RealClimate

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. I’m sorry gentlemen but I read both articles carefully and it seems that you are the ones guilty of cherry picking.Fortunately we can go to a place like Anthony Watts web site for 10x the amount of information which you supply and 10x the readership!

    [Response: Congratulations on being first, and in spectacular fashion!--Jim]

    Comment by adrian smits — 6 Jan 2011 @ 5:32 PM

  2. They (‘The Moneyed Class’, that is; some of them, at least) simply don’t have the Courage to make the Changes Necessary; they don’t want to make ‘risky investments’ – they might LOOSE IT ALL, you know! – to convert our old ways of making a kw/h to the new ways of doing so that we so need to be advancing upon the course of, right now; so they pay men to whisper sweet nothings in their ears – and Nero Fiddles once more, though the Burning of Rome commenses apace, once more.
    We all know what a boon to the economy it would be – a Total Conversion; all of the Contracts, the Jobs created to fulfill them – the end of our need to ‘save energy’, because it’d become so ‘clean’ that we can have Big Air Conditioners, and Cars with Giant Tail Fins and Chrome Pipe Organ front bumpers once again.
    I mean, if it runs off of a totaly clean, fully renewable energy source – why not?
    Just the fact that such Cars would be So COOL that everyone would want one….!!!!
    It could do an Ailing U.S. Economy some Good!
    We have both an ‘oil’ and a ‘usury’ needle stuck in our collective veins – and there poisoning us.
    And, NO, it’s not Barack Obamas fault – it’s George W Bushs.

    Comment by James Staples — 6 Jan 2011 @ 6:49 PM

  3. All this brainpower, time and effort to refute an article in Forbes? The desperation of the “Team” is palpable.

    Cheers,

    Walt

    Comment by walt — 6 Jan 2011 @ 9:50 PM

  4. Not until harry read me file is investigated.
    Where’s the original data?
    It’s not good to whitewash foia requests.

    Comment by Mike Restin — 7 Jan 2011 @ 2:31 AM

  5. Twenty-seven comments and none of them critical.

    Why is that?

    Comment by Steve Case — 7 Jan 2011 @ 8:41 AM

  6. Just checking in on the bunker. Your numbers seem to be dwindling.

    Comment by Realist — 7 Jan 2011 @ 4:02 PM

  7. The ultimate motivation for all of this unpaid work is curiosity, so it makes sense to allocate funds in the way most likely to advance the field. In an ideal world this not only satisfies curiosity, but is most likely to open new avenues for the growth of the field. I agree with Ladbury’s statement money, money,money to prove what the secular climate preist want, growth of there alarmist agenda, Fossil fuels my ass.

    Comment by bob — 7 Jan 2011 @ 11:26 PM

  8. Only a fool would believe that most people being paid to do in-depth scientific research to determine the extent of ‘Problem X’ would report that ‘Problem X’ is actually no problem at all and thus end their employment. In private enterprise there is only so much money to fund fraudulent ‘sandbox’ activities going on within their organization. In government there is no such limit and, making the problem even worse, the alternatives of making an equivalent salary in the private sector is nil thus increasing the impetus to lie, deceive and manipulate. http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf

    The true solution to ‘man made global warming’ is to stop the self perpetuating funding of the people employed to study it.

    Over $32 billion in direct government climate research funding says I’m right.

    Comment by Mike M. — 8 Jan 2011 @ 10:21 AM

  9. http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/321125-global-warming-global-cooling-global-taxing-279.html

    Lots of money in climate science. Billions of dollars and perks. Most science has these issues at heart. No matter how legitimate or not.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 8 Jan 2011 @ 12:19 PM

  10. Oh and here is the evidence for excessive funding in climate research:

    http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money/

    http://icecap.us/docs/change/Greenhousegasesclimate%20map.pdf

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 8 Jan 2011 @ 1:16 PM

  11. Tobis and Mandia et al., seek to divert attention from the reality that there is in fact NO empirical evidence connecting the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gasses with the warming that has occurred (but which has ceased this century), if there was any we would have all heard about it by now ad infinitum.

    Melting ice, rising ocean and atmospheric temperatures etc., are good evidence that warming has occurred but do not point to the cause.

    Circumstantial evidence of this type may be caused by a range of natural factors, including some key ones which are not even included in the IPCC models. The IPCC has not been charged with investigating any other possibility including the natural ones that have always caused the ever varying climate that characterizes our planet.

    The hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the principle cause has been comprehensively disproven.

    To selectively ignore the readily available evidence in this way is a gross dereliction and abuse of the scientific method.

    Comment by Ian McClintock — 8 Jan 2011 @ 4:13 PM

  12. M. Joyce says, “Arguing religion is always a pointless endeavor so it is indeed frustrating that deniers’ positions are ultimately religion based. Remember, it is these people who believe that a deity granted human beings unalienable rights despite the fact that for hundreds if not thousands of years deities granted no such thing. A deity didn’t create the Magna Carta and neither did a deity create the US constitution and bill of rights. It might appear that I digress by bringing up religion in a science blog but I’m not. It is this religious sensibility of deniers that make their acceptance of science so difficult for in faith all things are possible when in fact all things are not”

    Proponents of AGW theory would be much better served by not acting as if they are the only ones who understand and care about science. If they did, they’d join religious groups in expressing outrage every time Planned Parenthood or other pro-abortion mouthpiece calls an unborn child (fetus, if you prefer) “a blob of tissue” or tries to prevent the biology of human prenatal development from being taught in public schools. Interestingly, those “crazy” religious people know human embryology better than most physicians I know. Since most adherents to AGW theory appear to be on the liberal side of the political spectrum (anyway, that’s the impression I get from RC posts), it appears they are only concerned about “science” when it meets their political agenda. At least the science of human fetal development is something we can readily observe and, therefore, shouldn’t be open to anyone’s self-serving interpretation. At this point, we can’t even test AGW theory under controlled conditions in the laboratory.

    Comment by J Adam — 8 Jan 2011 @ 5:19 PM

  13. @23

    Gavin, I totally agree. Take Darwin MSLP (1950 – 1996) for example, looks like a decent trend over 45 years (r = .5), Trenberth and Hoar got plenty of attention, but alas, what happens when you add some more data to the short trend?

    It’s still positive to 2010, but is it noteworthy (r = .3)? Was it ever important?

    Darwin’s MSLP now appears to be going down…. Eventually it will cancel?

    Exactly the same will occur for global temperature, because trends over a few decades are meaningless?

    Comment by Isotopolopolus — 8 Jan 2011 @ 5:36 PM

  14. Forbes, NYT. Climate Depot, Real Climate all have one thing in common, the readers who agree with them. The only difference with real Climate is if you disagree you will be moderated out. Because Real Climate only has one goal ( much like Jim Jones ) You either belong to the church of James Hanson, work for the US goverment to promote alarmist secular ideas. Take a look at who moderates RC are they real scientist or just diciples of James Hanson and the progressive movement for world wide goverment.. Another comment that will not see the light of day on Real Climate??

    Comment by bob — 8 Jan 2011 @ 9:26 PM

  15. GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE (GMT) PATTERN

    Here is the plot for the 30-years trend for the GMT:

    http://bit.ly/bUZsBe

    It shows:

    1) 30-years of slight cooling from 1880 to 1910
    2) 30-years of warming by about 0.45 deg C from 1910 to 1940
    3) 30-years of slight cooling from 1940 to 1970
    4) 30-years of warming by about 0.45 deg C (nearly identical to that 60 years before) from 1970 to 2000

    Assuming this pattern that was valid for 120 years is valid for the next 20 years, we can reasonably predict:

    5) 30-years of slight cooling from 2000 to 2030

    How does the trend since 2000 looks like?

    Here it is:

    http://bit.ly/hE3vv1

    6) GMT trend flat at 0.4 deg C for 10 years!

    CONCLUSION
    Because of this GMT pattern, the cause of this pattern seems to be natural, and the effect of human emission of CO2 on the GMT appears to be negligible or non existent.

    Comment by Girma — 9 Jan 2011 @ 4:54 AM

  16. So, rather than deleting comments that question your “concensus” they now get put in a thread.

    Sounds like real climate progress to me.

    Comment by john — 9 Jan 2011 @ 10:10 AM

  17. There is finally something worth reading on this site: The Bore Hole! I might even have to bookmark this website now…wait…no, never mind.

    Comment by M — 9 Jan 2011 @ 2:58 PM

  18. “I completely agree that the situation is out of control” – 157

    Quite the contrary. The enemy is well organized very much under control of the message. It is the side representing the science that has no command structure or control of it’s message, or even any organized means of disseminating that message.

    Historically science has not had to use publicity agents.

    And in this forum we see all manner of opposition including the censorship of those advocating organized opposition to the denialist enemy.

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 9 Jan 2011 @ 5:01 PM

  19. Gavin none of the FY 2011 mention was for hardware.. Check your facts before you attempt to purduce a smoke screen

    Comment by bob — 9 Jan 2011 @ 6:11 PM

  20. Ray you are making a deliberately false series of claims

    Comment by jacob mack — 9 Jan 2011 @ 7:58 PM

  21. Bpl Arrhenius was mistaken
    . Tyndal’s work had many errors
    There are methodical issues with Platz’s work too
    I read weart too bud and the original papers discussing possible warming from green house gases

    Comment by jacob mack — 9 Jan 2011 @ 8:08 PM

  22. bob says:
    9 Jan 2011 at 6:11 PM
    Gavin none of the FY 2011 mention was for hardware.. Check your facts before you attempt to purduce a smoke screen.

    Nice try ( bore Hole) 26% increase is a fact for alarmist predictions From HANSON and his puppets.. Publish were it is placed or delete becuse you do not like facts,

    Comment by bob — 9 Jan 2011 @ 9:21 PM

  23. #612 Furrycathereder

    With respect to my stance stated previously in this thread, I think you have nailed it. I hope that I am a normal, reasonably intelligent, thinking individual. I have no desire to see my grandchildren suffer because of what mine, and previous generations have done to the planet.

    So why does my brain doubt the “consensus”?

    I wouldn’t want to try and preach and convert the main contributors on this site to my way of thinking – any more than I would argue the toss with a Bishop or the Pope on the existance of a God. In the end, one would have to argue that the other person is dillusional, wrong-thinking or corrupt – and that is an extremely rude and unwarranted position to take.

    The natural cynacism that I have towards the “establishment” is a result of my experience in other cases – where, I now judge, I was being “sold to” rather than being presented with all of the facts – including valid arguments for the opposing view which may, at the very least, have suggested less certainty.

    When I only get told the arguments that prove a case – rather than a more pragmatic one that shows the areas of doubt or uncertainty as well – then cynacism is the result.

    As an example of this, have a look at the stories going on in the UK about the UK Met Office. As far as I can make out, I am being asked to believe that the Met Office secretly warned HM Government of an impending cold winter – but didn’t tell the public!

    This is happening in a background where the Met Office produce the CET graph (which in my humble opion shows nothing). All of the commentary on the site however talks as if the case is made and proven beyond doubt – it even has a section on how to deal with doubters! This qango, taking £150m a year from the UK tax payer, is run by a chap that is, or was, a director of various “green” businesses or organisations that receive income, or profit, as a result of the “consensus” AGW case.

    Their short term weather forecasting is excellent. Their seasonal forecasting has been hopeless – to the point where they have stopped issuing them because of the ridicule they subsequently received.

    Given the information above, why would I trust their view on the long term affects of AGW?

    Comment by Dave Walker — 10 Jan 2011 @ 7:02 AM

  24. You said, \I am not being partisan or oppositional here. I examined every point with an open mind and came up with ten points that boil down to complete nonsense and the last one a bit heavy on the spin.\

    What is nonsense to you makes perfect sense to others. It is with little wonder why you call yourself \group\. It fits perfectly with \groupthink\ mentality.

    I go to this site for comic relief, seriously, I love your stuff, but no for reasons that you like. Keep up the good work with comic relief!

    Comment by Dr. H — 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:09 AM

  25. 63, eric in response: I think the problem is that you’re conflating what is said in the scientific literature with popular interpretations of it that come across as too broad brushed. But no scientist actually makes claims like ‘global warming is going to ruin the planet’, or ‘threatans humanity’. These are hopelessly vague kinds of statements.

    Barton Paul Levenson has forecast the end of human civilization by 2050 due to AGW. Paul Ehrlich has forecast the deaths of extra billions of humans due to starvation caused by AGW. We could if you wished find lots of predictions of extreme disasters due to AGW made by scientists. Most of these are removed from the peer-reviewed literature, but scientists have issued dire warnings in news conferences and Congressional testimony.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 10 Jan 2011 @ 12:58 PM

  26. Blah, blah, blah.

    If the believers in global warming want to be taken as true scientists, they should publish all the raw data, including its primary sources and measurements. Then they should explain how that data is used to build predictive models and the controlled experiments to validate these models?

    There is no such thing as settled science, particularly not when controlled experiments are nearly impossible and conclusions are based on questionable statistical analysis.

    The world is being asked to spend trillions of dollars of expense and lost economic activity. Projections of (say) seawater levels or mean temperatures a century hence without so much as a standard deviation analysis are junk science. The famous hockey stick is embarrassing to even mention in a scientific argument.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass what a vote among self-selected “climatologists” shows. Remember that in science as in politics the standard is trust but verify, with most of the weight on verify.

    Comment by Mike Razar — 10 Jan 2011 @ 5:10 PM

  27. Hank roberts on youtube check out exploring energy hurricanes where a NASA scientist and hurricane expert doscusses how the top of hurricanes radiate heat to space, form in oceans cause upwelling and thus cool oceans. After 1995 hurricane frequeny has gone down while their average force has gone up
    Ray that statement about ifr and heat is not accurate but I can understand your confusion

    Comment by jacob mack — 10 Jan 2011 @ 10:08 PM

  28. Is this a joke? Everyone is trading bards, but no one is sure of the facts. If from this rebuttal we are expected to get it (if it is not obvious, I am on the skeptic side, we humans are o so arrogant in our analysis of historical fantasy), then scientific skepticism and method, and even basic logical argument are moot.

    Comment by Alfred Holzheu — 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:01 PM

  29. The concensus amongst those who argue that the current system is working seems to be that if its bad science it will be dismissed in review and not get funded, but once funded and especially once published then it must be justifiable as “science that needed to be done”. This is fraught with difficulties as it leaves the relative allocation of funds for the various sub-disiplines firmly in the hands of politicians.

    With resources always scarce, you need to be more critical of where those resources go. By creatively inventing new subject areas politicans and scientist who lobby them can significanly dilute the effort in real science.

    Comment by Kevin — 10 Jan 2011 @ 11:24 PM

  30. Anne oceans are huge heat reservoirs. Water has a high heat capacity. Water covers the majority of the planet’s surface. Hurricanes form on bodies of water. Hurricanes cool oceans through upwelling and expel heat/IFR to space. Excess heat is dissipated by hurricanes. Cloud formation not only acts as a positive feedback but as negative feedbacks as well. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. Heat/IFR leads to cooling processes too and not just warming, thus, as heat goes to the cooler body not only are bodies emitting heat and cooling but colder weather is also created. Hurricanes are but one natural system that cools the planet.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 11 Jan 2011 @ 8:56 AM

  31. Ray Ladbury all you have to do is look in the mirror…

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 11 Jan 2011 @ 10:19 AM

  32. Maya @ 201,
    You clearly do not understand science as you showed with your statement: “Well, part of your premise is faulty, as I stated above. And, you make this statement as if 1) the warming in the next century is expected to be the same as the warming of the past century (it isn’t), and 2) that the damage is only additive (it does not appear so to me, but if you think so, please provide evidence).” If AGW is not yet proven (and it is not), and it is proposed as a hypothesis, then it is up to the proposers of the hypothesis to support the claim, not for the people that disagree to prove it is not valid. Also, I agree that the warming of the last century will not be the same as the last. It will more likely be a period of mainly cooling. However, this is only my “guess” (based on the present downward trend, and the fact that we are likely on the down slope of the Holocene), not a hypothesis, and has as much or more validity as AGW.

    Comment by Leonard Weinstein — 11 Jan 2011 @ 5:21 PM

  33. [edit]

    Now this is a serious global warming comment or question.
    One Mr Svante Arrhenius said in 1896 that (quote from Wikipedia & his paper) if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
    This simplified expression is still used today:

    ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
    (end of quote)
    So when I do an experiment on a nightly basis I find that every night, the temperature goes dDOWN inspite of all the CO2 that man has added that day & the IPCC & Arrhenius mantra that that more GHGz means more warming. Since the sun or number of photons is common to both the temperature and the grenhouse effect how can they be dirrent signs or go in different directions??
    Does this experiment not say that Arrhenius as adopted by RealClimate & IPCC ,that “More GHGs means more warming” is totally absolutely WRONG half the time. Shouldn;t Arrhenius have said (obviously) that “more added energy photons means more warming” Which is obvious since it is the suns photons & Earths rotation that increases and decreases the number of photons which changes the temperature & GHE daily? Doesn’t this mean thst the IPCC Mantra that more GHGs means more warming (AR4, WG1, Ch 1 P116) is wrong. and that we should be trying to track the number of available absorbable IR photons instead of the number of GHGs? Doesn’t this then mean that any computer program model that adds warming just because an GHG is added is wrong” Why not?
    Doesn’t this means that the whole NASA/GISS climate model is proven wrong every night? (that should get me banned!!)
    There is also the fact that when the humidity doubles or triples when it rains, then the temperature (locally ) does not increase indicating that there is already excess GHGs in the air and the number of photons is limited and all in use by the existing excess of GHGs put there when the GHE decreases every night and results in more GHGs being freed to not be in use in the GHe,Doesn’t this means that it is the number of energy photons that is limited and limits the amount of GHE warming to the number of photons available, in which case we will observe why the GHE only goes up by 33C? and is limited by the number of absorbable photns?
    Seriously why is this incorrect? because it only invalidate the whole “CO2 causes warming” science?
    Gavin. I know you consider me a nut, because I am an abcolute denier. BUt you should know that everytimg I know about global warming I learned from you & your website AND simple logical physics that I learned in college.
    I would appreciate knowing where I am wrong )if I am!)

    I dare you to not print this and ban me for no reason other than upu don’t like the question or teh answer.

    Comment by John Dodds — 12 Jan 2011 @ 1:07 AM

  34. SIMPLE PREDICTIONS OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE

    From the historical global mean temperature data shown below

    http://bit.ly/bUZsBe

    the following patterns can be established:

    a) 30-years of global cooling by 0.2 deg C.
    b) Followed by 30-years of global warming by 0.5 deg C.

    VERIFICATION

    Let us start from the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) for the 1880s of -0.3 deg C, which was at the beginning of a cooling phase. As a result, we have:

    1) For 1880s, GMTA = -0.3 deg C
    2) For 1910s, a GMTA of -0.3 – 0.2 = -0.5 deg C
    3) For 1940s, a GMTA of -0.5 + 0.5 = 0 deg C
    4) For 1970s, a GMTA of 0 – 0.2 = -0.2 deg C
    5) For 2000s, a GMTA of -0.2 + 0.5 = + 0.3 deg C

    These results approximately agree with the data given in the link above!

    PREDICTION

    6) For 2030s, an approximate GMTA of 0.3 – 0.2 = + 0.1 deg C

    CONCLUSION

    Global cooling until 2030!

    Comment by Girma — 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:14 AM

  35. 30 year trends are not trends at all. Too short a time period in climate and geological terms

    Comment by jacob mack — 12 Jan 2011 @ 10:26 AM

  36. Milankovitch cycles are part of a natural process that affects both weather and
    climate
    The concept of external forcings is mostly incorrect

    Comment by jacob mack — 12 Jan 2011 @ 12:30 PM

  37. Global warming began as a political movement. Al Gore fired William Happer because he didn’t believe global warming is a problem.

    Comment by Dr. Shooshmon, phd. — 12 Jan 2011 @ 3:35 PM

  38. #133

    “The climate only changes when forced to do so.”

    And yet every time a keen scientist tries to establish correlation with causation, what does the climate data do?

    It flips, it twirls, too twisty, too curly. Positive correlations switch to negative correlations several decades later, leaving the scientist heartbroken..

    But I guess this time its different with co2? Average out all the nasty flips, twirls, and bingo, an underlying trend!

    This time we gonna show these data who’s boss!

    >Plenty of room down here in the bore hole, I’ll save a spot for ya.

    Comment by Isotopolopolus — 12 Jan 2011 @ 5:13 PM

  39. What a bunch of intellectual cowards, the adminstrators here must be.

    Bottom line, if the science was sound it would be easy to say why. As it is, there is no piece of evidence that the climate junkies would accept as inconsistent with their hypotheses.

    So go ahead and keep censoring my comments. But don’t expect ypour site to remain respectable.

    Comment by Mike Razar — 12 Jan 2011 @ 7:36 PM

  40. There seems to be a consensus that the biggest problem facing climate change is communication. This is apparent from this discussion and sessions at the recent AGS meeting and upcoming AMS meetings. The first thing required when communicating is a clear message.

    A clear message from sceptics is that the effect of CO2 and other global warming gases has been greatly exaggerated and it does not make economic sense to solve the problem by reducing emissions.

    How do you credibly counter that message?

    Comment by Ulick Stafford — 13 Jan 2011 @ 8:44 AM

  41. the re-capture ya plug (the ReCaptcha plug-in)fell on my house . it is the size of 3 normal sized homes… — DERR UFO

    Comment by DERR UFO — 13 Jan 2011 @ 6:33 PM

  42. Say, did you hear about the Discovery that Lucy, the Austrolopithicene, could use Stone Tools to Butcher Game?
    Yep! It’s true!
    Just like Sarah Palin!
    Palin/Lucy – 2012!

    Comment by James Staples — 14 Jan 2011 @ 2:31 AM

  43. Jim I love how you make empty statements

    Keep it up. Gavin as ice melts in one location it forms roughly in equilibrium elsewhere. Back to Jim:when I first arrived here I believed in AGW based on the papers and books you guys in climate science cite and publish yourselves: more IFR trapping,changing albedo,positive feedbacks,increased W2 forcing, etc. Please get that fact straight first, unless you are admitting your collective work is.flawed, which is no problem:we all make our fair share of mistakes. FYI many engineering problems were solved in 1930′s britannica in case you meant old statements like EV’s and blue lasers. Wikipedia and assumptive models are garbage. Oh and Jim I await a reply to my email. If I am so wrong.show me. Stop basing models on caloric theory and regional assumptions I’m ecology which entails weather and not climate,or climate without a demonstrated changing factor like GHG’s.

    Comment by jacob mack — 14 Jan 2011 @ 9:28 AM

  44. How Much of Your Money Wasted on ‘Climate Change’? Try $10.6 Million a Day
    ( pajamas media )

    Comment by bob — 15 Jan 2011 @ 11:09 AM

  45. This is where I bid farewell to RC. I no longer trust the papers published by the scientists on AGW being a serious issue or the posters here who think we are heading towards disaster. I no longer trust the stats published and the so called data. I have no reason to trust RC anymore.

    [Response: What you trust is up to you. You are welcome to post any time you want to engage in legitimate discussion and not just make unsupported assertions.--Jim]

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 15 Jan 2011 @ 10:44 PM

  46. Wow! Almost a year has gone by and you are still arguing about how Beer’s law works? It would seem to me that if the science was settled, as you all claim, it should be very clear exactly how many degrees the globe should warm per ppm of CO2.

    Comment by James R. Barrante — 16 Jan 2011 @ 3:30 AM

  47. Post 68 and your response are interesting. Thank you for drawing my attention to the work of Morner, which, given his experience, should perhaps be considered with care (all ‘dowsing’ ad hominem deemed piffle).

    I read Church and White (2006) (goodness, can you really publish climate papers with that little contenet?) but it seems to me that their claimed, late 20th C acceleration of sea-rise rate is merely a schoolboy-exercise in selection of period to support a prejudice.

    Comment by Capell Aris — 16 Jan 2011 @ 9:35 AM

  48. I don’t think you can find too many people who disagree that the climate is changing. You will find considerable disagreement over how much and how quickly. Where the biggest disagreement exists is over why it’s changing. The “it’s all rich people’s fault” fossil fuel eco-crowd is by far the noisiest but, as is often true of the noisy, they have lots of theories and no proof.
    We will probably find out eventually that CO2, land use, clouds, cosmic rays, ocean currents, clouds, etc are all contributing in varying amounts. Trying to lump all the non-CO2 groups into an “anti-science” pen is ridiculous and probably plays a considerable role in your declining influence on the discussion.

    Comment by SurfBird — 16 Jan 2011 @ 4:23 PM

  49. 202
    ccpo says:
    15 Jan 2011 at 5:39 PM

    “third panel discussion:…”

    great reasoned arguments there ccpo. I’m enthralled.

    “Curry: AGW understood, magnitude highly uncertain
    1 . background info doesn’t indicate existential threat over century time scale. (no kidding.)”
    NO KIDDING- the data is noisy, spotty, full of holes, and requires a great deal of sophisticated statistics to tease out any semblance of a signal. Not the kind of info that makes a thoughtful scientist sound the tocsin.

    “2. more important for robust policy response rather than quick solutions that may not address problem (hurry up and wait)”

    When you think you only have one shot, it had better be a good one. Show me an experiment that shows that reducing CO2 back to 280 ppm would stop global warming.

    “3. 20 years of acrimonious debate of the science and policy (because your side lies their butts off and make lurid accusations about governmental control and conspiracies that don’t exist)”
    I’ve seen enough acrimonious debate on this site that shows plenty of selective, cherry-picked arguments. Comments like this from Keith Trenberth:
    “Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].” Screwy logic just doesn’t cut it. Look at this carefully and also the IPCC report and you’ll see the logical sleight of hand involved.

    “4 debates over arcane points substituted for real debate of politics and values.” The whole debate over what, if anything, to do about CO2 is about politics and values. More and more looks at finer and finer points of science aren’t what is needed. If changes are needed the policy changes have to help people adapt, since there is no credible way to adequately change the output of CO2.

    “5……
    6. need to better understand natural climate variability (it ain’t us!!!) and need more transparent and robust climate records (you’re hiding the data!!! ( at this point I’m wondering how Exxon/Koch brothers get her the money…), particularly the paleoclimate record (Mann, et al., you *&&^*&*!!!!)”

    When anyone can look at the climate data record and see the huge variations in it one has to wonder why you call on Exxon and Koch. It doesn’t take huge statistical studies when the data is so obviously erratic and subject to the observer effect.

    “7. climate impacts on decadal scale less important than population, land use and degradation (and how do you separate the four????); regions that adapt to current weather extremes and population will be better able to deal with any additional stresses from climate changes (apparently current stresses have nothing to do with climate)”

    so how do you separate climate change, population, land use, and degradation? How you evaluate the data determines what is the best reaction to it. When you can’t get a clear answer adaptation is the way to go.

    “(from you and yours, ya dirt bag!!! Stop lying to affect policy and all will be well!!)” ccpo, you don’t know the answers, so who is lying? All will be WELL? The dominant CAGW meme is that things are so bad nothing short of global dictatorship has any hope. Really now.

    “10. and give us better paleoclimate data (stop hiding it!!) and make it easy to use (cause the bloggers are not skilled at doing your job, so you have to help them so they can lie about your work and the data?)

    If the paleo data was clear and consistent there would be no argument.

    Comment by George — 16 Jan 2011 @ 7:27 PM

  50. Re: Trenberth on reverse hypothesis.

    “Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence.”

    I for one agree with Trenberth. The time to attack AGW is now. Enough of this dogma!

    Trenberth must be getting old => Becoming more skeptical.

    Comment by Isotopolopolus — 16 Jan 2011 @ 10:55 PM

  51. I do believe the real climate folks have there 7th grade headline finaly!!
    Scientists warn winter ‘superstorm’ could strike CA…

    The ARkStorm Scenario… ROFLMAO

    Comment by bob — 17 Jan 2011 @ 7:00 PM

  52. Good news people. The long-awaited Isotopious’ “Guide to Global Temperature for the next 115 years” is complete.

    Here are my predictions (I think you will be pleasantly surprised):

    The Decadal Global (Land & Ocean) Temperature Anomaly
    (relative to 1901 -2000 base period) centered on:

    2015: +0.9 Degrees Fahrenheit

    2023: +0.5 Degrees Fahrenheit

    2028: 0 Degrees Fahrenheit

    2065: -1.1 Degrees Fahrenheit

    2095: 0 Degrees Fahrenheit

    2125: +1.5 Degrees Fahrenheit

    These predictions are based on a mathematical model of the PDO, and do not contain climate forcings.

    Comment by Isotopious — 17 Jan 2011 @ 7:12 PM

  53. Real Climate in the last 2 days have had a lot of headline news \ Ca super storms,ark study,Hanson china lover, Trenberth.somerville,\. Why are these subjects not open for debate on overheard in the news room. Could it be why the public does not trust sites like real climate who only discuss there side of the subject ??

    Comment by bob — 18 Jan 2011 @ 12:48 PM

  54. Jim what part of your forum is not for stupidy and lies ?? Only those parts that agree with you ?? I fully understand from your “civil” response. that people that dare question your position and or belief are automaticaly categorize as stupid and liars. Shure does make a lot of us maybe even a majority in that catergory.

    [Response: Nothing automatic about it pardner. We just read what you write and go from there.--Jim]

    Comment by bob — 18 Jan 2011 @ 10:43 PM

  55. [Response: Yeah, if you keep posting enough, you can probably sneak one through for a few minutes. Nice try. RC is not a forum for denialist stupidity and lies... that's what Watts' blog is for.--Jim]

    You realize that you are censoring the opposing views? How could anyone who claims to be a scientist actually do this? Are you afraid of “stupidity”? It might not be stupidity, but a simple misunderstanding from someone working in a different field than “climate science”. I am not a denier, but I get uneasy with all the censorship. Makes the whole thing seems like a movement (house of cards?) rather than a theory backed by robust scientific body of evidence.

    Comment by Magnus — 19 Jan 2011 @ 10:32 AM

  56. Wow, Bob (Sphaerica). If only everyone in the world was as massively intelligent as you, eh? Being as you are in the top 1% of the smartest people in the US, and the top 0.0001% of the smartest people in the world. Part of the tiny, elite group that is clever enough to distinguish between science and magic.

    I’ve tried to resist posting on this thread, really, I have. But your comments are the last straw. I echo Julie/FurryCatHerder’s comments at #86 above about the arrogant stench of the original “article” (which could be boiled down to “Why aren’t stupid journalists as smart as us? Idiots.”) and many of the comments.

    You think you have a communication issue and that people aren’t listening? Take a look at yourselves, seriously. Nobody likes to be lectured or hectored by people who come across as arrogant, elitist ivory-tower dwellers. And frankly, the lack of diversity of opinion on this blog only serves to reinforce narrow-minded thinking.

    Comment by Stephen — 20 Jan 2011 @ 6:01 AM

  57. And frankly, the lack of diversity of opinion on this blog only serves to reinforce narrow-minded thinking.

    Comment by Stephen — 20 Jan 2011 @ 6:01 AM

    ========================================================

    Not a “skeptic”, but as someone concerned about the state of methodology in climate science: oh my god, QFT!

    Comment by Magnus — 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:00 AM

  58. “The problem is that they have chosen to wear ideological blinkers. They refuse to look at the evidence, so it is pointless to try and explain the evidence to them.”

    This is true. But on both sides of this debate. One must be extremely huble when apporaching the task of predicting future events in a chaotic system. There can never be conducted an experiment with atmospheric levels of CO2 on the planet to conclude with statements about cause and effect. What is making people critical of criticism in this field is the enormously catastrophic predictions being made – it is as if one is operating without time to be critical of ones findings. This leads to errors in judgement because a theory, in ANY branch of science, should actively and with strong effort be tried proven false.

    A serious concern.

    For me, the more recent predictions of GCMs provide little hope for our future. like Lovelock has said – enjoy life while it lasts. It seems to be the only good solution to predictions of 2.4 degrees celsius by 2020 and so forth.

    Comment by Magnus — 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:27 AM

  59. Ray

    What is greener, hand dryers or paper towels? If you could point to some peer reviewed papers on the subject, I would be very greatful.

    Comment by Dr. Shooshmon, phd. — 20 Jan 2011 @ 2:28 PM

  60. The author appears to have limitted powers of analysis.

    The only “reason” the report has been published is she is CEO of the organisation.

    Comment by cumfy — 20 Jan 2011 @ 4:02 PM

  61. Hank and Didactylos,
    Do you have an issue with the temperature data? Maybe you prefer to use the trend from 2009-2010? Does that give you the number you desire. Maybe we should just throw out all the temperature data, because it is yielding trends much lower than the models calculate. And we know the models must be right!

    Comment by Dan H. — 21 Jan 2011 @ 2:56 PM

  62. In reply to ~53 John W you Gavin said: There are very clear fingerprints of change [sic] that are only associated with changes [sic] via increasing CO2 etc. – gavin]

    Well, Gavin, I would really like to see here the printouts of your own regression analysis of CHANGES in GMT (eg GISTEMP) since 1958 with respect to CHANGES in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Mine yield R2s that do NOT confirm IPCC AR4 WG1 that most of observed temperature change is due to anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2.

    Gavin, if you extended your regressions to bivariate regressors (atmospheric CO2 PLUS atmospheric H2O) to any location on earth you will find that CO2 plays no role at all in explaining temperature change.

    Comment by Fred Knell — 22 Jan 2011 @ 9:32 PM

  63. Does anyone have the latest status of the Landscheidt Grand Minimum and its impact manifested as this winter’s severe weather anomalies and how this it might affect spring planting and summer crop production?

    Comment by John A. Jauregui — 23 Jan 2011 @ 2:37 AM

  64. #55 Allen
    As per your comments on the flattened temperature slope over the past decade or so, here are a couple of graphs which might help. They show the HadCRUT3gl global temperature with two different MOV “spans” of 10 & 30 yrs. The filters use 0.1 & 0.03 cyc/yr respectively. The two filters were a 2-pole Butterworth ( zero ripple Chevushev) “filtfilt” and a Fourier convolution.

    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/filter_comp_10_30yr-QBs7t.jpg

    The top graph uses 10 yr (0.1 cyc/yr) filters to include higher freq., while the 30 yr (0.03 cyc/yr) provides longer period information. From the 10 yr. plot, one can see the ‘flattening” you mentioned. It also seems to extend farther in time then previous “toppings”. The second point, the top graph show a similarity of the ~1870 – ~1940 to the ~1940 – 2010 period. One could do a correlation to get a qualitative value, but they sure look very similar. Considering the accuracy of the measurements, the peak to peak change of the ~60 cycle wave also quite close.

    The bottom graph shows the primary ~60 yr. cycle, and it shows the decreasing slope over the past ~15 years, indicating a possible topping. The question then is if the CO2 is driving the warming, the slope should be increasing, but it’s not.

    My thought is that there is a longer period wave in here, that’s causing the upward trend. Unfortunately with the limited data it’s hard to prove one way or another.

    Comment by J. Bob — 23 Jan 2011 @ 5:04 PM

  65. 94 Ray Ladbury

    “No, Alan, the modeler will not decide on a “value” at all, but will instead model the processes using the best possible physics available. There will be a degree of subjectivity in selecting which physics is “best”, but once selected, that’s it for the model.”

    Well Ray why do we have a number, of these modelled processes, have their values in the model basically flat lining from the late 80s. Are you really saying that all these forcings suddenly flat lined from the same date without the intervention of the modeller. That wouldn’t be credible would it?

    One of the flat lining forcings for instance is black carbon which up to that time showed a quite strong constant rising effect.
    I don’t understand why it is shown a strong rising trend up to then anyway as Greenland ice cores show them peaking around 1920 and having a declining trend since.

    What can the explanation be?

    Alan

    Comment by Alan Millar — 23 Jan 2011 @ 7:03 PM

  66. I am curious, after spending sometime looking at the various info sites and links in your website, the only study that I can find quantifying the mechanism for declaring CO2 a Greenhouse gas was done in the late 1800′s. I would imagine that science since then could do a better job. Everyone mainly talks about statistical linkages, but no has looked at how a parts per million gas, that is constantly moving in a dynamic carbon cycle can create this heat trapping blanket.

    Comment by Alfred Holzheu — 24 Jan 2011 @ 12:41 AM

  67. Bad News: You haven’t a clue.

    Good News: No one is listening to you anymore.

    Comment by J — 24 Jan 2011 @ 1:43 AM

  68. It seems that several people have attacked Alan for pointing out the obvious. Yes, CRU shows the lowest temperature trend (cooling), but none of the others show increased warming. From this site, you can view the temperature records with the moving averages. They all show a relatively flat temperature profile since 2002, with a peak average somewhere between 2002 and 2006. (Spencer’s data actually shows one of the higher increases). Now, can someone tell me why we see a temperature dip every 8 years in every graph?

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    Comment by Dan H. — 24 Jan 2011 @ 8:30 AM

  69. Steve,
    There has been no discernable temperature trend in Antarctica.
    http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/09/antarctic-temperature-trends/

    Several Arctic graphs look something like this from GISS:
    http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_1.gif

    or this:
    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    Comment by Dan H. — 24 Jan 2011 @ 8:49 AM

  70. Sadly, Ireland’s economic state will be in an even bigger mess by 2020 aswell, thanks to the latest Climate Change Bill being pushed through.

    http://www.insideireland.ie/index.cfm/section/news/ext/climatechange005/category/896

    Comment by Jane O'Brien — 24 Jan 2011 @ 11:07 AM

  71. #55 Allen
    As per your comments on the flattened temperature slope over the past decade or so, here are a couple of graphs which might help. They show HadCRUT3gl global temperature with two different MOV “spans” of 10 & 30 yrs. The other filters used with 0.1 & 0.03 cyc/yr cut-offs respectively. They were a 2-pole Butterworth ( zero ripple Chebushev) “filtfilt” and a Fourier convolution.

    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/filter_comp_10_30yr-QBs7t.jpg

    The top graph uses 10 yr (0.1 cyc/yr) filters to include higher freq., while the 30 yr (0.03 cyc/yr) provides longer period information. From the 10 yr. plot, one can see the ‘flattening” you mentioned. It also seems to extend farther in time then previous “toppings”. The second point, the top graph show a similarity of the ~1870 – ~1940 to the ~1940 – 2010 period. One could do a correlation to get a qualitative value, but they sure look very similar. Considering the accuracy of the measurements, the peak to peak change of the ~60 cycle wave also quite close.

    The bottom graph shows the primary ~60 yr. cycle, and it shows the decreasing slope over the past ~15 years, indicating a possible topping. The question then is if the CO2 is driving the warming, the slope should be increasing, but it’s not.

    My thought is that there is a longer period wave in here, that’s causing the upward trend. Unfortunately with the limited data it’s hard to prove one way or another.

    Comment by J. Bob — 24 Jan 2011 @ 11:21 AM

  72. 105

    Ray, will 2011 be in the top 5 warmest years, or the top 10 warmest years?

    That is the question. Pretend it’s an exam (your life depends on it).

    The reason you can’t answer it is because you have a deep misunderstanding of climate.

    Only considering the statistics in the long run is a form of cheating, because you know there is a trend.

    Unless you show your working out, you will not get any marks.

    Comment by Isotopious — 24 Jan 2011 @ 5:08 PM

  73. The straight facts regarding the role of CO2 in AGW, starting with the “accepted” view. The third answer below is the clearest explanation of CO2′s role (or lack of) in global warming done from a purely scientific approach. I looked this up because I always wondered how a trace gas in the atmosphere could cause any significant anything, especially when it is so overshadowed by water vapor and Nitrogen and Oxygen, etc, etc, etc, etc…… The first two answers are the traditional answers which just did not make sense to me.
    From: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_Carbon_dioxide_a_greenhouse_gas
    A1:
    CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it increases the temperature level of the earth in the same way the heat is generated inside the greenhouse where plants are grown. Greenhouses or glass houses trap the heat within thereby increasing the temperature within the glasshouse. In the same way, CO2 acts like a blanket in the earth atmosphere and prevents the heat from escaping from the earth’s surface, leading to a rise in global temperatures.
    A2:
    Shortwave energy (that emitted by the sun) passes through the atmosphere pretty much unimpeded, ultimately to be intercepted by the ground. The warm ground emits longwave radiation in proportion to the fourth power of its temperature. In a completely dry, CO2-less and ozone-less atmosphere, this upwelling longwave radiation would all be lost to space. Carbon dioxide absorbs upwelling long wave radiation and re-emits it back to the ground, thereby reducing the amount of heat that escapes to space, warming the planet. The warmer planet evaporates more water, and the water vapor absorbs even more longwave radiation than the carbon dioxide, warming the planet even more.
    A3:
    The two answers above are not quite correct. This is how it works.
    Incoming solar radiation is widely distributed across the electromagnetic spectrum. Some wavelengths (mostly visible light) get through the atmosphere to the surface, some don’t. Of the radiation that gets through, some is reflected and some is absorbed by the surface of the earth. The reflected radiation is not an issue, because it goes right back into space at the same wavelengths that it came in at, unimpeded, just like on the way in. It is only the absorbed radiation that is a problem. This radiation is later re-emitted, but in the form of Infrared Radiation (IR).
    Certain atmospheric gases, known as “greenhouse gases”, absorb IR, then re-emit it back into the atmosphere. Some percentage of this re-emitted IR (after a long sequence of re-absorptions and re-emissions by other greenhouse gas molecules) eventually works its way back down to the lower atmosphere and is said to “warm” the surface. This is the “greenhouse effect”. The “greenhouse effect”, in and of itself, is a completely natural thing, and also a very good thing. Without it, the surface would be far too cold for life as we know it to exist.
    At this point, it must be emphasized that carbon dioxide (CO2) is just one of many “greenhouse gases”. It is not the most important, nor the most abundant. That distinction belongs to water vapor. Even without carbon dioxide, water vapor alone would cause enough of a greenhouse effect to keep us very near the warm temperatures that we enjoy. Also worth emphasizing is the fact that greenhouse gasses do not “trap” IR. They absorb, then re-emit the IR, in a completely random direction. It could go up, down, sideways, or any direction in between. Re-absorption by other greenhouse gas molecules complicates the path and destination of an individual unit of IR, but what it all boils down to is that something less than half of the IR absorbed by greenhouse gases eventually finds its way back to the surface, with the remainder escaping into space.
    Though the greenhouse effect itself is completely natural, and very beneficial, global warming scientists believe that anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide (mostly from burning fossil fuels) have increased CO2 in the atmosphere to a point where we are now experiencing what could be called an “enhanced greenhouse effect”. This artificial enhancement of the greenhouse effect, could cause significant warming of the atmosphere and the surface, over and above what the natural greenhouse effect causes. Though such additional warming will have both positive and negative consequences for human beings and other life on the planet, global warming scientists believe that the negative consequences far outweigh the positive consequences. (However, in reality, they have no scientific basis for that belief – they just believe, just because it’s “man-made”, just because it’s not “natural”, that it must be “bad”. Even the alarmist IPCC admits that no one can be certain which effects will dominate, but, in true alarmist fashion choose to err on the side of pessimism. But that is a completely different discussion, not appropriate to the question at hand.)
    Now, here’s an important point that global warming scientists don’t mention. Though carbon dioxide definitely absorbs IR, it only absorbs IR in two very narrow ranges of wavelengths, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. This is a small percentage of the total IR emitted by the surface. I don’t know exactly how small (because I can’t find any source for the wavelength distribution of IR emitted from the surface), but it’s probably less than 10%, and perhaps as low as 4%. And even in those ranges, CO2 has to compete with water vapor, which also absorbs 2.5-3-micron IR. So, even if carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased a thousand-fold, and even if there was no water vapor, there is a limit to how much IR CO2 can absorb, and that limit is 10% (or less) of all the IR emitted from the surface. And of that 10%, over half of it still ends up escaping into space.
    This limit of absorptivity is important because some skeptics argue that, between water vapor and CO2, every available ray of IR within the absorption ranges of CO2 is already being absorbed. Additional molecules of CO2, therefore, will havezero effect on the total absorption of IR. So future warming due to CO2 is simply not possible. The only way CO2 could absorb any more IR than it is already absorbing is if 1) the surface started re-emitting more IR, which could only happen if more sunlight reached the surface, or 2) atmospheric water vapor levels dropped, freeing up more IR to be absorbed by CO2, in which case, warming would not occur, because that radiation was already being absorbed by the water vapor that disappeared. In fact, if the second option occurred, temperatures would in fact drop, because water vapor absorbs IR over a much wider range than CO2, and therefore, CO2 cannot completely offset the loss of IR absorption by water vapor. However, the existence of CO2, replacing the IR absorption of some of the lost water vapor, would mitigate this temperature drop. Therefore, at current levels, CO2 could be said to be somewhat of a stabilizer of the greenhouse effect, taking up part of the slack when water vapor levels drop too low. In this respect, it is good to have an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    It is also possible that, even at pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric CO2, we were already above the “saturation point” of IR absorption by CO2, and therefore, even the warming that has occurred in the last 150 years could not have been caused by carbon dioxide.

    Comment by Alfred Holzheu — 24 Jan 2011 @ 9:57 PM

  74. Gavin writes: “global warming continues.”

    http://bit.ly/e7staX

    Let us verify Gavin’s statement.

    Let us look at the last 30 years data and compare the three decadal trends.

    Here is the plot for the data from the Climate Research Unit:

    http://bit.ly/hEDm6f

    It shows the following results:

    1) A global warming rate of 0.07 deg C per decade for the period from 1980 to 1990

    2) A global warming rate of 0.25 deg C per decade for the period from 1990 to 2000

    3) A global warming rate of 0.03 deg C per decade for the period from 2000 to 2010

    According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, Gavin’s “continue” means to “remain in a specified position or state.”

    According to the data above, to say “global warming continues” the global warming rate for the period 2000 to 2010 should have been 0.25 deg C per decade. However, instead, it is only 0.03 deg C per decade, which is nearly no global warming in the last decade.

    As a result, Gavin should have concluded “the global warming rate has significantly reduced.”

    Comment by tom — 25 Jan 2011 @ 11:44 PM

  75. the decaying ice caps will provide many opportunities for the violent overthrow of a decadent civilization..

    Comment by Dr. Radical — 26 Jan 2011 @ 1:42 PM

  76. A recent peer reviewed paper showed how the GCM’s even did poorly in hindcasting, let alone projections. The journal of atmospheric physics, and the journal of atmospheric chemistry have excellent peer reviewed articles showing two things:

    (1.) Aerosols can and often do, warm and not just cool.

    (2.)Reflective effects of aerosols recently directly observed have reflected much radiation back to space, reducing warming effects, not just slowing them down.

    The peer reviewed journals in oceanography show many long term cooling effects of oceans that show not just slowing of warming but actual reversing and to date, significant trends in reduction in warming. Links? Sure, I am compiling them now, and I will post them by next week, with all relevant references/bibliographies in the peer review only.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 26 Jan 2011 @ 3:45 PM

  77. Gavin, if the temperature rise isn’t accurate, any discussion of impacts of said rise is moot. 2020 surface temps may well be below the la nina temps we’re experiencing now.

    Comment by Layne — 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:06 AM

  78. I can see from both sides now in the weather debate and I admit in the beginning of my reading this website I was also very much assuming the world might be warming. But I have been able to learn from both sides in this debate and lest we forget in all the arguing, if both sides had not tried so hard to be heard and worked on their reports we would not be having intelligent discussion at all… We must always honor the Researchers from both sides of the debate. It is only fair. – DERR UFO

    Comment by DERR UFO — 27 Jan 2011 @ 12:56 AM

  79. Tamino : all this discussion about prior, posterior, bayesian, Cauchy stuff is very interesting. Just for fun, I suggest you to apply this mathematical considerations to another problem : what is the sensitivity of the world energy consumption per capita to the distance of Pluto ? I’m sure you will find interesting results -mathematically speaking, of course.

    Comment by Gilles — 27 Jan 2011 @ 1:06 PM

  80. Ray Ladbury #257. I am not a big fan of consensus as the reason for something being claimed as true. I think that as something is truly evidenced or proven to be true, it is shown to be so. I am not say all of climate science is wrong, bad or dishonest. Even if I have an opinion that some may be dishonest, it is not just that I am looking at. I have looked at Dr. Lindzen’s work and I find it to look compelling, very much so. This does not mean I do not look at Tamino’s or Gavin’s work and learn new things. I look at the work in atmospheric physics and chemistry journals and even some work at NASA that show global warming is more a natural phenomenon and that the greenhouse effect, though very real,is perhaps being taken a step too far with some of the AGW claims made. I suspect based upon my analysis to date that some of the parameterizations in GCM’s, lack of enough data and too much uncertainty even for statistics play roles in such potentialities. Also recent peer reviewed journals show how much of the heat waves and cooling phases are more due to chaotic weatehr and not greenhouse gases, though yes, greenhouse gases contribute to some more chaotic weather at times. As my pilot friend reminds me, most weather is very flyable and just fine around the world. The 59F/15C, is a standard day for international standard at sea level, so I fail to see a problem with a global average, of 59F/15C. I also fail to see how anyone can make the claim they actually know what the global average temps reall are for a given year, decade or century. There are too many variables, too many sources, too many sinks, etc… I am not a parrot of Watts or Lindzen, either, and no, not everything stated there is correct, but some of the reporting there is dead on. My chemical engineer friend who flies small airplanes, studies meteorology and he has definitely enlightened me to some rudimentary facts, that I learned in undergraduate courses, but failed to make the connection. The second law of thermodynamics applies weather performing work and machines, weather, dissipates heat, entropy still rises and goes to space. The long answer to that is VERY long, but we can always go over that in bits and pieces. Suffice to say, weather performs work and excess energy is released in all directions. I know we are used to looking at entropy in terms of machines and various closed systems, but it also applies to open systems, but again, that is a bit of a conversation for later on. I want to reiterate I am relying upon around 120 textbooks, many peer reviewed journals and friends of mine who have areas of expertise I do not, and recent course work, real work I have done in my neck of the woods.

    Ray, I am not working in climate science either, but at this point, that does not stop me from doing some of my own calculations, some serious self critiquing and taking a chance on sharing my interpretations of data and numerical results. My Irish temper can sometimes get the best of me, but I assure you, I am here to discuss these matters, and take a risk of being wrong, right, half right, partially right, not even wrong…etc… I am confident though I always have a lot to learn, I have learned a lot over these past several years, especially, as I am sure you have too. Show some work:)

    Ray Ladbury #258: A true blackbody in nature does not really exist. Now, some assumptions can be made in physics, like the five postulates of quantum mechanics that give real world results, but a blackbody is probably not a good one. Using Stefan-Boltzman or Planck’s constant for total earth radiation budget also are not completely useful, either.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 27 Jan 2011 @ 9:28 PM

  81. Gavin, I am a contrarian, age 81, retired electronic engineer (Do I hear derisive snickers?). In the early 1960s, I commenced reading reports from scientists predicting a coming ice age and also those who proclaimed Arrhenius was right. A warming trend stilled the icers and Mother Nature now beckons believers in global warming (original definition) to a similar comeuppance.

    I read Lord Blagger’s comment (2) and thought if Gavin was my son I’d speak to him about being courteous. Blagger asked the question “How can this be the case?” Your reply was from the gutter coached in prep boy English. Well you are not and I won’t, but I can say this.

    The previous election created a Congress unfavorable to your views. You may be contemptuous, but the voters are not stupid and do understand human nature. They inherently know any question can be answered succinctly by knowledgeable people. Lack of knowledge is immediately suspected when someone uses ridicule, insults and suggests impossible feats instead of answering.

    Your computer can provide only your opinions, not facts. You do the programming, select input data including assumptions and tweak the output. It does not take a PhD to understand the product is what you want it to be. Trenberth did all that and now wonders where the warming went. Mann did all that and he ended up cherry picking bristlecone pines. Look at the graph above which appears to be a shotgun blast and you proclaim it is a true prediction?

    But who gets the glory for trying to save the earth; why Gore, a non scientist and some scientists at the IPCC who don’t do research. BTW, did you ever challenge Gore to correct the many erroneous claims he made which didn’t correlate with IPCC predictions? No, you let non scientists such as environmentalists and self promoters like Gore attempt to scare the citizenry. Gore and others They and some politicians get power and money and you get paid chicken feed.

    My advice to you is to drop the smartest guy in the room attitude and answer hard questions courteously. You really don’t want to end up like your boss, thirty years in the same position without a promotion.

    Comment by Bob Galusha — 28 Jan 2011 @ 7:26 AM

  82. Did you miss this week’s good news from Nature that Greenland glaciers appear to slow down in warmer temperatures:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09740.html

    seemingly ruling out unexpected large additions to sea level rise from accelerated melting of Greenland glaciers?

    Comment by Stephen — 28 Jan 2011 @ 10:13 AM

  83. Really lame try. Try again, next time with a little more flavour, wit and less irritability. Perhaps then I’ll mind to read it to the bloody end ;).

    Comment by Luis Dias — 28 Jan 2011 @ 1:46 PM

  84. dhogaza, #259,no. There are thousands of scientists who are collecting data, and statisticians/mathematicians, performing analysis with very different results. Even quite a bunch of climate scientists besides Lindzen et., al. In addition I know engineers, chemists and physicists not in climate science,but skeptical, just the same, due to related knowledge areas and working expertise. Oh,yes, and meteorologists too.

    Comment by jacob mack — 28 Jan 2011 @ 3:07 PM

  85. No dhogaza. Many scientists share my views

    Comment by jacob mack — 28 Jan 2011 @ 8:18 PM

  86. RE 58 ghost

    Well, no I’m not a Chemist. I’m one of those odd fellows whose education and career path don’t line up. Life is funny that way. My professional career is in Electroplating Process Control; Chemical Wastewater Treatment; and Environmental Controls & Compliance (20+ years) even though my education was in Engineering (many many moons ago). Two of the three require considerable understanding of inorganic chemistry especially pertaining to aqueous solutions.

    My education in biology is pretty much limited to a year’s worth in college, the discovery channel, and my own experiments (with my wife, eh eh).
    I come into contact with a wide variety of applied science practitioners of many disciplines including biologists, engineers of several flavors, chemists, etc. etc. and I only know one that is not basically what I believe is termed a “lukewarmer” and the one person (professional) that’s not skeptical is a environmental scientist (and he debates like a wet noodle, all he’ll say is most climatologists agree …..; to which I reply most crypto-zoologists agree that the North American wood ape …..) Anyway, these are not dumb people and are certainly not paid by “big oil”. From what I understand there’s a great deal of skepticism among meteorologists as well. Can we all be just too dumb, lazy, incompetent, unbalanced, loons, nuts, etc…..? Maybe, maybe not. Amazingly enough, I don’t know any climatologists. Hmmmm. Perhaps we all just like being a “lukewarmer”; it reminds us of Star Wars.

    A hint about ocean acidification: alkalinity not pH. (No, they’re not the same thing.)

    Comment by John W — 29 Jan 2011 @ 4:50 AM

  87. FALSE PROPHETS,a biblical test would be that if what they say and prophesy comes to pass regard what they say but if it doesn’t then don’t listen to them.This seems to me the obvious approach to climate science and in fact all science and self evident as the way in which most people react.Crying wolf even if the wolf was there but keeps disappearing will lose the present scientific comunity credibility.Credibility in science is more important than risky prophesy which may give people a warning and may not,so that when scientists are reasonably sure[as in beyond reasonable doubt] they will be believed and their warnings acted upon.Better be an honest scientist than a lucky guesser.

    Comment by donald moore — 29 Jan 2011 @ 6:14 AM

  88. I have suggested before on this web site that i believe that global warming and melting ice caps will convert to an increase in cloud volume equivalent to the volume of ice loss,and there has been no attempt to measure this just cloud cover.If i am right action to cool the climate will lead to an increase in flooding and sea rise only equivalent to expansion due to temperature rise.If i am wrong then total sea rise will cover ice loss and thermal expansion surely this can be measured.This is very important which way we go as recent floods accross the world can be very expensive to our economy and way of life.perhaps we may need a ‘steady as she goes’approach rather than a ‘cool the globe one.

    Comment by donald moore — 29 Jan 2011 @ 9:55 AM

  89. RE: #73 Ray Ladbury

    And here I thought your offer for Q&A was sincere, silly me; thankfully Chris Colose and Gavin did answer my question. I made no “strongly stated position” and I suppose obsrvations aren’t evidence unless they’re in a computer model; you sir are no longer worth reading and this post belongs in the bore hole.

    Comment by John W — 29 Jan 2011 @ 12:47 PM

  90. When will RC resume commenting on real science?

    Comment by Pbo — 29 Jan 2011 @ 6:48 PM

  91. I never did get a chance to ask this question, and I don’t recall seeing an answer or explanation –

    Why does it appear that GISS and HadCRU are diverging? The agreement between NCDC and HadCRUT3 appear to be far better than the agreement between GISS and HadCRUT3. Is there an explanation that doesn’t involve hand waving or Proof by Repeated Assertion? The explanation given in the lead-in strikes me as hand-waving on both sides since both involve assumptions, so repeating it isn’t the answer I’m looking for.

    Comment by FurryCatHerder — 30 Jan 2011 @ 1:17 PM

  92. Spielhagen has some explaining to do, in 2008 a peer reviewed study appeared in the “Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences”. From their conclusion…

    “The Holocene record from site HLY0501-05 illustrates the sensitivity of hydrographical conditions in the western
    Arctic Ocean. The data show a long-term warming that is opposite to what is reconstructed for the eastern Arctic and
    point to a bipolar behavior of the Arctic Ocean at the timescale of the Holocene. The millennial-scale variability in the eastern Chukchi Sea is characterized by quasi-cyclic periods
    of high SSS, high SST, and reduced sea-ice cover, which most probably reflects variations in the stratification of the
    upper water column. Such changes maybe related to tidal forcing and (or) large-scale mechanisms, such as AO/NAOlike
    oscillations. It is important to note that the amplitude of these millennial-scale changes in sea-surface conditions far exceed those observed at the end of the 20th century.”

    http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf
    Add to that, pictures of the USS Skate surfacing at the North pole to very little ice on March 17, 1959 conflict with these findings

    Comment by CoolRancher — 30 Jan 2011 @ 2:05 PM

  93. A comment I posted earlier w.r.t. the Spielhagen article ended up in the Bore Hole section (http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013). Could you explain why? Thanks in advance.

    Comment by CoolRancher — 30 Jan 2011 @ 2:55 PM

  94. >>>>>”whether climate is chaotic (perhaps as a function of the base state) is very much an open question. ”

    And you think you have it figured out? You know enough to manage the climate now? Know enough to dictate public policy? Know enough that your public policy – i.e., force – would even have an effect? Know enough that your desired force, er, policy, will do more good than harm?

    Yeah, sure.

    What you think you know is enough to make politicians salivate for using you to control the “ignorant masses.”

    It ain’t working for you any more.

    Even on sites where you control the information.

    Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted.

    Comment by J — 31 Jan 2011 @ 2:14 AM

  95. More to #99

    OK, so I looked at your graph above and the 2007 post. Scenario B shows a 25 yr trend of 0.27 deg C/decade. GISStemp and Hadcrut show a 25yr trend of 0.19 and 0.18 per decade which appear to be slightly lower than Scenario C(which are about .1 deg C lower than in 2007). So Scenario B has an anomaly .25 deg C higher than data. Scenario A has an anonmaly 0.55 deg C higher than the data. This all shows that Scenario B, Scenario C, and the two datasets are not significantly different.

    Quote from today:”As before, it seems that the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is likely running a little warm compared to the real world.” One could just as easily say that Scenario C seems to be doing a better job of matching the data to date. Even though CO2 is still tracking upwards at ~1.15 ppm/yr. in a linear fashion. The data even appears to be possibly matching the leveling off show by Scenario C post 2005. That is quite an accomplishment since it assumes the model forcings levelled out in 2000.

    No one is arguing that temperatures appear to still be creeping upwards. Just that the modelling and datasets still don’t show enough change to make any kind of attribution or substantive predictions. As the 2007 post said, the data is pretty noisy hear to year(weather). In the next 10-20 years it should become apparent might be happening to the climate and whether or not it is bad or good.

    Comment by George — 31 Jan 2011 @ 2:38 PM

  96. Clean wind-energy:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

    Comment by Ibrahim — 31 Jan 2011 @ 5:48 PM

  97. Re 30 and 33:

    SecularAnimis:

    Are you implying billionaire fossil fuel corporation executives driven by a culture of ruthless, rapacious, relentless, reactionary corporate greed are responsible for the hostility towards climate scientists and denial of climate science? If that true, then it logically follows that you believe corporate greed is the only purpose for burning of fossil fuel.

    Of course that isn’t true. If Industry had continued the transition from coal burning plants to nuclear power plants which was underway mid 20th Century, and developed hydrogen powered vehicles, we wouldn’t have a CO2 problem today.

    It is remarkable that many contrarians say just the opposite; that greedy politicians are the driving force behind AGW research and the real purpose is to levy a new tax.

    Gavin:

    You say the role of human-produced CO2 in affecting climate is well-understood. No, you have an opinion that is well understood, but other just as well educated and experienced disagree.

    Industry picked a solution which insofar as they were permitted to go has worked just fine. They used the very best of scientific effort in its development. The politicians did not like the plan and scared people into bringing it to a halt. Now they want a rerun and are using scientists to again scare people. The leveling you speak of brings trillions of dollars to a political party. Do you favor that?

    Comment by Bob Galusha — 31 Jan 2011 @ 6:16 PM

  98. This is off-topic but there’s one dilemma regarding CO2 and warming that I have never seen answered: how exactly are we to reduce CO2 \pollution\, considering the rapid increase of CO2 \pollution\ in Asia due to ongoing industrialization process there. Maybe we could reduce our own levels thanks to inventions and negative population growth, but what about Asia?

    We have China with 1.3 billion and India who isn’t far behind. As well as other countries in the region with growing economies.

    To me it seems IMPOSSIBLE to reduce world-wide CO2… HOW would we do it?

    Point being, yes there is global warming, but we can’t do anything about the increase in CO2 pollution so why don’t we direct our efforts elsewhere? Like start preparing for the global warming and its consequences…

    Comment by Andreas K — 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:43 AM

  99. With respect to

    Paleoclimate:
    1.A new study by Spielhagen and co-authors

    I found a very similar reconstruction (using Dinocysts) located on the West Spitzbergen margin in the Fram Strait which comes to very different conclusions.

    Title: Variability of sea-surface temperature and sea-ice cover in the Fram Strait over the last two millennia
    Author(s): Bonnet, S; de Vernal, A; Hillaire-Marcel, C, et al.
    Source: MARINE MICROPALEONTOLOGY Volume: 74 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 59-74 Published: 2010

    What are we to make of that?

    Comment by HR — 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:59 AM

  100. Taking two series for one location, separately de-meaning them, then analyzing the trend at that one location, seems to me to be the same as making an assumption of zero trend at that location, and embedding that assumption in the analysis. That’s not a valid methodological choice, that’s an error. I understand that just splining the series is an assumption of zero calibration error, but at least that’s a presumably random error. Separately de-meaning them biases the results toward a finding of zero trend, and it means that the magnitude of the findings is an artifact of the (arbitrary) timing of when the first series ended (with “right in the middle of the time period” imparting the greatest bias).

    Comment by Christopher Hogan — 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:16 PM

  101. 72

    You’re a bit of an alarmist with what you are implying, I’m afraid. Using your logic (if you could call it that), every new day is unprecedented given the increases in population density.. We often hear claims that it’s the “worst ever”. This may be true in terms of cost to human life, however, such claims fly in the face of meteorological definitions.

    And even if it does set a new record, it is absurd to link it to human induced climate change. As K. Emanual stated: “it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming”.

    Comment by Isotopious — 1 Feb 2011 @ 7:05 PM

  102. Well!

    Interesting logic and moral here.I note that the underlying consensus within the “climate science” is that open code and data is seen as a problem and hiding it a benefit.
    By accusing other sceptic scientists for not releasing code and data you take that as an exquse not to reveal yours.Well from my taxpayers point of wiev I think you should really wonder how I react when your work is funded by my money and used as advice to decions for billions of dollars.

    Your arrogance is monumental and two wrongs doesnt make one right.When it comes to P Corbyn he`s an entrepeneur and is not a taxconsumer he has to take responsability for his product and he delivers to his customers and clients.I havent read your blog before but I couldnt be more surprised how XXXX up your moral is.Why dont you see open data and code as an obvious reliability and quality factor? How to EARN confidence?? Have you ever asked yourselves that question?

    Comment by Just perfect! — 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:48 PM

  103. Brian: A lot better and simpler correlations than in the article. Depends on what’s going on under the surface nd nothing I’ve read here so far even takes them into account.

    Most volcanic activity is on the peninsula; most warming on the peninsula:
    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Antarctica_temp_trends.jpg

    Comment by J — 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:33 PM

  104. A lot better – not to mention simpler and direct – correlation than in the article. There’s lots of heat there and under the surface. I haven’t seen anything here that even takes it into account.

    Max volcano activity on the peninsula; max warming delta on the peninsula:

    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Antarctica_temp_trends.jpg

    Comment by J — 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:36 PM

  105. Doesn’t matter. Use the map in this article, same correlation of max volcanoes and max warming on peninsula.
    I’m not interested in where you ski, but that it seems you’re saying volcanic activity and hot material reaching the earth’s crust have no effect on temperature or climate.

    Comment by J — 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:16 AM

  106. “Scientists have discovered a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards in Antarctica, evidence of an old eruption by a still active volcano that researchers believe may be contributing to the thinning of Antarctic glacial ice.
    Hugh F.J. Corr and David G. Vaughan, two scientists with the British Antarctic Survey, recently published their discovery of the volcanic layer in the journal Nature Geoscience. The discovery is unique according to Dr. Vaughan. He said “This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet.”
    The volcano’s heat could possibly be melting and thinning the ice and raising the speed of the Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica…

    New York Times Source:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/21volcano.html?_r=2&ref=science&oref=slogin

    Comment by J — 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:22 AM

  107. I’m afraid I stopped reading when you said:

    “The spatial patterns of annual trends, and how they evolve through time, is similar in both papers”

    Unless by “similar”, you mean “different”?

    [Response: You probably don't get real far if you stop reading every time you don't grasp something--Jim]

    Comment by Stephen — 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:51 AM

  108. Eric,

    Some of the differences are real and correct. You took the example of a single station in your article. This is what I was referring to, you can’t really look at that small of a scale with 7 pc’s and expect a perfect match. The stations information may very easily be shifted nearby the point being examined and can also be reasonably well weighted. The number of PC’s determines the resolution.

    On larger regions the patterns will average out if the math is correct but an arbitrary boundary may or may not have perfect representation. I believe that the Ross issue is something that Ryan and Nic would have more expertise with than myself but again if you look at the area weighted and our reconstruction, the similarities are quite evident. We aren’t far off from the actual station data (I have confirmed this with several methods), but IMHO the station position is a more reliable indicator of where the information should be than correlation with noisy and highly spatially correlated sat data. Again, the simple methods are also is difficult to disagree with and if you check them out they may make your case better than you think.

    If you take a look at the area weighted link, you can see that some of the trends are more muted, but represent a very similar pattern to what our paper revealed – and IMO a very different one from your original. Just be careful when looking at a truncated least squares method when analysing patterns, especially when the sampling is not spatially even. [edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on--understood?]

    Comment by Jeff Id — 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:09 PM

  109. what do comments about curry have to do with this article?
    borehole the OT crap. it distracts from a quality discussion

    Comment by steven mosher — 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:30 PM

  110. Did my reply disappear or was it moderated? Can’t ever really tell here.

    Comment by Jeff Id — 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:41 PM

  111. For the second AND LAST time I ask if my comment was cut or if there was some other problem.

    Comment by Jeff Id — 3 Feb 2011 @ 8:07 PM

  112. Why don’t you guys give it up!

    Comment by Mark Allen — 4 Feb 2011 @ 2:01 AM

  113. Why don’t you guys give it a rest!

    Comment by Mark Allen — 4 Feb 2011 @ 2:02 AM

  114. This may not be the right site, but what I’m interested in are the effects of the warming. I have no major doubts that the planet is warming as is so well explained on this site, but is it yet as warm as it was ten thousand years ago at the end of the last ice age? and even if it is or will be does it mater much? I know there are books out there, just not a lot of info on the main climate sites, or maybe I havent looked hard enough. Thanks

    Comment by Raf Val — 4 Feb 2011 @ 3:14 AM

  115. I know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with what I’m about to say. So, here goes. Tree rings measurements correlating to temperature changes, and thus supporting the argument for global warming, has just been shown to be untrue. What actually causes tree ring differences is sun spot activity. There’s loads of new peer-reviewed evidence to support this. Believe me when I say that the implications are huge. If you want to read what I read, you can at http://www.blindedbyscience.co.uk

    Comment by Mariella Leininger — 4 Feb 2011 @ 12:35 PM

  116. [edit -keep on trying to sneak in off-topic snark like this, and all of your stuff will go straight to the borehole from now on--understood?]

    The ‘snark’ is hardly off topic and only 1 in 3 of my comments makes moderation anyway so it isn’t much of a threat.

    If you can’t handle reasoned criticism, you aren’t much of a scientist – whomever you are. Eric wouldn’t have written this.

    Comment by Jeff Id — 4 Feb 2011 @ 4:59 PM

  117. “If you are suggesting that scenario C will continue to be a better fit, I think this is highly unlikely. – gavin”

    “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”

    The last line of the article says “So to conclude, global warming continues. Did you really think it wouldn’t?” My point is yes global warming has contiued but only a rate similar to what was predicted based on zero new emissions (the absolute best case scenario). Now you can say whatever you want but the reality there hasn’t been as much global warming as was predicted and it is the amount of warming we are worried about not whether or not it is getting warmer.

    Comment by Elliot — 4 Feb 2011 @ 11:25 PM

  118. “There is more work to be done, clearly.–eric]”

    Yes, clearly you and the rest of the Real Climate team need more grant money. After all, the science is settled! Oh wait, I mean, yes the science is settled, but we still have bills to pay! Damn…that still didn’t come out right!

    Oh well, I give up, if only I was sociopathic enough to constantly lie to myself and others with a straight face.

    Comment by TheGoodLocust — 5 Feb 2011 @ 1:16 PM

  119. Eric at 36 says, \CO2 is globally quite well mixed,…\

    As a matter of fact, it isn’t. For dry cold polar air at -60 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentration of CO2 is about 390 ppmv, and there is 22.3 mmoles per cubic meter. For dry hot desert air at +45 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentraion of CO2 is still about 390 ppmv but there is only 14.9 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter.

    As I have said many times here and elsewhere, in real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmosphere as shown by weather maps. High pressure cells have more regional mass than do low pressure cells and these are always on the move somtimes quite rapidly.

    Presence of water vapor lowers the density of dry air and hence the amount of CO2 in that air.

    Clouds contain dissolved atmospheric gases and can alter the local concentation of CO2 as they move about. Rain can transport CO2 out of the air to the surface. Satellite images show there is no uniform distribution
    of clouds.

    Atmospheric tides will alter the mass distribution of the atmosphere as the earth rotates and as the moon orbits the earth.

    Based upon the results of climate model calculations of a virtual atmophere and earth, I now pay a carbon tax of ca $1 per gigajoule of nat gas which costs ca $5 per gigajoule in BC. And I don’t like it.

    Comment by Harold Pierce Jr — 5 Feb 2011 @ 9:11 PM

  120. Hank writes : “Or you could say “the pre-satellite data taken at Byrd Station was confirmed when the satellite data extended its measurements adding a large area.””

    Why do you conclude that measurements taken afterwards confirm measurements taken before?

    The trend from 1970 onwards is a cooling trend. It’s only a warming trend when the pre-satellite data is included. So one dataset hardly “confirms” the other!

    Comment by TimTheToolMan — 5 Feb 2011 @ 11:37 PM

  121. In a Physics Today essay linked in the Wikipedia entry on Judith Curry, she states that Steve McIntyre was unable to post on Real Climate when he was trying to defend his critiques of the hockey stick. I was wondering if this is true, and if so what the rationale was.

    Comment by Richard Palm — 5 Feb 2011 @ 11:51 PM

  122. May I give my personal opinion about Judith Curry : from my point of view, the way she expresses her concerns about climate science is very close to the ideal scientific attitude, trying to be balanced and free from ideological a priori (this doesn’t mean of course that she is always right, although I did not notice anything wrong in what she said). This is not the case for many posters on this blog.

    Comment by Gilles — 6 Feb 2011 @ 3:01 AM

  123. Hello Eric!

    It appears my recent comment was not dispalyed. So I’ll try again.

    Eric at 36 says, “CO2 is globally quite well mixed,…”

    As a matter of fact, it isn’t. For dry cold polar air at -60 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentration of CO2 is about 390 ppmv, and there is 22.3 mmoles per cubic meter. For dry hot desert air at +45 deg C and 1 atm pressure, the concentraion of CO2 is still about 390 ppmv but there is only 14.9 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter.

    As I have said many times here and elsewhere, in real air there is no uniform distribution of the mass of the atmosphere as shown by weather maps. High pressure cells have more regional mass than do low pressure cells and these are always on the move somtimes quite rapidly.

    Presence of water vapor lowers the density of dry air and hence the amount of CO2 in that air.

    Clouds contain dissolved atmospheric gases and can alter the local concentation of CO2 as they move about. Rain can transport CO2 out of the air to the surface.

    Satellite images show there is no uniform distribution of clouds.

    Atmospheric tides will alter the mass distribution of the atmosphere as the earth rotates and as the moon orbits the earth.

    Based upon the results of climate model calculations of a virtual atmophere and earth, I now pay a carbon tax of ca $1 per gigajoule of nat gas which costs ca $5 per gigajoule in BC. And I don’t like it.

    Comment by Harold Pierce Jr — 6 Feb 2011 @ 5:04 AM

  124. Both terms, down welling and back radiation, seem less than appropriate to me. Retarded up welling or outgoing radiation is more descriptive. The loss of heat is just slowed, its direction of flow in not reversed.

    Latent heat at phase change is interesting, but by my back of the envelop calculations it is small relative to albedo. Latent heat of vaporization/condensation is larger than heat of fusion and the annual heat loss to condensation is on the order of 1 ZetaJoule while reflected radiation by cloud cover is about 30 times that (my rough calculations). Considering both, precipitation proxies should give a fair indication of past climate change. I know someone has done that, I just haven’t stumbled upon a good study yet. Yes, there are tons of hydrological reconstructions for various regions. And yes, there are plenty of reconstructions that lump a bunch of proxies together to estimate past temperatures. There are few that try to calibrate individual proxies to precipitation first then combine to estimate past global precipitation. I just have not found one that attempts to reconstruct global past precipitation and relate that to past global climate. Pay walls block a lot of interesting looking papers.

    Comment by captdallas2 — 6 Feb 2011 @ 8:47 AM

  125. Come you guys! Not only is the number of pro-warming articles falling through the floor, but there just aren’t enough people willing to speak up for the warmist view to go around. Every time I find a decent news article on global warming, I find a dozen or so people have already done over some poor lone global warmer. Come on you guys! Buck your ideas up – it is really getting boring for us sceptics outside in the real world.

    Comment by Mike Haseler — 6 Feb 2011 @ 7:19 PM

  126. I’m slowly going through your paper…I note the following in your recent paper

    “Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved1, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica4.”

    The reference “4″ lead me to your paper “RECENT CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN ANTARCTICA FROM SATELLITE-DERIVED TEMPERATURE DATA”

    Where you have an earlier attempt at establishing Antarctic temperatures.

    “We examine the relationship between surface temperature variability and atmospheric circulation through comparison of the empirical modes of the satellite data sets with NCEP-NCAR reanalysis geopotential height anomalies at the 500-hPa level. We show that, overall, the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) explains the greatest variance in Antarctic temperatures.”

    And whilst the correlation between the SAM and your reconstructed temperature during the calibration period against the SAM is quite good, outside the calibration period it is remarkably bad.

    Your Figure “6″ in that paper claims a high correlation between the reconstructed temperature and the inverted SAM index

    The text for that diagram reads..

    “Smoothed versions (annual mean) of reconstructed temperature PC1 (solid blue line) and the inverted SAM index (dotted red line). Note that while the correlation between the two series is positive, the trends diverge.”

    My understanding is that you shouldn’t be correlating smoothed curves. Perhaps you aren’t but that not what is implied. And even with the smoothed curve correlation, it only appears to be a strong correlation in the calibration period.

    Now I accept that you look at several other influences apart from the SAM but you state

    “However, we show that the second most important influence is not simply described by ENSO directly, but rather, reflects a combination of patterns previously referred to as the Pacific South American and wavenumber-3 patterns.”

    If you’re putting the poor correlation down to increased influence from these, then how is it that these should be so much more important outside your calibration period?

    So its not at all obvious your earlier paper exhibits high spacial coherence in continental Antarctica at all.

    [Response: Tim, do you really think I have time to reply in detail about an old paper?--eric]

    Comment by TimTheToolMan — 7 Feb 2011 @ 7:55 AM

  127. LOL LOL LOL

    Comment by DominicRom — 7 Feb 2011 @ 2:39 PM

  128. Tamino at 216

    I posted the comment about the Russians’ book 3 times on you blog and you whacked it. Ditto for Joe Romm’s blog. I have posted this comment on several other blogs I frequently visit (WUWT, Climate Etc, Sceptical Scienc, Deltoid, etc.) and it wasn’t whacked. I posted the comment on your blog because I thought you would be interested in the math of their stochastic model of climate fluctations in Chapter 7 and give an assesment of the their methodolgy. You didn’t do this. So what is your evaluation of the math of their model?

    RE: More Info on Fish Cycles

    You should check “Fish Cycle Page” in the post “FAO Smarter than IPCC” at Alan Cheetam’s website:

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/

    As I stated on JC’s “Climate Etc”: “This is _the_ “One stop, shop until you drop” store for global warming and climate change info.”

    You claim the climate is still warming. I’m not convinced. In the last few years annual means temperatures at the remote Quatsino and Estevan, BC
    have dropped back to the chilly level of the early 1900′s

    Comment by Harold Pierce Jr — 7 Feb 2011 @ 3:04 PM

  129. Re: #259 (Jim Steele) Gee, I thought you were serious about wanting to know so I actually answered your question. Now it seems you just don’t like the answer because it interferes with your intention to use the “dynamical changes” to jump on the “it’s all natural variations!” bandwagon. The “political noise” is coming from you.

    I was very serious. I did not see your post when I submitted my post #260 (that you refer to as #259, probably due to another post getting interjected). Perhaps our messages were just 2 ships crossing in the night.

    Tamino you stated: “There are lots of fluctuations and lots of dynamical processes, but over the entire globe and over long time spans it’s the changes in energy inputs that dominate the trend. This is clear from paleoclimate reconstructions of the last few thousand years, and from glacial cycles over the last several million years.”

    I most definitely agree it is energy input that dominates over long time spans and have never argued otherwise. But how long? And to estimate temperature increases due to the energy input separate from temperature changes arising from other variability we need to understand the magnitude and frequency of those oscillations. Even Keeling as well as Wunsch suggested ~1300 lunar tidal cycles mixing cold arctic bottom water to describe the 10,000 year coolng trend. The PDO and NAO are 30-40+ year trends which have explained much of the recent warming See Hurrell. Part of the problem is we are arguing without defining the time scale. (How about deep ocean trends of thousands of years? Too much unkown there for me)

    So by energy input, we need to determine how powerful is the energy input from CO2 changes versus solar and most of that is currently done by claiming what is left over from what is assumed to be perfect knowledge of all the other factors. CO2 without any negative or positive feedbacks can not describe the recent trends. Any CO2 argument depends on feedbacks and thus we are back to understanding confounding oscillations.

    We often compare the 50 year Keeling curve to recent warming? But how much of the PDO and NAO effects are being claimed as CO2 input effects? So as you point out, I looked at longer paleoclimate data and I don’t always see the correlations you claim. Leaving lag effects observed in the glacial –interglacial records aside, explain how using GISP2 data we have a ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, while using Epic CO2 data CO2 was increasing from 260-280? Putting aside any dynamical responses for the warming periods, rising CO2 was overwhelmed by solar or what” during that cooling period?

    Bob (Sphaerica) says: #265 Re: 2) The fact that we can’t account for all heat is an excuse that deniers may not use for inaction or for arguing against a logical, reasoned and considered climate theory.

    Bob, such circular reasoning is what invigorates skeptics like me that you like to denigrate as deniers. Science works because inconsistencies and confounding factors are challenged thus leading to a better understanding. There is no other way! You try to thwart that process by characterizing any challenge to an inconsistency as the obfuscation of deniers. I submit your protective circular reasoning is doing more to debase the scientific process than any skeptical arguments.

    So maybe you too can explain how using GISP2 data the ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, is driven by increasing CO2 from 260-280?

    Ray #270 says “You are commiting a fundamental sin against the scientific method–you are trying to explian the unknown in terms of the unknown” Ray you always reach for some form of this characterization attack. I have done no such thing.

    I am trying to better define the known by separating out any confounding factors. Separating confounding factors is what separates hunches from scientific analysis. I have attributed the recent 100 year rise in temps mostly to a combination of known solar increase modulated by ocean oscillations as best described to date. A simple numerical model using known sunspots and known PDO changes and a 22 year lag time produces the observed temperature trends since 1900.

    I also have stated known CO2 correlations fail over the past 9000 year ice core record.

    So using the known Ray, you too can explain how using GISP2 data the ~7-9000 year cooling trend with a 3 C drop, is driven by increasing CO2 from 260-280?

    Marcus says #281 “One would expect oceanic cooling sustaining atmospheric warming. Instead we see warming of the oceans, for instance:”

    I mostly agree and that’s why I think the next 20 years of ARGO data will be very telling. Right now ARGO suggests no warming of the oceans as one would expect with the down turn in solar activity. Also if you look at vertical cross sections of the western Pacifica Warm Pool you notice that there was a large heat anomaly that built up from 1960-1975,(solar input peaked during that time) and then right around the time of the PDO 1976 regime shift ,the warm anomaly cools, or should I say vented its heat. See Mehta’s presentation http://www.crces.org/presentations/dmv_ipwp/ (Just a few “knowns” for Ray) The reason I say mostly agree, is that most of the deep ocean and thus its heat content are not well characterized. The upper 3.5 meters of ocean alone contain the same heat as the total atmosphere. I am sure we still have much to learn from the oceans and surprises will still occur.

    Comment by Jim Steele — 7 Feb 2011 @ 5:15 PM

  130. Hank,

    I am not sure of all the parameters used in Shindell and Gavin’s model, but I don’t think their study would apply to the question at hand which is specific to the southpole during the winter half year. They suggested that ozone and GHG’s were affecting the SAM. Regards seasonality ozone hole effects are greatest in the spring. Regards location while studies have shown a correlation with ozone and coastal temperatures, the correlation does not hold at the southpole and other interior sites. Finally their study suggests as ozone improves and GHG’s increase their should be a warming trend but since 2004 there is no detectable trend with 3 months averaging slightly warmer and 3 months slightly cooler, with maximum cooling July cooling by a full degree, and maximum warming in June by 0.5 degree.

    Although I think the SAM index affects many processes in Antarctica the effects appear more distinct nearer the coast

    Comment by Jim Steele — 7 Feb 2011 @ 6:08 PM

  131. Speaking of theoreticians with no sense of practicality, it’s a little off to describe a work from the 1970s as a “20-year old book”. Well, there are three kinds of mathematician: those who can count and those who count.

    Comment by S. Molnar — 7 Feb 2011 @ 6:46 PM

  132. [Edit. Resorting to threats of personal intimidation against scientists eh? Was only a matter of time frankly. Thanks for including your name in your email address.--Jim]

    Comment by cagw_skeptic99 — 7 Feb 2011 @ 7:02 PM

  133. “…maybe Dyson has a thing or two to learn about the biodiversity of unmanaged ecosystems.”

    This supposes two mistaken views of ecology and possibly one ethical proposition. First, that “unmanaged” ecosystems are a viable option – which they are not; and second, that nature, sans humanity, would be in classical Clementsian balance. The mathematical approximations that “ecosystems” truly are far more variable, unstable, and evolving than the populist vision; this false idealization of nature “before the Fall” informs most environmental activists commitment to the cause, including combating man-made climate change.

    Finally, there is the ethical view of eco-centrists that is straightforwardly religious: nature is best off unmolested by humanity. This view, while rarely shared explicitly, affects most public debates, including the one here.

    Therefore there is another answer, given short-shrift here: that Dyson is not only pro-humanistic, but also understands ecology in its scientific sense as a limited field (for example, see R. H. Peters, “A Critique For Ecology”), and rejects its religious rationalizations. Hence, his skepticism of global warming alarm is consistent with these other scientifically informed views.

    Comment by Orson — 7 Feb 2011 @ 8:58 PM

  134. Hi, I hear from WUWT that there’s a real cool party going on in the bore hole, can I join?

    Comment by Mike Haseler — 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:28 AM

  135. Can you please put a link to the borehole thread on your homepage. Finally, the general public gets to read some genuine scientific discussion on this website.

    Comment by Waffle — 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:15 AM

  136. “…maybe Dyson has a thing or two to learn about the biodiversity of unmanaged ecosystems.” Douglas Watt’s comments that his and Ray Kurzweil’s positions “…all seems like desperate escapism.”
    While the non-monocultural advantages are definitely real, this criticism of Dyson also pre-supposes two mistaken views of ecology – as well as one controversial ethical proposition.
    First, that “unmanaged” ecosystems are a viable option – which they are not. And second, that nature, sans humanity, would be in classical Clementsian balance. The mathematical approximations that “ecosystems” truly constitute are far more variable, unstable, and evolving than the populist vision believes. This false idealization of nature “before the Fall” informs most environmental activists commitment to the cause, including combating man-made climate change.
    Finally, there is the ethical view of eco-centrists that is straight-forwardly religious: nature is best off unmolested by humanity. Humanity is a plague upon “Gaia,” and vulnerable “space-ship earth” ought to be worshipped instead. This view, while rarely advanced explicitly, affects most public environmental debates, including the one here.
    Therefore, there is a different and important answer to the issue raised here: that Dyson is not only pro-humanistic because people are part of nature, but that he also grasps that ecology is a field of scientific limitations (for example, see R. H. Peters, “A Critique For Ecology”), he rejects its religious rationalizations and rationalizers. Hence, Dyson’s skepticism of global warming alarm is consistent with these other scientifically informed views.

    TO GAVIN OR OTHER MODERATORS: Checking back several hours later, I am unsurprised to find my “8:58” number “14” comment deleted (revised for clarity above). Inconvenient facts are stubborn things. I am “unsurprised” because among fellow environmental and earth scientists here in the Boulder, Colorado area, realclimate.org is well-known to be censorial, petty, and disengaged from the larger substantive issues faced in science and and by society.
    I guess Gavin, et all, are still too spooked to engage with what Curry dubs “the uncertainty monster,” even when your blog posts invite its re-consideration. Well, “good to know!” as they say – I’ll be sure to spread the word (once more-again). Clearly, our web-site’s declining success in outreach is not in jeopardy.

    Comment by Orson — 8 Feb 2011 @ 8:37 AM

  137. “As we did roughly a year ago (and as we will probably do every year around this time)”

    At the rate global temperatures are going down do you seriously think you will be around this time next year?

    Comment by Mike Haseler — 8 Feb 2011 @ 11:05 AM

  138. Hi Raymond, I have tried to reply to you a few times but for some reason the posts are deleted. Your typical response is to simply pronounce that my idea is “not science” without further substantiation. The thing is I also have a theory and it often explains things better than yours, and instead of just making this claim, I will provide 2 examples that we could debate. To be fair you too should choose 2 examples.

    First explain how using GISP2 data we since ~9000 BP a cooling trend with a 3 C drop, while simultaneously, using Epic CO2 data CO2 was increasing from 260-280? Second why did the Arctic warm with a more rapid rate in the 30′s and 40s than in the present (see Bengstonn 2004).

    Comment by Jim Steele — 8 Feb 2011 @ 3:53 PM

  139. HAHAHAH. Scientists 27, you self-serving douchnozzles 0. And the score just keeps piling up.

    Comment by Knute Rockne — 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:04 PM

  140. Can you please please setup another blog totally dedicated to the things you don’t like to discuss on this site. You could call it something like The Borehole.

    Seems like everybody is talking about that in the real world – is it a ploy to improve your visitor numbers?

    Comment by Brass Monkey — 8 Feb 2011 @ 6:14 PM

  141. Did any of you commenters even read Dyson’s essay????

    Comment by Keith — 8 Feb 2011 @ 7:30 PM

  142. So you are too cowardly to let my posts even stand?
    And you wonder why your traffic volume is going down, and why people more and more see you for the coward you are?
    What a self-parody this site has become.

    Comment by hunter — 8 Feb 2011 @ 9:36 PM

  143. The mice are nibbling at the feet of a Giant. The CO2-AGW Dogma has that Western Culture must castrate itself, Why not a future that allows infinite growth instead, nearly infinite wealth available for Earth-bound and Space-dwelling descendants. A few Solar sails installed between the Sun and the Earth would cost a fraction of a silly carbon free future.

    50 I don’t want a geriatric Physicist controlling my life, nor a few thousand deluded climate scientists that have yet too prove their belief in CO2 forced AGW.

    Where did the CO2 go the last several times it has exceeded the present Ppm’s? The vast majority is tied up in limestone deposits, followed by biomass-coal. Hmmm The old doc isn’t completely nuts.

    Fifty posts and NO SCIENCE FACTS OR THEORIES–just ad hominem attacks on a man that helped keep the West free and whose work has added billions of dollars of wealth through applications of his work.

    Other then the Unicorn traders of Cap & Steal Carbon indulgences has the “science” of CO2 forced AGW produced any wealth or the pedaling fear mongering coming of the Climate Armageddon plup fiction?

    Comment by Peter Foley — 9 Feb 2011 @ 8:15 AM

  144. On the other hand (13) Freeman Dyson and your colleagues might be right.

    Here are some temperature statistics you may have missed.

    The Central England temperature record is the longest continuous record available, measured by thermometers. In 1659, the heart of the Little Ice Age, the annual average temperature was 8.83 degrees C.

    The population then was about 5 million.

    After 351 years, the (coal-fired) industrial revolution, almost total forest clearing, population growth to 60 millions, and vast urban development the average temperature in 2010 was 8.83 degrees C.

    Yes, but, of course it is the trend that counts, not isolated years which are only weather.

    The overall trend to date is just 0.25 degrees per century; per century, not per decade.

    Yes but one small island may not be typical. The global temperatures show much more warming. Well, HardCru data goes back to 1850, 161 years. The warming trend overall is just 0.45 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.4 and 0.5 degrees C.

    Most of that warming has appeared in the last 35 years (1.7 degrees per century). From 1850 to 1975 the trend was a very modest 0.25 degrees C per century, with 95% confidence limits between 0.19 and 0.3 degrees per century.

    As for the fundamental Physics, we are often told to look at the cold, dry, upper atmosphere for the radiative TOA effects on which warming depends. The warming trend should be more obvious up there. Well, the UAH mid troposphere trend is 0.5 degrees per century; the lower troposphere trend is almost three times greater at 1.4 degrees C per century.

    Yes, but, the upper troposphere warming is masked by the stratosphere cooling, which is the AGW footprint. Sadly, the HADAT radiosonde data shows no stratospheric cooling over the past 30 years.

    Comment by Fred Staples — 9 Feb 2011 @ 9:03 AM

  145. I would take Dyson’s view over 100 self named climate scientists who seem only able to fiddle the figures.

    He is a giant compared to the pygmies that run this censored site.

    Comment by Tomwhy — 9 Feb 2011 @ 2:36 PM

  146. Also I notice that you are still using the term ‘denier’.

    So much for that ‘new era of civility’, I suppose.

    Comment by James — 9 Feb 2011 @ 4:49 PM

  147. Tis a good thing, what you’ve done here.

    I found it also good that you have acknowledged that there is a creeping possibility of ‘bullying’ within the review process, one in which editors are counted on to separate, and/or give the authors the last word.

    I would submit that “The fact that a number of my colleagues and many otherwise intelligent-seeming people still seem to treat these guys as legitimate, honest commenters, whose words have equal weight with, say, those of Susan Solomon or J. Michael Wallace, or, for that matter, Gavin Schmidt or Mike Mann or myself.” or other such statements would create an environment where editors (if they buy-in to the thinking), would have some element of bais that may result in ‘gate-keeping’.

    If authors then decide in the face of this, as you suggest, to take their manuscript elsewhere…then now we have a new term for ‘gray literature’ that further disparages the work.

    It is difficult to square the various statements encouraging this sort-of gauntlet run through peer-review that everyone must do, despite also admitting that you do not the science permitting potential publications to all approach the batter’s box equally.

    But, it is a very good thing that all these statements are all together in one place.

    Comment by BB — 9 Feb 2011 @ 4:57 PM

  148. “First, I never suggested to the authors that they use ‘iridge’.”

    The reviewer comment attributed to you, posted by O’Donnell:

    “My recommendation is that the editor insist that results showing the ‘mostly likely’ West Antarctic trends be shown in place of Figure 3. [these were the ridge regression results] While the written text does acknowledge that the rate of warming in West Antarctica is probably greater than shown, it is the figures that provide the main visual ‘take home message’ that most readers will come away with. I am not suggesting here that kgnd = 5 will necessarily provide the best estimate, as I had thought was implied in the earlier version of the text. Perhaps, as the authors suggest, kgnd should not be used at all, but the results from the ‘iridge’ infilling should be used instead. . . . ”

    The comment is not directed “to the authors,” but seems to be rather clearly a recommendation that the disputed procedure be included in the paper.

    Was this initial comment made by another reviewer? Is the parenthetical inaccurate? Or is there another explanation for its meaning other than that a recommendation that the authors should include the iridge procedure in their paper, as O’Donnell claimed?

    Comment by GaryM — 9 Feb 2011 @ 5:08 PM

  149. We finaly have a solution for the Team.NASA climate programs being eyed for the budget axe
    Great news to the lay man. I have already written my rep’s to defund the alarmist at Giss, Real Climate and anything to do with CLIMATE !!

    Comment by Bob — 9 Feb 2011 @ 11:16 PM

  150. #365 Wayne, check out my comment on #323. Here’s the graph:

    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/filter_er_10yr-g6l8y.jpg

    Maybe Joe (#366) can explain the apparent “flattening” over the last few years? With all the CO2, shouldn’t the temp be accelerating upward?

    Comment by J. Bob — 11 Feb 2011 @ 10:57 AM

  151. Just a general comment on what seems to be frequently overlooked here and at other technical blogs.

    Esoteric arguments over statistics on data processing methods seem a common theme on many of the hard fought battlefields. Why is everyone using obscure statistical methods in the first place?

    It’s a clear sign of very bad data. Signal to noise is very poor. I’ve done enough signal processing over various subject matter to know enough to go examine the raw data.

    If the signal you are looking for is clearly there (but hidden) than various statistical methods will all find it. Arguing whether obscure black box statistical method A or B is “correct” is intellectual energy wasted.

    How many times have you seen someone think they “see” a signal that is an artifact of processing or method? It took me years of dealing with Fourier transforms and spectral processing to understand the nuances of input data to output data results.

    Sure everyone is careful to avoid these things, but if you don’t clearly understand your methods (intimately) and treat statistics or signal processing as “magical black boxes” you are going to misinterpret results, especially with very weak signals…..or non-existent ones.

    All this seems obvious, but I feel it is ignored much of the time. Many of these arguments real answer is “there is not enough data to know yet”. Nobody seems to be arguing for this answer.

    Go install some more monitoring stations on the ends of the earth and revisit this thing in 5 years once better data is available. I don’t believe either side.

    The answer is “not knowable at this time” seems to be a conclusion which is frequently unacceptable, but is the only correct conclusion given the state of the data.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 11 Feb 2011 @ 11:40 AM

  152. CC- Andrew Revkin

    An interesting topic popped up on the Antarctic is Still Warming Thread of what rights are available to owners of intellectual property published on and created on the internet. Gavin commented:

    [Response:No, he should have exercised some common sense. If you don't want people to use data, don't put it online. And as above, editors choose reviewers, reviewers do not choose themselves. - gavin]

    Gavin is correct that data itself is open game. Anyone can use published data, online or print, to verify results and further knowledge. That is the intent of the internet, to share information.

    There are limits, fair use policy, to when, what and how much certain creative property on the internet can be used. Watts surface station data is a unique example of data that may deserve stronger protection in some cases under copyright law.

    Surface stations dot org may or may not be considered a unique concept that has copyright protection. In that case, data compiled on the internet for a unique purpose should be protected from others regardless of the type of data compiled online. To not protect data in such cases stifles creativity which would be contrary to the purpose of the internet.

    The data itself is different in that a large portion of the data is photographs. Creative works like photos, graphics and art in general has copyright protection that differs from plain text and generic data. Reproduction requires obtaining rights to reproduce in advance and attribution to the producer with publication.

    The data “collection” was somewhat unique to generic data in that income could be derived from use unlike generic data sets published on governmental and educational websites.

    Writers and artists using the internet are very concerned with protecting copyright privileges because considerable income can be produced providing low cost even free access to their creative works as long as not republished in total or substantial amount on other sites without adherence to fair use policies.

    Given the expectation of copyright protection, Anthony Watts deserved a chance to review how his data was being used in the Menne et al publication, ensure that proper attribution was made and if his concept was original, inclusion as co-author of the publication using his “data”.

    recapture Bowel Populism

    Comment by captdallas2 — 13 Feb 2011 @ 12:10 PM

  153. Yes well democracy is not a bad system either, yet has plenty of corruption. Where is the scientific watchdog that sniffs out the cold fusion/ environmental advocate frauds?

    Who guards the guards? Who stops the trolls’ carpet bombing the literature with one sided half truths about global warming?

    Who stops the activists participating in reports designed to support public policy?

    In King Abdullah’s words, who will cut the head of the snake?

    Comment by Isotopious — 13 Feb 2011 @ 6:25 PM

  154. This is a serious question:
    Would you look at the original Svante Arrhenius 1896 paper and do a blog based “peer review” of it?
    It is my contention that the conclusion “if the quantity of carbonic acid (CO2) increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.” does not follow from the data presented. It IS true that if you start from no GHE then then the first added GHGs will add warming, as Arrhenius said, but on Earth in reality it gets to a point where more GHGs does NOT mean more warming. It just adds excess unused GHGs.(eg water in the ocean)
    Specifically I contend that there is not enough photon energy available so that ALL added CO2 or water vapor (in the case of feedback) WILL absorb a photon to contribute to the GHE. Hence the IPCC paraphrased conclusion that “more GHGs means more warming” is not valid either.
    I claim that IN the GHE process, a photon is absorbed for a few microseconds by a GHG. Either the number of photons limits the process or the number of GHGs limits the process, since the process itself IS limited to about 33C. What limits it?
    If the number of GHGs limits the process,(& by implication there are more photons available) then why doesn’t it continue to use all the water vapor GHGs until they are all vaporized? Why doesn’t the addition of more humidity result in more GHE warming when it rains? Why does the daily warming cooling process result in cooling every night, in spite of the fact that man is adding more CO2 evry night? Why doesn’t the number of GHGs that are in use by the GHE process on a hot day at 40C or 55C remain in use when we we are at the annual average 16 or 17C? in which case there are excess unused GHGs in the air. So why must all man added GHGs produce warming?
    Doesn’t it make more sense that the nightly reduction in the number of available photons (both incoming and converted to IR)results in fewer GHE reactions and hence it cools AND by implication the Arrhenius/IPCC conclusion that more GHGs means more warming is just not justified?
    Then consider that whenever the number of photons does decrease (every day after the peak at noon) that the number of GHE interactions MUST also decrease, and that the number of unused GHGs(in the GHE process) MUST increase, thus establishing that there is AN EXCESS of GHGs over those used in the GHE process, and therefore ALL of the GHGs generated (either by man as CO2, or as WV by feedback) do NOT necessarily have to be in use to create more GHE warming. Thus the Arrhenius/IPCC conclusion that more GHGs means more warming is NOT valid.

    Your response in scientific terms understandable to the public would be appreciated.

    Comment by John Dodds — 15 Feb 2011 @ 2:37 PM

  155. Re Feedback & 120.
    So Gavin, you are claiming that in the GHE when a photon comes in it sits around in the air until man releases CO2 which results in warming which results in more water vapor which THEN absorbs the energy photon to create feedback?
    I find it a little strange that the photon (traveling at the speed of light) would wait for man . Wouldn’t it make more sense for the photon to just randomly pick its closest water vapor molecule & get absorbed by it. In which case the water vapor associated GHE is due to directly absorbed photons?

    Now what happens when there are more water vapor molecules than photons? (such as the normal conditions on Earth). What if all the photons are constantly being absorbed & released within microseconds, by only some of the excess of water vapor in the air. Doesn’t that then mean that there are no more photons to be absorbed by the added water vapor produced as a result of the added heat from the CO2 associated warming? If so then is there no such thing as feedback from added water vapor?
    Or put another way, if there is so much water vapor around (3% vs only 390ppm for CO2), and more GHGs means more warming, why does the GHE stop at 33C instead of continuing until all the water vapor absorbs a photon
    OR asked another way, who says that all the water vapor caused by the added CO2 will absorb a photon to cause more GHE warming? And so when the sun reduced teh number of photons every afternoon/evening, just where does all this CO2 caused water vapor get the added photon to cause more warming, especially when the temperature is going DOWN reducing the number of photons available, and contradicting the idea that more GHGs causes more warming.

    Comment by John Dodds — 15 Feb 2011 @ 7:02 PM

  156. Ray,

    Think back to the days of MFC09, the detrend analysis. What would happen to the data if you let it cumulate? It adds a trend. Now that trend can be positive, neutral, or negative. Let’s call it a 50 50 chance. Surprise, surprise, it is positive. But how could that be?

    Think back to the 97- 98 El Nino which caused a 1 deg C spike in the temperature data. Yes, it went back down, but how could we be sure that its effects would not cumulative over several years?

    Think back to the 99 -01 La Nina, did it have much impact?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:12/plot/wti/trend

    Why not? What could possible affect it in such a short time? There is only one answer, I’m afraid.

    Climate sensitivity is around 0.05 deg C for 2X CO2. Lindzen is wrong with his estimate by a factor of 10.

    Comment by Isotopious — 15 Feb 2011 @ 10:05 PM

  157. BPL

    It’s a pity it wasn’t published, I would have spent the time to read it. There is an upside, however…

    Credibility in science is very important, and once it’s gone it’s difficult to get back. Gavin is an expert. Note: Not saying you’ve lost your credibility, Gavin, only that you have to have some in order to lose it.

    I take it you don’t like my sensitivity estimate, I guess at the end of the day if the sun switched off we would expect something to change!

    Howabout 0.1 deg C 2X CO2? lol

    Comment by Isotopious — 16 Feb 2011 @ 5:35 PM

  158. Sunday Times (South Africa)
    August 24, 2008
    MainBody Edition

    Global warming is biggest scam ever

    WITH reference to “Cape Town faces potential devastation from rising sea levels” (August 17), I believe that global warming is the biggest scientific scam ever. There is no evidence to prove that the current climate variations are not a natural cycle.

    If we were around in Victorian times with modern technology, every scientist and scam artist would be warning of global cooling because the river Thames had frozen.
    What’s more, people shouldn’t have built property so close to the tidal zone

    Now i do not believe that there are a lot of people out in the world that thinks like this. i had to post this in an effort to show that we still have not reached out to everybody as yet. Lets keep working

    Comment by ramon nelson — 16 Feb 2011 @ 10:20 PM

  159. #4 Pete Dunkelberg: I think that is close to the mark. Loss of ice cap will decrease albedo to the point of causing an abrupt spike in temperature that will end 90% of primary plant production, for two or three years. This will abruptly stop most of world agriculture and destroy most of civilization, which depends upon annual agricultural production. Then, increased winter precipitation in the mid-latitudes will ice up the winters, thus increasing albedo, plunging us 8 degrees C. over the span of a few decades, as it would appear to have happened in one of the last ice ages. Glaciers will grow halfway to the equator as usual and this will squeeze whomever has survived — and so the world population will be down to a few millions of people or less, in fifty years. I have talked myself into believing that this might be why the temperate zones have less biodiversity than the tropics: it isn’t the ecosystem energy throughput that determines all diversity, it may also be that the middle latitudes occasionally get swept clean by fire and ice. These latitudes have been fairly moderate for a few thousand years, while we posited an agricultural civilization upon it. But I’ll bet they are prone to enormous variation. Now we are forcing the climate with new CO2, out-of-sequence. N-compartment systems are not deterministically predictable but they appear to suffer more catastrophes with forcing. We are making a big mistake in not attempting to find every way to moderate this.

    Comment by Lee A. Arnold — 17 Feb 2011 @ 1:17 PM

  160. @Pete Flunkleberg

    Pete, I agree with you about the asteroid scenario. However, what I don’t agree with is raising oil prices to make alternative sources more attractive. I will say that it does seem oil companies are acting like a monopoly given the uniformity of oil prices at the gas pump. However, when you look at oil, there isn’t too many ways to differeniate one brand from another. I think it was a mistake for the president to iniate the drilling moratorium in the Atlantic because that gives the oil companies the easy excuse of “gas prices are rising because the government is restricting our supply”.

    This question is more for the moderators.

    How do you estimate damages from oil spills? I understand that the BP well was the 2nd largest spill ever? The largest would be when Saddam dumped a bunch of barrels in the Gulf War of 1990 correct? Also, I am under the impression that the Exxon Valdez was the worst spill, at least environmentally speaking? How would you rank the major oil spills, in order of worst to least damaging? Furthermore, could you provide some insight the BP spill regarding how much oil may still be in the ocean?

    [Response: Absolutely no idea. This is way off topic for this blog - gavin]

    Thank you

    Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

    Comment by Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. — 17 Feb 2011 @ 2:09 PM

  161. I have recently complete an analysis of monthly temperature data for various sites around Australia using Fourier Transforms. For those who are unfamiliar with this technique it converts time domain data into frequency domain data. The result are very interesting. There is a clear component with a period of 1 year, another large component with a period of 6 months (2nd harmonic) and another peak with a 60 year cycle.

    What is the explanation for the 60 year cycle?

    Comment by David Harper BE (Elec) — 18 Feb 2011 @ 2:07 AM

  162. Layman question:

    How to they ‘smooth’/eliminate the variation of cyclone activity which peaked from 1991 to 1999?
    http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg

    http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

    Comment by Alec, a.k.a Daffy Duck — 18 Feb 2011 @ 11:18 AM

  163. [Response: That's not really what I said (I presume you are referring to this New York Times interview?). We know that precipitation intensity has been increasing (the amount of rain that falls in the most intense events) across the northern hemisphere -
    ===
    Really, more precip?
    Is there a peer-reviewed study?
    I have heard we were in for more drought.

    Comment by u.k.(us) — 18 Feb 2011 @ 5:24 PM

  164. I have had another go at climate sensitivity estimate, in this attempt I ignore the greenhouse.

    273K *2 = 546K

    546K /1366 w/m2 = 0.4

    0.4 *4 w/m2 = 1.6 deg C for double CO2

    Comment by Isotopious — 18 Feb 2011 @ 5:33 PM

  165. To Ray Ladbury @50. Thank you for your comment

    You may find this an interesting reference of recorded historical weather events.

    http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf

    Obviously not an exhaustive list but good for a comparison to our recent few decades which appear pretty tame.

    This study of course has merits and will add to our knowledge. I just make the point if again from my post @40 if I may:

    “.. linking current trends to AGW appears very tenuous (even by your research) and bearing in mind the uncertainties and the media and political need for the correlation to stick, its very dangerous ground to attribute anything. We just do not know. This will just muddy the waters even further and lose confidence in climate science by me and I suspect the public at large”

    Comment by Titus — 18 Feb 2011 @ 6:08 PM

  166. Chris,
    Yes, you can still get record lows. In fact, in the US there have been several in 2011 already, including the all-time state record for Oklahoma. What you may have missed is that the number of record highs has decreased also, but the lows much more so to get the imbalance. What we are seeing is a shrinking of the daily temperature range.

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Feb 2011 @ 9:51 PM

  167. Al Henninig earlier remarked “how would you like to be bombarded incessantly with FOI requests compelling you to release every last bit of code you ever wrote or data you ever worked”.

    The real problem is : why was it not automatically provided to start with, as a necessary precondition for publication?
    This is down to sloppy peer-reviewing and management of journals. Fix this, and the need for FOI would be obviated.

    Comment by Punksta — 19 Feb 2011 @ 5:29 AM

  168. Al Henning earlier remarked “how would you like to be bombarded incessantly with FOI requests compelling you to release every last bit of code you ever wrote or data you ever worked”.

    But the real problem is – why was the material not provided in the first place, as a precondition for publication?

    This is down to sloppy management of journals and peer-reviewing. Fix these, and FOI requests would never be necessary in the first place.

    Comment by Punksta — 19 Feb 2011 @ 5:36 AM

  169. Chris,
    Yes, the ratio of record highs to lows has inceased, but thst is largely a result in a big decrease in record lows. Looking at the stat, shows a decrease in record highs also, but being overwhelmed by the decrease in lows. The high temperatures have not increased.
    We have witnessed several record lows this year already, including an all-time record low for Oklahoma. The last state all-time high was set in the 1990s.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Feb 2011 @ 6:52 AM

  170. Sou,
    All told, the changes in extreme weather is not significant. Droughts have not changed in the past century (actually less if you include the 19th century). Tropical cylcone have varied, but have shown no increae during the past century either. Flooding is a question mark, as good data is not available. Pakistan have shown no change in flood frequency over the past century.
    I do no know what you are referring to when you say the change is weather is happening must more quickly. It appears to be just anecdotes.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Feb 2011 @ 6:57 AM

  171. Gavin said upfront: “By looking at the signatures of climate change in precipitation intensity and comparing that to the internal variability and the observation, the researchers conclude that the probability of intense precipitation on any given day has increased by 7 percent over the last 50 years – well outside the bounds of natural variability”.

    So why is that bad? I have spent most of my life in very dry areas of Africa, where increased precipitation of that order would be most welcome, as also where I now live in Australia. What is wrong with more rain?

    I know that the present Australian government considers rain to be a pollutant, like CO2, hence our upcoming carbon tax, that will seek to phase out all combustion of fossil fuels (which generally produce CO2 to H2O in ratios between 2:1 or close to 1:1). It is true that AR4 WG1 never once prints the formula for combustion of say the octane in gasoline, and so far as I know neither has RC.

    Here it is:

    2C8H18 + 25O2 → 16CO2 +18H2O.

    As nobody here can do these kind of sums, which I learnt in school some 55 years ago, the output from burning gasoline by that formula is 54% CO2 and 46% H2O, and as none here is aware, the radiative forcing from atmospheric H2O relative to CO2 is about 2-4:1 in favour of H2O (Houghton, TAR and 2004), it is clear that burning fossil fuels is very beneficial to all of us, by generating both CO2 and H2O each of which has enormous benefits for us by increasing yields in agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fisheries.

    But Gavin, you don’t want to know such inconvenient truths, so this comment will never appear on your sacred site. But with my co-author we are about to submit a paper along these lines, so take care, as I am recording both my submission here and its non-appearance.

    Comment by Fred Knell — 19 Feb 2011 @ 7:56 AM

  172. Dyson, as a scientist is far beyond you and your pathetic attempts to stack the deck against real climate science, which pays no attention to false claims and hysterical global warming warnings. See Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Crisis for a glimpse of the ‘ science crimes’ that originated this conspiracy.

    Comment by DavidG — 19 Feb 2011 @ 11:21 AM

  173. Chris,
    The Meehl report shows that record lows have decrease substantially, but the recod highs have decreased also, just less so. This shows that the heating of the past several decades was a result of increasing lows, not highs.
    So far this year we have set several record lows, but no record highs. In fact, Oklahoma just set a new all-time record low.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Feb 2011 @ 12:34 PM

  174. Can anyone tell me what extreme events are going to happen next year or 10 that are caused by global warming and likewise what extreme events are going to be prevent because of global warming.

    Yeah didn’t think so but I’m sure after they happen you will be quick to blame global warming.

    Comment by Spencer — 19 Feb 2011 @ 2:22 PM

  175. @104 ccpo.

    Now that last sums up the global warming argument very well.

    Comment by Spencer — 20 Feb 2011 @ 9:48 AM

  176. Well, of COURSE attribution is “hard”, particularly when (as Phil Jones admitted) there hasn’t been any warming in 15 years! If this is the case, and I’m not sure what the alarmist consensus is at this point – what exactly is CAUSING all this alleged “climate disruption”? Even harder to find out what the alarmist spin is on THAT little thought.

    Looking forward to the current view, TIA!

    Comment by Michael H Anderson — 20 Feb 2011 @ 2:19 PM

  177. Incidentally, I am not a conservative. I am former information officer for a large Canadian environmental NGO, and a park ranger and interpretive tour developer/leader.

    But I don’t tug my forelock when an ultra-rich fearmonger tells me to tighten my belt for the sake of expanding his bank account. Follow the money, you poor schmucks – just for god’s sake get past your artificial black-and-white divisions of humanity and follow the money.

    Comment by Michael H Anderson — 20 Feb 2011 @ 5:45 PM

  178. The whole ratio of highs to lows is quite misleading as it was caused by an extremely low number of new lows. New highs also decreased during the same time frame, but not as much as the new lows. So far 2011 has been dominated by new lows, including an all-time new low for the state of Oklahoma. The Meehl report [edit]

    Comment by Dan H. — 20 Feb 2011 @ 10:40 PM

  179. “If libel laws were that tight, the denialosphere would be non-existent.”
    BWAHAHAHA
    If fraud were prosecuted, the Team would be in jail.

    Comment by Kate — 22 Feb 2011 @ 8:03 PM

  180. I’m a bit confused. I didn’t see the word “lawsuit” anywhere in Bill Hughes’ letter. Could someone clarify this for me?

    Comment by pinroot — 22 Feb 2011 @ 9:16 PM

  181. Your silly little website is a joke. Anyone who disagrees with you Eco-fascists isn’t allowed to speak. Qaddafi at his best.

    Comment by Kate — 22 Feb 2011 @ 10:50 PM

  182. So…taking this all into account…

    Gavin recommends that people who’s papers can’t get published because of the unassailable purview of editors simply try other publications.

    Publications like EE can’t become legitimate until it employs ‘real’ climate scientists for peer-review (or better unassailable editors).

    ‘real’ climate scientists like Eric Steig says he’s “done with ‘those’ people” as far as peer-review is concerned.

    Where does that leave the conversation? Is it that you had better already BE an accepted part of the climate science group, writing a pre-acceptable scientific work without fatal flaws, in order for you to get to the peer-review stage… or else be ‘forced’ to publish in periodicals that are going to be continuously disparaged as the ‘gray literature’ by those same climate scientists?

    Comment by Salamano — 22 Feb 2011 @ 11:03 PM

  183. Gavin, do the words “toys” and “pram” ring any bells?

    Comment by Kon Dealer — 23 Feb 2011 @ 7:12 AM

  184. Xavier,
    I completely again. Although I believe that it take another hundred years or more to achieve another 0.5 deg C temperature increase like we witnessed this past century. We are likely to survive just fine. In fact, the natural factors that contributor to the recent rise will probably reverse such that the increase this century will be much smaller.

    Comment by Dan H. — 23 Feb 2011 @ 4:05 PM

  185. I have to go with Xavier here. Most of the observed temperature increase was in nightly lows or wintertime. High temperature showed little change.
    BPL, a 1 C increase would move agriculture less than 100 miles. Lansing, MI to Toledo, OH is equivalent to 1C increase. Toledo, OH down to Dayton would result in a 2C temp. increase. The shift is not as great as you think.
    Didactylos, I do not think that is what Xavier meant by “memory.”

    Comment by Dan H. — 23 Feb 2011 @ 9:01 PM

  186. Didactylos,

    On your first point, that “the temperature increase is defined as the accumulation of “hourly, daily, seasonal, and dynamical temperature swings” over a suitably long period. It’s not the other way around.”

    Are you really asserting that the temperature record is an accumulation? It is not an accumulation of anything, it is an average! An average with very little real meaning. It is purely a human construct that does not exist in or influence the real world. It is a temperature average and says nothing about total of or accumulation of energy! Thank you for making my point for me.

    On your third point… I had hoped that someone would bring up the oceans as being our planet’s “climate memory”. Unfortunately for you, this is inconsistent with the AGW centric theory of climate change. It is also at odds with the idea that the atmosphere itself – and more specifically changes in the composition of the atmosphere – drives temperature variations.

    For this to be true you would have to prove that minor long-term global air temperature variations drive ocean oscillations and that these ocean oscillations – at some later point — influence global long-term air temperature trends…. It seems to make much more sense to say (only) that ocean oscillations themselves drive long-term global air temperature variations. The oceans have about 500 times the mass and about 4 times the specific heat of the atmosphere. I know the atmosphere influences the ocean sometimes, but the ocean probably influences the atmosphere much more.

    To me the best and perhaps only way to make a strong case for AGW is to measure two simple things: radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere and total heat content of the ocean. Wasting time talking about tiny trends in surface temperatures is well, a waste of time. Measuring surface temperature is obviously not a good way to understand the total energy picture for our planet. Also, the signature of radiative induced temperature changes should be easy to spot and it should have very close to zero delay. It should be dang near instant and not “conveniently” buffered by the oceans to be released at some later date.

    Comment by xavier — 23 Feb 2011 @ 10:38 PM

  187. Congratulations to Anthony Watt today. His blog, http://www.wattsupwiththat.com has won the Best Science Blog again.

    Where was Real Climate? Not even nominated. If it was me who was paying for this charade I’d be asking some serious questions…

    Comment by Jimmy Haigh — 28 Feb 2011 @ 6:01 PM

  188. ‘Consensus’ people complaining about pal-review?
    Hilarious pots and kettle stuff…

    Comment by Punksta — 3 Mar 2011 @ 7:48 AM

  189. Perhaps some enlightenment would help, but only for those interested in realism.
    http://www.electricuniverse.info/Electric_Sun_theory

    Comment by Heretical Monkey — 4 Mar 2011 @ 10:16 AM

  190. For better or worse, I hope E&E does take Gavin to court.
    The peer-reviewed process has been a joke for over a decade. maybe longer. Maybe it’s been a joke since the beginning of time.
    When a panel of scientists are threatened by a changing science, denial and anger seem to follow.
    I have heard rumors about the peer review process from other scientific journals not willing or not wanting to print papers, because the papers didn’t support Co2 induced global warming theories.
    I don’t have proof, but several scientists have made that statement, regarding their papers not being printed because it wasn’t ‘alarmist’.
    But all this really does get from what I was getting at.
    So Gavin might be sued because he attacked a ‘denier’ journal. So the rumor goes anyways.
    The word on the street suggests that Gavin made his spurious comments, because most journals were towing a ‘alarmist’ approach, and wouldn’t print anything that doubted it and E&E(among other) have broke rank.
    Peer review will change. It seems it always does.
    Skeptics are threatening the status quo on peer review, and many members of the ‘alarmist’ camp just can’t or won’t accept that.
    So what if Gavin insulted E&E. I don’t care in the slightest.
    As more and more people become aware of what transparency or FOI or peer-review or any other matter surrounding how science is printed, the better off we are.
    And if it takes a few people to go to court and settle the matter.. We should all support it.

    Comment by Alan Bryant — 5 Mar 2011 @ 4:53 AM

  191. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
    Arguing trace quantities of C02 in the atmosphere and climate disasters that take decades to centuries to play out isn’t going to get the traction sought. For one thing, if you manage to get around Big Energy and depower the Free World, the other nations (who are bent on building what we did) are going to beat a path to our doorstep in a gamble to seize that which we now depend upon for existence.

    So, rather than go swimming upstream against established economic /strategic energy sources, why not join ‘em and look into thorium reactors instead?
    If you build a better mousetrap, they will come.
    I have heard that Thorium reactors are cleaner, make 1/1000th of the waste and are safer than uranium-only reactors.
    What is known about the downsides to these things?

    Comment by rbateman — 6 Mar 2011 @ 5:04 PM

  192. So what you are saying is the satellite would give you the info to settle the science that we are told is settled.
    And you wonder why there are sceptics.
    So this is to address the problem of negative feedback….as the climate models only show positive feedack.
    It’s going to get 6deg hotter over the next 100 years as long as there are no clouds, rain or volcanic ash in the sky.
    But it is settled…..yeh right.
    Must report back to WUWT.
    Settled?….err no

    Comment by holbrook — 6 Mar 2011 @ 5:31 PM

  193. “This failure is the fruits of the “Starve the Beast” approach to shrinking government writ small.” – 51

    What did you do when the bad men came Daddy?

    I’m a scientist, and it was an ideological struggle. As a scientist I felt that I couldn’t take sides.

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 6 Mar 2011 @ 9:32 PM

  194. Why is more rain always a Bad, as per Min Zhang Hegerl and Zwiers in Nature? I spent much of the 1970s in Khartoum where it never rained at all.

    Comment by Fred Knell — 8 Mar 2011 @ 12:30 AM

  195. Come on Guys. How about you take on the sceptics? At the end of the day you can probably win if your argument is sound and you have the data and logical argument to prove your point.

    Comment by bushy — 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:13 AM

  196. RE: #32

    I think Mr Hansen has a very poor record of predicting things – he has been shown to be wrong many times – I wont list his poor predictions now – but can if you really want me to, including references.

    Comment by steve — 8 Mar 2011 @ 11:42 PM

  197. Tamino says “By all indications, your statistical knowledge is confined to “In my humble opinion, it’s a pretty good match” and computing a mean and standard deviation.”.

    Goodness, does that mean all my work with Weiner, Kalman and Statistical Process control has been wasted. Good thing my employers didn’t know that. And yes I did use the “How to Lie with Statistics” classic. However, that’s beside the point.

    Instead of talking, just present a simple graph showing your estimate , say the HadCRUT3gl data 1850-2010, and compare it to mine. Simple enough?

    P.S. I heard the CET was moved to some obscure site. Wonder why?

    Comment by J. Bob — 10 Mar 2011 @ 11:03 AM

  198. So there is liquid water under the ice sheet and this may be increasing the flow rate of the ice. In the case of Antarctica, the earth, which has been under 3km of ice and not seen the sun in 30kyears, must be at least -2c even though the surface of the ice is -32c. Really? Now the increased ice loss is going to give us a sea surface rise of 32cm by 2050 and, according to Hansen, the probability of a further 4.7 metre rise in the 45 years to 2095. Really? And all of this is caused by AGW. Really?

    Comment by robo — 11 Mar 2011 @ 12:46 AM

  199. History is watching so get ahead of the curve fellow planet lovers. Real planet lovers and former believers are happy about the obvious exaggerations of unstoppable warming. Scientists were lab coat consultants, not saints and we can’t keep scaring our kids with fear of a death by CO2 as the only motivator for responsible environmentalism.
    System Change, not climate change

    Comment by Meme Mine — 11 Mar 2011 @ 4:40 PM

  200. Better late than never, I guess. Too bad the party is already over. You guys can drink the stale beer, though.

    Comment by Thomas Lee Elifritz — 14 Mar 2011 @ 9:53 AM

  201. #183 Ray,
    no one said the Fourier is a cure all, but it’s a very powerful mathematical tool, so why not make use of it?

    In my above post, I used three different methods at looking at the signal, and as a cross check. These were a moving average, a recursive method with a “filtfilt” Chebuchev filter, and a Fourier filter. I chose the Fourier, since it produced superior results at the end points. In addition, I showed the deviation of the filtered from the actual, to produce a figures of merit. The graph is posted below

    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/filter_er_10yr-g6l8y.jpg

    That provided the mean & std. dev., for a measure of filter performance. Hence one can now evaluate just how good filters are, and provide information to use with Wiener and/or Kalman predictive filters.

    Another point is when you define ”white” noise, as flat over the freq. spectrum, don’t you use spectral analysis to confirm you really have what you think? Ditto for “pink, “red” or whatever the latest color is.

    It might be a good idea to look at these methods, as they use a great deal of statistics & probability, and have a long history of practical applications. Wiener’s work was put to use in WWII, for close support AA. There it involved predicting future projectile position, of prime importance in staying alive. You may have seen movies of the single manned cannon, operating on the carrier flight deck edge. One of the more interesting Wiener descendants was the Black-Scholes equation, used in financial futures pricing.

    If you don’t believe me, do a “wiener optimal filter prediction” search. And if you can do me better, just do it.

    The following book may help you see the light, “Handbook of Astronomical Image Processing”, Berry & Burnell
    starting at p.453, covering Fourier & wavelet methods, as to how astronomical images are enhanced for increased feature extraction.

    P.S. Speaking of PHYSICS, I was awarded the Physics Achievement Award in my undergraduate life.

    Comment by J. Bob — 15 Mar 2011 @ 5:14 PM

  202. Didactylos,
    I think the sceptic and denier terms have been misused frequently. While “deniers” can be said to mistrust science, believe global warming is a ____ (insert your favorite word here), or are just gullible people who believe whatever they want. True sceptics have taken the time to weigh the science, and conclude that we do not have enough data to draw confident climate conclusions. Most of the people that I have found who are truly “sceptics” believe that CO2 is causing warming, just not to the degree some claim.

    Most sceptics appear sceptical for two reasons: 1. There is a natural component in addition to the human component, which has been neglected or downplayed by many, and 2. Many of the forecasted effects of global warming have been exaggerated.
    The first reason is largely scientific, and can be resolved with continued research. This is usually the main reason for sceptism as these forces could be quite large and play a much greater role than many people realize. On the other hand, they may be cancelling each other with no net effect. The second part is much more a PR problem, with too many people making outrageous claims blamed on global warming. Many people believe these claims. Are they as gullible as the others?

    Comment by Dan H. — 17 Mar 2011 @ 5:51 AM

  203. The latest climate science dropout is Al Gore. Dutch scientists just proved he was all wrong on Kilimanjaro. It’s a shame. The pictures were so pretty.

    Comment by Major Mike — 18 Mar 2011 @ 11:51 PM

  204. 74: Then please explain to me how in the past atmospheric levels of CO2 have been as high as 3000 ppm with global temperatures the same as they are today. If the Earth were producing the amount of IR radiation you allude to (a Pacific Ocean full of water), the planet would have fried long ago.

    Comment by James R. Barrante — 19 Mar 2011 @ 9:35 PM

  205. “Vendicar Decarian…Hmm, I see over 14 million visitors to Realclimate.org. Skepticalscience.com is available in 20 languages. You have a rather odd concept of “nobody”.” – 71

    I am probably 1,000 of those visitors, while you are probably 2,000 of them, if not more, other regulars will have similar visitation counts.

    With that in mind, a 14 million total evaporates in size pretty rapidly doesn’t it?

    Google hits “Watts up with that” 7,300,000
    “Realclimate” – 672,000

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 20 Mar 2011 @ 1:55 AM

  206. I find all this rather entertaining. People are trying to compare apples to oranges in refuting each other. Start with James Barrante’s statement, “Most climatologists agree that doubling CO2 from 380 to 760 ppm would not even raise global temperature by a degree.” This is close to true, but I would say “not more than a degree” would be more accurate. This is comparing the direct effect of doubling CO2 vs. the added effects of other feedbacks. Apples vs. oranges. To state the feedbacks are “well-known” is a bit of a stretch.

    Next, the statement “the fact that global temperature has not increased since 1998…” is, once again, essentially true. However, this uses individual measurements whereby 1998 was the highest temperature anomaly according to the CRU data (July, 1998 to be specific). Better, would be to use 10-year averaging which shows the highest average temperature anomaly occurred in July, 2002, and has not increased since (the small decrease since is not statistically significant, which is basically what Phil Jones has said).

    I admit that I have not read his book entirely, and therefore, cannot comment on the book in its entirety. I found nothing particularly alarming in that section, and he does make some valid points. Some seem to be criticizing this book as if it were a scientific paper, targeted towards a technical meeting, rather than the general purpose audience for which he intended.

    Lastly, I think Dr. Barrante has been quite cordial with those who have insulted him. Usually attacking the messenger is the last resort of someone who cannot refute his argument.

    Comment by Dan H. — 21 Mar 2011 @ 7:40 AM

  207. #55 Ray,
    I wouldn’t talk to loudly. You never did disprove me in Unforced variations, or from the bore hole. Nor did you even demonstrate a better method of predicting future states.

    Comment by J. Bob — 21 Mar 2011 @ 10:19 AM

  208. I find all this rather entertaining. People are trying to compare apples to oranges in refuting each other.

    I admit that I have not read his book, and therefore, cannot comment on the book in its entirety. I found nothing particularly alarming in that section posted. He does make some valid points, not that I agree with them. Some seem to be criticizing this book as if it were a scientific paper, targeted towards a technical meeting, rather than the general purpose audience for which he intended.

    I think Dr. Barrante has been quite cordial with those who have insulted him. Usually attacking the messenger is the last resort of someone who cannot refute his argument.

    Lastly, there appear to be those who think this site should be reserved for those who think like they do, and that any opposing arguments should be deleted. That sounds a lot like what Dr. Barante was saying in his book, and is not how science should be conducted.

    Comment by Dan H. — 21 Mar 2011 @ 11:48 AM

  209. Brian,
    If you are going to refute Barrante’s statements, you need to argue the same points.
    1. During the last 400,000 years, the Earth has experienced 4 ice ages and 4 interglacials. One could argue that there were 4 changes out of the predominantly glaciations, or 4 back and forth changes, for a total of 8. Just semantics here.
    2. I agree with you on number short term changes.
    3. You are comparing apples and oranges. While Langway, et. al. present annual values, much of the Vostok ice cores yielded temperature data every 200 years. Since Barrante is not specific in his data set, this cannot be ruled out.
    4. I give this point to Barrante. The absolute temperature value was higher in 1998 in the data you presented from Spencer. I believe Barrante was referring to the CRU data set, which also shows a higher absolute value in 1998. I would counter that a 10-yr running average would be a better measure than a single year. Using the same CRU data, Barrante should change his statement to 2002, since the highest value in the 10-yr average occurred in July, 2002, and has been relatively flat since (Phil Jones referred to this in his interview, whcih was largely misquoted). Claiming that his statement is a lie, is a lie in itself.
    5. Whether changes today are different from 400,000 years ago is still to be determined. Yes, atmospheric CO2 is higher than previously, but temperatures are not. Half and half on this point.

    Attacking someone personally is the last resort of someone who cannot refute the data.

    Comment by Dan H. — 22 Mar 2011 @ 8:32 AM

  210. wow. I am literally disgusted at how you people are treating Dr Barrante. This is a disgusting, sad spectacle. You people know you are losing badly and your desperation is showing. You are a nasty bunch of people.

    Comment by xavier — 22 Mar 2011 @ 9:18 PM

  211. I do not think that it is the work of Tyndall that is being questioned here, but rather the extensions of his work. Tyndall made no quantification of the effect of CO2, or any other hydrocarbon gas, on temperature or climate. Much has been written recently about the quantification of CO2-dependent temperature effects, with a wide range of results. Deriding someone for claiming that the effect is less than someone else claims is hardly fit conversation for a scientist. It appears that there are some people here who do not wish to listen to anyone who has an opposing view. Be careful. Science may just advance right past you.

    Comment by Dan H. — 24 Mar 2011 @ 9:37 PM

  212. Response to #10;

    It’s a broad political debate for many years now. During periods of high interest millions line up on either side with a varied degree of technical knowledge. The ad hominem I was focused on, which is typical perhaps of all side but especially to the would-be keepers of the IPCC consensus “flame” is that they are by virtue of their favored conclusion more “informed and intelligent”. Hense we get articles labeling gop dissent as “ignorant”. This sort of pattern follows many left vs. right debates, liberals assume they are smarter. They endlessly dwell on how they are better informed and educated etc. They love to comment how their leaders are “smarter” and they are “progressive”. Statistically it’s nonsense when we are discussing vast populations. While one side can site university professors go take a straw poll and prisons, welfare office in cities or low skill manual labor pools and see where the base of the left is. Again, there are plenty of ignorant people on all sides but by going about this low rhetorical (and yes, ad hominem) tactic has only weakened your argument.

    Comment by cwon1 — 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:45 PM

  213. Invective labeling helps the skeptics (Ignorant). It’s a standard playing card and symbol of liberal arrogance.

    There are thousands of expert of voices for and against, the IPCC process looks agenda driven and corrupt. Millions of many different levels of technical skills on both sides are involved and neither is going out quitely. Calling people or parties “ignorant” helps agw dissent in the longer-term.

    Comment by cwon1 — 25 Mar 2011 @ 12:55 PM

  214. Bob,
    I disagree that the ice is breaking up early. This year does not look all that different from others, 2005 showed a much earlier break up, and 2010 was much later. My La Nina point, combined with a largely negative NAO, indicates that colder waters are being measured in the northern oceans. 2007 reached its record low in the presence of a large amount of Atlantic water entering the Arctic. I do not see that happening this year, but se ice extent is relatively unpredictable on a yearly basis.
    I am not sure what your last two paragraphs are all about, nor what you would expect me to say if the sea ice does reach a new minimum.

    Comment by Dan H. — 25 Mar 2011 @ 3:09 PM

  215. Ad hominem attacks are usually reserved for those who are unable to refute the testimpony of their opponent. Are you saying that you cannot refute their testimony?

    Comment by Dan H. — 25 Mar 2011 @ 3:16 PM

  216. “..Everyone, including you and I, is ignorant about many things – I (like you I hope) aim to reduce that ignorance bit by bit. It would be nice if more people aimed to as well. – gavin]”

    By making over confident statements regarding uncertainties, it’s quite clear the IPCC have no interest in reducing uncertainites which go against the IPCC point of view. It’s what I call reducing uncertainties in one direction.

    Comment by Isotopious — 25 Mar 2011 @ 5:29 PM

  217. In the Bore Hole

    You can slag the double C

    In the Bore Hole

    You can cherry pick with ease

    In the Bore Hole

    It seems the fit has hit the shan

    In the Bore Hole

    Empirical evidence we demand!

    Comment by Isotopious — 25 Mar 2011 @ 6:39 PM

  218. 162. You make my point. The CO2 does collide with neighboring molecules before it irradiates the energy as light. You can’t have it both ways. You say it irradiates the light energy back toward Earth (and by the way it’s light not heat), but the probably of that happening is extremely small because the numbers you cite suggest it will transfer that light energy as heat to neighboring molecules before it irradiates. So which way is it?

    As far as studying CO2 is concerned, I said I never did heat capacity ratio experiments on CO2. Heat capacity ratio experiments on N2 clearly show that thermal energy goes only into translational and rotational motion. Also, you keep implying that I don’t think the greenhouse gas effect is real. I never said that. If you bothered to read my book, you would see that I am saying that there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the IR radiation that it can absorb, i.e., increasing the level of CO2 will have little effect.

    And you keep mentioning consensus. What consensus? There are thousands of scientists who do not believe that AGW is responsible for climate change. Moreover, I don’t consider these 1 or 2 degree wiggles in global temperature that we presently are experiencing as climate change. My definition requires at least a 8 to 10 degree change and I believe that’s coming – back to ice age.

    Finally, I had never heard the definition of “troll” used the way you use it. I simply asked a simple question about saturation (I should have known better) and got jumped on, which is typical of your website. Of course, now you are bringing my family into it. My daughters are writers and made suggestions about writing style. David Whalen is an astrophysicist friend of mine. Gregory Kowalczyk is a Professor of Environmental and Analytical Chemistry. My book is short because it is essentially non-technical written for the layperson. I wrote it because I was constantly being asked for help by parents of children who were forced in school to watch “An Inconvenient Truth.” I’m glad John Mashey’s wife laughed a lot. The book was intended to be light-hearted. The 40 watt comment about computers was a joke.

    Comment by James R. Barrante — 26 Mar 2011 @ 7:54 AM

  219. Charles,
    I think the chalk and vinegar was nothing more than an ill-advised stunt. Do you really believe the coral reefs are dissolving in a sea of acid?

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Mar 2011 @ 4:18 PM

  220. 54, Charles: My good friend the coral reef expert who has now become an environmental educator because he is so worried about what is happening to the oceans thought it was a great demonstration which very effectively illustrated what was happening to coral reefs.

    Well, the ocean is nowhere as acidic as vinegar and coral is not made from chalk. At least in some research (more details perhaps in a thread devoted to the topic, but there are at least 2 web pages devoted to this), coral grows better with increased CO2 in the relevant concentrations.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 26 Mar 2011 @ 5:46 PM

  221. BD at 60

    Also check out:

    Climate Change and Long-Term Fluctuations of Commercial Catches by L.B. Klyashtorin

    FOA Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 410. Rome, FAO 2001 86pp.

    Available at:

    ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e00.pdf

    I conclude from Russians’ and other studies that there are climate cycles–a whole lot of them and details of these have yet to be worked out. We know there are cycles with really long periods suchas the MWP and the LIA. And there are probably some we don’t even yet know about.

    Here is another paper on climate cycles:

    “An oscillation in the global climate system of period
    65-70 years.” by M.E Schlesinger & N. Ramankutty, Nature, Vol 367 773-726 (1994).

    I got this ref from a site that is monster bibliography of papers on global warming and climate science. Unfortunately, I forgot BM it. Anybody know it?

    The big question is: How much of the recent warming is due climate cylces and GHG’s? Based upon my analyses of the temp data from the weather station at Quatsino BC, I have concluded that contribution of GHG’s is zip.

    RE: JC Blog

    When the number of comments on topic >1OO, I stop reading it.

    Comment by Harold Pierce Jr — 27 Mar 2011 @ 4:52 AM

  222. ATTN: BD

    RE: Be Careful What You Wish For
    RE: BC Carbon Taxes on Fossil Fuels

    Below are current carbon taxes on fossils fuels in BC
    based upon a tax of $20 per tonne of CO2 equivalent as of July 1, 2010:

    Gasoline 4.45 ¢/litre

    Diesel 5.11 ¢/litre

    Jet Fuel 5.22 ¢/litre

    Propane 3.08 ¢/litre

    Natural Gas 3.80 ¢/cubic metre

    Coal, high heat value 41.54 $/tonne

    Coal,low heat value 35.54 $/tonne

    Note the apparent low tax rate on nat gas. The actual tax is $0.9932 per gigajoule of BC nat gas which costs $4.568 per gigajoule. That is tax rate of 21.7%

    On July 1, 2012 the the carbon tax will increase to $30 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, i.e., the above taxes will increase by 50%.

    There are no free passes on fossil fuel carbon taxes although low income wager earners receive a carbon tax rebate. For industry and commerce there are complex rules and regulations for computing and paying carbon taxes. There is no rebate for folks living in the cold regions of the province.

    Let us suppose the Russians are right and the climate cools down for the next 20 years. Do you think the BC gov is going to refund the tax?

    Comment by Harold Pierce Jr — 27 Mar 2011 @ 5:35 AM

  223. Rob,
    I am a little confused by your last post. I believe that there is a downward trend in Arctic sea ice because the data since 1979 points towards one. We do not have solid data prior to that time, so I cannot say that this trend is representative or unusual. If you feel that there is not a downward trend in Arctic sea ice, I would be glad to listen to your reasoning.
    I am disputing both the timing of breaking the record and achieveing an ice free Arctic. Extrapolating out, the trend line will not break the 2007 low for over a decade, and since very few previous years were more than 10% below the trend line, I believe that the 2007 low will not be broken in the next few years. If the current trend were to continue, the Arctic would be ice free in the summer in about 75 years.
    Gambling has nothing to do with t=when this will occur.

    Comment by Dan H. — 27 Mar 2011 @ 11:43 AM

  224. Ray,
    I am surprised that you can so readily accept those. I will give you #4, as temperatures have not cooled, but not #8, since temperatures have not risen either.
    Of the rest, #1 is valid for longer term, do not cherry-pick your data. I agree #2 is irrelevent, and should not be used to (dis)prove current climate conditions. #3 is laughable as should never be used again by any reputable scientist. #5, models are still unreliable, regardles of what gavin says. For #6, the thermometer records are valid, but my impression that the referenced temperature record referred to long-term proxies. #7 is the most valid, as life has generally prospered in warmer, wetter climates. Future predictions seem to ignore this. #9 is true, but irrelevent. #10 is valid for measurements beyond a few years. Only the short-term GRACE measurements indicate otherwise.

    If these are the bases of your information, I suggest you delve deeper into the science. Sorry, but I do not find skepticalscience to be a good source. But then again, I am looking for scientific arguments, not politcal or socila ones.

    Comment by Dan H. — 27 Mar 2011 @ 12:34 PM

  225. As a former believer, but a person based in reality rather than the lunacy that this belief has become, I tell you all. Leave the room.

    Comment by pat — 28 Mar 2011 @ 1:43 AM

  226. Ray,
    What the consensus believes, and what you claim they believe are different. While the consensus believes that temperatures have risen, even though 10% do not according to your survey, there is no consensus has to the contributing factors. Significant research has been reported that solar, oceanic, urbanization, and CO2 have all contributed up to 50% of the observed warming. The survey to which you point as evidence says nothing about CO2 (those that are convinced the warming was primarily an urbanization or deforestation effect would also answer yes).
    The CRU data shows a 14-year trend line with a slope of 0. That is going back to 1997, a full year before the 1998 super El Nino. One has to go back further than that to obtain a positive temperature slope. Phil Jones has tried to point this out, but no seems to be listening. The 10-year moving average is still below the peak recorded in 2002.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
    Are you saying that the CRU data is “counterfactual, fallacious, false, faulty, etc…” Brian?
    Ray,
    You are confusing the present and the past. If my income increases for the first 20 years of my life, but plateaus during my last 10, the last 10 will still have the highest values, but my income will no longer be rising. This is what temperatures have done over the past 30 years. Will it resume its pre-21st century climb? Possibly. Will it revert to a mid-20th century drop? Possibly. Phil Jones has pointed out that the years from 1970-2000 look remarkably similar to the same period from 1910-1940. Profs. Latif and Easterbrook have posted their beliefs in why they do not expect to see a temperature rise over the next decade. You can close your eyes to the facts, if you so choose, but that will not make them go away!

    Lastly Ray, I did not claim that skeptical science was being absurd. Only that they did not refute the arguments that Brian claimed they did. Show me where someone has actually refuted the 8 points in question.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Mar 2011 @ 6:50 AM

  227. Ray,
    What the consensus believes, and what you claim they believe are different. While the consensus believes that temperatures have risen, even though 10% do not according to your survey, there is no consensus has to the contributing factors. Significant research has been reported that solar, oceanic, urbanization, and CO2 have all contributed up to 50% of the observed warming. The survey to which you point as evidence says nothing about CO2 (those that are convinced the warming was primarily an urbanization or deforestation effect would also answer yes).
    The CRU data shows a 14-year trend line with a slope of 0. That is going back to 1997, a full year before the 1998 super El Nino. One has to go back further than that to obtain a positive temperature slope. Phil Jones has tried to point this out, but no seems to be listening. The 10-year moving average is still below the peak recorded in 2002.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
    Are you saying that the CRU data is “counterfactual, fallacious, false, faulty, etc…” Brian?
    Ray,
    You are confusing the present and the past. If my income increases for the first 20 years of my life, but plateaus during my last 10, the last 10 will still have the highest values, but my income will no longer be rising. This is what temperatures have done over the past 30 years. Will it resume its pre-21st century climb? Possibly. Will it revert to a mid-20th century drop? Possibly. Phil Jones has pointed out that the years from 1970-2000 look remarkably similar to the same period from 1910-1940. Profs. Latif and Easterbrook have posted their beliefs in why they do not expect to see a temperature rise over the next decade. You can close your eyes to the facts, if you so choose, but that will not make them go away!

    Lastly Ray, I did not claim that skeptical science was being absurd. Only that they did not refute the arguments that Brian claimed they did. Show me where someone has actually refuted the 8 points in question.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Mar 2011 @ 11:15 AM

  228. Not all ice volume measurements are showing the same trends. The PIPS data shows the opposite.
    http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/fast-recovery-of-thick-arctic-ice-d6-e19.php
    With the large disparity in volume, I am sticking with area for the time being.
    I agree that we do not know if the current trend is linear, and the sea ice may be decreasing at a faster or slower rate than the linear trend.
    Didactylos, you are confirming my post. Each point adds to the trend, and changes the trend slightly. Three of the past four years are below the trend line, resulting in a steeper decline than previous (2009 falls on the line). Cherry picking 2007 to show that the decline in Arctic sea ice is acceleration is just as bad as those who cherry-picked 2009 to show that the sea ice is increasing. 2011 could be substantially below the trend. It could also be substantially above the trend.
    Ironically, 2008, 2009, and 2010 were above the trend line for Arctic sea ice maximum. The decline in maximum sea ice extent is only half that measured for the minimum area. Are you willing to say that the decline in sea ice maximum is decelerating? That is the fallacy involved in choosing just a few data points.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Mar 2011 @ 11:56 AM

  229. Bob,
    First off, it is not my calculation, but by the University of Colorado (see my previous post). As I said several times previously, if the sea ice minimum were to decline faster than recently observed, then I would rethink my position and conclude that warming is occurring faster than expected. Similarly, if the decline slows significantly, I would conclude the opposite.
    It one were to believe the trend put forth previously, then the possibility of sea ice reaching zero by 2020 is same as the sea ice doubling (statistically speaking).

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Mar 2011 @ 1:18 PM

  230. Not all ice volume measurements are showing the same trends. The PIPS data shows the opposite.
    http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/fast-recovery-of-thick-arctic-ice-d6-e19.php
    With the large disparity in volume, I am sticking with area for the time being.
    I agree that we do not know if the current trend is linear, and the sea ice may be decreasing at a faster or slower rate than the linear trend.
    Didactylos, you are confirming my post. Each point adds to the trend, and changes the trend slightly. Three of the past four years are below the trend line, resulting in a steeper decline than previous (2009 falls on the line). Cherry picking 2007 to show that the decline in Arctic sea ice is acceleration is just as bad as those who cherry-picked 2009 to show that the sea ice is increasing. 2011 couldl be substantially below the trend. It could also be substantially above the trend.
    Ironically, 2008, 2009, and 2010 were above the trend line for Arctic sea ice maximum. Are you willing to say that the decline in sea ice maximum is decelerating? That is the fallacy involved in choosing just a few data points.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Mar 2011 @ 1:19 PM

  231. Flxible,
    I am not sure to what you refer, nor am I trying to convince you that declining sea ice is irrelevant. I am showing you that the two different datasets (if you know of more than two, let me know) differ significantly.
    Bob,
    Now that I have answered your question, I have a hypothetical for you. If instead of declining to zero by 2020, the ice increased to pre-1980 levels (slightly higher probability of occurring since it would require less of a deviation from the trend line), how would it impact your view?

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Mar 2011 @ 2:32 PM

  232. Bloke: But that is because all “deniers” (a despicable term) are automatically expunged from this blog, like me. Name one who has not been (I am one of many).

    Comment by Fred Knell — 29 Mar 2011 @ 7:55 AM

  233. J. Bowers at 93

    The buffer system of the ocean contains soluble bicarbonate and insoluble calcium and magnesium cabonates. The pH of the ocean can never ever fall below ca 8.

    CO2 + H20 —> H2CO3 carbonic acid

    H2CO3 —-> H + HCO3

    H + HCO3 + CaCO3(solid) —> Ca2(HCO3)

    If sodium bicarbonate is put into water at ca 20 deg C, the initial pH is about 8. The pH will slowly increase because bicarbonate ion is unstable:

    2HCO3—>CO3 + H20 + CO2

    CO3 + H2O—> HCO3 + OH

    Since calcium and magnesium ion are constantly entering the oceans from river, they will form insoluble carbnates. There is little free carbonate ion in seawater.

    These claims that ocean is being acidified are nonsense. Its just not possible.

    BTW pH measurements are only accurate to +/- 0.1 unit.
    Anbody reporting pH measurments to 0.01 does not what he is doing.

    Another possible emission source of CO2 is seawater heated in heat exchangers of big ships. The marine diesel engine in the Emma Mersek is ca 150 ft log and about 2 stories high, and it consummes ca 45,000 liters of fuel per hour. Enormous amounts of sea water are used for cooling the engine. The CO2 in the hot discharge water from the heat exchanger would escape from directly into the air.

    Since there are great many huge ships on the ocean, how much CO2 in the air is due to them? it’s not zero.

    Comment by Harold Pierce Jr — 29 Mar 2011 @ 10:32 AM

  234. #46, Ray
    You noted that these ~60 year cycles “don’t stand up to statistical scrutiny”, then what are the following graphs?

    These graphs are normalized (1960-1990) averages, of the longest temperature records we have. Most were from http://www.rimfrost.no/
    from stations in western & central Europe.

    Ave1 is the Cent. England data with a 25 year Fourier filter.

    Ave4 are from station records starting prior to 1750 & include Ave1 plus Debilt, Uppsala and Berlin, using the same 25 year filter.

    Ave14 includes Ave4, plus station records starting prior to 1800. Again using the 25 year.

    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave1_2010_ff_25yr-KepXe.jpg

    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave4_2010_ff_25yr-cWDPG.jpg

    http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/ave14_2010_ff_25yr-6TPzH.jpg

    In addition, you can compare the Ave results with the HadCRUT3 northern hemisphere data set.
    These show the data sets with three different filters, 50, 25 & 20 year filters. It would seem there are was a whole lot of oscillations going on, in central & western Europe.

    http://www.imagenerd.com/show.php?_img=had_nh_ave14_2010_ff-yWXM2.jpg

    You might note the temperature drop in the early 1800′s, as more stations were added to the set. This lasted until about 1850.

    Comment by J. Bob — 29 Mar 2011 @ 11:13 AM

  235. Well, we know that the consensus of scientists is always right – like they were here in 2008.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/most-experts-foresee-a-repeat-at-least-of-2007-arctic-ice-loss/

    Comment by Tilo Reber — 29 Mar 2011 @ 8:30 PM

  236. How does this artical support the claim that has been widely comunicated about “settled science” in these matters? It seems in opposition.

    Comment by Titus — 29 Mar 2011 @ 10:09 PM

  237. “22.Jack Maloney: You don’t seem to have bothered to find out what scientists have to say on the subject. Isn’t that a serious omission on your part? And what exactly is “scientific fact”? Comment by Didactylos

    Didactylos – you don’t know what I have bothered to find out what scientists have to say, and you haven’t any basis for that statement. It’s interesting that you and others here have gone the ad hominem route simply because I call for transparency and honesty about uncertainties in climate science. Do you really object to transparency and honesty?

    “Scientific fact” is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory. Computer models, predictions, scenarios and hypotheses are not scientific facts. Unfortunately, the RC post that heads this thread doesn’t make that distinction clearly.

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 30 Mar 2011 @ 6:35 PM

  238. What would you regulars this website do if you didn’t have folks like Septic Matthew to hang the pinata up for you? As an outsider reading the comments here, it really feels like a kid’s birthday party where all the kids are taking turns taking a wack at the Septic Matt Pinata, as if it represents some great evil here.

    One thing you can be sure of however. Your arguments aren’t very convincing to a layperson like me when it comes enlightening me about the huge threat that AGW supposedly is to the planet. However your arguments do seem to support the notion that your real mission is to protect the government gravy train that funds your “research”

    Ok, this will probably be attacked by the RC anti-troll squad but that is the chance one takes to tell it like it is.

    Comment by Hiram Hornblowe — 30 Mar 2011 @ 7:56 PM

  239. Ray,
    My concern is climate models being treated as the last word on the subject, the quintessential element. I disagree with the notion that the current models are our “best guess”. They are Gavin and co’s best guess, not mine.
    As I noted above, weather models are great for 3 days. Comparably climate models should be able to do 3 years, but alas, they can’t even do 1 year.
    The reason they can’t do 1 year is ENSO, add to the problem El Nino warms the climate, an above average number of El Niño’s during the last several decades, is it any wonder that climate models fail to address an alternative cause for global warming?
    The concern trolls are indeed flourishing in such an ideal environment!

    Comment by Isotopious — 30 Mar 2011 @ 8:00 PM

  240. SM,
    The other reason that it will not play well in Peoria, etc. is that farmers know that warmer temperatures and wetter climates yield more bountiful harvests. They may not know that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will also aid in crop production. The growing season has increased in Middle America mainly due to an increased frost-free season. Most studies point to an increase of about two weeks over the past century. The decrease in drought years has also been a blessing to the farmers. Nobody follows weather better than the farmers (except local meteorologists), because their livelihood depends upon it. I admit that it is difficult to separate weather effects from technological advances in farming. But the bottom line is that there have no negative effects of the recent warming being felt by the Midwestern farmers.

    Comment by Dan H. — 31 Mar 2011 @ 7:02 AM

  241. 22.And what exactly is “scientific fact”? Didactylos — 30 Mar 2011 @ 3:14 PM

    23 What do you understand by the term ‘scientific fact?’ Kevin McKinney – 30 Mar 2011 @ 3:58 PM

    A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory. Climate change is a fact. Global warming – on a millennial scale – is a fact. Global warming forced primarily by anthropogenic CO2 is a hypothesis.

    Lack of transparency in climate science has been cited by independent inquiries. Phil Willis, chair of Parliament’s Science and Technology Select Committee, stated: “What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit could have been avoided.”

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 31 Mar 2011 @ 8:25 AM

  242. @38

    “Weather again. Tom Scharf, the very foundations of your beliefs are nothing but misconceptions.”

    I understand that regional forecasts may supply drought and extreme precipitation predictions. That would be useful.

    I’m simply saying that providing testable results that are confirmed will lead to people considering the models useful.

    “Remind us again what you think is reasonable”

    Null models are a subject with no perfect answer. Here are a few examples which use no physics modeling, outperform these and you are going down the road to proving the physics modeling is useful.

    1. Temperature will continue to rise at a constant 0.1C / decade.

    2. The temperature will change at the same rate as the average of the last 11 years.

    The point is consistently performing better on future predictions than most non-physics based models, Predict things they would be unable to predict. Quantify performance. There are other parameters which may be useful, precipitation, hurricane season, etc.

    As of now, continued increases in CO2 should cause temperature increases to accelerate, and that is not happening. I think this is important. Time will tell.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 31 Mar 2011 @ 2:37 PM

  243. Some of you people have no clue. I do not know who is more out of touch, Susan or Ray. IF the rain was all coming in two weeks, then yes. So far, that has not been the case. That is just not reality. Yes Susan an April snowstorm. That is surely a sign that global warming will lead to colder temperatures and more snow. Get real.

    Comment by Dan H. — 31 Mar 2011 @ 4:53 PM

  244. Curiously as soon as Bush was out the way, Science in the US of A seemed to behave like they’d been liberated from an oppresive tyranny !

    Comment by Bert Schmert — 2 Apr 2011 @ 1:22 PM

  245. I’m wondering if the short fall of actually getting prediction right rather arguing semanitcs of Ego and who get’s the finance lies in the question of : please can we have some classified data from your military satelites so we’ve got some idea of what the key driving mechanism of the Chaos of global weather, the oceanic escalators are actually doing ? then Climate Change ? can be factored in to the equation !

    Comment by Bert Schmert — 2 Apr 2011 @ 1:36 PM

  246. #46
    “Except they don’t stand up to statistical scrutiny:
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/8000-years-of-amo/

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 26 Mar 2011 @ 9:54 AM”

    Geez Louize, even the IPCC routinely uses confidence levels in the 90% range as justification for something being very likely. If we’re going to tighten up statistics let’s do it across the board. The minimum level for publication should be at least 95%, preferably 99%. Actually the engineering standard of a safety factor of 3x to 5x would be even better. Then we wouldn’t have this quibbling about whether 90% significance is very likely or not. 99.99% should keep everyone honest and the results trustworthy.

    Comment by George — 2 Apr 2011 @ 6:55 PM

  247. Well Ray Ladbury, I see you made a interesting comment about “statistical scrutiny” and ref. tamino’s post on 8000-years-of-AMO. Did you note that he was using spectal & wavlet analysis?

    Hate to tell you, but those methods, tamino was using, involve mathematical domain mappings into the frequency domain. You know, the ones that you called “curve fitting”. The connection between statistics and the spectral methods that tamino uses, are under an umbrella called mathematics.

    Comment by J. Bob — 3 Apr 2011 @ 10:54 AM

  248. #104 Kevin C
    go to
    http://www.climate4you.com/

    an click on the global temp tab. There is a comparison graph (1979-2011), showing the 5 major global temperatures (UAH, RSS, GISS, NCDC & HadCRUT3) sets.

    The Mar. data should be interesting.

    Comment by J. Bob — 5 Apr 2011 @ 5:30 PM

  249. Bob #104:
    Thanks for that. You’ve convinced me.

    (Actually had I thought instead of posting I guess I could have taken the difference between GISTEMP and HADCRUT and calculated a correlation coefficient with sunspot number.)

    Comment by Kevin C — 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:15 AM

  250. 184, Vendicar Decarian: Bankrupting the U.S. government as a means to end social programs in the U.S. has long been a goal of many Libertarians and Republicans.

    Bankrupting the U.S. government has been bipartisan policy for the last 10 years or so. The Democratic effort of the last 2 years exceeds the Republican effort of the previous 8 years.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 9 Apr 2011 @ 12:29 PM

  251. Make a contribution? Like tax isn’t enough?

    Comment by Jimmy Haigh — 9 Apr 2011 @ 5:29 PM

  252. Climate blogging happens because of the huge political implications of the topic.
    And as virtually all climate science is politically funded, it quite predictably comes down on he side of conclusions favourable to political action, occasionally even employing dirty tricks as per climategate.
    Climate blogging is largely driven by either support vs opposition to this politically-driven nature of climate science.

    Comment by Punksta — 10 Apr 2011 @ 12:32 AM

  253. “As for the ‘WE ALL NEED POWER 24/7′ or we can’t survive, that is pure BS!”

    So says a man with no ice cream in his freezer. :)

    Seriously, think of what 12 of 24 hours without electricity means to food storage, both in commercial and residential implications.

    Or hospitals going dark at dusk. Lighting a candle will do well in identifying who died in the ward in the last hour.

    Comment by Frank Giger — 10 Apr 2011 @ 9:36 AM

  254. To Jim’s response @31. Thanks for the moderation. To get a middle ground an extreme is general needed to answer the opposite extreme. Just need somebody to point it out at times:)

    Robert Murphy @33: In my world we have lots of data and knowledge which we are very effective a capitilizing on. However, we have no understanding of how it all works together from the bottom up. We are very top down and cause and effect alludes us because we don’t know the basic mechanisms. We have theroies but no understanding.

    It’s called the natural world. Yours by my contrast appears very unnatural and superficial.

    Comment by Titus — 10 Apr 2011 @ 6:30 PM

  255. Robert,
    I think that the weather and climate are more accurately described by Titus than either Nigel or yourself. While many of us would prefer to live in a place which is peaceful and ordered, the reality is that the climatic events of this planet are rather chaotic. Through diligent observation and analsyis, we can ascertain the occurrance of some of these events a few days in advance.

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 Apr 2011 @ 7:41 PM

  256. ““pre-government-organized-meteorological or weather service” observations”

    I have lots of these plotted in a single glance for your readers to digest and ponder upon, here: http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    In the last couple years the CET one at the bottom has plunged below the trend line.

    Comment by NikFromNYC — 10 Apr 2011 @ 8:27 PM

  257. Just a question for you all to contemplate:
    Re AGW.
    As I understand AGW, the theory goes that added CO2 combines with an energy photon (ie the greenhouse effect) to warm the world, & heat the air which results in more water vapor which absorbs more photons which results in Man caused warming feedback.
    So the questions are Given that there are more water vaopr molecules already in the air, why do ONLY the ones brought in by CO2 warming get counted as warming the air? What happens to the natural ones? Why don’t photons get absorbed by all the other water vapor molecules to cause warming? (I’ve seen Gavins argument on why water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing agent – it doesn’t hold water!!) A radiated IR photon is going to be absorbed directly, and not wait around for man to release CO2 to cause warming to cause more water vapor molecules!
    Now we do know that there is more water vapor available than photons because the GHE has not vaporized (to 900C) all the water in the world. We also know that when it rains the added GHGs do not result in more warming. And we know that when the temperature is lower than the (daily, monthly yearly…)maximum then there is less GHE absorbtion because there are less photona available to be absorbed. Therefore those GHGs that were absorbing at the higher temp are now excess just sitting in the air (along with the excess CO2 that no longer have a photon to absorb) So why does Hansen & Gavin insist that all the CO2 released is always absorbing a photon in a GHE process to cause warming? & why does ALL the feedback water vapor always absorb a photon to cause warming? Why doesn’t all the added CO2 & water vapor just sit in the air as excess, not causing any more warming than what already exists?

    Comment by John Dodds — 12 Apr 2011 @ 7:03 PM

  258. I get it, environmental activists will be so succesfull in destroying our energy infrastructure, that our refrigerators will no longer function. It’s time for me to fight the evil power.

    Comment by Dennis — 14 Apr 2011 @ 5:10 PM

  259. I’m quite certain you have already reached “joe sixpack” and perhaps over-reached as well. He has heard for years about global warming and apparently rejects the notion. Polls support this. So its not about “reaching” people, its about re-educating them – again.

    Comment by Kozlowski — 15 Apr 2011 @ 1:43 AM

  260. From “About”:
    “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”

    I’ve found this site straying further and further away from the science and more and more into politics. This post is untterly unscientific, wholly political and indicative of a pervasive flippancy that has now apparently fully matured.

    I’d suggest either sticking to the site’s STATED mission or updating the “About” section because the content does not match the description.

    Comment by Jerry — 15 Apr 2011 @ 2:58 PM

  261. That’s two really good, helpful and informative posts in a row.

    Comment by Tom Fuller — 16 Apr 2011 @ 12:47 PM

  262. I could use the “knowledge” of just how you determine the lack of another person’s “knowledge”.

    You wrote: “(again without any actual knowledge of the issues)”

    You may be right but I suspect that this is an ass-umption?

    Comment by Joe Alderman — 16 Apr 2011 @ 2:19 PM

  263. Re: #370 Vendicar Decarian

    Hmm, just a quick question, what corner I would end up!?
    I think there is proof that additional CO2 in the amtosphere contributes to the sufrace temperature (for example the 3.7W/m^2 direct radiation effect cited in the IPCC-report).
    However I see also valid points in the arguments of J. Curry, R. Pielke and S. McIntyre, which basically challange if we really know the science as well as seen in the IPCC-reports.
    For example if it would turn out that the models fail to predict the ocean oscillations or the water feedback correctly, the estimate from gavin in the answer to post #365 could be to narrow.

    Does that mean, since I see evidence for a global warming in the last 100 years and also an anthropogenic influence, that I am in the “apocalyptic half” of this study, beside the fact, that I am indeed very skeptical of the predictions for our future as given in the IPCC-reports?
    Doesn’t that just indicate a bad study?

    Comment by Laws of Nature — 20 Apr 2011 @ 4:46 AM

  264. #418 Snapple,
    this might be a better item to read, put out by the American Univ. School of Communication on Climate Shift. In the introduction it notes that:

    “For more than 20 years, environmentalists, scientists and philanthropists have worked together to mobilize action in the United States on climate change and to implement policies that address the undeniable, human causes of the problem. The many successes of this coalition, however, have been obscured over the past year by the failure of cap and trade legislation and the inability to achieve a binding international agreement on emissions”.

    http://climateshiftproject.org/report/climate-shift-clear-vision-for-the-next-decade-of-public-debate/#movements-networks-and-progress

    It had a interesting comment over at First Things on the report:
    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/04/21/global-warming-hysteria-alarmists-postmortem-begins/

    Comment by J. Bob — 22 Apr 2011 @ 10:33 AM

  265. Carbon based oxygen can not hurt the environment.
    ~ water vapor and CO2 caused the environment ~
    If not for water vapor and CO2 there would be no nitrogen from decomposing soil or (O2) dioxide to breath, there would be no greenhouse.
    Please go to http://co2u.info
    Bruce A. Kershaw

    Comment by Bruce A. Kershaw — 25 Apr 2011 @ 8:34 AM

  266. This is great – you guys here at RC are tying yourselves up in knots about AGW in pre-history. What next? Farting dinosaurs?
    Additionally, one of the most amusing/ridiculous comments (Jamie @23) wondered if the Spanish Armada had contributed to Global Warming. Thanks Jamie, you had me laughing out loud – I’ll treasure that comment for ever :)

    Comment by Charles — 25 Apr 2011 @ 11:56 AM

  267. Brian,
    It appears that Vegas (aka Mother Nature) has regained the upper hand. After two decades of rising temperatures, she has reigned in the mercury. Now those who monitor such things are acknowledging the cylcical nature that has occurred over the past century or so. The weather extremes wax and wane, with no clear direction. The only thing that has been the consistently rising sea levels, although slightly less in the past decade.
    Betting on changes not warranted by the data is like letting your pot ride after winning ten hands in a row. The antiscience denialists and alarmists need to look more closely at the probabilities to which you refer.

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Apr 2011 @ 5:51 AM

  268. Chum for the sharks, yawn boring.

    Comment by Jon P — 26 Apr 2011 @ 11:15 AM

  269. @77 There you go – I’ve been barred from the thread, just for mentioning the ‘hotspot’. You lot here at RC are so touchy and so easy to wind up!
    Warmists only get so hot under the collar so easily (pun intended), because they realise the AGW theory is complete bunk – as soon as someone mentions the models’ problems and all their failed predictions the warmists start throwing their toys out of their pram.
    “it’s perfectly clear that you’re here to argue, not to learn”. I am here to learn, and what this article has taught me is how unbelievable silly it is to start talking about the carbon footprint of a cavemen. Obviously I’m not allowed to ‘argue’ as RC doesn’t allow for an dissent!
    Toodle pip and a whole load of sceptic love to you and all your families!
    Charles

    Comment by Charles — 26 Apr 2011 @ 5:25 PM

  270. Yet more evidence that Schneider believed in a coming ice age:
    In 1976 in ‘The Genesis Strategy’ he wrote: “I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling trend has set in–perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age–and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling.”

    More interestingly, Stephen Schneider said in a 1978 television programme called ‘The Coming Ice Age’ that: “We can’t predict with any certainty what’s happening to our own climatic future. How can we come along and intervene then in that ignorance?”
    How come Stephen then went on to believe that we now CAN intervene, despite our ignorance?

    Another enlightening quote of Stephen’s comes from a 1989 issue of Discover Magazine. He said: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”. It seems Schneider was quite willing to make hyperbolic and not wholly truthful statements, doesn’t it?

    Comment by Charles — 26 Apr 2011 @ 6:40 PM

  271. From About”
    “The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”

    This topic – and dozens of others of late – are about nothing more than the political/social/economic implications. Real Climate even had a feed for commentary on congressional testimony. How much did the beer post contribute to a “scientific topic?”

    I’d think that Real Climate should either update its “About” section or go back to dealing with science.

    Comment by Jerry — 27 Apr 2011 @ 8:19 PM

  272. Ironically so may greens would have us do without cold beer along with other selfish pleasures.

    Comment by Mike C — 28 Apr 2011 @ 9:42 AM

  273. Re: “The himalayan glacier figure (2035) was a typo not an overestimate”

    Why is it that all of the typos AGW proponents make seem to favor the alarmist cause? Hmmm.

    Comment by William Jackson — 28 Apr 2011 @ 11:09 AM

  274. Please pull this post. The bodies are still being pulled from the debris! The timing could not be worse. It is no longer “coincidental….”.

    Comment by Big Dave — 28 Apr 2011 @ 3:57 PM

  275. Just read the post which says the Holocene was warmer and wetter than the LGM. I find that hard to believe concidering that in the LGM the West Antartic Ice sheet melted. That didn’t happen in the Holocene.

    Comment by D. Price — 30 Apr 2011 @ 5:17 PM

  276. Yes Jimin and companies like Enron made billions of the sulpher cap and trade program. It was so successful that they spent billions trying to institute a cap and trade for carbon dioxie in which they hoped to make ten times that amount. They advocate an agreement in Kyoto for this sole purpose. However, the US Congress would have none of this. Imagine the Congress standing up to big oil and rejecting cap and trade. Who would have thunk it?

    Comment by Dan H. — 30 Apr 2011 @ 10:45 PM

  277. Another hard thing to understand is belief. Why did Newton believe that he had decoded the Revelation of St. John, and knew who the Antichrist was? Why did Einstein believe that God does not play at dice, when even he know that he did not know the mind of God?

    Why does any sensible person believe anything written or said by either Paul Ehrlich or John Holdren?

    There is a great deal of evidence concerning the spectrum of insolation, the spectrum of light re-radiated from earth, and the absorption and emission spectra of CO2, CH4, H2O; but the complete story of how that produces an increase in global ave temp from the next increases in CO2 has a lot of lacunae: starting with Kevin Trenberth’s observation that a lot of the energy in the gross flow is unaccounted for. It is not even known whether the net average albedo due to clouds will increase or decrease in the next decade or ten decades. Why then is there even a single scientist who has a “belief” in the truth of the theory?

    You should look into the part of the lizard’s brain that turns a vague percept into the belief that “That’s food”, when it’s a predatory snake instead.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 4 May 2011 @ 3:31 PM

  278. The blog says “science must become more ‘domesticated’ in order to make progress”

    Domestication (wikipedia defn) is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to human provision and control.

    Seriously? You really want science to become accustomed to human control? Shouldn’t it become more open?

    In what way is the internet “too vast and disorganized”? In fact, it is highly organized with hierarchy, layering, abstraction and modularity – from the protocol layer to the addressing it may be the most structured success humans have ever come up with.

    Comment by Teddy — 4 May 2011 @ 4:02 PM

  279. This book review is certainly entertaining – and a classic case of denial. Makes a good case study in itself.

    Comment by oakwood — 4 May 2011 @ 5:50 PM

  280. Zeke,
    I believe the real deniers will not be convinced regardless of the arguements presented. The skeptics are those who have not been convinced due to lack of compelling evidence. The skeptics are not skeptical because a reasonable arguement has not been presented to them, rather they are skeptical because they are not satisfied with the scientific evidence to date. This group will be convinced (one way or the other) when sufficient evidence is provided to satisfy them. This group includes many prominent scientists.

    Comment by Dan H. — 4 May 2011 @ 6:17 PM

  281. And is the belief of 97.5% of climate scientologists in CAGW based on the need for there to be a scare for research money to continue to flow to climate scientology research? Wake up and smell the coffee. Only the financialy dependent and eco warrior class really believe the chicken little story now.

    Comment by Ulick Stafford — 4 May 2011 @ 6:31 PM

  282. So if denial arises from the reptillian part of all human brains, what is the likelihood that proponents of cAGW are in denial of the possibility of groupthink and those that dismiss AGW outright are prisoners of groupthink in regards to their denial…

    Comment by Ian — 4 May 2011 @ 7:45 PM

  283. I haven’t read the book, but I do find the word “denier” to be rather tiresome and unproductive. It implies that the world can be divided into two groups: those who believe scientists and those who don’t. In fact, there are many shades of gray in the viewpoints I encounter. A person who raises questions whether computer models accurately describe the climate system (e.g. Freeman Dyson) is much different from someone who wants to dispute the physics of greenhouse gases. And while one may certainly be critical of Mr.Dyson’s position, I certainly don’t think that many people will be persuaded that Freeman Dyson relies too much on his reptilian brain.

    Comment by PaulD — 4 May 2011 @ 8:36 PM

  284. John,
    It is difficult to ignore the evidence that over the past 13 decades, ten decades have been warmer than the previous, while only three have been cooler. Add to that, the long term trend has been largely unchanged for 130 years, except for oscillating movement (The first three months of 2011 are 0.015C below the long term trend). I also find it extremely difficult to believe that this century will differ significantly from last, and that temperatures will continue their methodical rise.
    I know that Ray seems to disagree with this, but he may be one of those of whom Paul alluded to earlier.

    Comment by Dan H. — 5 May 2011 @ 11:22 AM

  285. The fact that denier is still used is proof that science has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming. Describing me that way simply tells me that no evidence exists. The argument is philosophical, not scientific.

    Attempts by government and university “scientists” to frighten me about saccharine, saturated animal fat, and carbon dioxide have failed.

    Comment by Walter — 5 May 2011 @ 1:02 PM

  286. This site used to have a good reputation for independent discussion of good climate science, but now we are advertising new books, one after the other……….please, no more !

    Comment by Bill — 5 May 2011 @ 1:43 PM

  287. #36 SecularAnimist

    you might check you theory about spending habits, by looking at the CA Prop. 23 spending. It would appear that AGW’s outspent “Big Oil” by over 3::1 ($31.5 vs. $9.9 mill).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_%282010%29

    Comment by J. Bob — 5 May 2011 @ 2:14 PM

  288. Yes indeed. There are lots of people who deny natural climate change.

    Comment by Steeptown — 5 May 2011 @ 2:37 PM

  289. Re: Climate model genealogy, Masson & Knutti

    Is there anything surprising about their conclusions?

    Is not model building an iterative process, one of constant
    refinement, and, perhaps expansion? Are they not built over
    a period of years starting with a core idea that emphasizes one or
    a few aspects of a problem while assigning lesser importance to other
    aspects? Is it any wonder that “models developed at the same
    institution show the most striking similarities”?

    If you’re trying to model surface temperature just how many
    “independent models” does the basic physics have room for?

    What is the purpose of a model inter-comparison study? Is it not
    to see whether various models of a particular problem converge to a
    similar result?

    ….questions from a non-modeler….

    Comment by BillS — 5 May 2011 @ 6:42 PM

  290. ROT might be applicable to scientific studies, but the climate debate is about competing assessments of the entire body of scientific literature. Different standards apply, primarily coherence and balance.

    Is there anything new in this book?

    Comment by David Wojick — 5 May 2011 @ 7:43 PM

  291. Thomas,
    As David mentioned, a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor and lead to higher precipitation events. Storm strength is determined by wind speed, which is largely influenced by pressure and temperature gradients. The recent tornadic outbreak in the US resulted from a large cold air mass lingering over the central plains. The collision between this air mass and the warm, moist gulf air triggered the large outbreak of intense storms. The SST was largely irrelevant in these scenarios, as the small change in ocean temperature pales in comparison to the large change in atmospheric temperature over the land in the central US. These patterns are more typical during strong La Ninas. Many comparisons are being made with this year’s tornado outbreak and that of another strong La Nina year, 1974.
    You may have noticed that these events occurred during springtime, which is typically when the greatest temperature gradients can occur.
    Lastly, predictions of a warming Arctic combined with relatively stable tropics should result in fewer intense storms of this nature. However, this is only speculation, and not backed up with long term scientific data (many potential trends are confounded by the better reporting of tornadoes and super cells in recent years which overwhelm other effects).

    Comment by Dan H. — 6 May 2011 @ 6:28 AM

  292. John Cook’s skepticalscience.com provides an interesting perspective on the complexity and breadth of the debate, one that is no doubt unintended.

    Last I looked he listed over 100 skeptical arguments. He frames them in an unsophisticated way, suggesting that skeptics are ignorant, but still they are there. Then he provides a sophisticated pro-AW rebuttal to each one, hoping no doubt to settle the issue. Looking closely one finds that most rebuttals actually contain several distinct arguments, let’s say 300 to 400 arguments in all.

    What scientifically informed skeptics know is that there are sophisticated rebuttals to each of these pro-AGW arguments, again probably several to each, making perhaps 1000 distinct scientific arguments. And this is just the tip of the argument iceberg.

    This is a good measure of how unsettled the science actually is. It is also a framework for a proper climate research program, if the USA ever decides to pursue one, instead of simply funding pro-AGW research.

    Comment by David Wojick — 6 May 2011 @ 6:52 AM

  293. 291.Thomas,
    As David mentioned, a warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapor and lead to higher precipitation events. Storm strength is determined by wind speed, which is largely influenced by pressure and temperature gradients. The recent tornadic outbreak in the US resulted from a large cold air mass lingering over the central plains. The collision between this air mass and the warm, moist gulf air triggered the large outbreak of intense storms. The SST was largely irrelevant in these scenarios, as the small change in ocean temperature pales in comparison to the large change in atmospheric temperature over the land in the central US. These patterns are more typical during strong La Ninas. Many comparisons are being made with this year’s tornado outbreak and that of another strong La Nina year, 1974.
    You may have noticed that these events occurred during springtime, which is typically when the greatest temperature gradients can occur.
    Lastly, predictions of a warming Arctic combined with relatively stable tropics should result in fewer intense storms of this nature. However, this is only speculation, and not backed up with long term scientific data (many potential trends are confounded by the better reporting of tornadoes and super cells in recent years which overwhelm other effects).

    Comment by Dan H. — 6 May 2011 @ 7:46 AM

  294. Just in terms of balance, there would seem to be a need for studies on those psychologists, sociologists, warmists etc. who base their analysis of denial on the assumption that CO2 theory is proven, and hence is undeniable.

    Comment by Shibui — 6 May 2011 @ 9:07 AM

  295. Oh I see – if I don’t believe the AGW hype I have a ‘lizard brainstem’? Nice. I guess if you can’t win the scientific argument you try other approaches.

    Comment by W Jackson — 6 May 2011 @ 5:35 PM

  296. “Denial is apparently caused by our lizard brainstem”. I wonder what part of the brain gullibility stems from.

    Comment by peter kirkos — 7 May 2011 @ 1:04 AM

  297. John Cook’s skepticalscience.com provides an interesting perspective on the complexity and breadth of the debate, one that is no doubt unintended.

    Last I looked he listed over 100 skeptical arguments. He frames them in an unsophisticated way, suggesting that skeptics are ignorant, but still the arguments are real. Then he provides a sophisticated pro-AW rebuttal to each one, hoping no doubt to settle the issue. Looking closely one finds that most rebuttals actually contain several distinct arguments, let’s say 300 to 400 arguments in all.

    What scientifically informed skeptics know is that there are sophisticated rebuttals to each of these pro-AGW arguments, again probably several to each, making perhaps 1000 distinct scientific arguments. And this is just the tip of the argument iceberg. The debate is very real.

    Comment by David Wojick — 7 May 2011 @ 6:19 AM

  298. David,
    I agree. Making the arguments look stupid is part of the approach he using in contering them. Any reasonable debate should be on solid scientific terms and regress into a shouting match or name-calling. No one likes to have their intelligence challenged or be lied to.
    The issues are real, and the concerns are valid. One should approach these concerns in a valid, scientific manner. Trying to change the psychology of people before the science of the topic is futile. Unless, the purpose is an Orwellian attempt to confound them.

    Comment by Dan H. — 7 May 2011 @ 8:24 AM

  299. Jim,
    I understand quite fine, thank you. Maybe you should look at the scientific data again to see how it compares with your predictions. People are not denying the science. They are looking at the science and asking themselves how do some people expect to move from where we are today to where they predict we will be in the future. Until they receive a satisfactory answer to that question, no amount of psychology will change their minds. Newspeak is only effective on the weak minded.

    Comment by Dan H. — 8 May 2011 @ 6:58 AM

  300. John,
    At least you may be beginning to understand why so many have not accepted the predictions for large temperature or sea level rises. There is a difference between the general understanding of the tangible as opposed to the abstract. While many can grasp that which is occurring today, they have difficulty grasping the possibility that tomorrow may changes drastically. The problem lies not with convincing people that tomorrow’s predictions will come true, but with explaining how we will move from today’s measurements to tomorrow’s calculations. There is a huge gap which has not been bridged.
    Martin,
    Most data suggests that temperatures were quite pleasant during the Roman Era, scientists even named it for such. By your claims, do you believe that temperatures will decrease then back to 1900 levels?

    Comment by Dan H. — 8 May 2011 @ 9:59 AM

  301. cccpo,
    I think it is to keep the rest of you in line. lol.

    Comment by Dan H. — 8 May 2011 @ 11:56 AM

  302. John and Jim,
    Why are always assuming that people misunderstand when they post an opinion which differs from your own? John, do you really beleive that AGW will lead to stronger and more frequent La Ninas, resulting in global cooling? I find that to be quite a stretch.
    Jim, I am not sure to what you are alluding, but you seem to be unsure about the temperature trends measured recently .
    Martin, you are just out in left field. Extrapolating back 2000 years based on 130 years of data is just as ridiculous as ectrapolating forward 100 years based on 20 (you may want to review the previous graph).

    Comment by Dan H. — 8 May 2011 @ 12:06 PM

  303. In days gone by we had “Natural Philosophers”. Scientist of all shapes and forms would collect the data and build the knowledge bases. The natural philosopher would do the understanding, perspective and communication.

    How about re-introducing this and then scientist could work unhindered on their research?

    Comment by Titus — 8 May 2011 @ 2:55 PM

  304. How about if scientist could work unhindered on their research and not have to deal with all this denier attention?

    In days gone by we had “Natural Philosophers”. Scientist of all shapes and forms would collect the data and build the knowledge bases. The natural philosopher would do the understanding, perspective and communication.

    How about re-introducing them.

    Comment by Titus — 8 May 2011 @ 4:01 PM

  305. The climate skeptics present data and papers that dispute the amount of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

    The mechanism most often presented is planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in manner to resist a change in planetary temperature. The scientific question is how much warming.

    Do you believe there is no possibility that they could be correct and the IPCC incorrect?

    Comment by William — 8 May 2011 @ 4:31 PM

  306. The climate skeptics present data and papers that dispute the amount of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
    The mechanism most often presented is planetary cloud cover increases or decreases in a manner to resist a change in planetary temperature. The scientific question is how much warming.
    Do you believe there is no possibility that they could be correct and the IPCC incorrect

    Comment by William — 8 May 2011 @ 8:26 PM

  307. 120 Brian Dodge,

    If you read carefully you should realize that I am criticizing the manner of presenting a case, where illogical statements serve to weaken the case. A first chicken little, a second chicken little, and a third chicken little might result in orders to shoot chickens. I am suggesting that a ‘chicken little event’ is an event with an accompanying ‘worst since 1930 etc. descriptor’.

    However, from your probability illustration, I do see your point, and were there to be many extreme events each year to work with, and twice as many extreme events in present years than in the past, that would carry weight.

    Perhaps there are some analyses of weather events that make the case as I would hope to see it made.

    Obviously you see obviousness in your observations. I am not there yet, though I do recognize a serious underlying problem due to excess of CO2. So much so that I am working to build motor vehicles that would dramatically change things; also I have been pursuing ways to capture CO2 from the air and ways to generate electric power without the excessive waste of heat that we now are doing.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 9 May 2011 @ 3:07 AM

  308. Martin Vermeer (#118)

    130 years of global temperature record is a very small in the earth’s history. In calculus, any small change can reasonable be approximated by a straight line.

    The main point is that IPCC projections of 0.2 deg C per decade warming is wrong as shown in the following graph.

    http://bit.ly/cIeBz0

    Comment by Girma — 9 May 2011 @ 9:31 AM

  309. Gneiss,
    I think you meant 1917. I calculated the statistics to be very poor for a correlation. I am curious as to your choice of a “modern period”, because by my calculations the highest rate of changes occurs starting at 1971. Using earlier or more recent years results in lower rates, with 1986-2011 being zero, and every years since showing an increase in the breakup day advance (breakup occurring later in the year). At this point, I would not say that the rate is fast enough to be worrisome (to answer Greg’s concerns), but it is still a very entertaining venture and worth watching scientifically.

    Comment by Dan H. — 9 May 2011 @ 9:50 AM

  310. It is getting increasingly funny to read the “news” on this site. Same old, same old. Regurgitations and backstabbings, no real substance though. Denialist ? Get real, there is no such thing as a climate denialist. I know that the climate is changing, so i recognise climate change. But as soon as I start to question the science behind it I am suddenly a denialist. This article and the book in particular just adds to the infantile behaviour you are so well known for. And you call your selves grown ups and “scientists” even. The last I doubt very much.

    Comment by AdderV — 9 May 2011 @ 11:49 AM

  311. How do I say this politely? Climate has had its 15 minutes of fame.

    Comment by RalphieGM — 10 May 2011 @ 8:07 AM

  312. Secular,
    You are arguing semantics here. The average Joe on the street does not care if you use the words scenarios, forecasts, projections, or predictions. They are basically the same logic; under scenario A, event B will occur. Are you denying that several “scenarios” have been presented by scientists which have not materialized in recent years?
    What worse case scenarios have been exceeded? Temperatures are rising slower than predicted, sea levels are rising less than predicted, sea ice is receding less than predicted. Oops, sorry, should say less than scenarioed.
    It is precisely statements of yours that are causing people to withdraw from the climate change movement. There are a number of us who see these changes occurring, but are yet willing to conclude that they will accelerate in the future. Somehow, we are lumped together with the “deniers.”

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 May 2011 @ 12:53 PM

  313. Kevin,
    To be fair, it may not necessarily the fault of the researchers involved, but of the reporting media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest scare impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    Do accounts of an ice-free Arctic by 2060 or 2040 make as much noise in the press?
    The hurricane issue most likely falls on Al Gore’s shoulders due to his movie. Some hurricane experts (i.e. Dr. Gray) have stated that no climate trend is observable.
    I disagree with your statement about conservatism. Many of their scenarios appear to be on the high side.

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 May 2011 @ 1:26 PM

  314. 312.Secular,
    You are arguing semantics here. The average Joe on the street does not care if you use the words scenarios, forecasts, projections, or predictions. They are basically the same logic; under scenario A, event B will occur. Are you denying that several “scenarios” have been presented by scientists which have not materialized in recent years?
    What worse case scenarios have been exceeded?

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 May 2011 @ 1:27 PM

  315. “As Arnold Schwarzenegger said about the diversity of views of climate scientists, if your child is ill and 98 out of 100 doctors call for life-saving surgery and 2 say it is not necessary, your decision is obvious.”

    If 98 out of 100 star sign readers tell me I should make x decision over y, I ignore it all and make a decision based on the best information available.

    Part of your analysis confines explanations to require being whole. To equate the cartoon illustrating of Dr Spencer with filling in gaps by magical thinking is pretty disingenuous. It isn’t a requirement to create a fully functioning and complete theory for it to still be useful e.g. Einsteins theory of relativity… and… climate modeling for instance. No explanation is better than a bad explanation because it suffices.

    As the authors of the IPCC reports know, explaining to a non-scientific audience requires making it digestible to politicians. I wouldn’t call them dishonest or question their integrity or scientific credibility because of graphs which can be skewed in a certain light to look dishonest. This is no different than writing books for public consumption. The statements are skewed in a certain light to look dishonest. I wouldn’t draw conclusions from these things.

    Comment by Drew — 10 May 2011 @ 1:32 PM

  316. Dan H. and OKSkeptic,

    In #55 the Animist told us that his electric lawn mower is powered by wind because he buys it from his utility. Let’s demonstrate to him that he is mistaken.

    He might be imagining that there is a dedicated windmill that stands ready to run when his grass is growing tall, and begins to spin as his lawn mower is turned on.

    Maybe he thinks the wind will just blow a little harder when his mower starts.

    Or maybe he thinks the electricity he uses in his lawnmower will be something that is diverted from otherwise worthy activities. This is closer to the truth, though still not quite right, though it illustrates the situation better. So let’s imagine electrons are diverted. Since the otherwise worthy activities will still want to continue, in spite of the Animist’s needs, there will have to be some way of keeping them happy. So some other source has to step up, just the same as it would have for the Animist if he did not hold the paper saying he bought wind. The net effect for the environment is zero. The net financial effect is that the Animist was separated from some of his money.

    Perhaps we will be less encumbered by ‘Animist the Thought Manager’ while he ponders over this.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 10 May 2011 @ 2:21 PM

  317. @150 Kevin,
    To be fair, it may not necessarily the fault of the researchers involved, but of the reporting media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest scare impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    Do accounts of an ice-free Arctic by 2060 or 2040 make as much noise in the press?
    The hurricane issue most likely falls on Al Gore’s shoulders due to his movie. Some hurricane experts (i.e. Dr. Gray) have stated that no climate trend is observable.

    @148 Secular,
    You are arguing semantics here. The average Joe on the street does not care if you use the words scenarios, forecasts, projections, or predictions. They are basically the same logic; under scenario A, event B will occur. Are you denying that several “scenarios” have been presented by scientists which have not materialized in recent years?
    What worse case scenarios have been exceeded?

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 May 2011 @ 3:30 PM

  318. You can compare me to a lizard but maybe even lizards can look at the RSS and UAH which both show no net global warming for over a decade. Unless a warming trend re-establishes itself in some major way in the near future, you and every other climate scientist being paid to study this stuff will have painted yourselves into a corner and forced to admit that there is a serious flaw in AGW theory. If it does not warm then there will be more and more people like me realizing either that “climate catastrophe” was either GROSSLY overstated, (to be kind), or, worse, it was a politically motivated and funded agenda of deception. With the potential for a popular backlash that that may ultimately evoke, I know that I certainly wouldn’t want to be the last AGW climate scientist standing to take all the blame.

    Comment by Mike M — 10 May 2011 @ 4:30 PM

  319. Republican factory owners killed your family and friends in the catastrophic blizzards, floods, tornadoes, massive wildfires and other climate change that has been wiping out the bible-belt. This is the Climate Change that their factories created. This is the Climate Change that the Republicans lie about not existing. This is the Climate Change that they program their constituents to deny exists. This is the Climate Change that killed people, destroyed homes, further destroyed the economy that the Republican factories emissions caused so they could make profits by killing those people. Republicans deny Climate Change at all costs in order to keep their factories from having to pay to stop it. The Climate Change that is destroying massive pats of our country can no longer be hidden or denied.

    Comment by Dave Parker — 10 May 2011 @ 7:40 PM

  320. @richard pauli

    Funding is beyond inadequately low for dementia research yet there are only so many people who can do the research and so much they can be paid thanks to bureaucracy picking winners and losers; Statistics in Australia when I was writing my last report on Alzheimer’s showed costs of dementia were 99.7% of the cost not including all the ‘free’ support of family and caregivers. Funding doesn’t grow on trees and there’s only so much you can squeeze into a field before other fields of inquiry suffer.

    Environmental alarmist trumpeting resounds over issues such as aging populations and there is in essence no research funding provided. It is provided, but it’s like a kick in the teeth compared to the funding received by environmentalism. It is up to researchers to provide evidence for the urgency of their case and CAGW has stripped research funding possibilities elsewhere. Climatology went from 0 to 60mph in record time. Don’t be upset about funding for Climatology; There are plenty of broke teachers, nurses and other researchers who do apparently unimportant work and can’t get paid more than enough for subsistence and an extra apple on their birthday. I won’t cry for environmentalists and climatology because they cornered the market on sensationalism in no small part thanks to the part media played.

    Comment by Drew — 10 May 2011 @ 11:03 PM

  321. @richard pauli

    I said 99.7% of the costs but left out what the cost was for, it is the caregiving and support costs. The other 0.3% is for research.

    Comment by Drew — 10 May 2011 @ 11:06 PM

  322. Ray,
    Why the attitude? Any scientists worth his weight should be able to answer questions regarding his work without resorting to verbal attacks. This is another of the reaason why so many people are being forced away from supporting AGW. This is not science, and you are doing a real disservice to your own cause.

    Comment by Dan H. — 11 May 2011 @ 6:33 AM

  323. @150 Kevin,
    To be fair, it may not necessarily the fault of the researchers involved, but of the reporting media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest scare impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    Do accounts of an ice-free Arctic by 2060 or 2040 make as much noise in the press?
    It is less a case of misrepresentation, than over-representing the fringe element.

    Comment by Dan H. — 11 May 2011 @ 6:35 AM

  324. Kevin,
    Part of the psychology may be attributed to the media. We all know that the more newsworthy items are those with the biggest emotional impact. That being the case, if 10 different researchers present 10 different dates for an ice-free Arctic, which do you suppose the media will run with? Exactly. The average Joe does not know about the other nine. The sea ice is a quote from Louis Fortier of Arcticnet as recently as Nov. 17, 2007.
    http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/news/y2007.php
    It is less a case of misrepresentation, than over-representing the fringe element.

    Comment by Dan H. — 11 May 2011 @ 10:21 AM

  325. The best way to convince people of your claims is to produce evidence which can’t be pulled apart. Insulting them with “denier” and “Big Oil” nonsense and engaging in high school debating society behaviour doesn’t work.

    Comment by Jonathan Bagley — 11 May 2011 @ 10:49 AM

  326. OKskeptic

    When you stumble into the cheering section for the Oakland Raiders, its best to shut up about how the 49ers are better.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 11 May 2011 @ 11:16 AM

  327. Who is denying the existence of the ever increasing papers cited in the NIPCC Report at http://www.nipccreport.org/

    Who is denying the existence of the InterAcademic Council Report on the IPCC showing conflict of interest, political interference, bias, poor treatment of uncertainty and a management team totally unable to conduct a “scientific assessment” http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

    Who is denying that the scientific method requires theories to make predictions into the future that are then independently tested against observations and experiments.

    Where is the list of successful predictions by the climate models?

    Comment by UL O'Malley — 11 May 2011 @ 4:51 PM

  328. Thank you flxible for the acknowledgement. At least someone has an open mind besides Rod B.

    Comment by Dan H. — 11 May 2011 @ 8:19 PM

  329. @ SecularAnimist # 36

    “People who are deliberately lying, for money — LOTS of money — and who don’t care about the consequences to others, are immune to reason.”

    Sounds pretty much like the climate science community to me.

    Comment by Timster — 12 May 2011 @ 7:44 AM

  330. Philip,
    While temperatures have increased recently in the Artic, there has been no long term change in the Antarctic. Consequently, while Arcvtic sea ice has declined and Greenland has experienced an increase in melt, Antarctica has witnessed no change. Even the GRACE measurement to which you attest only show a small melting in West Antarctica, which pales compared to teh growth in East Antarctica.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v469/n7331/full/nature09740.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/02/science.1200109
    http://www.climate4you.com/Polar%20temperatures.htm
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lxqre8hMG3M/SsVi1wt_-vI/AAAAAAAAAqI/WsuehEAgV74/s1600-h/weatherAntarcticIceTrend1.jpg

    Comment by Dan H. — 12 May 2011 @ 10:13 AM

  331. Philip,
    Here is possible answer to your question about clouds. We can see if it will be tested over the next few decades.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/09/decadal-variability-of-clouds/

    Comment by Dan H. — 12 May 2011 @ 10:43 AM

  332. Gavin,
    Thanks for confirming my belief that you are not interested in open dialogue, but merely trying to promote your own viewpoint on others. You passed the test, but failed the course. And to think, I was directed here because someone thought this a good source of open debate!

    Comment by Dan H. — 12 May 2011 @ 12:08 PM

  333. Sorry Phil,
    But you are wrong. I am operating based on the best scientific evidence available. However, when someone calls CO2 a pollutant just because we are changing the atmospheric concentration, and not realizing the benefits therein, I have to object. By that definition, everything becomes a pollutant, and the words becomes meaningless.
    I was following your reasoning quite well until you blew it with your last paragraph. Your brain apparently has reflexive pathways which allows you believe on faith every tidbit which confirms your preconceived notion of climate, and to reject that which does not. Some of us are not so reflexive, but which to examine the scientific evidence become drawing conclusions.
    Calling that which you find inconvenient, misinformation, is just a defense mechanism because you cannot handle the possibility that the evidence may represent the truth, relative or not!

    Comment by Dan H. — 13 May 2011 @ 4:48 PM

  334. I am a first time poster

    [And yet your IP # is identical to that of one "Dan H" whose comments have been relegated to the "Borehole" because of repeat trolling. -moderator]

    as this site was recently recommended as a good source of the latest climate information. I have only been here a few weeks, and followed the last three threads. However, what I have found is less science than I had hoped, and more insults, vulgarities, and censorship. Is this normal for this site, or did I just arrive at a bad time. Please advise as I am not ready to abandon this site just yet. Lastly, are the key words always so difficut?

    Comment by Jeff Jones — 14 May 2011 @ 4:23 PM

  335. “His pet dog, John, still tied to his kennel, was lying dead in a burrow it had dug” – whatever

    Slimeball. It was his responsibility to care for his pet, not to leave it to die of starvation, tied to a post.

    His choice was between an unnecessary evacuation and the slow and agonizing death of his pet.

    He chose to let his pet die.

    I curse him, and wish for his death to come soon and painfully.

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 14 May 2011 @ 10:23 PM

  336. I present The Thinking Man’s Quick Guide to Global Warming:
    Astronauts: http://oi52.tinypic.com/vwzel5.jpg
    Tides: http://oi56.tinypic.com/11jsp5i.jpg
    Thermometers: http://oi51.tinypic.com/34qjmgn.jpg
    Ice: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2upvlvm.jpg
    Earth: http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg
    Psychopaths: http://oi51.tinypic.com/2po8tas.jpg
    Thinker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n92YenWfz0Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player%20

    Comment by NikFromNYC — 15 May 2011 @ 12:40 AM

  337. “‘Climate Change Denial’ is a useful book and resource for THOSE WITH AN OPEN MIND – for instance JOURNALISTS” (emphasis mine …)

    Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

    Comment by AK — 15 May 2011 @ 2:53 AM

  338. John Mashey at 10:55 AM,

    Hey! Where are my comments?!

    Maybe if I do this:

    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear
    nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear nuclear

    Yes, that should do it.

    [congratulations. -moderator]

    Comment by Ron R. — 15 May 2011 @ 12:44 PM

  339. Denial !

    - more than just a river in Africa !

    I suppose those who are sceptics would consider warmists as being in denial of a non-AGW warming earth. But, from my own perspective I think we need to show some respect to others with a different opinion. Even if they are scientifically incrrect. Remember, to challenge is to improve !

    When Einstein was asked to prove his theory of relativity by the many sceptics of the time, he came up with a brilliant proof test. He asked the sceptics to wait for the next total eclipse and take photos of the stars adjacent to the eclipsed sun and then photgraph the same star group at night when the eclipse had passed. He proposed that light passing close by the sun would be delfected by the theorised warped space and the relative distance between the stars would change between the two images. Of course the rest is history.

    To prove or disprove AGW is much more complicated. To my knowledge there is no conclusive proof either way. Of course it’s not just enough to say CO2 causes warming in a test chamber. You need to look at cloud forcings, aerosols, ocean currents, solar forcings, and other feedbacks.

    Until such time comes as we have an Einstein type proof test we will only be an AGW theory and those sceptical views will persist.

    Comment by Jonas — 18 May 2011 @ 7:53 AM

  340. Ray,
    True, ID is not a scientific theory for the reason explained. However, ID (or genetic engineering as it is sometimes called) has been used to explain the deficiencies in evolution. Until scientific study can fill the voids, ID (or some other explanation) will remain.

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 May 2011 @ 11:01 AM

  341. Ray, evolution can not make verifiable predictions either. Now where are we?

    Comment by Rod B — 18 May 2011 @ 2:11 PM

  342. If this is supposed to be an argument for believing in AGW it can just as well be used in the othervway. I can propose that all that claim that GCR is not driving climate are deniers. Just as true as your claim.

    Comment by magnus — 18 May 2011 @ 4:31 PM

  343. It is easy to pronounce that the so-called deniers who are supposedly advocates of ‘denialism’ are guilty of serious lapse in
    the understanding of AGW-climate change, whereas in fact they refuse to believe the hypotheses and theories that have been published in the academic papers and hold an alternative viewpoint.

    You cannot hold that hypotheses are the equivalent of scientific fact. Incontrovertible evidence has to be presented as ‘proof’ of
    a theory or hypotheses to become scientific fact and therefore the truth about the subject. If you doubt this I suggest you check the definition of ‘proof’ in a good quality English dictionary.

    I sense a deep frustration among those who would wish AGW-climate change to be a scientific fact and not hypotheses.

    You cannot accuse ‘denialists’ to be such unless they refuse to believe in the truth. As I have said hypotheses are not truth but theories.

    I believe those who revert to hyperbole in the discussions and debate about the causes of climate fluctautions are deeply unhappy people and I feel rather sorry for them in consequence.

    Consider this: the Theory of Darwinism,(and also Mendel’s Theory for that matter)or the explanation for the evolution of the species,is accepted in America and in Britain but is not generally accepted in Europe. Why? because the Dutchman Hugo de Vries published his own version of Darwin’s selection mechanism in 1901-03 as ‘The Mutation Theory’ in which mutations break the standard pattern of Mendel’s Theory since mutations are random changes in contradiction to the hereditary characteristics according to the rules that Mendel discovered.

    My point is that to be a true scientist you must always keep an open mind to new ideas otherwise you end up with a dogma that may just turnaround a bite you hard when you least expect it to! So no more accusations about ‘deniers’ please.

    Comment by Paul Latham — 21 May 2011 @ 5:01 AM

  344. Who were the signers? Why not sign in the memorandum itself? End of the day it feels like Tiger Woods giving a tennis lesson. They’re the best at what they do but what they do is not climate…

    Comment by Eric — 21 May 2011 @ 11:02 AM

  345. @ccpo

    You sound like a fanatic. You are ascribing faults in those you disagree with while committing the same faults yourself. The truth is usually found somewhere in between arguments. With the current feedbacks we’re experiencing c02/temperature wise, observed not modelled, I’m confident we’ll have transitioned to ‘greener’ technologies by the time an alarmist scenario would have the chance to take root.

    Comment by Eric — 21 May 2011 @ 11:10 AM

  346. The concept of the Anthropocene is a parody of Vernadsky’s noösphere. Lyndon LaRouche is not a billionaire, as anyone who follows your links can quickly ascertain. Your systematic misrepresentation of LaRouche’s views is analogous to the way that AGW advocates manipulate data. And of course, the most obvious fraud perpetrated by the AGW gang is to demand that solar and galactic effects that are orders of magnitude larger than any human activity be simply excluded from analysis.

    Comment by Henry Macwhirr — 21 May 2011 @ 11:30 AM

  347. I think actions against global warming are the bigger damage to health. The end result of higher gas prices and carbon taxes is to have people living in more clustered areas to share heat. This means more in cities, more in apartments, and smaller apartments, as well as smaller cars. Suppose a child gets sick. They are more likely to spread this disease rather than stay at home far away from others. Similarly for any disease outbreaks.

    Comment by Kevin — 21 May 2011 @ 11:52 AM

  348. 17,18 Snapple

    From words you quoted, I think the Pope was talking about living in peace.

    Astronauts brought up how people fight for energy and marveled about solar panels in space, as if they had anything relevant to say.

    Somehow you brought this around to an assumption that the Pope was on the same side as Dr. Mann, whatever that might be.

    Maybe he is, though I would tend to believe he is more of a humanist than a climate absolutist or an environmental absolutist.

    We also might look further into what the Nobel 17 meant by fundamental transformation and innovation in all spheres. I take that to mean there is need to look further than the obvious and often flawed solutions that seem to be most popular here among the realclimate folk.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 21 May 2011 @ 3:41 PM

  349. And what would this “fundamental transformation ” be?

    Let me guess:
    -A global government to manage the world’s resources and hence by proxy, manage the economies of all nations of the world.
    -Redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries.
    -Transfer of technology from rich countries to poor countries.

    In short, the failed NIEO that fizzled out in the 80′s.

    Comment by kramer — 21 May 2011 @ 4:58 PM

  350. Holy cow, what a gang of senile communist nutcases and parasites. All the “dreams” written in the “memorandum” make Marx look like a realistic balanced moderate visionary in comparison.

    Decouple growth from consumption of resources? Sure. Global egalitarianism? Sure. Stop the primary process that has been happening to the climate for billions of years – climate change? Sure.

    I wonder how senile a former Nobel prize winner must become to come to Stockholm and sign a petition manifestly drafted by one of the green folks who are detonating insufficiently green-excited children at school.

    I am against euthanasia but in the case of the participants of the Stockholm monstrosity, I think that there should be an exception.

    Comment by Luboš Motl — 21 May 2011 @ 5:00 PM

  351. How many Nobel laureates are on record as doubting AGW?

    Comment by Shelama — 22 May 2011 @ 2:50 PM

  352. “You say these conversations have no legitimacy – because everything has been settled by science. That is your right. You want to take legal action against people who raise questions. That is a step too far. I will repeat, attitudes like that have done more to create climate skeptics than Lyndon Larouche ever did.”

    I couldn’t agree more with this statement. The rush to label any and all skeptics as either “liars for hire” or just plain ignorant dismisses the multitudes of honest, thinking people who simply want to put the “science” of AGW under the microscope before blindly accepting what appears (to many) to be very radical social and economic changes suggested as solutions.
    You just can’t refuse to engage here, it’s not going to win you any votes of confidence.
    H

    Comment by Hank — 22 May 2011 @ 8:22 PM

  353. 278, 279 moderators jim and mike and flxible,

    I have learned that an instrument discrepancy is now a ‘divergence phenomena’ and that it is well understood but needy of further research.

    I do not find a plot showing a graph of global temperature based on tree ring data.

    I understand that there is a difference between modern instrument results and tree ring data, and would be pleased to hear the reasons for this. But first, I would like to see the complete graph of tree ring data, however it looks. If it is as meaningless as the references say, then we could at least discard the ‘medieval warming period’ since that is based on the same tree ring ‘instrument’.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 23 May 2011 @ 10:25 PM

  354. This is the last warning call for all nations and fellow citizens.If not heeded atleast now, the doomsday is not far off. We ourselves invite it by our own irresponsible actions against ‘mother earth’.
    May be human Race has become arrogant by conquering other planets where it can safely land after the doomsday!!!!!

    drggandhi

    Comment by dr.gandhi — 24 May 2011 @ 2:57 AM

  355. I see this being a very “Political” issue for sure! We know are going to take order from the United Nations-Agenda 21 and become a much poorer nation due to this Type of supposide Science. Sure, things might be changing but look at history. Let’s also consider China and India. They will never change and are enjoying the fruits of what we are stripping away-Capitalism… Our energy policy from the Obama administration is now going to punish us into $50 poisonous lightbulbs while our cheap 100 watt will be absolete in a few months! Our ability to prosper and drill our own energy source has been taken away while Brazil (as Obama said) is now our Distributor. This is OUR oil, not theirs! We have other countries who worship animals and think they have the right to sue. This is the ideology we are prescribing to. And Why? So the elites-George Soros(just sold his Brazillian oil stock), Al Gore, etc get richer, while we get much poorer. We knew Obama had a chip due to his “Anti-Colonist” attitude which he has mentioned many times. We now have Presidents of the World INSTEAD of Presidents who are loyal to the Constitution (The American People). I am soo sad for our country! This must STOP in order for us to be great again.

    Comment by May — 24 May 2011 @ 7:57 AM

  356. It appears to me that the Global Scientific community and the U.S. Scientific community are not yet sufficiently alarmed over the prospects of severe and rapid Climate Change to take the actions needed to support and promote the leadership needed to combat the Climate Change problem.

    It is evident from this forum however that significant progress in politically sensitizing scientists. The discussion threads of the last year would not have been tolerated 4 years ago, and would have been censored out of existence.

    Once there is sufficient policy support from the scientific community, the political leadership will have a sufficiently strong base of support to simply step over the Republican denialists in the U.S. congress, and take unilateral actions as defended by the science, and scientists.

    At the moment policy actions can still be effectively criticized by paid shills of the Carbon industry and ideological shills of the Objectivist/Libertarian movements.

    The sooner science lends it’s overwhelming support for science based economic and social policy, the sooner science based economic and science policy can be driven into place.

    A good test of how soon rational policies will be put into place will come in 2012, with the U.S. presidential election.

    Obama will most probably lose the election and the next 4 to 8 years will be a Conservative sponsored disaster for the U.S. and the world.

    I anticipate that should America actually exist in 10 years time, that American scientists will actually be politically active and supportive of science based public policies.

    On the other hand, if the U.S. scientific community were to provide support early and overwhelmingly, those 10 years of Republican criminal misrule might be avoided.

    How many months do you have left to organize? 29?

    Good luck with that.

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 25 May 2011 @ 12:53 AM

  357. I don’t think that it is wrong to question the theory of evolution by natural selection but that does not mean that I have to believe in intelligent design.Whatever Roy Spencer believes about evolution(I don’t know)it has nothing to do with his book.This just shows the quality of science today.

    Comment by don penman — 25 May 2011 @ 9:35 AM

  358. MartinJB, clever, but a ridiculous and stupid characterization of Spencer’s belief.

    Comment by Rod B — 25 May 2011 @ 3:54 PM

  359. “There has been a number of studies on the relationship between solar activity and earth’s climate, suggesting there is a solar signal. But the solar influence seems to be weak”

    Not so fast…

    What about the Maunder Minimum (LIA), the Dalton Minimum and the early 1900′s cool period. Perhaps cool periods in history coinciding with low sunspot counts have another explanation but the measured relationship is far from weak.

    Dr Roy Spencer has a piece on his blog on this where he measures a TSI amplification factor of 3.5. It’s worth a read

    Comment by Jonas — 27 May 2011 @ 8:10 AM

  360. 15 Sphaerica (Bob)

    Maybe you won’t believe me but GRL no longer publishes peer-reviewed comments on their papers. Apparently that is new editorial policy, which I find a bit worrisome. It is just not in the spirit of science to silence peers who have constructive criticism.

    Comment by PKM — 27 May 2011 @ 3:01 PM

  361. I’m happy to se that this is about a laboratory experiment. Such experiments outperform simulations quite consistently.

    Comment by Thor — 28 May 2011 @ 4:06 AM

  362. Paid popup ad just seen on physorg.com

    “End of the Delusion – Climategate exposed the fraud But climate hucksters carry on – http://www.heartland.org

    Have a nice day.

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 29 May 2011 @ 12:06 AM

  363. Hi you guys!

    Another party crasher.

    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf

    Comment by Slabadang — 30 May 2011 @ 1:16 PM

  364. Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT humans have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet.

    How disheartening for all those green activists and climate change minsters to realize that all of the carbon emission savings accomplished at great expense and inconvenience have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

    That volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort made by the world’s governments through the Kyoto Treaty. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out CO2 and ash at any one time – EVERY DAY.

    When the volcano, Mt Pinatubo, erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

    Comment by Derek Tipp — 3 Jun 2011 @ 5:44 PM

  365. Here’s an interesting fact. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT humans have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet.

    How disheartening for all those green activists and climate change minsters to realize that all of the carbon emission savings accomplished at great expense and inconvenience over the past 5 years have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

    That volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort made by the world’s governments through the Kyoto Treaty. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out CO2 and ash at any one time – EVERY DAY.

    When the volcano, Mt Pinatubo, erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

    Of course the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

    The bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

    Comment by Derek Tipp — 4 Jun 2011 @ 5:07 AM

  366. What about the folk whose comments go straight into you
    trash bin, unread? Lady in Red

    Comment by Lady in Red — 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:24 PM

  367. ‘Alex Costa’
    Are you including the Roman and Medieval (aka Mediaeval) Warmings when you say the 14th warmest?

    Comment by Clive Williams — 4 Jun 2011 @ 3:53 PM

  368. Kees van der Leun (#100), May is the peak month for CO2 at Mauna Loa so every May over the last 50 years has probably been the record-holder for a year.

    Comment by Paul S — 6 Jun 2011 @ 5:28 PM

  369. Edward Greisch @13

    Fukushima has not yet gone beyond natural background radiation except temporarily very close to the reactor. Chernobyl spilled as much radiation as a coal fired power plant does in 7 years and 5 months.
    I would not evacuate the Fukushima area if I lived there.

    Yeah, I hear there’s some real bargains in real estate in that area of the world right now, maybe you should buy some land and move over there and sit on it for a few years…you’re sure to make a killing (no pun intended) when you finally decide to sell!

    Chernobyl spilled as much radiation as a coal fired power plant does in 7 years and 5 months.

    Well, there’s a reason to ban coal plants if ever there was one, eh?

    Maybe you need to watch this to get a better understanding of how the world actually works

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5jnJdnQPr8

    Comment by Fred Magyar — 7 Jun 2011 @ 5:32 PM

  370. Steve Brown #201
    “Global warming since 1995 “now significant” – Phil Jones”. (But some say he may have made a mistake in his analysis).

    Comment by simon abingdon — 11 Jun 2011 @ 11:59 AM

  371. #322

    It might be nice to go over this once again; however, I think this issue has been gone over before.

    I think the view of RC is that the predicted solar changes will make almost no difference in the climate of coming decades because it will make almost no difference in solar irradiance and there is no other credible link between the sun and climate other than the solar irradiance one. The other main link often hypothesized and much discussed here is the GCR link and that is rejected here at RC.

    Where I have a hard time with this is in accounting for the MWP and the LIA where Be10, as a proxy for solar activity, clearly shows high and low solar activity respectively during those time periods and green house gases concentration changes are not associated and mostly unchanged. To me this has always suggested some other mechanism for solar influence and a possible understating of the sun’s role in recent warming, since the same Be10 proxy has shown high activity for the last hundred or so years. I am not arguing solar changes accounting for all of recent warming but only that the role might be understated; however, I still find no credible mechanism since I am not convinced by the GCR link yet either. On the other hand, I have yet to see any convincing explanation for MWP and LIA either except for solar changes. And if we want to chalk the MWP and LIA up to natural variation then the same could be said of recent warming.

    So I would like to see something that addresses the last thousand or so year of climate and not the usual last 50 or so when we have satellite measurements.

    Comment by Jim Cross — 16 Jun 2011 @ 9:34 AM

  372. Climate change ‘researchers’ caught padding sea level data…

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

    Comment by Vendicar Decarian — 17 Jun 2011 @ 9:54 PM

  373. Is the NAO to move further into negative territory during next decade?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOs.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 18 Jun 2011 @ 1:35 PM

  374. Any comments on the latest controversy regarding the IPCC special report on renewable energy?:

    Renewable outrage (The Economist)

    A Deeper Look at an Energy Analysis Raises Big Questions (New York times)

    New IPCC error: renewables report conclusion was dictated by Greenpeace (Mark Lynas)

    Questions the IPCC must now urgently answer (Mark Lynas)

    I think that the “80 percent of the world‘s energy supply could be met by renewables by mid-century if backed by the right enabling public policies” sound bite don’t reflect the “scientific consensus” on the subject.

    Comment by Jesús R. — 20 Jun 2011 @ 6:34 AM

  375. Is there a reference for this:

    “although other factors like a small drop in greenhouse gas concentrations around 1600 and strong volcanic eruptions during that time likely played a role as well.”

    When I go here:

    http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm

    I don’t see a lot of difference between LIA and other periods.

    Also there is this:

    From Free and Roback Global Warming in the Context of the Little Ice Age:

    “Solar responses look better than volcanic responses in correlations before 1800, but their amplitude is too small, and they do not fit nineteenth-century temperatures. The responses to volcanic forcings are big enough, but the fit is not very satisfactory, particularly before 1800. … our results indicate a greater role for volcanic aerosols in past decade-to-century climate than found in some previous work and a lesser, but still significant, role for solar forcing.”

    Also, how do account for the MWP? If that is accounted for by reduced volcanic activity, then why wouldn’t that account for some (not all) of recent warming?

    Comment by Jim Cross — 20 Jun 2011 @ 4:46 PM

  376. curious to know peoples views on the Teske / “conflict of interest” story

    Comment by MangoChuthey — 21 Jun 2011 @ 12:32 AM

  377. Ray : Gilles, thank you for proving my point. Yes, if you take any single datum, you might be able to explain it by natural variability. If you take all the data…not so much”

    To my knowledge, there isn’t any proxy reconstruction showing something unusual associated with anthropogenic influence. They all show a rise around the turn of the (XIXth) century, but at this time, we were not supposed to have changed a lot the nature. This is kind of surprising if the world is supposed to be significantly modified by the anthropogenic influence : why don’t we see it on natural indicators?

    Comment by Gilles — 27 Jun 2011 @ 12:01 AM

  378. I’m a layman, but how can you tell what sea level was a thousand years ago on a global basis? I understand a man on the moon because of gravitational laws and Einstein, but there is no such foundation for these findings. Seems like very educated guess work to me.

    Comment by Eric — 1 Jul 2011 @ 7:11 PM

  379. Prokaryotes @6 you say:

    “A scientist is a kind of Protective Angel for Humanity. Why? Simply because he lives and breathes for Truth”

    Serious two questions:

    Firstly, whose TRUTH do you believe out of?
    1/. Ptolomy (Almagest, Earth Centric Model)
    2/. Copernicus (Heliocentric Model)

    The answer for me is that neither are TRUTH. Ptolomey was good and useful for 1500yrs and Copernicus has been good for the last 400yrs. We are just waiting for the next theory to come along.

    [Response:Really now? The earth doesn't go around the sun eh--just all a matter of viewpoint and whatnot?--Jim
    ]

    Bottom line is how do you define TRUTH?

    [Response:No, it's not. The bottom line is how dedicated you are to it.--Jim]

    [edit]

    Comment by Titus — 3 Jul 2011 @ 12:02 PM

  380. I believe your estimates are biased toward your theory that carbon dioxide is causing heating on the earth. It is a travesty of science to make such claims. Global cooling from the changes on the sun have already begun and are driving the global temps away from the carbon dioxide trends. The real forecast should be more like 5 or 6 degrees c. cooler on the northern Continents and the cooling should last until 2060. You are leading us to believe that this will not happen. All the people on the earth that will find lots of cold and food deprivation should not have to be led stray like this. Already corn has been directed away from food for the needy and towards expensive alcohol for fuel. People are dying because of this and it is a direct result of the wrong footed climate folks who point to carbon dioxide as the heating cause when it is natural climate cycles.

    Comment by Bill Henthorn — 3 Jul 2011 @ 7:31 PM

  381. I am troubled by the following:
    1. Models failed to predict the slowdown in warming over the past decade. AFTER the fact, we hear explanations, but if we don’t have enough information to see decadal changes coming, how can we be certain the rapid rise from ~ 1980-2000 wasn’t at least 50% due to a combination of decadal factors (due to the uncertainty in our models, as demonstrated by failure to predict the slowdown)?

    [Response: This is not correct. What models predict is that for short time scales trends can be very varied because of natural variability and that variability is not very predictable (if at all). See this post for instance. After the fact you know what ENSO and NAO etc. did and so you might be able to tease out the forced signal as a residual (as Kaufmann et al attempt). But since ENSO is not predictable more than a few months ahead, you aren't going to be able to do better on timescales for which the phase of ENSO matters (i.e. less than a decade or two). - gavin]

    2. The predictions of warming over the century seem to rely on a significant multiplier (positive feedback) of the direct warming due to the added CO2. As far as I can determine, we don’t have enough information to derive the multiplier from physical principles, so we are inferring the multiplier from the observed data. It looks to me like the 1980-2000 rise is a significant factor in inferring the multiplier. Is my understanding correct?

    [Response: No. It would be good if that was the case, but there is significant uncertainty in the total forcings (mainly because of the aerosol effects) so the ratio of temperature rise to forcing is not very well constrained. The last ice age maximum is better (bigger signal, less relative uncertainty). - gavin]

    3. What about the claim that we are still coming out of an ice age, and that this explains some of the warming? This also could affect the multiplier to be applied to CO2 forcing.

    [Response: This isn't any kind of explanation. What are the physics? Natural variability is not something that can explain anything - it too has patterns and is subject to basic constraints. - gavin]

    To clarify what I am wrestling with, whether CO2 warms the planet isn’t the issue. The issue is whether we have enough information yet to say authoritatively that the next 40 years will be more like 1980-2000 than like 2000-2010, in the amount of increase. This is fundamental to determining appropriate public policy. I am well aware of the current scientific consensus. But I need pointers to some key pieces to this scientific puzzle. I’ve read widely on this topic, over several years. I’ve made my own graphs, such as 5-year averaging to show that the peak in 1998 is irrelevant to the discussion. So I don’t need general pointers. I just need some specific aspects pinned down.

    Comment by Steve Shaw — 5 Jul 2011 @ 5:14 PM

  382. I love how people talk about solar and wind as if, if only people would understand. The economy understands. Let that be enough.

    Comment by Eric — 5 Jul 2011 @ 8:32 PM

  383. I thought it was very inspirational to see Mr Soon post everything on line. A good example for the rest of us!

    Comment by Adrian Smits — 7 Jul 2011 @ 2:15 PM

  384. What do polar bears have to do with climate anyways? According to wiki they’ve been around for 150,000 years. Maybe we should ask them what the climate has been like…

    Comment by Eric — 9 Jul 2011 @ 3:01 AM

  385. Storch(Editor at the time of the Soon et al 2003 paper in question), said in his resignation letter, that “the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given.”
    Given that Briffa used a few trees from Russia as a proxy for global temperatures, that made up a huge portion of the ‘hockey stick’, isn’t that sort of like ‘calling the kettle black’?

    Comment by ClimateForAll — 10 Jul 2011 @ 6:48 PM

  386. If we’re going to mention funding sources as though they were some sort of ‘metric’ to score the plausibility/sincerity/honesty/etc. of scientific research I would like to know WHY is it that government funding is always assumed to be some kind of perfect angel?

    Comment by Mike M — 11 Jul 2011 @ 10:33 AM

  387. In the recent months natural causes are being considered as a very important component of the global climate change. All three major indices the PDO, AMO and SOI/ ENSO appear to have in common a decadal modulation process caused by the natural sources as displayed here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
    More info on my data will be available soon.

    Comment by vukcevic — 11 Jul 2011 @ 11:42 AM

  388. @64
    Sorry Ric,
    I am not really sure who you think spouted “decades of cooling” because I certainly did not and I don’t believe that will happen. I don’t understand why you think I might make a wager with you based on something I never said and do not believe will happen. I suppose “nasty” may indeed be the wrong adjective when describing your challenge to “put up or shut up”, perhaps hostile and unwarranted are a better fit. No matter.

    If you were interested in a preposterous wager like (+2) degrees warming in 30 years and I thought you were good for it I might be willing to take your money. Alas I do not believe you are good for it and it is unlikely I will be here in 30 years to collect. No joy in that.

    After getting nowhere here regarding the NH temps during the LIA I contacted Dr. Richard Alley directly and he confirmed his earlier findings -(1-2) degrees are likely with bitter winters especially in Europe. He attributed this to changes in solar activity, volcanic activity and ocean currents. The next 30 years should be an interesting test of our understanding of the solar/climate relationship if the sun does indeed go maunder.

    Comment by ivp0 — 11 Jul 2011 @ 2:46 PM

  389. I think its time for you guys to run

    Comment by Eliza Lynch — 11 Jul 2011 @ 4:17 PM

  390. Rate of rise of global sea levels, measured by satelite, have been going down for at least 4 years:

    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/05/rate-of-sea-level-rise-going-down.html

    Ecotretas

    Comment by Ecotretas — 12 Jul 2011 @ 7:26 AM

  391. Since Gavin is reviewing, let’s say “inaccurate” predictions from 2008, I am curious when he will write a post on this one.

    “…the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.“

    You are a scientist and not a politician, right?

    Comment by Jon P — 12 Jul 2011 @ 2:42 PM

  392. Cute polar bear. I don’t suppose you could refrain from resorting to such a blatant play on people’s emotions.

    Comment by Climate Nonconformist — 12 Jul 2011 @ 10:52 PM

  393. The scientific community and the meaning of Arrhenius-AGW-math
    ——————————————————————————————
    This was, and still is, the subject of guesting:

    — NATURAL temperature (atmospheric) variations are given by LOGARITHMIC functions (time-derivatives) — the Arrhenius expressions. These are often termed »radiative forcing» or the ”Arrhenius’s greenhouse law for CO2” in the established scientific community, see for example WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES, MATHEMATICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2008),
    http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/1s.pdf
    We all know that. Or should, in case missed.

    — ANTHROPOGENIC variations — AGW-mathematics, however — have no such, basic, connection; AGW is — only by quantitative provability and besides that, not at all — expressed, explained and described through POWER functions:
    — Why is that?
    — The reason a logarithmic function cannot express, describe or explain the anthropogenic (industrial fossil carbon) complex, is the central driving temperature-energy function responsible for the phenomena (the middle one in Sea, Industry, CO2). It is a power function. Not a natural logarithmic function. Namely an elementary transient (power, energy) function. No logarithmic (exponent, e-) function.

    This is also what was posted, and notified, in post no140:
    — The triple power AGW-math functions INCLUDE the Arrhenius (the ”as accepted by 97-98% of publishing climate scientists”, as noted in post no237) expressions as a
    VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION. That is what post no140 exposes to the eye.

    — But where is the notification of this, obviously illuminating, (»world scientific sensational») mathematical coherency in the present scientific community? I mean not the post no140 as such, of course not, but THE COHERENCE as such, the bare mathematical correspondence — obviously too the EXPLANATION: all of it.
    — I see none.

    Gwinnevere

    Comment by Gwinnevere — 13 Jul 2011 @ 1:06 PM

  394. Why did the rate slow down during the warmer temperatues in the 20′s and 30′s? It should have accelerated then.

    Comment by DP — 13 Jul 2011 @ 1:40 PM

  395. Martin Vermeer (32), Gee, you sound like a guy who published a paper that depended on the near perfect reliability and accuracy of some measurement. ;-)

    Comment by Rod B — 13 Jul 2011 @ 1:41 PM

  396. dhogaza “27.So apparently we have some folks suggesting that totally normal and known-about (on century scales) La Niñas refutes climate science, physics, etc?”

    I’m not sure what La Nina has to do with it, dogaza. It seems to me that El Nino would bring heat to the surface and allow it to escape into the atmosphere, causing thermal contraction of the water. This would be counteracted when the extra heat caused extra ice melt. La Nina would work in the opposite way. So I’m not sure that there is much relationship between ENSO and sea level rise. In any case, since we have begun to measure sea level with satellites we have had six El Ninos and five La Nina’s. As I already said, you can look at the second half of the satellite data and see that it has a rise rate of 2.1 mm/year. During that time there have been four El Ninos and 2 La Ninas. So I don’t think that the deceleration is ENSO related.

    Comment by Tilo Reber — 13 Jul 2011 @ 3:09 PM

  397. no269 Didactylos:
    — Thought so.
    I am still waiting for you to exemplify quantities by practical values.
    — As to the rest of you comment, I am not allowed to argue with you on such premises. But I would very much like to.

    Gwinnevere

    Comment by Gwinnevere — 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:17 PM

  398. no273 tamino:
    — Whether it is a nonsense phrase or not, tamino, your comment makes nothing to the matching quantities in the deduced functions Sea, Industry, CO2.
    — I see no mentioning of quantities in your post.
    — Does that mean you don’t want to accept these quantitative matches in the three functions Sea, Industry, CO2?
    — As to the rest of you comment, I am not allowed to argue with you on such premises. But I would very much like to.

    Gwinnevere

    Comment by Gwinnevere — 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:19 PM

  399. no276 Hank Roberts:
    — Elliptical functions — never introduced in modern academy. Atomic masses by the entire atom seen as a unit, not the »isolated» nucleus. These two describe two different ways, with no mutual correspondence. The precision in the resulting atomic masses talk for themselves in comparison to the measured and the established theoretical.
    To your information, unless already familiar. (Don’t read it, unless you are qualified).

    Gwinnevere

    Comment by Gwinnevere — 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:20 PM

  400. The scientific community and the meaning of Arrhenius-AGW-math
    ——————————————————————————————
    This was, and still is, the subject of guesting:

    — NATURAL temperature (atmospheric) variations are given by LOGARITHMIC functions (time-derivatives) — the Arrhenius expressions. These are often termed »radiative forcing» or the ”Arrhenius’s greenhouse law for CO2” in the established scientific community, see for example WEATHERQUAKES, EARTHQUAKES, MATHEMATICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE (2008),
    http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/1s.pdf
    We all know that. Or should, in case missed.

    — ANTHROPOGENIC variations — AGW-mathematics, however — have no such, basic, connection; AGW is — only by quantitative provability and besides that, not at all — expressed, explained and described through POWER functions:
    — Why is that?
    — The reason a logarithmic function cannot express, describe or explain the anthropogenic (industrial fossil carbon) complex, is the central driving temperature-energy function responsible for the phenomena (the middle one in Sea, Industry, CO2). It is a power function. Not a natural logarithmic function. Namely an elementary transient (power, energy) function. No logarithmic (exponent, e-) function.

    This is also what was posted, and notified, in post no140:
    — The triple power AGW-math functions INCLUDE the Arrhenius (the ”as accepted by 97-98% of publishing climate scientists”, as noted in post no237) expressions as a
    VERY CLOSE APPROXIMATION. That is what post no140 exposes to the eye.

    — But where is the notification of this, obviously illuminating, (»world scientific sensational») mathematical coherency in the present scientific community? I mean not the post no140 as such, of course not, but THE COHERENCE as such, the bare mathematical correspondence — obviously too the EXPLANATION: all of it.
    — I see none.

    Gwinnevere

    Comment by Gwinnevere — 13 Jul 2011 @ 7:32 PM

  401. Looking back at the records to 1860 or earlier is useful if you believe that “normal” temperature rises and consequent sea-level rises are still occurring: you will get the minimum, non-AGW trend. If you think that at some point the “normal” processes stopped and became AGW/A-CO2 now causes 75% or more of global temperature and sea-level rise, then the prior history is useful for showing when the break occurred and the deviation from (say, 25%) the normal processes still in-place.

    AGW has as its premise that the majority and an increasing proportion with time of both global temperature and sea-level rises are anthropogenically caused by A-CO2 emissions, specifically fossil fuel burning. Thus the last 16 year average of 3.1 mm/yr, (ignoring the more recent, 9-year average of <2.0 mm/yr rise)must have at least a 2.5 mm/yr anthropogenic component if AGW is happening. The question to be answered for the skeptics is "when" the current heating and sea-level rise stopped being natural.

    I had thought the initial IPCC/Hansen work suggested an anthropogenic signal would not be evident until the 1980s, which would make sense as it was about 1979 that GISTemp shows a marked shift in the rate of global temperature increase. If this is the case, then in the AGW science-as-understood there MUST be an acceleration of sea-level as well as temperatures in the pipe. The forecasts are fixed by established science and mathematics to have severe outcomes by 2050, not just 2100. If we are to see those forecasts occur in the next 39 years, the increases must begin right away. Every year they are held back – by whatever means, natural or Chinese coal pollution – there is a greater rebound building in.

    If, by 2015, the sea-level has not risen by 15.5mm, to 45.5mm in total, a serious re-working of mechanisms operating must take place. At the same time the GISTemp global temperatures must be in excess of 0.17C greater than today (to get another 2.2C by 2100). The rise to disaster cannot be postponed much as the science is pretty much determined; only details remain not understood.

    The next 4 years are critical for the progress of dangerous growth in temperatures and sea-levels. The calculated power of CO2 is greater now than it was in the post-WWII days when aerosols are calculated to have been able to reduce planetary temperatures. The industrial West is no longer the smogland it was; I understand you can see the volcanoes near Mexico City as well as the mountains outside L.A. these days, and the green fogs of London are gone. Nowhere have we seen evidence that China, India and Indonesia are generating the level of aerosols that the industrial West used to.

    By 2015 the difference between what the skeptics say is going on and the IPCC calculations will be too significant to be controversial. The Archibald/WUWT skeptics just yesterday proposed a Canada-US Border temperature decline of 1.2C in the next few years. So the skeptics say it is going to get cooler as AGW theory says, just as CO2 will go up by a certain amount (8 ppmv by 2015), the global and sea temperatures will rise. And cause the sea-level to continue to rise. The telling is almost upon us.

    The most difficult case will be if the trends of post-1979 continue. Then either the minimum case of AGW is happening – which means we cannot really stop the rise (low CO2 sensitivity means a massive reduction in CO2 emissions to be effective) or – horrors! – natural processes are stronger than understood. Which could mean that if now natural cooling is tempering the situation, in 2050 or so when the cycle turns and natural warming occurs again, the last half of the century will be a potboiler. And beyond the help of "preventative" measures.

    Comment by Doug Proctor — 13 Jul 2011 @ 8:07 PM

  402. @Gavin
    Fair point … maybe over the last 50 years, sea level has risen faster on average than the previous 50. If thats what you want to use an analysis period then fine. But if you take a longer period like 10,000 years, its obviously decelerated, and if you look satellite period of measurements (last 17 year) its clearly decelerating.

    As you say, it all depends when you pick your start date.

    [Response: If this was just about data analysis or sound-bites then this would be relevant, but rather it is about inferring what is going to happen in the medium/long term future. That requires an understanding of the what has happened and why and then judging whether those causes will continue/accelerate/change in the future. Short term features associated with ENSO are very relevant, and neither is the deglaciation since the Laurentide and Fenno-Scandanavian ice sheets are all gone - though the residual impacts of that (local and global isostatic adjustments) are important to factor in. The key causes for the residual changes currently are thermal expansion (which will continue and get slightly larger as global surface temperatures continue to increase), net ice melt (which is clearly accelerating), groundwater mining/irrigation/reservoir and river management which are difficult to quantify and hard to predict. Thus absent dramatic changes in water resource management the long term prognosis is clearly one of acceleration - albeit at an uncertain rate. - gavin]

    Comment by Immystillcan — 13 Jul 2011 @ 8:15 PM

  403. This war/climate connection is nonsense – orders of magnitude too small to have global impacts.

    Is this an assumption or is supported by research? References? One of the main effects of warfare is increased burning. Coincidentally there is a hypothesis that AGW and climate change is related to increased burning and the CO2 and aerosols that result.

    Comment by ferd berple — 13 Jul 2011 @ 11:09 PM

  404. If there was an instrumentation problem after 1945, then the climate models using data up to 1945 should have predicted unexpected warming/cooling after 1945 as compared to the instrument records.

    Why wasn’t any unexpected warming/cooling reported by the climate models after 1945? This should have alerted climate scientists to a likely data error.

    Comment by ferd berple — 15 Jul 2011 @ 2:48 PM

  405. Chris R
    That is case only for the incomplete work. Here are some more in brief details on hydro-magnetic loop you can see that correlation ends in 1980’s (tamino blocked 2 attempted answers again). http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/HmL.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 17 Jul 2011 @ 3:57 PM

  406. So why was the sea level rise accelerating so much from 1940 to 1970 when global temperatures were going down?

    Also, can you please post the full chart to 2010 so I can look at the trend better. It looks like it may be a sine wave.

    Thanks.

    Comment by TheGoodLocust — 17 Jul 2011 @ 4:50 PM

  407. Andy Revkin says: 20 Jul 2011 at 9:21 AM
    It’s important, while pondering a single year, to keep in mind long-term trends.

    Indeed it is, but then you discover an unexpected correlation:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
    Science far off unravelling the Arctic’s temperature secrets.

    Comment by vukcevic — 20 Jul 2011 @ 3:55 PM

  408. Looks to me like Houston and Deans’ reply to your terrible rebuttal has put the nail in the coffin of your hysteria. It’s great when fools like you guys get shot down in flames.

    Kruddler, PhD.

    Comment by Kruddler — 21 Jul 2011 @ 9:02 PM

  409. The Greenhouse Effect is proven to be WRONG
    FINALLY some reasonable progress on Climate Change.
    First we have the Wood/Nahle experiments that show that theClimate change Greenhouse Effect does NOT EXIST (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073&linkbox=true&position=3)

    Second we have the Doug Cotton thermodynamic explanation at http://earth-climate.com that preventing convection in the real greenhouse or Nahle’s box & the actual transmission of heat by convection in the atmosphere is the real reason that warming happens and the climate change greenhouse effect does NOT EXIST and

    Third we have the John Dodds alternate Wobble Theory of Climate Change” at www,scribd.com or at http://earth-climate.com which shows that the Arrhenius claim that more Greenhouse Gases means more warming (ie the Greenhouse Effect) does not work every night when Mother Natures nightly experiment shows that more GHGs actually result in cooling contrary to the Arrhenius /IPCC theory.
    This then leads to the” Gravity causes Global warming” summary (at http://www.scribd.com) conclusion of Wobble Theory that when you add more energy into the Earth because of planetary eccentricity and more energy from gravity from Jupiter etc you get the observed warming effect cycles of 60 years 1998, 1940, 1880 back to 1400 in GISP2 ice Core data and the 935 year warming/cooling cycles back to 3000BC in the Vostok ice core derived temperature data formerly attributed to the Greenhouse effect.

    CASE CLOSED. More energy causes more warming. DUH! doesn’t the sun do that every morning! The energy comes from changes in gravity, which comes from outside Earth and is beyond Man’s control. There is no AGW since Man does not control gravity. There is no justification for a carbon tax, or Cap & Trade or any action against carbon or CO2.

    Comment by John Dodds — 22 Jul 2011 @ 3:11 PM

  410. Question: how soon (pun intended) will there be an update to GISS Model E to calculate realistic climate projections accounting for the warming due to changes in the variable gravity from the planets that is responsible for climate changes? It should be relatively simple to get distance projections and hence the force and energy of gravity changes by planets from JPL’s Horizons, & insert these into GISS Model E to correct the model’s deficiencies by not accounting for gravity and hence energy changes over time. Maybe we can really get some correlation to actual sea ice measurements?

    FINALLY some reasonable progress on Climate Change.
    First we have the Wood/Nahle experiments that show that the Climate change Greenhouse Effect does NOT EXIST (http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8073&linkbox=true&position=3)

    Second we have the Doug Cotton thermodynamic explanation at http://earth-climate.com that preventing convection in the real greenhouse or Nahle’s box & the actual transmission of heat by convection in the atmosphere is the real reason that warming happens and the climate change greenhouse effect does NOT EXIST and

    Third we have the John Dodds alternate Wobble Theory of Climate Change” at www,scribd.com or at http://earth-climate.com which shows that the Arrhenius claim that more Greenhouse Gases means more warming (ie the Greenhouse Effect) does not work every night when Mother Natures nightly experiment shows that more GHGs actually result in cooling contrary to the Arrhenius /IPCC theory.
    This then leads to the” Gravity causes Global warming” summary (at http://www.scribd.com) conclusion of Wobble Theory that when you add more energy into the Earth because of planetary eccentricity and more energy from gravity from Jupiter etc you get the observed warming effect cycles of 60 years 1998, 1940, 1880 back to 1400 in GISP2 ice Core data and the 935 year warming/cooling cycles back to 3000BC in the Vostok ice core derived temperature data formerly attributed to the Greenhouse effect.

    CASE CLOSED. More energy causes more warming. DUH! doesn’t the sun do that every morning! The energy comes from changes in gravity, which comes from outside Earth and is beyond Man’s control. There is no AGW since Man does not control gravity. There is no justification for a carbon tax, or Cap & Trade or any action against carbon or CO2.

    Comment by John Dodds — 22 Jul 2011 @ 7:39 PM

  411. Peter Ellis @89. Thank you for that explanation. That makes sense

    Another question that pops into my head when I see these graphs is in a perfect world: ‘what should the ice extents be’.
    I know from recent history that the ice has been down as far as the Bay of Biscay and up far enough that folks made hay in Greenland.

    Comment by Titus — 23 Jul 2011 @ 2:59 PM

  412. Didactylos @126. You ask for evidence.

    Not sure what you’re asking for. The last ice age was about 18k years ago when pack ice was down to Bay of Biscay. You can get that info form a huge pile of historical data. I don’t see much problem with that.

    On the Greenland bit it was certainly more accommodating when they arrived and got steadily worse. We can see their infrastructure revealed as the current ice pack has receeded. So it must have been less than it is now.

    So not following your line of reasoning here.

    Comment by Titus — 23 Jul 2011 @ 9:52 PM

  413. Gavin, do some work your paid to do rather than wasting tax payer money.

    Comment by John — 23 Jul 2011 @ 10:21 PM

  414. Very interesting comments here.
    As we all know, climate science is evolving with greater instrumentation and a better understanding of the air and ocean currents, including satellite sensors, sounding of molecular activity in the troposphere and analysis of the atomic mater/plasma above and beyond. Interactions through the spheres (tropo, strato, meso, ionosphere, thermo and magneto)from molecular to atomic, including the magnetic influences are poorly understood. Our planets ever-changing magnetosphere (declination/inclination) along with its shape and strength are not fully understood, nor is the impetus’s for cloud formation.
    Any scietist that claims they have all the modelling inputs with the correct weighting applied is delusional or worse.
    Our planets plate boundaries are alive and well and although they are unpredictable, we know for example that a 105 day rift changes everything quickly. From solar influence weighting to % of white ground cover to when are clouds on the dayside VS lack of clouds on the nightside, we have miles to go before gaining a good understanding of cause and effect with climatology.
    What geological condition are we in right now? it’s called an interglacial period and it is the shorter portion of our planets two-part history, so I believe we should enjoy it while we can.
    Also, does anyone think mankind will delay or stop the next glaciation period?
    Take care & All The Best!

    Comment by Marty — 24 Jul 2011 @ 12:14 AM

  415. Addition to 161.

    You got me questioning my memory and I have just dug out my old encyclopedia (The Book of Knowledge by Waverley). It tells of the Russians, in the early part of 20th century, building towns along the northern sea board and ships sailing and establishing a sea trade. Flax and sugar beet were being grown in the Arctic circle. It then started to turn around in the 60′ and 70′s.

    So I’m not imagine it. I feel better now!!. Also the Baltic sea was another measure of increasing ice.

    Comment by Titus — 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:24 AM

  416. Addition to 161.

    Wanting to check out my memory and just dug out my old encyclopedia from the 50′s (Book of Knowledge by Waverley). It talks about the Russians setting up towns and establishing a sea trade on the north coast of Siberia in the early part of 20th century. They grew flax and sugar beet inside the Arctic Circle. That all started to turn around in the 50′s and 60′s when the ice came back. So I was not dreaming it!!

    Also I remember similar stories about the Baltic and the road that went across.

    Comment by Titus — 25 Jul 2011 @ 12:33 AM

  417. My previous comment appears to have been lost so I’ll try again. It was an addition to my comment at #161.

    To check my memory last night I consuluted one of my old encyclopedias (Book of Knowledge by Waverley 1950′s edition). It talked about Russia building out towns on the north caost of Siberia and setting up a sea trade along the route for the ice free months. It also talked of growing flax and sugar beet inside the Arctic Circle.

    Then I remember the ice came back in the 60′s and 70′s and put a stop to this expansion. Similar type stories for the Baltic Sea.

    Your data does not seem to identify this.

    So my memory was not to far out. Our current extents seem pretty similar to what they were back in the 1940′s and 50′s having receeded since about the 80′s. Looks more of a cyclical process to me.

    Comment by Titus — 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:30 AM

  418. My previous comment appears to have been lost so I’ll try again. It was an addition to my comment at #161.

    To check my memory last night I consuluted one of my old encyclopedias (Book of Knowledge by Waverley 1950’s edition). It talked about Russia building out towns on the north caost of Siberia and setting up a sea trade along the route for the ice free months. It also talked of growing flax and sugar beet inside the Arctic Circle.

    Then I remember the ice came back in the 60’s and 70’s and put a stop to this expansion. Similar type stories for the Baltic Sea.

    Your data does not seem to identify this.

    So my memory was not to far out. Our current extents seem pretty similar to what they were back in the 1940’s and 50’s having receeded since about the 80’s. Looks more of a cyclical process to me.

    Comment by Titus — 25 Jul 2011 @ 11:31 AM

  419. AR5 should be held off until at least March of 2013, as 2000-2010 being uneventfull as it was, will certainly look like day from night in this current decade.
    All the Best!

    Comment by Marty — 26 Jul 2011 @ 9:13 PM

  420. So Godot has finally shown up. And late it is: years after various governments created new policies and redirected a lot of money on the prediction that temperatures are busy rising alarmingly, explained by the assumption that this is due to excess anthropogenic CO2 output, this buildings foundations are being finished. Not very reassuring.

    Comment by AntonyIndia — 27 Jul 2011 @ 10:40 PM

  421. Well I am sure someone will process it, so let’s see what happens. Anyway the sceptics position (in the main) is not that warming has occurred, but if its down to mans activities or natural variation.

    Comment by jason — 28 Jul 2011 @ 2:41 PM

  422. Para 2: “Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.”

    Para 3: “One could and perhaps should treat the 100 years as 10 sets of 10 years and see whether the observations match any of the ten year periods, but instead what appears to have been done is to use only the one hundred year set by itself.”

    Para 4: “We have done exactly this and the result is in the Figure. What this figure shows is the results for the observations, as in Spencer and Braswell, but with the EBAF dataset in black.”

    The reasoning appears confused, given that you open stating an inability to utilize methods, you then proceed to do so, illustrated with your unlabelled ‘Figure’.

    Something about glass houses springs to mind.

    Comment by vongollum — 29 Jul 2011 @ 7:26 PM

  423. How many comments deleted so far?

    83% from what I can tell so far. But focus there might be a comanet from some old friend that pretends to belive in you still.

    Comment by Slabadang — 29 Jul 2011 @ 8:47 PM

  424. Hi Ken,

    In your professional opinion, is the Spencer paper a travesty?

    Comment by ZT — 30 Jul 2011 @ 1:44 AM

  425. Has Kevin Trenberth found the “missing heat” yet?

    Comment by John Finn — 30 Jul 2011 @ 4:45 AM

  426. I was under the impression (from a quick read of the paper) that the paper showed that IPCC models and real satelite observations don’t match because IPCC models are wrong. I very much doubt the satelite data is wrong.

    Comment by Alex — 30 Jul 2011 @ 12:35 PM

  427. Since 2005 global warming has stopped. So, there is time to wait till 2050. Than we can judge. Was it the sun or CO2?.

    Comment by Jaap de Vos — 30 Jul 2011 @ 1:41 PM

  428. Re Forcing vs Feedback
    Can you explain why 390ppm of CO2 can result in a forcing/warming, and yet 20,000 ppm of H20 already in the air does not? but yet when 390ppm of CO2 increased the temperature and we get even more (feedback)H2O airborne ALL of this is a feedback causing warming, totally ignoring that any of the original 20,000ppm of water vapor just might have interacted with a photon to cause some of the warming? Just how does a random photon differentiate between a CO2 caused water vapor molecule(feedback) and one that was there originally?
    Then after you explain that please explain why Arrhenius in his 1896 paper can conclude that more GHGs cause more warming when they absorb a photon, when every night shows that the temperature goes down in spite of Man adding more GHGs/CO2? Doesn’t the Arrhenius conclusion make more sense if you conclude that adding more energy photons in the greenhouse effect, not adding more GHGs, causes more warming? Sure seems that the sun/earth rotation adds more photons to get warmer every morning, and then when the rotation reduces the number of photons it gets colder every night in spite of the number of CO2s increasing?
    Doesn’t the amount of warming energy dictate the temperture? Or are we claimng that GHGs can create energy by themselves?

    Comment by John Dodds — 30 Jul 2011 @ 7:18 PM

  429. And to follow on with the forcing feedback question, if more GHGs causes more warming why doesn’t it get warmer when the the humidity increaes when it rains? Could it be that Arrhenius was wrong in his conclusion that more GHGs means more warming?

    Comment by John Dodds — 30 Jul 2011 @ 7:23 PM

  430. I think if Spencer has tweaked a model incorrectly then the real world data should be able to falsify his assumptions behind the tweak over time as the data points better match the untweaked models projections….. He will need to admit he is wrong if that happens.

    If future changes align better with Spencers model than other climate models then….? I dont think people should get too excited by models (either for or against) unless the models have proven to give a good decade by decade prediction over a timescale of 30 to 50 years. Until a model can do that I’m going to take every model prediction with a very large grain of salt.

    We will refine our models over time, some changes will improve the model and other changes wont.

    Comment by James of the West — 30 Jul 2011 @ 9:04 PM

  431. The ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is not a separate forcing, it acts as an amplifier of the radiative forcing effect of the Sun. Take that away that and you are not left with the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ forcing you are left with nothing.

    For calcuation, of the impact of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’, it is treated as a separate forcing and this seems a conveniant thing to do.

    However, the basic axium of AGW should, more properly, be stated not as “increasing ‘Greenhouse’ gases will cause the Earth to warm” but as “increasing the Radiative Forcing effect will cause the Earth to warm”.

    There is only one problem with stating the issue correctly and that it is demonstrably false!

    In the last 500 million years the Suns radiative forcing has increased by about 65 WM2 at the TOA. 500 million years ago the Earth was a familiar place the atmosphere was very similar to todays. Plants, animals and insects were well established we would feel comfortable if we were present then.

    However, what has been the Earths response to this very significant increase in radiative forcing? Why it has cooled of course from about 22c to todays 14c!

    Now I am sure people will come up with ‘ah buts’. However, that is not the issue, there surely are reasons why the Earth has cooled, in the face of this increase in radiative forcing.

    The truth is though, that the axium, that the Earth must warm in the face of an increase in radiative forcing, is falsified and that is a fact!

    Alan

    Comment by Alan Millar — 1 Aug 2011 @ 3:59 AM

  432. Arctic Sea Ice extent at the end of July, 2011 is ABOVE the June , 2007 extent .

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    That means that for 4 straight years the Arctic Ice extent is been larger. In fact as of the last week the melt rate has slowed dramatically to almost no melting.

    Funny how the media never reports increases in Arctic Sea Ice.

    Also funny how the Antarctic Sea Ice gets no attention as it’s extent has been trending upward since 1979:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

    Comment by orsonne brown — 1 Aug 2011 @ 9:37 AM

  433. “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).”

    There’s no merit to your terrible analysis, which relies, as usual, on your own horribly flawed models. Or maybe they aren’t horrible, maybe only that applies to the models you are still using today that totally failed to predict the stagnancy in warming from 1998 until now.

    Real Climate is as usual very eager to jump all over any skeptical work, but rigorous analysis of their own? Not so much. Another reason no one will ever, ever, implement their ideological preferences as policy.

    Comment by deepelemblues — 1 Aug 2011 @ 4:54 PM

  434. RW

    You are absolutely correct in the points you are making about the likelihood of positive feedback to an increase in Radiative Forcing.

    However, you will continue to be obfuscated and deflected on here, you will never get a direct, pointed and reasoned response because it goes to the heart of CAGW.

    Clearly the Earth’s climate feedbacks must be biased towards the negative over reasonably significant time periods or the Earth’s climate could not have maintained such a narrow range of temperature over millions of years.

    The basic axiom of AGW that the Earth must warm in the face of an increase in Radiative Forcing is false and demonstrably so.

    During the last 500 million years, with the Earth basically in its current atmospheric and biosphere configuration, the Suns Radiative Forcing has increased by about 5 times the estimated forcing for a doubling of CO2. However, the Earth has not warmed in the face of this, it has cooled significantly from about 22c to about 14c.

    It doesn’t really matter what the reasons are for this, it just shows that statements that the Earth will automatically warm in the face of rising Radiative Forcing is false.

    Mind you, I doubt that you will be able to respond to this, as it likely that my post will be censored. All in the cause of science though!

    Alan

    Comment by Alan Millar — 2 Aug 2011 @ 6:32 AM

  435. Ut oh, northern polar sea ice melts have slowed considerably. And the 2007 ice melts were 100,000 a day in early August. A new minimum record looks very unlikely.

    Comment by Dave — 3 Aug 2011 @ 10:52 AM

  436. Ray, Charles, Radge: Ray & Charles you are missing my point or I’ve failed to make it well. Personally I’m in general agreement with much of the “consensus model”, though I think the changes in temps and SL will not prove catastrophic or even hard to manage for that matter. I’m simply suggesting the RealClimate environment is not a pristine, unbiased community that treats incoming data and papers without any prejudice, and that’s too bad given the brilliance and qualifications of many posting here regularly. Radge challenges me very reasonably to provide a testable hypothesis of bias. One approach would be to review how research papers are treated here at RC by both post authors and by the commenters, perhaps with an eye to comments that do not address anything scientific and thus arguably reflect bias such as calling people “ignorant food tubes” and such. Another interesting approach would be to look at peer reviewed predictions to see how they line up compared to observations.

    Radge I have looked (though not extensively) for papers testing climate model predication bias and climate model accuracy. However I have not found very much research addressing the reasonable question of whether current climate models provide the high accuracy that a rational person should agree is needed to justify large scale social and economic adjustments.

    Few here would dispute that we find plenty of bias in the skeptic community where peer review quality is even more lacking than in the mainstream climate community. Yet most here seem to think it’s disingenuous to suggest bias may also be present here at RealClimate.

    Comment by Joe Hunkins — 3 Aug 2011 @ 9:08 PM

  437. You have one thing right. Clouds can’t be considered ‘forcing’. In a strict control theory sense, only power from the Sun can force the system. I don’t agree that this specific objection falsifies S & B, in fact, this specific objection is why the S & B hypothesis is correct, that is, there’s a misdiagnosis.

    What it boils down to is the definition of radiative forcing. From control theory, only the power entering the system is considered forcing, which differs from the IPCC definition. Changing CO2 levels. aerosols, cloud coverage, etc, change the system, affecting its response, but don’t change the stimulus forcing the system to respond.

    This gets more complicated because the characteristics of the system dictating it’s response are surface temperature dependent, while the physical system itself is not a hypothetical system controlling surface temperatures, but a real, physical system controlling the planets energy balance. Of course, to deny the attribute of forcing to the effects S & B says should have them, means that you can’t have it both ways and claim that the effects of incremental CO2 and aerosols are forcing.

    Comment by cosisnotevil — 4 Aug 2011 @ 12:08 AM

  438. While Gerlach’s paper is well argued and convincing, it is a minor detail over whether volcanoes emit more or less CO2 than humans.Discussion of Murry Salby’s recent talk and upcoming paper suggests the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 is in itself insignificant in comparison to the flux of CO2 from natural sources. If Salby’s paper stands, then it will make discussion of whether volcanoes emit more or less CO2 than humans to be an irrelevant detail akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    While you are gathering ad hom ammunition for your assault on Salby, spare some time to consider the paper about the past sea ice
    extent in the Arctic
    . If sea ice cover was 50% less 5,000 years ago and polar bears were very much alive and well, it is hard to see how claims of their extinction are credible from future ice loss.
    Good-bye to using the EPA and ESA lawsuits to control CO2 emissions from US power plants if past sea ice was 1,000 km north of its present position.

    Comment by nvw — 4 Aug 2011 @ 6:32 PM

  439. Chris Colose,

    “RW, among many of your confusions, 3.7 W/m2 is the reduction in OLR at tropopause, not the forcing at the surface. In fact the TOA forcing controls the surface temperature more than the surface forcing.”

    I asked this before, but no one answered. Explain to me how the 3.7 W/m^2 of ‘forcing’ turns into +6 W/m^2 at the surface for a 1.1 C rise in temperature. Where is the +6 W/m^2 flux into the surface coming from?

    Comment by RW — 4 Aug 2011 @ 8:19 PM

  440. The Effect of CO2 on Global Mean Temperature

    The IPCC compared the recent global warming rate with global warming rate for a longer period that has a combination this recent warming and previous global cooling phase and declared to the world “accelerated warming.”

    http://bit.ly/b9eKXz

    When the IPCC and the mainstream make such obviously false claim, they must be dismissed, ridiculed or otherwise attacked until they retract their false claim.

    The correct interpretation is that the global mean temperature (GMT), for the last 130 years, from 1880 to 2010, has oscillated like a pendulum between the upper and lower GMT boundary lines, with the global warming trend line as the neutral position of the pendulum, as shown in the following graph.

    http://bit.ly/nicmt9

    At the moment, the GMT is near its upper boundary line, and like a pendulum will swing to the lower GMT boundary line in the next decades.

    No explanation is required because that was what happened after 1880s and 1940s.

    To claim continued warming of 0.2 deg C per decade by the IPCC, when the GMT (the pendulum) is near its upper boundary line is to violate physics and nature.

    Comment by Girma — 5 Aug 2011 @ 9:10 AM

  441. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.

    Projection is such a funny thing. Perhaps this is the type of proper peer-review that you are talking about?

    Charles Monnett’s wife ‘peer-reviewed’ his polar bear paper!

    This must be what Phil Jones menat by changing the peer-review process.

    Comment by James — 5 Aug 2011 @ 11:03 AM

  442. Chris Colose says:

    “RW, among many of your confusions, 3.7 W/m2 is the reduction in OLR at tropopause, not the forcing at the surface. In fact the TOA forcing controls the surface temperature more than the surface forcing.”

    A 1.1 C rise in temperature requires the surface to emit about an additional 6 W/m^2. Can you explain to me where this +6 W/m^2 flux into the surface is coming from? If the 3.7 W/m^2 is not incident on the surface, as you seem to be claiming, then how much of it?

    Comment by RW — 5 Aug 2011 @ 4:49 PM

  443. It appears a sudden downturn has happened on the two charts referenced in the intro to this thread.
    It is much sharper than any other year in those graphs.
    Did some ice dam break opening a channel for ice to exit the arctic?

    Comment by Dan C — 5 Aug 2011 @ 11:15 PM

  444. ay, Charles, Radge: Ray & Charles you are missing my point or I’ve failed to make it well. Personally I’m in general agreement with much of the “consensus model”, though I think the changes in temps and SL will not prove catastrophic or even hard to manage for that matter. I’m simply suggesting the RealClimate environment is not a pristine, unbiased community that treats incoming data and papers without any prejudice, and that’s too bad given the brilliance and qualifications of many posting here regularly. Radge challenges me very reasonably to provide a testable hypothesis of bias. One approach would be to review how research papers are treated here at RC by both post authors and by the commenters, perhaps with an eye to comments that do not address anything scientific and thus arguably reflect bias such as calling people “ignorant food tubes” and such. Another interesting approach would be to look at peer reviewed predictions to see how they line up compared to observations.
    Radge I have looked (though not extensively) for papers testing climate model predication bias and climate model accuracy. However I have not found very much research addressing the reasonable question of whether current climate models provide the high accuracy that a rational person should agree is needed to justify large scale social and economic adjustments.

    Few here would dispute that we find plenty of bias in the skeptic community where peer review quality is even more lacking than in the mainstream climate community. Yet most here seem to think it’s disingenuous to suggest bias may also be present here at RealClimate.

    Comment by Joe Hunkins — 6 Aug 2011 @ 11:47 PM

  445. So, Professor Salby claims that temperatures drive atmospheric CO2, not the other way around. Finally, the mainstream is catching up.

    Comment by Edim — 7 Aug 2011 @ 5:03 AM

  446. Gavin,

    How does the system ‘gain’ of about 1.6 NOT include the combined dynamic effects of water vapor and clouds?

    What then is controlling the net surface flux of 390 W/m^2 if not primarily the combined effects of water vapor and clouds? Isn’t it obvious that the atmospheric water cycle (ground state water -> evaporation -> water vapor -> clouds -> precipitation -> ground state water) is the thermostat controlling the planet’s energy balance and ultimately the surface temperature? Is it just a coincidence that the water vapor condenses to form clouds and as the clouds form they reflect sunlight? Is it just a coincidence that water precipitated out of the atmosphere emanates from clouds?

    If water vapor is the primary amplifier of warming, what then the controller? If not clouds via there ability to reflect incoming solar energy and precipitate out the water from the atmosphere, then what?

    Comment by RW — 9 Aug 2011 @ 6:18 PM

  447. Gavin,

    Yes, the system is quite non linear, especially regarding the relationship between temperature and power. It’s odd that you would bring this up since the IPCC metric of sensitivity assumes that temperature and forcing power are linearly related. For what it’s worth, I can assure you that the more comprehensive analysis I do in my climate model fully accounts for the non linearities in the system.

    While the average gain is simply the emitted surface power divided by the received solar power, the first watt of solar power has a far larger influence on the surface temperature than the last watt. The reason is the T^4 relationship between emitted power and temperature which makes each additional degree of surface temperature harder to sustain than the last. Can you see the negative feedback as temperature rise and the positive feedback as they fall that results from this? Keep in mind that if surface temperatures increase by 3C, the emitted surface power must increase by 16 W/m^2 and that this 16 W/m^2 must be replaced or else the surface will cool as the planets thermal mass looses energy faster than it’s replenished.

    Your supposition seems to be that 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing eventually results in an extra 12.3 W/m^2 recirculated between the surface and atmosphere and that this is the source of your temperature boost. Of course, this is nonsense and completely unsupportable by the data. If this were the case, why doesn’t the post albedo 240 W/m^2 received by the Earth result in 800 W/m^2 of additional recirculated power resulting in an emitted surface power of 1037 W/m^2, or 94C?

    The only linear relationship between temperature and energy is that 1 calorie warms 1 cc of water by 1C. However, this is based on energy, not a power flux. As the water warms, it looses energy faster owing to the T^4 relationship, thus even more input flux is required to sustain the higher temperatures and greater output flux.

    Since the average gain is 1.6 and the gain drops as temperatures rise ( look at the data), the resulting non linearity doesn’t help your case, in fact it hurts it since the 1.6 becomes an upper bound on the incremental gain and doesn’t leave any wiggle room to achieve the gain of 4.3 required for the CAGW hypothesis. One of the reasons many estimates from paleo data overestimate the global sensitivity is because the sensitivity at the poles is much larger than that at the equator. In fact, the sensitivity in Greenland or Antarctica is close to the 4.3 claimed, but globally it’s far lower.

    I also agree that I define sensitivity/gain differently from the IPCC. In fact, the IPCC doesn’t even seem to acknowledge that sensitivity and dimensionless power gain quantify the same thing. In this case, the IPCC has the incorrect definition, at least relative to a metric with any correspondence to physical reality and I’ve explained in detail how this incorrect definition arose.

    George

    Comment by co2isnotevil — 9 Aug 2011 @ 7:51 PM

  448. Looking at the ‘bore hole’, it seems to contain mostly comments from skeptics, especially when they point out glaring inconsistencies with CAGW ‘science’ that can not otherwise be addressed without capitulating or looking foolish. I realize that asymmetric moderation policies are the norm for warmist blogs which is not suprising considering the asymmetric peer review applied to climate research publication, but that doesn’t make it right. One can not learn the truth when it’s being suppressed and RC has a long history of suppressing skeptics arguments and/or attempting to dispute them by violating posting rule 6. When the best argument against a skeptic is to insult them, it just reinforces the fact that the skeptics are right.

    If this continues, RC and it’s benifactors stature will suffer irreparable harm once the truth eventually replaces the CAGW fantasy. This reality is preordained as the truth can not be suppressed indefinitely and the truth is that the sensitivity to doubling CO2 has an upper bound of about 1.1C, which is far from being catastrophic. In light of the preponderance of data and physics that disputes CAGW, is RC willing to accept irrelevance in the very near future and damage the integrity of science, just to support a political opinion?

    BTW, according to posting rule 6,

    “No flames, profanity, ad hominem comments are allowed. This includes comments that (explicitly or implicitly) impugn the motives of others, or which otherwise try to personalize matters under discussion.”

    Are warmist posters subject to the same rule?

    Posts 248, 247, 246, 244 and almost every response to anything any skeptic has posted violates this policy, as do many of the moderators comments. My last post which was sent into oblivion was pure science and did not violate any rule, it just posed a question whose answer invalidates CAGW. As I’ve known all along, the hidden rule is that you are not allowed to challenge consensus science with real science.

    George the CAGW slayer

    Comment by co2isnotevil — 10 Aug 2011 @ 8:23 PM

  449. I extended my url to a website that encourages democratic action by journalists and it’s sustainable energy partners. Maybe you let me comment. Maybe not. Who knows anymore.
    I want to ask you a straight forward question.
    Its not a troll question.
    Its not a baited question.
    It not even a question that throws ‘climate change’ under a bus.
    Having said that, lets see how far this goes before ‘I’ end up in the bore hole.
    This thread you’ve written has all the makings of wild west dash to stake claim in new territory.
    Bright.
    Bustling.
    New frontiers.
    I like it.
    But before these innovators are let lose to discover new lands, they would first have to come from an established paradigm you would think.
    What I mean is, before we just clamour to make noise about new innovations, shouldn’t the predecessors have first found themselves firmly established in its surroundings?
    What I am getting at is this.
    I’m referencing the models you suggest as, “Regardless of terminology, the 20th Century historical simulations in CMIP5 will use a much more diverse set of model types than did the similar simulations in CMIP3″.
    Of which, these models were the staple of the AR4 and countless other notable work.
    But having said that, have these models proved anything?

    To the best of my knowledge(correct me if I am wrong), but no Earth System Model has correctly predicted or supported any evidentiary findings since their inception.
    We have three to four years of odd and peculiar weather behavior around the world, yet these models never saw them coming.

    Yet, we can cite hundreds of climatologists, meteorologists, hydrologists, etc. that all suggest these anomalies are a product of climate change.

    Mind you, I know you can’t speak for the total population of like minded individuals, but I know you can speak on behalf of the models that were instrumental in creating the hypothesis of AGW as we know it.

    The point I am trying to make, is that how can you promote a new series of climate models, before we can actually grade the effectiveness of their predecessors, namely, the models used in the AR for policy and preparedness to world leaders.

    Should’t we grade how accurate these models where, rather than how effective they were implementing these policies?

    Because main stream media doesn’t seem to have a clue when it comes to suggesting if current weather events are a product of climate change or just a weather event.

    What we do know is that since 2007, the global weather around us, in different localities, other nations, our seas and oceans are not performing as predicted by these previous Earth System Models.

    So please, help me understand how you can promote these new models without first grading the validity of their predecessors.

    If I missed something, I really want to know what you know.

    That way I can explain it to the hundred or so other scientists and professionals that don’t seem to know what you know.

    Comment by ClimateForAll — 15 Aug 2011 @ 12:33 AM

  450. So, it seems you blocked my responses to questions raised about my earlier post. For some reason, it didn’t even end up in the borehole. You must stop censoring science. It’s a sad state of affairs when your primary methods to support the seriously flawed CAGW hypothesis is by insulting those who would dispute it, hiding the science that disputes it, preventing a rational discourse and pushing ever more ludicrous explanations for why the science is wrong and you are right. Even if the science didn’t support the fact that CAGW from CO2 is an impossibility, the censoring actions employed by this site are enough to convince me that you’re exceptionally insecure in your own beliefs.
    George

    Comment by co2isnotevil — 17 Aug 2011 @ 1:50 PM

  451. I think you guys are finally coming around to a practical use for climate models. The 10 year climate model seems to be a reasonable extension of our current limit of a 10 day weather forecast. Trying to predict and warn of something 100 years down the road is not very useful.

    Furthermore, we do not have the right nor the responsibility to legally bind our grandchildren. That’s what we did with the ponzi schemes of Social Security and Medicare, and look where that has taken us. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay for those mistakes. Simple insurance policies would have done a better job.

    Comment by David Wright — 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:09 PM

  452. Can you really say with a straight face that clouds are not a forcing of the climate system? No wonder your models are so inaccurate

    Comment by A. Opinion — 19 Aug 2011 @ 4:38 PM

  453. Carlin said it best, “Ask those folks in Pompeii frozen in all those positions if they think they are a threat to the earth.” Human influence on enviornmental effect is a discussion mainly of HUGE ego, political bunk and a forum for those w…hom have no purpose but to create discord….. and money. This planet has existed for BILLIONS of years before us and will exist BILLIONS of years after we are long forgotten as a presence. This planet will warm and cool, freeze and burn to a cinder in it’s own CYCLES. To even think that we have contributed the slightest of irreversable effects is just plain delusional.

    Comment by B. Ross — 21 Aug 2011 @ 10:16 AM

  454. Interpretation of the Global Mean Temperature Data as a Pendulum

    http://bit.ly/o7w5fq

    Comment by Girma — 23 Aug 2011 @ 8:50 PM

  455. The implication of this line of investigation is that paleoclimate may no longer be solely attributable to CO2 levels. And hence sensitivity based on paleoclimate is no longer a justifiable result.

    Comment by TimTheToolMan — 25 Aug 2011 @ 6:04 AM

  456. UH OH Bongo!!! Yte another stitch of clothing falls from the emperor.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Arctic Kitty — 25 Aug 2011 @ 3:32 PM

  457. Here is something for you to disown:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/25/hurricane-irene-can-be-tied-to-global-warming-says-bill-mckibben.html

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 26 Aug 2011 @ 12:14 PM

  458. “What people have objected to in Svensmark’s work is … the ridiculous overselling of their results, the inappropriate manipulation of data, and the lack of predictability of any of their proposed correlations when new data arrives. ”

    - Gavin

    Agreed. You list the same objection that some of the more sane people on the skeptical side of the argument have with AGW theory, which is why I was just pointing out that the science is not settled, overwrought hyperbole or not.

    Comment by Charlie Z — 26 Aug 2011 @ 12:50 PM

  459. Wow! Seems like almost everyone could care less about the impact of cloud formation on Albedo.

    Q? What mechanism caused the glaciers to recede?

    Q? How large a Volcano, or how many smaller ones would it take, to render inquiry into the recent ‘warming’ (I prefer to call it “variation”) Moot?

    Just wondering.

    An interested carbon-based non-scientist life-form.

    Comment by Peter — 30 Aug 2011 @ 7:14 PM

  460. Sorry Gavin, but I’m with Roger (#13) here. Human CO2 effects are just noise. You need to see the big picture.

    Comment by KeithWoollard — 31 Aug 2011 @ 7:34 PM

  461. Dhogaza #27 & Robert #26

    I accept the global mean temperature (GMT) data from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

    What the GMT data tells us is that every 30-years the GMT has a cyclic cooling and warming of 0.5 deg C with a steady warming of 0.18 deg C as shown in the following graph.
    http://bit.ly/ps8Vw1

    The above GMT data also shows that it has an upper boundary line that has never been exceeded for long in the last 130 years.

    The above GMT data also shows the long-term global warming rate is only 0.06 deg C per decade.

    The above GMT data pattern indicates global cooling in the next two decades, which contradicts IPCC’s 0.2 deg C per decades warming projection as shown in the following graph.
    http://bit.ly/n1S1Jf

    Comment by Girma — 1 Sep 2011 @ 6:49 PM

  462. The graph in this article shows the Ice volume for the 30-years period from 1980 to 2010.

    Could you please also plot the same graph for the previous 30-years warming period from 1910 to 19040 so that we can compare oranges to oranges?

    Comment by Girma — 1 Sep 2011 @ 10:30 PM

  463. I commented a few months ago on a similar thread. I have an old 1950′s encylopedia which talks about the Russians developing shipping trade along it’s northern coast from about 1920 till the the 1950′s (publication date). It appears that this has only recently got going again.

    I remember very limited reports that Artic ice increased dramatically in the mid 1950′s and is now declining again.

    These are real world observations and I’m wondering how they fit in. The whole process appears to be much more cyclic in nature.

    Comment by Titus — 1 Sep 2011 @ 11:17 PM

  464. What a bunch of uneducated alarmists , the biggest reason that Arctic ice has been declining is the increase of traffic there . Not just tourists on a Russian icebreaker . Include scientists from NCIDC , headed by M Serreze , how many times they have been there to observe the “rotting ice ” for their vacation ?

    Comment by Vlasta — 2 Sep 2011 @ 9:47 AM

  465. We need to counter AGW by becoming vegetarian and using the surviving pigs to airlift a giant leftover meat pie in the sky to shade the earth from the sun.

    Comment by grunt — 2 Sep 2011 @ 6:48 PM

  466. The volume graph seams to show that the current melting season is over, and the graph is going up now. Is this an indication that it is not likely that the area graph will hit a new minimum this year?

    Comment by Petter Hedberg — 4 Sep 2011 @ 9:09 AM

  467. Russell (#19)

    Thanks for the Sturgeon-Minsky wisdom.

    So how do we measure strength of the wrasslers?

    I check that these wrasslers make not a peep when the Law of the Land can be a direct contradiction of a fundamental Law of Physics.

    In particular, our EPA has ruled that 33.7 kWhr of elecgricity is equivalent to a gallon of gasoline, thereby making electric cars look very good indeed. The fact that by decreeing that 33.7 kWhr of heat can be transformed into 33.7 kWhr of electricity they repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The failure of scientists to react to this attests to the existence of a safe ivory tower where real physics can be ignored. This does not auger well for the quality of our scientists. And even worse is the showing of our engineers.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 6 Sep 2011 @ 2:07 PM

  468. You AGW guys are beginning to look a little desperate these days. The contortions of logic must be painful. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your review of Spencer’s paper? The entire foundation of AGW theory rests on correlation equaling causation. There’s only so much longer you can continue acting like nothing has changed. Like the geocentrists of old, your faith-based approach to science is destined for failure.

    Comment by Hans — 6 Sep 2011 @ 2:19 PM

  469. “dhogaza”: not a helpful reply. Are you a climate scientist? Or a dogmatist? Is ‘questioning’ the same as’denial’ in your vocabulary? Or do you consider that ‘we know all there is to know ‘ about physics, climate and the biosphere? I seem to recall that phrase was used around 1899. I have no time for your agendas and no wish to hear your views.

    Hank Roberts: noted thanks.

    Comment by Richard Bird — 7 Sep 2011 @ 3:23 AM

  470. I think the resignation was the only thing that was political. Since when do web blogs trump peer review? Climate science is a joke. And Dessler 2011 is more evidence of the farce.

    Comment by A. Opinion — 7 Sep 2011 @ 3:58 PM

  471. RE: “The primary question of course is why an editor would resign over a published paper.”

    From a Canadian perspective and can think of only 2 reasons a team would their goalie; and neither happen when you’re winning. Just saying . . .

    -barn

    Comment by barn E. rubble — 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:06 AM

  472. It sounds like Dessler, is making some changes based on errors pointed out by Spencer. Things that should have been obvious to a competent peer reviewer. Will anyone at GRL be resigning over this review failure? Perhaps a letter of apology should be sent to Watts?

    Comment by Dennis — 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:11 PM

  473. Back to agnotology.

    Reviewing (cataloging, etc.) the omissions and inaccuracies of a body of science is a part of science. Here it is called “agnotology”.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:28 AM

  474. Ray,

    I’m not interested in religion.

    As for correlations between GCRF and temperature, I think I’ve offered arguments you don’t take into account.

    So, continuer en français, why not, mais pas sur la base d’arguments d’autorité.

    L’expertise m’intéresse beaucoup, par contre. Why would you want to get stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming together? But I suppose you’re talking about what is observed. And why exactly is that we can’t have it with GCR agent? Thanks.

    Comment by Samium — 10 Sep 2011 @ 2:27 PM

  475. (It’s written down: real climate from scientists, not for scientists, so I dare come an discuss (I’m just a mechanical engineer). Anyway, any scientist go on learning, especially in ‘climatology’ for there are plenty of matters involved.

    Comment by Samium — 10 Sep 2011 @ 2:31 PM

  476. The monitoring of sea ice in the northern hemisphere is interesting and important. It seems clear that the extent of the ice is at an unusually low level. But it is a bit strange that a parallel discussion of the Antarctic sea ice extent is much rarer. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to always discuss the two in pairs. It is especially interesting since the Antarctic sea ice doesn’t in any way appear to be in retreat, quite the contrary [see e.g. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png. Isn’t the discussion of the situation around just one of the planets two poles a prime example of cherry picking?

    Comment by Steven Jörsäter — 11 Sep 2011 @ 5:11 PM

  477. 2007 was the “record low” (read since 1979), and this was caused I believe by changes in wind and current patterns?

    So how do these compare in 2011? Just a thought, rather than immediately blaming it on catastrophic AGW.

    Comment by Jason — 12 Sep 2011 @ 4:32 AM

  478. I don’t know if I got censored but I still maintain that the “ongoing sea ice loss”, that the article mentions, is, in fact, only going on in the northern hemisphere whereas it is not happening in the southern one, see eg. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png . Both hemispheres should discussed simultaneously if we are discussing a warming planet. Anything else is cherry picking. Why is the north getting warmer but not the south is the key question? Winds, streams?

    Comment by Steven Jörsäter — 13 Sep 2011 @ 11:15 AM

  479. Another effect if CLIMATE CHANGE !!

    The reports of Arctic Sea Ice demise are greatly exagerated.

    Looking at the current Arctic Sea Ice Extent shows that the ice is now GROWING again marking the end of the melt season (two weeks earlier than recent years and at about the same time as the 1979 to 2000 average. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_std

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    But even if the climate changed enough to have no summertime Arctic Sea Ice AND it was due to humans does anyone really think that the worldwide CO2 emissions is going to decline?t

    Comment by orsonne brown — 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:04 PM

  480. Why does Hoerling appear to be backpedaling from his early work: Hoerling and Kumar (Science, 2003) on the cuase of the recent Texas Drought?

    Or is he being misrepresented here: http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2011/09/19/global-warming-hysteria-no-texas-drought-not-climate-change/

    Comment by FP — 19 Sep 2011 @ 10:40 PM

  481. “…even a 10% loss this century would be devastating…”

    And also surprising, considering NSIDC’s estimate of 0.1% loss over the past 12 years.

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 23 Sep 2011 @ 10:46 AM

  482. The realists amongst us are prepared to acknowledge that the many physical factors that influence Earth’s climate, stems from the fundamental, dynamic realities that when combined, constitutes what we call physics. Irrespective of which discipline you may be associated with, they all conform to the basic requirements of physics.
    With regards to climate and the parameters involved with producing the variability of its realities; the realities principally being the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the phase changes of the H2O molecule due to the addition or subtraction of what is called heat energy. The climate debate then can be divided into two main categories; the consequence of the addition or removal of the phenomenon (assumed to be understood) we call heat energy to or from the various gas molecules in the atmosphere. Also, the various phase changes of the H2O molecule when heat energy is added or subtracted. Both studies are physically complex and not fully understood. Both have far reaching diverse consequences.
    With regards to the atmosphere, we are all well aware of the fact that the argument over the effects on climate of the CO2 molecule has been extended to thermal conditions on the Earth becoming similar to on Venus, a planet that may be alien to the solar system especially due to its direction of rotation and length of day relative to its distance from the Sun.
    With regards to CO2 molecules and their magnitude of thermal effect, I would make the following comment. I have great faith in the precise settings of our mighty thermostats that have enabled life forms to flourish over such a long period of time, despite large changes to the amount of that molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    The complexities of the H2O molecule undergoing its phase changing of states has been subjected to much research and measurement and conclusions drawn from the results of experiments. The main query is with the latent heat of fusion; what happens during the transition, and how is the heat energy hidden to enable a reappearance due to changed consequences at a later date? Presently, with the change from the water state to that of vapour in the form of steam, the heat energy is believed to be converted to non sensible internal motions of the molecules. That is a reasonable assumption under the circumstances. However, if such a conversion is not the correct reason then we are missing some vital information.
    To prevent this comment from excessive extension, I will directly quote from the results of my 65 years of work on the fundamental dynamic realities of the mass of that we call matter.
    It appears to me that the present concept of heat energy does not assist with arriving at correct conclusions regarding any phenomena where heat is involved, and that includes most question regarding climate. The rapidity of the random motions of molecules indicates the dynamic thermal state of a body. The rate of change of separation distance between particles involves and dictates both the amount of mass loss reappearing in the form of infrared radiation and frequency in conformatity with the law of the conservation of energy. The last statement is dependent on momentum verses Coulomb force. Momentum being due to the balance of Particle force + …. (presently not acknowledged) acting on a given quantity of mass.

    Pursuant to the parameters extant and dictating the energy density of a matter particle, then matter to matter contact is not permitted in nature and would result in explosive annihilation of some of the mass back to an energy state; for instance the known results of neutron-neutron collision. What prise would you offer for the physical existence of Black Holes and their dominance in the physical literature?
    Science has to evolve by discarding that which is found to be incorrect and by critically examining the new ideas. Climate science is just beginning.

    I grow tired and the subject is vast, so will finish this comment with what I believe caused the resent slight warming, also cooling of our Planet. It resulted from the great Planets cohabiting in a confined volume of the solar system space and thereby causing an extension of the Earth’s elliptical orbit. Any changing of the gravitational potential by any cause results in activating what my work describes as the Gravitational Thermal Effect. The rotation of the earth relative to the position of the moon and sun is also involved with the referred to gravitational thermal effect.
    The Gravitational Thermal Effect referred to above can be checked for veracity by a simple and very inexpensive experiment requiring a sensitive thermometer to be placed at the bottom of a disused portion of a mine; getting the experiment performed has proven to be a thankless task. The thermometer in question must not be of the cryogenic compensated thermocouple type because both sides of the couple would be similarly affected by the Gravitational Thermal – either warming or cooling – Effect.

    The explanation of such an effect stems from a postulation of a quantum friendly base for physics, through to the nature of an electron and so on. The work has been condensed into 168 page paperback book titled Matter and Associated Mysteries Explained.

    Comment by George W Nixon — 26 Sep 2011 @ 2:18 AM

  483. @21 I refered for given reasons to the Hadley SST data . The trends are not alleged – they are there in the data. There is no empirical correlation between CO2 and temperature. At all time scales CO2 always follows temperature not vice versa The general temperature rise from the little Ice age can reasonably be attributed to longer term solar cycles. These can be identified by power spectrum and wavelet analysis of the temperature time series. The last decades of the 20th century were about at the peak of a millenial cycle cf the MWP and Roman climate optimum. For a good review of this type of analysis at the sub centennial scale see http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf
    Here he deals with centennial and shorter cycles- but if you read it carefully he implies the possible effect of longer term cycles such as the ones here suggested.

    Comment by Norman Page — 26 Sep 2011 @ 5:32 PM

  484. Re:328

    Hey tamino,

    So which part is wrong the Nibus, ACRIM, ACRIM-II, or EOS values betweem min.-max. As for have a problem obviously why else would I be here taking what could be termed abuse if I did not want to understand.

    My intent is not to critique, I gave that up for Lent three years ago; but, to understand. It is clear to me that the disparity even within the same community may point to there is a disjoiner between some of the data sets and the logical explanation. I am trying to comprehend why, what is it not being said, that reveals the truth or enlightens me.

    Not that I am unwilling to do the work, I have read several hundred papers over the last 10 years, not excluding referenced several current data bases and both plotted the changes in the records and perfomed statistical evaluations of data sets. Given this the issues of rate of change for 135ppm CO2 appear to demonstrate a failure to directly warm Earths surface. As Dr. Hoffman suggested to me 4 years ago the observations show that there balance of concentration of CO2 appears in whisps or rivers at the edges of wv flow following the air currents at roughly 4km or roughly 500mb. Given this it would appear the energy added is not a static radiant source. We change it for the purposes of simplicity of presentation and modeling.

    Not a problem, however, when we look for answers as to how the process actually is working in a dynamic mode it is hard to bridge from the models to the real world which is my focus. My simple desire is the drive to understand how the science or theory is manifest in the real world.
    I attempt to be a practical sort, or maybe empirical rather then theoritical, hence the lack of ability to ferret answers on my own.

    It does not mean I am dense, it is just that I do not understand small elements that do not fit the logic. To me great teachers are those who know their subject so well they can help bridge the gaps, I am simply asking the experts here for that help

    Comment by ldavidcooke — 27 Sep 2011 @ 7:58 AM

  485. RE:329

    Hey CM,

    Okay, I will attempt simplicity or directness though that may fail.

    The comparison of the two eras, regarding CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the resultant temperatures appear disconnected. I understand the energy budget, the issue is the disconnect in proxy measures of the PETM era not tracking the current polar amplification. The assumption is that there must be other anthropogenic contributions amplifying the effects.

    “Interference” partially references negative forcing elements for which the science research is on going. It also includes the tendency for some research to appear to confound rather then support theory. IE: Clouds, they are warm wv, compared to a clear night sky, hence at night reduce the radiant lw emisson; yet by day reduce sw input. To a large degree act inverse to the mechanics of CO2.

    As to the solar variations just simple grade school, if the energy of Sol at the top of the atmosphere is demonstrated by the near 40 years of satellite observation to peak at 1366.5w/m^2 with a min. of 1363.5w/m^2 would suggest a 3w/m^2 differential though the peak/valleys appear to average out to a 2.75w/m^2 differential. If we consider a 30% albedo at the surface, full disk (your number not mine), would suggest a differential of 1.9w^m2 at the surface.

    (I mentioned that there may be some issues with the albedo as deforestation and desertification have added albedo without limiting energy from reaching the ground. Where as a recent paper, which I cannot recall suggests a reduction in cloud cover, whether due to heat, aerosols or GCR Neucleation does not matter.)

    The 1.9w/m^2 is in accurate as it is not in the global equivalent input of 1.85w/m^2 that CO2 is. (Though we might be able to substitute a value for direct radiant CO2, that is not how most people here reference it.) So we then have to distribute the solar maximum 1.9w/m^2 globally. First by halfing it to cover both sides of the disk then reduce it by 1/3rd to convert from a two dimensional disk to a three dimensionsl globe. Finally I need to account for obliquity which changes from 0 to +23 degrees for 1/2 the year to 0 to -23 degrees for 1/2 the year. Suggesting a range from 77-90 degrees with the balance of the heating being towards the 77 degree point suggesting on a two dimensional disk that insolation would be limited to rough a average of 83 degrees, (though you might be able to perform a Euler analysis and get a more accurate value.)

    The point being there is already a pre-1950 radiant variation that can be used to define how aatheoritical warming from CO2 can be proxied into the real world. If we can discern a weather pattern effect for solar maximum variations, could we not then push those effects by the CO2 contribution to improve modeling resolution reducing parametric adjustment?

    As to your final question I return to my first paragraph, given the change in CO2, the relation between CO2 as a atmospheric heat containment adding to the heat energy there and as a radiant source appear confusing. The question I have is if the work performed by one component is exclusive of the work of the other component would that not account for differences in observeable effect? Which is where the dynamics versus static heat flow become confusing as I have not seen this well discussed.

    My thanks for your patients and time, even a doctor has a doctor. I only come here for the best medicine, I just wish I had not made it quite so bitter due to my own ignorance and a failure to know it at the time.

    Cheers!
    Dave Cooke

    Comment by ldavidcooke — 27 Sep 2011 @ 9:17 AM

  486. Re Eric Response to 16.
    I agree with you re CO2 — temperature response. My comments are based on solar activity. However the IPCC – Al Gore AGW paradigm ,the policies of the EPA and Western European governments are based on the delusional notion that just such a relationship exists so that they can dial up a given temperature response by setting CO2 limits.
    The 2020 number simply allows for the inertial time lag of ocean reponse to solar activity which is already built into the system my the decrease in solar activity in the 23/24 solar minimum. This is not silly but a perfectly reasonable suggestion.
    @ *21 The cooling is not alleged – it is there in the SST data. Just go to the Hadley digital Global SST file.
    There is no empirical causal correlation between CO2
    and tempertaure. At all time scales from annual to the Milankovich cycles CO2 follows temperature. The longer period increase is mainly due to a +/- millenial solar cycle with peaks in the last decades of the 20th century,- at the MWP and at the Roman Climate Optimum.

    Comment by Norman Page — 27 Sep 2011 @ 9:05 PM

  487. Why are people surprised for the snow to melt during the global warming phase from 1970 to 2000?

    http://bit.ly/ocY95R

    Comment by Girma — 1 Oct 2011 @ 7:59 PM

  488. “In modern times, such speculative mappings, both early and contemporary, have been used by some to disprove global warming, advocate for the continent of Atlantis, and prove that space aliens mapped the earth in antiquity.”

    My comment #2, questioning the one-sided slam at climate skeptics, elicited the usual snarky comments (#s 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) on RC. Author Kevin Brown’s parting shot at skeptics is ironic, as the speculative mapping he writes about was eagerly applauded by AGW proponents before its errors were uncovered. The fact is that speculative claims are routinely made on both sides of the climate debate…and the Times Atlas map is simply the latest one.

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 5 Oct 2011 @ 3:12 PM

  489. 95, Martin Vermeer: SM #79, mike is pulling your leg, making fun of you unearthing, with unerring ‘skepticism’, the one paper that is seriously flawed…

    The reading list I am compiling, including some of the items provided by Hank Roberts, is getting long. The paper linked by mike showed up in another list. It’s high on my reading list because I learned of it here. High on the list only implies that I’ll read it early, not that I’ll end up with great respect.

    “The one paper that is seriously flawed”? You have got to be kidding. Every paper in climate science is seriously flawed.

    101, Hank Roberts: His presentations have long been popular in, er, uncertain circles.
    That’s hard to understand unless all they care about is short term, because his conclusion seems to always be along the lines ‘We ain’t seen nothin’ YET but for sure it is a’comin’ …’

    Since reading Padilla et al, I have collecting as much as I can relevant to transient climate sensitivity. So what you have written is a recommendation.

    He is one of the Speakers at the Santa Fe Institute referred to above where Christopher Monckton is also speaking. Compared to their stated purpose, it seems to have a fairly skeptical lineup. But I am not opposed to skepticism.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 5 Oct 2011 @ 5:07 PM

  490. Ray Ladbury, I’d be glad to answer, but the moderator is afraid to post anything that challenges RealClimate orthodoxy.

    I said nothing about “agenda.” What I attempted to post hours ago (it would have been comment #13) was this:

    “In modern times, such speculative mappings, both early and contemporary, have been used by some to disprove global warming, advocate for the continent of Atlantis, and prove that space aliens mapped the earth in antiquity.”

    My comment #2, questioning the one-sided slam at climate skeptics, elicited the usual snarky comments (#s 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9) on RC. Author Kevin Brown’s parting shot at skeptics is ironic, as the speculative mapping he writes about was eagerly applauded by AGW proponents before its errors were uncovered. The fact is that speculative claims are routinely made on both sides of the climate debate…and the Times Atlas map is simply the latest one.

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 5 Oct 2011 @ 6:38 PM

  491. No problem Gavin, just making sure the irony is not lost on you, that the CO2 record itself does not rule out the possiblity that the ocean has never stopped warming since 20000 years ago, and that you are denying warming.

    Cheers.

    Comment by isotopious — 5 Oct 2011 @ 9:42 PM

  492. The vast anti AGW industry (commercial, academic and political)and the economically suicidal CO2 reduction policies of many western governments have been built on the delusional notion that our knowledge of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is currently so precise that we can dial up a desired temperature at the earths surface by controlling CO2 emissions at some suitable level. Much of the discussion on this thread suggests that the establishment climate scientists ( eg IPCC authors and editors )might be well advised to gently suggest to the political powers that be that since there is some question as to what the best metric is for even defining global warming our knowledge of the system is perhaps insufficient to justify the drastic actions contemplated .

    Comment by Norman Page — 9 Oct 2011 @ 10:52 PM

  493. Back at *80 I said “What is the best metric for measuring global warming or cooling.? I submit that the Hadley global SST fits the bill as well as anything.The Oceans occupy 70% of the surface and SST’s while not perfect avoid the problems raised by the UHI effect and more importantly they avoid the problem caused by the fact that the land temperature data does not measure the enthalpy of the system which is the really significant number.Since the sea is 100% saturated with H20 the changing temperature is a good relative measure of the change in enthalpy.”
    After all the posts since – all that is obvious is that we know so little about the factors controlling OHC
    that the best proxy for it is probably MSL after guesstimating the other MSL change contributors and subtracting to get the thermal expansion.
    The deep ocean does provide a convenient hole in which to bury climate model errors without much fear of contradiction – a bit like dark matter!
    The SSTs- because of the thermal inertia of the oceans also smooth out short term noise – clearly the best metric for climate change discussion.

    Comment by Norman Page — 13 Oct 2011 @ 5:32 PM

  494. Roger is dead on. Heat flow is very important a measure. The issue I have with temperature data is we need far more areas measured to determine actual temperature changes. Heat flow must be looked at,as heat moves, one object/substance/body is cooled while another is warmed.As delta t changes delta q does and vice versa. As Roger and Gavin both agree temperature and heat are different measurable quantities. Temperature is a statistical property, an averaging of molecular motions. Heat and changes in heat delta/q are changes in energy transfer due to temperature differences.Units of heat are the way to go in such measurements.There has not been a way as of yet to get a large enough sample for even North America, let alone, South America to measure micro-climates and look at other regional averages of temps to be reliable enough to state with confidence that a given range of temp increases has occurred or if they have, are they really driven by C02, and other greenhouse gases. C02 is certainly a greenhouse gas, and it produces a greenhouse effect, but a global warming has yet to be truly verfied beyond doubt. s = q/t (2nd law) shows why we cannot just measure all temperatures and compute a confidence interval of temperatures largely “driven” or”caused” by greenhouse gas emissions. There are probably some weather changes due to such emissions but nothing seems to be extreme in comparison to the past 100-150 years of weather.

    Comment by Jacob Mack — 14 Oct 2011 @ 4:53 PM

  495. There is no meaning in the wedges unless they are clearly stated and realistically evaluated. The discussions at climateprogress never accomplished this; instead they were asserted as dogma. Neither have we been able to get very far here at realclimate.org; efforts to do so have repeatedly met with disdain or outright rejection after excessive moderation.

    And of course, we found no welcome to suggestions of additional wedges, such as standing forests using new thinking about water distribution and stimulation of plankton.

    At least the discussion here today shows how foolishly the CO2 versus actual carbon is handled. The EPA actually talks about ‘carbon’ but quotes data in ‘tons of CO2′, thus misleading the audience.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 15 Oct 2011 @ 12:29 PM

  496. A bit biased? You have know idea how biased you (as a group) come across.

    Comment by PaulC — 19 Oct 2011 @ 1:32 PM

  497. I do understand why some may not like Muller’s approach. The Wall St. Ed. is a dagger to the heart for the anthropogenic crowd, because it states the insultingly obvious ‘there is global warming’, then hints denial ‘it might not be us’. Such confident messaging exercises are usually only crafted by the AGW lobby, let alone skeptics such as Muller. What does he have up his sleeve? Maybe earth is about to enter into an ice age initiated by an intergalactic mushroom cloud that we all haven’t seen yet?
    Someone who is familiar with the concept of ‘being debunked’, ‘a beautiful theory destroyed by an ugly fact’, etc… should surely know better?

    Then again, don’t you AGW guys believe that because the proxy records contain dramatic climate changes, that the climate system is sensitive to external forcing, even though there are no credible sources of forcing which can explain those dramtic changes? => lol

    I think the ‘science of climate change’ is dogmatic garbage, and the only thing that separates you from Muller is the fact that he knows it.

    Comment by isotopious — 25 Oct 2011 @ 5:27 AM

  498. “Climate change is already having consequences–serious consequences–and it has just begun!”

    Yes, because, already the sea levels have increased by 20cm in the last 100 years. At this rate Los Angeles city hall will be under water 35,500 years from now. Well, technically it wouldn’t be completely underwater, just water up to its base. But we need to act immediately or at this rate in the year 37,512 the mayor of Los Angeles will have wet loafers every time he exits city hall.

    Comment by SirCharge — 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:29 PM

  499. Ray :

    With regard to temp reconstruction,” I think we know #$%^- all about temps > 100 years.” Ring a bell?

    With regard to models, I think the Douglass study was not so favorable.

    I can’t speak for any ‘denialist community”, but I sure have concerns about the reliability of the current surface records. Anybody who doesn’t, given the know problems with stations, I would say their objectivity needs to be examined. Does the Best project resolve these issues? We don’t know-it has yet to be peer reviewed.

    Comment by tom — 27 Oct 2011 @ 1:00 PM

  500. If there were no random variation at all, combined with a warming trend of 0.0001 degrees per century, a new extreme temperature record would be set every second. A terrifying prospect!

    I hope this analysis will be used to inform the public about the nature of statistics, rather than as confirmatory evidence for dubious theories of ‘weather weirding’ and the like.

    Comment by Gerry Quinn — 29 Oct 2011 @ 1:16 PM

  501. Terry:

    In the real world, no sane investor would ever risk any significant amount on any project that relies on the premise of AGW. Just way too much uncertainty. That only happens in the in the unreal world of the Government,! The US federal Gov’t is based on the paradigm that ” we’ ( people who pay relatively litte taxes) are going to take more money from “them” ( wealthy taxpayers ) to fix something. If it doesn’t work, who’s on the hook? And the response to failure is almost universal. “We” need MORE MONEY from “them”.

    Comment by tom — 2 Nov 2011 @ 1:11 PM

  502. I do not accept the premises on which this analysis is based. The primary causes of global warming are in a progressive state of disequilibrium between the cooling effect of melting ice reserves and the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Since ice reserves are steadily disappearing, it seems to me that no matter what we do now, a runaway global warming looms in the future when ice reserves reach a critical level no longer able to counter the warming due to the present levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Comment by John A. Davison — 3 Nov 2011 @ 7:29 AM

  503. Ray,

    The back of the envelope figues are OK, but your economics are attrocious. IMHO, your post has less to do with physics, and much more to do with political economy.

    May I suggest that you take a brisk autumn walk over to the economics department at the Univerisity of Chicago and ask them to grade your writeup. After you do, come back and give us a report.

    In the meantime, may I commend to you 2009 Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom’s books.

    Comment by Bryan S — 4 Nov 2011 @ 12:55 PM

  504. Stefan Rahmstorf recently wrote a piece for ABC ENVIRONMENT to make us (non-science people) aware of the alarming fall in the level of sea ice in the artic this year, comparable to the low levels in 2007. Cohenite has posted this in response:

    “Arctic sea ice was much less in the immediate geologic past:

    http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

    The Arctic was warming quicker in the 1930’s:

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    The Arctic temperature has been falling since 2005 and according to all the Arctic ice measurements Arctic ice has been well above 2007 levels for most of 2011 and according to NORSEX is still above 2007 levels in both area and extent:

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    Rahmstorf has form in being hysterical about the AGW hysteria; perhaps one of his many measured critics can be given a right of reply. I would suggest Dr David Stockwell”.

    I don’t have the ability to analyse whether what he’s saying has any merit. Would anyone care to give a rebuttal to that response.

    Comment by Ig — 5 Nov 2011 @ 1:10 AM

  505. “The contrast between the conversations in this meeting and what passes for serious issues in the media and blogosphere was very clear.”
    ==============
    There is no lack of skeptics willing to converse.
    There is a lack of those willing to converse with them.
    With that said, I and my comment are ready to be sent into the ether.
    Why upset science after it has been declared “settled”,and funding has been secured.

    Comment by u.k.(us) — 5 Nov 2011 @ 4:07 PM

  506. Help! Exxon has a gun to my head as I type?
    CO2 climate crisis believers:Your “education” you speak of is now called the Internet, an open sewer of untreated information that can be used to educate one’s self such we former believers do or use as a search engine for one’s established opinions such as you remaining climate blame believers do. We see right through you because its obvious you want this misery to be true. You need this misery of climate change to be true because you need something to believe in and trust and like bible thumpers you sanctify the pureness of science. What could go wrong? For decades and decades it was all of science that denied the dangers of the pesticides they gave us. So act like real progressives and be real liberals who challenge, doubt and question all authority. Especially a pop culture of politics authority that is condemning billions of children to a CO2 death. This was progressivism’s Iraq War of lies. Green neocons!You want this misery to be true despite millions of scientists warning us of the worst crisis imaginable, climate crisis, that just sit on their thrones and not ACT like its’ a crisis. Are they on Oprah or CNN?You want this misery to be true despite your hero Obama not even mentioning the “crisis” in his state of the union address.You want this misery to be true despite countless thousands of consensus scientists who sat on their hands while Obama and the rest of the world walk away from climate change and CO2 mitigation.You want this misery to be true as you fear monger with childish glee knowing full well that real planet lovers would rejoice at the obvious exaggeration of “crisis”.So what is wrong with dropping the CO2 factor entirely from the environmental equation and practice responsible stewardship instead of taxing the air via corporate CO2 markets?

    Comment by Meme Mine — 6 Nov 2011 @ 8:44 AM

  507. #154 Jim Bullis,

    It is not hard to understand why raypierre might think that coal will have run out by 2100. He seems to believe that the planet will be unable to sustain agriculture by that time. The ability to believe in one science fiction story (and as someone who has been reading SF since probably before raypierre was born, I recognize it when I see it) has a pretty decent correlation in the ability to believe in another.

    Comment by timg56 — 7 Nov 2011 @ 4:30 PM

  508. re eric response to comment #6 balazs,

    Eric,

    In bouncing back and forth between the pro and sceptic blogs I’ve found it not unusual for the commentors to snip at one another. But the more I spend time here at Real Climate, the more I note the moderators doing the snipping as well. The difference in tone between say Dr Curry on her blog and what I see here is very noticable. Balazs raises a very good point – yet you knock him for not being constructive enough.

    I tend to think Balazs analogy to be rather decent – at least to a point. Your insurance analogy is ok, except you are not making the complete connection. Wanting tax payers and consumers to pay more for carbon mitigation, reduction or replacement policies is akin to asking the insured to take out additional premiums for rare diseases or potential accidents they have extremely low odds of experiencing. Should I pay a 10%, 15% or higher premium to protect me from getting mangled by a charging elephant? How about paying more to protect me from space debris falling on my head? Like a warming climate, both elephants and space debris are real. The question is – are they something I should worry about? You say that the problem is climate researchers and modelers are poor communicators. You may have a point in the sense that – as far as I am concerned – they have done a poor job communicating actual risk and impact. To date almost all of the information has been in a form more suitable to diaster movie plot lines than real evidence one can make reasoned decisions on.

    Have you seen the latest ad with the guy on his cell phone trashing global warming and then suddenly catching fire and burning up? Based on that, I’d say yes, someone has a communications problem.

    Comment by timg56 — 7 Nov 2011 @ 6:53 PM

  509. Richard,
    I agree that dialogue between scientists in public forums will help a great deal. One of the problems is that several blogs sites screen comments, thus eliminating much of the dialogue.
    It would be nice if someone started a website which was truly neutral, i.e. was not moderated by an individual (or group) which promoted either side of the AGW debate.

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 Nov 2011 @ 11:06 AM

  510. RE:63

    Hey Pete,

    This goes back to the argument between Drs. Emmanuel/Curry and Drs. Landsea/Wang. Do warmer SSTs result in more intense storms?

    In short, I will suggest no. The higher SSTs simply spread out on the surface increasing extra-tropical or cold core storms. In addition, the wealth of energy being sufficient, with a potentially increased lapse rate at the higher latitudes, should push the season window much wider. Meaning though you may have a 5 month window in the tropics, you may need to consider expanding it to accomodate the increased area with sufficient temperatures to drive a cyclonic event in the upper latitudes, (being driven by the northward migration of equtorial warmth).

    As we discussed earlier wrt Arctic sea ice and a warming Pole, create the correct conditions and the weather potential will follow, (wrt cut-off anti-cyclones, so why not cold core cyclones?). Dr. Wang’s most recent paper even suggests a decrease in tropical events due to a combination of increased aerosols and tropical shear. This then may correct for the TS “window” expansion and simply re-locate where the cyclones occur (above the 25th parallel).

    Cheers!
    Dave Cooke

    Comment by ldavidcooke — 11 Nov 2011 @ 8:48 AM

  511. (From #38 in the Times Atlas Greenland thread) Ray Ladbury says:

    11 Nov 2011 at 11:23 AM

    Ira Glickstein, Might I suggest, respectfully, that we take this over to the open thread (labeled “Unforced Variations”). It would not distract from the subject there.

    Here I am per your invitation, Ray. Please identify the open issues we might discuss.

    Here is one I would like to put to bed. Given that CO2 levels continue their rapid, nearly linear rise of the past several decades, why has the centerline of the error bounds of the temperature record flattened out over the past decade and a half?

    I think (and Eric seemed to agree partly in one of his Responses to me in the Times Atlas thread) that something else has partially or completely cancelled out the effect of additional CO2 over the last 15 years or so.

    I agree that, all else being equal, additional CO2 will raise mean temperatures according to whatever its sensitivity might be (either 2-4.5ºC per doubling according to IPCC estimates or 0.5-1ºC according to other estimates). I think we all agree that CO2 sensitivity is positive with respect to temperatures and that 10 or 15 years is not long enough to reduce the temperature error bounds to within “statistical significance” (less than a 1 in 20 chance we are wrong.)

    So, given the above, what might that something else be? It is either something humans have been doing differently over the past century and a half, such as increasing Earth’s albedo by some land use changes, or more dust in the air, or the white roof on Energy Sec. Chu’s house, etc., -OR- it is something beyond our control and influence, such as decadal ocean cycles or Svensmark’s theory that reduced magnetic activity from the current very low Sunspot cycle #24 has allowed more cosmic rays to get through and that increases cloud formation, or some other natural cycle or variation, -OR- a combination of human and natural.

    If we agree so far (and if we do not, please let me know where I’ve gone astray), what can we conclude from the temperature data we have? Well, if CO2 sensitivity was, say 4.5ºC, rather than, say 0.5ºC, that something else would have to be nine times stronger. I take that as evidence that does not prove, but does favor lower CO2 sensitivity estimates.

    What say you?

    Comment by Ira Glickstein — 11 Nov 2011 @ 11:27 PM

  512. Great! It should be game over then politicos and hacks would stop trying to impose more taxes on us in the name of ensuring a stable climate.

    Comment by Abir — 12 Nov 2011 @ 6:41 AM

  513. Apparently climate scientists like flying around the world creating co2, like the rich there is no leadership by example. The ‘solutions’ to AGW are always schemes to accumulate wealth for the wealthy.

    Comment by ziff house — 14 Nov 2011 @ 10:53 PM

  514. Dan H 106 and Pete Dunkleburg 107 are absolutely correct. If you have the contention that warming makes statistically rare events likely, then you must have a bad model.

    If mean is increasing and probability is modeled correctly, than sigma must follow relative to the mean, otherwise you have built a rather poor mathematical model. I assume Hansen’s 3 sigma events were based from a descent model and didn’t use for example the 1850 mean to calculate standard deviation.

    [Response: Follow the discussion please. That's what Pete asked his question about.--Jim]

    Now stephan has said in this group of responses that they will be publishing a large test case of temperatures using their model for mean temperature. It uses a SSA non-linear trend line. I am very interested to see if this trend line and the other assumptions about variability hold true.

    Comment by Norm Hull — 15 Nov 2011 @ 1:35 PM

  515. Belief that we are confused at a higher level can not be sustained in countries such as USA and UK where leading scientists accept or endorse the notion that it is possible to convert 33.7 kWhr of heat into 33.7 kWhr of electricity.

    Comment by Jim Bullis, Miastrada Company — 17 Nov 2011 @ 4:31 PM

  516. 150 Chris R says:

    17 Nov 2011 at 2:03 PM
    Norm Hull,

    “The 1930s are irrelevant. We’re talking about the recent warming, the global mean of which is attributable to human activity, i.e. post 1975 – the start of the recent linear trend. Studying the 20th century may well reveal skewing in different directions. However the recent warming trend is atypical of the global temperature behaviour in the 20th century. The 1930s warming was primarily a far-northern pattern probably related to the AMO, an outcome of internal ocean/atmosphere variability.!

    It is stuff like this that really makes me shake my head!

    The fact is that global temperatures rose at the same rate from 1910-1945 as they did 1970-2000. (If you were to be pedantic they rose ever so slightly higher actually)

    However, this post still says 1970 to 2000 is atypical. Why?

    The earlier period was only minimally influenced by CO2. levels actually fell 9ppm between 1935 and 1945.

    Ohh, we are told comparitively low volcanic activity, which is true.

    However what does this mean? Why don’t they say comparitively low sulphate aerosol emissions, which is how volcanos (and man)cool the planet? Because it isn’t true that’s why!

    Sulphate aerosols rose dramatically from 1900 to 1940, not surprising given the pace of industrialisation at the time.

    Ohh, we are told increasing Solar RF, true again. However, solar activity continued to increase into the 1950s and plateaud at a higher level than the earlier period. More solar energy was put into the Earths climate system during 1970-2000 than 1910-1940.

    There seems a desperation to isolate the late 20th century warming as something completely unique and unprecedented.

    In another post someone quoted a scientist saying that the current warming is at least 10 times anything experienced in the last 20,000 years!!

    Ehh…….what!

    Yet noone said anything!

    I don’t know what cherry picked period in the 20th century this scientist was talking about but whatever it was he was assuring us that know other century ot of the last 200 had ever increased by as much as 0.2c!!!

    The proxies he was using must be actually better thermometers than actual thermometers methinks!

    Alan

    Comment by Alan Millar — 17 Nov 2011 @ 8:06 PM

  517. A few commenters have asked where I got my lower limit for CO2 sensitivity (0.5ºC to 1ºC) and the related issue of the treatment of cloud feedback in mainstream climate models.

    Here is a .pdf of a 2009 paper by Lindzen and Choi that appeared in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628, 200.

    Richard Lindzen, is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Based on Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) data, he and Choi conclude that “…ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5ºC which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.”

    An easier to read source for the possibility that CO2 sensitivity has been over-estimated due to how the mainstream models treat cloud feedback is Dr. Roy Spenser’s blog.

    You all may read the paper and the blog and agree or not. I do not have sufficient expertise to judge.
    Happy reading!

    Comment by Ira Glickstein — 17 Nov 2011 @ 10:06 PM

  518. This study may show that temperatures in Moscow have increased in the last 120 years. In 1890, when the temperature record from this study began, Moscow was a city made up mostly of peasant huts and dirt roads. The modern Moscow is a city of concrete and asphalt. You folks can argue all you want that UHI does not matter on a global scale, but within a city it is undeniable. You would expect that as the UHI has increased, anomalies would reflect this reality. Secondly, global temperatures have increased since 1976, however, this is not necessarily attributable to anthropogenic forces as this coincides with a change in the PDO and this increase ended when the PDO went more negative. Thirdly, the mixture of a year with a strong El nino and a change in the arctic oscillation also would have had an extremely significant effect on temperatures in Moscow.

    You cannot take the temperatures of any given city and claim that they are evidence of global anthropogenic forces. The climates of given regions are often extremely diverse.

    Comment by SirCharge — 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:36 PM

  519. Re #30 Karen

    Similar version can be found in a report titled “Multivariate Regression — Techniques and Tools” by H. Hyotyniemi, Helsinki Univ. of Tech. 2001.

    “Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.” –unknown

    The author remarks that a good book must have obscure quotes and he provides a few more. My favorite:

    “Statistics in the hands of an engineer are like a lamppost to a drunk — they provide more support than illumination.” — B. Sangster
    Whoever he or she may be and I’m sure this applies to more than just engineers!

    Comment by bill — 18 Nov 2011 @ 12:39 PM

  520. With regards to the warming trend, the US trend is essentially the same as the global trend, i.e. 0.59C/century. The US did experience much higher temperatures in the 1930s than the rest of the globe, resulting in a 5-yr mean lower today than the mid 30s. Many of the “plethora” of new highs occurred in cities which do not have records dating back 50 years or more (there were exceptions like Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.). If you check neighboring cities, some had record highs 5F higher in 1934 or 1936. While many states experienced the warmest July on record, the highest temperatures did not surpass those of prior years. The average was higher, but the extremes were not. In Russia, Moscow did surpass its record high of 1936 by 1.5C last year.
    Using statistics to determine that these extreme events occur once every hundred or thousand years is what is incorrect in this analysis. The US alone has experienced three years of greater high temperatures than recently recorded (1934, 1936, and 1954). During these years, weather conditions persist which allow temperatures to soar. The length of these weather conditions will determine records (Russia, 2010 and U.S., 1936), and not statistical analysis.
    You are correct Kevin in that I agree that the climate is warming, but that extremes are not increasing.
    Timothy,
    I agree that droughts would have the greatest effect on food supply. Although I do not necessarily agree that drought is increasing. A recent drought monitor shows only Texas and the surrounding areas in extreme drought. Other areas which were under extreme droughts have received relief in recent years.

    http://www.apcc21.net/en/services/apcc-operational-3-month-mme-prediction/state-of-our-climate/global-extreme-drought-flood-monitoring/

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Nov 2011 @ 2:24 PM

  521. “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

    IOW, the IPCC now admits that man is not the driver of climate therefore AGW is nothing to get excited about.

    Comment by Bill — 19 Nov 2011 @ 6:45 AM

  522. Earlir IPCC report
    The revised AMO index (Trenberth and Shea, 2006) indicates that North Atlantic SSTs have recently been about 0.3°C warmer than during 1970 to 1990, emphasizing the role of the AMO in suppressing tropical storm activity during that period. The AMO is likely to be a driver of multi-decadal variations in Sahel droughts, precipitation in the Caribbean, summer climate of both North America and Europe, sea ice concentration in the Greenland Sea and sea level pressure over the southern USA, the North Atlantic and southern Europe;(Trenberth and Shea, 2006). Walter and Graf (2002) identified a non-stationary relationship between the NAO and the AMO.
    During the negative phase of the AMO, the North Atlantic SST is strongly correlated with the NAO index. In contrast, the NAO index is only weakly correlated with the North Atlantic SST during the AMO positive phase.

    In this report I couldn’t find a single reference to the AMO or the NAO.
    Has the IPCC abandoned idea that the natural oscillations have any role?

    It appears to me that the understanding North Atlantic Oscillations with which the above events were previously associated, and now apparently discarded, is incomplete.
    I did detailed analysis of the AMO-NAO relationship and found number of important elements either not known (hopefully not ignored) by the IPCC contributors.
    The results via my web-page: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm
    most important result can be found on the page 10.

    Comment by vukcevic — 19 Nov 2011 @ 8:54 AM

  523. During the Eemian the feared melting of undersea methane did not occur. does this man the threat is exagerated?

    Comment by DP — 19 Nov 2011 @ 7:12 PM

  524. From MARodger #257

    Ira Glickstein @254. For myself, I couldn’t be less interested in your link to e-mails. It has taken days and far too many iterations to expose the comments you previously presented on this thread as being riven with unsubstantiated contention, nonsense and ill-defined polemics. And strangely, you don’t exhibit the slightest concern by such characterisation. [Emphasis added]

    William Cowper (late 1700′s): “A moral, sensible, and well-bred man, Will not affront me, and no other can.” And, I appreciate RC posting and responding to my skeptic comments.

    … Indeed, you now have a website Response accusing you of “conspiratorial fantasies” …
    Comment by MARodger — 20 Nov 2011 @ 8:29 PM

    No conspiracy, no fantasy, just a climate system and temperature data collection system so complex that honest, competent scientists and data analysts can only approximate the truth to a given level of uncertainty.

    1) CO2 sensitivity may be 2ºC or 4.5ºC (according to the IPCC and not my skeptic sources), more than a factor of two.

    2) The US temperature record is uncertain due to TOBS corrections (Gavin’s Response). OK, I understand that Time of OBServation is an issue. GISS has had the 1998 US temperature data in hand since 1999, and has adjusted the anomaly from the initial 0.918ºC up by over 0.3ºC in several steps from 1999 to 2007 (Sato email). Since that date 1998 has gone up further and is now 0.4ºC over the value published by GISS in 1999.

    3) I can understand that 1934 data would be uncertain, but 1998 is relatively recent and from stations that are mostly still operational, yet it seems to have analytic “wriggle room” of 0.4ºC.

    4) What was it about TOBS or other issues with the 1998 US data that became known between 1999 and 2001 (+0.281ºC)? Between 2001 and now (+0.121ºC)? If estimated warming since the late 1800′s is about 0.8ºC, and TOBS corrections of 1998 data between 1999 and now is over 0.4ºC, there seems to be an uncertainty factor of two.

    Comment by Ira Glickstein — 21 Nov 2011 @ 12:35 AM

  525. You guys can attribute anything to anything……….Hot=Cold Wet=Dry it’s quite amazing………. By the By — how ’bout them new Thanksgiving e-mails from all you lying bitchez???????????

    Comment by Charles C Wallis — 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:05 AM

  526. You guys are very quiet at the moment but don’t worry it is obvious that your remarks in the newly released emails have been taken out of context.

    Now what type of person normally says their words have been taken out of context?

    Of course someone who is completely honest like for instance politicians.

    The middle game was Climategate 1 which your mates managed to help you out with we are now into the end game and unfortunately you have no credible pieces on the board.

    Three cheers for the “cause”.

    Comment by Stacey — 22 Nov 2011 @ 1:36 PM

  527. Lot more emails still behind password protection waiting to be released. Anything you guys want to get off your chest while you still can, emails you guys thought you had managed to delete?

    Comment by SB — 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:54 PM

  528. Comrades,

    The important thing is to weather the storm and quash these terroristic rumors! The profane herd largely do not pay attention to primary sources such as these. We just issue our standard denials, and most will never hear of this. (As if their opinions matter anyway!)

    Onwards to revolution, and a global totalitarian utopia!

    Comment by lol — 22 Nov 2011 @ 5:54 PM

  529. PS May I reiterate my wish for a peer-reviewed reference supporting the claim that climate models (I would settle for a single one) are wrong, as Gavin Schmidt and Phil Jones have stated ?

    [Response: See below. But if you want reviewed literature on model imperfections start with the IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch 8. - gavin]

    Comment by François GM — 24 Nov 2011 @ 10:42 AM

  530. One more thing. Did any of you watch the Al Gore marathon? Did you see the “experiment” he did with CO2 in a closed glass container? Did you see the temperature go up? Did you know that his results could not be duplicated? That is, he lied to try to prove a point. That’s just part of the science to which I refer that has been falsified. I doubt that any of you will believe me but I had to say it. I harbor no ill will towards any one – I just have a different opinion of what the science is saying.

    Comment by Mike Lewis — 24 Nov 2011 @ 12:53 PM

  531. 202Ray Ladbury,

    Putting aside our mutual disrespect and regarding the “proper use of scientific [climate] models.

    Who decides the validity of climate models and what is to be gleaned from them?

    Because from my denialist’s ignorant assessment the gleaning of insights can be no more than what the validity and reliability of the models allows.

    Never mind the WUWT chaps, plenty of your enlightened Team members have expressed low confidence in the reliability of the climate models. The emails also show significant concern being expressed.

    So where is this “ideal world” that justifies gleaning insight for policy making from models that are of such low reliability and high uncertainty?

    Comment by Edwardio — 24 Nov 2011 @ 9:30 PM

  532. One would hope the climate researchers will improve their skills about the true facts about this ever changing world and make it known when they err. The Real Climate Website has improved over years and it serves its users well…We can only hope those who receive grant money or a yearly salary tell us only the true facts about the weather and use the phrase ” we don’t know… ” when they are in doubt over the substantive issues surrounding global warming or cooling.

    Comment by DERR UFO — 24 Nov 2011 @ 9:30 PM

  533. RE: “European heat wave in 2003, Moscow heat wave in 2010 etc.) shows some promise, and is indicating that the odds of such extremes are shifting in predictable ways – but this is still cutting edge science. – gavin]”

    What does this “cutting edge” science have to say about the heat waves of the 1930s and the extremes of 1934?

    How about the absolute disaster the climate played in the defeat of the Spanish Armada – “cutting edge” science must have lots of great theories on the damage climate has already done to the cause of the Spanish Crown.

    By the way, just how does a scientist quantify all this. Is one hurricane worth two droughts, or 1/2 a bitter winter. What is the basic unit of scariness?

    Comment by Bruce Frykman — 25 Nov 2011 @ 7:32 AM

  534. RE: “[Response: Now you are just being silly. Trenberth actually said it was a travesty that we didn't have good enough monitoring of the Earth's radiation budget to know where the energy is going (and coming) on decadal time scales. And that is a shame - surely even you would welcome more accurate observations? - gavin]”

    Cutting through the pea soup thick jargon, what Gavin is saying here is that its a shame they cant measure the earth’s temperature. I have been saying this myself for over a decade. I’m glad Gavin is finally on board with me. The fact that they can’t measure the Earth’s temperature in no way should discourage us from accepting theories that it simply must be ascending even if we cant see it or sense it. Newton’s theories would similarly be just as pretty even if gravity did not exist wouldn’t they?

    Comment by Bruce Frykman — 25 Nov 2011 @ 7:47 AM

  535. [Response: Of course LW radiation depends on temperature, how is that the issue? But the point was about the logarithmic nature of the forcing from CO2 - this has everything to do with pressure broadening, line widths, absorption bands, overlaps etc. and nothing specifically to do what you think the temperature in Antarctica is or should be. - gavin]

    From my reading of Arrhenius’ on carbonic acid paper, the ln relationship is based on the estimated temperature of the radiant layer. He starts with 255K and mentions 246K as a secondary radiant layer. Neither temperature is applicable in the Antarctic.

    Based on Arrhenius’ ln relationship, his final table indicates that latitude 25 N would have the highest impact of a change in CO2 from 0.67K to 1.5K, “If carbonic acid decreases to 0.67 or increases to 1.5 times it present quantity.” That range, assuming the “present quantity was 280ppm, would be, 188ppm to 420ppm, resulting in a change at lat 24.5 N of -3.2 to +3.6, which with current concentrations of ~390ppm seems to not be all that accurate.

    Reading the paper, there appears to be a number of approximations that may have contributed to this minor discrepancy. The average temperature on the moon at 100K, the estimated impact of the atmospheric effect being 200K seem to be of some significance.

    I am sure that the models use more accurate estimates than Arrhenius’, I just don’t recall seeing a formula that includes the correct physical relationships that appear to be required. As such, I am curious why reference to the Arrhenius paper criticized by Angstrom is so common. Angstrom just mentioned that at surface temperatures and pressures that CO2 was near saturation which would impact Arrhenius’ equation.

    Correcting for temperatures appears to more closely match observations in the tropics and the Antarctic. Plus the greater warming in the Arctic region tends to agree with Arrhenius’ temperature assumptions. possibly, because he lived near the Arctic circle.

    I believe Ray Pierrehumbert was a bit mystified by what circulation could produce the Russian heat wave, which really should not be that great a mystery in my opinion.

    Perhaps I am missing some literature that better explains how the ln relationship is corrected in the models for regional conditions?

    Comment by dallas — 25 Nov 2011 @ 2:50 PM

  536. What a “cold” site – a lot of defensive PR, little science and bad humor.

    Question – why do more and more scientists leave the AGW camp each passing month? I thought the science was settled.

    Another question – why have the AGW poll numbers tanked vs. a few years back? Clearly a majority of people are now skeptical of the AGW “science.”

    Looks to me like you folks aren’t very good at either science or PR.

    I just looked at Compete.com and it looks like your US traffic (i.e. unique visitors) is down about 50% in Oct 2011 from Oct 2010.

    Man the lifeboats! If Real Climate had a publicly traded stock it would be a great short.

    Comment by teeheeman — 25 Nov 2011 @ 6:04 PM

  537. tamino says:
    22 Nov 2011 at 7:03 PM
    “I’m tempted to laugh — but the health, safety, even survival of the next generation is at stake. They’ll know who it was who sealed their fate.”
    ===========
    You seem to delight in this outcome.
    Yet, infer an action has changed “fate”.

    Comment by u.k.(us) — 25 Nov 2011 @ 9:16 PM

  538. Not bad, it took nearly 5 hours to borehole that last one on Arrhenius.

    I have a post on http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2011/11/radiantion-versus-conductivity.html which appears to be a reasonable mechanism to explain part of the SH NH forcing issues.

    Why things are not performing as expected is the reason for the skepticism. Over looking small things is not that uncommon. One degree surface temperature increase would change TOA Emissivity from 0.609 to ~0.602. :)

    Happy Holidays

    Comment by dallas — 26 Nov 2011 @ 6:46 AM

  539. 312 Ray says:
    We don’t need the models to be right because we have observations showing they are right?

    What a whopper. And you call this a place for science education?

    Dude, yes plenty of people have really thought this out. And YES the models are as wrong as your pile of attributions.

    What’s even worse is your confused conclusions that the green policies amount to “stamping on the brakes to avoid catastrophe”.

    Is that what California’s lunacy is doing? Not hardly. They are stamping on their economy without avoiding anything.

    Or how about here in Oregon.
    Would you care to apply some of your profound wisdom to the fabricated Oregon’s Ocean Dead Zones whopper?

    This is a prime example of your weakness.

    It should be an easy task for the RC Team.

    Comment by Steve Oregon — 26 Nov 2011 @ 11:45 AM

  540. “The problem here is that your view of the situation is so binary. It is either a catastrophe or negligible. The only solution is reducing carbon emissions to zero immediately. But neither of these things are true. There is a whole range of impacts that range for the minor to the very serious, and there is no-one who doesn’t recognise that reducing emissions is a long-term proposition. Please stop arguing against strawmen. – gavin]”

    I am fairly certain that we will not suddenly quit using fossil fuel. As long as they are the most efficent fuel we will continue their use.

    In my opinion, we will become more efficient, given hockey stick curve of new technology coming out. That efficiency will reduce our use of energy. More folks will work at home. There will be less need to travel. Aircraft and automobiles will be much more fuel efficient. I expect that we will have autopilot on the interstates before too long (maybe 20 years??), and that it will eliminate the waste of traffic jams. These innovative technologies will be driven by competition and the market, not through taxation or because we fear some catastrophe.

    I strongly believe that our children and grandchildren will inherit a much better world.

    Comment by David Wright — 26 Nov 2011 @ 12:14 PM

  541. RE: #48 Ray Ladbury.
    The idea of stabilizing the climate by controlling CO2 is absurd in itself. Long before man was a factor CO2 was changing concentrations and the climate was changing, not necessarily in concert with each other. What would we do to offset/control the influence of the various cycles of the sun and the orbits of the earth? Certainly there are alternative sources of energy, my point is the ability to transport them. Battery packs for trucks and farm vehicles is a cute idea (re prokarotes search for electric tractors) which is only cute. The battery packs currently available would weigh too much to be of pragmatic use. Better would be a system to liquify hydrogen as a fuel, the storage of which is also problematic at this point.

    The problem is not climate, which is constantly changing, but man’s perception and limited knowledge and his constantly recurring belief that changes are due to something he has or hasn’t done. Again – this current belief that we are doing something to change the climate and so must change our behavior is no different than the beliefs which led to virgin sacrifices for droughts etc.

    What we are doing wrong, if anything, is building in flood plains – whether coastal or inland. We know storms and floods occur yet build there and then say we should control the weather so the floods won’t occur or the sea levels won’t change?

    Actually it is typical human arrogance to believe these things – that man is so important and influencial that by his actions or inactions the climate and weather changes.

    I again ask: Will we control the climate and make it the ideal of the 1980′s. What assurances are there of this – guarantees no less?

    Comment by Lewis Guignard — 27 Nov 2011 @ 7:56 AM

  542. Re: # 48 Ray Ladbury.
    I again ask, what assurances are there that the proposals to control climate will actually worked as touted?
    Further, the electric tractors prokaryotes recommended are quaint but not useful in the world of actual work.

    Comment by Lewis Guignard — 27 Nov 2011 @ 8:01 AM

  543. @434.

    I agree with you that the output of climate scientists that reject the consensus model (or disagree about parts of it) is much smaller (you said “pathetic”) than the much larger group of people that agree with the consensus model.

    However, there are other avenues of model-based, statistic-based, projection-based pursuits– including ones that are used to define and drive critical elements of policy or budget, that still allow diametrically opposed mutually exclusive publications and perspectives, without being forced to resort to ‘grey-literature’ or dealing with ‘unhelpful’ attempts to change the peer-review process internally.

    Consider economics and medicine (it’s been said before). The Keynesians and Austrians have been going at it forever, and both are allowed to co-exist at the peer-reviewed high IF level despite utter disagreements each camp has with eachother’s work, model assumptions, and everything else. The same exists in medicine.

    It’s quite clear to me that the allowed publication of more, rather than less, will be much more helpful than the attempts (that these emails clarify) to reduce that daylight. Do the results of publication A disagree with the results of publications B-F? So what? (As you know) it gets sorted out in responses, citations, and in time will become completely irrelevant as time progresses. The Steig and O’Donnell debacle as well as the recent paper on Moscow Warming vs. Pielke, Jr.’s are two examples of peer-review / IPCC catastrophes that were/weren’t narrowly avoided (if one or the other were not to see the light of day as being ‘on the table’). No doubt there are others that did not make it, for ‘unhelpful’ reasons. Heck, even Spencer and Dressler should be allowed to make all their statements without having to worry about whether or not a reviewer wants to reject their arguments because it flies in the face of what either they themselves have published or assume in their methodology. Does this mean closer to ‘anything’ (rather than farther) can be said/published? Yes, but it seems to me that comments, responses, and further research works.

    So (whenever we’re on the topic), the question is how to reform the system to permit more publications with diametrically opposed counter-majority model assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions (but yet repeatable, verifiable experiments/modeling that lead to those conclusions) to ascend out of the grey-literature and through the peer-review. I understand journals have a desire to evaluate and ensure whatever they put out is going to be highly cited and referenced, and therefore they may shy away from something they fear may not get the job done (which is their right), but there are or should be regulations in place to see that this pseudo-capitalistic pursuit doesn’t overtake the system.

    Because to me, getting an exhonerative slap-on-the-wrist like a ‘unhelpful’ label implies that the way forward for scientists currently might equally be (a) reform, or (b) finding better ways to not get in trouble while essentially doing the same exact things as before.

    I hope it’s the former, but so far, there hasn’t been much to see yet, since AR5 has elected to postpone and set aside various recommendations (ironically out of things like fairness and respect).

    I suggest that allowing these sorts of improvements to exist would end up resulting in the same thing we have now: a paucity of thinly cited climate papers by a minority of scientists disagreeing with a large body of work by an even larger group of agreeing scientists… but it will have the added effect of taking away a key source of ammo that these emails (as with the other batch) clearly illuminate.

    Comment by Salamano — 27 Nov 2011 @ 10:24 AM

  544. You want reduced carbon emissions, economic reality will provide them, austerity in Europe and the UK, coming soon to a country near you.

    You want reduced carbon emissions, peak oil is here, the cheap free flowing, sweet, light energy source that built or this is falling behind with required demand. 150…200…250+ those days are coming, demand destruction also means emission destruction.

    You want to build new alt energy infrastructure, sure, but the cheap free flowing stuff is gone, we have to work hard for it now, under the ocean, ice caps, shale..you get my drift.

    As you divert oil to build this new infrastructure, other industries will die, hell the world is already broke mostly. Emission trading for the plebs so we consume less and they can try at least.

    The coincidence that peak oil arrives at about the same time as AGW panic is astonishing, truly.

    Want to know the answer to peak oil/resources, Iraq, libya, Iran(caspian sea), syria, afgan. There it is folks, happening right in front of your eyes, I guess its easy to disregard reality, is it not :)

    I am astonished at how easily seemingly highly intelligent people can be distracted.

    How can you even defend SOME of these emails? Why would you? What is science?

    Comment by simon — 27 Nov 2011 @ 6:20 PM

  545. OK so just how does more CO2 cause more warming? The Arrhenius 1896 paper proves that every night when you add more CO2 the temperature goes DOWN, contrary to Arrhenius & IPCC conclusions.
    So could it be that if you add more energy photon in the greenhouse effect you get more warming, & reduce the number you get cooling? I think that is what happens every day. In which case you have to control how much energy comes in to cause the greenhouse warming.
    Because there is an excess of the GHG water vapor and an excess of CO2 there is more than enough to combine with the number of energy photons coming in. Could this be why whenever more water vapor GHGs are added when it rains, that the temprature does absolutely nothing? SO controlling CO2 does absolutely nothing to the temperature. The warming is controlled by the energy coming in, which is why the paper “Gravity causes Climate cahange” in http://www.scribd.com, dictates how much and when we get cyclical 60 year warming cycles.
    What a waste of research time.

    Comment by John Dodds — 29 Nov 2011 @ 10:57 AM

  546. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/25/seven-eminent-physicists-that-are-skeptical-of-agw/

    Comment by Scott — 29 Nov 2011 @ 2:46 PM

  547. Hi Gavin, why did you edit out my question? If you could explain what was wrong with what I asked that would be appreciated. I’m interested to know how one can be judged to be operating in ‘rogue editor’ or ‘own judgement’ mode. This seems to be quite fundamental to understanding the concept of ‘collective self-reflection’ which seems to be important in understanding the context of the climategate 2.0 emails.

    Comment by ZT — 29 Nov 2011 @ 11:04 PM

  548. @ 559, 560

    The emails released from CRU (the overall subject matter of the thread) details many occasions in scientists “critique”, “denigrate”, (pick a word) each other’s work in addition to that of contrarians. These emails imply that most climate scientists are a very thick-skinned bunch, unless it comes to the words of outsiders (much like a family rallies around each other even as they needle as well).

    Gavin’s main complaint (as I read it) was that these otherwise ignorable papers can not be ignored, because of how they get picked up in the media or bandied about by the blogosphere. Countless hours of time are spend re-hashing the science, de-bunking the papers, and getting back on track– the time would be better spent furthering the research. Sometimes, as Gavin alludes, such response is demanded of them in a way that makes it involuntary.

    My response to this may be manyfold:

    1. It has been well pointed out that the policy options that the science can speak to are highly politicized, so it’s already a given that an inordinate amount of skepticism of the science can arise from any number of worthy and unworthy motivations. We’re also talking about a lot of serious consequences that need to be mitigated through some serious actions that affect a lot of people (for example, the uneducated 20-year career coal-miner with a good job and no transferable skills in an impoverished area). It is easy for some folks to latch on to the possibility that their livelihood (vilified through no fault of their own) may be salvageable while at the same time not costing the environment as much– unfounded as it may be to just about every scientist. Unfortunately, because of the highly sensitive (and political) reality that exists– this type of care must still be given, even if it’s rehashed.

    2. The community of scientists that exists with more-or-less agreeable views on the current climate understanding is rather large, and the contrarian group small, so it should not have to fall to the same four-six people to respond to every paper.

    3. Given a general human fallibility, it should not also fall to a small number of people to be the final arbiter of what is “crap” that should forever be left off the stage, and what deserves publication despite being flawed. The climate emails have underscored the publication of papers that any number of people have held a number of transient opinions on– and that fact alone merits more works being published rather than less.

    4. That contrarian papers, or even ones that do not lock-step advocate for similar policy or carry similar future climate projections, that they “muddy the waters” is going to be true. Some of this is because there’s a lot of research, modelings, assumptions, and whatever else going on, and some of it is because there are some in the field who want above-all-else to hold-fast to certain specific policy outcomes as the hill to die on. The latter is closer to an activist stance that, if permitted to dominate, would have denied publication of many papers in recent memory that should have gone to press and should be in the literature today despite contentions among scientists (I cited examples a few hundred posts ago– we’re not talking just about magical incoherence) :)

    5. Allowing this stuff to be in peer-review removes a key criticism (the whole ‘gate-keeping’ thing) so that it can no longer be pointed to as a stifling of competition or academic censorship, or whatever else. The draw-backs come in the form of wasted time and annoyance, but the continued reps in re-demonstrating the strength of the science will just continue to work over time… but the failure to address and move beyond critics’ main contentions behind the warts of the IPCC and peer-review has simply given more ammunition that allows eager bystanders something to reach for to continue to dismiss the strength of the science without even having to engage it.

    I apologize for the wall-of-text. I’m prepared for the snip ;)

    Comment by Salamano — 30 Nov 2011 @ 2:19 PM

  549. Help us, some of us normal people need some idea of the time when trouble will insue. What date say within 100 to 500 years will the AGW be something of real day to day problems for our childrens/children x some number of generations. Please help us with just an estimate.

    Thanks

    Comment by NEEDTOUNDERSTAND — 1 Dec 2011 @ 2:56 PM

  550. So , you are trying to tell me , that warming world will see less cyclones ?
    See the 2 above posts . First you have to tell it to Al Gore , cause he is saying opposite .
    Second , if the world is warming , first oceans would have get warmer to transfer the heat to atmosphere , but they are cooling .
    So you are right there there will be less cyclones , but then the Earth cant warm can it ?
    I think you guys are getting bogged up like centuries ago , when scientists thought the Earth is centre of the universe and with more discoveries more lines were added , untill they found , that global warming can not cause more snow .
    Its simple it rains when its warm , and it snows when its cold .

    Comment by Vlasta — 2 Dec 2011 @ 9:24 AM

  551. Funny how you all are equating tree leaves in a particular year with ‘climate’. I thought you all knew the difference between ‘weather’ and ‘climate’. One could just as easily cite the November weather in Fairbanks, Ak. as evidence of an impending ice age………”A frigid Arctic air mass, unusual even by Alaska standards, is dropping the mercury in the state’s interior to unheard of levels in mid-November. Stunningly low temperatures in the -35 to -50 range have gripped the region since Tuesday. These temperatures are some 25 to 40 degrees colder than average.”

    On another note, Durban is collapsing because of the hubris of the ‘team’. The ’cause’ has been exposed once and for all as driven by politics and not science. ClimateGate 2.0 proves that point even more clearly. Steve McIntyre has destroyed the credibility of the ‘Team’ and the once the court orders UVA has to release Mike Mann’s emails, tthe final nail will be driven into the AGW movement.

    Comment by paul — 2 Dec 2011 @ 2:28 PM

  552. CM says:
    3 Dec 2011 at 4:25 PM
    Vukcevic #68, if you’ve got answers that science is desperate not to know, write them up, I’m sure the Fortean Times will be interested.
    Thank you for the comment, no idea who or what Forteen Times but I shall eventually look it up.
    Since with your name there is no website associated, I do not know if you are a researcher, scientist or casual passer by, which would be helpful in framing an answer to your question: “why don’t you? “
    But in any case, I assume you have looked at the link I provided, if your have looked at it and did not observe anything worth attention, then your post is appropriate, but the answer composition / interpretation would be waist of your and my time.
    On the other hand if you did study the detail and you are versed in temperature variations and the subject of solar activity, my post was addressed to solar and the climate experts, and you count yourself in either or both categories, then your post needs no further action in view of providing an answer.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-T.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 4 Dec 2011 @ 4:20 AM

  553. RichardC says:
    3 Dec 2011 at 10:25 PM
    …..
    Obviously you have looked at the link,
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-T.htm
    your comments are far too exhaustive to answer them all, some are already in the original post, so a repeat would be redundant, and regretfully some I shall ignore.
    The temperature data is one of the longest and most reliable instrumental records, very relevant to insolation, the anomaly is in degrees C, with no reduction or amplification or de-trending.
    Your comments about it being ‘bogus’ reveals either you didn’t consider fully what is already there or climate science is your hobby rather than vocation, and knowledge of climate data records superficial.
    Since your post is anonymous (no full name or website link) I shall leave it there, but if one of the moderators would like to know more, I am happy to forward all the details (data already scrutinised by solar scientist Dr. Svalgaard of Stanford University), alternatively my second article on the North Atlantic Oscillations will be available on line in next few weeks (link to the first: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/theAMO.htm )

    Comment by vukcevic — 4 Dec 2011 @ 5:15 AM

  554. Craig,
    Your personal experience living in NY (or Austin for that matter) is no substitute for sound scientific evidence. Your first post seems to misunderstand the issue at hand. I post the following as requested:
    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/How_natural.pdf
    DO not pay too much attention to Hank, he prefers to ridicule those which whom he disagrees rather than debate openly.

    Comment by Dan H. — 6 Dec 2011 @ 6:51 AM

  555. Your graph only goes back to 1950. I thought that ‘history’ went back a little further than that. Funny the hot 30′s are not represented, nor the MWP, etc. Surely you jest?

    Comment by Paul — 6 Dec 2011 @ 2:02 PM

  556. 645, Ray Ladbury: Again, the problem is that people don’t understand how science works.

    Maybe. They certainly do understand how lobbying for policy based on misrepresentation of science works. What’s in the CRU emails is documentation that prominent science lobbyists misrepresented the science in their public semitechnical writings and comments. That isn’t a negligible detail.

    They inserted themselves into the class containing used car salesmen exaggerating the reliability of a used car. “Of course” the used car salesmen know how the used car really works. It’s the miscommunication of that knowledge that is the problem.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 6 Dec 2011 @ 2:07 PM

  557. Wow, ENSO actually makes it cooler, rather than warmer. McLean et al 2009 must be disappointed.

    Anyway, at the current rate, determined by Tamino, the eastern tropical pacific will be 8.2 deg C cooler 20000 odd years from now.

    Comment by Isotopious — 6 Dec 2011 @ 4:50 PM

  558. Methane is ”the most misrepresented molecule” in the whole conspiracy! Burning methane is bad, because turns methane + oxygen into water = depleting oxygen into the atmosphere. IS THE BIGGEST CRIME COMMITTED BY THE MISLEADING PROPAGANDA. Creating methane on the other hand, is reversing the damages. Mitich formula: cow + grass = CO2 + 2H2O = CH4 +O4 / fire = CH4 + O4 = 2H2O + CO2. The truth is COMPLETELY opposite than the contemporary lies!!

    Permafrost might release some methane; if is sufficient moisture, to create snow in the permafrost. We might get another Tanguska explosion; but methane doesn’t produce any phony GLOBAL warming. Methane burning (natural gas is 96% methane) depletes the oxygen in the atmosphere. Natural gas was in the ground for million years, oxygen was in the atmosphere; burning it > turns oxygen into water… we are burning already lots of natural gas – is promoted by the propaganda as better fuel… less oxygen in the atmosphere… oxygen is the insulator, between the unlimited coldness in the stratosphere and the ground = more extreme between day and night.

    IT IS MORE ESSENTIAL THAN EVER, TO PRODUCE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE NEW METHANE! http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com You will find page on methane, please help me to present the truth, it’s of utmost importance and urgency!

    Comment by stefanthedenier — 6 Dec 2011 @ 11:27 PM

  559. “This is what horticulturists and ecologists call microclimates, and they play a very important role in species distribution in some very surprising ways.”

    Microclimates take a lot of the worry out of Climate Change. Species do tend to find a niche upon which to take root.

    Comment by David Wright — 6 Dec 2011 @ 11:58 PM

  560. Dramatic changes in the climate system are responsible for increasing the global temperature. Weather conditions are getting extreme specially in plain areas. Winter period is shrinking in plains and summer period is increasing with violent reactions. In the last decade the most worst affected countries of the world from global warming are Pakistan, China, Japan, Turkey and America. For further information please visit the link.

    http://mirza-fraz-b.blogspot.com/

    Comment by Faraz — 7 Dec 2011 @ 12:42 PM

  561. Craig,
    You need to read you sources more closely. The IPCC clearly states 0.006 C / decade for land, which they claim is from the TAR report, without updating. That is a factor of 5 different from this study, and contains data that is over a decade old.

    You may want to brush up on the recent scientific papers. Even the BEST data says 0.02 C / decade.

    Attacking a person rather than data which appears in a peer-reviewed paper does you no merits. Sometimes data collection does take months of work. I would worry if someone was able to collect all that data and perform the analysis in a matter of days. Science takes time.

    Comment by Dan H. — 9 Dec 2011 @ 9:37 PM

  562. So you are all celebrating at 0.16C per decade? So that means in 100yrs we will have an increase of 1.6C? Way below the 3C speculated?
    Also it seems 0.16C has been a very long term trend regardless of CO2.

    See: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

    Also see Phil Jones interview at:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Note the answer to question A: A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    Period Length Trend
    (Degrees C per decade) Significance
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

    So the question is: Since 1860 to 1880 and 1910 to 1940 had nothing to do with CO2, why should the years past 1975 have anything to do with CO2?

    Comment by Bob B — 10 Dec 2011 @ 9:23 PM

  563. @147 Hank Roberts

    Hank,

    I’m not the guy with the “doomsday” scenarios. As for where some of the information I get comes from – check out what’s coming out of Durban. 50% reduction of 1990 levels of emissions is now the lower limit. Exactly how do you expect such a level to impact the US? You really think it possible to achieve such a reduction – in the next 8 years – without shutting down much of the coal fired electrical generation and/or removing a significant portion of fossil fueled auto and truck transport from the road?

    It isn’t about “denying” climate change. It is about not taking counsel of one’s fears about what might happen due to a warmer environment in order to accept policies and actions that are guarenteed to have a negative impact to our lives. When talk turns to International Climate Courts and hundreds of billions in reparations to nations supposedly harmed by climate change, it requires scare stories to justify such action. I was chided by Dr. Schmidt for creating the “strawman” argument of 30 – 40 ft rise in sea level. Yet David Archer, who is a contributor here, says we can expect at least a 10 meter rise and tens of meters is not out of the question. And I believe James Hansen recently used similar numbers. I am not pulling this stuff out of thin air. I wasn’t the one who claimed polar bears were facing extinction. I’m not the one making up the number 50 million when talking about refugees from climate change. These are just a few of the arguments being used to justify political action.

    It is not enough to prove we are getting warmer. You have to also prove getting warmer is bad for us. And that is not something that is even close to being proven. Instead, we get stuff like a recent study of birds in Chile, where the scientists found that several species of birds had not migrated to as high of an elevation as expected and concluded they were possibly threatened by a warming climate because they were not adapting fast enough. That is one possible conclusion. Another is that the modelling that predicted expected migration could have included false assumptions or failed to include important data. Which conclusion do you look at first? The way I was taught, I go back to the drawing board when predicted results don’t match observed behavior. I don’t assume it is the birds fault and therefor they are doomed.

    Comment by timg56 — 12 Dec 2011 @ 1:13 PM

  564. JCH,
    Amazing how flat that trend is when you show in such a manner. Four years are higher, and seven are lower. However, I still think you should view the graph in light of the long term. Recent temperatures fall right in line with the long-term trend.
    Maybe Hank should view the graph. Then he might understand the situation a little better, and why people like Hansen and Trenberth are postulating as to the cause of the recent ‘pause,’ instead of ignoring it.

    Comment by Dan H. — 12 Dec 2011 @ 5:20 PM

  565. Well Secular,
    I am sorry you feel that way. Maybe you should tell Hansen, Trenberth, Solomon, and a host of others that all their work is nonsense, and they should stop trying to ascertain why the warming has not proceeded as expected in the last decade. Apparently, you have some keen insight that you would be willing to share with them and the rest of us.
    The only satisfaction I would get would be to finally nail down the variables which have contributed significantly to the observed warming. Ignorign data and possible causes does not lead to enhanced learning.

    Comment by Dan H. — 15 Dec 2011 @ 11:21 AM

  566. Do I detect fear that they may actually be correct?

    Given the performance of the IPCC models and their inability to predict the recent 15 year leveling off, I would say the more models out with varying methods the better off we are. The only real test of a models performance is future comparison, unless you buy into hind casting.

    Dismissing this out of hand is irresponsible.

    Nobody is king of the hill in climate modeling, and this is throwing stones in a glass house.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 15 Dec 2011 @ 2:38 PM

  567. MA,
    The warming is not a fictiously-proposed trend, but a statistically-measured value. This may change in the future. The higher short-term trend of the 1990s and lower short-term trend of the 2000s only change the long-term trend (1880-present) from 0.5 to 0.6C / century.

    Craig,
    I will ask you a similar question: So how can atmospheric CO2 concentrations be contributing to most of the warming if the planet has not warmed? Once you answer this question, then you shuold be able to answer yours (since you did not seem to accept any of my previous answers).

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Dec 2011 @ 9:40 AM

  568. MA,
    The warming is not a fictiously-proposed trend, but a statistically-measured value. This may change in the future. The higher short-term trend of the 1990s and lower short-term trend of the 2000s only change the long-term trend (1880-present) from 0.5 to 0.6C / century.

    Craig,
    I will ask you a similar question: So how can atmospheric CO2 concentrations be contributing to most of the warming if the planet has not warmed? Once you answer this question, then you shuold be able to answer yours (since you did not seem to accept any of my previous answers).

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Dec 2011 @ 1:33 PM

  569. You guys just don’t get it. You’re not arguing the science. You’re attacking the sceptics. You claim to have the science, but you never discuss it, you just complain that the sceptics don’t have the science on their side, but you never actually address the science that you supposedly have. If you had the “settled” science, you’d simply have to argue the science, but since you don’t have the science, you attack the sceptics. But that is the nature of “the cause, isn’t it. It never really was about the science, it was always about the politics. But it isn’t important anymore, the politics is settled. The IPCC/WWF/Greenpeace is done. It’s over. The gig is up.

    Comment by Tunderbar — 19 Dec 2011 @ 3:30 PM

  570. I think it is unfortunate that Realclimate decided to carry such a post as this. To describe a whole group of scientists as ‘science cynics’ is far beyond being just tribal and partisan.
    Particularly, Dr Curry is misrepresented as describing herself as ’50% a denier’. Anybody who watched the whole of her presentation will know that this is basically false as well as snide. She clearly, to make a point, suggested that Kevin Trenberth’s schedule of labelling denialists was so extreme that it would make Dr Curry herself seem 50% a denier. As well as, presumably, many other people.
    The comment was in the context of ‘demonising the dissenters’ which, given the tone of this post, was quite apt.

    Comment by Anteros — 19 Dec 2011 @ 7:46 PM

  571. Alastair @ #7,

    OK I will follow the same precautionary principal as you.

    The vast majority of qualified experts in the field of religion beleive in God, in fact the vast majority of people do. The downside of not believing, if it is true, is catastrophic, therefore I will take the insurance option and spend my life under that premise.

    And what’s more, I will believe the religion with the strongest hell option (hell, why not!) because that is the safest if I am right.
    So there it is, beyond all logic, Keith Woollard now believes in God.

    Now I know the two aren’t the same, but without positive feedbacks, AGW is a non-event, and positive feedbacks are largely a faith

    Comment by KeithWoollard — 19 Dec 2011 @ 11:19 PM

  572. MA,
    The warming is not a fictitiously-proposed trend, but a statistically-measured value. This may change in the future. The higher short-term trend of the 1990s and lower short-term trend of the 2000s only change the long-term trend (1880-present) from 0.5 to 0.6C / century.

    Craig,
    I will ask you a similar question: So how can atmospheric CO2 concentrations be contributing to most of the warming if the planet has not warmed? Once you answer this question, then you should be able to answer yours (since you did not seem to accept any of my previous answers).

    Comment by Dan H. — 20 Dec 2011 @ 10:15 AM

  573. Susan,
    I have found many posters here that fit that description also. Scientists, by definition, are skeptical. Unfortunately, there are those who try to force their position upon others without the usual evidence that should support any scientific position. There is nothing dangerous about a skeptical scientist.

    Comment by Dan H. — 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:42 PM

  574. Matthew,

    Thank for the graphs. Interesting that the AMO was high during the previous period of high temperature also. Nice comparison, especially the repetition of high AMO and high temperatures.

    Comment by Dan H. — 20 Dec 2011 @ 11:53 PM

  575. Seems to me that this article should help Mark B with his “Climate Cynicism” concerns about contrarians not presenting at mainstream conferences, where they’ll likely be compared to proponents of a flat earth or a biblical 6k year old earth or a nazi as a holocaust denier. There remains a well informed (though small) group of responsible scientists
    who reject AGW based on their interpretation of the facts. They are not industry shills, fools, or senile. The comparison with the many people who *deny facts* is simply preposterous given the impossibility of controlled experiments and direct observation of AGW. You could make a case that “denying” the fact that there is global warming would be irrational, but the case for AGW, though strong, is hardly factual. Or are you asserting it is in fact an idea with such overwhelming support that no rational person could possibly entertain any alternative hypotheses to explain the observed warming of the post industrial period?

    Comment by Joe Hunkins — 21 Dec 2011 @ 1:49 PM

  576. I guess deniers like myself are still waiting for the birth of modern climate science, analogised:

    “…After Galileo’s telescopic observations of the crescent, gibbous and full phases of Venus, therefore, this Ptolemaic model became untenable…”

    Until then, I will be sticking with the ‘Ptolemaic model’, that modern climate change is natural.

    Comment by Isotopious — 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:03 PM

  577. “I guess deniers like myself are still waiting for the birth of modern climate science”

    You’re not alone there pal. There are alot of us who wait.

    Comment by klem — 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:49 PM

  578. Slow acceptance of ACC, geeze I’ve only just come to grips with AGW, and I don’t think acceptance of ACC has been slow, the concept of CCW has only been in the public domain for about exactly 1 day. Today.

    Are we now going to change the name of the theory to fit the changes to climate because it now isolates between warm & cool and not just warm.? If the theory stood still for long enough the wider public just might get it.

    Comment by markus — 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:55 PM

  579. It is often stated that temperature rise since 1930s is due to the CO2. It is duty of any responsible scientists to test, question, review and consider all uncertainties.
    Here I highlight an ‘apparent link’ between the CET and the well known geomagnetic indices:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GMF.htm
    Since the Northern hemisphere’s and even the global temperature are highly correlated to the CET, my findings can not be dismissed as localised events.
    Some may consider it coincidence, but that is highly unlikely considering number of the daily values averaged in the data sets used.
    On-line article with more details will be on my website.

    Comment by vukcevic — 22 Dec 2011 @ 8:35 AM

  580. Here I highlight an apparent link between the CET and the well known geomagnetic indices:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-GMF.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:19 AM

  581. The reactions to this post are interesting, specifically the differences between the RC groupies and climate scientists who actually attended the conference (thanks, Chick and Manvendra). I would also note that Curry’s views on the conference (based on her post) seemed to be reasonably in line with those of Chick and Manvendra. Sounds like it was a good conference.

    Comment by Dennis — 22 Dec 2011 @ 12:35 PM

  582. Peter,
    The MCO was not localaized to NW Europe, as evidence has mounted in North America and China. There is no confirmation that it extended to the Southern Hemisphere, but that has more to do with the lack of evidence either way. Whether temperatures were above or below present day is largely unsettled.
    To follow up on Ray’s comment; there are those who will deny its occurrance without concern for reality.

    Comment by Dan H. — 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:34 PM

  583. John,
    You make a good point about cycles. On the flip side, just because we cannot physically show how they may be related, does not mean that they are not. Were all the physical mechanisms if plate tectonics known, when the theory was first postulated? However, a high correlation between the two would merit further investigation into their connection. This, in no way, means that other serious problems should be ignored.

    Comment by Dan H. — 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:41 PM

  584. I think that “Climategate” was a (mild and ineffective) conspiracy and that the IPCC is rigged (No organisation is ever completely impartial, especially one that now is faced with political pressure)
    However I can follow the science enough to know beyond reasonable doubt that the effect of the extra CO2 is much greater than changes in solar intensity and more than enough to affect the climate. I guess it would be harder for people without scientific knowledge to know what to make of things however.

    Comment by Russell — 24 Dec 2011 @ 5:05 AM

  585. If something is repeated often enough, that validates it in the minds of true believers. Strange behavior from a field that claims to be based on science and not dogma.

    Comment by RW — 24 Dec 2011 @ 2:17 PM

  586. On example where an attitude of “I know how to calculate that” is using variations in solar output to try to explain global temperature changes with period 11 or 22 years. If you (very likely) do not consider the possibility that solar variations affect cosmic rays which affect cloud production, then you will “prove” that the cause is far too small. What I am getting at here is that the new idea that cosmic rays affect cloud production was not at all obvious. The Universe is more complicated that your philosophy.

    MARoger @118: you ask to be pointed in the direction of info on cyclical forces in the Universe. For the third time I mention http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/cycles-general/case_for_cycles.pdf by Edward Dewey. This is a summary of well established cycles knowledge as at the 1960s. About 80-90 years ago it was discovered that many things that seemed not to be related varied on cycles of the same period and phase. See “Matamek Conference on Biological Cycles”. This lead to the “Foundation for the Study of Cycles” about 1941, with many eminent scientists and business/govt people involved. Please take the Dewey paper very seriously. I independently discovered its key findings in the 1970s without being aware of the prior discoveries.

    Comment by Ray Tomes — 25 Dec 2011 @ 8:40 PM

  587. Flxible @119 and others: “Suppose that there are cyclical fluxes of energy throughout the Universe which affect both the activity and temperature of the Sun and Earth…” – OK, I need to add that there is a lot of evidence for such things. This forum is probably not the appropriate place for all of that. I invite you to discuss it further in CRI forum at http://cyclesresearchinstitute.org/forum/index.php and I only mention several things here:

    1. Dewey arrived at conclusion that there are “cyclical forces”. See paper referred above.

    2. Chizhevsky arrived at similar conclusion, and made the poetic and scientifically accurate statement: “Life is a phenomenon. Its production is due to the influence of the dynamics of the cosmos on a passive subject. It lives due to dynamics, each oscillation of organic pulsation is coordinated with the cosmic heart in a grandiose whole of nebulas, stars, the sun and the planet.”

    3. I have proposed the Harmonics Theory which from a simple principle (non-linearity of physics laws) successfully explains the many harmonically related cycles periods found in diverse disciplines and other previously inexplicable observations and makes many verified predictions. See http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html

    Comment by Ray Tomes — 25 Dec 2011 @ 8:49 PM

  588. Wasn’t Copernicus fighting ‘settled science’, the consensus of his time

    A consensus blessed with tremendous institutional support, governmental and private?

    Comment by Number9 — 26 Dec 2011 @ 11:09 AM

  589. First of all thanks Gavin. I described myself as a contrarian as the word ‘sceptic’ has become synonymous with ‘climate change denier’, which I am not. When I said I did not have a ‘sceptic’ agenda I was using the word to state that I had not set out to challenge climate change orthodoxy.

    I have replied in detail to comments #67 and #68 on my web site at: http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php . Suffice it to say that my site has enough material, with slight change of wording to make two good sites – one for each side of the debate.

    To return to the theme of this thread, it is an interesting anomaly that whereas Copernicus was trying to show people that they were less important than they thought the main theme of climate change is to show people that they are more important than they thought.

    Francis Fukayama is best known for “The End of History” but he also wrote a book called ‘Trust’. In it he postulates that successful societies are those in which Trust extends beyond families to institutions. Academia, which once was a ‘trusted’ institution, is now suspect. I would argue that the only way to regain the trust of the public in relation to climate change is to be more open about the remaining doubts (such as the ones that seem to trouble some people here) and argue that these doubts do not negate the need for action.

    Comment by Ron Manley — 27 Dec 2011 @ 2:16 PM

  590. Gavin replies to @123 and Ray Ladbury @124: Please explain to me how Kepler’s laws were not curve fitting. Then please explain why Newton’s gravity is not curve fitting. Same for GR. There is no mechanism for gravity. In all cases, “mechanism” is just a name given to something once it is obvious that it keeps happening.

    The null hypothesis used in cycles is that there is not a real cycle. The test is the Bartell’s test. It consists of examining the phase of a cycle over each individual single cycle period and putting these in a scatter diagram (by x=sine and y=cosine correlation). If you have 400 years data and an 11 year cycle, then there will be 36 points in the scatter diagram. If the scatter is consistent with them being centred on the 0,0 point then the null hypothesis (no significant cycle) is accepted. If not, then the cycle is indicated as real at that significance. It is a very good and widely accepted test.

    It seems pretty clear to me that no-one who has replied repetitively to me has actually read Dewey’s “The Case for Cycles” paper. If you look at it and check out the facts presented with an open mind, I guarantee that the way that you view the world will be considerably expanded. Otherwise I am wasting my time.

    Comment by Ray Tomes — 27 Dec 2011 @ 6:53 PM

  591. Interesting irony, Copernicus theorized that the planet of the apes was not the center of the solar system and a lot of theological hysteria was created when Galileo confirmed the theory while AGW has returned to the apes being the temperature center of the planet using a lot of hysterical temperature projections that have yet to be demonstrated. Unfortunately the modern version of Galileo is missing in action, apparently lost in the jungle.

    Comment by don — 30 Dec 2011 @ 6:46 PM

  592. I agree with those who think the comparison is unhelpful, barring the odd supernova burning out and a red shift imperceptible to that time, the movement of the solar system and visible universe is perhaps the most predictable phenomena you could imagine. It took many efforts from the greeks (who were close early on) to Kepler to get a decent handle on it, with religion etc getting in the way of the science. Kepler’s insights (when he recognised patterns in his and Tycho’s vast data) were actually an unbelievably laborious process of elimination.

    My simple point is that the acceptance or rejection of AGW as a phenomena capable of catastrophic consequences rests on a vast number of variables, a number of which are much more unpredictable than planetary movement. Look how long it took for the “science to be settled” on the most predictable system known at that time.

    Comment by NickC — 30 Dec 2011 @ 7:19 PM

  593. 134, Hank Roberts: Which ones, by whom, for whom?

    128, SepticMatthew: (witness the Queensland Australia mistaken decision not to enlarge their dam and reservoir system, for one example.)

    You could argue that the climate scientists who predicted that heavy rainfalls would never occur again in Queensland had a mistaken understanding of what climate science actually predicted, same as with the climate scientists who predicted several more years of intense hurricane activity after Katrina, or the climate scientists who predicted that the decade 2000 – 2010 would see a 2K rise in temperature, or the climate scientists who predicted that heavy snowfall would never again occur in London or D.C. Nevertheless, mistaken policy decisions were influenced by inaccurate predictions of widely quoted climate scientists.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 30 Dec 2011 @ 8:25 PM

  594. 170, Anna Haynes: We need a climate hearing; some Qs need to be asked where they can be answered under oath.

    And where climate scientists can be cross-examined by well-informed scientists who disagree with them, and where at least 2 teams (like defendant and prosecution [in the case of an accused criminal], or Advocate and Devil’s Advocate [in the case of a candidate for canonization]) can subpoena witnesses. Not just once, but on a regular schedule, such as every 5 years.

    I think that your proposal would be a positive step.

    Comment by Septic Matthew — 30 Dec 2011 @ 8:43 PM

  595. “Misrepresentations of Sargasso Sea Temperatures by Global Warming Doubters,” was rejected. This abstract was essentially the same material we presented at last year’s GSA meeting in Denver”

    Most serious scientific conferences do not solicit rehashes of previously presented papers. It was published once, there is no need to repeat it.

    Regards the IPCC, it was founded under the auspices of the UNFCCC specifically(paraphrase) “to collect and summarize the scientific dats showing the effects of human-caused global warming”. It was never intended to scientifically address changes in the climate, but provide scientific backing for proposals to effect changes in fossil fuel ussge, farming practices, and promote transfer of wealth from the developed countries to the less developed ones.

    Comment by George M — 1 Jan 2012 @ 9:49 PM

  596. Brian, Secular, and Hank,

    It is not my phrase, but an answer to that of David above (#176). I believe the phrase originated with Mojib Latif, not with Brian’s Bozo.

    Real scientists like Hansen, Solomon, Trenberth, et. al. are looking into explanations for these recent measurements, as opposed to obstinately denying the facts. Also, there appear to be those who prefer to attack the poster, rather than present alternate evidence. This is similar to the lawyer who knows his case is lost, unless he can somehow convince the jury that the witness is not credible. This tactic may be effective on the naive, but I do not see how this can be effective against a reasonable commenter.

    How long does this recent “lack of warming” have to last, before the remainder accept what the rest of us can already see? Twelve years and counting.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/to:1976/plot/gistemp/from:1976/to:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2012

    Comment by Dan H. — 3 Jan 2012 @ 4:17 PM

  597. Natural variability ?
    There is no mystery about ‘natural variability’ usually associated with the AMO, the PDO and the ENSO. They are all caused by the changes in the heat transport by the major currents, or more precisely change in the balance between cold and warm currents; for the AMO it is the circulation within subpolar gyre, the Labrador vs. the N. Atlantic drift current, while for the PDO it is Kuroshio vs Oyashio (Kamchatka) current.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/A&P.htm
    It is just a matter of the available energy distribution, either it is reradiated back into the space in the sub equatorial region (global cooling), or transported by the ocean currents further towards the poles (global warming).
    The ENSO case is somewhat different, where the balance between the South Equatorial and the Counter Equatorial currents determines the oscillation:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
    The AGW science is preoccupied with the CO2, and the sceptic camp is determined to squeeze the extra energy out of the TSI (in either case there is very little that matters), but when the both sides of the argument hit the buffers, it will be possible to present a more coherent case for the causes of the natural variability.

    Comment by vukcevic — 4 Jan 2012 @ 4:48 AM

  598. “Warmest on record” where record, based on the supplied graph, is 60 years. Tell me how it compares over 2,000 years and I’ll take notice. I consider one of the biggest influences on temperature to be variations in cloud density. Was this taken into account in the study?

    All this fiddling with temperature corrections, based on various assumptions, that might or might not be valid, isn’t very convincing science.

    I’m of the opinion that we might have experienced as much as 0.7 degC increase over the past 160 years, at the most. There is nothing surprising about this, as we come out of the little ice age.

    Comment by R James — 4 Jan 2012 @ 6:42 AM

  599. Hank,
    You really should heed your own advice.

    Your quote was for a small segment of the experiment, which focused on those trees which suffered from a N deficiency. If you read further, you will find, “An unanswered question has been why the negative feedback through the N cycle developed in ORNL-FACE and not in other forested FACE experiments.” Just who are you trying to mislead here?

    If you had read further, you would have found othe increases mentioned previously. Reading only the abstract reveals the following: “Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments have provided novel insights into the ecological mechanisms controlling the cycling and storage of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems and contribute to our ability to project how ecosystems respond to increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Important lessons emerge by evaluating a set of hypotheses that initially guided the design and longevity of forested FACE experiments. Net primary productivity is increased by elevated CO2, but the response can diminish over time. Carbon accumulation is driven by the distribution of carbon among plant and soil components with differing turnover rates and by interactions between the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant community structure may change, but elevated CO2 has only minor effects on microbial community structure. FACE results provide a strong foundation for next-generation experiments in unexplored ecosystems and inform coupled climate-biogeochemical models of the ecological mechanisms controlling ecosystem response to the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    This entire study was performed without using a single one of your cherry trees.

    Comment by Dan H. — 4 Jan 2012 @ 12:45 PM

  600. 601.Hank,
    You really should heed your own advice.

    Your quote was for a small segment of the experiment, which focused on those trees which suffered from a N deficiency. If you read further, you will find, “An unanswered question has been why the negative feedback through the N cycle developed in ORNL-FACE and not in other forested FACE experiments.” Just who are you trying to mislead here?

    If you had read further, you would have found othe increases mentioned previously. Reading only the abstract reveals the following: “Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments have provided novel insights into the ecological mechanisms controlling the cycling and storage of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems and contribute to our ability to project how ecosystems respond to increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Important lessons emerge by evaluating a set of hypotheses that initially guided the design and longevity of forested FACE experiments. Net primary productivity is increased by elevated CO2, but the response can diminish over time. Carbon accumulation is driven by the distribution of carbon among plant and soil components with differing turnover rates and by interactions between the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant community structure may change, but elevated CO2 has only minor effects on microbial community structure. FACE results provide a strong foundation for next-generation experiments in unexplored ecosystems and inform coupled climate-biogeochemical models of the ecological mechanisms controlling ecosystem response to the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    This entire study was performed without using a single one of your cherry trees.

    Comment by Dan H. — 4 Jan 2012 @ 1:16 PM

  601. Hank,
    You really should heed your own advice.

    Your quote was for a small segment of the experiment, which focused on those trees which suffered from a N deficiency. If you read further, you will find, “An unanswered question has been why the negative feedback through the N cycle developed in ORNL-FACE and not in other forested FACE experiments.” Just who are you trying to mislead here?

    If you had read further, you would have found othe increases mentioned previously. Reading only the abstract reveals the following: “Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments have provided novel insights into the ecological mechanisms controlling the cycling and storage of carbon in terrestrial ecosystems and contribute to our ability to project how ecosystems respond to increasing CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Important lessons emerge by evaluating a set of hypotheses that initially guided the design and longevity of forested FACE experiments. Net primary productivity is increased by elevated CO2, but the response can diminish over time. Carbon accumulation is driven by the distribution of carbon among plant and soil components with differing turnover rates and by interactions between the carbon and nitrogen cycles. Plant community structure may change, but elevated CO2 has only minor effects on microbial community structure. FACE results provide a strong foundation for next-generation experiments in unexplored ecosystems and inform coupled climate-biogeochemical models of the ecological mechanisms controlling ecosystem response to the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    This entire study was performed without using a single one of your cherry trees.

    Comment by Dan H. — 4 Jan 2012 @ 2:05 PM

  602. I wonder if giss-temp for 2011 will be 0.53 or more. If it isn’t, there will have been negligible cooling for the last decade.

    Come on liberty bell !

    Comment by Isotopious — 4 Jan 2012 @ 5:55 PM

  603. Pete Dunkleberg – Firstly you state as a fact that sea level is rising. In fact, sea level hasn’t risen for a number of years. You then give only two reasons for sea level change – thermal expansion and melting ice (perhaps no-one told you that Antarctic ice has been growing for the past 30 years).

    You left out one big one – movement of the tectonic plates. Sea level has been generally increasing for the past 20,000 years – it’s nothing new.

    Comment by R James — 5 Jan 2012 @ 4:21 PM

  604. I believe climate science is going about convincing the public in the wrong way.

    Greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere every year. Therefore, all things being equal, heat trapped by the atmosphere should increase every year. Of course all things are not equal, but what is not equal is also quantifiable.

    Particulate matter might prevent sunlight from reaching the earth leaving less heat to trap.

    Changes in the solar output might produce more or less heat to reach the earth.

    Is there anything else that might affect the amount of heat reaching earth? Not that I know of.

    Then in addition, not all heat increases temperature. Most important, I think, is wholesale melting of ice which absorbs the heat of fusion without raising the temperature.

    Perhaps some chemical reactions in the ocean take up heat. I don’t know if this is significant.

    If these are the only factors in the heat accounting it should be possible to find an equation whose solution would reveal that an ever larger percent of the heat entering the earth’s atmosphere is being trapped. That should be true every year, right?

    This number, I think, would be more persuasive. But can we measure these things accurately. That, I think would be a scientific achievement the public would be more likely to understand. A steadily increasing number is more persuasive than a trend computed from numbers that go up and down.

    Comment by Michael Doliner — 6 Jan 2012 @ 12:24 PM

  605. Interesting that the Global Sea Ice Area anomaly as of Jan 2012…..wait for it… Zero – its a travesty!

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    Comment by Big Al — 7 Jan 2012 @ 1:59 PM

  606. Add this to the list of climate disruption/ worst case accidents:

    Laboratory experiments carried out in Australia have proven that bubbles can, indeed, sink a scale model ship by decreasing the density of the water; any wreckage consequently rising to the surface would be rapidly dispersed by the Gulf Stream. It has been hypothesized that periodic methane eruptions (sometimes called “mud volcanoes”) may produce regions of frothy water that are no longer capable of providing adequate buoyancy for ships. If this were the case, such an area forming around a ship could cause it to sink very rapidly and without warning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Triangle#Methane_hydrates

    Comment by prokaryotes — 8 Jan 2012 @ 4:56 PM

  607. [Response:How much time do you think I have to wade through your posts and figure out what you're trying to say--even one time? Make a coherent argument based on some definite study of the literature, don't just shotgun up a bunch of copy/paste and links and expect people to follow your arguments, much less buy into them--Jim]

    Gavin could responded to my argument in post #106, just fine. In the following i have presented studies which are related or point on. Maybe i missed your point, though i have to say it is not easy to guess what your initial motive was about. If you can’t tie precipitation or SLR to methanogenesis and Nitrous Oxide and carbon uptake, then maybe ask more specific what you did not understand. There is nothing wrong with my general assumption. Yes, there is no conclusive study yet to quantify the impact yet. But SLR will cause more erosion + flooding and following are more anoxic regions, where MG and Dentrification processes act as a positive feedback. And thus i try to quantify, but is an active field of research.

    Here again is the link to an article about flooded soils, with briefly touching on current research http://climateforce.net/2012/01/10/flooded-soils/

    Comment by prokaryotes — 10 Jan 2012 @ 5:11 PM

  608. SM,
    It appears that Jim’s long winded answer was yes to all, his water and temperature response is exemplified by greenhouse, where temperature is controlled, water is ample, and CO2 is pumped in up to 1000 ppm (This is also mentioned in RIck’s link). In short, whenever plant growth is CO2-limited, increases in CO2 will promote growth. This is supported repeatedly in scientific papers, referred to by Hank as the scientific process.

    Some of the negative effects mentioned are presumed to occur in a warmer, drier world, regardless of the cause of the warming. This also assumes no adaptation.

    Comment by Dan H. — 13 Jan 2012 @ 8:24 PM

  609. Is there a trend in 15 year trends?
    According to greenhouse theory, the warming should become more robust as the signal rises out of the noise. If you look at gistemp, there is a significant trend in r squared values for 15 year periods, as shown here at real climate.
    http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg
    Note that they do not show the data before 1975. Indeed, over this recent period there is a trend towards more ‘robust trends’, with the 15 year moment correlation steadily increasing with a trend of 0.47 since 1975.
    But if you include all the data, the 15 year moment correlation statistic has absolutely no significance with a linear trend of 0.04 since 1880.
    So, is the trend in ‘15 year trends’ becoming more robust?
    No.
    Is the signal becoming more robust?
    No.

    Comment by Isotopious — 13 Jan 2012 @ 8:51 PM

  610. So while the rest of the world is investigating the science of the real world you are reduced to pratting about with ‘models’. These are nothing more than computer games for people with basic math. Sorry but this site is rubbish now.

    Comment by Kev — 14 Jan 2012 @ 12:28 AM

  611. John,

    Corn is probably the crop of least concerning with rising temperatures; planting is restricted until springtime temperatures warm, and corn can tolerate higher summer temperatures than other crops. Water is the larger factor when growing corn, hence significant irrigation is required in low rainfall areas. The U.S. cornbelt has experienced a combination of higher precipiation, temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 during the past half century (although some individual years have witness poor yields due to the weather). Add the increase in fertilization, and it is no wonder than crop production has increased. Corn is also the crop of choice in many African countries, which has resulted in large-scale famine when the rains fail.

    Comment by Dan H. — 14 Jan 2012 @ 3:09 PM

  612. Global Mean Temperature (GMT) data => http://bit.ly/pxXK4j

    The most important observation in the above data is that the upper GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT peaks, the lower GMT boundary line passes through all the GMT valleys, and these lines are parallel. Also, the line that bisects the vertical space between the two GMT boundary lines is nearly identical to the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade for the whole data. This result indicates that, for the last 130 years, the GMT behaved like a stable pendulum with the two GMT boundary lines that are 0.5 deg C apart as the end points of the pendulum’s swings, and the long-term global warming trend line of 0.06 deg C per decade as the pendulum’s neutral position.

    In the above data, the GMT touched its upper boundary line only 3-times, about every 60-years, but has never crossed it for long in the last 130 years?

    In the GMT data, a shift in climate to an accelerated global warming would have been indicated if the upper GMT boundary line had been a curve with an increasing positive slope with increasing years, or the upper and lower GMT boundary lines had been diverging with increasing years.

    Fortunately, the upper GMT boundary line is a straight line having, interestingly, the same global warming rate of 0.06 deg C per decade as the global warming trend line for the whole data. Also, the upper and lower GMT boundary lines are parallel, showing no change in the magnitude of the GMT swing with increasing years. As a result, the vertical cooling or warming swing of 0.5 deg C between the two GMT boundary lines is cyclic and is therefore natural.

    However, there is evidence of a persistent but natural global warming of 0.06 deg C per decade. Not 0.2 deg C per decade as claimed by the IPCC.

    Comment by Girma — 14 Jan 2012 @ 8:18 PM

  613. I look forward to the possibility of a huge burp of methane because it will help to either confirm your theoretical expectations of increased forcing – or yield a result so inconsistent with them that you will be left with no wiggle room for excuses of why yet another modeled prediction failed to materialize. The latter is what I expect, the sooner the better.

    Comment by Mike M — 14 Jan 2012 @ 11:42 PM

  614. The global mean temperature data shows GLOBAL WARMING has STOPPED as shown below:

    http://bit.ly/y6GWC1

    Comment by Girma — 15 Jan 2012 @ 10:19 AM

  615. Is this a course that pushes the CO2 theory of AGW?

    Comment by Hardy Cross — 16 Jan 2012 @ 4:10 PM

  616. Jim >[Response:It’s called “attribution”,

    Yeah, I just attributed it to the weather…..again, there is no evidence that I am wrong.

    (note, I have no evidence that you are wrong, but thats not the point).

    It’s called “science”

    Comment by Isotopious — 17 Jan 2012 @ 10:22 PM

  617. It seems a pity that the question (at 121) of whether the combined additional warming from the ongoing acceleration of multiple interactive feedbacks,
    in combination over the next >75yrs with that from past and future anthropogenic GHG outputs,
    in combination with that from the loss of the sulphate parasol,
    actually poses a far more cogent threat than that of a possible massive ESAS CH4 eruption,
    seems to be of no particular interest on this blog.

    Is it just inconvenient to discuss a well-indicated scenario whose resolution demands more than merely ending anthro-GHG outputs ? I’d hope that no scientist here would let the dislike of a remedy deflect their inquiry into the reasons it may be required.

    It seems a pity as it tends to confirm Chris R’s conclusion that this ‘discussion’ may be a waste of time.

    Regards,

    Lewis

    Comment by Lewis — 18 Jan 2012 @ 9:27 PM

  618. This “dog is weather” analogy only holds just so far, and that’s not very. It’s highly simplistic, of course. A man (or woman) taking a dog for a walk usually does so with a purpose or plan in mind. (Of course, there are those who think they are taking the dog for a walk, when in fact it is the other way around but I digress.) A key problem I have with the analogy is that it implies that climate has a discernible path (from point “a” to point “b”). Given the historical record, climate is not a straight path anywhere, it has a certain degree of apparent randomness with warm, relatively unchanging (flat or plateaued), and cool periods that — to apply the analogy — would be much like walking the dog to my favorite pub, only to end up at the train station instead. Those were driven by natural forces, apparently, yet I see little substance to define what the those natural forces may have been, and if or when those forces may again come into play.

    Also, the analogy assumes something about the dog and handler/human relationship, but it’s not clear what. I’ve walked dogs that were well trained (think a Guide Dog for the blind, for instance) and they walk alongside with nearly imperceptible variation both on and off leash, even when other dogs might run or hide because of a perceived threat. As West notes, there are other factors in play.

    Now, a small child walking a hungry Scottish Deerhound or German Shepherd might be a bit more like it. Or, better yet, anyone trying to walk a cat on a leash. Yet these too have a high degree of simplicity and significant limitations, among which are the limited dimensions that may be applied.

    Comment by Gene — 19 Jan 2012 @ 4:56 PM

  619. Hank
    But there is no broad scientific consensus about the rate of any warming (unless you include such a wide margin of error to make the estimate meaningless) and there is no scientific consensus regarding what will happen to any specific region as a result of warming. Virtually all of the papers published on the impacts of potential warming are unsupportable due to their being based on GCM outputs that have huge margins of error.

    Comment by Rob — 20 Jan 2012 @ 3:47 PM

  620. Ya know – you guys really suck as writers. I’ve been trying to gauge the strength of different arguments on global warming by contrasting your site with denier sites and you sure don’t write clearly. Can’t you put your main point in the opening paragraph and/or the closing paragraph and clearly state it and then show clearly what supports it? This is not a criticism on your science, but your writing. Many denier sites clearly state problems with AGW theory like ‘the troposphere hot-spot is missing’ or ‘CO2 lags temperature’. I read your site on those topics and you get into the scientific nuances and asides and caveats without ever stating clearly what your point is and why you’re right. Go read your post on CO2 lagging temperature in ice core samples and see how long it takes you to get to the important part of the post. YOUR WRITING STYLE SEEMS EVASIVE AND GIVES THE READER THE IMPRESSION YOU ARE HIDING SOMETHING. State your point and the reasons to believe it simply first and directly – then delve into the complexity, please.

    Comment by Steve O — 22 Jan 2012 @ 11:18 AM

  621. Steve Bloom, in response to your #32 on January 22, 2012 2:02 PM: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/01/aiiee_the_stupid_it_burns.php#comment-6215831

    The post you are responding to was written on Chinese New Year after quite a bit of rice wine. I posted a follow up a few minutes later where I apologised for various errors and attempted to clarify the whole thing.

    William allowed the post with the acknowledged mistakes to appear, but silently deleted the correction.

    Among other posts he deleted included a follow up to his earlier comments that presented the actual Lindzen papers I was referring to from the 80s and 90s. That would have gone some way to addressing your accusation that Lindzen’s research is “fraudulent” – and also showed that William was wrong in his response at #14 (perhaps explaining why it was deleted).

    Then I also clarified this “CO2 is well mixed” business he made up, and he deleted that too.

    So I have moved the discussion here and thank the moderators in advance for their patience.

    I have to say that nothing could be more damaging to the image of science than this sort of behaviour from William Connolley.

    If I can now make the various points I wanted to make :-

    - Martin Vermeer, after making rude and incorrect assumptions about my motivations, asserted, “…I’m not so sure that the ice age temperature argument [that global average temperatures don't actually change a lot in glacial-interglacial transitions, per Lindzen 1993 and references therein] isn’t an ‘easy’ one [to refute]. I’ve been using it (admittedly to a Finnish audience, which may be relevant), saying, ‘if five degrees [at the LGM] produced an entirely different planet (visualizing with both hands how many copies of the landmark Pasila link tower on top of each other the ice was thick here over Helsinki), then what do you think even two degrees would do [today]?”

    This appeals to a popular confusion about what actually causes the deglaciation at the end of each ice age. Perhaps Martin Vermeer is not aware. Put simply, it isn’t a change in global average temperature that causes the ice to melt, and indeed it had little to do with CO2 – the ice changes that is. I have been told this on good authority. Let me explain.

    In a post at Lubos Motl’s blog recently, it was brought to my attention that Gerard Roe (2006, In defence of Milankovitch, GRL) actually solved the problem of the ice age glacial cycles and showed that when orbital variations in northern summer insolation are properly related to the RATE OF CHANGE of ice volume, the deglaciation is largely accounted for.

    I dug a bit deeper and found that R. Toggweiler has shown similarly that CO2 is only a minor player in the southern hemisphere deglaciation too (2008, Origin of the 100,000-year timescale in Antarctic temperatures
    and atmospheric CO2, Paleoceanography).

    I then contacted Dr. Roe and he confirmed this (see his response that I posted with permission at Motl’s blog). I was a little disappointed that Lubos wasn’t willing to discuss my objections – but at least he didn’t just delete the inconvenient posts.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/will-co2-save-us-from-next-ice-age.html

    So it is important to stress that none of these scientists are claiming that CO2 didn’t cause a large part of the GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE change. Roe wrote, “This certainly does not rule out CO2 as a primary cause of tropical or other climate variations…”. His email to me confirms the same understanding.

    Anyhow, whatever the global cooling of the LGM – whether 5 C or 2 C – these degrees of warming were apparently not the main cause of the melting ice.

    It is not obvious to me that this point is widely known.

    - Your opinion that Richard Lindzen is a “fraud” because he has “carefully avoided answering questions like ‘How is such a strong negative feedback compatible with the Pleistocene glacial cycles?’” could hardly be further off the mark. Lindzen devoted an enormous amount of his research to the argument that the Pleistocene glacial cycles suggest strong negative feedbacks in the tropics. In fact, as I’ll show, his ideas are evidently inspired by the paleoclimate observations.

    As I said in the post that William deleted, the earliest reference to this idea I have found is in Lindzen and Farrell 1977 (Some realistic modifications of simple climate models. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1487-1501). He wrote a later paper that he frequently cites – Lindzen 1993 (Climate dynamics and global change. Ann. Rev. Fl. Mech., 26, 353-378).

    And this is why it is so ludicrous to claim Lindzen carefully refuses discussion of the paleoclimate. It appears rather that he saw these strong negative feedbacks in the tropics as soon as he saw the early CLIMAP reconstruction of 1976. In Lindzen and Farrell 1977:

    In a recent reconstruction of the ice-age earth of 18,000 years ago (CLIMAP, 1976), it was found that the ice line advanced from ~72 degrees to ~60 degrees, but that zonally averaged tropical temperatures changed very little from present values.

    He goes on to point out that the simple models at the time didn’t reproduce this feature – and it seems he has felt that no models since have managed to reproduce this feature either.

    By 1993 he was citing the same result in Budyko & Izrael 1991:

    Budyko & Izrael (1991) in reviewing past climates notably different from the present observed that these climates differed from the present not only in mean temperature but in temperature distribution with latitude. … This distribution is characterised by very small changes near the equator, and major changes in the equator-to-pole temperature difference.

    He has continued to study the problem of the equator-to-pole gradient with I think perhaps the most present iteration of his view being contained in Zurita-Gotor, P., and R.S. Lindzen (2007) Theories of baroclinic adjustment and eddy equilibration. In Recent Results in General Circulation Theory. T. Schneider and A. Sobel, Editors. Princeton University Press.

    Even right now there is an interesting discussion taking place in the literature about negative tropical feedbacks and the Faint Young Sun Paradox (Rondanelli and Lindzen 2010).

    Note, I am not saying Lindzen is right about anything in particular – but it does decrease my confidence in the consensus – and I think it should decrease everyone’s confidence – if I see the situation is so badly misrepresented. If the people attacking Lindzen don’t understand what he’s actually saying, why should we believe that any of these points are settled?

    - now to my own speculation and the clarification of the point I made that William deleted. If we look at the Pleistocene glacial cycles we see the climate oscillate between an ice covered and an ice free state. If we assume that climate sensitivity in an interglacial after the earth has shed most of its ice is the same as climate sensitivity at a glacial maximum state, it seems to me that we must be assuming that the ice-albedo feedback is also the same now as it was at the LGM. I can’t see how this can be right. It seems obvious that if the earth is covered in ice it will be white in colour, and thus will reflect a lot more sunlight than it does now. And, because there is so much ice available to melt by surface area, it seems obvious to this layperson that the ice-albedo feedback will be much more positive at a glacial maximum than it is now at a glacial minimum. Now, sure, I am NOT saying there is no more ice to melt, or that melting the remaining ice will not be bad. Nonetheless, I can’t see how my point could be wrong.

    - Regarding your questions I don’t know the answers but I’d be interested if you explained what you are thinking.

    Comment by Alex Harvey — 23 Jan 2012 @ 10:42 PM

  622. Back on topic. Do you really think that any self respecting scientist worth his salt is going to answer a simplistic and biased multiple choice fiasco like this?. There are so many unknowns and known unknowns to be sorted and researched, maybe never to be fully quantified. So many doubts and perfectly feasible alternative theories answers and outcomes. I cannot believe that such a pole will even graze the surface of the majority ( of interested) scientific opinion out there that is confused and fully realizes that the issue is not yet sorted out.

    Comment by mike — 25 Jan 2012 @ 11:46 AM

  623. JCH,
    Climate etc. has a nice discussion on the paper.
    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/24/missing-heat-isnt-missing-after-all/

    Hank,
    I assume you are not implying that 1 degree is not huge, even though you comments implies such. Your last paragraphs tells me much about your politcal agenda.

    Comment by Dan H. — 25 Jan 2012 @ 4:56 PM

  624. Let us look at the data to access the climate risk due to human emission of CO2.

    a) Global Mean temperature (GMT) => http://bit.ly/zISeEo
    For the period from 1880 to 1940, GMT increased by about 0.35 deg C.
    For the period from 1940 to 2000, GMT increased by about nearly the same 0.35 deg C.

    b) Human CO2 emission => http://bit.ly/wD1SZj
    For the period from 1880 to 1940, CO2 emission increased by about 150 G-ton.
    For the period from 1940 to 2000, CO2 emission increased by about 840 G-ton.

    This data shows an increase in CO2 emission by 460% has not changed the increase in the GMT.

    As a result, the climate risk due to human emission of CO2 is zero.

    Comment by Girma — 26 Jan 2012 @ 10:41 AM

  625. John,

    Basically, yes.

    Natural variation likely led to a higher measured rate of warming during the 1980s and 1990s. Speculation has that natural variation will continue to lead to lowered observed rates in the next decade or two. Over the long haul, these average out. Hence, the underlying linear rate since 1880 is the best guess going forward.

    Since temperature responds linearly to an exponential increase in CO2, the linear temperature rise may begin to taper off as the atmospheric CO2 changes approach linearity (this is occurring today without any major CO2-limiting legislation).

    Natural variation can be divided into two components: short-term changes such as ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, and solar magnetic cycle (the dog analogy), and long-term changes involving the longer solar cycles and PDO/NAO changes (the pseudo-sinusoidal effects).

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Jan 2012 @ 2:02 PM

  626. 627.John,

    Basically, yes.

    Natural variation likely led to a higher measured rate of warming during the 1980s and 1990s. Speculation has that natural variation will continue to lead to lowered observed rates in the next decade or two. Over the long haul, these average out. Hence, the underlying linear rate since 1880 is the best guess going forward.

    Since temperature responds linearly to an exponential increase in CO2, the linear temperature rise may begin to taper off as the atmospheric CO2 changes approach linearity (this is occurring today without any major CO2-limiting legislation).

    Natural variation can be divided into two components: short-term changes such as ENSO events, volcanic eruptions, and solar magnetic cycle (the dog analogy), and long-term changes involving the longer solar cycles and PDO/NAO changes (the pseudo-sinusoidal effects).

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Jan 2012 @ 3:20 PM

  627. Since the physics lesson was appparently lost on many here, let’s try this mathematically. For any three dimnensional object, its volume is a product of its base area and depth. If its base shrinks, then its volume will shrink proportionally. The same is true if its depth shrinks. However, it both its depths and base shrink, then its volume will shrink as a product of both the base and depth.
    This is what we are seeing in the sea ice calculations; both a decrease in area and depth, resulting in a volume decrease which significantly exceeds either. This does not mean that the volume will go to zero before either the base area or depth. That is a mathematical impossibility. The volumetric decrease will slow, even as the base area and depth keep shrinking. For example, if both the base and depth shrink by 33%, the volume will decrease 56%. A subsequent 33% loss (of its original value) will result in a 33% loss in volume. The last 33% will result in a volumetric loss of only 11%.

    Hence, volume is not a valid representaion of sea ice area decline.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Jan 2012 @ 4:33 PM

  628. Craig,
    My answer is still no. That is if you mean, “is Arctic sea ice declining today faster than a decade ago?” If you mean longer term, then yes, becasue the measurements show Arctic sea did not becline to decline until ~1990.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Jan 2012 @ 4:50 PM

  629. Since the physics lesson was appparently lost on many here, let’s try this mathematically. For any three dimnensional object, its volume is a product of its base area and depth. If its base shrinks, then its volume will shrink proportionally. The same is true if its depth shrinks. However, it both its depths and base shrink, then its volume will shrink as a product of both the base and depth.
    This is what we are seeing in the sea ice calculations; both a decrease in area and depth, resulting in a volume decrease which significantly exceeds either. This does not mean that the volume will go to zero before either the base area or depth. That is a mathematical impossibility. The volumetric decrease will slow, even as the base area and depth keep shrinking. For example, if both the base and depth shrink by 33%, the volume will decrease 56%. A subsequent 33% loss (of its original value) will result in a 33% loss in volume. The last 33% will result in a volumetric loss of only 11%.

    Hence, volume is not a valid representaion of sea ice area decline.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Jan 2012 @ 11:29 PM

  630. “So while it is conceivable be that there is a bias, it is currently undetectable, which implies it can’t be that large.”

    Does the system have a memory? Yes

    Can it generate internal variability? Yes

    Is the system likely to be perfect? No

    Can very small insignificant changes in an imperfect stationary system with a memory be responsible for warming /cooling trends? Yes

    Is it possible, that global warming is a consequence of such behaviour (are all the ingredients present)? Yes

    Does this prove that “it can’t be that large.” Gee, I don’t know!

    Does it prove that the IPCC have left the egg out of the cake? Gee, I don’t know! Does the Cake give you a stomach ache?

    Comment by isotopious — 29 Jan 2012 @ 5:09 PM

  631. Can a stationary series like ENSO cause global warming?

    Could it be that the ENSO series for the last few hundred years is slightly above a hypothetical thousand year average? Even better, is there any evidence that it is not? It’s perfectly reasonable for an imperfect system to ‘wobble’ around a bit, leading to periods where it is slightly above average (or slightly below). While such changes to a stationary system are insignificant (for the human eye for example), the impact of such changes on global temperature trends can indeed be significant and therefore detectable in a system which can remember past changes.

    The robust relationship between a stationary system such as ENSO and global temperature is well known, and the suggestion that recent trends could be due to stationary processes has been strongly challenged in spite of the ENSO ‘fingerprint’ on temperature (such arrogance is primarily due to AGW dogma, with some even having the nerve to suggest the opposite has occurred!), yet such challenges are weak, and are no different to saying there is no evidence that today at ‘x’ location the temperature is anomalously cool because there is no data at that location, therefore it must be anomalously warm because there is melt water.

    An ‘absence of proof’ is not the same as ‘proof of absence’, however, even more frightening for the AGW crowd is their own evidence that shows that ENSO is always changing in both frequency and amplitude over long time frames. The AGW crowd will always argue that the changes must then be restricted to thousands of years, ignoring that no statistical significant change in a stationary series is required to cause warming or cooling. Insignificant for the stationary series, yet, significant for humans who have to put up with cyclical global temperature change over time (such an ugly thought, gaia doesn’t care about us!). Insignificant changes in a stationary system can add up in a system with a memory leading to temperature trends.

    So ENSO can’t explain global warming if it remains exactly the same and doesn’t wobble an inch. Such a suggestion is physically impossible in a system like earth, especially over long time frames, and is even wrong on a decadal basis (1976 climate shift?).

    (1)Is this uncertainty reason for inaction on climate change? No.

    (2)Taking this added uncertainty into account, have the governments ‘done enough’? No.

    (3)Is this uncertainty well represented in the IPCC report? Unequivocally no.

    (4)What’s the most likely reason for (3)? (2).

    Comment by isotopious — 29 Jan 2012 @ 7:01 PM

  632. Yes and since 1997 there has been no warming. So the REALITY seems to have blown a rather large hole in all your beautiful models.
    Not that reality is likely to bother you…

    Comment by Kev — 30 Jan 2012 @ 7:42 AM

  633. Hi Anonymous Coward:

    You aren’t speaking for Isaksen or anyone else. Let us know about current research but please don’t attribute your own inferences to them.

    Oh, thank you for your opinion on how I should behave.

    I have my own opinions, of course.

    About ExxonMobil and it’s ongoing and heavily documented program to influence or subvert climate scientists, all of that is in the public record. There was a link in the deleted post to a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on those ongoing and effective efforts, but apparently that is verboten on this site.

    It’s far from obvious who is involved in this effort. The core financial system of this country was built on fossil fuel wealth, and those links run very wide and deep, in my opinion.

    So, my advice to you on how you should behave is that you should be skeptical of all sources and of all experts on this matter.

    Comment by Leland Palmer — 30 Jan 2012 @ 10:01 AM

  634. Hi again, Anonymous Coward-

    Let me ask you what I asked other methane alarmists before: what practical action do you think is justified by methane-realted risk that isn’t already justified without reference to methane? I got no answers so far but it seems some methane alarmists are interested in banning beef or something. Do you have more serious proposals in mind? Can you provide some kind of quantitative risk analysis? If not, please work this stuff out before pointing fingers.

    Yes, giving up fossil fuels is justified by CO2 alone, IMO. But people of different opinions, in government and finance, may have other opinions, if CO2 is considered alone. Understanding the real risks of methane to the future of the planet is highly motivational, in my opinion.

    Since strong action to avert this crisis is justified many times over, the real risks of methane should make you an even stronger advocate of drastic action, right?

    Comment by Leland Palmer — 30 Jan 2012 @ 10:14 AM

  635. It is not a matter of counting scientists.

    What matters is who is applying correct physics, mathematics or whatever, Nothing else matters.

    It is incorrect physics to treat the Earth’s surface as if it were radiating as a blackbody in space would do. The surface is not insulated from its surrounds, namely the atmosphere and sub-surface crust, deep ocean waters etc.

    Hence it is incorrect physics to apply Stefan-Boltzmann calculations to the surface as is done in the development of the AGW hypothesis.

    Hence the AGW hypothesis is not grounded in correct physics. Need I make the final statement?

    Comment by Doug Cotton — 31 Jan 2012 @ 7:38 AM

  636. Richard,
    I agree. A scientific fact requires a much higher standard of proof. Just because we think something “should” happen, does not necessary mean that it necessarily will.

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 Feb 2012 @ 8:04 AM

  637. Large temperature drop in the South Atlantic in 2011.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SA-SST.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 1 Feb 2012 @ 3:38 PM

  638. I’ve checked David Whitehouse’s numbers and they seem accurate to me. Using the CRU version of Hadcrut3 the trend since 1997 to 2011 is 0.015 deg which is much less than the noise, so he is correct. The rest of his figures are accurate as well. As far as the 5 year averages he uses, James Hansen uses the same time period and notes similar results.

    Wisely, David Whitehouse just presents the figures with no comments on their implications, though he does make some cutting comments about using decadal averages alone in the UK Met Offices press release which, he rightly, gives only one side of the picture. The Met Office press release should have had the knowledge to realise that the graph in the Mail on Sunday was the very same data presented a different way.

    There doesn’t seem any argument that since 1997 in the CRU Hadcrut3 that there has been no statistically significant rise. What it means on the other hand.

    Comment by Tony Pearce — 1 Feb 2012 @ 9:10 PM

  639. In 1981 NASA’s Dr Hansen made a huge mistake in assuming the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody. A further assumption was made that radiation from a colder atmosphere can be converted to thermal energy by a significantly warmer surface. It cannot be, and so it cannot warm or slow the rate of cooling. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.

    Comment by Doug Cotton — 1 Feb 2012 @ 9:27 PM

  640. In 1981 NASA’s Dr Hansen made a huge mistake in assuming the Earth’s surface radiates like a blackbody. A further assumption was made that radiation from a colder atmosphere can be converted to thermal energy by a significantly warmer surface. It cannot be, and so it cannot warm or slow the rate of cooling. See http://climate-change-theory.com for more detail.

    Comment by Doug Cotton — 1 Feb 2012 @ 9:29 PM

  641. Brian,
    Can you show that any of those were caused by the specified input?
    How about the following:
    http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2012-01-19/global-climate-report/52676690/1
    “A strong La Niña lowered the world’s average temperature last year to its second-coolest reading of the 2000s”

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 Feb 2012 @ 9:34 PM

  642. Noticeable temperature drop in the S. Atlantic and a reversal of the last year rise in the N. Atlantic:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SA-SST.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 2 Feb 2012 @ 6:53 AM

  643. MEMBERS

    There is enlightenment coming, it will be a cleansing wind throughout academia. This is just the tip of an iceberg that will sink the titanic of AGW, and all those on board. They are of the dark ages.

    Ask Dr David Evans, see his expose at Jo Nova science blog (au). Go to Tallbloke (uk). Go to Judith Curry (com).

    The greatest fear I have is polluted minds around me. What have we become, men, who give their minds to others for safekeeping. We should pity ourselves, as well as them.

    My countrymen are in danger, we have never had such wide divides between us, it is threatening division and insurrection. It must stop. We are close to solving the mystery of climate, we have most of the pieces now, and great minds will complete the puzzle soon. The Greens are deluded, we will prove it.

    I am but a troubadour, with a spatha of iron will. By His grace.

    Yours sincerely,

    Markus Fitzhenry

    ———————————————————————–

    Thus far, the science of atmosphere has rested on the paradigm of Greenhouse.

    It is a misinterpretation of the observations of the French scientist Baron Fourier by Arrhenius in 1896. It is that misconception, of previous known physical laws, that has polluted our perceptions of the Earths’ atmosphere into the modern ages.

    To shift that invalid principal, one has to offer a different perception born of observations and proved in the universal application of it, within a symbolic syntax (maths).

    This is the crux of the matter:
    The current paradigm demands our atmosphere is gas in an enclosed house.
    The correct principle is that the enclosure itself is the whole of the atmosphere. Consider the greenhouse roof to start at the Earths’ surface and end at the top of our atmosphere.

    The invalid greenhouse principle is false when subjected to the principle of conservation of energy. They cannot explain why it is so except for the introduction of a new invalid principle.

    As we have always done, when our knowledge of the universe of physics reaches the end of our ability to predicate, we fear the unknown. We naturally conserve our existence and fear is a mechanism of this conservation.

    It must be so, that earth, water, air, are different forms of the manifestation of energy in mass. The perception of a greenhouse allows a supposition that the energy equation of the equilibrium of mass can be different in its different forms of manifestation.

    Baron Fourier would be aghast.

    ——————————————————————————

    The presiding Justice in this case is the reasoning of man.

    It is a fundamental practice of man that we fail. We once conceived a Sun around a flat Earth. Each generation enters the revolving door of ignorance.

    What man on Earth has never been mistaken? Not I, not you. Yet each generation of man, believes anew. It is a bias, of the overarching preservation of dignity, that we can omit no wrong.

    Our planet, a moon of the Sun, exists in a bath of space, its atmosphere and oceans are the gifts that gave us life.

    Why do men around me, fear the Earth that created them? Is it the fundamental fragility of man and our inability to control the Universe that leads to thoughts, so fearful, we close our minds and hide in caves?

    The first law of science related the energy in mass. Our ancestors told us it was so, by observational reasoning. Like a rebellious teenager we have rejected this fundamental nature of our universe. It is so, we cannot add more energy to Earth, a script, derived before the evolution of man.

    Greenhouse, were used in cold Europe for the enhancement of biological life. Why wouldn’t a man, think an analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, with the atmosphere as its vessel? It is a belief without truth.

    The enclosure of Earth is its atmosphere. The whole of the atmosphere is a window of safety it protects us from the damaging rays of the Sun.

    Radiation cannot enter the mass of Earth, radiation cannot enter the mass of Oceans, and radiation cannot enter the mass of Atmosphere. It is the enhancement under pressure of the kinetic energy of the Sun that gives us warmth.

    Our Atmosphere cannot create radiation, it cannot create kinetic energy, it cannot add extra heat to itself. We are bathed in the temperature of space it attracts our destiny, Cold.

    The truth of this reasoning cannot be judged. But they, the gods in white coats claim deity and cannot be wrong.

    It is the inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.

    ————————————————————————————–

    (Re•duc•tion•ism)
    noun
    1. The practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon, esp. a mental, social, or biological phenomenon, in terms of phenomena that are held to represent a simpler or more fundamental level, esp. when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation

    Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents.

    Reducto, some simplifications do lead to greater understanding, imagine trying to teach kids the mystics that has been created by Science of Atmosphere, without relating it to their understandings.

    I have previously posted a little ditty, hopefully something like that can be taught to kids, so they understand more. And frankly some of those lyrics that have been deposited by me have also helped some of the greatest minds in the field to understand the wrongness of the greenhouse paradigm.

    The article, Roger posted on Baron Fourier nailed it for me. When I thought about the N&K principle, it clicked immediately. He did not distinguish the manner of mass, between its different compositions, in the crust of the Earth.

    Casting off greenhouse, I quickly saw the relationship of refrigeration when Roger posted that graph about the temperature throughout the atmosphere as stratified. Then, looking back on Fouriers’ observations, it was obvious carbon meant very little to heat distribution in a straight line within the Earth.

    I then imagined the greenhouse, as the glass only and hence a new perspective. But what mechanism drove our system. Clearly not a greenhouse, as its hotter at TOA. Then it struck, refrigeration heat pump, thermostats, condensers and evaporators, when logically applied to the natural systems of atmosphere, it gelled, like a bolt from Heaven.

    To to be sure, I’m not sure it wasn’t. Roger Tattersall, was the reason for my limited understandings, enough to conceive an idea, and Hans Jelbrings’ comments to me were enlightening. Willis Eschenbachs’ perpetual motion machine made me think real hard. He is admirable.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/greenhouse-gases-cool-planets-volcanos-warm-them/#comments

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/28/keith-seitter-on-the-uncertainty-monster/#comments

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    Of course, AGW didn’t make it, it’s DOA. It is deceased for this very reason:

    They added a new invalid principle to greenhouse, Co2 forcing, but,

    They could not, even with that, explain how physics, models greenhouses, when it’s hotter on the outside.

    You cannot match the Science of Physics, to an incorrect philosophical perception of greenhouse.

    We are back where we started;

    “Why wouldn’t a man, think and analogy, could correlate to the creation of life on Earth, it’s vessel, the atmosphere?”

    The inconvenient truth, of the certainty of man to err.

    Markus Fitzhenry

    ————————————————————————————————————

    The troposphere is the condenser, the tropopause is the separation device and the stratosphere is the fridge cabinet of outgoing heat, cooling incoming rays, as they warm to the gravitational pressure of the atmosphere, after preceding through the thermostat of the mesospause, and then onto the thermostat of the tropopause, before again heating closer as pressure increases at the Earths’ surface, until the force of pressure on the thermodynamics of the enhanced potential energy completes the system back to the separation device of the tropopause.

    I predict no warming by greenhouse, but certainty of cooling by refrigeration.

    “Markus, you are but a troubadour, why do you think you can relate Philosophy to the Science of Physics?”

    I can’t, but it seems, neither can they.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    —————————————————————————————————————

    Richard Betts| January 28, 2012 at 5:34 am | Reply

    Hi Judith

    Thanks for highlighting the Huffington Post article – I agree it’s a good article.

    You ask “Can someone remind me why we need the IPCC AR5?”

    Later in the article you have the answer:

    “the uncertainties need to be spelled out, if not resolved, and especially those elusive feedback effects which account for the wide range in estimated warming this century.”

    The IAC noted that AR4 could have done a better job in spelling out the uncertainties, at least in WG2. There is a real effort going in to this in AR5 – and indeed you can already see early evidence of this in the recent SREX report, which had more nuanced messages on droughts and hurricanes than AR5, including a more careful application of likelihood estimates (only using them when confidence was high enough, hence the downgrade of the drought statement).

    At the WG2 lead authors’ meeting last month, one of the TSU members gave us a great talk on care in assessment writing – basically being very precise about what the literature is actually saying, what the evidence actually is and how well it agrees, and being careful on reflecting the scope of literature sources accurately (region, timescale, etc etc). I can see the WG2 leadership making a real concerted effort to avoid the problems of AR4.

    markus | January 28, 2012 at 6:01 am | Reply

    Dear Richard,

    I’m hope I’m not being rude by addressing you directly but, I’ve noticed a rather large Mammuthus has entered the room. Do you think AR5 should possibly address some of the science that has unexpectedly created it, before the stampede arrives.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    What is truly astonishing is the admittances they haven’t got it right for a decade. And we are destroying ourselves over it?

    They should have left their bias at the door, of the scientific hall.

    They cannot predict, no more than a biased wit.

    Do you know volcano eruptions, warm Earth?

    Markus Fitzhenry

    ——————————————————————————————————

    They should not call themselves a scientist, if they are so biased, that it completely blinds them to truth of fact. There is nothing to proselytise in science, nothing at all. They really are a disgrace to their profession. And right now I really don’t care if they end up being lampooned.

    They kept pushing crap into the face of my fellows, they will be held up to ridicule in front of their peers.

    There has been enough destruction in our society, over the rubbish the greens have been trying to push down our throats, and it is going to stop. They are delusional; they have harmed my countrymen greatly.

    You tell me what peace has been over our lands during the last 3 – 4 years. One lesson that will be learned from all of this is the disgusting manner in which climate scientists appealed to authority as their reasoning. Academics my bum. Idiots that cause disquiet amongst men.

    I do not want children being taught incorrect paths of reasoning. Lefto academia, have infiltrated learning and they are the greatest pollution facing us. I want my brothers’ children, free of rhetoric.

    I want them taught to think for themselves, so they can solve the great mysteries of the universe, and have freedom of thought, to love mankind.

    Damn them, and their entitlement.

    ————————————————————————————————

    By the knowing that I know, a proclamation is made.

    Arrhenioushansenous has been slain, by the hand of a man.

    Rejoice, for the fear of climate is no more.

    The most powerful force in the universe is the reasoning of a man.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    In the land of the free, they coward and scorned, with a big red dragon, to ward off the horns.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    ——————————————————————————————

    Look beyond the oceans, for there you will see, your brother, for they are yee.

    Markus Fitzhenry.

    —————————————————————————–
    He cannot be denied.

    Comment by Markus Fitzhenry — 2 Feb 2012 @ 3:25 PM

  644. Pete @ 40,
    not really true though is it. there are any number of places that have not experienced warming in the last handred years. See :-
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=090015&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
    or
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=074128&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
    or
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=048013&p_nccObsCode=36&p_month=13
    in fact, go to any long term station in Australia that isn’t in the middle of a capital city and see

    Comment by KeithWoollard — 2 Feb 2012 @ 8:25 PM

  645. Dear Moderators,
    My recent post met all of your comment policies but appears to have been rejected and not even put in “the bore hole”
    If you are going to do this, it would be nice to send a short explanatory email.

    Comment by KeithWoollard — 2 Feb 2012 @ 9:01 PM

  646. It is easy to forget that the original ‘gate’, Watergate, was not about the crime but about the cover up. I sometimes feel that a few climate scientists are trying to do a ‘Nixon’ and present facts every which way to disguise that fact that warming is not continuing at its predicted rate. This has two consequences. Firstly the anti-AGW crowd can ‘prove’ that the temperature trend has been flat (I’ve shown how to cheat and ‘prove’ just that on my web site at http://www.climatedata.info/Discussions/Discussions/opinions.php . Secondly when climate scientists, as I’m sure they will, find the explanation for the stasis and include it in their models the doubters will say “How can you correct a problem which you said did not exist?”

    Recently Sir Brian Hoskins, Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, gave a talk to a wide group of students at Imperial College (mainly science, technology and medicine). You can hear (but unfortunately not see it) it here:
    http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/imedia/content/view/2162/imperial-horizons-one-the-science-of-climate-change-brian-hoskins

    In his talk he was refreshingly open about discrepancies between model projections and observed data and areas where climate science was not yet up to speed. Yet, he still gave a convincing talk. Thinking about this I realised that if a climate scientist gives a presentation with cherry-picked data to a group of lay people they won’t notice the omission and will believe the presenter. On the other hand if another scientist presents all the data, warts and all (as Sir Brian Hoskins did), but explains how this does not falsify the overall picture that scientist will also be believed. The difference is that anti-AGW bloggers will find it easy to attack the first presenter and less easy to attack the second one.

    Comment by Ron Manley — 4 Feb 2012 @ 7:22 AM

  647. UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published report
    Climate Variability and Weather February 2012
    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/POST-PN-400.pdf
    with this statement:
    Natural forms of climate variability are likely to be the main influence on the UK’s climate over the next few decades.
    For some months now, a graphical representation of numerical analysis was available here

    Comment by vukcevic — 4 Feb 2012 @ 11:13 AM

  648. One of the founders of modern science, Francis Bacon (1605) observed that studying the truth includes:

    a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture; and as being a man that neither affects what is new, nor admires what is old, and hates every kind of imposture.

    Will our children actually be taught to think critically based on these foundational principles of science? Or will undeclared presuppositions and censorship be silently imposed on our children in the name of “science” education?

    Should students be allowed to consider “Evidence-Based Climate Science”? Will they be allowed to review and evaluate the full range of scientific information including evidence presented by the NIPCC (but ignored by the IPCC)? Should they be allowed to consider the benefits of higher CO2?

    Eugenie Scott starts by perpetuating the politically correct equivocation of “climate change” for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.” Rather than allow examination of the full uncertainties involved in climate science, NCSE uses the pejorative “climate denier” for anyone skeptical of its dogmatic interpretation. (Subliminally inferring Holocaust deniers).

    Would Scott allow students to learn that the long term average global temperatures are declining from the Holocene climatic optimum (interglacial maximum) towards the next ice age? Will NCSE highlight the very large uncertainties on the impact of clouds? Can I then trust Scott to encourage exposing students to the full range of evidence on natural variation and to evaluate the corresponding full range of implications?

    NCSE makes the rhetorical ploy of defining its dogmatic interpretation as the only view of “science” and imposes hidden presupposition (naturalism) in a circular argument to justify that argument – implying Carl Sagan’s assertion

    “The cosmos is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

    NCSE a priori rejects evaluation of objective data to examine whether or not the observed universe and biochemical life could have arisen from stochastic processes.

    Lets uphold full sweep of objective skeptical science that is willing to “kick the tires” and examine all the evidence, and not be swept along by unexamined presuppositions and authoritative assertions.

    Comment by David L. Hagen — 4 Feb 2012 @ 2:30 PM

  649. One of the founders of modern science, Francis Bacon (1605) observed that studying the truth includes:

    a desire to seek, patience to doubt, fondness to meditate, slowness to assert, readiness to reconsider, carefulness to dispose and set in order; and hatred for every kind of imposture; and as being a man that neither affects what is new, nor admires what is old, and hates every kind of imposture.

    Will our children actually be taught to think critically based on these foundational principles of science?

    Comment by David L. Hagen — 4 Feb 2012 @ 3:57 PM

  650. Hey, I’m like one of those annoying students!

    Here’s my question: Why should we take any notice of climate scientists if they cannot even explain why the New York City is not covered in a kilometre of ice?

    You can’t even explain why the earth is currently much warmer than the pleistocene average, so why should we believe anything you say about the cause of a degree of warming, when you can’t explain ten times that amount.

    Just because there is evidence of anthropogenic radiative forcing, doesn’t mean that it is dominating the climate changes we see today, all it means is that it is operating (big woop).

    If you keep teaching us this ‘science is settled’ crap, my Dad’s a marine and he’s going to woop your arse come parent teacher night.

    Comment by isotopious — 4 Feb 2012 @ 4:25 PM

  651. Why would any teacher choose to teach a topic like global warming ?? I dont see why any teacher would pick this battle to fight.

    I have college degree, majored in applied math. I am not convinced about AGW, I know the arguments from both sides of the story. I may not be as smart as most of the climate scientists, but some of the graphs i have seen are misleading. The problem is that my children would not pick up on that without one of the parents pointing it out.

    Would my children be told that a lot of carreers will end when people no longer fear global warming ?

    I would not be happy if my children were made to watch al gore movies.

    Comment by Tietjan Berelul — 4 Feb 2012 @ 7:01 PM

  652. Does NCSE encourage teaching about the benefits CO2?

    Comment by David L. Hagen — 4 Feb 2012 @ 7:46 PM

  653. In science, when the observation does not match theory, we chuck the theory.

    Here is comparison of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory and observation:

    IPCC AR4, 2007 => http://bit.ly/z7cOHe

    This comparison shows the observed global mean temperatures (GMT) are less than model projections if human CO2 emission were held constant at the 2000 level.

    In addition, there has not been any change in the climate as there has been only a single GMT pattern since record begun 160 years ago. This pattern can be clearly observed in the data from NASA and the University of East Anglia as shown in the following graph.

    http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

    This pattern has a unique property of a warming trend of only 0.06 deg C per decade and an oscillation of 0.5 deg C every 30 years.

    This result shows, for 160 years, the GMT pattern (the climate) has not been affected by human CO2 emission, volcanoes and aerosols! These variables did not have effect because the GMT pattern before and after mid-20th century were nearly identical.

    As observations do not match AGW theory, chuck the AGW theory!

    Comment by Girma — 5 Feb 2012 @ 8:48 AM

  654. As a lecturer in science in a major teaching university, who was previously a teacher in a school and before that an engineer in measurement and control I take great exception at being told to indoctrinate my students in a field af science that is at best shoddy in its scientific rigour and to some maybe dishonest.
    I will teach them scientic methods and I will teach them to question everything, but I will not tell them that this particular field of science is settled, for at the moment that would be a lie.

    Comment by Beesaman — 5 Feb 2012 @ 11:45 PM

  655. Hi Rick-

    Urgent action is needed, most of us agree, with the exception of Ray, probably.

    But survivable “worst case scenarios” which cannot be scientifically justified, or which are actively misleading for large releases of methane do not help promote a sufficient sense of urgency, I think. Models that leave out significant factors such as oceanic and atmospheric chemistry effects of methane, possibly leading to strong positive feedback release of even greater amounts of methane are not at all helpful or educational, in my opinion.

    What compelled David to even release a “worst case scenario” in the first place, in a situation so fraught with unknowns? Is this some form of scientific conservatism I’m not familiar with?

    “Looks like we got the factor of ten increase about right” it says under one graph? This in the face of hard scientific isotope ratio evidence that past carbon isotope excursions have likely released trillions of tons of methane?

    One test to validate such models is to enter past inputs to events similar to our current situation, and then see if the model faithfully reproduces those events. If we enter inputs similar to the first stages of the PETM, for example, does this model give us a brief bump and a steep decline, or does it give us 170,000 years of grief, which is what actually happened?

    Has any attempt- any attempt at all- been made to validate this model?

    If not, why not?

    Comment by Leland Palmer — 7 Feb 2012 @ 1:02 AM

  656. Could you please give the error bars in your figure?

    Comment by JamesHunt — 7 Feb 2012 @ 10:41 AM

  657. There are 800 year old trees in the alps that can tell you the temperature in tenths of a degree what the temperature was in 1258 ?

    Comment by John krukas — 8 Feb 2012 @ 2:38 PM

  658. Here is the D’Arrigo et al. 2006 data:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/darrigo2006/fig5.jpg

    Would be great to get an update on the divergence! It’s important because you could then say, well, maybe there was more cooling in the LIA and more warming in the MWP, and maybe this recent warming is not extraordinary afterall.

    Comment by isotopious — 8 Feb 2012 @ 5:19 PM

  659. Dan,
    No one is saying that the warming since the 1970s can be explained by natural causes alone, or is ignoring the effects of CO2. I do not know where you are getting these ideas. I am well away of the natural and manmade cause of the warming and cooling, not just of the past 40 years, but throughout history. Your implications that I am ignornant in the science and your condescending attitude does not lend your post much credence. In fact, it implies that you are in denial of the science.

    I am not claiming that anyone is getting their information from the media, talk show hosts, or extremist websites (I even know some who use Wikipedia as their scientific source). We scientists tend to avoid such outlets.

    I am curious as to whether you think that if the warming since the 1970s is entirely CO2-forced, then how do you explain the most recent decade.

    Comment by Dan H. — 8 Feb 2012 @ 10:07 PM

  660. Hi All-

    Let’s do a little thought experiment:

    One of us parks his car on a hill. But, due to negligence, he forgets to set the parking brake, and he leaves the wheel turned the wrong way. So the car rolls downhill, killing an old woman, a postman, and a small dog.

    What is his ethical position?

    Pretty terrible, right?

    Now, suppose one of us suffers from hubris, and believes his ability to predict the unpredictable is so great that he can publish a worst case scenario. This person ignores a lot of established science to do this. This falsely reassures a lot of people, including impressionable students and congresspersons who take a lot of oil industry money, anyway, and so don’t need much convincing. A necessary war on climate change is called off, oil corporations profit for a few more years- and then methane releases get out of hand, and thousands of years of climate grief result. This kills billions of people, as in Lovelock’s scenarios, and what progeney are left curse our names forever.

    What is the ethical position of this person?

    Is it better or worse than the guy who parked his car badly?

    Comment by Leland Palmer — 9 Feb 2012 @ 12:40 PM

  661. Trusting models that do not match observed conditions is called faith. (that something will change in the future to make them accurate).

    Please someone explain why it “makes sense” to average the results of multiple models none of whose accuracy has been demonstrated based on observations of actual conditions.

    Why should public policy be implemented based upon faith—when data shows there is little reason to accept the faith in GCM’s?

    Comment by Rob — 9 Feb 2012 @ 1:06 PM

  662. Hi Ray-

    Thank you for your advice. :)

    Wow, this one was a whopper- 12 trillion tons of C12 enriched carbon, presumably from the methane hydrates:

    Atmospheric Carbon Injection Linked to End-Triassic Mass Extinction

    The end-Triassic mass extinction (~201.4 million years ago), marked by terrestrial ecosystem turnover and up to ~50% loss in marine biodiversity, has been attributed to intensified volcanic activity during the break-up of Pangaea. Here, we present compound-specific carbon-isotope data of long-chain n-alkanes derived from waxes of land plants, showing a ~8.5 per mil negative excursion, coincident with the extinction interval. These data indicate strong carbon-13 depletion of the end-Triassic atmosphere, within only 10,000 to 20,000 years. The magnitude and rate of this carbon-cycle disruption can be explained by the injection of at least ~12 × 10E3 gigatons of isotopically depleted carbon as methane into the atmosphere. Concurrent vegetation changes reflect strong warming and an enhanced hydrological cycle. Hence, end-Triassic events are robustly linked to methane-derived massive carbon release and associated climate change.

    This one’s from 2011. My, this rogue hypothesis does seem to march on, among mainstream scientists with impeccable credentials and no known conflicts of interest.

    This 12 trillion tons of carbon is right in line with traditional estimates of 5 to 20 trillion tons of methane hydrates, but far outside Archer’s current estimate of present totals of methane hydrates- roughly ten times as much, although Archer doesn’t include about a trillion tons of associated gas, apparently. So, call it 6 to 10 times as much methane as Archer’s present day estimates for total worldwide methane hydrate and free methane stocks.

    Higher lifeforms are a sort of veneer, laid over a base of bacteria and geochemistry which has remained pretty much the same for a couple of billion years, is my understanding. So, why are stocks of methane hydrates so low, now?

    Anybody know?

    Boy, that one was a whopper, sounds like. :)

    Twelve trillion tons of carbon, within only 10,000 to 20,000 years.

    Of course, there is something wrong with talking about these peer reviewed scientific papers- from people who have “done the math”, I guess. People tell me it’s not responsible to talk about this stuff. :)

    This is a little more methane than David was talking about in his “worst case scenario”, admittedly over a longer estimated period of time. Gee, Ray, do the math for me, will you please? Is this 60 times as much methane? :)

    Comment by Leland Palmer — 9 Feb 2012 @ 10:05 PM

  663. @138 …

    The argument was put forward as: “when my daughters elementary school science teacher tells her that turning on the lights kills polar bears (this actually happened)”

    and Gavin responds in part: “I would be appalled because bringing in irrelevant issues without context when a child asks a question is the height of irresponsibility”

    …Is not the teacher doing the same thing? Or are we willing to cut the teacher more slack because (A) surely we can assume they would always provide proper context? or (B) they get a pass because generally in some extrapolated sense there’s at least some way it might be correct in a certain framing? or maybe (C) there is never a situation in which a teacher might “bring in irrelevant issues without context” because the teacher sets the agenda– even if its off-standard, off-curriculum, off-message? Why be so willing to indict the parent without questioning the actions of the teacher?

    I do realize that Gavin may be (in-a-roundabout-way) not approving of the teacher’s statement, but instead only wishing the parent did a better job. I also realize the teacher isn’t directly present in this conversation, but it would nevertheless be nice to at least see some acknowledgement of the possiblity of shoddy teaching about climate change by (gasp)activitst-types who themselves haven’t done the research either?

    Comment by Salamano — 10 Feb 2012 @ 4:29 PM

  664. I predict the Germans are sure to pull out soon and perhaps lead European countries with them. See the third paragraph here … http://joannenova.com.au/

    It’s all starting to happens guys. People respect German engineering and science.

    The AGW conjecture is nearing the end of its days – within four years I predict – hopefully before the $100,000,000,000 bills start arriving in 2020.

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics will hold fast and not be violated by any backradiation.

    Read what top German physicists say in this peer-reviewed published paper as they knock AGW in 100+ pages here …

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    “Unfortunately, there is no source in the literature, where the greenhouse effect is introduced in harmony with the scientific standards of theoretical physics.”

    Comment by Doug Cotton — 11 Feb 2012 @ 3:29 AM

  665. Conclusions,
    Climate models suck!
    Trees aren’t thermometers!
    Billions of (Insert favoured monetary unit) have been wasted on this over the past few decades.
    “Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues”
    Who are you kidding?

    Comment by Adam Gallon — 11 Feb 2012 @ 4:46 AM

  666. There’s been far too many errors when promoting global warming. Polar bears are not disappearing, they’re at a 40 year high in population; the Himalaya glaciers are not disappearing; Africa is not home to prolonged drought and mass starvation. As some have suggested here, stick to chemistry, biology, fluid dynamics, physics, etc. Stop the politicization of schools. When Germany’s leading environmentalist says global warming hysteria is bunk, what right does a HS teacher have in promoting climate scares?

    Comment by MikeB — 11 Feb 2012 @ 7:02 AM

  667. I think it is important to distinguish the teaching of evolution from climate science, particularly the science of global warming. Evolution via natural selection is observable, it is testable in a petrie dish, it is reproducible, it can be used to make predictions that are then verified and it is supported by decades of EXPERIMENTAL science and hundreds of years of observations. It is not based on theoretical constructs or projections. The only assumptions that are needed are the principals of the scientific method themselves.

    The same can not be said of climate change and global warming. It is a theoretical science that is untestable on a level with comparable constraints to the system that scientists are attempting to describe. It is a science of observation but not experimentation. There is no ‘control earth’ that looks like our earth but for the fact that they have stable CO2 emissions that can be used to test our grand hypothesis man made global warming hypothesis against. All we know about are the properties of CO2 and that those properties should cause the trapping of energy within our system. However, the manner in which the other variables that effect energy balance will be effected is highly uncertain and completely untestable. So the science becomes one of ‘make a theory’ and create a prediction based on that theory. However, given the level of uncertainty and the number of other variables weighing on the system it may take decades to reflect on what the direction let alone the individual contributions of these ‘sensitivities’ and ‘forcings’ will be.

    To compare this process, that is underpinned by solid theory and observations but has no proven causal relations, with evolution is a stretch.

    There is a reason it is unteachable – it is because we don’t yet understand it.

    Comment by Jeffrey — 11 Feb 2012 @ 10:02 AM

  668. Jeffrey,
    I feel your pain. Besides the condescending attitude, many have to put up being called a liar (and other such names) by people who are so insecure, that they do not know what to do when challenged.
    Modern scientists seem to think that they know everything without experimenting. As if experimentation is beneath them, and they have nothing else to learn. The really sad part, is that they are driving people away from doing anything about global warming, because of these attitudes.
    Stick by your guns, and do not lower your standards for anyone.

    Comment by Dan H. — 11 Feb 2012 @ 1:47 PM

  669. It is time for climate scientists who receive monetary sums to study the weather to admit there is no way to know if warming is mainly due to the Sun’s increased activity or ManKind’s activity. Stop the alarmist behavior . Stop being in denial. You in the weather sciences are making fools of yourselves with the predictions of future weather or warming models…stop it !!! — DERRUFO

    Comment by DERR UFO — 11 Feb 2012 @ 7:35 PM

  670. Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.

    (1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.

    (2) The “rate of cooling” is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.

    (3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.

    (4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn’t work that way.

    (5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.

    (6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.

    (7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.

    (8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.

    (9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.

    (10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    If I haven’t convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    Comment by Doug Cotton — 12 Feb 2012 @ 2:14 AM

  671. SUGGESTION:

    How to tell somebody you don’t believe in AGW.

    Science, won the day for scepticism, the scientific method when properly applied won the day. It is the solid foundation that sceptics
    are able to base their argument upon. Science can’t be politicised, truth of fact can’t be denied, a syntax of logic will always destroy beliefs that are without truth.

    The Science says:

    Pressure is the required variable only if one compares Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement across planets. For any individual planet, it is
    the atmospheric mass that effectively controls thermal enhancement. There is no confusion with the pressure-controlled lapse rate with the
    atmosphere of a given planet.

    Why Now? It’s the science;

    • The climate of Earths’ atmosphere results from a formation of a climate machine by combining solar isolation and force of pressure.
    Coupled with spatio-temporal chaotic systems of irradiation and radiation of surface and atmosphere, dynamic heat distributions of
    oceans, a multiple pole thermodynamic atmosphere, with a gravitational velocity and planetary harmonics, spinning on an uneven axis around a
    Sun, with fluctuation of solar isolation, immersed in a space that has galactic electromagnetic winds.

    • The physical construct of a planet, with or without an atmosphere, retains ancient energy by the force of pressure on its mass. Otherwise
    planets could not exist.

    • Planets attract cold by the density of its mass and distribute heat by the dynamics of mass. Space attracts heat by the sparsest of its
    mass.

    • Heat rises, cool sinks. Atmosphere cannot back radiate heat to a warmer surface than the atmosphere which, cools with height.
    Thermodynamic gas laws describe the mechanisms of weather in the troposphere.

    Ref: General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces; by Baron Fourier.

    The pressure of the atmosphere and bodies of water, has the general effect to render the distribution of heat more uniform. In the ocean
    and in the lakes, the coldest particles, or rather those whose density is the greatest, are continually tending downwards, and the motion of
    heat depending on this cause is much more rapid than that which takes place in solid masses in consequence of their connecting power. The
    mathematical examination of this effect would require exact and numerous observations. These would enable us to understand how this
    internal motion prevents the internal heat of the globe from becoming sensible in deep waters.

    Where NASA got the science wrong:

    Arrhenious in 1897 screwed up about the conservation of energy in gaseous mass , he flipped out about the relationship of carbon to life
    in a stupid greenhouse.

    Dopey Hansen in the early 80’s flipped out about Arrhenious’ mistake and caused all his stupid mates to believe in an invalid scientific
    principle. They spent billions in chasing argumentum ad populum.

    When, if they had followed a correct method of science, by applying scepticism, they
    would have found the answer that has been there, right under their noses.

    Climate is a multidisciplinary field of science, and cannot be treated as a pseudoscience, necessary of propitiation. Science will correct
    this fatal mistake.

    The force of pressure encloses our atmosphere not a greenhouse.

    So, when somebody asks why you don’t believe in AGW you can say;

    “It’s the science, stupid.”

    Comment by Markus Fitzhenry — 12 Feb 2012 @ 4:10 PM

  672. This is a test of your newfound devotion to free speech; It’s the sun. CO2 effects are indistinguishable from natural climate variations. The CO2 believers have kept dissenting views on climate from the discussion. There. Print!

    Comment by Hardy Cross — 12 Feb 2012 @ 10:56 PM

  673. Complaints of harassment of climate scientists and proponents of anthropogenic global warming/climate change seem a little precious when those who are less convinced of have been labelled deniers invoking comparisons with the holocaust. James Hansen himself has said that deniers should be imprisoned. Dr Pauchuri’s comment that those who doubt the shrinking of the Himalayan glaciers are devotees of voodoo science is hardly complimentary, especially as subsequent events showed him to be wrong. It would be far better if AGW received the measured responses that typify the approach to most other scientific controversies

    Comment by Ian — 13 Feb 2012 @ 3:55 PM

  674. I think that this was a very strong post and should serve to remind scientists and the public about the dangers of being influenced unfairly. This certainly means denouncing threats to scientists and the reactionary response some take to climate science advocates. It also means that the public should be wary of the bombardment of advertising and political influence of the oil industry and its supporters. Moreover, it also entails fighting the ingrained panopticism and message control contained within the climate science community. Let us not forget the silent coercive influence on academic journals attempted by high profile scientists that was revealed in the climate gate scandal. Let us question why the editor of a journal resigns and a manuscript is taking out of print when it has been through a fair review process (even despite its clear limitations- many many published papers have strong limitations). Let us question why Michael Mann needs to challenge the tweet of Andrew Revkin almost immediately.

    Recent thread………
    Any idea why Andrew Revkin is saying that these results suggest climate sensitivity has been overestimated?

    http://twitter.com/#!/Revkin/status/168038256146006016

    Thanks!

    [Response: I saw Andy's tweet and tweeted a reply almost instantly (MichaelEMann). Andy subsequently tweeted a correction. It was an honest error that was quickly corrected. -mike]

    This type of message control minimizes diversity of opinion and treats alternative theories as an attack instead of a debate. I am a big fan of Gavin for the most part – he is a strong voice that sticks to the facts – even if that means ignoring the point of a contrarian opinion. Non the less I command this blog for taking a fair approach to the topic it is helping others understand.

    Comment by Jeffrey — 13 Feb 2012 @ 10:55 PM

  675. The fact you have censored my comment shows you are running scared. Your case is gradually falling apart. The sad thing is, you can’t even be pleased at the prospect of AGW alarm stories not coming true. You want them to come truen. Proving yourselves right is more important than the state of the world. Too bad. [not censored---just boreholed]

    Comment by oakwood — 14 Feb 2012 @ 11:12 AM

  676. “In other words, of course short-term natural variation can push global temperatures up and down. That is a separate issue form the long-term temperature rise based on the increase in radiative forcing.”

    The largest variations in radiative forcing are associated with short term natural variation. While it is difficult to prove that long term trends are a result of the coupled system, the idea that ‘it just doesn’t, but CO2 does’ is amateur at best, particularly given the magnitude of the energy the earth is ‘throwing around’.

    Going by your logic, the younger dryas ‘couldn’t have happened because there is nothing to adequately explain the physics’? What was it any way, 10 deg C in a year or 2? Impossible in the land of CO2, unless the system is really, really sensitive…..cough!

    Or how about ‘we should be in an ice age now’ for the same reason…physics?

    Or how about the cessation of warming between 1940 – 1975? It’s fascinating that people are still trying to flog the aerosol idea, I think I missed the real climate review on that one (you know, the one where you explain how you were completely wrong).

    It gets to a point where there are so many holes in the bucket that carrying the water becomes uneconomical.

    Comment by Isotopious — 14 Feb 2012 @ 10:03 PM

  677. Oh please! Trying to portray scientists as martyrs because they’ve become involved in the nasty, dirty and often violent world of politics is just ridiculous. Most of these folk were happy to take the money and power associated with stepping out of the lab and into the forum. Yes, there are nutters out there, on both sides, get over yourselves and deal with it, like the rest of society has to! There are laws to deal with intimidation, threats and violence, use them, I’m sure your universities will fund the legal costs. But, if you are trying to paint a deceitful picture about people who genuinely disagree with you, be careful. The public will see through any such attempts at replacing rigorous scientific debate with political propaganda. Of course part of political propaganda that has no place in scientific debate is censorship, but that doesn’t happen here does it!

    Comment by Beesaman — 15 Feb 2012 @ 10:32 AM

  678. Michael,
    I applaud you for trying to thrust some reason into this debate. Your comments are quite appropriate. I agree that climate change is not “life and death” like other, more pressing issues are.
    Also, any scientific idea should be able to stand the test of time. If it cannot, then it should be abandoned. What some here are claiming is that we should ignore this practice for climate change. Is the concept so fragile, that it collapse under its own weight? I do not where some people got the idea, that their ideas are correct, and that everyone else is simply misinformed, ignorant, or just plain liars. It is reminiscent of religious intolerance, or the defense lawyer who cannot dispute the testimony of a witness, but instead attempts to question his credibility in the eyes of the jury.
    The rampant name-calling that occurs here should also be abandoned for the good of the site. Why it has continued for so long, baffles me.

    Comment by Dan H. — 15 Feb 2012 @ 6:19 PM

  679. Michael,
    I applaud you for trying to thrust some reason into this debate. Your comments are quite appropriate.
    Any scientific idea should be able to stand the test of time. If it cannot, then it should be abandoned. What some here are claiming is that we should ignore this practice for climate change. Is the concept so fragile, that it collapse under its own weight? I do not where some people got the idea that their ideas are correct, and that everyone else is simply misinformed, ignorant, or just plain liars. It is reminiscent of religious intolerance.
    The rampant name-calling that occurs here should also be abandoned for the good of the site. Why it has continued for so long, baffles me.

    Comment by Dan H. — 15 Feb 2012 @ 7:41 PM

  680. Thomas,
    I know they are not the world. But I was responding to Susan, who specifically mentioned them. That was why I included a world graph also. If you have an issue with those two locations, I would take it up with Susan.
    Ray,
    I noticed you did not mentioned the large decrease in the drought index prior to 1950. Comparisons of recent indices to the early 1900s show a decline. I believe you just said htat “Science requires looking at all the evidence in aggregate …” Maybe you should heed your own advice.

    Comment by Dan H. — 16 Feb 2012 @ 10:39 AM

  681. If your bath tub is filling as fast as it can with the hot tap turned on fully it will indeed fill faster if you also turn the cold tap on.

    If the Earth’s surface is filling with thermal energy (ie it is warming) as fast as it can on a sunny morning with the Sun shining fully it will indeed fill (warm) faster if you also radiate extra thermal energy from a colder atmosphere if and only if you violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Comment by Doug Cotton — 16 Feb 2012 @ 10:25 PM

  682. “If you are a science teacher, teaching biological evolution as you describe, and a student says ‘My mommy and daddy say that evolution is a secular humanist fraud and the Earth is 6000 years old and God created dinosaurs and humans on the same day’, do you just say ‘Oh, OK. Fine’ so as not to ‘fray the bond’ between that student and his parents? Do you really think that doing so helps that student’s ‘life prospects’?”

    Depends on how you want to play it. You can admit a variety of views or play the dogmatic jerk, whichever leaves the parents in the best position. If you accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, you must believe that humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years without Darwin. Abundant evidence suggests that children do not thrive without parents (consider: 1. crime rates of fatherless children, 2. juvenile arrests in Hawaii fall in summer, when school is not in session, 3. the superior socialaization of homeschoolers). People who defend the NEA/AFT/AFSCME cartel’s school system (the “public” schools) often blame the family environment for the cartel’s failures. Suppose we accept this argument. Why would anyone then seek to undermine parent authority?

    Comment by Malcolm Kirkpatrick — 18 Feb 2012 @ 2:44 AM

  683. Absurd? Why? Anonymous reviews hardly serve to provide comfort for the public. It may serve science fine; but we are not talking about science per se we are talking about science in policy.

    I do policy for a living. There is today huge resistance and disbelief in science. I find it dismaying. I have reading this blog for years. When I started the “science was settled”. Both parties were on board. Hardly any scientists were speaking against doing anything. Most of the discussion was about how much should be done what could be done.

    Then Climategate hit. Talk of suppressing information for clarity and strength of opinion. Almost totally unheard of in the professions. Hey professionals make mistakes don’t misinterpret what I am saying here.

    Today so many people are having their lives affected in the name of science that is poorly supported in science.

    There is little accountability. And its not just policy makers misinterpreting science its scientists testifying as scientists.

    Or scientists openly taking advocacy positions on issues they are being paid to be independent about. Its not about a scientist never being an advocate its about a scientist being an advocate on something he is supposed to be neutral on.

    The climate issue is a huge boondoggle for science. Today it doesn’t even matter who is going to turn out being right. There are scientists being advocates on both sides of the issue. The dogfights occurring between scientists is in the public view has not a shred of air of professionalism. And it is far from being limited to climate science. I have not worked at all in climate policy.

    Regulation is always controversial to the regulated. Like I say I have experience in this area. But here what we are talking about is a greater good, a greater thing to look up to. And that is the scientific method.

    As to the lack of accountability for the recent credit collapse, that one is on Congress. GMO oversight was non-existent. I was shocked that in essence the S&L crisis repeated itself but this time on steroids. Nobody got the message.

    GMO wasn’t even under the administration where you have agencies of oversight professionals but instead relegated to a Congressional errand boy agency and regulatory policy was established via campaign donations. As Greenspan pointed out it might have happened anyway but there was policy stuff that did need doing and giving oversight to the professionals might have helped. But thats all aside. The objective I am talking about isn’t going to mean science gets everything right. It has more to do with respecting science and enforcing standards. And finally I am not offering up the financial model as THE model, simply A model. Any model like any regulatory process has to involve those who would be regulated to create a workable solution. For example the financial model probably has more accounting standards than they have practice standards. I would suspect for science it might be the other way around. Documentation, full disclosure, perhaps levels of service with regards to using statistics to divine answers seems to me Steve McIntyre is well up on such science and statistics standards for mining opportunity offerings. . . .could be the beginnings of a model.

    Comment by Bill Hunter — 18 Feb 2012 @ 3:42 AM

  684. So six pages of comments and not a single comment about the memo that’s getting everybody up in arms being a hoax. I search for the words “Fake” and “Hoax” on every page and found no hits except for something about “fake skeptics”. So have there been comments about the document being a hoax and they’ve been deleted? Or is it that the people that mostly post here don’t care that it’s a hoax because the document reinforces their hatred of skeptics?

    I also find it interesting that there are few comments addressing how little funded the Heartland Institute is. I mean in comparison to WWF, Green Peace, WHO, etc. it’s the veritable drop in the bucket. But it hear it from AGW crowd, Heartland Institute is out spending the “The Cause” 50 to 1. When in actually it’s the reverse times 10.

    Comment by Brian R — 18 Feb 2012 @ 9:10 PM

  685. Global warming has produced several ways of looking at the world. Here’s one:

    If you take the highest temperature of a day (Tmax) and add the lowest temperature of that day (Tmin), you get a number. Divide that number by two and you get an average for the day. If you add up the numbers for a month and plot them on a chart and compare it to the previous year, you get a better idea. If you add up all the numbers for a year and compare it to previous years, you get the chart below:

    http://bit.ly/yiQjcK

    Or do you? What if the temperatures are taken with different thermometers and thermocouples, and some of them are near a hot piece of asphalt and others have been moved to a busy airport? What if the first part of your series isn’t thermometers at all, but from estimates of temperature derived from analysis of the thickness of tree rings? And what if those estimates are suspect, declining during a period when we know temperatures rose?

    The chart above was used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their 3rd report on the state of the Earth’s climate, called TAR and published in 2001. Its dramatic shape and view—that temperatures were rising faster than they ever had—that we were moving into uncharted and dangerous territory. That we needed to act now…

    Here is another way of looking at the world (http://bit.ly/5pcHs6)—and it’s the way we looked at temperatures for close on to 40 years, before worries about global warming made the previous chart popular.

    CLIMATEGATE
    THE CRUTAPE LETTERS
    Page 11-12
    Steven Mosher
    Thomas W. Fuller

    Which view is winning at the moment?

    The truth!

    Comment by Girma — 19 Feb 2012 @ 11:14 AM

  686. The globe is cooling => http://bit.ly/nz6PFx

    The sooner AGW advocates see the writing on the wall the better for everyone. It is sad to waste talent and resources on a non-problem.

    Comment by Girma — 19 Feb 2012 @ 11:22 AM

  687. translated from the TU:

    “The head of the IPCC says that he has received and still receives death threats.

    - I’d rather not talk about it. But yes, there are people who can be extreme in the debate on climate change, says Rajendra Pachauri to TU.

    Want decency
    The head of the IPCC will not go into detail about the threats.”

    Death threats are a crime. They arrest people for that.
    Have them arrested and expose these anti-climate deniars.

    Unless its not true.

    While we are at it, if the head of the IPCC says their is a debate, why doesn’t he allow himself to be involved in a debate with these anti-climate deniars?

    Pathetic.

    Comment by ClimateForAll — 19 Feb 2012 @ 11:24 PM

  688. Two other iortpmant considerations: 1 The inverse relationship between cosmic ray flux on cloud formation and variation in solar wind explain a great deal on yearly and decadal time scales. 2 Over $100 billion has been portioned out by Nat Science foundation, NASA, NOAA, etc over past 20 years to support AGHW theory. Hundreds of academic scientists in dozens of Atmospheric Science and Environmental Engineering departments owe their living to these grants. 40 years ago there was no such stand alone discipline. AGHW at this point has little to do with science it’s all money and politics at this point.

    Comment by Novan — 21 Feb 2012 @ 4:20 PM

  689. Frankly, I am surprised that so many people are condoning the actions of Peter Gleick. I guess anything goes as long as they are on your own side. I imagine the same group would be thoroughly outraged if the reverse occurred, and someone faked a memo about pro-AGW tactics.
    The other surprise is the claim that HI prints lies about climate change, and these same people try to pass off statements like a 97% consensus believe that global warming is real and the debate ended 20 years ago. It seems that the door swings both ways.

    Comment by Dan H. — 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:10 PM

  690. Quite boring.

    Desmog blog basically saying ‘Hey look, we were right, fossil fueled denial’

    And Skeptics saying ‘Ha, talk about confirmation bias! How quickly did the warmists lap up the faker-y bakery’

    The UCS response was interesting. “The science of climate change is clear” Clearly unsettled! Its like a whole union of scientists saying ‘It’s settled!’
    lol
    :)

    Comment by Isotopious — 21 Feb 2012 @ 9:34 PM

  691. So what’s the point of a hypothesis that can’t tell me the magnitude of a temperature increase in my country over any timeframe, or at a global scale in a reasonable timeframe?

    The US 5 year mean is colder than what it was in the 1930s:-
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif

    The Central England Temperature has only warmed by 0.6C since the start of the industrial revolution, well below the 0.2C per decade, the IPCC AR4 climate models predict:-
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

    The global mean temperature also has hardly warmed at all, and certainly much less than 0.2C per decade since 1998:-
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif

    Finally, over the temperature record since 1880, there have only been 2 periods where it can be said to have warmed (1910 to 1940 and 1978 to 1998). The majority of the temperature record has been flat. Yet, we are told that the current flat trend is too short, but 30 years is statistically signficant. How about the 1940 to 1978 (38 year flat trend)

    The IPCC AR4 report only had model runs with a likely range (1 standard deviation, approx 68% of model runs) rather than the broader 2 standard deviaton, approx 95% of model runs) range that you’ve published. If you’d stuck with the IPCC range, 2008 and 2011 would have breached this, making the climate models by definition unlikely. Sure we can wait for it to break the very unlikely range, but given that the scientist has to prove their predictions, not his critics disprove them, I’d say the models are already demonstrably wrong, so need to be tuned downwards, thus producing less than alarming stories about what the world temperature will be in 2100.

    Comment by jdey123 — 22 Feb 2012 @ 4:52 PM

  692. Explain to me how you can see a significant trend fron NASA itself, that why me skeptical
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png BTW its now at -1C or less Feb 2012 so far. Maybe its what we all want to see cause Connolley just posted same graph on WUWT maintaining it shows AGW

    Comment by Rogelio escobar — 23 Feb 2012 @ 1:29 PM

  693. Were I asked the Doran and Zimmerman questions, I would stand with the 97%. And yet I am not even close to being an AGW alarmist. It is these kinds of essentially political efforts to persuade that cause the credibility of AGW alarmists to diminish. And is it Realclimate’s defense of these kinds of efforts that cause Realclimate’s credibility to diminish.

    A related point. It is not be the burden of anyone to “falsify” unproven claims by AGW alarmists. If any group, regarding of how many others they get they get to say ‘amen’ to their pronouncements, claims a diagnosis of a disease and advocates a cure, the effect of which may be much worse than the effect of the disease, it is that group’s burden to prove, by a very high standard, that their diagnosis is correct. To date, that burden is not even close to being sustained. And that problem cannot be fixed by insisting others must disprove their diagnosis.

    Comment by DVG — 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:24 PM

  694. #525, 542 Ray, the reason the SPM seams so one sided, is that it is written from a climate change mitigation/adaptation point of view. Which is fine – it has its purpose. But read down through it and tell me why almost all of these wouldn’t be better served by looking at them from the resource management point of view. Over the last century we have dealt with resource scarcity, agricultural booms and busts, pest outbreaks, depleting aquifers, dust bowls, droughts. These are not new problems. We know how to deal with them. And I’m pretty sure the solution to any of them was not “bring the temperature of the climate down a few degrees C”.

    I respect your risk mitigation experience, but are you sure you can look at all the problems we face from that perspective? I don’t see how you factor in positive trends. Things do improve on a regular basis. In the US we have restored fisheries, established parks, improved air quality, banned harmful substances, agriculture productivity is increasing, tree planting is increasing, populations are stabilizing.

    Keep in mind, I’m not saying everything’s rosy. I’m just countering a doom and gloom picture. Yes, I’m with you, the thought of 10 billion people scares the crap out of me. But baby Michael W in the mid 70′s would have been just as scared to go from 4 to 7 billion in his lifetime.

    Comment by Michael W — 24 Feb 2012 @ 12:40 PM

  695. #531 Phil, the earth is less like Gaia and more like Medea with ill intentions toward her children, killing them off with global extinction events, ice ages, & volcanoes. Climate is chaotic, episodic, and nonlinear on short, medium and long timescales, at the local, regional(e.g. Petes post #551) and global levels. Which is why its odd to think we have arrived somewhere if we stop emitting co2. In such a scenario we are still at the mercy of the climate.

    Comment by Michael W — 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:07 PM

  696. Yes, how successful predictions were in the past? Enter Mercer 1978 Nature paper “West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster”. 5-10K increase below 80 degree south before 1978+50=2028. So if this prediction turns to be correct I would change my believe. If it turns out to be false, would you?

    Comment by tegiri nenashi — 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:21 PM

  697. It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.

    Richard Feynman.

    Comment by realist — 24 Feb 2012 @ 1:45 PM

  698. You really could not make this up. “A few years”, the man says.
    Can I ask any unprejudiced reader to visit the HADAT site of the UK Met Office, click on “frequently used charts and graphics” and look at the lower stratosphere chart. Agree that there has been no cooling for at least the past 15 years. (Lower stratospheric cooling is one of the two main fingerprints of AGW, as presented here).

    Then look at the lower troposphere and surface anomalies chart.
    No significant warming for almost 50 years between the fifties (when temperatures were lower than the previous peak in the forties, after the little ice age) and 1997.There follows a sharp step (1998, 0.8 degrees), and no warming since, for 14 years.

    Then Google the charts at “Global Warming at a Glance” site.
    Go to the HADAT chart from radio-sondes at all altitudes (if AGW exists it is a Top of the Atmosphere phenomenon). Agree that there was no warming to worry about for 50 years to 1998, that everything moves together, and that there has been no warming for the past 14 years. The crucial fingerprint of AGW is simultaneous warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere.

    Then stop worrying and get on with life.

    Comment by Fred Staples — 24 Feb 2012 @ 6:11 PM

  699. 543 Ray said, “So you do not think that refusal to consider the evidence is dishonest”

    Anthony Watts is a good example. He considers the evidence and is convinced that the mainstream is full of baloney. I haven’t seen any evidence that Watts, Pielke, Curry, and the rest are dishonest. Have you? All by himself, Watts has more influence than the RC crowd, Skeptical Science, and probably all mainstream climate sites combined. #1 science site and all that.

    Many skeptics think mainstream scientists are dishonest, so the evidence “we” want them to consider is suspect. In their minds Gavin et al are just leaches who are solely interested in sucking down as many undeserved taxpayer dollars as possible, with lying being the best way to increase the largess. Thus, everything Gavin says is evidence that the opposite is true. Once the two sides have each determined the other side is lying in a way to deliberately destroy the economy, freedom, and/or the planet for personal gain or even just the jollies, then debates and the exchange of data and ideas becomes incredibly unproductive. “I have two facts for you. 1) You’re a lying evildoer who wants to instil horrible suffering and death on innocent people. 2) xxx.” Gee, how many folks are going to even hear 2) xxx?

    My dad is probably the most honest and honorable man I know, and he believes everything Fox News spouts. “Liberal” is a dirty word to him and the ultimate insult, and the “liberal” label has been plastered all over mainstream climate science. For him and many other skeptics, climate change is just not a big deal. Yep, folks waste time on Real Climate discussing Liberal Nonsense, but that’s not even on his radar. If climate issues become relevant, then the Market will automatically fix it to the exact extent required and at the least cost possible. (Geoengineering is cheap.)

    I’m sure some skeptics are lying for personal gain (Interestingly, that means they aren’t skeptics!), but most are either convinced by Watts or just ignoring Liberal Nonsense and getting on with the Important Business of creating Wealth and Prosperity.

    Comment by RichardC — 24 Feb 2012 @ 8:12 PM

  700. It’s funny to see the WSJ doubling down on a graphic data splice ugly as any mixed proxy palaeocimatology presents, but without the redeeming necessity of an absent instrumental record.

    If the 16 authors insist on reinventing the hockey stick, why don’t the WSJ’s Editors demand a Nature style corrigendum?

    Comment by Russell — 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:55 PM

  701. Ray Ladbury,

    You say they are not predictions, the IPCC say they are. Forgive me if I don’t take you seriously.
    Try reading the FAR

    Comment by Anteros — 24 Feb 2012 @ 10:59 PM

  702. Dave123,

    You wrote, “If the FAR group got their scenarios wrong, so what? For me the question is what the model does when given the right scenario. Is there some reason you believe that having made a bad choice of scenarios back then matters?”

    and then later wrote, “And finally, GCMs do not model solar activity. Solar activity is a scenario component. If the sun suddenly drops its output and the earth cools… this is an unpredictable event that in no way damages the credibility of GCMs.”

    I see this as the problem. What scenario will we be facing 10 years from now? 20?

    You don’t know, unless you have a crystal ball. In fact though, like the IPCC FAR report, you want to make policy, regardless of not knowing the scenario. Aren’t we glad we didn’t make policy based on the upper level projections of the FAR report? What makes you think that _this_time you’ll be able to model the correct scenario?

    Comment by Curious — 25 Feb 2012 @ 4:17 PM

  703. The 1990 IPPC assessment makes the claim that only two facts were known to a certainty. One the greenhouse effect was real and two that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were rising cause by human activities.

    It goes on to claim with confidence that some gases are more effective at changing climate,atmospheric concentrations o long lived gases like CO2 adjust only slowly to changes in emissions and that current levels would commit us to increased concentrations for centuries ahead,called for am immediate reduction in CO2 of 60%, rising temperatures of 3° C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 2° C to 5° C. per decade). The rise will not be steady.

    So apparently the only problem with the 1990 assessment report is that it overestimated the actual temperature increase. If this were just an academic exercise this would not be an issue. The report was to inform policy makers that a global effort to curb greenhouse gases was necessary to prevent this change in global average temperatures. The Kyoto protocol and treaty was a response to this report which has been superseded by later assessments.

    There are many problems with the 1990 report. Yet many European countries agreed to reductions in CO2 emissions to prevent the dire predictions in the 1990 report. I have reviewed the 1990 report but have not had the time to look at the later assessments but to claim that the chart presented by the WSJ is wrong just refer to the chart on page 30 of the actual report it seems to indicate a plus 1° rise by the year 2000. it is hard to say for sure the chart is low resolution.

    Comment by Emanuele Lombardi — 25 Feb 2012 @ 5:07 PM

  704. Lots of name calling here – ‘robber barons’, ‘liars’, ‘Neanderthals’. Even engineers. Perhaps engineers would have something to say about the error bars, which now seem to have a spread of c. 0.8C. Since the data haven’t moved outside a band of c. 0.4C over the last decade, I congratulate the models on their unerring accuracy and predictive (sorry, projective) insight.

    So “global mean temperature has wiggled around inside those error bars, just like it was supposed to”? Huge amounts of work and money well spent, then.

    Comment by S Cooper — 25 Feb 2012 @ 6:49 PM

  705. Quick question. When did the Scientific Method become a popularity contest? Date and reference to the change would be much appreciated.

    Thanks!

    Comment by cbone — 25 Feb 2012 @ 9:16 PM

  706. @62 dhogaza. More specifically, here is part of Judith Curry’s reply to the comment of Hergerl et al. taken from her blog (Hegerl et al. react to the Uncertainty Monster paper Posted on December 15, 2011):

    [Hegerl et al. object to our statement in the original manuscript: “Figure 9.7 of the IPCC AR4 shows that all models underestimate the amplitude of variability of periods of 40-70 years,” on the basis that we do not consider the uncertainties presented in the chapter. Figure 9.7 is presented on a log-log scale, and the magnitudes of the uncertainties for both the model simulations and the observations are approximately a decade (a factor of 10). Considering uncertainty, a more accurate statement of our contention would have been: The large uncertainties in both the observations and model simulations of the spectral amplitude of natural variability precludes a confident detection of anthropogenically forced climate change against the background of natural internal climate variability] (end of citation)

    Suppose that the error in the power spectra of the models and observations was 1/10 th of that in Figure 9.7 (while keeping the same average values for the models and observations) in that case the statement that most models underpredicted the observations would be true. If we follow the logic of Hegerl et al. however by increasing my error by a factor of 10 (to that shown in Figure 9.7) I could then say that the model predictions are within the experimental error. So I would be going from a case where the models did not predict the observations to a case where the models and observations agree. At one point we have to subjectively decide what constitutes an acceptable error. This question is subjective but must be considered in analysing the uncertainty in the model predictions.

    Comment by RaymondT — 25 Feb 2012 @ 9:37 PM

  707. @Bickmore. You stated: “In the long term, though, the final state of the climate is already constrained by paleoclimate data, with which we can look over much longer time periods, where those short-term effects can’t play much of a role.”

    The paleoclimate data constraint is a hindcast that does not test the ability of the climate models to PREDICT future global temperatures. Who can tell how long the current solar cycle will last ? When we think of how difficult it is to predict the solar forcing I find it difficult to estimate what the climate forcing was in the paleoclimate data.

    I am simply stating that we have not tested the ability of climate models to predict global temperatures on a sufficiently long period that natural variability can be neglected.

    Comment by RaymondT — 25 Feb 2012 @ 9:55 PM

  708. The attempt to link questioning of agw with questioning of evolution is disingenious in the extreme. agw clearly is very much open to question, and children should not be lied to by pretending otherwise.

    Comment by Florrie — 27 Feb 2012 @ 1:58 AM

  709. Donna,
    The education comparisons are not exactly apples to apples. Those that are largely uneducated in the climate sciences, generally do not believe in AGW, because they do not know or care about it. As one becomes educated, they begin to accept the theory as presented, because they have a background understanding. As one becomes more educated, they begin to understand all the different nuances and complications. They do not reject the theory in the same way the uneducated do, rather they do not accept it as fully as the semi-educated do. It is not a rejection of the whole, but rather some of the parts. The well-educated understand the theory, the methods, and the limitations. It is not a belief in false statements as you alluded to in your post, but rather a temperance of the claims based on sound, scientific knowledge.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Feb 2012 @ 11:01 AM

  710. #194 – Chris Crawford:

    I hope Edim doesn’t mind if I jump in here and tell you why I am skeptical.

    The globe has been warming for 12,000 years.

    During that time, the ocean has risen around 50 meters.

    Less than 1 meter of that 50 meter rise has occurred since 1850.

    Now humans are not to blame for the first 49 meters of the ocean rise, and are arguably only responsible for the last 1/2 meter to 1 meter.

    So the long term trend has been rising temperature and rising sea level.

    How do we separate out the portion of the warming and sea level rise which has occurred since 1850, for which humans are responsible (CO2, land use changes, carbon black, etc.) and what would have occurred naturally (given the long term trend).

    The numbers are so small (.8C since 1850 I think), that the human caused warming is lost in what would have occurred naturally.

    That is the primary reason I am skeptical.

    Perhaps you could discuss why I (or anyone) should be so worried about the last 2% of sea level rise, given the 98% rise not caused by humans.

    Comment by RickA — 28 Feb 2012 @ 5:23 PM

  711. Kevin,
    So true when it comes to personal experience. With a mild winter, support for AGW has increased in the U.S. This is a change from the past two winters, where support decreased due ot the snow and cold. I suspect Europe may be experiencing somewhat of an opposite effect this winter.

    Recent weather events in the U.S. (tornadoes) are probably fueling support for AGW also. After the 2005 hurricane season, there was a jump in support due to the belief that global warming was causing an increase in hurricane occurrances and intensity. This support has waned due to the recent decreases. Therefore, I would garner that the increased support is greatest in those areas hardest hit (just my opinion).

    I think your statement about Arctic sea ice “crashing” is a bit over the top. The sea ice has decreased, but does not appear to be on the verge of a dramatic decline this decade. Using this argument will not become very effect until the sea ice falls below the 2007 minimum.

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 Mar 2012 @ 10:10 AM

  712. Steve,
    Yes, we need to look at much longer trends than a single decade. Using either the 2000s or 1970s, would yield a much different result than the 1980s or 90s. Using the entire dataset (from 1880), the short-term trend has fluctuated significantly, but the long-term trend has not deviated much. While much of the results are noise, some is due to variations in the planetary forcings. There does not appear to be any indication that we will deviate from the long-term (130-yr) trend anytime soon.

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 Mar 2012 @ 10:20 AM

  713. SA,
    I see your comment got through the vulgarity filter, gavin must be asleep. You may continue to call anyone who does not agree with your narrow views a liar or whatever insulting comment you wish, but it will not change the facts. You may choose whatever small proportion of applicable scientists you wish to achieve your own consensus, but it does not alter the reality that it does not extend beyond that group. For instance, the APS statement does not agree with the so-called consensus stance. Maybe you do not consider physicists to be part of the consensus group, but many others here argue about the physics behind global warming.

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 Mar 2012 @ 12:36 PM

  714. I read the article a few time, but it just appears like it is more of the same.

    In #4 the author writes “dissident voices and new theories are encouraged because they are critical to sharpening our analysis”. After the climate gate emails and the Gleick incident, very few people would buy into this. If I were i climate scientist, I wouldnt even make statements like this, you know that skeptics or conservatives will tear you apart with these kind of statements.

    As a non-scientist, trying to figure what to think of global warming, first thing I wonder is “who stands to gain ?” The author claims there is no evidence to support that government will use global warming to raise taxes… From there he goes on the tobacco cliche argument. To me it is becoming more and more obvious why alarmists run from debate.

    He concludes stating that the claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. Even the most hardcore liberals dont want to be associated with cap and trade. How far away from reality do you need to be to believe that carbon taxes will have a positive return on investment ?

    Comment by Tietjan — 1 Mar 2012 @ 1:18 PM

  715. It must be painful to gradually realize you’ve wasted your life on an irrelevant non-problem.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-still-below-the-zero-line/

    Most AGWers are still in the “denial” phase — ironically. Remember: it’s just weather! The hockey stick is real! Gleick was right! You’re saving the world!

    And if you should run into Harold Camping on the way to salvation, give him a high-five.

    Comment by TallDave — 2 Mar 2012 @ 12:08 PM

  716. Yes, I am a denier! lol

    “I challenge Mr. Isotopious to present us with the temperature graph for any period in the Holocene showing a temperature rise of similar abruptness.”

    Come on, where’s an expert when you need one! Real Climate has an excellent data source web page. Check it out.

    And by the way, I’m still waiting for the justification of comparing recent warming within the context of one thousand years. You never know, there could be some type of magical climate oscillation lasting exactly one thousand years. Or maybe they (the IPCC) though that period was important for other reasons unrelated to climate (human development, society, agriculture, pixy dust). Either way, from the perspective of a denier, it has no physical basis (even though that was the title of the report!).
    I think it was a AGW believer who once said that even if the hockey stick was wrong, it wouldn’t matter anyway.

    That really sums up AGW for me, “It’s not really right, so it can’t be shown to be wrong (because it already is).”

    Comment by Isotopious — 2 Mar 2012 @ 5:29 PM

  717. What you mean that the cold is not due to the Little ice age starting next week?. “they” must surely stone her for this,

    “Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation,” said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”

    The study was published on 27 February 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The research was supported by NASA and the National Science Foundation.

    Comment by john byatt — 3 Mar 2012 @ 9:09 PM

  718. David Middleton takes on Nordhaus.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/03/why-william-d-nordhaus-is-wrong-about-global-warming-skeptics-being-wrong/#more-58200

    Comment by Dudenbostal — 3 Mar 2012 @ 11:23 PM

  719. Well dbostrom if we are going talk about thousands paid by Heartland, to keep perspective we should too look at the billions paid by governments for climate science.

    Comment by Florrie — 4 Mar 2012 @ 5:23 AM

  720. Craig,
    I thought you wanted the IPCC consensus taught in class, with which I disagree. That is significantly different from the scientific consensus, with which I agree. I have no problem with the scientific consensus being taught. Something on the order of that endorsed by the APS would be fine.
    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
    Is that palatable to you? I have no problem with mentioning that other groups think that the effects of increased CO2 will result in greater or lesser warming, or that these same groups contens that natural forces have had a greater or lesser influence.
    Phil,
    while the APS “opinion” may run afoul or your request, I am using it in response to Craig’s request concerning the IPCC opinion. As I mentioned, these opinions shuld be stated as such.

    Comment by Dan H. — 4 Mar 2012 @ 2:18 PM

  721. Chris Crawford is right.

    Just because something is small or tiny does not mean it is not important.

    For example CO2 is tiny, yet important for climate. What is important for climate is indeed an interesting question, since there is almost an unlimited amount of tiny or large, yet significant, forcing factors.

    ENSO for example says absolutely nothing about climate over the long term, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t run a big part of the climate show. Indeed, ‘proving’ that it doesn’t is Just as impossible as proving it does.
    But on it goes, especially at websites such as this one. This type of climate arrogance and ignorance is wide spread and rampant, particularly at the upper educated level. Quite boring really. Only diligence and good science will destroy the straw-man. All one needs is a small, tiny, yet significant ignition source. And then it is completely and utterly destroyed. Not very hard really, just a tiny spark……

    Comment by Isotopious — 4 Mar 2012 @ 6:50 PM

  722. how many years of a non-increasing trend would it take to prompt a rethink? Or is the CO2 theory not quite scientific yet?

    So the straight answer that avoids overcomplicating the issue, seems to be “it generally takes about 17 years of global temperature data to reach that 95% level”. Or of course wait the whole 30-year period.

    Subtracting theoretical non-CO2 affects is valid in principle, but how do you test if you’ve subtracted the right amounts ? Ultimately, the only real test is going to have to be the actual temperature readings, the result of all factors.

    So if we say actual temperatures have been about flat for about a decade, seven more like those would prompt a rethink and/or constitute a falsification.

    Comment by Florrie — 4 Mar 2012 @ 7:12 PM

  723. Ray Ladbury, continuing
    You say 17 years of a non-increasing trend would be enough to shake confidence, but exclude from being shaken the greenhouse effect (uncontoversial) as well as large positive feedback (hugely controversial).

    So what would be shaken then ? Would you then suspect that our understanding of natural forcings was faulty, and that those figures awere understated ?

    Comment by Florrie — 6 Mar 2012 @ 2:55 AM

  724. And I note now the comments where it is claimed that a large positive feedback is beyond dispute. However this just seems to be based on what is needed to make the models fit. In the absence of any hard empirical evidence to support the positive feedback thesis, this could simply be a way to offset some as yet unknown other deficiency in the models.

    Comment by Florrie — 6 Mar 2012 @ 7:28 AM

  725. 104 Tom Curtis.

    Yes you are right. So at 76% do we have 0.9 or 0.7?

    Stated differently, when you double CO2, do you get 1.2 or 1?

    I’m certainly not going to read any literature on the subject, that would be like watching paint dry.

    But please do tell…

    Comment by Isotopious — 8 Mar 2012 @ 4:48 AM

  726. Time to face it here at RC, Lindzen is correct and has won the debate;

    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/972/the_high_priests_of_global_warming_have_lost_their_prestige_and_the_realists_are_winning_the_debate/page/2#article_content_top

    It’s a world of denial on this site.

    Comment by cwon14 — 8 Mar 2012 @ 10:09 AM

  727. O H Dahlsveen says on WUWT:
    March 8, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    I do not believe the theory of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (AGHE) to be a “misnomer”. I think it is just plain wrong
    _______________________________________

    Basically you are correct. There can be no transfer of thermal energy from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface by any physical process, radiation or otherwise. However, we have to acknowledge that radiation from the atmosphere does slow the rate of radiative energy transfer from the surface to the atmosphere. This is why it can be warmer on moist nights. However, on balance, other processes, mostly evaporation and diffusion (conduction) will make up for any reduction in radiative flux, because of the stabilising effect of the massive store of thermal energy beneath the outer crust, which is not due to the very slow rate of terrestrial energy flow.

    There is also a cooling effect due to water vapour and CO2 etc as these absorb downwelling IR radiation from the Sun and send upward backradiation to space.

    The temperature gradient in the atmosphere is determined by the mass of the atmosphere and the acceleration due to gravity, both close enough to being constants. All the claims about 255K are based on the false assumption that the surface is anything like a blackbody. It’s not because it’s not insulated from losses by diffusion and evapoation. Less than half the energy exits by radiation. So, not only is that 33 degree figure based on a totally incorrect 255K figure, but it also ignores the fact that there is an adiabatic lapse rate that has nothing to do with backradiation.

    This is a very brief summary of my peer-reviewed paper being published next week.

    Comment by Doug Cotton — 8 Mar 2012 @ 5:43 PM

  728. @Martin Lack #177 + #174 + a hundred others.

    I think you need to sit down quietly for a while, work out where you are going with this and, if necessary, seek some kind of counselling or other help. You’re going to make yourself ill.

    Comment by GSW — 8 Mar 2012 @ 7:51 PM

  729. 145
    John Finn says:
    8 Mar 2012 at 11:23 AM
    Steve Metzler says:
    8 Mar 2012 at 7:34 AM
    Point taken, Gavin. OK, so we’re 49% of the way there. But that’s a *long way* from 80%!
    I think you might find Lindzen is referring to the increase from ALL ghgs (e.g. including methane etc). He is is making the case that this increase is equivalent to 76% or 80% or whatever of a doubling of CO2. He is probably right.

    [Response: I know full well what Lindzen is trying to say (and the misleading impression he wants to leave). The fact remains that only using greenhouse gases in this context is wrong - expectations of temperature rise depend crucially on the *net forcing* (incl aerosols) and the heat capacity of the oceans. Pretending these things are zero in order to make a rhetorical point is just wrong. It's like adding up just your salary for the last year and expecting that number to be your total savings. - gavin]
    Gavin
    Regarding your response.
    I’m sure you do “know full well what Lindzen is trying to say”. I was responding to Steve who doesn’t. However, in your reply you seem to be makiing two main points (1) Aerosols are masking warming and (2) Energy is being stored in the oceans.
    On the first point, aerosols are being used as a fudge factor to explain the lower than expected warming rate – yet you have no idea idea what the magnitude of the aerosol effect is. Lindzen acually makes this point in his presentation. For at least 2 reasons, I believe the aersosl cooling effect is very small, i.e.:
    1. Industrial aerosols are relatively short-lived in the atmosphere. Most are ‘rained out’ within a few days. The effect of aerosols, therefore, is “regionally specific” (Mann & Jones 2003). In other words the cooling effect of aerosols should be most noticeable near the emission source. My home city should have experienced significant cooling (relative to the rest of the world) in the post-war period. It didn’t. Check the CET record and note that Central England was a major industrial region in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. In general, the NH mid-latitude regions should have been relatively cooler than anywhere else in the world. They weren’t. It was the arctic that cooled (at 4 times the rate of the RoW)
    2. A small proportion of aerosols will mix longer in the atmosphere and it’s recognised that they are present in the arctic. However, the solar reflection properties of aerosols are less of an issue in the arctic and a large number of studies have concluded that, due to a phenomenon known as Arctic Haze (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_haze), aerosols in the arctic produce WARMING – not cooling.

    On Ocean Heat Capacity, Roger Pielke has demonstrated numerous times using ARGO data that there has been ZERO (or near ZERO) heat gain over the past decade. I’ve seen nothing which contradicts this. I have seen one or two uncoconvincing attempts to show that heat accumulation is effectively ‘by-passing’ the top 700 metres of the ocean but is being stored below that in the upper 2000 metres. Like the aersosol effect these assertions seem, at best, speculative.

    Comment by John Finn — 9 Mar 2012 @ 4:51 AM

  730. Craig,
    I will answer your questions in reverse order. The AMS survey covered 1815 individuals, of which 52% received a doctorate degree, and another 28% a masters, and 70% were over the age of 40. Compare this to the IPCC which utilized ~450 lead authors, several of whom were grad students or had not studied in the “atmospheric or related sciences.” So, the answer to your final question is yes.

    Second, my personal opinion is similar to the statement issued by the APS. With 50,000+ members, I would say that I am in good company. This is not an issue about whether one group of scientists is lying, but rather different conclusion determined by different analysis of the data. As pointed out earlier, neither the IPCC nor the APS does any research by itself, but makes a statement based on the evidence. I am not claiming that either you or the IPCC are lying when you stated that the climate sensitivity is in the range 2-4.5, so why would you think that I or the APS is lying when we state that the range is 1-3C / doubling? Maybe you can answer your own question, as to why there is a difference.

    Recent sea level graphs, just like temperature graphs posted by their sources are not peer-reviewed when updated. Are we to reject the most recent GISS measurements because they were posted without peer-review? The IPCC does not seem to think peer-review is all that important to the debate, yet you constantly use their reports. I believe that SKS has stated that the recent drop in sea level can be attributed to La Nina events. That is not a “debunking,” but rather an explanation as to why SLR is not accelerating. The graph shows the source of the data (Colorado.edu), perhaps you would prefer a direct link to their site, showing the recent deceleration in SLR since 2006:
    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
    I am not presenting any new consensus values for climate sensitivity, merely stating that the IPCC range is not considered a consensus by the larger scientific community.
    And yes, I do tend to dismiss someone who thinks that the climate sensitivity is above 5, just as I do someone who thinks it is zero.

    Comment by Dan H. — 9 Mar 2012 @ 11:12 AM

  731. Craig,
    Yes, the lakes have been wwarm this year, with freezing pccurring only in the northern lake areas. Also, more locals are leanign towards gloabl warming. However, this is just one year, and other parts of the world are not experiencing the same warmth.
    For response to your earlier post, read here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=6013

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 Mar 2012 @ 7:31 AM

  732. Susan@270,

    That is a pretty lengthy response to not be able to cite once instance of dishonesty.

    Tactics and agenda?

    You and others are the ones accusing Lindzen of dishonesty; the burden is on you to at least be able to cite instances. The truth is that when you revert to baseless ad hominems, you detract from your own argument in a significant way. I would think that a scientist as reputable as Gavin would not allow that on his forum. I suspect if I came here and started accusing GW scientists of dishonesty with no evidence or basis I would be booted in short order. And rightly so.

    If Lindzen (or any other climate scientist) really is “dishonest,” then that is another matter and everyone ought to know about it. Personally, Lindzen’s response to this particular mistake indicates that he certainly did not intend it and would have much preferred he not made it. That is my opinion anyway.

    So then, how is he dishonest?

    Comment by John Kosowski — 11 Mar 2012 @ 6:22 AM

  733. John Reisman@273,

    I am sorry, but words have meaning, and you can’t just make up your own definition of honesty. I would think it not necessary to explain this, but there is a big difference between “honest” and “wrong.”

    Comment by John Kosowski — 11 Mar 2012 @ 6:27 AM

  734. dhogza@274,

    “When he’s claimed that smoking (not just second-hand smoke, but smoking) is not a significant cause of health problems.”

    Do you have some evidence of this allegation? I have seen similar made before, and they could not come up with any evidence. Note that your premise is that Lindzen made this statement, and that when he made it he knew it was wrong.

    So can you substantiate this?

    Comment by John Kosowski — 11 Mar 2012 @ 6:36 AM

  735. #307 Ray Ladbury. “you simply have to accept that we “know” something”. Otoh (IPCC 2001) “In climate research and modeling, we should realize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    Comment by simon abingdon — 11 Mar 2012 @ 11:51 AM

  736. “regardless of the science, the answer is predetermined. Is this simply ignorance or dishonesty?”

    I think that is true of people on both sides, and I have even heard Gavin make a similar suggestion using the evolution of the eye as an example, quite convincingly at that. He, of course, was using the example to describe people on the opposite side as his, but I have certainly seen it on both sides.

    As far as Lindzen being “dishonest” I have seen no evidence of such, and I have looked. Nor has anyone here cited any. He made a mistake with the GISS graph (one I think he finds pretty embarrassing), he described an 80% increase as a “doubling” and, perhaps, included a meaningless graph that could show different things based on the choice of axis scale.

    I see a sincere scientist that believes that a .7- 1.0 C degree average global temperature change in 150 years is no cause for alarm. Further, I would suspect that if Lindzen stumbled onto the missing evidence that proved beyond all doubt that half the species would become extinct by the end of the century, that sea level would rise 5 meters by the end of the century and all the water on the planet would vaporize in 400 years, I think he would show it to the world. But at this time, he just doesn’t buy all of that, and so far, neither do I.

    Comment by John Kosowski — 11 Mar 2012 @ 7:59 PM

  737. For the last few weeks, I have been following some climate blogs (mainly this and the Judith Curry blog). Today I have decided to stop following this blog. The comments related to this have been far over the top. The guy made a mistake in labeling a plot (maybe intentionally), which when confronted he retracted and apologized. I have personally been guilty of mislabeling many plots and even unintentionally presenting erroneous data. This is far from a crime.

    Forcing him to correct his mistakes is appropriate, but looking for ways to prosecute, get his tenure revoked, or kicked out of groups is a terrible response. Attempting to destroy someones career is a terrible crime, and frankly makes those even discussing it miserable people.

    [Response: Obviously you are welcome to stop following this blog, but the idea that you are going to stop because of stupid things people say in the comments section makes it quite unfathomable to that you would continue to follow JC! At any rate, it is great that Lindzen has apologized. But the suggestion that it was an 'innocent mistake' to be so careless with the data, and then base a very explicit accusation of fraud against GISS (and by implication, others), is quite remarkable.--eric]

    Comment by Andy — 11 Mar 2012 @ 9:12 PM

  738. #349 Lotharsson. You are under misapprehension on a number of points regarding my #338.

    “Claiming libel”. I make no such claim.

    “weaselled your libel claim via ‘may have’”. To weasel is to use cunning or deceit. The meaning of my deliberate use of the words “may have” is manifestly transparent and unexceptionable.

    Statements are either true or false; they may be accurately quoted (or not). All the statements I cited are accurate; they are direct quotations.

    “context that you did not bother to quote”. The context of each statement cited is established by the identifier (#227 for example).

    Comment by simon abingdon — 12 Mar 2012 @ 6:54 PM

  739. First, people who accuse skeptics of doing their nasty deeds in the employ of “the fossil fuel industry” always sound ridiculous to anyone outside the echo chamber. It’s on par with those on the other side who think scientists are in on some kind of a hoax.

    In general, politicians want to play politics, businesses want to do business, and scientists want to do good science.

    Second, I’m not sure if this post addresses a couple of the main concerns. For 26 of the Northernmost located stations that have records going back to the 1940′s, the average adjustment was 0.7 deg C to lower the historical temperatures. That’s not a minimal amount, and those stations cover a very large area.

    Also, I have a quote that “Trausti Jonsson, a senior climatologist at the Iceland Met Office, has already confirmed that he sees no reason for the adjustments in Iceland and that they themselves have already made any adjustments necessary due to station moves etc before sending the data onto GHCN.”

    I’m in no position to conclude anything either way, but the issue doesn’t sound to me like it’s worth dismissing out of hand.

    Comment by Steve O — 12 Mar 2012 @ 7:45 PM

  740. #431 Ray Ladbury. “It is certainly true that there are aspects of climate science that are subtle and difficult to understand.” Worse still “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (IPCC).

    Comment by simon abingdon — 16 Mar 2012 @ 7:30 AM

  741. @454 Richard. Like you, I accept the weight of the scientific consensus on climate change. I agree: blogs are valuable, and papers in low-impact journals don’t carry much weight. But the point is that blogs are not primary sources of scientific information. Only peer-reviewed papers are.

    Sure, perhaps we can ignore one paper in a minor journal. But I don’t think so. If climate change is as important as climate scientists say, any peer-reviewed paper that challenges the scientific consensus should be thoroughly considered and, if possible, rebutted in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. To someone exercising a healthy skepticism, the lack of convincing rebuttal implies that the paper has substance.

    Comment by Paul Vincelli — 18 Mar 2012 @ 8:26 AM

  742. Ozone hole large or small, not much of GW, methane hole large
    or small, all peanuts.
    We’d better think of laughing gas, which is predominant in the 1750-2000 radiative forcing diagram. Here we notice strong effects and some folks
    suffer already from overdose. Lets break down the real numbers for this gas
    and forget ozone, methane and sulphur and other overrated stuff!

    Comment by BeeMaya — 18 Mar 2012 @ 11:10 PM

  743. The WSJ comes up with only 16 scientists, a motley crew but
    we have 97% of climate scientists who all agree and these are
    much more in number: 77 surveyed in the suffrage, for proving the 97%
    number. We are 5 times better then the WSJ and we can live without
    the missing 3%! Let them write for the WSJ. I always liked to go
    with the strong majority, feels much better inside than being denier

    Comment by BeeMaya — 18 Mar 2012 @ 11:35 PM

  744. I wonder how many times adjustments that increase the temperature trend have to be made before it is considered “Statistically significant” that the trend of the trend changes has a trend.

    Is there a reason with the billion dollar budgets that the poles still (apparently?) don’t have good temperature monitoring coverage?

    This revisionism does get rather predictable. I suppose it could all be on the up and up, but IMO confirmation bias is so entrenched here it has reached DNA levels. And this is exhibit A for that trial.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 20 Mar 2012 @ 5:54 PM

  745. @26.

    You said.

    It’s also false that, by making statements about this ordering, one implicitly acknowledges validity of arguments made in the past about 1998. An argumentation that was fallacious in the first place does not suddenly turn valid. Perhaps in rhetoric, not in logic.

    I simply disagree, and it’s fine for this disagreement to occur. I think Eric did a good job clearing things up on this RC post, and in the past Gavin, Hansen, etc. have said all the things about the statistical non-relevance of declaring a ‘warmest year’ out of the mix. It just wasn’t specifically done caveat-free in this particular post.

    To me, the logic and rhetoric both imply validity with declaring a ‘warmest’ year out of the bunch. If the argument is fallacious (as indeed it is), then it should not be used now either.

    This whole matter is no longer a big deal, because in my opinion the proper context has been brought into “this particular RC post” and no longer has to be declared that ‘so and so did say it often in other places/times’. As has been acknowledged by everyone…one simple ENSO event, combined with some solar activity (or not) will settle the matter in a much less ambiguous way. If that takes 5 more years (doubtful), perhaps it’s worth a re-visit as to just how much the natural variability and noise can stunt/mask the advancement of global temperature due to the increase of GHG (which presumably goes on in the academic world at these various conferences anyway).

    Comment by Salamano — 21 Mar 2012 @ 4:10 PM

  746. Contemplating the sense of warmest years once again and I’d like if someone could put me right on this:
    What is the real sense of looking at warmest years calculated from CRUTEM data?
    Ever since 1979 we have satellites flying over our heads scanning (almost) whole globe’s temperature 24/7 so if we are looking for _global_ temperature, here we are, no need for land station data.
    CRUTEM does not even cover whole world, there are gaping holes in their data over seas and oceans where no meteorological stations are. How representative for global temperature it is? The coverage is 709 of 2592 squares, that’s less than 30%.
    You may say that CRUTEM is global land temperature – okay. But does that mean seas are unimportant? Why should be global land average be more important than complete global average? Global warming is supposed to affect evaporation, which happens a lot over seas. So temperature changes in there should be important as well…
    You may say that CRUTEM is relevant to areas where people live. But in such a case, why is the average area-based? Why does a far norhtern area where almost nobody lives have similar weight in such calculation as center of Europe or East US where tens of millions people live on each square? If it was calculated from number of people then recently added high latitude areas sure wouldn’t have such impact. Moreover, if it’s about how people feel about it, then calculating temperature anomaly is completely misleading as it sure is not true that people at far north enjoy their below freezing average temperatures as much as people at middle latitudes enjoy their mild averages.
    You may say that CRUTEM is relevant to agriculture. But in that case, yet again, agricultural usage of the area should be taken into account as far north areas are way less agriculturally important. Warming there is actually beneficial for them from the agricultural point of view, while near equator decreases may be felt as improvements.
    And if you say that CRUTEM is relevant to natural processes, then yet again there is a whole lot of sea area missing and sure enough there’s a whole lot of nature right under the sea surface.
    So what is the true reason that we are giving CRUTEM averages preference over satellite data?

    Comment by Kasuha — 22 Mar 2012 @ 5:00 PM

  747. 511

    “A cyclic behavior requires a cyclic forcing.”

    Untrue, Maybe you should check up on Newton’s first law of motion, or perhaps Galileo’s law of inertia.

    An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an unbalanced force acts upon it.

    Thus, an object that has cyclic behavior does not require a cyclic forcing.

    What’s next, a hidden rocket on the dark side of the moon….how else does move?

    Indeed, what’s the linear trend of Earth’s temperature for the last half million years……dead flat……oops!……no change!

    Comment by Isotopious — 22 Mar 2012 @ 9:57 PM

  748. I don’t think RC guys have commented on this. So I’d be interested on their take.

    Do you see any significance to the recent US warming as further confirmation of anthropogenic C02 induced heat signal, or are we all just getting excited by weather?

    I think this is confined to the US. Other regions are normal/cool (?).

    Also if theoretically, we had a few weeks of exceptionally cold weather in the US, would this be confirmation of the exact opposite?

    The statement “one cannot attribute any particular weather event to AGW, but in a warming world this certainly what would expect” I interpret as No but Yes. Something a little clearer (for want of a better word) would be helpful. Thanks

    Comment by GSW — 23 Mar 2012 @ 7:23 AM

  749. This is where the whole 17-year time frame got its start.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

    It seems to be coming back to haunt him.

    Comment by Dan H. — 23 Mar 2012 @ 1:22 PM

  750. Kevin,

    First off, my apologies for citing a source which you could not access.
    The references to which you referred were to studies which described the blocking events, and their potential causes (we have known about the blocking events themselves for years). My statement concerned the research done with reference to trends in blocking events. I will copy the relevant conclusion from their report.

    “Other studies were confirmed which found that Central
    Europe and the Pacific Ocean around the data
    line are the main areas for blocking in the Northern
    Hemisphere. The number of days with blocked airflow
    varies strongly with a maximum in winter and spring
    and a minimum in summer and autumn. When annual
    means are considered, a 2–3-year cycle of years with
    frequent and infrequent blocking activity was found.
    Hardly any evidence for a trend behaviour could be
    found between 1951 and 2007, apart from a very weak
    decrease during that time.”

    Be careful not to jump to conclusions before everything is known.

    Comment by Dan H. — 23 Mar 2012 @ 1:41 PM

  751. @John,

    Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.

    If you present anomalous “Warm” events as “evidence”, then you must also accept anomalous “Cold” events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply “Special Pleading.

    I’d argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.

    Comment by GSW — 23 Mar 2012 @ 2:47 PM

  752. [Apologies SERVER ERROR the first time?]
    @John,

    Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.

    If you present anomalous “Warm” events as “evidence”, then you must also accept anomalous “Cold” events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply “Special Pleading.

    I’d argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.

    Comment by GSW — 23 Mar 2012 @ 3:18 PM

  753. [RETRY - 2nd Time]
    @John,

    Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.

    If you present anomalous “Warm” events as “evidence”, then you must also accept anomalous “Cold” events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply “Special Pleading”.

    I’d argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.

    An example of an anamolous “Cold” event in China, 2008. Special Pleading?
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/02/04/idUKPEK161570._CH_.242020080204

    Comment by GSW — 23 Mar 2012 @ 3:53 PM

  754. Looks like the WMO is putting out the same sort of declaration of 2010 being the “Warmest year”…

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html

    Looks like there’s some muddying of the waters going on, as this lends credence to the idea that previous attempts to point to 1998 as the ‘warmest year’ have validity where it shouldn’t.

    They also promo’d that the pace of global warming has ‘accelerated’, but at least here they back up to just comparing the past 40 years to the over-all trend of 130 years. Done this way, the trends for Global Warming will probably ‘accelerate’ and ‘decelerate’ as we go forward (just like it has in the past for various 40-year periods). The main take-away should be that all the 40-year trendlines point positive and indicate warming– but I guess the WMO wants to create a sense of urgency, perhaps implying that this acceleration will continue.

    In general, I think the taking of 10-year decadal samples is rather arbitrary (you don’t have to just pick 1991-2000 or 1981-1990… why not 1989-1998 and 1999-2008 ;) … There are probably ways to mess with the statistics to show “decadal” trends of deceleration even in the recent time frames. Don’t you think the WMO press release is lending legitimzation to the idea of taking decadal trend samples and highlighting ‘warmest’ years despite the propensity to criticize the same plays by sceptics?

    Comment by Salamano — 23 Mar 2012 @ 4:10 PM

  755. #549 Susan Anderson.

    You say “we make choices that are not necessarily evidential”. You’re talking about politics, Susan, not science. Evidence is the defining bedrock of all science.

    You go on to criticise reductionism. Susan, the reductionist approach has, perhaps more than any other insight, been wonderfully fruitful in illuminating how the world works in many different disciplines.

    But (there’s always a “but”) I would venture to suggest that while the climate, as the IPCC has said “is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” it is also because the climate is a fundamentally synergistic system.

    Susan, I’m sure you would benefit greatly from an acquaintance with the phenomenon of “synergy”. When you experience that “aha” moment of understanding what it means, you may become just a little less hubristic in your opinions. (Your final comment in #550 is perhaps a step in the right direction).

    Comment by simon abingdon — 24 Mar 2012 @ 3:12 AM

  756. To be fair, I don’t think that a lot of sceptics say that “global warming has disappeared” in the last ten years. Rather, I think their argument is more that there hasn’t been a significant increase in the last ten or so years. To my layman’s eye, the graphs that you have shown appear to support that argument.

    It is frustrating how often the two sides appear to argue past each other. Are there not two facts that we can agree on?
    1) The temperature has remained high for the last ten years.
    2) The temperature has not increased significantly in the last ten years.

    Comment by Svet — 24 Mar 2012 @ 3:37 AM

  757. As an archaeologist, I view climate variation from a different time scale than that discussed here. 17, 20, 50, 100 years is an eye-blink in geologic time, even in the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens. When we look at long series data, such as the Vostok ice core records, it’s clear that the current warming phase is the most recent warming in a cycle that goes back 1.5 million years. We’re about to the top of the cycle, ready for the long plunge into the next “ice age” that will bottom out in about 20,000 years.

    Coupled with Peak Oil and the incipient decline in fossil fuel resources, human contributions to Global Warming will decline within the next 100 years. If human activity has delayed the onset of the next cooling period, this will certainly come to an end within the lifetime of many people now alive. That doesn’t mean glaciers will start marching across Fargo, North Dakota in the foreseeable future. Rather, it means that Anthropogenic Global Warming will not continue indefinitely, atmospheric CO2 levels will decline as the cooling ocean absorbs the excess, and the Earth will slide gently into the next cycle of Global Cooling.

    Comment by Michael A. Lewis, PhD — 24 Mar 2012 @ 1:07 PM

  758. For those who prefer facts to assertions, here are a few.

    Those trend lines obligingly calculated by EXCEL pass through the mean of the data set – the average temperature and the mid-point of the time series.

    The trend line itself is calculated by minimising the sum of the squares of the differences between the data and the trend. So, the trend line is disproportionately influenced by the data near the beginning and the end of the chosen period.

    Look at the UAH data from 1978 to date.
    The zero line is close to the mean, actually 1981 to 2010. From 1980 to 1996 (26 years) the trend is negative. From 1997 to 2002 the trend is sharply positive, and that step (more or less maintained to 2010) is entirely responsible for the overall trend, (which is significant) from 1978 to date of 1.4 degrees per century.

    So it is easy to choose a period to support or contradict AGW if you look only at the last 30 years. But radio-sonde data is available over the long term.

    Go to the HADAT chart from radio-sondes at all altitudes (if AGW exists it is a Top of the Atmosphere phenomenon). Agree that there was no warming to worry about for 50 years to 1998, that everything moves together, and that there has been no warming for the past 14 years.

    Go to the HADAT site, transfer to their “frequently used graphics” page, and look at the lower stratosphere temperatures. You will see that there has been no cooling for the last 18 years.
    The crucial fingerprint of AGW is simultaneous warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. Can anyone see it?

    Comment by Fred Staples — 24 Mar 2012 @ 4:07 PM

  759. It certainly has been instructive, Jim, to see such self-serving arrogance, elitist hubris, and general dysfunctional intolerance on a list alleged to consist of climate “scientists.” Nothing scientific here, folks. Move along.

    No wonder the general public does not accept the AGW premise when led by the likes of these.

    Since my comments are censored on this list, those who have asked questions will have to discuss this with you, the assumed gatekeeper and protector of this group. Wouldn’t want to have them exposed to the unwashed with access to a computer, now would we? Reality might seep in.

    Evidently, some privileged few are able to read the “boreholed” (cute) posts that are hidden from public view . To those who are allowed to read this, I left academe for the very attitudes expressed so eloquently on this list. I decided to live in a world slightly more real than that hiding behind esoteric discussions on computer models calculating the number of CO2 molecules that could balance on the head of a pin. I’ve never regretted my decision.

    In this world outside the elitist halls guarded by self-serving gatekeepers, air, water and soil pollution continue apace, critical habitat for non-human species continues to be reduced by human economic growth, natural resources for all species continue to be exploited for exclusive human use.

    I wish that Global Warming (TR) were real and would take effect with a vengeance in the near future, not in some far-off mythical world inside computer programs. Perhaps a comet or CME will do the job instead. Whatever works.

    The Earth abides.

    Comment by Michael A. Lewis, PhD — 24 Mar 2012 @ 8:58 PM

  760. I must say this is a very good article for explaining the simple ways data cherrypicking and graphical presentation can misrepresent observations, would be very good reading for some journalists

    However I think it works both ways and good as it is there is a little self righteous hubris within

    How would you react to the following a sceptical blog say

    “I just came across an interesting way to eliminate the impression of slowing of the warming trend . A trick used to argue that the global warming is continuing at the same rate as the latter part of the 20th century, and the simple recipe is as follows:

    •Extend all of the measurements as far back into the 20th century as possible, at least 1979.

    •Plot annual averages of these 17 years to get fewer of data points and disguise true monthly averages.

    •A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer anomaly axis vertically to enhance temperatures.

    The third point used to excellent effect in the third graph (from 1979)by the way

    :-)

    Comment by PKthinks — 25 Mar 2012 @ 10:52 AM

  761. I must say this is a very good article for explaining the simple ways data cherrypicking and graphical presentation can misrepresent observations, would be very good reading for some journalists

    However I think it works both ways and good as it is there is a little self righteous hubris within

    How would you react to the following a sceptical blog say

    “I just came across an interesting way to eliminate the impression of slowing of the warming trend . A trick used to argue that the global warming is continuing at the same rate as the latter part of the 20th century, and the simple recipe is as follows:

    •Extend all of the measurements as far back into the 20th century as possible, at least 1979.

    •Plot annual averages of these 17 years to get fewer of data points and disguise true monthly averages.

    •A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer anomaly axis vertically to enhance temperatures.

    The third point used to excellent effect in the third graph (from 1979)by the way

    :-)

    Comment by PKthinks — 25 Mar 2012 @ 11:30 AM

  762. @Richard, Erica,

    It really depends what the original paper was trying to show. I think Ben Santer had a paper out last year to counter “It hasn’t warmed for 10yrs argument therefore the models are wrong” argument.

    My recollection of it is- Even in individual Climate model runs there are periods ~10yrs with no warming, so it is unexceptional. Santer suggests a minimum of 17yrs would be required before it could be said there was a problem with models.

    My only reason for suggesting this is the coincidental recurrence of the 17yrs figure.

    Comment by GSW — 25 Mar 2012 @ 11:43 AM

  763. Re, Bob of #62

    You might want to read #50 again and reconsider your post.

    Observer

    Comment by observer — 25 Mar 2012 @ 2:51 PM

  764. •A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer time axis.

    Sorry, but that one’s just laughable. You think that the deniers have stretched the horizontal axis, but the standard presentation of global temperature data routinely expands the vertical axis by a factor of about 100.

    I understand why it’s done, and scientists are able to discern the difference between temperature and anomaly, but when you put graphs out for the public that show a massive spike in global temperature, do you think most of them realize that it’s a change of less than 0.5%? Wouldn’t it be more honest to occasionally show an actual temperature graph alongside the presentation of the anomalies?

    Comment by JohnH — 25 Mar 2012 @ 6:22 PM

  765. Aren’t these estimates compiled from monthly raw data? Not “hourly and daily”, and only annually in retrospect (after computing the monthlies). So what could be wrong with choosing to plot monthlies in the first instance?

    Regardless of what trend you choose to fit or how you choose to fit it, a clear advantage of plotting at the finest temporal scale available is that you get to see the inherent variability. And you avoid imposing arbitrary averaging steps like calendar years commencing on 1 January. For example, you might just manage to avoid assigning absurd significance to an extreme El Niño, the effects of which just happen to fall neatly within one calendar year.

    Here’s the post-1970 record plotted as monthlies. Have a close look at 1998…

    Comment by GlenFergus — 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:55 AM

  766. Erica,
    The 17 years came from the Santer paper:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

    The work was performed using UAH and RSS atmospherice temperature data. Many people seem to have misapplied these results to various other temperature records. The results concluded that 17 years was the minimum time frame needed to separate a warming signal from the noise. The addition of the most recent RSS data increases that time frame to 19 years. As Richard said above, there is no magic number with which to calculate temperature trends. We must simply examine the data and determine what trends exist, and over what time frames.

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Mar 2012 @ 7:59 AM

  767. You guys who think you can predict the climate with your silly little climate models……….you are so funny.
    How do you think you have done so far?

    It is obvious that NO-ONE understands what drives the climate. Some people can make isolated observations…sure. But has anyone reached an overview strong enough to forecast the climate. Not even close.

    :-)

    Comment by Chris — 26 Mar 2012 @ 2:24 PM

  768. I would say it’s a matter of clarity of definition rather than semantics.

    Global temperature increase is exactly what it says it is, and should be used without ambiguity.

    As you well know, warming is a wider concept which, for example,can result in a change of state as well as a temperature increase.
    Conflating these is just confusing and does not help win the communication battle.

    Comment by Frank — 26 Mar 2012 @ 4:47 PM

  769. Allow me to appeal to authority: the IPCC

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_FINAL.pdf

    In fact, a report which presents very similar graphs to those presented in this article.

    Observations of Exposure, Vulnerability, Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses

    “There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity…
    There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia….
    There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales …..overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.”

    It carries on like this. Often low confidence, at most medium confidence of evidence of observed extreme weather linked to GHG emissions.

    The article therefore seems to contradict the conclusions of the IPCC.

    Comment by Oakwood — 26 Mar 2012 @ 5:08 PM

  770. What was wrong with my post guys — polite, measured, sensible, cut. In any case, to reiterate, the only thing wrong with the data presentation criticised here is the short and selective record depicted. The other matters (plotting monthly data, “stretched plot with longer time axis”) are at best neutral and arguably even desireable (monthly data gives a sense of the inherent variability, which is lost by lumping as annuals).

    Comment by GlenFergus — 27 Mar 2012 @ 3:46 AM

  771. Wow Wow Gavin how can you let something like this on your site ? Time to move on to some place else I guess The science here is going down the drain.

    Comment by Lorne50 — 27 Mar 2012 @ 11:45 AM

  772. I like the probability graphs: Take the a) at mean increase – then
    we out of cold days. take b) variance increase – only 1/4 of cold
    days are left in a year. The best is for us take a)+b) and we have
    only 1/20 of cold days a year left. No problem to understand. All
    winters will shrink to 1/20 in length, lets say: previous 100
    winter days will shrink to 5 winter days a year, the mathematics
    gives the obvious prove.
    But how does this fit to “its getting cold because its getting
    warm”? Would this mean that recent cold winters DECREASE the
    mean/variance increase or the increase can be reversed by global
    warming?
    Thanks for the answer! BM

    Comment by BeeMaya — 27 Mar 2012 @ 5:36 PM

  773. Roger Pielke Jr – quite impressed with SREX report.

    “Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where “right” means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic.”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

    Comment by GSW — 28 Mar 2012 @ 3:47 PM

  774. If one was genuinely concerned about climate change extremes and deadly weather events, and the effect on the world’s poorest people, etc, then one would have to acknowledge that it is inappropriate to attribute recent climate change (such as trends in sea level) to humans.

    The reason such an acknowledgement is required is simple, if one is wrong in ones assumptions, then any action taken on the basis of those assumptions will most likely be ineffectual.

    Take for example Cholera, an infection of the small intestine caused by the bacterium Vibrio cholera, which claims around 115,000 lives a year, and is often related to deadly weather events.

    John Snow (15 March 1813 – 16 June 1858) was an English physician and a leader in the adoption of anaesthesia and medical hygiene. He is considered to be one of the fathers of epidemiology, because of his work in tracing the source of a cholera outbreak in Soho, England, in 1854.

    Snow was a skeptic of the then dominant miasma theory that stated that diseases such as cholera or the Black Death were caused by pollution or a noxious form of “bad air”.

    It had nothing to do with “bad air’, rather, the people of Soho were drinking their own sewerage.

    If not for Snow’s skepticism, many more lives would have been lost….

    So let’s not make this dreadful mistake of assuming humans are the dominant driver of climate trends. It is much safer to simply acknowledge that it is a possibility, rather than near certainty. People who call others names simply because they are skeptical of the dominant theory of the day are no better than the arrogant twits who though it was “bad air”.

    Comment by Isotopious — 29 Mar 2012 @ 6:05 PM

  775. Isn’t the idea that “we know the link is there”, “it stands to reason that it should be there”, “we just haven’t found the exact right way of proving it yet, but it doesn’t mean there is no link”, etc…

    …The same sorts of phrases that have come out of the mouths of folks who ‘know’ there is a link between child immunizations and various psychological/neurological/medical conditions?

    Perhaps both linkages will eventually prevail?

    Comment by Salamano — 30 Mar 2012 @ 7:14 AM

  776. Here I compare two extremes of unusual similarity, each about 50 years long.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 30 Mar 2012 @ 1:31 PM

  777. The current temperature of the lower troposphere is at or very near its 30 year average so talking about global warming causing these recent records is nonsensical! [EDITOR'S NOTE: This barely even deserves to be in the borehole]

    Comment by Adrian Smits — 30 Mar 2012 @ 3:17 PM

  778. I always figured that some scientists would finally understand that they don’t know the diff between + and -.

    It has become readily apparent through the years that the signs have been all goofed up.

    I mean, Arctic Sea Ice disappearing by 2012 as an example.

    Glad to see that there is some interest in admitting error and seeing how bright the sun is.

    Comment by Camburn — 1 Apr 2012 @ 2:45 PM

  779. We need to go SOLAR, WIND and ANTI-GRAVITY as soon as humanly possible!!!

    See chapter 7 in the online book,
    SAVING THE PLANET:

    http://pulsar774.tripod.com

    Forget the Deniers, we have work to do!!!

    Comment by steve jones — 2 Apr 2012 @ 4:19 PM

  780. Looking at figure 5 in the pdf, it’s clear their simple model matches observations… or does it? It sure matches observations available to them at the time. But current values are actually rather different.
    That just leads me to one of two conclusions – either their model does not match reality (because it matches wrong observations), or their model is another excersise in regression, which can be interesting on the interval studied, but has very limited validity outside it.
    Now, their conclusions in figure 6 don’t really seem to match reality too well – trend for the whole 1975-2000 period is clearly wrong. In my opinion that supports the regression option.

    Comment by Kasuha — 3 Apr 2012 @ 2:10 AM

  781. about shooting yourself in the foot:
    compare Hansens model 1981 with Hansens model 1988 and CMIP5
    conclusion: models don’t work

    Comment by Steve — 3 Apr 2012 @ 6:40 AM

  782.  

    There is a simple explanation as to why temperatures are not following carbon dioxide levels.

    Seeing that a microwave oven produces low frequency radiation far more intense than carbon dioxide could ever do, and yet its radiation is not absorbed* and converted to thermal energy in ice, what makes anyone think that radiation from carbon dioxide could warm all the snow and ice covered areas of the planet?

    The mechanism by which microwave ovens heat water molecules is totally different from the excitation of atoms which happens when high frequency solar radiation warms water. The oven emits radiation at a very specific frequency which happens to resonate with natural frequencies of the water molecules which then “snap” or “flip” through 180 degrees and back again in synchronisation with the passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. The molecules in water do have the space to do this, and when they flip there is frictional heat generated by collisions of the molecules. In ice there is not sufficient room to move and flip like this.

    There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply because electrical energy was added to the system.

    But the fact that the ice was not melted demonstrates the phenomenon of “resonant scattering” in which radiation is not reflected, not transmitted and not absorbed with conversion to thermal energy. See Section 5 of my publication here.

    * Try this home experiment:

    Obtain two identical small microwave bowls which do not get warm in the microwave oven. Ensure that they both fit in the oven together. Obtain a small ice cube tray and fill it with filtered or distilled water. Pour that water into one of the bowls. Then refill the tray with similar water and place the ice cube tray in your freezer and both the bowls in your frig overnight. Next day, empty the ice cubes into the bowl without water, then place both bowls in the microwave oven and operate for about 60 to 80 seconds depending on the volume of water – try to bring the water nearly to the boil. Observe that the ice has not been affected – you might even try comparing its temperature with other ice in the freezer. To do this, pack the ice samples in a tall insulated mug and insert a meat thermometer with a metal spike.

    Why wasn’t the energy in the radiation shared equally between the water and the ice? If you pour the hot water into the bowl with the ice it will easily melt the ice within a couple of minutes, so this demonstrates that sufficient energy did enter the water.
    There’s a simple explanation as to why temperatures are not following carbon dioxide levels.

    Seeing that a microwave oven produces low frequency radiation far more intense than carbon dioxide could ever do, and yet its radiation is not absorbed* and converted to thermal energy in ice, what makes anyone think that radiation from carbon dioxide could warm all the snow and ice covered areas of the planet?

    The mechanism by which microwave ovens heat water molecules is totally different from the excitation of atoms which happens when high frequency solar radiation warms water. The oven emits radiation at a very specific frequency which happens to resonate with natural frequencies of the water molecules which then “snap” or “flip” through 180 degrees and back again in synchronisation with the passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. The molecules in water do have the space to do this, and when they flip there is frictional heat generated by collisions of the molecules. In ice there is not sufficient room to move and flip like this.

    There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply because electrical energy was added to the system.

    But the fact that the ice was not melted demonstrates the phenomenon of “resonant scattering” in which radiation is not reflected, not transmitted and not absorbed with conversion to thermal energy. See Section 5 of my publication here.

    * Try this home experiment:

    Obtain two identical small microwave bowls which do not get warm in the microwave oven. Ensure that they both fit in the oven together. Obtain a small ice cube tray and fill it with filtered or distilled water. Pour that water into one of the bowls. Then refill the tray with similar water and place the ice cube tray in your freezer and both the bowls in your frig overnight. Next day, empty the ice cubes into the bowl without water, then place both bowls in the microwave oven and operate for about 60 to 80 seconds depending on the volume of water – try to bring the water nearly to the boil. Observe that the ice has not been affected – you might even try comparing its temperature with other ice in the freezer. To do this, pack the ice samples in a tall insulated mug and insert a meat thermometer with a metal spike.

    Why wasn’t the energy in the radiation shared equally between the water and the ice? If you pour the hot water into the bowl with the ice it will easily melt the ice within a couple of minutes, so this demonstrates that sufficient energy did enter the water.

     

    Comment by D C — 4 Apr 2012 @ 11:59 PM

  783. Do we know enough about the climate of the past 2,000 years to say:

    1: Whether warming and cooling periods (e.g. the ‘MWP’ and ‘LIA’) were regional or global;
    2: If global, what magnitude of forcing caused them?

    Cheers…

    Comment by Icarus — 5 Apr 2012 @ 11:16 AM

  784. The correlation between the data and the projection is indeed compelling. Showing superiority over naive projections is one good test. A second good test would be to show that this in not merely the Jeane Dixon Effect (JDE). The key factor in rejecting the JDE would be to show that no one else in the timeframe of, say, 1975-85, predicted (a) a similar temperature rise for different reasons, or (b) a temperature flatline or decline that nevertheless accounted for CO2 rise. Only after a full rejection of the JDE can we assume that climate science was indeed already capable of making meaningful projections in 1980.

    Comment by Matt Skaggs — 5 Apr 2012 @ 2:57 PM

  785. John,
    Yes the minimum temperatures have risen significantly, as opposed to the maximums. Most of the record highs in the 30s still stand. However, the extremes of the 30s were much more disruptive to plants and animals due to the lack of precipitation, which has also risen recently. When comparing recent and past weather, the temperature extremes and drought extent of the 1930s far exceeds anything we have experienced recently. This was my beef about statistics earlier; many people using starting dates in the 50s or 70s to show a particulat trend. Completely ignoring what occurred prior.
    Both the extremes now and then appear to be the result of blocking events. A lot more people died in the dust bowl.

    Comment by Dan H. — 6 Apr 2012 @ 7:21 AM

  786. Others claim the weather stations were in the remote areas in the past. Consequently output data had been recorded properly. But now we know that some 90% of weather stations are located in urban areas. Therefore the related reports show warmer climate. The temperature in urban areas has been documented in the charts and reports.
    The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen to 390 ppm. Scientists have reached consensus in this case. Climate change has caused some scientists consider the solar activity as the main reason for global warming. They don’t believe that the fossil fuels would make the global warming.
    I think they are doing well. IPCC must alter the weather stations locations. These stations could be transferred to remote areas and outside the cities. We always do need reliable information. Besides, IPCC would be able to give reliable reports. Much of the skepticism among the scientists are because of wrong records made by the stations. I think all the parties together should never let the others to divert the issues to wrong matters. The reason is that global warming is in tipping points.
    My father was an employee of one of an American oil companies. In 1965 the family moved to the Middle East. This region is tropical. I was 16. The summer times were too hot. Its highest temperature to date was 39 degrees Celsius. Now the temperature is about 52 degrees Celsius at the same season.
    In other words, along 47 years there was 13 degrees C increase in the weather temperature. That means 27.66 degrees Celsius per 100 years. Or, the annual mean increase would be 0.2766 ° C per year. This location still is located outside the urban area.

    Comment by BIGTIX — 6 Apr 2012 @ 8:04 AM

  787. @ Hank Roberts & Steve Fish
    I have no idea who is Pat Frank or Dunning or Kruger, and I really do not care, and have no intention of finding out.
    How the scientific process works is of no concern of mine, I look at data and if I find something unusual I draw attention to it. I’ve posted 4 or 5 links in this thread, if you find the contents disruptive to the ‘accepted collective thinking’ may be it is because science is not a religion.

    Comment by vukcevic — 6 Apr 2012 @ 11:36 AM

  788. The Solar System, where we are now?
    The gravitational facts of other planets cause the ellipse of our orbit to slowly spin around the Sun. It takes about 112,000 years for the ellipse to revolve once relative to fix stars when considered together with two forms of perception add. And it takes about 21,000 years for the solstice to go from aphelion to aphelion. The dates of the perihelion and aphelion advanced each year on the Sun core an average of one day per 58 years.
    The eccentricity of Earth orbit is a measure of how round or how oval shape is. Over thousands of years the eccentricity of orbit varies as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets primarily Jupiter and Saturn. The orbital eccentricity cycles with a period of 100,000 years.
    As the eccentricity of the orbit evolves the semi major axis of orbital ellipse remains unchanged, so the length of the sidereal year remains unchanged.
    As the earth travels in its orbit the duration of seasons depends on eccentricity of the orbit.
    When the orbital eccentricity extreme, the seasons that occur on the far side of the orbit are substantially longer in duration. In addition the axial perception there’s the axial tilt. The angle of Earth rotational axis makes with its orbital plane. It’s currently about 23.4 degrees and is declining. This tilt varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees. It makes one complete tilt and back every 41,000 years. This changing tilt is directly related to Ice Ages on Earth. The last max tilt occurred in 8700 BC and the next min tilt will happen in 11,800 AD. The inclination of earth’s orbit drives up/down relative to the present orbit having a period of about 70,000 years. Orbit also moves relative to the orbit of other planets as well. By calculating the plane of unchanged total angular momentum of the solar system we can define the overall plane called the invariable plane. It is approximately the orbital plane of Jupiter. The inclination of earth‘s orbit has a 100,000 year cycle relative to the invariable plane. This 100.000 years cycle closely matches the 100,000 pattern of ice ages.
    A year on earth is directly determined by all the various orbital motions of the earth. So if someone tells you how many years old they are, you might ask them is that sidereal, tropical or anomalous years.

    Comment by BIGTIX — 6 Apr 2012 @ 1:59 PM

  789. Can you please put a prominent permanent link to the Borehole at the top of the page? It’s the only thing worth reading on this site. It’s the only thing you CAN read without getting dung on your keyboard.

    You DO know that all of your climate data revisionism is being documented all over the net, eh? keep digging! you’re going to need a deeper borehole. dumbasses.

    Comment by Peter — 6 Apr 2012 @ 3:20 PM

  790. Tokodave @195

    I did some research on the electrical grid disturbances. Here is a link to what one person found who actually talked with the person who set up the grid graph.

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/06/update-on-climate-chart.html

    It is a similar response when I emailed a NOAA meterologist concerning a rapid increase in wind speed reports from thunderstroms. I posted my email and his response in post @ 99.

    I will agree that the number of record highs vs record cold is increasing. But the evidence available does show the globe is warming so you should see more record highs vs lows. This does not indicate more extreme weather is on the way. Just warmer weather.

    What do you define as “very heavy precipitation” and how much of an increase is it? Is it significant enough to show a clear trend or is it highly varialbe from year to year?

    Comment by Norman — 6 Apr 2012 @ 6:38 PM

  791. Tokodave

    I found some more material concerning extremes.

    Here is an abstract and gives advice on being careful when making determinations about weather and climate changes.

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=51559EEA201BD011217895C354916309.journals?fromPage=online&aid=48173

    On the NOAA page U.S. Climate Extremes Index here.

    They have exactly data fitting to this thread.

    Graph of Max temperature extremes.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/1/01-12/

    Extremes in Minimum Temperature (this does show AGW fingerprint in my opinion).

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/2/01-12

    Extremes in PDSI

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/3/01-12

    Extremes in 1-Day Precipitation (may seem a big jump but look at the % area, it is fluctuating on a much smaller scale than the other graphs).

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/4/01-12

    Comment by Norman — 6 Apr 2012 @ 9:38 PM

  792. It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.”

    Comment by nana — 6 Apr 2012 @ 9:53 PM

  793. This link graphs March 2012 vs March 1910. They really do look very similar. The question is what caused this condition.

    http://climateillinois.wordpress.com/

    Comment by Norman — 6 Apr 2012 @ 10:25 PM

  794. This link explains the pattern that created such a warm March for 2012 and it was a atmospheric blocking pattern. Note that the unusal warmth is not caused by CO2 redirecting LWIR into the Northeast and causing the temperatures to soar. The High pressure system moved air from the south into areas that are not so warm in March. It is a heat pump effect that causes the excessive warmth.

    The challenge would be to find any heat wave that is not the result of an atmospheric block but more bases upon random fluctuations. If there are any known I would be interested to read about it.

    Comment by Norman — 6 Apr 2012 @ 10:34 PM

  795. John,
    In this context, long term is the past 130 years. This is the period of good temperature data. Other time periods may vary, depending on the issue being discussed. Using a shortened statistical period to make a statement, does not hold much water, if similar events have occurred in a prior period. I believe that is what people here refer to as “cherry picking.”

    Comment by Dan H. — 7 Apr 2012 @ 7:58 AM

  796. Wili,
    Many are stating that March in the central US was an anomaly, and we are not “very rapidly moving into a bery different and far hotter state.” Globally, temperatures for March were only slightly above average (0.1C according to UAH), and are still running slightly below average for the year (-.09).

    Statistics can become quite skewed when using a small sample size and local conditions. Had you used temperatures for Europe this year, you may have reached the opposite conclusion. The same could be true for Alaska, which is omitted in your values, which only include the 48 contiguous staes.

    Comment by Dan H. — 7 Apr 2012 @ 11:31 AM

  797. Seems like modeling has gone backwards when you compare this estimate to the IPCC 2007 stuff.
    So maybe its less worse than we thought?
    Lets just wait another decade and see if this model still stacks up.

    Comment by RichyRoo — 7 Apr 2012 @ 7:23 PM

  798. John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) @197

    Did you check out the link to global droughts in my post at 178?

    One thing I am finding is that data is not that avialiable to form a real strong scientific conclusion. Fuzzy at best on global extremes. I use US data alot because it is fairly complete (at least for the last few decades). United States is a large enough area that an increase in extreme weather signal should show up if driven by AGW. United States has some very diverse climates with a lot of clashing of various air masses so it is a hot spot for extreme weather. United States has the most tornadoes of any location on earth. It has droughts, floods, supercell storms, blizzards, heat waves. It has it all. It would seem extremely unlikely and I would think unscientific to assume that somewhere out there in the rest of the world weather is drastically getting more extreme but the United States has somehow achieved a special immunity to its effects.

    Science often deals with small scale samples of an overall to determine underlying truths of the large scale. A few balls dropping is enough to determine the laws of gravity for the entire universe.

    If there is obvious and readily visible proof that weather is getting more extreme globally then links showing this should be fairly easy to find.

    What my research has found is most extreme weather is projected into the future and the result of various climate models. I would like a little empirical evidence to go with the models.

    Comment by Norman — 7 Apr 2012 @ 9:04 PM

  799. John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) @197

    Here are some global extremes of recent times.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave

    I would challenge you to demonstrate these events were NOT caused by atmospheric blocking and just random fluctuations that the OT is indicating as the cause. OT, as earth warms the bell curve will shift right and at the tails the odds of more severe heat waves will increase. My thinking (based upon meterologist reasoning) is that the extreme events are the product of specific atmospheric patterns and not random events. The goal should be to prove that AGW will produce not only more blocking patterns but ones that last for longer periods of time once developed. If this was undertaken I would be highly inclined to agree that AGW will lead to more weather extremes, primarily the type dealing with blocks, heat wave, flood and drought.

    I don not plan of just accepting that weather will become more extreme without good and valid justificaton for this conclusion. If that makes me unscientific then I really do not understand what view of science you have or what University you studied science at. I was taught science in a different fashion. Don’t accept anything, research it on your own, experiment if possible, use your thinking ability and most definately question what is presented. Questioning is not the same as denial, that is what I think I am failing to communicate.

    Comment by Norman — 7 Apr 2012 @ 9:33 PM

  800. Wili,
    Many are stating that March in the central US was an anomaly, and we are not “very rapidly moving into a bery different and far hotter state.” Globally, temperatures for March were only slightly above average (0.1C according to UAH), and are still running slightly below average for the year (-.09).

    Statistics can become quite skewed when using a small sample size and local conditions. Had you used temperatures for Europe this year, you may have reached the opposite conclusion. The same could be true for Alaska, which is omitted in your values, which only include the 48 contiguous states.

    Comment by Dan H. — 7 Apr 2012 @ 9:36 PM

  801. Well!!
    Murry Salbys lecture on video!

    Here is something for you guys att realclimate to chew on.Maby Salby is working for “Big Oil” ? :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts–9I&feature=youtu.be

    Comment by Slabadang — 9 Apr 2012 @ 4:26 PM

  802. The publications at Principia Scientific International show why carbon dioxide has absolutely no effect on climate, so sensitivity is zero. See, for example, my peer-reviewed paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics on the site.

    I am proud to be an active member of PSI and, as such, I am in daily email contact with many of these main stream scientists, including professors and PhD’s in various disciplines such as physics, applied mathematics, chemistry, climatology and astro physics. The numbers are approaching 40, including well known new members just announced.

    What I write are not just my theories. We are all in agreement that standard physics and empirical results back us up.

    Comment by Douglas Cotton — 9 Apr 2012 @ 4:55 PM

  803. SA,
    That is not a clear connection, but rather a possible explanation. You seem to be too eager to claim a link. Let the science play out, and determine if their is an established link. My original statement still holds.

    Comment by Dan H. — 9 Apr 2012 @ 6:30 PM

  804. John,
    I have checked up on the scientific literature. That is why I made the post. I have no idea what is popular on denialist blogs.

    Comment by Dan H. — 9 Apr 2012 @ 7:24 PM

  805. Daniel,

    Unfortunately, a direct link to the graph is not available, you need to enter the noaa site, and maneuver to the appropriate graphs. Since all the graphs are already monthly adjusted, the individual month is not as critical. However, if you wish to directly compare March to March, then check out the year 1910. March, 2012 broke the record set in 1910 by a mere 0.5F. In fact; many of the states that set record temperatures for the month, broke their 1910 readings. Additionally, in 1910, the warmth spread from coast to coast, with more heat in the West; Wash and Ore. were 6F warmer than this year, while most of New England was 6F cooler.

    Overall, 1910 was not an exceptionally warm year, in fact, it was only slightly above average (+0.4F). The same is true for other warm March’s, like 1907, 1946, 1986, and 2004. Particularly hot years, like 1934, 1998, and 2006, had relatively average March temperatures. The only hot years with a similarly warm March in the entire US records were 1921 and 2007.

    Comment by Dan H. — 10 Apr 2012 @ 9:50 AM

  806. Of course, this doesn’t really imply anything about the “accuracy” of climate “science” unless it can also be shown that no other less accurate temperature models were made by climate scientists in the 20-year period in question.

    The only thing the survey really predicts that corresponds with what has happened since then is “temperatures will rise”. Now that temperatures have risen it’s very tempting to go back in time and say “Look, this was predicted!”. You can do exactly the same with stock prices or anything else.

    The only interesting things are either if it can be proved that the model is objectively very well constructed, which would speak to the author’s credit (but to do that you need knowledge of reality rather than just new models) or if it can be shown that no other and less inaccurate models were created in the past, which would speak to the favour of climate “science” in general.

    Comment by Jens Pettersen — 10 Apr 2012 @ 10:15 AM

  807. To: Lynn Vincentnathan of 3 April (#26)

    You may well want to look at the literature of the period before implying that no legitimate scientists were proclaiming a possible global cooling. Just look at the work of Reid Bryson. As Michael MacCracken (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) remarked the same year this Hansen article was published, “there is certainly not clear evidence that CO2 has warmed the climate at the present time.” (Anyone may look up his talk of 1981 on Youtube). Given that carbon dioxide emissions had been increasing since the 1880s, let’s us not get too invested in using history to bolster the present and thus reducing history to merely those who turn out to be “winners.” Indeed, there were some atmospheric scientists of the period who admonished the exclusion of error bars when making these kinds of projections, as one comment suggested.

    Comment by Gabriel — 10 Apr 2012 @ 7:50 PM

  808. “Given the many uncertainties at the time, notably the role of aerosols, the agreement is very good indeed.”
    That is almost a statement that the agreement is a random coincidence rather than a good prediction. Where are the error bars on their projection?

    The debate does not centre around whether or not CO2 causes some warming, or even how much warming it could cause. Even if everybody agrees to the IPCC figures, the question is what is the benefit to life on the planet of slightly higher temperatures in 50 years time and how much would it cost to mitigate. The other question is, how likely is it that natural variability would cause such an increase in any event.

    As far as I can tell, there is no problem. We derive great benefit from fossil fuels and any global warming would be extremely slight, it certainly is small so far.

    Certainly the amount by which we could “stop” the warming by devolving humanity to pre-industrial energy consumption is tiny and the costs are huge. Let’s not even mention that China is the largest emitter and has no intention of halting its increase. China IS interested in “renewable technology”, but only in so far as it can manufacture it using slave labor and energy derived from fossil fuels and sell it to us using money we borrow from them – all the while we tax ourselves into oblivion in a pointless effort to reduce global CO2 levels!

    I mean, what are you proposing to do about China and India? Seriously. Please say what you plan to do about them. All of the western countries combined will pale into insignificance in 50 years time when it comes to CO2 emissions but they will be even higher than they are now. But it does not matter anyway – because CO2 and global warming is a non-issue and in 50 years time nobody will even remember what all the fuss was about.

    Comment by Chris — 10 Apr 2012 @ 9:36 PM

  809. Tokodave @206

    Where would the super warm air come from in August? The March warmth in the US came from way down South. In Cuba 87F is normal for March. In Chicago it is over 30F above normal.

    This is a good article on the March heat wave and its cause.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/events/2012/marchheatwave/physical.html

    Phoenix has a high average of 107F in August. Chicago has a high average of 85F in August. That differnece is only 22F. The hot air has to come from somewhere and it is just not available. Chicago could get into the 100′s (Hottest temperature ever recorded in Chicago was 109F in 1934). But to get 30F above average high would require a temp of 115F.

    Comment by Norman — 10 Apr 2012 @ 10:28 PM

  810. Daniel Bailey @205

    Sorry the links do not work. You may be correct that I should not compare March data to October. It is possible that the heat waves are not connected in these two cases. My understanding of heat waves (or cold ones) is that a blocking event is the cause. Not so much because it stops normal weather patterns, but because the block is responsible for moving large air masses from one location where this temperature would be normal to another location where this is far from normal or extreme. Still on the learning curve.

    Comment by Norman — 10 Apr 2012 @ 10:36 PM

  811. Ray Ladbury @204

    “Google Extreme Value Theory”

    I have done this. “Extreme value distributions are the limiting distributions for the minimum or the maximum of a very large collection of independent random variables from the same arbitrary distribution.”

    The idea of the OT is that global warming will shift the normal distribution and make extreme heat events more likely. My counter is that heat waves are not random fluctuations of the data set. They are caused by a blocking event that actually moves much warmer or colder air into an area producing extremes. Because of this, my point was that to actually determine if heat waves would increase would then be to determine the probability of blocking events in response to global warming.

    Am I wrong?

    Comment by Norman — 10 Apr 2012 @ 10:58 PM

  812. Daniel,

    Unfortunately, I was not able to direct link directly to the graphs either. You need to enter the noaa site, and maneuver to the appropriate graphs. Since all the graphs are already monthly adjusted, the individual month is not as critical. However, if you wish to directly compare March to March, then check out the year 1910. March, 2012 broke the record set in 1910 by a mere 0.5F. In fact; many of the states that set record temperatures for the month, broke their 1910 readings. Additionally, in 1910, the warmth spread from coast to coast, with more heat in the West; Wash and Ore. were 6F warmer than this year, while most of New England was 6F cooler.

    Overall, 1910 was not an exceptionally warm year, in fact, it was only slightly above average (+0.4F). The same is true for other warm March’s, like 1907, 1946, 1986, and 2004. Particularly hot years, like 1934, 1998, and 2006, had relatively average March temperatures. The only hot years with a similarly warm March in the entire US records were 1921 and 2007

    Comment by Dan H. — 11 Apr 2012 @ 6:37 AM

  813. John,
    You do yourself a great disservice, and, by extension, the global warming movement. But then again, the movement does suffer from others like yourself, who through their own spewings, push people further and further away from the position which they would like them to support. Similar to the politician, through his own inept speech, pushes the people to vote for his opponent. So sad.

    Comment by Dan H. — 11 Apr 2012 @ 12:59 PM

  814. Here is my prediction for 2012 Arctic sea temperature anomalies
    (70 – 90 N) in deg C

    April = .06
    May = .08
    June = .05
    July = .15
    Aug = .35
    Sept = .34
    Oct = .29
    Nov = .15
    Dec = .11
    Jan = .11
    Feb = .10

    These are simply the monthly means since 2004. This method may under perform this year and the next, but over the long run, I win.

    Comment by Isotopious — 11 Apr 2012 @ 5:04 PM

  815. The world experienced a strong warming trend between 1975-1999. That much is beyond dispute. The question that we are trying to answer is how much of that warming was caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and how much was caused by natural cycles like the AMO & PDO. The warming episode began much sooner and temperatures rose much faster than the CO2 forcing projected by Hansen in 1981. This would seem to indicate that natural cycles may have been the predominate cause.

    Comment by A. Patterson Moore — 12 Apr 2012 @ 8:57 AM

  816. Where is the historical record? We know that in the 30s and 40s, the sea ice extent was less than it is now. We also know that when Hudson did his exploration for the Northwest Passage, the ice was at a peak. Yet a few decades later, sailors were able to get through in relatively ice-free conditions. Sea ice extent is highly cyclical and has been through known history.

    Of course, as Ray says, the black carbon may have a great impact. But then again, volcanoes have similar effects.

    Comment by Vernon Goodman — 13 Apr 2012 @ 9:43 AM

  817. Rather like Harry’s readme file. We all know big mistakes in software don’t actually happen.

    Comment by Vera, Chuck and Dave — 14 Apr 2012 @ 1:07 AM

  818. Hansen revised the temps from the 70s and 80s downward in the 90s to give an appearance of increase. No wonder his “predictions” of warming came “true”. You conveniently left that fact out.

    Hansen has now revised the 90s temps down. He’s repeating the same trick now. Revised previous stated temps down to give an appearance of an increase.

    Compare his latest revisions to 90s temps to his (revised downward in the 90s) 70s and 80s temps.

    Comment by M. Watkins — 14 Apr 2012 @ 3:34 AM

  819. The real issue, in my opinion, concerning the leveling off of temperature in the past decade is that it does not square with the fact that greenhouse gases have increased overall. There is no apparent correlation between changes in temperature and changes in greenhouse gases, especially CO2 which grows pretty steadily. Lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation, of course, but it does call for an explanation, even an ex post facto one. What might have caused the leveling off? I don’t think the ENSO explains much of it. Leveling off of methane? Unlikely. Polution in developing countries?

    I don’t like the general notion in the posts that variabily is to be expected, so one cannot tell much from a 10-year trend. That’s pleading lack of knowledge as a causal factor.
    In other words was the 20-year temperature increase after 1975 just another natural variability that one might expect from uncertain climate trends? It does not look right to say that one can explain that increse, but not the recent leveling off.

    Comment by T. Marvell — 17 Apr 2012 @ 7:07 PM

  820. The real issue, in my opinion, concerning the leveling off of temperature in the past decade is that it does not square with the fact that greenhouse gases have increased overall. There is no apparent correlation between changes in temperature and changes in greenhouse gases, especially CO2 which grows pretty steadily. Lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation, of course, but it does call for an explanation, even an ex post facto one. What might have caused the leveling off? I don’t think the ENSO explains much of it. Leveling off of methane? Unlikely. Polution in developing countries?

    I don’t like the general notion in the posts that variabily is to be expected, so one cannot tell much from a 10-year trend. That sort of argument can be used to disregard any trend one does not like. In other words was the 20-year temperature increase after 1975 just another natural variability that one might expect from uncertain climate trends? It does not look right to say that one can explain that increse, but not the recent leveling off.

    Comment by T. Marvell — 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:18 PM

  821. The real issue, in my opinion, concerning the leveling off of temperature in the past decade is that it does not square with the fact that greenhouse gases have increased. There is no apparent correlation between temperature changes and greenhouse gas changes (even when comparing current temperature changes to past greenhouse gas changes), especially for CO2 which grows pretty steadily. Lack of correlation does not mean lack of causation, of course, but it does suggest the need for an explanation, even an ex post facto one. What might have caused the leveling off? I don’t think the ENSO explains much of it. Less methane growth. It’s not that common a greenhouse gas? Polution in developing countries? Is the impact of greenhouse gases delayed so much, and so strung out, that one would not expect a correlation between current temperatures and past greenhouse gas changes?

    I don’t like the general sentiment that variabily is to be expected, so one cannot tell much from an unexpected 10-year trend. It’s just a short step to argue the same for periods when temperatures rose. Was the 20-year temperature increase after 1975 just another natural variation that one might expect from uncertain climate trends? It does not look right to say that one can explain that increase, but not the recent leveling off, when greenhouse gases have been increasing at roughly the same pace throughout.

    I’m not arguing that man’s activities do not cause temperature increases, but I do feel that more needs to be done to persuade non-climate scientists that this is the most likely explaination for long-term climate warming.

    Comment by T. Marvell — 18 Apr 2012 @ 12:23 AM

  822. Four decades of high correlation (unlikely to be accidental) between the N. Atlantic SST and the global temperatures.
    Is this a uni- or bi-directional cause-consequence relationship?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTandAMO.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 18 Apr 2012 @ 7:02 AM

  823. T. Marvell,
    That is a very good question, but unfortunately, does not have a very good answer. You have mentioned many of the explanations espoused by Hansen, Zhang, et. al. Since many of these variables have changed simultaneously, zeroing in on the most influencial has been difficult. The following paper describes some of these effects.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml

    I hate to say that we need more time to discern the effects, but that appears to be what is needed.

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Apr 2012 @ 8:55 AM

  824. T. Marvell,
    That is a very good question, but unfortunately, does not have a very good answer. You have mentioned many of the explanations espoused by Hansen, Zhang, et. al. Since many of these variables have changed simultaneously, zeroing in on the most influencial has been difficult. The following paper describes some of these effects.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL038932.shtml

    I hate to say that we need more time to discern the effects, but that appears to be what is needed.

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Apr 2012 @ 8:57 AM

  825. Unsettled,
    If you have a problem with my statements in post #9, I welcome any discussion. Your response seems to be more of an ad hominme attack, rather than the actual data.

    I already admitted that two months ago, one of my four links was erroneous. I do not see you disputing the other three.

    My question to you is this: do you always accuse those who disagree with you of having the, “inability or unwillingness to do the actual work required to gain an understanding of the subject matter ?” This seems to be a common meme around here, claim that those who disagree with their own assessment to be ignorant. This only goes to further prove my claim that the reason so many people are not taking this seriously is the arrogant attitudes of those professing the “correct” knowledge.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Apr 2012 @ 3:26 PM

  826. Arctic geomagnetic field change (delta Br & z) as a proxy for the Holocene epoch’s temperatures:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-7Kyr.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 20 Apr 2012 @ 2:37 PM

  827. Arctic geomagnetic field change (delta Br & z) as a proxy for the Holocene epoch’s temperatures
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMF-7Kyr.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 20 Apr 2012 @ 2:39 PM

  828. To Chris #2008, “It seem you are missing the point”

    Hmmm, The models can not reproduce natural warming to recreate the past Arctic temperatures, but they can create recent warming by adding CO2, and therefore that is proof that CO2 better accounts for warming than natural variations?And therefore I should trust the models to predict the future when they fail to recreate the past? Your faith in inadequate models rivals the legendary faith of Job, and I am not sure it is I who missed the point.

    You should read the literature more. There are hundreds of papers trying to separate natural variation from CO2 induced changes. Most suggest more research, more debate. Even Gavin along with Shindell were forced to accept the the Arctic Oscillation could explain much of the warming, but then suggested CO2 controlled the oscillations and offered that their models suggested that CO2 would keep the AO positive. But the AO then started going more negative. In 10 years, we will see, or those of use with open minds will see, the power of CO2 to control these oscillations. But my understanding predicts the AO will have a negative trend over the next 10 years. Any bets?

    Comment by Jim Steele — 21 Apr 2012 @ 1:58 PM

  829. @Paula Thomas 16 Apr 2012 at 11:46 PM

    This is a favourite of the fake sceptics. It is what I call cherry picking your starting point. They’ve started in 1997 not because they are looking for a 15 year window but because 1998 was a very hot year due to a massive el nino effect.

    Surely picking something other than 1998 – 1997 in this case – was exactly to AVOID cherry-picking ?

    Comment by Vera, Chuck and Dave — 22 Apr 2012 @ 1:14 AM

  830. DNFTT – invariably the signature of someone who wants to disguise the fact he has no real answer.

    Comment by Vera, Chuck and Dave — 22 Apr 2012 @ 2:09 AM

  831. Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d love to debate and reply, but not all my post are allowed on the advocacy forum. So a manipulated scientific debate doesn’t seem to serve anyone well.

    Comment by Jim Steele — 22 Apr 2012 @ 9:42 AM

  832. Given the the current graphs showing the ice levels in the Arctic and Antarctic (i.e. Arctic pretty much recovered to “average” levels and Antarctic increasing) and the global temperature graphs showing no “statistical” increase in temperatures in the last 10 to 15 years – would it not be reasonable for the layman to conclude that there is little evidence to suggest that global warming is accellerating or heading towards some imminent “tipping” point?

    Comment by James — 26 Apr 2012 @ 4:52 AM

  833. On Hansen’s credibility, I would direct the reader to page 964 of his 1981 paper which this article references and can be found on his GISS website http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf
    He makes a very strong statement that CO2 will overcome the noise of natural variability by the 1990s and that would happen irrespective of the value of climate sensitivity or CO2 growth scenarios, which leaves him with very little room to wriggle. In his 2011 analysis, he accepts that there’s some evidence that warming in the 21st century is less than that in the last 2 decades of the 20 th but then blames it on the endpoint being in a la nina ie natural variability.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

    Comment by Jdey123 — 29 Apr 2012 @ 10:57 AM

  834. Hi,

    Minor problem with the radiative physics involved supporting CO2 warming.

    If I understand correctly, maximum radiative transfer of energy between bodies occurs in a vacuum. If this is true, then interposing CO2, (or anything else that is not a vacuum,) in the radiative path reduces, not increases the energy being transferred between bodies.

    So how does reducing the amount of energy reaching a body cause an increase in the energy absorbed by a body with a resulting rise in temperature? Does the converse apply? That is, if one removes the interposed CO2 from the radiative path, thus increasing the amount of energy reaching a body, will the temperature fall?

    I give you the maximum temperature recorded on the Moon (no appreciable atmosphere) – in excess of 100C, compared with the maximum temperature recorded on the Earth’s surface – considerably less than 100C.

    This is a factual and easy to understand consequence of the maximal transmission of electromagnetic energy between bodies occurring in a vacuum.

    This whole “global warming” saga is drawing to an end. Anybody who claims to be able to measure the Earth’s “surface temperature” is delusional. The Earth has cooled from its creation (obviously). It’s still cooling (given that the Earth is still a molten blob with a very thin cooler crust sitting in a vacuum with the nearest source of heat far enough away to be unable to prevent the cooling to date.)

    How far will it cool? At least another 15C, probably more – depending on the vagaries of absorptivity on a moment to moment basis.

    Oh well, facts can’t compete with faith.

    Live well and prosper.

    Comment by Mike Flynn — 29 Apr 2012 @ 8:54 PM

  835. CO2 is not obtain through combustion because this is incomplete,The molecular weight of the Air is 28, 966 and of the Carbon Dioxide, CO2 = 44.01.
    The gases lighter than air which have created the greenhouse effect and global warming are:
    Acetylene = 26.04
    Ammoniak = 17
    Carbon Monoxide, CO = 28.011
    oxide of hydrogen HO = 17,01
    Hydroxyl, OH = 17.01
    Methane, CH4 = 16,044
    Natural Gas = 19.00
    Neon, Ne = 20.179

    Comment by Ursut Iosif — 29 Apr 2012 @ 11:28 PM

  836. It appears from my reading of this article that we do not have a firm grasp of the science, which is fine BTW. It’s good to hear as this is a key strength of the scientific process.

    However, it does bring into question the certainties that are held by the current anthropogenic claims supported by this site.

    Is their doubt creeping into the theory? BTW, that will be good for the scientific process but it seems politically incorrect to say so in the current environment that’s been created, so I will understand any contrary reactions.

    Comment by Titus — 30 Apr 2012 @ 11:57 PM

  837. Daniel Bailey,
    Maybe you should read the other thread referenced. All the citations are available there. To repeat them here, would be redundant. But then, you would not be able to make your inane comment.

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 May 2012 @ 6:32 AM

  838. t marvell,
    I think part of the problem is as you stated; climate scientists emphasized the temperature increases from 1977-97. During that time period, CO2 increased about 0.45% annually, while temperatures rose about 0.012C annually. Using the data since 1969, CO2 has still increased at about 0.45% annually, but the temperature rise has only been 0.006C annually. When using smaller intervals, other factors affect the results, such that the appearance of no connection between CO2 levels and recent temperatures arises.
    I think it was less an issue of addressing the critics, as addressing those who protrayed the warming as greater than it actually was, based on shorter time frames. Many feel that our failure as scientists, was in letting this perception continue, instead of reigning it in when we had the chance.
    CO2 will always work stronger in colder climates, as it captures heat that would normally escape. The effect has been most pronounced in nighttime, winter, and polar temperatures (Antarctica excluded).

    Comment by Dan H. — 1 May 2012 @ 9:07 AM

  839. Ladbury (#37) “Revenge of the C students” – you blame the public’s lack of interest in climate warming on the public’s lack of understanding. No – that’s blaming the victim. It’s part of the climate scientists’ job to provide information that persuades the public and policy makers. (An analogy is the link between tobacco and lung cancer – the biologists and doctors were eventually able to provide information that the public can understand, and persuaded the public and policy makers, even against powerful political forces, the tobacco industry.)

    SecularAnimist (#43)
    About public opinion polls. You cite polls that find that people say they are concerned with climate warming. That’s simply not true (I don’t expect climate scientists to understand polls). People tend to say “yes” to whether they are concerned about something, like reducing climate warming, that seems good. But that is meaningless without knowing how conerned. In fact few people care much about climate change.
    The real facts are shown in a recent Harvard survey of young Americans, 18-29 years old. The researchers asked people to rank domestic policy concerns, 12 of them, and “combating the impacts of climate change” came in last. See:

    http://www.iop.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/spring_poll_12_topline.pdf

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/opinion/blow-young-peoples-priorities.html?_r=1

    I view the climate scientists as ostrichs, refusing to see their horrific failure to provide information that can persuade the public and policy makers to take action against a horrific threat.

    Comment by t marvell — 1 May 2012 @ 12:31 PM

  840. http://www.sciencebits.com/Shakun_in_Nature

    Comment by Muohn — 1 May 2012 @ 2:32 PM

  841. Re Ray Ladbury comment 84. The biggest issue with most supporters of climate changes and global warming is that most of them showcase themselves as experts, when the truth is that regardless of how many PHDs you have in various fields, theories need to be validated and what we have right now are a lot of theories. What started as a scientific research is now becoming a political agenda with left vs right, so people are immediately labeled stupid and ignorant simply for asking questions.

    What we know today about climate change is based on the data for the last several decades and theoretical and computer models which are yet to be proven. I completely agree with Walt’s reply that there’s a big difference to comparing aerodynamics with climate and climatology. Anyone who knows anything about physics can tell you about aerodynamics (and I have that background), whereas climate is based on many different factors and variables most of which we still don’t understand how they work, for instance we still don’t quite understand how Earth’s magnetic field works and how it affects climate, the radiation that comes from space, solar flares and changes in the Sun, cloud formation etc. Everyday we discover new findings, most of these couldn’t be proven many years ago due to the lack of technology and insufficient knowledge in the area i.e. particle research at ATLAS, new experiments in high pressure, high temperature (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16265510) etc. http://news.discovery.com/earth/what-can-earths-core-tell-us-about-climate-110310.html, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080619102553.htm, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/14/earth-core-fluctuations.

    Having said all this, I believe that human impact can cause an increase in temperature, however it is important that we study all factors and variables and not just jump to conclusions right away. Most experiments and theoretical models support the impact that human factor has on temperature rise i.e. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/theexperiment/abouttheexperiment.shtml, but again not all variables are accounted for i.e. see questions and answers from the experiment (Nick from Oxford team):

    What were the differences between the different model runs?
    Nick: “Each model is an approximation of the real world. No one model is perfect, that’s why we create slightly different representations of what the real world is like. We change the values of different parameters in the models. For instance, rain drops are a good example. We don’t know exactly at what point rain drops form in a cloud, but we have a parameter in the model that represents this. We can then change the value of the parameter in different models to see how it will affect the climate.”

    Do the models take into account the Gulf Stream?
    Nick: “Yes, but the models don’t include scenarios where the Gulf Stream totally shuts down. We are less confident in making specific predictions about ocean changes. That’s because the scale of motion (of currents and circulations) occurs on a much smaller scale than those in the atmosphere. There are large scale motions in the oceans as well, but a lot takes place on a finer scale than the experiment models. We also have far fewer measurements of the ocean compared to the atmosphere, which makes it harder to verify the models against real world behaviour.”

    Comment by Arben Zeqiri — 1 May 2012 @ 3:45 PM

  842. Jim,
    I agree with the 90% of respondents in the Doran survey who think that global temperatures have risen since the 18th century. I also agree with the 82% who think that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

    Estimates of climate sensitivity range from about 0.5 up to ~10 C / doubling of CO2. Saying that this is a consensus opinion rally does not tell us anything. Yes, there is agreement, but is it useful?

    You seem to be using the fallacy exactly as your definition states; by implying that the opinion of the small minority in the surveys outweighs the larger scientific community.

    Comment by Dan H. — 2 May 2012 @ 8:09 AM

  843. Ladbury (#37) says “if you look at the warming over the past 35 years, the correlation with delta ln(CO2) is quite significant.” Correlation does not imply causation. Even though everybody knows that, it’s often ignored. The whole topic of this post is the two-way relationship between CO2 and temperature, with positive causation both ways. So you don’t know whether the correlation is due to CO2 raising temperature, or (ocean) temperature raising CO2.
    Also correlation analysis is a very crude way of doing things. Regressions are much better.
    In your analysis you log the variables, and take differences (substracting current year values from last year’s), which is a good idea (it is essentially the same as transfering the variables into percent changes). I replicated your research, using NCDC temperature yearly data (anamolies and adding means, and adding 273 to create Kelven temp [results are almost the same with centigrade]). The CO2 is Mona Loa data starting in 1969. There are 52 years of data. I found a correlation of +.31, prob.= .027, which is consistant with your results. Again, that says nothing about causal relationships. I then lagged temperature one year, and got a correlation of +.41, prob =.002. That is temperature comes first, and appears to cause CO2 to rise. (A stronger result was obained using ocean temperature; the was no significant relationshiup with land temperature.) Then I lagged CO2 one year, and got a correlaton of -.33, prob = .017. That’s minus. So if CO2 causes temperature to change, this correlation suggests it lowers it.
    Simple correlations like this have the benefit that anybody can replicate them. But the drawback is, as I said, correlation analysis is crude. The results do not mean that CO2 causes temperature to decline. More sophisticated regression analysis does not indicate that, but it also does not indicate that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, at least in a 6 year time period which is about the limit I can study. The regression analysis shows a strong impact of ocean temperature on CO2 several months later.

    Comment by t marvell — 2 May 2012 @ 8:35 AM

  844. I realise this might be anathema to the authors and readers of RealClimate but have you seen the maps of the arctic ice on WUWT? I suppose that it would be inadmissible to discuss something from that blog here but they are really very interesting and should be of value to all who are interested in climate change whatever their position.

    Comment by Ian — 2 May 2012 @ 10:44 AM

  845. Gavin,
    I am not sure why you allow post like #28 above to be displayed on your website. It is demeaning to the poster, and insulting to the rest of us.

    Comment by Dan H. — 2 May 2012 @ 3:22 PM

  846. Meow,
    For your information, a negative pdsi is indicative of greater (not lesser) drought. PDSI values have not decreased since 1900.

    Comment by Dan H. — 2 May 2012 @ 4:58 PM

  847. Ray,
    You say you are a physicist. Then how can you not see the debate that is currently raging within the APS. The APS statement on climate cahnge (which I posted previously), mentions that natural forcings, as well as manmade have contributed to the observed warming, and the climate sensitivity range is 1-3 C/doubling. You state a near certainty that it is 2-4.5. I agree with the APS. Some members of the APS resigned in protest, because they thought this was too high. Maybe MARogers is one of them, as he mentions climate sensitivities of less than 1, or possibly negative.

    Comment by Dan H. — 2 May 2012 @ 9:14 PM

  848. I have to agree that emotions definitely play a role in this argument. Oft-times, when I am presenting a great deal of information to those attacking my writing, all I get back are paens of anger, such as ‘denier,’ ‘big oil loves you,’ ‘it will be your fault that the world is dying’…

    Just CanNOT get through to them.

    So long as the argument is polarized by political correctness, ideology, and the need to ignore incoming science- such as the negative feedbacks being discovered- we’re not going to get Anywhere.

    Comment by Otter — 3 May 2012 @ 12:10 PM

  849. ‘One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.’

    With only 9 comments I would have to agree with that proposistion.

    Comment by tim lanigan — 3 May 2012 @ 12:25 PM

  850. Well, cards on the table time:-

    “Whether a major event like hurricane Katrina or the Moscow heat wave changes attitudes towards climate change is determined by people’s interpretation of this event, and whether they draw a connection to climate change – though not necessarily directly”

    Is there any connection between hurricane Katrina or the Moscow heat wave and the present levels of of CO2 in the atmosphere?

    [Response: there are many connections - background states, recurrence times, extreme value statistics etc. More importantly there are connections in terms of perceived impact which I understand is rasmus' point. If you want specific discussions of anthropogenic impacts on extreme events there are many past threads. - gavin]

    Yes or no will do fine Gavin.

    Comment by DocMartyn — 3 May 2012 @ 1:47 PM

  851. “One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.”

    RC did have a major impact. It spun off a great many really high caliber skeptics and that had a significant impact on the current trend toward a more balanced discourse in climate science.

    John

    Comment by John Whitman — 3 May 2012 @ 2:24 PM

  852. Propaganda costs huge sums of money to be successful in changing views unless no free counter views are available.

    If the truth is cheap to disperse then propaganda becomes ever increasing more costly to counter the simple truth.

    Censorship is a must for propaganda to stand a chance. The best censorship is the half censor where one cuts some of the piece and then makes an argument against the half thought that’s left.

    “A recent paper by Brulle et al (2012) also suggests that the provision of information has less impact than what opinion leaders (top politicians) say. ”

    I would say this breaks down into the simple sociology reality of the collective vs the individual. Or more commonly called the left vs the right.

    Collectivist(the left) live for the group. A leader of the group says something the group listens and believes. It doesn’t matter if its true or even makes sense. Doomsday cults, religions, oppression, belief in global warming. All based on the collectivist ideology.

    The individual(the right) tend not to believe much of any leader. They look at the arguments presented. They then check those arguments for themselves. This means that they do often research into what a “leader” says and decide for themselves based on what a “leader” says and what they find themselves.

    In between you have “the center”. The center swings around based on its views. “The center” will believe a leader they trust unless they have a reason not to believe them.

    This of course is where “are steered by big events” comes into play. If the big event causes a loss of trust the center will stop believing a leader. Loss of trust can be a result of many things. One of the most common is that people suddenly take interest in the event and the supposed reasons for the event. This results in them doing their own research on the event and causes. When they however do their own research they find that it doesn’t confirm what was claim by say the media/leader/etc.

    This results in a loss of trust because the public became so interested in the event that they find the simple cheap truth.

    In many respects its a bit of an irony in propaganda that by drawing people in to support the cause via propaganda, it in turn results in more research done by the people and thus in turn more people are exposed to the free and cheap truth of the non-propaganda side. This means that the only way for propaganda to ever be successful is to shut down all truth and counter views or the propaganda reaches a tipping point, to where so many people are talking about the issue/event that the truth comes out to the public at large and overwhelms those producing the propaganda.

    The global warming debate is a text book case of this process. As more money is being spent to produce propaganda for the public, those that produce the truth need only exist for the information they have to be spread to the public… because the public is seeking information on the topic. The truth spreads quickly and normally the propaganda side needs to create another big event to suppress the truth, regain trust or create a “new” issue which is still the same issues.

    A great display of that change is of course the cycle of the population bomb then global cooling, then warming, then etc. Changing the issue but its really all the same issue.

    Comment by thespam2.0 — 3 May 2012 @ 3:15 PM

  853. Katrina and the Russian heat wave are both examples where it was later demonstrated that there was not a correlation to AGW. Hence, is it possible that the entire proposition centers around people ultimately finding out what is true versus what was predicted? World freezing predicted in 1993, didn’t happen. Population bomb ending world as we know it by 2000. Didn’t happen. And, currently, the world is melting, yet the Arctic ice extent has significantly returned.

    This doesn’t require falling back to Jung or Brulle. It’s just a matter of basic cognitive dissonance. Reality versus AGW alarmism ultimately catches up with people over time.

    Comment by Logan — 3 May 2012 @ 4:16 PM

  854. Well, well. What did you expect?
    When Katerina hit, it was touted by the “Warmists” as being but a shadow of things to come, yet since then, despite rising CO2 levels, global ACE has declined to historic low levels.
    There’s been no significant increases in global temps for 15 or more years, Antarctic sea ice is increasing, Arctic sea ice is showing no signs of disappearing over summer. Snow & cold are back with a vengeance in Europe (Probably the USA too), we’ve had no hot summers in the UK, we’ve seen Mann’s Hockey Stick shown to be an artifact of the mathematical & statistical treatment, combined with inverted lake sediments & “Hide the Decline”. We see you lot denying any errors & wrong doing about it.
    We see Antarctica isn’t heating up, outside of the peninsula, again the paper much touted as “proof” of warming (Steig et al) owes much to faulty data manipulation.
    None of these errors are admitted by the authors, their scientific supporters or their political masters.
    What’s the chances of this post being censored, like most critical ones being posted here?
    Climate change is happening, it’s always happened. We certainly do contribute to it, to a small degree (ie under 1.5C per doubling!)by various gaseous emissions.
    “One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain.”
    Yes, it has.
    We’ve come here, saw how dissenting views are suppressed, seen how you’re so rude and encourage rudeness by your cheerleaders & left!

    Comment by Adam Gallon — 3 May 2012 @ 4:34 PM

  855. Happy to help, Jim, I feel good about the impending cooling too…

    Comment by Utahn — 3 May 2012 @ 8:37 PM

  856. #17 Daniel Bailey says:
    vukcevic’s comment above is quite off-topic on this thread. At a minimum, please consign it to the open thread and delete this comment.

    Yes, I agree, indeed it is off topic, but it may be of a fundamental importance to the climate science and geophysics.
    - fact that (as it appears) fluctuations in the intensity of the geomagnetic field are synchronized with solar magnetic activity, to a degree of two orders of magnitude greater, is totally unexpected and eventually may lead to redefining of the sun-Earth link.
    - from practical and more immediate concern to the climate science are the interpretations of the Antarctica’s 10Be data from the Dome Fuji ice cores, which are widely used for various assessment in numerous academic papers (see graph no. 3) in
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzAa.htm
    Finally, there are strong indications that the GW may be experiencing either plateau or a possible decline in the near future, in which case the above discovery may provide some of the answers.

    Comment by vukcevic — 4 May 2012 @ 2:07 AM

  857. Appeal to authority is always a fallacy in scientific pursuit. I think we all agree that in the end the scientific merit of a theory or fact, that is its predictive power or agreement with observations, and what can be inferred from them are what matters. If an authority’s claims are based on ‘true’ premises his expertise is not needed, otherwise it is fallacious. Wikipedia’s definition might not agree, but that article is bad (and an authority ;-)), just read the “talk” page for some convincing arguments. Appeal to authority can be justified under strained circumstances e.g. if there is no time to evaluate the arguments. In such cases, the argumentative portion should be forfeited and the appeal to authority made clear.

    @Ray Ladbury (#71):
    “Appeal to authority is NOT in and of itself a fallacy. The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs when the said authority is not an expert on the question being considered. We would not consult Stephen Hawking on jumpshot technique, for instance.”

    I argue that it is. Expertise is irrelevant when the facts themselves can be examined.

    “The fact of the matter is that an expert’s opinion of the evidence is more likely to have value than that of a layman. Appealing to valid authority is a perfectly valid technique in rhetoric.

    I doubt most people would proscribe to the view that a layman’s opinion is more likely to have value. However, why do statistics with perceived truthiness of opinions instead of the factuality of the claims themselves? If you take rhetoric to be the art of convincing then sure it is allowed, however, so would be ad hominem and the straw man.

    @robert (#74):
    “Relucticant (#61): Dan H’s “appeal to authority” argument is misapplied. Citing the overwhelming consensus of a rather large expert community is not an appeal to authority — it is an “appeal to the conclusions of a rather large expert community.”

    This is semantic juggling; it is a very clear case of appeal to authority. The point of “appeal to authority” being a fallacy is that by doing so you devaluate the absolute importance of facts if you proscribe to expertise itself as being important.

    Scientific data, as you request,is discussed — by the rather large expert community. But detailed discussion of this data among the lay public is pointless. We have expert communities because they are needed. Can you imagine Ed Witten and Steven Weinberg having a detailed discussion of the ins and outs of string theory with the lay public (policymakers, the Heartland Institute, your skeptical uncle)? An “appeal to the overwhelming consensus of a rather large expert community” is entirely appropriate for complex topics, and is not equivalent to an “appeal to authority” as envisaged by our beleaguered Dan H.

    That the “general public” does not have the time or capacity to evaluate the facts does not make it less of a fallacy. They can decide based on authority, but then lose the claim to truth. The only way of using “appeal to authority” to criticize Dan H. would be if he said something along the lines of: “Not counteracting climate change is the best policy option because Freeman Dyson said so”, you could use your own even more authoritative authorities, but even then, without examining the facts can you really weight experts?

    Comment by Relucticant — 4 May 2012 @ 7:37 AM

  858. It’s ironic and strangely fitting that a supporter of CAGW hypotheses should argue on RealClimate in favor of a proposition that the sad fate of the Titanic was chiefly due to the inactions of the stupid people aboard another ship.

    Susan Anderson wrote: …with the doubting and delaying efforts of [climate alamism skeptics] [climate change] is in the process of becoming a much bigger disaster.

    Ah, you must be talking about the Hanson temperature projections? But they were wrong, too high. Ah, so you must be talking about the polar bear extinctions. No? I’ve got it, it’s the 50 million climate refugees from two years ago. No, that didn’t happen. It must be the shrinking alpine glaciers in the Himalayas. No, wait, is it the rising sea levels?

    Clearly, the need for actual Real [tm] disasters is why there is such a big push from your side to suddenly link weather tragedies and deaths to climate change, That’s funny, too, because up until now, there at least seemed to have been a gentleman’s agreement that short term weather and long term climate should not be conflated, lest we begin to delude ourselves for emotionally satisfying, but inaccurate reasons.

    Now, it would seem, your side NEEDS this specifc delusion so that the tragedy of tornado or flood deaths, which have been occurring to humans since they’ve existed, can keep alive your silly and unsupported assertions of impending global doom.

    Comment by Mickey Reno — 4 May 2012 @ 12:11 PM

  859. Ray Ladbury,
    You have not contradicted a single thing I have said.
    You have made a series of irrelevant assertions – Earth has been here rougly (sic) 4.5 billion years, Planck and Stefan Boltzmann Laws, ” . . . we can . . . measure the energy. . .” and so on.
    Precisely what do you mean by “. . . put us 33 degrees cooler than we are.”?
    This is a New Age Non Science statement. You are not talking about the Earth’s surface. You may be implying that the near surface air temperatures serve as a proxy for surface temperatures. Unfortunately, the exposed land comprises but a small proportion of the Earth’s surface. Most of the surface of the solid Earth lies under water.
    So once agin, what is your definition of the “surface” whose temperature you so confidently assert is 33 degrees higher than what you also confidently assert to be theoretically correct?
    You are not talking about the temperature of the Earth itself, average or otherwise. The average temperature of the Earth can only be guessed at, given the current state of scientific knowledge, although even would treat Al Gore’s quoted “millions of degrees” with a certain amount of scepticism
    Someone who obviously has not read Fourier, has totally misinterpreted what the great man actually wrote. I commend his work to you, and suggest you read the original French, if you are lucky enough to be fluent in that language. Fourier supports my observation, whether you want to believe it or not.
    Please do not take offence, but you have provided nothing that contradicts the alternative explanation that you asked for. You are right in one respect, albeit indirectly. Yes, there is heat being radiated away from the Earth surface which emanates from the Earths hot inner regions.
    If this is not a definition of cooling, you observe physics from a different perspective than I.

    In the meantime,

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn.

    Comment by Mike Flynn — 4 May 2012 @ 6:48 PM

  860. This article was very well written. I wish there were more articles like this on this site.
    I believe we should take whatever steps necessary to reduce our co2 footprint, that being said, I dont think climate scientist have met their burden of proof when it comes to global warming.

    I think I am with #59, sometimes it appears that climate scientists want to prove their point by insulting deniers.

    Like most of the general public, I dont have the scientific background to argue the theory of AGW. But the AGW crowd would be naive to believe that this field of science hasnt thrown up all kinds of red flags when it comes to credibility.

    I agree with # 59 that a scientist criticizing the way Heartland operates is calling the kettle black. I dont think warmists should run around calling those who disagree with them “anti science”, while justifying the fraud Gleick commited.

    Warmists’ arguments are very similar to skeptics. It is easy to claim that “organisations like the Heartland make dismissive claims about any connection between big events and climate change”, but the agw crowd makes the same dismissive claims for events that dont support their theory.

    I clicked on the link about the “republican war on science”, and I landed on a site selling a book about how the conservative agenda put politics ahead of scientific truth. But what the liberal agenda ? It is no coincidence that what scientists tell us we should do to save the planet, is no different than what liberals tell us we should believe. Liberals will claim every negative event is now caused by global warming, and failing to subscribe to their agenda makes you now responsible for the next big event.

    Climate scientist have allowed their science to be used as a vehicle to advance the liberal agenda, and now cry foul when theyre not taken serious by conservatives. Can Republicans be blamed for thinking that the reason Democrats want to raise taxes has very little to do with their concern for polar bears or Kenyan rainmakers ?

    At this point I think, climate scientists can not tell us if the polar bear population has decreased or increased in the last 15 years, yet they can tell the temp in the inlands of eritrea in 518bc down to 1/10 of a degree.

    Comment by James Buiten — 4 May 2012 @ 11:34 PM

  861. @Team,

    Your blog. Your rules. Allow, or don’t allow. I never become upset or offended, if it makes any difference to you.

    Here’s the thing. You have a rather large mass of mainly molten rock (the Earth), floating hundreds of millions of kilometers from the nearest external source of heat (the Sun.)

    Now someone says that you can raise the temperature of the mass by changing the composition of the gaseous mixture surrounding it.

    It doesn’t sound quite so feasible when you express it that way.

    Anyway, good luck with that (as my wife says on occasion.)

    For now, I bid you adieu.

    Live well and prosper,

    Mike Flynn

    Comment by Mike Flynn — 5 May 2012 @ 4:16 AM

  862. This is addressed to Dr. Eric Steig (expert in the polar climate matters)
    Are you aware of strong correlation between the TSI and the Antarctic magnetic field’s decadal variability?
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm
    see also:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/dBzAa.htm and http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSA.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 5 May 2012 @ 4:21 AM

  863. Chris G @7
    “… but I think it comes down to, if you don’t have a firm understanding of the hard sciences, you can’t know. It all boils down to which voices you choose to listen to.”

    I personally have a difficult time grasping how people parse reality and let peer pressure and emotions override their rational thinking.

    Suppose you are diagnosed with a heart murmur and decide to seek a second opinion.

    Would you: A) consult a Heart special_ist with 30 years experience, B) consult a Neurologist, or C) consult an Engineer who has a specialization in hydraulic systems?

    You’d think that would be a no brainer… In the same vein (no pun intended) why does the average person prefer to take the word of engineers and rocket scientists at NASA over the word of a James Hanson?

    Note: to moderators, it seems the word special_ist is being flagged because it contains the name of a certain forbidden product?
    WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT!

    Comment by Fred Magyar — 5 May 2012 @ 8:39 PM

  864. Apparent strong ‘correlation’ (correlation is not necessarily causation) between the solar magnetic output as represented by the TSI and the decadal variability of the Earth’s magnetic field in the Antarctic, until now was not known to the solar science or the geophysics, may be worth of a closer examination in considering the climate’s natural variability.
    Some of my initial work is shown here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 6 May 2012 @ 3:52 AM

  865. Gavin,
    Well, Duh! Warming is the effect, is that all that is agreed upon? No wonder people here think there is a consensus. The rest of us are concerned with the magnitude of the warming.

    Comment by Dan H. — 6 May 2012 @ 9:10 PM

  866. Mann’s “solid” reconstruction without tree rings was a mirage: it depended on Mann’s use of contaminated Tiljander data, used upside down. In the SI to Mann et al 2009, Mann conceded that his no-dendro reconstructions did not validate without contaminated data (but, unfortunately, did not notify PNAS or retract the earlier paper). Nor did Mann notify Revkin of the then pending admissions, instead allowing Revkin to continue to believe that the Mann et al 2008 no-dendro reconstruction was “solid”. In his recent book, Mann made no reference to the apparent concessions on the invalidity of Mann et al no-dendro reconstructions, instead claiming that Mann et al 2008 had used “objective” methods to validate the contaminated data.

    Comment by Steve — 7 May 2012 @ 10:39 AM

  867. Kevin,
    As Jim stated, Hadcrut4 is not up to date. CRUT3 was trending higher until the last year. This is just nitpicking. Maybe Fred’s question would be better stated as, “how long would temperatures need to show no increase, before scientists reconsider their theory. My answer is 30 years, which when combined with 2000-12 is another 18. In reality, some scientists would rethink the theory long before then.

    Also, the 17 years was for tropospheric temperatures, particularly RSS data, which shows no significant warming over the past 17 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend

    Comment by Dan H. — 7 May 2012 @ 7:23 PM

  868. RE this:

    Whether a major event like hurricane Katrina or the Moscow heat wave changes attitudes towards climate change is determined by people’s interpretation of this event, and whether they draw a connection to climate change – though not necessarily directly. I see this as a major reason why organisations such as the Heartland are fighting their PR battle by claiming that such events are all natural and have nothing to do with emissions

    Is there evidence that the two events cited were caused by emissions and are not natural?

    Is it part of an honest debate to claim Katrina is an example of extreme weather events we can expect to see more of due to increased concentration of CO2? The Texas heatwave? What then happens when we go a record period without a major hurricane making landfall with the US or have the research tell us frequency has been falling and intensity increase is insignificant? Does there not become a credability gap?

    The risk in accepting the position that what counts is how the public perceives something and scripting your message around that is you lose your position as honest providers of imformation.

    Comment by timg56 — 8 May 2012 @ 7:31 PM

  869. @191

    Looking forward to the RC post on this subject. There have been subsequent responses to the original RC post concerning Yamal that have pointed out inadequacies (or perhaps not direct responses to the direct claims made by folks like SM)…

    It would also appear that the ICO disagrees with the idea that McIntyre’s reasons for being entitled to FOI materials are “unclear”.

    Further, even though the “Hockey-Stick” idea has been borne out in many other varied studies, it would be nice to concentrate on just this Yamal incident and the surrounding plurality of regional cores that are apparently available. It seems it shouldn’t matter what is being said/shown elsewhere if this is an independent data location with independent analysis.

    btw… first captcha word: “obscurior”

    Comment by Salamano — 9 May 2012 @ 8:01 AM

  870. I note that the comments here are becoming increasingly vitriolic with regard to Libertarian groups like Heartland, CEI, CATO, etc.

    We all know which side will ultimately win.

    What do people here see as the end game, and when? What are the events through which science ultimately wins?

    Comment by vendicar decarian — 10 May 2012 @ 7:47 AM

  871. @242, @245, @246

    Where to begin…shooting fish in a barrel here…

    I’m sure you guys have been around the block enough here that you could write my responses for me. Clearly the op-ed was deceptive on multiple points, and you know it.

    A NYT reader’s perception of long term is likely to be a 100 years, not the more likely 50,000 it will take for sea levels to make that kind of change, if it did happen. This is Al Gore smoke and mirrors climate marketing and to my mind, intentionally misleading.

    The tone of certainty that Dr. Hansen uses with linkage to recent extreme events is misleading and borderline dishonest, clearly the recent IPCC EREX(?) report disagrees with this conclusion and other peer reviewed papers (NOAA) state there is no linkage to the stated recent events. He is in the minority here.

    The biggest problem is lack of qualifiers. There are no “some scientists say”, “further study is needed”, etc. His minority opinion on future attributions is stated as scientific fact, and his title at NASA and exposure at the NYT allows it to carry weight it does not scientifically deserve.

    It is carefully written to be defensible on a detail scale, but yet overall gives the reader a view that is in fact, not scientifically valid.

    One specific case in point is when he points out that when CO2 levels where last at these levels, sea levels were 50 feet higher. But he isn’t technically saying this CO2 level will in fact result in this sea level increase now, is he? No, but he intentionally leaves this obvious conclusion dangling out there for the reader to grasp and fear. Intentional deception to my mind.

    This op-ed is pretty over the top alarmist stuff, I hope we can mostly agree on that, he even states it is apocalyptic himself. He clearly believes it, so fine. Freedom of speech is good for all.

    But my objection is NASA allowing him to use their hard earned and deserved reputation as a platform for this and the failure of the climate community to set the record straight and allow this stuff to stand. It is an embarrassment for all of science.

    I love NASA, you will not find a bigger supporter of the space program than myself, but I cringe at this. Others should as well.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 11 May 2012 @ 12:25 PM

  872. Hi Gavin,

    in your reply to comment #1, you write
    “[..] whatever judgement calls that Briffa et al make (on the level of coherence necessary, significance levels, magnitude of common signal, statistical method etc.) they will still be accused of fudging it to produce a desired result – because that is so easy for the ‘critics’ to do. Every analysis involves judgement calls – even McIntyre’s.[..]”

    To me these judgment calls seem to be the key items in the whole evaluation process. Aren’t they the real targets of McIntyre’s efforts?
    And he did serve some purpose there in the past as he was pointing out some over weighted trees or data used upside down – which seems to have happened due to a failure of them judgment calls!

    Comment by Laws of Nature — 11 May 2012 @ 12:25 PM

  873. @ #7 moderater eric said: “What’s at issue here is whether McIntyre is actually interested in science progressing, or merely in stopping it from progressing.”

    Wow, that’s creepy! I want to address the meat of this issue, but can’t let this sort of crap go without a response, so I’ll do two posts.

    No, McIntyre’s motives are NOT what’s at issue, eric. I’ve seen this kind of crap before, from Scientologists. It’s the old “we’re right, by definition, and anyone who disagrees is an ___SP___ [fill in the blank]” ploy. A little hint for you: this thought-stopping ploy never works for long, and if you keep at it, you’ll end up being thought of as a thug and a cultist, and no one will like you. Furthermore, such feeble attempts to control how people view your opponent(s) are an insult to the noble history of scientific inquiry, a history which should be respected most by people claiming to be scientists.

    People who’s scientific work is being criticized should NOT lie in judgement of the internal motivations of the critic. Under that system, corruption would build so fast it would make your head spin. So, let’s give McIntyre the benefit of assuming his motivations to be noble, of wanting to show where a bit of debateable theory has gone astray.

    My new RC posting sig:
    Weeee! Hey I really like this new ejector slide from “authorized” RC threads to the Bore Hole. ;-)

    Comment by Mickey Reno — 11 May 2012 @ 12:48 PM

  874. Here’s this issue, as I understand it, in a nutshell:

    There is a divergance problem with tree ring analysis of temperature wherein they generally don’t display a modern temperature increase.

    Briffa produced the Yamal series data using a small sample of trees from a single site which did show a 20th century temperature increase and this series has been used in nearly every temperature reconstruction since showing a “hockey stick” shape. In addition a second paper was produced, using the same Yamal trees data, that did not have a “hockey stick” shape by the Russian team that actually acquired the Yamal data. In addition, it appears that a number of trees that were available to Briffa were not used.

    McIntyre complained that he believed the Briffa reconstruction came to its conclusion as a result of “cherry picking” data and then attempted to find out what data Briffa had available when he selected the trees that he had used and what statistical analyses he had used to come to his conclusion.

    Dendro-climactic reconstructions are important as they give most of the “hockey sticks” that nice long and flat handle and lack the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that skeptics contend should be present. Briffa’s Yamal trees were a bonus because they were a rarity: A set of trees that also displayed a Modern Warm Period.

    This whole discussion brings up a significant issue: When there is a question of “cherry picking” the only way to prove or disprove the accusation is to make all (used and unused) data available and explain why data was determined to be acceptable for the study. Normally, this would be ethically expected behavior in any scientific study. Briffa contends that he is going to produce this data at a later date, however it has been 13 years since the initial Yamal study and 4 since the most recent release and nothing has been produced.

    Having said this, the arguments of dendro-climatology seem rather ludicrous. Tree rings seem to be poor indicators of temperature and excellent indicators of precipitation/water availability. Most tree ring reconstructions do not accurately represent the temperature of the past 100 years (the only time period where we have accurate measurements with which to compare them.) This should, logically, invalidate them as worthwhile indicators of temperature reconstructions.

    Comment by SirCharge — 11 May 2012 @ 2:27 PM

  875. @30

    McEnttire’s continued fixation with this data seems utterly pointless to me. What is he trying to show? That the planet isn’t warming? That the land surface, sea surface and satellite data are also wrong? That the cryosphere isn’t melting?

    I think he’s trying to show the exceedingly low robustness of the dendro-record of Yamal in relation to the fuller set of regional cores in depicting the same temperature picture as indicated elsewhere– and perhaps the wider issue of using tree-rings at all to indicate a non-divergent global warming signal without having to resort to ‘epistemological judgment calls’ about what cores are worth more than other cores. I think such a conclusion, if allowed to take root, would be interesting, regardless if the Global Warming fingerprints are manifested in a litany of other sources, the literature would look differently if it became known that original way-back papers that discovered such a climate signal through dendro were in fact not good enough for science work regardless if they were subsequently confirmed by other studies in other areas.

    There seems to be a lot of fight to simultaneously keep the viability of Yamal conclusions alive while attempting to minimize their overall relevance, and it could go back to keeping alive the methodology of the original papers and their use of yamal and/or bristlecones, etc. (again, even if other papers/data sets more satisfyingly/robustly verify a HS signal).

    And does he think that the results of this dendro analysis will prove the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist? Seriously, what in the world can he hope to accomplish?

    I actually don’t think SM is out to disprove GW or AGW … I think he’s just out to disprove the robustness of various (some) tree ring analyses and the use of them in generating temperature reconstructions. It is incorrect to say this is ‘uninteresting’ or ‘unworthy’ of being in the literature because it would represent a forward motion in establishing quality standards and statistic robustness as it comes to tree-ring data, rather than purely relying on judgment calls that elevate some data over another that’s bound to create the obvious kerfluffle. Even if the HockeyStick is validated in 100 other places it doesn’t automatically mean that only trees that show it as well are ‘worthy’ for whatever reasons, and the others unworthy. It’s a complicated thing though– because it also stands to reason that dendro work should be able to tell us ‘something’ as opposed to ‘nothing’. If research like this is supposed to evidence science that informs policy of such a great economic consequence, I agree that the standards for robustness and obviousness should be pretty high (and presumably SM agrees).

    No one wants to let go of this though, because it goes back to some of the original publications on the HockeyStick, even though the HS signal has been subsequently borne out in other places in studies that followed.

    Though I wonder, if it just came out that “Yes, Yamal signals are muted in regional chronologies and does not look as impressively hockeysticky” it would be like the Red Sox winning the world series in 2004… A lot of folks all of a sudden had a whole lot less to talk/complain about, even though the world went on the same way. But I doubt giving the inch is in the cards.

    Comment by Salamano — 11 May 2012 @ 2:42 PM

  876. Gavin:
    Would it not make more sense for those with first hand knowledge of the Yamal and related data sets to comment on Steve McIntyre’s recent post, especially the disparity in the number of cores available and the number of cores apparently included in the construction of the proxy?

    Comment by Bernie — 11 May 2012 @ 3:37 PM

  877. The problem those here have is that Steve McIntyre is widely respected by those without an axe to grind. He may or may not be right, he may or may not be qualified, but most people consider that he is undoubtedly an honest man asking honest questions. If reading this you disagree that doesn’t matter as your mind is already made up. Steve is more influential than you (as he is probably the most influential single person in this field). You may complain that he doesn’t publish – get over it he doesn’t need to. They way you do or don’t address the challenge he presents reflects much more on you. I am not an expert in this field but I do know how to read a case and counter case and can tell you that Steve is making his much more credibly (to a non expert) than is being made here.

    Comment by Three — 11 May 2012 @ 5:33 PM

  878. Sophistry boys and I’m not impressed.

    Comment by Jeff Id — 11 May 2012 @ 5:47 PM

  879. Gavin what is the problem with this statement, Too honest for you and RC.. The problem those here have is that Steve McIntyre is widely respected by those without an axe to grind. He may or may not be right, he may or may not be qualified, but most people consider that he is undoubtedly an honest man asking honest questions. If reading this you disagree that doesn’t matter as your mind is already made up. Steve is more influential than you (as he is probably the most influential single person in this field). You may complain that he doesn’t publish – get over it he doesn’t need to. They way you do or don’t address the challenge he presents reflects much more on you. I am not an expert in this field but I do know how to read a case and counter case and can tell you that Steve is making his much more credibly (to a non expert) than is being made here.

    Comment by Bob C — 11 May 2012 @ 9:21 PM

  880. In the first place, apologize for my English, but go to what really matters.

    I work in hydraulics, more specifically, I search turbidity currents, of course I am not a climate expert, I have not the minimum debate whether condition that if Mr.Peter or Dr.John are correct or not. But, whatever comes to my mind is a very serious ethical question.

    The matter is easy, if the CRU investigators believe in they are doing are playing with the destiny of the world for personal whims.

    Explaining better: If the phenomenon of anthropogenic global warming will bring disgrace to the world that the IPCC provides, with millions of deaths, and it is necessary cease the CO2 emissions as fast as possible, what is the benefit of maintaining some information to take just the privilege to publish an new work.

    If I had valuable information regarding the future of humanity, would not think twice to open all my data and my sources, sharing my knowledge with the larger number of researchers to avoid the death of many people. To be more exact, to save one human life, I would drop my ego and my personal vanity.

    Comment by Rogerio Maestri — 11 May 2012 @ 10:22 PM

  881. So why are the regional reconstructions taking so many years to publish given the potential weight of their results?

    Comment by Mike M — 12 May 2012 @ 9:54 AM

  882. The Yamal series make part of a series of studies used to claim that we are experiencing unprecedented warming and that we need to spend extremly large sums on investments to counter this. Making such claims therefore require the highest levels of transparency as regards e.g. the Briffa studies. Not least it requires extraordinary care in making data and code available fore others to replicate the results. Not doing so, or defending not doing so, is utterly unscientific and paves the way for fraud.

    [Response: Yet the data for the local Yamal reconstruction have been available to McIntyre since 2004 (8 years ago!), he and others have replicated the original calculation, it has been tested to the inclusion of other nearby data (and will be further tested once the full regional reconstruction is published). Moreover, the whole basis of your concern - that you think that the a) modern warming and b) the basis for concern about the future, is predicated on tree ring reconstructions - is just wrong. The warming in the 20th C is unequivocal - and based on dozens of independent lines of evidence. And concern about the future is based on the known radiative properties of CO2 and the inexorable increase in its concentration in the atmosphere etc. (See here for details). - gavin]

    Comment by Sven Hansseb — 13 May 2012 @ 4:08 PM

  883. “By the way, what ‘multinational government bureaucracy’ are you talking about? Whoever they are, if they indeed exist, the folks at UEA certainly do not work for them.”

    I was referring to U.S. government funding British research, and attaching conditions to it, such as release of information to them which could then be potentially accessible to the public, albeit against the British scientists’ will. But at the present, it is the opposite. The U.S. executive branch is resisting release, so there is a common purpose between payor and payee. There, then, is your “multinational bureaucracy” at work. Of course you will probably now claim it is simply a coincidence that they happen to agree. I, on the other hand, think that the existence of a common purpose makes it far more likely that they will cooperate on policy, rather than be truly independent of each other.

    Thank you for your interest in my thoughts.

    RTF

    [Response:I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, and I'm sure that the U.S. 'executive branch' doesn't either.--eric]

    Comment by Richard T. Fowler — 13 May 2012 @ 11:04 PM

  884. “The US FOIA has a very clear precedent that official records are records determined to be related to official duties and are under the control of the agency themselves. It simplifies proceedings amazingly. If you want to ensure that people do not use private email accounts for official work, then the way to do that is to mandate it – as in the Presidential Records Act for all White House related communications.”

    Is it only the stuff of tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists to think that, for example, the White House uses private channels to communicate various thoughts and things that they do not want to see the light of day until they are ready for prime time? “Records management” has at times been an issue in US political office as well, no matter how clear the directives were/are.

    Comment by Salamano — 14 May 2012 @ 9:44 AM

  885. Roberts (137). As I have often said, there is research in the climate community finding cointegration. All I am saying is that the climate scientists don’t seem to understand its importance.

    tamino – the econometric techniques are good for any time series, and are used on all kinds of data. What are you saying? That temperature and CO2 are not cointegrated? That cointegration is not important? That you are annoyed because I criticized F&R?

    Wandering all over the place – that’s a red herring. Cointegration applies whether there is a lot of wandering or a little, just as long as the two variables tend to wander together.

    You all believe in your models, but you have done a poor job of getting the public and policy makers to believe in AGW enough to act. You blame the public and policy makers for bowing to the energy interests, and disclaim any responsibility for your failure. Many climate scientists are public servants, and they should act in the public’s good. Instead they seem to be territorial, defensive against any other field’s contribution.

    Comment by t marvell — 14 May 2012 @ 2:58 PM

  886. I responded to tamino’s nasty comments, and my reply was put in the borehole. I should have a chance to respond on this very important topic.

    Comment by t marvell — 14 May 2012 @ 7:56 PM

  887. #149 – Quite to the contrary, I see SM trying to reproduce results from published papers, requesting the data to do such work, but being stymied by refusals to release data to which he is legally entitled. That’s what scientists do – they check, cross check, and validate their own and others results.

    As for “the truth of AGW”, the fact remains that the earth is not warming anywhere near as much as the GCM’s predicted, which indicates they are wrong and need to be revised. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a human component to the warming, just that the CO2 sensitivity isn’t as high as what’s used in the models. Finally, your claim of conspiracy and deception is laughable – do you have facts to back up such claims?

    Comment by Mike Lewis — 15 May 2012 @ 1:01 PM

  888. “science”. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved 2011-10-16. “3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena”

    “RealScience”. a: Antonym of science. b: A laughable website where opposing viewpoints are relegated to the “bore hole” (how cute) while sycophants are allowed to slander, demean, and otherwise make fools of themselves.

    Comment by Mike Lewis — 15 May 2012 @ 2:00 PM

  889. Ray Ladbury,

    I agree at least that it is still possible for an individual persons whose work is paid for by government to, in some cases, remain independent in one or more senses of that term. I just think it’s a matter of fortune (what some might call luck) and I don’t think it’s very common these days. If you are one such person, I commend you.

    To others, I didn’t come on here to provoke discussion of those other topics. Had I known the conversation would veer there, I probably wouldn’t have even posted here. So hopefully you’ll understand if I do not fully answer you.

    To whoever it was who called me a monomaniac, I am not. I admit I do get upset at times due to things that happen in the world. I make no general apology for that. But that is not monomania.

    I love and respect science that is done properly and for good purposes. But I no longer let it define me to the extent I once did.

    To whoever brought up making money from criticism of climate science, I am not and have never been paid for my online comments, nor (as far as I can recall) for anything I have ever written or said about climate. (If there was anything, it was quite small, far too small to justify doing as a job, and I didn’t ask for it. But I don’t remember anything.) I do agree that there has been too much profiting going on from contrarian criticism of GW science. I am fortunate I have not had to ask anyone to be paid for such activity, but while I recognize there may be some who have had to, I do not think it should be an actual career choice for anyone.

    Eric, I appreciate your desire to keep the comments impersonal, and also the liberation of my comment.

    To John Reisman, that is not even close to what I was saying. There is logical fallacy in what you wrote. But the fallacy was composed by you, not me.

    4 pi r^2 is, indeed, not subject to conspiracy. But there are other things in science that are. No, I will not give examples, so please don’t ask me for them. I didn’t come on here to do that.

    I will not name the individuals or the university. They were not defenders of what has become the mainstream view within climate science, and I have every reason to believe they would not want their names publicized. I don’t care whether you believe my account, because the information was given to me in confidence so I cannot disclose the identities you seek.

    Regarding Craig Nazor’s “But I have always been able to find allies and support for my best work.” Good for you. Not everyone is so fortunate. Furthermore, once I understood how that game worked that I had signed up for, I lost interest. I found other opportunities outside of research before I was ever able to find a reasonable opportunity within research.

    Regarding “I have never allowed someone else’s opinion of me define who I am or what I do.” Perhaps you would if you found yourself disliked by a very large number of people for what you perceive to be no good reason. Think it through. Try to see the world through the eyes of someone who has had different experiences. I see that even Eric has tried to do that.

    RTF

    Comment by Richard T. Fowler — 15 May 2012 @ 7:51 PM

  890. People generally try something, find something wrong, try something else, fix one problem, test something else, deal with whatever comes up next, examine the sensitivities, compare with other methods etc. etc.
    ======
    There is a basic rule in statistics that you never do this. You choose your method ahead of time, otherwise the temptation is to simply cherry-pick the methodology until you get the answer you are looking for. No matter how un-baised the researcher, our subconcious directs us to obtain the results we expect, unless we are very careful in the design of our analysis.

    Comment by ferd berple — 15 May 2012 @ 8:04 PM

  891. Scientific American
    An Epidemic of False Claims

    quote:

    “The best way to ensure that test results are verified would be for scientists to register their detailed experimental protocols before starting their research and disclose full results and data when the research is done.”

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-epidemic-of-false-claims

    Comment by ferd berple — 15 May 2012 @ 9:12 PM

  892. Brian,
    Not sure why you are attempting to downplay the spurious cooling in the RSS data that Steve mentioned, nor your insinuations about inaccuracies. If you really want to graph the difference that is being reported in the past decade, you should really seperate the data into those two intervals.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/to:2002/trend

    Of course, if you are serious about using “all the data,” then you should compare your graphs to the following:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/plot/gistemp/trendmi

    Comment by Dan H. — 16 May 2012 @ 6:37 AM

  893. Replication (and failure to replicate) of results is one of the cornerstones of science. Unless the data and methods are archived and available to other researchers, no replication is possible. If results have not been independently verified, by someone that is actively trying to disprove the results, they have little credibility.

    The best allies scientists have in the search for the truth are other researchers that are actively trying to question and disprove their findings. When findings cannot be disproven, when they hold up under scrutiny regardless of the methodology, then the results are solid.

    However, if a finding holds for only one statistical method, and fails when tested using another method, the finding itself must be regarded as weak.

    Otherwise, researchers could simply pick and choose the statistical method that showed whatever it was they were trying to show, and ignore all contrary evidence that showed otherwise.

    Comment by ferd berple — 16 May 2012 @ 10:07 AM

  894. Brian,
    Not sure why you are attempting to downplay the spurious cooling in the RSS data that Steve mentioned, nor your insinuations about inaccuracies. If you really want to graph the difference that is being reported in the past decade, you should really seperate the data into those two intervals.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:2002/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2002/trend/plot/uah/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/to:2002/trend

    Of course, if you are serious about using “all the data,” then you should compare your graphs to the following:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/rss/plot/rss/trend/plot/gistemp-dts/plot/gistemp/trendmi

    Comment by Dan H. — 16 May 2012 @ 1:23 PM

  895. Mertonian,

    “Off-the-cuff” referred to some previous posts on this thread, not the articles. More recently, the Texas drought coincided with a strong la Nina.

    Comment by Dan H. — 16 May 2012 @ 1:26 PM

  896. Kevin,
    All the studies are short-term, hence the large variation from one year to the next. Predictions far into the future based on these limited studies seem questionable, which would account for Twila and Ian hedging their bets on future ice mass loss.

    Comment by Dan H. — 16 May 2012 @ 1:31 PM

  897. Gavin,

    Even if you believe McI is a jerk, and you have no legal obligation to hand over the paperwork,
    wouldnt it still be better to just give it to him ?

    Wouldnt handing over unpublished work do less damage than the internet riddled with denied FOI requests ?

    If I believed I was involved in a science that might save civalisation, I would probably deal with this differently.

    I would have just called him to my office and showed and explained it to him. Wouldnt that be more productive than having both sides make up crazy stories about each other ?

    Comment by fred emmer — 17 May 2012 @ 8:53 AM

  898. Eric, to clarify I am referring specifically to recent events at McIntyre’s site, not to Gavin’s excellent kickoff to this thread. Hantemirov sent in Yamal data, McIntyre quickly produced some graphs and attached the code (though not in a timely or detailed enough manner, he self-critiqued) and Hantemirov responded angrily: “horrified by your slipshod work,” that the graphs were, essentially, no good. These are the graphs that need to be addressed, or not. Perhaps they will be.

    Comment by Mertonian Norm — 18 May 2012 @ 9:24 AM

  899. Right, so as both Eric and Ray say, the atmosphere is indeed *warmed* by the LW absorbed by CO2. And if the ocean warming we now see is the result of CO2 LW capture, transferred to the ocean, we would need to see warming of the atmosphere too. ie, ocean and atmosphere warming would be coupled.

    However – returning now to my original point, what we actually see is warming oceans but roughly unchanging atmospheric temperatures. Which suggests the ocean warming must be due to something other than atmospheric warming. ie, it cannot be due to CO2 LW absorption.

    [Response: No. The atmosphere is warming on multi-decadal timescales. So is the ocean. But on shorter timescales, there is decadal variability in the ocean< -->atmosphere heat exchange. Timetimes more heat goes into the ocean (leaving a deficit in the atmosphere) and sometimes less (leaving a deficit in the ocean). It really is about that simple.--eric]

    Comment by BaitedBreath — 18 May 2012 @ 4:27 PM

  900. And re Ray’s comment “re-radiaton of IR occurs for only a minority of IR captured” :
    Does this then pour cold water on the so-called “back-radiation” effect, sometimes invoked to explain how CO2 could be warming the oceans without first warming the atmosphere ?

    Comment by BaitedBreath — 18 May 2012 @ 4:33 PM

  901. (Sorry – was happy to continue this in the Borehole, but can’t get a Reply box??)

    My basic question : how can the observed warming of oceans be a consequence of CO2 warming of the atmosphere, when as now the atmosphere is itself not warming ?

    Eric’s answer is that on multi-decadal timescales, atmosphere and ocean warming are indeed coupled, but there can be short-term variability in the oceanatmosphere heat exchange.

    This seems to imply that
    - in the *long* term, oceanatmosphere heat exchange *is* related to oceanatmosphere temperature difference
    - but in the *short* term it needn’t be.

    How is that possible? What factors other than their relative temperatures are at work here?

    Comment by BaitedBreath — 19 May 2012 @ 1:38 AM

  902. Here’s a naive suggestion. In the interests of science and openness, why can’t scientists just forget about FOI, regulations, publication dates, unused data, etc etc, and JUST ANSWER THE REQUESTS that people make for data and other info ?

    This would straightaway completely remove all suggestion of impropriety or bias. We are after all talking about something that is both publicly funded, and that that one way or another will have a massive impact on the general public – some combination of the climate itself, and the costs and social implications of political actions taken on the back of the science.

    So how about it? We could call it JATQ – Just Answer The Question.

    Comment by BaitedBreath — 19 May 2012 @ 4:15 AM

  903. Jim,
    Since you asked. I got my degrees in Chemistry; undergrad at the Univeristy of Michigan, and graduate at the University of Detroit. I have been working as an environmental and nuclear chemist for the past 30 years. I know which folks here possess greater and lesser subject knowledge than myself.
    I could limit my posts, as you suggest, but since my opinion differs from many here, I tend to get a greater deal of respondents, some of whom have been rather abusive. Also since I differ, many are requiring a higher burden of proof regarding my comments, and allowing other statements to skate unsubstantiated.

    Your comment about irrelevent thread comments (which includes my response to you) is dead on. Look at the past 20 comments on this thread alone. Tim and I have had the only relevent conversation regarding the topic of Greenland ice mass. The rest have been verbal attacks and attempts to diminish dissidents. This is repeated on other threads. Whenever someone posts an opposing view, they are bombarded with negative attacks, often without any supporting arguments. Other websites get similar abusiveness, but few to the extent here. With regards to large threads, perhaps RC could move to a CLimate etc. type posting, whereby comments are imbedded in streams. That way, someone could bypass an entire discussion within the thread, to respond to one of greater interest. Just a thought.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 May 2012 @ 8:45 AM

  904. Eric, Ray, Radge, fair enough, and I appreciate both your responses and your resistance to consider constructive engagement with someone whom you so deeply revile. I’ve made my point here, I acknowledge the low likelihood and the impracticality of trying to bridge such a damaged relationship if you can even call it that, especially if it’s already been attempted, and it’s time for me to move along and leave you to the climate science, which is far more important than these sort of ancillary issues anyway.

    I certainly don’t want to bore you any further with “false balance tone trolling”, whatever that is, though I can guess! I’ve enjoyed my visit.

    Comment by Mertonian Norm — 19 May 2012 @ 8:13 PM

  905. … a layman here again.

    I have been trying to follow the issue regarding the efficacy of the data used in the production of the “Hockey Stick” graph.

    As a reasonably intelligent individual with nothing more than a basic understanding of graphs, stats, data collection, etc – you may be interested to learn that I find it impossible to reach any conclusions!

    Clearly the experts that contribute to Realclimate are very knowledgeable and learned on many subjects. The responses here range from carefully argued debate as to the correctness and/or relevance of data sets and their potential impact on any subsequent graph – through to sometimes dismissal, or insults, regarding McIntyre’s knowledge, ability and logic and a characterisations that suggests that he is in the pay of “big oil” and that his raison d’etre is to confuse and obfuscate.

    Similarly, there are a range of themes suggested by Climate Audit commentors. These range from cherry picking to achieved preconceived results based on political “beliefs”, poor understanding of statistics and the relevance, or otherwise, of all the known data – through to accusations of grant grubbing, personal ambition, poor ability, scare mongering, left wing idealism and one world government conspiracy.

    Specifically, in this case, the debate is simply about whether the Hockey Stick graphs are a fair representation of all the known data – and are therefore additional evidence of accelerating global warming – which then leads on to what we (earthlings!) should do about it – or not.

    In the naïve world that I live in, it seems to me that this really should be solvable and agreement on data to produce a graph should be possible!

    The question that I would ask of RealClimate contributors is – given that the specific issue here is whether the Hockey Stick graph is a fair representation of all known data, and is clearly a key element of the larger debate – Can we please have, in the public domain, all of the data, all of the logic, reasoning and thought processes and variations of the graph if different data sets are used?

    At Climate Audit, I would ask to see a graph that uses data sets, that are accepted by RealClimate contributors as being fair and representative – that show alternative conclusions – i.e. no Hockey Stick.

    Again, given the importance of the graph, is it really beyond the wit of man to be able to agree a very small panel of relevant people (2 or 3?), that are acceptable to both “sides”, that could independently analyse various data sets, put forward by each side, and then produce relevant graphs with explanation of the logic and assumptions. Whilst this may not ultimately resolve matters for the layman, it would at least move the debate forward to issues specifically to do with why one data set or another is more representative – rather than each side calling “foul” against the other.

    The debate would then be more “open” with no room left for accusations, either way, regarding motives, etc.

    Comment by Dave — 21 May 2012 @ 5:57 AM

  906. Please take note that Tom Scharf’s post reflects the thinking of an increasing number of Joe Public on this issue. The replies to him appear to agree that we do not understand climate sufficiently and a margin of error is expected with such a system. So it looks like we have agreement but the interpretations and implications appear to differ.

    Joe Public do not have to look far to find that temperatures and sea levels are not rising, that storms are not increasing (etc. ad nauseum ) in fact there are many where the reverse is true.

    Can I suggest that future predicitions are published alongside all previous predictions of the same for the last 15 years. This would be a positive with getting folks to at least take note of how difficult this issue is, just like in your replies made to Tom’s post.

    Comment by Titus — 21 May 2012 @ 3:21 PM

  907. Northern Hemisphere is mainly under influence of the AMO while the SH is more responsive to the solar input.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-dBzA1.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NvS.htm
    For the SH temperature changes the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave (ACW) plays critical role: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/ant_wave.html
    I have managed to reconstruct the wave’s periodicity with (wave number of two, identifying possible source/driver), will put more details and data on line soon, but if Dr. Steig is interested I could forward more info.

    Comment by vukcevic — 22 May 2012 @ 12:22 PM

  908. Comparing your 2010 and 2012 (and some other) graphs, it seems to me linear (exponential, or whatever else) extrapolations are only “suitable” if they either appear to match reality, or have no reality to compare to. Maybe it would be better to stop extrapolating altogether, even with newer model runs.

    Comment by Kasuha — 22 May 2012 @ 6:59 PM

  909. Regarding the “figure 4″, it only resembles “hockey stick” if you just follow the mean line – but I can see at least one very similar event to today’s warming at around 1300 and potential room for about three more of such in various places of the graph (~1150, 1400, 1500). The uncertaininty interval is the problem, people usually tend to think that temperature was in the middle all the time, but the reality is always different. Actually the 95% certainity interval means real values were out of it 5% of the time. Even comparison of HadCRUT values with the reconstruction shows that temperature can really go way over or below for considerable time. Yes, I think this is how good science results should be presented.

    Comment by Kasuha — 22 May 2012 @ 7:25 PM

  910. “This doesn’t make any sense. No statistical fiddlings are going to wind up with the conclusion that two distributions with identical means (mine and Orsi’s) being LESS likely to be the same than two distributions with means separated by a full standard deviation O’Donnell’s and Orsi’s)!”

    Sorry, my statement was not very clear. What I meant was to take the integral of the Orsi curve to the left of where O’Donnell is higher than Steig (1.6) and compare that to the integral of Orsi to the right of 1.6. The integral of Orsi to the left is probably about 20% (eyeballing), and to the right is 80%, which gives a 20% chance that O’Donnell has better predicted reality, and an 80% chance that Steig has better predicted reality.

    (to take another artificial example: take a 3rd researcher, MMM, who claimed that the true rate is .23/decade, but with only a +/- 0.0001 range. Then, if reality is 0.23 exactly, the MMM pdf could be considered to be better, but if reality is more than 0.0001 less than or more than 0.23, Steig was better. And based on Orsi, the chances are very high than Steig is better than MMM, even though Steig, MMM, and Orsi all have identical means)

    (okay, thinking about this more, my method can’t be right, in that I can construct a pdf which would beat an Orsi clone when comparing to the Orsi original… basically, something which is slightly more probably than Orsi over 51% of distribution, and slightly less for the other 49%)

    Comment by MMM — 23 May 2012 @ 3:20 PM

  911. The borehole data is a direct measure of the true value.

    I find your statement , how shall I put it politely, outrageously over the top. To believe that a single borehole is capable of providing an super-accurate estimate of the temperature trend for a large region is stunning. If I were to take the data collected from a single weather station (with actual thermometers!) and make the identical claim, I suspect that you would probably find some objections. I will assume that I am being had.

    I have not read the paper by Orsi, so I will not comment on that. However, I have reservations about many of the assumptions necessary for Bayesian methodology which I assume that they would have used in formulating such results.

    Finally, with regard to the differences in the results between your original paper and that of O’Donnell et al., since the same data was basically used, the differences are pretty much all due to the methodologies used. I personally am not a fan of RegEm combined with an EIV-type component, because the latter does not really take account the individual uncertainties that it is supposed to.

    Do you have some clever way of somehow showing they are NOT, while maintaining the claim that O’Donnell et al. is different from Steig et al??

    Maybe. How about a way to calculate the “SVD” of a matrix with missing values without prior infilling. ;)

    Comment by RomanM — 23 May 2012 @ 3:40 PM

  912. Your words Eric?: “in my view O’Donnell et al. is a perfectly acceptable addition to the literature. O’Donnell et al. suggest several improvements to the methodology we used, most of which I agree with in principle”

    [Response:Indeed, yes. I also pointed out that I thought that their trend estimate was low, and I gave my reasons, and they chose not to address this.--eric]

    Comment by Grosjan — 23 May 2012 @ 5:42 PM

  913. 225
    Jim Larsen says:
    25 May 2012 at 10:52 PM
    Steve’s work consumes more external resources than the total benefit resulting from his efforts
    =======
    Quality is one of the most expensive attributes of any product to provide. Testing is a necessary part of any methodology if you wish to be sure of the quality of the end product.

    While there are many different approaches to testing, there is a large body of evidence that shows the most successful rely on two factors:

    1. The tester must be independent of the developer.
    2. The tester must be motivated to find defects.

    Testing by its nature is the search for defects. Most developers don’t like having the defects in their work pointed out and thus don’t like testers.

    However, without testers the world would be awash in faulty product. Without testers, the consumer pays the hidden cost of defects, while the developer gets the rewards.

    Comment by ferd berple — 26 May 2012 @ 9:50 AM

  914. Indianapolis 500 records
    Highest Race Temperatures
    Races with air temperatures equaling or surpassing 90°F (32°C)
    Year Degrees Race Winner Notes
    °F °C
    1937 92° 33° United States Wilbur Shaw
    1919 91° 33° United States Howdy Wilcox
    1953 91° 33° United States Bill Vukovich
    With anecdotal, “unofficial” testimony placing air temperature at the track during the race near or surpassing 100°F / 38°C, potentially the hottest race in history, with at least one fatality, United States Carl Scarborough, due to heat exhaustion
    1977 90° 32° United States A.J. Foyt
    1978 90° 32° United States Al Unser
    Note 96°F / 35°C, claimed for the start of the 2010 race, but subsequent data reviews indicate an inaccurate reporting
    Coldest Temperature at Start of Race:
    51°F / 11°C, 1992
    References
    ^ National Weather Service archives for Indianapolis, up to 26 May 2012.

    Comment by ferd berple — 26 May 2012 @ 8:20 PM

  915. How naive are each of these 3X3 attempts at “communication”…..

    I did so much better when I was 25 and armed only with degrees from Stnaford and Harvard…..

    Sic transit gloria universities……

    Comment by Richard Goodale — 28 May 2012 @ 9:12 AM

  916. Wow! This website is harder to enter than doing the Austrian drunk test in “The Man with Two Brains!”

    The 3X3 atempts at “communication” are similarly pitifully naive. I could have done so much better back in the days when my Stanford and Harvard degrees were freshly minted and I was doing energy demand modelling when science inthese areas was refreshingly apolitical.

    Comment by Richard Goodale — 28 May 2012 @ 9:19 AM

  917. “Support for climate science doesn’t increase with science literacy, a survey suggests. Rather, people with technical backgrounds just dig in harder on their views about global warming, finds the study in the Nature Climate Change journal.

    “The study sought to test two explanations for the split, said Yale’s Dan Kahan, who led the study, in a statement: “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values.”

    “The first notion doesn’t wash, says the study, finding a small increase in the odds of folks seeing global warming as not too serious in the most science literate people in the survey.”

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 28 May 2012 @ 9:49 AM

  918. MapleLeaf, do you and SKS realy have a clue?

    Comment by Humberto — 28 May 2012 @ 2:51 PM

  919. This month, WRI, supported by google.org, launched a pilot project to further build the capacity of the scientific community to more effectively relay their recent scientific findings.

    Video is just a medium; if the message isn’t convincing, the medium will make little difference. The WRI pilot project may have little chance of success, according to a recently published study:

    “Support for climate science doesn’t increase with science literacy, a survey suggests. Rather, people with technical backgrounds just dig in harder on their views about global warming, finds the study in the Nature Climate Change journal.

    “The study sought to test two explanations for the split, said Yale’s Dan Kahan, who led the study, in a statement: “The first attributes political controversy over climate change to the public’s limited ability to comprehend science, and the second, to opposing sets of cultural values.”

    “The first notion doesn’t wash, says the study, finding a small increase in the odds of folks seeing global warming as not too serious in the most science literate people in the survey.”

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 28 May 2012 @ 2:55 PM

  920. If this is the best you can do, please bring back Al Gore (insert unhappy face here)……. [editor: ok, this stuff is getting even too pathetic for the "Borehole". This is the last one that even gets that status.]

    Comment by Richard — 29 May 2012 @ 9:44 AM

  921. Is this MapleLeaf-guy what Real Climate has become?

    Comment by John Meese — 29 May 2012 @ 10:53 AM

  922. Ray Ladbury says:
    “John West, the fact that you seem to think that reality is subjective speaks volumes. Good luck with that. Let us know if you want to refult the laws of graviation and we’ll film it for Fail Blog.”

    Your apparent lack of understanding that reality changes as technology changes and our perception of reality changes as our understanding changes also speaks volumes.

    Example 1)
    Reality in 1800: It takes months to go from NY to LA.
    Reality in 2000: It takes hours to go from NY to LA.

    Example 2)
    Perception of reality in 1900: Time is constant.
    Perception of reality in 2000: Time is relative.

    Comment by John West — 1 Jun 2012 @ 12:32 PM

  923. More context from Howat — NSF press release (May 4): “This study provides more evidence that the rate at which these glaciers can dump ice into the ocean is indeed limited,” said Ian Howat, assistant professor of Earth sciences and member of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, a co-author on the paper. “What remains to be seen is how long the acceleration will continue — but it appears that our worst-case scenarios aren’t likely.” Relatively good news over all, it would appear.

    Comment by Mertonian Norm — 2 Jun 2012 @ 2:16 PM

  924. I found this comment particularly interesting “Are the new numbers realistic? I and many colleagues I spoke to have serious doubts. It is a model result which is in stark contradiction to data-based estimates.” Surely models are the fundamental building blocks of the science which this blog so wholeheartedly supports

    Comment by Ian — 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:20 AM

  925. flxible -
    In a similar fashion to Susan Anderson, you’ve made a false assumption. And guessed motive (incorrectly). Further you’ve made a false accusation of cherry-picking [see above, the prediction was for 15 years of cooling in the spring]

    What seems a clearer case of cherry-picking is to choose a nearby 15 year period, but only one that suits a your pre-defined belief about the “real world’s warming trend”

    Did you try a 15 year period from February or March and reject them because they failed to produce a warming trend with either data set? Any reason for choosing January?

    As I explained in my previous comment I have no partisan dog in this fight, but to accuse me of being for the ‘denialators’ gives me pause to ponder your own objectivity.

    Comment by Anteros — 6 Jun 2012 @ 10:39 AM

  926. Steve Fish -

    You have a point.

    I posted here because Louise comments here, and she ‘appeared’ on two sites to ridicule me for there apparently being ‘no data sets showing 15 years of cooling’, arriving with a ‘Paging Anteros’ which I followed here.

    However – and I’m humbled by the apology Susan – there was quite a lot of knee-jerk assumption here about motive and intentionality. Perhaps that’s the nature of the ‘debate’ these days.

    Also, I’ve now clearly explained the context and yet Hank Roberts can still say

    You are pointing to and interpreting part of what’s available and doing that incorrectly

    Well, I’m clearly not – I’m not interpreting what’s available at all, let alone incorrectly. I’m merely showing a graph that fits the prediction I made 7 months ago when asked to by a commenter at this blog.

    I should repeat in case it wasn’t clear enough – I make no assessment of the meaning or significance of those graphs at all, and I’m still somewhat surprised by the near universal assumption of what that assessment would have been had I made it [wrongly - I see no cessation of warming at all]

    Finally (accepting your point @67 Steve) now that the context is clearer, accusations of cherry-picking (eg by Ray Ladbury @65) can be seen to be not true. Unless of course my wondering in November last year what Louise would say to there being two data sets showing 15 years of cooling this spring was itself cherry-picking rather than a reasonable expectation.

    I could indeed have provided more context at the outset – I apologise for that. I do think the assumptions made about the showing of a ‘cooling’ graph are inastructive – for us all.

    Comment by Anteros — 6 Jun 2012 @ 11:42 AM

  927. This was not published so I don’t expect it will be published today or any other day. It may raise matters with which the scientists that run this blog might prefer to remain obscured. This comment on the groundwater paper astounded me. The comment is ” I and many colleagues I spoke to have serious doubts. It is a model result which is in stark contradiction to data-based estimates.”

    Given that much of the basis of the science underpinning concepts of current climate change is entirely from models how can this criticism of the Pokhrel et al. 2012 possibly be warranted?

    Comment by Ian — 7 Jun 2012 @ 8:24 AM

  928. J. Bowers,
    Yes, as the chosen start and end dates go further back in time, the slope rises. Compare your dates with Anteros’ and another from three years further back. The rate drops from 0.22 C/decade in the 15 years starting with 1993 to 0.08 C/decade in your graph starting in 1996 to -0.05 C/decade in Anteros graph for the most recent 15 years.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1993/to:2012.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/to:2012.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1993/to:2008/trend

    Comment by Dan H. — 7 Jun 2012 @ 8:30 AM

  929. Susan Anderson -

    Where did you get the idea that I am

    ..only interested in demonstrating my false premise

    What premise have I demonstrated?

    Contrary to almost all the assumptions made above I don’t believe the ’15 years of cooling’ demonstrate anything but noise. As should be clear by now, I showed the graphs because I was asked to (and had predicted them some 7 months ago)

    I’m a little confused as to the relevance of your comments about violence and exploiting fear and rage – was that in response to something I wrote?

    As I have tried to do before (but the comment was deleted) I do apologise for not giving more context in my original comment. Had I done so, it would have been clearer that I was not indulging in any cherry-picking, and there would have been less cause to make assumptions about motive.

    I really didn’t expect that posting the two graphs would get me labelled as being for ‘the denialators’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Comment by Anteros — 8 Jun 2012 @ 6:10 AM

  930. Gavin – you ought also to mention…

    Why? How extraordinary to expect that generous social scruples be gifted to ClimateAudit and its endless innuendo, insinuations, aspersions.

    Perhaps when/if McIntyre & Friends learn the value of keeping a civil tongue they might be accorded punctilious civility?

    Juvenile coup counting.

    Civil? You want people to be civil? Take a look at some of the comments here! While it’s true that this does not – and should not be taken to – reflect the attitudes of the blog authors, the same applies at CA. IMO, SM has always been unfailingly polite and even generous in his interpretations. I chalange you to provide an example where SM has been uncivil in one of these “arguements” – just one! You will struggle to find it, methinks.

    Comment by Neil Fisher — 8 Jun 2012 @ 10:53 PM

  931. “There is a difference between an error being reported at Climate Audit and being discovered by Climate Audit. It appears that the Journal was aware of the problem before McIntyre posted about it.”
    What’s the fuzz? What a childish debate among grown-ups and alleged scientists at that.
    The fact is that within a short time after the publication of a peer-reviewed paper, outsiders raised some skepticism. Further investigations on both sides of the “fence” have confirmed that there is indeed a problem.
    Had skepticism about the method of the study not been raised by outsiders, the error would have gone unnoticed for ever!

    Comment by vivendi — 9 Jun 2012 @ 6:11 AM

  932. #54 Unsettled Scientist(9 Jun 2012 at 8:44 AM)

    “I’ll definitely give credit to the journal and the authors for being good scientists, acknowledging the problems in their own work, and moving forward to address them”. Hasn’t altogether happened yet. Not will but would.

    Comment by simon abingdon — 9 Jun 2012 @ 10:50 AM

  933. http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/Geddes1.pdf

    This paper provides a good explanation of the “selecting on the dependent variable” problem inherent in selecting trees that appear well correlated with temperature as a basis for doing temperature studies.

    If you only select trees that appear correlated with temperature, you are ignoring the large body of trees that are telling you that trees are not a good proxy for temperature.

    For example, say we selected companies that were highly profitable to study why they were profitable. We found that factor X was common to all successful companies. This might lead us to conclude that factor X causes companies to be profitable.

    However, by not studying unprofitable companies, we overlooked the fact that factor X was common to unprofitable companies as well, and thus had little or no influence on profitability.

    The same situation with trees. The assumption is that temperature (factor X) determines tree growth (profitability). By only studying trees that correlate with temperature, climate science has ignored the large body of trees telling us that temperature (factor X) is also common to trees that show no growth (low profitability) and thus had little or no influence on tree growth (profitability).

    Comment by ferd berple — 9 Jun 2012 @ 2:02 PM

  934. Re: Response to #114
    My ‘analysis’ based on the start point in 1945 and change in the Arctic’s magnetic field since gives approximately 3C for doubling of CO2
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/00f.htm
    as Albert Einstein would say:
    “Interesting, and by no means absurd”

    Comment by vukcevic — 10 Jun 2012 @ 1:56 PM

  935. #65 Ray Ladbury says: Dudes, do you think the level of emphasis for the scientific position versus the “skeptic” position even remotely approaches the 97% level of the actual scientific consensus?

    The “97% consensus” claim was winnowed out of a poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago. Of 10,257 earth scientists polled, 3,146 responded. The pollsters then sliced and diced the responses, finally focusing on 79 carefully selected climatologists. 76 out of the 79 believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels – not surprising, as the climate is climbing out of the Little Ice Age. And 75 of 77 believed that human activity is “a significant factor” in changing mean global temperatures – without defining what “significant” means. On that basis, the pollsters accomplished their “97% consensus.” Pretty thin statistical soup.

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 11 Jun 2012 @ 10:34 AM

  936. The process if ice retreat has been going on since the last ice age. Taking a layman’s approach I’m guessing this process of methane release has been going on for a few thousand years. Have we learnt anything from studying the actual history of this process?

    We are now enjoying a much improved climate for our existence so I guess we should be thankful.

    Comment by Titus — 14 Jun 2012 @ 7:34 PM

  937. Ron,

    Lovelock hase been pro-nuclear for almost a decade now. This position has not changed during his conversion from self-proclaimed alarmist to someone more skeptical (his only admission, is that he is not a “denier”). His pro-fracking stance is new, but may be more based on financial concerns than environmental. However, he has not wavered on his Gaia theory.

    http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Jun 2012 @ 8:11 AM

  938. Ray,
    I agree with your earlier post (#173), that truth doesn’t lie in the middle, but is where the evidence points. However, I have a difficult time with the assessment that climate sensitivity is most likely 3, because it lies in the middle of a mulititude of research. The truth could very well lie at the extreme – either end.

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Jun 2012 @ 8:23 AM

  939. Gavin,
    If you are saying that the paper is in error, then that is one thing. But to make several erroneous assumptions in one long paragraph is something else altogether. The quote in question comes from the original paper cited by Andy above, and references the Karlen paper cited above. These are real papers referenced by the author, not some “googled around” source.

    The statements is supported by the reference provided, whether you are getting any enjoyment out of your little game above, I cannot say.

    [Response:Uh, no. I'm very familiar with those papers and they support Gavin's point, not yours.--eric]

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Jun 2012 @ 9:57 PM

  940. So Eric,

    Are you disagreeing with the statements in these paper?

    “The major difference between the new record and the earlier summer temperature reconstructions is the timing of the coldest and the warmest century timescale periods in the last 1,500 years: The earlier reconstructions have minimum temperatures around AD 1600 while the coldest period in new reconstruction is centred on AD 1900. This ‘‘late’’ cold period coincides with historical and proxy evidence of maximum Holocene glacier expansion in northern Sweden (Svenonius 1910; Enquist 1918; Karle´n 1988) and marks the culmination of the ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ (Grove 1988). A late ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ period is seen also in pollen and diatom proxy records from northern Fennoscandia (Korhola et al. 2000; Weckstro¨m et al. 2006) although it is less precisely dated. The differences between the new reconstruction and Briffa et al. (1992) are especially significant in the 200-year warm period centred on AD 1000 which coincides with the so called ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ (Lamb 1966). A warm period around AD1000 is in line with evidence from other proxy indicators from northern Fennoscandia: Pine tree-limit (Shemesh et al. 2001; Helama et al. 2004b; Kulti et al. 2006), pollen and diatoms (Korhola et al. 2000; Seppa¨ and Birks 2002; Bigler et al. 2006) show indisputable evidence of a ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ that was warmer than the twentieth century climate.”

    http://people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Grudd%202008.pdf

    “The climatic deterioration in the twelfth century can be regarded as the starting point of a prolonged cold period that continued to the first decade of the twentieth century.”

    http://people.su.se/~hgrud/documents/Grudd%20et%20al%202002.pdf

    These statements were taken directly from the cited literature, and supported with references (as per Gavin’s request) that support the previous statements, although he appears deny that in his previous response. Is this enough to not get “binned?”

    Additionally, 1904 is one of the coldest years in the CRU dataset, and JJA temperatures were colder than any except 2003 and 2011. Thus, while temperatures rose from the mid 19th century until about 1880, they fell to a bottom around 1910, before beginning their 20th century rise.

    Comment by Dan H. — 20 Jun 2012 @ 9:21 AM

  941. Gavin,

    Just as I suspected. Your comments were just a smokescreen. At least be honest and say that you bore hole any argument which does not fit your own ideology, instead of yuor poor excuse written above. We both know that the statements have been properly cited. Your lame attempt may appeal to the ignorant or the blind, but anyone checking the references will find your rants ring rather hollow.

    Comment by Dan H. — 20 Jun 2012 @ 12:57 PM

  942. A visit to the PCMDI [CMIP5 data source] home page contains some odd language:

    The need for innovative analysis of GCM climate simulations is apparent, as increasingly more complex models are developed, while the disagreements among these simulations and relative to climate observations remain significant and poorly understood. The nature and causes of these disagreements must be accounted for in a systematic fashion in order to confidently use GCMs for simulation of putative global climate change.

    “Putative global climate change”? Really? I thought we were past that.

    Comment by Mertonian Norm — 20 Jun 2012 @ 1:34 PM

  943. Thomas, et. al.,
    At least if conclusions can be supported by peer-reviewed literature, they have a sense of legitimacy (even though peer-reviewed literature if often supplanted by updated results). When conclusions are based on grey literature alone, it had better be fully treated as a special case, to be integrated with greater caution (as per dbostrom above), especially when it contradicts other research. I do not think anyone can deny that the major embarassments (or nutty pronouncements, even after the errors have been pointed out as per Thomas) from AR4 were conclusions based on grey literature, which contradicted other sources. Oftentimes, different research does contradict each other. Ignoring one, in favor of the other, seems to be popular among politicians, but such be avoided by scientists.

    Comment by Dan H. — 21 Jun 2012 @ 1:39 PM

  944. Since one of my lighthearted ‘CO2’ graphics was posted elsewhere, it has become part of Gavin’s practice to demote my posts to the ‘bore hole’, so I expect this one
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSO.htm
    to end up there, but I don’t expect accompanying comment. On the other hand some of the best stuff can be found in the ‘bore hole’.

    Comment by vukcevic — 23 Jun 2012 @ 5:55 AM

  945. #288 Susan Anderson says: 23 Jun 2012 at 10:42 AM
    When we think we are too smart to have to pay attention, we are in real trouble.

    Absolutely, as it is graphically shown here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NH-SH.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 24 Jun 2012 @ 7:13 AM

  946. The article says “Of course, global sea-level rise has already accelerated in the course of global warming”

    Actual recorded observations puts sea level rise at a fairly consistent rate of 0-4mm/yr since records began. Recently falling to 0. Just do a Google search to verify.

    Towns and cities have always moved inland where ocean erosion is taking place. In Norfolk UK there are many signposts pointing to towns several miles away where the sea is only 1-2 miles. Where did they go? And Southwold (also on that coast) is now a peninsula as the sea defenses have been built up to preserve the town.

    In summary: Global sea level rise has declined in recent years and temperatures have been flat. No problem to worry about other than business as usual.

    Comment by Titus — 24 Jun 2012 @ 4:47 PM

  947. This is why science has lost the argument.

    “Truth needs no defense.” – Ray Ladbury

    Comment by vendicar decarian — 24 Jun 2012 @ 5:25 PM

  948. Kudos to NC20. Why? Because if the opposite had occurred, there would be policy restrictions on property development, and real estate would be devalued.

    Then after a decade, there is a shift in politics (no!!), the law is binned. Why? Because hardly anything at the beach and surrounding areas has changed, except for the newly constructed, republican endorsed concrete fortified Wally’s World built on land bought at a fraction of its original value.

    What is it with scientists whose work always has to interfere with peoples lives? If thousands of idiots want to live ridiculously close to the waters edge then let them. I’m sure it all part of the excitement. Tsunamis can strike anywhere, might as well apply the same restrictions to new york city…oh wait….that’s where Gavin is!!!

    lol

    Comment by Isotopious — 24 Jun 2012 @ 5:26 PM

  949. Radge,

    Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that I don’t understand the history of science, as you note. Let’s add to the assumptions that my urge to read broadly on the topic of climate change, a topic in which I have no practical expertise, is only to hear a squabble, as you put it.

    But surgeons? Really? Surely not the analogy you wanted. Have you ever met one? Talked to one? The analogy actually illustrates why climate scientists should be taken seriously, to be sure, and quite skeptically. Any surgeon worth her stitches will tell you today’s operation is the best we have this year, possibly effective if all goes well, and she will go on to express her frustration that if only we knew more, if only the tools were more precise, if only the patient hadn’t presented with all those other variables… And fifty years from now, we can picture surgeons at a conference, joking with each other: “Honest to God, I’m not even making this up — they used to cut into their patients’ flesh with knives! ‘Scalpulls’ I think they were called. But first, they’d ‘put them to sleep’. No, I’m serious!”

    I admit I enjoyed your cartoon of surgeon-skeptics as dead chicken wavers, but I would offer that an attempt to reduce those with whom you disagree to a slapstick O.R. scene is as unhelpful as an over-generalized platitude.

    Comment by Mertonian Norm — 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:01 PM

  950. Tide gauges along the Atlantic Coast show significant sea level rise, but satellite measurements in that same region don’t. The only rational explanation is that the land is subsiding.

    Comment by Steven Goddard — 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:14 PM

  951. @SecularAnimist
    @Susan Anderson

    I am not some kind of concern troll whatever that may be, and if you had read my post more carefully you should realize that. I have never heard of Fred Pearce, and heard about the grey literature business because of Google news like many people which linked to many articles on the matter. Here is one, but there were many that said similar things.

    http://zeenews.india.com/news/rio-summit-2012/climate-panel-slammed-for-embracing-controversial-grey-literature_782787.html

    I am talking how I expect the general public to see this, not people that follow the twists and turns closely. The public from what I see think there was a scandal regarding grey literature, and the immediate reaction of them seeing headlines like this will be to lose respect for the IPCC. They aren’t going to read the fine print about how grey literature will be vetted etc. Also I know for a fact that some “skeptics” are overjoyed at the IPCC’s decision.

    My point was not to make some kind of attack on the credibility of the IPCC as it is at present, but to point out that this policy will cause it to loose the respect of the public, whether that is deserved or not.

    If it does make mistakes, then to be impartial this site needs to point them out the same as it would for mistakes made anywhere else and not appear to try and defend it.

    Yes it would help to have more representation worldwide, but it has been reported as if there are some enforced quotas at the expense of science. Once again, this is the concern of the general public from what I see, not people already firmly on one side or the other. So if these perceptions are not true, then write something explaining why.

    This is regarded as an important issue by many people, so perhaps RC should write an article about it.

    Comment by Russell — 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:29 AM

  952. #356 Susan Anderson

    “Today at breakfast … ” Extraordinary. You can’t help wondering.

    Comment by simon abingdon — 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:14 AM

  953. The Times today reports that “the Royal Society of Chemistry has offered a £1,000 prize to anyone who can say why hot water freezes faster than cold.”

    Should be a breeze for climate science.

    Comment by simon abingdon — 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:57 AM

  954. #330 MARodger “What you referred to @303 was “Robert Brown’s latest post” on WUWT without any hint as to its content”.

    On the contrary I identified it unambiguously as “Robert Brown’s latest post (June 24 2012 at 10.30 pm)”. Not hard to find. Your comment about my not having “the decency to link to it” is just wrong. As well as being ad hom your saying that “Brown is a verbose old duffer” may be simply unfair as well as unkind. Had you confined your comments to substance I might not have misjudged you. If I did I apologise.

    Comment by simon abingdon — 27 Jun 2012 @ 3:59 AM

  955. Great News!

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/

    “Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time – and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.”

    Comment by Big Al — 28 Jun 2012 @ 5:19 PM

  956. Currently I am completing an article which will precisely define causes of the climate oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere, I used name Geo-Solar cycle
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    Southern Hemisphere’s response is affected by the Circumpolar current’s temperature wave, which interpolate within the GS cycle, in addition to the inertia of larger oceanic mass damping the natural oscillations. Any serious analysis should consider giving a degree of disengagement between the hemispheres

    Comment by vukcevic — 4 Jul 2012 @ 2:45 AM

  957. I got two questions :

    1/ The Mann08 you show has no tree rings but still has Tijlander lake sediments proxy, right ?

    2/ On the Mann08 graph, the post 1900 part is only represented with instrumental record. Is there a version of this graph without the instrumental record but with the proxies used all the way to 2000, like on Jan Esper’s graph ?

    Thanks.

    Comment by Benjamin — 10 Jul 2012 @ 3:45 PM

  958. I have a friend who keeps cattle and grows willow for biomass.

    If total farm emissions were charged at a reasonable carbon price, he would find it more profitable to cut the emissions from his farm by switching his cattle farming to grow more willow.

    Avoiding the respiration of the cattle would be part of his financial gain and our environmental gain.

    But the cattle are beautiful!

    Comment by Geoff Beacon — 11 Jul 2012 @ 10:58 AM

  959. Unsettled,
    I hope you are not referring to the misinterpretations and insults as Gavin’s way of “dealing” with me. Arguing about the definition of “rapid” is rather Clintonistic, as decelleration definitely does not conform to “rapid” acceleration. Look over the 20-year UC dataset again. The decelleration of the past ten years exceeds the acceleration of the previous ten.

    Comment by Dan H. — 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:50 AM

  960. Rick and Craig,
    Yes, Antarctica is isolated, and has not experienced the global warming of the past 50 years.

    http://www.unis.no/35_staff/staff_webpages/geology/ole_humlum/AntarcticTemperatureChanges.htm

    While the temperature has followed the rise and fall of the remainder of the globe during the previous interglacials, the last time Antartica was ice-free was several million years ago (see the real climate article on the Miocene). This was prior to the recent ice age cycle.

    During the last interglacial, the temperature was ~1-3C warmer than this interglacial. Evidence suggest that melting only occurred along the fringes (Antarctic peninsul, etc.). East Antarctica has continuously accumulated ice. Keep in mind that the average temperature in the middle of the East Antarctic ice sheet is ~-50. By the time the temperature increases sufficiently to melt this ice sheet appreciably, the rest of the planet will be toast.

    Comment by Dan H. — 28 Jul 2012 @ 10:37 AM

  961. Ray,

    I have to side with Ian on this one. Drought was more severe in the 1930s than today. High temperatures were more extreme than today (there was even some extreme cold too). Hurricane activity in the 1930s was similar to the 2000s. How anomolous can the 2000s be if similarities occurred seven decades prior?

    Comment by Dan H. — 2 Aug 2012 @ 2:47 PM

  962. There are too many hypotheticals in comment #103. Consequently it is not possible to make a realistic assessment of the postulated scenarios. For example let us assume the, entirely unknown, conditions affecting extreme weather events in the 1930s, are increased in magnitude today. Should this be the case, one could expect the number of extreme weather events today might be comparable to or greater than those seen in the 1930s. Obviously as these conditions are unknown it is impossible to state that CO2 does or does not have an additional effect. It could well just be a natural variation in these conditions. For instance let us assume that CO2 actually ameliorates these conditions and as these conditions are unknown this is at least a tenable hypothesis. One might expect the number of extreme weather events to be less than in the 1930s. However let us now assume that human activities such as land clearing, exacerbate these natural conditions. This might lead to an increase in the number of extreme weather events totally separate from the putative effects of CO2 on these unknown natural conditions. So let us now assume increased CO2 ameliorates and land clearing exacerbates these natural conditions to the same extent. One then might expect the number of extreme weather events now to be similar to those in the 1930s. As I’ve said, it is not possible to determine the effects of CO2 or land clearing or anything else on the effect on extreme weather events of natural conditions that are entirely unknown.

    Comment by Ian — 2 Aug 2012 @ 3:40 PM

  963. I am sorry but I forgot to note that Dr Christy supplies a lot of data to illustrate the points he makes. It is inconceivable that these data are manufactured or fictitious so one must assume that the points he makes are based on facts that can be readily checked by others. From these data it does appear the 1930s had a larger number of extreme events than succeeding decades even though CO2 levels were steadily climbing during these decades. Perhaps, as I’ve suggested above (rather tongue in cheek I must admit), increased CO2 really might ameliorate the unknown natural conditions causing the extreme weather events in the 1930s

    Comment by Ian — 2 Aug 2012 @ 4:13 PM

  964. In the 11,000+ year natural progression of warming from the last Ice Age to the present, shouldn’t one expect high temperature records, on average, to be broken on a yearly basis, and to far outnumber low records?

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 2 Aug 2012 @ 7:47 PM

  965. Thanks for the various responses. I’d hate you to think I was running away from the discussion but my reply to Hank Roberts (103) stating his comments were too full of hypotheticals followed by why this was so was deemed unsuitable for publication. Why I have no idea as it wasn’t abusive or off topic. I guess my time in the sun on this blog is over.

    Comment by Ian — 3 Aug 2012 @ 12:36 AM

  966. Unsettled,
    I do not think Ian’s point was to say that these events cannot occur naturally, but rather that recent events are mimicked by those that occurred in the past. The claim has been made by some that the recent events are “unprecedented.” However, the data clearly shows that there are not. That does not translate to CO2 has no effect, but rather, that the effect is not more extreme than observed previosuly. That does not say that a combination of natural and manmade effects could exceed those of the past. The decade of the 30s is not any more “cherrypicked,” than that of the 2000s.
    Since the scientific community already knows this (per your previous post), then it should come as no shock that the previous decade has mimicked the past. I do not understand why so many are rushing to deny this.

    Comment by Dan H. — 3 Aug 2012 @ 7:43 AM

  967. Final comment. Unsettled Scientist you state “I have a feeling you’re just playing a semantical game and aren’t really interested in learning how we are causing the climate to change right now” Actually I am interested but as a scientist in an entirely different field, biochemistry and molecular biology, I find the debate between the proponents and opponents of CAGW so snide and rancorous that it is difficult to to distinguish fact from opinion. Both sides of the debate seem to resort to ad hominems, just look at the comments to me here, which is so so totally different from the situation in other branches of science where those that disagree are at least civilised. In fairness I also get ad hominems at WUWT if I post something with which the readers of that blog disagree. Perhaps the attitudes of both sides is responsible, at least in part, for the declining interest in CAGW that is occurring globally not just in the US. Incidentally I live Australia

    Comment by Ian — 3 Aug 2012 @ 1:18 PM

  968. I gave a signing off comment for this particular topic noting that the debate on climate science from proponents and opponents is snide and rancorous. I also said that ad hominem attacks proliferate on both sides and said that comments to me on this particular post exemplified this. I also said that this rancour may well ahev been the reason that globally the public are turning away from CAGW However the moderator axed the comment whilst allowing the somewhat vulgar comments from Ron R through. Why am I not surprised

    Comment by Ian — 3 Aug 2012 @ 3:26 PM

  969. Ian,
    I agree totally with your post beginning with final comment. People on the extreme ends of the climate debate often resort to just these types of attacks in order to move the argument away from the actual science. It is nice to see a refreshing voice.

    Comment by Dan H. — 3 Aug 2012 @ 4:20 PM

  970. Yo Gavin,
    “on how little actually changed”
    you’re right: the models will still be wrong.

    Comment by Armando — 4 Aug 2012 @ 5:09 PM

  971. Patrick,
    Thank you for the long detailed response. There seems to be a common misconception here confusing feedback and gain.

    WRT Solar power, my point is simply exposing the low power density of a solar installation capable of replacing baseload capacity. Of the order of 7 Watt per square meter. Compare that with the energy density (per square meter) of your local coal fired power station. Not only that, taking into account embodied energy makes the equation much much worse. I think this is fatal for Solar.

    WRT your discussion on feedback the key for me is this statement

    the non-Planck feedbacks to be positive and exceed the Planck response in magnitude and The equilibrium climate sensitivity is the negative inverse of the sum of all feedbacks

    Now if you consider the feedback components one by one, according to their physical mechanisms and the lags inherent in them (delay between output and feedback, – thermal capacity/inertia) What is the maximum value of constructive reinforcement that can happen, and is that consistent with the observation that climate is remarkably stable. If the loop gain reaches 1 even transiently, then the system would become unstable and oscillate or drive to energy saturation.
    What stops this happening, how is it that the system is able to ever cool? There is something wrong here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. By the way, I calculate CO2 energy saturation at +5.2 degrees for 1ATM which is hardly Venus.

    Further, in some cases it aught to be possible to experimentally exclude some feedback mechanisms altogether and the test the feedbacks mechanism by mechanism in order to verify the assumed total gain in real-world experiments. Nothing I read goes to this at all.

    The high feedback gains required in my mind still contraindicate the models feasibility.

    Comment by Bobl — 4 Aug 2012 @ 8:25 PM

  972. Patrick
    I omitted a mechanism that would fit the current world view. Co2 warming is very near energy saturation, it could be that the gain is in fact an inverse function of temperature, and that small increases in temperature quickly reduce the gain. This is evident in equatorial temperature caps, where temperatures above a certain cap result in thunderstorms. This isn’t however consistent with the idea that Co2 warming can continue forever. This Hypothesis would place a strict cap on the amount of warming that can occur below the theoretical energy saturation level of +5.2 degrees.

    Comment by Bobl — 4 Aug 2012 @ 8:32 PM

  973. Unsettled,
    Just because the statment says that the natural component is certain, does not imply that the human is also certain. These are not mutually exclusive events. If you would read what others are saying about the dust bowl, you may come to a better understanding. In the same light, just because human cause have been shown for the recent changes, does not imply that the natural component is absent. Maybe that is why so many seem to think they know everything; they feel it must be one or the other, and if one is true, the other must be false. Very bad science.

    Comment by Dan H. — 5 Aug 2012 @ 11:36 AM

  974. Whit,
    Interesting analogy. While I am sure there is more that one environmentalist out there who would jump on any theory that would paint Exxon as the bad guy, I an bit sure that most would. Granted, there are always those who look for doomsday scenarios, and others who view the world through rose-colored glasses. This is especially true, when there is sufficient uncertainty in the results to allow for other interpretations.

    Comment by Dan H. — 5 Aug 2012 @ 3:20 PM

  975. In view of the comments above, I am treading on eggs when writing this. As mentioned I have much to learn but today’s editorial in the New York Times today exemplifies the confusion with which those who are not climate scientists have to contend. The editorial reports some fairly trenchant criticism of the conclusions drawn by Dr Hansen in his most recent paper in PNAS. As Dr Hansen has a very high profile in Climate Science are the critics displaying excessive temerity in questioning such a guru or are they correct? Although Dr Weaver agrees with Dr Hansen others obviously do not. Is the paper “a muddle” and “not backed by persuasive evidence” as Dr Claudia Tibaldi contends or are her claims incorrect? Does Dr Hansen exaggerate the connection between global warming and weather extremes as is claimed by Dr Hoerling? Is Dr Hoerling’s claim that the paper is not “a serious science paper” correct? Certainly one surely could not quibble with his final comment that “perception is not a science”. Could one? Although articles such as this in the scientific literature typify the type of debate scientists hold on a variety of topics, their publication in the MSM, where the majority of readers probably are not scientists, could give the impression that the science of climate change might not be settled just yet.

    Comment by Ian — 8 Aug 2012 @ 4:46 AM

  976. @Chris #74

    “Anyone who dismisses PIOMAS in the terms you state is talking ‘carp’.”

    I did not mean to dismiss PIOMAS. Rather, I was soliciting the informed opinion as to what will be the resolution of the different rates of decline of volume and area/extent. Either the latter will start to collapse soon or the former will start bottoming out before hitting zero. I have no idea. There are differing views. Yours is quite persuasive. My only instinct on this is that if the apparent volume decline is correct, maybe we should have seen a sharper recent decline of area/extent already. How, for example, do we get a “virtually complete annihilation of grid boxes reporting thick ice” without a considerable loss of thin ice as well. Maybe it’s the thin ice on the periphery that is disappearing and the thick ice is spreading out to fill in, having lost its constraining border. That would make some sense. Anyway, exciting times. Thanks for the response.

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    Robert Frost

    Comment by dingibily — 16 Aug 2012 @ 3:51 PM

  977. @Chris #74,

    “Anyone who dismisses PIOMAS in the terms you state is talking ‘carp’.”

    I did not mean to dismiss PIOMAS, I simply wanted to solicit views on how the differing rates of volume decline and area/extent decline will be resolved. Will we see the first ice-free day in 6y or 30? Who will blink first? I’m guessing it will be in the middle. But we still see major studies leading to headlines like, “Scientists Predict Ice-Free Arctic by 2070,” and lots of other weighty commentary that it’s decades away. (Was that from MIT?) They’re talking a single ice-free day. No mention of plummeting PIOMAS. Are they even aware of it? Do they consider it nonsense? I’d like to know. The consensus here seems to be that PIOMAS is legit, or approximately so. Cool. What will the models be predicting when the ice is gone? Can’t wait.

    Here’s a corrected link to previously cited Ice Plots.

    Comment by dingibily — 16 Aug 2012 @ 11:40 PM

  978. Unsettled,

    I should have expected nothing less. Completely disregard the conclusions of the report in favor of one cherry-picked data point, which fits your own viewpoint. The report also shows that in-situ observations showed that 2009 was cloder than the 20th century average. But does that have any more meaning that your statement. As Susans says, “your reckless disregard for the truth is exceptional.”

    Comment by Dan H. — 17 Aug 2012 @ 1:58 PM

  979. Jeffrey @2,
    Insurance is the worst metaphor. Using that logic, we must all believe in God(s)

    Comment by Keith Woollard — 20 Aug 2012 @ 7:35 PM

  980. Let me word this differently and see if I can avoid the Bore Hole.
    Jeffrey @ #2, there is a real danger in promoting the insurance metaphor. There are any number of counter arguments to that logic. For example, I do not believe in a god, I do admit however that I may be wrong, and the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic (i.e. eternal damnation). So even though the chances of me being wrong are 1 in 1,000,000 the insurance arument means that I should still believe.

    The answer is not insurance, it is finding the truth

    Comment by Keith Woollard — 20 Aug 2012 @ 8:57 PM

  981. Im a a many year loyal reader of Real Climate. This is my first comment.
    Mike, I’ve always been fascinated with your work and look forward to your future research.
    I appreciate your review of Romm and “communicating”.
    I respectfully disagree with your advice.
    Right know I think scientists need eloquence. They should not “exaggerate”, (has that worked in the past?) Describing the climate as being on” steroids” has especially bad connotations.Insurane model doesn’t work either. If it did Geico and Progressive should stop advertising.
    I agree with with Tamino- “now is the time for unity”.
    Sad comments by people like Jeffrey Davis, “Nuremberg Trials” Do these people try to add or simply try be members of a club?

    jet

    Comment by Jet Halon — 20 Aug 2012 @ 9:32 PM

  982. I’m looking for a different objective, I don’t want to be persuaded but rather informed. I’ve heard a lot of repetition but not much information. To communicate with me please give me the information and sound logic.
    Our education system is all about teaching us to learn but not to think.
    Lets have a revolution of thinking not a bombardment of being told what to think.

    Comment by Maybury — 21 Aug 2012 @ 8:49 AM

  983. What is important for climate scientists is to know who their audience is.

    I have been following the global warming debate for a while now, and it is still not clear to me what alarmists want from those who disagree with them, other than see terrible things happen to them. If you want them reduce their carbon footprint, why not come up with other reasons to do that (health, financial, fun etc). It surprises me that alarmists still think people can be insulted into compliance.

    Im sure that if i wanted to know the color of a black board is and asked Marc Morano, hed buy me a beer and tell me its white, and if i were to ask a climate scientist, hed make me sell my house and pimp out my wife for the answer, and then only tell me that Morano is lying and sponsored by the beer industry.

    Comment by Tietjan berelul — 21 Aug 2012 @ 3:44 PM

  984. 109 prokaryotes

    Have you been to Roy Spencer’s blog lately? John Christy graphs the Tmax and Tmin temps for the US over the last 80 years. The Tmin temps records has been increasing but is now up to the level it had been in the 1930′s.

    Yes it is going up, will it continue to go up? Data not yet available. I think it would depend upon how much more the globe will warm. Lots of variations in that prediction.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Comment by Norman — 21 Aug 2012 @ 10:11 PM

  985. Ray Ladbury @47
    With respect the examples that you site are not what I’m talking about. They are separate pieces of research with their own engineering and marketing. What we are talking about is your product of AGW and climate change which those products you site are dependant on.

    Here’s a link to a Wikipedia for definition that I’ talking about:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_engineering

    The piece I site is as follows:
    “Product engineering usually entails activity dealing with issues of cost, producibility, quality, performance, reliability, serviceability and user features.”

    I believe that’s the focus needed to promote your theories and get them adopted more widely. If your interested I can give some of my professional opinions related to your specific product.

    Comment by Titus — 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:28 AM

  986. I do think some of the comments on this article have shown how NOT to communicate, as Eric makes clear earlier:

    “….This sort of talk simply helps convince others that those on the side of taking the climate change risk seriously are crazy ideologues. Comments of this sort tend to make me agree with them. Enough.–eric]”

    I guess this is the bloggers dilemma, anybody can read the comments beneath an article, so do you delete them or respond? (like Eric responded) especially if the comments are obviously on the same ’side’ (albeit at a more extreme)

    If the comments are a little ‘off the wall’, shall we say, like ‘criminality’ or ‘Nuremburg’ then you (the author or blog) may/will by some end up being judged by them. Unfairly.

    ie some responses seem to communicate totally negatively to a wider audience that read Realclimate, but may not comment much, ie criminality and assets taken..

    assets may only be siezed legally, only if a ‘crime’ (ie actual legal definition, not a ‘moral’ one) has happened,trial, etc and as for comments like Nuremburg trials that sort of rhetoric really does not help.

    I know many think that a climate catastrophy is on the horizon and the Nuremburg analogy has been used many times and for example Mark Lynas, who is on the Realclimate blog role said the following a while back (echoing Hari & Monbiot)

    Lynas (2006)
    “I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it.”

    yet a number of years later Mark Lynas had this to say
    Lynas (2011)
    “That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively led astray by him. Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.”

    Mark has gone on to say that ‘Deniers Halls of Shame’ are shameful, Mark was on the advisory board of one such groups.

    Lynas (2011)
    “…Barry, you are right that the ‘Sceptics Hall of Shame’ is itself shameful – I wonder if I can appear on it now whilst still being a board member of the Campaign Against Climate Change (in all honesty I’d forgotten that I was on the board – I never have anything to do with them!).
    I’ve checked and I’m still on the RealClimate blogroll… long may it continue!
    Mark”

    hopefully the more silly rhetoric can be toned down, and the community can take a lead in that and a more civil conversation can result (as eric has done)

    Mark and I had lunch a while back, presumably not something one does if you think they are morally comparable holocaust denial.

    (comment originally said spam – so have removed some urls to the quotes – google should find them – ie more than 2 urls, that may have cased the problem)

    Comment by Barry Woods — 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:35 PM

  987. The topic of whether squishy terms like “suggest” should be used speaks directly to the overstatement of certainty in the public sphere of climate science. Polls have shown that the public already believes the consequences of AGW has been overstated.

    Certainly Hansen can state his opinion on the certainty of his own results. It crosses the line when he makes definitive (not conditional) alarmist statements that infer that this is the consensus state of the science itself. His position at NASA allows him to speak from authority on this.

    It is my opinion that although this is demonstrably useful as a short term strategy (media ambush, headline seeking), it backfires in the long term with respect to credibility for climate science. This is because a person of high authority can be easily refuted by opponents (i.e. is this the best you got?).

    It is a very simple assertion that when claims of doom fail to materialize that subsequent claims will be taken with less regard.

    I respect that Hansen truly believes in his cause, and he backs that up with more realistic proposals than most (large scale conversion to nuclear power, etc.). I just don’t think overstating certainty and alarmism is the path to progress that requires support from both sides of the aisle.

    So what’s my solution? Cede the possibility of short term policy action as unwinnable for now, and treat this fight like a marathon, not a sprint. Support long term conversion to economically viable low carbon solutions. Rebuild credibility along the way, the alarmists are hurting you more than helping you.

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 23 Aug 2012 @ 11:33 AM

  988. I remember working on the IGY data back in the early ’60s. The study of climate change throughout the Pleistocene was a ‘hot’ topic way back then. I find it disturbing in all the hype about recent warming that people concentrate on a couple so centuries worth of weather data rather than hundreds of thousands or millions of years worth of climate data. When this current warming is put in the larger context it is not at all remarkable. There have been a number of periods like this throughout the recent earth history and much warmer periods if you go back a ways (geologically speaking).

    Comment by johne37179 — 23 Aug 2012 @ 6:41 PM

  989. “I cut off the graph at 500 A.D. so that the instrumental data wouldn’t be too squished to the right on the graphs.”

    Poop Eric, poop.

    [Response:With all due respect, all the data are available on line, and I provided the link. Plot the graph yourself if you want to do something different with it. --eric]

    Comment by PJ — 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:18 AM

  990. As soon as you invoke the word “Denial” or “Denialism” etc. you loose the argument due to Godwin’s Law.

    Comment by Mike Kenny — 24 Aug 2012 @ 11:19 AM

  991. Good point Chris. Previously, many have pointed to the ratio of record highs to record lows in the past decade as evidence of more extremes, without realizing that the ratio is largely driven by the decrease in record lows. In fact, earlier decades have seen a greater abundance of record highs than recently, but were offset by a large occurrance of record lows. This would show a naroowing of the temperatre range recently, resulting in an overall decrease in temperature extremes.

    Comment by Dan H. — 24 Aug 2012 @ 4:17 PM

  992. #142 sidd

    Understanding that CO2 blocks IR requires an understanding of how. Comprehending the isotopic signature of fossil fuel loading of the air requires an understanding of how. Grasping that CO2 warming leads to water vapor feedback requires an understanding of how. Seeing that applying a substantial fraction of a watt in radiative imbalance to every last square meter of the world will heat it up requires an understanding of how.

    Or you can just accept that others know best. (Like, you might say, fingers crossed).

    Comment by simon abingdon — 26 Aug 2012 @ 10:17 AM

  993. “Of course, the ozone hole didn’t exist before the 1970s,…”

    Hum! How could you be so sure of that? Measurements started only in the 1980′s and the precision was not so good. Today, numerous studies found that cold temperatures in the high atmosphere were responsible for that. That is why the cold atmosphere over the Arctic created one of the rarely seen ozone hole in 2011 (if my memory is exact).

    Comment by Papy Boomer — 26 Aug 2012 @ 2:26 PM

  994. I noticed you said west antarctic, which suggests an east/west division. how can that be? the continent is basically round with “comma” like peninsula. if you have to partition it would it not make more sense to either refer to the peninsula side or the large round side… or better yet the american side/AUSNZ side/afirican Side. The cold war was over 20 years ago.

    Comment by datu puki — 27 Aug 2012 @ 12:11 PM

  995. #148 Radge Havers

    “But it’s enough to see that AGW is real and serious”

    But it’s not necessarily A(GW) and not necessarily serious.

    So it (your little understanding) is not enough to see what you think you see, after all.

    Comment by simon abingdon — 29 Aug 2012 @ 12:30 AM

  996. What is the most important climate condition to keep tabs on?

    The global mean temperature trend:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/trend:1970/trend

    Comment by Girma — 31 Aug 2012 @ 7:55 AM

  997. Eek – chartjunk alert! Please, stick to real scientific graphics, with 0 on the y-axis, units of measure, etc., and leave the suggestive pictures to USA Today.

    Comment by Tom Fiddaman — 31 Aug 2012 @ 9:08 AM

  998. The most important indicators of climate are:
    1. The longest accurate temperature series (Central England) which shows 20th century warming is far from unprecedented
    2. global rainfall, which being far simpler than temperature is more accurate and less subject to measurement problems than temperature and being directly related to global heat transfer should be a good indicator of problems but shows no increase
    3. The trend of extreme weather events – which show no trend
    4. Solar activity which has more science backing it that any of this nonsense about feedbacks.

    Comment by Mike Haseler — 31 Aug 2012 @ 11:23 AM

  999. The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.

    Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain equal to 0.7%.

    This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.

    Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?

    [Response: Could someone explain why we care about that canary who only breathes 4% of the air a person does? Mysteries abound.... - gavin]

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 1 Sep 2012 @ 7:37 AM

  1000. Response: The AMO, as we have shown in numerous articles, has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere) average temperature. It’s largely a zero sum game because it mostly associated with changes in the transport of heat between regions.

    Hi Dr. Mann
    According to what I find
    - Zero sum game
    yes across 9-10 or 64-5 years, but necessarily not in between, unless a symmetrical section is selected
    - changes in the transport of heat between regions
    The SST changes trend direction almost simultaneously (within 1-2 years, across most of the North Atlantic, while e.g. subpolar gyre has cycle of about two decades. It is more likely that the AMOscillations are responsible for transport of heat in the vertical direction (from surface downwards) and it can be adequately represented as an amplification system (see link below)
    - has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere)
    The N.H. Tav (detrended) and the AMO are inextricably linked together (with high uncertainty of order of precedence) as I show here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    Since the ‘AMO’ type oscillations are detectable in other areas of the globe, the oscillations are most likely globally generated, but due the North Atlantic’s specific properties, their presence there is more evident.

    Comment by vukcevic — 1 Sep 2012 @ 3:41 PM

  1001. This is yet another example of the dangerous path one goes down when showing the “best possible presentation” of data. The shame here is that almost every reader on this blog understands what this graph looks like with a proper zero axis, we have all seen it before. So why show it this way? Why? At a very minimum at least put a numerical axis on it, even if you don’t zero base it.

    Realistically any graphing software will put this numeric axis on automatically, and you have to put *extra* effort in to remove it. So somebody out there determined it would be more effective without any numbers. Including the axis would apparently confuse somebody in what way?

    The point is that the graph is compelling enough without trying to enhance it. The “enhancements” just open it up to very predictable and legitimate criticism.

    How do you think people react if this is the first presentation they see, are intrigued, and then find out later a little trickery was used to enhance the effect?

    Does this graph truly show CO2 levels in the most honest way possible? Is it conveying truth?

    Comment by Tom Scharf — 2 Sep 2012 @ 3:31 AM

  1002. @41
    Ben Hocking says: 2 Sep 2012 at 8:01 AM

    Re: this summer rapid melt of the Arctic sea ice.
    Arctic explorers have noticed long time ago that storms by breaking and churning the sea ice turn it into slush, and at same time lift warmer waters from the depths of the Arctic Ocean, the sea ice will melt rapidly.
    Now we only need to know why there was so unusually strong Arctic storm in the first 10 days of August, one of only half a dozen or so in the last 30 summers.
    http://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/arcticstorm2.jpg?w=600&h=400&crop=1
    I assume some could say it is sign of global warming, CO2 etc, etc, etc.
    Arctic gets another kind of storms, namely geomagnetic storms.
    Take a look at top graph here
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
    it shows that in March-August period this year cumulative strength of geomagnetic storms was about 30-40% stronger than in 2011. Single storm of a medium strength packs as much energy as M6 earthquake, but that is not all.
    Another look at the graph shows that in 2011 geomagnetic storms energy was dissipated in the gentle shift of the Earth’s magnetic field, but from the mid March 2012 shift was minimal despite the stronger gm storms. Only a conducting substance could absorb the energy in form of heat and for some reason I suspect it was absorbed by the Arctic most saline section. Notably in addition to it the SST of the Arctic inflow is at peak (higher than in the previous years). We can only speculate if and why the additional energy may cause the ‘energy eruption’ to the surface and in doing so power the August Arctic storm, or if it was just a proverbial ‘flap of butterfly wings’

    You may find this in the ‘Bore Hole’

    Comment by vukcevic — 2 Sep 2012 @ 12:36 PM

  1003. Climate change and global warming are a real issue but what if, what we are experiencing is only a climate cycle and not a true upwards trend? data only goes back so far and so accuratly. I think this blog post might be a good read for concideration.
    http://stuffconservativeslike.net/global-warming-or-climate-change-we-dont-know/

    Comment by Scott — 6 Sep 2012 @ 11:34 PM

  1004. Re: response:
    ……..where wind stirring transfers warm water to depth, and then atmospheric fluxes restore the surface heat content. Those fluxes include solar radiation, latent and sensible heat as well as long wave radiation combined with mechanical stirring from winds and waves. – gavin]

    Dr. Schmidt, I assume there is also rapid mixing (on micro scale but across the total depth, compromising integrity of thermohaline layering) due to geomagnetic storms at high latitudes (e.g. the AMO- subpolar gyre)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SO.htm
    with movement all the way from surface through to the bottom, but it would vary in the intensity with the salinity. When a CME hits the Earth with a leading edge that is magnetized north it opens a breach and loads the magnetosphere with plasma starting a geomagnetic storm, inducing strong currents in any conducting medium (larger dimensions of the medium stronger is the effect).
    This is basis of what I named ‘geo-solar oscillations’, primarily generated in the North Atlantic and subsequently induced into the atmosphere, as depicted in here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    for more details email address on the graph.

    Comment by vukcevic — 8 Sep 2012 @ 8:56 AM

  1005. The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.

    Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain or equal to 0.7%

    This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.

    Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 9 Sep 2012 @ 5:45 AM

  1006. Well I guess the main error is subtracting the long term trend out of the data. However also the year to year change in global temperature attributable to greenhouse gases is less than 0.02C, which surely must be less than the measurement error in the global temperature value. (These values continue to be revised for a year or two, and often move up or down by more than 0.02C on revision.)

    When the error equals or exceeds the signal (over the alleged 9-12 month lag period), isn’t the result meaningless??? Aren’t you just measuring noise?

    Comment by Jbar — 12 Sep 2012 @ 11:32 AM

  1007. Dadiactylos,
    From 2008 to 2009, the minimum sea ice area increased from roughly 3 million to 3.5 million sq. km. Obviously some of the first-year ice survived well past its first birthday. Because of the resulting low minimum, there will be much more first-year ice this winter. Will all of it melt next summer, and generate a new low, or will some survive into 2014? There were many bold predictions after the 2007 minimum that the next year would brerak the minimum, but it took five years. I would not be surprised if we see a similar incident.

    Comment by Dan H. — 12 Sep 2012 @ 1:53 PM

  1008. Kevin,
    We were in really new territory in 2007 also, and look what happened subsequently. The large drop that year, prompted NASA scientists Jay Zwally to state that at the current rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free by 2012. What happened? The large one-year decrease was an anomaly, and the sea ice extent stayed in a narrow range for the next several years. This summer, we have a similar occurrance. We obviously disagree about whether the past is an indication of the future. So be it. You can be skeptical all you like about what Nature always seems to be doing, as it is probably the more prudent path. Reminds me of chaos theory.

    Comment by Dan H. — 13 Sep 2012 @ 6:32 AM

  1009. Lawrence,
    It is simple geometry. A constant decrease in area results in an exponential decrease in volume, owing to the added loss of thickness. A 30% reduction in area, leads to a 50% reduction in volume. The second 30% reductions, results in a volumetric losss of 33% loss of volume. The next 30% drop, yields a loss of only 5%. Considering the albedo effect, area is the more important factor.

    Comment by Dan H. — 14 Sep 2012 @ 12:14 PM

  1010. I see why Real Climate has a dismal reputation, it cherry picks the comments. What happened to my 3 other comments, particularly the one in response to Mr. MARodger@99? What’s a matter, afraid of a little sunshine?

    Comment by Scottar — 15 Sep 2012 @ 12:51 AM

  1011. Jim wrote “Where these people get off saying “it’s too late” and other defeatist crap I really have no idea. But they sure as hell don’t know what they’re talking about, and even if they did, they’d try to say something positive instead of promoting hopelessness if they were trying to actually help things.”

    Right Jim, say something positive. Say that after the US election Congress will start taking action to cut the US CO2 production. Say that they will see the folly of their ways and set up a new Kyoto treaty. Say the new Chinese president will pick up the phone and agree with Obama or Romney that he agrees to a treaty with binding commitments. Why, he may even agree to cut back on rice production in order to reduce methane emissions. And the Brazilians will throw their ranchers off the Amazonian land they have acquired and regrow the jungle.

    Or is your answer to close the coal mines and use natural gas for power generation. That will cut the CO2 emissions but not enough to stop Greenland melting, or to save the Arctic sea ice. When the sea ice disappears the global albedo will increase by 1%. How will that affect the climate? How will it affect agriculture and food supplies?

    What do you advocate? And what chance do you think you have that it will happen?

    Until scientists tell the public about the very real dangers we face the politicians will not act. So long as scientists such as yourself and Ray Ladbury refuse to face up to the urgency and to the impossibility of getting any action then we are all doomed.

    Cheers, Alastair.

    Comment by Alastair McDonald — 17 Sep 2012 @ 4:53 PM

  1012. Jeffrey,
    I strongly disagree with your concept of overselling global warming. Turn back the clock about 5 years to when the IPCC AR4 report and Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth movie came out. There was much hype concerning the consequences of rising atmospheric CO2 levels; Hurricane seasons like 2005 would become the norm, the Himalayas were melting at an alarming rate, sea levels were rising rapidly, inundating low-level areas and small islands, coral reefs were dying due to bleaching, the US would experience snowless winters (Hansen suggested that the Northeast ski operators look for a new line of work), and England would experience barbeque summers (people joked that this year’s summer Olympic games were a misnomer), etc. People listened attentively, and support for government action was at an all-time high.

    People were alarmed. However, in the intervening years, more data has been collected, revealing that many of these claims were unsubstantiated or exaggerated (i.e. the concept was oversold). Consequently, people withdrew their support, and have questioned the entire theory. Had scientists maintained the slow, but steady changes, instead of the catastrophic scenario, support may be much higher. Bad news sells, and catastrophic climate predictions generated widespread support. However, bad news also sells when it comes to errant predictions. Hence, public support has waned. You can place as much blame on your choice or organization as the culprit, but similar to this year’s election; the most damage is done, not by ones opponent, but by the candidates own words.

    Returning to the overselling approach is likely to have the same effect. “Those who don’t know history, are destined to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Sep 2012 @ 11:22 AM

  1013. Wili #295,

    “I think, ultimately, people end up feeling most hopeless and demoralized if they get the sense that absolutely everyone is telling them lies or massaging the data one way or the other, either for the disgusting reasons of the denialists, or for other nobler perhaps but still patronizing (at least) reasons.

    Churchill didn’t try to persuade the British people that an invasion by the Germans was impossible. He presented it as a clear probability, but in the face of this grim possibility, he also rallied his people with his famous “We will fight them on the beaches…” speech.

    I think that, rather than minimizing the possible grimness of future scenarios, we need to admit that the climatic equivalent of invasion is well within the realm of possibility, and start rallying people with similarly Churchillian fervor. I sense that this is something of what McKibben is hoping to do by focusing on the central culprits of the story–those profiting enormously from un-sequestering vast quantities of carbon which they know will be dumped into the atmosphere at no (immediate) cost to them.”

    These are extremely perceptive and insightful comments, especially in comparison with the drivel I have been receiving in response to my posts. I have been watching the DVD called The Unknown War. It documents the battles on the Eastern Front during WWII. In particular, what I found interesting were the responses and preparations taken by the citizens of Moscow, Leningrad, and Volgograd in advance of the German attacks. That is the type of response that we need, as a minimum, if we are to have any chance of warding off severe climate change.

    Now, as the DVD makes clear, in order to mount an appropriate response, three conditions are required. First, the threat needs to be identified in detail. Second, the people need to accept that the threat is serious. Third, the people need to be willing to do whatever it takes to counter the threat. Those three conditions were met in the battles mentioned.

    In climate change, the situation is different. While a threat has been identified, the seriousness of the threat has not been emphasized and conveyed to the public by the scientists, the media, or the politicians. Some of the public don’t even accept that there is a threat, a very small fraction appreciate the seriousness of the threat, and the bulk of the public probably accept there is some threat but it is not that serious. Finally, in terms of willingness to take action, a negligible amount of the public appears willing to take the harsh steps that offer any hope of countering serious climate change.

    I live in the Middle Atlantic States region. For the five days preceding yesterday, the weather was absolutely gorgeous for Summer, albeit late Summer. Low to mid-70s, sunny, low humidity, mild breezes. I was talking with neighbors about some of the studies I am presently doing in climate change, and tried to convey the seriousness of what I was finding. Climate change; they looked at me as though I was completely crazy. Look at this weather; if this is climate change, bring it on! I mentioned the rapid disappearance of the Arctic Summer ice, and they savored the possibility of soon taking a cruise to the North Pole in Summer. Some also liked the business opportunities the easier transport offerred.

    So, I don’t see the marshalling of resources to counter climate change (that was used to turn the tide at Moscow and Stalingrad) with present attitudes. By the time my region starts to really feel the effects of climate change, it will be far too late, if it is not too late already.

    Comment by Superman1 — 19 Sep 2012 @ 12:34 PM

  1014. @357 Jim Larsen:

    Rats and flies

    What’s with disparaging rats and flies? Rats are mammals, the same as you. Rats have a much better chance of surviving the mess we’ve made than we do. In the Jurassic, fleas were ten times larger than today. Their food got smaller but fleas adapted just fine. Opportunists are life’s scar tissue, always ready to fill in when the fancy stuff screws up. Humans are opportunists, and we’ve had quite a party so far. Cows and corn were invited to the party, lemurs not so much. Rats weren’t invited but they came anyway. We might be screwing up now, but never underestimate weeds, and even if we are, other weeds will pick up the slack pronto. Check out David Quammen’s famous article about David Jablonski, “Planet of Weeds.” According to Jablonski, “Biotic recoveries after mass extinctions are geologically rapid but immensely prolonged on human time scales.” Paleontology is a great antidote for anthropocentrism. Like Edward Greisch said, “Humans may be an intelligent species.” We’ll soon see.

    *from Jablonski’s 1991 Science paper, “Extinctions: A paleontological perspective”

    Comment by Chris Korda — 19 Sep 2012 @ 12:46 PM

  1015. Is the current rate of reduction in Arctic ice faster than the rate of increase in Antarctic ice?

    Comment by AJ — 19 Sep 2012 @ 1:03 PM

  1016. @357 Jim Larsen:

    species we can’t eat, exploit, or out-compete will thrive. Rats and flies…

    You make this sound like a disaster, but it’s normal behavior. Rats are mammals, the same as you. Rats have a much better chance of surviving the mess we’ve made than we do. In the Jurassic, fleas were ten times larger than today. Their food got smaller but fleas adapted just fine. Opportunists are life’s scar tissue, always ready to fill in when the fancy stuff screws up. Humans are opportunists, and we’ve had quite a party so far. Cows and corn were invited to the party, lemurs not so much. Rats weren’t invited but they came anyway. We might be screwing up now, but never underestimate weeds, and even if we are, other weeds will pick up the slack pronto. Check out David Quammen’s famous article about David Jablonski, “Planet of Weeds.” According to Jablonski, “Biotic recoveries after mass extinctions are geologically rapid but immensely prolonged on human time scales.” Paleontology is an excellent antidote for anthropocentrism. Humans may be an intelligent adaptive species. We’ll soon see.

    *from Jablonski’s 1991 Science paper, “Extinctions: A paleontological perspective”

    Comment by Chris Korda — 19 Sep 2012 @ 5:30 PM

  1017. The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.

    Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain or 0.7%

    This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.

    Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?

    Comment by Ken Lambert — 20 Sep 2012 @ 8:15 AM

  1018. MikeH (#82) I didn’t give the full quote from Professor Flannery as it wasn’t relevant to the point I was hoping to make nor did I say “he said the dams would never be full again”. From your comments I obviously didn’t make it clear that the comments attributed to Flannery by others have resonated with a large section of the Australian public who have had their property destroyed/seriously damaged by floods. You may recall the furore in SE Queensland about 4 years ago when the question of water recycling was a major issue. It isn’t now. This piece is discussing theNature editorial on extreme weather events. As I wrote in a reply to Suo, the highest recorded incidence of floods in Australia was in the early part of the 20th century. What I didn’t make clear to you , is that comments from those such as Professor Flannery can often do more harm than good. Your comment “The section of that quote that Ian cherry-picked has been used extensively in Australia in an attempt to discredit Flannery, a Climate Commissioner by claiming that he said the “dams would never fill again” eloquently confirms that.

    Comment by Ian — 23 Sep 2012 @ 10:55 PM

  1019. Alastair McDonald @91

    Wildfire increase in numbers and intensity may not have to do with Global Warming. I was listening to recent research (NPR) by a scientist who studies tree rings. In the tree ring record he found many fire scars.

    Wet and dry years are very common for many locations. You can look at the historical record for many cities and see this. The scientist noted that frequent fires in forests are normal. Before the philosophy of suppressing fires was developed, fires would break out, burn out the undergrowth, damage the trees but not kill them and a new growth cycle would start. With our current fire response the forests are now loaded with fuel. When fires start there is so much fuel, because of years of accumualtion, they burn out of control and kill trees. They are much bigger in area and intensity.

    Since there is a reasonable and rational alternative mechanism to explain our recent huge wildfires that does not require global warming (excessive fuel), I think it is premature to conclude the increase in wildfires is caused by global warming

    Comment by Norman — 24 Sep 2012 @ 4:07 PM

  1020. “… the odds of heat waves have shortened (and odds for cold snaps have decreased)”

    Perhaps a clearer statement would be that odds of heat waves have increased, while odds of cold snaps have decreased?

    I’m lacking in a scientific degree ..but from an observation standpoint all things go in cycles and the last time I check the universal law dictates that all matter migrates from hot to cold in the long run…..Global warming? will eventually become global cooling!

    Comment by mr mark — 25 Sep 2012 @ 7:11 AM

  1021. Don,
    A recent National Geographic article (Sept., 2012) detailed all the $1 billion + natural disasters to hit the U.S. in the past 30 years. The total cost approximately doubled in the more recent 15 years, compared to the previous. However, much of the cost was due to inflation and people moving into disaster-prone areas.

    The dollar cost of a natural disaster has less do to with the intensity, than the location. Irene is a classic example, as it made landfall in New York as a tropical storm. Since the devastating 2005 hurricane season, only six hurricanes have made landfall in the U.S., and no major hurricanes (Ike made landfall in 2008 as a strong category 2).

    I find it ironic that you claim that the 2010 Tennessee flood was a 1000-year event, when the Cumberland river in Nashville reached a higher level in 1927.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mississippi_Flood_of_1927

    Comment by Dan H. — 25 Sep 2012 @ 9:26 AM

  1022. Secular,
    Since the hyperactive 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the last six years have been close to average. Three have been above (2008, 2010, and 2011), while three have been below (2006, 2007, 2009).

    http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_ace.png

    As I mentioned earlier, the damages from cyclonic activity has more to do with where the storm strikes, than its intensity. Irene made landfall in New Jersey as a tropical storm, but caused significantly more damage in upstate New York and New England than Gustav, a strong category 2 hurricane, which came ashore in Louisiana. Both caused more damage than category 5 hurricane Dean, which came ashore in the sparsely populated Yucatan.

    Of course by focusing solely on the monetary damage caused bb North Atlantic hurricanes, you miss the point that Tom was making, i.e. that global cyclone energy is running near all-time lows:

    http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png

    Comment by Dan H. — 25 Sep 2012 @ 1:56 PM

  1023. Bob Tisdale has been arguing at wuwt that the AMO drives the trend in the amount of Arctic sea ice.

    Tamino
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/amo/

    Argues that GW drives the AMO.

    I have a concern with Tamino’s argument in the the AMO is a measure of SST’s, I’ve another problem in that SST’s (acording to wiki)seems to not be universally defined:
    “Sea surface temperature (SST) is the water temperature close to the ocean’s surface. The exact meaning of surface varies according to the measurement method used, but it is between 1 millimetre (0.04 in) and 20 metres (70 ft) below the sea surface. Air masses in the Earth’s atmosphere are highly modified by sea surface temperatures within a short distance of the shore.”

    I find it far easier to believe that ocean surface temperatures have a major impact on air temperatures (eg El Nino) than the opposite, even on a these longer time scales.

    Don’t bother pointing out that Arctic sea ice levels seem to have been fairly stable till about the 1990′s, we don’t have a good measure of volume before then.

    Perhaps the AMO simply explains why the sea ice decline has been far more rapid than IPCC projections.

    Comment by Andrew W — 26 Sep 2012 @ 12:02 PM

  1024. Andrew,
    Much work has been done correlating the changes in the Arctic with the AMO. See the following:

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/1748-9326_7_3_034011.pdf

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4002.1

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3462.1

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Sep 2012 @ 12:53 PM

  1025. 245 JCH says:
    ……
    I am clearly referring to the North Hemisphere’s natural variation, which you will find is different to the South Hemisphere’s and hence the global, although I would question validity of adding two. Here:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    you can see that red line peak in late the 1880s is at exactly same value as in 2005.
    NASA is hinting at something which I have worked out some time ago and in some detail, identifying the sources, providing numerical confirmation, details of viable mechanism will be shortly published.

    Comment by vukcevic — 8 Oct 2012 @ 1:43 PM

  1026. How come the videos have not included the comparison between the observed and projected global mean surface temperature?

    Comment by Girma — 13 Oct 2012 @ 7:23 AM

  1027. Can a girl ask some rather basic questions here …?

    (1) Shortwave-in/longwave-out.
    Is this part of the standard theory? ie is visible light thought to heat the earth? Or is it longwave-in/longwave-out?

    (2) Let us here grant that
    - greenhouse gasses absorb and retransmit longwave well,
    - some of which comes direct from the sun (A),
    - and some of which is indirect, upwelling from the earth
    - and some of the latter is then directed earthwards (B).

    Is it possible to experimentally distinguish at the earth’s surface, between the (A) and (B) sources of longwave (and hence of sources of heating of the earth) ? Seems highly relevant to the attribution argument.

    (3) Ultimately, is the mechanism by which the earth is said to be warmed by additional CO2
    (a) The back-radiation to the earth ?
    (b) The warming of the atmosphere, which slows down the earth’s cooling?
    (c) Both? If so, is the split 50-50 or something else?

    Comment by Erica — 14 Oct 2012 @ 3:17 AM

  1028. [Response: This is just more wishful thinking. No source is given for your conclusion, no reference to the obvious contradiction to the long tidal gauge or satellite records, no assessment of the precision of the original source (i.e. would you expect an additional 10 to 15 inches to show up on a global bathymetry map?) etc. etc. Please up your game if you want to be taken seriously. - gavin]

    The British Admiralty charts are navigational charts, drawn in a time of wooden ships and iron men. Their accuracy is well established by usage, with untold millions of miles traveled over a span of hundreds of years. Most US charts were drawn from the BA charts, as are the charts used by most of the countries of the world.

    The BA charts were drawn to a depth precision of 1 foot within the 1 fathom line, and to a precision of one fathom beyond that. Thus, to establish if there has been a change in sea level of 10-15 inches, one need only compare the BA charts to current bedrock shorelines, using the appropriate tidal datum.

    There are no tidal gauge records or satellites that cover the world as it was 200-300 years ago. The BA charts in contrast show the ocean depths across virtually the entire globe, at a period in which there are no other records. The advantage of these charts is that the require no complicated or uncertain proxies. If you want to establish if sea level has changed over a period of 200-300 years, look at the BA charts for your coastline.

    Comment by wei pong — 15 Oct 2012 @ 9:11 PM

  1029. Veeeerrrrryyy Interesting these sea level ups and downs. Allow me to interject the factor of Receding Sea Levels into the equation. We have been so busy hypothicating sea level rise as a direct result of Global Warming that we have totally overlooked the Receding Sea reality. See http://www.youtube.com “The Mysterious Receding Seas”By Richard Guy Tel;347-290-5300.

    Comment by Richard Guy — 15 Oct 2012 @ 9:25 PM

  1030. Sea Levels are receding not rising. Isostatic Rebound is false. Global Warming is not making sea levels rise because they are receding and have been doing so back into prehistory. Darwin was wrong on many things and land uplift is false. It is the sea that is receding not the land rising??????? Richard Guy 347-290-5300
    If you can show me sea level rise I can show you sea level recession.

    Comment by Richard Guy — 16 Oct 2012 @ 8:16 AM

  1031. This area of Pacific is geologically active, about two years ago I collected some data plotted couple of graphs which show some correlation with the ENSO.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm

    Comment by vukcevic — 17 Oct 2012 @ 6:28 AM

  1032. Rob,

    What erroneous opinion do you think I am furious trying to support? That sea level rise has not been constant over time? I would be happy to entertain any research which shows that I am wrong. Funny how you are quick to ridicule that which you misunderstand.

    Chris,
    Yes, periods of rising temperatures has correlated quite well with rising seas. The highest increases recently have been aligned with the 30s and 90s. I would expect any future large temperature increase to be accompanied by a correspondingly large sea level rise.

    Craig,
    No and No. Sea level rise in the past decade has decelerated, and poses no immediate concern. I have never denied that humans have influenced climate. Do you not see that I have attempted to emphasize exactly what this article is about, and it flew right over so many people’s heads?

    Comment by Dan H. — 17 Oct 2012 @ 3:49 PM

  1033. Hi Gavin.

    I don’t propose to tell you, or anybody else, what they should be working on — but my opinion is that researching contrarian memes is certainly not without value. Only you can say how that value compares to the other tasks competing for your time.

    I do not need to tell you about the large quantities of junk science that pervades the internet, much of it is hard for the non-expert to differentiate from the more reputable stuff. A little bit of guidance can be priceless.

    In fairness, the more sceptical amongst us do not have a monopoly on bad science. There are a few bad examples¹ on the orthodox side of things, too.

    An interesting point from your research. The observed sea level rise of between 2.0 and 7.7 mm/year is certainly significant, but appears somewhat short of the multi-metre predictions that sometimes appear from our more enthusiastic² brethren³. A 100 year sea level rise of 200mm bears watching but probably doesn’t justify wholesale evacuations. At the high end 770mm will almost certainly cause problems in the pacific islands, but again it will probably not require depopulation. Of course that’s a regional effect and other regions may be much worse. I guess time will tell.

    [1] For example see: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
    [2] For example see: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/21/516171/sea-level-rise-it-could-be-worse-than-we-think.

    [3] I use the term brethren in the gender-free context. Some of my favourite climate scientists are of the female persuasion.

    Comment by Michael J — 17 Oct 2012 @ 6:11 PM

  1034. 34
    Lionel A says:
    15 Oct 2012 at 2:19 PM
    wei pong @26
    You may just learn something from watching this:
    =======
    Thanks but that doesn’t address the issue I raised.

    Every nautical chart has a datum correction. They show lat/long corrections to reflect improved clocks and GPS, but they have no datum correction for global sea level rise. Since the charts are drawn to an depth accuracy of 1 feet this suggests that global sea level rise is not significant at that scale.

    Comment by wei pong — 17 Oct 2012 @ 8:09 PM

  1035. Marco,
    Again, the main argument that I put forth (in my rebuttal to Martin), was that a linear rate of 2 mm/yr would averaged out to the sea level rise over the past 8000 years. Some have countered that the actual time frame should be closer to 10,000, but that is a minor issue. For whatever reason, some people have been critical of the exact sea level rise that has occurred during a period of rapid melting, that they have lost sight of the issue at hand. Tectonic movement is an issue in any measurement of sea level rise, the lower the increase, the greater the tectonic influence in the values.
    Extrapolating trends can be a foolish venture, if the underlying causes change. Much of the rise in the past century and a half can be attributed to melting in many alpine glaciers. This has subsided in many cases, as the glaciers have receded to heights that restricts further melting. Sea level rise would be expected to accelerate again, if we return to the temperature increase experienced in the 30s and 90s – both eras of increasing sea level rise.

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Oct 2012 @ 11:59 AM

  1036. Marco,
    Again, the main argument that I put forth (in my rebuttal to Martin), was that a linear rate of 2 mm/yr would average out to the estimated sea level rise over the past 8000 years. Some have countered that the actual time frame should be closer to 10,000, but that is a minor issue. For whatever reason, some people have been critical of the exact sea level rise that has occurred during a period of rapid melting, that they have lost sight of the issue at hand. Tectonic movement is an issue in any measurement of sea level rise, the lower the increase, the greater the tectonic influence in the values.
    Extrapolating trends can be a foolish venture, if the underlying causes change. Much of the rise in the past century and a half can be attributed to melting in many alpine glaciers. This has subsided in many cases, as the glaciers have receded to heights that restricts further melting. Sea level rise would be expected to accelerate again, if we return to the temperature increase experienced in the 30s and 90s – both eras of increasing sea level rise.

    Comment by Dan H. — 18 Oct 2012 @ 8:23 PM

  1037. Chris,
    Excellent summary, although I made no forward going statment. I am not sure that I could decipher your quoted trend from the referenced link, but it does show 225mm of rise over 140 years, with a few hesitations in the 1880s, 1920sm and 1960s. The highlighted trend is slightly lower than that observed in the 1940s.

    Jim,
    Excellent analogy, and I think it hammers home my point quite effectively.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Oct 2012 @ 12:33 PM

  1038. Craig,
    Sorry if the answer is rather confusing, but several posters have muddied the entire issue since the original posts. It is almost as if they are trying to prove that sea levels did not rise after the last glaciation ended.

    You asked if thought that the acceleration caused any concern. I answered no because the rate is low, 2mm/yr, and the acceleration that occurred appears to have abated. I agreed that sea level rise accellerated, it actually accellerated twice during the 20th century, with a slowing in between and afterward. Hence my comment about not at the present rate. Should SLR accelerate significantly in the future, then I may change my stance.

    Comment by Dan H. — 19 Oct 2012 @ 8:38 PM

  1039. Reporter John Hockenberry’s repeated references to the bogus “97 percent scientific consensus,” and Frontline’s deliberate blurring of Dr. Edward Teller’s signature on the Oregon Petition, suggests that PBS was less than forthright in their presentation. If the truth is on your side, why rely on deception?

    Comment by Jack Maloney — 25 Oct 2012 @ 8:46 AM

  1040. jim,
    You are proabably right in that this thread has run its course. My opinion has changed on SLR; several years ago, in fact, when it began to slow, and became apparent that it would not accelerate dramatically in the coming decades.

    [Response:This is where you go wrong - thinking that the future is simply a linear extrapolation from short term noise. Doesn't work in the stock market, doesn't work in climate. - gavin]

    I am always leary when someone “adjusts” the raw data to achieve a certain look.

    [Response: And I am always leary when people make insinuations of misconduct simply because they don't like a scientific result. Don't do that. - gavin]

    I have seen ENSO-adjusted SLR graphs that range from continued acceleration to one that is almost flat. This usually occurs when someone adjusts for either El Nino or La Nina only. My current stance is that SLR began in the early 20th century (possibly late 19th) and continues to this day. There have been periods of increased and decreased rate of rise, corresponding to periods of rapid and negligible warming. The overall rate has not changed considerably over that timeframe. That is not to say that it could not do so in the future. Some people appear to only accept that which agrees with their own pre-conceived opinions, and deny the rest.

    [Response: yup. ]

    Time magazine had an excellent article on this last week, concerning the 2012 election. It could be applied equally here. There are those who see only the acceleration that occurred in the 1990s, those who see only the deceleration since, but very few who can see both. Regardless of the reasons (and ENSO seems very plausible for the increases and decreases), we need to remove our blinders and view this objectively.

    [Response: Maybe you could give that a try? - gavin]

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Oct 2012 @ 7:08 AM

  1041. The program doesn’t acknowledge a simple fact. Most people do not read these right wing blurbs or media distributions. They look around them and see that nothing is happening. The facts are that temperatures are not changing as fast as predicted and as the MET admitted have literally been flat for 16 years. This places great doubt in the minds of people and makes it hard to argue with those who don’t believe that temperatures near the surface in the sky or in the ocean, sea levels will suddenly soon take a never seen before discontinuous acceleration of 4 or 5 times the current rate. Most people will need more than computer models to believe the world will suddenly do this as climate scientists believe. Most people have not invested so much in their career or in developing computer models that show such a massive sudden discontinuous spike so they take a wait and see attitude We need the data to back up the models so that effective arguments can be made otherwise we are left to slandering the skeptics and associating them with evil intent as our only defense against their arguments.

    Comment by Johnny matson — 26 Oct 2012 @ 11:04 AM

  1042. The comments by the poster were wrong but the fact is we can argue all we want that he’s not precisely right but the fact is we aren’t precisely right either. The reason skepticism is so rampant is clearly that the predictions we’ve made are not coming true at the rate predicted. I watched a PBS program just a few weeks ago that said it was expected that sea levels will rise one foot from Antarctic melting, one foot from landlocked mountainess glacier melting and one foot from sea warming but e facts are we are actually getting closer to 6 inches total from all 3 or 1/6th of our predictions and the Antarctic may actually be zero or even negative contribution. GRACE showed that’ mountaineers glaciers were contributing at 1/4 the rate we predicted and since sea temps have stagnated for 11 years there is no expansion due to thermal effects. As a result sea levels have actually been decelerating hardly bolstering our argument. We need to be able to predict these things better or explain why they are wrong and not make such wild statements without more research.

    Comment by Johnny matson — 26 Oct 2012 @ 11:30 AM

  1043. Johnny,
    Agreed. However, many people so not want to hear that, and insist that they are correct, and the data is somehow wrong. Sticking their heads in the sand will not help, and claiming conspiracy is no good either.

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Oct 2012 @ 1:02 PM

  1044. Tom,
    I do not see how the question “tripped him up.” It was an honest answer, that anyone who is proven wrong should readily admit. That would be a good question to ask someone on either side of the debate.

    Isotopious,
    I am quite sure that if he felt that he could woo more voters than he would lose, that he would jump in with both feet. His silence on the matter, would indicate otherwise.

    Comment by Dan H. — 26 Oct 2012 @ 4:21 PM

  1045. You all realize that wether it is 2.3 or 3 or 3.7 we are talking INCHES in a century. For 3 feet which is what all the alarmists have been telling us it needs to be 37mm/year or at least 10-20mm/year which is 5-10 times the most extreme rate we’ve seen. that rate would need ro be sustained for 90 years or more. I have seen studies which show that the maximum melt rate is limited by the ability of the water to egress to the ocean and calculated that this is well below the 10-20mm/year rate. So the idea there is going to be a discontinuous sudden acceleration of sea level rise to 5 or 10 times the current rate seems unattainable and therefore why are we changing so much to prevent something that we know can’t be significant. It’s like talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

    Comment by Johnny matson — 27 Oct 2012 @ 1:26 PM

  1046. 689 Hank R said, “Jim, citations needed.”

    Uh, I don’t think I said anything which required cites. Got an example?

    Comment by Jim Larsen — 27 Oct 2012 @ 8:28 PM

  1047. Johnny,
    Do not let facts get in the way of a good story.

    Comment by Dan H. — 27 Oct 2012 @ 11:01 PM

  1048. Let’s accept the ‘Given Wisdom’ hook, line and sinker. We’ll all
    believe for the moment that ‘ScienceIsSettled’™ and we are all of
    us gone ‘PastTheTippingPoint’™ as far as any foreseeable future.

    If the climate science is settled, then climate science is DEAD!
    What do we need to hire anymore ice watchers for? Second opinion?
    Oh, wait, the CONSENSUS OF ALL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS says no we don’t.
    They’re now as much a nuisance as a noisesome ex-spouse next door.

    Wait, that’s not what we meant when we said we are past the tipping
    point! And while we have no causative evidence of AGW, we are going
    to tithe-tax every human anyway, and starve the majority of humanity,
    even though we have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE HOW TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING.

    If we are ‘past the tipping point’ then fire all the climate scientists
    and put them to work as day labor sandbagging, which they’re good at,
    or spoking bamboo bicycles or polishing solar panels or obnoxticating
    on some Sunday Climate Blog, how we all have to pass the plate again.

    Really! THINK LOGICALLY. If the science is settled, why pay ice watchers?
    If you have Stage IV cancer, why pay for more lab tests? AGW is just WMD
    Ad Infinitum. Please make your prayers, pay your tithes and move along.

    Nothing to see here.

    Comment by Chip H — 30 Oct 2012 @ 6:31 AM

  1049. JBowers,

    “Three or four[papers] are sceptical”

    There’s considerably more than that JB, Judith Curry publishes as many as that on her own (although she doesn’t categorize herself as a “sceptic” she is nevertheless critical of the “alarmist” tendancy within othodoxy). Also, many of the mainstream papers that you cite are actually supportive of the sceptic position, Tropical Hurricane frequency/Intensity etc – not as bad as we once thought papers.

    I do think the programme was a step in the right direction for PBS. The recent Anthony Watts appearance caused quite a stir on the blogoshere, not for what he said, but rather that he was given air time at all!

    So some exposure of the sceptic position is welcome. As mentioned before though, PBS did “pitch” it as political/ideological opposition rather than the very real problems with the concensus/orthodoxy as it stands.

    I think Joe Bast expressed it quite well.

    “Rather than examining the scientific debate directly – “looking under the hood,” as we like to say here at The Heartland Institute – he decided to rely uncritically on the claims of a few alarmists pretending to speak for “climate science.” That choice ultimately makes “Climate of Doubt” a biased and unreliable guide to the scientific debate.”

    Indeed.

    Comment by GSW — 30 Oct 2012 @ 11:33 PM

  1050. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011:
    (F&R) claim that the adjusted temperature series represents
    the true global warming signal (with reduced “noise”), and
    that “the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval (1970-2010)”.
    In this way, they argue against the claim that the warming
    rate has abated in recent years. Now they produced the adjustments
    by performing an OLS regression on volcanic, ENSO and TSI signals,
    *plus a linear term*. Then when they subtracted the fitted volcanic/ENSO/TSI,
    their adjusted temperature looks linear.
    Of course it does — that was the remaining term in the regression.
    It’s a silly curve fitting exercise.

    The new hockeystick?

    Comment by Stewie — 1 Nov 2012 @ 3:22 PM

  1051. Based on 0.17C/decade, 2100 becomes 1.4C warmer than today. Significant, but not part of the more extreme projections/scenarios.

    If the more extreme scenario were to happen, then soon the rate will have to go up beyond 0.17C/decade. Right now we look to be in the up-down neither cooling nor warming place for a while, maybe minimum to 2015. And still CO2 is going up, and if the Chinese have success with their economy, it will be going up faster.

    All this means that within a couple of years we will have to see stronger temperature movements to conclude that “reasonable” CO2 management will do something worthwhile. Turning off fossil fuel without going nuclear ain’t gonna do it.

    The alternative view is to see 1975 to about 2010 as a curvi-linear change on the “up” side of a cycle. Which means that the pause right now is not really a pause in an upward trend as postulated, but the mathematically correct “flat” you get by clipping off the top of a curve that is about to go down.

    Within three years we will be in a clear position to be worried about CAGW or worried that the CO2-forcing models are seriously flawed.

    The last three years went quickly. Let’s see what the next three do. I can’t be the only one to note the time-frame; I’m sure the politicians are waiting things out also.

    Comment by Doug Proctor — 1 Nov 2012 @ 6:47 PM

  1052. Craig,
    I f you do not want to have an honest discussion, then that is fine by me. On the other hand, if you do, then you need to acknowledge what has occurred and not make up your own facts. I have watched the MItrovica tape, and discussed parts of it already. I agreed with Mitrovica (and you in your last post) than measured sea level rise accelerated after the launch of the Topex satellite. This is past tense. Since the launch of the Jason satellites, SLR has slowed – which you deny, but has been acknowledged by several other posters here. Perhaps you believe that NASA cherry-picked the date for the Jason launch, just so you could ignore the data. You choose one straight line analysis for your arguement, and then ignore anyone else who tries to show something different. Just who is ignoring reality here?

    Then you come out with the blatant lie that I want to avoid acknowleding that ocean phenomena affect SLR. Are you with the Romney camp? Look how many times I have stated this, and said that the recent La Nina is a plausible explanation for the recent slowing – which you deny anyway.

    I like your “hogwash” that sea levels did not rise 16m over the past 8000 years. I presume that you think this data is in error.

    http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/holocene_sea_level-incl-trend.png

    Of course, 8000 years, was just where the line on this graph intersects the rapid rise since the last icea age terminated. The actual rise in the order of 125m. Or perhaps you deny that also.

    http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/post-glacial_sea_level-incl-3-mm-yr-1-trend.png

    Comment by Dan H. — 2 Nov 2012 @ 6:21 AM

  1053. Walter,
    Why was August, 1975 selected? Recent temperature values fall above and below the long term trend starting in 1880. Therefore, should we conclude that temperatures will continue rising at 0.6C/century? On the other hand, if 15 years is not long enough to conclude that a slowdown has occurred, how long would temperatures need to show no increase, before you are willing to acknowledge a slowdown? This question was asked in a slightly different way on the short term trend thread. Instead of a specified time frame, how about if the observed temperatures fall below the CMIP3 modelled trends as depicted in the same thread?

    Comment by Dan H. — 2 Nov 2012 @ 9:59 AM

  1054. The scientific method is to test the predictions that follows logically from theories. If the predictions are wrong then the theory is wrong. It is not scientific to add “reasonable limits” that do not follow logically from the premise and that prevents testing against observable facts. But nor is it scientific to lump one theory with a theory that has a different premise just because they are somewhat similar and assume that they make the same predictions either. Willingness to guess wildly and subsequently admit error is thus crucial for science. Ergo, any pressure to save face is antiscientific and antiintellectual. So is the “scientific community” really scientific at all, with all of its academic hierarchy, credit and discredit? Obviously the “scientific community” is full of antiscientific pressure. There are some cases where official “scientific” papers have published new theories and observations that do not fit into existing theories, of course. But then, most if not all organizations contain people who leak secret information too. And with all that antiscientific pressure around in the “scientific community”, there is no reason to think that something must be bullshit just because (most of) the “scientific community” boycots it. Read the theory instead. If it is bullshit, it either makes false predictions or is too vague to make any predictions at all. So just test the theories! To do real science, start sharing theories and observational/experimental results outside the Machiavellian academia, informally (such as on Pure Science Wiki). Also share advice on how to make scientific equipment as cheaply as possible. Why do some brain damaged patients recover while others with the same brain damage do not? Metastudies by Kurt Fischer, Christina Hinton et al. shows that the key is tolerant environments. This agrees with Francisco Lacerda’s theory that the reason why children learn language easily is because they do not fear being wrong, just like non-prejudiced scientists. The fact that the tolerant environment factor works even way past the end of all supposed “learning windows” also shows that there is no such thing as an immutable “shame instinct” either. Research about ancient climates prove that abrupt climate change have been common, so fixedness is and have always been incompatible with survival. There is evidence, especially from domestication research, showing that evolution can very rapidly select on individual variation and turn it into group differences. Thus there is a contradiction between nature explanations of individual psychiatry and nurture explanations of ethnic differences. There must be some missing methodological factor. Since racist discrimination is a form of intolerance often associated with other forms of intolerance, studies of ethnic differences effectively takes the tolerant environment factor into account, explaining why nurture explanations prevailed in studies of ethnic differences. But studies of individual psychiatry have, at least before Kurt Fischer’s and Christina Hinton’s metastudy, not taken the tolerant environment factor into account, explaining why nature explanations prevailed there. It is well-established that there was/is anomalies from the nature model of individual psychiatry, but people ignorant of the metastudy lumps everything into one statistic and dismiss the minority of cases as “anecdotical”. Real science is about finding the pattern behind the anomalies to de-anecdotize them, just like Kurt Fischer and Christina Hinton did. And considering how stupid behavior is destroying the world (just look at pollution and deforestation!), this research about possibilities to change behavior to a rational form is invaluable. The fact that the plasticity only applies if the environment is tolerant means that there is no reason to fear that dictators will abuse the plasticity whatsoever.

    Comment by Martin J Sallberg — 3 Nov 2012 @ 10:54 AM

  1055. Gavin, I have cherry picked a suitable chunk of data for you to rerun your impressive analysis.

    The un-screened data is here:

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann2009b/sstall.txt

    The data from 1327 to 1463 (136years) shows a nice cooling trend, however, there is no annual variability.

    To add suitable noise, simply use the monthly gistemp data (say from 1950 onwards), remove the trend in gistemp by taking monthly differences, and add the base yearly value obtained from the data above to each monthly value corresponding to that particular year.

    Then you will be able to construct the skeptical science -like escalator, or just objectivly add 10 year linear trends one after the other (as I did).

    Cheers.

    Comment by Isotopious — 3 Nov 2012 @ 4:41 PM

  1056. It seems that scientists are adverse to alligning with either political party.

    http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de

    Comment by Dan H. — 3 Nov 2012 @ 7:23 PM

  1057. Just to add to my bored comment,

    1)In principle variability expressed in gistemp today may not be all that different from variability that existed in the past (Occum’s razor).

    2)The cooling trend in the data may or may not have existed
    .
    3)Although adding 1 + 2 together is purely a speculative exercise, contrary to comments made in the recent PBS documentary, speculation is science, and denial of science is purely subjective.

    Comment by Isotopious — 3 Nov 2012 @ 7:35 PM

  1058. “Trend is the ordinary least squares fit to the data – not just the anomaly this month minus the anomaly in 1997. And the trend from august 1997 is 0.033ºC/dec, which is the lowest you can get from any point prior to 2000. From Feb 1998, it is 0.042ºC/dec (95% conf is about +/-0.04ºC/dec). There is no doubt that he picked that start date for that reason.”

    – But Rose is claiming the “slight warming trend” has now been erased, so it would appear he is subtracting the anomaly (the graphic used in the article shows a “0.5″ start and a “0.5″ endpoint) and not calculating trends in the statistical sense. Regardless, this is complete immaterial as we are talking about hundredths of a degree over a short time frame with error bars that make the difference absolutely meaningless. You and I have no disagreement here.

    “This is the fallacy of the single determinant of climate. CO2 is not the only thing that matters! There are however statistical reasons why 1975 is a break point – breaking the trend there provides a substantially better fit over the whole record (not true for Aug 1997), and if you look at when anthropogenic effects came out of the ‘noise’ of global temperatures, it is about the same time (fig 9.5 WG1 AR4). But if you want to look at longer datasets, go ahead.”

    – I’m not suggesting CO2 is all that matters. Perhaps I should have worded it GHG instead of simply CO2, but I believe my question to be a valid concern. Comment #32 rather childishly attempts to criticize my general curiosity (and cites a “law” with which I was previously unfamiliar, but thanks for that nicety), but the statement that aerosols ceased to “mask” GHG forcing circa 1975 because of US-specific acts is baseless as forcing from anthropogenic sulfate in models I’ve come across show no distinguishable sign of change in rate from the years preceding 1975 to the years following. Additionally, determining a detailed number for overall aerosol forcing appears quite difficult (with substantial error ba