Phil Clarke, for more reliable information about why that statement was issued (Mann attempted to deceive) try here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/comment-page-1/

The IPCC weighs in on the Mann Nobel dilemma, and throws him under the bus

Anthony Watts / November 2, 2012

"This statement was issued today from the IPCC, which appears to be inspired by the recent claims of Dr. Michael Mann in the lawsuit against NRO that we discussed here and here. The colored bold text in the paragraph below is my emphasis, otherwise it is presented as it was released. A source link to the original press release follows..... "

If Mann had a reputation to preserve, you would not be wasting your effort. That is Climate Science's problem to resolve, but it can't.

Phil Clarke, if the Nobel Prize Committee had to write to the IPCC about false claims put in writing by their "experts" in Climate Science, requiring the IPCC to publish a clarification, do you think Mann was unfairly identified, or was this a fair response to the level of abuse?

do you think Mann was unfairly identified, or was this a fair response to the level of abuse?

I think it is a nothingburger; Watts is just repeating what Mann said in his post, it was fine for IPCC contributors to state they 'contributed to the reports of the IPCC, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007', but not to describe themselves as individual prize winners.

Mann was not the only one to infringe, indeed when the organisation won the honour the then president said "All the scientists that have contributed to the work of the IPCC are the Nobel laureates who have been recognized and acknowledged by the Nobel Prize Committee"

But none of this has the remotest bearing on the (20 year old) Hockey Stick studies which you mention these every other post, I was assuming you had a detailed list of their scientific or methodological shortcomings at your fingertips, not this froth.

Phil Clarke, if Mann and his Hockey Stick can be described as froth, and blown away, that would be a good start. Then deal with Gergis 2016, Karl 2015 etc......

The current cold weather is exactly what Climate Scientists did not predict in accordance with their Models:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/07/fail-noaas-winter-climate-outlook-claimed-warmer-than-normal-temperature/

"Global warming/climate change advocates want us to believe that computer models will accurately predict temperature out to the year 2100, yet NOAA, which uses computer models to predict the next seasonal outlook, couldn’t even get that right. The north, northeast, and deep south have been in a deep freeze, with blizzard like conditions, and well below normal temperatures. Temperature records have fallen all over the eastern half of the USA in the last two weeks. Meanwhile, advocates of global warming/climate change certainty, such as Al Gore and Michael Mann, took advantage of the cold snap and said have said “that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis

Meanwhile, back in the real world, reality bites for NOAA’s short term climate prediction."

Joe Bastardii predicts a refreeze after the thaw in the USA. What will weather do in the UK for Feb?

While the Arctic region has been warming strongly in recent decades, anomalously large snowfall in recent winters has affected large parts of North America, Europe, and east Asia. Here we demonstrate that the decrease in autumn Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation that have some resemblance to the negative phase of the winter Arctic oscillation. However, the atmospheric circulation change linked to the reduction of sea ice shows much broader meridional meanders in midlatitudes and clearly different interannual variability than the classical Arctic oscillation. This circulation change results in more frequent episodes of blocking patterns that lead to increased cold surges over large parts of northern continents. Moreover, the increase in atmospheric water vapor content in the Arctic region during late autumn and winter driven locally by the reduction of sea ice provides enhanced moisture sources, supporting increased heavy snowfall in Europe during early winter and the northeastern and midwestern United States during winter. We conclude that the recent decline of Arctic sea ice has played a critical role in recent cold and snowy winters

Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall

PNAS 2010. Judith Curry was a coauthor.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4074

Interesting Phil, but why should atmospheric moisture levels in the Arctic increase in winters in the absence of incoming radiation from the sun? I'm not disputing anything, just puzzled.

Does anyone have a record of arctic moisture vs lower latitude snow or ice extent? Or do we really mean snow/cold in the US, where it matters, rather than Europe/ Russia, where it doesn't? It's all just weather. And being a sceptic I am not required to agree with Judith Curry, unlike warmists who must defend any stupidity espoused by their own.

You could always read the paper.

The anomalously warm, ice-free ocean water increases the ocean surface flux of heat and moisture into the atmosphere in late autumn and early winter, which in turn has substantial impacts on winter atmospheric circulation.

Well, it should be simple to confirm or refute by considering the last twenty years of data which missed the paper. Does the data back the theory or not?

Phil. That's a statement not an explanation nor evidence. People seem to get hung up with the word "warm" . In winter, Arctic water has recently been in contact with ice, so is likely to be around 0 degrees C. Without incoming, radiation flux of water vapour to the atmosphere must be at record lows. I repeat, I don't understand where high humidities come from - certainly not able to cause increased snowfalls. Severe cold spells on the Canadian Prairies were almost invariably associated with extremely low humidities, such that buildup of static electricity was a serious problem. Houses had humidifiers.
Could it just be that those proposing this are suggesting a glorified Lake Snow effect?

Just read the damn thing…

By examining observational data for the period 1979–2010, the fraction of winter (December, January, February) climate of the extratropical Northern Hemisphere that is linearly congruent with the interannual variability of autumn Arctic sea ice is found by regressing winter anomalies of snow cover and atmospheric fields from the National Center for Environmental Prediction reanalysis II (NCEP2) onto the detrended autumn Arctic sea ice area. The regression map between sea ice area and snow cover reveals that snow cover anomalies over the Northern Hemisphere continents are closely linked to Arctic sea ice variability. A decrease of autumn Arctic sea ice of 1 million km2 corresponds to a significantly above-normal winter snow cover (> 3-12%) in large parts of the northern United States, northwestern and central Europe, and northern and central China

Phil. Have damn well read it. Your extract describes a correlation, it doesn't explain it. Until you understand the cause of the correlation you have no explanation. So how does the Arctic ocean give up, with 24 hour darkness, so much moisture that this can cause excess snow hundreds and hundreds of miles away? I'm not saying it doesn't occur, I just cannot explain it to my own satisfaction.

Using NCDC data I find a 12.8% decrease in september ice since 1979 matches a 0.91% increase in december snow cover. In the last seven years they have been in step (both going up or down together) for three and out of step for four. I conclude that nothing much is happening.

Supertroll

The Lake Snow effect is the same physics. Note that the air flowing over the lake surface is picking up water vapour even when the water is close to freezing.

The extra open water in the Arctic ocean comes from two sources.

One is that, as Rhoda noted, the extent has decreased in recent decades, so more open water is available at the margin of the ice.

The other is that the ice cover is not continuous at high latitudes. There have always been polynyas, lanes of open water which form when the ice is under tension. Amundsen landed a seaplane on a polynya seventy miles from the pole in the 1920s. You will also remember pictures of surfaced submarines in polynyas near the North Pole.

Increasing high latitude humidity may link to a larger total area of polynyas, as observed by icebreakers.

Lake effect snow is on the land downwind of the exposed water. The claimed effect here is in land areas anywhere in the hemisphere and three months or so later than the ice minimum. Doesn't look like the same phenomenon to me.

Supertroll & rhoda

warmists don't do cold, because it was predicted to have ended by now.

Golf Charlie

When you put extra energy into a pendulum it swings further in both directions.

EM, there is no extra energy. Didn't you understand that all those little photons which arrive also leave, after an additional few microseconds? Unless the insolation changes there is no extra energy.

Of course the average position of your analogy's pendulum stays the same too.

Rhoda

This is an old argument.

No extra energy has been created.

The amount of energy entering Earth's atmosphere remains the same. The amount of energy leaving the atmosphere has been reduced by increasing GHGs. As a result of this imbalance, energy is accumulating in the climate system. Heat content and temperatures are increasing.

Don't push the pundulum analogy too far. The point I was making to golf Charlie is that when you add extra enrgy to the climate system it becomes less stable. Large deviations from average conditions become more frequent. That applies to cold weather events as well as warm weather events.

We got to the point, a few pages back, where those photons were running about in the atmosphere. It is my contention that they only take a slightly longer path to space when there is a bit more CO2 (and other GHGs, of course). Any left over at sunset have all night to escape. We'd expect to see minimum temps not so low as before. And that's exactly what we see. CAGW proponents don't much mention that their global average increase conceals an increase in temps at the cold end, both at night and in winter. Thus fewer extremes. And more stability if your premise is correct.

rhoda, as an English Country Bumpkin, I don't think it is any warmer in the UK, but I think it does not get as cold so often in winter.

Golf Charlie
When you put extra energy into a pendulum it swings further in both directions.
Jan 9, 2018 at 5:10 PM | Entropic man

Where has the pendulum swung to?

http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/09/climate-scientists-projections-refuted-data-show-tornadoes-becoming-less-frequent/#sthash.3NrvDHZv.dpbs

"..when you add extra enrgy to the climate system it becomes less stable. Large deviations from average conditions become more frequent. That applies to cold weather events as well as warm weather events."

That isn't correct. Even global warmers believe the poles would warm while the tropics will not change. Therefore thr temperature gradient between the 2 will decrease. Weather is essentially the dynamics of tropical heat moving to the poles. As the gradient has decreased the warmers are saying there will be less weather.

Rob Burton

It is a bit more complicated than that.

For example, the jetstream is generated by the temperature gradient between the Arctic and temperate latitudes.

When this gradient is large the jetstream is powerful and tends to flow straight. North/South oscillations known as Rossby waves move eastwards along the jetstream, moving it North or South. This can move cold air South or warm air North. The recent cold spells in the UK and the US are examples of cold weather events due to Rossby waves.

Climate change is warming the Arctic faster than the temperate zone. The temperature gradient is smaller and the jetstream weaker. It is also less stable. Rossby waves are bigger, extending further North and South. Localised cold spells become more frequent against a background of long term warming. You get oddities like snow in Florida.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26278-crazy-weather-traced-to-arctics-impact-on-jet-stream/