not been following this at all.
I suspect that although the amo was well known by lamb, Jones and Manley from the 1970’s the term itself may well have been coined in 1994.
I do wonder about the Jones and Mann connection as they collaborated and Mann would likely have relied on Jones expertise when compiling the hockey stick. It seems most unlikely he coined the phrase.
Tonyb
tonyb,
I too celebrated at a French restaurant, Le Petit Laurent, with a New York Steak and a bottle of Angeline Pinot Noir from Sonoma. Not Brexit.
Thanks for your courtesey and information over the years. Still anxious for the next Sea Level Rise II or expansion of CET to 1530. You have done and do great work.
Scott
I think readers may have missed a crucial piece of evidence here.
Ra-man-kutty aka Ra-Mann-Kutty. That Nobel Prize committee is never wrong, people.
On Mar 8, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Richard Kerr wrote:
Steve,
A clarification is required concerning the coining of the term “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” or AMO. It turns out that my recollection, as I recounted it to you, differs from Michael Mann’s recollection (which I had not been aware of). I have always assumed that I suggested the obvious term to him and had him okay it, he recalls my asking for a term and his suggesting it.
That was a long time ago. My handwritten notes from the phone interview were discarded after some years in the course of routine cleaning and condensing of my files. My recollection could well be faulty, encouraged by all those ego-stroking citations of my news story in the refereed literature. There is no way to say whose recollection is fuzzier, and it matters not.
Dick
Richard A. Kerr
Senior Writer, Science
phone 202 xxx-xxxx
fax 202 xxx-xxxx
rkerr@xxxxx.xxx
1200 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Mann says it at 2:23:50.
https://youtu.be/WM86Bl4jSEI?t=8580
It’s actually at 2:24:40 on the video above. It was at 2:23:50 on the congressional page.
Fercrisakes that’s where my whole morning went! I hadn’t realized this goat rodeo lasted for 2.5 hours.
I like how everyone is grievously concerned with the “climate system.” Physically, there is only the weather system.
Andrew
Yes, intuitively only weather exists, as that is the timescale the human mind can actually entertain physically, about 1 year maybe? (winter, spring, summer fall). There are timescales in the “climate system” that last thousands of year however, even 10’s of thousands if you include orbital forcings etc. Ice ages would be a prime example of processes occurring on climate timescales. By Climate System, I take most people to mean all physical processes related to atmosphere, ocean and land on all timescales. Short timescales = weather, long timescales = climate (ice ages etc.)
Thank you for the thoughtful response, clando1337.
I understand that climate is a way of looking at the weather system for longer timescales. I’m cool with that. But there still is only one system that can be affected, and that’s the weather system that’s happening right now. There is no separate/additional physical system called the climate system.
Andrew
In other words, any change is a change in the weather system. If it happens for an arbitrary period of time, you can call it climate.
Climate change doesn’t cause anything. It’s never anything but the result.
Andrew
even weather is a construct
From Mann’s written testimony:
Ok, messed up the blockquote, sorrr
Well, I have just finished reading recycle-Mann’s “written testimony”. Apart from continuing to lean on his “iconic” stick*, he’s still stuck on his mythical “At least 10 investigations” – although these 10 now evidently encompass “reviews”, if his footnoted reference to an ICUC document is to be believed.
*I found 17 iterations in his “testimony”
In short, Mann’s continued exercises in self-promotion are hardly worth the time of day. Whereas Dr. Curry’s summary and full testimony not only put Mann to well-deserved shame, but shine a bright, guiding light on what has happened – and what corrective actions must be taken if “climate science” is ever to be taken seriously.
Well that was entertaining, was it not? My pile of pasties barely made it pasthalfway. At least I have my fingernails left!
I think Lamar overstated the “enlightening” and understated the “contentious” though?
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/847123725963198464
I thought it was enlightening.
Pielke reminded everyone that the IPCC sez there are no disasters.
Mann’s mantra continued to be : See! It’s warming!
The gulf between the two staked points is easy to bridge:
Yes, it’s warming, but No, there are no disasters.
Politicians have discovered the utility of scary theses – people won’t resist them because they’re scary, and those that don’t agree must be a complicit enegy, so politicians can do what they want ( USS Maine, Fire in the Reichstag, Climate Change, etc ).
Meanwhile, though we seem to be past peak CO2 emissions, decelerating emissions still mean warming, albeit at a slower pace. But of warming, Manabe and Wetherald wrote in 1979:
“The reduction of meridional temperature gradient appears to reduce not only the eddy kinetic energy, but also the variance of temperature in the lower model troposphere.”
Got that? Global warming reduces both extreme weather and extreme temperatures.
TE,
I’m elightened.
So warming reduces the turbulent eddy, Turbulent Eddy.
Scott
Ja – self limiting eddies.
Things have not been well measured for a long time, and storms are episodic, and there is uncertainty.
But there is at least some evidence to indicate that the above hypothesis has occurred.
Strong tornadoes in the US have decreased. Tornadoes derived their strength from the gradient induced jet stream winds.
And temperature means indicate an increase, but all time high temperature records remain quite old in the US.
Tapio Schneider has a nice paper addressing this
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00632.1
from abstract: “…the reduction of meridional potential temperature gradients that accompanies polar amplification of global warming leads to a reduction of the synoptic temperature variance near the surface…”
and
‘…Taken together, the results indicate that Arctic amplification of global warming leads to even less frequent cold outbreaks in Northern Hemisphere winter than a shift toward a warmer mean climate implies by itself.’
This is interesting considering there has been a large volume of literature building up recently suggesting that Arctic sea-ice loss causes extreme cold spells in mid-latitudes. Contradictory results, but hey it’s all settled science don’t ya know.
The troposphere has not warmed quite (sic!) as fast as most climate models predict:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/RSS_Model_TS_compare_globe.png
from: http://www.remss.com/research/climate
Thank you, Dr. Curry, for your willingness and courage to enter the political arena and testify to the nature of science. I particularly applaud your professionalism. Some of the hearing was difficult to watch. I don’t understand the closed-mindedness demonstrated by many of the elected officials questioning you and the other panelists. Their political affiliations obviously dictate their opinions and nothing seems to persuade them otherwise.
“This narrow framing of the climate change problem essentially pre-ordained the conclusions from the IPCC assessment process.”
What else can we expect?
Panels rarely come to the conclusion that the panel was a waste of time.
Government is a profession of lawyers,
Lawyers only ask pre-ordained questions.
However, Judith Curry, I admire and appreciate your willingness to maintain faith and hope in the government/science interface.
It is a faith I have lost.
Mostly from reading your blog.
Kidding, it’s not your fault. :)
“…maintain faith and hope in the government/science interface.”
The government/science interface asserts that there is no such thing as gender and NASA doesn’t need rockets anymore. It diverted health agencies to study guns instead of Zika, and claims it’s perfectly reasonable to subsidize efforts to power Vermont in the winter with solar panels.
It’s not that America disdains elites, it’s that we don’t have anyone worthy of the label in offices usually reserved for elite people.
That interface’s latest blooper is its attempt to discourage and demonize vaping. More high-handed best-butterism. (Or should I say principled precautionism.)
I actually don’t want them to get along.
Science and politics should remain mortal adversaries.
The scientific process and the political process are incompatible.
Progressives think it’s cute when lions and lambs become friends.
I don’t.
I commend you Dr. Curry, John, and Roger on your level headed presentations and responses today. You all should get hazard pay for your participation. Thank you all for taking time and doing what you do for the betterment of all rational individuals.
When will the deceptive posturing of the 97% concensus come to an end! The exposure of this ongoing use of a fake concensus polling needs to be brought to a head and ended in public view….. All one has to do is look at any of the few studies on such and the evidence is clear on the adulterated process and interpretation being employed.
I did find much of the hearing difficult to stomach. Part of my comment from Dr. Spencers blog below.
“How can the same debunked talking points continue to be circulated in front of this committee. The amount of politically charged and scientifically false comments from the members and witnesses like Mann are demonstratively false and harmful to the point of personal liability.
Mann’s charges against Smith, and all the other witnesses present, should be met with legal retribution! His audacity was overwhelming.”
Regards and many thanks again.
Judith ==> Very nicely done indeed. One can only hope that your advice is taken seriously and put into effect.
There is some danger that due to the irresponsible behavior of so many activist-scientists and activist-professional-societies that “the baby will be thrown out with the dirty bathwater” — that important and necessary climate funding will be cut along with the wasteful, not-useful “climate science taxonomy” funds.
“There is some danger that due to the irresponsible behavior of so many activist-scientists and activist-professional-societies that “the baby will be thrown out with the dirty bathwater” — that important and necessary climate funding will be cut along with the wasteful, not-useful “climate science taxonomy” funds.”
Note the passive voice.
Folks on the right now run science.
Every bit of data, trump owns
Every run of every model, trump owns.
every last byte.
every last bit.
The skeptics now run science. ‘the baby will not be thrown out’ republicans have a free choice how they will run science. They can politicize it and THEY can throw out the baby with the bath water or not.
Dont hide the ultimate authority behind the passive voice.
There is no more blaming “the government”, “the greens” or ‘the liberals” for the state of science or for the results. You own it now.
Elections have consequences. At the end of 2017 we will see if Trumps first year sets another temperature record. Every last bit is his. he owns it all as does the republican congress. Lamar Smith will own the NOAA record. completely and totally.
Good heaven’s — now the Mosh now complains about “voice” used in my comments. “Grammatical construction” is now the cause of his discontent — used to be unicorns.
Can anyone interpret what he means by this foot-stomping rant?
Kip – Since I ran with the bathwater analogy I guess I do?
At the risk of repeating Mr. Mosher:
“At the end of 2017 we will see if Trump’s first year sets another temperature record. Every last bit is his. he owns it all as does the republican congress. Lamar Smith will own the NOAA record. completely and totally.”
Kip, It is almost as bad as Mann. Mosher seems to have convinced himself “skeptics” are the problem. When challenged he won’t argue the science (with the exception of the temperature datasets) but goes political or personal.
Sorry Mosh but Trump doesn’t control any of the university scientists or the professional societies or European scientists or the media or Nature or Scientific American or National Geographic. Trump has a toehold on influencing the federal agencies where staff will do their utmost to passively resist. It is a small impact so far, not “owning” anything.
“The hope, and the potential, of climate models for providing actionable information for policy makers have not been realized.”
And never will be, but that will never stop the would-be climate controllers. Just like a century of futile attempts to control and direct economies will never dampen the ardor of economic controllers.
Policy makers will not stop embracing power until it is taken away from them. Which is where reason will lead, if it is not suppressed by those who would forge compromises and coalitions between power and science.
Make climate research GREAT again? i want to puke! You give the same responses on global warming as Trump did with health care: “Nobody realized how complicated it all is”. 97% of scientist have arrived at the conclusion that humans have effected climate.
Can’t take a joke? All you can come up with is the bogus 97%.
Including Dr. Curry.
Oops–Dr. Curry hasn’t agreed that humans have “effected” climate. Nor has anyone else.
That 97% number is way too small wrt that question.
Very commendable presentation by Judith Curry, whom I admire for her faith that sound science can drive policies, when politicians don’t actually care much about science.
Roger Pielke Jr. updated his information on conspicuous lack of extreme effects from climate change. I downloaded his new figures.
John Christy unearthed an interesting supplemental figure from IPCC AR5 figure that actually supports that observations are still within expectations from climate models without the enhanced effect of greenhouse gases.
Michael Mann sounded like a long lament that I didn’t bother to read entirely. Playing victim when he has been and is an attacker does not bring any compassion. But Roger Pielke Jr. is right when he says that all four had suffered prosecution and calls for a de-politicization of climate science. Alas it won’t happen.
Galileo’s experience is that being right doesn’t protect you the least. I just hope this issue is more or less solved in my time, but decades just keep passing.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Mann also stepped in it when he denied knowing anything about being involved with CAI, the Climate Accountability Institute. Here’s a link about this:
http://climateaccountability.org/about.html
and here’s a link the the CAI site:
http://climateaccountability.org/about.html
This is one of the biggest groups behind suing the fossil fuel companies, the RICO 20, etc. From their web site:
THE CAI ACTION PLAN
As a first step towards promoting the concept of Climate Accountability, CAI, in conjunction with other interested organizations, is completing a quantification of historic production of fossil fuels and cement. Historic carbon emissions now drive climate change, and therefore should be a primary focus for any attempt to address accountability.
Second, CAI aims to build on the research of major fossil fuel producers’ efforts to obfuscate the science of climate change in order to forestall climate legislation. Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway documented many of these efforts in their award-winning 2010 book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Link to http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/ here.
tw
Mann was so adept at dancing around that whole line of questioning that it appeared as if he had auditioned to perform with the Nicholas Brothers.
Tap dancers have been insulted! I can still shuffle ball change and what Mann was doing doesn’t even compare to what real tap dancers can do, even the young ones.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxt8dSPWsKE
My own hasty (and admittedly biased!) precis of today’s proceedings:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/the-house-science-climate-model-show-trial/
Did anybody else’s YouTube feed cut out just as Dana Rohrabacher angrily defended Judith’s honour?
Yes, I thought it was curious how Rohrabacher’s comments were missing at about the 1:40:15 mark (you can still see it at http://democrats.science.house.gov/hearing/climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and-scientific-method). Part of what Curry was saying is also cut out and the next thing you know we’re looking at … the hockey stick graph! Right out of Crichton’s “State of Fear” I’d say. Or was it just a happy coincidence?!?!
There is a repaired version posted on YouTube now. Rohrabacher’s comments start at 1:38:30. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN0qWRI7Rpc
Thanks for the heads up.
That fixes the problem I had both watching live and in the initial recording on YouTube.
“A scientific argument can evolve prematurely into a ruling theory if cultural forces are sufficiently strong and aligned in the same direction” writes Judith, and this suggestion is close to the idea of myth, in the sense of Popper, who suggested that some political theories resembled primitive myths that “explained everything that happened within the fields to which they referred…whatever happened always confirmed it…thus its truth appeared manifest and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth, either because it was against their class interest or their repressions”.
The same concept has been advanced for critical concepts in the geosciences, and perhaps the standard model of anthropogenic climate change is yet another such geomyth. The history of these goes back to the ‘neptunism-plutonism’ debates of the 18th century concerning the origin of the continental rocks: were they formed in sea-water or in fire?
“Distinguishing between myth and science is subtle, for both seek to understand the things around us. The characteristic style of mythic thinking is to place special emphasis on a selective conjecture, which is thereafter given privileged status over alternative suggestions. Concepts in geoscience are quite often mythic in that sense” wrote Dickinson, W.R., 2003. The place and power of myth in geoscience. Am. J. Sci. 303(9), 856–864.
So I’ve gone on about the Hegelian Dialectic – as I understand it, assessing a thesis by casting it against an antithesis. It is not so much Hegel’s method as the subsequent understanding that most people ( perhaps in our natures? ) won’t actually synthesize the two points ( melding, or gradation, or additional nuance ), but will instead gravitate toward either the thesis or antithesis.
This seems quite relevant to climate change.
First because climate change is really an amalgam, not a thesis. The amalgam is: increased CO2 leads to global warming which leads to climate change which leads to various changes which lead to a statistical increase in harms and that those harms exceed any benefits. Most agree with the first step: ( increased CO2 probably leads to global warming ). But at least some amount of warming is not a problem at all and might well be a benefit. So there’s certainly gradation to consider. Further aspects are quite speculative, but since people consider just the preamble to the amalgam, the assume the rest is correct.
Secondly, politicians like scare theses because they arouse an emotional response. In evolution, fear is an appropriate response to clear and present danger. Climate change is neither, and emotional response in such a situation is anxiety and not fear.
TE:
You might be overthinking this although I appreciate how difficult it is to use 18th century philosophy to apply to a world where our technology is altering reality beyond anything Hegel could imagine. In Hegel’s era the internet would be considered telepathy, genetic engineering would contradict the existence of god, and nuclear weapons would blow their minds. But let’s not dismiss the wisdom of the ancients as I suspect Manifest Destiny is still a widely held belief.
It’s possible that climate change will only become important to humans if our technology fails to mitigate it. If only it were so simple that we could pin the blame on a single molecule like CO2 while our technology is teraforming the planet without a blueprint. It’s all very exciting to me.
As I wrote, my interest is not so much in Hegel’s method for rationality, but in the evolutionary tendency of humans toward irrationality, which politicians take advantage of. Climate change, to me, is a clear example.
OK I understand that line of thinking. Keep up the good work.
A great example that Popper gives is Freudian analysis. No matter what the patient says or did, it could be explained. No refutation was possible. Cognitive behavioral science has done a great job of putting a sharp pin in that balloon.
Judith – Thank you for this testimony and also for calling my attention to Dr. Mann’s testimony. I was looking for an example for a post on my Pragmatic Environmentalist Principle 5: The more vociferous or louder the claims made by an environmental issues stakeholder the more likely that the stakeholder is guilty of the same thing. Dr. Mann gave me there examples to use: http://wp.me/p8hgeb-1v.
Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
Enlightening.
Drat, my computah says ‘No.’ Will have to read the other
speakers written testimony elsewhere.
Thank you Dr Curry for your defence of open, evidence
based science.
Dr Curry
May I echo other responses in thanking you for your dignified and so honestly given evidence to the committee today. It restores ones faith in the belief that we still live in a period of enlightenment.
As a normal sort of liberal Englishman I find myself in the surprising and invidious position of welcoming your new President and his policies to bring the beginnings of sanity to this ever present and dominating issue of climate change. I can’t believe I’m posting on a blog in support of Trump.
I’m not a scientist but did several sociology classes in my higher education and I think here is an opportunity for the much demeaned social scientists to take a lead role here. Anyone with the minimum of critical analytical ability will easily see through the IPCC consensus obsessed faulty position. Haven’t we reached a position where they the sociologists can play a part? But then again sorry but sociologists live a victimhood capitalist conspiracy like the next guy. What a let down.
The real deal changer is as Dr Curry has so elequently explained ( and despite Dr Currys desire for bridge building [sarcy let’s make science great again] [tut tut irony? From a yank?]
The ipcc has effectively put its head up its arse [butt] with its Paris accords– we can’t cut ASW’s sufficiently- India C China have never honestly contributed.
So we are all DOOMED. unless we look at the research again.
Here in the U.K. We have the great Stephen Hawkin and our science guy equivalent Brian Cox a physicist who are nailed on climate alarmists. I’m going to take it on as my duty to petition then to look at the science.
Should I bother? Thanks to President Trump the whole hoax edifice must soon collapse.
There is a branch of sociology called Science and Technology Studies (STS) (IIRC) that is critical of science’s claims to be objective, judicious, and self-critical.
Dr. Mann may be many things – even a genius, perhaps – but a scientist he is not. Good scientists are carefully measured and make a vice of prudence. I wonder if he checked with the 97% of climate scientists whether they were fully signed-up to all of things he claimed of them. He must be extraordinarily confident that the power of consensus will overwhelm their discomfort in being mischaracterized for the sake of Dr. Mann’s ‘greater good’.
I think that Mann firmly and consistently views correlation as causation. If I had found that bristlecone pine ring width correlated with global temperatures but not with local temperatures, I think I would have noticed that this violated causation and would have just laughed. He built a reputation (such as it is) on it.
Your ability to quote Monty Python does little to decry or excuse your ignorance Paul.
Pingback: Science On The Hill | Transterrestrial Musings
Am listening to the YouTube. I agree that the hearing should have centered on the scientific method which speaks to tax dollars being spent on what we hope is not crap science. So what SHOULD be the minimum standards for climate warming causation standard Science methodologies worth my tax dollars? And by the way, we SHOULD be warm! We are in an interstadial period, and no less, likely dancing around its peak. Why no one so far has mentioned this period astounds me.
PG,
We don’t know if we are at an interstadial period peak or not. We could be at the end, starting to plunge inito the next ice age.
Unknown unknowns. Milankovitch cycles, we accept as causes, may not be causes of ice ages. So many new theories. Ruddiman said the end of the interglacial may be near. Dansgaard Oeschger oscillations seem to be 1500 year cycles. So much is still to be understood.
The certainty of Dr Mann is consistent with his conflicts within his written testimony and oral discussion calling Dr Curry a science denier but not a climate change denier.
At this point we can’t even model history without fudge factors, much less 100 years in the future.
So we can just fund science observations until the TEAM win again.
Scott
The insidious negative references that Mann made towards fellow panel members sickened me. That his fellow climate researchers on the panel refraine (so far) from such degrading remarks should speak volumes about integrity and colors Mann as persona non grata amongst his colleagues. If it does not shame on climate scientists.
I also thought that Dr. Mann was appalling. I actually wanted to hear his take on the science. But virtually nothing on that.
To return to a point again – there is no theoretically justifiable basis for IPCC model opportunistic ensembles – where single solutions of different models are graphed against each other. There are no single solutions any climate model that are objectively better than any of the 1000’s of other plausible solutions.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751
This is not climate science – but subject to mathematical proof. Run the climate model 1000’s of times from slightly different – consistent with measurement error – starting points.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/ngeo1430-f1.jpg
Rowland et al 2012
Rowland et al constrain solutions to be close to observations – there are even wilder solutions that are not shown. The next step is to chose one of these lines arbitrarily and email it to the IPCC to justify funding – or rather to minimise run time by changing input parameters until a line that looks about right falls out.
So it is nonsense to compare observations to model opportunistic ensembles because the lines are individually and collectively nonsense and they are too warm because they are arbitrarily chosen to be so. This emperor’s new clothes conclusion falls out of the Lorenz convection model and is widely appreciated in climate modelling circles as shown in the Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer quote above.
In terms of probabilistic forecasting – the IPCC ensemble is probably not. So how can we continue to ignore the mathematical reality and insist that 2 degrees warming in a couple of decades is a credible prediction based on sound science? I have a fond hope that people will eventually understand chaos as it applied to models at least.
The rate of warming is 0.087 K/decade – and if half the 20th century warming was natural that half will be lost this century. But there are risks both with climate and ecologies that with uncertainty resist quantification or even complete elucidation – but are nonetheless potential problems and the responses are ultimately technological as agricultural, forestry and energy innovation.
As a bottom line – I am heartily bored with Michael Mann and fellow travelers on the electric kool-aid climate change bus insisting on how real it all is, how it is happening now and how civilisation will fall because of it. If I had some advice for them it would be to come up with a catchier line. Make global warming great again perhaps?
Just viewed the video; Mann was true to form. It surprised me because I thought he would be more mellow/thoughtful!
Richard
Well I was wrong, Mann showed up. He showed himself to be a fool. A dangerous fool, but a fool nonetheless.
There was a pseudo debate. Mann lost and Curry/Christy won.
A major take away for me is the need to reform the “learned” societies. Mann’s repeated use of the support of these bodies was his most effective ploy.
This @ WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/the_mann_o_war_panel_scr.jpg
+1000
Judith See the forecasts in the 2 papers discussed here. http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/23/russian-scientists-dismiss-co2-forcing-predict-decades-of-cooling-connect-cosmic-ray-flux-to-climate/#sthash.OI8LqaAV.k21OB7Vx.dpbs
Here is the Abstract of the 2nd paper Page-2017 repeated for convenience
“This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future, unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60 ± year and, more importantly, 1000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver are discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak – inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
Here is the key figure.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cooling-Forecast-Solar-Page-17.jpg
For an accessible earlier blog version of my paper see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
There have been expressions of concern up thread: “throwing out the baby with the bath water” as a potential outcome of entirely defunding climate science by the Federal Government. And yet, there is an even older saying: “cutting the Gordian Knot.”
An acknowledged “wicked” problem that is climate science, requires a really fresh look. Essentially, not trying to undue the tangled political, social and philosophical issues intertwined with the science and its acquisition as climate science is now embroiled. Starting afresh means that new actors come on stage, an opportunity for some. However, JC points out, with the current climate change science research process, a generation of climate “dynamicists” have left the field to pursue other science endeavors. The way forward, I believe, is to begin funding climate science at low levels and gradually increase funding over several years whereby the big expensive programs (like computer simulations) no longer can command all the research funds, leaving nothing for other programs interests. Cutting the funding knot seems appropriate at this time. Other administrations, if so disposed can try to restore funding for big expensive computer models if they so choose.
Judith Curry does provide a roadmap to begin afresh: Red Team/Blue Team approach which does have adherents I’ll admit.
I prefer, multiple narratives as discussed by Chamberlain and referenced by JC in her written testimony. Red Team/Blue Teams tend to require a “winner” although the process itself does find false assumptions. There appear to me to be still multiple narratives that provide some cohesion in and of themselves, not providing a complete answer to any one in particular.
The outcome of this Hearing and the focus of this Administration regarding climate change appear, refreshing.
In case some have difficulty in obtaining Chamberlain’s article:
http://www.auburn.edu/~tds0009/Articles/Chamberlain%201965.pdf
cut and paste into your browser.
That was the question of the day. If you deny that the human impact is very likely to be the main cause of warming, does that make you a “denier”? Mann has that definition because, beyond saying we don’t know, it actually asserts an opposite position to the consensus. No shades of grey there.
this comment should have been below to dpy…
Quotes we’d like to see:
“Ask not for whom the tree rings. It rings for me.” (MM)
It seemed to me that Mann was on the verge of going full Captain Queeg. Especially wen Rep LaHood brought up the Steyn lawsuit.
Ahh, but the hockey stick, that’s… that’s where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with… geometric logic… that a duplicate key to the CRU data DID exist, and I’d have produced that key if they hadn’t hacked the e-mails out of Anglia. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow scientists…
+1
perfect….but this actually would not look out of place with his actual testimony
I watched the entire thing (well except the last 10 minutes) and it struck that Mann didn’t really respond to anything Christy or Pielke said on the science aside from the “its the stratosphere” gambit which Christy blew away. He did attack them a lot though pulling stray comments out of context for Pielke for example and trying his best to keep the personal toxic climate he claims to hate alive. On attribution all he could say was that the IPCC disagreed with Curry and that disagreeing was an example of “denial of science.” Is Mann actually a thinking adult? This kind of performance makes me question that. The filibustering was also a little off putting.
The debate about the stratosphere is real and Christy said nothing which “Blows away” the competing views
Skeptics seem to think that the science of comparing models and satellite data is Settled and beyond doubt..
BZZZNT
wrong
No, Mann knew what he was saying and he knew that Christy had compared balloon/satellite data with model output for different levels of the atmosphere from the surface to the tropopause. It’s crystal clear that observations don’t match model predictions. See here: http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Christy-fig-2.jpg (hPa is left scale)
This shows what an utter weasel Mann is.
Bugger. I’ve tripped the moderation tripwire again by using the name of he who must nor be named. Here is what I typed with the name cleverly disguised.
Better order in some more straw for you oh Mosssssshhhhhher the Great and Powerful. The rate you construct and demolish straw men will create a shortage or the raw material.
Name anybody who has stated the position you ascribe to your amorphous “skeptics”. Jim D managed to name three “skeptics”. See if you can do better.
What ever happened to you?
Numbers don’t lie – but all you do is narrative. Stop wasting everyone’s time.
Christy said that the model data he used used exactly the same stratospheric component as the satellite data and the radiosonde data. Did you actually listen to that part Steven? It was a really good answer to another Mannian misstatement.
Does anyone know if there is any truth in Mann’s statement that Karl archived all his data correctly and his work will be easy to reproduce. I have not seen any confirmation of that and it would not be in line with Bates’ statements.
The key part in killing the hiatus was the ocean ERSSTv4 data and that was well documented even according to Bates. The dispute with Karl was about land, but I think the BEST team had an independent way of doing that part.
“There never was a hiatus.”
That makes the hundreds of papers on the hiatus deliciously ironic.
There was thought to be for a while. You go with what the latest data say, not what you wish it said. Some still say there was a slowdown, but that depends when you measure from.
That is what you should do, but there was pause denial before the hiatus research. Some of the more creative Hiatus papers, look like some let the data lead them down rabbit holes. I wonder how many will be a bit less ground breaking now?
They still explain the slowdown. The hiatus is a psychologically important thing for “skeptics”, but in physical terms means very little different compared to a slower rise of temperature in that period on the background of a fast rise.
more like politically important, over selling the potential of catastrophe in order to motivate political action and build a coalition is a political thing. Discussing why observed response is trending towards the lower end of estimates would be apolitical.
The observed response nets one degree for a half of a doubling. Very much in the center of what was expected for a transient rate.
The observed response is ~ 1 degree with CO2 forcing producing a little less than half of the estimated forcing. BC has been underplayed since day one. Asia’s smog which is so thick it is actually impacting air quality in the western US is a huge factor that CO2 purists ignored in order to press their agenda. Just the other day someone posted the tear jerk video by The Arnold about the 7 million lives lost (actually, potential premature deaths) of which the majority are due to dung, biomass and coal briquets used in Asia because the masses cannot afford cleaner energy. The actual number is closer to 3 million, but only the highest of the high estimates is used by the political climate change minions. More minions are opposing natural gas pipelines because of the political brain washing. You guys have created a major mess and are clueless how to clean it up.
“Extension of this analysis to the entire 20th century as shown in Figure 1 (bottom) reveals three climate shifts marked by breaks in the temperature trend with respect to time, superimposed upon an overall warming presumably due to increasing greenhouse gasses. Global mean temperature decreased prior to World War I, increased during the 1920s and 1930s, decreased from the 1940s to 1976/77, and as noted above increased from that point to the end of the century. Insofar as the global mean temperature is controlled by the net top-of-the-atmosphere radiative budget [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007], such breaks in temperature trends imply discontinuities in that budget. Such discontinuities are difficult to reconcile with the presumed smooth evolution of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol radiative forcing with respect to time [Hansen et al., 2005]. This suggests that an internal reorganization of the climate system may underlie such shifts [Zhang et al., 2007].” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022/full
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/has-the-cimate-recently-shifted.png
It seems fairly certain there is a mechanism there involving the frequency and intensity of ENSO events – and associated cloud dynamics.
Once you remove the effect of GHGs proportional to log CO2, what is left is of order 0.1 C perturbations. These might be due to the sun, volcanoes, ocean cycles, aerosol pollution, but in the long term +/- 0.1 C doesn’t amount to much, and is just a distraction ploy.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/Anthro.simple.jpeg/Simplified.Anthro.forcing.jpg
Utter nonsense – and not really the point. The is a theory and diverse evidence – and the satellite data.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/wong-et-al-2006.png
And the point if you recall was the trajectory since the end of last century – and not a poor assumption attributing all 20th century warming to greenhouse gases. There is a reason for a change in temperature trajectories at the points shown. But it doesn’t register does it?
Your argument is still only about small perturbations around a constant rise. You miss the forest for the trees.
The correct characterisation is an indeterminate shift in climate means and variance at 20-30 year intervals that add up to substantial centennial to millennial variability.
Like this?
http://southwind.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/286Marcott-Temp1.jpg
What will the average temperature of the 21st century and beyond look like on this scale? It will look like a step function, not natural at all.
You sure about that?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG
And I have compared sources – and not just downloaded a infographic from Sou’s or somewhere similar.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content.jpg
More salt is La Nina – and there was a 1000 year high in El Nino frequency and intensity last century. The satellite evidence suggests that most warming late last century was in the SW with ENSO cloud feedbacks (IPCC, AR4, 2007, s3.4.4.1) – which suggests that most early century warming was as well. It wasn’t carbon dioxide in the early warming.
I am suggesting that the Pacific state is solar modulated through the polar annular modes. With a dimming Sun – will we see yet cooler conditions after the next Pacific climate shift shift due in a 2018-2028 window?
A lot of the early 20th century warming would have been solar as you should well know. The upward jump in my graph corresponds to a similar unprecedented jump in CO2 levels that the so-called skeptics refuse to connect for some reason.
Yippee… wiggles on an upward trend are far far more alarming than wiggles on a flat trend!
Hey Robert,
Who’s graph is that?
The corrected global temperature reconstruction 95% one?
I think the author posts and lurks here infrequently.
Early 20th century warming was not directly solar – as you should know. Late century warming was likewise mostly solar mediated natural warming.
1910 was a solar lull, somewhat like now, while around 1940-50 the sun was at its most active in the century. “Skeptics” are usually fairly interested in the sun’s role but they want to dismiss it for the decades when it was at its most obvious. Interesting. Anyway the net change from the ’50’s till now is negative. Sunspots, you see.
Robert,
I asked who’s graph.
I am fully familiar with that graph, you should clearly cite your sources.
The Sun had low activity for centuries and peaked in the 20th century staying at a high level to the 1990’s. But it is the decadal variability I started with that is most directly relevant.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/f3-large.jpg
So you don’t think the rise in solar activity between 1910 and 1940 did much? Why is that? The temperature rise indicates that it did.
For God’s sake Jim – the irradiance changes says that it can’t.
Have you noticed that the 11-year sunspot cycles do affect the surface temperature measurably? This should be no surprise, but perhaps it is to you. You seem to promote the sun, while at the same time denying it.
Do you know what a power spectrum is, Ellison?
Do you know how it changes with solar activity?
It seems you do not.
I do know that you are about as numerate as Jimbo – and not as scientifically literate. Which is saying something. As usual you have nothing at all but bluster and invective and here an assertion that seems to suggest that noticing the spectrum of frequencies the Sun radiates in is somehow a clever thing. Yes – that’s a clever boy – in case you need some personal affirmation.
Total solar irradiance is the integration of solar power across all frequencies – and the irradiance changes are insufficient to cause much change directly to the global energy budget. What is relevant may be internal feedbacks that modulate albedo. And in the quite likely event that it doesn’t gel in your brain – given your extreme limitations – perhaps it will in someone else’s.
“Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—
would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.” http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
Now can I go back to generally ignoring as uninteresting – unless it is too vulgar and abusive to countenance – everything you say?
About 0.25W/m2 at the surface.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Definitely added to warming.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ceres_ebaf-toa_ed2-8_anom_toa_shortwave_flux-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-20161.png
Plus some warming from cloud feedbacks.
…but you are saying it did not add to the warming when the solar strength was increasing during the 1910-1950 period, a period where up to a couple of tenths of a degree extra warming above that from CO2 was even observed. Why deny that the change in the sun had that effect when it was observed? This is pretzel logic that even Sean Spicer would be proud of.
no, it’s what happens when you are dealing with different spectrums.
Solar is solar. I wasn’t sub-dividing its effect that mostly scales with sunspot cycles.
But solar isn’t co2 or water
Exactly.
Yeah, solar powers the water cycle, and co2 doesn’t do much at all.
This was only about solar variations, not about whether the sun is important to us.
And exactly which parts of the changes to the temperature record are changes from solar vs interval variation, vs co2 vs other ghg changes?
Exactly the parts you would expect from changes in solar strength in 11-year cycles and on the century scale.
Lol, you got nothing.
OK, you don’t have to believe that the 11-year cycle is observable in the temperature record or that the Maunder Minimum corresponded to a cool period, but you can look for those papers if you really are interested. I don’t think you are.
Didn’t Mann do away with the little ice age? Did he find it again? Was it hiding at the bottom of the ocean with the missing heat? Oh, they found that too didn’t they.
Nothing to do with the sun. Are you starting a different topic now?
I thought you just said the sun caused the mauder minimum?
The LIA isn’t the Maunder Minimum.
The MM was about in the middle of the LIA. Which gets back to attribution which other than making it up from a model, or from long term averages, you have nothing.
The MM is strictly a reference to a solar period. The LIA is broader and part of a general cooling that occurred through the last millennium. It was a trend and its beginning is not easy to define, but was consistent with the Milankovitch precession cycle rather than anything the sun was doing itself. It ended after the GHGs started shooting up. Some skeptics are still scratching their heads about why it ended.
Talk about pretzel logic lol so the MM wasn’t about there being no sunspots, and sunspots having an effect on temperature? Didn’t you just it was though?
The MM is a well defined period with no sunspots. It was said to be colder, but temperature records are scarce. What do you think?
About 0.12W/m2 increase at the surface in the 20th century – numbers beat narrative every time.
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/files/2011/09/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction-1.png
Stop wasting everyone’s time.
They weren’t even measuring this in the early 20th century. Where do you get such an accurate number? The estimates vary and some are much higher, but there was an increase in that period. The sunspot cycle period decreased to 10 years from 1924-54, another effect of a stronger sun because it followed a couple of 12 year cycles for 1889-1913. I give skeptics about half as natural solar warming for that period, and they don’t take it. What gives? It’s not a trap.
Here is a graphic at the other extreme. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/ShapiroTSI1600.png
The one I posted is from Shapiro who describe their method thusly.
“We assume that the minimum state of the quiet Sun in time corresponds to the observed quietest area on the present Sun. Then we use available long-term proxies of the solar activity, which are 10Be isotope concentrations in ice cores and 22-year smoothed neutron monitor data, to interpolate between the present quiet Sun and the minimum state of the quiet Sun. This determines the longterm trend in the solar variability which is then superposed with the 11-year activity cycle calculated from the sunspot number. The time-dependent solar spectral irradiance from about 7000 BC to the present is then derived using a state-of-the-art radiation code.”
A more credible upper bound is 1.7W/m2 change in TSI at TOA between the Maunder Minimum and late last century – 0.4W/m2 at the surface. Likely about half that. Yet you repeat the Shapiro graph which is madly inconsistent with modern satellite data. Why you descend into such nonsense is a mystery that I keep trying to solve – without any success I might add.
I gave you the most credible reconstruction.
These estimated solar irradiances for the last 400 years are based on the NRLTSI2 historical TSI reconstruction model by J. Lean and described by Coddington et al. The values of the NRLTSI2 model have been offset a small amount for agreement with recent SORCE/TIM values and replaced by SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.17 data in January 2017. It is updated annually as new TIM data are available or as improved historical reconstructions are created. http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots
I really don’t have a clue what you are on about now – but unless you can first of all understand the nature of climate shifts – for which there is serious scientific support – no progress in understanding is possible.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
There is of course vastly more to it than a single NASA webpage – but it is a simple explanation from a credible source.
I am – btw – not sceptical of science – it’s just that you have such a limited version and one that is mostly narrative skimmed from the websites you visit. I’d guess that the TSI plot you posted is from a takedown of Shapiro at SkepticalScience – which is far from a trusted source at the best of times. But you bizarrely present it as a valid estimate of TSI. What’s going on in that brain of yours?
To get about 0.2 C of warming from 1910-1940, you only need about 1 W/m2 for the TSI change (<0.1% of the total). This is well within the bounds of possibility given the estimates that are being done and given what is known about these types of stars from astrophysics. You want to deny that is even possibly an explanation of the warming. Fine by me.
Yes 0.2K warming seems to require some 1W/m2 increase in forcing. So that’s 0.4K from greenhouse gases during the 20th century.
Earth geometry says that 1W/m2 at TOA is 0.25W/m2 at the surface. So about 0.05K – some 10% of the observed early 20th century surface warming. Which was from 1911 to 1944. Greenhouse gases don’t even come close.
In the period 1910-1940, the rise was at most 0.4 C, 0.2 from the solar increase out of its 1910 lull, and 0.2 from the CO2 increase. The forcing change from GHGs and the sun were both about 0.2-0.3 W/m2 in this period.
Unfortunately, nobody knows what albedo was or how it changed.
And even the decade plus of CERES data is from a single satellite sensor perspective, but clouds and surface reflect anisotropically – differently to different directions. There will always be uncertainty about past forcing.
In the much longer term – albedo can be estimated from ice sheet extent. 0.37 albedo at glacial max compared to 0.3 now. In the short term a change of 3.4 Watts/m2 in reflected shortwave is a 1% change in albedo.
Sea ice is an important feedback because its extent is so affected by marginal changes.
Yours numbers are all nonsense.
I posted this above. The network math shows where the changes in surface temperature trajectories occur and why.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/has-the-cimate-recently-shifted.png?w=500
The early warming regime was from 1911 to 1944. The change is TSI in the 20th century was about 0.5W/m2 at TOA – 0.125W/m2 at the surface. Not correcting for Earth geometry is one of the most fundamental newbie errors you can make – failing to admit to error is simply bad faith.
Net anthrpogenic forcing is some 0.25W/m2 in the early warming period between 191 and 1944.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Miller_et_al14_fig2_upd.png
So together there is 0.37W/ms – or about 0.07K warming in the period.
Your bottom graph shows what the cause of the warming is. Study it and look for what dominates it. Also the IPCC view of solar forcing there is just one estimate for the early 20th century. Not sure what you mean about geometry. I use 0.25 for geometry and 0.7 for net TOA. What do you use?
The increase in total effective solar intensity was some 0.12W/m2 in the 20th century. The increase in greenhouse gas forcing was about 0.25W/m2 in the 1911-1944 period of early century warming.
To get about 0.2 C of warming from 1910-1940, you only need about 1 W/m2 for the TSI change (<0.1% of the total). This is well within the bounds of possibility given the estimates that are being done and given what is known about these types of stars from astrophysics.
Yes – 1% is about right. But to confuse it with total effective solar intensity is an embarrassingly naive error. I am always willing to let error pass with a low key explanation but you vastly compound the error your bad faith BS.
I find that you have done it once too often and I just don’t need it.
OK, that was your error in understanding that 1 W/m2 in TSI corresponds to nearly 0.2 W/m2 of forcing which with feedbacks can cause 0.1-0.2 C of temperature change as the response to the 11-year cycles quantitatively shows. The TSI change in 11-year cycles is also ~1 W/m2 and we get 0.1-0.2 C responses in global mean surface temperature in phase with the sunspot cycle. It is a very subtle forcing cycle, but the effect is easily seen in the record.
Post-hoc rationalisation with zilch science – and I mean actual science and not Jim’s narrative – content.
Sure, you don’t like info about forcing and response from solar cycles. I understand that. Won’t bother you with it.
I have discussed forcing endlessly with reference published sources and reputable sites. Your turn or it is not productive.
You have not documented its effect at all. That is what I have been doing with regard to solar changes and their effects, but as far as I can tell, you don’t think the sun can have that much effect, but I still don’t have clear answer from you on that because you keep diverting.
Here’s the measured affect on regional temperatures from the changing of solar in the exatropics throughout the year.
http://wp.me/p5VgHU-1t
You can discuss this with RIE. He is really interested in this stuff.
DMA – See for example:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/ocean-data-upgrade-confirms-pace-of-recent-warming
It’s not in line with John Bates’ statements, but nonetheless the BEST guys say they could FTP the data with no problem.
What conclusion do you draw?
Yup.. his data was all there.
K15 consists of two datasets, like ALL global records
A) an SST record
B) a land record.
For K15 They used ERSST4.. a product created by other authors
and one that went through The Bates CDR torture, and for alnd they used an improvement to GHCNV3, that more than triples the number of land stations. Bates Whined about this dataset cause it didnt go through the process he designed.
All the K15 data was available. It was all archived to USERS satisfaction.
If bates had his way we could not see the data for 2 years
Because Karl made his data available quickly
we downloaded it and ran the TESTS SUGGESTED BY SKEPTICS
All those skeptic tests Failed, and we showed that ERSST4 was an improvement on ERSST3.
All those skeptic tests Failed, and we showed that ERSST4 was an improvement on ERSST3.
Probably both are pooh pooh – not much exists against which to correct the ship data which is all there was for the first 130 years of the record. Gluing on a correction to the more accurate buoy data was what raised ire. A buoy only record is probably OK, and Zeke says it indicates warming consistent with other records. That’s fine, but it is only a few decades long. Longer records are suspect.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/figure-2.png
“Probably both are pooh pooh – not much exists against which to correct the ship data which is all there was for the first 130 years of the record. Gluing on a correction to the more accurate buoy data was what raised ire. A buoy only record is probably OK, and Zeke says it indicates warming consistent with other records. That’s fine, but it is only a few decades long. Longer records are suspect.”
1. It doesnt matter whether you correct buoy to ship or ship to buoy.
2. There is nothing Suspect about the longer record.
You can check the longer record for yourself. Go get Icoaads data.
Put half of it in a black box
Create a record with the other half.
Use the constructed record to predict the data you have held out.
That will give you a sense of your error of prediction.
What you will find. Surprise!!! there was an LIA. The world is Warming!
climate change is real.
Of course there are uncertainties. Nothing unusual or Suspect about that.
In the final analysis even the temperature record can be dispensed with. We know GHGs cause warming and have known this for over 100 years.
The hiatus is not killed. Don’t make claims the data doesn’t support. There has been only 0.13C warming since 1998. That’s only 0.07C per decade. Anything less than 0.10C/decade is statistically insignificant.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1998/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1998/mean:12/trend/detrend:0.13/plot/none
http://imgur.com/a/5JZsK
The PAWS is deader than a doornail.
There never was a Hiatus.
The Hiatus is not observed. Any hiatus, like any rise or fall in trends is a function of the statistical MODEL one applies to the actual data. Trends, pauses in tends are not in the data. They are a RESULT of applying models to data. they are the result of making decision about what statistical model to apply to the data, and how and when you apply it.
The data, to paraphrase skeptic briggs, is just the data.
The hiatus a function of the choices you make as an analyst. It was never robust to the selection of various alternative choices. Write that down. We dont observe trends. We observe data. We then CHOOSE to assume that a selected data generating model ( say a linear model) underlies that data and we calculate an trend ASSUMING that we have selected the correct data generating model. We say the points can be fit by a line, for example.
There is a probability and probability ONLY that IF you make certain choices– what data to use, when to start the time series, when to stop the time series, what data generating model you choose– THEN you could find a trend IN THE STATISTICAL MODEL that included zero.
So there is a probability that the MODEL is consistent with ( does not exclude) a trend of zero.
Regardless, Assuming there was a actual physical pause in air temperatures, doesn’t really say anything interesting about the important questions.
oops, lets try this spot. “There never was a hiatus.”
That makes the hundreds of papers on the hiatus deliciously ironic.
=={ Any hiatus, like any rise or fall in trends is a function of the statistical MODEL one applies to the actual data. }==
Seems to me that there could be an observed hiatus if you were able to show how a warming mechanism, once in operation, ceased to function for a given period of time.
This goes back to the fundamental illogic of a “skeptic” who says that she doesn’t doubt the physics of the GHE, but that “global warming has paused” even though we continue to emit ACO2 to the atmosphere.
“oops, lets try this spot. “There never was a hiatus.”
That makes the hundreds of papers on the hiatus deliciously ironic.”
########################3
no it makes them perfectly on point.
As different analysts look at the data in different ways, SOME choices lead to a conclusions that is consistent with the presence of a zero trend
in the MODELS of the data.
It is perfectly understandable and in fact GOOD SCIENCE for some people to take this POSSIBILITY as a point of departure for other studies. That is, assuming the Possibility is an actuality for the purposes of explaining how it might fit.
Only skeptics swallowed it hook line and sinker.. some took it so deep the bobber was on their lips.
The hiatus exists and continues today. What never existed was a scientist named Steven Mosher despite unilateral claims to the contrary in his LinkedIn profile.
The hiatus exists and continues today. What never existed was a scientist named Steven M o s h e r despite unilateral claims to the contrary in his LinkedIn profile.
Spoon benders like the satellite series. With it, their minds can bend spoons. Meanwhile the surface of the earth is warming aggressively… 2017 now poised to become a fourpeat… Record warmest years four times in a row: 2014, 2015, 2016, and maybe 2017 for four in a row, and possibly even 2018 for five in a row. For 17-18, think 97-98.
“These estimated solar irradiances for the last 400 years are based on the NRLTSI2 historical TSI reconstruction model by J. Lean and described by Coddington et al. The values of the NRLTSI2 model have been offset a small amount for agreement with recent SORCE/TIM values and replaced by SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward. The historical reconstruction provided here was computed using TIM V.17 data in January 2017. It is updated annually as new TIM data are available or as improved historical reconstructions are created.” http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/#plots
I really don’t have a clue what you are on about now – but unless you can first of all understand the nature of climate shifts – for which there is serious scientific support – no progress in understanding is possible.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
There is of course vastly more to it than a single NASA webpage – but it is a simple explanation from a credible source.
I am – btw – not sceptical of science – it’s just that you have such a limited version and one that is mostly narrative skimmed from the websites you visit.
The goal of the Dems at the end was to get out of the panel that it was not a good idea to cut back money for climate research the way Trump is proposing, and they managed to do that, even if only begrudgingly from the non-consensus side. Smith would not have approved.
The Dems seemed more rational about the current state of the science. Republicans were asking questions about whether sea levels were actually going to start falling or the temperature could head to another Ice Age instead of continued warming. It would be funny if this wasn’t the science committee. Pielke’s view was one he knew the Republicans wouldn’t like, being in favor of a small carbon tax to support renewable energy research. It was described by someone as ‘blasphemy’ to this committee.
The current state of the science, or rather the state of the alarm, is nonsensical. It’s not physically possible for everyone to suffer from an increased temperature when the average temperature of the several states we inhabit differ by 39 degrees F. If the threat was real then the committee would be on the phone to the White House to try and completely evacuate everyone south of the Mason Dixon line, lest they all die in the next three days.
It was like watching a parliamentary committee from the mid-1500’s debating the threat of eternal damnation brought on by improper observation of Judaic dietary laws, and discussing options to ameliorate the threat via prayer, sacrifice, and increased funding to the Church of England.
I think they managed to get out of Judith that it may or may not be serious. Are you in that category? For every person who is a bit fluffy on the issue, there are many that are sure we would like to stabilize climate where we’re at rather than push it deeper into unknown territory.
And exactly how are we supposed to stabilize the climate, call Captain Jean-Luc Picard on the Enterprise and have him use the shield emitters on the ionosphere?
Look at the climate record to see a billion years of drastic shifts that we didn’t cause and couldn’t have prevented, unless we figure out how to stop continents from drifting, ocean currents from churning, and orbits from getting elliptical.
There’s an glaciation period coming. We’ll just have to deal with it.
I’m planning to open my home to displaced Norwegian co-eds. They’ll need a lot of warming up when they get here.
I may need to reconsider my position on refugees…
http://i.imgur.com/BeIOG.jpg
JimD, that is such a fringe speculation, I nearly spit soup on my little iPad. Do you really think government guided interventions can control weather which is the ONLY way to control climate? Myth much?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RWqzG5SbEh4
there are many that are sure we would like to stabilize climate
Warming->reduced temperature gradients->reduced severe storms and reduced temperature variability.
Warming->more stable climate?
We do have a choice between fast climate change and slow climate change because we are driving the fast climate change with growing emissions rates. Every 1500 GtCO2 we don’t burn saves us a degree C of warming. This is very doable.
Except for when natural weather pattern regimes decide to change rapidly, which they sometimes do up or down. So JimD are you saying you can also keep natural rapid changes from happening? Amazing.
Natural rapid changes are also known as tipping points, and these are not good news either. We haven’t had any large ones for 10,000 years and usually they involve rapid melt with sea-level rises and ocean current changes. Forcing increases the likelihood of tipping points. We can’t do much about them except reduce the rate of change of forcing to reduce the risk.
“Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2
Abrupt climate shifts happen on decadal to millennial scales. The best that can be is to build prosperous and resilient communities.
Jim D, Pamela Gray, and Robert Ellison. Three unqualified people arguing in obscure ignorance while the world moves on oblivious to their mewling. The entertainment value in their antics decreases as the quantity rises. At some point it becomes annoying and unfair to other participants who are being drowned out by the sheer quantity of noise these fools are generating.
Everyone assumes Trump’s “skinny budget” represents a cutback in observational research from NASA and NOAA. I don’t know that it does.
Those two agencies do a lot of other things, such as modeling, data interpretation, Muslim outreach, propaganda publishing, reading tea leaves, scaring children, praying to GAIA, flying to conferences, paying for Gavin’s Real Climate maintenance time, supporting the IPCC, and lot more that could stand a few cut backs, perhaps even of the levels expressed in the “skinny budget”.
Maybe, just maybe, the numbers actually came from somebody who took a look at the agencies and found the fat. I have no knowledge this is true, and no real evidence that anyone has had time to do this properly. I can only hope.
“Let’s make scientific debate about climate change great again.”
You were given an opportunity to lay out what counts as fringe
That was a missed opportunity.
I thought Judith gave it the attention it deserved. Ignore it. There has always been fringe science due to the basic but strict tenants of gold standard scientific methods. That said, I think the panel missed the opportunity to clarify for the committee what constitutes gold standard scientific method wrt climate investigation. One area that needs correction is the current non-use of error bars, replaced with Mannian getting rid of vetted outliers. Another area is the use of consensus confidence measures (aka putting lipstick on a pig) as a replacement for letting the data say only what it can say and listing weaknesses in the conclusion. There are many more areas of poor research methods that have crept into this field of study that should have been talked about so the committee could make better use of less dollars in the future. Judith mentioned a need to return to basic climate research as a necessary but alas underfunded need. Most climate grant dollars have been earmarked for anthropogenic studies. That needs to be turned on its head and right quick.
Agreed. See my https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/29/refocusing-the-usgcrp/.
Looking in from the outside the hearing was inspirational, probably designed as such by the new administration. Pitting Mann, ‘the’ top climate scientist against himself basically.
The only question not presented but intended to be raised at the back of onlookers minds was ‘You’ve had twenty years, trillions of tax payers dollars where is the science?’
The answer…. depends upon who you voted for.
Good calm performances from three individuals adhering to how the ‘paying’ public perceive scientists to operate.
Mann was played by the administration and certainly persuaded me that your new president is extremely savvy. Expect sweeping cuts, by that performance, justifiably.
Yes, I think Mann was played and will never understand what happened. The biggest gun supporting CAGW is an incoherend dufuss. Yeah, convincing.
Mann was played by Hill staff, not the Trump admin, although they certainly know each other.
Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method
That is what the hearing was about and that is what was delivered.
It was great to read across the testimonials the scientific method described, that the creative tensions can – do – lead to reworking of hypotheses and developments of theories and models of the world.
I particularly resonated to the initial conditions portion of Dr Curry’s presentation, concerning the IPCC, and the ‘What if’ the initial conditions had been different in the ever so slightly different way, that would have directed policy making decisions over the past two decades along a path directed by the fuller analysis of the climate development.
That path would have accommodated explorations of all the contributions, and part of this would have produced Dr Christy’s and Dr Pielke ‘s observations and we would have quite probably been much more advanced in our understanding of the world’s ocean-atmosphere systems, and have discovered what contribution CO2 concentration, and within that mankind’s portion to this, without all the argy-bargy, fear and loathing, and real tears.
(Oxford comma required).
This goes to show the value and power of the scientific method and why it endures.
cheers, John
Thank you for standing up for science.
Dr Curry,
Without doubt, to me you were the key witness. That means, translated, that you above others expressed views most similar to mine (and you expressed them particularly lucidly).
Mann was offering poor science when he offered any at all. For example, on the topic of mass balance of ice areas, whether net positive or negative, he selected two area of net loss by melting (so far as we know) being part of Antarctica and Greenland, then discussed their loss alone, neglecting to address the balance of other areas gaining mass, as through through excess snowfall. His partial answer could have seemed to some as the whole answer.
Thank you for minimising both the politics and the personal in your considered response.
Geoff.
What a brazen **** Michael Mann is
This whole CAGW mania arose from throwing immense amounts of money at these supposed “scientists”. The only way to fix the problem is to remove the money and clean house.
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen urges Trump : “Cut the funding of climate science by 80% to 90% until the field cleans up
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/30/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-urges-trump-cut-the-funding-of-climate-science-by-80-to-90-until-the-field-cleans-up/
Lindzen has the correct approach. One can forget about tinkering type reforming of those in the Climate “Sceance” field. One needs a creative destruction approach. The CAGW advocates/activists who have been feeding at the trough and are so vested in the ideology will never reform themselves. Fortunately for them, the Pope has openings in the Clergy. It’s an obvious fit for the talents of the displaced Climate Clergy!
Pope Francis Laments ‘Hemorrhage’ of Priests and Nuns in the Catholic Church
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/01/30/pope-francis-laments-hemorrhage-priests-nuns-catholic-church/
An Ecologist’s Perspective on Pope Francis’s Encyclical Letter
Guest Contributor: Dan Botkin
Be that as it may, the greatest importance of the pope’s document is that it makes clear once and for all that this issue is fundamentally a religious and an ideological one, not a scientific one. As I make clear in several of my books and many of my articles, the fundamental irony of environmental science is that it is premised on mythology, on the myth of the great balance of nature, which is not scientific and not scientifically correct
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/04/an-ecologists-perspective-on-pope-franciss-encyclical-letter/
Furthermore, Government sponsored Climate Sceance violates the US first amendment regarding establishment of Religion
Brilliant connection, Brent
On the off chance you apply blog rules to yourself, posting under multiple accounts is forbidden.
“The foundation of climate science rests on fundamental laws such as Newton’s laws of motion, Planck’s Law and the Stefan Boltzmann..”
But are they applied correctly?
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/earths-surface-temperatures-using-hemispherical-rather-ulric-lyons?trk=pulse_spock-articles
The bane of climate science, among other things, lies in carbon sinks & sources, fluid dynamics, and H2O phase changes. Not to mention hubris in its practitioners of course.
Write that down.
If the foundation of climate science was Newton’s laws of motion, then most climate models wouldn’t treat gravity as a constant and ignore conservation of momentum in the radial direction of a rotating spherical volume.
I suppose they do obey Newton’s laws other than F=ma and F=Gm1m2/^r2, which are just too computationally intensive to deal with, but I just don’t recall what those other laws are off the top of my head.
Global warming proponents cling to well established radiative heat transfer while failing to acknowledge how confounded it is on a water world dominated by convective heat transfer.
And the convective heat transfer on the watery regions is upwards to the surface during the night cycle, effectively the opposite of the daytime atmospheric convection away from the surface.
Descartes enters into science based on the only thing he knows, for certain, is his capacity to think. Michael Mann reverts only to Authority. Thank you, dear Dr Curry, for deciding not to wear the cowl.
William: Two of your 3 references brought good, bad, or indifferent science testimony while Dr. Curry didn’t bring an item of clothing? Here’s your sign.
Hi Pamela – I am not sure what you mean, but just to be clear what I mean. Dr Curry has chosen not to be a member of the Church of Climate Catastrophe, of which Michael Moore … er … Mann has declared himself Pope, and from whose basilica he distributes ad hominem damnations of heretics, lacking anything else to say. I laud her for it. Anyway, I very much enjoy and learn from your posts.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude.
(Catholics, please do not infer offense either from my unfortunate metaphor. None intended.)
Lordy, I thought you were referring to a sweater you didn’t think looked good on her. A cowl is a type of neckline most often seen on a sweater. Such tops are commonly called a cowl. I am catholic and I don’t recall a cowl being part of the vestments. However, I now understand you were referring to a religious symbol. My bad. Note to self, most people are not as literal as I am.
http://www.catholicdoors.com/courses/roman.hmm
You’d be better off talking about clothes instead of math and science sweety. It’s painfully obvious it’s over your pretty little head. Bet you were a popular with the professors in college huh? Helping them dress themselves the morning after, right?
David, I think it wise to not follow me who has regrettably jumped to a conclusion and landed with her foot in her mouth, with your own version of foot in mouth disease.
David Springer: if that was an attempt at jocularity, it was repugnant and hurtful, and you should apologize. If that wasn’t an attempt at jocularity, then I hope Judith will block you permanently from these otherwise good pages.
Well done William. Springer targets people for persistent invective until they stop commenting. It has happened with a number of people I can think of.
This one is especially appalling. – and Judith is sure to delete it if she sees it.
Draper your flippant comparison of climate science to the Catholic church is the real assault on respectful discourse. Go to hell.
Ellison you can accompany Draper on his trip if you aren’t already there. Limp away now.
Pamela why did you immediately assume my comment was directed at you and not Draper? I mean if the shoe fits you are welcome to wear it but Draper should try it on too. These clothing analogies are really fun but probably not very productive. Of course nothing to do with climate science is productive so it’s not different in that respect. Carry on.
Robert: You predicted it. Pamela: Thank you for writing back, which gave me the chance to clear up my unclear note. Judith: Thank you for a job so well done in Washington. I don’t know your blog rules of behavior, but if there are any, please apply them. Unlike most things that get discussed here, on this you have more than ample evidence to make a judgment.
Good thing for Ellison and Draper that Curry doesn’t ban snowflakes.
Gray is admirably holding her own. She didn’t bat an eye at my jibe and certainly doesn’t need the likes of you two sexist losers coming to her defense.
Few people make the mistake of thinking I need defending. And for good reason most don’t think that. I believe the comments made about your rhetoric by these two gentlemen was much less about my defense needs and much more about your vulgarity. While in the main, I have no quarrel with your right to argue, nor much about your content or general style. However I think it entirely appropriate to critique your argumentative weaknesses, vulgarity and immature comebacks being the most damaging to an otherwise standard argumentative form.
I think you must have me confused with someone who gives a shiit about your opinion, Gray.
And just for the record you dodged my question about why you immediately assumed the person trading sexual favors for grades was aimed at you.
P.S. It wasn’t an argument. Therefore there was no argumentative weakness to critique. Vulgarity yes, argument no.
I stand corrected. Your comments sometimes are of the persuasive mode more so than the argumentative mode. While your argumentative mode is not that bad, your persuasive mode suffers from the use of immature vulgarity as a persuasive tactic and disserves you in general as a frequent commentariat. Like you, I also do not care how you feel about my opinions. But since you put it out there your thoughts will be critiqued just like anyone else’s on public blogs.
Reblogged this on Finding Confluence and commented:
Open and non-partisan look at Climate Science. Well done, Dr. Curry.
The written testimony was very good. I hope the commitee members take the time to read it.
Well done. Brilliant in many ways. 🙂
Rick Wallace provides an eloquent evaluation of Michael Mann and those advocating AGW in:
Reflections on Mark Steyn’s “A Disgrace to the Profession” About Dr. Michael Mann.
Judith: I particularly liked this paragraph:
“The ‘war on science’ that I am most concerned about is the war from within science – scientists and the organizations that support science who are playing power politics with their expertise and passing off their naïve notions of risk and political opinions as science. When the IPCC consensus is challenged or the authority of climate science in determining energy policy is questioned, these activist scientists and organizations call the questioners ‘deniers’ and claim ‘war on science.’ These activist scientists seem less concerned with the integrity of the scientific process than they are about their privileged position and influence in the public debate about climate and energy policy. They do not argue or debate the science – rather, they denigrate scientists who disagree with them. These activist scientists and organizations are perverting the political process and attempting to inoculate climate science from scrutiny – this is the real war on science.”
Experts: PLEASE ADVISE – as an Elect/Computer engineer, i watched the entire hearing and was frustrated by Michael Mann. I was impressed with Judith Curry and John Christy as they stuck to data.
I am new to climate blogging. But i do think there is a 50/50 chance man could be the driving force to the warming. I am not an alarmist. I am not an irrational skeptic.
So could anyone suggest how i could ask about the possible faulty assumption at the base of the CO2 greenhouse driving the climate? I would prefer a source administered by Judith Curry.
The possibly faulty assumption: CO2 is the driving greenhouse gas leading to climate change. How can that be when it is noise compared to Water vapor? I.e. if you have 100 blankets will trap heat well. If you have 101 blankets, the heat added to the system the added heat is insignificant.
1st Question: is heat transfer of greenhouse gases (or blankets) back to space a linear system or logarithmic?
In my mind, the blankets are greenhouse gases (95 blankets are water, 3 or 4 blankets are CO2, and the last is misc)- the sun is the source, the blankets have an amplifying effect. Am i to believe that 1% added to the natural level of CO2 drives the other 96% of greenhouse gases? does a tail wag the dog? and why aren’t scientists allowed to question that hypothesis?
2: it is hard to find the contribution of water vapor to total greenhouse gases. I have seen 20x to 120x of CO2. Can anyone post variability charts of CO2 vs H2O over the satellite age? (1970 till present)
3. Why doesn’t water vapor come up on these hearings? The changing equilibrium of water vapor, the variability of water vapor vs clouds, and the sun are the logical drivers. How did CO2 theory become so popular? i am amazed at the scientists with the CO2 logic rejecting other theories because “everyone says so”.
To hear any scientist blame cooling and warming, drought and floods, a cooler troposphere with a warmer surface, as Mann did in this hearing is disturbing for scientific minds. Retort with data not “consensus”. Make a hypothesis and make solid predictions. Adjust the theory when off instead of taking every detail and finding a way to work it into your hypothesis. He did say 3.5 degrees temp rise within the next 20yrs (correct me if i am wrong, i think he said 2deg C, 3.5deg F).
I question motives when i hear weak arguments. And as a Democrat, i am disgusted. Are they blaming things on CO2 to get more grants??? I actually do NOT believe so, at least intentionally. I DO believe EGOs are more powerful than money in this case. But both egos and money are not a valid reason to defend a weak hypothesis.
An example of these modern scientific “facts” that turned to missteps: scientists touted hydrogenated-corn-oil margarine as a healthy replacement for butter in the late 70’s – Why? a rich “messenger” Nebraska millionaire Phil Sokolof blamed fat for a heart attack at 43. He enlisted the CSPI director Micheal Jacobson (who leaned toward Vegan diets) to promote his vengeance (does the rich messenger/emotionally involved scientist remind you of anyone? Gore and Mann maybe?). They spread the weak scientific conclusion throughout the 80’s. This “anti-fat” alarm-ism created by both Sokolof and Jacobson lead them to the wrong conclusions and replacing animal fat in fryers to hydrogenated oils across the world. The corn industry amplified faulty hypothesis that “fat is bad for you, hydrogenated corn oil is less fat” due to the profit motive: hydrogenated oils dont spoil and result in higher profit margins.
Now trans fat (hydrogenated vegetable oil) has been proven over decades to be more of a threat to your circulatory system than natural fat (the body cannot break down the unnatural configurations of hydrogenated oils). All because a rich guy, Paul Sokolof had a heart attack and blamed it on natural “fat” because of an emotional hypothesis made in haste… again, this sounds too familiar. In this case, Gore was a “D” student in the class of the climate scientist who started the “CO2” warming theory. Gore continued to be the messenger and replaced his mentor, scientist Roger Revelle (his Harvard professor that first published the modern CO2 hypothesis) with M. Mann when Revelle denounced his original CO2 theory as data came in his last 20yrs of life. Both the climate and our bodies are incredibly complex systems – small logical mistakes like this can easily be amplified and lead you to a wrong and detrimental answer.
To me, it looks as if the last 6 of the last 7 TSI cycles have been either record highs or well above average for the last 500,000yrs. If anything is the source of the climate change it is the Sun being amplified by water vapor gasses and slightly by the other misc greenhouse gasses.
It also seems normal the natural warming cycle is broken by major 1 iin 100,000yr events: Milankovitch cycles, super-volcanic eruptions, interstellar collisions, droughts followed by runaway forest fires, etc. These events break the Sun’s feedback loops and cold takes over. Only then, the sun and water vapor slowly build the heat in the oceans and atmosphere. So what happens if the long overdue Yosemite erupts in our lifetime or the sun goes quiet or ???? we may all be praying for any extra warmth or food we can get.
But when only one side receives grant money to prove their theory POSITIVE, it is wrong. I am a Democrat. Or i was. This name calling instead of debating data created a new independent as of today. When Mann said “and gravity could be proven wrong today” again is a terrible analogy. Yes, gravity is a theory, such a solid theory not many theories can compare. A better anology with climate change is dietary science. Both terribly complicated system with so much input, the science should change yearly… So If i were able to correct him, i would suggest he equate “CO2 climate driver” theory with the “hydrogenated vegetable oil is better for you than butter” theory of the 70’s 80’s.. My reply: “that was a consensus too Michael, and how did that work out for the validity of ‘consensus’ to proof a hypothesis?”
Last: i never want to hear “because everyone else says so” logic of Michael Man”. He should be equated to the leader of the flat earth society. Why? it took hundreds of years for the “skeptics” to convince the “con census” of political and religiously based pseudo-scientists that the earth was round – same with Aristarchus of Samos (c. 270 BC) and the Heliocentrism theory. It took thousands of years for the consensus to change the consensus from “the earth is not the center of the universe” to the heliocentric model we know now. So why does consensus mean more than logic? and who is calling who the flat earth society? amazing to me.
I am so sorry for venting my frustration here. But will it ever be possible to have Curry/Christy join with two other well qualified data-centric scientists who think CO2 is the cause to have a logical, long term brainstorm and have them lead the process together?
As an EE, you should recognize a regulator in action.
Basically under clear calm skies at night there are 2 thermal capacitors, first the surface, which cools quickly, once air temps near dew point condensation releasing sensible heat acts as a second source of stored thermal energy.
https://micro6500blog.wordpress.com/2016/12/01/observational-evidence-for-a-nonlinear-night-time-cooling-mechanism/
The lion’s share of heat is direct from the Sun and is confined to very efficient infrared heating bands. Long wave infrared (LWIR) is radiated from the many surfaces on Earth that have already been directly solar heated. As LWIR ascends a large portion is absorbed by water vapor which re-emits it, again as LWIR, which can add heat to surfaces already heated by solar and initial LWIR heating. A smaller portion of LWIR is absorbed and re-emitted by natural CO2. Note: CO2 absorbs in a narrower band than water vapor so is less efficient as a LWIR re-emitter. The anthropogenic portion of total atmospheric CO2 is very small, so is even less efficient. The combination of all atmospheric re-emitters keeps a lot of heat down here instead of sending it to space, ergo greenhouse effect. This is why anthropogenic CO2 cannot have been the almost/all cause of weather trends. Changing weather pattern trends takes a tremendous amount of energy. Hell, flying with or against the jet stream is a case in point of the energy in the jet stream. To say that a small fraction of an inefficient re-emitter has that kind of strength is laughable.
Micro6500, thank you. Excellent info / capacitor analogy. Using the same analogy, the “capacitors” of the 5 areas of IR spectrum absorbed by H2O compared to the tiny CO2 IR spectrum makes me doubt the underlying CO2 hypothesis more, do you agree? see:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Solar_Spectrum.png
the “capacitor” or stored energy of CO2 is minuscule compared to the 5 bands of spectrum stored by H2O.
Yes, in fact that is what is shown in measurements, the key is the radiation from the condensing water only happens (at least visible in the measurements) after most of the cooling has completed, and is temperature initiated. Even though there’s forcing from co2 (likely illuminated by the 15u water bands), it rides on top of the large regulated water process.
Invishand8: Both the climate and our bodies are incredibly complex systems – small logical mistakes like this can easily be amplified and lead you to a wrong and detrimental answer.
You have realized problem #1, the complexity involved is easy to underestimate. #2, All analogies fail in climate science. The hydrosphere is the equivalent of a living organism. In fact the carbon cycle is directly connected with life. You have a lot of questions but you came to the right place. You may have to invest some time but I highly recommend reading old blog posts here and at Climateaudit.org.
You might have guessed that how one interprets all the complexity of climate science has also something to do with how they understand political science. Hint: white male capitalists were responsible for the industrial revolution and much of western materialism. Many see them as the personification of evil with CO2 as chickens coming home to roost for the exploited multitudes that were deceived into buying into the scam. If what I’m saying is not true one should ask why is it that non-CO2 producing nuclear energy is not being pursued by climate justice activists (with the recent exception of James Hansen, to the chagrin of many of his followers).
Being a political Dem/independent, I am keenly interested in your overall impressions of the witnesses and congresspeople. You are a rare commodity, someone not staked yet who watched the hearing.
Welcome Invishand8.
What did you think of Dr. Mann’s claim that Dr. Pielke was behind the times, now we can exactly how much of each flood, drought, wildfire and storm was attributable to man? Does this sound like there soon will be some climate expert witnesses in court liability suits? In the minds of many if mankind was on trial they would already have a verdict.
Ron Graf,
Mann made that claim simply because he recently published a paper on that subject, therefore that single paper is now the best available science, superseding IPCC reports and more.
I wish someone at the hearing would have called him out on that point, it would have been great to watch the adults on the committee laughing at him.
An engineer should construct a ‘what if’ consequence tree.
What if AGW is true but absence of it would hasten the return of the cold side of the 4 million year-old ice age? The current (Holocene) inter-glacial period is well beyond their average lifespans. Glacial epics last 10 times as long as inter-glacials which makes them the preferred climate state. It’s then reasonable to assume it’s difficult to avoid the ending of the non-preferred inter-glacial state. AGW would then be the savior of civilization not its demise, right? What does the precautionary principle prescribe in this case?
What if AGW is true and its primary consequence, already observed, is greening of the earth and expansion of the temperate zones into the cold polar regions. Is there any good reason we want to preserve the frigid life-averse conditions in the polar regions? Wouldn’t it be nice if the vast frozen north were arable and bursting with life? There is no evidence whatsoever that global warming is reducing the biologically productive regions of the earth. On the other hand there’s considerable evidence that colder conditions shrink arable land area.
If AGW is not true and we find the Holocene interglacial coming to an end we’ll need to invent some other way of stopping the next glacial epic. In fact my biggest worry is that AGW won’t be anywhere near sufficient to change the end date of the Holocene inter-glacial because there simply isn’t enough economically recoverable fossil fuel to keep CO2 artificially high for long enough. It’ll be gone in the geologic blink of an eye, oceans will retreat rendering port city infrastructure useless, and the north will be buried in snow and ice once again.
The moral of this story is the truism: warm is better than cold for the primary producers in the food chain. Yet we find progressive dipthongs lobbying like there’s no tomorrow for cold. Ice huggers are the new tree huggers.
David: Logically presented in classic debate form. 4 marks for form. Trying for accuracy in referencing the supposed overdue end of the Halocene, 2 marks. Your comments regarding this point demonstrates a lack of background knowledge. I recommend journal reading and critique to improve this part of your argument. Otherwise, well written.
David, I believe 10K years about average lifetime for an interglacial. You could add to your evidence of peril the glacial advance occurring during the LIA that was thankfully temporary. As one of the GOP reps pointed out, we would certainly be debating man’s hastening of the ice age if it were not for CO2 a warming trend.
Worry on either case shows a lack of faith in imagination and ingenuity demonstrated again and again that technology will provide solutions. The greater worry is always politics, not nature.
Pamela you can’t even spell Holocene. I’m out of your league.
Ron 10K years is the usual number. Glacial side is 100K. Holocene is close to 12K years.
To be fair the Holocene is unusual in that sea level has yet to rise to the maximum level of previous interglacials and in particular the last one, the Eemian, where the Greenland Ice Sheet (GIS) largely melted off before it ended resulting in sea level 7-9 meters higher than today.
The best explanation for this is an event called The Younger Dryas which happened well into rapid Holocene warming. An ice dam between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic ocean burst flooding the north Atlantic with fresh water. That appears to have taken the inertia out of the melt and spared GIS from a complete melt.
It’s conceivable that the interglacial won’t end until GIS melts all the way. Glacier building is most rapid when the atmosphere is moist and lots of snow falls in the winter. GIS melting all the way raises the ocean level and its surface area with it making more area available for evaporation and also replacing higher albedo dry land with lower albedo ocean surface which also raises evaporation. High albedo GIS disappearing exposes darker dirt which again raises evaporation in the north.
Once the glaciers advance far enough positive feedback from increasing albedo creates a runaway freeze which doesn’t stop until glaciers reach Virginia and NYC is under a mile of ice. Evidently its a delicate balance as orbital mechanics and axial precession don’t amount to any significant change in total forcing.
The driving force is the distribution of solar forcing between summer and winter. The salient fact is that being colder than 32F in the winter doesn’t help build more ice. Colder air holds less water so non-intuitively colder conditions slow glacial advance. The flip side is that warmer summers continue to melt winter snow faster and faster as temperature rises. So the condition that favors glacial advance is warmer winters and cooler summers which is what happens in the Milankovich cycle.
The bottom line however is nobody knows for sure when the Holocene interglacial will end so the only real fact we can rely on is that it’s already older than the average interglacial.
If funding is reduced, the need for discernment in research granting decisions needs to improve. All funding earmarked for climate change research needs to cease till research standards are imposed on grant applications seeking tax payer funded money, especially in light of the rancor evident amoung scientists. Possible restart conditions in a new spending bill would include:
1. 60% goes towards natural climate/weather investigations into how it works naturally using real data, not modeled data.
2. 20% goes towards attribution modeling
3. 20% goes towards mitigation of disastrous weather/climate trends
4. All applications must include a clear null hypothesis statement with literature review of that null hypothesis.
5. All statistical methods should be determined a-priori and must exclude consensus confidence statements. Data cannot be made to say that, only admitted bias can.
6. Authors must include a highly recognized practicing statistician.
7. The Climate/weather research money bill should be sunsetted every 6 years with a new rehash of the above standards.
8. The granting committee must include 3 from one side, 3 from the other, and a presidential non-scientist budget appointee who is charged with reporting to the president.
Or maybe we can just cut all taxpayer funding of climate change research due to decades of failure to improve forecasts. It’s a scam. Taxpayers are receiving nothing in return for their investment.
Judith’s written testimony said:
“Motivated by the mandate from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to address dangerous human-caused climate change, the climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, which has prematurely elevated a scientific hypothesis to a ruling theory. Premature theories enforced by an explicit consensus building process harm scientific progress because of the questions that don’t get asked and the investigations that aren’t undertaken.”
Unfortunately, there is NO scientific theory about human-caused climate change. I think it is counterproductive to use the word theory (or even hypothesis) in this context.
Radiative forcing from rising GHGs is part of a well-validated scientific theory describing how radiation interacts with matter. Assuming that nothing else changes, that theory predicts that doubling CO2 will reduce outgoing OLR by about 3.7 W/m2. The precise amount of reduction depends on state of the atmosphere (lapse rate, humidity, clouds, temperature etc) used to calculate the reduction. That state can be observed (but isn’t when F_2x is calculated from model output).
The theory of conservation of energy demands that the Earth warm in response to a reduction in radiative cooling to space. Temperature will rise only about 1 degC in response to a doubling of CO2 – if nothing else changes. However, we know there will be changes – feedbacks. There is no theory of feedbacks and therefore NO THEORY of human-caused climate change. All we have are estimates for climate sensitivity – the combined result of several feedbacks. Such estimates are – at best – hypotheses, not theories.
The C-C eqn is a validated theory that applies when liquid water and water vapor are in equilibrium. Everywhere relative humidity is less than 100%, the C-C eqn doesn’t apply, so it can’t tell us about WV feedback. Theory tells us when lapse rates are unstable, but radiosondes show that unstable lapse rates are common. Theory doesn’t tell us why the average global lapse rate is 6.5 K/km.
Each climate model is a collection of many estimates (parameters) for our various aspect of our climate system behave. They aren’t theories, and calling them hypotheses is too generous. The multi-model mean is a collection of estimates – most of which must be wrong. The best we can hope for is off-setting errors. There are no scientific theories involve in hoping for off-setting errors.
You are too kind, Frank. You’re thinking of CO2 as a control knob where the consequence of a doubling has a floor of 1C based on radiative transfer laws and an unknown ceiling based on hydrologic feedbacks.
That is wrong IMO. In the current state of the system CO2 is not a control knob but rather an on/off switch. It is currently switched on which results in a largely or entirely liquid ocean. In that state hydrology limits any further temperature increase due to radiative transfer. Adding more CO2 raises the effective albedo of the earth which chokes the radiative input into the system. Warming based on CO2 radiative transfer requires incoming radiation not decline in response.
ECS is not a constant. It ranges from huge to non-existent depending on the state of the system when the doubling takes place.
David: I’m am not thinking in terms of a “model”, such as a control knob. I never said that feedback must be positive or that ECS can’t be less than one. I never said that ECS/TCR must be a constant. None of these constitute a scientific theory that has been validated.
I am thinking about the difference between accepted scientific theories (QM for the interaction of radiation and matter, conservation of energy) and what other concepts – feedbacks/ECS/TCR – do not constitute a validated or validate-able scientific theory. Climate sensitivity is an emergent property of a very complicated system, not something that can be derived from the fundamental behavior of its components. It is not a “theory”.
Complex, emergent behavior is not necessarily a barrier to a useful theory. Through statistical mechanics, the microscopic behavior of innumerable individual gas molecules produces macroscopic thermodynamics. A half-century ago, lift/drag ratios of wings were measured in wind tunnels. With today’s computers, aeronautical engineers may be able to computationally “solve” the N-S eqns accurately enough to say that a validated scientific theory tells us that a particular wing will have a lift/drag ratio of 20 at 600 mph and 30,000 ft. If we had infinite computing power and could model climate using first principles without parameters, we might have as much confidence in modeled estimates of climate sensitivity as we do in lift/drag ratios. Right now, however, it is a mistake to call climate sensitivity or anthropogenic climate change a theory.
That was pretty incoherent, Frank. I assumed you knew the details of the consensus view. It’s pretty much a given that in order to argue against the consensus narrative you have to understand it better than its proponents. In the consensus narrative warming above and beyond the predictable radiative transfer warming of 1C per CO2 doubling is accomplished through water vapor amplification which in short means that a little warming from CO2 drives more water vapor into the atmosphere which causes even more warming and more water vapor. What prevents a runaway greenhouse in that narrative is negative Planck feedback.
The usually cited fly in the consensus ointment is that it presupposes net positive feedback from clouds which has no empirical evidence in support of it and no modeling in support of it either because convective cells are far smaller than the gridded surface in ocean-atmosphere coupled general circulation climate models (GCMs). So the model makers throw in a parameter (also called a guess or in my engineering world a fudge factor) for the net cloud feedback. If water vapor amplification is more myth than fact then the GCM ensemble is running hot and the lower end of the ensemble range (1.5C) is where ECS will fall. Empirical determinations of ECS tend to agree with the lower end of the modeled range.
David kindly wrote: “That was pretty incoherent, Frank. I assumed you knew the details of the consensus view. It’s pretty much a given that in order to argue against the consensus narrative you have to understand it better than its proponents. In the consensus narrative warming above and beyond the predictable radiative transfer warming of 1C per CO2 doubling is accomplished through water vapor amplification ”
Frank replies: You seem to be a little slow today, David. I wasn’t criticizing the consensus mechanism that allegedly produces high climate sensitivity. I said that Judith shouldn’t characterized human-caused climate change mediated by strongly positive feedbacks as a “theory” or even “premature theory”. Without AOGCM’s, there is little basis for speculation about human-caused climate change. Even with AOGCMs, it took two decades of rapid warming (about 0.3 K) for scientists to claim a “discernible” human influence on climate. However, AOGCMs don’t constitute the basis for a “scientific theory”. Tuning each of several dozen parameters in a AOGCM constitutes a separate hypotheses, many parameters interact with other parameters, creating hundreds of interacting combinations. None of these parameter choices can be validated. A collection of untestable hypotheses does not constitute a scientific theory. An “ensemble of opportunity” of AOGCMs doesn’t constitute a “scientific” approach to exploring what range of future climate is consistent with our understanding of the physics that controls its behavior. Even the IPCC admits that the spread of model output can’t be used to draw probabilistic conclusions about future climate. The IPCC relies on their “expert judgment” to do that. Scientific theory are not validated by “expert judgment”.
For the record, I do understand the consensus mechanism for high climate sensitivity. WV feedback alone is not enough. Based on the OBSERVED seasonal cycle (Manabe PNAS 2013) and AOGCMs, combined WV+LR feedback in the LWR channel of clear skies is about 2.2 W/m2/K (equivalent to an ECS of 1.7 K/doubling). The same is true for OLR from cloudy skies. Both results are very robust. High climate sensitivity requires decreasing reflection of SWR by clouds with rising surface temperature. This hypothesis has not been tested.
David, measures and correlation statistics of temp and CO2 do not display an on/off switch or a control knob. What is displayed is a stair stepping increase in the current direct observations of temperature with a temperature leading CO2 function in the ice cores. A simple slope-intercept equation given an x-y table would suffice to produce linear trends comparable to fancy models. Which leads one to look for another source of heat that is causing a temperature rise followed by a CO2 increase. That source could be external as in solar. However current observations and newly calibrated solar reconstructions show that at least in terms of changes in W/m2 available at Earth’s lower atmosphere and surface that external source is doubtful, though not yet fully examined. The source could be internal as in stored heat in areas we do not have sensors, migrating and surfacing to areas we do have sensors. The only thing capable of poorly observed storage and release of heat over long term time scales would be the oceans. Judith alludes to these areas of study in her testimony.
No, it clearly does display an on/off switch characteristic.
The earth would be a snowball without CO2. The atmosphere would be almost bone dry from the cold and the only thing generating any water vapor would be sublimation of ice and volcanoes. The albedo of the planet would be sky high which also serves to enforce the frozen state. It is widely believed the earth has entered a snowball (or at least slushball) phase one or several times in the past.
Indeed the big mystery is what triggers a melt from a snowball state. My own pet hypothesis is volcanoes over millions of years. In a snowball earth the usual CO2 sinks are shut down so CO2 emission from volcanoes accumulates in the atmosphere. Moreover there is no snow falling on a frozen earth so dark volcanic ash will accumulate on the surface lowering the albedo. A tripping point is reached where a runaway melt occurs. But that’s just me. I haven’t encountered a better explanation.
Speaking of runaway melts, CO2 as an on/off switch for the water cycle is evidence in global temperature proxies in Vostok ice cores.
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
Note at the end of a glacial epic temperature shoots up like a skyrocket then each and every time hits a ceiling, at the same maximum temperature, that stops any further increase. That ceiling is, in my opinion, the full engagement of the water cycle and the earth reaching its modern 68% global could cover which arrests any further warming like a dog reaching the end of its leash.
Also worth noting is that the Holocene a little different. There’s a brief downward tick in CO2 near the end of the warming. That’s the Younger Dryas which I mentioned in a previous comment. After it happened global temperature never quite reached the high of previous interglacials. This appears to have saved the Greenland Ice sheet and potentially placed the earth in an endless interglacial where GAT just rings up and down 1-2C never getting warm enough for long enough to finish the melt.
This is all knowledge off the top of my head, honey, and the facts are all accurate. You couldn’t write this without help to save your life. I suggest you pay attention and stop demonstrating your ignorance by trying to critique it.
Cloud…not “could”. So that must mean to you that you are out of my league? It’s your logic.
But on to your argumentative comment. Not too bad. It is your strong suit. My thoughts: when we are getting warmer, it is because the oceans are evaporating heat to the atmosphere. When we are getting colder the oceans are absorbing heat leaving land masses out in the cold. This process is played out in the equatorial band and is collectively referred to as ENSO.
Now consider the past much greater swings in the 800,000 year paleo reconstructions, especially the ice core reconstructions. To me the rise to the peaks looks more like the process towards complete discharge of heat capacity of a volume of water given its current dimensions and circulation (a super El Niño?). The orbital mechanics may encourage the switch then to net recharge, which would leave us getting jaggedly colder and colder as the oceans absorb solar heat instead of evaporating, with occasional but temporary discharge (a normal and super normal La Niña?). Eventually the oceans cannot absorb anymore heat thus through teleconnected atmospheric-oceanic processes combined with orbital mechanics begin evaporating heat, thus the quick rise to peak.
This process may be a very long term ENSO oscillation which is imbedded with shorter La Niña and El Niño events. Recall that La Niña is the normal mode on steroids while El Niño is the not normal event. It then makes sense that we spend more time being cold and less time enjoying warmth over long time scales.
My last paragraph will only serve to encourage a thoughtful return argument from you less peppered with non-essential snide remarks.
To clarify one segment in my comment, the jagged fall to a stadial period looks like normal net recharge interspersed with super La Niña recharge events and only occasionally interrupted with periods of discharge within short periods of El Niño events.
Why am I not surprised?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude
How do “scientists” or “policy makers” in the USA determine whether the “climate” is improving or worsening over time, period; much less as a function of CO2 levels? What are the metrics?
It is lunacy to conclude that warming necessarily equates to a worsening of the climate. The key metrics will vary by location but would rarely be driven by a change in temperature.
Dr. Curry, next time you have an opportunity to address the committee in regards to the scientific method, it would be wonderful to hear you talk about falsifiability. In particular, the requirement to start with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, to wit:
1) a list of observations, which if observed, mean a hypothesis is false;
2) a logical argument that the lack of those falsifications means that a hypothesis must be favored over all others (including the null).
Translation into plain english:
1) tell me what would change your mind;
2) tell me why those if the things that would change your mind aren’t there, the only explanation left is yours.
So much of the problem with much of climate science is that they haven’t ever been able to specify a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis for AGW, much less CAGW.
The key word in Judith’s testimony is dynamics – in both climate and models. There is no evidence at all the fundamental climate mechanism – dynamic complexity – is understood by anyone here. But you should take the comment on not knowing whether the result will be good or bad to heart.
A dynamic climate is both far more and less sensitive to imposed forcings. Conditions change until a point where there is a sudden shift. Like adding pressure gradually on a switch until it flips.
Which conceptual model seems more likely to you?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ghil.png
“A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
On the other hand there are things that should be done. Efficiency leading to less carbon intensive and more productive economies – unless you want to get left behind. Research and development funding for 21st century energy sources – unless you want to get left behind. Restoration of soils and ecosystems – for both productivity and as stewards of nature. There are things that mustn’t be done – large scale costs imposed on greenhouse gases or the overthrow of capitalism and democracy.
“There is no evidence at all the fundamental climate mechanism – dynamic complexity – is understood by anyone here.”
Too bad you didn’t stop there instead of droning on in a demonstration of said non-understanding.
If a member of the general public may weigh in – I believe Drs. Curry and Christy made a compelling case yesterday that current climate models are not fit for the purpose of predicting conditions very far into the future. Accordingly, using those models to justify mandated lifestyle changes or the remaking of entire industries or economies is unwarranted.
Perhaps I can illustrate the interface between climate science and policy on a much smaller scale, i.e., in my personal life. Having listened to scientific arguments on both sides, and considering the character and demeanor of those making the arguments, I choose not to become unduly fearful of what a couple tenths of a degree Celsius warming per decade might bring. There’s simply too much life to live. If we, as individuals and local communities, cannot cope, adapt, even thrive, in the face of what Scott Adams calls a “slow-moving disaster”, we’re not worthy of the classification homo sapiens. We have jobs to do, children to raise, relatives to care for, communities to serve. Saving the planet can wait.
This is not to disparage or minimize the value of climate science, only to put it in perspective. Accordingly, I applaud Dr. Curry’s call for funding priorities focused more on observing systems and fundamental climate dynamics. Meanwhile, most of us, scientists and non-scientists alike, will continue to live lives chock full of predictable and unpredictable joys and sorrows, whatever the weather or climate does. A de-politicization of climate science is long overdue, and I wish Dr. Curry success in making it happen.
It should be noted the models can’t reconstruct the known temperature record of the past century. If any one of them could we would use that one model instead of the average of a model ensemble. Using an ensemble dilutes the error of any individual model while increasing the range of possible outcomes. Hence we end up with an ensemble ECS range of 1.5C to 4.5C with 95% confidence.
It should be noted the range hasn’t been narrowed in 50 years. That range is too wide for policy decisions other than wait & see. Observed warming since 1998 is 0.13C which is statistically insignificant. If it doesn’t pick up real soon now to 0.1C/decade then the jig is up, the model ensemble is broken, and climate scientists need to go back to the drawing board and figure out how and why they screwed the pooch.
There’s more…
It’s an organisation that values accountability. Someone should tell Michael that he is on the Board of Directors.
http://climateaccountability.org/about.html
Yes, Chief, accountability in science means reproducing
the data – Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes Feb 21.2005 posted
at ClimateAudit:
‘I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed
to pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which
we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We
have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make
the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find
something wrong with it.’
I suspect my interpretation of that video extract is different to yours Beth?
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/03/the-house-science-climate-model-show-trial/#Mar-31
The denialosphere is of course now spinning like crazy attempting to pin something, anything, on Michael Mann.
You mean he isn’t on the Board of Directors as they claim or that it doesn’t qualify as associated?
BTW – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965211000053
Robert – Do you really want to get me started on the Arctic?
Did you read what’s at the far end of my link? From your comment I assume not. To save you the trouble:
The denialosphere is of course now spinning like crazy attempting to pin something, anything, on Michael Mann.
Usurping Lamar Smith’s role as Cardinal Biggles, Clay Higgins kept on interrupting Mann as he attempted to clarify the question:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/847696552046993409
Mann caught short. Primary evidence,
not follow up ‘theory inoculation,’ rules in science,
elsewise the politicks of self aggrandisement.
By all means start on your ‘special subject’.
But you haven’t answered the question – is he not on the board of the CAI as they claim or doesn’t that qualify as associated?
Robert – At the risk of repeating myself Mann said, and I quote:
“I’ve submitted my CV. You can see who I’m ‘associated’ with”
His CV states, quoted by McIntyre:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8LoasUVwAEkwBq.jpg
The Arctic will have to wait for a while. Some of us have work to do!
So that’s a no – he isn’t on the board of directors or it doesn’t qualify as associated? He just knows some people?
And repeating things is what you do best.
You have a way with twisting words Robert! At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself:
“Usurping Lamar Smith’s role as Cardinal Biggles, Clay Higgins kept on interrupting Mann as he attempted to clarify the question.
Mann said ‘Am I associated with them? I know people’ whereupon Clay Higgins interrupted him.”
https://youtu.be/7WJXHY2OXGE?t=35s
Accordiung to Mann it is all about how association is defined. Whether he is associated or not would seem a simple question and one he answered no to – he just knows people.
So is being on the board of directors associated or not? Answer the question accusing me of twisting words.
… instead of accusing me…
Robert – A late lunch!
At the risk of (repeating myself)^n
Mann said “Am I associated with them? I know people” at which point he was interrupted by “Cardinal Biggles”.
A bit later Mann said “I’ve submitted my CV. You can see who I’m associated with”.
Steve M. kindly revealed to you what Mann’s CV states.
Q.E.D?
Manns response on the issue was clearly an attempt at denial by obfuscation. He seemed to me to be showing evidence of weasel tendencies. The truthful answer was Yes
He said no and it depends on what you mean by associate. I’d interrupt this piffle too. It is not the Spanish Inquisition – there are no penalties – it is just mildly amusing that his first instinct was to prevaricate. As is your squirming around the point.
> denial by obfuscation.
Invoking “denial by obfuscation” looks like denial by obfuscation.
Reblogged this on MUSO MUSINGS ON FATHERHOOD THEORY AND STUFF The New Grub Street "Taste is like philosophy. It belongs to a very small number of privileged souls … It is unknown in bourgeois families, where one is constantly occupied with the care of one's fortune". Voltaire. Support my writing, see the links. http://www.patreon.com/RogerGLewis Philosoetry, can be bought in Kindle or PDF at Amazon or Lulu http://amzn.to/2cVhNFM http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/RogerGLewis Novels, The Plantsman and The Conquest of Dough, coming soon. and commented:
This is the Mann et al paper.
“Coumou et al.19 showed that the Northern Hemisphere summer jet and associated storm activity have weakened since 1979 and hypothesized that this could lead to more persistent, and therefore more extreme, summer weather. Decreases in summer cyclone activity also lead to a decrease in cloud cover, giving rise to higher maximum temperatures24. This weakening in storm activity is seen in future climate model projections as well, linked to rapid warming in the Arctic, but the observed decline is faster than predicted19,26.” http://www.nature.com/articles/srep45242#t1
It is to do with less penetration of Arctic storms in summer into lower latitudes and so warmer and drier conditions – droughts and heatwaves.
It is of course clear that the changes since 1979 are far from entirely anthropogenic as they assume.
“The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is a large scale mode of climate variability, also referred to as the Northern Hemisphere annular mode. The AO is a climate pattern characterized by winds circulating counterclockwise around the Arctic at around 55°N latitude. When the AO is in its positive phase, a ring of strong winds circulating around the North Pole acts to confine colder air across polar regions. This belt of winds becomes weaker and more distorted in the negative phase of the AO, which allows an easier southward penetration of colder, arctic airmasses and increased storminess into the mid-latitudes.” https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/ao/
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/ao.png
So the question is – why the natural variation in the Arctic Oscillation? The newest idea is that it is associated with solar UV/ozone chemistry.
Looks like simple chaotic oscillation.
“A number of studies have indicated that the decreases in global mean temperature associated with a future decline in solar activity are likely to be relatively small3,4,5,6,7. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance has been linked to changes in surface pressure that resemble the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (AO/NAO)8,9,10 and studies of both the 11-year solar cycle11,12 and centennial timescales13 suggest the potential for larger regional effects. The mechanism for these changes is via a stratospheric pathway, a so-called ‘top-down’ mechanism, and involves altered heating of the stratosphere by solar ultraviolet irradiance.” http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
More likely a trigger for global regime shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
People typically speculate about discernible causes for what are actually simply chaotic oscillations, which have no discernible cause. Classical physics hates chaos. But when random looking oscillations appear in known chaotic systems, chaos should be the first hypothesis, not the last.
“But when random looking oscillations appear in known chaotic systems, chaos should be the first hypothesis, not the last.”
“noise” should be the first hypothesis, you know, trying to get meaningful information out of a weak signal.
Every time in the past 10 years or more when someone has asserted that cyclical variance in the solar constant is less than 1% I have responded that the power spectrum changes dramatically and in particular that near infrared power decreases by 10% while ultraviolet power increases by 10%. Given that ultraviolet is mostly absorbed by the stratosphere while near infrared is mostly absorbed by the ocean this can and must have an impact on the climate that is not anticipated by the relatively tiny change in total solar power.
I disagree. Nor is the signal to noise metaphor meaningful. No one is signalling.
David, an increase/decrease in an energy weak narrow solar UV band is considered to be well buried in overall solar energy variations. Which translates into an equally buried in much greater noise effect in any weather/climate matter of importance. I recommend you do the math on this one.
…meant for David S.
David Wojick: Nor is the signal to noise metaphor meaningful. No one is signalling.
Noise (aka “random variation”) is always present. Whether there is some one “signaling”, the word signal is commonly used for the reproducible or reliably predictable aspects. You prefer a long phrase, such as “reproducible or reliably predictable aspects”, or perhaps “noumena”.
Looks like simple chaotic oscillation.
When there is noise present, it is extremely difficult to identify the properties of a chaotic process, especially when the noise is “long memory”.
What, in your mind, is “simple” chaotic oscillation? And what accounts for the Arctic Oscillation?
Robert I Ellison: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
Thank you for the link.
“I disagree. Nor is the signal to noise metaphor meaningful. No one is signalling.”
Considering some of the novel signal processing methods used, no one needs to be signaling. Isn’t ERSST version 5.0 due out soon?
“Here I argue that the dominant dichotomous logic reflects a naıve and inconsistent view of randomness. It cannot help us see the unity of Nature. Are the movement of planets and that of dice qualitatively different natural phenomena? Do they not obey the same physical laws? Abandoning this
logic and seeking a more consistent view, I propose to identify randomness with unpredictability. Randomness exists in processes that we may understand, we may explain, but we cannot predict. In other words, randomness and determinism (which, in turn, could be identified with predictability) coexist in the same process, but are not separable or additive components. It is a matter of specifying the time horizon and scale of prediction to decide which of the two dominates. This view, which will be illustrated in the sequel, is consistent with Kolmogorov’s and Chaitin’s views of mathematical randomness, as well as with K. Popper’s (1992) indeterministic world view.” https://www.itia.ntua.gr/getfile/923/1/documents/hess-14-585-2010.pdf
“Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. This conundrum motivates our study.” https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/guest-post-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-and-northern-hemisphere%E2%80%99s-climate-variability-by-marcia-glaze-wyatt-sergey-kravtsov-and-anastasios-a-tsonis/
Earth systems are vast and resonant. Reductionism – the essence of the traditional scientific method – fails to capture the collective behaviour of the parts. I assume it all obeys the fundamental laws of physics – of cause and effect – but we have neither the math nor the observations to untangle the complexity of globally interacting Earth systems. To my mind – the right questions to ask are the simplest ones. What are the major modes of climate variability and what are the causes of observed periodicity. The bottom water formation zones of the north Atlantic and the upwelling zones of the eastern Pacific are obvious places to start. The chaotic model suggests that we are looking for an external trigger that biases the globally resonant system to one state or another.
Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
Solar UV/ozone chemistry may be just that trigger – that explains the correlation of climate and solar intensity – as it modulates circulation in the polar cells and thus pressure fields in polar and sub-polar zones. The connections suggest that the next climate shift – due in a 2018-2028 window – will be to cooler conditions. Not just cyclical – but a hypothesis about a mechanism.
Pamela Gray: David, an increase/decrease in an energy weak narrow solar UV band is considered to be well buried in overall solar energy variations.
But should it be so “considered”?
To me this is an area that needs more research. The joint upper atmosphere effects of increased UV and lower atmosphere/surface effects of decreased IR (if they occur) are about the same order of magnitude as the doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the mathematics appropriate to the joint effects have not been studied — at least I have not come across a good recent review. .
Jim Hunt | March 30, 2017 at 9:27 am |
Jim, I’m a surfer myself so this was of great interest. However, I went to your site and I couldn’t find one single fact about losing surf forecasts. Lots of fear, lots of “might” and “could”, but I didn’t see any evidence that surf forecasts are in danger. Me, I doubt greatly that it will happen.
Why?
Because surf forecasts are nothing more than wave forecasts, and the US Navy has a very large and continuing interest in wave forecasts. These wave models were first developed by the Navy and I doubt they’ll let them die.
So I gotta ask. Do you have any actual evidence that surf forecasts are in danger, or is this just more TDS?
w.
Willis – See for example:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/29/house-science-committee-hearing/#comment-843766
and:
http://www.saveoursurfforecast.org/2017/03/leaked-document-suggests-noaa-oceanic-research-faces-26-percent-cuts/
You wouldn’t put it past Bannon et al. to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Public funding should be predicated on public need.
What public need is served by surf forecasts? It sounds to me like the cost of surf forecasts should be borne by those interested in them not the general public. In other words don’t ask me to subsidize your entertainment.
David – Willis and I have both made the point. At the risk of repeating Willis and I:
“‘Surf’ forecasts are nothing more than wave forecasts, and the US Navy has a very large and continuing interest in wave forecasts.”
Jim Hunt | March 31, 2017 at 4:54 am
I asked for “actual evidence”, and said I didn’t want “lots of ‘might’ and ‘could'” … and you send me a link to a leaked document that SUGGESTS something?
Surely you are aware that “actual evidence” does not mean “suggestions”. Gotta say, if that’s all you got, so far it’s just more TDS, not evidence in any sense of the word. Nor has my own search found any actual evidence that he plans to cut out wave forecasting.
If you have such evidence about wave forecasting, now would be the time to bring it out …
As to Bannon, the baby, and the bathwater, I’ve never seen and have no desire to see Bannon in a bathtub, so I fear you’ll have to answer that one yourself. I don’t know enough about the man.
I will note, however, that your claim about Bannon just another uncited, unsupported accusation. Where is your evidence that he is a baby-thrower?
w.
Willis – Whilst I much appreciate the surreal touches in your comment, perhaps I should point out that the “baby throwing” bit in mine was not meant to be taken literally?
Perhaps we might ask Judith at this juncture about the concerns she expressed on Wednesday? For some very recent “rumours” see for example this European angle on recent events in Washington DC:
http://sciencenordic.com/usa-budget-planned-cuts-climate-and-satellite-programs
The White House released a budget “blueprint” providing the first guide on precisely how much and where the White House seeks to cut US climate research and Earth monitoring satellite programs, and it is this blueprint that has scientists on both side of the Atlantic especially concerned.
The blueprint is the first step towards the final budget, which is due to be submitted to Congress later this spring to come into force in 2018.
It outlines proposed cuts to individual NASA and NOAA satellite programs as well as a 16 per cent funding cut to the Department of Commerce, which houses NOAA.
Scientists fear that the cuts will ultimately lead to gaps in future satellite coverage, which would mean a loss of data that are crucial for producing accurate weather forecasts around the world, as well as harming future collaborations between US and European scientists.
Jim Hunt | March 31, 2017 at 6:16 am |
My point exactly. It was nothing but an unsubstantiated meaningless attack on Bannon with no actual content at all. Perhaps such attacks impress you. To me, they just mean the person has drunk the political koolaid.
I understand that there are rumors. I understand that there are fears, you quote the European fears. I understand that Judith is concerned. However, I asked for evidence, not rumors or fear or concern.
Meanwhile, I find the following:
Asking NOAA to justify its overbudget satellites is simply common sense. And looking to the private sector also seems logical. However, you’ve still given us nothing showing a loss of wave forecasts. Zero. Zip. Not one hint that wave forecasting is in danger.
Regards,
w.
Willis – Actual “Facts” are rather hard to come by just at the moment! FUD rules OK?
Re Bannon et al., what do you make of this allegedly “conservative” perspective?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/gist/2016/11/ben_shapiro_on_steve_bannon_the_alt_right_and_why_the_left_needs_to_turn.html
Jim Hunt | March 31, 2017 at 10:52 am |
Thanks for the reply, Jim. When that happens to me, I prefer to STFU until I have actual facts. You, on the other hand …
I don’t understand what Bannon has to do with this, but sure, I’ll comment.
Like you, Ben Shapiro specializes in evidence-free attacks. He says over and over that Bannon is not anti-Semite, but then attacks him as anti-Semitic because the COMMENTS SECTION of Breitbart includes people who are anti-Semitic …
Do you understand just how slimy this kind of attack is? You can’t defend against it. Not only that, but It’s as stupid as saying that Anthony believes what the commenters on this site believe … you can see the rank stupidity of that claim WRT this site, but you blindly believe it when applied to someone you’ve decided to hate.
I can tell you who is ugly to me in that article, and it’s Ben Shapiro. He flat out lies about people saying things, viz:
<blockquote
Yes, and they’ll say it openly—they’ll say, “Bannon isn’t one of us. Breitbart isn’t us. Trump isn’t one of us. But they’re the most useful tool we’ve ever found.”
If that is a quote, then who said it? But of course, we know it’s not a quote, it is a LIE. It’s that lovely thing, #FakeNews, because SHAPIRO MADE THE QUOTE UP. Nobody ever said that.
Shapiro seems to specialize in uncited, unsupported claims like this one:
More sliminess. If you want to attack a man for not having principles, you need to specify just how and why, with plenty of evidence.
For me, this laughable ad hominum attack on Bannon simply because Shapiro doesn’t like his politics, and your support of Shapiro’s rabid claims, perfectly exemplifies the underlying issue:
The people to be worried about are not the alt-right.
The dangerous group is the ctrl-left …
w.
Ahoy Willi,
As this sub-topic was about the ocean.
Did you notice anything factually wrong with this new research paper?
daily.jstor.org/global-jellyfish-crisis-perspective/
“While there was a slight upward trend of blooms in recent years, that increase was within the normal range of variability.
The group didn’t reject the jellyfish-climate link, but they suggested that there might be other explanations for the increase in jellyfish abundance.”
“Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.”
Willis – I didn’t say that I “support Shapiro’s rabid claims”. I asked, and I quote “what do you make of this allegedly ‘conservative’ perspective?”. Thanks for your lengthy response.
What do you make of this newly released alleged evidence?
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/white-house-staff-financial-disclosures-236765
Steve Bannon, a top adviser to President Donald Trump, earned more than half a million dollars last year from entities linked to a pair of major conservative donors, according to documents released by the White House detailing the personal finances of its officials.
Jim Hunt | April 2, 2017 at 2:13 am |
What do I make of that? From reading that it seems, amazingly, that President Trump has surrounded himself with wealthy people. Who knew?
(Well, everyone who voted for him knew …)
So I’m not sure what caught your eye. A more direct statement and question would be useful …
w.
Willis – Over here in the once Great Britain I get my “liberal propaganda” via The Economist. They tell me there’s:
An insurgent in the White House
To understand Mr Trump’s insurgency, start with the uses of outrage. In a divided America, where the other side is not just mistaken but malign, conflict is a political asset. The more Mr Trump used his stump speeches to offend polite opinion, the more his supporters were convinced that he really would evict the treacherous, greedy elite from their Washington salons.
His grenade-chuckers-in-chief, Stephen Bannon and Stephen Miller, have now carried that logic into government. Every time demonstrators and the media rail against Mr Trump, it is proof that he must be doing something right. If the outpourings of the West Wing are chaotic, it only goes to show that Mr Trump is a man of action just as he promised.
Politico tells me:
The disclosure highlighted Bannon’s ties to a pair of conservative political donors, Robert and Rebekah Mercer. The couple, which funded the upstart data company Cambridge Analytica, backed Cruz early on but eventually swung their allegiance to Trump.
Cambridge Analytica later worked for Trump, and now it is seeking government contracts. Bannon’s disclosure form said that he has “an agreement in principle” to sell his stake in Cambridge.
Bannon also reported income from the Government Accountability Institute and the film production company Glittering Steel, both of which are linked to the Mercers, who also are part owners of Breitbart.
Particularly given my continued railings against Dellers’ fantasy fiction articles for Breitbart UK what am I to think?
You should be thankful Hillary didn’t win.
When an agency is threatened by a budget cut the standard practice is to say its most important program will have to be cut. This is seldom true, just a tactic.
Pingback: Klimatpolitiksmotståndare - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen
I was very disappointed in what I saw of Lamar Smith’s handling of the hearing. I watched about 2 minutes of his “questioning” of Michael Mann. Essentially, all Smith did was give a speech, and he really didn’t give Mann a chance to answer questions. Mann has a very checkered history, but if you are going to purport to ask him a question, he should be given the chance to answer. Additionally, knowing Mann, the more chances he is given to talk, the more that he would stick his foot in the mouth. Smith’s conduct of the hearing (at least the portion where he asked Mann about affiliations that I listened to) simply amounted to him giving a speech. This is not the most effective way of using the Committee’s power and platform.
JD
JD, I agree. The reps made themselves look foolish giving their own prepared statements on climate science rather than preparing informed questions.
Asking what caused the ice age without a guiding point was perplexing. A better question would be what events cause the termination of the brief pauses in the Quaternary Ice Age like our current interglacial? Is it possible we do not know what events caused the termination of previous interglacials? Is CO2 associated with temperature swings of the last 400,000 years, as portrayed by Al Gore in his Nobel Prize winning movie? Howso?
An interesting take in National Review on Mann. He is disconnected from reality. It is amazing that climate scientists don’t see this or at least remain silent about it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446295/michael-mann-house-testimony-climate-change-embarrassing-rude
Money quote from the reference:
Well, he’s an interesting case, to be sure.
Even mentioning baroclinic instability is a plus.
On the downside:
* invoking political figures and actions means he clearly has them in mind – politicized science because he’s following a political agenda?
* the appeals to emotion – “cows burned alive” wasn’t strictly rational.
* we cannot forget “hide the decline” or giving up on JC because she wasn’t helping “the cause”. These things, along with uttering that tell-tale indicator phrase in the testimony – “worse than expected”, indicate to me that Mann is more motivated to fudge for the cause than out of curiosity.
* calling JC a denier, in written testimony, where one has more time to reflect than verbal exchanges no less, is not indicative of measure, reason, or confidence in one’s own case.
* denying calling anyone denier was just too richly ironic for JC to bear
Should be about phenomena, not the personalities ( ad hominem ) but
most hearings are theater, so we enjoy our heroine and villain.
TE,
deny calling anyone a dinier when it is historical but even worse in the current written testimony is more than interesting. Then saying one does not belong to teh institute when one is on the web page as a director is more interesting. But having Smith find the exact quote in the written testimony and then denying it is hugely entertaining. Sad but entertaining.
Scott
Ecce homo! Or in politically-correct-ese: Ecce femina! Or better still: Ecce virago!
Mann has made several huge mistakes during this testimony. It’s time that somebody takes legal action against him. I sincerely hope it is in the works.
His contempt for Congess and for the institution of Science is mind boggling. His treatment of Judith Curry is abhorrent.
Penn State has been complicit in building this third rate hack into a tyrant. Mark Steyn’s analogy with the Sandusky affair was spot on.
Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/michael-mann-just-jumped-the-climate-change-shark/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true
Jim Hunt | April 2, 2017 at 6:07 am |
Not sure what the issue is, Jim. Both of those seem like fairly good descriptions of the US scene. Yes, the political scene is very divided. Yes, the Mercers are large players. But none of this is news, at least here in the US.
w.
Pingback: Science needs reason to be trusted | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Science needs reason to be trusted – Enjeux énergies et environnement
It is really bad that people who should know better don’t.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-position-letters/letter-to-house-committee-on-science-space-and-technology-on-opening-remarks-for-the-29-march-2017-hearing/
I have a post on this coming later today
A sad testament to science.
Pingback: House Science Committee Hearing | privateclientweb
Pingback: Heartland ICCC12 "Resetting U.S. climate policy" in het kort - Climategate.nl
Pingback: I Love Neil deGrasse Tyson, but He is Wrong | I am Not a Scientist, But I Do Have a Brain!
Pingback: A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science | Climate Etc.
Pingback: A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science – Enjeux énergies et environnement
Pingback: I Love Neil deGrasse Tyson, but He is Wrong on Climate | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Untangling the March for Science | Climate Etc.