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:

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.

377 thoughts on “Gavin Schmidt's Magic Climate Balance

  1. AGW is:


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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • @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!

      • 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.

    • 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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • “… 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

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

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

  2. 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?

    • 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.

      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?

      • “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?

      • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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.

    • 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.

  3. 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!

    • 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…

    • 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?

      • 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.

    • 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. 😉

    • “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.
      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

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

    • 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 ….

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

      • 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.

      • 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

      • 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! 🙂

    • “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?

    • 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)).

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.
        Your student (as I am of so MANY here at WUWT),
        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).

      • 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

      • 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.

    • 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!”

  4. 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….

  5. 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.

  6. “.. 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
    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.

  7. “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?

  8. 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.

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

      • 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.

  9. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  10. 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

    • 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.

  11. 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

  12. “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.
    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.

    • 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.”)

      • 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.

        • 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.

      • Nick, have a look at Willis’ work on emergent behaviour, which I linked.
        Here on the edge of the tropics you see Willis’ heat pump in action all the time, during the rainy season.
        Hot weather rapidly causes the formation of a thunderstorm, a heat pump which punches a hole through much of the greenhouse blanket, and radiates the excess heat into space. If the net effect of our forcing is that the thunderstorm starts a few minutes earlier, the climate “emergency” is nonsense.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • “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.

      • 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,

      • 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)

      • “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?

    • “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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • ” 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.

    • 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?

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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!

    • 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.”

    • 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.

  13. 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!”

  14. “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?

  15. 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.

  16. 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 !!

    • 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!

      • 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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!

  19. 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..

  20. 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…

    • 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

      • 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.

  21. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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?

  22. 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…

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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!

  26. Of course it doesn’t bother the CAGW grant grubbers one iota that manmade particulates have actually been falling over the past 35 years:
    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)

  27. 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.

      • Sure I’m curious – but being curious doesn’t mean I have any idea what the answer is. That is a long way from closing the question by saying “God made it so” – which is effectively what the anthropic principle does.
        For example, I once asked Lee Smolin about whether the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe was an illusion.

        I’ve got a question about the accelerating expansion of the Universe – could it be an artefact of our reference frame?
        If we look into the past, the Universe was a lot smaller, and a lot denser.
        So when we observe the distant past, surely we are observing events which occurred in a region of much higher gravitational potential than the present day – from our reference frame, events in the distant past would surely have occurred a lot slower than the present day rate of time, like peering down the gravity well of a Black Hole.
        So if our temporal reference frame is accelerating relative to the past, as the Universe expands, might this not create the illusion of an “accelerating” cosmic expansion?
        Just a crazy question from a fan :-).

        Lee replied;

        Dear Eric,
        This is an intelligent question but the red shift has already been ‎taken into account in the analysis of the data.

      • 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.

    • 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.

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

  29. 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

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

      • 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.

      • 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.

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

    • 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…

  32. ” 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

    • 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))

  33. 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.

  34. 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.

    • 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.

  35. 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
    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

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

    • +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).

      • 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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
    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.

    • 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.

    • This has a lot more meat,
      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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

    • Of course – but this is indistinguishable to saying “god made it so”. The anthropic principle postulates that there is no deeper reason, therefore further investigation is pointless. Instead of a positive prediction which can be tested, the prediction is negative – the prediction is that there is no hope of further insight, therefore there is no point trying. This is why the anthropic principle should almost always be rejected – not because there is no chance it is correct, but because its a blind alley, a dead end, a bar to further insight.

      • 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

      • 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?

      • Mark, I’m not arguing about whether the first domino was pushed over by God, or fell by itself. What I’m saying is the nature of the anthropic principle is to close a line of inquiry – that is why it isn’t a useful scientific hypothesis. If you adhere to the view that a circumstance is random, there is no need to look for any hints of underlying order which might lead to deeper insights.
        For example, String theory suggests there are hills and stable valleys in the hyper surface of possible universes. This in itself is a reason to explore the possibility of causal relationships between the different cosmic constants, which is a rejection of the “lucky dip” anthropic principle.

    • “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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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?

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. “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. 🙁

  48. 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.

  49. 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.

      • 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.

  50. …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.

  51. 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.

    • 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.

  52. 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.

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

  53. While NASA is producing “magic”, a sub-contractor is now doing what NASA should be doing, namely innovating.
    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.

    • 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.

  54. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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.

    • ‘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.

      • 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.

      • PLoS Biol 6(1): e18.
        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.

  55. “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.
    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.

  56. 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.
    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.)

  57. 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:
    Source: RC, not available on their website anymore…

  58. 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?

    • “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.

  59. “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.”
    That makes no sense. How does anyone’s particular view of creation influence their ignorance of it or their curiosity to explain it? Every scientific discovery made in the pursuit of answering a question about nature always seems to produce even more questions than we started with. That points to an infinite amount of knowledge yet to be discovered. I do not believe shear luck created all this but people who do believe that are no less ignorant as me about what remains unknown and therefore just as curious as I am to discover it.

    • Invoking the anthropic principle is equivalent to saying something is beyond explanation. If you say “our cosmic constants are X because we were lucky”, no further explanation is possible or necessary.

      “…A total of over thirty anthropic principles have been formulated and many of them have been defined several times over—in nonequivalent ways—by different authors, and sometimes even by the same authors on different occasions. Not surprisingly, the result has been some pretty wild confusion concerning what the whole thing is about. Some reject anthropic reasoning out of hand as representing an obsolete and irrational form of anthropocentrism. Some hold that anthropic inferences rest on elementary mistakes in probability calculus. Some maintain that at least some of the anthropic principles are tautological and therefore indisputable. Tautological principles have been dismissed by some as empty and thus of no interest or ability to do explanatory work. Others have insisted that like some results in mathematics, though analytically true, anthropic principles can nonetheless be interesting and illuminating. Others still purport to derive empirical predictions from these same principles and regard them as testable hypotheses.”
      Eric said “Invoking the anthropic principle is equivalent to saying that something is beyond explanation.”
      In order to agree or disagree with Eric, we’d need to know which formula he’s referring to when he says “anthropic principle”.

    • So, I guess those two peaks are due to El chichón (1982) and Pinatubo (1991)
      Eyjafjallajökull and Puyehue-Cordón Caulle didn’t make a dent. Neither chinese factories or coal power plants.

    • Ole’s point invalidates the latest wild swing and, notably, it does so at the most basic level. The contradiction is so basic that it would have been spotted by even a fledgling student.
      How could such a failure have been ignored in peer review? The question is rhetorical, of course. Nevertheless, this is a glaring demonstration of the utter absence of scientific standard in peer review of the party line and in its propagation by the purported scientific journals “Nature” and “Science”. If it pushes the party line, it passes muster with, as this paper makes clear, no questions asked.
      Publication of this paper, which was developed on the back of the taxpayer, should be put on public display. It makes transparent that the party line legitimizes itself. The practice can be maintained so long as funding continues to support the machinery and its silencing of contradictory evidence. That’s what keeps the valve open.

    • The most powerful forces in ” Climate Science ” should be the trio of the Sun,Cosmic Rays and their effect on cloud creation !! …..IMHO

  60. “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. ”
    IPCC’s magical balancing act. Popular technique w/ climate science.

  61. Eric,
    I predict that the UN IPCC will adopt this model, the NOAA will “adjust” the surface temperature record… again, and the activists will soon be protesting coal and cars because they are causing global cooling. They will conveniently forget 20 years of ranting about global warming and the same grubby socialists will lobby for 1st world cash to fund their activist organizations…for wealth redistribution.
    Anyone with me?

    • Paul Westhaver on December 22, 2015 at 7:28 am
      Anyone with me?
      – – – – – –
      Paul Westhaver,
      I think your scenario about the IPCC switching to bias for anthropogenic cooling is not implausible.
      The IPCC’s problem in your scenario will be that the earth could be close the near end of the interglacial where significant natural cooling into a glacial period is a reasonable hypothesis, so to make cooling anthropogenic then they would need to erase over 500,000 years of past glacial/interglacial cycles. It would be more difficult than their warming biased erasure the MWP & LIA.

      • Ok John, Your thoughts are reasonable. Caveat… The UN IPCC wealth transfer machine is not reasonable and they have a short memory.

      • Paul Westhaver on December 22, 2015 at 12:40 pm
        – – – – – – – –
        Paul Westhaver,
        Caveat accepted.
        I hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas.

  62. Do I have this straight?
    The science is settled.
    CAGW is real and happening.
    The Earth is warming and it’s Man’s “Carbon Pollution” that is doing it.
    Hansen was right.
    The Hockey Stick is right.
    We know all we need to know about “climate” to spend trillions of dollars to save the planet.
    There is no “pause”. There can’t be because CO2 continues to rise.
    The reason there is no “pause” is because we just found out that particulate matter is causing the “pause” that isn’t happening because Man’s CO2 emissions continue to rise.
    The science is settled?!?
    Maybe the best way to deal with “Carbon Pollution” is to stopped burning our money?

  63. I got a new study – Summary:
    Cutting NASA funding by 50%, might get NASA back to Space Exploration

  64. “Nazarene Climate sensitivity”

    There’s something bizarrely appropriate about that coincidence of words…

  65. Ah , the old shell game , which one is the pea hiding under?
    Zero effect from CO2 ,so is it particulates masking the CO2 or is it airborne sulphates ,or even contrails?
    The mystery s of CAGW.
    Go on have another guess ,, nope wrong again I win your 5 $ hahahahahahahahaha
    Have another go , I tell you what , you can even move the shells yourself.

    • I’m waiting on them to start putting on Tin Foil Hats and screaming ” It’s government doing Geoengineering ” !

  66. Wait. I don’t see the problem. When reality doesn’t fit the theory, you simply adjust one of variables so that it does. That is how science has always been done, right?

    • Yes. AND timing…adjust one of the variables…AFTER a major COP21 conference AFTER a deal is signed. That IS how science is done.

    • And then when that variable doesn’t fix things, you tweak another one (without admitting you were wrong about the first tweak) and when that one doesn’t fix it, you create a big smokescreen while you attempt to find another variable it might be, and then tweak that one…..But no matter what, you never, EVER, even hint that your theory is the problem. Nope. Never.

  67. Well warming has to be suppresed by something that outweighs CO2 otherwise CO2 might turn out to be not quite the ‘climate control knob’ that some seem to think it is.
    Potentially Trillions of free $ ‘up in gas (smoke)’. My my, how these social parasites evolve over time. Must be something to do with them breathing in all that black smoke leaving our reliable power stations.

    • maybe there has been a recent increase in aerosols from the demolition sites of all those reliable coal fired power stations ;).

  68. The short of Gavin.
    It’s settled, certain and fully understood that guessing=knowledge.
    The more one guesses the smarter they are.
    I’m a really good guesser.
    Trust me.

  69. Well isn’t that a nice Grinchmas Package tied up with a bow. We are responsible for the warming, cooling, AND the pause. Next they will be saying we are putting and taking away those ugly spots on the Sun.
    Gavin breaks the first law of the scientific method. He fails to rule out the null hypothesis which is that climate and weather on a less than Milankovitch scale, is a series of random walks in the park, within the broad path and outer boundaries of least resistance, set up by the current manifestation of oceanic-atmospheric teleconnected climate regimes.
    And the convicting point is that I believe Gavin knows this but is both riding and pumping the false anthropogenic god to deliver the gravy train.

    • I think Mikey has been walled off as a lightning rod to stay away from. I suspect even the CliSci Defence Fund may soon be looking for away out of its foolish role of underwriting the M.E.M – Steyn suits, particularly the second one launched by Steyn for $20M+. That closes the back door for MEM to withdraw his suit which would only be a huge gain for Steyn, 20 big ones plus costs. This is a very expensive way to preserve you from discovery (of all your research data and correspondence on the subject). Soon we will see how important it is for his secrets to remain undiscovered! Meanwhile, donors to the ‘fund’ will be saying, ”Oh, I gave at the office”

  70. Does this mean we need to burn dirtier fossil fuels to keep the CO2 warming in check? Perhaps Chinese pollution is the reason for the pause. Dirty fuel credits, anyone, anyone.

  71. {bold emphasis mine – John Whitman}
    “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.

    The Schmidt claims to the opposite notwithstanding, he has systematically overestimated the climate response to CO2 change and he has systematically overestimated the basis for future warming in the climate models (the endorsed by the IPCC).
    Schmidt has spun ‘n’ too many warming biased spins. Where ‘n’ is a large number.
    If Schmidt has an exit (from his consistent warming bias) strategy that is less absurd than his entrance strategy to it was, then it isn’t apparent.

  72. Gavin Schmidt was Hansen’s chief propagandist and has since been promoted to Hansen’s GISS director position because e did such a good job at spewing propaganda to support Hansen’s case of sour grapes precipitated by the Bush administration calling him a lunatic for chicken little claims of a climate catastrophe. I wouldn’t put much stock in anything that he says.

  73. Eric Worrell,
    Why did you photoshop Gavin Schmidt’s head onto a female angel’s body?
    That is kind of …. ahhhh …. well, kind of …. tacky. N’est ce pas?

    • I’m pretty sure that angels are masculine or neuter. At least their grammatical gender is always masculine in the NT. Grammatical gender doesn’t necessarily reflect “biological” sex, but biblical angels have men’s names, eg Ariel, Gabriel, Michael and Lucifer. There may be no marriage in Heaven, hence angels don’t have sex, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a sex.

    • Gloateus Maximus on December 22, 2015 at 11:08 am
      To me, the butterfly wings suggest a fairy rather than an angel.

      Gloateus Maximus,
      OK, let me rephrase my comment to Eric Worrell.
      Eric Worrell, why did you photoshop Gavin Schmidt’s head onto a female body, whether its an angel’s body or a faerie’s body or a flying troll’s body?
      That is kind of …. ahhhh …. well, kind of …. tacky. N’est ce pas?

      • John,
        Are you sure the body is female? The pope and men in the Middle East wear man dresses, after all.
        And if it is female, how is that tacky? The basic mammalian development plan is female. To become male, you have to be shunted off of it. Hence, male nipples.

      • Gloateus, thanks so much for THAT imagery. That’s not going to wear off for a long time.
        Hey, how about if we call all future CMIP reports “Gavin Nipples?” Cuts right to the point, no?

      • Gloateus Maximus on December 22, 2015 at 12:04 pm
        Are you sure the body is female?

        – – – – – – – –
        Gloateus Maximums,
        My evidence that the body depicted by Eric Worrall (that had Schmidt’s head photo-shopped onto it) is a female body is solely based on a single observation. From the extended arm (with wand in its hand) follow the outline of the upper torso. It is an outline of a female upper torso because it has a normal swelling where a female breast should be.
        PS – Eric Worrall I am sorry I misspelled your name so many times as Worrell.

      • I looked for the requisite swelling there but just don’t see it. Not even pointy atomic breasts of the ’50s or smashed down flapper breasts of the ’20s.

      • Eric Worrall on December 22, 2015 at 2:35 pm
        Because it looked funny?

        Eric Worrall,
        Yeah, it was kinda of funny. Magical Schmidt is funny, however your girl Schmidt not hardly; kinda creepy.
        Look, some things are a little beyond the farcical/ satirical/ parody/ comedic pale. The girl Schmidt thing is a little bit beyond the pale. And how is it at all related to Gavin Schmidt’s climate science fiascos? I don’t see a connection.

      • Marcus on December 22, 2015 at 3:13 pm
        John, why are you assuming..FEMALE…sexist ??

        I think Eric Worrall confirmed (Eric Worrall on December 22, 2015 at 2:35 pm)
        it is a female body. It looked like a female.
        I didn’t introduce the ‘sexist’ name-calling meme, you just did though.

  74. Climate: the ultimate fraud. These are the deceptions of an oligarchy of subterfuge. Its endless mission: to use purposeful mendacity, to perpetrate new lies and new manipulation, to forcibly impose greater tyranny everywhere man lives.

  75. Mods, I submitted an innocent, yet percipient, comment here about 9 hours ago. Did it fall foul of some test for spam?
    (Reply: No comment found. Please re-submit. -mod)

  76. The sulfate hypothesis. What a concept! Why didn’t anyone think of that before!
    According to the study’s release: ““They [sulfate emissions] 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.” So shouldn’t the Southern Hemisphere be warming faster than the Northern Hemisphere?
    But of course it’s not. According to the latest UAH update, the temperature trends since December 1978 are:
    * Northern Hemisphere +0.14 C (about 0.25 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade
    * Southern Hemisphere +0.09 C (about 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.
    The sulfate hypothesis and inconvenient data showing less warming in the sulfate-poor Southern Hemisphere have been around for a long time:

  77. Are there not regular measurements being done of atmospheric transparency? These guys should be forced to go into the field!! Even paleoclimate data is libraried and can be all done from your big computer. I would say that if you are going to use a data set for earth-saving purposes, you should be obliged to at least collect a few new ones to update the sets. For one thing, with the tomkarleizing of the pause, they are going to have an even bigger divergence problem than they had before. Also, what have the temperature record algorithms being used to change all the historical instrumental record continuously done to studies done over the past half century?
    Steyn said it best at the Senate hearing – predicting what the weather was like in 1950 is impossible with the constant changes to the record, so how can we be comfortable with predictions a century from now?

  78. I read the linked post by Willis on El Niño. For starters, warm waters move east in the Pacific to form an El Niño, not west as stated in the post. Secondly, I see no need for the mystical “emergence” mumbo jumbo.
    I don’t know what you imagine it is that Willis has discovered, but IMO it contributes nothing at all to understanding the earth’s climate system. The mechanism behind El Niños is not a deep mystery. The trade winds which normally blow from east to west, piling up sun-warmed water in the western Pacific, periodically weaken or reverse when SST gets hot enough there to affect wind patterns.
    I haven’t read the post by Willis which has been cited in recent comments about a limit on SST of 31 degrees C, but that is plainly not physical either. However, since I haven’t read it, I don’t know if Willis means that that is as hot as the ocean can get now. It has indubitably been a lot hotter in the past.

  79. Thanks, mod. It went something like this:
    So, a programmer has played again with the godsend of ‘forcings’, a ‘top of model atmosphere’ device whereby some effects are turned into causes, and anything including the kitchen sink can be included in a model for no more effort than a few moments at a keyboard. Provided good pampering, preening, pruning, and picking sentry-algorithms are on duty, satisfactory results for any intended purpose can be produced as the grid whirs away trying to adjust itself to cause the introduced effects. This is one lucrative business, dedicated to meeting customer needs. Such a pity that the customers are from a very blinkered, poorly-informed interest group – one not at all representative of the bulk of us if the surveys are even roughly right.

  80. All that ‘anthropic principle’ talk makes my head hurt but there is something teleological about the belief that an atmospheric CO2 concentration of ~315 ppm in 1950, or 350 ppm as ‘crazy eyes’ McKibben keeps babbling about, is perfect — the way it was meant to be.

    • Indeed. I’m pretty sure they picked 350 because their main purpose was propaganda. The average person in the U.S. knows that you usually bake: cookies at 350 F. and salmon at 350 F. and THAT OVEN IS REALLY HOT I BURNED MY FINGERS ONE TIME! So. It is weird (and scientifically indefensible), but, cunning.

  81. No matter what all of the other missing forces that are both known and unknown are doing, That Gavin now wants to blame them for why his models run hot, such a pile! Many people, myself included, have pointed out for decades the lack of fidelity of the models as a clue they had the forcing all wrong, and that was why the models are so far off.
    So, now because us plebes kept laughing at the naked guy with the robe on stage, he decides to tell us what we already know and try to pass it off as the excuse for why he was right all along while getting the wrong answer.?
    What anyone with a notion has figured out is this big mysterious dynamic climate regulator is the oceans full of water. This El Nino, just changed the path of the jet stream, and the storm tracks, bringing more tropical air into the mid west and east coast. Tropical air is full of millions of gallons of water at tropical temperatures. While it’s cooling off, it warms everything else up, and look what it’s done to US weather! And the Ocean cycles do the same thing.

  82. We are well into the late Ptolomaic era of CAGW where the failings of the theory to fit the facts are explained by numerous epicycles like Gavin Schmidt’s Magic Climate Balance explanation.

  83. Gavin, you were wrong. The earth isn’t the warmest that it’s ever been, the rate of warming isn’t the highest ever, your models are wrong, the pause happened, and no meaningful legislation has happened to curb CO2. De-politicize and get back to the science, you seem like a smart enough fellow.

  84. @markstoval
    December 22, 2015 at 3:03 am: re the Scientific Societies suborned by watermelons, I think we need to look seriously at what we can do to expose the dishonest way top officers etc. have been caused to betray their members….

      • Form an alternative – a professional society to which dissatisfied membership will be represented, rather than misrepresented. If enough members vote with their feet, officers of the old society will be left to speak for those whom they truly represent: themselves.

  85. I wonder if Gavin and the Team ever heard of this quote:
    “If man will begin in certainties, he shall end in doubts, But if he will begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.” – Sir Francis Bacon

  86. Each of the below statements from the expert reviewed and approved Chapter 8 of the 1996 IPCC Report were deleted by the lead author, Santer.
    1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
    2. “While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data-an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
    3.”Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
    4.”While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
    5.”When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know.”
    And then he added this …
    “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
    And here we are 20 years later.
    Obviously he didn’t wake up and decide to do that all on his own AFTER the final was completed.

    • Occasionally some folks here would give Santer some leeway, probably because he had a serious illness a few years ago. But that kind of manipulation of the scientific record is unconscionable. The Climategate emails showed that Ben Santer was colluding to alter the science in order to show human CO2 emissions are the cause of “climate change”. Almost 20 years later, there is even less evidence that human emissions are the cause of global warming, the (temporary) dip in Arctic ice, or anything else currently being observed.
      Prof Richard Lindzen had Santer’s number:
      Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.
      The IPCC was correct in its original assessment: there ias no verifiable, credible evidence of human effect on the ‘climate’. The whole scare is simply a hoax, intended to give governments more power and money.

      • dbstealey on December 22, 2015 at 6:21 pm
        – – – – – – – –
        I really appreciate the Lindzen quote.
        My assessment of Lindzen’s contribution to objective climate focused science is that he is on the very shortest of short lists wrt effectiveness and applied reason. His quiet humble speaking style always gets an easily achieved focus from me.
        He somehow implies a bigger picture context when he talks specifics.
        Happy Holidays to you and yours.

      • Sir John Houghton, chairman of the IPCC working group, had received a letter from the U.S. State Department dated 15 November 1995.
        “It is essential that the chapters not be finalized prior to the completion of the discussions at the IPCC Working Group I plenary in Madrid, and that chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner following the discussion in Madrid.”
        The letter was signed by a senior career Foreign Service officer, Day Olin Mount, who was then-Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. However, the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs at that time was former Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO). Wirth was not only an ardent advocate of man-made warming, but was a close political ally of then-President Bill Clinton.
        Olin Mount was rewarded w an Ambassador of Ireland post.
        Taken from
        Unstoppable Global Warming
        Dennis Avery 2007

  87. Third time lucky?
    Or a day late and a dollar short.
    Gavin is missing a much better explanation, perfectly fitting to the art of climatology. Climatcastrology?
    The Magic Gas, not only does CO2 override all natural processes, but it also has climate effects dependent on point of origin.
    Bowing to the grave of Maurice Strong,
    Western CO2 emissions( evil capitalist) causes CAGW.
    Eastern CO2 emissions (Sainted Collectives) causes plants to grow,bumper crops and climate to cool.
    This is obvious, even a government climatologist could see it.
    As China and India have taken over the manufacturing of the worlds goods and the lead in producing plant food (CO2), the IPCC’s amazing metric, that estimated average global temperature, has flatlined and now indicates a insignificant drop.
    This could only happen if co2 acts dependant on its point of origin.
    A speculation worthy of government grade science, it permits the belief that CO2 is the dominant “Control knob” driver of climate, while reconciling this idiotic ideology with the created imaginary global temperature.
    While Gavin and Racehorse Haines defy parody, they deserve sarcasm, abuse and unemployment.
    Does anyone have the John Daley quote, where he chastises the Team, for their incompetence and arrogance? .

  88. Damn.
    I give up.
    Mods, what the hell?
    Two comments ethered last night, one just now.
    Is there some kind of glitch or have i found a new , straight to sin bin phrase?
    [Nothing in the queue right now. .mod]

  89. On perhaps a pedantic point… I believe the Anthropic Principle has been referenced a bit too narrowly here. From (one) viewpoint of inflationary cosmology, it makes perfect sense. We live in but one of a multitude of universes (perhaps an infinite number) so it makes perfect sense that the one in which we happen to live is one capable of supporting life as we know it. See for instance

  90. I think I’m going to puke. I refuse to voluntarily pay anything that in any way helps Gavin Schmidt and his ilk–so I haven’t read the paper. However, based on the abstract and the press release, this is how I interpret the paper’s message:
    Our, the “settled science community”, past estimates of CO2 climate sensitivity were wrong–but our errors were on the conservative side. We now know the CO2 climate sensitivity is larger than our previous erroneous estimates; and in the near future, AGW will be worse than we erroneously predicted. The only hope for mankind is to (a) immediately and drastically cut its use of fossil fuel energy generation, and (b) increase the taxpayer flow of money to the “settled science community.”
    PS. If the world can’t or won’t do both, we favor doing (b).

    Without experimental (as opposed to computer model) verification, how can any group that admits its past computer model claims are in error demand that its new computer model claims, which are more dire than its past claims, be treated as gospel?

    • Institutionalized hubris, greed and corruption makes it easier to do.
      My group culture speculation is that we have been on a slow slide where integrity isn’t worth as much as it used to be. Liars get to lie, thieves get a pass, down is up. Not sure how you change that other than by example.

  91. Here’s another thought. Gavin make an observation similar to the following.
    We have a model for the amount of money a bank should have in its vault. We count the money actually in the vault and find that the “modeled amount” is greater than the “counted amount”. We claim person “A” has embezzled the difference. Someone comes along and mentions that person “B” may also have embezzled money. We don’t know how much money person “B” embezzled, but we can model the amount. Using our model for the amount of money embezzled by person “B” we come to the breathtaking conclusion that our original estimate of the money embezzled by person “A” is in error. Our logic and conclusion are so deep and mysterious, we believe they are worthy of a paper published in a major accounting journal.
    I have a question for Nick Stokes. Does he believe such a paper would be published in any reputable accounting journal?

Comments are closed.