Subscribe from £1 per week

Subscribe
Menu
Close

Features

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic

davidrose

28 November 2015

28 November 2015

It is safe to predict that when 20,000 world leaders, officials, green activists and hangers-on convene in Paris next week for the 21st United Nations climate conference, one person you will not see much quotedis Professor Judith Curry. This is a pity. Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none, and in America she has become a public intellectual. But on this side of the Atlantic, apparently, she is too ‘challenging’. What is troubling about her pariah status is that her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology, let alone funding by fossil-fuel firms, but from solid data and analysis.

Some consider her a heretic. According to Professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, a vociferous advocate of extreme measures to prevent a climatic Armageddon, she is ‘anti-science’. Curry isn’t fazed by the slur.

‘It’s unfortunate, but he calls anyone who doesn’t agree with him a denier,’ she tells me. ‘Inside the climate community there are a lot of people who don’t like what I’m doing. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it. But the debate has become hard — especially in the US, because it’s become so polarised.’ Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter, and human beings are to blame. They like to reduce the uncertainties of climate science and climate projections to Manichean simplicity. They have managed to eliminate doubt from what should be a nuanced debate about what to do.

Professor Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear.

Claim your gift


In the run-up to the Paris conference, said Curry, much ink has been spilled over whether the individual emissions pledges made so far by more than 150 countries — their ‘intentional nationally determined contributions’, to borrow the jargon — will be enough to stop the planet from crossing the ‘dangerous’ threshold of becoming 2°C hotter than in pre-industrial times. Much of the conference will consist of attempts to make these targets legally binding. This debate will be conducted on the basis that there is a known, mechanistic relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how world average temperatures will rise.

Unfortunately, as Curry has shown, there isn’t. Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles. Until 2007, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a ‘best estimate’ of 3°C. But in its latest, 2013 report, the IPCC abandoned this, because the uncertainties are so great. Its ‘likely’ range is now vast — 1.5°C to 4.5°C.

This isn’t all. According to Curry, the claims being made by policymakers suggest they are still making new policy from the old, now discarded assumptions. Recent research suggests the climate sensitivity is significantly less than 3˚C. ‘There’s growing evidence that climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the spectrum, yet this has been totally ignored in the policy debate,’ Curry told me. ‘Even if the sensitivity is 2.5˚C, not 3˚C, that makes a substantial difference as to how fast we might get to a world that’s 2˚C warmer. A sensitivity of 2.5˚C makes it much less likely we will see 2˚C warming during the 21st century. There are so many uncertainties, but the policy people say the target is fixed. And if you question this, you will be slagged off as a denier.’

Curry added that her own work, conducted with the British independent scientist Nic Lewis, suggests that the sensitivity value may still lower, in which case the date when the world would be 2˚C warmer would be even further into the future. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainties of climate projection mean that values of 4˚C cannot be ruled out — but if that turns out to be the case, then the measures discussed at Paris and all the previous 20 UN climate conferences would be futile. In any event, ‘the economists and policymakers seem unaware of the large uncertainties in climate sensitivity’, despite its enormous implications.

Meanwhile, the obsessive focus on CO2 as the driver of climate change means other research on natural climate variability is being neglected. For example, solar experts believe we could be heading towards a ‘grand solar minimum’ — a reduction in solar output (and, ergo, a period of global cooling) similar to that which once saw ice fairs on the Thames. ‘The work to establish the solar-climate connection is lagging.’

Curry’s independence has cost her dear. She began to be reviled after the 2009 ‘Climategate’ scandal, when leaked emails revealed that some scientists were fighting to suppress sceptical views. ‘I started saying that scientists should be more accountable, and I began to engage with sceptic bloggers. I thought that would calm the waters. Instead I was tossed out of the tribe. There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do. Since then, I’ve stopped judging my career by these metrics. I’m doing what I do to stand up for science and to do the right thing.’

She remains optimistic that science will recover its equilibrium, and that the quasi-McCarthyite tide will recede: ‘I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much. Maybe then there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’ She even hopes that rational argument will find a place in the UN: ‘Maybe, too, there will be a closer interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers. Wouldn’t that be great?’

David Rose writes for the Mail on Sunday.

Last chance. Save 40% on an annual subscription. Plus receive a free gift worth £20. Buy now.

Tagged, , , , ,
Show comments
  • Rik Myslewski

    Might it be quite possible that the reason that Curry’s analyses are dismissed by the vast majority of reputable climate scientists is simply that they are simplistic and incorrect? Just because she reads data in ways that mainstream science finds erroneous doesn’t make her “independent,” as this article asserts — more obviously, Occam’s Razor indicates that the more likely reason is that she is, quite simple, wrong.

    Which, in fact, she is. As much as the denialists would love to have a heroine fighting a “quasi-McCarthyite tide,” they’re simply lionizing a sincere but ineffective researcher whose analyses are faulty.

    Nothing to see here, move along…

    • WFB56

      Her analysis isn’t dismissed, because its supported by accepted data; but, she doesn’t get the desired answer to keep the climate change gravy train rolling. Not really that hard to see, so you should go back to your ‘red-bating’ somewhere else.

      • scottm1207

        It is all about the money. Massive grants and lifetime employment for being one of the sycophants, and huge boondoggles in exotic locales are the reward for goose-stepping in unison.

        • CB

          “It is all about the money.”

          Yes!

          Yes, it is…

          “Judith A. Curry is the chairman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology… When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American: “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry.” “

          http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

          • Carbonicus

            You’re such an Eco-Leftist tool/fool

          • CB

            “You’re such an Eco-Leftist tool”

            lol!

            Are you saying Dr. Curry didn’t state those words?

            You followed the link to be sure… right?

            “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

          • arctic_front

            So why isn’t funding from the Sierra club or other eco-based groups equally dismissed as biased? Who’s agenda is without sin?

          • CB

            “why isn’t funding from the Sierra club or other eco-based groups equally dismissed as biased?”

            It is biased, of course! The bias is toward conservation, which one would have a hard time arguing endangers the entire planet…

            Judith Curry is a difficult one to suss out! She’s well outside the mainstream science, of course, and has been known to recite dishonest Climate Denier talking points and associate herself with fossil-funded propaganda outlets like Heartland and GWPF.

            …but she keeps her statements limited to “doubt” (even when there’s no good reason for it), and has even been known to snipe at other propagandists who say anything that’s demonstrably false.

            Basically, she’s the most evil woman on the planet. When she lies, she knows what will come of it.

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

            climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

          • Abraham_Franklin

            “[funding from the Sierra Club] is biased, of course! The bias is toward conservation”

            The bias is toward fundraising. No scare tactics, no donations.

          • CB

            “The bias is toward fundraising.”

            Right! …for conservation.

            What are the funds raised by the sale of fossil fuel used for?

            Do you know?

            “ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/exxonmobil-report-smoke.html

          • Jesse

            Umm… CB… may want to update your antarctic ice talking point.

            https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

            “Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. “

          • CB

            “Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year”

            Uh huh… because the continent is melting down.

            Ice is moving from the land to the sea.

            Is it possible you don’t know there’s a continent at the south pole?

            “multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564

          • mohdanga

            So temperatures on land, right next to the ocean, are increasing to such a degree that ice on that land melts, then runs into the ocean, where it then freezes? Good grief.

          • Robert

            You have the mechanism right, but just don’t have the reason.

            “Ocean water freezes at a lower temperature than freshwater.

            Fresh water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit but seawater freezes at about 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit, because of the salt in it”
            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceanfreeze.html

          • CB

            Thanks, man! It’s all about the salinity. I like to keep it simple for them… since they seem to be fuzzy on things a 3rd grader should have already learned…

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad8887d0b592fd0e4d5d55535894d0303ff78d4aceb125c770ea700cb0b0a8b5.jpg

          • planet8788

            Since the mainstream science is all about fudging data… that’s a good thing.

          • Jesse

            CB, are you pretending to understand science? Please explain why you are using land based temperatures which have a much larger variability bias based on data smoothing than satellite temperatures. Guess what the satellite temperatures say about 2014.

            As an aside, since the earth has been in its usual global warming phase for 8000 years, record warm temperatures don’t even mean what you think they mean.

          • mohdanga
          • Robert

            NASA
            v
            DailyMail……..

          • mohdanga

            Err, the NASA scientist admitted that there’s only a 38% chance that their estimate was correct. The Daily Mail is reporting this fact, unlike the climate warming falsifiers who make things up as they go to fit their preconceived notions.

          • Robert

            Sounds like some basic math understanding would help.

            Here is the press release: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

            Now pay attention to how the information is being presented to you by NASA and by DailyMail.:

            How to Evaluate Resources

            “The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!”
            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

            Evaluating Information – Applying the CRAAP Test – CSU, Chico
            https://www.csuchico.edu/lins/handouts/eval_websites.pdf

          • Robert

            By the way, “admitted” gives the reader a clue to how rhetoric and semantics are being used.

    • soysauce1

      As an expert you can help me with this, how much has the earth ‘warmed’ in the last 18 years?

      • Rik Myslewski

        You don’t need my expertise, you can simply check NASA’s GISS data — check out http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

        • RPTn

          You mean the data set that GISS boss Dr Thomas Karl cooked, and which is currently subject to a congressional inquiry?

          And looking at corrections, I suggest you take a look at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ and compare this record to the current GISS record.

          Here then GISS boss Jim Hansen complains that the US temperature record, as of late 1999, showed the 1930s to be the warmest period on record in US.

          Bu you can rest assured, they have after that cooled the record of the 30s to show a steady increase towards the end of the century.

          Regarding the period after 1998, the temperature series accepted by IPCC in AR5 (before Karl) shows a fairly constant temperature, possibly weakly increasing less than the statistical uncertainty, and much more important increasing way below the IPCC model predictions.

          • samton909

            97 percent of all scientists agree – the Karl study is a joke.

          • Greg-O
          • Gmama

            It doesn’t take a climate scientist to realize the conditions in the 30s were warmer than the current temperature. Dust Bowl.

            It never fails to amaze me that we were told earnestly that a decade or so, we’re it actually warmer, means a thing given the age of the earth, and the much warmer periods in the history of the earth.

            It is important to remember 2014 was the warmest year or record, by a whopping .02 degrees, with a margin of error of .1, in fact climate scientists are 38% sure this is true, or to put it another way, 62% unsure it is likely. It is important to remember the data used in the study was adjusted. This is science????????

            Climate alarmists are silly.

          • arctic_front

            Not silly, but demonic. They are dangerous ideologues. What other branch of science is so willing to prostitute itself for cash than the climate sciences? I don’t think I’ve read of a single case of Geology or Astronomy or Biology causing a controversy where the fundamental and BASIC tenets of scientific rigour are thrown so completely out the window for money. What makes this pathetic spectacle so very sad is the climate ‘models’ they throw such tremendous weight behind as their ‘proof’ are not even able to predict either past temperature, or PRESENT temperature. These models that they are so willing to fall on their swords for, are a God damn joke. Not a single one of them had been able to predict past or present-day temperatures. How can anybody believe these models can then predict the future? If your ‘model’ can’t match, exactly 100%, historical climate, being as we have PROOF of what it was… then how can we trust its ability to predict with any degree of faith, that it can predict anything at all? Maybe I should expect it to predict the next lottery numbers for me? Equally absurd.

        • Abraham_Franklin

          “you can simply check NASA’s GISS data”

          So the National *Aeronautics* and *Space* Administration prefers “adjusted” land based temperatures instead of raw satellite based temps.

          That’s rather curious, don’t you think?

        • Jesse

          Again, why are you using land based temperatures that utilize smoothed data (ie corrected), ignore 80% of all temperature measurement stations, etc and not look at both Satellite records?

          • starfish

            This will be the land-based temperature records that come from sites of dubious provenance and siting and where there are large areas of the world not covered and homogenisation algorithms have been proven to have inbuilt warming biases

            Strangely the satellites give global coverage of land and sea, but hey aren’t apparently so important

            I wonder why?

    • ELC

      Much the same (rather, much worse) was said about Alfred Wegener, Barry Marshall, and Daniel Shechtman, to name just three.

      • Margaret Hardman

        Marshall was accepted very quickly because he had that awkward thing, actual scientific evidence. See http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth
        Curry would find herself a bit more acceptable to science if she were to address the science with a bit more rigour. Her public face, as presented here, clashes with the blogosphere face.

        • Latimer Alder

          Please don’t write in riddles. It may impress the weak-minded, but if you accuse another of ‘lacking rigour’..and then can only manage an oracular justification, expect to be ignored.

          • Margaret Hardman

            Riddle me not. I shall be blunt. Curry presents herself as a victim when she has only herself to blame. She is less a shrinking violet on her blog. If you, Latimer, can’t understand, it isn’t my fault that I can write.

          • Latimer Alder

            I’ve been reading and contributing to Judith’s blog since it started.

            I’ve never had the slightest idea that she’s a shrinking violet.

            Nor can I see any evidence of such shrinkage in this interview.

        • ELC

          Before that, though, he was called a “madman” …

          http://archives.newyorker.com/?i=1993-09-20#folio=064

          … and his idea a “totally crazy hypothesis”.

          http://cogprints.org/677/1/ulcers.htm

        • Jesse

          And how much of Judith Curry’s work have you analyzed? Nobody has “debunked” it. Just because she doesn’t buy into the Alarmist view of climate change (and ironically, real warming doesn’t buy into it either as real temps rest on the lower 2.5 sigma bounds of the aggregate climate modeling), she is now anti-science? She states global warming is occurring, just not to the degree of alarmist predictions. This is backed up by at least 2 dozen peer reviewed papers on climate sensitivity to carbon.

    • mikehaseler

      LOL

    • FitzND

      As the story makes clear, there are multiple new studies (not just Curry & Lewis) that point to lower values for climate sensitivity compared to what the IPCC had previously forecast.

      Cataclysmic climate change requires two variables to be high: carbon emissions & climate sensitivity.

      As our observation of the Earth reacting to carbon emissions grows year by year, we are able to make ever more accurate predictions for what the climate sensitivity number actually is. And given the “pause” or “slowdown” since around 2000/2001, climate sensitivity estimates are being reduced to reflect more information.

      • scottm1207

        And the assumption that a minuscule warming will absolutely be catastrophic is anything but scientific.

    • Observer1951

      Lewendowski ( a psychologist) has just published a paper saying the haitus never happened. IPCC accepts the haitus. Mann doesn’t accept the haitus. So Rik is the haitus real or not? What do you accept as the current range for climate sensitivity. Nothing to see here, move along! So you think the science is crystal clear and settled. I certainly hope you are not a practising scientist. Science is never settled there is never absolute proof. And before you ask I do accept anthropogenic warming makes some contribution over the last century but I don’t accept the science of non-linear chaotic systems is that well understood to make definitive statements.

      • RPTn

        But the science it settled!

        It was settled in the 1890s when Svante Arrhenius who understood it all perfectly and complete explained the CO2 heating mechanism!

        Oops, forgot that Arrhenius was the last physicist awarded the Noble Price who believed in the theory that space was filled with ether.

        • Observer1951

          I am well aware of Arrhenius, I am a chemist! The point is that the relationship between carbon dioxide and greenhouse warming is not a simple linear relationship as applied to weather and climate modelling. Do you really think one variable aka carbon dioxide concn governs temperature in such a complex system as the Earths! Go read about some modelling

          • RPTn

            No, and that is not the case, the basic CO2 formula contains 3 basic variables, OLR sensitivity to CO2, the Planc Sensitivity and the feedback, none linear, and still way to simple.

            Hint: Heard about sarcasm?

          • Observer1951

            Hoisted by my own petard! Trouble is comments like your original occur all the time and people are being serious, sometimes it’s hard to spot sarcasm.

          • samton909

            In a PR campaign, things have to be kept simple. Therefore, the IPCC has decided that ONLY ONE thing is responsible for climate change.

        • Latimer Alder

          Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, not Physics. I don’t know about his views on the luminiferous ether, but he opined that a gentle rise in temperature from CO2 would be an overall positive development for the planet.

          Clever guy…looks like he was right there too.

          • RPTn

            No doubt that he was a genius, as was Revelle as was Charney just to mention a couple of the most important contributors within this area.
            And to my knowledge none of these people ever pretended they were never wrong or that they could see the complete picture, only politicians and very second rate scientists apart from the extreme religious claim that!

          • arctic_front

            Agreed. When, and more importantly, WHO, decided what the ideal temperature of the planet was?

          • Latimer Alder

            I’ve long wondered.

            If a Global Average Temperature of 287.1K was the peak optimum to bring climatoparadise, how come 287.9K is very bad and 289.1K would be catastrophic?

            Nobody’s ever even tried to answer. And yet it’s the crucial question in climatology.

      • Sam Pyeatte

        The truth about non-linear chaotic systems like climate is they are unpredictable. One might be able to establish boundaries by looking at past behavior, but that too does not give any guarantees. Besides, there are undoubtedly variables affecting climate we are not yet aware of, let alone quantifiable. AGW is a far-left political agenda from start to finish.

    • scottm1207

      Yet they don’t refute her science, just attack her personally as do all totalitarians.

    • Sam Pyeatte

      When climate research is all inclusive it will have credibility, but as it is it supports a far-left political agenda, period. Dr. Curry is a national treasure for telling the truth about climate and effectively exposes the rot of AGW that infests our public institutions.

    • http://www.accord.co.nz Kiwibok

      There goes another alarmist – not disputing the facts about anything Prof Curry has written – just an ad hominem attack .
      If you type “whose analyses are faulty ” then have the courage to list ONE or just troll off into the ever increasing Antarctic .

    • Carbonicus

      And you are qualified for this opinion exactly how?

      Remember Copernicus and Galileo. That episode is instructive here, and you are making the exact same mistake about 400 years later. They had a consensus far greater than “97%” working against them. But they were precisely correct despite it.

      • OldNHMan

        We must remember Einstein’s statement about consensus: “It doesn’t matter if 10,000 scientists agree with me. It only takes one to prove me wrong.”

    • MikePage

      Occam’s not about consensus of opinion and to try to apply it that way is an abuse.

    • Jesse

      What an ignorant assumption on your part. There are now at least 2 dozen peer reviewed studies showing the sensitivity well below what the climate models are suggesting as the sensitivity. The very fact that sensitivity of carbon to warming is not known is a huge issue with modeling climate which must make assumptions on that very climate sensitivity. Right now the climate models model basically a non stable system, there is a positive feedback loop that can never be cooled down which belies all of climatology history. Did you even bother to read one of the peer reviewed studies on sensitivity?!?

      Such ignorance. You throw out facts based on your political bias instead of even investigating the science. Judith Curry maintains a blog, I suggest you remove your shroud of ignorance and visit it. There are vast unknowns still in climate science: cooling effects of rain, cloud coverage formation, solar variability, etc. Believing the science is settled makes you more ignorant than the most steadfast climate denier.

      • starfish

        The positive feedback is the main issue for me

        For this to exist in reality we would have had runaway greenhouse effects before in this plant’s history with higher C02 concentrations than today

    • planet8788

      LOL… your analysis is faulty

  • CheshireRed

    Some ‘40,000’ scientists, activists, journalists, experts, general hangers-on, green troughers and ‘green’ politicians are heading to Paris. Their jobs, careers and expenses-paid lifestyles depend on AGW policy.
    How many of those fine folk would be delighted to see evidence that falsifies their crackpot theory, thus rendering their highly desirable positions completely obsolete? Any? Thought not.

    • chilly2

      I’d be slightly more swayed by the “scientists, activists, journalists, experts etc.” if they’d choose teleconferencing over jets to attend these meetings.

      • scottm1207

        No boondoggle in teleconferencing. The hysterics do love their decadent parties.

      • Latimer Alder

        But Christmas/Winterval shopping ain’t quite the same on the internet as in chic Paris boutiques on a taxpayer-funded gabfest and pissup is it?

        • starfish

          Yes

          Paris in December whoda thunk it?

      • Koolibog

        snail mail is cheaper and leaves a lighter carbon footprint…

      • RayGun

        No climate alarmist will ever recognize their own hypocrisy.

    • Sam Pyeatte

      I wonder if an ISIS contingent will show up…

  • FrankS2

    “…attempts to make these targets legally binding.”
    As, apparently, our own Climate Change Act already is. But who is legally bound to whom? Who will sue whom if they miss the target?

    • Latimer Alder

      Th egovernment will employ expensive lawyers to sue itself. And equally expensive lawyers to defend it.

      And after 5 years of pointless courtcasing the taxpayer will pick up the bill.

  • Gilbert White

    Why are the MSM allowed to blatantly lie and misconstrue about natural disasters and climate change?

    • http://romangovernor.org/ kentgeordie

      Maybe because the Ministry of Truth is failing to exercise sufficient vigilance.

    • Margaret Hardman

      Don’t know, but Rose has been doing it for years.

    • Sam Pyeatte

      Because the MSM is far-left political and the current Administration is in line with it.

  • mikehaseler

    This week there have been so many fantastic articles exposing the climate scam that I’m exhausted. 18years without warming, Antarctic ice increasing, global sea ice normal, Greenland surface ice increasing, NASA caught fiddling data: http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.PtgyNqt6.AxAMiChP.dpbs NOAA under investigation. Stern caught being “economical” with the truth, Yeo branded untruthful by judge. UK climate diplomats face axe after COP21 Paris summit, UK scraps £1bn carbon capture and storage competition, Spending Review: Support for fracking and green energy, DECC budget slashed. 97% of US public now do not rate climate as most important issue.

    And yes – I probably forgot a few.

    • Margaret Hardman

      Very few of your stories address the reality of global warming, do they?

      • Sam Pyeatte

        It is rather difficult to find a “credible” story that supports AGW, but there are many far-left political stories that do. Besides the eighteen year plus pause in heating, the inability to get funding for honest climate research is the damning fact that illuminates the fraud of politically motivated AGW.

        • Margaret Hardman

          Eighteen year pause in heating – really. It would be incredibly cold by now. The Earth has been heated for the last four and a bit billion years. If that’s the level you understand this then I have no need to waste my time further.

          • David S

            Sorry Margaret it is your level of understanding that is sorely lacking. “Heating” is a word with numerous meanings including both yours – being heated – and Sam and Mike’s – exhibiting increasing temperatures. According to the most reliable satellite records the surface temperature of the earth has shown no warming trend for 18 years. This means that the previous warming period from the early 1970s to the late 1990s, on which the whole climate change/global warming/emissions reduction industry was constructed, has stopped with no sign of resumption. It also opens up an interesting debate about how much of the prior warning was man-made and how much was natural variation. If we speculate that on balance natural variation amplified man-made warming in the first period and offset it in the second, we get to climate sensitivity numbers in line with Professor Curry and Dr Lewis’s. From there we swiftly conclude that the economic losses from action on CO2 outweigh the benefits, and also that they are most severely felt by those in the Third World without access to electricity.
            Far from having the moral high ground, the global warming zealots. led by such as Mann and Al Gore, have blood on their hands. Their death toll may be short of that of Mao, Stalin and Hitler, but is probably of the same magnitude as Pol Pot’s or Saddam Hussein’s.
            And they dare to lecture us.

          • planet8788

            You actually found something intelegible in her reply? I didn’t.

          • arctic_front

            Lets not forget the millions upon millions of dead from malaria because of a flawed book and theory on DDT. Who wears the blood on their hands for THAT? Climate science reeks of that kind of perverse ideology vs. demonstrated harm. Somebody PLEASE show me the scientifically proven ‘ideal earth temperature’.

          • starfish

            It also opens up an interesting debate about how much of the prior warning was man-made and how much was natural variation.

            Or indeed how much of the temperature record apparently documenting this rise was also man-made, an artefact of cack-handed data manipulation

          • Katabasis

            You really might want to hit the textbooks on this one Margaret….

          • samton909

            You know what he means

      • http://www.accord.co.nz Kiwibok

        Climate Change please Margaret ( remember the earth is not actually warming -only the fraudulent NOAA land based shows warming the far more accurate -and honest -satellites show no warming )

        • RobertRetyred

          It’s about Prof. Karl-Friedrich Ewert’s analysis of NASA temperature data – data that he found to have been “incredibly altered” to show warming:

          From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”
          http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/25/climategeology-professor-friedrich-karl-ewert-says-standards-of-science-not-met-by-climate-models/

          • http://www.accord.co.nz Kiwibok

            Robert – Yep and the MSM have ignored this fraud perpetrated by NOAA . Let’s just hope the congressional hearings result in jail time for these criminals .

            http://realclimatescience.com/ also does a good job in bringing the fraud to light

          • RPTn

            Not to mention the way Phil Jones adjusted the English records.

          • Rob Painting

            Wow, what a surprise! Conspiracizing again.

          • planet8788

            Satellite data denier…..

          • RobertRetyred

            For now, just looking for an explanation: it is what Science is all about.

        • Rob Painting

          You are the umpteenth denier here to trot out the ol’ conspiracy theory. And you wonder why rational people think you deniers are crazy?

          • planet8788

            Read Hansen et. al 1981…. See how much the temp chart has changed since then. History proves the “conspiracy”.

          • samton909

            As usual, you have no real arguments to respond with, so you start calling names. This is what always happens.

      • mikehaseler

        Well done! You’ve spotted what I was saying – there has been no recent global warming. The satellites – which are the nearest we have to a global temperature – tell us no warming for 18 years. This is confirmed by growing Antarctic ice, sea ice being normal and Greenland surface ice growing.

        In contrast the rise in CO2 is leading to record harvests worldwide and we are literally seeing a greening of the planet as CO2 – the plant food- is benefiting the human and natural environment.

        Isn’t that great!
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2/

        • Rob Painting
          • planet8788

            Of course we had at least 0.5C of global cooling from about 1940 to 1975…
            That’s what created the global cooling scare… So this temp rise means nothing and the satellites say have clearly levelled off.

          • Rob Painting

            Were you scared? What a bunch of meanies those scientists were.

          • planet8788

            So 0.5C of cooling from 1940-1975 and 0.4C of warming means the earth has barely warmed at all and we are still cooler than the MWP.

          • Robert Bumbalough

            Hello. This is my first comment on this thread. I hope to be allowed to chime in with what I think a valid point that is not intended to function as a polemical attack against any conversation participant because it’s very easy to become frustrated with others who think they have good reasons for their opinions and yet who refuse to acknowledge other points of view.

            The GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project’s ice core temperature record) vs EPICA Dome C (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica – CO2 record) graphs show what look like unexplained anomalies within the context of a AGWCC alarmist paradigm. Note the higher temps and lower CO2 during the Minoan Warm Period contrasted with the lower temperatures and higher CO2 during the Little Ice Age. I think this is sufficient to falsify the main claim of those supportive of the contention that human releases of CO2 are causing dangerous global warming. If these data sets or comparing them to one another are invalid, why would that be the case?

          • planet8788

            It’s not sufficient to falsify on it’s own as the climate is too complex. IMHO. But it is another couple pieces of straw on the camel’s back.

          • Robert Bumbalough

            Thank you. :)

          • http://batman-news.com Harry H. McCall

            Hi Robert,

            Sorry about having to reach you here, but I’m no longer a contributor at DC (John said I was hurting his blog and that is was mentally off). Then when I tried to discuss the problem with him in the comment section to my post, John blocked me from DC and then de-friended me on Facebook.

            John has given all regulars at DC the impression I just couldn’t deal with the issue of the Historical Jesus anymore (per Cygnus’ comment to you) and ran off. That’s total BS!

            Thanks for the kind comment on DC. I’ve always enjoyed you intelligent remarks.

            Harry

          • Robert Bumbalough

            Hello Harry. Well This saddens me. It’s a shame, but John has whatever excuses he prefers even though they’re not logical or rational. Hey, the dude is supporting Bernie Sanders, so it’s no wonder he’s not thinking correctly. You’ll just have to start your own blog and promote in on FB and Twitter. I’ll be looking forward to reading your essays no matter where you post them.

            Cheers and Best Wishes

          • http://batman-news.com Harry H. McCall

            Thanks Robert. May you have a Merry Christmas and a wonderful New Year!

          • planet8788

            Why would I be scared. I know my material… you are an ignorant second grader.

          • planet8788

            not in the last 17 years. And we have an el nino in place this year.

          • mikehaseler

            And if you knew anything you’d know UAH has had to be updated, and the new version like RSS shows now warming in the last 18 years.
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

            Moreover, far from accelerating warming as required to prove the (bogus) theory of doomsday warming, the temps are very clealy on a downwarming trend,

            As for NOAA – they are breaking US law and the constitution and they make up half their data: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/noaas-fabricated-record-temperatures/

            And I see you don’t even try to push the notorious “Massively Altered” NASA temp:
            http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.PtgyNqt6.Kruv1mdU.dpbs

          • Robert

            Source?
            “..breaking US law..”

          • samton909

            Sometimes I think alarmists like to show these graphs because they don/t understand the underlying concepts, they only understand that they see a line going up or down.

          • Jesse

            Nearly all of the satellite warming is attributed to that one spike you have during an El Nino in 1998. Hint, don’t use linear approx, separate it into two time scales, 1979 to 1998, 1999 to 2013. You will show no warming except for the warming hit from the El Nino year.

        • Robert

          “..CO2 is leading to record harvests.. ”
          Source?

          • Michael Stone

            Source you ask…. Okay;__ M-I-C-K-E-Y Mous,eeeee.

    • arctic_front

      You hit the main ones… In what other scientific field of study would such academic malfeasance be acceptable? None.

      • mikehaseler

        Unfortunately, the evidence is that such behaviour is common throughout academia. What is unusual in Climate is that there is enough people with science and engineering qualifications capable of challenging the academic “dogma” and that the evidence is pretty public so that outsiders may judge for themselves.

        And it’s almost certain that in areas where the evidence is too costly for outsiders to obtain or where there is very little interest that such “malfeasance” is widespread. Climate is really the tip of the ice-berg.

        • starfish

          It is also true that many of the activists fail to release their data sets for proper scrutiny

  • ashieuk

    She hasn’t been tossed out of anything. She decided all by herself to resign from the American Physical Society following its revised Statement on Climate Change issued a couple of weeks ago. She both plays the fool and plays the victim.

    • Camburn Shephard

      If you read the statement from APS, you would have resigned as well. It does not reflect current science at ALL, but it does reflect 30 year old science. Dr. Alfred Wegener must be turning over in his grave.

      • dbw

        @ashieuk doesn’t care about Curry’s reasons for resigning, he only wants to see his comments published in the Spectator. “Being tossed out” to any thinking person means she is being ostracized by the climate consensus side. Resigning from the APS was her choice based the incoherent and biased Statement on Climate Change that APS issued. Stop being obnoxious Ash.

        • ashieuk

          Obnoxious? What on earth is obnoxious about my post? Is it not obnoxious to say that others consider her “to be a heretic”? I know of no-one who thinks that. There are many who think she is wrong. And it was very neat, if dishonest, of Rose to follow that up with the words “According to Professor Michael Mann….”. And it is just bizarre to be accused of wishing to see my comments published in The Spectator……. by a comment published in The Spectator. The mild APS Statement surely cannot have been a resigning matter. If so, maybe others will follow suit. We shall see.

    • Eric Weder

      ashieuk – Yet another fool.

      • ashieuk

        Cheers, Eric!

  • johndubose

    Explain to us again why 3 degrees hotter would even be bad ( in total given that lots of plants and creatures would surely thrive )

    • Margaret Hardman

      And lots wouldn’t. Much of our agriculture is built around plants adapted to the current climate plus or minus a little bit. And the effects of global warming are not merely a rise in temperature but changes in weather patterns. Drought is not conducive to better growing conditions.

      • johndubose

        The point is that there will be more plants. We and the animals will change our diets. ( If it was going to happen. Which it likely will not )

      • Latimer Alder

        Sure, But a warmer atmosphere can hold and distribute more water from sea to land.

        Note that the Tropical Rain Forest (hint – warm and wet) is the most fertile,most diverse and greenest part of the Earth. Warm and wet is good. Cold and barren (Tundra) is bad.

      • samton909

        And yet, the greening of the Sahel continues apace.

      • starfish

        And the projected rise is the equivalent of a few degrees of latitude

        Nature can adapt readily to such changes – temperature ranges can be much higher in fertile areas

        Many desert areas are now greening in the increased levels of CO2

    • RayGun

      I’m with you on this. Warming is better than cooling. More CO2 =’s more plant food. If we had zero CO2 there would be zero O2 and ZERO life anywhere on the planet.

    • Neighbor

      Sea levels will rise obliterating entire cities and coastlines and island nations. people seem to be forgetting about that. More disease causing organisms will thrive. There will be millions of displaced peoples. Tons of extinction.

  • Johnny Thorne

    The government grants might be stopped. President Trump will stop it fast. You ever wonder why the establishment hates Trump. Trump will weed out $500,000,000,000 of waste and fraud from the federal budget every year.

  • Jacobi

    The whole business of Climate Change is in a mess. The Climate Change Industry has taken over and logic no longer applies.

    The world is in a natural Post- Glacial warming phase and has been so for at least 10,000 years. This natural Post- Glacial phase continues. We don’t know how long it will last, or how high the temperature will rise, (or indeed fall). Human activity contributes some 4% of the total CO2 generated at present. That means that 0 6% is natural. Nothing to do with us! It is therefore impossible to say if any man-made minute percentage contribution to this will affect climate since this would be well within any margin of error of such calculations.

    And of course CO2, in spite of the obsessive concentration on it by the Climate Change Industry is far from the worst potential contributing gas.

    Speaking personally, and for the moment non-objectively, I could be doing with say a plus
    3 degree centigrade increase in the little part of the UK where I live, but as usual the “Southrons” get all the luck!

    • samton909

      Shhh! All of those guys that have built their little empires on establishing “Climate science” institutes might get defunded.

      • Jacobi

        Yes I know. I mean the poor sods have got to make a living haven’t they?
        I just wish they would allow a few degrees plus up here, and less low lowering cloud and bucketing rain

      • Jacobi

        Now don’t worry. I am a reasonable man after all. Those poor, excuse the expression, sods have a living to make. And of course they have to attend their innumerable conferences around the world spewing out hundreds of thousands of tonnes of CO2 into the upper atmosphere, and stay in their cosy warm, or is it pleasantly cool, CO2 producing hotels.
        Right just been called. Must go out into the freezing windswept sleet/rain!

  • Dr Norman Page

    Curry has been reluctant to stray too far from the views of the climate establishment CAGW herd. The reality is that the earth has just passed a millennial cycle temperature peak ( about 2003) and the general trend will be down until about 2650.This exchange with professor Freeman Dyson summarizes the current situation
    E-mail 4/7/15

    Dr Norman Page
    Houston

    Professor Dyson
    Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .

    The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC – UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles – most importantly the millennial cycle – and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html

    The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend

    There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.

    The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.

    I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.

    Best Regards
    Norman Page

    E-Mail 4/9/15

    Dear Norman Page,
    Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
    I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
    not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
    I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
    with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
    but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
    glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
    all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.

    Email 4/9/15

    Professor Dyson Would you have any objection to my posting our email exchange on my blog?
    > Best Regards Norman Page

    E-Mail 4/9/15

    Yes, you are welcome to post this exchange any way you like. Thank you
    for asking. Yours, Freeman Dysone situation.

    “

  • pkpekka

    I think Judith’s comments miss the point as well. Even 2 degrees and even 1.5 degrees of warming is likely to cause serious disruptions, as far as anybody has explained. We are also seeing serious effects at the present time (0.75 degrees of warming). Limiting warming, to any target above the current, is then just a mitigation exercise. And even if the sensitivity was 4 degrees no actions would be “futile”. It is pretty incredible that a climate scientist can use such language. 4 degrees is still better than 5 degreen, 3 degrees is better than 4 and so on. Anything done now helps humans to adapt to the changes that are coming. From a risk-assessment point of view you generally consider there to be no risk of something happening (i.e. serious climate change consequences) if the risk is in the region of 1/10000 to 1/100000. This is clearly not the case here. Best estimates place the risk of 2 degrees at above 50% at least, as far as I understand, but I think even 10% or 1 % would be too much. So anything that can be done, should be done. I do think that Judith Curry probably knows what she is talking (most of the time at least), although she probably also has ego-driven reasons to stick to her points (others have probably similar reasons to stick to theirs, e.g., Mann). But it is also true that a lot of argumentation from the right and from the fossil-fuels industry (although less so nowadays since they are afraid of lawsuits/corporate accountability) is based on fallacies, pure and simple. And Judith’s arguments, even if they are formally correct, can easily get entangled with the fallacies. And maybe she has not been sufficiently clear about repudiating the clear fallacies or false interpretations of what she has said. If Judith really is (scientifically) correct in what she is saying then I would wish it would get taken more seriously. But it is understandable that the unreasoning and unscientific attacks on climate science have created an atmosphere that easily leads to polarization.

    • Latimer Alder

      ‘We are also seeing serious effects at the present time (0.75 degrees of warming)’

      Really?

      What are these ‘serious effects’?

      Do you mean the general 10% greening of the Earth we’ve seen as carbon dioxide plant food has increased in the atmosphere from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4? Or did you have some other ‘serious effects’ in mind?

      • pkpekka

        We are in the midst of a sixth major mass extinction event (e.g., Guardian: “How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction”, or nature (2000) “Consequences of changing biodiversity” for a highly cited review or Nature 471, 51–57 (03 March 2011) doi:10.1038/nature09678). Climate change is not entirely to blame, although actions to mitigate it would also mitigate pollution and many other factors that contribute to it. Warming causes areas where species live more ever northward (on the northern half of the globe, where most of the land is). But because of human influence and infrastructure species of then are unable to more or can’t keep up with increasing temperatures. So they go extinct. Essentially life on earth has adapted to the climate we have today, and if it is changed, especially too quickly, then species go extinct. Humans because of technology and foresight, however lacking, better than other species. So we will be the last effected. But the massive die-off of species should convince anyone that we are doing something wrong here. There are other consequences, and also because of inertia the current CO2 levels imply higher temperatures than observed today. But I am not going to debate specific points. You can go and read books on these topics: like “Storms of my grand children” by Hansen or “This Changes Everything” by Naomi Klein. Or the IPCC report (“IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final”). If you have a book to suggest that lays out your arguments I can read it and we can discuss on that basis. But I am not going to get into he-says/she-says arguments.

        • Latimer Alder

          ‘But I am not going to debate specific points’

          Translation

          ‘My theory is unsupported by evidence and would be demolished if examined in detail’

          • pkpekka

            You can believe whatever you like. I gave you evidence in the form of an ongoing mass extinction. It is clear also that glaciers are retreating. This is a change in our natural environment (and a big one). Big changes are bad (because nature is not adapted to them). Etc. It is also hypocritical for you to bring the himalayas glacier mishap into fore, because that has been corrected a long time ago, and does not change the fact that generally glaciers are retreating.

          • Eric Weder

            pkpekka – You are a foolish man.

          • pkpekka

            Likewise!

          • Latimer Alder

            I hope you will join me in celebrating the fact (if indeed it is one) that nasty, cold barren glaciers are retreating leaving the wonderful diversity and adaptability of nature to rapidly colonise land that has been buried under ice for maybe 200,000 years.

            What great news that the ice continues its long retreat as its been doing for 30,000 years! Ice bad, plants good IMO.

            And for those of us who prefer our science to be observationally based, could you just give us a flavour of the observations that lead to the ‘ongoing mass extinction’ conclusion. If, that is, you feel able at last to discuss specific points in your ‘narrative’.

            And perhaps it might be more courteous to leave your accusations of hypocrisy until after I’ve said something on the relevant topic, rather than before.We wouldn’t want people to think that you are prone to theorising ahead of the facts. would we?

          • Neighbor

            “What great news that the ice continues its long retreat as its been doing for 30,000 years! Ice bad, plants good IMO.”

            you forgot about the sea level rise that goes along with melting ice, is that great also?

          • Latimer Alder

            Sea level is changing at 1 housebrick per generation (1 foot per century). I really don’t think that such a slow rate of increase will be beyond our capabilities to respond to – if we even notice it at all. It is trivial.

          • KrakenFartz

            You didn’t give evidence. You simply linked to a junk paper by crackpot Paul Ehrlich. Pal review and publication in a thoroughly corrupt ‘prestige’ journal doesn’t magically turn junk into valid scientific reasoning.

        • RPTn

          Really trustworthy sources, the Guardian, Hansen, Klein. You forgot Mann and Paul “Population Bomb” Ehrlich, now back predicting the demise of the species, but I assume not the human specie which he predicted was going extinct first in the 1980s then granted a grace period to the 90s.

          The list of people profitting on forecasting disaster is endless, and they get away with it repeating the trick over and over.

          And I have read the IPCC brief, a piece of political propaganda that in numerous ways does not reflect the science in the WG1 report.

          • pkpekka

            Well, this is the problem with this “debate”. Just name-calling and innuendo. I am glad that I am not climate scientist (although they do get more funding as a result of this I don’t think it compensates for how horrible I think it would be to have to work in such a polarized atmosphere). I am rather more happy doing biomedical research, and hoping that I don’t have to engage with the “public” in this fashion. But it is instructive none the less.

          • RPTn

            I dont understand how you can read one highly disputed report, and report that as proof. Ref: “I gave you evidence in the form of an ongoing mass extinction.”
            But you are right, the glaciers are retreating, as they have done since around 1850.

            I can’t believe this is the way biomedical research is conducted, but I think you are right on in your reference to the money involved in climate, but only for the politically correct research.

            To cite a part of President Eisenhower’s farewell speech:
            “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

          • pkpekka

            Climate science is a physical science, and it is usually easier to get firm results in the physical sciences than in biomedical sciences. We don’t use mechanistic modelling (and least not a lot) in biosciences. I don’t think we generally understand the quantitative relationships inside cells and our bodies enough for that. Some physiological modelling gives reliable results, though. Statistics is maybe easier because you are not dealing with an n=1 as in the case of earth (although past earths maybe used as additional n:s), and you can do experiments more easily than in climate sciences (unless you consider the current civilization one grand experiment, albeit an uncontrolled one). I tried to read climate science (and numerous books) at one point from a scientist perspective. But I could not understand the scientific basis much beyond the obvious. I can look at the language that climate scientists use and compare it to the language we use, and the level of certainty associated with it. And from that perspective I must conclude that climate scientists believe generally that they are right to worry, and that this belief has been getting stronger. As a non-climate scientist this is as far as it is sensible for me to go, so this is the basis for not debating specifics, I don’t understand them enough to say anything about them beyond what anybody could say about them. I thinks I contribute most by doing just what I am good at, and hence realize I have already wasted too much time on this. :-)

          • Latimer Alder

            Your basis for not debating specifics is that you don’t understand them.

            Thank you for your honesty.

            Perhaps some more time spent trying to understand before pontificating in the public realm would be a good idea?

          • pkpekka

            so what are you doing here?

          • pkpekka

            Anyway, having an understanding what climate scientists say and understanding (mechanistically) their basis for saying it are different things. And I do understand that we are taking enormous risks with our environment and earth, even if I don’t understand their basis.

          • RPTn

            Well I am not a Climate Scientist myself, but I have a relevant background in thermo dynamics and atmospheric physics.

            I have no problem saying I am far from understanding everything, but I understand much more than needed to see that what is going on meeting the public eye is politics, not science, and politics and money are corrupting the science to an extent not seen previously in our generation.

          • pkpekka

            I think that you are right, but from an opposite point of view. But I am also less risk-tolerant than you seem to be. I also have a background (though recent so I don’t have a degree in it) in toxicology, and the understanding (and tolerance) of risk there seems quite different to what you have. I.e., even Judith in her text says that there is “some” risk of 4 degree warming, and then seems to say that we would be all doomed anyway in that case so it does not matter. To me it matters that there is a non-trivial, she did not dismiss it and indeed it seems undismissable even based on a conservative estimate, risk of very serious (or “we are doomed”) consequences. And I am not sure that your greater understanding of climate sciences (or relevant fields which I suppose could mean almost anything) can rule that possibility out either. But you are thinking in black-and-white terms. I.e. either there is 100% certainty or there is 0% certainty. And if you cannot prove the 100% (which you almost never can with predictions) then there is nothing to worry.

          • RPTn

            No one can prove anything 100%, but there are very real tangible problems in the word not attended too.

            Around 15 million people die prematurely each year because they are poor, from starvation caused by politics mostly; infested water, indoor air polution from open fires and lack of clean energy, and malaria, a disease that has been removed from the rich world. Just to mention the 4 most important reasons for why people die prematurely according to WHO.

            In this situation we are told that a slight chance for a small human influence in the temperature level is the largest treat to humanity, and we have to abolish the system that gave us the best living conditions in human history by a wide margin!

            And the high points of civilaztion took place in the Minoan Warming, the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warming, to mention a few, all warmer than now.

            The problem right now to the Climate Industry is too a large extent that the temperature increase since the end of the Little Ice Age is way below what the Climate Industry and their models predicted, greatly reducing the risk you refer too, and endangering their funding.

            Regarding statistics, the IPCC reports use a statistical language, but this is not supported by mathematical statistical analysis, it is just a language.

            Suggest you search up the the following report on the net:

            THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE
            CHANGE (IPCC): SPINNING THE CLIMATE , by former IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray; one of many interesting sources to how the political infected and corrupt the environmental science at this level has become, and their relationship to statistical language.

          • pkpekka

            Well, I can look that reference up. Although I suspect that you are incorrect in stating that these eras were warmer than today (at least globally). On the other hand, I have read that many areas which are environmentally stressed are sources of conflict as well, and that the two are likely to be linked. Also many of these stresses, for instance in Syria, are said to be due to climate change. I read this in the book: Jared Diamond’s book Collapse.

            It is also pretty clear (and obvious) that the current developing countries cannot follow the same fossil-fuel and consumption-driven model of development that the western countries have taken. Earth’s resources are already overtaxed and would completely collapse if that were the case. The climate-neutral policies present a way to achieve worldwide prosperity without endangering our civilization further by environmental stresses, cause among other things by climate change.

          • RPTn

            Well regarding previous warmer periods I suggest you look up figure 7c in APCC, AR1. This is the curve that Michael Mann replaced with the Hockey Stick curve, also famous from Al Gores movie. Manns hockey stick was shown 6 times in the AR3 report, to completely disappear in AR4, and the warm periods, covered in several hundred scientific papers to reappear.

            No doubt that changes in climate has changed living conditions, not the least in Northern Europe, but this thread is about man-made changes to that, and the evidence is becoming clearer as the years are passing the the climate models only gives correct results for the 30 years leading up to 1998, all application of the models outside of this brief period fails.

            I have no problem seeing that there has to be changes in the future, as there has been timely changes in all of human history, but we are not in the desperate situation presented by the Climate Industry.

          • pkpekka

            Well, in the AR5 report at least the “hockey stick” seems to be there. page 409/1552 (WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL, a massive 360 MB PDF document): Figure 5.7 | Reconstructed (a) Northern Hemisphere and (b) Southern Hemisphere, and (c) global annual temperatures during the last 2000 years. The SPM seems to talk mostly about the last 150 years, maybe paleoclimate is a bit technical topic for politicians, and maybe they felt it was not needed in the same way as before. You can also look up your other favorite periods in that figure (can’t say I can interpret it fully but it looks vaguely like a hockey stick).

          • Mr B J Mann

            There are non so blind as those that will not see:

            “The climate-neutral policies present a way to achieve worldwide prosperity without endangering our civilisation further by [insert political bogeyman of choice]”!

          • Latimer Alder

            ‘And I do understand that we are taking enormous risks with our environment and earth, even if I don’t understand their basis’.

            So how did you gain that ‘understanding’ of ‘enormous risks’?

            I hope your biomedical stuff is a bit more rigorous than ‘somebody else said so, therefore it must be true’. That’s religion/faith, not science.

          • Abraham_Franklin

            “Climate science is a physical science, and it is usually easier to get
            firm results in the physical sciences than in biomedical sciences.”

            Climate science is in its infancy.

        • Todd Nelson

          You were almost sounding smart until you told us all where you get your information. I am sure, at this point, you are an Al Gore supporter, which makes you one of the “climate change” scammers, just like him. Mann, with his very crooked hockey stick, Hansen, who got caught altering Arctic temperature history, and the total whacknut Naomi Klein, are not sources I would quote if trying to make an argument in support of non existent manmade global warming AKA “climate change”. Observed satellite raw data shows no increase in global warming in over 20 years and the UN IPCC has even admitted it is true. Another issue the AGW high priests fail to account for is that CO2 follows temperature, sometimes by as much as 800 years. While CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”, it is only attributed, at most, to having a 5% effect where the hydrogen dioxide oxygen monoxide molecule has 95%. SInce man only contributes 3% of that 5%, it seems quite futile to spend the time and effort to reduce man’s 3% contribution to the total atmospheric amount of CO2 because of the minimal amount being contributed to global temperatures at all.

          • pkpekka

            I have been reading the IPCC reports as well, at least the SPMs and the power point presentations. The Hansen book tries to explain the climate science and I think does it pretty well. I also read the Hansen et al. statistical analysis on extreme warming events. I have considered Klein in the past to be a bit polemic but apparently the science was vetted or checked by climate scientists, and I did not see anything that was clearly different from what I have read elsewhere. Klein’s political views may be a bit different from mine, I would prefer more market-driven solutions (we don’t maybe have time to change the whole society just to deal with climate change, which may mean that it is already too late), but with a clear view of results.

            I would trust more the interpretations of satellite data done by experts than by you.

        • Mr B J Mann

          But we are also at the start of the nth Natural Ice Age!

          So your point is?!

          As for:

          “although actions to mitigate it would also mitigate pollution”.

          That’s the biggest problem.

          As MMGW is supposedly such a big problem, we concentrate on cleaning up plant food instead of toxic chemicals.

          Eg capturing carbon is prioritised over cleaning exhausts (not just in power stations – car engine efficiency and cleanliness improvements have been stymied by the need to reduce CO2 emissions).

          Production of solar panels and the supermagnets needed to make wind farms give the appearance of even a modicum of efficiency are highly polluting.

          And the need to keep the costs down enough to give the impression of even a modicum of economic viability mean that little is done to clean up the lethal mess.

        • Abraham_Franklin

          “We are in the midst of a sixth major mass extinction event…Climate
          change is not entirely to blame”

          Mass extinction, huh? Like thousands of species? Maybe you could provide a link to a list of those thousands of extinctions.

          Besides, extinctions >100 years ago don’t count because they had nothing to do with manmade CO2.

    • c1ue

      Indeed. Besides the clearly positive effects of warming to date – which Dr. Richard Tol has noted – the litany of supposed negative effects attributed to warming, but which have been debunked, are legion: Himalayan glaciers disappearing, hurricanes increasing, tornadoes increasing, floods increasing, droughts increasing, fires increasing, frog disappearing, coral bleaching, etc etc.
      I don’t doubt there are negative effects, but to say that serious disruption has already occurred – that’s just silly.

    • Rik Myslewski

      Well-stated, pkpekka — thanks.

    • ReefKnot

      “We are also seeing the serious effects of 0.75 degrees of warming..”.
      No we aren’t. You can get a 1 degree temperature difference on the other side of the room. It is insignificant.

      • RPTn

        As the physics nobel laureate Ivar Giaever says:

        “Where I live in Albany, NY, the difference between the warmest and coldest in one year can be up to 80 C, and they tell me that 0.8 C changes the climate in Albany!”

        • UKSteve
          • Margaret Hardman

            But so ignorant of what climate is

          • RPTn

            You can’t expect more from a physics noble laureate I assume…

            But fortunately as we can see here, a lot of people have much better understanding of the physics!

            And, sorry, this is a response to the ReeKnot reference to the .75 C warming,

          • UKSteve

            All Warm-mongers are ignorant as to what science and data are.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Yes:

            Climate is the average weather.

            You can’t project it a hundred hour hour mind a hundred years!

        • George Turner

          I downloaded all my local daily weather data for a 10 year period and found the min and max temperatures. Taking those as the norm, I then added 2C of warming to each days high to see how many days in a decade I could expect to be outside the old normal. It went outside the bounds on three afternoons – in an entire decade. So my global warming survival plan for 2100 AD to 2110 AD is to rent three extra movies instead of going outside on those particular afternoons.

          Option B for me is to spend those three days 90 miles north and 720 feet higher, because in the temperate zones the surface temperature decreases by 1C every 90 miles poleward and every 720 feet in elevation.

          Of course most of the warming would take place at night (back-radiation issue), so I probably won’t even bother.

      • pkpekka

        Differences in average temperature (especially over an extended period like a year) are obviously a lot more consequential. The average (global) temperature difference between today and the last ice-age was -5 degrees celsius. 80-degree average temperature difference (either way) would obviously kill all of us. Also in the nordics temperatures change much more rapidly than the average, I think is Sweden they have already increased by 2-3 degrees, instead of the 0.75 global average.

        • Todd Nelson

          But none of this gets to the ultimate question. What is the proper temperature for the earth’s surface? Is it the temperature of the mini ice age when people were starving because crops could not be grown? Or is it the same temperature as the medieval warming period which was significantly warmer than today? The glacier Barack Obama went to in Alaska has the stumps of 1000 year old trees by the foot of the glacier with more underneath the glacier itself. So was the warmer temperature of then right and we are just used to the colder temperatures coming out of a mini ice age? Then, of course, we get to natural warming and cooling phenomenon like El Nino and La Nina which scientists have yet to explain the temperature variables these create, when they will start, when they will stop, and why. Until all the natural variables can be truly and totally accounted for, computer projections will stay as flawed as they are now, to say nothing of future solar activity.

          • pkpekka

            So you are happy to just do the (probably irreversible, or at least only reversible by incredible costs) experiment on this our one and only earth to find out? What if you overshoot? Or what if you achieve this Medieval Warm Period temperature (which seems to have been a local phenomenon in Europe, if it even existed in the way we think) and it is wrong for the rest of the world? Do you just say whoops, that’s it folks. When you could not have done the experiment in the first place at a manageable cost?

          • RogerKnights

            “. . . at a manageable cost”?

            The cost has already proved too high for windy, sunny Spain. Here, is a commentary by a Spanish expert who formerly believed renewables were the solution: http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/05/01/Solar-Dreams/

            And the cost is proving too high for the pioneers one step behind it, Germany, Denmark, and the UK. Elsewhere the costs of windfarms and solar farms are turning out to be higher than promised, especially when the indirect and hidden costs (maintenance, shorter-than-promised working life, declining efficiency, transmission lines, wear and tear on the baseload systems caused by fluctuations, etc.) are included.

          • pkpekka

            How about the hidden, or indirect, cost of climate change? These are not generally counted at all, just treated as externalities of acts of Nature. There was a recent study published in Nature that stated that economic costs of climate change would be very high. I cannot evaluate their calculation methods, but it at least seems that in the world at large temperate zones are more prosperous (not sure that this is how they calculated the costs though).

          • Ghostmaker

            Are you seriously suggesting you can control the earths environment?

          • pkpekka

            Well, we are doing it already! Humans have become a force of nature themselves. But in order to thrive that force needs to be redirected somewhat. And it can be done, though it won’t be easy, because we generally have trouble doing anything together as a species or on a global level.

          • Ghostmaker

            Been a pleasure typing at you. But I need to go and do real science have a great day.

          • RogerKnights

            “How about the hidden, or indirect, cost of climate change? These are not generally counted at all, just treated as externalities of acts of Nature. There was a recent study published in Nature that stated that economic costs of climate change would be very high.”

            The response above isn’t responsive to my criticism of your statement, “When you could not have done the [CO2 mitigation] experiment in the first place at a manageable cost?”

            As for your new claim “that economic costs of climate change would be very high,” those costs are warmist speculations, just like the warmist speculative under-estimations of the cost of renewable energy were, so a suitably similar “discount rate” should be applied to them. IOW, they should be viewed with skepticism. Especially in light of the failure of many past alarmist forecasts of the economic forecasts of climate change to have occurred, or anyway to have occurred at the alarming rate forecasted.

            You should not be so trusting of mainstream claims. To cultivate a sense of skepticism, I suggest these readable books:

            The Delinquent Teenager . . . by Donna LaFramboise (about IGPOCC’s misbehavior and hypocrisy)
            The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon
            The Climate Caper by Garth Paltridge
            Climatism! (The Mad Mad Word of) by Steve Goreham

          • pkpekka

            Well, I will read some of those books for sure. I haven’t even heard of any of them, so it might be useful. But you should read some books also in turn from the opposite “camp” (or neutral ones), maybe:

            “The Sixth Extinction,” by Elizabeth Kolbert
            “Merchants of Doubt,” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway
            “The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World” by William Nordhaus (a “neutral” book on the economics of climate change)
            “This Changes Everything,” by Naomi Klein ( a bit long-winded, but has lots of great one-liners a quotes)
            “Storms Of My Grandchildren: The Truth About The Climate Catastrophe And Our Last Chance To Save Humanity” by Hansen

            You can also enroll on the self-paced online course “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” (or Denial101) on edx. Look through the “climate myths” on http://www.skepticalscience.com. Or many other things, not that it is likely to make a difference. :-).

          • RPTn

            Nice list of conspiracy trash here!

            Particularly Oreske, who make you think you are in the old Soviet Union when they used psychiatry against dissidents.

            pkpekka, you had me fooled for a while, great acheivement!

          • pkpekka

            I take it you are not going to read any of it then. Should I then not read any of your books either? The course “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” has at least interviews of your favorite “bad guys” like Mann (also included David Attenborough though). So you can at least watch it and throw tomatoes at the screen (or erasers if you prefer to save your TV). Anyway, I selected books that are likely to be different from what you have read before. I don’t believe in conspiracies, or that individuals or specific secretive organizations have huge influence over the world. But because no-one but specialists can fully understand the climate science (although reading it biases you to believe in the general consensus view in my opinion), you are forced to believe some authorities on it. And it is natural to believe in the authorities (or perceived authorities) that have otherwise similar political views to yourself.

          • RPTn

            No I am not going to read them, meaning I am not going to read them again!

            Must admit, I read parts of them fairly briefly (Except Kolbert, where you are right: I did not read it, but the paper by Ehrich et al, not particularly interested in yet another politically correct journalist writing about disasters, nothing can top the Population Bomb anyway, not to mention Limit to Growth, where I very briefly have met one of the authors at some occasions; that didn’t improve the rubbish, but it was interesting to hear him say that he was saved by the Climate after all he stood for had failed).

            Not much wrong with William Nordhaus though, he is something as unusual as a scientist writing about his own subject, given that you swallow the physics of the IPCC.

            And i quite agree about Kleins one-liners, excellent propaganda!

            Knowing skepticalscience.com, and the people behind, I will skip the course though. Too many of things of value i dont have time for!

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Read them.

            They’re drivel.

          • pkpekka

            Actually, it strikes me that we have more in common than one might think – a shared hobby! You have probably spent an inordinate amount of time on this – and so have I. We are sort of “brother’s in arms” of geek flame-wars (I am making the bold assumption that you are male, as is often the case with geek hobbies). Good night! May you exhale CO2 (and occasionally methane from the other end) for many years to come!

          • RPTn

            Well, nothing wrong with CO2 in reasonable amounts, no CO2 is not a good alternative, and the US submarine environment upper limit of 8000 ppm neither.
            But methane is greatly exaggerated as a climate driver; the frequencies where there is a potential for absorbing heat are mostly already taken by water at much higher concentration; maybe a topic for tomorrow?

            Well thank you, and good night yourself!

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial” (or Denial101)

            Well, that’s obviously a highly scientific and totally unpolitical reference!

          • Mr B J Mann

            No:

            “How about the hidden, or indirect, cost of COOLING climate change? These are NEVER generally counted at all, just treated as IMPOSSIBLE externalities of acts of Nature.”

          • Ghostmaker

            If you were truly concerned wouldn’t one promote the planting of trees to sequester the CO2? This is a proven method without the huge expense.

          • pkpekka

            I think that all options have been looked at, including reforestation. And a sort of an all-of-the-above approach is probably optimal. However, I doubt you could keep increasing the forest area in tune with the increases in emissions. Increased tree growth has probably absorbed some of the extra CO2 (but it keeps rising anyway).

          • Ghostmaker

            Tell me who exactly profits by throwing away all fossil fuels and embracing Solar panels and wind turbines? And who involved in your science is welling to separate themselves from all government funding to perform unbiased science?

          • pkpekka

            China and western countries that have the industrial capacity (+ know_how and IPR) to manufacture panels would benefit most. Saudi-arabia, Iran, Syris (+ISIS) and Russia (i.e. all political enemies of West + countries funding terrorism) would stand to loose most. US would maybe be neutral, since it can both produce oil/gas as well as solar panels. I have sometimes thought that the only way to get rid of terrorism (and radical islam) for good would be to get rid of fossil fuels (also Norway would stand to loose, but they have a lot of hydropower as well).

            It is difficult to outright lie sustainably in science, since your reputation is ruined the instant you are caught and a lot of people can make their careers by catching you. Science is als not a centralist enterprise. Scientists generally live with certain level uncertainty about their science, otherwise you could never publish anything. But if it goes too far off the mark (i.e., results are always measured against reality) then the program collapses.

          • Ghostmaker

            Then why not promote the use of Nuclear power to allow time for fusion?

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Saudi-arabia, Iran, Syris (+ISIS) and Russia (i.e. all political enemies of West + countries funding terrorism) would stand to loose most.”

            Who told you that?

            And why did they lie to you?!

            Or did you work it out for yourself?!?!!

            DECADES AGO Sheik Yammani (yes, really), the Saudi Oil Minister, pointed out that the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stone: and the Oil Age won’t end because we’ve run out of oil.

            They’ve been at the forefront of alternative energy research and development at least since then.

            If I recall correctly they, or one of the other Gulf States, were partnering BMW on their electric cars.

            And a couple of things they have even more of than oil is deserted space.

            And sunshine!

            Oh, and Russia has extensive areas of emp land that might be cold:

            But that’s because they are usually cloudless.

            And those areas have long days.

            And I wouldn’t be surprised if those areas don’t also have continuous steady winds!

            Oh, oh, and China isn’t exactly a mate of the West.

            And China is probably the world’s leading manufacturer of solar panels.

            And is the place where the rare earths used in wind turbines are mined!

          • Ghostmaker

            Are you truly aware of the amount of CO2 one acre of trees remove? Why isn’t a less costly method even tried? Why do you feel enriching one self over the rest of the population far exceeds the need for the greater good?

          • pkpekka

            Well, but you could not cut those trees, or if you did then you would have to replant+regrow or capture and store the CO2 (we don’t have that technology yet and it would likely be expensive). This means that you would have to permanently increase, and keep increasing, the forest cover in the world. But deforestation has been happening for a long time (as far as I understand), so you would also have to reverse that trend. I am pretty sure that if reforestation was the easiest (or an easy) solution, it would have been put forward already. Scientists are required to come up with the most economical alternatives.

          • Ghostmaker

            Isn’t killing birds with wind turbines not really a very logical end?

          • Ghostmaker

            Tell me why your climate models are inaccurate? How can a science such as yours with a 97% consensus not predict weather say 5 years into the future. Also tell me what role the sun plays. There are a few folks that feel we are heading into a cooling phase and it is due to the weakness of the magnetic fields of the sun of late.

          • pkpekka

            Well I am not a modelling expert, but first of all models to predict weather and models to predict climate are completely different in validity. Actually, I think they are running the same models just averaging the results, as climate is average weather over time (there are probably some differences, since some processes used in climate models happen too slowly to be relevant for weather models, and climate models have lower resolution than whether models due to computational time, so they cannot account for some effects related to cloud formation that well at the moment). That is my general understanding.

            So they may not be able to predict things 5 years in advance if processes that define oscillations at that time scale are not part of the model, or cannot be predicted from conditions as they are today. But if those oscillations average out over a longer time, then the model would be accurate over a longer time period, but have some unknown oscillations and variability. I.e., you could predict the average temperature over time (that is the climate if that is your definition), but the actual temperature(or the oscillations) only within certain bounds (i.e., 1.3 degrees to 4 degrees). But as I said I am not an expert so this is just my understanding.

          • Ghostmaker

            You can’t predict short term yet you say you can predict long term? How is that logical?

          • pkpekka

            Well, I am not quite sure what the question refers to. But I assume it refers to some short-term cycles climate scientist do not understand. This could mean that you can predict a long-term average (that contains one or more of those cycles so that they average out, or maybe in the longer term the influence of the cycle is small compared to other influences), but not a short-term average. You can never predict a precise temperature on any given day e.g., 1st of january 2057, but you could give a probability distribution for a temperature on any given day, one month from now, 5 years from now and 50 years from now, as far as I understand.

            Anyway, I have to sign off now. Maybe you can find someone else to answer your questions.

          • Mr B J Mann

            If I were you I’d sign off too!

            But I like you so I’m going to let you in on the moneymaking scheme of a lifetime.

            Just send me £10,000 and you can have a golden share in my football results predicting model.

            It can already predict how many goals and saves each team will make at the end of the century, how many points each team will get, and their position in the league.

            In fact, it’s so advanced, it can even tell you that more goals will be scored in each of the next five years.

            Probably.

            Or maybe not.

            Possibly.

            But don’t let that put you off from putting all your dosh into my model.

            Trust me:

            All my mates say it’s it’s kosher!

          • pkpekka

            I don’t trust enough to send you £10000 and anyway consider it immoral to gamble such large sums, even if I am pretty sure to win. We can place a symbolic bet of £100 though, if you like. To be resolved on 2030 (as stated in the text by Judith Curry). If you pm me your e-mail address we can keep in touch.

            About Saudi Arabia, it is true that they have lots of sunshine. But one of the things about renewables is that you cannot transport them around the globe as easily as oil. And therefore the energy they produce also does not lend themselves to central control of sale and distribution as easily. They could of course convert their sunshine to hydrogen, but probably the easiest way to transport their energy around would be my manufacturing, i.e., they could become the manufacturing hub of the world. But I don’t believe that they have the economic diversity and innovation potential that would require. and manufacturing is also becoming more local again (although China still does a lot of it). But yes, it is a possibility, but not maybe in the way that you envisage. And ISIS certainly is not going to be selling hydrogen or doing anything else but pump gunk out of the earth (and it would be pretty easy to bomb their solar panels).

            Iran might be best placed to take advantage of solar energy for manufacturing. They have many of the same characteristics as China: relatively youthful and well-educated population with more equal representation of men and women in the society to provide more work force. Saudi Arabia could of course import labor from abroad (as they do already), but might be too xenophobic to do it on the scale required by large-scale manufacturing.

            Anyway, I am not bowing off because I concede defeat :-). I really do not have time to engage in this discussion anymore. If you send me your details we can continue at a later date.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So you don’t believe my model can predict what will happen at the end of the century even though I claim it can predict what will happen in the next few years in quite a bit of detail.

            Yet you choose to believe the long term predictions, the MMGW models even though you know they have go every prediction wrong so far?!?!?!!!!

          • pkpekka

            Well, I don’t know what your model is (and don’t really care) but if you like we can bet £100 that anthropogenic global warming primarily caused by CO2 will be as issue in 2030 (unless actions suggested by climate scientists succeeded in forestalling the problem, which at the moment seems unlikely) and that the warning by the majority of climate scientists (as laid out in the IPCC AR5) today are broadly correct.

          • Mr B J Mann

            You don’t need to keep on confirming my comment went right over your head!

          • pkpekka

            We can also bet on the corectness of MMGW (had a look at the Heatland institute video, although did not have time to go over in detail). But I think it would be unfair to you.

          • Mr B J Mann

            It was an investment opportunity, not a bet.

            And it clearly had plenty of time to go right over your head!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Where is your PROOF that we aren’t going to enter a global cooling phase, or even a mini ace age?

            Or are you happy to scrap all the carbon fuelled power stations and freeze to death?!

    • Ghostmaker

      Tell me how you intend on controlling the worlds temperatures please.

      • pkpekka

        By reducing CO2 (and methane) emissions. Read the IPCC report for further info.

        According to my (albeit limited) understanding, I don’t believe in geo-engineering (I believe it would work but would create other problems). It is already known that for instance volcano eruptions reduce the average temperature of the world somewhat. So controlling the “radiative forcing” seems to control temperature. Also lots of historic evidence that temperature and CO2 follow each other. It might not work, but we have to try.

        • Ghostmaker

          Could you now tell me if the earth had much higher CO2 concentrations in the past and what the results were?

          • pkpekka

            Yes, they seemed to coincide with higher temperatures. see figure: Figure 5.3 | Orbital parameters and proxy records over the past 800 kyr. WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL: page 400. I don’t fully understand this but it seems that CO2 amplified minor forcings caused by changes in orbits of earth. Now we are doing it the other way round (since orbits have not changed). These changes also happened over much longer time-periods.

          • Ghostmaker
        • Ghostmaker

          Also were not the reduced temperatures also caused by the increased dust and sulfite particles in the upper atmosphere?

          • pkpekka

            Temperature today would be even higher without pollution from China, dust from volcanic eruptions (lesser concern at the moment) etc… So if the deal with pollution, which needs to be done anyway since 100 000s of people are dying of it in China, then we would also increase the temperature by a few tenths of degree as far as I have understood. But pollution is not sufficient to negate climate change, increasing this pollution seem to be a preferred solution of some and is called climate engineering.

          • Ghostmaker

            There is no way possible you will get China to discontinue the use of carbon based fuel sources. That being said do you now propose a world wide conflict?

        • Ghostmaker

          They do follow each other to a degree but many years apart. I think the sun had far more involvement then what your models show.

    • Mr B J Mann

      I think you miss your own point.

      If the global warming cult believed in scientific risk analysis, and especially their standard fallback defence of the precautionary principle, they would be equally loud in their demands for us to tackle global cooling.

      Instead of demanding we shut down power stations.

      Especially as, if we succeed in tackling Global Warming, “ALL” that we’ll have to worry about then is the coming Ice Age.

      Even more especially as we reached the peak of the last natural warming phase round about the time man-made global warming “paused”!

      Ironically that’s discussed in the post just above yours and gives readers a better perspective on your scientific contribution.

  • physcitech

    The planet is going to warm , cool, or stay as is(not very likely). Mankind can do nothing to change this. The premise that CO2 is a main character in the climate change comedy act is flat out wrong!

    • Rik Myslewski

      You are, of course, quite simply incorrect. Do you deny the clear, observable, and measurable effect of long-wave radiation blockage/absorption by large molecules such as CO2, CH4, and the like? Do you have convincing arguments against even such old-school analysts as Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius, Callendar, and the like? Let’s see your experimental results, your math, your analyses, m’kay?

      I believe it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

      • RPTn

        You only have to read the IPCC WG1 report to see that there is a large uncertainty, which is not present in the top report which has been published up to 6 months before the WG1 report it is supposed to reflect. Unfortenately politicians, journalists, and most other people have never opened the out-of-date when pubished WG1.

        No sane person disputes dipolar gases ability to absorb IR, and as a result of that influence temperature, the question is HOW MUCH, which the above article points out, something you rarely see.

        The political climate establishment desperately want to keep it as something you either believe or not believe in, in what case you are a flat-flat-earther. This is not very scientific, and is why Dr Curry is unpopular orang them.

        • Rik Myslewski

          Your comment on the WGI’s “large uncertainty” is well-taken, but the uncertainty — as I’m sure you know from your reading of, at minimum, the IPCC WGI SPM — describes a wide range of outcomes based upon possible Representative Concentration Pathways from RCP2.6 (an unlikely and quite optimistic scenario) and RCP8.5 (also unlikely, though quite pessimistic — though more likely than RCP2.6):

          “Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6.”

          Simply put, if the globe gets its act together at, say, COP21 and immediately begins a drastic draw-down of GHGs, we’re not in too much trouble. If, however, we delay that draw-down due to political infighting, industry self-interest, or simple misunderstanding of the difference between enlightened risk-management and the desire for some unattainably high degree of “certainty,” our collective goose is collectively cooked.

          • David S

            Aren’t they weasel words? Why not talk about relative to today? Who knows what global surface temperature was in 1850 or 1900? How much of this warming occurred before the sharp increase in CO2? What do you think caused that? Why do IPCC refer to that period? Could it be because reducing all their numbers by 0.7ºC would take the fear factor away?

          • Katabasis

            What else does the IPCC say about the RCPs, Rik? Namely that they’re only “illustrative”. Does that fill you with confidence?

          • samton909

            That’s funny. That’s what they said in 1980, that we only had ten years to fix it, then it was too late. Get your story straight.

      • Katabasis

        ” Do you deny the clear, observable, and measurable effect of long-wave radiation blockage/absorption”

        – They don’t block or absorb anything for a start. They simply slow down the re-radiation of photons.

        And if you’re going to make arguments from authority, be careful. Arrhenius scaled down his estimate of sensitvity to CO2 dramatically.

      • samton909

        Well, the fact is that the planet has been heating and cooling for thousand of years before man got here. But you get one heat trend in the eighties, and suddenly the world is going to end unless we give up our cars.

  • Carbonicus

    I met Dr. Curry August 2009, 2 months before ClimateGate broke. We were both attending the GA Env Conference in Savannah. Dr. Curry was on a “climate change” panel with the GA State Climatologist and another scientist whose name escapes me at the moment. (I am an environmental industry professional of almost 30 years and interested in the science, economic, and policy aspects).

    After her panel concluded, and other attendees had a word with panelists, I asked Dr. Curry if she could spare a few moments to discuss some of the scientific issues that had been troubling me in my own review of the research (both sides).

    We spoke privately for about 30 minutes. At the time, I perceived Dr. Curry to be aligned with the prevailing “wisdom” on CAGW, but with a reasonable degree of proper scientific skepticism. She helped answer some technical questions I had about a variety of topics (e.g. residence time of CO2 in atmosphere, discrepancies between model projections and empirical, the already then evident “pause”, data adjustments, etc.). Then, two months later, ClimateGate broke. When read in detail and complete context, Dr. Curry concluded what many of us did from those emails.

    Over the ensuing years, Dr. Curry has been one of the planet’s greatest champions of the proper role of skepticism as regards this branch of science, of the uncertainties involved, of the unsettled question of climate sensitivity, etc. She has not abandoned her belief in the fact that human emissions of CO2 cause some warming (no serious “skeptic” argues this), has not become “a denier” as scientists, politicians, and pundits like to call us, and has stayed true to the importance of scientific rigor in this field.

    Dr. Curry, I salute your courage and commitment to truth and

    • odin2

      Very well said. Dr. Curry is not only an excellent scientist, she is a very courageous one to stand up to the abuse she has taken. She is a hero for science.

      • CB

        “Dr. Curry is not only an excellent scientist, she is a very courageous one to stand up to the abuse she has taken.”

        Out of all the things Dr. Curry has said, which impresses you more than anything else?

        “we estimate a 97% probability that 2015 will become the warmest year on record.”

        http://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/somewhat-very-extremely-how-likely-it-2015-will-be-new-warmest-year

        earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/earthmatters/files/2015/06/no-slow-down-in-global-warming-720×546.jpg

        • Rob Painting

          Whoa! Look at that pause! Just give me a minute, I’ll find it.

          • David S

            The key is in the word “corrected”. Without proper documentation, NASA has made older years cooler thus reinstituting the trend. Satellite records show no trend.

        • odin2

          CB, I refuse to deal with you because you are dishonest even for a troll. But I will make an exception. You intimate that Curry said the language you quoted but the links do not support that( the links are to government propaganda) . Misrepresenting again?

          Actually, it would not be surprising if 2015 is hotter than 2014 (which was not a record year), because we are in an El Nino which causes global temperatures to spike . El Ninos are natural phenomena which have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 levels.

          • CB

            “you are dishonest”

            For asking a question!?

            Since when is asking a question dishonest?

            You don’t want to tell me which of Dr. Curry’s statements you find the most impressive?

            Fine!

            How do you think that will make you look after you just said how much you admire her?

            “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record

          • samton909

            You are a typical dishonest troll. If you had a shred of decency, you would have informed us that NASA admitted they are only 38 percent sure that 2014 was the hottest year. So very sad that you clowns cloak yourself in “science” to spread your propaganda.

          • Carbonicus

            And CB is one of the biggest clowns in this debate.

          • CB

            “CB is one of the biggest clowns in this debate.”

            lol!

            The debate is over why people would think shouting “NO!” at over a century of scientific research would make that science disappear.

            I say it’s due to mental illness.

            If you weren’t mentally ill, Carbonicus, why would you be talking about yourself in the wrong person like that?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • CB

            “NASA admitted they are only 38 percent sure that 2014 was the hottest year.”

            Ah!

            …and what year had a higher chance of being the hottest on record?

            If you don’t know, how could you possibly know scientists are wrong?

            “The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880.”

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13

          • Evan Jones

            Each other candidate year had a significantly lower chance. (But their entire metric is screwed up from start to finish.)

          • CB

            “Each other candidate year had a significantly lower chance.”

            That’s right! 2014 is most likely to have been the warmest on record.

            That’s how science works…

            Ignorance cannot be substituted for an argument.

            “2015 will very likely beat 2014 as the warmest year”

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2015-may-just-be-hottest-year-on-record

          • Woodfords Frog

            “Ignorance cannot be substituted for an argument.”
            Yet, you do it all the time.

          • CB

            “you do it all the time.”

            lol!

            Don’t let my ignorance get in the way, Woodford. Tell the world which year was the hottest on record.

            I think it’s 2014.

            What do you think?

            “The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2014… was the warmest since 1891.”

            ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

          • Woodfords Frog

            CB, ever the recidivist!

            Already had this discussion, multiple times. What you THINK, and what actually IS are two different things!

            Even BEST doesn’t know which year is the warmest.
            “Therefore it is impossible to conclude
            from our analysis which of 2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest
            year… the Earth’s average temperature for the past decade has changed
            very little.”

            Jeremy Schulman asked Gavin Schmidt:
            “But what does the 38 percent
            figure actually mean? Wouldn’t it be accurate, I asked NASA scientist
            Gavin Schmidt, to say that there’s a 62 percent chance that 2014 wasn’t
            the warmest year?” Here’s part of his emailed response: Your
            formulation is technically accurate, but begs the question of which year
            was in fact the record.” – Jeremy Schulman

            And past temperatures have been warmer with rapid changes in the past.
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621
            http://people.oregonstate.edu/~carlsand/carlson_encyclopedia_Quat_2013_YD.pdf
            Unless
            of course, you live in the land of Marcott, Mann and Pages 2k where
            historical super low resolution proxies (where any rapid changes are
            smoothed) are spliced with modern high resolution temperature data.
            Actually, Marcott shows it’s been warmer in the past (Marcott neglected
            to tell that his methodology did not recognize ‘fast’ century changes at
            all)

            And yet, there is still no empirical evidence that CO2 drives climate!

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/new_study_waterworld_is_definitely_going_to_happen/#comment-2286496927

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/new_study_waterworld_is_definitely_going_to_happen/#comment-2284730237

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/new_study_waterworld_is_definitely_going_to_happen/#comment-2284623042

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/new_study_waterworld_is_definitely_going_to_happen/#comment-2286496927

          • CB

            “2014, 2010, or 2005 was actually the warmest year”

            That’s not one year, it’s 3, but I’ll take it!

            Are those years at the beginning or the end of the record, Woodford?

            “All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • Woodfords Frog
          • CB

            “Can you say natural warm interglacial period?”

            I can! What does that have to do with anything?

            Can you point to a single moment in Earth’s history when it got cold enough for polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we have today?

            If you can’t, why would you expect ice sheets to stick around unless we put the atmosphere back the way we found it?

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

            climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

          • Woodfords Frog

            “I can! What does that have to do with anything?”

            LOL! That today’s warming is natural, it has been warmer in the past, since temperature drives CO2. CO2 is the result of warming, not the cause. Already had that nice little conversation.https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/bernie_sanders_yes_climate_change_is_still_our_biggest_national_security_threat/#comment-2369602930
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecowatch/8216america_is_not_a_planet8217_the_only_accurate_thing_said_about_climate_change_at_gop_debate/#comment-2262633323

            Ice caps will melt if the earth is warming. Why, the earth has been without polar caps several times in it’s history, without any help from human emissions.
            And yet, with all those human CO2 emissions, the earth’s warming has stalled. Why is that? Oh look, and Antarctica is gaining ice.
            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses.

            P.S. Before you even go there…. already had that conversation about why East Antarctica is unstable.
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/motherjones/new_study_waterworld_is_definitely_going_to_happen/#comment-2258998228
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/princegeorgecitizenlive/pascals_principal_can_be_applied_to_climate_change/#comment-2266399905
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/princegeorgecitizenlive/pascals_principal_can_be_applied_to_climate_change/#comment-2267787557
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/princegeorgecitizenlive/pascals_principal_can_be_applied_to_climate_change/#comment-2268400849
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/princegeorgecitizenlive/pascals_principal_can_be_applied_to_climate_change/#comment-2270304384

          • CB

            “today’s warming is natural”

            No, Woodford. Humans have increased the amount of CO₂ in the air from 280PPM prior to the industrial revolution to 400PPM today.

            Nature didn’t do that.

            You are correct that the Earth lost its ice sheets several times in its history, and each and every time because of an increase in CO₂ above current levels.

            If you understand this, why would you expect a different outcome today?

            “multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate”

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564

          • Woodfords Frog

            Comprehension and ignorant issues CB? Already provided lots of empirical evidence that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around…. comprende? Stop mangling the science please.

          • CB

            “Comprehension and ignorant issues”

            I don’t think it’s possible for you to be as ignorant as you’re pretending to be!

            I think you’re a paid liar, just like Judith Curry.

            “temperature drives CO2”

            Yup… and CO₂ drives temperature. It’s a feedback loop that has already been explained to you multiple times now.

            Given that there isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it, state how likely you think it is that there will be a different outcome this time around… then state how it’s possible you’re being paid enough for your lies to make up for the damage those lies are likely to do.

            “the ice caps are melting at their base, caused by warming oceans.”

            http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/CryoSat/Ice_sheets

          • Woodfords Frog

            LOL! Empirical evidence doesn’t lie CB, but you do.

            “I think you’re a paid liar, just like Judith Curry.” That’s rich! Really who’s the one funding the lies????

            Didn’t you know grant/contribution dollars to promote AGW is much, much greater? It is much more lucrative to be a AGW science promoter.

            The invisible fact is that green groups are a highly developed networks with top leadership in social and political operatives. Green groups have well over $100 BILLION at their disposal.

            Why can’t you answer my questions, CB? And yet, with all those human CO2 emissions, the earth’s warming has
            stalled. Why is that?

            Oh and for the 3rd time, your Antarctica data is old. It’s time to update it. Because it’s gaining ice. So go ahead and call NASA a liar too.
            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

          • CB

            “who’s the one funding the lies????”

            The fossil fuel industry.

            “Didn’t you know grant/contribution dollars to promote AGW is much, much greater?”

            AGW doesn’t need to be “promoted”. It’s a fact.

            “the earth’s warming has stalled. Why is that?”

            Your question assumes that which has already been disproved by the evidence.

            “Why can’t you answer my questions, CB?”

            I feel like I just did. Now you try!

            If you understand each and every previous time CO₂ went so high, complete polar deglaciation followed, why would you expect a different outcome this time around?

            “The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” “

            http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486

          • Woodfords Frog

            “The fossil fuel industry.”
            Already had that conversation/showed you where most of the funding comes from.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/a_paris_climate_conference_dispatch/#comment-2400908124

            Skeptic climate scientists and their associated organizations are accused of receiving fossil fuel industry money in exchange for lying about the issue. But is there any truth to the accusation?
            http://gelbspanfiles.com/
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/union-of-concerned-scientists-hoisted-on-their-own-petard/

            Why don’t you show me where “fossil fuel funded” scientists purposefully published faulty science and are lying? Can you do that?
            It’s all guilt-by-association and nothing more. So if it’s guilt-by-association….. Then just about everyone is guilty!

            Green Groups that receive donations/investments with Big Oil
            Sierra Club: $25 million
            Nature Conservancy $22.8 million
            Conservation International: $22 million
            Sea Change Foundation: $23 million
            Wildlife Conservation Society: $337 million
            World Wildlife fund: $25.7 million
            Greenpeace $2 million
            World Resources Institute
            Green Energy Futures
            Etc., Etc.

            AGW promoters/scientist funded by big oil:
            Dana Nuccitelli
            Dr. Rajendra Pachauri
            Richard Muller
            Dr. Michael Mann
            Steven Mosher
            Etc., Etc.
            Basically any scientist/AGW alarmist or supporter that attended or worked at a University.

            Now just take a look at some scientists that work with Green Groups. Climate Scientists (broadly defined) serving on boards of green advocacy groups:
            James Hansen
            Michael Oppenheimer
            William Chameides
            James J. McCarthy
            Mario J. Molina
            Daniel Kammen
            Jonathan Foley
            Etc. Etc.

            Now if you want to stay with your theme that copious amounts of funding through
            fossil fuel industry makes you guilty, then we have to look at the funding from the other side.

            Green Group funding outstrips fossil fuel funding any day in expendable revenue! The invisible fact is that green groups are a highly developed networks with top leadership in social and political operatives. Green groups have well over $100 BILLION at their disposal.

            It is much more lucrative to be a AGW science promoter.

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            WF, I am surprised you continue to engage this troll. She is a proven liar.
            Evidently, your patience has no bounds.
            (Applause)

          • Woodfords Frog

            CB is beyond teaching/reasoning with, but there is always the chance that I can prevent someone else from believing her lies!

          • CB

            “CB is beyond teaching/reasoning with”

            Not at all!

            Point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.

            Why are you attempting to spin the conversation off with one of your fellow prostitutes instead of meeting that challenge?

            “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

            http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved

          • Evan Jones

            But not the satellites.

            The reason I find them more reliable is that there are two satellite metrics, one set run by alarmists (RSS), one by lukewarmers (UAH). UAH was reporting cooling in the early days, and it turned out it was spurious. So RSS was established and rooted out the problems with UAH, the fatal one being failure to account for satellite drift. Ironically, UAH’s subsequent adjustments were way up, about to the level of Haddy4 (pre-pausebuster). Then RSS told UAAH they got it too high, so UAH looked at it and eventually recorrected for drift, bringing it almost exactly in line with RSS. Looks like good science going on here.

            As fhe surface metrics, ah, what a tale. All of them, are flawed for a number of reasons, the primary one being that they do not account for poor microsite effect (aka Heat Sink Effect, HSE) on trend (sic). Nearby structures, paved surfaces, etc.

            And, for the USHCN the “gold standard” of GHCN, ~four out of five are poorly sited, out of compliance with NOAA’s own siting rules.

            NOAA does endorse the uncontroversial notion that HSE has an effect on offset, which homogenization would work for, pulling the minority towards the majority, and having no spurious effect on trend. And if the microsite changed, homogenization would detect and compensate for the jump, using pairwise comparison.

            The temptation to succumb to homogenization is just as seductive in science as it is in real life: the state of the GHCN metadata is, very likely, Worse than We Thought. The stations are well distributed in some places, but Outer Mongolia and through the Bight of Benin (“those who go in don’t come out again.”), well, not so much. And the worse distributed the stations are, the less metadata, that indispensable article of data, they tend from bad to wretched.

            So, what to do? Find the jumps, compare them pairwise, and adjust them to offset to the majority of sample. Rinse and repeat. So everyone’s an outlier, in homogenization-land. The only question is by how much. Doesn’t matter if the jump is due to a move, a change in siting environment, TOBS, equipment conversion or whatever.

            And, why not? Homogenization was the homeostasis that cured all ills of man or beast. Metadata? Who needs it? Come to think of it, we’re better off without it. It just gets in the way. Uncle H will handle it. It narrowed the external error bars. It covered up so many past sins of omission, when budgets were tight and the public interest was tepid (yes, missing GHCN metadata, I am pointing at you). It was the adjustment to end all adjustments. Just what the doctor ordered.

            The problem with all that being that poor microsite has an increased effect on the offset throughout an extended warming or cooling. Yes, nearby HSE will not only exaggerate trend by ~60% to 100% (depending on equipment). O be crystal clear: The offset is higher at the end of a warming series that at the start of it, and lower at the end of a cooling series.

            it will, at the same rate, exaggerate cooling. The only reason that it has exaggerated spurious warming is that there has been real, genuine warming to exaggerate in the first place. And this is land surface only (plus overlap where land is used over seas). But we are talking a 15%-20% exaggeration of global trend for the global surface networks.

            In a nustshell, that is our hypothesis. That and the equipment. And the station moves. The siting and the equipment and the station moves and TOBS (I’ll come in again).

            That is what they call a “systematic data error” in the stats biz. And when systematic error comes in the door, Uncle H becomes the H-bomb. Through the process I have described above, instead of the poorly sited majority of stations being adjusted DOWNward to conform with the well sited (which would “work”), the well sited minority of stations are adjusted UPwards to match the poorly sited ones.

            When H bombs, you have made a travesty of your data. This is not making pea soup out of the data. Follow the pea? The pea has vanished. What remains is predigested pap.

            And the beauty of it all is that if all you’re looking at said pap, you’d never even know there was a diversion in the first place. So if you didn’t know where to look you’d miss it every time. And besides: See my error bars. See how teeny-weeny they are. The boyz at admin are going to love this. And best of all, it’s Worse than We thought. Cocktails all ’round. (Is this the right time to bring up confirmation bias? And the Human Nature Thing?)

            Ah, uncle H. Sweet Eradicator of all man’s data sins, past, present and future. We loved you so.

            Now don’t get me wrong. NOAA is honest. They are arrogant. They are dismissive. They are sanctimonious. They are self-righteous. the are territorial. they are defensive. And, from personal experience, they can be sneaky. But they are no worse than most and better than
            some. (grumble)

            They made a just-plain mistake (one we made, by the way, in Fall et al.). Turns out, it’s a biggie. But mistakes happen. And human nature is (most scientists being at least part-human).

            So that is the tale of why the surface metrics are running too hot and why the satellites are more reliable.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Watt of the ocean surface and deep waters?

          • RealOldOne2

            Excellent summary of the mistakes in the land/ocean temperature datasets.

            “NOAA is honest.
            I’d say that most of the individuals in NOAA think they are being honest. But I’m sure that there are many who know that NOAA is perpetuating “mistakes” that make what they are doing wrong(bad science/improper data values) but are bullied into silence because they don’t want to destroy a 20 or 30 year career that they’ve spent their lifetime working to advance.

            … They made a just-plain mistake”
            OK, BUT: “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, ‘Factual errors vs. lies – and admitting mistakes’ – https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

            Their mistakes have been pointed out, but they cling to them. That makes them lies, and what they are doing fraudulent. Just as bad as Enron.

          • Evan Jones

            2014 is most likely to have been the warmest on record.

            I would say that 2014 is more likely to have been the warmest on record.

            “2015 will very likely beat 2014 as the warmest year”

            Probably. But not for either of the satellite metrics.

          • Vindaloo Bugaboo

            Neither HADCRUT3 or -4, WTI, GISTEMP LOTI, CRUTEM-3 or -4, RSS or UAH temperature graphs on WoodForTrees shows 2014 to be anywhere near the warmest. So take your pick which temperature record you’d like to use, CB.

            Or could it be that since the start of the 21st c. the statistical significance of these global averaged mean temperatures is meaningless (but useful!) hysterical hype for CAGW pundits?

          • Evan Jones

            They ramped it up to 48%-sure, IIRC. But their entire procedure is fatally flawed from the getgo. It is not to be seriously considered.

          • Evan Jones

            NASA is the worst of the Big Four. They don’t even use raw station data, they take NOAA adjusted data — and readjust it. Their GISS surface metrics are to be ignored.

          • Fromafar

            NASA opines on pretty pictures and data adjustments they refuse to disclose or justify.
            Until that time, their statements are at best harmful at worst, deceitful.

          • Rob Painting
          • Evan Jones

            That is UAH 5.6, not UAH 6.0. There have been corrections for satellite drift. UAH now tracks a slightly lower trend than RSS (but they are very close).

            http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2015/05/first-look-uah-60-vs-uah-56-vs-rss.html

          • odin2
          • jk

            So you reject all the data sets that show warming, but you believe in the one that doesn’t? Nice logic there.

          • lookout1

            If you read James Hansen 1999 paper on CAGW; the current temperature trend closely matches what would have happen if we froze all c02 emissions in 2000

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

            page 7 : 5 year mean : scenario C … (freezing all emissions)

            Of course emissions never froze!! Yet the temp matches what he expected if we did freeze them.

            This incidentally is a null hypothesis that the IPCC never bothered to examine

            Amazing you don’t hear how Hansen accidentally disproved CAGW

          • odin2

            What is the saying? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)

            Thanks.

          • lookout1

            Actually he inadvertently proves CAWG is false..

            He presents hypotheses that says if co2 doesn’t go up after 2000 we will follow temp trend C (barely moving)

            However CO2 went up 20-30% and we still followed temp trend C

            Conclusion: co2 is not a main driver of temperature because the temperature behaved as if c02 increased stopped,.although though it really increased 20-30%.

          • odin2

            I agree with your posts. My post about the clock was obtuse at best (sorry). Hansen got the temp trend right because he was wrong on CO2. My comment was a silly.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes.

          • planet8788

            Clearly flat since 2001. And cooling since 1998. What is your point?

          • Evan Jones

            That is actually a very large difference in trend. But Wood-for-Trees uses UAH 5.6, not 6.0, and the difference is even greater using the updated UAH.

          • Evan Jones

            El Ninos count. (But so do la Ninas.) 2015 will be a “likely” surface record, no doubt, but both satellite metrics are on track to disagree.

          • odin2

            El Ninos do create a spike in global temperatures, but they are not caused by increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

          • jk

            Translation: “I only believe the data that supports my view. Everything else is propaganda”

          • odin2

            You are projecting.

          • jk

            The irony in your comment is almost too good, but I needed to point it out.

        • jim_joystique

          There’s something really interesting about that graph that nobody seems to have mentioned. The upward trend starts at the turn of the century. The warming since then is consistent (apart from a single blip). But everybody agrees man wasn’t producing enough CO2 to have affected temperature at least pre-1945 and (some argue) pre-1979.

          So what you’re seeing in that graph is a combination of two things: (1) NOAA and others fudging their data [making old temperatures cooler and current temperatures warmer with spurious “adjustments” to exaggerate the trend] and (2) Natural Variation.

          Also don’t forget (oops, you already forgot) the warming trend starts in the 17th century, not 1900. Zoom the graph out and look with horror at the bland medium and long-term variation in Earth’s average temperature.

          • CB

            “The upward trend starts at the turn of the century.”

            …so did the upward trend in our emission of greenhouse gasses…

            What’s your point?

            “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “

            climate.nasa.gov/causes

          • jim_joystique

            The trouble with your thesis is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is correlated with the temperature rise (according to this unfalsifiable hypothesis). So you’ll presumably be able to explain why the rise 1905 – 1940 is the same as the rise 1979 – 2000, given that the amount of CO2 released in 1905 – 1940 was an order of magnitude less than the amount 1979 – 2000.

            It seems to me that any fair-minded person who doesn’t have an agenda would be more likely to attribute the warming to natural variation given it doesn’t correlate well with CO2 release.

            Yes, if you promise to give NASA a few billion dollars they’ll do and say absolutely anything you want.

          • lookout1

            If you read the James Hansen 1999 paper on CAGW; the current temperature trend closely matches what would have happen if we froze all c02 emissions in 2000

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf.

            page 7 : 5 year mean : scenario C … (freezing all emissions)

            Of course emissions never froze!! Yet the temp matches what he expected if we did freeze them.

            This incidentally is a null hypothesis that the IPCC never bothered to examine

            Amazing you don’t hear how Hansen accidentally disproved CAGW

          • planet8788

            Of course, the graph also erased the well documented global cooling from about 1940-1975. .7C worth of it.

        • Mobius Loop

          Oops, must be time for another significant climate conference, the right leaning media is finding a ‘victim’ to whip up a distraction piece about climate McCarthyism again.

          • CB

            Have I ever asked you what you think about Judith Curry?

            I find her to be a truly dishonest doubt-merchant, but she’s also mixed it up with her fellow fossil prostitutes, which I like.

            I think contrarians can play a constructive role in any discussion… if they’re honest enough to admit when they’re mistaken.

          • planet8788

            That means a lot coming from dishonest troll like you .

          • samton909

            Did you ever notice how they can’t argue civilly, so they always attempt tp personally tear down whoever disagrees with them?

          • JJS_FLA

            Ad hominem attacks disqualify you from civilized debate. Also, your appeals to authority represent universally-recognized logical fallacy unworthy of serious debate.

          • Mobius Loop

            I really struggle to understand Judith Curry, and think its because there seems to be a conflict between her stated aims and actions.

            There is merit in wanting to be inclusive and engage all sides in debate, and I agree with her that its to the detriment of the discussion that surrounds this subject that it is so aggressively politicized…….

            ……. but then time and again she offers support to individuals and organizations who are aggressively politicizing and lying about the subject e.g. she is pretty supportive of the reptilian Ted Cruz, saying that the statements that he has made are true but ignoring the fact he takes those statements out of context which is effectively a form of lying.

            But beyond supporting others who engage in this type of behavior its a bit rich to complain about politicization and go straight to a right leaning newspaper and accuse your colleagues of being a tribe of liars and bullies.

          • CB

            There’s something about her that just turns my stomache.

            I think maybe because she’s actually smart enough to know not to say anything demonstrably false. That tells me she’s smart enough to know what the likely consequences of her actions will be… and I find that truly immoral.

            That she’s prostituting herself for the fossil fuel industry is not in debate. She’s written posts in defense of anti-science propaganda outlets like Heartland and Cato and full papers for GWPF.

            That’s just not something an honest scientist would do…

            judithcurry.com/2011/02/14/blame-on-heartland-cato-marshall-etc
            http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/06/Judy-Curry-2015.pdf

          • Mobius Loop

            OK, the first link in particular is pretty loathsome, and I agree with your use of the word immoral.

            The link provides a good example of her utter hypocrisy, after subjecting us to her oily hand wringing about the politicization of the debate she looks squarely at those organizations primarily responsible for this and concludes there is nothing wrong because their budget for spreading lies and propaganda is much smaller than the budget needed to carry out actual research on a global scale.

            I agree, this nauseating behavior is not something that an honest scientist would do.

          • Mobius Loop

            Hi CB, can I ask you a favor?

            When I’m including quoted text it sometimes gets a bit lost and I noted that you are able to define this using sidebars, can you advise me how to do this or point me in the direction of a handy guide to formatting disqus?

            Thanks.

          • https://disqus.com/by/gary_slabaugh Mensch59

            I had to ask CB that same advice twice.
            If you want to use a sidebar use “” enter the quote, then without the commas.
            Thanks becomes

            Thanks

          • Two Americas

            In addition, any HTML markups can be used.

            links

            bolded text

            italics

            headings

          • https://disqus.com/by/gary_slabaugh Mensch59

            As well as strike, underline, and embedded links

          • https://disqus.com/by/gary_slabaugh Mensch59

            I’m displaying some ignorance here, but what the heck. What’s a “heading” & why would you use one?

          • Two Americas

            Get Attention

          • https://disqus.com/by/gary_slabaugh Mensch59

            Ok. Thanks

          • Two Americas

            You can see it in use with the headlines on the articles.

          • CB

            Mwahahahahah! You want the keys to the kingdom, do you?

            Absolutely! I thought you already knew:

            <blockquote>”quoted text”</blockquote>

            …gets you:

            “quoted text”

            Disqus lets one use a subset of HTML:

            help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466253-what-html-tags-are-allowed-within-comments

            FYI, if you want to get ahold of me, try my non-therapy account. Sometimes this one gets swamped. :/

            disqus.com/cblargh

          • Mobius Loop
          • http://disqus.com/cblargh00 CB

            Look at you! …doing all the things…

            The anchor is a link. Yours was empty, which is why it doesn’t go anywhere. You can make links look pretty like this:

            Many people say Judith Curry is a low-down, dirty liar.

            I actually argue against that format, in general, because it’s harder to tell what you’ve linked to… and it’s a PIA. If you want to do it, it looks like this:

            <a href = “http://desmog.com/judith-curry”>Judith Curry</a>

            There’s also a whole bunch of special characters out there. For instance, CO₂ is written thusly: CO₂

            The greenie account is for when I get tired of babysitting and want to actually have grownup discussions about stuff…

          • Mobius Loop

            Great, thanks again, feel like I’ve learned something today.

            Yes, the whole thing is a bit fiddly, but if it helps to frame an argument then fine.

            I’m surprised that you can find anywhere here to post without being crashed by the ‘babies’.

          • http://disqus.com/cblargh00 CB

            “I’m surprised that you can find anywhere here to post without being crashed by the ‘babies’.”

            Climate Deniers are remarkably reactive!

            If you don’t challenge them, they’ll pretend you don’t exist…

            Pretend being the primary method by which they shuffle through life…

          • Mobius Loop

            That makes sense.

            I know you have reservations about using anchors, but I think they have their place:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/pj-media/obama39s_organizing_for_action_group_39call_out_the_climate_change_deniers39/#comment-2391880964

          • http://disqus.com/cblargh00 CB

            Gorgeous!

            I know anchor links look nicer, but it’s important to make one’s sources clear.

            When posters link to Watts or Goddard (or Curry), it’s an immediate tip-off they aren’t telling the truth.

            I can tell you’ve linked to Science, Pnas, IOP and a number of other reliable sources in that post by hovering over the links, but if I were on a tablet or phone, it would be a lot more difficult to tell where you’ve linked to…

            It does look nicer, though.

            BTW, I’ve been having difficulty with block quoting on the Telegraph recently… I’m not sure if they are filtering out the HTML or what.

          • Mobius Loop

            Fair point, its often useful to read the URL before clicking.

            At the moment I’m just happy if any HTML works, let alone that on the Telegraph :)

          • http://disqus.com/cblargh00 CB

            “I’m just happy if any HTML works, let alone that on the Telegraph”

            They have started censoring their threads!

            …and they fired Geoffrey Lean.

            That doesn’t actually bode well for their future… Nobody likes North Korean-style propaganda.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d736bc1f49bae1b1bccf8a92182286fcbbded45c2d720f68d983fa4a99f99c3.jpg

          • jim_joystique

            Which you singularly haven’t managed to do throughout this entire discussion (or any other no doubt).

        • DAVID WATT

          No slowdown based on the much manipulated ground station data

          • Rob Painting

            Conspiracy theories certainly seem to be the most common denier theme here.

          • planet8788

            Read Hansen, et al. 1981 and look at his ccharts.

          • samton909

            Complete and total belief in whatever government agencies say seems to be the most common alarmist theme here.

          • CB

            “Conspiracy theories certainly seem to be the most common denier theme here.”

            Paranoid-delusional ideation is one of many indications a person is suffering from the mental illness of Climate Denialism.

            It’s not possible for a sane person to believe all scientists on Earth have been conspiring for over a century to make people think humans warm the planet when we don’t…

            “In 1895, Arrhenius… described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius

          • planet8788

            1880 to 1980 warming has tripled since 1981…

            Current scientists apparently believe the 20th century scientists were pretty stupid

          • jk

            Translation: “It’s more reliable because it supports what I believe.”

        • samton909

          Ooops!

          The chart you show is from the recent study by Tom Karl. But the Washington Post reports that NOAA whistelblowers have said that the study was rushed through in order to influence the upcoming Paris talks, and the normal process was thrown away in order to skew the data.

          “Smith told Pritzker that the whistleblowers’ allegations make it more crucial that he be provided with the scientists’ internal e-mails and communications. If NOAA does not produce the e-mails he is seeking by Friday, the chairman said, “I will be forced to consider use of compulsory process,” a threat to subpoena the commerce secretary herself.

          Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.

          “NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored,” he wrote.”

          • RayGun

            @samton909 Great post. A fact will never change the mind of a liberal or a climate alarmist. They don’t care about truth just their agenda. $$$ and power.

        • DAVID WATT

          What you would never guess based on the above graph is that while the two satellite systems UAH and RSS show 0.114 degrees C warming per decade between 1979 and 2015, all of that warming took place between 1979 to 1998. Since 1998 there has been a “pause” with no warming trend whatsoever.
          This lack of warming is well attested and has been much discussed, but at a time when emissions are continuing to rise as fast as ever, is extraordinary and has not so far been satisfactorily explained..

        • Vindaloo Bugaboo

          If the Stanford team wants to erase the ‘hiatus’ by using ship intake air temperature recordings because they believe the ARGO sea buoys’ SST measurements were “faulty”, then the 0-2000 m depth temperatures measured by ARGO that shows the deep sea has absorbed 93% of the missing heat from fossil fuel combustion is also “faulty” and should be discarded.

          If the Stanford team wants to erase the ‘hiatus’ by using the original, cooler ARGO buoy temperatures but then employing inertial data tampering instead of recognizing via Hovmiller subsurface recordings that temperature can change quickly in any given strata, then so be it – but such deception points to developing a method to justify a pre-determined conclusion and not employing the scientific method.

          http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/september/global-warming-hiatus-091715.html

    • CB

      “For that, Dr. Curry, you are a hero of science and history will remember you as such.”

      lol! Did she die?

      Carbonicus, if you think our CO₂ emissions have not set in motion catastrophic changes, point to a single moment in Earth’s history polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ so high.

      Don’t forget to cite your sources!

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad8887d0b592fd0e4d5d55535894d0303ff78d4aceb125c770ea700cb0b0a8b5.jpg

      • samton909
      • DAVID WATT

        CB,
        I am not sure which NASA measurement you are using. I suspect it dates from around 2009 when there were several papers saying stuff like this.
        The latest and most accurate measurement by NASA is in an October 2015 paper in the Journal of Glaciology with Jay Zwally as lead author.
        This shows an annual net increase in Antarctic ice of 100,000 billion metric tons per annum .It suggests that an increase on this scale has been going on for decades and shows no sign of slacking off or reversing any time soon.
        Look it up for yourself. It surprised me too.

        • RayGun

          Great post David. Will be waiting for CB to reply. Just remember that a fact won’t change the alarmist mind. Its a mental disorder.

          • CB

            “Will be waiting for CB to reply.”

            lol!

            …and if you were actually interested in the truth, you would have taken the initiative yourself.

            You do know how to use google, right?

            What does the lead author of the paper in question have to say about people misrepresenting his findings?

            Do you know?

            “The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” “

            http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486

      • Carbonicus

        For the I-don’t-know-how-manyith-time, Ordovician Silurian glaciation, when atmospheric CO2 levels were in range of 2,000-4,000 ppm. Geocarb III.

        You are an Eco-Leftist water carrier, and you are going to be in tears after COP21. NOTHING legally binding is coming out of that and the game will be for all intents and purposes over.

        • CB

          “Ordovician Silurian glaciation, when atmospheric CO2 levels were in range of 2,000-4,000 ppm. Geocarb III.”

          You have posted this falsehood 31 times now. GEOCARB III is a CO₂ proxy that cannot possibly prove your claim, because the granularity is far shorter than the glaciation in question. You’re also ignoring much more detailed measurement that suggests CO₂ crashed to limiting levels during the end-Ordovician glaciation.

          This has been explained to you at least 31 times now.

          Carbonicus, what does the word “credibility” mean?

          “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

          http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18618-high-carbon-ice-age-mystery-solved

      • falstaff77

        “Catastrophic changes”? Where, per the IPCC AR5, has “catastrophic” anything taken place due to climate change? You’ll find that difficult to show, as AR5 does not use he word, or a synonym.

    • http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/ Rich Vail

      What Dr. Curry is, is called a principled scientist. She is skeptical of non-reproducable science…that’s not a bad thing. A bad thing is scientists who refuse to make available their data so that their experiments can be reproduced…scientists who destroy their data so that none may criticize their experiments, etc. That’s bad science. My father was a scientist and he raised me to be sceptical of any scientist who has become political because their science is then used to support or oppose potlitical goals.

      40 years ago, climatologists were worried about the coming ice age, they demanded that,

      “• Climate change is happening faster than we realize and it will have catastrophic consequences for mankind.
      • There’s very little we can do to stop it at this late stage, but we might be able to save ourselves if we immediately take these necessary and drastic steps:

      – Increase our reliance on alternative energy sources and stop using so much oil and other carbon-based fuels;
      – Adopt energy-efficient practices in all aspects of our lives, however inconvenient;
      – Impose punitive taxes on inefficient or polluting activities to discourage them;
      – Funnel large sums of money from developed nations like the U.S. to Third World nations;
      – In general embrace all environmental causes.

      You of course recognize these as the solutions most often recommended to ameliorate the looming crisis of Global Warming. But there’s a little glitch in my narrative. Because although the book I read was indeed about climate change, it wasn’t about Global Warming at all; it was instead about “The Coming of the New Ice Age,” and it isn’t exactly “new” — it was published in 1977.”

      http://www.worldcat.org/title/weather-conspiracy-the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-a-report/oclc/2912227 is the book, and this is the link that I found it;

      https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/

      Why is every answer to every issue of the Left, more government spending, more government control…it never works, but why does the left demand the same answer to every issue?

    • Evan Jones

      Bravo!

      “Well spoke.”

  • RayGun

    I hope we don’t enter into a grand minimum but if we do it will be called the Landscheidt Minimum. Theodor Landscheidt predicted the solar downturn for SC-24 and coming 25. When it starts to cool the same fascist who attack Curry now will be blaming CO2 and their solutions to save the world will be the same as they are offering up now.

  • Angus2100

    Excellent! :)
    How did she ever become a professor? Who knows?

    • RPTn

      Guess a PhD in Geophysical Sciences and a couple of hundred publications helps.

      Not to mention a clearly demonstrated ability to avoid group thinking.

      • Angus2100

        There are scientists who don’t agree with evolution, there are scientists who don’t agree with plate tectonics, there are scientists who don’t agree that smoking is harmful to health.

        Judith Curry is nothing more than just another outlier, a contrarian who dismisses a vast body of scientific evidence.

        Next please.

        • RPTn

          I never met a biologist that believed Darwin had the full explanation, a lot of them mean the theory is fairly weak in some areas, still the ones I have met are not creationists but simply acknowledges that the best theory around is still not perfect.

          I believe very few, if any dont believe in plate tectonics, but likely that theory is not perfect yet, not my area, but I dont find it strange that it was disputed.

          That is how science works.

          Your thing about smoking is hardly worth a comment, this is the standard way of discrediting scientists after running out or arguments

          I assume your chosen approach to science is is reflected in the famous 97% fraud!

    • Ghostmaker

      How could she ever think for her self…

  • Rob Painting

    It’s this simple: the mainstream climate science community is continually vindicated by the onoing long-term heat uptake into all components of Earth’s climate system, whereas people like Curry are not only continually wrong, but largely incoherent.

    Curry – “I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased that much”

    Richard Lindzen was making even more bold claims 20 years ago – that the Earth was going to cool – and he was wrong too. 2015 is a near dead cert to become the warmest year of global surface temperature, sea level rise is the highest ever recorded, and so too is ocean heat content (93% of global warming) the highest ever recorded.

    The time is long overdue for the mainstream media to stop peddling the nonsense of climate cranks like Judith Curry.

    • RPTn

      Well, I think you can say that Lindzens guess was significantly better than the IPCC models!

      The temperature has basically been constant since 1998, with a slight increase less than the uncertainty. This is not the case with the IPCC models, showing a large increase. This obviously is the most important learning from this period; the climate models are way off, and not in the current state what we should bet the future on. Obviously when the situation is stable a small increase is what it takes to be the highest one. Like when 2014 was the warmest, allthough Gavin Schmidt had to admit that statistically 2014 was warmest with a certainty of 37%. However I have have no doubt that 2015 due to the El Nino will top out.
      Cant wait to hear people like you talking about the sea level rise in Chile then; the El Nino may temporarily increase sea level by up to 1000 mm!

      By the way, what I have liked in this discussion is that most of the participants appears to take interest in the discussion, but your ad hominem attacks excludes you from the respect I in general feel for the participants here!

      • Rob Painting

        If you think I’m going to bother responding to a rehash of all the lame denier myths you are sadly mistaken. The Earth is going to keep warming as long as we humans continue to add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

        • RPTn

          Why dont you find another site for this. You apparently have all the answers worked out, and very little interest for facts that dont fit your narrative.

        • Ghostmaker

          Rob quit adding to the problem stop breathing.

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          Oh dear.

          You really don’t have the first clue, do you?

          I bet you’re a pause denier too, am I right?

        • RealOldOne2

          “If you think I’m going to bother responding to a rehash of all the lame denier myths …”
          LOL. There you go again behaving EXACTLY like the duped reality-denying doomsday cult zealot that you are. Just ignore any empirical data that is contrary to your cult dogmas and pretend it doesn’t exist and dodge, deny & dodge. So delusional to claim that the satellite temperature record is a myth.

          “The Earth is going to keep warming as long as we humans continue to add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”
          Sorry Rob, but no matter how many times you chant your failed climate cult mantras and click your heels together, that will not make it happen. You are in as big a fantasy land as Dorothy was when she clicked her heels together.

          Fact: From 1750 to 1997 humans added ~1 trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
          Fact: In the last ~19 years humans have added 570 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere.
          Fact: There has been no increase in global average temperature of the atmosphere during that past ~19 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12

          The fact that you can add a ~60% perturbation of additional CO2 to the atmosphere and it caused NO increase in temperature, is is convincing empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming. So sad that you are such a pathetic denier of reality.

    • Ghostmaker

      When your in charge of faking the data used I guess you can maintain the false argument.

      • Rob Painting

        Conspiracists like yourself cannot expect to be taken seriously.

        • Ghostmaker

          Name calling is a basic response from the uneducated.

          • Rob Painting

            Says the guy in denial about basic climate science.

          • Ghostmaker

            Says the religious zealot.

          • Rob Painting

            Says science. Check out sea level rise for instance, the ongoing expansion of seawater as it grows warmer, and the addition of glacial meltwater from land-based ice, are causing it to rise ever higher.

          • Ghostmaker

            Sea level rise I love that one. 1.8 CM a year is that the current number?

          • Ghostmaker

            Sorry NOAA says .12 inches a year Scary stuff.

          • Rob Painting

            Personal incredulity is not a counterargument.

          • Ghostmaker

            Facts are.

          • RobbertBobbert GDQ

            Ghostmaker
            Facts are that Australia has one of the oldest Tidal gauge records at Fort Denison not too far from the Opera house.
            The Original or raw data is much less than the NOAA adjusted final product but that still leaves us with a pretty ordinary and not so scary sea level rise story.

            NOAA (part of NASA) via its Tides and Currents site bangs The Fort Denison data up to .65mm per year at a 95% confidence rate. YES. Millimetres. .65 of them.

            This then equates to a .21 per foot century rise. That is point 21 feet per century.
            Is that one fifth of 12 inches?

            Rob. Do ya reckon the Opera House is safe for the next few years?

            But what of The Land across the Tasman?

            Greater Wellington Regional Council reports in 2012 that Wellington has the highest rise in the Land.
            ‘The long term record from New Zealand shows that sea level has been rising at an average rate of 1.7mm/yr. However, in Wellington it is slightly higher due to subsidence and is currently increasing at 2.03mm/yr. This equates to a little over 0.2m over the last 100 years alone.

            Naturally they need to find a scarier story so they produce this could be , might be, scenario to ensure the grants , like the rising tide, keep flowing.

            …Most of this rise is due to climate change but is being exacerbated by subsidence of the city over the past decade, caused by slow-slip seismic events from deep tectonic plate movements. Projections for the end of this century indicate sea level in Wellington region could rise by 0.8m by the 2090s or 1.0m by 2115…
            85 years and 100 year projections.Really!!! Does anybody actually think the public buy into these 50, 80 or 100 year guesses?

            Shame they included subsidence and tectonic plate movements as it means readers have to account for these natural variations and might resist the initial urge to go hide under their bed. Or in a rowboat!

            Sea level rise. The biggest Crock within The Global Warming Crockathon.

          • RPTn

            Yes, the time constant of the oceans has suddenly gone down from around 800 years to 50 to catch the the temperature increase from 1970 to 1998, and the coefficient of expansion has 10 doubled to make 18 mm!

          • Ghostmaker

            Is that why the Antarctic ice has grown?
            I supposed NASA is dead wrong when they say overall ice on earth has increased.

          • Rob Painting

            That doesn’t even make sense. Try again.

          • Ghostmaker

            You have no real grasp Rob. To bad you just can’t delete post here like on your web site.

          • Rob Painting

            There’s that conspiracizing again.

          • Ghostmaker

            Really Rob show me any non warming viewpoint on your web site?

          • Rob Painting

            Would you expect to find any discussion of Bigfoot in primate research?

          • Ghostmaker
          • Rob Painting

            Dude, seriously? A link to the gutter press? You deniers have no idea how crazy you are to rational observers.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. There you go again acting exactly like the doomsday cult fanatic that you are, denying reality and anything that exposes the flaws and failures of your global warming religion. So sad. But so typical of delusional duped doomsday cult members.

        • Ghostmaker

          The NOAA study… Isn’t that the study that is trying to hide it’s science from the US congress? Weird how temperatures have skyrocketed in areas that are not monitored by land base temperature monitors. I find it also concerning that NASA says Greenland’s temperatures are decreasing yet NOAA has them getting extremely hot..

          Yet at the same time RSS Sat’s show a decrease over 18 years 8 months now. That’s right time for another warmer conference isn’t it.

          • Rob Painting

            Err no. The data and tools to analyze it are freely available. You’re just retreating into conspiracy again.

          • RPTn

            Also weird how the USCRN is acting! But I guess Dr Karl would have a problem adjusting it, the way he argued for the money!

          • RogerKnights

            He’s not a Dr.

          • RPTn

            Appears you are right, he only has an honorary title!

        • modor222

          Terrifying graph, Less than 1 deg.C warming since the 1800’s oh noooo..

        • JetFuelJumper

          I’ve always enjoyed that graph since it looks so bad for alarmists. (Let’s pretend we actually have global records for a second)

          The “rate of warming” was exactly the same in the early 1900s before human CO2 could be a factor. Kills the “unprecedented rate of warming” claim.

          And then when human CO2 enters the picture mid-20th century….temps DECREASED for 20-30 years. So looking at the entire period of modern warming, we see there is correlation with CO2 and rising temps for only 20 years out of 110. That’s called “poor correlation”.

          That’s actually using the flawed data that alarmists use! The theory is about as weak as it gets.

    • Ghostmaker

      Painting tell me how much funding do you get from government sources?

    • RealOldOne2

      “the mainstream climate science community is continually vindicated by the ongoing long-term heat uptake into all components of the Earth’s climate system”
      Your delusional denial of reality is in perfect accord with doomsday cult fanatics whose predictions of doom have failed to happen.
      You climate alarmists’ latest and greatest CMIP5 climate models projected that global temperatures would have risen by 0.45C so far through the 21st century. (model outputs found here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Willis%27s%20Collation%20CMIP5%20Models.xlsx )
      Actual global temperatures have slightly declined by 0.04C: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/trend
      Turns out Lindzen was right, and you peddlers of the pseudoscience global warming religion were wrong.

      The so-called “science” of you climate alarmists predicted that increasing ghgs would increase atmospheric temperatures greater than surface air temperatures ( https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-1-l.png ) and “trap the heat” which would raise surface temperatures. This has NOT happened, yet you delusionally claim that the mainstream climate science community has been vindicated.

      If the atmosphere hasn’t been heated, then there is no way for the heat to be transferred into other parts of the Earth’s climate system such as the oceans. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prohibits colder ghgs in the atmosphere from transferring heat to the warmer surface of the ocean.

      Your CO2-controls-the-climate hypothesis has FAILED. Real scientists accept the reality of their failed hypotheses, and modify their hypothesis in line with reality.
      Cult pseudoscientists refuse to face reality and deny it, and change the empirical observational data to fit their failed hypotheses. That’s exactly what you climate alarmists have been doing.

      The time is long overdue for you reality-denying alarmist climate pseudoscientists to stop peddling your rubbish junk scam/hoax/lie/fraud of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2.

      • Rob Painting

        Parroting denier rhetoric does not impress me, nor your cherrypick of the satellite data.

        It is clear that, among the many issues that have plagued the satellite data (the satellites don’t actually measure temperature but radiative brightness of oxygen in the atmosphere) over the years, the satellite data exhibit larger short-term variability. A larger standard deviation equates to a longer time period to achieve statistical significance.

        The current El Nino will prove interesting as the lower troposphere data lag surface warming by some 4-5 months. We could see satellite temperatures exceed the 1998 record in the RSS & UAH data next year. But regardless, even the satellite data show long-term warming too.

        • JetFuelJumper

          So you are eager to embrace an artificially augmented temp record due to El Nino?

          Interesting how the 1998 El Nino year is quickly discarded as an “outlier” when included in the current 19 year “pause”.

          • Rob Painting

            Get with the program! El Nino years are progressively getting warmer because the climate system is growing warmer. Neutral years and La Nina years are growing warmer too. This is very basic stuff.

          • RealOldOne2

            “El Nino years are progressively getting warming because the climate system is growing warming too.”

            LOL @ the flailing doomsday climate cult zealot desperately defending his failed global warming religion with jihadist zeal.
            El Ninos are a natural climate phenomenon Rob, releasing stored solar heat, so thanks for agreeing that the late 20th century warming was caused by step by step natural solar process, just like has been happening throughout the entire history of the Earth.

        • RogerKnights

          “But regardless, even the satellite data show long-term warming too.”

          Oh sure–but at a non-alarming rate: 0.4 degrees C over 36 years since 1979. And lower than that since 1950, when the influence of man’s extra CO2 is supposed to have kicked in.

          • Rob Painting

            Glad you agree the satellite data show long-term warming. At least you’re a bit further along in understanding than your fellow denier compatriots here.

          • RealOldOne2

            “fellow denier compatriots here”
            Such a pathetic dishonest denier of reality you are Rob. All of a sudden you are OK with the satellite data if you consider the entire record, but if you just consider the last ~1/2 of it which shows NO warming, then its flawed and doesn’t measure temperature, and on an on. So sad. But so typical of reality-denying doomsday cultists.

        • RealOldOne2

          “Parroting denier rhetoric”
          LOL @ your handwaving clown dance! I linked to one of your own IPPC graphs in which satellites are the ONLY way to globally verify if the prediction was accurate! And it was NOT accurate btw.

          And thanks for once again performing exactly like the doomsday cult zealot behavior that I explained to you, denying reality by dissing the satellite record just because it exposes your FAILED doomsday climate cult predictions! Hilariously stupid there dupe, as only satellites can measure the temperature where your faulty, flawed, falsified, failed climate models predicted the temperature increase would be the greatest. The ONLY reason that you diss the satellite data is because it exposes the FAILED predictions of your climate cult dogma.

          Here’s what one of your own climate cult high priests said: “Satellite TLT data have near-global, time-invariant spatial coverage; in contrast to global mean temperature trends estimated from surface temperature records can be biased by spatially and temporally non-random coverage changes.” – Santer(2015)

          And here is what NASA says about the satellite temperature measurements: “the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

          And here is what the scientist responsible for one of the satellite temperature datasets says: “thermometers can not measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.” – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/

          “The current El Nino will prove interesting…”
          It’s hilarious that you CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult fanatics are now relying on a NATURAL climate phenomenon to resuscitate your dying global warming religion. If and when it does cause higher temperatures, all it will prove is that NATURAL climate variables are still the primary driver of climate change now, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet.

          Thanks for the laughs, you foolish gullible duped reality-denying climate cult fanatic! LOL

          • Rob Painting

            More conspiracy drivel. Ho hum.

          • RealOldOne2

            “More conspiracy drivel. Ho hum.”
            There you go acting like the doomsday cult fanatic that you are.
            So sad that you delusionally think that IPCC graphs, peer reviewed science, empirical satellite data, El Ninos are “conspiracy drivel”.

            You aren’t fooling anyone except yourself Rob. You can’t rebut any of the empirical science that I present, so your bury your head so up your backside and pretend it doesn’t exist. Pathetic. But typical of reality-denying doomsday cultists.

          • Rob Painting

            You’re not making much sense, but I guess you’re used to that. I note the climate denier myth regurgitation has moved on to models vs observations.

            Given that the models cannot predict changes in forcings, such as increases in volcanic aerosols, and the timing of large-scale natural variability, such as the phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), they’ve done a remarkable job so far.

          • Magoo

            Sure Rob, the models are doing a ‘remarkable job’. We all believe you.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

          • RealOldOne2

            “they’ve done a remarkable job so far.”
            Sorry that you are so scientifically illiterate that you don’t understand that the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models are incapable of accurately projecting future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level!
            “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level“. – vonStorch(2013)

            What a display of delusional denial of reality claiming that the models have “done a remarkable job so far” when 97% of the models overestimate actual climate warming.
            You expose yourself as a deluded, duped doomsday climate cult zealot. So sad.

    • Isandhlwana79

      The time is long overdue for the mainstream media to stop peddling the nonsense of climate cranks like chumps who run kook sites like “Skeptical Science”.

      There fixed it for you.

    • JetFuelJumper

      Interesting how alarmists claim we need to trust scientists…until a scientist says something they don’t like. Then it’s time to attack the scientist and attempt to silence them.

      Claims about “warmest on record” sound impressive if a person doesn’t know how poor and limited “the record” really is. Land measurement typically covers 15% of the globe or less. And we have almost nothing from the oceans prior the 2003. Alarmists don’t want to count the satellite record of course…but it does cover much more of the globe.

      Not to mention the small scale we are talking about here with tenths of a degree blown up on large graphs as if we can measure the “global temperature” that precisely.

      The logic fails on all fronts on this issue.

    • odin2

      Unmitigated balderdash.

      • Rob Painting

        Says the guy fantasizing he’s a Norse god.

        • odin2

          That was weak.

          • samton909

            it’s all he’s got

    • samton909

      2015 is a warm year because of the El Nino. Forgot to mention that, eh?

      • RealOldOne2

        Isn’t it amazing that the climate alarmists who deny that natural climate variability has been the cause of recent climate change and claim (falsely) that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver of global warming now rely on a natural climate phenomenon, El Nino, to increase global temperature so they can play Chicken Little once again about dangerous global warming due to anthropogenic CO2.
        That is hypocrisy to the extreme.

  • Magoo

    The following article stops all climate science deniers dead in their tracks, and I’ve yet to see anyone beat the argument. It’s hilarious watching the deniers spluttering after they’ve read it, like watching the village idiot choking on a chicken bone:

    http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html

    • RPTn

      Please explain, from what I can see this report pretty much support a non-climatic scare point of view.
      The lack of hot-spot referred to is the most important indication that the climate models does not give the correct result, much more important than the difference between measured and predicted since 1998, because it basically tell us that the models does not model the heat balance correctly. And no-one with the faintest knowledge of the science involved would say that CO2 doesn’t influence the climate. The discussion is how much, and of course the detailed mechanism that we are not even close to comprehend.

      • Rob Painting

        It’s nonsense. Note all the links to climate science denier Joanne Codling’s site.

        • Ghostmaker

          Yes Rob you must shut down all opposing views… Keep your eyes closed.

        • Magoo

          Note also the link to the empirical evidence in the IPCC AR5 report showing 100% agreement amongst all the temperature datasets that contradicts the prediction in the AR4 report – is that the ‘nonsense’ you’re referring to, or is it the link to scepticalscience?

      • Magoo

        Hi RPTn. Yes that’s right, the article does support a non alarmist point of view. The sources of the prediction & data cannot be questioned from those who promote AGW, therefore they would have to ‘deny’ the science to reach a conclusion contrary to that of the article, hence the ‘climate science denier’ phrase.

        • RPTn

          Pretty much the ‘Pacific Islands are drowning” article recently that was linked to the National Geographic article quoting a report that made the opposite conclusion.

          Did you read Orwell?

          • Magoo

            Do you have a link to Orwell?

    • odin2

      The article you link to supports the skeptics’ positions very well and it is likely to cause Believers to blow a gasket.

      http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html

      Great article. Thanks. I am adding it to my library.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      There’s a serious problem with that piece.

      ‘In GCMs [global climate models], water vapour provides the largest positive radiative feedback (see Section 8.6.2.3): alone, it roughly doubles the warming in response to forcing (such as from greenhouse gas increases).’

      Unfortunately for you alarmists and your silly computer games climate models, of the three main analyses of the NASA NVAP satellite atmospheric water vapour measurements since the late 1970s, two – Vonder Haar and Humlum – show it to be effectively trendless, and the third – Solomon et al – indicates that in the decade post-2000 atmospheric water vapour concentration declined by ~10%.

      Without a concomitant rise in atmospheric water vapour tracking or even exceeding the increase in atmospheric CO2, the high sensitivity water vapour feedback driven anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is dead in the water.

      It is as simple as that.

      • Magoo

        Yes, that is the point I and the article are making – have a proper read of the article, it’s disputing AGW not endorsing it. I’m not an alarmist but a sceptic.

        • Rob Painting

          Your denial can hardly be described as skepticism. I doubt you’ve actually read many scientific papers on the topic at all.

          • Magoo

            Don’t you have faith in the working group I section of the IPCC’s report Rob? Why not?

      • Rob Painting

        Humlum doesn’t even understand the carbon mass balance problem. He believes all human carbon emissions magically disappear somewhere, and even published a ridiculous paper on it. So it would not surprise me if he made such claims about atmospheric water vapour. It (water vapour) certainly seems to be exhibiting a trend according the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis though.

  • RogerKnights

    “It is easier to find a score of men wise enough to discover the truth than to find one intrepid enough, in the face of opposition, to stand up for it.”
    —A. Hodge

  • Ghostmaker

    Awesome Rob Painting the guy who runs Skeptical Science… Awesome the site that completely eliminates any opposing viewpoint for his agenda.

    • RPTn

      Thanks for the info. He is clearly demonstrating that he doesn’t have the least interest in conducting a discussion.
      Until he entered this thread the discussion was at a reasonably acceptable level, but then the personal attacks started!
      I can only assume he entered to disrupt the discussion.

      • Ghostmaker

        Yep. That is exactly how he runs his web site.

      • Rob Painting

        I wouldn’t describe allegations of scientific malfeasance, and the propagation of climate denier myths as rational discussion though. YMMV.

        • RPTn

          All as defined by you of course!

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

          IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.

          • Rob Painting

            Interesting how they (the IPCC) were right about the climate continuing to warm, and deniers like Richard Lindzen, were spectacularly wrong. Look how much he screwed the pooch when compared to James Hansen’s work:

          • George Turner

            How come you dropped Lindzen’s graph down a half a degree in the chart? Shouldn’t all the plots start at the same point on the left? It’s like someone was being intentionally dishonest about it.

          • Magoo

            Look at how much the climate models ‘screwed the pooch’ when compared to reality.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

          • Rob Painting

            Dunno Magoo, my bullshit detector is going off. If those are supposed to be climate model runs, ask Roy why they all start from exactly the same point in 1983? That doesn’t make any sense. How could the models be spun up and end at exactly the same point in 1983? Roy’s yanking your chain there buddy.

          • Magoo

            Because the start point is the average for 1979-83, as shown on the left hand side of the graph.

          • Rob Painting

            Wrong. You clearly don’t understand how it’s done. Whoever made that graph is being disingenuous. Was it Roy?

          • Magoo

            I’d assume he’s truncated the beginning of the model runs to 1983 so as to coincide with the approximate date of the beginning of the satellite temperature dataset from UAH. Whatever his reason, the fact still remains that the climate models are way off when compared to the empirical data.

          • moman

            The errors and uncertainties in the satellite data mean that a 4-year average is going to have a huge error bar.

          • Magoo

            Strange it’s similar to Hadcrut’s surface record then, isn’t it? How much do you suggest the error bar would be?

          • moman

            HadCRUT usually report annual data with about 0.2C uncertainty. So a 4-year average would have an uncertainty of about 0.15C which would equate to a potential shift upwards or downwards of 0.075C of the whole line.

            The following suggests that 1979-1983 was a warm period relative to a same-length period before and after.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:1980/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1984/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:1988/mean:12

            This implies that the models and observations data were aligned at a time when the observations data were at the warm end of natural variability. If a longer period of observations were taken to set the bar, it would raise the HadCRUT4 line in your graph and make it more similar to the one in mine.

          • Magoo

            The vast majority of models would still be way out, it wouldn’t make much difference if you lifted it 0.075C, which just reinforces how bad the models have failed.

            How about the UAH satellite record that you originally mentioned, what do you suggest the error bar is?

          • moman

            Yes it would make a difference because a 0.075 uplift puts it in line with a whole bunch of climate models that look cooler than average in 2015 but in the long term turn out to warm similar amounts.

          • Rob Painting

            Hardly, this image is based on data from Schmidt et al and published in the peer-reviewed literature, whereas yours is of unknown provenance from a blog, and is clearly fabricated – the starting point being a complete giveaway.

          • Magoo

            Which Schmidt paper? Do you have a link so I can compare the graph with the data?

            Strange, I always thought the data from HadCrut and UAH was peer reviewed, especially when Spencer & Christy’s UAH record is used in the IPCC AR5.

          • moman

            This is what AR5 says about satellite data (MSU products):

            In summary, assessment of the large body of studies comparing various long-term radiosonde and MSU products since AR4 is hampered by data set version changes, and inherent data uncertainties. These factors substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences from such studies about the true long-term trends or the value of different data products.

            Section 2.4.4.2 of Chapter 2.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

          • Magoo

            Really? Then why does the IPCC use satellite datasets to show long term trends in the AR5, datasets whose error margins seem ok compared to other non-satellite datasets?

            http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html

            ‘Table 2.8 | Trend estimates and 90% confidence intervals (Box 2.2) for radiosonde and MSU data set global average values over the radiosonde (1958–2012) and satellite periods (1979–2012). LT indicates Lower Troposphere, MT indicates Mid Troposphere and LS indicates Lower Stratosphere (Figure 2.23. Satellite records start only in 1979 and STAR do not produce an LT product.’

            Source: IPCC AR5 report 2013, Working Group I, Chapter 2, page 197, table 2.8
            http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf

          • moman

            The IPCC reports scientific findings and comments on them too. It reports the findings, but the comments are, in essence, pointing out their weakness. It does the same for papers and findings throughout most of the several hundred pages.

          • Magoo

            Really? You don’t say, who would’ve guessed. What’s your point, the satellite error margins aren’t much different to non satellite?

          • moman

            The quoted errors in the 1979-2012 trend are 20% or less for the surface data (page 187 Table 2.4) and 30% or more for the satellite data (LT = lower troposphere).

          • Magoo

            Why are you using a different (and smaller) set of temperature datasets when the one I provided has the error margins for all datasets? Here’s the datasets I was referring to (as you are fully aware), that are taken fro the AR5:

            http://dailymediareview.weebly.com/what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-climate-change.html

            ‘Table 2.8 | Trend estimates and 90% confidence intervals (Box 2.2) for radiosonde and MSU data set global average values over the radiosonde (1958–2012) and satellite periods (1979–2012). LT indicates Lower Troposphere, MT indicates Mid Troposphere and LS indicates Lower Stratosphere (Figure 2.23. Satellite records start only in 1979 and STAR do not produce an LT product.’

            Source: IPCC AR5 report 2013, Working Group I, Chapter 2, page 197, table 2.8

          • moman

            It seemed reasonable to compare the 1979-2012 satellite data with the 1979-2012 surface date because the trends are similar and because they are measuring related things on the same time-scale. The LT dataset is the one that Roy Spencer shows on his blog as it is the one nearest the surface.

            Feel free to suggest something else.

          • Magoo

            Yes, and you can do that on the set of datasets I suggested, except my set has 8 datasets, yours has 3, and mine looks at the lower troposphere, mid troposphere, and lower troposphere, yours is global mean – are you trying to hide something by cherrypicking an inferior list of datasets?

          • moman

            There must be a misunderstanding.

            I’m getting the surface trend and uncertainty from page 187 from the same report you cite, and I am using the LT trend and uncertainty from your table (page 197) which has 7 rows.

          • samton909

            I particularly liked their finding that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. that wonderful “scientific finding” came from a WWF news article.

            I also like their past president, who, when not writing steamy novels was caught sexually harassing his underlings.

          • Magoo

            Actually the graph I posted seems identical to your one above for ‘global temperature records’ without El Nino & solar/volcanoes

            A couple of point that are truly hilarious about your graph Rob is it starts at 1989 which is an even more truncated starting point than Roy Spencer’s which starts in 1983, but the REALLY funny part is that your graph is from a blog also – scepticalscience.conjob.

            Shot yourself in the foot in the most hypocritical way there didn’t you Rob. What was the name of the Schmidt paper you say your graph is based on again?

          • samton909

            “Peer reviewed literature” means “reviewed by someone who will not inspect it carefully, so long as it comes to the same conclusions I come to.”

          • samton909

            Are you arguing that the IPCC models have been spot on? Or are you just evading the issue again?

          • moman

            A fairer comparison that uses a common base.

            Also these models were run with more forcing (more warming greenhouse gases and fewer cooling aerosols) than what happened in reality. The dashed line shows the results if they were rerun with these correct values.

            The models are slightly too warm, but a warm 2015 and a warmer 2016 will bring reality closer to them.

        • samton909

          I originally was a beleiver in global warming. Then I started reading Real Climate. I noticed that they usually started personal attacks on those that raised questions rather than dealt with them in a rational way. So I began to dig deeper, and eventually I realized it was pretty much all BS. Sure, there are a few isolated points that they get right, but on the whole it is the biggest abuse of science the world has ever seen.

    • fragmeister12

      Unlike, let’s say, WattsUpWithThat which welcomes opposing views and open discussion. Jeez, hypocrisy does come in many flavours.

  • fragmeister12

    Curry supports the McCarthyite inquisition of Lamar Smith (cue the tedious screams of deniers and demands for emails), moans about scientists being activists and somehow misses the irony. But being American, she would.

    • RPTn

      Guess you support Senator Whitehouse?

      • fragmeister12

        Nope, just understand that hypocrisy comes in many flavours.

        • RPTn

          Personally I think they both represent an approach to science that I had wished died with the all-mighty church and the tyrants of the last century!

    • theduke89

      She supports congressional inquiry, which is their job. And her job, as an American. If money is being badly spent, Congress is charged with doing something about it. That’s no different than any corporation or NGO on earth. The money has to be spent wisely. The recent paper by Karl and Peterson suggests it’s not.

      • Rob Painting

        Rubbish. The data is freely available, as are tools to analyse it. Deniers don’t want to, or are incapable of, analyzing the data because they know it will only confirm what they refuse to accept – that the Earth is warming.

        Lamar Smith is after the emails of NOAA scientists so that he can smear them by taking quotes out of context – like that lame duck deniers labelled climategate.

        • JetFuelJumper

          Interesting tactic. You don’t want correspondence released because you feel things would be taken out of context. If that were true, it would be easy to disprove any claims.

          Always suspicious when anyone wants to keep secrets. And on this topic, we are talking about claims which are used to support dramatic changes to the human condition….so nothing should be hidden. We all have the right to read and investigate on our own on this one.

          • Rob Painting

            A more interesting question is why deniers don’t just analyse the data for themselves.

          • cupera1

            When that data has been folded, spindled and mutilated at the direction of the political master in the White house???

          • George Turner

            We do. That’s how must of us came to doubt the “science”. Further, it doesn’t even make sense. If a degree or two of warming is catastrophic, and a degree of cooling is catastrophic, it means we all dancing on the edge of a knife blade. Yet somehow we’ve lived through vastly more dramatic swings, and somehow we live scattered from the tropics to the poles, as does all life. If our survival is truly limited to a band just 2C wide, then exactly where is that band on a map? It should be a belt about 180 miles from north to south, and the only place to find thriving plants, animals, and humans. I can’t seem to identify it though.

          • samton909

            Oops!

            Tom Karl?

            No pause?

            In addition, the [Tom Karl] authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.

            As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the engine itself, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.

            The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, meaning the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.

            Additionally, there exist multiple measures of bulk lower atmosphere temperature independent from surface measurements which indicate the existence of a “hiatus”[3]. If the Karl et al., result were in fact robust, it could only mean that the disparity between surface and mid-tropospheric temperatures is even larger that previously noted.

        • Fromafar

          What you refuse to accept is that all “keepers of the data” have REFUSED to turn over how they have homogenized, manipulated, massaged and made up data that isn’t in their data sets.
          Why do they refuse? RSS doesn’t ( and they are believers – honest ones). They say they have no idea why there is a pause.
          When the above is released, which
          it inevitably will be, the largest public scam in history will finally be exposed.

          • Rob Painting

            That’s just more conspiracy drivel.

          • Fromafar

            in the words of the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan. ” You certainly are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts”.
            What I wrote is irrefutabtable. These are facts. None of the aforementioned organizations will man up as proper scientists and explain how or why they have homogenized the now useless terrestrial temperature record.
            The Aussies went so far as to say, “the public wouldn’t understand what we’ve done anyway”. Maybe not, but Judith Curry and other real scientists would.
            Sorry mate, but your drum beat of conspiracy holds no water up agains the facts.

          • Rob Painting

            Yes, scientists that people like Judith Curry smear have all the facts. That’s why the Earth is warming and not cooling like her goofy stadium wave hypothesis would posit.

          • planet8788

            The earth is only warming in the sparse, heavily adjusted surface data. Sounds like her Wave theory is correct.

          • Rob Painting

            Keep dreaming.

          • planet8788

            This is based on a .02 C change in .000007% of the ocean… Statistical noise. And the data suggests it’s heating from bottom to top not top to bottom like AGW would suggest.

          • samton909

            A chart! That proves it!

          • Fromafar

            You have no evidence of Judith Curry smearing anyone, which in itself is your smearing her.
            You and your co-religionists are far more fond of adhominems as usual
            Do come back when you have some verifiable facts and not the circular self cheerleading nonesense the warmistas have clearly indoctrinated you with.
            You were far more interesting when all you did was present unverifiable (I’ll be kind) data and merely dreamed of your hoped for conspiracy theories.
            Take away the massaged data that no one believes anymore and you have nothing, absolutely nothing.
            You’d be better to waste your time elsewhere preaching to your choir.

        • RogerKnights

          “Rubbish. The data is freely available, as are tools to analyse it.”

          What Smith is looking for is evidence of a rush to publication over the objections of in-house colleagues, as Smith has said he’s been told occurred by in-house whistleblowers. He’s probably also fishing for evidence of collusion with the White House to get the paper out before COP21, as he suspects may have occurred. It’s not an unreasonable suspicion. Regardless of whether Karl’s paper checks out or not, those are procedural violations that congress is entitled to look into.

          “Deniers . . . know it will only confirm what they refuse to accept – that the Earth is warming.”

          Responsible contrarians accept that there is AGW, and that the earth will likely warm by up to one degree C by 2100 owing to the direct effect of emissions of CO2. The debate is about CAGW.

          As for the claim of Karl’s paper that there has been no Pause, not only contrarians reject that; many (most?) warmists do also, either implicitly (by accepting the Pause and explaining reasons for its existence) or explicitly. Karl’s no-Pause paper has not got the backing of any climate consensus and it’s incorrect to imply that it has.

          • Rob Painting

            Yes, exactly he’s not interested in the truth – that the Earth is warming and there was no such thing as a pause – he’s fishing for something with which to smear the scientists.

            As for colleagues objecting, that sounds like codswallop. Scientists have robust and heated discussions about a lot of things, just like everyone else, so the allegation is meaningless. The true test of any idea is the scrutiny provided by other experts when one publishes in the scientific literature.

            If anyone has some worthwhile to say about Karl et al (2015) we’ll see it in the scientific literature. In the meantime deniers will be caterwauling because their most treasured climate myth of recent times has bitten the dust. Not Karl et al’s fault, but because the greenhouse effect keeps growing stronger and thus trapping ever more heat in the climate system.

            Of course the funniest thing is that, although Karl et al’s analysis reveals greater warming since the middle of the ‘noughties’, helping to put the denier pause myth to rest, it actually reduces the amount of long-term warming!

          • cupera1

            So what did humans do to end the little ice age???

          • Rob Painting

            Dude, you seriously think that picture is of the Little Ice Age?

          • cupera1

            no, but it makes my point. Back to the question: What did humans do to end the little ice age?

          • Mnestheus

            It makes the point that you are a geological ignoramus –a correctly drawn map would show an additional million square miles of now missing dry land when the Laurentide ice sheet was at its peak

          • cupera1

            Avoiding the question I see. Again, what did humans do to end the little ice age???

          • samton909

            Of course we will see it in the literature! As the climategate emails showed, they eagerly encourage journal publishers to publish people who disagree with them!

        • samton909

          Yes, revealing what they actually said to each other is dangerous for our democracy! We cannot allow people who feed at the public trough to be responsible to the public. We don’t need to know what they are doing! Our only job is to obey!

      • Rob Painting

        Typically, that doesn’t make any sense. Curry is the first to whinge about politics intruding into scientific endeavour, and yet here she acts the cheerleader.

        Deniers could refute the Karl et al paper in the scientific literature if they had the evidence and the necessary expertise, but they have neither. The only option for them is a witch hunt because the planet keeps warming and ain’t about the stop so long as we continue to emit industrial greenhouse gases.

        • planet8788

          We have this historical record. It’s all we need.
          We can see that 1880 to 1980 warming has doubled since 1981.
          That was already after Hansen had started messing with the data to support his pet theory.

        • samton909

          Nobody can criticize something that has been published in a HOLY PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL. We all know that things published in HOLY PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS are always right.

          If criticisms are published anywhere else but in a HOLY PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL, they cannot possibly have any weight. Only thoughts published in a HOLY PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL have any merit.

    • samton909

      I love how you call people names rather than engage in rational discussion. It is so convincing.

  • hotwaterbottle

    Do any of the scientist admit the MASSIVE current geoengineering program going on, and take into account the effects, postive and negative, that may be having on our climate and weather? If not, how can you even take much of their work seriously?

    • Rob Painting

      Yes, that’s what we’re talking about – global warming. Scientists and rational members of the public think that this giant experiment with the Earth’s climate, and the chemistry of the oceans, is extremely foolhardy.

  • theduke89

    One correction: I don’t think the paper by Cook claims that 97% of scientists agree that man is the cause of the warming. That’s what they want people to think, but the results of the paper do really distinguish between natural warming and human causation. Or at least that is how I understand the results.

    In any event, the paper is a joke.

    • RPTn

      No the paper is not a joke, it has been clearly documented that it is a fraud.

      But the tragedy is how many people have responded to this majority based science concept is an indication that the traditional western way of science is degenerating.

      “In question of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”

      Galileo

      • samton909

        It is an abuse of science. That is what we are dealing with here with global warming. This is fake science.

  • Walther11

    The GloBull Warming Cargo Cult is not known for its sensitivity towards those that challenge their dogma.

    • Walther11

      Just for fun cuz I know how it annoys them.

      • Rob Painting

        Even RSS show a warming long-term warming trend. Of course it’s possible to select a period that implies otherwise, but that’s called cherrypicking. May not last much longer with this current El Nino though.

        • RealOldOne2

          LOL. Again acting like the doomsday climate cult fanatic that you are. So the entire RSS data is OK. It’s just the last ~half that shows NO warming is not temperature, bogus. You deniers of natural climate change are a sad lot.

          And still praying for that NATURAL climate phenomenon, El Nino, to rescue your failed climate cult religion. Hilariously inconsistent and stupid!

          • Rob Painting

            This is just science and math. You ignore the long-term trend because it doesn’t fit with your pre-conceived anti-science agenda.

            You ignore the surface temperature records which all show long-term warming. You ignore the ocean heat content data because it show robust long-term warming. You ignore the the radiosonde data (image below) which shows long-term warming. You ignore the long-term sea level rise trend because it supports increasing heat content.

            That you seem unaware of how crazy you appear to rational people does not aid your anti-scientific crusade https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/33e7360c89bb95a3f438bed63b9268b2016c17897795f212777d8118a77068e6.jpg

          • Walther11

            My first career was in science. I applied the scientific method to my work for 20 years. I know how it is done, and more importantly, how it is not done. The way climate “science” has conducted itself in this matter is decidedly how science is NOT done. I know science sir and you and your friends are no friends of science.

          • Rob Painting

            Sure, and I’m the king of Sweden.

          • Walther11

            That would be as believable as anything else you have written here.

          • Rob Painting

            Coming from a climate science denier that can only be a compliment.

          • Walther11

            In as much as you are a member of the GloBull Warming Cargo Cult I would expect that you would take it as a compliment.

          • Zorro

            Nope. “Queen” of Sweden as in drama queen. Lol.

          • RPTn

            I am not surprised, intelligence in that family runs with the females!

          • RealOldOne2

            Nice handwaving clown dance of obfuscation. Sorry Rob, but I don’t ignore anything.

            “You ignore the long term trend”
            No, I accept the long term trend, and I point out that the long term trend was natural recovery from the LIA, Akasofu(2010), and that the trend has stopped increasing over the last ~19 years. And I point out that there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the warming in the long term trend.

            “You ignore the surface temperature records”
            No, I just use the satellite data because it is the dataset that gives ~99% global coverage and is not corrupted by adjustments every month like the land-ocean datasets are.

            “You ignore the ocean heat content data …”
            No, I point out that empirical science shows that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, NOT ghgs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444

            “You ignore the radiosonde data”
            No, I accept it, and point out that it confirms that the satellite data is accurate to 0.03C: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

            “You ignore the long-term sea level rise trend”
            No, I accept it, and just point out that the ~8 inches/century long term trend is nothing to be alarmed about. And I point out that the sea level trends have been decelerating, not accelerating.
            “The rate of sea level rise was found to be larger in the early part of the century (2.03 +/- 0.35 mm/yr 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 +/- 0.34 mm/yr 1954-2003).” – Holgate(2007), ‘On the decadal rates of sea level change during the 20th century’
            “We use 1277 tide gauges since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyze the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. … The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 mm +/- 0.3 mm·yr^-1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 mm +/- 0.5 mm·yr^-1 since 1970.” – Jevregeva(2014), ‘Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea level trends since 1807’

            “you seem unaware how crazy you appear to rational people”
            Nice projection there Rob. You are the one who is unaware how crazy YOU appear to rational people. I am the one rationally presenting empirical evidence and science. You are ranting baseless, evidence-free CLAIMS of your doomsday climate cult religion.

            “your pre-conceived anti-science agenda … your anti-science crusade”
            More projection on your part Rob. I am the one presenting empirical science and data. YOU are the one making baseless evidence-free CLAIMS, which are nothing more than propaganda for your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion.

            Once again, you are exposed as a mere propagandist who regurgitates irrelevant talking points of your climate cult religion. So sad.

          • Mnestheus

            My I remind your Postscenescene that the satellite jockeys- Singer’s proteges-, Christy and Spencer included, got the sign of the satellite daa wrong for two decades ?

            You’re the one whos favorite cherry has been plucked.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re the one whos[sic] favorite cherry has been plucked.”
            LOL @ your delusions and grammatical iliteracy!
            Nice job dodging all the science that I presented too!

            I would remind your heinnie-ess that the data as corrected is what shows no warming in ~19 years. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12

            And I would remind you the land-ocean datasets get more and more corrupted by adjustments and detached from the actual measured temperatures every month. What is a total farce is the faked numbers which are equivalent to lowering every single max and min temperature measurement ~1900 by a few degrees F. That is Bogus with a capital B. There is no way that those fake numbers are correct. Take Providence, RI for instance. They lowered the annual mean temperature in 1900 by over 3F. That’s claiming that every single max and min original measured temperatures were erroneous by over 3F. That’s ludicrous. Unless of course your goal was to fabricate warming to support your global warming cult religion. Then it makes perfect sense.

            I would also remind you that there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century.

            I would also remind you that there is peer reviewed science that does empirically show that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was natural climate forcing, as some of that evidence was summarized in my comment, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 , which I would also point out that Painting was unable to rebut. Want to rebut it? No, I thought not.

        • Walther11

          What if it does last? Would that be enough for you to at least entertain the possibility that you are wrong? I am betting not, because this entire thing has zip to do with science.

          • Rob Painting

            The scientific thing to do would be to assess all the temperature data, not cherrypick the only one that fits with pre-conceived notions.

            The satellite data is the odd one out. It could simply mean that the methodology extracts a signal that is overly sensitive to atmospheric water vapor in the tropics (ENSO) – which is why the satellite data exhibits greater interannual variability, and requires a longer period to achieve statistical significance.

            Based on the typical response to ENSO, the next few months should start trending upwards sharply. If it doesn’t that would be very interesting.

          • Walther11

            Sure, the satellite data covers nearly the entire globe while your surface readings sometimes wave hundreds of square kilometers with no readings whatsoever. Blank spots that are then filled in with statistical black magic and then regarded as hard data. This was the reason for the satellites in the first case. to get more complete coverage. Now that they don’t show what you want them to show they are suspect. Real scientific.

          • Rob Painting

            You claimed to have been a scientist. You should understand some basic mathematical concepts:

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/OfAveragesAndAnomalies_pt_1A.html

          • Walther11

            All your link shows is the rather insurmountable sampling issues with land based stations. Issues that satellites were used to overcome.

          • moman

            “rather insurmountable” doesn’t sound very scientific.

            The scientific thing might be to see if temperatures in nearby locations are correlated, and how far apart you have to be before the correlation breaks down. This allows you to establish the likelihood that unsampled areas are behaving differently to sampled ones, and thereby allows you to assess your uncertainty.

            This is done and is included as one of the uncertainties in the temperature trend.

          • Rob Painting

            Why doesn’t your ‘skepticism’ also apply to the MSU data obtained from satellites? They don’t even measure temperature, but require ‘statistical black magic’ – as you put it – to convert the radiative brightness of oxygen in the atmosphere into a temperature signal. Lots of mumbo jumbo to stitch together a record from varying instruments aboard varying satellites, compensate for orbital decay, and then trying to discern the signal from various layers of the atmosphere when ‘looking down’ from above.

            I don’t personally have a problem with it, sure they’ve had many, many issues – such as showing a spurious cooling trend through the 1980’s and 1990’s – but that’s just science in an imperfect world. These errors were eventually corrected by other researchers. But where do the deniers goalposts shift to next once the 1998 record is surpassed? It may or may not be next year but it won’t be far away.

          • samton909

            But you like satellites for the ocean data. That’s consistent.

          • RealOldOne2

            “They don’t even measure temperature, but require ‘statistical black magic’ – as you put it – to convert the radiative brightness of oxygen in the atmosphere into a temperature signal. … “
            Just like a doomsday cultist, you obfuscate and deny reality. The only reason you diss the satellite data is because it shows no warming over the past ~19 years.

            The satellite datasets are the only true measure of global average temperature as they measure ~99% of the global atmosphere and are accurate to 0.03C as verified by weather balloons:
            “thermometers can not measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.” – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/

            Plus satellite temperature data is accurate to ~ 0.03C according to NASA: “the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/ Land based thermometers are read to ~0.5C.

            The corrupted-by-adjustments land datasets are useless except for propaganda purposes.

            ps. I’m STILL waiting for you to address the peer reviewed empirical science that I showed you here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

        • David S

          So .122K/decade means almost exactly 1C by the end of the century. For this you would wreck the world economy, starting with poor countries.

          • Rob Painting

            Surely deniers can do better than fake concern for the poor.

          • planet8788

            LOL. Everyone knows ” liberals ” like you are 10 times stingier than the Grinch of conservatives.

          • Rob Painting

            ‘Everyone knows’eh? Very convincing claim there.

          • planet8788

            Yes. It was in every newspaper, magazine.

          • planet8788

            You don’t even bother faking your disdain for the poor do you? You’re the man.

          • samton909

            avoiding the issue again by smearing.

    • Walther11

      Oops sorry here is a update should annoy them even more.

      • NiCuCo
        • Walther11

          Now, can you explain why, if as you seem to indicate there was no pause, your own GloBull Warming High Priests have spent so much time and effort explaining away something you think never happened. I think they are up to 65 not very good excuses.

          Btw 1997 -98 wasn’t a “Surge in global warming” it was a record El Nino.

          • NiCuCo

            “Btw 1997 -98 wasn’t a “Surge in global warming” it was a record El Nino.”

            Which emphasizes the fact that the trend since then has been due to anthropogenic global warming.

          • Walther11

            What it shows is you can’t tease natural variability out well enough to “see” anthropogenic GloBull Warming at tenths of a degree.

            I see you elected to ignore my request that you explain why so many climate scientists don’t dispute that the pause has occurred.

            http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

            “Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”

          • NiCuCo

            “So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.”

            Now we know that it didn’t.

            “Study drives a sixth nail into the global warming ‘pause’ myth”
            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/24/study-drives-a-sixth-nail-in-the-global-warming-pause-myth

          • Walther11

            Hilarious truly hilarious. Basically what you are saying is that because it’s not falling it is therefore getting warmer. Your problem is this, you still have an almost twenty year period with no measurable trend. NONE of you models aver show a twenty year period and yet they have deviated markedly with observed temperatures. Renaming the the pause as being a “fluctuation” in the global warming rate is hardly a rebuttal.

            Live by the model, die by the model.

            It seems as is the usual case that no matter what happens under the sun the Globull Warming Cargo Cult will somehow use it to support their little theory.

            I wonder how sea ice at the equator can be used to support AGW. I guess I will just have to wait and find out.

          • Rob Painting

            Funny ‘break’ though. Global ocean heat content (93% of global warming) increased dramatically. Let alone ongoing sea level rise, and atmospheric warming. Very odd indeed.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Global ocean heat content (93% of global warming) increased dramatically.”
            Since the colder ghgs in the atmosphere can’t transfer any heat to the warmer surface of the ocean, and since ocean warming is due to solar radiation, not ghgs, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ,thanks for admitting that global warming is caused by solar radiation, NOT ghgs.

          • Rob Painting

            So you deniers don’t understand oceanography. That’s hardly a revelation.

          • RealOldOne2

            “So you deniers don’t understand oceanography.”
            Yet another dodge of the science that I presented, and a dishonest denial of reality, and a dishonest, baseless, evidence-free claim.

            My comment ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ) where I summarize the science of why ocean warming is caused by solar radiation not ghgs, demonstrates the I DO understand oceanography of causation of heat content increases. I note that you totally dodged the science that I presented, because you knew it was correct and were unable to rebut a bit of it. So sad.

          • samton909

            More name calling.

          • Rob Painting

            See above – you’re just parroting another climate denier myth.

          • David S

            How about adopting a civil tone?

          • Rob Painting

            Deniers accusing scientists of fraud is hardly civil. Did your brain just unconsciously filter all those comments?

          • Magoo

            But you’ve just been accusing Dr. Roy Spencer of falsifying a temperature graph in comments below Rob.

          • Rob Painting

            I asked if it was Roy. Someone has fabricated that, if not Roy then who?

          • Magoo

            I’m still waiting for you to tell me the name of the Schmidt paper you say the data is from so I can verify if it is fabricated or not. Truncating the start of a graph isn’t fabricating it. So what’s the name of the Schmidt paper that you say it’s from Rob?

          • RealOldOne2

            “See above – you’re just parroting another climate denier myth.”
            Sorry Rob, but above all you did was CLAIM that my documented science that shows that the cause of ocean warming was solar radiation, not ghgs was a myth. You totally dodged the hard empirical science that I presented in my comment ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ), showing that was the case.

            Once again, you are caught making dishonest, baseless, evidence-free CLAIMS. I’m not a “climate denier”. I accept that the climate has changed, I just agree with the accepted null climate hypothesis that the primary cause of climate change is still natural climate variability. That null hypothesis has never been empirically falsified. And I don’t accept your new alternate CO2 climate hypothesis because it has never been empirically validated.

            And you expose yourself as the science denier, when you deny that the cause of ocean warming is solar radiation. You deny the Columbia Earth Science lecture which shows that the only heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation. All other heat exchange processes remove heat from the ocean. You deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that says that colder ghgs in the atmosphere can’t transfer any heat to warmer surface of the ocean. You deny the physics of light absorption in water which says that ghg ‘backradiation’ can only penetrate a few microns into the ocean, whereas solar radiation can penetrate up to 200m deep.

            Of course the reason that you dodge and deny this empirical science of ocean warming is because your admission that 93% of global warming is manifested in ocean warming proves that climate change is caused by natural climate forcing, not anthropogenic climate forcing.

            So sad that you cling to your false climate cult religion, even though you can’t support it with empirical science. It’s all based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level (vonStorch2013).

          • moman

            You deny the Columbia Earth Science lecture which shows that the only heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation. All other heat exchange processes remove heat from the ocean.

            What happens if the rate of heat removal is reduced?

          • RealOldOne2

            “What happens if the rate of heat removal is reduced”
            If that happens, the temperature would increase.
            But the only way that could happen is if the temperature of the atmosphere would have increased, and it HASN’T over the time period for which you CAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmists claim that the oceans ate global warming! http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12
            So your question is moot.

            So tell us, are you a science denier that the cause of ocean warming is solar radiation, not ghgs?

          • moman

            The last 17 years were warmer than the preceding ones, even in your choice of dataset.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend

            How long does the ocean take to warm up?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your cherry picked graph! You doomsday climate cultists just can’t help yourselves from dishonestly in spreading your climate cult religion can you!
            Nice job of omitting the data for 1998, and cherry picking the beginning and end dates to show recent warming. Let’s split the entire temperature record into two equal halves. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1978/to:1997.4/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.4/to:2015.75/trend Now we see a slight warming in the first half of the temperature record and a slight cooling in the most recent half of the temperature record. Yep, there it is for all to see, the PAUSE/HIATUS in warming over the past ~18 1/2 years. Gee, slight cooling, even though humans added ~570 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. That is ~60% of the amount that had been added from 1750 to 1997. When you add a 60% perturbation in what you claim to be the primary factor causing warming, and you get a slight cooling instead, that’s convincing empirical evidence that your CO2 hypothesis is WRONG!

            Now on to your question:
            “How long does the ocean take to warm up?”
            There is no simple answer to that question, because it depends on a myriad of natural factors that influence the climate.
            But if you are talking about the entire ocean, then peer reviewed science says that the thermal inertia of the oceans are huge, and that the thermal inertia of the oceans smooths the Earth’s temperature variations. Time scales can be multi-decadal, multi-centennial, and even multi-millennial, and they are not uniform and can change abruptly.

            Empirical peer reviewed science also says that solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth can explain the Earth’s temperature variations.
            “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation of the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of short-wave radiation, arriving at the surface of the Earth. … One can believe that some excess of the computed temperature changes as compared to observational data reflects the thermal inertia effect of the oceans the heating or cooling of which smooths the Earth’s temperature variation in comparison with the computed values for stationary conditions.” – Budyko(1969)

          • moman

            I haven’t omitted 1998. It’s included in the trend line of the first period. Don’t get too hung up on the trend lines they’re indicative of the fact that after 1997 things remained generally warmer than before 1998.

            Given that, as you say, the oceans take a while to heat up, and given that you agree that a warmer atmosphere reduces the rate of loss of heat energy obtained from solar radiation, it should not be a surprise to you that the oceans are gaining heat consistently given that the atmosphere has generally been warmer since 1998 than prior to then.

            There was some secular variation of incident solar radiation in the early part of the century though, and CO2 forcing did not dominate then. Since the 1960s, though, there hasn’t been much solar change whereas CO2 (and aerosols) have changed a lot.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/forcings.gif

          • RealOldOne2

            “I haven’t omitted 1998. It’s included in the trend line of the first period.”
            Wrong. Your first period was “To: 1998”. That stops at the beginning of 1998 and includes data up through only 1997. Are you being purposefully dishonest? Or are you just inept at plotting data?

            Sorry, but all your rambling ignores the FACT that the atmosphere hasn’t warmed since ~1997 so there has been NO increase in OHC due to reduced heat loss. That’s not saying that OHC didn’t increase, because OHC changes are controlled by how much solar radiation reaches the surface of the oceans. The science showing that is found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444
            So please answer the question that you have been dodging: So tell us, are you a science denier that the cause of ocean warming is solar radiation, not ghgs?

            And your plot is irrelevant, because it is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models.

          • Walther11

            Yes it’s always on to something else with you lot. It is like trying to nail Jelly to the wall. IR radiation can’t even penetrate the skin of the ocean. You pick the largest bathtub in the solar system and try to convince us that one you can take its temperature and two that you can do it within hundredths of a degree. I will accept that when pigs fly.

            http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/05/evidence-of-deep-ocean-cooling/

            “The bottom line is that uncertainties in ocean heat content are very large, and there is no particularly convincing evidence that the ‘missing heat’ is hiding in the ocean.”

          • Rob Painting

            IR warms the upper layer of the cool-skin. Doing so lowers the thermal gradient through the cool-skin layer – where molecular conduction takes over from turbulence as the dominant form of heat transfer. Ergo; warm the atmosphere and more IR is re-radiated back toward the ocean surface, gradually lowering the thermal gradient and thus trapping more heat (from shortwave radiation) in the ocean. This is why the oceans are warming despite a reduction in solar radiation over the last 4 decades.

          • Walther11

            Nice theory, now prove it.

          • Rob Painting
          • Walther11

            That is nothing but a restatement of the theory. You do understand the concept of “prove it” don’t you?

          • Rob Painting

            The experiment conducted from Tangaroa demonstrated that this is a real effect. Heat uptake increased under cloudy conditions when compared to clear-sky because of the increase in downwelling IR and its consequent effect on the gradient through the cool-skin layer. As Professor Minnett points out, this is much greater than the greenhouse gas-forcing, but amply demonstrates the mechanism at work.

            As for the ‘prove it’ comment, that’s rather ironic from a ragtag collection who don’t even have a coherent alternative to explain the ongoing heat uptake into Earth’s climate system.

          • Walther11

            You obviously think that it is required that skeptics “disprove” your theory. Is that your understanding of how science works? Or that we must provide a competing theory? Or that if no other explanation is available that proves yours is correct? Is science a process of elimination for you, like some kind of Sherlock Holmes novel?

          • Rob Painting

            No, it’s not incumbent on deniers to disprove the mainstream concept of the enhanced Greenhouse Effect. However, if you want to be taken seriously by people other than fellow deniers, and you want to have a say about climate policy, then a coherent explanation for the ongoing warming is kind of imperative. That’s where the bit about science and evidence comes in.

          • RealOldOne2

            a coherent explanation for the ongoing warming is kind of imperative.”
            Even the IPCC doesn’t claim that the warming before ~1950 was human-induced due to ghgs, thus they admit that the 1910-1940 warming rate of 0.15C/decade was natural. Thus we observe that the late 20th century warming rate of 0.16C/decade is not unusual or unprecedented at all. This is admitted by Phil Jones the former keeper of the HadCRUT dataset: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

            Peer reviewed empirical evidence shows that the late 20th century warming was also caused primarily by natural climate forcing, primarily increased solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. Also contributing were warm phases of ocean cycles.

            1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-380/scale:0.05 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.

            2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

            3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

            This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

            This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

            This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

            The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

            4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

            This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 12 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

            “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’

            The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
            • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
            • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
            This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

            Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
            • Warm phase of the PDO :
            http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
            http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
            http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
            http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
            • Warm phase of the AMO :
            https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
            &
            • Predominance of El Ninos:
            http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
            http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

            More evidence that YOU are the science denier.
            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your whole climate cult religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            A very good review of known facts!
            Can i use it?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Can i use it?”
            Yes, feel free to use it.
            It shows the hypocrisy of the climate alarmists. They obsess about 1.6W/m^2 of alleged anthropogenic ghg forcing from 1750-2005 ( http://ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-2-1-fig-2.jpg ) and claim it shows that anthropogenic forcing caused the warming since the Industrial Revolution, yet they ignore peer reviewed science which shows 2.7 – 5 W/m^2 of natural solar forcing during just the last couple decades of the 20th century and claim that natural climate forcing has been ruled out as causing the late 20th century warming.
            It also shows that the IPCC reports are biased propaganda, not a true assessment of the science of climate change.

            Here is another comment of mine that you may be interested in: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 .
            It summarizes the science of why ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            I like reviews like those you write, heavy on the science, logical and well documented throughout by real peer-reviewed reports.

            The reason alarmist doesn’t do that is, of course, the science doesn’t support the AGW hypothesis hype. If i may, i will also use that comment (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444)

          • RealOldOne2

            Sure, feel free to use any of my comments, in part or in whole.

          • samton909

            All one needs in science is scary graphs with lines on them, and if heat is involved, scary yellow and red blotches.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Activists doesn’t understand the concept of evidence, if they did, they wouldn’t be activists .. And that is calle logic! :)

          • RealOldOne2

            Sorry Rob, but Minnett’s Public Relations blog science was based on changes in skin temperature with cloudiness, which was counter to published peer reviewed science. This is likely why the rubbish PR pseudoscience never made it into the published peer reviewed literature.
            “ΔT
            in all cases has no dependence on the amount of cloud
            cover” – Donlon1997, ‘Observations of the oceanic thermal skin in the Atlantic Ocean’

            Colder ghgs in the atmosphere can’t transfer any heat into to warmer surface of the ocean. Heat Transfer & Thermodyamics 101.

            ps. I’m STILL waiting for you to address the peer reviewed empirical science that I presented to you here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

          • Magoo

            Then why have the oceans only warmed below 700m without warming above it? What mechanism would allow this and what evidence do you have that it exists?

          • Rob Painting

            Don’t know what you’re talking about. The 0-700 metre layer has very clearly warmed.

          • Latimer Alder

            JFI – what does that mean in terms of temperature of the top 700m of ocean?

            Has it warmed by 10C?, 1C?, 0.1C?, 0.01C?

            Ordinary folk don’t have any concept of Joules. But we do understand the related idea of temperature.

            Please advise.

          • RPTn

            When someone gives you a difference without an absolute value reference, they usually hides that it is a very small number in absolute value, like starting a chart at an arbitrary axis value.

          • Rob Painting

            Here’s the spatial pattern of ocean warming anomalies for the 0-100 metre layer in 2014. Ocean warming is what is driving mass coral bleaching – when summer maximum water temperatures exceed 1-3 °C it causes the loss of the symbiotic algae that live within the coral’s skin tissue and often results in starvation and death.

          • Latimer Alder

            Thanks. V. interesting. But not an answer to my simple question

            The analogy here is with the much-discussed Global Average Temperature for the atmosphere.

            What has been the change in the Global Average Seawater Temperature (0-700m) from the heating effect you have displayed in Joules?

            I think you will find the concept of ‘specific heat’ helpful here.

          • Rob Painting

            George Turner already beat you to that climate myth. You wasted too much time trying to be a smarty pants.

          • Latimer Alder

            What ‘myth’?

            It’s a perfectly reasonable question. If you can make a song and dance about a Global Atmospheric Temperature, you can surely do the same for Oceans.

            And if you know the ‘change in ocean heat content’, you can work out the temperature change involved. They are intimately related.

            As a reminder …the temperature of the ocean (using your figures of OHC) has increased by a totally trivial amount in 40 years.

            Even if we restrict ourselves to just the top 700m (2000 feet), it comes out as 0.06C. It is irrelevant.

          • moman

            What if 10% of it is in the top 7 metres?

          • Latimer Alder

            ‘What if 10% of it is in the top 7 metres?’

            We all enjoy our seaside holidays that little bit more. Lovely warm water at Bournemouth and Brighton. And there’d be a lot more evaporation, so the whole world would be wetter. Is it?

            And what if its all in the top 7mm?

            The oceans will be boiling everywhere. and we’d have noticed by now.

          • Rob Painting

            You know the myth, the one where a denier divides the increase in ocean heat content by the entire ocean volume to falsely insinuate that ocean warming isn’t a problem.

            And yet much of the upper 100 metres of ocean has warmed by 0.5-1.0°C – enough to become problematic for marine life, such as coral, with enormous societal and economic value.

          • George Turner

            Coral evolved when oceans were much warmer and much more acidic. They’ll be fine, and indeed, studies of shallow marine lagoons with high temperatures and high CO2 content shows that coral thrives under those conditions.

          • moman

            You cannot generalise about coral. There are many species and subspecies which have adapted to live in their different ecosystems. You need to demonstrate that a rapid change in each ecosystem will not impact on the coral that is inhabiting that ecosystem today.

          • George Turner

            Well, some scientists actually went out and measured ocean pH, an unusual thing for climatologists to do these days, and what they found shocked them. Temperature and pH fluctuate wildly and rapidly, far more than anything predicted by global warming theory. pH swings of 1.0 are a daily occurrence. They also started testing coral and found them to be far more adaptable and resilient than thought, which isn’t too surprising given that they’ve been around through all sorts of wild climate shifts and seen atmospheric CO2 levels topping 4,000 ppm.

            A whole lot of ocean research in labs is being tossed out because it didn’t have nearly sufficient controls. They’re finally getting experiments standardized because prior results were all over the place.

          • moman

            It’s like weather. You can cope with, say, 37C temperatures for a day or so, but add in global warming and the temperatures peak higher and stay above 37C for longer, leading to an increase in physiological stress.

            Ditto for ocean pH values, and extreme values.

          • Latimer Alder

            ‘ leading to an increase in physiological stress.’

            What is ‘physiological stress’? And how (exactly) does it manifest itself?

          • moman
          • Latimer Alder

            For coral??

          • moman
          • Latimer Alder

            Like the man says…corals don’t like getting cold. Luckily all the lovely CO2 is keeping us away from the Ice Age. See Arrhenius.

          • moman

            Rejecting science again.

          • Latimer Alder

            Your constant refrain of ‘rejecting science’ is getting very predictable and very tedious.

            If you have something definite to say, say it.

            If not, stay schtumm

          • RealOldOne2

            Hey Latimer, it looks like Painting tagged moman in their WWF CAGW tag team peddling of their global warming cult religion.

          • Latimer Alder

            It’ll be the end of his shift soon and we’ll get a new mouthpiece to
            entertain us with blind obedience to ‘the narrative’. Ironic in a post
            about tribalism in science.

            I hope they get well paid for droning on … still NGOs have deep pockets, so I guess they must.

          • moman

            I am saying it. But you then just repeat your rejection.

          • samton909

            Not rejecting science at all. Rejecting fake science, sloppily done science, media hysteria driven science.

          • George Turner

            Uh no. Millions of people have maintained aquariums for a long while now, and if fish had to have the water controlled to a 0.1 or 0.2 pH level, they’d have all died because nobody manages it that well. Getting the water to within 0.25 to 0.5 of the target is good enough even for sensitive inhabitants.

          • Rob Painting

            Over 40% of worldwide coral cover has died out in the last four decades, with bleaching from seawater that is too warm, being a leading contributor. Unless we miraculously remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere somehow, bleaching and ocean acidification will cause the functional extinction of coral reefs by mid-century.

            This is consistent with paleo data – coral reefs suffered crises or extinctions when the oceans became too warm or underwent acidification.

          • George Turner

            Coral is killed by cold temperatures, which is why they stay where the minimums don’t drop below 18C. At 16C they’re stressed. At 14C they die in a day. That’s why everybody goes to the hottest waters to look at reefs, such as the Caribbean and Persian Gulf.

            In contrast, high temperatures cause climatologists and tourists to go to the beach where they wear lots of sunscreen. A main component of sunscreen is oxybenzone, which is very damaging to corals in concentrations of 60 parts per trillion, causing bleaching, severe growth defects, and killing juvenile corals.

            Sunscreen killing coral reefs worldwide

            Maybe climatologists should quit killing the planet.

          • samton909
          • RealOldOne2

            Evidently someone “miraculously remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere somehow” like climate cultist Rob said was the only way the corals could avoid extinction. /sarc

            The Chicken Little climate alarmists are a pathetic lot, as reality means nothing to them if it doesn’t fit their cult dogmas.

          • Latimer Alder

            Bit daft showing those rather meaningless OHC graphs then that look ‘sciency’ but provide little information.

            Show the temperature plots instead. With derivations and an accurate description of how the measurements were taken.

            After you’ve tried to convince me that a water temperature change of 0.5C in just the top 300 feet (even were it to be real and not 10x less as my calculation shows) is ‘problematic’ for anything at all.

            PS If all the warming takes place in the top100 metres, why do your OHC graphs show 0-700, not 0-100? Just asking.

          • moman

            even were it to be real and not 10x less as my calculation shows

            As your pointless calculation (that wrongly assumes even spread of the energy) shows.

          • Latimer Alder

            I covered your point already.

            Se the bit marked ‘even were it to be real’. Let’s for the moment assume your hypothesis to be true.

            Now try convincing us about the 0.5C being problematic.

            Care.

            Since this has supposedly already happened. the examiners will be checking for evidence of real measurements of real things in the real world

          • samton909

            Ooops!

            ”

            The only problem with the ”disappearing coral” theory is that it is false. Corals date back 450 million years, and most of today’s coral species date back at least 200 million years. Just in the last two million years, coral reefs have been through at least seventeen glacial periods, interspersed with their warm interglacial periods. These glacial-interglacial shifts imposed repeated dramatic temperature changes, along with sea level changes as drastic as four hundred feet.
            Temperatures across the Pacific change sharply with the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-which causes a major Pacific temperature change every four to seven years. The 1998 El Nino boosted sea surface temperatures all over the Pacific, causing massive coral bleaching, especially in the Indian Ocean. That’s when Mark Spalding, supposedly a coral expert, claimed that the vast majority of the corals had died out. (386) Bleaching is a part of corals’ strategy for adapting to their almost-constant temperature changes. (387)

            Ross J. Jones of Australia’s Queensland University reported coral bleaching on a portion of the Great Barrier Reef just after average daily sea temperatures rose by 2.5 degrees Celsius in eight days. (388) However, Canada’s D.R. Kobluk and M.A. Lysenko found severe coral bleaching in the Caribbean after the water temperature declined 3 degrees Celsius in eighteen hours. (389)

            New studies tell us that bleaching is the coral system’s way of dealing with sudden temperature changes. Cynthia Lewis and Mary Alice Coffroth of the University of Buffalo deliberately triggered bleaching in some coral colonies. In response, the colonies ejected 99 percent of their symbiotic algae friends. The researchers then exposed the bleached coral to a rare variety of algae that wasn’t in the coral colonies at the beginning of the experiment. Sure enough, within a few weeks, the corals had substantially restocked their algae shelves, and about half included the new marker algae. Later, the marker variety was displaced from several of the coral colonies by more effective algae strains-indicating that corals pick the best partners for the new conditions from the wide variety of algae floating in their part of the ocean. (390)

            Lewis and Coffroth say this is a healthy demonstration of flexibility in coral colonies. They say coral systems have the flexibility to establish new associations with algae strains from the whole environmental pool and that is ”a mechanism for resilience in the face of environmental change.” (391)”

          • samton909

            ooops!

            ”

            The only problem with the ”disappearing coral” theory is that it is false. Corals date back 450 million years, and most of today’s coral species date back at least 200 million years. Just in the last two million years, coral reefs have been through at least seventeen glacial periods, interspersed with their warm interglacial periods. These glacial-interglacial shifts imposed repeated dramatic temperature changes, along with sea level changes as drastic as four hundred feet.
            Temperatures across the Pacific change sharply with the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-which causes a major Pacific temperature change every four to seven years. The 1998 El Nino boosted sea surface temperatures all over the Pacific, causing massive coral bleaching, especially in the Indian Ocean. That’s when Mark Spalding, supposedly a coral expert, claimed that the vast majority of the corals had died out. (386) Bleaching is a part of corals’ strategy for adapting to their almost-constant temperature changes. (387)

            Ross J. Jones of Australia’s Queensland University reported coral bleaching on a portion of the Great Barrier Reef just after average daily sea temperatures rose by 2.5 degrees Celsius in eight days. (388) However, Canada’s D.R. Kobluk and M.A. Lysenko found severe coral bleaching in the Caribbean after the water temperature declined 3 degrees Celsius in eighteen hours. (389)

            New studies tell us that bleaching is the coral system’s way of dealing with sudden temperature changes. Cynthia Lewis and Mary Alice Coffroth of the University of Buffalo deliberately triggered bleaching in some coral colonies. In response, the colonies ejected 99 percent of their symbiotic algae friends. The researchers then exposed the bleached coral to a rare variety of algae that wasn’t in the coral colonies at the beginning of the experiment. Sure enough, within a few weeks, the corals had substantially restocked their algae shelves, and about half included the new marker algae. Later, the marker variety was displaced from several of the coral colonies by more effective algae strains-indicating that corals pick the best partners for the new conditions from the wide variety of algae floating in their part of the ocean. (390)

            Lewis and Coffroth say this is a healthy demonstration of flexibility in coral colonies. They say coral systems have the flexibility to establish new associations with algae strains from the whole environmental pool and that is ”a mechanism for resilience in the face of environmental change.” (391)”

          • George Turner

            I have an answer for you. The specific heat capacity of the world’s oceans is about 1.55e27 Joules per degree Kelvin. So his graph showing an increase of about 30.0e23 Joules means the ocean temperature increased by 0.000193 degrees C. A couple thousand years of this and to a keen eye it will even be detectable on a regular thermometer.

            And that’s why the earlier version of global warming theory ignored the oceans as a heat sink. If the energy imbalance went into the oceans then we could ignore it for thousands and thousands of years.

          • Latimer Alder

            Good point. I wonder what Rob Painting’s response will be to the realisation that the ocean temperature change is minimal/undetectable.

            Rob – please reply. I’m sure your mates at Skeptical Science will be able to help you.

          • George Turner

            Oh, that’s not the half of it. Assume the ocean heat content has increased by 2.0e23 Joules in 40 years, as shown in the graph. As a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, let’s see how many Watts that took.

            The area of the oceans is about 360 million square kilometers, (3.6e8 sq km) which is 3.6e14 square meters. So the heat content went up 5.55e8 Joules per square meter. This occurred over a period of 40 years, and there’s 86,400 seconds in a year, so the increase took 3,456,000 seconds. That means the applied power, ABOVE normal 1970 sunlight, was 160.75 Watts per square meter.

            That’s an order of magnitude larger than the possible flux imbalance, and thus the heat content data is junk because energy doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s one of those rules of physics.

          • moman

            86,400 secionds in a day. So divide your result by 365.

            This gives you a number that is about a quarter of the estimated anthropogenic forcing. (One might say a quarter of the “global warming” is in the oceans.)

            Does that change your attitude to this data?

          • Rob Painting

            Dude, he’s a rocket engineer, or something! Mind you, him messing up such a simple calculation doesn’t inspire much confidence.

          • samton909

            Yeah, man! We don’t want no stinkin’ people who know what they are talking about discussing global warming! We want scary, misleading graphs and nothing else.

          • Rob Painting

            Really? Doesn’t look undetectable.

          • Latimer Alder

            Ahh. An unreferenced graph of something. Produced by somebody. With no explanation of anything.

            Yep. I’m convinced. /not

          • Magoo

            Rob’s just been telling me about data that he assures me comes from a Schmidt et al paper, yet he doesn’t seem to want to tell me the name of the paper so I can check for some reason. Perhaps he’s not being honest.

          • Rob Painting

            You’re a denier. I couldn’t care less if you’re convinced

          • Latimer Alder

            Thanks.

            Let’s review.

            Man from ‘Skeptical Science’ produces (with a flourish) a graph of ‘ocean heat content’ that conveys little useful content. Others take the data and rightly infer that whatever problem he thought he was illustrating is, in fact, trivially minor’

            Man from ‘Skeptical Science’ – when challenged on trivialness – tries another tack. ‘Ah ha! Here’s a graph of something produced by somebody that tells us something I think’

            ‘OK’ say others -‘ what do you think it tells us and how/by whom was it produced?’

            ‘I hate you’ says Man from SkS. ‘You keep asking difficult questions that I don’t know the answer to’

            And MfSkS flounces out.

          • Rob Painting

            Let review without the fantastical imagination from you:

            Data gathered by various instruments unequivocally shows the oceans (as well as atmosphere and land) are warming. This presents a insurmountable hurdle for a human-caused climate change denier, so how can they possibly respond? Answer = distraction.

            Divide the ocean heat content gained in the upper layers of the ocean by the entire ocean volume to falsely assert that the warming is minimal, and hope readers are too dumb to realize the assertion is meaningless. Agreed, this is a tacit admission from the denier that the oceans are indeed warming, but the intent appears to be to provide a distraction and hope that readers are naive enough to fall for it.

            The graph from NOAA shows that much of of the upper ocean, the 0-100 metre layer, has warmed by 0.5-1.0°C over the last 60 years. In other words it reveals your little canard about ocean warming being negligible is utter horseshit.

            Of course the beauty of science is that it doesn’t depend on a belief system. The laws of physics doesn’t care whether you accept they exist, and so the oceans will continue to warm as further greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere. As time goes on deniers are going to become even more desperate trying to handwave away the warming, until such time that even the scientifically naive no longer fall for their bag of rhetorical tricks.

          • Latimer Alder

            So in the seven intervening hours, your mates have been able to come up with something. And I presume you have now swapped seats with the other guy whose name escapes me who was equally clueless without his backup team.

            So where has your new position landed you? Prevously your graph showed all the tiny amount of heat in the top 2000 feet (700m). And quite correctly, I calculated an average warming therein of 0.06C. Remember that this is just simple arithmetic of specific heats.

            But no – you cry! that is wrong. Far too unscary. We have labelled the graph wrongly. What we meant to say was that it as all in the top 100m (300 feet)..and in that case the average temperature increase is much higher.

            Wll maybe so, old sport. And if you concentrated it in just the top 70 cm the ocean would probably be boiling at its surface.

            But however you’d like to hope that the heat is distributed, you cannot disguise the fact that there ain’t much of it. If your 30 x 10^22 joules has warmed the top 100 metres by 0.5C then the 600 m beneath it has not been warmed at all. Its rate of warming is reliably zero.

            Or if all 700m have been warmed, then my earlier calculation stands. It is a very small heat pie and you are trying to stretch it a very long way.

            So which is it? A measurable warming of a very thin surface layer and nothing at all beneath..the deep ocean heat sinks completely unaffected by any energy change? Or a teensy temperature change for a slightly deeper layer with the deep sinks still completely unchanged? Or an evenly distributed warming of some number so tiny as to be unimaginable?

            And from a purely practical view…why should we give a toss about any of it?

            Personally I hope it’s the first. My summer holidays at Bournemouth will have warmer water to swim in, (can’t say I’ve noticed yet), and the ocean will give up more yummy CO2 plant food to the atmosphere..helping to green the planet.

          • Rob Painting

            More distractive drivel. The oceans are warming and the upper oceans accumulating so much heat that it is causing coral to die off.

            That’s what the observations reveal, and no amount of twaddle from you can disguise that.

          • planet8788

            They survived the MWP. They evolved in even warmer waters.

          • samton909

            Ooops!

            “Climate change has long been thought to be the main culprit in coral degradation. While it does pose a serious threat by making oceans more acidic and causing coral bleaching, the report shows that the loss of parrotfish and sea urchin – the area’s two main grazers – has, in fact, been the key driver of coral decline in the region. An unidentified disease led to a mass mortality of the sea urchin in 1983 and extreme fishing throughout the 20th century has brought the parrotfish population to the brink of extinction in some regions. The loss of these species breaks the delicate balance of coral ecosystems and allows algae, on which they feed, to smother the reefs. […]

            ‘Even if we could somehow make climate change disappear tomorrow, these reefs would continue their decline,’ says Jeremy Jackson, lead author of the report and IUCN’s senior advisor on coral reefs.- See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/07/04/caribbean-coral-reef-die-off-not-caused-by-climate-change-after-all-expert-report-writes/#sthash.92RzLxNr.dpuf

          • samton909

            That’s right, when challenged, either put up another fake graph or call them a name! that will shut them up.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Gavin created the fastest warming place on Earth in the Arctic, primarily with imaginary data. Note that the 2-4C warming red area inside the oval is almost entirely fabricated from gray “missing data”

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/gisswesternarcticfraud.gif

            Whole story .. https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/01/25/gavins-fastest-warming-place-on-earth-is-almost-completely-fake/

          • Rob Painting

            You realize you’re conspiracizing again, right?

          • planet8788

            Satellite data denier

          • samton909

            Did you run out of graphs with scary lines on them?

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Conspiracizing?

            I repost actual data, before and after adjustments ..
            How is that Conspiracizing?

          • samton909

            Graphs are pure knowledge! No one could fake a graph! Look at this one, it’s orange! The color of heat! Oh, I can smell the little fishies cooking from here!

          • RPTn

            Exactly what I expected the curve was designed to hide, didn’t bother to do the maths myself though, so thanks!

            Will watch the thermometers for the next thousands of years while playing may harp!

          • moman

            It is silly to talk about the average ocean temperature if much of the energy remains in the upper layers.

            The point of showing that the ocean is gaining heat is to counter the claim that the planet is cooling, or not warming.

          • Rob Painting

            Yes, that myth has been doing the rounds ever since deniers had to grudgingly accept the fact that the oceans were warming. So childish that I don’t think anyone has bothered to rebut it.

            That heat in the upper layers does have severe consequences however, it is responsible for marine heatwaves such as that which occurred off the West Australian coast a couple of years back and, of course, is driving mass coral bleaching. The 3rd global coral bleaching event is currently underway and we could see massive mortality if the model predictions pan out.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen
          • Rob Painting

            And so to support your claim about the oceans, you post images not of ocean heat content trends? Well done.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            That comment shows you didn’t even expand my post and read the rest :)

          • samton909

            Oooops!

            “The only problem with the ”disappearing coral” theory is that it is false. Corals date back 450 million years, and most of today’s coral species date back at least 200 million years. Just in the last two million years, coral reefs have been through at least seventeen glacial periods, interspersed with their warm interglacial periods. These glacial-interglacial shifts imposed repeated dramatic temperature changes, along with sea level changes as drastic as four hundred feet.
            Temperatures across the Pacific change sharply with the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-which causes a major Pacific temperature change every four to seven years. The 1998 El Nino boosted sea surface temperatures all over the Pacific, causing massive coral bleaching, especially in the Indian Ocean. That’s when Mark Spalding, supposedly a coral expert, claimed that the vast majority of the corals had died out. (386) Bleaching is a part of corals’ strategy for adapting to their almost-constant temperature changes. (387)

            Ross J. Jones of Australia’s Queensland University reported coral bleaching on a portion of the Great Barrier Reef just after average daily sea temperatures rose by 2.5 degrees Celsius in eight days. (388) However, Canada’s D.R. Kobluk and M.A. Lysenko found severe coral bleaching in the Caribbean after the water temperature declined 3 degrees Celsius in eighteen hours. (389)

            New studies tell us that bleaching is the coral system’s way of dealing with sudden temperature changes. Cynthia Lewis and Mary Alice Coffroth of the University of Buffalo deliberately triggered bleaching in some coral colonies. In response, the colonies ejected 99 percent of their symbiotic algae friends. The researchers then exposed the bleached coral to a rare variety of algae that wasn’t in the coral colonies at the beginning of the experiment. Sure enough, within a few weeks, the corals had substantially restocked their algae shelves, and about half included the new marker algae. Later, the marker variety was displaced from several of the coral colonies by more effective algae strains-indicating that corals pick the best partners for the new conditions from the wide variety of algae floating in their part of the ocean. (390)

            Lewis and Coffroth say this is a healthy demonstration of flexibility in coral colonies. They say coral systems have the flexibility to establish new associations with algae strains from the whole environmental pool and that is ”a mechanism for resilience in the face of environmental change.” (391)”

          • samton909

            No, the point of showing the ocean is warming is to explain away the fact that the atmosphere is not warming like they insisted it was going to warm. So they had to come up with some sort of explanation as to where all that heat went. So they brilliantly said “Oh, lets say it all went into the oceans.”

          • moman

            No you’ve misunderstood. If all the extra warmth in the atmosphere since 1950 disappeared into the ocean it would be a tiny hump on top of the existing ocean heat rise.

          • samton909

            Don’t you get it? The graph would not be scary enough if people realized how pathetically weak a joule is. Whatever is measured, it has to be in the millions and billions, so as to be scary. If they said the temperature rose by a thousandth of one degree, people would not be scared into signing away their future.

            Get with the propaganda program!

          • Latimer Alder

            But joules sounds sciency! And anything with 10^22 next to it sounds so terrfiyingly sciency as to be beyond my tiny comprehension.

            Thank heavens we have those nice folks like the Australian cartoonist and the paid oil industry guy at Skeptical Science to tell us just how scared to be!

            But one thing I’ve noticed. They ain’t good at questions. Great at dealing out their prepared answers. But come a different question and they all go into a huddle. then they call the questionner a denier. Funny that.

          • George Turner

            How can the ocean heat content be -5E23 Joules in 1960. That’s not even physically possible. By the graph, ocean heat content in 2014 is infinitely more than it was in 1980, when it was zero.

          • moman

            It’s the change in heat content. Shoot the person who wrote the axis title.

          • Rob Painting

            …or the person who can’t understand a simple graph.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen
          • Rob Painting
          • planet8788

            So you rely on satellites for sea level rise? But not temperatures? What do the tide gauges say…. OOOPS>

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            At least you manage to post another fake graph – Good for you :)

          • Latimer Alder

            Update for info.

            Subsequently Rob and his SkS treehouse chums
            decided that this graph and his conclusion that ‘the 0-700m layer has
            very clearly warmed’ was wrong. And that it was only the 0-100m layer
            that had warmed.

            Bizarrely he also called me a denier for agreeing with him.

            Funny folks at ‘Skeptical Science’. They can’t keep their story together for more than ten seconds.I think they get some sort of kick out of shouting ‘denier!’ Maybe that’s why they do it so often

          • samton909

            The answer is that the mid oceanic ridges, along with many, many other areas, are expelling hot magma into the oceans. This is where islands come from. See Hawaii, for example. See the hot oceanic ridges that have water at above boiling point. Note that some recent research indicates that the spots above these ridges are exuding CO2 as well.

            But they don’t want to hear about that, because then they can’t blame man. So they ignore the obvious.

          • RealOldOne2

            More pure BS from the SkepticalScienceKid. Colder ghgs can’t transfer any heat into the warmer surface of the ocean. As Walther11 says, the IR radiation from the 15μm wavelength CO2 molecules can’t penetrate the skin of the ocean. “The skin SST, SSTskin, is a temperature measured a some depth, within a thin layer (~500μm) at the air-sea interface” – Donlon(2001).
            ‘Backradiation’ from CO2 only penetrates about 3 m deep, which is ~1% of the ocean’s ‘skin’ thickness as seen from this plot from peer reviewed science, http://klimaatfraude.info/images/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig1.gif .
            The upper interface layer is always cooler than the layers just below it: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig2.jpg . Since heat always transfers from warmer objects to colder objects, there is no heat transferred from the colder skin down into the ocean.
            And the reduction in cooling due to the change in ghgs since the “pause/hiatus” is insignificant, as shown here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444

          • hurtline1

            Based on diagrams of the ocean sea lanes utilized by virtually all of the ocean shipping, it would appear that at least 3/4 of the ocean remain outside of those lanes. How could they come up with realistic data for the whole ocean when so little of it is monitored?

          • Walther11

            They can’t. This is a question for Rob Painting. You should ask him.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen
          • Rob Painting

            Boy, you deniers are big on conspiracies.

          • samton909

            You realize, don’t you, that lamely calling anyone who disagrees with you a “denier” is in its own little way a conspiracy of sorts, right? After all, since the whole global warming things is based on PR rather than science, you have to use disingenuous ways to discredit the opposition, like comparing them to Holocaust deniers.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Ahh .. Conspiracies .. That means you only got the consesus argument left :)

            Looks like we are getting close to the end of our discussion. Before i go, what is evidence? What is empirical data?

            And, why cheat if there’s a real problem?

            A quick science course.

            102 Playstation 64 models from Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC (red line is the hypothesis, i.e man made global warming from CO2)

            VS.

            Reality (2 satellite data-sets and 4 weather balloon data sets)

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

            A closer look at the empirical measured temperature trailing at the bottom ..

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/temp2.png

            Anyone who know science will very quickly conclude, hypothesis has completely imploded, failed .. Is that the reason they cheat?

          • samton909

            Oh, your graph is so scary! Boy, it sure looks like the oceans will be boiling by next thursday!.

            If I didn’t understand science, and how easy it is to manipulate graphs to make them look scary, I would have fainted by now.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Global ocean heat content (93% of global warming) increased dramatically.”

            Since ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs, thanks for admitting that global warming is at least 93% natural! Science supporting that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation is found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444

            ps. I’m STILL waiting for you to address the peer reviewed empirical science that shows that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming as natural climate forcing, not anthropogenic. Why do you dodge this Rob?

          • David S

            There really isn’t a trend since then. Even the rigged NOAA dataset shows minimal trend if we “cherry-pick” and start at the last El Nino.

          • Rob Painting

            Tsk, tsk, conspiracizing again.

          • samton909

            Tell me about how oil companies are behind all the opposition to global warming.

          • Orson OLSON

            Some people never depart carousels.

        • Frederick Colbourne

          To draw a trend line through a graph with peaks caused by ENSO makes no sense. The ENSO peaks may be the sole basis for a rising trend line.

          To base anything at all on a time span of less than 60 years also makes no sense because other oceanic oscillations have periods of 60 years.

          I don’t know if the impact of the Sun makes better sense, but more attention should be given to the possibility that the variability in solar radiation is an important driver of climate variability.

          https://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/

      • George Turner

        Interesting graph of ocean heat content, especially the scale on the left. Apparently in 1970 the ocean was at absolute zero because it had no heat content at all (0.0 Joules, and prior to that it had -9.0e23 Joules of heat). That’s not even physically possible.

        • George Turner

          Oops. That comment was supposed to be down beneath the graphs of ocean heat content.

          • Rob Painting

            It’s a ridiculous comment no matter where you pasted it. If you think an anomaly infers a starting point of zero, that’s your problem.

          • George Turner

            Okay, explain negative thermal energy on a graph of heat content, and yes, I do rocket motor combustion thermodynamics and transient heat transfer calculations. I’m all ears.

            Also, your 2.0e23 Joule increase spread across the world’s oceans over a span of 40 years would require the constant application of an additional 160 Watts per square meter over 1970 fluxes. I think we would have noticed that. Heck, monkeys would notice that.

          • Rob Painting

            You post a stupid comment like that and then expect me to be impressed by your fake expertise?

          • George Turner

            Fake expertise is what we get from mainstream climatologists. Mann can’t do basic statistics and the modelers are out in the weeds. Most of the models don’t even try to obey the laws of Newtonian mechanics, such as conservation of momentum. The MIT model uses Navier-Stokes equations which are invalid during conditions of evaporation or condensation – which is what drives the weather.

            As Judith Curry says, decades have been wasted on GCM’s that won’t work and are useless for forecasting.

            And then of course there’s the problem that NCDC keeps cooling the past with their data homogenization algorithms. Every time they encounter a new discontinuity in current temperature records they fix it by making the past get a little cooler. In all other areas of science the assumption that the conditions in the present radiate backwards in time for up to a century would get you labeled as a crank. In climate science it gets you grants.

          • moman

            It’s an anomaly – a change from what it used to be. If it goes down, the figure is negative. If it goes up, the figure is positive.

            You need to redo your calculations. Divide by number of seconds and area of ocean in metres (I’ve assumed the ocean covers 2/3 of the earth’s surface and the radius of the earth is 6370,000 m)

            2.0e23/((40*365*24*60*60) * (2.0/3.0 * 4 * 3.14 * 6370000 * 6370000)) = 0.4W

          • George Turner

            Oops. I missed a number in seconds per year. Sometimes that happens.

            But if it’s 0.4W you’re not going to have much warming. In the top 700 meters you have 700,000 kg per square meter, which will have a heat capacity of about 3.0e9 Joules per degree K. 0.4 Watts give you 1.26e7 Joules per year, which when applied to 700,000 kg would give 0.0043 degrees C per year, or 0.43 degrees per century. At that rate it would take 460 years to get 2C of warming.

            But most of the heating occurs in the tropics where there are strong negative feedbacks on ocean surface temperature that operate on an hourly basis, causing the mid afternoon to usually be cooler than mid-morning due to the massive clouds and thunderstorms. This helps explain why the Northern and Southern hemispheres, which should have drastically different albedos (on the order of 20 to 30 W/m^2) are measured to have the same albedo within about 1 W/m^2.

            It seems to be a very tightly regulated system with strong negative feedbacks.

          • moman

            We are seeing warming of the upper layers of the ocean. So clearly the energy is not being mixed into the rest of the ocean fast enough to keep the atmosphere from warming up.

            If there are strong negative feedbacks, how come the ocean and atmosphere are warming roughly in line with the models?

          • Rob Painting

            If you can’t decipher a simple graph it completely undermines your grandiose claims of expertise.

  • http://thewaytheballbounces.blogspot.com BallBounces

    I’m pretty sure the word Manichean should have a double-n.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      As in “data Mannipulation”?

      • small-el-liberal

        Or Mann-made Global Warming

  • EDMH

    According to Greenland and other Ice Core data our Holocene Interglacial is now in decline.

    The current, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000+ years. It’s congenial climate spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.

    But:

    1 the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest of the Holocene interglacial.

    2 each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), has been progressively colder than the previous high point.

    3 for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had almost flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.

    4 but the recent Holocene, since the “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate of decline at more than 0.137 °C per millennium.

    5 our Holocene interglacial is about 11,000 years old and judging by earlier Interglacials the epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.

    6 any beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point that has been promoted as the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare” will soon come to be seen as noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.

    Global warming protagonists should accept that our interglacial has been in long-term decline for the last 3000 years and that any action taken by man-kind is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever.

    Were the actions by Man-kind able to avert warming they would eventually reinforce the catastrophic cooling that is bound to return soon in geologic terms.

    see

    http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/data

    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2015/06/01/the-holocene-context-for-anthropogenic-global-warming-2/

    • RPTn

      Why worry? No on has worried about cooling for a loong time, early stone age of 1975 if I recall right. In the current post-scientific society, we just mobilize the NGOs, and then pass a law against it.

      Leave the science to the Chinese! We dont want to be tainted by it!.

  • Frederick Colbourne

    ‘I was tossed out of the tribe’

    Some of us knew that Dr Curry had been or would be ostracized for her views.

    S. J. Gould recounted the situation at Harvard in the late 1950s. As I recall he said that: Some of the graduate students used to meet on the back stairs to discuss continental mobility (Wegener’s theory of continental drift) where we would not be overheard by our professors.

    At the University of Western Ontario in Canada a lecturer in geography, after explaining Wegener’s theory, warned his students that they would have no chance of teaching at a North American university if they made public their support of continental drift.

    Within a decade the entire academic community of North America had adopted plate tectonics, which is the modern explanation of the mechanism that causes continental mobility.

    One of the main reasons why continental mobility was rejected was the Lord Kelvin had estimated the age of the Earth at 300,000 years as a result of not knowing of the existence of radioactivity as a heat source.

    So what is new about Dr Curry having been ostracized for heresy? There is nothing new. The history of science, as Thomas Kuhn has shown us, is a history of errors supported by dogmatism not a lot different from religious dogmatism.

    Now even the Pope has joined the religion of Gaia.

    In 2006, the Geological Society of London awarded James Lovelock the Wollaston Medal in part for his work on the Gaia hypothesis. I wonder if they will ask for the medal back now that Lovelock has become an apostate from the Gaia religion. Not that he himself ever considered himself an acolyte of Gaia.

  • Dallas Ridley

    I’m all for good science, but doesn’t this article miss the essential point that cutting and burning down our forest and otherwise destroying our natural systems should be stopped and reversed (eco-restoration)?

    • Zorro

      The econuts/warmunists are cutting down American forests to feed Drax in the UK when they should be using fracced gas and coal.

      BTW some excellent posts below mine focussing on the science in a logical and systematic way.

    • Hamburger

      I too find it inexplicable that no mention is made of it in the climate discussion.

    • Orson OLSON
  • http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/ Bart Verheggen

    Judith Curry portrays herself as the victim being tossed out by the tribe (which tribe?). But if you follow her transition closely you’ll see that she decided to step further and further away from mainstream science all by herself, while increasingly antagonizing her scientific colleagues with unfounded smears and accusations. See e.g. https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/judith-curry-building-bridges-burning-bridges/ I say this as a mainstream scientist who initially was moderately positive about Curry’s reflections on the public debate and role scientists play in that debate (see e.g. https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/judith-curry-on-climate-science-introspection-or-circling-the-wagons/)

    • Latimer Alder

      One of Judith’s excellent points was that ‘climate science’ is now a tribal, not a scientific endeavour.

      That loyalty to ‘the tribe’ is prized more highly than any attempts to discover objective truth.

      You need only look again at the Climategate e-mails to see how deeply entrenched this idea has become among the movers and shakers and one-time poster children of this endeavour.

      And Bart, I’m afraid that your accusation of ‘step[ping] further away from mainstream science all by herself’ is a deeply tribalistic remark..worthy of a religion. But not, surely, of science.

      Einstein famously was asked about the book ‘100 scientists against Einstein’. And remarked ‘If I were wrong, one would be enough’

      There is no place for tribalism or consensus in science.

      • moman

        Professor Richard Muller once agreed with you and obtained skeptic funding and the collaboration of Judith Curry to test the results. But he found out that the people whose emails were hacked were right.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

        CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

        • Magoo
          • moman

            Muller is a scientist and he was sceptical about the work of UAE, and set out to prove them wrong.

            Steve Goddard (a made up name, by the way) is a bit dim and stubborn. He is famous for misunderstanding the triple point of water. I just googled it to remind myself, and I had to check and recheck that the following is not a spoof site making fun of him.

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/the-triple-point-of-stupidity/

          • Magoo

            Goddard isn’t the focus – Muller’s multiple admissions that he was never a sceptic are, and they are in black and white for all to see. Demonizing Goddard doesn’t change Muller’s admissions.

        • Magoo

          Can’t forget this one also:

          ‘November 3, 2011

          “It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,” he said in a recent email exchange with The Huffington Post. “Some people called me a skeptic because in my best-seller ‘Physics for Future Presidents’ I had drawn attention to the numerous scientific errors in the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ But I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

          Richard Muller, Climate Researcher, Navigates The Volatile Line Between Science And Skepticism

          • moman

            Exactly. He is looking to point out mistakes. This is the true meaning of sceptic. I didn’t say he was a climate sceptic. I said he was funded by [climate] sceptics – i.e. the Koch Brothers.

            Many “climate sceptics” take a view about some aspect of climate science and stick to it by rejecting contrary evidence, and by requiring unreasonable levels of proof (that they don’t require for evidence that supports their own view).

          • Magoo

            Right, so what do you think Muller means when he says ‘CALL me a converted skeptic.’

          • moman

            Well it’s a rhetorical flair to draw the reader into reading the article.

            But he was sceptical about the UAE work, and more especially he doubted their honesty. Doubting a scientist’s honesty is a “climate sceptic” trait.

            I suspect he still has doubts about them because he was incandescent with rage about the cynicism he perceived in the “hide the decline” email. But I expect his doubts do not extend so much to their published science any more.

          • Magoo

            Oh bullshit. He got caught out red handed telling lies, no two ways around it. ‘Rhetorical flair’ – you really expect me to believe that?

          • moman

            What lie did he tell? He was a sceptic about the CRU data and now he isn’t so sceptical.

            When people say things like “Call me an idiot, but shouldn’t Osborne wait for the tax receipts before he gives it away to feckless scroungers” they don’t expect people to call them an idiot.

          • Magoo

            What about when he says ‘CALL me a converted skeptic.’?

            Oh that’s right, ‘Rhetorical flair’.

          • moman

            Yes. Richard Muller doesn’t necessarily want people to think he is a [climate] sceptic and my fictional critic of Osborne doesn’t want people to think he is an idiot.

            Rhetorical flair in both cases.

          • Magoo

            LOL!! If you say so moman, I’m sure you feel your interpretation of Muller’s straightforward comment is correct.

          • moman

            To be honest it would not surprise me if it was put in by the sub-editor.

          • Magoo

            ROFLMAO!! First it’s ‘rhetorical flair’, and now it’s not really Muller but the editor?!! You sum up the global warming crowd moman, desperation as a consequence of failure to acknowledge an error. It’s much easier to just acknowledge the error & move on – it’s the first step to seeing the major flaws in AGW.

          • moman

            You are just getting hung up on a phrase that is not untrue and not important.

        • Latimer Alder

          They were right about Mann’s Hokey Stick? Which was the main protagonist in Climategate.
          I don’t think so. And neither does Prof. Muller

          It is garbage. It has always been garbage and if the leaders of ‘climate science’ didn’t realise it was garbage then they were (at best) negligent in their responsibilities. And

          I cannot decide whether Mann Jones, Trenberth, Schmidt et al and all the other perps are best described as spivs, shysters or both.

          But I’ll leave it to Jonathan Jones, Professor at Oxford University to sum it up in aremark to a Met Office guy

          ‘The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows
          it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most
          outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes
          on being published and defended year after year.

          Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious
          drivel? Well yes, that’s what you should do. It is the job of scientists
          of integrity to expose pathological science… It is a litmus test of
          whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying
          defenders of pathology in their midst.’

          I see absolutely no sign that ‘climate science’ has come to repent its championing of such BS, nor taking any steps to prevent it happening again.

          If Judith is a ‘heretic’ for pointing this out, so be it. In this case the heretics are right.

          • moman

            Why is severe critic of the Michael Mann, Eduardo Zorita, a co-author of Pages 2K which whose result is largely in line with the hockey stick?

          • Latimer Alder

            No idea. And I fail to see the relevance. Please explain your point.

            But thanks for reminding us all of Zorita’s trenchant criticism of the Climategate/Hokey Stick perps.

            You can read the original here at the excellent independent climate web site ‘Watts Up With That’.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/zorita-calls-for-barring-phil-jones-michael-mann-and-stefan-rahmstorf-from-further-ipcc-participation/

            But here are some extracts

            ‘research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion’

            ‘editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed’

            ‘They [Climategate e-mails] are an account of many dull daily activities of typical
            climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior’.

            Thanks again for reminding us of the deep-seated fundamental problems with the practice of ‘climate science’. I have seen nothing to make me believe that Zorita’s words are no longer true. And the recent spat over NOAA data suggests to me that things are getting worse, not better.

          • moman

            I don’t really give a stuff about Mann. I do give a bit of a stuff about historical temperatures. Whether Mann is a great scientist or a piece of work, it would appear that assessments of historical temperatures, even those by arch-critics, continue to be aligned with his results.

          • Latimer Alder

            And I care about the integrity of science and the scientific method.

            ‘Climate scientists’ have brought it into disrepute. And by failing to act to rid themselves of the poison in their midst, they cast doubt on all their work and risk bringing all the honest bits of science into question too.

            Time they put their fetid house in order.

          • moman

            And I care about the integrity of science and the scientific method.

            You’re not often that blatant in your misstatements.

          • Latimer Alder

            Unworthy of a serious reply.

          • moman

            Well you aren’t.

            You are dismissing the rise in ocean heat content by pretending that it will be evenly spread such that it will be “undetectable” and is “minimal” when it is not evenly spread, is detectable, and is not minimal.

          • Latimer Alder

            Then you are perfectly at liberty to attempt to prove your point.

            If you can persuade anyone that a rise in ocean temperature (top 2000 feet) of 0.06C in 40 years is something to worry about ..go ahead. Maybe you can get to publish a paper about it.

            The floor is yours.

          • moman

            You are once again dismissing the rise in ocean heat content by pretending that it will be evenly spread such that it will be “undetectable” and is
            “minimal” when it is not evenly spread, is detectable, and is not
            minimal.

          • Latimer Alder

            So show us. With real measurements.

            Though I gotta wonder that if those measurements actually exist why they weren’t published instead of the obscure OHC graph that has been doing the rounds for a few years now.

            Perhaps you can cover that point too.

          • moman

            The whole point of this discussion is to demonstrate your rejection of the scientific finding that ocean heat content is rising, and your unwillingness to discuss scenarios other than those that are irrelevant despite the fact we know the sea surface temperature is rising.

            All you are doing is repeating your rejection of the science without any good reason. A quick google brings up you and Judith Curry sharing your odd and uninquisitive view on this:

            http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-increase-of-ocean-heat/

          • Latimer Alder

            I’m not rejecting the idea that ‘ocean heat content is rising’.

            You can do all the google searches for all the wise and insightful words I have written on the topic over the years (btw thank you for reminding us all of them) and you will not find an example of me ‘rejecting’ the finding. Because I don’t.

            But what you will find is plenty of example so me demonstrating that the published findings fail the ‘so what’ test. The amount of heat (even if the findings are cast iron) that is shown to be there is just too small to make any practical difference to anything. It is trivial.

            I

          • moman

            I don’t need a google search. You’ve done it here.

            You said it is “undetectable”, which is a rejection.

            You’re also rejecting its signficance by pretending that any rise is evenly spread which means you are rejecting the sea surface temperature data that shows it is not evenly spread.

          • Latimer Alder

            You have sea surface temperature data showing that the 10^22 Joules (or whatever undetectably small amount it is) has been unevenly spread. OK show it. I’ve given you half a dozen opportunities to do so and was beginning to think that your bashfulness was hiding its non-existence.

            Go for it.

            Please show SSTs before and after the addition of this trivially small quantity of heat. With an explanation of how the measurements were taken in each case. Estimates of error in each case are required too.

          • moman

            …or whatever undetectably small amount it is…

            There you go again with your science rejection.

            Here’s the SST data:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/mean:12

          • Latimer Alder

            Wow. That’s amazing!

            It certainly does bring a big question to my mind viz:

            What caused the huge rise between 1910 and 1940?

            And how was the data acquired? Same method throughout? How deep is the ‘surface’ that they claim to be measuring? Who did it? Were there any ‘adjustments?’. If so, where can I examine the audit trail for them?

          • moman

            Wow. That’s amazing!

            Thank you! I would have thought you’d have been familiar with this important work already, though. Perhaps if you’d stopped to think you would have realised that assuming all the heat would be evenly spread might be wrong.

          • Latimer Alder

            Perhaps you are unfamiliar with British irony.

            Now, about those questions I asked. Any answers?

          • moman

            It’s sarcasm not irony.

          • Orson OLSON

            The only data for that period was via steamships using buckets over the side – a poorly controlled set of measurements for quality. Ergo, not useful for our purposes.

          • Magoo

            Oh, the irony. You’re a fine one to talk moman, defending Muller’s blatant lie about being a sceptic by trying to say the sub editor said it instead of Muller. Why would Muller lie about such a thing unless it was to mislead?

          • moman

            It wasn’t a lie. He was sceptical about CRU’s results and he thought they were taking part in deliberately dodgy scientific practices. Those are climate sceptic beliefs.

          • Magoo

            LOL!! You’re at it again moman, have you no shame? Let’s see what he said again:

            ‘CALL me a converted skeptic.’ – Richard Muller.

          • moman

            Yes. That’s what he said. He thought global warming was (partially) a lie (which is a sceptic trait) and now he doesn’t.

            I have no idea what you’re on about. As you say below, Muller also said:

            … I was never a skeptic — only a scientific skeptic,

            So is he a sceptic if he is not a sceptic but is a scientific sceptic?

          • Latimer Alder

            ‘He was sceptical about CRU’s results and he thought they were taking part in deliberately dodgy scientific practices’

            I proudly plead guilty to the charge!

            And you only have to read their own e-mails to see why.

            A bigger bunch of psuedo-scientific shysters it is difficult to imagine.

          • moman

            Do you agree with Muller on his statement that the CRU observational datasets are largely correct.

          • Latimer Alder

            Where did he say that?

          • Hamburger

            The problem with the hockey stick is that the algorithms in it meant that it was irrelevant what information was used the result was a hockey stick like projection.

          • moman

            The problem with the hockeystick is that it involves claim and counterclaim that are repeated verbatim by people who haven’t a clue what they are talking about. e.g.

            http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/hockey_grl2005.pdf
            http://climateaudit.org/2014/09/29/climateballers-and-the-mm05-simulations/

            I claim no expertise. The point is that the central idea – that recent warming is a violent excursion from a past steady long term cooling trend is reproduced by others including those critical of the original Hockey Stick method.

          • Latimer Alder

            I think your claim about ‘people who haven’t a clue what they are talking about’ falls short when it comes to Steve McIntyre, author of the rightly famous Climate Audit blog.

            I’d venture the opinion that as a professional statistician he knows more about the hockey stick and its many deficiencies than Mike Mann and all his co-conspirators. He it was who first revealed it for the crock of s**t it is.

            You can read all about it in Andrew Montford’s excellent history of Steve’s efforts in ‘The Hockey Stick illusion’. It’s a good read…and a good detective story.through the twists and turns of Mann’s pathetic anti-scientific attempts to keep the light of independent scrutiny from falling too closely upon his ‘magnum opus’.

            But liek everything else he touches, he failed. And Steve M was able to show that the conclusions were based on manipulated data, bad statistics and a lot of deliberate obfuscation.

            Read Andrew’s book – and the Climategate e-mails – to see how deep into ‘climate science’ the cancer has spread.

          • moman

            Andrew is one of the people who doesn’t have a clue. In subjects that I do understand better I can spot Steve M’s manipulations.

          • Hamburger

            The problem with Mann’s hockey stick is that the methodology is wrong. It is irrelevant if the results are sometimes correct. It cannot be used to make a prognosis.

          • Orson OLSON

            “past steady long term cooling trend” NOT. The planet’s been warming by multiple decades for over two hundred years. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/boreholes/mann-huang-pollack-97-99-sml.gif

          • moman

            As I said, “claim and counterclaim”.

            The Huang and Pollack 1997 study was followed by two further studies using higher quality data that disagrees with their 1997 study.

            http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature'00.pdf

            http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4284/1095/1600/Huang3.jpg

          • Mnestheus

            Stop dodging Muller.Latimer.

          • planet8788

            Muller was never a skeptic. Never.

        • chadke

          False. He never did.

          “I was never a skeptic […] I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.”

          – Richard Muller, 2011

          Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, “the greatest pollutant in human history” and likely to have, “severe and detrimental effects on global climate”.

          The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, “it’s going to get much, much worse” and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, “it’ll be too late”.

        • planet8788

          Muller was never a skeptic.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Muller was never a skeptic”
            Correct. He said so himself: “It is ironic if some people treat me as a traitor, since I was NEVER a skeptic … I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me to be called a climate skeptic.” – Richard Muller, Nov. 2011

          • Evan Jones

            No, he wasn’t, all the caterwauling notwithstanding. All he did was question some aspects of the IPCC.

            And most people aren’t aware that the BEST study was funded by the dreaded Koch brothers.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            But the troll man ignored the finding or recommendations

          • planet8788

            Which should automatically invalidate it.

        • RealOldOne2

          “Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
          Totally false and unsupported by empirical data. The peer reviewed empirical data shows that the cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century was natural climate forcing. Some of that science is shown here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

          You have been unable to rebut any of that peer reviewed empirical science.

          • moman

            Point to the specific scientific evidence you are talking about.

        • Orson OLSON

          After my MSc work at the University of London in environmental science, I was converted too – into a skeptic. Even after the Nobel Peace Prize came in 2007, and climate scientists spoke out in many fora, the best case (or worst scientific worry) came from John Holland of NCAR in Boulder, Colorado – if the planet warms, frozen undersea clathrates may release methane gas – a far more potent GHG – and accelerate the warming! (A worry since rubbished in the lit.) Lame.

          • moman

            Not sure of your point. Most climate scientists agree that rapid methane release is not likely to happen in current scenarios.

    • RobbertBobbert GDQ

      Stepped further away from mainstream science…antagonised her scientific colleagues..

      Oh! The poor little precious dears and could you be any further on board The Appeal To Authority Bandwagon.
      Dr Curry refused to go the whole enchilada, as the Americans say, and The Climate Establishment decided she was to be, as the English say, Sent To Coventry.
      This issue is so far away from scientific debate and discussion.
      You preach the GW Climate Change party line or else!

      • moman

        Quote cherry-picking:

        .antagonised her scientific colleagues with unfounded smears and accusations

    • chadke

      How dare she follow the science instead of proclaiming the end is nigh.

    • Tom Billings

      “Judith Curry portrays herself as the victim being tossed out by the tribe (which tribe?)”

      The government-funded climate science community, and especially their peer reviewers for funding. Without her working to promote increased government controls on civil society through spreading FUD about climate, they found less and less reason to count her as “one of us”, which so many in that tribe define as *being* funded by government.

      “But if you follow her transition closely you’ll see that she decided to step further and further away from mainstream science all by herself, …”

      Sure, because when she started drawing attention to uncertainty she was already a department chair in climate science, who was deferred to. Indeed, until about 2009, Dr Curry was very uncontroversial. Then climate-gate could no longer be ignored by an honest scientist.

      “while increasingly antagonizing her scientific colleagues with unfounded
      smears and accusations.”

      Drawing attention to incompetent statistics is not smears or accusations. It has the support of some of the best statistics experts in the US. One noted that he uses some of these abuses as examples in his classes of how *not* to use statistical methods.

    • planet8788

      I don’t see her playing the victim at all. She’s just happy she’s tenured… The rest of science is the victim.

    • Orson OLSON

      The tribe of senior scientist with 200 papers (ergo funding – ALL CUT), the benefits of a full university professor and therefore an academic who it honored there.

  • Mc

    “I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased all that much.”

    Unfortunately by then, many trillions of debt-financed spending will have been expended by governments on pointless climate initiatives and subsidies.

  • Mervyn

    Individuals like Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Bob Carter, Don Easterbrook, and the many other scientists who have produced an overwhelming body of scientific evidence debunking the United Nations’ narrative on catastrophic man-made global warming a.k.a. climate change, will one day be treated well in the future history books of science. They are true champions of scientific reality, who refused to sacrifice the scientific method for the sake of accepting convenient political consensus science.

    These scientists should never lose hope. After all, in 1905 Albert Einstein stood against the entire classical physics world with his new ideas on relativity. A few years later, a high school biology teacher from Seattle (Harlen Bretz) stood against the entire geological profession with his explanations of Pacific Northwest geology. And only a few years ago, Australians, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, stood against the entire global medical profession to explain the real cause of peptic ulcers.

    • moman

      Einstein did not stand against “the entire classical world”. It was already recognised (through the Michelson-Morley experiment) that something really weird was going on with the speed of light and it was widely accepted that “luminiferous aether” had no theoretical or experimental basis.

      Your group of scientists and PR men have very little in common with each other. Curry worries about uncertainty. Lindzen has a theory which isn’t going anywhere. The rest just prattle on in op eds and blogs without doing any science at all.

      • Han Hanna

        yawn…..

      • Latimer Alder

        The thing we all have in common is the realisation that – from many different independent perspectives – there are huge holes, errors and obfuscations in

        all aspects of ‘climate science’ .

        It is a can of worms. Squiggling and wriggling under the light of hard scrutiny ever since the welcome liberation of the Climategate e-mails.

        Some might recall that CG occurred just before the fiasco of the climate conference n Snowpenhagen.

        The Paris instalment of climatogabfest, pissup and Xmas shopping starts on Sunday.

        • moman

          The scientific method has ways of coping with uncertainty. You reject the scientific method though.

          • Latimer Alder

            Please explain where you think I ‘reject the scientific method’.

            Detailed examples will help.

          • moman

            Check your and my comment history. You don’t have to go far.

          • Latimer Alder

            To help us all, (and as scientific publishing conventions would have you do), please reference the exact comments of concern, including an elaboration for each of where I am ‘reject[ing] the scientific method’.

            The floor is yours. Lay out your charges against me for all to see.

          • moman

            1 minute before this post.

          • Latimer Alder

            Exact quote, please. With your explanation of how ‘it rejects the scientific method’

          • moman

            You are once again dismissing the rise in ocean heat content by
            pretending that it will be evenly spread such that it will be
            “undetectable” and is “minimal” when it is not evenly spread, is detectable, and is not minimal.

            The whole point of this discussion is to demonstrate your rejection
            of the scientific finding that ocean heat content is rising, and your
            unwillingness to discuss scenarios other than those that are irrelevant
            despite the fact we know the sea surface temperature is rising.

            All you are doing is repeating your rejection of the science without any
            good reason.

          • Gonzo

            [You are once again dismissing the rise in ocean heat content] Now that’s a corker. OHC of all the alarmist data sets has to be the worst! By a mile. Yet you take it as gospel. So again you alarmists take a leap of “faith” which is pretty much all you have going at this point.

          • moman

            No it isn’t gospel, but it is roughly in line with observed rises in sea level due to thermal expansion (unless the ice sheets are melting a heck of a lot faster than we think).

          • Latimer Alder

            I was under the impression that the OHC estimate was derived from SLR. So that the two are in line with each other is hardly a surprise. It would show a very basic methodological error if they weren’t.

            One thing is sure, They haven’t invented a Jouleometer and directly measured the quantity they labour so diligently to scare us all with.
            It is an indirect estimate based on small changes in poor quality data.

          • moman

            Yes they have invented the “jouleometer”. Argo and XBT instruments.

          • planet8788

            covering a whopping .0003 percent of the ocean.

          • moman

            You don’t know much about statistics then.

            Polling companies get quite accurate data polling .001% of the population just once. The Argo buoys are polling day after day and year after year.

          • planet8788

            And the Argo data, by itself, shows less warming.

          • moman

            So it shows warming.

          • planet8788

            statistically insignificant warming.

          • moman

            Statistically significant warming that is consistent with separately observed thermosteric sea level rise (sea level rise component caused by thermal expansion of water).

          • planet8788

            How do you seperate the thermosteric from the melting ice?

          • planet8788

            And how do you measure the sea level rise…. Very big differences betweeen tide gauges and satellites not designed to measure such short changes in distance.

          • moman

            Satellites are able to measure this.

          • planet8788

            but not temperatures… LOL. What is the error on the measurement?

          • moman

            Temperatures are harder to measure. You do realise they are not simply trailing a mercury thermometer on a long piece of string?

          • planet8788

            and distance of mm’s are easy…… NOT. at least… not the satellites that are being used for it.

          • planet8788

            It would be better if those buoy were more evenly distributed.

          • planet8788

            And they have been doing real well of late… in fact, we don’t even need elections anymore right… because those polls are always so accurate.

          • moman

            So you agree that the ocean heat content change could plausibly be accurate to within 10% or better (about the accuracy of the election polls).

          • planet8788

            ocean heat change could be a lot of things. Why is it heating from the bottom up if it’s picking up heat from the surface?

          • moman

            It isn’t.

            In the time it has gained 15e22 Joules in the top 700 metres, it has gained only an additional 5e22 Joules in the next 700-2000m (the second figure shows the 0-2000 metres total, so you have to subtract the 0-700m total to get the 700-2000m total).

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png

          • planet8788

            Not at the tail end. The tail end has been adding more heat at the deep end.

          • moman

            And elsewhere you are arguing that the errors in this data are more than 10%…

          • planet8788

            As are you now apparently.

          • moman

            I wouldn’t be too worried if the error was 10%. The error on the satellite temperature trend is about 35%.

          • planet8788

            35% of what? LIAR.

          • moman

            Posted in haste without context. The error in the decadal trend is 35%.

            The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) … stated range of uncertainty for this product’s trend calculation (+/- 0.040 C/decade).

            BTW, note the huge number of “adjustments” that have to be made to the input data to do the analysis:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

          • planet8788

            What revision are the Climastrologists on for 1880 data? 6,986? They still keep changing it. Because we can read thermometers better the more time passes.
            What were the original error bars on those temps… They’ve dropped by almost 1F now.

          • moman

            No apology for calling me a liar then.

          • planet8788

            No

          • Sarastro92

            No one…not Wunsch nor Trenberth nor Matthew England can account for the “missing heat” that the climate models say should be in the atmosphere is actually hiding in to oceans. The books just don’t balance.

            In any case the ocean temperature data set only starts in 2007 , too soon to determine trends, especially when the warming you claim is there can only be measured in thousandths of a degree.

          • samton909

            What is so very funny is that once the air temperature stopped rising, they have to come up with an excuse for why it was not rising like they insisted it must. So only then did they start saying “Oh! It must have gone into the oceans!”

            It’s all like a Mitchell and Webb skit.

          • RealOldOne2

            The list of excuses is up to at least 66: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html

            Just like doomsday cults whose predictions of doom fail to happen, they deny reality. They began by making up dog-ate-my-homework excuses for the lack of warming, admitting in peer reviewed science that the pause/hiatus in warming was REAL. Then when that wasn’t working, they played historical revisionist and changed the temperature DATA and began claiming that the pause/hiatus wasn’t real at all. This exposes the climate alarmists as no longer being about science. It has gone from science & data, to denial & beliefs contrary to empirical data. This is recognized by eminent scientists:

            “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] : Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT. Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

            And “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48

          • moman

            The air temperature has not stopped rising. The long term trend up to 1997 has continued till now.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/trend/plot/none

          • Orson OLSON

            OHC means WIDE error ranges = not useful

          • Orson OLSON

            In this, Alan Longhurst is equally dissatisfied, citing a relatively earlier study on OHC data uncertainties:
            “A recent study of almost 8 million oceanographic profiles, partitioned among larger grid boxes than in the Levitus analysis in order to increase homogeneity in the analysis, confirms that in most of the ocean the observations do not express 50-year trends, either of cooling of warming, at a 90% confidence level.”
            The interpolation from unsatisfying distribution of data points likely affects trend results. -Alan Longhurst, “Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science” 2015; 106-7 (op cit, Carson, M. and D.E. Harrison [2008] J. Climate 21, 2260-2268)

          • moman

            Curry is arguing that there is insufficient resolution to claim that the ocean is hiding “missing heat”. That is different from claiming that the ocean heat is not rising.

            The “missing heat” if there is any would need to explain about 0.2-0.3C. The amount of heat the oceans have taken up in the last 15 years would warm the atmosphere about 20 times more than this.

          • Tom Billings

            Yes, the scientific method has ways of coping with uncertainty. The primary step is admitting the degree of uncertainty. So far, people who do that with climate science find their funding by the government monopsony on science funding drops steeply, and has for 30 years.

          • Sarastro92

            And their peers run them out of the discipline and their jobs. Terribly disgraceful.

          • Orson OLSON

            Spot on, Tom.

        • Orson OLSON

          And COP21 will fail again – but because “It’s worse Than EVAH!” Give us MAOR money!!!!

      • loftytom

        Thanks for showing that you know bugger all about Science.
        1 Einstein’s early work laid the basis for quantum theory which was an overthrow of classical mechanics. Indeed his Nobel prize winning work on the photoelectric effect was an early insight into the quantisation of energy.
        2. Michelson Morley was not about the speed of light, it did overthrow the spurious idea of an ether but this was more about showing that EMR had no need of a medium for propagation.
        3. You completely miss the point about H Pylori, wonder why?
        4. Epic fail, thanks for playing.

      • DEEKAYBEE

        Citation to show that you have the crews to judge any of these scientists works, especially with a wave of the hand. Coming rapidly to the conclusion that you are a moron with a bit dollop of unencumbered self confidence.

    • planet8788

      That’s only if Western Civilization lasts another 50 years. I’m not convinced it isn’t committing suicide.

  • Jeremy Poynton

    Fine woman. Huge hand to her for standing her ground and speaking up for science against ideology.

  • Han Hanna

    There is little reason to doubt Curry’s conviction, based on her experience and work in academia, and now her freedom from academia. Her thoughts are always measured and balanced, with little coming across as in the pockets of fire-eating skeptics. Curry’s illustrations often take into account opposing conclusions and she accepts discussion on these scientist’s work. What more could anyone ask of?

    • moman

      More intellectual rigour.

      She tends to run away when she is called out on her errors.

      • Han Hanna

        Not true, and you know it.

        • moman

          Sorry, but it is true. I spent many hours at climateetc at its outset and saw it at first hand.

          • Geir Aaslid

            Nope, you are resorting to Ad Hom.

          • moman

            She loves being called a heretic, but scientists do not call her anything.

            She complains about IPCC advocacy, but at a time when the IPCC process is improving she is becoming a strong advocate of her own (really Nic Lewis’s) work suggestive of lower sensitivity despite the fact that it is a highly tentative finding among a whole zoo of competing work.

          • jumper297

            Except that she is being called that and worse. I’ve witnessed it in person and in writing.

          • moman

            citation?

          • PapayaSF
          • moman

            Very witty, but I bet you first tried “Judith Curry is a heretic” and found one result (someone else pointing out that nobody calls Judith Curry a heretic).

            https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22judith+curry+is+a+heretic%22

          • PapayaSF

            No, just “Judith Curry is a” because I figured that would find examples of her being called names, and I was right.

          • moman

            You have to find examples of scientists calling her a heretic. Not just any old blogger. What sort of names do you think Phil Jones, Mike Mann, Gavin Schmidt and so forth get called by bloggers? Worse than Judith.

          • DEEKAYBEE

            That should first apply to you. In this sub chain of exchanges, you have spoken apparent crap about people you disagree. With, eithout any citation.

          • moman

            If you want a citation for a claim that I’ve made, then ask. I’ve linked to relevant information in several of my posts.

          • planet8788

            Reality is a little more authoritative than computer models.

          • moman

            Some estimates of climate sensitivity use models and some use observations. Most of them, including Curry, come to similar conclusions. Curry is claiming there is no need to take action based on her one study that is giving hardly different results compared with most of the others.

            http://www.realclimate.org/images/tcr_landc.jpg

          • Orson OLSON

            200 papers! (The median PhD scientist produces only 1 paper during their career.) No significant research from Curry, move along!

          • moman

            Most of her papers are not particularly controversial in the context of the AGW debate.

          • Han Hanna

            Many hours here too and do not see it.

          • Han Hanna

            And she’s been a tireless and committed advocate of her position, retorting clearly to those with the most pointed questions, and not wasting time on other weak attacks.

          • Orson OLSON

            MORE convincing still was 2005, when Curry called out the great skeptic William Gray – THE pioneer in seasonal and hurricane forecasting – for having a “fossilized brain!” Then Curry looked deeper again for a few years, and discovered that trusting what other scientists were claiming about AGW science was a real mistake!

          • jumper297

            lol, hours huh?

          • moman

            Are you a slow reader?

          • Latimer Alder

            Strange that your name is unfamiliar to me, you do not appear in the Denizens list (where I am number 3) and I can find no records of any remarks you made there.

            Perhaps you were a very diligent lurker? Please confirm.

          • moman

            I didn’t consider myself to be a denizen. Eventually I got sick of Chief Hydrologist and Donny Montforty as did most rational people it seems except Lacis and Joshua (not sure if Joshua is entirely rational)

          • Han Hanna

            Joshua is a troubled soul, and not really rational.

      • Gonzo

        [She tends to run away when she is called out on her errors.] She’s been at GT for years and publishing for years! Hardly running away but then again you alarmists aren’t to good with facts.

        • moman

          I’m talking about her uncertainty monster, post-normal science and Italian flag stuff, not her not-uncontroversial weather and climate outputs.

      • samton909

        That’s nonsense

  • Geir Aaslid

    Rational argument … in the UN? Why not believe in Santa?

  • Rocksy

    In the seventies we were warned that we were entering a new ice age. Hmm

    • moman

      An overstatement. In the 70s scientists weren’t quite sure where the balance was between CO2-induced global warming and pollution-induced cooling:

      http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG

      • planet8788

        What they were predicting is not important.. WHY were they predicting it? Why was anybody worried about it?
        BECAUSE TEMPERATURES HAD DROPPED ABOUT 0.7C..!!!!
        Where is that cooling in the charts now? Nowhere to be seen. This is the proof of their data manipulation.
        Look at your graph… See how 1936 is way hotter than 1976. See the MWP. Where it was even warmer than today. That is the smoking gun. The revision of history.

    • jack dale

      The MSM predicted cooling in the 70’s. Science was 6:1 warming cooling.

      A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results were published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

      Newsweek in a particular had it really wrong. Peter Gwynne, the reporter, admits it.

      • Rocksy

        I wasn’t intent on proving anyone wrong. I was pointing out that the ‘truth’ seems to depend on the day of the week and the ‘expert’ who’s speaking.

      • RealOldOne2

        “The MSM predicted cooling in the 70’s. Science was 5:1 warming cooling.”
        Sorry that you continue to perpetuate this debunked propaganda even though I have shown you the truth before.
        The MSM were merely reporting what the scientists of the 1970s were saying. The consensus of global cooling was documented by the independent US Central Intelligence Agency, as they convened a conference of the world’s leading climate scientists in 1974 and those scientists reached “consensus” that the Earth had been cooling for 3 decades and that the Earth would not soon return to the warm climate of the early 20th century. It’s all documented here: http://tinyurl.com/yds3ynt

        So sad that you gullibly swallow the global warmists’ propaganda which uses the bogus method of biased paper counting.

        Yet another in the long line of jackdaleFAILS!

        • planet8788

          What they were predicting is not the smoking gun. WHY were they predicting it? Why was anybody worried about it?
          BECAUSE TEMPERATURES HAD DROPPED ABOUT 0.7C..!!!!
          Where is that cooling in the charts now? Nowhere to be seen. This is the proof of their data manipulation.

      • planet8788

        It is not about what they predicted. It’s about what they said. They said the Earth had cooled as much as .7C since 1940… That cooling has been erased to make the hockey stick. You are too stupid to see the contradictions right in front of your nose.

      • Orson OLSON
    • Rob Painting

      That’s climate denier myth No.11.

      • Mechguy

        You know a lot about myths, don’t you, you keep pushing your own.

      • RealOldOne2

        So sad that you cite a dishonest propaganda website run by a CARTOONIST.

        “About Skeptical Science – This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist, but a self-employed CARTOONIST and web programmer by trade.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

        No wonder you are so ignorant of climate science!

        It is irrefutable that the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists of the 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for 3 decades and that the Earth would not soon return to the warm climate of the early 20th century. It’s all documented here: http://tinyurl.com/yds3ynt

        That website is dishonest as the day is long. The evidence of their dishonest practices is found here: bit.ly/Pkj847 , bit.ly/RN6I4v , bit.ly/qnhi4m , bit.ly/AgQux8 , bit.ly/pahc21 , bit.ly/n9tpeK , bit.ly/WsptzJ , bit.ly/PlTBbQ , bit.ly/154jl4z , bit.ly/Qku4E8 , bit.ly/JAVQKZ , bit.ly/Kr7etP , bit.ly/1fjxZNz

        ps. I’m STILL waiting for you to rebut the peer reviewed empirical science that I presented to you here, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 , which empirically showed that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate forcing, not anthropogenic forcing. What’s the problem Rob? Hahahaha

        • Rob Painting

          Anyone can do science. The peer-reviewed literature, although not perfect, provides a way to have one’s ideas scrutinized by experts in any given discipline. That’s the litmus test – one where deniers repeatedly fail.

          • samton909

            yes, it was very impressive when we learned that the climategate boys were conspiring to keep all papers out of the journals that disagreed with global warming. way to go, giants of science.

          • RealOldOne2

            “one where deniers repeatedly fail.”
            Wow, you are delusional! No Rob, YOU are the one who fails. You prove this this by your continued DODGING & FAILURE to address a bit of the peer reviewed empirical science that I presented to you here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554
            All you can do is chant your “denier” rhetoric.

            We know that your inability to do so is because the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was indeed natural climate forcing. Thanks for confirming it by your silence and dodging.

      • planet8788

        The problem is not what they were predicting… It’s what they were saying. You’re even too stupid to see the contradictions right in front of your eyes?
        In the 1970’s they said the Earth had cooled .5 to .7 C… Where is that cooling in the charts you posted? It was wiped away.
        No conspiracy theory. Concrete evidence of data manipulation.

        • Rob Painting

          Reading is clearly not your forte. A minority of researchers thought the world might cool because of anthropogenic sulfate emissions. The majority, however, expected the enhanced Greenhouse Effect to win out.

          • planet8788

            Reading is not your forte. IT DOESN”T MATTER WHAT THEY WERE PREDICTING.
            They were saying the Earth ALREADY had cooled .7C. WHERE IS THAT COOLING in your current charts.

          • planet8788

            Really, Can you read at all?

          • RealOldOne2

            Sadly, he’s ideologically blinded by his slavish devotion to his climate cult religion.

          • RealOldOne2

            You continue to deny reality. There was a CONSENSUS that the planet had been cooling for 3 decades and that the Earth would not soon return to the warm climate of the early 20th century. It’s all documented in this report: http://tinyurl.com/yds3ynt

            You continue to demonstrate that you are a reality-denying, ideologically blinded doomsday cult fanatic.

          • Orson OLSON

            WRONG – I have three friends who were in climate/meteorology doctoral programs in the middle 1970s – it was the biggest concern back then. Also, the late great founding editor of New Scientist, Nigel Calder, did documentaries and books then on the cooling scare http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/91TqgICdWVL.jpg

          • Rob Painting

            Nigel Calder was a denier. Relying on him for support is like a Bigfoot hunter calling upon another Bigfoot hunter to support his eyewitness account of the mythical beast. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f17b7215518773cd4d8880fec9b5fa56b886aed4f00cf4ac93cb1f79fbc85049.gif

            Besides, as the Skeptical Science link I provided points out, there is actually some scientific literature on this. Peterson (2008) has shown that there six times as many papers on warming than there were on cooling back then.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Nigel Calder was a denier”
            There you go again with your typical “contribution” of name calling of anyone who dares to disagree with your tribe’s global warming dogmas. So sad.

            ps. I’m STILL waiting for you to address the peer reviewed science that I showed you here, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 , which empirically shows ~10 times more natural climate forcing during the late 20th century warming than anthropogenic forcing. You aren’t answering because you know that the late 20th century warming was caused primarily by natural climate forcing, not anthropogenic forcing. Thanks for admitting it by your silence.

      • samton909

        It is so impressive when global warming advocates merely call names, rather than say something substantive. That is why poll after polls shows global warming is the number one concern of the public.

        • Rob Painting

          So concern trolling is your contribution here? Dude, plenty of others here have been down that path. The Earth keeps warming though.

      • Orson OLSON

        You do know that North London flats were built with water pipes running along the OUTSIDE during the hot 1930s, don’t you? No need to worry about winter anymore, (as Hitler thought in his run to Moscow)!

    • keithoverton

      Yes, Rocksy, I arrived in London from a few years abroad, heard the Chief Scientific Officer asserting that the new ice age had already started. The following year, they started asserting, with a bit of book-cooking, that we now had global warming.

  • Henry Pool

    There is no man made global warming,
    none really
    https://i0.wp.com/oi62.tinypic.com/33kd6k2.jpg

    • Rob Painting

      The data doesn’t agree with that claim.

      • DEEKAYBEE

        Unfortunately the limp data, massaged like crazy can say anything if you water board it enough.

        • Rob Painting

          Conspiracizing again. You deniers are like a scratched record.

          • Sarastro92

            No conspiracy really. The satellite data show no statistically significant warming since 1997 and actual cooling since 2015. The land data are slightly warmer because they’re constantly “adjusted” and poorly collected to begin with. That’s not rigorous science. Sometimes bad science is outright fraud (“conspiracy”)… sometimes it’s just crappy science. Seems like you be on crap.

          • Mechguy

            The ONLY scientists that believe in global warming are those paid to do so. If you are on a Government grant(NOAA, NASA, NSF etc) then you are specifically charged with coming up with data in line with warming,,so you do it. You do creative things with data and then you refuse to provide your raw data(as ALL OF THEM have done) so that no one can call you a liar,, then you double down like Obama on your lies, again and again.

          • Sarastro92

            Maybe yes, maybe no. The science is unsettled and honest people can disagree on many parts of the story. But nothing honestly supports claims of Climate Catastrophe now or a century from now.

          • JPZodeaux

            If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.

          • planet8788

            Satellite data denier…..

          • samton909

            What a great comeback! l’m sure you have convinced everyone how completely true global arming is by calling people names.

      • Mechguy

        Charting “anomalies” is not charting temperatures because so many identities fudge their data its easier to chart anomalies in order to hide the real data set from which it is derived. The real data sets show cooling over the last 18 years so your data is poppycock.

        • Mnestheus

          The real data set , selected from 27 1st year physics lab experiments in the northern and southern hemispheres, shows that gravity has been declining in lockstep with Henry Pool’s temperature record , proving that CO2 is lighter than air.

          The problem is that CAGW scientist are on the take from Big Phologiston.

        • Rob Painting

          Yes, conspiracy theories are popular with deniers.

          • Mechguy

            ,,,and bull$hit is popular with warmists.

          • Rob Painting

            Borderline, but that’s conspiracizing too.

          • Orson OLSON

            HEY, did I mention that $1.5trillion is at stake? Each year?

          • Sarastro92

            Emails from Tom Karl of NOAA are being subpoenaed by Congress because whistle blowers complained about his recent paper that added an arbitrary warming factor to sea surface temperatures — a move that warmed the data so much that the Hiatus in global temperatures in the NOAA data set was “disappeared”.

            Ya call that science?

          • Rob Painting

            Last I heard Karl’s employers were telling Lamar Smith to take a running jump. The deniers have the data. If they were seeking the truth they would analyse it. Not Lamar Smith personally because he seems thicker than a plank of wood, but have someone capable or doing so.

            You and I know they won’t because they’ll just affirm the planet is warming. That doesn’t sit well with their ideology.

          • Sarastro92

            Well, we’ll see who gets the last laugh come budget time. The data have been preserved and the spurious, artificial warming can be subtracted from the observed temperatures.

            In any case, I have posted all the temperature data sets below… the average of all five (land+sea) surface and satellites together show no significant warming…( ie zero) … and the satellites show cooling in the past 15 years. hence, the pause.

            Karl is pretty explicit that he can make the pause disappear by warming the observed sea-surface temperatures from 4,000 automated buoys … and that’s just what he did.

            Please do defend this fraud… it only turns off more people … and is one of the reasons that Global Warming is just about dead last among priorities when people in the US and internationally are polled. Have fun in your echo chamber. rep Lamar Smith may or may not be very sharp, but with the blatant and openly stated fraud that Tom Karl trades in, just about anyone (except Green Malthusian fanatics) can see through this pretty easy.

            Here’s an animated graph that makes the Karl legerdemain pretty explicit:

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/animation-21.gif

          • Rob Painting

            Who cares about the budget? So these dummies slash NOAA’s budget, then what? The planet just keeps on warming anyway.

          • planet8788

            It’s not warming.

          • samton909

            Can you confirm that the Real Climate web site was originally set up by a Democratic Party PR firm?

          • Orson OLSON

            SOME DAY you will be right. Just not for the past 18 years, while the effects of added CO2, according to IPCC sensitivity claims, ought to have increased temperatures by 43% instead of 0-ish. (Hint: that’s called the the scientific falsification of AGW theory.)

          • Sarastro92

            Tom Karl may care if they eliminate his position or the unit in NOAA he works for.

          • samton909

            That great source of denalism, the Washington Post, says

            “Smith told Pritzker that the whistleblowers’ allegations make it more crucial that he be provided with the scientists’ internal e-mails and communications. If NOAA does not produce the e-mails he is seeking by Friday, the chairman said, “I will be forced to consider use of compulsory process,” a threat to subpoena the commerce secretary herself.

            Whistleblowers have told the committee, according to Smith’s letter, that Thomas Karl — the director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, which led the study — “rushed” to publish the climate study “before all appropriate reviews of the underlying science and new methodologies” used in the climate data sets were conducted.

            “NOAA employees raised concerns about the timing and integrity of the process but were ignored,” he wrote.”

          • Orson OLSON

            YEAH, the convenient (and predictable) timing of these “alarming” revisions months before COP21, not subjected to real examination – NOTHING TO SEE HERE! MOVE ALONG! Naturally these suspicious coincidences matter not a jot or tittle for credibility to you (nor to them when $1.5billion in annual funding is at stake. Right?

          • planet8788

            Please read Hansen, el. al 1981 and explain how it has morphed and why? Did 20th century scientists not know how to read thermometers?

          • planet8788

            satellite data denier and radiosonde data denier.

          • samton909

            Yes, alarmists have terrible trouble responding rationally to challenges, so they just call people names.

      • Breakingwind

        Now this is what the same 0.8 °C (1.44°F) global warming looks like, When viewed on a proper
        graph showing average temperatures

        http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2012/05/Mean-Temp-1.jpg

        • Rob Painting

          Glad you agree the Earth is warming.

          • Breakingwind

            So it should be, we are rising out of an ice age, but sadly, The
            RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 223 months from
            January 1997 to July 2015 – more than half the 439-month satellite record. hopefully the warming trend will restart soon & we can enjoy the climate of the

            Medieval & Roman periods, but I wont hold my breath as the sun appears to be going into a quiet period & the Icecaps are expanding rapidly.

            As can be seen from top line – there is very little change in total global sea ice in 35yrs.

          • Rob Painting

            Really? You were around in the Roman and Medieval periods? You must be very old.

          • planet8788

            No. But oxygen-18 was.

          • Rob Painting

            Do go on!

          • planet8788

            Read Hansen et.al, 1981. It’s still on the NASA website.
            Or go to stevengoddard.wordpress.com

          • Breakingwind

            “You must be very old.”
            Yes old enough to remember Hanson’s alarmist nonsense first time round, back then it was ‘snowball earth’ now it’s ‘boiling acid seas’ this man (& Michael Mann) are scientifically challenged, but Hanson knows how to make money from it. Mann is just a fraud, both are a disgrace to science.

          • samton909

            And yet, you rely on Antarctic stuff from 400,000 years ago.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen
          • Rob Painting

            Riiight! And global sea level is rising because of additional glacial meltwater and cooling? You might want to revise your interpretation of thermodynamics.

          • planet8788

            Just because its cooling doesn’t mean we’re gaining ice and sea level rise has stopped. You are CLUELESS ABOUT EVERYTHING.

          • planet8788

            In fact, you need to be looking at the current propaganda charts and ask…
            Why was sea level rising at he same rate in 1890 as it is now. If we are 1C warmer now? Why? Why?
            Why?
            How was the 1890’s not an ice age?

          • samton909

            Horses farted a lot.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Sea level isn’t rising at an alarming rate, it was much faster earlier. Since LIA the sea level has been going up by a few mm. each year, nothing to be excited about. Many places it is also dropping, like in parts of Alaska, the Baltics and California, even here in parts of Norway. Yes, a lot of it is due to rising land and continental drift etc. Got nothing to do with us or CO2.

          • planet8788

            Ahh. Tony corrected it. This used to say Hansen, 1982

      • Camburn Shephard

        The anomaly, when error bars are properly reflected, and put to scale reflect a slight warming.

        Is the potential warming observed negative to mankind? Not in the least. Never has the world had such a supply of food. Crops like the increased CO2 and have increased output because of it.

        Sea levels will continue to rise unless we are heading out of this interglacial. 90%+ of Greenland’s ice mass melts, and the WP of Antarctica melts during interglacial periods. The Sahara desert is shrinking, the earth is greening. The upside for humanity, as a whole, is tremendous. 100’s of thousands of folks die from cold every year, potentially that number can be decreased.

      • Fromafar

        You mean – The “adjusted data” doesn’t agree.
        NCDC
        Austrailian BOM
        East Anglia HADCRUT
        NZ BOM
        Not One of them will tell anyone how they have homogenized the data set. not one! FOIA requests have been repeatedly made and ignored.
        This data set is useless.

        RSS and UAH tell everyone exactly how they have treated their data as open source.
        RSS are true AGW believers and their data shows no global warming for 17 years 10 months. They honestly state that they don’t know why temperatures have not increased.

        Until such time that NCDC, Aussie BOM, Kiwi BOM and East Anglia HADCRUT become scientists and stop being authors of science fiction. If they won’t tell the world in open source what and why they have homogenized the data –
        This data set will remain useless.

        • Evan Jones

          Not One of them will tell anyone how they have homogenized the data set. not one!

          I can give you a rough idea. They use pairwise comparisons using nearby stations to determine “outliers” and bring them into conformity with the whole. This is recursive, going through a number of iterations.

          The problem here is that homogenization only performs as intended when there is no systematic bias in the data — and there is: Our team has looked at the NOAA/USHCN station net and found that 78% of stations have poor microsite, and warm 60% faster than well sited stations (including urban).

          But homogenization identifies those stations as “outliers” and instead of adjusting poorly sited stations to match those of the well sited stations, it adjusts the well sited stations to match the poorly sited stations. Yes, really.

          So not only is the “straight average” an exaggeration of warming, but homogenization makes the discrepancy much worse.

          On top of all this, there is an equipment bias in the data, also incorrectly adjusted for: Well sited stations with modern sensors show only half the warming of the official, adjusted amount.

          We do not consider this to be a result of dishonesty, but rather an error compounded by confirmation bias. (Never ascribe to fraud that which may be explained by confirmation bias.)

          • Fromafar

            Rough idea….?
            What would be wrong with an exact idea?
            A distinction without difference does not make the “secret science” valid.
            If nothing need be hidden, why hide it?

          • Evan Jones

            You can go further than that. Nothing at all must be hidden. Hiding any part of one’s work is directly contradictory to scientific method. That includes data, codes, discussions, operating manuals, etc., etc. Especially anything that might challenge one’s hypothesis, and especially to those with whom you most disagree.

            Any other behavior is not merely non-science, but downright anti-science. Any such results are simply to be ignored.

            In any event, Congress has oversight powers as NOAA’s boss, and can demand any and all communications relating to government projects at any time and for any reason.

          • Fromafar

            Interestingly, Congress last week asked NOAA for specific details on temperature data and were flatly refused it.
            Such is science in the Orwellian political environment we find ourselves in. Science is only science when it follows the scientific method: openness; rigorousness; reproducibility. Instead it has been suborned by political activists with the zeal of religious converts.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Dishonest activists, claiming to be scientists, adjusting and tampering with temperature data in all corners of the world.

            We obviously need to build bigger prisons for king Karl and his army of yes-men around the world! Make a special one for the fraud-boss also, the worst US president in history!

            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/bigger-prisons/

            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/warmest-on-record/

          • Evan Jones

            No prisons. Just papers that demonstrate them to be incorrect. That will be punishment enough.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            To mislead the public, to get grants through fraudulent reports, to adjust and cheat. To waste billions of taxpayers dollars, to have killed millions of children under the age of 4 ..

            What is the alternative to prison?

            Sorry, papers wouldn’t be enough!

            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/de-gronne-ma-stilles-til-ansvar/

            (Second half is in english.)

          • Evan Jones

            What is the alternative to prison?

            A far worse punishment. Academic obscurity. You can’t wear that one on your sleeve like you can with a prison sentence.

            Sorry, papers wouldn’t be enough!

            Oh, I dunno. The last five years’ worth of ECS studies are making a very encouraging start. The recent Lewis/Curry paper, for one.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You won’t find it here, troll man

          • samton909

            But you can’t release data to someone who might criticize it!

            That might lead to loss of funding.

          • Evan Jones

            #B^)

          • Evan Jones

            I know. We’ve been battling that for years. NOAA went so far as to remove its list of stations curators when they heard we were doing interviews.

            We had a wayback that included some, so I got perhaps 100 interviews in, but I’d have preferred the whole set.

            But in spite of all that, by dint of intense effort, we got almost all of them (to the discomfiture of Dr. Menne, no doubt).

          • Evan Jones

            I know it.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Like that surprises us all! Like you think you know EVERYTHING
            Evvie is on a marathon troll roll.
            Gee, you must be assigned to low seniority denier slot.
            Poor Evvie….what a loser.

          • falstaff77

            “Congress has oversight powers as NOAA’s boss, and can demand any and all communications relating to government projects at any time and for any reason”

            Indeed, Congress has oversight powers. Congress is not NOAAs boss, the executive branch is. Congress can demand much. NOAA can refuse all, as subpoena’s and even findings of malfeasance are so much blather absent action from a federal prosecutor at Justice.

          • planet8788

            And in Africa and Greenland? and South America? Antarctica?

          • Evan Jones

            Well, we’d like to take the show on the road and do the whole GHCN. (But that would require funding, and we are entirely non-funded.)

            However, we are not evaluating amounts of warming, per se. We are evaluating equipment bias vis a vis siting. You don’t need to go global for that. All you need is a sufficient sample of stations with sufficient metadata, and the USHCN does that (to a degree, and better than GHCN).

            Bad microsite is bad microsite, whether it’s Amberley AFB station, Australia or Mohonk Lake, NY. You don’t need to go intercontinental to establish that. What’s sauce of the USHCN is sauce for the GHCN.

            Having said that, we have only done spotty observations and ratings outside the US. From what we’ve seen, it’s worse overseas than it is in the US. But it is true that until we can do a comprehensive evaluation, we cannot be sure.

          • planet8788

            Africa SouthAmerica and Antarctica and even Greenland…. When they come up with these “hottest October ever” temperatures, they make the stuff up.

          • Walther11

            Thank you for this. If you don’t mind how did you come by this information?

          • Evan Jones

            Our team is finalizing a paper on the subject. (Anthony Watts, Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, Dr. John Christy — and me.) Using Anthony’s photos and extensive satellite imagery, we and Anthony’s volunteers located and evaluated all but a few of the USHCN2 network (some were long gone and a small handful we never found) using Leroy (2010) microsite ratings.

            We chose the 1979 – 2008 interval as it was 30 years and was a period of overall natural warming period (i.e., positive PDO) with a bit of cooling near the end. We then dropped all moved and TOBS-biased stations and compared well and poorly sited Tmin, Tmax, and Tmean trends. We included an MMTS conversion offset, although I am convinced that NOAA is doing that backwards as well.

            We then compared the data of well and poorly sited stations (both raw+MMTS and adjusted).

            The results for the study period show +0.204C/decade for well sited stations and +0.318 for poorly sited stations. The “official” NOAA trend for all stations is +0.324C/decade.

            (For “extra”, Doc. N-G did a pairwise to infill — but using only stations of the same rating as comparisons, and our hypothesis still holds.)

            BTW, we used the 410 stations with pristine metadata, but we do not cherrypick: the ones we dropped ran significantly cooler than the ones we retained (+0.153 fro well sited, and +0.309 for poorly sited, ~1100 stations, total).

            Poor microsite exaggerates trends — either warming or cooling. But since there has been net warming, the exaggeration is on the warming side. Poorly sited stations warmed faster from 1979 to 1998 (a warming interval) and cooled faster from 1999 – 2008 (a cooling interval).

            There’s more to it, of course, but that’s the basic result. If you have any questions about the study, I’ll be happy to answer.

          • Walther11

            Thank you very much for your reply. More scrutiny should be applied to these studies as policy is made from them. I can’t remember when I started to think something smelled bad but it was probably around the time when all those arguments arose over releasing data. I worked in a science field for twenty years and that definitely caught my eye as something that never should happen in science. If your theory is strong and your data supports it there is no reason to hide anything. Period.

            I look forward to seeing the paper. It will be interesting to see the difference it makes.

          • Evan Jones

            Thanks. At first, I had a strong faith in the data. Since then, my faith has . . . diminished.

            As for the paper, all data and methods will be archived (no need to ask for them, just go get ’em) for purposes of full and complete replication.

            I include it all Excel, so any non-coder can change the inputs if they wish to dispute our hypothesis. Disagree with a station rating? Change it. Don’t like our MMTS offsets? Put in your own. Want to go with a full stationset using TOBS-adjusted data instead? Just drop it in. If I’m wrong, I need to know it — and why. And if my opponents’ obections are spurious, well, I need to know that, too.

            Openness means openness.

          • Walther11

            It is to say the least, refreshing, especially regarding this subject.

          • samton909

            Unless they have to get millions of government dollars to keep their “Ciimate science” institute from folding.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, this was NOAA, so they are well set, anyway. A few mil. here or there is a drop in the bucket for them. But the NOAA boys are on defense, these days, I think.

            Good viewing, too: Used to be Dr. Menne as “front man”, and now Dr. Karl throws himself headlong into the front lines, to stem the oncoming tide. Sort of like committing the Old Guard. And now the dice fly.

            But that’s all politics, and it’s all about the scientific community, which is now, on the whole, dialing it all down (with a few spectacular exceptions).

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Some people still refuse to believe that these predictions are true, claiming that the science behind them is flawed. However, according to Paul Williams, a climate scientist at the University of Reading, “All the thermometer readings, satellite observations, tree rings, ice cores and sea-level records would have to be wrong.” It looks like we’ll have to start trusting nature before we can trust ourselves to fix the planet
            http://ppcorn.com/us/2015/11/28/global-warming-stats-2015/
            The World Meteorological Organization released a statement about global warming on Wednesday, detailing that the rise in temperature could reach as high as six degrees Celsius or more if we do nothing about the global warming situation as it currently stands. Director of the World Meteorological Organization, or WMO, Michel Jarraud stated “…the more we wait for action, the more difficult it will be,” in reference to reversing the rise in temperatures

          • Evan Jones

            “All the thermometer readings, satellite observations, tree rings, ice cores and sea-level records would have to be wrong.”

            Satellites right, surface metrics wrong. SL rise is ~2mm/yr. since 2001. Less for the tidal gauges.

            AGW appears to be right. CAGW appears to be wrong.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sure, Evvie, they are all wrong and you alone are the gifted one with the truth.
            Sure, Evvie, everyone is just plain stupid, crazy and you alone are the master of the universe.
            LOL…
            Don’t worry…global warming will be a mute topic soon enough.
            Best to read up on recipies for roasted rat.
            That will be on the menus in your part of town.

          • Evan Jones

            Sure, Evvie, they are all wrong and you alone are the gifted one with the truth.

            I would rather be gifted with the data. yet I endeavor to persevere.

            That will be on the menus in your part of town.

            Best fortune cookie ever: “That wasn’t chicken.”

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You persevere alright… that is your “game”, and you twist and spin the so called “data”‘
            And make armchair remarks like the above to suit your lukewarmist doctrine.
            Yep, you will need some old newspaper too, to roast that rat.
            Boy, some party, you and your pak will set.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Data…who’s your Dada? … Time to get a new song and dance…that’s as long as your tooth

          • planet8788

            Apparently they were all wrong… That’s why the Climastrologists keep adjusting them.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            No, It’s the Governments that are doing it. Seems they like the glasses you wear, do nothing, deny lollipop candy cane specsLOL
            Governments take rose-tinted view of climate projections before summit

            https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/governments-rose-tinted-view-climate-projections-summit-112949283.html
            Before a summit on climate change in Paris next week, many governments are citing scientific studies indicating that their plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions until 2030 will come within 0.7 degrees Celsius of an agreed 2C (3.6 Fahrenheit) target for limiting global warming this century.
            Yet the studies they choose to quote are only the most optimistic of a range of projections, and presume that governments will go on to make even deeper emission cuts after 2030, which is far from certain
            Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center who won fame with his 2001 book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, reckons current national plans will only make a fraction of a degree of difference to warming this century.
            “It’s like saying Greece is on track to solve its debt crisis after paying a first instalment of a loan,” he said.
            This year is on track to be the warmest on record, already about 1.0C (1.8F) above pre-industrial times

            Is that watt you’re talking about Evvie?
            LOL

          • planet8788
          • Michael Evan Jones

            Yep’ its been posted and confirmed
            Warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, say US scientists
            Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists
            “I think of it more like a fly wheel or a freight train. It takes a big push to get it going but it is moving now and will contiue to move long after we continue to pushing it,” Greg Johnson, an oceanographer at Noaa’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, told a conference call with reporters.

            “Even if we were to freeze greenhouse gases at current levels, the sea would actually continue to warm for centuries and millennia, and as they continue to warm and expand the sea levels will continue to rise,” Johnson said.

            On the west coast of the US, freakishly warm temperatures in the Pacific – 4 or 5F above normal – were already producing warmer winters, as well as worsening drought conditions by melting the snowpack, he said.

            The extra heat in the oceans was also contributing to more intense storms, Tom Karl, director of Noaa’s National Centers for Environmental Information, said.

            The report underlined 2014 as a banner year for the climate, setting record or near record levels for temperature extremes, and loss of glaciers and sea ice, and reinforcing decades-old pattern to changes to the climate system.

            Hey, question’ how much warming is absorbed by the oceans?
            Hint like 90 %
            LOL

          • planet8788

            Doesn’t change the fact they are fudging the data.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Said the fudge packer! Call you boy, Evvie he needs you.

          • planet8788

            1890 to 1980 warming has tripled since 1981.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Is that so?…what other cherry pick useless data has Super Troll Evvie Jones posted?
            LOL

          • planet8788

            It’s not a cherry pick. It sounds like you don’t even understand what I’m saying because you have an IQ of 12.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Please, don’t put me on your level

          • planet8788

            That’s impossible… YOu can’t climb that high.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Because the is high the pile of poo you two are on top of!

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Whatever

          • planet8788

            LOL… That’s your most coherent statement ever. I will pay you $1000 dollars if you can prove it hasn’t doubled.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Prove? What more proof does a simpleton need…obviously, it is never enough LOL

        • Rob Painting

          I’m sure we’ve established you’re a conspiracist. Scientific evidence, therefore, is meaningless to you.

          • planet8788

            History proves the “conspiracy” or that 20th century scientists were idiots and couldn’t read thermometers.

          • Rob Painting

            I can’t even be bothered finding out what you’re blathering about.

          • planet8788

            Of course not, facts don’t matter to you.

          • samton909

            I love it when “scientists” respond to criticism by calling people names so they don’t have to deal with the criticisms. Score one for “science”

          • Fromafar

            Actually your inversion of reality is a tactic of Saul Alinsky. Nice try foolish man, but I’m not the usual fob you bully with your nonsense.
            I have presented Facts. NCDC. et. al. have flatly refused to present the requested emails, data and any scientific rationale of their altering their data. This is a fact, something you clearly don’t seem to understand the definition of.
            If you want to see a conspiracy theorist, look in the mirror.

        • Rob Painting

          There’s no such thing as the NZ BOM. That’s just your imagination.

          • Fromafar

            AKA: NZ Met. The Kiwis use both terms. I know Bob Mc Davitt personally. He helped guide me as a weather router out of NZ to Fiji in 2011.

          • Rob Painting

            Link to the NZ BOM website then, if you believe it exists.

          • Fromafar

            As another poster pointed out, you apparently won’t, can’t or don’t read…..
            NZ BOM (aka MZ Met)
            http://www.metservice.com/national/home
            Your career as a professional TROLL should be taken to where at least you’re not so simply foolish or obvious.
            I suggest you go back to painting, Rob.
            No more need be said.

      • Henry Pool

        my data

        https://i0.wp.com/oi62.tinypic.com/33kd6k2.jpg

        is from a reliable source and the final graph, is a summary of

        54 stations X 38 years x 365 days= 748980 recordings of daily minima

        – the sample of weather stations is balanced by latitude

        – longitude does not matter as long as you look at the change in K/annum.

        There simply is no room for man made global warming as I find a 100% correlation on the quadratic function……

        Good luck with your graphs. I will stick with mine.

      • Orson OLSON

        The warming of this length had not been independently confirmed by the best data. Even trees (the tree ring proxies) stopped setting NEW (ie, higher) temperature records in the late 20th century, too! Nor by all-time high records by US states, as measured by surface thermometers over 120 years. The theory of AGW is not confirmed independently.

    • samton909

      There is if you fiddle with the data!

    • Fromafar

      But there is apparently MANN made global warming.

  • Mechguy

    It doesn’t matter what real data set of temperatures you look at, NOAH, ARGO etc they all show no warming. So scientists friendly to the warmers (which is all those paid by grants- a huge number) are changing the data sets in clever ways to show that the cooling is not real. Any engineer used to looking at data can tell you the data over the last 100 years is perfectly consistent with no warming or cooling and obviously within natural cycles. When you are paid to show otherwise- you will , one way or the other.

    • Breakingwind

      This graph shows the entire RSS lower-troposphere satellite dataset for the 440 months January 1979 to August 2015, with the bright blue trend on the entire series equivalent to just over 1.2 °C /century.

      Overlaid graph in green is the zero trend in the 224 months since January 1997 –
      more than half the entire 440-month record.
      From un-tampered RSS satellite datasets

      http://www.remss.com/research/climate

      • George Turner

        Note that the black line and yellow band don’t even overlap for most of the graph. Black is measured, yellow is predicted.

      • Mechguy

        You put this out as if it were fact, its not. Your own source shows all the anomalies in the stratosphere as negative meaning its cooling and again note you are charting anomalies, not temperature data. So all the data shows that it is well within normal fluctuation. Good try at re purposing data which is what all global warming scientists do because their salary depends on it. Just don’t expect that anyone with experience is gonna gulp that koolaid unless they are paid to do so, which is about 75% of the climatologists as Judith Curry shows.

        • fragmeister12

          If all climate scientists are fudging the data then so is Prof Curry. I see a problem here. Although the problem lies more in not understanding why adjustments are needed and what the effect of those adjustments is.

          • planet8788

            It’s actually in the magnitude and the direction of adjustments. always the same way.

          • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

            It’s actually in the magnitude and the direction of adjustments. always the same way.

            It is a wonder innit?

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        Latest world class fraud from the climate criminals

        “Michael Mann, a climate scientist of Pennsylvania State University, said: “We may see warming even faster than what the models are predicting.”

        And Michael England, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia, said global temperature has steadily climbed by 1.4 F since 1880.

        He said: “Global temperatures may rise another 4 to 7 F (2 to 4 C) by 2100.”

        https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/latest-world-class-fraud-from-the-climate-criminals/

      • planet8788

        Satellite data is still adjusted…. but not nearly as much as the surface record and for some reason the surface record always adjusts in the same direction… ever since at least 1980 once Hansen was in charge. The surface temp record also doesn’t cover about 35% of the earth so it’s an incomplete picture.

        • Breakingwind

          Agreed BUT it’s worse than you think !!
          The earth encompasses 96,000,000 square miles,
          yet the temperatures used in climate change research come from only 6,000
          weather stations, thousands of them located in urban heat islands. That leaves
          80% of the planets surface temperatures unmeasured.

          Ocean temperature measurements are made by the 3,600 automated ARGO bathythermograph
          buoys circulating in the oceans. (Note-
          each buoy has to represent 200,000 km3 of ocean temperature with
          only 3 readings a month but it’s the best we’ve got.)

          The idea that we can use this system to determine the current temperature of
          the entire planet within 0.5°C or even 5°C is ludicrous.

          The idea that we can use data from the instrumental system in place 100 years
          ago to accurately measure the temperature of the entire planet to within 0.01°C
          to compare with modern results is delusional.

          We have only been capable of approximate Global Temperature measurements
          since the first satellites were launched in the 1970s, so only ~ 40yrs (out of
          4.5 billion) of global data !!

          The average global temperature is a political tool & as useful as the average global telephone number

          • planet8788

            And of course, now they try to ignore the satellite data which is the only thing that gives us full coverage.

          • Breakingwind

            Absolutely

      • Rob Painting

        Here’s the RSS time series and trend.

        • planet8788

          We cooled much faster than this from 1940-1975…. therefore… no global warming.

          • Rob Painting

            No satellite data prior to 1978 – unless you’re planning to send some back in time.

          • planet8788

            And do you deny there was significant cooling from 1940 to 1975?

          • RealOldOne2

            Crickets.

          • samton909

            And we do notice that all the graphs they post tend to limit the time period to beginning in 1970 or so. From then to 1998 everyone agrees there was a period of heating. But note they usually omit from their graphs the 1930’s or any long term period that would demonstrate that the planet has been heating and cooling all by it self for thousand upon thousands of years.

          • Orson OLSON

            The US has an undisturbed surface record covering this period. And 60% of the ALL time surface record temperature highs, by US state, are prior to the 1960 – that is, before global warming! https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/statewide_record_high_temperatures1.png

        • falstaff77

          Following the trend you plot: about 1degC by 2100 over current. So what?

    • planet8788

      The raw data shows cooling. The adjusted data shows warming and more and more warming every year… 1880-1980 warming has more than doubled since 1981. Scientists in the 20th century were clueless I guess and couldn’t read thermometers.

    • Rob Painting

      Except for all this warming that is:

      • planet8788

        Based on changes of .02C in our measurement of .00006% percent of the entire ocean… YAWN.

        • Rob Painting

          Denier twaddle. Yawn.

          • planet8788

            So… How much temperature change was measured and how much of the ocean is covered? YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT NAME CALLING.

          • samton909

            All they can do is post graphs. When challenged, they call you names. Pretty weak stuff.

      • samton909

        Ooops!

        “Likewise, all scientists agree with the NOAA scientific climate facts: ocean warming over the 30 years ending 2013 is not “unprecedented.”

        Per NOAA, prior to the modern era’s huge industrial/consumer CO2 emissions, the global ocean warming was significantly greater, approaching the 2 degree per century rate in 1945.

        This prior exceptional warming across the world was duly noted by the mainstream press at the time ….

        As this accompanying chart of NOAA empirical evidence shows, the 30-year warming rate ending in 1945 was 1.6 times greater than that of the current 30-year period ending in 2013.

        And this unprecedented warming of ocean waters occurred during a 30-year period when human CO2 emissions were some 85% less than the modern era (166 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions versus 784 billion tonnes for the most recent 30-year span).”

  • Mnestheus

    Somehow, I don’t think Nelson Fraser is reading this– scientific blinders and earplugs seem standard features of the post -Lawson Spectator dress code.

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    To some of the comments under, you’re funny!

    102 times Playstation 64 vs. Reality, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg As everyone can see, they don’t understand the science, still they want us to make a deal, a wealth destroying deal.

    A closer look at the real temperatures at the bottom of the previous graph shows it’s getting colder, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/temp2.png but our CO2 emission is goung through the roof – No correlation!

    Of course, the dishonest political activists knows there’s no climate problems we can do anything about, we couldn’t even if there was a real problem, simply because we do not control the sun. So they cheat (as in fraud!), ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/giss-1981-2002-2014-global.gif

    https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/gissus1999vs20152.gif

    And like last year, this year (2015) will be the warmest year on record, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/10403125_10203838492993939_2202943762058137116_n.jpg

    Of course it will, no point in cheating if you don’t get the result you want, right!??

    Real world data show a completely different story, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/no-record-year-according-to-satellites/

    • planet8788

      These graphs are meaningless… Because the past is continually be adjusted so much that the 1950 or whatever baseline starting point…. keeps moving….
      The only graphs that are meaningful are the ones showing how much the data has been changed… for no real good reasons.

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        I.e you do not understand the gravity of the data ..

        • planet8788

          The older it gets, gravity lowers the temperature?

    • Rob Painting

      Just like the other climate science deniers here, you exhibits the five characteristics of science denial. The last graph is a classic example. Sure it’s for the satellite data only, but you cherrypick a time period so that you can deceive the gullible….

      • Rob Painting

        ….but when we include all the data from RSS it reveals irrefutable long-term warming:

        • planet8788

          No… 35 years is anything but long term.
          And the historical record has documented the cooling was much greater from 1940ish to 1975 ish.

          • Rob Painting

            What’s long-term then Mr internet climate scientist?

          • planet8788

            Well I would say at least a complete cycle of the PDO. if you know that that even is.

          • samton909

            He doesn’t.

          • planet8788

            Have you read Hansen, et. Al 1981 yet? No.
            Are you illiterate?
            or just not curious?
            Do you need me to post a link?

        • Orson OLSON

          GO BACK before CO2 was believed to be a problem. The rate of early 20th century is closely the same as the 1976 to 1998 period. Yet there was insignificant man-made CO2. So, what cause the early 20th C warming? (Hint: the IPCC has not clue!)

      • planet8788

        So a whopping 0.4C of heating after a period of cooling from 1940-1975. 0.5 to 0.7 C was what the cooling was estimated at. Either way. It’s been stable for half the life of the satellite period…. Facts are facts… Where is the warming?

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        You seem to misunderstand, isn’t CO2 suppose to work all the time?

        1936 was the warmest year on record. Since 1936 the temperature has fallen with a “deep” dip in 1977. After 1977-79 it has been warming in steps with a top in 1998 (but still below 1936) and after 1998 it has been falling. No traces of any CO2 effect. If we go further back in time, 1910 was even warmer than 1936.

        “Abstract

        This paper presents observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the earth’s atmosphere.

        These data show that the global average clear sky greenhouse effect has remained unchanged with time. A theoretically predicted infrared optical thickness is fully consistent with, and supports the observed value.
        It also facilitates the theoretical determination of the planetary radiative equilibrium cloud cover, cloud altitude and Bond albedo. In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface upward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation.
        The all-sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all-sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation. The planetary radiative balance is maintained by the equilibrium cloud cover which is equal to the theoretical equilibrium clear sky transfer function. The Wien temperature of the all-sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermodynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiative entropy.

        The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

        The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible”.

        https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/if-you-can-see-it/

        “Determine the surface temperature

        For Earth, surface pressure is 1 bar, so the ERL is located where the pressure ~0.5 bar, which is near the middle of the ~10 km high troposphere at ~5km. The average lapse rate on Earth is 6.5C/km, intermediate between the 10C/km dry adiabatic lapse rate and the 5C/km wet adiabatic lapse rate, since the atmosphere on average is intermediate between dry and saturated with water vapor.

        Plugging the average 6.5C/km lapse rate and 5km height of the ERL into our equation (6) above gives

        T = -18 – (6.5 × (h – 5))

        Using this equation we can perfectly reproduce the temperature at any height in the troposphere as shown in Fig 1. At the surface, h = 0, thus temperature at the surface Ts is calculated as

        Ts = -18 – (6.5 × (0 – 5))

        Ts = -18 + 32.5

        Ts = 14.5°C or 288°K

        which is the same as determined by satellite observations and is ~33C above the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.

        Thus, we have determined the entire 33C greenhouse effect, the surface temperature, and the temperature of the troposphere at any height, entirely on the basis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law, without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

        The greenhouse gas water vapor does have a very large negative-feedback cooling effect on the surface and atmospheric temperature by reducing the lapse rate by half from the 10C/km dry rate to the 5C/km wet rate. Increased water vapor increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere Cp, which is inverselyrelated to temperature by the lapse rate equation above:

        dT/dh = -g/Cp

        Plugging these lapse rates into our formula for Ts above:

        Ts = -18 – (10 × (0 – 5)) = 32C using dry adiabatic lapse rate

        Ts = -18 – (5 × (0 – 5)) = 7C using wet adiabatic lapse rate [fully saturated]

        showing a cooling effect of up to 25C just from changes in the lapse rate from water vapor. Water vapor also cools the planet via evaporation and clouds, and which is confirmed by observations. Water vapor is thus proven by observations and theory to be a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, not a positive-feedback warming agent as assumed by the overheated climate models to amplify warming projections by a factor of 3-5 times.

        What about CO2? At only 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO2 contributes negligibly to atmospheric mass and only slightly increases the heat capacity Cp of the atmosphere, which as we have shown above, isinversely related to temperature. CO2 would thus act as a cooling agent by slightly increasing troposphere heat capacity. Increased CO2 also increases the radiative surface area of the atmosphere to enhance outgoing radiation to space, analogous to putting a larger heat sink on your microprocessor which increases radiative surface area and convection to cause cooling.

        It is well-known that CO2 and ozone are the primary cooling agents of the stratosphere up to the thermosphere, but even the warmist proponents are unable to agree on a coherent explanation why CO2 would assume the opposite role of a warming agent in the troposphere. As the mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory shows, and just like water vapor, CO2 also acts to cool the troposphere, and the rest of the atmosphere by increasing radiative surface loss and outgoing radiation to space.

        Millions of weather balloon observations confirm that there is no greenhouse gas-induced “hot spot” in the mid-upper troposphere, which is the alleged “fingerprint of AGW.” The 2nd law of thermodynamics principle of maximum entropy production also explains why such a “hot spot” will not form. However, observations do show a cooling of the stratosphere over the satellite era, which would be consistent with increased CO2 increasing outgoing radiation to space. Observations also show an increase of outgoing longwave radiation to space over the past 62 years, which is entirely consistent with increased outgoing radiation from greenhouse gases and a decrease of “heat trapping”, the opposite of AGW theory.

        In essence, the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect confuses cause and effect. As we have shown, temperature is a function of pressure, and absorption/emission of IR from greenhouse gases is a function of temperature. The radiative theory tries to turn that around to claim IR emission from greenhouse gases controls the temperature and thus pressure and heat capacity of the atmosphere, which is absurd and clearly disproven by basic thermodynamics and observations. The radiative greenhouse theory also makes the absurd assumption a cold body can make a hot body hotter,disproven by Pictet’s experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck’s law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics. There is one and only one greenhouse effect theory compatible with all of these basic physical laws and millions of observations. Can you guess which one it is?

        Update: The atmospheric center of mass assumption in step 2 above also appears to be applicable to Titan, the closest Earth analog with a thick atmosphere in our solar system. For Titan, the surface temperature is 94K, equilibrium temperature with the Sun is 82K, and surface pressure is 1.47 bar.

        Thus, the center of mass of the atmosphere is located at ~1.47/2 = ~0.74 bar, which observations show is where Titan’s atmospheric temperature is ~82K, the same as the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.”

        http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

        “Abstract

        The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
        Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

        https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/falsi%EF%AC%81cation-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-e%EF%AC%80ects-within-the-frame-of-physics/

        If this isn’t science, what is it?

        Show us the errors!

        One last question, – what is evidence?

        https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/no_greenhouse_effect1.jpg

      • samton909

        Talk about cherry picking. Why do all your graphs – not just the satellite ones, begin the the 1970’s? Because that is when the latest warming period began. ILOL

  • trobrianders

    Refreshing to hear from a scientist instead of the usual ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’.

  • http://www.organicfool.com OrganicFool

    Alarmists dream of the last little ice age and then want to destroy the very grid that keeps them and their children warm at night. Sierra Club vows to exterminate all coal fired plants in the US by 2030 and a lot of gas along with it, just about when the next grand solar minimum is to max out. One wonders what kind of mind-altering drugs these people are ingesting over a .04% harmless trace gas. Even Henny Penny wouldn’t fall for this one.

  • DennisHorne

    Only a genius or a fool would contradict the Royal Society and the American Physical Society.

    It’s pretty obvious most “sceptics” are ignorant fools. We’ll know soon enough if there is a genius amongst the others.

    One Curry does not a consensus break.

    • planet8788

      What consensus?
      The hiatus is real and totally unpredicted.
      In real science, when your predictions are proven wrong… you change hypothesis. Not in Climastrology.

      Those bodies are nothing more than political organizations.

      • DennisHorne

        Genius or fool? Let me guess…

        • planet8788

          HAve you looked at Hensen, et. al 1981 and compared his graphs then to those of today….
          I’m not genius… I do my homework… have you?

          • DennisHorne

            Yep, I get it, the American Physical Society and Royal Society need lessons from you. Do you set homework?

            I’m not going to regurgitate data. It shows warming. Due to added CO2. That’s the balance of informed opinion.

            Who are you?

          • planet8788

            They don’t monitor nor do they keep the temperature record.

          • Rob Painting

            Pray tell, what do ‘they’ do with it?

          • DennisHorne

            They exchange it for grants for research!

          • planet8788

            Look for yourself… Or are you afraid? Do you need me to post a link?

          • Rob Painting

            Being afraid could be the reason……or being uninterested.

          • planet8788

            So it’s warmed a bit… Who Cares. It also cooled from 1940 to 1975… Probably about the same amount. Look at Hansen, et. al 1981 unless you are a CHICKEN.

          • Rob Painting

            Whoa, he’s got you there Dennis. First he says it hasn’t warmed, in contradiction of all the temperature data sets, then now he says he doesn’t care anyway, and now you’re poultry pecking away at a keyboard!

          • planet8788

            When did I say it hasn’t warmed…. you lying troll.
            When are you going to learn to read?

          • Rob Painting

            Doesn’t a ”hiatus” logically imply a cessation of warming? Where’s your denier dictionary? I’m not familiar with the language you speak – it ain’t English.

          • planet8788

            Warmed is past tense…
            hiatus means the warming has paused.
            Again you can’t read… But that’s nothing new. You’ve demonstrated that countless times.

          • Rob Painting

            Again you’re not making any sense. First you wrote that the hiatus is real, and like totally unexpected! I said that you said that it hasn’t warmed. You accused me of lying and now you’re saying that the warming stopped.

            But what does it matter if you don’t care whether it’s warmed anyway?

          • planet8788

            Of man of 2nd grade intelligence.
            The earth cooled from 1940 to about 1975.. It warmed from 1975 to about 1998 and the temperatures have been fairly stable since then.
            So we are in a hiatus. Before that it warmed…. and before the warming there was cooling.

            And just a few thousand years ago there was an ice age.

          • Rob Painting

            Can you point the hiatus out on this graph? Just so we’re clear.

          • planet8788

            From 1997 to present day… on the RSS chart… it’s really clear it peaked in 1998 can’t you see it? Maybe that is why you can’t read… you are blind.

          • planet8788

            Why do you start in 1979… after a period of severe global cooling.
            Don’t think there was global cooling… I again refer to you Hansen, et. al 1981… and Every newspaper and magazine in the 1970’s.

          • planet8788

            According to RSS, the very graph you present. The temp is the same now as it was in1984ish

          • planet8788

            Any more stupid questions?… Did you read Hansen, et al 1981 yet to see how much the temp record has changed?
            How warming from 1880 to 1980 has almost tripled since 1981?

          • Orson OLSON

            Circa 1998. It’s there.

          • planet8788

            And IPCC AR5 had no issues finding the hiatus… Why do you?

          • Orson OLSON

            YES, indeed. The planet’s been warming for 140 years (as widely measured by instruments) – and possibly a century longer as indirectly measured.

          • planet8788

            My English is fine. You just have an at best 2nd grader understanding of it. No offense to 2nd graders.

          • planet8788

            Chicken.. Bawwwkkk Bawwkk Bawwwkkkkk.
            I can’t do my own research.. cause I’m a chicken… Baaaaawwwwkkkk.

          • DennisHorne

            Bees buzzing in your bonnet.

          • planet8788

            You still don’t even know how much a temperature change was measured in the oceans… You KNOW NOTHING. You’re a fool troll. and a super lazy one at that.

          • Tony

            You fire off personal abuse at anyone who doesn’t share your point of view and despite receiving nothing similar in return you cry about being trolled!

          • planet8788

            Please… point me to a substantive post of Mr. Rob Painting’s. I’ll be holding my breath so make it fast. He is very worthy of the Ridcule if you read his posts.

          • planet8788

            So no. I only fire off personal abuse at people who fire off personal abuse and can’t logically defend their position… This idiot can’t even understand the graphs he is posting and commenting on. At least 3 times, his interpretation of a graph has been totally incompentent.

          • Evan Jones

            It’s warmed. But only at ~1.2C/century since 1950 (probably ~15% less). That is not nothing. But it isn’t a whole lot, either, given a 30%+ CO2 bump since then.

          • Orson OLSON

            The World Federation of Scientists has delisted global warming as a problem. (The key difference? SURPRISE! [not] unlike the APS and RS, they don’t depend on the $1.5 billion annual government funding trough for work.)

          • DennisHorne
      • Rob Painting

        Yeah Dennis, it’s here somewhere!

        • planet8788

          Another unintelligible comment….
          Have you read Hansen, et. al 1981… yet?
          No. I forgot… you can barely read.

          • DennisHorne

            Hansen is one man. Has he disappointed you in some way?

          • planet8788

            Ahhh you can’t read either.

          • planet8788

            Have you read his 1981 paper? Have you compared his graph of then to today’s? No… Why not? Do you need a link?
            Do you have any idea how much the temp. record has been adjusted… Do you have any idea?

          • Rob Painting

            Dennis, he keeps prattling on about that. No idea what he means.

          • Latimer Alder

            Serious question

            What ‘adjustments’ are needed to be made to temperature records 50 or 100 years ago that were not apparent to the competent scientists who originally made them. Examples of such please, with some indication of why today’s ‘adjusted’ figures are ‘better’ than the originals.

            Because if you ain’t got a smell of Enron cooking the books yet, you sure should have.

        • planet8788

          Why would you use a surface temperature record which misses most of the ocean temperatures and probably about 1/3 of the land temperatures when you have satellites that give you full coverage?
          Because you’re an illiterate second grader…. Don’t worry though.. a lot of second graders are illiterate.

          • DennisHorne

            Satellites give you full coverage? Of what? The surface, directly?

            A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

          • planet8788

            LOL… of course not directly… but more unbiased and better coverage…. why would you want the surface directly when a significant amount of the surface has UHI in it anyway and isn’t reliable because of that?

          • DennisHorne

            So the data are not “fiddled”?

          • planet8788

            All data is fiddled. But why are we on Revision 6,472 of the temperatures from 150 years ago?

          • Orson OLSON

            Satellites have incomparably much better global coverage than ground data, and it correlates with the two decades longer weather balloon data set by roughly 90% with satellites.

          • Fromafar

            No. The total atmospheric picture. Something that terrestrial data could never provide. If you knew even the least about the theory of green house gas warming (which clearly you don’t), you’d know that your fellow alarmists were thrilled (initially) with the satellite era as it was sure to prove the AGW theory correct. The “missing heat” would easily be detected in the lower trophisphere.
            BTW….they’re still looking.
            In your case – no knowledge seems to be even a more dangerous thing.

          • empty pockets

            No…because the satellite data doesn’t support the narrative, the dogma, so they used what more closely DID support their dogma (with perhaps only a little ‘tweaking’?)

            These fanatics are every bit as “devout” to their “faith” as any Islamist. What else could it be if they believe WE control the climate when we don’t even know how all the moving parts work and work together? They are as arrogantly supremicist, too.

            So…WE can control the climate for the planet…but we can’t accurately predict the weather for day after tomorrow? We can’t make it rain where there are droughts or fires? Or stop raining where it’s flooding? A ‘true believer’ condescendingly proclaimed that it’s not the same thing. I said, “so you think YOU can build a car from scratch but you can’t change the plugs? Or a flat tire?”

            Given humanity’s history concerning our “fixes” for environmental problems, we should be glad we CAN”T change the climate. We’d have the equivalent of Australia’s rabbit problem…or some of our other well intended yet disastrous attempts to control what we little understand instead of first fully understanding then adapting.

        • Latimer Alder

          ‘the latest ‘corrected’ analysis’.

          Bit of a giveaway there.

          Translation

          ‘We’ve fiddled the figures again to give a more palatable result’

          Not true? Convince me. And see if you can do without calling me a ‘denier’.

          • Latimer Alder

            I’ve just spent a few minutes ‘correcting’ a few football results.

            And (using my new improved, hindsightful analysis) Aldershot Town have won the European Cup for 9 out of the last 10 years.

            They didn’t enter one year, just to give the other guys a chance.

          • Fromafar

            He can’t disprove you, nor can anyone. NOAA just told the US Congress to piss off and they have no intention of being scientists and disclosing how they manufactured their latest opinion.
            Imagine real scientists doing this?

          • Latimer Alder

            Just following the example set by the CRU shysters. See Climategate (the gift that goes on giving) for details of how they too fiddled the figures.

        • Orson OLSON

          Also, this “data” has not been independently confirmed by other data sets (think: satellites – measurement so accurate, it has measured the warming of moonshine – sunlight reflected back at earth -on the dark side of the earth, ie, 0.03C).

        • RPTn

          saved by the bell, sorry but the no PhD (as I learned on this tread) no-dr Karl cooking it all up again.

          You guys out there, take a look agin at the GISS report from 1999 by Jim Hansen, where he complains that temperature is disappointing this.

          But he found the cure, no-dr Karl learned, even without a PhD!

    • planet8788

      Apparently at least 80 member of the American Physical Society thought they were geniuses.

      In November 2009, 80 current and past members of the American Physical Society presented a letter to the society specifically objecting to the society’s position.[32] A few days later, the APS Council overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the climate change statement.[33] On April 18, 2010, the APS reaffirmed the 2007 statement with commentary to provide further support.[31]

      The following individuals resigned their memberships over disagreement with the society’s official statement on global warming:

      Ivar Giaever, Winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973, resigned 13 September 2011.[34]

      Harold Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned 6 October 2010. His letter argues that APS’s cupidity is what is keeping it from changing its opinion on global warming.

      So was their a vote? Was it a democratically derived statement or just a political one.

      “…I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.” [35][36]

      • DennisHorne

        I’ve seen Ivar Giaever’s objections. Drivel.

        There’ll always be some who disagree. Harold Lewis sounds like any other conspiracy theorist.

        • planet8788

          Genius or fool? (you)

        • planet8788

          Yet you haven’t taken the time and apparently are unwilling to take the time to actually look and see how much the temperature record has been fiddled with…
          Interesting.

        • Orson OLSON

          Do you not graps the fundamental principle of falsification? Both Popper and Richard Feynman advocated it as the basis of scientific thinking. Ivar Gaiever employs it his lecture at Lindau last summer. “The Great Global Warming Hoax” uses it (see around 15 to 21 minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4).

          David Whitehouse does not in this report “Warming Interruptus – What Explains The Pause” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOJ4W4XJARs), but it is clearly what’s on the table today in globoal warming science. And over a dozen recently published papers on the key metric, the estimated climate sensitivity of the climate system to the doubling of CO2 have centered around 2C degrees – which, we have long been arbitrarily scolded to believe is the tipping point into warming danger!

          More importantly, science has documented concrete evidence of the enormous benefits of added CO2 to the planet, getting much greener (by 20% over the past 33 years), and to people, producing trillions of dollars in lifelong benefits to poor people by making cereal crops significantly more abundant without real costs!

        • Fromafar

          Do tell is exactly what drivel you’re referring too?

    • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

      You may be surprised that science is not done by consensus. As Einstein (a genius by most reckonings) said, “It only takes one”. And remember phlogiston did not die out immediately with new evidence.

      “Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out. Thus, Science advances one funeral at a time” Max Planck

      • DennisHorne

        Whatever science is and how ever it is done the work of scientists is reviewed by others and ultimately generally accepted provisionally or not. That is a consensus.

        A consensus is all that the vast majority of people will understand.

        • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

          A consensus is all that the vast majority of people will understand.

          Then they do not understand science do they? Not surprising. Science is hard. Lots of math required.

          • DennisHorne

            If man had waited until everyone understood science we’d be eating a meagre meal by candlelight after a long day behind a plough.

            But keep wriggling and giving me your advice on science.

          • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

            My advice – if you can’t do applied science (engineering) with it then it is of no use. I’m a retired aerospace engineer. Just a tad short of rocket scientist.

          • Pathfinder

            Actually, that’s not true at all. That’s one reason why markets work so well-you don’t need some “societal consensus” to forge ahead. And people will see and use what works. I can barely understand a simple internal combustion engine, let alone work on one, but that’s not necessary for me to understand what they can do, and how to operate one. Modern farming? Sorry, don’t know much about it. But I can benefit from it, and use it to my advantage.

            The problem with the forced “consensus” on climate change is that it offers no benefits to anyone. I know that wind and solar power are expensive and inefficient. I know that natural gas from fracking in the United States is cheap, clean, and efficient. I don’t need to know how fracking is done.

            All over the world people are making investments for 20, 30, even 50 or more years, and they see no benefits from “green” and no loss from using fossil fuels. Vague predictions of far-off doomsday enforced by calling others “deniers” and saying that they just don’t understand “science” don’t move people when the rubber hits the road of spending and investing their resources.

            80 years ago most people in the world–even the “developed world”- lacked electricity and indoor plumbing. You couldn’t fly commercial across the Atlantic. Man had yet to break the sound barrier, let alone fly to the moon or send satellites to Mars and beyond, with photos streaming back to us from those satellites. We all carry in our pockets computers many times more powerful than NASA used in the 1960s. It’s almost impossible to imagine the advances that will take place in the next 50 to 100 years.

            Unknot your knickers, Dennis. We’ll be fine, and we’ll cope with climate change–if it even comes about at levels that require coping.

          • DennisHorne

            What? Can’t you read? That is exactly my point … we don’t wait until everybody understands. We follow the leaders.

            Not people feeling insecure and needing certainty, harbouring a grudge, or simply stupid.

          • Pathfinder

            I read fine, but I’m not sure you do. Our points are very different. You suggest that we everyone needs to get on board, and that if they don’t we need to force them to. They’re too stupid to understand the science and so we need to act, and force them to acquiesce. If we hadn’t done that in the past, you tell us, we’d all be living at subsistence level, suggesting that if we don’t use force now, we face calamity sometime in the next hundred years.

            My point is that in the past we didn’t force people to acquiesce in what the some people thought was the right science of the day. Yet we did advance from subsistence living. In fact, we did so precisely as the idea fell out of fashion that everyone must be coerced to believe the same thing. But this advancement wasn’t because people suddenly understood all the ins and outs of engineering and scientific advancements. Rather, it was because freedom–the refusal to accept “consensus” or to implement broad coercive policies to assure “progress”–was accepted. Freedom of scientists, inventors, and engineers to make their arguments, run their experiments, tinker with their inventions; freedom of people to accept what worked and reject what did not; freedom to progress.

            I think we see here who it is who is feeling insecure and needing certainty, and it’s not those you call “fools.” I have no idea if you also harbour some old grudge, and I’ll continue to withhold judgment on your intelligence.

          • DennisHorne

            I wrote: “If man had waited until everyone understood science we’d be eating a meagre meal by candlelight after a long day behind a plough.”

            You wrote: “Actually, that’s not true at all.”

            Tell me in one sentence why?

          • Pathfinder

            I already did. Read my first comment.

          • DennisHorne

            You contradicted me and then went off on a tangent which in no way countered what I said. What are you, American or something?

        • Latimer Alder

          Gosh. It’s always nice to be patronised on a Saturday morning. Cheers buddy.

        • Fromafar

          Except that they are suckling from the same funding teat and in a big giant circle keep telling each other that they are right and no one else but they know the “consensus truth”.
          Take a minute or a month and look at the peer reviewed documents you seem to place so much faith in. They are all in the same circle of fellow travelers.. Their reviews are for the most part – worthless.

      • empty pockets

        “The opinion of ten thousand men is of no value if none of them
        know anything about the subject.”

        — Marcus Aurelius

    • planet8788

      It’s also interesting that you call deniers ignorant but have no idea yourself how much data is fiddled with…. Pretty lame.

      • empty pockets

        Sometimes the majority only means that all the fools (and ‘TOOLS’) are on the same side.
        If the data supported the claims, it would need no “adjusting”.

    • Orson OLSON

      EXCEPT that the “consensus” – whatever the IPCC thinks it means – only gets 52% of the members of the American Meteorological Society to agree (2012 member poll). The rest disagree. And a scientific survey of the wider earth science community in Canada found only one-third agreeing. If the “consensus” cannot persuade the vast majorities of its cognate discipline, then it certainly isn’t a scientifically powerful consensus, if only because these non-climate scientists don’t depend on alarmism for funding like climate scientists do.

      • DennisHorne

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society
        The website of The American Meteorological Society has the following statement about climate change.[22]

        “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Surface temperature data for Earth as a whole, including readings over both land and ocean, show an increase of about 0.8°C (1.4°F) over the period 1901─2010 and about 0.5°C (0.9°F) over the period 1979–2010 (the era for which satellite-based temperature data are routinely available). Due to natural variability, not every year is warmer than the preceding year globally. Nevertheless, all of the 10 warmest years in the global temperature records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with 2005 and 2010 being the warmest two years in more than a century of global records. The warming trend is greatest in northern high latitudes and over land. In the U.S., most of the observed warming has occurred in the West and in Alaska; for the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high temperatures as record daily low temperatures in the first decade of the 21st century.

        “Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation. While large amounts of CO2 enter and leave the atmosphere through natural processes, these human activities are increasing the total amount in the air and the oceans. Approximately half of the CO2 put into the atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the ocean and terrestrial biosphere, with the other half remaining in the atmosphere. Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Having been introduced into the atmosphere it will take a thousand years for the majority of the added atmospheric CO2 to be removed by natural processes, and some will remain for thousands of subsequent years.”

        https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/
        “Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the nation’s premier scientific and professional organization promoting and disseminating information about the atmospheric, oceanic, hydrologic sciences.”

        • RealOldOne2

          It matters not what a small handful of AMS global warming zealots released as a statement.
          29% of AMS meteorologists surveyed agreed with the statement: “Global warming is a SCAM.
          Only 24% of those same meteorologists surveyed agreed with the IPCC statement “most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”

          And there’s not a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that antrhopogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

          And there is much peer reviewed science (some of it listed here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 ) that empirically shows ~10 times more natural climate forcing than anthropogenic forcing during the late 20th century warming.
          THAT is what counts, as science is done by experiments, observations, and real world empirical data, NOT by voting, a show of hands, the # of organizations believing something. Sad that you don’t understand how science is done.

          • DennisHorne

            Whatever science is and how it’s done, scientists’ work is reviewed. Eventually a consensus emerges. That’s reality. Whether you like it or not.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Eventually a consensus emerges”
            LOL. Thanks for confirming that you don’t know how science is done. Priceless!

          • DennisHorne

            So. Scientists don’t evaluate others’ work and agree or disagree? There is no consensus about anything in science? In research everybody starts from scratch? Yeah, right!

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your handwaving clown dance, fabricating a strawman to blow down.

          • DennisHorne

            I wrote:

            “Whatever science is and how it’s done, scientists’ work is reviewed. Eventually a consensus emerges.”

            That is true? YES/NO/DON’T KNOW

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL.
            As I said, it doesn’t matter, because science isn’t done by consensus.
            But your handwaving clown dance of obfucation is hilarious!

          • DennisHorne

            Not much point in repeating it, but maybe third time lucky.

            Whatever science is and however it’s done, scientists’ work is reviewed. Eventually a consensus emerges.

            Note I didn’t say anything about how science is done, because however it’s done, eventually a consensus emerges.

            One doesn’t need to know how science is done to realise that.

            And it is the consensus that the public understands, not the science.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Eventually a consensus emerges>”
            Geesh. Nice demonstration of dimness.
            Perhaps the third time lucky: Science isn’t done by consensus. It is done by experimentation, observation and empirical data. And there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century.

            The consensus is doing religious belief, in the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, NOT empirical science. So the present “consensus” is meaningless from a science standpoint.

          • DennisHorne

            Ye gods. Where did I say science was done by consensus?

            What the public want to know, and all they understand, is the balance of informed opinion: “consensus”.

            Furthermore, it’s what politicians act on. Clearly they are taking notice of the Royal Society and American Physical Society — for example — or waiting for your cherished “single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century.”

            Just the same as a sensible driver tries to dodge an oncoming juggernaut on the wrong side of the road rather than await a definitive study of his chances of surviving a crash.

            Anyway, increasing an important greenhouse gas 40% from ~280 to 400ppm is likely to cause Earth to retain more energy.

            Temperatures are rising and ice is melting. If it’s not the CO2 what is it?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Ye gods. Where did I say science was done by consensus?”
            Every time you fail to provide empirical science that I asked for and fall back on the “consensus” Appeal to Popularity/Appeal to Authority logical fallacy you are implicitly claiming that science is done by consensus.

            Get over it. You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that EMPIRICALLY shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. All you can do is fall back on your fallacious “consensus” argument.

            “Temperatures are rising and ice is melting. If it’s not the CO2 what is it?”
            Temperatures have risen in ~19 years, even though we’ve added 1/3 of human CO2 produced since the Industrial Revolution during that time. And the ice began melting LONG before human ghgs became significant.
            And to answer your question, it’s natural climate forcing, just like it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. Specifically those natural forcings listed in my comment here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

          • DennisHorne

            you are implicitly claiming that science is done by consensus.

            Implicit? So I didn’t say science was done by consensus. In fact I said whatever science is and however it’s done… I gave you three chances to withdraw. You’re a liar.

            Temperatures have risen in ~19 years … it’s natural climate forcing…

            Yes, temperatures have risen (Freudian slip) albeit more slowly in the past 19 years. But some of the energy has gone in melting ice, net loss of >200GT pa in Arctic.

            Go back to sleep.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I gave you three chances to withdraw. You’re a liar.”
            Withdraw what? To your STRAWMAN argument that I said you said that science is done by consensus. No Dennis, as I explained I didn’t lie about anything. I never SAID that you SAID climate was done by consensus. I just tried to explain to an ideologically blinded, scientifically illiterate, duped, delusional, climate cult fanatic that every time you FAILED to cite any evidence to rebut what I said and you fell back on your “consensus” argument, it WAS an implicit claim that science is done by consensus. Otherwise there is no reason whatsoever to bring the Argument by Popularity/Argument by Authority into it.
            I’m so sorry that you aren’t intelligent enough to understand this.
            And it’s so sad that you are so dishonest to claim that I have led. But serial dishonesty is a common trait among you climate cult fanatics.

            You are correct that I missed ‘NOT’ in my comment. I’ve corrected it.
            But you are NOT correct in claiming that temperatures have risen in the past ~19 years. They haven’t: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12

            Get over it. You STILL can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that EMPIRICALLY shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. All you can do is fall back on your CAGW-by-CO2 propaganda and parrot your meaningless “consensus” argument.
            Back to your climate cult revival meeting to get another dose of brainwashing.

          • Evan Jones

            Sometimes starting from scratch is a non-starter. But sometimes it is an advantage (maybe those fat = cholesterol guys should have done that a lot earlier).

  • planet8788
    • DennisHorne

      Balls!

      • planet8788

        Did you lose yours?
        Why are we adjusting data by massive amounts 130 years later… Did we just discover a new trove of data somewhere?

        There must have been an ice age in 1880 that we missed.

  • planet8788

    Hundreds of papers supporting a global MWP.
    https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/mwp

    • Rob Painting

      This is the incoherency kicking in. That implies high climate sensitivity, whereas Judith Curry is trying sell the low climate sensitivity estimates. She won’t be happy with you!

      • planet8788

        Again you can’t read. What implies high sensitivity to what?

      • planet8788

        The link doesn’t even mention CO2. Seriously… are you a third grader?

        • samton909

          He must have run out of graphs with scary scales.

  • planet8788

    1890 to 1980 warming has nearly tripled since 1981…
    If this trend keeps up, Abe Lincoln will have lived like an eskimo.

  • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

    There is another branch of government science that is falling out of
    favor. Reefer Madness. Same deal. Only studies favoring
    the government position were funded. The discovery of endocannabinoids
    pretty much killed all that old “science”. Look up “Heath monkey
    asphyxiation study” for one of the studies from the bad old days.

    In the bad old days the newspapers reported the government studies without a bit of scepticism. It has taken about 20 years for the new ideas about cannabis to catch on. And most governments are still running on the old “science”.

  • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

    One factor of human biology is hardly ever discussed in these forums. The decline in human body endocannabinoid production after about age 25. That production gives the brain its plasticity – the ability to learn new things. And like excessive cannabis consumption it also makes youth prone to bouts of “stupidity”. The way to avoid stupidity is to keep the plasticity in check with evidence. Preferably avoiding personally acquiring “Darwin Awards” of a life and death nature.

    When the 60s “crazies” said never trust anyone over 30 – they had a point. After that age changing your mind about the “essentials” is difficult. It is part of the reason Max Planck said:

    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck

    That is also correct for nearly all realms of truth.

    Do not expect AGW theory to die a quick death. One need only recall that in Germany in the 1930s that quantum mechanics was called “Jewish science”. And that was about 30 years after Einstein’s initial papers on the subject. The fact that nature in certain realms is not strictly cause and effect annoyed a LOT of people for a very long time.

    • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

      In fact mathematical chaos theory (Lorenz first discovered it when studying weather) says that climate is not strictly cause and effect. It is one of the reasons that predicting weather 5 days out is difficult and more than 10 days out is of very limited utility. Will you need a jacket or an overcoat in Chicago 30 days hence? About the best you can do is give a probability.

      So what do the climate model folks do to cover that up? They look at a large number of runs of the model with slightly different starting points to try to figure out the central tendency. When the modelers say they don’t make predictions they are entirely correct.

      Where our politicians go off the rails is that they decide that the central tendency is a prediction. What we know is of very limited use. For the near future (100 or 200 years) we can say that in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) June will be warmer than January. That does not preclude a June at 5 deg C and a January at -10 deg C NH average.

  • TimAmbler

    The gathering in Paris is addressing the wrong problem: climate change is only one serious symptom of the world population explosion. Methane is 23 times more damaging than CO2 and one cow does more harm than a family car. Deforestation is to provide more grazing for cattle, and we need more cattle to feed more people. In 1915 the world population was 1.8 billion. Today it is 7.4 billion and by 2100 it is expected to be 11 billion. Why don’t they talk about that?

    • samton909

      Because the climate Nazis don’t like science, they get off on feeling superior and scaring people. They could not care less about what is really going on, what turns them on is thinking that they are superior and smarter than other people.

      • randhobart

        What really turns them on is their next funding cheque.

        • Evan Jones

          You’d be surprised. Both sides of this would — much — rather be right than be rich.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Which is why the MMGW lobby have double the need to defend their claimed results!

          • Evan Jones

            Bear in mind, I believe in AGW. But there just doesn’t appear from the data to be anywhere near as much as originally feared.

          • Evan Jones

            Rather poorly, as of late.

    • Evan Jones

      Methane is 23 times more damaging than CO2 and one cow does more harm than a family car.

      Methane is only ~1800ppb, and therefore it comprises less than 10% of the (non-vapor) GHG effect. Its rise over the last 50 years resembles a convex curve: Continually increasing, but at an overall decreasing rate (with occasional blips).

      But the killer is that methane has an atmospheric persistence of only 20 years, and it abrades chemically, so when it’s gone, it’s gone (unlike with the CO2 cycles). So methane-as-GHG just isn’t much of a danger.

      • TimAmbler

        Thank you. That may well be so. My fundamental point remains that population growth is the underlying problem,

        • russnelson

          “Population growth” is correlated with problems but is not the cause of them. Poverty is the cause.

        • Bruce Bergen

          In the last 30 years the world’s population growth has not been because of increasing birth or fertility rates but because we are living longer. So instead of multiplying like rabbits we just have not been dying like flies. Most demographers today are forecasting a declining world population beginning in about 2050 that will begin gradually with the rate of decline accelerating.

        • falstaff77

          Not growth. The rate of global population growth has been slowing for many decades now. All developed countries, no exceptions, have fertility rates near or well below the replacement rate. China’s working age population is already decreasing, on track to shrink by a dramatic 200 million people in the next half dozen decades. The inertial of that trend is now unchangeable. Japan, S. Korea, and several European countries are replacing every two people with only one, a trend with an inevitable outcome in places that frown on immigration.

          Among the developing countries, only two remain in the world with both i) substantial population and ii) high fertility rates: Nigeria and Pakistan. These two warrant close observation in the years to come.

        • Evan Jones

          Well, developed countries’ birthrates drop dramatically, many below replacement level. And the UDCs, where the problem is are developing rapidly (thanks to coal/oil-fired affluence).

          That will not only drive us into an S-curve, but development is critical for saving local environments. UDCs destroy them. DCs preserve them (sometimes going to excessive lengths to do so).

          So if you want to halt environtal degredation and solve the population (non)crisis, the business-as-usual scenario is your best bet. Then we move on to advanced power (fusion, thorium, or even conventional nukes) and the CO2 thing dies on the vine.

          So for heaven’s sake, let’s knock the U out of UDC. It’s they key to all our problems.

      • falstaff77

        “(with occasional blips).”

        Interestingly including the ~nine year period, 99 to 08, where methane concentration remained flat despite steadily increasing methane emissions. The US EPA even had a statement out for a time contending the atmosphere had apparently saturated with methane, i.e. destroying it as fast as it accumulated.

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Methane.jpg

  • Charles Duemler

    why not interview a member of ameg.me??
    how about a competent scientist?

    • Latimer Alder

      Why? Would they have anything interesting to say in a general political interest publication?

      • Charles Duemler

        the truth about climate change should be utmost on the mind of most political minds considering what happened up in canada. have to admit that listening to her side of the story is a must and thanks for that. there is a lack of stories on the methane coming out of the arctic and the tundra, not to forget about all the other places. all the attempts to debunk the worry about the methane coming up have been debunked to my knowledge with the only mystery as to how much will come up and how fast. plumes taller than the tallest building with one party ignoring it and telling people it’s a liberal plot while investigating scientists at NOAA

        • Latimer Alder

          So please tell us the methane story now.

          But here are my reservations. We call methane ‘natural gas’ and we use it to heat our homes (North Sea Gas). It isn’t any sort of ‘scary’ to me. In other places they call it fracked gas.

          And tho’ it is a ‘greenhouse’ gas, its natural lifetime in the atmosphere is very short..so if released, it dies away quickly.

          So I need a lot of persuasion that its anything to worry about. But thank you for reminding me about the subject of my long ago Masters dissertation.

          • Charles Duemler

            ya, well, it chemically changes in the atmosphere but the chemicals that it changes with are getting used up possibly, not much is known about this but i’ve heard it’s going to also be a problem

            that said it’s not known to be a very short lived gas in the atmosphere by me, 30 years of me studying global warming for naught i guess

            that being said there are deposits beneath the sea floor under permafrost which isn’t supposed to thaw for 1,000’s of years and that there are microbes that’ll eat the methane before it reaches the surface. but the permafrost is thawed causing plumes of methane taller than the tallest building and the microbes drift in the ocean current so they couldn’t reproduce to any degree to make a substantial dent in the amount coming up

            there are rips in the ground by indonesia 150-250 miles long that possibly methane came out of, nothing else known could have done it. methane comes up from the mantle also. when the permafrost melts all the way down to the crust where the plates move against each other in the arctic, hasn’t happened since the last warm period, the next earthquake should release the built up methane

            and the tundra is releasing methane as it melts above ground, i hear a fire was still burning in the tundra last week, is the methane helping it to burn??

            well, any one of these has enough gas to have made the dino’s go extinct probably, methane may well have done it

            now we’re about to release all at one time

          • Latimer Alder

            CH4 + 2O2 –> CO2 + 2H2O. The only thing used up is oxygen. And there’s squillions of that.

            Last I heard it was a solid asteroid, not a gaseous methane that did for Dino and T Rex (tho’ a tree on Barnes Common also lays claim to the latter).

            I wouldn’t worry too much about methane. Unless to cook and heat with.

  • Gary H Cook

    Can anyone tell me the economical beneficial effects of a 120ppm increase in CO2 from increased Photosynthesis resulting in an increase of plant life/Food?

    • Fromafar

      Gary, there are many articles on this on the web. I’ll assume your question was serious, but you may have been tongue in cheek..:-)
      Here’s just one, but there are many. It is estimated that for plant life, approximately 800 ppm plus or minus is ideal.
      Historically we are at a very low level of atmospheric CO2.
      http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=252&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

      • Evan Jones

        On a paleo scale, the planet has been forced to evolve away from CO2. Therefore, CO2 we have added is far more likely to have net benefit, as it relieves pressure in so many ways. Look at the remarkable ~14% increase in global biomass since 1982.

        • Rob Painting

          Tell that to the deniers upthread. They think otherwise.

    • RealOldOne2

      There is no question that the extra CO2 and slight warming since the mid-20th century has contributed to the greening of the planet and increased crop yields, as the CO2 fertilization effect is irrefutable empirical science.
      Note that I’m not saying this was all due to CO2 and slight warming, but it is irrefutable evidence that the recent “global warming” has been net beneficial and NOT catastrophic doom as the CAWG-by-CO2 climate alarmists claim.

      (Prepare for RobPainting’s rote reply: ‘denier myths’)

      Evidence of global greening – http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/Images/npp_change_bump_lrg.jpg & http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/

      Evidence of crop yields:
      Here are the increases in crop yields over the last half of the 20th century Maize(corn):Up 139%
      Wheat: Up 134%
      Rice: Up 104%
      Barley: Up 83%
      Rye/Oats: Up 69%
      Millet/Sorghum: Up 57%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/219.gif

      Oil palm fruits: Up 290%
      Rapeseed: Up 164%
      Cottonseed: Up 104%
      Soybeans: Up 100%
      Lindseed: Up 77%
      Sunflower seed: Up 60%
      Olives: Up 60%
      Groundnuts: Up 48%
      Sesame seed: Up 20%
      Coconuts: Down 6%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/229.gif

      Drybeans: Up 44%
      Drypeas: Up 126%
      Dry broadbeans: Up 87%
      Chickpeas: Up 30%
      Lentils: Up 46%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/239.gif

      Potatoes: Up 42%
      Sweet potatoes: Up 83%
      Cassava: Up 181%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/249.gif

      Sugarcane: Up 37%
      Sugarbeets: Up 52%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/259.gif

      Cabbages: Up 57%
      Greenbeans: Up 38%
      Greenpeas: Up 75%
      Onions: Up 73%
      Tomatoes: Up 106%
      Melons: Up 47%
      Watermelons: Up 132%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/269.gif

      Peaches: Down 10%
      Citrus fruit: Up 30%
      Apples: Down 3%
      Pineapples: Up 83%
      Pears: Up 7%
      Bananas + Plantains: Up 24%
      Grapes: Up 76%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/279.gif

      Coffee: Up 114%
      Cocoa beans: Up 233%
      Tea: Up 236%
      http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/289.gif

      • Latimer Alder

        I’m sure Painting has finished his shift on ‘Denier Watch’ by now. Another SkS mouthpiece will be here to unthinkingly trot out the party line soon. A small prize for the first to spot it.

        • Rob Painting

          Latimer you old fuddy duddy, you still here?

          • RealOldOne2

            Yes, he’s still here, and you haven’t rebutted anything he’s posted, just like you haven’t rebutted anything I’ve posted. All you do is call names. But when you can’t address the empirical science that proves you wrong, that’s all you have left. So sad.

            Btw, I’m STILL waiting for you to address the peer reviewed empirical science that show ~10 times more natural climate forcing during the late 20th century warming than anthropogenic forcing.
            Oh yeah, you can’t rebut it. All you can do is call p-r empirical science a “myth” and call people that post it “deniers”. So sad. But so typical of duped doomsday cult fanatics.

          • Rob Painting

            What is there to rebut? Latimer writes screeds of gobbledegook that’s intended to impress rubes. He hasn’t explained why the Earth keeps continuing to warm yet. In fact no denier has, including denier climate scientists like Judith Curry.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. Are you trying out for Bozo’s job as a circus clown. Let me know and I’ll be glad to give you a high recommendation, because you do a GREAT clown dance!

          • Latimer Alder

            They’re working you hard this weekend. I hope you’re on overtime and a bonus.

            Decided where your ocean heat is yet? The world is waiting to know where the cartoonist thinks it should be.

          • Rob Painting

            It’s in the ocean, silly.

          • Latimer Alder

            Right. Just in the top few feet. While the tens of thousands of feet of cold ocean depths remain entirely untouched.

            Remember that in the big scheme of things 10^23 Joules is tiny, however

            much you hope it’ll scare people. Even ZetaJoules sounds like something from a once famous UK TV actress.

          • Rob Painting

            The data don’t show that. Don’t be silly.

          • Latimer Alder

            So please clearly outline what you think it DOES show in ways that people can understand.

            The floor is yours.

            How much of the ocean has warmed and by how much? Remember that you have only a very limited amount of heat to play with. And the specific heat of water is a constant.

          • RealOldOne2

            “It’s in the ocean, silly.”

            Yes, 93% of it, natural solar radiation.
            Thanks for agreeing that global warming is caused by natural climate variables, NOT anthropogenic CO2.

    • Henry Pool

      yes, I can tell you something about some of my results…
      In Las Vegas, where they turned a desert into an oasis, minima started rising from 1973
      OTOH
      in Argentina, in Tandil, where they chopped the trees on a massive scale,
      minima started dropping….from 1973
      all of which shows you that vegetation traps heat (causes warming)

      so what these guys that don’t want to see any warming here are saying is that we should stop greening the earth…..

    • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

      Last 30 years an increase in crop value of about 4,3 Trillion USD.

  • mikewaller

    “Professor Curry, based at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, does not dispute for a moment that human-generated carbon dioxide warms the planet. But, she says, the evidence suggests this may be happening more slowly than the alarmists fear.”
    That alone would get her crucified by many of the numerous deniers on these lists. This is a typical Daily Mail piece, emphasising the bits that support your opening position, heavily down-playing those that don’t. What is entirely missing is consideration of the precautionary principle. First, even if runaway GW does takes longer to get going than originally forecast, just how long would it take to turn it around? Second, even it it does by great good fortune off-set another ice age, what happens when the Earth re-enters a warm spell? Third, what if concern over global warming is our one best way of getting humans to cut back on comprehensively trashing the planet, something that even the most dunder-headed denier would be hard-pressed to deny.

    • Latimer Alder

      ‘Third, what if concern over global warming is our one best way of
      getting humans to cut back on comprehensively trashing the planet,
      something that even the most dunder-headed denier would be hard-pressed
      to deny.’

      Many suspect that the vastly overhyped concern about benign climate change is already being used in that way.

      It merely shows that those of a Utopian/Paradisical/Biblical view like yourself cannot win their spurious argument honestly and so fly a false (and increasingly tattered) flag.

    • Mr B J Mann

      “What is entirely missing is consideration of the precautionary principle. First…..”

      If the MMGW lobby really believed in it t would be telling us to keep all the “redundant” power stations on principle, as a precaution, just in case another Ice Age is on the way!!!

      • mikewaller

        Should not a moment’s thought have told you that to employ greenhouse gas producing technologies which also pump out billion of particulates that significantly reduce the amount of light reaching Earth would not be a smart way of combating global cooling. They ain’t much good for air quality either.

        • Mr B J Mann

          Clearly you aren’t even capable of even as much as a moment’s thought or you wouldn’t have so spectacularly demonstrated you had not even grasped what my point was about, never mind that you had missed it completely!

          Let me guess:

          You also believe in MMGW?!

          • mikewaller

            Don’t like being wrong-footed do you?

          • Mr B J Mann

            Clearly you don’t like thinking.

            If you beleive in the precautionary principle, you don’t close down existing power stations, however dirty, or light reducing, when you can barely produce enough power as it is, if you are faced with the possibility of global cooling.

            The fact that they reduce the amount of light reaching Earth, even significantly, is not a reason to shut them down, but to clean them up.

            Apologies if that wasn’t bleedin obvious enough the first time round!

          • Mr B J Mann

            Also “we” are comprehensively trashing the planet to produce, as cheaply as possible, the rare earth magnets and scarce metal components needed to produce wind turbines and solar panels with some semblance of efficiency and economic viability (I think in real world terms we’ve managed to get it down to two units of traditional energy wasted to produce one unit of “sustainable” energy?!?!?!!!!).

            Something that even the most dunder-headed Warmer would be hard-pressed to deny.

    • Mr B J Mann

      “Third, what if concern over global warming is our one best way of
      getting humans to cut back on comprehensively trashing the planet,”

      But we are “comprehensively trashing the planet” to get hold of the rare earths and scarce metals needed to make wind turbines and solar panels appear to work with at least a tiny bit of a veneer of efficiency and economic viability:

      “Something that even the most dunder-headed COOLING denier would be hard-pressed to deny.”

      • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

        Wind and solar power have rolled back millions of euros of conservation efforts.

        • Fromafar

          Not to mention, destroyed eco systems, literally cooked raptors (Ivanpah in the desert) and hacked to death several hundred thosand more birds and bats.
          But to mention this is heresy to the eco fascists and politically incorrect……..

          Even the warmistas at Google who developed Ivanpah have said that no amount of solar panel or wind advancements will make any environmental or economic sense.

          • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

            They don’t even have to be hacked to death. The wind turbines create an air tunnel that changes local pressure and it interferes with the pulmonary organs of some bats.

    • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

      Actually, a lot of these trickle-down big government solutions will harm the environment even more and are nothing more than feel-good efforts by the global elite to nullify some kind of faux guilt or other selfish reason.

    • Craig King

      Nonsense. Curry is very much in the mainstream of skeptical thinking. You have a very wrong concept of what “deniers” position is.

    • Fromafar

      You don’t know much about Dr. Curry, do you?
      Why don’t you check out her blog and she will tell you in her own words what she believes.
      Try it, you’ll like it.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      Tripe.

      • DennisHorne

        Offal comment.

        • Isandhlwana79

          2 points for witty comment! well done.

      • mikewaller

        The depth and richness of your response no doubt reflects that of your intellect.

  • Gus

    There is more, much more to “climate science” than NOAA and a handful of corrupt fanatics at American universities. Judith Curry shouldn’t despair. Instead, she should form alliances with her colleagues in Japan, China, India and Russia. China alone has more scientists today than the US, many of them involved in climate science research. Many insightful, critical and well documented papers come from there. Same goes for India and Japan. Russian scientists are openly skeptical of NOAA’s climate claims.
    IPCC itself is a heavily biased organization, hardly a paragon of scientific virtue. The 30-something chief writers of IPCC AR5 WG1 report deriving mostly from the US and EU institutions, only one writer from China. How come?
    Instead of publishing in NOAA-cabal controlled climate journals, Judith Curry should turn to journals such as Holocene, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Geophysical Research, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Climate of the Past, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Energy and Fuels, Earth Science Reviews… all journals that have published numerous papers that in one way or another debunk the CAGW theory. Then, there are Chinese and Japanese journals that would welcome Judith Curry papers with open arms too.
    The world of science neither begins nor ends with American institutions.

    • Isandhlwana79

      Gus, another factor to consider is that all the organizations that AGW proponents like to cite, only their governing bodies agree with the premise. When the organizational body is polled there is no where near the consensus as claimed. The AMS is an example. The APS would be another.

      • Rob Painting

        Weird how so many meteorologists are deniers though. You’d kind of expect, being in a closely related scientific discipline, that they’d accept the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of the enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

        • Isandhlwana79

          Maybe they understand the science better than you do. AGW is a nice hypothesis that has yet to be proven. All you can hang your hat on is rising temperatures since the LIA along with the rise in CO2. Never mind that the link between the two has yet to be established. Remember, correlation does not mean causation.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “Maybe they understand the science better than you do.”

            My cat understands the science better than Panting.

          • RealOldOne2

            “than Panting”
            Good one, intended or not. He’s certainly panting, because he can’t address any of the empirical science that expose his climate fantasies about the magic, fickle, ghg, CO2.
            Sometimes it causes warming and sometimes it does not.
            Some places it causes warming and some places it does not.

            He calls others “deniers”, yet he is the biggest denier of all. Even though there was ~10 times more natural climate forcing than anthropogenic forcing during the late 20th century warming, Rob denies that natural climate forcing was the primary cause. Doesn’t get any more delusional or denial of reality than that.

          • Rob Painting

            Where is this evidence of yours? The group self-congratulation among the denier set here is indeed touching, but where’s your evidence that the recent warming has been natural?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Where is this evidence of yours?”
            LOL. Silly ideologically blind boy, I’ve linked you to it many, many, many times! Here you go AGAIN: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

            Man, you are flailing desperately as you swirl down the crapper.

        • Jack Rocks

          Climate Science isn’t a “discipline”. It has made no testable, falsifiable predictions.

    • Rob Painting

      Must start tallying up the conspiracizing by deniers in this comments thread. Must be well over 20 deniers have resorted to that so far.

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        The only denier on here is you, little Robby.

        You see, nobody believes your catastrophe BS any more.

        The 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey covering currently 8,584,484 respondents places ‘Action taken on climate change’ flat last – 16th out of 16 causes for concern.

        http://data.myworld2015.org/

        Without exception every last one of your crazed predictions over the past three decades have failed to put in an appearance, so nobody believes in your silly doon’n’gloom sky-is-falling BS any more

        Live with it.

        • Rob Painting

          You seem to be engaging in self-projection. I realize the truth is inconvenient.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “Self-projection”?

            I have supplied you with United Nations survey data that is inconvenient to your belief system, and you accuse me of “self-projection?

            Are you claiming the United Nations is lying now?

            Dear me, you’re really getting desperate aren’t you?

            That is the data from the 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ survey.

            It clearly indicates that globally, the population shows little or no concern for the effects of climate change.

            You wouldn’t recognise the truth if it ran under your bridge and bit you on the snout.

            What a sad little man you are.

          • Arrimine

            I’m not upset at all (and won’t be); my pulse never gets over 65.

            But what I find curious is the _tone_ presented here. I have seen it before in the denier crowd… “little Robby” “Dear me, you’re really getting desperate aren’t you?” “What a sad little man you are.” It’s patronizing, of course, but why would someone be bothered by a patronizing tone when they don’t respect your information, intellect or credentials?

            *shrug*… carry on.

        • Rob Painting

          Last time I checked, the laws of physics weren’t influenced by popular opinion.

      • Jack Rocks

        Do you deny that scientific institutions and results can be incentivised politically by government money? They’re full of people, not robots. Climate Science isn’t like physics. There are no tightly controlled experiments, no 5-sigma results before you get to shout Eureka.

    • RPTn

      Couldn’t agree more, I am afraid that the west is digging itself nor a hole of anti-science sentiment, history is full of civilizations which have done that and perished. The last one probably being China under chairman Mao.

      However, they are out of that hole now, and I would not be surprised if they take over the lead, although I hope not.

      Still, I am in the fortunate situation that I have a Chinese daughter-in-law who hopefully may put in a word for me… One of her MScs is from one of the very best universities in China (the other one from Europe), and the reason she was accepted, being bright but coming from a fairly poor family, although never said, was probably that her both parents were taken out of university and jailed under the Cultural Revolution.

      There is a hope for mankind, but I fear it is not in the western societies,

  • Gaup

    Think this consensus driven “science” is a lot like the eugenic science we had in the beginning of the century.. who is the new green Hitler is it Obama?? And watt will be waiting for the people of this earth?

    • robertsgt40

      The problem isn’t with science. It’s with those that “apply” it and interpret it. In other words, it’s outcome based and politically driven.

      • Gaup

        It´s the exact copy of the eugenic revolution = consensus..
        And a few white labb coats on the payroll ..

        • robertsgt40

          Yup. What most can’t grasp is climate “change”, eugenics, and war on “terra” are all connected to those who would reduce us to serfs on the global plantation. But first, they want to cull the herd….a bunch.

    • Rob Painting

      Took some time for Godwin’s Law to appear in this comments thread.

      • Fromafar

        Didn’t take long at all! You associated most of us with hollocaust deniers from your very first comments on this thread.

      • Gaup

        Was not the Nazis who was the funding fathers for eugenics USA was a biggi in that arena and the Swedes almost wrote the official handbook for the nazis ..
        and there was a Big consensus all over the world over this science.. like there is now on AGW agenda.. as for the eugenics the time has come to the end for the AGW fools now…. So please go on so your grandchildren have some one to feel ashamed for…

    • Arrimine

      The beginning of the century was like 15 years ago.

  • waltc4

    My opinion is that the people who think that “97 percent of scientists agree” on global warming–that it is taking place, and that politics and taxes will slow or prevent it–are themselves deluded. This has become a religion, it is not science. In science you cannot have “deniers”–you have only skeptics. “Denier” is a religious term, not a scientific term. I believe the earth has its own defense mechanisms for CO2 processing–the earth’s vegetation. In times past when supervolcanoes spit out more CO2 than all of mankind’s industrial history has produced, and in a super-condensed time frame, vegetation growth accelerated quickly to process the CO2 and turn it into oxygen. CO2 is not a pollutant–it is necessary for all life on the planet–including human life. The more CO2 concentrates in the atmosphere the more vegetation growth is accelerated. Branding CO2 a pollutant means that all humans are pollutants since all of us emit CO2 for our entire lives. CO2 is not the enemy. That is science. All else is, imo, stupidity. The earth has been cycling between ice ages for all of its existence. All of recorded history, in fact, is during this latest period of warming. Until science can explain what causes the warming cycles between ice ages we have no prayer of understanding climate change–noting that man-made CO2 has never been a requirement for warming during all of the past warming cycles. We cannot even be sure that CO2 had any role at all to play in previous warming cycles. The fact is that a half-century of questionable meteorological data is nowhere near enough data to begin making sweeping predictions centuries out.

    • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

      The “97%” nonsense is flawed. First of all, most people who were responded to that survey were not scientists. Secondly, some of my colleagues who Mann would affectionately call “skeptics” seemed to have been included in that 97%.

      • Rob Painting

        Pretty sure that Mike Mann calls them deniers. Most of the time at least.

        • RPTn

          Jeez! Something we agree about!
          If Mann had the power of insulting people this would be an honor, but this fraud doesn’t even hav that left!

          • Rob Painting

            So Mike Mann would describe you as a denier too.

          • Fromafar

            We do not at all deny that Michael Mann is a fraud.

        • Jack Rocks

          Mike Mann and his famous non-existent R statistic. When finally produced (after much FOI activity), turned out to show his analysis was wrong.

          This guy, Steve McIntyre, is an actual mathematical statistician (as you people like arguments form authority so much, McIntyre is more of an expert in this field than Michael Mann). And it shows.

  • Ugothniwl

    2 tenths of a degree in supposed earth temperature since 1880 when temps were first recorded. And 70% of the earth couldn’t be measured in any way until satellites came about in the late 20th century. Even Ms. Curry’s commentary is very mild a rebuke to the idiots in governments and in the hysterical and government granted alt energy drug pushing morons.

    • Rob Painting

      Glad you agree that the Earth is warming because many of your denier compatriots can’t even bring themselves to accept that obvious fact.

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        The fact that the Earth is warming up from the Little Ice Age might have something to do with it…

        Oh, but you’re a LIA and MWP denier too, right?

        • Rob Painting

          You’re arguing against your high priestess, Judith Curry, who reckons climate sensitivity is low. You deniers are so incoherent.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Lying again little Robbie?

            Read my post you silly little boy, I said nothing about climate sensitivity, I asserted that the warming is a continuation of the rise from the LIA.

            CO2 has made little or no measurable contribution to it.

          • Rob Painting

            That doesn’t make any sense. The climate doesn’t just decide to warm up, it has to be forced by physical mechanisms – like the enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

          • RPTn

            Enhanced greenhouse effect? Like positive feedback, something rarely found in nature? Usually a one way street, however as we all know, former high CO2 didn’t mean termination!

          • Arrimine

            Positive feedbacks are commonplace – until they reach a point of saturation or equilibrium.

            For example: “A population increases as a population increases. (until they run out of space, food, etc.)”

            There are multiple effects at play when you look across glacial timeframes. Orbital dynamics (which we now understand very well and do not apply to the current situation) contribute to the entry and exit of glacial periods. CO2 both drives and is driven by the associated warming. Today, we see GHG levels beyond anything we have seen in the past 400,000 years… we should expect the corresponding effect to be beyond anything we have seen in the past 400,000 years.

          • Jack Rocks

            Only if you think CO2 is the primary driver of temperature (hint: it isn’t, water vapour and oceanic cycles are). The ocean has 1000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere. Why you think the atmospheric temperature drives the ocean temperature rather than the ocean temperature driving the atmospheric temperature is beyond me.

          • Evan Jones

            But by how much? CO2 is at or near the lowest point in hundreds of millions of years. Doubling CO2 does not produce much warming (though it does produce some).

          • Rob Painting

            Recent temperature kinda looks somewhat unnatural though, don’t it?

          • Jack Rocks

            Ah, the classic “hockey stick” – the shape you get when you splice temperature data.

          • Evan Jones

            You also get it when you overweight data that conforms with hypothesis and underweight that which disputes it. #B^)

            The Gergis method was a little different: That one simply filtered out the data that did not conform to hypothesis . . .

          • Evan Jones

            There is something wrong with the paleo, here. It has warmed well over 10C since the Wurm.

            Heck, it warmed 10C in as little as one decade when the Younger Dryas came to an abrupt end, and that was already part of the upswing of the Allerod Interstadial.

          • Fromafar

            Actually it does. If not, tell us why the world was in the deep freeze 11,000 years ago? Oh, did I mention that CO2 was much higher then than now? Too many Wooly Mammoth out-gassings perhaps?

            Try the big fire ball in the sky if you need a place to start.
            Your reading the warmistas talking points is simply to trite for words.
            However, I suspect you either helped write them or are just a fellow co-religionist.

            Do you have any academic expertise in this area? If so, please share who funds it?

          • Evan Jones

            Or some non-TSI aspect of solar. Like UV or the 10.7 cm. flux. But we don’t know, not yet. We just don’t know.

          • Evan Jones

            Possibly. But it is unknown. We don’t even know why the LIA ended, really. Solar data during the LIA is very spotty, non-systematic, and contradictory.

  • hurtline1

    The ocean temperature computations are just as ludicrous when you consider at least 3/4 of the ocean surface falls outside of the world shipping lanes, and a lot of guesswork goes into their numbers.

    • Rob Painting

      Try googling Argo.

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        The Argo that have neither coverage nor length of service to be of much value, do you mean?

        And that Tom Karl decided to reject in favour of ships’ engine room intake data – a source that is specified to an error level well in excess of plus/minus 2 degrees C and is rarely if never recalibrated?

        AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!

        • Rob Painting

          That’s just denier handwaving. But it raises the interesting question: If deniers don’t believe the data coverage is sufficient to detect warming, then wouldn’t it also be insufficient to detect cooling too?

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Denier…denier…denier…

            So you can’t actually debate the point, so you descend into name-calling.

            You have nothing left but abuse and insults, you scientifically illiterate little man.

            SHOO!

          • Rob Painting

            I’m both debating points and providing an accurate description of, mostly non-scientific, people who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of global warming and ocean acidification. If that bothers you, you do have the choice not to participate.

          • RPTn

            As you are here for intimidation only, I beg you to take a closer look at you own argument!

          • Rob Painting

            What makes what I write so scary to you? Facts?

          • RPTn

            No, the fact that you are here only to disrupt!

          • Rob Painting

            The stream of misinformation from climate science deniers? Correct.

          • RPTn

            You ego is amazing!

          • Rob Painting

            That’s ironic when one considers that deniers think they know more than climate scientists.

          • RPTn

            You dont have have a clue!

            i have the formal background in place as a diploma somewhere in a box at the attic, but I dont want to join a pissing competition, and even less, I DO NOT want to prevent common sense, with or without a degree, to be heard.

            There is a lot of common sense out there, but unfortunately, from what I have seen here, you are not a part of it.

            But keep on, it has taken mankind thousands of years to get were we are, we dont burn people, at least physically, any more, and we have the freedom to speak, but that doesn’t mean the right to respect. Something Judy Curry has earned in my opinion.

          • Glenn Festog

            Hey now…, Rob does have a point.

            Pity a hat would cover it…………

          • Evan Jones

            The older I get, the more respect I have for the common sense of the common man.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, I know more about my own little patch of it (station siting vis-a-vis heat sink) than probably all of them. Long as it lasts. It’s an important patch, too — it kicks the pins out from under all of their data.

            That’s how you can prove 10,000 scientists are wrong. (And it happens all the time in science.)

          • Evan Jones

            Some is correct. Some is incorrect.

          • Arrimine

            It’s hard to dance with a partner who’s never heard music before. How is Rob expected to debate with someone whose scientific curiosity extends to the popular media and not beyond?

          • RPTn

            From (not at all-) Skeptical Science:

            Rob Painting
            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • RealOldOne2

            But, but, but, he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express!

      • Jack Rocks

        Please tell us how long the Argo buoys have been in operation?

  • hurtline1

    What we do know is that since our satellite monitoring capability came into being (late ’70’s) the earth’s biomass has increased by 25%, some of which is attributable to the growing atmospheric concentration of CO2, whatever the source.

    • Rob Painting

      Yes, but the real question is where has the carbon dioxide taken up by land-based vegetation gone? Trees make up the overwhelming majority of above ground biomass and they can’t just grow fatter, or support canopy infilling forever. What happens if the carbon dioxide fertilization effect fails?

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        “Trees make up the overwhelming majority of above ground biomass”

        Trees do nothing of the kind.

        The great majority of absorption of atmospheric CO takes place in the oceans, by phytoplankton.

        You don’t have a clue what you’re wittering about.

        • DennisHorne

          The other point is trees don’t grow very well in the oceans. Hence the qualification “above ground”.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Compared to oceanic biomass their contribution is very small, so Panting’s post is effectively irrelevant, to say nothing of demonstrating yet again his invincible ignorance.

          • DennisHorne

            You “corrected” something he didn’t say then insulted him.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            He continually refers to AGW sceptics as “deniers” – ie conflating us with Holocaust denial and neo-Nazism, so as far as I’m concerned he has no claim to be treated with anything but the utmost derision.

          • Rob Painting

            No, only deniers associate denial with the Holocaust.

          • RPTn

            Yes, you imply it, and then leave the association to others, to keep up you dishonest trashy argument!

          • Arrimine

            Rob has implied no such thing. A Holocaust denier refuses to accept history. A climate change denier refuses to accept science. It is more accurate to analogize a climate change denier to those who deny evolution or those who claim that the Earth is flat.

          • RealOldOne2

            “A climate change denier doesn’t understand science”
            Strawman argument. Define what makes someone a climate change “denier”.

            Btw, do you deny that the late 20th century warming was primarily caused by natural climate forcings?
            If so, then YOU are a reality denier, as the empirical science says that there was ~10 times more natural climate forcing than there was anthropogenic climate forcing. The science showing that is summarized here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

          • Arrimine

            There are natural climate forcings which, in the absence of human activity, would leave the Earth in approximately the same state as it was pre-Industrialization. We have warmed since then and it is due to human activity.

            Imagine a house of cards that collapses when you put one too many cards on the top… the bottom cards could support a lot of weight, but not the present load plus the additional weight. You can blame all of the cards that were standing comfortably – they added a lot of weight – or you can blame the guy who tried to keep building higher.

          • Arrimine

            There are natural climate forcings which, in the absence of human activity, would leave the Earth in approximately the same state as it was pre-Industrialization. We have warmed since then and it is due to human activity.

            Imagine a house of cards that collapses when you put one too many cards on the top… the bottom cards could support a lot of weight, but not the present load plus the additional weight. You can blame all of the cards that were standing comfortably – they added a lot of weight – or you can blame the guy who tried to keep building higher.

          • RealOldOne2

            “There are natural climate forcings which, in the absence of human activity, would leave the Earth in approximately the same state as it was pre-Industrialization.”
            Wow, the ignorance demonstrated in that statement!
            You are living in a fantasy la-la land of denial if you believe that the Earth’s climate has always remained in approximately the same state prior to human activity.

            “We have warmed since then and it is due to human activity.”
            Sorry, but there is NO peer reviewed science that empirically shows that the warming since the Industrial Revolution was due to humans. Not one paper.

            Yet there is much peer reviewed science that shows there was ~10 times more natural climate forcing during the late 20th century than anthropogenic forcing. You are denying reality to claim that natural climate forcing wasn’t greater than anthropogenic forcing during that time period. Some of that empirical science is summarized in my comment here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554
            Everyone can see that you are denying reality. Why do you make such a fool of yourself? Well, I guess that goes with being duped into swallowing the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult propaganda. So sad.

          • Glenn Festog

            I’m still waiting for proof that the Roman and Minoan Warming periods were caused by AGW. They REALLY don’t care for the data from the Greenland Ice Core analysis……….

          • Rob Painting

            You linked to David Rose’s twaddle. There’s no empirical evidence there.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation and denial!

            “You linked to David Rose’s twaddle. There’s no empirical evidence there.”
            There you go again exposing yourself as an ideologically blinded cult fanatic who is afraid to even follow a link to evidence! That link goes to a comment of mine where I cite and quote from peer reviewed science that empirically shows that there was ~10 times more natural climate forcing during the late 20th century warming than there was anthropogenic forcing.
            Your lame claim that my link merely went to “David Rose’s twaddle” is exposed as pure handwaving obfuscation by merely hovering over the link, and seeing that it does not go just to Rose’s article, but to comment#2381422554.

            Man you’re getting desperate. You ignored my link many times, but when I persisted and you were embarrassed by your inability to address it, you fabricated a dishonest excuse for not addressing it. So sad. But thanks for yet another example showing us that YOU are the real denier.

          • Jack Rocks

            Us climate deniers (what a stupid term) don’t accept THE science, no.

          • RPTn

            YES HE HAS!

            There is absolutely now doubt that this is about Holocaust denial.

            Please try to honest up!

            The fact that he has no clue about science is not going to help him out here!

          • Rob Painting

            I doubt that Holocaust denial is well-known, but I’m not aware of any research in this regard, so I could be wrong.

          • Rob Painting

            Dude, just to recap, you’re the denier here. Ergo, you are the one arguing from a point of ignorance. Do you really think that you know more than the ten of thousands of scientists working on this stuff? You realize that’s utterly delusional right?

            Additionally, you’re arguing with you denier cohorts here. Roughly half of industrial carbon dioxide emissions each year remain in the atmosphere. Of the excess, about two-thirds is taken up by the ocean and a third by land-based vegetation. You could at least try to read some of the scientific literature on this stuff instead of extracting factoids from your nether regions.

          • RPTn

            Guess you ave forgotten that the half life according to IPCC is more than a hundred years!

            You should keep up with you propaganda, leave real scientific literature to people who cares about science!

          • Rob Painting

            If you’re going to engage in this particular discussion, it would nice if it were somehow relevant.

          • RPTn

            Problem is, you dont discuss, you intimidate.
            Yes I discuss, as can be seen in this thread, but not with you!

        • Rob Painting

          How can the oceans be above ground? You deniers are so incoherent.

          • RPTn

            Last time I looked, they were above sea-bed,

            Sharpen up!

          • Rob Painting

            Notice many trees down there?

          • RPTn

            You a tree hugger now, last time I looked you were a scuba-diver.

      • Evan Jones

        Uptake in other sinks was a concern, but not so much at this later point in the scholarship.

    • Evan Jones

      I think that’s a bit high. Goklany puts it at ~14% global biomass increase since 1982. (Mostly in the areas that need it most, such a the Sahel and rainforests.) Attributable to both mild warming and increased CO2.

  • Rob Painting

    Judith Curry – “I think that by 2030, temperatures will not have increased that much”

    How much is ‘not much’? Relative to recent observations?

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      Not above the noise threshold – hence undetectable.

      In fact, as 2030 is approximately the bottom point of the negative phase of the ~60 year temperature cycle that appears to correlate with the North Atlantic Oscillation, it is probable that it will be around 0.1 – 0.2 deg C cooler than the 2000 temperature.

      • Rob Painting

        So how much?

        • RPTn

          Probably around 0.1555555555555 dec C +/_ .5 dg C.

          Why did you ask, except to keep on disrupting this thread?

        • RealOldOne2

          OK Rob, time to put your money where your mouth is.

          The mean projected warming over the 21st century thru 2030 (2001 thru 2030) of 42 of the latest and greatest CMIP5 climate models which were used in the latest IPCC AR5 report, was 0.72C (30 yr linear trend). ( https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Willis%27s%20Collation%20CMIP5%20Models.xlsx )

          Want to bet $1 million that there won’t be that much warming?
          If the measured trend of the average of RSS & UAH is greater than that ( 0.024C/yr ) you win.
          If the measured trend of the average of RSS & UAH is less than that I win.

          I challenged your buddy Rob Honeycutt to a similar bet but he chickened out.

          • Rob Painting

            Are you sure you have that right? Are there climate model projections for RSS & UAH in the latest IPCC report?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Are you sure you have that right? Are there climate models projections for RSS & UAH in the latest IPCC report?”
            You sure are good at doing the handwaving clown dance of obfuscation!

            I didn’t say there was. I said that there were projections for increase in global average temperature. And the IPCC claims that an increase in ghgs will warm the atmosphere more than the surface. So I’m giving you an advantage. And since satellites are the only method to get anything close to a true global average temperature, they are the best method to check whether the climate models’ predictions will be accurate.

            Now quit dodging and come right out and state whether you are willing to bet that the temperature trend in the real world from 2001 thru 2030 will be 0.024C/yr, like the best climate models, CMIP5, project.

          • Rob Painting

            Where in the latest IPCC report?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL! Still dodging and obfuscating!
            I said the CMIP5 models were used in the latest IPCC report, DUPE! LOL.

            So are you going to bet that the latest and greatest climate models are correct in their projections of 0.024C/yr warming trend in the 21st century thru 2030 or not. Quit your handwaving clown dance!

          • Rob Painting

            On the contrary, you are dodging the question. The IPCC reports are rather large. If you know where these projections which include atmospheric temperature are it would greatly narrow down my search.

          • Evan Jones

            WG1 will have the basic data. The SPM is pretty sparse and was rewritten when a bunch of politicos objected — but the original SPM was leaked and you can google it — it’s only ~35 pages, while the whole shebang is ~5000 pages.

          • RPTn

            Are you kidding?
            The WG1 report is a mere 1335 pages, readily available for free at the internet, and you have not read it !?

            http://www.climatechange2013.orghttp://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

            How about taking a look, lot og good stuff here?

          • RealOldOne2

            There you go again dodging the question. It’s NOT ABOUT THE IPCC reports. It’s about the climate model projections of the latest and greatest CMIP5 models!
            So quit your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation and tell us:
            Are you willing to bet that using the average of UAH & RSS global satellite TLT datasets, there will be a 0.024C/yr or greater warming trend over the 21st century thru 2030 as the CMIP models project?

            Readers: This scientifically illiterate climate cult fanatic peddles his Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming religion, but he is unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.

          • RPTn

            Take it easy, this guy is not out there for reason!

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • Evan Jones

            That high? No way. (Well, almost no way.)

          • Evan Jones

            And the IPCC claims that an increase in ghgs will warm the atmosphere more than the surface.

            That would be the Klotzbach et al. study, which I believe is cited in IPCC WG1. satellite LT warming trend should be 10% to 40% higher than surface.

            Incidentally, our study using unperturbed, well sited surface stations only clocks in at ~10% under RSS or UAH (6.0). So that is further support for the hypothesis that the current “official” surface metrics are running hot by a significant amount.

          • RPTn

            Climate PROJECTIONS?

            From what I can see, UAH and RSS report they dont project.
            And they are not Hansonized or Karlenized!

          • Rob Painting

            Doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t understand the question, but I wasn’t asking you.

          • RPTn

            I am not surprised (not anymore), of your level of not understanding the difference between yes/now instead of why and how much!

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            What a strange question, clearly you do not understand what this is about.

            None of these 102 Playstation 64 models used by Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC are models of satellite-data or current surface data. They are based on models on a fixed temperature baseline.

            This graph is evidence they do not understand science. They calculate a climate sensitivity for an increased level of CO2 that clearly doesn’t happen.

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

          • Rob Painting

            Doesn’t surprise me that you don’t understand the question either.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Please, do explain!

          • RPTn

            He doesn’t want to understand:

            https://www.skepticalscience.c…

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Yes, i have already noticed he is a dishonest, “green” activist airhead, not interested in real science, empirical facts or the truth. But it is interesting to discuss with .. such as him, they are helpful as vehicle to bring out the facts.

          • RPTn

            No, he is not, because he is not susceptible to reason.

            There is one reason to discuss with him; that is to enlighten other people reading the post.

            Just like politicians do in their “discussions”!

          • RealOldOne2

            As if obvious from his comments, Rob won’t explain. He’s merely doing a handwaving clown dance of obfuscation, to avoid answering the questions put to him.
            It’s obvious to all except Rob that he is the biggest denier here. He’s so deluded by ideological blindness that he doesn’t recognize it.
            He likely believes that he is winning all the arguments. Truly delusional. Typical of doomsday cultists.

          • Evan Jones

            Guys, it is okay to be wrong. It doesn’t make one a bad person. it doesn’t make one dishonest. It happens in science all the time.

            This is an emotional issue. Strong feelings are to be expected.

          • RPTn

            How can he explain, he has no knowledge.

            His resume:

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • Evan Jones

            RSS and UAH are observational only. CMIP projects. The past CMIP projections show 2 to 3 times more warming, however, than RSS or UAH (v.6.0), and continue to diverge. Even the surface metrics (Bad Haddy and Wicked Uncle GISS) show a lot less warming than past CMIP.

          • Evan Jones

            I won’t take that bet. It will almost certainly not warm that fast. Of course by ~2035, PDO will flip positive again and we will likely see more warming for the next 30years. Then flat again for another 30 after that. (Not factoring in solar issues, which are very much up in the air.)

        • Evan Jones

          It is relatively flat during negative PDO (~1947 to 1975 and 2008 to date). It warmed during the positive PDO from 1976 – 2007. The actual warming signal is the average of one full flat phase and one full warming phase.

          1950 is a good startpoint: It is right at the point where CO2 emissions “took off”, so it is the true beginning of the “CO2 Era”. A 1950 startpoint biases the trend a little high because it’s a low start point, but it has a few more neg-PDO years to offset that.

          We are seeing only ~1.2C per century warming from that point — even using the Karl (2015) “pausebuster” method.

      • Evan Jones

        PDO, actually. The AMO and cousins tend to follow on. PDO flipped to cool in 2008, AMO is still in the latter stages of its warm phase.

        You are correct that it is essential to consider the point in the cycle that one is starting or ending with in order to avoid cherrypicking.

    • RPTn

      No relative to the failed IPCC models!
      Just as we see today, best bet usually is to bet on no changes.

      • Rob Painting

        The IPCC doesn’t have models. You could research this stuff you know.

        • RPTn

          How funny you are!

        • RPTn

          How about CMIP5, you happy?
          Who cares about the name of the trash?

          • Rob Painting

            At least that Roald denier guy acknowledges the atmosphere has warmed.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Atmosphere warmed from 1880 to 1910, a new top in 1936, then it fell to 1977, increased again from 1979 to 1998, now the temperature is falling again.

            “No climate ‘treaty’: France backs down on legally binding nature

            This is intended to avoid a run-in with the U.S. Constitution and Republican-controlled Senate.” Ref.: http://junkscience.com/2015/11/no-climate-treaty-france-backs-down-on-legally-binding-nature/

            Looks like real science will be playing a role here after all ..

          • Rob Painting
          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            You mean, that is not what my cherry picked data reveal. Of course, you are right about that. But i am not talking about your private data, i am talking about real data, unadjusted empirical data.

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image84.png

            https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/image85.png

            Whole story; https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/no-record-year-according-to-satellites/

            Why cheat if the data shows there’s a problem? https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/giss-1981-2002-2014-global.gif

          • Rob Painting

            Real data eh? You have the microwave soundings from the satellites?

          • RPTn

            What have you got!
            RSS is one of the 5 UN accepted series, se please enlighten us!

          • Evan Jones

            Well, my co-author devised the method. #B^)

            RSS is run by activists, UAH by skeptics (lukewarmers). Yet UAH (6.0) and RSS are in close agreement even though they do not use the same satellite set.

          • RPTn

            and Rob Painting

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • Jack Rocks

            The atmosphere warms and cools all the time. It’s been doing this for 4.5 billion years.
            So what’s your point?

          • Rob Painting

            How do you come to that conclusion?

          • RPTn

            Did he present a conclusion? Maybe because he didn’t adress eternity buy only the last 4.5 bill yrs?

          • Rob Painting

            Maybe he can answer the question for himself.

          • RPTn

            Surely, but are you now interested in the ANSWER or only his opinion?

            Frankly, I couldn’t see a conclusion there, so my interest really was how could you see it!

          • Jack Rocks

            Good grief man. Does your entire knowledge of climate go back only to 1979?

          • Rob Painting

            Still doesn’t answer the question.

          • RPTn

            Please show me where I said that temperature has not increased!

            The question is how much, and why!

            Unlike that Roald guy (he has a web site), I have no doubt about the basic science as laid out by Arrhenius, Revelle and Charney, who I all consider as geniuses, and its a shame only one of them got the Noble price for physics!

            But having the formal background in physics (again I DO NOT want a pissing competition) the discussion going on now is mostly not about science, but about religion!

          • Rob Painting

            Wow, he has a website. Any publications (in reputable journals) in the scientific literature?

          • RPTn

            Not at all, he is your wet dream of a denier!

            and he is wrong!

          • Rob Painting

            So no peer-reviewed scientific publications on climate science. Have you checked?

          • RPTn

            He has no peer or pal reviewed papers, just like Einstein!

            But he has the right to give his opinions, just like you and me!

            This is the most important contribution of western civilization to the world, and something I do not believe is currently being respected because we take it as granted.
            The only thing history can say for sure about civilizations is the will eventually fail.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            You mean i am not allowed to my opinion because i do not have a peer-reviewed report published in a science journal? Does this also mean i do not have to pay carbon dioxide taxes?

            Or, i am not allowed to have an opinion on something that will affect me directly and financially because i don’t have published in a science journal?

            That is a real special kind of stupid, congratulation!

            Let us talk about the papers you actually are talking about. Let’s see, that would be PAL-reviewed fake pseudoscience reports, published in corrupted “science” journals like Nature and Science .. Ref.: http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

            But no, my blogs are collections of real science, real PEER-reviewed reports, graphs and data, – all with proper citation and documentation.

            Your attempts to ridicule and smear only goes to show how good those collections are. The fact that you do not argue against the facts, the science and the information in my blogs, demonstrate you do not have any science, facts or logic that are able to show it is wrong, not one error will you be able to find. Not because there’s no errors, but because you do not know science, you’re just another dishonest, “green” activist airhead :)

          • Evan Jones

            It is not necessary to have published. (I did not intend to go that path, myself, I just woke up one fine Tuesday in peer-review land.)

            The blogosphere has much craziness, but it has enhanced scientific discussion (especially independent review) enormously, to the betterment of science. You can now easily float a pre-pub in order to elicit review prior to publication (and if more papers did that, so many papers would not fall flat within a month of publication).

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            I agree. I am working on something, but if it will be published is too early to say, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/the-earths-magnetic-field/
            It’s actually not that important to me if it get’s published because of all the PAL-reviewed papers.

          • Evan Jones

            Geomagnetism vis-a-vis solar, eh? I remain agnostic on that one. Good luck with your explorations, in any case.

          • Rob Painting

            That’s a yes then. You don’t have any peer-reviewed publications with respect to climate.

          • RPTn

            And you have no documented knowledge at all! Just opinions!

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            At least not yet. And because of all the dishonest, “green” activist airheads with fake credentials publishing their PAL-reviewed pseudoscience in corrupted journals, being published doesn’t really mean that much.

            But hey, that would mean i make a lot of errors, cause, as you insinuate, i do not know science, right!?

            Show me the errors on my blogs ..

            Search these two first; http://climatenerd.blogspot.no/ and https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/

            Let us know when you can provide evidence of any errors ..

          • Evan Jones

            I agree with the Arrhenius, but his (later, oft-repeated) experiments suggest only 1.1C warming per CO2 doubling. Any excess has to come from net positive feedback (esp. vapor), but said feedback has simply not appeared in the observational data. So we are warming, yes, but it is only lukewarming.

          • RPTn

            Arrhenius laid out the theory, not the exact numbers, and the equilibrium value is in itself uncertain but comes out to about 1.1 C.

            However this does not include feedbacks, to my knowledge that was what Revelle did, but he kept on saying to his dying day that his was a theory, not a conclusion. Al Gore credits Revelle for changing his life (as an undergraduate course at Harvard taught by Revelle), but claim that Revelle was senile when he at the end of his life asked for caution, not action.

          • Evan Jones

            And it’s the net positive feedback hypothesis which is wrong. We know why it was wrong, and, besides, the observations indicate it was wrong.

          • RPTn

            It is all about feedbacks. Positive or negative.

            In general it is tempting to say that nature is conservative and will try to suppress changes.

            However, that is philosophy, not science, but still tempting!

          • Evan Jones

            Feedbacks feed. But homeostasis homes.

          • Evan Jones

            It is all about feedbacks. Positive or negative.

            So it is. And net feedbacks have simply not been showing up in the data. That is observation, not philosophy (my minor, actually).

          • Evan Jones

            That’s the point, isn’t it?

            Net positive feedback has simply not appeared in the data.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            “Abstract – This paper presents observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the earth’s atmosphere.

            These data show that the global average clear sky greenhouse effect has remained unchanged with time. A theoretically predicted infrared optical thickness is fully consistent with, and supports the observed value.
            It also facilitates the theoretical determination of the planetary radiative equilibrium cloud cover, cloud altitude and Bond albedo. In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface upward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation.
            The all-sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all-sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation. The planetary radiative balance is maintained by the equilibrium cloud cover which is equal to the theoretical equilibrium clear sky transfer function. The Wien temperature of the all-sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermodynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiative entropy.

            The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

            The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.”

            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/if-you-can-see-it/

            “Abstract – The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
            Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/falsi%EF%AC%81cation-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-e%EF%AC%80ects-within-the-frame-of-physics/

            “…In the convective equilibrium of temperature, the absolute temperature is proportional to the pressure raised to the power (γ-1)/γ, or 0,29…”Twenty four years later, Arrhenius devised his radiative forcing theory of the greenhouse effect, which unfortunately makes a huge false assumption that convection doesn’t dominate over radiative-convective equilibrium in the lower atmosphere, and thus Arrhenius completely ignored the dominant negative-feedback of convection over radiative forcing in his temperature derivations. Johns Hopkins physicist RW Wood completely demolished Arrhennius’ theory in 1909, as did other published papers in 1963, 1966, 1973, (and others below), but it still refuses to die given its convenience to climate alarm.

            We now know from Robinson & Catling’s paper in Nature 2014 (and others) that radiative-convective equilibrium on all planets with thick atmospheres in our solar system (including Earth of course) is dominated by convection/pressure/lapse rate in the troposphere up to where the tropopause begins at pressure = 0.1bar. When P < 0.1 bar, the atmosphere is too thin to sustain convection and radiation from greenhouse gases takes over to cause cooling of the stratosphere and above.

            Since Maxwell's book was published in 1872, many others have confirmed that the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, including Hans Jelbring, Connolly & Connolly, Nikolov & Zeller, Mario Berberan-Santos et al, Claes Johnson and here, Velasco et al, Giovanni Vladilo et al, Heinz Thieme, Jacques Henry, Stephen Wilde, Alberto Miatello, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Verity Jones, William C. Gilbert & here, Richard C. Tolman, Lorenz & McKay, Peter Morecombe, Robinson and Catling, and many others, so this concept is not new and preceded the Arrhenius theory.

            …

            Determine the surface temperature

            For Earth, surface pressure is 1 bar, so the ERL is located where the pressure ~0.5 bar, which is near the middle of the ~10 km high troposphere at ~5km. The average lapse rate on Earth is 6.5C/km, intermediate between the 10C/km dry adiabatic lapse rate and the 5C/km wet adiabatic lapse rate, since the atmosphere on average is intermediate between dry and saturated with water vapor.

            Plugging the average 6.5C/km lapse rate and 5km height of the ERL into our equation (6) above gives

            T = -18 – (6.5 × (h – 5))

            Using this equation we can perfectly reproduce the temperature at any height in the troposphere as shown in Fig 1. At the surface, h = 0, thus temperature at the surface Ts is calculated as

            Ts = -18 – (6.5 × (0 – 5))

            Ts = -18 + 32.5

            Ts = 14.5°C or 288°K

            which is the same as determined by satellite observations and is ~33C above the equilibrium temperature with the Sun.

            Thus, we have determined the entire 33C greenhouse effect, the surface temperature, and the temperature of the troposphere at any height, entirely on the basis of the 1st law of thermodynamics and ideal gas law, without use of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, nor the concentrations of greenhouse gases, nor the emission/absorption spectra of greenhouse gases at any point in this derivation, demonstrating that the entire 33C greenhouse effect is dependent upon atmospheric mass/pressure/gravity, rather than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

            The greenhouse gas water vapor does have a very large negative-feedback cooling effect on the surface and atmospheric temperature by reducing the lapse rate by half from the 10C/km dry rate to the 5C/km wet rate. Increased water vapor increases the heat capacity of the atmosphere Cp, which is inverselyrelated to temperature by the lapse rate equation above:

            dT/dh = -g/Cp

            Plugging these lapse rates into our formula for Ts above:

            Ts = -18 – (10 × (0 – 5)) = 32C using dry adiabatic lapse rate

            Ts = -18 – (5 × (0 – 5)) = 7C using wet adiabatic lapse rate [fully saturated]

            showing a cooling effect of up to 25C just from changes in the lapse rate from water vapor. Water vapor also cools the planet via evaporation and clouds, and which is confirmed by observations. Water vapor is thus proven by observations and theory to be a strong negative-feedback cooling agent, not a positive-feedback warming agent as assumed by the overheated climate models to amplify warming projections by a factor of 3-5 times.

            What about CO2? At only 0.04% of the atmosphere, CO2 contributes negligibly to atmospheric mass and only slightly increases the heat capacity Cp of the atmosphere, which as we have shown above, isinversely related to temperature. CO2 would thus act as a cooling agent by slightly increasing troposphere heat capacity. Increased CO2 also increases the radiative surface area of the atmosphere to enhance outgoing radiation to space, analogous to putting a larger heat sink on your microprocessor which increases radiative surface area and convection to cause cooling.

            It is well-known that CO2 and ozone are the primary cooling agents of the stratosphere up to the thermosphere, but even the warmist proponents are unable to agree on a coherent explanation why CO2 would assume the opposite role of a warming agent in the troposphere. As the mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory shows, and just like water vapor, CO2 also acts to cool the troposphere, and the rest of the atmosphere by increasing radiative surface loss and outgoing radiation to space.

            Millions of weather balloon observations confirm that there is no greenhouse gas-induced "hot spot" in the mid-upper troposphere, which is the alleged "fingerprint of AGW." The 2nd law of thermodynamics principle of maximum entropy production also explains why such a "hot spot" will not form. However, observations do show a cooling of the stratosphere over the satellite era, which would be consistent with increased CO2 increasing outgoing radiation to space. Observations also show an increase of outgoing longwave radiation to space over the past 62 years, which is entirely consistent with increased outgoing radiation from greenhouse gases and a decrease of "heat trapping", the opposite of AGW theory.

            In essence, the radiative theory of the greenhouse effect confuses cause and effect. As we have shown, temperature is a function of pressure, and absorption/emission of IR from greenhouse gases is a function of temperature. The radiative theory tries to turn that around to claim IR emission from greenhouse gases controls the temperature and thus pressure and heat capacity of the atmosphere, which is absurd and clearly disproven by basic thermodynamics and observations. The radiative greenhouse theory also makes the absurd assumption a cold body can make a hot body hotter,disproven by Pictet's experiment 214 years ago, the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the principle of maximum entropy production, Planck's law, the Pauli exclusion principle, and quantum mechanics. There is one and only one greenhouse effect theory compatible with all of these basic physical laws and millions of observations. Can you guess which one it is?

            Update: The atmospheric center of mass assumption in step 2 above also appears to be applicable to Titan, the closest Earth analog with a thick atmosphere in our solar system. For Titan, the surface temperature is 94K, equilibrium temperature with the Sun is 82K, and surface pressure is 1.47 bar.

            Thus, the center of mass of the atmosphere is located at ~1.47/2 = ~0.74 bar, which observations show is where Titan's atmospheric temperature is ~82K, the same as the equilibrium temperature with the Sun."

            http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

          • Evan Jones

            Hmm. If he has acknowledged that the atmosphere has warmed, then on what basis is he to be classified as a “denier”?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You need to get out more Troll Roll Evan Jones

          • Evan Jones

            Well, I care. Okay, perhaps not for the reasons for which they would like me to care.

        • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

          102 times Playstation 64 models on behalf of Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC vs. Reality times 6 ..

          This is evidence Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC’s activists doesn’t understand real science :)

          https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

          If they did, they wouldn’t have missed and they would only need one model :)

          • Icarus62

            The truth of course is that global temperature observations are well within the ranges of projections from the IPCC reports –

          • RPTn

            So numbers means nothing?

            That is actually what you are saying.

          • Icarus62

            You can read off the numbers from the graph, to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

        • Evan Jones

          CMIP3? CMIP5?

    • Jack Rocks

      Why don’t you draw the graph from 1900, a good 45 years before man could have had any affect on the temperature with his CO2 emissions?

      • Rob Painting

        Sure, but then it won’t include the satellite data which only goes back to 1979.

        • Jack Rocks

          So you’re missing the context of longer term cycles. This is very important.

          • Evan Jones

            PDO flips. That’s why we see a “stepladder” rather than steady warming. bear in mind that 1979 is near the start of a positive PDO, so that startpoint will show more warming/decade than, say, a 1950 start-point.

          • Rob Painting

            Tell that to the deniers here who keep cherrypicking the satellite data since 1997.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            1/3 of all human emissions of CO2 has occurred since 1997 – 34%, but we are just going to ignore that, why? Doesn’t CO2 work anymore? Or does it only work when temperature accidentally also goes up?

            Perhaps CO2 only works in January, certain year of certain decade?
            Perhaps only after 1600 hours every Tuesday?

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/stopped-working.jpg

            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/11/12/co2-doesnt-work-anymore/

          • Evan Jones

            1997 is not a cherrypick. 2001 is not a cherrypick.

            Just about anyhing in between those two dates is a cherrypick: Skeptics like to go from April 1998 (high start point). Alarmists prefer Jan. 2000 (low start point). Both are cherrypicks. 1998 was an El Nino year, while 1999-2000 was la Nina.

            To avoid cherrypicking include both the el Nino and la Nina in or include both out. Anything else is a cherrypick.

    • Evan Jones

      She means relative to CMIP models. As she states, of the dozen and a half more recent models, all but one (Shindel et al.) project less warming than IPCC/CMIP, some much less. Even Otto et al. (made up of IPCC lead authors) found only 1.3C TCS and 1.9C ECS for CO2 doubling. The Lewis /Curry (2015) study projects ~1.5C per doubling (ECS).

      We are adding ~0.4% CO2 per year to the atmospheric sink, so it seems unlikely we will ever double from our present levels, far less redouble.

      That is not nothing, but there is no emergency here I can see.

      • Rob Painting

        Just because you don’t appreciate the urgency it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Even low climate sensitivity estimates will probably cause the functional extinction of coral reefs and the oceans will continue to become more corrosive for marine calcifiers as more carbon dioxide from industrial emissions dissolve into the oceans.

        • JJS_FLA

          Your evidence?

          • Rob Painting

            The peer-reviewed scientific literature.

          • JJS_FLA

            An appeal to authority is a universally recognized logical fallacy. Judith Curry’s papers are also peer reviewed. Do you blindly abide by their conclusions as well.

            What physical or chemical phenomenon can you cite that proves the impending “funcional extinction of coral reefs”. I monitor the scientific press and literature quite closely, and I have never seen claims, never mind evidence that the coral reefs will become extinct.

          • Rob Painting

            Okay, how many of Judith Curry’s papers deal with ocean acidification and coral bleaching?

          • JJS_FLA

            You, not I, were the one who said “peer reviewed” is a catch-all rationale for asserting that any scientific statement is correct. By your own logic, you musts accept Judith Curry’s peer-reviewed assertions as entirely correct.

            Your question does not logically follow what I said.

          • RPTn

            Dont hate your time, from https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php:

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            “Former police officer”, wonder why?
            Facepalm, of course, it’s a honesty issue ..
            You can’t be dishonest as a police officer, as an “green” activist, however :)

          • Rob Painting

            I get used to this from deniers, but you’re not making sense. So do you accept that Judith Curry has no expertise on ocean acidification and coral reefs?

          • RPTn

            But have you, I mean beyond parroting!

          • Rob Painting

            If Judith Curry has no expertise with regard to ocean acidification and coral reefs, and she doesn’t, it greatly diminishes her insinuation that further industrial fossil fuel emissions will be trifling.

          • RPTn

            Fantastic!
            If JC does not represent the pinnacle of knowledge about scuba divers environment, she knows nothing at all!

            I bet Einstein didn’t know either. Einstein is wrong! As is obviously Darwin; his theory is not in details very solid at all, and most biologists have reservations, but they still consider it the foundation of knowledge.

            So, based on your logic, we are all creationists, because the best theory is not perfect!

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            She probaly don’t know much about vertikalposisjonen i Pasvik either, so what?
            She is good at what she do, she know science, she is not corrupted ..

            What else do anyone need?

            You’re just desperately trying to diminish her, smear her ..

            But you’re too shallow, you do not have the intellect.

            You do not even understand what science is, what evidence is, what empirical data is ..

          • JJS_FLA

            You are the one who has not provided a shred of evidence to back your claims, ignoring my request for information or a citation. Your only response is to ask whether Judith Curry has expertise in this field, a non-sequitor to your assertion and my question. You somehow have the delusion that this constitutes clever repartee.

            It is best to remain silent and be thought of as a fool rather than to comment and remove all doubt.

          • RPTn

            “It is best to remain silent and be thought of as a fool rather than to comment and remove all doubt”

            You are perfectly right, except his business is not to contribute but to disrupt:

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • JJS_FLA

            Doubtless he is being overpaid for his efforts.

          • RPTn

            He is probably not paid at all, just like the other side seeing were little, if any at all of fabled big oil money .
            Any pay would make him overpaid, but after all, he is a guy with opinions, which is a good thing, and pushing noble causes.
            However, 15 million people die every year because of poverty, and most of us couldn’t care less…

          • martynW
          • Rob Painting

            The people who write for New Scientist generally do a good job, but they messed that one up. Not entirely their fault, but a coral reef expert would have put them straight.

            When coral accrete aragonite, they do so by pumping hydrogen ions out of semi-sealed chambers within their tissue. Doing so lowers internal pH and thus the aragonite saturation state. This ‘supersaturated’ seawater in the calcification chambers enable the formation of aragonite. In other words, this is how they build their skeletons.

            So yes, pumping out these hydrogen ions out into the ambient seawater during periods of strong coral growth would be expected to temporarily lower local seawater pH.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            pH of 8,2 – 8,4 is not acid, it has to be below pH 7.

            Evidence discovered that ‘ocean acidification’ scare may be as fraudulent as ‘global warming’ ref.: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/12/25/evidence-discovered-that-ocean-acidification-scare-may-be-as-fraudulent-as-global-warming/

            Acidification-gate?: NOAA accused of ‘pHraud’ by hiding data showing oceans have not ‘acidified’ over past century, ref.: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/23/touchy-feely-science-one-chart-suggests-theres-a-phraud-in-omitting-ocean-acidification-data-in-congressional-testimony/

            http://www.climatedepot.com/?s=acidification

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=acidification

            Do we spot a deperate, dishonest, “green” activist airhead?

          • Rob Painting

            That’s just a dumb denier myth. Acidification is the lowering of ocean pH. Only dropkicks think it has anything to do with a pH below 7.

            You could bother to read the peer-reviewed literature on this you know.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Oh my, Skeptical Science has to stop paying you!
            What ever they are paying, you’re not worth it .. :)

          • Rob Painting

            ““I monitor the scientific press and literature quite closely”

            I doubt that. I suspect that you read denier blogs and simply regurgitate memes that pop up there. This thread is strong evidence of that.

          • JJS_FLA

            Project much?

            You have no way of knowing who I am. Your reckless assumptions betray how stupid are your arguments.

          • Evan Jones

            As for me, I moderate on the dreaded WUWT. But I have discussed our work extensively on the more activist blogs. Gotta look at both sides, you know. Neither side is without error in this.

          • azt24

            But only one side is getting multi millions in government grants for their research.

          • Evan Jones

            Yeah, but grants are overrated, I think. Not meaningless, of course, but a little good old elbow grease is a more than adequate substitute four times out of five.

          • Evan Jones

            I agree. But that is not relevant to whether or not we should be listening to both sides. When I do that, my opponents either give me a valid side to consider I hadn’t seen — or else hand me ammo. Win-win.

            But grants, I think, are overrated. Alarmist studies get ~1000 times as much in grants as skeptic studies. They even get more from Big Oil than we do. Yet, when it comes to recent scholarship, it is the lukewarmers who are the New Black. I even hear nice things being said about scientific method , lately, rather than boasting about furtive ways and means to avoid it.

            Sometimes grants are necessary. For example, I cannot currently survey the GHCN station net without extensive time and travel. But I can and do survey the USHCN net, which is perfectly adequate for my purposes (arguably even better). Without grant money, all I have to do it work a little harder, do my own sums, roll in the mud with the numbers instead of shuffling it off to some semi-interested grad student. And that makes me far more aware of the process and its vicissitudes. I own my numbers. Those other dudes rent.

            Besides, skeptics are outfunded 1000 to one; even the Big Oil funds the alarmists more than they do skeptics. Yet it is the lukewarmers who are dominating the all-important carbon sensitivity debate. Funding parity does not appear to be necessary.

            It might even be downright detrimental, made ’em go soft. In the case of Amberley AFB, the BoM found it far preferable to infer a move and apply a whopping, massive warming adjustment rather than swiveling their chairs and punching a few buttons to find out.

            So one of the posters did that and found out the exact location (so I could survey it), and established from retired AF officers that there had been no station move. The BoM still isn’t interested in finding out, and the incorrectly adjusted record still stands.

            If you ask me, these-here scientists need to get more mud on their boots.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            No, that is wrong ..

            1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

          • RealOldOne2

            “The peer-reviewed scientific literature.”
            Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. Cite just one paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
            You can’t, because there are none.
            But there are many that show that the primary cause was natural climate forcing. If cited and quoted from a few of those in my comment to you here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554
            You are unable to rebut or refute those papers which show that natural climate forcing during that timeframe was 6-12 times anthropogenic forcing.
            Case closed.

          • RPTn

            He means pal-reviewed!

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Of course, PAL-reviewed papers show everything you want :)

          • Evan Jones

            Fiddling peer review is self-defeating, a loser’s game. Independent review hits those like the broadside of a barn. I’ve seen papers crash and burn within three days of publication.

            When your teach told you that cheating was only cheating yourself, he wasn’t kidding.

          • falstaff77

            That even “low …sensitivity” to CO2 will “probably cause” the “extinction” of coral reefs?

            There’s no such finding reported in the IPCC AR5. Are referring to some more recent PR publication?

        • Evan Jones

          But assuming that the extremely sketchy oceanic pH measurements are correct (seeing as how pH varies by hundreds of % per year), and that there is a 30% drop in alkalinity, how can a 10% bump in CO2 (down to biota level only) account for all that?

          Besides, acidification is said to have begun ~1750, and CO2 did not become a significant player until 1950.

          I think that dredging, drainage, and dumping account for the major portion. I have corresponded with NOAA on this, and they concede the possibility and point out that effluence creates carbonic acid the same way CO2 does — through action in the biota.

          I think when the UDCs finish developing, there will be a lot less of that, and the problem will abate.

        • Evan Jones

          Perhaps. But if it is, I don’t currently appreciate it.

      • Icarus62

        Otto et al actually gives 3±2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂, so a rather large range that includes ECS of 5°C per doubling – not exactly reassuring!

        The central estimate from all the data is still around 3°C per doubling.

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          “The central estimate from all the data is still around 3°C per doubling.”

          No it isn’t.

          Stop lying.

        • Evan Jones

          The central estimate (of CMIP3/5) has simply not panned out on observation. (And the miscalc is in the vapor.)

          • Icarus62

            That’s not actually true. If you put the forcing data into a climate model with fast feedback sensitivity of just under 3°C per doubling, you get an almost perfect match to observations.

            http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/2bmvsgissrsquared-117883512421.png

          • RPTn

            Yeah, the GISS Hansonized and Karlenized data. take a look at Hansen’s problems in his GISS report from 1999, where he is complaining that the datadoesn’t fit; the 30s was the warmest period of the 20th century, but he took care of that!

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Why all this graphs based on fake data?

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/giss-1981-2002-2014-global.gif

            Why cheat if there really is a problem?

          • Icarus62

            Why assume ‘cheating’ is involved rather than valid corrections to the data? Is it because you find the data to be inconvenient?

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Because the corrections to the data are anything but valid, as an increasing number of scientists in the UK, the USA and Germany are now demonstrating.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes. And elsewhere. Call it the “new consensus”.

          • RPTn

            isn’t it kind of strange that all the corrections go in one direction, the one that serves the paycheck!

          • Icarus62

            Not true at all. The recent corrections to the NOAA data reduced the trend:

            http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/0615_Fig_5_576.png

          • RPTn

            When you dont like reality, and you have the power to change it…

            This is a fake from no-doctor Karl at GISS. You know the guy ho said that 2014 was the warmest are ever, just before Obamas speech, then a couple of day later had to add: by 37 % probability.

            There are 5 basic data sets: GISS, HadCRU, RSS, UAH and the balloon radio sonde datas. none of these, even after Karls non-doctoring, supports the CMIP5s.

          • Evan Jones

            But they increase the recent trend.

          • Evan Jones

            One doesn’t. But those corrections were made without any accounting for microsite. That is a fatal flaw.

          • Icarus62

            How do you account for the fact that all the surface and satellite trends agree almost exactly?

            http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1539/5339/original.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            “How do you account for the fact that the surface and satellite trends agree almost exactly”
            The trends don’t agree almost exactly. Over the last half of the satellite record, they are diverging at 1.4C/century.
            The RSS trend is cooling of 0.14C/century and the GISS LOTI trend is warming by 1.23C/century.
            The divergence is getting ever larger with the continued corruption of the GISS numbers.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, I generally account for it by demonstrating that they absolutely and decisively don’t:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/none

            And that’s not even using the Haddy pausebuster-added data, which from 1979 is an even higher trend.

            And, of course UAH 6.0 is even slightly lower. But WFT doesn’t have it yet. (You use the obsolete UAH 5.6, of course.)

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            More Mannipulated mendacity from the silly hamster.

            You haven’t a clue, have you?

          • Evan Jones

            That is because they are fudging with aerosols. They incorrectly attribute the 1950-1975 pause to aerosols, when it is actually a negative PDO phase.

            The result is that they consider 1976 – 2007 to be the norm. And, with the negative PDO flip in 2008, well, there’s your divergence.

          • falstaff77

            “That’s not actually true”

            Stop. Personal hypotheticals not required. The IPCC has reported on the literature, see the results of the CMIP models versus temperature observation are clearly plotted in AR5, for ’98 – ’12 showing the models leaving behind 5% likelihood.

            (Figure Box TS.3-1) – see “a”
            https://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigBoxTS.3-1.jpg

          • Icarus62
        • RealOldOne2

          “Otto et al actually gives 3±2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂, so a
          rather large range that includes ECS of 5°C per doubling – not exactly
          reassuring!
          Totally false. You are either lying or you are totally ignorant of what Otto wrote.
          “The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0°C, with a 5-95% confidence interval of 1.2-3.9°C (dark red, Fig. 1a), compared with the 1970-2009 estimate of 1.9°C” – Otto(2013), ‘Energy budget constraints on climate response’, http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76064/7/ngeo1836(1)_with_coversheet.pdf

          There it is directly from Otto(2013), Otto’s most likely value was 2.0°C -0.8/+1.9, NOT “3±2°C” as you claim, and NOT “a rather large range that includes ECS of 5°C per doubling”, for the maximum was 3.9°C.

          So tell us Icarus, are you purposely being dishonest? or are you just ignorant? Those are really the only two options.

      • falstaff77

        “We are adding ~0.4% CO2 per year to the atmospheric sink, so it seems unlikely we will ever double from our present levels, far less redouble.”

        Yes, a simple statement of math. But the IPCC and all sitting in Paris are claiming RCP 8.5 is “business as usual”, where RCP 8.5 requires the like of i) global coal production to multiply by 6-8 fold, for ii) the decades long trend of slowing population growth rate to reverse and increase. There’s the disagreement.

        • Evan Jones

          That’s only if tech decides to all-of-a-sudden come to a screeching halt. Which it won’t. Besides, I don’t accept those claims, although I believe there will be a temporary increase.

          Besides, it’s out of out hands. There is nothing the west can do about it, and nothing we should do about it, either. This is a problem that is going to fix itself.

  • Icarus62

    The best estimate for fast feedback climate sensitivity is still around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm. There is no credible evidence suggesting that the value is below 2°C per doubling. Nor is there much reassuring evidence that limiting global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial temperature will be ‘safe’. The question is really how much risk do we want to confer on current and future generations? The uncertainty about future global warming and other consequences is not a cause for complacency, but for great caution, and risk aversion. That’s why the world needs to take action to minimise AGW.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      More drivel from the hamster.

    • Evan Jones

      There is no credible evidence suggesting that the value is below 2°C per doubling.

      The observations do not support that. We have ~0.8C warming (using the inflated surface metrics) for a ~40% increase in CO2. Since the slope is a concave curve (i.e., diminishing returns), most of the warming comes first.

      Observations are the bottom line here. And many of the recent models (including Lewis/Curry and Otto et al.) show under 2C per doubling ECS and only ~1.3C per doubling (TCR).

      The CMIP models blew it on net feedback. They though vapor would ~triple the warming, but a lot of it went to increased low level cloud cover, which is a counteracting negative feedback.

      • Icarus62

        But as I pointed out earlier, Otto et al actually gives 3±2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂, so a rather large range that includes ECS of 5°C per doubling, and the central estimate from all the data is still around 3°C per doubling.

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          Utter drivel as usual.

        • RealOldOne2

          “But as I pointed out earlier, Otto et al actually gives 3±2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂”
          No, Otto nowhere says ECS is “3±2°C”.
          He gives a most likely value of 2.0°C +1.9/-0.8°C based on the most recent decade and a most likely value of 1.9°C +3.1/-1.0°C for the 1970-2009 period.

          You continue to misrepresent Otto’s most likely value for ECS. Quite pathetic.

      • azt24

        “Observations are the bottom line here”

        Exactly. Climate models are just that — models. They have no value unless they can be validated by comparison with empirical data. But we all know how easy it is for scientists to fall in love with their models.

        • Evan Jones

          Being a scenario modeler, myself, I can sympathize.

      • falstaff77

        I think you mean …. counteracting *positive* feedback.

  • kyleyoder

    Inside the bubble of
    academia there is something called the “collective lie.” That’s what
    everyone knows is a lie, but they pretend like it’s not for job security. As
    Curry acknowledges, researchers cannot win copious government grants without
    the understanding they will reaffirm global warming theories. Why bother to
    conduct research if the outcome has already been paid for by bureaucrats?
    Anything so dependent on government is destined for corruption. Scientists like
    Curry have been persecuted throughout history for challenging the
    establishment. I can think of Galileo Galilei who was executed by the Catholic
    Church, the then custodian of the West much like the UN is today, when he
    suggested the world was round. The IPCC and its cabal of scientists are the
    greediest people on earth, and the most formidable force against science in
    human history. I fear not only the ruin of intellectual debate that will lead
    to authentic solutions to authentic problems, but I fear for Curry’s life.

    • Rob Painting

      Okay, I going to start counting from now on. Conspiracy seems to be the favourite denier myth. That’s one.

      • timmaguire

        What’s a denier? Nobody denies there is a climate and nobody denies the climate changes. Of course, alarmists seem to have a problem with accepting the fact that the climate changed prior to 1850, so if that’s what you mean, then I think you’re exaggerating a bit, but you’re not entirely wrong.

        • Rob Painting

          I think this is a good description, from Wikipedia:

          “Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.“

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            The Wikipedia definition isn’t very useful as the bulk of global policymakers seem to be going forward with unwarranted reliance on discredited assumptions of climate sensitivity that are too high yet nobody in any camp would call them deniers even though they fit the definition you cite.

            Try to use a better definition for the denier term.

          • Rob Painting

            The description is apt. I would expect a denier to disagree with it though.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            I see reading comprehension is something that you have a problem with.

          • Rob Painting

            If you say so.

          • Evan Jones

            Wiki or any mainstream media source on either side is NOT the place to go for info on AGW. You have to follow the journals for that.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            Speaking as a fairly long time wikipedia contributor, the major benefit of the wikis is that they give you a good start in the reference list for documents you can chase down and read. That’s a valuable service to give somebody a leg up on doing exactly what you suggest when they might not be familiar with who is who in the field.

            The problem with AGW is when people seek to game the journals, a problem that appeared at least as far back as the MBH98 corrigendum issue where the journal Nature violated its own rules in order to protect the “hockey stick” seminal paper they had published. So in this particular issue, the journals are necessary but insufficient.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, quite. But fortunately the post-climategate environment has at least partially curbed that. We should have no problem getting published at present. But before c-g? Probably would have been returned, unread. They never would have gotten past the abstract.

          • MarkInKansas

            And yet, you persist with the assumption that consensus is in any way scientific. Doubt and the testing of hypotheses is the nature of science. Anyone who appeals to consensus is not interested in science.

          • Rob Painting

            So denier scientists still operate under the presumption that the Earth is flat?

          • MarkInKansas

            What is a denier scientist? Who still operates under the assumption that the earth is flat? You’ve offered up an easily disprovable hypothesis to make an argument and you look like a fool.

          • RPTn

            No he is not a fool, he has missioN;

            https://www.skepticalscience.c…

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • Rob Painting

            Google is sure is handy.

          • RPTn

            Isn’t it!

            Do you really have any knowledge not from the net!

          • Rob Painting

            Many scientific papers are on the internet.

          • RPTn

            Quite right, but were little insight, that takes a little effort, not just parroting!

          • Evan Jones

            Hmm. Some parts are flatter than others . . .

          • Patrick Carroll

            Right. Yer man was obviously dropped on his head – repeatedly – when he was a baby.

          • Rob Painting

            “What is a denier scientist?”

            See the explanation from Wikipedia. A scientist can be a denier too, and some are.

          • Evan Jones

            What is a denier scientist?

            One with whom one happens to disagree.

          • Patrick Carroll

            And enthusiasts shriek anything that will bring the next grant.

          • Evan Jones

            It has it’s place. But consensus in science, especially in a wide-ranging, interdisciplinary field, is a rapidly shifting sandbar. And one wave can wash it away entirely.

          • MarkInKansas

            NASA and NOAA altered the data to make the projections fit with their agenda.

            http://newsl.org/2015/11/it-was-all-a-lie-scientist-confirms-nasa-cooked-books-on-climate-data/

          • Evan Jones

            I think it is an error, compounded by confirmation bias, not fraud. Yet confirmation bias can wreck entire fields of study (think fat vs. cholesterol).

          • azt24

            What sort of “error” leads to a wholesale revision of previously published temperature data going back to 1881, making pre-1950 data cooler and post-1950 data warmer? See

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

            To quote Eric Hoffer, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            It’s not just Steve Goddard and Paul Homewood.

            Now the German scientists have picked up on the NOAA fraudulent adjustments too.

            http://www.achgut.com/dadgdx/index.php/dadgd/article/sind_die_klimadaten_manipuliert#When:15:45:00Z

            Throw in a US Congressional committee investigating the Mannipulation, it’s all starting to get interesting.

            Hopefully, there will be prosecutions…

          • Evan Jones

            Noooo. Don’t go there. Today we try them? tomorrow they try us.

            Let this one be resolved within the scientific community. Politics will follow on (in the fullness of time). Meanwhile politicians will pigpile. That’s what they do.

            Take climategate. You don’t think those guys paid? They paid dearly. And in the coin with which they were least willing to part. Phil Jones at one point said he contemplated suicide. I know what effect c-g had within the scientific community. And I wouldn’t trade places with the bad actors for all the gold in Acapulco. And neither would their friends, either.

          • Evan Jones

            A bad one. (With a side of confirmation bias.)

          • Rob Painting

            Conspiracizing again. Five.

          • Evan Jones

            Ah, that word “extent”. Who gets to decide what “extent” is “unwarranted”?

            Lukewarmers are called deniers all the time, and we are not anything of the kind. We are, in fact, part of the so-called “97%” meme. Take us out and there sure as heck ain’t no 97% left! Especially considering the last five years of scholarship.

          • RPTn

            Scholarship?

            https://www.skepticalscience.c…

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • Evan Jones

            One can learn a lot in four years; climatology is immensely interdisciplinary. (But I would no more trust the policy decisions of climatologists than I would leave the decision to go to war with the generals.)

            I have defended our research on SkS, and Stoat and Sou’s bog. (All three set up special forums to discuss the microsite issue.) I got a lot of tough questions, but it was a reasonable discussion. Besides, the best way to pass peer (and independent) review is to hash out the issues with your opponents before publication: I am trying to convince my opponents, not my pals.

          • RPTn

            I quite agree, and this should not be a pissing competition about diplomas.

            Still some respect for the opposing view is important!

          • Evan Jones

            Bear in mind, that the ‘skins do get to review the work. But anyone can play. Sheepskin not required. Ultimately, it’s the work that counts.

          • Rob Painting

            ‘Lukewarmism’ is a euphemism for denial

          • Evan Jones

            So it seems. Yet lukewarmers are “97%-ers”. We think it’s warming, we think anthropogenic CO2 is the cause.

            But we note that observations have diverged from past projections, especially in recent years since the PDO flipped.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, in that case, you are going to have to reduce your “97%” number by quite a lot.

            Of the last dozen and a half papers projecting future warming in the peer-review scientific journals, 95% suggest IPCC CMIP3/5 got it too high. (For that matter, even IPCC AR5 notes that there is a discrepancy.)

            Presuming you put any real stock in the Consensus Thing.

          • Rob Painting

            The comment about 97% doesn’t make much sense. The data are what the data are.

            As for climate sensitivity, if there is such a thing as a fixed value for it, will be what the evidence reveals it to be. If it’s at the lower end, it will buy us some time in some respects, but will do nothing to ameliorate ocean acidification.

          • Evan Jones

            The comment about 97% doesn’t make much sense. The data are what the data are.

            Yes, quite. (Though I always singularize the word.) I agree with the 97%. And I am a skeptic, a lukewarmer.

            As for climate sensitivity, if there is such a thing as a fixed value for it, will be what the evidence reveals it to be. If it’s at the lower end, it will buy us some time in some respects,

            It appears to be. Heck, we’ll be walking away from FF long before then, at least for electricity generation, without any coercive laws, either. (Hint, it probably won’t be wind/solar.)

            but will do nothing to ameliorate ocean acidification.

            No, it won’t. But normal pollution cleanup will. We’ve only added ~180 BMTC since 1850 to an ~1800 BMTC upper oceanic sink, which resides on top of a 43,000 BMTC sink which is losing 2 BMTC to calcificiation per year. That is only a 10% CO2 increase to only a small part of the ocean, and cannot account for most of the reduction in alkalinity (assuming that sparse, spotty data is even correct).

          • Evan Jones

            But how does 10% added CO2 to the oceans (only down to below biota level) cause 30% reduction in alkalinity? How does CO2 explain acidification starting in 1750?

            OTOH, drainage, dumping, and dredging explains the remaining 2/3 very well. Fix that and the problem becomes reduced to triviality. (If indeed it is even a problem).

          • Rob Painting

            See Raven et al (2005) for a reasonably thorough explanation of the problem of ocean acidification. There’s also a series at Skeptical Science entitled “OA not OK” that goes into more detail.

            The Pacific coast of North America is a region which has is naturally prone to lower pH and carbonate saturation state because it is on the eastern boundary of one of the subtropical ocean gyres. The movement of surface water offshore (Ekman suction) under the influence of the northerly winds pulls up deeper, cooler, more acidified waters from below.

            This causes coastal surface waters to become seasonally corrosive to marine calcifiers and has already resulted in massive mortality of juvenile oysters in hatcheries along the Oregon and Washington coastline. [See Barton et al (2012) and Waldbusser et al (2015)]. Similarly there has been huge mortality in scallops in the region too, but the scientific literature on those deaths is yet to appear. Unofficially, carbonate undersaturation is implicated there too.

            This gives us a glimpse into the future. The source waters for the upwelling are out in the centre of the subtropical gyre (Ekman pumping) and take 30-40 years to rise up into the California Current. So, even though the upwelling strength is dependent on the state of the gyre (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and undergoes significant decadal fluctuations, coastal surface waters will progressively become more corrosive as they lag atmospheric CO2 by decades.

            The Bering Sea, however, is where ocean acidification is set to wreak havoc. Given the high productive fisheries there, and the income they generate, the repercussions will likely be profound.

            Below is an image of seawater pH time series from NOAA, from the ALOHA station at Hawaii.

          • Patrick Carroll

            Who’s editing the Wikipedia entries?

            I mean, if I create a Wikipedia entry for Rob Painting, mentioning that he’s a pedophile who hangs out with “Dingy” Harry Reid, sexually abusing male babies, it must be true, right?

          • RPTn

            Probably not. He has ideas, in my opinion not to much based on facts, but that is the great thing about internet that we can conduct a discussion like this.

            Never heard about the guy before he ambushed on of my arguments here, but I shure would like to have a beer with the guy anytime!

          • timmaguire

            Wikipedia is right about how the term is used, they are wrong if by doing so they are defending the use of the term. Climate Change Denial is inaccurate, dishonest, and has a disgusting pedigree. It is damaging to honest debate whether Wikipedia defines it or not.

    • JJS_FLA

      While your comments are correct, you err is stating that Galileo was executed. He was sentenced to death for heresy but this was commuted the next day to house arrest.

    • mikewaller

      (a) Galileo was not killed by the Catholic Church but simple forced to recant and then placed under house arrest where he died of natural causes. (b) the issue was not the shape of the Earth which had been known to be round since the classical era; what Galileo got in to trouble over was heliocentrism i.e he followed Copernicus in believing, correctly, that the Earth moves round the Sun rather than vice versa as the Catholic church then held. I do not wish to be unkind, but if you get such basic facts wrong, why should we have much faith in what else you have to say?

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        Actually what got Galileo in trouble was that he made theological claims about how the Church should teach. The conventional Church position was that churchmen should have freedom to speak from either heliocentric or geocentric perspectives until all the evidence to prove one or the other theory was true was available. Galileo wanted to force heliocentrism and hammer his geocentric opponents with the big guns of the Church centuries before the final proof was actually produced (stellar parallax, which was finally observed in the mid 1800s).

        Galileo’s works were republished within Catholic lands as soon as claims to absolute truth were abandoned and replaced by claims that heliocentrism best fit the available evidence. That was done very soon after the man’s conviction so heliocentrism, per se, can’t be what got the man convicted.

        • mikewaller

          I think, dare I say it, that your argument is somewhat Jesuitical. The idea of of a ruthless, dogmatic Galileo seeking to force his views down the throat of a wonderful, caring, sharing, open-minded Church who had to put him away to protect freedom of thought and expression, seems to me a tad wide of the mark. A hypothetical modern parallel would be a right-wing US government seeking to lock up Richard Dawkins, or confine him to his home, solely on the basis of his loud insistence that creationism should not be taught in State-funded schools. This might well please some but, IMHO, it would would not sit well with any idea of freedom of thought or reflect any credit on that government.

  • ACLUmember

    Man-Made Warmism is clearly the 2015 version of Lysenkoism.

    True scientists and rational free thinkers like Professor Curry are once again persecuted by utterly corrupt political thugs.

    • Rob Painting

      Just to clarify things here, Judith Curry actually supports the persecution of climate scientists at NOAA by political thugs.

      • timmaguire

        If by “persecution of climate scientists at NOAA,” you mean accountability to the people who sign their paychecks, then yes, you’re right.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

        Do you just like libeling female scientists or do you do your libel on both sides of the gender line. Inquiring minds want to know.

        The NOAA has obligations that exactly match everybody else who takes the government’s money to fund their research, no more, no less. That standard oversight is being labelled persecution is really creepy.

        • MrBK

          Well said TMLutas!

        • Rob Painting

          That conspiracizing again. Three!

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            A conspiracy of one? I just think you’re a jerk.

          • Rob Painting

            You’re entitled to your own opinion.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            But not, apparently, without being libeled reflexively.

          • RPTn

            He may or not be!

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

            So, a semi-pro? How conspiratorial! B-)

          • Patrick Carroll

            You’re starting to sound like a six-year-old.

            Pretty soon, the comments section will simply mark you as a network outage and route around you.

      • RPTn

        You mean like senator Whithouse and Grieja or whatever his name is!

        You know, the guy he sent a letter to several universities based on input from Greenpeace, to smoke out opponents!

        From what I can see, JC supports getting to the bottom of howe non-doctor Karl cooked the books, the two tugs above want to jail political opponents.

        • Rob Painting

          No idea what you’re on about.

          • RPTn

            Yes you are!

          • Patrick Carroll

            The convenient ignorance is strong in this one.

  • Patrick Carroll

    By 2030, there will be consensus that we’re about to freeze, and that we need to do everything possible to warm up the environment.

    I mean, am I the only one who remembers the global freezing panic of the 1970’s?

    • Rob Painting

      Dude, the other deniers here have already parroted that climate myth downthread. To recap: It’s horseshit.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f17b7215518773cd4d8880fec9b5fa56b886aed4f00cf4ac93cb1f79fbc85049.gif

      • Patrick Carroll

        Time will tell.

        • Rob Painting

          That’s another mention of the conspiracy meme. Two!

          • Patrick Carroll
          • Rob Painting

            You sure are behind the times, 11 years have passed. Muller was convinced by the evidence and even headed a group that have produced their own global surface temperature record. Their reconstruction is below, but note that it doesn’t include the record warmest year of 2014 because it only goes up to 2013.

          • Patrick Carroll

            http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf

            Of course, there’s very little funding available to present any views that do not conform to the climate mafia view.

            I wonder who’ll be playing Galileo, 500 years out.

          • Rob Painting

            Does conspiracizing ever get old for you? Four!

          • Patrick Carroll

            Plonk!

          • azt24

            As a non-scientist, what I resent the most is the barrage of over 20 years of Communist-level propaganda. I have heard literally thousands of media pieces billing themselves as “news stories” all of which paint disastrous global warming as a) imminent b) certain c) having ONLY adverse affects; not a single benefit is permitted anywhere, though we know from history that previous warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period were beneficial to human civilization.

            Worse, every scientist hoping to get funding must kowtow tp this party line. If he only wants to study the gray squirrels of New Hampshire, he must call his study The Effect of Global Warming on the Gray Squirrels of New Hampshire — and predict dire effects.

          • Evan Jones

            Jay Leno once commented: The recent UN report on global warming says it’s worse than they previously predicted. It must be pretty bad. They previously predicted it would destroy the planet.

          • Patrick Carroll

            Preach it!

          • Evan Jones

            Muller/BEST is my nemesis (though I am on fine terms with Mosh and Zeke).

            They infer (they have to for GHCN), while I have the luxury of being able to drop (I have the data and metadata-rich USHCN). I think their trend-splitting methodology is the wrong approach, especially when recursive logic gets into it.

            But their main error is failure to consider microsite (and Mosh has emphasized that this is a good issue).

            I think they are barking in the right direction, but up the wrong tree.

          • Nick

            I wouldn’t worry about Rob Painting – he is here merely to troll for global warming. It seems he has no other life but that if you look at his historical comments.

          • Evan Jones

            I think the globe has warmed and that humans are responsible. But, like Dr. Curry, I think it is only lukewarming.

          • Nick

            The CO2 absorption bands are already almost entirely saturated. So what ever warming is occurring is now following a log response per Beer’s law. Extremely minor.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, but the first part of the curve is very steep. As for our current point, I’d say “not major”. But not nothing, either.

          • Nick

            Yes, we’re well past the first part of the curve. And yes, I do agree, its not nothing. But its much lower than has been generally been discussed, and the water feedback models are horrible (my PhD advisor made himself a hated person in the climatology department because he would go there and rip into its bases – or lack thereof…)

            95% of climate models are over predicting temps, and there is no basic V&V (which is something that those of us who do numerical analysis depend upon to assure that we are getting even ballpark figures). One of Curry’s complaints is that lack of V&V, and its pretty unscientific of folks to attack her for stating that its necessary to start examining the models more closely.

          • Evan Jones

            They are mostly saturated, yes, but the initial slope is extremely steep. So there is still a little give left. I’d say “not major” rather than “extremely minor”.

            The Arrhenius experiments indicate +1.1C/doubling, and that seems about right. We will probably never double. We will never, ever redouble.

          • Nick

            I’ll buy that. Certainly with feedback effects, I think it’ll be less (since water vapor moderates). The water models in the AGW models are some of their weakest science, and they need some real heat and mass transfer folks to review and update them.

          • RPTn

            But you know everything, with no formal background !

          • Evan Jones

            I don’t have much formal background, either, however. I can respect a “Citizen Scientist” even while I disagree with him. besides, it’s a wide field, plenty of room for everybody.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Dishonest, “green” activists doesn’t understand logical errors :)

        • MrBK

          Agreed! Mainstream religion would kill for this level of mindless fanaticism.

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        Another graph from John Cook’s pseudo paper that got rejected :)

    • Another_Lurker

      No, I do and wonder what happened.

    • kyleyoder

      No, you can read all about it online in Time mag 1975. In that article, the reporter also insists only the government can save us. Same narrative, different dragon to slay.

    • azt24

      Especially if the theory of the new solar minimum turns out to be correct. But don’t worry, the same crew will adopt the new scare without missing a beat. The old scare will be quietly shuffled into the memory hole.

      • Patrick Carroll

        Oh, I’m sure there will be a large constituency in favor of firing nuclear weapons at the sun, to warm it up.

        Oh. Sod. Now I’ve gone an done it.

  • Patrick Carroll

    Doesn’t Rob Painting read as rather…desperate?

    • Rob Painting

      Seeking reassurance from your ilk? Now that is desperate. The data are what the data are.

      • Patrick Carroll

        Just as watery bints handing out swords are no basis for sound government, random unattributed graphs are no basis for proof.

        • Rob Painting

          Yes, I should have been aware that you not have read any of the IPCC reports. My bad.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            You like this bit – that inexplicably seems to have escaped your attention, chicken little?

            “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

            IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.

          • spunknik

            But where’s the pretty picture for that statement? Pretty colors, lines, exclamation points? Rob will have trouble understanding.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Oops, sorry!

            This is about his intellectual level, I think.

            https://www.beano.com/

          • Pat Loudoun

            Patrick just handed you your behind and all you can yip about are discredited reports written by discredited hacks? Hacks who are trying to dip their beaks into a pool with hundreds of billions of whatever currency still has any relevance?

            Your devotion is showing.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, heck, those are thousands of pages a pop. (But I did struggle painfully through the 2006 Stern Report.)

            SPM is under 40 pages, but that does not always reflect what’s in WG1 or WG2. Hardly anyone on earth has read the whole thing.

          • Rob Painting

            Truth is that deniers don’t generally read the IPCC reports, yet they have strong opinions on climate from a position of utter ignorance.

          • Evan Jones

            Neither do the alarmists. Neither do most IPCC lead authors, for that matter.

            IPCC reports are not something you read (other than the SPM). They are more of an encyclopedia that one refers to.

          • RPTn

            Well, from what I can see, you read the summary, and look at the WG2 and WG3 disasters in the papers.
            What you write doesn’t much reflect a knowledge of WG1.

          • planet8788

            Truth is we know 10 times more than you

          • RPTn

            Rest assured, he has no clue!

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • RealOldOne2

            Nice projection there Rob.
            You are the one who doesn’t even read facts and data that you think might not fit into your climate cult dogmas.
            The evidence is found in your own words, “Where is this evidence of yours?”, after I had linked you to it dozens of times!

            So when I AGAIN linked you to it, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 , you once again IGNORED IT! Of course that is because it was peer reviewed science that empirically showed that natural climate forcing in the late 20th century was ~10 times the amount of anthropogenic forcing.

            You are either operating from the position of extreme & utter dishonesty, OR the position of extreme & utter ignorance. Either way, you LOSE.

          • Evan Jones

            Hardly anyone on either side reads the entire reports. Not even the authors.

          • Patrick Carroll

            I use the climate every day. So, please take your utter ignorance remark and use it to store carbon where the sun don’t shine.

            In addition, I think I’m entitled to an opinion when my government proposes to tax me and limit my freedoms in favor of a scheme that it can’t explain to me, and which seems mostly to be a way to enrich those with the proper contacts.

          • Rob Painting

            So which parts of which IPCC report have you read?

          • Breakingwind

            OK rob, which parts of which IPCC report have YOU read?

          • Rob Painting

            AR5 Physical Science Basis Chapters 3 (oceans), 9 (evaluation of climate models) & 13 (sea level change)

          • Evan Jones

            Truth is, same goes for the alarmists. With mustard.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Better than lukewarmers holding a Hershey chocolate bar, promising it won’t melt as it dips from their palms. LOL

        • Patrick Carroll

          The Python-Foo is strong in me tonight.

      • Jason Calley

        And just how much heat is a few hundred zetajoules when spread through the oceans and the land? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

        Less than a tenth of one degree — down in the hundredths of a degree. Much, much less than the known errors of measurement.

        Oooohhh… Scarey!

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          Amusing how they turned a totally unalarming temperature change – because that’s what was originally measured – into a huge great number of zetajoules, isn’t it?

          Actually I’m surprised they didn’t use ergs, that would have given them an extra seven orders of magnitude of scariness!

          Oops, I mustn’t give them ideas!

          • Rob Painting

            Does that mean you accept the oceans are warming like the data obviously reveal?

          • RPTn

            You mean like climate changes?

          • Evan Jones

            Yes. But not by much. (And the SST data is very wonky in any case.)

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            No, the data doesn’t reveal any such thing.

            Here’s a test, how can you tell the oceans doesn’t heat by looking at the air temperature? https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/temp2.png

          • RealOldOne2

            “Does that mean you accept the oceans are warming like the data obviously reveal?”
            It doesn’t matter Rob, because ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, NOT ghgs. The science that shows this and that you are unable to refute is found in my comment here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444

            Yet more empirical science that Rob will ignore/pretend doesn’t exist/or deny because it counters his cherished global warming religion.

        • Rob Painting

          Other deniers have already trotted that one out. Ocean warming is killing off marine life, so it’s not negligible. Never heard of coral bleaching?

          • planet8788

            Coral evolved in temperatures much warmer than this. They will survive.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            That is nothing but dishonest activist propaganda.

            “Global warming causes coral bleaching – and there is absolutely no doubt about it, right? Tens of thousands of websites found searching for “Global warming and coral bleaching” seem to agree that when the ocean warms, the oxygen content reduces, and the corals become “bleached.” The heat affects the tiny algae which live symbiotically inside the corals and supply them with food. The heat stress damages the algae and in consequence leads to coral death. The argument for the global warming/coral bleaching connection is bolstered by the massive El Niño event in 1997 and 1998 that led to unusually warm tropical waters throughout the world’s lower latitudes and coral bleaching in many locations. But, as with so many other topics covered in World Climate Report, the idea that corals are in peril because of global warming turns out to be considerably more complicated than is commonly presented to the public at large.

            Three recent articles give us reason to question the alarmists’ claims that coral reefs are in deep trouble due to the buildup of greenhouse gases.

            The first piece was published in Marine Environmental Research by M.J.C. Crabbe of the United Kingdom’s University of Bedfordshire (we cannot make this up – this marine scientist has the last name of Crabbe). Crabbe notes “Coral reefs throughout the world are under severe challenge from a variety of environmental factors including overfishing, destructive fishing practices, coral bleaching, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, algal blooms, agricultural run-off, coastal and resort development, marine pollution, increasing coral diseases, invasive species, and hurricane/cyclone damage.” We agree – coral reefs are facing no end of challenges in our modern world!

            Crabbe studied reefs in Jamaica, and he notes that “The Jamaican reefs are subject to a number of both acute and chronic stressors, the last including overfishing and continuing coastal development, including the much-publicised development on land adjacent to Pear Tree Bottom reef and the resurfacing of the North Jamaican coastal highway.” Again, there is a lot more to the story of reefs than just global warming.

            He studied various reefs from 2000 to 2008, and this period included a mass bleaching event in 2005. Crabbe concluded “Despite the multiple influences on the reef sites over the study period, the size classes of the corals studied showed resilience to change.” We suspected this all along – the coral reefs have been around for 100’s of millions of years! He states “What is apparent from this study is that despite the chronic and acute disturbances between 2002 and 2008, demographic studies indicate good levels of coral resilience on the fringing reefs around Discovery Bay in Jamaica.” Crabbe warns that “Unfortunately, previously successful efforts to engage the local fisherman in controlling catches around Discovery Bay have not been maintained, and it may be that the development of a Discovery Bay Marine Park is the only solution.” We get the message – don’t blame global warming, blame the local fishermen!

            Next up comes from two scientists from the University of Exeter’s Marine Spatial Ecology Lab who focused on coral in other Caribbean reefs; Mumby and Harborne noted that “Because the Bahamas was severely disturbed by the 1998 coral bleaching event, and later by hurricane Frances in the summer of 2004, coral cover was low at the beginning of the study, averaging only 7% at reserve and non-reserve sites.” Corals have been around for eons, they have survived periods much hotter than anything experienced today, they have survived massive El Niño events, and as seen in their study area, the corals can be severely damaged by hurricanes. Delicate corals would have never made it – robust corals would win in the world of natural selection.

            In the Caribbean, macroalgae compete vigorously with coral, and macroalgae are controlled to a large extent by herbivorous parrotfishes living within the reef. The parrotfish are more common in reserves than in non-protected areas, and sure enough “The proportional increase in coral cover after 2.5 years was fairly high at reserve sites (mean of 19% per site) and significantly greater than that in non-reserve sites which, on average, exhibited no net recovery.” They conclude “Reducing herbivore exploitation as part of an ecosystem-based management strategy for coral reefs appears to be justified.” An important implication of the research is that the long-term impact of and recovery from coral bleaching events may be largely controlled by herbivore fish – rather than just global warming.

            Finally, we looked at a recent article from the scientific journal entitled Coral Reefs written by ten scientists from French Polynesia, France, Florida, and California. Apparently, doing work on the reefs of Moorea (an island in French Polynesia) attracts a crowd? Adjeroud et al. studied the Tiahura Outer Reef Sector (TORS) in Moorea from 1991-2006 (sign us up for this duty) and they noted that “Coral assemblages in Moorea, French Polynesia, have been impacted by multiple disturbances (one cyclone and four bleaching events between 1991 and 2006).” Their conclusions include the statement “In addition, our results reveal that corals can recover rapidly following a dramatic decline. Such decadal-scale recovery of coral cover has been documented at some locations, but our results are novel in demonstrating rapid recovery against a backdrop of ongoing, high frequency, and large-scale disturbances.” http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/09/13/coral-bleaching/

          • Blank Reg

            “Deniers” fall under religion. In science, we have “skeptics”. But keep using that discredited term. And see how much traction you get.

            “Deniers” are sent to insane asylums or the gulag. “Skeptics’ get Nobel prizes.

      • planet8788

        .01C degree change in 30 years? Yawn.

      • RealOldOne2

        Ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs.
        Ghg ‘backradiation’ can’t even penetrate through the 1/2 mm thick layer of the ocean skin. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444
        Thanks for once again pointing out that AT LEAST 93% of climate warming is caused by natural climate forcing.

      • planet8788

        Where’s the graph from pre-1980… How do we know this isn’t a cycle? and of course… this is a hodge podge of data sources trying to measure .01C of temp. change…

        RIDICULOUS.
        Every one of your arguments is so riddled with holes and you are too stupid to see them.

    • MrBK

      He’s defending the honor of his Lord. I can respect that.

      • Patrick Carroll

        Fleas worship dogs.

        Oh. Sorry. I just got your point.

        • MrBK

          When the full measure of one’s self worth depends on a single belief it becomes terrifying when that belief is challenged.

          • Patrick Carroll

            Oh. My. Dog!

    • Pat Loudoun

      Like a frightened 3 year old.

    • planet8788

      Rather ignorant too.

      • Evan Jones

        So don’t pick on him. Pick on his points. And let him pick on skeptic points. That’s the only way we can get anywhere.

        • planet8788

          He doesn’t make any points. He just engages in name calling with one or two distorted cut and pastes.

          • RPTn

            Exactly!

            He is out here to disrupt, nothing else, and he has presented no insight at all, just noise to prevent a discussion! And he represents the most science adverse blog around:

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • Evan Jones

            So dispute the cut/pastes and ignore any personal remarks. (Well, it works for me.)

          • planet8788

            Took me 10 minutes to find a comment of his with any substance… and then it was laughable.

  • kyleyoder

    Embrace communism and no one will get hurt. End of story.

    • Patrick Carroll

      Heh. Tell it to the Russians.

    • Fromafar

      More likely….everyone will get hurt. Ask Stalin.

  • Patrick Carroll

    Are there any Jews in the audience who object to the theft of “denier” by the climate mafia?

    • Evan Jones

      My hat is off to my noble opponents. It was a public relations coup. Had all the nasty twists required.

      OTOH, my side came up with the term “skeptics” and the alarmists are currently doing their best to usurp that one to describe themselves. This is ironic. Correct on the issue or not, they are not skeptical whatsoever, they are markedly credulous.

      • Patrick Carroll

        That feels sort of free-floating. What’s your point, exactly, and how are you responding to me original question?

        Not trying to be problematic. Simply trying to understand your remark.

        • Evan Jones

          No, I don’t like it.

          But I was raised by an ex-communist (close pal of Earl Browder, head of CPA) and a CUNY college professor. I was immersed in deconstruction and the dialectic from day one.

          So I can admire the craft.

        • Evan Jones

          I will add that I am not one of them. But I am acutely trained in the use of their weaponry. (And they are not entertained when it is turned upon them.)

  • http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/author/kwatson/ megapotamus

    As she says, Dr Curry could not get a govt grant. And guess what? That means any study hazardous to CO2 demonization never gets done. And then where would it be published? Nowhere. That ain’t science. Not even close.

    • Rob Painting

      If so, maybe her proposal was just rubbish? Could be an alternative explanation, and one in keeping with her recent pronouncements on climate.

      • Patrick Carroll

        Well, yes, of course, anything that challenges the current orthodoxy and comfortable sinecures must be rubbish.

        Speaking of which, what are you being paid for your tireless defense of the indefensible?

        If nothing, I name you troll and will ignore you. I mean, except to mock. There’s a “Monty Python” argument sketch that comes to mind.

      • Fred_Z

        “maybe her proposal was just rubbish?”===”maybe Rob Painting is a pederast”===NULL

        • Patrick Carroll

          You know, I was getting a creepy vibe off Rob Painting. I’ll bet himself and “Dingy” Harry Reid hand out together.

      • spunknik

        That sounds like some good solid “science”. A definite “maybe” that her proposal is rubbish.

        • Rob Painting

          Seems more likely than the world conspiring against her – as David Rose likes to believe.

      • texasjimbo

        So one of the most published and respected scientist in the field suddenly submits “rubbish proposals” and that event just incidentally corresponds with her challenging a pet theory of a large group of politically motivated alarmist? Never could happen! Except when it does. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/03/09/203788/richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen_Illusions.htm

        Your response is a pathetically stupid one.

        • Rob Painting

          Respected by who? deniers? That’s not exactly an achievement.

          And as far as peer-reviewed publications are concerned, she hasn’t published anything that remotely challenges the mainstream view that industrial greenhouse emissions are behind the ongoing warming of the planet.

          • RPTn

            And who respects you?

          • texasjimbo

            Her peers. The ones that you deem experts in the field. How much of an achievement it was is manifested in the vile they target her with when she dares to reject their (and your) religious dogmas (which is the best description of the alarmist doctrine).

          • texasjimbo

            First, substantively editing a post without noting it as such is considered bad faith (why am I not surprised one of your ilk does so?). Second, the assertion you added is irrelevant to your prior posts, to my comment, and further, was clearly implied in the article this comment thread follows. Are you one of those people who comments without reading?

          • RPTn

            Same experience I have, this thread was pretty good until he entered, and he is her only to disrupt:

            Rob Painting

            Rob is an environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer. Has researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years. A long-time reader of Skeptical Science and now contributor.

          • Evan Jones

            She used to be respected by alarmists, though, didn’t she?

            And even at that time, skeptics respected her for her honesty and straightforward attitude.

          • Blank Reg

            There are no “deniers”, only “skeptics”. “Denier” is a term used in conjunction with religion. Is AGW a religion to you?

  • BlueScreenOfDeath

    I see even the arch-Warmists at the BBC now acknowledge that CAGW has dropped right down the list of things that the Global population is concerned about.

    COP21: Public support for tough climate deal ‘declines’

    Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

    Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

    In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

    The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

    Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.

    The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34900474

    That’s what happens when the chicken littles keep crying “WOLF!” for around three decades and not a single one of their apocalyptic prognostications has actually occurred – in fact, in many cases they have been diametrically wrong.

    Then they wonder why an ever-decreasing number of people take their hooting and screeching and shouts of “DENIER!” seriously…

    • Patrick Carroll

      Well, sure. The general population has realized that “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever it’s called this week draws towards it with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in the world.

      The general population is also watching actual head-choppers invade Europe, and has very sensibly realigned its concerns.

      (Hat tip to Eric Blair.)

    • Isandhlwana79

      They seriously over sold their bill of goods. That’s for sure.

      • Evan Jones

        They went too far out on the limb and find it is hard getting back. But, having said taht, IPCC AR5 sure walked “extreme weather” ‘way, ‘way back from AR4.

        • azt24

          But the political claims, arguments and demands did not change at all.

          • Evan Jones

            No, they didn’t. And western gummints (esp. USA) seem to swear by AR4 and ignore AR5 entirely. Look at the Roger Pielke Jr. (and Curry) “investigations”.

            (Pielke, Sr., is a co-author of mine.)

    • Rob Painting

      I wouldn’t describe the BBC as warmists. They like to have a bob each way.

      • BlueScreenOfDeath
      • Evan Jones

        They are quite alarmist on the whole. And they get a ton of heat laid on them every time they refer to skeptics (which isn’t particularly often).

      • Fromafar

        If you’re going to be a TROLL, you need to take lessons “Mr. Alinsky”.
        Telling us the BBC aren’t warmistas is like telling us that the sun (ultimate arbiter of our climate), won’t rise tomorrow.

        • RPTn

          its like saying Obama is not a warmest!

          At his own homepage Obama asks for people to report on non-believers!

          Just imagine the headlines we would see if Putin dis this!

      • Patrick Carroll

        You can’t possibly be serious.

        When I want my Trotskyism straight, I go to the BBC.

  • Terenc Blakely

    There is far too much money and power invested in ‘Climate Change’ for any ‘denier’ in a prominent position to emerge unscathed. Warmers range for wild-eyed true believers to those who are in it for the money and power. Cross them at your peril.

    • Patrick Carroll

      Yet they must be crossed.

      If we don’t, we’ll be rattling bones to cure smallpox within a generation.

  • Icarus62

    Observations of global warming are consistent with the projections from IPCC reports 1 – 4. Continued warming at the same rate as we’re seeing now would lead to around 2.5°C of warming by the year 2100.

    https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/dc1caad5c379fb3f519888476c966ac0aed597febaa7a013f4006161/original.jpg

    • Patrick Carroll

      Man! Those data got a good massage.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      Rubbish!

      Stop making stuff up.

    • Nick

      Wow. Almost a straight line. Almost like the variability seen in the last 20 years has been brushed out. It must be embarrassing to be a drone.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      Typical Warmist mendacity.

      Cherry-pick a suitable section of a clearly periodic function, extrapolate it to Armageddon and run round hooting and screeching.

      Utter unscientific rubbish, in other words.

    • Pat_Rich

      Maybe you missed the recent articles on NOAA and NASA manipulation of data? And they are not alone. Anything for the cause…

      • Icarus62

        Processing data to remove errors is normal and valid.

        • Evan Jones

          They make egregious, systematic mistakes regarding homogenization. But that is an error, not fraud.

          One can’t do pairwise between well and poorly sited stations and get an accurate result.

          • Fromafar

            They know that too. As such….its fraudulent.

          • Evan Jones

            I think that goes too far. Confirmation bias sits on my shoulder and whispers in my ear every time I sit down to a spreadsheet. Where to look. When to stop looking. We all have bias. All of us. It is the human condition, and in day-to-day life, a survival mechanism.

            Thing is, I try not to lean into it. I try to stamp it out.

          • Evan Jones

            Oh, no, they don’t know that. They really, truly think they have it right. They do know that bad microsite affects offset, but they think it does not affect trend.

            Even our original research indicated that Tmean trend was unaffected. It was quite a shock (a good one) when I converted our original study based on Leroy (1999) metrics to Leroy (2010).

            I well remember when I first ran the preliminary incomplete trends. I quite literally fell out of my chair when I saw the results. When I told Anthony, he was quite cautious and skeptical — too good to be true. When the results held up, we were amazed (not to say euphoric).

            Even then, when we got the results together and pre-released (in 2012), in order to get hostile independent review, there were valid criticisms (involving moves, TOBS, and equipment conversion). The conclusions thereform were incorrect, but the criticisms we valid.

            Note while it is true that they did not invalidate our hypothesis — as boldly asserted — they did affect our findings somewhat. And accounting for them made our findings far more robust and will have made our upcoming peer review far, far easier.

            Ever since, we have been refining our methods, now greatly improved, pushing as hard as we could against our hypothesis, using new methods I devised that most challenged the hypothesis. It’s been a very long, very hard mudslog. (Good method and disclosure served us very well in this regard, NOAA, take note.)

          • JPZodeaux

            There are scientists who are willingly stepping outside of science and taking on the role of activist. Stephen Schneider called this a “double ethical bind”, but Schneider was flattering himself. The activist/scientist cannot be both at the same time, and there is no “ethical bind”. When using press releases scientist can take great pains to emphasize the uncertainties or they can do what is happening all too often today, and let the media run with sloppy journalism.

          • Evan Jones

            I take the opposite approach. I take the liberal arts straight into science. First thing I did when I was invited into the Fall et al. team was review scientific method.

            More scientists should do that, I think.

          • Evan Jones

            The activist/scientist cannot be both at the same time, and there is no “ethical bind”.

            Agreed. (I find full and complete openness to be an adequate tool for public communication.)

          • truewest

            It is a fraud. First NOAA et al claimed the 18 years period of no temperature change was because the “hidden heat” was in the oceans and came up with corrupt manipulated ocean temperature data. Then they said “oh wait, our global temperature data needs adjusting, and surprise global warming was taking place for the last 18 years”. Except the one set of data they do not use in the satellite data.

          • Evan Jones

            They do have a tendency to go in the wrong direction. For example, they swear by the old CRS boxes and adjust the MMTS trends to conform (not just the jumps).

            The problem arises that it is not the MMTS trends which are too low, but the CRS trends which are too high (especially Tmax). Those old boxes carry their own Heat Sink Effect around with them on their shoulders.

            So instead of adjusting CRS trends down, they put the MMTS trends up. And I think it is an honest mistake.

        • planet8788
        • texasjimbo

          The alarmists have repeatedly been caught lying about, hiding or falsifying their “processing.” They “process” over 90% of their data and over 90% of that “processing” is in an upward direction. The non euphemistic term for that is fraud.

          • Evan Jones

            Actually, I don’t think I ever recall seeing an adjusted datapoint that ever once matched a raw datapoint. (And I have been dealing with ~a million and a half of them.)

          • texasjimbo

            Yea, my suspicion is that 99.9% are adjusted; I was being conservative just to cover my rear. It seems pretty suspicious that the direction is always upward; I’d think that there are plenty of reasons for downward adjustments.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Too bad you were just doing it all in your spare time….just all these comments..
            Willard Rat pak duty calls lol

          • Rob Painting

            Bingo! Conspiracizing. No.7.

          • RealOldOne2

            Bingo! Conspiracy ideation delusion #7.
            Coming from the global warming zealot who denies the peer reviewed empirical science that shows the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate forcing, NOT anthropogenic forcing, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 .

        • Pat_Rich

          Nice non-particular , but you obviously choose to remain ignorant regarding WHAT changes were made, and that they (surprisingly!) support a particular narrative.

        • Tim McDonald

          Not when your idea of removing errors is changing enough of the numbers to support your narrative.

        • Patrick Carroll

          For values of “error” that constitute “disagreement with the party line?”

      • Rob Painting

        Bingo! Conspiracizing. No.6 since I started counting.

    • Evan Kuchera

      How can the anomaly from 1961 to 1990 be positive when compared to the 1961 to 1990 period? Doesn’t that part of the graph have to be net zero?

    • planet8788

      You would have to update this chart every week because NOAA keeps changing history. Which 1965 or 1970 data are you starting with.

      • Rob Painting

        Bingo! Conspiracizing!

        • RealOldOne2

          Bingo! Conspiracy ideation delusion!

        • planet8788

          No conspiracy. Proven Fact.
          Have you looked at Hansen, et. al 1981 yet? No. Why not you lazy beech.

    • Evan Kuchera

      Here is the actual image from the IPCC, which shows their reported observed trend of 1C/century warming, not 2.5C/century

      • Icarus62

        Someone pointed out that the baselines differ by 10 years, which amounts to about 0.1°C difference in the anomalies, so here I have re-plotted the original image overlaid with the NASA GISTEMP trendline projected to 2035. It does lead to over 2°C of warming by 2100, relative to pre-industrial temperature.

      • falstaff77

        Yes, thanks for posting unmodified graphics. Now if only *that* trend would catch on.

  • Patrick Carroll

    Just as there was not enough thrust in Christendom to make the F-111 a fighter, there is not enough evidence in Christendom to challenge “climate change” fanatics.

  • Patrick Carroll

    Gotta go walk the dog. Back after I’ve done that, and picked up a little something or other from the local off-license.

  • planet8788

    http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-25-08-08-363.png
    Manufacturing the hockey stick…

    Of course this is only a fraction of the adjustments made. Read Hansen, et. al. 1981 to see how 1940 was hotter back then..

  • Midas Mulligan

    Being in the same “tribe” as Michael Mann is not where a sane person wants to be.

  • FrancisChalk

    Just a reminder: Michael Mann is a lying POS and very likely a close friend of Jerry Sandusky.

    • RPTn

      No, I do not think he is lying.
      I think he believe in what he is doing!

      • FrancisChalk

        Huh? He absolutely lies about the facts. The Hockey Stick graph was a 100% lie, pure and simple.

        • RPTn

          But, to make myself clear: Within his perception of reality he is not lying, he believes he is right. Which is scary!

        • Evan Jones

          Just wretchedly bad PCA and an absurd weighting algorithm, I think. (Scientists joke to this day about “Mannian PCA”.)

      • JPZodeaux

        When Michael Mann presented himself as a recipient of the Nobel prize, and did so several times, he knew he was lying. It’s not as if he argues the point with the Nobel committee.

      • Patrick Carroll

        Actually, he believes in the money and prestige he gets from what he’s doing.

      • Dave M.

        No, he’s lying. Read the book, “A Disgrace to His Profession” by Mark Steyn.

      • Evan Jones

        I believe he believes the stuff he believes.

        • Michael Evan Jones

          You are point blank…lukewarmism is just a belief

      • Eric Vosburgh

        I agree he believes in his work and his work is bad. He released his data, model code and results in a scientific American article which I downloaded and ran my own analysis on. In 35 minutes I had a better match to the historic data and an equally useless forward project. What I got for my trouble was being banned from the sa bulletin board for my trouble and daring to counter mr. Mann.

        Belief in ones work and that work being correct are two completely different things.

  • truewest

    Stop repeating the 97% of scientists agree humans are causing warming. It is a lie, proven so by numerous people who have bothered to look at the phony survey. Nevertheless the MSM still slide this in as an argument for AGW. One source among many for the so-called “journalists” at The Spectator.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

    Can you not be bothered to find out where this lie originates?

    • Evan Jones

      Not so much of a lie as a false dichotomy. (And, yes, I know the methodology was out to lunch.)

      But every skeptic scientist I know is part of that 97%. Lindzen, Pielke (Sr. & Jr.), Christy, Spencer, Curry, Lewis, Nielsen-Gammon, all of them are part of it. Skeptics, lukewarmers, all.

      All Oreskes says, essentially, is that it has warmed, CO2 is a GHG, and man has contributed. Nothing more. The other (Cook) says only that half or more of warming is anthropogenic. Nothing more. No hint as to how much warming. I am a member of the 97% club, myself.

      97% do not claim there is an emergency. Not according to those surveys.

      So the next time you hear that infamous number bandied about, ask 97% say 97% of who says what, exactly.

      • Rob Painting

        You seem to be channeling Richard Tol, who thinks paper abstracts can change their opinion, and then came up with a cockamamie rating error estimation method to conjure up 300 rejection papers from thin air. Even with the imaginary 300 rejection papers, this only reduced the consensus to 91% (IIRC).

        But regardless, the scientists who wrote and rated their own papers gave a consensus of 97.2% – slightly higher than our ratings method which yielded 97.1%. And similarly high levels of consensus were also found in Oreskes (2004), Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al (2010), Stenhouse et al (2014) and Carlton et al (2015).

        This no real surprise, the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature accepts the enhanced Greenhouse Effect. Which is, of course, why the planet continues to warm.

        • Patrick Carroll

          Since your mouth seems to be channeling most of the sewage out of London, it seems fair to ask: Do you kiss your mother with those lips?

          • Rob Painting

            What’s the matter? Exhausted your shallow well of denier tropes?

          • Patrick Carroll

            It’s late. I must go to sleep so I can make it to mass, tomorrow.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, he makes a perfectly reasonable point. (One that gets a perfectly reasonable response.)

          • Patrick Carroll

            Given the totality of his commentary, he actually deserves nothing but mockery.

          • Evan Jones

            What he will get from me, however, is a serious, considered response, as required by scientific demeanor.

        • Evan Jones

          Dr. Tol was an IPCC AR5 section chief (not merely a lead author) who had his name removed from the report because of how bad it was (esp. WG3).

          As you know, Dr. Curry crossed the line as well. Even the dreaded Anthony Watts started out as a strong alarmist (and community organizer).

          There have been a number of such “climate refugees” of late, and they are almost all headed toward these here lukewarming parts (i.e., the real world of real data, even the upwardly adjusted flavor).

          This no real surprise, the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature accepts the enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

          Well, so do I. For the reasons given. I even say the “pause” is, in a sense, “false”, seeing as how we are in a cooling phase and recent trends are merely flat, not cooling (the difference being the warming forcing).

          However, the question here is, as Dr. Curry suggests, not one of how, but of how much.

          • Rob Painting

            I’m told he wanted to insert some of his dubious work into the reports, and threw a tanty when he couldn’t get his way. Something to do with his work on IAMs.

            “However, the question here is, as Dr. Curry suggests, not one of how, but of how much”

            That’s a question of academic value really. What’s important are impacts, especially to natural ecosystems. How much warming and ocean acidification (in tandem with other human-caused harm) can they tolerate? In the case of coral reefs it’s looking rather grim.

          • Evan Jones

            I’m told he wanted to insert some of his dubious work into the reports, and threw a tanty when he couldn’t get his way.

            Well, he was section chief. #B^) As was Dr. Christy (a co-author of mine), for IPCC TAR, who also had a parting of the ways. Says something when they blow off section chiefs who part a little from the fold, I think.

          • Rob Painting

            More likely reflects the poor quality of the work he was trying to introduce – check out his papers on IAMs. His choice to throw his toys out of the cot and no longer be involved.

          • Evan Jones

            Everyone who disagrees with the IPCC (and speaks out) seems to suffer that fate. Thing is, the IPCC does not appear to add up. He wants to know how warming caused all of our recent current world problems when there hasn’t even been any atmospheric warming for over 15 years. So do I, for that matter.

          • Evan Jones

            Really? IPCC AR5 has sure come around to his way of thinking.

          • Evan Jones

            That’s a question of academic value really. What’s important are
            impacts, especially to natural ecosystems. How much warming and ocean
            acidification (in tandem with other human-caused harm) can they
            tolerate? In the case of coral reefs it’s looking rather grim.

            Well, yes, it is. As for land surfaces, what we see is the Great Greening and milder winters (most AGW manifests itself during winter months, esp in the Arctic where all of it is during winter.) huge benefits for both man and nature — so far. Even AR5 suggested “net benefit” until ~2060, and that was using their highballed model projections.

            As for the oceans, CO2 has some effect, but it pales before what else we are doing to the oceans (however, recent studies have ramped back the coral issue considerably).

            Mankind has made large sections of the the coastline of two subcontinents into sewage pits. I think we have our priorities a little skewed, here. If we want to help out the oceans, gets get rid of those godawful “grab” nets and clean up the dumping act out east. (Best way to do that being industrial development and affluence, which is wedded at the hip to a temporary increase in FF use.)

          • Fen

            Its so fun to read someone who hasn’t kept up with the science and just repeats tired old talking points from liberal rags. And to display so much ignorance with such audacity! Thanks for the entertainment Rob.

            And know that in 5 years you’ll be pretending you never fell for it.

          • Rob Painting

            Keep telling yourself it isn’t warming if it gives you comfort. But the Earth definitely disagrees. This is ocean heat content (93% of global warming) up to September 2015.

            I don’t hide behind a pseudonym like you. In the future you can easily deny you ever doubted the overwhelming majority of climate scientists as the Earth continues to warm.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bee96694ee13d40099ad9375e5f1a3f9c40c52bd51f1a8b5e26de21e6dfaa127.png

          • Evan Jones

            Thing is, all that change has resulted in very little SST warming (~0.25C/century). If correct, the data suggests earth has one heck of a good thermostat.

          • RealOldOne2

            “This is ocean heat content (93% of global warming)”
            Ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, NOT ghgs ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ) , so thanks for agreeing that global warming is caused by natural climate forcing, NOT anthropogenic forcing.

          • Fen

            LOL. You are using data from NOAA, completely unaware that they were recently busted for altering past historical temperature data to make the present look warming in comparison. You obviously haven’t kept up with the issue, as you are still using stale and debunked talking points.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/

          • Fen

            LOL. You are using NOAA as a source, completely unaware that they were recently busted for altering historical temperature data to make the present look warmer in comparison. You haven’t keep up with the science, you are still parroting stale and debunked talking points.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/noaancei-temperature-anomaly-adjustments-since-2010-pray-they-dont-alter-it-any-further/

          • Rob Painting

            You are conspiracizing and just linked to a spoof science site. ROFL.

          • Fen

            NOAA’s alterations of the historical data are presented in the paper. You can see if for yourself. Who’s is the “denier” now? LOL.

          • Rob Painting

            The reasons for the adjustments are clearly explained in Karl et (2015). You’re still conspiracizing.

          • planet8788

            So please list the reason for every revision in 1880 data in Alberta, CA.
            There is nothing transparent about the adjustments. If they were, you could explain them right here.
            The real reason is… The Paris conference is approaching and we need to torture the data some more.

          • Rob Painting

            ……doubling down on conspiracy.

          • planet8788

            So there is no list of revisions… There is no control… There is no transparency… Glad we agree.

          • falstaff77

            Since impact is dependent entirely on “how much”, how much is the only relevant question at this point. Throwing around terms like “catastrophic” without some idea of how much is meaningless, not to mention completely disconnected from the low-to-heavy emissions scenarios that permeate every single temperature graphic appearing in the SPM of AR5.

      • Michael Evan Jones

        You are just doing the Evan spin and twist troll song

      • truewest

        The survey was a fake, that is a fact. And by the way over 50% of US meteorologists do not support the AGW theory.

        • Evan Jones

          My understanding is that it’s about half.

          OTOH, some folks have actively advocated to firing, even decertification of any meteorologist who demurs. And some have been. Even at least one state climatologist has been removed for that reason.

          • Evvie Jones

            LOL…where did you get that “understanding” from, I wonder?
            From your Master, no doubt
            Broadcast meteorologists increasingly convinced manmade climate change is happening
            TV weathercasters are more convinced than ever climate change is happening and that human activities are a major contributor suggest the results of a new report.

            More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial FFiAnalysis

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/14/study-broadcast-meteorologists-increasingly-convinced-manmade-climate-change-is-happening/

            survey results show a large majority (over 75 percent) of broadcast meteorologists now believer climate change will affect the weather in their regions over the next 50 years, from increasing heat waves to hurricanes.

            See Willard’s own TV personalities as against him

          • Evvie Jones

            Sure it is Evan, half where? Certainly not in the Arctic regions.

          • Evan Jones

            Must be a lot more up there. All that soot is a big bump.

          • Evvie Jones

            Just LOVELY! Typical Evan Jones…see you IGNORED the peer reviewed paper I just asked you to read and you grabbed the only you could …. The soot you like to use all the time is for the ice melting not the sharp increase in temperature increase…oh my not watt are you lukewarmers going to find to twist and spin? Let me quests the hot air coming fronm you all blowing up there.

  • Ghana

    The truth is the unfaithful are already dead; and you can ask the American Indians I grew up with, it’s ecological pollution that is going to wipe out everything and not climate change. Is it man made? Yes, in conspiracy with an interloper. Was it you or I pouring industrial waste into the Cuyahoga River in Ohio in 1969 and setting it on fire? No. It was giant, monolithic corporations owned by the same people paying you to blame me and every other air breathing, CO2 dispensing life form on the planet for climate change. Is the now ruined Animas River in Southern Colorado from mining activities human caused? Yes. Was it you and I who mined that area for the past 150 to 200 years? No. Did the CO. State Environmental Dept. and EPA; created out of the Cuyahoga slick disaster, know the situation? Yes. Anything done by the monolithic corporate monsters who designed the EPA and its appointments prior to the accident (what a joke of nomenclature)? No. Again, large mining corps who’s stock, again, can be traced to certain parties of individuals on a globalist scale are responsible. Did you or I build or own the Fukushima Diaiichi plant; built in a typhoon and seismic prone area? No. It again was the small number of wealthy stock holders in collusion with elected and appointed government minions and high degree holding scientists/religionists looking for personal funding of their lifestyles through gooberment and private sector grants and investments. Did you or I decide to bury the nuclear waste in St. Louis, MO. from WWII efforts and the “nukular” arms race? No. Do I need to continue the trend here? I do want to know how much your grant or payoola is from GE, Martin Marietta, DARPA, Rand, Boeing, Chevron, BP, CNL, CNECC, NOAA, NASA, Rob?

    Do you remember Iron Eyes Cody? My Original American friends and I do, but we won’t remember you. If temperatures rise it will be from the depletion of atmosphere not increases. However, my King, Yeshua already promised deliverance; The Seventh Trumpet
    Rev. 11: 17,
    “We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were,
    because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. 18″And
    the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, and the time came for
    the dead to be judged, and the time to reward Your bond-servants the
    prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, the small and the
    great, and to destroy those who pollute the earth.”

    • Patrick Carroll

      Your CAPS lock was off. Hence, these eternal truths lost a bit in the typing.

    • Jean Robertson

      the water systems of Canada are cleaner now than they were in the 1970’s. As much as big corporations are hated, you might want to look at how “green” the “dirty” oil sands at Ft. McMurray are. As for your Indian brothers, you might want to look at the sites that show the archeological digs of mounds which house the red headed giants, or the “eureopean” blondes, all those thought to be exctinct due to the invading Asians … Just a thought, some entertainment for you. And who is willing to bell the EU, UN, NATO, IMF., cat.? the real elite.

    • Michael Hiteshew

      The Cuyahoga is hardly the only river or place in the world to experience an industrial waste fire. And lots of places burned before industry. While not perfect, the entire river valley has been cleaned up quite a bit.

      http://www.nps.gov/cuva/learn/kidsyouth/the-cuyahoga-river.htm
      And much of that industry has allowed people to live happier healthier lives, and we’re learning to work and produce more cleanly.

      As for nuclear power, how many people are alive or healthy because of all the coal or oil that was NOT burned to produce electricity, electricity that was produced by nuclear power instead? The USA produces about 20%, France produces around 75% from nuclear power. How much pollution was not produced?

      http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/nuclear-power-may-have-saved-1-8-million-lives-otherwise-lost-to-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

    • Dave M.

      Blasphemer! Liar! Sorry, but “those who pollute” is not in Revelation 11:17. Liar! Blasphemer!

    • Rob Painting

      You’re self-projecting.

      • Patrick Carroll

        Given that you have both male and female parts (well, according to Wikipedia) (allegedly), that self-projecting thing is more what I’d expect from you.

        • Rob Painting

          Hard to see that comment winning observers over to your side of anti-science.

    • Evan Jones

      you can ask the American Indians I grew up with,

      Oh, you mean my people? The ones that set thousands of square miles on fire each year, the ones who set forest fires to drive entire herds of buffalo over cliffs so they could get just one? The most profound tragedy to befall a nice piece of bucolic landscape was when my ancestors decided to camp on it for awhile. When they moved on, what remained resembled the Blasted Plain. (And when they didn’t move on, it was worse; they created entire deserts.)

  • truewest

    Prince Charles is the epitome of the Monty Python upper class twit. Academically weak, opinionated about health and science, neither of which he has any academic knowledge of, and full of himself as the King in waiting.
    A silly little man whose conduct with women tells you all you need to know about this narcissist. His “I’d love to be a tampon” call to Camilla one example. Good grief the man is pathetic.

    • Jean Robertson

      yes, tamponallino, as they called him in Italy. He has been a hoot. (sad for the immediate family that he wrought)

    • Patrick Carroll

      What’s the chinless wonder got to do with all this?

    • DennisHorne

      Still better to breed a king than elect a Baby Bush. Illegal unnecessary wars, fcuked up the Middle East, hastened the demise of Western Civilisation.

      • Patrick Carroll

        You may want to use a toilet: your excrement is leaking out your fingers.

        • DennisHorne

          Wash your mouth out with soap! Wipe it with paper first…

          • Patrick Carroll

            You are not worthy,

          • DennisHorne

            Get your caregiver to change your nappies; you’re an ignoranus.

          • Patrick Carroll

            Well, truth be told, based on your original statement, there’s a better argument to be made for you as the ignoramus. You obviously know nothing of the many catastrophes The Won and Hillary! have foisted upon the world in the last seven years. Of course, you may simply be a hyper-partisan who’s willfully ignorant. Either way, you’re simply admitting to being an ignoramus, right?

            Me, I’m just poking you with a sharp stick and enjoying your discomfort.

            It’s the Irish in me. We’re vicious when we see weakness, stupidity, or ignorance. It comes from 800 years of surviving the Brits. Who we now love. For saving our banks. But that’s another story. Let’s make this all about you. Because, you know, ignoramus, sharp stick, etc.

          • DennisHorne

            Discomfort? If you had any wits you’d be a half-wit. Dyslexic too. IgnorANUS.

          • Patrick Carroll

            Gotcha!

          • DennisHorne

            Irish?

      • Ben Franklin

        Bush had approval for all of his wars and support from large coalitions. Obama has warred in several countries and never gotten permission from Congress, much less arranged for our allies to help. Iraq was the sole functioning Arab democracy and was pacified when Bush left office, but Obama gave it back to our enemies solely because of the whinging of your lot. Obama more or less midwifed ISIS with his fecklessness in Iraq and his backing of the Syrian rebels, he backed the Muslin Brotherhood in Egypt, he made sure the mullahs will have their atomic bomb in Iran — even going so far as to remove all sanctions without even requiring them to sign anything — and he overthrew the Libyan government which has made it a stronghold for terrorists.

        None of these actions had anything to do with Bush. People normally just roll their eyes when they see posts like yours, but it is important to set the record straight so that the idiocy doesn’t spread. Your obsession with Bush is nothing short of pathological to the point where you drag it into comment sections where it has no place.

        As far as getting back on the subject of the climate goes, I would say that you can safely ignore the predictions of any scientist who tells you they know what the climate will do over any given length of time. They have no record of being able to make such predictions and the data they have to work with does not go back far enough with any resolution to even be remotely helpful. For them to lobby for a particular policy one way or the other is nothing short of malpractice and should remove them from being considered scientists.

        • Patrick Carroll

          Please forgive this, but YOU FOOL!!!!!

          You can’t engage a pedophile (allegedly, on Wikipedia) troll with facts. You must mock him, her, or it.

        • DennisHorne

          Bush, under instructions from psychopaths, invaded Iraq; the only man who could govern the place was hanged.

  • Patrick Carroll

    Here’s the deal: I’ll take “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever seriously when I see those shrieking about it taking it seriously. For example, using video conference equipment rather than jetting in from all over the world to exotic destinations like Paris, for a big time.

    Until I see my betters accepting a bit of pain because of their beliefs, I’m going to take the whole thing as a gigantic scam, designed to rip me off and limit my freedoms.

  • Gweilo66

    “There’s no way I would have done this if I hadn’t been a tenured
    professor, fairly near the end of my career. If I were seeking a new job
    in the US academy, I’d be pretty much unemployable. I can still publish
    in the peer-reviewed journals. But there’s no way I could get a
    government research grant ..”

    This is the bit that’s almost impossible to get through to lefties…that it’s not just the private sector that has financial incentives. In her case, tenure protected her. But those seeking tenure will have to adhere to the party line to make it.

    Reminds me of a casual gathering among botany grad students years ago. Walking by, I overheard one of them saying the best way to keep your lab funded is to tie your research to global warming. Yeah..it was back when that was the phrase.

  • Greg Burton

    Saint Al of the Gore: you WILL pay a carbon (icicle) tax for global warming (cooling), based on phoney-baloney climate science, to my completely tax-free, off-shore multinational corporation, or else “al Qaeda” (ISIS) will come to your house to bring you “democracy”.

    • Patrick Carroll

      Well, you do have to give Algore one thing: he had an eye for the main chance, and he made bank on it.

      Disgrace of a human being, of course, and a Democrat – I repeat myself – but these are decadent times.

      • Evan Jones

        I don’t object to his putting his money where his mouth is. I object to the fact that he refuses to debate, even in writing. That is a scientific sin.

        • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

          Galore is an exploiter. What would be in it for him to debate?

          • Evan Jones

            Either embarrassment or epiphany, I suppose. (I doubt he particularly desires either.)

          • Evan Jones

            Risk. And he’d like to avoid that. But it’s unavoidable in science if you want to be taken seriously.

        • azt24

          Al Gore is no scientist and he is frankly rather dumb to boot. Refusing to debate shows a healthy awareness of his own limitations.

          • Evan Jones

            Al Gore is no scientist

            How can I hold that against him? Neither am I. I just do it (on a peer-review level).

            Refusing to debate shows a healthy awareness of his own limitations.

            There is that.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Not peer reviewed. Published is still on hold.
            Don’t count your trolls before its over.

      • ACLUmember

        Al Gore believes in Man Made Global Warmism so much, he just bought a magnificent ocean front mansion in California.

    • Rob Painting

      Bullshit. If you’re so sure, try to publish that gibberish in the scientific literature. The reviewers would laugh their socks off.

      • Eric Vosburgh

        And it seems that you missed the point of this article. This is not about science … It is about power and the ability to take it. I could write 10’s of articles and not a one would get published and not because they are invalid but because the peer reviewers would reject them because they do not conform to the dogma.

        • Rob Painting

          Is that why Judith Curry supports a witch hunt against NOAA?

          • Patrick Carroll

            Seems to me the ad hominem comes when the battle’s lost.

            By the way, Rob, are you still molesting male babies?

          • Rob Painting

            Not every engages in your hobby Patrick. You’re self-projecting again.

          • Patrick Carroll

            That was pretty weak, Rob.

            Your heart’s really not in it, is it. You just need the attention, as you try to pull your life back together in your mother’s basement apartment.

          • Rob Painting

            It got what it deserved. Anything to distract yourself from the continued warming of the planet I guess.

          • Patrick Carroll

            Your faith is a wonder to behold.

            Come to Jesus.

          • Rob Painting

            Not faith, facts. The science wins hands down against denier ideology. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/389702f73f45c77dfe9489fcd3a22ce2de2c2ab23bd4885befab814a2f5415f5.png

          • Patrick Carroll

            You don’t get it, do you?

            The climate mafia has been shown to mung the data and write the model code to get the outcome it wants. When asked to present, it refuses to be held to account. Meanwhile, the priesthood is jetting around the world to exotic destinations to have a big time. And the real bottom line is that petty fascists want to tax me and limit my freedoms so the gravy train can continue.

            Throw a graph at me? Why bother, I don’t accept its premises.

            I know a con, and I know gyp artists. Enough. Be gone.

          • Rob Painting

            Yeah I get it, you’re a conspiracist. Credibility=0.

          • planet8788

            You have no credibibility… you can’t read a graph.

          • M Saurette

            Wow, 35 years of agenda-driven, urban-heat-island affected data and we’re ready to end civilization as we know it.

            Please don’t respond, I have zero interest in exchanging ad hominems.

          • Rob Painting

            Too late, you responded!

            Tell me Mr internet climate scientist, how many cities are there in the lower troposphere?

          • planet8788

            RSS peaked in 1998, now it’s on the way down… You can’t read a graph?

          • Icarus62

            “There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans. Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable”

            – World Meteorological Organisation.

          • falstaff77

            Science by press release or science by peer reviewed publication?

            Excerpts from AR5 WG1, bold font my addition:
            “…with several
            periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since
            1998            ) (Figure TS.1).”

            Box TS.3 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

            … the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST
            trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce
            it.

            …Fifteen-year-long hiatus periods are common in both the observed and CMIP5 historical GMST time series. However, an analysis of the
            full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations) reveals that 111 out of 114
            realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble

            … Although the forcing uncertainties are substantial, there are no apparent incorrect or missing global mean forcings
            in the CMIP5 models over the last 15 years that could explain the model–observations difference during the warming hiatus. {9.4.6}

            … This downward scaling
            is, however, not sufficient to explain the model mean overestimate of GMST trend over the hiatus period.

            …In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend
            during 1951–2012,

            …Almost all CMIP5 historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus. “

          • RealOldOne2

            “The warming of our oceans has accelerated”
            Ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs.
            It’s nice that the WMO agrees that the primary cause of global warming is natural climate forcing, not anthropogenic ghgs.

          • Icarus62

            Warming in all parts of the climate system is in line with predictions based on anthropogenic plus natural forcings, and completely inconsistent with that expected from natural climate forcings alone:

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1388/5376/original.jpg?w=800&h

            That includes the oceans, of course.

            A warming signal has penetrated into the world’s oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences.

            Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World’s Oceans
            Barnett et al
            Science 8 July 2005:
            Vol. 309 no. 5732 pp. 284-287
            DOI: 10.1126/science.1112418

          • RealOldOne2

            Sorry, but those first graphs are IPCC rubbish from flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models. Those are the same models that vonStorch(2013) said were not consistent with observations at even a 2% confidence level.
            And those were hindcasts not predictions. And the models can NOT accurately project natural climate variability because the modelers do NOT understand the natural factors that cause natural climate change. “There is still an incomplete physical understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change.” – IPCC, AR4, WG1, TS, p.21. No model skill demonstrated there.

            And the Barnett paper is fatally flawed in numerous ways.
            1) Barnett(2005) was climate model based. The models don’t do clouds well, and over exaggerate the effects of ghgs so no surprise that the models wrongly concluded that the missing ghg heat went into the oceans.

            2) Barnett(2005) claims that the warming signal in the world’s oceans “varies widely by ocean”. CO2 is a “well mixed” ghg and it’s concentration does NOT vary widely by ocean. But the amount of solar radiation reaching the ocean surface can vary widely by ocean because of differing amounts of clouds, so that is a much more plausible hypothesis.

            3) Barnett(2005) falsely claims “Here we investigate the warming since 1960 on an ocean-by-ocean basis and focus on how the signal penetrates down into the ocean“. They are NOT investigating any physics/mechanism of how ghg forcing “penetrates down into the ocean”. They are merely analyzing temperature data vs depth, and assuming the temperature changes were caused by ghgs AND they assumed that it was human-induced.
            Ghgs cannot cause any warming to “penetrate down into the ocean”. Physics and thermodynamics prohibits it.
            The 15μm wavelength of CO2 ‘backradiation’ only penetrates ~3μm deep into the ocean. This interface layer is only ~1% of the 0.5mm skin layer ( http://bit.ly/133RtMo ).
            The layers just below this interface layer are always warmer than the interface layer ( http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig2.jpg ), thus heat can NOT be transferred “down into the oceans”. That would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What also violates the 2nd Law is that the ghgs in the atmosphere are colder that the ocean surface (on a global average basis), so they can’t transfer any heat even to the surface of the ocean on a global basis. This is more fully explained here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444

            4) Barnet(2005) rules out natural climate variability by using climate models, NOT by analysis of any empirical data. The models are incapable of accurately modeling natural climate variables, because as the IPCC admitted, they have an incomplete understanding of many components of the climate system and their role in climate change, and the IPCC admits that they have a “Low” or “Very Low” Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) of 13 of the 16 radiative forcings they consider ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html
            ).

            Barnett(2005) is an example of how proper science has been corrupted by the global warming cult religion. The model-predicted warming hadn’t been happening for several years (1998-2004) so rather than revise the CO2 hypothesis, they went searching for the “missing heat”, and this flawed model-based paper falsely claimed to find that it had “penetrated down into the oceans”, rather than heating the atmosphere” as predicted. What is telling is that their “it’s simple physics” hadn’t previously predicted that the ghg heat would “penetrate down into the oceans”. It was only after the predicted global warming went “missing” that this model based rubbish that violates true physics was proffered.

            So one again you FAIL icky.

          • Latimer Alder

            Funny. All those ‘models’ don’t seem to have any predictive capability. They are all hindcasts.

            Hey guys. With my wonderful new tool called the ‘Internet’ I can hindcast the result of all this season’s UK football matches right up until yesterday!

            Impressed? Going to send money?

            No? Shame….

          • planet8788

            As measured by .02C change in .0000006% of the ocean mass.
            Why is it warming from the bottom… Shouldn’t it be warming from the top?

          • Latimer Alder

            How much (degrees C) have the oceans warmed? How is the heat distributed by depth?

            Why should we care?

          • Evan Jones

            One should not begin any series from 1998 through 2000 if one is assessing the pause. Any point in that interval is very probably a cherrypick (in either direction. You need to start in 1997 or 2001, and include both the 1998 el Nino and the 1999 – 2000 la Nina, or exclude both.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Toss you in the garbage bin of trolls

          • planet8788
          • Evan Jones

            Being a scientist, she would like the data, methods, code, manuals, etc., that would allow full replication of the Karl (2015), a/k/a “pausebuster” paper. So she supports the data hunt.

            One might ask why The Karl et al. team would even want to withhold anything. When I do work, I want to get it all out there, including the stuff that challenges our team’s hypotheses.

            I have no objection to letting anyone who wants peek at my correspondence regarding our paper. I even released my email password for that purpose. (This turned out to be a mistake as my account was almost instantaneously hacked.)

            As for Congress, they are NOAA’s boss, specifically tasked with oversight authority. NOAA is a publicly funded government agency. So NOAA’s obligation to release any and all information is absolute, like it or lump it. NOAA has been quite cavalier about all this and it doesn’t speak well for their position.

            Even in the private sector, your boss owns your company emails. And in the public sector, congress owns your underpants.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Being what you are Evan, a wannabe climate scientist that believes in a doctrine of lukewarmism won’t get you there

          • Evan Jones

            The trick is be what you wanna be.

            Cry, if you want to cry
            If it helps you see
            If it clears your eyes

            Hate, if you want to hate
            If it keeps you safe
            If it makes you brave

            Pray, if you want to pray
            If you like to kneel
            If you like to lay

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You just fake it…

          • Evan Jones

            Then I’ll just endeavor to be content with where it does get me.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You are, after all, the high priest of “lukewarmism”. In RS Stone you wrote your goal was to “promote” lukewarmism…and you have not deviated from that path.

          • Eric Vosburgh

            Awesome that my comment was deleted …

            So, witch hunt is it? I guess I had better each my step when I ask to review the work of the scientists that I manage. They also perform time series analysis and apply the same principals that are being perverted in the name of the greater good by the climate modeling people.

            As far as NOAA his: if they do not turn their data, methods and results over for review (which was performed with public funds) then they are guilty until proven innocent because they must have something to hide.

        • Evan Jones

          That is changing rapidly, largely because of the reforms resulting directly from climategate. The journals are actually starting to live up to their requirements that data and methods be open and available to anyone.

          Not to mention putting the kibosh on the peer-review shenanigans. But that one was a loser anyway: You can fiddle peer review all you like — but you can’t fiddle independent review. So all that peer-review nonsense was just resulting in papers falling flat within a month of release. And the internet is forum-king of independent review, these days — and should be.

          That is why the lukes are kicking butt and taking names in the journals over the last five years on the issue of future warming.

          • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

            If temps start falling as some predict even the lukes will get trashed.

          • Evan Jones

            Oh, we are a flexible lot. If solar intrudes, then we include it in. If it gets cooler without that (and taking into account we are in a naturally cooling phase now), then we will change our minds.

            We will also change our minds if the sensors all of a sudden rear up on their hind legs and make a mad dash for 3C by 2100 (provided always we get to vet the data).

          • planet8788
          • Evan Jones

            I know it.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sorry your troll opinion doesn’t hold on the real world

          • azt24

            Is all that ‘kicking butt and taking names’ going to add up to so much as a single mention for the ‘lukewarming’ thesis in Paris? Color me skeptical.

            A generation of climatologists has staked their careers on the AGW crisis. You’re going to have to wait for them to die off before you discredit the dogma.

          • Evan Jones

            Is all that ‘kicking butt and taking names’ going to add up to so much as a single mention for the ‘lukewarming’ thesis in Paris?

            It will be studiously ignored (shouted down if adduced). But from what I have seen so far, the Paris conference will be a science-free zone.

          • Icarus62

            The science has been done in the scientific literature. The whole point of the conference is to work on solutions.

          • Evan Jones

            The problem arises that their solutions involve dustbinning the last five years’ worth of peer-reviewed papers on Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS), i.e., how much warming we may expect.

            They are simply parroting the high-end projections of IPCC AR5, something even AR5 cautions about.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            The scientists have gave us their findings, troll like Evan have a mission to ignore it

          • Icarus62

            I’ve already pointed out that one of the papers you’re relying on to support a claim of low climate sensitivity actually puts the value at 3±2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ (Otto et al).

          • Evan Jones

            Otto et al.’s best estimate for TCR is 1.3C/doubling and 2.0 (say the alarmists) or 1.9C (say the skeptics) for ECS. You can have the extra 0.01C. Per doubling.

            At current rates we will double in 200 years. What will actually happen is that there will be a relatively short-term increase in CO2 followed, in a bad scenario, by a gradual tapering off, or in a realistic scenario, a new or improved affordable tech drops in and CO2 drops out.

            Development (aside from the CO2 issue) is hugely beneficial to both man and the environment. It even solves the population issue. We are currently heavily into net net benefit territory on warming and CO2, so far.

            I have rarely ever seen such favorable demographics when addressing an issue. I think all this flap over CO2 is a minor problem, and it’s just going to disappear over the medium haul, anyway. In the data, that is, not necessarily the media.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sorry, you are incorrect. You know better and keep repeating the same, why? Please, do not answer, I Know why!

          • Icarus62

            “If we use the data from 1970-2009, also including the last decade, instead we find a 5 – 95% confidence interval of 0.9 – 5 °C for equilibrium climate sensitivity.”

            http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/alex-otto-article

            i.e. 3±2°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂.

          • rickroland

            There has to be an actual *problem* for there to then be a reasoned *solution* to handle the problem. There’s no problem to be solved, except what being stated as a “problem” in order to line people’s pockets and further oppress/suppress populations.

          • Icarus62

            {eyeroll}… Sure.

          • Evan Jones

            Selective science, selective solutions.

          • Evan Jones

            So it has. And the recent projection stuff is being studiously ignored in the Paris, 20115, no-science zone.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            With do you dirty troll rats plan?
            Something dishonest and dirty, no dpubr

          • azt24

            Exactly. AGW became a political racket 25 years ago. Science is simply the window-dressing, for added authoritarian impetus.

          • Evan Jones

            You’re going to have to wait for them to die off before you discredit the dogma.

            They will simply be bypassed like fortress Vitebsk in the summer of 1944.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Lukewarmism is a religion, right Trollman

      • Patrick Carroll

        I am always easily convinced by people who throw around clinical terms like “bullshit” and “horseshit.”

        • Rob Painting

          And I’m sure rational people are convinced by people who learnt all their science from denier blogs.

          • Evan Jones

            So you are saying that one should pay attention only to the alarmist variety?

            But I don’t want either side to shut up. I want them to shout out. How else can we get the info to resolve this? Both sides have made errors (I made quite a long list).

            All major peer-reviewed articles are discussed by both sides online, by experts and laymen alike. This is a Bad Thing?

          • Rob Painting

            The IPCC reports seem a good ‘starting point’ for climate policy. But they will need to be updated more regularly. The current system is too slow and cumbersome.

          • Evan Jones

            Gosh, yes. And they have to do real, responsive peer review, as well. I know IPCC reviewers who had criticisms that were not even addressed (far less rebutted). IPCC has never been properly reviewed, not like your garden-variety academic paper.

          • Latimer Alder

            Why? With the climate changing at the rate of -0C per decade and sea level rising at 1 inch per 8 years, I see no urgency at all.

          • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

            I was convinced by my High School Physics teacher (Mr. Roy Bush) to look at the evidence. Compare it with the hypothesis and come to a conclusion. Temperatures are rising half as fast as the models predict. And for the last 18 or so years the temps have stopped rising. No (well maybe a very few) models predicted such a long pause.

            If climate was understood there would be one model – not over 100 of them. Over 100 models with different parameters and different values for those parameters suggests ignorance.

            What if global cooling (the end of the interglacial) is the real problem? We are preparing for the wrong catastrophe. Which may be worse than doing nothing. Going in the wrong direction is worse than sitting still.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And yet one of the MMGW main arguments is “the precautionary principle”?!?!?!!!!!!

          • planet8788

            But this is Climastrology… those old rules of testing your hypothesis and changing you hypothesis all go out the window when taxes become involved.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And I’m sure rational people are convinced by people who learnt all they knew about rational debate from people who use labels like “denier”.

            “Flat earther” as an attack on leading scientists from other disciplines (such as astrophysics, chemistry or paleoclimatology) is another good one.

            And they are in good company with the kind of “scientists” who try to get people prosecuted for “bringing science into disrepute” for disagreeing with them!

          • planet8788

            Whatever you thought you learned… hasn’t really sunk in.

          • Latimer Alder

            Wow.

            Surely Skeptical Science can do better than you, Robbie?

            This is pathetic

      • Evan Jones

        But that is from the scientific literature (Scotese, 2001, IRRC).

        • Rob Painting

          It says “after Berner 2001”. I wasn’t specifically referring to that, but the other gibberish.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, there have been some rather extraordinary claims that AGW caused the recent Mideast problems. Drought is blamed. But since there has been no significant warming since 2001, and IPCC AR5 has conceded that drought has been trendless for over a century anyway (they can’t even tell if there’s a net increase or decrease), one may reasonably question that hypothesis.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, Scotese for temps, Berner for CO2, both 2001. (It’s from Scotese’s book on paleogeog.)

          • planet8788

            This guy is a complete and utter moron. I know 3rd graders that are smarter than him.

          • Latimer Alder

            Rob: Pro tip: Work out what you’re writing about before putting finger to keyboard. And be specific not general.

            You’re not playing in the tree house with your SKS chums now. You;re out in the real world with the grown ups.

          • Rob Painting

            Sorry, you’re in no position to offer pro tips, you’re an internet pseudonym with zero climate science publications and thus no scientific credibility. It’s you versus the climate science community. Earth is warming like they said it would. You lose.

  • Rob Painting

    Errr Greg Burton, you do realize your graph undermines Judith Curry’s claim of low climate sensitivity https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2eb9d5e269ea17e0822279be842077ce9f9f3591483b590533f6415228d030f4.jpg ,

    • Evan Jones

      It suggests that other factors than CO2 are in play. And I’m not talking Milankovitch cycles (too finely cut for the graph), it’s stuff like the closing of the isthmus of Panama when the broken-off piece of Gondwanaland crashed into Arcadia.

      • Rob Painting

        Undoubtedly other factors at work. Doesn’t imply low climate sensitivity however.

        • Evan Jones

          Agreed. It is the increasing divergence between the CMIP models and the observations which is doing that.

          • Icarus62

            What ‘increasing divergence’? Seems to me that the models have done rather well.

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/f2c014d08c17cfa0bb0ff98cc53110612f0b4825bc166d4230621d10/original.jpg

          • Fromafar

            The Models are wrong. This is not what has been observed.
            Your pretty pictures are not even using unverifiable data anymore. Now you’re on to “projections” that have already been demonstrably proved to be incorrect.

          • Icarus62

            You’re just wibbling. The fact is that global warming projections have been proven accurate by observations.

          • Fromafar

            OK Captain Wibble, please share whose observations you’re referring too?
            If the completely unsubstantiated “pretty pictures” from NOAA/NCDC, Aussie BOM or HADCRUT, don’t bother.

            As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts”.

            FACT: NONE of the above mentioned organizations abide by any reasonable scientific principles until and unless they do as ALL other scientific bodies do. That is – release the methodology and rationale behind their adjustments to the data. They will not and have not without being dragged into court – literally. How wibbling does that sound to you?

            Data adjustments do indeed have a basis in many instances. RSS AND UAH have released theirs to the public and thorough described why and how. RSS is an AGW believer organization. They are honest scientists as they state they do not yet understand why there has been an almost 19 year hiatus in warming.

            So put up vetted data or go home, Captain Wibble.

          • Evan Jones

            Come again? Or do you mean the Lewis, Curry model projections?

          • Icarus62
          • falstaff77

            When posting material and referencing it to a scientific publication, in this case AR5, one is obliged to actually produce the material given there AS-IS, noting any modifications. That red linear trend is not from AR5 TFE.3, Figure 1; it has been imposed by some third party. That caption is also *not* from AR5, has been invented by a third party, and as it happens mislabels the temperature data as all from GIS.

            As for AR5’s actual directly commentary on model divergence from temperature observation, see this *unmodified* Figure Box TS.3-1.

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Technical%20Summary/FigBoxTS.3-1.jpg

          • Icarus62

            I’ve simply plotted GISTEMP and projected it forward to 2035, showing that the observed trend is well within model projections. We can also do a slightly more sophisticated assessment, which shows that models simulate global temperature observations remarkably well when driven by real world forcings and natural variability:

            http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/2bmvsgissrsquared-117883512421.png

          • falstaff77

            When you’ve published your results and then, over time, shown how your model selection compares over future temperature data, then those results can warrant discussion. Until then, why can’t you deal with the model-vs-temperature data science as reported in the IPCC?

            When the IPCC reports clearly show the CMIP model problems, then if one has an issue with those reports the burden is on the contrarian as why they are wrong. Or, if you feel so compelled, attempt to publish your contrary findings. What is not done is to go off on a tangent, changing the temperature data set, changing the CMIP model set, changing the period of time to include scientifically meaningless hind-casting, and generally ignoring all the model problems as reported in the scientific literature. If anything is to be labeled as denial or anti-science, that’s it.

          • Latimer Alder

            Once again you are indulging in Texas sharpshooting.

            A model is only useful if it successfully predicts *the future*.

          • Evan Jones

            Why would you project positive PDO warming during a negative PDO period?

          • Icarus62

            As you said yourself, probably none of the warming since mid-20th Century is attributable to natural influences (PDO or anything else), so the trend is entirely anthropogenic.

          • Latimer Alder

            There were climate models in 1965? By whom?

          • Icarus62

            You have made two mutually exclusive claims on this page:

            1: The models have done poorly at forecasting global temperature;

            2: The models have done well at forecasting global temperature but the numbers are fudged / the station data is badly processed / it’s all due to the PDO (did I miss anything?).

            Which one are you going to support?

          • Robert
          • Evan Jones

            (I owe you a couple of replies. I’ll get back to you on them.)

          • Michael Evan Jones

            After he reviews a million other things LOL

        • Evan Jones

          No, certainly not. Nor does it support it. The 600mya scale obviates that question entirely.

    • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

      The period between 50 million and 150 million years ago saw temperatures flat with declining CO2. In part of that period CO2 is declining and temperatures are rising.

      What the graph show is no correlation between CO2 an Earth’s temperature. Roughly zero sensitivity..

    • planet8788

      How exactly? This graph shows ZERO sensitivity between temperature and CO2. ZERO correlation. None. You post these graphs you can’t even read. You’re the least educated person in this comment section effectively. You haven’t posted one coherent comment that wasn’t an ad hom attack.

      • Latimer Alder

        Yep. Rob’s answer to anything that isn’t in his SkS crib sheet is ‘You’re a denier’. Poor stuff.

  • chance57

    It comes down to if you have a point, make it. Among the latest change the world clichés we have the admonition that if you are going to complain, offer a solution. Aside from the silent “a solution I am willing to accept”, we should hear Problem, Cause, Solution, Implemented.

    • Evan Jones

      His point is that we are becoming hypersensitive. He is correct. This has some good results, perhaps, but also some lamentable ones.

      I think his solution would be “lighten up, already”. Sounds like a good one to me.

  • DennisHorne

    A comedian gets up and starts a joke “My wife….”
    and a heckler shouts “Sexist !”
    So he starts again ” My mother in law…..”
    and the heckler shouts “Ageist !”
    Once again he tries a new subject “A Scotsman and an Englishman….”
    and the heckler shouts “Racist !”
    So the comedian thinks “What can I do that won’t cause offence? I know – a joke about the weather.”
    and he starts “It was so wet yesterday…..”
    and the heckler shouts “Meteorologist !”

  • http://protonboron.com/portal/power-grid-frequency-meter/ M. Simon

    Government gets the science it pays for. A sterling example is the “Heath monkey asphyxiation study” in support of cannabis prohibition. What we see in the climate studies is nothing new for government.

    The left hates the government for its support of cannabis prohibition and loves its work on climate. The right takes opposing positions on those two questions. Which is why I like to point it out.

    My position? Government science is in many areas corrupt.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      Government science is an oxymoron.

  • Icarus62

    If global warming continues as observed over the last few decades then we will see 2°C of global warming, relative to pre-industrial temperature, by about 2080.

    Not much reassurance of low climate sensitivity there.

    • Evan Jones

      We have warmed ~0.8C since 1880 (at most) after a 40% rise in CO2. We add under 2ppm annually to a 400ppm sink (a 0.4%/year increase).

      It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that we will warm 1.2C by 2080, even if CO2 output greatly increased.

      • Icarus62

        It really depends on our emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and on how soon and how large the natural feedbacks are.

        • planet8788

          Yep… that’s a lot of depends and ifs.

          • Icarus62

            Point is, it could be worse than depicted above. How much risk is acceptable when we’re talking about the future climate of the entire planet?

          • planet8788

            Warmer is better.

          • Icarus62

            Are you sure?

          • Sean Patrick Murphy sr

            Yes. I am also sure, you’re a pagan.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Oh yes, absolutely.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes. So far.

          • Nick

            Can anything humans do affect something as gigantic as the Earth’s climate? I doubt it very much, but that won’t stop The Delusion being believed in.

          • Icarus62

            We already are.

          • Evan Jones

            We can and do. But not by a heck of a lot.

          • DennisHorne

            Yep, countless millions of loonies support the ‘sceptical’ science.

          • planet8788

            Satellite data-denier.

          • texasjimbo

            What makes you so confident we aren’t actually preventing the onset of a species ending ice age? Why aren’t all of you alarmists ACTING like you believe what you say? How many tons of CO2 are these self righteous liers going to dump into he atmosphere flying to their meeting? Why are you using the internet for tis type of activity–you’re adding CO2 to the atmosphere by doing so. Do you really believe what you say or do you just want an excuse to tell other people what to do? There are thousands of people flooding Europe now who hold you and your culture in contempt, and would be happy to have the opportunity to kill you. Yet you’re obsessed with a half baked, unprovable notion that by your absurd worst case scenario might cause some moderate but solvable problems several decades hence.

          • Latimer Alder

            The hypocrisy of those who choose to fly to Paris to lecture us mortals on how wasteful we are knows no bounds.

          • Evan Jones

            It will be almost impossible for it to be worse. It will almost certainly be far, far better. Remember the Global 2000 report? Remember the dire “inevitabilities” put forth by Ehrlich and Meadows (etc.)? And those of Dr. Hansen, for that matter?

          • DennisHorne

            Can you explain briefly why it won’t get worse. Thanks.

          • Evan Jones

            Because much of increased atmospheric water uptake goes into not into ambient vapor, but rather to counteracting low-level cloud cover.

            That is the biggest error made by CAGW advocates, and it is an overwhelmingly decisive one. So we see instead, AGW at roughly raw CO2 forcing rates only. Not nothing, but no real threat, either. Net benefits, even.

            And even if things actually did begin to go bad, we could swap over to nuke anytime, which is reasonably affordable, extremely practical, and — most important — non-intermittent. Viewed squarely, nukes cost far fewer lives per unit of power than fossil fuels, and are certainly not an existential threat now matter how much one is down on them.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evan Troll Jones

          • Icarus62

            Models cannot reproduce global temperature observations with a fast feedback climate sensitivity significantly lower than 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm.

          • planet8788

            That’s because the models don’t work.

          • planet8788

            How much risk of warming is desired when the planet has spent much of the recent past in near snowball conditions.

          • Latimer Alder

            And how would you go about working out the size of that risk?

            Pull the bedclothes over your head and hope it’ll all go away?

            Please present your method.

            PS – are ‘climate scientists’ (unworldly academics, no practical experience throughout) the right guys to make such assessments? Why?

        • Evan Jones

          So far the net feedbacks are tracking right around zero. That’s where the IPCC CMIP models went awry.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Trollathon with Evan Jones

          • Icarus62

            In what way have they gone ‘awry’? The evidence shows that models can only reproduce observations if they include large and positive natural feedbacks – specifically, fast feedback of around 0.75°C/W/m², or 3°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ from 280 to 560ppm.

            http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/2bmvsgissrsquared-117883512421.png

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. Anyone can hindcast to match observations, especially when they adjust the observation to whatever they need to fit their failed hypothesis.

          • Latimer Alder

            NASA were producing models in 1900?

            Oh. I see. Texas sharpshooting.

            I can do that too.

            Here’s my prediction for yesterday’s 3:20 at Carlisle:

            #7 Finaghy Air.

            Gosh. It won at 5/1

            What a great hindsighter I am!

        • Evan Jones

          Yes it does — doesn’t it?

      • moman

        Currently we are adding just over 2ppm per year which is 0.5% per year increase. Currently we rely on the ocean absorbing over half of what we emit (equivalent to more than an additional 2ppm). Given that the oceans are warming, the amount it absorbs will likely be starting to drop.

        • Evan Jones

          And at that rate, we will never double CO2 or even close. Far less redouble. We will have walked away from fossil fuels, long since, and without any necessity of coercive, economically damaging legislation.

          It probably won’t be wind or solar, either, that fulfills the vastly increasing need. That dog don’t hunt.

          • moman

            You have suggested that warming will be less than some think based on some incorrect figures, but have failed to acknowledge the incorrect figures.

            Another think you have neglected is the cooling impact of aerosols. Aerosols don’t live so long in the atmosphere and so the cooling balance that they currently cause will gradually become smaller relative to CO2.

            So there are several flaws in the back of the envelope calculation you’ve done.

          • Evan Jones

            But aerosols have unmasked steadily already since the 1950s. And whatever amount of warming that is has to be subtracted directly from CO2 effect.

            Likewise, feedbacks have been in play from the getgo. Those factors have been in operation all along; they will not be all-of-a-sudden popping out of Zeus’ head, fully grown and armed.

            Net feedback is near-zero, increased atmospheric water uptake being counteracted by slight low-level cloud increase (which is where CMIP went off the rails), and with overall diminishing returns on methane.

            It’s not that I think there is no warming or that man is not primarily responsible. It’s just that I think you are trying to fit a 3C cat into a 1.5C bag.

          • moman

            Aerosols are still rising.

            Possibly you are not aware that clouds can have both a cooling and a warming effect. And nobody contributing to CMIP has produced a plausible model with strong negative cloud forcing.

          • Evan Jones

            Possibly you are not aware that clouds can have both a cooling and a warming effect.

            Sure. To cut to the chase, stratus cools, cirrus warms. But the increase has been mostly the low-level stuff.

            And nobody contributing to CMIP has produced a plausible model with strong negative cloud forcing.

            You said it, I didn’t #B^)

            Aerosols are still rising.

            Yes, but only after a sharp, steady 40-year drop. And what we have now is far more localized.

            Interestingly, CMIP5 regards the current concentrated, localized “brown cloud” phenomenon as a (slight) net warming effect, but the aerosols of the 1950s to have a strong cooling effect. This may be a result of China’s ground particulates having a well known and powerful warming effect on the Arctic, both in terms of reduced albedo and a “salt-on-driveway” corrosive effect (and on the actual soils of China).

            This is supported by Zender et al. (2009), a UI/NASA study, and further supported by Sand et al. (2013).

          • moman

            Sure. To cut to the chase, stratus cools, cirrus warms. But the increase has been mostly the low-level stuff.

            Stratus keeps warmth in at night. Cumulous varies according to where they are, when they form, how bright they are. It’s complicated.

            And nobody contributing to CMIP has produced a plausible model with strong negative cloud forcing.

            You said it, I didn’t #B^)

            Your point? Models are designed to match climatology (a constant climate with no warming). There are uncertainties in their construction, but if those uncertainties are tweaked to produce more cooling cloud with warming, the model performance overall becomes worse.

          • Evan Jones

            My point is that increasing low level clouds is a negative feedback.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            says the troll Evan Jones

        • falstaff77

          As others have pointed out, that rate of emissions falls below harmful, stays in beneficial. It would lie somewhere between IPCC emissions scenario 2.6 but less than scenario 4.5, giving about a degree C above the current temperature anomaly.

          From IPCC AR5:

          https://muchadoaboutclimate.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/blog_ipcc_7.png

        • Latimer Alder

          How much are those oceans warming, moman? In degrees C? Uniformly throughout? Or does it vary by depth?

      • Michael Evan Jones

        Not what the scientific community has shown, Evan Troll Jones

        • planet8788

          You’re right… The scientific community has shown no warming for 19 years.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Is that right…maybe this should show the warming ducky
            2015 to be hottest year on record…until next year: WMO
            http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/25/2015-to-be-hottest-year-on-recorduntil-next-year-wmo.html
            But five-year averages showed temperatures were rising regardless of El Niño or its cooling counterpart La Niña, with eight of the 10 warmest years occurring since 2005.

            Oops, should not listen to four eyes Evan Troll Jones

          • planet8788

            That data has been adjusted a billion times… read Hansen, et al. 1981 and compare your graph to this graph and see how much it has changed… I DARE YOU.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Not enough for you deniers to comprehend…some heads like yours are shaped like a concrete block…dang Homer

          • planet8788

            Hansen, et. al 1981 and see for yourself.

          • planet8788

            Have you read Hansen, et. al 1981 yet? No. That’s right. I forgot. You can’t read.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Have you read his book? No, obviously not!
            Another blockhead denier

          • planet8788

            His book isn’t peer reviewed… LOL…

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Really, did you check the reference section??
            Dah, obviously not…get lost time waster..
            Bunch of spoilers naysayers

          • Michael Evan Jones

            A Billion times you say…LOL

          • Evan Jones

            He exaggerates. It couldn’t have been much over a million.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Really, a million you say..oh, sure you reviewed each one yourself!
            I believe you stated something to that affect in one of your recent posts.
            Boy, Evvie you are a master of the universe troll!

          • Evan Jones

            A zillion?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Hey, Evvie a double click on the mouse and all is good….
            The Federal Reserve and other Central Banks proved it works!
            After all what does it matter with zero interest rates.

          • planet8788

            pretty darn close… Did you read it yet? No.? Because you can’t read?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            What a simpleton like yourself would think….same for Evvie Troll Jones

          • planet8788

            Can you prove to me you read it… Didn’t think so.

    • planet8788

      As manufactured…. not as measured…
      https://i0.wp.com/realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-11-25-08-08-363.png

      1890 to 1980 warming has tripled since 1981…

    • falstaff77

      IPCC AR5 explicitly points out that the “GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012”, and goes on to use the term “hiatus” a dozen times in discussing the phenomenon. AR5 points out that this recent trend differs strongly from models predicting the opposite, i.e. increasing rates of surface temperature rise, over the latter 20th century, forced by increasing CO2 emissions. Why is it that you feel obliged to ignore this in posts on the internet? What do you hope to accomplish?

      • LINER011

        The Warmists have taken a two prong approach to handle the unexpected pause in the temperature rise. First, explain the pause by declaring that the heat is hiding somewhere not being detected by surface thermometers, deep ocean heat etc. The second prong was to completely deny the pause by changing their adjustments, always declaring the ‘warmest year ever’.

        Judith Curry rightly points out the career implications with being a skeptic. This would greatly skew any poll to see what the actual consensus is. The Heartland Institute should conduct an anonymous poll of physicists, geologists and statistician and publish the results.

        • falstaff77

          I’d have no use for “polls” from Heartland any more than I would from some alarmist. The point in great evidence in this thread is that we’re all subject to confirmation bias; we’re supposed to use, not abuse, the scientific method to avoid bias. Polls embrace confirmation bias.

        • Evan Jones

          Old Marse Missing Heat gets around, don’t he? (But one can always seem to find him wherever there are no actual sensors to make his measure.)

      • Icarus62

        AR5 also points out that short term trends are not robust. Did you read that bit?

        “Trends for short periods are uncertain and very sensitive to the start and end years. For example, trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24] °C per decade, 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] °C per decade and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18] °C per decade, respectively.“

        • falstaff77

          Yes the starting point has impact, hence the range in the AR5 statement “one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951-2012”. That range is not leave to dismiss entirely the dozen points of discussion in AR5 about the “hiatus”. Using the rates given in your selected AR5 quote, mean temperature rises 0.46C to 0.91C above current by the date you selected, 2080.

          So again, what did you hope to accomplish in your selected straight line extrapolation above?

        • Evan Jones

          It is also a fact that Dr Trenberth said that a 15-year hiatus would significantly dispute the veracity of the CMIP models.

          • Icarus62

            It would be interesting to see a quote to that effect, but in any case we’re only talking about natural stochastic variability in surface and atmospheric temperature series, which track something like 4% of the heat accumulating in the climate system. The climate system as a whole continues to accumulate heat unabated.

            http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/GEA-141361307138.png

          • RealOldOne2

            Ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs.
            Thanks for agreeing that climate change is still driven by the Sun, not ghgs.

          • Icarus62

            As the research shows, ocean warming over recent decades is predominantly anthropogenic.

          • RealOldOne2

            “As the research shows, ocean warming over recent decades is prodominantly anthropogenic.”
            Sorry, but parroting your climate cult’s false propaganda will never make it true.
            You are making a baseless, evidence-free claim.

            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows what you claim. You tried before, but I exposed it as model-based rubbish.

            I’ve shown you the science that shows that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, not ghgs many many times and you have yet to rebut a single bit of it.

          • Evan Jones

            All that data shows (if correct) is that the planet has one heck of a good thermostat.

          • Icarus62

            Of course – the Planck feedback makes it very hard to get a ‘runaway’ greenhouse effect on Earth for example – but the point is that even warming of a few degrees will make a big difference to human civilisation and natural ecosystems… especially when it’s happening tens of times faster than natural rates of climate change.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Mostly in the ocean waters, a place Evan ignores

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evan, you know better there was no warming hiatus. Why do you lie?

        • Michael Evan Jones

          Evan Jonrs is a Willard Watt follower that ignores anything that conflicts with his lukewarmism, as he calls it.
          Best to ignore this troll, or he will waste your time just debating

    • Fromafar

      Until all the agencies of the temperature (land) record are open source as to their adjustments – the how and why, they are just pretty graphs that have no value.
      To date, not one organization of the terrestrial land temperature anywhere on earth has done so despite repeated requests under FOIA and even US Congressional subpoena.
      RSS and UAH (keepers of the satellite data) have done so. Therir records show NO INCREASEi in average global temperature for over 18 years.
      RSS IS EVEN a WARMIST GROUP,. They have honestly stated that the pause was unexpected and have no idea why it has occurred.

      Adjustments in and of themselves are not a disqualifier of data, but are so if not disclosed as to the how and why.
      Until such time, keep enjoying your pretty pictures. You can draw them at any angle you like. Straight up was even shown on a previous pretty picture someone posted in this thread.
      Enjoy.

      • Evan Jones

        Want a nice steep slope? Squeeze the x axis, stretch the y. We can do that. We have the technology.

    • Alexsandr

      citation?

      • Evan Jones

        Oh, he’s right about that, I think.

        • Isandhlwana79

          Evan, I have read your comments with great interest. They seem measured and with great thought. Do you mind revealing what is your academic background?

          • Evan Jones

            MA, US History, Columbia University.

            (Arguably more important, I was trained by Herman Kahn, and am a game designer/developer and simulation modeler.)

            The study I am involved in is a historical-statistical comparative analysis of surface station data trends (both raw and adjusted) vis-a-vis good vs. poor station microsite exposure, making account for station moves and TOBS-bias.

            That is the same sort of study modern historians do all the time, of course, so I am not (exactly) out of my field, here.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Evan, thank you. You are obviously a bright guy.

          • Evan Jones

            Not nearly as intelligent as the scientists I am up against. I invest my approach in method. Broad-based, top-down, must add up.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            The trollathon Evvie Jones

          • Isandhlwana79

            I see you are being trolled by some kook with a very limited intellect. You are wise to ignore him. He is adding nothing to the debate but being obnoxious.

          • Evan Jones

            Oh, he means no harm, really. I owe him a debt as an exercise in fortitude (seriously). He’s actually improved in some ways, makes better points, takes better cites now. We live and learn.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            The mega Troll is BACK..Evvie Jones

          • planet8788

            You are the only person here trolling. You haven’t made a single coherent point except to call people trolls.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Nope, not me Evan Troll Jones has over 500 posts here in less than 24 hours…the dude is wired for the Paris Climate Conference.
            Super Troll Jones

          • planet8788

            Yes but he actually posts facts, link and makes valid points…. You haven’t contributed a single legitmate thought.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Go BS somewhere else…hint Willard Watt Rat Blog would be a nice place

          • planet8788

            You’re the one spouting BS… Go back and sit at the kiddy table please.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Why would I join you and Evvie?

          • planet8788

            Because you want to sexually molest him… Why else would you be stalking him?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Boy, are you a werido! Brining up such a topic. Must be a dittler.

          • planet8788

            You’re the one doing the stalking not I. Nor him.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Dr. Spin and Twist defines a “fact” that is from Willard Watt data base of lukewarmism l
            LOL

          • planet8788

            Still waiting from a valid argument from you….

          • Michael Evan Jones

            That’s all you deniers seek, is to argue.

          • planet8788

            It’s much more enlightening than the name calling you engage in.

          • Evan Jones

            I like argument.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            No, you love to argue….that is your mission…

          • Evan Jones

            No, you love to argue….

            Obviously. (And you don’t mean “no”, you mean “yes”.)

            that is your mission…

            What makes you think I have a “mission”?

          • Fromafar

            As such Evan, do you any opinion at this stage why our gang of (at least three) will not release their handling of the raw data sets?
            E.g. NOAA/HADCRUT and NCDC. It’s more than a bit suspicious and certainly not comporting to any form of the scientific method.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, the obvious thing that springs to mind is that they stand more to lose to release than they do to stonewall. Perhaps. But I think it goes deeper than that.

            They are highly territorial.

            They naturally want to run their own shop with a free hand. So do we all, I suppose. All well and good, if done with the proper constraint. But they see their data as their own proprietary assets, not to be shared with all, but to be denied to as many as possible, especially those with whom they happen to disagree.

            They are arrogant.

            They feel it is beneath them to cater in any way to the requests of the “unqualified”, that being defined by themselves. They consider themselves above reproach and highly resent the scrutiny
            of their intellectual inferiors in congress, blatantly patronizing their supporters and holding
            those they oppose in deepest contempt. To them, these are not their bosses, their employers, but second-rate to be used to their own ends.

            They are petulant.

            They regard even the routine requirements of scientific courtesy as an uncalled-for imposition. They consider any scrutiny or oversight to be tantamount to a witch hunt.

            They are sanctimonious.

            They expect their judgments to be accepted without question and in their entirety. I have viewed their testimony before congress and they provide answers
            and make assertions that flatly contradict their own data and insult the intelligence of all others present.

            They are self-righteous.

            They like to see themselves as an elite, autonomous band of brothers, united against the impertinence of interfering, inquisitive, impudent boobs and flatheads (by which they mean you and me and mine). They consider any suspicions to be contemptible in the extreme.

            They are feckless.

            Having violated their charter in the past, they are honestly and deeply outraged when not permitted do so on a continuing, unaccountable basis, science and its sacred, inalterable methods be damned.

            They do not play a straight game.

            I have had more than one unfortunate encounter with NOAA over the years. They pulled curator IDs from their metadata, making it much harder to complete our station surveys. They asked to look at Anthony’s station ratings, hard work that I had a direct hand in, on condition that they would not use it (as it was highly preliminary and unreviewed, even by us). Instead, they usurped it and used it in Menne (2010), without so much as a bayeaux leave. And finally, when Fall et al. (2011) went up for submission, they slipped a ringer in on the JGR peer-review panel.

            In short, they demonstrate all of the bad qualities of the defensive, resentful civil servant.
            They regard themselves as untouchable, inviolate. They regard their employers and the public as inferiors. They will therefore
            combat any attempt at oversight or audit beyond that to which they deign to acquiesce, tooth and nail. I think they would attempt to conceal all they possibly could, quite regardless of whether they actually have anything to hide.

          • Latimer Alder

            Yep. See Climategate e-mails (the gift that goes on giving) to see the inner workings of the climate cabal.

          • Evan Jones

            Those are not as bad as mot skeptics depict. But they are much worse than the alarmists depict. Having read the lot (I had a brief heads-up before it broke), there are spots that bother me a lot more than Mike’s Nature Trick involving the removal of tree ring data after 1960.

            The one that got to me the most was one suggesting setting up what amounts to a “star panel” of reviewers for all climate papers, restricting peer review to a select few and excluding any papers that did not cite a number of specific sources.

          • Latimer Alder

            Throughout they show a ‘win at all costs ‘mentality, more suited to Wall Street than academia.

            What little residual respect I had for ‘climate science’ evaporated when I saw their internal machinations.

            Now I adopt the Paxman doctrine when hearing from climatologists ‘What is this lying b**tard lying to me about this time’?

          • Fromafar

            Thanks
            I perceive fromafar, that they have fallen into the trap of infallibility. To admit that not only do they not have all the answers, but what they’ve tried to profer has large holes in it has likely brought them into the “absolute power corrupts absolutely” camp.
            They’ve fudged and re- fudged to the point that exposure might look a lot like fraud as well as expose a truly UN-scientific approach to the entire issue. They would have to admit what we all, already know. That is – at this point in scientific history, no one has all the answers.
            Their part in this is greed and power. Chicken Little must be invoked constantly to keep the financial tap turned to full blast. Clearly the public has heard the cry of wolf more than a little too often.
            The Paris COP21 participants are either willing fools for the most part or have an entire political agenda that would be an ananthma to free societies. I suspect you are more than well aware of that as well……

          • Evan Jones

            Well, yeah, although I tend to veer away from the politics of it (although that is my “official” academic credential ) and concentrate on the science.

          • RealOldOne2

            Good summary.
            The climate alarmists fit every symptom of groupthink.

          • Evan Jones

            Mmm. Yes.

    • Evan Jones

      Data “adjustments” aside, do you really think we will see monochromic warming consistent with positive PDO (a 30-year half-cycle) for the next 85 years?

      Recent satellite data (either RSS or UAH 6.0) demonstrates an essentially flat trend from 2001 and 1997 (avoiding both side’s cherrypick years from 1998 – 2000).

      From 2001:
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

      From 1997:
      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

      This is because we have entered a negative PDO, which will likely persist for another two decades plus. After that, it will likely warm again, much as it did from 1976-2007. Then flat again, etc.

      The correct warming signal is the average of two full half-cycles, one “double-warming” warming, one flat.

      • Icarus62

        IPCC’s assessment is that the maximum plausible warming contribution from natural variability is 0.1°C since the mid-20th Century.

        • Evan Jones

          Actually, I have doubts it is even that high. Perhaps a bit from aerosol unmasking. I have little doubt that the great majority of the warming we’ve seen since 1950 is anthropogenic. Negative/positive PDO years balance well (considering the low 1950 startpoint).

          Warming since 1950 is a roughly correct and balanced signal.

          • Icarus62

            Then the significance of the PDO must be small, relative to anthropogenically forced warming.

          • Isandhlwana79

            Hi, Icarus. I hope all is well across the pond. You must stay up late. Could you enlighten me as to what part of the UK you reside. If it is too much to ask, I understand. Take care and stay on the “high ground”.

          • Icarus62

            Hello again, all the best to you too. I’m on the south coast of England… and about 50 metres above high water, so I won’t have to worry about my house being inundated by rising sea level any time soon… :-)

          • Evan Jones

            It’s roughly equal.

            That’s why we see a flat trend from 1950 to 1975 and are seeing a flat trend now when we should be seeing cooling. PDO negative.

            It’s also why we saw twice as much warming as the CO2 forcing from 1976 top 2007. PDO positive.

            It creates that celebrated stepladder effect. PDO is one of the larger elephants in the room in this discussion. (There’s the others of the “big six”, but they tend to follow PDO. I can get into all that if you’d like. I got some pretty good notes on them.)

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Maybe you should see the real data that show otherwise’ Bud

          • Fromafar

            Nice opinion…….any evidence?

          • Evan Jones

            Just Arrhenius’ lab results and the recent nature paper actually observing the absorption and re-emission of LW. That fits pretty well with the observations. (There are a few other lesser contributing anthropogenic factors such as land use, particulates-on-ice, aerosol unmasking, etc.)

        • falstaff77

          If you value the IPCC reports, why do you i) plot linear, straight-line extrapolations, when no-where does such a prediction reported by itself or anyway represented as most likely or match a mathematical model, or ii) begin the plot in 1970?

        • RealOldOne2

          “IPCC’s assessment is that the maximum plausible warming contribution from natural variability is 0.1°C since the mid-20th Century.”
          Peer reviewed science says that the IPCC’s assessment is wrong.
          Peer reviewed science show 2.7 – 5 W/m^2 of natural solar climate forcing during the late 20th century, and the IPCC’s CO2 forcing is a max of ~0.4W/m^2 which includes anthropogenic + natural.

          1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.

          2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/trend

          3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

          This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

          This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

          This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

          The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

          4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

          This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 12 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

          “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’

          The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
          • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
          • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
          • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
          • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
          This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

          Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
          • Warm phase of the PDO :
          http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
          http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
          http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
          http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
          • Warm phase of the AMO :
          https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
          &
          • Predominance of El Ninos:
          http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
          http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

          The reason the IPCC is wrong is because their “assessment” is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, not empirical data. So sad that you believe those flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models rather than empirical data.

      • Michael Evan Jones

        From the twist and spin data troll database of Willard rat pak

        • Evan Jones

          We are the Mercury Monkeys
          We do what we do without any money
          We know why NOAA is running so hot
          They paved CRS and put up a parking lot

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Can’t deny you are a monkey…too bad you are a liar, flea infested one at that…Now, time to deal with your problem, curious evvie

          • Evan Jones

            Beats incurious.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Another word you live by, as I had to endure from you.
            My, my you will obviously beat your record from last World Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Evan troll Jones…bye, stooge tool

      • Fromafar

        Evan, one minor rebut. The data was not “cherry picked” as to time. As noted in many blogs, it represents the longest time going back in the past that a trend of zero exists. Nothing more, nothing less.

        • Evan Jones

          True, and it is 1997, not a cherrypick year. If it creeps forward to April 1998, though, I’ll have a few remarks to make.

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      You really, really believe you can extrapolate a cyclic function with a dead straight line?

      You truly are utterly deluded!

    • Evan Kuchera

      Well of course “pre-industrial” was a lot more than a few decades ago, so it is a curious choice to calculate the trend using only a few decades.

  • Still Out of Service

    THE SKY IS BURNING !!
    ~Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr.

  • 1twothree4

    She’s a WITCH! BURN HEEEEEERRRRRR!

    • Evan Jones

      ‘ow do you know she’s a witch?

      • 1twothree4

        She weighs the same as a duck!

        • Evan Jones

          (It’s a fair cop.)

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Marathon troll roll Evan is

          • Evan Jones

            We ‘ave caught ourselves a troll. May we burn it?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, are you putting yourself in the oven?
            Remember to put the dial on lukewarm!
            LOL

  • Hank Smith

    So what if the Temp rises a couple of degrees. Are the so called “scientists” saying that every result of that is dangerous? To what?
    To whom? I bet it would be make more of the earth a better place to live. Hotter in the deserts, so what, ISIS lives there lol. Raise the sea level, so what! Do those same so called “scientists” believe the worlds beaches are to remain the same forever? And it will never cool down again…ever? What a bunch of Maroons!

    • Icarus62

      “I bet it would be make more of the earth a better place to live.”

      Whose lives are you prepared to wager on that? If it were just your own, it wouldn’t be so bad, but it’s not. It’s millions of people who are at risk from increasing heatwaves, larger storm surges, more intense precipitation, drought leading to crop failures, the spread of disease and other consequences. Do you have the right to put them at risk just for your own convenience?

      • Eric Vosburgh

        I guess that from your high and mighty standpoint it is ok to leave everyone that does not have access to the same comforts you do, brought to you by hydrocarbons, out in the cold/heat. Who are you to deny anyone living in subsahran Africa same luxuries you enjoy … Silly things like extended life expectancy, heat, food, ….

        Seems pretty petty on your part.

        • planet8788

          Not petty… just selfish.

          • falstaff77

            Aye, says the backside of every protest sign at the Paris COP. Be not surprised when then backside of signs from the developing world say GFY Paris COP.

          • Evan Jones

            I will not be very surprised, should that occur. I will, however, be gratified.

          • Evan Jones

            That won’t do for me. There’s plenty of pie for everyone. The global economy is a greatly expanding pie — unless, of course we dump half of annual GWP growth down the drain on flailing efforts to mitigate 0.2C warming (or less) by 2100.

      • Fromafar

        Where do we begin?
        Hurricanes of Cat 2 and larger have steadily DECREASED throughout the 20th century and beyond
        Tornadoes (as scourage of the American Midwest and south) have decreased steadily in number and intensity since 1950.
        Sea levels are either rising at the long established 1.5 mm/ year or not rising depending on where you are on planet earth.
        After all we are still coming out of an ice age that had us in the deep freeze 11,000 years ago.
        Arctic ice is recovering strongly and steadily in its natural cycle.
        Antarctic ice is at RECORD LEVELS and still growing at the rate of gigatons/month. Aside: the west Antarctic ice shelf loss is due to volcanic activity under it. As the Yanks say, “Duh”.

        Even the US EPA states if the wet dream of Paris were to be fully implemented it would perhaps slow the tempererature rise by 0.2 degrees C/ CENTURY!
        However, it would destroy life as we know it on earth by putting our economies in the toilet.
        It would increase poverty, disease and death at rates not seen since the Middle Ages in Africa, Asia and rural China.
        The 4 BILLION DOLLARS/Day wasted on nonsense could be used to truly save the environment, reduce pollution (CO2 IS NOT a pollutant) and used for mitigation to prevent natural climate issues (I.e. A Katrina). Instead, the politics and money of the fascist left in their ever stated, “we know better than you”, will hasten disaster.

        We haven’t even touched here the benefits of increasing CO2 to more historic norms in this little expose either.
        Plant life and crops are exploding as we re-invigorate their growth rates toward their ideal CO2 stasis of roughly 800 ppm.

        So “Icarus”, I’ll throw my lot in too with Hank Smith.

      • falstaff77

        The “what-if” arguments are simplistic when they can’t be bothered with examining i) the “what-if” costs of CO2 mitigation, the increased cost of energy in the developing world, and ii) the predicted outcome of said mitigation. The basic recognition of “if I do A, what is its benefit, what is its direct cost, what is its opportunity cost” is the mark of the adult; the lack of such consideration the mark of the adolescent.

        A sure tell about the seriousness of the “millions of people .. at risk” argument is consideration and priority setting, or lack there of, of other threats to the millions, such as vitamin deficiency, lack of education of girls, etc, on the likely or ongoing end of the risk spectrum. Or, on the rare but catastrophic end are the like of large meteor impacts. These threats don’t gather marchers in the street, though “It’s millions of people who are risk …”

      • Evan Jones

        Milder winters have resulted in far, far fewer deaths than the slight uptick in heat waves has caused. Not only is cold weather under normal circumstances ~20 times as deadly as excessive heat, but AGW primarily manifests itself during the winter months.

        Furthermore, if the Paris conference got its way, billions would be ‘at risk”, hundreds of millions would have severely foreshortened life expectancy and tens of millions would die in the short run. Poverty is the Great Killer.

        Fortunately, this is not going to happen. Regardless of what China and India will simply ignore any real restrictions. They choose Life over Death.

        Finally, the “extreme weather” meme is an extreme bust (look how far IPCC AR5 dialed that one back): Not only does the IPCC concede that all wind events are down in recent decades, but flooding and drought are trendless for a century. And, thanks to oil and coal-fired affluence and tech, deaths from extreme weather events have plummeted by ~99% since 1900.

        Food production per capita is at record levels (and quality), and whenever affluence comes in the door, disease flies out the widow. FF even directly results in population control. Every affluent nation on the face of the earth has seen plunging birthrates, usually to below replacement level (which, ironically, may prove a problem down the road.

        For that matter, NYC with 8 million people is immensely less crowded than when it had 1 million population, and with far more “individual elbow room” per capita. I live in a building built in 1896, 350 sq. ft., designed for 16 people. It is now illegal to occupy it with more than five.

        • Michael Evan Jones

          Is that what the denied troll thinks….where is your research paper?
          Oops…cricket a chripping

          • Evan Jones

            We have Goklany and Lomborg for that.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            In the toilet ready to flush….that left a brown mark….

          • planet8788

            That brown mark is still 500 times more intelligent than you.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Written by one that socializes with brown marks LOL

        • falstaff77

          ” Every affluent nation on the face of the earth has seen plunging birthrates, usually to below replacement level (which, ironically, may prove a problem down the road).”

          And some of the becoming-affluent nations. China’s working-age population is forecast to decline 212 million by 2050, a demographic shift sure to cause problems.

          • Evan Jones

            There will be a few bumps along the road, yes. But I daresay they will not be the sort of problems most pessimists expect.

          • falstaff77

            … will not be the sort of problems most environmental Malthusians expect, yes. The problems ahead based on the actual data showing an enormous drop in the work force of the world’s factory floor (China) are alarming economists.

          • Evan Jones

            Agreed.

          • planet8788

            Losing unskilled workers is not a problem… Losing consumers is a problem.

          • falstaff77

            Well, consumers require incomes obtained by those of working age.

      • JustData

        The latest IPCC report backed off all that drought, floods, surges stuff.
        Focusing tons of money, time, attention and other resources on a complete hoax will leave a lot of other real problems entirely unaddressed.
        Do you have the right to subject other people to all those real, currently existing, and entirely non-contraversial problems just to fund your dishonest religion around human-caused global warming which helps you feel good about yourself by assuaging some of your silly guilt for living in an industrialized society?

  • Travvy

    1) There’s nothing wrong with the climate.
    2) There’s no reason to fix what isn’t broken, because MAYBE there’ll be a .01-2.0 degree Celsius Temperature increase 100 Years from now.
    3) Look around you, here, and around the world. What do you see?

    I see WWIII and a New Dark Ages on our horizon.
    I see Western Europe being OVERRUN by Mohammedans.
    I see the Vatican and St. Peters going the way of Palmyra and its Temple to Baal, and the Giant Standing Buddhas of Bamiyam.
    I see a new Asteroid coming thisclose to our Planet every coupla months. Something that barely ever happened during my previous 57 years.
    I see a worldwide Economic Collapse that will bring ramifications to Civilization, not seen since The Fall of Rome.

    I see the Sun, outside shining brightly, bathing my home in Ct. with its Light and Warmth.
    I see my THERMOSTAT turned to the Off Position.
    I see my Bank Account holding steady.
    I see another opportunity to go outside and make some money doing another Fall Cleanup.

    Most of all, I see that THE SKY ISN’T FALLING.

    Maybe that’s why those East Anglia boys destroyed 50 Years worth of their Climate Research, rather than turn it over for an unbiased review.

    Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?

    • Evan Jones

      Maybe that’s why those East Anglia boys destroyed 50 Years worth of
      their Climate Research, rather than turn it over for an unbiased review.

      This is a misdemeanor at most in terms of law. But in terms of scientific method, it is worse than a sin: it is a capital offense.

      We don’t know that. All we know is that Dr. Jones said (in the c-g emails) he’d rather delete current records rather than hand them over. After c-g broke, the FoI requests poured in for the entire HadCRU raw data. It was then announced that it has been deleted, not by them, but by some other somebody (as yet, unnamed) 20 years prior, and only the adjusted stuff remained.

      Very well.

      But what I want to know is how HARRY (of READ_ME fame) seemed to have all that raw data twenty years after it had allegedly been deleted. How could Haddy t3 and t4 recalc its data without access to the raw stuff? And if it did so (HARRY, aside), how can that possibly be scientifically — or statistically — justifiable? How can the results be reliably replicated?

      I am not willing to “convict” (for lack of a better word) on this evidence; there are too many unknowns. Yet my game-designer ingrained red flags are popping up right and left. What we have here is what the intelligence community is pleased to refer to as an “embarrassing chain of events.” In our terms, too, actually.

      HARRY can you READ_ME?
      Read me.
      Run me.
      Feed me.
      Fund me.

      • azt24

        Ah ha! Somebody else read Harryreadme.txt!

        I may not be a climatologist, but I do have a degree in computer science. Shall I tell you what I think of East Anglia’s coding standards, or do you know already?

        • Evan Jones

          We, I have a pretty good general idea (looks like your stereotypical FORTRAN spaghetti nightmare to me), but I’d like very much to read your input on that.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Marathon Troll roll, good boy

          • Evan Jones

            My fingers have wings, sahib.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            And a chicken brain to match LOL

          • azt24

            I’d have to review to go over the list of sins, but what particularly struck me was how, instead of unzipping an orderly archive with instructions as to data formats and procedures for adding new temperature vectors (an entirely foreseeable task), he was confronted with 11,000 undocumented files. Then he was reduced to lengthy trial and error just to get the old program to run again, with no benchmark but comparing the data he produced to the data which had already been published. He was encouraged when he could get the two data sets anywhere close to each other.

            Small wonder East Anglia refused to release the data.

          • Evan Jones

            Yikes. I hope he was paid by the hour.

            Yet Mac’s crew managed to get NASA’s infamous FILNET FORTRAN code dump up and running (no doubt to the considerable consternation of Dr. Schmidt).

            What I really want to find out (if feasible) is if he actually had the raw data. It seems to me that he must have (or else what in heck was he doing anyway?) but I cannot be sure at this point.

            If he did, though, it seems his “1986” excuse is a dodge. A spurious one.

      • JustData

        Capital offense is right. It should have been a career death penalty for everyone involved.

        • Evan Jones

          Perhaps. But it isn’t proven. Besides, I’m not after their jobs. I would be perfectly content if they went forth and sinned no more. (And it is not as if they haven’t suffered terribly for their actions.)

  • LudicrousSextus

    You go girl. It’s rather humorous that as the UN – who’s *every* ‘dire climate prediction’ has failed miserably – meets in Paris for their climate angst confab – a far brighter contingent of Frenchmen release this paper…

    ….a scathing white paper released by a society of French mathematicians calls its fight against global warming “absurd” and “a costly and pointless crusade”.

    “You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human…history to find [such a] mad obsession,” according to a translated summary of the document released in September by the Paris-based Société de Calcul Mathématique SA.

    The mathematicians harshly criticized a “crusade [that] has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking,” noting that “the battle [against] CO2 has become a national priority.

    “How have we reached this point in a country that claims to be rational?” they ask, adding that mathematicians “do not believe in crusades. They look at facts, figures, comments and arguments.”

    “There is not a single fact, figure…[or] observation that leads us to conclude the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed,” the paper states. “It is variable, as it has always been. … Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s overall temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.”
    http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_Global_Warming_Summary_2015_09.pdf

    • DennisHorne

      Société de Calcul Mathématique SA is just a one-man-band. Confirmation bias anyone?

      • Evan Jones

        There is not one among us without confirmation bias.

        • planet8788

          True but a few of us have the ability to recognize it and deal with and admit it.

        • Michael Evan Jones

          As long as it agrees with your so called lukewarmism its confirmed…ouch gotcha

        • DennisHorne

          Maybe, but 9 people cheerfully upticked a paper by one mathematician with his own little company who concludes the world’s climate isn’t in any way disturbed (by the 40% added CO2).

          Seems unlikely.

          • Evan Jones

            “Disturbed” (“extreme weather events”) is one thing. A mild thumb under the scale is another.

          • DennisHorne

            I take ‘disturbed’ to mean ‘altered’. But, always room for misunderstandings with French.

            “MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY. We are sinking.”

            French coastguard recruit: ” … and what are you sinking about.”

          • Evan Jones

            Well, as far as i can see, we are not sinking and it is not May. In terms of completeness of knowledge, however, we are still at sea.

          • Evan Jones

            It is a bit warmer as a result. But there is no trend in extreme weather. Except maybe a bit of a downward one in recent decades.

            Besides, I like it when one mathematician founds a little company and produces papers. And, having been up to my elbows in methods of measuring average temperature (USHCN, only), it is not an easy task and is never completely correct. Including the metrics I like.

            He is also quite correct that the current “crusade” is absurd, costly, and ineffective in terms of solution, even if stipulating a problem. For that reason, I upvoted it as well.

      • JustData

        I read through the summary at the link; I haven’t read the full paper yet.
        There’s nothing in the summary that indicates confirmation bias; are you referring to the paper or the website or the organization?

  • SaguaroJack49

    We are reliving, on a near-global scale, the Stalinist Thirties. Ironic that the Russians long since threw that crap out the window along with its show trials, state-controlled media, and endless lies. Socialism continues to corrupt souls, sense, science, and always will.

    • Evan Jones

      These current tendencies, bad as they are, are a very damn pale shadow compared with 1930s Stalinism. I don’t like ’em, no, but they do not equate.

      • Michael Evan Jones

        You are a troll no doubt

      • SaguaroJack49

        Oh, but they do. Stalinism didn’t just exist in Russia.

    • Barney Holmes

      Check out “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America”.

  • Never Mind

    Which do you fear more – climate change or the Gov’t response to climate change? People the world over have been fore-warned about possible future temperature increases and possible consequences. Individuals, based on their local circumstances, will do what they need to do survive. Collectively, through individual action, the ‘problem’ (differing by location) will be solved. Without Gov’t involvement.

    • Alexsandr

      climates change. without man. live with it. enjoy the ice age in 2020

      • Evan Jones

        That depends on solar. The jury is still out on that one. (So we wait and see.)

        Meanwhile, we may expect another 20+ years of relative flat trend, followed by “double warming” (a la 1976 – 2007). Then another 30 years of flat. PDO flips.

        By that time, we will likely have left fossil fuels in the dust (unlikely with any real help from solar power or wind), for electricity generation, and AGW will (slowly) abate. heck, we could “go nuke” starting tomorrow, if we had a mind to.

        Any effects from solar (if significant) will be additive to these effects.

        In the (very) long term, we are at the butt-end of the current interglacial, and we will revert to a Wurm-style ice age, caused by Milankovitch cycles.

        • azt24

          If all the people pushing AGW were actually serious about AGW, we would “go nuke” tomorrow. It’s the only existing technology that could supply our energy needs without those dreaded carbon emissions.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, quite. They appear to be deadly serious , yes — yet somehow on an intellectually flippant level.

            One thing you can say for old Doc Hansen: his projections may be like so totally out to lunch, but at least he has a rational “solution” (nukes).

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evan, you must be a paid troll!

          • Evan Jones

            Well, if you have any contacts with the Koch bothers, I would be most grateful if you would provide an introduction.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            The brown paper bag is not lunch, trollman

          • Icarus62

            Hansen’s projections haven’t been that far off, and it’s worth remembering that he predicted the onset of the modern global warming trend well before there was any sign of it appearing in the instrumental record.

            http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/JH1981vsobsmygraph-116567751702.jpeg

            Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Hansen et al 1981
            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html

          • RealOldOne2

            As Latimer says, Texas sharpsooting. Shoot at the side of a barn. THEN paint a bulls-eye target around the hole.

          • Icarus62

            You realise that Hansen’s projection was made 34 years ago, yes?

          • gda

            Perhaps we should really be looking at his 1988 projection, which should by then have been more accurate. Funny how it seems the more activist you become, the poorer your projections get. Certainly you would need to be pretty partisan to label his 1988 projections as “accurate”. A good analysis can be found (as usual) at Climateaudit – http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/

            Of course Hansen was by then in full activist mode, leading to the infamous summer of 1988 “fake air-conditioning failure” hearings.

            With the advent of the hiatus, Hansen’s projections get worse and worse. Is it any wonder it was deemed necessary to find someone to “rid us of this noxious pause” before Paris.

          • Evan Jones

            Before the PDO was discovered by science. Can’t blame him for missing that.

          • Icarus62

            But as you said yourself, the PDO probably has zero influence on the warming since mid-20th Century.

          • Evan Jones

            I get the feeling that the only disqualifier for a rational solution to this non-problem is that it actually works.

            IIRC, Paul Ehrlich once said that providing unlimited, free energy to the world would be tantamount to handing a toddler a loaded machine gun.

        • Michael Evan Jones

          Evan, doing some OT in troll land…Santa won’t be impressec

          • Evan Jones

            Maybe if i keep it up I’ll get some nice coal?

          • Evvie Jones

            Sure, add it to your guacamole.
            BTW, My mission is done….this climate agreement is the best the world community can
            put together….looks like we better hope for lukewarming..at least until my funeral.
            So long there Evan….it’s been an entertaining waste of time vying with you this past years.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            SO… the Paris agreement is the best, huh? Let’s run down it’s main points:

            1) Countries get to decide how much, or how little, they’re going to reduce their carbon output. And there’s NO PENALTY if they don’t do what they say they were going to do.

            2) “Poor” countries demanded that the “Rich” countries pay them huge bribes (which will go straight into the dictators’ pockets no doubt) or they wouldn’t sign the agreement. What is not clear is where the money is going to come from – there’s no way Obama is going to get Congress to allot whatever amount he promised, for instance.

            3) Did I mention there was no actual enforcement mechanism with regards to any promised carbon reductions? So basically this is revealed as what it was all the time. NOT ABOUT CO2, rather, about wealth transfer.

            Watch it not happen.

          • Evvie Jones

            Exactly, I agree 100%, all fluff….even Dr. Hansen says BS
            That’s why I nominate Evan Jones to be the data monitor emissions tracker.
            Something he likes to do and won’t matter at all, but will make him feel important.
            Thanks for the comment BTW

    • Icarus62

      That’s a position which has some merit, although the moral argument says we can’t ignore the fact that we in the ‘first world’ have enjoyed most of the benefits of fossil fuel combustion, and the poorer parts of the world are burdened with most of the harm.

  • Altoidian

    She is fighting a losing battle. The agenda…the political/economic/social agenda is invested in brain washing the public that there is a dire emergency and making them fearful so they will be compliant when the One World Goverment is officially unleashed upon them. “We are one!” will be the slogan and then the ax will fall. People should be afraid. This is not going to stop until the elites control every last thing and person on this planet.

    • Evan Jones

      Nah. Science will out. Science is the dog in this fight. Politics is just the big fluffy tail. Ultimately, the tail will go where the dog goes. Meanwhile, no one sees the dog for the tail.

      • Michael Evan Jones

        States the denied troll that believes in lukewarmism

        • Evan Jones

          The troll, denied
          Doth yet abide
          Close by my side
          Where’er I ride
          No place to hide

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Is that what you all recite among yourselves?

          • Evan Jones

            Current count being 5.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sounds like a circle jerk…

        • planet8788

          You are the denier…

          • Michael Evan Jones

            No, you are…baby talk…LOL

          • planet8788

            What are you up to 33 consecutive trolling comments without making a substantive point?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            FCK you…just correcting Troll Boy 4 eyes Jones

          • planet8788

            Is this because you are sexually attracted to him… NOt that there’s anything wrong with that of course.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sounds like you are another Caitlyn Jenner wannabe

      • azt24

        There speaks an optimist.

        • Evan Jones

          These things take a little time. But science, being the harsh taskmaster that it is, tends to rein these things in (unlike politics). That’s why I like it.

      • Hominid

        You’re failing to appreciate the many levels of corruption of science through democratization.

        • Evan Jones

          And I think you may be failing to appreciate the ubiquitous corruption of science in the absence of same. Lysenko springs forcibly to mind.

  • Prospector

    Excellent interview. This is what has come to be known as “consensus building” amongst ideologically driven cultures. It is the process of eliminating all dissenting voices. President Eisenhower warned us that “… we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex” and gave equal warning about a “scientific-technological elite” that would attempt to hijack public policy:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

    and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisenhower001.asp

    • Evan Jones

      I’m still too mad at him about the other part of that speech to give him any real credit for this. It was worth two beastly Sov tank armies to our enemies.

    • Barney Holmes

      Search for “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” for the way education has been effected by the same thing.

  • Independence_R_US

    But by then the damage will already be done. If we allow the Climate Change group to control the planet. That’s the real goal of this false narrative. That they somehow have a way to stop this. All we have to do is send all our money to those in charge. They will them keep the calamity from happening. While they line their pockets & make grandiose false claims. While taking over the world.

    • DennisHorne

      It’s a conspiracy I tell you. Don’t hand in your guns.

      • Evan Jones

        When the light’s out It’s less dangerous.
        Here we are now, entertain us!

      • planet8788

        We’ve already warmed 1 degree according to the latest manipulated charts…. what’s one more degree? We still haven’t reached the MWP yet.

        • DennisHorne

          The 1C is a mean global increase. The MWP temperature wasn’t global, was it?

        • Icarus62

          Evidence indicates that we’re now significantly above Holocene Thermal Maximum temperature, which means that the planet is warmer than at any time in the last 120,000 years.

          http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2779/3173/original.jpg

          • planet8788

            no… Only the manufactured evidence says that. NASA’s data manipulation is undeniable and the MWP was still much warmer.

          • Icarus62

            Whose data are you relying on to claim that the MWP was much warmer than today?

          • planet8788

            Andybody’s data… Because the warming this century post-1940, is all manufactured.

          • planet8788

            Evidence indicates there is massive data tampering to the 20th century and present temperature record.

    • Evan Jones

      If we allow the Climate Change group to control the planet

      Oh, they’re like a dog chasing a car. They wouldn’t know what to do with it if they caught it. And if they did, the rest of us would tire of them right quick-like and shake them off like a bad case of fleas.

    • Patrick Carroll

      They won’t control the planet. They’ll control the human beings who live on the planet.

      The firing squads will start up soon thereafter. Along with the deposits to Swiss banks.

  • Chris Hobson

    Its freezing what happened to global warming.

  • https://youtu.be/cPaX3RahUqQ The Professor

    Nov 29, 2015 Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

    Do you believe in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Want to help the IPCC with an embarrassing little statistical problem in their latest report? Want to win $100,000? Today James introduces you to Douglas J. Keenan’s $100,000 contest to identify trend-driven time series. Details are in the show notes. Good luck!

    https://youtu.be/hKl2ksAERS0

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    Global warming FARCE: Overwhelming majority of Britons think climate change is FAKE

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/622910/Global-warming-farce-majority-Britons-climate-change-fake-UN-summit

  • EPatrickMosman

    n 1996 Fredrick Seitz,President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and
    past President of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) described the
    1996 consensus IPCC report as “I have never witnessed a more disturbing
    corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this
    IPCC report”…”If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic
    procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at
    least that part that is concerned

    with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more
    reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.

    A Major Deception on Global Warming by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996”

    Mr. Seitz’s comments refer to the fact that after the scientific report
    which concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the
    theory that human activity contributed to warming and that further study
    was required, the IPCC unilaterally changed the conclusion to indict
    human activity and, without consulting the contributing scientists,
    issued the report.

    “Mr. Seitz also cited NAS’ own study which states, inter alia, the earth

    has been subjected to impressive and abrupt swings in climate during recent

    periods covering thousands of years and that mankind’s role cannot be

    assessed without adequate …. baseline documentation of natural climate

    variability”..

    More recently several other scientists have voiced their concerns of the IPCC’s objectivity as reported in the following:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/26/stavins-and-tol-on-ipcc-wg3/

    • Evan Jones

      Dr. Seitz goes further in this than I would. But Dr. Curry’s description of the unfortunate tendency to tribalism is apt. I have to fight it in myself.

      • EPatrickMosman

        Dr Seitz was emphasizing that “mankind’s role cannot be assessed without adequate …. baseline documentation of natural climate variability”..the same point Dr Curry is making 20 years later. The Hansen/Mann/ etal /AGW/climate change/sustainable development tribe treat both as the Royal Society treated Newton when he presented his proof,not a theory, of white light.

  • planet8788

    30 straight trolling comments by Michael Evan Jones.

    And his last post with an actual link/argument was completely laughable.

    • Evan Jones

      Wherever I am, he won’t be far behind.

      OTOH, maybe he’s doing something right — going by the upvotes, over ten times as many folks agree with him over me. #P^)

      • planet8788

        There’s a group of 3 or 4 of them. A couple of them used to actual make coherent arguments. Lately they have all become trolls. Jack Dale is the only one with modicum of intelligence.

        • Isandhlwana79

          Icarus is a fairly bright guy. A gentleman too. I don’t agree with his assessments of AGW.

          • planet8788

            True. He didn’t come to mind.

          • Fromafar

            Icarus is the guy who thinks that we should all be wowed by irrelevant pretty pictures. Nothing more there to see. Boring!

          • JustData

            Icarus shovels a lot of total horse manure for a gentleman, though.

      • Michael Evan Jones

        Oh, Evvie, now we are going by polls for who is right! LOL
        Evvies ‘scientific method” at work…..so sad

  • planet8788

    Yes. I do.

  • planet8788

    Before the invention of the SUV…

    http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

    Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

    And yet these Climastrologists think a 4-5 year drought is proof that Global Warming is occurring and it is going to be the end of the world….

    Seriously… what do you have to be smoking to believe this stuff.

    • Evan Jones

      Seriously… what do you have to be smoking to believe this stuff.

      Oh, I dunno. I have encountered some very stoned scientists in my travels who have produced very good science. (Further deponent sayeth not.)

      • DennisHorne

        I have encountered some very stoned scientists…

        Did you get the pip?

        • Evan Jones

          I plead a fifth.

          • DennisHorne

            Could be a grain of truth in that…

          • Evan Jones

            In vino veritas.

          • DennisHorne

            Several cases of sour grapes here…

    • Icarus62

      “And yet these Climastrologists think a 4-5 year drought is proof that Global Warming is occurring…”

      No-one thinks that. We know that global warming is occurring because of the instrumental records. The science tells us that we can be confident of increasing drought in some parts of the world, in response to global warming.

      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/707/F1.large.jpg

      • planet8788

        The satellites show no warming… the only warming exists in the constantly and spectacularly manipulated UHI-ridden surface data.

        • Icarus62

          The satellite warming trends are almost the same as the surface trends.

          http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1539/5339/original.jpg

        • Evan Jones

          UHI has a significant effect on offset, but I don’t find it has much effect on trend, at least not with the unperturbed well sited urban stations.

          However, poor microsite (Heat Sink Effect) appears to have a very large, significant effect on SST trend. Well sited urban stations show much lower trends than poorly sited non-urban stations.

          Microsite is the new UHI. That’s one of our team’s findings.

          • planet8788

            So Evan, How do they adjust for UHI? From what I read, it’s an automated detection that assumes UHI could not increase at two points near to each other at the same time.

          • Evan Jones

            As far as I know, USHCN2 dropped specific UHI adjustment, per se, and uses pairwise.

            But the problem is not UHI. It is wretchedly poor microsite.

          • planet8788

            As cities grow. and they used to grow fast, I think that pairwise thing is prone to error. None if it should be automated.

          • planet8788

            Poor microsites evolve…

      • Brian Rookard

        And yet the Sahel area of Africa has seen additional greening and more rainfall ….

        • Icarus62

          Isn’t the Sahel on the equatorial side of the sub-tropical dry zone, i.e. the southern edge of the Sahara? It would make sense that the Sahel sees more rainfall as the sub-tropical dry zone expands and shifts northwards, while of course the Mediterranean and the American south-west see increasing drought.

      • depressionbaby

        The current scientific consensus is that California would be wetter because of global warming. You can look it up and I suppose you have it at your fingertips. But maybe they’re dryer now because of the current “pause”.

        • Icarus62

          That’s an interesting comment because it doesn’t accord with my understanding at all. The American south-west is on the poleward edge of the sub-tropical dry zone, and the sub-tropical dry zones are expanding and shifting polewards. That is expected to lead to a long term reduction in precipitation for the area, plus of course rising temperature as global warming continues. Hence the prediction for worsening drought. Do you have some research that says the opposite?

      • planet8788

        So what caused the California drought at the turn of the century?
        This is nothing but make believe.
        Supposedly we have already warmed a degree… right? Where’s the evidence that global warming causes more droughts? We should already have it right?

      • RealOldOne2

        “projections averaged across 17 climate models…”
        ROTFLOL @ your gullibly basing your BELIEF in your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models which cant accurately project future temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. (vonStorch2013)

        Science is done by empirical evidence. You have STILL provided no empirical evidence showing that your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion is true.

        I cited and quoted from peer reviewed science that empirically showed 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the period of greatest warming during the late 20th century than anthropogenic forcing here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 You were unable to rebut a bit of it.

        You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
        Your CO2 climate cult religion fails the empirical science test.
        You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcing was NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
        Your CO2 climate cult religion fails the empirical science test.

        Your whole CO2 climate cult alarmist religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. (vonStorch2013)

  • planet8788
    • Icarus62
      • planet8788

        .4C warming since about 1980 after we had a well documented cooling of 0.5C from 1940-1975… not much to worry about… Why do you think there was global cooling scare? Because scientists couldn’t read thermometers? Or because the earth had cooled?

        • Icarus62

          The worry comes from the fact that the warming isn’t going to stop any time soon. There is good evidence that we’ve already exceeded the maximum temperature of the last 120,000 years, with warming proceeding about 30 times faster than natural rates of climate change.

          “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

          American Physical Society

          • Econ Oneoone

            It’s stopped for the last 15+ years…unless you jiggle the data.

          • Icarus62

            On the contrary, it accelerated in the last 15 years.

            http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/GEA-141361307138.png

          • Brian Rookard

            Really? Why are you posting an ocean heat content graph? You do know that all that supposed extra “heat” has served to warm the ocean by a scant 0.09 deg C. If you are going to talk actual temp … why not post the actual tamperature graph? You didn’t do that because you are dishonest.

          • Icarus62

            It’s not just an ocean heat content graph, as you can clearly see. It collates all of the heat accumulating in the climate system, including warming of the surface and atmosphere, and melting of ice, as well as the ocean heat content.

            The people who are dishonest are those who (for example) make claims about global warming by citing only the temperature metrics for the atmosphere, which comprise a mere 1% of the heat accumulating in the climate system.

          • RealOldOne2

            Ocean warming is caused by solar radiation not ghgs, as shown by the science I summarized here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444
            You’ve never been able to rebut a bit of that science.

            “The people who are dishonest are those who (for example) make claims about global warming by citing only the temperature metrics for the atmosphere”
            So you agree that the IPCC is dishonest, as they state: “Introduction: What is the Issue? – There is concern that human activities may be inadvertently changing the climate of the globe through the enhanced greenhouse effect, by past and continuing emission of carbon dioxide and other gases which will cause the temperature of the Earth’s surface to increase – popularly termed the “global warming”. – IPCC, FAR, WG1, p.xiii
            And the IPCC says that the atmosphere will warm more than the surface, https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure-9-1-l.png , so you are merely once again spreading false propaganda and blowing smoke out your tailpipe.

            ~19 years, ~570 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, and it has caused NO global warming: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2868/772/original.jpg

          • RonRonDoRon

            The ocean temperature measurements, and their significance, are in dispute.

          • planet8788

            It’s already stopped. says the satellites.

          • planet8788

            80 physicists complained about that statement. at least 2 resigned.

          • Evan Jones
          • Icarus62

            When you add on the last ~120 years of data, which has been curiously omitted from your graph, you get something like this:

            http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2779/3173/original.jpg

      • RonRonDoRon

        From my career tracking investment statistics, I know that where one starts and ends the graph makes all the difference. Thirty years, in the context of climate, is pretty much nothing.

        Also, the impression a graph gives can be greatly distorted by stretching out one of the axes (the vertical, in this case). All of the variation here is in a range of about 4 tenths of a degree.

        And define the terms. What does “temperature anomaly” mean here? Is this a graph of actual temperature measurements or a graph of results of models? (And, if temperature measurements, how much have they been “adjusted”?

        • JustData

          From the part of my career when I was a statistician as well as from the part where I was a scientist (now retired), you are exactly right. If human-driven climate change is real then they wouldn’t need to lie nor to resort to blatant propaganda and threats.

    • Evan Jones

      Yeah, that’s the effect of Karl (2015). NASA/GISS takes NOAA already-adjusted data and readjusts it. So it follows that GISS would reflect K15 via NOAA.

      I will go on a bit.

      What surprises me about the whole thing is that K15 is quite recent and still subject to raging controversy both inside and outside the scientific community. The adjustment is applied to the TAO buoys rather than ship intake measurements. This raise a lot of eyebrows because TAO is generally considered far more reliable.

      This is similar to the MMTS equipment conversion of surface stations. The MMTS electronic sensor is considered more reliable than the old CRS boxes, which exaggerate Tmin trend, and greatly exaggerate Tmax trend.

      So one would expect MMTS to remain constant and CRS be adjusted to fit, thus lowering overall trend going back to the very beginning of the official record starting in 1880.

      But instead, upward offset applied to MMTS Tmax readings are bumped a whopping +0.1C, with -0.025 offset applied to Tmin, resulting in an considerable overall +0.0375 bump to Tmean. But that’s not all. Menne does a 7-year pairwise in each direction between MMTS and CRS, resulting in a larger overall adjustment effect on trend to the MMTS equipment.

      This appears to be the same method being applied to the TAO buoys. So rather than reducing the trends of the older equipment, a trend increase is applied to the newer, more reliable equipment (both MMTS and TAO).

      Normally that would mean there would be an interval of much examination and independent review before HadCRUt4 would be swapping over. But not only did they do that far more quickly than one would expect, but they did not even revise the version number to t5.

      This raises eyebrows. Not only the fact of the adjustment, itself, but how rapidly Haddy moved to readjust.

      Interestingly, while the TAO adjustment only bumps up warming from 1950 from 1.1C/century to 1.2 per century, it causes a radical departure after 2000, thus “eliminating” the pause and making the models (which also diverge at that point) appear more plausible.

      I think both MMTS and TAO adjustments are misapplied. Rather than adjusting those readings, it is the shipboard and CRS data that should have a trend-reducing adjustment. NOAA, GISS, and HadCRU are going about it ass-backwards: Rather than past data trends being reduced, current trends (esp. after 2000) are increased.

      • Econ Oneoone

        And the satellite data, generally considered to be the most accurate, agrees with the buoy data.

        • Evan Jones

          Yes.

  • Patrick Carroll

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again:

    I’ll take “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever seriously when I see those shrieking about it taking it seriously. For example, using video conference equipment rather than jetting in from all over the world to exotic destinations like Paris, for a big time.

    Until I see my betters accepting a bit of pain because of their beliefs, I’m going to take the whole thing as a gigantic scam, designed to rip me off and limit my freedoms. After seven years of Obama, I am through being ripped off and having my freedoms limited for a cause that seems mostly about partying in great destinations and attaching snouts to government teats.

    • planet8788

      alleged “betters”

      • Patrick Carroll

        Well, I am an idiot who escaped his west of Ireland village.

    • Latimer Alder

      Ahh Paris!

      What better place for 40,000 professional Climatoangsters to jet into (burning all that lovely kerosene fossil fuel) for a fortnight of fine wine, fine food and Christmas shopping.

      And all at public expense.

      • MathMan

        After this the Tree Huggers will be able to quote Bogie in Casablanca: We’ll always have Paris’.

  • davcon

    Lest we offend the perpetually alarmed, lets just join them. A good place to start would be the 98% of scientists who believe in Climate Change (used to be “Global Warming). We need the list of those 98%, their academic and professional credentials, and their current employers. We will move on to step 2 after we receive the list.
    We need to know who and how to join.
    Don’t hold your breath.

    • Icarus62

      That’s easy enough – just look in the scientific literature.

      • depressionbaby

        I used to really like Scientific American until it turned into Unscientific American AKA Political Scientist American.

    • cromwell

      The figure of 98% is based on 77 out of 79 climate scientists saying human activity had contributed to global warming. A very small number often used used to claim 98% of all scientists agree.
      This is from a survey done for the American Geophysical Union in 2009 by researchers for the University of Illinois in Chicago.In 2008 they sent a simple survey with nine questions to more than 10,000 experts listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s directory of geoscience departments. They ended up getting responses from 3,146 scientists, and then publicized the results from two questions: (1) Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels? (2) Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? The results? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent with the second. So where does the 98 percent statistic come from? That’s from a subsample of the survey — 79 climate scientists.

      • Icarus62

        The 97% figure is actually from a review of nearly 12,000 climate science studies published in recent years. It’s a very robust conclusion.

        “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.”

        Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
        John Cook1,2,3, Dana Nuccitelli2,4, Sarah A Green5, Mark Richardson6, Bärbel Winkler2, Rob Painting2, Robert Way7,Peter Jacobs8 and Andrew Skuce2,9
        Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd • Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2

        • cardigan

          Yours is a different 97%, there are several and the Cook version is very far from robust. It has been roundly de-constructed by many other scientists and statisticians, including some stated by Cook to be valid references.

          • Icarus62

            It’s strange that you should say that, because no-one really disputes the fact that human activity is causing global warming. Scientists do argue over how much of recent multidecadal warming is due to human activity and how much to natural influences, but they don’t deny the anthropogenic component completely – not even the ‘sceptics’.

          • Go_FreeMarkets

            No scientist is going to set a parameter to 0.00 without evidence. Alpha Centauri has a gravitational interaction with my coffee cup – 99.9999% of physicists will agree with that statement. They would agree with it even if politicians and activists were doing ridiculous things to “stop it”. That’s why they are scientists.

          • Seamus

            And yet, the warmists intend to tie AGW around the necks of the “wealthy” and loot the national treasuries of all the wealthy nations to prop up those poor nations which are allegedly hurt by our energy consumption and its alleged impact on AGW. It’s a massive fraud.

          • Icarus62

            There are two different issues here: The science and the politics (or maybe ethics).

            I think a lot of people dispute the science because they don’t like the political implications if it’s true, but of course that has no bearing at all on whether it is true or not. The evidence is very robust that we’re warming the Earth’s climate enough to matter, a lot. If you don’t like the political solutions or ethical arguments in response to that evidence then by all means challenge it, but you have to come up with better arguments rather than just railing against the evidence.

          • JustData

            That’s not true either. And please don’t insult your intelligence by posting another propaganda piece by some of the alarmists who are working overtime to keep their grant money flowing,

            Climate change is absolutely real; the climate has been changing non-stop since the atmosphere formed. The Earth has been cooler in the past certainly; the massive glaciers that once covered the American upper Midwest are now called “Great Lakes” because the ice melted. That happened long before humans walked the Earth.

            The simple fact is that the Earth is not currently warming much at all even though the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is continuing to rise, so no, scientists inlcuding skeptics do NOT agree that human activity is causing global warming.

            Humans are having significant impacts on the planet; that’s absolutely not disputed by anyone. Habitat destruction, air and water pollution, and loss of species are real issues. It’s despicable that the d@mn alarmists are so greedy as to divert money and resources away from real problems just to get richer and more powerful.

          • Icarus62

            You’re simply wrong. Only a complete crank would argue that there is no anthropogenic global warming at all.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You’re simply wrong.”
            Another empirical evidence-free CLAIM!
            Your stupidity should embarrass you, but you are to ideologically blinded to recognize it. So sad.

          • JustData

            I saw your comment about the IOPScience “research paper” and I read the paper. It should be used in every introductory class on Research Methods — as a completely dishonest paper and an example of many of the things incompetent/dishonest researchers do wrong or badly. Yet you cite it as work resulting in “robust” conclusions. You’re a true believer and a joke.

            You have absolutely no idea how much “warming” is going on nor any idea at all of how to measure it. You also seem to be completely clueless about the issues with the determination (assumptions, guesses, extrapolations) of global temps in the past (not just early human attempts to measure, but temps guessed at during times when there were literally no humans on the globe).
            You have absolutely zero knowledge of the amount of any of “warming” (if there is any) that may possibly due to human activity.
            You know absolutely nothing about it that can be quantified in any honest, meaningful way, but you’re just sure there is some and you’re also sure that some part of what you’re sure exists must somehow be due to human activity.

            You’re clearly an acolyte for the global warming religion and are absolutely steeped in colossal ignorance and you’re calling someone else a complete crank.

            Only a complete crrank would describe that fatally flawed, psuedo-science claptrap misrepresented as ‘research’ done by the alarmists at IOPScience as “robust.”

            I have some first rate tickets for you and some of your acolyte friends to go see Piltdown Man. Only $1000 each. It’s a good buy, really, and it won’t interfere at all with your global warming religious propaganda duties.

          • Icarus62

            You’re dismissing the entire field of climate science as having produced absolutely zero knowledge over the last 200 years. Even the most ardent ‘sceptical’ scientists don’t go that far.

          • JustData

            You’re lying about what I wrote so you can refute a strawcomment.
            You didn’t address the sham of a “paper” you used to try to prop up your scam — why don’t you explain your analysis of why it’s actually good quality research instead. Is it because you never bothered to read the paper you claim is so robust? Is it because you are entirely clueless about experimental design?
            I did not dismiss any field as having produced absolutely zero knowledge over the last 200 years; my comment is right there so what good does it do you to lie?
            Still waiting on your adamant and credible defense of that piece of horse cr@p you claim is “robust” science. Good grief.
            Pfui.

          • JustData

            The paper that Icarus62 cited is another Cook propaganda bogus piece of religious bias pushing the scam of alarmism.

        • JustData

          That paper’s conclusion is robust the same way tissue paper is robust.

          You copied/pasted the title, authors, pub date, and part of the abstract; why didn’t you include the URL? It’s available on line and easy to find.
          I read the full paper. No honest scientist could claim that the “work” done on that “study” could ever result in even a barely robust conclusion much less a very robust conclusion.
          Did you read the paper? Did you evaluate the methodology? What’s your professional assessment of their inter-rater reliability technique? How about their selection criteria? Did the authors employ basic techniques to identify and eliminate or minimize bias and do the authors honestly consider the impact of bias when they state their results and draw their conclusions?

          In fact, the selection process is inadequate for the claims made in both the abstract and the conclusion. The raters are self-selected from a population known to be biased toward the alarmists. The inter-rater reliability test is entirely bogus and that alone would disqualify this as science and disqualify it from publication in any high quality journal except that the alarmists’ have been stacking the editor jobs with high priests who agree with the religious doctrine of alarmism. Their author survey is best described as an effort worthy of a rank amateur.

          In short, this would be a good example of a very poorly done paper laden with bias and egregious errors. It shouldn’t get a passing grade even in a high school science class.

  • MathMan

    Dr David Bellamy was never off our TV screens at one time, rather like David Attenborough is now. The crime that led to his disappearance was that he challenged the Climate Change Industry agenda. Attenborough remains on our TVs nightly because he promotes this agenda.

  • No Left Turns

    Only 33% of voting Americans still believe in the lie of man-made global warming

    and those same people believe in Santa Claus……….

  • Attila

    AGW Luddites and Liberals share an inclination towards Stalinism when it comes to diversity of thought.

    • Seamus

      I wouldn’t be attacking the “Luddites” in this context. They aren’t the ones who are sending “deniers” to Siberia. This is strictly a leftist, as you say, Stalinist, proclivity. The left does not permit disagreement with their agenda at any level.

  • Imperial Sophistry

    Don’t believe a word from the weather watermelons. They’re all a bunch of lying commies that want your money.

    • Poor62

      Follow the money to find out what is really behind this.

  • Dan Wafford

    Climate scientists have NO explanation for why global average temperatures fell from +1.8C to -3.5C over the period 400,000 BC to 340,000 BC, then suddenly spiked back to +2C around 325,000 BC, then declined again to about -3.5C around 260,000 BC, spiked again to +1.8C around 225,000 BC, declined again to about -4C around 150,000 BC, spiked again to about +1.8C around 125,000 BC, declined again to about -4C around 25,000 BC, spiked again to about +1.5C around 10,000 BC. Atmospheric CO2 concentration followed exactly the same cycle – without ANY INFLUENCE from “industrial man” – who didn’t happen to be around at any of those times. These historic swings in CO2 concentration are THOUSANDS OF TIMES larger than the current changes attributed to industrial air pollution.

  • gmonsen

    Tiresome debate at best. Does human activity exude warmth? Yes, of course. The question is whether its a problem that needs the kind of attention and expense this has and would generate. That answer is as clearly, no, of course not. Is it the ultimate environmental cause, once pandas and smelt and small lizards have been saved and protected. If you are an environmentalist, you have pretty much run out of causes of any interest. Global warming is something these people can embrace to continue to fuel their religious zeal to get us back to the purity of the iron age. Nuclear power generates no warming and powers a lot of needs around the world, but runs into other environmental concerns. That leaves us all needing to wear soft, beanie propeller hats, windmill farms to kill our avian friends whose lives seem irrelevant now, and solar power, which has been such an expensive and heuristic proposition.

    With the support of the unhinged and dissembling grafters, like Michael Mann, supported by leaders like Obama, who find radical Islam beneath his intellectual interest, the wealthy environmentalists can fly to meetings in jets spewing warmth, have cocktails in Paris, and produce nothing but increased and wasteful spending on a grand scale that would further impoverish the middle and lower classes and would have little or no effect on the wealthy.

    The nature of the cult of warmism is one of pure religious belief and that is clearly notable by the favored label for the naturally skeptical of “denier”. Might as well say “blasphemer”. And, like religions — and I would posit Islam in particular — you must believe in warmism or you are an infidel and your ideas and thought and speech should be metaphorically (hopefully) killed. Word choice matters as it reflects the mindset of the speakers and denier is purely religious.

    I say this is all tiresome, because there is not only nothing new being discovered that would provide more sound and convincing arguments for action, but, in fact, the new data and findings have weakened the initial case made by “deceivers” like Mann, yet there is still all this talk. Very tiresome.

    • strongmind

      super post, thanks for writing.

      • gmonsen

        Thanks.

    • JustData

      Nicely done.
      One quibble- there are plenty of environmental causes left that are interesting (and critical!), but none that generate the amount of grant money and give scientists the glamor and power that Global Climate Alarmism generates. As you point out, it’s all about the money and power for the climate alarmists.

      • gmonsen

        I agree with you and would start by focusing on the damage to the water system in the southwest caused by the long-closed Gold King Mine leaking innumerable pollutants into the river system during the EPA’s “clean-up” efforts. We need to “triage” our environmental problems.

  • Woody13

    97% of government grant givers believe in GW, science follows the money.

    • Poor62

      Worked the exact same way in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s when folks like Jimmy Carter and the consensus of scientists were warning us about the “coming ice age.” Jimmy sitting there in his cardigan sweaters in front of the blazing White House fireplace warning us that if we didn’t take action to cut oil and coal use, we’d be freezing to death as there would be none left for heat. When that didn’t work the scientists did a 180 to keep the flow of dollars coming into their pockets.

      • Rod

        Not really fair to the scientists. Their investigations will logically follow the grant money most of the time; they have to eat too, after all.

        It’s the policymakers who drive the direction of grant money, using the research of a few scientists as justification. Once the money starts flowing in one direction only, that’s the where the research is directed as well.

        Once the policymakers realized that global warming could be used to justify a massive new tax scheme the ostracizing of dissident scientists began, as well as the labeling of their supporters as despicable “deniers.”

        • GJTGJTGJT

          too bad tea party drones don’t know how grants work. Listen, dummy, instead of posting regurgitated stupidity, you could always look at how grant money is actually spent, but then again, you’re probably too stupid to figure out how to use Google.
          Not really fair to ask idiots like Rod to know what they are talking about, sub 100 IQs tend to be big on crying, little on facts and reality.

  • akrasius

    27% of democratic congressmen favor prosecution of climate “deniers.” 27% of elected democrats think that this bullspit theory is more important than the first amendment. That scares me a whole lot more than global warming.

  • GaryLeeT

    There seem to be some knowledgeable comments here so maybe someone can answer a couple of questions. This is assuming there is a warming trend of which I am not entirely convinced.

    Is man causing all the warming?

    What percentage is man causing?

    Of man’s portion, how much could they effectively reduce without sending us into the stone ages?

    Since the warming will happen over a 100 years or so, wouldn’t be a lot more cost effective to plan for it, rather than trying to stop it?

    • JustData

      Well, your questions are exactly what the debate SHOULD be all about. The debate isn’t about what it should be (as Dr. Curry pointed out better than I can) because the debate has been hijacked by alarmists yelling that the sky is falling (my description and I’ll add that the reason they’re doing it, except for a small number of “true believers,” is because they’ve figured out how to get rich off the scam).

    • Old_Blue_64

      Global warming has been going on for 40,000 years, since the last ice age ended, with huge benefits to mankind. There was a time when there was so much ice on land that prehistoric man could walk across the English Channel. It was always cold, and probably due to forces few if any understand, the ice ultimately melted, with the seas rising over 120 feet. With the beneficial warming, agriculture became widespread, and the human race survived and grew. Since then, there have been warming periods and little ice ages, and human activity has had just about nothing to do with any of it. The CO2 output of all of the worlds volcanoes in a year makes human activity insignificant.

    • Just call me Joe

      “Is man causing all the warming?” No. Nearly all heat (greater than 99.9%) entering the earth’s climate system comes from the sun. The atmosphere has been warmer in the past than today. It was warmer about 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, and almost as warm as today about 2,000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period. If you see a pattern, you get a gold star.

      “What percentage is man causing?” If you ask climate alarmists, they say nearly 100% is from human emitted CO2. (other ways humans can impact the climate is with deforestation, irrigation, concrete & urbanization, soot, and snow plowing, but these are mostly ignored by the models). But they do not model the variability in solar output. They do not model the variability in water vapor. They do not model geological activity. (causing the West Antarctic ice sheet to melt from below, and the cause of enormously sized warm plumes in the oceans) The real answer is: Nobody knows, because an accurate climate model does not exist.

      “Of man’s portion, how much could they effectively reduce without sending us into the stone ages?” Water vapor is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. The question isn’t about rolling back technology. If one wishes to cut back CO2, then one MUST dramatically reduce the world’s population. To get to the CO2 levels that many alarmists are demanding, name four people. Choose three to die for the cause.

      “Since the warming will happen over a 100 years or so, wouldn’t it be a
      lot more cost effective to plan for it, rather than try to stop it?” Climate alarmists ASSUME warming is bad. Why is that? Civilization historically has advanced more during warm periods than cool ones. How does anyone know that warming the world a couple of degrees wouldn’t be great? Many midwest farms can get two crops in a year with warmer winters.

    • RealOldOne2

      “Is man causing all the warming”
      No. This is obvious from the empirical evidence. In the last ~19 years humans have added ~570 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. From the Industrial Revolution to 19 years ago humans added ~1 trillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. When you add a ~60% perturbation to the factor that climate alarmists claim is the “thermostat” that controls the climate and it causes no increase in global average temperature ( graph below ) that is convincing evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is not a significant factor in causing climate warming.

      “What percentage is man causing”
      No one knows. But from the above, it is likely a very small percentage. There is not a single peer reviewed paper that has empirically quantified any portion of the warming to be anthropogenic in cause.

      “Of man’s portion, how much could they effectively reduce without sending us into the stone ages?”
      Even if they implemented all the cuts proposed in the Paris climate confab, it wouldn’t make any significant difference in global average temperature. Lomborg used the climate alarmists’ own models and calculated that it would be ~0.05C. http://www.lomborg.com/news/pre-judging-paris

      “Since the warming will happen over a 100 years or so, wouldn’t be a lot more cost effective to plan for it, rather than trying to stop it?”
      Of course it would. Humans have doing this throughout history. It is the height of human hubris to think that we can control the global climate.
      But the whole climate change thing is a trojan horse, as admitted by a former IPCC official: “The climate summit in Cancun end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic summits since the end of the Second World War … But one must say clearly: We distribute by climate policy de facto the world’s wealth around.” – Ottmar Edenhofer, 2010

      • Icarus62

        It’s already been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate.

        “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.”

        An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

        “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.”

        Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition.

        Modern Global Climate Change
        Thomas R. Karl, Kevin E. Trenberth
        http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5651/1719.short

        “There is very high confidence that industrial-era natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing except for brief periods following large volcanic eruptions.”

        IPCC AR5, WG1, Chapter 8, p. 662.

        “… there’s a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years.”
        http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

        “Most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities“.

        American Astronomical Society.

        “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

        American Geophysical Union.

        “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.”

        U.S. Global Change Research Program
        2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies

        • RealOldOne2

          BZZZZZ!
          That’s not peer reviewed EMPIRICAL evidence.
          It’s baseless, evidence free ALLEGATIONS by members of your climate cult who profit from supporting your groupthink scam/hoax/lie/fraud.

          Another bumbling FAIL there Icky.

          • JustData

            Bumbling fail is a pretty generous and kind description of that.
            Heck, the IPCC has backed away from their own 2007 claims already.
            The alarmists are rarely so kind; think of how Icky would describe a fossil fuel company pushing the benefits of fossil fuel that same way.

        • Brian

          None of your quotes addresses the questions that “skeptical” climate scientists like Judith Curry (the focus of the article) have raised, such as climate sensitivity. So unless the American Meteorological Society, Science the magazine, the IPCC, NASA, the American Astronomical Society, the American Geophysical Union, or the U.S. Global Change Research Program can tell us how much of an impact on global temperatures that a 0.01% change in the amount of CO2 in Earth’s air will have, then the predictions made by these “authorities” is mere speculation at best. At worst, it is blatant psuedoscience.

          Moreover, the assertions made by those organizations is predicated on the assumption that we know, WE KNOW! without a shadow of a doubt what all of the factors are in the changes to global climate over time, and how much of an impact each of those factors has. That is a terribly weak assumption.

          Furthermore, the projection model used to back up most of those claims is the IPCC’s, and there are serious questions left unanswered about their methodology:

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/

        • EPatrickMosman

          “Modern Global Climate Change
          Thomas R. Karl, Kevin E. Trenberth

          ”
          Kevin Trenberth a government NASA/NOAA/GISS employee wrote in one of the Climategate emails:

          “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack
          of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” and now he
          is one of the 20 asking the President and the Justice Department to
          begin a RICO investigation into those who agree with his own “travesty lack of warming”
          conclusion.”So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only
          goes to 900 meter depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being
          sequestered below 900 meters. OOPs there is little or no temperature data below 900 meters.

          Is this a scientific ‘find the data”
          version of Where’s Waldo? A perplexing question, how and why would the
          heat selectively enter the deep ocean without a similar effect on the
          upper oceans or a trace on the land masses?

  • Jack Milliken

    Conservatives need to stop fear mongering about Islamophobia so that liberals can restart fear mongering about climate change, voter ID and war on women

  • strongmind

    what has the role of $100 billion in tax payer funding of climate “research” had on the results of global warming?

    • Old_Blue_64

      I don’t know if $100 billion is the right number, but it is certainly true that huge amounts of money have gone into “climate research,” with the result that science itself has been captured by radicals who are not objective, and whose only interest is in keeping the money flowing for their propaganda. This is a subject worthy of extensive congressional hearings, and quite probably a large reduction in academic funding.

      • strongmind

        Great point and I am hoping congress investigates as well. I am stunned by the absolute hysterics by the climate change or now more apt climate “disruption” adherents. It;s like climate never existed until they were born.

  • rudehost

    This is how crazy the zealots in the global warming community are. You are effectively excommunicated because you agree with the premise but think it is slightly exaggerated? Like jihadists they tolerate no dissent and don’t even tolerate slight variability. It is all or nothing.

    • Rod

      Yep, there either is a god, or there isn’t; no middle ground when you’re defending with religious fervor.

  • Seamus

    The left supports evolution. Yet, when it comes to AGW, it’s man’s fault. They start their attack at the beginning of the “machine age” but neglect all the thousands/millions of years when the climate has always changed. All attempts at this hugely expensive war against man and its power grab, will have no more effect than attempting to change the tilt of earth by running around it really fast (or flying for all you Superman fans).

  • Falcon 78

    Professor Curry is mocked, shunned, and criticized by the “global warming” nut jobs for trying to be objective in analyzing the “science.” The global warming/climate change cabal perpetuates as big a ruse as the world has ever seen. I think this Paris summit should have been held at Summit Station, Greenland, with a ceremonial check of the temperature–at somewhere near (minus) -50 degrees–used to mark the opening of the conference.

    • Rod

      Better yet, make it an open air conference there. Who needs heat when the world is burning up? Save the carbon.

  • Cjones1

    The AGW proponents are reminiscent of the travelling humbug shows in the 19th Century. They are attempting to force the World’s economies to create a $100 billion snake oil fund that will enrich the likes of millions of Solyndras. Climate change has always existed but, as Ms. Curry noted, CO2 levels have been all over the charts in relation to temperature. Discounting the geological, orbital, solar, and other factors in the story of climate change is bad science.
    The climatologists and their train of politicians – or vice versa – who are calling for drastic measures as a result of bad AGW conclusions are no better than con men.
    If China wants to find alternatives to coal fired power plants to decrease the harmful level of particulates that their citizens are breathing, no one will argue with that. They should have installed better scrubbers to begin with, but they promoted industrialization over good practice based on solid science…much like the AGW crowd does today.

  • Brutus

    You all are missing the most important success of the “Climate Machine.” Common Core is overflowing with environmental objectives required to teach your kids in Science, History, and electives there is no doubt the earth is near its end. Socialism always looks to the end game feeling the Ends justify the means. Look away from the ends and watch the “means” and you get really nervous at the Orwellian scope of damage to American liberty and scientific integrity.

    • KhadijahMuhammad

      Move to Texas. Problem solved. In 20 years, those living in supposedly more “intellectual” states will be shocked when they see the results their scientific fascism has cost them.

      And no, kiddies, Texas textbooks do not teach anything other than standard curriculum on evolution and creation.

  • Ralph Cramden

    Who is doing the temperature readings and what is their goal? I don’t believe any of their numbers as evidenced by their fudging of past temperature readings.

    • Robert

      Who is doing ….
      . . .
      … their fudging…”

  • Ben FrankIin

    Her denial is a direct cause of worldwide terrorism.

    Only by binding the United States at the Paris Conference can Barack Obama save the world from ISIS. Perhaps he should also have this woman jailed, along side that Egyptian filmmaker who caused the terrorist attack on Benghazi.

    • Great Grandmas Cat

      You are obviously joking.

      • JJinCO

        Ben is … and it’s a dandy.

      • Rod

        Sadly, when it comes to Progressive politics, today’s jokes are tomorrow’s reality…

  • surfdog

    Nobody know with certainty what the temperature was in the pre-industrial era so why is that the base line ?

    • Icarus62

      Because we know it well enough to be confident that the warming to date is much larger than the uncertainty in that earlier data.

      • Jay

        If what you say is true then why have they had to “adjust” the historical data many times?

        The truth is they are estimating the data and make adjustments when the answers don’t come out the way they want. Besides they are arguing over percentages of a degree (smaller than their standard deviation).

        • Icarus62

          The historical data was never designed or intended to provide an accurate record of multidecadal climate change, so it has to be processed to remove biases and correct errors. Remember that we’ve had thermometers for a long time – The Central England Temperature series started in 1659, although admittedly that’s only one country. By mid-19th Century, thermometers were pretty accurate. Here’s what the Climatic Research Unit have to say about it:

          “Since the mid-20th century the uncertainties in global and hemispheric mean temperatures are small and the temperature increase greatly exceeds its uncertainty. In earlier periods the uncertainties are larger, but the temperature increase over the 20th century is still significantly larger than its uncertainty.”

          “The random error in a single thermometer reading is about 0.2_C (1 _) [Folland et al., 2001]; the monthly average will be based on at least two readings a day throughout the month, giving 60 or more values contributing to the mean. So the error in the monthly average will be at most …0.03_C and this will be uncorrelated with the value for any other station or the value for any other month.”

          Much more here:

          http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf

          So the data does allow us to reliably know that modern warming substantially exceeds the uncertainty from earlier data.

      • Capt WaffleStomper

        For baselines, we can look towards ice cores, rock samples, and fossils for past records of climate activity and based on that alone, we know that climate has changed throughout geologic time

        • Icarus62

          Of course, and it changed due to the same physics causing AGW today – e.g. greenhouse gases and atmospheric aerosols.

          • UNCLE

            Ice core samples do NOT support the CO2 correlation with warming.

          • Icarus62

            Of course they do. Most of the climate change over glacial / interglacial cycles was due to climate feedbacks, including changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

          • UNCLE

            I give up. You’re obviously a Zealot.

          • RealOldOne2

            He is indeed. And he goes silent when you ask him for EMPIRICAL evidence to support his CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 cult religion.

          • RealOldOne2

            Sorry but CO2 increases followed warming.
            Sorry that you are so ignorant to believe that a cause can happen AFTER the effect.
            ps. Your turn to play useful idiot supporter of your climate cult religion today huh?

          • Icarus62

            Not true. Most of the warming or cooling comes after atmospheric greenhouse gases begin to change, as I’m sure you’re well aware. You can’t deny the laws of physics.

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • RealOldOne2

            Sorry that you are so scientifically illiterate and so stupid to think that a cause can happen AFTER the effect.

            You are telling WHOPPERS again Icarus. CO2 increases and decreases follow AFTER sea surface temperatures changes: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958And STILL no empirical science to support your doomsday climate cult religion.

            You can’t cite one single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows taht anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You can’t rebut the several peer reviewed papers I showed you ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 ) which shows 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the late 20th century than anthropogenic climate forcing. Again your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You are merely regurgitating your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult propaganda. So sad.

          • Capt WaffleStomper

            So is the recent input then an explanation for the 19 year pause of avg temps warming globally?

          • Sergey

            Physics behind greenhouse effect is actually absent, because one can not make extrapolations from measurements made at 4000 ppm to those made at 400 ppm. And it is impossible calculate the greenhouse effect at so tiny concentrations, because corresponding calculations involve quantum mechanics equations that are impossible to resolve or solve numerically with the most advanced today supercomputers. The very existence of greenhouse effect of CO2 is purely hypothetical, it can be everywhere from zero to today arbitrary accepted values.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Of course, and it changed due to the same physics causing AGW today – e.g. greenhouses and atmospheric aerosols.”

            LOL. What happened to those same physics during the last ~19 years when there has been NO warming of the Earth’s atmosphere? Did your “physics” go on hiatus? Why did those “physics” heat the atmosphere in the late 20th century, but NOT heat the atmosphere during the last ~19 years? Fickle “physics” you believe in there.

            The answer is that climate change is STILL primarily caused by natural climate forcings, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet.

            I cited and quoted from peer reviewed science that empirically showed 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the period of greatest warming during the late 20th century than anthropogenic forcing here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcing was NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

            Your whole CO2 climate cult alarmist religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. (vonStorch2013)

  • Just call me Joe

    Judith Curry from Georgia Tech, Richard Lindzen from MIT, Steve Koonin from Caltech. These are not hillbilly snake handlers. Everyone recognizes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing it will increase atmospheric temperature. These distinguished individuals do not question that. They merely state that anthropogenic global warming theory is incomplete, that in its current state, it is incapable of making accurate predictions. How much does human CO2 raise the temperature, and how does that compare to natural variability? These are the questions in dispute. This article points out one of the big holes, that solar activity is not adequately modeled, and the sun is in fact dynamic. These true scientists also point out that the predictions made with AGW theory do not match observations. According to the late Professor Richard Feynman (Caltech), that means the theory is WRONG.

    Michael “Hockeystick” Mann is a fraud. His hockeystick data analysis, which Al Gore turned into a hundred million dollar windfall for himself, produces a hockeystick for random data input. It is F in programming junk. Mann was also caught committing fraud with his tree rings. He developed and sold people on the idea that tree rings were a good proxy for past temperature. Such a proxy is useful when thermometer data doesn’t exist. He was caught in a fraud when he had both tree rings and thermometer data for a location that overlapped in time, starting about 1960. He showed tree ring data for earlier times and only thermometer data for later. The reason he did not show the overlapping data is because they diverged. Thermometers showed the temperature went one way, and tree rings showed they went a different way. This means tree rings are NOT a good proxy for temperature and he knew it, but rather than admit he was wrong all of these years, he covered it up and lied. Michael Mann has never been right about anything.

    • Icarus62

      In fact the predictions made by climate scientists have been overwhelmingly correct and remarkably accurate, confirming that the physics is well understood. Here as an example is James Hansen’s projection of global warming from his 1981 paper (original in black, subsequent observations in blue):

      http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/JH1981vsobsmygraph-116567751702.jpeg

      • Capt WaffleStomper

        I direct you to the consensus among climatologists in the 70’s of the coming ice-age for evidence that predictions for long-range events can be wrong. Curry is correct in stating that there needs to be more research into the potential relationship between climate and solar activity.

        • Icarus62

          The consensus has always been for anthropogenic influences to be predominantly in the warming direction.

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/GlobalCooling.JPG

          • Capt WaffleStomper

            And I disagree with the notion that there is a consensus when top climatologists like Curry and others disagree or ask for more research. It also is called into question by flawed or skewed data such as what happened at PSU and East Anglia University. More to the point, you completely skimmed over my original point about the ice age prediction from the 70s.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are spouting climate alarmist propaganda.
            Sorry that you are so stupid to think that consensus is done by a BIASED counting papers as that Peterson propaganda rubbish claimed.
            The world’s leading climate scientists were convened in 1974 and they reached “consensus” that the Earth had been cooling for 3 decades and that it wouold not soon return to the warmer early 20th century. The documented report of the 1970s global cooling consensus is documented here: tinyurl.com/yds3ynt

      • Just call me Joe

        Sorry dude. You lose. The most accurate data is RSS, not the biased and manipulated GSS. The GSS data was modified to fit the computer models in many presentations. The RSS clearly shows that there has been zero trend to atmospheric temperatures since 1998, whereas the models showed dramatically increasing temperatures.

        Let’s take the chart you actually show. Do you know WHY the curves match pretty well prior to 1980, then they sort of don’t match very well after that? It is because the models were FORCED to match existing data by including a fudge factor. This parameter was adjusted until it matched prior year data. But since it covers all the unknowns in the models, including solar variation, water vapor variation, geological activity, land use changes, cloud cover deficiencies, etc., these are not linear offsets, but are dynamic and may contain periodicity themselves. One can’t use the same parameter that matches the past fairly well to predict the future in a complex non-linear system.

        Do you see how even the biased, manipulated GSS data show a non-trend from 1998 onward? Do you see what the models are doing during that time? They are distinctly going up.

        I am glad you mentioned Hansen. None of his predictions ever came true. It was a computer program written by James Hansen that “PROVED” global cooling was caused by burning fossil fuels, and that unless fossil fuel use were reduced dramatically and immediately, the earth was going into a man-made ice age. When the temperature measurements switch directions, it was Hansen who “proved” global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels, and that unless fossil fuel use were reduced dramatically and immediately, the earth was going into a man-made runaway warming. According to Hansen’s predictions, sea level today is supposed to be 8 to 10 feet higher than what is measured. Hansen is a fool. He believes his garbage, but nature doesn’t cooperate.

        At least that is better than Michael Mann, who is a fraud. He knows he is lying and does it anyway.

  • danram

    This whole “climate change” issue is “intellectual Stalinism” at its very worst. “Conform or be cast out!”

    Real science involves challenging assumptions and submitting hypotheses to rigorous testing. If the results don’t confirm the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is invalid. But this particular debate long ago left the realm of science and is now more religion than science.

    Twenty years from now, the warmists will be regarded with the same bemused derision as those who were breathlessly predicting the coming of a “New Ice Age” in the 1970s.

    • Ken

      Weren’t the Himalayan glaciers supposed to have disappeared by now?

      • RealOldOne2

        Actually the AR4 IPCC report (using World Wildlife Federation propaganda from gray literature) said that they would disappear by 2035.
        When this blatant error was pointed out, IPCC chairman Pachuri first called the challenge to the 2035 claim “voodoo science”. He later had to eat those words when the bogus 2035 claim was retracted.
        This is the same Pachuri that had stated that 100% of the IPCC’s sources were from peer reviewed literature. That claim was proven false by this citizen audit which found ~30% of the IPCC’s AR4 report to from the “gray literature”, NOT peer reviewed literature: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/17/citizen-audit-anniversary/

  • GJTGJTGJT

    So basically, she admits that we are warming the planet, but her response is that since it is slower than most think, that means we should not do anything? That’s brilliant. That’s kind of like having a leaky roof, being told by one person it will collapse in 5 years, being told by the second person it will be 10, so in response to the second opinion, you decide not to fix the roof….

    • Jay

      bad analogy. It means that you don’t have to hire that guy at triple the price because it isn’t an emergency. You can take your time and use your money wisely.

      • GJTGJTGJT

        Actually, it’s a perfect analogy because when you think about it, the worst case scenario if you fix the roof immediately is that you stave off disaster that may have been years off, if the “alarmist” is wrong. Of course, the worst case if the “non alarmist” is wrong is that when the roof collapses, you’ve pretty much lost the whole house…

        • Larry Evans

          Let me guess, you’ve had your roof replaced several times because someone convinced you it was about to collapse.

          • GJTGJTGJT

            Nope, but I do invest in preventative maintenance based upon experts opinions…Same way I usually listen to my doctor when he speaks on my health, my lawyer when I have a legal question. I don’t fish for the answer I want by looking for outlier answers.

          • Jay

            There is preventative maintenance and there is wasteful spending. You advocate the later.

          • Sergey

            Science is not based on expert opinions, it demands real proof. There are no and can be no experts on future, only charlatans and swindlers who claim knowledge about what the Earth will look like hundred years from now.

          • Brian

            Some doctors lie. All lawyers lie (sarcasm intended… sort of).

            Do you generally trust, without doing at least some of your own research, that auto mechanics and insurance salespeople tell you the truth about preventative maintenance, too?

          • Larry Evans

            Then why do you people insist we replace the whole damned roof, as in replacing fossil fuel with way too expensive and unreliable “renewables”?

        • Jay

          So you would pay triple the price for no reason?!!!!

          If that makes sense to you………..

        • Quiet_Professional

          Actually, what climate alarmists really want to do is use climate doom as a pretext for tearing down the house and the neighborhood along with it and replace it with “sustainable”, “low impact” communal housing in line with their vision of a perfected society.

    • Icarus62

      And she’s wrong about it being slower, of course. The warming is right in line with predictions.

      https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/f2c014d08c17cfa0bb0ff98cc53110612f0b4825bc166d4230621d10/original.jpg

      • Jay

        The data used to make the graph is “adjusted” and of questionable usefulness.

        • UNCLE

          Its the King James Version of the Warmist’s Bible. 😉

      • RealOldOne2

        There you go with your Texas sharpshooting again, shoot a hole in the barn, then paint a target around the hole. Sorry that you were duped by that propaganda.

        • Icarus62

          Don’t be silly. The FAR projections were made in 1990, the SAR projections in 1995… do you think they had a time machine and cheated, or something?

          • RealOldOne2

            Still denying reality. So sad.

            And STILL no empirical science to support your doomsday climate cult religion.

            You can’t cite one single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows taht anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You can’t rebut the several peer reviewed papers I showed you ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 ) which shows 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the late 20th century than anthropogenic climate forcing. Again your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You are merely regurgitating your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult propaganda. So sad.

    • Larry Evans

      Actually, it’s like having a leaking rain gutter, but it will require an entirely new roof to fix.

    • Rod

      No, she’s acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that increasing it will warm the planet. But what she’s also saying is that there are other factors that also drive the planet’s temperature and that all the money is going into assessing the impact of CO2.

      But her main point is that your type refuses to consider the alternatives, even to the point of ostracizing those who disagree with you. That is not science; it’s the worst form of politics.

      • Icarus62

        Other factors are of course taken into account. You can see that anthropogenic influences are now much larger than natural ones, which is why we have to focus on reducing our impact on the climate:

        http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/forcingsbar-129199836466.png

        • Robert

          That graphic should be on a T-shirt !

        • RealOldOne2

          LOL @ you stupidly swallowing that model-based rubbish propaganda.
          The empirical evidence shows 2.7 to 5 W/m^2 of natural climate forcing just in the late 20th century: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

          • Icarus62

            Incorrect. The natural climate forcings are very small, as you can see. The natural feedbacks are substantial, as climate scientists have been arguing for many decades.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Incorrect. The natural climate forcing are very small, as you can see.”
            LOL @ your denial of reality! Sorry that you have been duped, but hat BOGUS chart is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate MODELS which can’t even accurately project future global temperatures at a 2% confidence level (vonStorch2013).

            You STILL provide no empirical science to support your doomsday climate cult religion.

            You can’t cite one single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows taht anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You can’t rebut the several peer reviewed papers I showed you ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 ) which shows 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the late 20th century than anthropogenic climate forcing. Again your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You are merely regurgitating your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult propaganda. So sad.

          • lookout1

            The chart is complete BS..

            If the positive feedback was overwhelming .. ice ages would NEVER EVER occur.. as the c02 forcing a 3000ppm would have prevented it

          • lookout1

            Then weird that we ever had an ice age with co2 at 4000PPM .. given a positive feedback loop would make that impossible

            Where as a NEGATIVE feed back loop would

      • GJTGJTGJT

        My type, lol, you deniers are cute. Sorry I can’t ostracize anyone from a scientific community because I am not a member. But wonder you deny science you’re too stupid to get the basis. Don’t worry, it plays well to other deniers on the internet, but like her, when you are confronted with experts, all you can do is cry. Learn to read, stupid crybaby.

        • https://www.facebook.com/darthprophetsports DarthProphet

          The religion of the flying spaghetti monster has more stand then your man made global warming faith.

    • Jerome Barry

      You go right on ahead and do without modernity. Since you’ll stop using electricity I don’t expect a reply.

    • lookout1

      Read up on gisp2 ice core proxies.. its been warmer for about 9000 of the last 10000 years

      And you may want to take reading comprehension .. she said C02 warms but how much isnt yet quantified… current observations say its insignificant

      A better example would be you dumping a glass of water into the pacific . you have actually raised the sea level.. so are you going to now build levees dams and sea-walls across the planet because you know a few people are now dumping glasses of water into the ocean every day !!

      And to be clear even the Warmist say c02 is a minor player in the whole process… its the positive feedback loop that’s supposed to cause more water vapor in the atmosphere… and THAT is supposed to cause more warming.. Btw that hasn’t been detected either!! (another agw fail)

    • ineedabeer

      Here is where your analogy breaks down – you assume there is no cost to fixing the roof. What if you live in a shack and the cost of fixing the roof is more than the cost of the building? This is also where the climate alarmist argument breaks down. They are willing to tolerate a huge amount of certain human misery now for the uncertainty of what might happen in 100 years. What Judith Curry points out is that there cannot be a rationale debate about this as long as it is more of a religious debate than a scientific one. Shouting your opponent down is not the way to have dialogue and come to a rational conclusion.

  • Jay

    Responses to Curry from the left are typical of persons that share a fundamentalist religious philosophy instead of thoughtful debate by scientists seeking the truth.

    The left has succeeded in destroying the discipline of science for their own political purposes.

  • Icarus62

    Let’s see what the experts say:

    “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

    US National Academy of Sciences

    “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

    American Physical Society

    “There is no standstill in global warming. The warming of our oceans has accelerated, and at lower depths. More than 90 percent of the excess energy trapped by greenhouse gases is stored in the oceans. Levels of these greenhouse gases are at a record, meaning that our atmosphere and oceans will continue to warm for centuries to come. The laws of physics are non-negotiable”

    – World Meteorological Organisation.

    • Rod

      Keep the faith Icarus; keep the faith.

    • http://henrikmoller.me/ Henry Miller

      And 17th century “experts” threatened Galileo with torture for disagreeing with them. It’s not difficult to buy any “expert” opinion you like.

      • Mike Petrik

        Actually, Galileo was never threatened with torture. Let’s not torture history to protect science.

        • http://henrikmoller.me/ Henry Miller

          My understanding is that he was shown the instruments of torture, an implicit threat, but I confess I couldn’t conveniently put my finger on the source of my understanding.

    • RealOldOne2

      Sorry that you have been duped, but statements by biased members of your climate cult mean nothing.
      Empirical evidence is what counts. And there is NO peer reviewed science showing that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century.
      But there is mch peer reviewed science showing that natural climate forcings were the primary cause of the late 20th century warming: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554

      You haven’t been able rebut a bit of that empirical science.

    • kdinca

      If you took away the study of global warming what would these folks do for a living. Seriously? Every person must protect their future income security and these folks do it as a group. Disagreement yields ostracizing. The science is not settled. And data collection methodologies and disputes are wide ranging.

      Don’t forget 20 years ago the fear was global cooling. Don’t be afraid to be wrong. It’s part of scientific processes.

    • https://www.facebook.com/darthprophetsports DarthProphet

      Lol, listen bud the tempt has changed over a 7 degree swing in the last 1000 years and we are no were close to the hi end . Secondly there is zero evidence man nor co2 is driving this in fact all evidence points to that big yellow fire ball in the sky.
      Ho2 makes up nearly 20% of the troposphere where the green house takes effect. Radiation from super novas bombard our atmosphere causing water vapor to format clouds.
      Co2 makes up .0000451% of the troposphere add in the best lab results of the quantitative green house effect is net neutral. H2o is the most powerful greenhouse gas on the planet bar none. Which makes sense as h2o is the only complex compound known in the universe that contracts when heated and expands when cooled this unique feature allows cloud coverage to occur in combination with the radiation special type of radiation in a meeting from supernovas bombarding our atmosphere allowing cloud cover to form without which this planet would be a nice ball. What amazes me more than anything else is the basic science basic science dictates this is all a fraud it speaks to the power of persuasion emanating from progressive mainly coming out of Europe and Asia there is no irony to the fact that progressive domination of thought emanates from these locales historically the elites in these places on the planet have strived for total domination over the people for their own self gratification the reason why America is the last standing against heresy it’s because you’re still enough of us left to call a spade a spade.
      Get a clue already people pick up a book do some simple math this is not rocket scientist

    • lookout1

      They are still looking for the heat in the oceans… They HAVE NOT FOUND IT
      The only one who has ‘found it’ was the Noaa Kook, who changed all the sea temp data from buoys, UPWARD to match less reliable ship data… SCIENCE!!!

      Ihere have been a several papers stating the missing heat isnt there .. one such study was by NASA , last year: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

    • planet8788

      Why did AR5 say their was a hiatus?

      • Icarus62

        Because there is always a ‘hiatus’ or slowdown in surface warming every time we have La Nina conditions. As I’m sure you know, global warming proceeds faster during these periods, as heat accumulates in the oceans. Then the next El Nino releases some of that heat, leading to accelerated surface warming and reduced warming of the climate system as a whole (as we’re seeing now).

        • planet8788

          La Ninas last at most for a couple years….

  • Rod

    Great, until the conclusion. We already have far too much “interaction between the scientists, the economists and policymakers.” That interaction, and the seed money provided by policymakers who’ve decided that the global warming scam is the next best route to a global monetary honeypot, has driven climate “science” off the rails.

  • http://henrikmoller.me/ Henry Miller

    What much of the foregoing shows is that the objectives of the “policy makers” have nothing to do with “climate change” and everything to do with trying to cram a Leftist agenda down our throats. “Climate change” is just an excuse.

  • Larry Evans

    The Elephant in the Living Room is that fact that the land based temp records have been corrupted beyond measure:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

    High fidelity, well calibrated data being mixed with low fidelity, uncontrolled data, “adjustments” made with no documented reasons, interpolations, estimates, guesstimates.

    • Icarus62

      That’s clearly a bogus claim, especially as the surface and atmospheric temperature records are in very good agreement:

      http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1539/5339/original.jpg

      • no left turn

        when you reserve the right to fudge the data points you can produce a chart to support any conjecture

      • RealOldOne2

        The corrupted-by-adjustment land ocean trend is diverging from the satellite data.

        The trends are not in very good agreement. Over the last half of the satellite record, they are diverging at 1.4C/century.
        The RSS trend is cooling of 0.14C/century and the GISS LOTI trend is warming by 1.23C/century.

        • Icarus62

          In fact as you can see above, the GISTEMP and RSS warming trends differ only by around 4 hundredths of a degree per decade. That’s a pretty good agreement considering that they are measuring different parts of the climate system.

          • lookout1

            However the trend from 1998 on, is basically flat or cooling .. during that time.. co2 in creased 30%+… completely contradicting AGW theory.

            its as if you turned up the Bunsen burner 30% and the water temp never changed..

            The leveling off does however support what some skeptics have said… there is an IR saturation point where more c02 has little effect..

            Bottom line is all your models are wrong… so you change the data , not the theory

            The argument is not whether the planet heats or cool but if c02 ill boil the planet

            Gips2 says no .. as well as tons of other records showing c02 has been much much much higher with no runaway warming

          • Icarus62

            As you should know, global warming continues unabated. Don’t confuse multidecadal forced trends with short term natural variability.

            http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/GEA-141361307138.png

          • lookout1

            Again for the terminally slow .. if we are warming isnt the question .. we have been warming since the LIA and well as the sea rising

            the fact is, based on gisp2 proxies its been warmer than now for about 9000 of the last 10000 years … about 12500 years again it jumped 7 DEGREES in less than a century … all naturally

            The question is how much is co2 playing a role in current warminng … you loons are claiming 400ppm is the end of the world because it will cause a run-away feedback loop… completely ignoring the fact its been in the 5000ppm to 6000pm in the past

          • RealOldOne2

            Nice display if insanity, posting a graph over and over again that debunks your own CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion.
            As I’ve shown you over and over again, ocean warming is caused by solar radiation, NOT ghgs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444
            You have never been able to rebut a bit of the science that I posted there.

            Your OHC chart confirms that climate change is still primarily caused by natural climate forcings, NOT anthropogenic forcings. Thanks for advertising that fact.

            So you STILL have provided no empirical science to support your doomsday climate cult CO2 religion.

            You can’t cite one single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the EMPIRICAL science test.

            You can’ cite one single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcings were NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the empirical science test.

            You can’t rebut the several peer reviewed papers I showed you ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 ) which shows 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the late 20th century than anthropogenic climate forcing. Again your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You are merely regurgitating your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult propaganda. So sad.

          • planet8788

            20 years is multi-decadal.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your delusional denial of reality!

            You over look that the satellites say the globe is COOLING and the corrupted-by-adjustment GISS dataset says it is warming by 1.23C/century which is about DOUBLE the warming of the entire previous century!

            Another nice display of ideological blindness!

          • Icarus62

            As I pointed out, the warming trends in all series (terrestrial and satellite) are in very close agreement.

            http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1539/5339/original.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            You are lying. Your rubbish propaganda plot doesn’t fool anyone execpt your scientifically illiterate CAGW-by-CO2 dupes.

            And STILL no empirical science from you that supports your doomsday climate cult religion.

            You can’t cite one single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows taht anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

            You can’t rebut the several peer reviewed papers I showed you ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 ) which shows 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the late 20th century than anthropogenic climate forcing. Again your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

          • DennisHorne

            Of course. Like the Royal Society and American Physical Society.

            How are your straw men today? Still talking to you?

          • RealOldOne2

            “How are your straw men today?”
            I’ve made no straw man arguments. That’s your specialty.

            You have STILL provided no empirical evidence showing that your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion is true.

            I cited and quoted from peer reviewed science that empirically showed 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the period of greatest warming during the late 20th century than anthropogenic forcing here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 You were unable to rebut a bit of it.

            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
            Your CO2 climate cult religion fails the empirical science test.
            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcing was NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
            Your CO2 climate cult religion fails the empirical science test.

            Your whole CO2 climate cult alarmist religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. (vonStorch2013)

          • planet8788

            Why start in 1984?

          • Icarus62

            30 years is the standard period for assessing climate trends.

          • planet8788

            Why… When the PDO cycle is 60 years? That’s pretty foolish… NO?

      • Kizar_Sozay

        When temperature data is collected for reports like the ones you cite, almost half of the temperatures recorded are in the United States. The latest IPCC study relied on US readings but extrapolated the results globally. How is that science?

      • RealOldOne2

        Still posting that rubbish propaganda of corrupted-by-adjustment temperatures. So sad.

        And STILL no empirical science from you that supports your doomsday climate cult
        religion.

        You can’t cite one single peer reviewed paper that
        empirically shows taht anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the
        late 20th century warming. Your CO2 climate cult religion FAILS the
        science test.

        You can’t rebut the several peer reviewed papers I
        showed you ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554
        ) which shows 6 to 12 times more NATURAL climate forcing during the
        late 20th century than anthropogenic climate forcing. Again your CO2
        climate cult religion FAILS the science test.

        You are merely regurgitating your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult propaganda. So sad.

      • cd

        Well thanks for that. I’ll set aside the statistical issues with fitting regression lines to time series and the fact that model predictions start from 1995 not 1985. Let’s look at the rates of warming in your plot.

        All the trends show warming at less than 0.02 degrees per year. That means after 100 years one would expect the Earth to have warmed by, wait for it…, less than 2 degrees. Lower than the most modest IPCC predictions. Thanks for confirming what we all know – nothing to see move along.

        • Icarus62

          The current rate of global warming leads to exceeding the 2 degrees target by about 2080. Don’t forget that the warming is entirely consistent with IPCC predictions.

          https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/5a4ccbc0311176c0c14d33c4e1fbea8fd76accb1d758e459bfc90561/original.jpg

          https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/f2c014d08c17cfa0bb0ff98cc53110612f0b4825bc166d4230621d10/original.jpg

          • wjfox

            That assumes a linear trend. I think 3 or 4C by 2080 is more likely.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Assuming you will be alive in 2080, ready to put your money where your mouth is, assuming you have any, that is.

          • planet8788

            Which warming? Starting when? with which data set?

          • cd

            Right so you have decided now to take the GISS record that had the warmest trend and only after another round of adjustments. But let’s assume it’s a sound trend. You now have used a date starting in 1970 (which is a different period than the one you originally chose) then extrapolated this trend to get a massive temperature increase of less than 2.5 degrees over 100 years. That is the best you’ve got even after obviously cherry picking to give the highest trend – oh dear.

            You miss the point. The predicted 2-6 degrees from the models referred to the period after 1995. If you extrapolate from there you’ll get less than 2 degrees.

          • cd

            I tried posting this before and it failed.

            Right so you have decided now to take the GISS record that had the warmest trend and only after another round of adjustments. But let’s assume it’s a sound trend. You now have used a date starting in 1970 (which is a different period than the one you originally chose) then extrapolated this trend to get a massive temperature increase of less than 2.5 degrees over a period of greater than 100 years. It is still less than the predicted 2-6 degrees predicted over the 21st century (it looks about 1.5-2.0 degrees during that period). That is the best you’ve got even after obviously cherry picking to give the highest trend – oh dear.

          • Icarus62

            It’s not really ‘cherry-picking’ to use the last 45 years of data, is it? The point is that warming is in line with predictions and leads to us exceeding 2C of warming before 2100 – the kind of outcome that the Paris conference seeks to avoid.

  • Mike435

    The article says the IPCC assessment reports find that climate sensitivity is between 1.5 and 4.5 C, and then says policy makers are unaware of the uncertainty. This is a obvious contradiction. Curry even says that emissions cutbacks being proposed might not be aggressive enough. But then later she says, despite the uncertainties she knows temps won’t rise much by 2030. She just is not making any sense.

    • jpat34721

      Seeing the number and understanding their implication are too very different things.

  • Bulletbob3

    Sounds like religion to me – cast out the heritics

  • no left turn

    Climate change isn’t happening fast enough for the revolution. So of course, reality must yield because their intentions will not.

  • Mike435

    Curry’s own work estimated climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 to be 1.64 C. Since under business as usual scenarios we will more then double CO2 by 2100 (to around 700-900 ppm) we would pass 2 C in warming. Thus her opposition to measures to reduce emissions makes no sense.

    If is fair to debate how best to reduce emissions and who should bare the costs. This is what the meeting is Paris is addressing. But it is dishonest to deny the need to reduce emissions.

    • UNCLE

      At what cost? That’s the question being asked by honest people.

    • Groty1

      Actually, you are the one peddling dishonesty. You falsely assert that she opposes measures to reduce emissions. Show me where that is her position. You can’t. You just made it up.

    • ineedabeer

      You really expect business as usual scenarios in 85 years? So nothing has changed since 1930? By the time 2100 rolls around the private sector will have this taken care of. The only thing the meeting in Paris is addressing is the greed of the politicians and their benefactors for other people’s money. They are the ones being dishonest.

      • DennisHorne

        Just like the private sector will take care of mass migrations caused by Baby Bush and his psychopathic advisers? Or the destruction of meaningful money caused by the banksters?

        • planet8788

          LOL… Who toppled Libya? Who is trying to topple Syria… Who cheer led the downfall of Egypt? Bush? What a lying pathetic moron you are. Granted… Bush was an idiot… The Dems supported that war also… You’re pathetic.

          • DennisHorne

            So who started the trouble? Backed the hanging of the only man capable of holding Iraq together? Pathetic I may be but thank goodness I’m not a mad American…

          • planet8788

            Who multiplied it by 5?

      • Mike435

        You do not know what BAU means.

  • Jasper_in_Boston

    This would-be “provocative” article would be more compelling* if it included a quote or two by Judith Curry’s critics. The implication indicated by the author is that, well, she’s in the right and those increasingly shunning her are in the wrong. But seriously, why not listen to what they have to say?

    *Then again, one suspect the article would be less compelling in this case.

    • wireknob

      It’s not really about who may be right and who may be wrong (only time will tell here)…it’s about silencing those who disagree with the dominant theory and drumming them out of the academy.

      • Jasper_in_Boston

        It has nothing to do with “silencing” her views. (The fact that her views are repeated on fora such as this rather obviously undercuts that particular allegation). But has everything to do with discrediting her views. Some views amply merit discreditation. The mere fact that someone has a Phd, say, or hold an academic post, clearly doesn’t provide an impenetrable shield from accusations of quackery.

        • wireknob

          A profile and interview in The Spectator is not the same as having your research published in top-tier, peer-reviewed journals; and here we are talking about a well-established, tenured professor…not a young researcher trying to establish himself and trying to gain tenure. There is a massive difference between trying to scientifically discredit views that challenge the prevailing orthodoxy and preventing those views from circulating in the scientific literature, marginalizing them and those who present them, and trying to prevent such views from being taken seriously (as you attempt do by parroting claims, without any evidence, that Professor Curry is a quack). It’s even worse when you attempt to shield the orthodox views from scrutiny by hiding the data and analysis that purports to support such views.

          Try reading the emails exposed in 2009 concerning efforts to manipulate climate science (data, analysis, the peer review process, etc.) to shield “global warming” theories (now “climate change” since the global warming models didn’t pan out) from scientific scrutiny. You can find the emails on the web or read about them in the book “Climategate: The Crutape Letters.” This type of behavior doesn’t just happen in climate science, and just because someone has a PhD or holds an academic post does not mean that they are above anti-scientific, intellectually dishonest, deceitful, manipulative ploys to discredit those who attempt present evidence challenging the orthodox views.

    • archimedes

      The key word is “shunning”. Shunning is a cultural/political term. To see it used in the science community means there is something very wrong with science today. Science is about refuting, not shunning.

      • Jasper_in_Boston

        Please. If this woman’s “objections” are being used to fuel the view that “government need not take action to combat climate change” then shunning is perfectly appropriate. One can reasonably disagree with this or that specific of the climate change thesis whilst nonetheless maintaining the view that GHG curbs are needed.

  • wireknob

    Junk science, and anti-scientific conduct among so-called researchers, seems to be pervasive wherever there is a nexus between science and public policy.

    • Katherine

      Follow the money…always.

      • wireknob

        I don’t think it’s always a matter of money. I find that strong beliefs — ideology, if you will — are often the main driver. There is often a strong element of self-righteousness, or perhaps ego, involved. The intellectual dishonesty seems orchestrated, though.

        • Katherine

          The people who are in it for the ideology are the “useful idiots” being cynically used by those who are in it for the money. And there are many angles being played for the money.

          For example, George Soros is buying coal stocks at bargain basement prices. Do you think he’s buying them because he thinks coal will be eradicated? No, he sees a huge opportunity to buy low to sell high later. When we finally wake up from this madness.

  • Lee Lee

    But I’m sure that taxing Americans more will fix it…right?

    • bobw-66554432

      Only if you allow Al Gore (Hallowed be the name of the one true Climatological Master) to create his “Carbon Exchanges.”

      Gore (Blessed be the name of the Climatological Master) and Steyer (Blessed be the name of the Profit Seeker) are set to make billions (Blessed be the Profit of the Prophets) once everyone in “The New World Order” (Blessed be the name of the Prophets seeking their Profits) signed onto their boondoggle.

  • https://www.facebook.com/darthprophetsports DarthProphet

    I want to see 1 single lab results that is peer reviewed stating the quantitative green house gas properties of co2. The best they can give to date is net natural.
    If co2 which makes up less then .000000451% of the troposphere is impacting our atmosphere it’s quantitative properties must 1000000% stronger then that of h20.
    To the educated this has always come across as a fraud it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand.
    The fact this fraud has prepatulated is a testament to the complete utter destruction of academia as nothing more the a propaganda arm of the ignorant progressive sheeple followers and their ardent msm court clowns.
    Their math doesn’t work so they only have doom and gloom chicken little tactics.
    And please don’t tell me about yurp there is a reason in less then 80 years after this nation formed it became the biggest economic and military power in the planet and has remained so ever since despite the start of the progressive Wilson movement
    Here’s a clue my young I’ll taught youth of today if yurp is for it be against it they have been wrong for centuries.

    • CHEMST

      Fraud is a harsh term. The models agreed with the data from 1985-1998 when they were created and there was little reason to question them then. When the data stopped agreeing with the model after 1998, they chose to blame the data rather than the model. It is bad science. I have no doubt about that, but not fraud. When a delusional person tries to convince you that something he believes to be there (monster in the closet), he is not trying to defraud you. Fraud really requires that the person who is trying to convince you of something knows it to be untrue.

    • Katherine

      The models do a poor job of modelling clouds. This is a weakness in the models that NASA admits. It is also known that an increase of cloud cover as little as 2% would more than compensate for even the highest CO2 sensitivity. This phenomenon is seen in the El Nino / La Nina cycles.

      • mulp

        As well as in the smogs from air pollution that covered the UK in Victorian times, the smogs in iron and coal country, the smogs in California, and now the smogs choking China and India now.

        We just need to convince the Chinese and Indians to sacrifice their children’s health for the greater good of the fossil fuel industry, and Americans who want higher unemployment so energy is cheaper.

        God forbid energy costs more and pays for millions more workers producing non-polluting energy!!

        We need more unemployment! The job cuts in Texas as oil prices fall are a great start, but we need more job cuts. Or maybe oil workers could be made slaves and forced to work for free to cut gasoline prices….

  • Craig the Czech

    The logos for the conference and Comedy Central are strikingly similar. Coincidence or intentional?

  • Tomas Pajaros

    2030 is a loooong ways away. Far too much time for the DemoProgUnionMedia party to use this issue to extort higher tax boondoggles from the gullible Gruber voters . . . .

  • thesafesurfer

    Science is dead.
    I wonder when this dark age of sophism will end.

  • ithakavi

    Scientific debate and discussion is no longer allowed. AGW is offical dogma. Skepticism will be criminalized.

    • GJTGJTGJT

      Name one criminal charge. Sorry, you can’t crybaby, you just don’t get that most professionals who are lying shills like Curry get ostracized by their peers when they show no educated merit. Again, loser tea party drone, name one criminal charge to back up your assertion, loser, we’re waiting. Typical lying terrorist tea party drone loser.

      • ithakavi

        Apparently you’ve not been reading the news: http://www.newsweek.com/should-climate-change-deniers-be-prosecuted-378652

        You are fairly typical of the superstitious dogmatic warmists. I won’t try to confuse you with facts. Eat dog dirt and die.

        • bobw-66554432

          It’s particularly interesting to note the words “…promoting wrongful thinking…” in the proposed bill.

          Sounds like something taken straight out of Stalin’s, Mao’s, Pol Pot’s, or Castro’s “re-education” handbook.

          I guess the “good” senator used those words because “burn the heretics” doesn’t work well with an educated and armed populace.

          • ithakavi

            George Orwell predicted it. … thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party.

      • Mike Petrik

        First, please look up the word “will.” Second, you only had to wait 8 lousy minutes for ithakavi to back up his assertion. Are you embarrassed yet? We’re waiting.

      • cd

        I think among most scientists she is very well respected. Scientivists hate her of course but then they’re not acting like scientists. Calling people deniers that produce research that can not only be validated but has been repeated and confirmed by others is dogma. We’re moving into a post-Enlightenment era.

      • Katherine

        RICO.

      • JPVan

        There’s your criminal lack of intellect for starters. What part of “will be” or conjecture do you fail to understand? “Climate change” in the political sphere is now divorced from science and can be proved empirically. For instance, see the outcome document from the Rio+20 earth summit titled, “The Future We Want.” There you’ll find vivid proof that climate change is a stalking horse for an extremely comprehensive progressive/socialist agenda complete with 283 paragraph length demands covering all areas of human endeavor and prescribing a top down new world order. You’re a troll.

        • Larry Evans

          Follow the Money!

          • DennisHorne

            Follow the loonies!

  • cucukacho

    She remains optimistic that science will right itself, somehow. I however am pessimistic. AGW science has been corrupted because the debate has never been about science itself, AGW has always been a means to and end, control of the population and the flow of goods and services with the elite making the decisions for us.

    When the great “thinkers” of the day act like Nazi’s silencing all opposition, be afraid, be very afraid.

    • cd

      As with most things in science – despite the propaganda you get from the likes of Dawkins – is that most paradigm shifts occur slowly usually with the passing of one generation to the next – and for obvious reasons such as vested interests and influence. You’d expect this to happen in this field too.

      I think the problem is that state sponsored science can be easily politicised. Whether or not this will stop the normal course of science we’ll have to wait and see. One sign that the AGW is slipping is the move of environmental arguments moving from AGW to over-population and sustainability. This may indicate that they realise that they’ve had all they’re going to get from this scare. Again, they’re wrong here too, Malthusian views of the world have long since been falsified. His predictions didn’t come to pass – quite the opposite in fact.

      • DennisHorne

        the likes of Dawkins

        The gods man created himself will not save us from our greed and stupidity.

    • rtj1211

      It’ll right itself eventually, the question is ‘how long will it take?’

      History is full of examples of tyranny lasting decades and centuries, but all empires fall eventually on the weight of their own contradictions…..

  • Bill Go

    This one line tells you everything you need to know: But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research

    • jack dale

      Curry has had NSF funding in the past, as have other skeptics. Lindzen got $3,000,000 during his career. All of Roy Spencers research funding is from NASA, NOAA and DOE..

      • lookout1

        your word to key on “PAST”, when she was a believer

        as for Spencer i dont think any of his funding has to do with AGW.. all grants were unrelated.. (although im not positive)

        • rtj1211

          Spencer’s is for the collection, collation and analysis of stratospheric temperature records generated through instrumentation suites in orbiting satellites……..

          • lookout1

            so his findings on no warming related to c02 are valid?

          • brightday518

            Roy Spencer is an excellent scientist specializing in analyzing satellite data. He is well qualified to interpret those data.

          • lookout1

            I agree but the warmist slander him constantly

          • brightday518

            I call them climate alarmists (vs. climate realists)…

            Yes — they will slander any person, who is outspoken and visible, who dares to challenge their “consensus.” For lots of great info — be sure to check out some of the many talks from Heartland’s ICCCs at: http://climateconferences.heartland.org

            Lots by Roy Spencer and many others.

          • DennisHorne

            Heartland. The gods will save us.

          • Evan Jones

            Spencer and Christy are both lukewarmers. Roy won’t even allow Sky Dragon Slayer posts on his blog.

        • jack dale

          From Curry herself:

          Funding sources for Curry’s research have included NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOD and DOE. Recent contracts for CFAN include a DOE contract to develop extended range regional wind power forecasts and a DOD contract to predict extreme events associated with climate variability/change having implications for regional stability.

          http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/

    • Farbar

      Exactly. Because she won’t toe the line like they want her to, then the government won’t give her a dime to prove them wrong.

  • booboo

    One must not speak foul of the Climate religion. One must follow blindly and donate money to Gore and the church leaders.

  • brightday518

    I have certainly seen what Dr. Curry mentioned — that if a scientist (I am also a research meteorologist who has specialized in Climate much of my career) shows the slightest “doubt” in the climate alarmists gloom and doom scenario, they are met with a very harsh response. For those of you who don’t know, there is not a single climate model that can RELIABLY predict the onset of El Niño events a mere 3-4 months in advance. And yet there are those who expect us to believe the results from 25, 50 and even 100 year projections (when their 15 year forecast have not done very well)! For lots of great talks from the other side of this coin — check talks from the ICCCs at:
    http://climateconferences.heartland.org

    • DennisHorne

      Leaving aside predictions of weather as opposed to climate, do you accept the planet is warming and there is a net loss of polar ice?

      • lookout1

        We have had an upward trend for the last 900 years or so, its what happens when coming out of a ice age (little)

        that’s not the argument

      • Aaron_Burr

        Planet not warming last 20 years. Total planetary ice increasing (arctic down a little, antarctic up a lot to record levels.)

        • DennisHorne

          That’s not my understanding. Planet warmed 1C and losing Arctic ice ~200GT pa.

          I guess it’ll be quite obvious in 30 years or so whether the American Physical Society and Royal Society are right, or the bloggers.

          • Aaron_Burr

            Did I stutter? Planet overall has not warmed at all in last 20 years. Actually slight decrease if you use the most accurate satellite data. I agreed Arctic ice is has decreased slightly but that it is more than offset by the increase in Antarctic ice. Maybe you should take one of those cruises and get stuck in the ice sheet for a few weeks to check it out for yourself.

          • jk

            Wrong.

            One satellite data set shows warming (RSS), one does not (UAH). The UAH dataset has had major errors in its methodology dating back 15 years, which its steward refuses to correct. Coincidentally, the guy managing the UAH data has testified as a republican stooge and is routinely paid by various neocon think-tanks.

            Every single non-satellite data set (you know, the ones that measure temperature with actual thermometers) shows warming.

            Stop the lies.

          • Aaron_Burr

            Of course when the data conflicts you just automatically call the side with which you disagree liars and neocon stooges while the side you agree with are all paragons of Aristotelean virtue. What a transparent tool. Grow up. You just earned another Soros nickel and your mommy has a nice happy meal waiting for you.

          • jk

            Quote from you: “Planet overall has not warmed at all in last 20 years”

            Many data sets show it has been warming, except the one that has many well-documented errors.

            Stop lying.

          • Aaron_Burr

            Yata, yata, yata. Pull the chatty ring, get the same BS talking points. Must be boring to be a paid stooge.

          • jk

            Liar.
            The data disagrees with you.

          • Aaron_Burr

            YAWN! We all know who you are.

    • Aaron_Burr

      That’s what makes climate change the perfect tool for those trying to get more government power. It costs lots of money, takes lots of government intervention and the results can’t be measured until years in the future.

  • bobw-66554432

    And what shall we call this new religion whose members calls skeptics “heretics” and “deniers”?

    Scientology is already taken… I guess it will have to be called “Climatology”… or perhaps “Psuedoscientology?”

    “I didn’t expect the Climatologist Inquisition…” Yes, that fits nicely.

    • archimedes

      I prefer to call it the “Global Warming Religion”.

      • Mister Duke

        Global Warmism

    • planet8788

      Climastrology… not because they call names but because it’s not disprovable.

  • Deserttrek

    all climate believers are abusers and shold be treated like the manure they really are

  • DaveJ

    The history of science is replete with periods of political/cultural interference and political correctness. In addition to the flat-earth period, one thinks of the period in the old Soviet Union where the theory of quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle was considered somehow antithetical to marxism. That set back Russian science for decades.

  • Mister Duke

    There is no place for scientific thought, rationality, or reason during the current hysteria surrounding the Global Warming fraud. Even as revelations of falsified and manipulated data arise again and again, and even though the “97% consensus” figure is provably false and pure propaganda, those who desire to expand government and UN control over energy production and usage do not seem to be held accountable in the least. The pompous frauds pushing Global Warming alarmism like Al Gore and Michael Mann will attempt to smear anyone who doesn’t go along with the agenda, regardless of where the actual science leads. The whole lot including Barack Obama will go down in history as the biggest snake-oil salesmen in history.

  • Chippewa

    Man made climate change is a fraud and quackery. Witness Lake Michigan, the glaciers melting without any help from man made carbon. This conference and the supposed agreements to be made by these politicians is all about lining their own pockets and those of their cronies.

    • Aaron_Burr

      Not all that long ago in geological terms Chicago was under 2,000 ft. of ice and the Laurentide glaciers extended all the way down to the middle of Nebraska. Hard to believe that some warming didn’t help that situation a bit. If there is anything the fossil record proves it is that colder weather is much harder on the planet than warmer weather.

  • gwhh

    Good luck to the % of brave folks in that operation who believe that it’s been blow way out of whack.

  • A.Alexander

    Collective science: 200(!) scientists and engineers of the OPERA team signed the article of super-light neutrino speed.The results were icorrect because of one light-providing optical connector was not connected approprietally. C.C is not about science ,but about money and power.

    • DennisHorne

      Of course it is. Americans, don’t hand in your guns.

  • Larry Earl Zingo Reaves

    I remember as a child, sitting in elementary school classrooms, having our teachers tell us that we would run out of oil in 25 – 30 years. Well, we’re 25 years past that time and the last time I looked we have more oil than ever before. Those same teachers taught us to eat properly using the food pyramid published and approved by OUR government ….those same folks projecting that oil would run out. It’s the very same type of people that are now telling us that climate change is going to doom us all…..and what’s even more scary is that our leader tells everyone that climate changes is our greatest national security threat. Heaven forbid!!!

    • DennisHorne

      I predict you will die. Other predictions may be wrong.

    • sh0000

      I believe the climate scientists are a little bit smarter than your elementary school teacher – your analogy is ridiculous.

  • Aaron_Burr

    Until the warmist true believers can translate their angst into something specific it’s hard to take them seriously. They could start by taking out their Earth owner’s manuals and actually specifying some steady state numbers that are “ideal” for earth. Ideal surface temperature? Ideal CO2 concentration? Ideal arctic ice sheet thickness? Enough with the “things are changing and it’s going to be really bad some day, the scientists tell us so” baloney. Earth has changed for millions of years. They need to give us some specific ideals to shoot for and for extra credit, they could even tell us what it’s going to cost to get to them.

    • DennisHorne

      Ideal? I would have thought it was pretty obvious the climate as it is now is better than having the sea level substantially higher – for example.

      • lookout1

        well you are in for a rude awakening .. the sea level have been increasing for 10,000 years

        • DennisHorne

          Slowly. I don’t expect to see it lapping my doorstep — I live on a hill — but some might. The climate appears to be changing more rapidly than in the past.

          • lookout1

            actually there is zero evidence of that ..

            about 11-12000 years ago the temp increase by 7 degrees and over 200 feet in less than a century

          • DennisHorne

            Good luck with the 200 feet (whatever they are). Live on a houseboat?

          • lookout1

            you claimed the climate is changing now more rapidly than ever because of C02

            I said you have no idea what you are talking about

            *********
            The next century of human-made global warming is predicted to be far less extreme than that which occurred at 9600 BC [11,600 BP]. At the end of the Younger Dryas, mean global temperature had risen by 7°C in fifty years, whereas the predicted rise for the next hundred years is less than 3°C. The end of the last ice age led to a 120 meter increase in sea level, whereas that predicted for the next fifty years is a paltry 32 centimeters at most,…

          • DennisHorne

            Thanks for your answer. I’m not reassured but I won’t be here either.

          • lookout1

            The Dark ages was a ‘tiny’ ice age…and brought untold misery

            Imagine the planet being 8-10 Cooler… and Glaciers all the way up to the US over a mile thick

            Of the last 400k years, most have been real ice ages… upwards of 200k of those years buried in ice..

            Count us lucky we are on the upswing of the temp
            http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

  • Jarka

    if you start disputing party line, you will have troubles, that is normal for socialistic countries.

  • Benedict Chamberlain

    There was also no debating the idea that the earth was flat in the middle ages.

  • rlhailssrpe

    In all scientific debates, I prefer using the term, “running yellow dog” to summarize my opponents technical position.

    It is much more dynamic and colorful than “denier”.

    We are witnessing, with Dr. Curry, the destruction of America’s scientific excellence. I fear this far more than the seas rising.

    • lookout1

      Remind me who are the people that keep hiding their data .. and changing it ?

      Its not the skeptics

      btw the seas have been rising for the past 10000 years

  • valwayne

    Anybody that doesn’t go along with the fanatical beliefs, not scientific fact, of the Cult of Global Warming, and their extreme left wing authoritarian politicians in their grab for power and money, is slandered and attacked. Anybody that dares point out scientific facts that propagandists like Obama, the Democrats, and the Cult of Global Warming want to hide is attacked. Obama, the Democrats, and the Cult of Global Warming are behaving like a radical and dangerous religious cult.

  • Benedict Chamberlain

    I am very skeptical of any idea the left tries to jam down our throats and claim it to be settled science.

  • Sparafucile

    Either Mr Rose, the author, buried the lede, or he chose (or accepted) a headline that stands in stark contrast to 90% of the actual article.

    • Evan Jones

      Either Mr Rose, the author, buried the lede, or he chose (or accepted) a headline

      Quote is Dr. Curry’s. But she did not choose the title.

      that stands in stark contrast to 90% of the actual article.

      10% is quite sufficient.

  • SandMan00

    The aim of AGW policymakers and rentseekers is not to control the climate. It is to control people. That’s all it’s ever been.

  • http://about.me/tudorconstantin Tudor Constantin

    97% of mediums also believe in their abilities to talk with the dead

    • DennisHorne

      Yes, but can they converse sensibly with people who think CO2 doesn’t affect the climate?

      • Not_Peter

        That’s a bit unfair don’t you think? Do you really believe people who don’t agree with you are (all) uneducated rubes and people who agree with you are (all) highly scientificly literate?

        Is there any chance that a greenhouse gas with a logarithmic heating relationship could be reaching the flat end of the curve to where climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is relatively low?

        There is space between believing we are living in the end times and believing centuries of botanical knowledge is quackery.

        • DennisHorne

          I meant literally what I said. Some ‘sceptics’ actually believe CO2 does not affect the climate. That there’s no greenhouse effect only. You asked a good question above, so I know this is a simple misunderstanding. on your part, of course! 😉

          • Not_Peter

            I must have seen implications you didn’t mean in your post.

            Surely you don’t mean to suggest that disagreeing with *the present discussion’s interpretation of what someone famous said after interpreting the IPCC Political Executive Summary* is equivalent to saying CO2 has no heat forcing component.

            That would be…remarkably disingenuous of you. Clearly I misread.

  • jimt5367

    New York’s Finger Lakes, Hudson Valley & Washington’s Puget Sound were all carved out by glaciers. The earth warmed and the glaciers receded long before man had anything to do with “climate change.” We live on a dynamic planet and the “facts” of “global warming” are anything but settled.

    • PV Maro

      We should be fixing the climate so that the polar bears can come back to New York.

      • Aaron_Burr

        I like it. As anybody who knows anything about polar bears, one of the most vicious, aggressive carnivores on the planet (and certainly not those warm, cuddly bears portrayed in cartoon commercials) they would find New York a genuine buffet!

        • PV Maro

          Now there is an example of an unintended consequence that actually has some benefit!

        • Brutus974

          Just be sure to ban guns and issue no hunting licenses.

          • DennisHorne

            Polar bears need guns and hunting licences? :)

  • Brutus974

    Heretic is the right word for it, especially given the religious connotations of the word.

  • mistermcfrugal

    Wonder if the pope read this piece? I wish he would!

  • PV Maro

    97% of scientists agree because we couldn’t intimidate the remaining 3%.

  • mulp

    So, Curry expects the sulfur and particulate emissions from China and India to block the sun to offset the heat trapping of carbon games because the Chinese and Indian people will be happy to see their children die young while trying to care for their parents disabled by problems breathing?

    Still, with the levels of pollution in China and India rivaling the killer smogs of the UK in Victorian times, and worse that the smogs in California and earlier in the US Midwest in the coal and iron regions, it is hard to imagine these global cooling gas emissions will continue for long as the Chinese and Indians make the same demands for clean air as white people did.

    Still, I see no evidence that the global temperatures are not rising as fast or faster than when I was born circa 1950. Selecting one out of hundred datasets to argue that the climate is not changing rapidly while dismissing the hundreds of others is unscientific.

    Worse, to claim that natural events, that are like unicorns, explain the warming so burning fossil fuels can not be blamed, and that just because no one can find these unicorns does not mean they are not real. Why is it scientific to believe in climate unicorns that unlike the animal can not be described and drawn? Unicorns clearly do not exist even though many pictures have been drawn and their role in history clearly described, but Curry claims climate unicorns must exist, but they are so mysterious that they can’t be described so they can be searched for.

    Might as well blame the droughts and floods in Texas on the Texas voters not voting for Democrats who would implement Obamacare and make gay marriage law and hike taxes to expand welfare and hike the minimum wage, all of which anger Jesus to had god send drought and flood as punishment.

    • mistermcfrugal

      The _rap you just wrote is a perfect example of leftist garbage. I can’t believe you don’t mind sounding so stupid.

    • jk

      “Selecting one out of hundred datasets to argue that the climate is not changing rapidly while dismissing the hundreds of others is unscientific.”

      THIS.

      Listening to climate deniers discuss the importance of data is hilarious. They painstakingly ignore the mountains of information suggesting temperature is rising, and reject anything that points to the opposite of their dearly held belief. They cherrypick any tiny bit of information they can find (there isn’t much, which is why the same flawed studies and data sets get cited again and again) to make their “arguments”. This isn’t a debate – none of their minds will be changed by facts.

      • mistermcfrugal

        mountain of information? You’re referring to the mountain of lies produced by leftists who got caught changing temperature records.

        BTW, if you’ve got such a great story to tell, why the need for falsifying the temp records?

        • jk

          You’re proving my point.

          To you, all of the data is “lies”, except the data you happen to agree with, of which there is very little.

          I guess you don’t like facts or critical thinking very much.

        • mulp

          In science, the way to refute what you consider bad data is to spend the time and money to create your own datasets.

          Given the hundreds of billions in oil profits, why haven’t ExxonMobil and BP et al allocated $10 billion per year to launch satellites and thousands of drones and pay researchers to collect data for decades that proves no warming, or that finds the unicorn natural source of global warming?

          I’m sure the reason is ExxonMobil knows the money spent researching climate would prove burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the climate.

          • DennisHorne

            Haven’t they already done that?

          • mistermcfrugal

            You may be sure but I’m sure Exxon has no responsibility to spend the $10 billion you want. Besides, there would nothing they could say to sway guys like you anyway, guys who falsify temperature records to prove their point.

      • Not_Peter

        Seeing that you are well educated on the topic, which data sets are the skeptics focusing on and which sets are the ones with smallest error bars that you prefer?

        I am NOT terribly educated on the subject, but have been surprised to see the NOAA focus on ship intake data and exclusion of Argo buoy data. Any thoughts on their relative validity?

        My real question though is how successful we will have been if by the end of the century the average temperature rises 1.4 degrees and sea levels increase 20 inches. And if that’s a best case or worst case scenario. Thought?

        • jk

          My analysis is pretty simple. All of the datasets show warming, except one (UAH). That is the one routinely trumpeted by skeptics.

          The UAH data set has a bunch of credibility issues:
          – It has a number of well-documented errors which its owner refuses to correct, some dating back 15 years. This is evidenced by the fact that it disagrees with other satellite data sets.
          – It is satellite data and thus doesn’t measure temperature directly, like many of the other data sets.
          – The keeper of the UAH set is routinely paid by neocon special interest groups and think tanks. He is not really a credible source of data.

          • Baroo00

            You are so wrong, it is hardly worth debating.

            There have been many datasets that have shown the “pause”, so much so that NOAA felt the need to “adjust” the data recently to “correct” this situation.

            Yes, there has been warming. No, it has not correlated with theories directly tying it to CO2. It certainly has not shown a “feedback loop”, which is the key to all of the models, and to the idea of CAGW itself.

            The satellite data is pretty consistent, by its nature. This dataset does not support CAGW…

          • jk

            Several satellite data sets show warming. Actually, all of them do, except one. That one has been debunked.

            The “pause” has now been debunked, too.

            Sorry you don’t like the facts.

          • planet8788

            Which ones? Where are your links? LIAR.

          • jk

            There are several links showing satellite data sets showing warming in the comments section to this article. I’m sure you can find them.
            It seems you are struggling accepting the facts.

          • planet8788

            No warming since 1997. The satellites went up in 1979… right after a prolonged period of global cooling. So we would expect some warming in the first few years. FAIL.

          • jk

            You comment above is one of the flat-out stupidest and misinformed statements I have ever heard regarding the climate debate.

            Have a nice day, and enjoy keeping your head in the sand.

          • Baroo00

            Irony alert…

          • Bart_R

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:360/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:360/plot/rss/mean:360/plot/uah/mean:360/plot/gistemp/mean:204/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:204/plot/rss/mean:204/plot/uah/mean:204

            Climate is a probability distribution. A satellite data set cannot show a climate on any particular day. A statistician must estimate the properties of that distribution from a collection of data points. In the case of climate, the most reliable time span for such an estimate is 30 years, but as little as 17 years can be about 95% reliable.

            All datasets show climate warming to be accelerating, and are in agreement on this. As well, they show other troubling trends to do with greater frequency of extremes as predicted under Chaos Theory for external forcings like CO2 from fossil is imposing.

            Talking about the data trends as if the weather was climate misses the point.

          • Not_Peter

            Have you vetted the other datasets as admirably? You may be surprised at the margins of error for anything focusing on global averages, and in how few sources meet requirements for placement and calibration.

            Note: this isn’t skepticism that the temperature changing…just noting that NOAA’s historical data seems to change fairly regularly, owing to either shuffling datasets or reweighting existing inputs. Reasonable, except repeated requests for raw data have been met with apologies that it no longer exists.

            Two last questions: no thoughts on my end of century hypothetical? And are there any think tanks that support your position you find unreliable/think tanks that disagree that you do not?

          • jk

            I have worked with large data sets in science before (particle physics, not climate) so the fact that errors are continually corrected in a data set and methodology is refined is not at all surprising to me. Especially in a space as complex as climate data. It happens all the time in all segments of the science world. Climate science data just gets much more press because it is so polarizing.
            By the way, the biggest change in the most recent NOAA update was that they used data from many more points on the planet. So there is strong argument to be made that the current data is much more robust than the previous data.
            I have not vetted any of the data sets. The only point I was making is that there is one outlier data set not showing warming, all the rest show warming. That is a notable discrepancy, which has been explained by a number of well-documented errors in the outlier.
            I think when people consider climate science, they should apply the same critical thinking to all of the data, not simply cherry pick the data they happen to agree with and reject everything else.
            You have asked a lot of other tangential questions and, not to be rude, but I’m not interested in running off in a bunch of different directions on this topic.

          • Not_Peter

            Excellent! Since you are familiar with working with large, complex datasets let me be direct. The reason for my tangential question is to point out what the data you agree with shows.

            Per the IPCC (the data of which I don’t specifically disagree with) 1.4 degrees of warming is within the margins of four of its five scenarios and is just barely not overlapped by the extreme high and low scenarios. 20 inches of sea level change is within the margins of all scenarios.

            My questions about ship intakes vs ARGO speak directly to NOAA’s larger footprint, which used more ship data (which is not calibrated as finely nor is as modern) while excluding ARGO data (dedicated temperature sensors running for over a decade over the same footprint).

            My objection overall is that climate discussions have devolved into tribal debates where everyone talks past each other to show how loyal they are to the tribe. And all of the solutions suggested are very expensive signalling displays for a highly uncertain forecast.

          • jk

            I don’t disagree with anything you have written. I have only posted on this article because there are a number of aggressive trolls here posting straight up lies and other misinformation that has been debunked many times. Hearing the same lies over and over starts to grate.
            Our discussion (and my posts) is on the integrity of data sets but it seems like you want me to make some sort of descriptive comment on what the warming trend actually means and whether this is something we should care about. That is much harder for me to put a finger on, but most of the research I have read suggests that the cost of inaction is significantly higher than the cost of action on climate change. The studies of cost-benefit are, admittedly, very poor on both sides of this argument, but they are starting to improve.
            On the NOAA revisions: my understanding was they were primarily done to increase the data points in the set, as a number of geographic gaps existed in the surface data prior to the update. I don’t know the ins-and-outs of the integrity of ARGO vs. ship intake data (I am not a temperature data expert, as I would guess NOBODY posting here is) so really can’t comment on that.
            The broader point I am trying to make as regards data sets is that nearly all the data sets show a fairly comparable warming trend. The consistency in the data from volumes of scientists and methodologies suggest a trend that would, in pretty much any other scientific field, taken as fact. It is disturbing (and stupid, and logically moronic…) that one camp seeks to routinely cherry pick a few data points that potentially contradict the mountain of evidence for warming and trumpet these as being the ONLY reliable source of information.

          • planet8788

            What satellite sets does it disagree with?

          • jk

            RSS shows warming.

          • planet8788

            Not since before 1998

          • jk

            So? Only data that shows warming before 1998 is relevant to you? This is getting comical.

          • planet8788

            No… I like the data from 1981. What said we had like .3 warming from 1880 to 1910… Now that’s been adjusted to nearly 0.9 C data. Read Hansen, et. al 1981. I can send you a link if you like.

          • jk

            Ok – let me make sure I’m understanding you. Your primary resource on forming your opinion on global warming is a 35-year-old paper? I really think that fact alone says more than I ever could about your ignorance.

          • planet8788

            Not my opinion on warming…. My opinion on manipulation of the data…. You know… iTS PROOF.

          • jk

            You couldn’t have proved my point better, thanks. “I like that data that agrees with my point of view. I don’t agree with the rest.”

            By the way, it looks like a few other posters have already taken you to the woodshed with your silly citations. But that probably won’t change your point of view.

          • planet8788

            not a one has taken me to any shed. You just have a reading comprehension problem.

    • Baroo00

      So many flaws in your argument: straw men, conclusion-first rationalization, non sequiturs.

      I understand that you are convinced that CAGW is real. Good for you.

      You also can’t understand how anyone else can believe otherwise. Bad for you.

      Your “side” has given up even trying to make the argument any longer; you quickly resort to “consensus” and insult, excluding “deniers” from the debate rather than trying to win on the merits.

      This alone is sufficient to reject your position…

  • Paul_in_Colorado

    It’s true – the science is settled: Academics and scientists have demonstrated beyond doubt that they are human beings and subject to the same motivations as the rest of us. Only those who are beyond the reach of the mob dare to question the orthodoxy and raise doubts. The rest have their careers to consider, and trim their sails to the prevailing winds in academia. The hard sciences are far from immune to Progressive bullying, and to be branded a denier means that one will be lucky to get a job teaching high school biology, so 97% of academics and scientists go with the flow.

    Meanwhile, not one single person on this planet can fully explain or predict the inner workings of the Sun, much less how they effect surface conditions on the Earth. But that won’t stop these 20,000 parasites from claiming that, given sufficient authority, they can control the weather.

  • DFG2

    ‘I think that by 2030…there will be the funding to do the kind of research on natural variability that we need, to get the climate community motivated to look at things like the solar-climate connection.’

    A connection between solar activity and the climate? That’s just crazy talk. Everyone knows the sun has absolutely no affect on the planet.

    • Aaron_Burr

      How true. 270 petawatts (that’s 270,000,000,000,000,000 watts) of solar radiation per second bombards the earth 24/7/365. What possible effect could that have on the earth’s climate.

      • Evan Jones

        That is the offset. But the devil is in the delta. (Jury still out.)

  • Islamaphooey

    Like so many other issues currently in the news (hands up don’t shoot, rape on camps, etc.), the climate change cult doesn’t require FACTS. In fact (couldn’t resist), facts are inconvenient, but will be ignored till the cows come home, as they cry wolf over and over.

    • DennisHorne

      till the cows come home, as they cry wolf

      Can’t decide if you’re a shepherd or a cowboy.

  • Islamaphooey

    Campus obviously.

  • mistermcfrugal

    Anybody else like me who has a relative who has made a living off dire
    climate predictions? My cousin, who has a PhD has lurched from one
    government funded bogus study to another over the last 20 years. This
    is how he makes his living. There is not one chance in h_ll (sorry to
    mention something warm!) that he’d EVER come up with any finding that
    goes against what the leftist government wants to hear. What a pitiful
    way for this guy to eke out a modest living. I feel sorry for leftists
    like that.

    I”m re-submitting this. I think the moderators don’t like me to use the word opposite of heaven above.

    • DennisHorne

      Really? I would have thought there would be a Nobel Prize for showing the science is wrong.

      • Freddie Frogskin

        The currency of the Nobel gong is somewhat dissipated these days, after all, they gave one to Mr Hopey Changey, just for showing up black. Well done chaps.

      • mistermcfrugal

        You oughta do some of your own research on this. Like the writer here essentially says, there’s no money for research that might not go the politically correct way. Instead, there are pink slips. You know what a pink slip is, don’t ya?

  • Islamaphooey

    The 97% meme is fabricated. Complete BS.

  • AlanT

    She is not the only one trying to have a rational argument.
    CO2 IS a green house gas (so is water the most important), but AGW MAY or MAY NOT be real to any MEANINGFUL degree. IPCC models reported between ’90 and ’07 “projected” warming rates of between 0.3-0.5 K / decade. In 2013 the draft and final report, which substituted “‘expert assessment’’ for models because there near-term prediction could not be substantiated by REAL data, moved from 0.23 to 0.13 K / decade in the final report. And the current observed data for the last decade is ~0.09 K per decade. If this is maintained the global warming estimated for this CENTRUY would be <1K. And the TOTAL warming attributable to all recoverable fossil fuel on earth would be less than <2.5K.

    Prudence is warranted when there is a exponential increase of CO2, but to claim the science is settle to any meaningful degree is simply wrong.

    Source: "Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model"

    C Monckton, W.-H. Soon, D R. Legates, W M. Briggs – Sci. Bull. (2015) 60(1):122–135

  • Brutus974

    Come now. We all know modern science is majority rule.

    • DennisHorne

      Whatever science is and however it is done, scientists’ work is reviewed. Eventually a consensus emerges – the balance of informed opinion. That is what the layman is interested in, and what the politicians act on.

    • Youtopia

      like kindergarten, everyone’s a winner, everyone gets a trophy….or in Obama’s case, a Nobel prize…..this gathering in Paris is about good eating and nothing else, go somewhere meaningful if you want to show all of us your commitments to action….go to the north pole or the south pole and tell us how hot it is, go to the new open shipping lanes and commune there, but don’t tell us about an increase in severity and frequency of hurricanes when we are in a record drought of such storms ! you can’t stand on facts at all and support global warming !

      • Brutus974

        Doesn’t matter.
        Majority rule!

        Oh and yes, I hear Paris is a great vacation this time of year, especially if you can get an all expense paid vacation.

    • Bart_R

      It’s called the Daubert Tripod, the standard applied by courts to questions of science.

      While no scientist subscribes to consensus as a rational foundation for a scientific conclusion, that’s why a consensus of scientists is so useful, in part: they’re forming their views of what is accurate or most nearly true on one common philosophy: given all phenomena observed with simplest underlying assumptions possible (but no simpler), maximal parsimony of exception and universal logic of like parts of like systems, the proposition of pure inference that best explains these phenomena holds until new phenomena demands amended or new explanation.

      Which in this case is that the trespass on us all by fossil waste dumping is fourfold hazardous, in climate change some 15-200 times faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years and more, in aquatic acidification shifting 30% -OH ion concentration well outside of the levels of the last 50 million years and imposing a steep gradient to uptake of vital minerals to the food web, in soil microbe disruption causing 17% faster conversion of valuable nitrates to NOx pollutants, and in crop nutrient density drop of 15% in key proteins and minerals.

      • Brutus974

        But we all agree, no research should go into skepticism of global warming, because majority rule! There’s no room in science for disagreement.

        There may have been in the past, but not today.

        • Bart_R

          Tell me, this thing where you put nonsense words in the mouths of others to make yourself feel better about your own inadequacies, does it work for you?

          There’s been tons of research into ‘skepticism’ of global warming and related phenomena by social anthropologists and psychologists, starting with Elisabet Kübler-Ross in the 1960’s. If you’re concerned your role as the subject of studies is at risk, have no fear.

          Well, I suppose the fears you harbour are the root of your issue, so.

          • Brutus974

            I just can’t quite get you to catch onto the sarcasm, can I?

          • Bart_R

            Sarcasm is what you call it when caught lying?

            What, are you twelve years old?

          • Brutus974

            *facepalm*

  • jk

    Judith Curry is routinely paid by the Heartland Institute and other conservative think tanks to promote her “views” and the false story that she is somehow a “heretic”. Much of her published research, in fact, supports the mainstream scientific view that global warming is real and caused by humans.

    Those facts alone should tell you all you need to know.

    • lookout1

      except most temp records (you know real life) dont conform to the agw alarmist theory (models)

      The only one , done by karl, was so manipulated; Orwell will be proud..

      Ill go with real life over theory any day

      If NASA had the same reliability in the moon program as the AGW models.. The Apollo rockets would have shot off like wille-coyote and crash landed in mexico.. and you alarmist would say.. Close enough!!

      • jk

        The only data set that doesn’t show a warming trend is the UAH dataset, which has many well-documented errors. The keeper of that dataset is also a paid spokesperson for various conservative think-tanks.

        • planet8788

          Where is your paper on those errors…

          The surface record has been manipulated beyond recognition. 1880 to 1980 warming has nearly tripled since 1981.
          Did 20th century scientists not know how to read thermometers?

          • jk

            Here’s one: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.abstract
            There are a number of other published papers on the UAH data set’s errors. You should check them out.

          • planet8788

            Yes… and then it gets revised… UAH actually showed more warming than others until the last revision.

          • jk

            By the way, UAH has had a number of revisions and corrections over the years. Why do you trust that one but not all the others?

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/UAHcorrections.jpg

          • planet8788

            Because the surfact folks are still changing temperatures from 140 years ago based on what… Because evidence always gets better?
            1880 to 1980 warming has TRIPLED. since 1981. TRIPLED.

          • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

            Because their revisions and corrections are transparent. Duh.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes. Until the last revision — which brought it into line with RSS.

          • planet8788

            Corrected a long time ago… Written by the one who runs the satellites… FAIL.

          • jk

            Please send links to a peer-reviewed paper supporting your ridiculous comments.

          • planet8788

            You sent the link to the paper written by the guy who runs the satellite programs…. You trolls get stupider every day. Are they paying you less than the minimum wage?

          • jk

            Nice try, but that’s not a response.

          • planet8788

            Yes it is and a perfect one considering your incoherence.

          • lookout1

            Science mag also publish the completely fraudulent Marcott paper in which the author all but retracted, as it turns out they compare apples to bananas to get a magical spike i the 20th century

            Marcott
            What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

            A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

          • jk

            Classic denier argument. First, claim the data doesn’t exist. Second, when the data is shown, deny its validity. I guess the only sources you trust are those that agree with your views. It seems you have a problem processing facts.

          • lookout1

            Uh moron, that quote was from the AUTHOR of the paper..

            MARCOTT HIMSELF
            So is the author of the Marcott paper lying when he made this statement?

            However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

            We can get into WHY he made that claim, but its irrelevant , it was MADE..
            And it was made after it was ‘peer reviewed’ and published by ‘science mag’ … Because other people tore the ‘published’ paper apart after it was proven data was changed and moved around

            who is the denier now?

          • jk

            You completely misunderstand the Marcott study, which is actually quite pro-global warming on numerous fronts:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html

            Aren’t you the same guy who a few posts ago was harping about how climate is warming but it’s not significant enough to have an impact? Now you’re going back to saying it was never warming? Or your argument is that peer-reviewed studies are bunk? It’s getting difficult to keep your tap-dancing straight.

          • lookout1

            Funny you quote skeptical science who uses the information that says , and i quote

            However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

            In other words the BLADE IS BULLSHIT..
            The second problem with that graph is smoothing ove several thusand years and then merging of separate proxy data (not smoothed) completely distorts the record

            so in other words the graph can be considered accurate up to ZERO

          • Evan Jones

            Marcott redated core taps. That is a most definite no-no. (And he did go on to say his 20th century stuff was not statistically robust.)

        • lookout1

          Your models are your theory, not a single data set but Karl match the models .

          Why do you think the Karl paper was such a big deal to your religion ?

          finally after almost 2 decades of looking you found the missing heat . Hiding in his calculator.

          Once again for the slow.. The argument is not if the planet heats or cools , but how much of a role co2 made by man will impact the climate

          You fruit loops say a ton and still make that claim. Even though after 20 years of large CO2 increases there has been very little to no warming

          So in summary your theory says large increase in CO2 means large increases in temp.. That has been proven false by every data set except the man made one by karl ..

          The temp change for the last 20 years is well within the margin of error an variability.

          • jk

            That data says the opposite of what you believe. Temperature is warming and that fact is supported by nearly all the evidence we have. Sounds like you’re having a hard time coming to terms with the facts.

          • lookout1

            You seem to be stupid or slightly on the retarded side.
            Who said the earth never warms or cools?

            Your claim is it because of c02 and it ill be CATASTROPHIC

            About 1150 years ago the earth warmed 7 degrees Celsius in under 100 years..Was man to blame then as well?

          • Aaron_Burr

            Must have been emissions from all those first generation mastodon pulled SUVs.

          • jk

            Actually I never said those things in any of my posts.
            Your argument is so stupid it is difficult to address, but it amounts to something like this: “temperature warmed after the last ice age, so ALL instances of warming temperature must be natural.” Surely you realize how dumb you sound. Better to keep your mouth closed than open it and erase all doubt…

          • lookout1

            Your argument is so stupid it is difficult to address, but it amounts to something like this:

            “The temperature has changed the previous 4 billion years naturally and more extremely .. but this time its different !!”

            Once again I said there was a 7 degree change in less than 100 years and that was NATURAL.. but somehow you nutz claim a 2-3 degree change in 100 years is catastrophic and unnatural

            Surely you realize how dumb you sound. Better to keep your mouth closed than open it and erase all doubt…

          • jk

            The most sharp global warming trend in 11,000 years coinciding closely with massive CO2 emissions.
            You can ignore it if you wish. You just look stupid to the rest of us.

          • lookout1

            wrong moron .. it TRAILS IT by a few hundred years

            But i suppose to the agw crowd co2 has time travel capabilities and this time its different

          • jk

            Is everything you say a lie? The are numerous charts posted even in the comments section here that contradict most of your posts.

          • lookout1

            so your fanatic web site is lying

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html

            Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both

            Their claim is :THIS TIME ITS DIFFERENT!!!!

            Moron

          • jk

            Actually, this is the last reply I’m going to make to any of your asinine comments.

            I just took a look at your profile and comment history and noticed you are on the extreme right-wing fringe of most issues, continually twisting yourself into logical knots. I take some comfort in knowing that in 20 years, nuts like you will be dead, dying, or no longer relevant to the political discourse while I’m still around.

            I also know better than to debate crazy people. Good day.

          • lookout1

            Moron

            Directly from your pro agw web site

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html

            Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags temperature by around 1000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both..

            this time its C02 .. MAGIC

            And is it 20 more years now??.. almost 20 years ago you idiots said no more snow; ice caps glaciers.. mass migration , mass drought .. i think 7 plagues was mentioned somewhere

            moron

          • Evan Jones

            It does for paleo. But it does appear to have a bit of a knock-on effect when the interglacial ends. And it does appear to have caused mild warming from 1950.

    • planet8788

      Evidence? And so what?

    • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

      So what? Are you ignorant of the millions that Big Green spends?

      • jk

        what is big green? last I checked, most climate studies were funded by universities. Just like medical and physics research, and every other scientific field.

        • Aaron_Burr

          Nice disingenuous try. Soros, Steyer, et al will buy all the distorted warming data they can find and pay to make it up if they can’t find it.

          • jk

            This is the first I’ve heard that the NOAA and NASA are funded by special interests like Heartland (Koch brothers)? You must have some inside info.

          • Aaron_Burr

            They aren’t funded by special interests. They ARE special interests with an agenda that we’re paying for with our tax dollars.

          • jk

            Got it. So you’re just an anti-government troll, which explains your stance on global warming. Just another political ideologue.

          • Aaron_Burr

            You really are too stupid to be allowed to type…

          • jk

            The final phase of denial: when all of your arguments have been proven wrong, just start slinging insults.

          • Aaron_Burr

            Whatever.

        • lookout1

          Huh… the us government alone spend billions a year on “agw” research and does so every sengle year

          There is a $1.5 TRILLION a year economy based solely on agw .. no agw POOF… The agw economy collapses

          • jk

            Medical research is also publicly funded. Do you distrust that as well?

          • lookout1

            Medical research isn’t asking us to collapse the world economy with far fetched theories that isn’t supported by real world data

            Secondly you claimed their was no money in agw .. thats provably false..

          • jk

            Medical care is the fastest growing expense in the US and amounts to more than a quarter of the US budget. Far more than energy policy. Strange that you are not as concerned about how that research is funded and the validity of all that data.
            You are just an ideologue and not concerned with facts, except the small basket of facts that fit your preconceived view, which will never change no matter how many facts and studies you are confronted with.
            Have a nice day.

          • lookout1

            Are you saying medical costs are going up because of research .. ?
            Because that seems to be your claim

            Medical resarch is saying toss out vaccinations, MRIs, CAT scans , and XRAYS..

            The analogy is quite simply ignorant

            You are firmly on the left side of the iq curve , placing you well with the retarded range…

            A more apt analogy wold say a whole medical research industry that is based on breathing is a bad idea..

          • jk

            Stop lying.
            Every data set shows warming, except for UAH, whose outlier status has been debunked to infinity.
            Of course, I’m not accounting for the data sets that exist in your head, which also say the moon is made of pink unicorns and rainbows. When your parents told you to use your imagination, I’m not so sure this is what they meant.

          • lookout1

            jeezus fn christ
            NO DATA SETS MATCHES UP WITH THE MODELS.. EXCEPT KARLS.. THATS WHAT I SAID

            Simply google: missing heat found karl
            it was the rage a few months ago

            https://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6239/1066.summary
            Lost and found: Earth’s missing heat
            Science 5 June 2015:

            How can he find the missing heat if all the other data sets had it?
            BECAUSE NONE OF THEM REFLECTED THE MODELS,
            aka the HEAT WAS MISSING ..!!

            Are you a simpleton that cuts and pastes crap with no idea what they are doing .. perhaps a trained monkey?

            once again .. the planet has been warming for 900+ years .. and continues to do so , the question is co2 going cause unprecedented catastrophic runaway warming

            You keep saying THE DATA , THE DATA shows warming … !!
            But since you are an imbecile, you don’t realize there should be MUCH MUCH MUCH more warming based on ALL CURRENT MODELS

            The current warming and/or pause is not outside of any natural variation or margin of error

            go eat a bannana , monkey

          • jk

            I don’t know what you’re talking about, it sounds like you are becoming unhinged. Every other data set shows warming. There was some concern about whether the RATE of warming was slowing (aka a “pause”, which it wasn’t) which has now been debunked.

          • lookout1

            yes total fcking stupidity pisses me off

            Has it been warming for the last 900 years.. Yes or NO

            All the other temp data sets (RSS UAH ARGO RADIOSONDE) except karl fall well outside the range of all AGW models?YES OR NO

            (bet you have no idea how the ‘debunking’ was done by karl … tip.. adjusting precise buoy data to match imprecise ship intake data.,.)

          • Evan Jones

            Every data set shows warming, except for UAH, whose outlier status has been debunked to infinity.

            RSS would disagree.

          • jk

            Stop lying.

            From RSS, verbatim:

            “Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly. The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).

            Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.

            The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming. See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.”

            http://www.remss.com/research/climate

          • jk

            By the way, are you the same Evan Jones who is the sycophant of famous denialist high-school dropout and non-scientist Anthony Watts? What an honor. I’m surprised you still have the guts to comment on global warming news pieces, given all your “research” was torn apart in the peer review process.

        • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

          What is Big Green? You’re kidding, right?

    • brew_it

      Where is the evidence that she is paid by the heartland institute? links please.

      • jk

        She is one of their paid speakers and bloggers.

        • brew_it

          Again, you have NO evidence.

          • jk

            Another joker. You want me to send you her bank statements or something?

    • Aaron_Burr

      Who cares who pays her? You think warmist alarmists Soros, Steyer, et. al. don’t pay many, many researchers to support their point of view??

      • Evan Jones

        Funding is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is if the work stands up to independent review.

    • FalseFlag

      Even if that were true(?), unless you can show ( which you can’t ) that her change in viewpoint came about because she was bought off, her source of funding isn’t any more important than who funds research for those scientists who reject her conclusions.

      • jk

        She wasn’t very vocal at all about being a “heretic” before she started getting paid as a speaker and blogger. In fact, pretty much all of her published work supports the scientific consensus that global warming is real and caused by humans. This is true for the published work of a lot of famous “skeptics” like Roy Spencer and Roger Pielke, Sr. They are super vocal contrarians when on the think-tank speaking circuit, but their published work hews pretty closely to the mainstream scientific view. Hey, everybody needs to put food on the table one way or another – right?

        • FalseFlag

          I just think it’s a serious charge to make without evidence other than conjecture. It has certainly cost her on professional basis at least, It’s always hard to go against the herd. And it’s specious to say she couldn’t feed herself or her family otherwise, she’s a tenured professor. Would you be as skeptical if a climate change denier scientist ( there have been a fair number ) crossed over from the other side and started getting govt. grant money? I have my doubts, in fact I think you’d welcome them with open arms.

          • jack dale

            Muller was partially by the Koch Family Foundation.

            What is so bad about government funding?

            Spencer is funded by NOAA, NASA, and DOE.

          • FalseFlag

            What’s so bad about government funding? Not a thing. But if your going to cast aspersions at private funding then turn about is fair play. Those in government ( or who receive funding from same ) shouldn’t be placed on altars. If someone is sincere/honest in their research the source of funding should be considered secondary. Peer review should weed out the bad apples.

          • jack dale

            Where did I “cast aspersions at private funding”? Muller also had funding from The Gates Foundation. His initial funding was primarily private. His conclusions did not please all of his funders.

            Richard got $$3,000,000 in NSF funding during his career. He has no place on my “altar.”

          • FalseFlag

            Well if you’ll follow the back and forth between me and JK ( which I thought you were ), you’ll see where I’m coming from. I’m not against funding from any source, if the research is peer reviewed, I don’t see the problem.

          • jack dale

            BTW – Curry is not even a Heartland expert.

          • FalseFlag

            Thanks, there seems to be some confusion on that point.

          • jack dale

            I read her blog occasionally and use some of it.

            I will admit the Fox op-ed took me aback.

          • jk

            I’m not saying she couldn’t feed her family, perhaps that was a joke in poor taste. The facts are the facts, though. If you become a paid spokesperson for think tanks funded by corporate special interests, you should be able to take responsibility for the resulting blowback.

            There is a lot of false equivalence in your comments. I personally think there is a huge discrepancy between research funded by the government and research (or more accurately, “journalism”) funded by corporate special interests. Much of the research in fields like medicine, chemistry, and physics are funded by government entities, but I don’t hear skeptics complaining that the government is pushing some sort of “political physics agenda” on us for that reason.

          • FalseFlag

            It was in bad taste and it just shows lack of respect and sloppy thinking. Your ‘facts are facts’ is another line of sloppy thinking, again implying that she’s just a paid shill because she doesn’t hew to your agenda.
            And her your making a false equivalence. To compare a “physics agenda” to the global warming debate is apples to rocks. Decisions on physics aren’t going to cost trillions of dollars and massive upheavals in society like what will/or will not come to pass with decisions from the global warming debate. You place government on the side of the angels as if Solomon were in charge with no chance of there being an agenda and one which doesn’t ( obviously ) allow for ANY dissent. That’s wearing blinders and it’s just wrong.

          • jk

            I’ll repeat it again, because you seem to be in disbelief. She is a paid speaker and blogger for Heartland. This is well known. Of course, the only level of evidence that might satisfy you would probably be on the level of me whipping out her bank statements. Kind of like the Obama birth certificate truther situation.

            By the way, you’re making quite a few assumptions yourself. Trillions by what measure? The chemical and refining industries said the same thing about regulating CFCs and SO2 in the 80s and 90s, and last I checked they’re doing just fine. Just come out and drop the pretense: you’re an anti-government troll, and you don’t want to believe global warming is real, because you don’t like the government. It’s fine. No need to pretend you have any other agenda having to do with science or facts.

            You should apply your same critical standards to all science research and then see what you’re left with – not just the part that doesn’t agree with your particular political viewpoint. But that is probably asking too much.

          • FalseFlag

            I’m in disbelief that you left out “heretic” in your “troll” and “truther” rant, when you have nothing of value to say hurl stones and venom. No point in continuing here.

    • jack dale

      Curry is not even a Heartland expert.

      https://www.heartland.org/experts?page=4

  • Youtopia

    If you want to have a serious thoughtful article about the impacts of
    global warming then there would be a discussion about the advantages
    and disadvantages. There would be a discussion about the benefits as
    well. Instead, this faux science and alarmist conclusions were bought and paid for by
    government(s). There is zero perceived objectivity in any analysis.
    These results were purchased to promote the government(s) agenda. When
    you pay for a report about the hazards of a warming planet then you
    receive precisely that. You didn’t ask for any objectivity or balance,
    you paid for a 100% report about ‘warming dangers’ only. Smart financial
    experts and investors know for certain that there will be winners and
    losers in this government program. But right now they will say and do
    nothing to jeopardize their opportunity for the loose billions of
    dollars that governments throw around. Its ok if you believe 100 % that
    global warming is real, but its dishonest to pretend it is 100%
    dangerous and its foolish to think that government mandates are going to
    provide you with a ‘goldilocks’ zone where the climate will freeze in
    some imaginary state that benefits all of mankind. This is not natural
    science, this is political science and its becoming a religion.
    Religion…?….what could possibly go wrong with extremist global
    warming fervor?

    • lookout1

      The irony .. is there have been some cost analysis done by some pro-warmers..
      If EVERYTHING they ask is done .. the temperature change is almost immeasurable…

      All the while destroying economies and god know how many deaths

      • Evan Jones

        Well, it would if India and China favored death over life. (Fortunately they don’t, so they will inevitably blow off or violate any agreement. And good on them.)

    • DennisHorne

      What hastened my conversion from scepticism to acceptance was the blatant lies and idiocy of most (I repeat, most) denialists.

      • Youtopia

        I accept being disillusioned with, or pissed off at, some people. But what are the FACTS that led you from skepticism to true believer?

        • DennisHorne

          Oh, that would be the data.

          But I am not a climatologist, and although I have an old MSc from a world-ranked university, I’m not a (retired) scientist either. So in the end I just trust my bullshit-detector.

          • Youtopia

            and the “data” that alarmists use doesn’t move your ‘bullshit-detector’? so you trust your instinct that a computer model, while clearly not a FACT, is going to guide your position on this issue?

          • planet8788

            You mean the manipulated data that tripled warming from 1880 to 1980 since 1981.

          • Nascent22

            How many times are you going to post this, slick? Definition of insanity…..

          • planet8788

            Until someone explains how it’s legit.

          • Evan Jones

            The data is not the solution. it is part of the problem.

          • jack dale

            And the solution is?

          • DennisHorne

            And the solution is?

            In hand.

          • jack dale

            I would like to see Evan Jones’ solution.

          • Evan Jones

            Fixing it.

          • Evvie Jones

            You mean “rigging it”

          • Evan Jones

            Rigging it correctly for a change.

          • Evvie Jones

            To the lukewarmers point of view that is, right Evan, dead on.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Oh, that would be the data.”
            I’m sorry that you are in denial of this reality, but the empirical data supports the skeptical side.
            1) I’ve shown you alarmists peer reviewed empirical science that shows in late 20th century there was 6 to 12 times more natural climate forcing than there was anthropogenic forcing. In fact more natural climate forcing than the entire amount of anthropogenic that the IPCC says exists since 1750, yet you alarmists stubbornly deny the reality that natural climate forcing was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming during the late 20th century. That empirical science is summarized in my comment here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut or refute this empirical science, and it CRICKETS! You can’t and you know it, yet you cling to your proven false BELIEFS. Prove me wrong, and rebut the empirical science that I presented there.

            2) When you alarmists try to explain away the lack of warming in the atmosphere over the last ~19 years as predicted by your flawed, faulty climate models, and claim that the ghg warming has gone into the ocean, I have shown you the science that shows that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation not ghgs ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ). I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut this empirical science and again it’s CRICKETS! Prove me wrong and rebut and refute the empirical science that I presented there.

            3) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century, and it’s CRICKETS!

            4) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcings were NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, and it’s CRICKETS!

            5) I’ve repeatedly shown you climate alarmists the empirical data that shows that over the last ~19 years there has been no warming in the Earth’s atmosphere, where your flawed, faulty models predicted more warming than the surface. You alarmists stubbornly deny this reality, and point to non-global coverage, adjusted numbers. Changing the real-world data to fit your failed predictions is the behavior of false doomsday cult religions, not science.

            There is no empirical data that shows that the climate is doing anything unusual at all that hasn’t happened naturally before. The real world empirical data shows that it’s NOT a human-driven problem. It’s nature doing what nature does. It is fully consistent with the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate forcings such as amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and ocean cycles are causing climate change now, just like it has been doing throughout the entire history of the planet.

            I’ve moved from accepting the climate alarmists scare meme to being skeptical because of the empirical data. I’ve shown you some of that data above. You’ve shown NONE! You are merely parroting your climate cult’s propaganda talking points. It’s quite pathetic.

      • planet8788

        Glad you didn’t notice the nearly tripling of 1880 to 1980 warming since 1981.

      • Randy Largent

        It appears that most of the lying is coming from your adopted side.

      • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

        You are just LYING.

      • Evan Jones

        What hastened my conversion from scepticism to acceptance was the blatant lies and idiocy of most (I repeat, most) denialists.

        That’s a sword that cut both ways.

        • jack dale

          Denialist edge is blunt.

  • sh0000

    The same people who for 50 years told us that cigarettes were not addictive nor caused cancer now have moved onto a different stage that man made climate change is not occurring. The climate deniers like Judith Curry are hoping that people are too stupid to find out the real truth

    • planet8788

      Do you realize that since Hansen, et. al. 1981… 1880 to 1980 warming has almost tripled.
      20th century scientsts were that stupid? Couldn’t read thermometers?

      • Nascent22

        When some of those thermometers are on slabs of concrete and in other areas that skew the numbers, the reading on the thermometers can be deceiving.

        • planet8788

          And it took us 100 years to discover that?

        • planet8788

          How much concrete was around in 1880? Dumb de dum dum.

          • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

            You are making HIS point dufus.

          • planet8788

            No I’m not MORON.

          • planet8788

            They are still adjusting 1880 temperatures. STILL.

          • Aaron_Burr

            Yeah, and they could really read those crude glass tube mercury and water alcohol thermometers to three digit accuracy. Right.

          • planet8788

            And we can read them even more accurately 130 years later? LOL

        • Evan Jones

          78% of USHCN is poorly sited using Leroy (2010), study period 1979 – 2008. More like 90%, using NOAA’s own siting guidelines.

        • planet8788

          And scientists in the 20th century were too stupid to know that? Is that what you’re saying?

    • Randy Largent

      She’s apparently correct… some of you are too stupid to find out the real truth.

      • sh0000

        No, she’s not very smart. In fact, nearly every other climate scientist disagrees with her

        • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

          You are MISTAKEN. She is prominent in her field. Moreover, hundreds of climate scientists agree with her.

          • sh0000

            Hundreds? I know, they don’t have real names, because they are worried about the climate terrorists….

          • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

            LOL. Thirty of them signed on to ‘Climate Hustle’ alone.

          • Bart_R

            Last year, Dr. Curry was quietly demoted from her position as Chair of Earth Sciences at Georgia Tech, clearly over her very disappointing publication record. She’s published little, nothing of note, and with flawless talent for spotting the wrongest possible way to frame a scientific issue.

            From Wyatt & Curry’s laughable big data massacre — now there was data adjustment! — to her brilliant cherry picking with an amateur on climate sensitivity so far off the low end someone would smash their skull if they jumped into that pool, this isn’t a scientist tossed out of a tribe, this is self-inflicted martyrdom of a marginal scholar who simply fizzled while fascinated with the freakshow of internet trolldom.

            It’s sad, too. Judith has many fine qualities as a person, and might make a more than adequate.. something that has nothing to do with science, reason or numbers.

          • Evan Jones

            Last year, Dr. Curry was quietly demoted from her position as Chair of Earth Sciences at Georgia Tech, clearly over her very disappointing publication record.

            I bet they were even more disappointed by Lewis, Curry (2015).

          • Bart_R

            Lewis & Curry was the skull-crackingly shallow end cherry pick which I referred to.

            That Curry expended so much of her reputation to push that POE to publication tells us why any group of scientists might shun her.

          • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

            She RETIRED from the position, jackass. Her publication record is enviable in her field.

          • Bart_R

            Not retired.

            Demoted.

            Lindzen retired. Though he retired with the unenviable record of three decades without finding the evidence for a single contention he made in his career.

          • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

            You greens can’t disagree without dragging down those with whom you disagree with lies about their abilities or their motives. You’re despicable.

          • Bart_R

            What makes you think I’m a ‘green’?

            Or that greens would have me?

            Judith’s a nice person, all things considered.

            She’s just not doing science.. and apparently it’s become apparent that she just can’t.

          • jack dale

            Judith Curry is wise enough to now who the real cranks are: PSI, Steve Goddard…

        • Evan Jones

          What makes you think so?

          I wasn’t aware that being smart equated to being right. Or that being not very smart equated to being wrong. I must have missed that part, too, when I was reviewing scientific method.

      • sh0000

        No – she is not correct, as virtually no one agrees with her

        • brew_it

          You are pretty clueless. Go back under your rock troll.

          • sh0000

            Sorry you can’t handle it. Time for your nap!

          • brew_it

            Maybe you should change your diapers and go back to bed.

        • Evan Jones

          No – she is not correct, as virtually no one agrees with her

          I must have missed that part when I was reading up on scientific method.

          Anyway, she is right in the pack for the last dozen and a half studies on CO2 sensitivity. “Virtually” everyone agrees that the IPCC got ECS too high.

    • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

      Why would you make such an idiotic claim?

      • sh0000

        Because it’s true. Keep on smoking!

    • brew_it

      Did you soil your underwear again? You shouldn’t debate things you are clueless about, and one of them is Judith Curry.

      • sh0000

        Obviously, your only response is to insult – go back to your basement

    • Aaron_Burr

      You’re comparing researchers into a planetary climate phenomena to the doctors researching a biological disease process and have the stones to call other people “stupid”. And that ignores the extra stupid “same people” 50 years apart ad hominem nonsense. Get a whiff of what you’re shoveling.

      • sh0000

        No – your heard is pretty thick if you don’t understand.
        Who do you think funds the climate change deniers (most notably the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute)? They are not scientific organizations.
        Follow the money – who do you think benefits from this. Who do you think benefitted from 50 years of tobacco?

        • gmonsen

          Not sure who funds the climate denialists, but I do know many who fund the climate deceivers. Governments and universities and wealthy crazy people.

          • sh0000

            6 of the 7 largest corporations in the world are oil/gas companies. Who do you think has deeper pockets and more at stake to fund the denier movement?

    • lookout1

      RSS.. the temp is flat or declining since 1998
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/rss/from:1998

      UAH a .1 degrees up-tick
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998

      Both are satellite measurements and not constantly fiddled with

      since 1998 co2 has increased about 20% 30%.. we should be seeing huge temp increases in temp because of the stated climate sensitivity to co2 (a magic number that keeps changing)

      Both of those real life data readings are supposed to be impossible since Co2 is supposed to “blow torch” the planet

      • Evan Jones

        UAH 6.0 now almost exactly matches RSS. There was a correction for satellite drift.

        But 1998 is not a good startpoint any more than 1999 or 2000. For the “pause”, go with 1997 or 2001 to avoid the Nino/Nina whipsaw.

        Bear in mind that PDO flipped negative in 2007, so there is some (fairly small) warming forcing in spite of the flat trend. But also make note that the 1976 – 2007 period was a positive PDO, so only ~ half of that warming was forced by CO2 and other anthropogenic factors.

        • jack dale

          1997 would be classic cherry picking.

          Carl Mears at RSS uses the term “denialist” to describe those who misrepresent his data.

          The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures

          Authors: Carl Mears

          Date Added: Monday, September 22, 2014

          Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked” their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. For example, the figure below is a plot of the temperature anomaly (departure from normal) of the lower troposphere over the past 35 years from the RSS “Temperature Lower Troposphere” (TLT) dataset. For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979. (The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)

          http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

          Have a look at the graph from RSS.

          http://images.remss.com/figures/blogs/2014/rss_model_ts_globe_tlt_mears.png

          Notice that not one single data point from 1994 to the present is below the mean. When temperatures are above average there is warming.

          • gmonsen

            Ah, you note the denial-ist sites and point to the deceiver-ist sites. Another anthropomorphic idiocy.

          • jack dale

            “anthropomorphic” ?

            I am human.

          • Evan Jones

            An anthropogenic anthropomorphism?

          • Evan Jones

            1997 would be classic cherry picking.

            I don’t see why. It includes both the 1998 el Nino and the 1999-2000 la Nina. It’s even a little “warmier” than 2001.

            (I’ll start to dispute it if it drifts towards April 1998.)

            One does not dispute that there was a definite warming signal prior to that, but starting in 1976, the PDO flipped to positive, so that would be expected in any event.

          • jack dale

            You are aware that March 1997 is cherry picked because there was a huge temperature spike that month.

            http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/wesley/tovs_problem/gbl.t100.r1-r2.png

      • jack dale

        BTW both UAH and RSS satellite data sets are adjusted.

        Some “fiddling” was used to to get from UAH 5.6 to 6.0.

        • Evan Jones

          Of course. For satellite drift (also for various reflectivity modes).

          The UAH 6.0 “fiddling” was a correction for drift. (It now tracks RSS very closely.)

          • jack dale

            I know. I read Spencer’s blog occasionally.

          • Evan Jones

            So what’s the problem, then? I could understand if the adjustments caused a diversion from RSS. But it brought them in line.

          • jack dale

            No problem. You do understand what the quotes mean. It is like this from the IPCC.

            ” Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST”

            AR5 – page 769

            Notice the quotes around “hiatus”. That is in the original in Table 9.2.

        • lookout1

          The adjustments in satellite data vs ushcn data are magnitudes different ..
          One adjusts for changes in altitude

          The other for some reason , always cools the past and warms the present

          you do know there is one precise land based temp set that has ZERO adjustments that show little to now temp gains… USCRN

          • jack dale
          • lookout1

            did you read:

            You do know there is one precise land based temp set that has ZERO adjustments that shows little to no temp gains… called the USCRN

            In fact its supplied by the same organization (NOAA) that says there is warming

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/

            I would give you the actual USCRN plot; but it keeps getting cut off

          • jack dale

            Your link is as broken as your argument.

          • lookout1

            Alas i,retardation prevents you doing your own research .. Let me know when you find the uscrn Data

            Uscrn is considered the most precise land temp network on earth .. But hey that’s science…

          • jack dale

            Tell me when you learn to post a link that does not include a line break.

            Your assertion requires your evidence. You will learn that in middle school.

          • lookout1

            Uh the line break is inserted by the site and a matter of characters per line limit. Placed by the site one post to , but thats another program/science thing.you seem not to know

            Given you are smarter than all the deniers it should be easy to find that NOAA uscrn data

          • jack dale

            Do not copy URLs from a web site. Copy them the the adress bar in your browser.

            Copying from web site is clear indication you did not bother to read the web site linked.

            Removing the line break and the spaces gets

            “ERROR 404

            We apologize, but the page or resource for which you are looking could not be located.

            Please try one of the following:

            Check the URL for spelling/typing errors

            Make sure that any bookmarks you may have used are recent

            Try using the site search

            If you continue to have issues locating the file or resource you need, pleasecontact the webmaster for assistance(link sends e-mail).

            Thank you…”

          • Evan Jones

            And you will learn different in university. #B^)

          • jack dale

            In my 8 years of uni, that was confirmed.

          • jack dale

            I realized my reply was ambiguous – fixed.

          • Evan Jones

            Trouble with that is that CRN only went online in 2005. There will only be a divergence if there is a trend. No trend, no divergence. So any assertion that CRN confirms COOP data is a castle built on a foundation of sand.

          • lookout1

            The problem is it contradicts the last 15 years of manipulated USHCN data .

            But you are right about sand castles and all .. Gore didn’t buy a third or fourth house on the ocean front because of impending doom.

          • jack dale

            Gore’s ocean front property. ROTFLMAO. I love that joke. I laugh every time I hear it.

            It is 500 feet above above sea level and 2 miles from the beach.

            http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al-gores-house-2/view/google/

          • lookout1

            So what does uscrn say?

          • jack dale

            Give me a working link, rather than a 404

          • lookout1

            So in other words not very intelligent, but very good at repeating things. I.e. A trained leftist monkey ..

            Would you like a leftist banana?

          • jack dale

            Lookout1 slithers to the bottom of Graham’s hierarchy.

          • lookout1

            And jk zooms to the left of the iq curve, only to leftist do the facts adjust to the theory

          • lookout1
          • jack dale

            Thanks for the link. Lines tracking very close together. 12 month trend is positive.

            Now what are you trying to prove?

          • lookout1

            That it diverges greatly with the KARL paper..

            The temp increases seen in the last 100-200 years can all be explained by natural variation (its been steadily warming for the last 900 or so )

            The current warming trend matched the early 1900s.. was that co2 as well>?

          • jack dale

            The temp increases seen in the last 100-200 years can all be explained by natural variation(its been steadily warming for the last 900 or so?

            Really?

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg

          • lookout1

            yes really..
            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/greenland-ice-core-isotope-past-4000-yrs.png

            I stand corrected though, been warming for the last 200-300 years ..

          • jack dale

            That graph refutes your claim

            “its been steadily warming for the last 900 or so”

          • lookout1

            yoo missed this part:

            “I stand corrected though, been warming for the last 200-300 years ”

            It cooled about 900 years ago

            You also seemed to have missed it being warmer most of teh last 4000 years (if you go further back it more like 9000 of the 1000 years)

          • jack dale

            Yes it has been warming since the mid 19th century. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions started in the mid 18th century.

          • lookout1

            so all the warming now is because of man made co2?

            Where as over the last several billion years it was for some other reason? or even over the last 10000

          • jack dale

            You really are a binary thinker.

            Natural variation is a factor in climate change. Human activities have overwhelmed it.

            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/climate-forcing/Radiative_Forcing_Components_IPCC_AR4.png/image_large

            Go read up on Milankovitch cycles.

          • lookout1

            So a 7 degree swing in less than 100 years is natural but a 2-3 degree swing in 100 isn’t?

            It seems you are the binary thinker ..

            warming from 1900- 1940 was co2… the cooling from the 40-70s natural (while co2 was increasing) ,, the warming from 70-90s c02… the pause from the 2000-2020.. natural (while co2 was increasing)

            do i have that right ?

            The warming slope from the 1900s to the 1940 matches the warming of the late 1900 even though teh c02 concentrations are much much higher..

            Which seems to imply negative feedback loop not positive feed back…

          • jack dale

            You have that wrong. The moderation in temperatures from the 1940’s to the 1970’s is linked to increased industrial aerosols from the war and post war boom. The Clean Air Acts of the 1970’s eliminated a lot of those aerosols.

            There is no temperature pause.

            The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for October 2015 was the highest for October in the 136-year period of record, at 0.98°C (1.76°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.1°F). This marked the sixth consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken and was also the greatest departure from average for any month in the 1630 months of record keeping, surpassing the previous record high departure set just last month by 0.13°F (0.07°C). The October temperature is currently increasing at an average rate of 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade.

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/glob/201510.gif?thumb

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Actually overall it’s been ‘steadily warming’, if we ignore the cooling times SHOWN IN THE GRAPHS YOU POSTED IN ANOTHER REPLY more often than not, for the past 15,000 years. I suppose you claim humans are to blame?

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            This is propaganda, not science. This was produced by ignoring data that does not fit but one thing it does show is how divergent the climate models are, also how variable even they admit climate is. So, clearly the climate models shown disagree with each other – so which do you say is right, and which wrong?

          • lookout1

            You truly are an idiot the white cliffs if Dover are about my 350 feet , as for two mile off shore , really ?

          • jack dale

            Follow the link. Zoom out.

          • Evan Jones

            satellite data vs ushcn data

            Think microsite. Think homogenization. Think equipment bias.

          • lookout1

            Once again did I say ushcn?

            no .. There is a seperate land based data set call the USCRN … But you smart, you know that right?

            The only data set that matches agw model s is the one that completely obliterates all data sets

    • Evan Jones

      You are dead wrong and terribly unfair in regard to Dr. Curry.

    • therealguyfaux

      The readers seeing your argument are entitled, as a matter of right, to ask “And this is pertinent to the current discussion HOW, exactly?”, since it is a smear tactic, of a kind raised to a high art by Senator Joseph McCarthy (who, incidentally, was not wrong on the gravamen of his charges, i.e., that the US Department of State had significant Communist influences under Franklin Roosevelt– it was the irresponsible style of McCarthy’s bruiting of these charges that done him in).

      • jack dale

        The modern Joe McCarthy is Lamar Smith.

        • Evan Jones

          I missed the part where Mac had oversight authority over Hollywood.

      • sh0000

        Defending Joe McCarthy – now I know just how much of a misguided person you are. McCarthy bullied and intimidated anyone in his way. A very dark period in our history.

        • therealguyfaux

          Saying that he was a scuzzball who took a legitimate issue and discredited it, possibly forever, by his stupid loutishness. Yup, I sure defended him, all right. I called the kind of thing YOU’RE doing “McCarthyism”– am I defending YOU?

          “Dude– do you even ‘logic’?”

          • sh0000

            You are really delusional – I can see how you fall under Cruz’s spell.
            You defend Joe McCarthy – and I call him out as a vile bully and now you try to spin it. Read up on Joe McCarthy before you spout you’re worship of him. And yes – Ted Cruz is today’s Joe McCarthy

  • planet8788

    The peer review process is so rigorous…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/

    A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications.

    The publisher is BioMed Central, based in the United Kingdom, which puts out 277 peer-reviewed journals. A partial list of the retracted articles suggests most of them were written by scholars at universities in China. But Jigisha Patel, associate editorial director for research integrity at BioMed Central, said it’s not “a China problem. We get a lot of robust research of China. We see this as a broader problem of how scientists are judged.”

  • JJHLH

    The Earth’s climate is constantly changing. It has nothing to do with human activity. The North Pole was once tropical. From CBS News regarding a scientific study in the journal Nature in 2006:

    “Scientists have found something about the North Pole that could send a shiver down Santa’s spine: It used to be downright balmy.

    In fact, 55 million years ago the Arctic was once a lot like Miami, with an average temperature of 74 degrees, alligator ancestors and palm trees, scientists say.

    That conclusion, based on first-of-their-kind core samples extracted from more than 1,000 feet below the Arctic Ocean floor, is contained in three studies published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature.”

    A study published in the journal Nature in 2012 found similar findings in the Antactic, with proof that palm trees once grew there.

    • planet8788

      And somehow the coral still survived. Amazing.

  • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

    Curry is a woman of courage.

  • Attila The Hun

    Judith Curry – I admire you for having the courage to tell the truth. I further admire you for having the courage to say “we do not know for sure”.

    The problem is that climate science has been politicized and now if you do not agree with the alarmists you are wrong and you will be banned and shunned.

    The good news is that the people have figured out that this is a giant fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people. We are not going to limit our prosperity, nor are we going to transfer money to anyone else to help them solve this problem.

    • gmonsen

      That is the point. Its clear that the vast majority of voters know that this is not something they should care about and they clearly don’t. AGW is at the very very bottom of a list of 15 or so important topics to voters, being ranked most important by only 3% or so in survey after survey. That’s all I care about. Nothing is going to happen, although I expect Obama to sign some deal or other that, like so many other executive orders, will be swept away with a pen in 2017. The French know it and have pressed Obama to get Congressional approval, which he cannot get, because the French know the next president will ignore whatever Obama does…

      • jack dale

        Canada and Alberta just voted in “alarmist” governments. The previous government either “denied” or ignored climate change.

        • Eric M Krehemker

          THe most difficult and admirable thing a scientist can do is admit they may be wrong. The worst and most despicable thing a scientist can do is stifle the debate, label dissenters as heretics. The global warming community today looks less like science and more like an inquisition.

          • jack dale

            The inquisitors are the denialists.

          • Evan Jones

            Would that include Grijalva, Whitehouse, et al? The ones who are after my friends, co-authors, and colleagues?

            Unlike Smith, they are not interested in examining the findings or the discussions leading to them.

          • jack dale

            I think that is unfortunate. So was Cucinelli’s attack.

            Your climate science has been poisoned by partisan politics.

            BTW – I am Canadian. Ours not so much. The new government is allowing scientists to speak more freely.

          • planet8788

            Scientists change the hypothesis when data proves them wrong. Climastrologists just change the data when the hypothesis is shown to be wrong. Proven fact.

          • jack dale

            Let’s see that proof.

          • planet8788

            Hansen, et. al 1981.

          • jack dale

            As I pointed out – nothing is self-evident.

            Your assertion requires your evidence and your line of reasoning.

          • Evan Jones

            It has improved since IPCC AR4, however. Climategate has held the scientific community’s toes to the fire, and they have responded positively. C-g had a more profound effect within the scientific community than most outsiders are aware of.

  • planet8788

    The climate trolls are out in force.

    • Aaron_Burr

      Just keeping up with the warmist trolls…

  • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

    Judith, the problem is that you are trying to kill their golden goose.

    • Aaron_Burr

      Sacred cows make great hamburger!

    • jack dale

      That is her golden goose as well, she is government funded.

      • truecon

        You should probably read the article before commenting:

        Curry: “But there’s no way I could get a government research grant to do the research I want to do.”

        • jack dale

          I did the read the article. And I read her blog.

          “To clarify my own funding, I have included the following statement of financial interests at the end of my testimony:

          Funding sources for Curry’s research have included NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOD and DOE. Recent contracts for CFAN include a DOE contract to develop extended range regional wind power forecasts and a DOD contract to predict extreme events associated with climate variability/change having implications for regional stability.”

          http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/

          • lookout1

            it seems both grants are assuming AGW is real

            I wonder if she could get a grant for a null hypothesis on AGW.. which amazingly the IPCC never ever attempted

            On a side note there was a paper written on what temps should look like if Co2 levels were frozen years ago and the temperate data maps pretty much tto his very own paper.

            In other words That paper can be conversely Named:
            What if co2 had little impact on temperature (null hypothesis)

            It was co-Written by none other than high priest James Hansen

            Hansen postulated three scenarios
            A: increase in CO2 emissions by 1.5% per year
            B: constant increase in CO2 emissions after 2000
            C: No increase in CO2 emissions after 2000

            http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
            page 7 maps to current data trends

          • jack dale

            Curry does not dispute AGW.

          • lookout1

            Well true; if i dump a cup of water in the ocean it raises the sea level.

            Are you going to build levees and sea walls around the world if i continue to dump a cup into the ocean every day … thats her point .. It seems more co2 is little or negligible impact on temp. and so far the data back that up

            ie she does not believe in CAGW.. which is then entire reason for the conference in Paris .. ACT NOW OR WE ALL DIE!!!

            You also missed the null hypothesis being indirectly proven by a major believer in the movement .. Hansen

          • gmonsen

            When you emit personal gas — as in some of your comments — they also contribute to warming. The issue is whether any of this actually is harmful in a meaningful way. I doubt anyone disagrees that man has added warmth through various activities. The question is whether that warming is subsumed by other warming or countered by other cooling factors.

          • jack dale

            gmonsen slithers to bottom of Graham’s hierarchy.

          • Evan Jones

            No, she does not. (Nor do I.)

            But you need to remember the Three laws of Global Warming:

            1.) Size Matters.
            2.) So does the Motion of the Ocean.
            3.) (Regarding adjustments) If ya shake it more than three times, yer playin’ with it.

          • DennisHorne

            Can’t see how motion of the oceans affect the energy retained by Earth.

          • Evan Jones

            It affects the trends if the startpoints and endpoints are not carefully selected to avoid bias.

          • Bart_R

            Nope.

            Data trends map precisely to Scenario B, which considering things Hansen could not have predicted (Montreal Protocol, fall of Soviet industry, replacement of inefficient coal and oil with natural gas and more productivity in manufacture per unit of fossil burned, and the crash of 2008, etc.) is closest to the emissions that have actually happened.

            You have to remember, Hansen’s model was ‘omnicient’ inside its simulation, and included perfect coverage of the poles (see Cowan & Way), perfect bouys and ships, perfect satellites — all things we don’t have in the real world, and all things that lead to a cool bias in the observational record. GCMs can’t model human stupidity.

          • Evan Jones

            Sats and radiosondes track below Scenario C.

          • Bart_R

            Carl Mears, chief scientist at RSS, opines that satellites are not as reliable as surface stations, but everyone knows everything is far more reliable than radiosonde.. Which all point to global warming of the climate on 30 year trends, all accelerating trends, and all in line with Scenario B when treated as climates on 30-year running means, not weather instances on far sub-17-year means.

            You compare apples and oranges, and you get fruit salad.

            You do meaningful comparisons of the whole of all available observations, and you get better science.

            Science tells us the climate continues to warm and to accelerate in its warming. It has consilient trends on all 50 Essential Climate Variables of the WMO, and the hazards of the trespass of fossil waste dumping are not limited to just climate, but also aquatic acidification, soil sterility and crop nutrient density loss.

            What sort of mind volunteers to promote waste dumping?

          • gmonsen

            Uh, Jack… Your quote says, funding sources HAVE included… She said should cannot get that funding TODAY. Got it in the past. But NOT TODAY.

            You read, but did not comprehend.

      • Evan Jones

        Not any more, she isn’t.

      • http://GreenHeretic.com/ GreenHeretic

        She would get a LOT more money if she sold out to Big Green.

  • gmonsen

    The strange believers really get worked up over their falsified and modified data, don’t they? Silence the infidel deniers! Its like quoting Pravda as a source of factual information. I don’t suppose anyone’s noticed how screwed up our educational institutions are? These people were spoon fed this nonsense from grade school coloring books about the melting ice caps and dying polar bears.

    They don’t seem to get that this whole thing just doesn’t matter to sane people and that the biggest proponent of this is going away soon to be replaced by some politician who sees that 3% of the voters think this is a problem. Say goodbye to all this. Say goodbye to whatever agreement Obama signs. Say hello to a new EPA head, a new NOAA head, a new NASA head… and the advent of accurate, unadjusted data.

    In the meantime, I think I need to find a safe space where I will cannot be assailed by these idiots. I have been micro-aggressed enough, thank you.

    • jack dale

      All temperatures are adjusted.

      Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, both well-known skeptics, have commented on this. Curry asked Zeke Hausfather to post some commentary on her blog.

      Judith Curry, a skeptic and one of Inhofe’s favorites, has published three discussions of temperature adjustments.

      “There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.”

      http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/slide1.jpg?w=500&h=375

      Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/

      http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

      http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      To which I would add a comment from Steve Mosher, the skeptic who published the Climategate letters.

      Christopher Booker win’s the irony of the year award with his piece on adjustments to the temperature record. That’s quite a feat considering it’s only February. His complaint overlooks the clear historical fact that skeptics, above all others, have made the loudest case for the need to adjust the temperature series. Over the years, it’s been skeptics, who have made a vocal case for adjustments . More disturbing is the claim that these adjustments are somehow criminal. We dealt with these type of claims before and completely debunked them.

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/

      • gmonsen

        Jack, please. I have no desire to talk to you. I am as sure of my positions as you are of yours. You don’t plan on coming around to my way of thinking and I certainly won’t come around to yours. Have a good day.

        Oh, and I was a statistician and large system modeler at some large institutions. When I needed to buy time for models that weren’t working quite right yet, I employed the same techniques, though quite a but more subtly done, that Mann and other warming priests used. When I first saw these models and data sets, I laughed and couldn’t believe anyone would place any credence in them. I still laugh, but am sad that so many are still fooled by the deceivers.

        • jack dale

          The above comments from Hausfather and Mosher have nothing to with Mann – nice strawman.

          • gmonsen

            Defending bullshit with links and references to this and that is a waste of time. Warmism is a dead, but the believers just don’t know it yet. They will continue to argue and protest and go to meetings and write nonsense, but, its dead. The common man. The voters. They just don’t believe it and even for those dumb enough to give it some credence, because they read it in the funny papers, they just don’t care enough for anything to happen. Sensible men. Not straw men.

          • jack dale

            You are correct – you are a waste of time.

        • Evan Jones

          Yes, but I don’t think it’s deception. just an error. One that I might have made.

          Oh, and I was a statistician and large system modeler at some large institutions.

          Then you will appreciate that if there is an identified, quantified systematic error in a data series, homogenization bombs. And we’ve got a very bad H-bomb on our hands in the surface station data.

          • gmonsen

            Right. I mentioned Mann, because of his flagrant substitution of thermometer data for tree ring data during the last 60 or so years of his series, if I remember the period correctly. The thermometer portion of the series showed the kick up called the hockey stick. Back when I initially looked at this, I believe I saw someone who provided the tree ring data and inserted it instead of the thermometer data and the result showed little or no warming. The fact that he actually appended the thermometer data in the first place completely negates any conclusions and made it clear this was not science. I have seen similar things from others since and no longer waste my time on it. The notion is of little interest to the voters and that’s all I care about. Its a dead Mann walking so to speak.

          • jack dale

            The “kick up” started longer than 60 years ago.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2d/T_comp_61-90.pdf/page1-637px-T_comp_61-90.pdf.jpg

            The hockey stick has been replicated scores of times. Jim Milks keeps a tslly of them.

            http://environmentalforest.blogspot.ca/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

          • Evan Jones

            Not seeing Loehle. (And Ljundqvist and Moberg are not exactly in tandem with Mann, the former, especially.)

            The “kick up” started longer than 60 years ago.

            That’s part of the problem. The strong warming to ~1945 can’t be attributed to CO2, and its cause is unknown.

          • jack dale

            By 1945 anthropogenic carbon emissions had gone from 3 million tons per annum to 1160 tonnes per annum.

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2011.ems

            I will be the first to say the CO2 is not the only factor in climate change.

          • Evan Jones

            That’s ~10%, net. It has risen ~30% since 1950. Yet the 1900 – 1950 slope is very similar to 1950 to date.

          • jack dale

            Read my the last sentence of my post.

          • Evan Jones

            Read my the last sentence of my post.

          • jack dale

            You seem to be implying that CO2 is regarded as the only factor. It ain’t.

          • planet8788

            That’s after the artificial cooling of about .5C of the 1880 data. if not more. See Hansen, et. al. 1981.

          • jack dale

            What “artificial cooling of about .5C of the 1880 data”?

          • planet8788

            See Hansen, et. al 1981… Read the temp. chart… Compare it to today’s

          • jack dale

            Page 961?

            In Middle school you would have learned that your assertion requires your evidence and your reasoning. Let’s see both.

          • planet8788

            That sounds right… Look at the chart. Compare it to today’s.
            Self-evident.

          • jack dale

            Nothing is self-evident.

          • planet8788

            1880 to 1980 warming = .35C…
            What is it today…
            .9?

          • planet8788

            Wait… Let me change it t0 1910-1980 warming… That’s going to be more dramatic.
            In Hansen’s paper it’s the same 0.35 as the 1880 year.

            Now it’s 1.2C
            over 3x…
            sorry… I misunderestimated.

          • jack dale

            Make up your mind.

          • planet8788

            Sorry, have to correct myself again. I should be using the meteorlogicals station only data.
            So there the adjustments are worse from about 1885 to 1980… It’s about .8 in the recent data.
            It’s merely a doubling…. give or take.

          • jack dale

            Your reasoning is just about impossible to follow.

          • planet8788

            The only question is which chart to compare it to.

          • planet8788

            analyze and compare yourself. What do you see?

          • jack dale

            Do you want me to do your thinking for you?

          • planet8788

            No. I’ve told you… The warming has at least doubled since then. You can’t see that? Are you blind… Do you need you mommy?

          • planet8788

            I can send you a link if you need one.

          • jack dale
          • planet8788

            That’s good. Most of the warmist trolls here don’t.

          • Evan Jones

            Science, yes. Good science, no. (Terrible stats.)

      • Evan Jones

        Mosh is a lukewarmer, and a bit on the high side. But that passes for “skeptic”, these days. I’m a bit lower on the scale (and I think BEST got it somewhat wrong).

        Adjustments are necessary (esp. for TOBS bias), but they are terribly badly done. The misapplication of homogenization is one of several fatal flaws. When we follow up our current paper, we’ll be suggesting some, ourselves. (NOAA will not be very happy with our microsite and CRS adjustments. And we’ll be looking at a possible TOBS revision as well.)

        • jack dale

          Who is “we”?

          • Evan Jones

            You won’t like it. #;^)

            Anthony Watts, Dr. Nielsen-Gammon, Dr. Christy, and me.

          • jack dale

            I don’t mind it.

          • Evan Jones

            Note that we asked Doc N-G in specifically because he seriously doubted our hypothesis. (But he’s come around since.)

      • Evan Jones

        You won’t see the recent discrepancies if you smooth.

        • jack dale

          Without smoothing you get a huge S/N ratio,

          • Evan Jones

            So impose the smooth over the unsmooth.

          • jack dale

            Define “unsmooth”. Temperature by second, minute, hour, daily, ….?

          • Evan Jones

            Depends on the scale.

          • jack dale

            You got my point. Good on you.

          • Evan Jones

            I got it long before you made it.

            On your scale, annually or monthly would do.

          • jack dale

            Spencer uses 13 months.

      • Dan E

        The adjustments used make the answer always global warming.

        • jack dale

          Tell that to Roy Spencer.

  • brew_it

    “Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive.”

    • Evan Jones

      Not all, I think. The Mongol atrocities are an exception. (The motive behind those was intimidation to accept slavery.)

  • Sabretruthtiger

    There is ZERO evidence or scientific reasoning to suggest that a 2 degrees above industrial times is in any way shape or form dangerous at all. There is ZERO rationale behind this arbitrary threshold. What’s more the climate’s natural variability drowns out any human contribution and the human contribution will be at most, just over 1 degree over the next century according to the evidence.

    • lookout1

      11500 years ago the temp increased about 7 degrees in less than 100 years.. all natural

      but this time >2 degrees in 100 years…. END OF THE WORLD and all because of man… no other explanation

      (lets also ignore ~9000 of the last ~10000 years have been warmer than now)

    • Evan Jones

      I’d say ~1C to ~1.5C.

  • Right to the Point

    At the end of the day, the so-called global mean temperature before industrialization is arbitrary. Fact is, we know that the earth has warmed between glaciations more than 3 degrees Celsius above their fictitious number. Until we reach that point, there is no observable “Global Warming.” Professor Curry, you’re not alone. I’ve been black-balled as well…..

  • lookout1

    Im curious the world went to war over the nazis and imperial japan… who kill millions

    Given that co2 will apparently kill billions… are we ready to go to war with india and china over their mass co2 killings?

    I mean come on ISIS has only killed a couple hundred thousand… nothing compared to the killer CO2 china and india are pumping out

    • larrymardis

      CO2 is not a poisonous gas. Its a life given gas. Please pull your head out and think. I can’t help you, so don’t ask for help from me, try to do some research. I don’t want a cold planet. If you are afraid that the oceans will rise and flood Kansas. build a boat. It won’t happen in your life time and the next great war which will in all odds happen, will kill more people and release more CO2 than you could save. If you’re really worried, hold your breath till you turn blue and no farting or burping.

      • lookout1

        Uh you the seemed to have lost the word sarcasm in your vocabulary.

        However if the warmest believe as they do, what I state is a logical conclusion of their views

    • Evan Jones

      What is apparent about it?

    • planet8788

      Just nuke them… all the particles in the air will then take care of the global warming… Two birds one stone.

  • Eric M Krehemker

    It seems that now we are hearing from more scientitsts with varied opinions on the global warming debate, or more particularly what the causes are and how damaging it would be if true. I am thankful for that. I am tired of hearing that it is settled science. Science is never settled. Was astronomy settled when Galileo made his observation, or Johannes Kepler? Of course not. The scientific method demands that we always continue to challenges ideas, and only through repeatable experimentation is anything accepted as fact. That seems to be what is missing in this equation.
    I am willing to be open minded, then again when politicians line up to countless trillions of dollars at a problem that is not yet proven to exist, whos consequences have not been logically proven, I think people have a right to ask questions and demand answers. The fact that the science community invested in man made global warming wants to blow off those questions is of very little comfort.

    • Evan Jones

      Well said.

      • jack dale

        Not really. It is really naive.

        • Evan Jones

          It suits me.

          • jack dale

            Says much about you.

          • Evan Jones

            It says that before we dump half of GWP we should be carefully rechecking. Which suits me.

          • jack dale

            I would suggest that we follow the precautionary principle.

            “Canada’s environmental policy is guided by the precautionary principle and is reflected in the FSDS as required by the Federal Sustainable Development Act which states that the Minister of Environment must “develop a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy based on the precautionary principle”. The precautionary principle states that: “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation” (United Nations, 1992). In other words, the absence of complete scientific evidence to take precautions does not mean that precautions should not be taken – especially when there is a possibility of irreversible damage. In delivering on its environmental policies as outlined in the goals and targets in this FSDS, the Government of Canada demonstrates its commitment to this principle. The first three themes of this FSDS highlight the Government of Canada’s priorities in terms of environmental sustainability. Failure to act in any of these areas threatens our natural environment, society, and economy.”

            That suits me.

            BTW – I also wear a seat belt while driving and have insurance on my home.

          • planet8788

            I prefer we use the precautionary principle to prevent another ice age. That would definitely kill billions of people.

          • jack dale

            Do not worry about another ice age.

            The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”

            Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.

            But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. “

          • planet8788

            Say the people who’s models keep failing and fail miserably without fudging data.

          • jack dale

            What fudged data?

          • planet8788

            Again, see Hansen, et. al 1981

          • jack dale

            One trick pony.

          • RealOldOne2

            Yes you are.

          • planet8788

            The doubling or more of 1880 to 1980 warming since 1981.

          • Evan Jones

            Pascal’s conundrum rests on the premise that the cost of avoidance is slight and the measures are effective. In this case, no and no (not even close).

          • jack dale

            “In this case, no and no (not even close).”

            Because?

          • Evan Jones

            1.) There have been strong net benefits from both CO2 increase and mild warming so far. The threat is not demonstrated, it is flatly contradicted.

            2.) Even using their own projections and solutions, the amount of warming to be avoided is minuscule.

          • jack dale

            1) The increased foliage claim is not that beneficial. The foliage is is stalks and leaves. Increased food production is more closely linked to increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation. That increased foliage is not acting as an effective CO2 sink.

            http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/thumbs/1805c933-493c-4b85-be16-ad06eb342332/medium/global-trends-in-cereal-and-meat-production-total-use-of-nitrogen-and-phosphorus-fertilizers-increased-use-of-irrigation-total-global-pesticides-pr_ef80.jpg

            Ocean acidifiction (or dealkalination, if you prefer) is resulting in damage to shell fish. In creased warming will release CO2 from the oceans.

            There are increased natural catastrophes.

            http://d35brb9zkkbdsd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MunichRe2015-638×377.jpg

            2) 2C is not minuscule.

    • jack dale

      “only through repeatable experimentation”
      Great

      Let’s have a controlled experiment. Planet A will have earth’s conditions, Planet B will have ..

      Oh wait, there is no Planet B.

      • Evan Jones

        So we continually re-examine.

        • jack dale

          Scores of hockey sticks

          Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

          Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

          Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.

          Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.

          Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

          Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

          Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

          Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

          Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.

          Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

          D’Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

          Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

          Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

          Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

          Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

          Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

          Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

          Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

          von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

          Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

          Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

          Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

          Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

          Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

          Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

          Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

          Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

          Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.

          Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

          Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

          Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

          Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

          Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

          Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

          PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.

          Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.

          • Dan E

            Propaganda yet again.

            Abstract: “The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998,
            “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains
            collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data,
            geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other
            quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98
            methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index
            for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding
            is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The
            particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a
            temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th
            century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor
            data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components”

            http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf

          • jack dale

            And how many times has McKitrick and and McIntyre been replicated?

          • datou1

            Hey Jack, you’re not convincing anyone.

          • jack dale

            Stupidity cannot be cured.

          • Dan E

            In your case, that is true.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Stupidity cannot be cured.”
            Yep, you’re a perfect example of that fact.

          • datou1

            as you prove with every comment. if you want to lower CO2 emissions do us all a favor and stop breathing.

          • jack dale

            Human expiration is a part of the natural CO2 cycle. Middle school science.

          • Evan Jones

            Point is, the can be. They release all the necessaries.

            It took the threat of a congressional subpoena to get Mann to (with extreme reluctance) cough up the MBH98 weighting algorithm.

            Openness is an indispensable keystone of scientific method. Full and complete openness. To anyone and everyone. I shouldn’t have to point that out.

          • jack dale

            “Point is, the can be.” That is conjecture. The point is : have it been replicated?

          • Evan Jones

            The point is that M&M provide all data and methods. Lamentably, that cannot be said for those who excoriate them.

          • Evan Jones

            Found that natural forcings [sic] could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

            I completely agree with that hypothesis. But it “found” more than that.

          • jack dale

            Your post requires a further explanation.

          • Evan Jones

            It also found that current warming was unprecedented, and that CO2 effect far outstripped all natural effect.. This does not appear to have been correct.

          • jack dale

            Evidence and reasoning needed for the assertion in the last sentence.

          • Evan Jones

            It was roughly as warm during the MWP and RWP, and clearly much warmer during the Minoan optimum than today in the areas in question. Therefore CO2 cannot have outstripped natural events. Therefore it is not unprecedented.

          • jack dale

            The RWP and MWP cannot to linked to CO2 – agreed. Other factors were involved in the cause.

            The current CO2 levels are also unprecedented in the 3 -5 million years at least.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes. But that is a Good Thing, net.

          • jack dale

            Saying it does not make so. Evidence and a line of reasoning would be beneficial.

    • jack dale

      The hockey stick has been replicated scores of times.

      Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)’s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years. Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

      Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

      Bertrand et al. 2002: Reconstructed solar output, volcanic activity, land use changes, and greenhouse gas concentrations since AD 1000, then computed the expected temperature changes due to those forcings. Compared the computed temperature changes with two independent temperature reconstructions.

      Esper et al. 2002: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000 using tree ring chronologies.

      Cronin et al. 2003: Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

      Pollack and Smerdon 2004: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

      Esper et al. 2005: Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

      Moberg et al. 2005: Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

      Oerlemans 2005: Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.

      Rutherford, et al. 2005: Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

      D’Arrigo et al. 2006: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

      Osborn and Briffa 2006: Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 2000 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

      Hegerl et al. 2007: Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

      Juckes et al. 2007: Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

      Wahl and Ammann 2007: Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

      Wilson, et al. 2007: Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

      Mann et al. 2008: Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

      Kaufman, et al. 2009: Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

      von Storch et al. 2009: Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

      Frank et al. 2010: A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

      Kellerhals et al. 2010: Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

      Ljungqvist 2010: Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

      Thibodeau et al. 2010: Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

      Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b: Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

      Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

      Kemp et al. 2011: Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

      Kinnard et al. 2011: Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

      Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.

      Spielhagen et al. 2011: Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

      Esper et al. 2012: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

      Ljungqvist et al. 2012: Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

      Melvin et al. 2012: Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

      Abram et al. 2013: Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

      Marcott, et al. 2013: Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

      PAGES 2k Consortium 2013: Used multiple proxies (tree rings, sediment cores, ice cores, stalagmites, pollen, etc) to reconstruct regional and global temperatures since AD 1.

      Rhodes et al. 2013: Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011.

      • Dan E

        Hockey stick is propaganda. “A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.”

        http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

        • jack dale

          You know propaganda well. Your link to it.

          • Dan E

            LOL…you do demonstrate dunning kruger disease, pretty good for a troll.

      • Evan Jones

        Some of those are not replications. they are refutations.

        • jack dale

          Of the hockey stick? Really. How so?

          • Evan Jones
          • jack dale

            The key feature of the hockey stick the the rapid uptake in the 19th century. The MWP is a diversion.

            At least you show that the MWP is a northern hemisphere phenomenon, I respect that.

          • Evan Jones

            Not at all. But as MBH98 is an NH reconstruction, one must compare using the same. Sorry to lose respect.

          • jack dale

            OK. My first paragraph stands.

          • Evan Jones

            But, heck, the subject is not the ~0.8C (albeit adjusted) warming from 1900. The MWP was comparable with today. That’s the point.

          • jack dale

            Yes, it is comparable, how does it compare? Hemispherically? Globally?

            Causes? Course? Conclusion?

          • Evan Jones

            In the case of MBH98 vs. the other, hemispherically. SH is not addressed. Conclusion, things were not toodling along on a flatline trend until anthropogenic CO2 came along.

            Note also that the current warming (+CO2) had had enormous beneficial effects. This correlates with the enormous beneficial effects of the MWP and RWP. (“Not” to mention the Minoan Optimum — again.)

          • jack dale

            I got that obvious part. That is not what I asked.

          • Evan Jones

            Conclusion: Current warming is not unprecedented and was net beneficial, both historically and currently.

          • jack dale

            I would suggest that you read the Great Warming by Brian Fagan. The MWP may have been beneficial for Europe; much of the rest of the world had devastating droughts.

            Check this review

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/books/21book.html

            It is a good summary.

          • Evan Jones

            But, according to IPCC AR5, droughts have been trendless for the past century.

          • jack dale

            But your claim was “Current warming is not unprecedented and was beneficial, both historically and currently.”

          • Evan Jones

            You are conflating two separate issues.

            Warming was beneficial. Drought was not beneficial. Warming is not indicated to have caused drought. Drought + Cooling is worse than Drought + Warming.

          • jack dale

            If you don’t think climate change produces winners as well as losers, consider this: In the 12th and 13th centuries England exported wine to France. Vineyards also flourished in improbable regions like southern Norway and eastern Prussia. A centuries-long spell of mild, predictable weather blessed Western Europe with abundant crops, healthy populations and budget surpluses sufficient to finance projects like Chartres Cathedral.

            This is the credit side of a global balance sheet carefully itemized by Brian Fagan in “The Great Warming,” his fascinating account of shifting climatic conditions and their consequences from about A.D. 800 to 1300, often referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. The debit side is appalling: widespread drought, catastrophic rainfall, toppled dynasties, ruined civilizations. Abandoned Maya temples in the Yucatan and the desolation of Angkor Wat, supreme achievement of the Khmer empire, bear witness to climatic change against which royal power and priestly magic proved impotent.

          • Evan Jones

            You are conflating again. The damage was not a result of warming, it was the result of other factors not necessarily related to the warming. The warming was beneficial. When those other events occur during cooling (as they do and did), damage is worse.

          • jack dale

            If I am conflating, so are you. You cannot have it both ways.

            I suggest you read Fagan – the book was recommended to me by one of our local denialists in the Friends of Science.

          • Evan Jones

            I don’t think so. I am saying the warming was beneficial, in isolation from other weather events. Cooling events were harmful, net.

          • jack dale

            And your evidence is?

          • Evan Jones

            RWP, MWP, and MO saw great flowerings of civilization in the areas in question. The LIA saw much associated suffering.

          • jack dale

            Did you read the NYT review? Fagan disputes that conclusion about the MWP.

          • jack dale

            The LIA was concurrent with the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightment.

          • Evan Jones

            And much additional suffering due to climate.

          • jack dale

            “For the third time in ten years, drought is raging in the Sahel region of West Africa. The resulting famine could be the worst humanitarian crisis in history.”

            http://metro.co.uk/2012/08/03/sahel-drought-in-west-africa-leading-to-crisis-as-millions-of-lives-at-risk-521534/

            +++++++++++++++++++++++

            http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/data/pngs/20151124/20151124_usdm_home.png

            +++++++++++++++++++++++

            South Africa is facing one of the worst droughts to hit the region in 30 years. Many small farmers are expected to go out of business as food production and prices increase, especially in the Free State province.

            http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34884135

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            Le Bourget (France) (AFP) – African leaders called at a global climate summit Monday for the world to help save drought-stricken Lake Chad and avert an even greater flow of refugees fleeing to Europe.

            Some 2.5 million people have been displaced from the fast-drying Lake Chad basin, according to the United Nations.

            http://news.yahoo.com/african-leaders-urge-world-save-drought-hit-lake-192125605.html

            +++++++++++++++++++

            Need more.

          • RealOldOne2

            Oh gee jack, where is that “permanent drought” that Hayhow, Dressler & Romm said in 2011 was happening in Texas?
            Oh yeah, just alarmist BS propganda.
            So sad that you are still peddling the CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion, when you know it is a pile of steaming, stinking male bovine excrement.

          • Evan Jones

            As for the first statement; Nowhere does that claim that the current drought is unprecedented. IPCC AR5 posits that drought occurrence and severity has not varied for the last century.

            And, for that matter, they had to ramp that one back –very severely — from the patently incorrect conclusions of AR4. Not to mention wind events.

            And the second statement is absurd, prima facie.

          • planet8788

            Seems like the main cause of drought would be a lack of cloud formation… something that the IPCC admits… needs a lot of study.

          • Evan Jones

            It’s a natural result of negative PDO. We saw even stronger effects back in the 1950s, when we were far less able to deal with it.

          • Evan Jones

            Actually, the Sahel has seen a Great Greening since the 1980s. It is a poster-boy for the benefits of CO2 and AGW.

          • Bart_R

            Every salesman in the world knows that a benefit is what a customer is willing to pay for.

            Do you see anyone lining up to shell out real cash for the alleged benefits you’re so quick to sell?

            And if they are, they can start compensating the rest of us, who did not consent to someone leaping out of a dark alley as we pass by and ‘benefitting’ us from behind against our will.

            Oh, and talk about trendless. Sahel greening? Seriously?

          • jack dale

            If the Sahel is greening why are they having droughts?

            Can we please see some evidence for your assertions?

          • jack dale

            From 2012

            “The steady advance of the desert is a serious problem in Africa’s Sahel region. This dry grassland forms the boundary between the Sahara to the north and the equatorial jungles to the south. A drier climate and the creeping desert make it increasingly difficult for farmers to grow crops.”

            http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/africas-senegal-great-green-wall-trees-sahara-environment

            “For the third time in ten years, drought is raging in the Sahel region of West Africa. The resulting famine could be the worst humanitarian crisis in history.”

            http://metro.co.uk/2012/08/03/sahel-drought-in-west-africa-leading-to-crisis-as-millions-of-lives-at-risk-521534/

          • lookout1

            Uh you may want to look at the drought index in the early 1930s almost 80% of the country was in a severe drought… it makes your picture look like a tropical oasis … was that because of co2 as well?
            early
            current palmer index
            http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/drought/recovery/current/curr-pmdi.gif

            Historical
            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers/psi/193311-195010

            And once again .. based on agw predctions the west coast should be getting more rain not less

          • jack dale

            The mid 1930’s warming and drought were not global.

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Both graphs show increasing temperatures in the 1930s… are you drunk, high or both? You just proved yourself wrong!

          • jack dale

            From The SPM (which I normally do not quote)

            Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones and wildfires, reveal significant
            vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability (very high confidence).
            {1.4}

            In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and ecosystems, including risks
            from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity,
            sea level rise and storm surges (very high confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure
            and services or living in exposed areas. {2.3.2}

            Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, infrastructure and
            agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food crops around the world (high confidence).
            {2.3.2}

          • Evan Jones

            But none of that asserts that there is an increased trend in any of that over the last century, as clearly indicated in IPCC AR5 WG1. All it does is say it may affect the future, and that is based squarely on the fatally flawed CMIP projections.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Hi Jack, Just a heads up on Evan Trollman Jones. Beware he is an associate of Willard Tony Watt and is a die hard denier ( uses the label, lukewarmer). Best not to waste your time in “debating” this clown. A nobody and has issues that only a therapist could fix.
            Believe me, had a comment section of 14,000 with him years ago with the Terrifying Math Bill McKibben article.
            He is just a prop and should be ignored

          • Evan Jones

            Whereas I don’t think anyone should be ignored.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Mind your own comments…I’m ignoring you pest
            He was very friendly…, normal.” He was particularly struck by Hitler’s ability to dominate a meeting: “I never heard a conference where he did not win [the argument]. Years ago, when he started out, he had a computer memory, and if he heard something, or knew something, he registered that in his computer

            Talking about your kind, no doubt
            Evan Adolf H Jones
            Super Troll paid for by Rex

          • RealOldOne2

            “Mind you own comments…I’m ignoring you pest”
            Nice display of delusion and dishonesty.
            You aren’t ignoring Evan. You have been so disturbed and so angry by the irrefutable empirical science that he presents that you can’t rebut, you’ve created a moniker to emulate him, and you stalk him at post endless drivel comments of no substance. Quite pathetic.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Can’t refute a clown that refuses to acknowledge what is shown him.
            Old Goat, stalking him?….Go back to the RS article by Bill McKibben and review our exchanges there. You old fool can then write about delusion and dishonesty!
            He is a shrewd and devious knave.
            The only reason for this bozo coming out again is the Paris Climate Conference.
            The pathetic thing is he would rather be playing with his feral pet rodents that infest his ghetto NYC Apartment. Do him a favor and send him a new pair of shoes. The poor guy can’t afford them since he spends all his time promoting “lukewarmism”.
            That’s why he calls himself the poster boy of Fossil Fuelers.
            Saint Evvie…LOL

          • RealOldOne2

            Yet another reply with NO substance and NO empirical science. Just a childish rant of name calling and false, evidence-free allegations. Here you go boy, rebut this peer reviewed empirical science:
            1) I’ve shown you alarmists peer reviewed empirical science that shows in late 20th century there was 6 to 12 times more natural climate forcing than there was anthropogenic forcing. In fact more natural climate forcing than the entire amount of anthropogenic that the IPCC says exists since 1750, yet you alarmists stubbornly deny the reality that natural climate forcing was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming during the late 20th century. That empirical science is summarized in my comment here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut or refute this empirical science, and it CRICKETS! You can’t and you know it, yet you cling to your proven false BELIEFS. Prove me wrong, and rebut the empirical science that I presented there.

            2) When you alarmists try to explain away the lack of warming in the atmosphere over the last ~19 years as predicted by your flawed, faulty climate models, and claim that the ghg warming has gone into the ocean, I have shown you the science that shows that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation not ghgs ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ). I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut this empirical science and again it’s CRICKETS! Prove me wrong and rebut and refute the empirical science that I presented there.

            3) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century, and it’s CRICKETS!

            4) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcings were NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, and it’s CRICKETS!

            5) I’ve repeatedly shown you climate alarmists the empirical data that shows that over the last ~19 years there has been no warming in the Earth’s atmosphere, where your flawed, faulty models predicted more warming than the surface. You alarmists stubbornly deny this reality, and point to non-global coverage, adjusted numbers. Changing the real-world data to fit your failed predictions is the behavior of false doomsday cult religions, not science.

            There is no empirical data that shows that the climate is doing anything unusual at all that hasn’t happened naturally before. The real world empirical data shows that it’s NOT a human-driven problem. It’s nature doing what nature does. It is fully consistent with the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate forcings such as amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and ocean cycles are causing climate change now, just like it has been doing throughout the entire history of the planet.

            You can’t rebut it, so if you reply at all, it will be another inane adolescent rant. So sad.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Boy, you are just bad, no worse than Evan! Boy, what a piece of work…time to take your laxative, so you can expel all that crap trapped inside you….I should be more specific…in between that melon head of yours.

          • Evan Jones

            Go back to the RS article by Bill McKibben and review our exchanges there.

            Link:

            http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

          • Evan Jones

            He is a shrewd and devious knave.

            Why, thank you. I do try.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Glad you admit it…when you are put on trail this will come in handy.
            How would you like to meet your end?
            Freeze or Boiled?

          • Evan Jones

            you’ve created a moniker to emulate him

            It only bothered me when he punked my (exact) name and image and posted all sorts of crazy things under my name. I tracked down a couple and had them removed by the moderators, but there may well be a few others out there I missed.

            But so long as he posts under a separate identity from mine, I have no particular objection.

            (FWIW, when I first encountered him, he went by “mjonesx”.)

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evan, why are you outright lying again? I never did such a thing! Where is your proof! Please we are not talking about AGW here! You are used to getting away with that on that topic.
            Boy, there is a serious personality defect you should address at your therapist visit next time.
            Some people have lively imaginations and persecution complexes.
            I see your chicken brain fingers are working overtime here. OY!

          • Evan Jones

            I wish I were paid by someone. (But perhaps I remain better off unfunded.)

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Still sticking to the script… Wink…better this way with cash, tax free,

          • jack dale

            I have several on my ignore list.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evan will just fade away….you got the science down pat to make him squirm.

          • jack dale

            He seems to have done so.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Thank you so much….now we know why Evan stays away from real science forums…you gave him a taste of the real deal

          • Evan Jones
          • Michael Evan Jones

            Hey, show us the ones you weren’t chased off from or high tailed ran away.
            Like to see you up against the likes of a real science forum…
            Take a look
            https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+running+with+tail+between+legs&client=tablet-android-lenovo&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi94N67obzJAhVKKyYKHfphD1QQ_AUIBygB#imgrc=cwShyWoaXbbkYM%3A

          • Evan Jones

            We all have to sleep sometime.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, sleep? Now how is that possible?

          • Evan Jones

            Would that it weren’t.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            But Evvie, you defy the Laws of Physics and Chemistry! No sleep should be cake for you.
            After all you do, how is it possible that you find time…there is only so many hours in a day.
            Look a here, watt time is it and you are still posting comments with research and references.
            How is that possible?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your delusions.
            I’m the one who’s posted the science ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2387078466 ) that have made you delusional climate alarmists stone cold silent, because you can’t rebut or refute it. Not a single one of you has even tried, because you know it is a fool’s errand because I am correct.
            Thanks for playing.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Go back and take a nap…you Old frt LOL

          • Evan Jones

            Evan will just fade away

            That would be a projection that does not bear any resemblance to past trends. #B^)

            you got the science down pat to make him squirm.

            He appears to be no worse than most — and better than some. Yet knowledgeable scientists have been known to disagree, you know.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sure Evvie it appears your back is against the wall

          • Evan Jones

            I don’t ignore anybody, however. (Not even my ever-persistent shadow.)

          • jack dale

            I have more than my share of stalkers who seem to gravitate to the lowest rung of Graham’s hierarchy.

          • Evan Jones

            I have just the one. But he gets his say, just like everyone else.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Remember, you are the quilty one that started it all!

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Best you put Evvie on that list

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, hope you don’t ignore Mr. Dale here. Seems you’ve met your match….
            Now what are you going to do? Let me guess…run and hide….which you have done in the past until the coast is clear…LOL….
            Too funny.

          • jack dale

            I do not mind being challenged. And he is generally much more civilized than many others.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You were warned.OY

          • Evan Jones

            Sure and all that’s based on the inflated projections. That all this terrible stuff WILL happen IF the projections are valid. Not that it HAS happened. And that’s the point, isn’t it? As far as I am concerned, the projections are out to lunch.

            It says (in WG1, IIRC) that the trends to date in droughts, floods, and wind events are flat or near-flat.

            I don’t have time to dig for it. Maybe later. Lead author just called and wants a spreadsheet and graph for the presentation of our findings to the AGU, and that takes priority.

          • Evvie Jones

            Don’t worry…the Paris Climate Conference has it all settled….
            All everyone needs to to is volunteer to cut emissions…LOL
            Now all we need for them to enact is taxpayers to volunteer to pay taxes.

          • Evan Jones

            For once I agree with both the letter and spirit of your post. (Although our reactions might differ.)

          • Evvie Jones

            Sure, Evan’ I told you so, all is voluntary emission reductions based on the honor system. Let me guess, I nominate YOU to moniter the data for the World Body, now we don’t need to be concerned about doing anything at all! LOL

          • jack dale

            Have you read Fagan yet?

          • lookout1

            Wait how can the MWP be local and impact the rest of the planet??

            Ie it means you are wrong or lying

            Secondly agw theory predicts MORE rain not less, the simple fact is warm air can carry more moisture

          • jack dale

            I was asking about the causes of the MWP, the events associated with it, and what brought it to a conclusion. And how that compared to the present.

          • Evan Jones

            We do not know the cause of the MWP. We do know that it was not caused by anthropogenic CO2.

          • jack dale

            Agreed.

            But we do know its effects, which were not universally beneficial.

            Do not go all “strawman” on me.

          • Evan Jones

            They have had a huge net benefit, not only for mankind, but for the environment.

          • jack dale

            That opinion some something to back it up.

          • Evan Jones

            Dr. Goklany (whom I’ve met) and others (such as Dr. Lombord) have published on this aspect.

          • jack dale

            OK Let us see that.

          • Bart_R

            This Dr. Lombord[sic]?

            http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/319089f8-9779-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f769.html#axzz3t7milOv1

            Lomborg’s PhD is in Collectivist Polling Techniques, and he has been specifically found not competent to opine on science by his own national science academy (during his hearing for scientific fraud).

            Mmmmaybe you might want to choose sources more credible than yourself. As you have an unerring talent for finding sources less credible than Mickey Mouse.

          • Evan Jones

            And my masters is in US History.

            You are concerned with sheepskins. I am concerned with published work. What part of Lomborg’s actual work is incorrect? (Just askin’.)

          • jack dale

            Just answering – start here

            http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

          • Bart_R

            What part of Bjorn Lomborg’s actual work is incorrect?

            The list is exceedingly long. Somewhere very slightly short of ‘all of it’ is accurate, from a science perspective.

            As propaganda, Lomborg’s work is some of the best, however. His agenda manipulations are pure genius, and his ability to reframe discussions away from real issues to distractions is all but unparalleled.

            Did you care to narrow your question to some sub-topic of Lomborg’s atrocities against fact?

            Perhaps his perjured testimonies?

            Economic follies?

            Scientific twaddle?

            Policy codswallop?

          • jack dale

            I am used to dealing with those who submit that the MWP was global.

          • lookout1

            Actually there are papers that say it was global

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

            I can get more if you like

            So in essence the North atlantic was warmer the pacific was warmer .. ie the two larget bodies of water on the planet were much warmer than today ..

            But the MWP was local

          • Bart_R

            What the heck is with the ‘albeit adjusted’ nonsense you spew?

            The (albeit adjusted) Higgs Boson, (albeit adjusted) extrasolar planets, (albeit adjusted) subatomic matter, (albeit adjusted) quantum mechanics.. there has been no science for a century of any import that does not make fulsome use of appropriately synchronized, properly calibrated, toleranced data. None. Zero.

            What sort of mind promotes pseudoscience just to defend waste dumping?

          • Evan Jones

            What the heck is with the ‘albeit adjusted’ nonsense you spew?

            Adjustments to the surface record are a primary aspect of my research. Adjustments are necessary. But I believe they are being applied incorrectly. I have already gone into some detail on this in this forum, but I will be more than willing to address any questions you care to ask.

          • Bart_R

            Your ‘research’?

            Praytell, what peer reviewed journal is your research published in?

            Your personal incredulity is no standard for qualifying calibrations.

            One question: what books have you written on the subject of metrology?

          • jk

            I believe Evan Jones took the jump a few years ago from designing card games to opining on climate science, though all of his work has since been shredded in the peer review process. Seems like reasonable training to me, given some of the other trolls posting here.

          • lookout1

            There have been several studies that have show the MWP to be global in nature

          • jack dale

            Really? What several would that be?

          • lookout1

            here is just one

            http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

            Says the pacific was warmer at the same time
            So you got all of europe warmer the pacific warmer …

            I can get more if you like

          • jack dale

            Now what about the South Pacific, South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as the Southern hemisphere land masses?

          • lookout1

            If you like i got nearly whole planet

            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

            Africa
            Antarctica
            Asia
            Australia/New Zealand
            Europe
            North America
            Northern Hemisphere
            Oceans
            South America

            But hey .. you “local” effect has clearly been blown out the water , now hasnt
            it

            In fact you actually cited a piece just a while ago saying the MWP had devastating effects on the REST OF THE WORLD!!

          • jack dale

            CO2science, the Heartland funded Idso family website, has a long record of misrepresenting the publications on its web site. The explains why they do not have links to those publications.

            A case in point

            http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_firthoftaybay.php

            Got this response from the author.

            “It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

            Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.” – See more at: http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html#sthash.dTHJzyyg.dpuf

          • lookout1

            Hey you fool they never said a single paper said the entire planet warmed

            They simply point out a number a papers stating the area they researched was was warm during the MWP .

            So basic logic

            If you have papers for locations all over the world stating it was warmer during the MWP the conclusion is the planet is warmer..

            Obviously thinking is not your strong suit, regurgitating is.

          • jack dale

            You are the one regurgitating the crap from CO2science.

            I have sufficient critical thinking skills to check out the original source and author.

            There are other misrepresented papers as well. But I do not use the Idsos as a a source.

          • lookout1

            C02 science said the paper indicated the antarctic was impacted during the MWP.. the Author AGREES with that statement

            Thats why its broken down by REGION

            So lets see if you can use those critical thinking skills

            The state No single paper says the globe was impacted by MPW

            But
            paper A says Antarctica was impacted by MWP
            paper B says Africa was impacted by MWP
            paper C says South America was impacted by MWP
            paper D says Asia was impacted by MWP
            paper E says the Pacific was impacted by MWP
            paper F says Europe was impacted by MWP
            paper E says North America was impacted by MWP

            etc..

            What conclusion can be drawn… come on, i know you can do it!!
            This isnt a brain teaser or anything .

          • jack dale

            Try using original sources.

            BTW – name calling is not a winning strategy.

          • jmac

            In fact, that’s the very same Heartland Institute that the Tobacco companies used to cast doubt on the science so they could prolong their profits and kill people with their cancer causing tobacco.

          • lookout1

            Wrong you moron … the study had to do with second hand smoke

          • jmac

            Yes, “now” they are denying “second hand smoke” causes cancer. They even have a spot on their website called “Smokers Lounge”. :) Go blow some cigarette smoke in your baby’s face.

          • lookout1

            right back at you moron

            JNCI: Jnl of National Cancer Institute
            No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
            http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/05/jnci.djt365.full

            But i bet they were bought by big tobacco

            SETTLED SCIENCE!!!

          • jmac

            lol, you would qualify as an expert at Heartland. :) Heartland first denied that smoking, itself, caused any illness. Now they are denying second hand smoke does. Surely you are not as ignorant as you seem to be? Or,…are you?

            Secondhand smoke is the combination of smoke from the burning end of a cigarette and the smoke breathed out by smokers. Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer.1,2,3,4
            http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/

            Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke
            Secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard causing more than 41,000 deaths per year. It can cause or make worse a wide range of damaging health effects in children and adults, including lung cancer, respiratory infections and asthma
            http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effects-of-secondhand-smoke.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

            Why is secondhand smoke a problem?
            Secondhand smoke (SHS) has the same harmful chemicals that smokers inhale. There’s no safe level of exposure for secondhand smoke (SHS). Secondhand smoke is known to cause cancer. It has more than 7,000 chemicals, including at least 70 that can cause cancer.
            http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke#

          • lookout1

            weird none actually cite specific real world studies or fact… they just throw around a lot of numbers sort like the agw crowd

            the largest study of its kind shows no directly link to cancer and second hand smoke

            **********
            A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

            “The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

            Investigators from Stanford and other research centers looked at data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS). Among 93,676 women aged 50–79 years at enrollment, the study had complete smoking and covariate data (including passive smoking exposure in childhood, adult home, and work) for 76,304 participants. Of those, 901 developed lung cancer over 10.5 mean years of follow-up.

            The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk

          • jmac

            #facepalm

          • lookout1

            what is inaccurate ? else stfu …

          • jmac

            #facepalm again

          • lookout1

            what part is inaccurate?

            **********
            A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women confirmed a strong association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but found no link between the disease and secondhand smoke.

            “The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

            Investigators from Stanford and other research centers looked at data from the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (WHI-OS). Among 93,676 women aged 50–79 years at enrollment, the study had complete smoking and covariate data (including passive smoking exposure in childhood, adult home, and work) for 76,304 participants. Of those, 901 developed lung cancer over 10.5 mean years of follow-up.

            The incidence of lung cancer was 13 times higher in current smokers and four times higher in former smokers than in never-smokers, and the relationship for both current and former smokers depended on level of exposure. However, among women who had never smoked, exposure to passive smoking overall, and to most categories of passive smoking, did not statistically significantly increase lung cancer risk

          • jmac

            #faceplam Look, you are going to have find a wingnut somewhere to talk to about cancer and cigarettes. You wasting bandwidth and my time.

            google “cancer causing properties of second hand smoke”

            About 22,600,000 results (0.31 seconds)

          • lookout1

            elvis is alive; over 13 million hits… IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!

            Results are not studies.. so you are now saying Stanford is full of wingnuts? and oxford and the National Institute for Cancer

            See you make claims with no basis in proof… it may be logical to conclude that second hand smoke greatly increases you risk for cancer but you must supply PROOF

            Does the WHO now fall under wingnuts ?
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9776409?dopt=Abstract
            RESULTS:

            ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

            CONCLUSIONS:

            Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

          • DennisHorne

            The problem with the notion cigarette smoke doesn’t cause respiratory problems and cancer is it defies common sense, and as such needs substantial evidence to gain any acceptance.

            Just as the notion adding vast amounts of a known greenhouse gas doesn’t cause Earth to retain more energy defies common sense and requires substantial evidence (and explanation) – in reality if not in a philosophical interpretation of what science is meant to be.

          • lookout1

            This pertains to SECOND HAND SMOKE
            Common sense isn’t science… claiming something is true doest make it so..

            All the claims about SHS seem to stem from an EPA report that was completey destroyed and thrown out only to be reinstated due to a technicality … it turns out they manipulated data to meet an agenda .. (sound familiar no?)

            The CRS examination of the various SHS studies concluded that someone exposed to significant second hand smoke—a spouse for example—might increase their risk of dying from lung cancer to 2/10 of one percent, while those who are exposed on the job would have less risk: 7/100 of one percent. The most devastating opinion about the EPA’s decision to classify second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen, came from Federal Judge William Osteen who interviewed scientists for four years and in 1998 opined:

            The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information… [The EPA] deviated from its risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important (opposing) findings and reasons; and left significant questions without answers… Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings, were subordinate to EPA’s [goal of] demonstrating [that] ETS was a Group A carcinogen… In this case, the EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme…and to influence public opinion… While doing so, [the EPA] produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency’s researched evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer. (Osteen, 1998)

            Because the EPA report was “advisory” and not “regulatory,” Judge Osteen’s indictment was reversed. However, it is important to note that the decision was reversed on a technical distinction, not the merits of the EPA’s report.

            In another large-scale study, and in contradistinction to the EPA conclusions, the World Health Organization International Agency on Cancer published a report concluding that there was no statistically significant risk of lung cancer in non-smokers who lived or worked with smokers (Boffetta, et al, 1998). This study was the product of ten years of data gathered from seven European countries..

            In a study spanning 16 U.S. cities, the U.S. Department of Energy researchers placed monitors on nonsmoking bartenders and waiters who worked in smoke-filled bars and restaurants to measure the amount of environmental tobacco. The conclusion was that the monitors detected minuscule amounts of tobacco products. (Jenkins, et al, 1999). Harm that might come from such minuscule amounts of exposure was calculated as “none” to “improbable harm”.

            . In 1997, Acting Assistant Secretary of OSHA, Greg Watchman aired his own view: Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded. (Letter from Greg Watchman, 1997)
            But you got ‘common sense’ !!

          • DennisHorne

            Thanks. I hear what you’re saying but the fact remains smoking in confined spaces might be expected to have some deleterious effect on others. In particular, habitually smoking with your children in the car or living room. As I implied, I would be more inclined to doubt any study that found otherwise than my view of reality. The evidence would need to be, I suppose, overwhelming.

          • RealOldOne2

            You’ve accomplished distracting the conversation from climate change for a few hours. It was pointless obfuscation because CO2 is not analogous to 2nd hand smoke whatsoever.
            CO2 is a harmless, colorless, odorless gas at 100 times the concentration in the atmosphere. If you hold your breath and exhale, it will have about that much CO2 in it. And it didn’t harm you at all.

            And what you are distracting from is the peer reviewed empirical science that I posted to you here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2387078466

            That is the peer reviewed empirical science that shows there was 6 to 12 times more natural climate forcing during the late 20th century warming than there was anthropogenic forcing.

          • lookout1

            Claims always need to be backed by evidence period …

            The study clears says the found no statistical link from SHS and those that have no smoke around..

          • jmac

            #faceplam

          • Evan Jones

            Facepalms are not generally regarded as compelling scientific evidence. (Perhaps further study is required.)

          • jmac

            # facepalm You are welcome to blow smoke in your own kids face, not mine.

          • Evan Jones

            I always hated second-hand smoke. I don’t think it should be blown in anyone’s face. But that is an aesthetic observation, not a scientific one.

            (Don’t studies indicate that football and boxing can injure the brain? Better cut back on those facepalms. We’d hate to lose you.)

          • jmac

            #facepalm You are welcome to cast doubt on the dangers of cigarette smoke. Heartland, the same institute that denies the dangers of climate change, have been doing it for years.

          • jack dale

            Something you have been unable and unwilling to do.

          • Evan Jones

            Heartland first denied that smoking, itself, caused any illness.

            I do not think that is possible. Heartland was not even founded until 1984 after the effects of smoking were well established. They have never questioned the direct effects of smoking.

          • jack dale
          • jmac

            VIDEO: Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast Reluctantly Stands by Denial of Cigarette Smoking Risks
            Before the Heartland Institute became famous for its leading role in climate change denial, the group spent many years working to defend the tobacco industry. Just as the group is now known for its over the top attacks on climate scientists, Heartland once played a large role in criticizing public health experts and others calling attention to the dangers of cigarette smoking.

            http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/30/video-heartland-institute-s-joe-bast-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks

          • Evan Jones

            That would be me (I was very, very heavily exposed, and I hated it). Yet, in my particular case (I do not speak for others), it does not appear to have had any measurable health effect. I am so healthy, it should be illegal, and have excellent lung capacity.

          • jmac

            Compelling evidence, indeed. :)

          • Evan Jones

            Only evidence that it does not appear to in every case. Further study needed?

          • jack dale

            There was more that the one study by Fred Singer

            Joe Bast at his best

            “Somebody seems to have declared open season on cigarette smokers and their suppliers. On behalf of the 25 percent of the adult population that smokes, may I offer a few words in defense of smoking?

            http://news.heartland.org/editorial/1996/08/21/joe-camel-innocent“

          • lookout1

            The study I linked has zip to do with heartland , but it appears reading is hard

          • Evan Jones

            Heartland said second-hand smoke was very likely to be harmful, but the studies indicating that were flawed, therefore further studies were indicated.

            What misrepresentations the tobacco industry made of that is irrelevant.

          • Evan Jones

            I seem to recall a NZ speleo study, as well. And some Antarctic cores.

          • lookout1

            The foold flip out saying study X did not say the entire planet was warmer:

            response:
            Thats why its broken down by REGION
            So lets see if you can use those critical thinking skills
            No single paper says the globe was impacted by MPW

            But
            paper A says Antarctica was impacted by MWP
            paper B says Africa was impacted by MWP
            paper C says South America was impacted by MWP
            paper D says Asia was impacted by MWP
            paper E says the Pacific was impacted by MWP
            paper F says Europe was impacted by MWP
            paper E says North America was impacted by MWP

            etc..

            What conclusion can be drawn… come on, i know you can do it!!
            This isnt a brain teaser or anything .

            You are basically trying to refute the entire mechanism that you agw warmist use for agw research ; data collection from around the globe!!!!!

    • Bart_R

      Science holds accurate or nearest truth that proposition of pure inference from all observation best explaining phenomena given simplest possible (but no simpler) base assumptions, parsimony of exception and universal logic of like parts of like things until new phenomena demand amended or new explanation.

      In that sense, since Isaac Newton set down that Philosophy over three centuries ago, science is always settled. You seem to favor a pop fiction version of what the scientific method is, more Star Trek than astronomy. Even when something is accepted fact we keep experimenting; that we keep looking is not the standard for rejecting what science holds accurate.

      The ratio of scientists in dissent with Hubert Lamb’s idea of climate change has dropped steadily since he published in 1958, and is now somewhere near enough zero among climatologists to practically ignore. Lamb was unduly conservative in his conclusions, and so the views of countless climatologists since have refined our understanding, and now well over 9 in 10 publishing climate scientists agree that fossil waste products from human activities dominate climate change more than any other source, and what an ordinary person must take from that is that dumping fossil wastes is a trespass.

      Your personal incredulity is a thin sham communally defending a cadre of trespassers from the social consequences of antisocial behavior.

  • Paul Schlacter

    What a fraud. The arrogant idea that Mother Earth even barely knows and cares about humans and their petty f**king activities is laughable.

    • Evan Jones

      Not fraud. Just error. Compounded by confirmation bias.

      And we do have some effect. But not as much as originally projected.

    • Bart_R

      Seems to me someone presuming to speak for ‘Mother Earth’ unordained and uncredentialed, as if the feelings of a big sphere of rock is the only consideration would be the more arrogant one.

      I don’t recall you being elected to represent anyone’s mother, or anyone’s Earth.

      • Paul Schlacter

        Awwww, looks like little Bart is butthurt because someone questioned his religion. Poor guy.

        • Bart_R

          Thank you for your contributions to this discussion.

          One notes your talents are wasted in one-line drivel-by trollery, and you really ought spend your time hanging out the window as your friend cruises the streets, yelling obscenities at nuns.

      • Evan Jones

        Hmm. I don’t recall the CAGW being elected to that, either.

        • Bart_R

          I don’t know anyone who speaks for that crowd, myself. Me, I speak for me. I’m being trespassed against by your fossil waste dumping ways, and I want due compensation because I do not consent to being dumped on.

          What sort of mind can’t grasp that it’s wrong to pee in the well?

  • RealOldOne2

    jackdale takes his turn defending the “tribe’s” failing CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion. So sad.

    • Evan Jones

      Well, at least he’s doing so in a more academic manner than one normally sees. He gets an upvote for that. We need to hear all sides of this.

      • DennisHorne

        I don’t agree with that. What I see is a small of people who seem to know what they’re talking about (and a few ‘observers’) versus a large number of mostly unpleasant people who in the main clearly don’t.

        An example is Paul Schlacter below: “What a fraud. The arrogant idea that Mother Earth even barely knows and cares about humans and their petty f**king activities is laughable.”

        Your answer: “Not fraud. Just error. Compounded by confirmation bias. And we do have some effect. But not as much as originally projected.”

        That’ll learn ‘im.

        • planet8788

          What have you exactly contributed to the debate here?

          • Evan Jones

            We find that out by hearing and evaluating. Like I say, neither side should shut up. They should shout out. I have always learned more from my opponents than from those with whom I agree.

        • Evan Jones

          Doesn’t matter. All sides must be heard and evaluated. Basic scientific method.

          • DennisHorne

            Since when has not condemning irrelevant and disgusting comments been anything to do with “basic scientific method”?

          • Evan Jones

            I think condemnation goes too far. Mere disagreement suffices for me.

        • RealOldOne2

          You and your fellow climate alarmists are the one with confirmation bias and lack of empirical science to support your beliefs and dogmas of your climate cult religion. And while you deny this reality, it has devolved into a religious belief system, NOT science, as you cannot support your beliefs with empirical science and your confirmation bias causes you to ignore empirical science that shows your beliefs to be wrong.

          Evan Jones (not his nuisance troll), myself, planet8788 and other skeptics are the ones being realists and showing empirical data. You climate alarmists dodge and ignore this data and when challenged you retreat into silence.

          1) I’ve shown you alarmists peer reviewed empirical science that shows in late 20th century there was 6 to 12 times more natural climate forcing than there was anthropogenic forcing. In fact more natural climate forcing than the entire amount of anthropogenic that the IPCC says exists since 1750, yet you alarmists stubbornly deny the reality that natural climate forcing was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming during the late 20th century. That empirical science is summarized in my comment here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut or refute this empirical science, and it CRICKETS! You can’t and you know it, yet you cling to your proven false BELIEFS. Prove me wrong, and rebut the empirical science that I presented there.

          2) When you alarmists try to explain away the lack of warming in the atmosphere over the last ~19 years as predicted by your flawed, faulty climate models, and claim that the ghg warming has gone into the ocean, I have shown you the science that shows that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation not ghgs ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ). I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut this empirical science and again it’s CRICKETS! Prove me wrong and rebut and refute the empirical science that I presented there.

          3) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century, and it’s CRICKETS!

          4) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcings were NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, and it’s CRICKETS!

          5) I’ve repeatedly shown you climate alarmists the empirical data that shows that over the last ~19 years there has been no warming in the Earth’s atmosphere, where your flawed, faulty models predicted more warming than the surface. You alarmists stubbornly deny this reality, and point to non-global coverage, adjusted numbers. Changing the real-world data to fit your failed predictions is the behavior of false doomsday cult religions, not science.

          There is no empirical data that shows that the climate is doing anything unusual at all that hasn’t happened naturally before. The real world empirical data shows that it’s NOT a human-driven problem. It’s nature doing what nature does. It is fully consistent with the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate forcings such as amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and ocean cycles are causing climate change now, just like it has been doing throughout the entire history of the planet.

          I’ve moved from accepting the climate alarmists scare meme to being skeptical because of the empirical data. I’ve shown you some of that data above. You’ve shown NONE! You are merely parrot your climate cult’s propaganda talking points. It’s quite pathetic.

          • Evan Jones

            P.S., thanks for your support. But I honestly believe there is sufficient evidence for CO2 as a major player from 1950.

            OTOH, the warming prior to that, roughly equivalent, cannot be attributed primarily to CO2. We do not know the reason(s) for this. We do not know. It is possible, but by no means proven, that these unknown factors may contribute to the current rise.

            Yet Arrhenius (the later version) and actual observations showing the absorption/re-emission of CO2 make CO2 a probable suspect, so far as I can see. Dr. Curry appears to accept this, and her ~1.5C ECS estimates concur. But her emphasis is that there are many unknowns going on here, and I agree with that.

      • Michael Evan Jones

        Now run and hide from Jack Dale….heh, heh, that is watt you all usually do when faced with academic evidence! Lovin it….

  • Steven K. Carter

    There are so many other factors to consider besides CO2 when trying to figure out what the earth’s climate will do in the future. There’s no doubt the climate is in flux and that its connection to what’s happening with the sun and our current location in the galaxy have been ignored by mainstream science. Factors concerning global ocean currents, added fresh water melt from glaciers destabilizing oceanic gyre circulations, release of huge sub-ocean floor methane deposits, and man’s misguided and arrogant climate intervention with the geo-engineering of the atmosphere and oceanic plankton all bode for a future not understood by anyone. Add to this politics and money and you have recipe for disaster be it a planet rapidly warming with sea levels displacing millions or one on the verge of crashing into another ice-age. Either way, unless we can unravel the puzzle of how to get along with one another and solve these problems that effect us all our children’s and future generation’s future will be a legacy no parent would want to leave. We need to grow up quickly or this experiment on this “small blue dot” in the outer-banks of the Milky Way will be for naught.

    • Bart_R

      Argumentum ad Ignoratio is not a valid basis for many claims, and in your hyperbolic version meaningless agnotology.

      That puzzle’s been unraveled. We all know what trespass is when we see it. Dumping your personal wastes on someone else’s property without their consent is definitely trespass.

      The sheer needlessness of burning fossils and dumping their byproducts into the air is staggering, considering how far and fast the renewable energy world has advanced, and how it is cheaper and easier to deploy renewable in almost 80% of cases yet decision makers remain mired in last-century thinking even while paying lip-service to COP 21.

      We know what to say to trespassers: Clean up your act, and stop making feeble excuses.

      • pauls

        So we can assume you no longer use any fossil fuels. No planes, polyester clothes, grow all your own food, heat your house and charge your electric car with only wind and solar. Ot are you a trespasser?

        • Bart_R

          Plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, binders, lubricants, industrial chemicals and construction materials that do not dump waste byproducts into the air are not the problem. So your problems with polyester are irrelevant.

          Planes, trucks, cars, ships at sea can all burn renewable biofuels without adding to the level of CO2 the way fossil fuels do, and the price of these synthetic fuels is coming down rapidly.

          But yes, I choose to live somewhere that renewable energy is the rule, not the exception. We call it hydroelectricity here. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?

          No?

          Geothermal electric?

          Tidal?

          Your invalid tu quoque is a feeble shot that detracts nothing from the trespass you promote.

          • pauls

            Yes I know hydroelectric very well. It has rendered salmon runs on the upper Columbia River nearly extinct. But you dodge the question. Yes I know it theoretically possible for planes, busses and planes to use renewable fuels….so have you decided to live your alleged convictions and shun thier use until they run on renewables or are you just another preacher in a faith you don’t believe

          • Bart_R

            If you’re worried about extinct salmon, you should see what climate change does to them.

            I dodge nothing. My use of fossil is so moderate as the world we live in makes practical, and I work toward making the world more practical to do without fossil entirely.

            What do you do about your dumping on others?

          • Evan Jones

            You are aware that the PDO was originally based on a salmon proxy? That explains the sharp drop in Pacific salmon from 1976 — and the recent great increase.

          • Bart_R

            Salmon fetishes are rare. You bear studying.

          • Evan Jones

            So do bears.

          • pauls

            Yes your use of fossil fuel is as moderate as you can make it without sacrificing your personal comforts one lick….hypocrit

          • Bart_R

            Again, tu quoque is not an argument, and there is no hypocrisy in seeking solutions that take the efforts of more than one person to the wrongs done by more than one.

            Is that how you comfort yourself in your trespass, by noting the mote in others’ eyes?

            Who raised you?

          • pauls

            You rationalize your hypocrisy. If I were doing anything that I believed contributed, even in the smallest degree, that was harming the earth, risking extinction of species and the death of millions of humans then I would immediately cease such action. I would not rationalize it by saying “me changing my evil ways won’t make a big enough difference to justify my personal sacrifice”. You unwillingness to refuse to contribute to what you claim is a global catastrophe exposes that you are a false prophet

          • Bart_R

            Just what is it you think I do that is the trespass I speak of?

            You seem hung up on pointing fingers at everyone but yourself, setting impossible expectations and then flying off into crocodile tears of how great a sanctimonious hero you would be, if you believed yourself capable of doing wrong?

            My fossil CO2 emissions are negligible, easily at a low enough level that if everyone on the planet emitted five times as much we would be under 350 ppmv forever.

            And yet you still beat that drum, whiting your sepulchre.

            Why do you sink so low to promote fossil waste dumping?

          • lookout1

            Those biofuels are great… so long as you have no plans of eating

          • Evan Jones

            From start to finish, they also result in up to 30% more CO2 emissions than fossil fuels.

          • lookout1

            Well there is that to, but to me eating is more important…

            Even though they call us science deniers… algae based bio-fuels would be awesome… if it didn’t cost 50$ a gallon

          • Evan Jones

            Well there is that to, but to me eating is more important…

            Well, the additional CO2 will significantly assist you in that endeavor.

  • planet8788

    The fraud goes on.

    If you read Hansen, et. al 1981 you will see he had warming of about .35C from 1880 to 1980…
    Note Hansen had already made some adjustments by that time because other places like NCAR were reporting .7C of cooling since the 1930’s… Hansen had it at about .4 to to .5C.

    Now that cooling barely exists at all in the record…. 0.2C and 1880 to 1980 warming has increased to .7C… And it still appears to grow with each revision.

    Meanwhile the surface temperature record begins its diversion from the satellite record in the early 2000’s… Now you know why… Have to make the hockey sticks.

    • Evan Jones

      I still argue that it is not fraud. Never attribute to fraud that which may be attributed to confirmation bias. And we all have one.

    • moman

      As time goes by new data comes to light. For example, more information about how ships measured temperatures (with either canvas or wooden buckets, and then later in the engine intakes) and better assessments of the impact these measurement have on recordings.

      Note Roy Spencer has reduced the satellite trend by 35% in his most recent version of the data. Do you have a problem with this?

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/

      • RealOldOne2

        Red herring. The occasional changes to the satellite datasets has been to refine the methodology that calculates a temperature. They then apply the improved method to ALL the data that is impacted by the .
        That is NOT what the Bogus “adjustments” to the land-ocean datasets do. They cool the past up to 4+ F, and warm the present, to exaggerate a warming trend, and to create a warming trend where the original data showed a cooling trend. They do not apply their adjustments to all the data. They have added and dropped stations out over time, so the record is not a consistent record of change of the same areas over time. They make automated computer algorithm “adjustments” of data, and then the next month use that same algorithms to “adjust” those same temperatures that were just “adjusted” the previous month because the algorithm sees the new data needs to be “adjusted”.
        It is systemic corruption of data and science, that they are too embarrassed to show their work to arrive at the new data, even to a Congressional committee who is charged with oversight of their work.

      • planet8788

        Raw surface data shows it’s cooling. LOL.. Yep the farther we get away from the measurements, the more precisely we can correct them.. hahah.

  • SunnyD

    I know great earth changes have been predicted for the future, so if you’re looking to avoid earthquakes, my advice is simple. When you find a fault, just don’t dwell on it.

    • Evan Jones

      I remember the geological findings near Washington, DC, sometime back. (It was referred to as “Bush’s Fault”.)

  • SunnyD

    I know great earth changes have been predicted for the future, so if you’re looking to avoid earthquakes, my advice is simple. When you find a fault, just don’t dwell on it.

  • Bart_R

    Here’s the problem with Judith Curry’s self-inflicted scientific martyrdom: it isn’t real. Which means the David Rose’s of the world will report it as gospel with all the persuasive power of their propagandic pens.

    Curry is an Agnotologist, not a Scientist, on the simplest of tests: Science holds accurate or most nearly true that proposition of pure inference from all observation which best explains phenomena by the standard of simplest possible (but no simpler) base assumptions, parsimony of exception and universal logic of like parts of like things until new phenomena demand amended or new explanation; Curry’s agnotific approach is to do everything at every level at every step to avoid meeting this standard.

    • http://wermenh.com/index.html Ric Werme

      So when do the climate modelers finally throw in the towel and admit the models are expect way too much warming? Heck, even Karl et al’s attempt to do away with the pause has produced a steady warming that is much less than the models.

      It appears that CO2 sensitivity is is believed to be way too high, or perhaps it is that high and people aren’t handling increased convection or cloudiness well.

      • Bart_R

        Hansen 1988 Scenario B is right on the money. What the heck are you talking about?

        Which pause are you referring to?

        There have been twenty pauses in the last fifty years; the most rapidly warming half century for the last 800,000 years so far as we can tell.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:360/plot/gistemp/last:360/trend

        Seems that the actual warming is much more than some models, and less only than the worst-case scenarios of the highest models.

        CO2 sensitivity appears to be around 2.95 +/- 0.2 on timescales of 30 years, with a very large fat tail response, and only shows significantly lower when obscured by natural variability on extremely short timespans as Lewis & Curry (2015) amply exploit.

        You don’t seem to know not to drink Willard Watt’s Kool-aid.

        • RealOldOne2

          “Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B is right on the money.”
          Wrong. Hansen’s 1988 Scenario B predicted that the globe would warm by 0.3°C/decade from 1988 onward. It’s warmed at less than 0.12°C/decade, which means that he was wrong by a ~200% error: http://woodfortrees.org/data/rss/from:1988/to:2015.8/trend
          Even using Hansen’s own corrupted-by-adjustment GISS dataset which shows it’s warmed at only 0.16°C/decade exposes that he was wrong by ~100%, predicting double the amount of actual real world warming: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:1988/to:2015.8/trend

          I showed you that your claim about Hansen’s scenario B was wrong a year ago here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11317974/Is-the-pause-in-global-warming-blowing-out.html#comment-1768588148 , yet you persist in posting mistakes which you’ve been shown to be wrong. Read up that thread and you will see where I totally debunked your ludicrous false claims. Your continuing to spread false propaganda is so sad, but it’s what propagandists defending their failed doomsday cult religions do.

          See how dishonest these CAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmist are Evan?

          And I notice that you have FAILED to rebut or refute any of the empirical science that I showed you which showed that climate change is still primarily caused by natural climate forcings not anthropogenic forcings. Of course we know that the reason you haven’t is because you CAN’T, because the empirical science that I’ve posted is true.

          • Bart_R

            You mean this exchange?

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11317974/Is-the-pause-in-global-warming-blowing-out.html#comment-1768487747

            The one where you admitted Hansen was bang on, barring unpredictable volcanoes and ENSO, which Hansen himself stipulated in 1988 no one could model?

            You really should stop trumpeting your defeats as victories, when there’s a public record of your humiliations.

            And while WfT is a nice toy, its no http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.mlost.html — which shows Hansen’s actual successes trump your imagined competency.

            Speaking of Trump, didn’t I fire you as my troll for infidelity, a year ago?

          • RealOldOne2

            Bartie’s porkie #32: “The one where you admitted Hansen was bang on, barring unpredictable volcanoes and ENSO, which Hansen himself stipulated in 1988 no one could model?”
            Sorry Bart, I made no such admission. You once again demonstrate that you are serially dishonest and delusional.
            Here was my reply to your comment that you linked to: “I agree with no such thing. His “physics” of ghgs was one of his MAJOR errors, as well as his OMISSION of most natural climate forcings.” Everyone can see that you are lying and that I did NOT agree that “Hansen was bang on”. My comment proves you wrong: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/11317974/Is-the-pause-in-global-warming-blowing-out.html#comment-1768493795

            “You really should stop trumpeting your defeats as victories, when there’s a public record of your humiliations.”
            Nice projection! YOU should really stop telling such easy-to-expose PORKIES when there’s a public record that exposes your claims to be total falsehoods.

            And it’s sad that you misrepresent Hansen(1988) by claiming that no one could model volcanoes. Hansen(1988) stated the opposite. “Sufficient observational data on stratospheric opacities are available to define the stratospheric aerosols reasonably well during the past few decades, as described in Appendix B.”
            And Hansen DID include volcanic eruptions in his Scenarios B & C: “Stratospheric aeorsols provide a second variable climate forcing in our experiments. This forcing is identical in all three experiments for the period 1958-1985, during which time there were two substantial volcanic eruptions, Agung in 1963 and El Chichon in 1982. In scenarios B and C, additional large volcanoes are inserted in the year 1995 (identical in properties to El Chichon), in the year 2015 (identical to Agung), and again in 2025 (identical to El Chichon)”

            Everyone can see that Hansen(1988) DID include volcanic forcings when they look at Fig. 2 from Hansen(1988) : http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-34ed9c826c4231c2178ffa3a31a16ee8-hansenfig2.png

            So we’ll add #32 to your previous list of 31 porkies (mistakes which have become lies because you cling to them after I’ve pointed them out).
            “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

            I had previously stated that I had a long list of your porkies, but hadn’t linked to them. But since you have now added to the list, I will link to your other 31 porkies. They are found here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

            See Evan. I told you these climate alarmist zealots are a dishonest lot. Bart_R proves it here.

          • Bart_R

            tl;dnr^3

          • Evan Jones

            Trend is lower than even Scenario C.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Trend is lower than even Scenario C.”
            Yes it is. And I would note that one of the climate alarmists, Icarus62, who is posting on this thread has claimed that the actual ghg climate forcings have been lower than Scenario C, which Hansen(1988) stated “Scenario C drastically reduces trace gas growth between 1990 and 2000 such that the greenhouse climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.”

            Icarus62’s exact words were: “To make a valid comparison you have to know whether the forcings in any of the scenarios A, B and C actually came to pass. In fact, real world forcings have been lower than any of he three scenarios, so you would expect warming to be lower too.”

            You can see his comment right above my comment where I exposed his error: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11456612/BBCs-climate-change-stance-in-brazen-defiance-of-the-law.html#comment-1915062183
            If you follow his sodahead image link ( http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/hansen1988forcings-166618118564.png ), you will also see that it is a blatant misrepresentation of Hansen(1988)’s forcings, ( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/wp-content/blogs.dir/443/files/2012/04/i-34ed9c826c4231c2178ffa3a31a16ee8-hansenfig2.png ), as his fake graph does NOT include the volcanic forcings that Hansen(1988) included in his scenarios B and C.

            Sadly, this blatant dishonest misrepresentation is very common among these CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmists as they peddle their global warming cult religion.

          • Evan Jones

            Not to mention that CO2 output has exceeded Scenario A.

          • RealOldOne2

            Yes, and as I mentioned in a comment above, even Hansen himself admits that the CO2 increases have been up to double the 1.5%/year assumption in his 1988 paper.

            – “Emissions grew 2%/year
            over the past decade.” – Hansen(2005) ‘Is There Still Time to Avoid
            ‘Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference’ with Global Climate?’
            – “The growth rate of fossil fuel emissions increased from 1.5%/year during 1980-2000 to 3%/year
            in 2000-2012            , mainly because of increased coal use.” – Hansen(2013)
            ‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon
            Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’

      • Evan Jones

        Hullo, Ric, how’s it going? Yeah, you are correct, here.

    • pauls

      Curry’s science background, education, and study puts to shame nearly every person in Paris this week. You might not like her scientific analysis but unless you can attack her methodology then you are anti-science.

      • Bart_R

        Curry’s a dinosaur from the times when all it took to be a PhD in Earth Sciences was a pulse. Small wonder she was terrified when real scholars invaded the turf formerly reserved for the bottom of the class, especially when a top national student like Mann (more awards for achievement before his PhDs than Curry, Lindzen, Soon, Spencer and Christy combined in their entire careers) chose to shed light on the dim work done before him by her ilk.

        Lewis and Curry (2015) was a painfully awful cherry pick likely the last straw leading to her demotion from Chair of Earth Sciences. Its methodology is so bad it went straight to the Willard Watts hall of shame, and nowhere else.

        Wyatt and Curry was infinitely worse, a shopping cart analysis that picked over datasets until it found weak and short-lived correspondences that gave feeble comfort to the idea of Anything But CO2 that is Curry’s agenda.

        Curry’s math skills are nonexistent, and she frequently applauds and supports papers that turn out to be hoaxes; she’s an archetypal Sokal-victim, particularly where hard math is involved.

        She propounds on Uncertainty while never demonstrating the math chops to make, much less sustain an argument, and is frankly ignorant of Newton’s Philosophy of Science and its role as the foundation on which the Popperism she pays lip service to.

        Was there anything else you needed?

        • RealOldOne2

          Deny, deny, deny. So sad that that’s all you can do.
          But then, since you can’t cite any empirical science to support your climate cult religion, all you have left to do is deny and lie. You have been duped and are too stupid to realize it.
          Rather than post your religious propaganda drivel, rebut this empirical science:

          1) I’ve shown you alarmists peer reviewed empirical science that shows in late 20th century there was 6 to 12 times more natural climate forcing than there was anthropogenic forcing. In fact more natural climate forcing than the entire amount of anthropogenic that the IPCC says exists since 1750, yet you alarmists stubbornly deny the reality that natural climate forcing was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming during the late 20th century. That empirical science is summarized in my comment here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2381422554 I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut or refute this empirical science, and it CRICKETS! You can’t and you know it, yet you cling to your proven false BELIEFS. Prove me wrong, and rebut the empirical science that I presented there.

          2) When you alarmists try to explain away the lack of warming in the atmosphere over the last ~19 years as predicted by your flawed, faulty climate models, and claim that the ghg warming has gone into the ocean, I have shown you the science that shows that ocean warming is caused by solar radiation not ghgs ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html#comment-1337265444 ). I’ve repeatedly challenged you alarmists to rebut this empirical science and again it’s CRICKETS! Prove me wrong and rebut and refute the empirical science that I presented there.

          3) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century, and it’s CRICKETS!

          4) I’ve repeatedly ask you climate alarmists to cite just one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that natural climate forcings were NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, and it’s CRICKETS!

          5) I’ve repeatedly shown you climate alarmists the empirical data that shows that over the last ~19 years there has been no warming in the Earth’s atmosphere, where your flawed, faulty models predicted more warming than the surface. You alarmists stubbornly deny this reality, and point to non-global coverage, adjusted numbers. Changing the real-world data to fit your failed predictions is the behavior of false doomsday cult religions, not science.

          There is no empirical data that shows that the climate is doing anything unusual at all that hasn’t happened naturally before. The real world empirical data shows that it’s NOT a human-driven problem. It’s nature doing what nature does. It is fully consistent with the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate forcings such as amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface and ocean cycles are causing climate change now, just like it has been doing throughout the entire history of the planet.

          • Bart_R

            tl; dnr.

          • RealOldOne2

            “tl;dnr.”
            LOL. Translation of Bart’s comment: I read your entire comment, including your other comments that you linked to, and I couldn’t rebut a bit of all that empirical science that proves me wrong, so I’m going to deny reality by claiming that a 7 paragraph comment is too long, so I did not read it.

            Hilarious clown dance of denial there Bart.

            See how delusional these climate cult fanatics are Evan?
            I’ve interacted with them for years. They are serially dishonest. They are generally scientifically illiterate. They merely repeat their global warming propaganda and defend their climate cult religion with jihadist zeal, just like Lindzen said:
            “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] : Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT. Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

            And “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48

          • jmac

            So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t? Am I right?

            Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • lookout1

            You do know Exxon Prediction originally match the IPCC ‘s… and were wrong

            You also seem to miss the statements in the Exon studies that said there was room for huge margins of error due to a list of unknowns

            You see Exxon adjusted the theory to fit the data .. .not the other way around

            it was hiding its research so well it helped publish over 50 papers
            http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

          • jmac

            Exxon’s projections were pretty spot-on. Look at that graph they did on an old IBM Selectric. :)

            “Over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged,” Cohen wrote in September 1982, reporting on Exxon’s own analysis of climate models. It was that a doubling of the carbon dioxide blanket in the atmosphere would produce average global warming of 3 degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees C (equal to 5 degrees Fahrenheit plus or minus 1.7 degrees F).

            “There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate,” he wrote, “including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.”

            With alarm bells suddenly ringing, Exxon started financing efforts to amplify doubt about the state of climate science.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

            Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.

          • lookout1

            How about you read the papers your self ,,, not a site that “interprets” them

            And they hid their research so well it was cited in 50+ papers

            http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/energy-and-environment/climate_peer_reviewed_publications_1980s_forward.pdf

          • jmac

            Even Exxon scientists agreed with consensus

            http://climatecrocks.com/2015/11/25/two-faced-what-exxonknew-vs-what-exxon-did/

            “While the ICN investigation focused on Exxon’s internal reports, Exxon’s spokesman pointed to the peer-reviewed scientific research published by the company’s scientists between 1983 and 2014 – 53 papers in all.”

            “I reviewed all 53 of the papers referenced by Exxon’s spokesman, and they indeed consist of high-quality scientific research. Most of them implicitly or explicitly endorsed the expert consensus on human-caused global warming; none minimized or rejected it. This means that there is a100% consensus on human-caused global warming among Exxon’s peer-reviewed climate science research – even higher than the 97% consensus in the rest of the peer-reviewed literature.”

            While Exxon’s own scientists and research were 100% aligned with the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, the company simultaneously funded a campaign to manufacture doubt about that scientific consensus.

            A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science found that groups with funding from corporations like Exxon have been particularly effective at polarizing and misinforming the public on climate change. Since 1998, Exxon has given over $31 million to organizations and individuals blocking solutions to climate change and spreading misinformation to the public.

          • RealOldOne2

            More BS from a propaganda website, NOT from the Exxon reports.
            Btw, Peter Sinclair who is the climate crocks is a blatant liar who posts propaganda who when shown to be wrong, stubbornly clings to his mistakes, turning them into lies.

            A few years ago in 2010, he made the demonstrably false claim “the Great Lakes have lost MOST of their ice over the last 3 decades”.
            His claim was based on a cherry picked endpoint of 2002 using the maximum seasonal ice cover, EIGHT YEARS prior to his writing his propaganda claim. The GL ice cover had been growing from 2002 to 2010, but he refused to back down from his claim, even though the empirical data proved him wrong.

            Take a look at the Great Lakes ice cover now that we have a few more years of data:

            Notice that the actual measured levels of ice (blue bars) for the late 2 years are the highest in the historical record. Totally inconsistent with the claims of accelerating climate warming. Yet another of the CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult propaganda memes exposed as false when you look at the actual empirical data.

          • jmac

            How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change. Are you really that stupid?

            The point we have been at for decades now is that even Exxon, like Big Tobacco et al, before it, KNEW of the dangers and used profits to fund criminal sociopaths to mislead the public on the science. Even Exxon and the Koch bros with unlimited resources have been unable to produce a credible study that disproves man made climate change. In fact, both of their studies came to the same conclusion as the consensus.

            The only thing you have left is to attempt to create doubt; which takes time away from creating viable methods for mitigation, adaption to lessen the damage that is coming. Intentionally delaying the process for mitigation and adaption, so that fossil fuel boys can extend their profits, is a crime that will affect people, countries and economies.

            “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” — Brown & Williamson

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your flailing denial of empirical science! You’re a HOOT! Hahahahaha

            Rebut the peer reviewed empirical science that I presented here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2387118690

            Oh yeah, you CAN’T, so you do your hilarious handwaving clown dance of denial! Keep it up, so more people can see just how delusional and big a denier of reality you CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult zealots are!

          • jmac

            You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can disprove man made climate change, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

            You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will disprove man made climate change, and yet you can’t get funding from Exxon to publish in some credible scientific journal.

            You, and people like you, are enemies of me and the planet. You deserve every bit of scorn and ridicule that can be heaped upon you. You and those like you are dangerous, uninformed and scientifically illiterate. You are slime warts on the backsides of humanity.

          • Evan Jones

            You might want consider that most skeptics do not dispute man-made climate change at all. I certainly don’t. I think you need to review your premises.

          • RealOldOne2

            “So, Exxon knows you are full of BS, yet you don’t? Am I right?”
            No, you are not right. lookout1 exposed that you were merely parroting a propaganda website’s wrong interpretation of Exxon’s research. The research itself doesn’t “hide” anything.

            And Exxon has never rebutted any of the empirical peer reviewed science that I posted above: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2387118690 so no they do NOT know that I am “full of BS”.
            If Exxon has rebutted any of the empirical science that I posted and linked to, then please link us to it. If you can’t, you are merely making baseless, evidence-free claims.

            And I notice that you have not been able to rebut or refute any of the facts that I stated in the comment linked to in this comment.

          • jmac

            It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so ignorant to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that “a right wing blogger” can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog? Exxon would pay you billions to help fund and publish a credible study that disproved man made climate change. Are you really that stupid?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your clown dance of denial.
            Sorry you ignorant foolish duped climate cult fanatic, but you don’t understand how science is done.
            I hold the accepted null climate hypothesis that climate change is caused by natural climate forcing, just like it has been throughout the history of the planet.
            YOU believe that the null climate hypothesis is no longer valid. The way science works is that YOU must empirically falsify the null climate hypothesis. That has NEVER been done.
            Then YOU must empirically validate your new CO2-is-the-primary-cause-of-climate-change alternative hypothesis. THAT has never been done either.

            You are ignorant of science. No surprise there.

          • jmac

            When even Exxon knows you are full of shyt, all sane people recognize you and your ilk are disgusting warts on humanity, willing to do anything to extend the profits of the fossil fuel boys.

            “Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.”

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • buckingham88

            ‘YOU believe that the null climate hypothesis is no longer valid. The way
            science works is that YOU must empirically falsify the null climate
            hypothesis.’
            Your’s is the money comment.
            This commentator has not done enough basic science to see that the natural ‘forcings’ are what always happen, so this has to be overturned as a reality to impose some new theory, such as CAGW.
            The onus of proof lies with the one who formulates the hypothesis.
            The fundamental problem with the CO2 hypothesis is the lack of any observable equatorial hotspot and, of course,failure to skilfully predict the future temperature with Global Climate Models.
            In fact, the more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, the more the planet’s temperature has ‘paused’, when one would expect it to be still warming after the Little Ice Age.
            Perhaps time for a few, better models.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, we must pay attention only to left wing pseudoscience from only leftwing blogs.

          • jmac

            “Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.”

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • Evan Jones

            Okay, so they used the API (et alia) to push a narrative which is demonstrably correct. And?

          • jmac

            The first study looks at how Exxon’s corporate funding has contributed to the polarization of climate change in the United States, concluding that funding by Exxon (as well as the Koch Family Foundations) has strengthened polarization relating to climate change over the past 20 years. The second study, published Monday in Nature Climate Change, argues that Exxon, as well as the Koch Family Foundations, have been at the center of these misinformation campaigns, acting as the most powerful underwriters of climate misinformation.

            http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1509433112.abstract

            https://www.takepart.com/article/2015/11/30/big-data-shows-exxon-koch-brothers-manipulated-climate-change-news

          • RealOldOne2

            Still posting your false Exxon propaganda even after it has been debunked and backed away from by the dishonest outlet that made the false allegations.
            http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/11/19/more-backtracking-by-insideclimate-news/
            So sad.
            You’re a one trick pony. And the pony is a fantasy which only exists in your la-la land of unreality.

          • jmac

            @ facepalm Strawman!
            Contrary to your link, “that notion about ExxonMobil stopping its climate science research has been repeated as the main takeaway in subsequent news coverage and opinion pieces.”
            is not considered as the main takeaway. It wasn’t even a consideration for me, that is not the story.

            Even Exxon knows your BS is BS. :)

            http://www.kera.org/2015/11/18/changing-ideas-on-climate-change/

          • RealOldOne2
          • jmac

            Look, it matters not one whit whether Exxon stopped it’s research or curtailed it or went balls out forward with more research. That is just not the point. This is the point.

            Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • RealOldOne2

            Look, it matters not one whit how many times you repeate the false propaganda of your cult leaders, it won’t change the fact that Exxon has done nothing wrong. Nice display of your ignorance to keep repeating what you have been shown to be false propaganda. But then stupidity is a hallmark of you doomsday cult fanatics. So sad.

          • jmac

            When even Exxon knows your BS is just BS, all sane people recognize you and your ilk are disgusting warts on humanity, willing to do anything to extend the profits of the fossil fuel boys.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your blathering ignorance.

          • jmac

            “Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation” The fossil fuel industry—like the tobacco industry before it—is noteworthy for its use of active, intentional disinformation and deception to support its political aims and maintain its lucrative profits. The following case studies show that:

            http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

            The fossil fuel companies, mimicking the tobacco companies, adopted a strategy that sought to “manufacture uncertainty” about global warming even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that it is human-caused, is accelerating at an alarming rate, and poses myriad public health and environmental dangers. The fossil fuel industry not only took a page from the tobacco playbook in its efforts to defeat action on climate change, it even drew upon a…

          • RealOldOne2

            ROTFLOL @ your stupidly swallowing that propaganda!

          • jmac

            At this point, the deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

            Even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. The “BEST” (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) study, under lead scientist (and former skeptic) Richard Muller, was sponsored by institutions that had previously supported the denial of the standard interpretation of the climate data. But when the BEST results came out, they confirmed the previous results that the Earth is warming. http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7?IR=T

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL! That’s hilarious! You’re a HOOT!

          • jmac

            Nope, no backtracking. Exxon and you are trying to float a strawman, that doesn’t even matter.
            When even Exxon knows your BS is just BS, all sane people recognize you and your ilk are disgusting warts on humanity, willing to do anything to extend the profits of the fossil fuel boys.

          • Bart_R

            tl;dnr^2

          • Evan Jones

            Oh, I think that both sides have their “less-correct” adherents. Yes, I know how they are.

            But they are, for the most part, political animals. Fluff, to be ignored. Although politics comprises my official academic area of study, I prefer to concentrate on the science alone.

        • pauls

          Again you attack her. She has a Phd is geophysical science from Chicago. I doubt seriously the university of Chicago ever gave PhDs in the physics of the earth like Cracker Jack prizes. You still do not show you have reviewed her research and can show a flaw in her methodology. You just attack people with much more education and research than you have but disagree with your religious beliefs. You are the L. Ron Hubbard of this sight.

          • Bart_R

            Attack her?

            Not in the least. I have immense regard for Judith as a person, and would gladly trust her to.. well, something innocuous that doesn’t involve testifying before a panel of politicians.

            Of course I’ve reviewed Curry’s work. You can go to Curry’s blog and look up my remarks on Wyatt & Curry for yourself. Just google “Climate Etc. wyatt curry bart’s had enough nonsense for one day”.

        • https://disqus.com/by/gary_slabaugh Mensch59

          Thanks for the analytical summary

        • marc biff

          Michael Mann has got a Nobel prize well done him.

          • Bart_R

            Mann’s recognition by the IPCC for his role in its Nobel is among the smaller of his academic accomplishments. The list of awards and notations in scholarship he has runs several pages.

            What’s your point?

            That you’ve been to Willard Watt’s Kool-Aid stand and drank the purple?

          • jack dale

            Willard serves carbonated Koch-a-coala. 😉

          • Evan Jones

            Would that apply to BEST (funded by the Koch brothers)?

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, the Nobel Beauty Prize.

          • Bart_R

            And when you have one, anyone in the world may care what you have to say about anyone else in the world who has one.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, I already have enough wallpaper. But I could use the dough.

            (As for what the “world may care”, I’ll leave that up to peer and independent review.)

          • marc biff

            The best analogy is the EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize so being a citizen of the EU I am entitled to say I won the Nobel Peace Prize and he generally talks bollox anyway.

          • Bart_R

            Uh..

            Analogy?

            Did anyone in the EU actually write to you and say they recognized you to be a pre-eminent cause of the EU’s Nobel Prize, and one of only a handful so distinguished?

            No?

            Anyone in a position to understand the reasons for the EU’s awarding of the Nobel Prize and the work of those who led to that award?

            No?

            Didn’t think so.

            You don’t really seem to be qualified to determine how or what anyone generally talks.

            Tell us, do you have any of these credentials:

            Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics

            M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics

            M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Physics

            M.S. Yale University, Department of Physics

            A.B. (double), University of California-Berkeley, Applied Math, Physics (Honors)

            Honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters, Le Moyne College

            Named Highly Cited Researcher, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) twice

            Business Insider list of 50 “scientists who are changing the way we see the world”

            Economia Magazine list of 50 Leading Finance Leaders, Influencers and Innovators

            Pongo Award, Orang Utan Republik Foundation

            Friend of the Planet Award, National Center for Science Education

            Article selected by American Geophysical Union for inclusion in GRL 40th anniversary collection.

            Profiled in Contemporary Authors (Gale Publishing)

            National Conservation Achievement Award, National Wildlife Federation

            Bloomberg News list of 50 Most Influential People

            Honorable mention, Green Book Awards

            Appointed Distinguished Professor

            Elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society

            Hans Oeschger Medal, European Geosciences Union

            Elected Fellow of the American Geophysical Union

            Profiled in American Environmental Leaders From Colonial Times to the Present

            Website chosen as one of top 15 by Time Magazine

            American Geophysical Union Editors’ Citation for Excellence in Refereeing (for ‘Geophysical Research Letters’)

            Website chosen as one of top 25 “Science and Technology” websites by Scientific American

            John Russell Mather Paper award by the Association of American Geographers

            Named by Scientific American as one of 50 leading visionaries in science and technology

            Outstanding Scientific Paper award by NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR)

            Article selected for ‘fast moving fronts’ by Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)

            Selected as one of 10 ‘Mead Honored Faculty’, University of Virginia

            Council of Graduate Schools’ Distinguished Dissertation Award, nominated

            Phillip M. Orville Prize for outstanding dissertation in the earth sciences, Yale University

            Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Fellowship (DOE)

            Josiah Willard Gibbs Prize for outstanding research and scholarship in Physics, Yale University

            Distinguished Professor

            Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Pennsylvania State University

            Alexander Hollaender Distinguished Postdoctoral Research Fellow (DOE)

            ..

            Anything like any of these at all?

            No?

            Didn’t think so.

            I doubt you have a cub scout badge to your credit.

          • marc biff

            With all that and he still faked his Nobel Prize Award https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/ can’t be that bright can he.

          • Bart_R

            Dude, not to burst your bubble, but John O’Sullivan is exactly the kinda creepy source you wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole and a 60 gallon drum of hand sanitizer if you paid attention to his court record in the UK, Canada and the USA.

            You’ve implicitly admitted you have zero qualifications, and you rely on corrupt and malicious sources for your slogans and myths.

            What sort of mine stoops to such tactics to promote dumping fossil wastes?

          • RealOldOne2

            “promote fossil waste dumping”
            Let’s keep “dumping”. It’s doing GREAT THINGS for the plantet, helping green the planet and contributing to greatly increasing crop yields:
            Maize(corn):Up 139%
            Wheat: Up 134%
            Rice: Up 104%
            Barley: Up 83%
            Rye/Oats: Up 69%
            Millet/Sorghum: Up 57%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/219.gif

            Oil palm fruits: Up 290%
            Rapeseed: Up 164%
            Cottonseed: Up 104%
            Soybeans: Up 100%
            Lindseed: Up 77%
            Sunflower seed: Up 60%
            Olives: Up 60%
            Groundnuts: Up 48%
            Sesame seed: Up 20%
            Coconuts: Down 6%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/229.gif

            Drybeans: Up 44%
            Drypeas: Up 126%
            Dry broadbeans: Up 87%
            Chickpeas: Up 30%
            Lentils: Up 46%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/239.gif

            Potatoes: Up 42%
            Sweet potatoes: Up 83%
            Cassava: Up 181%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/249.gif

            Sugarcane: Up 37%
            Sugarbeets: Up 52%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/259.gif

            Cabbages: Up 57%
            Greenbeans: Up 38%
            Greenpeas: Up 75%
            Onions: Up 73%
            Tomatoes: Up 106%
            Melons: Up 47%
            Watermelons: Up 132%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/269.gif

            Peaches: Down 10%
            Citrus fruit: Up 30%
            Apples: Down 3%
            Pineapples: Up 83%
            Pears: Up 7%
            Bananas + Plantains: Up 24%
            Grapes: Up 76%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/279.gif

            Coffee: Up 114%
            Cocoa beans: Up 233%
            Tea: Up 236%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/289.gif

            Global greening: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/Images/npp_change_bump_lrg.jpg

          • Bart_R

            False attribution of benefits is, like plagiarism, a form of theft. Your claims belittle the hard work of the world’s farmers and agronomists.

            The reason for gains in productivity are increases in fertilizer and pesticide use and intensive agriculture, far out of proportion with the increases in yields.

            You know this, yet persist in your post hoc ergo propter hoc false attributions.

            You do who raised you a profound disservice by your low conduct.

          • RealOldOne2

            “False attribution of benefits”
            Wrong. The NASA site which is the source of that graph ( http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ ) admits that CO2-fertilization is real.
            So does the US Dept. of Agriculture: “Extra CO2 by itself will stimulate some growth because plants have more “food” for photosynthesis.” – http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2000/000421.htm

            So sad that you deny fundamental science.

            Now admit to your mistakes and stop turning them into lies: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133
            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

          • Bart_R

            NASA, world expert in agronomy?

            Real plants in the real world are subject to trade-off triangles, always. Excess CO2 antagonizes ethylene and gibberrellins, plant hormones that redirect plant vigour from one activity to another. While plants sometimes put on more mass (though generally not except under ideal circumstances), they reduce nutrient density in key ways. Broadly handwaving at NASA’s remarks about “CO2 fertilization” without understanding that no one consented to having their nutrients diluted as a side effect of dumping the byproducts of the fossil you burn into the air their plants respire is simple negligence.

            Who raised you with such a pee-in-the-well attitude?

            You reflect poorly on your upbringing.

          • RealOldOne2

            “NASA, world expert in agronomy?”
            No, but the accept the fundamental science of CO2 fertilization, which you sadly deny.

            But we’ve come to expect denial from you, as you stubbornly deny making your mistakes and cling them, turning them into lies.
            “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

            Your mistakes are linked to in my comment above. Why are you so dishonest to cling to them and turn them into lies?

            The fact that I have caught you in dozens of mistakes that you stubbornly cling to burns your butt and you’re so angry that you must lash out with your childish taunts. You are pathetic, as are most of your fellow duped CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult fanatics. So sad.

          • Bart_R

            So you cite people you acknowledge aren’t authorities, but rebuke actual facts?

            I could accept if you’d cited http://www.jstor.org/stable/1943184?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents to argue problems with the trade-off triangle simplification of plant response to CO2, for example. But just waving your arms around and repeating the “CO2-fertilization” mantra over and over again is mere ad nauseum.

            Of course, you wouldn’t want to cite Loehle (1988), because then you’d have to recognize that multi-factor effects are complex and come with downsides for every benefit in the plant world. In the case of CO2, ignoring extremes of weather stressing crops, ignoring loss of soil health from microbial changes, ignoring acidification, it’s loss of nutrient density, a key determiner of population health.

            Keep on as you are. The more you continue in your absurdity and ad hominem, the more you show the world what sort of character promotes dumping wastes without concern for consequences or trespass against others.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. STILL denying the CO2 fertilization effect. So sad.
            And as delusional as ever, thinking that a few % reduction in a few nutrients is a bad tradeoff for a few HUNDRED % increase in yield.

            “The more you continue in your absurdity and ad hominem…”
            LOL. More projection on your part. You absurdly argue that a minor change in nutrients is worse than a major increase in crop yields. You once again demonstrate your stubborn denial of reality and refusal to admit ANYTHING that I present is true.

            And no ad homs on my part. I just point to your own words which convict you of dishonesty by clinging to your mistakes, turning them into lies.
            Why do you refuse to be honest and admit to your mistakes?
            Why do you cling to them, turning them into lies?

          • Bart_R

            From your source: “The Raleigh findings run counter to similar experiments in other parts of the country.”

            The world of botany is full of Pollyannas who will speculate on all sorts of ‘benefits’. The fact remains, you cannot change one thing about plants without changing other things, and there are losers in any trade-off.

            In the case of CO2, the losers are people who eat food from plants.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL.. Still cherry picking outlier datapoints and denying the CO2 fertilization effect. Are you really so ignorant to think that commercial greenhouses raise CO2 levels to ~1,000 ppm because of a belief in “Pollyanna beliefs”?. So sad.

            You are just an angry butthurt troll blathering ignorance because I continue to expose your serial dishonesty of denying your mistakes, turning them into LIES.

            No quit being so serially dishonest an admit to your mistakes:
            http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133
            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

          • Bart_R

            Again you show the quality of your upbringing.

            I’m from a family of greenhouse growers. Of course professionals who know what they’re doing will choose the trade-offs for their own plants for their own ends.

            But you’re promoting dumping of fossil waste byproducts without a plan and with only your say-so that the outcomes are ‘benefits’, even while you appear unaware that there is such a thing as a trade-off, nominating yourself as king over all the food in the world, truly peeing-in-the-well tyranny.

            And again, you do not answer what gives you the right to decide for the rest of the world what happens to the plants we depend on.

          • RealOldOne2

            “quality of your upbringing”
            False Ad hom.

            “with only your say-so that the outcomes are ‘benefits'”
            There you go with ANOTHER dishonest claim!
            It was the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that documented that 40 out of 43 global crop yields increased up to 290%, while only 3 crop yields decreased a maximum of 10%.
            Yet you stubbornly refuse to admit that was positive! Stupendous denial of reality. But exactly what we expect from someone who stubbornly clings to his dozens of mistakes, turning them into lies.

            You have thoroughly discredited yourself as a dishonest reality-denying climate cult fanatic. Go back to your climate cult revival meetings. They will reaffirm your dishonesty, delusions and ignorance. Post here and I will continue to expose it.

          • Bart_R

            Didn’t I fire you as my webstalking troll like a year ago for infidelity and ineptitude?

            Look, I’ll give you another chance.

            Take https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain and, if you obtain a passing grade, I’ll reconsider whether or not to regard your flagrant nonsense as worth ignoring.

          • Evan Jones

            He tried to say that. But not so much anymore.

        • Evan Jones

          She propounds on Uncertainty while never demonstrating the math chops to make, much less sustain an argument

          And anyone else has the chops to refute uncertainty? Not even the hallowed IPCC does that. Not enough chops?

          • Bart_R

            You do not know what you are talking about.

            Uncertainty is very real, very well understood, and a fundamental part of scientific observation methods that scientists are trained in from day one.

            Have you ever received a passing grade in a STEM course of any sort, in your life?

            Because what you claim no one who has could.

    • pauls

      You mistake the scientific method from which all science must be measured. It is not drawing an inference from observation based upon a guess as to what may be the simplest explanation. The scientific methods is making an observation, then making a hypthothesis as to the cause for the observed phenomena, finally vigorously testing the hypothesis through experimentation. The scientific method does not include manipulating data sets when a hypothesis begins to break down, it does not include manipulating computer models to alter results. Yes the world has grown warmer. 17k years ago there was a glacier nearly a mile thick over much of North America. Seas were so low that a land bridge was exposed across the Behring sea. Since the height of the last ice age, with a few fits and starts, we have been warming. In fact the fastest warming period occurred for 3000 years between 11000 and 8000 years ago. If you look at the last 200 years then recent warming looks dramatic. If you look at the last 20k years it’s just one of many spikes on a generally warming trend.

      • jack dale

        Paul – please experiment with someone else’s planet.

        This last spike does not appear to be normal, the system is not self-correcting anymore

        http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.preview.jpg

        • pauls

          No I will experiment with my planet

          • jack dale

            It is ours, not yours.

          • jmac

            Even Exxon knows your BS is just BS! :)

          • lookout1

            Let me quote from 1988 page 15

            However the warming does not agree with models based on c02 variations. In particular, enhanced greenhouse models predict a smoothly ACCELERATING increase of temperature with time (shown in red). The data is quite different. Most noticeable is a cooling trend from the 1930s and late 1970s when the models predicted warming..

            And this was before the models when tiiits up on the ~20 year pause.

            So what were you saying about exxon again

          • jmac

            I was saying that even Exxon knows your cherry picking BS is just BS. :) Even their graph was pretty spot on. :)

            “Over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged,” Cohen wrote in September 1982, reporting on Exxon’s own analysis of climate models. It was that a doubling of the carbon dioxide blanket in the atmosphere would produce average global warming of 3 degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees C (equal to 5 degrees Fahrenheit plus or minus 1.7 degrees F).

            “There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate,” he wrote, “including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.”

            “In summary, the results of our research are in accord with the scientific consensus on the effect of increased atmospheric CO2 on climate,” Cohen wrote in the 1982 letter he sent to Natkin.

            With alarm bells suddenly ringing, Exxon started financing efforts to amplify doubt about the state of climate science.

            Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • lookout1

            Consensus is not data .. The reality is it turns out all the MODELS were WRONG

          • jack dale

            Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

            That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

            That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

            That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

            Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

            That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

            The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

            They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

            They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

            The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

            The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

            The expansion of the Hadley cells.

            The poleward movement of storm tracks.

            The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

            The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

            The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

            That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

            References

            Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
            Manabe and Wetherald 1967
            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
            De F. Forster et al. 1999
            Langematz et al. 2003
            Vinnikov and Grody 2003
            Fu et al. 2004
            Thompson and Solomon 2005

            Nights warm more than days
            Arrhenius 1896
            Dai et al. 1999
            Sherwood et al. 2005

            Winter warms more than summer
            Arrhenius 1896
            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Rind et al. 1989Balling et al. 1999
            Volodin and Galin 1999
            Crozier 2003

            Polar amplification
            Arrhenius 1896
            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Polyakov et al. 2001
            Holland and Bitz 2003

            Arctic warms more than Antarctic
            Arrhenius 1896

            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Doran et al. 2002
            Comisa 2003
            Turner et al. 2007

            Pinatubo effects
            Hansen et al. 1992
            Hansen et al. 1996

            Soden et al. 2002

            Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
            Rind and Peteet 1985
            Farreral et al. 1999
            Melanda et al. 2005

            Temperature trend versus UAH results
            Christy et al. 2003
            Santer et al. 2003
            Mears and Wentz 2005
            Santer et al. 2005
            Sherwood et al. 2005

            Water vapor feedback from ENSO
            Lau et al. 1996
            Soden 2000
            Dessler and Wong 2009

            Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
            Fyfe et al. 1999
            Kushner et al. 2001
            Sexton 2001
            Thompson and Solomon 2002

            Hadley Cells expand

            Quan et al. 2002
            Fu et al. 2006
            Hu and Fu 2007

            Storm tracks move poleward
            Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
            Yin 2005

            Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
            Thuburn and Craig 1997
            Kushner et al. 2001
            Santer et al. 2003
            Seidel and Randel 2006

            Tropical “super greenhouse effect”
            Vonder Haar 1986
            Lubin 1994

            Constant average relative humidity
            Manabe and Wetherall 1967
            Minschwaner and Dessler 2004
            Soden et al. 2005
            Gettelman and Fu 2008

            Increased coastal upwelling of ocean water
            Bakun 1990
            Goes et al. 2005
            McGregor et al. 2007

          • lookout1

            yeah that must have been why they have spent millions looking for the mising heat, only to be found dwelling in a formula adjustment.

            so who should we arrest for massive fraud?? all the scientist that claimed the models were wrong and wasted tax payer money looking for missing hear? or the person who said it never was missing?

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

          • RealOldOne2

            The flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models have FAILED to accurately project future global temperatures even at the 2% confidence level!
            “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013)

            The climate models work on an iterative basis, each endpoint being the starting point of the next iteration. Errors compound over time. They are WORTHLESS in predicting several years in the future, let alone decades and centuries in the future.

            Peer reviewed Lean(2009) ‘How will the Earth’s temperature change in coming decades’ predicted: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic forcings and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperatures by 0.15 +/- 0.03C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.”

            Well, the rise in anthropogenic forcing happened, as humans added the highest ever 5 year amount of CO2 to the atmosphere, over 170 billion tons worth. And the increased solar irradiance happened, as the Sun’s TSI increased in its 11 year solar cycle. So how did that prediction based on those latest and greatest climate models work out?
            Global temperature DECREASED by almost that amount!
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2009/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2009/to:2014/trend

            That is using the atmospheric data which was supposed to increase faster than the surface.

            And to eliminate the claim of cherry picking, if we use the average of both the satellite and the (corrupted-by-adjustment) land-ocean datasets, global temperatures STILL DECREASED by 1/3 of the amount they were supposed to increase by!
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2009/to:2014/plot/wti/from:2009/to:2014/trend

            Real world evidence that the climate models can’t accurately project future global temperatures even a few years into the future, let alone decades and centuries.

            But this won’t stop the climate cult zealots from denying this reality. Watch them begin a handwaving clown dance of denial and obfuscation. So pathetic.

          • DennisHorne

            You can’t tell the difference between ‘doing’ science and a consensus — the balance of informed opinion — and mistake hand waving for two fingers.

          • Evan Jones

            I have always preferred observations to the balance of informed opinion.

            According to the balance of “informed opinion” the world came to an end twenty years ago — without any help from AGW.

            There is an old New Yorker cartoon. A bearded, robed sidewalk prophet is carrying a sign saying, “The World Will End Tomorrow.” in the next panel, he is carrying a sign saying, “The World Ended Yesterday”.

          • Evan Jones

            All true. (Except for the minor fact of the amount of warming.)

          • jack dale

            It is still warming; in both the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, quite. AGW since 1950 is ~0.7 C. (Well, after adjustment, anyway, and ignoring satellite and radiosonde. But I’ll stipulate it for purposes of argument.)

          • Icarus62

            Radiosonde shows slightly more – i.e. nearly 1°C of warming since the mid-20th Century. Of course we don’t have satellite data going back that far…

          • jmac

            So, Exxon knows your BS is BS, but you continue to screw with our children’s future.
            Nope, never said consensus was data. As far as the models:

            The models could barely be more accurate: https://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/realclimate_2015_updatejune_2015.png

            2015 global temperatures are right in line with climate model predictions

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/10/2015-global-temperatures-right-in-line-with-climate-model-predictions

            Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

            · That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

            · That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

            · That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

            · That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

            · Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

            · That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

            · The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

            · They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

            · They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

            · The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

            · The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

            · The expansion of the Hadley cells.

            · The poleward movement of storm tracks.

            · The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

            · The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

            · The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

            · That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=334&v=Y_jKXcgR_QA

            Model Performace on Various http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/Exploringwhatmighthappen/2point4/2point4point4.aspx

            https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-8.1.html

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought

            https://web.archive.org/web/20…

          • marc biff

            Think of the children,pass me the sick bucket.

          • Evan Jones

            (Jocularity noted.)

            I am, I am. Infant mortality rates are at alltime lows. Deaths to extreme weather are also at alltime lows, a ~99% drop since 1900. According the IPCC AR5, extreme weather is trendless over the same period.

          • Evan Jones

            Hmm. I am not seeing either RSS or UAH 6.0. Or radiosondes.

          • jack dale

            Look no further

            http://images.remss.com/figures/blogs/2014/rss_model_ts_globe_tlt_mears.png

            Since 1994, not one single data point is below the mean. Higher than average temperatures are called warmer.

          • Evan Jones

            No one claims that it hasn’t warmed since 1994. But does that warming track with CMIP3/5? Not so much.

          • Icarus62
          • RealOldOne2

            Still posting that faked graph. So sad.

          • Evan Jones

            Thank goodness. Then you agree there is no danger. #B^)

          • Evan Jones

            Well, the IPCC CMIP models, yes. There have been over a dozen and a half TCR/ECS models since then and all but one are lower than CMIP.

          • Icarus62

            Actually that’s not true at all. The model projections from the IPCC reports are matching observations rather well:

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/f2c014d08c17cfa0bb0ff98cc53110612f0b4825bc166d4230621d10/original.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            Fake graph again. So sad.

          • lookout1

            Yeah that explains why they have been looking for the missing heat for almost 2 decades

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs-thru-20131.png

          • Evan Jones

            Seen their response?

          • jmac

            Yes, even listened to an interview with Ken Cohen, VP of Exxon, and the author of the story Banerjee. Exxon knew of the dangers of burning of fossil fuels decades ago.

            InsideClimate News, a Pulitzer Prize-winning news organization, spent eight months investigating Exxon’s research into climate change dating back to the 1970s. This hour, we’ll talk about how the energy giant’s position on the issue has changed over the years with Neela Banerjee, one of the reporters of the series. We’ll also be joined by Ken Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil Corporation.

            http://www.kera.org/2015/11/18/changing-ideas-on-climate-change/

          • Evan Jones

            Knowing that CO2 raises temperatures and “Knowing the dangers of CO2” are not equivalent.

            By that standard, I also “know the dangers of CO2”.

          • jmac
          • RealOldOne2

            So stupid to mindlessly post debunked dishonest propaganda from a site that has been forced to back away from its false allegations: http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/11/19/more-backtracking-by-insideclimate-news/

            But then you delusional, reality-denying CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult fanatics are known to advertise your stupidity.

          • jmac

            @ facepalm Strawman!
            Contrary to your link, “that notion about ExxonMobil stopping its climate science research has been repeated as the main takeaway in subsequent news coverage and opinion pieces.”
            is not considered as the main takeaway. It wasn’t even a consideration for me, that is not the story.

            Even Exxon knows your BS is BS. :)

          • RealOldOne2

            You are a pathetic denier of reality. Exxon proved that the dishonest smear job was false. So sad that you deny that reality.

          • jmac

            I already answered you in another thread, but I will copy it here to you again. Look, it matters not one whit whether Exxon stopped it’s research or curtailed it or went balls out forward with more research. That is just not the point. This is the point.

            Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

          • RealOldOne2

            Look, no matter how many times you lie, lie, lie, it won’t change the fact that Exxon has done nothing wrong. You are just stupidly swallowing the propaganda of your cult leaders. Thanks for displaying your ignorance for all to see.

          • jmac

            This is what it shows. When even Exxon knows your BS is just BS, all sane people recognize you and your ilk are disgusting warts on humanity, willing to do anything to extend the profits of the fossil fuel boys.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your insanity!

          • jmac

            It’s tough on you disgusting deniers.
            “Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation” The fossil fuel industry—like the tobacco industry before it—is noteworthy for its use of active, intentional disinformation and deception to support its political aims and maintain its lucrative profits. The following case studies show that:

            http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf

            The fossil fuel companies, mimicking the tobacco companies, adopted a strategy that sought to “manufacture uncertainty” about global warming even in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that it is human-caused, is accelerating at an alarming rate, and poses myriad public health and environmental dangers. The fossil fuel industry not only took a page from the tobacco playbook in its efforts to defeat action on climate change, it even drew upon a…

          • RealOldOne2

            Hahahahahah.
            What a gullible DUPE you are!

          • jmac

            It’s obvious that, at this point, the deniers are just immoral people with no values that are willing do people harm, even let people die, as long as there is profit to be made. These people are the most vile among us, with no motivation other than greed and profit.

            Even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along. The “BEST” (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) study, under lead scientist (and former skeptic) Richard Muller, was sponsored by institutions that had previously supported the denial of the standard interpretation of the climate data. But when the BEST results came out, they confirmed the previous results that the Earth is warming. http://www.businessinsider.com/koch-brothers-funded-study-proves-climate-change-2012-7?IR=T

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL.
            The Koch bros! Hahahahhahaha
            Hilarious!

        • lookout1

          you seems to have chopped of the previous 4 billion years…

          • jack dale

            Go find ice core data for the previous 4 billion years.

          • lookout1

            So you ignore all other data sets that dont confirm your bias?

          • jack dale

            I showed you mine, you show me yours.

        • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

          The ‘last spike’ is indeed NOT normal, it is FRAUDULENT.

          • jack dale

            So CO2 levels did not reach 383 ppm in 2007? Or 400 ppm more recently?

        • Evan Jones

          The problem I see here is that CO2 has spiked, but not temperature.

      • Bart_R

        Straw man is not goodwill.

        Hairsplitting is not correction.

        False framing is dishonest.

        Irrelevancy is irrelevant.

        Compared to the last 20k years, even the most rapidly warming transition from glacial to interglacial ending 11k years ago is still some 200 times less rapid warming than the last half century. The fastest rate we can reasonably infer prior to the last century was fifteen times less rapidly warming.

        And even if it weren’t, who consented to such a spike through negligent waste dumping, and how is that defensible?

        • DiogenesNJ

          “who consented to such a spike through negligent waste dumping, and how is that defensible?” Ahhhh, finally someone asks the trillion-dollar question — what could possibly be on the benefit side of fossil fuel consumption? The answer to “who” is all of us, and part of the answer to “why” is here:

          http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/data/

          Quick summary:

          World child mortality under age 5 down by 4x since 1960 (Fig. 7.2)
          World life expectancy at birth up about 40% (also Fig. 7.2)

          Air pollution down about a factor of 2 since 1960 in USA (Fig. 1.6)

          Doubling of per capita wealth in India, triple in China in 25 years (Fig. 1.) which is where much of the life-expectancy and child mortality benefit comes from.

          Another big part of the benefit came from the eradication of smallpox (1980), former killer of 1 child in 3 in large Indian cities, and polio in the US in 1979.

          Fundamentally, all the technological miracles we take for granted depended on the availability of two things: (1) large amounts of inexpensive fuels and energy. For example, eradication smallpox depended on the ability to fly teams of ring vaccinators anywhere in the world on short notice. And (2) enough disposable wealth to expend on technology development, whether in medicine or any other field. You may not have thought of it this way, but environmentalism is a luxury good in Maslow’s needs hierarchy. If you’re starving and cold at night in a hut in rural Africa, you’re just not going to worry about the indoor air pollution from burning wood or dung to cook or stay warm.

          • Bart_R

            Attributing all the benefits in the world to the narrow shoulders of fossil fuel dumping seems so contrived as to set one to wonder, how stupid do you believe people have to be to read what you write?

            Assuming technological advances come from coal mines and oil wells is flagrantly absurd on its face. The great advances in wind and solar are opposed by sunk-cost fossil industries at every step.

            The great advances in medicine did not come out of the availability of jet aircraft, and jet aircraft can most certainly fly on biofuel (now at prices below the peak price of oil). Chinese Death Smog is not a necessity for improving Chinese per capita income. Your invalid argument’s flagrant worship of fossil tells us all we need know of your biases: books bad, burning good.

            If there were a benefit to the dumping of fossil wastes, people would — and under capitalism ought — pay a fair Market price for the utility they obtain. Cap & trade is artificially held to about 8 EU/tonne, and no carbon pricing scheme exceeds an insignificant $30/ton USD — less than 10% of what economists agree would be the price under the Law of Supply and Demand.

            Heck, you even confuse the ills of burning dung without a chimney — a problem solved for the price of a 4′ long tin tube — with the causes of all the world’s issues.

            Finally, you guess wrong about me. I do not write as an environmentalist, or even conservationist, but as a private person injured by the fossil trespasses you so zealously promote against me.

            I’m harmed by the wrong you do to me through the air I breath without my consent, and I think it high time you compensated all of us for the liberties you take with what is not yours.

        • Evan Jones

          Younger Dryas?

          • jack dale

            Making a point or just JAQing off?

          • Bart_R

            An AMO phenomenon which, while it started in an event taking only a few decades was itself over 1,200 years long, a cooling of something like 3-5C in parts of the Northern hemisphere even while the Southern hemisphere experienced (somewhat smaller) warming.

            Pretend we knew for sure YD was a 6C drop, and let’s ignore that it was regional only; that’s still 6C over 1,200 years, compared to what we know from MLOST to be about 1C in 120 years, and accelerating now at a rate of 2C/century.

            I’m sure you can do the math on that.

            But far likelier, YD was on the order of 4C, and affected an eighth part of the globe, so yes, fifteen times less than the rate of current climate change. And still a phenomenally destructive event.

            And the jury’s still out on whether or not we’ll see another AMO disruption on the scale of YD out of the consequences of fossil waste dumping.

          • FranklyBlankly

            With the VAST amount of “averaged data” being used (every single dataset available) what gives you the right to say “this is regional” or “this is not”? These stations correspond over hundreds of miles and anything that is doesn’t reflect the neighboring stations is deleted from the record automatically.
            Look I’m a federal agent not a scientist but, I know when there is deception and I have been keeping up with global warming since the late 90’s and I am telling flat out that there is intellectual dishonestly in the research being put out. In the last four years ever graph chart and projection has been strangely absent of a “margin of error” that used to be a permanent fixture for every real scientific publication. You can’t even find them on the researchers website unless you dig through 300 pages of data and sift through the most flimsy of lies for why the data was changed or why stations are left out or why they “chose” to adjust temperatures up. I say, “lies” because if you showed those strings of words to any cop on the street they will tell you that person is lying or has something to conceal.
            Right now there is no way that the global warming narrative being put forth is true. No way. The data showed flat out that there was a dead spot in rising temperatures (which didn’t mean anything to me) until the data was pencil whipped to erase it from the temperature record with “updated” datasets. That’s when I noticed that every other month was “the hottest month on record” but only 0.02 degrees (or some weak s#!) so I went looking for the margin of error for the research being show….vanished….no easy task to find that standard fixture of respected scientific research that I grew up with.
            You can try to keep up the rhetoric but people are starting to see the lies and they don’t need to be scientist to know when the fix is in.

          • Bart_R

            How long have you been afraid of numbers?

            Did one surprise you as a toddler?

            Is that when you started to wear tinfoil hats?

            Oh. Oh. I’m sorry. Is this PTSD?

          • FranklyBlankly

            Oh you were a fountain of scientific knowledge until you were confronted with the discrepancies in the data. Now you turn into a child on the playground? It happens EVERY SINGLE TIME with you jokers. I just told you your numbers don’t jive, so how am I “afraid” of them. Is it because I want to see the margin of error to check the data? Yep, that’s real conspiracy theoryish and in no way is it an accepted method of determining the accuracy of the data being presented. I can find it on the data from investment firms or crime statistics but it is buried in every single scientific reference on climate change within the last few years? So do you have anything to actually refute claims or can I expect more “nanny-nanny-boo-boos” and “no I’m not, you are”? Maybe you would like to check your global warming manifesto handed out by your socialist handlers and see what it says and then get back to me with some fresh material?

          • Bart_R

            Simply, you’re making the claim, “I don’t understand the math, but I don’t like the way it smells.”

            Which is called the argument of personal incredulity, an invalid foundation with no logic backing it up.

            Math isn’t something made up, but flows out of the natural laws of reasoning.

            There are tens of thousands of climate scientists in the world, among them some of the world’s most highly regarded scholars in mathematics. What they say, by a ratio over 10:1 is that the ‘discrepancies in the data’ you are bleating about after picking up your slogans from Willard Watt’s Kool-Aid Stand simply are not what you say they are.

            Check Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature on the claimed discrepancies, and tell me what you think they got wrong?

            Or specifically name a particular ‘discrepancy’ and tell me reasonably why you suspect it, and what sort of layman’s explanation would satisfy your superstitious gut-feeling that there’s something wrong with them.

            Because frankly, blankly, you’re making no sense with you’re I’m-a-cop argument from the authority of the seat of your federally-taxpayer-padded pants.

          • RealOldOne2

            No one is paying any attention to you, because you have been exposed as being dishonest and refusing to admit your mistakes: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133

            The truth hurts, but it is what it is.

          • Bart_R

            If it’s a short drivel-by, how can it be too long?

            Seriously, if you’re not going to even put in the effort to cut and paste your old recycled rants into your usual double digit paragraphs of rambling nonsense, why should I reward you with not paying you the attention you don’t deserve?

          • FranklyBlankly

            Don’t try putting words in my mouth. I said I’m not a scientist but I understand the math well enough to know you can’t average out every single aspect of the data and then there be NO margin of error. The standard baseline that every single dataset uses (1951-1980) is an “estimate” with a margin of error.

            Estimated Jan 1951-Dec 1980 absolute temperature (C): 8.66 +/- 0.07

            [per the website that you provided]

            Now building off of that you can pile on the averaged out readings from individual stations and “homogenized” readings from across the various datasets being used around the world, just to name a few. You are building in uncertainty and to hide it is intellectual dishonestly at the very least.

            My favorite thing about the “man-made global warming” theory is that recently things that “skeptics” have brought up as possible causes of variability, are now being used by the scientists who said it had nothing to do with it. Volcanic activity and solar output were completely ruled out, by the IPCC, as having no effect on climate until they were told flat out that they were dumb for saying it, by your 10:1 (97% consensus LOL) scientists.

            You people have set out to prove your narrative is correct and nothing is going to stop you. You have become numerologist in your pursuit and the desperation is showing through.

            How is it that the “Little Ice Age” is completely ignored when we study modern temperatures? Even in the 1880 – 2015 records we see half of the measurements below the baseline (1951-1980). The narrative being push morphed from “global warming began with the industrial revolution” to “the warming that can be seen since the 1970’s.”

            Whenever the theory is challenged to a point that cannot be refuted, the lie changes to continue on the path that man is the cause via CO2.

            There is no “superstitious gut-feeling.” I’m not dancing around with a chicken foot and chanting. I am trained to find deception and I can’t help but see it in modern climate science. I believed in global warming as it was being presented. Then the theory started to fall apart. IPCC missed its projection by a large margin ( no big deal). So I dug into the data and the whole narrative turned to s#!t. The data doesn’t jive

          • jack dale

            It is clear you have never read an IPCC report.

            There are large sections on natural variability in all reports.

            “What natural factors are important?
            The driving energy for weather and climate comes from the
            Sun The Earth intercepts solar radiation (including that in
            the short-wave, visible, part of the spectrum), about a third
            of it is reflected, the rest is absorbed by the different
            components (atmosphere, ocean, ice, land and biota) of the
            climate system The energy absorbed from solar radiation is
            balanced (in the long term) by outgoing radiation from the
            Earth and atmosphere, this terrestrial radiation takes the
            form of long-wave invisible infrared energy, and its
            magnitude is determined by the temperature of the Earthatmosphere
            system
            There are several natural factors which can change the
            balance between the energy absorbed by the Earth and that
            emitted by it in the form of longwave infrared radiation
            these factors cause the radiative forcing on climate The
            most obvious of these is a change in the output of energy
            from the Sun There is direct evidence of such variability
            over the 11-year solar cycle, and longer period changes
            may also occur Slow variations in the Earth s orbit affect
            the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation
            these were probably responsible for initiating the ice ages.”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

            The LIA is not ignored – from AR5

            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig5-7.jpg.

            Strong warming can be seen from 1970’s because the Clean Air Acts eliminated industrial aerosols associated with the war and post-war boom.

          • Bart_R

            Your objection repeats a slogan from Willard Watt’s Kool-Aid Stand, not actual fact. Of course every peer reviewed academic paper cited by the IPCC, by NASA, by NOAA, by every major government agency, by every major institution of science worldwide, by Exxon includes standard notations on error and uncertainty. Who told you they didn’t?

            And yet meaningful comparisons of like to like remain valid, notwithstanding that there is standard margin of error.

            There are some 50 Essential Climate Variables, per the World Meteorologic Organization. The consilience of trends from so many distinct and generally independent variables across every major dataset across decades and continents climbs to a level of confidence due probabilistic mechanics to higher likelihood than we have for our information on extrasolar planets, the Higgs Boson, or hundreds of other outcomes of scientific research that have been broadly accepted for decades in some cases.

            Your objections make no sense to anyone who routinely works with numbers in this way. They are like hearing someone who has never seen an elephant describe what they think it ought to look like from gut feel.

            Do you even have the least clue how clueless you sound when you use the word homogenized so naively?

            How your claims about heroic skeptics telling climate scientists that volcanoes exist, as if the leading scientists in the field were unaware of such things, ring false?

            You are a vain, bumptious poseur with zero idea of how things ought to sound, who just decided that they don’t sound right to you, out of sheer ignorance and appalling egotism.

            Get over yourself. You can’t even find the deception in your own mind.

          • Evan Jones

            Afraid f the numbers? I’m not.

          • Bart_R

            Dude, READ HARDER.

          • Evan Jones

            Add better.

          • Evan Jones

            The end of the Younger Dryas saw massive warming in one or two decades. Look at the graph and compare slopes with today.

          • Bart_R

            In one or two decades?

            Try two to three centuries so far as paleoclimate has the granularity to confirm, and again, regional, limited to perhaps one eighth of the globe.

            However, if you’re right, then that bespeaks massively high Climate Sensitivity in the fat tail, likely on the order of double conventional estimates.

            Which corner do you suggest you’ve painted yourself into: high CS, or historic variability much lower than today?

        • pauls

          You are simply wrong. From 11k years ago to 8k years ago oceans rose 20x faster than current

          • Bart_R

            EHSLR spanned over 4600 years.

            20x 0.2 m x46 centuries would mean you’re contending sea levels rose 150 meters?

            Not even close.

            Though EHSLR was remarkable, it also corresponded to a smaller CO2 rise (and over a much longer duration) than the rapid shock to CO2 level currently ongoing.

            SLR is accelerating and nonlinear. What sort of mind risks precipitating what he believes to be over 150 meters of SLR (let me guess, your math tells you a mere 60 meters, because you discount modern SLR records?)?

  • pauls

    Almost nobody really believes in agw…certainly not the clowns in Paris. A belief is not the same as an idea. An idea is a thought you think might be true. A “belief” is a conviction in the truth of something sufficiently to form principle by which a person lives their lives. If those clowns in Paris this week “believed” in agw they would not dump the tons of carbon taking their personal jets, they would be home using Skype. But there are virtually no real believers. There few people who are willing to suffer and sacrifice in order to live in a manner consistent with a belief that co2 is destroying the planet. The true measure of a man’s belief is not his words but his actions….and the actions of even the most vocal agw proponents betrays them and shows thier hypocrisy.

  • RealOldOne2

    Oh my, the Bart_R climate cult fanatic troll has shown up.
    He’s a typical climate cult zealot who posts dishonest propaganda, and tells porkies (I have a long list from my interactions with him) and when presented with irrefutable evidence of his mistakes and false and dishonest statements, rather than acting like a sane, rational adult, he behaves like a doomsday cultist who has been shown that he is wrong, and clings to his mistakes, turning them into lies.
    “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

    An example of the dishonest propaganda he posts is found here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2386241149 where he claims “ALL datasets show climate warming to be accelerating”. He links to a graph that plots 30yr running averages to HIDE the fact that datasets actually show that global warming has been DEcelerating, even the corrupted-by-adjustments ones. You could use that same dishonest technique to show that the globe continues to cool from the Holocene climatic optimum if you used a long enough averaging period.

  • ohforheavensake
    • lookout1

      It appears you are the guys that need to constantly change data to fit the theory ..

      • Two Americas

        Don’t you mean constantly change the theory to match the data?

        • Evan Jones

          Yet it is not the theory that is changing. it is the data.

          • jack dale

            Actually they both changing. It is sort of a symbiotic relationship.

          • Evan Jones

            Hmm. Arguably.

            But if the IPCC AR4 / IPCC AR5 change is any indication, it is going in the opposite direction of the adjustments.

          • jack dale

            You are being rather obtuse. Care to elucidate.

          • Evan Jones

            Lower end projections reduced from 2C to 1.5C, reduction of likelihood of high-end projections, and a radical backtrack on “extreme weather”.

            But you knew all that, I’m sure.

          • Two Americas

            Theory has been continually evolving.

        • lookout1

          Well it seems as more of the models diverge from observed reality the more certain they become of said models

          If Nasa had the same accuracy as the AGW models for the Apollo program; rockets would have shot off like a Wyle-e-coyote acme rocket, crashed in mexico.. and then said… SEE CLOSE ENOUGH!!

  • Owen_Morgan

    Let’s just abolish the UN.

    • jack dale

      Nope. Let’s abolish the nation state.

      • Evan Jones

        The populations of said nation states might tend to object at this time.

        • jack dale

          The nation state is a fairly new social invention (18th century). “Think globally, act locally” has no need for it. African nations states, in particular, are artifacts of colonialism.

          • Evan Jones

            (Shrug.)

          • Owen_Morgan

            The English nation-state has existed since the tenth century.

            The problem with African states is that they rarely correspond to African nations. Having said that, Latin American borders are pretty random (there are very few of them that aren’t disputed), but Latin Americans are intensely nationalistic. You wouldn’t get many takers for abolishing the “nation-state” there. Bolivar thought he could create one great South American state (plus Panama). Look how well that worked out.

          • Owen_Morgan

            African roads, railways, hospitals, airports and schools are artefacts of colonialism, as well. I see that you prefer “artifacts”, so I am guessing that ignorance is favoured by anti-colonialism, too.

          • Evan Jones

            Perhaps in the future things will change. But until then, I will leave the decision up to the populations in question. As per the Freedom Thing.

      • Owen_Morgan

        Yeah, we could put everyone into one big blob and called it a”caliphate”, or “Soviet Union”. We could try amalgamating nation-states into bite-sized chunks and call them things like “Yugoslavia” and then see how they get on.

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    Climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions programmed, 102 times Playstation 64 used by Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC

    vs

    Reality times 6, 2 satellite data-sets confirmed by 4 weather balloon data-sets, total millions of measurements.

    https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

    No matter how much you bend the language, this is real evidence for low climate sensitivity to CO2.
    Our emissions of CO2 has risen over 53% over the last 2 decades, temperature didn’t even blink.

    “Abstract

    This paper presents observed atmospheric thermal and humidity structures and global scale simulations of the infrared absorption properties of the earth’s atmosphere. These data show that the global average clear sky greenhouse effect has remained unchanged with time. A theoretically predicted infrared optical thickness is fully consistent with, and supports the observed value. It also facilitates the theoretical determination of the planetary radiative equilibrium cloud cover, cloud altitude and Bond albedo. In steady state, the planetary surface (as seen from space) shows no greenhouse effect: the all-sky surface upward radiation is equal to the available solar radiation.

    The all-sky climatological greenhouse effect (the difference of the all-sky surface upward flux and absorbed solar flux) at this surface is equal to the reflected solar radiation. The planetary radiative balance is maintained by the equilibrium cloud cover which is equal to the theoretical equilibrium clear sky transfer function. The Wien temperature of the all-sky emission spectrum is locked closely to the thermodynamic triple point of the water assuring the maximum radiative entropy.
    The stability and natural fluctuations of the global average surface temperature of the heterogeneous system are ultimately determined by the phase changes of water. Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

    The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.” https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/11/27/if-you-can-see-it/

    The sun provide the heat, the sun moderate the cosmic rays .. Derivation of the entire 33°C greenhouse effect withoutradiative forcing from greenhouse gases, ref.: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/11/derivation-of-entire-33c-greenhouse.html

    Pinker et al 2005; https://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850

    Svensmark et al 2007; http://www.icr.org/article/new-theory-climate-change/

    http://notrickszone.com/2015/10/06/eight-recent-papers-overshadow-co2-warming-hypothesis-solidify-evidence-of-svensmarks-solar-amplifier-theory/#sthash.qPgyRbWv.dpbs

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/henrik-svensmark/

    https://www.google.no/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=US9eVsesJIuA8QfKzZmwDg&gws_rd=ssl#q=Svensmark+et+al

    Conclusion, undeniable conclusion; the sun control the climate, if you think humans control the climate, you must think humans control the sun!

    https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/11/29/control/

    • Evan Jones

      I see you cite Dr. Christy’s graph. (He’s a co-author of mine and has testified before congress concerning my findings and those of our team. For which he has been targeted for investigation by Rep. Grijalva and others. Dr. Curry has been, too, come to think of it.)

      • falstaff77

        Senator Whitehouse (D, RI) is a public servant of the most serious kind, who asks only the most informed and principled questions in pursuit of truth, eschewing irrelevant distractions like attacks on the messenger and demagoguery. See for example the questioning of Dr Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, U of A, Hunstville. in a 2013 Senate climate committee hearing.

        Whitehouse: Do you believe that the theory of creation has a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution?
        Dr Spencer: And why are we going in this direction?
        Whitehouse: Because its something you’ve said.

        Whoops, the Senator has clearly been body snatched by an internet troll. It happens.

        http://www.senate.gov/isvp/?type=live&comm=epw&filename=epw071813

        • jack dale

          Spencer is an avowed Creationist

          http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

          I suspect that his religious views affect his views on climate change; that is clear from his endorsement of and work with the Cornwall Alliance.

          • falstaff77

            I think Spencer is an old earth, God wound the clock and let it run creationist. But ok, as long as you have suspicions, Senator Whitehouse has done his job well. Never mind the data.

            Spencer:“… incorrectly assumes that I support the wording of all of the positions of the Cornwall Alliance, as stated in their Cornwall Declaration. But the Director of the Cornwall Alliance knows I don’t. We’ve discussed it.”

          • jack dale

            He signed the Evangelical Declaration.

            http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

            #35

            So which positions does he not support?

          • falstaff77

            Spencer has an answer for you, because he exists to answer your questions about his associations the nature of his faith, and to quell your suspicions:

            “Do your own damn Google search.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/science-and-religion-do-your-own-damn-google-search/

            In some years hence if you get around to questions or criticisms about, say, climate, the satellite temperature record versus the CMIP models come back here and we can talk.

          • jack dale
          • falstaff77

            Not seen. You have eyes, yes, yet you do not see.

          • jk

            Nice graph. Too bad it will be followed by deafening silence from all the trolls.

          • Evan Jones

            Sou and I go back a bit. (We are quite cordial to each other.)

            He starts the graph at the point of divergence. It is quite in line with the original AR5 graph, actually. (The one that was subsequently dickered with at the insistence of the politicos.)

          • RealOldOne2

            Hotwhopper!
            No wonder you are so ignorant of climate science, getting your pseudoscience from a propaganda website. hahahahahaha

          • Evan Jones

            Does he say the earth was created 6000ya? (No. But that’s what you clearly imply.) He believes god created the earth ~4.5 bya, like all reasonable religious people (including 80% of scientists), and that god saw it along.

            As for me, being without benefit of invisible friend, I don’t have anything to reconcile. (So there I am. Going against the consensus yet again.)

          • jack dale

            Did I say he was a young earth creationist?

          • Evan Jones

            Certainly not. But I think you implied it by saying he was a creationist. If you had merely said he was religious, that would not have carried any noticeable weight. You need to be careful about that.

          • jack dale

            I did not imply, you inferred.

          • Evan Jones

            Spencer is an avowed Creationist

            And what would the readers of such a comment infer?

            And you avowed.

          • jack dale

            Nope.

          • http://wermenh.com/index.html Ric Werme

            I’ve met Roy, and I haven’t seen any impact of his religious on his science. He’s not a creationist in the Earth was created in 4004 BC mold, he quite agrees with the age estimates from geology and astrodynamics. What he does have a problem with is he thinks 3.5 billion years isn’t _long_ enough for evolution to have produced the variety and complexity we have today.

            I think it is long enough, but I’d have trouble putting forth a good description of how some microbial mat in Australia managed to create humans out of it. About the best I could do is point to the number of times vision has evolved and how octopus eyes are much like ours (except they have blood vessels behind the retina, where they should be).

            All in all, Roy is one of the nicest guys on either side of the debate. He’s also very careful with his science. We could use a few more like him.

          • jack dale

            Spencer, Watts, Curry and I also share a disdain for the Sky Dragon Slayers at PSI. I like Spencer list of arguments that skeptics should not use.

            With Curry, I make repeated references to the posts that Zeke Hausfather wrote about temperature adjustments. I agree with her that Goddard’s analysis is “bogus” and “highly problematic.”

            As for religion, I am a highly spiritual agnostic with a “faith” in science.

          • http://wermenh.com/index.html Ric Werme

            I’d say go for more than disdain toward the Slayers. :-)

      • jk

        A co-author on your “research” that was rejected by every reputable journal after getting taken to the woodshed during the peer-review process.

        Evan, care to elaborate on your own academic training in climate science? What about your published track record? You are very eager to cite your “research” in many of your postings so it only seems fair to provide the relevant info on whether or not you qualify as a reputable source.

        Btw, most of Pielke Sr.’s public work is quite supportive of the IPCC/consensus view on global warming.

        • Evan Jones

          Btw, most of Pielke Sr.’s public work is quite supportive of the IPCC/consensus view on global warming.

          I think you mean “Jr.”

          • jk

            To be honest, I appreciate your candor. Your training and track record speaks for itself, and I don’t think it highlights you as a credible source vis-à-vis some of the other studies being presented in the discussion. Nothing personal, just a simple observation.

    • Icarus62

      Reality is that observations of global temperature are well in line with projections from climate models going back more than three decades.

      https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/f2c014d08c17cfa0bb0ff98cc53110612f0b4825bc166d4230621d10/original.jpg

      http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/JH1981vsobsmygraph-116567751702.jpeg

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    Inconvenient Facts About Global Warming | Alex Epstein and Stefan Molyneux

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82W41de4TT4

  • FranklyBlankly

    You don’t have to be a scientist to know the fix is in. No margin of error is ever posted for the research being put out is your key indicator. When you say that “this month or year is the hottest on record since 1880” but the change is 0.02 difference from the last record you better post the margin of error for such a small increment. They don’t post it anymore because they are hiding the true data. The Little Ice Age ended in 1850-ish….wouldn’t we in fact expect to see a warming trend? All of the desperation to push the global warming legislation around the world is another key indicator that we are on the verge of a cooling trend that cannot be hidden.

  • DennisHorne

    Goodness me! All those world leaders in Paris simply won’t listen to sceptics who want certainty where none will exist until it’s too late. They think it’s time to at least discuss the problem. Mind you, few sceptics have an even modestly plausible argument that Earth doesn’t retain much more energy with substantial increases in CO2; no wonder they feel ignored and irrelevant. Hurt.

    The elephant in the room is the burgeoning population. Eventually we’ll need to formulate a breeding programme.

    We’re put on Earth to help other people. What other people are here for I have no idea. (W H Auden)

    He was probably thinking of RealOldFool.

    • Evan Jones

      They think it’s time to at least discuss the problem.

      You don’t think skeptics are willing to discuss the problem? Really?

      • DennisHorne

        Come on. The tenor of deniers’ comments is there is no problem. They shriek the science is fake, AGW is a conspiracy to take their money and control their lives. They hurl abuse at ‘opponents’ without wit or remorse.

        Curry is just trying to have two bob each way.

        • Evan Jones

          Judith Curry does solid science and calls ’em as she see’s ’em — at the cost of the death of career advancement.

  • DennisHorne

    deleted by DH

  • Lickylick

    There won’t be any backing down from the absurd by the world leaders and the UN because they are all deniers of reality and they are in love with control and money they steal from those who actually make the world go round, the people who are taxed to oblivion to pay for their corruptions and greed.

    • Evan Jones

      Who cares if the politicians don’t back down? It is the scientific community that concerns me. And there is a whole heck of a lot of backing down in the peer-review literature on this subject. I’ve been watching it happen.

      Even IPCC AR5 (2012) is a backdown from AR4 (2007).

      These things take a little time.

  • Lickylick

    If you look up to the sky and notice a bright blinding hot light, it is the source of all global warming of any significance. Aka the sun.

    • Evan Jones

      Like I say, the offset is not the question, here. The devil is in the deltas. TSI has changed very little over the centuries. But there are other aspects that may well have (such as UV, the 10.7 cm flux, etc.) and appear to be changing now.

      I am agnostic on solar. The jury is out. So we wait and see. Time will tell.

      • jack dale
        • RealOldOne2

          “The jury has acquitted the sun.”
          Sorry, but only considering TSI at the top of the atmosphere is either purposeful deception or ideological blindness. What counts is how much solar radiation reaches the surface of the Earth. And peer reviewed empirical science shows that during the late 20th century, 2.7 to 5 W/m^2 of additional solar radiation forcing reached the surface of the Earth. Also contributing were warm phases of ocean cycles.

          1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.

          2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/trend

          3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

          This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

          This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

          This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

          The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

          4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

          This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 12 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

          “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’

          The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
          • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
          • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
          • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
          • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
          This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

          Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
          • Warm phase of the PDO :
          http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
          http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
          http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
          http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
          • Warm phase of the AMO :
          https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
          &
          • Predominance of El Ninos:
          http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
          http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

          More evidence that YOU are the science denier.
          You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your whole climate cult religion is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models.

        • Evan Jones

          Actually, if solar does have a significant effect, it would go far towards bolstering the original claims of the alarmists.

          • jack dale

            Huh?

          • Evan Jones

            It would be a good excuse for the slower-than-expected warming trend.

            Dr. Trenberth has already blamed the pause on declining solar activity.

          • jack dale

            The “pause” is new, you said “original”.

            Really – I thought Trenberth buried the heat in the oceans. 😉

            Solar activity account for about 10% of climate change, and it is declining; but no enough to initiate any cooling.

            The sun’s activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don’t expect a little ice age. “Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment,” Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. “We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years.”

            Lockwood and his colleagues are reassessing the chances of this decline continuing over decades to become the first “grand solar minimum” for four centuries. During a grand minimum the normal 11-year solar cycle is suppressed and the sun has virtually no sunspots for several decades. This summer should have seen a peak in the number of sunspots, but it didn’t happen.

            But Lockwood says we should not expect a new grand minimum to bring on a new little ice age.Human-induced global warming, he says, is already a more important force in global temperatures than even major solar cycles. “

          • Evan Jones

            The “pause” is new, you said “original”.

            Exactly.

            Really – I thought Trenberth buried the heat in the oceans. 😉

            He did before he didn’t.

          • Icarus62

            Except that it’s not slower than expected, as you’ve agreed numerous times.

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/f2c014d08c17cfa0bb0ff98cc53110612f0b4825bc166d4230621d10/original.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            No matter how many times you post that FAKED graph it won’t change the reality that the climate models have FAILED, based on real world observations.

            “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013)

      • DennisHorne

        Sounds ever so reasonable. Problem is, you seem to be, well, how can I put it … wrong.

        You want to ride a high horse but stumble at the first hurdle.

        • Evan Jones

          Speaking personally, I prefer mudslogging through the data.

    • Icarus62

      Not according to the evidence. You could see what the solar physicists think:

      The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings.”
      Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II.

      Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich.

      In other words, the sun’s influence by itself has been one of cooling, while the Earth has warmed rapidly, so the warming cannot be due to the sun.

      • RealOldOne2

        “so the warming cannot be due to the sun.”
        The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth increased by 2.7-5W/m^2 during the late 20th century due to reduced global mean cloud amount. That was 6-12 times the increase in CO2 forcing during that same time. Hatzianastassiou(2005), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014). http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388873427

        It is ludicrous to say that the late 20th century warming cannot be due to the sun.

        • Icarus62

          I’ve explained this to you before.

          We know that the Earth’s present day greenhouse effect is almost entirely comprised of forcings from non-condensing GHGs such as CO₂, CH₄, N₂O and CFCs (25%), and feedback from water vapour (50%) and clouds (25%). See figure below. Schmidt et al 2010 and Lacis et al 2010.

          So a GHG forcing, for example from an increase in atmospheric CO₂, will be amplified by the feedback from water vapour (via the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship) and clouds.

          We already know that the water vapour feedback has been empirically observed and in agreement with predictions (around 7% increase in specific humidity per °C of global warming). Your cited research seems to be empirical verification of the cloud feedback.

          We know that the global warming of the last half century cannot be attributed to any significant effect from natural climate forcings or internal variability, and that only the large and positive anthropogenic forcings can account for the bulk of this warming (IPCC AR5 Chapter 10). Look at Figure 10.5 and associated text. It’s pretty simple:

          Observed global warming for 1951 – 2010 is ~0.65°C.
          Likely warming due to anthropogenic forcings is 0.7 ± 0.1°C.
          Likely warming due to natural forcings is 0 ± 0.1°C.

          In other words, the evidence shows that the most likely contribution of anthropogenic forcings to the 1951 – 2010 global warming is 100%, and the most likely natural contribution is zero. The maximum plausible natural contribution is 0.1°C. The minimum plausible anthropogenic contribution is 0.6°C. You can see that these ranges are nowhere near overlapping, so the result is statistically significant by a huge margin.

          AGW is a proven fact by rigorous scientific standards.

          “It is interesting to note that given the variability in the models, the anthropogenic signal is now more than 5σ over what would have been expected naturally (and if it’s good enough for the Higgs Boson….)”

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/comment-page-4/

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20101014/488311main_feedback-forcings.jpg

          • RealOldOne2

            Icky, you rebutted NONE of the peer reviewed empirical science that I posted (
            http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388873427
            ) which shows that there was 6-12 times more NATURAL climate forcing than anthropogenic forcing during the late 20th century.

            All you’re doing is spewing absolute BS global warming propaganda dogmas that have no support by empirical peer reviewed science!

            The empirical data proves you wrong.
            Your positive water vapor feedback is BS, because water vapor has been decreasing as CO2 has increased through the entire 21st century. The empirical data shows that water vapor feedback is negative. Here’s the empirical data: http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png

            Fig.10.5 and your claimed warming breakdowns is BS, because it is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models which can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level. “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections, even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013)

            “In other words, the evidence shows that the most likely contribution of
            anthropogenic forcings to the 1951 – 2010 global warming is 100%, and
            the most likely natural contribution is zero.”
            That is absolute BS, based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models. I showed you peer reviewed empirical science which shows 2.7-5W/m^2 of NATURAL climate forcing during the late 20th century warming period, versus a maximum of 0.4W/m^2 of CO2 forcing. You IGNORE this peer reviewed empirical data and can rebut NONE of it.

            You are denying reality. The flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models do NOT represent reality.

            Once again you demonstrate that you are an ideologically blinded, climate cult zealot who is defending his failed climate cult religion with jihadist zeal. You aren’t doing science, as you deny empirical data and rather BELIEVE fantasies from flawed, faulty models.
            Take you chanting of your false dogmas back to your climate cult revival meetings and your la-la land of unreality. They won’t fly here in the real world where we do science with empirical data.

            You have been discredited as a a dishonest, climate cult zealot who denies reality: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388659377

    • jack dale

      You had better take your Cult of Ra beliefs up with the solar scientists.

      From the Stanford Solar Center:

      During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth’s climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

      A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

      http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/2009RG000282.pdf

  • Nemo

    “…her trenchant critique of the supposed consensus on global warming is not derived from warped ideology”

    A key point. An important tenet of science as a whole is ‘doubt everything’. If Professor Curry derives her standpoint from data and evidence, then she has every right to voice her findings. Shutting down opposition is becoming more widespread in academia in every sphere. Academic freedom is essential if progress is the goal, unless of course, like David Rose says, an academic’s ‘findings’ have no basis in fact. People, and even academics, want to teach ‘Creationism’ in American schools. Now that is worth shutting down in every possible way.

    • Evan Jones

      Shutting down opposition is becoming more widespread in academia in every sphere.

      Tell me about it. (MA, US History, Columbia University, 1986)

      People, and even academics, want to teach ‘Creationism’ in American schools. Now that is worth shutting down in every possible way.

      That’s a sword that cuts both ways.

      • Ian Deal

        The Progressive left is destroying the framework of science, as the Replication Project so clearly illustrates (Ph.D. Georgia Tech). Creationism isn’t a threat to science since it can be easily debated. But if you say that one cannot discuss Creationism then you are anti-science. Everyone thinks they are Galileo, but they are really the Catholic Church, wanting to enforce popular thought and suppress anything that challenges their assumptions or world view. Climate science is in its infancy. Current models are woefully inadequate. The complexity of the global climate system has so many local, regional, and global feedback loops that we are decades from mapping, much less understanding. For someone to say “the science is settled” is a thousand times worse than someone who argues for Creationism.

        • DennisHorne

          But there is a difference between debating creationism as ‘science’ and teaching it as a this-is-what-happened fact to impressionable young children.

          The problem Curry has is she appeals to the deniers but the scientists mock her science, now at least.

          The phrase ‘the science is settled’ means there is a consensus. The balance of informed opinion is that emitting CO2 is causing Earth to retain more energy. It doesn’t mean there is no uncertainty or questions to be answered.

          • Evan Jones

            Hmm. Who gets to decide who is a “scientist” and who is a “denier”?

        • Brekfast_newz

          “Creationism isn’t a threat to science since it can be easily debated.”

          Not sure I agree. The pseudoscientific arguments of Creationism can be easily debated, yes, but the fundmental tenets of Creationism – the source of the conviction, the driver of the misdirected research funding – cannot be debated being a matter of faith. Rather, the debate is predetermined in the mind of the believer.

          This would be fine if it were a purely philosophical discussion, but the same faith-based driver is where its power lies politically. Hence the belief system short-cuts the need for scientific interrogation and is enforced, vertically, by schools and churches – tolerated or even supported, in certain states, by government. It is not the ethos or the idea which “needs shutting down” – intemperate words as these seem – but the influence of centuries-old belief on political decisions of a scientfic, health, or judicial nature.

          I accept that democratic principles play a part in that influence (albeit that the role of elected officials, i.e. to act in the best interests of the people they represent, is not confined to their own voters, nor to safeguarding their own political careers). But voters’ beliefs should be no concern of scientists or doctors – the same way that the best justice requires that judges be unelected.

          Creationism is a threat to science because scientists cannot argue against it except on empirical terms, and should not have to. The Old Testament is a threat to science in the same way it is a threat to civil rights, or the way sharia is a threat to justice. Such issues can be debated scientifically, morally, or legally: but these humanist ideologies are ultimately powerless against faith.

          • Ian Deal

            A false debate between science and religion has emerged as people in both spheres confuse their disciplines. Many of our greatest scientists have been devout Christians and Jews, and many people flip flop from atheist to believer and believer to atheist. Creationism is not science per se, because it assumes the consequent. But the creationist folks (and Intelligent Design folks) understand that they have to play by the rules of science. Typically, this does not end well for them. You are completely correct that there are democratic implications, especially in school curriculums. This is why it is critical for scientists and religious people to stay in their lanes, even if they are the same person. Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian priest and mathematician, was the first to propose the Big Bang creation of the universe. When Pope Pius XII contended that Lemaitre’s work provided proof of God’s existence, Lemaitre insisted that his theory was neutral and admonished the Pope not to politicize his work.

    • Bart_R

      Argumentum ad Ignoratio is agnotology, not science.

      Curry’s position isn’t the prudent, ‘doubt everything’ a scientist holds, but rather she embraces ‘doubt is everything’.

      Doubt isn’t everything. Science holds doubtlessly accurate or most nearly true that proposition of pure inference explaining all phenomena observed given simplest possible (but no simpler) base assumptions, parsimony of exception, and universal logic of like parts of like things until new phenomena create sufficient doubt to require amended or new explanation.

      By this method, every generation of scientific knowledge allows new knowledge to be built on the old, even while honing and self-correcting, a process Dr. Curry’s approach explicitly blocks and makes impossible.

  • Brekfast_newz

    Interesting piece, but its value as journalism would have increased 100% if you’d sought – and included – one single comment from any member of the consensus scientific community about whether Prof Curry had in fact been shunned by her peers, and if so why (in their opinion). Instead what you’re left with is an ideologically-motivated argument with a premeditated conclusion and no room for scepticism or debate – in short, exactly what this piece is supposedly decrying.

    • Evan Jones

      You had to be there. I saw it happen.

      It even has its fingerprint in the UEA emails.

      • Brekfast_newz

        I’m not commenting on the underlying facts – I’m not in a position to! What Prof Curry describes sounds awful (and worryingly contrary to all principles of good science). I’m just appealing to David Rose and his colleagues – on all sides of the media coverage – to practise what they preach.

        I know those putting out the consensus view on climate change rarely feel the need to qualify it by reference to a minority view, which I appreciate must be frustrating for those who hold it. But taking the grievances of a ‘lone wolf’ or ‘outcast’ and not placing them in the context of their peers’ views – on the individual as much as the issue – makes this less of a rounded, complete piece of reporting. And this mentality of chasing the interesting maverick view can be damaging: look at the way elements of the media campaigned over MMR/autism scare stories, for example.
        As I said, I’m not saying Prof Curry is anything other than a fine scientist engaging in dialogue with dissentors for the best of reasons. But I’d like to hear the comments of the “tribe” on why they “tossed her out”, even so.

        • Bart_R

          Your views are broadly supported by the scholarship.

          One survey of climate scientists finds that, while number of publications on the topic increases — reflecting author expertise — one’s views of the dominance of the role of CO2 in climate change tend toward the highest estimates the contrary trend, those with the lowest estimate of CO2’s role tend to report being most sought by the popular media for public comment.

        • Evan Jones

          I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s [sic] she’s doing, but its [sic] not helping the cause. — Dr. Mann

          • Zed381

            ‘not helping the cause’

            … as in promoting Mark Steyn’s book on her blog, where he calls Dr. Mann a fraud.

            A Disgrace to the Profession: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E Mann, his Hockey Stick and their Damage to Science – Volume One

            If thats not a reason to give up on JC, I can’t think of anything more compelling then promoting such a sleazy book.

          • jack dale

            An op-ed on Fox did not help. Will we see her on Alex Jones next?

            BTW – I thought she would do better than that since has found the Sky Dragon Slayers to be an embarrassment and called Goodard’s analysis “”bogus” and “highly problematic.”

            I am embarrassed that Steyn is Canadian.

          • Zed381

            lol, Alex Jones… perfect. I don’t get Steyn, I’ve read some pieces he’s done that were intelligent. But this is just gutter level. I know its a long shot, but I hope Mann’s lawyers win their lawsuit against him. From what I can gather Steyn’s lawyers argument boils down to ‘ our client is an idiot, who’s entitled to be wrong’.

          • RealOldOne2

            I’m sure the rational, sane, Canadians are embarrassed that YOU are a Canadian.

  • Icarus62

    Contrary to Spencer and Christy’s misrepresentation of the facts, it’s interesting to note how closely the UAH satellite temperature series is tracking projections from all four previous IPCC reports. Those projections were for surface temperature, not atmospheric temperature, but we would expect the trends to be similar, given the close coupling between temperature of the surface and temperature of the troposphere:

    • Evan Jones

      Try this one. From the leaked version of IPCC AR5 first draft. Before the politicians saw it and went ballistic.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png

      • Icarus62

        Have the projections changed? Have the observed trends changed? Not really. The final chart was just a clearer way of presenting the comparison of projections with observations.

        • RealOldOne2

          “Have the projections changed?”
          No, they use the same exaggerated climate sensitivity and exaggerated effects of CO2 in their models, so the projections are just as far from reality as the earlier projections.

          “Have the observed trends changed?”
          Not the ones from the satellites. Just the land-ocean ones because of the corrupted-by-adjustment fake temperatures.

          Here is what Hansen has said about the real world forcings:
          – “Emissions grew 2%/year over the past decade.” – Hansen(2005) ‘Is There Still Time to Avoid ‘Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference’ with Global Climate?’
          – “The growth rate of fossil fuel emissions increased from 1.5%/year during 1980-2000 to 3%/year in 2000-2012, mainly because of increased coal use.” – Hansen(2013) ‘Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature’

          This SAR Fig. 6.13 shows the projected increases in global mean temperatures from the models with varying CO2 growth rates. According to the climate models, using Hansen’s own 3% growth in CO2 rate, the models project that we should have seen ~1.3C of warming since the beginning of the 21st century. The satellite data shows that there has been a slight cooling so far during the 21st century.

          You are delusionally denying reality to claim that actual temperatures are tracking with the previous model projections.
          Note too, that the IPCC model projections do NOT project any ~19 year flat period of no rise:

          • Icarus62

            So you acknowledge that IPCC projections have actually been remarkably accurate, whether we’re talking about land/ocean metrics, or lower troposphere by satellite, or lower troposphere by radiosonde. All of the observations are well in line with predictions. Thanks for admitting that.

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/f2c014d08c17cfa0bb0ff98cc53110612f0b4825bc166d4230621d10/original.jpg

            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaupload/tmp/5965f60089bc0faaa7f40dafc01bff74f3f941b910aa78c325d35ffa/original.jpg

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/985dfa1e18f4bf213ac0b7eba5b6e7c3a150d0301184c57c11f70b7b428d20c1.png

          • RealOldOne2

            “So you acknowledge that the IPCC projections have actually been remarkably accurate”
            ROTFLMAO @ your delusional denial of reality!
            No you dishonest dupe, I acknowledge no such things, as my comments clearly indicate.
            I’m sorry that you are so delusional to believe that when the models predicted there would be 1.3C of warming, but there has actually been slight COOLING that means that “the IPCC projections have actually been remarkably accurate”.

            I’m not that delusional. Only a delusional nutjob dishonest climate cult fanatic would believe that.

            But we know that you are a dishonest misrepresenter based on your own word. I exposed your dishonesty here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388659377

          • Icarus62

            You clearly cannot dispute the fact that the warming trends from surface, satellite and radiosonde series are well in line with IPCC projections.

          • RealOldOne2

            The empirical measured DATA proves the IPCC projections wrong.

            So sad that you are so ideologically blinded that you deny the reality that the models have failed miserably and can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level.

            Peer reviewed science accepts that: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013)

            You have discredited yourself by your dishonesty as documented here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388659377

          • Icarus62
          • RealOldOne2

            “Seems you’re wrong.”
            Sorry, but no matter how many times you post a FAKED graph, it won’t make it true.

            Eight months ago you weren’t claiming that the actual temperatures were in agreement with the IPCC’s model projection. You were explaining why the actual temperatures were LOWER than the model projections. You said: “so you would expect warming to be slightly LOWER too” (documented evidence of that found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11456612/BBCs-climate-change-stance-in-brazen-defiance-of-the-law.html#comment-1915062183)

            Now that your misrepresentation was exposed as false, you are spinning a new lie to peddle your global warming religion. So sad.

            So it seems you are just lying again, as I exposed that you did here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388659377

          • Icarus62

            “Eight months ago you weren’t claiming that the actual temperatures were in agreement with the IPCC’s model projection.”

            No, indeed I wasn’t, because we weren’t talking about IPCC models at all in that discussion, but about James Hansen’s 1988 projections.

            Seems it’s you who is doing the misrepresentation here.

          • RealOldOne2

            “because we weren’t talking about IPCC models at all in that discussion, but about James Hansen’s 1988 projections.”
            Come on now Icky, have you no shame?
            You are denying reality and spinning another WHOPPER!
            The IPCC used the Hansen(1988)’s GISS climate model, so you are blowing smoke out your tailpipe.

            Hansen(1988) ‘Global Climate Changes as Forecast by the Goddard Institute of Space S tudies Three Dimensional Model’ That is the GISS model.

            From IPCC FAR:
            – “Barnett (1990) compared observed data with the time evolved spatial fields from the GISS transient GCM run (Hansen. et al 1988)” SAME model dupe.
            – The GISS model is one of the eight models listed in Table 4.2 in the section ‘Validation of Climate Models’.
            – From the section on “Processes and Modeling” – “References – … Hansen J … , 1988 Global Climate Changes as Forecast by GISS’s Three Dimensional Model”

            From IPCC SAR:
            – From the chapter 5 “Climate Models – Evaluation”, “Information from eleven of these coupled model integrations (… GISS1…)”
            – Every table in chapter 5 “Climate Models – Evaluation”, Table 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4. 5.5 included the GISS model.

            Really Icky. You must fabricate better LIES than that easy-to-debunk one.

            Yet ANOTHER example of your serial dishonesty. So sad. But so typical of delusional, duped, scientifically illiterate doomsday climate cult zealots.

          • Evan Jones

            We cannot blame Dr.Hansen (his antics notwithstanding) for not including in 1988 that which was not discovered by science until 1996.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            No, Icky.

            What you mean to say is “You clearly cannot believe the fact that the warming trends from surface, satellite and radiosonde series are even close to IPCC projections.

            Why do you keep posting complete drivel that makes it clear you don’t have a clue?

        • Evan Jones

          Have the projections changed?

          Obviously. (And AR5, quaintly, declines to provide a likely median probability.)

          Have the observed trends changed? Not really.

          Why, no. (Only the adjustments thereof.)

      • Bart_R

        When a graph is produced by a denier among the IPCC contributors, submitted to draft, fails to pass muster on reliability, and is then ‘leaked’, that’s hardly a trick that fools anyone.

        You should see Donald Trump’s leaked birth certificate.

        • RealOldOne2

          Sorry Bart, but you have produced NO evidence who contributed that graph.

          You are merely making up lies, as you have been exposed as doing before here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133

          • Bart_R

            Didn’t I fire you as my troll for infidelity, like, a year ago?

            If I can’t be your sole obsession, why should I be your obsession at all?

        • Evan Jones

          Are you saying this was planted by a “denier” (what an ugly word)? You are certainly implying that.

          And if so, why hasn’t the IPCC denied it?

          • Bart_R

            You can’t say Tol hasn’t done more than his share of this sort of thing.

            So it’s as likely a surmise as that the graph might be a legitimate representation ‘whitewashed’ for illegitimate purposes. Most especially considering other comments that show that your view simply holds no water.

          • Evan Jones

            It speaks for itself.

          • Bart_R

            res ipsa loquitur

            The principle that the occurence of a mistake implies negligence.

            Why are you so repeatedly negligent about facts and sources?

            Preferring drafts over final versions, corrupted secondary sources over original citations, less accurate over more accurate data..

            These imply dishonest, or at least dishonorable, motive on your part.

          • Evan Jones

            I stand on my dishonorable dishonesty. The numbers agree.

          • Bart_R

            Which numbers agree?

          • jack dale

            Alec Rawls, who released the draft, is a nut case denier. I usually use denialist, but denier is a better term in his case.

            http://www.rawls.org/

          • Evan Jones

            Then why hasn’t the IPCC denied it? (He asked again.)

          • jack dale

            Denied what?

          • Evan Jones

            Denied that said graph came from the original draft of IPCC AR5.

          • jack dale

            Why would they deny it?

            The graph is out of context. Contextomy seems to be a stock device for the denialist community.

          • Evan Jones

            Why would they deny it?

            The would deny it if it wasn’t true. Early and often. With volume.

            The graph is out of context.

            Why, yes. With the narrative.

          • jack dale

            The narrative of the text is the context.

            That is like folks who do not get the the first IPCC report used 10% as ice coverage when looking at the graph on page 224.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Alec Rawls, who released the draft, is a nut case denier”
            Irrelevant. The graph is what is relevant, and the IPCC has never disclaimed it as not being a genuine part of the Second Order Draft.
            You are just angry that your global warming cult organization has been exposed as doctoring a graph to deceive and fake model projection agreement with observations.

        • RealOldOne2

          “When a graph is produced by a denier among the IPCC contributors, subnitted to draft, fails to pass muster on reliability”
          Sorry Bart, but once again you are blathering dishonest nonsense.
          1) Dishonest claim that Rawls produced the graph. Rawls didn’t make that graph. It was part of the Second Order Draft document.
          2) Dishonest claim that Rawls was an IPCC contributor. He was a reviewed. Reviewers merely comment on the draft. They don’t produce anything.
          3) Dishonest claim that the draft graph didn’t pass muster on reliability. More accurately, the graph showed that the models didn’t accurately project what actual observations
          4) Dishonest claim that it was a “trick”. If the graph was added by Rawls (like Gleick’s FAKE added document) and was not part of the official SOD, the IPCC would have disclaimed it. They haven’t. Proves you are blowing smoke.

          The doctored graph changes from the original reveal that the IPCC report is merely a biased politically driven propaganda piece.

          This is just as dishonest as your previous demonstrated dishonesty here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133

      • jk

        I have a “leaked version” of the new Star Wars movie, except it was directed by my dad, not JJ Abrams. Feel free to DM me if you’d like a copy.

        • Evan Jones

          Is it your contention that this was not from the leaked original draft of IPCC AR5 (he asked, dangerously)?

          • jk

            My contention is your presentation of a “leaked” graph for the IPCC report is about as credible as a me trying to sell Star Wars movie directed by my dad as the real thing.

          • RealOldOne2

            The graph is owned by the IPCC from their Second Order Draft of AR5. The fact that it was shown to the public in NO WAY detracts from the fact that it displays the true 90% uncertainty bands of the projections(which the IPCC chose to HIDE), and that they faked the numbers to make it falsely appear that the projections agreed with the observations when in reality they did NOT.

            Get over it. The IPCC is a corrupt, political organization, peddling propaganda, NOT science.

          • jk

            Your entire argument is conjecture. We don’t even have to get into the fact that your standard for a piece of “leaked” data doesn’t match your impossibly high standards for all the other data that doesn’t agree with your point of view.

            I have read through some of your other postings and you are a clear ideologue who resorts to the very worst misleading tactics on debating this issue. Go post your novels somewhere else. /ignore

          • RealOldOne2

            “Your entire argument is conjecture.”
            No, my whole argument is based on the FACT that the IPCC has not disavowed that the graph was a genuine part of their AR5 SOD.

            YOUR whole argument is based on conjecture.
            So sad that you are so stupid that you don’t understand that. But then you doomsday climate cult fanatics aren’t known for your intelligence, since you ignorantly swallowed the CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult scam/hoax/lie/fraud.

          • Evan Jones

            You are beginning to sound like the guys who say the UAE emails were faked (even after the authors admitted they were genuine).

            You are beginning to enter conspiracytheoryland. I recommend a careful step back from the edge.

          • RealOldOne2

            What are you talking about?
            I haven’t said that the orignial SOD graph that you posted was faked. I said it was genuine. These other yahoos are the conspiracy ideationists claiming it wasn’t real.

          • RealOldOne2

            Perhaps you were talking about my comment in reply to Icarus’s posting of the fake IPCC AR5 graph showing the radiosonde data. I edited that comment to clarify that the “faked” comment was because the IPCC document did not have the black line claiming to be radiosonde data, so what was posted was NOT an IPCC graph.

          • Evan Jones

            Would that be a “yes”? Because if it is, you are in for a rude shock. The whole report was leaked. You might manage to convince yourself, but you won’t get very far with anyone else. This is common knowledge.

          • jk

            I am very aware of the media circus (and the agenda behind it) surrounding the leaked IPCC report. What I am saying is that presenting “leaked” information to back your view is hardly credible, and really highlights the double standard to which you and many others hold data on either side of this debate.

      • jack dale

        Have you read the section of the draft in which the graph was found. Context seems to matter.

        http://michiganssa.blogspot.ca/2012/12/as-skeptic-one-of-more-important-goals.html

        • Evan Jones

          You still aren’t getting it. Current trends indicate no alarm. If current trends match CMIP, then CMIP indicates no alarm. You are trying to have it both ways.

          But they don’t match. CMIP indicates alarm. Current trends (since the onset of the “CO2 era” do not.

          • jack dale

            Just like a fire, by the time the alarm goes off, it is too late.

            Try using some foresight.

          • Evan Jones

            OTOH, pouring on the water without even smoke will tend to do damage.

            Or as Mark Twain put it:

            A village fire-company does not often get a chance to show off, and so when it does get a chance it makes the most of it. Such citizens of that village as were of a thoughtful and judicious temperament did not insure against fire; they insured gainst the fire-company.
            — Pudd’nhead Wilson

      • jack dale

        I just came across this

        Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011

        Stefan Rahmstorf1, Grant Foster2 and Anny Cazenave3

        Published 27 November 2012 • 2012 IOP Publishing Ltd • Environmental Research Letters,Volume 7, Number 4

        54843 Total downloads

        Cited by 30 articles

        A perspective for this article has been published in 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8011006

        Article information

        Abstract

        We analyse global temperature and sea-level data for the past few decades and compare them to projections published in the third and fourth assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The results show that global temperature continues to increase in good agreement with the best estimates of the IPCC, especially if we account for the effects of short-term variability due to the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, volcanic activity and solar variability. The rate of sea-level rise of the past few decades, on the other hand, is greater than projected by the IPCC models. This suggests that IPCC sea-level projections for the future may also be biased low.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/downloadFigure/figure/erl439749fig1

        Figure 1. Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-months running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the third assessment, green from the fourth assessment report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/downloadFigure/figure/erl439749fig2

        Figure 2. Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000.

        • jack dale

          Figure 1 from Rahmstorf et al

          http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/RFC12_Fig1.jpg

          Figure 1. Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-months running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the third assessment, green from the fourth assessment report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.

        • RealOldOne2

          Rahmstorf(2012) is NOT evidence that ghgs have caused the recent late 20th century warming. The paper was flawed for a number of reasons.

          First, it was based on the assumption that the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models can accurately project future global temperatures. They have demonstrated that they can’t. “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.” – vonStorch(2013) This is a fatal flaw.

          Second, the paper assumes “Global temperature data can be adjusted for solar variations, volcanic aerosols and ENSO using multivariate correlation analysis (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011, Lean and Rind 2008, 2009, Schonwiese 2010)”. Lean and Rind 2009 proved that this is a flawed methodology. L&R09 predicted: “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic forcings and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperatures by 0.15 +/- 0.03°C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.” The anthropogenic and solar irradiance forcings happened as forecast, but global temperatures decreased by almost that much. ( http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2009/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2009/to:2014/trend & http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2009/to:2014/plot/wti/from:2009/to:2014/trend ) This is a fatal flaw.

          Third, the paper assumed that the effects of ENSO can be adjusted out of the temperature record. It can’t, because the effects of La Ninas are not proportional to El Ninos as Rahmstorf(2012) assumes. This is explained in detail in this post: https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/rahmstorf-et-al-2012-insist-on-prolonging-a-myth-about-el-nino-and-la-nina-2/ . This is a fatal flaw.

          Fourth, the paper attempts to adjust out solar effects by using just the TSI at TOA and aerosols. It does not consider the variations in global cloud amount which controls the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface. This is a fatal flaw as peer reviewed science shows that this varied by up to 5W/m^2 during the time period of the R12 paper. ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388873427 ) This is a fatal flaw.

          Fifth, as a result of the above, the only natural factor the paper really considers is volcanic aerosols. This is minor compared to solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, ENSO, clouds, and a myrid of other natural factors that are not even considered. So it is no surprise that the flawed methodology links the change to CO2 because of the ‘omitted variable fallacy’. Ie., if a true cause (like solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface) is omitted, then the cause may be wrongly attributed to a variable that is included in the analysis.

          That one FAILS jack.

    • RealOldOne2

      “It’s interesting to note how closely the UAH satellite series is tracking projections from all four previous IPCC reports.”
      Sorry, but no one believes any of the propaganda lies you spew out any more.
      This is just a blatant a lie as your lies about Hansen(1988)’s projections. You said: “To make a valid comparison you have to know whether any of the forcings of scenarios A, B and C actually came to pass. In fact, real world forcings have been any of the three scenarios, so you would expect warming to be lower too.”
      I exposed your blatant mistake and misrepresentation 8 months ago here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11456612/BBCs-climate-change-stance-in-brazen-defiance-of-the-law.html#comment-1915062183 , yet you cling to your mistake, turning it into a lie.
      “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

      You have discredited yourself because of your own dishonesty.

      Evan showed you how the graph was doctored to hide and eliminate how badly the projections had failed to predict the real world temperatures and to eliminate the 90% uncertainty bands shown in gray. That same graph was included in the Second Order Draft, and the description of the graph stated: “Figure 1.4 … The 90% uncertainty estimate … is depicted by the grey shading.” In the new faked, dishonest graph they faked the temperature anomalies, raising them by 0.1-0.2, as well eliminating the 90% grey uncertainty band. Then they shrunk the graph by making it start back in 1950 to fit their ‘human warming began in 1950’ meme and extend the end point out to 2030 so they could make it more scary big numbers, while both had the effect of expanding the y-axis in order to minimize the differences. Dishonest propaganda techniques straight out of How to Lie With Graphs.

      • DennisHorne

        Sorry, but no one believes any of the propaganda lies you spew out any more.

        Only everyone who matters.

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          Seems not, so you are wrong, as usual.

          Here is the current status of the 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey into matters of concern, currently covering the views of 8,584,921 respondents.

          http://data.myworld2015.org/

          Out of 16 matters of concern, ‘action taken on climate change’ comes flat last.

          Even the BBC have finally realised that the World’s population no longer believes in the scam.

          COP21: Public support for tough climate deal ‘declines’

          Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

          Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

          In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

          The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

          Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.

          The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34900474

          You can only cry ‘WOLF!’ so many times before the majority of people stop taking any notice, and after three decades of not a single one of the dire predictions of you Warmies having actually happened, nobody believes you any more.

          • DennisHorne

            You don’t matter.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            Me and about 85% of the population of the Earth then.

            It’s you credulous science deniers that don’t matter now, Sparky,

            AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!

          • DennisHorne

            TL, DR.

          • RealOldOne2

            Isn’t it amazing that a 26 word comment is “too long” so they “didn’t read” it.
            Convincing evidence that they are unable to read a peer reviewed science paper, let alone understand it. They continuously expose themselves as ideologically blinded, ignorant cult zealots who mindlessly swallow all the propaganda that is fed to them in their CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult catechism indoctrination classes.

          • DennisHorne

            Hahaha. Can’t you tell when you’ve been had? Is “TL, DR” for a 26-word comment likely to be true, or a joke or insult?

            Anyway. What does it tell us if 85% of any population believe or say about something they don’t understand all the time having more immediate and pressing problems?

            Nothing much about the science.

            What does a consensus of >85% of scientists say about the science? That the balance of informed opinion is adding substantial amounts of CO2 causes Earth to retain much more energy. More energy raises temperatures and melts ice; the climate changes. How much? Glad I don’t have to try to determine. Glad I don’t have to act.

            You have an attachment to stuff that has been studied and refuted. There is no vast conspiracy. You have an emotional problem with the conclusion: The climate is changing due to burning fossil fuels.

          • RealOldOne2

            “likely to be true, or a joke or insult?”
            Based on my experience with you climate cult fanatics, it is likely to be true that you couldn’t comprehend it.

            ps. You were the one who was “had”. Thanks for replying to confirm it.

            “You have an attachment to stuff that has been studied and refuted.”
            Thanks for the confirmation that you are just as dishonest as Icky, Bartie, and the rest of your fellow climate cultists.

            The peer reviewed papers that I cited and quoted from ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388873427 ) which show 6-12 times more natural climate forcing during the late 20th century than anthropogenic forcing have NEVER been refuted. So sad that your devotion to your cult causes you to delusionally think that a maximum of 0.4W/m^2 of CO2 forcing (natural + anthropogenic) was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, while thinking that 2.7-5 W/m^2 of natural solar forcing was not the primary cause.

            I couldn’t have asked for a better display of ignorance, stupidity, and denial of reality. Thank you.

          • Evan Jones

            The climate is changing due to burning fossil fuels.

            Why, yes. It has improved.

          • jack dale

            Nope.

          • Evan Jones

            Yup.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            What Evvie really means in his limited opinion “up to now” there has been an improvement in what he has seen.

          • Evan Jones

            So do Goklany and Lomborg. And anyone else doing a straightforward demographic analysis. Even the IPCC AR5 projects “net benefit” to ~2060, and that is using their highballed CMIP models.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Oh, does that is the extent of the inquiry? Is that the end of the discussion?
            Does that mean the case is closed? Does that mean the dynamics will be static?
            Lomborg is molded in your school of thought
            Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994
            So, in another words is not creditable.
            Is this watt you are referring to “net benefits” in the IPCC report,
            Strange indeed
            Still, while climate impacts will be felt the most by poorer countries, the effects of global warming are already being felt here in North America.

            Overall yields of major crops in North America are expected to decline steeply by 2100 without adequate adaptation. The productivity of California crops are projected to decline between nine and 29 per cent by 2097, with large declines in suitable land for grape and wine production. Meanwhile, corn and wheat production is projected to be negatively impacted in the northeastern and southeastern U.S.

            Warm winters in western Canada and the U.S. have increased winter survival of the larvae of bark beetles (also known as mountain pine beetles), helping drive large-scale forest infestations and forest die-off. In British Columbia alone, mountain pine beetle outbreaks have already severely affected over 18 million hectares (44.5 million acres) of pine forests and are continuing to expand

            Dr Spin and Twist in action…go Evvie, go…your my boy…keep on Jack Dale
            Do not disappoint me…I m counting on you, bro.

          • DennisHorne

            You’re just trying to curry favour.

          • Evan Jones

            Some like it hot.

          • DennisHorne

            Don’t sweat it!

          • Evan Jones

            I think they are just scientists (real ones, even good ones) who are relying on incorrect assumptions.

          • Evan Jones
          • Evan Jones

            Except for the word “scam”, I concur.

            Try to accept the fact that these dudes really, truly believe they are right.

        • Evan Jones

          And don’t speak too soon
          For the wheel’s still in spin
          And there’s no tellin’ who
          That it’s namin
          For the loser now
          Will be later to win
          For the times they are a-changin

          So come all you scientists
          And follow your own rules
          Keep your eyes on the data
          And patch up your tools
          Your orgs and your models
          Are makin you fools
          When they tell you
          The earth will be burnin
          For the warm it is now
          Will be later to cool
          For the Würm it is a-turnin

          • Daniel S. Thompson

            Nicely done.

          • Evan Jones

            Este Triste, Frio Agosto.

            ¿Que Pasa, NASA?
            Este agosto,
            No me gusto.
            Amiga mia
            Hace tan fria.
            Yo lamento
            Sin caliento.
            ¿Donde la puedo
            Consegir adjustedo?

    • BlueScreenOfDeath

      “it’s interesting to note how closely the UAH satellite temperature series is tracking projections from all four previous IPCC reports. “

      More utter nonsense.

      • Icarus62

        If you don’t believe me, plot it yourself – that’s what I did. Or would that be too challenging for your pea-sized intellect?

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          There is nothing in that dog’s dinner that comes close to what you are claiming.

          If you think that spaghetti mess demonstrates anything at all other than you are totally deluded and haven’t a clue what you’re doing, you need to seek medical attention.

          As for that vertical bit at the end, you’re just making stuff up – AGAIN – aren’t you?

          • Icarus62

            You might be right about that vertical bit at the end. I will have to check my calculations. Thanks BSoD.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “Check your calculations”

            What calculations do you need to do to paste a few tables into a spreadsheet and press a few buttons to draw a graph?

          • Icarus62

            Doing the 12-month running mean, BSoD.

            Here is the updated version (by all means plot the same data yourself and see what you get):

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d17cae5179119309ea623b4d66cda660cbdcffaf06589367587fe04f8fe83a1e.png

          • Evan Jones

            Which, after much howling by politicians, replaced this:

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_fig1-4_models_obs.png

          • Icarus62

            Remember that the historical projections from the previous IPCC reports haven’t changed – they might be presented slightly differently between the two figures but the projected warming to 2035 remains the same, and that’s what I’m comparing the observations to.

          • Evan Jones

            The IPCC blew it on net feedbacks. That is why their projections are out to lunch.

          • Icarus62

            Observations of global warming are matching projections rather well, as you have acknowledged several times now. You attribute that to anthropogenic warming combined with the influence of the PDO, yet the IPCC’s assessment is that the contribution of natural forcings and stochastic variability to this warming is zero, plus or minus 0.1°C. What is the natural contribution according to you, and based on which studies?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Observations of global warming are matching projections rather well”
            Your delusional denial of reality is pathetic.
            You have been shown over and over that the models have FAILED to accurately project real world temperatures.
            Peer reviewed science admits it.
            Your own peddlers of the CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion admit it, as they have come up with 66 excuses why the observations did NOT match model projections.
            You are part of a doomsday cult which denies reality when their predictions of doom fail to happen.
            You have discredited yourself as a dishonest peddler of your cult religion: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388659377

            You are apparently experiencing a mental breakdown and psychotic delusions, detaching yourself from reality. Seek help from a mental health professional. They have meds for it.

          • Evan Jones

            No I haven’t. Yet I don’t think there is much natural contribution, actually.

            I just think models track well during positive PDO (for the wrong reasons), and then after it went negative, there is a severe divergence.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Right you are Evvie…they indeed blow it…but not in the manner you advocate… Believe me, I wish you were on the winning side, as you like to put it, my lad,
            The Earth is a complex system, an irreducible complexity that defies simplification into computer models. As a result, real world effects of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2, like the meltdown of Arctic land and sea ice, appear to be happening faster than massive computer simulations have predicted. But the range of sensitivity is not the simple product of computers running simulations of how the atmosphere and ocean—two great roiling fluids in congress—react to more heat trapped by more CO2. It is also based on ancient air entombed in Antarctic ice, the steady decay of radioactive elements in stone and other observations of the planet’s remote past. In terms of climate, the deep past isn’t merely the past, it’s a preview of what the world might experience again in the future
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-most-important-number-in-climate-change/

        • Evan Jones

          UAH 5.6 or 6.0? (Just askin’.)

          • Icarus62

            Reasonable question. Apparently V5.5, downloaded from woodfortrees.org.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, you can tell at a glance. Since then, UAH (run by skeptics) has been corrected for satellite drift, and that brings it right in line with RSS (run by alarmists).

          • Icarus62

            Wouldn’t you expect corrections to bring the satellite series closer to the atmospheric temperature as measured by radiosondes, rather than further away?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/985dfa1e18f4bf213ac0b7eba5b6e7c3a150d0301184c57c11f70b7b428d20c1.png

          • RealOldOne2

            That FAKED graph proves nothing except the dishonesty of the IPCC who peddles their junk pseudoscience.
            Face reality. The climate models have FAILED.
            Your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion is toast. Finished. Done. Stick a fork in it. Mother Nature has debunked it.

            ~19 years, 570 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere, and it has caused NO increase in global atmospheric temperatures as your faulty, flawed, falsified, failed climate models have predicted. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.15/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12

            Your ghg “physics” is bogus, as empirically demonstrated by the above real world experiment of adding 50% more CO2 to the atmosphere in the last ~19 years than had been added in the few hundred years prior to that, and yet it caused NO global warming. That is clear empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

            Climate warming is natural, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. The empirical evidence that you can’t refute is shown here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388873427

          • Evan Jones

            But radiosondes were closer to RSS than UAH before UAH 6.0. UAH 5.6 was more comparable with the pre-pausbuster HadCRUT4 than with radiosondes.

          • Icarus62

            That’s curious because the radiosonde data I’ve plotted (RATPAC-A) seems to show a slightly higher trend than either of the satellite series…

          • RealOldOne2
          • Icarus62

            Valid point I’m sure, but on the other hand they do directly measure temperature, whereas the satellites are only inferring temperature, and require a lot of corrections and adjustments and model interpretations to produce their results.

          • RealOldOne2

            “but on the other hand they do directly measure temperatures, whereas the satellites are only inferring temperature”

            The satellite methodology of determining a temperature has been confirmed to be accurate to 0.03°C by those same radiosondes that directly measure temperature.
            “the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

            And the satellites are the only method that gets anything close to a global mean temperature, as they cover ~99% of the globe’s atmosphere.
            “thermometers can not measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.” – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/

          • Icarus62

            A cite would be interesting, especially considering that so many adjustments and corrections have to be made to the satellite series…

          • RealOldOne2

            Denying the science. So sad.

          • Evan Jones

            As opposed to the surface metric adjustments-on-steroids?

          • Evan Jones

            You can go further than that.

            LT trends will be 10% to 40% higher than surface temps, anyway, according to Klotzbach, et al. (And that is supported by my own studies, i.e., using only well sited, metadata-unperturbed stations.)

          • Evan Jones

            If sats use a microwave proxy, then surface uses an electronic or mercury proxy.

          • Icarus62

            Yes everything is a proxy, but some proxies are better than others :-)

        • RealOldOne2

          “If you don’t believe me, plot it yourself”
          I have, and it shows that your graphic is wrong. The UAH data shows that 1998 and 2010 were warmer that current temps. Your graph includes a bogus ‘hokey stick’ at the end.
          Here is the real data, plotted from the original source:

          • Icarus62

            Yes I addressed the issue of the ‘uptick’ at the end, as pointed out by BSoD, and posted an updated graph. It makes very little difference to the overall trend, of course.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d17cae5179119309ea623b4d66cda660cbdcffaf06589367587fe04f8fe83a1e.png

          • RealOldOne2

            That’s still a bogus graphic, as it shows that 2010 was as high as 1998. It was NOT. And the real data shows no warming for 18.5 years, even though an unprecedented amount of human CO2, ~560 billion tons, has been added to the atmosphere. Clearly anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

          • Icarus62

            I’m surprised you haven’t realised that a running mean was used.

          • RealOldOne2

            I’m surprised that you don’t realize it doesn’t matter. 1998 and 2010 were still higher than 2015, and still NO warming over the most recent 18.3 years.
            YOUR graphic is STILL bogus.

          • RealOldOne2

            Here is the real comparison with the latest CMIP5 model projections and observed global temperatures:
            http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/COP-21-slides-temperature-models-v-reality.png

          • Evan Jones

            Finestkind. (But he refutes his own argument, anyway.)

          • Evan Jones

            +1. Looks like a pretty dang lousy fit to me, actually. (I might use it to bolster my own arguments.)

          • Evan Jones

            Heh. +0.114C/decade. And that’s over a predominantly positive PDO period. Yeah, sure, those CMIP model projections sure track with that so well (NOT).

          • ROO2

            So there has been no pause in the tropospheric temperature rise in the last 18/19 years!

            It’s a travesty!

            Any substantiating cooling signal in the UAH upper stratosphere signal from the increased GHG effect over that period?

          • RealOldOne2

            Ah, my very own troll, who has been so impressed by my scientific excellence that he created one of my alternative shortened names as his own to mimic me. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Thank you.

            At least you are admitting the hiatus/pause/halt of global warming over the past 18/19 years. Good on you.

            “Any substantial cooling signal in the UAH upper stratosphere signal from the increased GHG effect over that period?”
            Well, UAH doesn’t have an upper stratosphere dataset. They only have a lower stratospheric temperature dataset. And NO, there has been no significant cooling signal in the UAH Lower Stratospheric Temperature over the last 18/19 years. And I would note that there was 1.5 times more CO2 added to the atmosphere in that time period (second half of the dataset, 1997-2015) than in the first half of the dataset(1979-1997), yet there has been NO significant stratopsheric cooling during that time. Sorry, but the emirical data does not support the claim that stratospheric cooling is caused by increased ghgs in the atmosphere.

            As you can see the TLS has not dropped in sync with the constantly increasing ghgs. It made two stepwise drops which followed major volcanic eruptions and has been otherwise relatively flat. This is consistent with peer reviewed science.
            “Observations reveal that the substantial cooling of the lower stratosphere over 1979-2003 occurred in two pronounced steplike transitions. These arose in the aftermath of two major volcanic erutpions, each cooling transition being followed by a period of relatively steady temperatures.” – Ramaswamy(2006)

    • Evan Jones

      (Grin.) Well, if the projections track RSS and UAH so well, then we — obviously — have no emergency on out hands, don’t we?

      • Icarus62

        I think it’s pretty clear that we’ve already exceeded the global temperature of the HTM, so we’re into uncharted territory as far as modern human civilisation is concerned, and that’s with only about 1 degree of warming. I’m not saying that human extinction looms, but we’re playing with fire. There’s a lot more warming to come (2C by about 2080 at the current rate), and a lot more consequences of that warming, even under the most optimistic scenarios. Wouldn’t it be best to be prudent?

        • Evan Jones

          There’s a lot more warming to come (2C by about 2080 at the current rate)

          There you go again. Projecting future warming by busted CMIP models and not by Arrhenius and observations.

          Raw CO2 forcing is ~1.1C/doubling. Using the Karl “pausebuster”, we are warming at 1.2C per century, or ~0.8C since 1950, after a 30% rise in CO2.

          CO2 is increasing at ~0.5% per year (on the high side), so, at current rates, doubling will not occur for 200 years. And that is assuming no advance in technology, a risible proposition — CO2 doubling will very probably never occur. (And we could convert to nukes tomorrow.) Redoubling will never, ever occur.

          1950 is a low start point (introducing a warming bias), but the period since then includes a few more years of negative PDO to counteract that.

          As for aerosols, even CMIP admits a continual warming effect from unmasking, and actually indicates the recent “brown cloud” has a slight net warming effect, not a cooling effect.

          So where does the missing heat come from to increase temps 2C by 2080?

          • Icarus62

            It does seem unlikely that we will double atmospheric CO2 from emissions, I agree, but I would make the point again that we’re playing with fire. Perhaps substantial carbon cycle feedbacks will kick in sooner than expected. At least one study (MacDougall 2012) found that it’s already too late to avert the self-sustaining permafrost carbon feedback – i.e. the climate will continue to warm regardless of how sharp our emissions reductions are.

            It’s also widely accepted that we were already past the point where geo-engineering would be required to avert 2C of global warming (the lowest scenarios require net negative emissions later in the century).

            I’m sure you’re aware that the difference between TCR and ECS that you’ve cited extensively means there is a lot more warming ‘in the pipeline’, even before considering slow feedbacks.

            Perhaps we ought to be focusing a lot more effort and research into direct air capture of CO2 to reduce atmospheric concentrations now and also forestall potential future emissions.

          • Evan Jones

            Perhaps we ought to be focusing a lot more effort and research into
            direct air capture of CO2 to reduce atmospheric concentrations now and
            also forestall potential future emissions.

            You mean like fracking? #o^) That’s how the US did it (despite all admin attempt to prevent it). Or nukes? That’s what Dr. Hansen advocates.

            I am in favor of anything that works. (No, no, I mean actually works). It appears that there is only one thing that prevents CAGW advocates from endorsing any particular measure: said measure actually works.

            The problem with the proposed solutions is that the cost would be far too great. Both in terms of human lives and the environment. UDCs plunder and destroy their local environments. DCs protect them. If we want to help both mankind and the planet, we need to knock the U right out of UDC. Intermittent power simply does not fed the bulldog.

  • Ian Deal

    It is critical to understand why progressives are so focused on the notion of climate change, whether it is cooling or warming. The Progressive philosophy developed in the 1800s as a response to the massive influx of people to the cities. There was a significant lag in this unprecedented population shift and the needed infrastructure to handle a bourgeoning urban citizenry–primarily in accessing fresh water and waste disposal along with housing. The Progressive movement emerged advocating for centralized planning to address the issues of poverty, disease, and dreadful working conditions (unions also emerged to address some of the same issues). But the cities adapted and most of these problems were dramatically improved before the beginning of the 20th Century. But the Progressive philosophy remained, the belief in a need for central planning by specially trained social experts. As free market solutions moved much more swiftly and efficiently, the Progressive was always trying to justify expanding the role of government. Climate change represents the perfect problem for a Progressive solution–apocalyptic consequences for inaction, yet zero accountability for Progressive solutions. There will never be any proof that their proposals and implementations are working, which will allow them to always demand they need more power, more control, more authority. Dr. Curry approaches the topic like a scientist, exposing the fraud that is going on in Paris, so she must be silenced. The media will NEVER discuss why politicians are wedded to the worst case scenarios that have been proven time and time again to be wildly inaccurate. As JP Morgan said: “A man has two reasons for everything he does. A good reason and the real one.”

    • Bart_R

      Dude, the Berlin Wall fell over a quarter century ago. You can stop with the Red Menace alarmism and conspiracy ideation.

      And I’m saying this as someone far more conservative than you’ll ever dream of being.

      Judith Curry, by the by, one of the least conservative people in the climate discourse (and least scientific, too) you could name. Her ‘include everyone’ populism is practically Maoist, and her rent seeking ways are assuredly not libertarian.

      • Ian Deal

        You may have missed the news that the Bernie Sanders, the Socialist, is number two in the polls for the democrat nomination. It is also worth noting that I said Progressive not Communist. If it were the latter, the discourse would have been on Marx. And I certainly never said Curry was conservative, only that she is willing to publicly confront Obama when he makes silly and stupid statements regarding climate change. Other than that, you seem to have entirely missed the point of my post.

        • DennisHorne

          There was a point? I thought you were reminiscing…

          Seems to me the Currys of climatology are outliers.

          • Bart_R

            http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6154043-this-is-how-climate-doubt-becomes-powerful-and-spreads-into-the-media/

            Outliers?

            Not at all. Judith falls well within the central core of media influencers with ties to funding from fossil interests. She’s typical, even ordinary, in that way.

          • DennisHorne

            Oh! Out-and-outliars?

          • Evan Jones

            Not to mention the peer-review literature over the last five years.

          • Bart_R

            You need to take a break, as your comments are becoming incomprehensibly ambiguous, rather than their more usual incomprehensibly sloganeering mythology.

          • RealOldOne2

            You need to take a break. Your comments are becoming increasingly dishonest, as documented here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133

          • Bart_R

            Didn’t I fire you as my webstalking troll like a year a go for infidelity and poor quality of work?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Didn’t I fire you as my webstalking troll like a year a go for infidelity and poor quality of work?”
            No, you just got stark raving mad because I exposed you as a dishonest climate cult fanatic who stubbornly clings to your mistakes, turning them into lies.
            “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – Physics Forums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

            Your own comments that convict you of dishonesty are documented here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061
            and here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133

          • Bart_R

            My best arguments always come from my nuttiest webstalkers; that ad hominem is their only resort, when beaten on the facts. They show their cohort for what it is: a vainglorious project of contrarians who would rather promote any abuse than admit their own failings.

          • Evan Jones

            Beware, however, the sword that cuts both ways.

          • jack dale

            As I mentioned earlier, the denialist edge is dull.

          • Evan Jones

            What about those who are solidly in the “97% club” like Spencer, Lindzen, McIntyre, and, of course, Curry, and just about all the other major skeptics?

            All of whom I think you condifer to be “denialists”?

            Our “dull edge” is riding awfully high — in the peer-review journals — over the last five years.

            You be channeling a false dichotomy.

          • jack dale

            Using the Cook et al database Lindzen is not in the 97%. I have not checked on the others.

          • Evan Jones

            Using the Cook et al database Lindzen is not in the 97%.

            Using the Cook database, anyone who happens to disagree with him is a denier. Including all lukewarmers.
            Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50%
            The answer to that one depends entirely on the PDO phase.

            Using the Oreskes questions, however, he is most definitely not.

          • Mobius Loop

            I had looked at their actual database some time ago and was trying to find it again recently, do you have a link?

            Thanks. ML

          • jack dale
          • Mobius Loop

            Jack, many thanks for coming back. Unfortunately its not the one I was looking for, when the report first came out there was a database that you could search which had links to every abstract so that you could compare them against the Cook et al rating.

            At the time, I took a random selection and felt that their assessment was pretty good, even a little on the cautious side. I was hoping to find some example to counter one of Monckton’s flights of fancy.

          • jack dale

            Spencer

            2007,Cloud And Radiation Budget Changes Associated With Tropical Intraseasonal Oscillations,Geophysical Research Letters,Spencer| Rw; Braswell| Wd; Christy| Jr; Hnilo| J,2,5

            5,Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW

            I think you mean McKitrick, not McIntyre

            2004,A Test Of Corrections For Extraneous Signals In Gridded Surface Temperature Data,Climate Research,Mckitrick| R; Michaels| Pj,4,5

            It helps to verify before posting.

            http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

          • Evan Jones

            Spencer

            Oh, you mean the guy who has made a crusade out of refuting the Sky Dragon Slayers. #B^)

          • jack dale
          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie does not give up, he takes a licking and keeps on ticking
            You don’t know watt you are up against….I feel for you, Jack
            Good luck and God speed.

          • Evan Jones

            I thought your hypothesis is that I was going to be “put down” (or something). I find myself capable of lickback. However, having said that, my views on this now are not the same ones I had coming into this.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, come on now…wake up…reverse psychology… Boy, you fell for it hook, line and sinker…
            I know you so well…after we’ve been through…after all about 14,000 comments on Terrifying Math must of taught you something. Well, did it?
            LOL

          • Evan Jones

            Lots and lots. But more about the terrifying mathematicians than the terrifying math.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            So, that must mean negative

          • Evan Jones

            If you must insist.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Whatever you say, after all’ you think you are always correct, so why argue?

          • Evan Jones

            But the arm is strong.

          • jack dale

            Which may explain the current strong arm tactics employed by Lamar Smith et al.

          • Bart_R

            Generally, if take hold of swords by the honest hilt, one is safe from the blade.

            It’s the tongues sharp on both sides that are the hazard.

          • RealOldOne2

            “My best arguments…”
            You don’t have any good arguments.
            You can’t refute the peer reviewed empirical science that shows 6-12 times more NATURAL climate forcing (2.7-5W/m^2) during the late 20th century warming than anthropogenic forcing (04W/m^2 max).
            You can’t refute the FACT that there is not a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that NATURAL climate variability was NOT the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.
            You can’t cite a single peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

            All you can do is BELIEVE IN fictional scare memes based on your flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models.

            All you can do is misrepresent and tell porkies, as documented by your own words: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061
            http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133

          • Bart_R

            Wouldn’t it be great if you were the sort of person who cited anyone but himself?

            Well, not ‘great’, so much as ‘less absurd’?

            You seem to go out of your way to make it difficult to check the claims you make about facts and waste time examining the scaremongering and defamation you do. This has to be intentional on your part.

            Who raises their kids to be such antagonistic twerps?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Wouldn’t it be great if you were the sort of person who cited anyone but himself”
            LOL @ that lame dodge! You are denying reality and misrepresenting me AGAIN! I link to my comments which DO cite peer reviewed empirical science. , like this one that neither you nor any of your fellow climate cult fanatic zealots can rebut: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388873427

            The evidence from your own words shows that you are a serial misrepresenter and spinner of porkies: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133
            and: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

            And here is one of those comments of mine which proves that you are misrepresenting me, claiming hat I don’t cite anyone but myself:

            And peer reviewed empirical science shows that during the late 20th century, 2.7 to 5 W/m^2 of additional solar radiation forcing reached the surface of the Earth. Also contributing were warm phases of ocean cycles.

            1) There has been no warming the ~15 years of the 21st century. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/to:2015.75/offset:-370/scale:0.08/mean:12 , in spite of the fact that there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, nearly 50% of the amount humans have added prior to the 21st century.

            2) Most of the warming in the last half century occurred from 1984-2000. – evidence: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/plot/rss/from:1966/to:1984/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2001/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.75/trend

            3) Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

            This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

            This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

            This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

            The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

            4) Your own IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence your own IPCC reports

            This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 12 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Specifically, it’s the Sun. Yes, that big ball of fire in the sky is the primary driver of climate, just as it has been throughout the entire history of the planet. While the increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface was the primary factor, it is also true that the mean level of solar activity over the last half of the 20th century was higher than the previous 7 consecutive 50 year periods, contributing to the late 20th century warming.

            “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940’

            The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
            • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
            • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’
            This is graphically shown here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

            Other natural contributors to the late 20th century warming were:
            • Warm phase of the PDO :
            http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/figures/Figure_PDO-01.JPG
            http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/ &
            http://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/PDO.html &
            http://www.weathertrends360.com/Blog/Post/Dreaming-of-a-White-Christmas-2157
            • Warm phase of the AMO :
            https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
            &
            • Predominance of El Ninos:
            http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126 (Fig. 6)
            http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=126

          • Bart_R

            tl;dnr

          • RealOldOne2

            Standard climate cult zealot’s reply to empirical data which proves him wrong and he can’t rebut. Thanks for admitting defeat.

            Now, begin admitting your mistakes and stop turning them into lies: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133
            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

            Why are you so serially dishonest?

          • Bart_R

            *yawn*

          • RealOldOne2

            “scaremongering an defamation you do”

            Nice projection. YOU are the scaremonger, running around like Chicken Litte crying that the sky is falling and we are doomed because of a harmless, lifegiving gas, CO2. Yet you can’t cite any peer reviewed empirical science to back up your ridiculous false claims.

            “antagonistic twerps”

            What antagonizes you is that you can’t rebut any of the peer reviewed empirical science that I post that shows that you are wrong and that I am correct.

            People might give you some level of credibility if you would admit to your long list of mistakes, which you have turned into lies because you cling to them.

            “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

            Start with your latest: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133

            Then move on to the rest: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

          • Bart_R

            Argumentum ad nauseum is a pointlessly skipping record of cut and pasting the same false claims over and over again.

            Please take https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain .. to try to become someone worth engaging in discussion. Because you’ve gone through life not being, but it’s not too late to change.

          • RealOldOne2

            “pointlessly skipping record of cut and pasting the same false claims over and over again.”
            More dishonesty and misrepresentation there Bart. You can’t show that a single claim that I have made is false.

            You otoh, are convicted of false claims by your own words: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388228133
            http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

            Amazing that you keep wanting to advertise your dishonesty and misrepresentation. Those are just links to your own mistaken statements, which you turn into lies because you cling to them, even after being shown irrefutable evidence that they are mistakes.
            “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

          • Bart_R

            An argument need not be false to be invalid.

            As you cannot show a valid argument you have made (an astounding achievement considering random chance should have let you make some over so many posts), how false your claims is moot.

          • Evan Jones

            Too much fire going on here, I think. He gets to say what he wants to; you get to say what you want to. Beats the alternative.

          • Bart_R

            Why should I continue to employ a webstalking troll who won’t troll and stalk exclusively only me?

            A person has feelings, you know.

            And look at the shoddy quality of his false and misleading rants.

            It’s shocking.

            One just can’t get decent gadflies these days.

          • Evan Jones

            If I can endure MEJ, then you can endure it, too. #B^)

            Besides, like I say, it beats the alternative.

          • Bart_R

            To me, the alternative would be a world of ex-trolls and former stalkers who have embraced manners, courtesy, honestly, reason and integrity.

            I don’t accept that the only options are abuse or tyranny.

            Why do you?

          • Evan Jones

            To me, the alternative would be a world of ex-trolls and former stalkers
            who have embraced manners, courtesy, honestly, reason and integrity.

            Thing is, we do not live in an alternate world.

            Why do you?

            Because the only way to curb it is coercion. That offends my liberal sensitivities.

          • Bart_R

            Pfft. A liberal opposed to coercion, who prefers the Freedom Thing? /sarc

            Don’t you know, liberalism is coercive and there’s no freedom in progressive ideologies. Which is how the Berlin Wall fell over a quarter century ago, and why no one puts any stock in the whole Left end of political babble. Perhaps you mean you think you’re a libertarian, a libertine, or a librarian?

            Why would a troll troll, once they see the light of their error and feel the warmth of better sense?

            Why would a webstalker stalk, when their hatred and inner demons are exorcised not by force but by the realization they can be free of them?

            Mostly, people who make only invalid arguments do so because they’ve never been taught to distinguish valid claims from logical fallacies, nor can understand the benefit to themselves of taking the high road clear of propaganda ploppies so liberally spread about by the likes of Martin Durkin and Christopher Monckton.

            It’s easy to learn to identify logical fallacy. You should try it. Start https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ as an introduction; as a student of American History, I’m sure you can readily identify the harms various of these gaffes have caused.

          • Evan Jones

            Don’t you know, liberalism is coercive

            Then it is not liberalism, by definition. It’s just authoritarianism masquerading as liberalism. (We have seen a lot of that in recent decades.)

            and there’s no freedom in progressive ideologies.

            I think you may be confusing progressivism with communism.

          • Bart_R

            You’re the MA in US History; I’ll concede to your greater authority to describe the political orientation of people who died before the Berlin Wall fell, at which point the whole Left thing was abundantly revealed as a failed paradigm.

            And how do you achieve your liberalism upon others who want no part of it, as anyone who sees a failed paradigm may well do, without coercion?

            Is it by deception?

            How is deception not coercive, when its intention is to obtain compliance without informed consent?

            Are you perhaps taking a page from Bill Cosby’s book?

          • Evan Jones

            Thanks — but you should go for good old-style, traditional liberalism. Both sides should be heard. Neither side should be automatically dismissed. No one should be shut up. Fighting fire with fire only gets everyone burned.

          • Evan Jones

            On the other hand, others (not always those with whom I disagree) have any trouble at all seeing what I am driving at. And if they do, they ask — and I answer.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobile, is blunt about Global Warming and he is very direct at what he is driving at….Global Warming is real, we are the cause and humans will need to adapt!
            Notice he starts at sea level rise of 4 inches. Now I would like to point out he has hired top science experts in this field.
            Evan, you are not one of them…because, you are not an expert but a hack
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TkuyY2FFR7c

          • Evan Jones

            But I also agree that AGW is real. And?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You do! Get ready to adapt and pay for it ( that is watt Rex implied about “policy”.
            Hey, since you are the master of the universe, tell use how we are to grow our food crops in the Arctic?… Oh, this should be fascinating!

          • Evan Jones
          • Michael Evan Jones

            Really, Evvie, as long as food is trucked into NYC, I suppose there is no worry.
            Not according to the IPCC 5 assessment
            Still, while climate impacts will be felt the most by poorer countries, the effects of global warming are already being felt here in North America.

            Overall yields of major crops in North America are expected to decline steeply by 2100 without adequate adaptation. The productivity of California crops are projected to decline between nine and 29 per cent by 2097, with large declines in suitable land for grape and wine production. Meanwhile, corn and wheat production is projected to be negatively impacted in the northeastern and southeastern U.S.

            Warm winters in western Canada and the U.S. have increased winter survival of the larvae of bark beetles (also known as mountain pine beetles), helping drive large-scale forest infestations and forest die-off. In British Columbia alone, mountain pine beetle outbreaks have already severely affected over 18 million hectares (44.5 million acres) of pine forests and are continuing to expand

            Hey, keep it up, you are MY boy…don’t give up and disappeat

          • Evan Jones

            I have been hearing about how “decline” is “expected” all my life. Yet all those expectations have been tragically disappointed.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Hmmm, are you speaking just for yourself, I suppose.
            In that case, when a person, like yourself, on the low rung of the social ladder falls, he doesn’t feel at thing.

          • Evan Jones

            There you go again. Confusing the economic ladder with the social ladder.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            They go hand in hand…just ask the pizza rat.

          • RealOldOne2

            Give us some more of that late 20th century NATURAL warming and extra CO2 in the atmosphere. It helped do GREAT things for crop yields and the planet! We should REQUIRE all power plants to burn the cheapest energy on the planet, COAL because it produces the most CO2!
            Global greening: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/Images/npp_change_bump_lrg.jpg

            Huge increase in crop yields:
            Here are the increases in crop yields over the last half of the 20th century Maize(corn):Up 139%
            Wheat: Up 134%
            Rice: Up 104%
            Barley: Up 83%
            Rye/Oats: Up 69%
            Millet/Sorghum: Up 57%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/219.gif

            Oil palm fruits: Up 290%
            Rapeseed: Up 164%
            Cottonseed: Up 104%
            Soybeans: Up 100%
            Lindseed: Up 77%
            Sunflower seed: Up 60%
            Olives: Up 60%
            Groundnuts: Up 48%
            Sesame seed: Up 20%
            Coconuts: Down 6%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/229.gif

            Drybeans: Up 44%
            Drypeas: Up 126%
            Dry broadbeans: Up 87%
            Chickpeas: Up 30%
            Lentils: Up 46%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/239.gif

            Potatoes: Up 42%
            Sweet potatoes: Up 83%
            Cassava: Up 181%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/249.gif

            Sugarcane: Up 37%
            Sugarbeets: Up 52%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/259.gif

            Cabbages: Up 57%
            Greenbeans: Up 38%
            Greenpeas: Up 75%
            Onions: Up 73%
            Tomatoes: Up 106%
            Melons: Up 47%
            Watermelons: Up 132%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/269.gif

            Peaches: Down 10%
            Citrus fruit: Up 30%
            Apples: Down 3%
            Pineapples: Up 83%
            Pears: Up 7%
            Bananas + Plantains: Up 24%
            Grapes: Up 76%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/279.gif

            Coffee: Up 114%
            Cocoa beans: Up 233%
            Tea: Up 236%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/289.gif

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Listen, I am NOT responding to you, neither is Jack Dale…go bug someone else, you olde frt

          • Evan Jones

            You just did.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Oh, You are an Olde frt too, poor little Evvie, time waits for nobody…and you are that too.

          • Evan Jones

            But it doesn’t have to be Natural to be Good.

          • RealOldOne2

            “But it doesn’t have to be Natural to be Good.”
            Correct. Commercial greenhouses produce that beneficial CO2 which increases net plant productivity by burning fossil fuels. http://www.johnsongas.com/industrial/CO2Gen.asp And it is just as beneficial as natural CO2.

          • Evan Jones

            Overall yields of major crops in North America are expected to decline steeply by 2100 without adequate adaptation.

            Yet more “expectations” based on the busted models.

            California crops are projected to decline

            They already have. As in, “He who Smelt it Delta it.”

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Well, that is what the experts state. Why should we take your opinion that it ain’t so?

          • jack dale

            Your smelt is a red herring.

          • jack dale
          • Evan Jones

            It all factors in. As does the increase in CO2 and warming in almost all areas, including those not influenced by cultivation.

            This is also not really sustainable.

            Judging by that data, it looks pretty darn sustainable to me. We’ve been hearing about how unsustainable it all is since Malthus. All my life I have been hearing it, like a steady drumbeat, always from a different drection, yet always on the same spot.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Are you arrested in development? Obviously so….I suppose when someone like yourself is locked in a system of thought, it is impossible to read between the lines, so to speak
            So, I spelled it out for you myself, and you still do not comprehend. Oh well, some people are very limited…that is the tragedy of human existence.

          • Evan Jones

            Krako: Whadda ya think, we’re stupid or something?
            Kirk: No, no, no, I don’t think you’re stupid, Mr. Krako, I just think your behavior is arrested.
            Krako: I’ve never been arrested in my whole life!

          • Michael Evan Jones

            That means affirmative

          • Evan Jones

            And Oxmyx also refers to Spock as “you dummy”.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            What episode was that it?

          • jack dale

            Exxon Mobil now favours a carbon tax.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Of course he does…the cigarettes and tobacco industry also favors taxes too.
            He and the fossil fuel industry recognizes that will not curtail the consumption or profits.

          • Bart_R

            You’re often quite clear.

            This morning, you appeared groggy.

            Perhaps you’d care to go back to your one-line zing and expand your meaning?

          • Evan Jones

            Oh. I see what you’re getting at. It got pushed ‘way down the queue by interpositional discussion.

            It was a reply to the statement, “Seems to me the Currys of climatology are outliers.”

            My (expanded) answer is that the science has moved on since the heady days of IPCC AR4. Or even AR5. Curry’s projections are very much in line with the peer-reviewed journal TCR/ECS studies over the past five years.

          • Bart_R

            If you mean that in the past 5 years you can find one or two others who have used similarly bad methodology to produce results in the same range as Lewis and Curry, I cannot disagree.

            OTOH, when I do the math Lewis and Curry fail at on the whole range of available temperatures, I get CS much, much higher than their results, 3.8 +/- 0.8 C/doubling CO2 on a curve that rises from 2.95 to as high as 4.6 over the period since Mauna Loa measurements began.

            Lewis & Curry remains a far outlier, a short sample purposely chosen to procure a low result by cherry picking and arbitrary adjustment.

          • Evan Jones

            Don’t tell me what it’ll be because it’s all in degrees
            And by degrees what I mean is you don’t see what I see
            So is this falling apart or are these pieces of me?
            Is this a nightmare to be or am I building a dream?

          • Bart_R

            It is usual for scholars to distinguish themselves from plagiarists by including enough of a citation to not alter its original meaning, and to reference the source.

            Tracin’ the steps that I takeFeelin’ mistakes that are fake
            Makin’ excuses like imaginary friends run away
            To where I’ve already been
            To where I already am
            So tell me tell me it’ll work out so I’ll be wrong again
            I look inside I’m surprised at what I see in my eyes
            So tell me tell me was I there when I was taught how to lie?
            I thought I’d chase paradise but I’ll just settle for life

            So tell me tell me did I die when I was taught how to lie?

            ..

            Its funny how life can be the circles dance around me
            Drawing a reminder of what I’ve done and who I’ve become
            Sleepin’ my days without dreams, Wakin’ a night without sleep
            Missing the truth to lie the promises I heard I would keep
            Im lost in my paradise, the walls have built in my life
            So tell me tell me will I die if I forget how to lie?

            — Jakalope (2010). “Tell Me Why”

            So, why do you (out)lie?

          • Evan Jones

            Utterly brilliant song.

          • Bart_R

            One hopes he would at least give credit to the original author, instead of appearing to pass off, and note the discrepancy between his citation and the original intention, so as not to appear to be misrepresenting the original, unless and except only if the citation was to a specific and particular passage which stands on its own without altering meaning, as one hopes NOAA would do.

            By the way, you didn’t answer the question about what books on Metrology you’ve published?

          • Evan Jones

            Hint: If it’s in italics, I didn’t write it. If it’s not, then I did write it. (But we all knew that, anyway.)

          • Bart_R

            When the arguments are always and invariably invalid, they do not bear the weight of discussion; rather the sloppy habits of discourse might best benefit from examination and critique.

            You flaunt an old MA as if it were credential of some sort. A history MA, and only of American History, which is little more than evidence one has the requisite knowledge of newspaper headlines to win a Jeopardy round, no less.

            Can you tell us, has your research told you how to distinguish most readily absolute from relative error in instrumental readings?

            When such error is cumulative and when multiplicative and when not?

            How to use Bayes Theorem to properly quantify probable error from error projected by standard means for a given set of measurements?

            For multiple sets of independent measurements related to the same proposed relationships?

            Please, by all means lay out how convention dictates calibration of historical datasets when notes on instrumentation are lost?

            You are a mathematical historian, who draws his conclusions only from hard data, yes?

            Or do you mean you’re the sort who talks about ‘movements of history’ and other myths and fantasies?

            See, when your arguments are so liberally peppered with ad auctoritatem, you’ve made yourself the argument, and must be ready for ample and thorough criticism required by that tactic you chose to employ.

            There’s no one to blame if you feel persecuted but yourself.

            Further, this is not about you. I don’t know you. I don’t mention how you smell or whether girls must thing your ears look funny, but only what you bring to the discussion, as that act makes it subject to examination.

            So far, the examination tells us you rush headlong into topics unprepared and throw around slender weight too large for narrow shouldered ignorance of the techniques you so attack in others far better qualified which have passed muster from the consensus of expertise in those techniques.

            What vanity leads to such poor judgment I cannot guess, but anyone can know it disqualifies someone who would do this from making decisions on the health and welfare of the whole world as if a self-anointed politburo of one.

          • Evan Jones

            You flaunt an old MA as if it were credential of some sort.

            Actually, I did not even mention it until I was specifically asked.

          • Bart_R

            Strange. I’ve seen the results of every generation of scholarship first hand from men who graduated in the 1920’s right up to students yet to complete their first degree, and in terms of workload, knowledge, method, dedication, originality and accomplishment must say that by my reckoning the reverse trend is far more likely.

            Though I would not call it so high as 3:1; perhaps 1.3:1.

            These things change in waves and have their ups and downs, of course. The slackers of five years ago are a real disappointment, it is true, though no moreso than trends in some other decades — the early eighties was particularly banal overall, IIRC. But the current crop is remarkable on the whole.

          • Evan Jones

            Then you need to get up to date on the peer-review literature regarding TCR/ECS (i.e., how much warming we may expect).

        • Bart_R

          Seriously?

          Your argument is that you’re afraid of mind control by Bernie Sanders fluoridation of your drinking water?

          Yes, that point would fly wayyyyy over the heads of people with their feet planted firmly on the ground.

          • Evan Jones

            That’s not really what he is saying.

          • Bart_R

            By all means, explain what he’s saying he’s afraid of, and why Bernie Sanders is doing it to him, of all people?

          • Evan Jones

            I don’t recall any mention of fluoridation.

          • Bart_R

            Hint: when one makes use of classical allusion, it’s poor form to be disingenuous. If you don’t recognize the conspiracy theorist from Dr. Strangelove, General Ripper, just say so.

          • Evan Jones

            Not in that particular statement, I don’t.

            When someone asked Sanders if he was a scialist, he is said to have replied, “I am not afraid of that word.” (Actually, I respect his straightforward honesty, even as I oppose his policies. Hillary, OTOH, appears to be the Democratic version of Nixon.)

          • Bart_R

            I’ve never heard her play piano.

            Is she any good?

    • Evan Jones

      It is critical to understand why progressives are so focused on the notion of climate change

      Whereas I think it is critical to understand the scientific mechanisms behind climate change. Speaking as a severe skeptic and lukewarmer, I think what progressives do or do not feel falls within the realm of politics.

      Politics will not determine the truth behind this question. This question arose within the scientific community, and it will only be resolved by and within the scientific community. Science is the dog. Politics is the bright, multicolored, bushy tail. The tail will ultimately go where the dog goes.

      As JP Morgan said: “A man has two reasons for everything he does. A good reason and the real one.”

      Perhaps that has more to say about J.P. Morgan than anything else.

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    The Truth About China – 2,400 New Coal Plants Will Thwart Any Paris #COP21 Pledges
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/02/the-truth-about-china-2400-new-coal-plants-will-thwart-any-paris-cop21-pledges/

    • Evan Jones

      Which will extend life expectancy and increase affluence.

      • jack dale

        Coal is the deadliest form of energy production.

        Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

        Coal (elect, heat,cook –world avg) 100 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
        Coal electricity – world avg 60 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
        Coal (elect,heat,cook)– China 170
        Coal electricity- China 90
        Coal – USA 15
        Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
        Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
        Biofuel/Biomass 12
        Peat 12
        Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (0.2% of world energy for all solar)
        Wind 0.15 (1.6% of world energy)
        Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
        Hydro – world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
        Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

        • RealOldOne2

          LOL @ silly jack!

        • Evan Jones

          Coal is the deadliest form of energy production.

          Surely. And when the deadliest form of energy production doubles life expectancy and multiplies affluence manyfold, eliminating the horror of grinding subsistence-level poverty wherever it is introduced . . .

          • jack dale

            Interesting assertion. No evidence.

          • Evan Jones

            Tell it to China ans India. I think you need to review your history — and demographics.

          • jack dale

            History major – undergrad. Courses in geography and human geography. Taught courses in environmental studies that included demography. Taught history courses from the Reformation to the present.

            Just exactly were the Clean Air Acts about? Smog must be healthy; not the Great Smog of London.

            https://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/epa_china-air-pollution.jpg

            Harbin, China

          • Evan Jones

            And pre-smog life expectancy in China?

            By your logic, there would be over 30,000 fewer deaths per year in the US if only all cars and motor transport were eliminated.

            I think you need to check your premises.

          • jack dale

            We can do better. Coal is a 19th century energy source. Get with the times.

          • Evan Jones

            China and India cannot do better — yet. Fossil fuels are a temporary, but vitally important, indispensable, phase in human development.

            Rome wasn’t burnt in a day.

          • jack dale

            You must be an adherent of Walt Rostow. Sorry about that.

            In this day and age “leapfrogging” technologies is quite feasible. Some countries skipped land lines in favour of cellular. Saved a lot of copper.

          • Evan Jones

            I do my own sums.

            I completely agree that leapfrogging beats island hopping any war of the week, but I also check to make sure the frog actually leaps.

          • jack dale

            Huh?

          • Evan Jones

            Solar and wind ain’t cutting it. That frog don’t leap.

          • Evan Jones

            Plenty of evidence. Even the IPCC goes part of the way.

          • jack dale

            Like they say in Missouri, show me.

          • Evan Jones
          • Michael Evan Jones

            That is why we call Evvie Dr. Twist and Spin of the Cyberworld..that I will asset you actually earned! The Rolling Stone forum is testament to that….Evvie you are just warming up…. Right?

          • Evan Jones

            So is the earth. But not so quickly as originally posited.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            So now you are comparing yourself to heavenly bodies.

          • Evan Jones

            Does the earth also not twist and spin? #B^)

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Yes, and it is hard as a rock…like your melon head

          • Evan Jones

            A melon makes a rather soft rock.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Hard on the outside, soft and mushy on the inside! LOL
            Evvie, don’t attempt to be a witty one, it ain’t happening

          • Evan Jones

            It already did.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Don’t forget to wipe and flush, the brown mark will be dealt with later on.

          • S Graves

            Oh MEJ…so inane, childish and irrelevant. But you know that, don’t you?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Lookie here, another naysayer from the good old days. All we need is for Colin to reappear.
            Speaking of which, if I dug up some past comments of yours the same could be written.
            Get lost, Little Evvie is mine…got to keep him busy until the Paris gig is over.
            He’s such a mark, like taking candy from a baby.

          • S Graves

            Yes MEJ…you ARE a baby. At least you act like one. Or maybe you’re just a good actor. Actor? Baby?
            Start digging. Or demonstrate yourself to be just a simpleton blowhard.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Don’t you get it? Do I HAVE to spell it out to you?
            I AM dealing with an adolescent mind, one that craves attention and seeks confirmation of importance. Evvie needs to be taken seriously….So, doing the best I can under the circumstances.
            Now get lost and mind your own dribble, loser

          • S Graves

            NO…WAIT!!! YOU ARE the adolescent mind. You know…one that craves attention and seeks confirmation of importance.
            Uhhhh….that’s called projection on your part, MEJ.
            The dribble is on the front of your shirt, MEJ. Whoa…what WAS that you had for lunch?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            So funny….No YOU are the Pee Wee Herman BRAIN!
            I have PROOF
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkk4YLinC9E

            Crack HEAD….
            You don’t eat, just snort. LOL

          • S Graves

            Uh uhhh…you are. I said it first. No backs forever.
            You are just so funny MEJ. I thought I’d better try some childlike stuff for you since you just continue you childish drivel.
            Try again. Or maybe just return to your one man circle jerk. It’s likely you are better at that.

          • Evan Jones

            No backs forever.

            How about knucks or gimmes? And do crossies count? (Conventional or double.)

          • S Graves

            You memory is much better than mine.

          • Evan Jones

            YOU ARE the adolescent mind. You know…one that craves attention and seeks confirmation of importance.

            Name one of us who isn’t.

          • RealOldOne2

            All the climate alarmists are good at projection, aren’t they.

          • S Graves

            Keep up the good fight RO12.
            Evan Jones…the real one…is a very nice guy. Never speaks ill…but this guy MEJ is a flaming idiot.

          • RealOldOne2

            Yep, Evan Jones … the real one… is a nice guy. Very civil. But he seems to be stuck on attributing significan warming to CO2 during the late 20th century, even though he can’t cite empirical evidence to show that increased CO2 forcing is is close to increased natural solar forcing at the Earth’s surface.

            And yes, MEJ is the typical troll. He adds nothing of value to the discussion.

          • Evan Jones

            Evvie needs to be taken seriously

            Whether or not I succeed in that endeavor will depend on the quality of my work. So I pay particular attention to method.

          • Michael Evan Jones
          • Michael Evan Jones
          • S Graves

            Of course…he DOES.

          • Evan Jones

            I’d very much welcome Colin if he were to make an appearance here. He thinks wrong, I think, but he thinks. Not unlike JD in that.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            The question is one can think, but the thing of importance is intelligence…something lacking in your regard. So perhaps work on the latter so us all a lot of grief.

          • Evan Jones

            The question is one can think, but the thing of importance is intelligence

            No, the thing of importance is clarity of thought and consistency of result.

            something lacking in your regard.

            If I had more, I could put it to very good use.

            So perhaps work on the latter

            One must play the cards one is dealt. One must do the best one can with what one has.

            so to save us all a lot of grief.

            Some more than others, I think.

          • Evan Jones

            Oh, hullo. Another denizen from our exchanges over at Rolling Stone.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            A comrade of yours…glad you hooked up

          • S Graves

            Evan, you are always polite and never respond to MEJ in kind. He’s just a jerk. I enjoy bumping heads w/ him. I have a lot of respect for your SS work.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Had a sck up brown noser foolyoube. LOL
            Evvies head is big enough already…want it to explode!

          • S Graves

            What work have YOU done? Oh…wait…none. Just an irrelevant blowhard.
            Why don’t you cite one of his misrepresentations? Or just wander back to your one man circle jerk if you can’t.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Yo, I’m not the one tooting my horn with braggadocio.
            Stop stealing my lines and it ain’t no circle with one dicck aahole
            As far as the request shove it fool

          • S Graves

            OH MEJ!! So defensive. I must have hit a nerve. Is there something you are hiding? Something we should discuss?

            Stealing your lines? But MEJ…you don’t HAVE any lines worth stealing now, do you? Come on…be honest. Oh…wait. You can’t. All you can do is run off at the mouth with nonsense about a single other poster.

            Hey…why are you so obsessed? Is it a personality defect? Or are you just a simpleton jackhole?

            “… no circle with one dicck aahole”. Ok then…just do it your own way. At least you can properly describe yourself, MEJ.
            Why don’t you ever address the science of climate instead of simply resorting to drivel? That IS all you do, you know? You DO know that…right?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Ignore u

          • Evan Jones

            Evan, you are always polite

            That is as much a pragmatic reaction as it is anything else.

            and never respond to MEJ in kind.

            No need. I respond to him in my own way. That is also as much a pragmatic reaction as it is anything else.

          • S Graves

            I salute your pragmatism.

          • Evan Jones

            It already did.

            I would instinctively doubt the conclusions coming out of any other sort of head.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            We can debate that too if you like

          • jack dale

            Meanwhile

            “Exposure to emissions from coal-fired power plants over a long period of time is significantly more harmful to the heart than other forms of carbon pollution, a new study says.”

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/coal-is-king-among-pollution-that-causes-heart-disease-study-says/2015/12/01/3fb88194-9840-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html

          • RealOldOne2

            Shoddy journalism which doesn’t even name the alleged report, let alone link to it. Likely because it is ‘science-by-press-release’, in which the study itself does not support the propaganda headline, like much of the junk pseudoscience of the CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult religion.

          • jack dale

            I linked to the study. Read it. The Post got it right.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I linked to the study.”
            LOL! No you didn’t you linked to a NEWSPAPER article, which did not even NAME the paper, let alone link to it.
            Man are you global warming dupes ignorant.
            Another nice demonstration of scientific illiteracy.

            Go ahead and link us to the actual PAPER.

          • jack dale
          • RealOldOne2

            Thanks, but it shows NO negative health effects of CO2.

          • DennisHorne

            shows NO negative health effects of CO2

            But CO2 wasn’t the argument.

            If I gave you poke with a ‘polonium umbrella’ the umbrella would not be your problem.

            Silly old goat.

          • RealOldOne2

            “CO2 wasn’t the argument”
            CO2 is the reason you scientifically illiterate fools want to stop coal-fired electricity generation. You are blathering nonsense.

            The study involved people that were exposed decades ago prior to the present technology using scrubbers to remove particulates. It is stale now. Pointless rubbish propaganda.
            Your blatant alarmism FAILS.

          • DennisHorne

            Not thinking of the ‘perfect’ Volkswagen diesels, then?

            Always great to talk with you, RealOldOne2. Such fun poking you.

          • RealOldOne2

            Great fun exposing your scientific illiteracy dupe.

          • DennisHorne

            Better you try that than exposure yourself, you daft old bugar.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are blowing smoke. You’ve never been able to rebut a single bit of the empirical science that I have posted.

          • DennisHorne

            I don’t even try. I don’t need to. Just look at the comments from the clearly brilliant people here if you want to learn. But you don’t. You’re stuck.

          • RealOldOne2

            Like I said, none of your climate alarmists have been able to refute any of the empirical science that I’ve posted. And everyone can see that I’m the one posting the emprical science. You climate cult zealots are merely posting propagnada based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models.

            “You’re stuck.”
            Again, you show that you climate alarmists are good at projection.

          • DennisHorne

            The very fact you snap back with “No negative effects of CO2” about a paper showing the harm to health by energy production clearly demonstrates you are defensive and narrow in your thinking.

            What you call for is one paper proving increased CO2 emissions causes global warming.

            When one considers the complexity of the subject and the difficulty in making measurements that seems simple-minded to me.

            But hey, no more insults from me. You’re boring.

          • RealOldOne2

            “The very fact you snap back with “No negative effects of CO2″ about a paper showing the harm to health by energy production clearly demonstrates you are defensive an narrow in your thinking.”
            No, it demonstrates that I am scientifically literate and understand that CO2 is a purely harmless gas at even 10 times the levels occuring in the atmosphere, and you are scientifically illiterate, thinking CO2 is harmful and it would be net beneficial to civilization to reduce its production.

            You STILL have yet to refute a bit of the empirical science that I post. You merely regurgitate your false alarimst climate cult propaganda.

          • DennisHorne

            I am scientifically literate and understand that CO2 is a purely harmless gas at even 10 times the levels occuring in the atmosphere…

            I surrender to your arrogance, stupidity and ignorance.

            Take care.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I surrender to your arrogance, stupidity, and ignroance.”
            Nice projection. You are all those things.
            I base my understanding on empirical science which supports what I say.
            You’ve shown NO empirical science that supports the claim that CO2 is harmful.

          • DennisHorne

            I base my understanding on empirical science which supports what I say.

            Ah-ha. So in other words it’s your opinion. One of many.

            Do you not understand that a collection of opinions that are broadly similar constitutes a consensus?

            Yes, I know science is not done by consensus, but knowledge is the balance of informed opinion: the consensus.

            Most informed scientists agree there is ample evidence that CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy causing warming and more ice to melt.

            If you want to persuade them otherwise, you produce the evidence.

            Harping “NO empirical science that supports the claim that CO2 is harmful” clearly isn’t working, is it.

            Incidentally, stick a bag over your head and see if CO2 is harmful.

          • RealOldOne2

            Hahahahaha. Hilairous!

          • DennisHorne
          • RealOldOne2
          • Evan Jones

            I’ll lay long odds I am the least intelligent person in this room. But being intelligent does not equate to being right, far less intellectualism sand stringent method. The older I get, the more respect I have for the common sense of the common man.

          • Evan Jones

            My objection to what VW did is not based on the damage done by the deception itself, but the fact that it was blatantly unfair competition.

          • jack dale

            Conclusions: Long-term PM2.5 exposures from fossil fuel combustion, especially coal burning, but also from diesel traffic, were associated with increases in IHD mortality in this nationwide population. Results suggest that PM2.5 – mortality associations can vary greatly by source, and that the largest IHD health benefits per µg/m3 from PM2.5 air pollution control may be achieved via reductions of fossil fuel combustion exposures, especially from coal-burning sources.

          • RealOldOne2

            No negative effects of CO2. Get over it.

          • jack dale

            It is other coal emissions that make it deadly.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your handwaving clown dance.
            Take up a crusade to ban salt, soil, traffic, metals. They’re worse.

          • jack dale

            back to /ignore

          • RealOldOne2

            Take up a crusade to ban salt, soil, traffic, metals. The study shows they’re worse.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes. But, even those can be hugely reduced while retaining profitability.

            OTOH, I also understand that the worst coal power is better than the best in the UDCs — until they develop sufficiently, at which point the cost-benefit balance changes.

          • jack dale

            BTW CCS is still not viable.

          • Evan Jones

            You bet it ain’t. But ACS feeds the bulldog just fine.

          • Doug Van Duker

            I thought the topic was CO2 a AGW, not coal…which would include natural-gas…having few of the same pollution issues as coal.

          • Evan Jones

            And ~half the CO2 output. It’s how America has reduced its output in recent years.

          • Evan Jones

            A net-positive effect, the way I see it. (But I also think it has caused the bulk of recent warming.)

          • jack dale

            That is not what the research says.

            Increased CO2 is harmful to our food crops which evolved and were domesticated in an atmosphere that never exceeded 300 ppm in the past 800,000 years.

            Increased CO2 in open environments leads to

            1) Increased predation by pests

            doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105

            2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops

            doi:10.1038/nature13179

            Extra CO2 just produces extra stalks and leaves; not fruits, grains, etc..

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “Extra CO2 just produces extra stalks and leaves; not fruits, grains, etc..”

            Utter nonsense like most of your posts.

            Tomato yields in poly tunnels with CO2 concentrations of 2,000 ppm are way up, for example.

          • Evan Jones

            Increased CO2 is harmful to our food crops which evolved and were
            domesticated in an atmosphere that never exceeded 300 ppm in the past
            800,000 years.

            Flat-out wrong. CO2 has been on a sharp (in paleo terms) decrease over the last few tens of millions of years. Plant life has been highly strained to adapt, and there is less of it now than there was then. When the pressure is lifted, an explosion of green is the result.

            Two empirical observations bear this out:

            First, according to the Goklany studies and others, plant life has increased by ~14% since 1982. Not just crops, but the whole shebang.

            Second, if you want a maximally productive greenhouse, the first thing you do is ramp CO2 up to 800 to 1000ppm.

          • jack dale

            Miss the “open environments”?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Miss the “open environments”?”
            More nonsense from you. Those increased crop yields up to 290% were ALL in open environments throughout the entire globe.
            And experimental studies in “open environments” such as the FACE studies show that CO2 in beneficial, not detrimental.
            Also of note is Shaw(2002) which was an “open environment” study where several factors were change to represent what climate alarmists claim will be representative of a globally warmed environment. Elevated temperature, CO2, precipitation, soil N produced a net plant productivity increase of 40%. And that includes your scare mongering “pests”. And yet you lamely whine about a couple % decrease in just a couple nutrients. You are desperate to peddle your CAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult propaganda there jack. So sad.

          • Evan Jones

            Actually, I am a huge fan of frankenfood. And if some crops don’t mind a closed environment, then who am I to object?

          • jack dale

            I am not opposed to GMOs. Most of our food sources the the result of “primitive” genetic modification – selective breeding.

            I have serious qualms about patents on food and the amount of chemicals required for some GMOs.

          • RealOldOne2

            “But I also think it has caused the bulk of the recent warming”
            Where is the empirical evidence showing that?
            Peer reviewed science empirically shows that there was 2.7-5W/m^2 of increased solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388873427 ). CO2 didn’t cause that. It was natural, not anthropogenic.
            And you have admitted that you believe that the warm phase of the PDO contributed. That was natural, stored solar energy.

            So I don’t understand why you believe that CO2 caused the bulk of the recent warming. Can you provide empirical evidence to support your ‘thought’?

          • Evan Jones

            The reason I believe that is threefold.
            1.) The repeatable lab experiments show a 1.1C per doubling for raw CO2.
            2.) We have (only very recently) observed the actual mechanism of CO2 absorbing upwelling LW and re-reradiating it in random directions (some of it down)
            3.) Raw [sic] CO2 forcing numbers correlates well with temperature increase since 1950.
            This could be wrong or incomplete, of course, but I think it very likely.

          • RealOldOne2

            OK, but I would point out:
            1) the repeatable lab experiments don’t have the real world feedbacks, which appear to be negative based on the lack of warming with amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere during the last ~19 years.

            2) the CO2 “mechanism” merely slows the heat loss from the surface. It is supposed to increase atmospheric temperatures while the additional CO2 is absorbing the radiated heat from the surface, BUT during the last ~19 years there has been no increase in atmospheric temperature, even though CO2 concentration continues to increase. Again pointing to a negative feedback or an insignificant causation of warming. Also, the “re-radiating” can transfer no heat to the Earth/ocean surface as it is radiating from a colder temperature, and heat only flows from warmer objects to colder objects. To do otherwise would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            3) Correlation is not causation.

            So you have not yet provided any empirical evidence that CO2 was the primary cause of the “bulk of the recent warming”.

            But Hatzianastassiou(2005), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014) have shown empirical evidence for 2.7-5W/m^2 of increased solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century. This is documented natural climate forcing.
            The increase in CO2 forcing over the late 20th century is only at maximum ~0.4W/m^2.
            Seems clear empirical evidence that natural climate forcing is still the primary driver of climate.

          • Evan Jones

            the repeatable lab experiments don’t have the real world feedbacks,
            which appear to be negative based on the lack of warming with amount of
            CO2 added to the atmosphere during the last ~19 years.

            They might be. But based on temps from 1950, they appear to be roughly neutral.

            the CO2 “mechanism” merely slows the heat loss from the surface. It is
            supposed to increase atmospheric temperatures while the additional CO2
            is absorbing the radiated heat from the surface,

            That appears to be occurring. A slowed heat loss means a higher equilibrium.

            BUT during the last ~19
            years there has been no increase in atmospheric temperature, even though CO2 concentration continues to increase.

            Yes. But we have entered a natural cooling PDO phase. However, instead of cooling, we are seeing relatively flat trends. The difference is the amount of warming forcing.

            However, having said that, a natural positive PDO was in play prior to that, going back to 1975, and only ~half of that warming came was anthropogenic.

            So overall anthropogenic forcing is the average of the two phases, and that correlates rather well with overall CO2 output (raw effects only), and the modest (beneficial) rise in temperatures we have seen since 1950.

          • RealOldOne2

            I’m sorry, but you are still merely making an evidence-free claim that the warming was anthropogenic. You have provided no empirical evidence to support your claim.

            You continue to IGNORE the fact that there is peer reviewed empirical science showing 2.7-5W/m^2 of increased natural solar forcing reaching the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century warming, but only ~0.4W/m^2 maximum anthropogenic CO2 forcing.

            You are obviously being blinded by confirmation bias.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, but there is a lot of peer review solar science showing the effect is not large. One would also have to explain the amount PDO cooling of the 1960s in spite of the fact that the greatest solar maximum occurred at that time.

            Even the Svensmark hypothesis is based on indirect solar wind effects, not on TSI.

            I am not saying solar has no effect. I am saying we do not know yet. As you say, we are currently entering Dalton territory and we may even wind up on the Maunder side. So we will find out the hard way going forward, in any event.

            But here’s one for you:

            It is the very model of a modern Maunder Minimum
            (I wanted to be plainer, but I couldn’t find a synonym).
            Because of modern media it’s not believed by anyone
            The sun has done a bunk and we will freeze for a millennium.
            And so I’ll see you later, I am off for the equator,
            For it is the very model of a modern major minimum.

          • RealOldOne2

            “but there is a lot of peer review solar science showing the effect is not large”
            Come on Evan. You know that is about TSI at the top of atmosphere, not at the surface.

            Why are you dodging this peer reviewed empirical science showing that the solar radiative forcing at the Earth’s surface increased during the late 20th century warming period by 2.7-5W/m^2. During that time CO2 forcing only changed by 0.4W/m^2 MAX.

            Here are the specific quotes from the papers:
            – Hatzianastassiou found that increased surface solar heating from 1984-2000 was 4.1W/m^2. – “Significant increasing trends in DSR [Downward Surface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm^-2, respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2 Wm^-2 per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” – Hatzianastassiou(2005), ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave radiation budget’

            This increase in surface solar radiation is confirmed by Pinker(2005) – “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” – ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation’ 0.16*18 years = 2.9 W/m^2 over the 1983-2001 timeframe.

            This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by Herman(2013) – “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm^-2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm^-2 absorbed by the surface.” – ‘A net decrease in Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yrs (1979-2011)’

            This increase in solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is also confirmed by McLean(2014) – “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” – McLean (2014), ‘Late Twentieth Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’

            The reduction in global mean cloud amount that caused the higher level of solar radiation to reach the Earth’s surface during the late 20th century is documented in this NASA data: http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg

            The IPCC ghg forcing formula (exaggerated by nonexistent positive water vapor feedback) shows only a 0.4 W/m^2 forcing over that same timeframe. (5.35 x ln (370/345) = 0.4) – evidence from the IPCC reports

            This empirical data shows that there was 6 to 12 times more natural solar forcing contributing to warming during that late 20th century time frame when most of the warming occurred than there was from ghg forcing. Clearly the empirical evidence shows that natural climate variability was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

            Why won’t you acknowledge this?

          • Evan Jones

            Come on Evan. You know that is about TSI at the top of atmosphere, not at the surface.

            And I have the equation to convert it. But I’ve already said there are other sub- or related factors that go through flux like UV and solar wind and the 10.7 cm band.

            And yes I know about McLean (2014). And I agree that cloud cover is a vitally important feedback. That and humidity. But they are poorly understood. Even Spencer and Christy will emphasize that. The data is poor, even NASA’s, and you can’t see low level under higher level even with sats, and the fact that they can have opposite effects doesn’t make life any easier.

            And empirical satellite observations (finally) do exist of the CO2 effect.

            I’m not saying solar is wrong. I don’t think we know how much effect it has, and we are about to find out anyway, given the trend in Schwabe cycles. We can’t mitigate that, anyway. So we wait and see.

          • RealOldOne2

            “And I have the equation to convert it.”
            You don’t need to convert it.
            You are continuing to dodge the papers that I cited which show 2.7-5W/m^2 of additional solar forcing at the Earth’s surface.

            “cloud cover is a vitally important feedback”
            It is a forcing too, as decreasing cloud cover allows more solar radiation to reach the surface of the Earth. CO2 is a feedback too, but that doesn’t prevent it from also being a forcing (albeit so weak one, only a maximum of ~0.4W/m^2 over the late 20th century).

            So you still haven’t addressed that fact that peer reviewed science shows there was 2.7-5W/m^2 of increased natural solar forcing during the late 20th century, while there was only a maximum of 0.4W/m^2 of CO2 forcing.

            You still haven’t provided anything more that a correlation, which doesn’t prove causation, for your belief that CO2 was a significant cause of the late 20th century warming.

            It’s apparent that you can’t, and that your confirmation bias is causing you to refuse to admit that 2.7-5 is greater than 0.4.

          • Evan Jones

            Then why did the climate not respond to the Grand Solar Maximum in the 1960s?

            That is a distinct lack of correlation, and that raises a lot of doubts in my mind. I’m looking at the bottom line.

            You still haven’t provided anything more that a correlation, which doesn’t prove causation, for your belief that CO2 was a significant cause of the late 20th century warming.

            There are two pieces of empirical evidence to support the correlation: The Arrhenius experiments and the recent direct observations of the phenomenon. Still not completely conclusive, but pretty good as far s these things go.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Then why did the climate not respond to the Grand Solar Maximum in the 1960s?”
            The climate did and is responding to Because of the huge thermal inertia of the oceans which moderates and smooths the effects of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s land/ocean surface, and because of the ocean’s cyclical storing and releasing solar heat.

            First, while solar cycle 19 may have been the highest cycle, all the cycles from 18-23 were high relative to the previous few hundred years, http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif .
            Second, the climate did and is still responding these high solar cycles, but that response is not instantaneous because of the huge thermal inertia of the oceans. This moderates, smooths and causes a lag in the effects of solar radiation, and again, what is more important than the changes at TOA, are the much larger changes in the amount of solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface. There is an identified physical mechanism for this moderation/lag. That is the fact that solar radiation penetrates up to 200m deep into the ocean, storing this solar heat, and releasing it cyclicly and slowly.
            So there is no “distinct lack of correlation” when you consider the thermal inertia of the oceans. This was explained in the peer reviewed literature decades ago:

            “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation of the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of short-wave radiation, reaching the surface of the Earth. … One can believe that some excess of the computed temperature as compared to observational data reflects the thermal inertia effects of the oceans the heating or cooling of which smooths the Earth’s temperature variations in comparison with the computed values for stationary conditions.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

            “There are two pieces of empirical evidence to support the correlation. The Arrhenius experiments and the recent direct observations of the phenomenon.”
            As I pointed out before, the Arrhenius experiments do not include real world feedbacks, which point to being negative, with the warming effect of a doubling of CO2 being much less that 1C.

            Regarding the direct observations, there is a distinct lack of correlation over the past ~19 years, as there has been an unprecedented amount of human CO2 added to the atmosphere, 1/3 of all the human CO2 released since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and it has caused no warming of the atmosphere, which is where the effects of CO2 are supposed to be most observed.
            And there is no physical mechanism to explain any “lag” or “delay” in the alleged significant effects of CO2. Those effects should be immediate, as they “absorb” the LWIR from the surface and raise the temperature of the atmosphere. The real world observations show that that has not been happening.
            And I would add that the ocean thermal inertia does not apply to CO2, since physics prohibits any heat from CO2 being stored in the oceans since the 15μm wavelength of CO2 IR can only penetrate ~3μm deep into the ocean, http://bit.ly/133RtMo . That is only ~1% of the thickness of the 0.5mm ocean skin. That is only 0.000000025 of the depth that solar radiation penetrates.
            Also thermodynamics prohibits it, as the 2nd Law says that heat only flows in one direction, from warmer objects to colder objects, therefore the colder ghgs in the atmosphere can transfer no heat to the warmer oceans. A few references stating this:
            • “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155
            • “Heat does not flow from a cooler to warmer body.” – Clark2010 ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ , peer reviewed science
            • “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            So you still haven’t provided any empirical evidence that CO2 has been a significant contributor to the late 20th century warming.
            And you still haven’t addressed the fact that the maximum change in CO2 forcing change over the late 20th century is only a few tenths of a W/m^2, whereas the natural solar forcing has been a few W/m^2.

            Again, I think confirmation bias is causing a ‘blind spot’ for you on the CO2/warming issue. The real world empirical data, physics, and thermodynamics does not support your CO2 claim.
            Thanks for the civil nature of your discussion.

          • jack dale

            CERN and others have found nothing to support Svensmark.

            Cosmic rays, solar activity and the climate

            OPEN ACCESS FOCUS ON HIGH ENERGY PARTICLES AND ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES

            T Sloan and A W Wolfendale 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 045022
            doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/045022

            Abstract
            Although it is generally believed that the increase in the mean global surface temperature since industrialization is caused by the increase in green house gases in the atmosphere, some people cite solar activity, either directly or through its effect on cosmic rays, as an underestimated contributor to such global warming. In this letter a simplified version of the standard picture of the role of greenhouse gases in causing the global warming since industrialization is described. The conditions necessary for this picture to be wholly or partially wrong are then introduced. Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century.”

            +++++

            A review of the relevance of the ‘CLOUD’ results and other recent observations to the possible effect of cosmic rays on the terrestrial climate

            Anatoly Erlykin, Terry Sloan, Arnold Wolfendale

            (Submitted on 23 Aug 2013)

            The problem of the contribution of cosmic rays to climate change is a continuing one and one of importance. In principle, at least, the recent results from the CLOUD project at CERN provide information about the role of ionizing particles in ‘sensitizing’ atmospheric aerosols which might, later, give rise to cloud droplets. Our analysis shows that, although important in cloud physics the results do not lead to the conclusion that cosmic rays affect atmospheric clouds significantly, at least if H2SO4 is the dominant source of aerosols in the atmosphere. An analysis of the very recent studies of stratospheric aerosol changes following a giant solar energetic particles event shows a similar negligible effect. Recent measurements of the cosmic ray intensity show that a former decrease with time has been reversed. Thus, even if cosmic rays enhanced cloud production, there will be a small global cooling, not warming.

            Comments:6 pages, 1 figureSubjects:Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)Journal reference:Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 2013, 121, 137-142DOI:10.1007/s00703-013-0260-xCite as:arXiv:1308.5067 [physics.ao-ph] (or arXiv:1308.5067v1 [physics.ao-ph] for this version)

          • Evan Jones

            Yet it beats poverty (aka the Great Killer) on a cost-benefit basis.

          • jack dale

            Nice mantra.

          • Evan Jones

            Nice mantras often have their basis in reality.

          • http://wermenh.com/index.html Ric Werme

            Whoa, this is carbon? “The burning of coal releases fine particles with a potent mix of toxins, including arsenic and selenium.”

            Let’s limit “carbon pollution” to chemicals that actually contain carbon, shall we? Like soot, graphite, diamond. Okay, maybe CO2 and CO too. Limestone must be carbon pollution too.

          • RealOldOne2

            jack also overlooks that the study he refers to included effects from decades ago, before scrubbers etc. removed most of the particulates from coal-fired power plants. They are so clean now that the background levels of particulates are higher concentrations than the emissions from power plants. But their goal isn’t to reduce emissions, it’s to reduce energy.

          • Evan Jones

            Gosh yes. And so it seems.

          • jack dale

            Cement production contributes to carbon emissions

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2011.ems

          • Evan Jones

            Sure. And we would be better off without it?

        • fiat

          Fukushima

          “Coal is the deadliest form of energy production” uh, no.

          • jack dale

            Radiation exposure was not responsible for the deaths of six workers helping to contain the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, a U.N. committee said in a preliminary assessment Wednesday.

            Based on information available so far, their deaths are attributable to cardiovascular disease or other reasons, according to the report compiled by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.

            One of the six died of acute leukemia, but radiation exposure was ruled out as a cause because the time between possible exposure and death was so short, the committee said.

            http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/05/25/news/radiation-didnt-cause-fukushima-no-1-deaths-u-n/#.VmCJDnarRQK

          • Doug Van Duker

            You’re absolutely right about Fukushima. By all measures, Fukushima was a
            fluke, even had the death toll been attributable to radiation, these were still less than any normal weekend on any LA freeway. Chernobyl would be an instance where lax administration, poor design, and worse maintenance resulted in an otherwise avoidable loss of life. That being said, nuclear, hydro-electric, and thermo-electric are the only non-carbon emitting energy sources not posing a significant, immediate, and foreseeable threat to wildlife…but; they’re environmentally fashionable. The US (in particular) does everything possible to discourage these more viable alternatives. I haven’t figured out the associated agenda—unless wind & solar lobbies are simply better funded.

          • jack dale

            I presume you mean they’re environmentally unfashionable

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, that is a point in his favor. Even if nukes were a lot more dangerous, if one accepts the premise (with which I don’t agree) that AGW is an existential or partially existential threat, why would one oppose a much lesser threatening replacement?

          • Evan Jones

            You mean “unfashionable”, of course. You should make the edit. (But it’s obvious from context.)

            P.S.: Oh, I see JD beat me to it.

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            “That being said, nuclear, hydro-electric, and thermo-electric are the only non-carbon emitting energy sources not posing a significant, immediate, and foreseeable threat to wildlife”

            In fact, hydro power is responsible for several orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear power. Take the Banqiao Dam disaster, for example:

            Casualties

            According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

            Or the Sichuan earthquake, perhaps:

            BEIJING — Nearly nine months after a devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, left 80,000 people dead or missing, a growing number of American and Chinese scientists are suggesting that the calamity was triggered by a four-year-old reservoir built close to the earthquake’s geological fault line.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06quake.html?pagewanted=all

            Strangely, the Watermelons, although all too quick to point to half a dozen deaths at Fukushima, are utterly silent about the hundreds of thousands that can die due to the failure of a single hydro project.

          • Doug Van Duker

            Your points are well taken. However, it could be asserted that this is sorta an apples and oranges kind of comparison. The failed Banqiao Reservoir Dam, in Henan Province, was built in the 1950s, using largely Soviet earthen designs & engineering. The central failure was the earthen support structure–which was not directly associated with the embedded (concrete) hydro-electric generating sub-structure. The dam was primarily designed & built for river flood control, not power generation. The earthen reservoir failure during the Sichuan Province quake, which you cite, was similarly associated with flood-control. I’m not sure if there was any hydro-electric capacity in the failure structure (which was adequately designed…except for the fact that both the river and reservoir were situated near a quake fault-line). The Rexburg, ID Teton reservoir collapse was a similar failure of an earthen flood-control structure–not a dam designed for hydro-electric power generation. US dams associated with significant hydro-eclectic generation have been almost exclusively concrete construction since the 1950s). My comment was attempting to address what I see as an unreasonable US environmental bias against hydro-electric construction–& everything else without K-street lawyers. As long as government is ignoring non-C02 generating alternatives, the climate-change narrative appears to be window-dressing for a larger agenda.

          • Evan Jones

            I think you need to check that out. Nukes cost ‘way fewer lives than coal. Fukushima is a drop in the bucket by comparison. (And I am very pro-coal).

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    “The study could also help us understand what it is about people that make them so reluctant to take an evidence-based approach to thinking about things like vaccines and climate change.

    “The emerging picture is that people have divergent psychological profiles that make them more or less likely to believe in certain phenomena, buy into conspiracy theories, embrace the language and promises of alternative medicine over conventional medicine, and find meaning in a meaningless series of profound-sounding words,” Emily Willingham writes for Forbes.

    So stay skeptical out there on the Internet kids, and try not to be too hard on the believers. They know not what they do.”

    http://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-a-link-between-low-intelligence-and-believing-philosophical-quotes

    • DennisHorne

      Crackpot. Immunisation is well understood and has saved many from disease and death.

      CO2 is an important greenhouse gas and GHGs stop us freezing to death,

      • Evan Jones

        I read that article. Nowhere in it is immunization mentioned or addressed either directly or indirectly.

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    If this is logic: The sun provide over 99% of the earth’s energy, no new energy is being produced out of that energy .. How come activists don’t get it?

    https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/no-new-energy/

    • DennisHorne

      What a silly billy you are. Your clothes and bedding don’t produce any energy either, but prevent you from getting too cold, and frightening the horses.

      • Evan Jones

        But a nice cloud umbrella reflects heat off.

        • jack dale

          Not at night.

          • Evan Jones

            No. But net. It’s only night half the time.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Fast Eddy says:
            December 5, 2015 at 12:45 am
            I am not clear why the global warming discussion persists…

            If it is a threat to the planet — the thing is… the only way to stop it is to stop burning fossil fuels.

            I repeat that — the only way to stop global warming is to stop burning fossil fuels.

            Hands up if you want that to happen.

            If your hand is up you are aware that if you get what you want you can forget about going to work tomorrow — you can forget about your pension cheque — you can forget about having electricity or petrol — you can forget about being able to buy food.

          • Evan Jones

            This is the guy you think is going to clean my clock? Really?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, why are you responding? You know where he can be found….I DARE you to engage a debate with Fast Eddy….he’ll blow you out of cyberspace back into your dark rathole.

          • Evan Jones

            If we meet, we’ll talk. You could always bring him over here, of course.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sounds like a chicken out from a chicken brain with chicken wings.

          • Evan Jones

            I am not interested in discussing peak oil (as in peek and ye shall find). I am not even particularly interested in discussing politics (my major and academic concentration). I am interested in discussing climate change.

            I would prefer not to barge in and confront someone who has never done me any harm, on a subject that is off-topic in that particular forum. I’ll be perfectly happy to discuss climate with him here. If that’s chicken, so be it.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            The climate is remarkably stable, there’s actually nothing to discuss, but weather discussions is always a crowd pleaser.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes, homeostasis is the norm.

          • jack dale

            Let me fix that for you

            ” homeostasis was the norm”

            http://news.utexas.edu/sites/news.utexas.edu/files/know/images/2010/climate_myth8/image1_2.jpg

            The normal negative feedback has not kicked in.

          • Evan Jones

            Very impressive-looking. But all that does is add a dergree or so of followon when the Milliecycles flip to cold. And?

          • jack dale

            “when the Milliecycles flip to cold”

            Which would be when?

            Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

            Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood

            Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 doi:10.1038/ncomms8535

            Received 23 May 2014 Accepted 14 May 2015 Published 23 June 2015Article tools

            Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

          • Evan Jones

            Which would be when?

            Anywhere between now and a few thousand years down the road. In paleo terms, we’re at the butt-end of the current interglacial.

            And this has nothing to do with solar. When the millies go out of line, we’re talking om a scale of 10C of cooling.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            That is a classic..”only adds a degree or so” ….

          • Evan Jones

            There’s a reason for that.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Fast Eddy only appears there. Other than that
            Javier says:
            November 25, 2015 at 11:38 am
            We are smarter then yeast. Or at least we think we are. Legends in our own minds I guess.

            We write poetry and think it’s pretty cool, but birds and whales sing sonnets to their loved ones, bees perform dances before an audience to convey a message, bacterial cells talk to their buddies to work things out, and even trees communicate with their brethren.

            So, are we smarter than yeast? When we build bridges and skyscrapers and make microchips and perform heart transplants, I guess we are being smart, but all that kind of stuff takes place at the microscopic level too. The smarts are not coming from where you think they are.
            Reply
            Fast Eddy says:
            November 25, 2015 at 2:10 pm
            We are smarter than yeast only in that we figure out ways to get more cups of sugar…. we get buckets of sugar… we have sugar orgies… we have so much sugar we are frothing over the top of the beaker…

            However the end result is the same…. peak sugar….

            Metaphor time:

            Reply
            Javier says:
            November 28, 2015 at 10:52 am
            Dear lord. Is that what we have collectively become as a society?

            And the only solution is to keep finding more sugar?
            Ed says:
            November 28, 2015 at 2:14 pm
            Why it is taking so long for a group to form with the idea, if we cooperate we can take the sugar from the other unorganized people, is beyond me. In a resource constrained world this seem obvious. The Vikings understood this.
            Reply
            Gail Tverberg says:
            November 25, 2015 at 7:50 pm
            I am not sure we are smarter than yeast
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UPXUG8q4jKU

          • Evan Jones

            Why it is taking so long for a group to form with the idea, if we cooperate we can take the sugar from the other unorganized people, is beyond me.

            A. We are more numerous than they are, therefore we have a right to their mash.
            B. They are more numerous than we are, therefore they are wickedly trying to steal our mash.
            C. We are a mighty race and have a natural right to subjugate their puny one.
            D. They are a mighty race and are unnaturally trying to subjugate our inoffensive one.
            E. We must attack them in self-defence.
            F. They are attacking us by defending themselves.
            G. If we do not attack them today, they will attack us tomorrow.
            H. In any case we are not attacking them at all. We are offering them incalculable benefits.
            –The Once and Future King

            In a resource constrained world this seem obvious. The Vikings understood this.

            As do other bloody minded pirates and marauders.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            See, evvie, watt you’re missing out at Our Finite World.

          • Evan Jones

            Is that like Our Infinite for All Practical Purposes World?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Easy for you to jest…that’s OK, after all its coming from you.

          • Evan Jones

            Easy for you to jest

            Always was.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Yep, we’ll just start calling the “Joker”
            https://www.pinterest.com/pin/190699365448529390/

            There you go, hang that pic up by your throne.

          • Evan Jones
          • Michael Evan Jones

            See evvie, I know you better than every one else. Mr Polite and well mannered fas a dark sinister side…remove the mask…let the real Evan emerge.

          • Evan Jones

            Y’know, I don’t want there to be any hard feelings between us . . .

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Not at all, after all we ve been through together, we can settle our differences in a suitable manner:

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gwdypLFy8Pk

          • Evan Jones

            Whereas in my clip the gun is pointed at me, not at you .

            Look at what I did to this field with just a few excel spreadsheets and and little Google Earth. Mmm? You know what I notice? Nobody panics when things are going according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying.

            If tomorrow half of China starves or if India breaks down under the weight of its own poverty . . . nobody panics. Because it’s all part of the plan. But if I say just one little old adjustment procedure will be falsified, well, then everyone loses their minds.

            Introduce a little method. Upset the established order and everything becomes chaos. I’m an agent of method. Oh, and you know the thing about method? It’s stark. I’ll take my chances with peer and independent review.

            I pass, I win . . . I fail, I lose . . . Mmm, now we’re talkin’.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, let it be..
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iwok7XHIYs

            Stick with your science and stop with all your heavy handed judgement calls.
            It is over the top and tarnishes your reputation. As I pointed out there is little, if any action we an undertake to solve this predicament.
            Like Everything Else, Alternative Energy Requires Cheap Oil
            Ironically, alternative energy needs oil to replace oil.
            http://fpif.org/like-everything-else-alternative-energy-requires-cheap-oil/
            It can be summarized thus. Once world oil production begins to decline and the resource goes from being abundant to scarce, the oil that would be needed to reduce society’s dependence on oil is no longer available. This is because, as noted earlier, alternative energy sources sorely depend on oil just for their current production, not to mention the massive build-outs required to make them the dominant fuels. In a world of scarce oil, every ounce of it we possess will have to meet essential needs before those of alternative energy. The trap will become ever more acute the further we move along the depletion curve, since the sacrifice required to invest in renewables will have to come out of an ever-shrinking pie.

            In other words, alternative energy is dependent on the availability of cheap oil

            So, Evvie, no need to be on any side…Catch 22
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E9wcK6qvCqI

            See, there is no free lunch

          • Evan Jones

            Speaking of judgment calls.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Yes…are you speaking about yourself, no doubt

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Activists don’t mean THEY are the ones having to be inconvenienced, not personally.

          • Evan Jones

            But with great symbology.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, who is this guy, Roald J Larsen? Some lightweight troll…leave us alone and go amuse some others at Watts up with that, bye. kiddo

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            What a strange thing to say, after all i was actually commenting on your post about how the alarmists don’t seem to understand the consequences, the full impact of what it would mean if we actually stopped using fossil fuels ..

            But they don’t mean they should stop using fossil fuels or change their lives. So i wrote; “Activists don’t mean THEY are the ones having to be inconvenienced, not personally.”

            If your discussions was private, why discuss publicly?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            I don’t care watt you right…not interested…go away..got a full plate already…you are a lightweight…not a contender…bug off, thank you very much
            PS I don’t want to be friend…LOL
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tAU6HYpvzUU

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Good, you didn’t understand anyway .. That’s why activists don’t get the science :)

          • Evan Jones

            Reasonable question.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sure, reasonable men will push the nukes too, I suppose.

          • Evan Jones

            You bet. Both in the military and civilian realms.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            And in low rent controlled NYC apartments

          • Evan Jones

            A descendant of marauders, extortionists, and torturers, no doubt. Like me.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Remember the sins of the Fathers are bore down on the succeeding generations.
            Today, we are blind to them, totally and posterity will curse us, or be amazed on our foolhardy blindness.

        • DennisHorne

          So you can’t get sunburnt on a cloudy day?

          • Evan Jones

            I think you are confusing UV with TSI.

    • Evan Jones

      No matter how large the offset, for it to register any change, there must be a change in the offset.

      TSI (the overall), shows little change, even from the MWP. There are other aspects, though, such as UV and the electromagnetic flux, which do (or may). The question is how much knock-on effect those deltas may or may not produce. Thing is, we don’t know enough about those effects to come to solid conclusions.

      For CO2, there is a definite effect. but that effect is or is not magnified by associated feedbacks. If those feedbacks are net positive, sensitivity will be higher than the raw CO2 effect. If negative, they will be reduced. This will be reflected directly in the data, of course. I see little effect either way, leaving us with (roughly) raw forcing, only. But neither I nor anyone else has a handle on the totality of the feedbacks in play.

      And then there are the unknowns that may or may not be affecting the equation. Very often, an observed change is genuine, but the cause is misattributed. We can only see the bottom line, as reflected in the temperature (and other) observed data.

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        My first line is key; “.. no new energy is being produced out of that energy..”

      • RealOldOne2

        Good comment, but I believe that you left out what is probably the most significant “other aspect”, which is CLOUDS. They modulate how much of that relatively constant amount of solar radiation that reaches the surface of the Earth to warm the land and oceans.

        The flaw of the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 alarmists is borne out in Prof. Stott’s comment:
        “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictibly by managing at the margins, one politically selected variable, CO2, is as misguided as it gets.”

        • Evan Jones

          Clouds may or may not be an independent variable vis a vis solar (Svensmark is still in dispute). On thing’s for sure, though, and that is much of the water uptake resulting from AGW goes not into ambient vapor, but intpo low-level cloud cover, a counteracting negative feedback that nullifies the additional vapor.

          CMIP sees only the vapor and not the clouds. That is where it went off the rails. So instead of a tripling positive feedback, as per them models, we get a near net-neutral feedback.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            It fluctuate back and forward as it try to maintain equilibrium on a dynamic scale on a multitude of altitude all over the area actively receiving energy from the sun.

        • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

          Clouds are, as you wrote, merely a modulator.

      • Icarus62

        Modern and palaeoclimate data show that raw forcings are amplified by about a factor of three when just the fast feedbacks are accounted for (mainly water vapour, clouds and sea ice) and double that or more for full Earth system sensitivity.

        • RealOldOne2

          There has been the greatest amount of anthropogenic CO2 added to the atmosphere in the last ~19 years, ~560 billion tons worth, and yet total water vapor has decreased, not increased.
          Your assumption of positive feedback has FAILED the real world empirical data test, which is one of the reasons your flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models can’t accurately project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level.
          http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png

          • Icarus62

            You’re wrong. Water vapour has increased.

            https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/humid1.jpg

            https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/SpecificHumidity_land_ocean_71-2012.png

            Also correlates remarkably well with temperature (the black curve), as you would expect from the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship:

            https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/humid2.jpg
            Credit:

            http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/urban-wet-island/

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. Sorry, but you’re wrong. That is not total water column as I posted.
            And I don’t get science from dishonest propagandist bloggers like Grant Foster who refuses to post comments that expose his errors.

            No one believes a dishonest commenter like you who stubbornly cling to your mistakes, turning them into lies. It’s all documented here: http://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/#comment-2388659377
            So are you going to admit to your mistakes?
            Or are you going to cling to them, turning them into lies?

          • RealOldOne2

            The 1st graph that Icarus62 posted was from a Grant Foster, aka Tamino, blog article. He claims the graphs show “the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere”, but that’s not what the 3 lines in his graph represent!
            Dai(2006), ‘Recent Climatology, Variability, and Trends in Global SURFACE Humidity’. This paper is about humidity only at the Earth’s SURFACE, not the entire atmosphere.
            Willett etal (2008), ‘Recent changes in SURFACE humidity …’ This paper is about humidity only at the SURFACE, not the entire atmosphere.
            Berry & Kent (2009), ‘A new air-SEA interaction …’ This paper is about humidity ONLY over the oceans, NOT the entire globe.

            So we see that Foster misrepresents what the graphs actually show. Humidity at the surface is NOT a measure of total water vapor throughout the entire atmosphere. This is why you can’t trust what you read at Grant Foster’s ‘Tamino’ blog. It is steeped in CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 propaganda.

            Icarus was either not scientifically literate enough to recognize what he was looking at or he was purposefully misrepresenting Tamino’s graph as showing total atmospheric humidity.

            Now as to Icky’s second graph. It came from this climate . gov webpage: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity
            Below the graph it says: “Overall, water vapor in the SURFACE atmosphere has increased over land and ocean relative to the 1970s”
            Once again we see that Icky’s graphs are NOT indicating the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. They are merely indicitive of the humidity AT THE SURFACE.

            The blue line in this graph shows TOTAL water vapor in the entire atmosphere:
            http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif

            So will Icarus62 admit his mistake, either scientific incompetence, or purposeful deception? Fat chance, since his track record is to cling to his mistakes and turn them into lies. “When a mistake is pointed out, but still clung to, it becomes a lie.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/factual-errors-vs-lies-and-admitting-mistakes.686/

          • Icarus62

            You’re wrong:

            “A Hövmuller plot derived
            from JRA-55 (Fig. 2.15) indicates that the long-term
            increase in TCWV is occurring at all latitudes            , with
            less variability outside the tropics. Compared with
            satellite data, which were previously used to create
            this figure, the JRA-55 data span a longer time period
            and are available over land, and changes in TCWV
            are consistent with changes in lower tropospheric
            temperature changes.

            BAMS State of the Climate 2014 p23

            i.e. just as Tamino’s blog post says, and in contradiction to your claims.

          • RealOldOne2

            So sad that you continue to deny reality and dishonestly peddle your propaganca. But that’s what duped doomsday cultists do. So sad.

            The plot you posted ( https://a.disquscdn.com/get?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.climate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Finline_all%2Fpublic%2FSpecificHumidity_land_ocean_71-2012.png&key=wCwDhzvasdVagTwnfmLMeg&w=800&h=171 ) was NOT included in the BAMS State of the Climate report. As I showed you below, it was from a climate . gov website: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity

            The legend of the plot explicitly states: “Graph by NOAA Climate . gov, ADAPTED from Figure 2.12 in State of the Climate 2013”

            The legend of Fig. 2.12 in SotC2013 explicitly states: “Global average surface humidity” as you can see with your own lying eyes.
            Both you and Grant Foster have been exposed as dishonest peddlers of propaganda as the graph that you and Foster, aka Tamino, posted was a gross misrepresentation, as it was a graph of SURFACE humidity.

            You continue to deny the global total water column satellite data which shows that total water column has decreased since 1997/1998, as shown in the blue line here: http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif

          • Icarus62

            As the report says, there is a “…long-term increase in TCWV occurring at all latitudes, which is consistent with changes in lower tropospheric temperature changes.“

          • RealOldOne2

            Bzzzz! You’re still trying to move the goal posts. NOT allowed.
            You showed two graphs that you claimed represented specific humidity in the atmosphere. As I have shown, they did NOT. They only represented surface humidity, not the entire atmosphere.

            Your changing horses is merely obfuscating the your erroneous claim.
            Admit your error.

          • Icarus62

            So we agree that atmospheric humidity is increasing, in line with temperature, as described by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship and showing that the water vapour feedback is indeed significant and positive.

          • RealOldOne2

            At the surface, which is only a minscule portion of the entire atmosphere, but no not in the whole atmosphere, as the graphs I have posted show that the total water column in the entire atmosphere has been going down since ~1997/1998.
            http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/TPW-global.png
            and:
            http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif

            So you’re giving up defending the two graphs that you posted, which means that we agree that you and Foster were wrong and dishonest in your misrepresentation of the two graphs you both presented. That’s good to know.

        • Evan Jones

          Not a prayer.

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        You are really trying to be political correct, the facts remains, observational evidence has yet to be found for CO2 warming of the atmosphere. The reason it’s not found is, either it is too small to register, or it doesn’t heat the atmosphere. Based on what we do know, there’s no chance CO2 will ever heat the planet, it never did in the past. There’s no evidence for an amplifying mechanism either, in fact it’s all negative.

        • Evan Jones

          I just calls ’em as I sees ’em.

          I agree that the feedback meme is a bust. But I still go with the modest raw forcing.

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    Guess who doesn’t dare to show up – again ..
    “As the son of two scientists, I have been taught since I was very young that scientific conclusions should be based on the evidence and the data. The inconvenient truth, for global warming alarmists in 2015, is that for the past 17 years the satellite temperature data have shown almost no warming of the Earth’s climate. This is especially inconvenient for them because the models all showed that the Earth should have continued rapidly warming during this time. In response, we have seen global warming alarmists resort to the language of theology, calling all those who question the alarmists’ conclusions, including many in the scientific community, ‘deniers.’ And they are being called that merely for saying, ‘hold on a minute. Before we make radical policy changes that will have a substantive impact on our economy, jobs and quality of life for millions of Americans, we should take a minute to ensure that these policies are based on real science and real data.’ Especially when the solution to the purported problem always seems to be more and more government.”

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/02/ted-cruz-to-convene-congressional-hearing-to-examine-claims-of-global-warming-activists/

    • DennisHorne

      You speak as if science is a procedure, the methods prescriptive. Not so. It’s whatever insight and testing produces knowledge and knowledge is what informed people judge to be the best approximation to reality or truth for the moment.

      • Evan Jones

        It’s both.

        The science is the driver. The procedure is the rules of the road. In order to “get there” (or as near as possible), you need both.

        • DennisHorne

          Science is not prescriptive. Science is what produces knowledge acceptable to scientists.

          If you’re more concerned with process than truth and reality, try the law.

          • Evan Jones

            Or science. No process (scientific method), no truth. You won’t get there without it. You’ll run right off the road.

            And you don’t think law is concerned about the truth? Really?

          • DennisHorne

            To some extend we’re at cross purposes. Progress is made by the insights of creative minds.

            Yes there has to be testing but that wasn’t set in stone centuries ago.

            At some level, there is judgement.

            And more. Alain Aspect, answering a question about quantum entanglement, said, “It’s a matter of personal taste.”

            Are we really going to say Edward Witten’s work on string theory isn’t science?

          • Evan Jones

            To some extend we’re at cross purposes.

            You bet we are.

            Progress is made by the insights of creative minds.

            Obviously. But you better not leave out the elbow grease. The way I see it, some of these here scientists need to get more mud on their boots.

            At some level, there is judgement.

            Indeed. Some of it better than others.

            Are we really going to say Edward Witten’s work on string theory isn’t science?

            Of course not. But, coming up with a hypothesis is one thing. Testing it is another bag of beans, entirely.

          • DennisHorne

            We don’t seem to have the same understanding of “cross purposes” and we are, to some extend — as I said — at cross purposes…

            In that world, procedure rules.

            Whose procedure?

            I suggest to you that of scientists. It is scientists who have found, over the centuries, ways of demonstrating, describing and measuring phenomena, and it’s continuously developing.

            Anybody can call for incontrovertible proof. Anyone can deny a phenomenon until there is. Anyone can say “a little bit”.

            A little bit pregnant.

            I’m glad I don’t need to make any decisions. Small countries are entirely at the mercy of the big ones, who don’t really care about them. For the most part, small countries would probably be better to save their money to meet the cost of mitigation.

            Finally, I’m equally glad you won’t need to make any decisions either.

          • Evan Jones

            In that world, procedure rules.

            Whose procedure?

            This one:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

            Finally, I’m equally glad you won’t need to make any decisions either.

            I like it that way. I prefer to influence them. Fortunately I find myself in a rare position to do so.

          • DennisHorne

            Whose procedure?

            Oh! Yours.

            I prefer to influence them. Fortunately I find myself in a rare position to do so.

            Of course you are.

          • Evan Jones

            Oh! Yours.

            Why, yes. Mine. The scientific method. Glad we’re clear on that.

            Of course you are.

            (Shrug.) I didn’t plan it that way. That’s just the way it’s working out.

          • DennisHorne

            Why, yes. Mine. The scientific method. Glad we’re clear on that.

            Not often I’m at a loss for words.

          • Evan Jones

            Try not being at a loss for method. Preferably the scientific one. Then maybe we won’t be at cross purposes.

          • DennisHorne

            Oops, just recovered. You haven’t got a clue. Doubt you’ve ever studied or produced any science.

          • Evan Jones

            I’ve carved my own niche. I’ve produced science. Via scientific method. You’ll be needing to get your head around the method before. But be aware; she be a harsh taskmaster. Not all playing the mandarin. You’ll need to apply a liberal helping of elbow grease.

          • DennisHorne

            Ha ha ha. Fool.

          • Evan Jones

            Easy to laugh. To laugh last, not so much.

          • planet8788

            If one is stupid enough, he can get the last laugh, even while he’s dying…. Just because they are so stupid, they don’t know what is happening. These trolls appear to be on par for this level of stupidity

          • Evan Jones

            True, but that doesn’t really count.

          • S Graves

            Yeah, Dennis. You tell him! Now…briefly outline your scientific accomplishments. OH…wait. Let me guess. You don’t have any.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Evvie, you were convinced before you even started…look at the team you all assembled….the outcome could be no different.

          • Evan Jones

            Oh, yeah? Then howcome the outcome was different for Fall et al. (2011)?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Oh yeah, watt about this “genius”

            Effects of Arctic Sea Ice Decline on Weather and Climate: a review
            Timo Vihma
            Finnish Meteorological Institute
            P.O. Box 503
            Erik Palmenin aukio 1
            FI-00101 Helsinki
            phone: +358 50 412 6365
            email: timo.vihma@fmi.fi
            Accepted in Surveys in Geophysics, 30 January 2014

          • planet8788

            YOu have no idea how silly you sound.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Just don’t cross dress….you ain’t pretty

          • Evan Jones

            Never was.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            We agree

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You mean working as planned

          • planet8788

            Proving more and more every minute that you are an activist and not a scientist.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            You are easy to convince

      • Huh

        You seem to not understand the term approximation . I have never seen an article that say approximately all scientist have come to an approximate conclusion that there is an approximate consensus that global warming is going destroy us. I do recall that seventeen years ago Al Gore said that in 15 years global warming would already be changing the coast lines. You know I went to Cape Canaveral yesterday and it appeared exactly the same. Anytime a government agenda is co-incidental with a scientific theory the science is suspect .

        • Evan Jones

          They came to a conclusion that AGW was real. They did not come to a conclusion that AGW was going to destroy us.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Not in our lifetimes, that is.

          • Evan Jones

            “The grandchildren” are going to be so much better off than we are, it staggers the imagination.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            No surprise there, we know already that all you have…imagination.

          • Evan Jones

            And a hardnosed training in demographics.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Sounds official…NOT…

          • Evan Jones

            But by the best in the business.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen
          • Evan Jones

            The Cold war was a lot more threatening and a lot more deadly. We had seventy wars of various sizes going on. I like today’s challenges better.

          • planet8788

            That’s foolish faith. Western civilization is committing suicide at an alarming rate.

          • Evan Jones

            It was worse during the 1930s and the late 1970s.

          • planet8788

            Nope it wasn’t. Not even close.

      • Evan Jones

        No procedure, no science. Like a genius game without a rukesbook. And the methods had better damnwell be prescriptive.

        • Michael Evan Jones

          Well, that leaves you out, you are no genius.

          • Evan Jones

            It doesn’t take genius to check one’s work carefully.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            No it does not, that’s if all you are doing is temperature readings. LOL

          • planet8788

            LOL… Which is what NOAA does… Have to be really intelligent to adjust the data to get it to tell you what you want.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Another troll just rolling in the dirt…

          • planet8788

            Says the king of trolls. I’m honored.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Is that watt Evvie writes about you?

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Doesn’t have to be a genius to do science, procedure, methods and honesty is among the few basics traits you need. That means every dishonest activists are excluded, their fake pseudoscience, adjustments and lies.

            University of East Anglia and their climate unit, Michael Mann, Albert Gore, Kevin Trenberth and Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC – None of them are even close to understanding science!

            “Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment is falsified, and could not work given the equipment he specified. If they actually tried to perform the experiment themselves, perhaps this is why they had to resort to stagecraft in the studio to fake the temperature rise on the split screen thermometers.

            The experiment as presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy” is a failure, and not representative of the greenhouse effect related to CO2 in our atmosphere. The video as presented, is not only faked in post production, the premise is also false and could never work with the equipment they demonstrated. Even with superior measurement equipment it doesn’t work, but more importantly, it couldn’t work as advertised.

            The design failure was the glass cookie jar combined with infrared heat lamps.

            Gore FAIL.”

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Watt are you squeaking about Ronnie? You post a link to Evvie Jones Master Willard Watt!

            Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries

            Sorry, Bud, not a creditable source.

            Every MAJOR world science academy, university and organization supports the findings of AGW and its dangers.
            Name one that supports your view.

          • Evan Jones

            Anthony is not paid. I wish he were.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Come on Evvie, Willard is not paid…sure and he’s your room mate in that rat hole of an apartment. I don’t care what he was and watt he looks at or what he supposedly co wrote.
            There is a lot of “grade inflation” among you two and you need to come clean and be honest.
            Stop with the BS, you live in NYC and folks there seem to think its OK…but this is Kansas.

          • planet8788

            Still waiting for science out of this nincompoop… Instead only worthless ad hom.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Explain to you…please now, go away

          • planet8788

            You couldn’t explain your way out of a toilet.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Really, If I was in one, sure you would be there floating waiting to be flushed

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            We know ..

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            I noticed you didn’t care to put forward any evidence for your shallow smear. Who debunk a person? Who does that?

            That is the desperate, last resort measures the dishonest, “green” activists are using when they can’t find any errors in a persons research and findings. Too shallow to comprehend the fact that they indirectly admit the science is solid ..

            You too have found out about the rent and grant receiver list of science academy, university and organization. Good for you!

            Now, where is the science?

            Let’s start simple, what is evidence?

            Where is the empirically observation of CO2 heating the planet?

            And why is the temperature falling? https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/temp2.png

            Please, save your self, don’t bother to put forward fake, adjusted temperature data. We know they are both fake and adjusted (as in fraud), because the records are published, new graph, new adjustments, ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/giss-1981-2002-2014-global.gif

            https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/gissus1999vs20152.gif

            Now, what would be the point in adjusting records if they really showed there’s problem?

            And why lye about the temperature? Ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/10403125_10203838492993939_2202943762058137116_n.jpg

            Please, answer these questions as if i were 4 years old ..

          • Evan Jones

            He fails to understand that if a chmpanzee who dropped out of kindergarten writes a paper funded by Greenpeace and the Koch brothers that passes peer review and stands up to independent review, that only reflects well on the chimpanzee. Both his scientific ability and ability to solicit grants.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Here we go with the fckin charts and graphs from Willard’s Fun House.
            Stick them where the sun don’t shine…Rolaid
            You haven’t responded to my question. Why?
            Because there is none, that’s why!

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            The dishonest, “green” activist, Michael Evan Jones, is a frightened little activist.

            Don’t appear to be very eager to get your huge knowledge gap exposed to a bright light, ay?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Oh, I’m so terrified…..
            Dude, what is your problem? Green activist? What are you talking about?
            Certainly not me!
            http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Claiming rent and grant seekers to be all in on the fake AGW hypothesis is dishonest, we all know they have to sign on to the hoax for there to be any research funds, doesn’t say anything about the individual scientists actually doing the research. Second, your low and shallow smear. Your lack of documentation and you failing to answer .. Want me to continue?

            Yes, you exactly!

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Dude’ Talk to the HAND and the MAN
            CEO of Exxon Miobile—-fake AGW?

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TkuyY2FFR7c

          • planet8788

            Yep… it’s been warming since the last Ice Age…. So what. When are you going to quote science instead of politicians and PR people?

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Just goes to show you did not listen to Rex Tillerson at all.

          • planet8788

            Why would i listen to Sexy Rexy.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            He just is the CEO of the largest oil/fossil fuel enterprise in the world today with some of the top climate scientists on their staff engaging with the IPCC.
            Some PR prop, LOL

            PS The reason why he did it BTW is to cover his behind, legal term “full disclosure”, when the lawsuit start to come. Oh, they already have!

          • planet8788

            So in other words… PR .
            The lawsuit is garbage. You guys can’t even make models look accurate after fudging 130 years worth of data for almost 40 years….
            Only in Climastrology could anyone try and call this science.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            U are on ignore list

          • planet8788

            Thank God.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            See, there is a God! Back to little Evvie, Supertroll denied lukewarmer

          • RealOldOne2

            MEJ says he put you on his ignore list, but there he goes replying to to you again.
            Sadly, these doomsday climate cult trolls just can’t tell the truth.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Man made global warming is a mirage!

          • Michael Evan Jones

            U are on ignore

          • planet8788

            And you can’t refute them because they are true.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Like you all would pay attention, been there, done that…not again

          • planet8788

            The only thing you have proven is you are stupid.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Can’t dispute the village ideeit, can I now, it makes me look like one.

          • Evan Jones

            Except it isn’t true.

          • planet8788

            Every major world science academy… is run by politicians.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Another worthless charge.

          • planet8788

            But true…. fool.

          • Evan Jones

            But true. (Let’s circumvent the value judgments?)

          • planet8788

            Sorry. impossible.

          • Evan Jones

            Not common, perhaps. But not impossible, I think.

          • Radical Rodent

            That is what is known as argumentum ad authoritate. Quite a few well-known scientists did not have the support of those in authority, they only had FACTS to help them, even as many tried to deny those facts. Not all were “scientists” – one was just a patents clerk, so your argument is rather hollow, Mr Jones.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Why argue? There is nothing to debate about friends…close up shop and focus on other issues. There is no solution to Global Warming if or if not it is happening.
            BAU (Business as Usual) must continue for the system to function and in order for it to do so requires a ready ever expanding of cheap energy (ie coal and oil). Alternatives are expensive and require fossil fuels to create, maintain and eventually replace and can only provide a small niche. Countries that have ventured in it in a big way, such as, Spain and Germany have discovered it is a economic bust for solar power.
            Sure, AGW is real…unfortunately, another crisis more immediate is at hand.

          • Evan Jones

            Interesting pov.

          • S Graves

            Wow MEJ…you actually make sense about something.

          • planet8788

            Proving you’re not a scientist but an activist.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            Never claimed I was either. Again not at all paying attention

          • planet8788

            With you, there is nothing of significance for which to pay attention.

          • Michael Evan Jones

            I agree, so don’t bother with me

      • planet8788

        Wow… You are a clueless activist… who certainly knows nothing about science.

  • BlueScreenOfDeath

    Out in the real world, the CAGW hoax is losing credibility fast.

    Public support for a strong global deal on climate change has declined, according to a poll carried out in 20 countries.

    Only four now have majorities in favour of their governments setting ambitious targets at a global conference in Paris.

    In a similar poll before the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, eight countries had majorities favouring tough action.

    The poll has been provided to the BBC by research group GlobeScan.

    Just under half of all those surveyed viewed climate change as a “very serious” problem this year, compared with 63% in 2009.

    The findings will make sober reading for global political leaders, who will gather in Paris next week for the start of the United Nations climate conference, known as COP21.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34900474

    The 2015 United Nations ‘My World’ global survey of causes for concern currently covering 9,715,178 respondents shows ‘action on climate change’ flat last, 16th of 16 categories.

    http://data.myworld2015.org/

    Crying “WOLF!” can only work for so long, and as not a single one of the catastrophic predictions of the Warmist religion over the last 3 decades has actually happened – in fact in the majority of cases such as hurricane landfall frequency and polar ice disappearance they have been diametrically wrong – their credibility is rapidly approaching zero.

    AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    Atmospheric Compression Events Globally First Half 2015

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_Khr5YO420

    • Patrick Shoemaker

      That’s kind of funny. The “mini ice age” is off to a real bad start, with global temps for 2014 and 2015 above not just the mean, but the 40-year *trend line*.

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen
        • Patrick Shoemaker

          Hmm .. why do you trust satellite data, which aren’t temperature measurements at all and require more manipulation and assumptions than you can shake a stick at to back out a (questionable) estimate of surface temps?

          And you’re a whiz at posting graphs … with no attribution or reference to peer-reviewed publications. Perhaps you think people never lie on the internet? Well, I can post graphs, too. And I’ll even give you a citation. See if you can figure out the problem that this actual peer-reviewed data poses for your narrative.

          T. Karl et al.
          “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus,” Science, 26 June 2015: Vol. 348, no. 6242, pp. 1469-1472.
          DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632

          • Evan Jones
          • RealOldOne2

            “why do you trust satellite data, which aren’t temperature measurements at all and require more manipulation and assumptions than you can shake a stick at”
            We trust the satellite data because:
            1) the satellite datasets are the ONLY measurements that are anything close to global coverage. They measure ~99% of the entire atmosphere of the Earth.
            “thermometers can not measure global averages – only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – … – of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.” – http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/
            In addition to their sparse coverage, the land/ocean themometers only measure the bottom couple meters of the atmosphere, whereas the satellites measure the lower several thousand meters of the atmosphere.

            2) the calculations and assumptions made in order to determine a temperature from the microwave sounding units in the satellites have been empirically validated by radiosonde temperature measurements throughout the altitude of the atmosphere and have been found to be accurate to 0.03C.
            “the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements over the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

            3) the satellite measurements are not improperly “adjusted” every month, corrupting the historical measured temperature values of the past. Evan Jones explained why the adjustments are invalid in his excellent comment here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/spectator-new-www/i_was_tossed_out_of_the_tribe_climate_scientist_judith_curry_interviewed/#comment-2396402456

            And your evidence consists of more bogus ADJUSTMENTS. Sad.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Another libelous jackass, excuse me, true believer, accusing people who get papers published in Science of “bogus adjustments” without the least scrap of evidence or critical analysis. Sad.

            But to address your points: 1) Again, satellites DO NOT MEASURE TEMPERATURE, regardless of their coverage. And I assume you know that the bottom of the troposphere, where we actually live, is heating up the most, whereas the top is heating up less, and the stratosphere (which also contributes to the satellite measurements) is COOLING — as PREDICTED by the climate models? And that a lot of modeling and assumptions need to be made to back out the surface warming from this stew?
            2) Funny, you point to an 18-year-old webpage that gives testament to the “accuracy” of the satellite “measurements,” with no apparent idea of the subsequent history of embarrassments and criticisms of the methodology — and of revisions to their global temperature estimates made by Spencer, Christy, et al.? Care to guess what direction those adjustments have been?
            3) A lot of claims there — some of them maybe even plausible. I look forward to a peer-reviewed publication by Evan Jones that backs them up.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Another libelous jackass”
            LOL. Perfect projection there donk.

            “without the least scrap of evidence or critical analysis”
            Nice display of ideological blindness there donk. I linked you to the evidence and critical analysis of a peer reviewed author on the subject. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/spectator-new-www/i_was_tossed_out_of_the_tribe_climate_scientist_judith_curry_interviewed/#comment-2396402456

            “satelllites DO NOT MEASURE TEMPERATURE”
            LOL. Well, then NEITHER DO THERMOMETERS, they measure expansion of a fluid, donk.

            “And I assume you know that the bottom of the troposphere, where we actually live is heating up the most, whereas the top is heating up less”
            LOL! You don’t even know your own climate cult dogmas, donk, Your climate cult’s bible shows that the upper troposphere will warm faster than the surface, donk. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html See that big red blob in the upper troposhere, donk? That is NOT at the surface, donk.

            “you point to an 18-year-old webpage that gives testament to the “accuracy” of the satellite “measurements”.
            Yeah donk, they HAVE gotten even better since back then. Another nice display of ignorance there donk.

            “A lot of claims there –“
            Yep, and all of them accurate. You’ve rebutted nothing, donk.

            As I said in the beginning, nice projection, exposing yourself as a total jacka$$, donk! Hahahahaha

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            “I linked you to the evidence and critical analysis of a peer reviewed author on the subject”: I acknowledge that what Dr. Jones posted, if nothing else, looks far more reasonable than the usual denialist drivel, and — being interested in the truth on the matter — I look forward to reading what comes out the other end when it passes through peer review.

            “Well, then NEITHER DO THERMOMETERS, they measure expansion of a fluid…”: hard to imagine a statement that is both factually true and more inescapably dumb than that.

            “Your climate cult’s bible shows that the upper troposphere will warm faster than the surface”: You need to do two things. 1) note that I said “TOP of the troposphere; 2) Look at part (f) of the figure you linked to, and check out the color of the plot at, oh, 18km altitude. But this isn’t something to get pissy about: the point is that the satellites are looking at a deep column of air with a LOT of temperature variation. The existence of the mid-latitude hot spot just reinforces the point.

            “Yeah donk, they HAVE gotten even better since back then”: You’d think that after a ringing endorsement of their accuracy in 1997, followed by revision after criticism after correction after revision, PLUS the testimony by experts on satellites that their estimates are STILL not as reliable as ground measurements, you might apply some small measure of skepticism to such claims. Reinforced perhaps by Spencer and Christy’s religiously-motivated bias. But no. Donk. Stop banging your head against the wall.

          • RealOldOne2

            “they measure expansion of a fluid…” hard to image a statement that is both factually true and more inescapably dumb than that”
            No, not dumb at all, just 100% true.
            Here you go: “A common thermometer
            uses mercury in a glass tube. An increase in temperature makes the
            mercury expand and rise in the glass tube” – https://www.highlightskids.com/science-questions/how-does-thermometer-work (I tried to dumb it down to a level that you could understand)

            “note that I said “TOP of the troposphere;”
            LOL @ your admission that you were playing semantics word games in order to deny the FACT that your own climate cult bible DID say that the upper troposphere would warm faster than the surface. And I would note that I did NOT say the “top” of the troposphere, I said upper troposphere, which includes the entire top HALF of the troposphere.
            Bottom line is that I was correct that the satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature is a trememdously better measure of global average temperature, as it measures the pretty much the entire troposphere, whereas the land/ocean thermometers measure only a thin slice of the atmosphere a couple meters above the surface.

            “satellites are looking at a deep column of air with a LOT of temperature variation”
            Exactly what makes satellite measurements tremendously better measures of a global average temperature, as they measure thousands of meters of the atmosphere above ~99% of the global surface, rather than a sparse network of a few meters of the atmosphere. But go ahead and deny reality if you wish. Sadly, it’s what you climate cult zealots do best.

            “revision after criticism after correction after revision”
            The revisions did not dispute the 1997 accuracy correlations with radiosondes. They revised the later measurements over time because of gradual orbital drift.

            “religiously-motivated bias”
            Ah, your a religious bigot. That explains a lot about why you defend your doomsday climate cult religion with jihadist zeal.
            “- “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] : Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT. Source: ( http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf )

          • Evan Jones

            I look forward to reading what comes out the other end when it passes through peer review.

            I look forward to your response to our latest paper, when we publish.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Please send a preprint when available. I’m keenly interested in what you have to say. I am aware that the problems of temperature interpolation, as well as correcting for equipment and siting issues, are daunting ones, but have seen no peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that the problems with existing approaches are so “terrible” they might call the whole issue of global warming into question.

            I hesitate to leave a personal email on this venue, but I get email notifications to replies on this site. Thank you in advance.

          • Evan Jones

            We are in the final stages of tweaks, and it would be a discourtesy to my co-authors to send you the entire paper, though I would like to.

            However, I can send you what we have submitted to the AGU, and will be pleased to do so. It includes our abstract and findings. My email is evanmj@verizon.net.

            I have discussed our methods and findings on Stoat, Skeptical Science, and Sou’s blog (i.e., “hostile” venues) and will be happy to supply links to those discussions if you are interested.

            The whole point of this is to convince those with whom we disagree, not our pals. It is therefore necessary to proceed under the assumption that all of our data and methods will be given the hairy eyeball.

            When we publish, all of our data and methods will be archived and easily available. This includes data and metadata for all dropped stations, should one wish to examine those as well, and “undrop” any as they see fit. I have provided this in Excel format so that those questioning any of
            our ratings or inputs (such as MMTS adjustment) can change them in any
            manner they see fit in order to challenge our findings.

          • Evan Jones

            I acknowledge that what Dr. Jones posted

            To be clear: I have no doctorate. I have no degree in science. I do have an MA in US History (Columbia University, 1986).

            My area of endeavor in all this is a historical-statistical analysis of US climate history (study period 1979 – 2008) in order to examine microsite Heat Sink Effect on surface stations (USHCNv.2), and the effect of adjustments thereto. Much research and field work, much mud on the boots. This sort of study is typical for historians, so I am, arguably, engaging within my field of study.

            I was a co-author for Fall et al. (2011, Journal of Geophysical Research). I am #2 co-author on our current paper. Its conclusions are currently part of the submissions to the AGS conference. A pre-release of this paper was made in 2012 in order to solicit independent review prior to submission. I have spent an enormous amount of time since, addressing the criticisms and making the necessary changes.

            We will shortly be submitting for peer review and publication. (Currently we are leaning towards JGR, but that is not set in stone.)

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            As far as temperature estimates from the satellite data, I’ve pointed out the history of problems and adjustments that ought to make any thinking person question how much they can be trusted — and people here have repeatedly stated that they are calibrated against radiosonde data and all those problems have been worked out, etc., etc. Not buying that: Here is a comparisons of balloon (RATPAC) data with RSS temp estimates. Sure looks to me like there has been yet more divergence in the last few years. Could another round of corrections be in store? Would be interested in Evan Jones’s opinion.

          • RealOldOne2

            More unsourced rubbish from the scientifically illiterate dupe who can’t rebut a thing I post, so you post your climate cult religious propaganda. So sad.

            Sorry but radiosondes don’t cover 99% of the global atmosphere like the satellites do. Doesn’t surprise me that you are too ignorant to know that though.

          • Evan Jones

            Again, satellites DO NOT MEASURE TEMPERATURE, regardless of their
            coverage.

            They use a microwave proxy. It works very well. It is the other problems (such as drift) which create the uncertainties and past errors.

            And I assume you know that the bottom of the troposphere,
            where we actually live, is heating up the most, whereas the top is
            heating up less,

            And that’s the point, isn’t it? Using the “basic physics” of Klotzback et al., surface trends are 10% to 40% below LT trends. Yet the SAT metrics clock in at ~50% higher.

            So it’s either the surface metrics that are wrong, or the satellite metrics. It’s the surface metrics, and I can explain why.

            and the stratosphere (which also contributes to the
            satellite measurements) is COOLING — as PREDICTED by the climate
            models?

            The stratosphere is an entirely separate measurement. The data in question is entirely troposphere. lower troposphere.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            As you know, satellite data is the most precise temperature data we got, 2 sets of data from 2 different satellites, calibrated and confirmed by 4 different weather ballon temperature data-series from all over the world, all latitudes and 57 millions measurements over 62 years.

            Karl Et Al is just more adjustments and fraudulent graphs from NASA/NOAA.

            But even when they cheat, still the models totally picture a different story, which, of course, is evidence they don’t know the science.

            Here’s the evidence, 102 Playstation 64 models from Greenpeace / WWF aka IPCC

            vs

            Reality x 6 (2 satellites and 4 weather ballon series), ref.: https://roaldjlarsen.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/102timesfalsified.jpg

            References are written on every graph i have posted, or in the links, to claim otherwise is just disingenuous.

          • RealOldOne2

            I call them playing SimClimate games.

          • Evan Jones

            Some sims sim better than other sims. But a sim is a sim, after all.

          • RealOldOne2

            Or to use the words of Phil Jones: “Basic problem is that all models are wrong.” – cliamtegate mail#4443
            And some models are more wrong than others.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Let’s see, where to start?
            “As you know, satellite data is the most precise temperature data we got…”
            Nah, I don’t know that. Because it is not true. You are either believing what you prefer to believe, or you are a liar (given your evident political/ideological biases, and my inclination toward charity, I’d guess the former). And your understanding of the nature of the satellite data and the processing and assumptions required to estimate temperature is evidently trivial. As likely is your knowledge of the “dance with the data” (to quote one academic critic) that has been done over the years by the UAH team who like to trumpet the satellite results.

            Regarding the temperature trend, to quote Carl Mears, senior scientist AT RSS (the organization that PROVIDES one of the datasets you prefer to believe): “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider MORE RELIABLE than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).” Emphasis mine.

            “References are written on every graph i have posted, or in the links…” Are you joking? When I click on your links, I am taken to the wordpress blog of … Roald J. Larsen! Nary a citation of peer-reviewed science in sight! Evidently Roald J., who posts VERY lovely graphs, is an authority unto himself! But one given to libelous accusations of “cheating” by eminent scientists like Thomas Karl, without the faintest scrap of evidence. Evidence of a lazy and likely brainwashed intellect.

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            Evidently evidence is not something you pay much attention to. You, like all activists, evidence is something to avoid, right!? Good luck with that!

            https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2015/12/04/no-new-energy/

          • Evan Jones

            The fact that satellite data is probably the best we have says less for the good quality of satellite data than it does for the bad quality of surface data.

          • Evan Jones

            That does not address the terrible problems with the surface record.

      • Evan Jones

        When one has a strong el Nino, it’s kinda hard to say. We’ll just have to wait and see. We don’t even know whether an upcoming La Nina will crash this back or whether there will be a more persistent step jump.

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        The signs of a colder climate is reported all over the world, of course, not in the climate-religious leftist media, but a lot of other places, as the video i posted are an example of.

        But here’s something to think about. Humans emissions of CO2 has never been higher, right!? On top of that this years El Niño is a super-duper huge Godzilla El Niño (at least that’s what they say), and what does the temperature do?

        It doesn’t react, it stays flat, – as it has been for 18 years and 9 months ..

        What does that mean? Did we stop burning fossil fuels?

        Of course not, the sun has gotten less intense, less heat reaches the earth, but that is not all. The magnetic field generated by the sun, which we are inside of all the time, has gotten weaker. When that happen we are less protected from cosmic rays and more cosmic rays reaches our lower atmosphere. The results are more clouds which reflects more sunlight back to space, i.e it’s getting colder.

        Now, why doesn’t the temperature fall more?

        2 reasons, 1. The El Niño conditions, where the overturn of warm water delays the drop in temperature.

        2. The oceans store 130 years of sunshine (energy from the sun), and because that is such a huge body of mass, it takes time to cool it down. If the sun cycle predictions is right, we will see a drop in temperature very soon. But that depends on the sun. As we know, historical facts are no guarantee for a certain future of any kind.

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    “.. The objective is to link the normal change or event to human activity to form the basis for a political agenda culminating in control of people. The change must be global to bypass national governments and establish the need for a world government. A 1974 Club of Rome comment said, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is man.” Their anti-humanity theme continued in the 1994 Club of Rome book, The First Global Revolution. It was written in 1994 but is more reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984.

    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/

    • MrRust

      Please note that The Club of Rome’s book “The First Global Revolution”, was published in 1991, not as Tim Ball states 1994. This is important because it influenced policy makers attending the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, presided by Maurice Strong and where Agenda21 was hatched-adopted.
      http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

      • Evan Jones

        So some deluded, well heeled ninnies sit about in an air-conditioned convention hall, sipping martinis and dipping caviar whilst plotting to Rule the World? Let them try to hatch their addled eggs. In the scientific venue, it is laughable. It is irrelevant. It is a travesty. It is to be ignored. To be given short-shrift.

        • Patrick Shoemaker

          It’s a great mystery to me why people might think climate scientists generally know who Maurice Strong even is, let alone give a rat’s a** what he thinks or did.

  • Evan Jones

    “It ain’t braggin’ if you can do it.”

    • Michael Evan Jones

      Who saying you can? All fluff so far…faking it until you make it don’t count, son

      • Evan Jones

        We all do what we can.

        • Michael Evan Jones

          In your case, not much doing, just BSssing

          • Evan Jones

            I won’t be worrying too much about that — unless you change your mind, of course.

  • Craig Thomas

    “Her record of peer-reviewed publication in the best climate-science journals is second to none,”
    Wha…? Isn’t there some kind of rule for journalists that forces them to avoid printing blatant lies?
    Curry’s publication record is sparse, and what little research she has published is not very important in the field.

    • planet8788

      Of course it’s not important,… it doesn’t support the fictional story line. Therefore… not important.

    • Evan Jones

      It includes very influential, very recent excellent work on modeling.

      • Patrick Shoemaker

        Cite, please.

        • Evan Jones

          Lewis, Curry (2015)

    • cwon1

      Who exactly in “climate science” has any “proof” of anything? The field itself is similar to a humanities class with political toads (leftists) for the most part dominating. There is no true science link to human co2 dominating anything.
      Left-wing “consensus” similar to Soviet “Science”. Accept it for what it is.

      • Evan Jones

        All we will ever have is balance of evidence. A shifting sandbar, that. Let us ruthlessly exclude the politics from all consideration. I am a big-government liberal and a great fan of the Great Society. What of it? How does that affect my ability to plot a trend? Or to point out an apparent correlation?

  • cwon1

    The sad truth is that Dr. Curry is still creature of the central planning Utopianism machine that is dominated by Greenshirt extremism in the form of climate alarmism. She generally refuses to call it out as it is.
    Their can’t be a “Munich accord” with these people. AGW fanaticism, leftist central planning on a global scale has to be destroyed. Dr. Curry is a pandering facilitator who obfuscates what the debate is really is about in tones of phony equivalence of peers (bought in activist green “scientists”) and the rest of humanity that is interested enough to oppose the agenda.
    We didn’t pin a metal on Rudolph Hess for his conversion during a war, it’s a positive Dr. Curry fell out of the wolf pack that she helped support through most of her life’s work but she is far from a skeptical hero. Even now she lends science legitimacy to the farce of mainstream climate science.

    • Evan Jones

      I can’t go there. Politics is fluff. JC called ’em as she saw ’em when she sided with the alarmists and she calls ’em as she see ’em as a lukewarmer.

      Differences amongst the scientific boil down to a limited number of specific issues. (ECS/TCR, HSE v. UHI, what have you). Let us examine them and, to the extent possible, reconcile them. If that proves impossible, let us flag the differences so at least we know on what exact issues we do and do not agree — and why.

      What I don’t want to see is a formalized Munich. What I want to see is a free-wheeling Munich with teeth. A Munich where all cards are face-up on the table. Where all data and all methods are are open and comparatively discussed.

      What we have been seeing is a table with a lot of face-down scientific cards. That is anathema to both climate science and intellectualism writ large. It all comes down to scientific method. Let’s begin with that. No “gatekeepers”. No man judged as “unworthy” of viewing the cards — all of them. No “credential exclusions”. No “star chambers”. No “mandatory citations.” No pressuring of editors to exclude one side or another (and how pathetic is it that it should even be necessary to adduce that point?).

      First step: Table. Cards. Face-up. All-inclusive. Period.

      Method. Of the scientific kind. That must be our commonality. If we cannot at least agree to knuckle under to that harshest of mistresses, we are not even going to get off the starting block.

      • cwon1

        I understand, regardless the post normal science of climate change was only ever fueled by Green academic zeal of the political kind. It’s been a pie baking for 50 years, we simply reached a tipping point where raw Marxist inclinations and sympathy over took science logic. “consensus” of like minded politics over took the burden of actual science proof in their own minds.

        • Evan Jones

          PNS applies well to policy, writ large. But it a wretched, insidious approach to science. Fear not, however: a return to some semblance scientific method is becoming the new black; it’s happening now.

    • Patrick Shoemaker

      Absent from your paranoid political rant is any mention — or indication of understanding — of the science associated with AGW. Is Judith Curry to be condemned because she still accepts the laws of physics? If you want to present yourself as anything other than a propagandized dupe, please, let us know your qualifications for understanding the science, and the published research on which your opinions are based.

      • cwon1

        PS, pathetic. It’s always the presumption of leftist advocacy that be more intelligent, progressive and correct. You’re on a topic on the INTERNET and you choose as your tactic to question my science background or cite the “laws of physics” as they are aligned with your point?

        Total fail. If you were talking to Dr. Lindzen from MIT would make such an idiotic argument? You might just be that stupid I realize.

        • Patrick Shoemaker

          So — You’re on a topic on the INTERNET that fundamentally concerns an issue of science — and you choose as your tactic to trot out a load of political blather? Fact: you know nothing of my politics. Fact: even on the INTERNET, it pays to know what you’re talking about. If I were conversing with Dr. Lindzen, I would assume that overall, he does. Based on your posts, I assume with virtual certainty that you don’t. That’s the difference. Contrarian scientist who is qualified (but whose ideas have not withstood scientific examination), versus propagandized dupe who doesn’t know squat except for the political paranoia rattling around in his/her head. Does that clarify things?

          • cwon1

            All fluff, ad hominem and whining, you might just be a consensus climate scientist after all!
            You have like the troll academic culture you support have ZERO empirical proof of human CO2 impact in a quantified way. All the best speculations in the form of politically contrived models designed to support the half baked power grab of money, authority and political status have failed. No warming in close to 19 years despite chicken little festival every year mostly on the tax payers expense screaming the opposite in the most ANTI-SCIENCE ways imaginable.
            So what is your authoritative background? Let me guess this time, you are tied to public or institutional money grubbing and affirmation of what is likely dreadful leftist enclave politics. A campus twit, AAAS membership or even worse….government employment because of your hack world view.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Heh. What a load of nerve to accuse me of propagating “fluff” — as if political blather were not one step down from “fluff.” The navel lint of the rabble-roused ignorant of America.

            The fact that you know nothing about the empirical *evidence* (sorry, “proof” is for mathematics — which you’d understand if you knew anything about science) doesn’t mean it’s not there. And it is. So how about some substance — debunk some actual SCIENCE about ‘CO2 impact’ for us?: Plass, G.N. (1956) “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic
            Change.” Tellus 8: 140-154.

            Note the date. That’s how long the most important piece of theoretical evidence for AGW has been known. Although I fully expect that you’ll start raving about how Plass must have been a cold-war commie who infiltrated the Defense Department by virtue of his skills at weapons systems R&D. He knew that an Obama would be born in the next decade and would need some cover to carry out the economic destruction of America. There, see, I’ve already made your argument for ya!

          • cwon1

            Just click Patrick Shoemaker to see the long-list of name calling and green trolling of anyone outside the orthodox left-wing box.
            As for the left/warmist hatred of Dr. Curry, it’s another tactic to false frame the debate as if Dr. Curry is about as extreme the dissent is permitted. By attacking her it eliminates a far larger and qualified group of dissenters from even getting to the table to make their points. It’s why Stalin had to kill Trotsky even if they shared many of the same inane political views. Dr. Curry is close to full moonbat herself, she voted for Obama and consistently frames the debate well within the limits the academic left can cope with. As I said, I’m glad some in the climate orthodox are throwing in the towel on the climate fraud agenda but she is far from a hero. Her epiphany is about 30 years too late in my mind and consider the price Dr. Lindzen has paid? His ancestor died in the actual Holocaust but has pinheads like Patrick Shoemaker calling him and other “Holocaust Deniers”.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Let me translate: science-wise, you got nothin’. You run on far right-wing political fumes. Wouldn’t understand Plass if you read it, let alone be able to express a coherent criticism. And did I call Lindzen a “Holocaust denier”? Trash accusation from a trash individual.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Trash accusation from a trash individual.”
            One thing you doomsday climate cult zealots ARE good at is projection!

          • Evan Jones

            Except for global climate. They are a sad hand at that.

          • RealOldOne2

            Very true.

          • Evvie Jones

            Watt ever, the tvee clowns data base of cherry picked sets that make it appear there is a lukewarming trend…grow up…children must play….must be a pupil of Evan Jones Academy of Selective Vision….Candy Cane Lollipop Evan Jones Eyeglasses only for $99.99 plus shipping and handling….better than actually earning a degree and paying your dues in the real world.
            PS…Again this is being posted to Evan’ you are not worth responding to.
            This was posted to your support staff, I forget who he is

          • Evan Jones

            We do not cherrypick. We go to great lengths to avoid doing so. The stations we drop show significantly lower trends than those we retain, both for Class 12 and Class 345. We include numerous subsets in order to demonstrate that our findings are consistent and not an artifact of binning. We use methods that are quite unfavorable to our hypothesis. We use USHCN raw and homogenized data, only.

          • Evvie Jones
          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            I notice you failed to put up the similar graphic that shows how the south polar ice has been setting new records regularly for maximum extent AND you completely ignored the newest study that talks about how Antarctica is accumulating ice and snow at a rate that might manage to prevent any appreciable increase in sea levels due to ice loss. Why is it you people only see what matches your false world view?

          • Evan Jones

            I agree with your approach. Our (current) conclusions, however, I think are at odds.

          • RealOldOne2

            “The fact that you know nothing about the empirical *evidence* (sorry, “proof” is for mathematics — which you’d understand if you knew anything about science) doesn’t mean it’s not there. And it is. So how about some substance — debunk some actual SCIENCE about ‘CO2 impact’ for us?: Plass, G.N. (1956) “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change,” Tellus 8: 140-154.

            First of all, I wonder why you would cite an author who doesn’t know anything about science, by your own definition! For in the very paper that you cite, Plass stated: “A great deal more data in the form of accurate CO2 measurements over a period of time and temperature records for the remainder of the century will be needed to PROVE or dis-PROVE this explanation.” – Plass(1956)

            Second, Plass(1956) contains no “*empirical* evidence” that CO2 was the cause of climate warming. It was based on calculations. “The upward and downward radiation flux was CALCULATED by Plass(1956 b) for intervals of 1 km from the surface of the Earth to 75 km and for three different CO2 concentrations. it is assumed that nothing else changes that affects the radiation balance when the CO2 amount varies. … 8. Conclusions The latest CALCULATIONS on the influence of CO2 on the infrared flux …” – Plass(1956)
            Plass(1956) is not empirical evidence for your CO2 theory. It is merely more calculations based on assumptions of radiative flux.
            And I would point out that even with today’s satellite measurements, the uncertainties in radiative fluxes through the atmosphere are huge! Stephens(2012) ‘An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations’ found: “the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate change.¹¹ … The current uncertainty in the net surface imbalance is large, and amounts to approximately 17 Wm⁻².”
            So the needed empirical evidence that Plass said that was needed before we could “prove or dis-prove the ‘CO2 theory’ is still not available, which is why there has been NO peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century.

            Third, Plass acknowledged that the ‘CO2 theory’ that he was offering was the minority view, not the “consensus” view. “In recent years the carbon dioxide theory has had relatively FEW adherents. Most authors have DISMISSED this theory with a quotation from C.E.P. Brooks (1951): the carbon dioxide theory was “abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO₂ is also absorbed by water vapor.” – Plass(1956)
            C.E.P. Brooks went on in that source to say: “In the past 100 years the burning of coal has increased the amount of CO₂ by a measurable amount (from 0.028 to 0.030 per cent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in world temperature.

            a

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Kudos for not raving about cold-war commies. But sorry, your ‘debunking’ is basically a fail from end to end. Your horror of “CALCULATIONS” is bizarre — as if they have no place in science. Neither I nor Plass himself claimed he had empirical *measurements* of the radiative imbalance due to increased CO2 — but his *calculations* are based on empirical spectroscopic data, taken in the upper atmosphere during the course of weapons research. And if you knew the field better, you’d understand that those empirical data eliminate Brooks’s objection regarding water vapor. Brooks was right that the warming observed *at the time* cannot be attributed to man with any certainty. But his dismissal of the theory is pure hand-waving, and his citation of past temperature changes sure seems like the typical “climate changed in the past so we ain’t doing it now” logical non-sequitur one sees from dimwitted denialists on any old blog you care to look at.

            You quote Plass: “A great deal more data in the form of accurate CO2 measurements over a
            period of time and temperature records for the remainder of the century
            will be needed to PROVE or dis-PROVE this explanation.” Well, those accurate CO2 measurements and temperature records have been taken. Plass’s work established the detailed theoretical basis for greenhouse theory and has NEVER BEEN DEBUNKED. Add CO2, and you get an energy imbalance in the upper atmosphere; by the first law of thermodynamics, the earth has to heat up (barring changes in any other drivers like volcanoes or the sun). The ONLY question now is how much the effect is mitigated by negative feedbacks. This is the point of objection by contrarian scientists like Curry and Lindzen; NO ONE who has the faintest idea what they are talking about disputes the greenhouse effect. And the scientific evidence to support the contrarian scientists is simply far weaker than that supporting the mainstream. E.g., people have looked for Lindzen’s “IR iris” and not found it. The warming since the mid 70’s CAN be attributed to anthropogenic CO2 with high confidence.

            And finally, your guy Steven’s claim that “the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net
            TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy needed to track such small
            imbalances associated with forced climate change” seems to be crumbling. There is a paper that got through peer review that has done just that: D.R. Feldman et al., “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” Nature 519, 339–343, 2015. If you choose to dump on this, please, just to satisfy my curiosity, first let us know how many papers YOU have gotten into Nature.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ another total stumbling, bumbling JOKE of a reply!

            “Neither I nor Plass claimed he had empirical *measurements* of the radiative imbalance due to increased CO2 — but his *calculations* are based on empirical spectroscopic data”
            BZZZZ! Moving the goalposts is dishonest and not allowed. The issue cwon & I raised and you lamely failed to rebut with your laughable cite of Plass was empirical proof/evidence that CO2 caused a significant temperature rise. Just measuring CO2 in the atmosphere does not do that.

            “Brooks … but his dismissal of the theory was pure hand-waving though”
            Wrong, but your dishonest representation of Brooks is pure handwaving. Brooks based his dismissal on the empirical evidence that there was a lack of historical correlation of CO2 and increased temperatures, just like is currently happening to a much greater extent.

            “Well, those accurate CO2 measurements and temperature have been taken.”
            WOW, amazing that you are so ignornat to think that merely taking accurate CO2 and temperature measurements proves (to use Plass’s word) that CO2 causes warming. But then you were dim enough to swallow the CAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religious dogmas, so perhaps not amazing after all. Only scientifically illiterate dupes think that correlation is proof of causation. It’s not. But the lack of correlation is strong empirical evidence that it is no causation. And that empirical evidence does exist, in the last ~19 years humans have added more CO2 to the atmosphere than any 19 year period in history, ~570 billion tons, and global mean atmospheric temperature hasn’t increased AT ALL! This is exactly why Brooks said that your CO2 theory was never widely accepted, and was tossed on the rubbish heap of history.

            “has NEVER BEEN DEBUNKED”
            LOL @ that display of ignorance of how science is done! Sorry, but you must empirically falsify the accepted null climate hypothesis that natural climate variability and then you must empirically validate your new alternative CO2 hypothesis.
            The issue is not THAT CO2 can cause an increase in temperature. The issue is HOW MUCH warming does CO2 cause, and when 1/3 of all the CO2 emitted since 1750 causes NO increase in global atmospheric temperature that shows that it is an insignificantly SMALL amount!

            “Steven’s[sic] … seems to be crumbling … Feldman”
            ROTFLOL @ your desperate thrashing and failed attempt there!
            No, but what is crumbling is your lame attempts to rebut anything that I have posted!
            Feldman(2015) fails your claim:
            1) it wasn’t global. It merely measured CO2 in TWO locations, “the southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska” ! LOL
            2) the paper isn’t even about temperatures so there is NO way that it is empirical evidence that CO2 is a significant driver of temperature. I merely shows that CO2 increased in two locations, which is not in dispute.
            3) Over the 2000-2010 time period of increased CO2 forcing at those two locations, global atmospheric temperature did not increase: see plot

            And nice handwaving clown dance of logical fallacy about how many papers I have gotten into Nature! That’s irrelevant. What is relevant is that Feldman(2015) in NO WAY changes any of the conclusions of Stephens(2012) that “the sum of current satellite-derived fluxes cannot determine the net TOA radiation imbalance with the accuracy
            needed to track such small imbalances associated with forced climate
            change.” because the uncertainties are huge.

            Seems that YOU are the one who failed end to end! You rebutted no points that I made in my comment.
            Back to your climate cult catechism lessons for some more brainwashing of your climate cult religion’s dogmas.

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Geez, what a blowhard. Let’s dispense with goalposts and word games with qualifiers and he-said-she-said nonsense. I likewise don’t care who tried to wave off greenhouse theory over 60 YEARS AGO when all the objections he made have since been put to rest.

            From the Feldman paper: “Here we present observationally-based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. … These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions…”: So, DEBUNK THIS PAPER. Your hand-waving about “it’s not global” and “it only measured CO2 (it didn’t; it measured radiative forcing) in two places” and your RSS plots are NOT debunking. What is wrong with the methodology and the theory? SPECIFICALLY? Why do their results NOT demonstrate what they say they do? Why are their measurements (at two disparate locations) invalid for drawing global inferences about radiative forcing? You think the laws of physics might be different somewhere else in the world? Do you have a clue what the implications of radiative forcing are for temperature?

            And then back to Plass: DEBUNK his paper. The physics, the atmospheric model, the calculations. Do you disbelieve in Kirchhoff’s radiation law? The modes of emission of CO2? The spectroscopy?

            Your big problem is that you think you are smart enough and knowledgeable enough to dismiss the work of scientists like Plass and Feldman with a wave of your arrogant hand. You aren’t — not even close.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ your continued handwaving CLOWN dance!

            “So, DEBUNK THIS PAPER”
            ROTFLMAO! What’s to debunk? It merely showed that CO2 increased in TWO locations! That paper containss NO empirical evidence that CO2 has CAUSED any climate warming because it doesn’t even include any TEMPERATURE data! Man you take the cake for ignorance!

            “Plass: DEBUNK his paper.”
            ROTFLMAO AGAIN! Further demonstration of your ignorance. The paper provides NO empirical evidence that increased CO2 CAUSED any significant quantified warming.

            “to dismiss the work of scientists like Plass and Feldman with a wave of your arrogant hand.”

            Why do you tell such blatant lies? I’ve never dismissed their work. I’ve merely pointed out that their papers are NOT empirical evidence that CO2 is a CAUSE of any quantified climate warming!

            I’d suggest that you stick a cork in it to not further embarrass yourself.
            “It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

          • Patrick Shoemaker

            Pffft. Nah, sorry, I don’t feel embarrassed — not even an eentsy bit.

            Oh, and if you think I didn’t notice your cutting-and-pasting… guess again.

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    Skeptics At Paris Conference Premier ‘Climate Hustle’ Movie – The ‘most fun a climate skeptic will have’

    “Naturally the film’s world premiere has gone down like a cup of cold sick with the 40,000 delegates at the COP21 climate summit in their heavily guarded green bubble just up the road by the airport at Le Bourget.

    Morano is one of “the seven most insidious fossil fuel lobbyists in Paris” who have been targeted by the left-wing campaign group Avaaz with over a thousand Wanted posters put up this morning outside five star hotels in the city centre.

    “These lobbyists have come to Paris to sabotage a global deal for ambitious climate action, despite over 3.6 million citizens around the world calling for 100 per cent clean energy”, an Avaaz spokesman has claimed.

    This, of course, was precisely the point of an event which Morano describes as the “most fun a climate skeptic will have” and what your Breitbart correspondent would call an epic trolling exercise.

    …

    What may especially annoy the climate true believers is the fact that many of the experts featured in the film were themselves true believers once – but have since seen the light and gone over to the “dark side.”

    Among these are Dr Caleb Rossiter, card carrying liberal former hippy activist who is a Climate Statistician at American University; Dr Robert Giegenback, former chair of the Earth Sciences Dept. at the University of Pennsylvania; Dr Judith Curry of Georgia Tech; and Patrick Moore, co founder of Greenpeace.

    None of them remotely fits into the category of “right-wingers denying ‘the science’ because it clashes with their ideology”. They are simply honest scientists who have been persuaded to change their views on global warming by the weight of evidence.

    The same applies to perhaps the most distinguished scientist in the movie, Nobel-prize-winning physicist Dr Ivar Giaever.

    In the early days, Giaever endorsed the Obama presidency but says his stance on climate change – which according to Obama represents a bigger threat than terrorism – is nonsensical.”

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/07/skeptics-at-paris-conference-premier-climate-hustle-movie/

    • Evan Jones

      What may especially annoy the climate true believers is the fact that
      many of the experts featured in the film were themselves true believers
      once – but have since seen the light and gone over to the “dark side.”

      Dr.Curry springs to mind. And Anthony Watts, for that matter.

      • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

        If you do the science the way it should be done, that is the logical result. Empirical data alone should have stopped the climate-scam years ago ..

        • Evan Jones

          I have said it before and I will say it again. Your arguments will carry more buckshot if you keep the content but lose the value judgments.

          Take this as advice from an old hand steeped in deconstruction and the dialectic from the cradle. You will profit from it. (And I speak not only to you, but to all present; I do not intend to single you out, not by any means.)

          • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

            I once worked in a kindergarten (don’t ask), words rapped in cotton is really not my style. I like it feisty :)

          • Evan Jones

            So do I, so do I. But an iron fist within a velvet glove packs more punch.

        • Evan Jones

          Yes, and to be accurate about surface temps, you have to consider the metadata and its effect on trend (sic). TOBS, moves, and equipment change (in that order, I think) TOBS is the biggie, at any rate, at least in the US, and it’s a cooling bias. (I think Microsite is even bigger than TOBS, while NOAA thinks microsite has essentially zero effect on trend. And yes I honestly think they really think that.)

          You either have to adjust all the perturbed data (like BEST), which unleashes monsters, untold or you have to drop it.

          BEST cannot possibly afford to drop stations and maintain a large enough GHCN sample or sufficient coverage. We are covering only CONUS and using the data and metadata-rich USHCN. We can easily drop the perturbed stations and still have enough unperturbed stations for booth coverage ans statistical significance. So we drop, they adjust, it’s the opposite approach to the same problem.

          And its all very nice to say, ah, but the undropped sample is so pure and unadjusted. But you have to remember that dropping the bad stations is in itself a de facto adjustment, in and of itself. That is the biggest “raw data adjustment” that we make, and it’s just as big, in a logical, philosophical sense, as the adjustments BEST makes.

          Two things: First, the BEST method is more prone to errors by its very nature than ours. (I repeat, they had no choice.), and, second, BEST does not factor microsite into the equation. The Leroy, 1999, station evaluation ratings as used by BEST and NOAA being inadequate to this purpose, and since replaced by Leroy, 2010, which we use.)

          But data adjustments are necessary, and even selecting “pure” data is, well, an adjustment in order not to adjust. Neither matches the average of the raw data. And I am as “pure-data”-minded as a body can possibly be, but I refuse to delude myself on the subject.

        • Evan Jones

          Now, yer talkin’!

        • Evan Jones

          Now yer talkin’!

          • Evvie Jones

            Too bad for you lukewarmers there is much more than just data ( which you misrepresennt) as evidence to support AGW. But we’ve posted it dozens of times over and seems just to be ignored, downplayed or forgotten. OY!

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    What Is The Average Global Temperature?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-HyviLy6c

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    All well known ..

    “Cheating and corruption plague the climate business.

    Here are just five examples.

    First, we have seen countries and corporations caught cheating – eg China understating their emissions, VW overstating their engine performance, Spanish solar speculators selling “solar power” at night (from diesel generators), Indian entrepreneurs building “dirty” factories so they could then close them to earn carbon credits, Russia manipulating the rules to earn credits from the collapse of decrepit Soviet-era factories, anti-industry NGO’s posing as charities, and vested interests like wind, solar, oil and gas secretly bagging competitors like coal.

    Second, we see lazy, incompetent or biased reporters failing to mention that drought, floods, fires, storms, hurricanes and melting ice are not unusual and have happened many times in the past.

    Third, “scientists” ignore the rules of science by claiming effects or correlations as causes, ignoring inconvenient evidence, using dodgy data, tampering with temperature records to create fake “global warming” trends, and organising pal-review of dubious papers.

    Fourth, we have mendicant island states claiming imminent inundation from rising sea levels despite tide gauges and satellites showing that nothing unusual is happening.

    Finally, we see politicians with hidden agendas exaggerating warming dangers while ignoring warming benefits, pushing propaganda as education, and lying about the “pollution” supposedly caused by the gas-of-life, carbon dioxide.”

    http://blog.heartland.org/2015/12/climate-corruption/

  • http://roaldjl.blogspot.com/ Roald J. Larsen

    “.. The planet will never “…boil over,” unless new laws of physics get invented.”

    “I am sure there are some that “…don’t want your (my) voice to be heard,” but those are the actions of fear; fear that they will be exposed as less than competent, and have to defend policies that damage the very people and nations that they pretend to be helping.” http://principia-scientific.org/nasa-scientist-no-global-climate-danger.html/?utm_campaign=dec-10-2015&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

  • Gilbert White

    Prince of Wales, what is a climate cynic? Privilege, protected opinion from a mediocre unoriginal thinker is not worth the paper it is scrawled upon?

    • Evan Jones

      She has.

    • sidor

      She has to put a condition for Charlie’s ascendence to the throne: he should read the school textbook of physics.

  • Wilby Stoned

    “. On the other hand, there is also a large, silent group who do like it.” A lie. The so called silent majority. IF it existed, we’d all know it.

  • sidor

    “Warming alarmists are fond of proclaiming how 97 per cent of scientists agree that the world is getting hotter”

    When a scientific issue is decided by vote, it isn’t science any more. Just a bunch of political charlatans led by the Nobel laureate Al Gore.

    • Evan Jones

      That so-called 97% includes the lukewarmers: it’s a false dichotomy.Take them away, and the number goes down by a lot. Even Cook goes that far.

      • sidor

        And why are you interested in that number? Shall we also organise a vote concerning other unsettled scientific issues, like different interpretations of quantum mechanics? Or cosmological theories?

        • Evan Jones

          And why are you interested in that number?

          Because it’s the #1 leading argument of most alarmists, including the president. And it’s interpreted wrongly (or even dishonestly). And Cook has admitted that, himself. Hence the interest.

          • sidor

            If you understand that it is demagoguery, why are you still interested in demagoguery? Do you expect that dishonest liars will agree that they are dishonest liars?

          • Evan Jones

            If you understand that it is demagoguery, why are you still interested in demagoguery?

            Because it is interesting.

            Do you expect that dishonest liars will agree that they are dishonest liars?

            No. But a lot of them honestly believe there is only one rational side to all this.

          • sidor

            Human nature is: 95% of the population are unable to think properly and susceptible to demagoguery. A medical fact.

          • Evan Jones

            Fascinating, even.

  • MathMan

    Dr David Bellamy wasn’t off our TVs at one time -much like David Attenborough is now- but Dr Bellamy dared to question the CC Lobby and was banished to the Dissenter’s Naughty Step where he remains. David Attenborough is very much on-side with the Lobby and, therefore, remains our favourite Luvvie.

  • MathMan

    My opinion? All the politicians in Paris agree on the causes of CC therefore it must be wrong. Why? Because they are motivated by self interest and not science.

    • sidor

      CC is an idiotically meaningless notion. Climate has been changing all the time since this planet came into existence. Sometimes cooling, sometimes warming. So what?

      • Evan Jones

        I don’t think so. it’s just not nearly as severe either in terms of temps or weather as the alarmists portray. It’s even been strongly net-beneficial so far.

        • sidor

          Do you know any period of time when climate haven’t been changing?

          • Evan Jones

            With a 60-year warming-cooling PDO (etc.) oscillation, it will be in a constant flux. But there does appear to be a mild AGW thumb under the scale. Not alarming, but not nothing, either.

          • sidor

            I am not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean that you define climate as weather averaged over 60 years? In this case I am still waiting for the answer.

          • Evan Jones

            I think you need to keep a sharp eye on the PDO and your start/end points in order to assess climate. Which is hard owing to the diminishing data and metadata quality the further you go back. Oh, it’s warmed a bit since 1950. Not much. but not zero, either.

          • sidor

            I repeat the question: was there a period of time within the last, say, 1 billion years when climate didn’t change? Yes/no would suffice for the answer.

          • Evan Jones

            No.

          • Evan Jones

            I’ll add that positive PDO was causing strong natural warming at the time when Dr. Hansen started wearing the paint off the panic button — and the PDO had not even been discovered and described by science. I think this is at the root of both the current alarm and the recent failure of the IPCC CMIP climate models.

          • sidor

            Could you explain what would be unnatural warming (in contrast to the natural one)? A result of unnatural (transcendental) cause?

          • Evan Jones

            Well, bumping atmospheric CO2 by 40% appears to have had some effect. Not a whole lot, but not nothing, either. Land use, including (but by no means limited to) deforestation, UHI, and agriculture have local effect, at the very least.

            That is accepted by most (if not nearly all) skeptics in the scientific community, including Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Watts, Curry, Lewis, Tisdale, Eisenbach, Mosher, Lomborg, and many others. Even some of the solar guys, such as Svalgaard.

            Heck, Roy has made a crusade out of refuting the Sky Dragon Slayers, and Anthony won’t even countenance further posts on the subject.

            Even my own work and the work of our team strongly indicates that Heat Sink Effect resulting from poor microsite has quite a statistically significant effect on nearly sensors.

          • sidor

            Then what is the meaning of CC?

          • Evan Jones

            Depends entirely on whom you ask.

          • sidor

            I asked you.

          • Evan Jones

            My answer is anything that affects local or global climate, be it natural or anthropogenic, warming, cooling, or homeostatic.

          • Evvie Jones

            “The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable. It will become questionable whether global governance will break down. You’re talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China. We just can’t let that happen. Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline

            “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Funny, you alarmists keep talking about how we’re about to get hit with these crazy high temperatures and how we’re about to see all our coasts flooded and we’re about to see all these climate change refugees. Been singing that same nonsense tune for how many decades now?

            Got news for you:

            Polar bears aren’t going extinct.
            Sea levels are rising same as they’ve been for a long time and it’s no threat for as far out as we can see.
            North pole isn’t ice free, proving those predictions wrong.
            South pole actually gaining ice, in fact enough that it may be driving the sea level towards zero change, or even down.

            I mean I could go on all day about how many things alarmists keep claiming are just around the corner, have been claiming are imminent, for what, over 3 decades now, that just aren’t happening.

            And you would think by now if CO2 was doing what it’s claimed it’s doing they’d have some actual evidence of it instead of just flawed computer models and ‘attribution’.

  • Higgs Boson

    “Climate Change” = Dopey Liberal Stooge Bait

    It’s what “smart” looks like to stupid people.

    Climate Change is the new Global Warming. The name may have changed, but the hoax is still the same.

  • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

    Unfortunately, by 2030, they’ll have created enough “adjustments” to proclaim Things Are Even Worse Than We Thought.

    Shameless Lysenkoism. There is absolutely no respect for scientific rigor or principles among AGW fearmongers. Everything is driven by their politics.

  • Nick

    “tossed out of the tribe”? right
    Why are there no publications from Curry since 2011? Her teaching (as based on her website at GIT) shows no current courses. So she’s been “blogging” all the while? Blogs don’t cut it in putting out research.
    The sum total of her message is that she thinks that climate sensitivity is less than what is thought to be, based on the consensus. Does this mean we sit on our hands vis-a-vis mitigation? Intelligent folks think not.
    She admits to being near the end of her career. so that means she thinks she has no substantive research to do? Why not? Is she looking for a lucrative paycheck in retirement from the Heritage Foundation? Seems like she’s setting her stage for that.

  • DennisHorne

    Mild, Medium or Hot Curry?

  • Evan Jones

    #B^)

    She’s gotten milder than 2006 — and much wilder. Courageous woman, that.

  • Evan Jones

    Her pics look like she’s staring down the barrel of a gun — and the gun is the one that is blinking.

    Call it courage.

Most Popular

Cartoons

‘We’ve put in a basement swimming pool.’‘We’ve put in a basement swimming pool.’
‘We’ve put in a basement swimming pool.’
newsagent
‘Hello, fire brigade? My cat is stuck up a tree…’
‘Hello, fire brigade? My cat is stuck up a tree…’
kings
‘Oh, him? That’s just Secret Santa.’
‘Oh, him? That’s just Secret Santa.’
selfie
‘Ah, so this is the real Christmas Island.’
‘Ah, so this is the real Christmas Island.’
roaming
‘And have you been good?’
‘And have you been good?’
‘They all reach that stage where they’d rather have money, don’t they?’
‘They all reach that stage where they’d rather have money, don’t they?’
snowman1
‘Wow! What’s your secret?’
‘Wow! What’s your secret?’

Editor’s Choice

Charles and Tommy clearing a hedge
Features

In memory of Tommy, my lovely Irish hunter

Syrian refugees flee to Turkey (Photo: Getty)
Radio

Radio is flowering because it’s so much more potent than TV

Zoroastrians: One for Star Wars fans
Features

Would you believe it? A selection of ancient faiths ripe for revival

Orson Welles: ‘I started at the top and worked my way down’
Books

Homage to awesome Welles on his centenary

The Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All articles and content Copyright © 2015 The Spectator (1828) Ltd | All rights reserved
Site designed and built by interconnect/it
Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here