“Climate Debate of the Decade” at WVU – not so hot

A few days ago I had mentioned that the climate debate happening today at the University of West Virginia West Virginia University at Charleston would be available on “pay per view” via a web feed.

I subscribed, because I’m charged with carrying the news of climate here at WUWT. Unfortunately, whoever setup the web feed had no clue as to how to do so. The audio was full of echoes and distorted (probably because they positioned a microphone rather than tap directly into the PA system audio), and the video camera was so poorly placed that you couldn’t even make out people’s faces, much less the postage stamp sized slides on the projection screen. The person who setup the camera foolishly let the stage lights into the shot, and that screwed up the camera iris.

Poor Michael Mann (at the podium) has no face as a result.

Here is a screencap from the web feed:

While I applaud the idea of a web feed, the execution was a complete failure IMHO. Fortunately, I have people in the audience that will file a report, and hopefully have photos with more clarity.


Dr. Judith Curry posted her presentation on her website just before the event went live, so since I can’t get anything useful from the web feed, here it is in entirety.


1    Cover

Good evening everyone.  Thank you very much for coming, I look forward to our conversation this evening.


2   Agreement/disagreement

There is widespread agreement on these basic tenets:

  • Surface temperatures have increased since 1880
  • Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere
  • Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet

However, there is substantial disagreement about the issues of greatest consequence:

  • Whether the recent warming has been dominated by human causes
  • How much the planet will warm in the 21stcentury
  • Whether warming is ‘dangerous’
  • How we should respond to the warming

I have bolded the two issues that are the focus of this conversation.

Now there is nothing wrong or bad about scientific disagreement.  In fact, the scientific process thrives in the face of disagreement, which motivates research in new directions.


3   Disagreement: causes of climate change

On the left hand side is the perspective of a stable climate that changes in response to changes in atmospheric CO2.  In other words, carbon dioxide as the climate control knob.  It’s a simple and seductive idea.

However some scientists think that this is a misleading oversimplification.  They regard climate as a complex nonlinear dynamical system, with no simple cause and effect.  Climate can shift naturally in unexpected ways, owing to natural internal variability associated with large-scale ocean circulations.


4    Elephant

Now these two perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Proponents of the CO2as control knob idea acknowledge the existence natural variability but dismiss it as noise that averages out.  Proponents of the natural variability arguments acknowledge the impact of CO2, but consider it to be a modest wedge that projects onto the natural modes of climate variability.

The point of this cartoon is that if you only look at one part of the elephant, you will misdiagnose.  You need to look at the entire elephant.

The bottom line is that we don’t yet have a unified theory of climate variability and change that integrates all this.


5    Disagreement: cause of climate change

So does this rather arcane scientific debate actually matter?  Well, yes it does.

If you assume that carbon dioxide is the control knob for climate, than you can control climate by reducing CO2emissions.

If you assume that climate change primarily occurs naturally, then the Earth’s climate is largely uncontrollable, and reducing CO2emissions will do little or nothing to change the climate.

My personal assessment aligns with the right-hand side, emphasizing natural variability.  However, the IPCC and the so-called consensus aligns with the left hand side.  About 10 years ago, I also aligned with left hand side, because I thought supporting the IPCC consensus was the responsible thing to do.

Here is how and why I changed my mind.


6    Policy cart before scientific horse

In 2010, I started digging deeper, both into the science itself and the politics that were shaping the science.  I came to realize that the policy cart was way out in front of the scientific horse.

The 1992 UN Climate Change treaty was signed by 190 countries before the balance of scientific evidence suggested even a discernible human influence on global climate.  The 1997 Kyoto Protocol was implemented before we had any confidence that most of the warming was caused by humans.  There was tremendous political pressure on the IPCC scientists to present findings that would support these treaties, which resulted in a manufactured consensus.


7     You find what you shine a light on

Here is how the so-called consensus and increasing confidence in human-caused global warming became a self-fulfilling prophesy.

You find what you shine a light on.  In other words, we have only been looking at one part of the elephant.

Motivated by the UN Climate treaty and the IPCC and government funding, climate scientists have focused primarily on human-caused climate change.  Other factors important for understanding climate variability and change have been relatively neglected. I have highlighted long-term ocean oscillations and solar indirect effects, since I think that these are potentially very important on decadal to century timescales.


8     The sea level rise alarm

One of the most consequential impacts of a warming climate is sea level rise. These two statements by climate scientists typify the alarm over sea level rise:

Is this alarm justified by the scientific evidence?


9 Is CO2 the control knob for global sea level rise?

This figure illustrates the challenge of attributing long-term sea level rise to CO2emissions. The blue curve shows sea level change since 1800, measured from tide gauges.

The red curve shows global emissions of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels. You can see that global sea levels were rising steadily long before fossil fuels emissions became substantial. You can also see that the steep increase in emissions following 1950 is associated with very little sea level rise between 1950 and 1990.

An uptick in sea level rise occurred in the 1990’s, which is circled.  Lets take a closer look to see what is causing this.


10   What is causing recent sea level rise?

Since 1993, global satellite data have provided valuable information about sea level variations and glacier mass balance.  This figure shows a recent analysis of the budget of sea level rise since 1993.  You can see that overall the rate of sea level rise has increased since 1993.

What is causing this increase?  The turquoise region on the bottom of the diagram relates directly to expansion from warming.  You actually see a decrease until about 2009, which has been attributed to the cooling impact following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1992.

What stands out as causing the increase in the rate of sea level rise is the growing contribution from Greenland, which is the dark blue area on top.  Hence the recent increase in the rate of sea level rise is caused by Greenland melting.


11  Variations in Greenland glacier mass balance

So, is the Greenland melting caused by increasing CO2 emissions?

This figure shows the Greenland mass balance for the 20th century. Ice sheet mass balance is defined as increase from snowfall, minus the decrease from melting.  You can see the negative mass balance values after 1995, reflecting mass loss that raises sea level.  If you look earlier in the record, you see even larger negative values particularly in the 1920’s and 1930’s.  Clearly, the high surface mass loss rates of recent years are not unprecedented, even in the 20thcentury.

Greenland was anomalously warm in the 1930’s and 1940’s. What caused this?

The bottom figure shows variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is an important mode of natural internal climate variability.  The AMO is a powerful control on the climate of Greenland.

Ingeneral, years with positive AMO index are associated with a mass loss for Greenland, whereas negative AMO index is associated with a mass gain.


12  IPCC AR5 quotes on sea level rise

From this analysis, I can only conclude that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of sea level rise since the mid 19thcentury.

The scientific evidence that I’ve shown you on the preceding slides is well known to the IPCC.  Here are some statements that the most recent IPCC report made on sea level change and Greenland: 

13 To what extent are man-made CO2 emissions contributing to climate change?

I’ve been asked to respond to the question “To what extent are man-made CO2 emissions contributing to climate change?”

The short answer is:  ‘we don’t know.’ The reason is that we don’t know how to disentangle natural internal variability from the effects of CO2–driven warming

Even the IPCC doesn’t claim to know exactly. The most recent IPCC assessment report says it is ‘extremely likely’ to be  ‘more than half.’ ‘More than half’ is not very precise.

Given the IPCC’s neglect of multi-decadal and longer time scales of natural internal variability, I regard the extreme confidence of their conclusion to be unjustified

So here is my personal assessment, using the jargon of the IPCC:  Man-made CO2emissions are as likely as not to contribute less than 50% of the recent warming


14  Should we reduce emissions to prevent warming?

Even if you believe the climate model projections, there is still genuine disagreement regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response.

One side argues that reducing CO2emissions are critical for preventing future dangerous warming of the climate.  The other side argues that any reduction in warming would be minimal and at high cost, and that the  ‘cure’ could be worse than the ‘disease’.


15   Climate pragmatism

What makes most sense to me is Climate Pragmatism, which has been formulated by the Hartwell group.  Climate pragmatism has 3 pillars:

  • Accelerate energy innovation
  • Build resilience to extreme weather
  • No regrets pollution reduction

These policies provide near-term socioeconomic & environmental benefits and have justifications independent of climate mitigation & adaptation

 These are no regrets policies that do not require agreement about climate science or the risks of uncontrolled greenhouse gases

16   Madhouse effect

I would like to make a few comments on the state of the scientific and public debate on climate change.

Here is my take on the Madhouse effect.  The madhouse that concerns me is one that has been created by climate scientists.  The madhouse is characterized by

  • Rampant overconfidence in an overly simplistic theory of climate change
  • Enforcement of a politically-motivated, manufactured ‘consensus’
  • Attempts to stifle scientific and policy debates
  • Activism and advocacy for their preferred politics and policy
  • Self-promotion and ‘cashing in’
  • Public attacks on other scientists that do not support the ‘consensus’

Hmmm . . . maybe I should write a book.


17 Personal statement

In closing, I would like to make a personal statement, to clarify my motives

I regard my job as a scientist to critically evaluate evidence and to continually challenge and reassess conclusions drawn from the evidence.

A year ago I resigned my tenured faculty position because of academic political pressures that interfered with doing my job.  My resignation was a direct result of ‘science madhouse effect’ discussed on the previous slide.

I am now working in the private sector as President of Climate Forecast Applications Network

My direct engagement with public is via my blog Climate Etc.  where we discuss a broad range of topics related to climate science and policy.  I hope you’ll join us at judithcurry.com.


Leave a Reply

36 Comment threads
130 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
80 Comment authors

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
R. Shearer

Maybe that lighting placement was intentional or a Godsend, otherwise one would have to see Michael Mann’s face.

James Bull

Anthony says
“Poor Michael Mann (at the podium) has no face as a result.”
I suppose it makes a change from having no spine to debate with those that question his view of the climate.

James Bull


Can you tax natural variability, no,
Can you tax CO2, yes.
No contest.


Not much of a career to be made on the back of natural change either , nor indeed any political opportunities. The ‘need’ for AGW has little to do with science .


The webcast(still on) is a total failure. Audio is unintelligible and the video is very low resolution and the powerpoint images on the screen next to the speakers are virtually invisible. On my MAC I could not get the video on full screen and on my PC I managed to get it to fill half. I’m demanding my $10 back.


By design or just simple incompetence?

Tom in fForida

It has to be intentional, likely Mann realized he was in deep trouble and had his people scuttle the broadcast. Or the UVA produces totally incompetent people and should have their charter revoked.

P Walker

WVU, not UVA. Different institutions.

Sam C Cogar

West Virginia University (@ Morgantown, WV)

UVA …. University of Virginia ???, …. Vagas, … Vancouver ????

West Virginia University at Charleston (@ Charleston, WV)


Show me the science showing that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of any recent climatic changes, not whatever natural forcings causing these same changes numerous times in the Earth’s past.


The only people offering an explanation for the warming are the experts. CO2 has some obvious fingerprints.

Curry and others have not even proposed why they think the earth is warming. All we hear is “we don’t know the exact percentage of the primary forcing, so let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist.”

Curry was monotone and offered little science. Mann and Titley were professional and informative. Mann was very personable.

Moore was embarrassing. Several times the audience was laughing at him, poor guy. He thinks that Milankovitch cycles can be seen in 100 years, and he’s a couple of magnitudes off base. He also said that glaciers were increasing. He needs to collect his last check and retire.


“…so let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist.”

Why do you ascribe beliefs that nobody has ever uttered or even implied a single time?

Talk about embarassing!


What is Curry’s explanation for the warming? It’s clearly not the sun.

How is the earth warming? Mann explained, Curry and Moore simply said the majority of the world’s climate scientists were wrong.

Moore was so bad the audience laughed several times. I felt bad for him.

The thankful warming since the end of the catastrophic LIA- the highest glaciation of the Holocene? The significantly more extreme warming of the 30’s and 40’s? The greater warming of the MWP or the last interglacial? None of which was related to atmospheric CO2.

I’m sure Mike highlighted the Santer lie and deletions, his 390x algorithm that created CO2 hockey sticks from thin air, his spliced proxies truncated at the point they become embarrassing and the absolute PR/FOIA subversion orchestrated by his cabal of charlatans?

I really respect and appreciate Dr. Curry and her willingness to stand up to these villains, but it would be wise to illustrate the positions of the scientists in 1995, the failed models and the incompetence and behavior of the small cabal driving the most successful statist redistribution scheme in history.


“It’s clearly not the sun.”

comment image

High solar activity correlates with warming. Low solar activity correlates with cooling. Activity has been high in recent decades, hence warming. (it’s clearly the sun)…

DW Rice


Your chart ends in 2000, at which point the ’35-year running average’ sunspot number (yellow lines superimposed on the Wanner et al. chart) appears to be close to the lowest point in the record. Despite that, global temperatures were at their highest point in the record.

It seems that since 2000 the long term decline in sunspot numbers has continued:

comment image

The long term increase in global surface, troposphere and ocean temperatures has also continued since 2000. So whatever has caused the recent warming, it’s certainly not “clearly the sun…”


DWR, your comment is SO bad that it’s not even worth responding to. So i won’t. (you won’t last long here spouting drivel like that)…


(just for the record, his first paragraph is false, second is true and third is false; 1 out of 3 points just ain’t worth the time of day)…


It’s amazing how Alley Cat can misrepresent Curry’s positions even when Anthony has her positions laid out in this very blog post. (simply amazing)…


You just “misrepresented” Curry position on the sun vs temps.


i’m not representing dr curry’s position PERIOD (and never said that i was)…


Saying “it’s CO2 because we can’t think what else it is” is the type example for all time of the “argumentum ad ignorantium” logical fallacy. It just reaffirms the self-evident: “we can’t think”.

The main driver of Northern Hemisphere climate variability on decadal to century scales is the fluctuation in strength of the AMOC driven by the salinity downwelling / Greenland ice melt intermittent positive feedback and resultant nonlinear oscillation. Judith Curry has published on this in her (+Wyatt) “stadium wave” papers.

This oceanic process is not affected in any way by the trace gas CO2 – indeed nothing in climate is except climate politics and mythology.


“What is Curry’s explanation for the warming? It’s clearly not the sun.”

What is the current explanation for the cooling from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age? You just need to revert it and you explain a great deal of the warming since the Little Ice Age. What, we don’t have an explanation for what caused the LIA? Then we should stop pretending that we understand Modern Warming.

David A

A clear failure, full of straw-man statements, to actually read the dialogue. The skeptics won the debate with one hand tied behind their backs. What hand you ask? The answer is zero real discussion of the IMMENSE and KNOWN benefits of CO2, while the ever in the future projected harms ( Mann has ownership of some of these major fails) do not manifest.


Mann said what Alley wanted to hear, which proves that Mann was scientific and professional while everyone else was not.


Curry said what MarkW wanted to hear. He clapped for old canards.

Tie game.


In your primitive little mind, not offering an explanation is the equivalent of proclaiming something doesn’t exist?

No wonder you are a believer, because you can’t think for yourself.


Why the insults?

No wonder you worship at the altar of Heartland. You can’t think for yourself.

Tie game. Your turn to insult, and we can watch as Watts pretends that I’m the one insulting.


Didn’t Curry list several potential interactive causes (above), and explain that more research is needed before a unified theory of climate science is achieved?

Most of these causes can be found on WUWT for your own personal research.

She did mention solar effects (above). These were perhaps first examined by Svensmark et al in Cloud Mystery, and others have added their ideas as to what causes more & less solar radiation to strike Earth.

Another Scott

How could you tell? Did you watch the webcast or were you there in person?


In person.

Giles Bointon

Dear Alley, may I ask if you had a pre-existing option regarding global warming before you went to the debate or were you wide eyed, open and willing to listen to a very plausible alternative explanation for global warning. If you didn’t like JC’s body language might it have been that she is a scientist first and a public performer second. Could I also suggest that with Michael Mann, it is the other way round?


I did find it fascinating that first and foremost in his list of why Mann is correct is the fact that he found Mann to be entertaining while Curry wasn’t.


Why lie about what I have written?

“Mann and Titley were professional and informative”

Maybe you stop reading after the first sentence and make up the rest.


Why do you think Curry is correct? It is because you found Curry’s rehashed lies to be informative?


Body language? Why did you just make up how she appeared physically?

Of course I went in hoping to hear what others are saying is causing the warming, but since she offered nothing in that regards, why treat her views on CO2 seriously?

She never refutes that CO2 is a forcing, but leaves that open to other ways the earth can be heating. How?

Open minds want to know, and Curry did not deliver. And Moore was simply embarrassing himself.


Have those experts offered explanations of why the climate warmed from the late 1800s to 1950? Not anthropogenic cow.

Clyde Spencer


You must have nodded off early, or had your cognitive bias blinders on. See Curry’s slide #3.

Occam’s Razor suggests the simplest explanation. With the Earth warming after the end of the last continental glaciation, the safe-bet prediction would be that it will continue to warm until equilibrium is established, or the forces that caused the glaciation return. That is, the Earth is trying to re-establish the temperature regime that existed prior to glaciation.


Trolls have declared that in order to be scientific, it has to agree with what they already believe.


Occam’s Razor still doesn’t say what causes climate to change – just to take the simplest choice of proposed causes available at time of discussion.

Alley—“Curry was monotone and offered little science. Mann and Titley were professional and informative. Mann was very personable”
When you cannot argue the facts, attack the opposition personally.
Allen, please show us the actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.


What is the personal attack? Noting facts is not personal. Lots of thin skin here.

Curry as usual did not offer up any counter-science to CO2. Earth is warming, and she admits that CO2 is a forcing, but can’t take it one step further and call it what is it: a primary forcing.


Alley, what caused the numerous warming periods in the Earth’s past? Certainly not anthropogenic CO2. Perhaps nobody knows for certain, but it is certain they did occur. My original question was how are you so certain the current warming trend is due to anthropogenic CO2 and not the forcing s that caused past warm periods?


Kamikazedave, many reasons for past warming. This is easy to look up.

What does that have to do with CO2 as a primary forcing? The rate of warming is unprecedented.

Johann Wundersamer

Alley that old: the rate of warming is “unprecedented”.

Prey, what’s “precedented”.



You can look up the word “unprecedented” and see for yourself.


Unprecedented? Totally untrue and nothing in the scientific record to support such a ridiculous assertion.

Greg S.

“but can’t take it one step further and call it what is it: a primary forcing.”

That would be lying. There’s zero real-world empirical evidence to support such a statement.


Greg, so why is the earth warming? If it’s not the primary forcing, then what is? Don’t tell us it’s the sun, because even Curry knows that there is less solar irradiation.


You don’t get it do you? It’s not up to any doubters to offer the real explanation of why the earth is presently warming. Since about 1995, there was and is ample evidence to dismiss the dangerous green house gas hypothesis supposed proof. Its up to the warming crowd to modify or refute the doubters. That has not been done.
It’s so bad the consensus will not even release their data so that repeatability can be checked.


Alley is most likely a bot. Unable to actually intellectualize an argument and totally not programmed to understand the actual, scientific method.


swampgator has nothing but insults. Probably a bot.

D. J. Hawkins

You exhibit all the characteristics of the invincibly ignorant. Curry’s explanation is “it’s natural”. The simple slide showing the lack of coupling between sea level rise out of the LIA and CO2 (#9) should be a show stopper for warministas, but no.


“You exhibit all the characteristics of the invincibly ignorant. ”

Nice insult. Your comment will remain because that’s what this site is all about, as long as it comes from someone who thinks Curry explains the warming, but she never does.

D. J. Hawkins

Here’s the deal; she doesn’t have to explain the warming. This is a delusion you share with Nick Stokes. No principal of the scientific method requires an alternate explanation for a given phenomenon. It is sufficient that she show there is no good connection between CO2 and temperature, sea level rise, etc. Which she has done.


Curry MUST explain the warming since all she does is say that all science organizations are wrong.

Why listen to somebody that has no response other than “I really really think CO2 is around 50%, but maybe less, but I could be wrong, but so are they.”


“He thinks that Milankovitch cycles can be seen in 100 years, and he’s a couple of magnitudes off base.”

Actually the rate of change of high-latitude insolation is on the order of 1 Wm^-2 per century.


You don’t need to offer an alternative theory in order to prove that the current theory is full of holes.

Nobody has claimed that the Earth isn’t warming, that’s your lie.

The earth has warmed up in 150 years. CO2 has gone up. In your primitive little mind, this constitutes proof? Temperatures did not go up smoothly, in fact temperatures started rising before CO2 did.

PS, despite what you have been told to believe, glaciers are growing.


“In your primitive little mind”

Welcome to Watts site. Insults from the people who don’t understand the topic are welcome.

Giles Bointon

Alley, Well done trying to maintain your argument. That’s what happens on this and other sites. Your arguments, in my mind, ar already made up. Fair enough. Your job is therefore to try and refute Dr Curry’s arguments. I really don’t believe you have done that at all. Her case is that warming over time is fairly linear. The actual measurement year on year are all below the models which means that the models are wrong. Even an article in Geoscience half admitted that. Could you give me just ONE piece of measurable fact that could change my skepticism? Not regurgitated unproven predictions. Thank you.


You missed the past three years. Models have done exceptionally well.

I guess if all major science organizations that have come to the same conclusion are not enough for you, then why bother pointing your to the many sites? I assume you’ve read at least some of them.


With every passing reply, Alley Cat reveals himself to be the light weight troll that he is (Alley, you’d better up your game or you won’t last very long here)…


fonzie-cat with more hand waving, no science. Why the game?


Alley, simple example. Put a pot of water to boil, and calculate for me where/when the bubbles will form. When your predictions don’t work, it is not helpful to grump that I can’t predict it either. And a bigger computer won’t help, either. The whole point is that nobody knows how to predict this accurately in detail. That’s as far as the science can take this question so far, and that’s the proper way to describe it.


Perhaps the people in charge of setting up the camera(s) and sound system for the web feed relied on the models in the camera and microphone brochures, without checking how it all actually worked.


Only one capital letter. Who are you and what have you done with the real Trevor?


I’m Trevor in Ontari-owe, rarely post, sometimes Massieguy. I guess I’m not your “real” Trevor.


Excellent presentation. Reasoned and compelling. Bravo, Dr. Curry!

John Garrett

Brava Dr. Curry !!

John Garrett

By the way, (according to the promotional poster at Dr. Curry’s website) the debate occurred at The University of Charleston (West Virginia) not UVa (Charlottesville, Virginia).

comment image


While it is somewhat true that over centuries, natural variability does even out.
The problem is that the tuning period for the models was not centuries, and the predictions being made are for decades, not centuries.

If your data space is not long enough to “even out” natural variability, than failing to take it into account in your model is just more evidence of either incompetence or malfeasance.


Well put Markus (nicely, concisely done)…

Pat Frank

Tuning the models over an arbitrarily long period will still not enable them to predict the climate outside of the tuning range.

Greg Cavanagh

True; it’s a non-linear chaotic system. If the models are tuned between time periods, then that is the only place they can represent. As soon as the chaotic nature takes hold, the model goes off in one direction while the atmosphere goes off in another.


With a proper tuning period, it will take a bit longer for the models to fail spectacularly.



Continual ad hoc adjustment of GCMs (calibration) provides a means for the model to avoid being falsified … link

They pretend that the models are deterministic, ie. based entirely on physics. The process of calibrating the models turns them into exercises in curve matching.

Here’s what the father of climate modeling has to say:

Provided, however, that the observed trend has in no way entered the construction or operation of the models, the procedure would appear to be sound. link

The tuning is the problem.

Here’s what von Neumann has to say on curve matching:

With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. link

In other words, matching a curve is easy. That doesn’t mean that you understand the processes that produced the curve. As you tack more data onto the curve you can continue to match it. The thing is that, your resulting equation probably has no predictive skill.

They can continue to tune the GCMs to match historical data but they will still fail to predict the future.

“The process of calibrating the models turns them into exercises in curve matching.”
No it doesn’t. I don’t think you know at all how tuning works. Or GCMs.


Tuning is the process of cherry picking values for various parameters that enables your GCM to match historical data.

It generally tries to match some data about something. But it isn’t trying to match a time sequence. Here, for example, is a paper by Mauritsen et al describing how they do it. They describe a problem:
“In a typical sequence, first we would try to correct Northern Hemisphere tropospheric wind and surface pressure biases by adjusting parameters related to the parameterized orographic gravity wave drag. Then, we tune the global mean temperature as described in Sections 2.1 and 2.3, and, after some time when the coupled model climate has come close to equilibrium, we will tune the Arctic sea ice volume (Section 2.4).”

Something they don’t have good information about. So they tune to GMT. Does that mean they try to make it look like the warming we know so well? No:

“To us, a global mean temperature in close absolute agreement with observations is of highest priority because it sets the stage for temperature-dependent processes to act. For this, we target the 1850–1880 observed global mean temperature of about 13.7uC [Brohan et al., 2006]. Beyond that, we prioritize having globally averaged TOA shortwave absorption and outgoing longwave radiation in good agreement with satellite observations, along with a representation of important climate variability modes.”

They tune to get it right in just one 30 yr period, long ago. Or to a recent period – satellite OLR. This isn’t building in any trends meant to forecast the future. It is just trying to reduce the uncertainty of an existing, fixed parameter.

Jeff Alberts

If they’re using something called a “global mean temperature”, they’re operating on a fantasy from the start.

Louis Hooffstetter

“Tuning is the process of cherry picking values for various parameters that enables your GCM to match historical data.”

Exactly, a process that is more commonly referred to as ‘cheating’.

Steven Mosher

Err No. It is standard practice in setting the values for parameters where you know the range but not the exact value.

Suppose you are building a car simulator and you do not have accuarate
estimates of the drag coefficient or the friction coefficient of the tires.
You might just have ranges for both. say somwhere between .2 and .4
So you set the paramter to .3 and compare it to the small amount of test data you have for performance in a straightaway. You get the model to predict the performance correctly for the straightway.

Then you run the model over a road course, through curves, and bumps etc. You tuned to get the straightaway performance in the ballpark and then you run it outside those conditions.

The best example of this I know from past experience is where we had to build a model of aircraft performance for a foreign government.
The model had to represent all the sensor on the aircraft, in particular an accelerometer. This sensor was critical to flight controls. Unfortunately, there was no documentation of the performance of that part. But we had a range of values it could be given theory. So, you pick a value and run
the simulation and compare with a small set of actual flight test data until you solve for the value the actual accelerometer had to be to reproduce the test results. Not cheating, re arranging terms of an equation to solve for an unknown.


As a matter of fact I’ve been in the aerospace and modeling business myself, and I know that this procedure is only useful when you have one uncertain parameter (well possibly two, if you have plenty of computation power). “Tuning” several parameters to get the “correct” value isn’t really cheating, it’s more like pure fantasy.


My first link is to Judith Curry’s site. She knows way more about GCMs than either of us.

Using calibration adjustments to avoid model falsification is no different than curve fitting … unless you assert that Edward Lorenz was wrong. He also knew more about the subject than either of us.

“She knows way more about GCMs than either of us.”
I don’t think she does.

“unless you assert that Edward Lorenz was wrong”
What did Lorenz say about tuning?

Tom Halla

I hope someone does a transcript of the conference.


This is climate science after all. The presentation will be adjusted later to correct the video and audio problems.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

What about other side of human interference impact on climate-temperature, that does not depend on greenhouse effect — impact of ecological changes such as urban-heat-island effect and rural-cold-island effect, etc.

I coined the general circulation as natural internal variability — not large-scale ocean circulations as both land and water plays the role.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy


UHI is the biggest temp s c a m going……….

James Anderson

I totally agree. Who decides what correction to UHI is proper? Drop all urban temp sites and show us the data


BEST proved that rural stations showed the same warming as urban stations. No scam.


No it didn’t. BIG scam.

Clyde Spencer

They did not PROVE it! They looked at the problem and estimated what was urban and what was rural. They then compared the urban temps with the rural temps. The problem is that the prevailing winds will take the urban heat and move it down wind for several miles. A remote sensing study of Atlanta demonstrated that the weather was affected for several miles downwind of Atlanta. What BEST should have done was to compare the upwind rural temps with the urban temps. They didn’t do that.

Steven Mosher

They did not PROVE it! They looked at the problem and estimated what was urban and what was rural. They then compared the urban temps with the rural temps. The problem is that the prevailing winds will take the urban heat and move it down wind for several miles. A remote sensing study of Atlanta demonstrated that the weather was affected for several miles downwind of Atlanta. What BEST should have done was to compare the upwind rural temps with the urban temps. They didn’t do that.”

Err no. In the case of megacities ( London) there are some MODELLING STUDIES that indicate that some UHI can be advected downwind, but heat has this weird thing about rising and temperatures are measured at 2m

For Moderate sized cities ( pop 1M ) the UHI can advect a few km, but again only in specific directions at specifi times of the year.
Generically: If a city has a MAX UHI ( wind free day, cloud free, in the summer ) of 1C, it will have an average UHI of about .5C
But that is only for about 25% of the year, so the annual UHI is 25% of .5C
Now, when that small amount advecs downwind… hard to find.
The problem is most people read UHI literature which is focused on finding
the BIGGEST NUMBER POSSIBLE. so they record MAX UHI, on the worse days possible. Not average UHI over a full year. If you look for the max you will find it, but averaged with all the normal days in the year the signal diminishes to below the noise floor of weather

Anyway to address the ‘blown down wind” UHI issue
What I did was build a database of stations that were 20 km or more from even small cities ( pop 10K)

These rural stations also warm as much as all the other stations.
No discernable UHI. Not because UHI doesnt exist

Jeff Alberts

They, like everyone else, averaged different sites together, and came up with a fantasy.


Curry averaged two sites? Why would she do that?

old construction worker

“urban-heat-island effect and rural-cold-island effect, etc.” “rural-cold-island effect,”? What is that? We know UHI is adjusted downward with some questionable method. Are you saying that rural stations data needs to be adjusted upward because of some artificial cooling? If so please name the source of artificial cooling.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

After 60s large areas have been brought under agriculture with irrigation keeping the areas green and water bodies [dams] covering large areas. These areas unlike urban areas have sparse met recording stations. These areas are missed in the averaging of temperature.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

old construction worker

“keeping the areas green and water bodies [dams] covering large areas. ” “These areas are missed in the averaging of temperature. First how do you know there is a “cooling effect” in these areas? Computer model? Second. Are you saying since the ares are not “natural” the temps must be adjusted up?

J Mac

This has the appearance of a A/V ‘planned failure’.



Nothing wrong with that presentation other than the cartoons are a bit cheesy.

The important thing is that its accessible to those other than scientists.

9/10. Plus a few crackers.


michael hart

If you can’t even unequivocally detect changes caused by carbon dioxide over the 60 years since commencement of detailed measurements (which they can’t), then it makes sense to say that you probably can’t usefully predict changes either over such a time period. Another 60 years takes us a large part of the way towards the 22nd century.

I suspect that in 2078 there will still be some people insisting that their predictions will come true if only you believe their models are correct, and continue funding them until the cows come home.

bit chilly

“poor michael mann has no face as a result”. you mean you can’t see either of them. oh well, how sad, never mind.


Any chance of getting the other presentations?

Tom Abbott

From the article: “Greenland was anomalously warm in the 1930’s and 1940’s.”

Lots of places all over the world were anomalously warm during that time period.


And lots of places were anomalously warmer…way warmer. Check out Greenland and Antarctica 123-125,000 years ago. Sea levels 5-6 meters higher….and all without the humidification horror of hominid hellfire on Earth.

I have no patience for poor video productions. You don’t just slap up a camera any old way and use whatever lighting happens to shine. It’s a PRODUCTION. It has to be DESIGNED and executed with proper technical knowledge and skill. You have to do sound checks, light checks, make aesthetic judgements and readjustments to get things right.

Come on, people! If you take the time to get the content together, and you take the time to hype the importance of it, for God sake take the time to do a competent technically planned production that represents what you advertise!

As I said, … no patience.

Another Scott

Especially if you charge money for it…..


My teenage son would have done it better using his i-phone ……

Gunga Din

Maybe Mickey has a better copy he’ll share with the rest of us?
If reducing Man’s CO2 is so important, why hide anything?

PS Didn’t his contract for the event say there would be no recordings of the event?
That left only recordings of the live feed available?

I subscribed to the webinar but as Anthony says the audible feed was horrible. I recorded the debate which provided a greater ability to decipher what was said, but I am asking for a refund for such a shoddy technical presentation. By tomorrow hopefully I can post everyone’s quotes.

That being said it appeared both Curry and Moore demolished Mann and Titley, as evidenced by Dr. Curry’s transcript


Sad, someone could have done better through their phone on Youtube live. One wonders if the Mann was in charge of production. Just sayin, WHO GOT THE MONEY for it?

Per Judith.

“I am getting no honorarium, no cut.

A learning experience . . .”


“I don’t think the ‘fee’ is because of the organizers. I suspect it resulted from negotiations with one of the participants.

I hope someone makes a transcript of this or a podcast.”

Interesting, no?

I smell a burning Pinus longaeva…..


The forum was presented by Spilman Thomas & Battle, a law firm that represents oil, gas and coal interests. Oil interests were in charge of production. They screwed up.

Clyde Spencer

The university screwed up because it was their venue and their equipment.

Mike the Morlock

Hello Alley
This is a little advertisement for them.
They practice all forms of law.

Oh and this little line by you “law firm that represents oil, gas and coal interests. Oil interests were in charge of production. ” Insinuating that they are in “Oils” pocket are you?
I hope not because that might be construed as libel-slander: and they are after all a law firm.
Have good night and pleasant dreams.


“Insinuating that they are in “Oils” pocket are you?”

No. Telling you some of their clients is not insinuating anything. Slander? That’s funny.

The moderator said that we all agree in climate change because “the climate has always changed.” That’s a bad sign from the start. He should have looked up the topic prior.

Tom Abbott

The climate *has* always changed.


Gee, the climate has always changed. Yes, that’s what “climate change” means. Yep.

No, it means that earth is warming and we need to see what the primary forcings are. Curry missed the memo and never states why the earth is warming, but that we could be wrong. That’s not science.


You don’t need to present a better theory to prove that the current theory is faulty.

Sometimes the only correct answer IS, “We don’t know”.

Mike the Morlock

“No, it means that earth is warming and we need to see what the primary forcings are.”

Alley is English a second language for you? The two words together are non-specific. It can mean the climate for the total existence of the planet. It can mean the climate of say Mars, example, Mars is experiencing climate change. Both planets have had climate change.
By the way it snowed in Montana Tuesday- “climate change”



“Alley is English a second language for you?”

Yes, sorry if it isn’t yours. What two words confuse you? Climate Change? Did you seriously think that it meant the climate changes for this forum?



Is there any nutty theory you don’t believe in?


Morano/Bastasch, YAT?

C’mon man!

Opportunity knocks…..

James A. Schrumpf

As a loyal alumnus of the Class of 1979, I have to take umbrage with your savaging of my University’s name. It is “West Virginia University”, not “The University of West Virginia.” The abbreviation is WVU, not UWV.

Thank you, and Let’s Go Mountaineers!!!


1985 here. Agreed!

comment image


It appears someone has been sent over to WUWT in order to capitalise on the web-feed fail, by pretending that Mann & Titley did a great job of demolishing Curry & Moore. It will interesting to see them exposed as a liar, when other accounts trickle in which counter that assertion…


Well go on then. Tell us what you know …….


I was there. What do you want to know?


A synopsis maybe? It’s OK though, I can wait. I just considered Dreadnought’s post a bit dubious and possibly/probably trollish, given that Jim Steele is not a liar.

R Dennis

I received an email from Pam Kesling, from gotowebinar. She said there was a separate professional recording made of the event which will be shared when available.

I assume everyone who complained via email received the same message.

Jeff L

Kudos to Dr. Curry !
I am 100% in your camp on all of the slides your presented. That’s how real scientists think!

dodgy geezer

…There is widespread agreement on these basic tenets:
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet


There is widespread agreement that if you take a bottle of clean air with no CO2 in it, and a bottle of air with some CO2 in it, it should get slightly hotter in the sunshine. Perhaps I should say that there is widespread agrement that there is a mechanism which has this effect.

But whether it actually operates to warm the planet is a different question. We know that CO2 can increase and the planet’s temperature can decrease at the same time. We know that the planet is a complex system, and that increasing CO2 might also increase vegetation growth, which might have a cooling effect greater than the radiation absorbtion mechanism heating. How can we be sure what the total effect of increasing CO2 is?

I think that all you can say is that there is agreement that this meghanism exists – together with many other mechanisms which we know we know little about. And that the total impact is one of those things we know little about….


What about CO2’s fingerprints like a cooling stratosphere?

What about the fact that no other explanation has been given besides “there might be something else happening?”

Giles Bointon

When there is evidence that ‘something else is happening’ that is true scientific honesty. If you claim to know all the answers and that the science is settled, then that is non-scientific dishonesty.


Giles, I would suggest you stop pretending that scientists have said that they know all the answers. Would help.


Funny, a few years ago they were telling us that CO2 was supposed to make the stratosphere warmer.
Then they found out that the stratosphere was cooler, we suddenly start hearing “we predicted that”.


No, they real climate scientists have been telling us that for decades. Maybe you missed the memo, but your lie is not true because you missed this simple fact.


“There is widespread agreement that if you take a bottle of clean air with no CO2 in it, and a bottle of air with some CO2 in it, it should get slightly hotter in the sunshine.”

No. There is widespread agreement that if you take a bottle of clean air with no CO2 in it, and a bottle of air with some CO2 in it, and put them close to a source of LWIR (which the sun isn’t) the CO2 bottle should get slightly hotter.

Tom Abbott

“There is widespread agreement on these basic tenets:
Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet


There is widespread agreement that if you take a bottle of clean air with no CO2 in it, and a bottle of air with some CO2 in it, it should get slightly hotter in the sunshine. Perhaps I should say that there is widespread agrement that there is a mechanism which has this effect.

But whether it actually operates to warm the planet is a different question.”

Yes, and a question that has not been answered.

What we do have are guesses about how much heat CO2 will add to the atmosphere. Guesses which seem to go lower every time we get a new evaluation, and guesses which do not take into account possible negative feedbacks.

So claiming CO2 is warming the planet is a little premature.


The elephant cartoon should become a permanent heading on this site.


Gee, thanks.

Alan Tomalty

Unless there was some agreement between Curry and Moore to split up the subtopics (I dont have access to Moore’s presentation) there was a lot that Curry left out.

The most important topic being the failure of the climate models. Also she should have said that no database in the world shows any more extreme weather events than there ever were. Also that 10 of the 13 weather stations in Antarctica show no warming in last 60 years. No heat island effects there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fact that Greenland lost 20 % of its ice when warming was up to 3-5C warmer in period from 8000 to 5000 years ago. It took 3000 years to lose 20 %.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fact that ice cores in Antarctica show that Antarctica didnt melt 120000 years ago when temp was 5C higher. The reason we know it didn’t melt is that ice core data go back 800000 years.

I could go on and on ad infinitum of important subtopics that Curry left out. However since time was of the essence we need more debates.

Wiliam Haas

1. There is no consensus on the validity of the AGW conjecture. Scientists never registered and voted on the matter. But even if they had, science is not a democracy, The laws of science are not some form of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated via a voting process. So such a consensus, if it existed would be meaningless.

2. Radiametric calculations, performed decades ago, came up with a value of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 without regard to any feedback effects. Kyoji Kimoto has pointed out that this calculation ignores the fact that a doubling of CO2 would cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. This cooling effect reduces the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20 yielding a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .06 degrees C which is a trivial amount.

3. According to the AGW conjecture, CO2 based warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which in turn causes more warming because H2O is a greenhouse gas, with LWIR absorption bands. For those that believe in the radiametric greenhouse effect, molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 and because there is so much more H2O in the Earth’s atmosphere then is CO2, H2O is by far the primary greenhouse gas. What the AGW conjecture completely ignores is that besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which is mostly some form of H2O, to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. According to some models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The net cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere, Instead of providing a positive feedback and alplifying the warming effect of CO2, H2O provides a negative feedback which diminishes any warming effect ath CO2 might have. Some like to assume that the amplification of CO2 based warming by H2O is a factor of 3 whereby a more realistic amplification factor would be 1/3, yielding a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is an even more trivial amount.

4 The AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping action of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is really a convective and not a radiative greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where gravity limits cooling by convection. The Earth’s convective greenhouse effect is a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the height of the troposphere and gravity. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface of the Earth on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would be otherwise. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is the amount that has been measured. Additional warming from a radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction..

5. Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is effectively zero. There are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. .


Throughout history, there have been many instances of scientific “consensus” that later proved to be wrong.


Most have been right. If you’re standing on the “skeptic” side of the most basic “knowns” for a science that has been around for more than a century, then it’s time to reconsider whether standing with a very small minority of qualified scientists is reason enough to boast “but they can sometimes be wrong.”

I’m sure there are a handful of doctors who think incense is a cure for mumps.

If CO2 is not the primary forcing as some have been screaming for a couple of decades, how is it that they don’t have a reasonable alternative to the obvious warming? Earth is warming, stratosphere is cooling, CO2 levels rising, nights warming faster than days, rising tropopause. What could be causing all of that?


2. Radiametric calculations, performed decades ago, came up with a value of 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 without regard to any feedback effects. Kyoji Kimoto has pointed out that this calculation ignores the fact that a doubling of CO2 would cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere which is a cooling effect. This cooling effect reduces the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20 yielding a climate sensitivity of CO2 of less than .06 degrees C which is a trivial amount.

Any effect of CO2 on lapse rate would be trivial, the effect on cp would be less than 0.1%


Whilst Judith Curry is a great advocate for the sceptical cause as a scientist she seems wedded to the concept that CO2 causes some global warming and then tends to argue about the extent . As a layman I feel that no one has been able to convince me that there is in fact any correlation and causation between CO2 and global warming. Anecdotally I know that my gut feel is correct and the temperature has been much more random in its movement than CO2. If the initial hypothesis had never been put forward I suspect that no one would’ve all of a sudden thought ” gee it’s getting hot, must be all that horrible CO2.” She also refers in climate pragmatism to no regrets pollution reduction. I assume this is a reference to CO2 and if that is correct disagree that under any definition of pollution CO2 does not fit the definition. In fact CO2 is the exact opposite of what a normal human being would envisage as being characteristic of a pollutant.

Here is how climate change works. The climate on our planet is affected by several factors all working together to keep a perfect balance on our planet.

First the radiant heat generated at the core through the mantle that is relatively constant. Then the photons generated at the Sun, Those are variable dependent on differing factors. Time of the year affects the distance between the Earth and the Sun, Also the tilt of the Earth.

In the summer the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the Sun, but the planet is the farthest away from the sun in its orbit. In the winter the southern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun, But closest to the Sun. In the spring and fall the exposure is equal.

The landmass in the northern hemisphere is 68% of the planet 32% in the southern hemisphere, about 6 percent of that is Antarctica which is mostly covered in ice and snow, reflecting most of the photons (light) away. So it does not store heat from the Sun.

The land masses on the planet absorb and store more energy received from the sun much longer when the solar output is stronger in the summer. The oceans absorb more energy as light is able to penetrate deeper to release that energy, Where the land masses only receive that energy at the surface. The energy or heat on the land will penetrate deeper through thermal expansion when the energy is unable to radiate as fast due to higher temperatures at the surface. Resulting in more stored energy. A 2 to 3 degree increase in the land masses will raise the temperature of the planet the water on the planet acts like a heat sink releasing the energy into the air much quicker through evaporation, that heat leaves the planet also contributing to higher air temps.

The amount of energy we receive from the sun varies by the amount of fuel it receives from the planets in the form of gas. The gases leaving the planet in the solar system flow like jet stream toward the Sun. When they reach the surface more photons are produced radiating out from that side of the Sun.

when our planet is in alignment we receive more energy. During the summer with the northern hemisphere facing the sun that energy is stored in the land masses longer than the oceans. When there are more planet aligned in Earth summer orbit we receive a lot more energy for the planet to store. This started to happen in the second half of the 1900’s then peaked in the 1990’s and the planet warmed. All the planets orbit the Sun at different speeds. So this takes century’s to reoccur. Mercury takes 88 days, Venus 224.7 days, Mars 1.88 years, Jupiter 11.86 years, Saturn 29.4 years, Uranus 84 years, Neptune 164.79 years and Pluto takes 248 years. The results from this warming also has side effects. The natural effects are stronger storms with more heat or energy to fuel Hurricanes.

As the land masses warm more moisture is drawn from them through evaporation causing drought conditions which leads to less plant growth. The effect of this is higher co2 levels, a side effect not cause of climate change. Also with warmer drier land masses we have more volcanic activity from lower underground water levels cooling magma flows. That is the largest contributor to co2 levels on the planet. The levels have risen over the last several decades .0012% or the equivalent to about a thimble of water out of a gallon. That amount is not harmful or noticeable to humans and very necessary for plant life catch back up after natural temperature increase on the planet. Now Co or carbon monoxide on the other hand is very harmful to human. Co is what comes from the Exhaust in car, power plants, House fires and Forrest fire. But lucky for us carbon monoxide has a negative polarity like helium, hydrogen and methane so these gasses leave the planet and are pulled into the sun. That is why you stay on the ground if you are in a burning building.

When the planet align with Earth winter orbit the southern hemisphere receive that majority of the energy from the Sun. Since the southern hemisphere is mostly Ocean which is more efficient at releasing that heat into the atmosphere, it then can radiate into space and the planet does not warm.

Another factor in the planets climate is in addition to gasses from the planets are the vortices created by the planets. These vortices are the result of electrons flowing towards the Sun and protons flowing away from the Sun.

When the protons and electrons pass a planet vortices are created. When the Earth passes through these vortices it pushes the Jet stream around. Depending on the rotation of the Earth and the time of year it can bring extreme hot or cold weather. In 2014 when we passed by Jupiter in January the polar vortex was pushed deep into the south. Then 8 days later the gas jet stream coming off Jupiter gave us a follow up blast of arctic weather.

Another major factor is solar flares. These are created when the gasses flow into the Sun in tandem with the vortices created by the planets. The gasses flowing into the Sun flow towards the equator of the Sun then flow out towards the poles evenly then burning on the surface very evenly. When the magnetic vortices pass through those gasses in the atmosphere the gas gets swirled around creating solar flares. These solar flare burn more violently creating more photons leaving the Sun. When this energy reaches Earth the planet warms. We had a perfect set up for this in the 1990’s. With Neptune, Uranus both slow orbiting planet the Saturn passing by also for a few years as well as the faster orbiting planets.

Depending on the season the effects vary in the spring we tend to have rain when we pass by other planets. The disturbance to our atmosphere combined with the extra energy from the Sun, Pulling more moisture into the atmosphere brings the rainy season. In the summer the extra energy warms the land masses fueling more powerful storms, with stronger winds and tornado’s. By fall the oceans have started to warm providing the conditions for Hurricanes to start to form. The planet uses this process to keep a perfect balance to the global climate. Even the varied orbit around the Sun is designed to balance climate of the planet. Then winter comes to our hemisphere to cool things down.

After looking at all the processes happening I can’t help but think that every process is to recapture the earth original shape round and covered with water. Amazing Planet!!!

To summarize the planet is in control of the climate by natural process. That doesn’t mean we should not be good steward of our planet, pollution is a nasty thing to have to live with.

The vortices pass our planet when aligned with any of the planets in the solar system as well as the older smaller planets past Pluto. There are some other planets out there we have not discovered yet so on days when we have what appears to be unexplained disturbances in the atmosphere, You astronomer’s may want to point your telescopes in that direction you may find the next ancient planet. After we pass the planet depending on how far it is from us. Since the gasses flow much slower it takes about 4 days for Mars gas to reach us. About 8 days for Jupiter, 12 for Saturn, 16 for Uranus, 20 for Neptune. After we pass through that gas jet stream about 16 days later we will be in alignment with the gas reaching the surface of the Sun, Receiving higher amounts of photons or energy from the Sun, also generating some solar flares. The effects are subtle so don’t expect to be blown away, But they are there.

Norb Franxman



At this stage we can ask a simply question , do we currently have the ability to correctly measure in a manner that matches good experimentally design for such issues as range , accuracy , coverage etc , all the variables involved in climate ?
If that cannot be answered by yes , that we do not ‘known ‘ we can only guess .
And no amount of computing power, or models , changes GIGO , it merely makes it work faster .

And that is before we get the reason why proxies , such has ‘magic tress ‘ are needed .

In short we cannot offer an the ability to take these measurements that achieves good scientific practice, and this is situation that gets considerable worse when you look at historic data which is significant given this question of change over time not one based on a current set of measurements.


You don’t need to know all forcings, and even if you cannot know exactly the percent that CO2 is as a farcing, you can look to answers such as “if it was CO2, what do we know would happen besides warming?”

For example, if the stratosphere was cooling, that would be because of CO2 and not the sun.

Complex systems can change with large forcings that overshadow small ones. If your temperature spikes to 105°F, look to the infected wound and not some other random issue that could possibly cause a spike.

And having a doctor tell you that your body temp has been higher before, and he doesn’t know what is causing the fever because your body is very complex, is not much of an answer. You need to have something else to replace the consensus, not just pretend that it is wrong.


But if “the science” was evidentially acceptable, there would be no reason for a “consensus” in any way, shape or form.
In other words, the evidence would be, well – self evident, inarguable.
Nobody would have to lend their name in support of such evidence.
And therefore, no career opportunities in researching & supporting self-evident facts.
As has been previously observed, manmade climate change will cease to exist as a proposition or hypothesis the moment grants dry up.


Agreed. Why there is still this muddying of waters is beyond me too. No matter how many disciplines come the the same conclusions (earth is warming, it’s primarily CO2) there will be people who think there must be some other answer.

And yes, it’s interesting that once you do point out that there is a consensus, that the reference itself causes another uproar that science is not a consensus. Of course they forgot that the consensus was backed by science, and was issues because f silly things like the Oregon Petition.


Curry’s presentation is very clear and reasonable. I’d like to compare with the other presentations if you have a way to print them here.


Have you noticed that Moore has not been mentioned much? His 15 minutes were mostly rants, and it was embarrassing. Why he gets invited is amazing.


(any man who has placed himself between a seal and a bunch of angry men with clubs deserves an invite)…


He certainly talked as though eh was clubbed, but nobody was clubbing him. He talked like he hadn’t any sleep for a few days, and the others (Curry included) left him alone.

I saw the exchange, and there’s no way it doesn’t come across as “old man yelling to get off his lawn” even in the video.


Alley, do you really think that your brand of progressivism is the way forward for humanity? (oddly phrased question, i know, but i think you get fonzie’s drift)…


I see that you did not hear him speak.

And yes, the audience was laughing at him, not with him. It was cringeworthy, and I felt bad for him.

Why do you think your brand of insults is the way forward for a science topic?


Is there a transcript of Mann’s presentation anywhere?

Gunga Din

Of course there is.
But it will require an FOIA request and a bunch of lawyers to see it. 8- )