Week in review – science and policy edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

The Antarctic 2016 sea ice anomalies [link] …

Chill: Antarctic ice is NOT rapidly melting experts say as logbooks from 100 years ago show levels unchanged [link]

Chilling climate revelations from the last ice age … and what they mean for #climatechange today [link] …

Elizabeth Barnes & James Screen have good opinion article on whether Arctic ice loss is/will affecting mid-lat jet [link] …

Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study shows  [link]

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

The influence of declining sea ice on shipping activity in the Canadian Arctic [link] …

Accelerated ice shelf rifting and retreat at Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica [link] …

The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution? [link] …

Did European temperatures in 1540 exceed present-day records? (open access) [link] …

Scientists Seek to Update Evolution. Recent discoveries have led some researchers to argue that the modern evolutionary synthesis needs to be amended. [link]

Now in NatureClimate – Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of global croplands [link]

Climate change could thwart the Earth-cooling effects of volcanic eruptions [link]

Rapid variations in deep ocean temperature detected in the Holocene [link] …

IPCC Doesn’t Account for 1 Billion Tons of CO2 Absorbed Annually… by Cement” [link]

Possible positive feedback between climate and volcanic aerosol forcing  [link]

Warming of subarctic tundra increases emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide  [link]

Policy and social sciences

Economists agree: economic models underestimate climate change [link]

Climate Change, the U.S. Military, and “the Intersection of Politics and Events,” [link]

Protected forests felled to meet EU renewable targets  [link]

Lomborg to Trump: dump the Paris agreement, to an innovation-based green energy approach that harnesses US ingenuity [link]

Brussels is moving to fix its broken biofuels policy. Washington should follow its example.  [link]

A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization [link]

About science and scientists

Climategate flashback [link]

Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark matter? [link]

Why Fake Data When You Can Fake a Scientist? [link] …

Manufactured level of doubt on hormone disruptors out of proportion to scientific disagreement  [link]

The convenience of ambiguity. “The Private Heisenberg and the Absent Bomb” [link]…

3 Kickass Women Leading the Fight on Climate Change. Featuring moi (with a shoutout to my dogs Bruno and Rosie). [link]

The Rebel Economist Who Blew Up Macroeconomics [link]

Dead or alive: medicine wants your parts [link]

George Will: Did academia help elect Donald Trump? [link]

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

  1. Are GHG emissions likely to be net beneficial or net damaging this century? How do we know? What’s the evidence?

    • Are GHG emissions likely to be net beneficial or net damaging this century? How do we know? What’s the evidence?

      Is there valid justification for the target of avoiding a 2C increase above preindustrial global mean surface temperature?

      Temperatures during the Phanerozoic Eon

      The three charts below show Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) over the past 540 million years. I infer these do not support the contention that a 3C rise in global average temperature is a significant threat, let alone 2C.

      Source: https://www.academia.edu/12114306/Phanerozoic_Global_Temperature_Curve
      Scotese’s Figure 15 shows the GMST over the past 540 million years (Ma). We can infer that if GMST increased by 3C (i.e. from ~14.5C to ~17.5 C), it would be similar to what it was about 35 Ma ago; and below the average GMST over the past 540 Ma and below the middle of the temperature range over this period. Does this suggest 3C increase a significant threat? Consider Scotese’s Figures 12 and 13.

      Figure 15 also shows the planet is currently in only the second deep coldhouse phase in the past 540 Ma, and near the coldest. Since life thrived when the planet was warmer than now but struggled when colder, what is the evidence that 3C warming is a significant threat? What is the empirical evidence GHG emissions will do more harm than good?

      • Tropics to poles temperature gradients


        Source: https://www.academia.edu/12082909/Some_thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_from_Icehouse_to_Hothouse

        Figure 12 shows that, if the GMST increases by 3C, from the current ~15C to ~18C, the average temperature at the poles would increase from -36C to -7C, and the temperature gradient from tropics to poles would decrease from 0.82C to 0.44C per degree latitude. That’s likely to be a significant overall benefit for the mid and higher latitudes.


        Source for charts and explanation: https://www.academia.edu/12082909/Some_thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_from_Icehouse_to_Hothouse

        Figure 13 shows the change in average temperature of the tropics over the past 540 Ma. It shows the average temperature of the tropics 35 Ma ago (i.e. when GMST was about 3 C higher than now) was just 1C higher than now.

        These three charts, taken together, suggests a 3C rise in GMST means a small (~1C) increase in average temperature of the tropics and a beneficial warming of the mid and higher latitudes.

        This does not support the contention that global warming or GHG emissions are a serious threat.

      • Impacts

        Life thrives in warm periods and struggles in cold periods. One line of evidence is there is more carbon tied up in the biosphere and less continental aridity during warm times (IPCC AR4 WG1); e.g.:

        “Lower continental aridity during the Mid-Pliocene” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-3-2.html

        “10% – 33% less terrestrial carbon storage at the LGM compared to today (300-1000 GtC less C in biosphere at GCM compared with preindustrial 300 GtC)” https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-4-1-4.html

      • IPCC AR5 WG3 on the damage functions

        The damage function is an essential input for estimating the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). Without a valid damage function, SCC estimates are meaningless.

        IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 3 mentions ‘Damage Function’ 18 times http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter3.pdf . Some examples:

        “Damage functions in existing Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are of low reliability (high confidence).” [3.9, 3.12]”

        “Our general conclusion is that the reliability of damage functions in current IAMs is low.” [p247]

        “To develop better estimates of the social cost of carbon and to better evaluate mitigation options, it would be helpful to have more realistic estimates of the components of the damage function, more closely connected to WGII assessments of physical impacts.”

        “As discussed in Section 3.9, the aggregate damage functions used in many IAMs are generated from a remarkable paucity of data and are thus of low reliability.”

      • Economic impact of warming by sector

        Richard Tol (2013) Figure 3 charts the estimated costs and benefits of global warming (and CO2 concentrations) per degree of temperature increase for seven sectors:
        • Agriculture
        • Water
        • Sea level rise
        • Health
        • Energy
        • Ecosystems
        • Storms
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0613-3#page-1
        Free 2011 Working paper version: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

        The bottom chart in Figure 3 suggests GW would be net beneficial for agriculture and health to greater than 4C warming and have zero to small negative net-impact for storms, sea level rise, ecosystems and water. GW would be beneficial for energy up to 1.5C warming and thereafter would be an increasingly negative impact. [However, I suspect this may assume low emissions energy will be higher cost than high emissions energy. This is not necessarily so (see: ‘Nuclear power learning rates: policy implications’ https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/13/nuclear-power-learning-rates-policy-implications/ . I am also not clear on whether the energy cost is for average temperature increase in the tropics of just 1C when GMST increase is 3C.]

        What is needed is a damage function (the net costs and benefits of increasing CO2 concentrations) for each category and overall.

        Impact on GDP

        Tol (2013) was criticised. Tol has produced another working paper, Tol (2015) https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-75-2015.pdf&site=24 .
        Table 1 lists 27 estimates of the total economic impact of climate change taken from 22 studies. The best estimate is about -2% welfare-impact for a 3C warming.

        However, are these 22 studies reliable, objective, unbiased, and uninfluenced by groupthink and pressure from the consensus climate agenda? Figure 1 (and many other studies) suggest warming and increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration has been strongly beneficial up to now. It strains credulity to believe that the demonstrated positive benefits up to now suddenly turn negative just when we happen to be living.

      • Peter, GREAT POST! ! ! ! I share some of these diagrams in talks I have given in Guam this last SPring and people are shocked to find out how hot it was in the past, but most signifanty, that the Scotese paleotemperature curves (1) show temperature changes in a limited range without tipping points, and (2) that CO-2 and temperature doesn’t track t all during the geological past. Like, you,I don’t fear the 2 degree C or the 3 degree C increase that the UN fear-mongers and sovereignty-destroyers are concerned about. This is a case where past is indeed prologue.

        George Devries Klein PhD, PG, FGSA

      • Economic Damages from Climate Change: A Review of Modeling Approaches
        Anthony Bonen, Willi Semmler and Stephan Klasen (2014)
        http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/climate_change/IACC_DamageFunctions_FINAL_1.pdf

        Excerpts:

        4. FUND
        “The FUND model is the most complex of the economic IAMs.”

        “FUND’s most recent version (FUND 3.7) is an excellent source for detailed sectoral damage functions. FUND 3.7 contains 9 sectoral damage functions, of which 5 are presented in Section 4.2.”

        “The FUND model can be run as a global average, but is typically run and analyzed across its 16 regions”

        4.2 FUND 3.7 Damage Functions

        “Although there are nine sectoral damages this section focuses only on items (1)–(5) in Table 2. The first two – agriculture and energy usage – represent, by far, the most significant areas in driving the social cost of carbon estimate (Anthoff & Tol, 2013c). The two tropical storm categories are reviewed because of the large and unambiguous devastation these can have on people and society. Finally, we review the complicated sea level rise mechanism in FUND in section 4.2.5. SLR represents a unique form of damages in that it can directly mitigated via coastal protection. The four areas not covered here (forestry, water resources, ecosystems and human health) are smaller impact sectors. For details on these damage functions see Anthoff and Tol (2013b).”

        4.2.2) Energy Consumption: As with agricultural production, the impact of climate change could either increase (damage) or decrease (benefit) energy consumption. FUND models this as changes in regional spending on heating and cooling. Since GHG’s will increase global and regional mean temperatures, reduced space heating is a benefit and increased space cooling is damaging. Both are driven by the global mean temperature level (relative to 1990), regional population and income per capita. ”

        4.3 FUND conclusion
        “Clearly the FUND model offers an extensive menu of sector-specific damages that have been parameterized with great care. However, even with this great detail there remains work to be done. First, many of their physical science sources for functional forms are 2 decades old. Even granting this inertia, there are still a fair number of parametric concerns (as mentioned in the section 4.2.1).”

      • Social Cost of Carbon

        The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) may be much lower than commonly stated (Dayaratna, McKitrick, Kreutzer (2016)).

        Excerpt from Abstract:

        We incorporate a recent observational estimate of the ECS distribution conditioned on observed OHU efficiency into two widely-used IAMs. The resulting Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates are much smaller than those from models based on simulated parameters. In the DICE model the average SCC falls by 30-50% depending on the discount rate, while in the FUND model the average SCC falls by over 80%. The span of estimates across discount rates also shrinks considerably, implying less sensitivity to this parameter choice.

        Dayaratna, McKitrick, Kreutzer (2016). Empirically-Constrained Climate Sensitivity and the Social Cost of Carbon. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2759505

    • Bias on impacts of GHG emissions

      The Case Against a U.S. Carbon Tax” explains many, but not all, the problems with the estimates of SCC and of the hypothesized costs of climate change. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa801.pdf

      SCC Calculations

      In addition to such procedural problems with the use of the SCC in federal policy, there are deeper conceptual concerns. The average layperson may have the belief that the SCC is an empirical fact of nature that scientists in white lab coats measure with their equipment. However, in reality the SCC is a malleable concept that is entirely driven by analysts’ (largely arbitrary) initial assumptions. The estimated SCC can be quite large, small, or even negative— the latter meaning that greenhouse gas emissions should arguably be subsidized because they benefit humanity—depending on defensible adjustments of the inputs to the analysis.

      But the possibility of such negative SCC values is rarely, if ever, reported. A recent study assessed the scientific literature on the SCC and determined that there exists a large and significant publication bias toward reporting only those results that indicated a positive SCC. The authors calculated that the selection bias resulted in a three- to four-times overestimate of the mean SCC value in the current mainstream economics literature. Such selective reporting of results can build upon itself to further enhance the biases in the literature, for example when future studies are developed from extant findings.

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

  3. Judith

    Your link ‘did European temperatures in 1540 exceed present day records?’

    In my article the long slow thaw published here nearly 5 years ago this week I commented

    ‘ When viewed from a 1538 perspective the warming trend becomes imperceptible. That period seems to have been around as warm as today and there are others that also seem to exhibit notable warmth to levels not dissimilar to today’s. This finding was unexpected and warrants further research.’

    I investigated further and reconfirmed that this seems to have been a period at least as warm as today and perhaps warmer as there was a very notable run of hot weather for several years each side of 1540

    After research in the Scott polar institute in Cambridge I pointed out that there seems to have been a very notable melting of arctic ice and the northern sea route was probably navigated around 1540

    Tonyb

  4. Elizabeth Barnes & James Screen have good opinion article on whether Arctic ice loss is/will affecting mid-lat jet [link] …

    They use models to project what warming of the Arctic directly causes to change the jet stream. The warm, thawed Arctic causes more early snowfall and that snow cover causes changes to the jet stream. They have no clue as to what causes what.

  5. Will 18 year old voters also cry about the climate if it cools instead of warms?

  6. Chilling climate revelations from the last ice age … and what they mean for #climatechange today [link]

    This is a classic:

    “They compared that evidence to computer climate model simulations of what might have happened.”

    I´m ok with children’s play in kindergarten, but this? – Not so sure!

    • ‘if climate science has taught us anything, and it hasn’t, it’s that all models are wrong, but some are also useless.’
      H/t Brad Keyes.

      • :)

        This paper tells it all really:

        2.1. The Tuning Process

        [14] We tune the radiation balance with the main target to control the pre-industrial global mean temperature …. After a problem has been identified in the coupled climate model, we iterate the following steps until a satisfactory solution is found:

        1.Short runs of single months, or if possible one or more years, with prescribed observed SST’s and sea ice concentration; first with reference parameter settings, and then altered parameter settings.
        2.A longer simulation with altered parameter settings obtained in step 1 and observed SST’s, currently 1976–2005 from the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP), is compared with the observed climate.
        3.Implement the changes in the coupled model setup to run under pre-industrial conditions and evaluate the altered climate. Frequently, we make small parameter changes in this step to fine-tune the climate, without first revisiting steps 1 and 2.
        —–

        It´s tuning all the way down – not turtles.

  7. 3 kick..s women. You should have been first. Happy Thanksgiving.

    • Agree!3 Kickass Women Leading The Fight Against Climate Change

      I like Judith – the two others are a little bit too much hallelujah for my taste. :)

      But it is amazing that proponents and opponents in the climate debate are presented together. However, I look forward to the day we will see scientific integrity being emphasised rather than anything else.

      • Except that Judith’s lukewarming position is not mentioned, merely that she fosters debate. Skepticism is not acknowledged. Still useful, but it is a pro-AGW piece.

      • Well if the MSM’s reaction to blowing election coverage to the point of not even pretending to be neutral and unbiased is any sign, we won’t be seeing much change in how science gets reported.

        They seem to be doubling down, being aggressively anti-Trump and pulling every trick they can think of to censor or discredit sources they don’t like.

        Which I think is great. Just making it easier for people to see how ethically bankrupt and hypocritical they are.

      • I guess the day´s of watchdog journalism has been counted, the day´s of Main Stream Media too. Things are changing. We are changing things as we write.

        Imagine an army of rebels – armed with nothing else than reason – no generals – no coordination – no deadlines – we got all the time we need to put up proper comments – like yours.

        Exciting times. :)

  8. in the article by George Wills, ‘Did academics help elect
    Donald Trump?’

    ‘A doctoral dissertation at UC Santa Barbara uses
    “feminist methodologies” to understand how Girl Scout
    cookie sales “reproduce hegemonic gender roles.”
    The journal Geo Humanities explores how pumpkins
    reveal “racial and class coding of rural versus urban
    places.” A Vassar lecture “theorizes oscillating relations
    between disciplinary, pre-emptive and increasingly
    prehensive forms of power that shape human and non-
    human materialities in Palestine.”

    ‘Even professors’ books from serious publishers are
    clotted with pretentious jargon. To pick just one from
    innumerable examples, a recent history of the Spanish
    Civil War, published by the Oxford University Press,
    says that Franco’s Spain was as “hierarchizing” as
    Hitler’s Germany, that Catholicism “problematized”
    relations between Spain and the Third Reich, and that
    liberalism and democracy are concepts that must be
    “interrogated.” Only the highly educated write so badly.
    Indeed, the point of such ludicrous prose is to signal
    membership in a closed clerisy that possesses a private
    language.’

    … A world where the Alan Sokal hoax paper, ‘Towards a
    Transformative Hermaneutics of Quantam Gravity’ was
    accepted without question..

  9. Re: NASA finds “climate change” (aka global warming) since 2002 is INCREASING land water storage, reducing the rate of sea level rise.
    See source docs:
    A decade of sea level rise slowed by climate-driven hydrology
    https://webfiles.uci.edu/jfamigli/Website/Reager-etal-SeaLevel.pdf

    We found that between 2002 and 2014, climate variability resulted in an additional 3200 ± 900 gigatons of water being stored on land. This gain partially offset water losses from ice sheets, glaciers, and groundwater pumping, slowing the rate of sea level rise by 0.71 ± 0.20 millimeters per year

    Fate of Water Pumped from Underground and Contributions to Sea Level Rise: External Online Source: doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE3001
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160006711

    The contribution of GWD to global sea-level rise amounted to 0.02 (+/- 0.004)mm yr(sup-1) in 1900 and increased to 0.27 (+/- 0.04)mm yr(sup-1) in 2000. This indicates that existing studies have substantially overestimated the contribution of GWD to global sea-level rise by a cumulative amount of at least 10 mm during the twentieth century and early twenty-first century. With other terrestrial water contributions included, we estimate the net terrestrial water contribution during the period 1993-2010 to be +0.12 +/-0.04)mm yr(sup-1), suggesting that the net terrestrial water contribution reported in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report report is probably overestimated by a factor of three.

      • So you can hold off buying that new pair of rubber boots.

      • It has no bearing at all on the rate of SLR or rubber boots.

      • You mean like how your comments here generally have no bearing on intelligent discourse?

      • The following data are from the NOAA Global Tidal Gauge SLR Trend website. All rates are mm/yr.

        Dublin .07 Cherry Point, WA .10 Marjana, Croatia .28 Madras, India .32 Easter Island .33 Kahlkis, Greece .35 Ceuta, Esp .52 Falkland Islands .55 Waluis Bay, Namibia .60 Sydney .65 Malaga, Esp .65 Alameda, CA .67 Port San Luis .74 Johnston Atoll .75 Vishakhapatham .79 Mugho, S.K .80
        Charleston, OR .84 Los Angeles, CA .88 Ko Taphao Noi .90 Dubrovnik 1.02 Brest 1.05 Leros, Greece 1.06 Friday Harbor, WA 1.07 Durban SA 1.23 Marseille 1.25 Trieste 1.27 Honolulu 1.41 Gibara, Cuba Wismar 1.41 Quarry Bay 1.36 Argentine Islands 1.43 Balboa 1.49 Singapore 1.53

        I think it is safe to assume that in these locations at least, there will be no run on boots in the near future.

        The rates of SLR above will need to increase by many, many orders of magnitude for the cataclysmic events that are now forecast for many other coastal locations.

        For those cities that are threatened by imminent SLR, in and along the shores of the Pacific, perhaps Trump, once he has drained the swamp, could start on the Pacific. Like making the Mariana Trench even deeper. So deep that it would run the risk of punching a hole in the 1 million degree Al Gore magma. A perfect fit for an infrastructure initiative.

  10. ‘The devastating effects of global warming are no match for these superheroines — they’ve got the world in their hands, and they’re using both their brain power and their fem-power to fight yo’ power.”

    Theme song – “He’s got the whole world in his hands”

    Whoops – I meant her hands, or its hands, or she who used to be he’s hands . . .

    Damn. Too much CO2, obviously! Apologies to Ms Curry – no offence intended.

    Cheers.

      • David L. Hagen,

        Scientific American referring to an actual scientist such as Professor Curry using terms such as “heretic” might lead one to wonder whether some religious overtones have crept into the “science” community. Only joking, of course.

        Heretics, skeptics, deniers – maybe the Scientific American could consider changing its name to The American Journal of Scientism – Consensus Indoctrination for Non-believers, or something similar.

        As for being polite and civil, one has merely to look at history for outstanding examples of bitter scientific disagreements, accompanied by abuse of power, threats, assaults and so on. Made the participants sharpen their arguments and marshal their facts, it would seem.

        Nature doesn’t care how polite you are. Inconvenient facts rule. Prestige, power, consensus, groupthink, Government support, approval, and funding become meaningless in the face of reality.

        Obviously, the population prefers having money diverted from real science into the dark arts of climatological future peering, otherwise they would do something about it. Maybe they’ll wake up eventually, although someone said that no-one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

        By the way, Mahalia Jackson gets my vote on this occasion. Thanks.

        Cheers.

  11. I’d say that being recognized as a leader in the fight against some dubious abstraction is perhaps something I’d think twice about before shouting it from the rooftops.

    Andrew

  12. Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study shows [link]

    The NASA study seems to be real, but the link has a link to a Supreme Court “narrow decision” (5-4) on the Obama plan. Clearly fake news.

    • The study was covered here earlier this year.

    • It’s not fake news, you’re a fake internet troll.

      • From what level did GMSL fall because of climate change?

      • The NASA press release said that SLR was 20% lower than otherwise. Since Dublin’s SLR rate has been . 07mm/yr , apparently it would have been . 09mm/yr without global warming. I can only imagine the devastation that Dublin would have sustained from that additional . 02mm/yr. The Dubliners should thank their lucky stars and say an extra prayer to St Patrick.

    • “fake news”
      It’s certainly a false headline
      “Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study shows “
      In fact, the article just says storage on land counters some of the rise from melting ice etc.

      • And, that it is probably cyclical… sometimes masking and sometimes enhancing.

        The radar of a potential Presidential science advisor… lol.

      • What the troll called “fake news” was the linked story about “a Supreme Court “narrow decision” (5-4) on the Obama plan.” He just hadn’t bothered to look at the date on that story. It’s true. More or less.

      • Yeah Nick,

        Fortunately they only do that sort of thing for papers that might be spun to run counter to the “The gravest threat to mankind” meme. All the papers supporting the correct storyline get reported straight up.

  13. Paul Krugman today in the NYT is worth reading. It mentions coal, so it is on topic.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/the-populism-perplex.html

    • “Democrats have to figure out why the white working class just voted overwhelmingly against it own economic interests”. They don’t know their economic interests; Paul just KNOWS.

      • Krugman says: “So what happened here? Part of the answer may be that Mr. Trump had no problems with telling lies about what he could accomplish. If so, there may be a backlash when the coal and manufacturing jobs don’t come back, while health insurance disappears.”

      • Part of the answer may be that Mr. Trump had no problems with telling lies about what he could accomplish.

        I sense a contradiction here: First he’s dumb as a rock, then he’s “ly1ng” when he says he’ll bring back the jobs.

        He won’t be bringing back the jobs, of course. But what he’s best at is persuasion, not understanding how complex economics fits together with numerical results. He may just not understand that, but what he does understand is that the Krugmans of this world are inveterate l1ers, especially to themselves, and so there’s no reason to believe them about this.

        Besides, Krugman may be wrong. There may be jobs that can be found for them, that provide dignity by actually performing valuable work, even if much of the social/financial foundation has to be rebuilt.

        It’s for sure Horrible Hillary wouldn’t have done anything for them. So they were right to vote for Trump.

      • The jobs they lost there are coal. Hillary had a solution, poorly worded, that involved funding for retraining towards the kind of job that would be useful, but Trump’s solution is to bring back coal, which is unrealistic, and they believed him.

      • Curious George

        The bottom line is a total contempt for the subjects. WE know better.

      • Does Trump really care about coal-miners? His Commerce pick is likely to be the person that owned a West Virginia mine where poor management was blamed for a 2006 disaster there. That person is also a Mar-A-Lago neighbor, so it is a kind of crony pick.
        https://www.thenation.com/article/12-coal-miners-died-on-this-mans-watch-in-2006-now-trump-wants-to-make-him-commerce-secretary/

      • Curious George

        Of course THEY don’t know it. Only you do.

      • They will soon.

      • They will soon.

        Will they?

        Probably not. Why should they believe anything you say? (“You” to include the MSM.)

      • My point is that Mr. Trump may not have realized that coal is “dead” while he was campaigning.

        There is a market for coal, for making steel. With his experience building, he may have assumed that even if coal is no longer economical for energy, it can be used for steel, while that market will be grown with infrastructure projects.

        I doubt the numbers add up, but I also doubt a quick check could show for sure either way. Trump reminds me of others I’ve known (and know) who’ll make any promise they aren’t sure they can’t keep, rather than limiting themselves to only promises they know they can.

        Of course, that’s better than Horrible Hillary with her outright l1es, and frankly I doubt 21st century American (or European) politics could provide anybody who really cares about their promises. The MSM would destroy them with their l1es.

        Anyway, IMO steel and reinforced concrete are obsolescent for infrastructure today. Fiber reinforced polymers are the wave of the future, and by the end of Trump’s 8 years I suspect dynamically supported structures will be the norm for buildings, and perhaps bridges.

        As for jobs, if you read the National Review article Krugman linked to, you’ll see that even if coal jobs came back, the depressed villages these people live in wouldn’t benefit.

        They need jobs at home. They already have welfare, but it’s well known that hand-outs destroy dignity and self-respect, and anybody with the gumption to leave home for that dignity already has.

        Many people have suggested a basic floor income when looking at this problem. (Which hasn’t really existed in the past, but is coming into reality with automation.)

        But that, in a slightly different form, was what turned the Roman citizenry into the Roman mob. People need to be doing something in return for their money that at least arguably provides value to society.

        I’ll again annoy jim2 with my suggestion that people should be paid to go to school. Details would have to be worked out, but those who just go through the motions would be no worse off than welfare recipients, it would provide for more employment for teaching help, and anybody who really wanted to move into a real job would be able to.

        If most of this school was over the Internet, say in small Skype booths mixed with self-study, a large fraction of the jobs people could train for would be Internet jobs, which means that the current drag away from these small villages might be reversed.

        Of course, a simple income floor/negative income tax would solve a large amount of the offshoring issue: if somebody’s already getting enough to get by on, then employers could pay them $2-3/hour and they could compete with foreign jobs.

        But both of these solutions would require much tighter borders. At least at first.

      • LMAO…

        Yet another useless contribution from a clueless troll.

      • AK says: “I’ll again annoy jim2 with my suggestion that people should be paid to go to school.”

        You are off the mark, AK. College is not the end-all and be-all for everyone. What we need is for companies to train workers for they need, like they used to. For some skilled trades, like electrician, there are still apprenticeship programs in the US that offer decent pay for one to learn the trade as an apprentice.

        Companies whine about a lack of people to fill slots, when at one time they would have trained them. Instead, they suck the government teat in yet another way by demanding the government pay for college.

        Even if you are for solar energy, how much education does it take to install a solar panel system? No need for college there, I’m guessing.

        So, maybe you just need to apply your imagination a little more.

      • You are off the mark, AK. College is not the end-all and be-all for everyone.

        I wasn’t talking about college, particularly. Everything from remedial high school, vocational, etc.

        As for companies paying, simple fact is that there just aren’t going to be the jobs. Most people paid to go to school would just be improving the net educational level of society.

        Even if you are for solar energy, how much education does it take to install a solar panel system?

        More than you might think.

        My point is to replace the more usual types of welfare, which are simple giveaways, with money paid for attending school. Improving the general educational level of society is a positive externality. As long as the government is giving the money away anyway…

        But most of the people who take the training won’t get jobs, when:

        On the labor side of the equation, a team of 10 workers with the next-gen Rover can put down 1 MW in a day. A 50-MW (ac) project in California with half a dozen Rovers, for example, could finish in about 12 weeks.

        By the end of Trump’s 8 years, IMO, most jobs will involve supervising robots, computers, or various combinations.

        And that’s something you could learn most of in a Skype booth.

      • AK – I have argued many times that automation will take most jobs, so we long-term are on the same page.

        However, short-term, companies can train. This has the advantage that they won’t train more than they need, so supply will better match demand.

        If education can be automated to the point it costs almost nothing, like Kahn Academy for example, then I would be for educating everyone. But currently, it is too expensive.

        In the meantime, make 2 years military service a requirement. They could learn some skills and be a benefit instead of a load.

      • This has the advantage that they won’t train more than they need, so supply will better match demand.

        And what about all the people there are no jobs for?

        People in the villages described in the National Review article, for instance, are getting money (or rather “food” credits they turn into money at a loss) for essentially nothing. If they’re instead paid to undergo training, then the hiring companies will be able to choose the best performers out of a much larger pool, won’t have to pay for the training in the first place (except for taxes that everybody pays, making a level playing field), the trainees get a feeling of value contributing, since they improve the general educational level even if they don’t get the job, and the money would have been getting given to them anyway.

        For remote courses, designed to be run in a Skype booth, the primary cost is creating the course. The employer spends (essentially) the same amount creating the course whether 100 or 10,000 people take it.

        Two more positive externalities: the more people who take a course, the more the content creators can learn from its use. Also, this provides a larger and more stable market for human helpers whose experience can also contribute to general knowledge of running such courses.

      • Employers would give hands-on training, not general training. And, no, it won’t supply jobs for everyone. The rest would need only a general education. And Skype shouldn’t be a requirement.

        Kahn has a USB stick download. No internet even necessary.

        I like the mandatory 2 years military service. Even for the wealthy. They need a dose of the real world.

        The government needs to find ways to conserve money and get something beneficial ion return. We have current and future debt, public and private, of about 200 trillion. We have only about 60 trillion in assets (the Bannon video).

        I suspect the solution will be something like a negative income tax with additional provisions for the old and disabled.

      • This also came up in the NYT interview. Trump was told that robots will take over jobs, and his response was that then we will build the robots, which sounds good, but you only build the robots once and the jobs they take are years worth. Also you need more education to build better robots. If the US wants to compete on the robot market they need to build the best robots, and be able to sell them at competitive prices. Assembly in Asia for the Asian market would be an obvious solution, but I think Trump would rule that out with his tariff and tax penalty walls for any American company trying to compete that way. Bad for America. Good for China.

      • I see in that video that that fancy machine is installing solar panels in a place where it’s starting to snow.

      • Employers would give hands-on training, not general training.

        You’re assuming that most specialized training will be “hands-on training”. Take a look at the machinery above. I doubt a regular operator supervisor of that machine does anything that can’t be trained in a Skype booth. That robot could easily be actually operated by somebody in his home a thousand kilometers away.

        It’s not like they move a lever or push a button to make something happen. The robot itself runs its routing motions, supervisors only need to get involved when something unusual happens.

        And for most specialized training, why should the employer deal with it, rather than the manufacturer/licenser of the machinery in question? A manufacturer wanting to sell robots would have a more salable product if there were a large pool of already trained supervisors.

        The government needs to find ways to conserve money and get something beneficial ion return.

        Not necessarily. Infrastructure projects can work because they support growth and a more efficient economy.

        Education projects would work the same, if they were designed right.

        I sort of envision local Skype booths (or similar), people can sign up for up to 30 hours/week of class time, they get paid by the hour (no attend, no pay). At the end they take a test, with substantial bonuses for good results.

        Things like mini-voc school courses are set up by a variety of organizations, including manufacturers of specialized equipment, corporations with specialized processes, publishers of specialized software, etc.

        Anybody in the program can sign up for any course they’re qualified for,either by passing a pre-requisite course or testing through. Having passed the course, they join a pool of qualified potential hires. While waiting to be hired, they can sign up for other courses, resulting in a large pool of multi-qualified potential hires.

        Which is a positive externality at a societal level.

        I suspect the solution will be something like a negative income tax with additional provisions for the old and disabled.

        Frankly, so do I. But IMO the educational system would be more efficient, more popular, no more expensive, and lead to more/faster growth.

      • I see in that video that that fancy machine is installing solar panels in a place where it’s starting to snow.

        There’s snow on the ground, too. What difference does that make?

      • This was Trump about robots.
        “FRIEDMAN: Are you worried, though, that those companies will keep their factories here, but the jobs will be replaced by robots?

        TRUMP: They will, and we’ll make the robots too.

        [laughter]

        TRUMP: It’s a big thing, we’ll make the robots too. Right now we don’t make the robots. We don’t make anything. But we’re going to, I mean, look, robotics is becoming very big and we’re going to do that. We’re going to have more factories. We can’t lose 70,000 factories. Just can’t do it. We’re going to start making things.”

      • Jim2,

        Two years of mandatory military service to teach “skills”? Not so sure about the wisdom of that.

        Ignoring for the moment that a lot of skill sets don’t have counterparts in the civilian market (I never did find a used torpedo shop and the submarines at Disney don’t need qualified sub drivers, they run on rails.) there is the not so small problem of the service getting nothing in return. They train them and then they are gone as their two years passes quickly.

      • tim – this point was made in context of automation taking most jobs. Instead of just giving people money, have them serve. Maybe it wouldn’t be just military oriented, but other forms of service.

    • Fake economist.

    • I learned years ago that Krugman cannot be trusted when he told readers that Bush wanted to raid the Social Security Trust Fund. He had to know that there was no trust fund, that it was a fraud, that there was nothing to steal.

      Richard

      • That was Gore’s line about a lock-box. While the budget was in the black, there could be talk about having such a thing, but Bush quickly got the budget back into the red after taking over, so it as a moot point.

      • 1. There most definitely is a SS trust fund
        2. The surplus in payroll taxes that created the fund was spent, ASAIK, by the US government during each of terms of the Presidents who have served during the time the surplus accumulated… which, other than being another one of Greenspan’s horrible ideas, makes perfect sense… it was invested in the safest investment vehicle on planet earth: the full faith and credit of the American people… who would never elect a congress that would welch on their promissory notes.

      • A Trifecta! All three commenters are correct. Yes, Krugman cannot be trusted. There is a SS Trust Fund in
        name only, functionally there at the whim of the annual Congressional appropriations. It is a moot point, since the Federal Government does cash flow accounting and irrespective of the SS Trust Fund balance, there is no corpus.
        The General Fund subsidized the SS and Medicare programs by $401 Billion last year per the SS Trustees Report which amounted to 2/3 of the deficit.
        The Big Lie is that the SS program is healthy and doesn’t run out of money until 2035. It is all a clever semantics game. There will be eventually a Come Home to Jesus moment. But not in the next few years, apparently.

      • Krugman is just a Level 1 useful id-ee-ot.

    • He should take a leaf from the Republican book and choose a Creationist.

      • Jim D
        Besides your comment being so last century, meaning I doubt the ‘creationist’ vote has moved an election since Jerry Falwell died.
        Just curious, what would be the alternative to a ‘creationist’, a ‘just happenedist’?
        Both seem pointless and impertinent.
        A value judgement outside the realm of science.
        To me, this is one the smug and tiresome generalized insults by progressives that produced the last election.
        ‘Creationist’ and ‘white working class’ are creatures that don’t exist.
        They are figments in the imaginations of the hyper politicized class George Will so aptly calls the “decaying coastal elites”.

        .

      • I only mention it because the chair of the House Science Committee is a Creationist, so it is a real and ongoing problem with the Republicans and science.

      • Per Wiki

        According to a 2007 Gallup poll,[125] about 43% of Americans believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”

        It’s not like there’s any proof they’re wrong.

      • Yes, indeed, that is the way the Republicans roll when it comes to science. I suspect Trump will have none of it, but we’ll see what kind of grip they have on him with the science pick.

      • “I only mention it because the chair of the House Science Committee is a Creationist, so it is a real and ongoing problem with the Republicans and science.”

        Wikipedia claims Lamar Smith is a Christian Scientist. The Wikipedia page on Christian Science makes this claim:

        “Eddy accepted as true the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis up to chapter 2, verse 6 – that God created man in his image and likeness – but rejected the rest “as the story of the false and the material,” according to Wilson.”

        If you’re going to accuse anyone with a religious background as being a creationist, why not point out that the father of the Big Bang theory, Georges Lemaître, was one as well.

      • Curiously, Jim D either hasn’t noticed or couldn’t care less that all Muslims without exception are Creationists too…

      • I wouldn’t hire Georges Lemaitre for the science job either. Creationism is a disqualifier unless you are also a Republican, and, yes, the part before God created man in Chapter 1 is the biblical 7-day creation.

      • “I wouldn’t hire Georges Lemaitre for the science job either. Creationism is a disqualifier unless you are also a Republican, and, yes, the part before God created man in Chapter 1 is the biblical 7-day creation.”

        Naturally, you will not acknowledge Lemaitres importance to science despite the fact that he is the one who proposed the theory of the expansion and exceleration of the universe, that he is the one who first derived what we call today Hubble’s Law, and of course, the big bang theory. Lemaitre was one of the first to use computers applied to cosmology and never mind that Lemaître coordinates are named after the man, you wouldn’t hire him because he’s Catholic.

        Of course, Galileo was Catholic too. What you must think of that creationist clown I can only guess.

      • Do you think they modified their thinking about the creation to fit with the science or vice versa?

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D
        A curious implication that worshiping chance is a rational foundation to wise advice. 56 of 58 founders of modern science where Christians who believed in a Creator. Newton explained: “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
        An intelligent agent appears the more rational explanation. See Evolutionary Informatics.

      • Newton did not know about the geological evidence. Even earlier people including a lot of wise ones thought the earth was flat. So…?

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D Do you realize that you are advocating myths against the founders of Science, and Christians? Are you really that uninformed about the origins of Science, the Scientific Method, the Christian worldview, and the principles and reasons of Christians who established the Scientific method? e.g. See about the FlatEarth Myth promoted by Darwinians to attack Christians. “Defenders of Darwinian evolution sometimes compare their critics to believers in a flat earth. According to the standard story, Christians used to believe for theological reasons that the earth is flat. When modern science demonstrated that the earth is actually a sphere, most Christians acknowledged their mistake, but a few continue to persist in their outmoded belief. Since modern science has likewise demonstrated the truth of Darwinian evolution (so the story goes), its critics are like people who still believe in a flat earth.

        But the story is false. It began as fiction, and it was elevated to a historical claim by late-19th century Darwinists who used it as a weapon to ridicule Christians.

        The spherical shape of the earth was known to the ancient Greeks, who even made some decent estimates of its circumference. Christian theologians likewise knew that the earth was a sphere. The only two who are known to have advocated a flat earth were a 4th-century heretic, Lactantius, and an obscure 6th-century writer, Cosmas Indicopleustes. [These were really second stringers. The leading theological lights of that period were Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and Augustine — none of these thought the earth was flat.]

        A major promulgator of the flat earth myth was the 19th-century American writer Washington Irving. In his fictional History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828), Irving wrote that flat-earth churchmen had opposed Columbus on the grounds that he would fall off the edge of the earth if he tried to sail across the Atlantic. In actuality, Columbus had been opposed by people who not only knew the earth was a sphere, but also had a pretty good idea of how big it was – but who knew nothing of the Americas and thus thought a voyage to the Far East would take too long and cost too much.

        The flat earth remained clearly in the realm of fiction until after Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. Two of Darwin’s followers then elevated it to a historical claim in books defending Darwinism and attacking Christianity: John Draper’s The History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874), and Andrew Dickson White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896).” The Flat Earth Myth

        See also Flat Earth Myth

        Russell, J.B., Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians, Praeger, 1991

        e.g., See Henry F. Schaeffer III, Scientists and their Gods
        I recommend his book:
        Science, and Christianity Conflict or Coherence?

      • “Do you think they modified their thinking about the creation to fit with the science or vice versa?”

        You better learn to back pedal faster than that if you hope to win this race. You’re anti-religious bigotry does not make you look scientific at all. If you want to look scientific then stick with science and leave the bigotry for nights at the pub in the corner booth.

      • “Newton did not know about the geological evidence.”

        Because somehow this “geological evidence” would have disproved Newton’s thumb hypothesis? Do you even once stop to consider your thoughts before regurgitating them?

      • Would Newton have believed in evolution? I think so. How about that the earth is billions of years old? I think so. It just needs evidence for a scientist.

      • I asked a simple question about how religious people reconcile contradictions with science and you say it is anti-religious to even ask that. I think they either go the religious route and disbelieve the science, or they find a way to reconcile these in their minds, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s an individual process.

      • Do you think they modified their thinking about the creation to fit with the science or vice versa?

        The creation stories are metaphors.

        Notice the plural. There are actually two more-or-less contradictory stories in Genesis, which take some real contortions to reconcile literally.

        OTOH, the 6-day version ~10,000 years ago can be perfectly reconciled with the scientific evidence, simply by assuming that all the evidence was created at the same time.

        Which brings us to evolutionary theo-psychology…

      • People have ways to reconcile.

    • “Curiously, Jim D either hasn’t noticed or couldn’t care less that all Muslims without exception are Creationists too…”

      Nor does it seem to bother JimD., that the climatariat actively sought and gained the Pope’s endorsement, who is perhaps the most visible and famous creationist on the planet.

      • Would the Pope be hired as a science adviser? No. The problem is not with literal 7-day creationists (and I am not sure the Pope is one), it is hiring them into science jobs.

      • The Pope is more enlightened on science than you give him credit for.
        https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/pope-says-evolution-and-creation-both-right

      • “Would the Pope be hired as a science adviser? No.”

        Just as a propaganda tool for the climatariat.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D
        Curious. If a tree or earth was created, how old was it when finished? How would you detect the difference between 7 days and 4.5 billion years?

      • “The Pope is more enlightened on science than you give him credit for.”

        Naturally JimD., you have missed my point. I have not in anyway denigrated the Pope. As mediocre of a Catholic as I am, I just wouldn’t do such a thing. My posts on Lemaitre should give you clue to my point. My point is that your bigotry is hardly scientific.

      • My point is about what type of person I would hire as a science advisor, but I am not sure whether or not you are advocating creationists, because you still haven’t made it clear. Note that there are creationists who also believe in geological, physical and biological sciences. They do it by modifying creationism to be less literal and more allegorical.

      • “My point is about what type of person I would hire as a science advisor, but I am not sure whether or not you are advocating creationists, because you still haven’t made it clear.”

        Oh stop it.. First of all, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits what you’re advocating, Jim. Secondly, I don’t buy for a second that you’re confused on whether I am advocating creationism or not, and I’m pretty sure if I posted a dozen posts disavowing creationism as unscientific you would only ask why I haven’t been more dramatic in my disavows.

      • You were implying that I shouldn’t believe the Pope as a creationist. I point out that he does believe in science. That should have been that.

      • “You were implying that I shouldn’t believe the Pope as a creationist.”

        No I wasn’t and your inference is disingenuous at best. Without any implication at all, I blatantly pointed out that the true believers of really very scary climate change enlisted the Pope’s endorsement. I blatantly argued you did not seem to be bothered that the most visible creationist on the planet was recruited for your cause.

      • That’s where I point out that the Pope is not anti-science. You call him a “creationist” as though that means he doesn’t believe in evolution which I addressed in the most direct way possible. Lamar Smith is different in that regard.

      • “That’s where I point out that the Pope is not anti-science. You call him a “creationist” as though that means he doesn’t believe in evolution which I addressed in the most direct way possible. Lamar Smith is different in that regard.”

        I dare you to back up your claim that Rep. Smith is different than the Pope in the regard of belief of evolution. Go ahead. Make my day.

    • “I asked a simple question about how religious people reconcile contradictions with science and you say it is anti-religious to even ask that.”

      Nope. I’m saying you’re anti-religious because you insist you wouldn’t hire someone with a religious background as a science adviser. Not Lemaitre, who was imminently qualified to advise on science, but you wouldn’t for no other reason than his religious background.

      • “imminently”

        Ooops. Should be eminently.

      • No, I did not say I wouldn’t hire someone with a religious background as a science adviser. Some people believe in evolution. I might hire those. Some don’t. I wouldn’t hire those. There may be some litmus tests. It can be the other way round if you are hiring for a church position. I have no problem with that.

      • “No, I did not say I wouldn’t hire someone with a religious background as a science adviser. Some people believe in evolution. I might hire those. Some don’t. I wouldn’t hire those.”

        A.) You accused Lamar Smith of being a “creationist” simply because of his religious background.

        B.) Your litmus test is still prohibited by the Civil Rights Act.

      • JPZ, even you confirmed that Christian Scientists take Genesis 1 literally. He is a creationist and not hiding it, as with 43% of the US population.

      • “JPZ, even you confirmed that Christian Scientists take Genesis 1 literally.”

        I am unaware of any such confirmation. Could you please point that confirmation out? I actually quoted a Wikipedia page that claimed Christian Scientists reject most of creationism.

      • If they take up to Chapter 2 verse 6 as true, that includes the whole creation story which is in Chapter 1. This is how they define themselves. It is not wishy washy in that regard and I think this hard line thinking, along with a characteristic skepticalness of medicine, is why they only have 100k members, one of whom is chair of the science committee.

      • “If they take up to Chapter 2 verse 6 as true, that includes the whole creation story which is in Chapter 1.”

        I told you back pedaling will only lose this race for you. Consider what Christian Scientists believe from their own words:

        “An Introduction to Christian Science
        CHRISTIAN SCIENCE VERSUS
        EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM

        “God’s Creation Spiritual, Not Material Creationism teaches that God created man materially, but Jesus said, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh [material]; and that which is born of the Spirit [God] is spirit [spiritual]” (John 3:6). Paul said, “…the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other …” (Galations 5:17). Though Jesus and Paul clearly taught that Spirit and flesh are contrary, creationism holds to an opposite view and attributes the creation of matter to Spirit.

        “Evolution is based on the belief that matter, not Spirit, is real substance; that nothing can evolve into something; that non-intelligence can become intelligent. Evolution may describe the illusion of material existence, but it does not explain the real, spiritual creation.”

        http://www.endtime.org/intro/evolution.html

        It is because you have no interest in investigating the truth and seemingly more interest in defending untenable positions that you find yourself back pedaling as much as you do.

      • To be clear, providing a link and some quotes of Christian Science is not me advocating that religion, it is merely me correcting the falsehoods Jim D. insists on perpetuating.

      • JPZ, you are trying to make Christian Scientists something they are not. If they think evolution is an illusion and they hold Chapter 1 of Genesis to be true, they are de facto Creationists. This should not surprise you as many Americans are like this. Are you hoping he is not a Creationist?

      • “JPZ, you are trying to make Christian Scientists something they are not. If they think evolution is an illusion and they hold Chapter 1 of Genesis to be true, they are de facto Creationists. This should not surprise you as many Americans are like this. Are you hoping he is not a Creationist?”

        See? This is the problem with back pedaling, brother. You only wind up right back where you started.

        This would make the Pope, according to your reasoning, a de facto creationist. I am not trying to make Christian Scientists anything. I am simply showing you by presenting their own words what they want to be.

      • I linked to the thoughts of the Pope on science, and he does not think evolution is an illusion. He is modern in his thinking and accepts science, medicine, global warming included. Even then I would not hire him as a science advisor, but he can get the message out.

      • “I linked to the thoughts of the Pope on science, and he does not think evolution is an illusion.”

        Uh-huh. Can you show me where the Pope has declared any part of Genesis to be untrue?

      • “Even then I would not hire him as a science advisor, but he can get the message out.”

        Not that the Pope is looking for the gig, and not that you’re the one doing the hiring, but in that event, he would then have legal standing for a Title VII lawsuit. Do you find the Civil Rights Act to be bad legislation?

      • I can’t speak for the Pope, but I suspect he takes Genesis as allegorical. Nothing about evolution says you have to disregard God.

      • “I can’t speak for the Pope, but I suspect he takes Genesis as allegorical. Nothing about evolution says you have to disregard God.”

        No Jim, you cannot speak for the Pope, but I’m wondering, do you know the Holy See claims to speak for God?

        Of course, nothing about evolution and belief in God disqualifies Rep. Smith as head of the Committee of Science, Space and Technology either.

        You may lose plenty of races, but you are a master back pedalist, I’ll give you that.

      • The fact remains that the Republicans have put a Creationist as chair of the House Science Committee. This is what you took issue with, probably because it makes them look bad. Note this is nothing to do with the Pope, which was your squirrel.

      • “The fact remains that the Republicans have put a Creationist as chair of the House Science Committee.”

        Repeating a lie ad nauseum does not make it a fact, Jim.

      • You deny that Smith is a Creationist. So be it. I am done with this.

      • “You deny that Smith is a Creationist. So be it. I am done with this.”

        I promise you Jim, the moment you can show me Lamar Smith acknowledging your claims will be the moment I acknowledge it as well.

    • Jim D Re: “for the science job either. Creationism is a disqualifier”.
      Are you declaring that you will only accept an Atheist as Science Advisor?
      Do you realize that you are explicitly rejecting the US Constitution?
      That you are advocating treason by directly advocating actions contrary to the explicit language of the Constitution AND the First Amendment?

      “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” ARTICLE VI

      “Congress shall make no law . . .respecting an establishment of religion.” 1st Amendment

      No Religious Test
      PS The evidence of contemporary State sponsored denominations indicated that the original meaning of “religion” was denomination.

      • “Are you declaring that you will only accept an Atheist as Science Advisor?”
        No.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D Well that’s “progress”? You adamantly reject almost all the founders of modern science because of their religious beliefs, yet happily accept atheists despite the catastrophic consequences of prominent atheist scientists advising politicians. The “scientific” advice of atheist Lysenko severely set back Soviet science.

        Lysenkoism . . .was a political campaign against genetics and science-based agriculture conducted by Trofim Lysenko, his followers and Soviet authorities. Lysenko served as the director of the Soviet Union’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964. The term Lysenkoism can also be used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives. . . .Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism at one time and overall, scientific research in genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[3] Due to Lysenkoism, crop yields in the USSR actually declined as well.[3][5]

        Examine carefully why Atheist/Communist governments “only” killed 100 million of their own citizens during the 20th century! See The Black Book Of Communism.
        The principle of Evolution appears to be diametrically opposite to the Rule of Law on which the USA was founded.

  14. EPA Increases The Federal Ethanol Mandate
    EPA’s Thanksgiving eve surprise.
    Boosted ethanol mandate from 15 to 19 million gallons.

    Context: EPA Mandates Renewable Fuel Levels Above 10 Percent Blend Wall

    The problem with exceeding the blend wall or even just reaching it is that many automobile manufacturers will not warranty vehicles that use more than 10 percent ethanol and many small engines (e.g. lawn mowers) also limit ethanol mixtures and actually prefer pure gasoline. For that reason, it has been recommended that the renewable fuel share not exceed 9.7 percent.[ii] But, EPA ignored that recommendation in setting the renewable fuels share for 2016, which is at 10.1 percent.

    This month, the EPA proposed that 18.8 billion gallons should be blended with motor fuels in 2017— 3.8 percent higher than the 2016 level. Here again, the level exceeds the blend wall, with an expected share of 10.44 percent. . . .
    Costs Increase When Levels are Not Met

    Refiners that are not able to meet the renewable fuel requirement must purchase Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)–credits that allow them to make up the difference between what is mandated and what is actually used. After EPA announced the renewable fuels requirement for 2016, RIN costs increased by over 50 percent–from 54.5 cents per gallon on November 30 to 85 cents per gallon on December 1. More recently, they have been trading at around 75 cents per gallon.[iv]

    With oil prices being down, ethanol is now trading for prices that are higher than gasoline. Consequently, refiners either have to pay the premium for ethanol or purchase RINs—either way they are paying a penalty for a government program that was supposed to help, instead of hinder, the gasoline market.

    • The current administration is acting like an evicted tenant who throws a house trashing party.

      In my opinion Trump loathes Obama, viciously. Reading between the lines when Trump “complements” him, is where I see it. I expect that when Trump is through with the Obama legacy, no stone will be left sitting atop another.

      Trump is saying placating things to lefty media, but his personnel choices say otherwise.

      • AFAIK Mr. Trump could simply reverse that decision, refiners could simply go along with it, and the administration could block attempts to prosecute them.

        This would offer time for the President and Congress to pass legislation eliminating the EPA’s power. Also a very good reason.

      • David L. Hagen

        charles the moderator. Before attributing Trump’s motives to pique, I encourage you to study the problem of Obama’s systemic breaking the law. e.g. 74 instances.
        The real problem goes back to the Clinton impeachment nullifying the power of impeachment. The Senate took an oath to “do impartial justice”. Yet 100% of the party of the Defense voted Not Guilty. 93% of the party of the Prosecution voted Guilty. We can no longer impeach a president unless the opposing party controls 2/3rds of the Senate! Thus we we see President Obama ignoring the Rule of Law with impunity for political advantage. With Trump appointing Senator Sessions as Attorney General, we may have a brief respite. See: If we’re a nation of laws, confirm Jeff Sessions as Attorney General

      • David Hagen,

        I am quite familiar with the objective case for reversing the illegal actions of our current administration and completely agree. I’m just noting that I believe there will be an extra dose of satisfaction for Trump as he executes it..

    • The problem that I have with David Hagen’s position on ethanol is that he (and others) do not address the central issue of octane.

      OK, let’s eliminate ethanol off the face of the planet — now, what do we replace it with? And what is the cost? Should the U.S. return to lead in gasoline for octane (like North Korea does)? How about MTBE (after all, State laws banning MTBE don’t really mean anything). Why not benzene, toluene, and xylene? — after all things like Cancer are way over-rated.

      Folks — at least be objective and read about ethanol (the RFS) and octane: http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2015/02/is-ethanol-being-forced-down-our-throats.html

      • David L. Hagen

        Stephen Segrest – You don’t know my position on Ethanol! 1) Break the petroleum monopoly by requiring ALL cars to be flex fueled and take ANY Octane from Methanol, to Ethanol, to mixed Alcohol, to MTBE, Low octane gasoline to high octane gasoline! 2) Price and Tax on an $/energy basis, NOT a $/gallon basis. See the Fuel Freedom Foundation PS I prepared a detailed review: “Methanol: Its Synthesis, Use as a Fuel, Economics and Hazards.” Univ. Minnesota, December 1976, 180 pp., 608 Ref., NTIS Publication No. NP-21727 (NTIS best seller for 3 years)

      • David L. Hagen

        Stephen Segrest For clarification, note: “many automobile manufacturers will not warranty vehicles that use more than 10 percent ethanol ”
        1) One major problem with the EPA’s mandate is that it coerces taxpayers to pay punitive fines for what they cannot perform. That alone should invalidate the regulation.
        2) Forcing taxpayers to pay higher costs for a fuel with no measurable benefits is another problem.
        Increasing ethanol capacity does provide a national security benefit against another OPEC embargo. But that needs to be explicitly acknowledged and those separate costs distributed across ALL taxpayers.

    • David — Could you write a Blog summarizing your ideas? — and then provide a link to it here at CE. Or maybe as a Guest Post here at CE? Thx.

  15. The Antarctic 2016 sea ice anomalies…

    There have been some very positive AAO values in 2016, high positive AAO values also occurred following the 2009/10 and 1997/98 El Nino episodes.

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/monthly.aao.index.b79.current.ascii.table

  16. Trying to make sense of the climate change lowers sea levels claim.

    A Minnesota farm field’s earth freezes solid in December. How much water does it absorb? About zero until it thaws. With global warming it will freeze later and thaw earlier. Opening it up to absorb more. Why does the Red River flood in Spring, it rains lot. And perhaps the ground is still frozen and melting snow runs off into it. I have a creek the is reliably fast running in Spring. Snow melt plus run off over frozen ground. If you shorten Winter in Minnesota and everything else is the same, there is less run off and more absorption into the aquifers. Global warming helps refill depleted aquifers.

    On average Minnesota sees the coldest average Winter temperatures of all states except Alaska.

    • It does not lower Global Mean Sea Level… it cannot lower GMSL… because there is ongoing global warming.

      The current rate of SLR is completely unaltered by this study. The sea level budget is altered.

      • JCH,

        I’m a little curious. What effect would the present rising of the Himalayan range have on sea levels?

        Would they fall, rise, or remain the same? If the Himalaya is rising above sea level, where does the extra rock come from?

        Can you link to any peer reviewed non model based research which specifically addresses this question, or are the sea level predictions based purely on wishful thinking, backed up by models tuned to match the wishful thinking?

        In like manner, if the eastern coast of the US is subsiding below the sea, what effect does this have on global sea levels, seeing how all the oceans are connected – one big blob of water sitting on a bigger ball of rock?

        I’d appreciate some facts, if you can provide them.

        Cheers.

      • If I were thousands and thousands of years old, I might have known a researcher who did not use a model.

      • JCH,

        OK, can you provide a link to any peer reviewed research by non-climatologists which shows the impacts on global sea levels caused by the Himalaya rising and the eastern coast of the US subsiding?

        Any model results should explain marine fossils found in the Himalaya above 6000 m, also now buried coal seams in the US, if below present sea levels.

        The land seems to be rising and falling here and there – according to satellite data. Do the models show the same thing, and do the model results agree with satellite altimetry measurements?

        The physics of water would appear to indicate that warmer less dense water cannot sink – physically impossible. But if you have facts to the contrary, I’ll change my mind, of course.

        Cheers.

      • JCH,

        I see that you are unable to provide any facts at all.

        Oh well. Just more completely pointless and useless brightly coloured graphics. Two billion dollars worth of complete nonsense.

        I hope you will be appropriately grateful when someone close to you dies unnecessarily due to funds diverted to producing brightly coloured graphics of no discernible value.

        No problem. Sacrifices have to made. Rather you than me. Thanks.

        Cheers.

      • You’re perfect for science advisor… a match made in heaven.

      • @Mike Flynn

        “The physics of water would appear to indicate that warmer less dense water cannot sink – physically impossible. But if you have facts to the contrary, I’ll change my mind, of course.”

        You can change your mind. AFAIK higher salinity can drive warmer water to sink below colder, less saline, water.

      • Robertok06,

        No mind changing just yet, I agree with you.

        However, I did say warmer less dense water. No magic transportation of hot, dense, high salinity water.

        Even where it can be arranged artificially, as in a solar pond, the physical process of diffusion cannot be prevented. Solar ponds need salinity maintenance, otherwise they just turn into containers of salty water, where the warmer, less dense water sits on top during the day, and cooling during the night, becoming denser, and sinking.

        As I said. Still no GHE, no missing heat, continents rise and fall, and the future remains unpredictable.

        “Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble . . .”

        Cheers.

    • This study was published in February 2016 and discussed here at that time.

  17. “Elizabeth Barnes & James Screen have good opinion article on whether Arctic ice loss is/will affecting mid-lat jet”

    I think you’ll find that the change in jet stream latitude and NAO/AO anomalies generally lead the Arctic sea ice extent anomalies, often by around a week.

  18. Hmmm … here I am thinking you are fighting for climate science only to find out you are fighting climate change. At least they got the fighting part right.

  19. “As with other state-of-the-art analyses, the uncertainty of the reconstructed 1540 summer weather in this study is considerable, for instance as extrapolation is required because 1540-like events are not captured by the employed Earth system model (ESM), and neither by other ESMs.”

    And that’s why the models are not really modeling Earth’s climate system, because the solar forcing of such events are at the heart of climate change. 1540 was also a record extreme drought year in Ethiopia. There is a rational reason why that year was so hot, verified by a notably year 179 years earlier in 1361, being a suitable heliocentric analogue. Page 109:
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/weather1.pdf

  20. If Donald Trump appoints the head of his EPA transition team to be the new Administrator of the EPA, it will be like Lincoln putting Grant in charge of the Union Army. Expect a long, bloody fight by someone who knows who the enemy is, and ow to beat them.

    Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute could do to the global warming industry what Grant did to the south. A protracted, grinding, relentless destroy the group think and confirmation bias that calls itself climate science.

    Dr. Curry, you should start putting some serious proposals together for genuine research on the issues you have been raising since you left the tribe. You are about to find yourself in a much more receptive environment, including with respect to funding.

  21. Brexit
    USA
    France

    A fabulous rejection of the “globalists” is occurring
    Much to be thankful for this weekend.
    Long live the current swing of the pendulum !!!!

    • The EU is mourning Castro while cowering in fear of Trump.

      That pretty well encapsulates “post-truth” thinking.

      • Castro wasn’t a danger to anyone. Trump?

      • Crawl out from under your bed and crack a history book:

        ●He turned Cuba into a colony of the Soviet Union and nearly caused a nuclear holocaust.

        ●He sponsored terrorism wherever he could and allied himself with many of the worst dictators on earth.

        ●He was responsible for so many thousands of executions and disappearances in Cuba that a precise number is hard to reckon.

        ●He brooked no dissent and built concentration camps and prisons at an unprecedented rate, filling them to capacity, incarcerating a higher percentage of his own people than most other modern dictators, including Stalin.

        ●He condoned and encouraged torture and extrajudicial killings.

        ●He forced nearly 20 percent of his people into exile, and prompted thousands to meet their deaths at sea, unseen and uncounted, while fleeing from him in crude vessels.

        ●He claimed all property for himself and his henchmen, strangled food production and impoverished the vast majority of his people.

        ●He outlawed private enterprise and labor unions, wiped out Cuba’s large middle class and turned Cubans into slaves of the state.

        ●He persecuted gay people and tried to eradicate religion.

      • With considerable assistance from the USSR he was responsible for untold millions of deaths in Africa by fomenting revolution over practically the entire continent, absolutely preventing transition to democratic government and ensuring that states that were once productive were reduced to poverty-stricken starving hellholes – Rhodesia for example, that was once referred to as “the breadbasket of Africa” is now dependent on foreign aid to feed its people, while the Socialist leader Mugabe stashes untold billions in his offshore bank accounts.

        A thoroughly evil man, I shall drink to his passing.

      • “How ironic that a year after Sartre wrote these words, he visited Cuba and proclaimed to the world that Fidel Castro was motivated above all by a hatred for injustice, and that he had brought about the liberation of Cuba from despotism. It has taken us 25 years to find out the terrible reality -Mr. Castro has created a new despotism that has institutionalized torture as a mechanism of social control.”

        New York Times – 1986

      • Putin or Castro? Who is worse? Discuss.

      • You implied Trump was worse than Castro – now you run away from that, change the subject and demand discussion?

        Comedy gold.

      • Jim D auditions for Comedy Central.

        As a 90 year old Castro is not a danger to anyone or himself. But I remember precisely where I was when JFK addressed the nation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was terrified. Subsequently, I’ve read extensively about the events during those few days. After looking at the information, both publicly known at the time and that declassified, all of us had reason to be terrified. Castro was at the center of it all.

        I’m sure however, given the leftward tilt of the MSM, he will be a folk hero to some in future generations. Some American Liberals slobbered over Stalin too. Until after his death when they were confronted by the reality of the millions he murdered.

      • cerescokid: “Until after his death when they were confronted by the reality of the millions he murdered.”

        Even then there were many who simply regarded them as merely speedbumps on the shining highway to the Glorious Socialist Workers’ Paradise.

        Remember, “there are no enemies on the Left!”

      • Trump is more dangerous to the world than Castro. He is easily baited, but defensive of Putin, and some will take advantage of that.

      • Cat,

        I believe a more accurate reading was that Castro helped facilitate Soviet policy in Africa, rather than the other way. Cuba was a drain on the Soviet Union. Providing proxies in Africa and South America was one of the forms of payment to recoup some of the money used to keep Cuba afloat

      • Jim D or a rock?

        Which possesses the higher density?

        No need to discuss. Answer is self evident.

  22. It appears Britain’s exit from the EU grows less likely by the day. Perhaps this will lite a fire under you Brits. From the article:

    The European Union has issued a directive requiring all EU-based pension funds to assess for “climate change risk”.
    That means that the greenies have effectively captured 3 trillion euros worth of investment assets under management. Naturally, they are crowing about this victory:

    Under the new law, the potential negative effects of climate change or political factors on retirement funds will get the same level of attention as liquidity, operational or asset risks.

    “This is a big success for the promotion of investments in sustainable products,” German Greens lawmaker Sven Giegold said, adding that the law “paves the way for the introduction of fossil divestment by European pension funds.”

    What’s good news for a Green politician is, almost by definition, bad news for investors.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/26/eu-pension-funds-must-assess-climate-change-risk/

    • “It appears Britain’s exit from the EU grows less likely by the day.”

      No it doesn’t.

      Very much the opposite, in fact.

      The intervention of the egregious, universally loathed Tony Blair on the ‘Remain’ side will I fully expect make sure of that.

      The big question that is emerging is, can we get out of the putrescent thing before it collapses altogether, as it certainly will if Marine Le Pen wins the French presidency next year, aside from the various other EU members coming up for elections over the next twelve months.

      All the ‘Project Fear’ paranoia is now thoroughly discredited, the UK economy has not been in better shape for years, even holidays to EU resorts have not been hit by the drop in value of Sterling.

      • It’s good you have your own currency. Brexit can’t happen soon enough.

        If I were Greece, I would just withdraw and declare all debt void. That would be a much needed reset for them. Then they could get back to fleecing tourists for a living.

      • Catweazle

        It’s better than that. The loathsome Blair. The ridiculous Clegg. The abonimable Vaz and now beardie, Branson himself sticking his oar in. Perhaps they are double agents for ‘leave’ as no one would take those characters seriously

        Tonyb

      • A ‘soft’ exit is worse than staying in, because that way you get all of the regulations and none of the say in them. I think the real choice should be between a ‘hard’ exit and no exit at all, when Parliament comes to consider this whole thing.

      • Jimd

        A hard exit please. We want nothing more to do with this malevolent organisation that is determined to ensure that no other inmates try to leave their crumbling asylum”

        Tonyb

      • 50% of UK trade is with the EU, so there is a lot of entanglement to figure out, and it can’t come out better from outside with those nations. Additionally, there is a large population entanglement, especially among the younger generation who are free-roaming in the EU.

      • Jimd

        Let’s take the case of bavaria which is pretty typical of our trade with the EU. We sell them 32 billion pounds of goods and they sell us 62 billion. Why would they not want to do a deal?

        Tonyb

      • tonyb, so you get deals with countries with which you have a negative trade balance. Does that solve anything? Maybe this is the kind of country where you would want to impose a tariff to protect your own industry.

      • Jimd

        The uk is a leading free trade country. I was merely illustrating that Europe has got more to lose in not coming to a trade arrangement than we do.

      • If they extract themselves from the trading bloc, they will not have the same deals as they got inside. This also goes for deals outside the EU, because the EU as a large bloc has more negotiating power than the UK alone, and now they have to compete with them.

      • Jimd

        Negotiating with bureaucrats representing 28 Highly diverse countries with wildly different needs is a total nightmare that takes Years . Much easier to deal with one focused nation that has always been a great trading nation eager to make deals.

        I can never understand your enthusiasm for the EU . It involves giving away our sovereignity and ability to set policy that suits us and not another 27 countries, all at very different stages of economic development. You would not want to be ruled by another country and have your laws made by them would you?

        Tonyb

      • Tony you should know better to argue with Jim D. He will always come out on top. That is what having your very own set of facts, hell your very own reality, does for you.

        And on those occasions where his own facts fail him, he will change the topic.

      • The EU is part of globalization where the biggest fish win. The EU is on terms with the US and China in the size of its economy. Isolationism doesn’t work in this world. The MPs who knew this were on majorly the side of Remain. The public didn’t know, because this was not what the visible campaign was about, but now they are finding out what the vote really was, and why the MPs wanted to Remain.

      • Jimd

        You must get it out of your head that leavers dd not know what the issues were.

        Numerous countries trade very successfully outside of a large block ranging from Australia and Canada to Singapore and switzerland.

        Tonyb

      • Jim,

        Please try not to think in terms simplistic enough for a first grader.

        Trying to implement policies which counter certain aspects of globalization is not anti- trade, let alone isolationism. Thinking so does not speak highly of your comprehension skills.

        If the EU is such an economic power house, why is it struggling so? Try putting down that little book of dogma you traditionally get your information from and employ your critical thinking skills. As in asking yourself why are voters in EU nations rejecting the status quo? Your little book will have a list of stock answers, like it’s Putin or they are only the low education voters, or they are mislead by alt-right, fake news outlets, etc, etc. Anything that keeps you from looking at the facts.

      • Britain’s natural trading partner is Europe. None of those countries would have 50% of their trade with Europe.

      • “so you get deals with countries with which you have a negative trade balance. Does that solve anything?”

        A trade deficit can be problematic under certain conditions. If the deficit is persistent, is a large share of the GDP, no compensating investment income flowing into the country, if their central bank is operating on low reserves, and a shoddy record of payment of debt.

        There appears to be, however, a recognizable connection between trade deficits and economic growth in the U.K. Their recession in 1990 was followed by a quick reduction in the trade deficit. By 1993, as the U.K. pulled out of their recession into a period of strong economic growth the trade deficit began to rise and continued to do so until 2008 when another recession hit the U.K. and the trade deficit very quickly declined.

      • timg56, you don’t know what policies they plan to implement. I think they are struggling because the EU are not going to make it easy. The ‘soft’ exit looks more likely at this point, even though it is the worst of all deals. It is a compromise that bows to both the vote and the practicalities. Norway went through this when a public referendum voted ‘no’ to joining. Their practical solution was joining the market and not the EU, a compromise to a public vote.

      • Jimd

        ‘The eu are not going to make it easy”

        The eu are going to make it hell because they want to make an example of us because if we escape there are a whole bunch of countries who would follow us including France, hollsnd, Austria and Italy. Do you think that is the sort of organisation we want to remain a member of? Do you think fear and intimidation is the proper basis for a relationship?

        The eu is a moribund collection of struggling countries who are being stifled by non elected bureaucrats. We are pefectly capable of standing on our own feet as numerous successful countries do.

        Tonyb

      • tonyb, yes, chin up, keep calm and carry on. That’s the spirit.

      • JIMd

        this is an official announcement on behalf of the British Government

        http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-and-give-me-your-credit-card-details/

        tonyb

      • Jim,

        I haven’t claimed anything about policy. You are the one who keeps making claims. This sounds like another case of you changing the subject.

      • Time to go, folks.

        Bureaucracy rules.
        Regulations proliferate.
        Euro a currency nightmare.
        Xit productivity and
        Innovation and jobs.
        Taxes on everythin’.

    • jim2: Under the new law, the potential negative effects of climate change or political factors on retirement funds will get the same level of attention as liquidity, operational or asset risks.

      There is always the possibility that they will review the evidence carefully.

      • Indeed.
        If green “industries” are seen as they truly are – incapable of profit without government subsidies – they may be verboten. Watch the spin if that should happen – which of course, it won’t, because only the “right” people will get the decision-making positions, donchaknow.

  23. Everything AGW theory has predicted from a +AO evolving over time to a lower tropospheric hot spot., to a decrease in OLR has failed to come about. .

    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

    Remember only a 1/2 percent change in albedo would wipe out the warmth of the last century.

    I think the process has started and the geo magnetic field and solar magnetic field if they both continue to decline will further impact the climate.

  24. The interesting article about the birth of Neo-Darwinism gives hope that science can escape the travesty of secular bias long enough to begin the process of transcending toward neo-Mannism and neo-Trenberthism without resort to fisticuffs.

    i.e., Scientists Seek to Update Evolution. Recent discoveries have led some researchers to argue that the modern evolutionary synthesis needs to be amended. [link]

    • Personally, I found it simplistic and incomplete. Darwin’s theory was falsified in the ’20’s (IIRC), when Mendel’s work on genes was rediscovered. The “new synthesis” was named after a Hegelian “synthesis” of Darwinism and mutationism, based on the assumption that “real” mutations provided effectively infinitesimal changes (a la Darwin), while evolution worked on relative distributions of different alleles.

      That was called “adaptationism”, the defects of which started being called out by Gould, and have been pretty much demonstrated by evo-devo.

      The “new synthesis” was pretty much based on Crick’s “central dogma”, which has long since been falsified. Most evolution involving genes takes place in the logic that controls their activation. (See here and related posts before and after.)

    • Evolution? We don’t need no stinkin’ evolution…

      But on a more serious note, if this works what will it be worth? I assume this would become a heredity trait and will be passed on to future generations who get this treatment.

      http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_728886.asp
      “Chinese scientists have injected CRISPR/Cas9 gene-edited cells into a human for the first time.
      The patient, who has non-small-cell lung cancer, received the modified cells as part of a clinical trial at the Sichuan University West China Hospital in Chengdu (see BioNews 861).
      This is the first of several CRISPR clinical trials that are planned in China and in the US, all aimed at treating various cancers. The US trial, which will be funded by Facebook billionaire Sean Parker, is due to begin in 2017 at the University of Pennsylvania (see BioNews 857).
      ‘I think this is going to trigger Sputnik 2.0, a biomedical duel on progress between China and the United States, which is important since competition usually improves the end product,’ Professor Carl June, who will lead the US trial, told Nature News.

      The team from China extracted immune T cells from the patient’s blood, and used CRISPR/Cas9 to delete the gene that produces PD-1, a protein that keeps the immune response in check. PD-1 inadvertently helps cancerous cells as it tempers the response of T cells that would otherwise attack them. The modified cells were cultured and then injected back into the patient.

      Oncologist Dr Lu You, who is leading the trial, said that the treatment went smoothly and the patient has been given a second injection. Each participant will receive between two and four injections in total. The focus of the clinical trial is to establish the safety of the technique, and all ten participants will be monitored closely.”

  25. Kahan’s open access research report is mistitled — “A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization [link]” What he finds is that the most open minded people are also the most polarized when it comes to the climate debate. There is nothing perverse about that, given that open minded here means actually looking into it.

    The article begins thus: “This research note presents evidence that political polarization over the reality of human-caused climate change increases in tandem with individuals’ scores on a standard measure of actively open-minded thinking. This finding is at odds with the position that attributes political conflict over facts to a personality trait of closed-mindedness associated with political conservatism.”

    “Actively open-minded thinking (AOT) refers to a reasoning disposition that is often thought to have political significance. It consists in the motivation to seek out, engage, and appropriately weigh evidence opposed to one’s strongly held beliefs.”

    In particular, it appears that skepticism is not due to close-mindedness, but rather to open-mindedness. Sounds right to me.

    See http://rap.sagepub.com/content/3/4/2053168016676705

  26. “Climate change makes sea levels fall, not rise, new NASA study shows”
    I believe they still mean GW ~ climate change.
    Wonder if that is the Trump effect setting in.

  27. Pingback: Sementtinen virhe löytyi IPCC:ltä | Roskasaitti

  28. Re: A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization

    AOThinkers are not only willing to believe anything, but seek to believe by definition. Of course these folks contribute to societal polarization. The are the fodder for activists on the prowl for “useful idiots”.

  29. Roger Helmer shows a plot of periodic temperature changes in the northern half of a water-covered planet that is exactly one astronomical unit from a pulsar? Coincidence?

    https://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/the-eu-against-eurosceptics/

  30. From the article:

    n 2014, journalist Tom Spears intentionally wrote “the world’s worst science research paper…a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble” — then got it accepted by eight different journals. (“I copied and pasted one phrase from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology…and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars…”) He did it to expose journals which follow the publish-for-a-fee model, “a fast-growing business that sucks money out of research, undermines genuine scientific knowledge, and provides fake credentials for the desperate.”

    But earlier this year, one such operation actually purchased two prominent Canadian medical journals, and one critic warns they’re “on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.â So this summer, Spears explains to Vice, “I got this request to write for what looked like a fake journal — of ethics. Something about that attracted me… one morning in late August when I woke up early I made extra coffee and banged out some drivel and sent it to them.”
    n 2014, journalist Tom Spears intentionally wrote “the world’s worst science research paper…a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble” — then got it accepted by eight different journals. (“I copied and pasted one phrase from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology…and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars…”) He did it to expose journals which follow the publish-for-a-fee model, “a fast-growing business that sucks money out of research, undermines genuine scientific knowledge, and provides fake credentials for the desperate.”

    But earlier this year, one such operation actually purchased two prominent Canadian medical journals, and one critic warns they’re “on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.â So this summer, Spears explains to Vice, “I got this request to write for what looked like a fake journal — of ethics. Something about that attracted me… one morning in late August when I woke up early I made extra coffee and banged out some drivel and sent it to them.”


    https://news.slashdot.org/story/16/11/26/0728216/science-journals-caught-publishing-fake-research-for-cash

  31. Dr Curry.

    “Chill: Antarctic ice is NOT rapidly melting experts say as logbooks from 100 years ago show levels unchanged”

    Sea ice, yes. It is variable.

    • nobodysknowledge

      “Antarctic ice is NOT rapidly melting experts say as logbooks from 100 years ago show levels unchanged”
      What I have read about Antarctic ice, is that the continent has gained some ice the last 100 years. So I think the rapid melting find place in some newspapers and some scared brains.

      • It’s doing both. If you knew the science and considered the geography of Antarctica it would be intuitive.
        The fringes, especially the WAIS are loosing ice (lowest and closest to encroaching warming. Coastal glaciers flow into the sea and are grounded on the sea-bed. Melt is occurring here due to warmer waters upwelling from below around the grounding “anchor”. However the interior is at an average height of 8000 ft and due to the Antarctic PV (much stronger than the Arctic version) air is locked-in and WV, precipitated out. As warming (hence moistening) air over the next decades/centuries penetrates the interior, then snowfall will increase, this outweighing melting at the edges…. for a time.

      • Harry Twinotter

        nobodysknowledge.

        “What I have read about Antarctic ice, is that the continent has gained some ice the last 100 years.”

        I do not think you can justify that claim.

  32. This makes a change from the MSM. I don’t know where they got the graph from but it looks similar to a graph I saw a month or so ago that showed the plunge needed to restore the pause. Are we far from the pause being restored???


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3974846/Stunning-new-data-indicates-El-Nino-drove-record-highs-global-temperatures-suggesting-rise-not-man-emissions.html
    Stunning new data indicates El Nino drove record highs in global temperatures suggesting rise may not be down to man-made emissions
    •Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C
    •Comes amid mounting evidence run of record temperatures about to end
    •The fall, revealed by Nasa satellites, has been caused by the end of El Nino

    Global average temperatures over land have plummeted by more than 1C since the middle of this year – their biggest and steepest fall on record.

    The news comes amid mounting evidence that the recent run of world record high temperatures is about to end.

    The fall, revealed by Nasa satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere, has been caused by the end of El Nino – the warming of surface waters in a vast area of the Pacific west of Central America.

    Some scientists, including Dr Gavin Schmidt, head of Nasa’s climate division, have claimed that the recent highs were mainly the result of long-term global warming.

    Others have argued that the records were caused by El Nino, a complex natural phenomenon that takes place every few years, and has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions by humans.

    The new fall in temperatures suggests they were right.

    Other experts have also disputed Dr Schmidt’s claims. Professor Judith Curry, of the Georgia Institute of Technology, and president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said yesterday: ‘I disagree with Gavin. The record warm years of 2015 and 2016 were primarily caused by the super El Nino.’

    The slowdown in warming was, she added, real, and all the evidence suggested that since 1998, the rate of global warming has been much slower than predicted by computer models – about 1C per century.

    David Whitehouse, a scientist who works with Lord Lawson’s sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the massive fall in temperatures following the end of El Nino meant the warming hiatus or slowdown may be coming back.

    ‘According to the satellites, the late 2016 temperatures are returning to the levels they were at after the 1998 El Nino.

    The data clearly shows El Nino for what it was – a short-term weather event,’ he said.

  33. Just standard “post-truth” fair from the Daily Wail and in particular from David Rose….

    https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/tag/david-rose/

  34. Here is what Rose is talking about.

    October 2016 Continental Rankings
    (warmest rank out of 107 years)

    North America 7th
    South America 15th
    Europe 41st
    Africa 2nd
    Asia 69th
    Oceania 44th

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-regions/201610

  35. Re: Elizabeth Barnes & James Screen have good opinion article on whether Arctic ice loss is/will affecting mid-lat jet … Excellent paper, extremely well written. If you didn’t click through to read this one, do so…I highly recommend it. It is an exemplar for how climate science questions should be addressed and answered for the general public.

  36. “Has dogma derailed the scientific search for dark matter?”

    Prof. Kroupa,
    The dark matter theory is terribly wrong and the error is very basic. The original motivation for dark matter theory is to explain the flat rotation curve of spiral galaxies. This violates Kepler’s 2nd law which can be expressed by equating the gravitational force with the centrifugal force of an orbiting body:

    G M m / r^2 = m v^2 / r
    v^2 = G M / r

    The argument goes that by increasing the mass M (by addition of dark matter) the velocity v of outer stars in the galaxy can be increased to match the observed flat rotation curve. Yes but there’s a big problem. The center of mass of a spherical dark matter around a galaxy is at the center of the galaxy. Hence it will not only increase the velocity of outer stars but also the inner stars. The rotation curve will not flatten. All velocities will increase.

    Theorists get creative and invent all sorts of dark matter mass distributions to match the observations. This is nothing more than contrived curve fitting. It will not work. Any asymmetric distribution of dark matter will not shift the center of mass of a galaxy. It will still increase the velocity of both outer and inner stars – not flat rotation curve.

    There’s a much simpler and mundane explanation for flat rotation curve. Kepler’s law is for planetary motions. The planets have stable orbits. We don’t know if all stars have stable orbits. I believe the inner stars are stable and obey Kepler’s law but the outer stars are unstable so they violate Kepler’s law. The outer stars are still moving to higher orbits to attain stability. This is basic Newtonian mechanics. As they move to higher orbits, they lose velocity and eventually obey Kepler’s law.

    The radial velocity of stars are a few km/s. It would take tens of thousands of years to move one lightyear. Our 300 years of astronomical observations may not be enough to detect such a small change in orbital distance. This is just good old fashioned Newtonian mechanics. No exotic dark matter and creative curve fitting needed.

  37. The reality is all of the basic premises AGW theory has been based on have failed to come about therefore it follows the theory at best is flawed.

    I can not help it that what the theory has called for has failed to materialize.

    No tropospheric hot spot. Meaning the positive feedback between CO2 and water vapor is not there.

    No AO evolving into a more positive mode. Meaning polar areas would be cold not warm.

    No decrease in OLR meaning there apparently is no accumulation of heat taken place on the earth as a result of this factor.

  38. I have come up with the numbers and a prediction. I have said if solar criteria reaches my low average values the climate will respond by cooling.

    In addition I am saying this is happening now and that the solar effects are being enhanced by a weakening geo magnetic field.

    Now if the low solar average values come about and the climate does cool I am going to have a very strong case that what I have been saying is correct. Especially if the terrestrial items I keep mentioning that would be influenced move in the direction I predicted.

    If this occurs all of those who see it differently will have the burden to say why this is not correct.

    I say the global temperature trend is already in the process of a reversal.

    I think I have been quite clear and definitive and not saying oh someday this will happen because of this or that or try to spin it by manipulating the data or trying to make the data fit into my theory, or changing my criteria.

    I have stayed steadfast on my criteria and the expected result.

    Unlike so many others who never will call a turn but instead put anything that may happen way off to the future which to me is meaningless and leaves so much wiggle room to spin and modify. I am saying now, today.

    I think at least I have stated my case ,made my call and now am prepared to live with the result.

    My only requirement being all the solar parameters I have called for must come about and have a duration of at least six months or greater, following at least 10 years of sub solar activity in general which we have now had.

  39. “Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions Into Waterlogged Miami?”

    Shock! Horror!

    How dare they use their capital as they see fit?

    The land is subsiding – measured, and presumably well known. If you choose to live in a sinking city (Venice, for example), why shouldn’t you be allowed to?

    Cheers.

  40. Oh dear! Not trying sidetrack things much, but I spotted this on RealClimate.

    “[Response: It’s something to do with WordPress updates breaking the “comments_popup_link” function. I’ve looked around, but not found anything that works to fix it. Any suggestions welcome. – gavin]”

    I’m concerned that this might be the person in charge of something to do with NASA, and possibly involving computers, software, or similar.

    I didn’t bother suggesting that gavin asked someone with knowledge of such things within NASA for assistance. It’s not exactly rocket science, and possibly somebody without a PHD in Climatology might be able to solve this awesome and intractable problem!

    At least he’s honest in admitting his lack of expertise in bloggish matters.

    Cheers.

  41. I really must stop, but first –

    “Some species may thrive because they can graze on the extra algae. But if the ecosystem comes to life earlier in the year, many species may be left behind.

    Fish larvae may not be able to develop fast enough. Migrating whales and birds may show up too late. A lot of the extra algae may drop to the sea floor by then, untouched.

    “It’s going to be a different Arctic unless we turn things around,” said Dr. Arrigo.”

    Oh no! The world might change! Stop change now!

    Organisms change. Extinction, creation, evolution. Weather changes. Climate changes. The land, the ocean, the atmosphere changes. Life goes on for some, stops for others.

    Save the dinosaurs if you must. Don’t expect me to share your enthusiasm, or pay for you to indulge your passion.

    Cheers.

  42. Disappointing.
    NOAA PDO:
    201606 0.76
    201607 0.12
    201608 -0.90
    201609 -1.08
    201610 -0.76
    201611 0.53

    • Disappointing? No. Surprising? Yes. It’s apparently mostly about fish thriving or fish dying as the big blue blob in the North Pacific obviously is not that important to the calculation.

      On to JIASO.

  43. Interesting. Trump takes meeting with Al Gore.

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