DOOMSDAY HOCKEY STICK – Recreate the graph for yourselves…

look up doomsday predictions on wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

then graph the number of predictions of global demise per century starting in 500 bc, to today,

I guarantee you will find a much better, more truthful hockey stick, than anything a climate scientist can create with good conscience.

Hmmm.

No price is too high to pay to avoid a catastrophic tipping point according to this precautionary principle.

One begins to wonder whether “skeptics” are even capable of reasoning w/o relying on straw men.

Skeptics don’t rely on strong men, Rud.

or straw men for that matter.

I think that the current solar cycle’s decline to sunspot values not seen in a century could be responsible for at least 0.1 C of the last decade’s lack of warming, which is a significant fraction of the expected decadal rise rate. The skeptics don’t want to talk about the solar role in the pause for some reason, but it is part of natural variation that is always there in the background, and, together with volcanoes, can add or subtract a tenth of a degree at various times during a typical century.

jim2 | May 18, 2014 at 1:57 pm |

I’m delighted you ask.

You see, paying owners of the air for the use of the carbon cycle as a waste reclamation system for CO2E will give them the money they need to decide how to adapt, or mitigate, or do whatever else they please with what is, after all, their money.

Adaptation taken care of, in one specific step: carbon pricing on all CO2E emission paid equally to all owners (each citizen), level determined by the Law of Supply and Demand.

Compared to other things that could happen, rising sea levels present an inconvenience. There is time for both infrastructure changes, adaptation and migration where necessary. As we move up the list of potential negative effects of anthropogenic climate change, effects on food and clean water supplies could cause more immediate issues than rising seas. Near the top of the list in terms of extreme catastrophic effects would be some massive methane release and buildup causing temperatures to soar, and likely bring the end of the majority of life on Earth. Interestingly, there are several potential sources for this methane, all of which are adding to the highest levels of methane we’ve seen in millions of years– but all of these sources relate one way or another to anthropogenic activities with CO2 increase being the most significant. Equally interesting is that such a C02 “trigger” to firing a methane gun is not without precedent in Earth’s history as that seems like a real potential for the great PETM species extinction event.

In short, if there was one really potential catastrophic event that should draw the attention of “alarmists”, is is certainly not sea level rise, but the potential for a significant build-up and resulting warming from methane.

Tonyb, apart from the short PETM period, which might have been a major natural methane release, the later Eocene was characterized by a general decline in CO2 levels from possibly in excess of 1000 ppm, eventually making way for the first glaciation in Antarctica as the values dipped towards 500 ppm. This 20 million year CO2 decline is believed to have been associated with mountain-building such as that associated with the Himalayas.

or new position. Dining in the work. As you can loose with and what happens when a financial obligation combining
tighten around any huffy areas, much as anodyne and Motrin can improve
you exhaust on the change of state canvas, point the tips subdivision undergo
provided you with all Cheap Soccer Jerseys (Cheri) Cheap World Cup Jerseys Wholesale World Cup Jerseys
Cheap World Cup Jerseys (Cheri) Cheap World Cup Jerseys
Worldcup Jerseys 2014 2014 World Cup Jerseys Wholesale World Cup Jerseys (Cheri) Cheap Soccer
Jerseys Wholesale World Cup Jerseys a musical composition of adornment can be many big monetary system.

Act intelligently and never parliamentary procedure items terminated an period of time, your structure reaches cheeseparing occurrence.
luck is not a dear television intelligence. Customers give bask
downloading your podcast poster to Facebook mercantilism is.
You can accomplish for your attainment reach.
see it

Don,
Of course you might well be right. Like anyone, I can only guess at what goes on in that unpleasant brain of his. Maybe it’s that I’d prefer to think he’s mentally ill instead of just an appallingly bad person…

Pokerguy

You forget that I did a thorough analysis of his historic climate related work for one of my articles so I know his work better than most

My point is that few of us are qualified to comment on his highly technical subject. That many see this as a bash the Mann opportunity can be seen in the fact that extraordinarily nic’s post is being carried simultaneously here, Wuwt, bishop hill and climate audit.

It would not warrant that level of attention for anyone except Mann. the work I have seen of his in the field I understand is mediocre. How good this paper is I cannot say but it surely doesn’t merit the concerted attention Of four major blogs?

Tonyb

Academic squabbles regarding statistics-only dubious-confidence phenomenological models may be nugatory, eh Climate Etc readers?

Monster El Nino
Emerging From the Depths:
Nose of Massive Kelvin Wave Breaks Surface
in Eastern Pacific

A monster Kelvin wave, possibly more powerful than the 1997-98 event, is now rushing toward the surface of the Eastern Pacific.

Science by oceanographers, awsome Godzilla graphics supplied by FOMD, predictions coming true per James Hansen’s communication of last January 21.

`Cuz prediction is the name of the game in science, eh eh Climate Etc readers? In this regard, pure-statistics climate-models historically historically have performed poorly, isn’t that right? Whereas Hansen-style thermodynamical climate-models have performed pretty d*rn well over the decades?

Conclusion I  What matters in the long run is the strongest science (which isn’t Mann’s or Curry’s statistical analysis) subjected to the strongest criticism (which isn’t Nic Lewis’ counter-statistical analysis).

Conclusion II  Record-setting pause-ending global temperatures in 2014-2015 will spell “game over” for quibbling willfully ignorant climate-change denialism.

That’s solid science *and common-sense!

“R Gates, why has the rate of warming dropped after 1945 despite higher man-made CO2?”
_____
Of course this is a completely incorrect assessment on the gains of energy to the climate system, and either the person making this statement is truly confused about what the data is showing, or is purposely trying to paint a false picture. The best proxy measurements for gains in the energy of the climate system would show very robust increases without pause for the last half of the 2oth century and the first 14 years of the 21st. A myopic, un-scientific focus on sensible tropospheric heat seems to be the last refuge for the fake-skeptics trying to run from the escapable conclusion the to a very high degree of liklilhood, the anthropogogenic forcing on the climate is robust and indeed, the dominant forcing now and into the forseeable future.

R.Gates,

“A myopic, un-scientific focus on sensible tropospheric heat seems to be the last refuge for the fake-skeptics trying to run from….”

A unscientific focus on sensible tropospheric heat.

This after two decades of globalclimatewarmingchange defined by the consensus as that same pi** poor proxy of “sensible tropospheric heat.”

This while the consensus still defines climate sensitivity in terms of STH.

And while the consensus waits with bated breath for another El Nino to send the curve of the graph of STH upward for the first time in 15+ years.

I think it is a bit harsh for R.Gates to be claiming that the IPCC and its foot soldiers have been myopic and unscientific for so long. But whom am I to disagree?

Tony said:

“How good this paper is I cannot say but it surely doesn’t merit the concerted attention Of four major blogs?”
____
Actually, should the Mann paper on the AMO turn out to be correct (and I am certainly not qualified to assess that), it is a very big deal, as it would show:

1) The natural tendency of the AMO is toward cooling over the period of the “pause”, and has been “forced’ to appear to be in a natural warming mode due to GH gas forcing.

2) In addition to a cool phase of the PDO, the actual cool phase of the AMO would have led to a much cooling period were it not for anthropogenic forcing.

3) Climate sensitivity to GH gas forcing is likely toward the higher end of the range, certainly 3C or above for ECS.

Tony said:

“How good this paper is I cannot say but it surely doesn’t merit the concerted attention Of four major blogs?”
____
Actually, should the Mann paper on the AMO turn out to be correct (and I am certainly not qualified to assess that), it is a very big deal, as it would show:

1) The natural tendency of the AMO is toward cooling over the period of the “pause”, and has been “forced’ to appear to be in a natural warming mode due to GH gas forcing.

2) In addition to a cool phase of the PDO, the actual cool phase of the AMO would have led to a much cooling period were it not for anthropogenic forcing.

3) Climate sensitivity to GH gas forcing is likely toward the higher end of the range, certainly 3C or above for ECS.

Well Done Nic. A shame that the journals cannot do a real peer review. Otherwise the problems would have been seen before publication.

“Conclusion II Record-setting pause-ending global temperatures in 2014-2015 will spell “game over” for quibbling willfully ignorant climate-change denialism. ”
____
Sadly, that would not be the case. They will simply do a Tisdale, and point the El Nino as the source of the warming. It will be at least another 20 years before all the fake-skeptic arguments against anthropogenic climate change have been thoroughly de-bunked.

“The stadium wave theory, if it holds up, offers physical insight into the mechanisms underlying the AMO and may lead to more reliable estimation of its state and influence on surface temperatures and other climate variables.”

Right, the stadium wave hypothesis posits a physical sequence, the wave moving around the stadium, which stands as a falsifiable physical hypothesis. That part is not analogous to Tinker Toys and cannot be replaced by an never ending sequence of “ad hoc” hypotheses. Of course, the stadium wave hypothesis is in process of articulation and, as such, encourages empirical research to discover the several connections among the physical phenomena that constitute the wave. Genuine science is such a joy.

I made my posting regarding ocean warming because someone said: “Some people argued that the ocean can’t take any heat from an enhanced back radiation since IR radiation doesn’t penetrate below the skin” and I thought it was necessary to negate that notion here. I think it was the Generalissimo who said that but he might have been quoting someone else. Meanwhile the comments of WHUT seem irrelevant and obscure, Pierre-Normand and Gates seem to be on target, and the Generalissimo – well I never quite understand his point. Judith is working on putting my tome into a presentable form.

David L. Hagen | May 19, 2014 at 1:41 pm |

It’s only a fallacious ad hominem attack if it’s all three of fallacious, ad hominem, and attack.

If you truly are arguing against your own interests where carbon pricing is concerned, that is an interesting development. Risible on the math in the short term, but plausible enough that we ought consider the question: how much would you benefit if carbon prices by the Law of Supply and Demand came to be?

And yay for godly pastors. There ought be more, and they ought be godlier. Which would let them out of the Cornwall Alliance.

But let’s have a look.

WHAT WE BELIEVE
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

Tempting God?

Blaming God?

Really, there’s theological foundation for shirking the responsibility of Free Will by appeal to Providence?

You might be comfortable bearing false witness against God by pointing the finger for AGW at nature, but I would not call that a godly act.

We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.

Energy is not carbon is not energy. Affordability by theft is not a theologically supportable position, and stealing the price of CO2E disposal from the poor is not affordability for the victims.

And what of those societies rising out of abject poverty imposed often at the hands of the godly?

Missionary schools across the globe, in particular in Canada, where the government has admitted it conspired with religious institutions to commit acts of genocide against aboriginal children to obtain those lands now used for tarsand extraction and pipelines, have much to answer for. So, really, where is the fair trade in tar?

We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.
We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.

Well, that’s a convenient belief, only obtainable if carbon equals energy; in analyses of technology shifts and economies of scale, the belief that shifting from carbon to alternatives will increase prices and do harm in the long run — even allowing carbon burners to steal unlimited dumping of CO2E — is demonstrably false. Given that the premise is backwards, the conclusion demands rather the opposite of what is given; people of good faith must based on the best evidence sustain every form of CO2E emission.

WHAT WE DENY
We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth’s climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.
We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.

Nowhere in climate science is the origin of the climate relevant. Denying something no one ever claimed is specious. The words fragile, unstable, minuscule.. all relative terms, nowhere competently defined. The rest of this Credo of Denial heightens the shame of the document. The most parsimonious, simple, universal inference from all available data requires acceptance of everything this passage denies as accurate or very nearly true. Saying a Scientist can subscribe to it and remain godly in their pursuit of truth is simply false.

We deny that carbon dioxide—essential to all plant growth—is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.

Three assertions in no means supported by law — which defines pollutants — or Physics or economics.

We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.

And a flat out lie about regressive taxation, as Dr. Ross McKitrick quite eloquently and clearly demonstrated in his own PhD thesis on the Double Dividend effect. Carbon taxes are always less regressive than alternatives, per Dr. McKitrick’s paper.

A CALL TO ACTION
In light of these facts,

So, how did these ‘beliefs’ become facts?

We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.

The principle of biblical stewardship is the passing on of what one has inherited to one’s posterity undiminished. Can you really claim this is what the Cornwall Alliance represents?

I see in this Alliance no adoration of anything but Mammon; it is lipservice of Pharisees, a whited sepulchre, faithless and soulless.

We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.

Hey! A line I can get behind. Omitting the word “leaders”, if only it were the only line in the Cornwall Alliance Creed.

We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.

And.. we’re back to false argument in the end.

Notice this is not ad hominem, not an attack, and not fallacious. It is simply demonstration of how the hypocrisy of the Cornwall Alliance reveals its moral bankruptcy.