Apparently, not as settled as global warming believing science deniers would have us believe. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170502084037.htm Antarctic Peninsula ice more stable than thought Glacier flow at the southern Antarctic Peninsula has increased since the 1990s, but a new study has found the change to be only a third of what was recently reported. An international team of researchers, led by the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds, are the first to map the change in ice speed. The team collated measurements recorded by five different satellites to track changes in the speed of more than 30 glaciers since 1992. The findings, published today in Geophysical Research Letters, represent the first detailed assessment of changing glacier flow in Western Palmer Land -- the southwestern corner of the Antarctic Peninsula.
Clearly, scientist in the 1970s were too stupid and incapable of measuring surface temperature accurately.
Oh! I get it. A small increase in average temperature causes it to get colder and therefore cold weather events. It causes droughts and snow. Hmmmm...So it causes more and less precipitation. But, it doesn't cause more tornadoes and hurricanes as previously claimed by climate scientist. So it also must also cause more and less tornadoes and hurricanes. This just in.....the stock market is going to go up, down or sideways today. I have a feeling that I will be correct on this one.
IPCC, "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."
https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/02/nyes-quadrant/ Apart from the twitter aspect, here are other attributes of this quadrant: Second order belief – allegiance to consensus. Individual has not done primary research on the relevant topic or has not conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and research. Shutting down scientific debate; science as dogma Alarmism as a tactic to influence the public debate Political activism and advocacy for particular policy solutions Scientism: a demand that science dictate public policy Advocacy research Litmus test: Bret Stephen’s recent op-ed NYTimes recently hired an op-ed writer by the name of Bret Stephens. Mr. Stephens is a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer who specializes in international affairs but has also written some controversial articles about climate change. His first op-ed was Climate of Complete Certainty. Its actually very good. Blair King’s article provides the following summary: Any reasonable read of Mr. Stephen’s first piece identifies some very important arguments that the climate activists have failed to address. The unrealistic confidence the climate activists have placed in their models even though those models are barely able to hindcast, let alone forecast. The growing divide between what climate scientists are saying about climate change and what the climate activists claim they are saying. Most importantly the growing disconnect between what the scientists are saying about the risks of climate change and public sentiment about the topic.[BOLD MINE] The Climatariat was not pleased. From an article by Julie Kelly: Gavin Schmidt, a leading climate scientist and head of realclimate.org, has been on a Twitter bender since Friday, calling the column “pathetic. If you want ‘real conversations’ have it w/real people (& scientists) instead of cardboard cutout caricatures.” Stephens was even slammed by Andy Revkin, a climate journalist Stephens favorably cites in his column: “The column also features the kind of straw men and other familiar foils used by those more wedded to a world view or policy position than committed to a deep examination of a complex and consequential problem.” Hundreds of climate activists and science journalists slammed the Times, cancelling their subscriptions and comparing the Times to flat-earthers, creationists, and anti-vaxxers. Many NYTimes readers are canceling their subscription over Stephens’ op-ed [link]. Stefan Rahmstorf and Ken Caldeira are canceling their subscription to the NYTimes [link]. Michael Mann also.