Consensus enforcers versus the Trump administration

by Judith Curry

Tough days on The Hill for the enforcers of the climate consensus.

While EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has been taking most of the ‘heat’ for the Trump administrations climate policy, this past week Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke stepped into the fray.

Rick Perry was asked in an interview on CNBCs Squawk Box whether he believed carbon dioxide was “the primary control knob for the temperature of the Earth and for climate.” Perry responded:  “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.”  “. . . the fact is this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?

In a recent Congressional hearing, Perry further stated that he wasn’t buying arguments that climate change is 100% caused by humans, and that he supported  the ‘red team’ approach.

At the same Congressional hearing, Senator Franken repeatedly asked Zinke if he could “tell me how much warming government scientists predict for the end of this century under a business-as-usual scenario?”  Zinke stated: “I don’t think government scientists can predict with certainty,” he said. “There isn’t a model that exists today that can predict today’s weather given all the data.”

Response from the consensus police

From the eenews article about Zinke’s testimony:

Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said Zinke’s explanation was “a stupid and ignorant answer.”

Climate models, he said, are getting better. The simulations increasingly line up with observed changes. 

“Well, all models are wrong, but some are useful,” Trenberth said. “Weather models aren’t able to accurately predict if it’ll be sunny or rainy two weeks from now because they are sensitive to small disruptions.

“But the patterns of weather may still be predictable in the same sense that summer is different than winter,” he added. “And that is what climate is all about: determining the effects of the sun, the atmospheric composition, the oceans, the ice and … looking for systematic influences.”

While climate modeling and weather forecasting are similar, they rely on different sets of data and measure vastly different time scales, said Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

When looking over long periods of time, the external drivers of climate — things like how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere trapping heat, and how many trees have been cut down and are no longer sequestering greenhouse gases — can be used to make statistical predictions about the climate, Schmidt said.

JC comment:  Zinke’s statement is true.  Trenberth is a scientific bully/thug for calling Zinke’s answer stupid and ignorant, especially when both Trenberth and Schmidt basically admit that the models can’t predict the future.

In response to Perry’s statement, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Keith Seitter, said in a letter to Perry:

While you acknowledged that the climate is changing and that humans are having an impact on it, it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

This is a conclusion based on the comprehensive assessment of scientific evidence. It is based on multiple independent lines of evidence that have been affirmed by thousands of independent scientists and numerous scientific institutions around the world.

In the interview you also mentioned that it should be quite acceptable to be a skeptic about aspects of the science. We agree, and would add that skepticism and debate are always welcome and are critically important to the advancement of science.

In climate science unresolved questions remain—issues that currently lack conclusive evidence. However, there are also very solid conclusions that are based on decades of research and multiple lines of evidence. Skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue. As noted above, the role of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as the primary driver for the warming the Earth has experienced over the past several decades is extremely well established.

Roy Spencer has an article in Fox News responding to Seitter’s letter, excerpts:

Basically, Perry is saying he believes nature has a larger role than humans in recent warming. I, too, believe the oceans might well be a primary driver of climate change, but whether the human/nature ratio is 50/50, or less, or more than that is up for debate. We simply don’t know.

So, while Sec. Perry goes against the supposed consensus of scientists, what he said was not outlandish, and it wasn’t a denial of a known fact. It was a valid opinion on an uncertain area of science.

Seitter calls the claims in his letter “indisputable.” Really? In my opinion, the AMS view (which draws upon the U.N. IPCC view) is much more definitively stated than the evidence warrants.

Sure, all the scientific institutions are on the bandwagon, with politically savvy committees agreeing with each other. They are, in effect, being paid by the government to agree with the consensus through billions of dollars in grants and contracts.

So, maybe I can ask the AMS: Just what percentage of recent warming was natural in origin? None? 10%? 40%? How do you know? Why was the pre-1940 warming rate—caused by Mother Nature—almost as strong as recent warming?

Pielke Senior tweets:

What [Keith Seitter’s letter] further documents, is how small cabal of individuals controls information flow to policymakers.

Mike Smith tweets:

It is wrong for a small group of AMS executives to play politics on behalf of the society’s members w/o a vote of the society.


PolitiFact did a fact check on Rick Perry’s statement.  Excerpts:

Perry’s claim flies in the face of settled science.

The world’s leading authority on climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has concluded that human activity is “extremely likely” to be the main driver of warming since the mid 20th century.

While it’s still possible to find dissenters, scientists around the globe generally agree with this conclusion.

“We have concluded close to all of the recent trends in global temperature is due to human activity, and CO2 is the dominant factor,” Schmidt said, referring to carbon dioxide.

Perry’s claim contradicts settled science. While natural factors certainly affect the climate, human factors are the main contributor to global warming, and carbon dioxide has acted as the “primary control knob” governing the earth’s relatively recent uptick in temperature.

We rate Perry’s statement False.

On June 20, John Kruzel, the author of the Politifact article, sent me an email:

We’re looking into Energy Secretary Rick Perry’s recent claim that the main cause of climate change is most likely “the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.” We’ve asked the Department of Energy why Perry disagrees with the IPCC that human activity is the main cause of climate change; we’ve received no response so far.

I’d be grateful if you’d consider the following questions:

(1)    Do you consider the IPCC the world’s leading authority on climate change and why?
The IPCC is driven by the interests of policy makers, and the IPCC’s conclusions represent a negotiated consensus.  I don’t regard the IPCC framework to be helpful for promoting free and open inquiry and debate about the science of climate change.
(2)    Do you agree with the IPCC that effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions “are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
It is possible that humans have been the dominant cause of the recent warming, but we don’t really know how to separate out human causes from natural variability.  The ‘extremely likely’ confidence level is wholly unjustified in my opinion.
(3)    How solid is the science behind the conclusion that human activity is the main cause of climate change?
Not very solid, in my opinion.  Until we have a better understanding of long term oscillations in the ocean and indirect solar effects, we can’t draw definitive conclusions about the causes of recent warming.
(4)    What is your response to Perry’s statement?
I don’t have a problem with Perry’s statement.  There is no reason for him to be set up as an arbiter of climate science.  He seems clearly committed to a clean environment and research to developing new energy technologies, which is  his job as Secretary of Energy.

JC question:  So what are we to conclude from PolitiFact’s failure to even mention or consider my responses, after explicitly asking for them?

Red Team/Blue Team

Santer, Emanuel and Oreskes have an op-ed in the WaPo criticizing calls for red team/blue team approach, which was reiterated in Rick Perry’s testimony.  Excerpts:

Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science.

Critiques of this consensus have been offered up for decades. Each critique is often presented as a kind of smoking gun — one piece of evidence that falsifies all other evidence and understanding. There are many examples of such putative smoking guns. The ballistics of each gun has been carefully tested by thousands of scientists around the world. The “natural causes” gun doesn’t fit the overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change. The “no warming” gun is inconsistent with reality.

If you’re a climate scientist, you’ve likely spent years of your career going down such rabbit holes, evaluating “natural causes” and “no warming” claims. You’ve considered and debated these claims. You’ve put them through their paces. They do not hold up to available evidence. Only the most robust findings survive peer review and form the basis of today’s scientific consensus.

Science has substantially improved our understanding of the physical climate system, the reality of human-caused warming, and the likely climatic outcomes if we do nothing to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Rejecting this tried and tested understanding would constitute real “advisory malpractice,” and would delay effective action to address human-caused climate change.

In the case of climate science, we choose to place our trust in peer review and in the scientific community — not in teams appointed by Koonin or Pruitt.

Pielke Sr tweets:

is really about suppression of diversity of scientific views wrt climate science

The problem with Santer et al.’s argument about natural variability is starkly illustrated by this recent paper by Santer et al. (which arguably deserves its own post since it is an interesting and important paper, but I am short of time these days):

Santer, B. D. et al. (2017) Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates

Abstract.  In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty- first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

Zeke has a good summary of the paper at CarbonBrief.

The paper confirms what John Christy has been saying for the last decade, and also supports the ‘denier’ statements made by Ted Cruz about the hiatus.  The conclusion that The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty- first century results is low (between zero and about 9%) hinges on results from climate models that are not fit for such a task.

The bottom line is that there are 4 possibilities to explain the 21st century discrepancy between climate models and observations:

  1. Errors in external forcing data (Santer et al’s preferred explanation)
  2. Internal variability (which has been supported by numerous previous studies, including posts at CE)
  3. Values of CO2 climate sensitivity that are too high (interesting new post on this over at ClimateAudit)
  4. Missing physical processes in the climate models (e.g. solar indirect effects).

In my assessment, all 4 are in play; for the 21st century hiatus, my assessment is that #2 is the dominant factor (with supporting contributions from #3).  The Santer et al. paper attempts to address #1 and #2 (unconvincing with respect to #2).  But there is much that is unknown and uncertain here, with plenty of scope for rational disagreement on this topic.

Bottom line is that this new Santer et al. paper sort of makes a joke of the Santer, Emanuel and Oreskes op-ed.

JC reflections

Seitter’s statement about skepticism deserves comment:

Skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.”  

The disagreement is not so much about observational evidence, but rather about the epistemic status of climate models, the logics used to link the observational evidence into arguments, the overall framing of the problem and overconfident conclusions in the face of incomplete evidence and understanding.  The ‘multiple lines of evidence’ argument simply doesn’t work for a very complex problem, and there are multiple lines of evidence that lead to alternative conclusions.  See my paper Reasoning about climate uncertainty.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change?

  • Insufficient and inadequate  observational evidence
  • Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. global climate models)
  • Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
  • Assessments of areas of ambiguity & ignorance
  • Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science

An interesting perspective on knowledge about complex systems is this recent aeon article The tree of knowledge is not an apple or an oak but a banyan.  

This perspective seems very apt to understanding complex systems.  The article provoked this tweet from Silvio Funtowicz:

Alternative definition of complexity: plurality of legitimate perspectives irreducible to a single perspective 

Given the uncertainties and legitimate reasons for disagreement, a red team/blue team approach seems ideally suited to laying out the different arguments and critiquing them.
The statements made in the op-ed by Santer, Emanuel and Oreskes about dismissing natural variability as an explanation is wholly unjustified:  you only need to read my (not quite weekly) Week in Review – Science Edition posts, of which about 70% of the papers I cite are, if not overtly skeptical, then provide evidence that could easily be integrated into skeptical arguments. Week after week, that is a lot of papers.  And this is not to mention all the papers that I cite about bias (if not outright errors) in academic research.  These papers should be required reading for consensus enforcers.
So, it seems that at least some in the Trump administration want a Red Team/Blue Team exercise regarding climate change. Why wouldn’t the consensus enforcers be delighted to have an opportunity to convince the Trump administration of their superior arguments, relative to the ‘troglodyte’ red team?  Surely this wouldn’t ‘waste’ any more of their time than writing op-eds, marching for science, writing NRC reports, etc.  And they might actually learn something (I daresay Santer, Collins, and Held learned something during the APS Workshop run by Koonins).  And the Trump administration might even kick in funding for this (inexpensive, relative to research funding).
Let the games begin!



780 responses to “Consensus enforcers versus the Trump administration

  1. We are missing the BIG picture. The models will be data starved if Pruitt and others continue their insane budget cuts. REALITY CHECK for modelers.
    The executive branch intends to drastically reduce the funding by 82% for the NOAA Regional Climate Centers (RCCs), the climate data source used by federal agencies nationwide.

    The RCCs are the data pipeline known as the Applied Climate Information System (ACIS) that provides the public real-time information via NOAA and USDA websites. These data are used to assess the spatial extent and enormity of climate and weather generated extreme events. It is ill-advised for Ross to simply say that “no centers are being closed.” It is the equivalent to reducing an underground gas tank by 82% while leaving all the pumps to serve customers. The system will dry up and won’t function without the funds to fill the staffs and respond to our ever increased need for weather and climate information.

    I would gladly exchange some of the billions of dollars invested in research for climate data collection network stability. During my nearly 35 years in federal climate data collection activities, every agency was asked to cut their budget and at the same time expand their networks. No funds were available to QC the data and very little to make the data available for free in the Internet. Data collection is NOT glamorous, but absolutely critical to assessing weather and climate impacts. The private sector uses federal data for a myriad of planning activities. When the data are gone, then we high centered.


    • Don Monfort

      NO!!!! You have misused the data we have been paying for. You don’t need all the freaking models. Take money spent on redundant models and BS research on how warming will harm the blue eyed arctic gnat and spend it on data collection. Get your –snip– straight before asking for more money.

      • Don Monfort

        I reread your comment. Actually, that was a little harsh and probably misdirected. I apologize. I’ll save it for some of these other characters.

      • Monfort,

        Thank you for your apology. I see no harm to the continued monitoring of the earth’s climate under the ocean, throughout the atmosphere and on the land. I lived in the government trenches for decades and executed the laws and used the budget provided as best can be done to provide data to scientists worldwide.

        I see an immense budget headwind, far greater than ever before, that will reduce data collection to the point that ONLY models will be used to make observations.

      • Don,

        Let’s be fair. Shredder calls for redirecting government funding to ensuring the data gets collected and is run through a QC process. Meaning yes to defunding the majority of climate models. Shredder is correct, it is the data which is important, not necessarily all of the potential ways someone might want to use it. That needs to be evaluated separately.

      • I missed your follow on comment Don. My apology as well.

    • Here is the big problem, and theshredder2015 should certainly be cognizant: After an area of government screws up badly over time, corrections are made with a dull axe. How will a new administration know the sheep from the goats?

      One is forced to dewater a few infinity pools while draining the swamp.

      • Fair,
        I was unaware of any major data collection “screw up” that you mention.
        Pruitt is exercising a “scorched earth policy” on any agency that collects data. This is a “one size fits all budget reduction attack” on any federal data collection system. Sheep, goats, everything will be mowed down.

        One thing for sure, THIS administration does not believe anything that any career federal worker recommends be done. They have the answer and it is to ensure that the federal government agencies turn a profit. Congress be damned. How do you expect trump to become the first trillionaire president?????????

      • theshredder2015, dude. Massive Federal screwups in the global warming arena.

        Uh, Federal agencies do not turn a profit. Some collect royalties and fees, but none significantly produce a product for profit. If you are implying our President is rigging the bureaucracy to his direct profit, I would require proof.

        Are you implying that OTHER administrations did not cram policy down government bureaucrats’ throats?

      • I regret that you will never understand the DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM and how it is funded.

      • russellseitz

        David Fair asks :
        “How will a new administration know the sheep from the goats?’

        You can see a lot just by observing:

    • I agree with Shredder,
      How can anyone oppose the collection of information, data. Collecting it does not automatically mean you also have to fund research that can use the data. Imagine how much greater the return on tax dollars would be if the funding of multiple models was trimmed to support the top three, with the rest replacing existing funding for satellites, bouts and other data collection platforms.

      • timg56,
        Thank you for your clear thinking and support. If we had more contributors on this BB endorse funding for data collection, our discipline, and many other climate dependent activities, would definitely benefit.
        Thank you ^1,000!
        The Shredder

    • You should have taken better care of the use of the data, so far it has been fairly useless as it all has been used to further agendas. Unless we can have HONEST debate, we don’t need data. Sorry, that is stupid and brutal, but the state of political climate is so bad the players need to wander in the desert for 40 years to kill off this generation. And no, I do not believe Trump is going to shut off all the data collection and burn the the existing data, even though that is exactly what is being implied by the participants. Fake news.

  2. Why do scientists disagree about climate change?
    There should always be disagreement until conclusive factual evidence has been indisputably resolved. Probably won’t happen soon, especially if government funding of the “research” continues unabated.

    • Scientists actually disagree about climate change…This is an important statement in and of itself that most of the public don’t bother to hear nor understand.

  3. The output of computer models have cost the taxpayers billions of dollars and seem to drive policy decisions. Are these models “transparent” with regards to source code and tuning software? Are they ever subject to independent audit? If they are deemed to be “proprietary” and are not subject to independent audit then that would seem to be a good starting point.

    • Curious George

      At least some models publish the source code and a documentation – But they don’t tell you all simplifying assumptions used –
      To quote Gavin, “a pretty good assumption given the small ratio of water to air” is “often made in atmospheric models” – who cares that it leads to a 3% error in energy transportation by water evaporation from tropical seas. Consequences are not known. Not pretty good for me.

      “Climate models, [Dr. Trenberth] said, are getting better. The simulations increasingly line up with observed changes.” Weren’t they always excellent? Aren’t models the base of all the IPCC hysteria?

      • russellseitz

        While hysterically few people read the IPCC reports simply because of their Biblical length, they all fit on one shelf: Many of the comments here testify to the ease of taxing a work of encyclopedic magnitude with what it does not say, rather than learning from what it does..

      • I have a copy of IPCC AR5 and have read it, some sections more than once.

        Everything in there is speculation based on the hottest model runs using RCP 8.5. I “learned” that all life on earth will suffer if we do not fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems to meet the goals of UN sustainability.

        Oh; and a whole lot of progressive SJW stuff.

        Did I miss anything?

    • Here’s the big guffaw, climate541: If, as they speculate in the paper, model vs observations divergences are “partially” (their implication is “mostly”) due to errors in model forcings in the early 21st Century, how accurate are the model forcings (especially aerosols) in the 20th Century?

      In their eagerness to enforce the “consensus,” Santer and friends fail to realize the damage they are doing to the “team” by not thinking through their arguments, and their impact on prior “team” exaggerations and cover-ups of uncertainty.

  4. Pingback: Podrían los alarmistas presentar sus pruebas, en lugar de limitarse a afirmar que existen? |

  5. The 1910 to 1940 warming was not “all Mother Nature”

    • Nice blanket anthropologizing statement. Do you mean that humans accounted for .01% or perhaps 3%. What does that mean. How is it relevant. Is it only a simple emotional protest without reference to substantiating facts.

      • Are you just replying to my post without reading the article?

        The substantiating fact is that that is what Roy said, the 1910 to 1940 warming rate was caused by “Mother Nature”

        Is it relevant to the discussion what proportion of the warming is natural or caused by human emissions?

      • Yes Bob, it is relevant.

        Just as it is relevant what percentage of warming is now being caused by human activity. Hell, you can’t tell me the estimated percentage of warming broken down by each type of human activity, can you.

        If warming between 1910 and 1940 was 90% due to natural variability, it is accurate enough for the terms of Spencer’s discussion to say all. Your team likes to claim “that human activity is “extremely likely” to be the main driver of warming since the mid 20th century.” Ok, but by what percentage? One can argue that 55% qualifies as “main driver”, but note the term human activity. We are supposed to take your word that only CO2 emissions count among the various types of human activities possibly impacting climate. Why is that?

      • The warming since 1980 is more than twice the warming from 1910-1940, and added on top of it. Debating an equivalence is nonsense.

      • Exactly where did I say equivalent Jim?

        Either learn to be honest or learn to read.

      • That would be Spencer suggesting an equivalence in these periods, but you probably didn’t read what he said.

      • You were responding to me Jim, not Spencer

      • timg56, OK, so you also dismiss Spencer’s equivalence between these periods? Because you did not criticize that up till now.

      • Timg56, do you have a source for the 90% attribution statement for the warming between 1910 and 1940?

        Didn’t think so, are you just pulling that number out of thin air.

        What if it was caused by natural cycles, and was followed by a natural cooling trend?

        It’s not only CO2, I never said it was all CO2, but that CO2 is frankly the easiest one to tackle.

        You know you get no warming if you try to model the climate without the CO2 control knob.

      • Miss the “if” Bob? I have no idea. But then neither do you.

      • Well Timg56, you could try looking it up, or you can remain ignorant of the climate science.

        You got any data for what I don’t know.

        Toast, checkmate, pwnd, etc

    • BD, mostly wrong. AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2 says conclusively that period was mostly natural. Simply not enough change in CO2 is what the IPCC concluded.

      • Well, Roy was talking about the rate anyway, and you know it takes the same amount of work to accelerate from 10 to 20 miles per hour as it does to accelerate from 100 to 110 miles per hour, right?

        Is better to be mostly wrong, as you claim I am, as to being completely wrong, as you are, Ristvan.

        So you say AR4 WG1 is conclusive?

        I’ll write that down.

    • CO2 changes can account for up to 50% of that warming. This is not insignificant. The part it doesn’t account for amounts to about 0.1-0.2 C which is within expected natural variability.

      • Not according tomyhe IPCC reference cited. Go look at SPM fig 8.2 and read the accompanying text.

      • There is no Figure 8.2 in the AR4 WG1 SPM.
        My numbers are that CO2 accounts for 0.1-0.15 C. The 30-year filtered temperature changed by 0.25 C from 1910 to 1940. Therefore about half the long-term trend was CO2.

      • Your are right. Misremembered. The reference should be to is Figure SPM 4. I just checked. 8.2 was in the longer WG1 itself.

      • CO2 accounts for 0.1-0.15 C of that change. How you measure the change depends on endpoints, but there was a local minimum in 1910 because of a solar lull. Whatever change you find, 0.1-0.15 C is a significant fraction and it is plain wrong to say it was all Mother Nature.

    • The forcings used by the IPCC suggest the warming from 1910-1940 was mostly natural. Depends on which IPCC report I suppose. CO2 levels did not start going up substantially until the 1950’s. Not sure why you are arguing something that is so well known. And JimD, not sure what the heck you are talking about. You are using GISS which shows the most warming of most data sets, so what you are showing is the worst case. And if you compare the 1910-40 to the current period it is NOT more than twice. It is a bit less than twice by my eye. So that would mean that the current warming could be half or a bit less than half due to non-natural causes. Worst case, using GISS. With error bars 50% +/- 20% (just to pick a feasible error). But, this also assumes that the 1910-40 is the largest possible natural rate ever or at least the largest rate likely in the current era before CO2 rises. Why would that necessarily be the case? So, what Roy Spencer said is perfectly defensible. I agree with Judith on this. The statements by the politicians and EPA director are fairly reasonable for non-experts. And probably better than most other non-experts (politicians, celebrities, and media).

      • Since you asked,
        1910-1940 is 0.25, and 1980-2016 is 0.56. More than twice. HADCRUT4 also double. Land-only like BEST and CRUTEM4, triple.

      • I will take you reword for it. I did not use a straight edge on my laptop and it looked more like 0.3+ for 1910-40. You are also comparing a 30 year period to a 36 year period. You are quibbling over hundredths of a degree. The point is that these temperature anomalies are not without error and whether the “natural component from 1980-2010 or 2016 is 40% or 60% is an open question and I would argue the range could be even greater. Which means I am willing to admit it is possible that 80% of the most recent is due to man but I also would not be surprised to find out it is 1/3 or less.

      • The problem is that the warming from 1910 to 1940 was caused by a solar max, the lack of significant volcanic eruptions, and the rise in CO2.

        Two of those are not a cause of the current warming, and are in fact cooling now.

        So a comparison of the two periods leads to a conclusion that the current warming is say, 110 +/- 50 % due to mankind.

        Especially since those mysterious indirect solar effects, which I read as cosmic rays, have been debunked.

      • maksimovich1

        Indirect decrease in solar radiative forcing has interesting responses.

    • There is no great difference between early and late 20th century warming.

      I suspect there were cloud radiative effects associated with a warm Pacific regime in the early warming.

      The satellite evidence says the net cloud radiative effect during late century warming was some 1.4W/m2 – considerably greater than the increase in greenhouse gas forcing over the period.

      Better observation systems came online only this century. Without good data – attribution is indistinguishable from divination.

  6. Very minor nitpick edit: when you write your comment under Zinke’s reply and say “both Trenberth and Smith basically admit…” I believe you mean Schmidt.

    (another great post)

    • Dear Judy
      This is like trying to shoot the barn door, when you should be hitting the barn roof. Take a good look at yours and Belanger’s ERM-interim AEW track density example. Q: What happens when conditions change over the Ethiopian Highlands???????????????????????????? Have you looked yet??  A: Everything changes, particularly the solar reflective cloud mass at the thermal equator. The 6,000 m3/s evapotransportation southward from the pre 1964 Nile flood contributed directly to the formation of JASO AEW system. So check out the SST signal in the Atlantic region directly affected by AEW cloud cover variability……. Q:  Does this look familiar?????  A: Yes, its the GW signal……….. Then check out the SST signal of the ocean current flowing southward into this AEW affected area (Now named ‘The Summer Sea’. Why are these two bits of the same current having completely different SST signals, and what agent is responsible for the change???? Conclusion: GW is a chain reaction caused by the human effects upon evapotransportation from the Nile flood plains into the AEW arena………… END OFF DISCUSSION

  7. “The disagreement is not so much about observational evidence, but rather about the epistemic status of climate models, the logics used to link the observational evidence into arguments, the overall framing of the problem and overconfident conclusions in the face of incomplete evidence and understanding.”

    Indeed. And then a further projection in the messaging of the issue to the public. As transmitted by virtually the entire Western authority matrix from presidents and prime ministers on downwards, for many years (up until the Trump administration), and in the most emotive and urgent manner, this says that imminent climate catastrophe is certain.

    • In a way, the former strident messaging is now part of the warmunist undoing. Arctic ice didn’t disappear, polar bears didn’t die, sea level rise didn’t accelerate, and there are no climate refugees from Tuvalu or Kiribati. About 35% of the increase in CO2 since 1958 (Keeling curve) was in this century, yet except for the now cooling 2015-2016 El Nino blip it hasn’t warmed this century (well, except by Karlization). Even Santer’s November 2016 paper applying an erroneos tropical stratosphere correctiin coild not hide the discrepancy betweem models and observation in the tropical troposphere. Meanwhile, renewables have proven very expensive and unreliably intermittent.
      Bottom line, Trump, Pruitt, Perry, and Zinke are calling the warmunist bluff. As Judith said, lets the games begin.

      • Nice Gish Gallop.
        Yes the arctic ice hasn’t disappeared yet, but about 3/4 of the thickness is gone, 40% of it before PIOMAS started measuring it, form the IPCC TAR

        “•New data from submarines indicate that there has been about a 40% decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness in summer or early autumn between the period 1958 to 1976 and the mid-1990s, an average of near 4 cm per year.”

        Are you sure no Polar bears died?

        Maybe no climate refuges from Tuvalu or Kiribati, but there are still some from Sandy.

        How come all the warmest years except 1998 are from this century if it isn’t still warming?

      • And disappearing Arctic ice is a catastrophe how Bob?

        And your polar bear comeback is on par with a 4th grader. You are right, polar bears have died. Nobody lives for ever, even cute cuddly polar bears. What you need to demonstrate is whether polar bear populations are crashing or even declining. Then you have to link that declin to environmental factors related to warming. To date you can’t do either. The best you can do is point to random polar bear deaths and claim it is due to climate.

      • about 3/4 of the thickness is gone, 40% of it before PIOMAS started measuring it, form the IPCC TAR

        PIOMAS doesn’t measure sea ice volume. It models it.

      • Rud, you are absolutely correct. Additionally, warmista enforcement of dogma leads to dissonance with emerging science. Once the talking points are in place, they are impossible to erase with an alert opposition.

      • Actually according to the Susan J Rockford’s work, polar bears are doing better than ever. And the Norwegians apparently didn’t the message about the consensus on vanishing ice because they are reporting it was a very good year for ice formation.

      • Did I say it was a catastrophe Timg56?

        “What you need to demonstrate is whether polar bear populations are crashing or even declining. Then you have to link that declin to environmental factors related to warming. To date you can’t do either.”

        You may think I can’t, but then you would be wrong.

        I could post links, but it’s too easy, even for you.

        And I never pointed to random polar bear deaths.

        And I never said they were cute.

        And if you don’t know why the loss of Arctic sea ice is bad news, I suggest some light reading, google is your friend.

      • Gee Bob, you can point to links on polar bears. And I will wager most are from the same few sources.

        You do know that perhaps half of all polar bears populations are know. Kind of hard to make judgments when you are looking at half the data. And the numbers on those populations which are tracked do not paint a dire picture. In fact it is pretty much the opposite. But you go on believing anecdotal stories Bob. Wouldn’t want you to question your faith.

      • Right Timg56, If we really don’t know, then you can’t say that everything’s all right.

        And to be specific, of the known populations, 3 are down, 1 is up and several are stable, with about that many groups in the unknown category.

        Seems to me that you take it on faith that there is no problem with increasing CO2.

        Am I right?

      • Actually Bob you are not right.

        Truth is I don’t know what the impacts from a higher concentration of CO2 will be. Nor am I against continuing research into the subject.

        There could be negative impacts and there could just as likely be positive impacts. One of the first clues that something was fishy with the climate change narrative was the complete absence of any possible beneficial impacts. When a story line presents only one side, it requires being a fool or a true believer to swallow it without question.

        Besides, the question isn’t “Is there a problem with CO2?” Try explaining to us;

        What are the potential problems rising CO2 emissions will cause?

        What is the probability of these actually happening?

        Over what time span are they expected to happen?

        To what extent can they be mitigated against?

        What is the cost of such mitigation?

        To what certainty will such mitigation have a significant impact?

        Are there any expected benefits associated with rising emissions?

        How much do these benefits counter any negative impacts?

        We get lots and lots of potential problems thrown at us. Usually without the mention of “potential”, as in unproven. We get very little on probabilities, other than weasel words like “very likely”.

      • Timg56, surely you have read this

        Click to access AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

        There are positive effects in there, but then, not that many.

      • if you don’t know why the loss of Arctic sea ice is bad news, I suggest some light reading, google is your friend.

        So, long before all the politically driven institutions, or climate research budgets, and all the rest, Manabe and Wetherald identified what others have subsequently confirmed, as far as climate models can confirm. Namely, global warming, in part through the decrease of Arctic sea ice, should tend to reduce kinetic energy and temperature variability.
        Severe storms and extreme weather are determined by kinetic energy.
        Heat waves and extreme temperature are reflected by temperature variability.

        This is not a useless abstraction – if you want a more extreme climate, you want more Arctic sea ice. If you want a less extreme climate, you want less Arctic sea ice. I’m not arguing we should burn coal to reduce Arctic sea ice ( the decline of which is of an untold percentage due to global warming ). In fact, if you want to say – let’s go back to pre-industrial because that’s natural, fine. But you can’t simultaneously advocate doing it for a less extreme climate, because the evidence is that will return to a more extreme climate.

      • Curious George

        Bob – please help me to find the greening of the planet among the positive effects. Or maybe it is a negative effect?

      • “Maybe no climate refuges from Tuvalu or Kiribati, but there are still some from Sandy.”

        In 2005 the UN claimed there would be 50 million climate refugees.

        In 2011, that claim disappeared from the UN website and was replaced with a new claim that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2020.

        Want to make any bets on what will happen to that prediction in about three years?

      • Yeah Harkin1,

        I’ll wager up to 50 million US dollars that there will be up to 50 million climate change refuges by 2010.

        Keep in mind the originator of the number said “never ever completely final – it’s always a bit iffy.”

        We would have to agree on a counting method, which I don’t think is possible.

    • Dear Judy
      This is like trying to shoot the barn door, when you should be hitting the barn roof. Take a good look at yours and Belanger’s ERM-interim AEW track density example. Q: What happens when conditions change over the Ethiopian Highlands???????????????????????????? Have you looked yet??  A: Everything changes, particularly the solar reflective cloud mass at the thermal equator. The 6,000 m3/s evapotransportation southward from the pre 1964 Nile flood contributed directly to the formation of JASO AEW system. So check out the SST signal in the Atlantic region directly affected by AEW cloud cover variability……. Q:  Does this look familiar?????  A: Yes, its the GW signal……….. Then check out the SST signal of the ocean current flowing southward into this AEW affected area (Now named ‘The Summer Sea’. Why are these two bits of the same current having completely different SST signals, and what agent is responsible for the change???? Conclusion: GW is a chain reaction caused by the human effects upon evapotransportation from the Nile flood plains into the AEW arena………… END OFF DISCUSSION

    • “And then a further projection in the messaging of the issue to the public. As transmitted by virtually the entire Western authority matrix…”

      Very true. It brings to mind how very important initial messaging will be for a red teams success; it won’t have the benefit of the MSM propaganda machine leveraging its mission statement positively to the public for them, instead it will be met by the resistance; by default tied to the Trump administration using typical anti science disinformation, or big oil, deniers, etc. The red team can’t fall into these obvious branding traps, it must carefully implement its own brand signature before others define it for them. In its beginning a red team program should consider marketing expertise, a public relations firm, to help it develop media strategies, expand exposure, etc. Media is the predominate proving ground for a red teams work, it can’t expect to be a change agent by relying on serendipity or on scientists who know little about messaging and branding. The blue team have tremendous media clout, the “matrix”, all Hollywood, most global news media. Scientists like Mann have it easy, all they have to do is surf the media waves to pound their propaganda home.

      Since a red team exercise will immediately be tied to the administration it might as well embrace the resources the administration can offer, it can remain politically segregated by nature of how it conducts itself and though proper preemptive branding, make it known for starters that dissenting red team scientists are among the 97% who believe humans have contributed some towards GW. It’s tactical, but true, and disarming. The blue team opposition is overtly tactical.

  8. And to contribute something concrete….your demonstration of the WaPo Fact checking will make this post a must-read. Two days before Krutzel publishes his “Fact Check” he receives answers from you to his questions that provide a supporting,scientific basis for Perry’s answers. Yet he still persists in labeling Perry’s claim false without acknowledging legitimate alternative positions.

  9. To predict the future, look at the past.

    The past ten thousand years have seen temperatures that alternated between warmer and colder and stayed inside the same bounds in both hemispheres.

    Project the past temperatures forward for the best forecast.

    Bill Gray said everyone’s forecast for sensitivity to increased CO2 is way too high. The system will respond with precipitation to limit the increase

    Dr Neil Frank is a signatory to a Declaration on Global Warming, which states that “Earth and its ecosystems are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”.

  10. What made George Washington a good General was that he was able to learn from his mistakes. His untidy exit from NY was followed by his victories at Trenton and Princeton. Conversely Charles Lee lost battles by retreating before there was even any action. Rick Perry seemed to learn from his mistakes whereas Tenenberth seemed to adhere to wash rinse repeat

  11. In the spirit of Trump’s “Tech Week”…

    You want the truth? How about a RED-WHITE-BLUE team?
    Fund a state of the art AI system (WHITE team) to assay the evidence of human induced climate change. The AI program should have complete access to as much published information available as possible plus all information and communications used by the RED-BLUE teams.
    Don’t to it on the cheap. Budget for hundreds of millions of dollars* and harness the intellectual power of the top companies in AI.

    *The money spent to create this AI system would likely be repaid many times over in providing insight into a vast array of natural processes that could be worth trillions in saved or avoided costs.

    “Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.”

  12. Warmunists coming visibly unglued. Santer’s op-ed contradicted by his new pause paper. Doesn’t he realizes he will get caught out as here.
    The AMS letter has drawn blogosphere protests from AMS members, and then there is the inconvenient AMS survey where 43% of the members disagree with CAGW.

    • Rud, does that mean that the Obama Administration official that mindlessly kept repeating the “97% of climate scientists” mantra at a Congressional hearing to specific questions should have said “43%?”

    • Re: *”The AMS letter has drawn blogosphere protests from AMS members, and then there is the inconvenient AMS survey where 43% of the members disagree with CAGW.”*

      1) Please drop your ill-defined “CAGW” straw man. It’s a dead give-away of your contrarianism, akin to a creationist saying “molecules-to-man evolution”:

      “Another claim advanced by those who reject the mainstream scientific agreement on climate is that the consensus position consists of a claim of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or the frequently used acronym CAGW [catastrophic anthropogenic global warming] […]. However, CAGW is rarely, if ever, defined or sourced to a mainstream scientific organization or study. Any scientific study’s result, or statement by a researcher, that does not fit a contrarian’s personal, flexible definition of CAGW can therefore be adopted as ostensibly supporting their view and refuting the mainstream, even when such results are actually consistent with the mainstream position on climate […].
      Additionally, we find that *catastrophic anthropogenic global warming* [CAGW] is essentially a term that is never used in the relevant scientific literature by mainstream sources. Furthermore, in the press it appears to be used exclusively by climate contrarians. The term is typically neither defined nor attributed to a mainstream scientific source. Our conclusion is therefore that CAGW is simply a *straw man* used by climate contrarians to criticize the mainstream position (50).”

      2) There have already been surveys examining the views of AMS members, and showing a strong AGW consensus. See table 1 of:

      • 8 in 10 people now see climate change as a “catastrophic risk” – survey

        It’s not the skeptic’s messaging that has people seeing this in various countries. Or is it? We say, alarmists say it. And they believe us. But they don’t believe us when we say, Don’t worry about it.

        Hansen. Useful if we actually start making progress on nuclear power.

      • I give you the modern day equivalent of Edward Bernays, Frank Luntz:

        “In a 2002 memo to President George W. Bush titled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America”, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, Luntz wrote: “The scientific debate is closing [against us] … but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. … Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

        It’s still working.

  13. If this eternally-implied-but-under-supported idea that shifts in ocean patterns might be responsible for warming the oceans to depth of 2000m merits all these righteous demands for a ‘special team’, I’d like to formally submit my request for a green team focused on the theory that the warming is caused by a progressive shift in mercury response to temperature caused by correlation with cosmic positioning relative to the galactic center. There are conflicting views on this, granted, but all the more reason to make sure alternative voices are heard and not suppressed, given the stakes, and I expect both an equal place at the policy table (if politically convenient, which I believe my theory is) and earmarked grant money, for which I can provide a recipient account. Thank you – it is liberating to feel that the yoke of consensus enforcement *finally* lifting, if only a crack; congratulations and profound appreciation to all of us who have toiled so hard and so long against almost unimaginable levels of victimization.

    • 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.”

      Can I suggest a turd brown team for ignorant trolls?

      • I’m sure most who make any attempt to follow the subject understand that ocean patterns affect surface temperatures, as clearly seen in ENSO. If we had no evidence of ocean warming to depth (and didn’t have all the direct observation of radiative changes we do, didn’t have access to the laws of physics we do and so on), the theory that global warming is a result of heat emerging from ocean depths would be more plausible (and you could deal with the secondary problem that the observational evidence does not support this theory well). But the fact that the entire ocean is warming – combined with application of conservation of energy to the observed changes in radiation – presents a bunch of problems for your theories that y’all seem perpetually hesitant to address directly.

        Or to understand. Your quotes here pertain to surface temp, offer no apparent awareness of the physical problems associated with arguing that changes in ocean currents are self-heating the oceans to depth.

      • “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.”

        Self heating nonsense misses the point.

      • self-clouding too, right?

  14. Zinke’s confusion of weather with climate brings us back to the old days when skeptics couldn’t tell the difference. Climate is a forcing problem. It is like being able to say that August will be warmer than May in the US because seasons also change by forcing. So when you add forcing you can make predictions akin to predicting August is warmer than May. At May 1st, you can’t predict the weather far ahead in May, but you can say August will be warmer. That’s like a climate projection.

    • T
      he global coupled atmosphere–ocean–land–cryosphere system exhibits a wide range of physical and dynamical phenomena with associated physical, biological, and chemical feedbacks that collectively result in a continuum of temporal and spatial variability. The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial. The large-scale climate, for instance, determines the environment for microscale (1 km or less) and mesoscale (from several kilometers to several hundred kilometers) processes that govern weather and local climate, and these small-scale processes likely have significant impacts on the evolution of the large-scale circulation (Fig. 1; derived from Meehl et al. 2001).

      The accurate representation of this continuum of variability in numerical models is, consequently, a challenging but essential goal. Fundamental barriers to advancing weather and climate prediction on time scales from days to years, as well as longstanding systematic errors in weather and
      climate models, are partly attributable to our limited understanding of and capability for simulating the complex, multiscale interactions intrinsic to atmospheric, oceanic, and cryospheric fluid motions.”

      Oh Jimmy – repeating your simplistic nonsense endlessly is neither useful or interesting.

      • Long-term climate change is more like a season change than a weather change, and I think you see the distinction.

      • The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain. Chaos rules at all scales.

        No – there is no distinction as Hurrell and Co. said – and you have no clue about how complex internal systems will ultimately respond to forcing. The answer is out there – but grossly simplifying assumptions are not science.

      • The temperature trend since 1980 is far from chaotic and it has a simple explanation. No one is surprised except a few skeptics who can’t quite figure it out yet.

      • “This paper provides an update to an earlier work that showed specific changes in the aggregate time evolution of major Northern Hemispheric atmospheric and oceanic modes of variability serve as a harbinger of climate shifts. Specifically, when the major modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability are synchronized, or resonate, and the coupling between those modes simultaneously increases, the climate system appears to be thrown into a new state, marked by a break in the global mean temperature trend and in the character of El Niño/Southern Oscillation variability. ”

        The temperature trend since 1980 is – evidently – chaotic.

      • The 30-year mean temperature I showed is not chaotic because it filters out the main components of internal and solar variability. Some people are interested in sub-30-year wiggles and they write lots of papers on them. I am not. I am more interested in the big picture.

      • Smoothing is not filtering out natural variation on the 20 to 30 scale of the ocean and atmospheric regimes. A warm ocean surface state added to warming between 1976 and 1998.

      • The continuous OHC rise indicates that forcing was responsible for the warming and still is. Cause and effect.

      • This is the reality of what Spencer said.

        “But we demonstrated that as El Nino develops there is an increase in radiative energy input into the global-average climate system which precedes peak El Nino warmth by about 9 months. This is mostly likely due to a small decrease in low cloud cover associated with the changing atmospheric circulation patterns during El Nino (La Nina would have increased cloud cover).”

        Repeating fake internet memes serves no purpose at all.

      • Robert, Jim D is truly a trolling twit.

      • Jimmy D makes up things without any reference to science. Like many others who do this – he is unable to review assumptions. I don’t think he intends to deliberately misinform – it’s just the way it works out.

      • Jimmy doesn’t need encouragement – he is on a quest to do something or other at CE.

      • As I mentioned to Don, the analogy is online gaming. I prefer to do this. It’s like a shoot-em-up with the skeptical arguments.

      • Steven Mosher

        “As I mentioned to Don, the analogy is online gaming. I prefer to do this. It’s like a shoot-em-up with the skeptical arguments.”

        You mean shooting fish in a barrel.Its hardly a fair sport, but it is a cheap way to pass the time.

      • You have yet answered skeptical arguments, Mr. Mosher. Straw men don’t count.

    • Like the skeptics who put forth the hypothesis of polar amplification to explain the series of cold, snowy winters in the NH?

      Wait, those were not skeptics. They were true believers, trying to argue weather is in fact a sign of climate change impact.

      It sure does make it easier to believe you are right Jim when you can apply the rules to one side and not the other.

      • Exactly, weather is not climate. It requires many years of statistics before you can show a link to climate. One or even two years of cold winters does not mean AGW is over, right?

      • Jim, you missed the point. Consensus scientists trying to come up with explanations for record cold winters are calling weather climate. They are not that dim to recognize that most people still equate climate change to global warming.

      • If it is done on both sides, it is wrong on both sides. Climate is defined by at least 30 years of statistics.

      • It is entirely unlike our little chaplain jimmy dee to admit that consensus climate goons are not infallible. I think the Russkies have hijacked his wordpress account.

      • It tends to be press releases or interviews where people overstate their positions. This is why it is better to keep an eye on the scientific publications themselves rather than things the press pick up on.

      • You mean scientific publications like the one from Jennifer Francis on climate change impacting the polar vortex to cause colder winters?

        The one which was torn to shreds by a young scientist (working at NCAR I believe), which solicited personal attacks on her by the consensus.

    • Jim D
      You continually miss the most important point about AGW. There is no reliable evidence to support the conclusion that more CO2 will result in harmful climate change.
      A low or moderate rate of warming will most likely result in net positive changes. The is no evidence of net negative climate change to date.

      • If we dump 5000 GtCO2 into the atmosphere, we reach 700+ ppm and 4 C above preindustrial temperatures, more on land. If the skeptics thought 700 ppm was OK, they would have mentioned it by now. They don’t because it would make them look foolish. From paleoclimate, levels like 700 ppm have not been seen since before 35 million years ago when the earth was an iceless hothouse with higher sea levels, just as a point of reference.

      • David Springer

        “35 million years ago when the earth was an iceless hotgreenhouse”

        Fixed that for ya!

      • What rate of sea-level rise do you prefer?

      • Jim D knows that July will be hotter then June, Just like June was hotter then May. And August will be Hotter then July, September hotter then August, October hotter, then September, ad infinitum.

        …whoops, Jim’s Forcing seems to have failed him somewhere in there. Could it be that what Jim thought was an eternal ever increasing forcing was just the upward portion of a cycle?

        Who’d a thunk it? ~¿~

      • Since you didn’t understand, I will just post it so you can read it again more slowly.
        “Zinke’s confusion of weather with climate brings us back to the old days when skeptics couldn’t tell the difference. Climate is a forcing problem. It is like being able to say that August will be warmer than May in the US because seasons also change by forcing. So when you add forcing you can make predictions akin to predicting August is warmer than May. At May 1st, you can’t predict the weather far ahead in May, but you can say August will be warmer. That’s like a climate projection.”

      • “In 1963, Lorenz published his seminal paper on ‘Deterministic non-periodic flow’, which was to change the course of weather and climate prediction profoundly over the following decades and to embed the theory of chaos at the heart of meteorology. Indeed, it could be said that his view of the atmosphere (and subsequently also the oceans) as a chaotic system has coloured our thinking of the predictability of weather and subsequently climate from thereon.”

        At the core of both weather and climate there is chaos – and there is a continuum of change at all scales.

        “There is a new perspective of a continuum of prediction problems, with a blurring of the distinction between short-term predictions and long-term climate projections. At the heart of this new perspective is the realization that all climate system predictions, regardless of time scale, share common processes and mechanisms; moreover, interactions across time and space scales are fundamental to the climate system itself.”

        Jimmy repeats a simplistic decades old climate meme. It’s a very poor analogy. The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.

        Jimmy is so wrong all the time – and cannot cite any real science at all – but will keep arguing by assertion like an energizer bunny on steroids.

      • The forcing has had a discrete jump in climate terms of 2 W/m2 and counting. This step in forcing is already ten times any change the sun can do in a solar cycle, and several times larger than even extreme solar changes. The forcing jump could continue to 2.5 W/m2 with strong mitigation, to 6-7 W/m2 with weak to no mitigation. This is not small. It is hitting climate with a hammer. Tipping points are expected.

    • Curious George

      I remember the “climate is a boundary value problem” mantra – but nobody could tell what boundary. Now it is a forcing problem. What forcing? Why don’t you stop inventing ill-defined words and go back to physics? Or to religion?

      • Do you at least agree that the better analogy for climate prediction is seasonal change than weather patterns? We know August will be hotter than May, even in May. This might look like a miraculous 3-month forecast, but it isn’t because it is just a rather predictable forcing change that drives it. Same with emissions: a rather predictable forcing change for each emission scenario.

    • russellseitz

      Jim, Like the Aeon essay Judy invokes, your comment is far too sensible for this commentariat.

  15. > I daresay Santer, Collins, and Held learned something during the APS Workshop run by [Teh] Koonin

    Of course they did:

    • Willard and INTEGRITY TM – of course it has to be capitalized with the TM added, because Willard’s form of integrity is unique to him and has little bearing on the true meaning of the word.

  16. “So what are we to conclude from PolitiFact’s failure to even mention or consider my responses, after explicitly asking for them?”

    Climate is a quasi-religious cultural issue and very few people are interested in the science.
    They expected you to ‘explicitly’ take a good vs. evil position and you disappointed them.
    The Overlords of the news media are no better than the Overlords of consensus.
    Despicable twins maybe.

    I appreciate you and this blog very much.
    Science and it’s faithful, meaning you, will prevail.

    • Yes, the CAGW religion is a convenience for Left leaning reporters (most) to exploit political advocacy for; fill in the blank. Hopefully CAGW will some day represent the metaphor for the politicization of science, it probably will frankly.

  17. The purpose of climate science for decades is to distill a base on which policy responses can be built. This will not emerge with any clarity from copious red and blue team quibbling about climate minutiae. It can only come from a simple, pragmatic assessment of complexity and scientific uncertainty – feeding into development and energy scenarios that enhance human dignity and foster economic growth.

    Climate scientists have comprehensively failed to deliver on their social contract. They are now shilling for politicians who have an axe to grind one way or the other.

    JC’s responses to the questions –
    indeed her entire professional trajectory over the past few years – feeds into that. The question that is not addressed in any of this is whether it is wise to change the composition of the atmosphere with utterly uncertain outcomes in chaotic ecological, hydrological and climatic Earth systems.

    Answer that question and there may be a rational basis for policy. Failure to answer is grounds to stop listening to any of them. The latter may already have happened.

    • “The purpose of climate science for decades is to distill a base on which policy responses can be built.”

      Ultimately the debate boils down to this assertion of conspiracy, though ‘lukewarmers’ often contort mightily to insist it does not. I think it is always helpful when it is stated explicitly though.

      And then we can note that it is not just decades, but centuries over which this artificial base for nefarious policy schemes has been constructed by global, cross-disciplinary collusion of scientists. With only a few plucky, obviously highly partisan contrarian scientists to stand against it, using vague arguments that due primarily to reasons of conspiracy-driven suppression are unfortunately poorly supported by the peer review literature…

    • No, Robert. Your “The question that is not addressed in any of this is whether it is wise to change the composition of the atmosphere with utterly uncertain outcomes in chaotic ecological, hydrological and climatic Earth systems.” is not it. The question is “are the great social and economic costs of altering our energy systems justified based on what is essentially scientific speculation.”

  18. The aspect of this that I think points to a dysfunctional scientific community is the obvious elements of political and personal choice involved in public policy. Enforcers focus on driving out science heretics from the public discussion. They are largely wasting their effort. The real reason “action” has not been to the liking of “enforcers” is that its a values and policy question. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, science can tell us nothing about our values. Enforcers typically are political liberals who are paid out of public funds and feel quite comfortable with a large and powerful government, especially if that government “enforces” their opinions. Fanaticism being a weakness of intellectuals, they are unable to really understand a point of view they disagree with and thus to really engage in the dialogue effectively. They are further unable to propose things that actually might work. Bill Gates on the other hand has focused on things that might work. But Gates is a businessman, not a scientist.

    My question for these enforcers is “Why do you think your strategy will ever be effective?”

    Perhaps the crowing irrationality is why would a scientist choose to coauthor anything with Oreskes whose record of using the “smear” to discredit those they disagree with.

  19. So Rick “Oops” Perry says “No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in.”
    and the skeptics treat this like some kind of genius remark rather than the wordcloud cluelessness it actually was. How is the “control knob” “this environment we live in”? Is this a new skeptic idea coming to the fore?

      • …or outgassing CO2 perhaps? Or El Ninos? We don’t know which crazy theory he got this from, and I suspect he didn’t either.

      • I’ll give you this Jim, if anyone here is qualified at recognizing “crazy theories” it is you. You have some much experience at putting them out there.

      • Yes, I’ve been here on CE long enough to see them all. You would be amazed at some of them.

      • People, you must quit encouraging that twit, Jim D.

    • “For the doubled CO2 and the 2% solar irradiance forcings, for which the direct no-feedback responses of the global surface temperature are 1.2° and 1.3°C, respectively, the ~4°C surface warming implies respective feedback factors of 3.3 and 3.0 (5).” – Andrew A. Lacis, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy

      Looks like control knob refers to the GMST. No it wasn’t some kind of genius remark. I think it is the control knob, but of the oceans. And the oceans can be unpredictable. Sometimes saying take this and sometimes saying you can have the joules later, maybe in 2200.

      Now what is a control knob? If the GMST warms and the oceans not so much, the oceans control the GMST somewhat by taking joules back. I will build my house with X thermal mass of air inside it. I’ll mix that with 1000X of water thermal mass using heat transfer coils and a pump running at a constant rate and never stopping. Then I’ll just let the water control the temperature of my house. What’s the control knob now? If it’s a house in tropics this might work. So if the outside temperature bounces from 70F to 90F each day, I should get a constant 80F.

      • The whole ocean is warming. That makes it a response to something else, not a primary cause. The control knob is not the ocean if its main change is a response to something else.

      • Quite apart from the fact that oceans are not warming in the Argo record.

        The energy imbalance was – on the ocean data – zero in 2008. This is a serious blow to warming in the pipeline.

        Recent warming came from cloud changes anti-correlated with sea surface temperature. Less reflected shortwave shown in the 3rd graph.

        Cooling will accompany the next La Nina and the descent into a solar cycle low.

      • RIE, do you realize you switched periods in your response? And also it was warming in that later period if you look closely.

      • It is control of the GMST that is the issue. With CO2 you can command the atmosphere to warm. Then most of that, when we count the atmosphere and the oceans, is in the oceans. And the more CO2 we add, the greater the force pushing joules back into the oceans.


        shows the oceans winning 40 to 1. A cause of the current GMST is dependent on this 40 to 1 ratio. A cause of the current GMST is what the oceans ended up doing with these additional joules acquired because of additional CO2.

        I think we’ve seen the CO2 control knob provide minimal control during the hiatus. The atmosphere was given a hard command and it was sluggish. Though it seems it was able to more reliably impact the oceans. With the help of the oceans, we are hiatus not so much, but waiting for future data.

        Commanding the oceans, and getting the expected result in the atmosphere is going to be more variable.

        I am giving the control to what has the mass and has hung onto 40 times more joules than the atmosphere.

        The GMST reacts quickly to ocean SSTs. The GMST reacts erratically to CO2 increases.

      • Ragnaar, the ocean would not be warming at all if it wasn’t for the increased forcing, dominated by CO2. So when it comes to the control knob for warming, CO2 is where it’s at.

      • “…the ocean would not be warming at all if it wasn’t for the increased forcing, dominated by CO2.”
        Attributes of a control knob:
        1) Response time.
        2) Consistent response (diminished returns allowed).
        3) Long term response.
        4) The ability to overcome all other inputs with rare exceptions. For instance an asteroid striking Earth.
        1) No
        2) No. Time frames of 30 (-60?) years are likely to change the answer to yes.
        3) Yes
        4) Yes on long time frames. For cycles involving thousand of years, I don’t know.
        My point is, you are driving the GMST with the oceans. I’ve linked a few papers in the past 3 weeks. Jones and Ricketts and another one. You go to the heavy, the oceans to drive things. Not a squirt gun but a fire hose.

      • In this case, the land is warming twice as fast because its response to forcing is essentially immediate. The oceans act to delay it because of their inertia, but it is true that the land is where the effect is felt most immediately. This is why the transient response is not as high as the equilibrium response and the imbalance is positive. The ocean has to catch up.

      • Do over:
        2) Consistent response (diminished returns allowed).

        2) Consistent response (diminished returns allowed). See the IPCC on TCS and ECS. When I turn a control knob, I want to know what I am going to get in the medium and long term.

      • So the ocean is not a control knob, it is a built-in delay mechanism in the system. The analogy is that when you put your foot on the gas, the car takes a while to get up to the new speed. The ocean is the car, not the gas pedal.

      • Jim D:
        The atmosphere needs to convince the oceans to catch up by cooling itself more than otherwise, by giving the oceans joules.
        The TCS has shown us what so far? Landing running away from the oceans. Karl warming. Good job climate, you are a sprinter. Now it’s time to wait for the ECS. Time to warm the oceans. Time to run a marathon. I think the ECS is quite a ways out there. Beyond effective policy making. Congress has zero ability to think out to 60 years. We don’t know how a warming system will evolve. The answer is not likely in line by line radiative transfer models but in ocean dynamics including equator to pole circulations.

      • The unfortunate part of that is that we live on land and mostly grow food there, and it is warming closer to what ECS would predict rather than TCR (0.3 C per decade).

      • Jim D:

        On the way to the ECS we are changing an average of 4 kilometers of water on 2/3s of the Earth’s surface to plus something. One might argue, it’s really only 1 kilometer. I’d then say, Sitting on 3 kilometers of cooler water.

        “Below the sea surface, historical measurements of temperature are far sparser, and the warming is more gradual, about 0.01°C per decade at 1,000 meters.” 
        This with the 40 to 1, oceans to atmosphere ratio above.

        In a hundred years, are we at the ECS? No. We want an ECS that means something. Something a hundred of years in the future? What do we do with that? And since it’s 1.5 C – 4.5 C with 66% confidence, that’s worse.

        Carrying forward Scipps above, in a thousand years we get 1 C at 1000 meters, and that’s at most ½ the oceans, being the midway point between 0 and 2000 meters. It’s not that the oceans are warming. They have so much further to go.

        If it really takes this long to get to the ECS. Rather than using the ECS, the more useful policy tool would the 50yrCS.

        Is it that the current ECS is atmospheric-centric?

      • With the land warming twice as fast, and the added effect of methane, there is an effective sensitivity to consider, and that does get to ECS type values quicker, so I wouldn’t short-change the sensitivity to be conservative.

    • Why do you expect a right wing politician to understand the details of the science better than left wing politicians?

      • The Department of Energy has to have an evidence-based policy. His apparent cluelessness as their leader doesn’t help things. The previous two occupants of that position were nuclear physicists.

    • This comment is deliberately misplaced just to find a place where I can reply to Jim D about to a few comments by Jim D:

      To this article, I found that out of 384 comments so far, 76 were made by Jim D. That is a bit over the top don´t you think?

      I also found this comment:
      Jim D | June 24, 2017 at 11:10 pm |
      “Yes, maybe not enough conflict in my regular life. Some people do online gaming. I do this. It’s an alternative universe you guys have here. ”

      And this:

      Jim D | June 25, 2017 at 4:53 pm |
      “As I mentioned to Don, the analogy is online gaming. I prefer to do this. It’s like a shoot-em-up with the skeptical arguments.”

      Another characteristic of your comments is that you comment a lot without citing and referring to your sources. That you are allowed to make about 20 % of all the comments here out of your imagination, with a minimum of citations and references, tells a lot about the tolerance of our host, and the tolerance of this community. I enjoy your presence because it is nice to have someone with diverging opinions to discuss with from time to time. However, I think this community deserves a little more respect than your comments above indicates that you have.

      Anyhow, you and I are definitely in different universes. This is my universe: The principles of science (v7.5). Try it if you please, you might even like it.

      • Yes, the majority you will find are responses rather than initiations of sub-threads. Some people make many comments and get almost no replies. I have a good ratio because I am usually on topic. If no one replied, I wouldn’t keep commenting, but it would be rude not to reply when someone has taken the time to respond to me. I don’t always respond, and that usually happens when I don’t think the person has made any point. I often give numbers, and if anyone disagrees they can ask for where they came from. Like when I say 5000 GtCO2 leads to atmospheric values approaching 700 ppm which is 4 C warming and that for every 1500 GtCO2 we emit, we gain 1 C of warming, these are easy to verify for yourself. I have a collection of quantifications that I draw on, but you will find they are always consistent. I also often show data like GISTEMP and CO2 to provide an effective sensitivity of 1 C per 100 ppm when fit to the last 60 years. Just data. Skeptics often feel they need to comment on that. I don’t usually mention models, because to me, we already have enough evidence from observations and paleoclimate.

      • Jim D
        Sorry for not being able to respond earlier. To be clear, I think that all should cite precisely and identify their sources, not only you.

        «I often give numbers, and if anyone disagrees they can ask for where they came from.»
        How can I disagree if I can not verify if you cite your sources correctly and that your conclusion is logically valid based on the cited premises? I always wonder where numbers come from, and I will always like to have the possibility to check the source without having to fill up the comments field with requests for sources. The threads are long enough as they are. You may take that as a general request if you like.

        This is one example of the consequences of poor citation practices: Flawed citation practices facilitate the unsubstantiated perception of a global trend toward increased jellyfish blooms

        Anyhow, I think that you are an excellent representative for your side of the controversy. The citation practice by IPCC is not much better. From that point of view I think you should keep up the good work.

      • My rule is, if you have an alternative number, tell me what it is. Otherwise I am not sure of the extent of your disagreement, 10% or a factor of ten. I usually have several numbers in my posts and if you don’t believe them, that is fine by me. If you have alternative numbers, that is interesting to me because I want to know why.

      • “I usually have several numbers in my posts and if you don’t believe them, that is fine by me. If you have alternative numbers, that is interesting to me because I want to know why.”

        Well, that is the point. Engineers and scientists that are concerned about truth, like to check and verify numbers that presented by tracing them back to the source.

        Why do you think articles and all kind of technical, and scientific writings have references attached to statements within the text?

        “My rule is, if you have an alternative number, tell me what it is.”

        That, pretty much pins down that you are the one that is operating in an alternative universe here.

      • Thanks. I have yet to see anyone post with a reference for every number they give mainly because blogs aren’t that way. Anyway, I am happy to take questions on my numbers if you want to challenge them with your own.

      • Will you identify the source for your numbers and how you arrive at them if I ask?

  20. If funding of climate data collection is really being cut anywhere close to 82%, then this seems clearly nuts. I don’t understand the ins and outs of these funding questions, but the Trump administration is clearly being punitive and is listening to people who are opposed to conducting science.

    I’m all for devoting funds to attempting to resolve (or at least define) the open issues in climate science – shutting it down would be counter-productive. Responsible conservatives need to assert themselves so that a budget-cutting feeding frenzy doesn’t overwhelm climate science. Certainly, the wasteful spending devoted to results-oriented political stuff should be stopped.

    Also, I have two problems with red team/blue team strategy that I’ve been reading so much of recently. First, consensus enforcers have very little, if anything, to gain by this exercise. If the science is settled then engaging in a “debate” with skeptics would be perceived by them as legitimizing faulty science. The red team has a lot to gain here. Coming up with a coherent statement of the red team’s position would be a tremendous achievement, particularly benefitting the interested layman who sometimes has a hard time divining what the responsible skeptical position is.

    With the above as a given, wouldn’t IPCC’s AR5 be a good statement of the blue team’s position? Go ahead and appoint a red team through some mechanism and let them have at AR5. Limiting the inquiry to ECS and the RCP scenarios also may be a good idea.
    82%, then this seems clearly nuts. I don’t understand the ins and outs of these funding questions, but the Trump administration is clearly being punitive and is listening to people who are opposed to conducting science.

    I’m all for devoting funds to attempting to resolve (or at least define) the open issues in climate science – shutting it down would be counter-productive. Responsible conservatives need to assert themselves so th
    Secondly, the red team should be a non-governmental effort – in other words, leave Donald Trump and the Republicans out of it. Maybe get some universities involved, raise private money (not from Exxon/Mobil), but if Government money is used and the administration has anything to do with it, then having any credibility as an exercise of real science will be impossible.

    On the other hand, the government should be supportive of the effort and should make a commitment to accept the red team’s definition of the skeptical position. A further commitment should be to accept the two statements as a guide in setting government policy.

  21. The term “enforcers of the climate consensus” is a bitter and resentful way to refer to competent and productive climate scientists, in particular those who care enough about the current and future impact of anthropogenic climate change on Earth’s ecosystems and on humanity.

    • Magma, if you read the works of Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby, Nir Shaviv and Nigel Calder on the subject of the effect of GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) on climate, you will see that “enforcers of the climate consensus” is a reasonable and accurate description. How else would you describe people who have actively obstructed the testing of alternative hypotheses?
      I have done a potted summary here …
      … which is hopefully an easy read and gives links to the original material.

      Another vital source of information on a separate subject is Steve McIntyre’s analysis of the “hockey stick”.
      After reading the above links, I seriously doubt that anyone could describe the consensus scientists as “competent and productive climate scientists”.

      • Both of these examples would be much, much stronger if subsequent history would have been kinder. The conventional method of evaluating claims in science is the productivity of testable claims and subsequent validation and reproduction.

        Svensmark’s overstatements (and associated book sales) regarding GCR theory do not look like suppressed breakthroughs in retrospect, given subsequent evaluation of the claims did not go well. Can you concede the possibility that Svensmark argued beyond what he could support?


        Similarly, Mcintyre’s body of work on hockey stick would be a stronger example of the failure of conventional scientific processes if subsequent research did not continually reproduce the same general shape of Holocene temperatures.

        Do you have others?

      • geoffmprice, regarding this statement:

        “Similarly, Mcintyre’s body of work on hockey stick would be a stronger example of the failure of conventional scientific processes if subsequent research did not continually reproduce the same general shape of Holocene temperatures.”

        From what I understand, nearly all subsequent multiproxy-based studies suffer from the same deficiencies as the original hockeystick, because they all use the same problematic proxies. For example interpreting the Tiljander sediment records upside down, contaminated bristlecone dendrochronologies, etc.

        Steve has covered this subject pretty extensively

      • Re: *”if you read the works of Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby, Nir Shaviv and Nigel Calder on the subject of the effect of GCRs (Galactic Cosmic Rays) on climate, you will see that “enforcers of the climate consensus” is a reasonable and accurate description. How else would you describe people who have actively obstructed the testing of alternative hypotheses?”*

        Please get out of conspiracy-theory-land and instead read the scientific literature. The cosmic ray hypothesis was tested and found to be wanting. Though cosmic rays likely influenced climate in the past, cosmic rays did not cause the recent global warming period, i.e. the global warming since the mid-20th century. This is discussed in scientific sources such as:

        “Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate”
        “Solar activity and the mean global temperature”
        “Dynamical evidence for causality between galactic cosmic rays and interannual variation in global temperature”
        “Reply to Luo et al.: Robustness of causal effects of galactic cosmic rays on interannual variation in global temperature”
        “Global atmospheric particle formation from CERN CLOUD measurements”
        “Long-term global temperature variations under total solar irradiance, cosmic rays, and volcanic activity”

        Re: *”Another vital source of information on a separate subject is Steve McIntyre’s analysis of the “hockey stick”.”*

        Again, get out of conspiracy-theory-land and look outside of the denialist blogosphere. You’re better off reading the peer-reviewed scientific literature; that’s what competent scientists do. If you did that, then you’d know the hockey stick pattern has been shown again and again, including by researchers other than Mann. A sampling of the relevant peer-reviewed literature:

        Figure 4 of the following paper confirms the hockey stick pattern by comparing different temperature constructions:
        “Continental-scale temperature variability during the last two millennia”

        The hockey stick shows up in a number of different proxy records, as shown in:
        “A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era”

        The hockey stick pattern also shows up in the following papers:
        “Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay”
        “Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium”

        The following paper addresses, and rebuts, criticism of the hockey stick pattern:
        “Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence”

        Mann even showed the same hockey stick pattern *without* the tree ring proxies that many people had objected to:
        “Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia”

        Also, the following paper compares recent warming to Northern Hemisphere temperatures back to 1000AD. This data seems to suggest modern warming stronger than that seen in the medieval periods displayed (see figure 2):
        “Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate”

        Furthermore, see the following for an alternative account, where recent modern temperatures were warmer than the vast majority of the Holocene, reversing a long-term cooling trend:
        “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”

    • Says Mr Bitter and Resentful, who exhibits his bitterness and resentfulness towards Dr Curry with almost every comment.

      At least you provide the occasional comic relief sMegma.

    • Magma, see the several indelible youtube excepts of the most recent congressional hearing featuring Curry, Christy, Pelke, and Mann. The excerpt where Mann whines he has been mischaracterized as.calling the others deniers (he said und r sworn testimony he hadn’t) and Judith replies reread your own written testimony here where you did, to me!
      Says it all. Lest you have no google fu, “Curry Mann Congress denier” takes you several versions of varying lengths.
      Not bitter, not resentful, just indelible facts. Tough, this internet record thingy. Liars get exposed lying. Like you here.

      • Rud, it is vicarious fun watching Mann try to get out of his lawsuit with Steyn. Steyn won’t let go of his counter-suit and Mann is delaying in vain attempt to avoid not only embarrassment, but cash! I understand he is doing everything he can to avoid a deposition.

    • Magma, you are describing activists, not scientists.

      Oh, BTW, have you read the Climategate emails?

    • Roger Knights

      “if subsequent research did not continually reproduce the same general shape of Holocene temperatures.”

      Research conducted by his allies / associates that utilized either the same dodgy paleos or the same dodgy statistics.

    • There is some new work on the Holocene conundrum where temperatures have been cooling despite rising CO2 for several millennia. The models could only get warming, but new data suggests maybe they were right after all. The cooling is a NH phenomenon, consistent with Milankovitch, which dominates the paleo reconstructions, but globally it could be warming.

      • Specifically the paleo reconstructions exaggerate the NH summer trend which is cooling, but new winter data shows winters were warming to lead to overall warming.

      • Look a squirrel!! It’s just one study of one location JimD and it contradicts virtually every other Holocene paleoclimate study. As I recall ice cores all pretty much say the same thing too.

      • It points out that if your paleo data is dominated by the NH summer, you will exaggerate the Milankovitch effect of NH summers cooling due to the precession cycle that affects the perihelion season. I find this interesting and in need of further study, and I don’t just dismiss it.

  22. “Just what percentage of recent warming was natural in origin?”

    I calculated that. It came out at just over 90% natural, just under 10% CO2, over the period 1983-2009 (the total period of available data).
    The calculation is based on all available data, and uses remarkably few assumptions.
    Be aware that the “global temperature” measure is a surface or near-surface measure in the atmosphere, and even if it was possible to measure it very accurately, it is really only a proxy for global warming of little use over periods up to a decade or so. To measure global warming, you need to be taking the ocean’s temperature. The amount of warming 1983-2009 is not known, but my calculations were a valid comparison (apples with apples) which showed that the contribution from observed cloud changes over the period was nearly 10 times greater than the contribution from CO2.

    • Let me guess, like Mr. Steele, you argue that it is much better to publish your science on blogs because it “gets the word out”, and avoids “suppression” if your work had to be subject to peer review by informed climate scientists, and you remain amusingly self-unaware that this preference actually accidentally reveals that your aspirations are political – you desire the exposure, or less euphemistically, propaganda, which a blog can provide, not the vigorous hearing in the court of logic that the scientific and peer review process offers.

      Or are we accidentally making the conspiracy theory nature of the arguments here explicit again.

      • It took Henrik Svensmark 16 months to get a very straightforward report of an actual experiment published. And he had the Danish National Space Center behind him. I am a retired IT/maths individual with many other things to do with my time, and I know perfectly well that I haven’t a hope of getting anything into a journal past the gatekeepers. Well, not without an enormous amount of time and effort. But unlike some climate scientists, I published a series of articles with all data and calculations given so that they could all be checked. (And yes, people did check, and they did find errors, and the errors were fixed).

    • You are assuming that the CO2 did not cause the warming that caused the changes in clouds.

      • Correct. I first went looking for any correlation between CO2 and clouds, and found none. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But the patterns certainly suggested that CO2 was not a meaningful factor re cloud formation (clouds changed direction around 2000, CO2 didn’t).

        But there is another way of looking at this: Let’s suppose that I was wrong, and that CO2 really was influencing clouds as estimated by the IPCC using feedbacks. That would still make CO2 responsible for less than 30%. ie, the observed cloud changes were much larger than the implied feedback impact).

      • usually the IPCC is not the latest, this is from last summer, and this paper in Nature supports my position.

        “The primary drivers of these cloud changes appear to be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and a recovery from volcanic radiative cooling. These results indicate that the cloud changes most consistently predicted by global climate models are currently occurring in nature.”

      • “This paper gives an update on the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget (ERB) using the latest altitude-corrected Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)/Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) Nonscanner Wide Field of View (WFOV) instrument Edition3 dataset. The effects of the altitude correction are to modify the original reported decadal changes in tropical mean (20°N to 20°S) longwave (LW), shortwave (SW), and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s from 3.1, −2.4, and −0.7 to 1.6, −3.0, and 1.4 W/m2, respectively.”

        So yes – we have known this for a long time. But there is still no way to disentangle natural from anthropogenic changes. Cloud changes are anti-correlated with sea surface temperatures.

        It is not clear – however – what Norris et al say about this. Basing commentary on an abstract suggests that understanding – rather than proselytizing – is not high on Bob’s agenda.

        More recent data suggests that ENSO has a strong cloud modulation effect.

        The CERES SW data shows fairly convincingly that cloud changes in a warm Pacific dominated temperature changes in the past couple of years. As not slow and small changes in greenhouse gas forcing.

      • What I understand from the abstract is that there are positive feedbacks – to both cooling and warming – and that most models predict a modest positive cloud feedback. Again – we know this.

        But I quite like Norris – so I suggest that Bob actually read the paper. We could temper it with the Loeb paper I link to below. Perhaps we might get to the point of having an informed discussion – although I doubt it. .

      • Robert, I can read or not read all the papers, but you can’t demonstrate that there is any natural warming acting on the climate at this time.

        But that’s not the point here, the point is what direction are the feedbacks to any warming.

      • What a maroon. Feedbacks to warming are indisputably negative. Otherwise, the oceans would have boiled away long ago.

      • 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.”

        It is the consensus. The next climate shift is due in a 2018-2028 window. If you haven’t heard of this – it will come as a surprise.

        Net feedbacks are negative – stabilising – primarily due to the Planck response.

        But you didn’t read your citation and derived a nonsensical assertion about it. .

      • David and Robert, I didn’t say net feedbacks weren’t negative.

        Though if you think clouds are a forcing, you have been listening to too much Joni Mitchell, not that that is possible.

      • The technical term is cloud radiative forcing.

        “Radiative forcing is not to be confused with cloud radiative forcing, which describes an unrelated measure of the impact of clouds on the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. WGI”

        You’re not a super impressive intellect are you Bob?

      • That’s because I was trying to speak to the level of those who don’t think CO2 can have an effect on climate.

    • It is consistent with a positive cloud feedback to the real forcing change which was largely CO2. Clouds don’t change spontaneously. They can only respond to other forcing factors. Likewise the ocean is heating as a response to the forcing change.

      • Jim D, can you post a link to the research which demonstrates the feedback effect from clouds is positive?

      • The IPCC AR5 has an entire chapter on clouds, which has a lot of references. IPCC concludes cloud feedback is positive, but I disagree (and at least one of the lead authors on that chapter thinks it is negative). There is also a recent review paper on this coauthored by Dennis Hartmann, this was mentioned in Week in Review sometime in the last several months. Unfortunately no time right now to dig up the links.

      • “However, given that the climate system changes and feedback we are trying to observe are small compared to the internal variability of the climate system…”

        Norman Loeb suggests that 60 year of observation are needed to constrain cloud responses. Models – mechanism are a better application for models than long term projections – have a range from negative to positive. Water vapour is more clearly and strongly positive – with a small contribution from ice albedo. The system is stabilised with negative Planck and lapse rate feedbacks.

        Clouds do change spontaneously in chaotic, emergent ways as part of the connected Earth system. While cloud changes in ENSO events have been used as an analogue of global warming cloud feedbacks – the patterns of warming and response are different.

        Warming from a doubling of CO2 is some 1.2K with a net negative – stabilising – feedback.

      • Nice try Jim.

        Linking to a cartoon site doesn’t exactly speak to your credibility. A site which references a total of 3 studies. Talk about definitive.

        Oh did I mention the part about what the studies consisted of? “To investigate cloud–climate feedbacks in iRAM, several global warming scenarios were run with boundary conditions appropriate for late twenty-first-century conditions”

        How about that. They plugged in assumptions and ran a model. Yep, that proves it. Clouds provide a positive feedback. No doubt about it.

      • It looks like skeptics really, really want a negative cloud feedback for some reason. The evidence is not helping them, so that’s the main problem for them to overcome at this point.

    • ” Interdecadal 20th century temperature deviations, such as the accelerated observed 1910–1940 warming that has been attributed to an unverifiable increase in solar irradiance (4, 7, 19, 20), appear to instead be due to natural variability. The same is true for the observed mid-40s to mid-70s cooling, previously attributed to enhanced sulfate aerosol activity.”

      Clouds change in response to ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. Prominently on the familiar decadal scales.

      The available satellite data says that cloud cover reduction added considerable heat to the oceans in the late century warming.

      “In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.” IPCC AR4

      Fair enough – except that US continental spot observations is the wrong place and method to look for changes in cloud associated with ocean and atmosphere regimes.

  23. You don’t need to be a ‘genius’ to work it out:

  24. It has been a while since I read on cloud dynamics. This is from a time when CE was much more fun. It seems quite likely that ocean states influence cloud formation and thus climate.

    Yes Jimmy D – ENSO is self clouding and this is not a wood for dummies graph.

    • This is where Spencer tried to prove El Ninos were caused by cloud changes in his argument with Santer, right? But the causality didn’t quite work out for him.

    • RIE, its still ‘fun’. Some of us might get jaded that the same topics get hashed over and over, but that is the nature of countering a religious versus scientific belief. Long slog. Be of good cheer.

    • I thought I replied to this?

      “But we demonstrated that as El Nino develops there is an increase in radiative energy input into the global-average climate system which precedes peak El Nino warmth by about 9 months. This is mostly likely due to a small decrease in low cloud cover associated with the changing atmospheric circulation patterns during El Nino (La Nina would have increased cloud cover).”

      Misrepresenting people based on internet memes is not a good look.

      And we do have some pre-CERES data on shortwave changes.

      You substitute simplistic narratives for data all the time.

      • Is he still saying cloud cover changes cause El Nino? Interesting. Can you believe it?

      • No I can’t believe it. What he is saying is that El Nino initiates cloud changes that add to warming in the system.

      • The cloud changes are 9 months before the El Nino. He thinks this is what provides the heating, doesn’t he? Maybe you can make sense of it since you seem to support it.

      • The cloud changes start after the El Nino commences – and some 9 months before the peak. It is a lot easier than making sense of you – Jimbo.

      • How do the clouds know there is going to be a peak 9 months later? El Ninos are not predictable that far ahead.

      • See what I’ve been saying about Jim D, Robert?

      • Spencer has a very odd one-dimensional view of El Nino as a spontaneous change in mixing processes. It isn’t.

      • ENSO is usually described either as a purely resonant phenomenon – or as a stochastically forced resonant system. The description Spencer gives as changes in mixing above and below the thermocline is accurate as far as it goes. He said he was not going into Rossby waves, etc. that form the mechanisms of the system. They are not critical to the cloud changes that were being discussed on a blog. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

        As I said your causality assertion is a lie – and repeating it says more about you than Spencer.

      • You haven’t yet explained why he mentions the clouds 9 months ahead of El Nino if they are not part of his mechanism. Maybe you support Spencer despite not understanding what he says. Anyway, El Nino has nothing to do with mixing. Circulations matter, and for that wind stress matters.

      • El Nino initiates – he says – cloud changes some 9 months ahead of the peak. It is not I who is either clueless or lying.

        Both ENSO and PDO commence with upwelling in the eastern Pacific. Mixing of cold, nutrient rich, sub-surface water with warm surface water creates the wind and current feedbacks drive the cold tongue across the Pacific.

        The trigger is flow in the Peruvian and Californian currents which is modulated by the polar annular modes.

        Upwelling and mixing is the fundamental process in both the PDO and ENSO.

        Your comments are usually just characterised by bare assertions made up on the spot and that are based on simplistic assumptions. Your comments on this go beyond your lack of depth in the topic – to misrepresentation and disinformation. Just as I defended you for not deliberately spreading misinformation – it seems to be in question.

      • The El Nino warming is not from reduced mixing. Spencer’s one-dimensional view is completely wrong. Oceanographers would cringe at his description.

      • La Nina commences in the east with upwelling causing feedbacks in wind and currents across the Pacific – piling warm water up against Australia and Indonesia. At some stage the trade winds falter and warm surface surges eastward to dissipate on the eastern margin.

        Spencer neglects the many other ENSO mechanisms for the sake of communication on a blog. But it is correct enough for the purpose. Jimmy D doesn’t begin to understand them.

        I am a hydrologist who has studied ENSO for more than 30 years. The only cringing I do is at Jimmy D.

      • It’s not correct at all to invoke mixing because mixing plays no role in the El Nino warming phase. But since it is just for his blog, it doesn’t have to be correct. Why start now?

      • There is less mixing during El Nino – you funny little thing.

      • OK, so you think a period of reduced mixing explains El Nino? Just making sure. Wrong, but you are entitled to Spencer’s view.

      • There is reduced mixing across the thermocline – by a lot – in the eastern and central in El Nino.

        Here’s a nice video.

        Yoiu need to see all four – but more than that you need to work on integrity.

      • So you don’t think it is because of the spread of warm surface water from west to east across the central Pacific, which is nothing to do with mixing at all? You prefer Roy’s description?

      • I think I have described this already. Upwelling in the eastern Pacific causes an increased Walker Cell circulation. The winds pile warm surface water against Australia and Indonesia. Some trigger – Rossby waves reflecting off the western margin, the Madden-Julian Oscillation or something else –
        causes the winds to falter and warm water flows east across the Pacific. Ultimately the water hits the eastern boundary and dissipates north and south – and the upwelling begins again. The trigger for more or less upwelling is more or less flow in the Peruvian and Californian currents.

        But there is less mixing across the thermocline in EL Nino. That is the relevant fact – and no one has ever said that it causes El Nino. In a real sense – El Nino begins with more upwelling.

        You are wasting everyone’s time on your nonsense yet again.

      • This bears absolutely no resemblance to Roy’s description of El Ninos where mixing is the dominant mechanism and somehow clouds come into it too. The video doesn’t even mention mixing in the ocean because it doesn’t matter, nor clouds. The thermocline exists only because of the lack of mixing there.

      • Spencer didn’t describe ENSO – but did talk a little about clouds. They are anti-correlated to sea surface temperature.

        So the thermocline exists because there is no mixing of sub-surface and surface water – as in little upwelling – and presumably doesn’t when there is – as in more upwelling that the video focuses on . Your getting a bit jittery there Jimbo.

      • Spencer attributes ENSO to changes in vertical mixing. It isn’t. Perhaps you didn’t read that part even though that seemed to be his main point.

      • ENSO is a phenomenon that starts with upwelling in the eastern Pacific – although that wasn’t the focus of the blog post. Your original assertion was that Spencer said that clouds cause ENSO. That isn’t true. I think that your real point is that you are smarter than Roy Spencer. There is a whole dynamic there that I will talk a little more about below.
        Strike three.

      • My point is that based on what he wrote, Spencer does not know the major points in describing ENSO. His blog post proves it. Based on that would I believe anything else he has to say on the subject? No.

      • I don’t think you know what you are talking about Jimbo – and I never believe what you say. When I can figure out what it is you’re saying.

        His blog post proves that you are a ninny.

      • I gave you the links to read, The email from Dessler is especially telling.

      • We had one link to a Scientific American article going over the old ground and saying nothing very interesting. I read the Dessler/Spencer exchange some time ago. I have read and quoted Dessler elsewhere.

        A number of studies have demonstrated the connection of ENSO to radiative flux and therefore to cloud. In an analysis of global warming cloud feedbacks, Dessler (2010) used short term variations in surface temperature and CERES data to determine that cloud cover was negatively correlated with temperature. Dessler also plotted ENSO against surface temperature leaving no doubt that ENSO was the primary cause of the short term temperature variations. Leaving aside anthropogenic global warming – the finding of a positive feedback here is in the first instance an ENSO feedback. As was reported, ‘the climate variations being analysed here are primarily driven by ENSO, and there has been no suggestion that ENSO is caused by cloud variations.’

        I seem to recall that Dessler was a little confused on the Spencer paper – and this probably was the start of the internet meme that Spencer claimed that reduced cloud cover causes El Nino. A simple misunderstanding on Dessler’s part that I recall was corrected.

        Your entire argument is relentlessly personal and based on internet nonsense and making it up as you go along.

      • It was below.

      • So Dessler assumes that Spencer claimed that cloud cause ENSO? That is incorrect. As I said above – I read read and quoted Dessler and clouds are an ENSO feedback.

        Jim D | June 24, 2017 at 6:02 pm |
        self-clouding too, right?

        And the answer is still yes – your silly diversions notwithstanding.

      • Dessler had to sort out what Spencer was saying about cause and effect.

      • No – it is quite clear that cloud cover feedbacks after the initiation of an El Nino and before the peak. The change in radiatiuve flux – for which there is ample evidence – adds to warmth in the system.

        You’re all over the place Jimmy – as usual – and ignore the significant point – as usual.

        “These shifts were accompanied by breaks in the global mean temperature trend with respect to time, presumably associated with either discontinuities in the global radiative budget due to the global reorganization of clouds and water vapor or dramatic changes in the uptake of heat by the deep ocean.”

        The global reorganisation of clouds and water vapour added to surface warming in the 1977-1998 warm Pacific regime.

      • Unless the clouds sustained at the 1998 levels after that, the whole gain would have been lost subsequently as part of natural variation. This is what natural variation is. Nothing is sustained. It is just up and down with equal probability and self-canceling over decades.

      • Jimmy is being particularly helpful today. This is another incorrect internet meme from people who are at least a decade behind the curve.

        Clouds vary continuously changing the energy budget of the planet. There is an ocean storage component that smooths the variability. There are secular changes in cloud associated with variable sea surface temperature – that vary from weeks to millennia creating warmer or cooler surface conditions. The area of the globe that exhibits most sst change – due to large scale ocean mixing – is the eastern Pacific. No great mystery – just more or less energy in the system as a result of varying albedo.

        20 to 30 year regimes add up to millennial variation. The 20th century saw these regimes continue but it was also a period of high EL Nino intensity and frequency – pumping more energy into the system from
        a global cloud reorganisation. This is likely to revert to a more normal La Nina dominated state over centuries. It seems linked to solar intensity – an indirect solar effect – and so a reversion this century seems to be on the cards.

      • You waste your time with this. Internal variability is plus or minus 0.1 C according to all your references. Meanwhile we have had 1 C of warming from the forcing change that is still responding to a positive imbalance even after all this warming, meaning that all the warming so far has not been enough to catch up with the forcing change we have imposed with GHGs. Even if we stopped emissions tomorrow warming would continue until we reach the new equilibrium level for the new GHG level.

      • None of this is true Jimbo. It is not plus or minus any comfortable assumption. Most of the 20th century warming was natural.

        Radiaitve imbalance is zero twice a year – ocean warm and cool all the time from large changes in incident energy. The assumption is that oceans warm slowly from small increases greenhouse gas forcing. A very poorly framed assumption.

        Returning to your oft repeated essential litany of bald assertions is a symptom of a lack of juice.

      • Now you are making statements against the papers you carefully cut and paste. None would say what you say. Ocean oscillations like AMO, PDO, PMO, stadium wave, etc., are ~+/-0.1 C in global terms. They would demonstrate and accept that, but you won’t. This is where you deviate and form a category all of your own. The positive imbalance near 0.5 W/m2 belies your attribution, and given that, you will have to do some rethinking.

      • You assume a constant – small – cyclic change. It isn’t either – and nothing I quote implies that it is. You know what happens when you assume.

        Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere in very small increments relatively – this reduces the heat loss from oceans that are routinely warmer than the new higher equilibrium temperature. Oceans cool to the new equilibrium – rather than warm slowly due to thermal inertia. Radiative imbalance is an assumption based pseudoscience.

        They assume that all ocean heat content variability is driven by the assumed radiative imbalance. Not even close to true – as we have just established. .

      • It turns out that the equilibrium temperature has been rising at a similar rate to the actual temperature. This is what the imbalance tells us. We almost keep pace with it, especially in El Nino years, but often fall behind again when the ocean readjusts to normal surface patterns. The ocean heat content is almost all of the imbalance. It is the energy budget equation: forcing minus response equals imbalance. There are no other terms.

      • There is no way that I can make any sense out of this completely anti-science word salad of Jiminy’s.

        Where on Earth would you start? No – I just can’t do it.

        Earth to Jiminy – I think it’s gonna be a long long time – ’til touchdown brings you ’round again to find – you’re not the man we think you are at home – oh, no, no, no – you’re a rocket man – rocket man burning out your fuse up there alone,

      • Robert, your “word salad” from Jim D I took to be a random phrase generator on his computer. I almost said so, but I didn’t want to encourage him.

      • Oh encourage him by all means – but only if you are prepared for days of something akin to water boarding.

      • Well, Robert, I certainly will never try again to have a serious discussion with him. There is definitely something wrong there; in the head I mean.

      • Next time I’ll start with the imbalance because it makes you give up faster.

      • And the mark of a zealot, Robert.

        Additionally, one only need look at the ARGO results to dispel the “CO2 gradually warming the oceans” myth. Jim D might benefit from reading some of Bob Tisdale’s work. But remember; nobody is a prophet.

      • OK, Robert; I’ll accept ninny. No factual argument is going to sway Jim D’s political certainties.

      • There is a not so fine line between a little sarcastic mockery and trite and commonplace insults. The latter have no value. Jimbo doesn’t usually indulge. He is stubborn, persistent, dogmatic and often ill-informed. He will put words in your mouth satirize them. What you need to do is keep him on his toes and not let him select the subject of the comments. Always answer the question you want and not the one he asks. None of it has any value – it is just a game he plays for his ultimate purpose of disrupting discourse on CE.

      • Robert, Jim D should listen to people like you and Tim.

      • Good stuff, Robert. ENSO has been described as a discharge/recharge system, with solar heated water moved westward under relatively clear skies as part of the recharge mechanism.

      • Oh, and I love reading Bob Tisdale’s stuff.

      • And the trolling twit, Jim D, strikes again!

        Decreased cloud cover in the eastern Pacific allows greater SW inputs to fuel an El Nino.

      • Rob,

        Trying to have a conversation with Jim D will drive you to drink. I sometimes wonder if he is some kind of idi0t savant. He not only offers opinion on topics he hasn’t the faintest clue about, when he sticks to climate he is amazing at letting arguments counterfactual to his point or pirouetting away to argue a new point as if that was what he was arguing all along.

      • I have done it a little too often. I don’t know about the savant bit.

      • Roy Spencer said simply that there is more mixing in La Nina and less in El Nino. It is perfectly true.

        Jimmy D first off insists on the internet lie that Spencer said that clouds cause El Nino. When that becomes untenable he shifts to Spencer said that mixing causes El Nino. More perfect nonsense.

        So in this ENSO quiz it is Spencer 1 and Jimmy -8. Jimmy is going to have to lift his game considerably if he is to make a dent in the Spencer lead.

      • RIE, this is a quote from Spencer’s effort at explaining El Nino in your link.
        “The short answer is that, during El Nino, there is an average decrease in the vertical overturning and mixing of cold, deep ocean waters with solar-heated warm surface waters.”
        No. Just no. It is the eastward spread of warm surface water in response to weakening easterly winds at the equator.
        I just give you the consensus view in these arguments, which is very easy to do because it is well known, and all you do is give something that looks either made up as you go along or an irrelevant cut-and-paste of something.

      • Trade winds falter in response to Rossby waves reflecting off the western baoundary, the Madden-Julian Oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation or something else. Warm water piled against Australia and Indonesia surges eastward deepening the thermocline on the eastern margin and inhibiting deep ocean upwelling.

        There is a great deal more to ENSO than the short description of course. Here’s a series of excellent videos showing the basic mechanisms at play. For God’s sake ignore Jimmy D if you want to actually know something about ENSO.

      • Again bearing no resemblance to Spencer’s feeble attempt at describing it. The video is fine. Spencer, not so much.

      • Jim D:

        I will agree with Spencer’s summation:

        The long blue La Nina line at the equator is upwelled and/or kicked along the South American coast from the South water. It shows a circulation. A definition of a circulation is taking cold water and putting it where it can warm and moving it. We can see during an El Nino this circulation shuts down. The sardines know all about the circulation.

        “…mixing of cold, deep ocean waters with solar-heated warm surface waters.”
        What the above does is change the situation. This cool water at the equator will not evaporate so much. It will not emit so much to the atmosphere. The joules not emitted, will not travel a mile to where it’s warmer and jump back into the ocean. Likewise from a mile away, some joules emitted there will jump into the cooler water, thus the cooler water has a bit of reach. Shut all this cool water off and the SSTs rise. There certainly is the impact of all that warm water spreading East and outwards as well during an El Nino.

      • Ragnaar, it doesn’t explain why an El Nino happens mainly because it refers neither to the wind nor currents. Very difficult to have a proper explanation without those two components, but if it suits you, fine.

    • How’s this prediction from 2011 working out for you Robert?

      ” As a testable hypothesis, the current cool La Niña mode of the Pacific decadal pattern will lead to increased cloud cover and global cooling over another decade or three.”

      • “If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades.”

        OMG – I have been saying this since at least 2006. And it’s working out remarkably well. I have been refining the hypothesis. The next shift is due within a decade – and may be to yet cooler states.

      • Well well well, you don’t seem to read your own cites, do you now?

        “Finally, it is vital to note that there is no comfort to be gained by having a climate with a significant degree of internal variability, even if it results in a near-term cessation of global warming. It is straightforward to argue that a climate with significant internal variability is a climate that is very sensitive to applied anthropogenic radiative anomalies [cf. Roe, 2009]. If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability”

        I’ll repost the important bits

        “warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models”

        “warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models”

        “warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models”

      • I haven’t read it because I don’t quote it? You’re the one who doesn’t read their own cites Bob.

        “… the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.”

        You don’t know how this could be though do you?

      • “If the role of internal variability in the climate system is as large as this analysis would seem to suggest, warming over the 21st century may well be larger than that predicted by the current generation of models, given the propensity of those models to underestimate climate internal variability”

        If in attempting in the climate models to emulate the temperature variations of the observed climate which are influenced significantly by internal variations by forcing these variations in the model, were the case, then the above statement would not hold.

      • Well, I think you are not reading Tsonis, because you and him seem to be predicting different things.

        You are predicting cooling happening now, which certainly isn’t happening, while Tsonis is predicting climate shifts on top of an anthropogenic warming trend.

        You appear to have missed this bit

        “Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing.”

        My advice, that you won’t take, is to stop cherry picking Tsonis.

      • Kenfritsch, If you could show that the modelers are trying to force natural variation in the models, I’d be surprised.

        I don’t think they are doing that.

      • Bob

        “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped…

        As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it! The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).” Anastasios Tsonis

        I think he was getting a bit testy at being argued with by a nitwit warminista. So yes we are happy to accept that greenhouse gases cause warming – and even that a chaotic Earth system implies the potential for climate catastrophe – in the sense of Rene Thom. But these other things are happening in climate that make climate science as you know it almost complete bollocks.

      • Maybe we are cooling! Weasel words at best.

        Just like discussions of the pause, you who post the most charts and graphs of any poster here, can’t post a graph that shows cooling where the uncertainty in the trend is less than the measured trend and excludes the about 0,2 C per decade.

        Thirty year trends from the satellites are in close agreement with the surface data.

        In fact the 30 trend from RSS v4 exceeds the trend from GISS.

        So sorry RIE

      • So I am no longer misrepresenting Tsonis?

        Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

        It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

        Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and at least not warming since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due in a decade if the recent past is any indication.

        Let me misquote NASA.

        “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.”

        Perhaps you should stop pretending you have a clue and are capable of good faith discourse.

      • Then you can show me a data set that shows that we are currently in a cooling trend.

        And what is the effect of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere?

        Show me the cooling!

  25. “Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science”

    Belief, as in my imaginary friend, or, belief, that I have a purpose in this life are belief systems all the same. To be sure, one’s perspective plays some role in how we manage information depending upon our belief system.

    There is another belief, and that is the practical day-to-day beliefs we use to regulate the behaviors we display, when confronted as we are with choices that either go along with our belief system in general, or, provides some level of uncertainty. In general, we chose what is most comfortable. We then make arguments why the choices we have made are eminently logical and true.

    My contention is that people who encamp in the extremes of a discussion or opinion really have difficulty with assimilating uncertainty into their daily lives. Uncertainty produces anxiety. Everything for the polarized populations is held to be: cut and dry; yes or no; all in or all out. For those found in these outer reaches, this location, living in this area of uncertainty produces an uncomfortable level of anxiety. The ability to manage living with uncertainty is a matter of temperament and personality strengths and weaknesses. The strategies and decisions as to whether to continue living with this anxiety or disavow any truthfulness of a contending argument reflects an underlying character and should be regarded as such by those observing from some distance.

    Calling upon consensus opinion reflects a need to shield ones self from anxiety provoking information.

  26. Yndestad, Solheim, Usoskin, Schussler, Solanki, Mursula, Ma, Utomo, Biktash, Moreno, Leorri, Fatella, Blake, Katsuki, Yang, Lim, Ashahi, Han, Xiao, Zhou, Zhao, Huo, Nan, Li, Chen, Shi, Yu, Xu, Sun, Pidkovsky, Wieman, Korogodina, Zhang, Yue, Pandey, Dubey, Gan, Du, Fomichev, Ward, Beagley, Gray, Ball, Misios, Hood, Yikimoto, Wang, Yang, Zhou, Chen, Park, Shen, Cao, Chang, Zhang, Liu, Shulmeister, Sun, Lu, Zong, Lit, Dodson, Yan, Zhang, Xu, Lee, Pei, Cheng, Chapanov, Ron, Vondrak, Deng, Liu, Chen, Wei, Zeng, Xie, Zhao, Knudsen, Liu, Zhao, Sha, Jiang, Seidenkrantz, Li, Andressen,, Luthardt, robler, Huo, Xiao, Kucera, Shulz, Munz, Steinke, Boll, Luckge, Groeneved, Jarde, Wen, Chen, Geng, Huang, Linderholm, Moreton, Wood, Wilson, Rydval, Loader, Gunnarson, Druckenbrod, awiska, Nevalanen, Luoto, Walseng, Tejedor, Saz, Cuadrat, Esper, de Luis, Friedrich, Hennrich, Zacharias, Pross, Koutsodendris, Brauer, Reed, Plessen, Schwander, Rohrer, Bronnimann, Malik, Ziehofer, Fletcher, Urban, Migala, Pawliczek.

    The list of names above contains authors and co-authors of papers from 2017 looking at the impact of solar on climate. I’m sure with a little effort I can find an even longer list of studies from 2016 and before. Some scientists view the effects from the sun to be worthy of further study and have not been brainwashed to look down only one rathole. If someone is motivated, there are innumerable studies covering the Arctic, Antarctic, MWP, Sea Level Rise, etc, which build cases for plausible alternative explanations for our current climate. The two individuals from the Trump Administration are expressing the more reasonable approach to the question of climate change. On the other side, some are by their own limitations, confined to only the simplest answers. Thus, the popularity of the control knob theory,

    With this list, i hope the jackals will let Willie go in peace.. They can now stalk other prey to their hearts content.

  27. Pingback: Why scientists disagree about global warming | Pursue Democracy

  28. Why is it that only blue team worry worts (particularly Mosher the munificent) fear a blue/red team exercise?

    I’ll take a red team with Lindzen, Christy and Curry moderated by Koonin and give all takers 10 to 1 odds!

    • David Springer

      Downside far outweighs upside for the blue team.

    • As I said elsewhere, if you want a red team for the NCA, they can’t just sit in a room and debate a report. They have to hold as many workshops with real input from stakeholders in climate change, industries, local government, insurance, farmers, coastal interests, academics, environmentalists, etc., and base their report on their input, like the NCA did. Stakeholders will keep them honest.

  29. Rick Perry was asked if CO2 is the control know. He responded (in part)

    this shouldn’t be a debate about, ‘Is the climate changing, is man having an effect on it?’ Yeah, we are. The question should be just how much, and what are the policy changes that we need to make to effect that?

    That’s a good answer, but the last sentence needs to be better stated as follows:

    The question should be [just what are the impacts of global warning? Are they beneficial or damaging in total for the world?] And what are the policy changes that we need to make[…]?

    • The best that can be done with climate projections is a probability distribution function – that should logically include the possibility of cooling. A risk assessment based on that must include low probability but high consequence events.

      • The impact is also a probability distribution from not much benefit to disastrous depending on where people live. Simply taking the average neglects a lot of affected people.

      • A risk assessment is a very broad ranging methodology. It might include for instance water stress in specific area – with defined consequences such as on biodiversity, fire, security or civil society – at either global or regional scales or both. And a defined probability of occurrence. You describe the event, determine consequences and assign a probability.

        The output is a list of events with a risk defined as say low, medium, high or extreme. A high consequence event with a low probability may be defined as an extreme risk. The objective then is to reduce consequence, probability or both.

        I have done risk assessment on many projects up to $10 billion in value. I have little doubt that an objective process – by either red or blue teams – would come up with extreme risks.

      • David Springer

        The risk is high that more CO2 is a net benefit to life on earth.

        I understand tree huggers. Ice huggers baffle me.

      • “On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said.

        There may be fine distinctions that elude David. Not saying there are – but it may be worth some consideration.

      • David Springer

        If someone speculates there may be as-yet-unknown downsides to global greening that warrants others to say there may be as-yet-unknown upside to global greening.

        When we open the door to speculation about unknowns we have to open it in both directions.

        The distinction between fact and speculation may elude Robert.

      • No one is suggesting speculation but scientific inquiry. This is indeed the point where speculation becomes hypothesis.

        The mechanism is well enough understood. Plant stomata decrease in both size and number in what seems to be a intrinsic functional adaptation that persists in the plant genome through epochs of different background carbon concentrations. Reduced stomata number and size reduce water losses across the leaf surface giving the individual plant a survival advantage in water limited environments. It changes surface hydrology, carbon and nutrient –
        cycling, fire regimes and ecologies – as my reference suggested. Higher carbon dioxide levels in aquatic and marine environments favour algal growth and anoxic environments.

        None of this is speculative – just not understood in any great detail. Ecologies – however – respond in unpredictable ways to changes in abiotic conditions. The big picture on global biological systems is that of widespread and large reductions in populations – from a variety of pressures on biological systems. Adding to pressures on biological system could cause a system collapse – with impacts on societies – and subsequent, slow recovery.

        Beyond the scientific questions – it becomes a question of how to pragmatically reduce human pressures on Earth systems – including inter alia –
        greenhouse gas emissions.

      • There may be some downsides that you are not considering. Worse heatwaves in cities were mentioned just today.

      • We are talking just the greening Jimbo – and I really cannot waste any more time with your activist links scenarios invented on a blog by someone with zilch credentials. It is the definition of unreliable.

      • You make assumptions about impacts that are far from certain – and always lead the discussion back to dogmatic assertions about your obsessions. All assumptions are far from certain.

      • Oh – and as I have said elsewhere – science based on assumption is not even pseudoscience.

      • Citing studies is not assertion. In fact, the results are completely unsurprising, that urban heatwaves that are already deadly would get worse. All they do is quantify it.

      • It is not a study or even a review. The only reason I read the Spencer blog was because you were repeating he internet lie about claims that clouds caused ENSO. Spencer has a ongoing involvement in very relevant climate science. It is a middle ground between reputable sources and hugely disreputable ones like ScekicalScience.

        Lomberg is a very different proposition and hugely reputable source – aven if his ideas on climate are a bit basic.

      • David Springer


        “how to pragmatically reduce human pressures on Earth systems”

        I need to see credible evidence that human CO2 emission is not a net benefit to life on earth otherwise there’s no reason, pragmatic or otherwise, to reduce it.

        Indeed, given the greening that NASA found, human CO2 emission appears to be relieving natural pressures on earth systems.

        Ice huggers continue to baffle me.

      • I’d need to see credible evidence it isn’t damaging.

      • David Springer

        And there we have it. A recipe for endless debate. An ill wind that blows no good.

      • Pragmatic ways forward increase human welfare and conserve environments – as well as reduce risk from untrammeled emissions.

        No debate necessary. That ship has sailed.

  30. Roger Knights

    Judith Curry says: ” Why wouldn’t the consensus enforcers be delighted to have an opportunity to convince the Trump administration of their superior arguments, relative to the ‘troglodyte’ red team?”

    Here’s one possibility:

    “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”
    —Tom Paine

    That’s something Perry & Pruit should quote.

    In addition, the enforcers’ claim that thousands of scientists support the consensus view provides a justification for this administration response:
    “Let’s do a survey of the authors of peer reviewed papers on the attribution question and nail down just how big in percentage terms the purported alarmist, we-must-act position is, and what shades of opinion there are on various aspects of the question are. Von Storch did one informal survey a while back, as did George Mason University about eight years ago. (Not its subsequent, shallower surveys.)

    • Many authors of scientific peer reviewed papers lack the education and know how to understand topics such as fossil fuel resources, competitiveness of renewable energy sources, carbon cycles and ocean chemistry. And these areas are very important when we consider the final product: the answer to “what is the best thing to do”?

      I get a bit frustrated by the scientist worship and arrogance I see in some quarters. Most scientists are so highly specialized they just can’t understand how to go about putting together the full package. That’s not really a big issue until they start thinking they do know.

  31. Make science debate great again, bring in the red team.

    • russellseitz

      And don’t forget the croquet hoops and the flamingos.

      • Don Monfort

        And don’t forget the team consensus goons, who declared the debate over and have been in hiding since they got the –snip– beat out of them in that NPR debate. Their hero, Little Gavin Schmidt, whined that it was because Michael Crichton was too tall. My guess is that the consensus goons would refuse to participate because Trump is the Devil and will be impeached any minute now. Delusional clowns. Trump Rules! Little rustle sitz drools.

      • The problem with audience debates is that the audience can’t tell if stuff is being made up and Crichton is a pro at making stuff up.

      • Don Monfort

        Mr. Michael Crichton is dead, yimmy. Just like the Paris non-binding bull–snip– accord. The climate debate audience was bombarded with 97% consensus bull–snip– propaganda for decades and decided to put The Donald in charge. Trump Rules! Our little jimmy drools.

      • Sorry for your loss.

      • ” I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury.”
        said cunning old Fury.
        ” I’ll try the whole cause
        and condemn you to death.”

      • russellseitz

        I was at that debate , Don , and Mike Crichton ‘s performance prevailed not just because he could act – he was a screenwriter after all, but because besides practicing his act before a critical CalTech audience, he was studying environmental law as part of his due diligence for State of Fear– John Gresham made for serious hardcover competition in those days.

        With Lindzen as Crichton’s back up, Gavin’s un-lawyerly pick-up team was hoplessly outclassed in what was , after all, a jury trial without a judge.

  32. Judith – you are a contributor to this discussion on the Australian ABC Science show where they’ve carefully selected some of your statements then bought in Australian scientists to refute it.

    • The guy they had on the consensus side there did a really good job debunking all the skeptics. It was five to one against him, but he still got the last word. Nothing new in this discussion, however.

    • John L Sayers ==> The program was a “barrel shoot”….five climate skeptics, realists, pragmatists, whatever brought on to air their ( carefully selected by the directors) positions — which were immediately “shot down” by the two Climate Consensus Enforcers, who reiterated simplistic Authorized Climate Consensus Talking Points — mostly saying “hurrah for our side” and giving no real data and/or obfuscating the issues.
      On the upside, at least the skeptics side was given a chance to be heard.

  33. Steven Mosher

    “Errors in external forcing data (Santer et al’s preferred explanation)
    Internal variability (which has been supported by numerous previous studies, including posts at CE)
    Values of CO2 climate sensitivity that are too high (interesting new post on this over at ClimateAudit)
    Missing physical processes in the climate models (e.g. solar indirect effects).”

    All wrong.
    The difference between satellite and surface is Entirely confined to
    A. The peroid after the replacement of MSU with AMSU.
    B. The area over land.

  34. In the end the balance of informed opinion or consensus of experts is closer to the truth and reality than any other opinion.

    It is obvious by observation and measurement that Earth is retaining more energy: temperatures up, ice down …

    Human activity has increased the level of CO2 >40% since industrialisation. The mean global temperature has increased >1C, with more to come even if stop emissions now.

    If it is possible to move to renewables without the world coming to an end then that’s what we should do. 1. Fossil fuels are convenient but also finite, wasteful, expensive, damaging to the environment and unhealthy. 2. There is a very high probability that such a widespread, deep and longstanding consensus is essentially correct, and if it is our world as we know it will end anyway.

    The only reason not to do is to keep the money flowing into the pockets of the oil billionaires. This talk about the poor etc etc etc is utter twaddle. Trump and his party don’t give a stuff about poor people.

    As has been said, America has the best government money can buy. Spencer, Christy, Curry and others are just useful idiots in the eyes of the Republicans. Whether the science is right or wrong is totally irrelevant. Even if they knew the science was right they would say it wasn’t.

  35. This is an argument about semantics. 99% is a lie but 98% is truth. One word changes everything. Sometimes it is just one letter like AGW instead of GW. Who is alert to such details? A debate would be useless.

  36. It is not let the games begin but rather the climate test begin.

    I say global cooling as begun this year and will continue for the foreseeable future .

    l have lots of company in this opinion from may non biased scientist all over the globe.

    I will send a video which gives a very strong case that co2 does not drive the climate in any way ,shape or fashion.

  37. The evidence is that in climate science peer review doesn’t work.

    • There’s an analogy, phlogiston, the cause of fire.

      It’s a reification error. If you name something, it must exist, and you can study it.

      A whole science of phologiston investigation arose.

      It turned out not to be a science. Bits of it were, but not as field as a whole.

      So we have the cause of climate change today, and it tries to be a single field to which everything contributes in that context, where each thing will turn out to be wrong to the extent it thinks there’s a single field it’s part of.

      • russellseitz

        You and Salvatore ought to debate on Tasmanian Public Radio.

        Viscount Monckton can moderate.

  38. This is what Trump and his administration need to educate themselves with when it comes to the climate.

    It is amazing how AGW theory still has legs despite no proof that it exist ,none!

  39. If “wrong but useful” models are the basis for destroying our economy, as Travesty Trenberth says, it’s pretty clear that climate change is just a euphemism for income redistribution.

  40. Very amusing.

    So first it’s “politics corrupts science and government funding of science corrupts science.”

    And then it’s, “Lets applaud politicians (that we support) regulating the science and let’s get more government funding for science (if it will produce conclusions we support).

    • Don Monfort

      Elections have consequences. Winners get to run the show and losers get to cry.

    • Thanks, Don –

      …for acknowledging the point. At least I can count on you to not climb on some high horse of moral outrage or scientific purity.

    • David Springer

      If skeptics within the climate science community are starved of funding how would we know if they have a strong case or whether the so-called consensus is merely an artifact of them getting all the research grants?

  41. So– this is how a hoax dies. Amazing how close Western academia came to taking down America. Oh well… back to Big Foot and alien sightings. Meanwhile, the hope and promise of public-funded universal education has faded now that the sons and daughters of the greatest generation have succeeded only in grunting out a generation of consenting losers.

  42. David Springer

    Natural or man-made warming is a useless question until we know how life on the planet will change in response to greater CO2 partial pressure. So far it looks like the earth is getting greener and in my book that’s a good thing. Green plants are the primary producers in the food chain. What’s good for them is an overall good for life further up the food chain.

    Look, I grew up on the 45th parallel and I’ve seen what happens to living things when the temperature falls. It sucks. Life and ice do not mix well.

    Rising CO2 is a net benefit for life.

  43. Jimmy D has been indulging in asymmetric warfare with Roy Spencer on the basis of repeating a wrong internet meme – is that an oxymoron – and then critiquing a Spencer blog post on the basis of a completely bogus interpretation of another point. I say asymmetric because Spencer’s intellect and knowledge so far outweigh Jimmy D’s that the spectacle is ludicrous. Global warming empowers these people to imagine that they are defenders of science against hoards of the great unwashed. I have seen simpletons patronizingly hector eminent scientists in public forums. They remain blissfully oblivious to so great an incongruity.

    I cut and paste from hundreds of sources because in that way I can directly bear witness to the real science. Real and complex science that is vastly different to the simple memes of the climate collective. They are invariably unable to cognitively process the dissonance and accuse me of selectively quoting. They are free of course to quote the other bits I gloss over. Although usually my quotes are abstracts, introductions or conclusions. That’s usually where you find the crux of the paper.

    According to the usual suspects – the scientists I quote are either the object of ridicule to other scientists or would cringe in embarrassment at the use I make of their work. Although I am usually agreeing with their ideas – which is why I quote them. There are many of them and they contribute interesting science – sometimes despite the coordinated imposition of sanctions for climate heresy. It is not science so much from the cultural warriors – but a narrative of science as a proxy for implementation of a cultural agenda.

    Interesting scientists have a subtlety and a complexity – with an attendant uncertainty – that is not amenable to easy assimilation. Far from there being no science at odds with the simple memes of global warming – 97% consensus for instance – most science has fine distinctions. No scientific distinction – however – is fine enough to cut the Gordian knot and reveal the future with anything but a great uncertainty. The methodology to address uncertainty is not exclusively scientific.

  44. The enforcement process very much depended on howling down anybody who dared to give the “wrong” answers to leading questions like “do you den-eye that CO2 is the sole control knob on temperatures” or “aren’t the emperor’s new clothes splendid”.

    Just look at the unravelling sanity on this site of those who still push the line that every bad thing is caused by CO2. Really guys, did you think you could get away with unscience forever?

  45. The oceans don’t decide willy nilly whether to change the climate. But oceans, soaking up heat from radiative imbalance of the earth, can periodically release heat to the biosphere. Ultimately it is CO2 underlying global warming, but the oceans appear to be intermediaries. And that is why there is no direct proportionality between T and CO2. CO2 is an input to a complex system that does not move directly with CO2 input. But the aftermath of the great El Nino of 2015-6 appears to be headed toward a new plateau a couple of tenths of a degree higher than the pause. 2017 figures to be notably warmer than the pause plateau. The heat seems to be emanating from the Pacific Ocean.

    • This is the latest erroneous internet meme – word perfect. It all depends on where ENSO goes next. La Nina certainly cools the atmosphere with energy transferred between ocean and atmosphere – but different lines of evidence suggest that cloud radiative effects dominate with both oceans and atmosphere cooling.

      There is no great pool of warn water in the western Pacific. “There is no source for El Nino like warming with the warm pool in the far West Pacific weak and fading. Much recharging and heat buildup is required for a real El Nino to develop.” We are years away from sufficient recharge for an El Nino to occur.

      The polar annular modes are pushing cold polar water into the Peruvian and Californian currents. The north east is showing more cooling. There are expanding cool pools forming off the South American equatorial coast following the dissipation of warm surface water from the La Nina Modoki earlier this year. Double Walker Cells with warm pools on both sides of the Pacific that caused anomalous warming.

      I can’t see that there can be anything but La Nina emerging next.

      Ocean and atmosphere circulation shift climate states abruptly in completely deterministic but apparently random ways in a complex and dynamic system. A primary periodicity is the 20 to 30 year regimes that add up to variability on a millennial scale. Climate is an emergent state of a chaotic system.

      Sadly for the mental stability of these people – real random+chaotic is pretty much the consensus paradigm.

    • But the aftermath of the great El Nino of 2015-6 appears to be headed toward a new plateau a couple of tenths of a degree higher than the pause.

      Why do you say that, wishful thinking?
      Temperatures are still going down after the big El Niño and nobody on earth knows what is going to happen to them over the next few years. That is the only thing that has been clearly demonstrated after the failure to predict the hiatus.


  46. The cloud radiative forcing in the final decades of the last century was 1.4W/m2. The increase in greenhouse gas forcing over the same period was 0.6W/m2 – and some of that is – apparently – in the pipeline.

    There is empirical science, there is science as investigation, there is pseudscience by assumption and there is whatever the hell it is that Jimmy D does. Jimmy has just two comments – it just seems a hell of a lot more.

  47. Judith –

    Absolutely loved your Currysplaining of Trump’s Chinese hoax” tweet. Priceless.

    • russellseitz

      You can’t blame the Pesident for running it up the stadium to see if it waves .

      • Why not? It is apparently ok to blame him as part of a conspiracy with Russia to subvert the election.

        TDS, a disease that is taking a terrible toll on self identifying liberal progressives – aka the elite of our society.

  48. ‘All scientists are inveterate tire kickers and testers of conventional wisdom. To paraphrase the Geico commercial, “If you’re a scientist, that’s what you do.”’
    Now that is proof.

    Still waiting for that magical proof that a model with 100% error can predict certain quantities accurately.

    I am so glad I don’t work at NCAR anymore. I know several other people who were dedicated to bringing state of the art codes, partial differential solver methodologies, error analysis to NCAR. NCAR showed zero interest.
    These labs have no interest in truly throwing scientific resources at finding out the truth about climate science or to determine the extents that modelling can be used with accuracy.

    The have constructed their talmudic lie about consensus, which is about the best they are going to do, and they are pushing this in an attempt to score a home run. They know that more thorough investigation and modern analysis of the problem would likely show that most of their conclusions are utter nonsense, so they purposefully avoid investing in this arena.

    “We do not consider ourselves to be members of any team or tribe.”


  49. Judith ==> Thank you for this bit, which is so elegant, so insightful, that it is probably wasted on 95% of even the astute audience here:

    The disagreement is not so much about observational evidence, but rather about the epistemic status of climate models, the logics used to link the observational evidence into arguments, the overall framing of the problem and overconfident conclusions in the face of incomplete evidence and understanding.

    Brilliantly stated — and speaks to the root of the underlying science problems.

    • Kip,

      I agree that Judith’s statement is elegantly stated, insightful and deserves serious reflection.

      I don’t understand your comment on it being wasted on 95% of the audience at CE. This seems out of character for you as I have come to regard you as a constructive contributor.

      • Mark ==> I am a pragmatist at heart …. I am a writer, an essayist, I use words daily and with intention. I have learned through my writing, especially on Climate Science, that words are difficult for most Americans, and English words even more difficult for my readers for whom English is not their native tongue.
        Please don’t take personal offense … it is just a reality that complicated constructions, less-common words, and complex ideas are not at the base of communicative language.
        You read the comments (you read mine) and must have some idea of the reading comprehension of readers — how many people do you know (outside of your specialized work environment) — day to day people — that will really understand the phrase “epistemic status of climate models”? that will truly understand what Dr. Curry means when she refers to “the logics used to link the observational evidence into arguments”?
        Just because you understand doesn’t mean that the everyday reader will understand.
        I don’t mean to criticize Dr. Curry nor put down the readers here….I am often too blunt for my own good, but this is based on the lessons I have learned as a writer in the field over the last almost-ten years.
        Writers must know their readers — their strengths and weaknesses, their depth of vocabulary, their ability to understand written language.
        I have been accused of “loquacious dumbing down” climate subjects by the top-tier readers….and praised by the majority for making complicated subjects accessible. It is a difficult balancing act.
        So, I should have qualified by comment somewhat — it is an essayist observation about a particular single sentence.

      • Well said, Kip. I’ve read that popular writing aims for the 10th grade reading level.

      • I agree Kip. It’s why red team messaging and brand development shouldn’t be taken lightly in my opinion.

      • > words are difficult for most Americans

        “Epistemic statuses” and “logics” are even more difficult.

        Between real discussions of epistemology and logics and “elegant statements,” there’s a gap that Mr. T can’t hide.

        An example of a science with “complete evidence” would be nice.

    • Of course 95% of us will claim to be in the 5% that gets and appreciates the comment.

      • Javier,
        Count me in.

        Oh wait, did I just confirm the 95% rule.

        Really, Kip, much greater % at Climate etc understands the issue.

      • > 5% that gets and appreciates the comment.

        Yet we can hope that more than 5% can see through its emptiness.

        The comment is hard to miss – it has been repeated ad nauseam since 2009.

      • Willard, you are really in the wrong % here.

      • Tell that to NG, Javier:

        Or perhaps you’d rather tell JamesA:

        you will recall, I’ve been waiting for a year now for Curry to explain her muddled and confused approach to probability, in particular her nonsensical “Italian Flag” analysis which she seems to be recasting as “fuzzy logic” (as an aside, I do agree that her logic is fuzzy, but perhaps not in the way she intended).

        So I was eagerly awaiting “Curry (2011b)”, which has just appeared. And what does it say about fuzzy logic?

        [fx: tumbleweed]

        Not one single mention, that’s what. No mention of Bayesian probability, either. Or Boolean logic. These terms are completely absent from the paper, so this whole line of specious assertions has simply been abandoned without any support whatsoever.

        More than five years now.

        Do you think that trying to minimize teh Donald’s “China hoax” blunder belongs to epistemic status?

      • “In this best-case-for-natural-variability scenario, natural variability is strong enough to bring global warming to a halt during the negative portion of the natural oscillation, and the present halt is likely to continue for at least another decade. Conversely, during the positive portion of the natural oscillation, natural variability and anthropogenic forcing are working together to drive temperatures upward.

        Curry alludes to the 1975-2000 period in her testimony. During this period, if we make natural variability as strong as it can be, natural variability would have accounted for about half of the observed warming, and anthropogenic forcing the other half. Since (using GISTEMP) global temperatures went up by about 0.5 C during this period, one would say that natural variability and anthropogenic forcing each accounted for about 0.25 C of warming. That’s 0.1 C per decade, over 25 years.”

        The idea of the stadium wave is fairly simple. It says that the elements of the global climate system are components of a connected network. This is a truism – something that is overwhelmingly obvious after the announcement of the fact.

        But this is not a cycle with alternating warming and cooling of a standard periodicity.

        It is a chaotic shift in climate states that seem likely to come off a 1000 year high this century.

        But unicorns poor wee willie.

    • Kip,

      Thanks for the reply. No offense taken on my part. I’m just an old retired technical guy trying to understand as much as I can about how we got into this CAGW mess.

      Can you help me simplify “the epistemic status of climate models”. My understanding is that this is getting at the notion that climate modelers assume they know what the answer is so they construct their models to get the answer they “know” is right. Am I on the right track?

      • Mark ==> The hard word is “epistemic” which is the root of epistemology — the study of knowledge. The “epistemic status of climate models” is the knowledge-value, the degree to which we assign certainty or “knowledge” ( or lack of knowledge, ignorance) to the information returned by Climate Models. Do we assign them the knowledge-value of a) Truth Givers? b) Givers of possible futures? c) Purveyors of nonsense? d) Mis-applications of the formulas of non-linear dynamics producing chaotic results? e) propaganda tools of Consensus Enforcers? f) Useful analytical tools for use in Climate Science yet unfit for predictions of the future climate?
        These are all possible (and each currently held by some members of the climate community) epistemic statuses of climate models.
        There is disagreement about the epistemic status of climate models in the Climate Science community. This disagreement leads to many of the disagreements about the future risks of climate change, disagreements about what the “evidence” is and what it means, etc.

      • russellseitz

        For the state of the art in alternative epistemics you must turn to \the great British masters at Breitbart:

      • Russell

        as probably the only person here that has met delingpole here is a link to the original article from which your article on your own apparently read blog refers.

        The guy was very bright, very knowledgeable about climate change and who could pick up the phone or otherwise contact a variety of people with excellent science credentials in order to find out what the ‘peer reviewed’ article actually said on which he was writing.

        the idea that he shoots wildly in the dark is wrong. having said that I am not keen on polemicists and the only time I ever read him is when people offer up somewhat jaundiced versions of his activities.


      • Of course the polemic was inspired by Trump and Russia – not climate. Conflating issues is a symptom of post modernism and not an acceptable journalistic practice. Mind you – I only read poetry or science – so what would I know. Judith is my remaining connection to the real world.

      • tonyb
        Why do you call Dillingpole that? I read his book and found it reasonable.

        Enough people have issues with any skeptic to not pile on. I enjoy all perspectives and read each with a focus of winnowing out the gyms without the exaggerated hard opinions.

        How is your efforts on sea level II and III from Romans to Middle Age and then from Little Ice Age to present?

        I respect and enjoy your papters.

      • Hi Scott

        I was admonishing Russell for his somewhat loose reference.

        I think James also referred to himself as a polemicist. Here is my understanding of the meaning;

        it just means he has strong views and is not afraid to express them robustly.

        He is in extremely exalted company as a polemicist, as you can see from the link and the term is by no means derogatory.

        I have accumulated so much research on a variety of topics that it difficult to sift through the material and winnow out the information on a specific subject such as sea levels.

        As I think I mentioned to you previously I have been in contact with Phil Jones who has now retired from the UEA and who has been supplying me with some information on British historic wind patterns and their directions gleaned by Hubert Lamb.

        I am attempting to put them together with the CET temperature reconstruction back to 1538. The correlation with temperature through the LIA and other periods is pretty good and offers a much better explanation of our continually changing climate than does co2.

        The Met Office have also been helpful and the amount of data-though incomplete as yet- is of a manageable size. So I guess that will be my next project, unless of course one of these very large cheques from a fossil fuel company comes through in which case I can take on several assistants and get on with parts 2 and 3 of sea levels :)


      • Steven Mosher

        Models don’t have epistemic value.
        They have pragmatic purposes.

      • catweazle666

        “They have pragmatic purposes.”

        You mean that in the case of “climate models” they allow the otherwise unempolyable to make a comfortable living?

      • russellseitz

        Climate reason is wrong from the start- I first met Deingpole nearly a decade ago and am resignd to seeing him again at our children’s school reunions .

        Of course I do not take him any more seriously than de does, but as we are witnessing in DC, unserious people can warp national policy as well as any., and his claque is not a disinterested one.

    • Thanks Kip, that was very helpful.

      • Curious George

        My personal problem with ‘epistemic’ is that no one seems to know how to quantify it; is is a number? a tensor? something inherently non-quantifiable? Such uncertainties bring us from the realm of science/technology to a realm of philosophy/astrology.

  50. The problem is AGW theory is a false theory that has not one shred of evidence to prove it is not.

  51. James Hansen gave his presentation on the CO2 control knob to congress in 1988. In the 29 years since, we’ve learned four “big” facts:
    1. CO2 will not warm the atmosphere anywhere near as much as Hansen projected.
    2. Western nations will not be powered by windmills and solar panels.
    3. The International Community’s preferred policy of essentially maintaining BAU emissions, but shifting them all to developing nations and praying will not happen.
    4. After spending billions on the question, we aren’t any closer to knowing how much the real impact of CO2 will be than we were 30 years ago, but we know it’s less and we know politicization of the field is a significant obstacle to learning.

    Rick Perry’s position is restatement of those three facts of life.

  52. It looks like Trump would like to have some gadgets and whistles to go with his new wall. He wants to install solar panels on the wall. I guess that makes him a renewable many after all.

  53. How do we get the indirect solar effects unicorns in the models?

  54. stevenreincarnated
  55. “Again bearing no resemblance to Spencer’s feeble attempt at describing it. The video is fine. Spencer, not so much.” Jimmy D

    The videos are fabulous.

    Now the pop quiz.

    Is there less or more upwelling in an El Nino?

    (“The short answer is that, during El Nino, there is an average decrease in the vertical overturning and mixing of cold, deep ocean waters with solar-heated warm surface waters.” Roy Spencer)

    It is difficult to know whether Jimmy D believes what he says or not. Most of it is so off the wall that it stretches credulity to imagine that it’s real – and not deliberate distortions of an agent provocateur. None of it rises to the level of a dialectic. It is all just counting coup on skeptics -motivated by some deeply entrenched psychological imperative.

    Whatever Jimmy’s purposes – I trust the short answer is acceptable to most people. If you want more – the videos are terrific.

    • It is inaccurate to conflate upwelling with mixing. These are two different processes. The video mentions nothing about mixing, and for good reason. Spencer mentions nothing about horizontal transport which is the main process for the El Nino. Maybe he is just being colloquial, and less mixing automatically means horizontal transport from the west to him, but within oceanography his words would be nonsense because upwelling, transport and mixing have precise and separate meanings.

      • …or, reading his sentence again, maybe he thinks the warming is local solar heating and transport plays no role at all. That one-dimensional view is plain wrong.

      • There is no particular magic about these words – vague assertions of authority notwithstanding. Upwelling implies mixing of cold, nutrient rich deep ocean water with the sun warmed surface layer – which is where the ENSO cycle starts.

      • OK, you fell for Spencer’s misidentification of the main mechanism. I can’t help you.

      • I’d be worried if I needed your help.

      • “I’d be worried if I needed your help.”

        Best comment of the entire thread Rob.

  56. Perhaps I am a naive optimist to anticipate that sanity will prevail. The image shows the immense, cold V across the Pacific that is characteristic of the cold Pacific regime. Upwelling and mixing drives the evolution of the cold V. This sets up enhanced Walker Cell circulation that piles warm water up against Australia and Indonesia. This is baby oceanography – the wind phenomenon is named after Sir Gilbert Walker.

    “Although he had no experience in meteorology, he was recruited for a post in the Indian Meteorological Department where he worked on statistical approaches to predict the monsoons. He developed the methods in the analysis of time-series data that are now called the Yule-Walker equations. He is known for his groundbreaking description of the Southern Oscillation, a major phenomenon of global climate, and for discovering what is named after him as the Walker circulation, and for greatly advancing the study of climate in general.”

    When the trade winds falter – warm water piled high in the west surges eastward – ultimately increasing the depth of the thermocline on the eastern boundary and reducing upwelling.

    I am a hydrologist and have been reading on this topic for decades. I don’t get my information on warm and cool Pacific Regimes from Roy Spencer. I tend to be ahead of the curve on these things. I predicted the hiatus. I tend to not get my information from blogs at all. I am certainly not interested in Jimmy’s take on anything. There are ENSO dynamics that are fairly clear – that come together as a description of a system with alternating states. The states do not have distinct causalities.

    The more interesting problem – with profound climate significance – is what biases the system to regimes of higher eastern Pacific upwelling? The short answer is that it is due to disruption of the thermocline by enhanced sub-polar gyre circulation in both hemispheres.


    This is a leading edge idea that addresses the fundamental ENSO problem. Whether it is a stochastically forced resonant system or a purely resonant system. It comes down on the side of a stochastic forcing from the polar annular modes.

    The polar surface modes equate to what people call the polar vortices. Negative southern and northern annular modes (SAM and NAM) drive winds and storms into lower latitudes. SAM and NAM are modulated by solar activity in a number of ways. Thus we have discovered unicorns.

  57. I am reading a book ‘On Being Certain’ by Robert A. Burton M.D. — Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not. Reading through the recent posts makes me realize It may be better to to reserve judgement on certainty even when we have what looks like certain evidence.

    • One becomes a bit of a cynic and more circumspect after having spent 6 decades watching scientists and scientific studies making numerous U-turns. We will know a lot more about what we don’t know in another hundred years or so.

  58. “It is possible that humans have been the dominant cause of the recent warming, but we don’t really know how to separate out human causes from natural variability.”

    By its sign, increased climate forcing increases positive NAO/AO, so it would follow that a net decline in climate forcing would increase negative NAO/AO. And that increased negative NAO/AO drives a warm AMO and Arctic, functioning as a negative feedback.

    “The bottom line is that there are 4 possibilities to explain the 21st century discrepancy between climate models and observations:

    1 Errors in external forcing data (Santer et al’s preferred explanation)
    2 Internal variability (which has been supported by numerous previous studies, including posts at CE)
    3 Values of CO2 climate sensitivity that are too high (interesting new post on this over at ClimateAudit)
    4 Missing physical processes in the climate models (e.g. solar indirect effects).”

    The solution to point 4 would void point 2.

      • I would suggest that if the warm AMO phase has driven the increase in total water vapour since 1995, the water vapour feedback to net changes in climate forcing then are strongly negative. That would be aided by the changes in altitude of water vapour since the mid 1990’s, where lower stratosphere and upper troposphere water has decreased, and mid-lower troposphere water vapour has increased. The WV reduction at high levels would increase solar near infrared penetration into the mid-lower atmosphere, and the WV increase at lower-mid levels would increase the lower atmospheric greenhouse effect. I really don’t see how a net increase in climate forcing would cause these negative altitude changes in atmospheric water vapour distribution.

  59. 70% of the Week in Review – Science provide evidence pointing in the skeptical direction. Really? I’d like to see some kind of attempt to prove that.

  60. The ‘epistemic status’ of climate models is as certain as things get.

    “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate
    change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model
    diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

    They cannot do this – which is not btw one of the ensembles of model solutions. It is an opportunistic ensemble – a different animal. But happily there is a consensus.

    I could give the technical explanation but no one seems to care. The short answer is that models are chaotic. They have at their core nonlinear equations of fluid transport. The nonlinearities – not the process equations – dominate the evolution of solutions after a very short simualation period. Each of the squiggles is one out of thousands of solutions possible as a result of sensitive dependence on initial conditions. How do they choose the solution graphed? That’s the mystery. The epistemic status of models for this purpose is that they are utter nonsense.

    “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. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.”

    Emphasis mine. But chaos poor wee willie.

    • Curious George

      “The ‘epistemic status’ of climate models is as certain as things get.” It can be certain or uncertain. A binary variable.

      Now seriously, other than chaotic nature of the equations, which Robert explains nicely, there are also problems with a grid size which is too coarse for reliable predictions, and problems with approximations used. Dang, I goofed again, i said predictions – of course, models do not predict anything, they make projections.

  61. I have a simple question; when it gets Real hot, like it did recently in Phoenix, what happens to the heat? Since it eventually cools down where does the excess heat go? I know some of it probably goes into the ground and I assume some of it probably goes into space. What does that do to the total heat balance of the earth?

  62. This seems to be actual malpractice by Politifact. I assume that what happened was that half a dozen others they contacted all said, “Curry?! No, no, she’s not a reliable source. Ignore.” So they did.
    But you can’t do that and then claim that there is no support for Perry’s claim among scientists.

  63. russellseitz

    If there were an American Philosophical Society gold medal for creative epistemics , it would have to go to James Delingpole:

  64. Re: “The paper confirms what John Christy has been saying for the last decade…”

    No, it doesn’t. One could only claim that if one hadn’t read Santer’s previous co-authored paper, where he says:

    “It is incorrect to assert that a large model error in the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is the only or most plausible explanation for differences in simulated and observed warming rates (Christy 2015) [379].”

    Or in Santer and Mears’ response to Cruz and Christy, where Santer says:

    “In short, “all models are too sensitive to CO2” is not the only valid explanation for the model-data differences in Exhibit A.”

    Click to access Santer_Mears_Data_Dogma.pdf

    To elaborate: For years, Christy has been saying that the model-observations discrepancy is due to models being too sensitive to forcing from greenhouse gases. In the first paper I mentioned above, Santer pointed out other explanations for the discrepancy and cited evidence supporting those alternative explanations (that’s done on page 379 of said paper). He also presented evidence that much of the discrepancy was due to observational uncertainty, resulting from stratospheric cooling contaminating satellite measurements of tropospheric temperature (a point that’s been noted by the NOAA satellite analysis team since at least 2004; see: “Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends”). Santer et al. corrected this issue, and thus reduced the discrepancy between models and satellite observations.

    In the paper you’re discussing, Santer et al. are showing that much of the models-observations discrepancy is due to errors in inputted forcing, not model errors in sensitivity. Santer et al. back that claim up with evidence. That conflicts with Christy’s claim that the discrepancy is due to model errors in sensitivity. So no, this paper is arguing AGAINST Christy’s position, not supporting Christy’s position.

    It’s really telling to me when I (someone who’s not a climate scientist and has no experience in climate science research) am representing papers more accurately that some people on this forum, people who purport to be experts on climate science. That makes many of us members of the public much less likely to trust some of the people posting here.

    • John Christy has been saying a number of things, notably that the model simulations warm faster than the observations. By making that statement in my post, I do not lay claim to everything that John Christy has ever said.

      • Re: “John Christy has been saying a number of things, notably that the model simulations warm faster than the observations.”

        Christy over-estimated the discrepancy by almost a factor of 2, as Santer has pointed out in:
        “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”

        And Christy was wrong about the cause of the discrepancy, as Santer pointed out in:
        “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates”

        You mentioned neither point in your original post. Instead you left the impression that Santer affirmed Christy’s position.

        To matters even worse, you make it look like Santer’s affirms Cruz’s position as well, when you write:
        “The paper confirms what John Christy has been saying for the last decade, and also supports the ‘denier’ statements made by Ted Cruz about the hiatus.”

        Yet Santer has made it clear that he thinks Cruz’s position fails for the same reason that Christy’s position fails:

        “[Senator Cruz argues that the] mismatch between modeled and observed tropospheric warming in the early 21st century has only one possible explanation – computer models are a factor of three too sensitive to human-caused changes in greenhouse gases (GHGs) [13, pages 1 and 2].
        The hearing also failed to do justice to the complex issue of how to interpret differences between observed and model-simulated tropospheric warming over the last 18 years. Senator Cruz offered only one possible interpretation of these differences – the existence of large, fundamental errors in model physics […]. In addition to this possibility, there are at least three other plausible explanations for the warming rate differences […] [13, pages 3 and 4].”

        Click to access Santer_Mears_Data_Dogma.pdf

        I feel a bit sorry for Santer. He wrote no less than THREE documents clearly explaining what he’s saying in clear language a layman could understand. Yet many people will refuse read those documents. Instead, these people will believe the misleading statements you, Pielke Sr., Maue, Bastasch, etc. offer regarding Santer’s claims. And so misinformation wins over much of the public.

    • There’s probably a better explanation for the discrepancy.

      For much of the tropics, the GCMs create an erroneous double ITCZ. A double ITCZ creates double the convective transfer of heat to the troposphere above, and perhaps double the rate of temperature increase aloft. Unfortunately, this problem of erroneous dynamic prediction has gotten worse, not better from CMIP3 to CMIP5.

      Transient rates of surface temperature increase are already low wrt models and that’s without the negative lapse rate feedback taking place, meaning that the positive feedbacks may not be occurring as modeled either.

      • Re: *”Transient rates of surface temperature increase are already low wrt”*

        Which is also largely explained by issues with inputted forcings, as Santer et al. argues with respect to the tropospheric warming issues. See:

        “Reconciling warming trends”
        “Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’”
        “Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends”

        Re: *”that’s without the negative lapse rate feedback taking place”*

        The lapse rate feedback is taking place, as evidence by tropospheric amplification of warming in the tropics (i.e. the hotspot exists). That’s documented in sources such as:

        “Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere”
        “Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies”, table 4
        “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends”
        “Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations”
        “Detection and analysis of an amplified warming of the Sahara Desert”, figure 7
        “Estimating low-frequency variability and trends in atmospheric temperature using ERA-Interim”

        The last 2 sources are particularly relevant since they use ERA-I, a source Curry has spoken favorably of:

        Re: *”meaning that the positive feedbacks may not be occurring as modeled either.”*

        Which positive feedbacks? The positive water vapor feedback? Because that’s well-documented as well. For example:

        “Global water vapor trend from 1988 to 2011 and its diurnal asymmetry based on GPS, radiosonde, and microwave satellite measurements”
        “Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000–10 and comparisons to climate models”
        “Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe”

        Same for the positive feedback from clouds:

        “Evidence for climate change in the satellite cloud record”
        “Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models”
        “A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979–2011)”
        “New observational evidence for a positive cloud feedback that amplifies the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation”
        “Impact of dataset choice on calculations of the short-term cloud feedback”

    • “Where the disagreement comes is that Dr. Christy says the climate models are worthless and that there must be something wrong with the basic model, whereas there are actually a lot of other possibilities,” Dr. Mears said. Among them, he said, are natural variations in the climate and rising trade winds that have helped funnel atmospheric heat into the ocean.”

      Let’s say Christy has been saying the climate models are worthless. At the Zeke link, Schmidt is suggesting changes for CMIP6 inputs. With this correction, let’s look backwards a decade or two and ask what did we use those for? It is suggested that the 5s will be rerun with new China pollution, etc forcings.

      Internal variability is thrown under the bus in the abstract in this limited case. 91% of it anyways. Specifically sensitivity is not indicted in the abstract however the term used is unlikely. The IPCC says that’s less than 33%, but I don’t know what Santer meant. Somehow we are supposed to combine the 0-9% for internal variability with X% of sensitivity and get less than 33% or unlikely. To me that leaves the door open for the sensitivity issue.

    • Steven Mosher

      The problem is Christy actually never SHOWS that the bias in models is due to sensitivity.


      The models vary in sensitivity from about 2.1ECS to 4.4 ECS.
      IF you think that “the” models disagree with observations because of sensitivity then as a scientist the first thing you would do is
      Do models with higher sensitivity perform worse than those with Lower

      Here is the situation with any modelling test.

      Suppose your prediction/projection doesnt match the observations.. Oh wait
      PREDICTIONS NEVER MATCH OBSERVATIONS PERFECTLY.. there are ALWAYS RESIDUALS, always error, always a difference.That is why it is science and NOT LOGIC.

      Given that our models and reality are always in friction.. you face a PRAGMATIC decision.

      1. Decide the difference, is inconsequential and unimportant to your
      planned use of the model.
      2. Decide that the difference needs to be explained.

      If you decide the difference is material/ consequential and important to your planned use, then you have these non mutually exclusive options.

      1. Check your input data. if your inputs suggested that the TSI would go up
      and it actually went down, then you need to re run. Or bias adjust post hoc.
      2. Check your observations. Are they really correct, did that photon really travel faster than the speed of light?. How could they be wrong?
      3. Check your Physics ? Which physics EXACTLY could be causing the problem. test your speculations

      Christy did speculation
      Santer did Science.

      PS.. average of all models for ECS is around 3.2. That’s above the median value of a large number of ECS estimates. Of course in the end we could decide that an ECS of 2C was the best estimate and we could STILL use 3C to decide policy, just to be safe.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        So Stephen,
        When you make this comment, you do not include the possibility that climate models seem to run hot because their creators select hot runs to throw into the CMIP process.
        Do you know how a selection of one run/result from many is made? Is the selection process absent, subjective or objective, in the main?

  65. All this discussion is academic because the cooling has started this year and is going to be the theme going forward.

    All the data is showing a trend to cooler conditions going forward not warmer.

    I have said for years if solar parameters reach my low average low values this would be the result.

    • Oh please, let Little Ice Age II start.

      I know it may be less supportive to humans and thousands may starve in the third world poverty centers,But it will stop the massive resource expenditures in chasing CO2 reductions. Then the world can refocus or not on real problems.

      Such as electricity, sewage treatment and clean water of the third world.

      Carbon is such a first world problem. Not taken seriously by the elite.

      Ask Gore or DiCaprio if you can locate their private 747’s and their massive carbon footprints. They can’t possibly believe what they say and act like they do. How many mansions and carbon emmission travel do they cause.


    Solar criteria is now moving to the values I had said would be significant enough to cause global cooling, following 10+ years of sub – solar activity(2005-present) in general. Duration is now needed for my low average value solar parameters. I am of the opinion that if solar conditions are extreme enough it could move the terrestrial items which govern the climate to threshold values to one degree or another.

    This is perhaps part of the reason why abrupt climate change has occurred in the past.


    global cloud cover

    global snow cover/sea ice cover

    volcanic activity major

    sea surface temperatures

    atmospheric circulation









  67. “The forcing has had a discrete jump in climate terms of 2 W/m2 and counting. This step in forcing is already ten times any change the sun can do in a solar cycle, and several times larger than even extreme solar changes. The forcing jump could continue to 2.5 W/m2 with strong mitigation, to 6-7 W/m2 with weak to no mitigation. This is not small. It is hitting climate with a hammer. Tipping points are expected.” Jimmy D

    * Tipping points are not expected. Natural shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation are inevitable – but tipping points are otherwise low probability – high consequence events.
    * Satellites show that natural variability dominates changes in radiant flux at toa.
    * Mitigation is happening both at the land use and forestry sector and in development of new technologies.
    * The slow increase in greenhouse gases is not a chaotic tipping point. It is not a discreet jump driven my internal mechanisms. It is not a hammer.

    There seems little in the way of relevant or interesting science in any of Jimmy’s declarations. It is just going over and over the same ground – with which I and most denizens disagree – for the sake of an unproductive dispute with no hint of a possibility of a true dialectic. But then most of them have negligible science backgrounds – they are repeating by rote the gatekeeper sites they frequent. And climate science is especially difficult involving a crossover of physical and natural sciences.

    • Is your natural variability that self-clouding process? You decided 2 W/m2 of extra forcing sustained for a century doesn’t do much, let alone rising to 7 W/m2. As I said, I can’t help you.

      • 2W/m2 extra SW forcing in the last decade and a half.

      • CO2 easily trumps that, because its effect is always positive and integrated over the past century or so, while your self-clouding, if such exists, averages out to zero as the timeframe increases because you have just as many negative deviations as positive ones. The total added energy of CO2 can be estimated to be nearly 3 GJ/m2, which can do a lot of warming, and has. Just the numbers.

      • There is a difference between you and me Jimmy – I have have training in science, technology, economics and policy. I think hard and long before reaching tentative conclusions. You make assumptions based on ideology and make crass comments about skeptics. In comparison though – they do seem to have in general more of a clue than you. You’re a forlorn spectacle fighting your little battles where in your mind you are are a hero in your own lunchtime. It’s a game you admit you play for fun and self validation.

        Let’s just repeat it once more. Clouds responds to changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation. That’s not too difficult a concept for you is it? I have said it before and just repeating things because you keep repeating error is pointless. There is plenty of hard evidence and you can’t get away with simply trying to trivialise it by calling it self clouding.

        “However, given that the climate system changes and feedback we are trying to observe are small compared to the internal variability of the climate system…”

        There was a 1000 year peak in EL Nino intensity and frequency last century – and centuries of La Nina dominance before then.

        All that warm surface water in El Nino last century – resulting in naturally less reflected SW and warming oceans. Clouds may be ephemeral but the total amount is anti-correlated with SST. That is probably is too difficult for you.

      • Additionally, Robert, CO2 “forcing” W/m2 pale into invisibility in comparison to Dr. Trenberth’s fluxes: Solar (431), convection (17), evapo-transpiration (80), surface radiation (396), back radiation (333), and all the fluxes bouncing around among them. He indicates there can be up to 5% to 10% uncertainties in various quantities, especially cloud uncertainties.

        So, Jim D strikes out again.

      • RIE, on the contrary it looks like we agree on clouds being a feedback and not a forcing in themselves. That wasn’t so hard for you to admit, was it? Self-clouding is indeed a myth. You dodge the actual numbers I present that CO2 has provided 3 GJ/m2 to warm the earth. To put that in context, it can warm 1 kilometer depth of water by 0.75 C. With that much forcing from CO2, skepticism is like looking at a steady hotplate accounting for the water in a pot heating, and saying no it must be something else. The numbers are hard to dismiss. 3 GJ/m2 over the last century. That is a lot of warming for you to ignore.

      • It is technically a cloud radiative forcing. Google it.

        “With this final correction, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, 2.1, and 1.4 W m2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5 W m2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.”

        I have quoted this literally dozens of times. It doesn’t compute in you universe Jimbo?

        But by all means explain your working. I have a degree in engineering – with some fairly high level math thrown in. I am sure I can follow such simple maths and physics.

      • The cloud radiative forcing is the difference between having clouds and not having clouds. That is a hypothetical amount of the forcing you would get if you removed all the clouds. Will the clouds disappear by themselves? No. They may disappear in response to warming as happened in the 90’s, but they don’t do it by themselves.

      • Cloud radiative forcing is the residual of shortwave and longwave radiation at top of atmosphere. It is expressed as a net power anomaly.

        He seems to have come to idea that clouds changed. An increase in IR out and a decrease in SW reflected – as a result of a decrease in cloud cover. The net – up warming by convention – seems to be a 1.4W/m2 warming. Greenhouse gas forcing of the late century warming period increased by 0.7W/m2.

        That suggests that natural warming was 2/3rd of the total as clouds responded to variable sea surface temperature in a warm ocean and atmospheric regime. Clouds are simply part of the evolving climate system responding to solar amplifying unicorns.

        If we accept that 0.2K of late century warming – one third – was anthropogenic the cloud feedback is about 0.12W/m2 based on the average of models. Cloud feedbacks from anthropogenic warming comes nowhere close to explaining cloud changes in the late 20th century.

        But what happened then?

        “Earthshine changes in albedo shown in blue, ISCCP-FD shown in black and CERES in red. A climatologically significant change before CERES followed by a long period of insignificant change.”

        A change in cloud associated with the 1999-2001 climate shift. The proximate cause of the hiatus. Net radiation has been fairly steady since.

        Jimmy doesn’t quite get it – but that’s no surprise. None of them do. It’s not the consensus – but there is a significant literature.

      • That’s your rabbit hole, and I am not chasing you down it. If clouds decrease in a time of warming, that means they don’t have a negative feedback to warming. The 90’s was mostly a recovery warming from Pinatubo, so it is far from a typical time. You still don’t want to talk about how much warming 3 GJ/m2 from CO2 has had, and prefer to show graphs that are all over the place to demonstrate some obscure self-canceling randomness in the system. By the way, cloud radiative forcing is not what you said it was. That sounds like net TOA forcing.

      • I do notice how ocean heat and net flux track El Ninos, Robert.

      • I asked Jimmy to produce the calcs on 3GJ CO2 warming. His failure to do so is expected. But the assertion it is a trifle ingenuous – warming is a mix of natural and anthropogenic.

        Cloud radiative forcing anomalies – by far the major source of short tern climate variability – are the result of changes in cloud radiative forcing. As a result of cloud cover changes. Which arise from changes in ocean and atmosphere circulation. It is measured at TOA. Cloud is negatively correlated with SST. Prominently in the Pacific with ENSO and the PDO. These phenomenon are likely stochastically forced by solar modulation of the polar annular modes.

        Jimmy has assumed that cloud radiative forcing doesn’t change with ocean and atmosphere circulation changes – and of course will never see the utter stupidity of his assumption.

      • 3 GJ/m2 comes from the average forcing from CO2 since 1900. It can warm a kilometer deep column of water by 0.75 C and you want to neglect this effect.

      • I accept warming from CO2 – most people do. We accept also that there are other things happening in the climate system. So unless you can say which warming is natural and which anthropogenic – and you can’t – it is all a bit unsatisfactory. I am however – dubious of your numbers and you still don’t give the method and assumptions. Just more verbosity – and the ongoing claim that I am somehow denying greenhouse gas physics. It is both quite untrue and and a deliberate diversion from the question.

      • It’s over 100% anthropogenic because the imbalance is still positive on decadal scales and has been for decades. A positive imbalance means all the warming still isn’t enough to counter the forcing, which is itself dominated by anthropogenic forcing. I think you deny that CO2 is the main contributor to forcing along with other GHGs and aerosols, such as in this diagram. Or you deny that the imbalance has been positive during the warming period when the OHC has been increasing steadily.

      • I’ve always wondered where H2O was on these charts. I’ve also wondered where the water cycle impacts were. The models seem to screw up all these values and give results only Jim D could believe.

      • Yes, forcing and feedback are separate. Water vapor just responds as do albedo and other things to the total forcing.

      • Since H2O is a greenhouse gas, don’t you think it has forcings all its own, Jim D?

      • Its amount depends on the temperature, so it is not an independent variable in the climate. Change temperature then you change water vapor in proportion. The ocean is a reservoir that maintains this balance in the atmosphere.

      • But changes in water vapor changes the temperature, no Jim D? Wouldn’t that lead to feedbacks? But then again, we don’t have that pesky hot spot, do we? No hot spot, no hot water (just a little play with words).

        We don’t have much 21st Century warming. We don’t have much 21st century change in water vapor. We do have a whole piss-pot full of CO2 increases in the 21st Century. Can you tell where this is going, Jim D? Give me some sciency diversions!

      • Water vapor feedback changes the temperature, which is why it is called a feedback. It amplifies the CO2 effect by a factor of 2-3. Water vapor has been measurably increasing, as it should by thermodynamics over a primarily water surface. Land is warming twice as fast, but that is due to thermal inertia and its response to external forcing.

      • Man, you sure can roll off those alarmist talking points, Jim D. Why do actual water vapor measurements contradict you?

      • I find that skeptics have troubles at about this point of the argument when we talk about actual data. Comes down to they read something on a blog instead of in the science.

      • I think it is because the land warming faster than the models have it. This is not good news.

      • The Arctic is warming quite fast, as is the land. Observations show this. It may easily be worse than they thought.

      • Why is it, Jim D, that the modeled feedbacks only work over the late 20th Century tuning period? Not before, and not afterward.

        The 3.2 average ECS is an artifact of models tuned to a short period of warming. IPCC AR5 had to reduce future temperature estimates because even they recognized models were running hot.

      • The feedbacks work to explain why we have had 1 C of warming from only half a doubling. It’s data. You don’t need models to see this.

      • Yep, Jim D, forcings explain early 20th Century warming, about 40% of the measured rise. Wait … what the … they don’t explain it? Who wudda thunk.

      • The current state is that integrated forcings exceed the warming we have had, and there is a positive imbalance left over. We have added 75% of that forcing since 1950 and 75% of the warming has also been since then.

      • That was observations. Same to you I guess.

      • The radiative imbalance is zero twice a year and – as a 13 month running mean – in 2008. The idea is relatively simple – when the energy terms are balanced the change in global heat content is zero.

        Δ(H&W) ≈ Ein + heat from combustion + heat from radioactive decay and primordial heat in he earth interior – Eout

        The change in greenhouse gas forcing over a year in recent decades is some 0.032W/m2. The instantaneous rate of change is 1E-9W/m2. So this energy over 100 years is 1E-9 X the number of seconds in 100 years. So we get about 3.2J/m2 – and not GJ/m2. Of course you may then multiply by the area of the ocean to get something like 3GJ in total.

        But it doesn’t really work like that. There would seem to be a role for interior heat – at 0.9W/m2 to warm to ocean a little – heat that is ultimately lost to space. The atmosphere warms a very little in a second to a new equilibrium and reduces heat loss from the oceans.

      • You seem confused. If I convince you it is 3 GJ/m2 would that make you believe it is important, or would it be a waste of time?

      • Total ocean warming pre-2000 is in the order of 5×10^22 Joules – apparently. As a result of increased SW input and reduced heat loss in a warmer atmosphere. Your calcs are rubbery.

      • Note I use GJ/m2. No need for the area of the earth’s surface. If you want to use those units it is 150×10^22 J energy from the CO2 increase alone. Significant, yes? This is larger than the energy that has actually gone into the ocean only because the ocean has warmed to try to cancel it, so it emits more now than it did before. Part of the adjustment process.

      • And I seem confused? You have still to supply your working. I’s a fail Jimmy D. You do know that the IR down from a warmer atmosphere doesn’t actually go into the ocean?

      • The average since 1900 is 1 W/m2 (it is near 2 now). Multiply 1 W/m2 with the seconds since 1900 and bingo 3×10^9 J/m2 aka 3 GJ/m2.

      • None in the pipeline Jimmy D?

        The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’.

        It is of course a theoretical values as surface and tropospheric temperatures – and state -are not fixed.

        The instantaneous rate of increase in greenhouse gas forcing is 1E-9W/m2. So there a very small instantaneous forcing – the atmosphere warms a little – less heat is lost from the oceans – an equilibrium is re-established. Downward IR does not end up in the ocean.

        I am not sure what is to be gained by such gross simplifications of the system. Except that it will convince of the seriousness of adding 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? We are living in a different universe Jimmy.

      • It’s not the rate of increase but the steady century-long background that is responsible for the degree of warming we have already had. As I said, 3 GJ/m2. More than enough to account for all the warming seen and not yet fully offset by the surface warming itself, so more in the pipeline as they keep telling you.

  68. JIM D show us the correlation between co2 and temperature.

  69. Santer, B. D. et al. (2017)

    “Climate models used historic data for factors like greenhouse gas concentrations, solar output, volcanic eruptions, air pollution, and other factors that can affect the climate through 2005 or so, but after that point made assumptions of how these would change in the future. Recent research has suggested that a series of moderate volcanic eruptions, a long and unusually low minimum in the sun’s energy output during the last solar cycle, and an uptick in particulate pollution from Chinese coal-fired power plants have all changed these forcings in ways unanticipated by the modelers.”
    “These forcings will be updated in current modeling effort, called CMIP6, being done in preparation for the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. This new generation of models, featuring forcings closer to observations in recent years, will likely show better correspondence with tropospheric temperature observations, but may not be any more or less sensitive to CO2 than the prior generation of models (CMIP5).” – Zeke on Santer

    This is how I see it. From 2005, let the models run without the adjustments in the first line above. See that this has shortcomings. Now add the adjustments. The CMIPs are now better. If we add the past year’s adjustments my June of the following year each year, what is is that doing to our range into the future? If we wish to say something about 20 years in the future, we can say that, and then each year thereafter, change what we are saying after that year’s adjustments. Since we can’t know what the final adjustments will be until they happen, the problem is more solved the shorter the projection time frame and less solved the longer the time frame.

    We can have the projection without the adjustments. Then we can have the projection that was helped each year, and is not really a projection. There was the study that forced the ENSO region SSTs. That’s not really a projection. It’s something that was carried along with data collected after the projection was made.

    • +1, Ragnaar.

      Until the CMIP process fixes past annual estimates of aerosols, solar, etc. to particular values, no model will escape doubt. It is passing strange that modelers can pick their own “facts” about historical phenomena.

      • It is also passing strange that models can vary as much as 3 degrees C in absolute temperatures, yet say they reflect the same physics.

      • Steven Mosher

        “It is also passing strange that models can vary as much as 3 degrees C in absolute temperatures, yet say they reflect the same physics.”

        Its Amazing given the complexity of the earth system that a model can get the global temp (15C) within +- 1.5C. An Astounding Achievement.

      • I also notice, Mr. Mosher, that you failed to answer the question about modelers picking their own facts.

        The Russian model with low ECS most correctly predicted actuals. But I’m sure someone will say they hacked the U.S. to get it.

      • Steven Mosher

        Ellison is wrong AGAIN
        The long term climate is Predictable.
        You can use a simple energy balance model ( since it is A boundary problem)
        or you can use a GCM.
        heck Guy Callandar did a bang up job predicting the key variable of the climate back in 1938.
        The good thing is we dont need Precise or accurate models in order to Act.
        In fact with NO MODEL WHATSOEVER we can formulate a policy.

      • David Springer

        Moscher (pronounced moe-SHARE) appears easily amazed. Perhaps he finds this amazing too. A simple formula using only solar constant and atmospheric pressure nails the average surface temperature of every moon and planet in the solar system.

        Click to access Slaying%20the%20Sky%20Dragon-3.pdf

        Occam’s Razor isn’t kindly disposed to the obscenely complex consensus model that does a worse job of predicting surface temperature than this far simpler and better performing hypothesis.

        In a nutshell the authors assume that atmospheres are warmed by conduction, not radiation, and hence any and all gases will serve to raise the surface temperature of a sphere bathed in solar energy above that predicted by the Stefan-Boltzmanm Law for black bodies. The more gas the more the thermal enhancement you get.

      • In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential. IPCC TAR

        The modelling world disagrees with Mosh. And I am not sure that the theoretical solution advanced here by the IPCC has progressed much at all. But yes we can use an EBM.

        Solutions of an energy-balance model (EBM), showing the global-mean temperature (T) vs. the fractional change of insolation (μ) at the top of the atmosphere. (Source: Ghil, 2013)

        The model has two stable states with two points of abrupt climate change – the latter at the transitions from the blue lines to the red from above and below. The two axes are normalized solar energy inputs μ (insolation) to the climate system and a global mean temperature. The current day energy input is μ = 1 with a global mean temperature of 287.7 degrees Kelvin. This is a relatively balmy 58.2 degrees Fahrenheit.

        The 1-D climate model uses physically based equations to determine changes in the climate system as a result of changes in solar intensity, ice reflectance and greenhouse gas changes. With a small decrease in radiation from the Sun – or an increase in ice cover – the system becomes unstable with runaway ice feedbacks. Runaway ice feedbacks drive the transitions between glacial and interglacial states seen repeatedly over the past 2.58 million years. These are warm interludes – such as the present time – of relatively short duration and longer duration cold states. The transition between climate states is characterised by a series of step changes between the limits.

        Ghil’s model shows that climate sensitivity (γ) is variable. It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society. The problem of abrupt climate change on multi-decadal scales is of the most immediate significance.

        But policy is indeed possible – to build resilient communities and landscapes – and to limit risk.

      • Agree with resiliency, but wonder what “limit risk” is, Robert?

      • Risk in the technical sense is the product of consequences and probability. Uncertainty is a theme at CE – albeit acknowledged grudgingly. There is a low probability of high impact events – something that – as a climate catastrophist in the sense of Rene Thom – I would define as extreme risk. It does not require an impossible certainty but feasible scenarios and realistic estimates of probabilities.

      • “The long term climate is Predictable.”

        “Guy Callandar did a bang up job predicting the key variable of the climate back in 1938.”

        It does get down to what is predictable and what isn’t.

        Relative global mean surface temperature? Perhaps predictable +/-
        Relative global mean stratospheric temperature? Seems predictable
        Arctic Amplification? Predicted and apparently verifying
        Hot Spot? Predicted and apparently falsifying
        Double ITCZ? Predicted even for the past and observably false

        The wave pattern undulations of the circulation which
        The major causes of climate ( geography – mountains and oceans, and astronomy – rotations, orbits, and sunshine ) are relatively constant. That means that there will be a tendency for relative constancy of climate.

        Many things like droughts,floods,severe storms, hurricanes, and even heatwaves may not change from global warming at all ( and indeed, that’s what the evidence indicates so far ). There’s still a wide range of variability, because there are perturbations on the constant features imposed by fluctuations of the general circulation. These are very significant, but not predictable – even if CO2 were constant at pre-industrial.

    • The biggest uncertainty in the future is anthropogenic emissions. Adjustments to natural forcings amount to +/- 0.1 W/m2 here and there that do affect individual decades because the CO2 trend is about 0.3 W/m2 per decade. However, our emission scenarios vary by up to 5 W/m2 by 2100 and those adjustments amount to little compared to the scenario variation that is up to fifty times larger.

      • The temperature trend is about 0.09K/decade and at least half is natural.

      • That is only half the trend we have had since 1980, which is nearer 0.17 C per decade, 0.3 C for land, and even higher for the Arctic.

      • No – it is the global average over many decades. The late century warming was at least half natural – just as the mid century cooling more than offset anthropogenic warming.

      • Curious George

        What is the uncertainty in anthropogenic emissions 2000-2016?

      • Could be as much as 0.1 W/m2. This was part of the IPCC uncertainty because of aerosols. The GHG part is more precise.

      • Slowing because of greening? Can we count this as a benefit?

      • Greening is a positive feedback because of darkening.

      • Curious George

        I thought emissions were measured in gigatons of CO2, not in degrees C or in meters, or in hours. Please don’t fog the issue.

      • Yes, I would use W/m2 equivalent, but if you prefer, the emission range for different policies is about 7000 GtCO2 by 2100.

      • Forests probably work great at 700 ppm. Humans, not so much.

      • Respiration works perfectly fine at 700ppm.

      • Curious George

        “Forests probably work great at 700 ppm. Humans, not so much.” Is this data as good as your usual?

      • I think people believe forests would do better in high CO2. Humans have never existed at those levels. We see reports of some unlivable areas by 2100, such as in Nat Geo recently.

      • Jim D, you will support just about any wacky doodle “study” that supports your insane CAGW fixations and need for attention over the internet.

        Increased heat deaths in India since 1960. How much has the population of India increased? The “study” authors didn’t say, conveniently.

        Comparing cooler years to a super El Nino year is another favorite tactic. Did you catch it in this “study?”

        No mention of the frequency and magnitude of historical heatwaves in the “study.” Dr. Pielke, Jr. and others have shown their is no increasing frequency of heatwaves in the historical record.

        Simply listing some recent heatwaves around the globe is no “study.” Notice they didn’t say that 2100 projections of heatwaves relies on unreliable models. And even those models don’t predict any significant increases that could drive heatwaves much higher than they already are.

        A politicized hit piece disguised as science. Only twits actually believe that stuff. Do you?

      • Models may also underestimate the effect like they have with sea-ice loss. If sea ice does go faster, everything else happens faster too.

      • What the hell does your inane, non sequitur response have to do with the obvious failings of the study you were pushing, Jim D? Do you have ADD?

      • You mentioned models. I mentioned models. The study actually included several projections if you look more closely, but the second highest is RCP4.5 which requires some mitigation. You can interpolate between these to give any BAU that suits you.

      • Oh, and CMIP5 model attempts to fix CMIP3 models’ ice problems just resulted in CMIP5 models getting other metrics even more wrong.

      • The models may equally be conservative.

      • Curious George

        You did use an arbitrary equivalent, without any regard to physics. One gigaton a year is not the same thing as one gigaton, period.

      • Curious George

        I specifically asked for 200-2016 time frame, not for 2100 – the only time for which you have reliable data. As reliable as the rest of your data.

        Sorry, posted at a wrong place.

      • CG, yes, forcing is expressed in W/m2 which is what I gave initially. What was the question again?

      • Curious George

        “Humans have never existed at those levels.” Have you ever been in a theatre?

      • They usually have air conditioning. It’s not the physical effects of CO2, but the effect on climate. Mammals back then were adapted because of evolution.

      • Man has adapted to every climate. Predictions of doom come and go, Jim D.

      • That’s where the cost comes in. What do you do with Miami and New York on the coasts? These are the expenses.

      • I’m pretty sure Miami and New York can handle inches increases in storm surges with relatively minimum expenditures, especially considering that the heavy costs of fundamentally altering our society, economy and energy systems proposed by CAGW-ers would otherwise pauper us.

      • This is why the red team needs to hear from the local planners. They will disabuse them of that notion because they are already planning for feet of sea-level rise.

      • Curious George

        It is getting boring, but again [may I repeat I refer to 2000-2016 period]:

        I thought emissions were measured in gigatons of CO2, not in degrees C or in meters, or in hours. Please don’t fog the issue.

      • I think we know the emissions to within about 10%, and the amount in that time would be about 500 GtCO2, but the point is that all this is small compare to the future emission uncertainty that is many thousand GtCO2. Perhaps 4500+/-3000 GtCO2 by 2100. This is the largest uncertainty for climate by far.

      • Curious George

        To recap:
        “Curious George | June 29, 2017 at 9:07 pm |
        What is the uncertainty in anthropogenic emissions 2000-2016?

        Jim D | June 29, 2017 at 9:08 pm |
        Could be as much as 0.1 W/m2. This was part of the IPCC uncertainty because of aerosols. The GHG part is more precise.”

        You dodged the question as usual. I assume that your reply 0.1W/m2 refers to year 2100 measurements. They did not arrive to my mailbox yet. You have no data, except models and [unreliable] estimates.

      • No, 0.1 W/m2 is the uncertainty in forcing for the period you mentioned. Probably mostly from aerosols that have an effect that is hard to quantify in any other way except in W/m2.

      • Curious George

        People emit CO2, not forcings. You can use questionable mathematics to convert CO2 to a ‘forcing’.

      • The example I gave for uncertainty of 0.1 W/m2 was aerosols. In that case there is not a linear effect between emissions and forcings, but that doesn’t make it unimportant. The overall effect of aerosols is uncertain, but in the -1 W/m2 range.

      • David Springer

        Jim D writes

        “Greening is a positive feedback because of darkening.”

        Yes of course. Everyone who has first hand experience in both forested areas and deserts knows that forests are warmer because they’re darker.

        Oh wait…

        Death Valley, CA, 35N latitude, average temperature 77F

        Memphis, TN, 35N latitude, average annual temperature 63F

      • DS, one of the biggest effects from landuse/landcover change is albedo, and yes, forests are darker than many other types of landcover.

        Click to access fs2013-3010.pdf

        Pielke, Sr., makes a big deal about this aspect of climate change. It’s part of the other positive feedback that is longer term along with glacier loss which Hansen says turns the ECS from 3 C per doubling to 4 C per doubling long term.

      • Miami is set to spend 100 million on pumps, water mains and raising streets to combat sea level rise.

      • Sea level rise and land subsidence that will continue unabated, no matter how much we wreck ourselves trying to reduce CO2 emissions, Bob.

      • aporiac1960

        bobdroege: “Miami is set to spend 100 million on pumps, water mains and raising streets to combat sea level rise.”

        Miami-Dade real estate values were estimated at over $250 billion in 2016, a rise of $21 billion on the previous year (8.6%), of which new property represented around $5 billion.

        $100 million spending represents 0.04% of the total value, so I wouldn’t shed too many tears on their behalf – they can easily afford it. Even based on the growth in value in 2015/16 alone, $100 million represents less than 0.5%.

        Property developers don’t seem to be too concerned either, and nor do the municipalities who are wondering what they are going to do with all that lovely property tax.

        “Miami Beach boasted the largest cache of new development of any Miami-Dade municipality, with $1.156 billion worth of buildings going up on the barrier island over the last year. The city’s total real estate values hit $34.438 billion this year, up 12.2 percent from 2015.”


      • One of the things that threw me down the dark path of skepticism, aporiac1960, was the tendency of alarmists to withhold pertinent information. It indicates fundamental dishonesty, and demonstrates alarmists’ willingness to deceive others. Climategate is just one example of “scientists/activists” shading the truth to avoid having to deal with honest quesions.

      • aporiac1960

        Jim D: “This is why the red team needs to hear from the local planners. They will disabuse them of that notion because they are already planning for feet of sea-level rise.”

        You have spun this lie before, Jim. It doesn’t become the truth no matter how many times you repeat it. The planners in New York and Miami are planning short-term low-cost mitigation measures, and taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude when it comes to proposals that would protect against catastrophic sea level rise. Obviously they have had to consider all possible futures, but they are not implementing anything even close to what would be necessary to deal with the more alarmist scenarios for the very simple reason that they don’t want to spend endless billions and then discover a decade or two down the road that it was an unnecessary waste of money. In other words: they doubt your forecasts. To discover someone’s true convictions you must observe their actions when the cost for them is high, rather than listen to their hot air, which costs nothing.

      • They do wait and see, but also look at forecasts from the scientists. They commit to reducing carbon footprints in the meantime to give themselves better odds regarding the damaging aspects of climate change. It’s just all part of planning these days. Paying attention to trends and not just using the 20th century as a guide. They know better than that. Also mitigation, which is the other side of the same coin.

      • aporiac1960

        Jim D: “They do wait and see, but also look at forecasts from the scientists. They commit to reducing carbon footprints in the meantime to give themselves better odds regarding the damaging aspects of climate change. It’s just all part of planning these days.”

        This is just pure sophistry, Jim, on their part but even more on yours. Put more bluntly, you are a lying scumbag.

      • Maybe you live out in the sticks and don’t read or watch or listen to any media. There’s no other accounting for your attitude of denying anyone is planning or trying to reduce emissions, if that is what you are doing, but I wasn’t quite sure.

      • aporiac1960

        Jim D: “Maybe you live out in the sticks and don’t read or watch or listen to any media.”

        I have lived in the sticks, in global and national capitals, and watched and listened to every kind of media. That’s how I know a lying scumbag when I see one.

      • So to you it is a lie that many people are already planning and mitigating global warming. Interesting view you have there.

      • Many people are using OPM to do so, Jim D. When that runs out, we will no doubt see a significant reduction in zeal.

      • OPM?

      • Other People’s Money. The Federal tit, in the main. Third World countries will be the first to fall off when U.S. cities and states can’t make up for Obama’s cash payment promises. Additionally, developing countries don’t listen to you, Jim D, political puff pieces notwithstanding.

        [I remember a TV segment where the reporter asked the recipient of a free cell phone where they thought the money came from. The response was “Obama’s stash.”]

      • The thing about the carbon tax is that the beneficiaries of carbon also get to pay for its damage.

      • Who the hell mentioned a carbon tax, Jim D? What you are describing is people paying themselves for something they have done, with the government skimming some off the top. That’s assuming money actually goes towards presupposed “damages.” I guess we can’t count the benefits of the industrial revolution, hey?

      • Carbon tax is the fairest way to use OPM. Big polluters become big payers. What could be better?

      • It is only people that ever pay for anything in this life, fool.

      • Don Monfort

        The carbon tax, brought to by the clowns who promised you could keep your doctor and your health plan and save $2500 a year. What could possibly go wrong?

      • David Springer

        Can you please explain why forests are cooler than deserts at the same latitude?

      • Same reason oceans are cooler. Latent heat and evaporation.

      • David Springer

        @Jim D

        Can you please explain why forests have a significantly lower average annual temperature than deserts at the same latitude?

      • replied in the other place.

      • David Springer

        So greening actually helps cool the surface instead of making it warmer.

        If you knew that why did you claim it’s a positive feedback when in reality it’s a negative feedback?

      • Latent heat, water vapor, is just as effective in global warming. The darker surface absorbs more energy and a lot of it goes back as latent heat. This energy ends up warming the atmosphere through condensation. Bottom line, absorbing more energy adds more heat to the system. The ocean is even darker, but contributes a lot of water vapor and latent heat to the atmosphere.

      • David Springer

        In point of fact across lines of latitude the more surface water that’s present the lower the average annual temperature. This is a basic information one gets in any introductory study of earth’s heat budget. It’s not intuitive because the darkest of all surfaces is the ocean and it has the lowest average annual temperature of all surface types (including frozen water). That’s because solar energy drives evaporation which is an express elevator transporting energy (insensibly; without surface heating) thousands of feet up into the atmosphere where it condenses and radiates to space much easier than it can radiate from lower altitudes.

        Write all that down Jim and please don’t waste everyone’s time by writing anything contrary to it again. I’ll thank you in advance for showing a modicum of intellectual integrity in the future.

      • Latent heat. Write it down. Water vapor feedback. See my other post. The ocean does not help with the global warming problem. It makes it worse.

      • Since the water vapor emission level (WVEL) has not increased in altitude, extra latent heat is mostly radiated to space. Funny, those observations that trump hasty theory.

      • Latent heat warms the whole column. That radiative effect is also felt at the ground.

  70. Curious George

    I specifically asked for 200-2016 time frame, not for 2100 – the only time for which you have reliable data. As reliable as the rest of your data.

  71. At this time. Jim D posts ~=109 with ~=every Jim D post responded to by at least one responder. All posts total is 466 +109 = ~ 575. FYI. Jim D posts are responsible for about ~230 of the total 575 posts per, Consensus enforcers…..

    • David Springer

      I gave the blog owner a heads up about Ellison and Jim D over posting. She replied she’d have time later to check it out. Both should get throttled down real soon. It’s a shame that others can’t get a word in edgewise without it being lost in the noise of those two.

      • It’s not a true count. Jimmy D has only two comments – just repeated at every opportunity. So the game is whack a troll without which my comments would be limited to the thoughtful, well researched and elegantly expressed product of more than 30 years of natural and physical sciences, technology, policy and technical communication. I take pride in mixing it up. The other bits are just responses to the snark that they think is clever – but is not.

        It depends on what you want. A productive dialectic or twits playing games. Yes we know the latter is more usual on climate blogs.

      • Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Robert. Even though you previously chided me on the usage.

      • you are right. the trouble is that jim is currently one of the few defenders of the faith and he tends to respond to every query or comment people put to him. without him it would be an echo chamber.

        you are right though it does make for a tedious blog where it isn’t really worth commenting.

        As jo*hua would say ‘the same ol, same ol’


      • I agree – which was rather the point. Both Mosh and Jimmy D professed to gaming skeptics on CE.

      • tonyb
        wonder what happened to fan of more discourse?

        Turbulent Eddy has been a great new addition.


      • tonyb
        Turbulent Eddy
        So El nino has raised global mean termperatu;re in the last two years 2015 and 2016.

        How meaningful is that when the records are 0.01*C and the accuracy of global temperatures with little arctic, little anarctic, Africa, Asia, South Atlantic and Pacific Ocean observations?


      • Scott

        Yes, dear old fan. I wondered what happened to him? it is essential that we keep those people-such as jim and mosh- who disagree with us as echo chambers are the result and even worse, people then pile on and intimidate the dissenters as has happened on other blogs.


    • We need an NCA, Jim D, the way the world needed Mein Kampf. About as much truth.

      • The red team needs to talk to the stakeholders and weigh up their concerns if they want to do their side of it. Try telling people in Miami not to plan for anything and see what you get.

      • Who, other than the fairies in your mind, are telling people in Miami to not plan for ongoing small increments in sea level rise and localized land subsidence, Jim D? You do realize those have been going on for centuries? It is large storm surges that cause problems, and cm rises do not materially impact them.

      • It would be unwise to ignore possibly feet of sea-level rise that magnifies the impact of those storms.
        More Nat Geo. The New York plan linked from there talks about feet of SLR.

      • I have asked the Competitive Enterprise Institute staff to pass on my following suggestions to Myron Ebell:

        The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency within the Commerce Department, should issue a set of RFPs to private companies for the review of UNFCCC and IPCC procedures and practices as they relate to U.S. needs for unbiased and accurate analyses of climate issues.

        The NIST should issue RFPs for the review of the development of the upcoming U.S. NCA and make pertinent recommendations for its improvement. The NIST might also take over production of the NCA, utilizing inputs of the relevant Federal agencies and outside experts.

        The NIST should issue RFPs for the detailed review of the process for the upcoming CMIP6 climate model development. RFPs should also be issued for validation studies of selected climate models, with emphasis on U.S. agencies’ models.

        After the above fundamental work, that should have been done decades ago, maybe we can have some confidence in what the UN and our government is telling us, Jim D.

      • Where do the stakeholders come into it? For example New York is already planning for feet of sea-level rise. The NCA had many workshops with stakeholders who are the people ultimately responsible for planning. Nat Geo links to New York’s plans for example. This is where the rubber hits the road, not in closed committees.

      • Well, Jim D, if New York politicians want to believe NCA misdirection and exaggeration, then it is their taxpayers that are on the hook. No reputable scientist would predict “… feet of sea-level rise.” over any reasonable planning horizon. Did even the IPCC AR5 predict “feet” of sea level rise anytime soon?

      • The AR5 were conservative and ignored any acceleration of glacier loss. Actual planners with their cities on the line take it as conservative. Other stakeholders are concerned with water, energy and food resources, heatwaves, floods, storms, ecologies, etc. Once they have listened to a few people who have some real concerns, the red team may have a better perspective, so it would be a good exercise for them in the real world.

    • Steven Mosher

      If Jim D stopped commenting here the place would soon end up like WUWT.
      He should try a 30 day break

      • mosh

        thanks for agreeing with me.

        JimD is an essential component here as is jch, yourself and others.

        The trouble arises when a thread is uninteresting or becomes stale.

        More Fresh meat needed Judith!


      • I will have 1-2 new posts this weekend. I know, things are getting stale, but i’ve been too busy.

      • Fair and Balenced as someone says.

        Mosh, I asked you on a previous thread what your estimate of the accuracy of the global mean temperature is, given the sparse data on the Arctic, Anarctic, Africa, Asia, South Atlantic ocean and Pacific ocean?

        Do you have some thoughts or can you point me to a paper?

        I have pretty good access to journals if there is an abstract.

      • Judith,
        Could you help point to an article or abstract on accuracy of current global temperature estimates given uncertainties in Arctic, Anarctic, Africa, Asia, South Atlantic ocean and pacific ocean?

        I asked TE and Moshpit but can’t find anything. I searched literature but found nothing useful. I have pretty good access to journals.


      • David Wojick

        Scott, I doubt this is what you are looking for but it might help you interpret what you find:

      • scott

        can I help to answer the question you posed of Judith and Mosh about accuracy of the global record?.

        I think the question we really need to ask is ‘are modern global temperatures accurate and can they be compared fairly with global figures of the past?’

        The answer I think is most certainly not.

        I wrote this article some 6 years ago on this very subject.

        Individually, some of the more reliable records carried out by competent observers (such as CET) are of some accuracy, always remembering Hubert lambs caveat of temperature reconstructions ‘that we can understand the tendency (of temperatures) but not their precision’. In other words they are likely very roughly correct and they are useful to observe distinct trends, but forget it if you want proper accuracy to points of a degree.

        Within my link you will see a link to a century old book by Dr Hann who complained about some of the ways in which temperatures were measured, which differed around the world. Combine this with the accuracy of the equipment and the reliability of the observer and we really can manage no more than ‘around about’ for local and regional temperatures’ and probably ‘nowhere near accurate’ for global records, quite apart from the consideration that large parts of the globe had not even been explored, let alone accurately measured.

        I came across an interesting observation in the US Weather review of around 1880-as some professional observers replaced amateurs-that one observers meteorological equipment was carried to his location by mule. Calibration? Accuracy? I think not.

        So whilst Automatic stations since 1980 or so -assuming correctly sited-are probably reasonably accurate to half a degree or so, anything ‘global’ before that is little better than guesswork. Which is why I prefer to look at events, precedents, crop and historic records etc. Which greatly annoys you know who


      • Scotts4sf, perhaps not exactly what you want but see my essay ‘When Data Isn’t’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Lots of examples of problems, all footnoted. Not just NOAA and NASA. BOM, Meteoschweiz, Hadcrut. You might also check some of Hellers stuff on his blog. He shows, for example, the difference between supposed land temperatures and the actual land measurement coverage. Supposed warming in central Africa where there is no actual data at all per NOAA.

      • tonyb
        Thanks for that response and paper.

        I missed it the first time but am pleased to read it now.

        I take it your response to the hottest year ever in 2015 by 0.01*C and in 2016 by 0.01*C above that don’t take the accuracy of the estimates into account?

        Fake news it is.

        thanks Scott

      • Steven Mosher

        “Mosh, I asked you on a previous thread what your estimate of the accuracy of the global mean temperature is, given the sparse data on the Arctic, Anarctic, Africa, Asia, South Atlantic ocean and Pacific ocean?

        1. It depends on your estimation technique.
        2. It depends on the time period you are talking about.
        3. The data is not as sparse as some liars suggest. THEY NEVER ACTUALLY LOOK FOR ALL THE DATA.
        4. Sparsity is only an issue where the field has high variability.

        If you want a good place to start start with our methods paper.

      • There have a number of better informed contributors than Jimmy D – these have been routinely viciously denigrated. The survivors are much less interesting in general.

        The surface record – btw – has inherent flaws with soil moisture artifacts.


        My feeling is that there is little point is persisting with surface temperature records for climate monitoring.

      • David Springer

        I can agree with Robert that surface temp record isn’t worth the trouble.

        OHC is worth following and improving as is TOA radiative imbalance.

  72. I am sorry, I made an NOAA math error. It’s actually much worse than I thought. Not 466 but rather 366. Therefore, it is Jim D 109 posts creating ~230 response posts of the total 366 + 109 = 475 posts. It’s now down to just 0.5C before Earth is a Mars like planet by 2050 or is that 2150 or 2250. Of course today’s new alarm is that all the sinks (except the atmosphere sink) can’t sink anymore. Since of course “settled” science has proven that only humans can possibly be causing CO2 accumulation causing GW leading to CC, in an AGW fashion. What else could it possibly be that CO2 keeps accumulating while human CO2 emissions continue to drop each year. And why is it that only the atmospheric sink is the only sink still sinking?

  73. Per the new alarm that all (but one) sink has stopped sinking, it is most coincidental that at the exact same time humans lower CO2 emissions that all earthly sinks stop sinking. Very strange. What bad luck.

    • As Ellison reemphasizes, 2015 and 2016 were the first major El Nino years with CERES observations, and net shortwave has been anomalously high for these years.

      Are all El Ninos marked by anomalously high net SW?
      Is low CO2 uptake related to anomalously high net SW?
      Or, is anomalously high net SW simply a result of the EN wave pattern?
      And something else, perhaps precipitation, determines CO2 uptake variance?
      What will happen in coming years without El Nino?

      Kinda interestin’

      • “””And something else, perhaps precipitation, determines CO2 uptake variance?”””

        Could you be suggesting that water vapor is somehow connected to AGW. Shame. Shame.

  74. Pingback: En hederlig debatt? - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

    • This appears to be a load of hooey.

      Figure 1A: RCP 8.5 scenario – Why? Mean temperature change to 2090 around 4C. Actual observed warming rates around 1.2C.

      Figure 1B: meaningless ‘weather’ forecast for fourth of July, 2090 – didn’t get the basic education that weather isn’t predictable past a week or so?

      Figure 1C&D: No comparison with actual increasing crop yields? No acknowledgment of the increase in the temperature of optimal photosynthesis in an increased CO2 environment?

      Figure 1E: is amusing by the label: Negative mortality around 20C? Zombies? In reality, all cause mortality is significantly lower during the warmest months and significantly higher during the coldest months:

      Figure 1H: is interesting and accurate, but misleading. Air conditioners run on electricity while heat comes from coal/oil/natural gas and least effectively or commonly on electricity. Electricity us increases with summer’s heat, but total energy use increases even more during winter’s cold.

      This is a load of hooey.

      • FWIW, if your anomalously high SW amounted to a continuous +1 W/m2 forcing, that would produce warming of a 50 m mixed layer at an rate of 0.2 K/year. (As the planet warms that initial rate decreases and the rate of decrease depends on ECS.) Some heat also begins to penetrate below the mixed layer after a year or so.

        So, if the SWR anomaly you are discussing is only +1 W/m2, it couldn’t account for the maximum warming rate during the period of faster warming, but it it lasted several years, it could account for the higher plateau we seem to be experiencing than 2001-2013.

        The CO2 increase has been fairly steady at 2 ppm/yr, but an addition 1 ppm outgassed in 97/98 and the increase was only 1 ppm the next year.

      • The CO2 increase has been fairly steady at 2 ppm/yr, but an addition 1 ppm outgassed in 97/98 and the increase was only 1 ppm the next year.

        Actually, the Mauna Loa results indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has on average been increasing by approximately 2.3 ppm year-over-year for the past several years. This is quite different from ML measurements taken in the late ’50’s, when the year-over-year increase was averaging slightly less than 1 ppm.

        ML measurements indicate that the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year relative to the previous year has been steadily increasing at a fairly constant rate of 1.8% per year for the past 58 years. If by chance this rate of increase has been constant over the entire Holocene, then CO2 concentration in 1900 would have been 285 ppm. And 5,000 years ago, CO2 concentration would have been 265 ppm. Not too far off paleoclimatology reconstructions.

    • David Wojick

      Model predicts damages! Who is surprised by this, or believes it? I have a little study that shows the absurd degree to which climate science has been replaced by speculative modeling. There are more references to modeling in the climate literature than in all of the rest of science taken together.

      Most sciences know that speculative modeling is not science. Climate science not so much.

    • Curious George

      No example of an actual damage. All speculation:
      System architecture – We developed the Spatial Empirical Adaptive Global-to-Local Assessment System (SEAGLAS) to dynamically integrate and synthesize research outputs across multiple fields in near-real time. We use SEAGLAS to construct probabilistic, county-level impact estimates that are benchmarked to GMST changes.

      That’s as close to reality as it gets. Very IPCC-like.

    • “We have focused on the U.S. economy, although the bulk of the economic damage from climate change will be borne outside of the United States (42), and impacts outside the United States will have indirect effects on the United States through trade, migration, and possibly other channels”

      In other words they ignored the indirect effects which are extremely important hence their study is to put it mildly rubbish.
      A bit like estimating the cost of your car on petrol and maintainance and forgetting the large part you have to pay in taxes to build, maintain and police roads.
      But what does that matter in a politically laden message.
      Politically laden?
      The choice of the word damages without any regard to the word benefits. As in the benefits of climate change in the USA.
      Episodes of severe weather in the United States, such as the present abundance of rainfall in California, are brandished as tangible evidence of the future costs of current climate trends.
      Tell me Steven, do you think the people of California wanted the drought to continue?
      Is there a benefit to having full dams for instance rather than empty ones?
      Thanks for bringing the study to our attention.

    • OK, here we go, Mr. Mosher:

      1) They use AR5 RCP 8.5 as “business as usual.” Spin that.
      2) Their “Episodes of severe weather in the United States, such as the present abundance of rainfall in California, are brandished as tangible evidence of the future costs of current climate trends.” takes an obviously El Nino related phenomenon and equates it to climate change. How often do they repeat that mistake for their parameterization of weather patterns. There are no “current climate trends.” Studies show the opposite; steady metrics of bad weather. Minor warming from the Little Ice Age and its attendant impacts on other climatic parameters reflect an improvement of worldwide climate.
      3) They include estimates of model-based climate metrics’ impacts on things such as “… crime, … energy, human mortality, and labor …” in their economic modeling games. Impacts of presumed future climate change on those items are so speculative as to be incredible. Future economies, technologies, health improvements and RCP 8.5 population “guesses” are all unknowable. Per Dr. Curry: IPCC climate models are not fit for the purposes of fundamentally altering our society, economy nor energy systems. Integrated assessment models strap them to someone’s econometric model and we get the “basis” of the true definition of policy insanity.
      4) To top it off, they use down scaling of climate models for the U.S. Any of us can read about the failure of down-scaling attempts. It’s modelturbation at its finest.

      You need to develop your critical reading skills before recommending a “study” or go back to Wandering in the Weeds, Mr. Mosher.

    • David Springer

      As long as we’re giving licence to speculate and I’m a bona fide technologist I estimate that technology advances in a range of disciplines by 2060 will eliminate any problems stemming from 2090 climate.

      • David, your guess as to the future of technology is as good, if not better, as anybody else’s. CAGW proponents’ dystopian view of the future is anti-human development and presupposes people of the future will be helpless in the face of technological challenges.

    • Fun to see the skeptics attempt damage control whenever we get these studies. They need to provide their alternative facts pronto because these articles do make it into the media, and they always end up chasing them around shouting at them, which is not effective.

    • Steve: Are these models for damage useful? Well, we could test them to see

      What do the models predict about the agricultural productivity of North Dakota vs Nebraska (mean temp 4 degC warmer?) and Nebraska vs. Oklahoma? Remember summer and daytime warming are less than average warming. It’s too hot to grow wheat in the summer in Oklahoma, but not Nebraska or North Dakota. So they grow winter wheat in Oklahoma. Will their model take into account the shift from summer to winter wheat that will occur in Nebraska? Probably not. How about the Central Valley of California, where it doesn’t rain all summer and the temperature is often 35 degC? Does the model understand the reasons for productivity there?

      I was in Spain in early June. The heat and sun were brutal, but everyone stays inside for siesta there. Dinner hour is 9-10 pm and everyone is out at that hour.

      Based on the mortality graph, older people go to Arizona so they can die in the 40+ degC summer heat. Did you see headlines about people dying when it was too hot to land airplanes (120 degF)? Actually, there weren’t any such headlines. Heat waves actually don’t increase the death rate in Phoenix; people have adapted their bodies and lifestyle to living in its summer heat. The increasing death rate comes from observing the increase in death when cooler locations experience a heat wave.

      When these models can predict the way the world responds to different climates today, then I’ll pay attention to what they say about the second half

  75. Judith was asked: “Do you consider the IPCC the world’s leading authority on climate change and why?” Some additional thoughts:

    No one (especially Politifact) should recognize the existence of a “leading authority” on political controversies. The IPCC is a UN organization founded by scientific and environmental activists to provide policymakers with information that supports the political goal of reducing emission of GHGs under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

    The IPCC is not the world’s leading SCIENTIFIC authority on climate change. The Summaries for Policymakers they produce don’t qualify as scientific reports, because they don’t candidly discuss the caveats, qualifications and controversies associated with their conclusions. Unlike adversarial system employed by attorneys and politicians, ethical scientists are expected to present all of the evidence that supports and contradicts their conclusions. Climate scientist Stephen Schneider described this as: “the whole truth with all of the if, ands, buts, and caveats”. In a scientific report, many of the IPCC’s conclusions would begin with the caveat: “If our climate models are correct, then [conclusion X]. This omission allows the IPCC to avoid discussing of controversial question of whether climate models are an appropriate scientific tool for reaching [conclusion X]. Unfortunately, climate models are the only tools scientists use for projecting the consequences of rising GHGs. By picking and choosing only information that supports a political agenda and avoiding controversies, the IPCC is acting as a policy advocate.

    For example, Politfact asked about the IPCC’s conclusion that effects of man-made greenhouse gas emissions “are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” This conclusion is characterized as being “extremely likely” based on statistical analysis of the output from climate models. However, there is widespread agreement that climate models underestimate unforced variability – the main explanation for the non-trivial variation in climate observed before the mid-20th century. Unforced variability is an alternative explanation for warming since then and models underestimate the importance of this explanation. There is also widespread agreement that statistical analysis of output is problematic, because model parameterization has not been systematically explored. Finally, the use of the non-quantitative word “dominant” allows readers to assume the IPCC meant at least 80% or 90% of warming, when the statistical analysis was actually performed for 50%. If only half of observed warming were due to man, future warming could be roughly 50% of the IPCCs projections, and the political objective of limiting warming to 2 degC would require much smaller (if any) reduction in GHG emissions. If these critical caveats had been discussed in the SPM, the political impact of their statement about human attribution would have been much weaker.

    There are two reasons for this lack of scientific rigor. First, the IPCC insiders who draft the SPMs are selected by a non-transparent process by the activists who founded the IPCC and their like-minded chosen successors. Second, the exact wording of the SPMs requires unanimous agreement from more than one hundred government representatives. Both factors ensure that major caveats and controversies are not properly discussed in SPMs.

    In essence, our fossil fuel-based economy is being tried behind closed doors with the IPCC serving as prosecutor, judge and jury. No defense attorney is present or allowed to submit evidence. The SPMs are not subject to peer review.

    • Your discussion is spot on, franktoo.

      I have just begun thinking about a partial solution to many of the IPCC problems: The U.S. should, as quickly as possible, release an RFP for private contractors to analyze the CMIP6 process in full and scrutinize selected climate models, possibly ones produced by U.S. agencies. The contracting and review of the results would be performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency under the Department of Commerce. It does not have a dog in this fight.

      Another RFP would be issued for a complete review and critique of the UNFCCC and IPCC processes. Private contractors, under the NIST, would also review the IPCC AR6. EPA’s misfeasance in relying on IPCC garbage has wreaked untold havoc on our economy.

      President Trump should immediately pull the U.S. out of the UNFCCC. Just follow the law about Palestinian inclusion. We can do our own climate science, and not rely on anti-scientific socialist consensus. Why does the U.S. need the rest of the world, including the cash-seeking Third World, arbitrating our science and policy development?

      I believe the NIST is the one Federal agency disinterested enough to incorporate U.S. climate study work into documents such as the U.S. NCA.

      I’m not sure how to develop this idea for presentation to the Trump Administration. Ideas?

    • Peter Lang


      Well said. What a pity there isn’t more of such constructive contribution to CE,

      I’d suggest there is a more important to make though. Your comment focuses on the climate science. But more important is whether or not global warming of 2C (or more) would actually be harmful at all. Would it in fact be beneficial? Are we making a big mistake trying to reduce global warming?



      No they’re not are they Salvatore (rhetorical)…..

      BTW: Re the comments about this site being “stale”.
      I agree.
      The reason?
      Denizens who routinely use Ad Hom to others who disagree with them.
      Note the lack of same from Jim D in particular.
      Telling I’d say.
      As well as certain denizens who thread-bomb and thump their chests like Silverbacks in the forest.
      Not appealing my friends
      All a sure sign of failure.
      Don’t want any of that.
      This site will not change the trajectory of transfer to renewables, and certainly wont alter the empirical science.
      The posting of the “tired” old Spencer/Christy graph is beyond parody.
      Try looking at why contrarian’s reliance on Sat temp data is the last hope saloon.
      Well just UAH now – BUT (which version????)

      Plain to see what’s happened there ….

      Clue: When did the MSU to AMSU changeover occur.
      Bye bye.
      I shall not reply to replies for the reasons given above.
      I leave it to Jim, JCH and Bob.
      Love and kisses to a certain denizen, who will no doubt thread-bomb in response.

  77. Geoff Sherrington

    You are writing far too much each thread. Your welcome is already overstayed. You have alotn occasional useful slant in a generally verbose heap of old, well known science in what amounts to free commercials about the self- described admirable prowess of RIE. Not many others come close to your frequent verbosity.
    It is unkind of you to drive readers from Dr Curry’s excellent blog. Or maybe this is your plan.
    It is nothing like censorship for me to suggest that you shut up for a while to allow a better balance of views by others more qualified.
    Thank you. Geoff

    • Geoff Sherrington

      “Your welcome is already overstayed.”

      I am not in agreement. I find that by focusing upon RIE’s posts and reading each one, that I learn a little bit more regarding particular themes, nuances. Recently, the discussions have been regarding issues of clouds and TOA radiation balance.

      As I understand, clouds are particularly difficult to assess within the General Circulation Models so a discussion on CE is helpful for me.

      CE is a daily draw for me. RIE’s contributions add to the reasons CE is the first site on my top 10 blog sites.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Dr Curry,
        Thank you for the clarification and future guidelines for blogger volume.
        You might know that I have never criticised your effort and your science. To the contrary, I am most appreciative of it and again thank you.

    • Old well known science? Tell me which bits Geoff and I will assume a general knowledge. I am usually very conscientious about building on a body of science with new ideas. But this particular post is not about about science.
      It is about the enforcement of conformity.

      I have had a back and forth with Jim D usually polite and considered – but it does tend to go around in circles. The El Nino discussion is a case in point. I have read in Pacific dynamics for more than 30 years and have been looking for not so much causal mechanisms but triggers for biases to one state or the other. But the discussion was not leading edge science but the internet lies about Roy Spencer’s views. So fairly simple ENSO dynamics – and the conviction that Spencer must be wrong that is defended to the bitter end. It seems like a simple idea. That El Nino is the outcome of upwelling in the eastern Pacific – and suppresses upwelling when the water surges eastward again. But the psychology and the politics dominate this sort of discussion.

      You and I have had some discussion and your comments lack science content and we can usually count on a reference to your own authority. I have to admit to being not all that impressed with the quality of your contributions – but usually leave it alone.

  78. And you won’t find one comment out of the many thousands that little jimmy dee has incessantly bombarded you with that deviates one mm from the rote CAGW party line. Not one admission of error or uncertainty in the dogma. Funny and pathetic part is that he has not converted anybody and never will. Why does he do it?

  79. Please don’t make me find the published article of (I believe) 3-scientists attempting to calculate the carbon cycle. But as I read, a few years back, each of those scientists came up with estimates (very huge numbers) of how much soil was in the earth and how much mixes with the atmosphere (again huge numbers – in the many millions of Giga tonnes). And also carbon in vegetation and oceans and their mixes. All 3-combined estimates were different by many thousands of Giga tones of each other. Yet, to my surprise, their final assessment was that yes humans emit 9G tones and the sinks captured 5G tones leaving yes, 4G tones annually for the atmosphere to add to its sink. Remarkable estimates with remarkable like results. Or did they use the one and only measured value that of CO2 currently in the atmosphere and subtract the accepted consensus of 265 ppm prior to 1850 and – well what do you know… only human emissions remain. The question I’ve always have had is … ice cores (snow’s answer to tree-rings) … Can they drill down to say 2010 and after performing their magic, come up with the readings of 2010 as recorded per CO2 in the atmosphere in 2010. Or do they then get the constant 265 ppm?

    • No, they can’t drill down to 2010 and get a valid reading for the CO2 level in 2010.

      You should do some research on your own, start with wikipedia.

  80. A comment re blog moderation, since this has been brought up numerous times on this thread.

    I had a policy not to allow any one commenter more than 5% of the most recent 1000 comments. This was when blog traffic and comments was much higher. At this point, if someone is over 10% I will start deleting their non-substantive comments.

    The two highest commenters at present are JimD and RIE. Both provide substantive comments (as well as non-substantive ones, which i try to delete when their commenting rate is high).

    When threads get ‘stale’, bickering tends to start, with off topic stuff. Partly my fault for not posting frequently enough.

    I very much appreciate the dedicated participation here, even when there are lulls between posts.

    I tend to have more time on weekends, hope to get two new posts up in the next few days.

    • Curious George

      Thank you for running the blog. Don’t worry about not posting frequently enough. Do you ever sleep?

    • Stale thread bickering duly noted. Not to worry. I just click off to something else. You are still providing enough value for me to keep checking in.

      If I were RIE I would take offense to being mentioned in the same breath with JimD. I guess JimD is the useful idiot.

  81. Hope one of your posts is about Pruitt’s announcement today that he is going forward with red team blue team. Great to see yours and Koonin’s idea followed up!

  82. David,
    thanks for your response upthread re errors on global temperature estimates.

    Here is a URL for GWPF story on red team blue team.


  83. “We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s.”

    The meaning of the language of synchronicity in this study has to do with the idea of chaos in a globally networked system. It is the stadium wave where a signal is propagated through the network and around the globe. There is an inevitability about this idea of a climate system that evolves with discrete jumps and emergent properties. Hurst phenomenon in Nile River flows – for instance – are regime like changes that are associated with both Pacific and Atlantic states.

    The Pacific regimes are caused by changes in upwelling in the north-east and equatorial Pacific over 20 to 30 year regimes. The cold (warm) state sees a negative (positive) Pacific Decadal Oscillation and more intense and frequent La Nina (El Nino).

    There is an assumption that these states are purely cyclical. Warmer succeeding cooler perpetually. It is not true as is apparent in the graph below. This study uses salt content in a Law Dome ice core to trace ENSO activity over a 1000 years. La Nina increases rainfall in the western Pacific, Africa, China, the Mediterranean, etc. More salt is La Nina.

    There are several intriguing clues in this study. Spectral analysis shows El Nino epochs are associated with ENSO variability around 2–5 years, while the La Nina epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 years. This suggests an external forcing of the ENSO beat. The parallels with the cosmogenic isotope record suggest solar modulation. The Law Dome location suggests the involvement of the Southern Annular Mode – the belt of westerlies circling the Antarctic that are pushed more or less into lower latitudes by surface pressure at the pole.

    The persistence of the 20 to 30 year regimes is shown over a 1000 years – but also the presence of century scale epochs. The 20th century saw a 1000 year high in El Nino activity. Sea surface temperature in ENSO states influences cloud cover which modulate the energy balance of the planet. Direct observations rely on short term satellite data. The myth is that cloud changes in this data is purely feedback from CO2 warming – but feasible cloud feedback is too small to account for documented changes.

    Surface pressure at the poles is influenced by solar activity – including in the ultravoilet band with UV/ozone chemistry in the stratosphere. Higher pressure will push winds and storm tracks into lower latitudes. This spins up sub-polar gyres pushing cold water into the Californian and Peruvian Currents – diluting warm surface water and biasing the system to more upwelling. This solar trigger – with declining solar activity –
    suggests that a return to a centuries long La Nina epoch is possible this century – with implications for hydrology and climate.

  84. David Wojick | June 30, 2017 at 2:29 pm
    This appears to be the original Red Team story

    No, David, the original Red Team was headed by the original Red Queen, Iracebeth of Crims, who never lost a scientific debate or a croquet match, having anticipated what pundits, Presidential appointees and blog commenters galore have been saying ever since:
    “Words mean exactly what I say they mean, neither more nor less.”

    • Don Monfort

      Is that your blog, rustle? That VVatts gimmick is very clever. Did little kenny rice help you with that? Can you give us an estimate on how long it’s going to take for that mocking of heretical climate scientists to get us back in the non-binding BS Paris accord?

      • russellseitz

        I dinna ken what a kenny rice may be.

      • Don Monfort

        He would be ATTP purveyor of a series of tacky consensus dogma blogs and infamous Anthony Watts stalker. According to his CV, in his tenured free time, for which he is well remunerated by hapless tax payers, he tries to figure out how planets are formed. He thinks there is big money it, because they burn up so easily. Just a little too much CO2 and BAM!

  85. South Australia now has the highest electricity prices in the world, as of 1 July 2017. Higher than Denmark (2nd) and Germany (3rd). What do they all have in common? Ideologically driven governments and gullible citizens who believe renewables are a cheap source of electric power and needed to save the planet.

    • But, Peter. No price is too high to pay to save the planet. Virtue signaling can be costly.

  86. Note to DF, that sub-thread keeps getting deleted. I won’t try to reply there as it is a waste of time. I will post this however. It is regarding what action the stakeholder are already taking, and the red team’s job is to find out all this.

    • OK, Jim D. I’ll just save my deleted comments for a later day.

      • I think it comes down to being careful about language, but who knows.

      • As I was saying, the AR5 sea-level rise estimate is conservative because it assumed no acceleration of glacier loss. Stakeholders with their cities on the line are cautious and take that as a minimum, not a maximum. Other stakeholders have concerns about food, water and energy resources, agriculture, ecology, droughts and floods, etc. The red team would get their perspective which would link them to real-world decision-making that would be good for them to see in action.

      • Since I have actually done real world planning, I can tell you have no idea as to the actual procedures followed by professionals. You are describing bureaucrats having a great time producing studies and attending meetings, all on the Federal dime.

        Notice that New York is planning facilities to withstand a past event? They know that adding a few centimeters to a Sandy-like surge won’t make any difference to the facilities needed. To get Federal grants, they pay lip service to politicians and agency bureaucrats.

      • I think the NC officials have been told to ignore SLR in planning, and Florida aren’t even allowed to mention global warming in their state house. These may be more in line with your thinking, but they are considered exceptional. Most people are inclined to plan for the trends of next century rather than repeat of the 20th century.

      • No, Jim D. Real planners use the best estimates of potentialities and their likelihood over realistic planning periods.

        The fact that you say “Most people are inclined to plan for the trends of next century …” could indicate you are unhinged from reality. I, from professional experience, can assure you real planners don’t.

        Do you live in a darkened basement and feed off MSM, SkS, and government happy news, Jim D? I only respond to your ravings now because some newcomer may mistake your fantasies for real science.

      • You are trying to do damage control. Go to any major city website to see what they plan for, whether it is transportation and building efficiency, or coastal infrastructure. Carbon footprints matter now. Global mayors meet and agree on these things. You would be the detached one if you don’t see this going on.

      • Watch what happens when the free Federal money dries up, Jim D. The second those politicians try to raise taxes to pay for renewable follies, the whole pie-in-the-sky edifice falls apart.

      • It turns out to be such a small proportion of GDP, it is hardly anything in the budget to supply people with energy.

      • Ha, ha, ha, Jim D! You are such a comedian; you ought to go on the Redneck Comedy Tour.

        Every time they do a survey and ask the question of how much a person would spend on renewables, real people say: “Not much, if anything.” Global warming (climate change to the charlatans) is at the absolute bottom of real peoples’ concerns for the future in every study. Amazing! After decades of propaganda by politicians, bureaucrats and the MSM, people still discern a scam.

        USA! USA! USA! USA rules; EU drools. EU serfs serve their masters.

      • Surveys don’t give the question in any realistic way. Would you want <1% of the government tax revenue to halve your energy bills? That is the type of question you could ask that actually relates more to how the policy would be done.

      • That thing about collapsing the global economy was invented by theater-critic Steyn to scare you. Energy alone doesn’t account for much, and changes in sources are at the margins of that cost. The numbers are small compared to GDP.

      • It is being done as we speak, and you have barely noticed. Globally it is already 6% renewable, non hydro, today, aimed at 30% in a few decades. Not a rapid growth rate, which is why you don’t see it happening.

      • Do you understand that electricity generation is only a small part of fossil fuel use, Jim D? Dicking around the margins won’t get us anywhere.

      • I wouldn’t call it small. It was about a third last I checked. When you get more electric vehicles that effect multiplies because they replace fossil fuels with generated electricity. Transportation is probably about another third.

      • And renewables capacity additions have nothing to do with meeting actual electricity demand, Jim D.

      • Renewables with natural gas backup will save the depleting resource for longer, possibly several decades longer. Later energy storage will take over, and it won’t matter that gas and oil are running low.

      • But, jimmy. What about Paris? Should we get back in? Do we have to wait for The Donald to be impeached? As long as He is charge, the seas will continue to rise. Right, jimmy?

      • In the meantime, the states and cities can abide by Paris. That’s where sanity still exists.

      • Happy days, happy days, Jim D! Some cities and states are going to invest big in solar and wind and will contribute Obama’s share to the Green Energy Fund. And they are going to tell Federally regulated electric utilities how much CO2 they are allowed to emit.

        Those cities and states have been on the Federal green money tit for so long that they don’t know the actual costs of feeding a socialist fantasy world. Are these the cities and states that cannot meet their current obligations?

        Each and every one of your comments reveals the depth of your ignorance of the real world. Green NGOs and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats are feeding you nonsense wrapped with sciency wording.

      • This is where the jobs are. Renewables already employ as many as ten times as much as coal. The offshore wind resource alone is twice the national need. Solar potential even higher. Embrace it.

      • Take it from an old electric system planning engineer, Jim D: You exist in a deluded bubble made possible by wishful thinking instead of physics and economic realities.

      • Those would be the states and cities run by the same Dim pinheads who think they can solve their hideous gun murder problems by making up new unconstitutional gun laws that thug killers will ignore along with all the other laws on the books that the Dims don’t have the guts to actually enforce. And when they drive out businesses and taxpayers with higher energy costs along with their other foolish policies, they will go bankrupt. Sea level rise will be the least of their worries. Ask the Puerto Ricans.

      • A gun in the home is most likely to be used on someone who lives in the home according to now banned statistical studies. Off topic, though.

      • So why don’t we just ban guns in the home, Jim D? Or did you post that factoid to get another response?

      • Yes, I got the response. Move on.

      • Do you want to ban guns in the home, Jim D? Don’t pussy foot around the question, please.

      • Jim D:
        As I read it, AR5 suggested 2.3 inches per decade under the two middle scenarios. While we haven’t seen it yet according to AR5, SMB is supposed to increase on Antarctica during this century. I really doubt steric SLR is going to break out to something much higher. I think a number of people could agree to 2.3 as above for planning purpose. However local issues will impact what number they use.

      • Very nice , yimmy. Could that be because most guns don’t leave the house? And your crowd always fails to account for the number of suicides in your fake news gun violence stats. Don’t people have the right to shoot themselves, rather than hanging themselves or jumping off a bridge?

        The very clear fact is that more than 50% of murders are committed by a very small class, like 5% of the population, that the Dims don’t want to anger. I grew up among this class. I was an honorary member. We were always carrying. We called it self-protection. He, he. But I know how easy it is for you people to ignore reality.

      • The rise rate since 1990 is already double that of the 20th century, so this could be an acceleration happening in the glacier contribution. Then there are tipping points, like Greenland, that can lead to meltwater pulses which typically give several meters of rise in a century when they happen. That would also stop the Gulf Stream and send Europe’s temperature down.

      • A change in the SLR rate beginning in the 1990’s couldn’t be due to a change in measurement methods, or could it Jim D?

      • I think the 20th century value is quite robust, but it was recently revised down to less than 15 cm total.

      • 15 cm for the entire century, Jim D? Or was it a longer period?

      • The 20th century average. Or less than 15 cm as it turns out.

      • Do you mean total, not average, Jim D?

      • 15 cm per century average SLR rate. Now it is twice that already.

      • Why don’t we wait another century to see if that is true, Jim D.

      • Someone said we have better global measurements already. They are showing it doubled since 1990 and is still increasing, and it is no surprise either given what is happening.

      • And my dead dog might pee on my leg and lead to my mind meltdown, Jim D.

      • Don Monfort

        How many fatalities from all that sea level rise, yimmy? Don’t count the suicides.

      • DM, people buy guns out of fear. Some neighborhoods that may be rational. Most places your school isn’t likely to be attacked in 10,000 years, same with your home being invaded. If you are afraid of such low probabilities, you wouldn’t drive or cross roads. It’s not rational unless you are a gang member.

      • DM, I could ask you whether you use the precautionary principle when buying a gun.

      • Don Monfort

        My reply to you didn’t make it through whatever school marm filter we got going now. I’ll try it this way, You are very naive. You know squat about guns and the vast majority of gun owners. There are over 300 million guns owned by private citizens in the U.S. Very few have ever been used in crimes. We know who used them in crimes. Those are the people who need to be controlled. End of story.

      • Judging by how the NRA sells the need for big weapons, paranoia is a big factor for some. They need to outgun the police at a minimum, and many wish they could outgun the army too, just in case. Zombie apocalypse stuff there.

      • Remember the Dirty Harry movie where Harry asked the punk if he wanted to take a chance, Jim D? Harry said he had the most powerful hand gun in America (44 mag). Well he was wrong; I have a 454 Casull, the Taurus Raging Bull, the most powerful handgun until the .50 calibers came along. If that ain’t penis enhancement, I don’t know what is, other than lots of money of course.

        Why such a powerful handgun, you might ask. Well, when I moved to Alaska, I went hunting moose with a friend. He asked what kind of handgun I had in case we were surprised by a Brown bear, otherwise called a Grizzly bear more than 50 miles from the Pacific Ocean. I told him I had a 357 magnum.

        My friend suggested I file the front sight down to the barrel. I asked why. He said it was because it wouldn’t hurt as much when the bear shoved it up my ass. A 44 mag is the minimum in Alaska; I went with the more powerful 454 Casull round.

        Have you spent much time around gun owners, Jim D? Your comments sound pretty naive.

      • Not many grizzlies around here. Guess I’m safe.

      • Because, depending on where you live, your ancestors pushed them into the back country, Jim D.

      • Don Monfort

        Your huffpo is showing, yimmy. Demonizing the NRA is not working for you jokers. NRA members do not use guns illegally. The NRA promotes responsible gun ownership and use. The NRA is not the problem. Rational, informed people know that. Your crowd just makes up BS and ignores reality. Stop and frisk works. I won’t mind if they stop and frisk me. I am legal.

      • The NRA stand in the way of commonsense bans on large capacity weapons that no one should need for hunting or to carry around with them unless they plan on being in a war. It is completely irrational how they justify these, along the lines of paranoia about the gubmint.

      • Don Monfort

        Another comment gone off into the nether. This is some lame BS. You are paranoid about guns, yimmy. The NRA people do not commit –snip–. Period. We know who the –snips– are who commit –snip–. But your crowd won’t do anything about it. And we know why you are willing to tolerate the carnage. Watch what happens in Chiraq. POTUS Trump has the guts to send in the Federal prosecutors to lock up the usual suspects, who have been running wild under the lame –snipping– Dims. And a –snippity–
        –snip– –snip– to you, yimmy.

  87. WNA publishes World Nuclear Performance Report 2017
    Further to 2016 figures published in January by WNN and WNA Weekly Digest showing the largest annual increase in nuclear plant coming on line for 25 years, the new WNA Performance Report fills out the picture regarding established plant. Steady performance is a feature of nuclear power plants, and this continued across the fleet with a global average capacity factor of 80.5%. The report states that “there is no significant age-related trend in nuclear reactor performance” with older units achieving the same level of reliability as newer ones.

    The 2015 and 2016 new grid connections are in line with WNA’s Harmony goal for nuclear power to generate 25% of electricity with 1000 GWe of new capacity in 2050. The path to achieving this needs an average of 10 GWe per year of new build now, then a doubling to 25 GWe on average from 2021-2025 and a construction rate of 33 GWe per year on average from 2026. This represents a return to the build rates the industry achieved in the 1980s.
    … ”

    The rate commercial operation starts actually peaked at 40 GW per year in 1985. Construction starts peaked at 42 GW per year in 1976. The accelerating rate that prevailed from 1951 to 1968 rate began to slow in 1968. So, the disruption to progress – which was caused primarily by the eco-evangelists and anti nuclear power protest movement lost 50 years, has delayed world progress by half a century so far. Thanks eco-evangellists. Is it the most damaging religion ever?

  88. The IPCC found that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and cement production – from 1750 to 2011 – was about 365 billion metric tonnes as carbon (GtC), with another 180 GtC from deforestation and agriculture. Of this 545 GtC, about 240 GtC (44%) had accumulated in the atmosphere, 155 GtC (28%) had been taken up in the oceans with slight consequent acidification, and 150 GtC (28%) had accumulated in terrestrial ecosystems.

    The rate of CO2 increase has declined due to plant uptake – despite rising emissions. This results in a lower airborne fraction.

    Plants are most certainly adapted to absorb solar radiation. They use it in endothermic processes to synthesize carbon molecules, proteins and fats. So in the short term they simply store the energy and use some of it later for biological processes. Some of what’s left can be stored in soils, as vegetation in restored woodlands or in reclaimed deserts – making inroads into emissions from land use and forestry. Science suggests that 100GtC can be returned to soils and ecosystems – making inroads into atmospheric stores. While at the same time improving food security, biodiversity outcomes and building resilience to floods and droughts.

    Arguing against greening because it might marginally change planetary albedo is madness – madness I say.

  89. Peter Lang

    Has any previous US President achieved more to save the world in his first six months than Donald Trump?

    From GWPF Newsletter:
    “1) Trump To Abolish Obama’s Green Legacy By Boosting Coal And Nuclear Projects
    Daily Caller, 29 June 2017

    2) Trump Vows to Unleash the ‘Vast Energy Wealth’ of the U.S.
    Bloomberg, 29 June 2017

    3) Is The U.S. Close To Achieving ‘Energy Dominance’?
    OilPrice, 28 June 2017

    4) Reality Check: Germany ‘Massively Weakened’ Draft G20 Climate Plan To Appease Trump
    Climate Home, 29 June 2017

    5) The Bank of England Is Enslaved By Green Groupthink
    The Spectator, 1 July 2017”

    The articles are linked here:

    • David Springer

      Amazing, innit?

      Politically correct: out
      Common sense: in

      We’re about to find out if that nuclear regulatory strangulation hypothesis you’ve been on about for years holds water. I hope you were right.

      Keep your eye on my man Rick Perry the longest serving governor in Texas history who is now US Energy Secretary. He may say something stupid every now and when speaking in public off the cuff but he knows a thing or two about energy, business, and deregulation. He was solid gold for the Texas economy. The USA economy is the Texas economy times ten. Trump made the right choice.

  90. Peter Lang

    Excerpt from ClimateHome article: [h/t GWPF Newsletter]

    Reality Check: Germany ‘Massively Weakened’ Draft G20 Climate Plan To Appease Trump
    Climate Home, 29 June 2017

    Arthur Neslen

    Germany’s G20 presidency dramatically weakened a climate action plan, gutting it of ambitious language and defining gas, and potentially even some coal power, as “clean technologies”, in an attempt to appeal to US president Donald Trump.

    The action plan was intended to be agreed at next week’s Hamburg G20 summit. Climate Home has seen two versions, drafted in March and May of this year. The latter shows the degree to which the German presidency has bent to the will of the Trump White House.

    Several elements that have been removed in the May draft are:
    – A 2025 deadline for the end of fossil fuel subsidies
    – References to the risk of “stranded assets”
    – A call for “the alignment of public expenditure and infrastructure planning with the goals of the Paris Agreement”
    – A push for carbon pricing
    – A commitment to publish mid-century decarbonisation blueprints by next year
    – A pledge to develop a “profound” climate plan for multilateral development banks
    – Seven references to the UN’s 2018 review of nationally-determined contributions
    – 11 references to the 2050 mid-century pathway for net zero emission
    – 16 mentions of infrastructure decarbonisation

    “The US massively weakened the language in the energy part of the action plan,” one source with knowledge of the negotiations said. “It pushed for references to so-called ‘clean’ fossil fuels and made it less explicit that the energy transition has to be built on energy efficiency and renewables.”

    “It also provided cover to some other G20 members – such as the Saudis and Russia – to weaken some climate sections of the document, including the pledge to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”

    Climate Home understands from several well-placed sources that the May text is the latest version of the plan. Diplomats will try to thrash out some form of compromise on the action plan before next Friday’s summit. But German government sources say that it is currently unclear whether it will even be published.

    US officials may find the Germans are now less pliable. Since the document was drafted, the political landscape has shifted, with president Donald Trump announcing his intention to withdraw the US from the Paris deal early this month. ”

    … More …

  91. When Climagesterium apparatchiks talk about “natural” factors causing climate change it is always in a negative dismissive tone:

    If you’re a climate scientist, you’ve likely spent years of your career going down such rabbit holes, evaluating “natural causes” and “no warming” claims. You’ve considered and debated these claims.

    “”Natural causes”” even has to be in speech marks, to make ot clear that they themselves would never utter such blasphemous words.

    Why do they hate nature? Why do they hate the word “natural”?

    Do they really deny natural factors influencing climate? Do they really believe that only human influence can change climate? If so they are simply morons, and need to be institutionalised.

    Their pompous claim that your average climate apparatchik will “evaluate, consider and debate such claims” is a transparent lie. That’s not their style at all. They just ignore such discussion, vilify anyone with divergent views, and talk past them with tired slogans, always coming back to their invincible computer models and their contempt for the natural world.

    When they talk of “multiple line of evidence” they are referring only to multiple lines of computer code.

    • Natural forcing effects: it’s the sun, volcanoes, orbital changes. These have been quantified and found to be small compared to the forcing we have added over the past century or so. They are not ignored, but quantified and small.

      • David Springer

        Total BS.

      • DS, state an quantify your current favorite natural effect on forcing, so that we see where you are coming from.

      • Published forcings are just a minor part of a dynamic climate with massive flux changes, Jim D, dwarfing listed forcings.

      • That’s your story and you’re sticking to it.

      • I want to see your alternative to that IPCC diagram. As far as I know, the skeptics never produced anything. Which number in there don’t you like and why?

      • I don’t need an alternative to a useless, misleading table. Cloud uncertainty alone swamps all the minor forcings postulated. IPCC climate models that incorporate that crap are bunk. Prove me wrong.

      • Are you in the Spencer self-clouding camp? Clouds don’t do anything except respond, like water vapor.

      • You dismissed the whole IPCC table. Did you have a question while doing that? Were there any quantifications you wanted to add to what you said? Average cloud variations over a century and it amounts mostly to the growing aerosol cooling effect that is accounted for in the table, or did you dismiss that too?

      • JimD
        This could be the crux of the climate debate. What is the nature of climate change that happens without human intervention, ie “natural”. Is it

        a. Known and small
        b. Known and large
        c. Known but of unknown magnitude
        d. Unknown and small
        e. Unknown and large
        f. Unknown and of unknown magnitude
        g. Something missed by the above

        As against, of course, magnitude and sign of CAGW.

      • If you look at the climate in the 18th century, that would be what it would be like. As it is we are blasting through 1 degree above that on the way to 2-4 C depending entirely on emission policies.

      • This is all just an LIA recovery is one of the memes they have on those blogs. No science, but that doesn’t stop them.

      • No, Jim D; recovery from the LIA is part of the story, along with other non-CO2 physical phenomena, all of which you seem to ignore. Current temperatures are not at all unusual considering the Holocene record.

      • The rate of rise is the unusual part. It is twenty times the normal trends seen in the Holocene record, and expected to continue to temperatures well above anything in the Holocene, if it is not already there, which many would say it is.

      • Here I go again wasting time with you, Jim D. But others may read this.

        1) The late 20th Century rate of temperature rise is consistent with the early 20th Century rate. The 21st Century shows no rising trend, outside ending on a super El Nino.
        2) Proxy records for the Holocene smooth trends over decades, if not centuries. Holocene rates of change cannot be compared to modern estimates of temperature.
        3) Only fools believe that “… expected to continue to temperatures well above anything in the Holocene …” Expected is not the same thing as will be.
        4) “… many would say …” means nothing. You like to criticize the many evangelicals for believing things you believe are wrong. BTW, wasn’t it an evangelical that risked his life saving that little girl under heavy gunfire. Isn’t it he and his family are the ones giving their lives over to helping others? Saving the world from speculative futures pales in comparison.

      • Data argues otherwise about that equivalence. Here’s the 30-year land temperature. Skeptics really need to keep up to date with their graphics before continuing with this line of argument.

      • You’re the one that gave the 2 C 30 year trend, Jim D.

      • Yes, that’s observations. To extrapolate you have to assume things about emissions, and it is sensitive to what you assume.

      • The land temperature has risen 1 degree in just four decades. Arctic even faster. The 30-year temperature rise rate shows no sign of slowing at nearly 0.2 C per decade.

      • Yes, that would be what I would call a weak mitigation scenario if it keeps it to 3 C above preindustrial instead of the more expected 4 C. It also fails the Paris goal by a degree. How do you plan to achieve that level of mitigation?

      • 1 C already plus 2 C more equals 3 C in the normal parlance. Paris aims for 1 C more equals 2 C total and to stabilize there. Is that the part you didn’t understand?

  92. David Springer

    We’re finally going to have that climate debate we’ve all wanted. Red team blue team.

    Liberal academic scientists are shaking in their boots. They will finally have to defend themselves outside the group think safe spaces they’ve created for themselves. They know they can’t do it.

    • I hope they get proportional numbers from each side for that debate this time, at least one to ten anyway. They won’t, of course.

    • NYT on this. Mentions Judith.

      • Money quote ““I think this is fundamentally a dumb idea,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, said in an email. “It’s like a red team-blue team exercise about whether gravity exists.””

      • I don’t believe that the existence of climate change is in doubt.

      • Yes, the Ice Ages for example. Swamp-dwelling politicians have all the good weasel words. It is finely tuned by now.

      • “It’s like a red team-blue team exercise about whether gravity exists.”

        Dessler unwittingly makes two great points here.

        1. If so, he expresses great doubt about his ability to demonstrate gravity ( or as he analogizes, actionable climate change ). If he truly believes things so clearly demonstrable, shouldn’t he enthusiastically welcome this opportunity to demonstrate the superiority of his position? Instead, he comes across as fearful that he won’t be able to so clearly defend much of the consensus.

        2. Most people don’t know the formula for gravity, but all people have a working knowledge of the physical principles of gravity. Why? Because all people experience and test gravity everyday. Everyone who drops a gravy boat has a skin-in-the-game experiment that verifies the existence and theory of gravity. Every kid at soccer practice experiments with the theory of gravity numerous times an hour.
        Gravity is already subject to red-orange-yellow-green-blue teams because everybody can and does test it.

        Contrast gravity with the non-empirical climate science predictions for, in this case, 2090. Because 2090 hasn’t happened, in contrast to gravity, which is testable and tested by everyone, so called climate predictions are not testable or tested by anyone!.

      • A better analogy might be creationism and there are some like Spencer who would debate that too.

      • David Springer

        Yeah climate change and creationism have many parallels Both require faith. Both promise glory for the faithful and death for the non-believers. The Church of Carbon Sin. Funny stuff!

      • Roger Knights

        I just posted this on WaPo at

        Here’s a three-year-old WUWT thread, “Real Science debates are not rare,” by RG Brown, a physics prof. at Duke. It also heavily critiques the consensus / IPCC view of climate change. Brown makes further points in long comments after his head post.

        Brown should be asked to participate on the red team.

      • David Springer

        Many of us here know Rob Brown at Duke. He has no specialty in atmospheric physics or climate science. Just a plain vanilla physics PhD who likes to pontificate on climate blogs.

      • Roger Knights

        David Springer | July 2, 2017 at 2:19 am |
        Many of us here know Rob Brown at Duke. He has no specialty in atmospheric physics or climate science. Just a plain vanilla physics PhD who likes to pontificate on climate blogs.

        Then your blue team ought to wipe the floor with him (and you should join me in calling for his appointment).

        But that’s not guaranteed, because persons outside a specialty—even some without an academic affiliation—can sometimes provide insights that specialists have missed. That’s a commonplace observation. Nic Lewis is an example.

        Furthermore, good climate analysis requires more than a knowledge of “atmospheric physics or climate science.” It requires expertise in statistics, for instance, something that is badly lacking among many climatologists, as unaffiliated Steve McIntyre pointed out.

        Brown has expertise in chaos theory and computer modeling, two fields that climatologists ought to have a command of, but don’t, usually. I suspect climatologists will have a tough time rebutting, or even understanding, his remarks on those topics at the link I provided.

        It’s not necessary to be a specialist in a field for a highly talented person in a related field to acquire a good grasp of it. Plain vanilla physicist Steven Koonin was able to do so in his summary of the issues for the APS. From what he’s written, Brown seems to have familiarity with the much of reasoning of the consensus and much of the data it relies on.

        Here’s physicist Robert G. Brown’s (aka rgbatduke or rub) home page:

        Here is his About page:

        Here is his Curriculum Vitae (current only through 2008 for some reason—maybe because he’s too busy with all the activities he’s listed.):

        Brown graduated summa cum laude. He’s written a textbook titled “Introductory Physics.” He’s published many times and made many conference presentations. He’s heavily involved in advanced computer science projects. Etc. He is not “Just a plain vanilla physics PhD.”

      • Roger Knights

        PS: Here is the intro to his OP at the WUWT link I provided:
        “Dr. Robert G. Brown is a Lecturer in Physics at Duke University where he teaches undergraduate introductory physics, undergraduate quantum theory, graduate classical electrodynamics, and graduate mathematical methods of physics. In addition Brown has taught independent study courses in computer science, programming, genetic algorithms, quantum mechanics, information theory, and neural network.

      • Roger Knights

        Oops, I posted the following upthread by mistake:
        Roger Knights | July 2, 2017 at 7:02 am |
        PPS: RG Brown made lengthy and meaty comments downthread, most notably these:
        [a postscript to Brown’s head post.]
        RG Brown on data dredging—brilliant.

        A critic needn’t be an expert in a field to spot a flaw in the reasoning and/or the data of the consensus in that field.

  93. There is a neo-socialist, hipster collective comprised of gatekeepers, true believers, meme sets and a whole apparatus of groupthink. There are sites dedicated to the myths of skeptics or to naming and shaming dissident scientists. Hundreds of them – and among them some of the most interesting voices in climate science. The demand is conformity to the meme set. You can agree that carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere – or even as I do – claim to be a climate catastrophist – in the sense of Rene Thom. Lomberg proposes using aid funds to improve lives in ways that address population, black carbon, technology, carbon loss from soils and forests, fossil fuel subsidies, etc… Yet the sin is saying that there are better ways to spend aid than on solar panels.

    There is an undercurrent in the collective hipster consciousness that is explicit. The vision involves narratives of moribund western economies governed by corrupt corporations collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions – leading to less growth, less material consumption, less CO2 emissions, less habitat destruction and a last late chance to stay within the safe limits of global ecosystems. And this is just in the ‘scholarly’ journals. It is at the same time time profoundly impractical, utterly unrealizable and morally repugnant. But it is at the core of the cultural aspirations.

    Rather than selling this as a policy agenda – they attempt to appropriate the socially valued imprimatur of science as a stalking horse for societal and economic transformation. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, said precisely this before Paris. She “warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.

    “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

    What a hero – but it’s not quite the first time.

    What they are doing is attempting to control the narrative based on very poor science. A daunting and thankless task. Great science is an aesthetic experience.

    “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.” Marcia Wyatt

    Bad science is mind numbingly dull. Climate science is poor in the scientific literature far too often and is pathetic in the blogosphere. A red team/blue team approach challenges the attempted appropriation of science that is fundamental to their cause. They have to have science on their side and no amount of distortion, misrepresentation and duplicity is too great a sacrifice.

    • The last attempt at “… intentionally transform the economic development model …” with a big splash was the Soviet Union, Robert. The UN is a bunch of kleptocrats and SJW fiends that would hobble the U.S.

      • Some of them are still limping along – and it always ends up with a shortage of toilet paper.

      • Socialist governments are set up to ration and attempt to manage the shortages caused by every socialist system yet devised.

      • Central planning is the problem – it just can’t be done.

      • It’s like the climate models, Robert. It is beyond human capabilities to see or understand the myriad events and their interactions in physical and human systems. The more one attempts to manage the interactions, the more one screws up the system.

        The more complex the model, the greater are the errors and their accumulation. Climate modelers cheat by slamming around their models and playing with parameters until they get something that can pass only minimal scrutiny. For example, by trying to catch up with the actual Arctic sea ice declines CMIP3 missed, they screwed up their internals and got poorer CMIP5 models.

        All of this is not something new. It’s just that people forget or never learn from history and allow themselves to be led by bold charlatans.

      • Plus, Robert, the charlatans develop ever more and more novel, creative and preposterous excuses for missing their predictions.

  94. Risk is the key. For the red team / blue team exercise to work, both sides must accept an element of risk.

    Karl Popper showed that true science must necessarily contain risk. That is, for a hypothesis to be scientific, it must be risky in the sense that there must be practicable way in which it could be falsified.

    The same is true of a scientific debate, or a research field in which there are contrary views. Proponents of any view must be able to envision both an experimental test, and an outcome of that test, that would falsify their position. If they wish their view to be a scientific one rather than “merely” political, metaphysical or religious. This need for science, defined as the process of conjectures and refutations concerning the natural world (Beavis to Butthead: “he said natural”), to be risky and falsifiable is probably as close as we will ever get to an essential and sufficient definition of science.

    What this means for the red team / blue team climate debate is the following. Climate skeptics must enter the debate recognising that their rejection of catastrophic CAGW might be wrong and that the CAGW hypothesis might be correct. Likewise, CAGW alarmists must enter the debate recognising that a possibility exists that CAGW is false.

    It is as an if in a duel you load the weapon of your opponent. One must enter the debate being able to demonstrate a practicable pathway for the refutation of your hypothesis.

    For instance, climate skeptics might bring the argument that climate sensitivity to CO2 is too low to justify alarmism. However such it the complexity of the question of attribution and feedbacks that it may be possible that sensitivity is high. The argument may be advanced that temperature fluctuation is the normal behaviour of climate and that recent warming is purely natural climate variability. However since such chaos-based variability cannot be explicitly modeled, one cannot be certain that recent warming is natural-chaotic however much it might resemble climate behaviour in past times. The palaeo climate record is an important part of the skeptic argument against climate alarmism, specifically the absence of clear evidence of CO2 causation of warming and regulation of or correlation with temperature on all time scales. However the palaeo record is imprecise and contradictory, and absence of evidence is not the strongest evidence of absence.

    Lilewise, alarmists will probably place strong reliance on physics based models demonstrating radiative warming by CO2. However atmospheric radiative dynamics are very complex containing known and unknown feedbacks. The possibility should be recognised that Miskolczi-esque mode of feedback or adaptation might cancel CO2 warming. Also, this team must acknowledge that the substantial part of climate research supposedly supporting CAGW alarmism is nothing more than an echoing demonstration that some warming has occurred in the latest century (and has affected such-and-such an organism or ecosystem) and that this contributes precisely zero to the question of causation by anthrocarbon or natural variability. Climate computer models must be recognised as thought experiments only and not having the status of actual experiments. And the implications of the weakness of support for CAGW in the palaeo climate record must be accepted as a possible challenge to alarmism.

    Popper’s epistemology is inescapable. To be able to be proved right you must be able to be proved wrong. If both the alarmist and skeptical climate protagonists are willing to enter the red team / blue team debate or exercise accepting risk to their positions, then the possibility arises that the process can have a scientifically valid outcome.

    • I think the teams have to agree to avoid discussing the obvious physical responses to the post-LIA period gradual warming. Otherwise, we junk up the argument with stuff that has nothing to do with climate science and it’s use in proving CAGW warming in the future. That is the only question. And it is the only basis for calls to fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems.

    • A well rehearsed spiel – but missing an important caveat. Some things remain stubbornly unfalsifiable remain – yet investigation of the phenomenon remain important scientific pursuits. The solution here is to sacrifice certainty for a fruitfulness of investigation. It is essentially the case for all climate science – except that an admission of uncertainty is somewhat lacking.

      • Stubbornly unfalsifiable is fine. The more challenges a hypothesis withstands, the closer it gets to theory, which is the closest you get to “fact” in science.

        But even theories can never quite hang up their gloves and stop taking on challengers.

  95. I agree with Steve Mosher and climatereason. We need dissenting voices on any blog, believer, skeptic or whatever. And I find the dissenters here to be quite good. And I don’t like it when dissenters take more than their share of abuse, as happened above.

    I felt like I was the sole dissenter to ATTP’s ridiculous “heat wave” post..He threatened to delete my comments because I used the word “alarmist”, and subjected me to an agw litmus test as a condition to continued participation. I’m not a full-time blogger so I withdrew to tend to other business.

    It’s customary in the blogosphere to call others liars and other such pejoratives. This is poor manners and displays an inability to deal constructively with those one disagrees with. It’s this kind of poor behavior that brought about the climategate emails and shows the arrogance of the consensus camp that skeptics ought to be capable of avoiding.

  96. The above comment relates to a discussion upthread where climatereason defended Jim D and Steve Mosher and welcomes their dissenting comments. This comment supports that thought. Thank you.

  97. As predicted, the inquisition has begun. Pruitt has been unleashed by president bannon to “solve the climate problem.” Research first, then bleed funding for data networks dry. With no data, the climate is NOT changing.
    “This can’t be happening man.” Bill Paxton – Aliens

    • Actually, shredder, I would tend to agree there are better methods than a Red/Blue Team approach as has been proposed.

      The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a non-regulatory agency in the Department of Commerce, should issue a series of Requests For Proposals (RFP) to disinterested private companies and manage their work to:

      1) Review and critique UNFCCC and IPCC policies and procedures to determine if there is potential bias in their pronouncements.
      2) Review and asses IPCC Assessment Report (AR) policies, practices and procedures to determine if there is potential bias in the periodic reports, possibly limited to the Working Group I (WGI) chapter.
      3) Review and assess Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) practices and procedures to determine if they adhere to modeling best practices and provide sufficient guidance to the various modeling groups.
      4) Formally assess selected CMIP models to determine their validity, possibly limited to U.S. agencies’ models.
      5) Review the statistical basis for NOAA’s 2015 adjustments to sea surface temperatures (SST) and their validity.

      Loosen the long knives.

  98. We should put together a crowd-sourced effort to rank those 97 per cent papers that endorse global warming as a serious problem. They would be ranked by uncertainty. The more “might, may, could, etc” words used, the more uncertain the rank. Other additional criteria could be formulated.

  99. 97% was a flawed study from the start. Google searches of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals will ONLY contain global warming support. You can’t get into “the system” unless you are a believer. Publication alchemy.

    • It’s surprising how pervasively the “97%” pops up all over the media in superficial dismissals of doubters of alarmism. So many lazy journalists not bothering to check their sources which would tell them what rank bs this 97% is. When they finally realise how many people understand this fact, it will be too late to undo the damage already done to the reputation of journalism as a whole.

  100. Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #275 | Watts Up With That?

  101. gallopingcamel

    The trouble with “Climate Science” is that most of it is not science.

    The real problem is that the government made absurdly large sums of money available for Climate Science. The result was tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers that contain little science in the generally accepted meaning of the word.

    Something similar has happened in public education where no matter how many research studies are done nothing useful emerges. While there are many research topics relating to K-12 education here are some interesting statistics on one of them.

    The National Reading Panel (NRP) carried out a comprehensive review of reading research that amounted to 115,000 papers written between 1966 and 2000. A screening was carried out to select only studies that met criteria .normally used in medical and behavioral research At the end of the screening, only 428 studies met the panels high standards, and in September 2000 the findings were presented to the US Congress.

    Thus the panel found that only 0.37% of the studies met generally accepted standards for scientific research.

    The 14-member reading panel was chaired by Donald N. Langenberg, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. Karin Chenoweth (Washington Post) asked him why he, an experimental physicist by training, was chosen. One of the reasons, he said, was, I know what good research looks like.

    That answer is the key to winnowing the chaff of Climate Science with the aim of extracting the few grains of real science buried within it. Thus I would contend that there is no need to spend another taxpayer dollar on new research studies until we have extracted the few grains of gold buried in the heap of excrement called Climate Science.

    If Scott Pruitt sets up a “Climate Science Panel” headed by someone like Donald Langenburg what proportion of papers would be considered “Scientific”?

    My guess is that 97% of climate scientists would not make the cut. Probably the same 97% that tell us the “Debate Is Over”.

  102. gallopingcamel

    My hope is that Pruitt will appoint Judith Curry to head the “Climate Science Panel”.

  103. Pingback: What is red teaming? | Climate Etc.

  104. Pingback: Climate “Scientists” in Panic: Real Debate and Fact Checking Will Expose “Consensus” Fraud – Peter Degedo

  105. Pingback: Climate "Scientists" in Panic: Real Debate and Fact Checking Will Expose "Consensus" Fraud | SAVIOR.NEWS

  106. Pingback: Climate “Scientists” in Panic: Real Debate and Fact Checking Will Expose “Consensus” Fraud | Reclaim Our Republic

  107. Pingback: Climate “Scientists” in Panic: Real Debate and Fact Checking Will Expose “Consensus” Fraud | Atlas Monitor

  108. Pingback: Climate 'Scientists' in Panic: Real Debate and Fact Checking Will Expose 'Consensus' Fraud | Principia Scientific International

  109. GH effect of CO2 is no more than 1 C. All other significant global warming is said to be from some positive feedback effect. A temperature driven water evaporation loop is usually ‘suggested’. Any additional water vapororization requires additional energy into the system. CO2 GH adds no energy to the system, it merely slows radiation ~3 W/m2 which will accumulate in the system until it raises the temperature of the system ~ 1C to balance this loss. WV is the major IR radiation molecule available in the atmosphere and thus provides the only substance of any quantity available to pick up this additional radiation requirement above the IR window and CO2 radiation amount ( < ~100 watts). Water molecules are the major coolant of the earth. There is nothing else available to do the job. Please do not imagine that the major coolant of the system will suddenly become a warming device in some feedback scheme. Water molecules in their various random chaotic forms are a net negative feedback element in cases such as increased solar radiation which can drive more WV into the atmosphere. CO2 GH temperature increase alone cannot.

    Receeding polar ice cap reflection could be a decreasing and limited positive feedback factor. Lets concentrate on such things which actually have some physics to support the conjecture. Lets hope the factor is small because if temperature starts going the other way it is an increasing (cos latitude) factor and is limited only by ice reaching the equator. (New ice age anyone?)