Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Comment Search Results

Search for Muller

Comments matching the search Muller:

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory

scaddenp at 12:12 PM on 13 June, 2023

Likeitwarm, your link to temperature.global does point to what interests me most. There are numerous global temperature records (eg HadCrut, GISS) which have peer-reviewed methodologies, public source code and validation by hostile review (eg Muller's BEST project). Instead you are giving credence to a site with short time frame, no review and refusing to reveal their methodology.

That to my mind means you have very different priors to me, different biases, and that is what interests me most. Different priors is normal and we all have different biases. What I am asking is whether you can remember what switched you into looking for sites like CO2Science or temperature.global? Was it just disbelief about trace gases or were there other considerations?

2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7

Philippe Chantreau at 10:14 AM on 27 February, 2022

"the content at WUWT seems to be better researched."

That is the funniest thing I have read in a while. People like me who have been following this non-debate for a long time know better.

WUWT is the site where the superbly absurd idea that excess CO2 fell back on Antarctica as carbonic snow was presented, and bitterly defended by the peanut gallery, even after multiple posts showing the phase diagram of CO2 and emphasizing the importance of partial pressure. Finally, someone could beat some sense into Anthony Watts' head, and made him realize that he had better take this off the site if he wanted any appearance of credibility. It is still accessible through the wayback machine, I believe.

The very premise of WUWT existence was the following: there is no warming, it is all an artefact of poorly designed temperature reporting stations, and the whole thing might even be intentional (insert ominous music).

This theory was successfully challenged on multiple occasions: first by a John V, who did a quick analysis of the high quality stations showing no significant difference with the major other datasets. Then, there was the BEST project, led by Richard Muller, who somehow lent credence to the concerns of some so-called "skeptics." At the time this effort was launched, Watts solemnly swore that he woud accept the conclusions. That enthusiasm evaporated (another feedback perhaps?) when the conclusions were released, confirming what the other datasets were already showing. Then, some NOAA researchers published a paper reaching, again, the same conclusions. Then, after much, much time, Watts himself participated in a research paper that essentially redid what the NOAA researchers had done, and reached the same conclusions again, but he pulled a "Spencer" by still making some vacuous argument that, in some way, he could still be right.

Over time, of course, the continued warming forced it to go silent about the very hypothesis that caused its existence in the first place, but there was never any shortage of new spots where other goal posts could be moved. It has now evolved and received help from people who managed to give it a better appearance. Nonetheless, it is still the same motivated reasoning machine that it always was.

New rebuttal to the myth 'Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change'

cyster at 06:48 AM on 21 January, 2020

What great rebuttals to this article. It is strange that it was even published with so many errors. Thought I would add these links as well.

1) Texas A&M study finds 1.2 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.2 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via properly-managed grazing, and that the drawdown potential of North American pasturelands is 800 million tons (megatonnes) of carbon per year (800 MtC/yr).

Teague, W. R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., Kreuter, U. P., Rowntree, J., Davies, C. A., R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, Byck, P. (2016). The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North America. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 71(2), 156-164. doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156 http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.full.pdf+html

2) University of Georgia study finds 3 tons of carbon per acre per year (3 tC/ac/yr) drawdown following a conversion from row cropping to regenerative grazing.

Machmuller, M. B., Kramer, M. G., Cyle, T. K., Hill, N., Hancock, D., & Thompson, A. (2015). Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter. Nature Communications, 6, 6995. doi:10.1038/ncomms7995 https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7995

3) Michigan State University study finds 1.5 tons of carbon per acre per year (1.5 tC/ac/yr) drawdown via proper grazing methods, and shows in a lifecycle analysis that this more than compensates for a cow’s enteric emission of methane.

Stanley, P. L., Rowntree, J. E., Beede, D. K., DeLonge, M. S., & Hamm, M. W. (2018). Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. Agricultural Systems, 162, 249-258. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003

4) University of Oregon paper shows that the co-evolution of ungulates and grassland soils (mollisols) was essential for geologic cooling of the last 20 million years - which lead to the conditions suitable for human evolution - and can be an instrumental part of the necessary cooling in the future to mitigate and reverse global warming.

Retallack, G. (2013). Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future (Vol. 41, pp. 69–86): Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001

Also

Study: White Oak Pastures Beef Reduces Atmospheric Carbon

Third party sustainability science firm validates Southwest Georgia farm is storing more carbon in its soil than pasture-raised cows emit during their lifetimes.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-white-oak-pastures-beef-reduces-atmospheric-carbon-300841416.html

Upside (Drawdown) - The Potential of Restorative Grazing to Mitigate Global Warming by Increasing Carbon Capture on Grasslands

The paper suggests that the global potential carbon drawdown may be quite larger than previously estimated, where restorative grazing had not been factored. It is suggested that 25 to 60 ton of carbon per hectare (t C/ha) may be sequestered on semi-arid grasslands and savannas, representing a transition from highly degraded to fully restored landscapes. The global potential is estimated to be in the range of 88 to 210 gigatons (Gt), with a CO2 equivalence of approximately 41 to 99 ppm, enough to significantly mitigate global warming. The introduction and first-part conclusions are provided herein. The full paper including citations is available at the bottom of this page and at the link below.

https://www.planet-tech.com/upsidedrawdown

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

Alan Lowey at 01:40 AM on 12 November, 2019

Post#41

See this paper: A Causality Problem For Milankovitch (Karner, Muller)

Summary

According to the Milankovitch theory, changes in the incident solar radiation, called insolation, in the Northern Hemisphere provide the driving force for global glacial cycles. In their Perspective, Karner and Muller discuss recent studies of corals from around the world that shed doubt on the applicability of the theory to the termination of the penultimate glaciation. The authors argue that a fresh, unbiased look at the data is warranted.

.....

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

MA Rodger at 21:44 PM on 11 November, 2019

Alan Lowey @39,

I'm not too sure it takes much thought to grasp the message I present @38. It is true that an inverse-cube effect will reduce with distance quicker than a lower order relationship but the diameter of the moon or the sun is an irrelevance. Thus your eyeball and pea visualisation is irrelevant. Do note that the relative effect of sun & moon on the Earth's tides can be calculated. Relative to the moon, the sun is 389-times more distant but 27-million-times heavier. Thus if, as your LINZ reference notes:-

"The Earth-Sun system is also subject to similar gravitational and centrifugal forces but due to the Sun's greater distance they have less than half the strength of the lunar-related forces. As a consequence, the solar-related residual forces and resulting bulges are correspondingly smaller."

If this LINZ statement is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), it would require an inverse-cube relationship to reduce the sun's tidal influence on Earth to "less than half the strength of the lunar-related forces," indeed down to 45% of that of the moon.

On a quite seperate matter, the paper referenced @40, Muller & MacDonald (1997), is linked here.

SkS Analogy 20 - The Tides of Earth

Alan Lowey at 20:18 PM on 11 November, 2019

With reference to my post#37:

Please refer to: Origin of the 100kyr Glacial Cycle: Eccentricity or Orbital Inclination (Muller, MacDonald).

...

Holistic Management can reverse Climate Change

RedBaron at 22:57 PM on 18 March, 2019

I wrote a rather long detailed explanation why this rebuttal is flawed. But unfortunately it never posted.

I don't know why? Maybe it was too long?

Anyway the short version is this. Oxic soils under grasslands are net sinks not sources.

What reaction can you do to remove methane?

So that part is completely flawed and actually improving and expanding grasslands would help lower methane, not increase it.

The other mistake made here is in not understanding the difference between the catabolic processes of decay in the O-horizon of the soil profile and the anabolic processes of soil building in the A and B horizons of the soil profile.

One is biomass and primarily a function of saprophytic fungi (SF) vs the other which is the liquid carbon pathway of root exudates and glomalin and primarily a function of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF).

This makes the Roth C model not applicable at all. It simply doesn't apply in this case. It is a very good model for biomass decay, but it and any other biomass decay model are all flawed when trying to use them for the LCP.

Here is evidence from the past of this ecosystem function:

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

Gregory J. Retallack doi: 10.1086/320791

And here is a review of how we can apply the paleo record of this ecosystem function to modern times and near future AGW mitigation.

Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Gregory J. Retallack doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001

And here is empirical evidence of carbon sequestration rates in the field under various agricultural techniques and systems. A careful examination of the evidence with an understanding of how the Liquid Carbon Pathway functions makes it very clear which systems use the LCP and why the difference in rates seen. It also confirms that the average sequestration rate of ~5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr holds true in environments tested around the world.

Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change

Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A

Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis

Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S.Gimeno doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003

Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming

Andreas Gattinger, Adrian Muller, Matthias Haeni, Colin Skinner, Andreas Fliessbach, Nina Buchmann, Paul Mäder, Matthias Stolze, Pete Smith, Nadia El-Hage Scialabba, and Urs Niggli doi/10.1073/pnas.1209429109

Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security

Rattan Lal doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America

W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byc doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156

Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

W.R.Teague, S.L.Dowhower, S.A.Baker, N.Haile, P.B.DeLaune, D.M.Conover doi:/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009

Please note that all of these have published results higher than this so called rebuttal claims is impossible. That's measured results. So right there is enough to show this rebuttal is empirically wrong.

Of course they all show other measured results much lower too. And those also have strong reasons why.

If they are primarily using biomass decay, then the carbon sequestration is positive but much smaller than when the primary biological pathway is the LCP. So there is your empirical evidence and also your explanation why.

Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5

Philippe Chantreau at 08:58 AM on 7 March, 2019

"Massive bias"

Where is the evidence to back up such an assertion? A massive bias has to be detectable. I mentioned BEST, which reached the same conclusion as the research that Muller initially believed to be biased. Where is you evidence that a massive bias exist?

As for your question to me, such organizations exist through the World. In France, it's called the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. They produce "objective" science. The results are published so if they're not replicable, they don't stand. That's how it works.

You are the one accusing a whole lot of people to be either dishonest or incompetent. Scientists who work for government agencies are supposed to do good work. If there is a massive bias, they're failing. What is there showing that it's the case?

I'll add that I need no schooling on logical fallacies. Nowhere do I suggest that McIntyre's nonsense is BS because he has ties to FF. It's BS because it has no value, especially the "release the code" crap. The nonsense stands on its own for what it is, but McIntyre does have ties to FF nonetheless.

Next self-paced run of Denial101x starts on March 5

Philippe Chantreau at 04:36 AM on 7 March, 2019

Your post is full of ideology and every bit as biased as you suggest others are. I personally trust the government for protecting the public's interest far more than I trust corporations, or any other organization, except those specifically created to protect the public's interest. Not only because it is the logical thing to do considering where their interest truly is, but because of their respective records. I hear all this distrust about the government, and very little to back it up. In fact, most of the stuff that would back it up is what happens when the government is corrupted by private interests for the furtherance of their profits. It's funny how the government gets so much scrutiny and so much bad press every time one little thing goes wrong, but the private sector gets a passs by default even when they commit the most massive screw ups.

Private banks came close to tanking the World economy in 2008, because the entire financial system had become fraudulent. Hardly anyone went to jail. A few years later they're already complaining against regulations put in place to prevent them from doing it again. Last December, Century Link had a giant screw-up that rendered 911 inoperative in hundreds of counties throughout the nation, and it was barely even mentioned; I don't want to even imagine the uproar if it was a government service. In 2017, Equifax essentially opened the doors and let their commercial base free for the taking, namely the private information of 143 million Americans, and everyone just shrugged their shoulders. No consequence whatsoever. I never hear anything from the "government is bad" types about these problems, which reveals a double standard large enough to invalidate anything they say that includes the word bias.

Even you Prometheus trust the government far more than you think: I bet that you have no problem taking an airplane to cross the country without doubting that Air Traffic Control will do its job. Think about this: if ATC had a 99.99% success rate in their handling of flights all over the nation, you would see about 50 ATC-caused crashes per day. Instead, you see exactly zero, because the FAA achieves 100% success rate every day and has done so for years. As for the airlines, they achieve their success largely by complying with all these pesky regulations fort maintenance and operation that are there so our butts get from A to B safely every time. That's government work right there, so much a part of the landscape that people don't even realize it's serving them. This lack of perception and of recognition applies to pretty much everything that the government does right, which is vastly more than anyone in the US realizes.

You're talking about NASA and NOAA as if they were shady organizations bent on deceiving the public. That is total nonsense. Not only they are open to scrutiny and far more transparent than many private organizations, but their existence and their funding depends on them doing their job right. These administrations are full of highly educated, dedicated scientific experts, who often could make far more money in the private sector but they want to serve the public. Over the years, NOAA has refined their understanding of hurricanes and can now give 72 hours of notice within a very well defined geographical area so that evacuations can take place before a storm strikes. They save lives that way, and businesses too. Of course, some work at NASA has very strong implications with national defense and military applications, so the apropriate secrecy applies; usually the military is the darling of the "bad governement" types of ideologues so perhaps you don't mind that part.

So-called skeptics, led by the Fossil Fuel funded McIntyre, started whining about NASA Goddard not releasing the code for their climate models some years back (a number of years, I've followed this for a while). The argument from Gavin Schmidt at the time for not giving the code was perfectly reasonable because the algorithm had been released, but McIntyre went on a full blown mind manipulation campaign that was quite successful with his gullible followers. So NASA released the code, and of course, nothing happened. Zip. Why? Because none of these self professed skeptics had the expertise or were willing to put in the effort to examine the code. The demands to release information were nothing but a campaign to spread doubt in the integrity of NASA. Once the code was released, the pseudo-skeptics moved on to other things.

Another governement disliker and skeptic was Richard Muller. He did not believe NASA and NOAA either, so decided to examine global temperatures on his own by forming an independent team at Berkeley. He was hailed as a hero at the time by Anthony Watts. After quite a bit of painstaking dedicated work, they came to pretty much the same conclusion as NASA and NOAA. Anthony Watts didn't like him any more. You can find the BEST stuff along with the other sources regularly updated on the Real Climate site: NOAA, HADCRUT etc...

I've had conversations on this site before with skeptics strongly animated by anti-governement ideology, sometimes on the subject of MODTRAN, the line by line atmospheric radiative transfer model. They argue that it's just a model and it's a government thing, whatever. Yes, it's a model, developed by the Air Force for infrared weapon guidance, you really think it's inaccurate?

After years of following this pseudo-debate, it turns out to be really simple. Science aims at understanding the world. The quality, sincere science in the case of climate change overhwelmingly points in a certain direction. Fossil fuel interests have billions of dollars of profit per quarter at stake. Who do I trust? Seriously? What a joke.

New research, February 4-10, 2019

RedBaron at 01:19 AM on 26 February, 2019

@8 MA Rodger

Here is evidence from the past of this ecosystem function:

Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling

Gregory J. Retallack DOI: 10.1086/320791

And here is a review of how we can apply the paleo record of this ecosystem function to modern times and near future AGW mitigation.

Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future

Gregory J. Retallack doi:10.1146/annurev-earth-050212-124001

And here is empirical evidence of carbon sequestration rates in the field under various agricultural techniques and systems. A careful examination of the evidence with an understanding of how the LCP functions makes it very clear which systems use the LCP and why the difference in rates seen. It also confirms that the average sequestration rate of ~5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr holds true in environments tested around the world.

Conservation practices to mitigate and adapt to climate change

Jorge A. Delgado, Peter M. Groffman, Mark A. Nearing, Tom Goddard, Don Reicosky, Rattan Lal, Newell R. Kitchen, Charles W. Rice, Dan Towery, and Paul Salon doi:10.2489/jswc.66.4.118A

Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis

Eduardo Aguilera, Luis Lassaletta, Andreas Gattinger, Benjamín S.Gimeno
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.02.003

Enhanced top soil carbon stocks under organic farming

Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security

Rattan Lal doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.8

The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America

W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J. Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang, F. Wang, and P. Byc doi:10.2489/jswc.71.2.156

Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie

W.R.Teague, S.L.Dowhower, S.A.Baker, N.Haile, P.B.DeLaune, D.M.Conover doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.009

Some of these have paywalls, so if you have difficulty getting past them, message me for a private copy for personal use only.

@9 Philippe Chantreau The best I have for Dr Christine Jones is a short CV I posted here a while back: Christine Jones - short CV

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

Alchemyst at 12:32 PM on 17 February, 2018

michael you are offensive.

Read the Feyman quotes. My opinion is that he was the greatest scintist of his era

Also

scientists were unable to replicate the results of 47 out of 53 papers that were seminal to launching drug-discovery programs. “This is a systemic problem built on current incentives,” he said according to Nature.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33719/title/Science-s-Reproducibility-Problem/

Sweet

In answer to your question regarding medics. I do not self diagnose but I always ask to see the test results and often ask for a second opinion. I only fly in planes that have co-pilots. It's what is known as double contingency. The systems allow it for a very good reason as a bad decision can easily be fatal. As for a second shot at filling a cavity, on that, I gernerally think that once is enough, the pain ain't worth the gain.

nigelj, you seem to give too much reverence and attribute too much power to the peer review system. It is better to have it than to have not. But it has limitations, in that it does not guarantee
that the work is reproducible, or correct, see above. The reviewers check it for grammer, style, reasoning but not specifically that the results are correct and reproducible. see https://www.springeropen.com/get-published/peer-review-process.

1/ I have personal experience of stopping an already peer reviewed paper from an eminent scientist going to publication. The reasoning in the paper was correct. His results were not faked, but his conclusions had a mistake, which had only become apparent through supplemental work which we had performed at our own suggestion to strengthen his work. Upon hearing of our results he pulled the paper back. But it was only by luck through that eminent scientist talking with my collegue that these supplemental tests were performed.

2/ Peer reviewers are normally very busy and do not go to their labs and repeat the experiment, or in the case of climate reseach do not repeat the darting of polar bears or checking the thermometer readings. However there should be sufficient information available so that another researcher can reproduce the results. Please read the next ref in it you will find how long a reviewer spends on a paper. the longest time in this unscientific sample was one day whilst the researcher may well have encompassed an entire PhD project of 900 days. It can hardly do merit to the original work.

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/99238/how-do-people-peer-review-many-papers

3/ Having shown you the weakness of the publish and peer review process, it is still better than nothing at all. However it does have a strength. It sets out a paper with a conclusion that can be confirmed or denied by someone else skilled in the art. In reality most papers end up in the journal and get read by the apocraphal 2 and a half other researchers on a wet thursday afternoon. But sometimes someone will take the effort to properly check out the paper, which is more likeley if the guy has a genuine interest or maybe does not like the author. It is only then do we have any idea if the paper was reproducible or just bad sciencce. I hope now that you and this website will realise that Muller did the correct thing

please take the time to read these attachments and give me your opinion

https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/reproducibility-vs-peer-review/

http://stealthsyndrome.com/?p=359

http://stealthsyndrome.com/?p=2125

ps from the accounts Bohr and Einstein were always disagreeing with each others papers and trying to find holes in them. Yet both men had a deep respect for each other (and both men went out to meet the young Feynman ) and that is how scientific knowledge progresses. What I am seeing in the climate change argument is a lot of disagreement without respect.

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

nigelj at 15:49 PM on 15 February, 2018

Alchemyst @21

Richard Muller didn't do the calculations for the global temperature record himself. He was part of a large team of scientists called the BEST project as below.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

So this is not so different from other research teams, or even the IPCC in principle.

I know thats not your point, and its good to check things yourself where possible. But its not always going to be possible, because some issues are too large. So we have to have faith in other people at some level I think.

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

Alchemyst at 14:07 PM on 15 February, 2018

David Kirtley 3:55 am 14 feb

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

"I never pay attention to anything by "experts" I calculate everything myself" -Feynman

And if it was good enough for Feynman it is good enough for me. I admire Muller for calculating it himself which I suspect that the overwhelming majority of the advocates of man made climate change have not.

It then becomes an act of faith and that has been horribly wrong in the past. If you believe that you definately know the answers on a subject, then you do not not it well enough.

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

David Kirtley at 03:55 AM on 14 February, 2018

Here is another interview with Jerry Taylor in this podcast: Important, Not Important: Episode 3

Alchemyst @11 - It seems to me that Powell is appealing more to the "authority" of the peer-reviewed science rather than to any particular scientist(s). The "appeal to authority" fallacy usually involves a claim that something is true because "Great scientist x" said so; not by pointing to a consensus of scientists and the wealth of data/theory that the consensus is based upon. A good example of this fallacy (or at least the thinking which it is based on) might be: "One Muller is worth 98 Powells". ;)

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

nigelj at 08:41 AM on 11 February, 2018

Alchemyst @11

Obviously a "consensus" is not 100% proof of an idea. However a consensus has considerable value, and is more likely to be correct that the ravings of some ignoramus with limited intelligence in the local drinking house. Its also more likely to be correct than dozens of eccentric alternative theories.

Your Einsten example is a poor example. Everyone in physics knew that Newtons laws didn't explain everything, and that change was coming.

I think it comes down more to politics. Do governments look at the consensus, or the views of some eccentric when deciding policy? I think they have to go with the consensus. Perhaps there are exceptional circumstances otherwise sometimes, but there are none to suggest they should ignore the agw consensus.

A consensus also gives the general public an indication of what the majority of scientists are thinking, and this is necessary. One of the great frustrations in the climate debate is deceptive propoganda planted by climate denialists suggesting there is no consensus, or something like a 50 / 50 split. For this reason alone its important to highlight that a consensus exists. People are entitled to know the staus of things at least.

I personally think Muller is slightly more towards the healthy sceptic end of the spectrum, and was at least prepared to back himself. But lets face it, 90% of the scepticism directed at agw climate change is irrational, misleading, barking mad denialism.

How to Change Your Mind About Climate Change

Alchemyst at 07:49 AM on 11 February, 2018

Powell is appealing to authority. As a geologist he should know that befoe Wallace's and Darwin's papers were read the almost 100% view by the experts in the field (eg Owen) was that biological species do not change. His comments on Muller were completely unfounded and do not reflect history.

By definition not a single revoltionary thought eg from Darwin, Galileo, Bohr and Einstein have always come by disagreemt with the consensus.

"One of the great commandments of science is "Mistrust arguments from authorty". Too many such arguments have proved painfully wrong" - Sagan

One Muller is worth 98 Powells

Temp record is unreliable

scaddenp at 17:56 PM on 2 August, 2017

"however as all of them subscribe to the consensus view"

Um, this isnt politics. You arrive at a consensus you dont start with one. Also BEST was started by Muller as was skeptical of the record with Koch funding. Anthony Watts said “prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” That was until it confirmed the existing temperature records. So definitely not "all of them".

Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump

scaddenp at 20:34 PM on 22 July, 2017

By all means find an appropriate thread. However, I remain unconvinced by "There was a scientific consensus in favour". Science literature seems very lean, nor did "university courses" appear to be science courses. It did most certainly rest on finding from evolutionary theory, but science, unlike many social or political theories is bounded on empirical constraints and the rigor by which a theory/model can account for observations. Biologists (eg Haldane, Holmes, Muller), strongly questioned it's assumption and the long bow it was drawing from evolutionary biology. The Hardy-Weinberg equation was published in 1910 and more or less rips the floor from under it. That it could be promoted despite this discovery smacks mightily of racism and politics. Reconciling the desire for "pure stock" for humans while frantically breeding hybrid plants takes that special attribute of human irrationality so common in "pseudo-skeptics".

Why the Republican Party's climate policy obstruction is indefensible

JWRebel at 04:28 AM on 7 July, 2017

1. The only honest climate "sceptics" are those who are rather unfamiliar with the material: people who out of some sort of misguided ideological loyalty to their group or tribe think that it is another left-wing progressive government ploy, out to destroy traditional values, work, and families. The rest are being disingenuous at best. Those who are taking a group position may be open to changing their minds under the right circumstances, probably not by learning about IR-bands and CO² molecules, but by appeals to their loyalty and conservatism which mandate not running down the farm before handing it over to their children.
The others are not well-intentioned or well-meaning people.

2. Just because 97% of [climate] scientists have stated that anthropogenic climate change is real does not mean that the other 3% have good theories and other data sets showing the opposite. Far from it. That would mean there are a lot of bona fide scientists with reasonable alternate theories whose research and credentials are impeccable. That is not true: finding sceptics that you can parade around as "real" scientists is like searching for a needle in a hay stack. That is why you keep meeting the same very small handful of star-status sceptics, none of whom are close to producing some synthesis of theoretical grounds on why the data has not been interpreted correctly and can be better explained by their alternative.

3. Staffing a red team (Richard Muller is no longer a candidate) with qualified specialists is therefore pretty much mission impossible. It's like equipping moderate "rebels". After ½ a $billion there were 5 rebels, who immediately passed their equipment on to the other side to which they defected at the first encounter. Educating new candidates for your red team would be like cupping some sea water and crossing the entire beach — they would be convinced by the material as soon as they started understanding the efforts and results undertaken so far.

4. If there were qualified scientists with convincing alternate explanations of the facts, they could make a killing$. Such a person would be herded into every studio and corporate office around.

5. The whole sceptical delusion is a disorder that only seems to occur in a select group of Anglo-Saxon countries, much like an infection, mainly due to patterns of media ownership and corporate funded think tanks and lobbyists.

>> Only rhetorical and political considerations remain. It is time for investments in energy alternative and research in the same order of magnitude as military spending: this is one war we cannot afford to lose. People on the wrong side of this issue have to be outed as dummies, fakes, mercenaries, nincompoops, malevolent charlatans, hired ideologues, whores. None of the talking points are remotely plausible for anybody who takes the time to look into the actual science and responses by scientists. People who raise the "talking points" need to be pointed in the right direction once or twice, but any sign of perseverance means it is willful stupidity.
Against the foolhardy even the gods contend in vain.

Temp record is unreliable

HK at 22:10 PM on 20 May, 2017

NOAAs conclusions about the non-existing "hiatus" have been confirmed by other studies using independent data. Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth explains how they did it here and here.

BTW, the Berkeley Earth surface temperature project was founded by physicist and former climate skeptic Richard Muller to address the most important objections the deniers had to the "official" temperature records. They constructed their own temperature record, which turned out to be very similar to the ones from NOAA, NASA and the British HadCRUT4.

Climate Change – What We Knew and When We Knew It

shoyemore at 01:04 AM on 23 February, 2017

Richard Muller has a record of conflict with climate scientists and for many, many years he was a soulmate of deniers like Anthony Watts. In the end, he stood up to be counted when he was confronted with the evidence.

Whatever about the past, he is very, very good in this video, quite the star in fact.

Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns

Daniel Mocsny at 12:59 PM on 19 November, 2016

Just sometimes there's a place for anger and bluntness, without being nasty and I think you would know the difference. I repeat, just sometimes. A clown is a clown for example.

I would know the difference, but would the clowns? If you can change Myron Ebell's mind by calling him a clown, then great. I've never met the guy so I have no idea what might get through to him. Maybe a sit-down with Richard Muller or some other denier-turncoat who still has right-wing cred.

One imagines that it's harder to get through to the professional deniers than to the rank-and-file. You probably won't find too many Trump voters who can mount anything like a coherent defense of climate science denialism. Not that anyone can, of course, but the professional deniers at least know how to avoid breaking character when you stump them.

I could add that individual action eliminates the standard libertarian objection to coercive policy. If we can persuade people to want to destroy the climate less, then any true libertarian would defend their right to act according to their conscience.

Thus the environmental movement's nearly exclusive focus on government action makes natural enemies of people we don't need to be our enemies at all.

There is nothing inherently leftist about environmentalism. It just worked out for some reason that leftists tended to embrace environmental values first. Conservatives could easily develop an environmental ethic based around core conservative values of modesty, thrift, and personal moral responsibility. Kind of like what I'm doing, not because I'm terribly conservative but because I'm nearly certain it's the only approach that can work, for all the reasons I outlined in my comments in this thread.

Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns

nigelj at 10:45 AM on 19 November, 2016

Daniel Mocnsy @21, yes all thats possible, it occured to me, and I hope you are right. Richard Muller did change his criticism of the surface temperature data and concede NASA were right all along, once he came face to face with the "nitty gritty" real science. You can make silly climate denialist statements on websites, but its not so easy face to face with real scientists in a meeting where decisions have to be made. People don't take bulldust in those situations. It's interesting how at least some sceptics change their stance when serving on the IPCC.

However here are a couple of points. Group think will pervade Trump and his inner circle. Thats not healthy at all.

And the new climate denialist will be head of the EPA. His employees will explain some realities to him, but employees have to be careful how far they push things. Myron Ebell is the boss, and the guy is clearly badly informed on climate and worse is driven by strong ideological convictions of a libertarian leaning, as opposed to more evidence based leadership.

Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns

Daniel Mocsny at 09:44 AM on 19 November, 2016

By flooding their ranks with such same minded people, like the appointment of Myron Ebell, they will generate the most destructive form of group think imaginable.

That's certainly a possibility, maybe even a solid bet. But let's take a deep breath first and consider that until now, the response of the scientific community to deniers like Myron Ebell has often been to marginalize rather than engage them. In my experience with science deniers (albeit of lower rank), their denial has always been tightly bound with ignorance. None of them seems to have read a single book containing actual climate science. All of them continue to restate the climate myths so thoroughly debunked right here on Skeptical Science, as if they are playing a game of chess where the opponent has not already made a dozen moves past them.

Well, there's no getting around engaging with them now. There are still some Democrats in office. Hillary won the popular vote. The scientific community hasn't gone away or become any less critical to increasing prosperity and maintaining the modern way of life. People like Myron Ebell who have lived comfortably in their echo chamber with no real challenge to their views will now get to spend time directly engaging with the world's leading actual scientists. It's one thing to dupe Trump's beloved "poorly educated voters" and another thing entirely to face the tough crowd of science.

Climate change skeptics/contrarians/deniers can change their minds, for example Richard Muller. Since we can no longer pretend we have the option of just shoving the deniers aside, it's time to study every available case of belief change and try to get the remaining deniers onto the same trajectories.

1934 - hottest year on record

Tom Curtis at 12:14 PM on 29 August, 2016

DarkMath @48, if you don't like NOAA, you can always use the AGW denier funded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project results:

Technically, the BEST data series make no adjustments. Instead, when there is a known, or reasonably inferred change of equipment, location, or time of observations they treat the data as coming from two distinct stations - a proceedure which Anthony Watts endorsed as having his full confidence (until he saw the results). It is certainly a proceedure that has the full confidence of Judith Curry (denier enabler), Richard Muller (temperature series skeptic), Zeke Hausfather (luke warmer) and Steven Mosher (Luke Warmer), not to mention three independent scientists selected by at the time, climate skeptic Richard Muller.

For the record, the highest ranked running 12 month mean temperature in the 1930s according to BEST ranks 23rd. In contrast, eight of the 12 highest ranked 12 month running mean temperatures are in 2012, with another three in the last three months of 2011.

But you want to cherry pick just July temperatures. However, the highest ranked July temperature in the 1930s is 1936 (ranked 3rd) followed by 1934 (ranked 6th). In contrast, in the 21st century the highest ranked are 2012 (1st), 2006 (2nd), 2011 (4th), and 2002 (5th). The average July temperature across the 1930s was 0.66 C. Across the 21st century (to 2012) it was 0.85 C.

And if you are wondering, BEST uses approximately 8 times as many stations as does the USHCN, with an increasing number in time over the 20th and 21st century.

In short, your cherry pick of the cherry pick still does not give you the conclusion you desire.

Your only refuge is to insist that when a station changes its instrument entirely, or its time of day for observations, or is moved to a new location, it should be treated as the same station with no adjustments for differences in recorded temperature between the new and the old; and to take meaningless arithmetic means that do not care that the station density in New York is far higher than that in Nevada, thereby giving more importance to North Eastern state temperatures than to those in the mid-west or west:

Your bias in favour of rich, Democratic eastern states is noted.

Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect

Glenn Tamblyn at 15:41 PM on 3 February, 2016

Tom

It is true that GCM's treat the atmosphere as a series of slabs in terms of radiative transfer. But they are also modelling fluid flows and evaporation/condensation passing through these layers as well. Essentially mass transfers vertically, transporting energy. With a sufficiently large number of vertical layers - and you need enough layers to approximate the correct optical depth - the temperature differences between each layer are small and thus the net radiative flows low. The convective and latent heat fluxes can be substantial. So the glass box/radiation only model is severely deficient. This result was first shown by Manabe & Muller in 1961.

In the context of the glass slab model Joe has used, we need to imagine that somehow the material of each of the glass layers is also merging and passing through each other - obviously a not very physical situation.

Hockey stick is broken

KR at 08:58 AM on 9 November, 2015

dvaytw - Dr. Muller seens to have the view that if he has not personally done the work, personally checked the evidence, then it is in doubt. And he will thus blithely dismiss solid work, take as gospel tripe like M&M, etc. So I would take his pronouncements with large blocks of salt.

The 2006 NAS report states in its conclusions:

It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.
Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.
Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

So the work he signed off on indicates high confidence in the last 400 years, less confidence in the previous 600, and reasonable uncertainty about 1000 years and greater ago, based on the evidence available at that time.

In the intervening decade additional proxies have been located, producing work up to and including Marcott et al 2013, which concludes that recent temperatures represent a reversal of a cooling trend that started 5000 years ago, with current temps warmer than the mean temperatures over 82% of the Holocene (going back 11,500 years).

Muller's statements regarding paleotemperature reconstructions were reasonable a decade ago, but are now sadly out of date. And his assertions about MBH/M&M simply indicate that he hasn't looked into the M&M work - it's nonsense, multiply debunked, most notably by Wahl and Ammann 2007. M&M's failure to apply PCA selection rules alone invalidates the work, let alone their many other errors and misstatements. Muller is (once more) talking through his hat.

Hockey stick is broken

dvaytw at 00:57 AM on 9 November, 2015

MA Roger, I realize it's off-topic, but can you comment about my statement above that,

"I feel like, about the question of the use of the IPCC's uncertainty terminology, there's a deep misunderstanding here. Without having read much of it , I'm quite sure that climate research uses the same Frequentist standards that Dr. Muller is used to and that, if the IPCC is assessing likelihood based on a large number of such pieces of research, all of which purport to be showing statistically significant results, then in fact the IPCC is being even more conservative with its use of such terminology and not less."

With his big diatribe about statistical significance, Muller was ripping on my comment that if he's going to point out weak evidence for climate impacts on tornadoes and hurricanes, he should also point out the IPCC describes impacts on extreme drought, extreme precipitation and coastal flooding as "likely" and heat waves as "very likely". He equates the percentages for those terms as basically equalling "no evidence at all".

Hockey stick is broken

MA Rodger at 23:47 PM on 8 November, 2015

dvaytw @153.

Just reading Muller's comment @153, I feel Muller is being insincere. The NAS report (assuming this is the report in question) does echo IPCC AR5 Chapter 5 when it says:-

In terms of the average surface temperature of Earth, these indirect estimates show that 1983 to 2012 was probably the warmest 30-year period in more than 800 years.

The only issue here is that Mann et al (1998) provided a 1,000 year proxy record not an 800 year record. To ignore this 800 year finding shows somebody playing with Ockkhams broom. But he is less than adept at sweeping things under carpets with such a broom because when he says "there was no evidence that the current temperature is the warmest in 1,000 years," he is plain wrong. There is evidence but it is not strong enough. The relevant part of IPCC AR5 is 5.3.5.1 which says:-

Based on multiple lines of evidence (...), published reconstructions and their uncertainty estimates indicate, with high confidence, that the mean NH temperature of the last 30 or 50 years very likely exceeded any previous 30- or 50-year mean during the past 800 years (...). The timing of warm and cold periods is mostly consistent across reconstructions (in some cases this is because they use similar proxy compilations) but the magnitude of the changes is clearly sensitive to the statistical method and to the target domain (land or land and sea; the full hemisphere or only the extra-tropics;). Even accounting for these uncertainties, almost all reconstructions agree that each 30-year (50-year) period from 1200 to 1899 was very likely colder in the NH than the 1983–2012 (1963–2012) instrumental temperature.
NH reconstructions covering part or all of the first millennium suggest that some earlier 50-year periods might have been as warm as the 1963–2012 mean instrumental temperature, but the higher temperature of the last 30 years appear to be at least likely the warmest 30-year period in all reconstructions (...). However, the confidence in this finding is lower prior to 1200(AD), because the evidence is less reliable and there are fewer independent lines of evidence. There are fewer proxy records, thus yielding less independence among the reconstructions while making them more susceptible to errors in individual proxy records. The published uncertainty ranges do not include all sources of error (...), and some proxy records and uncertainty estimates do not fully represent variations on time scales as short as the 30 years considered ... . Considering these caveats, there is medium confidence that the last 30 years were likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years. (My bold.)

Thus all Muller's blather about 33% applies to hockey sticks longer than 800 years. He conveniently forgets to mention the "very likely" status of the 800 year hockey stick which in IPCC-speak means a greater than 90% liklihood but less than 99% (which would be classed "virtually certain" ). For longer 1,000 year hockey sticks there is evidence, it does point to recent temperatures being warmer but the evidence is not reliable enough to strongly support it.

Hockey stick is broken

dvaytw at 00:11 AM on 8 November, 2015

This comment will start a bit off-topic and then quickly make its way back, I promise.

As an introduction, I posted a response to Dr. Richard Muller's response to the following question on Quora:

Why do people say "the science is settled" when it comes to climate change? Isn't the point of science that nothing is "settled?"

It may interest people to know that Dr. Muller basically rules that forum when it comes to questions about climate change impacts, and IMHO, he's running amok. I don't think it comes from the usual ideological motivators; rather, I think it's the hubris that physicists tend to get that leads them to distrust the work of any scientists other than physicists. That and maybe some misunderstanding with regard to philosophy of science. In any case, here's where I get back on topic.

In my response to Dr. Muller, I quoted Wikipedia to him, pointing out that he'd been wrong in his opinion piece about Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick.

The quote stated that subsequent analyses had refuted McIntyre and McKitrick and upheld Mann's paper; further, that the Hockey Stick has been replicated numerous times using other methods.

It's a bit lengthy, but I'd like to post his last response to this exchange in full, as I found it very interesting and troubling:

First, let me say some words about the IPCC report.
To be considered a scientific conclusion, the rule of thumb amount scientists is that the probability of being wrong should be 5% or less. In particle physics, the standard is even higher, generally a fraction of 1%.
The IPCC defines something as "likely" if the probability of it being wrong is 33%. That is very far from a scientific standard. Sometimes politicians need to make decisions and they base them on less than scientific evidence, but 33% chance of being wrong would never be accepted as a scientific conclusion in any major scientific journal. When scientists say that their result is statistically consistent to 1 standard deviation (that's about the same as "likely") the conclusion in their paper is stated as follows: "No statistically significant effect was seen." I can show you one of my papers in which, for a 2-standard-deviation effect, that is a "2-sigma" effect, with only a 5%b chance of being wrong, I and my coauthors said that the effect was "statistically insignificant." Those are the standards of science.
The IPCC is also very clear that their assessments were never intended to be considered a scientific report.
Your quote about the NAS report, despite the usual reliability of Wikipedia, is mistaken. As I mentioned, I was a named scientific referee on the NAS report, and the report said clearly that there was no evidence that the current temperature is the warmest in 1,000 years.
Don't get me wrong. Global warming is real, about 1.5C over the past 250 years, and it is caused by humans. But the work of Michael Mann on the hockey stick was incorrect, and the errors were correctly pointed out by Macintyre and McKitrick, and the NAS concluded that the evidence could not be used to conclude on a scientific basis that we are now experiencing the highest temperature in the last 1000 years.

I'm curious what y'all's take on this is. It strikes me as, well, quite odd. I feel like, about the question of the use of the IPCC's uncertainty terminology, there's a deep misunderstanding here. Without having read much, I'm quite sure that climate research uses the same Frequentist standards that Dr. Muller is used to and that, if the IPCC is assessing likelihood based on a large number of such pieces of research, all of which purport to be showing statistically significant results, then in fact the IPCC is being even more conservative with its use of such terminology and not less.

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

Tom Curtis at 17:08 PM on 12 October, 2015

zoo58 @62:

"How does one decide whether someone's opinion matters or not?"

1) Your opinion does not matter if you set unrealizable standards for those whose opinion you disagree with. Thus when the letter writers write:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites."

if by "unproven" they mean lacking deductive proof, they set up an unrealistic standard in that no scientific statement can possibly be proved deductively. Of course, if they are not setting up so unrealistic a standard, NASA already complies with their request in that their public statements on climate are back by comprehensive evidence.

2) Your opinion does not matter if your argument depends essentially on applying a restrictive standard on those you disagree with that you do not accept for yourself. On this count, the NASA contrarian signatories clearly fail. They make numerous claims regarding matters of fact in the letter, and provide not even a single refference in support, let alone "proof". They expect us to take their claim, for example, that NASA's public statements on climate amount to "unbridled advocacy of CO2" on their authority alone. They do not even cite their qualifications to prove their authority, so that we are expected to accept mere interns (Thomas Wysmuller) as authorative simply because they were employed by NASA.

In stark contrast, the public statements by NASA are backed be extensive peer reviewed literature - much of which is available free to the public on the NASA website.

Indeed, it is plain that you also do not accept the standard demanded of NASA. You write, "As distinguished people with related skills and education who have attempted to conduct a non-biased and in-depth examination of the evidence ..." but offer not evidence that all or any have either or both of "related skills and education", that they are "unbiased", or that they have conducted any review of the evidence. Nor will you be able to for such a review is not to be found from most (if not all) of the authors of the letter; and description of NASA's statements as "advocacy" and "extreme" shows without doubt that they are biased.

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique

Evan Jones at 14:01 PM on 3 July, 2015

If you have a paper where you're looking for independent public review, then you should state as much up front! That's not what Tony did. He posted it making wildly unsubstantiated claims about it being something important, influential and about to be published. It strikes me as being supremely self-deluded to suggest posting it before publication was for the purposes of review.

But we did.

The pre-release of this paper follows the practice embraced by Dr. Richard Muller, of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project in a June 2011 interview with Scientific American’s Michael Lemonick in “Science Talk”, said:

I know that is prior to acceptance, but in the tradition that I grew up in (under Nobel Laureate Luis Alvarez) we always widely distributed “preprints” of papers prior to their publication or even submission. That guaranteed a much wider peer review than we obtained from mere referees.

That is exactly what our "purposes" were, and that is exactly what we did. And I have been addressing the resulting (exraordinarily valuable) independent review ever since. It takes time.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

CBDunkerson at 21:30 PM on 17 April, 2015

qinqo, my take on Muller is that he bought in to the whole 'climate change is a hoax' mythology hook line and sinker, but had enough integrity to acknowledge when his own research disproved (again, past research had done so before he ever started) one of those lies. Unfortunately, the same failures of logic and character which led him to buy into complete nonsense in the first place have also prevented him from thinking, 'Gee, I just made a fool of myself... maybe I should re-evaluate some of this stuff'... and thus he continues to make completely ridiculous claims on other aspects of the global warming 'debate'.

Basically, if he has done research he'll go with what his data shows, but if he hasn't done the research he'll go with the 'skeptic' misinformation. It seems like he may think he is the only competent scientist on the planet... because he places the blog rantings of 'skeptics' above peer-reviewed research from the scientific community.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

qinqo at 09:56 AM on 17 April, 2015

What am I to make about this guy Muller? To me he seems really inconsistent. Unless you take into account that he is often promoting natural gas and fracking. (before and after his 'conversion')

He still uses his 'old ways' sometimes to diminish AGW, even after claiming that he is certain AGW is real. Why then is he still advocating the use of a fossil fuel? Even a method shown to be really devastating to earth's climate.

One of the things that got me convinced that he is shady is his claim that 'hide the decline' is a reference to temperatures. This was a while after when the investigation of the scientists took place. It seems to me that he might be a covert shill for natural gas. The 'conversion' study was sponsored by Koch. He seems to be balancing on a tightrope.

The study accomplished two things:

1. Good for 'skeptical' public: there is a new independent study acknowledging antropogenic global warming. Deniers will have a hard time denying this. True skeptics in the general public will be more inclined to taking AGW serious.

2. Good for Koch: there is a new 'trustworthy' scientist risen, who in order to curb global warming, is advocating the burning of Natural Gas and the 'clean' technique of fracking. Natural gas containing 80% methane. Methane: stays not as long in the atmosphere as CO2, but does have a greater greenhouse effect.

What am I to make of this? Can someone explain why natural gas is a better solution than renewables. Muller seems to think it is the only real affordable option we have. Renewables are as of now too expensive. (what about nuclear energy?)

How we discovered the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming

Stranger at 03:44 AM on 5 February, 2015

Thanks Rob.

I know that the deniers using newspaper blogs will never be convinced. I know there are people who read the blogs who might not have strong opinions. We have a university bio chemist and a philosopher of science taking part in some of our discussions. I think that people who read the blog but have no strong opinion would find the AGW side on our blog much more credible just by the way they conduct their arguments. I think that might a benefit but I have to say I've no way of knowing. I'm probably wasing time.

I have have asked, even on this website why deniers wouldn't fund their own survery since it would only cost the Koch brothers of some other organization chump change to do it. I figured they were afraid of the Richard Muller effect.

I want to avoid being repetitious but I'm still bothered by the Mike Hulme thing. As a layman I just don't know what to think about his comments concerning the survey. It may be something I should let go of but I'd like to get in inkling of where he's coming from because if he’s so concerned about the huge amounts of carbon going into the atmosphere he sure doesn’t seem to be helping the cause. Just the opposite.

My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course

shoyemore at 05:18 AM on 21 December, 2014

I watched the Muller video and it reminded me of this book:

Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman

Kahneman is an Israeli psychologist and Professor at Yale who won a Nobel Prize in Economics. The book is about what he calls Fast Thinking ("heuristics" or short cuts), and Slow Thinking which is more logical but mentally draining and demanding, but more likely to give right answers.

Fast Thinking has its place in time of crisis "fight or flight", but as humans we over-use it in a lazy fashion.

It seems to me Miller is saying that to teach physics, or probably any science, you need to engage Slow Thinking. Bit off-topic, but you might find Kahneman's book enlightening, John, if you have not already read it.

My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course

BillEverett at 02:41 AM on 21 December, 2014

@bouke Thanks for the link. I had not seen that TED Ed talk, but I had seen D. Muller's video "Khan Academy and the Effectiveness of Science Videos" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVtCO84MDj8, which presents basically the same message, and I downloaded his thesis to read from the link in the YouTube video description. "Start with the misconception." People don't learn from being told; they learn from thinking (mental effort).

My AGU talk on tackling climate myths in a free online course

bouke at 01:59 AM on 21 December, 2014

I wonder if you're familiar with the work of Derek Muller; he did a PhD on how to teach physics. Your approach reminded me of his work, but watch for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcX3IW00nuk

Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert

Rob Honeycutt at 09:26 AM on 15 October, 2014

I believe Betts is woefully naive in thinking this changes anything relative to Watts. My prediction is, this will end up like Muller. At some point Betts is going to have to tell Watts something scientifically accurate that he really doesn't want to hear and then Watts will turn the dagger on Betts.

Mark my words.

The 97% v the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?

Stranger at 00:54 AM on 18 September, 2014

I don't know if anybody asked jwalsh why the skeptics don't do their own survey and present it for peer review? It seems like the Koch brothers or some other benefactor could come up with a little chump change to find out. They helped fund Richard Muller’s historical temperature reconstructions. Of course it didn't pan out for the skeptics since Mueller found out the Hockey Stick was the real McCoy. I wonder if that’s the reason they haven't made an attempt to shoot down Cook et el by doing their own research? Obfuscation may be the only arrow left in their quiver.

Rapid climate changes more deadly than asteroid impacts in Earth’s past – study shows.

Leland Palmer at 02:13 AM on 21 July, 2014

Hi Howardlee-

I had a crazy idea one time, and I dont think it's very likely, but I thought I would share it, and maybe other people can tell me why it's wrong. I do hope the idea is wrong. I don't really expect a reply on this old thread.

The idea was that significant polar melting events might make flood basalt erruptions worse, by transfering mass from the poles to the equatorial regions (as the ice caps melt and the oceans rise) slowing the rotation rate of the earth by conservation of angular momentum.

The idea is that as the ice caps melt and the oceans suddenly rise, changes in isostatic balance enhance volcanic activity. Also, mass is transferred from the poles to the equatorial regions, slowing the rotation of the crust of the earth, by conservation of angular momentum (this effect is often seen in ice skaters, extending their arms to slow their rates of rotation while they are spinning). The crust of the earth wants to rotate slower, but the massive core of the earth wants to remain rotating at the original rate. This sets off massive stresses in the crust of the earth, changes the path of tectonic plates and can set off rifting events, such as the opening of the North Atlantic associated with the PETM, according to this idea.

So, it's just an idea, and hopefully it's wrong. Becasue if it's right, our current round of icecap melting could set off rifting events and trigger massive flood basalt erruptions, similar to those associated with past mass extinctions.

Here's a paper on a similar idea, involving mass transfers from the oceans to the poles following major impact events, and a possible link from such impacts to geomagnetic reversals:

Muller - Geomagnetic Reversals Driven by Abrupt Sea Level Changes

What set off this round of speculation is the observation that flood basalt erruptions sometimes seem to be dated slightly later than mass extinction and rapid warming events, rather than slightly before them.

The Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine is wrong to endorse Keystone XL

Andy Skuce at 09:12 AM on 6 March, 2014

Don9000, the same problem with losing a long comment just happened to me. I think there is a time-out problem. Luckily, I kept a copy.

Thanks for a thoughtful comment.

You say: My basic problem with the way some--including you and Hansen--are laying out the debate is that your approach creates an argument against the XL Pipeline based on the Either-Or fallacy: Either we stop the XL Pipeline from being built, Or it is game over for the planet.

I do not believe in the "game over" framing and I have critcized James Hansen for exaggerating the potential of the oil sands to change the climate. Please read my post Alberta’s bitumen sands: “negligible” climate effects, or the “biggest carbon bomb on the planet”? I wrote:

James Hansen, in a Huffington Post article, cites the IPCC AR4 WGIII report (page 268), which says that Canada’s bitumen resources represent at least 400Gt of “stored carbon” (the reference for this number is not clear). This implies an in-place mass some 68% higher than the ERCB’s in-place estimate and more than nine times the ERCB ultimate recoverable potential resource. The WGIII report states that 310Gbbl (~41GtC) of the bitumen resources are recoverable, a figure close to that of the latest ERCB number of 315Gbbl.

I also point out that Alberta's coal resource contains more carbon than its bitumen resource. I don't downplay the overwhelming relative importance of coal.

Here is a figure from that post where I compared the contribution of aggressive oil sands development with extrapolations of current consumption of other fossil fuels to the end of the century.

Quite clearly, my message is that bitumen exploitation is a step in the wrong direction, but it is clearly not the main cause of the climate problem, either now or in the future. And no, I will not give up hope if any more fossil fuel infrastructure is built.

Don9000 said : That is why I believe Skeptical Science needs to seriously consider widening this front in the war. I don't see anywhere near enough thoughtful analysis here or elsewhere regarding how carbon taxes can work.

I agree, we should do more of this and we will. However, we have already made some effort in this direction. I have written two pieces;

BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax experiment, four years on: It’s working

Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax

and Dana Nuccitelli has written about carbon pricing and carbon taxes both here and in The Guardian:

Citizens Climate Lobby - Pushing for a US Carbon Fee and Dividend

True Cost of Coal Power - Muller, Mendelsohn, and Nordhaus

Can a carbon tax work without hurting the economy? Ask British Columbia

Citizens Climate Lobby pushes for a carbon tax and dividend

I think that a global carbon tax is the most important single step towards mitigating the climate crisis. It likely won't be enough, we will need additional regulations, government investment in R&D and infrastructure and a cultural change in our attitudes to emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases. And some luck with climate sensitivity, carbon cycle feedbacks and new technologies.

I agree, there is a risk that if the pipeline is not approved, some people may think that the climate problem is then solved. But many people already seem to think that buying a hybrid car or installing energy-efficient lightbulbs is sufficient. We will have to do our best to remind people that one or two small steps are not enough. The solution involves transforming the economy.

I don't claim to understand the mentality of the Republican Party, but I don't think that approving the pipeline will really make them more open to the idea of compromise on carbon pricing. It is an article of faith among most of those people that climate change is not a serious threat or is even a hoax perpetrated by extremists. As Roy Spencer recently wrote:

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.
The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.
They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

I doubt that Spencer would interpret the approval of Keystone XL as a sign of reconciliation or as a good moment to start talking seriously about a global carbon tax. Perhaps he is not typical of people on the US right, I don't know, I am not an American.

The main reason that I am motivated to lobby against new pipelines is because this may have some effect. Yes, the effect will be small, yes it may be fleeting and only partially effective, but it is possible. In contrast, making progess on effective national-level carbon pricing policies in N America is still a few election cycles away. progress on a global carbon tax may be a generation of more away. I wish it were not so and I have vowed never to vote for any party that is not committed to introducing a carbon tax of some kind.

As David Roberts put it on Twitter, asking activists to butt out of the pipeline issue and focus exclusively on carbon pricing is to demand that they “drop achievable campaign, switch to something impossible”.

Global warming is being caused by humans, not the sun, and is highly sensitive to CO2, new research shows

grindupBaker at 05:28 AM on 12 January, 2014

davidsanger #18 Prof. Richard Muller Berkeley Earth web site has an analysis of land-only measurements from 36,000 temperature stations 1750-2000 showing +1.5C (+0.9C over the past 50 years) with a graph of a fit to measurements that's a near-perfect smooth exponential curve punctuated only by a dozen or so very sharp downward spikes of which the 7 largest are volcano-named on the graph Laki, Tambora, Cosiguina, Krakatoa, Agung, Chichon & Pinatubo. Land MST is slightly depressed following each spike, proportional to the spike height, then moves back to the original land MST curve. Data & fitting software are available for download and they invite comment on both.

Global warming since 1997 more than twice as fast as previously estimated, new study shows

grindupBaker at 09:59 AM on 17 November, 2013

Passing ironic that my simple-minded note that OHC is the future and my lukewarm kudo for the sterling poster (actual posters) historical GMST (a "global warming" proxy) work drew only #39 Poster with an even more nebulous proxy that assumes I'm so ignorant that I think oceans at 0-4 Celsius will expand hugely if warmed a tad. I've done the simple math in the first few hours I first looked at this topic in spring. My moderation-resistant on-topic asides are Prof Muller BerkeleyEarth shows a smoother increasing temperature & derivative land-only data mean (? I've no time to study his available RMS? software) and that I disagree with Bert #43 about "venomous response" because I can only see this brilliant satellite infill analysis to correct (and warm-up) the data in recent years as increased polar warming renders simple interpolation (even modelled type) imprecise as being a much more accurate multi-sensor trick to hide the decline in polar GMST measuring quality that has evidently been happening with interpolation, so I see no basis for attack on the work or on my comment here for that matter.

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

grindupBaker at 19:00 PM on 28 October, 2013

Ironbark #5 you say "All that leaves is the models" then later "whether CO2 emissions are to blame" but they are largely unrelated. The simulation "models" purpose is to get a reasonable picture of future climate, not to prove that CO2 is "to blame". "whether CO2 emissions are to blame" (are the primary warming agent) is determined by many means all telling a very similar picture. Physics of CO2 (adults do it & schoolkids do it on videos), hundreds of thousands of thermometers in the oceans over decades taking (must be millions) of measurements showing it's warming. The IPCC report even shows how much warming or cooling is attributed to each major factor each year, not just CO2. None of this science has anything to do the the simulation "models" that project the future climate, the only slight interrelation is that they also use the ocean part of the models to estimate accurately the water temperatures between the floats with thermometers in them, because that's far more accurate than just taking a straight line between them.

You say "ordinary people who don't have the time or expertise", "don't have the time or skills", so you say you have other life priorities and you imply strongly that you lack the mental equipment or life-conditioning or both that's required for logical analytical thought, so you base your opinions on the popular news. We all see that many humans are similar to that so they are easily led by the well honed techniques of those with power and intelligence well versed in advertising and the masses-manipulation techniques (that is, not naive obsessive scientist brainiac types). You must not be massively under the gun for time though because you've posted a few words so far.

The tree ring data goes back 2,000 years. It's not worth me lookiing back at the data for details (you can't even be bothered for a 2-minute look to asses it a bit and comment, you are so busy) but humans had pretty good thermometers last few decades and the tree ring data showed cooling but the thermometers reasonable warming. If you had a good thermometer outside your home and recorded temperature each day and chopped down your cherry tree after 10 years and found its rings showed it freezing outside when your thermometer log showed it warm would you throw out the thermometer readings you took and assume the tree rings were right ? It's ridiculous. The trees were poorly chosen at the treeline where they were bashed by the elements, instead of trees deep in the forest. Prof. Muller says the whole 2,000 years tree record should have been thrown out then rather than just throwing out the last bit, and he seems to have a point but that would not change the last decade of big warming record at all (as Prof. Muller has said that also) and there are other ways that were used to measure temperature back 650,000,000 years, not just 2,000 years, and they all show the same story as near as matters - it's getting warm very suddenly lately. The clever professionals in the human-based soft sciences lead the masses around by nose rings by any sparkly bit of trivium because the masses don't have the necessary mental equipment, have much bigger priorities (we are all selfish by nature) and prefer simple entertainments.

Double Standard on Internal Variability

CBDunkerson at 20:10 PM on 27 October, 2013

And this is the problem... there is a segment of the population for whom complete nonsense is automatically held to be 'good science' if it states what they want to believe. There are still many people who think, 'McIntyre proved that PCA always produces a hockey stick shape'.

Similarly, people otherwise capable of basic reasoning somehow lose the ability to understand the simplest concepts of statistical analysis (e.g. 15 year trends in lower atmospheric warming a few years apart give radically different results, ergo these trends are obviously too short to be indicative of the long term impact) when there is any 'refutation' at all... no matter how meaningless.

Too much credit is given to the few skeptics capable of performing actual scientific analysis... because none of their science supports the nonsense they spread. The fact that Pielke senior, Curry, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Muller, and various others have conducted actual scientific research with valid methodologies and repeatable results does not excuse the fact that they have also made blatantly false statements to advance various beliefs which they cannot substantiate scientifically. After someone at the LA Times said that they don't print letters from climate 'skeptics' containing false information various other papers stated their policies. The Denver Post stated that the matter is still in doubt and it would be "editorial arrogance" to dismiss the views of "properly credentialed experts" like Spencer and Curry. The quotations from these two are particularly galling because Spencer's is outright false and Curry's deliberately misleading;

http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_24333316/carroll-one-truth-global-warming

The fact that these sometimes scientists have not been sufficiently called out and denounced for their false claims means that they will continue to be given equal (or greater) time by many segments of the press and provides cover for the Tisdale's and Watts's to push climate denial into the realm of fantasy and nonsense.

Double Standard on Internal Variability

grindupBaker at 06:09 AM on 27 October, 2013

I agree with Bert. When "debating" (a bit risable) in a public forum the purpose is that perhaps other bods who are impartial but interested will browse through there and hopefully find my arguments more convincing, it is never to "change the mind" of whoever you are (ahem) "debating" with in a public forum. But it might be different with you more highbrow types, perhaps you were debating without the quotes with Prof. Muller a few years back.

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

MA Rodger at 18:12 PM on 26 October, 2013

Ironbark @13.
Your request that I ease up on the 'denialist' trigger would be more likely heeded if you ease up on the denialist argumentation. This you singlularly fail to do. In the very same paragraph as your request you tell us Richard Muller describes that the e-mail hacks from CRU demonstrated 'scientific malpractice' (he may well have done, he has a history of denial) and you then intimate that "the graph" (presumably the "hockey stick" from Mann et al 1999) used by the IPCC and Al Gore was also show after 10 years to be wrong. You cannot be serious!

I do not know where you get such deluded ideas from. Mann et al 1999 featured in IPCC TAR of 2001 and along with a whole bag full of other 'hockeysticks', also in IPCC AR4 of 2007. And if you bother to examine the final draft of IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 5 figure 5.7 you will see that Mann et al 1999 is now replaced by Mann et al 2008, within which the work of Mann et al 1999 remains all correct and ship shape being presented within figure 3(b) of that paper. There was no error, no malpractice attached to the 'hockeystick'.
Do you deny this to be so? Or will you accept that 'climategate' had zero impact on the science.
(Note. There is somewhere on video a UK climatologist (?) who delights in pointing to some minor adjustment to a global temperature record for part of a decade of the 19th century that was the sum total scientific impact of 'climategate', so perhaps "zero impact" is not entirely correct.)

Of course (as pointed out @24) this is off topic here. Indeed, to remain on topic, please do not present your detailed thoughts concerning a different SkS post in this comment thread. That other SkS post does have a comment thread of its own which is provided for such a purpose.

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

Ironbark at 09:14 AM on 26 October, 2013

At Moderator - understood, appreciate the feedback and thanks for the link. I don't agree with one of it's conclusion though that 'we can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not' - that is an opinion that people are allowed to have regarding their own perceptions of the costs vs benefits. That is a subjective comment though - I don't believe it's a scientific comment. Being subjective, my own perception is that there will be lots of needless suffering on the poorest if we are incorrect in regulating CO2 footprints (i.e. if CO2 footprints are to blame, we can't address the issue without preventing poor countries from improving their quality of life, since improved quality of life comes from fossil fuels). Is there a scientific position as to how long model predictions can deviate from observations without questioning the underlining inputs and assumptions?

At 12, MA Rodger - easy on the 'denialist' trigger. My conclusions on Glimategate correspond with Prof Richard Muller's lecture on youtube, who for what I can make out, appears to think that all the warming we've seen is caused by humans, yet says Climategate was 'scientific malpractice'. My point is that if it takes a decade for that to come out from the original papers, after the graph was used by the IPCC and Al Gore, what hope now do ordinary people have to take any study that's not older than 10 years on face value?

The link you've provided helps, though I'm not sure it gets to the crux of the question. The essence of the 'Does the global warming 'pause' mean what you think it means' thread, appears to be that there is no pause over a longer period. Whilst this is interesting and I would agree that to discern overall trends needs long time frames, the context of my question was that of someone who just wants to look at how predictions have gone against observations to make a decision. Why - because the reason to regulate CO2 footprints now is predicated on the assumption that we have no time to lose. Since models weren't making predictions 30 years ago, their performance over that time period isn't relevant to that question. The relevant time period is to match when models were predicting the future, against those now historical observations. From what I can make out those predictions appeared to start in the late 1990's (please correct me if I'm wrong). The link talks about the oceans switching to another warming cycle - how long would this be, if it's long, can that not support the position that we don't have to act imminently? How many years of no warming from when models started making predictions would it take for ordinary people to be able to say that there might be more going on here that we don't understand?

As an aside, I don't think the graph on that page comparing how 'realists' and 'skeptics' view climate doesn't helps the case. I haven't seen anything said by skeptics which would support such a graph - their overall argument in fact appears to be the opposite, that even 30 years is to short a trend - some are saying we need to look a trends over thousands of years. I don't know which one is right, other then that graph characterising the 'skeptics' view, doesn't correspond with anything I've read from them. Obviously it's up to this site to determine how it wants to reflect opposing viewpoints, however IMO I think it detracts from great work that's being done here as opposed to helping it.

Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy

Paul Pukite at 00:02 AM on 20 October, 2013

Tom Curtis,

Healthy skepticism is warranted. I have more info here on the general approach:

http://contextearth.com/2013/10/04/climate-variability-and-inferring-global-warming/

The October 1943 spike is the single anthro effect I added apart from CO2. You can turn that off by checking off anthro aerosols. I added that because since the overall agreement is so good, one can really start to look at particular points in time for further evaluation.

All the lags can be modified by the user. You can turn all of them off by setting the lags to zero. The agreement is still good.

The application of the LOD (length of day) is crucial as a proxy for multidecadal oscillations. This ensures conservation of energy and conservation of momentum according to work by Dickey et al at NASA JPL [1]. The fluctuations in kinetic energy have to go somewhere and of course changes in temperature are one place for this dissipation.

As far as volcanic disturbances, I took the significant ones from the BEST spreadsheet of Muller. If you can point me to the volcanic fording data from GISS, I can use that instead. Thanks !

[1] J. O. Dickey, S. L. Marcus, and O. de Viron, “Air Temperature and Anthropogenic Forcing: Insights from the Solid Earth,” Journal of Climate, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 569–574, 2011.

Why climate change contrarians owe us a (scientific) explanation

grindupBaker at 05:50 AM on 15 October, 2013

@History reader #66, DSL #70. I think History's questions are better answered by locating those bell curves of weather events and discussions of them (I recall lectures by, perhaps, Dr. Wasdell, Dr. Hansen, Prof. Muller posted as videos that included explanations of the bell curve of weather events both widening at the base and moving towards the severe events. My understanding is that a weather event is not "caused by global warming", which is simplistic. The additionaI energy in the system (in the oceans) makes more events more energetic, but to greatly varying amounts so that it is incorrect to say "this is a global warming one, that's a regular one like we had before". It's important to note that "global warming" is in its early years so we should not expect every weather event to be more powerful than any prior weather event.

"powerful east coast storms", the east coast of which country or continent ? (is my so-subtle way of saying the peoples of Land Incognita really notice the navel-gazing south of the Sumas border crossing here. I mean we really really notice it and a commenter would gain great creds by searching for a similar size weather event in some country over there, study and add to their comments to show cosmopolitanism in the global topic of global warming).

IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think

grindupBaker at 13:04 PM on 3 October, 2013

@sereniac #73 There are numerous lectures on internet video if you are interested such as:

---science only---

David Randall: The Role of Clouds and Water Vapor in Climate Change - Simon Fraser University Kevin Trenberth: The Role of the Oceans in Climate - Simon Fraser University Sarah Gille : Long-term Temperature Change in the Southern Ocean - Perspectives - University of California Television climate modelling lectures by Prof Inez Fung (she has several, they all hurt my brain) Prof Inez Fung: Anatomy of a Climate Model: How Robust are Climate Projections? Professor Ted Shepherd: Understanding uncertainty in climate models

-- science & activism --

The Scientific Case for Urgent Action to Limit Climate Change - Richard Somerville Berkeley University: Dan Miller Extreme Climate Change Catastrophic Climate Change & Runaway Global Warming - David Wasdell

David Wasdell: various

Richard Muller: various

Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming

grindupBaker at 11:15 AM on 27 June, 2013

WebHubTelescope @#25 Also there's Prof. Richard Muller's land surface only AST since 1753 from 36,000 temperature stations at Berkeley Earth.

New study by Skeptical Science author finds 100% of atmospheric CO2 rise is man-made

Micawber at 02:59 AM on 8 June, 2013

I thought the BEST group of physicists had proved once and for all that all global warming in last 250 years can be accounted for by volcanism and the log of CO2 concentration.
Rohde, R., Muller, R. A., Jacobsen, R., Muller, E., Perlmutter, S., Rosenfeld, A., Wurtele, J., Groom, D. and Wickham, C.: A new estimate of the average earth surface land temperature spanning 1753 to 2011, Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview, 1, 1, 7pp, doi: 10.4172/gigs.1000101, 2012.
This is consistent with the physics. The greenhouse gas is active in the upper stratosphere/troposphere boundary. To solar radiation Earth looks like a bubble. This bubble traps the heat. It is dependent on CO2 rather than water vapour that does not reach so high. Rohde et al., (2012) is consistent with this and explains all the temperature changes observed. What goes on inside the bubble affects that surface. Most of the surface is saltwater.
There is s similar boundary layer in the upper ocean that traps heat. According to Levitus et al., (2012) ocean heat accounts for 93% of anthropogenic global warming.
Levitus, S., Antonov, J. I., Boyer, T. P., Baranova, O. K., Garcia, H. E., Locarnini, R. A., Mishonov, A. V., Reagan, J. R., Seidov, D., Yarosh, E. S. and Zweng, M. M.: World ocean heat content and thermostatic sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010, Geophys. Res. Lett, 39, L10603, 5pp, doi: 10.1029/2012GL051106, 2012.
Data from oceans is sparse at best with 1 degree lat and long coverage averaged over upper 100m only available since 1990s. What is needed is far better data on the 93% heat and rather less statistics on the 7%.
Unfortunately this requires going to sea and making actual measurements. It is timeseries of near-surface temperature and salinity data that holds the key. These are not available from satellites. Computer models are only as good as the field verification data. There are huge tracts of ocean for which data is lacking including the Pacific and the Arctic.
In my opinion it is time for a concerted effort to go to sea and get the data. It can only confirm what Rohde et al., (2012) showed - CO2 concentration is the principal driver of global warming; and confirm Levitus et al., that 93% of that is in the oceans.

Renewable energy is too expensive

John Hartz at 06:55 AM on 23 April, 2013

@jdixon1940 #4:

The following letter-to-the-editor (LTE) was published by the New York Times yesterday (Apr 21, 2013). It rebutes an Op-ed previsously published by the Times that advocated for the replacement of coal by shale gas in China. The LTE is equally applicable to the Lonberg Op-ed in my opinion.

To the Editor:
In “China Must Exploit Its Shale Gas” (Op-Ed, April 13), Elizabeth Muller argues that shale gas can replace coal in China. However, China’s coal power capacity is already twice that of America’s, and will be triple by the time China begins to fully exploit its shale gas reserves in 10 years. By then it will be too late and expensive to replace these coal plants, most built in the last decade, as they will still be young, efficient and cheap. Gas in Asia is still expected to be two to eight times more expensive than coal.
Gas is also a carbon-intensive fuel, even if less so than coal, and substituting it for coal will not get us the reductions necessary to stabilize the climate. Seriously attacking greenhouse gases in China, and globally, will require deploying carbon capture and storage for existing and new coal (and gas) plants. Otherwise, it’s game over for climate change.
ARMOND COHEN
Executive Director
Clean Air Task Force
Boston, April 15, 2013

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

Harold H Doiron, PhD at 05:59 AM on 28 March, 2013

dana1981,

It has just come to my attention that your critique of the work of The Right Cimate Stuff research team in your January 24, 2013 post that started all of these comments, did not directly address the one-page summary of findings from our year-long investigation that was the subject of a January 23, 2013 press release that you quoted. Our investigation findings, concurred with by all of our team members, were published on Jan. 23, 2013 at the link: http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

Your critique was focused on answering questions that were posed in an introductory overview tutorial article written as background for visitors to our website that might not be familiar with the basic issues in question and that is found at the link:

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/CurrentOverview.html

To the extent that any of the questions posed in that introductory article were addressed by conclusions of our investigation, those conclusions can be found at:

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

The introductory overview assessment article that you criticized was written by one of our members as a starting point situational description for our investigation. By accident, I now see that the Oct. 2012 introductory overview article title appears like it might be "the report" for which the one-page summary is published at the first link provided above. The " investigation findings" or conclusions in the one-page summary at the first link provided above were not derived from the Oct 2012 article posted at the 2nd link provided above.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. My CPAC 2013 presentation that Tom Wysmuller provided links for in comments above, was focused on the one-page summary conclusions of our investigation.

NASA Retirees Appeal to their Own Lack of Climate Authority

dana1981 at 14:49 PM on 23 March, 2013

Harold - whoever you spoke to was mistaken. We have not even seen your CPAC presentation. From what I read, Walter Cunningham's and Thomas Wysmuller's comments were kind of a joke, apparently denying that the planet is warming.

From the same story, you said sea level rise isn't a global problem (which is kind of silly – a whole lot of countries, including the USA, have coastal property), and said China is refusing to address climate change, which is wrong. Other than that, I don't know what was included in your presenation, so we haven't addressed it.

This is Global Warming - A Lesson for Monckton and Co.

Albatross at 14:08 PM on 30 December, 2012

Ron @60,

"...should not be attacked for not being a climate scientist by people who aren't climate scientists."

Your red herring argument dismisses one and all critiques made by non-climate scientists in this faux debate? You are conceding that the opinions Monckton, Watts, McIntyre, Ridley, McKitrick, Morano, Michaels, Pielke Jnr., Inhofe, Bastardi, Douglass, Knox, Singer, Easterbrook, Peiser, McLean, Jo Nova, Montford, Mosher, Baliunas, Loehle, Tom Harris, Muller, Liljegren, Condon, Happer, Lewis, Plimer, Soon, Idso, Tisdale, Dyson and many, many other fake skeptics and contrarians are to be ignored when it comes to climate science.

For the record, in science it is not considered an "attack" to note legitimate and noteworthy errors and flaws in arguments made by fake skeptics and those in denial. Trying to invoke that hyperbole in a scientific debate is conceding that you have lost and are grasping at straws.

We're heading into an ice age

Robertgj at 07:20 AM on 26 November, 2012

Sorry, I omitted the Field et al. reference for the absence of temperate climate trees in northern Germany:

Field, M.H., Huntley, B., and Müller, H., 1994, Eemian climate fluctuations observed in a European pollen record: Nature, v. 376, p. 779-783.

Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians

TomPainInTheAsk at 09:39 AM on 30 September, 2012

CBDunkerson, you certainly know more about Muller than I do. It was only last week that I watched the interview “Rihard Muller at Climate One” on You Tube. That's the first time I've heard him speak.

And no doubt your stopwatch (3 minutes) is more accurate than my six-year old memory of “An Inconvenient Truth”. The Katrina part SEEMED like ten minutes! I was squirming in my seat, thinking “Oh-oh, he's gone off base here.” It was so unnecessary. Obviously, our expectations differed. I anticipated more of an objective documentary, covering opposing aspects that highlighted uncertainties and something far less political. People walked out with the impression their beach-front real estate would crash in value by 2007 / 2008. (Actually, ALL California real estate crashed in value 2007 / 2008, but that wasn't Gore's fault.)

Let me re-watch the film and get back to you.

Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians

CBDunkerson at 08:10 AM on 30 September, 2012

TomPain, Muller made a lot of exceedingly stupid accusations several years ago. Then he put together a study to prove how the global temperature series data was all a big fraud... and instead wound up finding that he had been completely wrong. His science is fine... his assumptions on many issues where he has not done the science continue to be wildly incorrect.

"I still remember the film's ten-minute tie to Hurricane Katrina"

So part of the problem is that you remember things which never happened. For the record, it was less than three minutes and Gore never says that AGW caused Katrina. Rather he talks about how warm ocean waters strengthen hurricanes and how AGW warms the oceans... allowing a viewer to make the inference that 2+2=4 while carefully not actually saying it. He does not cover a lot of complexities where AGW effects could also weaken or decrease the frequency of hurricanes... but none of what he says in that segment is incorrect. That's the sort of 'spin' I was referring to. The movie is largely true... it just isn't the 'whole truth'. It presents only one side of the issue and doesn't state a lot of the uncertainties. It is absolutely a 'political' argument... but it is not the huge collection of falsehoods Gore haters and deniers claim. Gore set out to issue a call to action against AGW and used every manner of rhetorical and emotional manipulation to achieve that goal... while confining himself to the facts, other than a few minor errors.

Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians

TomPainInTheAsk at 22:33 PM on 29 September, 2012

CBDunkerson, thanks for the link! I'll check it out.

Gore's film is “largely accurate”? Debatable. I thought it was 85% accurate when I saw it in 2006. Over time I've revised that estimate down. “Richard Muller on Climate One” (search for it on You Tube) gives it only 50% - the other half = wrong, misleading, or alarmist. Muller is a harsh critic, but many of the best scientists are.

On Yahoo News comments, it seems more knowledgeable posters are Gore-averse.

85% accurate was a poor grade for a film of Gore's budget and influence. His star has fallen in the U.S.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

soo doh nim at 12:06 PM on 24 September, 2012

Actually, given that the standard line is that 98% of the scientific community is in agreement, PBS should have given Muller 49 minutes and Watts one.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

mandas at 11:39 AM on 20 September, 2012

Actually, I have absolutely no problem with PBS - or anyone else for that matter - interviewing Watts or any other 'sceptic'.

What I do have a problem with is the reporters not doing their job and not asking the hard questions and taking 'sceptics' to task for their misrepresentations. When Watts remarked that Muller had not been peer reviewed, the reporter should have asked Watts if his work had been peer reviewed. When Watts raised the issue of UHI, the reporter should have asked him about adjustments etc.

That would be the best way of dealing with people like Watts. Hold them up to the light so everyone can see just how lacking in substance they really are. While they hide out in their blogs, or only get interviewed on Faux News, they will not be exposed for the charlatans they are.

PBS gets a mark for putting him on, but get marked down for not asking the proper questions.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

JohnMashey at 03:48 AM on 20 September, 2012

It might be worth comparing Muller @ PBS with Muller at CBC.
Deep Climate discusses the latter, in Richard Muller Radio Rambles, part 1: Kochs “very deep”, “very thoughtful” and “properly skeptical”.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

renewabledoug at 03:37 AM on 20 September, 2012

Watts is a shill, and while it's important to examine him and why the Newshour brought him on, his credentials as a "climate scientist" are easily debunked. Few comments here are about Muller, who is also controversial, but much more interesting too. Through books and classes he has advanced scientific literacy among the public, including regarding warming. But he loves media attention too. I wrote about him here: http://renewabledoug.blogspot.com/2012/09/pbs-newshour-climate-and-professor.html

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

David Lewis at 23:56 PM on 19 September, 2012

When Richard Muller appeared in March 2011 before the House Committee on Science (his full statement is here) he had one recommendation for what the Committee could do in the way of legislation to "advance our knowledge of climate change".

He called for the creation of a Climate Advanced Research Project Agency, or Climate-ARPA, saying it "could help".

He went on:

"Without the efforts of Anthony Watts and his team, we would have only a series of anecdotal images of poor temperature stations, and we would not be able to evaluate the integrity of the data. This is a case in which scientists receiving no government funding did work crucial to our understanding climate change. Similarly for the work done by Steve McIntyre. Their "amateur" science is not amateur in quality; it is true science, conducted with integrity and high standards. Government policy needs to encourage such work. Climate-ARPA could be an organization that provides quick funding to worthwhile projects whether they support or challenge current understanding"

PBS could have asked Muller what he thinks of "true" scientists of "integrity" who have such "high standards", eg Watts, now.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

Eric (skeptic) at 21:22 PM on 19 September, 2012

About the only Watts statement in the PBS transcript that isn't simply conservative politics is "Yes, we have some global warming. It’s clear the temperature has gone up in the last 100 years, but what percentage of that is from carbon dioxide and what percentage of that is from the changes in the local and measurement environment?"

Does Watts agree with 97.5% of climate scientists who say yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" He may in general, but the snippet above implies no.

The rest of his responses are political except the swipe at Muller. What Watts (along with editing by PBS) did is establish his political view, cast doubt upon the amount of warming caused by CO2, and swipe at Muller. I very much doubt he changed the views of any of the PBS viewers.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

Dale at 13:48 PM on 19 September, 2012

Doug @20:
Academic credentials can help, but they aren't a pre-requisite. Credentials also don't guarantee any sort of expertise either.

I've hired numerous IT people with all sorts of credentials who ended up being complete duds. Some of the best IT people I've hired for companies were non-credentialed people.

John @22:
Neither would I, but not surprising, I'm not American. But I suspect the producer probably also wanted to play a bit on the Watts v Muller snipeing. If you look at it one way, a sceptic of station siting turns warmist (Muller) and a warmist turns sceptic over station siting (Watts).

A bit of journalistic license, and you got yourself a show that fuels the public. And that's what the show did. From a journalistic POV, the show worked wonders.

PBS False Balance Hour - What's Up With That?

dana1981 at 12:05 PM on 19 September, 2012

Albatross @1 - fair point about the false equivalence, putting up blogger Watts alongside scientist Richard Muller.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

curiousd at 18:31 PM on 29 August, 2012

From the standpoint of education, I think the BEST result is great because of the following:

BEST:

250 years time span with observed 1.5 degrees C temp increase.Then experimental 40% increase in CO2 since indust revolution,gives
C2/C1 = 2^(t1/3) ~ 1.4 gives t1 ~ 1.5 degrees C indeed AND

SINCE 1980:

Since 1980 from Keeling curve, to present now different C2/C1 ~ 1.2 then

C2/C1 = 1.2 = 2^(t2/3) gives t2 ~ 0.75 degrees C a little higher than observed for that time frame but not bad

SO two different ranges of time and temperature change pretty consistent with same climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C and you can show a physics trained but "climate physics challenged" audience that climate sensitivity of 3 is a robust experimental result that does not depend on a simulation to be proven. Without Muller and BEST going back 250 years this argument is much less strong.

Teaching Climate Change in Schools

monkeyorchid at 18:04 PM on 17 August, 2012

4. ubrew12,
Very good comments - as I wrote this, I felt that bright kids would keep asking valid questions like these, forcing teachers to keep expanding on the topic. "Why do otherwise sensible people say it isn't happening?" is a very likely question. Hence it may be necessary to equip teachers with an understanding of the causes of denial. I tend to think that there are three basic causes: Fear, Ideology and Profit. The man on the street doesn't want something so scary to be real (who can blame him?!); a lot of right-wingers hate the political consequences of climate change being real, so they pretend it isn't; a small but hugely influential group of people spew out disinformation to earn money or protect their profits. To really understand climate change, possibly children need to understand these motivators, too.

6. calyptorhynchus
True, though the topics overlap. Ideal would be if science and sociology teachers could teach classes on this together, or at least collaborate closely over lesson plans. At very least, the sociology teachers would need a decent grasp of the science to deal with any awkward questions coming along. Of course, really teacher of every subject should understand the science, in an ideal world!

8. michael sweet
The grant money question is a popular denialist myth precisely because of the difficulty you mention, which stems from most folk knowing so little about how science and its funding operates. Perhaps classes on critical thinking need to expand to how research is funded? Of course, you can point to the massive amounts of money paid to people specifically to deny the reality of climate change, and to Richard Muller, whose BEST work was only funded because the funders expected the opposite result to what he provided. Perhaps a case study of BEST would help address these points?
Also you might ask why, if it really were a myth, politicians would continue paying scientists to talk about a problem that politicians are abjectly failing to solve!

Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood

Martin Lack at 02:27 AM on 17 August, 2012

Dana, I have read this post (which is very good) but you do not address storm intensity -vs- heatwave intensity? For example, why (as WUWT appears to show
here) do changes in storm intensity appear to be cyclical (rather than steadily increasing)? How can Hansen et al (2012) and Watts et al (2012?) both be true?

Also, what criticism by Muller was Mann was reacting to in the 'On the Green Front' broadcast (yesterday - as embedded on WUWT above)? That is to say, has Muller been attacking Mann because of the sarcastic Tweet (to the effect that Muller is likely to catch up with climate science eventually)? What have I missed?

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

tmac57 at 09:24 AM on 15 August, 2012

I just finished listening to the Diane Rehm show for Aug 14th on NPR titled New Consensus On Climate Change. It was very frustrating to listen to Dr. Muller undermining the importance of climate change,and the proposed solutions.I suspect that he will be back in another 10 years telling everyone why we need emergency and drastic action to reduce greenhouse gasses and why he was justified in downplaying the importance of that message in the record breaking summer of 2012.
It seems as though Muller has not really learned his lesson yet.

Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress

dana1981 at 15:32 PM on 8 August, 2012

Albatross - I can't imagine that Christy would be referencing the results of a paper on which he's listed as co-author without being intimately aware of the details. In fact I suspect that Christy pressured Watts to release the paper before it was ready because he was afraid Muller would be testifying in the same hearing and he wanted the Watts results to undermine Muller's testimony.

That's just speculation on my part, but either way, if you're presenting the results of a paper on which you're co-author to Congress, you'd darn well better be very familiar with how those results were generated.

Though I guess it's true, it wouldn't reflect as poorly on Christy if he were ignorant about the flaws in the paper whose results he presented to Congress. In that case he was just being grossly irresponsible as opposed to being both inept and irresponsible.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

Tor B at 00:17 AM on 4 August, 2012

George Marshall (of the British Climate Outreach and Information Network, not of George C. Marshall Inst.) identifies in his Irresistible Story of Richard Muller post that Dr. Muller's change of heart is a cultural transformation, not a scientific one, dispite what Dr. Muller writes.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

Dale at 13:38 PM on 3 August, 2012

Mod:
Apologies, but I thought a discussion on scepticism over attribution was appropriate for the thread considering Muller himself was originally sceptical of attribution and through this study changed.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

Bob Loblaw at 13:19 PM on 3 August, 2012

Dale: it might help your case if you give a name of someone that you consider to be a "serious" skeptic. That will avoid having the discussion bog down in differences of opinion that are based on observations of different groups of "skeptics".

Every good scientist is a skeptic, and raises questions about others' research. The set of self-styled "skeptics" (in the climate area) that are good scientists and true skeptics is very, very small (IMHO).

Asking questions that have been answered many times (and where the answers are well-established and accepted by nearly all the scientists in the discipline), and asking them again and again because you don't like the answers is not skepticism.

Muller and the BEST group had "skepticism" that was ignorant (or unaccepting) of well-established knowledge in climate science. Their results appear to have been a surprise to two groups:

- a few of them that have now decided the mainstream climate science had it right

- a few more of them that cannot accept the results, because they were never "serious" skeptics in the first place.

The vast majority of climate scientists are not surprised.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

tmac57 at 10:19 AM on 3 August, 2012

In an interview with Rachael Maddow the other day Muller said that we need to do two things to combat Co2: Conservation,and getting the third world and developing nations to replace coal with natural gas...
No mention of renewable technologies at all.
I will let you draw your own conclusions.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

Roger D at 09:08 AM on 3 August, 2012

Joshua @1. I heard that PBS radio interview today too and agree with you that it was interesting. The interviewer did a very good job pressing Muller regarding his rationale for being "skeptical" of previous work that arrived at essentially the same conclusions as BEST. As Joshua@1 notes, Muller's comments on the Kochs and the Koch Foundation response to BEST's conclusions were the most interesting aspect. Muller said the Kochs were fine with his conclusions, and they just want the best science, which we now have, thanks to BEST (according to Muller). Muller would not accept that the Kochs did or even attempted to discount pre-BEST climate science. He was adamant on this. It seems a new page may have turned in the playbook of those that want no CO2 reduction schemes: That being that only now, finally, it is logical to accept that warming is occurring due to fossil fuels, but (as Muller indicated in the interview)it would only make sense for the US to reduce emissions after the US is satisfied that China also will do so at the same time. Seems like a good way to not look obstructionist, not deny the science, while hoping for business as usual.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

Trent1492 at 07:04 AM on 3 August, 2012

I think this is the appropriate topic to remind everyone that Anthony Watts once
endorsed Richard Muller's BEST project

Some excerpts from the article:

But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised.

So he claims to have looked at Muller's methods and approves. Next:

And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.

Caught in the net of his own weaving. Poetic.

BEST Results Consistent with Human-Caused Global Warming

Joshua at 06:52 AM on 3 August, 2012

An interesting interview with Muller (in particular, I thought the discussion about the Koch brothers was interesting)...

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/02/climate-change-skeptic

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique

Martin Lack at 05:52 AM on 3 August, 2012

Thanks Kevin. I am really glad to see someone offering Watts et al some constructive criticism, which might help them eventually climb out of the hole they have dug themselves in recent years... If Richard A Muller can do it, then so can they (we can but hope)...

Typo alert: "It would be surprising is" should I think be "It would be surprising if"... (i.e. end of penultimate paragraph in the 'Adjustments Make Little Difference Globally' section).

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique

trrll at 06:52 AM on 2 August, 2012

It shouldn't be surprising that the UHI effect is not a big source of error in the temperature trend, because a stable temperature bias because of bad siting will not affect the trend. Errors in the trend will result only if the UHI effect becomes worse (or better, of course) during the recording period. There's probably a certain amount of this, due to urbanization and expansion of cities, but it seems unlikely that it could constitute a major source of error in the overall trend. Changes in instrumentation, station location and construction, and recording time are far more likely to introduce spurious trends. So Watts really needs to separate these corrections if he wants to conduct a serious study of the matter.

It really sounds like Watts rushed out a half-baked study in an effort to steal the thunder from the Muller papers.

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique

vrooomie at 06:43 AM on 2 August, 2012

JohnH@4: Though I tend to agree with you, I'd welcome Watt's contributions *IF* they were done in a true and concertedly scientific way. I'd posit that someone here, who may have some conection to Anthony, invite him to *politely* discuss Dana and Kevin's analysis, in the SkS spirit.

As a working scientist, and having followed this WUWT kerfuffle (a honest-to-injun real sciency word, BTW!) for quite a few years, I have a high disregard for most of WUWT and its followers.

That said, I'm reminded of a stone-cold denier, which whom I've been having email exchanges with for about 3 years now: Trust me when I say they did *not* start off nicely! However, through perserverance and ooodles (another sciency word!) of data submission, he is actually now a real skeptic, no longer a fake one. I was gracious, held my tongue (a ~difficult-for-me-to-do~ act, sometimes), and stayed on point.

I'd welcome Watt's "conversion," especially if SkS was the vector it originated in!

Today, Muller: Tomorrow.....;)

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique

dana1981 at 06:34 AM on 2 August, 2012

grypo @15 - yes, from what I heard Christy didn't mention the Watts results in his verbal testimony, but he does reference them in his written testimony. Really big no-no referencing unpublished, unreviewed results in congressional testimony.

The same criticism could be applied to Muller when he told Congress about preliminary BEST results, but at least those results were pedestrian, just confirming what we already knew. Telling Congress that everything we thought we knew was wrong based on extremely preliminary results - that's simply unprofessional and wrong.

Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique

KR at 06:25 AM on 2 August, 2012

dana1981 - From the Backstory on the new surfacestations paper:

After Muller could not find strong signal that we knew must be there by physics of heat sinks…and neither could we in Fall et al 2011, we went looking, and discovered the new Leroy 2010 classification system and WMO ISO approval. ...

(Emphasis added)

Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse

Tor B at 22:15 PM on 1 August, 2012

In line with Michael Mann's comment that Richard Muller has a ways to go to catch up with mainstream climate science, I was interested in George Marshall's (not of George C. Marshall Inst.) Irresistible Story of Richard Muller post. It identifies the Dr. Muller's change of heart as being a cultural transformation, not a scientific one, dispite what Dr. Muller writes. (I don't see a Muller thread, so I'm putting this comment here.)

2012 SkS Weekly Digest #30

John Hartz at 06:53 AM on 1 August, 2012

To the surprise of no one, Muller’s Op-ed and Watts’s press release have generated a goodly number of blog articles over the past few days. One that merits a careful read is:

“More evidence attention-grabbing climate studies prematurely rushed and potentially flawed” by Jason Samenow of the Capital Weather Gang, Washington Post, July 31, 2012

To access this blog post, click here.

Peter Hadfield takes on the MWP

skywatcher at 14:12 PM on 30 July, 2012

#11: Muller's plying catch-up with the science. According to Mann, he's reached about the 1990s in his understanding of the science:

"Some additional thoughts about Muller and 'BEST':
Muller's announcement last year that the Earth is indeed warming brought him up to date w/ where the scientific community was in the the 1980s. His announcement this week that the warming can only be explained by human influences, brings him up to date with where the science was in the mid 1990s. At this rate, Muller should be caught up to the current state of climate science within a matter of a few years!" (source)

Peter Hadfield takes on the MWP

Sceptical Wombat at 13:32 PM on 30 July, 2012

Bill @ 1

Muller now accepts that global warming has been happening, is continuing and is almost entirely CO2 induced.

He appears to be saying that there is no evidence that it is a particularly big problem.

Monckton Misrepresents Reality (Part 3)

Tristan at 01:32 AM on 30 July, 2012

Monckton tries his hands at some anti-Muller math.

Peter Hadfield takes on the MWP

mercpl at 23:07 PM on 29 July, 2012

Bill,

With reference to your comment about Muller's op-Ed piece, i wonder if that is the major announcement that has caused the WUWT site to as suspended publication. Maybe Anthony Watts has changed his mind too.

Peter Hadfield takes on the MWP

bill at 16:12 PM on 29 July, 2012

Another great vid from Potholer. So, who's been fiddling with the charts, then?

Between this and Muller's 'call me a Converted Skeptic' NYT OpEd this is turning into quite the memorable day!

The BEST Summary

DSL at 13:11 PM on 29 July, 2012

Muller officially comes out in the NYT today -- with predictions:

"What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years."

Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse

Albatross at 04:10 AM on 28 July, 2012

Brandon @20,

Thanks for your response, although it is unfortunate that your reprehension of Mr. Steyn's slander and falsehoods had to be solicited.

As for your claim that you have not attempted to obfuscate, I think readers of this thread and the Muller thread will see it very differently.

As for your claim that the main post contains a factual error, I'm afraid that you have not made a compelling case in that regard, as has also been noted by other commentators. Regardless, for argument's sake even if the main post does contain a factual error, it does not make the actions of Mr. Steyn (which were likely inspired by Mr. McIntyre's musings) or the repeated attacks on scientists by Mr. McIntyre and his ilk any less reprehensible or defensible.

"but it is inexcusable to compare anyone to a child molester"
Then I hope you will join me in condemning the following comments and innuendo made at ClimateAudit following a post by Mr. McIntyre (posts which were not moderated):

"Posted Nov 15, 2011 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply
A month or so ago, Judy Curry had a thread on a study of Jungian psychological profiles of climate scientists vs other physical scientists, and the results were quite striking. They are indeed, very, very different. It isn’t just your imagination."

"Posted Nov 15, 2011 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Reply
.....Steve, thank you for once more drawing attention to the strange personal properties that can be acquired by some scientists. The one that bothers me most is the departure from the generally accepted “scientific method” in the loose sense. It seems that it is often accompanied by departure from the norms of general social conduct, such as a reticence to conduct an honest inquiry, a dogged defence of inventive methodology that is plausibly flawed and so on to areas seldom discussed."

Brandon "I have little interest in op-eds."
I'd strongly suggest that you read Mr. Steyn's article, you might see some familiar accusations thrown around, some of which appear to have originated at ClimateAudit. His article is also critical to the main post.

So you never read the op-ed by Mr. McIntyre that is demolished by DeepClimate then?

Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline

CBDunkerson at 21:53 PM on 27 July, 2012

Brandon, you're describing a difference without a distinction. That is, the process you lay out can be accurately described as "plotting recent instrumental temperature data along with historical reconstructed data"... the statement you are ostensibly 'refuting'. You're just specifying minutiae of how the two data sets were plotted together.

Does this focus on minutiae change the conclusion that Muller misrepresented the 'trick' as hiding a decline in global temperature data? No... because the whole point of the trick was to show the global temperature data! There isn't any decline in that data. The decline is a known error in the proxy data from tree rings.

Mann excluded provably erroneous proxy data in favor of showing the actual global temperature measurement results. The 'skeptic' claim that failing to show false results is some kind of scientific misconduct demonstrates just how divorced from reality they have become.

What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?

dubious at 03:40 AM on 17 July, 2012

Without question, undeniably, replication is the essence of science. But replication is also the process of falsification - trying to prove something wrong, not trying to prove it right.

(-Snip-)

(-Snip-)

KR: "Reanalysis of raw data and "audits" are usually the work of the lazy."

The reviewers of the Gergis article (-Snip-)

The first notice time anybody suggested publicly that the article did not do what it said (which was before the article was withdrawn) came from people reanalysing what raw data had been made available.

People here might not consider that role to be important, but I'm happy that there are people who are willing to actually go to those efforts.

What is the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund?

skywatcher at 17:17 PM on 16 July, 2012

When does Joe Public get to see the data that he paid for?

Interesting question. A more interesting question is this: What would Joe Public do with such raw data? Joe Public gets to see the results, as published in the scientific journals. Depending on access, they can get articles for free, bought from publisher, or for a small fee through their local library. These articles will digest the data, methods used, and results into a format accessible to many. If Joe Public does not understand the journal articles, then Joe is not going to be in a position to perform their own analysis on the data. They will not realise or understand the elementary methods, and elementary errors to avoid, in analysing such data. If there are errors in the paper, Joe Public is not going to know what they are, or whether they are important. Joe has a lot of learning to do! This sort of process is painfully evident with many of the self-styled 'auditors' of climate data who, being charitable, make dreaful errors in reanalysing the copious quantities of raw data they have ample access to.

But alternatively, if Joe Public really thinks he can understand the science and the methodology, why does Joe Public not do something much more powerful? In science, replication is a hundred times better than repetition. Joe can see if he gets the same result, using a different dataset, different methods, or both. Of course the key results in climate science have been replicated many times over, including those favourites of the skeptics, the Hockey Stick and the surface temperature record, so this is actually a rather fruitless exercise.

But maybe you can find an oil company with massive daily profits who would fund such a venture? After all, it's in their interests! Of course Richard Muller already did that with BEST, and replicated the existing results on the surface temperature dataset! Key datasets are already freely available online. Where are the skeptics' own dendrochronology datasets, or surface temperature analyses, that are both robust and in conflict with the accepted science? Has Steve McIntyre gone to the remote forests of the world and done the hard work collecting, analysing, interpreting and publishing his own dendrochronology record? He hasn't. Why not? Is he afraid of replicating the currently-accepted science?

Global Surface Temperature: Going Down the Up Escalator, Part 1

philipm at 05:26 AM on 25 April, 2012

I don't agree with Muller that no one cares what journalsts said 10 years ago. What about the global cooling prediction in the 1970s that was more in the media than the scientific literature?

More than 100 comments found. Only the most recent 100 have been displayed.

Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Term Lookup

Settings

Latest Posts

Comment Search Results