Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

The folks at the put together an excellent explainer on 2017 temperatures. Differences between groups largely arise from how they deal with interpolation in polar regions. [link]

Jim Hansen: explainer for 2017 global temperatures. Baselines, anomalies, data sources, and conclusions in context w/previous El Nino & prediction for next decade (hiatus) [link

“Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability” Cox et al 2018 [link]

Methodology for estimating equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from the 20th-century historical record: [link]

On the emergent constraints of climate sensitivity [link]

Piers Forster: A compelling analysis suggests that we can rule out high estimates of this sensitivity [link]

Why clouds hold the key to better climate models [link]

Large Antarctic snowfall increases could counter sea level rise, scientists say [link]

 “Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?”  [link]

Jet stream response to temperature swings [link]

Why are Arctic linkages to extreme weather still up in the air? [link]

Good overview by Carbon Brief:  What are climate models and how do they work? [link

A Princeton glaciologist says a mega-engineering project may avert cataclysmic sea-level rise, [link 

Estimating the SST observing method from the observations and diurnal cycle,  [link]

Wonder how meteorologists can come up with 1-in-250 year probability estimates with only 137 years of data? It involves complex stats, but NOAA’s explains the math and science well here: [link

Drivers of 2016 record Arctic warmth assessed using climate simulations subjected to Factual and Counterfactual forcing [link

Sources of intermodel spread in the lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks [link]

Host Of Studies Show No Drought/Forest Fire Trend [link]

Causes of glacier melt extremes in the Alps since 1949 [link]

The ocean has lost a lot of oxygen in recent decades — “in amounts tightly related to ocean warming.” The effects will get worse, but are difficult to predict. [link

Warming and Cooling – The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia [link]

“Cheruy et al. [2017] demonstrate a noteworthy negative nocturnal feedback between soil moisture and temperature that is particularly strong in so-called “hot-spot” regions of land-atmosphere coupling.” Wet soils elevate night time temperatures. [link]

Thriving on our changing planet:  A decadal strategy for Earth Observation from Space [link]

Coastal waves drive Antarctic ocean warming, [link]

New data from ice cores show that mean ocean temperature from the Last Glacial Maximum to the early Holocene. Rose about 2.5 ℃ over this period. [link]

Improved spectral comparisons of paleoclimate models and observations via proxy system modeling: Implications for multi-decadal variability [link]

Hausfather:  new “hybrid” sea surface temperature estimate using island and coastal land stations to correct for biases in ocean records due to changing instrumentation.[link]

Policy and Social Sciences

Impacts of nationally determined contributions on 2030 global greenhouse gas emissions: uncertainty analysis and distribution of emissions [link]

The has just issued a new position paper on geoengineering – though it’s now called “climate intervention”. Says “may be a need for climate interventions to help reduce or offset some of the effects of climate change” & research should continue: [link]

After one year of the Trump administration, here’s what has actually happened (and NOT happened!) to science. It’s not really a “war on science.” [link]

Joe Duarte: Checking the Fact Checkers. AP Fact Check is going to amaze you. And Google too:[link]

Are the New York City and various California lawsuits that seek compensation from oil companies to offset climate damages warranted?  [link]

Experimental evidence that online incivility increases political polarization [link]Legal: Is global warming a ‘public nuisance’? [link]

Mark Lynas – a tentative 7-point plan for a peace treaty between anti and pro-GMO warriors. [link]

Why China is freezing [link]

About science and scientists 

“In medicine, the term “evidence-based” causes more arguments than you might expect. And that’s quite apart from the recent political controversy over why certain words were avoided in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention budget documents.” [link]

68 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Drivers of 2016 record Arctic warmth:
    “There is some modest decadal variability in Arctic surface air temperatures during 1980–2016 overall in the Counterfactual runs, though these are weak in amplitude indicating that natural variability of boundary forcings such as might arise from natural El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycles or Pacific decadal SST variations could not have appreciably contributed to 2016 extreme Arctic warmth.”

    There were substantial positive AMO anomalies through Summer-Autumn in 1998, 2010, and 2016, following El Nino episodes:
    https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data

  2. The Hansen discussion about a warming hiatus possibly being in the cards also discusses an alternative, which is a case for continued warming.

    So, January 2018, which should be a month of very cold temperatures for the current La Niña, finds Niño 3.4 looking quite balmy:

    The emaciated La Niña is looking to be a joke.

    As for the PDO, the only one the matters, Mantua’s, it avoided going negative in 2017 and has a record 4 straight years in positive territory:

    And, OHC is very high:

    From the link:

    Conceivably this continued temperature excursion above the trend line is not a statistical fluke, but rather is associated with climate forcings and/or feedbacks. The growth rate of greenhouse gas climate forcing has accelerated in the past decade.3 There is also concern that polar climate feedbacks may accelerate.8

    Therefore, temperature change during even the next few years is of interest, to determine whether a significant excursion above the trend line is underway.

    Now I wonder what that could mean? Knutson’s springback warming?

  3. Curious George

    Joe Duarte: Checking the Fact Checkers now has a good companion:
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/19/google-ends-fact-check/

  4. Is GW dangerous or beneficial? What’s the valid evidence?

    On what valid evidence are the damage functions calibrated?

  5. Large Antarctic snowfall increases could counter sea level rise, scientists say [link] …
    Huge snowfall increases over Antarctica could counter sea level rise, scientists say
    the researchers found snow accumulation levels had been rising since around 1900. And the increase is most marked in recent decades, up through the year 2010. It’s a finding that aligns with the notion that climate change, by increasing the atmosphere’s retention of water vapor, is increasing precipitation.
    When oceans are warmer and more thawed with minimum ice shelf extent and sea ice extent, ocean effect snowfall occurs on land and the ice volumes on land increase. When oceans are colder and more frozen with maximum ice shelf extent and sea ice extent, ocean effect snowfall occurs on floating ice far from land and land ice flows and volume depletes. This forces ocean temperatures and ocean levels to be self correcting. This causes natural alternating cycles that are natural, normal and necessary. Maurice Ewing and William Donn wrote and talked about this in the 1950’s and 60’s.
    We know very robustly that the present day is not anything like we’ve seen in the past essentially 2,000 years This is wrong, the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods had snowfall much like this, the records of this are in the ice cores. The older data is compressed more and appears less than now. Warm periods end because it snows more on land then and the ice accumulates and then advances and causes cooling.
    The problem is that in the long term, if the Earth warms, the ice sheets shrink. The compensation effect does not last.
    They do not yet understand. Earth warms because the ice depletes in the cold periods and then retreats. Earth cools because ice is replenished in warm periods and then advances.

    • Tony Banton

      “There’s no “proof” that Einstein is correct, just as there was no “proof” Newton was.
      Until observation proved Einstein was correct.
      What science does is give you a good probability of being correct.”

      The only observable manifestation of recently increased atmospheric CO2, that the planet has greened, is a probable indication that increased atmospheric CO2 levels are a good thing. No?

      So in fact, the planet has proven the alarmists wrong, has it not, in that they predicted global catastrophe, and global greening crept up on them instead.

      Isn’t this a scientific phenomenon that should be roundly acknowledged amongst the alarmist community? An admission of their incompetence to even consider such an eventuality. And whilst I suspect some did, even they were ignored, just as the event has been.

      For the past 40+ years the world has been convinced of impending climate doom. The very event, that confirms science itself as a credible profession, happens along, because it disproves a widely held theory, and it goes unacknowledged, in the face of computer predictions.

      The alarmist community ought to hang their head in shame as they consign science to dogma.

  6. Thanks for the mention of dropping oxygen levels in the oceans. Four of the last five major extinctions were caused by the sudden release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course back then it took tens of thousands of years to kill off most of the biosphere by adding gigatons of (mostly) CO2 to the air. See Science article: “Cretaceous Oceanic Anoxic Event (OAE-2: ~94 Ma)”
    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/8/e1701020

    Thanks to our technology we can add about a thousand new chemical compounds to the mix so it probably won’t take as long this time. I’m actually optimistic we will use genetic engineering to avoid the worst outcomes for humans and the most important domestic animals.

    • Curious George

      Mr. Long’s article on dropping oxygen levels in the oceans contains exactly one number: The air we breathe is 21% oxygen. The rest is just blabbing.

      • Curious George

        Wrong, I did not scroll up enough. Actually, there are five numbers.

      • But the oxygen content in the air is dropping too.
        http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
        “Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. These plots show the atmospheric O2 concentration relative to the level around 1985. The observed downward trend amounts to 19 ‘per meg’ per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year.”

      • Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning.

        If O2 levels are really decreasing, the cause is not proven to be fossil fuel burning. The list of things that are happening due to fossil fuel burning is growing faster that the wooden puppet’s nose, flood, drought, storms, sea level, global burning, global freezing, etc forever, all with no actual proof!

      • ” all with no actual proof!”

        Science doesn’t give you “proof”.
        There’s no “proof” that Einstein is correct, just as there was no “proof” Newton was.
        Until observation proved Einstein was correct.
        What science does is give you a good probability of being correct.
        That you require proof that will be forever unforthcoming is the nature of your unreasonable squirrel hunting.

        http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/14/3452867.htm

      • Increased photosynthesis and “greening” should increase O2 levels. Be interesting to follow this number for the next decades.

      • Tony Banton

        Sorry, I mis-posted this earlier.

        “There’s no “proof” that Einstein is correct, just as there was no “proof” Newton was.
        Until observation proved Einstein was correct.
        What science does is give you a good probability of being correct.”

        The only observable manifestation of recently increased atmospheric CO2, that the planet has greened, is a probable indication that increased atmospheric CO2 levels are a good thing. No?

        So in fact, the planet has proven the alarmists wrong, has it not, in that they predicted global catastrophe, and global greening crept up on them instead.

        Isn’t this a scientific phenomenon that should be roundly acknowledged amongst the alarmist community? An admission of their incompetence to even consider such an eventuality. And whilst I suspect some did, even they were ignored, just as the event has been.

        For the past 40+ years the world has been convinced of impending climate doom. The very event, that confirms science itself as a credible profession, happens along, because it disproves a widely held theory, and it goes unacknowledged, in the face of computer predictions.

        The alarmist community ought to hang their head in shame as they consign science to dogma.

    • Maybe the extinctions happened because something other than co2 disrupted the ecosystem, which in turned caused respiration to overcome photosynthesis. This triggered a slight increase in temperature which in turn raised temperatures, which drove CO2 out of the ocean, and started a positive feedback, which eventually was offset by the greening of the earth and CO2 removal by other carbon cycle mechanisms.

      As you know, the draining of Lake Agaziz is said to have caused a short lived cold period. I think we need to look into similar events in the geologic record, or model what happens if a sudden change of the landscape by a tectonic shift changes earth albedo, water chemistry, etc. For example. I’ve been dabbling with the possibility that the Eocene high temperature peak may have been forced by the flooding of Central Asia by a huge shallow sea, which disappeared when India struck Asia.

  7. I commend Tom Di Liberto for explaining the once in 1000 year claims regarding some rainfall events we saw this year. I hoped for some mathematical and thermodynamic magic to explain how they developed the shape of the pdf given the physical system. Unfortunately, even the author seems to acknowledge that the real answer is that it’s not possible given the limited data and limited knowledge of the physical system.

    I wouldn’t exactly call the exercise presented complicated statistics either.

  8. Help please.

    Bjorn Lomborg said in this video, Jan 16, 2017, https://www.prageru.com/videos/paris-climate-agreement-wont-change-climate :

    The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise.

    Can anyone please post the link to the report(s) mentioned? Lomborg also had an article in the WSJ in Nov 2015 that said similar. But it is behind a paywall. However, I doubt the WSJ article would give the reference and link to the report(s).

    Better still would be a link to where I can read how Lomborg estimated the “1 to 2 trillion dollars every year” figure.

    • NASA has 2017 as the 2nd hottest year on record

      In the normal and natural warm period that followed the little ice age.

      If we look at history, we should have 2 or 3 hundred years of record years compared to the little ice age and then it will get cold again.

  9. How do climate models work?

    “Typically, bias correction is applied only to model output…”

    “So by nudging the model to keep its simulations of the North Atlantic Ocean on track (based on observed data), the idea is that this may produce, for example, more accurate simulations of rainfall for
    Europe.”

    Nudging. We have this problem in the North Atlantic. So we’ll nudge that. Solving the problem by disconnecting some of the GCM and feeding in some other numbers.

    “Carbon Brief has mapped the climate modelling centres (18 of them) that contributed to the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), which fed into the IPCC’s fifth assessment report.”

    So this science is organized a certain way. You need lots of money continuing over a long enough time. This science has moved to such a place, a modeling center. And they may invite you for some computer time or not. And this stuff went into AR5. We don’t have a modeling center.

  10. Interesting that “Why clouds hold the key to better climate models…guest post Prof Ellie Highwood is professor of climate physics in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading and president of the Royal Meteorology Society.)”
    It seems the author has involved themselves greatly in the internals of cloud dynamics and the modeling of such. Yes, very interesting and no doubt very important. However I would have thought the most important aspect of clouds are at the interface where the ‘edge’ of a cloud stops being a cloud. The chaotic boundary of the cloud where it meets the rest of the atmosphere. Here I would have thought is the point of maximum energy exchange with the atmosphere.

    Also I would contend that it is not the volume of clouds that matters as much as the total area of clouds that should be of primary concern. How it is that in different regions of the world different cloud densities change the total cloud coverage area. With more cloud coverage area, the more energy exchange area, more eventual weather effects.
    “Unfortunately, though, these models still have some limitations in representing low-altitude cloud processes, and research and development is ongoing.” is always nice to see if it going in a profitable direction.

    Ho-hum, that’s just the way I see it, no doubt I will be told I’m wrong…

  11. I tend to disagree with the premise that El Nino had not effect on 2017 temperature. 2 years of prior El Nino driven warming would provide for a “soak” creating a stubbornness to change.

    This is shown (perhaps) by NOAA’s comment “The monthly global land and ocean temperatures at the start of 2017 were extremely warm, with the first four months each ranking as the second warmest for their respective months, behind the record year 2016”.

  12. “Causes of glacier melt extremes in the Alps since 1949 [link]”

    Wherein the link provides, “that three independent drivers control melt: global radiation, latent heat and the amount of snow at the beginning of the melting season… Long-term trends are driven by the lengthening of melt duration due to earlier and longer-lasting melting of ice along with melt intensification caused by trends in long-wave irradiance and latent heat due to higher air moisture.”

    Accordingly, it’s fair to ask if the several examples of colder winters across the NE are not just a product of factors that many climate scientists see as part of a global cooling trend until 2030 and perhaps beyond, but is in fact one of the many factors that will be contributing to future global cooling–i.e., the more there is, the more there will be…

    • Colder winters and more snow will not cause cooling if it all melts out by early spring.
      There is a lot of data from observations indicating increased and earlier spring snow melt.
      Or you could look at the problems faced by the Iditarod, and other dog race events in recent decades by the reduction in spring snow cover.

      • At a Glance

        Record cold has overtaken Alaska in the midst of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race.

        Fairbanks had three consecutive days with a low temperature of minus 38 degrees or lower.

        Monday featured the coldest start to the race since it began in 1973.

        Record Cold Grips Alaska, Tests Iditarod Race Participants ~March 17, 2017
        https://weather.com/news/weather/news/record-cold-alaska-iditarod-march-2017

      • snow at the tails of glaciers and at the edges of snowfields is expected to melt in summer.

        The snow on top of the old snow at the heads of glaciers and the head of snowfields does not melt in summer and the accumulation of that ice over many years determines the future of the ice flow and advance and retreat. Snow fell during the Medieval Warm period that caused the little ice age. less snow fell during the little ice age and allowed the ice depletion and ice retreat into this modern warm period. Not many study this because it goes back before thermometer data. The data is in the ice core records and in the history books.

  13. Pingback: New York Times Forwards Climate Propaganda | Watts Up With That?

  14. Pingback: New York Times Forwards Climate Propaganda |

  15. The growth in atmospheric CO2 dropped to 2.2 ppm (preliminary) in 2017, after the two higher values (~3 ppm/year) in 2015 and 2016 (El Nino).

    The emissions were (preliminary) at the record high >37 GtCO2 (4.8 ppm) in 2017, not counting the land use emissions (~5 GtCO2 or ~0.6 ppm). The airborne fraction was ~45% or ~41% with the land use emissions.

  16. On the last point:
    “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked:” A confession from John Ioannidis:
    http://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/16/evidence-based-medicine-has-been-hijacked-a-confession-from-john-ioannidis/

  17. Bloomberg Businessweek:

    This Army of AI Robots Will Feed the World
    And it could do it while eliminating herbicides, replenishing topsoil, and reducing carbon consumption. If all goes to plan.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-01-11/this-army-of-ai-robots-will-feed-the-world

    Technology strikes again. And it will make the anti-GMO people a little less unhappy.

  18. The Wall Street Journal:

    Be Skeptical of Those Who Treat Science as an Ideology
    But whereas skepticism and uncertainty have always been the heart and soul of science, confidence and certainty are the coin of the realm in much of today’s public discourse. Unquestioning confidence is deeply troubling for the scientific community because it is not the currency we trade in, and it has led people in America and around the world to question scientific enterprise itself. We should all be troubled when science is treated as if it were an ideology rather than a discipline.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/be-skeptical-of-those-who-treat-science-as-an-ideology-1516403457

  19. Carroll on evidence-based medicine:
    “Too many articles, studies and announcements are quick to point out that something or other has been proved to be dangerous to our health, without a good explanation of the magnitude of that risk, or what we might reasonably do about it.

    “Big data, gene sequencing, artificial intelligence — all of these may provide us with lots of information on how we might be at risk for various diseases. What we lack is knowledge about what to do with what we might learn.”

    For climate, even if a great deal is known about actual risks, which I doubt, nothing necessarily follows about the merits of reducing CO2 emissions or windmills as opposed to adaptation. Computers can cook up big models. Big deal.

    As for actual risks: ocean warming and a decrease in oxygen. There is a lack of specifics in the article. Is this all about coral bleaching becoming more frequent than it was in the 80s? A short-term local phenomenon? Are the warmists backing off on the acidification scare?

  20. Increasing retention of water by the biosphere and aquifer replenishment will also reduce SLR.

  21. Ocean deoxygenation. Had to do some research on this. Have to separate out eutrophication dead zones (e.g. mouth of Mississippi, see essay Good Bad News), which are indeed increasing from eutrophication of overfertilized algal blooms, from AGW and Henry’s law temperature dependency.
    Deoxygenation appears to be the new ocean CAGW meme, as acidification has failed for three reasons: oceans are highly buffered, local pH is highly biologically dependent, calcifying organisms like corals metabolically control the calcification microenvironment pH. See esssay Shell Games. Newish Deoxygenation alarm at NatGeo, Newsweek, CNN, Planet Earth, all the usual suspects, just like Judiths link.
    Took a while, but finally located an oceanography paper giving observed deoxygenation over the past 50 years. 2%. The new alarmist dexoygenation dog isn’t gonna hunt. Ridiculously overblown. Reeks of desparation.

    • I think the point the marine scientists are trying to make is that the continental shelves are experiencing the most deoxygenation. Considering how little free oxygen is naturally in sea water just loosing a few percent in the upper layers can make all the difference. The vast majority of marine life lives in the waters above the continental shelves. It’s not just the oceans either. The fresh water lakes and rivers are having similar problems with oxygen levels and nutrient overloading. You might trying searching for the term ‘toxic algae’ and you will find news stories from around the world that nations are experiencing major problems dealing with it.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/nitrogen-algae-blooms-lake-winnipeg-phosphorus-1.4492042

    • This is just one of the issues that has been starved of oxygen over decades in the public arena as a result of the CAGW obsession.

      https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/eutrophication-causes-consequences-and-controls-in-aquatic-102364466

    • Ocean dead zones: Once again climate alarmists/activists have seized upon an actual environmental issue, but misdirect the public toward their CO2 obsession, and away from practical efforts to address a real concern. Some excerpts from scientific studies serve to put things in perspective.

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/19/ocean-oxygen-misdirection/

      “What triggers the loss of oxygen in ocean water is the explosive growth of sea life fueled by the release of too many nutrients. As they grow, these crowds can simply use up too much of the available oxygen.

      Many nutrients entering the water — such as nitrogen and phosphorus — come from meeting the daily needs of some seven billion people around the world, Diaz says. Crop fertilizers, manure, sewage and exhaust spewed by cars and power plants all end up in waterways that flow into the ocean. Each can contribute to the creation of dead zones.

      Ordinarily, when bacteria steal oxygen from one patch of water, more will arrive as waves and ocean currents bring new water in. Waves also can grab oxygen from the atmosphere.

      Dead zones develop when this ocean mixing stops.”

      Solutions are Available and do not Involve CO2 Emissions.

    • One thing I’ve been wondering about lately is the transfer of resources from oceans to land. I figure evaporation:precipitation favors transfer of water to land. Increased bioactivity on land favors increased retention of water over land. Increased plant growth and productivity favors transfer of carbon to soil. Increased carbon in soil favors nitrogen fixing bacteria. Increased carbohydrates in plants favors earlier growing and surplus carbohydrates…

  22. News from the National Academies:
    http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/11/national-academies-gear-up-climate-change-alarmism/
    “Communication” is code for advocacy. NAS has voided their Congressional Charter, which calls on them to provide objective scientific advice.

  23. A ‘warning to humanity’ – Nov 2017

    “Examples of diverse and effective steps humanity can take to transition to sustainability include the following (not in order of importance or urgency): (a) prioritizing the enactment of connected well-funded and well-managed reserves for a significant proportion of the world’s terrestrial, marine, freshwater, and aerial habitats; (b) maintaining nature’s ecosystem services by halting the conversion of forests, grasslands, and other native habitats; (c) restoring native plant communities at large scales, particularly forest landscapes; (d) rewilding regions with native species, especially apex predators, to restore ecological processes and dynamics; (e) developing and adopting adequate policy instruments to remedy defaunation, the poaching crisis, and the exploitation and trade of threatened species; (f) reducing food waste through education and better infrastructure; (g) promoting dietary shifts towards mostly plant-based foods; (h) further reducing fertility rates by ensuring that women and men have access to education and voluntary family-planning services, especially where such resources are still lacking; (i) increasing outdoor nature education for children, as well as the overall engagement of society in the appreciation of nature; (j) divesting of monetary investments and purchases to encourage positive environmental change; (k) devising and promoting new green technologies and massively adopting renewable energy sources while phasing out subsidies to energy production through fossil fuels; (l) revising our economy to reduce wealth inequality and ensure that prices, taxation, and incentive systems take into account the real costs which consumption patterns impose on our environment; and (m) estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal.” https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229

    (a) Conservation is essential but wont work unless humans are at the core;
    (b) Maintaining landscapes requires an intensification of agriculture in ways that increase food security – the greatest threat to ‘nature’s ecosystem services’ is from desperation – only rich economies can afford environments;
    (d) rewilding the Earth must include humans as the apex predator;
    (e) conservation of wildlife emerges from economic development;
    (f) No one is in favor of food waste – in the developing world it is the lack of roads, storage and refrigeration;
    (g) plant based diets are feasible – but food animals convert marginal resources – including recycling what would otherwise be food waste – into an essential nutrient source – grazing is key to landscape management and – ironically – to carbon sequestration;
    (h) population pressure can only be reduced in the context of better health and education, optimum economic development, reducing child mortality, safe water and sanitation – and free markets;
    (i) ‘increasing outdoor nature education for children, as well as the overall engagement of society in the appreciation of nature’ – supercilious Gaean w@nkers;
    (j) people are free to invest their money wherever they like;
    (l) “revising our economy to reduce wealth inequality and ensure that prices, taxation, and incentive systems take into account the real costs which consumption patterns impose on our environment;”

    These are the usual talking points – signed off on by 15,000 ‘scientists’ apparently. The last is the crux of the agenda. Essentially a reduction of western wealth with government controls of economies and societies. There is an alternative ‘classic liberal’ agenda that is better able to achieve both conservation and development. A focus on economic first principles, optimum economic growth, cost effective aid and the building of prosperous communities in vibrant landscapes.

    “and (m) estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal.”

    Like much else – one might reasonably doubt the integrity of that calculation.

    • estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal.

      A few people are going to guess how many people earth can sustain and figure out how to enforce that as a limit.

  24. New data from ice cores show that mean ocean temperature from the Last Glacial Maximum to the early Holocene. Rose about 2.5 ℃ over this period. [link]

    Bereiter et al., 2018 use a new Xenon/Krypton method of estimating ocean temperatures in ice core bubbles. They say in the press release that ocean warming for the past 50 years has been 0.1°C. They don’t mention it in the paper, but the result is there. They follow the tried and true methodology of not spelling out any result that quells alarmism.

    Let’s see how this pans out.

  25. The 0.1% AEP doesn’t touch the sides of theoretical considerations of extreme events. As someone said – the methodology is very simple. Graph the daily rainfalls and extend it with a log Pearson type 3 distribution.

    The big problem is with Hurst dynamics – global changes in means and variance at 20 to 30 year intervals over millennia. It hardly seems to matter though – it is purely a rhetorical device used to bolster CAGW and to feature in very poor climate science.

  26. Haven’t heard from Jose Duarte in a while.

  27. Pingback: Hämmennystä Etelämantereen lumisateista | Roskasaitti

  28. I wonder if the following observations can be used to calculate (a probability for) an upper bound for the climate sensitivity (ECS or TCR):
    The weather station at Oymyakon (Siberia) reported last week a temperature of -67.0°C. The record low of this station is -67.7°C, 6 feb 1933.
    Considering the circumstances in Oymyakon atmospheric CO₂ must have some effect on the lowest attainable temperature.

  29. Causes of glacier melt extremes in the Alps since 1949 [link]

    We just came out of the little ice age, during a cold period, it snows less and glaciers deplete from lack of replenishment. It is normal, natural and necessary that glaciers retreat and that warming occurs to increase the snowfall and ice accumulation later. Now, even as glaciers retreat, ice on top is being replenished. Ice will advance and cause cooling after a few hundred years of this increased snowfall due to more open oceans.

    • People do not want to believe that there is a simple explanation for a problem that they believe is too hard to understand.

      Ice cycles are Occam razor simple.

      When oceans are warmer and thawed, snow falls on land until the ice advances and causes colder. When oceans get colder due to the increased ice extent, snowfall decreases and less snow falls on land until the ice depletes and retreats and allows warmer.

      The Little Ice Age was colder because ice extent was more. The Medieval Warm Period was, and, now, this Modern Warm Period is warmer because ice extent is more. This relationship is well recognized by all, but most think the ice extent is a result of temperature changes. Ice extent is the cause of temperature changes.

      Ocean effect snow and lake effect snow comes from warmer, thawed water. Ocean effect snow and lake effect snow does not come from colder, frozen water.

  30. (I just mistakenly posted this on an earlier article)
    My latest education piece:
    http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/22/sixteen-good-books-by-climate-skeptics/

    Here is the intro:
    “There are a growing number of books out that explain why people are skeptical of climate change alarmism. Many of these are getting good ratings and reader reviews on Amazon. Below is a list of 16 that are relatively recent and have ratings of at least 4 out of 5 possible stars. All data is from Amazon, as of the time of this writing. Some of these books are well read friends, but some I had never heard of until I went looking.”

    I am looking for more books like this for my Climate Change Debate Education website (in progress). Suggestions are most welcome.

    David
    https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education
    Give til it hurts alarmism

  31. My latest science science piece:
    http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/23/hansens-hiatus-and-the-falsification-of-climate-alarmism/

    Intro: “James Hansen, one of the key originators of climate change alarmism, is back in the news. This time it is with a prediction that we may see a ten year “hiatus” in global warming. He says that alarmism is not affected. I agree with his prediction but not with his conclusion. In my view alarmism is being falsified right before our eyes.

    The big difference between us lies in whose temperature record this hiatus occurs. Hansen sees it as a pause in long-term human caused warming. But I see it as a continuation of almost no warming, and what little there is, is natural. This is a bit complicated, but here goes.”