Gavin Schmidt's Magic Climate Balance

Gavin Schmidt's Magic Balance
Gavin Schmidt’s Magic Balance

Guest Essay by Eric Worrall

A new NASA study suggests that global warming is being suppressed by particulate pollution.

The Abstract of the Study;

Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings

Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ron L. Miller & Larissa S. Nazarene

Climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is a widely used metric for the large-scale response to external forcing. Climate models predict a wide range for two commonly used definitions: the transient climate response (TCR: the warming after 70 years of CO2 concentrations that rise at 1% per year), and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS: the equilibrium temperature change following a doubling of CO2 concentrations). Many observational data sets have been used to constrain these values, including temperature trends over the recent past inferences from palaeoclimate and process-based constraints from the modern satellite era. However, as the IPCC recently reported, different classes of observational constraints produce somewhat incongruent ranges. Here we show that climate sensitivity estimates derived from recent observations must account for the efficacy of each forcing active during the historical period. When we use single-forcing experiments to estimate these efficacies and calculate climate sensitivity from the observed twentieth-century warming, our estimates of both TCR and ECS are revised upwards compared to previous studies, improving the consistency with independent constraints.

Read more: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2888.html

Sadly the full study is paywalled, but I think we get the idea – the abstract is essentially arguing that global warming is being suppressed by other forcings.

From the Press Release;

The new calculations reveal their complexity, said Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author. “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”

Because earlier studies do not account for what amounts to a net cooling effect for parts of the northern hemisphere, predictions for TCR and ECS have been lower than they should be. This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide–or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change–has been underestimated, according to the study. The result dovetails with a GISS study published last year that puts the TCR value at 3.0°F (1.7° C); the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which draws its TCR estimate from earlier research, places the estimate at 1.8°F (1.0°C).

“If you’ve got a systematic underestimate of what the greenhouse gas-driven change would be, then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.

Read more: (e) Science News

The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings. If you start with zero or near zero warming, you can crank up the other forcings to anything you want, as long as everything sums to zero, as long as everything cancels out. The problem is that an observed random balance between powerful forcings is implausible. The stronger you make the forcings, the more improbable it is, that the terms will exactly balance. Why should CO2 exactly balance pollution? Why shouldn’t one term be much stronger than the other? Out of the near infinity of possible sums, suggesting an extended period of perfect balance is due to blind luck stretches credibility.

To me this is the climate equivalent of the Cosmic Anthropic Principle. The Anthropic Principle suggests that the universe is well adjusted for life, because if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to observe it. But as a scientific theory the anthropic principle is pretty nearly useless, because it shuts down further questions. Accepting life friendly cosmic constants as simply being due to a lucky throw of the dice, rejects the possibility that there is more to discover.

A much simpler theory as to why our climate is so balanced, despite the release of allegedly dangerous amounts of anthropogenic CO2, is that either the various forcings are actually quite small, in which case any imbalances will be barely noticeable, or that an as yet unacknowledged dynamic mechanism, such as Willis’ emergent tropical heat pump, is compensating for any imbalance we are causing, and keeping the climate stable.

The choice then is either to believe that our current climate stability is an improbable streak of good luck, or to search for evidence of an emergent dynamic mechanism which is suppressing radical change. NASA seems to want us to blindly embrace the theory that we’ve simply been very lucky, which is a shame, because there is a lot of evidence that the Earth’s climate contains powerful dynamic compensation mechanisms, which can easily adjust to counter any imbalance we are likely to cause.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
377 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 5:48 pm

AGW is:

A MAGICAL HEATERISTICAL HOTTERISM

Abe
Hear, hear.
Why dignify Mr. Schmidt’s junk with anything more?

ferdberple
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 6:08 am

So now we are hearing from Gavin that air pollution has not been modelled accurately. Yet at the same time we are hearing that the “science is settled”, that “97% agree”.
Well which one is it? Because if Gavin is right then it means that the science is not settled, and that 97% have agreed to an ERROR.
That’s right, Gavin in his round about fashion, has demonstrated that the models are not correct, and thus the 97% of the Climate Scientist that agreed with the previous findings are mistaken.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 22, 2015 8:19 am

Yes. In ar4 they said after the forcings were adjusted they had nearly perfectly modeled the natural variability allowing them to conclude that nothing could have caused the warming except co2 from 1979-2000.
[Unfortunately] we went into a haitus which demonstrably proved they did not account for natural variability.
Otherwise they would 1) have told us there would be a pause or 2) at a minimum they could explain why there was a pause and where the heat went. Instead they were baffled. This means the forcing for pollution which they assumed was high to get the cooling from 1945-1975 had to be lowered dramatically if it was not the cause of the cooling.
Now we’re being told that the forcing for pollution is high but then the numbers for 1945-1975 will come out wrong because now they know pdo/amo was responsible. So your point is exactly right. They can’t have it both ways. Whatever they change it affects all the other attributions and there miracle of predicting natural variability is wrong. Since that is wrong that means there is no possible way any prediction of the future can be valid since all the forcings are being juggled. You can see my take on all this at my blog logiclogiclogic at WordPress.

Science or Fiction
Reply to  ferdberple
December 22, 2015 8:38 am

This quote from Gavin is my personal favorite:
“The refusal to acknowledge that the model simulations are affected by the (partially overestimated) forcing in CMIP5 as well as model responses is a telling omission.”
– Gavin Schmidt; Comment nr. 17

Science or Fiction
Reply to  ferdberple
December 22, 2015 12:10 pm

@John Mathon
In the fifth assessment report, IPCC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variability. IPCC relied on climate models (CMIP5), the hypotheses under test if you will, to exclude natural variability:
“Observed Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies relative to 1880–1919 in recent years lie well outside the range of Global Mean Surface Temperature anomalies in CMIP5 simulations with natural forcing only, but are consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 simulations including both anthropogenic and natural forcing … Observed temperature trends over the period 1951–2010, … are, at most observed locations, consistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including anthropogenic and natural forcings and inconsistent with the temperature trends in CMIP5 simulations including natural forcings only.”
(Ref.: Working Group I contribution to fifth assessment report by IPCC. TS.4.2.)
Full argument here: IPPC used circular reasoning to exclude natural variation!

bit chilly
Reply to  ferdberple
December 22, 2015 12:45 pm

well they had to come up with something when the oco-2 project did not show what they thought it would. who would have thought the source of catastrophic global warming also cooled the atmosphere as well 🙂
looks to me like we can burn as much fossil fuels as we like now, as the aerosols produced will negate any increased effect from the co2 produced ,would that be right gavin ? lmao.
when the straw clutching gets this stupid you know the writing is on the wall for cagw.

R. M. Flaherty
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 6:50 am

This huge degree of positive feedback leading to very large temperature increases I.mplies
The earths climate which has been stable for the la st 800,000 years ( vary,img no more than 1 degrees C above and below the constantly varying average and oscillating ( hot to cold and viva
Versa) every 30 years has always been governed by natural negative feedback!!!
Where is the evidence that we are about to experience positive feedback ??? Especially when
The models don’t even comprehend low level cloud cover??? From the “bad” CO2 which is only
3 per cent of the total CO2 emitted???r

December 21, 2015 5:50 pm

Good podt!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 21, 2015 6:02 pm

Yed!

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:30 pm

Does everybody have a cold ???

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:40 pm

heh — no, judt a dlippery 4th finger on the left hand.

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:44 pm

LOL

Jarryd Beck
December 21, 2015 5:54 pm

The problem I have is that they are claiming that there are previously unaccounted for factors that are making things better (less warming), but ultimately it will end up worse. How do they know that the forcings reducing the warming won’t stay in play for much longer than they suggest?

Thai Rogue
December 21, 2015 5:54 pm

Is nobody out there shaving with Occam’s razor anymore? Is science alchemy once more?

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 21, 2015 8:30 pm

I used it on the Gordian Knot which dulled the edge quite significantly.

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 22, 2015 12:50 am

No modern alchemy is largely confined to the sort of post modern science espoused by climate scientists and psychologists. You will find a LOT of sceptics in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, geology and of course engineering. The difference being that people in these fields require theories be falsifiable and understand that computer models are NOT data.

Reply to  Keith Willshaw
December 22, 2015 3:03 am

Keith Willshaw,
I agree, but I would point out that we apparently don’t have enough skeptics in those fields since many of the various associations fully support the IPCC and its anti-science scam.

Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 22, 2015 3:56 am

Certain “sciences” have become the art of making excuses (with apologies to R. Feynman).

Science or Fiction
Reply to  Johan
December 22, 2015 8:42 am

“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible»
– Karl Popper ; The logic of scientific discovery

Tom O
Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 22, 2015 5:10 am

When it comes to THIS science, as in climatology, it appears that you have found the reality of it since just as in alchemy, the purpose appears to be to turn everything into gold – in their pockets, that is.

seaice1
Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 22, 2015 5:59 am

Two possibilities – the temperature is the result of factors you know about and can explain, OR “that an as yet unacknowledged dynamic mechanism” is responsible. It is not straightforward to say Occams Razor favors the latter.

Goldrider
Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 22, 2015 6:05 am

Nope; all they’re doing is using “experimental data” to justify their belief systems. Post-modern “reality” is now what anyone wants to believe–or what the press etc. WANT people to believe.
Scientific rigor may be happening someplace, but not in the disciplines of weather or health.

Richard Petschauer
Reply to  Goldrider
December 22, 2015 8:24 am

Note their “experimental data” is from more computer models. Not real data. But they have fallen in love with these models so much that they don’t know the difference anymore.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Thai Rogue
December 22, 2015 11:52 am

Occams razor? Isn’t that the scientific heuristic that says that complex systems should be simplified down to a single variable?
/sarc

Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 5:54 pm

… it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings.

Eric Worrall
Indeed. Thus, a SEVENTH “impossible thing…”
(See Dr. Chris Essex here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/ )

RichardLH
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 4:35 am
Janice Moore
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 2:21 pm

I did, too! #(:))
Here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/20/believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/#comment-1865401
I just sort of short-handed the above comment for brevity.
Thank you for correcting the record to make it more accurate, Richard.

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 2:50 pm

I’m just a nicky picky Practicing Logician who has to get the details right 🙂

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 3:12 pm

And isn’t it surprising. Two lists, same details (I think)!

Janice Moore
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 3:41 pm

Why, Richard (smile), not surprising at all — great minds… . 😉

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 4:43 pm

I would say ‘blush’ but that will get me in to trouble. More than one place probably.

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 23, 2015 3:07 am

And another one for the nick picky debate
“Global Temperature is a 3D Temperature Field.
It is discretely sampled by both point (thermometer) and volume (satellite) instruments with varying methodologies, time windows, area coverage and data sampling lengths.
There exist multiple strategies to go from the sampled data to the actual underlying 3D Temperature Field, all of which will have error bands which are often not stated.”

James Francisco
December 21, 2015 5:55 pm

Oh no, here comes the next ice age and we are the cause — again.

Janice Moore
Reply to  James Francisco
December 21, 2015 8:01 pm

Yup. As Marque2, Menicholas, and Samurai below have also noted (re: 1970’s human-caused ice age AGAIN), here comes Leonard Nimoy (they’ll be hauling him out of the deep freeze to make another video with late model cars and stuff)….
“In 1977, the worst winter in a century struck the United States.” Leonard Nimoy.

(youtube)
************************************************
Aphan! #(:))
I enjoyed ALL of your comments, but, there are so many I am just telling you that here! Glad you showed up. Heh, re: teenage son, nice when they grow up and meet a girl they care enough about to wear cologne for (smile). And yet… (sigh)…. the smell of that sweaty, dirty, tousle-haired, head on a worn-out-from-playing-outside little boy was the best “perfume” in the world, huh?

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 3:07 am

“In 1977, the worst winter in a century struck the United States.” Leonard Nimoy.
But we are still concerned that the globe has warmed a bit since then? We want it to be forever as cold as the worst winter in a century? What is up with that?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 4:27 am

The UK was very cold too as I recall. Just in time for miner strikes and power black outs. Thank crunchie we had a coal bunker (Who in the UK recalls those these days?) and used it to good effect.

ferdberple
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 6:00 am

“In 1977, the worst winter in a century struck the United States.” Leonard Nimoy.
================
Unfortunately the current generation were not around to witness this time for themselves, so they believe the revisionist nonsense that it never happened.
The cooling that took place in the decades after WWII led to crop failures, food shortages and famines around the world. This is well documented but has largely been adjusted out of the official temperature records by people that were too young to witness it for themselves; because it conflicts with CO2 radiative theory.
The current warming is largely a recovery from the post WWII cooling. Current temperatures are not significantly different than the 1940’s dust bowl era. They are well within the error bars of the surface thermometer readings. Given that global population has tripled in the meanwhile, with significant changes in land use and instrumentation, thermometers are not nearly as reliable as history books for determining climate change.
And when one looks at history, there is nothing abnormal about today’s climate, when one considers that most of us are living in artificial climates created by millions of people and hundreds of square miles of climate and asphalt. Our climate is changing because we living in an artificial environment, removed from nature, and short of bombing everyone back to the stone age and cutting off energy supplies, this will not change regardless of the source of energy.

Nigel S
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 6:57 am

1963 was worse in UK we were allowed to wear long trousers at boarding school so that tells you how bad it was. No football for weeks because the ground was frozen, just walks in a neat ‘crocodile’ wearing our Gabardine coats.

Ian W
Reply to  James Francisco
December 22, 2015 7:47 am

See ‘Global Dimming’ which was the claimed reason for the cooling in the seventies, and the cure for that was (guess what) a tax on fossil fuels. Strange how a cure for the “most threatening issue of our age” (tm COP21) is always more taxation and control.

December 21, 2015 5:55 pm

Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,”
They just can’t hide fast enough now can they!

Janice Moore
Reply to  asybot
December 21, 2015 6:55 pm

Lol, yes. And we say: “Look to the ant ostrich, you sluggard climate clown: you are the man! ostrich!” (Proverbs 6:6 and II Samuel 12:7 (er, sort of))
They’d be better off running away…

Reply to  asybot
December 21, 2015 7:34 pm

Then we’d better keep burning those puppies!!! Wait…did they just suggest that aerosols are STRONGER than CO2? And did they just admit that all the models up to now LACKED INFORMATION that affected their results? And does Gavin have the slightest clue that this is EXACTLY why people aren’t ever going listen to scientists who declare something to be true that they haven’t actually proven to be true yet?

Reply to  Aphan
December 21, 2015 7:43 pm

Unless you are SCOTUS and decided that the UNCERTAINTY around this whole business is just too much to bare for humankind and thus you, that little agency over there, you better start regulating it.

AndyG55
Reply to  asybot
December 21, 2015 8:05 pm

Problem for them is, that while there may be more particulate matter in China, India, there is almost certainly LOT LESS in most developed countries. New coal fired power stations put out a fraction of old ones.
So cleaning up this particulate and aerosol pollution may actually be a contributing reason for the slight warming during the latter half of last century. 😉

Reply to  AndyG55
December 21, 2015 8:29 pm

Perhaps Soros funded their research.
He is nibbling at the coal markets.

papiertigre
Reply to  AndyG55
December 22, 2015 3:18 am

NOAA, and the rest of the climate clerisy, putting their self serving thumbs on the scales does not equal a slight warming during the latter half of last century.

DD More
Reply to  asybot
December 22, 2015 12:31 pm

“Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere,
Yes Kate, except when their not fossil or in the northern hemisphere. Like Peat in Indonesia.
The island arc volcanoes in and around Indonesia have been permanently degassing for thousands of years, thereby contributing significantly to the total emissions of sulfur species in that region. The hot and wet tropical weather conditions with high solar irradiation and regular daily precipitation during the wet season lead to efficient removal of oxidised sulfate by wet deposition. This is accumulated in the Indonesian peat areas, which serve as natural sponges, soaking up rain during the wet season and slowly releasing moisture into the atmosphere during the dry season. When peat forests are drained for land clearing purposes, the peat quickly dries out and becomes extremely flammable. When ignited, the composition of the burning peat mainly determines the fire aerosol chemical composition and microphysical properties. In this paper we investigate the contribution of volcanic sulfur emissions to wet deposition of sulfur in Indonesian peat swamp areas based on numerical simulations carried out with a global atmospheric circulation model including the tropospheric sulfur cycle. Our study suggests that the observed hygroscopicity and elevated sulfur content of the Indonesian peat fire aerosols is due to accumulated volcanic sulfur.
https://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_342.pdf
Table 1: Mean fine aerosol (PM2.5) composition in ng/m3 at Palembang and Sriwijaya, Sumatra (November 1997) and in midlatitude industrialized cities (Teplice, Czech Republic, in 1993, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA in 1994). The data is taken from Pinto and Grant, 1999
Palembang .. Sriwijaya .. Teplice.. Philadelphia
11,000…..6,900…….10,000…….3,300….. Sulfur
4,500…….4,600……….410………..26….. Chlorine
1,400…….1,500……….300………..60….. Potassium
Just slightly higher levels Philly

Janice Moore
Reply to  DD More
December 22, 2015 7:24 pm

+1!
Great evidence UTTERLY destroying that already laughably weak paper.

Marcus
December 21, 2015 5:57 pm

Liberal Fairy Dust ? I knew they had a secret weapon !!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 6:00 pm

And liberally applied.

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:02 pm

I was wondering what that smell was !!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:06 pm

Marcus!!! When a lady wears perfume not to your liking, perhaps, you could just SAY NOTHING. Huh? Oh. It wasn’t me you caught scent of… . Never mind. lololololol

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:07 pm

“wasn’t I” — OKAY, BRIAN AAAAYYYYYCH?

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:27 pm

. .ROTFLMAO…..stop….it hurts…….

Another Ian
Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 6:12 pm

Janice Moore
Or, as the old aboriginal finding his way around English replied on being given a smell of the lady of the house’s new perfume
“Stinks plurry lovely missus”

Janice Moore
Reply to  Another Ian
December 21, 2015 6:19 pm

lol

Reply to  Another Ian
December 21, 2015 7:35 pm

When my teen son goes “out” and I catch a whiff of his cologne, I always say “You stink nice!” It’s a family joke.

Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 5:59 pm

…we use single-forcing experiments … .

Mr. Schmidt
Experiments??!

Jason Calley
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:13 pm

Sure! You know…experiments! You just make up a formula, estimate some functions and then punch some numbers into the calculator. You know… Experiments! 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Jason Calley
December 21, 2015 6:18 pm

OoooOOOOOoooooh. THOSE kind of experiments. Thanks, Mr. Calley! 🙂

TonyL
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:40 pm

No, silly. This is how it is done.
{Scene: The Chemistry Lab}
Class, Pay attention!
This week we will conduct an experiment Climate Construction. All of you have the test planet you made in last weeks experiment, “Solar System Fabrication”? Good.
Oh, Yes, Gavin. I know you overdid your gravitational constant and your central sun collapsed into a black hole, and then dragged your whole solar system into itself. Do be more careful about that.
{class giggles}
Anyway, Gavin, sit tight and one of the teaching assistants will get you fixed up after the lab lecture.
Now class, for the first phase, you will need ….

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
December 21, 2015 6:44 pm

… 1. Duct tape
2. A caulking gun and caulk.
3. 2 marbles, a BB, a basketball, and an innertube.
4. String.
5. …. (okay — next!)
#(:))

Bulldust
Reply to  TonyL
December 21, 2015 7:23 pm

5. Profit!!!

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
December 21, 2015 7:26 pm

Outstanding, Janice!
Now, no exposition of Science would be complete without an official Theme Song. I can think of none better than the one by Thomas Dolby.

It came out during my last year teaching Chem Lab. The students instantly adopted it as the official lab music video. Seems they saw a resemblance to their own lab experiences, and the personalities involved.

Reply to  TonyL
December 21, 2015 7:46 pm

Tony the Teacher
Very nice. They are (were) lucky to have you.
Hope you tickled a few brains.

James Bull
Reply to  TonyL
December 22, 2015 12:52 am

This brought back memories of a Chemistry lesson at school when they were allowed to actually do stuff in class, we were heating different chemicals and noting the reactions. One of the chemicals had a fairly violent reaction so the teacher did this one in front of the class. He was gently heating the test tube over a Bunsen burner when ……NOTHING happened not a thing, so he moved onto the next which would not react to heat so he said…..OH what a bang and spots of chemical on the ceiling and the class saying we missed that sir can you show us again!
Happy days.
Janice you missed out the engineers other tool from your list WD40 the rule is
If it moves and shouldn’t Duck tape, if it doesn’t move and should WD40.
James Bull

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
December 22, 2015 8:30 am

Dear James Bull,
Just so you know (smile), WD-40 was going to be my second item, but I was thinking of making a model solar system (sort of) and it didn’t seem to fit in.
I LOVE WD-40! Squeeky door hinge? WD-40! Adhesive on your fingers? WD-40! And…. one night my freshman year, when I was distressed by my fast-moving, Indian-accented, professor’s Calculus class…. I spent a good part of my dreaming working out a math problem in my head …. and the answer? WD-40! Really! I woke up and for moment felt so happy about that — then…. oh, brother! lol
Thanks for bringing up WD-40 — great stuff!
And thanks for sharing the chemistry class anecdote — if it hadn’t been for Chemistry, school would have been pretty dull, lol.
And GO, ENGINEERS! 🙂
Janice

JimmieB
Reply to  TonyL
December 22, 2015 9:26 am

I fell out of my chair laughing at that one Tony!

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:37 pm

“Single forcing experiments”? Isn’t that how they came up with the idea that ONE SINGLE THING-Co2, controls Earth’s atmosphere? Did they replace that one single thing with a new single thing?

Latitude
Reply to  Aphan
December 21, 2015 7:48 pm

they ignored the humidity thing….cause it didn’t happen

Reply to  Aphan
December 21, 2015 7:58 pm

lots of single things in the toolbox
its creative science.
tools in the toolbox.
its like the federal reserve only with climate theory
CO2 quantitative easing is just around the corner

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Aphan
December 21, 2015 8:38 pm

Don’t forget to take the derivatives.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:42 pm

TonyL (at 7:26pm this evening):
1. I stopped at 1:06 — (AHEM!) 🙂
2. You deserve an AWARD FOR BRAVERY (and for patience, too) for teaching Chem Lab. And you still have your sense of humor! And you are not shaking so uncontrollably you cannot type!! When I think of what my chemistry teacher/lab assistants went through…. “Uh…. Mister Boyer?…… Mister Boyer??….. MIIIISSSTEERRR BOYERRRRR!!! The heating is stopping and the cold water is heading back up the tubing toward the sulfuric acid!!!! (or whatever was happening that day — student (private project) apple peelings distillery was on the verge of a nasty explosion one time… ). Seriously, I admire you very much. Both for your knowledge (my freshman year of college, I took one quarter of inorganic and one quarter of organic chem. and decided that medical school was not for me — science is HARD, TEDIOUS, WORK! (when you do it right, heh — unlike SOME Schmidts we know)).

TonyL
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 8:23 pm

You are too kind.
I did love teaching, and I like to think that the work I did with the students is one of my lifetime achievements.
I might have been called many things, but “nerd” was not one of them, or at least not by anyone who knew me. I was always amused by the general campus population running down the Chem majors as geeks and nerds. Eng majors of all varieties were disparaged as grunts and grinds. Students of both majors too stupid to take easy courses which allowed for maximum party time, apparently.
The truth is, of course, that the chem lab is far and away the most dangerous place on campus. Getting killed was an actual possibility. Things we thought nothing of playing with, would give your campus Tough Guy a real “pee-your-pants” moment.
Memories.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 8:57 pm

Back in the 60s my college roommate was a stock boy for the Chem labs. One day he wondered what those chunks of metal were doing in a jar of kerosene. He used a metal tong to pull out a small chunk, which then slipped from the grasp of the tong and fell to the rubber mat on the floor which had a small puddle of water from washing glassware. Instant flames and copious amounts of smoke came forth from Na meets H2O on a rubber mat.
Everyone had to evacuate the building as the fire department was called. Fortunately the lab was on the bottom floor of the building with cement under the tile under the rubber mat; and yes, he was ‘fired’ from his job as chem stock boy.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 9:08 pm

Tony L,
Teaching is the noblest achievement anyone can accomplish. Your impact is exponential. You not only taught important (as in really makes a difference in the world — like engineering knowledge) knowledge, you — changed — lives (oh, sure, not in EVERY student’s case, but there were many …. and they could tell you, if they only took the time).
And you are still teaching and bringing your wit to bear — here.
Gratefully,
Your student (as I am of so MANY here at WUWT),
Janice
P.S. lol, when I first read your comment, I thought “Eng” meant “English.” (raised eyebrows) “Huh? English majors… huh. Yeah, they worked hard, but, I just don’t remember them being noted for it… .” lolol………………………………. “Ooooh!” Yes, indeed. Engineering/Science majors were the brightest in school. We all have gifts, and there were bright kids in every discipline, but, the odds were that those majors were chosen by the best. Today, geeky dressing, etc… isn’t the issue it was (and isn’t that great? — a way the “youth of today” are better than my “generation”). And, yeah, most of the engineering/science majors were not geeky dressers. Just very serious as a rule. There were a higher percentage, though… of who-cares-if-my-socks-match dressers — just that, that there were more as a % must have created the stereotype (that and envy).

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 9:14 pm

Oh, (lololololololololo), can’t — stop — laughing lololooolololol, noaaprogrammer!!! LOL –BIG GUFFAW!!
He — had — a — blast!
(and Tony L DOES deserve a medal for bravery)
***************
Boy, I am just so thankful to Gavin S. for doing such a hocus-pocus clown act — I haven’t had the opportunity for this much fun….. hm. SINCE THE LAST CLIMATE CLOWN OF THE WEEK!! lolol

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 2:25 pm

All right, before they called people geeks, I was a nerd; sort of. Nerd implies someone who studies, I was never strong at rote study.
For TonyL:
Our organic chem lab Doctoral assistant whose fate it was to watch over us, got called away for a few minutes. Before Bernie left, he admonished us, loudly, not to do anything stupid; like start a fire. Bernie had a real fear of fires in the lab.
Our task that day was to boil out a precipitate, drain off the solution and then wash the precipitate with ether, dried under the hood and saved for next week’s fun. Boiling was accomplished over the traditional Bunsen burner.
Those of us with a more mis-spent youth knew that ether is amazingly flammable and like other fuels, e.g. gasoline, a drifting arm of ether vapor ignites rather dramatically when it reaches a flame.
Washing the precipitate was a simple slosh the mixture around and frequently release excess pressure via a vent. Ideally, the ether vapor is released towards or under a hood.
The young lady across the bench from me, running late, was trying to wash her precipitate at the bench. Her Bunsen burner, no longer needed, was lit. Her pressure vent releases ended up aimed at the burner and a magnificent eruption of flame blossomed.
Remembering my Father’s stories about emergencies in the lab requiring urgent action. I took off running; as I passed my lab partner he also started running. When we turned the end of the lab bench, the girl and her lab partner were there. Her partner saw us start running and urged the frightened girl to also move.
Fortunately the young lady had not dropped nor turned her vessel of ether upside down, (think flame thrower). I took the vessel from her and carefully put it into the sink with the vent turned off. After the flame stopped we continued washing her precipitate and vent releases from the sink until the vessel fully cooled down. Her partner went and turned off the burner and she returned to her bench space.
Bernie, the lab teacher returned and our lab continued. I waited until we were leaving the class for our next assignments before I mentioned to Bernie that he missed quite a show with the ether fire.
Bernie scoffed, until a couple of other waiting students verified the fire. We refused to tell Bernie who caused the fire and we pointed out that there were no burns or damage. We didn’t even flood the lab with the deluge wash station!
Bernie knocked my grades down a letter for the rest of the term. Though he did give me a nice compliment at the end of term.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 8:12 pm

Gavin: “All right forcing, we are giving one chance and one chance only.” “Do the forcing the way we insist or we’ll demote you to a secondary forcing.”
forcing: “I can’t!” “Seriously, you don’t expect me, a minor particle only temporarily aloft, to truly offset carbon dioxide!”
forcing: “especially not with all the mighty godlike powers you attribute to a few molecules of CO2!”

Janice Moore
Reply to  ATheoK
December 21, 2015 8:18 pm

lol

Adrian O
December 21, 2015 6:00 pm

The absolutely amazing thing about the miraculous particulates which come to the rescue of climatology when it gets all stuck,
is that in this day and age when you can detect even a few molecules of something,
far away from cities nobody could measure any….

Simon Hopkinson
December 21, 2015 6:02 pm

Gavin wants us to believe we are on mountain ridge, fixing to fall off with one errant step, while we prefer to believe we are in a sheltered valley bottom. I personally think we’re in a valley bottom, but one which might well suffer flash floods. The universe truly doesn’t give a flying fart whether we live or die. It hasn’t noticed we’re here and wouldn’t notice if we were wiped out tomorrow.

Marcus
Reply to  Simon Hopkinson
December 21, 2015 6:03 pm

+ 1.25

December 21, 2015 6:07 pm

Redux of 1990’s Hansenian meme is this new paper by Marvel/ Schmidt/ Miller/ Nazarene
Redux all over again.
John

Reply to  John Whitman
December 21, 2015 7:38 pm

Is that Redux.2 or Redux Squared?

Reply to  Aphan
December 21, 2015 10:39 pm

Apha,
Good terms.
Or recursive redux to th ‘n’th.
Where ‘n’ is determined by, just one of many factors, alarmist desperation.
John

Reply to  Aphan
December 21, 2015 10:43 pm

Aphan,
Oops, sorry I misspelt your screen name.
John

December 21, 2015 6:09 pm

“.. is that either the various forcings are actually quite small,…” I vote for this one. 2 W/m^2 cumulative between 1750 and 2011 compared to 340 W/m^2 every day. Plus clouds evap/cond eats 2 W for lunch.
IPCC contains the seeds of its own destruction.
If you work the numbers on IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 you will discover that anthro C is partitioned 57/43 between natural sequestration and atmospheric retention. (555 – 240 = 315 PgC & 240/555) IMO this arbitrary partition was “assumed” in order to “prove” (i.e. make the numbers work) that anthro C was solely/90% responsible for the 112 ppmv atmos CO2 increase between 1750 – 2011. C is not CO2.
PgC * 3.67 = PgCO2 * 0.1291 = ppmv atmospheric CO2
IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1
………………………………PgC/y……ppmv/y
FF & Land Use Source…….8.9……….4.22
Ocean & Land Sink…………4.9……… 2.32
Net Source.……………….…..4.0……….1.90
If the anthro 8.9 Pg C/y (4.2 ppmv CO2/y) suddenly vanishes the natural cycle that remains would be a constant sink of 2.3 ppmv CO2/y. Reverse extrapolation (GCMs & RCPs apply forward extrapolation) calculates that 121 years in the past (278 ppmv CO2/2.3 ppmv CO2) or the year 1629 (1750-121) atmos CO2 would have been 0, zero, nadda, zip, nowhere to be found.
Oh, what a tangled web they wove!
The 8.9 Pg of anthro C simply vanishes in earth’s 45,000 plus Pg C cauldron of stores and fluxes. Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.
Yeah, it’s a repeat. So refute my speculation & I’ll revise.
Still getting the “red web site unsafe” alarm banner and only on WUWT.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 21, 2015 6:12 pm

Re: red alarm banner — me, too (for about one week — see Josh 2016 calendar thread for others — DonM, Paul, zemlik, and ??). “static.reelfeed.tv” is always on the banner, too and something about “reported to Microsoft” and the shield symbol of McAfee-the-marketing-bully (uses pseudo-scare tactics with me all the time to try to get me to sign up — I HAVE malware protection, McA).

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:18 pm

Dear Janice, use Adblock Plus…it’s free at Cnet and you will have no more advertising…Also check your add ons for unscrupulously sneaky plug ins and extensions….

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:21 pm

Thanks, Marcus. I appreciate your advice. I’ll keep it in mind. Still wondering, though… .

Gamecock
Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
December 22, 2015 4:18 am

‘Mankind’s egoistic, egocentric, conceit means less than nothing to the earth, the solar system and the universe.’
Much of environmentalism is the deification of Man.

bit chilly
Reply to  Gamecock
December 22, 2015 1:11 pm

or the defecation of man depending which way you look at it.

Ian
December 21, 2015 6:09 pm

“If you can’t explain the pause, you can’t explain the cause.” -Hockey Schtick
Let’s see. At last count, they had more than 63 explanations.
Each is uncertain. It follows that there can be more than 63 causes.
And the public is being fleeced to address how many?

Marcus
Reply to  Ian
December 21, 2015 6:19 pm

Does that mean it’s settled 63 times ????

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 9:06 pm

They get 97 tries.

Reply to  Ian
December 21, 2015 7:39 pm

Johnny Cochran? Is that you?

TonyL
December 21, 2015 6:11 pm

The problem is that an observed random balance between powerful forcings is implausible.

Exactly correct.
The problem is that it is not useful. There are two big problems extant for ClimateScience! today. The first is that the models are running way to hot, even without the Pause. The second is the Pause itself. These problems must really come to the fore, post COP21. Something useful is needed.
The Cavalry rides to the rescue:
China has been developing rapidly over the last two decades, and getting a huge amount of publicity for enormous pollution problems. It is only a matter of time before Chinese particulates are invoked to explain away the pause. Done carefully, an increased particulate loading in the model allows for a larger ECS. All this is a natural for these people, as this is how the models are tuned to hindcast (or train) the models in the first place.
Now what happens if the new particulate/ECS values explain the pause and the recent past, but hindcast poorly for the more distant past. Can we then expect more rounds of corrections and adjustments to the historical temperature record? What if the answer is to remove some of the past corrections in the earlier part of the record?
It was all just a matter of time.
I need a new scorecard. Those players explaining, and even using the Pause, we put on Team Schmidt. Those players erasing the pause, we put on Team Karl.
Then we can keep score.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
December 21, 2015 6:15 pm

Pretty simple (from the simpletons with an agenda) gameplan, really: “If you can’t {prove your case}, baffle ’em with bull.”

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:40 pm

Razzle Dazzle Em from the musical Chicago came immediately to mind.

Joe Civis
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 12:24 pm

thanks for the memory trigger Janice. my father’s voice ringing in my mind: “son if you can’t blind them with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit!”
seems all the CAGW alarm team has is the BS option.
Cheers,
Joe

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 2:30 pm

Good old dad… . Thanks for sharing, Joe. Merry Christmas to you!

marque2
December 21, 2015 6:14 pm

This is what I learned in science in 5th grade in 1978. All the particles and soot from coal plants and diesel engines/plants were causing the earth to cool, and it would continue cooling forever until it got too cold to grow food and we would all die, unless we got rid of the evil fossil fuels.
Sometime in the early 80’s it was the evil fossil fuels going to burn us to death. Now they are back to the fossil fuels freezing us again.
I get the feeling that greens have some bizarre hatred of fossil fuels. I kind of understand in the 1970’s because the engines spewed a lot of garbage, sulfates, nitrates, lead, into the environment, but today, gasoline, and even diesel is almost perfectly clean, and all the coal plants, in the first world anyway, have scrubbers, and release nothing but steam. So what we really need to do, is figure out this bizarre irrational hatred, re-educate the folks and all will be well again.

Jason Calley
Reply to  marque2
December 21, 2015 6:20 pm

In the past, the longest lasting empires were based on control of water. In a technological society control of energy would serve the same function. Justify controling energy and you justify controling everything. The CAGW enthusiasts are just the useful idiots helping to justify control.

Marcus
Reply to  marque2
December 21, 2015 6:22 pm

It is actually Humans that they hate…..except for themselves of course !!!

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  marque2
December 22, 2015 12:57 am

Greens have a hatred of all technology EXCEPT that which they as self appointed Guardians of the Earth (as if a ball of rock cared) will reluctantly force themselves to use. Their ideal society is a new feudalism where some Green Seneschal in his centrally heated electric tower rules over the people shivering in mud huts below where they dutifully worship at the altar of sustainability so that he may use his SUV and Learjet to Save the Planet.

Reply to  marque2
December 22, 2015 4:38 am

To them, it’s all about the “renewables”, those magical perpetual energy machines that will save the planet from the evils of fossil fuels. They’re delusional.

December 21, 2015 6:21 pm

The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings. If you start with zero or near zero warming, you can crank up the other forcings to anything you want, as long as everything sums to zero, as long as everything cancels out.

Dear Flock
I don’t understand why you don’t just accept the fact that I know more than I think I know. Follow my vision because greenliness is next to godliness. Millions of scientists around the world are waiting on my intuitive sense of where the global population needs to venture. I have heuristic knowledge in such matters and don’t expect you to keep up, but you have a loving heart and will follow my good intentions.
I let loose a dove in the plaza and he came back dirty, dusty, full of the devil’s grime and I had a vision. I immediately called NASA and let the researchers know what I had discovered. Please temporarily suspend your skeptical manner and rejoice with me for the greater good of man.
I promise that it will all make sense when proper tithing is conducted.
You Humble Pope

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  knutesea
December 21, 2015 9:32 pm

Was the dove covered in white smoke or black smoke?

ferdberple
Reply to  knutesea
December 22, 2015 6:24 am

Yes, because the Pope believes it is his God given right to determine good and evil on earth. Yet Jesus taught that it is God in one’s heart that separates Good from Evil, and no Pope is required or desired as an intermediary between God and Man.
Since that time, Organized Religion has sought to establish itself between God and Man, to control Man’s access to God, with the Priest hierarchy as the intermediary. The resultant monetary profit to the Church has made the Catholic Church one of the richest organizations on earth.
As has been noted, the Church came to do good, and it did very well indeed. Organized Crime has largely copied the Church’s very successful model. Give us money every week, or your soul will burn in hell. Give us money each week, or your business will burn to the ground.

Justin
December 21, 2015 6:23 pm

So, this is a regional effect and thus should be discarded, kind of like the Medieval Warming Period?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Justin
December 21, 2015 6:36 pm

A. It is a ZERO effect (so far, no evidence at all — not one quantitative measurement proving Mr. Schmidt’s conjecture re: aerosol forcing).
B. The Medieval Warming Period was world wide (Oh, for Pete’s sake, you sure are a one-note-Willy, Justin — over and over and over…):
Here is Justin’s homework (which he refuses to do) for those who genuinely want to learn:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/#comment-1462683
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/23/the-medieval-warm-period-in-the-arctic/

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:46 pm

You are so organized.
Your house must be covered in yellow sticky notes.
Thanks Mame

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 6:59 pm

Knutesea…..probably the dog’s house too !!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:06 pm

You’re welcome. And, no. I do have a dry erase board and a note pad, though (ran out of post-its, lol).
“Mame” — oh, Knute, I think that was Freudian!
I AM a lot like she (in some ways, I mean…).
“Auntie Mame” (trailer)

(youtube)
#(:))
*************************
Mr. Schmidt’s article is, as you can see, getting all the serious attention it deserves.
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaa!

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:35 pm

The original Auntie Mame if you follow that sort of thing …..
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/31/nyregion/marion-tanner-known-as-model-for-mame.html

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:08 pm

Marcus: The dogs do not have a “house.” They are my babies and live inside with me (they do sleep on the floor, however… 2 German Shepherds are TOO much!).
🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 9:28 pm

Oh, Knute. That was touching. What a BUM of a nephew, too — here he made a pile of dough off her “story,” then, lets her get re-possessed… . She deserved a different nephew! What a fine lady. Now that I have read Marion Tanner’s story, I can confirm that I am a lot like her (in some ways), but, even more, that I can say that I wish very much that I were more like her (in many ways — not the vegetarian thing, though — I love meat (if it is raised in humane conditions and killed humanely)).
Thanks for sharing that.

Justin
Reply to  Justin
December 21, 2015 6:40 pm

My apologies, Janice, I was being sarcastic!
However, thank you kindly for the links! I will check them out.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Justin
December 21, 2015 6:46 pm

Well, … hm. Now, I am not sure. Perhaps…. I mistook you for “Jason?” (a troll) If so, I beg YOUR pardon!

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Justin
December 22, 2015 5:44 am

I suppose the existence of mature forests only 1000 years ago which lasted for hundreds of years where there are now receding glaciers in Alaska and the Alps – can be discarded as “brief and regional”. Kind of like Arctic sea ice…

ferdberple
Reply to  Justin
December 22, 2015 6:29 am

So, this is a regional effect
===================
When you warm up one region, the global average temperature also goes up. A grade 2 math concept that Climate Science is still struggling with:
(1+1+1)/3 = 1
(1+1+2)/3 = 1.3 therefore regional warming causes global warming.

pat
December 21, 2015 6:31 pm

I read it here and understood nothing!
21 Dec: UK Express: Jon Austin: Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA
BURNING fossil fuels and cutting down trees causes global COOLING, a shock new NASA study has found.
A NASA spokesman said: “To quantify climate change, researchers need to know the Transient Climate Response (TCR) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of Earth…
The spokesman said it was “well known” that aerosols such as those emitted in volcanic eruptions and power stations, act to cool Earth, at least temporarily, by reflecting solar radiation away from the planet…
Kate Marvel, a climatologist at GISS and the paper’s lead author, said the results showed the “complexity” of estimating future global temperatures.
She said: “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling…
Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York and a co-author on the study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, said: “The assumptions made to account for these drivers are too simplistic and result in incorrect estimates of TCR and ECS…
“This means that Earth’s climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide—or atmospheric carbon dioxide’s capacity to affect temperature change—has been underestimated, according to the study.”…READ ON
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/628524/Climate-change-shock-Burning-fossil-fuels-COOLs-planet-says-NASA

December 21, 2015 6:41 pm

“The issue I have with this kind of theory is that it postulates an improbably exact balance between all the different forcings.”
Where? It doesn’t postulate any exact balance at all. You’re just trying to fit it into your narrative of a supposed period of time in which the temperature of the troposphere didn’t rise. There is no indication that he’s talking about that at all.
But there’s no exact balance in your narrative of a pause somewhere up there either. Here is a plot of back trends for UAH V6, RSS and GISS and HADCRUT. It is a plot of trends starting at the x-axis date and finishing now. The red circle marks the trumpeted RSS pause date. But it is just a zero trend from that particular date. Start at most times and it’s a positive trend. In some years it is negative. But there is no exact balance. Just a varying curve which occasionally crosses the x-axis.
http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/pause.png
Gavin’s point is inontrovertible. Observed trend is due to the sum of all foircings. If you want sensitivity to CO2, you have to eliminate the effect of non-CO2 forcing.

Marcus
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 7:02 pm

LOL, I think the balancing act went over your head !!!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 7:16 pm

Nick Stokes:

… the sum of all forcings … .

Aaaaand when you have finished genuinely calculating that (using data and real physics equations (some of which have not yet been solved, but you’ll figure them all out…), Mr. Stokes, come back and tell us about it. Dr. Chris Essex will throw you a party (I have no doubt that he really would!).
Hahahahahah — (iow — we will never hear from him again…. he will still be calculating and doing “experiments” when God whispers in his ear, “Time’s up.”)

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:39 pm

People claim that they can calculate CO2 sensitivity from the trend of surface temperature (and CO2). Gavin (and Dr Marvel) are simply pointing out that to do that, you have to separate the actual effect of CO2 from others. Not a hard concept. If it’s a hard calc, well, it’s what they have to do. Some people can do math.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 8:15 pm

Nick Stokes,
We need math, sure. But it is not conclusive, because it can be manipulated by clever folks.
What we need are empirical, testable, verifiable measurements quantifying AGW: what fraction of global warming is attributable to human CO2 emissions?
No winging it, Nick: either post verifiable, replicable measurements that are acceptable across the board by scientists on all sides of the debate, or all you’re doing is asserting that most global warming is due to human CO2 emissions.
Take out all the assertions, and what have you got left? Without measurements, you’ve got nothin’. Well, I suppose you have your opinion, for what that’s worth.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 9:11 pm

Eric,
“Nick, have a look at Willis’ work on emergent behaviour,”
There’s no logic here. I ask where is Gavin’s “magic climate balance”? So I get pointed to Willis’ magic climate balance.

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 12:30 am

Nick writes

“Not a hard concept. If it’s a hard calc”

You know better than that Nick, even if the calc were correct, its invalid because all climatic factors influence on another and hence the climate’s evolution.
You may as well simply say 3.7W forcing and do an energy accumulation based on that if you think you can separate out the effects. And that would be wrong.

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 1:08 am

TTTM,
“You may as well simply say 3.7W forcing and do an energy accumulation based on that if you think you can separate out the effects. And that would be wrong.”
Again, you’re just getting the logic of this backward. I’m sure that Gavin would prefer using GCMs for CO2 sensitivity to using temperature time series and heat budgets. That’s the province of papers like Lewis and Curry. People here seem to like it when they do it. And they separate out forcings – but just some.
What Gavin and colleagues are saying is if you want to use that approach, you have to allow for all the forcings. And if you allow for aerosols, the result is more in line with other methods.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 3:45 am

If CO2 causes warming, then we have an renewable energy source – no ?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 4:22 am

“Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 at 7:39 pm
People claim that they can calculate CO2 sensitivity from the trend of surface temperature (and CO2).”
People can calculate anything, it means nothing. Climate scientists claim they can measure, and have done since 1880, a global average temperature (Piffle), after all, the science is settled aye Nick? Can a temperature sensitivity to CO2 concentration actually be measured, globally? Actual evidence suggests not! But I am not on a climate scientist’s payroll.

ferdberple
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 6:54 am

Not a hard concept.
==============
wrong. It is an extremely hard concept, because no one can accurately model natural climate change. To this date no one knows what causes the routine 1-2 thousand year warming cooling cycle that dominates the Holocene. No one even knows where we are in the current cycle, so they can’t tell you if you should be adding or subtracting,

TimTheToolMan
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 5:37 pm

Nick writes

What Gavin and colleagues are saying is if you want to use that approach, you have to allow for all the forcings.

But we dont know what those forcings are, except in the context of the feedbacks. So you cant extract them in any meaningful way. The assumptions involved make the calculation meaningless.
Just because some people think they can estimate TCS from the temperature data doesn’t mean Gavin needs to try too using a method that must give a more alarming value (ie it’d be damned hot if it weren’t for all the cooling)

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 23, 2015 6:21 am

“Not a hard concept. If it’s a hard calc, well, it’s what they have to do.”
But…I thought that the science on this was settled. Here you are saying that there’s more important work to be done before it’s right.
If it’s wrong and settled, where does that put the consensus?

Reply to  David Perron
December 23, 2015 10:43 am

+1
nice gymnastics

Ben Palmer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 7:33 pm

“you have to eliminate the effect of non-CO2 forcing.” So you need to know the sensitivity of non-CO2 forcings. Do we know it, have we measured it?

Reply to  Ben Palmer
December 21, 2015 7:46 pm

You don’t actually need the sensitivities. But you need to estimate the effects due to other forcing. It’s really simple. If you know the rise in CO2, and the warming it caused, you can estimate sensitivity. People have tried that. But you can’t just use the warming that everything caused. You have to try to estimate other warming or cooling effects and subtract them. If you can’t do that, then you can’t get CO2 sensitivity that way.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ben Palmer
December 22, 2015 4:15 am

You do need to show them. Otherwise the theory you support is…well…rubbish!

ferdberple
Reply to  Ben Palmer
December 22, 2015 6:58 am

You don’t actually need the sensitivities. But you need to estimate the effects due to other forcing. It’s really simple.
===================
Wrong. If you are estimating the other forcings, then you might as well simply estimate the CO2 forcing directly. What you are proposing is
observed – estimate – estimate – estimate – estimate = actual CO2
You are fooling yourself into believing the estimates on the left make the calculation on the right more accurate.

ferdberple
Reply to  Ben Palmer
December 22, 2015 7:13 am

what Nick has ignored is that the actual calculation is:
observed – estimate – UNKNOWN – ERROR = actual CO2
While some estimate of error can be made, the estimate for unknown is unknown. historically scientists at the start of their careers judge it to be small, and they will be the one to nail it. as they progress in their careers their estimate of unknown grows in size until they realize they will never nail it down. then they retire.

Reply to  Ben Palmer
December 22, 2015 12:08 pm

” What you are proposing is
observed – estimate – estimate – estimate – estimate = actual CO2
You are fooling yourself into believing the estimates on the left make the calculation on the right more accurate.”

I’m not proposing it. It’s what people like Lewis and Curry do. I’m sure Gavin thinks better of just estimating the CO2 effect directly with GCM. All he’s saying is that if your going to do it, you need all the estimates, and including aerosols makes it better.

AndyG55
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 8:10 pm

Nick, please list ALL those forcings.. in order from largest to smallest..
OR STOP JABBERING !!!

bit chilly
Reply to  AndyG55
December 22, 2015 1:19 pm

+1

Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 21, 2015 8:22 pm

Nick: “… If you want sensitivity to CO2, you have to eliminate the effect of non-CO2 forcing.”
Oh!? You mean all of the forcing caused by the notorious elephant in the atmosphere, H2O? Was H2O actually accounted for first?

Reply to  ATheoK
December 21, 2015 11:16 pm

People here just don’t seem to grapple with the logic of this. Gavin et al aren’t recommending using trend of measured temp vs CO2 as a way of determining sensitivity. It’s folk like Nic Lewis who do that. All he’s saying is that if you do want to do that, you have to deduct the effect of other forcings, as best you can. If you can’t, you won’t get a good estimate of CO2 response. And, they, if you do, you’ll get answers consistent with other methods.
And yes, if water were a forcing, it should be deducted. But it isn’t. We’ve been through that endlessly. Forcings are an external influence. Nothing external is forcing wv. It responds to temperature and so is a feedback.

FTOP_T
Reply to  ATheoK
December 22, 2015 5:54 am

That is more than the elephant in the room. It is the invalidation of the entire trillion dollar boondoggle.
Theory: GHGs make the surface 33C warmer
Fact: Surface is 70% water
Fact: water is the primary GHG
Fact: water enters the atmosphere by evaporation, cooling the water left behind
Question: how does this powerful GHG lose energy by evaporation and then rewarm the water it left behind by 33C?
As hockey stick and others have noted, it is atmospheric density that determines surface temp. GHGs have little to no effect on surface temp.

Hugs
Reply to  ATheoK
December 22, 2015 11:32 am

Gavin et al aren’t recommending using trend of measured temp vs CO2 as a way of determining sensitivity.

I see. I have a name for Gavin’s approach, it is called ‘the God of the gaps’. I think it is improvement over Mannian ‘settled science’. Now I don’t take a strong position on this, but I do appreciate you explained Schmidt’s position.
Aerosols are there, but claiming they hide real and bigger warming trend is using the God of a gap.

Reply to  ATheoK
December 22, 2015 2:44 pm

Nick: “…you have to deduct the effect of other forcings, as best you can. If you can’t, you won’t get a good estimate of CO2 response…”
Seriously Nick, a true science approach is not to keep guessing at forcing effects, but to develop a structured double blind series of repeatable experiments that test and explicitly verify and quantify forcings. Not just a forcing for one portion of a condition, but for all possible variations of those conditions.
The article above that has Gavin involved is just the latest attempt at explaining why their ‘climate models’ fail.
Not that climate model failures have slowed that group one bit.
In any other world of science, averaging failures, then claiming that the failure average is useful, is recognized as utter bull***t.
Then again, in any other world of science, more than a Trillion dollars would have brought genuine verifiable results. What does climate science have to offer for spending over a Trillion dollars? Gavin’s sophistry that simple calculations in bad climate models are wrong and what is needed is complex calculations in those same bad models?
Do the double blind physical experiments! Prove the forcings! Prove exactly how CO2 functions under all atmospheric surface conditions from desert to alpine to oceanic. Don’t assume! Prove them!

Keith Willshaw
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 22, 2015 1:18 am

Of course if you WANT CO2 Sensitivity to CO2 you can always come up with some wild theory to explain why its not working and if that one doesn’t work out well there is always another one to be found. I think we are up to about 57 by now.
Both Gavin and you should be aware that this strategy didn’t work too well for the defenders of the ‘consensus’ theory of Phlogiston when it was opposed by that well know ‘Denier’ Antoine Lavoisier and his wild notions about reproducible experiments. Willam of Ocham was a very wise man who’s basic idea was nicely put by Isaac Newton
“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 22, 2015 4:13 am

What forcings Nick? Put up or shut up!

Hugs
Reply to  Patrick MJD
December 22, 2015 11:34 am

Cute. Please behave. Nick is not evil, stupid nor rude.

ferdberple
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 22, 2015 6:46 am

It doesn’t postulate any exact balance at all.
=================================
not correct. the theory postulates that climate was in balance at the beginning of the model calibration period.
For example, consider the warming from the LIA. The models assume that this warming had ended around 1850, the same time we started collecting thermometer data. But there is no proof that this is correct, because no one knows what caused the LIA. This assumption is simply a SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess).
However, what if there was still 150 years of post LIA warming in the pipeline in 1850? then everything we have seen since 1850 is nothing more than a continued recovery from the LIA. In this case, model calibration would be based on 150 year of net zero warming (aerosols, CO2, and land use equals net zero) once you subtract post LIA warming.
In that case, it the models were calibrated to net zero human effect over the past 150 years, then the would be projecting no acceleration in warming today, and any warming we did see would simply be a continuation of post 1850 LIA recovery warming.
So, it really is a big deal that the models assume that everything was in balance in 1850, because if the climate was not in balance, then the models are dead wrong. Which is what the current slowdown in warming is demonstrating. That climate was not in balance in 1850, which has invalidated the training and thrown them so far out of whack with reality.

thechuckr
December 21, 2015 6:43 pm

In other words, burn that coal and oil! If we don’t then the seas will rise, the poles will melt, dogs and cats, living together. But burning coal and oil is bad and we must decarbonise the world except the pollution and particulate matter are protecting us from global warming yet scientists in the 70’s told us that the pollution and particulate matter will cause an ice age. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”

Dawtgtomis
December 21, 2015 6:46 pm

OK, a picture is worth a thousand words, but that picture is priceless on any scale. Bravo!

Menicholas
December 21, 2015 6:49 pm

“A new NASA study suggests that global warming is being suppressed by particulate pollution. ‘
Why am I surprised they dusted off this old chestnut and trotted it out?
Has he no shame?

Knute
Reply to  Menicholas
December 21, 2015 7:14 pm

Kind of shocking unless I missed something.
Really brazen.

H.R.
December 21, 2015 6:52 pm

Whats all this talk about our “remarkably stable climate”?
The preceding article here on WUWT brought up the change in the Sahel, which was fairly recent and rapid in a geological time frame, but I don’t think the desert encroached so fast that the inhabitants of the time didn’t perceive their climate as anything other than remarkably stable.
Various regional climates around the world are currently in the process of changing to another state. (Ask Otzi. He was probably mighty glad to finally get out of that cold glacier and into some nice warm sunshine.) In general, no one lives long enough to experience a complete change of climate, so the climate only appears to be stable to us short-lived humans.
Climate changes. Its what climate does.

Marcus
Reply to  H.R.
December 21, 2015 7:04 pm

+ 2,145.1

Marcus
December 21, 2015 7:07 pm

Ok, so CO2 and fossil fuels cause Global Cooling AND Global Warming at the same time so the end result is…NO CHANGE ! Got it !!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 7:25 pm

+1

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 7:54 pm

Hey, it’s Christmas…don’t be so stingy, give me two at least !! Sheesh …

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 8:07 pm

Here’s a BIG SISTERLY ((HUG))! Merry Christmas, Marcus. Nope. That’s it.

Marcus
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 10:25 pm

Awwwwww !! pinch, pinch !!! tee he he…..

Eugene WR Gallun
December 21, 2015 7:11 pm

NO! NO! The missing heat is hiding in the oceans!!! Everybody knows that!
Eugene WR Gallun

Janice Moore
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
December 21, 2015 7:27 pm

lol —
That was where it was last year. Two years ago, it was hiding in the cooler in Nick’s Diner. Three years ago, it was inside a spaceship headed around Mars. Tomorrow, the moon!
#(:))

Ian
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 8:07 pm

+100

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 21, 2015 8:08 pm

Thanks, Ian!

RichardLH
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 8:04 am

Perhaps it is hiding in rotational energy in the oceans rather than temperature. Big equatorial bulge, slower rotation. Big ice at the poles, faster rotation. Energy none the less. It needs accounting for.

Hugs
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 22, 2015 11:51 am

Yes. Dangerous anthropogenic climate change doubters really can’t realise how the science, which is settled, has developed during the last few years. Scientists understand now much better how our changing climate can be succesfully modelled. It appears we have been very lucky so far as the anthropogenic cooling has counteracted GHG warming. Unless we act quickly, in the timeframe of five to ten years, we may be threaten by a runaway climate change that would submerge coastal cities, devastate hurricane regions, and cause a fifth mass extinction potentially ending human race, scientists suggest.
Sorry, could not resist the Narrative.

Latitude
December 21, 2015 7:21 pm

Had me going there for a min……at first I thought it was just another excuse for the pause
…then you’re systematically underestimating what’s going to happen in the future when greenhouse gases are by far the dominant climate driver,” Schmidt said.
Well Schmidt…it ain’t happening
CO2 was supposed to increase temps a little…it might have, a little….but that slight increase in temp was supposed to create run away global humidity…..that’s the dominate climate driver that ain’t happening

Janice Moore
Reply to  Latitude
December 21, 2015 8:12 pm

Well Schmidt…it ain’t happening

… ain’t happening

ain’t!

Latitude! 🙂

Latitude
Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 7:41 am

😉

Mike Smith
December 21, 2015 7:21 pm

So all of the scrubbers and other technology we deployed to reduce pollution by particulate matter would make the pure CO2 component of industrial output dominate and drive much faster warming, right?
But the adoption of scrubbers seems to have coincided with an inconvenient pause!
Tangled webs and all that!

December 21, 2015 7:28 pm

There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”
Good point Kate. Could you point that out to your co-worker Karl and company? They’re proposing that there is no pause because the SST’s are warming up (even though the Argo buoys have been flat) and then perhaps a call into Trenberth about this vague idea that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans where we can’t measure it.
We’ve come full circle. First they argued that the land was the place to look for signs of CAGW, then they decided it was in the oceans, and now they’ve decided it is on land again, only it is being “suppressed”
All that notwithstanding, I think Nick Stokes has a valid point upthread..

SAMURAI
December 21, 2015 7:32 pm

I knew it was only a matter of time before CAGW grant-grubbers would dust off their 1970’s argument of manmade particulate matter being the cause of Glooooobal Coooooling…
Initially, they’ll use this ad hoc excuse to explain away “The Hiatus”, which will eventually evolve to, “manmade particulate cooling is worse than we thought..”
Once global temps trends begin to actually fall from PDO/AMO 30-year cool cycles, and as solar activity continues to weaken, the CAGW grant-grubbers will have no choice but to blame manmade particulates for their failed CAGW hypothetical projections…
The key for any climate grant-grubber to stay employed is to blame man for the current climatic state, whether it be cooling, warming or stasis…
Just give us enough money and governments can “fix” the climate; hubris on parade….
And so it goes, until it doesn’t…

Reply to  SAMURAI
December 21, 2015 7:41 pm

Meet the scapegoat, same as the old scapegoat.
I doubt I could write a book that had this many off the wall moments where millions of the world’s scientists didn’t object. Are they :
1. scared
2. lazy
3. perceive they have no skin in the game
4. being polite
5. feel this business is beneath them
6. all of the above
????

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  knutesea
December 21, 2015 9:17 pm

Since you identified “world’s scientists”, I’m at bit of a loss. Perhaps the majority of them have better things to do.
Of course any ol’ ABC reporter can be a climate scientist. And these I think, wouldn’t know logic (or numbers) if they tripped over it. They are after the meme, not the science.

December 21, 2015 7:51 pm

I took a quick google search on residence time of sulfate aerosols and came up with a scary number of papers on geoengineering. That said, the residence time of sulfate aerosols in the troposphere ranges from hours to days.
I suspect the Kate was using sulfate aerosols as an example of one of many factors that could be hiding the warming (that co-worker Karl said he found so it isn’t hiding…oh, that was last week, new week new theory Dave, do try to keep up) but if she’s trying to blame it on sulfate aerosols that would leave the last 12 days of car exhaust cancelling out the last 20 years of CO2 production. Smoley Hokes, with a sensitivity that high, we should be in an ice age by end of January.

Marcus
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 21, 2015 7:55 pm

+ 10,000

Latitude
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 22, 2015 7:44 am

Dave….I think you nailed it

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 22, 2015 8:25 am

The short troposphere residence time means the paper is wrong for a different, bigger reason.
The short residence time means NH aerosols (which is where the vast majority are produced) do not cross the equator into the SH. That means the NH should show a lower, slower warming than the SH. Both UAH and RSS have the SH warming significantly less than NH. The two observations by themselves ‘prove’ Gavin’s paper is wrong.

Hugs
Reply to  ristvan
December 22, 2015 12:02 pm

I was thinking on the same track but then, it is Dr K. Marvel. The doctor can’t be that wrong, so I must be mistaken. And I can’t even read the paywalled paper.
It must be I didn’t get the idea of the paper right. Right?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 22, 2015 10:59 am

When it rains the sulfate aerosols are removed, at least they were during my last trip to Beijing and Tianjin…

Marcus
December 21, 2015 8:03 pm
mikewaite
Reply to  Marcus
December 22, 2015 12:57 am

So are biofuels according to the BBC report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35153196
“US wild bee numbers decline as land is converted for biofuel”
Seems quite a serious problem.

Reply to  Marcus
December 23, 2015 10:55 am

In Portland the anti-science nitwits voted out fluoridated water.
http://gawker.com/the-infuriating-selfish-logic-of-portlands-anti-fluor-509327808

Aaron Edwards
December 21, 2015 8:05 pm

Interesting how the warmanistas first ignored, vilified, trivialized and then finally rejected with “sciencey non sense” the entire notion of “the pause”… now Gavin embraces it in the form of serendipitous result of an exact balance between particulates and CO2 induced green house heating…
How gullible must his fawning minions and mouth breathing sycophants be to actually accept this ridiculous idea…

Marcus
Reply to  Aaron Edwards
December 21, 2015 8:47 pm

…Gruberrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs………

Gerald Machnee
December 21, 2015 8:13 pm

When they measure it let me know. Models and theories are all the same nonsense at this point.
The we have to convene 40,000 in expensive hotels to agree on it.

deebodk
December 21, 2015 8:22 pm

Here’s a thought, and I know it’s way out of left field, but maybe, just maybe, CO2 isn’t the climate control knob. What a crazy concept eh?
It’s just utterly mind-boggling how hell bent they are in continuing the CO2 climate meme. The sooner the maniacal CO2 hand-wringing ends the sooner the world can get back to doing real science with regard to the planet’s climate (and we might just get a better understanding of how it actually works). I applaud the relative few who haven’t strayed from that path.

December 21, 2015 8:27 pm

One thing is absolutely certain!
Gavin’s head looks so proper on a dress with butterfly wings!
That image should be used for Gavin forevermore!

SAMURAI
December 21, 2015 8:43 pm

Of course it doesn’t bother the CAGW grant grubbers one iota that manmade particulates have actually been falling over the past 35 years:
http://www3.epa.gov/airtrends/pm.html
The purpose of using PM cooling to explain away the utter failure of CAGW projections is obfuscation, not enlightenment…
“For the vast majority of mankind accept appearances as though they were reality, and are influenced more by those things that seem than by those things that are.” ~Machiavelli (The Prince)

Janice Moore
Reply to  SAMURAI
December 21, 2015 9:32 pm

+1

Marcus
Reply to  lee
December 21, 2015 8:48 pm

…Same thing..LOL

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  lee
December 22, 2015 8:47 am

His reindeer don’t know Jack Schmidt.

Paul Westhaver
December 21, 2015 8:50 pm

Eric,
“Accepting life friendly cosmic constants as simply being due to a lucky throw of the dice, rejects the possibility that there is more to discover.”
No it does nor reject…
I think 1.8 x 10^-43 precision begs a universe of inquiry and there are about a dozen according to Leonard Susskind.

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
December 21, 2015 9:01 pm

come on eric ….10-43? It may as well be infinity! Does that not spark a smidgen of curiosity?

Louis
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
December 21, 2015 9:57 pm

Eric Worrall, the rate of expansion of the Universe is based on observations of type Ia supernovae, which were assumed to be the same brightness. Just last April, a University of Arizona-led team of astronomers claimed they found two types of la supernovae. One is redder than the other. Their results are based on studying the ultraviolet light from these supernovae and show that “the acceleration of the expansion of the universe might not be quite as fast as textbooks say.” It just goes to show that the science is never completely settled.
See https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/accelerating-universe-not-as-fast

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
December 22, 2015 10:46 am

Here’s the problem with this whole “lucky throw of the dice” issue (or it had to be “created”), is we don’t know how many attempts of throwing the dice took place, and in fact we would only ever know about a successful universe because we’d be in it to detect it.

Jeff (FL)
December 21, 2015 8:55 pm

Uh, so is this guy Schmidt now advocating increasing fossil fuel combustion in order to limit global warming?

Joe Bastardi
December 21, 2015 8:59 pm

He refused to answer my question as to why the NCEP CFSv2 temps were off. I know they are the computer initialization, but he is a part of an ilk that trust busting 20 year climate models, yet somehow calls my questions stupid as to why the NCEP Cfsv2 is not seeing what is going on. Someone better tell NCEP their initialization only can catch warming ( as it is now) and yet the cooling periods in post Ninos dont exist

Joe Bastardi
December 21, 2015 9:00 pm

Lets remember you are dealing with a man so arrogant or afraid he would not take the same stage with Roy Spencer

Paul Westhaver
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
December 21, 2015 9:02 pm

From your lips…

clovis marcus
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
December 22, 2015 1:39 am

Paul Westhaver December 21, 2015 at 9:02 pm
You beat me to it 😉
This needs to be seen every time Gavin’s name is mentioned.

Hot Air
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
December 22, 2015 6:05 pm

If there ever was any doubt AGW was horseshit the very fact that they refused to debate the subject is proof enough. They must be really, really frightened about now and hoping that this El Nino will save them somehow.

brians356
December 21, 2015 9:08 pm

No, wait .. Are they trying to explain The (non-existent) Pause? Didn’t Gav get the “Pause? What pause” memo?

Janice Moore
Reply to  brians356
December 21, 2015 9:50 pm

Well… (sly glance), the memo to G. S. was SUPPOSED to say, using liberal-speak, “A11ahu Achbar” (Mark Steyn translated that one for us a few years back: “Nothing to see here.”), but, instead,
it read: “CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.” So, Climate Clowns, Inc., cranked up the sprockticketer and got to work…

Chris Hanley
December 21, 2015 9:11 pm

‘ “Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere … ‘.
========================
For the past fifteen years or so the odd thing is that the NH where sulphate aerosols are expected to have a cooling effect has warmed faster than the SH.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4nh/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4sh/mean:12

Steamboat McGoo
December 21, 2015 9:35 pm

” NASA seems to want us to blindly embrace the theory that we’ve simply been very lucky, which is a shame, because there is a lot of evidence that the Earth’s climate contains powerful dynamic compensation mechanisms, which can easily adjust to counter any imbalance we are likely to cause. ”
I fully accept that “… there is a lot of evidence that the Earth’s climate contains powerful dynamic compensation mechanisms, which can easily adjust to counter any imbalance we are likely to cause.”
So … By golly, we really ARE very lucky! The Warmists … not so much. LOL

Janice Moore
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
December 21, 2015 9:40 pm

Blessed, so very blessed.
****************************************
(not trying to persuade anyone, here, my heart just overflowed onto the keyboard — Oh, yes, I do realize, Jeff Alberts, that you think my belief is silly …. you needn’t say it AGAIN … You NEED to say it again?…. okay, whatever… (smile))

Janice Moore
Reply to  Steamboat McGoo
December 21, 2015 9:42 pm

And, Steamboat McGoo — Yes, LOL — #(:))

Password protected
December 21, 2015 9:57 pm

Seems practical to assume the earth’s atmosphere is heated by energy from the sun. Whatever fractions retained or emitted to space are what they are. Other than models tuned to be CO2 sensitive, things seem quite ordinary.
I’d say these guys are genuine alarmists, doomsday sayers, a combination thereof or scamsters.

Louis
December 21, 2015 10:19 pm

We just had an article here on WUWT that claimed aerosols have been falling since the 90s and allowing more direct radiation to reach the surface:

Levels of these tiny particles, associated with pollution, had been rising for decades prior to the 90s and began falling after that thanks to pollution controls. That could make today’s skies brighter than those in the 70s or 80s—and it could also warm the climate, as more direct radiation reaches the surface.

But if aerosols are balancing the effects of increasing CO2, wouldn’t they also have to be increasing over time? Even with increases in icy haze from airline traffic, could the observed brightening of the skies be occurring if pollution was on the increase? You’d think they would be able to measure the amount of aerosol pollution in the atmosphere and chart it to see if it has been decreasing or increasing in recent years.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/16/agu15-accidental-geoengineering-airline-traffic-may-help-create-an-icy-haze-thats-brightening-u-s-skies/

bit chilly
Reply to  Louis
December 22, 2015 1:31 pm

they are post normal aerosols. invisible to the most powerful detection device ,yet able to reflect far more incoming energy from the sun back out to space than those spewed out by coal fired power stations in years gone by.

Richard Keen
December 21, 2015 10:23 pm

The whole thing strikes me as a re-make of “global dimming”, which was invoked years ago to explain the cooling of the 1960s and 1970s. But then that cooling went the way of Comrade Yezhov
http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2013/12/Nikolai-Yezhov.jpg
and there was no longer a need for global dimming.
But then along came the pesky Pause, so global dimming rises like a zombie from the recycle bins and floppy disks of the AGW institutions of Settled Science.
Now the global dimming-wits need to hurry and get their press releases out before the climate photo-shoppers erase all memory of the Pause and global dimming once again crawls back into its crypt.
BTW, those who want to see a peer-reviewed, and quite readable, paper on aerosol “global dimming” will find a free copy linked at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/1971-stunner-nasa-and-ncar-knew-that-catastrophic-global-warming-was-a-farce/#comment-550140

December 21, 2015 10:26 pm

As for an ultimate stabilizing factor: Our planet has less-positive / more-negative climate feedback when its global temperature is at extreme high or low levels, where it is either largely free of ice cover or largely covered with ice and snow. When coverage by snow and ice is in-between, the surface albedo feedback is more positive.
Similarly, the lapse rate feedback (a negative one) considered by IPCC appears to me as non-constant, but having its magnitude increasing with surface temperature and with atmospheric presence of greenhouse gases. This largely puts a lid on how hot the planet can get should we get CO2 even getting into a few thousand PPMV. I would say that with even this much CO2, extrapolating from a past time with consideration that the sun brightened since the most recent time this happened by about 2%, with consideration that % temperature change due to change of TSI is essentially 1/4 of the % change of TSI due to a thermal radiation law (meaning .5% in degrees K or about 1.5 degrees C), indicates that even if we achieved a few thousand PPMV of CO2 the global temperature would be around 25-26 degrees C, for anomaly of 11-12 degrees C. This also requires Antarctica being moved to a past latitude where it did not have associated sea ice or significant springtime snow cover during a high-CO2 condition. Where Antarctica is now, I expect it to easily get snow and frost cover in September through at least November, even at 800 PPMV of CO2 and even if it was cleared of snow cover somehow through the prior century. The current location of Antarctica causes problems with consideration of global temperature vs. atmospheric CO2 concentration in the planet’s history that happened from around 20 million to around 300-400 million years ago.

Marcus
December 21, 2015 10:41 pm
Marcus
Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 10:43 pm

…President Cruz, that is……….

dp
December 21, 2015 10:43 pm

So burning stuff is a preferred tool in the fight against global warming. I love settled science as it makes it entirely unnecessary to think.

Janice Moore
Reply to  dp
December 21, 2015 11:41 pm

lol

knr
December 21, 2015 11:23 pm

Although it is fair to say that climate ‘scientists’ lack honesty , and actual scientific ability. You really cannot under rate their ‘luck’, for every time they find a new excuse for there is a pause, that is when they are not ironically ‘denying’ its existence. The mysterious forcing always perfectly balances out the effects of increases of ‘evil CO2 ‘ on temperature they claimed ‘must happen’.
We can only be thankful that they put their talents to use in this area, instead of the tables of Las Vagas, although the owners of these tables may have different views.
And these ‘scientists’ may find that ,’heads you lose ,tails I win ‘ is an approach that cuts no ice outside of their fan club.

Janice Moore
Reply to  knr
December 21, 2015 11:51 pm

+1 — “Pour excuser consiste a admettre.” (To excuse is to admit — I only looked up and used the French because IIRC it was originally a French saying).

Reply to  Janice Moore
December 22, 2015 12:58 am

Pick the bones in this. Right or wrong?
Hansen, maybe the godfather and high priest of the CAGW religion, eventually acknowledged that average global temperature rises had flattened out considerably compared to the theories(religion) that he had fostered and still believed in! He then did investigations and came up with the explanation in a Paper he published explaining that the apparent cooling was in fact due to China’s and other Developing Countries’ uncontrolled and unfiltered emissions of particulate carbon and sulphates in the period from the late 20th onwards which depressed the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and thus provided a “cooling” effect. This phenomena was known about years before and was termed Solar Gloom.
What Hansen appears not to have realised is that the Developed Countries’ Clean Air Acts in the 1950’s onwards and the later Acid Rain precautions drastically reduced these emissions, prior to any Developing Countries’ ramping up of such emissions. In other words he was accepting that the apparent global warming, from at least the 1950’s onwards, was as much to do with and possibly even more to do with, decreased particulate carbon and sulphate emissions as increased CO2 emissions.
It also follows that by stripping out any Solar Gloom effects to provide the adjusted real CO2 Increase/Temperature Increase relationship means, overall, that the curve for this relationship is much shallower than that used by the warmist supporters, i.e. without the Solar Gloom of the earlier 19th and 20th Century temperatures would have been higher already without any influence from CO2, i.e. we have had a far lower, far slower and more manageable CO2 driven AGW that can be managed far more easily, simply and cheaply in the future than the hysterical catastrophic AGW being preached which is “substantiating” our spending the £billions we are spending and which in turn is driving up all our costs and driving down our competitiveness.
To assess this actual real “adjusted” CO2/Temperature curve you would have to include an allowance for the declining effects of past emissions, i.e. how long excess man-made CO2 generated dissipates back into the land and seas and how long particulate carbon and sulphates emissions in the atmosphere are sustained. I’ve seen postings here that suggest earlier particulate carbon emissions in the atmosphere reduce to about 10% over 100 years or so. How fast sulphates’ and other aerosols’ emissions decline and what the relative Solar Gloom effect of these 3 component emissions are would also need to be factored in.
I note elsewhere that this emissions’ decline over time effect has been given as the basic flaw in the Developing Countries’ argument that Developed Countries must pay for Developing Countries’ Green Energy policies. To this must be added that Developing Countries are at their stage of development on the back of past Developed Countries developments, and technical transfers – all based on the past use of fossil fuels.

December 21, 2015 11:36 pm

Or it’s because there is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” and atmospheric composition has stuff all to do with mean temperatures.
As gravitationally induced planetary temperature gradients have been experimentally proven in centrifuges, and as the maths to calculate this effect is simple, universal and accurate in describing temperatures on every planet in our solar system, not just our own; it would be the most rational explanation as to why CO2 sensitivity predictions are not yielding results.

FAH
December 22, 2015 12:01 am

As far as I can tell, the supplementary information for the article is not paywalled and it appears to contain much more information than the main manuscript. It also has a link to the underlying data at
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Marvel_etal2015.html
This is outside my bailiwick but it looks like they are again calling computer runs “experiments” and it looks like this is essentially a sensitivity analysis. Other studies (in other fields) I have seen like this basically output the input values of the partial derivative functions assumed.

Gamecock
Reply to  FAH
December 22, 2015 4:44 am

Sensitivity must be coded into the model. No need to run “experiments.” Just go ask the programmer. The programmer likely coded what he was told to program. So we’re back to Schmidt. He runs his theories through a computer, and they become fact.

richard verney
December 22, 2015 12:25 am

Global Dimming; the video in association with Greenpeace and Toyota.

HocusLocus
Reply to  richard verney
December 22, 2015 4:34 am

This has a lot more meat,
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x22692o_bbc-horizon-2005-global-dimming_shortfilms
I herald this BBC Horizon episode from 2005 as a touchstone of climate issues that were sidelined by the CO2temp causation crowd. It opens with David Travis’ observation about min/max temp ranges in the US after 9/11 when contrails were absent, and goes on to discuss the possible effects of particulates on albedo. Because it fronts an unpopular notion, that effects of civilization may be reducing average global temperature the narrator was compelled to touch the rosary by declaring Global Dimming may be ‘threatening’ because it is ‘masking’ the ‘true’ extent of ‘global warming’. I must stop now, I’ve run out of single-quotes.

clovis marcus
Reply to  HocusLocus
December 22, 2015 7:21 am

Hang on a minute…there’s a way to produce a negative temperature feedback but we have to stop it? Truly the control freaks have discovered the perfect cleft stick to put on out necks.
It gets cooler, bad – we need to burn less fuel
It get warmer, bad – we need to burm less fuel
I think perhaps flights to and over the maldives should be suspended for a few months. That’ll fix it.

dp
Reply to  HocusLocus
December 23, 2015 1:18 pm

Global dimming is directly proportional to the number of climatologists feeding at the public trough. It is not a description of flagging insolation but a recognition that our very brightest are not entering climate science as an avocation.

RichardLH
December 22, 2015 2:14 am

I have another ‘take’ on how this may all be represented/presented.
There is a need for a physical mechanism to link warm/cold with the inputs/outputs.
Perhaps ice skating may provided a view point.
Wandering around looking a stuff that might, just might be relevant led me to do a snap comparison between LOD and UAH. Prompted by others showing that data.
The results are interesting. One looks as though it is related to the other.
That then leads on to do a comparison to UT1 (the other side of the same coin) with longer running temperature series. UT1 is a ‘hockey stick’ at these sort of time periods.
As I posted a question on my blog…..
So a change from rotational energy to heat? I can’t do the maths if any exist. Would be a possible explanation though. Cold = Fast, Warm = Slow. Spinning down towards entropy? Like a gaia ice-skater, pulling her arms in when she is cold and spreading them out when she is warm? Mass transfer between the poles and the equator. Over that long, slow, method of energy transport. Balanced finely on either side of a long slowdown throughout the ages to eternity. Too fast a decline and the world speeds back up towards the ‘middle’ and picks up energy, an overshoot because of the lags and it gets hot for a while. Then the steady decline resumes.

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 3:30 am

Think ‘old fashioned regulated steam engine’. Always chugging up and down on idle around a ‘middle’ speed set overall.

December 22, 2015 2:40 am

Accepting life friendly cosmic constants as simply being due to a lucky throw of the dice, rejects the possibility that there is more to discover.

If you consider the possibility of maybe an infinite number of “unlucky throws of the dice,” it is not surprising to find ourselves in one that allows us to exist.

Mark Gilbert
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 22, 2015 6:50 am

Um. No. I am a simple man, but it is not the same thing to say an infinite variety of circumstances resulted in a particular situation and “God did it”. It is plain to see that if circumstances were such that we could not be present to see it, we would never know about the others. The only occasion where we are present to see it, is where circumstances are favorable. Your argument is an appeal to a non-authority… LOL

Mark Gilbert
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 22, 2015 7:04 am

In continuation of that thought… Just because we are present in a particular set of circumstances, it does not inevitably eliminate the possibility of detecting other outcomes from our present circumstance. A good example might be the earliest universe, the “big bang”. Conditions were utterly hostile to any possibility of life for an incredible amount of time, and modern humans only present for the last 200,000 years. And yet… we seek, we find, darkly through the looking glass the shadowy outline of what was. “God did it” prevents nothing. A religious man might ask how did God do it?

RichardLH
Reply to  Slywolfe
December 22, 2015 4:30 am

“If you consider the possibility of maybe an infinite number of “unlucky throws of the dice,” it is not surprising to find ourselves in one that allows us to exist.”
If you consider that the possible arrangement of individual grains of sand at the bottom of an egg timer is very large but the chances you will see anything but a cone are small.

Hugs
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 12:18 pm

small x infinite is infinite. In a world with an infinity present, things can be unintuitive.

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 22, 2015 2:52 pm

That depends on if you look at x or 1/x

Hugs
Reply to  RichardLH
December 24, 2015 12:27 pm

Well 1/x times infinity is infinity for all positive x in R. If you have infinity as divisor please explain why you got it there.

RichardLH
Reply to  RichardLH
December 24, 2015 1:45 pm

I was just pointing out approaching infinity in a X space, approaches close to zero in a 1/X (and vice versa).
Both ends are the ‘same’ really.

December 22, 2015 2:48 am

I have access to the paper. It’s actually only a “letter”, 4 pages long. The conclusion includes:
“GISS ModelE2 is more sensitive to CO2 alone than it is to the sum of the forcings that were important over the past century. This is largely a result of the low efficacy of ozone and volcanic forcings and the high efficacy of aerosol and LU forcing (which have had a cooling effect over the historical period), although further study is needed to explore model differences in simulating efficacies and to enhance confidence in these estimates. Climate sensitivities estimated from recent observations will therefore be biased low in comparison with CO2-only simulations owing to an accident of history: when the efficacies of the forcings in the recent historical record are properly taken into account, estimates of TCR and ECS must be revised upwards.”
So the reason that observations are giving such a low value in comparison to the models is “an accident of history”. Which of course will never be repeated :). Is this another attempt to explain the pause? Which of course isn’t happening :). What tangled webs!
If anyone wants the pdf I guess I could forward it but I’m sure Nature wouldn’t want me to post it here.

Robert of Ottawa
December 22, 2015 2:49 am

somewhat incongruent ranges … known in scientific circles as the wrong answer

Chris Lynch
December 22, 2015 3:01 am

What number are we up to now in the Global Warming hiatus list of excuses from the CAGW fraternity? Has “the dog ate my homework” featured yet?

Alan Robertson
December 22, 2015 3:06 am

Another case of: “We aren’t wrong! All of these other things just make us look wrong.”

Harry Passfield
December 22, 2015 3:09 am

This kind of paper merely provides the evidence that the warmists have no intention of fixing the climate (assuming it is broken) as they have not explained how they will know when it is fixed. Their USP is that they want the climate to be no more than 1.5 deg C above pre-1850(?) temps, but if that ridiculous target is ever achieved how are we and they to know that it was the result of ‘de-carbonising’ the first world? IOW, what are the defined outcomes of their project and what are the defined success factors.
And, if Gavin is right, ‘de-carbonising’ will surely only lead to a warmer climate.

Kaboom1776
December 22, 2015 3:19 am

So he suggests pollution increased in the same way CO2 levels did, by 1/3 over the last 40 years? Or that pollution has a greater cooling effect than CO2 warms at a lower concentration? That’s obvious bollocks when you look at historic levels of both.

December 22, 2015 3:31 am

“A new NASA study suggests that global warming is being suppressed by particulate pollution.”
The intellectual light-weights at NASA have claimed many things over the years, and their buddies at NOAA try to fudge the numbers to match the latest fad. The fact that they have to cook the books tells us how wrong they are.
But there is a major experiment going on. Mother Nature is adding ever more CO2 to the atmosphere and we are getting no increase in “global temperatures” (whatever that is) despite the government minions cooking the books on temperature the best they can. Imagine what the alarmists would have said in 1985 if you had told them that the CO2 concentration in 2015 would be near 400 ppm. They would have guaranteed substantial warming. Where is it? I want some of it.
Besides all that, some people claim that human CO2 emissions are the cause of the fast rise in global CO2 but no proof of the conjecture is forthcoming. If Mother Nature in her experiment is pumping out 96% of the CO2 each year, why does she get a pass and only human emissions are “bad”? Why is that?
We live in an age of Post-Popper science. 🙁

cheshirered
December 22, 2015 3:37 am

Everything just falls together ‘just so’ eh Gavin? Pull the other one, it’s got Christmas bells on it.
It’s actually quite tragic that a man of Gavin’s undoubted ability employed in a post of high scientific influence should resort to the climate equivalent of match-fixing to prop up an obviously flawed theory to save face. It’s the antithesis of science.

urederra
December 22, 2015 3:44 am

So, I guess that Gavin went to watch Star Wars: The forcing awakens. last weekend and he thought it was a hollywood physics seminar.
This behavior reminds me of the other scientific scandal of the century, the CFCs cause ozone holes. They formulate a theory, disregarding all data that does not fit with their theory. They make some predictions based on their theory, and when the predictions fail, they search for something that happens to be there by the time the predictions started failing. Without further empirical experimentation and without putting the theory on quarantine the new explanation is accepted and the theory is saved.
Why the ozone hole above the south pole is larger than the one on the north pole? Oh that must be the stratospheric clouds. Why the holes are not getting smaller? Oh, that must be these other catalytic reactions we just found. What are the activation energies of these new reactions. Nobody knows, nobody has measured them, but they must be the exact amount of energy to explain why the holes are not closing as fast as expected.
Same goes with the “forcings”. They remain dormant for the exact amount of time and they awaken at the right moment so save the CAGW theory.

Reply to  urederra
December 22, 2015 3:53 am

They shift the goal posts so often that I suspect the goal posts are not even in the stadium any more.

Reply to  markstoval
December 23, 2015 12:14 pm

It’s a circular stadium in which the field is surrounded by goal posts, allowing the ball to be kicked from any point on the field, in any direction, to make an easy score. No opposing players are allowed in the arena, and there are no spectator seats. The games are played in complete secrecy, and the news merely announces the results given to them by league officials.

Alx
December 22, 2015 3:55 am

…suggesting an extended period of perfect balance is due to blind luck stretches credibility.

This is how the big lies works, the more obvious the truth, the more credibility must be stretched in order to support it. The point is to stick with the lie even to the point of looking ridiculous. Historically the lessons of climate change will be in the areas of sociology,politics and propaganda, the science will be a footnote.

Alx
December 22, 2015 4:03 am

BTW Gavin Schmidt is a moron. Not because of his arguments, but because as a cowardly ideologue he runs away from opposing views and evidence that does not align with his ideology. He hides this cowardice by being dismissive. In impolite circles, this would be called acting like an a**hole.

JohnWho
Reply to  Alx
December 22, 2015 5:50 am

In polite circles – “anal orifice”.
/grin

bit chilly
Reply to  Alx
December 22, 2015 1:43 pm

look at his eyes. i doubt he is a man that could hold a direct look into the eyes of an honest man. i have seen that look before,always in pathological liars. some who had it were a lot worse than liars ,a lot worse.

Bernie
December 22, 2015 4:19 am

Let’s see. The models correctly and accurately account for everything that forces climate, except for the CO2-sulfate aerosols correlation factor. Ok. I can add that for just a half billion USD.

Martin A
December 22, 2015 4:22 am

They make it up as they go along.

Dems B. Dcvrs
Reply to  Martin A
December 22, 2015 7:49 am

Bingo!
– AGW
– Global Warming
– Climate Change
– Global Climate Disruption
– Carbon Pollution

John Peter
December 22, 2015 4:29 am

While NASA is producing “magic”, a sub-contractor is now doing what NASA should be doing, namely innovating.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35157782
Space X has landed on Earth a stage one booster rocket after use. The idea is to use it again to reduce costs. NASA has become a has been innovation company and now relying on private sector efforts. Sad but true.

mikewaite
Reply to  John Peter
December 22, 2015 5:24 am

By coincidence I have just finished reading a recent biography of Elen Musk , the man who created Space X from , literally , nothing but driven by his own ambition to see Martian exploration happen .
He comes across as a Steve Jobs type character, very hard driving and impatient , a person easier to admire from afar than to work for I suspect although he seems to motivate people well.
One thing that particularly impressed me was his desire to keep manufacturing , both of space vehicles and electric cars , in- house and certainly in the US as much as possible . Contrary to the practice advocated by manufacturing “experts” and taken up by most of his competitors .
The Pluto space probe whose images amazed everyone with Nasa’s capability just a few months ago was, sadly , a time capsule , representing the Nasa of old, many years ago.

Marcus
Reply to  mikewaite
December 22, 2015 6:43 am

…….ELON Musk ???

bit chilly
Reply to  mikewaite
December 22, 2015 1:45 pm

you will be glad to know he has had millions of your taxpayer dollars to maintain the illusion that electric cars have a viable future in the short to medium term.

Berényi Péter
December 22, 2015 4:46 am

The Anthropic Principle tells us one thing though. Even given the form of physical law as we have it in this current universe, spontaneous abiogenesis may not be so easy.
1. It is argued often, that as we have evidence, that life on Earth appeared shortly after the end of Late Heavy Bombardment (which, in itself, was inconsistent with life), the transition from inanimate to animate matter should be an easy one.
2. On the other hand we have pretty strong theoretical reasons to believe, Kolmogorov complexity of evolvable replicators is bounded from below, and this lower bound is rather high (like several hundred kilobits or something). The problem is, Darwinian evolution can’t play a role until the first replicator is given, so its spontaneous formation is an incredibly improbable event a.k.a. miracle.
Points (1) and (2) stand in clear contradiction, unless we call the Anthropic Principle into play. In that case probability of spontaneous abiogenesis can be arbitrarily small (p0=10^-10^110 or suchlike), but the tail end of Late Heavy Bombardment could still be a necessary condition to it in the sense it increased this probability considerably for a brief period to, let’s say something like p1=10^-10^109. Now, p1 is indeed a vastly higher probability, than p0, since p1/p0=10^(9×10^109), a very big number, but p1 is still vanishingly small in itself.
However, if we suppose abiogenesis did happen (and we are the living example it did), it should have happened fast, as soon as the Late Heavy Bombardment was over.
It is not a full fledged scientific hypothesis, because relies on a reasonable, but still genuinely metaphysical element, the Anthropic Principle. In spite of this, the hypothesis has some testable meta-predictions.
a) A “natural” course of events leading to abiogenesis (spontaneous appearance of an evolvable replicator) will never be found. In this sense life remains a miracle forever.
b) No extraterrestrial life will be found anywhere in the Cosmos, the entire assemblage is a barren desert.
These are pretty strong predictions, easy to falsify if untrue, by either reconstructing a reasonable pathway to life in the lab (hypercycle, clay minerals as templates, RNA world, whatever) or finding undeniable evidence for extraterrestrial life (like a successful SETI program or identification of a distant IR galaxy cluster, overshadowed by Dyson swarms).
Martian life is a possible exception though, because considerable material exchange is shown to happen between the two planets, which could transplant evolvable replicators in either direction. But given the arbitrary, still universal nature of terrestrial genetic code, such fake extraterrestrial life forms should be easy to identify, if found.
Of course, if a universal Mind of high (possibly infinite) Kolmogorov complexity is behind the process, then anything goes. In that case the Universe may be teeming with life for example, in spite of its inherent improbability. However, to my knowledge, no revelation points into that direction so far.
One thing seems to be sure. Math is easier than life, because Number Theory can be given in 17 kbit, which sounds much, but certainly insufficient to define an evolvable replicator.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 22, 2015 10:06 am

Rarely, mind-prodding metaphysical ideas are aired here, like the above by Berényi Péter
December 22, 2015 at 4:46 am. I enjoyed his post very much. The subject is huge, unwieldy and yet some juice can be extracted from it – testable meta-predictions, no less!! Testable predictions are to be avoided at all costs it seems in the climate of Gavin and his merry men and ladies. Certainly don’t even have an argument with a dissenter – in a rational world, such a confident position as held by the so-called consensus would be glad to take on all comers.
Metaphysics used to be the purview of classical philosophers (and scientists – who were called philosophers: Doctor of Philosophy is a quaint vestige) whose names we all know and who are all dead. Today, with universities overrun and suffocated by the results of “liberal” industrial democracy open-door policy, after first numbing down the early education system with mission-oriented ideological ‘truths’ and persecution of smart kids who ask questions, philosophy is a semantic cold porridge with it’s adherents occupying the space that was created there in a previous time for loftier use. Today’s pedestrian thinkers are known only when they come out to advise that dissenters of doctrine (climate science the topical one) should be tried and executed. I’ve wondered if the ‘Planet of the Apes’ movie was a deep allegorical story about human destiny, but, unfortunately I think not – just another Sci Fi “what if”. I regret this unwitting great idea got used up in this more mundane story.

Hugs
Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 22, 2015 12:38 pm

Oh dear, this is interesting and I have lots to say about the testability of the anthropic principle.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Hugs
December 22, 2015 6:22 pm

Another possible way of falsification is to identify a planet with Oxygen rich atmosphere. That’s not a completely unreasonable request, because we already know thousands of exoplanets, although most of them are completely weird.
However, tools are evolving fast and analysis of planetary atmospheres should become feasible eventually.
Unfortunately I am not convinced Oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere can be nothing but biogenic. If it were, there should be an equivalent amount of carbon buried deep underground in a reduced state, that is, as kinda “fossil fuel”. However, that’s four hundred thousand gigatons, a hundred times more than all the known reserves and some. Moreover, initially Oxygen was used up to increase the oxidation state of iron and such, so the expected amount of reduced carbon underground is even more. By an order of magnitude, at least. It is not seen.
However, we also have plenty of water, as all planets with a chance to support life should have. If it gets into the upper atmosphere, it’s split into Hydrogen and Oxygen by UV radiation. Then Hydrogen, being light, escapes to space and we are left with Oxygen with no biological process involved whatsoever.
It does not happen under current conditions, because there is a well defined tropopause, separating a troposphere below with vigorous convective flows from a stratosphere above with none. There is little material exchange between them, what is more, there is a very efficient water vapor trap in the upper troposphere, so the stratosphere is bone dry. At the same time, very little UV makes its way below the stratospheric Ozone layer. Therefore, where water is, there’s no UV and vice versa.
However, it was not always this way. In a wet atmosphere dominated by a triatomic gas (like carbon dioxide) there is no clear boundary between troposphere and stratosphere, convection cells go all the way up to ToA (Top of Atmosphere), carrying some water up there. At the same time no efficient Ozone layer is formed for the lack of Oxygen, so there is plenty of opportunity for UV radiation to meet water molecules.
Primordial atmosphere of Earth was exactly like that.
As for carbon dioxide depletion, the vast majority of the original high pressure carbon dioxide atmosphere is fixed in limestone and various other minerals, which process does not need biotic mediation, only water. Life can only speed up the process, but that’s all.
So, even if the presence of water and Oxygen could be detected in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, that would be insufficient to prove extraterrestrial life.

Hugs
Reply to  Berényi Péter
December 24, 2015 12:42 pm

‘One thing seems to be sure. Math is easier than life, because Number Theory can be given in 17 kbit, which sounds much, but certainly insufficient to define an evolvable replicator.’
For starters, I suspect this claim can’t stand. Replicator as of a cell requires lots of rna, but I think chemical replication can happen in a cyclically changing environment without any start data per se.
It is enough to have certain chemicals present with some concentration. This is rare event, certainly, but not 2 ^ 17000 rare. Not nearly. But if you robustly prove this result, then of course multiverse / infinite universe with anthropic principle must be called.
One of the AP problems are that it requires a finite world with finite existence and carbon chauvinism. Life has to die out ‘soon’ otherwise we’d live in a freak accident. Now this could be true, the galaxies will die out in 100 000 Ma time scale and life could be only carbon based. But I hated tha.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Hugs
December 25, 2015 1:21 am

chemical replication can happen in a cyclically changing environment without any start data per se

It may be the case, but it was never demonstrated in the lab so far.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Hugs
December 25, 2015 4:58 pm

PLoS Biol 6(1): e18.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060018
The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth by Leslie E Orgel
Published: January 22, 2008
“What is essential, therefore, is a reasonably detailed description, hopefully supported by experimental evidence, of how an evolvable family of cycles might operate. The scheme should not make unreasonable demands on the efficiency and specificity of the various external and internally generated catalysts that are supposed to be involved. Without such a description, acceptance of the possibility of complex nonenzymatic cyclic organizations that are capable of evolution can only be based on faith, a notoriously dangerous route to scientific progress”.
That is, the field is taken over by postnormal science the same way it happened in climate studies.

Berényi Péter
Reply to  Hugs
January 3, 2016 4:36 am
Matt G
December 22, 2015 5:10 am

“Take sulfate aerosols, which are created from burning fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric cooling,” she said. “They are more or less confined to the northern hemisphere, where most of us live and emit pollution. There’s more land in the northern hemisphere, and land reacts quicker than the ocean does to these atmospheric changes.”

Yet the northern hemisphere was warming more than the southern hemisphere and recent surface tampering increased it further. GISTEMP has done the same tricks as HADCRUT, increasing the warming in the northern hemisphere because it was not warming enough overall.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/NHTemps_Difference_v_HADCRUT43_zps8xxzywdx.png
Sulfate aerosols and SAOT have been shown to change far too small without major volcanic eruptions to have any influence on global temperatures. The past adjustments in the models for aerosols were found to be far too great during the very recent decades. Repeating incorrect science that observed data doesn’t support doesn’t make it true. This is worse than pseudoscience because the planet has already shown to be false. Burning fossil fuels does not not emit sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere and therefore no global cooling.

Bill Illis
December 22, 2015 5:11 am

Here is how Gavin has been treating the Aerosols in his recent climate model simulations.
You need to add together the Troposphere Aerosols (Direct) and Tropospheric Aerosols (Indirect – this is the impact of aerosols on clouds making them thicker). Stratospheric Aerosols are mostly volcanoes.
I mean, these are just made up “straight lines”. Reaching a peak of -0.89 W/m2 in the year 2000 and then flat afterward. Hansen used to have this total at -1.6 W/m2 when he was in charge of GISS but it was the exact same straight line guesses pattern. How come they changed it to -0.89 W/m2 when Hansen got the same historical simulation when it was -1.6 W/m2.
Fudge factors is all this is which is what the climate models really boil down to anyway.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Miller_et_al14_fig2.gif
The data is here if someone wants to play around. But the total human forcing in 2012 is +3.32 W/m2 with temperatures increasing only 0.7C. That means the Transient Climate Response is extremely small at only 0.21C/W/m2. It does not translate into any kind of problem at these levels (even with the fake made-up Aerosols negative forcing.)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Fi_Miller_et_al14.txt

December 22, 2015 5:35 am

My comment on a guest contribution at the early days of RC, including Ron Miller of this new report:
To begin with, a back-of-the-envelope calculation: The largest cooling effect is supposed to be from sulfate aerosols. Here we have a good example, the Pinatubo, which ejected 20 Mt SO2 directly into the stratosphere. That lasted 2-3 years, until growing sulfate/water drops fell out. In contrast, humans emit some 80 Mt SO2/year, lasting average only 4 days. The Pinatubo caused a global temperature drop (including water vapor feedback) of app. 0.6 K. If one expects that there is virtually no difference in direct effect for stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols, then the net primary effect of human SO2 emissions would be not more than 0.025 K. But stratospheric changes may have a larger impact than tropospheric (like changes in the jet stream position)…
The effect of aerosols should be measurable in the regions with the largest change, but they are not. Not in Europe, with an over 50% reduction since 1975 (neither did Philipona ea. find a positive change in insolation in their 2005 GRL paper), neither in India, where the tip is warming faster than the only station of the SH in the neighborhood, not under the smoke of increasing emissions. Neither in ocean heat content, where all oceans in the NH are warming faster than the SH parts (if corrected for area), while the aerosol load in the NH is larger.
The influence of (sulfate) aerosols probably is overestimated, and/or the influence of other (soot) aerosols is underestimated. Which leads to questioning even the sign of the total aerosol effect…
Last but not least, the Bellouin ea. paper (I have not read – yet – the other papers in detail) need to be seen as a “worst case” scenario, and probably was intended to give a maximum (negative) influence of aerosols to be used in climate models. In fact, interpreting all fine aerosols over land as anthropogenic by them is way too high.
From the IPCC gaseous precursors and solid aerosols, the quantities involved are:
Anthropogenic: around 560 Mt/y less than 1 micron
Natural: around 350 Mt/y less than 1 micron, around 5300 Mt/yr over 1 micron.
Thus even if these are not underestimates of natural VOC emissions and/or natural fires, the annual natural emissions leading to aerosols present already 38% of the total fraction of fine aerosols. This is higher than the 28% error estimate of the authors.
Even more interesting are the recent findings that the aerosols found over land in the free troposphere are mainly of natural origin. See the 2005 GRL paper of Heald ea.
The main points:
– natural SOA (secondary organic aerosols) in the free troposphere are some factor 7 higher than anthropogenic.
– the mass ratio SOA/SOx (SO2+sulfate) aerosol is app. 2:1 to >10:1, between 0.5 and 5.5 km altitude.
– chemical transport models underestimate SOA’s with a factor 2 at the boundary layer and up to 10-100 times in the free troposphere.
The natural free troposphere SOA already counts for some 10% of the total aerosol optical depth. Add to that the amount of natural VOC aerosols formed below the boundary layer and other natural (fine and coarse) aerosols, and also the sea induced SO2 and salt aerosols over land, then we may safely conclude that the Bellouin study is a huge overestimate of anthropogenic aerosol influence.
In addition to restrictions of the upper bound influence of aerosols in climate models, the upper bound needs to be reduced further (probably more than halved, more like what is found in the Chung ea. study), based on the presence of natural small size aerosols. That has repercussions for GHG sensitivity too, as aerosol cooling and GHG warming are tightly coupled, which results in appreciable differences in projections of future climate:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/ajc_fig1.jpg
Source: RC, not available on their website anymore…

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
December 22, 2015 6:34 am

Ferdinand says: “…we may safely conclude that the Bellouin study is a huge overestimate of anthropogenic aerosol influence. ”
———————-
Or as W might say, “Their excuses are misunderestimated”.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 22, 2015 8:07 am

Allan,
The strange point at that time (2006) was that there was no response at from the authors… I expected a lot of discussion and rebuttal of my objections, but none at all…

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 22, 2015 10:50 am

Ferdinand,
That’s because you nailed it and they knew that any further discussion would subject Bellouin to scrutiny which it could not bear. See Joe Bastardi’s post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/21/gavin-schmidts-magic-climate-balance/#comment-2104416
Same thing applies, here.

Jean Parisot
December 22, 2015 6:28 am

If the Pope were to claim that the mysterious feedback mechanisms that the AGW miasma needs to work, and the equally mysterious forces that have paused it without a global tax scheme were evidence of the Hand of God and Machinations of the Devil at work in the Concert of the Spheres; do you think the Left and the Academy would convulse on the floor?

The Original Mike M
Reply to  Jean Parisot
December 22, 2015 6:39 am

“do you think the Left and the Academy would convulse on the floor?”
No, I guarantee they’ll hijack whatever they can to advance their agenda to assume power over us.