Jack
What Romney did sounds similar to Hilary Clintons hiding of data.
In the UK some 1 million Documents up to 200 years old were hidden from the public instead of being released under the 30 year rule
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/18/foreign-office-historic-files-secret-archive
I guess it’s good that we know about these things happening as I am sure other countries have unnecessary secrets that will never be found out.
Hope the Wisconsin affair ends well for you
Tonyb
Jim2, the USDA ‘experts’ are agronomists and farmers. I trust them. :)
Hmmm. Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot vs Arrhenius. My understanding is that one of the factors that persuades the IPCC and others that they are on the right track is that their models correctly predict troposphere warming and stratosphere cooling. Question : Is stratosphere cooling equally supported by the two theories, or does it provide a useful indication as to which is correct?
@Jim D
Of course the land can’t warm faster than the ocean forever. But it has nothing to do with the question at hand, because in fact the upper troposphere is getting drier even above the ocean. As water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that means a negative feedback. Which rules out scary runaway warming scenarios, and that’s the point.
Otherwise surface of land masses warming faster than oceans would not turn them into deserts. As long as ocean surface is getting warmer, rate of evaporation increases. That vapor has to go somewhere, it can’t stay in the atmosphere for long. Therefore eventually it comes down as precipitation and the more water evaporates, the more should come down.
If land warms faster than the ocean, it increases the probability of updrafts over land, sucking in more moist air from the ocean, which, above a certain elevation, gets saturated and precipitates out. So with warming not only global average precipitation increases, but it increases even faster over land. Which is the opposite of desertification.
That’s how monsoon works.
Ron Clutz: Matthew, I am afraid Lew et al admit nothing of the sort.
They say that “seepage” (as they call it) has occurred and identify (then document for one case) the non-scientific processes that produced it. Then they advocate strategies to prevent more of it from happening. If that is not an “admission” of susceptibility to non-scientific processes, what would you call it? “Victimization”?
Notice what they did not do, as well as what they did write. They did not present the response to the “pause”, namely debating it and adapting the models in such a way as to improve them and their fit to the data, as “normal science”, as RealClimate and others have done. They present “seepage” of the “pause” meme as an irrational response rather than a scientific response.
Here is what they wrote: Given that science operates in a societal context, there are strong a priori grounds to assume that relentless denial may find some degree of reflection in the scientific community. We refer to this potential phenomenon as ‘‘seepage’’—defined as the infiltration and influence of what are essentially non-scientific claims into scientific work and discourse.
What they call “essentially non-scientific claims” was later identified in this specific case as pointing to the disparity between the data and what had been a confident model-based prediction. Their claim is that it was irrational and “non-scientific” to search for explanations of the misfit and to incorporate modifications into the models.
If it is a limitation, it is a limitation of not just ignoring the skeptical memes.
This is a job for Judith.
“Their claim is that it was irrational and “non-scientific” to search for explanations of the misfit and to incorporate modifications into the models.” That is exactly the kind of lack of self-awareness that typifies their writings.
It is not particularly comforting if the ocean is not keeping up, because now there are less clouds over the land and you get that positive cloud feedback instead of the water vapor feedback. Meanwhile the land has been warming at almost 4 C per doubling which is at the high end of even the ECS estimates, so in this transient state, this is fast warming, but only over land where the people live and try to grow food.
AK, that was Andy West doing the equating. I agree with you that they are not equatable. By the way my comments are being delayed probably due to me being too active over the last few days, so you may see some more coming up late on various threads.
Ron, they do indeed lack awareness of their own bias. Yet the L2015 mechanisms they present are a subset of those which glue together the Consensus itself. And in their strong concern to combat the concept of ‘the pause’, they are explicit to the point of admitting the whole of climate science can be seriously swayed by arbitrary memes. Well yes. This idea has been placed in minds skeptics could never have reached. How long will it be before at least some of those minds, start to question *which* memes have done the influencing, and indeed which memes are the most virile due to their emotive content.
Apologies: I posted the wrong link for “I have already shot down in greater detail this same false claim from “Skeptical Science” author Glenn Tamblyn in the comments of this post (& in many other posts):”
Correct link: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/07/new-paper-finds-increased-co2-or.html
Mike Jonas: Both GHE theories acknowledge that CO2 and other GHGs act solely as cooling agents to radiatively cool the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere. Where the Arrhenius radiative GH theory goes horribly wrong is assuming CO2 and other GHGs magically reverse their roles to become warming agents solely within the troposphere. I’ve been asking the warmists for years why CO2 allegedly switches roles from warming agent to cooling agent in the tropopause and have yet to receive a coherent answer. Even Gavin & RC & other prominent bloggers can’t agree on an answer to this fundamental question, and here’s why their various explanations are bogus:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-does-co2-cool-stratosphere-warm.html
Tom Fuller’s full parenthesized quote is MarkSteynian:
(One of the crippling features of climate messaging is the fact that it never passes through the edifying crucible of debate, a conscious decision made by, well, the people contributing to this Meltdown, and so activist arguments are never sharpened by encountering the opposition–which is why skeptics and even lukewarmers just take the activists’ lunch money on the rare occasions that they do face off in a public forum.)
David Springer,
If you have a fact, you might care to produce it. Otherwise, as you so elegantly put it, FAIL.
In relation to sled dogs burying themselves in snow to stay warm at night, I believe you may be slightly mistaken. If you have information to show that sled dogs do any more than pack the snow down, using the same motion as any other dog, you might care to produce it.
Sled dogs curl into a ball, so to speak. They have a top coat and an undercoat, good enough to stop moisture reaching the skin even when swimming. Well insulated. Of course, dogs lack sweat glands over their skin, so retain internally generated body heat far better than humans.
This is why sled dogs can manage to remain asleep through blizzards, in some cases becoming covered with snow. The dog is smart enough to ensure it can still breathe, of course.
People can build snow caves to get out of the wind, and sleep nicely in their down filled sleeping bags. Or you can use a tent, unlike most dogs.
Have you any more irrelevant, misleading and incorrect or incomplete analogies or bon mots to gently toss my way?
On this occasion, I reluctantly award you a FAIL.
I have graph from my weather station, and you can see rel humidity track temps, until summer, and there you see it driven into the 100% line, until fall where it drops off the limit.
Joshua | July 4, 2015 at 5:35 pm
“…what would have been different absent that influence.”
Presidents and Prime Ministers saying we have x days to save the planet. Climategate. IPCC Group think. Mostly, a high level of certainty of serious danger that has pervaded society, and which isn’t even supported by the orthodox IPCC let alone any Lukewarmer or Skeptical views. These are social effects, which are operating independently of the physical climate system, and whether indeed CO2 turns out to be good, bad or indifferent.
“On the other hand, there is much quality, empirical evidence …”
Yes indeed. And as you know I incorporate great data from Kahan and from independent, surveys, for instance here:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/30/climate-psychologys-consensus-bias
…and there’s also some called up in the link-outs from this post. This data is indeed all great for my case.
Jim D | July 4, 2015 at 7:08 pm
Well the details will be different of course, but in terms of social process I think one can indeed broadly equivalence conspiracy propositions from both sides, of which there’s a range weak and strong. The weak ones may represent barely more than the general distrust of politicians that folks often express on any issue anyhow. But I think the point here is that the skeptic ones never engaged the public imagination, never caught on, and the CAGW ones did. Hence the former necessarily have much less influence.
> But I think the point here is that the skeptic ones never engaged the public imagination, never caught on, and the CAGW ones did.
The CAGW meme is the best counterexample to that claim.
