"McIntyre’s Razor has a Stihl edge."

Best comment ever.

IPCC's Southern Hemisphere Reconstruction – Made With European Instrumental Record!

Steve McIntyre (emphasis mine):

A question for readers: which of the following proxies are used to reconstruct past Southern Hemisphere temperature in the IPCC’s graphic (Figure 5.7b) showing SH reconstructions:

1. Graybill’s California strip-bark bristlecone chronologies
2. upside down and contaminated Finnish lake sediments
3. European instrumental temperature data
4. Antarctic ice core d18O isotope data covering the medieval period

The answer, rather remarkably, is that IPCC’s SH temperature reconstructions in their signature spaghetti graph (Figure 5.7b) used California bristlecone chronologies, upside down Tiljander and European instrumental temperature data, but did not use Antarctic isotope data covering the medieval period. …

What I find interesting is that Michael Mann hasn't been recognized as the hack he is.

Maybe in two or three decades people will look back at the current period and mutter things like "… they were so stupid back then …", only to follow new hacks (all the while telling themselves "… thankfully this can't happen today …"). But maybe it will take longer.

Will I see the day when Michael Mann fully gets the credit he rightfully deserves? After all, people still think that Robert Gallo was helpful in discovering HIV…

News from the Climate Debate

Barry Brill: The Taxonomy of Climate Opinion

…
The debate over climate change is not, and never has been, divided into two monochromatic tribes who have been brainwashed into unanimity . There are as many different opinions are there are participants in the discussion. (“quot homines tot sententiae” as Christopher Monckton might say).

For those who insist upon a tidy taxonomy, I offer the following first draft:



…
It is only a matter of time (and not much time) before the ECS is repositioned to 1-3°C and the TCR to1-2°C. At that point, many more people who are near the upper end of the ‘Sceptics’ grouping with join with those multitudes who are at the lower end of the ‘Mainstream’ grouping to form a new “Orthodox” group.

This merging could be an uncomfortable time for both parties. Kuhn argues in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. Will that remain the case when views of TCR are only a fraction of a degree apart?
…

Marlo Lewis: IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency?

…
As BishopHill and Judith Curry report on their separate blogs, IPCC now believes that in the 21^st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.” You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report.
…

No Consensus

Or as the IPCC puts it:

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

A Robust Debate

Steve McIntyre is smoking hot again:

The IPCC assessment has also been compromised by gatekeeping by fellow-traveler journal editors, who have routinely rejected skeptic articles on the discrepancy between models and observations or pointing out the weaknesses of articles now relied upon by IPCC. Despite exposure of these practices in Climategate, little has changed. Had the skeptic articles been published (as they ought to have been), the resulting debate would have been more robust and IPCC would have had more to draw on its present assessment dilemma. As it is, IPCC is surely in a well-earned quandary.

"Left" or "Right", the MSM lies

A lesson from WUWT to not trust MSM, regardless of political affiliation (slightly edited by me for clarity):

From: Jeff Goodell
To: Anthony Watts
Subject: Rolling Stone inquiry

Hi Anthony

I’m a writer for Rolling Stone, working on piece about upcoming IPCC report. I’m checking in with a few people to get their views on how they think it will be received. Thoughts?

Thanks

Jeff

Anthony's reply:

From: Anthony Watts
To: Jeff Goodell

My view is that AR5 is going to stillborn, mainly because it is already outdated by new science that won’t be included.

There have been 19 separate peer reviewed papers published in climate sensitivity to CO2 by 42 scientists since January 1, 2012 all describing a lower climate sensitivity.

There have been recent revelations in journals (Yu Kosaka & Shang-Ping Xie Nature 2013 and de Freitas &McLean, 2013 International Journal of Geosciences) that demonstrate ENSO (El Niño) in the Pacific is responsible for the 15 plus years of global warming slowdown known as “the pause”. These two papers strongly suggest natural variability is still the dominant climate control.

Then there is the lack of reality matching what the climate models tell us, such as this leaked graph from an AR5 draft:

Original from AR5 draft: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-4_with.png

Annotated version: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

All this while global CO2 emissions have been growing steadily. The lack of temperature match to models, “the pause”, combined with these new ENSO findings tell us that global warming has gone from a planetary crisis to a minor problem in a Banana Republic where only a few vocal science rebels are arguing for immediate intervention.

The costs of mitigating the perceived problem are also staggering compared to the benefit, as the 50:1 project demonstrates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5Lda06iK0

best regards,

Anthony Watts

And what did Jeff Goodell write?

But, of course, this is nothing new. In 2007, when the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report, it was also nearly certain that human activity was heating up the planet, with grave consequences for our future well-being. And six years before that, when the IPCC released its Third Assessment, scientists were pretty certain about it too. But phrases like “high confidence” in warming do not, to the unscientific ear, inspire high confidence in the report’s finding, since they imply the existence of doubt, no matter how slight. And in the climate wars, “Doubt is what deniers thrive on and exploit,” says Bob Watson, who was head of the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. The final report has not even been released yet, and already prominent bloggers in the denial-sphere, like Anthony Watts, are calling it “stillborn.“

Rightfully, Anthony is a bit pissed:

What is most galling, is that Goodell asked me for my opinion prior the release of the IPCC AR5 report, then chastises me in his article for giving it. Whatta guy.

On "Runaway Greenhouse" Climate

From a comment I left on another blog:

One stumbles upon this term sometimes, but what does it actually mean for an planetary body to be "in an RG [runaway greenhouse] state"?

Considering that the influx of energy is (more or less) stable, any process that lowers the outflux of energy will only raise temperature up to a point, when a new equilibrium is reached (as increased temperature leads to increased outflux). To get an true runaway climate, one would need to lower the outflux to zero, something that is only possible at absolute zero – a state that will be quickly left behind in the case of influx of energy.

I can only assume that by saying "runaway" scientists actually mean "reaching a higher equilibrium temperature". So to me the term "runaway greenhouse" is nonsensical, sensationalistic, misleading and anti-scientific, and this reflects badly on any scientists using such terms uncritically.

Turn Down Those Knobs

Classic Steve McIntyre blog-post, well worth reading in its entirety:

… all the GCMs that underperform the Callendar formula run too hot. It seems evident to me (and I do not claim that this observation is original) that the range of IPCC models do not fully sample the range of physically possible or even plausible GCMs at lower sensitivities. Perhaps it’s time that the climate community turned down some of the tuning knobs.
…

The Mars Canals And Changes Of Paradigms

Interesting:

… Planetary observers with superior telescopes, too, were subjected to the scorn of those astronomers of the time who had given way to the "standard paradigm", existing for some decades, that the vague markings of Mars, barely seen when the planet was at closest opposition every few years, were "linear", "doubled", and possibly indicative of artificial constructions. It was also widely asserted, and believed, that the Martian surface was rich with vegetation, which grew and subsided with the seasons. These opinions had become almost the norm by the time that Lick astronomers, such as Barnard, turned the mighty Clark 36" refractor telescope, then the world's largest, onto the planet.

But, in the early 1890s Barnard beheld -- to his amazement -- not a fine working of "canals" (or channels, as they would have been properly translated from the Italian) but a plethora of natural surface details: huge gullies, chasms, craters, and formations of a rocky terrain. I once held in my own hand Barnard's drawing, about 5 inches in diameter, made at the eyepiece, which he copied to his astronomical mentor Simon Newcomb, with the report that in clearest seeing, he saw NO "canals" but only ordinary surface details in such profusion as to overwhelm the senses. Barnard was, in fact, so intimidated by Percival Lowell and William H. Pickering at Flagstaff's renowned Lowell Observatory -- founded to study Mars -- that he felt could not publish his "anomalous" observations, so sure were the users of smaller telescopes that "canals" and forests were being accurately spotted. Barnard, who had only a bachelor's degree in mathematics (at the time a junior observer at Lick) felt that he could not sustain the damage to his reputation that would be done by the expected denunciations that would surely emerge from the disputatious and condescending Pickering and Lowell.

This reminds me of the current state of climate science, where people rather hide their "anomalous" results, for fear of denunciations from the "hockey team" – because the "standard paradigm" is that human emissions of CO2 are a catastrophe, and nothing but a catastrophe.

Conspiracy Theory

Nice:

On certain blog sites, links to this review page were posted together with the advice that people should read the book before reviewing it, knowing full well that some would simply swarm onto here and post unpleasant reviews (many of which have now been removed). If you want an example of how this machine works, there you have it!

Or how about this:

Once the news got out that Anthony Watts was telling his minions to come here and post reviews (and we know what that means) others were compelled to come and post ACTUAL reviews based on their actually reading the book.

Machine? Minions? Telling people to "read the book before reviewing it", while "knowing full well that some would simply swarm onto here and post unpleasant reviews"? Oh my, this conspiracy is worse than we thought!

Intellectually Bankrupt

Steve McIntyre takes apart the "FAQ" about the "extended hockeystick".

Real Climate Science™ is intellectually bankrupt.

[Update] Ross McKitrick weighs in:

This isn’t just a filibuster, they are defending themselves on the grounds that their paper made an incredibly subtle misrepresentation and it’s the reader’s fault for not noticing. Without the closing uptick, the main implication of their reconstruction is that, in the 20th century, we experienced the coldest conditions of the Holocene. With the uptick, we experienced nearly the warmest. The sharp uptick in the instrumental record can only be compared against their reconstruction if they can show their low-frequency proxies are capable of registering such events. If the 20th century portion of their reconstruction does not have the same uptick as the instrumental record, we would conclude that it could have missed similar swings in earlier centuries as well, so the absence of such swings in the earlier part of their graph tells us nothing about the presence or absence of decadal and century-scale warming events. Likewise, an annual or decadal observation from the modern instrumental record cannot be compared against values from their reconstruction, if their reconstruction is not capable of resolving events at that time scale.

But that is precisely what they do in Figure 3 of their paper, and it is the basis of their claim that “Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.” Without the uptick in their proxy reconstruction this kind of statement could never have been made. The presence of the uptick in the proxy graph validates their comparison of the instrumental record against the proxy record. By admitting that the uptick is not robust and cannot be a basis for any conclusions they have undermined their own findings, root and branch.

Moreover, they can’t conceal the fact that they defended the robustness of the uptick in their paper. Marcott et al. stated that a RegEM variant reconstruction eliminated 0.6 of the 0.7 C closing uptick, but that due to data limitations the difference between reconstructions was “probably not robust” (p. 1198). In the context this implies that they consider the size of the closing uptick to be insensitive to choice of methodology, in other words that the uptick is robust.

But now they say the 20th century uptick is not robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Did they know this prior to drawing Figure 3 and inserting it in their paper, and if so, how could they not have been aware that it would convey a false impression to the reader? Contrary to Revkin, the issue isn’t just the definitive statements they made in the media but the claims they made in the paper itself.

[Update] But let's hear what Mike "the man" Mann has to say: (via)

This is an important paper. The key take-home conclusion is that the rate and magnitude of recent global warmth appears unprecedented for at least the past 4,000 years and the rate at least the past 11,000. …

But, again, the take-home conclusion: the rate of warming appears to be unprecedented as far back as the authors are able to go (to the boundary with the last ice age). And the rate of warming appears to have no analog in the past, as far back as the authors are able to go.

But, again, the take-home conclusion: Real Climate Scientists™ like Mike Mann are intellectually bankrupt, while so called "citizen scientists" like Steve McIntyre (he hates the term, BTW, because he *IS* scientifically trained and not a "mere" citizen from the street) or Ross McKitrick do their very best with their analysis and their nagging questions to keep the field scientific. Or let me paraphrase Bill Hicks:

Misrepresent your study like that, you’re off the scientific roll call forever. End of story. Everything you say is suspect. Every word that comes out of your mouth is like a t*rd falling into my drink.

Clearly Deluded

Bishop Hill:

There has been great hilarity overnight, with Stefan Lewandowsky and Skeptical Science's John Cook making complete fools of themselves again.

It started when Barry Woods was examining the supplementary data to Lewandowsky's latest paper, the one that analysed sceptic reactions to his previous carcrash paper on various blogs and tried to present these as evidence of "conspiracy ideation". Among the comments categorised as "Espousing Conspiracy Theory" was this one:

The thing I don't understand is, why didn't they just make a post on sceptic blogs themselves, rather than approaching blog owners. They could have posted as a Discussion topic here at Bishop Hill without even asking the host, and I very much doubt that the Bish would have removed it. Climate Audit also has very light-touch moderation and I doubt whether Steve McIntyre would have removed such an unsolicited post. Same probably goes for many of the sceptic blogs, in my experience. So it does appear to that they didn't try very hard to solicit views from the climate sceptic community.

Unfortunately, this was written by Richard Betts, the very mainstream head of climate impacts at the Met Office. Oh dear.

Richard seems somewhat taken aback, quizzing Skeptical Science's John Cook, a coauthor on the paper:

Hi @skepticscience, why was my comment here http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/31/lewandowskys-data.html … "espousing conspiracy theory"?! That's just crazy. http://www.frontiersin.org/personality_science_and_individual_differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract …

Cook, a winner of the Eureka award for advancing climate change knowledge, offered this hilarious response, pretending that a comment that had been categorised by him and his coauthors was "raw data":

@richardabetts supplementary data for Recursive Fury are any comments *related* to particular theory. It's raw data, not final paper.

The Universities of Western Australia and Queensland must be very proud.

The final word should go to Richard:

@wattsupwiththat @lucialiljegren @aDissentient Here http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/8/31/lewandowskys-data.html … at Aug 31, 2012 at 9:00 PM. Lewandowsky et al clearly deluded!

Bonus points to Cook for for misunderstanding what "raw data" is. No, no, no: "raw data" is not some early form of a paper before it becomes a "final paper".

Futile Science-Communication

Barry Woods:

… I would personally be infuriated if I was dismissed on account of the behaviour of a group of people I talk with. Every single person I talk with has a different viewpoint, and I learn a lot about how better to communicate climate science by listening to them. If we dismiss swathes of people by association then our attempts at communication become futile: we end up only ‘preaching to the converted from an ‘ivory tower’, as it were.

Of course, if communication of climate science is not your aim, then it is your choice if you prefer to communicate with nobody! …

Peer-Reviewed Hit-Piece

Be clear what is going on here.

1) A professor of cognitive psychology pre-publishes a trashy paper based on a phony survey whose sole purpose is clearly to denigrate the opinions of a group of people who disagree with him, and sends it to a prominent environmental journalist, who gives it world-wide publicity.

2) A number of people publicly criticise the paper, which, eight months after its first “pre-publication” is still not published.

3) The professor and a number of colleagues write a second paper, prepublished on-line, which ridicules the individuals who have criticised the first paper, mentioning them by name. .

4) The authors of the second paper plot together with three of their colleagues (two professors and a university official) arranging for them to be the first to comment on the paper on the journal’s website. The comments ridicule anyone who might comment on the paper, pre-empting their criticisms by accusing them of conspiratorial thinking.

5) Several people comment, criticising the second paper and pointing out a number of inaccuracies. (One, which was the subject of representations to the publisher, was removed. The rest remain). But those who point out the errors in the second paper had already been ridiculed and dismissed as conspiracy theorists, by two professors and a university official before their criticisms appeared, thanks to a silly conspiracy dreamed up with the paper’s authors.

It's a Conspiracy!

… Bear in mind that a proportion of those comments is orchestrated and for all we know there are only a handful of people with multiple electronic “personas” each, who are paid to create disproportionate noise.

All the best, Stephan

Ah Lew, you're the greatest.

Steve McIntyre breaks the "Extended Hockey Stick"

As always, Steve is brilliant.

1. Marcott Mystery #1 
2. No Uptick in Marcott Thesis 
3. Marcott’s Zonal Reconstructions 
4. How Marcottian Upticks Arise 
5. The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service
6. Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421

I'm sure there is more to come.

[Update]
Of course there is more to come: Bent Their Core Tops In.

Why do I get the feeling that Real Climate Scientists®™ are idiots?

Micheal E Mann, A Stupid Idiot?

Sorry to regress to an ad hominem, but Michael E. Mann tries hard to prove that he is an idiot, in addition to being an egoistic primadonna and anti-scientific hack:

Apparently #AnthonyWatts not denying instrumental record of warming, so I withdraw the claim. Of course, he's still a #climatechange #denier

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/313680664367075328

Anthony Watts is not denying the instrumental record of warming, but still a Climate Change Denier®™

????

What the heck.

[Postscript] Does it strike anybody at least as "odd" that the good Michael E Mann seems to be Twittering the whole day? When does he find the time to do some Real Climate Science®™?

Tricky Mike

Steve McIntyre on Mike’s AGU Trick.


As John Lennon sang: Gimme some truth.

I've had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

Idiots

Mark Hoofnagle:

I’m not interested in reducing polarization. I’m interested in making pseudoscience and anti-science ideologues detested for the scum that they are. I am a polarizer, if anything, and purposefully so. When people don’t respond to data, or reason, and they put everyone else at risk as a result of that behavior (HIV/AIDS denial, vaccine denial, global warming denial) the appropriate response is to shame them.

Mark is certainly not a skeptic, and not a scientist. He is an activist. And an idiot.

Even if "global warming denial" were the same thing as HIV/AIDS denial (which is a real problem): It would be good to study the problem rationally, find out what the problems are, what the causes are, and how those "conspiracy nuts" respond positevly to arguments – you know, "do a science" – instead of piling on the idiotic hit-pieces that are passed of as supposed science by the idiot activist Lewandowsky.

No-Regrets Options

Willis Eschenbach rocks:

… These days this same concept is called the “no-regrets option”, a much clearer term but not a rule of thumb. Applied to the vexing CO2 madness, a “no-regrets option” is an action we won’t regret, whether or not CO2 is the secret knob controlling global temperature. I’m convinced CO2 is not, but others disagree. A no-regrets option is one that is of value no matter which side is right. …