mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Clean Power Plan
Why a SCOTUS Decision Imperils the Paris Climate Deal

The Supreme Court made a surprising decision on Tuesday, voting 5-4 to suspend President Obama’s signature emissions reduction policy—the Clean Power Plan—until its fate is decided in district (and likely the Supreme) court. Under this set of regulations, the EPA requires states to cut enough carbon emissions from power plants to reduce by 30 percent the national average amount of emissions per megawatt hour generated in 2030 as compared to 2005 levels. Immediately after the EPA finalized this plan last June, states began fighting back against it in court (27 states in total have filed lawsuits), bucking what they perceived as a federal overreach.

The DC district court is hearing these challenges and oral arguments are scheduled for the beginning of June. But the Supreme Court stepped in this week to say the EPA can’t enforce these regulations until their fate has been decided in court. This is a huge blow to what was supposed to be one of the President’s signature policies meant to combat climate change, but it has broader implications than just Obama’s green legacy. It could also imperil the UN climate agreement signed in Paris this past December, as Reuters reports:

The Paris accord requires countries to set and meet their own national targets to reduce carbon emissions, and the United States presented the Clean Power Plan as a major step to shrink power plant emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels over the next 15 years [. . .]

Outgoing French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who was praised for his smooth chairmanship that brought about a deal in Paris, was quoted by French government officials saying the Supreme Court’s move was “not good news.”

President Obama knows he can’t rely on legislation to craft climate change policy—that dream died in the summer of 2010—and he has attempted to circumvent the resistant Republican-controlled Congress by piggybacking on the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 as part of the Clean Air Act. This is Obama’s only play, and was the only way he could demonstrate to the Paris delegates that the U.S. was committed to cutting emissions. But its major flaw—that these regulations are subject to legal challenges—has been exposed by the Supreme Court this week.

The White House has already come out reassuring the world that the U.S. can still reduce emissions through other policy tools, chief among them a long-term tax credit extension recently given to renewable energy producers. In an attempt to downplay the severity of the court’s decision, White House spokesperson Charles Schultz said that “[the] inclusion of those tax credits is going to have more impact over the short term than the Clean Power Plan.”

However, realistically, America’s climate commitments look awfully meager without the Clean Power Plan, and the developing world (and the rest of the developed world, for that matter) has to be watching what’s happening to this regulation with great concern. The Paris agreement was already a watered-down compromise, and the fact that the United States is now stumbling in its attempt to meet the climate commitments it made is a bad omen.

Moreover, if the Clean Power Plan ends up a bust, the U.S. won’t face any international consequences for its failure to keep its emissions reduction promises. It took all of a month and a half to see why the Paris deal’s lack of an enforcement mechanism is so problematic.

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jim__L

    “This is Obama’s only play, and was the only way he could demonstrate to
    the Paris delegates that the U.S. was committed to cutting emissions.
    But its major flaw—that these regulations are subject to legal
    challenges—has been exposed by the Supreme Court this week.”

    No. One major flaw is that it is a blatant, un-Constitutional power grab by the Federal Executive. There are others that have been discussed in detail elsewhere.

    • CB

      “One major flaw is that it is a blatant, un-Constitutional power grab by the Federal Executive.”

      I think the major flaw in Republican “logic” of all kinds is that it’s not actually based in reality.

      Can you pinpoint the part of the US Constitution that says the president cannot regulate the emissions that are crashing the climate we depend on for survival?

      “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

  • Andrew Allison

    Just why is it surprising that the Supreme Court stayed blatantly unconstitutional executive over-reach. Isn’t that, in part, its job?

    • Jim__L

      Keep up the good fight, AA. Keep stating the obvious until it sinks in that it really is what we expect from our government.

    • Evan Jones

      Yes. But it is a surprise, nonetheless. (A welcome one.)

      • Evan Jones II

        No surprise from the Willard Denial Sing a long.

  • Fat_Man

    What deal? There was no deal. Nothing was submitted to Congress (either house). The United States was not bound in any way. As for the other nations, almost none of which have any intention of meeting the goals that were established at Paris, if they don’t know enough about the American system to understand the limits on the President’s power, it is very strictly their problem. %&^#@$ them.

  • Boritz

    “but it has broader implications than just Obama’s green legacy. ”

    Yeah. Power can remain affordable for a while longer. But you were concerned about the UN.

  • FriendlyGoat

    The five justices from one gender, one party and one church ride together again.

    • Fat_Man

      Unlike the ill assorted guard of liberal robots.

    • JR

      So SCOTUS is only a valid institution when it OK’s the power grab by the Democrat-controlled executive branch? Gotcha…..

      • Evan Jones

        As always, where one stands depends on where one sits. That’s fine for politics. But it makes a poor player for any sort of scientific enquiry.

        • Evan Jones II

          And this is WHERE you sit….pile high and deep in poo poo

          The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a group best known for filing lawsuits seeking climate scientists’ personal emails, has secretly received funding from Arch Coal, one of the largest coal producers in the United States. The funding is revealed in documents recently filed as part of the Arch Coal bankruptcy proceedings which list the coal company’s creditors – See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/02/13049/bankruptcy-documents-indicate-arch-coal-funding-climate-denial-legal-group#sthash.OYwyisTL.dpuf

          “The volume and frequency of the requests from EELI are designed to antagonize leading climate scientists, wasting their time in drawn out and frustrating lawsuits. They frankly have better things to do, and that’s obviously the point of E&E Legal’s campaign” Brendan DeMelle of DeSmogBlog, which tracks and reports on climate change denial groups told CMD by email

          Chris Horner, E&E Legal Senior Legal Fellow, is the group’s lead on its work seeking scientists emails. In 2014, Horner received $110,000 from a group closely tied to E&E Legal, the Free Market Law Clinic, according to the most recently available tax filings for that organization. David Schnare, General Counsel at E&E Legal, is also the Director at the Free Market Law Clinic.

          The bankruptcy filings for Alpha Natural Resources, revealed by The Intercept, showed direct support from that coal company to Chris Horner personally, as well as to the Free Market Law Clinic.

          And you claim no association?
          Miser I LOVE BLESSED COAL himself!
          Come on Evvie…watt you don’t think we can’t connect the dots!
          I’ll tell you one thing, you have the perfect pets…rat fink

          • Evan Jones

            No association, whatever.

            I avoid the politics. I am interested in the science. I couldn’t care less about E&E. I do my own sums using NOAA USHCN2 data (with co-author Dr. Nielsen-Gammon checking and doing his own independent calcs).

            Try doing your own sums, sometime. As Mosh likes to put it, “The data is out there. Go get it.” You may be surprised at the results.

          • Evan Jones II

            It’s all there PUBLISHED in legal court documents for ALL to see…no theory, just the facts!
            I remember very correctly YOU held the flag DEMANDING such harrassment . No need to connect the dots as far as YOU are concerned…you did it yourself. As I wrote you outright lie and misinform…shame.

          • Evan Jones

            Hmm. But what has that go to do with me and my utter lack of funding?

            Government agencies are strictly accountable. Especially by those whose specific job it is to account for it. Private individuals are not. It’s as easy as that.

            If you operate in the open, your work can be examined and evaluated. If you do not, your work is simply to be ignored. That’s scientific method.

          • Evan Jones II

            Hmmmmmm……watt does it have to to with “me”?
            Hmmmmmm…..Let’s reason it out to a reasonable conclusion .
            Hmmmmmm……This ain’t NO government agency….read the it

          • Evan Jones II

            First, I do remember when you foolishly posted your password to your email account and expected all climate scientists to do the same because of your claim of nothing to hide.
            Sorry, but I was not interested at all to hack you, nothing to gain and afraid that it was a setup of some sort.
            As far as your claim of lack of funding….sorry it does not hold…SOMEONE is being funded!
            Looks like Willard Watt is holding out on you….remember, Evan, the squeakie wheel gets the oil! If I were you I would summit your record of hours you have meticulously kept to Willard and demand at least minimum wage payment. After all, you need to pay for shoes!

          • Evan Jones II

            Really? No submission date, no review dates, no acceptance date; all of which are common in peer-review.
            BTW: FCPP and Heartland are rather cozy
            FCK you

          • Evan Jones

            I already have a pet. Excel. It is my second brain, But I find it insinuating itself in my first.

            Sometimes it is bad. Very bad. Sometimes it tempts you. Sometimes it lies to you. But when it is good, it is very, very good. And it is the nearest thing to a universal language suitable (if barely) for the task.

            It gives a person of average intelligence a massive flexible output that, when I was born, would have required a large team of mathemeticians to accomplish.

          • Evan Jones II

            Garbage in/Garbage out….and you produced a heap of it!

    • Jim__L

      So are you saying that diversity is fine with un-Constitutional power grabs?

      • FriendlyGoat

        What I am saying is exactly what I said. The five justices from one gender, one party and one church have together and exclusively made another bad decision—–adding to their long string of them during the past nine years.
        Curiously, the head of the Catholic Church to which they belong would probably like to kick their butts for throwing sand into the gears of what little world cooperation exists on slowing man-made climate change.

        • Jim__L

          So if the leader of their religion is actually against what they have to say, wouldn’t that be evidence that the comparisons you’re drawing are spurious?

          And once again, I’m very pleased that you didn’t bring race into it, as identity on that basis is another spurious comparison. But again — wouldn’t that be evidence that comparisons on the basis of identity are not a useful way to think?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I just learned two hours ago that we no longer have five justices from one gender, one party and one church since Antonin Scalia has passed away. So I won’t be talking about this any more.

            For SCOTUS talk we can move onto various senators’ sudden conviction that they will not permit Barack Obama to make this appointment. I have a feeling that will be a dandy campaign issue for the Democrats. We are suddenly going to talk ALL YEAR about how Republicans want to be sure that people are given another corporate bot for every important issue.

          • Jim__L

            FG, your obsession with identity politics makes your posts sub-rational. I’m glad you’re going to drop it.

            As for letting Obama select another justice — confirming a President’s nominee, or not, is a Senate prerogative. I am looking forward to the Legislative branch reclaiming some of its power to check and balance the Executive in this country. I think that you should consider the Legislative reasserting itself in light of a possible President Trump.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I cannot predict the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, but I know the passing of Scalia is going to improve the debate and focus the stakes for voters in a way we could not have expected just 48 hours ago. One reason why is that this issue will be in the press enough to get the attention of nearly everyone. It’s really hard for me to imagine GOP stonewalling on this appointment actually helping the GOP in November.

            As for the five SCOTUS members from one gender, one party and one church, the only reason I eve talked about it so much was the hope of shaming them into splitting their votes for the sake of appearances. I think that might have already happened in the two ACA cases, but obviously not in a lot of other bad ones. In any event, it’s over.

          • Jim__L

            So you want the “one gender one party one church one race” to make their judgements to be as sub-rational as yours are?

            What about the judgements of the non-Catholic, non-male, non-GOP, non-white members of the court? If anyone could use some shame about sub-rational identity politics, they certainly could. (Oh wait! One already is! Perhaps that’s because Conservatives actually have some sense of shame.)

            I think that most Americans can agree that many decisions handed down by the recent Supreme Court have been appalling. We’ll see which side of the divide those voters fall on. I think you might be surprised by who turns out.

          • FriendlyGoat

            What’s with the “one race” stuff? I have never mentioned any such thing, you know.

          • Jim__L

            You’re deep, deep in the weeds of Identity Politics, which is keeping you from being in the least rational. I was trying to shame you into realizing how irrational identity politics is by pointing out that the biggest humbug in identity politics, race, doesn’t apply in this case.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Sorry to disappoint you by actually noticing when I’m being hoodooed. You tried to bait me with this twice in this thread, as though I would not just think you either desperate or disingenuous for the effort. Oops.

          • Jim__L

            Ever considered a third possibility — that I genuinely believe the incredibly superficial identity politics you seem to be pushing have no more degree of rationality to them than a conspiracy theory, and that I am truly mystified (and a bit embarrassed for you) that you seem to be unwilling to examine them more deeply?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Nope.

          • Jim__L

            Please consider that possibility.

            (It’s the correct option among the three you have in front of you.)

  • lhfry

    The White House will basically ignore the stay. They issued a press release stating that the EPA will continue to work with states that have already started implementing the clean power plan and wish to continue. It worked on the immigration law stay, so why should they not move ahead as they wish? Who will stop them?

  • Frank Natoli

    TAI editors worship in the Church of Environmental Extremism, determined to clobber Americans dependent on fuel oil [just paid $1.55/gallon versus close to $4/gallon two years ago] to heat their homes in winter. Going down to -5F tomorrow night. Comfortable in your upper West Side co-ops? To Hell with everyone else? How positively considerate of you!

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “Global Warming” is BS, it will be a great day when the fraudsters that are promoting this lie, all go to jail as they justly deserve.

    • Evan Jones

      Ooooh, you mustn’t say that.

      Today we jail them? Tomorrow they jail us.

      Speaking as a profound skeptic (of the lukewarmer variety) with several thousands of hours of peer-review level work on the subject of surface stations, how about both sides get to say, think, and publish what they want on the subject without jail being a factor?

      We used to call that one “liberalism”.

      • Ali_Bertarian

        This is off-topic, but “curious minds want to know.” Do you know of a reliable source for temperature versus CO2 graphs, or any that you trust? Alarmists question the one at http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

        • Evan Jones

          That would be based on Scotese (2002). Here are a bunch of paleo reconstructions, some of which include CO2.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

          Note that margins of error going that far back have a pretty large MoE.

          More recently (since 1997), CO2 has risen sharply with no net warming, but one needs to consider that we have entered a natural cooling phase but the trend is relatively flat, not cooling.

          Raw forcing from CO2 is ~1.1C per doubling (a sharply diminishing return). Overall, we appear to be warming at that rate.

          The CMIP models, however, project ~3C warming per century, and have sharply diverged from all metrics (even the warmy Karl et al., 2015, stuff). The error appears to be that the models have blown it on net positive feedback (primarily from water vapor), which was supposed to triple warming. But no net feedback is present in the observational record.

          Even the official observational record has issues. Adjustment of the land (sic) surface record, while necessary, appears fatally flawed, owing to poor station siting and equipment issues. Land surface warming from at last 1979 appears to be highballed by ~75%. This translates to perhaps a 20% spurious bump in overall AGW (sea suraces included).

          Prior to that, there is a ~25% Tmean LST warming exaggeration from the CRS (Stevenson Screen) equipment, and further uncertainties (both warming and cooling) are present because of lack of metadata.

          Yet we do appear to be experiencing some AGW. Just not as much as feared, and — so far — there have been very large net benefits, both environmental and in terms of human endeavor. But that is only so far, although I ultimately expect things to top out under 2C warmer than present.

          But AGW is not a hoax, and from what I can tell, the flawed adjustments are not intentional (although wrong). CO2 is a GHG and we have increased it by ~40%. This has produced some modest warming (~0.7C since 1950). That is not much. But it is not nothing, either.

          This is a science still in its infancy. Proceed with caution.

          • Evan Jones II

            See ya earning some Quid on the side regarding the Climate deal….hired rat by the Koch Grid to troll on the web as Dr. Spin and Twist the data. Why not debate Jack Dale?…he slapped you around silly.

          • Evan Jones

            I am not paid one cent for any of this. Why do you keep insisting that I am? And I already debated Jack Dale and answered every one of his points. (We are not in total disagreement, although we are clearly on different sides in this.)

            But what has slapped him (and you) around so badly you can’t even see straight is . . . the observational data, itself.

          • Evan Jones II

            Keep on ignoring new peer reviewed published research that conflicts with your belief little Evvie….so sad…adnd just because you say you don’t, doesn’t make it so. No one in their right mind would devote their time to such without Quid…especially in one of the MOST expensive cities in the world. Unless you are a kept boy….!

          • Evan Jones

            The consensus of the recent peer-review literature is that the IPCC got its projections too high.

            K-15 is cruising for a bruising. If I pulled what they pulled, they’d stake me out on an anthill. (And I am talking about my co-authors, not my opponents.)

            No one in their right mind would devote their time to such without Quid…especially in one of the MOST expensive cities in the world.

            Whoever said I was in my right mind? But it beats video games. (When I finish this, I’ll play a few again.)

            Unless you are a kept boy….!

            Not even a little. I have a day job that keeps me in feed and a very cheap sweat-equity apartment (for NYC) that I have lived in for ~40 years.

          • Icarus62

            The consensus of the recent peer-review literature is that the IPCC got its projections too high.

            The earliest IPCC report gave projections for a range of forcing scenarios and a range of values for climate sensitivity (which is reasonable, as climate sensitivity was uncertain at the time). Subsequent study has yielded widespread agreement that climate sensitivity for 2 x CO2 is around 3C. If we look at projections where the forcing scenario closely matches subsequent real world forcings, and the climate sensitivity is around 3C, then the projections of global temperature very closely match observations. That means the IPCC projections have actually been very accurate.

          • Evan Jones

            Current GISTEMP is — horribly — adjusted. Worst of a bad lot. To be ignored. (They don’t even start with raw data.) I can go into the details if you’d like. In any case, since 1950, the trend is under 1.5 even for the pausebuster data. Projections are twice that, and wholly unprecedented.

          • Evan Jones II

            Temperature anomalies March 1 are forecast to remain as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average over parts of the Arctic Ocean

          • Evan Jones

            Perhaps. The current El Nino is at max effect at this point (that occurs when it is fading). But it also looks as if we are in for one heck of a La Nino this Fall. That also will be a blip (a cooling one) and has little to do with longterm trends.

          • Evan Jones II

            Perhaps you should like those that have paid their dues and proven themselves in the scientific community be the judge. We have enough of blow hards on the web already..
            Yes I am pointing my finger at you.

          • Evan Jones

            Perhaps our team (which includes an IPCC AR3 lead author and a former chairman of the American State Association of Climatology) should submit our findings for peer-review. And let the chips fall where they may.

            Besides, as a co-author of Fall et al., I am already a participant in the scientific climate community. Dues paid with interest.

          • Evan Jones II

            Watt is WRONG with YOU? Do you understand this rock head? The IPCC is setup NOT to be accurate! It is a watered down summation and as I have a
            alteady pointed put many times can not be used as a standard bearer in any way, shape or form. Got it? Obviously so, because you keep bring it up.
            All the IPCC preforms is a policy quide….which, by the way has been masterly ignored due to the Fossil Industry.
            Oh, Jack Dale already stuffed you and your team about so called partcipation… Stop playing with yourself!

          • Evan Jones

            The IPCC is setup NOT to be accurate! It is a watered down summation and
            as I have already pointed out many times can not be used as a standard
            bearer in any way, shape or form. Got it?

            You can say that again.

            Oh, Jack Dale already stuffed you and your team about so called partcipation… Stop playing with yourself!

            Not following you, here. I am not at all in disagreement with some of his points. But he has stuffed nothing, and I have addressed everything he has adduced.

            The mainstream is not out-and-out wrong. But there are two factors (CRS and microsite) which need to be included in the equation, and currently they are not.

          • Evan Jones II

            That is your problem, I have, and you are being paid not to listen, OY!

          • Evan Jones

            You keep insisting that I am being paid for this. Who is paying me? Do you have one scintilla of evidence?

          • Evan Jones II

            You are not that important for evidence….we have circumstantial evidence, that is enough.

          • Evan Jones II

            But you claim otherwise, doing your twist and spin routine

          • Evan Jones

            I like to think of it as untwisting and unspinning.

          • Evan Jones II

            Just another display of cognitive dissonance, your way of dealing with unpleasant harsh reality.

          • Evan Jones

            If we are wrong, our team will not survive peer and independent review. And it will be harsh. If we are right, it will. It’s as easy as that.

          • Evan Jones II

            Easy? Is that watt you think? Sorry, Charlie, Physics and Chemistry care not about peer review, nor independent review….

          • Evan Jones

            Like the physics of heat exchange? #B^)

          • Evan Jones II
          • Evan Jones II

            Really? No submission date, no review dates, no acceptance date; all of which are common in peer-review.
            BTW: FCPP and Heartland are rather cozy

          • Evan Jones

            I’ll go where I like, you go where you like.

            We have been going through a de facto independent review process since 2012. A number of issues which would have tripped us up during peer review arose, and we have dealt with them.

            When we are ready, we will submit. Not until then.

          • Evan Jones II

            So, in another words, what I posted is true, de facto…LOL

          • Evan Jones

            In further words, what you posted is false, baseless, and nonsensical.

          • Evan Jones II

            LOL, hit a nerve by exposing another truth…how revealing your reaction

          • Evan Jones

            My reactions are always revealing. (As are your actions.)

          • Evan Jones II

            Too bad you don’t learn from either of them at all. There is a word for it…

          • Icarus62

            Which projections? The projections for forcing scenarios which match real world forcings? Or projections for forcing scenarios which haven’t happened?

          • Evan Jones

            The ones since 1990 and the ones that haven’t happened yet.

            The past is horribly calculated, too, as they flatly incorrectly attribute the 1950s – 1970s pause to aerosols rather than to negative PDO.

            Aerosols are used as a fudge-factor to match up the graphs. The CMIP models do not account for PDO flux at all, and it is a huge and ever-present factor. Sort of like simulating World War II — without tanks.

            But CMIP35 blew it most badly on vapor feedback. That was supposed to triple raw CO2 forcing. They got the water uptake part right. But much of that went not into ambient vapor, but into an increase of low-level clouds, a counteracting negative feedback. That is why they have been consistently off by a factor of 2 to 3 since future projections began back in 1990.

            The Lewis-Curry (2015) model appears far more plausible (+1.3 TCR, +1.5 ECS). Even Otto et al. disputes CMIP, and that is co-authored by IPCC lead authors.

          • Icarus62

            I’m not sure what argument you’re trying to make here. The IPCC didn’t make predictions, they made projections of global temperature for different forcing scenarios, and where the forcing scenario matches subsequent real world forcing values, the projections also match real world temperature values. That means the projections were successful and accurate.

            You do understand this, yes?

          • Evan Jones

            IPCC calls them projections but treats them like predictions. And the press treats them like holy writ.

            But they do not match real world values. They just don’t. They are neither successful nor accurate. They misuse aerosols as a fudge-factor to match the past and misuse vapor feedback to wildly overestimate future warming.

            What makes you think that trends from 1950 (when CO2 abruptly “took off”) will suddenly read up on their hind legs and triple? There is simply no real indication that they will.

          • Evan Jones

            the projections also match real world temperature values. That means the projections were successful and accurate.

            Not necessarily. They have to do so for the correct reasons. The correct reasons involve PDO (not accounted for by projections), not aerosols.

            And every IPCC projection from 1990 is badly off the beam. Very badly.

            As a historical game designer, I am a old (and dab) hand at that sort of modeling. Both its strengths and its weaknesses. I am not opposed to climate modeling. I like some of the peer-reviewed models since IPCC AR5.

            But it is important to get the inputs right. And it is also important to do it top-own (which IPCC does not).

          • Evan Jones II

            Hmmmmm
            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/guest-post-skeptics-demand-adjustments/

            Still I am sure we will see many more blog posts and similar quality newspaper articles on a few stations being adjusted upwards and being a clear sign of a conspiracy against humanity. There is nothing to stop people who do not care about their intellectual reputation

            Post by Dr V….in the comment section

            I suppose he means you!
            And when the adjustments are made by hand like that, they will complain that that is subjective and that the person doing this wants to create a global warming scare.

            Like mitigation sceptics claiming that most of the temperature increase since 1900 is natural variability, but that the minor deviation in the last decade cannot be natural variability and thus shows the models wrong.

            Like mitigation sceptics continually complaining about the quality of climate observations, but when there is a difference between observations and models, the models are wrong.

            There is nothing scientists can do to pacify these people. We should just do our work as well as we can and in our work ignore

          • Evan Jones II

            The IPPC no doubt will take notice of these new facts and it will be no doubt water downed to a level of consensus so you can write it was inaccurate and so it proves you are in the so called “right”. OY, what a joke.

          • Evan Jones

            Possibly so, actually. IPCC AR5 is already one heck of a backtrack from AR4 — 0.5C less sensitivity, 0.5C lower low-end projection, and giving “extreme weather” meme the big heave-ho.

            IPCC and I for the first time have a meeting of the minds: Their low projection is now my high-end projection.

            AGW is no hoax. It’s just that the IPCC got the actual amounts going forward wrong. Badly wrong.

          • Evan Jones II

            Evvie, the CEO of Exxon Mobile has a say on the IPCC input, watt do you expect?
            OY, change you undies while you are at it!

          • Evan Jones II

            Time to grow up and move out from Mama.

          • Evan Jones

            That was in 1978.

          • Evan Jones II

            Than why does she shop for your groceries and do your laundry?

          • Evan Jones

            She would have to be pretty sharp. She passed away thirty years ago.

          • Evan Jones II

            Sorry to hear….I used the word not literally?..but that’s how you are…dense and concrete,
            Hey, give your Sistera day off occasionally.

          • Evan Jones

            You seem dedicated to the proposition that it is impossible to do peer-review level science without being supported or paid by anyone.

            Actually, it’s easy.

            Just add elbow-grease.

            I suggest you think again.

          • Evan Jones II

            Not really, you act like it already has occurred..which it has not…and BTW, even if does not mean it is of value to the overall picture.

          • Evan Jones

            New? That SL stuff was old hat ten years ago.

          • Evan Jones II

            You mean that’s how long it’s been for a closed case for AGW and the urgent need to address greenhouse gas emissions. Get lost troll.

          • Evan Jones II

            Deny this
            https://www.yahoo.com/news/seas-rising-way-faster-time-past-2-800-200200182.html
            But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 5.5 inches (14 centimeters). Since 1993 the rate has soared to a foot per century (30 centimeters). And two different studies published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said by 2100 that the world’s oceans will rise between 11 to 52 inches (28 to 131 centimeters), depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

            “There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest,” said Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study that looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia. “It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use

            There you are fella….some data in your face!

          • Ali_Bertarian

            You guys have cried wolf too many times to be believed.

            “Many scientists are so sure that the sea level will rise visibly in the coming decades that they are advising planners to adopt new strategies now.

            “A predicted rise in the sea level of one foot within the next 30 to 40 years will drive much of the Atlantic and Gulf shoreline inward by 100 feet and some of it by more than 1,000 feet, according to marine geologists. The environmental and economic consequences will be felt much farther inland.” — Chicago Tribune, March 16, 1986

          • Evan Jones II

            No crying just direct PROOf of real data….something you can’t deal with obviously…
            Yep, as time goes by the lukewarmers just melt away with new research and data.

          • Ali_Bertarian

            “But AGW is not a hoax”

            How much of positive and negative flux of CO2 (e.g. outgassing from oceans, absorption into oceans are each obviously much greater absolute values than their net effect when combined) can be accurately attributed to humans? It is alleged by some to be very small relatively.

            The Data

            Here is the actual land temperature data, from GHCN at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/global-maps/201413?products%5B%5D=map-land-sfc-mntp

            All of the gray area is estimated data. Should we trust any drug approved by the FDA based greatly upon estimated effects of that drug on humans?

            The Models

            Anyone can hindcast using a Fourier transform to come up with a nice model. How well does the actual physics explain the declining global temperatures from 1940 to 1980, despite rising CO2?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5f602a2e69df58bf45a3d5aceaadcf5361bde8e730747385df363bab4d7594fd.gif

          • Evan Jones

            1.) About 100 ppm CO2 outgasses from the ocean during interglacials. That is dwarfed by Milankovitch cycle warming, which is >10C. The added CO2 adds a little bit (maybe ~1C), via knock-on effect and slows the descent into the next glacial by a bit. All that is a natural effect, of course. So CO2 is not without some effect, but it is a modest thumb under the scale, not a main driver.

            2.) GHCN is pretty terrible. Coverage is lousy, and microsite is ignored. And, to make matters worse, much of the metadata is missing (data without metadata can be worse than worthless).

            I am trying to redeem the USHCN from 1979, but much of the siting is known and the metada is excellent. But the GHCN, not so much.

            For global coverage, one must use sat data (UAH or RSS), and even that is not perfect. The trends are very good, but the annual surface variations are greater than LT as measured by sats, owing to ground feedback (which dovetails with the siting issue).

            For GHCN to improve even to minimal acceptability, homogenization needs to be re-addressed and microsite taken into consideration.

          • Icarus62

            There is no current ‘pause’.

          • Evan Jones

            Sure there is. It has merely been “adjusted” away. Spuriously.

            It is glaringly present in the pre K-15 data and, of course, in both sat datasets as well as the radiosondes.

            And don’t get me started on the ocean data. Surface is bad enough.

          • Evan Jones II

            Temperature anomalies March 1 are forecast to remain as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average over parts of the Arctic Ocean
            Oh my!

          • Icarus62

            Radiosonde data shows no decline in warming.

          • Evan Jones
          • Icarus62

            If there was any kind of significant slowdown in warming, other than the usual natural/stochastic variability, we would see it reflected in the 30-year trends. We can look at RSS as that seems to be the favoured dataset for those claiming a ‘pause’ in the warming, and there’s no evidence for any slowdown in warming at all – i.e. the most recent 30-year trend is exactly the same as the trend for the full dataset:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1bcc72d06a469c7bc7543dbb4570b496a8420abb4754a71c47594f3e8538306.png

          • Evan Jones
          • Icarus62

            The point is that there is no ‘pause’ – there is just the normal natural variability around the continuing warming trend. If there was a real ‘pause’ then the 30-year trend would be flat, like it was mid-20th Century. Today there is no significant difference between the first 30-year trend in RSS and the last 30-year trend, i.e. no indication that global warming is slowing down. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/576c50463a8b25f1182cc55d5ada7ffe7c3f61522a087477b057726c9ff34a86.png

          • Evan Jones

            Look at that graph again.

            Using linear trends, there is a distinct pause from 1997. Skipping over the 1998 – 2000 El Nino/La Nina whipsaw, it is also flat-to-cooling from 2001. That is a 15+ year pause.

            Warming forcing continues, of course. AGW has not stopped. But it is battling a natural cooling phase, just as it was riding a natural warming phase from 1976 to 2000.

            The bottom line has been double-warming from 1976 to 1997 (or 2001), natural warming plus CO2 warming, and a flat trend since then, natural cooling plus CO2 warming. In order to obtain the correct warming signal, one must average the two.

            Since 1950, that average is ~1.1C warming per century. That is not nothing, but neither does it correlate with the CMIP models going forward. The great majority of models since then show less projected warming than the IPCC CMIP models.

          • Soosoos

            “Using linear trends, there is a distinct pause from 1997. “

            No, there isn’t.

            There is no statistical justification for claiming that there is a pause. Breakpoint analysis does not find anything.

          • Evan Jones

            No, there isn’t.

            Is, too.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend

            BEST’s breakpoints do not account for either microsite or CRS-bias. Those do not produce breaks, they are gradual trend factors and thus not accounted for by BEST.

            When they are factored in, the pause persists. Bear in mind, of course, that the pause does not mean AGW has stopped. It means that AGW is currently counteracted by negative PDO. We will continue to see 30-year phases of flat and double-warming trends, just as we have since 1950.

          • Evan Jones II

            Now find a way out of this data Evan
            Increased CO2 is harmful to our food crops which evolved and were domesticated in an atmosphere that never exceeded 300 ppm in the past 800,000 years.
            Increased CO2 in open environments leads to
            1) Increased predation by pests
            doi: 10.1073/pnas.0800568105
            2) Compromised nutritional value in food crops
            doi:10.1038/nature13179

          • Icarus62

            Also, if the surface data is so bad, then how is it the multiple independent analyses get essentially the same result?

          • Evan Jones

            Because they use the same flawed methods for adjustment and the same dataset. (To wit, the busted K-15 pausebuster applied to all mainstream surface metrics. And the homogenization, aka. the H-bomb.)

            Adjustments are necessary, but they need to be done right.

            Our team’s efforts are a step in that direction.

          • Evan Jones II

            Adjust this
            Temperature anomalies March 1 are forecast to remain as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average over parts of the Arctic Ocean

          • Icarus62

            Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.

            http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

          • Evan Jones

            Points. First, I trust Mosh implicitly. His methods are explicit, and best of all, open.

            1.) UHI. Agreed. Urban heating may have a definite offset, but appears to have little net effect on trend. Particularly for the well sited stations.

            2.) Data selection. Agreed as far as I know.

            Note: I have the luxurious oversampled, data-metadata-rich USHCN2 to play with. But Mosh and Zeke stuck with the 90%-abysmal GHCN. So he has to infer much of that which I take for granted. To degrade BEST would be to commit the sins of the Pharisees. My take is that two corrections could make BEST state-of-the-art. (Dratted, bastard art that it is. And must be.) The VeeV has his chance to be the hero, here, too, if he would only take it.

            3.) Poor station quality. Partially disagree. The original CRS is of faulty design and exaggerates Tmax trend by ~50% — both warming and cooling.

            This is not accounted for by either BEST nor any of the major metrics, and it needs to be.

            4.) Data adjustment. Agreed. Raw data will not do.

            There is more than one way to approach the problem.

            BEST looks for pairwise inhomogeneities and adjusts them. They have no other choice, given the holes in the GHCN metadata.

            We, on the other hand, can, as did Hubbard & Lin (2006), lean on the metadata. And the NCDC metadata has improved immeasurably since then. So we can simply drop the stations with recorded moves or TOBS flips. Then there is no need to adjust.

            Except for equipment. That cannot be avoided. MMTS and ASOS conversion calibration jumps must be accounted for. The inherent CRS Tmax bias must be accounted for. The former, on average, is a warming adjustment, and the latter is usually (not always) as cooling adjustment.

            For MMTS, we use an approach not dissimilar to Quayle (1993) or H&L-06. (There are, however, some differences.) Our results are just a little under Q-93.

            We can compute CRS bias by comparing CRN trend with UAH over the same period, noting the trend magnification difference, and applying that difference to UAH 79-08.

            Looks as if Klotzbach, 2009, was off. Surface trends appear to be ~13% higher than LT trends as far as I can tell. But, then again, the ground itself is a heat sink. Tmax averages four hours later than max insolation. That should make the answer pretty obvious.

            One can compare HCN and CRN in order to split the difference between Tmax or Tmin (as LT trends come in Tmean, only). It seems obvious to everybody that CRS Tmax was ‘way overblown (both warming and cooling), yet no one was making the world’s most obvious, easy-to-calculate adjustment.

            The Big Difference, though, is that we separate well sited stations (rural, suburban, urban, whatever) from poorly sited stations (using the Leroy, 2010, ratings for heat sink).

            Poorly sited stations warm (and cool), on average, ~75% faster for Tmean than well-sited stations. And since only ~22% of stations are well sited, homogenization identifies them as outliers and instead of applying a DOWNward adjustment to the poorly sited stations, they applied an UPward adjustment to the well sited stations. And there’s your #1 systematic error. That’s what happens when homogenization bombs. It’s a well known phenomenon. (Says so right there in fine print between the disclaimer and the skull-and-crossbones.)

            The VeeV is missing the microsite trick. He is homogenizing it away. But H is a hot tool, and if tweaked, it can, I think, be put back on track.

            Mosh says (and I quote), microsite is a good issue. He does not, of course, express any opinion on how the results will end up. In any case, both siting and CRS-bias are mere trend adjustments (he’s doing the jumps his own way), easy to apply, and do not interfere with the BEST core method.

            But, in any case, adjustments must, must, MUST be made. Half an hour’s gandering makes that one obvious. The problem is not that BEST, Haddy, and Wicked uncle GISS are making to many adjustments. The problem is that they are making too few. And they have to be done right.

          • Evan Jones II

            Yep, better start adjusting that melted Arctic sea ice too because of those non adjusted 20 degree ABOVE norm temperatures that translate into rapid sea level rise.
            Boy, Evvie YOU all Lukerwarmers have got a lot of adjusting to do…never mind explaining!
            But with the Loch Brothers money and pull that should be no problem…right little fella…kept boy…having you earn your Quid today, am I?
            LOL

          • Evan Jones

            Already done: DMI removed its 30% ice coverage plot. (15%+ NH ice overage is low. 30%+ NH ice coverage is at ‘way-record highs.)

            For that matter, USHCN has been discontinued, having recently shown much more cooling than CRN. Seems they like to ride it up, but are unwilling to ride it down. (Poor HCN microsite + homogenization exaggerate both cooling and warming.)

          • Evan Jones II

            Dr Spin and Twist still at the cherry picking, spewing his garbage. Boy, you just ignore the REAL data I just posted…..what a joke you are.

          • Evan Jones II

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.

            – Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).

            – Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).

            – The Arctic was ice free.

            – Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.

            – Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

            “The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level

          • Evan Jones

            But that’s the point, isn’t it? CO2 has been leeching out of the atmosphere for quite a stretch, to the detriment of life everywhere.

            With the 40% anthropogenic increase and mild warming, there has been a massive bounceback. Satellites record a ~15% increase in biomass since 1982 (the Great Greening). Large net benefit for both the ecology and human endeavor. So far.

            If the trends continue as they have been, we can expect well under 2C warming by the time things top out, thanks to the inherent diminishing return of CO2 effect combined with technological advance. Well within the envelope of net benefits.

            It is very unlikely that the bulk of electricity will be generated by fossil fuels a century down the road (though I doubt wind and solar will be the answer).

            We are looking good for coming out of all this with actual net benefit.

          • Evan Jones II

            The point is the climate is a vast system and is in a state of shock and awe by the burst of greenhouse gas we humans dumped in the past 150 years. If you actually read my post correctly, a change of 10 ppm in a thousand years of CO2 is the norm.
            You, however, know nothing of climate dynamics and want instant results….there is a lag factor, as the real climate scientists keep pointing out…which you simply ignore and criticize. That is what gets my goat, a complete uneducated person, like yourself, is doing great harm and disservice to the public at large and is simply unaware in an effort to play science and make a name for themselves in a field in which they are unsuited

          • Evan Jones II

            Sure, Evan…put that in your little paper too…LOL

          • Evan Jones

            Speaking of current literature, from GRL:

            Unreliable climate simulations overestimate attributable risk of extreme weather and climate events

            Abstract

            Event attribution aims to estimate the role of an external driver after the occurrence of an extreme weather and climate event by comparing the probability that the event occurs in two counterfactual worlds. These probabilities are typically computed using ensembles of climate
            simulations whose simulated probabilities are known to be imperfect. The implications of using imperfect models in this context are largely unknown, limited by the number of observed extreme events in the past to conduct a robust evaluation. Using an idealized framework, this model limitation is studied by generating large number of simulations with variable reliability in simulated probability. The framework illustrates that unreliable climate simulations are prone to overestimate the attributable risk to climate change. Climate model ensembles tend to be overconfident in their representation of the climate variability which leads to systematic increase in the attributable risk to an extreme event. Our results suggest that event attribution approaches comprising of a single climate model would benefit from ensemble calibration in order to account for model inadequacies similarly as operational forecasting systems.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL067189/abstract?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=48b659ab46-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-48b659ab46-303449629

          • Evan Jones II

            Evan…can you lend me the $6.00 to rent the article? I’m like you an unpaid volunteer devoting my time to this issue, so I can’t determine the details….but of course, that is unimportant to yourself, you already gave it a thumbs up!
            LOL

          • Evan Jones II

            Evan, you always like the cost/benefit analysis. Well, lo and behold our neighbors up in Canada have determined it for extreme weather events…
            Was that factored in your recent paper?
            http://m.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/report-on-natural-disasters-linked-to-climate-change-affirmation-of-research-ibc-says/1004045758/
            A recent report on the financial cost to the federal government of natural disasters, linked to climate change, is “an affirmation of our research at Insurance Bureau of Canada,” said the IBC’s vice president of federal affairs, Craig Stewart, on Thursday.

            Canada is the only G7 country without a national flood program

            Also on Thursday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) released a report estimating that the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA) program can expect claims of $229 million per year due to hurricanes, convective storms and winter storms and $673 million for floods, for a total of $902 million, between the years of 2016/17 to 2021/22.

            “This report is an affirmation of our research at Insurance Bureau of Canada, which shows that climate change is a real and present danger costing government – and Canadians – hundreds of millions of dollars every year,” Stewart said in a statement on Thursday. “Extreme weather events driven by climate change have increased in frequency and severity. Canada is not prepared for the increase in damage caused by climate change and primarily flood. As the only G7 country without a national flood program, Canadians, our governments and the insurance industry are dangerously exposed to severe weather risks

            Suppose it was just exaggerated..LOL

          • Evan Jones

            Evan, you always like the cost/benefit analysis. Well, lo and behold our
            neighbors up in Canada have determined it for extreme weather events…
            Was that factored in your recent paper?

            Even the IPCC has tossed the “extreme weather” meme over the side. All wind and water events (including droughts) are trendless since they have been keeping records.

            Loss of life from extreme events has plummeted by 99% since 1900.

            You really need to keep up. You also need to realize that nothing makes an underwriter more overjoyed (or well heeled) than a perceived threat that has no basis in reality.

          • Evan Jones II

            We are not talking about the IPCC…are we? Dr. Twist strikes again!

          • Evan Jones

            My old friends. They homogenized, but failed to account for two systematic biases. Microsite and CRS. (Not to mention K-15.) I can go into it in more detail if you like.

            (You know, I am beginning to think the original version of HadCRUT may have the last laugh, after all. Even if for the wrong reasons.)

          • Evan Jones II

            Best get on it and publish the toilet paper your pals have been toying with for all these years!. Still working out the details? You “think”? Naaah, more like you just reading the script given you by the Koch Brothers

          • Evan Jones

            Patience. We must account for equipment jumps. That’s only just completed and not fully checked. (At this point, it’s about five papers in one, but we have to do what we have to do.)

          • Evan Jones II

            Patience????What a friggin ugly joke you’ve become…Boy, that is really going clog the sewer pipe.
            P.S. Like you are trying to impress me with five papers in one. LOL. Sure you have to do it, after all the Koch Brothers paid you to do it.

          • Evan Jones

            The ones I want to impress are those who make the metrics.

          • Evan Jones II

            By the looks of what was on Dr V you still got a lot of work to do! LOL

          • Evan Jones

            Too true. But at least he is listening. And he has helped a lot with sewing down the corners, for which I am quite grateful. One usually learns a lot more from ones opponents than form one’s pals.

          • Evan Jones II

            The fact is Dr. V has pointed out you keep going around in circles in the comment section, which means to me, you are learning nothing.

          • Evan Jones

            And I think he’s eliding the real issue. He says all classes are equal after adjustment.

            I say, you betcha, and that is because the bad stations have very minor adjustments and the good stations are adjusted upwards to match the bad stations (completely obvious when the two are regarded separately).

            He says this does not matter. I say it does.

            He says if anything, it is a complete coincidence. I say we have well over 99% statistical significance (and so does Doc N-G, who calculated it).

          • Evan Jones II

            If I were a betting man, I say you are just plain stupd

          • Evan Jones

            We try harder. #B^)

          • Evan Jones II

            To be stupid?….yes, you do and that you exceed incredibly well.

          • Evan Jones II

            Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
            That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
            That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
            That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
            Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
            That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
            The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
            They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
            They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
            The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
            The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
            The expansion of the Hadley cells.
            The poleward movement of storm tracks.
            The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
            The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
            The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
            That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
            References
            Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
            Manabe and Wetherald 1967
            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
            De F. Forster et al. 1999
            Langematz et al. 2003
            Vinnikov and Grody 2003
            Fu et al. 2004
            Thompson and Solomon 2005
            Nights warm more than days
            Arrhenius 1896
            Dai et al. 1999
            Sherwood et al. 2005
            Winter warms more than summer
            Arrhenius 1896
            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Rind et al. 1989Balling et al. 1999
            Volodin and Galin 1999
            Crozier 2003
            Polar amplification
            Arrhenius 1896
            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Polyakov et al. 2001
            Holland and Bitz 2003
            Arctic warms more than Antarctic
            Arrhenius 1896
            Manabe and Stouffer 1980
            Doran et al. 2002
            Comisa 2003
            Turner et al. 2007
            Pinatubo effects
            Hansen et al. 1992
            Hansen et al. 1996
            Soden et al. 2002
            Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
            Rind and Peteet 1985
            Farreral et al. 1999
            Melanda et al. 2005
            Temperature trend versus UAH results
            Christy et al. 2003
            Santer et al. 2003
            Mears and Wentz 2005
            Santer et al. 2005
            Sherwood et al. 2005
            Water vapor feedback from ENSO
            Lau et al. 1996
            Soden 2000
            Dessler and Wong 2009
            Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
            Fyfe et al. 1999
            Kushner et al. 2001
            Sexton 2001
            Thompson and Solomon 2002
            Hadley Cells expand
            Quan et al. 2002
            Fu et al. 2006
            Hu and Fu 2007
            Storm tracks move poleward
            Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
            Yin 2005
            Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
            Thuburn and Craig 1997
            Kushner et al. 2001
            Santer et al. 2003
            Seidel and Randel 2006
            Tropical “super greenhouse effect”
            Vonder Haar 1986
            Lubin 1994
            Constant average relative humidity
            Manabe and Wetherall 1967
            Minschwaner and Dessler 2004

          • Evan Jones

            Yes to pretty much all of that.

            Except for the minor fact that the amount of warming projected is off by a factor of three. #B^)

          • Evan Jones II

            Sure, just because you wish it so….come on stop it already!

          • Evan Jones

            Just following the actual data.

          • Evan Jones II

            Oh, those imaginary figures you keep telling us that is watt its suppose to mean?
            Sure, de facto cherry picking interpretation.

          • Evan Jones

            This is getting old. You guys don’t even know cherrypicking when you see it.

          • Evan Jones II

            Perhaps you do, since you Lukewarmers excel at that too!

          • Evan Jones II

            Thanks, Evan, not going anywhere either, so it is going to get more than old!

          • M J

            You say you are “following the actual data”, but you lack credibility. I don’t believe it, Evan Jones II clearly does not believe it, neither does Icarus62 believe it.

            On the rare occasion that you actually cite what you appear to consider “actual data”, you fail to mention any of the necessary time series analysis. As Icarus62 already pointed out many times and in many ways, raw data IS misleading. You MUST do the appropriate time series analysis or you have NOTHING.

          • Evan Jones

            I quite agree that raw data will not do. I am deep into the adjustment game. (As a game designer/developer I do not use that term lightly or with disrespect.)

            The point is to adjust it correctly. Adjustment is essential. The problem here is not too many adjustments, but two too few (Microsite, CRS-bias).

            As for my own work and the work of our team, what I actually care about is what Drs. Venema, Connolley, Christie, Nielsen-Gammon, Karl, Curry,
            Menne. Pielke (Jr./Sr.), Mosh, Zeke, et alia, have to say about it. Note that this includes both sides. But I am not preaching to the choir with all this. I am preaching to the congregation.

            There are a couple of doozies going on here that stick out like a fish in a tree, if you know where to look (which is the golden contribution from Anthony). As far back as 2007 I figured he was looking in the right place. (Both places, actually.) The data has borne him out.

            To be clear, when I say doozies and I say obvious, I really mean it. Both issues are directly associated with heat exchange. First, and worst, is microsite and how that gets hashed (quite unintentionally) by homogenization. Second worst is turning an ever-blind eye at CRS Tmax. And the latter has a knock-on effect that skews MMTS adjustment. Think half — skimmed off the top (though we do not take advantage of this aspect when applying our jumps).

            And the jumps even work a little against our hypothesis, as well sited stations are far more affected by the jumps, net, than the poorly sited. (We also round that one against ourselves by including poorly sited stations in the pairwise.)

          • M J

            Oh, sure, NOW you say “I quite agree that raw data will not do.” But then what were you doing saying just a moment ago, “just following the actual data”? And why do you keep on referring to datasets WITHOUT any mention of this “essential adjustment”?

            When you do such things, it really does make it look like you are referring to raw data and pretending that trumps the processed data everyone else is referring to.

          • Evan Jones

            I have been unclear: The “actual data” is not, repeat not the raw data!

            The raw data trumps nothing. There are moves and discontinuities. There’s TOBS, Equipment conversion and inhomogeneities, macro-mesosite considerations, missing data, missing metadata (even for NOAA, only USHCN is covered, not COOP including many stations they use for pairwise). not to mention gridding and coverage. And anomalization methods.

            For satellites, it’s drift, clouds, ice, and reflectivity issues. Raw data would be a travesty. LT is what we care about, yes, but sats don’t do surface. And, yes, I find land surface will warm (and cool) a bit faster than UAH6.0 LT with somewhat greater interannual variation, perhaps by 10% to 15%.

          • M J

            Yes, you have been unclear. What is more, you were so consistently unclear, it must have been deliberate. And now that you have made it much more clear, it leaves me (and no doubt many others) wondering what the motive for this deliberate lack of clarity really was. It looks political to me.

          • Evan Jones

            If you had read my earlier posts on this forum on this issue, you would have had no confusion whatever over my crystal-clear, complete and utter rejection of raw data. I think you really should check these things out before ascribing motive. Or just ask.

            If net raw data somehow in the end turns out to be near-accurate, it will be by complete accident and for the wrong reasons. I think we can agree on the subject of the accuracy of raw data.

          • M J

            I have read your earlier posts. I do not find in them the things you claim I should find.

            I have also read the responses to your “earlier posts” too. They do not find in them what you claim I should find, either.

            Take the hint.

          • Evan Jones

            All that lengthy detail on how to treat raw data and what is missing from the adjustments and you failed to get a clue that I don’t accept raw data?

            Including repeated statements that it’s not that NOAA et al.) are making too many adjustments, they are making too few?

            I suggest you review. Take that hint.

          • M J

            More empty words. All your so-called “lengthy detail” does not even get close to proving what you claim it does.

            YOU review, YOU take the hint. Despite your claim to “not use that term lightly”, you did many posts where you did use lit lightly, ignoring the difference between raw data and realistically processed data. Now you CLAIM to know and appreciate the difference, but you are still denying the conclusions from the processed data showing that really, you do not know and appreciate it, you DO “use that term lightly”.

          • Evan Jones

            The processed surface data is junk. Just because it needs to be processed does not mean it is being processed correctly.

            Care to discuss the adjustment process in detail?

          • Evan Jones II

            Land surface air temperature as measured by weather stations. You know all those skeptic arguments about how the temperature record is biased by the urban heat island effect, badly-sited weather stations, dropped stations, and so on? This is the only indicator which suffers from all those problems. So if you’re arguing with somebody who tries to frame the discussion as being about land surface air temperature, just remind them about the other nine indicators.
            Sea surface temperature. As with land temperatures, the longest record goes back to 1850 and the last decade is warmest.
            Air temperature over the oceans.
            Lower troposphere temperature as measured by satellites for around 50 years. By any of these measures, the 2000s was the warmest decade and each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the previous one.
            Ocean heat content, for which records go back over half a century. More than 90% of the extra heat from global warming is going into the oceans – contributing to a rise in…
            Sea level. Tide gauge records go back to 1870, and sea level has risen at an accelerating rate.
            Specific humidity, which has risen in tandem with temperatures.
            Glaciers. 2009 was the 19th consecutive year in which there was a net loss of ice from glaciers worldwide.
            Northern Hemisphere snow cover, which has also decreased in recent decades.
            Perhaps the most dramatic change of all has been in Arctic sea ice. Satellite measurements are available back to 1979 and reliable shipping records back to 1953. September sea ice extent has shrunk by 35% since 1979.
            Science isn’t like a house of cards, in that removing one line of evidence (eg. land surface air temperature) wouldn’t cause the whole edifice of anthropogenic global warming to collapse. Rather, “land surface warming” is one of more than ten bricks supporting “global warming”; and with global warming established, there is a whole other set of bricks supporting “anthropogenic global warming”. To undermine these conclusions, you’d need to remove most or all of the bricks supporting them – but as the evidence continues to pile up, that is becoming less and less likely.
            Basic rebuttal written by James Wight

          • Evan Jones

            Actually, Urban Heat Island has no measurable impact on trends, not in the US at any rate. If I remove urban stations from the USHCN mix it makes hardly a jot of difference.

            But if you bin for microsite — hoo-boy! Massive difference, over 99% statistical significance. As big a hit as TOBS-bias, but in the opposite direction.

            Say all you like. That’s just the way it is.

          • Evan Jones II

            Evan, please if you ever need a reference for your submission of your government grant to create denial in the public domain, please I will be more than willing to recommend for selection. This will be on a leading United States University. Let me know if you would like to accept and please post your email address, phone number and apartment address in New York City. You already done so at one time or another, so this should be no objection.
            Good luck and best wishing for your new career path of denialism.

          • Gianinatio

            The relative size of the U.S. to the entire world, by itself, representing less than 2% of the planets surface, readily splashes water on any notion of a 99% statistical significance. Now, if one were sampling far and wide and not relying on an extrapolation of inaccuracies within such a limited area, that might mean something “statistically”, to the big picture. Until then, “the way it is”, is a tempest in a teacup. The tempest may be very significant in that teacup…but that’s the extent of it.

          • Evan Jones

            Certainly. We are not making any attempt to assess the rate of global change. The study is strictly limited to equipment and siting issues. Both methods and observations.

            Our study sample is quite large, twice the size of Hubbard & Lin, 2006 (which is also restricted to the US). But, like H&L-06 or Quayle-91, the results are applicable globally as to similar equipment (mostly the globally ubiquitous CRS).

          • Gianinatio

            “WE” may not be, but “YOU” certainly have extrapolated those data to representing the whole world, the entire notion of climate change, the impact of climate change, and the need to mitigate. If “We” aren’t making an attempt, one wonders why the vast exrapolation.

          • Evan Jones

            I have pointed out the effects of poor siting and CRS bias. That much will apply globally.

            It is also certain that poor siting is global and that CRS units are much the same everywhere.

            For that matter, both Hubbard & Lin (2006) and Quayle (1991) have done exactly the same thing regarding MMTS bias. The are conducted on the USHCN (as ours), but results are applied globally. Those are studies touted by all AGW advocates.

            Those are factors that apply everywhere.

          • Evan Jones II

            Is it now? You fool
            Evan meet Neven…yes ….Neven has a blog ….explain to Neven the results of your astonishing data corrections…..this should provide us all a good laugh here!
            http://neven1.typepad.com
            I rather not give too much attention to fake skeptics, or climate risk deniers as I like to call them, but lately they are somehow finding it in themselves to come up with stuff that they think disproves Arctic sea ice loss. I’ve already posted about MASIE annual average nonsense (about which the last word hasn’t been said), but in the past couple of days an even more spectacular and desperate attempt at downplaying Arctic sea ice loss has sprung up. I’m posting it as a reference, because I’m sure this will become a (short-lived) meme.
            Seems you buddy, Willard, is featured….
            That’s the end of the story. It is highly, highly likely that the old DMI SIE-30% graph is incorrect, showing something that isn’t even possible. Climate risk deniers are just too dumb/ignorant/dishonest to grasp this. First they jump on an incorrect graph that shows what they want to show, namely that Arctic sea ice is record high, and then they jump on the fact that the graph is removed by the organisation, as announced months ago, suggesting it is all a big conspiracy.

            Mind you, Watts takes the time to highlight this nonsense, but he hides from his readers that new minimum records have been set last week for both Global sea ice area and extent, and the Arctic sea ice maximum record could very well be broken too in the coming weeks. None of that on WUWT. These things simply don’t exist in the world of climate risk deniers.

            If you find all this convincing enough, you can stop reading now. But below I will continue to explain the details by quoting extensively from my discussion with a couple of climate risk deniers on the NALOPKT blog. The difference between the 15% and 30% thresholds is quite an interesting thought experiment. Continue reading if you’re interested, or spend your time more wisely. 😉
            http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/02/grasping-at-uncorrected-straws.html

            Sure, go straighten them boys out with your Twist, many have PhD’s, and they can see through you spin. Go ahead, make my day!

          • Evan Jones

            Who is disputing Arctic sea ice loss?

          • Evan Jones II

            Damm, Do you actually read? There is something wrong with ya! Read the link Evvie.
            Your Master Willard is the topic…you deniers are just a bunch is Stooges…who is denying Sea loss?…Who is denying Warming?….who is denying PH water change?
            Come on…go there and spew out you junk talk.
            BTW, it is about Willard Watt…
            Watts, however, immediately snipped my first comment. I was surprised it got through, as Watts likes to make things disappear, and unlike the DMI, unannounced.

            In my second comment I replied to his first reaction:

            Show me one place there’s the word “conspiracy” in this post. Yet, you use the word where I have not.
            Anthony, you agreed with Paul Homewood when he said that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results. So, the graph is correct, but has been suddenly removed (not as announced months ago) because it doesn’t fit the AGW narrative. And then you say it may be skullduggery. As a non-English native I had to look that word up and apparently it means “underhand, unscrupulous, or dishonest behaviour or activities”. So basically you’re saying it might very well be a conspiracy to hide an inconvenient sea ice graph.

            Then show us where DMI has made this claim that the science behind a 30% concentration graph is flawed, but somehow the 15% concentration graph take from the very same satellite data is not.

            There is nothing wrong with the science behind a 30% SIE threshold, there’s clearly something wrong with the way the data is automatically processed for that graph, but no one is correcting it, because the graph is discontinued (people at DMI are probably paid to do other stuff).

            I think you are just simply projecting your own bias onto what you think might be true, but isn’t actually supported by the science.

            On the contrary, the fact that Arctic sea ice is currently very, very low and may well break the lowest maximum record, is supported by a lot of the stuff on your very own Sea Ice Page, just after the Global sea ice area and extent minimums were broken last week.

            Your ridiculous claim doesn’t hold water (or ice for that matter).

            I’m afraid you won’t have the time or the inclination, but in the comment section of Paul Homewood’s blog you can read my explanation why the old DMI SIE-30% graph is wrong (or a slightly shorter version on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog). Here is my argument:

            1) The graph looks weird. There are two black trend lines, and a horizontal black line. There is no 2016 in the legend. The 2015 trend line contains strange dips that haven’t been corrected.
            2) The trend line is much, much higher than all the other trend lines. Okay, if it was just a bit, but it’s way out there.
            3) There is no SIE or SIA graph out there that looks remotely similar to the old SIE-30% graph.
            4) Sea ice concentration maps, regional maps, satellite images, radar images, all show that sea ice cover is very low at the moment. There is no way it can be as high as the old SIE-30% graph suggests.
            5) We know that DMI replaced this graph with the SIE-15% graph quite a while ago, and so there probably is no one to correct the old graph (like happened regularly in the past; I know, because alarmists would jump at the strange, steep dips). The graph is discontinued as announced many months ago.

            The difference between the 15% and 30% thresholds (see NSIDC explanation) simply cannot account for such a large disparity. One of the graphs is wrong, and it’s highly likely, bordering on certainty, that it’s the old, discontinued, uncorrected DMI SIE-30% graph.

            But, of course, Brave Sir Robin, I mean Anthony had to replace that with:

            [snip – after your claim of “conspiracy ideation” (see the screencap upthread) I’m not obligated to provide you a forum here until you post my update explaining that I don’t believe there is one on your blog in it’s entirety. I’m happy to entertain valid comments about the science, but I am not obligated to take abuse from you – Anthony]
            What a convenient way of not having to deal with valid comments about the science

            http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/02/grasping-at-uncorrected-straws.html

            Like you don’t know?…hey, now we all know why that paper is taking so long and will be tossed in the trarsh bin…LOL

          • Evan Jones II

            Your Master Willard

          • Evan Jones

            Wrong again. He even has a sea ice page detailing the loss.

          • Evan Jones II

            Sure Evvie, talk to Neven and do your Twist there. Easy to post here with me out of bounds of the real deal experts…coward and all fluff. Remember, let me know for the denier reference….you are a shoe in….get the joke?

          • Gianinatio

            Yah…interesting red herring, but I’m sure you’re not so obtuse as to believe that’s what I meant. That you have already given up your end game…which is to say, treated science as one would game creation and begun with an end game in mind, says all that need be said about your extrapolation and what your interest really is “AGW DOESN’T EXIST, NO HARM WILL COME, PEOPLE WON’T BE AFFECTED, etc.”

          • Evan Jones

            If that were so we would never have submitted Fall et al. (2011), which flatly contradicted our hypothesis. A little fact checking would benefit you here.

            As for the rest: AGW does exist. Some harm will come. Benefits will far outweigh the harm. Mankind (particularly the poorest of this world0 will benefit immensely.

            Conclusions to change if the data changes. As since Fall (2011).

          • Gianinatio

            What fact need be checked other than the fact that you admitted MORE THAN ONCE that you’re using a game building approach rather than a scientific approach?

            Of course the details contradict your hypothesis. But unlike scientists, that won’t stop you from pursuing such hypothesis.

          • Evan Jones

            Admitting it? I’m, emphasizing it. And what makes you think game theory is incompatible with scientific method?

            Game “building” is a bottom-to-top approach for chumps. Do that and you’re just playing crack-the-whip with the data, with spaghetti throughout.
            The problem with the models (finally beginning to dawn on some) is that you need to design your game top-down. That way, you modularize your knowledge and can either drill down or drop in/out, as knowledge improves.

            Some folks seem to think CMIP can be improved if only they add more spag and dicker with the inputs. But you can’t fix what’s broke off the block. These dudes are gonna have to take it back to formula. The Old Drawing Board would be a good place to start.

          • Gianinatio

            I don’t believe I used the term “game theory”.

          • Evan Jones

            You said game building. (I commented on that above.)

          • Gianinatio

            Yes, but I believe you’re a game maker, not a game theorist. If your career has not been in making video games, please advise so I can correct my preconception. Of note, you have said a lot of things in the past that I’m not going to unremember because it would be inconvenient for your points.

          • Evan Jones

            Hard copy, only. And if you don’t think video and other game designers are not practical game theorists, think again.

          • Gianinatio

            Was your job title “Game Theorist”?

          • Evan Jones

            At the time it was vice-president in charge of design and development. #B^)

          • Gianinatio

            Translation “no”.

          • Evan Jones

            You don’t translate very well.

          • Evan Jones II

            You don’t think too clearly

          • Gianinatio

            All models are bad/flawed, some models are useful. Scientists know this, and also know that there’s no such thing as a perfect model. The only perfect model IS the system. Within that broad understanding models improve continuously. Throwing everything out and starting over can work…but rarely. There’s a reason civilization has made advances in times of peace…because destroying everything and starting over tends to set us back to the beginning and require up to centuries to get back to where we were. But then there are probably people out there who’d like to suggest we should go back to the drawing board, so they can gain that precious time to continue to contribute to the problem.

          • Evan Jones

            Partially agree. But going back to the drawing board is easier and quicker than one might think. The methods need to be reframed. This will actually save time, even in the short run, and will not require $100 mil.-per-shot supercomputers.

            Bottom-to-top models must be redone every time they are addressed. A top-down model only has to have its modules refined or replaced. Top-down is far less opaque and can easily be altered as new knowedge emerges, without doing it again from scratch.

          • Gianinatio

            Good, you have only to publish your ideas and convince the greater community. Bitching about it isn’t the way.

          • Evan Jones II

            See, Gianinatio, what I mean. He’s been claiming that this paper proves lukewarmism and it has been in revision for many YEARS!. He maintains always it is almost complete and yet months go by and nothing. His real purchase here is just to stir the pot of doubt and confusion, hence his title Doctor Twist or Doctor Spin. Poor Evvie, go find someplace else to play your sick little game.

          • Evan Jones

            He’s been claiming that this paper proves lukewarmism and it has been in revision for many YEARS!

            I am claiming only that microsite and equipment is biasing the readings.

          • Evan Jones II

            You’ been “claiming”? Is that the correct term for you to place here? Hardly, more like you’ve been insistent and pretty much state it as fact! BTW, we are not talking about Rome here, Evan, and the reason the world will share its fate is due to our willingness to ignore the vast research, data, and tangible evidence that is presented to the public by the scientific community. But we have one rogue group that states it ain’t so and we should follow their recommendation. I don’t think so. No doubt, your supporters, fossil fuel interests, will lavish media attention. Aren’t you proud? Shame

          • Evan Jones

            But we have one rogue group that states it ain’t so and we should follow their recommendation.

            The 95% “consensus” in the peer review literature saying that IPCC got the projections too high? That rogue group?

          • Evan Jones II

            Adding you to 3% rogue group doesn’t significantly change the number. You are only important in your mind and expansive ego!

          • Evan Jones

            You appear to be under the entirely false illusion that the so-called “97%” does not include the lukewarmers. That (false) figure includes anyone who answers yes to the questions in the two surveys. My answers are yes, yes, yes . . . and yes.

          • Evan Jones II

            No the evidence points to accelerating warming…sorry…kiddo…take it like a rodent

          • Evan Jones II

            Stuff it deep

            Home
            Notifications
            Channels
            Explore

            mjonesx
            mjonesx
            Evan Jones II Edit Profile
            @mjonesx
            5402 Upvotes
            Comments 6200
            Discussions
            Recommends
            Followers 139
            Following 10
            Discussion on The American Interest 265 comments
            Why a SCOTUS Decision Imperils the Paris Climate Deal
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 3 hours ago
            You don’t think too clearly
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 3 hours ago
            Being a dummie instead,
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 12 hours ago
            Boy, Mister doubt and confusion going full speed ahead!
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 12 hours ago
            Gee, watt a bright bulb you are, Sherlock. The apple don’t fall too far from the tree!
            Sure, Evan, you are absolutely right! Best you spend nother 4,000 hours with Excel making sure all that data is absolutely right!
            Such a good boy!
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones a day ago
            Adding you to 3% rogue group doesn’t significantly change the number. You are only important in your mind and expansive ego!
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 2 days ago
            You’ been “claiming”? Is that the correct term for you to place here? Hardly, more like you’ve been insistent and pretty much state it as fact! BTW, we are not talking about Rome here, Evan, and the reason the world will share its fate is due to our willingness to ignore the vast research, data, and tangible evidence that is presented to the public by the scientific community. But we have one rogue group that states it ain’t so and we should follow their recommendation. I don’t think so. No doubt, your supporters, fossil fuel interests, will lavish media attention. Aren’t you proud? Shame
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 3 days ago
            And the funny part you act like it is already published and embraced by the scientific circles as the gospel truth! What a boy!
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 3 days ago
            Boy, YOU are delusional! Feedbacks from VV? Did you comprehend what they wrote?
            Hey, Fella glue your eye ball lens to this
            http://www.immortal.org/24831/
            Remember the post of CO2 rising 3.76 ppm yoy February 2015 to feb. 2016?
            Well, a new article today reports the CO2 ppm level for the year of 2015 went up 3.05
            That’s a new record folks!
            Just a couple years ago on Neven’s arctic blog I wrote a post saying it wouldn’t be long before CO2 levels increased by 3 ppm in a year, and I was lambasted for a failure to understand it had only gone up 2 ppm in a couple of recent years. I took my medicine because those people supposedly know so much more. Well, it turned out I was correct. Up over 3 ppm in one year and it already occurred in 2015. First time ever in modern human history. Keep in mind it took until the 70’s before it breached 1 ppm added in a year. So we are at a rate of 3 times that much increase.
            At 3 ppm it would only take 33 years to equal another 100 ppm added to the 404 currently and we’d be at 504 ppm. Hopefully predictions of financial collapse are correct and we will never breach 500 ppm.
            As carbon sinks like the oceans phytoplankton decrease and the forest get felled, the rate of CO2 ppm will increase to 4 then 5 ppm added a year. When it’s 5 it will only take 20 years to add another 100 ppm. Ouch!
            Boy, you theory is melting away….
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Gianinatio 5 days ago
            Wow, thank you for that stellar recap, Gianinatio, that sums it up nicely. Do not give Evvie that much credit. Apparently, from what I read he is simply doing the time consuming grunt work no one else cares to preform. The poor thing is just being used by his so-called colleagues. No doubt, Willard Anthony Watts knows how manipulate the soul to feed his desire to do real academic science. You are absolutely correct in the regard they change the goal posts as time goes on and very selective in the exploitation of data.
            That I will give Evvie credit. He also adds words, such as, “only”, “limited”, “hardly”, to embellish his points.
            Hope you are having fun with him, as I do. You can just about throw anything his way and he takes it like a pro….
            1 Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Gianinatio 5 days ago
            See, Gianinatio, what I mean. He’s been claiming that this paper proves lukewarmism and it has been in revision for many YEARS!. He maintains always it is almost complete and yet months go by and nothing. His real purpose here is just to stir the pot of doubt and confusion, hence his title Doctor Twist or Doctor Spin. Poor Evvie, go find someplace else to play your sick little game.
            1 Edit View in discussion
            Discussion on CFACT 344 comments
            Hiatus confirmed as scientists finally admit climate model fail
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Ali_Bertarian 2 days ago
            Good, don’t and stay away.
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Ali_Bertarian 3 days ago
            Evvie and Ali read this
            http://www.immortal.org/24831/
            Remember the post of CO2 rising 3.76 ppm yoy February 2015 to feb. 2016?
            Well, a new article today reports the CO2 ppm level for the year of 2015 went up 3.05
            That’s a new record folks!
            Just a couple years ago on Neven’s arctic blog I wrote a post saying it wouldn’t be long before CO2 levels increased by 3 ppm in a year, and I was lambasted for a failure to understand it had only gone up 2 ppm in a couple of recent years. I took my medicine because those people supposedly know so much more. Well, it turned out I was correct. Up over 3 ppm in one year and it already occurred in 2015. First time ever in modern human history. Keep in mind it took until the 70’s before it breached 1 ppm added in a year. So we are at a rate of 3 times that much increase.
            At 3 ppm it would only take 33 years to equal another 100 ppm added to the 404 currently and we’d be at 504 ppm. Hopefully predictions of financial collapse are correct and we will never breach 500 ppm.
            As carbon sinks like the oceans phytoplankton decrease and the forest get felled, the rate of CO2 ppm will increase to 4 then 5 ppm added a year. When it’s 5 it will only take 20 years to add another 100 ppm. Ouch!
            So, Evvie claims C02 for now has little effect on the ecosystems….now watt does he claim by the exponent increase? Let him tell us all when those feedbacks kick in all is well!
            Good luck with that guys!
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Ali_Bertarian 3 days ago
            Yes it is….much, much worse. Evvie…now watt? We need ocean temperatures!
            Edit View in discussion
            Evan Jones II
            Evan Jones II Evan Jones 4 days ago
            You still harping about peer review? That paper is so soggy and wet and just melting down the drain with the new record breaking data!!!
            Hey, best you save all of yourselves a lot of enbarrassment and call it a day.
            You milked it for all you could up to now, Evvie.
            http://bellona.org/news/climat
            – An increasing number of highly recognised climate scientists that Bellona cooperates with, are expressing the same worries. Many highly-ranked institutions conclude that there is an even more pressing need for climate action than what the IPCC has expressed, argues Hauge.
            The IPCC includes only what is scientifically proven. As there are uncertainties concerning the effects of the slow moving processes such as melting of ice, marshlands and tundra areas, these have to a small extent been considered in the Panel’s final conclusions.
            – We can expect some uncomfortable adjustments in the IPCC conclusions in the upcoming years, however we must see the urgency now already. This makes me even more motivated to contribute to solving the climate problem, says Hauge.

          • Evan Jones

            The IPCC includes only what is scientifically proven

            Nonsense. Try actually reading IPCC WG1. Or even the SPM.

          • Evan Jones II

            Just because you wish it nonsense in your little make believe world doesn’t make it so, Evan. You are NOT going to get away with your crapola here with me. Got that, now why don’t you do us both a favor and stay at Willard’s and pollute his blog. He like that

          • Evan Jones

            Oh, it’s alright. I am perfectly capable of doing both. #B^)

          • Gianinatio

            Aren’t we all? Capability and realization are different.

          • Evan Jones

            Only if they are. Not if they are not.

          • Evan Jones II

            Boy, Mister doubt and confusion going full speed ahead!

          • Gianinatio

            And you say this based on what experience in this sort of modeling going back to the drawing board and starting over. Given your background and expertise I wonder how you can come to such a conclusion…

          • Evan Jones

            I am a longtime professional game designer and historical modeler. Pretty good background for this sort of thing.

          • Evan Jones II

            Gianinatio, Hello, as you see here Evan Jones, Evvie as I like to call the little lad, is a devious little one, and has been appearing on the stage here for some time. Now if you enjoy this game of his denialist lukewarmism that he likes to play, fine. Continue as you wish and Dr. Twist will waste you time with endless dara replies and counterpoints that don’t amount to much. He really is a joke and dwells in an insulated make believe reality.

          • Gianinatio

            Thank you. After years of observation I’m fully aware of his many tricks (uses of logical fallacy). It’s been interesting to watch him, and others, shift their position to “lukewarmist”, as though followers hadn’t noticed. That’s pretty much the path all conservative deniers use when they can no longer fight reality. I’ll give him credit, more so than many of his Heartland Brethren, for actually doing some real work and attempting to have a logically supportable point. He may well have some decent research to contribute to the discussion and I applaud the efforts of anyone who will do good science. Nonetheless, promises of “publishing” something for peer review are LONG in coming, citations of numerous papers that failed peer review waste time for all of us, and its well past time for this egg to hatch. Perhaps if he did less marketing on here and more completing of the research there, we might all have something to finally digest. Little matter, it’s unlikely to do anything to slow the massive and accelerating AGW. The earth passed a milestone last week of hitting it’s first global day above the 2C goal for 2100. A bit early in the century for variation to be already hitting that number. They’ll claim it’s El Nino…without which it would have been 1.9…or maybe temperature gauges and siting and what not…without which it would have been 1.99. The arctic appears set to have a disastrously low level of ice coverage, already well below norm for this time of year, so all this tempest in a teacup of whether we are on a step or a riser is merely time wasted while failing to deal with public policy issues and proper prior planning.

          • Evan Jones II

            Wow, thank you for that stellar recap, Gianinatio, that sums it up nicely. Do not give Evvie that much credit. Apparently, from what I read he is simply doing the time consuming grunt work no one else cares to preform. The poor thing is just being used by his so-called colleagues. No doubt, Willard Anthony Watts knows how manipulate the soul to feed his desire to do real academic science. You are absolutely correct in the regard they change the goal posts as time goes on and very selective in the exploitation of data.
            That I will give Evvie credit. He also adds words, such as, “only”, “limited”, “hardly”, to embellish his points.
            Hope you are having fun with him, as I do. You can just about throw anything his way and he takes it like a pro….

          • Evan Jones

            It’s been interesting to watch him, and others, shift their position to “lukewarmist”, as though followers hadn’t noticed.

            “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” — J.M. Keynes

            Nonetheless, promises of “publishing” something for peer review are LONG in coming

            You can make that a VERY LONG time.

          • Evan Jones II

            And the funny part you act like it is already published and embraced by the scientific circles as the gospel truth! What a boy!

          • Evan Jones

            I am pretty confident in the results. I have discussed and deconstructed the methods and the results in a number of hostile venues. Even after all criticisms are addressed, the hypothesis stands up excellently. And the feedback was invaluable.

            Actually, I can show far more evidence for our hypothesis than anyone can for the case for CO2 warming (and I definitely believe CO2 increase causes overall warming).

            So, pretty confident, yeah.

          • Evan Jones II

            Pretty confident are you?
            Remember not to count you eggs before they are laid.
            Hubris is more like it
            One thing you are not short of is a big ego….
            May I suggest you view this video of your buddy and stay off the stuff
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kHFnc_eV4Lg

          • Gianinatio

            The facts haven’t changed…well, the direction of the facts hasn’t changed. It’s just become much more abundantly clear what the direction is. And…oddly enough, the research you’re doing is intent upon suggesting that the basis for all the facts is wrong. So, it seems odd, in the face of that, to both continue the research AND change your opinion. Or rather, those seem AT odds.

          • Evan Jones

            There was never any real question but that it was warming. The “basis” for “all the facts” is the data and metadata, not the end product.

            So, it seems odd, in the face of that, to both continue the research AND change your opinion.

            I have changed my opinion about a number of things since starting out on this project. (For example, on the “purity’ of unperturbed CRS data). Why would that seem odd?

          • Gianinatio

            I have in no way suggested that changing ones mind is a problem. What’s a problem is the revisionist history that accompanies the mind changing of conservatives.

            Dogmatic
            Dogmatic
            Dogmatic
            Wait…I was never dogmatic. I was always open minded.
            New Dogmatic
            New Dogmatic
            New Dogmatic

          • Evan Jones

            Not being a conservative, I wouldn’t know.

          • Evan Jones II

            Being a dummies instead

          • Gianinatio

            And, of course, all this effort, while potentially academically interesting, to sort out just how much MSA exists in the measurement of system input variables, fails to comprehend that regardless of the measurement system, output variables and outcomes have moved in profound ways. The arctic sea ice is at all time low levels at this moment. Of course, all the models have fully predicted this all along.

            We know that the oceans have 1000x heat capacity of the atmosphere. In the bigger picture, the atmosphere serves only as a transport mechanism for heat exchange…rather like the air that cools the radiator in our cars. Thus perseveration over whether the air models are precise to the 1/10th of degrees, or 1 degrees, or even 10 degrees, fails to comprehend that in the end, they still constitute only 1/10th of 1% of the total heat content picture (excluding the heat capacity of solids on earth).

            That the arctic total ice volume continues to decline at dramatic rate (despite your earlier statements regarding it’s dramatic ‘surface area’ increases after 2012) is one of the best measures yet (all others, including air temp, being poor proxies) tells us that heat content is growing inexorably. Just as we know a glass filled with icecubes and water contains colder water than a glass where all the ice has melted, we know that quite clearly, there’s a tremendous increase in the total heat of the system. And now that ice thickness (a dimension very easy for some to dismiss when forgetting that volume is cubed and area is squared) has thinned to where it cannot sustain itself from year to year, the frozen surface area of the arctic is beginning to vary wildly, and to drop. In essence the winter heat loss from the earth is only enough to skim the ice over the pond. The pond contains more than enough heat to melt that off each summer.

            What follows after sea ice loss, is land ice loss. Every study to date is supporting that warm sea water is undercutting overhanging land (glacial) ice and contributing to it’s inevitable decline.

            Thus, a focus on disproving that the earth has “warmed” fails to pass the scientific sniff test. CLEARLY the earth has warmed dramatically. The science, or at least the scientists of the world, are set about answer the important question of WHY.

            The counter question of “WHY IS THIS WRONG”, is part and parcel of those studies.

            The statement of “THIS IS WRONG, LET’S SHOW WHY.” as a standalone is really just wreckless human marketeering.

          • Evan Jones

            1.) I know it. Nino hit hard. It hasn’t been warm melt seasons that have been doing in the ice. Those are at or near record lows (and shows very little variability, anyway). But those winters are a doozie, very highly variable and with a heavy warming trend. And then again, ice loss has not occurred primarily in the winters, but during the melt season.

            Annualized, ice extent is 4% per decade over the least three decades. That is not particularly disputed. However, I don’t recall any models that didn’t project more. (Not to mention a few choice exaggerated claims.)

            2.) Yes, oceans are one heck of a thermostat.

            3.) Yes, heat content (globally) has been growing inexorably since 1950 (or 1900) with the usual 30-year ups and downs turned from a sine wave into a set of stairs.

            Thing is, you guys only see the steps and the skeptics only see the landings. And that’s what I call Bad Zen. (Not the best of scientific thinking either, and even when right it’s often for the wrong reason.)

            Both sides have indispensable value in this argument. Thing is that the more important it gets, the more experts get involved, and the more is actually known, the more time the two sides devote to trying to take the mickey out of each other. A very unfortunate diminishing return on knowledge, that.

            Heads need to get together. Knocked together if necessary. I have learned far more from those who disagreed with me than those who agree. From VeeV, from Sou, from William Connelley, Mosh, Zeke, their tougher commentators, whoever. But in order to speak with them I need to be on speaking terms with them.

          • Gianinatio

            “You guys”?
            “Sides”?

            There aren’t guys, and there aren’t sides. Those are terms nominally used in politics. And in this case Big business created big counter marketing and big politics, all ending up with the notion of “sides”. There aren’t sides. There’s good science (around which good scientists debate and collaborate). And then there’s just “wrong” information and junk science attempting to masquerade as good science.

            Sadly…the “skeptics” as you call them have only proferred junk science and then marketed that as a “side”, when, in fact, precious little (dare i say NONE) of that junk science has made it through peer review intact. Of course, a lot of things are shattered in peer review. But few hypothesis are so soundly rejected as said skepticism. Of course it was bound to be destroyed not because some “side” is against it…but rather because there’s simply been no there, there.

            There’s already a great way for heads to “get together”. It’s the scientific method. Heads do it in abundance worldwide, every day, on every science imaginable.

            That you sing a “woe are skeptics” dirge as though skeptics have somehow been unfairly singled out by cruel scientists taking sides is every bit the evidence one needs to see to know this is not, and never has been, about “science”.

            Perhaps instead of worrying about the 99.9% who disagree with you, perhaps you should worry about you and whether you are doing your part in the system.

            Looking forward to seeing your work published.
            Expecting it will not survive peer review.
            Will be elated and give you kudos if it does.

          • Evan Jones

            “You guys”?
            “Sides”?

            There aren’t guys, and there aren’t sides.

            There are now.

            Those are terms nominally used in politics.

            Fancy that.

          • Gianinatio

            Great. No need to market it and your pre-conclusions here and on other articles in comments. Simply get about the business of publishing.

          • Evan Jones

            That’s what I’m doing.

            But getting feedback (as on Variable Variability and elsewhere) has been valuable independent review. It will have made peer review much easier.

          • Evan Jones II

            Boy, YOU are delusional! Feedbacks from VV? Did you comprehend what they wrote?
            Hey, Fella glue your eye ball lens to this
            http://www.immortal.org/24831/co2-levels-jumped-3-05-ppm-2015/

            Remember the post of CO2 rising 3.76 ppm yoy February 2015 to feb. 2016?
            Well, a new article today reports the CO2 ppm level for the year of 2015 went up 3.05
            That’s a new record folks!
            Just a couple years ago on Neven’s arctic blog I wrote a post saying it wouldn’t be long before CO2 levels increased by 3 ppm in a year, and I was lambasted for a failure to understand it had only gone up 2 ppm in a couple of recent years. I took my medicine because those people supposedly know so much more. Well, it turned out I was correct. Up over 3 ppm in one year and it already occurred in 2015. First time ever in modern human history. Keep in mind it took until the 70’s before it breached 1 ppm added in a year. So we are at a rate of 3 times that much increase.

            At 3 ppm it would only take 33 years to equal another 100 ppm added to the 404 currently and we’d be at 504 ppm. Hopefully predictions of financial collapse are correct and we will never breach 500 ppm.

            As carbon sinks like the oceans phytoplankton decrease and the forest get felled, the rate of CO2 ppm will increase to 4 then 5 ppm added a year. When it’s 5 it will only take 20 years to add another 100 ppm. Ouch!

            Boy, you theory is melting away….

          • Gianinatio

            Other scientists link directly to their peers for that independent review. Using telephone. And email.

          • Evan Jones

            No doubt. I go to their sites and discuss it directly with them and their commentators. Welcome to the Information age. You do it your way; I’ll do it mine.

          • Gianinatio

            Or not, as the case may be.

          • Evan Jones

            Do or do not. It’s a semi-free country.

          • M J

            It is obviously a waste of time to “discuss the adjustment process in detail” with someone who dares to claim “the processed surface data is junk”. It is not. Your words are the jun.

          • Evan Jones

            In its current state the current LST record is junk.

          • M J

            And why would I take your word for this? Especially over the word of so many others who say it is sound enough? These many others have better credentials than some guy making bold statements and sweeping claims on the Internet.

          • Evan Jones

            Actually, I don’t particularly care whether or not you take my word for it, as it has nothing to do with either station data or methods of adjustment.

          • Evan Jones II

            Just because you state it is so, we will take your word on it…after all you gazed at the data over 4,000 hours plus and have determined it so…
            Yes, no need to question at all, Comrade Evan, whatever the Party dictates is reality

          • Evan Jones

            (Sigh.) When we publish, all data and methods will be in an open access archive in an easy to use or alter Excel format. Anyone who wants to will be able to check, replicate, challenge, propose improvements, note errors, etc.

          • Evan Jones II

            Ohhhhh, When you do….than WAIT until YOU do….check√
            You know something there Evvie…you act like its such a big deal you one little ( oh, you claim it is really 5 papers) that you all are doing. Yet, here is one scientists , Professor David Battisiti, who has 100 such peer reviewed published papers and you just toss him aside.
            Now, we are expected to take you in any serious manner….
            I think not….
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPfJvZ9TfPQ

          • Evan Jones

            They have not factored in microsite or CRS-bias. It’s as simple as that.

          • M J

            I don’t believe you.Have you really read every report relying on the data and showed that they did not account for it?

          • Evan Jones

            You didn’t know? The metrics themselves do not account for it.

          • M J

            Your objection and speculation are both ridiculous. “Metrics themselves” do not account for much: it is the time series analysis done on them that accounts for much. But since you have not read all the time series analysis done by every team, you are in no position to claim that none of them account for it.

          • Evan Jones

            it is the time series analysis done on them that accounts for much.

            Duh.

            But since you have not read all the time series analysis done by every team, you are in no position to claim that none of them account for it.

            I have read many. Not one account for either factor. Neither has any of out team (including the former chairman of the American Association of State Climatologists and an IPCC TAR section chief).

            Show me one that does.

          • M J

            No, do not think you can shift the burden on me so easily. You were the one who claimed none do, so you have to prove that.

          • Evan Jones

            Kind of difficult to prove a complete negative. But you can go to Menne (2009, 2010) where they explain that they don’t. Or go to any adjustment page of any metric and find no such adjustment.

          • Evan Jones II

            You also have a difficult task to prove your stance too, my Dear fellow

          • Evan Jones

            Easy to prove the existing metrics don’t account for CRS bias or microsite. Also easy to show these biases exist.

          • Evan Jones II

            You don’t read too well, nor understand the complete body of evidence. Easy to cherry pick and focus on selective issues that can be distorted to your way of thinking. Go ahead, make my day, do it and see the reaction you get by the real scientific community.
            PS Keep ignoring my other posts you can’t reply to and wish it wasn’t so..they won’t go away because you close your eyes and mind to them.

          • Evan Jones

            Easy to cherry pick and focus on selective issues that can be distorted
            to your way of thinking.

            Like Land Surface Temperatures? #B^)

            Go ahead, make my day, do it and see the
            reaction you get by the real scientific community.

            Oh, we will, we will (as I type the final redraft). But I project it is not going to make your day.

          • Evan Jones II

            Here we go again…Dr Twist reading from Candy Cane rim glasses….you just repeat and rinse.
            Even Dr V was exasperated at your antics….get lost back to Willard’s!

          • Evan Jones

            Actually, VeeV has nowhere stated that. And I’ll go where I like — and stay where I like.

          • Evan Jones II

            Suppose you just ignore unpleasant comments. Now off with to Willards

          • Evan Jones

            Mmmm. Nah. I’ll do what pleases me, instead.

            Besides, the first tactic of those on the short end of an argument is usually to tell the other side to shut up and get lost. As for me, I welcome both sides. Let all be present and all have at it. That’s how progress is achieved and knowledge advanced.

          • Evan Jones II

            Here you go, read the other side
            Another Bill McKibben viral article

            Global Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry

            Our leaders thought fracking would save our climate. They were wrong. Very wrong.
            By Bill McKibben
            http://www.thenation.com/article/global-warming-terrifying-new-chemistry/

            OK…time for you all to put on your denier candy cane rim glasses!

          • Evan Jones

            You don’t think I read or consider the other side? Really? It is you who adamantly refuse to do so. You also appear to refuse to do arithmetic. Let us presume that that Bill is correct, and fracking reduces CO2 by half and increases methane by a third.

            If methane and CO2 were being released in equal quantities, there would be cause for concern, yes. But methane release is much, much smaller, accounting for less than 10% of the GHG forcing as compared with that produced by CO2, net.

            So if CO2 output is reduced by half, there is a net ~40% reduction in forcing. If Methane output is increased by a third, there is a net ~3% increase in forcing. Estimates are that fracked gas produces over a third less GHG forcing than coal.

            Observations (even using the spuriously highballed Haady4) during the time period Bill addresses are as follows:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2012/trend

            In addition, Bill talks “chemistry”. He needs also to consider biology. The biosphere breaks down methane into its component parts in 20 years, rendering it near-inert. CO2, not so much.

          • Evan Jones II

            Boy, you are a BOY WONDER (not), thinking you have such a intricate understanding of the Earth’s climatic system, do you now?
            That is the very reason it is just a waste of time and space to argue with you all!
            Well’ Evan, you are diss this just published peer reviewed open sourced research paper in a LEADING science journal….
            Most scientific papers only take up four or five pages in a journal. Hansen’s paper – in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics – grabs 52 pages (although it’s hard to quibble over space when you’re laying out a possible path to widespread global disruption and the complete reshaping of coastlines).

            Nor was the paper published in a conventional way. If you’re getting a faint sense of déjà vu about Hansen’s findings, then that could be down to how a draft version of the study was published and widely covered in July last year.

            The journal runs an unconventional interactive system of peer review where comments and criticisms from other scientists are published for everyone to see, as are the responses from Hansen and his colleagues.

            This is arguably a more transparent way of conducting the scientific process of peer review – something usually carried out privately and anonymously.

            None of this should really detract from Hansen and his co-author’s central claim
            Firstly, Hansen says they may have uncovered a mechanism in the Earth’s climate system not previously understood that could point to a much more rapid rise in sea levels.

            When the Earth’s ice sheets melt, they place a freshwater lens over neighboring oceans. This lens, argues Hansen, causes the ocean to retain extra heat, which then goes to melting the underside of large ice sheets that fringe the ocean, causing them to add more freshwater to the lens (this is what’s known as a “positive feedback” and is not to be confused with the sort of positive feedback you may have got at school for that cracking fifth grade science assignment).

            Secondly, according to the paper, all this added water could first slow and then shut down two key ocean currents – and Hansen points to two unusually cold blobs of ocean water off Greenland and off Antarctica as evidence that this process may already be starting.

            If these ocean conveyors were to be impacted, this could create much greater temperature differences between the tropics and the north Atlantic, driving “super storms stronger than any in modern times”, he argues
            Hansen points to evidence from ancient climates (known as paleoclimate data) to suggest this has previously happened on Earth – an interpretation that was challenged during the interactive peer review process.

            Now, according to the IPCC, global sea levels will only rise a maximum of not quite a metre by the end of the century.

            But Hansen says this is too conservative. His paper claims that climate models, including those used for his paper, don’t properly capture the consequences from adding freshwater from melting ice sheets. Sea levels could rise several metres beyond the IPCC’s estimates, and the rise would be much faster.

            So what’s the upshot? According to Hansen:

            These feedbacks raise questions about how soon we will pass points of no return in which we will lock-in consequences that cannot be reversed on any time scale that people care about.

            Consequences include sea level rise of several metres, which we estimate could occur this century or at the latest next century if fossil fuel emissions continue at a high level.

            That would mean the loss of all coastal cities, most of the world’s largest cities and all of their history.

            So, make my day, Evan, and you your favorite denier response to the new research…without reading it or understanding it—-“Preposterous’….LOL

          • Evan Jones

            Well’ Evan, you are diss this just published peer reviewed open sourced research paper in a LEADING science journal….

            Horrors.

          • Evan Jones II

            Yes it is, and run over it is opened sourced. You can interact with the team over there and show them watt a bright/dim bulb you truely are! So funny!
            Run, Evvie, run….sure you are….back to Willards

          • M J

            Of course it is “difficult to prove a complete negative”. But that is exactly why you should not have made such a bold, sweeping and extremely unscientific claim.

            It is because you do things like that that so many people in this forum think you are nothing but a sophisticated fossil fuel industry troll.

          • Evan Jones

            I am currently most definitely pro-fossil fuel. When a viable alternative appears, I will be in favor of that.

            I reiterate the “bold, sweeping statement” that neither CRS bias nor microsite is accounted for in any of the surface metrics. Their adjustment pages do not show it. Dr. Menne and Dr. Venema say it is unnecessary.

            USCRN equipment is triple-redundant PRT and is magnificently well sited, so it doesn’t need to. GHCN stations, OTOH, have a preponderence of CRS units and is poorly sited.

          • Evan Jones II

            No need to state you are pro fossil fuels…..it shows up in your scientific expressions.

          • M J

            But now you are admitting that you are putting the cart before the horse. You call yourself “pro-fossil fuel”. Then you go cherry picking the evidence to justify this unjustifiable bias.

          • Evan Jones

            Look up the word “currently”. And it would be pretty stupid for me to be cherrypicking seeing as how peer review for this thing is going to be brutally tough, and independent review even moreso.

          • M J

            So you say. But I don’t believe it will even ever get to peer review. Because you are only posturing, not interested in a real submission at all.

          • Evan Jones

            I wouldn’t be wasting time posturing if our team wasn’t “interested in a real submission”.

          • Evan Jones II

            Boy, you know how to embellish your talking points!
            MJ, I’ve been locked horns with his one for YEARS, and watt he states is not accurate at all. Evan popped up again just before the recent World Paris Climate and continued posturing his Twist and Spin regarding the significance of the danger we have place life forms on the planet.
            He thrives engaging with non scientists because he has at his disposal a vast data base of denial sources and jargon. Makes it appear he is playing on the scientific playing field, but more like a sand pit.
            He even coaxed me to waste more time to debate him in the argument l
            That’s all these characters desire, debate, argue, confuse and create unfounded doubt. Fossil fuel lovers only aim is continue to burn and profit.
            Evan go back to Willard’s!

          • Evan Jones

            1.) I do not pop up. I am always out there. But not always on Disqus. My most serious discussions are on other Media. Your incorrect conclusions are what comes when you have badly incomplete dataset. You need to make some adjustments, I think. (Hint: Start with infill.)

            2.) My jargon is the standard jargon of anyone seriously involved in this subject and by any and all sides.

            3.) He even coaxed me to waste more time to debate him in the argument !

            Consider it an open invitation. I’d actually be interested in your input in terms of the specifics.

            4.) That’s all these characters desire; debate, argue, confuse and create unfounded doubt.

            First you’ll be having to unfind what we found. War of the peer-reviewed journals. Best Game Ever!

            5.) Fossil fuel lovers only aim is continue to burn and
            profit.

            Indeed. It would be nice to see the end of 4th World poverty — in historical terms, right quick-like. If you got a faster, cheaper way, sign me on. Every year of unnecessary delay takes a heavy toll in human life — and in human misery. In the undeveloped world, pollution takes a distant backseat: Poverty is the Great Killer. Right here. Right now.

          • Evan Jones II

            Do you realize you just validated every single accusation that I threw at you. All you desire is to muck up the webways and circle around as a dog chases his tail. No thank you, got better things than fall for your trap.
            Oh, correction, more like this
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l_6G6ppashc

            You best concentrate on that PERFECT paper you promise to publish…LOL
            Boy, paybacks are a. Bitchzen

          • Evan Jones II

            MJ, Evvie here has selective vision and only refers to sources that fits his point of view and others that do not he just ignores. Never mind actual tangible evidence…that simply does not exist in his little 700 sq foot apartment rent controlled NYC apartment of his.
            Dr. Twist is a professional denier up there with his Master Willard Watts.
            I just like to occupy his time to keep him in the direction of the path of straight and true.
            Good Day.

          • M J

            His “selective vision” fits the fossil fuel company agenda too closely though. I’ll believe he is in their pay until I see his tax returns.

          • Evan Jones II

            As Evan would say, fairly certain, yet he denies so! That is why I some to es call him St. Evvie because he is doing all this for the good of mankind!
            Strange one this Evan Jones is. Keep at him and busy.thanks

          • Evan Jones

            I do it because it’s fun. But if you know anyone in the industry who would shoot me a grant, I would be most pleased if you could arrange an introduction. #B^)

          • Evan Jones II

            Gets his kicks out of being a deviate rogue denier and sees it as fun!. Wants to play at it full time with grant money. If Your Master, Willard, can’t hook you up, there is something very wrong with your partnership….seems old boy Tony Watts is collecting the whole quid and feasting on the whole pie…not even leaving you the crumbs.
            Evan, you got to rebel!

          • Evan Jones

            This project is not funded. No one involved gets any money for it.

            But, yes, lots of kicks, lots of fun.

          • Evan Jones II

            Yo, Evan, I know the answer to your problem….you just happen to be placed in the wrong dimension…. The place you need to be is an alternate universe….
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fUf5tiCoYuI

            Where up is down, all physic and chemistry bend to your whims, and rats can actually talk, in addition to sing!

          • M J

            You have a very sick idea of ‘fun’.

          • Evan Jones

            Science is fun. It was fun in 2011 when when our results went one way and fun again when it went the other.

            And one does wish to identify any unaccounted-for metadata-related statistical biases in the data sample. Besides, none of our results dispute anthropogenic global warming or CO2 forcing effect. We are part of the so-called 97%, as defined by the Oreskes and Cook surveys. But getting the amounts right is very important.

            We have the excellent USCRN for going forward. No problem, there. But the first of those weren’t deployed until 2002, and the network was not activated until 2005. For historical we are stuck with HCN and its equipment and observational in homogeneities , which include a number of biases, both warming and cooling.

          • M J

            Nice try, but what you are doing is not science. Not even close.

          • Evan Jones

            An interesting statement. But how is that not science?

          • M J

            Why are you asking me when Evan Jones II has already answered that question more than once? That kind of ploy is one of the things you do that is very unscientific.

          • Evan Jones

            I do science and then I talk about it. Pretty good ploy, huh?

          • M J

            No, what you do is not science, nor is your “talk about it” scientific. The reasons for these have been explained to you already many times. You are just pretending that you can triumph through repetitions.

          • Evan Jones

            I doubt you even know what the work actually is. So you wouldn’t know. And what is unscientific about attempting to replicate H&L-06 or bin for microsite or quantify CRS bias? Pretty mainstream science, actually. All to be submitted for peer review.

            I am also a co-author of Fall (2011) in JGR, which found somewhat different results. This paper is an expanded followup.

          • M J

            Your doubts are irrelevant. And you are doing much more than “attempting to replicate H&L-06 or bin”, all of it unscientific. But even the way you refer to H&L-06 is already unscientific.

          • Evan Jones

            I repeat, what is unscientific about binning for microsite and calculating CRS bias? (Apart from replicating H&L-06, that is.)

            And as you clearly have no idea how I am doing any of this, you can have no idea whether what I am doing is or is not scientific. If it passes peer review, would you still not think it to be scientific?

            Your process appears to be that you neither like nor trust me, therefore anything I do or say cannot be scientific. That is certainly not a particularly scientific approach.

          • Evan Jones II

            Science? This is an example of the science you boys are doing…allfluff
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O6gljDcLrvQ

          • Evan Jones II

            Evvie has again disappeared! Vanished out of thin air…..will reappear again, no doubt, when another World Climate Conference is staged so he can rinse and repeat his staged mantra…..my paper is proof….soon to be completed…..LOL…
            What a bunch of characters….

          • Evan Jones II

            See’ MJ, this has been going on for some time with this one….he teases you in thinking he is serious—a serious waste of time and his main purpose is to display a sense of authenticity that is rather shallow and false. Thank you for seeing through it all.

          • Evan Jones II

            Still waiting for YOUR science to materialize….yawn…sound of crickets

          • Evan Jones II

            Just like playing with Pee Wee Herman at his playhouse, no doubt, the way you all go about going it

          • Evan Jones

            NOAA doesn’t and HadCRUt4 doesn’t. NASA/GISS starts out with NOAA/GISS-adjusted data and then readjusts it, so not them, either. NOAA does not even do a UHI adjustment anymore (it doesn’t affect trend, anyway, just offset), but lets homogenization handle it. GISS cetainly doesn’t (and is — necessarily — utterly reliant on homogenization — and kriging).

            The adjustment pages are a matter of public record. Go check them out, because you won’t believe it till you see it.

          • Evan Jones

            El Ninos and La Ninas are blips on any reasonable interval. But a recent time series must always account for the PDO flux. That’s what creates the 30-year stepladders. CO2 warming pressure continues unabated, regardless.

            And, having been up to my eyeballs in raw data, all I can say is that I bet you donuts to dollars that I think it can be more misleading than you do. (Though a warming signal is quite clear, to be sure.)

          • M J

            But you might have something backwards: after all, the saying is “dollars to donuts”, not “donuts to dollars”, as you could have confirmed before clicking ‘Post’ by doing a simple Google query;)

            You still lack credibility for the very reasons I gave, you have gained none by empty boasts such as “having been up to my eyeballs in raw data”.

          • Evan Jones

            I figure being 4000 hours deep into USHCN raw data makes it about eyeball level.

            And that was a joke. Donuts are well over a buck a shot where I live.

            But yes, I am a prone to error as anybody. That’s the reason we included on out team a prominent expert climatologist and statistician who flatly disbelieved our hypothesis going in (Dr. Nielsen-Gammon). Not only to check my sums, but run his own, independent analysis.

          • M J

            Anybody can claim to be that “deep into USHCN raw data”. But your statements about the data you have been making to date do NOT confirm that you have the level of knowledge one would expect out of that kind of time with it.

            On the contrary: it looks like mere posturing.

          • Evan Jones

            That’s just funny.

            Especially having just completed a massive USHCN2 5-year pairwise for equipment jumps (complete with CRS adjustment baselined to CRN data). All of my own construction. A minor part of the overall work I have done since 2012.

            I’ll lay long odds I’ve forgotten more about station data than you’ll ever learn. Raw or in various stages of adjustment.

          • M J

            Your empty words miss the point. Until you can actually back some of your claims, no one should believe you when you claim to have “completed a massive” anything.

          • Evan Jones II

            MJ, Evan has earned the title “Terminator Troll”. Would you believe he logged in close to 14,000 comments in one article!
            Yes, it is true…Rolling Stone published Bill McKibben’s “Terrifying New Math” and Evan never left the comment section, just like here!
            So, don’t take him too seriously (after all he lives with rats!). He is just a plant in cyberspace by Anthony Willard Watt & Co. and is part of the team to disrupt public policy in regard to climate change. He was absent for a while until the Paris Climate Conference and poked up again. That says it all. Thanks for you input, but now you know what you re dealing with. Dr. Spin and Twist.

          • Evan Jones

            Would you believe he logged in close to 14,000 comments in one article!

            Considering my entire disqus contribution is well under 4000, I’d have to say say no.

            You and MJ need to check your facts better, I think.

          • Evan Jones II

            No, you best fess up and admit the truth for a change. Just because you tally here, does not mean you do not have other avatar names….we know better…
            You rat

          • Evan Jones

            I post only under my own name. What I can’t understand is why anyone would want to do otherwise.

          • Evan Jones II

            Evan, sure you do….you act all alone…a one man crusade….a candle of light in the darkness…sure, Evan….no support at all….
            Willard Tony Watts probably claims the same…
            Yep, just two Guys on a mission
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-4YrCFz0Kfc

          • Evan Jones

            As an atheist, I am unlikely to be on a mission from god. And I post under my own name, only.

          • Evan Jones II

            You only worship yourself….the center of the universe in your mind. LOL

          • Evan Jones

            I examine the data. You put your chips on the Guardian.

          • Evan Jones II

            Ahhh, poor little Evvie, I gather you rather you would put your chips on Watts UpWith That?
            LOL….BTW…that’s the place for the like of you….
            You are indeed Dr Twist

          • Evan Jones

            We both put our chips on what the data shows.

          • Evan Jones II

            No you dont , more like how you deniers misinterpret the data.

          • Evan Jones

            Groovy. Then all you have to do is demonstrate how we are misrepresenting it. Should be easy, if what you’re saying is correct.

          • Evan Jones II

            That’s no my job…like you I don’t get paid…I’ll leave that to the professional scientists. We have already too many no nothing wann bes clogging the webways….you for example

          • Evan Jones

            I only get payed in badly delayed gratification. Th web is wide and everyone gets their say. That’s a good thing (net).

          • Evan Jones II

            You know a job worth doing is worth getting paid for.
            As far as the world wide web, the problem as we can see is all the riff raff and otherwise peanut gallery types, like yourself, have a stage to act out their fantasies to an audience. Somehow that validates their beliefs in themselves, no matter how untrue.

          • Evan Jones

            Definitely. Yet payment is not always money.

          • Evan Jones II

            In your case a case of cheese balls. Bon appetite!

          • Evan Jones II

            That a boy, Evvie, hit it and best crunch those excel numbers…have fun…take all the time you need…remember….haste makes waste!

          • Evan Jones

            Here you go:

            ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/

            Now you can be deep into it, too. If that’s what you really want.

          • Evan Jones II

            Well, well this article is for you!

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/03/16/video_showing_why_thermometers_are_better_to_measure_global_warming_than.html
            There are lots more good zingers in the video, so I suggest you watch the whole thing. It’s only a few minutes long. But it shows how utterly wrong Smith and Cruz are, as well as so many of the other climate science deniers, and, because of their actions, just how committed they are to their wrong beliefs. It is my opinion that for many of them, they are not interested in the truth; they only care about ideology. Nothing will convince them they are wrong. That’s opposed to actual, y’know, scientists, who are convinced by data.

            And that’s why climate scientists are overwhelmingly convinced that global warming is real, dangerous, and caused by humans. Because that’s what the data tell us.
            Another key point: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) thinks scientists are huddled over the ground-based data, manipulating it to make it look like warming is happening. He has literally accused them of “altering” the data. Well, surprise: They aren’t altering them, they’re calibrating them to make them more accurate (typically, raw data right off a detector of some kind need to be calibrated to account for instrumental biases).

            Not only that, satellites data are adjusted more than surface measurements, due to a host of other issues you get from satellites versus thermometers on the ground. Yet Cruz claims the satellite data are the best we have. Have he and Smith even talked to each other? If Smith is right he disproves Cruz!

          • Evan Jones

            Heh. Surface metrics are more reliable? Have you ever seen GHCN coverage? (I doubt it.)

            Sats do not measure surface. But they provide near-full coverage. I also notice that the video only has Mears’ side of it. When they redid their data, they did a K-15 act: they adjusted the far more accurate NOAA-15 sat to match the problem-ridden NOAA-14 rather than the other way around. No mention whatever was made of UAHv.6, which does the opposite.

            If the surface metrics were correctly adjusted, they’d be more reliable. But without factoring in microsite and the well known problems with the historical CRS equipment, they are badly off the beam. Throw in misapplied homogenization, and the problem is made worse, not better.

          • Evan Jones II

            Really, just because you write it in that yet to be published unfinished paper….OY
            Time to pack it in and stop with the theatrical gargon-

          • Evan Jones

            No, just because it sticks out in the data like a fish in a tree.

          • Evan Jones II

            Ya, sure it does, that’s why it’s still sitting somewhere collecting dust.
            LOL

          • M J

            You just don’t get it, do you? Just because you can cite a link does not show you are “deep into it”. Only retracting your nonsensical claims can do that.

          • Evan Jones

            You’re the one who’s not getting it. I am merely providing as link so you-all can get a look at it if you wish. (Which I doubt).

            I retract nothing. Curious to know why you would consider microsite effect on trend to be nonsensical. Or CRS bias (which is suggested by Hubbard & Lin, 2006).

          • Evan Jones II

            No, you won’t retract nothing. You are just following orders from Master Willard.
            You Lukewarmers will never relent to the real scientific data…make believe twist and spinners you be…..sad gang of misfits

          • Evan Jones

            You are the one ignoring the data. It’s out there. Go get it.

          • Evan Jones II

            Data…sure Evan, why don’t you?
            https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

            Don’t be such a smug twit all your life…Get off your high horse, Charlie, you ain’t the person telling anyone anything…

          • Evan Jones

            I already posted the NORSEX graph of Arctic Sea ice. Want to see it again?

          • Evan Jones II

            Why would you keep track on how many hours if you weren’t being compensated?
            This isn’t the first time you revealed the amount of time you devoted to all this…seems like you maintain such records for only one reason….Quid….case closed….some people…

          • Evan Jones

            (Sigh.) I have a day job. I am not paid one red cent for any of this. I do it because I am having the best time ever.

            Once this paper is published, I may look into some actual grants. I’d like to take the show on the road. But that is only a future consideration.

          • Evan Jones II

            Right on Evan! That will be a perfect fit for you! I always thought of you as being a tool for the PTB. Actually, you were born 100 years too late and will die 100 too early. Why, you ask?
            Because you are the perfect example of a Soviet Bloc data cruncher issuing out proclamations on how everything is fine and dandy and the science of Communism is providing according to the five year plan. In actual fact, the reality on the ground is totally different. You would be perfect fit for that post. So, this is the next best thing to keep everyone calm and under control. Good for you! The PTB love a willing cooperative eager candidate that slaves cheap. Hope the provide you with a letter of commendation, comrade.
            Yep 100 years from now there will no doubt what the error in your religion of lukewarmism.
            Dr. Twist….we salute you!

          • Evan Jones II

            doi:10.1038/nature13179

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago, and humans didn’t exist.

            – Global average temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than today (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F).

            – Polar temperatures were as much as 10 degrees C warmer than today (18 degrees F).

            – The Arctic was ice free.

            – Sea level was between five and 40 meters higher (16 to 130 feet) than today.

            – Coral reefs suffered mass die-offs.

            “The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level

          • Evan Jones

            Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level

            At a rate of +2ppm per year? Really? Try again.

          • Evan Jones II

            Just the facts , Evan, sorry they conflict with your Lukewarmist religion.

          • Evan Jones

            Well, all you have to do to prove your case is to prove 4+2-10.

          • Evan Jones II

            Talk is cheap…and that’s all you do…chirp…. NOTHING will change your tune….the data, tangible proof, physics and chemistry….all there and you come saying the whole scientific body is wrong….still trying to iron out the points of you groundbreaking paper….sure you are!….all you have done is get some press releases and articles posted on denier websites and like minded hard cored pro business as usual outlets. Sure Evan, you are being taken real seriously,.(sarc). That is why you waste your precious time with me here.
            How many real scientists you know do watt you are doing….loser, mama boy,
            Rent control slacker….ranting against government handouts and you yourself are the number taker….come on time to suck it up and get on with your pathetic life.

          • Evan Jones

            all you have done is get some press releases and articles posted on denier websites

            Pro-AGW sites, too. It has been a lot of fun. I am just finishing up anomalizing our equipment jumps. Cleaning up some stray Excel errors. I have never had so much fun in my life. As a game disigner/deveoper and killer player, this microsite/equipment issue is the best game ever.

            And it won’t be over when we publish, either. Lots of followup. Infill. Inclusion of partial records. Taking on TOBS. Regional (or terrain-based) microsite adjustment. Upgunning Leroy 2010 to its full potential. Class As. Bastardized homogenization and pairwise. Getting ahold of the B-44s (which give precise locations of stations we never spotted or since have been moved). Maybe even a crack at GHCN.

            Unpeeling the onion, in general. As for NOAA, they got the brains, but I got the touch. Like I say, best game ever.

          • Evan Jones II

            Xcel doesn’t fix stpid, MJ pointed that bout to you…go ahead and gaze at raw data another 4,000 hours, genius, so funny. Boy, Willard must really haze you good.

          • Evan Jones

            Excel may not fix stupid. It may even enhance it. But it gives a man of average intelligence the capabilities of a team of mathematicians compared with 1950.

          • Evan Jones II

            Gee, watt a bright bulb you are, Sherlock. The apple don’t fall too far from the tree!
            Sure, Evan, you are absolutely right! Best you send another 4,000 hours with Excel making sure all that data is absolutely right!
            Such a good boy!

        • Evan Jones II

          But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 5.5 inches (14 centimeters). Since 1993 the rate has soared to a foot per century (30 centimeters). And two different studies published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said by 2100 that the world’s oceans will rise between 11 to 52 inches (28 to 131 centimeters), depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

          “There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest,” said Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study that looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia. “It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use

          • Evan Jones

            One would have to account for the 1900 – 1950s warming with very little added CO2. And, as of yet, we simply can’t. Other factors may well be in play, here.

          • Evan Jones II

            Sure, just because YOU say so…not that you make excuses for data you don’t find agreeable to your lukewarmer religion. He reads an outtake on a website and makes a so called scientific judgement…..what a farce!
            Maybe you want to make another excuse for this little Evvie…connect the dots for a change PeeWee….
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Global Forecast System data, via University of Maine
            The rare Arctic warmth is already causing a decline in Arctic sea ice coverage, at a time of the year when ice cover is historically still increasing toward peak coverage in March. In an eye opening development, current Arctic sea ice coverage is at record lows for February and is tracking well below the previous record year of 2012.

            NOAA National Snow and Ice Data Center
            The unprecedented low Arctic sea ice cover has opened the eyes of many climate watchers around the planet.

          • Evan Jones

            He reads an outtake on a website and makes a so called scientific judgement…..what a farce!

            Actually, I slog through the data with Dr. Nielsen-Gammon (Google that!), who did not accept out hypothesis — which is precisely why he was invited onto our team — and who monitors and independently confirms every step I take.

            Try it sometime. You’d be singing a different tune right quick-like.

      • Evan Jones II

        Jail is to good for the likes of you….the gulag would be better justice.

        • Evan Jones

          And we call that one “neo-liberalism”.

          • Evan Jones II

            No, bullsht artist is better for the likes of you.

          • swemson

            Why on earth are you wasting your time trying to debate science with these nimrods? They don’t know what the term “science” even means.. They’re all paid propaganda spreaders… Look at the number of lies they post every day… The best way to deal with them is to ignore them.

            Remember, It wasn’t that long ago, before we had this Global Warming nonsense, that we had the same nonsense in reverse… The earth’s temperature has been cycling back and forth between warming & cooling for billions of years. It’s all controlled by the sun.

            fs

          • Evan Jones II

            Why should he listen to fly on sht as yourself?
            As far as watt you wrote…another part of the truth that is makes the complete truth false.
            CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the driving force in climate change in the world today.

          • swemson

            Well one reason is that I’m not an illiterate liar like you.

            Secondly, he’s already questioning the issue on his own, and I’m just trying to encourage him (and others) to keep doing that by continuing to look ONLY at the facts, which include those 6 actual Time Magazine covers that show that in the 1970’s, people were actually getting cold, and becoming scared about the possibility that it was going to get worse.

            For some more real evidence from Time, you can download a “Time” article from 1974, called “Another Ice Age?” (at: http://www.swemson.com/upl/t.74.pdf) that on page 2, shows that the “climate establishment” at that time was claiming that our vehicle emissions (CO2) were causing the cooling by blocking sunlight from warming the planet.

            Nobody should listen to foul mouthed illiterate liars like you, or any of the other liars like your pal Icarus62. And nobody should listen to any of the government agencies, which like their political masters do nothing BUT lie. Most seemingly private climate experts are also lying for the simple reason that they’re all competing for government grant funding, which is their life blood. Those in doubt should look only at the facts, and use a little good old common sense, to decide for themselves.

            fs

          • Evan Jones II

            Stay calm and face the TRUTH
            New evidence confirms human activities drive global warming
            http://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-evidence-human-global.html
            A new statistical technique, analysing data records since measuring started 150 years ago, independently confirms that man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) emissions have led to global warming, according to a JRC-led article published Nature Scientific Reports. The analysis also shows that the most pronounced consequences of such emissions are being felt in localised regions around the globe, such as Europe, North America, China, Siberia, the Sahel zone in Africa, and Alaska.
            The authors applied the same technique to analyse historical air temperatures and CO2/CH4 data from the past 800,000 years, available thanks to the 3,000 meter deep ice core drilled in Antarctica more than a decade ago, which offers scientists a clue on a time scale of 800 millennia. They found a causal relationship between temperature increase and rising CO2/CH4 levels, which is the exact opposite of the results for the last 150 years. This also confirms the validity of the technique, as it is well known from the ice core data that in historical times, increase of temperatures had been followed by higher CO2/CH4 emissions. The causality relationship appears to have started reversing around 5000 years ago. The analysis confirms this opposite trend for the last 150 years, when unprecedented amounts of CO2 started being pumped into the atmosphere in the industrial age

          • Evan Jones

            Whenever anyone capitalizes TRUTH, I keep my hand near my wallet.

          • Evan Jones II

            Thank you, you just pointed to the real reason why you are a lukewarmer…your wallet

          • Evan Jones

            The real reason is your hand.

          • Evan Jones II

            Slapping you silly, little mama’s boy….I inherited my rent controlled apartment from mama, OY…grow up.

          • Evan Jones

            I remember the global cooling flap. But it was a speck on a fly’s butt compared with what we are seeing now. I have never seen anything like this willful misreading of the data and (just as important) the demographics.

            Well, maybe not. In my lifetime, the world has ended the upwards of half a dozen times. (Remember the Club of Rome and “limits to growth”?) Yet they pick themselves up and charge fecklessly forward with not one iota of introspection.

            In future years, some of us will look back on this and shake their heads in wonder. Others will adamantly refuse to do so and will have moved on to yet the next inevitable world-ending catastrophe — whatever that will turn out to be.

          • Evan Jones II

            The MSM predicted cooling in the 70’s. Science was 6:1 warming cooling.
            A few climate scientists have now scanned through the research literature of the time. For 1965 to 1979, they found seven articles that predicted cooling, 44 that predicted warming and 20 that were neutral. The results were published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
            http://journals*ametsoc*org/doi/abs/10*1175/2008BAMS2370*1
            Newsweek in a particular had it really wrong. Peter Gwynne, the reporter, admits it.

          • swemson

            Bull$hit !!!

            It actually WAS cooling…. The facts speak for themselves.
            Those Time Magazine articles were not referring to predictions.
            fs

            PS: Eat $hit And Die you lying POS !!

          • Evan Jones II

            Just the facts
            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v4LPkmGO5Cc
            Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century

          • Evan Jones

            Thanks for your support. #B^)

            I think if some of these dudes actually mudslogged through the raw and adjusted data and took a look at some of those sites (easy to do via GoogEarth), they’d be singing a different tune.

            As for solar, I am agnostic. It looks as if we are entering a bit of a Dalton, so we will find out the hard way. So we wait and see.

            I definitely think CO2 has a forcing effect equal to what the mainsteam scientific community claims. But that is a mere 1.1C/doubling, a severely diminishing return.

            Where I depart is on the issue of net positive feedbacks. Feedback, by definition, must manifest itself in the data. It just ain’t. And that’s where the CMIP models go flying off the rails.

          • Evan Jones II

            The authors applied the same technique to analyse historical air temperatures and CO2/CH4 data from the past 800,000 years, available thanks to the 3,000 meter deep ice core drilled in Antarctica more than a decade ago, which offers scientists a clue on a time scale of 800 millennia. They found a causal relationship between temperature increase and rising CO2/CH4 levels, which is the exact opposite of the results for the last 150 years. This also confirms the validity of the technique, as it is well known from the ice core data that in historical times, increase of temperatures had been followed by higher CO2/CH4 emissions. The causality relationship appears to have started reversing around 5000 years ago. The analysis confirms this opposite trend for the last 150 years, when unprecedented amounts of CO2 started being pumped into the atmosphere in the industrial age
            http://m.phys.org/news/2016-02-evidence-human-global.html

    • Evan Jones II

      Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century

  • Evan Jones

    You don’t think we read them? It was reading what the real experts were doing that caused us to look closer.

    Turns out they weren’t looking close enough and were concerned with one direction (warming influence) and one direction only. They jumped on TOBS (a cooling bias), but turned a purblind, dismissive eye towards siting. Trendwise, they appear to be correct on the subject of HUI, but flat-out wrong when it comes to microsite.

    If the subject had been approached in a more dispassionate manner, this whole flap might have been avoided.

    • Evan Jones II

      Boy, are screwed up, kiddo! No wonder why you are trolling on these pages and not among the authentic professionals that understand the implications of the results of their research.
      Best you stay with your kind a Watts Up With That!

      • Evan Jones

        That’s whatfor peer review, old son.

        • Evan Jones II

          Well, well, the deniers are having a change of tune…..we shall see for how long…
          Really how short…

          • Evan Jones

            I have always been an advocate of peer review as a necessary step — and, after all, it is re-checked by independent review (the true review).

            It is self-correcting, given time. For example, look at the recent peer-review papers on equilibrium carbon sensitivity, 95% of which put it lower than IPCC AR5.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service