Mar 22, 2018 at 6:40 PM | Entropic man

Still waiting for you to explain why you believe in Mann's Hockey Stick which erased the MWP and LIA.

Is that because you are not allowed to?

Mar 22, 2018 at 6:40 PM | Entropic man

Still waiting for Climate Science to admit any mistakes in their Peer Reviewed papers. Why is it up to everyone else, especially non Climate Scientists to point out the mistakes?

If Climate Science can't self correct, it does not deserve Taxpayer funding, as it fails to prove itself worthy of the description "Science".

This is why GHG Theory has always failed at the first Step

Climate Science does not want people to rely on the IPCC Reports:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/22/with-the-dismissal-of-the-exxonknew-lawsuits-climate-alarmists-are-now-in-bizarro-world/
...... " But, something bizarre happened Wednesday after the U.S. District Court for the District Northern California held a “tutorial” hearing on global warming science.

Chevron agreed with the latest scientific assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC), which was released in 2013 and 2014, the oil company’s lawyer said.

California cities, environmentalists and some scientists argued Chevron’s use of the IPCC’s latest assessment was misleading since it was outdated. Effectively, those seeking to punish oil companies are throwing aside the oft-touted “consensus” on climate science."

Peer Reviewed Climate Science, vetted and approved by the World's finest experts in the IPCC can not be used in evidence against Climate Scientists. That seems a fair assessment of the validity of the 97% Consenus - it is all Unreliable, and not to be trusted by anyone.

In the USA, a new concept is being proposed for what is known as Climate Science, that is wrecking lives.

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/pruitt-launches-science-bomb-insists-epa-only-use-data-that-is-public-no-more-secret-science/

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of “secret science” to craft regulations.

“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”

“If we use a third party to engage in scientific review or inquiry, and that’s the basis of rulemaking, you and every American citizen across the country deserve to know what’s the data, what’s the methodology that was used to reach that conclusion that was the underpinning of what — rules that were adopted by this agency,” Pruitt explained.

"My only minor, tiny, complaint is that there is no such thing as “secret science”. If it can’t be replicated, it isn’t science. What Pruitt is stopping is Fake Science."

So if Pruitt decides that this should be applied retrospectively, he can use Harvey et al 2017 as a reference. It has been Peer Approved by Climate Science, so can be used to judge the Consensus view of the Consensus.

Mar 22, 2018 at 12:44 PM | Radical Rodent

Radical Rodent, I was interested by those links concerning ice coverage. The traditional Swiss Chalet, along with dwellings in many areas with heavy snow cover have low pitched roofs, so the build up of snow acts as extra insulation between the warm interior and the seriously sub zero air.

Earlier in this thread the issue was raised before, and you will be aware of Hockey Team Steig and his Antarctic Peninsular warming fiasco, which may be due to volcanic activity.

An ice-core drilled hole through the ice could be repacked with embedded thermometers, to establish how far geothermal heat travelled up, and freezing cold travelled down?

Continuing this thread about things Climate Science forgot or deliberately excluded, having decided CO2 was the only temperature control knob:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/22/do-it-yourself-solar-variability-effect-on-climate-part-ii/

Do-It-Yourself: Solar variability effect on climate. Part II
Andy May / 1 day ago March 22, 2018
By Javier

In a previous article here, I showed how anyone with a computer with internet connection and Excel could check the basis of the 980-year periodicity in solar activity, known as the Eddy cycle, and its excellent match with a North Atlantic iceberg proxy record, known as the Bond series.

In this part I will show you how the same can be done with a proxy for the Asian Monsoon strength based on the deposition of δ18O in a speleothem from stalagmite DA from Dongge Cave in Southern China.

The scientific reference article for this is: “The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate,” by Wang et al., 2005, can be found here. It is a highly cited article, with 1750 citations in Google Scholar. This is by no means fringe science we are dealing with

Mar 23, 2018 at 12:47 PM | Radical Rodent

All scientists are supposed to be critical (initially at least) of their own work and that of others.

That is where Climate Science has gone wrong. They have never found anything wrong with their own Peer Reviewed Science and Hockey Team approved journalists. Those without faith in Mann's Hockey Stick have had to do all the quality control for Climate Science, without gaining any of the riches.

Scott Pruitt at the EPA knows this, and all the evidence suggests that the accumulated evidence produced by Climate Science should be treated as the Worlds most expensive dodgy dossier.

Climate Science needs to get honest. Can anything be recycled, or is it all landfill and new Motorway Embankment material?

Loyalty to Mann's Hockey Stick, and Mann's Harvey et al 2017, will be such a simple evaluation exercise. Facebook may even have the data already.

If the Pruitt starts to get 'scientists' to start archiving data and methods publicly, then we Brits could do the same.

If I understand correctly most science research council grants have a rule mandating that data/methods is archived also most journals do, but in both cases - badly policed.

Perhaps we could have a retroactive action, if within one month, all data and methods is not published, then any resultant paper is retracted?

Golf Charlie

You are slipping. First you misread and misunderstand my Alsup post, then you ask me a question I have already answered.

If you read my comment on the Alsup case you will notice that I began "The plaintiffs' case is that....."

I was describing the plaintiffs' case, not prejudging the outcome.

I have told you before. I do not regard the MWP and LIA as separate events, just as part of a longern5000 year cooling trend.

Radical Rodent

Closer to the Sun does not necessarily mean hotter.

There is a place 29 million miles from the Sun (about 1/3 AU) where the temperature can be minus 180C.

It is the night side of Mercury, whose day length is 176 earth days from sunrise to sunrise.

What does that asteroid model have to do with temperatures in the upper atmosphere of Venus?

Mar 23, 2018 at 7:54 PM | Entropic man

Have I missed your verdict on Mann's Hockey Stick? Or Harvey et al 2017?

Have I missed your acknowledgement of any mistakes by Climate Scientists in Peer Reviewed literature?

For a Scientist, what would your advice to Scott Pruitt be?
a) Accept all Peer Reviewed Climate Science?
b) Throw it all out?
c) Get honest about the trash, so that honesty about the good bits will be recognised?

As Climate Science has excluded those with conflicting views, do they have a right to be represented in any decision making process of the EPA now?

Meanwhile, back at the thread, more reasons for the inaccuracy of Climate Models?

http://notrickszone.com/#sthash.4QYpagcX.dpbs

Uncertainty Mounts…Global Temperature Data Presentation “Flat Wrong”, New Danish Findings Show

By P Gosselin on 23. March 2018

"Brand new scientific findings in a just published paper by Lansner and Pepke Pedersen appearing in the journal of Energy and Environment cast global warming science into more uncertainty

●The findings tell us that ocean cycles and their impacts have not been adequately accounted for in computing global temperatures.

●BEST approach “flat wrong”

The paper would mean that the entire approach of, for example, BEST and others to present global temperature data is “flat wrong”, claims coauthor Frank Lansner.

These approaches use one temperature trend for each area that they call “expected regional trend” and then they adjust all data to resemble this trend. But Lansner points out this is inadequate and that TWO trends need to be accepted instead – depending on the topography: one for stations exposed to ocean air affects (OAA), and one for stations sheltered from oceanic air affects (OAS). “In fact between the two extremes of temperature trends we have a grey zone of temperature trends that also are fully valid,” Lansner wrote in an e-mail response to an inquiry from NoTricksZone."

Perhaps we could have a retroactive action, if within one month, all data and methods is not published, then any resultant paper is retracted?

Mar 23, 2018 at 5:51 PM | Steve Richards

The US EPA took the politically motivated decision to declare CO2 a pollutant and damaging to US interests.

The US EPA could reverse that decision, and declare Climate Science polluted, and damaging to US interests.

If Climate Scientists challenge the US EPA, they may be asked to prove GHG Theory, Step by Step, and produce actual observed evidence, to back up the accuracy of the Computer Generated Models and their predictions. As they have failed both tests for 20+ years, with £billion$ of taxpayers money, it would take more than blind faith in Mann to succeed now with substantially reduced funding.

But 97% of Climate Scientists still deny getting anything wrong. Pruitt will need to outsource Climate Science to the honest 3%, and ask them to reappraise 20 years of Climate Science to decide if anything is worth keeping. Fortunately, Harvey et al 2017 will help speed up the process.

Personally, I think that the proponent should be given every encouragement to take his model further, as he is approaching the entire scenario from a completely different angle, and one that could show up some fascinating insights.

Mar 23, 2018 at 11:10 PM | Radical Rodent

The CO2 angle has been done to death. Nothing has been achieved or established. Nothing scientific was ever achievable anyway.

The idea that the Climate Changes naturally, without mankind's intervention is obvious to anyone, apart from those profiting out of blaming mankind.

Climate science.

Morning Drive Below Ochil Hills Clackmannanshire Central Scotland

Are we there yet?

Entropic Man:

"I do not regard the MWP and LIA as separate events, just as part of a longer 5000 year cooling trend."

I can just about accept that warm and cool blips can both be part of a cooling trend, even if the evidence you provided on unthreaded a few weeks back in the way of 2 proxy studies conflicted with each other over a period of 3,000 years.

However, if you believe that we are (excepting your belief in AGW) in a long-term cooling trend, can you tell us how long you would expect that trend to continue, absent AGW? Also, given that some historians estimate that 1/3 of humankind was wiped out during the Little Ice Age, thanks to the cold, the reduced growth of food, and wars consequent on the cold and the lost food, presumably you would agree that a long-term cooling trend represents a great danger to humankind?

If so, why is AGW a bad thing, since surely it is saving us from a bigger problem?

Mark Hodgson

At present the orbital forcing is cooling slowly. Extrapolating, we would naturally be in a full glacial period in 40,000 years.

Note that humanity survived the last glacial period (5C cooler than the 20th century) with hunter-gatherer technology and various native peoples continue to live at high latitudes. Cold is survivable for people with the right skills.

Surviving warming is harder. A healthy person dies when the temperature goes over 35C wet bulb for more than a day. This is already happening in India during pre-monsoon heat waves and people are dying as a result.

Under Eocene conditions (5C warmer) billions of people in the tropics would encounter 35C wet bulb conditions every year, making large areas of land uninhabitable.

Under Eocene conditions

"Surviving warming is harder. A healthy person dies when the temperature goes over 35C wet bulb for more than a day. This is already happening in India during pre-monsoon heat waves and people are dying as a result."

Mar 24, 2018 at 9:51 AM | Entropic man

Is this unprecedented? Is it a result of Global Warming?

Surviving in hot or cold areas, is so much easier with affordable power and clean drinking water. Large rural areas of India have been prevented from having both.

How many people are dying in India (and other hot countries) as a result of restrictions and rationing imposed by Climate Scientists, the UN, World Bank etc? Developing countries and their people, have been getting annoyed with proscriptive medicine being imposed by foreigners:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/04/greenpeace-in-india-barred-from-receiving-foreign-funding

"India’s government claims the NGO violated rules governing foreign funding and withheld information on transactions. The government also accuses it of damaging the country’s economic interests by campaigning against mining and nuclear projects."

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/sep/07/the-indian-government-has-shut-the-door-on-ngos

"It’s been over two years since a leaked report by India’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) sent a chill across Indian civil society. NGOs were accused by the IB of reducing India’s GDP by a staggering 2-3% per annum, by campaigning against projects that the Indian government argued to be integral for economic growth.
The fallout was profound. NGOs, including Greenpeace, Amnesty and Cordaid, were accused of “serving as tools for foreign policy interests of western governments” by sponsoring campaigns to protect the environment or support human rights."

Mar 24, 2018 at 9:30 AM | Radical Rodent

Mar 24, 2018 at 8:36 AM | Mark Hodgson

Agreed. IF there is a warming effect from increased CO2 (unproven) and IF Climate Science sums are "unstable/unreliable" (probable), then it seems that things have peaked, with more benefit than harm.

Alternatively, the recent warming (so far undetected by Country Bumpkins across Europe, US, Australia etc, is just part of a natural cycle that has nothing to do with manmade CO2, and Climate Science has been tilting at windmills, at great expense to the World's population, though the death toll has pleased Malthusians.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

"Tilting at windmills is an English idiom that means attacking imaginary enemies. The expression is derived from the novel Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes, and the word "tilt" in this context comes from jousting.

The phrase is sometimes used to describe either confrontations where adversaries are incorrectly perceived, or courses of action that are based on misinterpreted or misapplied heroic, romantic, or idealistic justifications. It may also connote an importune, unfounded, and vain effort against adversaries real or imagined for a vain goal."

Here are the documents referred to in the Calfornia legal case. The links in the post are blocked (?) but further links are contained within the comments.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/23/all-the-tutorial-and-reference-documents-for-the-exxonknew-federal-court-case/

This has been promoted as the Exxonknew campaign, but it seems that the State of California is not going to get a big cash payout to compensate for their own financial and resource mismanagement.

Issues with Dr Myles Allen's evidence are examined here:

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/sophistry-in-san-francisco-half-truths-are-twice-the-lie/

some of the " issues"
Dr. Myles Allen uses the same graphic to make 5 claims:

"Both temperature and density of absorbing CO2 molecules decrease with height Increasing CO2 forces energy to escape from higher altitudes. Higher air is colder, and so radiates less energy. So the surface and lower atmosphere have to warm up to restore balance. Successive CO2 doublings have about the same impact on global energy budget"

"Yep, CO2 has increased at a nearly linear rate since measurements began in 1959. Problem is, temperatures are anything but linear, and they track ocean temperatures, not CO2. Satellite temperatures are cooler today than they were in 1998, and are at the level reached in 1987. Ground measurements don’t measure the impact of CO2, they measure the impact of H2O. If you isolate the impact of CO2 on the lower atmosphere you find now warming. BTW, note the slope of CO2. Nothing, absolutely nothing the trillions of dollars wasted on fighting CO2 has altered that slope. Trillions of dollars poured down a rathole."

"I personally can’t believe Dr. Allen Myles would mention climate modeling. Nothing discredits the CO2 AGW theory more than the computer models. If something is understood, it can be modeled, and the Climate Alarmists can’t model the climate using CO2. Climate models are epic failures."

Mann's Hockey Stick has proved the inconsistency, between theories and reality. Computer models repeat the same failures.

Mar 24, 2018 at 1:46 PM | Radical Rodent

He was deluded about windmills, with the factual evidence available then.

With the factual evidence available now, Don Quixote might be regarded as a role model.