by Judith Curry
My reflections on Climategate 10 years later, and also reflections on my reflections of 5 years ago.
Last week, an email from Rob Bradley reminded me of my previous blog post The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later. That post was the last in a sequence of posts at Climate Etc. since 2010 on Climategate; for the entire group of posts, see [link] Rereading these was quite a blast from the past.
While I still mention Climategate in interviews, the general reaction I get is ‘yawn . . . old hat . . . so 2010 . . . nothingburger . . . the scientists were all exonerated . . . the science has proven to be robust.’ I hadn’t even thought of a ’10 years later’ post until Rob Bradley’s email.
Now I see that, at least in the UK, the 10 year anniversary looks to be rather a big deal. Already we are seeing some analyses published in the mainstream media:
- The Guardian – Climategate 10 years on: What lessons have we learned?
- The Spectator – James Delingpole: My finest hour
Two starkly different perspectives. While I personally think Delingpole’s article is a superb analysis, it would not surprise me if the ‘establishment’ media in the UK is looking to rewrite history and cement the ‘exoneration,’ especially with this forthcoming one hour BBC special Climategate: Science of a Scandal, set to air November 14.
According to Cliscep (not sure what the source of this information is), McKitrick and McIntyre were both interviewed for the BBC special, but apparently McKitrick was cut completely. Lets see how they edit McIntyre.
Exoneration?
The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.
- The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
- Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
- The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
- The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
- The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies.
Is the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel.
Over the course of the five reviews, a few complaints were investigated and upheld, such as the problem of data secrecy at the CRU and the misleading nature of the “hide the decline” graph. And the IAC leveled enough serious criticisms about the IPCC process to substantiate concerns that the organization is unsound for the purpose of providing balanced, rigorous science assessments. But many other concerns were left unaddressed, or slipped through the cracks between the inquiries, or were set aside after taking CRU responses at face value.”
Steve McIntyre’s Brief submitted for the defendants in one Mann’s lawsuits addresses the key scientific aspects related to Michael Mann’s conduct and hockey stick research:
“Even before the release of the Climategate emails, numerous public concerns were raised about Mann’s conduct. Concerns about Mann’s research included:
- Mann’s undisclosed use in a 1998 paper (“MBH98”) of an algorithm which mined data for hockey-stick shaped series. The algorithm was so powerful that it could produce hockey-stick shaped “reconstructions” from auto-correlated red noise. Mann’s failure to disclose the algorithm continued even in a 2004 corrigendum.
- Mann’s failure to disclose adverse verification statistics in MBH98. Mann also did not archive results that would permit calculation of the adverse statistics. Climategate emails later revealed that Mann regarded this information as his “dirty laundry” and required an associate at the Climatic Research Unit (“CRU”) to withhold the information from potential critics.
- Mann’s misleading claims about the “robustness” of his reconstruction to the presence/absence of tree ring chronologies, including failing to fully disclose calculations excluding questionable data from strip bark bristlecone pine trees.
- Mann’s deletion of the late 20th century portion of the Briffa temperature reconstruction in Figure 2.21 in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001) to conceal its sharp decline, in apparent response to concerns that showing the data would “dilute the message” and give “fodder to the skeptics.” Mann’s insistence in 2004 that “no researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. But it was later revealed that in one figure for the cover of the 1999 World Meteorological Organization (WMO) annual report, the temperature record had not only been grafted onto the various reconstructions—and in the case of the Briffa reconstruction, had been substituted for the actual proxy
- Mann’s undisclosed grafting of temperature data for “Mike’s Nature trick,” a manipulation of data which involved: (1) grafting the temperature record after 1980 onto the proxy reconstruction up to 1980; (2) “smoothing” the data; and (3) truncating the smooth back to 1980. ”
Exoneration? Not even close. However, is all this even relevant anymore? “the science has moved on . . . independently verified . . . 97% consensus . . . 8 warmest years occurred since Climategate’ . . . etc. etc.
So did all this ‘matter’, in the larger scheme of things? During the period 2001 to ~2012, the public debate on climate change rose and fell with the fortunes of the hockey stick: the IPCC TAR (2001) prominently featured the hockey stick, which made the public realize that something unusual was going on; the famous elevator version of the hockey stick in Al Gore’s 2006 documentary; in late 2009, Climategate contributed to derailing the UNFCCC COP15 outcome; and in 2010 was the clincher for the failure of the Waxman-Markey Bill (carbon cap and trade) in the U.S. Senate.
Since about 2014 or so, the public debate on climate change has become less ‘scientized’, with economics, social justice and raw politics taking center stage.
Did climate scientists learn anything from Climategate?
Looking forward, should Climategate matter? Only if scientists failed to learn the appropriate lessons.
At the time of Climategate, I wrote an essay entitled On the credibility of climate research. I raised four key issues: Lack of transparency, climate tribalism, the need for improved analysis and communication of uncertainty, and engagement with ‘skeptics’ and critics of our work.
At the time, I was rather astonished by the failure of climate science ‘leaders’ (apart from the climagaters defending themselves) to make public statements about this and show some leadership.
Interesting insights into the ‘leadership’ void at the time of Climategate are revealed by a tranche of emails obtained by the CEI [link] dated the first half of 2010, involving scientists involved in Climategate emails as well as others who are regarded as the keepers of the IPCC ‘flame’ – e.g. Michael Oppenheimer, Steve Schneider, Gabi Hegerl, Eric Steig, Kevin Trenberth.
It is very interesting to see what they were concerned about in the aftermath of Climategate. They were trying to understand why Climategate was newsworthy, and they were mostly concerned about protecting themselves from the same things that Climategate emails revealed: attacks on scientists’ reputation, ‘skeptics’ getting mentions in the mainstream media, public perceptions of scientists’ credibility, how to convince the public that AGW is ‘real’ with 3 slides in 10 minutes, top 10 list of denialist mistakes.
Steve Schneider perceptively states: “A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars–too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn’t seem to cut it anymore with the MSM.”
In my post Climategate essays, I pointed the way for climate science out of this morass. How was this received by climate scientists? Michael Lemonick’s follow up essay Why I Wrote About Judith Curry to his article Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on her Colleagues, provides the following insights:
“Simply by giving Judith Curry’s views a respectful airing, I’ve already drawn accusations of being irresponsible — and it’s valid to raise the question of whether giving her any sort of platform is a bad idea.
I also argue, as you’ll see in Scientific American, that the vehement reaction of climate scientists, while perfectly understandable, might be akin to the violent reaction of the human immune system to some bacteria and viruses — a reaction that’s sometimes more damaging than the original microbe.”
Given the huge stakes and the serious structural issues surrounding the assessment of climate science and policy that had emerged from Climategate, these concerns of the climate scientists seem small-minded and naïve, not to mention counter-productive – ‘circling the wagons’ even tighter made the situation even worse.
Clearly any leadership that might lead climate science out of this morass would have to come from outside the community of climate scientists and probity would need to come from outside of the field of climate science. Climate science subsequently became an important topic in the fields of science and technology studies, philosophy of science, social psychology, law, statistics, computer science and communications.
The broader institutions that support climate science have implemented some improvements post Climategate:
- The UN IAC review of the IPCC has resulted in some improvements to the IPCC practices of reviewing, conflicts of interest, uncertainty assessment
- Elite journals now require data to be made publicly available and also conflict of interest statements.
On the downside:
- Politically correct and ‘woke’ universities have become hostile places for climate scientists that are not sufficiently ‘politically correct’
- Professional societies have damaged their integrity by publishing policy statements advocating emissions reductions and marginalizing research that is not consistent with the ‘party line’
- The gate-keeping by elite journals has gotten worse IMO, although the profusion of new journals makes it possible for anyone to get pretty much anything published somewhere.
The main long-term impact of Climategate on climate scientists seems to have been to put a halo around Michael Mann’s head over his ‘victim’ status, giving him full reign to attack in a Trumpian manner anyone who disagrees with him.
Cultural shifts
The social culture surrounding climate change has changed substantially in the past 10 years and even the past 5 years.
10 years ago, the climate blogs were highly influential – the big four were WUWT, Climate Progress, Real Climate and Climate Audit. Climate Progress (subsequently Think Progress) is now defunct – what the heck happened to Joe Romm? Climate Audit has a very low level of activity. Real Climate publishes post at a leisurely pace (about the same pace as Climate Etc.). Only WUWT has maintained its pace of publishing and its influence.
At this point, twitter has almost totally eclipsed the climate blogs; this has accelerated in the past 5 years. Also, there are now some not-for-profit organizations that have hired writers on the climate topic, notably Carbon Brief.
Further, a number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields now either have regular columns in the mainstream media (Roger Pielk Jr and Michael Schellenberger at Forbes are notable examples) or write frequent op-eds (e.g. Michael Mann).
Communication of climate science has become a big priority in climate science, although what is judged as desirable and worthy of professional recognition is more often propaganda than ‘science to inform.’
At the time of Climategate, public advocacy by climate scientists of climate policy was generally frowned upon, and only a few senior, well-established scientists dared to do this (e.g. Jim Hansen). At this point, climate scientist/activists are very large in number, and such activism seems to be a ticket to professional success.
With regards to the advocacy groups and think tanks on both sides, the conflicts a decade ago between the environmental advocacy groups (e.g. Greenpeace) and the libertarian groups (e.g. CEI, CATO) seems almost quaint at this point. With the exception of Heartland, GWPF and the newly formed CO2 Coalition, the libertarian groups no longer bother with climate science (even the long standing program at CATO with Pat Michaels no longer exists).
Instead, we have Extinction Rebellion and the Sunrise Movement on one hand, and the yellow jackets and related movements on the other hand. These are populist movements (although apparently with some big $$ backing, esp for Extinction Rebellion). The zombie stuff of the Extinction Rebellion makes me nostalgic for the relative rationality of Greenpeace versus CEI.
‘Skeptics’ these days are generally defined by ‘lukewarmerism’ (e.g. climate sensitivity on the low end of the IPCC range), a focus on historical and paleo data records, and a focus on natural climate variability. Skeptics frequently cite the IPCC reports. Skeptics generally support nuclear energy and natural gas, but are dubious of rapid expansion of wind and solar and biofuels.
Scientists on the ‘warm’ side of the spectrum think that IPCC is old hat and too conservative/cautious (see esp Naomi Oreskes’ new book); in short, insufficiently alarming. The ‘alarmed’ scientists are focused on attributing extreme weather to AGW (heeding Steve Schneider’s ‘wisdom’), and also in generating implausible scenarios of huge amounts of sea level rise. As a result, consensus of the 97% is less frequently invoked.
Such alarmism by the climate scientists has spawned doomsterism, to the dismay of these same climate scientists – things are so bad that we are all doomed, so why should we bother.
There is also a growing dichotomy on both sides of this between the Boomers and the Millennials/GenZ. On the ‘skeptics’ side, there is a general paucity of younger scientists, with the center of mass being scientists in their 60’s and 70’s (and even older).
On the ‘alarmed’ side, there is a steady stream of younger scientists fueled by propaganda in K-12 and hiring practices and professional rewards in the universities. Some of the younger scientists think that the likes of Michael Mann are too conservative and insufficiently ‘woke’ and unconcerned about social justice objectives. This recent exchange on twitter was particularly illuminating:
Mann: “I share her (Klein’s) concern over each of these societal afflictions, but I wonder at the assertion that it’s not possible to address climate change without solving all that plagues us. My worry is this. Saddling a climate movement with a laundry list of other worthy social programmes risks alienating needed supporters (say, independents and moderate conservatives) who are apprehensive about a broader agenda of progressive social change. The pessimist in me also doubts that we’ll eliminate greed and intolerance within the next decade.”
This elicited the following responses:
Apparently this elicited a 15 hour tweet storm from Mann. P.S. I side with Mann in this particular dispute.
‘Cancel culture’ is also booming, but this is nothing new in the climate arena; the Climategaters plus Naomi Oreskes were pioneers in cancel culture as related to climate scientists or anyone else who doesn’t toe the party line (although the party line is now splitting between boomer alarmists and the Millennials). At the time of Climategate, the cancel efforts were conducted via the ‘back channels’ (e.g. emails); these days they are conducted in the open on twitter. From Hayhoe to Mann on twitter in response to a recently published paper:
“I’m also concerned as I’ve been getting some dismissives citing this. Have you had a chat with Tom about it?”
Social justice has become a major driver in climate policy (e.g. the Green New Deal), increasingly overtaking climate policy in its objectives.
‘Boomer’ Mann has the more defensible position this one. Yes, any policies should avoid making the situation of disadvantaged individuals worse. But seeking to solve the myriad problems of social justice through climate/energy policy is a recipe for accomplishing nothing for either. So Mann and I are in agreement on this one (see spat above with Holthaus).
With all these changes, you’ll be relieved to hear that Climategate lives on in numerous lawsuits that Michael Mann has filed related to criticisms of his behavior related to the hockeystick. Most of these lawsuits continue to languish since they were filed about 8 years ago (although Mann did lose his lawsuit against Tim Ball). With these lawsuits, there is no denying that the impacts of Climategate are still playing out.
Whither the debate on climate change?
I’ll lead off this section with a quote from Delingpole’s recent article:
“Right now, the struggle against this nonsense seems pretty hopeless. But we sceptics do have at least two things on our side – time and economics. Time is doing us a favour by showing that none of the alarmists’ doomsday predictions are coming to pass. Economics – from the blackouts in South Australia caused by excessive reliance on renewables (aka unreliables) to the current riots and demonstrations taking place from France and the Netherlands to Chile over their governments’ green policies – suggest that common sense will prevail in the end. Bloody hell, though – taking its time, isn’t it?”
I’ll extend Delingpole’s sentiments a bit further, to include these additional things that are on the side of an eventual rational outcome to this:
- Energy engineering realities: for a superb overview, see Michael Kelly’s recent essay Energy Utopias and Engineering Realities
- Growing concerns about energy reliability and security, e.g. the recent experience of California with massive power shutdowns and blackouts in Australia
- The climate itself; even with huge 2016 (see this recent overview by Ross McKitrick), the temperatures are not keeping pace with the CMIP5 predictions
- At some point, a spate of La Nina events, a shift to the cold phase of the AMO, increased volcanic activity, impacts of a solar minimum and another ‘hiatus’ are inevitable; sort of the reverse of what Steve Schneider was waiting for.
- Most of the CMIP6 climate models have gone somewhat bonkers, with a majority having values of ECS that exceed 4.5C and do a poor job of simulating the temperatures since 1950; makes it difficult to take seriously their 21st century projections
Ideas that are genuinely irrational eventually burn themselves out as reality bites, but we have certainly seen such ideas, policies and politics persist for decades in the past 100 years. Perhaps the information age, the internet and social media will speed this one along.
What’s wrong with current climate/energy policy? This 2013 quote by Hans von Storch sums up it up:
“Unfortunately, some scientists behave like preachers, delivering sermons to people. What this approach ignores is the fact that there are many threats in our world that must be weighed against one another. If I’m driving my car and find myself speeding toward an obstacle, I can’t simple yank the wheel to the side without first checking to see if I’ll instead be driving straight into a crowd of people. Climate researchers cannot and should not take this process of weighing different factors out of the hands of politics and society.”
Common sense approaches to reducing vulnerability to extreme weather events, improving environmental quality, developing better energy technologies, improving agricultural and land use practices, better water management polices and engineering can lead the way to a more prosperous and secure future. Each of these solutions is ‘no regrets’ – make sense however the 21st century climate plays out.
For those that are concerned about social justice: the biggest social justice issue that I see for the 21st century is to provide reliable grid electricity to Africa.
In terms of climate scientists and their influence. The relative sensibility of Boomer scientists (even Michael Mann; although this recent article is slightly nuts) are being eclipsed by the zombie-dom of the Extinction Rebellion and ‘wokeness’.
Regarding Boomer wisdom, I was particularly struck by this recent interview of Barack Obama about the ‘call-out’ and ‘cancel’ culture. This was greeted by numerous criticisms typified by this article in the New York Times Obama’s Very Boomer View of ‘Cancel Culture’ and the epithet ‘Yo Boomer.’ Michael Schermer of Skeptical Inquirer nails it with this tweet:
“I’m trying to understand Millennial/GenZ cancel culture & not just be an old Baby Boomer, but it seems to me that if you think @BarackObama is not woke enough to understand what injustice means I think you’ve gone off the rails of moral progress.”
“Gone off the rails of moral progress” – a perfect description of where this seems to be headed, at least in the short term.
Personal impact
My personal saga in the five years following Climategate was summarized in my essay ‘5 years later.’ Upon rereading, I was struck by these excerpts:
“In 2014, I no longer feel the major ostracism by my peers in the climate establishment; after all, many of the issues I’ve been raising that seemed so controversial have now become mainstream. And the hiatus has helped open some minds.
The net effect of all this is that my ‘academic career advancement’ in terms of professional recognition, climbing the administrative ladder, etc. has been pretty much halted. I’ve exchanged academic advancement that now seems to be of dubious advantage to me for a much more interesting and influential existence that that feels right in terms of my personal and scientific integrity.
Climategate was career changing for me; I’ll let history decide if this was for better or worse (if history even cares).”
In the end, Climategate ended my academic career prematurely (JC in transition). I realized how shallow the ‘academic game’ has become, and the games one needs to play to succeed. Throwing all that off has been personally and intellectually liberating for me.
I now have more time to read and think. Unfortunately I have less time to write blog posts since I am focusing my efforts on projects of relevance to the clients of my company Climate Forecast Applications Network. These projects are pretty wide ranging and pushing me in interesting new directions.
As for my ‘influence’ in the public debate on climate change, I never cared too much about this and probably care even less at this point. I have a unique perspective, and I appreciate any substantive opportunities that come my way to share this with the public and decision makers.
As Roger Pielke Jr tweeted:
“It wasn’t all fun, I’ll tell ya, but I’d do it all over again if it meant I get to now”
Pingback: Climate Models Versus Observations | Transterrestrial Musings
Pingback: Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later — Climate Etc. – Climate- Science.press
You were more first experience with sanity in the climate change world. I am forever grateful to you.
Judy,
Superb summary. Nicely done.
Mike
Summary?
The summary is best left to the eyewitnesses:
Gavin Schmidt , for instance;
Many people are weighing in on the 10 year anniversary of ‘Climategate’ – the Observer, a documentary on BBC4 (where I was interviewed), Mike at Newsweek – but I’ve struggled to think of something actually interesting to say.
It’s hard because even in ten years almost everything and yet nothing has changed. The social media landscape has changed beyond recognition but yet the fever swamps of dueling blogs and comment threads has just been replaced by troll farms and noise-generating disinformation machines on Facebook and Twitter. The nominally serious ‘issues’ touched on by the email theft – how robust are estimates of global temperature over the instrumental period, what does the proxy record show etc. – have all been settled in favor of the mainstream by scientists plodding along in normal science mode, incrementally improving the analyses, and yet they are still the most repeated denier talking points.
More at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/10-years-on/
Judith, this is actually quite good. Good enough that I see relatively little to add. As Climategate was part of a series of scientific media disasters, it’s hard to blame those involved for the declining reputation of science overall–was Climategate the equivalent of 0.5 or 0.2 Wakefields…? But it didn’t help.
I would say thought that the manning of the fences by Mann and others subsequent to Climategate has actually been more damaging.
Dead wrong again. You’re on a roll.
Fascinating insights. I agree with your point about “social justice” maybe being better focused on getting close to 1 billion poor people access to affordable electricity. As some of us Boomers like to say, the U.S. has some of the richest poor people in the world.
Here’s the take in 2009:
2009
Lord Monckton’s summary of Climategate and its issues
Anthony Watts / December 1, 2009
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues/
Climategate reaches the British House of Lords
Anthony Watts / December 10, 2009
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/climategate-reaches-the-british-house-of-lords/
Climategate: Anatomy of A Public Relations Disaster
The way that climate scientists have handled the fallout from the leaking of hacked e-mails is a case study in how not to respond to a crisis. But it also points to the need for climate researchers to operate with greater transparency and to provide more open access to data.
BY FRED PEARCE • DECEMBER 10, 2009
https://e360.yale.edu/features/climategate_anatomy_of_a_public_relations_disaster
I can list for hours!!!
“Is [are] the science concerning the current concerns about climate change sound? Many people, starting with the members of the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, had hoped this question would be answered during the inquiry process, and there is a frequent refrain in the media that the investigations affirmed the science. But the reality is that none of the inquiries actually investigated the science. The one inquiry supposedly set up to address this, namely Lord Oxburgh’s, actually operated under a different remit altogether, despite multiple claims by the UEA that it was a science reappraisal panel.”
Humor is Required:
If We Had Some Global Warming – The Global Warming Song
https://youtu.be/rQhHRt8pMS4
Minnesotans For Global Warming
https://m.youtube.com/user/M4GW
I have told many people confused about the issue to start reading your Twitter account. You have always struck me a thoughtful and objective. I hope you will continue being interested in the debate.
Judith,
The source that you ask about for the fact that Ross Mc was dropped from the BBC documentary was this tweet from Steve Mc:
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1189600235376578560
That’s also
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1189600235376578560
Superb history. You are particularly good on the change from fiddling with the science to ignoring it altogether. That is a rational irrational response to lack of warming and disaster. Having cast off fact, however, the movement might keep going for centuries, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses after 1914 came and went without the End of the World, where they gradually modified their doctrine to make the importance of 1914 get smaller and smaller (“The End” to “The beginning of the end” to “Some people living then will see the End…” etc. ) See https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/failed-1914-predictions.php .
1914? Was that the year the stadium wave was supposed to arrive?
This is the best summary I’ve seen to date. Congratulations on your liberation again.
Anthony and I both refused interviews as we knew they would only be mined for out of context gotcha quotes. We’ll see what they do to some I know who accepted.
Thanks for letting us know. Mosh has been a bit opaque on who decided what, and why, on Cliscep. The signs are not for me looking good in Blighty:
https://twitter.com/rdrake98/status/1194059002872766465
https://twitter.com/rdrake98/status/1194062974480195584
The present BBC like other Western European state broadcasters (NOS) has since years fallen from any “objective” pedestal. They became their state Master’s voices, almost more so than RT. Today they in fake competition with mega commercial channels held by a handful of ultra rich.
Some people do anything for a regular fat pay check and a window to TV fame. These same “free Western” states also have longer traditions to bury inconvenient facts through loyal commissions and even have a number of the judiciary at their beck and call. The MO is to first fix the desired conclusion and after twist a path to it that looks official on the surface. No less than 8 committees on both sides of the Atlantic “investigated” the Climategate allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct: imagine how crucial it was for their narrative. At present the BBC promotes XR, so that is still the Establishment’s line. https://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-bbc-and-xr.html
Sorry to wade into politics here, but politics have penetrated (cimate) science again the last few decades.
Superb summary Judith.
Well said throughout.
I think what will save us is the current state of our governance system, which is so polarized that it’s difficult to imagine anything of substance getting done.
Also the voting public is too conservative to approve any big social/climate legislation, or any candidate that would promote such a thing – even if Trump should lose.
We’ll be saved by our own dysfunction.
.
brilliant take….I too hold the opinion that rationality will prevail, eventually, especially once the ‘woke’ realize that twitter protesting, dumping plastic straws, buying electric cars, and going meatless arent reducing emissions, and they, themselves are subject to the real impacts of energy rationing and “fossil-fuels-are-racist” prices.
Even the woke need more than a hand-held solar charger to maintain climate wokeness and climate virtue signals.
(BTW, I think the phrase is “OK, Boomer”)
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
Judy, thank you for this article and for all of the others you’ve written. To what extent do you think the recognition of Climategate changed behaviors within the institutions you cite (WMO, IPCC, CRU, Penn St.)? To what extent do you think that the behaviors you mention persist within the warmist scientific community’s work today? Thanks
Nicely done Judith. This has all certainly affected you personally, but hopefully , ultimately it has sent you in an even more worthwhile direction.
A couple of years ago I had cause to exchange quite a few emails with Philip jones who had just retired from CRU.
I was trying to gather more information about direction of winds back to medieval times as I think their direction, strength and longevity are crucial in shaping our climate.
Phil was very helpful and knowledgeable. He sent me lots of information but ultimately was reluctant to be quoted.
I don’t think I see him as the mastermind or ring leader but someone caught up in an evolving mess who was unwise in endorsing certain material and taking inappropriate courses of action
I will be interested to see the tv programme on Thursday and how the affair is portrayed.
Tonyb
Agree that PJ was a victim of ‘peer pressure’
Tony, the RAF set up its airfields with instrument landing equipment mainly on the approach in a westerly direction. During my time in the service (64 -86) I noticed that approaches to the opposite ends, with their less capable GCA as opposed to ILS aids, had become more frequent.
UK met office will have the stats buried somewhere.
JF
(Yes, I’m aware it’s hardly medieval but I’m feeling my age…)
I think the point of the Mann study and others like it, at that time, was an attempt to show that a long-term trend flat-to-downward trend in global temperature had been established, and the warming of the 20th century was sudden and disruptive to that pattern. This was intended as proof that human activity had made a sudden and decisive change in the long-term pattern. The problem was that the data underlying the long-term pattern of global temperatures suffered from a variety of maladies, including inadequate spatial and temporal coverage, and the unfortunate fact that many of the proxies are unreliable, particularly tree rings. But these limitations were obfuscated by pseudo statistical methods. In the end, we simply don’t know what the climate was over the past two thousand years, although we have inklings of it from non-scientific sources. The fact that Mann and his henchmen stuck to their ill gotten results only shows how malevolent they were.
Alas, the climate change debate has been mired in a morass of simplistic mantras about climate dynamics, which have been imprinted with Pavlovian persistence upon the public mind. This makes it easy to tout alarmists as “saviors of the planet,” while marginalizing scientific skeptics as “enemies of the people.” Small wonder that MSM now suppress contrary views as rank heresy.
I marvel at your restraint and academic euphemism. Your summary is nevertheless excellent.
ClimateGate mattered then and matters now because it revealed much that was wrong with the clique that controls the science. Note the change in tense in that sentence. The BBC will add yet another whitewash but I no longer watch this champion and provider of fake climate news.
I had hoped years ago that ClimateGate would be the turning point. Probably in terms of the actual climate change threat, I was correct. In political, social and propaganda terms I was completely wrong. We have lost the argument. But then the internet, with its instantaneous mass communication capability, has created good and chaos. Climate alarmism, gender identity and a multitude of other misguided obsessions have become standard fare for a section of our community and those who clamour to emulate their wokeness, whatever that is. There is no known cure for such madness, though time, as they say, is a great healer and luckily it correlates with increasing maturity. Sadly, maturity does not guarantee immunity and it is distressing to see grandparents accept the claims of an organisation that claims our children will be dead in just over ten years.
Delingpole is essentially correct. Those who live long enough to enjoy a cooling phase in our natural climate will have the mixed feeling of vindication and lack of heat. The downside will be the enormous cost and inadequacy of the technology available to counter the lack of heat. But why wait for the future? The population today is convinced that extreme weather is getting much, much worse. Government data shows that it is not. Why do government scientists and others sit on their hands while alarmists win the argument? That is a good place to start. Go to it!
“what the heck happened to Joe Romm?”
Barrack Obama got elected president, which meant that the political site Romm worked for suddenly didn’t want to scream “the government’s doing nothing!'” all day.
Plus Romm’s boss – Podesta – went to work for Obama, and later Hillary, He praised Obama for doubling the production of natural gas in the US and backed Hillary- who wanted more natural gas production.
Obama did NOT double the production of natural gas, People like George Mitchell did. Obama merely basked in it. Similarly, Clinton and Gore did not invent the internet, but lucked out by it happening on their watch.
First, Tim Berners Lee gives Al Gore the credit he fully deserves,
Carter and Mitchell:
https://i.imgur.com/f8VEnPF.png
https://i.imgur.com/JVQcTiE.png
Oh I know. But the man (and Joe Romm’s boss) take credit for it while also taking credit for allegedly, in a non-binding way, solemnly pledging that some future president will simply have to undo all this good stuff. But not him- he’s the cheap gasoline and heating guy.
This is what happens when you hitch your cause to one political party and embrace dishonesty. Climate change is the new homelessness- an absolute crisis caused entirely by the White House on the day a Republican takes office and a largely uninteresting tale a president couldn’t possibly impact on the day a Democrat takes office.
Romm wasn’t the only one to be all but vanished by the election- The NYT let Andy Revkin go because you just know he’d blather on about a need for action and someone might get the crazy notion that this includes The One.
It’s not any better in Europe. The “climate chancellor” just got the Russian gas pipeline she needs to replace nuclear power with fossil fuels. You know, because for CO2, “it’s worse than we thought!”
OT: “the profusion of new journals makes it possible for anyone to get pretty much anything published somewhere”. Can anyone suggest such a journal where I might get a paper on cloud feedback published? I am pretty confident that I won’t be able to get it past gate-keepers in the major journals.
Mike Jonas Mike
Re “not past gate-keepers” may narrow the focus. Try searching Scholar for “{skeptic author} Clouds feedback”. E.g.
Roy Spencer & John Christy published in Geophysical Research Letters 2007 with 85 citing publications.
RS Lindzen on clouds with 80 citing publications.
Willis Eschenbach published his thermostat thesis in Energy & Environment in a 2010 climate edition. Eight articles cite it.
Otherwise 350,000 hits for “Cloud Feedback Climate” articles. Suggest internal reviews first. Happy hunting.
Thanks. Hopefully one of those will be reasonable (but first I’ve got to finish writing the paper – horrendously time-consuming).
gate keepers?
Submit it and see.
I leaned a lot from the folks who tried to keep us from being published.
( Psst Ross was one of them)
The first thing you will learn is there is a TON of science you have not read
that your reviwers will point out to you.
basically you cant begin to address a science until you are completely well versed in everything written before.
I don’t know what you think you’re doing, but it’s not helping the cause!
Joking aside, excellent summary and very important. The exoneration was even the bigger scandal than the climategate itself.
Ed, my favorite Dr Curry moment was an answer she gave in an interview to a question about climategate scientists being exonerated. Imagine (for a moment) the karate kickin’, cross between a lady & a tomboy retorting, EXONERATED FROM WHAT?!
Ed, my favorite Dr Curry moment was an answer she gave in an interview to a question about climategate scientists being exonerated. Imagine (for a moment) the karate kickin’, cross between a lady & a tomboy retorting, EXONERATED FROM WHAT?!
(oops; dang wordpress… 😖)
Bishop Hill
http://www.bishop-hill.net/hiding-the-decline/
E-book, has detailed analysis of the several CG inquiries.
Judith,
This is a fantastic post. Thank you for this and for all you do.
Dr. Curry, I’ve been reading the Climate Etc. blog since it began and this latest article is the best of the many I’ve read.
And so I echo Peter Lang’s thanks for all you have done to further the cause of informed debate about today’s climate science and about the many public policy issues that science is now raising.
Judith,
Thanks for all you do and have done.
Bitterly cold in NE and midwest USA. Root for cold and snow.
CAGW turned me to a LIA 2 rooter even if lots of folks will be cold. It may help avoid the renewables disaster when AMO or PDO shift and sun spots go down to 0.
Biggest envr issue remains clean water, sewage treatment, cooking w gas not dung and electricity for lights and heat in the third world. First world problems are trivial till those third world problems are alleviated somewhat.
You, Judith, first showed the way to a scientific and logical response to CAGW obsession. Thank very much.
Scott
Judith
“As Roger Pielke Jr tweeted:
“It wasn’t all fun, I’ll tell ya, but I’d do it all over again if it meant I get to now”
–
Congratulations on all you have achieved keeping the spark of the spirit of science alive.
The problem, a wicked one, is that the time spans and uncertainties you have to cope with in this field means that no one can really say with scientific accuracy just where we are going.
This means any and every weather change can be used to justify a warming or cooling mindset without any valid way of disproving the assertions.
I wish a cold few years would intervene, I expect it to happen, but if being sceptical is right I know it could be soon or it might be decades away.
Fun? no.
Appreciated?
Yes!
A great post on the state of climate science. It’s still rather pathetic. This is conclusively shown by how many studies and papers have been convincingly debunked and a few have been retracted due to Nic Lewis.
The state of the communication surrounding the climate models was very untruthful for a long time. Recently, this propagandistic and wrong approach has become muted, I think largely because they believe they have moved the Overton window sufficiently to get what they want. This is also I think why the climate blogosphere is so much less active than it was 10 years ago.
The Overton Window for the intelligentsia is different to the much wider and more sceptical window (at one end) for the man in the street. (The XR radicals stopping the traffic in the street being the other end!)
We agree Nic Lewis is key. I’m more hopeful perhaps than you are that we’ll see change filtering up to the policy level from Nic’s foundational work. But I’d agree they are definitely trying pre-emptively to crush this.
Thank you again for another good essay.
Thank you for an excellent summary.
I was reminded recently that in my 2007 book (Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science) that Jastrow, Nierenberg and Seitz provided a forecast of future warming based on very simple assumptions and calculations that was much more modest than those provided by computer models in IPCC FAR WG1. (Jastrow, Robert, William Nierenberg and Frederick W. Seitz (1990), Scientific Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem, Ottawa, IL: Marshall Press, Jameson Books).
Twelve years on, the accuracy of this prediction if far better than than of the models – a range of range of 0.4 to 1.8°C by 2100, or an upper range of about 0.16°C per decade for 11 decades. The most recent observational data suggest warming of around 0.12°C per decade. The models are all running way above that, and have been very expensive failures 29 years on.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Climategate, biggest nothing burger gate since Billygate.
Yes, nothing wrong with bending science to toe the political line.
So many new friends and acquaintances commenting on this seminal occasion.
Truth is, I was totally unaware of it at the time.
Did not get alerted until 2011, when accidentally discovered a deliberate NRC lie to Congress, precipitating my very first guest post here and repeated at WUWT in 2011.
The “circle the wagons” mentality of climate scientists did not come out of nowhere. Those who were attacking climate science research (and harassing climate researchers prior to climategate) must share some of the responsibility.
There is a lot of hostility out there.
The hostility came from the Climastrologists circling their wagons! The Climategate emails showed this, how dare McIntyre ask questions, don’t respond to him, block his email address.
Brava! Excellent post. Thank you, Judith.
Regards,
Bob
A few fault lines are emerging.
1. The first is carbon footprint hypocrisy. Tolerance for green zealots jetting all over the planet on green jollies is reaching an all time low. If they are leaders (they are not, they are trumped up takers), they set the example by not flying, not owning cars and eating local produce in season.
2. The second is the loss of MSM credibility. I can scarcely think of a big MSM beast of 30 years ago that is still considered a trustworthy, honest source of principled journalism as 2020 arrives. The BBC is a joke, ditto CNN and loads of others the world over. They are increasingly regarded as propaganda tools of unaccountable actors. This cannot end well and will not as more and more people simply ignore their output entirely.
3. The third is loss of expert credibility. Experts always have the choice between integrity of expertise and taking the shilling. Increasingly, people are aware of quite how many experts put taking the shilling above telling the truth. Experts without trustworthy integrity are viewed as nothing by those who know they do not know. Those who do not know need to trust. Right now, more and more realise they cannot trust those experts. It will take a while yet before they can sift the rubble and identify a core of experts who they can still rely on.
4. The fourth is the loss of state imperialism/terrorism as the raison d’etre of western governments. Far left woke climate bedwetters are already not seen as a credible alternative. Too many folks have read Animal Farm. People are slowly realising that their local weather, their local climate is their major concern. They are slowly learning that cold in the mid west may mean concomitant warmth in Alaska, Florida and SE Europe. Climate is endless microclimates not one computer modellers number.
5. The fifth is the realisation that Western Civilisation is in the throes of collapse. Corruption abounds, military spending skyrockets, experts become songwriters singing for their supper, journalists become tools of propaganda. People are rejecting the failed mantras, from fiat petrodollars to PNAC terrorism to worldwide coups to America is The Greatest Democracy on Earth. They see the real data online. It does not make for good reading.
All in all it is a bit like adolescents needing to reject their parents diktat before slowly realising that some of the things they say or said have or had value.
People need to reject climate bedwetting before they can embrace climate reality.
It will happen, but it may take a cold solar cycle 25 for it to go viral….
One of the few credible MSM sources is News Corp’s The Australian newspaper. While the editorial line accepts dangerous warming, it cautions against many of the adopted or proposed responses. The environment editor Graham Lloyd generally accepted the warming meme until he came into contact with Judith and CE several years ago (I think I first mentioned Judith and CE to him). His views have become increasingly sensible and critical, he frequently cites Judith and his share of column space has increased significantly in recent years; he is now on the side of the righteous. The Australian is unusual in giving space to a wide range of views on many issues, and carries a lot of material from climate change sceptics (and sceptics of the policies adopted and proposed). The readership as indicated by the Letters page and online is predominantly sceptical. Like the BBC, our national broadcaster ABC is beyond redemption. The left has won only one federal election since the early ’90s, but about 70% of ABC staff vote Labor and 30% Green – against a national vote of 33% and 9-10% in this year’s election. No climate cautionary material is ever used.
Judith, I endorse all of the favourable responses above!
rtj1211,
This comment is an excellent contribution to the discussion. Thank you.
Agreed.
“The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?”
Meanwhile, what once was called the ‘mainstream media’ is now known as, ‘fake news’ and Western academia is now seen as, ‘fascist to the core.’
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Judy you exemplify how a good critically thinking scientist should act. Your push for more scientific honesty was inspirational to us.
Pingback: Judy Curry: The Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
Superb post. I was at a climate sceptic seminar organised by Roger Helmer a day or two before Climategate broke, in an auditorium within the EU parliamentary Building in Brussels. I was honoured to shake the hand of Anthony Watts, who was one of the guest speakers, talking about his audit of weather station sites.
James Delingpole was another speaker. Svensmark was down as a speaker as well but was ill.
By the time Anthony got back to the States the blogosphere had already erupted.
Next I would like to go back and re-open the modification of the official NOAA temperature record by Thomas Karl et al. which effectively eliminated the slowing or flattening of “manmade climate change induced temperature rise” from 1998-2012. They also refused to open the data and refused to testify before congressional committees to review and discuss this. Also noteworthy it came a few months befopre the Paris climate meetings in 2015.
All the data is public. Any contrarian with the requisite IQ has been free to go after Karl for a very long time.
Scientific crickets.
There was no refusal to open the data, and there were congressional hearings on Karl. They found some NOAA rules are ambiguous. Lol.
1. The data has already been updated, cooled a bit.
2. The changes by Karl were verified by independent never before used sources, as suggested by Judith. Zeke Hausfather wrote the paper.
nothing burger.
Steven Mosher | November 13, 2019
“2.The changes by Karl were verified by independent never before used sources, as suggested by Judith.”
–
Shame the authors were not independent never before used climate scientists rather than rerinsed flotsam pretending to be scientists.
–
“Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records
Zeke Hausfather1,2,*, Kevin Cowtan3, David C. Clarke4, Peter Jacobs5, Mark Richardson6 and Robert Rohde2
1Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
2Berkeley Earth, Berkeley, CA 94705, USA.
3Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, U.K.
4Independent Researcher, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
5Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.
–
Glenn Tamblyn at 09:46 AM on 5 January, 2017
Well done to all.And for those who haven’t spotted it, 4 of the authors are SkS regulars – Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Peter Jacobs and Mark Richardson.”
–
Perhaps this is why “ Judith Curry, a well-known critic of mainstream climate science was quoted as saying:
The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets … The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses … Color me unconvinced.”
–
Further
Steven Mosher
“1. The data has already been updated, cooled a bit.
2. The changes by Karl were verified by independent never before used sources,”
–
A stitch up job apparently (see first sentence).
The authors made up the tests of warming they wanted by using advanced statistics on non existent data.
Fudging (technical term Kriging) non existing data means you get to choose when and where you want your warming to occur by the algorithm you use.
–
Verified says Mosher.
Verified means proven to be true.
But a verified algorithm only truly gives you what you put into it.
It says nothing about the truth of what you are assessing, ocean warmth at all, only that the algorithm gives its own answer.
–
“The authors recognized that one of the biggest questions is how to stitch together different temperature results from different sensors. Therefore, the broke the temperature data up into groups according to the measurement device (buoys, satellites, ARGO floats, ships, etc.) and they evaluated warming rates separately for each group. The authors also used advanced statistics to handle areas where no data were recorded.
After applying their tests, the authors found that the results promoted by Karl at NOAA are the best, and other groups, in particular the Hadley Centre in the UK and the Japanese agency, are too cold.
–
As for never been used before independent sources is he selling a used car.
The sources are old tired rehashed sources, not new. They are not independent, the measures to assess the sources have been around for ages and the hacks who wrote the report are known, biased, non independent party line toeing warmists.
“Glenn Tamblyn at 09:46 AM on 5 January, 2017
Well done to all.And for those who haven’t spotted it, 4 of the authors are SkS regulars – Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Peter Jacobs and Mark Richardson.”
– end rant
Shame the authors were not independent never before used climate scientists rather than rerinsed flotsam pretending to be scientists.
This is simply the sourest of grapes, and the cheapest of shots. All the work is an open book. A group of “independent” contrarians is free every single day of the week to audit their work.
Y, the great Steve McIntyre could do it.
CRAP HITS THE WALL. crickets. CRAP HITS THE WALL. crickets. CRAP HITS THE WALL. crickets. CRAP HITS THE WALL. crickets. CRAP HITS THE WALL. crickets.
I believe the cooling update was done by B Haung – it was revealed at the time his next publication would likely cool the record – who is not a member of SKS, which is logically irrelevant.
“This is simply the sourest of grapes, and the cheapest of shots.”
No, I could go a lot sourer and cheaper, learned at the feet of genius’s like Steven, Nick, Tony and Mann how low the bar can be set.
Thanks for the courtesy of a reply which I did expect from you.
You have been right on many occasions as well as wrong on others.
At least you back up your claims and do not make absurd claims based on biased skeptics science that you work and mix with like someone else here just did.
Independent/ Skeptical science/ Mosher.
Three redundant ingredients.
So not a tautology?
Perhaps a tri-taulogy?
Another one seems in place.
Sour/cheap/accurate?
Perfect
Note angech personalizes the science.
and never addresses the ACTUAL data or ACTUAL methods
or ACTUAL results.
Fact 1. Judith recommended a wat to test Karl.
Fact 2. Zeke and I and others discussed how to test Karl. we liked
Judith’s ideas.
Fact 3. Zeke and others write a paper using the approach suggested
by Judith.
Fact 4. They find Karl is the best of the lot.
Fact 5. Subsequently the SST dataset Karl used has been improved
further.
Fact 6. It is a tiny amount cooler than it was before.
Fact 7. Skeptics claim ALL changes to datasets warm the record.
This is wrong. Demonstrably so.
So angech can go on about personalities and such.
what he cant do is dispute the facts.
Steven Mosher “Note angech personalizes the science.
and never addresses the ACTUAL data or ACTUAL methods
or ACTUAL results.”
–
I used to consider Mosher a scientist.
–
No longer.
–
He is a radicalised supporter passionately committed to AGW theories and desperate to be accepted by the people he once despised and who now welcome his change of heart but still distrust and despise him.
–
For the record we had a ding dong battle over data sets a few years ago and when pointed out that numbers he claimed for his data sets were wrong he disappeared.
–
Actual data? You did read
“The authors also used advanced statistics to handle areas where no data were recorded.”
You either have statistics or you don’t. No noted to add terms like advanced or arcane or magical or krigged.
You either have actual data or you don’t.
If you bothered reading my comment was that they admitted they did not have actual data.
Their whole result hinges on the steps they used in the la la land of no data.
And as you have spent a lifetime proving, when you throw out data, when you merge data, when you alter data and worse when you make up data for sites that have not worked for years from 1000 km “nearby “ sites and use sites like airports as real local temperatures which never existed at those sites pre airport you cannot ever speak wth authority or veracity on the subject of actual data.
–
I only want, only ask people to be scientifically genuine and skeptical on the arguments they put forward. I have never personalised the science though occasionally it feels neccesary to personalise people which I agree is a bad thing and something that others, like yourself, have never done.
I can’t comment on a lot in this sub-thread. But I can attest to Zeke Hausfather’s character. He’s a good and honest man. I don’t believe he would for one second participate in a scheme such as described here.
And everyone knows that good and honest men are never affected by confirmation bias.
What I have learned is bad and dishonest people are always claiming somebody else has confirmation bias.
Accusations of confirmations bias seem to always show up when critical analyses have failed to find anything wrong with a result the accuser does not like.
Let’s take the general statement that the poles warmed via Karl. That’s good. The pole equatorial temperature gradient flattened. Just as it steepens on a cooling Earth. That’s my favorite place for the warmth to be. Next stop, the TOA. One can look at this way recognizing it’s a simplification. The poles, maybe just the North one, are radiating to the TOA. That’s good. Stick a thermometer up there and it reads warmer. We discovered that radiator of the heat engine.
The whole uncertainty about “the data” surely means that the records and their maintenance must be taken out of the hands of those who wanted it for climate research purposes? It needs to be only in the hands of only those who are 1000% motivated by its accuracy. The researchers can then manipulate it to their heart’s consent, with no complaints about sharing their work so it can be publicly and scientifically kicked around, along with the conclusions drawn.
Why is this not the case and why aren’t we agitating for it?
Pingback: 11,000 Micky Mouse Climate “Scientists” – Synthesisr
Judith,
An excellent essay (again), but you have been a little too modest about your own contributions. Yes, the blogs are less center stage for debate cut and thrust. ClimateAudit is a record of the past (although amusing to follow Steve Mc on twitter in the present) and WUWT is limited to predictable posts of cherry-picked press releases, but Climate Etc. remains an essential salon of relevant discourse and place to visit: your “week in review – science edition”, your essays, review articles and your congressional testimonies are must-reads to keep current.
Thank you for your services to science, the country and as a role-model for younger scientists.
nvw +1 (i like spencer’s blog, too, but his comment page/ software really sucks)…
Yep. A quiet sun, a couple of large volcanoes (slightly overdue) and 10 yrs on something else will be the focus of doom and gloom. Unfortunately, this episode will dent the image of scientists (and by extension , science) as covered by Carl Sagan in his 1995 book – A Demon Haunted World.
And in my own area, it is proving a devil to undo the damage: the oft-quoted 6 Ma ‘last common ancestor’ split for homo and chimp. This was touted as being established for years. Now paleoanthros have to put this molecular clock back by about 1 Ma per decade & hope nobody notices. Fortunately the science has all the interesting DNA stuff on modern homo and Neandertals to capture the public. Be interesting to see what the climate community can come up with.
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Interesting reading especially for teenage ‘climate activists’ who won’t remember the uproar at the time.
If they can read something this long. But yes, invaluable.
I’m wondering if by 2030 when because of the stadium wave and solar flux it will be shown an actual reduction in temperatures has occurred whether or not a new generation (Y or Z) will come to the realization that CO2 is a very small factor and that the Sun is where the action is. That’s ten years later by the way or 20 years hence climategate
https://services.swpc.noaa.gov/images/solar-cycle-sunspot-number.gif
“Clearly any leadership that might lead climate science out of this morass would have to come from outside the community of climate scientists and probity would need to come from outside of the field of climate science.” JC
I’d suggest Earth System Science. Julie Fergusen here is a pedagogical delight. Economic development, food security, health and education, technology innovation and land, water and soil use
…. are all human challenges?
Exodus 13:18
So God led the people around by the way of the wilderness toward the Red Sea.
Will it take an act of God to persuade people to follow a different leader(s) out of Climate Science’s wilderness? Or maybe, just being cold and your heat bill is sky high.
Thanks so much Dr. Curry, for this very thorough and brutally honest review. Unfortunately for all of us, your very sensible reservations regarding the current state of climate science won’t make much difference. Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are winning the day, and will almost certainly plunge the world into an “existential crisis” far worse than anything climate change is likely to do.
“As I see things, it’s already too late to argue one way or another on this topic. It’s not that “the science is settled” – I feel sure it isn’t – it’s that the issue is settled. Climate change is no longer a scientific matter, but a social construct. The debate is over and it’s been won by those most adept at influencing public opinion.
At this point, therefor, it’s no longer a matter of whether “the science” is right or wrong, but whether humanity can survive the dangerous “existential” abyss we are now being forced to confront. I’m not talking about the predicted climate disaster, but the social and psychological trauma induced by the extreme demands that will increasingly be insisted on as necessary to avoid it.”
From “Existential Threat: Facing the Climate Change Abyss,” by Bill Blake.
It is remarkable (but they have used a predictable method) that they have been able to keep the public interest for so long – See below. They have only been able to do this by upping the alarm, catastrophizing greater and and sooner. However, they have hit the top. Any sooner than 2030 will be disproved too soon. They have already terrorized us with the ~”end of mankind” – what could they claim would be worse? So take heart, all ye Climate Skeptics and “Convinced” (I am not a skeptic – I am “Convinced” there is not and will not be any global harm due to warming, much less the end of days for mankind). The Alarmists days are soon past. The collateral damage is to science and our environment is monumental for none will soon simply believe the Main Stream Masters about dangers to our environment – which are real. But they bet the ranch – on a bad hand.
Important 1972 article: how causes fade away or must be intensified to keep the public interest
We are in Stage 3, again, where the extravagant costs are being exposed. We had been in Stage 4 (people lose interest), several times, so the Alarmists keep changing their name and increasing the catastrophizing their bogyman will bring us, which then puts us back to stage 2.
“Up and down with ecology – ”the “issue-attention cycle” – 1972
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_interest/detail/up-and-down-with-ecologythe-issue-attention-cycle
“Public perception of most “crises” in American domestic life does not reflect changes in real conditions as much as it reflects the operation of a systematic cycle of heightening public interest and then increasing boredom with major issues. This “issue-attention cycle” is rooted both in the nature of certain domestic problems and in the way major communications media interact with the public. The cycle itself has five stages, which may vary in duration depending upon the particular issue involved, but which almost always occur in the following sequence:
“1. The pre-problem stage. This prevails when some highly undesirable social condition exists but has not yet captured much public attention, even though some experts or interest groups may already be alarmed by it. Usually, objective conditions regarding the problem are far worse during the pre-problem stage than they are by the time the public becomes interested in it. For example, this was true of racism, poverty, and malnutrition in the United States.
“2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm. As a result of some dramatic series of events (like the ghetto riots in 1965 to 1967), or for other reasons, the public suddenly becomes both aware of and alarmed about the evils of a particular problem. This alarmed discovery is invariably accompanied by euphoric enthusiasm about society’s ability to “solve this problem” or “do something effective” within a relatively short time. The combination of alarm and confidence results in part from the strong public pressure in America for political leaders to claim that every problem can be “solved.” This outlook is rooted in the great American tradition of optimistically viewing most obstacles to social progress as external to the structure of society itself. The implication is that every obstacle can be eliminated and every problem solved without any fundamental reordering of society itself, if only we devote sufficient effort to it. In older and perhaps wiser cultures, there is an underlying sense of irony or even pessimism which springs from a widespread and often confirmed belief that many problems cannot be “solved” at all in any complete sense. Only recently has this more pessimistic view begun to develop in our culture.
“3. Realizing the cost of significant progress. The third stage consists of a gradually spreading realization that the cost of “solving” the problem is very high indeed. Really doing so would not only take a great deal of money but would also require major sacrifices by large groups in the population. The public thus begins to realize that part of the problem results from arrangements that are providing significant benefits to someone—often to millions. For example, traffic congestion and a great deal of smog are caused by increasing auto¬mobile usage. Yet this also enhances the mobility of millions of Amer¬icans who continue to purchase more vehicles to obtain these advantages.
In certain cases, technological progress can eliminate some of the undesirable results of a problem without causing any major re¬structuring of society or any loss of present benefits by others (except for higher money costs). In the optimistic American tradition, such a technological solution is initially assumed to be possible in the case of nearly every problem. Our most pressing social problems, how¬ever, usually involve either deliberate or unconscious exploitation of one group in society by another, or the prevention of one group from enjoying something that others want to keep for themselves. For example, most upper-middle-class whites value geographic separation from poor people and blacks. Hence any equality of access to the advantages of suburban living for the poor and for blacks cannot be achieved without some sacrifice by middle-class whites of the “benefits” of separation. The increasing recognition that there is this type of relationship between the problem and its “solution” constitutes a key part of the third stage.
“4. Gradual decline of intense public interest. The previous stage becomes almost imperceptibly transformed into the fourth stage: a gradual decline in the intensity of public interest in the problem. As more and more people realize how difficult, and how costly to them¬selves, a solution to the problem would be, three reactions set in. Some people just get discouraged. Others feel positively threatened by thinking about the problem; so they suppress such thoughts. Still others become bored by the issue. Most people experience some combination of these feelings. Consequently, public desire to keep attention focused on the issue wanes. And by this time, some other issue is usually entering Stage Two; so it exerts a more novel and thus more powerful claim upon public attention.
“5. The post-problem stage. In the final stage, an issue that has been replaced at the center of public concern moves into a prolonged limbo—a twilight realm of lesser attention or spasmodic recurrences of interest. However, the issue now has a different relation to public attention than that which prevailed in the “pre-problem” stage. For one thing, during the time that interest was sharply focused on this problem, new institutions, programs, and policies may have been created to help solve it. These entities almost always persist and often have some impact even after public attention has shifted else¬where. For example, during the early stages of the “War on Poverty,” the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) was established, and it initiated many new programs. Although poverty has now faded as a central public issue, OEO still exists. Moreover, many of its programs have experienced significant success, even though funded at a far lower level than would be necessary to reduce poverty decisively. Any major problem that once was elevated to national prominence may sporadically recapture public interest; or important aspects of it may become attached to some other problem that subsequently dominates center stage. Therefore, problems that have gone through the cycle almost always receive a higher average level of attention, public effort, and general concern than those still in the pre-dis-covery stage.
“Which problems are likely to go through the cycle?
“Not all major social problems go through this “issue-attention cycle.” Those which do generally possess to some degree three specific characteristics. First, the majority of persons in society are not suffering from the problem nearly as much as some minority (a numerical minority, not necessarily an ethnic one). This is true of many pressing social problems in America today—poverty, racism, poor public transportation, low-quality education, crime, drug addiction, and unemployment, among others. The number of persons suffering from each of these ills is very large absolutely—in the millions. But the numbers are small relatively—usually less than 15 per cent of the entire population. Therefore, most people do not suffer directly enough from such problems to keep their attention riveted on them.
Second, the sufferings caused by the problem are generated by social arrangements that provide significant benefits to a majority or a powerful minority of the population. For example, Americans who own cars—plus the powerful automobile and highway lobbies —receive short-run benefits from the prohibition of using motor-fuel tax revenues for financing public transportation systems, even though such systems are desperately needed by the urban poor.
Third, the problem has no intrinsically exciting qualities—or no longer has them. When big-city racial riots were being shown nightly on the nation’s television screens, public attention naturally focused upon their causes and consequences. But when they ceased (or at least the media stopped reporting them so intensively), public in¬terest in the problems related to them declined sharply. Similarly, as long as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was able to stage a series of ever more thrilling space shots, culminating in the worldwide television spectacular of Amer¬icans walking on the moon, it generated sufficient public support to sustain high-level Congressional appropriations. But NASA had nothing half so dramatic for an encore, and repetition of the same feat proved less and less exciting (though a near disaster on the third try did revive audience interest). So NASA’s Congressional appropriations plummeted.
A problem must be dramatic and exciting to maintain public in¬terest because news is “consumed” by much of the American public (and by publics everywhere) largely as a form of entertainment. As such, it competes with other types of entertainment for a share of each person’s time. Every day, there is a fierce struggle for space in the highly limited universe of newsprint and television viewing time. Each issue vies not only with all other social problems and public events, but also with a multitude of “non-news” items that are often far more pleasant to contemplate. These include sporting news, weather reports, crossword puzzles, fashion accounts, comics, and daily horoscopes. In fact, the amount of television time and news¬paper space devoted to sports coverage, as compared to international events, is a striking commentary on the relative value that the public places on knowing about these two subjects.
When all three of the above conditions exist concerning a given problem that has somehow captured public attention, the odds are great that it will soon move through the entire “issue-attention cycle” —and therefore will gradually fade from the center of the stage. The first condition means that most people will not be continually re¬minded of the problem by their own suffering from it. The second condition means that solving the problem requires sustained atten¬tion and effort, plus fundamental changes in social institutions or behavior. This in turn means that significant attempts to solve it are threatening to important groups in society. The third condition means that the media’s sustained focus on this problem soon bores a majority of the public. As soon as the media realize that their em¬phasis on this problem is threatening many people and boring even more, they will shift their focus to some “new” problem. This is par¬ticularly likely in America because nearly all the media are run for profit, and they make the most money by appealing to the largest”
v. interesting analysis, thx
Shorter Jimmy:
Re-read The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
No one was “exonerated” in the Climategate conspiracy. Those who promote that sort of denial and deception only add to its scientific insult.
Which is exactly why the Grauniad promotes it.
Vested interests closed ranks very quickly, when Climategate broke. The various official enquiries, were framed to sweep it all under the carpet.
I find when the regular cover up guys come in heavy they know there is a problem there.
The more they deny it the bigger the problem is.
JCH
All the data is public. There was no refusal to open the data, and there were congressional hearings on Karl. They found some NOAA rules are ambiguous.
Steven Mosher
2. The changes by Karl were verified by independent never before used sources, as suggested by Judith. Zeke Hausfather wrote the paper.
–
Scientific crickets. nothing burger.
–
“All the data is public. Any contrarian with the requisite IQ has been free to go after Karl for a very long time. 1. The data has already been updated, cooled a bit.”
–
Just like Mann’s mates, with Mann as co author on some of the papers claimed to ratify his data so Gavin’s mates back him up with a paper.
Using non existent data.
Does the term conflict of interest never register with these people?
Does the words truth in science never register?
Blinkered as ever, the Guardian does not permit reader comments on this.
Legacies from Climategate:
1) Rise of right-wing conspiracy culture? If the biggest crisis facing the planet could be based on corrupt experts, does anyone really need to listen to experts at all? Isn’t AGW simply fake news? Modern governments need the advice of highly educated experts, but many people resent the influence wielded by experts who come from radically different backgrounds than they do. (In reality, the relative warmth of the MWP never was a critical issue, but the credibility of those who tried to make it disappear and their peers who tolerated them were problems. The historic surface temperature record was shown to be reasonably accurate.)
2) Are the cognitive scientists right: Are few people are capable of learning something new? Does citing an incorrect statement and logically explaining why it is (or appears) wrong actually increase belief in and commitment to the incorrect statement? (It rarely leads to a discussion about the logic.)
3) Nic Lewis?
What I have read is they were discussing constraining the MWP. Imo, that does not even begin to equal “make it disappear.”
JCH
A frightening 8 years ago now I wrote an article carried here looking at climate history back to 1538 but covered the MWP to some extent in an analysis of the different approaches by Hubert Lamb and Dr Mann
I have extracted these lines;
“Dr Mann often cited Hubert Lamb’s work; most notably for our purposes in figure 1 of his 2002 paper entitled ‘Medieval Climatic Optimum’ whereby reconstructions by the two scientists are usefully juxtaposed-Mann depicting the Northern Hemisphere- and Lamb, who used Central England records. (Note should also be taken of Figure 2 of this paper used by the IPCC, which show some differences.) (10)
In looking at the two versions-reproduced below in Figure 6 -we can readily see that the divergence between the two climate camps was caused by the two apparently radically different versions of climate history it gave.
The divergence in the Mann/Lamb graphs (Figure 16) at this point is due to the considerable differences in the interpretation of the extent and warmth and extent of the MWP (outside our period of study) and the cold and extent of the LIA.
Contrary to popular belief Dr Mann didn’t refute the existence of either a MWP or LIA but thought of them as having a limited geographic impact. His 2002 article ‘Medieval Climatic Optimum’ amplifying his research on the MWP-one of the most controversial aspects of his reconstruction- is linked below (38)
He saw the MWP (covering a warm period predating the subject of this paper) as primarily a North Atlantic and adjacent regions anomaly (including part of Europe) and not a synchronous world-wide event, and that overall the Medieval warm period was substantially less warm than the two most recent decades, which he believed to be more global in its extent.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
So he certainly did not make the MWP ‘disappear’ and did considerable research into it. Ultimately he did not believe it to be extensive or to be as warm as today but he accepted its existence, albeit as a relatively minor aspect of climate history. Prior to his studies others thought the MWP to be much more significant an event, warmer than today and lasting some centuries
tonyb
Constraining it means to discover its true extent. Its limits, high and low.
I believe Mann actually convened a seminar of scientists from around the world to do it. To think or conclude they were attending a scam to make it disappear? I’m sorry, but I am sick and tired of bullchit conspiracy rot.
Jch
I am agreeing with you. He did not make it disappear. He just did not believe it to be as extensive or as pronounced as others did
Tonyb
Tony, yes I know that.
Mann believes in the power of the AMO. It’s shocking contrarians hate him so much.
Until you understand the simple explanation of an Ice Age, as shown by the Vostok Ice Core, talk is wasted. See below!
A simple explanation of the Ice Age
This Ice age should last between 130,000 and 140,000 years. 65,000 to 70,000 years to make the Ice and the same to melt the Ice. That is an Ice Age.
This Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago. Nature has been taking water vapor from the oceans and moving it to the poles, freezing it and dropping it. Nature is doing this because the earth is radiating more heat to the black sky, 0’ Kelvin, -459’F, daily than it is keeping radiated from the sun. Although the earth surface is receiving more heat from the sun than it is radiating to the black sky, the area of the oceans covering the surface is so large compared to that covered by land the radiant heat reflected to the black sky makes that radiant heat retained by the earth less than that lost by the earth to black sky.
About 55,000 years from now the second half of the ice age will begin. Nothing man will ever do will change this science.
This is the simple, unchangeable law of nature.
JCH
There is no reason to hate Mann. There is also no reason to take him seriously as anything but a political hack as evidenced by his Newsweek article below. Ohh, gee, let me guess what his political ideology is. His very first sentence should tip off anyone who can read and has a modicum of critical thinking skills. The least he could do is to try to disguise himself as an objective scientist. He can’t even pull that off.
What a joke.
“Mann believes in the power of the AMO. It’s shocking contrarians hate him so much.”
Wow!
“Using the synthetic temperature histories, we also show that certain procedures used in past studies to estimate internal variability, and in particular, an internal multidecadal oscillation termed the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” or “AMO”, fail to isolate the true internal variability when it is a priori known. Such procedures yield an AMO signal with an inflated amplitude and biased phase, attributing some of the recent NH mean temperature rise to the AMO. The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming. Claims of multidecadal “stadium wave” patterns of variation across multiple climate indices are also shown to likely be an artifact of this flawed procedure for isolating putative climate oscillations.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL059233
Yes, he believes in the power of “true AMO”, which has been in a cooling phase in recent decades. Laughable!
JCH and Tonyb: This is the hockey stick reconstruction that I was thinking of when I said it made the MWP disappear. Draw you own conclusions. IIRC, this graph allegedly appeared in six places in AR3.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/spmfig01-707×1024.jpg
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg1/summary-for-policymakers/
Whatever you think, this graph is where: the mistaken use of off-center PCA’s began, validation using only an (allegedly miscalculated) RE statistic, ignoring the lack of short-term correlation in the reconstruction during the validation period, the entire hockey stick-shape of the reconstruction arising from two proxy records of dubious quality, with the rest being noise, two reports for Congress followed by hearings, and soon the “divergence” problem, and eventually Monford’s book.
frank
see my reply above. I replied as follows in part
“So he certainly did not make the MWP ‘disappear’ and did considerable research into it. Ultimately he did not believe it to be extensive or to be as warm as today but he accepted its existence, albeit as a relatively minor aspect of climate history. Prior to his studies others thought the MWP to be much more significant an event, warmer than today and lasting some centuries.”
I wrote extensively on the subject in my article here.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
Essentially I was agreeing with jch that he did not make the MWP ‘disappear’ as some claim. However he most certainly minimised its extent and depth. It is interesting to look at the error bars whereby the graph could be interpreted as indicating either much greater warmth or much greater cooling.
If you start at 1000AD you also miss out on the warming starting around 850 AD which influenced castle design and with its higher sea levels allowed the Vikings to push much further up rivers than would have been possible earlier and of course the warming was one of the reasons the Vikings colonised Greenland.
They were able to roam extensively in high latitude waters and to also search for new lands for cultivation to accommodate their growing population. All documented in ‘The Viking world’ by Spinks.
I don’t think Dr Mann’s methodology was sound and am extremely sceptical about the use of tree rings as reliable proxies. The abundant historic record demonstrates that our knowledge of the MWP prior to Mann was correct
tonyb
Hi Tony
“…..which influenced castle design….”
Interesting. Could you elaborate a little, as to in what way?
It is accusing him of being motivated to intentionally make it disappear. That is a bullchit accusation, and I have an extremely negation impression of the people who put it that way. Sorry,
He was motivated to understand what took place; still is. As are all the other scientists who do reconstructions. They looking for ghosts in a fog.
Which is why the shape of their reconstructions changed over time. The more recent are looking more like the hockey stick.
Contrarians loved this one, which I found odd:
https://i.imgur.com/WSwnXMA.png
November 2009 to today, major upticks in GMST, Sea Level, ACO2, etc.; major decline in sea ice.
Climategate was nothing in November 2009, and it’s nothing today.
Ceresco kid
Castle design was always evolving as military tactics changed. One of the best examples of castles being affected by climate are in the water gates of major British castles such as the Tower of London 11th C and Harlech. (13thc)
These were intended to either supply defending forces when besieged or so monarchs or traitors could directly disembark into the castle. The Tower had several water gates which went into disuse as river levels fell then returned to use in later years but all complicated by tides. Harlech has a water gate now a mile inland as sea levels fell and deposition then occurred.
Windows became larger and rooms larger lit by a single fire rather than separate rooms. each with a fire to keep it warm. There were also a change in building materials as climate warmed or cooled, but the effects of a warm climate changing to a colder one can best be illustrated by our abbey a couple of miles from me, as that is not confused by changes for military purposes but illustrate well the changes in building techniques as the climate altered
The Abbey -established in 1196- is set back around 200 yards from the shores of Torbay in South Devon. (This from their information boards)
“Canons lived austere lives with only one heated room known as the calefactory (Latin Calefactus-made warm.) The additional fireplaces added during the 1300’s reflect the extreme weather conditions of this period.
As the climate deteriorated during the 1300’s the original thatched roof of the Barn was replaced with a slate roof that was better able to deal with stormy weather coming in from the sea (note; this signifies a change from warmer Westerlies to colder Easterlies)
The most dramatic change in response to climate were the alterations to the cloister. The original cloister had wide walkways with gently sloping roofs where canons could sit and study or pray . As the climate became colder and wetter, this was no longer possible. The cloister was rebuilt with narrower walks and less shelter. The pitch of the roof was increased to shed heavy rains and even snow..”
“Climate change summary board; From 1370 the Abbey was altered to cope with a colder wetter climate. The thatched barn was re-roofed with slate . The cloister was rebuilt with steep roofs to take away the rain and narrow walks as it was now too cold to work in them . New fireplaces were added.”
We can more precisely identify the decade that the climate changed by the catastrophic two years of rain and cold around 1305 well recorded in our history as there were a lot of battles going on with King Edward . The climate further deteriorated over the next half century until the events recorded above happened. That the climate had been much more settled can be seen in the building techniques but also the copious records available
Records of prolonged heat, drought and rain in the middle of the 13th century alone show that in 1236 the Palace of Westminster was flooded; followed by an extremely hot summer, there were droughts in 1241 and six months of intolerable heat , then great heat and drought in 1252 and 1253.
The warmest decade in the last 500 years are probably those years around 1540 with severe and prolonged drought and heat, followed within a few decades by the extremes of the intermittent Little Ice Age, the coldest period in the entire Holocene
.
That was intermittently broken as we note that Parliament declared a climate emergency during the reign of Charles 2nd in 1661 so History repeats itself exactly as Parliament declared one in 2019!
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol11/pp362-363#h3-0005
“The Fast to be observed in Westm. Abbey, and the Bp. of St. David’s to preach.
“Whereas His Majesty hath been pleased, by Proclamation, upon the Unseasonableness of the Weather, to command a general and public Fast, to be religiously and solemnly kept, within the Cities of London and Westm. and Places adjacent: , That the Lord Bishop of St. David’s is hereby desired to take the Pains upon him, to preach before the Lords of Parliament, on Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant January in the Forenoon, in the Abbey Church of Westm. being the accustomed Place where their Lordships have used to meet upon the like Occasion.”
Samuel Pepys Diary
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1662/01/15/
This morning Mr. Berkenshaw came again, and after he had examined me and taught me something in my work, he and I went to breakfast in my chamber upon a collar of brawn, and after we had eaten, asked me whether we had not committed a fault in eating to-day; telling me that it is a fast day ordered by the Parliament, to pray for more seasonable weather; it having hitherto been summer weather, that it is, both as to warmth and every other thing, just as if it were the middle of May or June, which do threaten a plague (as all men think) to follow, for so it was almost the last winter; and the whole year after hath been a very sickly time to this day”
As you know, we have these fantastic records which are apparently ignored..
tonyb
tonyb
Tonyb and JCH: Thank you for your kind replies. Tony wrote:
“So he certainly did not make the MWP ‘disappear’ and did considerable research into it. Ultimately he did not believe it to be extensive or to be as warm as today but he accepted its existence, albeit as a relatively minor aspect of climate history.”
Tony, IMO you are being too generous. In MBH99, Mann made both the LIA AND the MWP disappear. The only thing causing detectable climate change over the last millennium was man. With 20/20 hindsight, every paleoclimatologist who looked at MBH99 should have said to himself: “They must have done something wrong – there is no doubt about a colder period called the LIA.” Instead they made THIS graph the symbol of AR3 and CAGW. Many of your other points are completely correct: Yes, the putative MWP doesn’t appear to be as temporally homogenous and geographically widespread as the LIA and CWP. Others including Mann came along with new reconstructions showing a LIA and more variability along the “stick”. However, those reconstructions were usually flawed in ways that allowed the authors to prove that the Current Warm Period was STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY WARMER than the MWP or any other period in the past two millennia. (See the use of Yamal in nearly every other reconstruction.) After about a decade, Mann finally stopped cherry-picking proxies and included every available proxy record. But then he started post-hoc screening of those records to separate those proxy/sites that behaved like thermometers in the 20th century from those that didn’t. The shenanigans continued until McIntyre reported that the robustly warm temperatures at Yamal in the CWP came from a single tree (something CRU had known for years). Climategate followed and the debate with professional statisticians. And the problem persists until this very day. When looking for the copy of the hockey stick graph I pasted in above, I did a simple image search (thinking I could easily spot it). I stumbled across this in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#CITEREFIPCC_WG1_SPM2001
PAGES 2K has confirmed Mann’s original hockey stick (with no LIA and no MWP)! https://thinkprogress.org/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick-e7ce8c3a2384/
McIntyre and friends have shredded several of the PAGES 2K publications (including one complete retraction), but I don’t know about this particular reconstruction. There are three published corrections to the paper where this graph originated. From my perspective, this nonsense is continuing in a different form. Perhaps I read too much at ClimateAudit and am merely suffering from confirmation bias.
Please don’t get me wrong: If it wasn’t warmer in the 1980s (when many proxies records ended) than at the peak of the MWP, then warming from rising GHGs could have made it warmer in the 1990’s, or the 2000’s, or the 2010’s. Maybe it will take until the 2020’s or 2030’s. It isn’t scientifically important when it happened or will happen, but the magnitude of unforced variability and naturally forced variability are important issues. It’s about 0.5 degC warmer today than it was in the 1980’s, a large difference, but perhaps not large enough to overwhelm the wide confidence intervals these reconstructions should have. I hope I would have had the integrity to believe in radiative forcing, COE and consequent AGW while temperature was falling after 1950; I didn’t have any doubts during the 2000’s Pause. The crucial issue always was and still is climate sensitivity. Unfortunately I don’t trust climate science to make fair assessments about ECS after they failed (me) so badly with paleoclimatology. This, of course, is my purely personal understanding of and legacy from Climategate. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but I hope I have provided a few facts to support mine.
Tonyb: Consider the number and magnitude of empirical breakpoint corrections that have been made in temperature records acquired from thermometers in Stevenson screens. Now ask yourself how much you should trust the CET record acquired before we understood how critical blocking sunlight and ventilation and the nearby environment are to getting accurate records today.
They’ve definitely sought to minimize the MWP, an activity continued by the 2K lot. Would point to thier prefilters as being a tad dodgy and thier relaxed approach to data quality, when they find a reconstruction that they particularly like. See Antarctic borehole inclusion Essentially though, if you seive through your data looking for hockey sticks, you will unsurprisingly find hockey sticks.
Comments on this blog seem to assume that climate alarmism is about stopping global warming. It isn’t. What’s at issue is system change which can be accomplished by banning fossil fuels. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/nov/09/doomism-new-tactic-fossil-fuel-lobby
Michael Mann has a new oped in newsweek on climategate. Same old tripe.
https://www.newsweek.com/climate-gate-fake-news-climate-denialism-1471826
Judith
I am in shock having just watched the BBC programme on climate gate. There large as life was Stephen Mosher! mike Mann came over ok, George monbiot and bob ward didn’t
As mentiond earlier in this thread I have some regards for Philip jones.
The trouble was that there were 15 pro agw scientists and only McIntyre representing sceptics. He was given a fair hearing early on in the programme but was never brought back to put things into context as the story developed
Tonyb
somebody make me a copy
Totally agree Tony. It was sympathetic to McIntyre but, having explained “hide the decline” well, it allowed Mann et all justify the deletion without going back to Steve to explain, very easily, why it was inimical to true science.
As I’ve said on Cliscepthe last words given to Mosh and Mc were the best editing decision of all imo. But it was very patchy, with fair too many CAGW voices in suits intoning platitudes against trembley music.
Richard
“It was sympathetic to McIntyre but, having explained “hide the decline” well, it allowed Mann et all justify the deletion without going back to Steve to explain, very easily, why it was inimical to true science.”
Precisely. It was this lack of context as the story developed that was irritating as was the lack of other sceptical voices.
I thought Tim Osborne came over well, Mosh was fine, as was Mc once he got going. He is not a natural speaker.
I came to dislike Monbiot as he is patronising and bumptious and Bob Ward was unctuous (I bet that is the first time that word has ever been used on Climate etc) but he put me in mind of Dickens’ Uriah Heep and also the poor mans Obadiah slope from Barchester Chronicles.
I may watch it again on BBC catch up
tonyb
Alex Cull has now a transcript of the “hide the decline” segment after the deletion from the 1999 WMO front-page graph had been nicely explained by the BBC narrator with help from his graphics people.
And then the programme moved on, as they say, without giving Steve (or Steve) any right of reply.
Richard
even my wife gasped as she heard that bit, remarking that they changed to a different method when the original one didn’t show what they wanted and surely it could have diverged numerous other times but because it suited their agenda they weren’t worried about those times.
tonyb
Can you point to a scientific paper or text that specifically says what they did is wrong.
https://i.imgur.com/OsqY2gl.png
This is assuming that none of the raw data has been tampered with. There is proof that NASA added non raw data between the 70’s and now otherwise how did their current published graphs change the 30’s heat wave from what it was in their graphs from the 70’s. One should remember that garbage into a model will give garbage out.
Also, why is it that the world seems to just accept that as CO2 increased that caused the temperature to rise (am assumption in these models)? Has anyone looked at the chemistry of CO2? It can’t be a heat sink.
That’s a poorly written and tedious article.
Tonyb
It is complete tripe starting a with the first sentence. What “well established conspiracy” to steal the 2016 election? Perhaps he means the Clinton campaign’s Steele dossier which it turns out contained a lot of lies obtained from Russian sources? Mann is just totally incapable of balanced thinking. He’s a walking climate science version of a tape recorded propaganda message.
And still, the planet continues to warm ….
Not warming enough though is it? Models all run hotter. CMIP5 barely within bounds and the latest crop are even worse.
Blunderbunny,
besides your reply being hooey, the post was about teh ‘Hockey Stick’.
Whether you agree with it or not, the planet continues to warm just like the hockey stick shows.
Every measure we have – land, sea, atmosphere, satellite – all show the planet warming, none show it cooling, so the hockey stick is still correct.
Whether you agree with it or not, the planet continues to warm just like the hockey stick shows.
I think you missed the significance of the “hockey stick”.
Early tree ring data indicated warming.
Recent tree ring data indicated cooling ( the decline ).
Emphasizing data which fits a theory and throwing out data which does not fit is confirmation bias.
It’s not that surprising – it probably occurs in everyone,
just not as brazenly as in “hide the decline”.
Turbulent Eddie,
I’m not sure what hockey stick you’re looking at but it certainly is not Mann’s b/c his does NOT show ‘early warming’. Both of Mann, et als graphs (one from 1400 and the one from 1000A.D) show an overall steady decline in NH temperature until 1900 when the temp shot upwards, much higher than earlier. That is why it is called a ‘hockey stick’ by all b/c it looks like one.
There are numerous reasons why the tree ring proxies didn’t match recent data and there are also other proxies that all do match the recent data, so ‘hide the decline’ probably doesn’t mean what you think it means.
It was not confirmation bias. Screaming that it should have been included is confirmation bias, and clearly reveals a desire to deceive the public.
https://i.imgur.com/JqKZkZL.png
And, my NH temperature reconstruction:
https://i.imgur.com/blE7DCA.png
jch
you keep repeating your scythe graph so you must know what the ‘normal as hell epoch’ was, as regards its date duration and temperature range, otherwise you wouldn’t keep posting it as apparently meaning something.
so please reveal all-we have always wondered what ‘normal’ is
tonyb
Thanx for adding your own examples of confirmation bias.
You’re the one who has confirmation bias.
Here is a perfect example of deceptively hiding the decline; as in, actual declines. LtCol Vindman was offered the job three times, and then they ended the video. Why? Because they want the viewers to think he was perhaps disloyal. They wanted to hide the truth that he immediately declined the job all three times.
They hid the declines.
Deception hides the truth. To deceive is to hide the truth:
https://i.imgur.com/DvkhWCs.png
“You’re the one who has confirmation bias.”
:)
Probably, but, still QFT.
JCH: They hid the declines.
Deception hides the truth. To deceive is to hide the truth:
Well said. Those who hid the decline in the tree-ring proxy temperature series engaged in a deception. Had they been honest from the start, their technique would likely not have received any trust.
Arles McGee. This was a point about models, but my other posts were hockey stick related. Yes. The planet is warming at the moment. The issues with the hockey stick are many and varied. If we consider the original. There was an attempt to make today’s warm period look warmer than those of the past 2000 years and also minimize the size and scale of the LIA. One guesses to make the current period scarier than the rest. The 2k pages group have been trying to reinforce this, by claiming independent replication. But if you care to look, they are neither independent nor adequately proving/showing any replication of the original. So, whilst yes the planet is warming. The hockey stick is not correct or at least scientifically defendable as correct, which amounts to the same thing.
Arles McGee. Addendum: Would recommend some background reading. Searches for hide the decline, pca, red noise, climate audit. Bristle cone, strip bark, yamal should all bear interesting initial fruit. Throw in climate gate, upside down lake sediments, divergence… for extra colour. Along the way you’ll find all sorts of other interesting stuff. Then recommend going over the 2k groups output and getting back to me. Happy to chat.
Marler – no they did not. The paper is about the GMST of the NH. It’s not a paper about proxies. They made the right decision. You would have made the wrong decision. Which is why you are here and they are still up there.
Pingback: Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die of Exposure | Climate Scepticism
Judith,
Excellent summary. I want to add my voice to the chorus who believe that time is on our side here. As Climate Science morphed into Pseudo Science (Global Warming became Climate Change), the every day Joe began to see that if you keep changing the timeline, and amping up the level of the disaster “just around the corner”, more and more people will walk away from the debate and go back to just living their lives. That’s why people now list this topic at or near the bottom of the pile of important things for people to worry about and spend money on.
As someone further up the posting stated, in the vast scheme of things, it’s far more important for mankind to bring cheap electricity to the masses in Africa than to spend an equivalent amount of money on a theoretical and unproven increase of 1degree C in 100 years.
Jimb
How many kleptocratic “leaders” of African states are concerned to provide their people with basic necessities, as opposed to their own power and enrichment? Mozambique is one of many basket cases. Some years ago I read an analysis which said if all aid given to Mozambique (over 30 years or so) had been invested in Swiss banks, income per head would be six times the actual figure. Paul Theroux’s 2002 “Dark Star Safari” gives a good account of the problems which beset most of the continent.
JCH
“At some point, a spate of La Nina events, a shift to the cold phase of the AMO, increased volcanic activity, impacts of a solar minimum and another ‘hiatus’ are inevitable; sort of the reverse of what Steve Schneider was waiting for.
[3] Warmist scientist Steve Schneider perceptively said: “A mega heat wave this summer is worth 3 orders of magnitude more in the PR wars – too bad we have to wait for random events since evidence doesn’t seem to cut it anymore with the MSM [mainstream media]”
Putting my head on the chopping block here.
At this nadir point of warming the signs are currently good for rapid ocean cooling tropically and at the poles.
This will lead to a pronounced drop in th 2020 world global temperature to come, not to mention dropping this years warming rate.
Cheers.
A shift is the phase of the a AMO will do nothing. Just my opinion. So bring it on. Every morning I wake up and check the SST maps in the hopes the thing has finally dropped through the floor. Some times a major portion of the North Atlantic is anomalously blue, and I think, holy cow, the cold phase is arriving, but nothing happens.
So it looks to me like no matter how blue the North Atlantic gets, nothing will happen.
Now, if the PDO goes blue, baby watch out. Warming will slow down!! We’ll have another PAWS, followed soon thereafter by a spring-back warming which will completely, and immediately, erase the PAW and then some.
Been there; seen that.
What you need is the Divine Wind. The kamikaze. Saved Japan twice from the Chinese armada. Pray for England’s big Pacific blow. Hire some witchdoctors. Maybe it will come back. Only to go away again. Rats.
ahhh Pingback … even UAH Lower Troposphere (now Atmosphere) weighted at 11k’ height has the planet warming steadily.
And still, by every measure, the planet continues to warm …
This is an excellent open letter by Jason D. Hill, professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago, and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. His areas of specialization include ethics, social and political philosophy, American foreign policy and American politics.
An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg
You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/
“If civilization is left in the hands of your ecofascist supporters we will be living in grass huts, drinking animal feces infested water, and shrinking in fear from polar bears instead of killing them for food when they attack us.”
If this vacuous childish name calling constitutes “excellent”, then it’s not surprising Greta is so popular.
It is harsh but I see no name calling.
Fifteen against one is about even if the one is Steve Mc. But there were 15 more in the editing room. So add one more to the long list of white washes.
I add Judith and Nic to the list of personalities that have the core to welcome such odds with nothing supporting them but facts and math.
verytallguy | November 15, 2019
“If this vacuous childish name calling constitutes “excellent”, then it’s not surprising Greta is so popular.”
–
“Curry for dinner
Posted on September 24, 2014 by Rachel M
This is a guess post by VTG”
–
I guess the irony that she lets your vacuous hate speech get posted here is not lost on you, is it?
Tom Karl was completely innocent, as was NOAA. Pretty simple. There’s the good guys, and there’s the bad guys.
I wish more millennials would read your blog – if only for how to become a better person.
Tony Thomas of the Quadrant has a superb article
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/11/ten-years-after-climategate/
Good comments by Warren Pearce
https://twitter.com/WarrenPearce/status/1195131546753220609
Judith C – please watch the BBC documentary.
I located this site after watching your superbly level headed address of 2015 titled ‘Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster’ – looking for more words of wisdom and wondering how your thinking had moved on since then.
But one of the first things I read here is ‘.. I personally think Delingpole’s article is a superb analysis…’. Sorry, that has blown your credibility with me upfront. Dellingpole is one of those lamentable species of journalists who just hitches a ride on whatever might generate a few headlines – he practically reveals as much with his statement (on the linked article) “On the upside, my story went viral, got me a much bigger audience … and established my spiky, edgy reputation for in-your-face contrarianism…. I noticed an interesting story starting to break on the Watts Up With That? website. All I did was top, tail, adapt it and popularise it by giving it a bit of snark, context and spin. Then I nicked the title from a commenter called ‘Bulldust’ (an Aussie, as it happens). Et voilà! Climategate was born.”
If his methods form any part of your criteria for ‘superb analysis’ I’m really disappointed, shocked almost. I guess you took sides in the issue 10 0years ago and perhaps professional pride dictates that you don’t err from that position?
As a journalist I find Delingpole’s work first rate. What he describes is just how stories build.
And how does that make Dellngpole uniquely flawed among journalists? The corporate media is now as bad as the yellow journalists of the 19th Century. They are hyper partisan both in their commentary but also in their supposedly “news” output. They also exercise careful selection to bury stories that don’t fit the narrative. The recent revelations about ABC burying the Epstein story is a prime example. Mainstream media has simply ignored the story of this.
See Delingpole’s new piece
He’s way better than the Guardian’s TV reviewer.. who he calls out
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/11/16/delingpole-climategate-ten-years-on-move-along-nothing-to-see-here-says-bbc-and-msm/
Well said! Delingpole is a joke who was shown up for the vacuous, right- wing polemicist he is by Paul Nurse here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp20pc
The “interpreter of interpretations” is so obviously someone that any rational ( and scientifically educated) should ignore and avoid association with that anyone who praises him is obviously inhabiting a right-wing, blinkered alternative reality.
Amazing to read Judith Curry praising him but it now explains many things about what she does and why.
I do not refer to myself as a sceptic as I believe 100% that the assumption of human caused warming is incorrect.
I also believe that most of what one reads now regarding climate has little to do with science and almost totally to do with political dogma and a very well indoctrinated following (the beauty of totalitarianism).
There is little to disagree with in your writings, except that I will disagree with your comment that “Ideas that are genuinely irrational eventually burn themselves out as reality bites.”
Unfortunately, when it comes to a religion, it doesn’t matter how long reality bites, they will continue to believe, otherwise we would all be atheist by now.
It is common in these nostalgic retrospectives to consider today and into the future. As far as I can see – climate is unpredictable. I may be wrong – but it seems like it goes anyway at any time. Plus or minus 10 degrees C – regionally as much as 20 degrees in as little as a decade. Despite my confidence in greenhouse gases there is chaotic – in the mathematical determinate sense – internal variability.
Energy comes from the sun. Big changes in Earth’s energy budget happen with changes in sea surface temperature in the eastern Pacific. Strato-cumulus convection cells rain out faster over warm water than cold. Leaving open cells and letting the sunlight in heating the ocean. At CERES scale the biggest source of TOA power flux variability – and warming – post hiatus (Loeb 2018). Cloud cover changes can be inferred from the state of the Pacific Ocean. I expect this was a source of 20th warming, little ice age cooling and the medieval optimum. In addition to land use change and greenhouse gases and aerosols. In a kaleidoscope of climate potential as we push the Earth system faster and further towards its next tipping point. And they said it wasn’t catastrophic.
Climate change may be an argument no one can win – but don’t let that discourage you. My primary interest is land and water management – and biological conservation and restoration. Wind and solar can hope to reduce the 25% of fossil fuel emissions due to electricity generation. There are many ways the other 75% are being reduced. Land use and forestry are a big one – some 25%. Reclaiming deserts, restoring prairie, wetland and woodland and increasing the organic content of cropping and grazing soils goes a long way. With nuclear SMR on the horizon – global warming is less of a great human challenge and more a minor hurdle.
I agree that sometimes it is good to reduce our footprint on the environment when possible, but humans don’t have a very good track record when we attempt to stop, change or prevent changes that do occur in the environment (introducing species into an unrelated environment comes to mind). Many unintended consequences come out of these actions. Solar panels, batteries and wind power have a large carbon footprint (through the mining, and manufacturing) and are not immune to affecting the environment (eg. the disposal of batteries, fluorescent bulbs).
Also climate change is not the argument since climate has always changed. The argument is whether humans are causing it or not. I have yet to see sound scientific evidence that suggests we are. I do not believe that model data can be classified as sound scientific evidence. The sound scientific evidence would come from the testing of the modeled data. Of course the likes of Mann and his ilk do not want that to happen.
I think rather that development resources environments.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/19/cyberpunk-is-the-future/
https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/04/biological-abundance-and-economic-growth/
Judith, you are a “pearl of great price”. Another exception article that I hope reaches beyond the community of climate realists. Thank you so much for what you do.
XR anarchists are exactly what is needed to end this. They are the rock while reality is the hard place. Climate alarmism has trapped itself. The people who profit from it will be disrupted by the anarchists, and be forced to turn against them. When that makes the mob more angry, they will eventually be forced to admit the science was wrong to stop the mayhem.
All while real people suffer the consequences, and analyse what went wrong. Then after the destruction we get to rebuild.
“…. they will eventually be forced to admit the science was wrong…”
This Earth System Science is so complex and dynamic we’re bound to get surprised.
You stated above that you have confidence in greenhouse gases. My question would be, confidence in what fashion?
In all the discussion, I see little talk as to the science behind how CO2 does what people say it does. Sadly we are all engrossed in the modeling of the climate, but that is not the scientific evidence. It is purely a hypothesis that requires testing. I guess if we wait for the future it will be proven right or wrong (what I would call lazy science). The problem is that they are asking for a major upheaval in society (mostly through the loss of freedom and wealth), without scientific backing as to whether the hypothesis is correct or not.
Knowing the little I know about the chemistry of CO2 and that it can’t be a heat sink, I personally don’t have a lot of faith in the models.
RIE,
What was your purpose in showing that Uni Cal Irvine video? It has to be the most shallow, pathetic excuse for a Uni lecture that I have ever seen. I am not talking about ideology, I am talking about accuracy in Science. I gave up where the lecturer used model-calculated (small) uncertainties to justify the use of the models. About 11 min. into the loose gossip session that posed as education.
I compare it to the lectures I attended at Sydney Uni, 1961, Advanced Pure and Aplied Math III, that had a certain rigour, by comparison. Or discussions of nuclear energy late 1970s, with a scientist with D.Sc. (Oxon) and other scientists with PhDs and Knighthoods. Geoff
Oh no – not the dreaded Sherrington. Now he’s a pure mathematician and knows people with Sir in front of their names. The purpose in an introductory lecture on Earth System Science was to introduce ESS Perhaps an earlier lecture for Geoff. Gee I was still doing university in the late 90’s. Working full time and waiting for that late millennium climate shift. Future climate is binary – hotter or cooler, wetter or drier. Impossible to foretell – the chaotic math of opportunistic ensembles doesn’t add up. But I wouldn’t bet against the planet doing what it has always done – change. I have confidence – btw – that greenhouse gases and land use are small changes in a nonlinear system.
ESS starts with basics – at which Julie Carpenter is flawless – and builds to science of a system of economics. culture, climate, agriculture, fisheries and forestry. ESS because the system can’t be reduced to climate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKFoA7s1BYw
Land use is a huge source of carbon to the atmosphere. Changing that is stakeholder-based in stable and growing economies. There are many successes. Burning fossil fuels is a technology. Technology changes.
RIE,
Authors for general audiences have long divided their works into fiction and non-fiction. The same divisions apply to scientific publications. The general authors do not seem to mind the difference, but in science there is strong resistance when authors are classed as writers of fiction about science.
A difficulty with science presentations involves the arbitrator. The person calling ‘fiction’ should be qualified to do so. This will usually means that the arbitrator has a documented history of research relevant to the topic and a measure of professional success. This history can include the academic qualifications of the arbitrator. That is why, in my comment above, I referred to (for example) a nuclear scientist with D.Sc. (Oxon). Such a person, ab initio, would make a suitable arbitrator but further evidence would be needed to allow that arbitrator label.
It was my minor thesis that the lady lecturer from Irvine would not last long if arbitrators with similar qualifications judged her work via the quality of this lecture. Much of it is unsupported fiction, rather like housewife gossip over the back fence. It does not display the rigour of study that qualifies lecturers in Advanced Pure and Applied Mathematics III to lecture, to use my other example.
In the climate field that draws so much publicity, we are awash with poor science and papers that are more fictional than factual. I am making the point that it takes a good, proven scientist to distinguish between. The peer review process was never able to do this well and it is now largely a gatekeeper function to protect ideologies. Good scientists seem more able to see the differences that matter. In a nutshell, I suspect that Dr Curry fits the bill to be an arbitrator of science and that she should be encourage to be heard, not repressed by fair means or foul.
We have a large problem with the formal education of the current young generation. They are being fed fictions dressed as fact. It is the responsibility of everybody to attempt to correct this because it is important for the future of all. Geoff S
The lecture is fine – I can’t fault her at all. The greater point was Earth System Science so I posted an introductory lecture and he still doesn’t get it. Just goes to show how weirdly wrong he is. And Sherrington’s blather about a mythical ‘arbiter’ who supposedly finds fault is pretty funny if you think about academic freedom.
As an interested sccientist, I made submissions to both the House of Commons and the Dussell inquiries after Climategate. For a look back at what seemed important at the time, here is the Russell submission. Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/russell.doc
Ah, sorry. The web host picked up the wrong document.
For the relevant read that covers events back to 1992 or so, here is the address I wanted. Some of the Internet protocols are getting old and shakey, like I am. Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Russell submission.doc
Quel horreur! Third time lucky? It works until it goes to WordPress.
http://www.geoffstuff.com/russell_submission.doc
Geoff S
Thanks for the link.
It’s their right, I guess, to exclude data if they want, but it’s my right to become just that much more skeptical of the entire historical record. I’ve read contemporary articles about pre 1900 temperatures. Those incredibly hot readings don’t prove anything, but they tell me there is more to the story of Australia’s climate than is being reported by official sources.
And the questions about the more recent record continue, even now, 10 years later.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/guest/aust/bom-audit/gillham-chris/2019/ozfebmax.gif
It’s so easy being a skeptic. The justification shows up on my doorstep every day.
ceresco,
That animated .gif of Feb Tmax changes was created by the small team of which I have been a part for a decade.
The task is no longer so much to show these examples of horrible science to bloggers, but to get this material before decision makers. That is not easy when most of the mainstream media are so shallow in their promotion of CAGW, as I am sure that you know. Geoff S
Geoff, the “Decision makers” have made their decision & it wasn’t based upon any real data, the data used to support their decisions, was manufactured to support their decisions.
Pingback: Judith Curry: Legacy of Climategate – 10 years later – All My Daily News
On the exoneration issue as discussed by the DC Court of Appeals in Mann v. Steyn, I wrote a long blog post explaining that there had been very little exoneration of Mann and where I believed the Court of Appeals was mistaken. It might be useful to some here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/01/analysis-of-court-of-appeals-defamation-opinion-holding-that-climategate-inquiries-exonerated-michael-mann/?cn-reloaded=1#comment-2540411
If Judith thinks that my self-promotion is improper, I am more than fine with this post being taken down.
JD
Hi JD, thanks v. much for this link, v. helpful analysis
Ditto, JD.
Some comments here hint at a forgiveness growing in the decade since Climategate. I have no such mad, emotional urge. There should have been decent inquiries afterwards, with chemo-like suggestions for curbing the growth of this revealed cancer on climate science. Instead, science education has suffered. The conduct was unforegiveable. I infer that you feel similarly, thank you for upholding values. Geoff S
Judith & Geoff,
Thanks for the kind comments.
Geoff, I have a little different perspective than you. There is much deceit and dishonesty in politics, business and academia. So, I don’t feel that what happened was unforgivable, particularly if responsible people in the carbon dioxide substantial reduction camp had owned up to the scientific wrongs that were committed. What I think is very wrong is the deceit and lying about simple things–such as the false claim that Mann was exonerated in some meaningful way.
As an example of how bad lying is in the public sphere, Elizabeth Warren has stated that the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson was guilty of “murder.” This is a wholly despicable and immoral lie because Brown’s dna was found on the officer’s gun, hand and thigh making clear that Brown attacked the police officer and that the police officer was the victim of a crime. The evidence couldn’t be clearer, but this awful lie about murder isn’t even considered that important in the Presidential race even though Warren is looking like the Democrats’ nominee. For the facts, see Wikipedia, which is about 70% drawn from the Obama Justice Department’s report. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#DNA
Sorry to go a bit off topic. But if someone can tell a blatant lie about murder with impunity, we are really in a bad spot and what has happened so far in Mann v. Steyn is part and parcel of a much bigger problem.
Jd
Judith wrote:
The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.”
No, it wasn’t concealed.
In MBH 1999, the “reconstruction” part of Figure 3a clearly ends after 1950 and before 2000.
As SkS notes, the divergence problem had been discussed in the scientific literature starting in 1995.
https://skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/hockey_stick.gif
Well it was concealed in the cover graphic. In any case, the fundamental problem with Mann’s methods remain.
dpy6629: What “fundamental problems with Mann’s methods?”
The hockey stick has been replicated six ways to Sunday. This past July PAGES 2k did it (in Nature, I think) using 7 different statistical techniques.
What was wrong with their paper?
https://climateaudit.org/2009/11/26/new-the-deleted-data/
Kneel, Thanks for that link. It makes it absolutely clear that the inconvenient data was deleted!
Blog posts aren’t science.
Scholars 50 or 100 years hence won’t be perusing blogs, they will be studying and writing about the peer reviewed journal literature.
It was concealed in the wider communications.
sks can seriously damage your mental health. Here is McIntyre on the subject of “hide the decline” – the first of three segmented videos on the subject. Humourous, easy-to-digest and specific.
Too long to watch. What’s your/his point?
“McIntyre and McKitrick 2005 (GRL, EE) did not make allegations of misconduct and fraud….”
• Steve McIntyre, 1/16/14, http://www.nature.com/news/researchers-question-rescued-polar-expedition-1.14510#comment-1204277838
My retrospective on Climategate, where I was mentioned 4 times in the hacked emails:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/11/climategate-retrospective.html
Thanks for the link to your post. It was interesting. I have one big disagreement with your assessment:
No! They’re motivated by keeping fossil fuel users happy.
OR, perhaps they are interested in keeping the alternative energy industry happy!
Yep, that’s where the mass of votes are.
Sorry, that wasn’t to ordvic but to Canman! The mass of voters are fossil fuel users. Greta included. Only a subset, like the teenager, are trying to saw at the branch on which they and all of us sit. Politicians inevitably are motivated by many things but making the lives of fossil fuel users much worse can’t sustainably be one of them.
“in our system the slaves are unaware of their status and of their masters”
Canman: Polls show most Americans are concerned about climate change.
In my opinion, Americans will switch to EVs when that switch is made easier, esp by ubiquitous charging stations and installing solar power at home.
The oil industry has opposed electric cars. See the documentary “Who Killed the Electric Car?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car
Before this they opposed public transportation. There is a huge and powerful lobby that is pushing fossil fuels. It’s only now that coal power is on the wane, due to price, not politics.
Richard Drake: people use the energy sources that are readily available to them. If electricity was for EVs, they’d use that. It’s a matter of making it just as easy to use as gasoline has become (which also took a lot of effort).
By and large people understand that fossil fuels are changing the climate and that this is not good.
Richard: Most people are concerned about climate change.
They will use EVs when they are made easier to use. That’s the role of government.
Pingback: An Research Of The 11,000 ‘Micky Mouse’ Local weather Scientists – All My Daily News
Test post
I just spotted your posts in spam, has been released
Thanks.
I was repeating some material from elsewhere in the thread, I thought maybe that was the reason.
The full article:
The IPCC contradicts the Climate Emergency
https://www.cfact.org/2019/11/16/the-ipcc-contradicts-the-climate-emergency/
Here is a recent screaming statement of the supposed climate change emergency: “Trump’s greatest dereliction of duty – – his disgraceful denial of climate change” in the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/05/trumps-greatest-dereliction-duty-his-disgraceful-denial-climate-change/
This alarmist diatribe says: “At a time when the international scientific community has concluded that we have 11 years to avert the worst of climate change, Trump and his Republican allies are working to intensify the threat, not deter it. A more egregious dereliction of duty is impossible to imagine. Trump’s denial mirrors the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Like Nero, Trump is helping set the flames. Democrats are raising the alarm. The contrast cannot be clearer.”
Here is the wildly false claim: “At a time when the international scientific community has concluded that we have 11 years to avert the worst of climate change…” This claim occurs repeatedly in emergency declarations.
This false claim refers to the IPCC SR15 report issued in October 2018. What the IPCC really said was we have the 12 years until 2030 to prevent the small difference in impact between 1.5 degrees of total warming and 2.0 degrees. With one degree already done this is just the difference between 0.5 degrees of new warming and 1.0 degrees. The question only came up because both targets are mentioned in the Paris Accord. The question thus arises, what difference this difference makes?
According to the IPCC this difference in impact is very small. It is certainly not “the worst of climate change” as the Post and other alarmists repeatedly claim.
Proponents of the climate emergency scare often cite last year’s IPCC SR15 report as their scientific basis, but it is no such thing. The widely proclaimed 12 year deadline is just for holding warming to 1.5 degrees, which the IPCC says is almost impossible. The IPCC numbers also say that exceeding that warming is in no way catastrophic. The difference between the impact of 1.5 degrees of total warming (just 0.5 degrees of new warming) and 2.0 degrees is tiny. Thus the IPCC report actually contradicts the unfounded claim of a climate emergency.
Here is an example from the SR15 Summary for Policy Makers: “Temperature extremes on land are projected to warm more than GMST: extreme hot days in mid-latitudes warm by up to about 3°C at global warming of 1.5°C and about 4°C at 2°C, and extreme cold nights in high latitudes warm by up to about 4.5°C at 1.5°C and about 6°C at 2°C.”
Extreme hot days, which are uncommon to begin with, warm by up to about just one degree going from 1.5 degrees to 2.0 degrees of total warming. This is certainly not an emergency. It is probably not even detectable due to natural variability.
Note that the 3 degrees of hot weather warming at 1.5 degrees of total global warming and the 4 degrees at 2 degrees both include the one degree that is supposed to have already happened. Presumably something like half of this impact has already occurred, so that is not part of the future impact emergency issue.
In short we are talking about just a tiny amount of impact as being the difference between 1.5 and 2.0 degrees of total warming. There is simply no basis for declaring an emergency in these IPCC numbers. There is nothing catastrophic in going to 2.0 degrees of warming instead of 1.5 degrees.
Note too that extreme cold nights warm even more, which is arguably a good thing. Given that extreme cold is reportedly more dangerous than extreme heat, going to 2.0 degrees might even be net beneficial. Richard Tol’s integrated assessment model actually says this.
The proponents of the scary emergency need to be called out on this contradiction. No IPCC science supports the climate emergency. What the proponents of climate emergency are calling for is all cost with no benefit.
The emergency is a fallacy.
End of article
David
The climate itself; even with huge 2016 (see this recent overview by Ross McKitrick), the temperatures are not keeping pace with the CMIP5 predictions.
2016 was not a huge El Niño. It was an average unexceptional Modoki El Niño – just some mid Pacific warming with no engagement of the Bjerknes feedback.
What made the 2016 El Niño exceptional and the peak of the entire instrumental record, was the instrumental record, or rather, its editing. In 2014 Pacific SSTs were turning very cold. Suddenly, by magic, they weren’t cold any more. The back room boys changed the Pacific SST baselines to give a big much needed lift to Pacific temperatures. Standing on this pedestal, the 2016 El Niño was made to look like a towering peak of OMG warming.
In the coming months and years we will see this again and again. Temperatures will be cooling. Then suddenly they won’t be cooling anymore. Note however that all the warming will be where no one lives. In the mid oceans, the poles, Siberia. Where people live, snow and ice will increase and harvests will be poor due to rain and cold. But in the instrumental record, the OMG warming will never cease.
I had a hard time making sense of the alternative claims around Climategate. Certainly back then I was skeptical of many proposed approaches for dealing with climate change, but that did not encourage me to doubt anything s around the “scientific“ understanding around climate change, I did not like much of what was said in the emails and found their defenders arguments suspect, but I was also highly skeptical of the critics of climate science at the same time. Judith, you were the first person I came across that did not seem polarized, yet had what I considered a credible standing within the relevant scientific community. You seemed to be looking for answers not pushing conclusions, I learned you had a blog and I thought following your evolving understanding would help me make sense of it all.
That was a good choice. I have found you to be honest, fair and focused on knowing as much as you can about whatever is true. Thank for you voice the last ten years. This is a really good piece with some excellent links.
PE,
Thanks for everything. Your articles also enlightening.
I also felt something seriously wrong w Science until Dr Curry’s Scientific America interview vis a vis Mann in 2010. Brave women to keep fighting for truth.
Scott
The loopy (meridional) jet streams that are becoming more prevalent are a cause both of hotter extremes in summer and and cold Arctic outbreaks in winter. It seems that the theory is well established and compelling that this loopiness is caused by weaker solar activity. Upper atmosphere interactions with solar wind are the mechanism. We are entering a period of lower sunspot activity that only occurs every few centuries. A role for CO2 in this trend is thus redundant and entirely speculative.
There have been a number of emails of people (Podesta, Clinton) and also documents (Panama papers) released and to my knowledge, the climate gate emails were the only ones that had ‘investigations’ of what was written in them. Those ‘investigation’ ended up ‘clearing’ the science and scientists. Think there were 9 of them.
Think about this…
Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
Pingback: Delingpole: Climategate 10 Years On – The Bastards Have Got Away With It! – REAL News 45
Pingback: Climategate 10 Years On – The Bastards Got Away With It! | Prime Patriot
Pingback: Climategate And Other Global Warming Scams Never Die – Lexington Libertarian
Pingback: Delingpole: Climategate 10 Years On – The Bastards Got Away With It! – CBD News
https://i.imgur.com/qMrHIia.png
Made my day.
Dummypole is one of the major reasons why the “bastards” got away with “it”. He’s a butthole, and buttholes only appeal to other buttholes. Not their – the bastards – fault that Climategate started out a nothing burger and still is a nothing burger.
fyi: Gavin has a piece on it online: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/11/10-years-on/ . Somewhat disappointing IMO, of course.
From Schmidt’s piece: “Some people will continue to obsess of two-decade-old minutae which even at the time were obscure and irrelevant, but now I don’t see why anyone sane would want to even bother.”
Of course its a lie. If it was all so unimportant why did Schmidt and Mann devote huge numbers of hours and words to trying to justify their flawed methods and why is he posting on it? It just shows that climate scientists have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
The alarmists make a big deal out ot the “century” demarcation which is utterly capricious and arbitrary. Mathematically, the problem with the central limit is it’s like looking at half a sine wave and thinking you can discern a trend from that.
So, use their tools against them. Keep pointing out it has not actually warmed at all this century and 1936 is still the hottest year on record in the NOAA database and any graph that shows the 1930s cooler than the 1990s is fudged.
It did warm a few hundredths of a degree in the last century between 1976 and 1998 but Jouzel et al 2008 shows it warmed 3x that much in previous centuries,
The wheels are falling off the CAGW cart
You could not be more wrong. AGW one of the biggest things people under 40 have on their minds, and they are pissed off at their boomer elders.
JCH, be really proud of Greta.
Richard Sexton,
Even UAH Lower Troposphere shows the troposphere warming by more than .5*C since 1980, which is quite a bit more than a ‘few hundredths of a degree’.
Dr Spencer states the Lower Trop is warming at or near +.13*C per decade.
And since 2000 (this century) UAH LT ‘running, centered 13 month average’ shows a +.3*C warming, again much more than ‘not warmed at all this century’.
Pingback: Climate communications: “The Trouble With Climate Emergency Journalism | Issues in Science and Technology” – SocialPanic
They’ve definitely sought to minimize the MWP, an activity continued by the 2K lot. Would point to thier prefilters as being a tad dodgy and thier relaxed approach to data quality, when they find a reconstruction that they particularly like. See Antarctic borehole inclusion Essentially though, if you seive through your data looking for hockey sticks, you will unsurprisingly find hockey sticks.
Why would they minimize it? The hitter the MWP was, the bigger the current pickle. See Frank. Frankly, I don’t know which one.
You’d have to ask them JCH, but the flatter the shaft of your hockey stick, the more extreme the blade looks would be one answer. The other would be if we survived that warm period, likewise Roman, Minoan and Holocene Maximum then perhaps that puts our current doom ladened warm period into perspective. Why for instance, do you think our current situation worse?
That should be: bigger. The bigger the MWP; the bigger the current pickle.
If they were up to no good, which is an insanely paranoid thing to think, it would be called the Scythe-handle controversy:
https://i.imgur.com/oTGU4Ak.png
Is that what Cool Hand Luke used?
Cool Hand was a Lukewarmer:
https://i.imgur.com/y6udv99.png
jch
The scythe is pointing the wrong way up as Josh illustrated 6 years ago
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/01/introducing-the-anti-hockey-stick-the-scythe/
tonyb
Not paranoid at all. If you pre filtered twice, comparing to hockey sticks, you’ll find them in you thermally sensitive proxies. So, how is that paranoid? If you further relax your selection criteria to allow you to add a particularly nice Antarctic borehole hockey stick, one might ask why? Now, they could be stupid? They do explain what they are doing, so I wouldn’t rule stupid out. They could be stacking the deck so to speak or they might truly be of the opinion that, that’s how the rest of us do science. Seriously, just go and have a look. I’m making no judgement. Over and above, you find what you look for, especially if you’ve pre selected only compatible data sets. It’s not something I would do in my own work.
Tony – I seldom look at WUWT, so I was not aware of any prior use of the scythe. Here is my peer-reviewed, not-a-joke, no-laughing-matter version:
https://i.imgur.com/blE7DCA.png
jch
AH! At last it sees that someone can answer the big question as to when climate was ‘normal’ ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ as the graph shows each of these .
So WHEN were these epochs? A very approximate beginning and end of each would be fine. I am especially interested as to when climate was ‘normal.’ Thanks
tonyb
As a reconstruction scientist, I think the best policy is honesty. Honestly, I don’t know what the hell an epoch is.
Splendid summary. Thanks, Judith
David Appell | Judith wrote “The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.No, it wasn’t concealed.In MBH 1999, the “reconstruction” part of Figure 3a clearly ends after 1950 and before 2000.”
–
Something does not gel, David.
–
ATTP
“Most tree ring series ended in 1980, so Mike’s Nature trick was simply the addition of the instrumental temperature record after 1980.
However, one tree ring series diverged after 1960 and showed cooling. Hence the instrumental temperature record was added to this series post 1960, rather than post 1980 as per the other tree ring series. If this was a figure for a scientific paper, you’d expect this to be made clear in the paper itself”
Jean S
“Mike’s Nature trick”. Mike (=Michael Mann) did not truncate any tree ring data in his publications the “trick” is to add instrumental temperature series to the end of the reconstruction (to the truncated reconstruction in the case of Briffa’s series) prior to smoothing. the sentence continues “of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s”. the effect of this “trick” is to turn the end of the smoothed series upwards (instead of downwards as they would without adding in the instrumental series), and thus “to hide the decline”.
–
Oh, the clear ending spread over 50 years?
Where exactly was that “clear” ending?
Pingback: Weekly Abstract of Local weather and Vitality # 386 – Next Gadget
Pingback: Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #386 – Daily News
Dr. Currie among others are like Old Testament Prophets; Hated by the priests, scribes, and elders. In this case academics are the scribes, priests are the scientists preaching their funded, politically tainted version of science in publications, doctored graphs, and speaking engagements, and the elders are elected policymakers.
“Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.”
I find this procedural detail beyond unacceptable. it is, in fact, dangerous. Considering the enormous regressive costs to society of Co2 reduction being considered by Western governments, it would seem prudent to deliberate on a complete, unfiltered source of data and graphs offering the clearest and closest facts available.
Building our future prosperity, strength, and values on anything less is mythology.
Fascinating read; appreciate data rather than opinion and political hysteria.
Why should anyone, Angtech included, prefer data points inferred from old proxy data to those provided directly by modern instruments?
Could his aversion to the instrumental record arise from its being the least uncertain? Reconstructing Paleoclimate from a farrago of proxies is a lot trickier than reading instruments with tracable calibration.
Russell
By old proxy data you presumably mean the novel proxies including tree rings that make up 90% of the hockey stock?
tonyb
Russel Seitz,
The only data we have of the Earth’s temperature history for the past half billion years, other than for the past few centuries, is proxy data from the geological and palaeontological record. And the only evidence of how ecosystems thrived and struggled is from the geological and palaeontological record. These proxy records demonstrate clearly that life thrived much better than now when GMST was up to 13 C warmer than now. Further, mass extinction events that occurred when GMST was below the optimum, were during periods of global cooling, not warming
Russell. “Why should anyone, Angtech included, prefer data points inferred from old proxy data to those provided directly by modern instruments?
Hi Russell, long term fan of yours, actually.
I admire both old proxy data and data from modern instruments. It seems that you advocate (prefer) direct new data to old proxy data?
Bravo.
Like a brand new bicycle to an worn out old horse.
In your usual style.
They are two different things with different purposes.
Proxy data is used for comparing past events to confirm both the validity of old direct data and that of the proxy data. It can then be used to validate other forms of proxy data from times when direct data measurement did not exist.
The only way to evaluate the past is with past data and proxy data.
New direct data never says anything about the past until it becomes old data.
–
New direct data from modern instruments is great stuff. The more technology the more current information which is about the present. Here it is amazing that your viewpoint on the best most modern systems, satellites is to disparage it compared to the antiquated old land systems with poor spatial coverage.
A case of only liking the modernity that agrees with your particular viewpoint at any particular time.
–
“Could his aversion to the instrumental record” (I love the instrumental record) arise from its being the least uncertain? (No).
“Reconstructing Paleoclimate from a farrago of proxies is a lot trickier than reading instruments with tracable calibration.”
“A farrago of proxies”, was that that Australian girl with the proxies?
My, you do have a long and accurate memory, when you want.
IsMichael Mann, a well known Professor, aware of your
humble opinion of his field of work?
Letters to the Editor in The Australian, November 19.
Climate evangelists on the march for more converts
“It is a sad fact that the history of drought and bushfires in this country, as outlined in Chris Kenny’s excellent article (“Climate crusaders exploit fires to push their alarmist view”, 16/11), will do nothing to alter the determination of climate-change evangelists to link all weather-related disasters to climate change.
These evangelists now have an army of converts marching through our political and educational systems and, like religious converts, they brook no questioning of their beliefs. They have been shown the way, the truth and the light and no facts are going to get in the way of their beliefs.
Indeed, it is not too much to conclude that they see disagreement as blasphemy. Unfortunately, unlike the evangelists of old who sought to convert disbelievers by persuasion, climate-change evangelists shout down dissenters and look to a future where they are silenced permanently.”
John Lake, Mosman Park, WA
“Another great column by Jennifer Oriel (“Fringe-dwelling Greens revel in a nation’s agony”, 18/11). Common sense and realism are starting to emerge as key factors in Australia’s political jungle. Most of us don’t live on the fringe of anything, be it left or right and we probably don’t wish to be identified as centrists either. We are just people enjoying our lifestyle, the football or a good book.
Most importantly most of us have values and pride in our nation. When things get tough we band together and don’t give up till the job is done. The PM fits that picture perfectly. Green fringe-dwellers never will.”
Ian C. Murray, Cremorne Point, NSW
“Chris Kenny is to be congratulated for the most succinct exposure of the distorted facts peddled by so many media outlets, particularly the ABC.
Kenny provides evidence to support his logic. This is more than can be said for the Greens and certain ABC journalists who are either too lazy to do the research or who take emotive climate language as the gospel truth.”
Nick Bailey, Ngunnawal, ACT
“Greenies are the arsonists responsible for the severity of these bushfires through their efforts in preventing the controlled burning of dry wood in our forests, allowing the build-up of fuel to dangerous levels, for the benefit of preserving animal habitat. Where is that animal habitat now?
Were Australia to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions to zero it would have no impact on the climate. The best response to excessive emissions is reforestation, dams for flood control, drought mitigation and energy production, as well as building base-load nuclear and high-tech coal-fired power plants instead of subsidised short-lived wind and solar power.”
Mort Schwartzbord, Caulfield, Vic
Peter, it takes a true disbeliever to damn proxies as uncertain and anecdotal while believing absolutely in a construct based entirely on proxy data and historical anecdote.
The MWP, for instance.
:)
Yeah, that Peter Lang is something. If not for him and his unbeliever kind, the Non-Binding Paris Accord Hoax would have saved the planet. Now our only hope is that angry little girl from one of those green loon Scandalnavian countries.
Yes, Don. Did you see this excellent article:
An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg
You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/
Greta is holding her own in the Time Person of the Year Twitter votes. What do we expect when 76% of 18-24 years olds don’t know who Mao is.
As Bette said “Put on your seatbelt.”
Dude, 18-24-year olds don’t own homes in the cities and their suburbs, and that’s your problem. Ask any future-free nutball office holder/seeker who has to run for office there. But keep focusing on Greta. Angry old white men denigrating a teenager is a fantastic look.
Almost nothing came as a result of 2016, and it is all but gone
2016 gave us POTUS and Most Powerful Man in the World Donald J. Trump! Five more years! Forget about Paris. You are going to need counseling.
Ageist!!
Millions being froth mouthed about an indoctrinated teenager who they consider to be the second coming and worthy of person of the year should be a signal that there are societal instabilities across the globe. It’s charming that the young are idealistic, naive and gullible. But what do we call it when adults are the same. Can we really risk nations being dependent on the young for guidance? Doesn’t wisdom count for anything anymore?
A leading magazine went so far as suggesting that she is the real leader of the Free World. Sounds like a high school journalistic class hi jacked that particular editorial room. Unfortunately, they aren’t alone in slobbering over the messianic message of the girl. The media have collectively imbued her with powers not even Wonder Woman could conjure up.
But she is not the one deserving criticism. It’s all the adults, using her for their own purposes, who are worthy of our scorn. Just like stage moms and those moms who enter their 5 year old daughters In beauty contests, the complicit adults are all engaging in a perverse form of child abuse. These adults see no selfish motives like the moms, however, since they are on a joint mission to save the world. This higher calling justifies their abuse.
But we are on to them. Giving Greta the microphone is just the next chapter of a long term public relations strategy, after the previous efforts failed. First, it was global warming. Then Climate Change. Then it was billed as an emergency. Now, as the Bosses see it all spinning out of control with decades of flat to decreasing temperatures imminent, they are pulling out all the stops and appealing to our emotions with the use of a vulnerable adolescent.
Is there no shame?
cerescokid,
just in response to your upside down last paragraph …
It was in 1988 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed. So it has always been climate change, it’s even in the title in 1988.
Then in 2003 US Republican pollster/operative Frank Luntz sent a 38 page ‘memo’ to President GWBush and all Cons partly informing them that they’d lost the environmental issue and should start using the gentler term Global Warming instead of Climate Change.
That information is readily available online.
Scientists did not interchange Climate Change / Global Warming, it was only shameful US Republicans and their operatives who deny AGW that switched the terms.
As for your Amazing Criswell prediction of ‘decades of flat to decreasing temperatures imminent”, good luck with that one too as the planet continues to warm according to all surface and atmospheric measurements.
The problem with hijacking the term climate change, and not using the correct term human caused climate change, is that when you disagree with them they call you a denier of climate change. Of course no one denies climate change. We disagree with human caused climate change.
The 80-90 year AMO lurks. Tick tock, tick tock.
Ceresco kid
I have tried to reply several times to Arless but the post goes missing. The term global warming as been in use since 1973. it is incorrect for anyone to claim it only came to the fore when used by a very obscure (i.e. no one has ever heard of) republican senator in the 1990’s
tonyb
Oh, it’s only climate change. It’s not global warming that is going to raise sea levels, flood half the world, hurricanes, fires, famine, cause mass extinctions, cats sleeping with dogs, etc. We can relax now and ignore that annoying little girl from Scandalnavia.
I agree Tony. Whether the IPCC used the term is irrelevant. In the sphere of the public domain it was clearly global warming at the very start. We had debates at work in the 1980s, before the first IPCC report. At the time I was pushing the precautionary principle. I still was a decade ago until I dug down really deep into the issues.
It’s one of the advantages of being a senior. I remember a lot from personal experience and don’t need links of history revisionism. The same goes for the deniers of global cooling in the 1970s. I remember reading article after article after article expressing concern about colder temperatures in our future. Today, some want to blame it on a rogue scientist or two. No, for awhile, it was very much in the news.
cerescokid wrote:
“I remember reading article after article after article expressing concern about colder temperatures in our future.”
1) It’s well known that personal memories aren’t very reliable.
2) So what? Today the evidence — far better evidence than was available 50 years ago — proves AGW.
3) There was lots of early work showing AGW:
http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html
Peter Lang wrote:
An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg
You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/
Grown men intimidated by a little girl.
cerescokid wrote:
The 80-90 year AMO lurks. Tick tock, tick tock.
Where does the energy come from to fund the AMO?
Appell
This paper, covering 8,000 years, in addition to dozens of others, suggest the AMO is driven by oceanic and atmospheric internal variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1186
Are you sure you are current on the science?
On another matter, I’ve provided 2 times in previous posts, extensive documentation on peer reviewed studies showing warming across the globe during the MWP and cooling across the globe during the LIA. Neither time did you respond. Is it you were unaware of current science or were you running away from the facts?
Regarding my memory. It’s the short term memory that goes, not long term memory. I’ve bookmarked those articles that I remember reading, and they state precisely what my memory was. Sorry, but denying facts about the cooling of the 1970s doesn’t make it go away.
You really should brush up on the most recent science. Believing stuff from decades ago doesn’t serve you well.
“It is another demonstration that the ABC is off the rails and of how far it has strayed from its original charter with the revelation that ABC employees are planning to form a climate advisory group in a bid to report on climate change using “solutions journalism” (“Aunty’s staff push for climate crisis advisory group”, 18/11).
Solutions journalism? Let’s call it what it is. This is straight up advocacy journalism on an extremely fraught and sensitive political issue. Having taken over the institution, the inmates have peppered their internal emails with the language about a “climate crisis” so as to instil and convey a sense of urgency and hysteria and of impending doom and catastrophe. When Ita Buttrose accepted the job as chairwoman, she probably thought that it would be something of a retirement doddle, but this is where the rubber meets the road.”
Jim Ball, Narrabeen, NSW
“If the ABC staff push for a climate group succeeds, it could be a humbling experience for those involved. If diligent they will discover that the causes of droughts and floods are a mystery still and no one — not even someone with the incredible intellect and knowledge of the average ABC journalist — can predict the climate.
They might even find out why some people keep rabbiting on about sunspots, ocean-heat transfers, cloud, volcanoes and such, and why carbon dioxide does not act as a thermostat for the planet and never has.
And if that isn’t enough, they can look to the northern hemisphere where winter has come weeks early in many parts, talk of global warming is a distant memory and many are seeing links between their present misery and the grand solar minimum NASA forecast months ago.”
Doug Hurst, Chapman, ACT
We want a BoM audit because they are fiddling the books and unprecedented hot days are figments of the imagination.
h/t jonova
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/guest/aust/bom-audit/gillham-chris/2019/very-hot-days/australia-hot-days-60.gif
Whatever.
It was Frank Luntz who suggested dropping “global warming” and adopting “climate change”.
JCH
I suspect that, like me, 99.9% of the world has never heard of Frank Lunz and it is incorrect to suggest he popularised the term ‘global warming. It has been used for decades and outside of strict scientific circles tends to be interchangeable with ‘climate change.’
From NASA “To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”1
Broecker’s term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it “inadvertent climate modification.”2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?
For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So “inadvertent climate modification,” while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.
The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide’s impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned “inadvertent climate modification.” Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: “if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”3
In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker’s usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used “global warming.” When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used “climate change.”
So climate change has a long pedigree and I would suggest the biggest change in recent years is the use of ‘climate emergency’ or ‘climate crisis’ used by hysterical non scientific activists to describe a profound, rapid and escalating rate of change that does not exist.
tonyb
One for the “Mystery Man” of Climate Science.
Dude,
Catch a clue – it ain’t raining on your parade.
Manniac, they don’t make mystery men like they used to:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2018/03/indur-golkany-international-suit-of.html
He doesn’t allow comments on his fake wattsup blog, so as not to reveal what a lonely place it is. Pathetic.
Quite what relevance a 6 year old article is to anything perhaps Russell can explain. Even the introductory article is 18 months old. Run out of news Russell?
Tonyb
DonM: Watts blogs many comments as well. What is he afraid of?
Pingback: Climategate: Ten Years On – Small Dead Animals
I’m amazed at the magnitude of the conversations and economic resources wasted on theoretical modeling using as its base, modeled data (non-scientific data) as if this gives us any meaningful information. There is so little science utilized that it boggles the mind.
When I was younger, we were taught to think critically and never start with a conclusion, only a hypothesis. I guess none of that matters nowadays
We have a lot of data from over a hundred years that forms a very good and real data set, requiring very little economic resource to model and probably gives a very good picture of the last hundred years. But who would make money that way.
The fact is that the indoctrination of the likes of Greta and many of the so called educated of the world has nothing to do with science.
The discussion of who is right or wrong in modeling garbage data won’t change a thing.
The use of pseudo-science and it’s manipulation on our youth is the issue and it is nothing short of psychological abuse on the masses, but, isn’t that the goal of many world leaders, to have the masses numbly follow their indoctrination.
Europe’s Green Suicide
1) Tata Steel to Cut 3,000 Jobs as Crisis Rips Through Europe
Bloomberg, 19 November 2019
2) German Anti-Wind Revolt Sparks Collapse In Construction
Financial Times, 17 November 2019
3) German Wind Industry In Freefall: Turbine Makers Sack Thousands in Mass Layoffs
Stop These Things, 19 November 2019
4) Europe’s Green Fall
GWPF TV, November 2019
5) New Science Scandal: ‘Fatally Flawed Hurricane Paper Should Be Retracted’
Roger Pielke Jr., Forbes, 15 November 2019
6) Climate Extremism in the Age of Disinformation
Roy Spencer, 18 November 2019
7) No More Climate Excuses: Environment Agency Ignored Flood Warnings For Years
The Times, 16 November 2019
8) The US could end up running on gasoline forever, leaving electric vehicles to China and Europe
Business Insider, 12 November 2019
Source GWPF Newsletter, 19-11-19
https://mailchi.mp/ffd145befd4c/s9gw3rcrep
9. Denmark provides the final approval for Nord Stream 2 on Oct. 31. This follows the 2018 action where Germany, which partly financed the gas pipeline, approved VW’s plan to switch to natural gas at its largest German factory owned power plant (which also supplies heat for the town) by 2022. These two developments signal the simple fact that Germany and France (another financial backer of Nord Stream 2) intend to replace coal and zero emissions nuclear power with fossil fuels.
My God! Look at the firestorm the mere mention of “ClimateGate” has generated! As an informed observer from another discipline (financial economics and econometrics), I am encouraged that reason, facts and the unfettered scientific method will ultimately prevail.
Addendum: Mega-Kudos to Judith Curry for her courage and tenacity!
Yes. :)
The first step
A Planet Effective Temperature Formula is based on the planet radiative equilibrium and in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
This Formula is incomplete and thus produces very confusing results.
Te.earth.incompl. = 255 K
Thus the incomplete Planet Effective Temperature Formula led to the wrong conclusions that there is a strong 288-255= Δ 33 oC Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect.
I have rewritten anew the incomplete formula, and here is what we have now:
Comparison of results the planet Te calculated by the Incomplete Formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
the planet Te calculated by the Complete Formula:
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
and the planet Te (Tsat.mean) measured by satellites:
Planet or……Te.incomplete…….Te.complete ……….Te.satellites
moon…………..formula……………formula…………….measured
Mercury…………437 K……………..346,11 K…………….340 K
Earth……………255 K……………..288,36 K…………….288 K
Moon……………271 Κ……………..221,74 Κ…………….220 Κ
Mars……………211,52 K………….215,23 K…………….210 K
At very first look at the data table we distinguish the following:
Planet or…….Te.incomplete… Te.satellites…..Rotations
moon…………..formula…………measured…….per day
Mercury…………437 K……………340 K…………1/58
Earth……………255 K……………288 K…………..1
Moon……………271 Κ……………220 Κ…………1/29,5
Mars…………….211,52 K………..210 K…………..1
For the slow rotating Mercury and Moon the Incomplete Formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
gives us much higher results comparing to measured by satellites.
For the fast rotating Earth and Mars the Incomplete Formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
gives us much lower result for Earth and almost alike for Mars.
The first conclusion is that the Incomplete Formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
should be abandoned because it gives us very confusing results, or it should be completed, as we already did.
The Mercury’s and Moon’s higher calculated temperatures were because we hadn’t inserted the factor Φ = 0,47 in formula yet.
The incomplete formula “was ignorant” of the spherical surface solar irradiation geometrical dependent absorption. That is why the absorbed by insolated planet hemisphere fraction of solar flux was overestimated.
That is why Mercury’s and Moon’s by incomplete formula calculated temperatures appeared higher than the measured by satellites.
The second conclusion is that the faster rotating Earth and Mars according to satellites measurements appear to be warmer, and we conclude it happens because of their fast rotation period. We already have “N” (rotations/per day) in our Complete Formula.
I should mention here again that I believe in NASA satellites temperatures measurements. None of my discoveries would be possible without NASA satellites very precise planet temperatures measurements.
The Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula you can read about in my the last week scientific review comments.
Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
Also in my website:
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you Christos, lets hope that some peer review supports your conclusions. I have believed, without scientific proof, that we have always overestimated the effects of atmosphere on the temperature of the planet. Your calculations may indeed show that the atmosphere does not play as big a role as we have been lead to believe.
GWPF Newsletter, 21/11/2019
“1) Game Over: China Set For Massive Coal Expansion
• Bloomberg, 20 November 2019
China has enough coal-fired power plants in the pipeline to match the entire capacity of the European Union, driving the expansion in global coal power and confounding the movement against the polluting fossil fuel, according to a new report.”
2) The Road From Paris: China’s Climate U-Turn
Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12 December 2018
H/T GWPF
https://mailchi.mp/4d7c87a2a550/game-over-china-set-for-massive-coal-expansion
Known before the Paris voluntary country commitments – that have nothing to do with 1.5 degrees C.
http://cornerstonemag.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Velautham-Figure-1-1024×617.jpg
Mostly clean coal but price-sensitive with technology innovation. What makes economic sense at the time of the investment decision. Skeptic dog whistles notwithstanding.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/hele.png
Source – https://www.worldcoal.org/coal%E2%80%99s-role-asean-energy
Carbon storage is so light heartedly suggested for low and zero carbon emission schemes. Depending on the detail processes one must be aware of the amount of energy that is needed for cooling, cleaning, compression, pipeline transport, re-compression, etc. That added energy creates 20 to 25% more CO2 over what is being processed for storage, i.e. wasted energy and more CO2 created for making this energy. There is always something that bites one in the behind.
I was a practicing civil engineer and dollars and completion dates are what count. I have an idea that advanced, gas-cooled, fast neutron, high-temperature reactors can be cost-competitive. Factory fabrication, modular construction and decommissioning, uses a range of fertile nuclear materials – there are 100’s of years of energy left in light water reactor waste today – and just 3% of light water reactors waste volume as light fission products. It is technology worked on for decades and a company who have built a couple of gas-cooled reactors. With a 21st century nuclear engine the sky’s the limit. Process heat, high temp hydrogen production, reserve generating capacity to meet any extreme, Add a CO2 source and produce liquid fuels. This is the energy-rich world scenario in which anything is possible.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ga-em2.jpg
In the EM2 pic, what is the ‘Below-grade containment’. Should that read ‘below-ground’?
It is a Brayton cycle on the thermodynamic side, which rejects ~60% of generated heat. No sign of that piece of plant, a large piece. The generator is particularly small. $/kW is inversely proportional to size.
Be careful what you wish for.
“While the properties of helium influence the gas flow path
geometries, the aerodynamic and structural design procedures used are similar to conventional air-breathing aeroengine gas turbine practice. The high specific power associated with helium operation, together with the high gas pressure in the closed helium loop, results in a machine size that is physically smaller than industrial and aeroderivative gas turbines currently in utility service.” https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/26/026/26026103.pdf
It is not new technology. GA have built a couple of gas-cooled research reactors.
Time skeptics claim is on their side. What with crusty old white guys and cultural memes progressing one funeral at a time – I’d say the odds are low to Buckley’s. Surface temperature GIF’s, models don’t work and frank admissions of a lack of any science are scarce enough resources to mount an intellectual offensive that has failed politically with high public concern. And very different theories that prove they are not a secular sect. With actual science, technology and data becoming more dynamic and complex daily. Pointing to tipping points in the Earth system. An invidious spectacle of crusty old white guys castigating a young woman along the way. And they say it’s not s secular sect? I suspect the skeptic time in the sun never was and never will be.
https://www.google.com/search?q=time+is+on+my+side+youtube&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBAU873AU874&oq=time+is+on+my+side+youtube&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.12443j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I predict that when the not yet high school graduate angry little girl from Scandalnavia reaches the age of us crusty old white guys, the fame and foolishness of her youth will have been long forgotten. She won’t amount to much.
What a man. You’re so tough. Beating up on a teenaged girl. I admire that so much.
I suspect that no one cares what you predict Don. She amounts to a teenage girl.
Good prediction Don. And this excellent article says is well:
An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg
You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are.</b?
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2019/11/open-letter-greta-thunberg-jason-d-hill/
And it also applies to all the other gullible Greens and CAGW alarmists.
As I said previously, it is clear that the wheels are falling off the CAGW cart. Evidence that GW is harmful is lacking. It's just a matter of time until it all falls in a heap. But enormous damage is being done by climate alarmism in the meantime
Clarification for the pedants:
“Evidence that GW is harmful is lacking.” should read:
Evidence that GW is net harmful (total of all impact sectors for the world) is lacking.
Yes Peter, they pushed a little girl with learning disabilities to the forefront, because the smarmy adult alarmists are not doing well in the battle to save the planet. But her little skirts are not big enough for them to hide behind.
There remains here a crusty old white gentleman, who should have had the good sense and grace to accompany his fellow curmudgeon, little jimmy dee, when he decided to give up carpet bombing this blog and rode off into the sunset.
I agree. He has zero self awareness.
What a pair of beastly curmudgeons these two are. I sure Greta is advised not to give a rat’s arse – which is more than this empty-headed smark deserves. I just don’t think it’s a good look on crusty old dinosaurs.
The crusty old self-appointed gratuitous defender/spokestroll for the CAGW-OCD scolding-Scandalnavian-scamp is very pathetic. But we do appreciate all his years here serving in the dual role as foil and second banana to little jimmy dee. The statuette is in the mail.
If I thought irony means what you think it means, I would say that you have just committed irony. Google it, before you misuse it again.
Hi Don.
Good to see you after someone your own size rather than chasing a 16yo girl.
I was worried about you.
VTG
You have to admit she has extraordinary powers, at least according to her mother.
“My daughter can see CO2 with the naked eye”
When I was her age I couldn’t even see Antelope and Mule Deer with the naked eye. Luckily, I soon got bailed out by our local optometrist.
verytrollguy,
I feel sorry for the little girl, but I ain’t going to pretend she is intelligent, virtuous or worth the world’s attention. She is being used as a sock puppet by cynical CAGW ideologues like yourself. You fanatics are taking advantage of her single-minded determination, which is a symptom of her diagnosed OCD. This normally would be called child abuse. In a couple of years she will outgrow her usefulness, like the hollywierd child stars who are exploited and then discarded when they aren’t cute any more.
Well, maybe you’re right Don.
Or it could be that she’s right, smearing her only makes you look bad, and you’ve nothing else in the locker.
Tough choices.
The Earth system is an ergodic chaotic system. If we are lucky. Plan B is to leave the planet. So the past may be prelude to the future – limits there may be. Each future model forecast may have 5,000 plausible solutions at Earth scale – by the magic of nonlinear math – the Earth itself has only one. Pushed by small, slow changes past thresholds into emergent behavior. Climate history is catastrophic. And rapid.
e.g. https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm
In warm epochs high northern insolation and heat transport combine to favor ice sheet growth. Again – there is observably lower albedo over warm water than cool. Modeling cloud processes at a fine-scale find that marine strato-cumulus is bi-stable. A Hysteresis loop from Tapio Schneider I have shown before in model land. Product of 200,000 hours of super-computing time Professor Schneider claims.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/cloud-computation.png
But it’s good to see both secular sects – skeptic and believer – here debating science. And since when were child actors an excuse to add to incivility. to a vulnerable teenager.
The vulnerable teenager seems to be oblivious to criticism. Actually, thrives on the attention positive and negative. If you are concerned about her well-being, complain about the exploitation. Have a happy and busy curmudgeonly day. We eagerly await your next lecture. We know it won’t be long.
REI please note this from above: “In warm epochs high northern insolation and heat transport combine to favor ice sheet growth.” High northern insolation (and southern – at this obliquity), ice sheets melt. There is an event dated at 2345bce when polar caps (re)started melting, concurrent with abrupt increase in equatorial glaciers (Lonnie Thompson Quelccaya research).
What can stop and reverse that is none of what is discussed as ‘climate variables’ but an earth dynamic shift (to lower obliquity as before 2345bce). Now everyone and his cat can ignore that but the evidence has been there from before I was born (Dodwell 1936). Evidence today there is more.
“? I suspect the skeptic time in the sun never was and never will be.“
Another flailing prediction.
“The standard ad hominem from the No. 1 CE troll.”
No, not a troll.
Outspoken , very knowledgeable, quite outspoken when warranted, and when not.
The gentle exchange of compliments between him and JCH is one of the best attributes of this blog. Worth the price of admission ten times over.
These two guys are amazing.
Just debate him on the relevant on-topic facts, Peter.
–
“The world is entering another ice age”, was that only 40 years ago that the skeptics had their time in the sun? Skeptic then and skeptic now.
I remain skeptical, and contrarian.
I can’t decide between a future hot or cold. THC shift or strato-cumulus clouds evaporate? Both are in the traditional literature as nonlinear internal responses to sometimes subtle external changes. And if you give a model its head and 5,000 sets of initial conditions there will be 5,000 trajectories that diverge to a range intrinsic to the model. Plus or minus 10 degrees C? As the IPCC TAR said climate prediction is impossible with this crude tool. But ESS is fun and the tools are getting better at a staggering rate.
A puzzle for you then. I call it the ship that did not sink.
Since we are here, and have been here for 10 – 100,000 years as humans, climate seems to move in more restricted bands than the 10 C +/- predicated. While it is not proof and cannot be proof it still suggests less chaos and more constraints.
When something happens that does not seem intuitive then the intuitive answer might be wrong.
For there to significant warming over the next two centuries, easy as pie; for there to be a significant cooling:
https://i.imgur.com/A6qnDU6.png
https://i.imgur.com/66IRF2a.png
A puzzle for the ages. Is the Earth system ergodic? I predict – and I never predict – that JCH will never get off the ground and that Mr Clark will see the start of the next glacial epoch if he hangs around long enough.
I used to build hot-air balloons. This is one of them:
https://i.imgur.com/ucwMo2G.jpg
JCH
easy as pie
Those two images nicely illustrate the way technology will advance over two centuries with a continuation of current climate and environmental policies.
JCH.
A playboy bunny balloon.
That was amazing.
Thanks.
I hope RIE sees the light side.
Though I think it proves his point that things can go up or down.
Wow! ‘Ergodic’ used twice in less than half and hour! It must be the word du jour. Sixteen minutes and we are back to it. Someone must be operating in a cramped phase space. A few day back the word was ‘wave function’ — maybe tied with ‘Schrödinger’.
As for today earth system status must be an ‘open’ question.
JCH nice photo… double duty response.
I‘ve got dibs on ‘heat death’.
‘half an hour’
‘few days back’
Robert
I can’t decide between a future hot or cold.
You’ll get both – eventually.
Remember chaotic variation is not internal only and quasi random walk, as per Lorenz and his “deterministic nonperiodic flow”.
External periodic forcing, together with feedbacks, can induce simple (strong forcing) or complex (weak forcing) oscillations.
For instance ongoing Milankovitch obliquity decline will eventually pop us back to glaciation. An inter-attractor flip that will be relatively fast.
The answer is 42 – and I’m inventing a string theory that proves that using ergodicity and the Schrodinger wave equation. Then I am putting my brain in a bottle and leaving. But what’s the question? Will 20th-century warming continue or not in the 21st. I can’t decide despite JCH’s aerial assist in 18th-century technology.
Chaos theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past thresholds at which stage the Earth system components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation. Hence ergodicity. But it is changes in planetary albedo and emissivity that modulate Earth’s energy budget with oceanic memories of past states of dust, ice, cloud, vegetation, greenhouse gases, dimethyl sulfate, volcanoes, aerosols…
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/unstable-ebm-fig-2-jpg1.jpg
Ghil’s model shows a climate sensitivity (γ) that 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. A small change in a subsystem cascades through multiple subsystems into an emergent state – ice, dust, cloud, etc – in a system that settles down to a precarious energy equilibrium until again perturbed.
There may be a chemical analog involving oscillation according to Phil. But the state space available to the Earth system has uncountable dimensions. Even assuming ergodicity.
We began the new Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. The oceans receded until the ice shelf began breaking off. At present the ice shelf is breaking off at a rate equal to the heat loss of the earth to the black sky. Soon in Ice Age time the oceans will begin back down.
I have explained my reasoning for this to Ms. Curry. Hopefully she will come around soon in earth time.
The one line I forgot to add was that 18,000 years ago as the oceans began to receed nature was building the ice shelf.
Robert — heat is being spread all over — to heating the troposphere, the soil, the sea surface, the ocean, and melting ice. There is no reason for this to stop, or for the oceans to “begin back down.” The ocean will be rising for millennia….
The polar vortex forecast in the central stratosphere is unusual. Such weakening of the polar vortex at the beginning of winter has not been recorded in recent years.
https://earth.nullschool.net/?fbclid=IwAR2MPQfVRpyONG_GremHGS0pfMnpgsuF6X50n8lx5mXFYxs9RbdJASJHT7I#2019/11/26/0000Z/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-351.45,86.78,340
If we reverse the galactic radiation graph, we can see how much solar activity has decreased since the 90s.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00992/1uy82g2j7rxa.png
You’ve done it. Incredible. A major scientific breakthrough live at Climate Etc. From now on, correlation equals causation.
Dear Gleb, thank you.
Here I give the Earth’s Effective Temperature calculated with the Complete Formula.
1. Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Calculation:
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,30
Earth is a rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Re-emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation period
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.earth is
Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.earth = 288,36 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
Those two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Dear Glen, thank you.
Pingback: Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die of Exposure | No B-S here (I hope)
Prof Bill McGuire’s letter of resignation from the Geological Society shows he has a strong CAGW bias but does not have expertise in the relevant subject matter. The comments are based on belief – like a cult belief – not valid science. Some quotes from his letter http://www.newweather.org/2019/11/19/new-weather-co-director-prof-bill-mcguire-resigns-from-scientific-body-over-fossil-fuel-funding-full-letter/ and my responses:
• “at a time of climate and ecological emergency”
o There is no climate emergency. Global warming is net beneficial in total for the world
• “companies that are working against humanity and that put profit before people’s lives and livelihoods”
o That’s complete nonsense. If the companies he refers to were not providing energy and everything else modern society needs, we’d return to pre-industrial revolution conditions.
• “yet continue to cosy up to some of the world’s most polluting corporations”
o Where would we be without them? Further, consider how much better off people in the developed world are than those in the under-developed and developing countries.
• “More than anyone else, Earth scientists should appreciate the devastating consequences for life of sudden and dramatic climate breakdown”
o Global warming is beneficial for ecosystems – the geological record shows that clearly
• “It has been clear for decades now that serious action to slash greenhouse gas emissions is desperately needed”
o No it is not. It is doing enormous harm to the world economy.
Peter, you’re disagreeing with Bill McGuire on opinions, not facts.
Why should I believe you and not him? I know his qualifications. What are yours?
David Appell. “Peter, you’re disagreeing with Bill McGuire on opinions, not facts.”
Well spotted David.
After all, it is hard to disagree on facts.
Everyone agrees on facts.
Easy to disagree on opinions.
What was your comment trying to say again?
Peter, you wrote:
“Global warming is beneficial for ecosystems – the geological record shows that clearly”
What data in the geologic record shows this?
That the worst extinction was the result of warming?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071024083644.htm
Today there is declining biomass – plants animals and fundi – largely as human process modifications. A response is water and carbon management in landscapes. But terrestrial species adapted to limited climes find it harder to migrate with changes in climate – hot or cold – than it once was.
The cienceDaily article from 2007 is out of date.
The worst mass-extinction event was around 252 Ma ago. Previously thought to be due to rapid warming and high GMST. Now reported as due to a 75,000 year ice age and acidification caused by a period of high volcanic activity.
The Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported to have been caused by extensive volcanism that caused acidification and an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630
There appear to have been no major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (which was ~7–13°C above present)
That is not the data they are angling for, Peter.
Don,
My comment was in response to this:
“That the worst extinction was the result of warming?”
Then there is the theory that smoldering coal deposits triggered the PT extinction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818118301322?via%3Dihub
Don,
There is no point feeding the trolls. I’ve posted links previously supporting the points in my comment. For yours and others benefit I’ll post them again below.
Geological and palaeontological evidence suggests the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Early Eocene Climate Optimum [1] and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28°C (i.e. ~10–13°C warmer than present).
Mass extinction events:
1. Most major extinction events [2] have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not global warming
2. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions. “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.” [3]. The PETM occurred when GMST was above optimum for life on Earth.
3. The Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported to have been caused by extensive volcanism that caused acidification and an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017) [4]
4. There appear to have been no major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (which was ~7–13°C above present)
Rapid warming:
5. Even very rapid warming is beneficial for ecosystems. Coxon and McCarron (2009) [5] Figure 15:21 shows temperatures in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland warmed from near LGM temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,500 years BP and in 9 years 11,500 year BP. Life thrived during these events.
6. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013) [6], Zhu et al. (2016) [7], Greening of the Earth and it drivers). GMST increased by about 0.4°C during the period analysed (1982–2010).
Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates:
7. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [8]
8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [9].
9. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019 [10], find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 [11]. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.
These points suggest that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum (which may be around 7–13°C above present GMST).
References:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630
cont …
[5] http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/
[6] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/grl.50563
[7] https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004
[8] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geb.12245
cont …
[9] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77 (p84)
[10] https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-849-2019
[11] https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Wikipedia and wildly disparate links on very different topics. None of it supports Peter’s motivated thesis. None specifically endorses any of it. Much is utterly irrelevant. One of his links supports the antithesis that biological productivity is greater in cooler latitudes than the tropics. Quite evidently and wearisomely unscientific skeptic cult madness.
The expected response from the troll:
Ad hominem
Personal invective
No substance
Misrepresentations
Disinformation
Hasn’t read the articles or the sources referred to
Hasn’t argued a case to refute the material provided
Troll:
Peter Lang wrote:
“It has been clear for decades now that serious action to slash greenhouse gas emissions is desperately needed”
No it is not. It is doing enormous harm to the world economy.
What harm?
What indeed?
It matters not that French farmers and non-Parisians are driven to yellow vest protests by hardship caused by Macrons virtue-signalling fuel taxes.
Nor does it matter that farmers in the Netherlands and Germany fill the roads with tractors protesting hardship from green punitive taxes-regulations against the internal combustion engine.
Or Australian pensioners who can no longer afford to warm (or should I say heat) their apartments?
Or adoption of electric cars at the barrel of a gun forcing a global resource war for lithium, with the population of Bolivia sacrificed just to ensue American supply (and not untermenschen-Russian) of lithium?
https://www.rt.com/news/474022-morales-bolivia-coup-lithium/
But no – academics wealthy and privileged from bottomless politically guaranteed government largesse – society’s new bishops – have nothing to fear at all.
Many thousands alive today will be dead by spring in northern countries due directly to politically inflated energy prices.
“What harm” indeed?
The Fast Rotating Planet Earth
So far we came to the end of this presentation. Its topic was to present the Planet-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
Te = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
This Formula is based on the incomplete effective temperature formula:
Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
And also it is based on the discovered of the Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
Jemit = σΤe⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
Here the (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ is a dimensionless Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability.
Φ – is the dimensionless solar irradiation spherical surface accepting factor.
Accepted by a Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets, like Earth, Moon, Mercury and Mars…
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N rotations/day, is planet’s sidereal rotation period
cp cal/gr oC – is the planet’s surface specific heat
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
The Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law is based on a simple thought. It is based on the thought, that physical phenomenon which distracts the black body surfaces from the instant re-emitting the absorbed solar radiative energy back to space, warms the black body surface up.
In our case those distracting physical phenomena are the planet’s sidereal rotation, N rotations/day, and the planet’s surface specific heat, cp cal/gr oC.
Thus we have the measured by satellites Earth’s
Tmean.earth = 288 K
to be the same as the calculated by the effective temperature complete formula
Te.earth = 288,36 K.
Those physical phenomena distracting Earth from the instant emitting back to space are the Earth’s rotation around its axis and the Earth’s surface specific heat.
Also we should mention here, that a smooth surface spherical body, as the planet Earth is, doesn’t accept and absorb all the solar radiation falling on the hemisphere. Only the 0,47*So of the solar energy’s amount is accepted by the hemisphere. The rest 0,53*So is reflected back to space. That is why Φ= 0,47 what is left for surface to absorb.
Now we have to say about the planet’s albedo (a). The planet’s albedo describes the dispersed on the surface secondary reflection to space fraction of the falling on the hemisphere solar light.
Thus a planet’s surface absorbs only the Φ*(1– a) fraction of the incident on the hemisphere solar energy. That is why we have the Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) expression in the complete effective temperature formula.
Conclusions:
We had to answer those two questions:
1. Why Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t affect the Global Warming?
It is proven now by the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula calculations. There aren’t any atmospheric factors in the Complete Formula. Nevertheless the Planet-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula produces very reasonable results:
Te.earth = 288,36 K, calculated by the Complete Formula, which is the same as the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
Te.moon = 221,74 K, calculated by the Complete Formula, which is almost identical with the
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
Earth has a very thin atmosphere; Earth has a very small greenhouse phenomenon in its atmosphere and it doesn’t warm the planet.
2. What causes the Global Warming then?
The Global Warming is happening due to the orbital forcing. It is not happening because of the atmosphere. We have the prove – a newly discovered for the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
Jemit = σΤe⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
And knowing that
Jemit = Jabs
And Jabs = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4 ] (W/m²)
Solving for Te we obtain the Planet without Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 288,36 K
The calculations made by the Planet without Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula also correspond to the next conclusion:
The measured by satellites Earth’s mean temperature T = 288 K is the Earth’s surface radiative equilibrium temperature.
And… what keeps the Earth warm at Te.earth = 288 K, when the Moon is at Te.moon = 220 K? Why Moon is on average 68 oC colder? It is very cold at night there and it is very hot during the day…
Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
Does the Earth’s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth’s surface?
No, it does not.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The distribution of ozone in the north during a weak solar wind depends on the changing magnetic field.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00992/sx1axdah593f.jpg
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00992/nb9t8y5m15sx.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/11/23/1200Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-81.17,90.38,296
Having a shade of mischief in me, I wonder when someone will accuse the fearmongers of racism since they are denying Africa an electricity grid.
Please see the polar vortex forecast in the lower stratosphere for the coming days.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/11/25/1200Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-5.27,92.40,340
CLINTEL moving ahead:
https://www.thegwpf.com/european-parliament-told-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
I am working with them (pro bono, alas). Fine folks!
David
If the science is not confirmed by the reality, then perhaps the science is not right. The Greenhouse Gas theory is invalid science.
See https://www.climatesciencejournal.com/invalidity-of-greenhous-gas-thy/
Dear Kevin Alexanderman.
“If the science is not confirmed by the reality, then perhaps the science is not right. The Greenhouse Gas theory is invalid science”.
I agree with you 100 %.
When the solar eclipse ends the air above the spot warms instantly.
Best
Christos
Do you have any other thoughts on the paper, Christos?
Kevin, I like everything in it.
I am studying the theme for four years now.
The Green Gas theory is invalid science.
It is unbelievable how much scientists are blinded.
Kevin, I like your paper. Everything I agree with.
The Global Warming Greenhouse theory is invalid science.
I study the theme for four years now.
It is unbelievable how much scientists are blinded.
The reason they are blinded is that the molecular physics and its relation with the thermodynamics is not clear.
I have not found any papers that have understood this one issue: molecular velocities of N2 and O2 increase from photon momentum–that is, 99% of the atmosphere. All the scientists for the last 30+ years, from what I have seen, relegate all photon absorption to vibrations, or energy level changes. In fact, I have not found one nuclear physics paper that distinguishes carefully between even those two.
Did you realize that a vibration of a multi-atomic molecule is not the same as energy level changes in the atoms?
The physics is not properly grasped, if it has even been made explicit.
Too many scientists cannot see the forests for the trees, and do not even approach Maxwell or Planck’s grasp of the field, and its post-quantum improvements.
Let me know if you have seen otherwise, but the fundamental physics is not well-understood by any climate scientists that I have seen.
Dear Kevin.
I agree with you everywhere. And I learned from your paper a lot.
The Greenhouse phenomenon in Earth’s atmosphere is so insignificant that it cannot be measured by satellites. What exactly satellites measure as the average temperature 288 K is the Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature.
Satellites are just measuring, they cannot say what exactly is they have measured.
Please visit in this page just few comments earlier my topic on that subject.
For the Earth’s atmosphere the Greenhouse phenomenon is so weak that may be considered only as theoretical issue only.
Pingback: Climate Science Has Died | US Issues
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
Pingback: Energy And Environmental Newsletter – November 25th 2019 | PA Pundits - International
Pingback: Ten years on from ‘Climategate’ things look a bit different – Point of Order
Thank you for being the scientist among scientists. Have you seen any work by Bob Murphy regarding economics of climate change and energy policy? He also has a great podcast with guests like Robert Bradley who wrote Oil, Gas, and Government. Never forget the majority of ideas behind the founding of the United States came from outside academia.
Of the founding fathers who went on to become Presidents, only George Washington was not a college graduate. There were nine colleges/universities in operations in Colonial America. The vast majority of the founding fathers either graduated from or at least attended those schools, or schools in the British Isles.
Notable exceptions were George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine. They never attended college.
Pingback: Klimawissenschaft ist gestorben. Die Auswirkungen werden erheblich sein. – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: Klimawissenschaft ist gestorben. Die Auswirkungen werden erheblich sein. - Leserbriefe
Pingback: Klimawissenschaft ist gestorben. Die Auswirkungen werden erheblich sein. - BAYERN online
Appreciate your reasoned commentary, Judith! Will be following you more closely!
Climategate converted me from a skeptic(2003-2009) to a non believer. I have followed you since 2008 and emailed you around 2010 when you mentioned going off the reservation that it would not be easy. You were gracious enough to reply your understanding. In the last few years no one will even debate it, its like debating the existence of God with someone who goes to church 4x a week.
Its quite bizarre to me, but the shaming and propaganda is very strong.
Pingback: Some Climategate Recollections - Master Resource
Pingback: Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die of Exposure Tony Thomas | RUTHFULLY YOURS
Pingback: 2020 | Climate Etc.
Judith’s comment from Reflections on Climategate
“Exoneration?
The mainstream media and the Climategater scientists themselves claim complete exoneration by the various ‘inquiries’. Were they exonerated?
There was no exoneration by any objective analysis of the various inquiries. Ross McKitrick lays all this out in his article”
Odd that the climate scientists with the superior intellectual capicity to understand the complexities of climate science fail to recognize the obvious superficial nature of the investigations.
Pingback: And the Hits Just Keep on Coming … The Legacy of Climategate – The Enigma Chronicle
Pingback: How I Used to be Manned | Watts Up With That? – Daily News