Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

The longest homogeneous series of grape harvest dates, 1354–2018, and its significance for the understanding of past and present climate [link]

Uncertainties in shoreline change reconstructions and projections [link

The Cold Transit of Southern Ocean Upwelling”. By projecting Southern Ocean water masses into T/S space we show that the conversion of deep to intermediate water relies on the seasonal cycle of air-ice-sea fluxes and mixing. [link

Researchers say “natural climate solutions” — low-tech changes to farm and land management — could cancel out a fifth of U.S. emissions. [link]

Heat Waves in Florida: Climatology, Trends, and Related Precipitation Events [link]  

A high-definition spatially explicit modelling approach for national greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes: reducing the errors and uncertainties in global emission modelling [link]

Estimates of ocean warming have been revised substantially upward – by around 40% – in the years since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report [link]  

Comparing the spatial patterns of climate change in the 9th and 5th millennia BP from TRACE-21 model simulations [link]

Impact of Indian Ocean warming on increasing trend in pre-monsoon rainfall and Hadley circulation over Bay of Bengal [link]

The onset of neoglaciation in Iceland and the 4.2 ka event [link

100 years of progress in polar meteorology [link]

Contribution of atmospheric moisture transport to winter Arctic warming [link]

Reconstructing ocean heat content change back to the 19th Century [link

Where deep water comes from, where it goes, and how it affects decadal, centennial, and millennial-scale climate variability. [linksee also [link]

A terrifying sea level prediction now looks less likely [link]

Hydrothermal heat enhances abyssal mixing in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current [link]

California’s horrific had nothing to do with climate change. Public safety demands better understanding of the science. [link]

New record shows the last 240,000 yrs of Saharan dust variations track summer insolation, with much less influence from glacial-interglacial changes than previously thought. [link]

How accurately should we model ice shelf melt rates? [link]

In the Northern Hemisphere, the contribution of greenhouse gases to tropical expansion remains difficult to detect even by the end of the 21st century – due to large natural variability [link

An earthquake will destroy a big portion of the coastal Northwest. The only question is when: [link]

The southeast US got much wetter over the past century. It’s almost all in the fall season and is due to enhanced wind circulation around the North Atlantic Subtropical High: [link]

Social science, technology and policy

Evidence-Based Policy – Older than Advertised and Weaker than We Could Wish [link]

Revkin in NatGeo: “Proactive adaptation initiatives—including changes to policies, business operations, capital investments, and other steps—yield benefits in excess of their costs in the near term, as well as over the long term.” [link]

LA Times investigation found the city’s electric buses stalled on hills, required service calls much more frequently than older buses & had unpredictable driving ranges below advertised distances, which were impaired by heat, cold & the way drivers braked. [link]

China: No Wind Or Solar If It Can’t Beat Coal On Price [link]

Largest ever oil and gas resource found in the U.S. [link]

Ten charts show how the world is progressing on clean energy [link]

Plants are surprisingly bad at p#hotosynthesis. New research shows how to make them up to 40% better – and that could help feed a growing world [link]

About science and scientists

Taking census of physics: “Over the past decades, the diversity of areas explored by physicists has exploded, encompassing new topics from biophysics and chemical physics to network science.” [link]

When condensed matter physics became king [link]

A feminist ‘takedown’ of Richard Feynman [link]

Podcast: Roger Penrose on Spacetime, Consciousness, and the Universe [link]

What is needed is a place where serious scholars can pursue questions that don’t fit the progressive orthodoxy at today’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning:  An Ivory Tower of our own [link]

How the decides whether to hold ’em or fold ’em [link]

There are no laws of physics – there is only the landscape [link]  Physicists used to search for a single, self-consistent set of laws. They’ve found a vast landscape of possibility.

Why complexity is different [link]

Congratulations on the promotion.  But did science get a demotion?  Biases associated with careerism in academia [link]

71 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Pingback: Week in review – science edition | | GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM GSM NEWS LIVE

  2. Judith, The ocean heat content post by Hausfather, Trenberth, et al has already gotten some pushback due to its understating of error bars. Willis Eschenbach did some calculations about what these uptake numbers translate into in terms of temperature changes. The error bars correspond to really small temperature changes.

    • Post on OHC coming tomorrow

      • The Zanna, Gebbie and Hausfather papers all interrelate. I look forward to the post.
        Some of the assumptions and inferences from the 19th century are a little hard to take. What ever circulation and heat transport dynamics that were going on then don’t necessarily set up a laboratory for replication in the 21st Century.

  3. I just checked Lewis and Curry 2018 and you used the most recent updates for ocean heat uptake, the same ones used by Cheng, Abraham, Hausfather et al. Numbers cited in both papers are quite consistent.

    • the really interesting OHC stuff is prior to 1950

      • Steven Mosher


      • I thought that in the interests of balancing the energy budget in the past records that Zeke or others had made the oceans pre 1950’s cooler just because?
        Leads to making comments about how if it hadn’t all gone into the oceans we would be so much warmer now etc.

      • On average, how many Hiroshima-sized bombs does the Sun deposit in the tropical Pacific Ocean per second on a typical day at noon?

    • Zeke, Changing the Past?
      “Diligent observers of NCDC’s temperature record have noted that many of the values change by small amounts on a daily basis. This includes not only
      recent temperatures but those in the distant past as well, and has created
      some confusion about why, exactly, the recorded temperatures in 1917 should change day-to-day. ”
      Why Adjust Temperatures?
      “Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record.”
      That backs up the adjusted warming narrative.

  4. 100 years of progress in polar meteorology [link]

    And they still do not understand that the warmer Arctic rebuilt ice during the Roman and Medieval warm periods and caused little ice ages after. This is happening again, open Arctic is rebuilding Greenland ice again for another ice advance and colder period after a few hundred years of more snowfall and ice accumulation on Greenland and other cold places where ice is sequestered in the Northern Hemisphere. Study the Greenland ice core data and history.

  5. After reading “A Terrifying Sea Level Prediction Now Looks Less Likely” it becomes almost impossible not to be cynical about the establishment, even though cooler heads might have prevailed…for the time being.

    “ They champion an idea called “marine ice-cliff instability,” or MICI, which maintains that West Antarctic glaciers will eventually crumble under their own weight. By the middle of next century, they warn, this mechanism could send ocean levels soaring at a rate of several feet per decade. For reference: Along the U.S. East Coast, the Atlantic Ocean has risen by only about a foot over the last 12 decades.”

    So let’s assume several feet becomes 3 feet, or 3.6 inches per year. That is quite a leap since in one year GMSLR from the Ice Sheets would exceed the total SLR for Sydney over the last 130 years.

    I hope someone is compiling all these apocalyptic predictions so that in 2150 a book can be written listing all the times they got it wrong.

  6. ====
    ❶①❶① . . . The Comb of Death . . .

    What, you may be wondering, is the “Comb of Death”?

    In simple terms, it is a graph that looks like a comb.

    But, what has it got to do with Death?

    Well, “The Comb of Life” didn’t sound very exciting. But “Death” is a certain winner.

    And it is showing “global warming”. That causes a lot of deaths.

    Or it will in the future, if the “Comb of Death” is correct.

    The “Comb of Death” displays temperature ranges, for more than 24,000 locations on the Earth.

    And I am talking about REAL, ACTUAL, ABSOLUTE temperatures. Not those weak, pale, temperature anomaly things. But real, actual, absolute temperatures. The sort that REAL men use (and REAL women too).


    The Oil companies offered me a lot of money to “forget” about the “Comb of Death” with +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming. But I am an artist, and they didn’t offer me enough money.

    Because people are not making enough effort to reduce their carbon footprints, the IPCC has asked me to show you a “Comb of Death” based on +3.0 degrees Celsius of global warming.

    They expect that this “Comb of Death” will make Alarmists scream in fear, and will make Skeptics repent their evil ways. A word of warning, this last “Comb of Death” is not for the faint-hearted.


    • Chicken Little says, again and again, “The Sky is Falling”.

      The “Comb of Death” is one more way to say “The Sky is Falling”, and just as bad and wrong.

      Warm times with open, thawed, oceans are necessary to rebuild sequestered ice that advances and causes cooling. Warming is really happening and has really happened, but it is normal, natural and necessary.

      Ice core data shows that ice accumulation on Greenland and Antarctica was most in warmest times and coldest times followed.

      • sheldonjwalker


        you need to learn to read “beneath the surface”.

        I am a skeptic. I am trying to highlight the fact that global warming will NOT be as bad, as Alarmists say it will be.

        I often use sarcasm, to make my point. Some people don’t seem to understand that I am being sarcastic.

        I like Monty Python. Associating an everyday harmless object (like a comb), with death, makes me smile. I hope that other people enjoy the joke.

      • What’s the difference between my ‘Frankenstein theory’ and the crude and eccentric musings of cranks?

        I think science is right – they have some new and unheralded – if excruciatingly simplistic – geophysics.

      • sheldonjwalker, don’t use sarcasm on the internet, people quikly conclude that it is your actual opinion and you’ll waste all your precious time on rebutting your own messages.

    • Robert I. Ellison,

      Are you able to tell me exactly what you don’t like about “The Comb of Death”?

      I know that I have a “lame” sense of humour. But I find global warming so depressing, that I use “humour” to help me cope.

      Do you object to me using real temperature data for over 24,000 locations on the Earth? Has anybody else ever done this? I believe that my articles offer a “fresh” perspective on global warming. I combine my love of science, mathematics, and computer programming, to produce unique insights into global warming. I am an expert at using Excel, and I can analyse enormous amounts of data, and produce interesting graphs to display the results.

      I have analysed the gridded GISTEMP temperature data, and worked out the warming rate for every 2 x 2 latitude longitude cell. It took me 7 days of continuous downloading, to get the temperature data for over 24,000 locations on the Earth. I love the challenge of doing “impossible” things.

      I try to make my articles scientifically correct. I know that not everybody likes my humour. Dave Fair obviously gets my “lame” humour. I am writing for people like him.

      I don’t mind people criticising my articles. But I prefer constructive criticism, to simple abuse. I am prepared to listen to your point of view. I try to learn from people who disagree with me. I don’t know everything. But I try to do the best that I can.

    • This is about the most cogent thing he has ever said. All the rest is hidden within such dense, self indulgent verbosity that any point – if any there is – is lost in verbiage. Trees and forest – if any of these surface temperature trees are both real and meaningful. How would we ever know?

      Science has a formal structure for a reason – the lack of structure and clarity has the purpose of obfuscation and polemics. Both of which I find tedious – especially so when the same comment is repeated. I can ignore it for awhile – and far from random abuse this is just a reminder to keep it original and relevant.

      • Robert, your mental rigidity (insistence on “formal structure”) inhibits your ability to understand truths as presented by unconventional minds. Since I have a fairly conventional mind, I find Sheldon’s take refreshing and insightful, as well as really funny. Who knows, maybe some scientist will take his ideas and develop them into peer reviewed papers?

        I suggest you might sit back, relax and enjoy Sheldon’s twisted but truthful site-specific temperature examination and his unique take on temperature analyses and how minuscule changes are exaggerated in the popular press.

    • I’ve been the butt of many jokes, Robert. I try to laugh along, even with the ones that hurt.

      Sheldon likes to laugh at himself. You, on the other hand, seem to lack the necessary self-awareness for personal deprecatory humor. In other words, you take yourself too seriously; you are not always right in your assessments.

    • Sheldon you say in your link:
      I use a “standard” amount of global warming in each “Comb of Death” graph. This keeps it simple. People are generally not terrified by the thought that “cold” places will have a slightly warmer summer (they probably see it as a good thing).
      Indeed global warming is predominantly occurring in arctic winter, as surface emission is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.

    • “24,000 locations on the Earth? Has anybody else ever done this?”

      yes every month since 2012 we use 43000 stations.

      oh and you did it wrong

    • Steven Mosher,

      You said, “24,000 locations on the Earth? Has anybody else ever done this? yes every month since 2012 we use 43000 stations.”

      You might get 43,000 “raw” temperature readings per month. But for each location, I have:
      – the yearly average temperature
      – the 12 monthly average temperatures
      – the yearly average high temperature
      – the 12 monthly average high temperatures
      – the yearly average low temperature
      – the 12 monthly average low temperatures
      and for many locations:
      – the highest recorded temperature
      – the lowest recorded temperature

      Your data is “raw”, mine is “refined”.

      You said, “oh and you did it wrong”

      Making a claim, that I did it wrong, with no explanation or evidence, is a complete waste of time. Please show everybody that you are not just making up this accusation.

      You have been doing it wrong, for the past 20 years!

  7. I have a radio interview on science based limits to renewable energy at


    Plus some Colorado stuff because that is where it is.

  8. I find it odd that the Argo record – for which we have concurrent CERES data – doesn’t figure more prominently.

    Cloud feedbacks to SST -https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL077904

    Changes in Earthy’s energy budget during and after the hiatus – file:///C:/Users/WorkVentures/Downloads/climate-06-00062.pdf

    2013-2015 heatwave off Baja California – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018GL078242

    The long Pacific memory of cold times – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL077904

    Ocean heat is far from an unambiguous ‘fingerprint’ of AGW.

    • Yes Robert, That is the point raised against the new Trenberth et al paper. The changes in heat content they are talking about correspond to quite small temperature changes. It’s hard to believe we can measure hundreds or even thousandths of a degree accurately. Yet their recent error bars are quite narrow.

      • No – that’s not the point at all. The Argo instruments themselves are precise and rugged and there are 1000’s of them. Random error here – the error bars – is minor and self cancelling. I doubt that there is much systematic bias in Argo either. I had wondered if the early Argo record was reliable – in comparison with CERES.

        Blue is Argo. I’m not sure that using Argo average warming rates to intercalibrate energy in and energy out is not the source of the disparity.

        And I am not about to waste my time on any WUWT blog post.

      • You need to convert W/m2 from Ceres to degrees C via some energy calculation don’t you?

      • The monthly average energy imbalance could be converted to energy entering or leaving the system by multiplying by seconds in a month. Likewise ocean temperature can be converted to Joules using the specific heat of water.

        My point was to show how the quantities in their original units co-varied. Your point is?

  9. Your readers may find this interesting:
    An Einstein Thought Experiment on Climate Change

  10. Why refer to a three year old publication about the Cascadia “big one”?

  11. On the Feynmann smear, observe there are no verse, page or chapter references. My memory of the book matches none of the allegations seeking to impeach his character.

    • Where there is unlawful action or breaches of employment contracts – then things should take their course. But this is a witch hunt – and I draw the parallel deliberately – played out on social media – where there is no right of appeal or redemption – over what far too often seems trivia.

      Even Kevin Spacey and a drunken boy in a bar seems less than world shattering – let alone Feynman or Einstein seen through the distorting mirror of time. What is it with these delicate flowers and the new self serving progressive puritanism? Just say no ffs.

    • I liked “he’d fly into a blind rage if she interrupted him while he was working or playing his bongos.” Apparently he would have tolerated an interruption by a male.

  12. Thanks for the referent links, Dr. Curry.

  13. Re the link on Saharan dust, the chronological datum is too large for effective ‘dissection’ of what has taken place from proxies. On shorter time-scales things are very different. Example: The ups and downs during the Holocene were smoothened out.

    Another point there; the ‘summer insolation’ curve is a maths construct based on a study of an “Assumed” very stable earth dynamic. Abrupt and transient changes were ignored, -assumed non-existent- but evidence shows they happened. Also there are three thousand years of obliquity measurements and there is no agreement with that polynomial construct. That latter study is here: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2004/46/aa1335.pdf It provides a history of what is now dogma. But a whole host of proxies from holocene say otherwise.

    • It is nonetheless a very interesting study on Sahelian dust and orbital precession. However we can drill down to Sahelian dust on an interannual scale driven largely by ENSO.

      e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2008JCLI2450.1

      ENSO on the Holocene scale has some interesting features – despite the hydrological nonlinearities in this record. The mid-Holocene transition from La Nina to EL Nino dominance coincident with the drying of the Sahel and the global insolation transition from low to high intensity.

      Earth may have a wobble on but there is no one cause for climate variability – or for abrupt system change.

  14. I debunked PIG and Thwaites SLR alarm (first raised by Rignot, not Condor) years ago here at. Limate Etc in guest post Tipping Points.

  15. I still do not understand how enthalpy collected by greenhouse gases in the troposphere is transported into the oceans.

      • Short answer ….
        It isn’t.
        Same as the GHE in the atmosphere.
        It’s a reduction in cooling.

      • The explanation has been out there for years and years. Widespread incredulity is not an argument. I personally think Minnett’s theory is obviously correct.

    • One dimensional answers from one dimensional minds. All ocean warming is SW – and that changes very substantially on an annual basis due to orbital eccentricity – but also as a result of clouds changes principally in the upwelling regions of the eastern and central Pacific. I have given links on the latter above. Independent processes.


      But in there somewhere is a local thermodynamic equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere. The oceans warm enough to restore energy equilibrium at the surface and ultimately at TOA. Argo has a slightly shorter record – generated yesterday with the latest data available in the Argo global marine mapper. I recommend it if you like visualizing data.

      Ocean heat does seem to mirror atmospheric heat anomalies as the zeroth law would dictate. The only parameter of interest here is how long it takes oceans and atmosphere to equilibriate? Not long given the other very substantial warming and cooling processes.

      The cumulative CERES record shows – as above – constant warming this century. But what would you believe? The intercalibrated – using an average ocean warming from Argo – CERES record or the ocean warming record itself?

      Renewed warming since about 2008? The post hiatus spike btw is mostly cloud changes associated with ENSO.

      e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

  16. “The path to the front page was through covering climate politics, not climate science. I think one reason the issue was covered so often through the lens of politics is that doing so made the solution seem easier. After all, the only thing missing was political will, campaigners insisted. Stories that had villains and heroes, the empowered and the powerless—those were (often appropriately) news.” – Revkin, a different story
    Framing. They need villians. They want to get elected. What an awful thing politics has done to science. Do climate scientists do anything about it? I don’t think so.

  17. I’m not a climate scientist, but I have an extensive science background. One thing I noticed is that in the field of climate science they don’t speak the language of an engineer, which is what they should. Energy is a flux, with rates and thresholds. Yes, CO2 provides a marginal amount of extra energy to the system, but that amount is like adding a garden hose to the Alaskan Pipeline. Opening that pipeline for a single second can wipe out all the energy provided by CO2 in a second, and then the system resets from a lower level. Here is an example:
    It only takes the sun 1.16 hours to warm the oceans as much as Anthropogenic CO2 does in 1,250 hours.

    If people in the field of climate science would focus on the natural cycles that occur in the system and measure the energy flux in relative terms, I’m pretty sure better models and conclusions will be reached regarding the climate. Right now, everything is simply directed at proving CO2 is the cause, and by doing so, are completely ignoring how the real system truly works. The Climate system isn’t like blowing up a tire, it is like blowing up a tire with a hole in it. That is why temperatures step instead of trend (See Satellite Data)

  18. .
    ❶①❶① . . . Solving Global Warming is easy . . .

    Dave Fair,

    if you enjoyed my article called “The Comb of Death”, and my “lame” sense of humour, then you might enjoy my article called “Solving Global Warming is easy”.

    Many people who read “Solving Global Warming is easy”, will claim that my solution for global warming, isn’t a solution at all.

    My comment to them would be, perhaps global warming isn’t the problem that you think it is.


    • Dave Fair,

      I only wanted a few statues of me, in major cities. I don’t want to destroy society. In fact, I quite like society (as long as they don’t make too much noise, on the weekends).

  19. No reply.

  20. From the link on electric buses. Apparently they are fantastic, if you don’t expect to be able to use buses, are willing to pay 40% more for buses you can’t ride, and don’t count emissions from the electricity used to charge the batteries. As an aside, I think Californians are becoming accustomed to paying more for services that aren’t intended to be a service to them. And the rest of us are getting tired of “solutions” that don’t solve.

    “California is now the first state in the nation to mandate all emission-free buses by 2040, allowing time to phase out gas and diesel buses. But, California mass transit users need to realize that the reliability of bus service may no longer be a priority and that they may be forced to delay their arrival time or not make it to their destination at all.”

    In short, California’s plan pushes people into cars with ICE engines.

    • My local town, Torquay in Devon, uk, had its first electric tram system in 1907 it was removed in 1934 as were many other tramways, as the petrol omnibus became more prevalent.


      Many towns especially in Europe still have electric trams. Diesel/petrol Buses are more flexible as to where they can physically go, but trams in their fixed tracks, can have extra cars added when needed and have unlimited power via the generating stations.

      Of course these days it would need to be generated in a green manner which might present problems.


      • They are starting to put electric trams (light rail) back in my town- Norfolk, Virginia. It costs over $10,000 per foot to install. To use it, you’re supposed to ride the bus to where the tracks are. Over here, sprawling cities and their suburbs drive transport. Los Angeles is a huge city in land area- you need buses even if you have trams or trolleys.
        San Francisco still has the old cable-cars. I rode them recently, really fun!

        Something I’ve been meaning to ask you. You know the CET well, I know from personal experience that the UK also has a very extensive record on depth. British mariners have been charting the world for hundreds of years. I’ve seen charts for my area with soundings 300 years old. I wouldn’t expect a chart to show a 10-20 cm change in depth, but my area is also sinking. Is the continental shelf sinking as well as the land here (I would presume so)? If so, the high banks off the important Chesapeake entrance should be over two feet deeper. Are they? What is the SLR impact of several tens of thousands of square miles of sinking continental shelf along the North American continent?

  21. I find this wikipedia quote amusing:
    ‘Unlike the 8.2-kiloyear event, the 4.2-kiloyear event has no prominent signal in the Gisp2 ice core that has an onset at 4.2 ka BP.’

    Gisp2 shows a warmer spike around 4.2ka confirming a colder period in Europe. Unlike the 8.2ky event during which there were villages off the Isle of Wight England growing wheat, an early Harappan expansion, and expansion of village settlements in Serbia.
    I can confirm a majorly long centennial solar minimum from around 2230 to 2180 BC. The longest one for the last 6000 years was 1250-1190 BC, during that huge warm spike in Gisp2, when the Minoans collapsed along with several other civilisations.

  22. The land sector study seems aimed at recalcitrant AGW activists who see nothing beyond coal and gas.

    Apart from the impossible precision of the linkage of CO2 emissions to a 2 K warming – is the lack of acknowledgment of the depth of work already done.

    Here for example is an interactive USGS site where conservative projections of carbon storage to 2050 can be accessed for ecosystem types across the US.


    Scenarios are not set in concrete of course and there are things that should be done for reasons other than greenhouse gas mitigation. Biodiversity, fire management, agricultural productivity and flood and drought resilience. Ecosystem carbon is the key – but how this sequestration impacts the global carbon cycle – and atmospheric stores – is an unknown.

  23. This is probably a reflection of my ignorance, but I just had this neat idea. Now this may be an obvious thing that has already been done. But I’ve never heard of it. Anyway I had this idea in the midst of watching a Tony Heller YouTube video (‘Debunking the Debunkers’). Now you don’t need to watch that video to understand this, but I want to give him credit for saying the words that triggered this thought.

    It occurs to me that it should be possible to figure out what the ‘temperature gain’ of CO2 actually is by constructing a model that is constrained by the CO2 solubility-temperature graph (at 7:22) and the Antarctic ice data (at 6:22).

    Now this is a mildly complicated model. We assume a constant amount of CO2 in the combined ocean-atmosphere system over the last 400,000 some years (skipping the last 100 years) or alternatively we assume a very slowly decreasing amount of CO2 (this would allow for the Himalayan uplift sucking CO2 from the system). And we assume there is a function such that a specific atmospheric CO2 concentration returns a corresponding ‘temperature gain’ (now I don’t know enough but I suspect that the general form of this function is already known).

    Then we radically simplify everything else going on by transforming it into a forcing temperature. It could be shown as a graph of ‘forcing’ temperatures. Now we are free to make up the ‘forcing’ temperature input except that when you apply it to the CO2 system, the CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean plus the ‘temperature gain’ function, it has to match the ice core data.

    Now when we carry out this exercise for a given Antarctic ice core, we should end up with two things: a ‘forcing temperature’ data set and a ‘temperature gain’ function. I’m sure it’s not possible to come up with an exact solution but it should be possible to come up with a pretty good solution where at least 95% of the time the ice core data is within some small difference from what the model produces.

    There are multiple ice core data sets, but this just makes it better. If everything works well the same ‘forcing temperature’ data set and ‘temperature gain’ function should work on almost every ice core. And in particular we should be able to deduce what the ‘temperature gain’ function actually is since logically it should be the same everywhere.

    The modern climate system would then have exactly the same ‘temperature gain’ function.

  24. I couldn’t even finish the Feynman piece. She mentioned wanting to erase him from history. I assume that also means his Nobel prize. We can acknowledge his personal failings while still celebrating his genius. Let’s erase the existence of every womanizer throughout history. I suggest we at least start with Bill Clinton and work backward. The only thing I can think of is that people like this author are just simply unhappy people. Angry and unhappy. Come to think of it, the one convergent attribute we see from virtually all activist types is that they’re very angry people. I’m sure they’re a blast at parties.

  25. Fascinating and funny:
    Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation

    Skepticism is misinformation. And they call this a scientific journal!

  26. About scientists: My top 10 physicists

    1) Isaac Newton – mechanics, law of gravity, laws of motion
    2) Albert Einstein – mechanics, theory of relativity, mass-energy equivalence
    3) James Joule – thermodynamics, conservation of energy, mechanical equivalence of heat
    4) Rudolf Clausius – 2nd law of thermodynamics, invented entropy
    5) Michael Faraday – electricity & magnetism, law of induction, laws of electrolysis
    6) James Maxwell – electromagnetic theory, Maxwell’s equations, Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution
    7) Erwin Schrodinger – quantum mechanics, Schrodinger wave equation
    8) Paul Dirac – quantum mechanics, predicted anti-particles, quantum algebra
    9) Murray Gell-Mann – Standard Model, quantum chromodynamics, predicted quarks
    10) Steven Weinberg – Standard Model, electroweak theory

    • Galileo, Rutherford, Bohr? Anybody in the last 50 years?

      • Galileo’s work is included in Newton’s laws of motion. Rutherford is a great physicist but I put him in the top chemists since his work overlaps with chemistry. Bohr model of the atom had been replaced by quantum mechanics of Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Dirac, and I’m not a fan of Copenhagen interpretation.

        Since the Standard Model in the 1970s, unfortunately no fundamental discovery yet. We still don’t know the true nature of dark energy and dark matter. I have a theory that explains both but I have yet to convince other physicists :-)

      • Galileo created statics and dynamics (two new sciences). Rutherford figured out the structure of the atom and Bohr made it stable. But perhaps this is not physics.

  27. Turns out us skeptics are all mentally ill, on an emergency basis:

    The beat goes on.

  28. This just in:
    National Academies’ Climate Communications Initiative Releases Strategic Plan

    The National Academies established the Climate Communications Initiative (CCI) last year to enable their extensive work on climate science, impacts, and response options to inform decision-makers and the public more effectively. A new strategic plan, which will guide the CCI’s efforts going forward, has been developed by an external advisory committee, in cooperation with an Academies staff team.

    The advisory committee — composed of experts in climate science, public and environmental health, science education, communication research and practice, brand strategy, industry, policy, and decision making — will provide ongoing advice as the Academies implement the plan.


    The usual alarmists saying the usual things.

Leave a Reply to melitamegalithic Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s