Many Thanks to Kevin Trenberth for Being Open-Minded

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

UPDATE (Dec. 24, 2014):  Looks like someone at NCAR wasn’t as open minded as I thought.  The links at Kevin Trenberth’s media page to my blog have been removed.  Good thing I archived it.

# # # #

We’ve discussed the work and opinions of NCAR’s Dr. Kevin Trenberth in many blog posts over the years. As recent examples, Trenberth’s opinions on the unusual warming in the extratropical North Pacific and on the possibility the PDO may have switched phases were discussed in Axel Timmermann and Kevin Trenberth Highlight the Importance of Natural Variability in Global Warming… (WattsUpWithThat cross post.) We discussed how in 2007 Dr. Trenberth revealed the weak underbellies of climate models in the post Seven Years Ago, An IPCC Lead Author Exposed Critical Weaknesses of the IPCC Foretelling Tools. (WUWT cross post.) And with respect to the possible impacts of the 2014/15 El Niño on global surface temperatures, we have the post The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 9 – Kevin Trenberth is Looking Forward to Another “Big Jump”. (WUWT cross post.)

I recall this subject coming up on one of the WUWT threads this year, but I wanted to write a post solely about this subject, to bring it to everybody’s attention.

TRENBERTH LINKS MY BLOG POSTS AT ONE OF HIS NCAR WEBPAGES

I fully understand that this is not an endorsement by Dr. Trenberth but I also understand that this does not mean he’s disputing the content. Under the heading of “Watts Up With That postings | January 31, 2014” on his Media webpage, Dr. Trenberth provides the titles and links to 11 of my blog posts, starting in January 2013 and ending in January 2014.

Watts Up With That postings | January 31, 2014

The first post is linked to a cross post at WattsUpWithThat. The others are linked directly to my website Climate Observations.

Again, I do not take that as an endorsement of my work. But I do find it extremely remarkable that a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Assessment Reports would link blog posts written by someone who’s a student of his work on ENSO, but at the same time skeptical of his beliefs on global warming and climate change. Remarkable.

Many thanks to Kevin Trenberth for being so open-minded. It is unfortunate that there aren’t more climate scientists like him who are willing to present data-based findings that oppose their research.

Maybe someday, maybe when he retires, Dr. Trenberth and I can discuss ENSO and its long-term impacts on global surface temperatures and ocean heat.

(Just in case others at NCAR aren’t as open-minded, I’ve archived that webpage here.)

Advertisements

266 thoughts on “Many Thanks to Kevin Trenberth for Being Open-Minded

      • Judith Curry can tell you about many other maneuvers for encouraging the desired behavior in the ranks. Will your works get grants? Will your students be treated fairly during their career? Recognition. Promotion, Referee work. Opportunities to represent the field, or to help coordinate the development of the field. And so on. There’s not much joy on the shun list. Just the knowing that you didn’t sell out.

      • @ Mikerestin “To pay for their bad habits like sleeping indoors and eating every day.”
        Things they would deny the rest of us.

      • I forgot a big one. The joys of the shun list may also include the knowledge that your judgment was sound, your work was done with discipline, and over time it will hold up better than the popular stuff.

  1. Dr. Trenberth has been very gracious when I have contacted him several times in the past with questions about his positions on AGW – and I told him right up front that I was a skeptic. He also didn’t know anything about me or my character, which requires a leap of faith and some courage when its considered that in the rough and tumble issue of climate debates there are some who might be looking to snare their opponents in a “gotcha” moment. He could have ignored my inquiries, but he didn’t. I give Dr. Trenberth great credit for that.

    • And being a humble kiwi with a sense of humor, I suppose we’ll have to forgive his atmospheric zeal even though it has cost the human race a lot of time and money.

  2. Yes, yes. If those who disagree cannot rationally discuss the science, we learn far less and fall victims of our own confirmation bias.

    • The alarmists have been rude, underhanded and conniving for three decades. Are you suggesting we just forget the goalkeeping and their incorrect science? They are being shown to have been wrong ( I think completely). Why do we have to play nice and include them? What benefit could this possibly bring? They will follow willingly when the meme changes ( think pay check ). Cram the unnecessary “turn the other cheek” garbage. Should we rub their noses in it? No. But we should ignore them as there is nothing of value there.

  3. Now we would like an explanation of why his energy exchange diagram in AR4/5 has no day/night cycles which introduces the GHE to find the missing heat.
    Thanks Bob.

      • I suppose this comment was supposed to be sarcastic, and that you simply omitted the tag, since the Earth receives, at the equator, solar input for only about 12 hours per day, and at the poles there are periods when all but no solar input is received for some 3 months, yet the Earth radiates away energy 24/7 some 365 days a year. The differences between input and output are fundamentally different.
        Weather is caused by the constrast of conditions. which of course drives the heat pump form equator to poles, such that if the energy budget was truly as set out in the K & T energy budget, the weather on planet Earth would be very different

      • When SoD finally gets it figured out why Venus is so warm maybe I will think its science is settled.
        But I’ll admit that an “energy budget” is a pretty good first order description. It is more than I can provide.

      • @Brandon Gates
        You claim the atmosphere (~30 m near the surface) is at a (mean) much lower temperature that the surface (2.8 vs 5.8 deg C). This is a correct radiation calculation but Figure 2.5 of Houghton’s ‘Physics of Atmospheres’ shows that there is zero such temperature difference.
        He stated this for a grey body atmosphere, bear with me on that. The reason is lapse rate convection and advection, particularly the condensation and evaporation over most of the Earth’s surface. In other words he knew then, but has apparently forgotten. that the surface does not participate in the two-stream radiation equilibrium in the atmosphere.
        There is no such temperature difference; none has ever been proven experimentally, ergo the Enhanced GHE does not exist.
        @Trick
        The reason for the above is that the S-B equation predicts a Potential Energy Flux, not real. This is because when Poynting Vectors add as vectors, on average the surface Emittance in the non self-absorbed GHG bands mutually annihilate with the Emittance in the same wavelengths from the atmosphere in the opposite direction. – VECTOR SUMMATION. The only net IR is ~40 W/m^2 in the atmospheric window and ~23 W/m^2 in the non self-absorbed H2O bands, absorbed and emitted over kilometres, little warming.
        This excruciating failure to understand radiative physics has destroyed any pretence by Atmospheric Science that it is a Science. We engineers have been using View Factors in radiation calculations for a Century to solve real Radiation Problems, in my case rolling mills,casting plants, paint ovens, ovens for glueing cars. We get it right; Atmospheric Science gets it wrong. View Factors are the geometry of the VECTOR SUMMATION of Irradiances, proven experimentally for a Century. Trenberth, poor soul, got it WRONG!

      • AlecM 12:06am – I’ve ordered a copy of Houghton 3rd. ed. 2002. Will follow up.
        However you have to realize the Trenberth cartoon posted by MikeB 6:46am is more from measurement not analysis, it is accurate so far as the measurements, all cited, are good. Evaporation – measured, thermals – measured, rain runoff – measured, insolation & albedo – measured, earth & atm. emittance – measured, all over the 4 year time frame the paper covers.
        Being incorrect on the Planck function * emissivity = emittance fundamentals is in AlecM court alone. Trenberth et. al. & genre mainly use measurements for earth energy balances. They do not use analytical LBLRTM yet other pros doing so obtain the ~same answers as close as instruments can measure (instrumental precision). So Planck function * S-B emissivity works in nature as a real emittance not a potential.
        You alone continue to make the analytical mistake “..the S-B equation predicts a Potential Energy Flux, not real.” Planck function * S-B function simply does not agree with you. All emittance is real not potential. All mass radiates.
        “Emittance in the non self-absorbed GHG bands mutually annihilate with the Emittance in the same wavelengths”
        This is incorrect, for the photons do not interact with each other – do not annihilate each other, photons live in a bath. The death of photons is absorptance. Their birth is emittance. Their life is transmittance and reflectance. All covered in a decent modern text on atmosphere radiation.
        Technically speaking – sure, the photons can be thought of as EM waves. Two perpendicular vector fields (E & H). The vector summation you mention is irrelevant as we don’t live in a world of simple EM waves – how on earth could anyone sum the electric and magnetic waves arriving from the walls, computer screen, floor, ceiling, light bulb( s) or sun, furniture where you read this (if you do). Fortunately, one doesn’t have to often determine these vector fields but can go straight to the desired scalar quantity, radiant energy transport. Determining the time rate of change of electric and magnetic energy within a bounded volume and noting that this is equal to the integral of the Poynting vector over the bounding surface is irrelevant to the Trenberth cartoon. Why? Those sources of light (visible and near visible) are incoherent and measured.
        It’s perfectly good science to add the radiant energy from each source as phase differences wash out when integrated over space and time (spatial and temporal in TFK09 terms). Another reason is that the wavelengths of interest are much smaller than the objects with which the atm. radiation interacts (Planck makes this a basic assumption right in his paper). If your application has wavelengths of orders of meters or more, sure then Planck function might be in trouble.
        More needed? Just ask. The Trenberth cartoon and others are solid, basic radiative physics as measured. Many tens of authors produce those balances, before TFK09 and after.

      • AlecM,

        You claim the atmosphere (~30 m near the surface) is at a (mean) much lower temperature that the surface (2.8 vs 5.8 deg C).

        No. I claimed that downwelling IR at the surface implies an atmosphere which is on balance cooler than the surface. (Note: that’s 2.8 vs 15.8. I make typos too …)

        [Houghton] stated this for a grey body atmosphere, bear with me on that.

        I understand the distinction between grey and black body. For 1st year conceptual back-of-napkin approximations, treating the atmosphere as a black body is close enough since emissivity is effectively unity at the relevant wavelengths.

        The reason is lapse rate convection and advection, particularly the condensation and evaporation over most of the Earth’s surface.

        Lapse rate is related to ideal gas law; obviously a gas changing pressure will — all else being equal — change temperature. All else is not equal of course, but neglecting other energy transfers a rising parcel will cool off as it goes. When it comes back down it will compress and heat back up. Net energy change = 0.
        Think of a rock thrown skyward having just shy of the same kinetic energy when it returns to ground, the difference being interaction with the atmosphere which it gained back in thermal energy. Net energy change = 0.
        Of course, the rock to start upward in the first place it must have gained the kinetic energy from somewhere, in this case your arm. The reason the atmosphere heats up at the surface is also due to an external energy source, in this case solar energy having been absorbed by the surface and thence transferred to the air via sensible, latent and radiant heat. Now, while our rock lost some kinetic energy on its ballistic arc, it also did lose some of the thermal energy it gained by interacting with the atmosphere as it went. So too does an air parcel as it rises and falls.
        Lapse rate does not impart a NET change in energy over a full up/down cycle. Both the rock and atmosphere lose energy due to radiative transfer out they rise and fall. On balance, air comes back just a tad cooler than when it left because of that radiative loss. The rock probably nets more thermal energy than it loses … all analogies do break down at some point.
        The latent heat transfers in the water cycle are a somewhat different matter because now phase changes are involved. Evaporation at the surface is endothermic, leading to most of the cooling at ground level. As convection carries it to altitude, lapse rate kicks in which dissipates much of the absorbed energy. When the moist air cools sufficiently the water condenses back to liquid, an exothermic process. The surrounding atmosphere gains most of what the surface lost from the latent heat transfer, precipitation comes back down even cooler than when it left. Not being a gas at that point, lapse rate isn’t as significant — liquid precipitation reaches the ground faster than the warmer air at lower altitudes can transfer energy to it.
        In sum, at the surface, the water cycle is the dominant cooling mechanism. On balance, mind. The GHG effect is mostly a midldling altitude effect, usually cited as a few kilometers. Above that altitude, GHGs have a net cooling effect since, as we should all know, good absorbers are also good emitters. The closer a radiatively active molecule gets to TOA, the higher the probability that upwelling radiation will make it back out to deep space and the lower probability that downwelling will again strike the surface.

        In other words he knew then, but has apparently forgotten. that the surface does not participate in the two-stream radiation equilibrium in the atmosphere.

        It has not been “forgotten”. Latent and sensible heat transfers from the surface to the mid-troposphere are both represented quite clearly, dead center bottom of the commonly cited energy budget diagrams. Everything I think I understand about this stuff comes from the very fact that none of it has been forgotten … quite the opposite, it’s been extensively studied and discussed in the primary literature far and beyond what is found in college texts. How else would the texts come to be written (and revised) in the first place?

        There is no such temperature difference; none has ever been proven experimentally, ergo the Enhanced GHE does not exist.

        Negative. Cooler bodies emit less radiative energy than warmer ones. The radiative calculations yield up effective temperature, not actual temperature. Effective temperature is how warm (or cool if you like, but everything is warm relative to 0 K) an object appears when observed from a distance via emitted radiation. Since ground-based instruments “see” the entire thickness of the atmosphere in clear sky conditions, their sensors pick up an effectively averaged temperature reading through the entire column of atmosphere they are observing. Those measurements are not dead-on of course because of Rayleigh scattering, particulates, water droplets, high altitude ice crystals and the like. Cloudy sky conditions are even trickier, especially when attempting to do global averaging since they mask the upper atmosphere from ground-based instruments.
        Did I mention observations? Yes I did. For empirical data, I refer you to one of the most excellent, informative and interesting climate related posts I have seen on any blog in recent memory, “A First Look at SURFRAD” by Willis Eschenbach: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/25/a-first-look-at-surfrad/
        I have downloaded complete datasets for four of the observing stations with observations ranging from 1995 to present. (Las Vegas only goes back to ’98, the other three to ’95.) I have summed up the observed downward and upward IR observations, the results are:
        dw_ir uw_ir avg_temp station
        ------ ------ ------ ------
        288.17 372.62 11.92 colorado
        319.65 371.02 11.35 illinois
        303.95 426.43 18.64 las vegas
        347.79 402.11 16.70 missouri
        ------ ------ ------ ------
        314.89 393.05 14.65 average
        272.98 288.54 effective temp (K)
        -0.17 15.39 effective temp (C)
        0.74 effective - actual temp (C)

        The average upwelling IR is within 3 W/m^2 of the 390 published in the energy budget diagram in MikeB’s
        December 2, 2014 at 6:46 am post. Downwelling does not fare as well, being on the low side of 324 W/m^2 by 9. Yet for 4 stations at roughly similar, therefore non-representative of the entire planet, the results are compellingly close to the expected, globally representative, average values. The key takeaway is that these observations conform to the theoretical relationship. (I’ll spare you most of my standard lecture on “proof” not applying to induction. Suffice it to say that proof is for logic and math, not non-trivial empirical science.)
        There are a few other points of interest in these observational data. Note the good correlation between UWIR and average temperature. S-B trumphs again, predicted temperature is inside 1 K of observed. However, note that DWIR does not follow the exact same relationship. To wit, the ratio of down/up are slightly different for each station:
        0.77 colorado
        0.86 illinois
        0.71 las vegas
        0.86 missouri

        Think about the molecule in the atmosphere which is the most dominant IR emitter on an instantaneous basis — ON BALANCE — and then review your statements about observation not conforming to theory. Ask yourself why any other IR emitter, spectral differences aside, would follow some vague and ill-defined (or just plain garbled) alternative laws of physics.

      • AlecM 12:06am – Received my copy of the Houghton text you mention. Fig. 2.5 does not show a zero temperature difference at the surface but does show near zero difference at mid-latitude tropopause. Houghton even wrote: “…at the surface there is a discontinuity in temperature” in Fig. 2.5. So your comment about zero such difference in surface temperature does not check out.
        “…the Enhanced GHE does not exist.”
        Your own ref. Houghton p. 15 disagrees, explains “the surface temperature…will be very considerably enhanced” by a thick optical depth atmosphere.

      • MikeB – “It is nothing to be frightened of.”
        It is also totally wrong and fraudulent because it ignores the Oceans energy cycle, which is the dominant factor in our climate.
        Lying by omission is still lying.

      • 324 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’ does not exist, being a Radiant Emittance, a Potential Energy Flux to a sink at Absolute Zero. You can’t blame Trenberth for this, being a Meteorologist, because they have taught this incorrect physics for ~70 years and imagine that their ‘Pyrgeometer’ instrument measures it.
        The other problem with Atmospheric Science is that it transposes Emittance for Emissivity. For proof of these errors see this MIT teaching module and the next module: http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node134.html
        No wonder Atmospheric Science has run into a dead end and Trenberth is desperately tying to find ‘missing heat’ that never existed.

      • I’m with MikeB on this.
        The “energy budget diagram”, much like diagrams of Highs, Lows, Cold & Warm Fronts, Hadley Cells, and other such things have been in earth science text books from before Kevin T. was a gleam in his parent’s eyes. Such cartoon-like images have a use. Don’t blame Kevin for inventing it, nor for using the concepts where they apply. It was never intended to be a complete explanation of Earth’s dynamic coupled ocean and atmospheric systems.
        Relax.

      • Mike
        i fully understand that it is an erergy budget, but the energy is not received like that. The energy in is received in bursts, whereas the energy out is 24/7, but in varying quantities.
        That budget in no way describes what is going on on planet Earth.
        The oceans do not absorb as described, and below TOA, the major dirvers are conduction and convection, and it would appear that radiative transfer does little more than dotting the Is and crossing the Ts, but remaining a bit player.

      • Like Ghengis, I am unhappy that this “energy” budget, which actually purports to be more than a “budget”, a static journal entry, so it shows energy flows here and there but sadly as Ghengis points out, makes no accounting of the enormous oceanic energy flows from equatorial warm waters to the polar regions; which are quite unsuitable for expelling that energy back to space.
        But on balance, I might take KT’s wings back from him, and re-instate him as a real denizen of the land of flightless birds.
        And yes he does have a great smile. Well all Kiwi folk do.

      • AlecM 9:23am: There is no dead end. “On reflection, I like reflectivity and emissivity.” Wolfe, 1982, Applied Optics, Vol 21, p.1. If the term emittance is to be used at all it is best reserved as an abbreviation for emitted irradiance (or radiance). In the spirit of photometric dimensional quantities (radiance, irradiance, luminance, etc) emittance ought to be emissivity times the Planck function and so it is in the piece you link which has no error as it defines the terms used in math. Nothing to be frightened of.
        ******
        Alberta 10:43am – A. Because the 324 includes the balanced return of LW 24 thermals + 78 Evap.Transp & 67 absorbed. Nothing to be frightened of.

      • @Trick: Emittance is a Potential energy flux, not a real flux. The mistake in the reference I gave is not to make that distinction. Agreed; Emittance is the Emissivity as a function of wavelength x the Planck Irradiance Function.
        I prove this from wave optics. Poynting Vectors exist for every wavelet. They add as vectors. The Irradiance (for a collimated beam = Emittance) is the sum of all the Poynting Vectors from a single source.To get the net flux, you integrate all those vector sums over all wavelengths.
        The radiation field from a single source only existed once in the Universe, at the instant of the Big Bang. To claim they exist in our present time is ludicrous and any professional has to master this physics.
        So0, the only real net IR flux from surface to atmosphere = 63 W/m^2, and most goes to Space. Incidentally no GHG-absorbed IR energy can thermalise in the gas phase; it scatters to condensed matter – aerosols.

      • Curious whether anyone has put error bands around the numbers in this diagram to see what the boundaries are? It should give us the best and worst case.

      • Alberta Slim

        How can back radiation [324] exceed that from that absorbed by the earth[168]???

        Radiation fluxes are a function of temperature. Note that the 324 W/m^2 downwelling IR is offset by 390 W/m^2 upwelling IR from the surface. Plugging those values into T = (F/σ)^0.25, where σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant 5.67E-08 we get these effective temperatures:
        274.9 K = 2.8 °C atmosphere
        288.0 K = 15.8 °C surface
        As expected, on balance the surface is warmer than the atmosphere.

      • AlecM 2:05pm: “Emittance is a Potential energy flux, not a real flux.”
        You make this mistake often. Planck function being always nonzero tells us the emittance (emissivity * Planck function) from any real body is always nonzero and real as all mass radiates, the potential is the net. You get closer to the correct physics when you correctly write “the only real net IR flux from surface to atmosphere = 63 W/m^2.” This (66 actually above) is the real emissivity * Planck function from surface = 390 net of the real emissivity * Planck function from atm. = 324.
        In other words, the real emittance 390 of the surface net of the real emittance 324 of the atm. = 66. Both surface and atm. are real bodies with mass so Planck function shows both radiate i.e. have nonzero emittance at all frequencies and at all temperatures. You are right to question use of emissivity and emittance terms, they are sometimes misused as are radiance and irradiance. The MIT piece shows no mistake or misuse.
        ******
        PMHinSC: There are error bands shown in the later energy balance work of Stephens et. al. 2012:
        http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/pdf/ngeo1580.pdf

      • Disputes over this chart seem to be mostly semantic. I accept it more or less at face value since I think I understand what it is trying to say. Most of the dispute seems to exist on the surface radiation value of 390, more particularly the 350 that doesn’t go unchallenged through the atmospheric window (8 to 15 micron wavelength for instance).
        The “back radiation” of 324 is poorly characterized in this chart; most of it is immediately captured within a few meters of leaving the Earth surface and is immediately re-radiated back to it.

      • This cartoon radiation budget is missing something (big). The ‘back radiation’ on the right should have a ‘forward radiation’ element as well. CO2 and other GHGs like water vapour emit in all directions. Increasing the concentration increases the ability of the atmosphere to emit outwards as well as inwards.
        The net effect of a change is to alter the vertical height which is the effective radiating surface. That we understand, but the cartoon leaves out the actual energy flow and is thus misleading. It presents GHGs as a mirror instead of a gas.
        There are several other aspects which mislead. It needs to be redrawn from scratch.

    • Richard Verney
      Energy in is Not received in bursts. It is received 24/7. Do you understand that? When it is night, somewhere on the Earth it is day. The energy-in is continuous.
      Genghis
      The ocean energy cycle, whatever you think that is, has nothing to do with energy-in, energy-out or Earth’s energy budget.
      Alberta Slim
      Good question. This is one of the basics.
      See … http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
      AlecM,
      I know physicists have been wrong for 70 years, now take your medication

      • MikeB
        December 2, 2014 at 11:38 am
        //////////////////////////////////////////////
        ”Richard Verney
        Energy in is Not received in bursts. It is received 24/7. Do you understand that? When it is night, somewhere on the Earth it is day. The energy-in is continuous.”

        Mike, Richard is right and you are wrong. Energy is received at earth’s surface in an intermittent cycle, and as 71% of the planet’s surface is ocean (an extreme SW selective surface not a “near blackbody”) this cycle of illumination is critical and its effects cannot be modelled wit averages. Here are five simple rules for SW translucent materials that show why –
        http://i59.tinypic.com/10pdqur.jpg
        – for our deep SW translucent oceans using averages for solar insolation gives the wrong answer. Utterly wrong.
        ”Genghis
        The ocean energy cycle, whatever you think that is, has nothing to do with energy-in, energy-out or Earth’s energy budget.”

        Again Genghis is right and you are wrong. See the diagram above. Further to this have another look at Trenberth’s ludicrous energy budget cartoon. It simply shows “surface” absorbing DWLWIR not land and ocean. Empirical experiment clearly shows that incident LWIR has no effect on the cooling rate of water that is free to evaporatively cool. That would mean that diagram is wrong for 71% of our planet’s surface.
        ”Alberta Slim
        Good question. This is one of the basics.
        See … http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/”

        Steel green house works –
        http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
        – but only when you separate the surfaces with vacuum. The basic maxwellian physics of this simple experiment cannot be applied to a moving gas atmosphere.
        ”AlecM,
        I know physicists have been wrong for 70 years, now take your medication”

        Physicists haven’t been wrong for 70 years, the two stream approximation works well for objects that are not conductively coupled and don’t cool by evaporation. It is climastrologists who tried to use this type of radiative physics within the moving gas Hohlrumn of the atmosphere that need the medication.

      • Konrad,
        Thanks for that excellent graphic. The fundamental reason the calculation is in error is that the averaging of averages is not mathematically permitted. In some cases averaging of fractions can be done using a harmonic mean but in general, not allowed. The average of efficiencies A/B and C/D is not
        ((A/B)+(C/D))/2
        It is (A+C)/(B+D)
        The issue is discussed in an obscure paper by Alexander Bastsulin at
        http://kirpichiki.pro/download.html?id=35
        which is about calculating the heating efficiency of large, fixed wood stoves. It boils down to the same thing – the average of a number of efficiency calculations is not the ‘average efficiency’.
        The GACC makes the same mistake in their heat transfer efficiency calculations in spite of being informed about the issue for years.
        http://www.aprovecho.org/lab/index.php?option=com_rubberdoc&view=doc&id=230&format=raw
        The intermittency issue is effectively the same for both cases – solid / translucent body ‘average’ efficiency comparison is based on a conceptual error which you have demonstrated with the graphic.
        It does not have to be ‘intermittent’ in the sense of being cyclical. It could consist of a single long variation from the beginning of an experiment to the end. That has the same effect. Even if the change linear, it gives the wrong answer for radiative calculations.
        Intermittency and variation are separate issues and both have to be considered. As the insolation varies during the day, that adds to the complexity. Insulation varies continuously then all but disappears.
        It is a solvable problem, but it has not been solved. Not that I have seen. It requires mathematics, not arithmetic. 🙂

      • Crispin 10:31am: “…gives the wrong answer for radiative calculations.”
        Not for the Trenberth et. al. cartoon MikeB shows at 6:46am, the sun was “on” for the earth continuously over the 4 years of CERES data shown therein, there is no shade in space for earth system. That’s why they call it a solar constant – the sun is a continuous wave. Konrad’s experiments are irrelevant to that cartoon and genre.

    • Richard Verney
      Energy in is Not received in bursts. It is received 24/7. Do you understand that? When it is night, somewhere on the Earth it is day. The energy-in is continuous. That’s what the diagram shows.
      Genghis, George
      The ocean energy cycle, whatever you think that is, has nothing to do with energy-in, energy-out or Earth’s energy budget. This is an energy budget diagram.
      Alberta Slim
      Good question. This is one of the basics.
      See … http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/the-steel-greenhouse/
      NZ Willy
      Entropy is next to the picture of Bambi. Where else would it be in this sort of diagram?
      AlecM,
      I know all physicists have been wrong for 70 years. The only puzzle is why no one but you ever noticed. Now take your medication

      • Nowhere did I EVER suggest that energy input to earth is in bursts. In fact I have been singularly isolated in my insistence that the sun pours in 136X +/- 90 W/m^2 24 / 7 continually; NOT for one quarter of the time at a 342 W/m^2 rate.
        And KT’s energy budget, includes bi-direction radiant energy fluxes, as well as at least an upward thermal flux “HEAT” (noun). See that 24 W/m^2 “thermals” and the 78 “Latent heat”
        So I believe it would be entirely proper to show the poleward transfers of “Heat” via convection (ocean currents).

      • @MikeB
        cc: Richard Verney.
        Thanks, MikeB, for reminding us of the power of basic physical laws. Richard Verney’s lengthy post is interesting, but does nothing to change the energy budget, nor the Law of conservation of energy. Some points the energy budget and your commentary reinforces:
        1) Energy into the Earth’s system (suns rays) must equal energy out (IR leaving Earth’s system for space).
        2) The intricate explanations in Richard Verney’s post as to how the oceans absorb this or that potion of the sun’s radiation is interesting, but has to do with the portion of the sun’s rays absorbed by the ocean vs the portion absorbed by the atmosphere, and thus with weather, not with long term climate trends.
        3) None of Verney’s lengthy post is necessary to understand , or disproves in any way, conservation of energy, or the energy budget you show.
        4) Energy into Earth’s System from the Sun, is, well thermal radiation from the sun, ONLY. Energy out from Earth’s system is thermal radiation as well, ONLY. Neither of the other two mechanisms of heat transfer– conduction or convection– can transfer heat either into the Earths system, or out from the Earth’s system, to space, since the Earth is surrounded by a vacuum, and the only means of transferring heat in or out is Thermal radiation.
        5) As the Greenhouse Effect absorbs IR leaving the Earths surface and lower troposphere,and reradiates 360 degrees, a portion of the iR is returned to the lower troposphere –warming it and the Earth’s surface, So the Earth must radiate enough IR to maintain the total energy balance of in vs out. And to do so, the Earth’s temperature must by calculation using the T^4 relationship, , and by measurement, average about 60F vs the Zero F equilibrium temperature of the Earth if it had no atmosphere and no greenhouse effect.
        6) The ongoing increase in CO2, and thus in the Greenhouse Effect, reducing outgoing IR, requires Earth’s system to warm enough to increase outgoing IR thermal radiation to maintain energy out = energy in (Sun’s rays). All the internal exchanges of heat among different parts of the Earth’s system — oceans vs troposphere, rivers vs surface, etc, are irrelevant to the net energy balance of the total Earth system and thus irrelevant to long term climate trends.
        I recommend the document link in MikeB’s post — explaining the calculation of heat flowing into Earths system, and flowing out (equal of course), All the stuff about bursts, etc, is a distraction from the importance of the energy budget to understanding Earths Climate trends.

      • warrenlb
        “4) Energy into Earth’s System from the Sun, is, well thermal radiation from the sun, ONLY. Energy out from Earth’s system is thermal radiation as well, ONLY. ”
        Well, not really. Some of the energy from the sun leaves as reflected electromagnetic radiation (light) that is not in the IR band.
        Some parts of your comment which follow are also not correct in that energy can leave the system by any frequency of radiation available. Sunlight is reflected off clouds and this is correctly indicated in the cartoon.
        Sunlight is also reflected off the surface – also correctly noted in the cartoon. That is not IR yet it leaves the system.
        The IR radiation is what leaves after absorbed incident sunlight is absorbed, not all incoming energy.
        Of course this correction dramatically affects the calculated IR radiation requirement and also the effective radiating height (if the conceptual error was carried that far).

  4. About seven years ago Kevin Trenberth made the following admissions…
    ◾…none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
    ◾In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
    ◾Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
    ◾… if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions.
    ◾However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate.
    ◾So the science is just beginning.
    ◾We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not?
    ================================================================
    Admitting the above, there is no rational way anybody could justify taking the model mean of so many poor over warm projections, and guide global policy based on wrong models. BTW, the models are no better seven years later. In fact they continue to depart further from the observations.
    Links to the above here at Bob T’s site… https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/category/climate-model-failings/
    See the top post linked.

    • The question is whether it will be planned or not? … revealing the essential political nature of this debate.

      • Yes, that is the excuse. The truth is every state and municipality had planned for storms, earthquakes droughts etc. (some poorly, some wisely) To plan based on very wrong climate models, and even more wrong projections as to what those simulated conditions will be like regarding SL rise, droughts etc, is simply wrong and foolish.

    • The models do indeed have an error range, which is fully detailed in the IPCC 4th Assessment; the projections from these models are assigned a risk level based on the error estimates, and those risk levels are also defined. Do you not think that in in order for you to claim the models are over predicting the impacts, you have to demonstrate that predictions made by the models are in error more than the claims of the modelers?
      Have you done so, or do you have a scientific source or reference that has done so?

      • warrenlb
        The models do indeed have an error range, which is fully detailed in the IPCC 4th Assessment; the projections from these models are assigned a risk level based on the error estimates, and those risk levels are also defined.

        So you claim.
        But prove it: Tell me the probability, and the worldwide ecomic impact on lives, health and jobs that :
        1. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have cooled, or remained steady.
        2. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 1 deg C.
        3. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 2 deg C.
        4. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 3 deg C.
        5. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 4 deg C.
        6. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by more than 4 deg C.
        You see, there is NO harm for a warming of less than 4 deg C. NONE. Only benefits from higher energy use and more CO2 in the atmosphere. Show me those words. Show me the 5% possibility that more 4 deg warming will occur, and show me WHY they claim there will be harm by a 4 degree warming. Show me the probability of a 2 deg and a 3 deg warming by 2100.
        It is not there. Only the assumption (“high probability”) of some unspecified amount of temperature warming that will cause the economic harm their prejudged team claim to unknown peoples.
        At the absolute guaranteed loss of life, health, and well-being of billions over an 85 year span, we are given the possibility that some harm might be avoided to some people..
        1. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have cooled, or remained steady.

    • Global warming is simply the device they’re using to justify policies they want to impose anyway. The facts won’t get in the way of their agenda.

  5. Yes, thanks Dr. Trenberth for beginning the long walk back to fundamental science. I suspect you have been troubled by the people you work with and the way they have politicised the field of climate science. The one clear indication that climate science was hijacked by charlatans is their insistence that “the science is settled” and the “debate is over”. It’s not necessary to debate any details on the subject. Those two statements are all that is needed to identify a group of people dedicated to a cause that is not science. It is politics.

  6. If a globalwarmmonger starts showing decent manners, is this evidence that he is in retreat? Quick: write a mathematical model to give us an answer to this question.

  7. Speaking of retreat, over Thanksgiving I encountered a Canadian who complained that his government was awarding grant money to skeptics. He also made a related complaint about funding in the US, but I believe he was a bit less well informed on that topic.

  8. Reading this header reminded me of the anti smoking signs that cropped up years ago in establishments where smoking was prohibited: “Thank you for not smoking”.
    The thing is, scientists are supposed to be open minded. It’s a sad commentary on the field of climatology when open mindedness is extraordinary to the point of leading one to feel grateful whenever it is encountered.

    • I remember best the sign that said” thank you for pot smoking”. Must have been a misprint.

    • Good one Chris. I propose a get out of jail free card to all the scientist who admit they were wrong and were just afraid to admit it. I will be void if not used in the next three months.
      Jim

  9. Each step towards reason and rational discussion by members of the consensus is a good thing.
    It sounds like this is a small but significant step.

      • Steven M, you are somewhat prejudice. See the post here…http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/many-thanks-to-kevin-trenberth-for-being-open-minded/#comment-1803724
        To know this about the climate models, and then to demand radical public policy based on those wrong climate models, is to be either unfathomably stupid, or to be using them as an excuse for your real motive, which is likely motivated by either extremely Malthusian fears and goals which the public would reject, so they are hidden, desire for power and or money, a classic case repeated to often in history to be considered surprising, yet still fitting the label of “conspiracy” because folk like Al Gore do not come out and describe their motive to be monetary and ego driven power based.
        (The use of the word YOUR I do not mean you personally, but the leaders of the CAGW movement who know the models suck, and the disasters predicted are failing to manifest)
        Also when you refuse to capitalize a man’s name it only demeans you, and in this case I mean you.

      • Steven Mosher says, “its a trap, remember what ball said they are all in on the big Lie”
        I wouldn’t know. I didn’t read Ball’s controversial post, Mosher. Didn’t want to get involved.

      • Also when you refuse to capitalize a man’s name it only demeans you, and in this case I mean you.

        David A, you have to understand that Mosher is an English major. Therefore his English and grammar suck. He likes to blame it on his smart phone, but I haven’t seen one in recent years that has such bad grammar.

  10. It’s still a shame that he has committed his life’s work to pseudoscience. He does seem to wrestle a bit more with it than most of his compadres, especially Mann and his ilk. One might even say it’s a travesty.

    • What nonsense, Trenberth has always been an honest scientist and has written numerous papers not dealing with global warming. Excelllent papers too.

      • Russ yes.
        in 1896 a prediction was made. If c02 increases the planet will warm.
        it increased. we got warmer.
        in the 1930s this prediction was refined by Callendar.
        Again, he predicted that more c02 would lead to warming.
        Again, he was right.
        A theory only needs to be falsifiable in PRINCIPLE. that is it needs to entail observables.
        in practice scientists can always CHOOSE to avoid falsifying a theory by adding
        auxiliary hypotheses.

      • Mosher the theory presented to the world is CAGW. Catastrophic warming is what was predicted…
        Moscow-Pullman Daily News – 5 July 1989
        “governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”
        [Noel Brown – New York office of the United Nations Environment Program]
        =======================
        The Vancouver Sun – May 11, 1982
        Lack of such action would bring “by the turn of the century, an envi-ronmental catastrophe which will witness devast-tation as complete, as ir-reversible as any nu-clear holocaust.”
        [MostafaTolba – Executive director of the United Nations Environment Program]
        =======================
        New York Times – November 18, 2007
        …..The IPCC chairman, RajendraPachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,”Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”…..
        =======================
        Guardian – 1 August 2008
        Andrew Simms
        The final countdown
        We have only 100 months to avoid disaster. Andrew Simms explains why we must act now – and where to begin
        …Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change….
        =======================
        Independent – 20 October 2009
        [SPEECH]
        Gordon Brown: We have fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe
        ……..Copenhagen must be such a time.
        There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course of the next 50 years and more. So, as we convene here, we carry great responsibilities, and the world is watching. If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late….
        =======================
        Guardian – 12 March 2009
        ……The current financial slump would be “nothing” compared to the “full effects which global warming will have on the world economy,” he said.
        “We have less than 100 months to alter our behaviour before we risk catastrophic climate change,” Prince Charles added…..
        =======================
        National Post – 2009?
        … In the summer, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon insisted “we have four months to save the planet.”…
        =======================
        Guardian – 3 November 2009
        We only have months, not years, to save civilisation from climate change
        …….Lester R Brown is president of Earth Policy Institute and author of Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.
        =======================
        Guardian – 8 July 2008
        100 months to save the Earth
        There isn’t much time to turn things around. And today’s G8 announcements on climate change set the bar too low
        ……The world’s climate experts say that that the world’s CO2 output must peak within the next decade and then drop, very fast, if we are to reach this sort of long term reduction. In short, we have about 100 months to turn the global energy system around. The action taken must be immediate and far reaching……
        [John Sauven – Greenpeace]
        =======================
        WWF – 7 December 2009
        12 days to save the planet!
        …“The world has given a green light for a climate deal. But the commitments made so far won’t keep the world under 2° of warming, This has to change over the next 12 days. …
        [WWF-UK’s head of climate change, Keith Allott]
        =======================
        Guardian – 18 January 2009
        ‘We have only four years left to act on climate change – America has to lead’
        Jim Hansen is the ‘grandfather of climate change’ and one of the world’s leading climatologists…..
        “We cannot now afford to put off change any longer. We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
        =======================
        The Star – Mar 24 2009
        ‘We have hours’ to prevent climate disaster
        …Recently, Prince Charles has said we have only an estimated 100 months. Unless the world comes together and negotiates a meaningful agreement to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions nine months from now – at the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations climate conference in December – another 90 months won’t help. We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it.
        Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday….
        [Elizabeth May of Canadian Green Party]
        =======================
        Address at New York University Law School – September 18, 2006
        Al Gore
        Many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within as little as 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.
        =======================
        Scientific American – Mar 18, 2014
        By Michael E. Mann
        Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036
        If the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming will rise 2 degrees Celsius by 2036, crossing a threshold that many scientists think will hurt all aspects of human civilization: food, water, health, energy, economy and national security. …
        =======================
        Irish Times – 14 April 2014
        Former president Mary Robinson said this morning global leaders have “at most two decades to save the world”.
        =======================
        “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco-refugees, threatening political chaos.” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
        “[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” -Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
        “Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world.” -Paul Ehrlich, Stanford Biologist, Earth Day 1970</b
        So yes Steven M, the theory is falsified because what we got was fewer hurricanes, no increase in droughts, a bit more snow and precipitation, reduced tornadoes, and ever LARGER crop yields. Yet you defend the models regularly, and have, as far as I know, never publically spoken out against these disaster claims.
        So answer us all openly, do you agree with the following statement made by one of the leaders of the
        U.N….
        “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family, tradition, national patriotism and religious dogmas.
        “The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy”. (Brock Chisholm, first Director General of the World Health Organization)
        Perhaps you do not go that far. Are you politically "progressive", and do you support B. Obama's climate policy and the EPA. (It is a fair question.)

      • @Steven Mosher
        Isn’t this essentially what’s been going on with the Heinz 57 Varieties explanation for the halt/slowdown/pause in global temperature rise? A desperate search for auxiliary hypotheses to avoid a reckoning on the theory?

      • “in 1896 a prediction was made. If c02 increases the planet will warm.
        it increased. we got warmer.”
        I sacrificed a goat to the gods, and then the sun rose in the morning. My theory that sacrificing goats to the gods causes the sun to rise has thus been proven. Hide your goats.

      • @ Steven Mosher,
        If the planet warms, CO2 will increase, because oceans can hold less of it.
        You got it all backwards. That’s what’s wrong with your AGW

      • Steven,
        You commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
        There is no reason to imagine that the world warmed mainly, partly or at all because of higher CO2. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected based upon available evidence.
        Both the men you cite thought higher CO2 a boon, & Callendar considered his hypothesis falsified by the brutal cold of the 1960s, which indeed it was. For the first three decades after WWII, CO2 rose monotomously while global T, in so far as it can be measured, fell. Thus was CACA born falsified.
        Rising CO2 during the next two decades happened accidentally to coincide with rising T, again as measured by governments & schools with a vested interest in higher “readings”. Now for going on another two decades, while CO2 has continued its postwar climb, T has again fallen or stayed flat, depending upon which “data set” you chose.

      • Steven,
        Please do not be a sophist on this.
        Mere warming is not the problem Dangerous climate change/warming is the alleged problem.
        We do not spend trillions and reshape society based on a non-crisis, if we are at all rational.

      • milodonharlani,

        There is no reason to imagine that the world warmed mainly, partly or at all because of higher CO2.

        Ok, why did it warm then?

        Both the men you cite thought higher CO2 a boon …

        That there would be a red herring. Whatever else they thought has no bearing on their correct prediction of the direction of temperature change in relation to the increased concentration of CO2. 1st principles of physics correctly applied trumps rhetoric every time. The planet does not care about your opinion of it, nor anyone else’s, right or wrong.

      • Brandon Gates
        December 2, 2014 at 8:02 pm
        You ask why it warmed then. Well, it didn’t, then it did, then it didn’t, then it did & now it’s flat or not. All the while CO2 rose, so their hypotheses have been thoroughly & repeatedly shown false.
        Both men did not predict the correct direction, even though they both had a 50% chance of being right.
        C wrote at the tail end of the early 20th century warming, so he was almost immediately shown wrong, although it took the brutal winters of the ’60s finally to convince him (to his credit). Temperatures started to fall despite rising CO2 promptly after his prediction.
        A wrote during a natural, cyclic downturn in global T, so his hypothesis was falsified the other way around.

      • Mosher writes “Again, he predicted that more c02 would lead to warming. Again, he was right.”
        As others have mentioned Increased CO2 could mean Warming and Warming could result in increased CO2, It can go both ways. The fact we’re also putting it out there may not be the primary driving factor.
        The part of the AGW theory that is in doubt is the “control knob” part.

    • Mosher:
      “…in practice scientists can always CHOOSE to avoid falsifying a theory by adding
      auxiliary hypotheses.”
      A theory which has been contradicted by proper and valid observations/experiments is considered falsified. Period.
      Of course, researchers are free to construct a new theory, from scratch, or by refining the old theory. But the original theory, as stated, remains falsified.
      What you’re describing is called “moving the goal posts”. The IPCC does it all the time: global warming climate-change

      • Yours is the best in a group of good responses to Mosher.
        The “settled science” global temperature projections of the 2007 IPCC 3rd report have by now diverged so far from the observed record, that the projections are falsified at a 98% confidence level.
        Subsequently there have been any number of explanations for why AGW apologists should not be held to that “settled science” prediction. All of that long list of excuses amount some modification of one sort or another to the “settled science” model. Fair enough, but it remains true that the principal 2007 “settled science” prediction has been falsified.

  11. It was interesting to me that Trenberth was a doctoral student under Edward Lorenz at MIT. There would seem to be no possible way that he would not be aware of the uncertainties of climate modeling.

    • Kevin knew about the problems with the models, but he mostly talked about it to his colleagues. Trenberth is one of the interesting members of the Climategate cast, a bit like Keith Briffa – one of the few people who expressed serious concerns about the quality of the scientific “certainty”.
      Hi Tom
      How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
      energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
      close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
      happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
      we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
      Kevin

      http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1255530325.txt

      • My modeling experience (two decades now) has been using mostly fundamental data to predict selected commodity markets. It is painfully obvious when my models have been wrong, as I lose money. The lack of feedback like this is what is wrong with climate modeling. When I read James Gleick’s book CHAOS, I finally understood why what I was doing would be so frustrating.
        What is missing in most every discussion, IMHO, is shown by a very simple question. If the person being asked is certain that man made CO2 is a significant cause of any current warming, the obvious question is – why? What does the science actually consist of that shows man made CO2 to be a significant cause of any current warming? Nothing technical needed – just a simple general explanation. There seem to be extremely few people that can answer this question, as their beliefs seem to be religious type beliefs that requires faith rather than understanding. They cannot even find an answer using Google, and they get extremely irritated when you point out that you can get an answer to almost anything using Google!
        Now, the answer, of course, is that the known greenhouse effect of CO2 is well known. The problem seems to be that it only accounts for a small amount of the measured current warming. So, a “fudge factor” is introduced into the climate models (sensitivity), and the assumption is made that somehow the man made CO2 is causing water vapor to have the effect. And, so, what we have is a few people sitting in front of computers playing SimEarth. They are curve fitting computer models to the (poor quality) historical data. Many of us know, as I’m sure Trenberth knows, that this technique of modeling a “coupled, non-linear chaotic system” (IPCC definition) by curve fitting a model to the data, cannot result in anything that can be trusted to project forward.

    • I would like to see a plot of the prophets-of-climatology’s amount-of-time-to-tipping-points versus the dates the prophecies were made. What is a linear fit to that graph? Positive slope? = They’re pushing their predictions of catastrophe further and further into the future so they won’t be around to be scorned when their prophecy fails. Negative slope? = They’re moving the goal posts closer and closer to the present to scare sheeple into coughing up more useless taxes. Horizontal and all over the place? = They don’t know what they’re talking about. Yeah, I think that is the more likely case.

  12. You are assuming that Trenberth actually made and or endorses the page. I could well be that some flunky is assigned the job of listing every pubication that Trenberth’s name was associated with.
    and yes linking is not endorsing as everyone here knows.
    I would ask Dr. Ball to interpret Trenberth’s actions.. he has a crystal ball when it comes to divining people’s motives.. or rather how can Trenberth be open minded AND a part of the “big lie”

    • You don’t have a very good understanding of people if you don’t know they can and do easily believe multiple, mutually exclusive ideas at the same time.

    • Mosher grow up, when you stop acting like a petulant spoiled child some may actually show you some respect.

    • I have always admired Steven Mosher, especially since he guessed correctly when he fingered Peter Gleick for defrauding Heartland out of their internal documents. But something must have happened since then, because Steven seems to have gotten very bitter lately. I hope it’s nothing serious.

    • The troll Steven Mosher says: “You are assuming that Trenberth actually made and or endorses the page.”
      And your greater assumption is that Trenberth did not have a say in a webpage that bears his name at his place of work.
      The troll Steven Mosher says: “I could well be that some flunky is assigned the job of listing every pubication that Trenberth’s name was associated with. and yes linking is not endorsing as everyone here knows.”
      Did you read the post, troll? Twice I wrote that I did not assume it was an endorsement.
      The troll Steven Mosher says: “I would ask Dr. Ball to interpret Trenberth’s actions.. he has a crystal ball when it comes to divining people’s motives.. or rather how can Trenberth be open minded AND a part of the ‘big lie'”
      What’s your fixation with Ball, Mosher? Your troll-like behavior indicates you’re simply here to waste everyone’s time. Just like the troll you’ve become.
      BTW, I’ve responded once more to your misunderstandings about my comments over at Judith Curry’s. See my comment at December 2, 2014 at 8:58 pm:
      http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/01/the-legacy-of-climategate-5-years-later/#comment-652220

      • Bob, repeated accusations that Mosher is a “troll” do nothing but damage your own reputation. You have a good reputation due to your most interesting posts … but getting into playground level name calling only hurts it.
        Disagree with what Mosh says? Sure. Think he’s wrong? Hey, I think Mosh is wrong a whole lot … but that doesn’t mean he’s a troll. As they say, all of this is a subject upon which gentlemen may disagree.
        So please, my friend, take the high road … argue the science and not the man.
        With best wishes,
        w.

      • Steve’s drive by postings are the very model (so to speak) of a modern major troll.
        He’s also the model of a humanities major hitching a ride on the CACA gravy train.
        But then, as a psych major, no surprise that you find his drivel “scientific”.

      • Birds of an unscientific feather flocking together.
        Neither has any scientific education, yet has tried to stroke his ego mixing in a sciencey milieu, so naturally they gravitate towards each other in mutual support.
        Both may suffer from the type of obsessive-compulsive disorder that manifests itself in arithmetic calculations, especially among people without any higher mathematical ability. That’s a bond.

      • IMO Willis’ analysis of buoy data was important, regardless of anyone’s opinion of his scientific or mathematical background credentials or lack thereof. The proof is in the pudding for citizen scientists, as it should be for professionals.
        You’re a scientist, IMO, if you use the scientific method to test hypothesis about how the world works. PhDs are academic union cards & even the presumed requisite courses in basic science don’t count if you have the facts & argument on your side.
        I’d like to see more of the same.

      • sturgishooper
        December 2, 2014 at 7:43 pm
        //////////////////////////////////////////////
        ”IMO Willis’ analysis of buoy data was important, regardless of anyone’s opinion”
        I would agree, he showed the cloud thermostat clearly in the buoy analysis.
        Further, I would call it wrong to call Steve Mosher a troll, even though some of the “drive by” behaviour resembles this. He was just the first WUWT “sleeper” to snap under the pressure…
        Still waiting for DMH to snap, but it’s only a matter of time 😉

      • Bob Tisdale on December 2, 2014 at 6:22 pm says,
        “The troll Steven Mosher says:” [3 times]

        Bob Tisdale,
        Steven Mosher makes me often think through stuff that goes against the main intellectual current in threads here at WUWT. Even when I disagree fairly often with Mosher, he has a way of getting to some root point or fundamental focus. He stimulates discussion. I love it when Mosher does that. {Thanks Mosher}
        I suggest it was unwise to do your ‘troll’ namecalling as it was unwise to do your undercover activities at HotWhopper blog when you posted comments there without using your real name. As to the troll labeling thing in this thread by you, be careful Bob; serial troll namecallers / labelers are sometimes known as ‘trollopers’.
        Parting thought – Bob, I love your many past posts on interpreting various EAS** patterns and data.
        **Earth Atmosphere System
        John

    • Steven, I have never seen on his media page a link to SKS – one would assume a natural choice, for a warmist. Why is that, do you think? It is not skeptical enough? Too ridiculous for words?

  13. A scientist is owed thanks for being open minded?
    Come, come. This is the fellow who is tucking heat under the oceans because he cannot accept the temperature record of the past two decades. Is this what you call “open-minded?”

  14. Privately he explains the models have no predictive skill but meanwhile, the reports he authors are screaming certain disaster? These same reports are being used by government to take billions of dollars from taxpayers?
    Mr. Trenberth represents a pretty narrow definition of openess in my opinion.

    • if true, then he either believes they are good for the world (Malthusian) or he simply wants to keep his paycheck, or he would lose all his friends if he made his strong doubts public, or a confirmation bias influenced by all of the above.

  15. Let’s not forget the resignation from the UN IPCC by Dr. Christopher Landsea. It was in response to public comments Trenberth made over AGW increasing the severity and frequency of hurricanes. That was at the time Katrina hit. How many years ago was that? There’s been no landfall hurricanes to hit the U.S. since then. Landsea was right.
    Courtesy and graciousness are the hallmarks of a gentleman and should be reciprocated. But I’d keep my eyes open.

    • Tom J, wasn’t there a “W” hurricane that year that made landfall? Wilma maybe? That would’ve occurred after Katrina, but after Wilma, there has been a hurricane landfall drought.
      Just a little fine tuning of your comment.
      Cheers

      • Ike, Texas and other Gulf states, 2008 a major. My boat was hit by both Katrina and Wilma, Dinner Key, Fl

      • Re; Mike from the cold side of the Sierra,
        Ike was a Category 2 when it made landfall in Galveston although it hit Cuba and Haiti as a 3 or 4.

      • I was in New Orleans on vacation before Katrina hit. That night on Bourbon Street destroyed my memory. Actually, age has destroyed my memory but I like to think it was Bourbon Street.
        I enjoy your thoroughness.
        Best wishes.

      • The Climategate emails regarding Landsea and Trenberth are an interesting and important read. They are too long to post, but can easily be read by using the following Climategate FOIA grepper:
        http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=landsea
        Click on the “0890.txt”. This file has two email from Landsea.
        The first one is on October 21, 2004. Landsea (hurricane expert at NOAA) questions Trenberth on a news conference he [Trenberth] will be participating in entitled “Experts to Warn Global Warming Likely to Continue Spurring More Outbreaks of Hurricane Activity”. He warns Trenberth that there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.
        The second email is to Pachauri and various IPCC colleagues, with a cc to Trenberth, and dated November 5, 2004. Landsea’s concluding remarks are blunt:
        “I did try to caution both Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Linda Mearns before the media event (email included below) and provided a summary of the consensus within the hurricane research community. Dr. Mearns decided not to participate in the panel perhaps as a result of my email correspondence. I sincerely wish Dr. Trenberth had made the same decision. Dr. Trenberth wrote back to me that he hoped that this press conference would not “go out of control”. I would suggest that it was out of control the minute that he and his fellow panel members decided to forego the peer review scientific process and abuse science in pursuit of a political agenda.
        Go back to the first link above and then click on “1150.txt”. This email from Landsea is dated December 8,2004 and was sent to Pachauri, and IPCC/NOAA colleagues. This is his resignation email. He concludes with the statement:
        “the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, objective point of view. To this, he has failed. I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as not being scientifically sound. As long as this structure remains, I will no longer participate in the IPCC FAR.”
        On October 28, 2004, a week after the press conference, Trenberth realizes that Landsea will not be providing the Tropical Cyclone/Global Warming link he wants. Once again go back to the first link above and click on “1219.txt” Trenberth writes to Phil Jones:
        “I have been embroiled in a press conference media event on hurricanes and global warming: opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. There was also the unique event in March 2004 with the hurricane in the South Atlantic off Brazil. I am leaning toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a Japanese. What do you think? Do you know who could do that?”
        Trenberth decides to “shop around” for some obscure Japanese scientist to support his hurricane “agenda”.
        What is truly disturbing is one of Trenberth’s statements at the October 21, 2004 press conference. Here is a verbatim transcript:
        ______________________________________
        Abhi Raghunathan, Naples Daily News: Hi, this is Abhi Raghunathan at the Naples Daily News in Florida. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has publicly stated that global warming and climate change have had insignificant to no impact on this year’s hurricane season. Were they one of the groups you were referring to earlier when you said that some of the quotes you read in papers came from those with limited perspective?
        McCarthy: This is Jim McCarthy. I presume you’re directing that to me. No, I’m not aware of the NOAA statement. Kevin referred earlier to a publication that has been influential in the kind of discussion we’re having right now which came from NOAA scientists, but I was referring to pieces that had come my way, largely op-ed pieces in newspapers throughout the East Coast, where either from the direct effect or the aftermath of these recent storms these opinions have been voiced. Kevin, you might want to comment on the NOAA piece if you’re familiar with it. I’m not.
        Trenberth: I have not been aware of any official NOAA statement on this position one way or another.
        _______________________________________
        The Naples Daily News reporter was well aware of NOAA’s position of “insignificant to no impact” regarding the global warming/hurricane link. Yet Trenberth blatantly states he was not aware of this! He was warned by Landsea prior to the event.
        Trenberth never admitting any wrongdoing in this matter, He has some lame response to the Landsea matter on the UCAR/NCAR website.

  16. The PDO did switch phases as it often does in bounceback MEI winters. You can look at the 57-58 enso event and see a flip almost identical to what you see now. Within 2 years its back to the cold PDO. In the decadol events, there are years when it will turn warm. There is nothing new in what we are seeing now relative to what has happened before. It seems like there are alot of research scientists “discovering” what analog based mets have known for years.
    Go look at the PDO spike in the 57-59 enso event, which by the way, did not reach super nino criteria anyway, the sign the PDO in the longer term is cold, not warm as we saw in the 80s and into the 90s
    It is why I loudly destroyed the wishcasting of the Super Nino, the physical set up was not there. In addition, it is only when surrounded by multi yeared warm MEI and PDO, you see them come. The MEI chart is intuitive, not something that can be seen by only the brightest minds
    I am glad he is open minded. Now I wish he would understand that in the field of forecasting, the fact you must fight every day to get an edge which makes you dig into countless past situation with a fine tooth comb,not just a statistical broad brush is what actually makes you “discover” that what you think is new, has happened before. Of course, then what would be the good of funding if you are simply discovering what has always been there, and others unfunded knew about and keep pointing everyone else to it?
    If anything, this DIMINISHES what I do, saying anyone can do it, not enhances it and saying only research people need apply when it comes to explaining events, past, present and future. The motives are saying everyone can see it, if they look, not making it some exclusive agenda driven realm

    • really, a couple days after Ball indicts a whole field, after he accuses climate scientists of participating in the “Big lie” we have Bob noting trenberths open mind. Not to mention we have an IPCC that cites
      Nic Lewis, Curry, Spenser, Christy, Mcintyre, mcKitrick.
      big liars?
      Or is the Big lie the lie that Ball told.
      Now of course you can say “well Ball didnt mean Curry, Ball didnt mean Nic Lewis” Really?
      Gunna use the one true scotsman fallacy?

      • Dr Ball never said that Malthusian one world politics was the motive all of all scientists. I am ever more convinced that you are logically challenged.

      • Sorry you can’t see it, Dr. Ball was right on the money. Well actually you guys are right on the money. He’s just right on the principles and science/politics, time for you to get over it and enjoy the best of your world.

      • Steve, Ball’s Big Lie essay was really about the smaller number of ide*logues that sit far above mere largely unsuspecting climate scientists. The undisputed chief new world order campaigner, Maurice Strong, who, though only having a high school education was a charismatic and in many respects a remarkable man. He is the guy who identified the environment as just the tool needed for his grand plans for the planet’s government. It already had international organizations gov and nongov and much headway in selling the issue to the populace. He needed such a motherhood issue to do his stuff. He created the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and he defined the issue that anthropes were the culprits and, probably with some help (Hansen’s stuff?) he saw CO2 as both emitted in fairly large amounts, the control of which would destroy western economies (google is quotes about this).
        The IPCC was born from this with a mandate to investigate man’s contribution to Global Warming, not just to investigate global warming from all sources. He knew governments would be on board because of the revenue it would generate and… wait for it… he knew instituting a sizable cashflow to researchers would create the results that he sought. Now Steven, as an honest man, would you not ask the question:
        “Shouldn’t we first study the whole problem and see IF human contribution is indeed significant to the issue rather than taking a totalitarian politician’s word for it?”
        Perhaps we would have discovered (instead of ignored) what magnitude natural variation, ENSO, etc. etc. was in the mix and not been sideswiped by it with an 18year ‘pause’ that is causing so much angst and even mental health problems. Above scientists are University administrators who probably wouldn’t allow excursions into disinterested science on this cash cow. Not a few lost their careers for doubting and the corruption was complete. Trenberth is a decent sort. From climategate revelations, he, Phil Jones and very few others agonized over the first half of the pause and what it might signify for the thereto unquestioned belief in CAGW. Jones all but retired after his ordeal with investigations even though they were whitewashes by anyone’s definition. Trenberth went frantically into panic mode searching for the missing heat, not wishing to have anymore painful epiphanies.
        Most AGW scientists are guilty of unwittingly becoming useful idiots, spurred on by the masses, the now cash flush academic and other institutions, government largess and celebrity status. Maurice is indeed a diabolical fellow, quietly residing in China which he has always admired. Yes there are at least a few dishonest stars among them, but sadly it’s a toss-up whether dishonesty is better than useful idiothood for what are supposed to be the cream of intellectuals. Had I made the mistake and missed the Big Lie, I may also have had the climate science blues. You, yourself Steven, don’t seem as confident and chipper as you used to be.

      • Presenting speculation and unproven or weakly supported hypothesis as absolutes like gravity and Einsteins E=MC2 is pretty damn poor science and an example of group-think on a scale that makes the O ring challenger disaster group-think insignificant in comparison. (I think the term “fallacy”, Scotsman or otherwise, should always be used in a discussion of climate science. Thanks for that.)
        Throw in an unholy alliance between political activism and climate science and of course what else are you going to get other than the big lie. Zealotry does not mix with science, but zealots will use/abuse science as necessary for their goals. Whats surprising is how easily scientists are willing to be pimped.
        Ball wasn’t lying, he was trying to understand how climate science went so far off the rails. It was speculation and opinion, it was not presented as science like the idiot consensus and other tinker-toy climate science related sociological studies.

      • Steven Mosher,

        big liars?

        I often ask the conspiracy theorists why the useless models aren’t tuned to match the falsified observational data a bit more convincingly. I mean, predictions are real easy if one knows beforehand what the manufactured outcome is going to be. The usual response to my query is [crickets].

      • Brandon.
        Ummm, because the predictions were made before reality showed them false.
        Now the charlatans are busy trying to make excuses for why their predictions have failed so miserably.
        Why is it that skeptics keep having to explain the most simple aspects of science to the Team’s performing monkeys?

      • Catherine Ronconi,

        Ummm, because the predictions were made before reality showed them false.

        Well that’s an answer, but a curious one. How do you know what reality is if charlatans are running the show?

        Now the charlatans are busy trying to make excuses for why their predictions have failed so miserably.

        Who knows which version of reality you accept, but here are four of them: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSZ05kUXBrNW96alU
        That ln(CO2ppmv) bit has been around since the late 19th century. The constant 5.35 wasn’t well constrained back then, but estimates ranged from 4ish to 7ish. Not a bad piece of work and as you can see it’s held up quite well.

        Why is it that skeptics keep having to explain the most simple aspects of science to the Team’s performing monkeys?

        My amusement begins with the presumption that you’ve got some sort of monopoly on skepticism. Performing monkeys is the pièce de résistance. Time to uncrate another irony meter …

      • “really, a couple days after Ball indicts a whole field, after he accuses climate scientists of participating in the “Big lie” we have Bob noting trenberths open mind. ”
        I’m pretty sure Ball and Tisdale are different people. I’m also pretty sure there are lots of people who comment here. Some might agree with Ball and disagree with Tisdale. And vice versa. Some might agree with both. Or disagree.
        Steven, you have your panties in a knot because not all these voices are saying the same thing?
        If you want contrived consensus, try the other lot.

    • I agree, Bruce Cobb. Even in his reply to you, Mosher is continuing display troll-like behavior. Is this a post about Ball’s post? No. Yet, the troll Mosher continues to discuss Ball’s post on this thread.

  17. A note of respect too to Bob Tisdale for writing this piece. In a field where, too often, the attitude is nose-to-nose hostility, it’s particularly good to see people with differing views exchanging a nod of recognition that they’re dealing with another human and not just a robot set to ‘contradict’. The Christmas spirit is rising early this year: good will to ye both.

  18. Trenberth is referred to as “distinguished scientist” and calls himself a Nobel Laureate (shared). These descriptors can’t both be right.

  19. I’ve never heard anyone say Dr. Trenberth was stupid. His Climategate remark for which he’s most famous, was perceptive and outspoken.

  20. I applaud these beginnings towards uphold the high standard of scientific integrity enunciated by Noble Laureate Richard Feynman in his 1974 Commencement Address to Caltech, Cargo Cult Science. e.g.,

    ” . . . It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
    In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.
    We’ve learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature’s phenomena will agree or they’ll disagree with your theory. . . .And it’s this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science. . . .
    But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves–of having utter scientific integrity–. . .
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. . . .
    you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist.. . . .
    I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.. . .
    One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.
    I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice.. . .
    I have just one wish for you–the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom.

  21. His missing heat comment was quite accurate despite some of the blowback he received. The oceans simply have so much energy capacity such that climate model heat can easily disappear in them without our instrumentation finding it.

    • “without our instrumentation finding it”
      This means it has left the realms of science.
      I wonder if it’s warmer in Atlantis now? 😉
      Andrew

    • Its was needed in the first place because of total failure of what he told us was ‘settled science ‘ and that reality has failed to match the claims made by ‘the Team’ ,of which he is part , this same Team attacked and smeared any who suggested otherwise. Like a player at the roulette wheel that claims he was always ‘going to’ say read when he picked black and it came up red , the guy is trying to have his cake and eat it.

  22. Trenberth and Tisdale have this in common: they both think El Ninos have something to do with warming which is nonsense. Tisdale’s Part 9 of El Nino etc. story on May 20th also uses NCDC global temperature curve that has fake warming in the eighties and nineties and should not be used. Not only does he use it but he also divides what should be a single horizontal section into two imaginary and short hiatus platforms. You should use satellites for anything after 1979 as I keep saying. All three ground based temperature data sets are corrupt after that point. And forget about any further steps after 2015 – you do not understand anything about the hiatus that you are trying to emulate there.

    • The surface “data sets” are if anything more corrupted before 1979, after which date the CACA crooks’ ability to fake “data” is limited by the watching satellites. But they’re free to ravage the past at will, which they do with reckless abandon & joy. Making previous decades cooler is as useful to HadCRU, GISS & BEST as warming up more recent decades.

    • Your are correct about Tisdale using data without discretion. He is oblivious to the need to select carefully, and weed out corrupt sources.

  23. Well, rats … my post on Trenberth didn’t get listed amongst the others.
    I suppose I can understand why, as my post highlights Trenberth trying to change the goalposts by reversing the null hypothesis. I fear I lost a lot of respect for the good Doctor when he tried that underhanded trick. That’s trying to win by cheating. The only good news about his actions was that they exposed the level of desperation on the alarmist side.
    w.

    • Yes! Regardless of his current intentions, it is hard to excuse Trenberth for advocating reversing the null hypothesis to benefit a theory that he himself admits is missing some heat that he cannot explain. But also, it wasn’t that long ago that the editor of Remote Sensing resigned under pressure for daring to let Dr Roy Spencer’s paper be published. Trenberth was obviously central to that bit of politics, even going so far as to brag that he’s received an apology from the editor in question.
      Trenberth has an awful long way to go if his intention is to engage on a more fair and equitable basis. Linking to some of Bob’s posts is pretty minor in comparison to his other, more negative, deeds.

      • Absolutely right, both you and Willis. I had forgotten both of those moves by Trenberth; thank you so much for reminding me.

    • Willis is spot on. Trenberth trying to reverse the null-hypothesis for AGW was something that truly shocked me. His use of the “D” word in his address to the AMS also spoke to character.
      But in 2010 his paper on pole-wise energy flow being the “primary driver” of Hadley, Ferrel and Polar tropospheric circulation was certainly stepping intentionally to the wrong side of the line. Attempting to write the established meteorology of radiative-subsidence out of science is a sure indicator of a charlatan, from Perriehumbert onward.

  24. Serious question: Are there two Steven Moshers? Reason I ask is that some of his comments are pretty much all in lower case, poorly punctuated and snarky. Then, there are comments which are properly punctuated, with mixed case and well argued. Truly weird to read, especially on this thread.

    • I’ve seen this before on this and other blogs from many different commenters. Could it possibly be caused by “thumb-typing” on a PDA, vs touch-typing when you finally got back to your PC keyboard?

      • DonV: Then I figure he needs to get the snark out of his thumb: the typos and poor punctuation I can (just) excuse (actually, on second thoughts, I can’t excuse it. It’s just bloody lazy – and I have a tablet).

  25. You’d think that those who promulgate speculative, theoretical science OUGHT to be able to cite their critics, primarily to dispose of the strongest of their arguments and shore up their own positions. Maybe they’re opening up to the possibility that they missed something. Maybe this is a harbinger of the day when they’ll admit that they got something wrong. Maybe… Nah.

  26. a bit surprised to see this at WaPo during Lima:
    2 Dec: WaPo: Jason Samenow: Why prosperous autumn snows in Eurasia may portend a brutal East Coast winter
    The increase in snow cover extent this October in Eurasia was fast and furious. That’s a compelling signal, says pioneering seasonal forecaster Judah Cohen, that the eastern U.S. faces a cold and snowy winter.
    Cohen, who directs seasonal forecasting efforts at the firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER), a unit of Verisk Climate, discovered the linkage between the behavior of Eurasian fall snow cover and eastern U.S. winters nearly 15 years ago. He has since applied the relationship in his winter outlooks and established an impressive track record. His outlooks have been on the money many years and at least in the ballpark most others…
    Cohen: The snow cover was the second highest observed going back to 1972 and the speed of the advance was the fastest observed going back to 1997 (the first year that daily snow cover data became available). The signal from the snow cover was both strong and consistent…
    Cohen: Like everyone else, we include the El Nino Southern Oscillation (El Nino). But the developing El Nino looks to be weak and was not much of a factor in our model.
    Q: The National Weather Service has assigned “equal chances” for a cold or warm winter for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Why do you think it’s reluctant to incorporate the AO-Eurasian snow cover relationship – which would suggest cold – more prominently in its outlook?
    Cohen: It has been my opinion for my entire career that El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is too heavily emphasized in seasonal forecasting, especially for temperature, at all the national forecast centers, not just the National Weather Service…
    Cohen: My colleague, Jason Furtado, and I have started a new Arctic Oscillation blog on the AER website that is updated weekly…
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/12/02/why-prosperous-autumn-snows-in-eurasia-may-portend-a-brutal-east-coast-winter/
    2 Dec: Accuweather: Cold Wave Grips Beijing and Seoul, Brings Snow to Japan
    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/cold-wave-to-grip-beijing-seou-1/38287455

    • Yet it is lost upon Dr Cohen that the number 1 year for snow was the 1976-1977 analog of the el nino that we have been using and number 2 is the 2002-2003, both MEI bounceback enso events that we set up for the public WELL BEFORE THE SNOW STARTED FALLING. EL NINO OVEREMPHASIZED? Why I respect Dr Cohens work if one digs deeply enough you will see the snowfall is the SYMPTOM not the cause, the causing being the overall pattern which began revealing itself well before the fall. This enso event has been in the family that we outlined well before and I the very fact that the number 1 and 2 N hem snow events by the end of October were the kind of enso years we were talking about should speak loudly as to the importance of recognizing the type of enso event, and what was going on well before the observation of the snow
      One should also understand that there are big winters where the snowfall is not as high.. the path to major winters is not exclusive to the October N hem snowfall. not by a long shot. The unmoved mover of the winter weather is what is driving the pattern, not the result of it

  27. As for any politicians (& scientists) who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.
    They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.
    Merely recanting, at this late stage, won’t be enough.
    Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.
    http://newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5257

  28. At some point, I keep thinking, a prominent member of the ‘climate scientist’ clique will call a press conference and dramatically announce that now realizes that he and his colleagues were completely wrong about ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’. He will also announce that he can demonstrate conclusively that the President and his Science Advisor are not only ill-informed, but intentionally perpetrating a deceit upon the American people.
    Then I wake up. . .
    /Mr Lynn

  29. I wish to add one more thing. I appear harsh at times in my statements on this matter and I should not be. The problem I think in all of this is the self examination as to what your goals really are and what demons lay inside of you. I have wrestled with this since I can remember. The very fact that my job involves constant questioning and analysis, and yes the fear of being wrong, makes me look at the whole climate question very differently than perhaps someone who’s entire life and identity depends on it. If the weather was taken away from me.. the actual weather, I would be devastated. But take away the climate question. I dont care, for I would still be using the methodology that involves looking at the past to help me in what I do.
    Over the years, I have realized that the reason I love the weather was a gift from the good lord, and in the end, it made me see more clearly the majesty of the creation, and the creator. I found that the more I knew, the less I became relative to the creation and the creator. And that it was the pursuit of the answer that was the true test and lesson and how does that lesson get me closer to what I need to know about reaching beyond my grasp to heaven above.
    However suppose your whole life is based around your identity as someone who has staked everything on one goa that has taken you beyond what you thought you would ever be. Not something you loved, no matter what, but something that because of, you have become loved. That if wrong, or if you find that goal was not what you have tied your identify too, that gave you recognition, that took you beyond what you thought you could be, you would essentially have nothing to show for what you have done. How can you possibly turn back? Imagine how hard it is to be a giant in the eyes of so many, having to justify this, if its all for naught. In what I do, its a fight every day, with a relentless opponent that has infinite possibilities, so one understands that you can get beat to the ground. But if there is just one result that you have to have, how can you turn away?
    I was listening to Coldplays Viva la Vida, and it hit me, alot of climate scientists that support AGW are in the shoes of the singer of the song The first 2 lines of the song
    I used to rule the world
    Seas would rise when I gave the word
    But then how can you admit you are wrong, if this is what may follow:
    Now in the morning I sleep alone
    Sweep the streets I used to own
    I have a great deal of sympathy for the position the AGW scientist is in. Those are not just words. As Springsteen said in Brilliant Disguise
    “God have mercy on the man. who doubts what he’s sure of”
    Peace

      • milodonharlani
        You found the real bottom line in all of this, “truth”, be it climate or weather or whatever, the real scientist, or anyone in any field of endeavor for that matter, is only as good as his/her honesty in seeking the truth. Like Jesus said to Pilate, ” I came to bear witness to the truth.” What greater goal in anyone’s life?

    • That if wrong, or if you find that goal was not what you have tied your identify too, that gave you recognition, that took you beyond what you thought you could be, you would essentially have nothing to show for what you have done. How can you possibly turn back?
      The whole piece was eloquent, but that really drives the point home. I said on certain other threads that there is no grand conspiracy. As M Courtney put, there is a confluence of interests. There’s a lot of scientists whose entire career is derived from something they need to be true, else not only is their life’s work for naught, but their prospects for future employment also in jeopardy.
      Add to this the owners of green enterprises like windmills and solar farms, struggling to make a profit. Suddenly, they see governments budgeting to fight climate change via wealth transfers to undeveloped countries. Many of them, no doubt well meaning, wiggled their way into the politician’s offices, and said ‘hey, use that money to subsidize my business, you’ll be fighting climate change while keeping the tax money here at home and creating local jobs”.
      Suddenly, the off course scientists persuading governments what to do are joined by private industry singing from the same song sheet. Banks and brokerages see an opportunity make money trading carbon credits like any other commodity, and on board they jumped. All of sudden, public and private organizations alike are experiencing a “confluence of interests”.
      The while thing snow balled and got out of control, with no one, but NO ONE, able to willingly back out of what they started.

      • Since all the world’s institutions of science maintain published positions concluding AGW, all major universities, NASA and NOAA conclude the same, then the claims of conspiracy imply ‘they’re all in on it — a conclusion reasonable men and women will find ludicrous.
        So now we hear about a soft conspiracy of sorts –it’s the moneyed interests leading ALL institutions of Science to conclude AGW — an equally preposterous assertion.
        How do reasonable people believe such claptrap?

      • ”How do reasonable people believe such claptrap?”
        Warren ,
        “soft conspiracy” are your words not David’s. David is clearly not claiming conspiracy, and I feel his analysis is solid. Particularly this –

        The while thing snow balled and got out of control, with no one, but NO ONE, able to willingly back out of what they started.

        The global warming inanity was not conspiracy, soft or otherwise. It is better described as Lysenkoism writ large, out of the confines of the soviet system it got totally out of control. The Lysenko disaster killed millions through starvation, but there was no conspiracy with this objective. The driving forces and players however are a direct parallel for AGW. Pseudo science, groupthink, fellow travellers, self interest, useful idiots and state persecution of sceptics.
        Add this to the economic systems of western nations and another Russian lesson becomes relevant –

        “If there happens to be a trough, there will be pigs” – Pushkin

  30. “…I do find it extremely remarkable that a lead author of the IPCC’s 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Assessment Reports would link blog posts written by someone who’s a student of his work on ENSO, but at the same time skeptical of his beliefs on global warming and climate change.”

    Why is this remarkable? I ask this as not a criticism of Trenberth, but isn’t science proving, dis-proving, providing alternatives, poking holes in process, approach, assumptions, conclusions, welcoming opposing views since that provides the best chance at objective truth, etc. Science like the legal system was designed to be adversarial since that is the best chance of getting at objectives truths. Having a bunch of bobble heads marginalizing the non-bobble heads is not science, it is group-think with an ugly authoritarian streak.
    In the current state of affairs when Trenberth practices basic science with integrity, it is remarkable. But it shouldn’t be, it should be SOP.

  31. Data? Pah! I have always thought Trenberth was a bit unreliable. We need to send him to a re-education camp to help him get his toes firmly back on the line.

  32. You know, Trenberth has done some really good work. But he is still caught up in the never-ending pressure to conform to the warming hysteria. If he doesn’t sometimes play ball, he gets black-balled.
    His papers go back and forth between sounding like a real scientist and those sounding like he is a global warming scientist/believer (which has always meaned in this debate being a serial misinformer).
    I’d like him to just stick to the real scientists part and keep his head down where needed so that he does not become black-balled. The balance is a little closer to the real scientist side than he has been showing lately. And good on him for noting Bob Tisdale’s contributions. Good start towards the real scientist balance.

      • Perhaps this is a case of “keeping your friends close, and your enemys closer” ?

    • Nicely said, although trenberth/balsama 2014 is a bit on the nonscientific/ religious side for my taste. Essay Missing Heat in Blowing Smoke. But Trenberth recognizing Bob Tisdales analyses is a big plus for Kevin IMO. And Bob’s thread here is IMO a big plus for scientific ( not political) detente. A step toward dialog about what might be true, and what the next relevant analysis/ experiment/ whatever in that process might be.
      To paraphrase Gandi:
      First they ignore you.
      Then they ridicule you.
      Then they challenge you.
      Then you win.
      On ocean climate influences, Bob is at least at step three, and probably a bit beyond. Bravo.

    • Sorry but Trenberth actions speak otherwise , as a chief member of ‘the Team’ he has no issue with doing whatever it takes to keep the AGW gravy train on the tracks , even if that means trying to undermine the scientific process as its basic level through reversing the null hypotheses. And how can blame him , after all its an approach that has brought him much that otherwise he would never have seen , so even if not a true AGW believer he certainly is one who has seem massive benefit from what he knew was bad science and worse scientific practice .
      The real shame of such actions is the impact they will have on all science , to some extent playing the three wise monkeys or jumping on the bandwagon to gain research funding is a self-inflected injury. However, when ‘the cause ‘ falls its likely to take much good science with it that we all will end up regretting. And Trenberth & Co know this and frankly don’t care , they hope to be retired by then and so no longer have to deal with this sh*t storm. It is not just the disservice they doing to current science but the poised legacy their given to future science that ‘the Team’ should be condemned for.

  33. The world will be a much better, richer & safer place when both GISS & NCAR are defunded & their imps & minions dispersed throughout a long suffering world forced to forage for themselves through the wreckage of Western Civilization they have helped to effect. Not to mention IPCC, of course. I don’t know if the Brits will ever wise up enough to defund Hadley Centre, which has been so perverted from its intended mission, just as have the above mentioned execrable US excrescences.

  34. The models are wrong. They claim a continued warming that has not occurred. Trenberth can’t admit the models are wrong so he claims the missing heat has vanished into the oceans.
    Certainly this is an example of “The Big Lie” technique. No proof needed. Just keep repeating the lie and soon people will be blogging about it.
    Eugene WR Gallun

  35. Guess you could say I was listening in to this very good quality discussion, a much higher quality and reasoned discussion of motives and trends than is usually the case on most of the popular Skeptic blogs.
    But a discussion that is also at a more layman like level than say Judith Curry’s “Climate etc” where the elbow swinging academics, well practiced and versed in taking down anybody who doesn’t toe their own particular line makes it very hard indeed for a lay person to come in and post comments that will pass the academically sharpened snarls of some of the denizens of Climate etc.
    As a lay person, you have to have a pretty tough hide to be able to mix it in that lot.
    Over the last couple of months there has been a quite marked change in the subjects being discussed on the skeptic blogs at least.
    It seems a lot of the debate / discussion has shifted from the science or lack of in the whole of catastrophic global warming meme to a discussion where the skeptics and even the luke warmers ;[ Climate etc’s latest post ] are increasingly looking at the motives and psychological drivers that have both entrapped. enticed and ensnared so many scientist who one would have thought would have been far more challenging of the whole of what behind the scenes was becoming quite obviously well known, that the path that climate science was following was without doubt dubious to just plain shonky to outright grossly wrong and even fraudulent.
    If we are to believe a lot of the comments now emerging from the internals of the climate warming science as it all comes unstuck and which the above was apparently very obvious to most of the climate science community as the CAGW meme developed and evolved over some two and half decades.
    But nevertheless something that the climate science community and climate alarmist advocacy groups did everything in their power to hide.
    And a subject as seen here in this above discussion that now appears to be becoming an object of considerable debate and discussion as the CAGW science collapses and the driving motives for the whole debacle and gross deception starts to be debated and dissected in the blog sphere and no doubt soon to be dissected in both climate science journals as well as psychological journals.
    One would have thought that with all the supposed scientific protocols and the integrity demanded of an individual who professes to practice science, that most scientists would have called out this science wrecking monster long before it became entrenched and started on the extremely confrontational and societal damaging path it now follows.
    But it was not to be and we the ordinary people across both the developed world and the undeveloped world are much worse off for that failure of the climate science community to police itself and to maintain the ethical, integrity and impartial, non advocacy standards and respect for the science it was promoting.
    Now the forensic examination begins over what is soon likely to be just another scientific cadaver in the long list of science created movements that were an outcome of a science and it’s practioners who somewhere, somehow lost both their moral and ethical compasses to, in each case, the great detriment of the science proffession and to scientific progress.

  36. Ke[l]vin Tren[d]be[ar]th..
    Why Add More.
    Let The Big Lie Die.
    If a Man Does not know his limits then Life will Reveal to him his limits.
    Kelvin Trend Equals 0.
    “Flatliner”, as we would say in the back of the truck to our new cadaver on the slab.
    Ha

  37. @RECOOK1978.
    My original question to you:
    ‘The models do indeed have an error range, which is fully detailed in the IPCC 4th Assessment; the projections from these models are assigned a risk level based on the error estimates, and those risk levels are also defined. Do you not think that in in order for you to claim the models are over predicting the impacts, you have to demonstrate that predictions made by the models are in error more than the claims of the modelers?
    Have you done so, or do you have a scientific source or reference that has done so?’
    You replied to me:
    “So you claim.
    But prove it: Tell me the probability, and the worldwide ecomic impact on lives, health and jobs that :
    1. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have cooled, or remained steady.
    2. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 1 deg C.
    3. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 2 deg C.
    4. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 3 deg C.
    5. By year 2100, 85 years from now, the global average satellite temperature will have warmed by 4 deg C.”
    My reply:
    All you’ve done is re-ask the question I asked you.
    The 4th Assessment evaluation of modeling accuracy is here: https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
    How have you determined the models are doing worse than the IPCC’s own evaluation?
    [To get an answer, you will probably need to address RACookPE, not RECook1978. .mod]

    • All that matters is that the models are doing far worse than reality. They have failed miserably, epically, totally, completely, laughably.
      And so have you.
      Besides which, IPCC ignores its own “science” in its conclusions for policy action. Every edition is worse.

      • In addition to Catherin’s correct and cogent comment, the IPCC uses the modeled mean as their central estimate, ignoring reality, as all the models run to warm. Further, numerous peer reviewed studies warning of future disaster, submitted and accepted, based on the modeled mean, not on the observations. Further, the IPCC ignores dozens of peer reviewed papers indicating a climate sensitivity lower then the IPCC. Further, as the IPCC models run ever further from the reality, they shamelessly claim ever greater confidence…
        http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_558-aug-30-06-08.jpg

      • The divergence between IPCC’s own “science”, already preposterously divergent from reality, and its political action recommendations and degree of certainty, would be hilarious if not so disastrously destructive and deathly.
        But thanks for the graphic demonstration of my point.
        Or points:
        1) Even IPCC shows ECS getting ever closer to what the lab says it should be, ie at best ~1 C, and
        2) The summary for policy makers diverges ever further not only from reality but from the already cooked book “science” of IPCC’s arse-covering experts.

      • Catherine, David A;
        That chart again. I don’t know where whoever put that together learned how to baseline, but they totally muffed it. For CMIP5 output, the baseline period is 1986-2005. The ensemble means with a .95 CI envelop plotted against the average of GISTemp, HADCRUT4, UAH and RSS looks like this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSZEVmMFY5T2ZtOTA
        Yes, a terrible failure. Totally awful.

      • Brandon
        I looked at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSZEVmMFY5T2ZtOTA and that is something very different. It is the plot of an ‘ensemble’ not the individual models so I can’t see that it is a reason to say there is something fundamentally wrong with ‘that plot’. If the ensemble is wrong, then at least half the population making it up is also wrong. Removing the wrong ones to create a ‘believable’ projection gives a future that just isn’t alarming, is it? How inconvenient (for some).
        Also, the temperature has fallen below the 95% confidence range for the ensemble. The trend is horizontal and the ensemble trend continues upward. Clearly they are not responding to the same ‘physics’.

      • Exactly Crispin. If the PCC is predicting only .8 C to 1 C warming in 100 years, we can all go home as the benefits will likely far outweigh any harms.

      • My mistake, but my point still valid, as if the IPCC is not indicating 1.5 to 2 C warming, then this is very likely still net beneficial.
        Additionally the IPCC greatly overstated the troposphere warming, and the ocean warming. There is a lot of heat still missing. In the meantime, in the real world, crops keep growing more food per acre and per acre foot of water.

      • Crispin in Waterloo,

        I looked at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSZEVmMFY5T2ZtOTA and that is something very different. It is the plot of an ‘ensemble’ not the individual models so I can’t see that it is a reason to say there is something fundamentally wrong with ‘that plot’. If the ensemble is wrong, then at least half the population making it up is also wrong. Removing the wrong ones to create a ‘believable’ projection gives a future that just isn’t alarming, is it? How inconvenient (for some).

        There’s no cherry-picking on my end. That plot is based on all 138 model runs, all four RCPs, in the CMIP5 ensemble used for AR5:
        bcc_csm1_1_rcp26_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_m_rcp26_r1i1p1, BNU_ESM_rcp26_r1i1p1, CanESM2_rcp26_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp26_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp26_r1i1p1, CNRM_CM5_rcp26_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp26_r1i1p1, EC_EARTH_rcp26_r8i1p1, FGOALS_g2_rcp26_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp26_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp26_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp26_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp26_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp26_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp26_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp26_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_rcp26_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp26_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp26_r1i1p3, HadGEM2_AO_rcp26_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp26_r2i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp26_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp26_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp26_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp26_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp26_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_LR_rcp26_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_MR_rcp26_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp26_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp26_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp26_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_0_rcp45_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_3_rcp45_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_rcp45_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_m_rcp45_r1i1p1, BNU_ESM_rcp45_r1i1p1, CanESM2_rcp45_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp45_r1i1p1, CESM1_BGC_rcp45_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp45_r1i1p1, CMCC_CM_rcp45_r1i1p1, CMCC_CMS_rcp45_r1i1p1, CNRM_CM5_rcp45_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp45_r1i1p1, EC_EARTH_rcp45_r8i1p1, FGOALS_g2_rcp45_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp45_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp45_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp45_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp45_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp45_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_H_CC_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp45_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp45_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp45_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_CC_rcp45_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_AO_rcp45_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_CC_rcp45_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp45_r2i1p1, inmcm4_rcp45_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp45_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp45_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5B_LR_rcp45_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp45_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp45_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp45_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_LR_rcp45_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_MR_rcp45_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp45_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp45_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp45_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_rcp60_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_m_rcp60_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp60_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp60_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp60_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp60_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp60_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp60_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp60_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp60_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp60_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp60_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_rcp60_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp60_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp60_r1i1p3, HadGEM2_AO_rcp60_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp60_r2i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp60_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp60_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp60_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp60_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp60_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp60_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp60_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp60_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_0_rcp85_r1i1p1, ACCESS1_3_rcp85_r1i1p1, bcc_csm1_1_rcp85_r1i1p1, BNU_ESM_rcp85_r1i1p1, CanESM2_rcp85_r1i1p1, CCSM4_rcp85_r1i1p1, CESM1_BGC_rcp85_r1i1p1, CESM1_CAM5_rcp85_r1i1p1, CMCC_CM_rcp85_r1i1p1, CMCC_CMS_rcp85_r1i1p1, CNRM_CM5_rcp85_r1i1p1, CSIRO_Mk3_6_0_rcp85_r1i1p1, EC_EARTH_rcp85_r8i1p1, FGOALS_g2_rcp85_r1i1p1, FIO_ESM_rcp85_r1i1p1, GFDL_CM3_rcp85_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2G_rcp85_r1i1p1, GFDL_ESM2M_rcp85_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp85_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_H_rcp85_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_H_rcp85_r1i1p3, GISS_E2_R_rcp85_r1i1p1, GISS_E2_R_rcp85_r1i1p2, GISS_E2_R_rcp85_r1i1p3, HadGEM2_AO_rcp85_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_CC_rcp85_r1i1p1, HadGEM2_ES_rcp85_r2i1p1, inmcm4_rcp85_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_LR_rcp85_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5A_MR_rcp85_r1i1p1, IPSL_CM5B_LR_rcp85_r1i1p1, MIROC5_rcp85_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_rcp85_r1i1p1, MIROC_ESM_CHEM_rcp85_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_LR_rcp85_r1i1p1, MPI_ESM_MR_rcp85_r1i1p1, MRI_CGCM3_rcp85_r1i1p1, NorESM1_M_rcp85_r1i1p1, NorESM1_ME_rcp85_r1i1p1
        You can get the data from KNMI Climate Explorer and check it yourself: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip5
        I used a simple numeric average of four observational temperature series: GISTemp, HADCRUT4, UAH and RSS.

        Also, the temperature has fallen below the 95% confidence range for the ensemble. The trend is horizontal and the ensemble trend continues upward. Clearly they are not responding to the same ‘physics’.

        As I so often repeat, there have been similar “pauses” in the instrumental record. My favorite example is 1945 to 1975, a 30 year period of declining temperatures. dbstealy apparently likes it too, and went to the trouble of generating a nice plot on Wood for Trees from ’58 to ’77: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/to:1977/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1977/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/to:1977/normalise/trend
        AMO and PDO are the two most likely drivers of those periodic decadal ups and downs. The oceans absorb and release more energy over a few decades’ time than the buildup of CO2 over the same time period is responsible for. This does work both ways. Much of the upward trend from 1980 to 2000 was due to the oceans releasing accumulated energy as part of their natural cycle.
        In short, it makes the most sense to look at CO2’s effect on trends over 50-100 years time. Much less than that and most of what you’ll be trending is the “noise” of internal variability between ocean and atmosphere.

      • Oops, I didn’t realize David A had posted that chart. It shows clearly how totally wrong the IPCC and other models were/are.
        warrenlb asked “How have you determined the models are doing worse than the IPCC’s own evaluation?”
        That chart shows how very bad the IPCC’s own predictions/projections/evaluations have been.
        When one side of the debate relies on data that debunks it’s own stated position, they have lost the debate. Simple as that. Any further argument is tantamount to Monty Python’s Black Knight.

  38. @Brandon Gates. With condolences to Recook1978, Catherine, and David A.
    Thank you, Brandon, for answering the question I posed tp ReCook– i.e., could he show us data to justify his claim that the models perform badly perhaps a comparison between predicted and actual, which he hasn’t. But you have.
    I have a hunch your data will cause an uproar.

    • warrenlb,
      Thanks. The main point I was making is that the models vs. actuals charts which are so popular in this crowd typically set all the data series to zero at the first year on the chart, usually a year that CMIP5 was running high and actual temps were running a bit low (1978-83 is popular). Which is a no-no. The appropriate comparison for CMIP5 is to take the 20 year means over 1986-2005 for each series being compared and use that as the zero baseline.
      Not so much an uproar as a mad scramble to avoid confronting the dishonest cherry-pick by trying to change the subject to the “false assumptions” of causality.

  39. Bob Tisdale, calling Mosher a troll is beneath you. It is not that far off what he is doing, as I suspect he comments negatively in response to the groupthink here. He does the same at alarmist websites, only they are more likely to ban him.

  40. warrenlb says:
    See Brandon Gate’s [sic] post of the comparison I asked Cook for. My condolences.
    Once again I feel the need to explain to the uneducated the difference between a chart showing cause and effect, and a simple overlay chart. Brandon Gates’ chart is a simple overlay of CO2 and T. Anyone can play that game, but it means nothing. All it does is confuse people like warrenlb.
    This chart shows cause and effect. It is real world data. Although CO2 may have a negligible effect on T at current CO2 concentrations, it is too small to show up in the data. A 25% rise in CO2 would not be enough to show a measureable increase in T. That is why there are no comparable charts showing that changes in CO2 cause subsequent changes in T.
    Most of the change in CO2 is caused by changes in T. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but it will require the same kind of data that I posted here. Otherwise, facts win the argument; everything else is an attempt to support a false conclusion.

    • Your chart is using temperature anomalies (HADCRUT3) , which is not correct. You need to use straight data that doesn’t mask the seasonal differences in temperature for a valid comparison to CO2 data.

      • David Socrates,
        I have used numerous charts by many different sources. All of them show the same thing, so your criticism is void. But of course, if you would like to move the goal posts to a place of your choosing, then I will play your game and still beat you at it.

    • dbstealey,

      Brandon Gates’ chart is a simple overlay of CO2 and T.

      What you mean a simple overlay like the chart you posted, similar to the one David A (to whom I was responding) posted? http://postimg.org/image/9r50kleih/

      Anyone can play that game, but it means nothing. All it does is confuse people like warrenlb.

      I can’t speak for warrenlb, but I’m pretty sure I can tell when someone is trying to have it both ways. In your rush to do so, I see you neglected to address the issue of the shoddy baselining hack job in that CMIP5 to actuals plot.

      Most of the change in CO2 is caused by changes in T.

      You can’t be serious: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaST3RiNEczdEVGdmc
      In 400,000 years of ice age cycles, which saw temperature swings on the order of 12 degrees Celsius, the planet only once flirted with 300 ppmv CO2, much less 400. And we’re a degree down or so from the Eocene maximum.
      Or are you claiming as well that what they taught us in high school chemistry about the products of burning hydrocarbons is just another liberal hoodwink?

      I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but it will require the same kind of data that I posted here.

      Well, I just did. Let me guess two of your probable responses:
      1) It’s not the same kind of data.
      2) CO2 lags temperature in the paleo record too.

      • Brandon Gates,
        Most assuredly the Eocene, at circa 50 mya was at least 12°C warmer than now. London was tropical, Anchorage subtropical, and there were metasequoia at 80°N latitude (Ellsmere Island). This is verified by the fossil record. If you come here and spew alarmism, you will look ridiculous.

      • Also, Brandon
        The late warming trend, circa 1980-2000, has been shown to be due to greater insolation via reduced cloud albedo. There also appears to have been a reduction in aerosols in the Stratosphere during this trend, thus also increasing insolation. No need to wring your hands over CO2.

      • Brandon G,
        Some of your comments are confusing to me. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, and your ‘can’t be serious’ chart is far too small for my ancient eyes. Regarding my overlay comment, maybe I didn’t make myself clear: whenever a chart shows CO2 and T without showing which came first, it is a simple overlay — one on top of the other. They show what happened, but they do not show which is the cause and which is the effect.
        I posted charts that clearly show cause and effect. I can post more, going back hundreds of millennia. They all show the same thing: ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. I can find no cause and effect charts showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. If you can, please post.
        This goes to the heart of the entire debate. The alarmist claim is that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Observational evidence shows that is not the case. The reason is that at current concentrations CO2 has a negligible effect on T. Thus, the alarmist argument fails.

      • The current rise in CO2 cannot be attributed to temperature. The ice core record shows this clearly. Nowhere in the past 800,000 years has CO2 been at 400 ppm.
        The current concentration of CO2 is as high as it is due to human combustion of fossil fuels.

      • David Socrates says:
        The current rise in CO2 cannot be attributed to temperature.
        That statement is flat wrong. Of course it can.
        I’ve never disputed that the recent rise in CO2 is partly due to fossil fuel use. But so what? It is completely harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. Part of the rise in CO2 is a natural response to rising global temperature [T]. Anyone who disputes that fact is refusing to accept reality.
        As I explained above with impeccable logic and verifiable empirical [real world] evidence:
        ∆T causes ∆CO2.
        That fact is indisputable, as observed on all time scales, from years, to hundreds of millennia. T leads CO2 on all of them. The alarmist crowd hates that fact because it totally destroys their ‘carbon’ scare.
        As David Socrates says, the ice core record shows this clearly. What he doesn’t say is that the biosphere is starved of CO2, therefore more is better. That is why the planet is measurably GREENING as a direct result of more CO2.
        So, David Socrates, explain for us why you think more of that beneficial trace gas is a problem… if you can.

      • “That statement is flat wrong

        No, you need to provide evidence that it is wrong.
        If you think the current rise in CO2 is due to temperature, can you please provide us all with the rise in temperature that has caused it?
        ..
        The temperature of our planet has varied +/- several degrees over the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years, but it never reached 400 ppm.
        ..
        Show me the time in the past when the temperature caused a 400 ppm concentration of CO2.. The ice core record does NOT show us any temp when CO2 was 400 ppm.

        The issue is not the qualitative term “beneficial”
        The issue is that your supposition that T causes CO2 does not apply to the current situation.

      • David Socrates says:
        …you need to provide evidence that it is wrong.
        I posted numerous links proving what I said is absolutely correct. You just don’t like science. Every assertion you make here is baseless. You provide no empirical, testable scientific evidence to support your assertions.
        Next you say:
        …can you please provide us all with the rise in temperature that has caused it?
        “Provide us all”?? “All” the other readers are not questioning the facts I posted. Don’t be a chump, you are only speaking for yourself, you’re not the mouthpiece for ‘all’.
        So for you, I have provided solid empirical evidence on time scales from years to hundreds of thousands of years, all showing the same thing: changes in CO2 are caused by changes in global T. If you want plenty more evidence I can provide it. But based on your unwillingness to accept the evidence of hundreds of scientists, what good would it do? When faced with incontrovertial evidence, your response is typical of the alarmist crowd’s.
        Next, once again you post your lame non sequitur:
        The temperature of our planet has varied +/- several degrees over the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years, but it never reached 400 ppm.
        First: so what? And second: why are you cherry-picking 800K – 1M years? I will tell you exactly why: because cherry-picking feeds your confirmation bias. Look at the chart I posted showing that the biosphere is starved of CO2. That shows how high CO2 has been in the past. It also shows that our current CO2 level is right at the bottom of the chart, historically. If you didn’t blatantly cherry-pick you would understand that.
        Next, you say:
        Show me the time in the past when the temperature caused a 400 ppm concentration of CO2.
        I gave you several charts, which show that on all time scales, ∆T causes ∆CO2. By trying to muddy the waters with an arbitrary non sequitur like “400 ppm” you demonstrate that my point is irrefutable: T causes CO2. NOT vice versa.
        If you still believe that CO2 changes cause subsequent changes in T, then I challenge you to produce even one chart showing that cause and effect. I don’t think you are capable of finding such a chart, and if you can’t, you lose the argument. All you have are your baseless assertions. That isn’t nearly good enough here at the internet’s Best Science site.
        Next you say:
        The ice core record does NOT show us any temp when CO2 was 400 ppm.
        So what? You are merely moving the goal posts. I never cited 400ppm, or anything else. Rather, I showed conclusively that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. You have yet to refute that — I don’t think you can — so you deflect the debate. A specific CO2 concentration is meaningless. What is meaningful is the question of cause and effect: which is the cause, and which is the effect? Is CO2 the cause? Or is it global T? I have shown conclusively that T is the cause. Your misdirecting response is nothing but bluster; a baseless assertion, intended to deflect the debate to a meaningless issue.
        Finally you end with a totaly lame assertion:
        The issue is not the qualitative term “beneficial” The issue is that your supposition that T causes CO2 does not apply to the current situation.
        Wrong-O, bud. I proved ‘beneficial’ in the last link in my prior comment. I note again that all of your comments consist of nothing more than you expressing your Belief. But you provide no testable, empirical scientific evidence, only your always-wrong assertions: it is not my “supposition” that ∆T causes ∆CO2. It is a proven scientific fact, based on Beer’s Law among others. I posted two (2) separate charts showing conclusively that “T causes CO2”, which applies directly to this situation. You just don’t like it, because that empirical evidence debunks your MMGW nonsense.
        You really need to get away from your alarmist anti-science blogs, and read the WUWT archives for a few months. Keyword: CO2. Because right now, you lack any understanding of how the real world works.

      • You have not provide evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that caused the current rise in CO2

        You have not shown the rise in T that has cause the current rise in CO2.

        Not to mention the fact that isotope analysis makes your assertions funny
        ,
        ,
        ,
        You post “So what”?”

        Well, that’s the point….you can’t…….at no time in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years has CO2 been at the 400 ppm level…..

        When has the temperature in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years been high enough to cause 400 ppm of CO2 ?

        Reality has made your assertion false.

      • ” If you want plenty more evidence I can provide it.”

        Please provide the evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that has caused the current 400 ppm of CO2

      • If you continue to ignore the fact that the 400 ppm of CO2 today was cause by human combustion of fossil fuels, you are not very bright.

      • David Socrates says:
        You have not provide evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that caused the current rise in CO2
        Deflecting again, I see. Post where I ever said that something 800,000 to 1,000,000 years ago caused the current rise in CO2. You can’t; you are simply misdirecting because you cannot refute what I showed conclusively: that ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. That fact alone debunks your alarmist nonsense, so no wonder you feel the need to misrepresent what I posted.
        Next, you say:
        You have not shown the rise in T that has cause the current rise in CO2.
        First off, my position for years has been the same: part of the current rise in CO2 is due to fossil fuels. Why do you feel the desperate need to try and paint me into a corner? You are simply not bright enough to be able to do that, especially since you try to do it by misrepresenting, deflecting, and misdirection. But of course, if you stop those dishonest tactics you won’t have much to say, will you?
        As Willis says constantly: cut and paste my words. I do it when responding to you, but all you do is invent a fake position that I don’t hold, then argue with that strawman. No wonder you’re losing the debate. And if you want to argue isotope analysis, go argue with Ferdinand Engelbeen, who I agree with. But enough of your deflecting nonsense. Post my words verbatim, and respond to them. There’s a reason you never do: if you did you know your argument would crash and burn.
        Next:
        …at no time in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years has CO2 been at the 400 ppm level…
        You are truly a broken record. Once more: ‘400 ppm’ is an arbitrary number, which as exactly nothing to do with what I am trying to teach you. The central issue is cause and effect. But if you stick to the subject you will promptly lose your argument, and that is why you constantly invent strawman arguments that I never made.
        Next:
        When has the temperature in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years been high enough to cause 400 ppm of CO2 ?
        And:
        Please provide the evidence in the past 800,000 to 1,000,000 years that has caused the current 400 ppm of CO2
        *Sheesh* What are you, a Chatty Cathy doll? Did someone pull your string, and all you do now is emit those lame comments?
        And:
        Reality has made your assertion false.
        A meaningless comment, indicating desperation and based on psychological projection [imputing your own faults onto others].
        In fact, reality has debunked the entire alarmist position, which is based on conjecture; assertions. Opinions. I would personaolly be ashamed to make such a lame comment. it indicates that you have nothing to support your Belief.
        Finally:
        If you continue to ignore the fact that the 400 ppm of CO2 today was cause by human combustion of fossil fuels, you are not very bright.
        What am I doing arguing with a dope? I must be retired, with nothing better to do. Why are you posting things that I never said. That is dishonest. Instead, cut and past my words, like I do yours. Anything else brings your ethics down to those of Peter Gleick. Do you want to be honest? Then quote my words, verbatim.

      • “Post where I ever said that something 800,000 to 1,000,000 years ago caused the current rise in CO2”

        You have posted that T causes CO2

        I have asked you to show me where T has cause 400 ppm of CO2

        You cannot

        Because the current CO2 levels are caused by human fossil fuel burning, and NOT by temperature. You sasid “CO2 is caused by T”….well……..show me the T that has caused 400 ppm. of CO2.

        PS…I enjoy seeing you spin

      • “‘400 ppm’ is an arbitrary number,”

        LMAO

        No, it’s not “arbitrary”….the fact is, that we’ve not been at 400 ppm over the past four advances of the ice sheets.

        Get real buddy……your pathetic “CO2 follows T” doesn’t apply to human combustion of fossil fuels.

      • Look dbstealy
        Just post the spike in temperature that has “caused” the current 400 ppm in CO2

        It shouldn’t be that much of a problem for you.

        When did it happen?

      • @”David Socrates”,
        Really, you have no education in the hard sciences, do you? Admit it. Because your arguments, such as they are, are all over the map. You don’t think that 400 ppm is an arbitrary number?? Then how about 399 ppm? Or 403 ppm? Or 398 ppm? Or 411 ppm? Pick any arbitrary number you want.
        Shall I go on? At what point would your cherry-picked number not be arbitrary?
        Answer: it is already an arbitrary number, cherry-picked to support your confirmation bias.
        That is not all you cherry-pick. You cherry-picked your start time when you began measuring CO2. I provided a time scale of hundreds of millions of years — more is always better, for perspective. CO2 has been more than twenty times (20X) higher than current levels in the past, with no ill effects and without causing runaway global warming. Of course, that fact completely destroys your Belief System (BS), so you cherry-pick a much, much shorter time frame in your despeartate attempt to show what ain’t there.
        But your confirmation bias is easy to debunk: global warming has stopped. It didn’t just stop recently, it stopped many years ago.
        That fact alone debunks your CO2=CAGW conjecture. That conjecture is dead, my friend. It’s all over but the shouting. Planet Earth has made her ruling: your side lost the debate. And life being a fractal, you have decisively lost the debate here, due to your flagrant cherry-picking, deflection, and misrepresenting what others wrote. You’re not really Peter Gleick, are you? We know you’re H Grouse, et al.
        More desperation:
        Get real buddy……your pathetic “CO2 follows T” doesn’t apply to human combustion of fossil fuels.
        This is just too easy. As usual, you provide NO evidence for your wild-eyed assertions. None whatever — while I have provided mountains of empirical evidence, which prove that on all time scales, ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T. Those time scales also include the present, as I have shown conclusively, thus destroying your argument. As usual, all you post are your Belief-based assertions; but no verifiable facts.
        It is amusing watching you squirm around, constantly implying that I disagree that fossil fuels have contributed to CO2 levels. That, of course, is a different discussion and a canard. You can’t win the original argument, so you deflect and misrepresent. You are a great examploe of why the alarmist clique refuses to engage in any fair, moderated debate in a neutral venue: every time they did, they were slaughtered. You are getting slaughtered here because you refuse to stay on topic. Moving the goal posts is a typical tactic of the alarmist cult. Without it, you wouldn’t have much to say.
        Finally, I note that you are incapable of meeting my challenge: you still can’t find a chart showing empirical evidence that changes in temperature are caused by changes in CO2 — while I have posted numerous charts showing that ∆T causes ∆CO2. Once again, based on your failure, you have lost the argument.

      • “Shall I go on?”

        Yes, please go on.
        I’m waiting for you to show us when did the T spike to cause the current 400 ppm of CO2
        ..
        You had better show us a higher temp than in the ice core data, because nowhere in the ice core data is the CO2 concentration 400 ppm.
        Show me when in the past 1,000,000 years that CO2 has been 400 ppm…….you know, hard evidence. Just one graph …..you should have one no?

      • ” global warming has stopped.”

        I suggest you get in touch with the people that are keeping the records, because 2014 is shaping up to be the warmest on record. ….

        If it has “stopped” why is this year so warm?

      • “while I have provided mountains of empirical evidence”

        But you have not shown the spike in T that has cause the current levels of CO2

      • Come on Stealey boy…..one graph is all we need. One graph that shows the spike in temperature that cause today’s 400 ppm of CO2

        You must have a graph of this in your collection.

        The graph should be 800,000 years long.

        And show the CO2 levels over the 800,000 years.

        And show the temperatures over that time span

        To “prove” your ridiculous assertion of causation.
        We’re waiting

      • The fact is Mr Stealey….that the current levels of CO2 in our atmosphers at 400 ppm is due to human combustion of fossil fuels and not due to temperature.

        Try to disprove that.

      • David Socrates says:
        I’m waiting for you to show us when did the T spike…
        Will you do me a favor? Please quit lying. No one has any respect for liars. Just ask folks here about Peter Gleick. How are you any different?
        Since you cannot win the argument by being truthful, you constantly fabricate words that I never said, and attribute them to me. Several times now you have quoted me as saying that there is a temperature “spike”. I never said nor implied that.
        Stop it. Those are your words. By implying it is something I said, you are being dishonest. Do not falsely imply that I ever said there was a “spike” in temperatures.
        That could all be avoided if you simply did what I have repeatedly asked: Quote my words, verbatim. But you won’t do that, because then you couldn’t misrepresent my stated position.
        What I said was this: Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales, from years out to hundreds of millennia. That is true, and that verifiable fact debunks your MMGW nonsense. I challenged you to produce contrary evidence, but you failed to do so.
        Furthermore, just like the word “spiked” is yours alone, the “400 ppm” number is also yours alone. By falsely attributing them to me, you are trying to corner me into defending your failed conjecture. I told you before, you are just not smart enough to do that. That’s why you’re losing this debate so badly. You could never win it by being honest, so you try a different tactic.
        As always: quote my words, verbatim. Then we will be on the same page, and I will have nothing to Grouse about. Otherwise, you are using the strawman fallacy. In any formal debate, you would lose based just on using that fallacy alone. So stop it. If you can’t win honestly, that says everything about you, and nothing abount scientific skeptics — the only honest kind of scientists.

      • Stealey
        All I ask for you is to show us the spike in T that caused the current 400 ppm of CO2

        Is it that hard?

      • “Changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature on all time scales”



        Good.

        Show me the change in temperature that caused the 400 ppm of CO2

      • dbstealey,

        I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, and your ‘can’t be serious’ chart is far too small for my ancient eyes.

        Try zooming in using the viewer. Or download it and open it on your local machine, it’s quite a high-resolution image.

        Regarding my overlay comment, maybe I didn’t make myself clear: whenever a chart shows CO2 and T without showing which came first, it is a simple overlay — one on top of the other. They show what happened, but they do not show which is the cause and which is the effect.

        The utility of Fourier transforms coupled with band-pass filters is that you can more readily pick out lead-lag relationships — at a particular frequency. That last bit is key. There is no doubt that atmospheric CO2 concentration is responsive to temperature just like humidity is — temperature increases partial pressure thereby decreasing CO2’s aqueous solubility. CO2 comes out until the partial pressures in both fluids reach equilibrum at the higher temperature. Similar effect on land, much of that also to do with bacteria and other small critters in the soil at the bottom of the food chain.
        If you’d chosen a higher frequency for your band pass filter, you would have picked up on the seasonal variability of CO2, but this time the relationship would be the inverse of N. Hemisphere temperatures. The reason being that during the warmer NH months, terrestrial photosynthetic plants fix more carbon from the atmosphere than they do in the N. Hemisphere winter. There again, CO2 will lag temps because it takes a bit for the plants to get going, and they hang on just a bit longer as it begins to cool in autumn.

        I can post more, going back hundreds of millennia. They all show the same thing: ∆CO2 is caused by ∆T.

        I’ve done my homework on the Vostok ice cores. Recall I predicted you would invoke lag-lead here. This isn’t my first rodeo. It’s obvious since Milankovic’s work has been confirmed by uncountable later papers that CO2 did not initiate the inflection points of the glaciation cycles over the past million years. It shows up as a response variable, lagging temperature on the order of 1,000 years.
        This is all old hat. Nobody doing the actual research has missed it, or ignores it. Trotting it out like it’s the be-all-end-all nail in the coffin for CO2’s radiative role in surface temperature might stump the neophyte (C)AGW/CC investigator, but not this kid. Because see, I understand that response variables in complex dynamical systems are not limited to only being responsive. There are zillions of co-causality examples in other sciences. People of education who ignore this when they should darn well know better are being disingenuous to an extreme.
        Yes by George, the glaciation cycles were initiated by insolation changes at high northern latitudes determined by predictable and fairly regular changes to Earth’s orbital and rotational parameters, specifcally obliquity and precession of rotation, and eccentricity of the orbit. Temperature goes up, then CO2 rises. Plain as day.
        But have you ever noticed that the rises are steeper than the falls? Hmm? The orbital parameters rise and fall with nearly symmetric slopes on either side, but temperature likes to go up faster than it goes down. I wonder why that could be.

        I can find no cause and effect charts showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. If you can, please post.

        You’re not going to find one that covers multiple up/down cycles on a decadal or annual basis. You won’t find one in the past million years because we weren’t around for the vast majority of the time. But something else you won’t find in the Vostock cores: 400 ppmv atmospheric CO2. The higest is 300 ppmv, and that was during the Eocene interglacial where average temps (according to the Vostock cores) were 1-2 C higher than at any time during the Holocene. So on from 100K year perspective, CO2 is definitely not the main response variable to temperature. THAT was my point.

        The alarmist claim is that rising CO2 will cause runaway global warming.

        That is one alarmist claim. I don’t subsribe to it. Please kindly do not put the words of panicky people, most of whom are ignorant of the actual science in my mouth. Spare me the famous quotes by activist researchers and politicians as well. I disagree with alarmist rhetoric and the politics of fear, period, full stop, end of story.

        The reason is that at current concentrations CO2 has a negligible effect on T. Thus, the alarmist argument fails.

        It’s easy to falsify a strawman you’ve created for just that purpose. Try arguing against the actual statements in primary literature. You could start by getting back to my original argument, which is that the models vs. observations plot I was attacking is improperly baselined so as to exaggerate the discrepancy. My plot shows the actual discrepancy when one properly baselines the observational series to the 1986-2005 baseline used in AR5 for doing that exact comparison.
        Funny how you don’t want talk about my actual original argument, innit.

      • mpainter,

        Most assuredly the Eocene, at circa 50 mya was at least 12°C warmer than now. London was tropical, Anchorage subtropical, and there were metasequoia at 80°N latitude (Ellsmere Island).

        Embarrassingly, I confused the Eocene Epoch 50 ma with the Eemian Stage 130 ka. The Eemian was 1-2 degrees hotter, CO2 peaked out ~300 ppmv. That’s the relevant point for my discussion with dbstealy because 400 ppmv today cannot be explained as a response to temperature.
        London didn’t exist as we know it 50 ma, as may be inferred from this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleogene#mediaviewer/File:Blakey_50moll.jpg Really damn hot, little to no polar ice sheets and lots of places which are currently dry land that were then under ocean water. CO2 estimates from 500-2,000 ppmv. Hot. Damn hot. Though it would have been livable for us had we evolved that early in the game because, well, that’s how evolution works. Oh, and look, no need to dig a canal through Panama!
        However our species and, most importantly, our technological civilization, came to be in the Holocene, a 12 ky stretch of the most stable climate the planet has seen for at least a million years. That relative stability can only have been a benefit to our success. And you know what they say about success: don’t mess with it.

        If you come here and spew alarmism, you will look ridiculous.

        I don’t do alarmism. When doing risk assessment, it pays to keep one’s head about them.
        Also keep in mind that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I could give two turds whether you say my arguments are ridiculous as opinions are a dime a dozen. Cogent arguments are rare, but far more fun and interesting, if not more effective.

        The late warming trend, circa 1980-2000, has been shown to be due to greater insolation via reduced cloud albedo. There also appears to have been a reduction in aerosols in the Stratosphere during this trend, thus also increasing insolation.

        You’ve got the stratospheric aerosol relationship backward: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/ The light gray line in the figure (a) of the second chart is the one you want. It’s been supposed that the Clean Air Act is partially responsible for some of the runup in the ’80s and ’90s by reducing the amount of sulfate aerosols from coal-fired power and industrial plants. Bit of an irony that.
        Reduced cloud albedo is a consensus argument for positive, not negative, cloud feedback. You’re dangerously close to making the warmist argument for us.

      • Brandon Gates says:
        Recall I predicted you would invoke lag-lead here.
        I let that insufferable comment pass the first time you posted it, because I thought you just had a bad day. Now you bring it up again, as if you can actually, like, predict things. You can’t. If you’re so good at predicting, then predict when global warming will resume; month/year. Me, I predict that you will emit more nonsense. How’s that for predicting? Prove me wrong.
        For the rest of your comment, suffice it to say that I disagree. I posted several charts showing conclusively that ∆T causes ∆CO2. I can post many more showing the same thing. In return, all I asked for was even one chart showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T. But you can’t produce it, as you admitted using doubletalk. I rest my case. Say whatever you want, but if you can’t find a chart based on testable, empirical, real world data showing conclusively that CO2 is the cause of temperature changes, all the rest of your comment is irrelevant — and the AGW conjecture takes another solid hit.
        AGW must be measurable if it affects temperature like you believe it does, because every physical process is measurable, from CO2 levels, to Polar bear numbers, to subatomic particle energies, to temperature, and to everything else in the real world. The only reason AGW is not measurable is if it is too small to measure because it is swamped by background noise… or, AGW simply doesn’t exist.
        As I have said repeatedly for many years here, I think AGW exists. But it is obvious that if it cannot be measured, it is simply too tiny at current CO2 concentrations. If you think you can measure AGW, then post a testable, empirical measurement, quantifying the fraction of total global warming that is caused by human activity. What specific percentage of total global warming is it? The fact is, if there were such a verifiable measurement, it would be trumpeted 24/7/365 by the alarmist clique. But it isn’t, because there are no measurements of AGW. None. Thus, AGW is nothing more than a conjecture. An opinion. But everyone has an opinion, and skeptics’ opinions are just as good as yours. Probably better, because skeptics have nothing to prove. You do. Because it’s your conjecture.
        ===============================
        Next, since we’re now using only last names, Socrates-Grouse, when you start commenting on the charts I posted and get off your “spike” deflection, I’ll answer. I posted solid real world evidence proving that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, on all time scales. But you are not capable of producing any verifiable evidence showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T.
        Regarding your “spike” misdirection, that is your conjecture, not mine. You want me to prove it for you. As if. I told you that you aren’t smart enough to paint me into a corner, but you keep trying. That is both dishonest and juvenile. Grow up, and discuss the links I posted — that will be a first.
        Let me remind you, or teach you, whichever it may be, that skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you for promoting the man-made global warming conjecture, to provide either proof, or at least solid scientific evidence, showing that your conjecture has any merit. So far, you have failed.
        The alarmist crowd has never been able to provide any testable, empirical evidence showing that the rise in CO2 is the cause of global warming. In fact, Planet Earth is busy right now falsifying that nonsense: as CO2 continues inexorably upward, global warming has stopped, and not just for a few months. Global warming has been stopped for many, many years. Where is your god now?
        In any other scientific discipline, if one side was promoting a conjecture that was so thoroughly debunked by the real world, they would tuck tail and go back to the drawing board. But in climastrology, they double down. No wonder they are losing all respect from honest scientists. They have no credibility left. Planet Earth is making that crystal clear, and every time the alarmist cult sticks its head up over the parapet, they get targeted by people who ask them why their conjecture has failed. Their response is always the same: deflection and misdirection. Moving the goal posts. Changing the subject. Name-calling. Appeals to corrupt authorities. Anything — except admitting that their conjecture was wrong.
        The problem is this: people like you have invested your egos in the global warming scare for a long time. You have taught others that global warming is a very serious threat, and you have used confirmation bias and cherry-picking to convince yourselves that you are right. But now that eighteen years have passed, showing that your conjecture is flat wrong, you dig in your heels and act like a bunch of Jehovah’s Witness who have been told their scripture is fake. The carbon scare is now your religion, and no real world facts can ever convince you otherwise.
        Finally, every alarming prediction made by your side over the years has been flat wrong. None of your many scary predictions have come true, not a single one! You have cried “WOLF!!” the whole time, and now the public is jaded. A couple of years ago there were still lots of comments in the media, worrying about global warming, and “carbon”.
        But no more. Now the large majority of public comments outright ridicule your global warming scare. And once the public has turned on you, you will never get them back on your side. It will just get a little bit worse all the time, like a Chinese water torture. You will lose a few sidekicks every day, until finally you will throw in the towel yourself, slinking off and pretending that you were never part of the hoax. That day will be here sooner than you think.
        It is happening right now. I see it every day, and it even surprises me how quickly people are turning on the Chicklen Little crowd. If you don’t see it, you’re blind.

      • I let that insufferable comment pass the first time you posted it, because I thought you just had a bad day.

        Well I did steal some of your thunder I suppose, but insufferable?

        If you’re so good at predicting, then predict when global warming will resume; month/year.

        Ah, the old ask the impossible to answer question ploy. I think surface temperatures will nudge upward next El Nino — who knows when — but AMO is likely going to go negative in the next decade. Anyway, here’s my latst guess: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1C2T0pQeiaSbU9sdjVvYzlMb28

        I posted several charts showing conclusively that ∆T causes ∆CO2.

        And I responded with agreement with those plots. Now tell me again why a response variable can never be causal.

        AGW must be measurable if it affects temperature like you believe it does …

        It is measurable and has been. By the way, you’re running the “It’s not the correct data” script here, just as I anticipated you would.
        Your Fourier analyses won’t pick it up because the band pass filters you’ve chosen are picking out patterns in annual/decadal cycles, not 100+ year secular trends. If you keep looking in the wrong direction, you won’t see the right thing. Basic common sense dictates you’re not going to find anything comparable to the past 250 years in any data because CO2 levels have never been observed to have risen 30% so quickly. I don’t know how much more non-doublespeak I can get than this: normal seasonal variations in CO2 is not the signal you’re looking for.

        But it is obvious that if it cannot be measured, it is simply too tiny at current CO2 concentrations.

        A 1.5 W/m^2 increase over 130 years is a subtle change, but not too small to detect. The decadal wiggles amount to +/- 0.30 W/m^2 either direction and those show up just fine. The increased forcing from CO2 since 1880 is 5 times that, and completely detectable by instrumentation.

      • H Grouse,
        I note that despite your stupid “spike” misdirection, that the rise in CO2 has not caused your endlessly predicted global warming — much less the endlessly predicted runaway global warming scare.
        One more time: EVERY alarming prediction you have ever made has been flat wrong. When someone is always 100% wrong in all their predictions, they are nothing more than a modern day Chicken Little. The rest of us know what you don’t: The sky isn’t falling. It was only a tiny acorn. But you still believe the sky is falling. Why? You have zero evidence to support your Belief. You are arguing out of stubbornness, nothing more. That is foolish.
        Since you have been totally wrong in every prediction made, you lose the debate. You posted a graph that you think looks scary — but CO2 isn’t causing any problems. Not a single one. It is a completely harmless trace gas. So who in their right mind would award any credibility to your failed opinion? You have been one hundred percent wrong. Time to MovOn.

      • From your response, I see that you are unable to point to a change in temperature that caused CO2 to rise to 400 ppm. Too bad, your assertion that CO2 follows T is incorrect.
        You can deflect all you want, but fact the fact that you are wrong, and the ice core data proves you wrong.
        PS…..What is a “Grouse?”

  41. @Crispin in Waterloo.
    Re: Your thoughtful reply to my post on the energy budget:
    1) I think you may have misread my statement about incoming thermal radiation. I said that the only inflow of thermal radiation to the Earth’s system is sunlight. I did not comment on how much of that is reflected back out. Some clearly is.
    2) I accept your point that its not only IR frequency thermal radiation leaving Earths system –as you point out, some is reflected sunlight as well.
    I agreed with MikeB’s energy budget chart, and did not intend to dispute anything in it. I appreciate your clarifications/corrections. Thanks.

  42. milodonharlani,

    You ask why it warmed then. Well, it didn’t, then it did, then it didn’t, then it did & now it’s flat or not.

    Those are accurate representations of observation. I see nothing about “why”. Thank you for saying “I don’t know”, albeit in a round-about fashion.

    All the while CO2 rose, so their hypotheses have been thoroughly & repeatedly shown false.

    Is temperature higher or lower than the late 19th century? Atmospheric CO2 concentration? Where’s the falsification?

    Both men did not predict the correct direction, even though they both had a 50% chance of being right.

    This is the point where it would be good to produce a citation or two. Also note that “well, there was a 50% chance of being correct” isn’t how this works. Hypothesis based on first principles of physics is what established the correlation prior to it happening. That correlation was subsequently observed. If you know of any other way to demonstrate causality, now would be your chance to have a go at winning a Nobel … even if only a shared one.

  43. Brandon Gates says:
    It is measurable and has been.
    AGW is measurable? Then please post your valid, testable measurement, showing the specific fraction of global warming attributable to human activity, out of total global warming. Is it 17.8%? Is it 92.5%?
    Is it 50.000%?
    Be sure that it shows the % of human-caused global warming — AGW — in a way that can be confirmed by anyone. In other words, testable.
    I really look forward to finally seeing exactly what the specific fraction of AGW turns out to be, out of total global warming. Now we will know exactly how much is natural, and how much is man-made, from an empirical observation. That measurement will settle many years of heated controversy, and it will finally show everyonw whether human emissions are a major contributor, or just incidental.
    I truly believe if you can post a verifiable, specific measurement of AGW acceptable to the scientific community, that you will be on the short list for the next Nobel Prize, since you will be the first to post such a measurement. When will your paper be published?
    I can hardly wait.

  44. The exchanges between Brandon Gates, David Socrates, DBStealey, and others on this forum allow us to judge for ourselves who uses relevant data and valid physics and deals with the issues at hand, and reasons through to conclusions.
    For me, the clear winners are Socrates and Gates. And Science.

  45. @warrenlb, who says:
    For me… &etc.
    Your opinion doesn’t count. I post reams of data, and plenty of verifiable evidence.
    You post nothing but your opinion. Same with Grouse, whose only ‘contribution’ here is his incessant deflection and misdirection in trying to get me to attack his “spike” strawman. The “spike” is his strawman. But he still tries desperately to get me to take his bait. As if. He is just misdirecting from my point that changes in CO2 are caused by temperature changes. But as usual, he refuses to discuss that fact.
    Read the whole thread, and you will see that when you refer to “others on this forum”, you and Socrates are way out by yourselves in left field. Skeptics here are the only ones who consistently use “relevant data”. Show me where you ever use relevant data. Emitting your opinion doesn’t count. You are trying to sell a bogus narrative based on opinion and conjecture; a narrative that has been repeatedly falsified by the only Authority that matters: Planet Earth.
    And you still avoid responding to the links I post, or to any of the empirical facts pointed out that debunk your anti-science. That’s why you lost the debate.

      • Sorry, David, but on my planet at least, an opinion which is supported by citations, logic, math, sources, reference to authorities, and the like counts for much more than the opinion of someone who posts only their opinion.
        w.

  46. AGW theory reduces clouds? Via CO2 increase?
    Horse droppings, Brandon. Shows how little you understand AGW theory.

  47. And if you want to argue isotope analysis, go argue with Ferdinand Engelbeen, who I agree with.
    In fairness to Ferdinand Engelbeen, I feel obligated to point out that he does NOT feel that only “part of the current rise in CO2 is due to fossil fuels“. He feels that every ppm from the 280 ppm in 1750 to 400 ppm now is due to human combustion.
    If you feel only part is due to humans, that is of course your prerogative.
    As for the effect this has, it is obviously way less than catastrophic as we both agree.

    • You might pass along Engelbeen’s conclusion to DBStealey who argues CO2 rise has always been caused by T, not just prior to the industrial age, but since 1750 as well. He hasn’t been able to find a spike in T that would have caused modern day CO2 rise, but has not yet recanted. You might be able to help him fess up,

    • Werner, Ferdinand Engelbeen and I have an ongoing discussion over this issue. My view is that at least some of the past century’s rise in CO2 can be attributed to the MWP, as there is extensive evidence showing that rises in CO2 follow warming episodes by 800 ±200 years. That is well documented, and we are now in that time frame following the MWP.
      I won’t speak for Ferdinand, but he and I are very close in our views. I am in agreement with about 99% of what he writes, and I have posted that here. Ferdinand has taught me a lot over the years. I should note that no two educated people always agree 100%.
      One thing that Ferdinand has stated repeatedly is that the rise in CO2 is harmless, and it is not a problem. If the alarmist crowd accepted that, they wouldn’t have any real argument left. Their whole reason for being is to demonize “carbon”. Without the devil, we wouldn’t need priests. Would we?

  48. In my opinion, the 800 years only applies when there is continuous warmth for that long and that it takes 800 years for the deep ocean CO2 to make it to the surface. But with the LIA in between the MWP and us, it makes no sense to invoke that 800 year period.
    Furthermore, how hot would the MWP have had to be to raise the CO2 by 120 ppm? I believe the MWP was hotter than today, but not nearly hot enough to explain today’s 400 ppm. That is assuming that the MWP was even responsible.
    Note David Hoffer’s comment on the other thread:
    davidmhoffer
     
    December 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm
    says:
    That said, recent rise in CO2 is clearly anthropogenic, which has nothing to do with the observation that on geologic time scales, CO2 follows T.
    However we all agree that the extra CO2, whatever its source, is harmless.
    I agree with 99% of what you say, but on this 1% I do not agree. And neither does David Hoffer nor Ferdinand Engelbeen. However I do know that others agree with you.

    • Werner, please read what I wrote:
      “…at least some of the CO2 is due to that factor.
      There is too much evidence to simply dismiss the 800 year lag out of hand, and it does not require continuous, unbroken warmth. Who ever said that? Also: it’s not my 800 year lag, as you stated. If it was important, I would dig out some of the literature.
      Next, please make it clear who you’re quoting. I think that was Dave Hoffer, not me that you cut ‘n’ pasted.
      Finally, it would be a problem if we agreed 100%. I am more than happy with 99%. Because with the True Believer alarmist crowd, it’s more like 0.00%. ☺

  49. There is too much evidence to simply dismiss the 800 year lag out of hand, and it does not require continuous, unbroken warmth. Who ever said that?
    Presumably Milankovitch cycles showed the 800 year lag. These are long term things of tens of thousands of years and not something that even registers any changes over a few hundred years. As for requiring continuous, unbroken warmth, anything else just does not make any sense to me. If it takes 800 years to reach equilibrium, and you have a LIA after 300 years, then everything gets reversed and oceans absorb more CO2. And if oceans give off more CO2 in the year 2000, it is because they warmed over the previous 50 years and not because of something that happened a thousand years ago and was reversed 500 years ago. In other words, if we were still in a LIA now, there is no way the warmth from a thousand years ago would increase the CO2.
    The complete quote by David Hoffer is here:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/05/friday-funny-over-a-centurys-worth-of-failed-eco-climate-quotes-and-disinformation/#comment-1807299
    davidmhoffer
     
    December 5, 2014 at 7:05 pm
    David Socrates December 5, 2014 at 6:48 pm
    Mr davidmhoffer

    It may be “good to know” but I suggest you ask Mr Dbstealey why CO2 has not followed T in the past 15/16/17/18 years.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well Mr David Socrates, in the geological record, CO2 has in fact followed T, with a lag time varying from decades to centuries. So that lag time exceeds the last 15/16/17/18 years, hence we can’t draw any conclusions based on fluctuations on much shorter time scales, such as the one you refer to above. That said, recent rise in CO2 is clearly anthropogenic, which has nothing to do with the observation that on geologic time scales, CO2 follows T.

Comments are closed.