The ‘Diffenbaugh Delusion’ – refuted with a single graph of temperature

Noah Diffenbaugh

Noah Diffenbaugh – Stanford.

From Stanford University,  a claim easily refuted with a single graph of Tmax. See below.

Global warming has increased risk of record heat, say Stanford scientists

Drought shriveled crops in the Midwest, massive wildfires raged in the West and East Coast cities sweltered. The summer of 2012 was a season of epic proportions, especially July, the hottest month in the history of U.S. weather record keeping.

And it’s likely that we’ll continue to see such calamitous weather.

In the north-central and northeastern United States, extreme weather is more than four times as likely to occur than it was in the pre-industrial era, according to a new study by Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford associate professor of environmental Earth system science, and Martin Scherer, a research assistant in the department.

Diffenbaugh and Scherer found strong evidence that the high levels of greenhouse gases now in the atmosphere have increased the likelihood of severe heat such as occurred in the United States in 2012. 

The researchers focused primarily on understanding the physical processes that created the hazardous weather. They looked at how rare those conditions were over the history of available weather records, going back over the last century.

Then, using climate models, they quantified how the risk of such damaging weather has changed in the current climate of high greenhouse gas concentrations, as opposed to an era of significantly lower concentrations and no global warming. Their findings don’t pinpoint global warming as the cause of particular extreme weather events, but they do reveal the increasing risk of such events as the world warms.

“Going forward, if we want to understand and manage climate risks, it’s more practically relevant to understand the likelihood of the hazard than to ask whether any particular disaster was caused by global warming,” Diffenbaugh said.

In 2012 alone, the United States suffered 11 extreme weather events that each caused at least $1 billion in damage. “It’s clear that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes, and it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted to that new climate,” Diffenbaugh said.

While Diffenbaugh cautions against trying to determine whether global warming caused any individual extreme event, the observed global warming clearly appears to have affected the likelihood of record heat, according to Diffenbaugh and Scherer.

The study, looking at the likelihood of July 2012 U.S. temperatures recurring, is part of a larger report edited by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and published Sept. 5 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The report includes studies of a dozen 2012 extreme weather events by research teams around the world, about half of which found some evidence that human-caused climate change contributed to an extreme weather event.

Close study of extreme weather events can help quantify the likelihood that society will face conditions similar to those that occurred in the summer of 2012, thereby informing efforts to reduce vulnerability and increase resilience. Diffenbaugh argues that the new results can also help to quantify the true cost of emissions to society, since the cost of the disaster is measurable.

“Knowing how much our emissions have changed the likelihood of this kind of severe heat event can help us to minimize the impacts of the next heat wave, and to determine the value of avoiding further changes in climate,” Diffenbaugh said.

###

Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

Rob Jordan is the communications writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

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

Diffenbaugh is looking at the average temperature, which is sensitive to the effects of heat sinks/UHI in the overnight low temperature (Tmin). A better way to judge if it really is getting hotter is to look at the daily high temperature (Tmax).

Even with all the flaws and adjustments of the data, Tmax for the USA (bias corrected by Menne) according to NCDC shows the cyclical 60-70 year ocean/solar wave. The positive trend since 1895 is because we start at a minimum of the cycle and ended up at a maximum, the same as if we started in 1970 or even 1950 as some have done.

conus_tmax

Note that 2010 is not hotter than 1934, though we are often given graphs of Tmean that say 2010 was hotter that 1934.

Source: Menne et al (2012)   http://www.samsi.info/sites/default/files/Menne_january2012.pdf

Note the pattern of up/down in Tmax, now look at this graph of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, there is a rough correlation:

PDO_cycle

(h/t to Joe D’Aleo) Note the similarity in the pattern. As we have seen in the past few days, it seems ENSO rules the temperature quite well.

What will Diffenbaugh do on the downcycle now?

And finally, if “Global warming has increased risk of record heat”, wouldn’t we be seeing more records?

USA_HighTemperature_records

Apparently, according to other peer reviewed work, the warming over the past 20 years has been exaggerated:

Ffe_figure1

Red= Observations  Gray= Models   Source: Fyfe et al. 2013

Statistical proof of ‘the pause’ – Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

About these ads

88 thoughts on “The ‘Diffenbaugh Delusion’ – refuted with a single graph of temperature

  1. PDO is NOT North Pacific SST. It is a patial pattern of warmer/colder surface waters there.
    The US record follows AMO, not PDO. PDO started to go down in 1990, AMO peaked around 2006.

  2. Sliced and diced to perfection.

    Observations always trump theory and models.

    Just another example of a dire prediction from ‘climate scientists’ not standing up to scrutiny.

  3. Juraj V says:
    September 5, 2013 at 8:58 am

    Since the PDO was discovered by a PNW fisheries researcher, I’d go with the NWFSC’s definition of the phenomenon:

    http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fe/estuarine/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm

    “The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a climate index based upon patterns of variation in sea surface temperature of the North Pacific from 1900 to the present (Mantua et al. 1997). While derived from sea surface temperature data, the PDO index is well correlated with many records of North Pacific and Pacific Northwest climate and ecology, including sea level pressure, winter land–surface temperature and precipitation, and stream flow. The index is also correlated with salmon landings from Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California.

    “The PDO is highly correlated with sea surface temperature in the northern California Current (CC) area; thus we often speak of the PDO as being in one of two phases, a “warm phase” and a “cool phase,” according to the sign of sea–surface temperature anomalies along the Pacific Coast of North America. These phases result from the direction of winter winds in the North Pacific: winter winds blowing chiefly from the southwest result in warmer conditions in the northern CC. The CC warms at such times due to onshore transport of warm waters that normally lie offshore. Conversely, when winds blow chiefly from the north, upwelling occurs both in the open ocean and at the coast, leading to cooler conditions in the northern CC.”

  4. Yeah well. Ignorance can be taught different with a few facts. You can’t fix stupid, or greedy, narsissitic, pschyo, so-called scientists.

  5. And as an after thought; when did Cracker Jacks start putting “science” degrees in with the nuts and pop corn?

  6. This is the most worrisome symptom of AGW: The fact free drivel that alleged academics push, and seem to get away with. Gleick, Lewandowsky, Hansen, Romm, “Eli Rabbet”, Schmidt, Diffenbaugh, etc. etc. etc. All of them push non-fact based claims, or commit outright fraud, or calls for fraud, and get away with it. And politicians echo their falsities and they get away with it.

    REPLY: never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence. – Anthony

  7. “then using climate models they quantified”
    no they didnt,they came up with another alarming headline to grab the attention of the media,then backtracked through the rest of the statement.
    Anthony,please tell me you forwarded your rebuttal ? if not,may i ?

    REPLY: I had planned to, but go ahead – Anthony

  8. Well, that answers the question of which ‘SCARE’ is going to be trotted out next.

    Actually it is a well thought out ‘Scare’ with lots of mileage possible especially if the earth goes from zonal into a meridional pattern for the next decade or two. A meridional pattern gives you blocking highs with all sorts of climate catastrophes possible.

  9. “Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.”

    It won’t be long before Obama instructs HHS Czar Sebelius to begin imposing additional taxes/penalties/fees on Carbon Dioxide emitters in the name of improving health outcomes and reducing the cost of healthcare.

  10. Do you ever wonder why someone might be negative about the junk you promote here: diatoms from space; insects causing CO2 increase; Greenland ice sheet being 650 years old; no isostasy?

    You can censor my comments all you like – you are still wrong.

    REPLY: Do you listen to yourself? You must read that liar, Greg Laden, to get your opinions of me. “insects causing CO2 increase” Where? http://www.google.com/search?as_qdr=all&q=insects%20causing%20CO2%20increase+site:wattsupwiththat.com

    Don’t make up stuff. The isotasy article was posted to show how ridiculous it was, but apparently all that matters to you is for you to use it as a tool to bash me. Some scientist you are.

    See here’s the thing Mr. Telford, I don’t care about your opinion/fabrications, as you’ve got no basis for factual criticism, only hate zingers, like Mr. Laden. And yes, Tmax does refute the issue. Feel free to be as upset as you wish, but do kindly shut the hell up when it comes to hateful zingers in my own home on the Internet.

    – Anthony

  11. bit chilly says:September 5, 2013 at 9:37 am
    Anthony,please tell me you forwarded your rebuttal ? if not,may i ?
    REPLY: I had planned to, but go ahead – Anthony

    I may be overly presumptuous but I believe anything appearing on WUWT is effectively “forwarded” by way of the warming rascals watching everything that appears here.

    I suspect there are web traffic indications which likely back up my presumption.

  12. thank you for permission to send Anthony,i will post any response i receive. having emailed the british antarctic survey with a question on quantifying the human contribution of co2 as opposed to naturally occurring high concentrations in nutrient rich upwellings and not receiving a response as yet,i will not hold my breath,or maybe i should,to minimise my carbon footprint !

  13. The report says: “In 2012 alone, the United States suffered 11 extreme weather events that each caused at least $1 billion in damage. “It’s clear that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes, and it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted to that new climate,” Diffenbaugh said.

    While Diffenbaugh cautions against trying to determine whether global warming caused any individual extreme event, the observed global warming clearly appears to have affected the likelihood of record heat, according to Diffenbaugh and Scherer.”
    ===================================================================
    Mr. Diffenbaugh makes a statement of fact about “greenhouse gas emissions”, but in the next paragraph says that none of the 11 extreme events can be shown to have been caused by the greenhouse gas emissions he says have increased the likelihood of extreme events.

    Seems like a contradiction to me.

  14. Facts be dammed , its the messages ‘impact’ that matters . And this ones a winner .
    The trouble is many AGW sceptics think their in a fight over the scientific validity of ‘the cause ‘ , while many AGW proponents know that is not true and we are in fact in far ‘dirtier’ political one , were data, facts , honest and even reality , means nothing . And that as long as the message as an impact nothing else matters . As the old saying went , today’s news is tomorrow’s chip wrapper , how many poor papers have had a big initial PR impact , but when they fallen to bits under review the same press has no interest.?

  15. I wonder, will there be a bailout of climate scientists when politicians are no longer able to scare people into voting for saving the earth that doesn’t need to be saved? I wonder what real problems can an ex climate scientist solve after 10 years of riding the gravy train.

  16. I can do this.
    Just look at how many billion dollar catastrophes occurred in the 18th century. Not very many.
    Look at how many billion dollar catastrophes happened in the 19th century. Not very many.
    Count up the billion dollar weather related disasters that happened in the 20th century. Notice the increase that correlates with Anthropogenic Global Warming.
    Now take into consideration the absolute plethora of billion dollar Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming events like the devastating hurricane Sandy Super Storm which proves the point.
    The amount of money weather events is costing us goes up with the consumption of fossil fuels. It is all CO2’s fault.
    (Where do I apply for my Federal research grant?)

  17. @AW 9:35am never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.
    Lust, Megalomania, and Greed fall somewhere between Malice and Incompetence.
    If it was just incompetence, it couldn’t even get to a favorable editor to be published.

  18. I’m surprised you forgot about the insects – it’s a classic WUWT post. If you need reminding about it, head over to Sou’s blog (http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/omg-its-insects-and-more-farce-from-wuwt.html#Example4) and don’t accuse me of making it up.

    Regarding Tmax, there is a high likelihood that you don’t understand what likelihood means.

    REPLY:
    Same stuff, you reference an angry name-calling antagonist’s opinion (one of my blog spawn) rather than point out where there might be a factual error or show a source. I don’t read “Sou” aka Miriam O’Brien, since like you she’s all about denigration. Typically, she’s making a mountain out of an anthill.

    And, FYI insects outweigh the biomass of mammals significantly, and termites are one of the biggest contributors of GHG’s. To simply dismiss their contribution is folly. Termites also produce a lot of Methane, which is a far more potent GHG. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v301/n5902/abs/301700a0.html

    But see, here’s the thing, none of this hateful opinion about how wrong/stupid etc the WUWT article might be matters much, because as we’ve seen, climate sensitivity is lower than predicted, the models and reality diverge, ENSO seems to have a bigger role than CO2, and in terms of maximum temperatures, it isn’t hotter now than in 1934 in the USA.

    Not looking good for Telfords of the world.

    -Anthony

  19. We can stop CO2 by destroying the country, chaos is an opportunity for change. President Barack Obama is moving forward with the plan now.

  20. steve oregon,i am fairly new to this debate,so am not aware of the nuances of how the various people involved keep tabs on each other !
    i arrived here in a roundabout way after reading a paper from a marine biology student on common skate of all things. sea angling is something i have reasonable amounts of knowledge on,unlike climate science (though that appears not to matter when contributing according to what i have read on sks) but i see similar parallels in marine biology with headline grabbing statements (google callum roberts university of york and no mature cod in north sea,that was complete rubbish ) and papers that are pal reviewed and have very little substance,but are logged in the annals of history as correct for evermore.
    it is a disturbing trend,and has seriously dented my faith in modern science.Anthony,s blog,along with judith curry,jo nova,steve mcintyre (though the sheer amount of statistics melts my head there) and several others,along with some truly inspirational comment from people like richard s courtney and latimer alder are slowly restoring it.

  21. I wonder if he calculated inflation. There was a time in the recent past when a billion dollars was a lot of money. Also growth of population, cities, and rich beach properties could account for more expensive storm damage even if there were fewer and milder storms.

  22. Isn’t there a problem with plotting historical high and lows as a time series. A logical outcome assuming a regularly varying climate is that the number of record broken must depend on both the number of weather stations and the age of the weather stations. The older the station the less likely there is to be a new high or low record. By taking this to an absurd conclusion, a new weather station probably has a 50/50 chance of setting a record on the 2nd day of operation. 1000 years in the future and considering the cyclical variation of temperature over time the probability of recording a record must become extremely remote. Is there something wrong with my logic here?

  23. “High levels of greenhouse gas [sic]“– compared to what? “Increased likelihood of severe drought/warming episodes”– by what factor, 1 : 1,000?

    Sounds very much as if this jolly jester Noah Diffenbaugh has put his press releases up for bureaucratic bid: “I hear High Levels! Do I hear ‘Higher’? Going once, going twice… BANG! Awarded to the charcoal-vested headcase in far-left Row 13.”

  24. Juraj V

    You are correct about AMO, which turned to the warm phase in the mid 1990’s and that we are still in.

    According to NOAA

    The AMO has affected air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular, North America and Europe. It is associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricanes.

    Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent and/or severe (prolonged?). Vice-versa for negative AMO. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dustbowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the opposite – warm AMO, more rainfall.

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/faq/amo_faq.php

    As one half of NOAA knows this, I wonder why the other half did not think to mention it in their State of the Climate Report last year.

  25. ARW says:
    September 5, 2013 at 11:11 am

    Isn’t there a problem with plotting historical high and lows as a time series?

    I think what that chart is showing, (I may be wrong) is when that particular record hi temp was set. I.e. if it was 1934 that record has not been met or exceeded since that date.

  26. September 5, 2013 at 10:02 am richard telford says:

    Do you ever wonder why someone might be negative about the junk you promote here: diatoms from space; insects causing CO2 increase; Greenland ice sheet being 650 years old; no isostasy?

    You can censor my comments all you like – you are still wrong.

    I’m just shocked that Anthony didn’t ban you years ago – Dick.

    REPLY: I’m considering it today, he’s just an antagonist with nothing to add to the conversation. I find the life sciences/biology people who are caught up in AGW theory tend to be like that – Anthony

  27. John Blake – I’m having great trouble getting muesli from under my laptop keys thanks to you!
    However it has given me a great business idea – a new “Dictionary of Hyperbole”. At the current rate the Alarmists will run out of armageddon-like adjectives and will be requiring ever more frightening descriptors. Care to join me?

  28. AllanJ says:

    “I wonder if he calculated inflation. There was a time in the recent past when a billion dollars was a lot of money.”

    Excellent point. What was recently $billions is now $trillions — a thousand times more. Just the unaccountable NSA’s annual budget is tens of billions of dollars.

    Further, two storms happened to hit New Orleans and New York City directly. Although the number of severe storms has substantially declined over the past several decades, the chance destruction by those two ordinary storms was due to their hitting extremely expensive, highly built up areas.

    So the media ran with it, blaming AGW, but in fact the number and severity of similar storms has steadily declined. Not one climate alarmist prediction of the past thirty years has panned out. They have all been wrong. In any other branch of the hard sciences, that abysmal record would be enough to eliminate funding. But in this case, we see Mr Diffenbaugh specifically blame global warming and ‘greenhouse gases’, without providing a shred of credible evidence.

    Money has corrupted the study of climate science, as Diffenbaugh clearly demonstrates here. He will collect his taxpayer loot, but at the cost of any integrity he may have once possessed.

  29. This paper reads like desperate attempt to tease something out of the data to support “the cause”. We are not falling for it.

    Of course, it will get some press, even though the logic & premise are flimsy at best. It is sad that the press doesn’t seem to have the ability or desire to do any due diligence when it comes to matters of science & that it now has to occur on blogs like this.

  30. “It’s clear that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes, and it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted to that new climate,” Diffenbaugh said.

    Baseless assertions ‘supported’ by baseless assumptions hardwired into climate models: How does that provide any clarity?

    “..our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes….”
    This is peer reviewed technical writing??? UGH…….What nebulous, non-informative gobbledygoop!

  31. John Satterfield says at September 5, 2013 at 10:26 am

    Dah! Global warming heats the planet. But what causes global warming?

    Self-evident.
    Simple.
    But so true.

    I’d wear it as a log on a T-Shirt.

  32. Well first off; Pinot Noir and Cabernet Sauvignon are varieties of Vitis Vinifera not types of premium wine. It’s in how the wine is vinted that may make it great (or not). The best wines from Pinot Noir are from the Cote d’or where summer temperatures of 95 degrees are not unknown. It doesn’t hurt the grapes, as evidenced by the fact that so much Pinot Noir is now grown in the Languedoc which has a classic continental summer. In fact the hot summer of 1947 produced wines that are still very fondly remembered and may still be lying in a few cellars somewhere. The hot summers of the Rhone valley are suitable for other fine wine-grape varieties. Dare we hope that California may eventually produce a Cote Rotie?

    In any case if higher temperatures mean that we’ll have more Grenache Rose and less white Zinfandel I’m all in favour. Bring it on. And may we also hope for a little more subject awareness from the peanut gallery of climate science?

  33. “””””””…….In 2012 alone, the United States suffered 11 extreme weather events that each caused at least $1 billion in damage. “It’s clear that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes, and it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted to that new climate,” Diffenbaugh said………”””””””

    Purely cherry picking.

    Over the majority of its track from the time it was first named, Tropical Storm Sandy, didn’t do one brass razoo’s worth of damage.

    It wasn’t Sandy’s fault, or the climate, that got people to rebuild stuff in exactly the same place, that some previous storm already told them, was not a particularly safe place to build stuff you put some value on.

    Now take “Burning Man” for example. Everybody knows that junk isn’t worth anything because it is only going to get burned to the ground.

    But don’t build your residential mansion there.

  34. Richard Telford, for a young associate professor you have a rather condescending and vindictive demeanor. Maybe it is because you obtained your PhD from a second rate university (The Guardian University Guide 2013 ranked Aberystwyth equal 81st out of 120 UK universities,[6] down from 50th for 2012[16] and 49th out of 118 for 2011.[17]). How does it feel, Herr Schmuckler.

  35. Devil’s Advocate viewpoint.
    Richard Telford is expressing contempt for occasional poor gate-keeping in the short history of WUWT.
    And also for the unclear authority inferred by publication on WUWT.
    And he’s right because such issues have arisen.

    But countering that viewpoint.
    This is merely creating barriers to entry into the activity if science communication. Technology has changed and the internet allows new opportunities. Or it should do unless you have a Luddite attachment to tradition.

    Are these teething problems or specific problems or necessary problems of the internet?

    Personally I think..
    These are not necessary problems of the internet. The internet can record what a printed paper, parchment or holodisk can record.
    It is too early to distinguish teething and specific problems.

    So if their are problems (if) then they can be resolved by clarity in the meta-data.

    Perhaps a page that is linked in the header tab that states the certainty and hurdles passed before publication…
    Followed by a later update on archived pages that have passed a week of review by comments?

  36. Well a time local periodic Temperature max wasn’t the only thing that happened in the 1930s.

    The USA went off the gold standard then, and the dollar amount of property damage being done by everything and anything, including simply wearing out, has sky rocketed. Severe weather events are simply linked to the consumer price index., which causes them.

  37. “”””””…… “It’s clear that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased the likelihood of some kinds of extremes, and it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted to that new climate,” Diffenbaugh said……””””””……….”””””” it’s clear that we’re not optimally adapted …….””””””

    Slight factual adjustment called for there ; Diffy old chap; for “we’re” read “I’m”.

    Why is that individuals who are survivally challeneged, simply assume, that everyone else is similarly afflicted.

    Actually, I never even noticed any of those eleven “kinds of extremes”, that got your jockeys in a bunch.

    And for simple factual precision; I’m not aware that anyone has actually proved that greenhouse gas emissions have actually caused any specific phenomenon; well other than an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

  38. Noah seems to be a “Senior Fellow” for the Woods Institute for the Environment.
    Interesting list of advisors for the Woods Institute: woods.stanford.edu SLASH about SLASH advisory-council

    Reading the advisory committee bios, they seem to be about money, and not environmental science, but maybe I’m misinterpreting.

  39. Well a bottle of “Pinot Noir” (wine, not grape) could be purchased for a pittance before some idiot featured such wine, in a stupid movie.

    So all the yuppies started drinking it, and the manufacturers (of the wine, not the grape) just jacked up their prices to take advantage of the yuppies.

    But fear not, even in California, there still are people who think Cabernet Sauvignon, tastes good.

  40. M Courtney,

    Anthony has repeatedly pointed out that this is his home on the internet. Would you invite someone into your home, to insult you constantly, belittle your accomplishments, and rant about you on every thinly-trafficked no-account blog they can find? I wouldn’t.

    Anthony and others here take plenty of criticism. Being critical doesn’t get their comments deleted. But Telford’s M.O. is consists of a series of baseless, personal attacks. The reason is obvious: he does not have credible scientific arguments to support his beliefs. That’s fine in itself, lots of true believers have no understanding of science. But Telford is one of those people who uses personal attacks simply because he has no testable, measurable facts to back up his beliefs.

    There is nothing wrong with having no facts. There is nothing wrong with having emotional beliefs. Those folks still get their comments approved. But IMHO Telford is just a nasty individual. He can be nasty all over the internet. But not so much here.

    Regarding ‘gate-keeping’, there are about a half dozen WUWT moderators, and some are obviously less tolerant of insulting ad hominem attacks than others. No doubt Telford’s comments would be posted if he limited them to the science in question. Otherwise, he has no reason to complain. He is the cause of his own problems.

  41. “The US record follows AMO, not PDO. PDO started to go down in 1990, AMO peaked around 2006.”

    @juraj,

    The PDO officially went negative in late 2007. It went positive in late 1976. The increase in global temps mirrored the the positive PDO more than you realize. And while the AMO may influence temps along the Eastern Seaboard, the PDO has a profound influence on the Western half of the CONUS. But, you are correct, in that from 1994 until 2007, both the AMO and PDO were in phase on the + side.

  42. KNR says:
    September 5, 2013 at 10:28 am

    Facts be dammed , its the messages ‘impact’ that matters…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That became obvious after the Cook and Lew papers. Doesn’t matter if the papers are retracted, the public now ‘Knows D*niers are crazy’ just like they ‘Know D*niers are funded by Big Oil’

    Don’t debate just dish up the dirt and hope some of the mud you sling sticks. – Very much politics not science as Richard Telford just showed us. (I wonder if he is the Dr. Richard Telford, climate scientist. That makes his mud slinging even worse.)

  43. bit chilly says:
    September 5, 2013 at 10:44 am

    ,i am fairly new to this debate,so am not aware of the nuances….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Stick around and you will get an education. Some commentors have been here for years and are well known but new people are constantly showing up. Don’t miss the black navigation bar to reference pages under the top heading and Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT

  44. M Courtney says: @ September 5, 2013 at 1:11 pm

    Devil’s Advocate viewpoint.
    Richard Telford is expressing contempt for occasional poor gate-keeping in the short history of WUWT.
    And also for the unclear authority inferred by publication on WUWT.
    And he’s right because such issues have arisen.
    …..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I do not think it is ‘poor gate-keeping’ but a light touch.

    As the header says it is “commentary on puzzling things”…. So WUWT was never meant to be a Science Journal nor to publish only what Anthony agrees with. This is one of WUWT’s strengths. The other strength is the high caliber of commenters. The meat of WUWT is not in the topic posted but in the comments that follow. Very few other sites on the internet that are geared toward the average person have such high caliber comments.

    Last, as long as you are polite and obey the site rules you can comment free of censorship unlike at many other sites that are nothing but echo chambers.

  45. AllanJ says:

    “I wonder if he calculated inflation. There was a time in the recent past when a billion dollars was a lot of money.”
    …..
    dbstealey says: @ September 5, 2013 at 11:41 am
    Excellent point. What was recently $billions is now $trillions…
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    For example my parents bought a home near NYC for $3,000 in the 1930s. My cousin bought a home in the same area for $300,000 in the 1980’s. Today the average listing price for homes for sale in New York NY was $2,598,415. Without an inflation adjustment the numbers are completely meaningless.

  46. george e. smith says: @ September 5, 2013 at 1:29 pm
    ….Slight factual adjustment called for there ; Diffy old chap; for “we’re” read “I’m”.

    Why is that individuals who are survivally challeneged, simply assume, that everyone else is similarly afflicted.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Very good point.

    Building in areas with KNOWN hazards is just plain stupid. I could have build a nice river view home like my neighbors did but I prefer not to build on the flood plain of a river and built 100 ft higher up the ridge. Next big hurricane that comes inland and hits the Raleigh area is going to wipe those new houses out. I have seen that area under water during the last hurricane that hit inland and I am not even a native of the area.

  47. chris moffatt says:
    September 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm: A man after my own heart. California is starting to grow Rhone grapes, maybe there is a great Shiraz (Syrah) or Rhone blend out there now. (Australia produces some fabulous Shiraz).

    george e. smith says:
    September 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm
    “…Well a bottle of “Pinot Noir” (wine, not grape) could be purchased for a pittance before some idiot featured such wine, in a stupid movie….” I think not. Pinot Noir (or “Red Burgundy”) from Burgundy has fetched premium prices since, well, grapes have been grown in Europe. Clos Chambertin (Champs de Bertin) dates back more than a thousand years when Bertin was cropping it, and maybe, another thousand before that. When the Burgundian vintage is great, some wines may go for $500 to $1000 a BOTTLE; in off years you can steal them for maybe $400. When they are great, there is nothing like them, regardless of what the folk over in Bordeaux (red wines of Cab Sav, Cab Franc, Merlot (the “bête noire” of the movie you cited) and other blending grapes, like Malbec (not worth your time)). Californian pinots are typically low-rent (although Windward down in Paso Robles area makes some truly dynamite burgundian pinots). Great Pinot is one of God’s gifts to mankind.

  48. Our 1890s in Oz had some dramatic reversals, but I reckon nothing beats that period of three seasons in the US which produced extreme cold then extreme heat and threw in the Labor Day Hurricane. (Oh, and a Dust Bowl, because all the rain had gone to flood China in the 1930s). Of course, back then they could say: “Look ma, no CO2!”

    Now, could someone please take a photo of me looking all smug and pensive? If you get the light and angle right I’ve got these great little dimples…

  49. Bob says: September 5, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Richard Telford, for a young associate professor …

    He’d be called a junior lecturer here and not be let loose with much at all.

  50. bit chilly says:

    “thanks for the advice gail,much appreciated.”

    You won’t go wrong listening to Gail Combs. She’s been here a long time, and has much common sense to offer.

  51. You should ban Mr Telford for a period of one week to six months. don’t tell the exact time. Each time he tries to comment and finds himself banned will allow him to reflect on why. Okay it’s more likely to cause appoplexy, still works for me

  52. Diffenbaugh and Scherer found strong evidence…. OK…so I read until…Then, using climate models, they quantified how the risk of such damaging weather has changed in the current climate of high greenhouse gas concentrations, as opposed to an era of significantly lower concentrations and no global warming So WHERE is the EVIDENCE here?

  53. Niff says:
    September 5, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    Diffenbaugh and Scherer found strong evidence…. OK…so I read until…Then, using climate models, they quantified how the risk of such damaging weather has changed in the current climate of high greenhouse gas concentrations, as opposed to an era of significantly lower concentrations and no global warming So WHERE is the EVIDENCE here?

    ===================================================================
    It’s in two places. A model that won’t fly and a tree ring that died.

  54. “””””…..@ jimF

    When the Burgundian vintage is great, some wines may go for $500 to $1000 a BOTTLE; …..”””””

    Well that’s the whole problem isn’t it Jim; once in a great while something happens and they get a decent wine..

    Drives them batty that in California we grow great ones every year.

    European wines are highly over rated.

  55. Nothing new here; Jim-bob Hansen has been peddling the “loading the dice” scenario since, when – 2006 or something? Just another sign of the times that academics can snag funding for repeat malarkey (and that journos keep hacking it back up, for that matter), even as mother nature conspicuously refuses to follow the script.

    Another sign of the times: The term “scientist” is getting so diffuse that it’s about lost all meaning. What does it take to be a “professor of environmental Earth system science” anyway – a science-lite curriculum similar to Peter Glitch’s? Sure sounds impressive, at least to a journo.

    The Age of Science. Nice while it lasted.

  56. If you are going to complain about scientists, Peter Gleick is still described in Wikipedia as working on issues related to the environment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity,, with a focus on global freshwater challenges.

    Even the Pacific Institute has dropped the science ethics bit from his bio.

    I have made several attempts to get it changed on Wikipedia but there is a heavy green contingent that always gets it re-instated.

  57. Richard Telford: you have a primary interest in diatoms. But, scanning the article on the (claimed) meteoritic diatom, which article you sneer at, I find no comment from you. Most comments indicated skepticism about the claim, but you never did. Curiously, having made no contribution to that thread, although it touched on your primary interest, you now refer to that post sneeringly in order to snipe at Anthony. You will be forty-one years old next month. Is it not time that you showed a little maturity in public?

  58. LdB, I fail to see your issue with Wikipedia. Peter Gleick is, in fact, “working on issues with …scientific ethics and integrity.” Wikipedia makes no claim in that statement whether he is working towards higher ethics and integrity or if he is actively pursuing their decline.

  59. george e. smith says:
    September 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    The French are modernizing their wine-making practices, but until they permit irrigation, have no hope of matching the consistency of American wine quality.

  60. Churchill was wont to say you should always read a [newspaper] that did not support your political point of view. With that in mind I tend to welcome the comments for the likes of Telford et al, not to mention the reports from his heroes, Cock-a-Le(w)ekey. I find that they give me pause: I think about their pov and often take on the task of looking up their gripes. But then, I realise the anti-humanist bile they preach is worthy only of a guffaw.

    That said, without Telford’s (now there is a name he has to live up to – he’s failing miserably so far!) caustic comments about insects I would not have taken on board the fact that termites are quite so gaseous!

    My vote would be to keep his comments – within the limits that he does not offend our ladies nor frighten the horses. Even the Court Jester gave the King pause…and the people much merriment.

  61. (quoting article) And finally, if “Global warming has increased risk of record heat”, wouldn’t we be seeing more records?

    In answer to the above question; “yes”, I surely think so. And they would be “Max. Records” like is shown on the article’s graph titled: “U.S. State Maximum and Minimum Monthly Records by Decade”

    But the big question is, given the different types of “records”, which one (1) is actually responsible for the calculated increase in heat?

    If one looks at most any multi-year Annual Average Temperature graph it will show an increase in the Average Temperatures for the specified time frame, …… but how does one know if said increase is due to an increase in the Average night time and/or Winter Temperatures or an increase in the Average daytime and/or Summer Temperatures?

    If the Average “cool/cold” Temperatures were steadily getting less cold (warmer) over the past 60 years …. which we know is an observational fact …… and the Average “daytime” Temperatures remained about the same, ……. then wouldn’t that produce a steady increase in Average Temperatures over said 60 year time frame? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.

    And if so, wouldn’t that rule out the presumed “greenhouse” effect of atmospheric CO2? ABSOLUTELY IT WOULD.

    If the atmospheric CO2 is increasing but the Summer temperatures are not getting hotter then atmospheric CO2 is not affecting near earth temperatures.

    If the Average Summer Temperatures had been increasing at the same rate as the Average Winter Temperatures, which they should have been if atmospheric CO2 is the culprit, then 100+ degree F days would now be commonplace throughout the United States during the Summer months. But they are not commonplace and still only rarely happen except in the desert Southwest where they have always been commonplace.

    Now, instead of saying that “the Earth is warming” it is more technically correct to say “the earth has not been cooling off as much during its cold/cool periods or seasons”.

    One example of said “short term” non-cooling occcurs quite frequently and is commonly referred to as “Indian Summer”. REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_summer

    Given the above, anytime the earth’s average calculated temperature fails to decrease to the temperature recorded for the previous year(s), it will cause an INCREASE or spike in the Average Temperature Calculation results for that period ….. which is cause for many people to falsely believe “the earth is getting hotter”.

  62. @richard telford

    I’ve spent a good deal of time @ “Sou’s Blog” since I first noticed it a few months ago. The irrationality there is astounding. Basically, the overlying principle there is that since she’s a woman anyone that disagrees with her is sexist. Donna Laframboise’s drama queen series came to mind immediately. Obviously, you’re smart enough to use a keyboard and navigate the internet so IMO you’re not a lost cause. I implore you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture and do some fact checking before making up your mind. Basically, most of us skeptics are not “denying” science at all, we’re just pointing out that the CAGW meme is one possibility and is very far from reasonably certain. And no, we’re not asking for absolute certainty, no much is absolutely certain. But before I sign on to an action that is reasonably certain to increase poverty I’d like to be reasonably certain there’s a good reason for it. It’s like when you’re at a stop sign, you’d like to be reasonably certain you have enough time to pull out before another car tries to occupy the same space your car is occupying. Many times you can’t be absolutely sure you have enough time to pull out, that car coming might be going twice the speed limit or if it’s at night there might be a car on the road without its lights on. Nevertheless, before pulling out from the stop sign I like to look both ways in order to be reasonably confident/certain that I have enough time to pull out safely. Similarly, before signing up for economy killing legislation shouldn’t we look both ways?

  63. george e. smith says:
    September 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    ….Drives them batty that in California we grow great ones every year.

    European wines are highly over rated.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    When stationed in Germany, I found it highly amusing that the Californian wines were much prized and more expensive. Those were the wines recommended by the wine stewards even though we were sitting in the wine country between the Mosel and Rhine rivers. (California ships its great wine to Europe and leaves the dregs for the Philistine in the USA to drink so I hear.)

  64. george e. smith says:
    September 5, 2013 at 10:38 pm

    Sorry to disagree, but good to great red burgundies (French) have no match in the USA (or anywhere else). US Pinot Noir is a pleasant glug (maybe; it is amazing how they can sometimes truly dispense with anything in the taste or nose that even resembles Pinot Noir), and even they will set you back $30 – $100. Truly overrated; they should stick to Cab Sauvignon and some Rhone varieties, and maybe Sauvignon Blanc (don’t get me started on California chardonnays). There is little risk-taking in Californian wines; the “gurus” from Cal-Davis make the same wine over and over, from $5 to $100 a bottle. When you have paid so much for the land, the palatial winery, the taxes, etc. there is no room for error. Some of that is showing up in France, I hate to say.

Comments are closed.