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

28 November 2015

9:00 AM

28 November 2015

9:00 AM

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.

[Alt-Text]


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.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.

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

          • Craig Thomas

            Well, now that your fake-hiatus has been smashed by last year being the hottest year on record, we would have been foolish to expect you guys to go away and hang your heads in shame for being so stridently wrong for so long:
            http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/t_original/szp9am1ishq0rk9dzqo2.png

          • 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..”

          • Craig Thomas

            ….a temperature record from one place proves, …what? Exactly?

            You *are* aware that BEST (among others) have shown that data standardisation produces a *cooling* bias, not a warming one…?

            And why do you persist in linking to nonsense-blogs? What’s wrong with actually relying on the science? Do you dislike what the science actually says?

          • mikehaseler

            There are many reasons to believe the temperature trend is much cooler than the corrupt figure given for surface data.
            1. The data is massively adjusted (equivalent to all the warming since 1940)
            2. The stations just happen to have been located conveniently on the edge of urban areas – the areas that were mist subject to changes in the 20th century as urban areas increased.
            3. There is proven poor siting (which causes additional warming to rural). The problem here is that they turn a nod and a wink to poor sites that help increase the warming trend where a quality organisation would have dealt with them.
            4. Then there is the multiple instances of site specific tampering with data – which looks like individuals changing sites to cause additional warming to everything above.
            5. Then there is the oft change in methodologies to select those that show the highest warming.
            6. Then there is the way they intentionally remove sites with a cooling trend from the data (possibly as part of 5).
            7. There is the fact the temperatures are far from global with e.g. most of central S.America and Africa being missed out.
            8. Then there is the fraudulent misuse of ocean temperature data (changing good data without a warming trend to fit bad data with a warming trend).

          • Craig Thomas

            You have no evidence for these conspiracy theories – on the contrary, all the examinations of this data have each and every time proven such conspiracy theories to be false.

            Also, who is faking the melting of the Arctic sea ice?
            This melting certainly lends zero support to your bizarre ideas about all the temperature records in the world being wrong.

          • mikehaseler

            As usual the first mention of “conspiracy” comes from the gullible alarmists.

            There’s no conspiracy here – the satellites are the best way to measure global temperature and the ground based measurements are full of poor quality, personal bias and people trying to keep the scam going to line their own pockets.

          • Craig Thomas

            People who want to line their pockets get into Real Estate, Pharmaceuticals, or the Energy industry.
            People with high IQs who spend a decade or four at university educating themselves and producing science research aren’t in it to “line their pockets”.
            And your ridiculous conspiracy theory to the effect that somebody is paying people to fake temperature data is…ridiculous.
            Tin-foil hat time!!!

          • Craig Thomas

            Your point 1. is utterly wrong – BEST and Watt’s own SurfaceStations have both proven that the data adjustments introduce a (slight) cooling trend.
            Is it that you don’t wish to inform yourself before spouting nonsense? Or is it that you are well aware that the real-world facts contradict your narrative, but you have decided that repeating a lie often enough gives you a nice warm feeling inside?

          • mikehaseler

            Anyone can produce a cooling trend if you cherry pick the stations to produce a cooling trend.

          • Craig Thomas

            Ah. So even Anthony Watts is in on the conspiracy, too!
            There is no escaping *this* conspiracy – it has its tentacles everywhere.

          • mikehaseler

            Yet again you are obsessed with conspiracy.

            You can’t look at anything without seeing conspiracy.

            What do you think is the reason for sceptics – Lord Valdemort, Daft Vador, genetically mutatated Nazis?

            What do you do all day read comic books?

          • Craig Thomas

            I can’t see any conspiracy, but whenever I see a climate denier writing his ludicrous thoughts, I see accusations of conspiracy.
            And projection.

          • mikehaseler

            So where are all these dark forces “denying” the climate or denying that climate changes. It can only mean the idiots like you who believe the hockey stick.

          • Craig Thomas

            This would be the “Hockey-Stick” from 1998, which has subsequently been confirmed as correct by about two dozen separate, independent research groups, all of whom arrived at similar conclusions?

          • mikehaseler

            Go look at the central england temperature record which you know is the best proxy we have for global temperature – because it is actual temperature readings – not pathetic “reading the teaeleaves” like all the rest of those pathetic “proofs”.

            Then when you are reading real temperatures, tell me where you see this hockey stick because to quote your climate “expert” … “I’m just a sailor but I can’t see a hockey stick”.

          • Craig Thomas

            The CET is not a proxy for global temperatures.

            Over two dozen independent temperature reconstructions have been conducted by real scientists and published in the real academic literature – they all agree with the “hockey-stick”. It was correct, as it turns out.

          • mikehaseler

            CET is the best proxy because it has the best correlation and any real scientist would know that.

            But if you are a politically inspired crack pot who’s trying to push your own eco-politics on everyone else … then I can understand why you wouldn’t like CET because it shows there’s nothing at all unusual about the 20th century warming.

          • 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.

          • Craig Thomas

            …otherwise know as Going Down the Up Escalator.
            Or, just plain old cherry picking.

            Here’s another thing to consider:
            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/enso-global-temp-anom/201213.png

            How come virtually every El Nino year is hotter than its preceding 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

          • Craig Thomas

            Which dataset is unavailable?

        • Craig Thomas

          You embarrassed yet, Mike:
          http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-38xX53AAgyw/VdpbPZKXJqI/AAAAAAAABYU/7J2Otci-kMw/s1600/NOAA-YTD-7-15.jpg
          Your litany of nonsense and lies has been exposed for the worthless rhetoric that it is once and for all. Now go away.

          • mikehaseler

            Oh dear – another academic who doesn’t like hearing the truth.

          • Craig Thomas

            Projection and Denial go hand in hand.
            The physics is known, the observations are in : CO2 in the atmosphere (along with CH4 and some other stuff) is causing actual warming.
            People who can’t cope with this basic factual aspect of our reality should get themselves a good doctor.

          • mikehaseler

            There’s a simple test in physics to determine if you understand a system: you make a prediction of what will happen based on your knowledge and then if that does not happen (like the predicted warming in the last 18years) then a GOOD physicist will admit they don’t understand the system.

            But a bad ACADEMIC (note not physicist or even scientist – but just a stupid snout in the trough academic) – will fudge the data to supposedly “prove” they were right. Just as they introduced upjustments to the ground based data to “prove” they were “right”.

            Fortunately – the satellites are known to be the only real indicator of current trends and the satellites show we still don’t understand the climate. And only a really stupid moron would say we do.

          • Craig Thomas

            You appear to be unaware of the concept of correcting data to remove known biases.
            The methods by which weather data is adjusted are published in the academic literature – at length – therefore your ignorance is unjustifiable.
            Instead of making up bizarre stories about these adjustments, why not examine the methods and publish your corrections to whichever bit you think is wrong?
            Because if you are unable to suggest corrections, and all you have are vague, hysterical, and unsubstantiated accusations of corruption, the careful sceptic should of course choose the safer path of ignoring you as unreliable.
            And the studies such as BEST and SurfaceStations have demonstrated the net “bias” introduced by the adjustments is a cooling bias, anyway, so your narrative is doubly ludicrous.

          • mikehaseler

            You appear to be unaware that intentionally biasing the data for personal gain as has happened numerous times is a criminal offence.

          • Craig Thomas

            Luckily this is not an issue that has occurred in relation to weather data.

          • mikehaseler

            You’ve never ever spoken to people involved in these measurements have you! I have – now please stop saying things based on theory and your political views which anyone who has ever worked with real temperature stations knows you cannot possibly back up.

          • Craig Thomas

            Political views is all you have. The measurements are data. Raw data measurements show the planet is warming. Corrections to the data to account for introduced biases are done according to methods that are available in the academic literature.
            *Your* position is not backed by any published research. BEST and Watts’s research have both confirmed that what you are saying is not factual.

          • mikehaseler

            Please stop your eco-politically inspired claptrap.

            In science there’s a simple way to determine truth. We postulate a null-hypothesis (which in this case is that natural variation is responsible for the warming) and then we try to disprove it – which is not possible as the scale of warming since the “global cooling scare” of the 1970s is the same as from 1910-1940 and much smaller in CET than from 1690-1730. Thus even a complete idiot with no science qualification at all knows the climate varies and that the scale of recent change is not at all unusual.

            But no! Your eco-political inspired idiots just had to tell the world they “knew” how the climate worked and that they were 95% sure they could predict it. And mother nature was kind enough to show them to be complete morons by giving us the pause. And for 18 years these idiots have been claiming the temperature would rise massively as mother nature herself proved them wrong.

            But when you believe in something like you do, evidence is not enough – so to “prove” they were right they upjusted every measurement they could. And then those using that data upjusted, then the dishonest politicians upjusted it more and then the media took the evil self-serving words of the eco-alarmists and tried to destroy the modern world.

            And this year after the El Nino we shall start to see global cooling (again). And no doubt in a decade or so, idiots just like you will be calling me a denier for not believing the world is heading toward a global cooling disaster – no doubt again “caused by modern capitalist private sector (non public sector) people who just get on with their lives and treat idiots like you with contempt.

          • Craig Thomas

            “We postulate a null-hypothesis (which in this case is that natural variation is responsible for the warming) and then we try to disprove it”
            I guess that explains why your beliefs are at odds with reality then.
            There is no difference – in science – between “natural” and human forcings, therefore there is no reason – in science – to “hypothesise” that something that is scientifically irrelevant does not exist.
            Your whole approach is thus corrupted from the very outset by your political anti-science ideology.

            In real life, the way science is done, the factors that are climate forcings are identified. This process has been on-going for the past 150-200 years. Many different forcings have been identified. CO2 is one of them. The extent of the forcing provided by CO2 has been intensely studied by many different research groups and the result of it all is our current understanding that a doubling of atmopheric CO2 is expected to create a 3-degreeC warming of the planet. This is the science. We have elevated CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm over that period. Clearly, understanding as we do that CO2 is a forcing that affects climate, we can now expect warming to be happening – depending on what all the other forcings are up to.

            Your comments on this subject reveal a deep-seated aversion to accept facts and to inform your opinion based on those facts. Instead, you choose what you want to accept as facts depending on what you have already decided to be your opinions.

          • mikehaseler

            “there’s no difference between natural and human forcings”.

            LOL

            Go get a decent education then come back when you know something.

          • Craig Thomas

            CO2 is a forcing regardless of where it comes from.
            I see this “go get educated” nonsense on Facebook all the time – it tends to be the last throw of the dice of the terminally ignorant when faced with an argument they can’t maintain in the face of having been proven not even wrong.

          • mikehaseler

            Craig, perhaps if you are seeing this “go get educated” all the time, then either you do lack the education – or to put the very best gloss on it – you are very careless in what you say and sound as if you need that education.

            CO2 is a very weak forcing and as the climate record clearly shows there are many other effects that combine to cause the continuous natural variation we see.

            To take a very simple example which is not at all contentious El Nino is a far stronger forcing than CO2 with many orders of magnitude faster warming and cooling. Solar is another example, so is atmospheric pressure – but the simple truth is that we still have very little idea where the vast bulk of climate variations comes from. And anyone who says they do know is a fool.

          • Craig Thomas

            OMG. El Nino is not a forcing.
            How could you make such a basic error?

          • mikehaseler

            you stupid prat – I didn’t call it a forcing. You’re the one who can’t understand the many different effects that sum together to make natural variation.

            And the simple fact – as shown by the complete failure of all the climate models which encompass all the stupid academics “know” is that most of what causes natural variation is unknown.

            And until you get to grips with that simple fact you are just like a two year old toddler learning to walk.

          • Craig Thomas

            You said,
            “you stupid prat – I didn’t call it a forcing”
            And previously, you said,
            ” El Nino is a far stronger forcing than CO2 ”

            And then you start babbling about models again. As I have demonstrated, the models work as designed. Hansen’s 1988 model is amazingly accurate.
            The accuracy of the models indicates that climate sensitivity is indeed around 3 degrees celsius.

            Your nonsense about “get educated” and “you prat” and being a two-year old is a classic case of projection: your intellectual handicap makes you want to believe other people suffer from the problem *you* have.

          • mikehaseler

            You talked about natural variation being a forcing – that is obviously wrong and shows you don’t know anything about the subject. I told you to go away and get a proper education so you wouldn’t make such obvious mistakes.

            And now you criticise me for tripping up because I am forced by your own lack of knowledge to use the pathetically imbecilic language you understand.

            LOL

          • Craig Thomas

            I notice you fail to quote me saying anything of the sort.
            Which is reassuring, because if I had said “natural variation is a forcing” I would have to face the fact that I am a complete idiot.
            But no, I haven’t said any such thing.
            *You* on the other hand, said “El Nino is a far stronger forcing than CO2”, which is to say, you said that natural variation is a forcing, which is only something that could be said by someboidy who is entirely ignorant of this subject.

          • mikehaseler

            I feel like someone trying to explain to a lost tribe in Amazonia how nuclear reactors work.

          • Craig Thomas

            Given you stated that El Nino is a climate forcing, I doubt you could successfully explain anything to any Amazonian so unfortinate as to be put in that position.
            In fact, I suspect said Amazonian could teach you a thing or two about nuclear physics. Or climate science for that matter.

          • mikehaseler

            Why do you think I put up with people like you … sometimes even the most stupid questions, can start me thinking and that can progress my knowledge.

          • Craig Thomas

            You said,
            ” El Nino is a far stronger forcing than CO2″.

            El Nino is *not* a forcing. El Nino is a pattern of variability within the system, whereby a cycle of ocean temperatures has far-ranging effects on weather across a large swathe of the globe.
            A “forcing” is something that introduces change to the system.
            For example, extra CO2 is a forcing, because it alters the Earth’s energy budget, thus introducing additional heat to the Earth.

          • mikehaseler

            If I said “it all depends where you draw the boundaries of your system” … you wouldn’t understand it anyway.

            There are many different ways to draw the boundary when describing what affects the climate. So for you to assert that something is or is not a forcing, based on what you’ve read on some junk website, just shows how limited your understanding is.

          • Craig Thomas

            If you are talking about the Earth’s energy budget, El Nino is in no way a “forcing”, it is internal variability.
            Do some basic reading and stop embarrassing yourself:
            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/radiative-climate-forcing

            “Climate is intrinsically variable and can change even if there is no external forcing. An unforced change would be some kind of natural shift like an El Nino. El Nino events tend to cause atmospheric warming because they are transporting heat from the ocean back into the atmosphere. This happens even though there is no change in solar output or other external forcing.”

            So by your nonsensical explanation – you are proposing we draw the boundaries of the “system” in such a way as the oceans are excluded?
            Rhetorical question: you can see your proposition was nonsense.

          • mikehaseler

            If you are talking about Earth’s energy budget, then you need to know how much nuclear energy is being created within the earth to know how that translates to heat.

            If however you constrain your system to the surface temperature – which is after all what is implied by “surface temperature”, then you have drivers both from the atmosphere down as well as from the ocean and crust up.

            But from a system point of view, natural variation is best considered as a forcing. Because then someone who understands the nature of the climate will be able to ascribe certain properties to it which then allow a certain degree of prediction of how the system will behave … and that is afterall why people with intelligence have models with forcings.

          • Craig Thomas

            “natural variation is best considered as a forcing. ” absolute piffle. No textbook nor scientific paper on this issue says any such a thing.
            The system isn’t “constrained” to surface temperature, that’s just where we measure the changing heat content. The atmosphere v ocean heat content is something in the order of 3:97.

            “you need to know how much nuclear energy is being created within the earth ”
            This is a known.
            How do you think this value quantifies in comparison with insolation?

          • mikehaseler

            The same anti-science blinkered approach I expected.

            You do realise that science only progresses because people are prepared to think outside what is found in text books!

            You simply don’t understand natural variation – you’re trying to shoe-horn it into your preconceived concepts and you are totally completely failing.

            And the proof is that for all you stupid pathetic “you sceptics are wrong” – we said your models wouldn’t work and the pause proves your models didn’t work.

            So we were right and you were wrong – and that is because we understand natural variation and you don’t.

          • Craig Thomas

            Ah, thinking “outside the textbooks”…did you think I hadn’t noticed…?

            Natural variation is not a forcing, as you yourself stated. Your current confusion is inexplicable, but typical of the mental state required to be a Denier.

          • mikehaseler

            All that the arrogant climate academics “knew” about climate was put into their daft models. And as the pause showed … those models were completely useless at predicting the actual climate (before adjustments to the data to make it fit their stupid models).

            So, it is very clear that all that is known …. all those daft assertions about the absence of natural variation in the text books … was a total load of crock.

            And as I keep repeating … science works by such experiments & the failure of models to predict the real world forcing idiots like you to ditch those old and useless texts books, think outside the box and come up with new theories (from people with a lot less arrogance and stupidity than previously).

            And as mother nature slowly shows she’s boss … that the climate academics are a bunch of useless twats with no real understanding of what is going on … eventually they learn how the climate really works and with a lot less confidence and arrogance … they start to make a little bit of progress.

          • Craig Thomas

            “daft assertions about the absence of natural variation in the text books”
            Which textbook asserts there is no natural variation?
            You are really doubling-down on the nonsense now…

          • mikehaseler

            Why not try “Predictability of Weather and Climate” By Tim Palmer and Renate Hagedom, which if my memory serves me right contains merely one sentence on natural variation and that is to the effect that it doesn’t exist.

            In a planet filled with things that vary naturally, from rivers, to currents, to animal species to quantum interactions …. apparently if you sum all these quadromegasauruslyillions of different types of natural variation … you get a climate with absolutely no natural variation – that’s a MIRACLE!

            Instead of 700 pages on the predictability of climate and one sentence on natural variation … the real truth is closer to there being 700 pages on natural variation and one sentence on predictability of climate:

            IT IS (CURRENTLY) ENTIRELY UNPREDICTABLE AND ANYONE WHO TRIES TO PREDICT IT IS AN IDIOT.

          • Craig Thomas

            Er, you’re pointing me to a book that is all about natural variation as proof….that books don’t talk about natural variation..?
            Are you trying to be funny?
            Here is a sentence from the book: “The dominant form of intraseasonal atmospheric variability, particularly in terms of rainfall generation and global reach of influence, is most often referred to as the Madden-Julian Oscillation”
            And another: “Another important feature associated with the MJO, especially in relation to its connections to mid-latitudes, is its off-equatorial structure and variability.”
            and: “As with the boreal winter case, the associated mid-latitude variability occurs primarily in the winter hemisphere.”
            and: “These time series emphasize the overall dominance, apart from the annual variation, of the intraseasonal time scale on these monsoon systems, including its obvious role in dictating active and break phases. In addition, the three years sampled is enough to illustrate that the MJO exhibits a considerable amount of year-to-year variability”

          • mikehaseler

            Water, water everywhere but you can’t see it.
            There’s natural variability at all levels of the climate, but somehow you can’t believe the climate as a whole has natural variation.

            And yes, what you describe is natural variation … but it is natural variation because it is random and unpredictable … and it is that random unpredictability for which there is no formal concept.

            And no, not one climate model includes any concept of natural variation.Yes some variation is supposedly added into the model through ensemble analysis, but that variation soon disappears leaving nothing but echoes of the pseudo-code itself.

            Because there is no such formal concept within the subject, there is therefore no way to describe it, there is therefore no way to ascribe behaviour to it and in short, as far as climate academics are concerned although natural variation is staring them in the face in every measurement they take, because they have no concept by which to describe it, it doesn’t exist as far as they and their models are concerned.

            So, no wonder they are left trying to ascribe natural changes like the late 20th century warming to small perturbations in CO2 and then left looking like a bunch of complete twats when their models fail when we get the pause.

          • Craig Thomas

            “small perturbations in CO2″…er….like humans changing CO2 levels from 280ppm to over 400ppm, the highest it has been for longer than our species has been on the planet.

            “it is natural variation because it is random and unpredictable”. This blanket statement is both simplistic and inaccurate. Natural variation includes all sorts of effects that are documented and predictable, such as Milankovich cycles. It also includes unpredictable events such as volcanic eruptions.

            20th century warming can only be called “natural” if you can point to the natural cause. WHich you can’t, because as everybody knows, the 20th century warming’s cause is the increase in CO2, caused by humans, which is why we *don’t* call it “natural variation”.

          • mikehaseler

            Oh dear! here comes another “the end of the world is nigh” nutter.

            When the known effects of CO2 are so small that we will not be able to distinguish any change for the larger natural variation then I personally think we should celebrate all the proven benefits of CO2 like increased crop yields and greening of the desert and leave the wringing of the hands and generally doomsday nonsense to the hypocritical green=gullibles.

          • Craig Thomas

            The known effects of CO2 are a roughly 3-degree global average warming for the amount of CO2 we are headed for by mid-this century.
            It is well-known that mid latitudes will show far less warming than higher latitudes.
            There is no basis for asserting that this is indistinguishable from warming from other forcings.

          • mikehaseler

            I’m sorry, the known effects of CO2 are that it is a greenhouse gas and that doubling its concentration should lead to around 0.5-1.2C warming (depending on which spectral database is used to do the calculation).

            We don’t know that CO2 will double.
            We don’t know what other feedbacks will come into play
            But we know that every model using strong positive feedbacks and suggesting “3C” warming has failed to predict the climate even a couple of decades ahead and therefore are certainly scientifically invalid.

            So, we actually know that the predictions of 3C are invalid.

          • Craig Thomas

            Dozens of studies into climate sensitivity give 3 degrees as the likely increase for a doubling of CO2. It could be 1 degree just as likely as it could be 6 degrees. Nobody sensibly takes the figures from the high end of the range, because they don’t want to sound as silly as those who insist on adopting only figures from the low end of the range.
            Your belief in unnaturally low sensitivity is not a realistic reflection of the known, published, factual science that exists on this point.
            CO2 has been increased by human activity from 280pp to more than 400ppm. That’s just about halfway to a doubling. Therefore a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is the risk that is being assessed. It’s not going to automagically “not double” just because you and your ex-weatherman say your prayers to the great god Exxon every night.

          • mikehaseler

            There’s a very interesting article that plots the evaluated sensitivity and if you plot the downward progression of the sensitivity then at the current rate of decrease the sensitivity will be zero by 2030.

            This shows that early sensitivities were entirely down to a short term upswing in natural temperature, which is now being severely attenuated as we get more and more data.

            In other words, all your studies were based on a misguided understanding of climate and the same short run upswing (ignoring all historical upswings – denying natural variation etc. etc.)

            However, they are all missing an important piece of information which means sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 will be less than 1C.

          • Craig Thomas

            Where’s this “article” you refer to?
            1 degree is not even compatible with the results of the various studies into the question – so where are you getting it from?
            Most recent articles have focussed on the continued inability of science to rule out *higher* sensitivity values, eg,
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2165/abstract;jsessionid=48E5BFF3A7D7E208DA17DD1174C9952B.f04t03
            Your low values for sensitivity were explained here,
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n4/full/nclimate2136.html

          • mikehaseler

            The article showing the steady downward trend in the supposed sensitivity was on Jo Nova’s site.

            The 1C is the only science in this damned affair – so if you don’t know that figure you really don’t know anything. It is the basic figure for the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 with no feedbacks.

            Hansen using HITRAN 1998 data came to a figure of 1.2C. You’ll find THIS ONLY SCIENCE as a footnote to one of the IPCC reports (SEE HOW IMPORTANT THE SCIENCE IS TO THESE CROOKS).

            In contrast, Hermann Harde repeated a calculation based on the 2008 HITRAN CO2 database of spectral absorbency and came ot a figure of 0.6C – but for very obvious reasons the IPCC and all academics trying to make a living from the scam continue to use the figure based on the now out of date 1.2C figure.

            Finally, I suppose you deserve this article:

            Proof Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is less than 1 – for dummies

            http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/03/25/proof-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-is-less-than-1-for-dummies/

          • Craig Thomas

            1C is completely the opposite of science – it is blind faith.
            We haven’t even had half a doubling yet, and *observed* warming is already at the 1 degree mark, never mind “equilibrium” warming.
            1 degree is utter nonsense, easily seen by simply observing reality, even if you aren’t good enough to spot how bad Lindzen’s maths was.

          • mikehaseler

            The IR properties of CO2 are good science based on scientific tests in labs. However, the application of the IR lines to our planet is not testable in the same way. But we have spectrum which indicates that the macro-scale IR effects of CO2 and other gases are similar to that described in the lab.

            Converting that 4W/m2 change for a doubling of CO2 – which is a typical estimate of the change in outgoing radiation if CO2 levels are doubled – to temperature is done using the black body approximation which is again good science.

            However, converting that to the “up to 6C warming for a doubling of CO2” is complete utter blind faith. And taking the evidence and saying that “all CO2 rise is human” is going against the scientific evidence.

            Indeed, there is very strong evidence to suggest strong negative feedbacks which would cause the 1C warming to be much lower in practice. It is also true that even a 1C rise would be hard to detect amongst the background noise and no doubt (whether it warms or cools) everyone will still be arguing about what is and is natural even in 1C from now.

          • mikehaseler
          • Craig Thomas

            How embarrassing – you read that kook-blog?

          • mikehaseler

            I haven’t published my work on sensitivities so I hardly think Nature will have an article explaining something that is not yet in print.

  • 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

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            Did you look up what they meant by “relatively low” and compare it to today? Go ahead, I don’t want to spoil the surprise.

            “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.”

            It’s like you think we had no ice ages before 400,000 years ago.

          • CB

            “Did you look up what they meant by “relatively low” and compare it to today?”

            Yup… and I’ve already provided you with the source material.

            Here it is again:

            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228371761_Did_changes_in_atmospheric_CO2_coincide_with_latest_Ordovician_glacial-interglacial_cycles

            “It’s like you think we had no ice ages before 400,000 years ago.”

            On the contrary!

            The Earth has gone through multiple phases of glaciation and meltdown, and for all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history, that has been driven primarily by changes in CO₂.

            If you think it hasn’t, point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we have today.

            Why haven’t you done that already?

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            Did you read your own link? What was the PPM during the Ordovician?

            Spoiler alert: CO2 levels were higher than today’s for every age before 1MYA.

            Glaciation cycles are driven primarily by the Sun and geography, CO2 is (at most) a small trailing feedback.

          • CB

            “Did you read your own link?”

            Yup.

            “What was the PPM during the Ordovician?”

            Read the paper and find out!

            “CO2 levels were higher than today’s for every age before 1MYA.”

            Uh huh, but science says you’re wrong… so where are you getting your information?

            “Welcome to the Pliocene. That was the Earth about three to five million years ago, very different to the Earth we inhabit now. But in at least one respect it was rather similar. This is the last time that carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels were as high as they are today.”

            climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            So you don’t know what PPM the paper says levels were? Or maybe you noticed it doesn’t actually say. What a time waster. And yes, it is generally agreed Ordovician levels were 1500 PPM at lowest.

            NASA also says 400K years. Science!

            http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

            “They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years”

            I’m sure it’s another waste of time to even point out that either way we’re talking about a very small percentage of the Earth’s ~4B year history, during which there were, yes, Ice Ages at CO2 levels higher than today’s.

            In fact, pointing out anything to you seems to be a waste of my time, as you simply repeat your nonsense, and don’t even read the things you repeatedly cite. I won’t waste any more time reading your replies. Goodbye.

          • CB

            “there were, yes, Ice Ages at CO2 levels higher than today’s.”

            If that were true, you should be able to point to at least one of them.

            Why haven’t you done that yet?

            CO₂ was quite high throughout most of the Ordovician!

            …but most of the Ordovician was characterised by a hot house Earth climate with no significant ice on the planet.

            The glaciation came at the very end, it was very short, and it was marked by a drop in CO₂ to limiting levels, as was every ice house phase in Earth’s history.

            Now why are you attempting to apply average CO₂ over the entire Ordovician to a tiny sliver of that period at the very end?

            Did you think no one would notice that’s what you did?

            “The Late Ordovician (~450-44 Ma) was a period of drastic environmental change, beginning in a hothouse climate with epeiric seaways near a Phanerozoic high and concluding with the Hirnantian glaciation, large positive carbon isotope excursion(s) (Hirnantian isotopic carbon excursion, HICE) and one of the Big Five mass extinctions.”

            adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AGUFM.B41B0216R

          • Evan Jones

            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.

            “Iceball Earth” during the latter part of the Coniferous epoch springs to mind, with CO2 concentration many times the level of today.

          • Craig Thomas

            I guess this post was trying to refer to the period known as “Snowball Earth” during the Carboniferous, which was caused by CO2 levels dropping down *below* what they are today.

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            I for one applaud your public service, sir.

            Hats off to you.

          • CB

            “I for one applaud your public service”

            Misleading the public about existential threats is a public service?

            Curious definition of “public service” you have there…

            “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

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            Were you under the impression AGW was going to cause the atmosphere to catch fire or something?

            Wow, $15 million of their own money over 27 years! That much taxpayer money gets spent on global warming in less than a day, champ.

          • Evan Jones

            Even if true, $16 mil. is chump change in all this.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Why, Thanks!

          • maltow

            Exactly right.

          • Evan Jones

            The fossil fuel industry gives far more to alarmists than skeptics. And perhaps the most powerful non-alarmist lukewarming arguments derive from Dr. Christy’s UAH6 satellite metric, which is funded 100% by government grants and contracts.

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            I’m always amazed proponents of this theory don’t realize we had ice ages at CO2 levels ten times higher than today’s.

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

            Yes, conspiracy theories are fun. Hey, which side gets tens of billions in annual government funding again?

            Most climate scientists do not believe temperatures 50 years out can be reliably predicted with today’s understanding of atmospheric dynamics (Storch 2008). But saying so publicly seems to have some consequences.

          • CB

            “I’m always amazed proponents of this theory don’t realize we had ice ages at CO2 levels ten times higher than today’s.”

            …and I’m always amazed when people make this claim without putting their money where their mouths are.

            When?

            http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228371761_Did_changes_in_atmospheric_CO2_coincide_with_latest_Ordovician_glacial-interglacial_cycles

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            Amazing, another Chicken Little warmer who’s never heard of the Ordovician.

          • CB

            “there is a recent somewhat speculative theory that CO2 levels fell in the Ordovician… all the way to ~3000 PPM”

            Uh huh, and how do you know?

            What CO₂ proxy are you using?

            “Calculated paleolevels of atmospheric CO2 from the GEOCARB III model, which models the carbon cycle on long time scales (here a 30 million year resolution).”

            ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/trace_gases/phanerozoic_co2.txt

          • Craig Thomas

            Actually, the glaciation event at the end of the Ordovician was caused by CO2 levels falling to well under the level you mention, which, co-inciding as it did with a period of low insolation, was low enough to cause the glaciation. It was also quite short-lived and ended abruptly when CO2 levels recovered.
            The glaciation events during the Ordovician are very clearly correlated with CO2.

          • jmac

            #facepalm When?

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            You’ve seriously never heard of the Ordovician Ice Age? Come on, GIYF before you embarass yourself next time.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Ordovician_glaciation

          • 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.

          • Evan Jones

            I would say “more” likely.

          • Evan Jones

            2015 appears definitely to be the warmest. I believe that because the satellite data (as opposed to the surface mishmash) says so, even UAH6.5.

          • 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.

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” — Albert Einstein

            Climate science seems to be based on the opposite proposition.

          • Evan Jones

            Yes.

          • planet8788

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

          • http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

            AndCO2 is so much higher today than 100 years ago that the trend should be much stronger according to “strong AGW” theories, so a persistent flat trend today is very problematic — even more so because the direct effect is logarithmic, so the future trend bends down a lot.

            What really kills me though is that if temperature really is a random walk in the relevant ranges, then we could just as easily have had a more positive trend and model predictions could have looked correct despite having no real predictive power. I pity the poor skeptics in those alternate universes, vainly clinging to their “scientific method” straws as irrational panic grips the globe…

          • planet8788

            I did a little more digging into some of the numbers. The models aren’t that far off. (CO2 emissions have been high but others are low… particularly methane) But there is no model on how the oceans are warming or why. IR can only heat the top mm of ocean which would in most cases, just increase evaporation… (which is why none of this hiding in the ocean crap was ever predicted. In 5 more years we will know… Either they will find something wrong with the satellites, or the satellites will win out and the massive surface data tampering will be proven unwarranted. We are due for a cooldown and it should start soon.

          • planet8788

            I really don’t think anyone is panicking about global warming.

          • 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

          • Craig Thomas

            What “hiatus”? Are you referring to some other planet?
            Here is the last 20 years’ data on temperature on this planet:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2016/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2016/trend

          • Vindaloo Bugaboo

            The hiatus that none other Michael Mann as co-author in a new Nature paper says exists: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

          • Craig Thomas

            This would the paper where they actually say there is no hiatus?
            Have you actually read it?

          • Vindaloo Bugaboo

            No, THIS would be the new paper co-authored by Mann that says the hiatus is real.

            THAT paper you’re referencing is by Karl et al.

            So tell me, what have YOU been reading?

          • Craig Thomas

            How odd – and there I was thinking the paper specifically distinguished between the 1940-70 trend and the current trend by labelling the former, “big hiatus” and the latter a “slowdown”.
            Are you *sure* you read it?
            You’re not repeating gibberish you’ve read on kook blogs instead of reading the primary sources, again, are you?

          • Vindaloo Bugaboo

            THAT’S your response? *sigh*

            Everyone – and I mean, everyone – knows that when referring to “the hiatus” they’re referencing the lack of global temperature increases since approximately 1997-2001 depending on the starting point) as highlighted by UAH and RSS satellite records and the general consensus that Karl et al. tried to erase last year.

            You want to call the hiatus a “slowdown” – when 40% of all carbon emissions have occurred since the end of the last century have resulted in barely a nudge in global temperature increases – and since that’s how the paper refers to the phenomenon, fine. Semantics doesn’t change the FACT that the most prominent CLIMATE scientist in the world has validated Karl et al. as a lie, and that there is a growing disconnect between observations and models.

            “Kook blogs” are reporting on the science as flawed. What’s your excuse?

          • Craig Thomas

            Maybe check the dictionary for what “hiatus” means. Notice it doesn’t mean “slow down”?
            Good to see you have faith in proper, expert academic science research, too – a vast improvement on getting misinformation from kook-blogs.
            For your next trick, see if you can figure out if it is best to
            – read all the science papers, then form an opinion that integrates all the information
            – decide what your opinion is, reject all science papers that it contradicts, and latch onto any isolated papers that you can misinterpret in some way as being compatible with your deluded opinion.

          • Vindaloo Bugaboo

            Maybe you could stick it where the sun don’t shine. A near zero to negative slope when 40% of all carbon dioxide ever emitted by humans during the same time period is a hiatus, period. You’re advocating a slow down … well yes, I guess a decadal reduction in atmospheric δT from 0,085°K to 0,043°K is technically a slow down … but compared to all the CMIP5 projections for where we should be today, with the GHG’s we’ve emitted since 1990, it’s clearly a hiatus. Even staunch Democrats in Congress are questioning the EPA and Karl et al. for their rushed release to “disprove” the hiatus. Clearly you’re not well versed in climate science discussions because your card is weak, telling me to refer to the dictionary; I’d simply refer you to the Mann et al. paper above and the interchangeability of the terms.

            You can blab all you want about kook blogs and not having science at my back, but my degree is in the sciences (clinical and chemistry) and I’ve read dozens of papers in the AGW debate over the past four years, whereas I doubt you’ve read much beyond the funny pages in the NYTimes. CAGW violates Popper’s Law of Falsifiability, it is a pseudoscience, it operates by consensus and not the scientific method, and has failed to match observations to predictions on pretty much everything.

            Go play with a roll of bubble wrap. You’re outmatched in any climate science argument here.

          • Craig Thomas

            0,043 is no 0.
            Ergo, no “hiatus”. (You *did* look it up, right?)

        • Evan Jones

          Try that without the Karl (2015) fiddle.

          Even so, the “revised” trendline clocks in at a mere 1.2C/century. That is a far cry from the IPCC mean projections of 3C, all of which diverged from the observations (even after uptrend “adjustment”) from the starting block.

          We have just had a very strong El Nino. That could mean a step-change up or it could be a cruisin’ for a La Nina bruisin’ (there being strong indications of a powerful La Nina on the make). So we wait and see.

          • Evan Jones II

            Talk about being blind, you are Evan, so why are you wearing glasses?

            shortonoil on Fri, 20th May 2016 6:55 am

            “As long as the world continues to consume 505 quad BTU per year the world will continue to heat up. It doesn’t make any difference where that energy comes from. We are dumping a quantity of heat into the environment each year which is equivalent to 67% of all the heat absorbed by all the world’s oceans. The world’s oceans are now heating up by 1°F every 32 years.
            Whether that heat comes from solar, or coal it is still heat. Using solar means that we would be taking incoming light, that would normally be mostly reflected back into space, and converting into heat – that isn’t. The argument against fossil fuels is mainly that they contribute Green House Gases, which aggravates the warming process. That argument can be contested on many grounds; adding 505 quad BTU to the environment each year can’t be.
            The simple fact is that because of depletion there is a time barrier to which any conversion can take place. Ignoring that fact is ignoring the problem. If the world had a few centuries to transition it would probably be possible; it doesn’t. We are looking at the end of the oil age from the collapse of the petroleum industry in less than 20 years.
            Renewables are an option for individuals, and possibly some regions to alleviate some of the discomfort that will result from the inevitable collapse of world’s integrated, global economy. Hoping that they can maintain the present system is nothing more than an exercise in futility.”
            http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

            http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/a-100-renewable-world-is-it-possible-a-poll-among-the-experts

            You fail again, Evan

          • CB

            Evan, sweetheart, this thread is long dead.

            If you need mental health assistance, find me on a fresher one:

            disqus.com/cblargh00

          • Evan Jones II

            Sure thing, Evvie, way off the IPCC projections!

            Wet Bulb Near 35 C — Heatwave Mass Casualties Strike India Amidst Never-Before-Seen High Temperatures

            Never-before-seen high temperatures and high humidity are resulting in thousands of heat injuries and hundreds of heat deaths across India. In some places, wet bulb readings appear to be approaching 35 C — a level of latent heat never endured by humans before fossil fuel burning forced global temperatures to rapidly warm. A reading widely-recognized as the limit of human physical endurance and one whose more frequent excession would commit the human race to enduring an increasing number of episodes of killing heat…

            We are on the threshold of seeing this deadly temperature level breached for the first time since humans evolved. And it’s only 2016

      • Nick

        She’s only “courageous” to the degree that she can show progress in creating better models than the ones she’s criticizing. What modelling has she done of late?

        • odin2

          The general climate models have been almost complete failures. So you are criticizing Dr. Curry for not developing another failed model? LOL. Go troll somewhere else.

          • Nick

            They’ve only been “failures” to the extent that those of a particular mindset wish to think of them as “failures”. It fits into their narrative that the work of hundreds or thousands of experts is all for naught, as their work reveals a collective responsibility on the part of all of us, which those of a particular mindset wish not to be felt to be compelled to respond.
            In fact, the models have not been “failures” at all. Three decades ago primitive models were predicting the warming that we’re experiencing now. They’re certainly far far better than the models that were predicting a cooling down beginning in the mid-to-late nineties, per the mantra of the skeptics who were saying “it’s all the sun and we’re going to cool as the sun does” – that approach has been completely and totally shown to be a “failure”.
            Of course, to those who expect models to successfully predict highly accurate global averages years and decades in advance, the models are “failures”. What folks like that don’t understand is that models aren’t ever (never) expected to be completely or highly accurate in their predictions when they are applied to complex phenomena (such as global climate and temperatures). There are no models in ANY area of study that are successful predictors to such high expectations. Models are good or successful if a) they are useful, b) supplant less useful models, c) lend themselves to improvement through refinement. And climate models generally succeed in all three. So, no, resoundingly, climate models are NOT “failures” as a whole. And to be dismissive of the process of model development is to be completely disinterested in the process of science in general (which is exactly what a few folks seem to be).

          • odin2

            Arguing that the general climate models have not failed when their temperature projections are compared with observed temperatures (all data sets) over the past 20 years is ludicrous.

            http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/03/failed-climate-models.html

            Go troll somewhere else.

          • Nick

            I’m not impressed by non-scientific sources. And if you can show me a better model than what actual experts have produced (see the criteria in my previous comment) then I’m all ears.

          • odin2

            Find one of the general climate models relied on by the IPCC and policy makers that hindcasts past temperatures, presents current temperatures, and projects future temperatures accurately. That model does not exist.

            You appear to worship climate models too much. Climate models are the holy grails of the Church of Climatology, but like all churches the C of C lacks any empirical evidence to support it’s hypothesis.

            As professor Lindzen said:

            Professor Linden, a “MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.

            During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.

            ‘As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,’ he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!’.”

            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

          • Jed

            “Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” ~ Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid

          • odin2

            Thanks. I am going to save and use this.

          • Jed

            Welcome to it.

          • Nick

            Lindzen’s quote has nothing to do with what we’re talking about (he hasn’t written any climate models either).
            There are no models that will ever be written that will meet odin’s standard of if-it-isn’t-perfect-then-it’s-useless. Not on any subject in any area if science. We see things so differently that further exchange is useless. I end here.

          • odin2

            You just don’t get it. Climate models are not reality and they do not trump reality. Goodbye.

          • Craig Thomas

            Modelling is usefully used in many fields to test understanding of a system and/or the effects of its inputs.
            The only people who mistake climate models for reality are the climate change Deniers.
            You can test how well a model matches the system it is intended to represent if you compare how its outputs match measurements. To do this, you need to use as inputs real-world data, as skeptical-science does here:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/HansenActualPrediction.png
            What the deniers do (mostly through ignorance, but some of them are deliberately deceptive) is to conflate, differences between original projected inputs and the real-world data, with the performance of the model itself.

          • odin2

            Balderdash. The climate models have demonstrated no skill with their temperature projections. Of course a climate model does well if you input real world data. That’s called hindcasting. Where the climate models failed was forecasting.

          • Craig Thomas

            You still don’t understand the difference between the system and the inputs. Contrary to your assertions, climate modelling is accurate, as per the link I provided.
            If you want to see failed models, you only have to look at those provided by the Deniers, for example, Richard Lindzen:
            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/4/1388804857237/Hansen_vs_Lindzen_450.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=526ef82a2173230530372d760038c96d

          • odin2

            Your chart is meaningless. It gives no references. It does not even represent which dataset is used for temperatures. Hansen has been famously wrong on his predictions. Your chart appears to have been prepared by amateurs.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/03/did-james-hansen-unwittingly-prove-the-null-hypothesis-of-agw/

          • Craig Thomas

            Hansen wasn’t wrong, as the article accompanying that chart explains: Hansen made some estimations for what the future inputs would be in order to forecast.
            If you correct those inputs so that they match what is actually the case, Hansen’s model matches the current temperature trend.
            Your WattsUp article was apparently written by a hamster – it reveals profound ignorance, and deep-seated ideological opposition to being honest.
            This is why you should rely on article written by scientists instead of blog-nonsense purveyed by unqualified ex-weathermen and such.

          • odin2

            Hindcasting is always easier. The hard part is the forecasting.

          • Craig Thomas

            Hansen wasn’t hindcasting – if you use Hansen’s 1988 model, and use as inputs the real-life measured values for CO2, CH4, etc…, and use a climate sensitivity value of 3, you get model simulation results that resemble real-world temperature measurements.

          • odin2

            Sure.

          • odin2

            So your point is that if you use real world data the models do better? That would work especially well during the period when both CO2 levels and temperatures were rising (before the divergence). /sarc

          • Craig Thomas

            The test of whether a model is “doing better” has nothing to do with the quality of the data inputted – it is the data *outputted* that defines a model’s accuracy.
            I remain astounded that you think the inputs define the model. The model is the *system*, not the data.

          • odin2

            I never said that inputs define the model. I said that if you use actual observed data you should be able to hindcast better because you can manipulate the models to reflect the past. You can’t do that forecasting. That is why the general climate models have failed. The general climate models have overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, cosmic rays, ocean cycles, volcanoes, malinkovitch cycles and other natural causes of climate change. Climate change is a nonlinear chaotic system. The general climate models cannot handle all the variables involved and may not be able to ever project climate on a long range basis. As the IPCC said:

            “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

            http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-14.pdf

          • Craig Thomas

            That’s not what is being done with Hansen’s 1988 model – the model isn’t being changed, that’s the whole point. If you use the original model (which nobody does, as far more complex and more accurate models have of course since been developed) with the real-world data as inputs, the model performs very well when compared with real-world outputs.
            So in conclusion, Hansen’s 1988 model is accurate.
            You need to un-confuse yourself about the difference between a systemic model and the data used for its inputs. You really aren’t getting it.

          • odin2

            Whatever. You can defend Hansen and his model if you want.

          • planet8788

            Actually, you guys need to explain your points in a little more detail…

            The confusion comes with things like Hansen’s business as usual scenario… If you look at CO2 only, emissions have followed the BAU scenario. but only CO2 and maybe N2O…. CFC’s were a large part of the forcing and instead of increasing, they are decreasing now.

            If you guys emphasized that instead of name calling, admit and highlight the errors and details of the BAU scenario, you would start to convince some people.

            I’ve been on AGW threads for 10 years. Even people on your side of the oil often don’t understand these relatively simple details… they just engage in namecalling.

          • Craig Thomas

            I commenced this discussion with a link where all this is laid out.
            What you are complaining about Planet, is that some people persistently refuse to inform themselves, and consistently regurgitate opinions they have been exposed to on non-science political blogs.
            The biggest stumbling-block here is the inability by some to understand the difference between a model and the inputs that are run through it.

            Hansen had no way of knowing for sure what the inputs would be in the real world, so he made some educated guesses as to what they might be, when he published the workings of his model.
            If you replace his educated guesses with the now-known real-world values, *then* you can use them as the inputs to assess his model against reality.
            Hansen’s model has long been superceded by much more complex and better models, but the whole point of this exercise is that the assumptions Hansen built into his model back in 1988 seem to be pretty close to reality. Reduce his value for sensitivity by about 25% and his model is spot on.

          • planet8788

            I commenced this discussion with a link where all this is laid out.

            The link I see simply points to an unlabeled chart. There is nothing laid out there.. Not a dam thing.

            What you are complaining about Planet, is that some people persistently refuse to inform themselves, and consistently regurgitate opinions they have been exposed to on non-science political blogs.

            So inform them. Calling them names won’t change their mind.
            Understand the opponents argument… and tear it down calmly unless you like wasting your time. I’m just saying.

          • odin2
          • Craig Thomas

            It appears you are not following the conversation.
            Watts (a non-scientist who runs a mediocre political blog) appears to have published modelling which uses the wrong inputs for the relevant atmospheric forcings , comparing it against real-world measurements that are the result of different forcing values.
            This is true incompetence.
            Might I suggest you find more reliable sources?

          • odin2

            Watts is a meterologist. Most of the articles on his site are not by Watts but third party authors, whose articles stand on their own merits . When WUWT reviews a peer reviewed article, a link to the article is provided so that you can read it if you prefer. Having said that, here is a link to Watts’ projects and publications:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/publications-and-projects/

            On the other hand Believer blogs often are written by AGW zealots without supported links and with graphs and data that are misleading.

            The Truth about Skeptical Science:

            “Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a N@zi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name ‘Skeptical Science’ is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

            John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

            Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said…” go to the following website:

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

            The Truth about DeSmogBlog:

            “DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they attack in respected news sources.”

            For more about DeSmogBlog, Lefebvre, and Hogan see:

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/04/truth-about-desmogblog.html

          • Craig Thomas

            Watts dropped out of uni and worked as a TV weatherman.

            I’m not aware he is a qualified meteorologist.

            And reading the nonsense on his blog should be a great advertisement of the value of being careful about selecting your sources….

          • odin2

            Watts is a meterologist. If you had any empirical evidence supporting AGW you would provide it. Similarly, if you could refute the articles/papers discussed on WUWT that you would do it instead of smearing Watts, WUWT and the authors unaffiliated with the web site. You can deal with the facts or the science so you resort to smear.

          • Craig Thomas

            Is it “smear” to point out that Watts has no qualifications and – contrary to your assertion – is not a qualified meteorologist?
            Is it “smear” to point out that everything that appears on his blog can similarly be characterised as the opinions of similarly non-qualified people? Look at the latest post on the website – Tim Ball, a bloke who was forced by a court to admit that he told porkies about his qualifications.

            Going to WUWT looking for useful information is a bit like opening your petrol tank looking for something to drink. It’s just not going to help you.

          • odin2

            It’s time for you to return the computer to your mother and go to bed. Good night.

          • Craig Thomas

            I’m actually giving it to your mother tonight.

          • Craig Thomas

            And, once again, you have this imaginary “divergence”. Here it is in pictures:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
            There is no divergence. Physics says CO2 traps heat, and explains exactly how. Observations obviously confirm this is happening. The warming trend is part of our current reality.

          • odin2
          • odin2

            Apparently you cannot read a graph, because figure 3 clearly shows the divergence between observed temperatures and model projections. So, in the off chance that you might actually look at fig. 3, here it is again:

            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zLZvFvWqy8Y/U8REucSDlfI/AAAAAAAAASg/-f_VHXdfaQY/s1600/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

            Your Skeptical Science escalator graph. LOL. Do they have new uniforms at Skeptical Science now? :) Those German uniforms were a bit tacky.

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

            Here is a climate chart for Believers/alarmists:

            https://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/escalating_alarmism.gif

            http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/escalating_alarmism.gif

          • Craig Thomas

            Um, I think I see your trouble – you are getting your “information” from kook-blogs, and you have failed to sceptical about the nonsense stuff written by Nasif Nahle, who is a Herbologist or Homeopath or something.

          • odin2

            You: ” you are getting your “information” from kook-blogs…”

            And you are getting your information from Skeptical Science? ROFLOL.

          • Craig Thomas

            Actually, I don’t get much information from Sceptical Science, but, like Wikipedia, I find it a useful place to send people who don’t appear to have yet understood the basics because it is checkable and makes efforts to base all its material on proper, published, science.

          • odin2
          • Craig Thomas

            That guy’s a human parody – he says,
            “Numerous modelers have told us that the Arctic polar ice would be completely gone by now. ”
            And links to a bunch of articles that say stuff like, “…could be ice-free “.
            Surely only an idiot would confuse “could” with “would”.

          • odin2

            Apparently the author linked to the wrong article as an example:

            BBC December 12, 2007: “Arctic Summers Ice-Free by 2013″

            The BBC’s 2007 report quoted scientist Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, who based his views on super-computer models and the fact that ‘we use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice’. This story was within a more rational story in the Daily Mail.

            ABC News, April 7, 2008: “North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008″ (source)

            Because of the large ice melt in 2007, Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) said “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

            Sierra Club, March 23, 2013: “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013″ (source)

            “”For the record—I do not think that any sea ice will survive this summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean.”

            Tony Heller (aka Steve Goddard) has compiled scans of newspaper articles predicting an ice-free Arctic:

            The Argus (Melbourne) July, 17, 1954: “Arctic Ice Thaws” (source)

            “The ice-packed Arctic Ocean may become navigable in another 25 to 50 years if the present warming-up tendency of the polar region continued.”

            New Scientist, December 1, 1960 : (source, see bottom of second column)

            “The Arctic Ocean will be open year-round before the end of the twentieth Century.”

            Tuscaloosa News, May 18, 1972: “Arctic Ocean to be ice free by 2000?” (source)

            “Washington (AP) -Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

            National Geographic News, December 12, 2007, “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?” (source)

            “This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

            Huff Post October 16, 2009, “We Can’t Ignore the Security Threat from Climate Change “ (source)

            Article by then Senator John Kerry in which he claims:

            “The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”

            For more see:

            http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean.html

            For more hilarity see:

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/ice-free-arctic-forecasts/

          • Craig Thomas

            The Human Parody said “”Numerous modelers have told us that the Arctic polar ice would be completely gone by now. “”.

            You confirm he was incorrect to say this (and as a scientist himself, he should have known better than to spout such nonsense), by providing quotes from researchers (not that it is apparent which ones are “modellers”) full of the language of uncertainty and possibility, “could”, “possible”, “may”, etc….

          • odin2

            Is there a point to your nonsensical post?

          • Craig Thomas

            Yes.
            The point is that the words “will” and “could” are actually different.

          • odin2

            (1) M. Murphy, New Scientist, 1960: “The Arctic ocean will be ice free the entire year before the end of the 20th century” (i.e. by the year 2000),

            (2) “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen 1972: “The warming trend can produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

            (3) Jay Zwally (NASA) said in December 2007 : “The Arctic Ocean could almost be ice-free in the summer of 2012” (National Geographic)

            (4) Louis Fortier (Arctic Net, Canada) 2007: “The Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2010 or 2015”.

            (5) David Barber (Univ. of Manitoba), 2008: “The North Pole could be ice-free this summer for the first time”: June 2008 (2) (3)

            (6) Prof. W. Maslowski (US Naval Postgraduate School), 2008: “In summer 2013 we will have an ice-free Arctic”.

            (7) Mark Serreze, NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Centre, Colorado, USA) in 2008: “The Arctic could be ice-free in 2012”.

            (8) Al Gore, former US Vice President at the Copenhagen climate conference 2009: “Arctic will be ice-free in five years” = 2014.

            (9) US-Senator John Kerry 2009: “The Arctic will be ice-free in 2013”.

            (10) Prof. P. Wadhams (Cambridge University), 2007: said in 2007 that the Arctic ice was in a “death spiral”, and in 2011: “the ice could be completely gone in four years”, i.e. 2015.

            – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2016/01/05/large-number-of-climate-scientists-officials-baffled-arctic-sea-ice-still-hasnt-disappeared-and-has-grown-instead/#sthash.zgB9bJMT.OSZARZEU.dpuf

            You are dismissed.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Physics says CO2 traps heat, and explains exactly how.

            Yes, and in the absence of any other independent variables, if we plot temperature versus CO2, we would see a non-decreasing graph, wouldn’t we? But in the real world, we see no such non-decreasing temp. v. CO2, do we? Guess that just means we can conclude that there are other independent variables that have a greater effect than CO2, doesn’t it?

            So how well do the climate models fit the temperatures of the last 600 million years (http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html ) Notice the periods of relatively lower CO2 but having relatively higher temperatures? How well to the models explain that?

          • Craig Thomas

            I guess you now realise that there are other forcings (which you call “independent variables”).
            So, which “independent variables” are currently *changing* and thus causing the Earth’s energy balance to alter?
            We know about CO2 – it has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last 200 years, bringing it to a level not seen on this planet for at least a million years.
            Which other *changing* forcing are you referring to to justify your denial of the known and measured effect of CO2 on the Earth’s energy balance?

          • Ali_Bertarian

            We know about CO2 – it has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last
            200 years,

            No, we don’t know about CO2. Why didn’t the global temperatures go up from 1940 to 1980? See
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/trend

            If the simplistic physics of solely CO2 can’t explain it, by itself, then what does? The climate models don’t reflect reality. You have been shown graphs numerous times on this page of their failures.

            No model is worth looking at unless it can address the following:

            How well do the climate models fit the temperatures of the last 600 million years (http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html ) Notice the periods of relatively lower CO2 but having relatively higher temperatures? How well to the models explain that?

            bringing it to a level not seen on this planet for at least a
            million years.

            Since CO2 is not the only factor affecting temperatures, so what? What should have been the effect on temperature of CO2 at 2000 ppm during the late Ordovician-early Silurian, when temperatures were lower than they are today? What should have been the effect on temperature of CO2 at lower ppm than today during the Permian, when temperatures were higher than they are today?</b See http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

            You're not even considering the possibility of negative feedbacks in the real world, of which CO2 may be an agent. The fact that temperatures have not monotonically increased during the last 600 million years during periods of increasing CO2 makes it clear that there are negative feedbacks. The fact that the Vostok ice cores seem to indicate that CO2 follows temperature changes in time indicates that the laboratory model of CO2 does not transfer to the real world.

          • Craig Thomas

            If I get you right – you are arguing that unless CO2 is the *only* factor in the Earth’s energy budget, then it isn’t a forcing at all.
            This is monumentally stupid.
            Do you understand that the Sun’s output varies, the Earth’s orbit varies, and the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere varies? Do you understand that these things have been studied in depth over hundreds of years by some fairly clever and professional people?
            Maybe you should do a bit of reading into these things so you can better understand what CO2’s contribution is to the current trend in the Earth’s energy budget?
            And you really need to stop reading nonsense by Nasif Nahle, who is a herbologist or something and whose ideas about physics are utterly ridiculous.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            If I get you right – you are arguing that unless CO2 is the *only*
            factor in the Earth’s energy budget, then it isn’t a forcing at all.

            No, you don’t understand. You wrote, “We know about CO2 – it has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last
            200 years, bringing it to a level not seen on this planet for at least a
            million years.”

            So what do you conclude from that? That the temperature must go up, because of what we know of CO2 in the laboratory? If that is your conclusion then you are obviously wrong, because while CO2 rose greatly from 1940 to 1980, global
            temperatures actually decreased very slightly.

            So if that is not your conclusion what do you conclude from the fact that CO2 is at “a level not seen on this planet for at least a
            million years?”

            Do you understand that the Sun’s output varies, the Earth’s orbit varies, and the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere varies? Do you understand that these things have been studied in depth over hundreds of years by some fairly clever and professional people?

            Do you understand that eclipses of the Sun and moon can be computed down to the second centuries in advance of their occurrence, but the global climate models failed
            to predict the last 18 years of no warming, and fail to account for the last 600 million years of CO2/temperature relationship?

            Do you understand that the data upon which the models rely are to a great extent estimated temperatures? Which of the numerous studies of the orbits of the Sun relied on greatly estimated data?

            Politicians in Washington have made it clear that they are true believers in AGW, from Obama to Gore. Obama made it clear that he wants to “necessarily bankrupt” coal-fired power plants, because global warming. Those politicians direct funding of government research. How about if we allow coal mining companies to determine where taxpayer money should be directed in climate change research?

          • Craig Thomas

            “you are obviously wrong, because while CO2 rose greatly from 1940 to 1980, global
            temperatures actually decreased very slightly.”

            Er…I’ll type this real slow to give you an opportunity to follow :

            CO2 is *not* the *only* forcing.

            Do you get this yet?

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Relevance to the failed predictions of the models?

            Relevance to the leftist obsession with controlling only CO2 production by industrialized nations?

            Relevance to the alleged temperature sensitivity to CO2, not sensitivity to forcing agents?

            You wrote, “We know about CO2 – it has increased from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last 200 years, bringing it to a level not seen on this planet for at least a million years.”

            So what do you conclude from that?

            Try answering any of the questions, and we might get somewhere.

          • Craig Thomas

            Seriatim,
            – As demonstrated, you misread what the simulation was and compared it with a different dataset from an irrelevant time period. The models are fine.
            – I think responsible people are concerned with CFCs, CH4, and particulate pollution as well, not just CO2. Once again you invent an alternate reality and from it develop criticism that has no basis.
            – Sadly, humanity is unable to effect any change on many of the other forcings, eg, vulcanism, insolation; or direct change over H2O vapor; leaving us with CO2 and CH4 as known forcings we know we need to stop pumping into the atmosphere. Knowing the sensitivity value will help us plan mitigation strategies.

            I don’t conclude anything from s single premise.
            If you add the facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that its sensitivity value is non-trivial, and the conclusion is that we need to either,
            1- stop pumping it into the atmosphere, or,
            2- figure out how to remove it from the atmosphere.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            CO2 and CH4 as known forcings we know we need to stop pumping into the atmosphere

            Even the alarmists admit that, if only the 1st world countries (China and India refuse) drastically cut back on CO2 and methane production, no measurable change to Earth’s temperature will be made.

            Get back to the computers, come up with models that simulate the temperature-CO2 relationships of the last 600 million years — during which there were periods of high temperature, but low CO2 and vice versa — as well as correctly predict future global temperatures — which they have so far failed to do — and then maybe we can talk. Until then, you are just proposing a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.

          • Craig Thomas

            What are you on about, “China refuse”? China is the world’s leading spender and implementer of renewable power. And India is the world’s 5th-largest implementer of windpower.

            I think you’ve been getting your (mis)information from kook blogs again.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            The use of windpower doesn’t decrease the alleged build-up of CO2 unless there is a cut back of CO2-producing powerplants. China will be building hundreds of coal-fired power plants in the next few decades. India also has said they will not cut back on CO2 production.

          • Craig Thomas

            China is *closing* coal-fired power plants faster than any other country in the world.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            They are also building them faster than any other country in the world, except for possibly India.

            See the following:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/world/asia/greenpeace-says-chinas-energy-plans-exacerbate-climate-change.html

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute

            http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/chinas-growing-coal-use-is-worlds-growing-problem-16999

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources-institute

            “As of July 2012, China’s government planned 363 coal-fired power plants for construction across China, with a combined generating capacity exceeding 557 gigawatts (for reference, installed capacity at the end of 2012 was 758 GW). This amounts to an almost 75 percent increase in coal-fired generating capacity.” — http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/08/majority-china%E2%80%99s-proposed-coal-fired-power-plants-located-water-stressed-regions

          • Craig Thomas

            ” As of July 2012, China’s government planned 363 coal-fired power plants”

            Right, well today it’s 2016.

            So stop relying on out-of-date news stories telling us about coal-fired plants that don’t actually exist.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            By their own standards, their models have failed.

            Here is a 40-year trend of decreasing world temperatures, 1940-1980, during which CO2 was increasing:
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/trend

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.” (emphasis added) State of the Climate in 2008. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90 (8), S1–S196 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

          • Craig Thomas

            CO2 isn’t the only forcing, did you know that?
            Were you aware of the forcings created by Sulphur Dioxide and other such substances?
            Because if you were, you would realise that the *actual* trajectory of global temperature is the sum of *all* forcings.
            Your failure to include *all* forcings when making your comparison is either ignorant, or dishonest. Maybe even both.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            I put the important part in bold for you, but you still didn’t understand. So let’s give it yet more emphasis:

            Here is a 40-year trend of decreasing world temperatures, 1940-1980, during which CO2 was increasing: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1980/trend

            “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.” (emphasis added) State of the Climate in 2008. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 90 (8), S1–S196 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

            I have only read enough of your writing to state that you don’t display sufficient smarts to deserve the appellations “dishonest” or “ignorant.” Perhaps you don’t have very good reading comprehension skills.

            (Your reply didn’t address what I wrote, but really, you haven’t read the CAGW alarmists claims concerning climate sensitivity to CO2?)

          • Craig Thomas

            Er, maybe the quoted simulations do not include something which you have overlooked?
            And also, perhaps the statement you are reading referred to a specific time-period?
            It would seem you do not have very good comprehension skills.
            Would you mind re-reading the report and getting back to us with your apology for wasting our time posting nonsense?
            Thanks.
            If you want to fight the “climate alarmists”, posting easily-disproven lies kinda supports *their* argument, not yours.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            Er, maybe the quoted simulations do not include something which you have overlooked?
            And also, perhaps the statement you are reading referred to a specific time-period?

            “Maybe?” That’s all you got? I cited the reference. Try reading it. You I can ignore.

          • Craig Thomas

            OK, so hints aren’t good enough for you.
            Either you haven’t read it, or you don’t understand english: your quote doesn’t say what you pretend it says. Read it in context. It refers to a particular time period, and it refers to a particular treatment of the data, both of which make a nonsense of your comparison.
            Actually, I’m guessing you haven’t even read this report, and you are just cutting and pasting nonsense you’ve read on a kook-blog somewhere.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            It refers to a particular time period…

            Prove it.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            …that statement did not pertain to the period 1940-1980, and nor did it pertain to the actual temperature record..

            If you think that the phrase, “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more,” does not refer to an actual temperature record, then you and I have very different methods of interpreting English (not “english.”)

            Read it in context. It refers to a particular time period…

            Yeah, if you are referring to “using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model.” Did you also notice “Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model.” In other words, their models don’t work unless they change the parameters of the models, and then when the new models don’t work with those new parameters (now 18 years of no temp changes according to satellite data) they will just change the model parameters to fit the past, and claim that the new model will work to forecast the future… until it doesn’t, at which time they just change the model parameters and claim that they are sure the new models will work to forecast the future, etc. etc. etc.

            I could just as well tell you that I have a great mathematical model that I can sell you that forecasts the stock market that is based upon a nicely fitted Fourier transform. I can even show you how great it is for past stock prices. But if it fails to predict the stock data after I sold it to you as well as it fit the past data, I will just charge you $295 more to get the “updated” parameters to the model, which is just another Fourier transform, which fits the stock data that transpired after I sold you the original model. You have fallen for the equivalent in climate “science.”

          • Craig Thomas

            No, The phrase you are wilfully misinterpreting referred specifically to “the last 25 years”.
            Additionally (and this is the funny bit) it referred to a model in which the effects of El Nino had been removed.
            So, you’ve taken a model representing the period 1980>> , with El Nino removed, and you’ve compared with a period of <<1980, with El Nino still in it.

            All you have proven is that your ability to understand the written word is deficient.

          • planet8788

            How are El Nino’s relevant to a 15 year trend. An El Nino cycle is 4-5 years.

          • Craig Thomas

            In two ways – El Nino represents variability within the system, not a forcing. So if you are looking at the effects of forcings, (ie, to discover an underlying trend) you tend to want to take out the variability, and El Nino is a big bit of variability because it isn’t a regular cycle with predictable effects (unlike the solar cycles, for example).
            The “15 years” is a different thing – due to the variability, the minimum amount of data required to determine statistical significance when it comes to climate data leads scientists to use “15 years” as a marker for statistical significance. Even then, they readily admit it’s not really long enough to be convinced of any apparent trend.
            If ever somebody tried to convince you of a trend by drawing a graph over a sequence of data that commenced or ended on an outlying measurement, you can safely assume they are trying to mislead you. Especially if that outlying measurement can be ascribed to a known event of cyclical variability, eg, the El Nino of 1998 – anybody who uses that year for a starting point is not looking for a trend, they are simply concocting a lie.

          • planet8788

            The trend isn’t significantly different if you start in 2001.

          • Craig Thomas

            The only way you can still devise a “no warming” narrative is to use RSS temperature series, which doesn’t measure surface temperature anyway.
            It’s ironic that the Deniers’ favourite temperature series is the one temperature series that undergoes the most extensive “data manipulation”, corrections and homogenisation, isn’t it?

            Hey – I just thought of something – the International Cabal of Climate Fraud Scientists needs to get onto the RSS satellite scientists and sack them for not toeing the line, eh?

          • planet8788

            It is not the most extensive data manipulation… The US surface record is the most manipulated… with with the world surface record a close second.

            And globally, 1880 to 1980 warming has doubled since 1981…. You can read Hansen, et. al 1981 and look at the Global temp chart for yourself and compare it to today’s.

          • Craig Thomas

            …and yet BEST confirmed the raw data and the improved data say the same thing.
            Anthony Watts put this idea in your head about the temperature record being rubbish and announced he was doing a study of it. Amusingly, he didn’t understand his results too well, but showed them to people who confirmed that Watts had inadvertantly proven the temperature record was reliable. Watts then went and hid everything and has failed to publish his results, thus proving many things about himself which I needn’t point out.

          • planet8788

            Amazingly…. as soon as we put CRN stations operational 12 years ago… THe USA has stopped warming.

            http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/15/americas-most-advanced-climate-station-data-shows-us-in-a-10-year-cooling-trend/

          • Craig Thomas

            If the world were not warming, despite the increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm over the last 200 years, then all you have to do is document what it is that is negating the effects of CO2.
            Oh, and of course, the world is warming. I’m sure you can fake/mistake thermometer data, but how do you fake the Arctic ice cap disappearing…?
            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

          • planet8788

            Yes, We have warmed since 1980… It has warmed, but no worse than the MWP. No doubt about it, it has warmed, the satellites tell us that.
            … And we had peak sea ice in the late 1970’s.
            If it has warmed so much… Why weren’t we in an ice age in 1910?
            We only have 35 years of reliable Arctic data…

            All it takes is a little stirring of the ocean to cool us down again… The ocean is the key… And we have very little reliable data on the ocean…

          • Craig Thomas

            We long ago passed the temperature in the “MWP”, which is a largely fictitions concept of which I have always been very sceptical.

          • planet8788

            Nope.

          • Craig Thomas
          • planet8788

            Nope just paying attention to the satellite data and not the fudged, grossly inaccurate surface data.

          • Craig Thomas

            The satellite data is far more “fudged” than the surface record. Numerous satellite data errors have been found and corrected.
            …and it isn’t a record of surface temperature, either…

          • planet8788

            Nope… not even close… ummm. yes it is.

          • planet8788

            Found, corrected and still show no warming in 18 years even with this huge El Nino

          • Craig Thomas

            Gosh, “corrected”, eh? So it is inaccurate, doesn’t measure surface temperature, and is fudged out of all resemblance to the raw data.
            And yet….you *like* the satellite data for some reason….I don’t detect any effort at rational analysis here on your part…

          • planet8788

            1880 to 1980 warming has doubled since 1981… Provable fact.

          • Craig Thomas

            I search for that phrase and Google throws up a dozen links to kook-blogs.
            You wouldn’t have any reference to proper, published scientific work on this issue, would you…?

          • planet8788

            Of course silly, try the NASA website… 1880-1980 temperatures were published in Hansen, et. al 1981. Google that it will take you to the website… Compare that chart to the latest from today.

          • Craig Thomas

            So….a massive fraud that invalidates the last 35 years of climate science is so obvious all you have to do is a bit of googling and eyeball a couple of charts?
            So obvious, it’s almost as obvious as ChemTrails?

            How odd. You would think this would have made the news.

            I notice you have no reference to this issue being written up by a qualified researcher and published in a respected academic journal, so I can read up on this issue and inform myself from a reliable source…why would that be, would you say?

          • planet8788

            NASA isn’t a reputable source?
            It’s just a fact. 1880 to 1980 warming has doubled since 1981.
            It is obviously something you weren’t aware of.

          • planet8788

            Of course as soon CRN network goes live… all the warming in the USA stops… what a coincidence…. Just happens to match the satellites.

          • planet8788

            UAH and RSS are basically identical. and we will soon be at 20 years of no warming on the satellite record…. after this La Nina kicks in.

            AGW theory states that the Troposphere should warm first before the surface… It isn’t happening.
            The surface and troposphere numbers should move together… The Biggest critique with the satellites is if they are properly differentiating the temperatures between stratosphere where there is cooling and the trop where there is warming.

          • Craig Thomas

            Actually, the heating of the troposphere isn’t “AGW Theory”, it is the modelled effect of any forcing that causes temperature rise.
            The heating troposphere has been documented by many researchers, using various methods.
            wg, http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n6/full/ngeo208.html

            As yet, its extent is uncertain. Hence why research continues.
            One thing that we can say for sure is this: when you say about Tropospheric warming, “It isn’t happening”, you are lying. There is no data or evidence to support such a statement.

          • planet8788

            The RSS and UAH are lying.

          • Craig Thomas

            The satellite data is wrong. Or,
            The modelling is wrong. Or,
            The physics is wrong.

          • planet8788

            So… The radiosonde temperatures weren’t warming.. The models said they should… Therefore they apply this equation… and wala… the temperatures derived from this approach agree with the model, thus validating the model… Is that about right? LOL. No chance of confirmation bias there….. none at all.

          • Craig Thomas

            So something is wrong. At this stage, the data collection is the weakest link.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            No, The phrase you are wilfully misinterpreting referred specifically to “the last 25 years”.

            That phrase does not appear anywhere in the PDF document. The phrase “25 years” appears nowhere in the article from which I quoted.

            Shall I conclude willful misconduct on your part?

            If you are referring to the sentence immediately prior to the one which I quoted — “warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations” — then my reply is the same as the comment to which you allegedly responded; the comment containing the stock market program, which you didn’t actually respond to.

            Additionally (and this is the funny bit) it referred to a model in which the effects of El Nino had been removed.

            Yeah, that was one of my “favorite” parts of the whole article, because it shows how dishonest they are. They claim that there was no “pause” in temperature increases only by pretending that the 1998 El Nino didn’t occur. Now that is willful misconduct.

          • Craig Thomas

            I see a lot of blather on your part, but no admission that you got it wrong.
            The “model” in question uses the last 25 years’ worth of data, and has ENSO removed from it.
            You have compared this model with a previous time period, unadjusted for ENSO.
            You now seem to think that the researchers’ comments about their model outputs have something to do with the observed temperature record.
            I don’t know if you have a reading comprehension thing, or if you are simply a lover of fact-deprived rhetoric. In either case, you are demonstrating that Deniers have nothing useful to contribute to any debate about the science of climate change.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            I see a lot of blather on your part, but no admission that you got it wrong.

            And I see no response on all the other facts that you failed to refute or answer to, even if one counts this as your “victory.”

            In the same paragraph in question — the one which you claim is your victory — there is this: “Ensembles with different modifications to the physical parameters of the model (within known uncertainties) (Collins et al. 2006) are performed for … scenarios…” In other words, they have to modify the models in order to get them to hindcast properly for only a 25 year period, and they don’t work for any other period of time.

            On page S22 in the description of the graphs: “The global mean after the effect of ENSO that has been subtracted is also shown, along with (bottom blue curve, offset by 0.5°C) the ENSO contribution itself. Least squares linear trends in the ENSO and ENSO-removed components for 1999–2008 and their two std dev uncertainties are shown in orange.” In other words, they claim that there was no “pause” in temperature increases only by pretending that the 1998 El Nino didn’t occur.

            You have compared this model with a previous time period, unadjusted for ENSO.

            Why should any real-world model have to be adjusted for ENSO? A model of any phenomena is supposed to be able to include all real-world phenomena, not just the ones that fit your preconceived hypothesis. Otherwise, it can’t claim to be a “model.” What the heck do you think a “model” is, if it does not simulate reality, of which ENSO is a part.

            You don’t even understand what your “victory” is, which has nothing to do with ENSO, but with a model specifically built for one period of time being applied to any other period of time.

            I don’t know if you have a reading comprehension thing, because what you have written is, again, not a reply to what I wrote, or if you are simply a lover of fact-deprived rhetoric.

            But I certainly welcome the opportunity present all of this to you again, so that you can ignore it again.

          • Craig Thomas

            It’s not a “real-world” model, it’s a simulation specific to some forcings.
            And they aren’t “hindcasting” the real-world temperature. It has nothing to do with it.
            As the modellers lay out, it is based on the last 25 years of data, and as they also lay out, it is a simulation of temperature forcings with the ENSO variability removed.
            The purpose of this model is to simulate known forcings to ascertain the distance between (what is known and how the known things are quantified) and (what is unknown or (known and mis-quantified)).

            In the context of these facts, they make a statement about their simulation whose purpose is to quantify the likelihood (<6%) of a 15-year zero-trend, according to their model. It is in fact a way of testing the accuracy of the assumptions being built into theirs and many other models.

            The modellers tell you *exactly* what it is simulating, and you castigate them because it doesn't simulate something else entirely.

            Your criticism of it is thus entirely inept. And I mean, incredibly inept – you just don't even begin to understand what it's all about.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            “it is a simulation of temperature forcings with the ENSO variability removed.”

            Didn’t need to read any further after you admitted that. You don’t seem to understand that you can’t model the real world, if you just ignore actual real world processes, pretending that they don’t exist in order to make your fake model “work.”

          • Craig Thomas

            You took a non-real-world simulation, (without reading the paper that described it) then compared it with a real-world situation (which the simulation was not modelling), and then had yet another “a-ha! climate change isn’t happening!” moment.
            The rest of us had yet another “oh dear, Denialists can’t get much dimmer than this…can they?” moment.

          • Craig Thomas

            I have read it.
            You clearly haven’t, or you would know that that statement did not pertain to the period 1940-1980, and nor did it pertain to the actual temperature record, against which you have mistakenly compared it.

          • planet8788

            Then instead of name-calling why don’t you point him to where he can look up what forcings have changed… And how strong they are. Or are you here just to see how many insults you can hand out?

          • Craig Thomas

            You mean it didn’t occur to him to inform himself about the facts upon which this conversation is predicated, *before* coming on here and inflicting his ignorance on us?
            Astounding.
            He could start here:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

          • planet8788

            Much quicker to cut and paste then to right a long hate diatribe.

          • Craig Thomas

            Here are the rest of the failed Denier models, compared against the accurate scientific models and reality:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions1976-2011.png

          • odin2

            Well that chart is helpful. /sarc. Are you certain that your chart compares climate model projectons?

            We are talking general climate models and their projections of future temperatures. That includes all of the general climate models relied on by the IPCC and all of the Coupled Intercomparison Model Project models.

            https://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/cmip5-90-models-global-tsfc-vs-obs-thru-20131.png

            http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/earth_radiates.pdf

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/03/climate-models-are-not-simulating-earths-climate-part-1/

          • Steveglen

            Liberals follow a typical format when presenting an argument. They present unproven ‘facts’ and then base their conclusions on them. ‘Everyone agrees’ is pulled out of thin air as proof, even though everyone doesn’t agree, as Richard Lindzen doesn’t.
            Add in marginalizing insults (flat-earthers, deniers, whatever) and you see the substance of most of their comments.

          • Craig Thomas

            Lindzen’s contributions have been shown to have been completely wrong, so whatever he disagrees with has the virtue of being at least potentially correct.
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Predictions1976-2011.png

    • 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
        • Craig Thomas

          Providing links to the serially-wrong non-scientist Goddard, who has even had to apologise for the most egregious of his idiocy, would tend to snuff out any credibility you may otherwise have been able to lay claim to.

      • 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?

      • Craig Thomas

        The thing you have been insufficiently sceptical of, is the myth that there was some kind of “global cooling” that “climatologists” were “worried about”:
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

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

          try rereading the last paragraph…

          • Craig Thomas

            You appear to have fallen under the sway of kook-blogs.
            I provided you with a link to an academic article which demonstrates the gibberish you are parroting is a fantasy.
            You say you were raised to be sceptical, and yet you apparently gullibly embrace nutty ideas that are easily proven to be utter rubbish.
            Apparently your father failed.

          • Craig Thomas

            In fact, here is what a genuine scientist had to say about that book, which you quote, and which was written by non-scientist nutters (a bit like the blogs you frequent):
            http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Schneider1977.pdf
            See? The scientists then, as today, were dealing with the Dunning-Kruger-afflicted who were mis-analysing data to create ridiculous stories.

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

            Once more, try rereading my last paragraph for comprehension.

          • Craig Thomas

            I have no idea why you keep repeating your kook conspiracy-theory, any more than I understand your desire to believe nonsense about “global cooling”, a refutation of which I have provided a link to.
            If you genuinely want to defeat “The Left”, then mounting an attack armed with easily-disproven lies actually *helps* “The Left”, because they can then say, “see, our opponents are all idiots and liars”.

    • Evan Jones

      Bravo!

      “Well spoke.”

    • Nick

      OK, this is my concern about Dr. Curry. I know that she admits to a human component in the present warming. But she continuously criticizes the models that her peers produce and espouses without ceasing her belief that the uncertainty in the degree to which humans are responsible is much less than is the general sentiment amongst scientists. That’s fine, and she, as a scientist, should be a voice to be heard by serious seekers of the truth. But is she engaged in the process of producing models in an attempt to produce better predictions? It’s one thing to criticize, but it’s another entirely to get one’s hands dirty and try to better the science by doing something other than criticizing the work of others. So, what peer-reviewed work has she submitted and published in the last five years on the subject?

      • Craig Thomas

        Interesting that Curry’s “uncertainty” never extends to those studies and that data which supports one of her narratives.
        She is *certain* that Antarctica’s mass balance is increasing. She is *certain* that this is inexplicable. She is *certain* that it casts doubt on the laws of physics and/or the observed facts.
        Unfortunately, Curry’s extremely selective application of her “uncertainty” meme also results in her espousing what seems to be a completely incoherent and internally inconsistent position on climate change. Hence, serious people entirely discount the results of her non-sensical “analysis”.

        • Nick

          yes, indeed; let’s see her alternative hypothesis and evidence to support; but she claims she’s a victim of some sort, which is a dead giveaway that she’s no longer interested in doing anything productive

          • Craig Thomas

            “No longer”?
            Her sparse publication record indicates productivity has never been in her repertoire.
            Running a blog that acts as a honey-pot for cranks, kooks and loons, on the other hand, seems to be something she excels at.

    • mikehaseler

      There’s been a few notable examples of real scientists, Curry, Salby, Pielke spring to mind. They won’t be proved right about everything they say (they have certainly underestimated the amount of natural variation and the scale of possible positive feedbacks), but I would like to say that if all climate scientists were like Curry, Pielke and Salby, then the subject as a whole would be a good two decades further forward.

  • 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…..