Week in review – science and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Urban Heat Island effect  in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970 [link] …

While the North Pole warms beyond the melting point, it’s freakishly cold in Siberia [link]

Where Trees Meet Tundra, Decoding Signals of Climate Change [link]

@richardabetts | What will the world actually look like at 1.5°C of warming? [link]

Just when you’ve thought that every conceivable angle has been covered…There is a major climate issue hiding in your closet: #FastFashion [link] …

New Research Shows Coral Reefs Will Handle Global Warming Just Fine [link]

Moss — yes, moss — could be part of the solution to air pollution in our towns and cities [link]

Which Coastal Cities Are at Highest Risk of Damaging Floods? [link]

“Deciphering deep ocean circulation changes between the present & the last glacial maximum”  [link]

New #JHydrometeor study suggests more/stronger large-scale baroclinic events as reason for precip increase in NE US: [link]

Recent increases in the retreat rate of chalk cliffs in southern England [link]

What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic. Scientist Peter Wadhams explains: [link]

Advancing #Polar Prediction Capabilities on Daily to Seasonal Time Scales @ametsoc [link] …

“Southern Ocean absorbed much of excess heat and carbon generated by humanity” [link]

Here is the most recent paper on measures of hurricane wind and resulting damage:

Evidence that ocean patterns – via their cloud impact – explains decadal variability in global warming [link]

 New paper  explains the 2-3 delay between Kelvin wave convection and tropical cyclogenesis: 

Policy

Marine Corps University Journal: Special Issue on Climate Change & Policy [link]

Why it’s time to radically overhaul UN climate summits [link]

How Climate Change May Speed Democratic Turnover, and Beyond a “Naïve” Understanding of Drought and Conflict [link]

Annual Climate Poker: UN Talks Tangle Over Cash [link]

Worth reading re use carrots not sticks to keep US in Paris Climate Agreement [link]

Washington state carbon tax initiative voted down: Was opposed by leading environmentalist groups [link]

Science in the Age of Trump

Who will advise Trump on science? [link]

Trump takes aim at NASA’s climate budget [link]

NASA under Trump [link]

Science wars in the age of Donald Trump [link]

The Higgs boson versus Donald Trump [link]

An open letter from and to female scientists [link]

Students’ temper tantrum over Trump [link] …

American Physical Society retracts Trump-friendly press release  [link]

About science, scientists and academia

Why scientists need training in diplomacy and viceversa? [link] …

The Harvard Crimson gets it exactly right on viewpoint diversity: [link] …

Pielke Jr and Wikileaks: How climate campaigners drove out a moderate climate researcher [link]

Marshall Shepherd: When Does Skepticism Become Bias In Science? [link]

How Infantilized Campuses Threaten Our Nation’s Future [link]

Good news: Treatment may become available for terrifed climate activists [link]

“The mathematics of science’s broken reward system” [link]

How the Charles Koch Foundation aims to be a leader in higher education philanthropy [link]

Pro-Publica cracks open the seamy and lucrative world of academic economists for hire–and names names.[link]

Why science couldn’t predict a Trump presidency [link]

 

 

94 responses to “Week in review – science and policy edition

  1. Judith,

    Could you please provide links to a concise summary of the damage functions used in the IAMs and also, especially important, the studies used to calibrate them?

    • Go to the IAM websites for that.

    • Peter, why don’t you ask one or more of the IAM owners for this, then report back to us, instead of asking here. Maybe start with Tol. My read is that most of the damage comes from sea level rise, which is why they have to go out an absurd 300 years. Have you even looked at their stuff?

      • He refuses to do his homework.

      • David Wojick

        Peter, why don’t you ask one or more of the IAM owners for this, then report back to us, instead of asking here.

        I have been reading the IAM material, and commenting on them here on CE and elsewhere, for several years. It seems there is low confidence in the damage functions and the evidence to support them is very limited. I am not an expert in this, so I am asking for the experts to debate this key issue on Climate Etc..

        My reason for asking this questions here, on Climate Etc., is because it is arguably the most important issue underpinning the belief that GHG emissions will be more damaging than beneficial. Climate Etc. should be a place where this critical issue that underpins the justification for climate alarmism can be discussed openly and honestly. Is there valid evidence that GHG emissions are a significant threat, or even that they will cause more damage than benefits? If so, what is the evidence? It is telling that the climate alarmists don’t want to engage in debating it.

        My read is that most of the damage comes from sea level rise, which is why they have to go out an absurd 300 years. Have you even looked at their stuff?

        Yes. And I’ve been commenting on it here for several years. Here are some:
        Anthoff, Nichols and Tol (2010) http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-7 show the cost to the world of a 0.5 m sea level rise in 2100 is about $200 billion, and about $1 trillion for 1 m rise. That’s trivial.

        Tol (2011), Figure 3 here http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf shows the net damages of sea level rise are trivial. Furthermore, this chart shows the benefits greatly exceed the damages up to about 4 C increase in GMST (excluding the projected cost of energy, the justification for which seems questionable).

      • Sorry for the bold. Only this sentence was intended to be bold:

        “I am asking for the experts to debate this key issue on Climate Etc..”

      • David Wojick,

        Further to my previous comment regarding cost of energy being the only significantly negative impact in Figure 3 of Tol 2011 (linked above), Table 3 in Anthoff and Tol (2013) DOI: 10.1007/s10584-013-0706-7 paper shows that cooling energy is the most significant parameter (if I am interpreting it correctly). What are the assumptions underpinning that?

  2. Pingback: Week in review – science and policy edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  3. Urban Heat Island effect in Hong Kong accounts for most ‘warming’ since 1970 …

    As it turns out, finding actual heat under our noses makes a lot more sense than looking for missing heat deep in the ocean.

    • The WUWT headline is quite misleading. The paper had no time information on UHI. They only found a non-urban site that was currently 0.865°C(!) cooler than HK. They did find a “trend” for HK that was barely different from global.

      It’s a really crummy paper.

      • Nick

        HK is surely too highly populated and small for there to be much of a ‘non urban’ site. Which raises the interesting question as to how much uhi affects countries such as the UK which is about the size of New York state but with some 60 million people. Whilst the Met Office makes a small allowance for UHI it could be argued that all sites within the country are affected by uhi to some extent or the other.

        What do you think? Does size matter?

        tonyb

      • WUWT research suggests that local heat contamination may be just as big if not bigger than UHI.

      • Gee. Additional heat causing thermometers to register higher temperatures?

        Who’d have thought such an amazing thing.

        Isn’t CO2 supposed to cause higher temperatures? Oh well, I guess the consensus must be followed – I suppose that’s why Donald Trump lost the election.

        Cheers.

      • David

        Yes, as you know, you have a general IUHI effect that may cover many square miles (or POSSIBLY an entire country to some extent or other) and some specific localised heat sources within it.

        Most thermometer readings have, for practical purposes, been taken near some built up area which might range from a few buildings, to a city, to an airport which over the years tend to have become more urbanised. The Met Office try to allow for this with a small reduction in say, CET. to try to account for it.

        As most temperature readings are taken in an urban area and have been since the early days of thermometers it is against these areas that the uhi effect, if any, should be calculated, not smeared round the whole globe.

        Ideally, only pristine rural sites that have always been measured in the same manner should be used for temperature calculation but that is probably an impossibility. Perhaps Mosh has done a study of unchanging rural sites around the globe?

        tonyb

      • Any discussion of UHI might possibly also address the results of measuring surface (grass) temperatures, rather than using air temperatures some distance above the ground.

        Ground temperatures don’t fluctuate nearly as much as air temperatures, particularly if taken at airports where powerful aeroplane engines discharge large amounts of heated air in various directions depending on the size and orientation of said aircraft.

        Anyone who has ever had the responsibility of recording air temperatures at an official observing station will no doubt agree.

        Air temperatures are quite useless for most purpose. Even the local TV network news now reports observed temperature along with a “feels like” temperature, presumably to convince people the Earth is getting hotter.

        All good fun, even if quite pointless.

        Cheers.

      • Have not looked at it yet, but you can have an offset between urban and rural but a similar slope, so the UHI would not be contributing to the decadal warming signal especially at this late date as HK has been developed for decades.

      • Tony,
        “it could be argued that all sites within the country are affected by uhi to some extent or the other”
        People usually see UHI as a measurement problem. In trying to get a region average, too much weight is given to city locations, it is said. They aren’t representative.

        You’re suggesting that in some places they are representative. That’s not a measurement problem any more. It’s an attribution problem. It’s not one that the MO should be correcting for.

      • If scientists had been serious about unbiased data collection, official thermometers would been located according to established siting rules.

      • “If scientists had been serious about unbiased data collection, official thermometers would been located according to established siting rules.”
        Scientists don’t get to decide where thermometers are located, except maybe in new projects like USCRN. They have to analyse the information collected for other purposes. That’s a matter of the community’s economic priorities.

  4. Evidence that ocean patterns – via their cloud impact – explains decadal variability in global warming [link] …

    These results suggest that sea surface temperature pattern-induced low cloud anomalies could have contributed to the period of reduced warming between 1998 and 2013, and offer a physical explanation of why climate sensitivities estimated from recently observed trends are probably biased low4.

    So… TCR is not low; ECS is not low; SLR has accelerated; the system is not really that complex; we’re in the midst of a major heatwave… but I repeat myself.

  5. Wow. I’ve known Scientific American had fallen, but never imagined how much. It’s like reading the Daily Kos.

  6. In regards “What happens in the arctic doesn’t stay in the arctic…”
    While I’m a skeptical lukewarmer, I must admit that the observations I’ve read about in the Arctic the last ten years give me the most pause. Last week somebody linked to the GISSTemp LOTI Anomaly from last month and it looks like the Arctic is “on fire.” Mr. Waldham warns: “As the various Arctic climate feedbacks show, we are fast approaching the stage when climate change will be playing the tune for us while we stand by and watch helplessly, with our reductions in CO2 emissions having no effect in the face of, say, runaway emissions of methane.” I’d be appreciative if somebody could demonstrate to me that this is probably just natural variability. Historical records seem to relate prior rapid changes, but this seems worrisome.

    • As a quasi semi-limited skeptic I am able to easily reconcile my view with all of the warmist claims except the Arctic. I understand the past warming events and the oscillations at play but there is still a gnawing uncertainty to it all. When will it turn around?

      Waiting for the cooling of the Arctic and the first appearance of the Detroit Lions in the Super Bowl is getting on these old nerves.

  7. Regarding the “While the North Pole warms beyond the melting point, it’s freakishly cold in Siberia”, perhaps someone can explain something to me.

    The closest weather station to the North Pole is Alert in Nunavit. According to the Weather Network, Alert hasn’t been above 0°C since September 26 when it was +2.0°C. Even with the balmy temperatures, the September average in Alert was -4.6°C.

    The average temperature in October was -14.6°C and the highest temperature on October 7 was -4.8°C. So far November has been -16.2°C with a high of -3.0°C on the 5th.

    The North Pole is about 830 km from Alert. How do they know is beyond the melting point? I’ve seen lurid pictures showing swaths of orange heat across the Arctic, except where there are weather stations. How does the high temperatures know how to avoid weather stations?

    • Sachs Harbour on the other side of the Canadian Arctic was last above 0°C on October 5th when it reached +0.6°C.

      Petermann Fjord in Northern Greenland is like -35°C.

    • You lack the basic understanding. When it is unusually warm somewhere, it is climate. When it is cold, it is weather.

      • No, no no!
        When it is warm somewhere, it is because of global warming.
        When it is cold somewhere, it is because global warming changed circulation patterns.

    • “perhaps someone can explain something to me.”

      It is an axiom of climate “science” that the majority of global warming warming occurs where there are no thermometers to measure is, thus the data is acquired by techniques such as “Kriging” AKA “making stuff up”.

  8. If Trump is taken aim at NASA’s budget – where does that leave Gavin Schmidt and his organization at GISS? The name – Goddard Institute of Space Science implies that there is some non-earth science happening, just not sure to what extent.

  9. Should be Space Studies not Space Science

  10. Peter Wadhams: “The great white cap that once covered the top of the world is now turning blue — a change that represents humanity’s most dramatic step in reshaping the face of our planet. And with the steady disappearance of the polar ice cover, we are losing a vast air conditioning system that has helped regulate and stabilize earth’s climate system for thousands of years.”

    It represents humanity’s most dramatic step in reshaping the face of our planet with eyewash to cause alarm. AMO and Arctic warming is due to increased negative NAO/AO, the normal result of weak solar, and the complete opposite of what rising CO2 should do to the NAO/AO. Claiming that the Arctic has not seen such melt for thousands of years really takes the biscuit.

  11. Paraphrasing from the Infantilized Campuses piece, it seems replacing Play-Doh with Plato is apt advice.

    • Yeah but they at least have coloring books. I seem to remember having coloring books in school. Of course that was kindergarten, so my recollection may be off.

  12. The Harvard Crimson has reminded us that the Lecturers of Diversity should spend less time Lecturing the usual Lecturees and spend more time on In Service training for the benefits of Diversity. The hypocrisy of it all.

  13. Who will advise Trump on science? [link]

    I’ll nominate Professor Judith Curry.

  14. AGW theory will not be viable before this decade ends which will be great.

    Now we will be able to turn our attention to what really causes the climate to change and get away from this distraction. I have even wasted my time studying AGW theory.

    When the basis of what a theory is based on fails to materialize it is time to trash it which is exactly what has occurred with AGW theory.

    THE TWO BIG ERRORS

    Everything this theory has predicted from (FIRST BIG ERROR ) a +AO evolving over time to a lower tropospheric hot spot has failed to come about.(2ND BIG ERROR) There are 30 more I could state, but these two stand out.

    The distribution of warm and cold temperatures across the globe is wrong as well as the magnitude of the rise as called for by this theory. In addition the decline in global temperatures has now set in and will be accelerating gong forward putting an end to this theory.

    In addition this period of time in the climate is in no way unique.

    My theory (in a nutshell) is 1000x better then AGW theory . My theory is based on the following: Which is weak solar/geomagnetic fields when in sync IF the degree of duration and magnitude of change is long/strong enough will push the terrestrial items that govern the climate into a cooling mode.

    Terrestrial items
    sea surface temperatures
    major volcanic activity
    global cloud coverage
    global snow coverage
    global sea ice coverage
    atmospheric circulation pattern changes
    oceanic current changes

  15. What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic. Scientist Peter Wadhams explains: [link]

    He wrote:
    The great white cap that once covered the top of the world is now turning blue — a change that represents humanity’s most dramatic step in reshaping the face of our planet. And with the steady disappearance of the polar ice cover, we are losing a vast air conditioning system that has helped regulate and stabilize earth’s climate system for thousands of years.

    I write:
    We are not losing our air conditioning system. This is how the air conditioning system works!

    The roman warm period ended because the Arctic opened then and it snowed more. The medieval warm period ended because the Arctic opened then and it snowed more. The Arctic is open again now because we are in another warm period and it is snowing more. It will get cold, the ice is being replenished now. It is a natural cycle and we do not cause it. it is a natural cycle and CO2 does not cause it.

    There are people who just don’t know, but this time they don’t even suspect. Look at data from the ice cores. Warm times with more open ocean and more snowfall end after the ice is replenished. Cold times with frozen oceans do not produce enough snowfall and ice depletes until it retreats and allows warming.

    CO2 just makes the green stuff grow better using less water.
    The must scare us so they can tax and control us.

    • Also everyone is dismissing the role of the geo magnetic field which is in sync with the solar magnetic field which will compliment one another. They are both weakening and this should equate to lower global temperatures going forward.

  16. While the North Pole warms beyond the melting point, it’s freakishly cold in Siberia [link]

    That caught my eye because the North Pole yes it is warm but still way below freezing which is what is relevant.

    The warm Arctic going hand in hand with a -AO which I think starts the global cooling process. I might add I think once cooling is well under way the atmospheric circulation would revert to a more zonal flow but that is way down the road.

    Think of this ONLY a .5% increase in ALBEDO would wipe out all of the recent warming and if global cloud coverage increases and snow coverage increases in response to very low solar activity this could easily be attained.

  17. ULRIC EXACTLY CORRECT YOUR STATEMENT BELOW!

    It represents humanity’s most dramatic step in reshaping the face of our planet with eyewash to cause alarm. AMO and Arctic warming is due to increased negative NAO/AO, the normal result of weak solar, and the complete opposite of what rising CO2 should do to the NAO/AO. Claiming that the Arctic has not seen such melt for thousands of years really takes the biscuit.

  18. “Why science couldn’t predict Trump”

    The Aftermath is just so much fun.
    Once the Intelligentsia is able to predict election outcomes we can dispense with the silly things altogether.
    How could the great unwashed, that the Left has considered their property for lo these many decades, do this?
    We may never know due to the obvious absence of mirrors in the hallowed halls of the elite.

  19. That open letter to women scientist by women scientists is just plain irritating. I really hate arrogant presumptions of how I am thinking just because I happen to have a vagina. I personally am not in despair and feeling like life as we know it is coming to end just because Trump got elected. If I could have voted in the US election I probably wold have voted for him over Hilary Clinton. I am particularly irritated by the closing that calls for all women to agree and bind to each other simply because we are women. I thought the whole point of equality was to be equals regardless of our gender? I had trouble with men and support from women. Still I have to say some of the worst, and I mean the worst, cruelest, back stabbing oppressive actions I encountered as a female scientist were by other female scientists. Gender is no panacea.

  20. Judith – for the past couple days I’ve been seeing lots of references on social media to a new graph showing what is being described as catastrophic global sea ice area loss over the past year.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxZMyw_UoAAhd75.jpg:large

    I’m not seeing this on any of the sites I normally use for AGW info, either alarmist or skeptic……any thoughts?

    • Harkin1

      Here is a good explanation of what is happening which basically relates to very low levels of sea ice for the time of year at both poles

      http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/17/13667630/global-sea-ice-concentration-graph-science-twitter

      Tonyb

    • Here is an image.

    • A quick response. First, no point to looking at total sea ice; best to focus on NH and SH separately, since different things are going on. Re the NH (Arctic), there is an unusual weather pattern with strong warmth over the Arctic Ocean and massive cold over Siberia. Based upon CFAN’s forecast, this pattern will break up in about 5-7 days, and we will see cold over the Arctic Ocean for a few weeks, then in about 4 weeks things will be relativey normal. Weather roulette. In terms of past analogues for a pattern like this, it would certainly be interesting to take a look in past reanalyses.

      Re what is going on the SH, I don’t have any insights and and my company doesn’t do SH forecasts

      • I appreciate that analysis. One always wonders if this will be the weather pattern that confirms global warming is on track.

        The waning Sun, while I understand is thought not to matter, will be a test of climate knowledge. I get the idea that it will take some number of years to make a difference.

      • Judith and Tony B,

        Thank you for quick responses.

    • Here is recent thought on what’s going on I posted about Wapo recent article:

      The ocean is burping up a bunch of heat. Probably part of a quasi-cyclical event, maybe in line with the stadium wave hypothesis. Something similar to the famed warm blob happened back in the 60s before there was a rebound in arctic ice growth.

      Heat and moisture moving into the arctic is part of heat leaving the ocean and passing through the atmosphere on its way out to space. This surge in atmospheric heat is probably part of large surge in ice mass (winds are important to ice growth and ice mass growth can happen while ice extent is kept low–winds and storms break up ice as it forms, the extent is kept small, but it piles up thick, making it resilient.) When ice forms, latent heat becomes sensible heat. This is very plausibly a cooling and ice growth event.

      I agree, this is something to worry about. If we are in for cooling in the future and a surge in ice growth that could be very bad for society.

      Of course, so far as sea ice, I can see that easily going the other way too. If extent suddenly expands, it will insulate the warm water that’s entered the Arctic. This could lead to massive ice loss in the summer.

  21. Yow,
    That 2016 line is giving me the blues. I’m thinking, like the sea ice, I might have to retreat too; to my fallback position; who needs ice anyway? Though, unlike many here, I’ve couched my climatic assertions in cautious terms like “apparently,” “it seems” and “probably,” If natural variability doesn’t come to my rescue soon I might have to expand my culinary portfolio: Cook crow meat in boiling water (salt optional) for 10 minutes. Alternately put lightly steamed Kabocha squash, Jalapeno peppers and cherry tomatoes along with 4 pieces of crow meat on each skewer. Add one button mushroom to the top each skewer. Brush with melted bacon grease and place on preheated grill for about 5 minutes.
    A glass of lemon-ade made from the lemons Mother Nature seems to be sharing these days is a perfect complement. I just hope it tastes like chicken.

    • John

      I wrote about the melting of the arctic during the 1920 to 1940 period.

      One of the curiosities of that was the low winter ice levels. A snapshot from the hundreds of articles referenced can be seen here

      ‘the tendency toward amelioration in the present century in the USSR, varying greatly in degree from the Ukraine to Siberia, was observed just before the last war and by Rubinstein in 1956 (with) mainly the winter months affected. The tendency is more pronounced in northern areas like the Barents sea, the shores of the Arctic ocean and the estuaries of the Ob and Yenisey rivers. Mitchells curves (showing temperature anomalies from 100 stations, one of the precursors to Giss) (demonstrate) there is indeed a world amelioration particularly in winter. It affects principally the Arctic and (secondly) the cold and temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere including the US, Europe and Siberia. Thirdly it affects the tropics and finally in a much less perceptible way the temperate zones of the Southern Hemisphere. The only areas unaffected by the annual amelioration between 1900 and 1940 are North eastern Canada, a large part of south America, most of the SW quarter of Africa and certain regions of central Asia and Pakistan and of the Indian ocean SE Asia and Australia.’

      Further down in the article reference is made to simultaneous melting in the Antarctic. So this is an unusual but not unprecedented occurrence.

      The extent of it compared to previous ocurrences is more difficult to judge as satellite data has only existed for less than 40 years.
      Tonyb

      • Hi Tonyb,
        Thanks, I remember your many historical references to previous ice conditions and use them to counter my “alarmist” friends’ argumentation based solely on the satellite observations.. I just wish the pendulum of natural variability provided me with more support for my belief, “There is hardly anything new under the Sun.” Is there a link missing in your comment?

      • John

        Here is the link

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-two/

        This is a much Extended version than the one that appeared here a year or so earlier.

        There were some very interesting warming events happening in the arctic during the early 1500’s but unfortunately of course there is no data from the antarctic with which to correlate it.

        My take is that the MWP was at least as warm as today but then we had the extended intermittent little ice age which was the coldest period since the start of the Holocene. Temperatures have been generally rising again since around 1700 and the ice formed during the ILIA is gradually melting.

        I don’t see it ending any time soon but then again climate rarely happens in a linear fashion.

        Tonyb

  22. The use of public funds to deceive the public about natural dangers from living 1 AU (astronomical unit) from the solar pulsar is one of the gravest threats to society’s survival. I tried to explain that in a message to officers of the American Chemical Society yesterday:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/ALMOST_TREASON.pdf
    or http://tinyurl.com/z7kw9ra

  23. This warmth is in the process of ending now.

  24. I should say relative warmth.

  25. It is so easy to go with the flow very few will call a turn in the climate.

  26. I ran across this:
    http://slideplayer.com/slide/7670461/

    Goes over chaos, climate and attractors and uses Ghil S and Z curves in a basic way. The author is unknown as far as I know. It’s probably a screen name.

    He makes an interesting point.
    Oscillating climate regimes are a series of overshoots.
    Left, right, left, right past a quasi equilibrium.
    We are starting to visualize the orbit around the attractor.
    There are equilibriums and the climate orbits them.
    I don’t think it ever gets there.
    Likewise the Earth never gets to the Sun.
    It orbits it.

  27. From the Harvard Crimson:

    “While we should use caution in using these results to make blanket assumptions about all academic and social contexts in which students discuss politics, the survey points to an overall lack of ideological diversity that should concern faculty, administrators, and students alike, especially at this moment in our history.”

    Of course the Harvard Crimson, the daily student newspaper, and the only daily newspaper in Cambridge Mass., is not free of its own political squashing of free speech. Just try to speak of climate change, that is the skeptical viewpoint, and, suddenly a rabid dog emerges from the shadows, frothing at the mouth ready to eviscerate the deniers who have been writing science papers unintelligible to the sociologically empowered.

    The Harvard Crimson’s recent statement has no baring in reality. We can only watch what the editors DO when the climate topic comes up; Or, when race is in the news, then of course, reversion to previous imperious form.

    Read the student letters to the editors if an article appears that is anything but the dogma politically correct perspective. Crushing.

    Confessions in the confessional are not repeated, let alone for public consumption.

  28. Pielke trashed with Steyer’s cash.
    Sounds like defamation and conspiracy to me.

  29. From

    American Physical Society retracts Trump-friendly press release

    endorsing online polls over statistically modeled ones

    Quite funny!

  30. I went to bed and when I woke up it was winter

    Welcome to global cooling

  31. re: “Which Coastal Cities Are at Highest Risk of Damaging Floods? [link]” ==> This is an odd one to appear here. The study and the press piece are from August 2013. Given that, the abstract begins with this statement: “Flood exposure is increasing in coastal cities owing to
    growing populations and assets, the changing climate, and subsidence.”

    The paper mis-orders the causes, climate change should be last (least effect) on the list and should properly given as “rising local sea levels.”

  32. re: Betts’ “World at 1.5ºC…” Not much there to read, insubstantial and oddly relies on speculation and not fact. Expected better.

  33. Climate Change, International Trade & China: http://e360.yale.edu/feature/with_trump_china_stands_along_as_global_climate_leader/3057/

    Story ties into Dr. Curry’s linked story on “Climate Clubs” — and also Dr. Richard Tol’s discussion of using carbon taxes and trade agreements (through Climate Clubs).

  34. Why Trump should not simply walk away from Paris:

    Case Study of Cummins — An engine maker bets on clean air and wins: http://fortune.com/2015/06/08/cummins-diesel-engine/

    • Does Paris emphasize Short-lived Climate Pollutants (that U.S. products could solve) as much as it should?

      http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/air-quality/embed.php?z=1&x=231.88281&y=-82.14135&m=h&c=y&f=n&r=h&e=s

      • Stephen Segrest,

        At least BerkeleyEarth (luckily nothing to do with the University of California
        , Berkeley, I believe) don’t include CO2 as a pollutant – sanity rearing its head.

        I’m not surprised to find the following on Wiki –

        “The team’s preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published in journals operated by OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher beginning in December 2012.”

        If you can’t publish in a reputable journal, publish in one which will publish anything for a fee.

        If I sound cynical, maybe it’s because I am. Are particulate or other pollutants supposed to raise surface temperatures or lower them?

        What is so special about US products compared with more advanced nations?

        The Diesel was invented by a German.

        From your link –

        “The next year the EPA forced Cummins and several other manufacturers to agree to reprogram the devices and sign an $83.4 million consent decree, the highest civil penalty in environmental enforcement to date.”

        Cummins led the way, I admit. VW was just following established US business practices, by the look of it! Maybe Cummins was just following someone else outside the US?

        I’m not knocking Cummins. I can’t see them being much different from their competitors – sometimes in front, sometimes behind. Good luck to Cummins (and their competitors – it leads to progress in the long run).

        Cheers.

      • Mike — I’m not posting this to fight. Rather, it’s a point of view (held by many Economists) that Trump shouldn’t walk from the Paris Agreement, if only for the interests of U.S. Manufacturing. And if Trump does walk, it will create a void that China will exploit.

        The four short-lived climate pollutants (that Dr. Curry has written favorably about) are methane, black carbon, smog, and HFCs. Many people categorize actions to reduce these emissions as “No Regrets” Policies.

      • “Trump shouldn’t walk from the Paris Agreement, if only for the interests of U.S. Manufacturing. And if Trump does walk, it will create a void that China will exploit.”

        Kind of ironic considering that another name for the Paris Agreement could be “Exploitation Chinese”.

  35. If US can build Virginia Class submarines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine in 18 months (SSN-778), why does it take 5 years or more to build nuclear power reactors?

    Something is very wrong.

    We should have been daisy-chain building small nuclear power plants using small reactors that are built in factories (like aircraft) and shipped to site.

  36. “If 83% of people surveyed in NSW want more renewable energy generated, then why is it that a much lower percentage (less than 5%) seem to actually pay for it themselves, directly?”

    The reasons I don’t buy Green Power are:

    1. I’d be encouraging bad policy, making Australia less economically competitive and less efficient. Renewables reduce our productivity.

    2. Renewables are hugely expensive, requiring massive subsidies (over 100% for wind and much more for solar) which is forcing otherwise competitive and reliable power suppliers out of the market

    3. Intermittent renewables are a very expensive way to reduce emissions. At 20% penetration, wind is about 50% effective at reducing emissions. Nuclear on the other hand is greater than 100% effective (because it tends to replace baseload coal).

    4. Wind and solar are not sustainable. Their ERoEI is insufficient to power modern society as well as replace themselves. They are entirely dependent on reliable power sources to support them.

    5. They are supported by a purely ideological agenda. This has a short life.

    6. After 60 years of solar PV and 100 years of solar thermal engines, solar supplies just 1% of global electricity. Wind supplies 4%. And there’d be almost none if not for the ideological agenda forcing governments to massively subsidise them.

    These are my reasons. I expect many others have made a rational decision and decided the risks and possible rewards are not worth the costs.

  37. Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s