• Fall of Mann

    Been away too long!  Quite a few things have been going on, will try to get caught up with them.

    I’ve been following the Mann / Steyn war pretty much since it began.  The most recent twist is that Steyn, proving that Mann should really have listened to me when he had the chance, has put out a new book, “A Disgrace To The Profession”: The World’s Scientists – in their own words – on Michael E. Mann.

    I’m eagerly awaiting my copy.  The book – which consists of comments by various leading climate scientists on what they think of Mann and his ludicrous stick – dovetails nicely with my own intellectual path on this subject.

    I first got into the subject of Mann and the Stick when it was being loudly trumpeted that Mann’s hockey stick had been proved by National Academy of Sciences.  Looking at what the Academy actually reported, this turned out to be misleading.  The Academy clearned Mann of deliberate falsification, but concluded the stick was a pretty shaky piece of science.  Mann seemed to agree.

    Then came the beginning of the Steyn lawsuit.  I was torn.  On the one hand, I have a lot of respect for Steyn; on the other hand, I hated – still hate – seeing accusations of scientific dishonesty made lightly.  I was also utterly unimpressed by Mann lying about his Nobel prize.

    Then I found out about his habit of bullying other researchers, and generally being a megalomaniacal windbag, and was serially  dishonest about, e.g., whether he’d been exonerated by different groups.  Even so, I was not willing to accuse Mann of scientific dishonesty.

    Then I found out what some other scientists were saying…

    Things like this, for example, from David Rind:

    Concerning the hockey stick: what Mike Mann continually fails to understand, and no amount of references will solve, is that there is practically no reliable tropical data for most of the time period, and without knowing the tropical sensitivity, we have no way of knowing how cold (or warm) the globe actually got. I’ve made the comment to Mike several times, but it doesn’t seem to get across.

    Oh, but it does, it does…  When pressed on the subject by the National Academy, in public, Mann couldn’t get it quickly enough:

    Mann says that he is “very happy” with the committee’s findings, and agrees with the core assertion that more must be done to reduce uncertainties in earlier periods. “We have very little long-term information on the Southern Hemisphere and large parts of the ocean,

    This is just so typical of a bully.  Vicious and bluff when he can get away with it, obsequeous and grovelling when he can’t.

    So, looking back over the last several years, it’s interesting the way my attitudes have shifted.  Initially I thought that this whole thing would be a discredit to climate science and wished that Mann hadn’t started it.  Now, I think that Mann’s public humiliation and discredit is probably one of the best things that can happen for the field, and that Steyn deserves credit for making it happen.

    Some time ago, a commentator here summarized my position as believing that global warming is real and manmade and thinking that Mann is a fraud, and added that this must be unique.  I agreed.  I wouldn’t now – not because my position has changed, but because it appears that I’m in a much larger group than anyone has suspected.

    Is this, perhaps, the reason not a single amicus brief was field on Mann’s behalf?  Perhaps a field that he has abused can’t wait to be rid of him.

    Of course, not everyone sees it that way.  David Appell, who sometimes pop up on this blog to say something silly before sloping off, had the following to say:

    We’re supposed to think that a blogger known mostly for his Islamophobia somehow disproved and dismissed all the independent mathematical work by Ammann and Wahl, Tingley and Huybers (and again in 2013), Marcott et al, and PAGES 2k — the latter a huge, comprehensive paper written by over six dozen scientists?

    David should really not try that crap as long as I’m around.  As I went into some detail, the PAGES2K reconstruction looks little-to-nothing like the hockey stick.  That is especially true if you look at the individual, continental, reconstruction on which it is based:

    Individual parts of the PAGES2K reconstruction
    Individual parts of the PAGES2K reconstruction

    Also, please let me repost the consensus reproduction of climate proxies, which includes the work that Mann does when he can be held to account by competent scientists:

    PAGES2K Hockey stick

    Appell also writes as follows:

    As I wrote, the hockey stick result is obvious, since it’s based on some simple observations and simple physics

    Really?  Simple observations and simple physics are all that it takes to perfectly understand an entire planet, with all of its complex systems and feedbacks, across thousands of years?

    This is just plain piffle.  There wouldn’t routinely be papers in Science and Nature on the subject if it was simple.

    This sort of shady half-truth and intellectual intimidation is Mann’s legacy.  Steyn deserves full credit if, even unintentionally, he provides the explosion that brings all this down.

    Category: APGW

    Article by: The Prussian

    • aelfheld

      Appell is good at repeating Mann’s talking points. He’s crap when it comes to facts.

      Appell accused Steyn of taking quotes out of context and, after Steyn set him straight, proceeded to accuse Steyn of ignoring Ammann and Wahl, &c. (another easily disproven assertion).

      Appell beclowned himself twice in short order defending the indefensible Mann. He isn’t a serious person.

      • Clark

        Appell should probably bite the bullet and buy the book.

        • Jones

          I offered to send one to him for free after he said he couldn’t afford one.

          Interesting how he backed down on that offer.


          • CB

            lol! Why should anyone read the book of a known liar?

            It has been known since the 19th century that humans warm the planet by producing greenhouse gasses.

            Do humans warm the planet by producing greenhouse gasses?

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”


            • zlop

              Science has moved on since the speculation of Eunice Foote.
              Now days, we know that all atmospheres warm the
              surface. CO₂ is not special.

            • CB

              “all atmospheres warm the surface. CO₂ is not special.”

              False. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared.

              Only greenhouse gasses absorb in the infrared and therefore only greenhouse gasses warm the planet:

              “While the dominant gases of the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen) are transparent to infrared, the so-called greenhouse gasses, primarily water vapor (H2O), CO2, and methane (CH4), absorb some of the infrared radiation. They collect this heat energy and hold it in the atmosphere, delaying its passage back out of the atmosphere.”


            • zlop

              “False. Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infrared.
              Only greenhouse gasses absorb in the infrared and therefore
              only greenhouse gasses warm the planet:”

              All atmospheres warm, are greenhouse atmospheres. How so?

              Let us examine a planet, without a Sun, not warmed geologically,
              in intergalactic space. There are two cases;

              (1) Top of the atmosphere is warmed by Cosmic Rays, no mist.
              (2) Top of the atmosphere forms a mist, interacting with radiation,
                  Cosmic Rays and the Cosmic Ray Background (2.72K)

              He3 has half an atmosphere pressure at 2.72K
              He4 about a quarter atmosphere pressure at 2.72K

            • CB

              “How so?”

              Greenhouses gasses slow the escape of heat energy from the surface of the planet and keep the surface from cooling down.

              “During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”


            • zlop

              “Greenhouses gasses slow the escape of heat energy from the
              surface of the planet and keep the surface from cooling down.”

              As usual, the UN deceivers have it upside down.
              Net warming of the atmosphere, is from above,
              where the Potential Temperature is greater.
              Guess what — the surface net loses energy to space.
              ( 3 kilometer, 700 millibar, above the Equator, is warmed
              both from above and from below ) https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/moist-potential-temperature-mp2008.png

            • CB

              “Net warming of the atmosphere, is from above”

              Yes, the sun above is the primary source of energy trapped by greenhouse gasses:

              “In the 1820s Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation…. Fourier’s consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect.”



            • zlop

              “Yes, the sun above is the primary source of energy trapped by
              greenhouse gasses:” — The Sun warms the atmosphere, high above.
              This energy is turbulenced down, to be lost, from near the surface.

              If you calculate the temperature increase, if 1/3 of the atmosphere’s
              upward radiation window is closed. You get about 16.5K.
              ( Moon is about 155K — atmosphere actually increases by 133K )


              “widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect.” — Recognized or not, it is wrong.
              Thermodynamics interacts with and dominates radiation.

              ” physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-
              induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is
              independent of the atmospheric chemical composition.”

            • CB

              “it is wrong.”

              No. No, it’s not. The infrared absorption bands first identified in 1856 can be seen quite clearly from space, proving conclusively that greenhouse gasses warm the planet:


            • zlop

              “proving conclusively that greenhouse gases warm the planet:”

              CO2 and H2O interact, feeding back into runaway prosperity.
              We can stop and reverse this. All we have to do, is pay Carbon
              Taxes, which Al Gore will use to buy Pixie Dust, Additionally,
              Agenda 21 will sustain misery, until the Serfs are replaced by Robots.

              May the Pole Bears, Pope and Obama live forever.
              Three cheers for NSA for having left a dime on the Moon

            • Voodude

              “All we have to do, is pay Carbon Taxes, which Al Gore will use”

            • zlop

              Al Gore could have been a successful televangelist.
              But, there is more money in climate science, aka, Mind Control.

            • CB

              “there is more money in climate science, aka, Mind Control.”

              No. Studying the climate is not mind control.

              “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”


            • zlop

              “NASA blew this one big-time
              August 29, 2015” http://iceagenow.info/2015/08/nasa-blew-this-one-big-time/

              “And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles”

              For climate science, that is not Mind Control, supporting the
              Rothschild Carbon Tax Racketeers — avoid NASA and NOAA?

            • CB

              You found a good link!

              “the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010”


              “Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences”


            • zlop

              Magically, causing the atmosphere to warm the surface by 133K,
              these anthropogenics are amazing. Previously, the magical
              number was 33K. However, now, it is known that the
              average Moon temperature is only ~155K.


            • CB

              Ooo, and you found not such a good link. If you want to be correct, it’s a good idea to be skeptical of bloggers, especially known liars like Anthony Watts, and instead turn to NASA, NOAA and the edus for your information:

              “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”



            • zlop

              “”Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a
              frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).””

              Why would the average temperature of the Earth not be similar
              to that of the Mon, average of which is approximately 155K ?

            • CB

              “Why would the average temperature of the Earth not be similar to that of the Mon, average of which is approximately 155K ?”

              …because the Earth has greenhouse gasses and the moon does not.

              “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”


            • zlop

              “because the Earth has greenhouse gasses and the moon does not”

              If Earth’s atmosphere were composed of Helium,
              the atmosphere would not warm the surface?

              In a way, this is a trick question. Atmospheres adjust.
              Top of the atmosphere could have 2 states.
              (1) Clear if warmed from above, mainly by cosmic and X-rays.
              (2) Helium mist could form, interacting with less energetic rays.
                  ( Mars occasionally forms CO2 clouds )

            • CB

              “If Earth’s atmosphere were composed of Helium, the atmosphere would not warm the surface?”

              That’s correct.

              “The atmosphere is transparent to visible light, but mostly opaque to infrared. Infrared “opacity” comes from absorption bands of H₂O, CO₂, CH₄ and others molecules.”


            • zlop

              ‘That’s correct.”
              What about dimers, trimers, quatrimers and various combinations,
              all the way to droplets and hail, percolating in the atmosphere?
              Atmosphere does not interact with radiation, only by single molecules.

              From your link;
              “If there was no atmosphere, the Earth’s temperature …
              Equilibrium Temperature should be T=260 K”

              This is clearly, not even, wrong.
              The atmosphere warms by considerably more.
              The average temperature of the Earth would be
              close to that of the Moon, which is ~155K.

            • CB

              “The average temperature of the Earth would be close to that of the Moon, which is ~155K.”

              Without greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere, that’s likely true.

              “Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation.”



            • zlop

              “Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy
              from infrared (IR) radiation.”

              So can other, even Noble, gases;

              All atmospheres are greenhouse atmospheres.
              They can convert radiation to gravitational potential energy
              and potential energy to radiation. CO2 is not so magical.

            • CB

              “All atmospheres are greenhouse atmospheres.”

              No. No, they’re not. Only atmospheres containing greenhouse gasses warm planets.



            • zlop

              From your NASA link;
              “But few of us appreciate what exactly it is in the atmosphere
              that makes the effect work and why small changes in trace
              gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) might make a difference.”

              NASA cannot put numbers on their assertion. They are just
              trying to deceive the common core indoctrinated dunderheads.


              Temperature enhancement has to do with thermodynamics;
              “physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced
              Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the
              atmospheric chemical composition”

            • CB

              “NASA cannot put numbers on their assertion.”

              They can and have! …as I’ve already showed you.

              “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”



            • zlop

              “They can and have! …as I’ve already showed you.”

              I was referring to the NASA statement;
              “why small changes in trace gases such as
              carbon dioxide (CO2) might make a difference”

              “might make”, then again it might not?
              (Ferenc Miskolczi calculated 0.23K for CO2 doubling.
              However, he did not account for surface pressure
              changes and believed that it would not make a difference)

              As for your 33K radiative warming. It is not supported by;
              (1) Moon average temperature is 155K,
                   which implies considerably greater warming on Earth.
              (2) Greenhouse factor is 1/3 (only 2/3 of the IR window is open)
                    that results in a warming of only about 16.5K (above 155K)

              There is disagreement in the accuracy of radiative fluxes;
              “I think Trenberth is wrong, his computation is based on the
              Malkmus model and he used the USST76 atmosphere. (BTW,
              Kevin told me personally that he was wrong, and he admitted
              this to Noor van Andel as well ).” http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/25/the-mystery-of-tau-miskolczi-part-two-kirchhoff/

              Ignoring thermodynamics, surface pressure,
              what can be gained from NSA/IPCC assertions,
              tabulating Radiative forcings?

            • CB

              “Moon average temperature is 155K, which implies considerably greater warming on Earth.”

              Yes. The Earth is warmer than the moon because the Earth has greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere and the moon doesn’t have an atmosphere to speak of.

              “Satellite data show that the world seems to be growing warmer. Most scientists think that there is a link between global warming and the rise in greenhouse gases. This is commonly known as the “Greenhouse Effect”.”



            • zlop

              “Most scientists think that there is a link between
              global warming and the rise in greenhouse gases.”

              Imagining that greenhouse gases warm, is well rewarded.
              Truth is blasphemy, against the Pope, a crime against the IPCC.

            • MikeNov

              Why do your charts stop in 2008?

            • CB

              “Why do your charts stop in 2008?”

              Ohmyme, praise Jeebus you saved me!

              They don’t.


      • WFC

        Although on that occasion, Appell made a fool of himself because he repeated stuff written by an anonymous blogger who pretends to be the chap who posts as Steve Goddard.

        Next week, no doubt Appell will be quoting John Cook pretending to be Lubos Motl.

        • CB

          “Steve Goddard…. Lubos Motl”

          Yes, these are people well-known for lying about climate science.

          They don’t actually need people to make fun of them, they parody themselves…

          “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “


          • WFC

            If their arguments are so strong, we do they continue to act and speak like people with a very weak argument?

            People with strong arguments do not say “the debate is over”.

            People with strong arguments do not try to impersonate their opponents.

            People with strong arguments do not need to resort to logical fallacies to advance their causes.

            If these “climate scientists” have a strong case, why don’t they act like it?

            • CB

              “If their arguments are so strong, we do they continue to act and speak like people with a very weak argument?”

              Steven Goddard (Tony Heller) and Luboš Motl don’t have an argument. Their only goal is to spread doubt and disinformation, and in the case of Tony Heller, it appears he is paid by the fossil fuel industry to do so.

              “If these “climate scientists” have a strong case, why don’t they act like it?”

              How would you expect them to act?

              Is stating a clear fact not enough for you?

              “Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface”


            • WFC

              1st paragraph? Unsupported assertions. Anyone can make assertions.

              2nd paragraph? I expect them to act like serious scientists. Serious scientists do not refuse to publish their data, refuse to discuss their findings with other scientists, try to get colleagues fired or blackballed, or grossly misrepresent both their own, and their colleagues’ business. (Nor do they falsely call themselves nobel prize winners.)

              3rd paragraph? A paper proving the existence of something which has never been in doubt? Whoop de doop!

              I think I’ll write a paper explaining what might happen if I drop an apple.

            • CB

              “3rd paragraph? A paper proving the existence of something which has never been in doubt?”

              If you’re unaware people claim to “doubt” the warming effect of greenhouse gasses, you need to pay a bit more attention.

              Since you seem to understand that greenhouse gasses like CO₂ warm the planet, make a prediction about what is likely given the changes we’ve made to the atmosphere:

              Given that there’s not a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today?

              “A new study by researchers at NASA and the University of California, Irvine, finds a rapidly melting section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to be in an irreversible state of decline, with nothing to stop the glaciers in this area from melting into the sea.”


            • WFC

              I am aware that some people still doubt the roundness (or, more accurately, elliptical-ness) of the Earth, but I had assumed we were having a serious discussion!

              You refer to a tiny part of Antarctica which is probably shrinking amidst a backdrop of vastly expanding Antarctic ice (until the last year or so).

              In the meantime, Arctic ice, which was shrinking, is now recovering.

              The interesting thing about the poles has been totally lost: namely, how is it that they seem to be in synch: with the one expanding whilst the other contracts?

              Glaciers have been calving icebergs since time immemorial! Just ask Mr Guggenhiem: a passenger on the Titanic!

            • CB

              “You refer to a tiny part of Antarctica”

              Nope. Antarctica as a whole is losing ice.

              If you understand there isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ so high, why would the meltdown in progress surprise you?

              How about you stop running from the question like a coward and render forth your reply?

              “Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year-1, respectively.”


            • WFC
            • Voodude


            • Voodude

              “…some people still doubt the roundness (or, more accurately, elliptical-ness) “

              Actually, it is an oblate spheroid, bulging at the equator, and flatter at the poles.

              Wonder why?

              Atlas tightened the wing-nuts on the globe too hard…

            • WFC

              Breaking news.

              “Scientists discover wing-nuts at poles”

              “A new reconstruction by Mann et al, shows beyond doubt doubt that there are wing-nuts at the North Pole. The lead author confirmed that he had spoken to a tree in the Gaspe peninsula and it had informed him that he should think about wing-nuts.”

            • WFC

              Given that there’s not a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today

              Then why are they still here?

              And where are the forests which once covered Antartica, or the crocodiles which once kept down the polar bear populations in the Arctic – before Al Gore was there to take photographs of them?

            • CB

              “Then why are they still here?”

              Your question assumes that which was proven false in the immediately preceding post.

              There is a meltdown in progress at both poles.

              If you understand polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, why would this surprise you?

              “the ice caps are melting at their base, caused by warming oceans.”


            • Voodude

              CB said, “There is a meltdown in progress at both poles.”

              Greenland HAS been loosing mass, but … 2012-13 was a “break even” and 2013-14 shows a net gain.


            • cunudiun

              From your link:

              “The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

              “As mentioned, satellites measuring the ice sheet mass have observed a loss of around 200 Gt/year over the last decade.”


            • Voodude

              Not only from my link, but listed in bold in my graphic!
              … but, you ignore 11-12 “break even” and 14-2015 as gaining. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/19b5a3b7fc4e4c3b4d122ddc3d41019c873547633b6f1c13f533daff8df0b2a9.jpg

      • Voodude

        “defending the indefensible Mann”

    • im-skeptical

      If anyone is dishonest in this little conflict, it is Steyn. Anyone who thinks his book is somehow representative of the climate science community is fooling himself. Here is a more realistic perspective on his book.


      • Good, interesting piece from Laden, there.

        I think Steyn is an utter tool.

        • im-skeptical

          A tool of the fossil fuels industry.

          • Nice!

            • Dave Conley

              Can I get you fellows any more vaseline?

            • Due to the provenance of petroleum based products, I think your offer would be ill-advised, though many thanks for the thought.

            • CaligulaJones

              Given the utter hypocrisy of warmists, I think your refusal would be a mistake, and potentially physically harmful to you.

            • ThePrussian

              Again, love the traction, let’s keep things a bit more civil.

              @Jonathan, you haven’t met im_skeptical before, so let me fill you in on her (?) performance round here. 1) She make some ludicrous assertion that is flat out wrong – e.g. her claim that Mann has been exonerated by seven bodies, her claim that racism is not collectivism because she says so, that the IRS is impeccably objective and distinterested… 2) I show that the claim is false by citing actual facts. 3) She retrenches and moves the goalposts with another assertion. 4) I show that that one, too, is utterly false. 5) She retrenches yet _again_ and… and this goes on until she retreats into, “It’s this way BECAUSE I SAY SO!” or I have too much important stuff to do to keep responding to her. At which point she reverts to saying her original assertion.

              To your argument though, you must know that argument’s pathetic. Let’s say Steyn is a “tool”. How, exactly, does that make him wrong? Or more to the point, how does that make Michael Mann right? Anyway, quoting Greg “I’m a creepy stalker and thug” Laden isn’t the best time to be talking about “tools”…

              You may not have read the background science, but if you are going to quote an post refuting mine, you should at least have read both. And if you do, you will find that Laden cites the PAGES2K study that, in fact, does not back up the damn hockey stick, as I showed above.

            • im-skeptical

              There is a community of science deniers who insist that Mann has committed scientific fraud. Their charges have been investigated, and Mann has been cleared. It is only the science deniers that dispute this. Don’t tell me about evidence when you refuse to see what the rest of the world sees.

              Similarly, there is a community of conspiracy theorists who insist that Obama is in league with evil African dictators. Their “evidence” is that the IRS gave tax-exempt status to a dubious African charitable foundation. The only thing you have “shown” is that you sympathize with the conspiracy theorists.

              And despite your objections to the contrary, there are many right-wing Ayn Rand lovers in the US who call themselves individualists, generally agree with her philosophy, and are also racists (some of the worst). Your view of collectivism/individualism is not consistent with reality.

              So go ahead and poison the well against whatever I say. You may be objectivist, but you sure aren’t objective.

            • ThePrussian

              You’re lying. You’re lying about the science, you’re lying about the evidence, you’re lying about the positions I argued before, and you’re lying about the positions you took here. Sorry, I really do not have thy time to deal with your nonsense again right now.

            • im-skeptical

              Your blatant misrepresentation of what I have said is reprehensible. But that’s just what they did to Mann, isn’t it? It figures.

          • Joe_NS

            Give it up! What a screaming bore that charge is.

      • WFC

        A “review” published 2 months before the book it is supposed to be reviewing?

        And which says of Professor Jones “I think he’s a tutor”?


      • charlesx

        That’s quite funny. The Steyn book is packed full of critical comments of Mann’s work from other climate scientists, some of them using four-letter words. There’s nothing new in this, it’s all been known since climategate, but it’s interesting that some people are still in denial. I wonder if Greg Laden will read the book, or keep his head in the sand.

        • im-skeptical

          Some people are indeed still in denial. Despite the findings of the investigations that exonerated Mann of any misconduct, they still accuse him of scientific fraud. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, they still insist that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. And despite the evidence that Steyn is a liar, you swallow whatever crap he feeds you. Get your own head out of the sand, dude.

          • Joe_NS

            Not a word of that is true. Not a syllable. Not half a letter.

            • im-skeptical

              Not that I relish wasting my time on people who are impervious to evidence, but I’m curious – what do you think is the scientific consensus, and what makes you think so?

            • Joe_NS

              I am a theoretical physicist, quite familiar with the concept of evidence, and not about to be condescended to by a plainly ignorant blowhard such as yourself.

              Your “consensus” is a figment of your imagination and in any case is of no importance whatsoever, none. You had best get over this schoolgirl crush on the “consensus” as soon as may be convenient, as it will seriously hamper your ability to think clearly. Such matters are not decided by roll-call votes, only by scientific evidence, and the evidence does not support the “consensus.”

              But here is one argument for serious doubting the entire insane enterprise that mynah birds like you salaam to on cue as if they understood the first thing about the physics of the earth’s atmosphere.

              According to the Inter-GovernmentalPpanel on Climate’ Change’s Fifth Assessment report (IPCC, AR5) of 2013, total anthropogenic radiative forcing (ARF) since the middle of the Eighteenth Century amounts to 2.3 W/m². The current best estimates by the IPCC for top of the atmosphere (TOA) solar irradiance fall between 1360 and 1365 W/m². The tightest measure I am aware of is given in Mefteh’s 2014 paper (Solar Physics 289, 5, 1885–89), in which summer solar irradiance, measured by a space borne radiometer, was 1362 W/m² ± 2.4 W/m².

              There is no known method to improve on that uncertainty at the present, an uncertainty in a single critical variable that dwarfs 250 years of ARF! Only a fool in love with sound of his own voice would take the predictions of any model seriously when that much uncertainty exists as to the contribution of principle driver of the earth’s climate to its energy budget. Only an hubristic numbskull would, on such shaky evidentiary foundations, confidently make “urgent” policy recommendations to governments amounting to an obligation to expend trillions of dollars mitigating statistical noise.

              I think you may qualify.

            • im-skeptical

              I thought so. I don’t know if you’re a physicist, but you’re obviously not a climate scientist, or you wouldn’t be blathering about a red herring, desperately trying to come off sounding as if you’re someone who knows what he’s talking about.

              For your information, there actually is a consensus in the scientific community. Your first line of defense is to deny that it exists, and your second line of defense is to deny that it means anything. That sounds very similar to the tactics used by the rest of the science deniers.

            • Joe_NS

              Totally unresponsive. Why do you bother?

              I repeat: you are a mynah bird, nothing more.

            • im-skeptical

              If you had any interest at all in truth, you would have mentioned that measurement inaccuracies don’t determine the change in surface temperature. You would have noted that the change in radiative forcing is what matters, and that the radiative forcing has in fact increased substantially in the past few decades.

            • Joe_NS

              Interest in truth? Don’t make me laugh. You don’t understand the physics or the math and are embarrassing yourself. How on earth can one detect a 2.3 W/m²/250 yr ≈ 0.01 W/m²/yr forcing when the daily forcing represented by TOA solar irradiance is not known to better than ±2.4 W/m²? How? It makes no empirical sense at all. It would be like discerning a whisper in a gale.

              The “change in radiative forcing” has literally nothing to do with the accuracy to which a phenomenon can actually be measured, something limited by the technology, the radiometric accuracy, currently available. An analogy: if your ruler is accurate only to the nearest 2 in., discussing effects on the order of 0.01 in. with a straight face is flat-out ridiculous. Yet that is what happens when one goes off the rails and begins to treat the output of computer models as actual data!

            • im-skeptical

              As I said, measurement inaccuracies don’t determine the change in surface temperature. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just echoing some factoid you saw on the internet at one of your favorite science denial websites, and pretending you have the secret key to debunking what most scientists know.

            • Joe_NS

              Her are some obvious things, I am a physicist and you are an imbecile, who imagines that the accuracy of a measurement of the heat engine driving the entire climate, which must be known to the accuracy comparable to the predictions of every effect that depends on it if the effect is more than a fantasy, is a “factoid.” Gad, what an idiot!

              You are so dense you still think the problem with my argument is a lack of an effect of measurement inaccuracies on surface temperatures. For the last time, nitwit, the inaccuracy in the measurement of TOA solar irradiance alone represents 250 times the radiative energy needed to account for all the changes in surface temperature you are wetting your pants over. Your CO₂ forcing is therefore superfluous, a unicorn, a mirage, an offense against the principle of parsimony (aka Occam’s Razor). It exists on paper and nowhere else, as a scientific matter, because it cannot be experimentally distinguished from noise.

              You are a mynah bird, a parakeet, a squeaking parrot. Your comments are nothing but cliché: denier, consensus. You don’t understand the science, so what you are reduced to is repeating what others have told you.

            • im-skeptical

              I think I understand it better than you do. But as you are a complete waste of time, I’m done with this.

            • DavidAppell

              Joe: Name-calling always demonstrates an insecurity about one’s arguments.

            • Joe_NS

              No. It doesn’t. That’s penny psychology. In fact on occasion, extending an appropriate insult is not simply a pleasure, not only a privilege, but an obligation.

            • DavidAppell

              Yes, it does. Bragging about being a physicist is even worse.

            • Joe_NS

              We are going to have to disagree about that. I do not believe that announcing that I am a physicist is bragging about it. It is relevant, I believe, especially when I couple that bit of information with an explicitly quantitative argument.

              One shouldn’t have to state one’s credentials, I agree, but what choice is there. Your average anthropogenic global-warming penny penny is constantly bringing up the “consensus” of scientists. Or hadn’t you noticed?

            • DavidAppell

              Yes, having to announce you are a physicist is bragging. A substitute for data and evidence. I’ve seen it many times before.

              Besides that, name calling is juvenile. 7th grade.

            • Woodfords Frog
            • DavidAppell

              PS: I don’t agree to disagree. I never do.

            • Joe_NS

              You just did, moron.

            • DavidAppell

              More juvenile name calling, Mr. Physicist?

            • Joe_NS

              More juvenile hand wringing.

            • WFC

              Afraid you’ve fallen for Appell’s favourite ploy – which is to try to get people wound up, so that they resort to name calling.

              His favourite tricks to bring about this end are:

              (a) deliberate obtuseness;
              (b) chopping and changing (even reversing) his (often deliberately vague) assertions;
              (c) demanding evidence not only for things which are well known (which evidence, if supplied, he will refuse to look at on the “ground” that he doesn’t know “who paid for it”) but also for assertions which he, himself, originally introduced.

              If you pop over to Bishop Hill, you can see his activities in their glorious splendour. Unfortunately for him, most of the denizens of BH view him as more of an amusing diversion, than a serious commentator.

            • Woodfords Frog

              You’re the one who likes the name calling….
              What were you saying….. Oh yea.. “insults are rude”… “Besides that, name calling is juvenile. 7th grade.” …. “Joe: Name-calling always demonstrates an insecurity about one’s arguments.”

            • DavidAppell

              You also failed to adequate research — TSI is measured these days with a standard error of less than 0.1 W/m2:


            • Joe_NS

              Good grief! Now you are confusing the measurement uncertainty of solar radiance at the surface of the sun (TSI) with the uncertainty of irradiance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), after the energy has traveled 93-million miles. They are not the same variable; and the methods of measuring them are completely different, meaning different uncertainty of measurement.


            • DavidAppell

              “Now you are confusing the measurement uncertainty of solar radiance at the surface of the sun (TSI)”

              False. Those are measurements at the TOA. Clearly.

              Who the hell do you think is measuring solar changes ON THE SURFACE OF THE SUN???????

            • Joe_NS

              You do not understand solar luminosity and how it is measured.

            • DavidAppell

              I understand it quite well, thank you. Writing fluff like you did proves nothing….

            • Joe_NS

              This is sad. The source you cite indicates “integration over the solar disc!” Do you have any idea what that means?

              Learn to read English.

            • DavidAppell

              Of course. That’s exactly what you’d want to know — the power received per unit area at the TOA.

            • DavidAppell

              If you want to know the TOA irradiance at a point, you must integrate over the entire solar disc, in order to capture all light rays terminating on the point you’re looking at.

              Basic stuff, Joe.

            • DavidAppell

              Your source wasn’t to the IPCC, but to some French paper with a lead author of something like Mehta (sp?). With a TOA uncertainty of 2.4 W/m2. But other sensors do much better than that.

            • DavidAppell

              Insults are rude, Joe. You seem to have been taught being a physicist makes you superior. Sad.

            • Joe_NS

              Hiding ignorance behind faux sadness: Sadder.

            • DavidAppell

              Is there a reason you can’t refrain from being rude?

            • Joe_NS

              Yes. Because you have demonstrated numerous times that you are a despicable name caller and slanderer! You reap what you sow, halfwit.

            • DavidAppell

              Juvenile behavior, Joe. Sad that’s all you have to offer.

            • Joe_NS

              Broken record.

            • DavidAppell

              And I’ll keep repeating it as long as you keep acting like a juvenile, not a real physicist. At least, none that I know.

            • Joe_NS

              Broken record. It’s all pretend.

            • Maybe his understanding of atmospheric physics is seriously flawed?

            • DavidAppell

              Yes, it is.

            • Retired theoretical physicist who doesn’t understand the calculus of climate change

            • Robert
            • DavidAppell

              Thanks Robert.

            • Woodfords Frog
            • Canuck

              If you cared to look into it critically you’d see that your precious “consensus” is garbage – nothing but a political exercise in confirmation bias based on a phony survey where reviewers “assessed” abstracts.


              The whole flawed methodology and subjective analyses are revealed in the attached link.

            • im-skeptical

              That is more science-denying bunkum. I don’t know how they came up with those numbers, but here is something you should be aware of.


            • Canuck

              The methodology, the numbers, and a link to the Cook Study and the “Skeptical” Science abstract search page are all there.


              From the original link:

              “Self confirming Now for anyone who reads climate papers frequently this is totally obvious. Climate scientists have to frame their research in the abstract and there wouldn’t be so many climate papers if there was no concern for CO2.

              So the whole result of this survey is completely self confirming. Because there is a concern for CO2 there is a lot of funding of climate science. This then generates a lot of climate science papers (they surveyed 12,000 but mention there are many more). In the abstracts scientists refer to the concern about CO2. The abstract then falls into category 2 or 3 and therefore almost all the papers “endorse AGW”.

              * This is how you can replicate the numbers. Go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search and type just a single letter in the search term box (I used “a”). This generates the total of 12,271 abstracts. Then select the whole period 1991-2011 and just search the 7 different categories. This generates the table from the blog post above.”

            • im-skeptical

              There’s plenty of money being pumped into science denial as well. The difference is that scientists are paid to do science, and the deniers are paid to deny the science.

            • Except your ‘scientists’ are paid to push an agenda, not truth.

            • im-skeptical

              I’m sure you have evidence of this. Evidence besides the accusations of the science deniers.

            • Faulty science deniers…..get it right.

            • DavidAppell

              Joe: It is not the value of solar irradiance that matters, but its changes.

            • Joe_NS

              “It is not the value of solar irradiance that matters, but its changes.”

              I am not even sure what that means or why it is important. How can one know the effect of those “changes” without knowing the uncertainty in the variable itself?

              At the top of the atmosphere (TOA) the earth has a radius of approximately 6000 km = 6 million m. The surface area is

              A = 4πr² = 4π(6,000,000 m)² ≈ 450 trillion m².

              Uncertainty in the irradiance of 2.5 W/m², therefore, means uncertainty in the radiant energy delivered to the TOA of 2.5 W/m² x 450 trillion m² ≈ 1.1 quadrillion W! Even dividing by two because there are two hemispheres of which only one is heated at a time, that means half a quadrillion joules/s of uncertainty in radiant energy—per second!—the very existence of which we are currently unsure!

              Once thermalized, a fund of energy of that magnitude could easily obscure the hypothesized radiative effects of CO₂ to the point that it becomes scientifically irresponsible even to speculate on what they might be.

            • DavidAppell

              As I’ve showed you, groups like LASP have satellites with much lower uncertainties, ~ 0.1 W/m2. Differences in that don’t obscure the relatively large forcings from anthropogenic GHGs and soot.

            • Joe_NS

              “As you showed”! Don’t make me laugh. You “showed” nothing.

              Now you’re just making stuff up. Even 0.1 W/m², integrated over the top of the atmosphere, amounts to 45 trillion W/m². By the IPPCC’s own estimate the entire CO₂ contribution to radiant energy over 250 years is 2.3 W/m². It doesn’t matter though. You are so ignorant you actually believe that the 0.1 W/m² is “clearly” a top of the atmosphere measurement. It isn’t and your own source demonstrates that it isn’t.

              You do not understand the physics because you are a mynah bird, a particularly obnoxious parrot.

            • DavidAppell

              “Even 0.1 W/m², integrated over the top of the atmosphere, amounts to 45 trillion W/m².”

              Sigh…. 0.1 W/m2 is 0.1 W/m2, or about 0.1/1365 = 0.007%.

              It doesn’t matter if the integrated numbers are larger; the error in them will still be ~ 0.007%.

              What is your physics degree, again? You should know this kind of basic stuff….

            • Joe_NS

              I know a piece of pretend-accurate bulls*t when I see it. Your accuracy is an illusion when it comes to actually quantifying the energy-budget uncertainty of a rotating disk obliquely oriented to and at variable distance from the primary energy source.

            • DavidAppell

              No, you do not. All you have are juvenile insults and brags that you are a physicist. But you clearly aren’t a very good one.

            • Joe_NS

              I repeat. I have read your comments on skeptics elsewhere. You are a vile little guttersnipe. A name-calling little weasel. Your pretend indignation at being similarly rebuked is, moreover, just what is to be expected from a pimple on the as s of a bacterium growing in pond scum.

            • DavidAppell

              You’re the one calling names here, not me.

              You also don’t understand the data and science of climate change.

            • DavidAppell

              False. The uncertainty on the TOA solar irradiance from LASP is < 0.1 W/m2.

              Why are you pretending otherwise, when the data is right there for anyone to read (8th column)?


              The top of the file itself says

              "; solar_standard_deviation_1au R4 e10.3 (Column 8: Solar Standard Deviation in 1-AU TSI, W/m^2, 1 sigma)"

            • DavidAppell

              “You are so ignorant you actually believe that the 0.1 W/m² is “clearly” a top of the atmosphere measurement. ”

              It is, Joe. Again, here are the data:


            • Joe_NS

              Those data are completely miseading. They are for a specific instant of time of the year and useless for climate modeling. You should know that, and I imagine you do, which makes your mendacity truly repulsive. In short you are penny wise and pound foolish.

              The study I cited is preferable if one actually wants to do climatological forecasting, because it averages irradiance over an entire month and takes account of actual, practical variabilities that your bogus data simply does not even attempt to include. The variability in insolation due to due to the earth simply being at aphelion and perihelion alone is nearly 100 W/m². Variability of average zenith angle is at least 10 W/m² and utterly ignored by the TSI measure you cite. There are calibration issues for satellite borne devices, that also go unmentioned but are possibly significant (see BenMoussa et al., Solar Physics 288 2013, 389–434).

              Much more could be cited, but the general problem is illustrative, extremely complicated dynamics of the climate—in this case orbital dynamics—are flattened into a procrustean model and shorn of irremovable complexity, to wit, either ignored or statistically manipulated.

            • DavidAppell

              They are for a day, Joe. If you look at the data, all the days of the year have this uncertainty.

              Do you ever look at the data, Joe?

            • Joe_NS

              More mendacity. Also remarkably stupid. In practice, the uncertainty in the measurement is not intensive but extensive. The actual, effective uncertainty in the solar irradiance is the value I cited, from a 2014 paper, by the way, namely, approximately 2.5 W/m². It is that simple.

            • DavidAppell

              False. The uncertainty for the LASP data is cited in the LASP data: less than 0.1 W/m2.

              Are you a physicist or not? If so, then you should be amenable to what the data says. Instead, you are completely ignoring it.

            • DavidAppell

              ALL measurements are for a “specific instant of time,” Joe.

              Surely you know that much, at least.

            • Voodude


              Kopp & Lean 2011: The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W m−2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests. This value is significantly lower than the canonical value of 1365.4 ± 1.3 W m−2 established in the 1990s, which energy balance calculations and climate models currently use.”

              ”Scattered light is a primary cause of the higher irradiance values measured by the earlier generation of solar radiometers in which the precision aperture defining the measured solar beam is located behind a larger, view‐limiting aperture. In the [Total Irradiance Monitor], the opposite order of these apertures precludes this spurious signal by limiting the light entering the instrument.”

              Old was 1365.4, new is 1360.8, so the new value is smaller by 4.6 Watts (per metre squared). It isn’t smaller because the sun put out less; the earlier readings were confused by “Scattered light” entering the instrument.

              Lee 1993 said the value was 1365.4, but Lee 1993 said it was ±0.7 but now, Kopp & lean 2011 says it is plus or minus 1.3 …

              Wait – the 1990’s value is 1365.4 plus or minus … well, just minus 1.3, which is 1364.1, but the 2011 value is 1360.8 plus or minus … wait, just plus, 0.5 (1361.3)

              So, if the error estimates that they gave us were realistic, then the old 1990’s value should fall inside the ± range of the new 2011, value, or, the reverse … but 1364.1 (the lowest 1990 value) doesn’t reach to 1361.3, the highest range of the new 2011 value… nor does the range of the new value, including the plus or minus range, encompass the old value. So these folks really don’t know what the total solar irradiance value is, except that it is in the range of 1360.8, apparently plus or minus (old-new, 1365.4-1360.8 = 4.6 Watts {per metre squared} )

              ”The 11‐year solar cycle is unequivocal in irradiance measurements made by individual instruments and in the composite time series, according to which monthly averaged [Total Solar Irradiance] values increase approximately 1.6 W m−2 (0.12%) between recent solar minima and maxima. Note that the [Total Solar Irradiance] variations during cycles 22 and 23 are similar even though the peak annual mean sunspot number, … was lower during Cycle 23 (Rz = 119) than cycle 22 (Rz = 159). Rapid solar irradiance variations with larger amplitude are superimposed on the 11‐year cycles; decreases on time scales of days to weeks can be as large as 4.6 W m−2 (0.34%). ”

              The ”lower solar irradiance value is not a change in the Sun’s output, whose variations it detects with stability comparable or superior to prior measurements; instead, its significance is in advancing the capability of monitoring solar irradiance variations …”

              Instrument inaccuracies are a significant source of uncertainty in determining Earth’s energy balance from space‐based measurements of incoming and reflected solar radiation and outgoing terrestrial thermal radiation. A non‐ zero average global net radiation at the top of the atmosphere is indicative of Earth’s thermal disequilibrium imposed by climate forcing. But whereas the current planetary imbalance is nominally 0.85 W m−2 [Hansen et al., 2005], estimates of this quantity from space‐based measurements range from 3 to 7 W m−2. SORCE/TIM’s lower TSI value reduces this discrepancy by 1 W m−2 [Loeb et al., 2009]. We note that the difference between the new lower TIM value with earlier TSI measurements corresponds to an equivalent climate forcing of −0.8 W m−2, which is comparable to the current energy imbalance.”

              ”Accuracy uncertainties of <0.01% are required to detect long term solar irradiance variations …”

              ”published irradiance observations composing the 32‐year TSI database lack coherent temporal structure because of inconsistent trends that indicate the presence of uncorrected instrumental drift

              Uncorrected instrumental drifts are the likely reason that none of the irradiance composites show consistency in their trends …”

              ”Climate change studies that use published TSI time series to accredit solar responses must be cognizant of the possible errors in the record; otherwise climate variability is incorrectly attributed to solar variations that are in fact instrumental drifts. The current database is too short and imprecise to establish the magnitude of long‐term irradiance changes, or to alleviate conflicting claims of irradiance variations driving significant climate change in recent decades.”

              Kopp, Greg, and Judith L. Lean 2011. “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance.” Geophysical Research Letters

              ”The ERBS measurements yielded 1365.4 +/- 0.7 Wm exp -2 as the mean irradiance value.”

              Lee 1995 tells us that all of “Global Warming” is the same size as “irradiance variability trends which may be caused by drifts or shifts in the spacecraft sensor responses. Comparisons among the fits and measured irradiances indicate that the Nimbus 7 radiometer response shifted by a total of 0.8 Wm−2 between September 1989 and April 1990 and that the ERBS and UARS radiometers each drifted approximately 0.5 Wm−2 during the first 5 months in orbit.”

              Lee III, Robert B., et al. 1993 “Recent decreasing trend in the total solar irradiance-1981-1992 spacecraft measurements.” NASA STI/Recon Technical Report

            • DavidAppell

              Stop cutting and pasting, and just make your point — I”m not reading through all your crap….

            • Voodude

              Please don’t. I post (with attribution, quotes, citations, and URLs) because so many warmistas say that us ‘deniers’ don’ t have anything to back up our opinions. My ‘opinions’ are accompanied by backup. You wouldn’t understand all my “crap”, nor would you agree with it.
              OTHER PEOPLE come by these comments and augments, and go away, slightly more convinced of my point of view. That is my audience, not you.

            • Donald Campbell

              Ah, there were two commas and a period that looked pretty honest.

          • ThePrussian

            You’re _still_ citing that garbage? You mean the ‘seven investigations’, six of which said nothing about Mann? It’s quite something.

            • im-skeptical

              And you’re still insisting that Mann stands accused of scientific fraud, despite the fact that he has been cleared, and his results have been confirmed.

            • Joe_NS

              Cleared by the man currently facing 20 years in prison for ignoring complaints about Jerry Sandusky? That man?

            • MikeNov

              So did Mann ask others to delete e-mails? Do you trust an investigation that doesn’t even ask the recipient of the e-mail about this?

            • im-skeptical

              The mind of the conspiracy theorist is plagued by confirmation bias. To be sure, it’s something we all have to contend with, but for people like you, it’s just too easy to disregard hard, objective facts, in favor of rumors or irrelevant trivia. Here’s what I know: there was never any cover up or anything incriminating in the emails. And that was the finding of several investigations. It was only the science deniers, motivated by something other than truth, who tried to make it seem that way. They are the ones who engaged in criminal activity, and should have gone to jail for it.

    • Fed Up

      The Mann charade will go on as long there are pablum-eating liberals to blindly support the climate…warming? change? stasis? what?? Never mind that the climate has been changing since the dawn of history….btw, anyone out there know what the global temperature is supposed to be?

      Long live Marc Steyn and his standing up to the disgraceful bully Mann.

      • CB

        “Long live Marc Steyn and his standing up to the disgraceful bully Mann.”

        If facts are bullying you, perhaps you should try accepting them for once…

        “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”


        • Fed Up

          What century do you live in, citing the ‘97%’ joke? Major LOL….

          Keep the funnies rolling, please.

          • CB

            “What century do you live in”

            lol! What century do you live in?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”


            The clown show you are currently starring in would be more funny if it didn’t have so many members of the US government costarring in it and didn’t have such profoundly dangerous effects on the well-being of the human race…

            • Fed Up

              I refer you to my question above. When hasn’t the climate changed? What IS the proper global average temperature?

              You idiots have no scientific basis and your grasp of economics (which, yes, does play into any climate policy arguments) is less than nil. So what is the climate scientology endpoint? You haven’t a clue, you’re just riding the feel-good lefty guiltwagon. Enjoy the ride, because that’s about all you’ll have after the left decimates civilization. Btw, NASA(!)….lol.

            • CB

              “When hasn’t the climate changed?”

              The climate has always changed and that change has always been driven primarily by CO₂.

              If you understand the polar ice caps have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today?

              “Data from NASA’s Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass.”



            • Fed Up

              You’d better go do your Gender Studies homework – wouldn’t want the prof to microaggress you. Meanwhile I have several hundred pounds of dry ice to sublimate on the back porch and a huge bucket of water – makes great bubbles. Adios!

            • Voodude

              Why do your charts stop in 2009?

            • Blue

              If you knew how to read that chart, you’d know that it shows the ice increasing for the first third. And a 7 year trend isn’t enough to draw conclusions.

    • drunkenbaker

      The dissident Steyn’s new book has incredibly reached the top of the climate charts at Amazon.com. His continued popularity, indicative of society’s growing intolerance and hate, is of increasing concern. He could do with a few days at the Karl Marx Treatment Centre for immediate punishment and mandatory reeducation.

    • Michael Happold

      Your PAGES2K Arctic graph appears to be the version prior to authors having corrected their use of upside-down proxies. The corrected graph is even less Mannian.

      • ThePrussian

        Never heard of that. Can I get a link to a correction please?

        • Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

          I think he means after the criticisms of McIntyre which led to substantial corrections in pages2K – all in the direction of higher medieval temps.


          What I find mystifying is that Mann’s defenders claim that other works ‘verified’ the hockey stick – when they don’t look like a hockey stick at all. To be clear, a HS would show a sharp increase in XX century temperatures AND ; while some reconstructions do show this, others are all over the place. Brandon Shollenberger had a good post about this but I can’t find it right now.

          I’m a statistics knucklehead but anyone who’s read about the topic can see the state of paleoclimatology remains very much unsettled – the evidence for ‘warmest year in this long’ pronunciations is extremely weak. Of course, the tree rings’ continued refusal to respond to warming is only providing further evidence that MBH98 and 99 could only have been right by chance – the ‘divergence’ period now takes up over 40% of the thermometer record. So how do they know that the divergence happened in 1960-2015, and not in 1880-1960?

          • Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

            ‘a sharp increase in XX century temperatures AND’ stable temperatures in the rest of the millenium.

          • josh

            “So how do they know that the divergence happened in 1960-2015, and not in 1880-1960?”
            Because we have the instrumental record going back that far, so we can see that the tree-ring proxies track well with temps up to circa 1960. You can also check if they correlate with other proxies going further back. All of which suggests that the divergence problem is a recent and quite possibly anthropogenic effect. I don’t know why you would expect it to go away with more time.

            • Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

              Yeah, I understand that they correlated in the first period. Doesn’t prove anything.

              If I see a thermometer in Phoenix in July, saying it’s 10ºC, I know the thermometer is wrong. Plenty of evidence that it’s an anomaly.

              If you had 135 years of data, out of which the last 5 or 10 failed to show correlation, alright, you could say the last period is an anomaly and speculate about why it happened.

              What we’re seeing instead is that nearly half of the thermometer record shows no correlation with tree rings. To characterize nearly half of the period as an ‘anomaly’ is preposterous. Yet these treemometers are then used to go back 1,000 years in time. And to be clear, nobody has offered a compelling explanation as to why they would suddenly stop acting as good proxies, and nobody has proved that they were good proxies in the first place – simply that they happened to correlate with temperature in an 80-year period. (Not to mention that the following, uncorrelated 65-year period is also the one with the most accurate readings).

              By the way, what will the tree-ringers do if by 2040 the divergence continues? By then the uncorrelated (or even anti-correlated) period will get longer than the correlated one. So how do you know that non-correlation is an anomaly?

              PS: as for ‘correlate with other proxies’ before the termometer era, let me just say that after dozens of reconstructions there still isn’t agreement on the basic issues of MWP and LIA (see Rosenthal et al 2013 which found that they were global). So what will you correlate them with?

            • Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

              That should read 55-year period.

            • josh

              If you had a thermometer that worked and then stopped working circa 1960 because someone ran over it with a tractor, you don’t throw out the old records as useless and you especially don’t think more time with the bad thermometer disproves the usefulness of the pre-1960 data.
              It’s not like people are just looking for random correlations to extrapolate, except for ‘skeptics’. We expect higher temps to correlate
              with more growth in temp. limited forests. But obviously other factors can become important, such as pollution, drought, ozone loss and solar dimming, which will then weaken the signal. Remember also that the divergence problem primarily pertains to high latitude northern sites and doesn’t even show up in many other studies. This is also one of the reasons we trust reconstructions prior to 1960: the divergence between different sites isn’t there.

              “So what will you correlate them with?”

              Various proxies correlate with each other, and correlate with the instrumental record. We put them together to get a fairly robust picture of the past. I say fairly because there is no perfect method and there are error bars on any reconstruction, just as in every scientific field. Thus you can get moderately different results. Some will show a more pronounced MWP and some less but these are details that don’t really change the overall picture. Temps have been trending down for the last 2000 years (at least) and then shooting up in the last century. We can’t explain the recent upward trend without CO2 induced global warming. We can explain the MWP. The problem is that the CO2 caused warming is going to keep going up from here and we are already most likely at higher temps than anytime in the past 2000+ years.

            • MikeNov

              I think you are missing the point of the skeptics argument. How do you know the tree rings responded to temperature in warm periods PRIOR to the existence if the temperature record. It could be that you have a quadratic response to temperature, so that as you get warmer you get more growth, but even more warmth means less growth.

            • Joe_NS

              The very worst sort of special pleading.

              The criticism of Mann’s work is that the proxies are inadequate and unreliable and his statistical manipulation of them either incompetent or deceptive. They do not track with the temperature very well unless you ignore tons of contrary published research. Simply citing Mann’s proxy results to justify Mann’s fiasco of a hockey stick is ridiculous.

    • Somite

      Maybe there is some sort of hockey stick blindness going on but I see no less than 6 hockey sticks in the continental graphs you show.

      Even those that are not prominent show a fast unprecedented temp increase that we know is continued and is consistent with the instrumental record.

      • Joe_NS

        What they look like are a clutch of knobbly sticks, with bumps this way and that way, lying on the ground, produced by thousands of statistically random changes in the environment, not a hockey stick produced systematically.

        • josh

          Actually, the thing to notice is that the different regions don’t show much correlation in the bumps, until the last century, when they all simultaneously show a sustained and significant upswing. So when you put them together to get the global average you get a relatively flat hockey stick handle with some long term decline over the last two millenia, followed by the suddenly rising “blade” once carbon emission became started becoming large. The hockey stick, or whatever you want to call it, is about the long term trends, not local, short term fluctuations. That’s why we have scientists to put these things together and not the blog-community eye-balling random scraps of data.

          Also note that the black line in each graph, presumably a running average, doesn’t show the recent warming since ~1950 in some of the plots.

          • Joe_NS

            You need urgent remedial education in the notion of “correlation” in a nonlinear chaotic physical phenomenon like the earth–atmosphere system. The sort of trend that you detect simply does not exist in such systems. Excursions of the sort that so impress you in the data, and longer, are a dime a dozen in such systems.

            • josh

              Hello ignorant person. As I’ve just pointed out, we don’t see such an excursion except in the last century, so the unfounded claim that they are ‘a dime a dozen’ is simply wishful thinking on your part. There is no reason to think that the various continents suddenly decided to suddenly sync up and show an increasing trend where before they had shown a flat, slowly decreasing one, except that it reflects an actual underlying signal.Chaos has nothing to do with the point I made. Adding energy to the earth via the greenhouse effect isn’t chaotic. That energy has to warm the earth up until it reaches equilibrium. I wonder, do you think your hemisphere’s getting hotter in summer and colder in winter every year is just an illusory trend caused by the nonlinear chaotic physical phenomenon which can have no trends?

              Now the ocean-atmosphere interaction is complicated and there can be hard-to-predict wobbles around the trend as energy is exchanged between them, but that doesn’t undo the basic energy conservation laws. I mean, you can hope that the extra energy all miraculously gets buried in the deep ocean, but that’s not what the physics simulations or the temperature record tell us is happening. What are the odds do you think of seeing the correlation between observed warming and predicted warming?

            • Joe_NS

              If you think that we have the data over thousands of years and in the granularity necessary to reach conclusions about excursions from a nonexistent equilibrium, a concept having no fixed meaning in a chaotic system, then you are stupider than I first thought. You simply do not understand the statistics of such systems, an ineducable ignoramus.

            • josh

              Equilibrium is a concept that applies to physical systems and your repeated assertion that the whole thing is chaotic betrays ignorance about what the terms mean. You failed to understand a simple point about averaging so you’ll forgive me if I laugh off any claim to lecture me about statistics.

              Now you’ve moved on to a completely different distraction about “granularity”. In reality, some proxies have yearly resolution and some don’t and you would need to make an actual point about a particular reconstruction and their averaging process to even start an actual conversation. Go ahead and publish a paper if you have a real criticism, but you don’t, you’re just pulling assertions out of your ass. If you can come up with a physical model that gives big multi-decade temperature swings which just happen to cancel out in such a way as to not show up in the records and which somehow undoes the physics of greenhouse gasses, why spend your time here? Go publish! The world needs your genius!

            • Joe_NS

              You are ignorant beyond remediation. The correlation you see is the correlation of someone who reads tea reading.

              There is no equilibirum state in a chaotic system, physical or otherwise, as a matter of the mathematics. You are simply too stupid to understand this/

              Your final paragraph is entirely greenhouse gas gas-baggery.

            • josh

              It’s been nice watching you flame out and sputter, rather than give an argument. Have a good life. I predict your summer will be hot and your winter cold. I won’t tell you how I can know these things about the random blob of chaos you think the Earth is, but I do! Perhaps I am a wizard.

            • ThePrussian

              Look, I really don’t want to cause any trouble, but let’s try to be a bit more civil here. I don’t want my comments to end up looking like Pharyngula.

              THis is a serious issue, needing serious discussion.

            • im-skeptical

              And you direct this warning at josh instead of Joe_NS. Amazing.

            • josh

              I’m fine with a civil discussion. However, when someone starts off insulting me I don’t have much patience for it .

            • Joe_NS

              ZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzz . . . . You were saying?

          • ThePrussian

            @josh, really? Look more closely – only the Arctic shows a dramatic uptick, and that is still much less than the hockey stick graph. That’s the point – people aren’t doubting the recent uptick, but even those of us who accept AGW regard Mann’s stick as a crock, for good reason.

            I think you’ll find that some the climate fluctuations did indeed synch. Some didn’t, but then, not all of the current warming is in synch.

            • josh

              When I look closely I see that all the regions are at least as high as they’ve been in the last 2000 years. But like I said, the real issue is to put them together in an appropriate way to get the averaged temp for the whole earth. When you do that you get the Pages2K global reconstruction that was shown beneath the 4 older reconstructions you reproduce above. (Also, note that those older reconstructions are apparently for the Northern Hemisphere.) The Pages2K reconstruction is rather hockeystickish.

              The whole issue here seems to be this: Mann put out a scientific paper in 1999 with the ‘original’ hockeystick graph. It was a striking image and thus became the center of denialist efforts to discredit the science, which kicked off a whole arglebargle involving hacked e-mails, allegedly upside-down proxies, “hiding the decline”, etc. All of that stuff was irrelevant or just plain wrong histrionics but it prompted several investigations which came to the same conclusion: no scientific malfeasance.

              What did come out was that Mann et al. 1999 used a statistical technique that was not optimal for their purposes. This didn’t change the overall message but it did give a slightly sharper rise at the end then a better technique would have. Okay. To me (a working scientist), this is a normal part of science (if you discount the conspiracy theorists who prompted it). Papers come out and most of them could have been done better. You also learn that scientists are sometimes sloppy and make honest mistakes, that doesn’t discredit them but it’s why we have peer review and replication by different groups with differing methods. You can see in later work by Mann like the graph above that he gets somewhat different results. (Although I’m not sure that’s an apples to apples comparison either.) That is how science progresses.

              In the end, the evidence shows a long term cooling trend that has been rather suddenly reversed in the last century. That upward trend is expected to continue based on our knowledge of the physics underlying it. That is the gist of all hockey sticks. You can argue about whether todays temps are higher than the last 1000 or last two thousand years within what confidence interval. You can kvetch that a 16 year old paper underestimated their errors. To me these are red herrings. Or perhaps I should say, Mann seems to be a white whale.

            • ThePrussian

              Well, actually, many scientists who accept AGW – and, again, I do – say that Mann’s work is faulty beyond words, and, worse still, that Mann has the most thuggish habits when to defending it. Case in point, see the Anders Moburg paper published in Science that blows Mann’s stupid stick out of the water.

              I’m a working scientist myself, and I know full well that papers get improved on and replaced. The reason I loathe Mann is his habit of defending that stick with the worst sorts of tactics, up to an including changing the shape of it depending on whether he’s showing it to the IPCC or to other scientists (more about that later). I also do think he’s a scientific fraud and the reason I say that is because far better scientists than he, such as John Christy, have made that accusation, and given Mann’s habit of lying through his teeth about everything, I see no reason to take Mann’s word over Christy’s.

              Again, I support the science of AGW, but that doesn’t mean supporting the stick. And re: the combined PAGES2K stick, go and look at it again. This is the first time I’ve heard of an average that ends up with a higher value than the individual components. I’m going to do a follow up post on that in the future.

              “You can argue about whether todays temps are higher than the last 1000 or last two thousand years within what confidence interval”

              But, actually, that’s not what you’re allowed to argue or even examine, without being labelled DENIER! Even if you have the science right.

              I don’t have the time to go through all of this in detail, so I can just ask that you read through my previous posts on the matter.

            • josh

              I don’t know how you can say that Mann’s work is “faulty beyond words” and yet agree with the AGW consensus because Mann’s work is in line with the consensus. For example, Moberg 2005 is the blue line in the comparison graph above. It shows lower temps prior to 1000 and around 1600 compared to Mann 2008. Is it better? I don’t know. Given the inherent noisiness of the data they look reasonably consistent to me. Moberg looks like it really doesn’t get the last century right, but again, you pick a reasonable method and publish your results. That doesn’t make Moberg a fraud or incompetent.

              I have no idea why you think John Christy is a reliable source. He seems to be well outside the mainstream of respected climate scientists and far from an impeccable scientist. To put it politely.

              “This is the first time I’ve heard of an average that ends up with a higher value than the individual components. I’m going to do a follow up post on that in the future.”

              Are we looking at the same graphs? The arctic subregion shows over a degree of warming from 1800 to 2000. Several of the others show roughly a degree. The global average shows about 0.6 degrees. Do you really think they’ve made some sort of basic error in their averaging process?

              “But, actually, that’s not what you’re allowed to argue or even examine, without being labelled DENIER! Even if you have the science right.”

              The place where this is argued and examined is in the expert literature. That’s why you have differing reconstructions as in the figure. What makes people deniers is when they ignore the big picture, misrepresent the science, prefer the least credible sources over the most, declare the whole thing a conspiracy, repeat debunked claims and generally, always focus on anything that suggests doubt in one direction while dismissing the wealth of evidence for the other. It’s not like the term was coined for global warming deniers, they just fit a psychological pattern that’s been seen before.

    • Alberto Zaragoza Comendador

      Here’s the comparison.

      Just about the only thing all have in common is the XX century spike. No shit, considering that’s the thermometer part. To be fair all or nearly all of the reconstructions show the XX century as higher than the X, but Esper et al 2002 doesn’t, and neither does Rosenthal et al 2013. There are many more both Shollenberger and I are missing – I just learnt about these reading the blogs.

      Of course the fact that other, later studies found different reconstruction results doesn’t prove MBH9X was wrong. But it does prove that any notion of ‘certainty’ or ‘robustness’ in those studies was unwarranted; S¡sixteen years later the field is very much unsettled. If skeptics are still going on about MBH9X it’s because the author never admitted to any mistake, neither then nor in later studies (most egregiously he continued to use upside-down data after 2008) even though his chief critic, McIntyre, was as polite as it gets. Can you imagine if Spencer or Lindzen had used upside-down data in a peer-reviewed study? The whole journal would’ve shut down.

      A good contrast is Pages2K, in which case the authors did make the corrections suggested my McIntyre, even though their collective reputation at stake was many times greater than that of Mann. Indeed, the very notion that their reputation might be at stake because of mistakes turned out to be unfounded – few people remember the corrections to the paper.

    • zlop

      Is climate science corrupted by excessive salaries and blackmail?

      ” FBI, Knights of Malta and Penn-State pedophile traps
      Field McConnell is linking his Crown Agents’ sister Kristine Marcy to pedophile traps allegedly set up by her DOJ Pride associates to extort concessions from the likes of former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Knights of Malta member Rick Santorum, and Penn State’s Michael Hockeysticks Mann.”

    • Voodude

      “Scientists” like Mann employ seemingly valid techniques to manipulate the data. This involved a deliberate choice – premeditated, discussed, and chosen for the desired effects: The multi-proxy averaging paleotemperature time-series chart, specifically chosen because it ”agrees well … with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model.” (1) This is the cart, leading the horse; a computer model’s output is reinforced by choosing the data to support it.

      A proxy for temperature is some natural, physical attribute, like the ratio of species of diatoms, or pollen grains, isolated from layers of mud at the bottom of a lake, via a core sample. While the makeup of those items that determine the temperature might be without question (and beyond my point, here) – the imprecise dating of the sample, introduces a skew of the (time, temperature) data point. Subsequent averaging of (time, temperature) data points (with dating errors) causes the obliteration of short-term temperature excursions, even though the peaks of the excursions might have been accurately recorded with individual proxies. This causes a low-frequency-pass (high-frequency-attenuation) “smearing” of the temperature reconstruction. This outcome was desired, and discussed, as shown by the “climate gate” emails (2). This is done, and is presented to the public as “science” – when it is deliberately chosen to mislead, in fact, lie, (3) about natural temperature variations, seen in the recent (Holocene) past, that were more extreme than now, and certainly not caused by fossil fuel emissions.

      They know what they are doing… [as stated -in writing- in Jan 2005] Jonathan Overpeck’s exact words are: (http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt)

      “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

      Loehle 2000: ”… the existence of dating error in the series means that peaks and troughs are damped compared to annual data and are likely even damped compared to the true history…” (4)

      Ljungqvist 2010: “The dating uncertainty of proxy records very likely results in “flattining out[of] the values from the same climate event, over several hundred years, and thus, in fact, acts as a low-pass filter that makes us unable to capture the true magnitude of the cold and warm periods in the reconstruction (Loehle 2004). What we then actually get is an average of the temperature over one or two centuries.” (5)

      Mangini, Jul 2005: “As expected, the multi-proxy stack has smaller amplitude, of about 0.9 °C, than our curve from [Spannagel Cave in the Alps], between the minimum in the LIA, and the MWP events. The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives, with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves. (6)

      ▇▇▇▇▇ References ▇▇▇▇▇▇

      (1) ”agrees well with temperatures reconstructed from borehole measurements (12) and with temperatures obtained with a general circulation model”
      Moberg, Anders, et al. 2005 “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low-and high-resolution proxy data.” Nature

      ”From: Phil Jones
      To: “Michael E. Mann”
      Subject: Re: For your eyes only
      Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005

      “It would be good to produce future series with and without the long instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all years are cold between 1500 and 1750.”


      (3) Phil Jones said, “They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does” 2003

      (4) Loehle, Craig. “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” Energy & Environment 18.7 (2007): 1049-1058.

      (5) Ljungqvist, Fredrik Charpentier 2010 “A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra‐tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.” Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography

      (6) Mangini, Jul 2005: “As expected, the multi-proxy stack has smaller amplitude, of about 0.9 °C, than our curve from [Spannagel Cave in the Alps], between the minimum in the LIA, and the MWP events. The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives, with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves. In contrast, the temperature record from SPA 12, with an extremely good age control, and with a better than decadal resolution of 18O, gives insight into temperature variations that were not recorded in other archives.”

      “This difference is in good agreement with those derived from sediment cores from the Bermuda Rise but is larger than the reconstruction of temperature for the Northern Hemisphere from low frequency stacks and significantly larger than that in the IPCC report.”

      “Together, these non-faunal archives indicate that the MWP was a climatically distinct period in the Northern Hemisphere. This conclusion is in strong contradiction to the temperature reconstruction by the IPCC, which only sees the last 100 yr as a period of increased temperature during the last 2000 yr.”

      “During the MWP we observe periods lasting between 20–50 yr with temperatures higher than the average over the last 2000 yr.”

      Fig. 3. Comparison of the temperature derived from SPA 12 (black curve) with the average stack for the N.H. by Moberg et al. (red curve). As expected SPA 12 shows a larger amplitude (about 2.7 °C) than the stack for the N.H (0.9 °C).”

      Mangini, A., C. Spötlb, and P. Verdes. “Reconstruction of temperature in the Central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a δ18O stalagmite record.” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 235 (2005): 741-751.

      http://epsc.wustl.edu/courses/epsc484/mangini05.pdf (full PDF)

    • WFC

      I don’t know if you’ve received your copy of the book yet, but its accuracy (and, indeed, damage) have been more than confirmed by the fact that Paul Ehrlich has tried to “rubbish” it.


    • MikeNov

      Michael Mann when speaking to a room full of earth scientists at MIT agreed with the assertion that warming in climate models is ‘vastly overstated.’ The question came directly from the presentation he had just made, and indeed you will find the same details in his book, though in neither one did he discuss this implication.
      Namely, he argues that there is no Medieval Warm Period because it was not global. It is not global because the tropics had a ‘LaNina like effect’ in response to the global warming caused by a change in orbit. He suggested a Pacific Thermostat Hypothesis as a possible explanation.
      The questioner then asked that the Medieval Warm Period was a long term phenomenon while La Nina are short lived, and if you have a long term response to global warming that cools the planet, then wouldn’t that mean warming in climate models is vastly overstated.

    • nicky

      There is no doubt Mann has been deceitful and alarmist. I do not know why you are harping on about this. We all know it by now.

      Global warming is nevertheless a fact (albeit not as fast as Mann would have it) , your own graphs show it clearly. It is obvious, how can carbon accumulated for millions of years, released in a matter of centuries possibly not have an impact? I do not know the best way to tackle the problem, and for sure ‘carbon taxes’ are not going to do it. Maybe Tesla will?….

      Another thing, as one of my ‘favourite sites’ I expect you to regularly post, your last one is 15 of August, more than month. What is the matter: Illness, depression (I somehow think you are prone), domestic troubles, empty penn syndrome…..? Please post some more?

    • MikeNov

      I saw Mann at a talk at MIT in a small room in the EAPS building that has the globe on top with scientists. There he responded to a question, ‘doesn’t this mean that warming in climate models is vastly overstated?’ with ‘I agree with that actually. I have a reputation out there as some sort of climate alarmist, but I think there is a missing negative feedback.’
      His talk was not about the hockey stick, but spoke of the Medieval Warm Period, something produced LaNina like effects in the tropics, and he suggested the Pacific Thermostat Hypothesis as a culprit. The questioner asked about the implications of a long term negative feedback to global warming.