Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Urbanization effects on changes in the observed air temperatures during 1977–2014 in China [link]

The war over supercooled water [link]

Lovejoy: Spectra, intermittency, and extremes of weather, macro weather and climate.  [link]

“The record number of tropical cyclones in the 2005 Atlantic season is close to the maximum possible number for the present climate,”[link]

Ocean circulation reduces the Hadley cell response to increased greenhouse gases [link]

The Antarctic Ice Sheet response to glacial millennial scale variability [link]

Surprisingly large impacts from a new equation of state for seawater [link]

‘The Paradox of Irrigation Efficiency’ [link]

Estimating changes in temperature distributions in a large ensemble of climate simulations using quantile regression

Assessment of aerosol–cloud–radiation correlations in satellite observations, climate models and reanalysis (open access) [link]

Climate response to the meltwater runoff from Greenland ice sheet: evolving sensitivity to discharging locations [link]

New article by moi:  How to predict Atlantic hurricanes [link]

Potential influence of the Atlantic Multi‐decadal Oscillation in modulating the biennial relationship between Indian and Australian summer monsoons [link]

A new reconstruction (ice cores & tree rings) shows Arctic sea ice extent in the Barents-Kara Seas region may be the lowest in nearly 1000 years (but barely lower than the 1930’s) [link] + Paper: [link

The influence of Arctic amplification on mid-latitude summer circulation”. [link]

Contiguous US summer maximum temperature and heat stress trends in CRU and NOAA data plus comparisons to reanalyses [link]

Review article: : its complexity and influence.[link]

Detection of continental-scale intensification of hourly rainfall extremes [link]

Reducing uncertainties in climate models – problems with radiative transfer codes [link]

“Biased Estimates of Changes in Climate Extremes From Prescribed SST Simulations” [link

Roles of SST versus internal atmospheric variability in winter extreme precipitation variability along the U.S. West Coast [link]

Attribution ‘science’ [link]

Drop in land use emissions boosted the land carbon sink over 1998-2012. And the fall in emissions was down to “both decreased tropical forest area loss and increased afforestation in northern temperate regions” [link]

Accounting for Changing Temperature Patterns Increases Historical Estimates of Climate Sensitivity [link]

New paper shows coral bleaching in Great Barrier Reef extending back 400+ years [link]

Aerosols emitted in different regions have very different climate effects. [link]

“Hail damage is expected to increase in coming years, largely driven by population growth and suburban sprawl.” [link]

Sea ice decline slows. No major record breakers this year. [link]

Climate impacts from a removal of anthropogenic aerosol emissions [link]

An updated Solar Cycle 25 prediction: The Modern Minimum [link]

Estimating the transient climate response from observed warming [link]

Florida’s red tide blooms [link]

New insights into solar and volcanic forcing of North Atlantic Climate [link

An ocean-sea ice model study of the unprecedented Antarctic sea ice minimum in 2016 [link]

Why BECCS might not produce ‘negative’ emissions after all [link]

Changes in Extreme Rainfall Over India and China Attributed to Regional Aerosol‐Cloud Interaction During the Late 20th Century Rapid Industrialization [link]

Global ocean heat content redistribution during the 1998–2012 Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation negative phase [link]

Drought and vegetation change in the central Rocky Mountains and western Great Plains: potential climatic mechanisms associated with megadrought conditions at 4200 cal yr BP [link]

West Antarctic ice sheet ‘more sensitive’ to natural variability than thought  [link

In winter water nearest the sea ice surrounding Antarctica releases significantly more carbon dioxide than previously believed [link]

What makes wildfires so complex and hard to predict. It’s climate/weather, it’s vegetation patterns, it’s human land use and development, it’s fire management practices  [link]

Humans cause fires in California spread by Santa Ana winds based on 25 years of data. Why? No lightning[link]

Why SST trend in North Pacific is peculiarly negative against warming trend elsewhere since 1958 [link]

Assessing the robustness of Antarctic temperature reconstructions over the past two millennia using pseudoproxy and data assimilation experiments

Warm-Arctic/cold Siberia pattern [link]

Scientists trace atmospheric rise in CO2 during deglaciation to deep Pacific Ocean [link]

Unexpected: tree cover has *increased* globally by 2.2M km2 (+7% since 1982) mainly due tof human activity. But complex picture: tropical deforestation & agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation [link]

Dinosaur killing asteroid impact made huge dead zones in oceans [link]

What’s starting all these wildfires? We are [link]

Over the last 40 years, there is a surprising trend with wildfires. [link]

Potential roles of CO2 fertilization, nitrogen deposition, climate change, and land use and land cover change on the global terrestrial carbon uptake in the twenty-first century [link]

Pacific contribution to the early twentieth-century warming in the Arctic [link]

Skillful empirical subseasonal prediction of landfalling atmospheric river activity using the Madden–Julian oscillation and quasi-biennial oscillation [link]

Study in Nature shows solar geoengineering doesn’t reduce damage to crops by climate change. Like how it doesn’t stop ocean acidification but here is the result of cancellation between positive temperature effect and negative insolation effect [link]

Capturing complexity: Forests, decision-making and climate change mitigation action [link]

Contribution of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation to the recent abrupt decrease in tropical cyclone genesis frequency over the western North Pacific since 1998 [link]

Polar climate change as manifest in changes in atmospheric circulation [link]

Volcanic impact on the climate – the stratospheric aerosol load in the period 2006–2015  [link]

Are like the current one becoming more frequent with due to increased atmospheric blocking?  [link]

Cross-equatorial winds control El Niño diversity and change [link]

A global synthesis inversion analysis of recent variability in CO2 fluxes using GOSAT and in situ observations  [link]

North Atlantic jet stream variability in late winter exceeds that found in any GCM — and is likely driven by sea surface temperature variability in the Atlantic. [link]

How indirect carbon cycle effects dominate when comparing 1.5°C & 2°C scenarios: 1.5°C scenarios have a smaller carbon-climate feedback, 2°C scenarios have more CO₂ fertilisation, 1.5°C requires more LUC for BECC [link]

Variation of extreme drought and flood in North China revealed by document-based seasonal precipitation reconstruction for the past 300 years [link]

Reverse weathering as long-term stabilizer of marine pH and planetary climate [link]

The underestimated cooling effect on the planet from historic fires; [link]

The area burned by wildfires in the west US has more than doubled since 1980s. There is a clear link between hotter, dryer conditions and larger fires. At Carbon Brief we examine this relationship and factcheck misleading claims of declining areas burned: [link]

New paper concluding that Arctic climate is relatively sensitive to changes in air-sea heat fluxes in the Pacific ocean [link

How fast is the marine ice sheet instability, really? How do glaciers “see” the noisy climate? [link

Late Holocene forest contraction and fragmentation in central Africa [link]

Prolonged seasonal drought events over northern China and their possible causes [link]

Littell et al. ‘Climate change and future wildfire in the western USA: an ecological approach to non‐stationarity’ [link

Absolutely fascinating read. The Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin’s Tree of Life [link]

Scientists stunned by a Neanderthal hybrid discovered in Siberian cave [link]

Policy & social sciences

The influence of political ideology and socioeconomic vulnerability on perceived health risks of heat waves in the context of climate change [link]

Common sense farming [link]

An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on climate change. [link]

Understanding how China is championing climate change mitigation [link]

Climatic and socioeconomic controls of future coastal flood risk in Europe [link]

Being skilled in policy analysis is woefully inadequate to bring about policy change in the real world.  [link]

“New Strategies for Wicked Problems Science and Solutions in the 21st Century” [link]

About science and scientists

The rise of the promotional intellectual [link]

“There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction”

The nastiest feud in science – the fifth great extinction [link]

The ideological Turing Test: understand your opponents’ ideas so well that you can’t tell the difference between what you are saying and what they believe:

Anti-vaccine scientists have taken vaccine science hostage [link]

557 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Dr. Judith, just a note to express my profound and ongoing thanks, both for your blog in general, and in specific for your “Week In Review” posts. Both are a very large and continuing contribution to climate sanity in the world of climate science.

    Live long and prosper!

    w.

  2. David Wojick

    The Attribution ‘science’ article is NBC telling us that attribution science is here and it works. (Fake news?) My take on attribution, which I have been watching for some time, is here:
    http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/09/climate-change-attribution-games/.

    The NAS has a long report on the rapid emergence of attribution. It covers some of the assumptions and uncertainties fairly well. But they never say that attribution is model based junk, as I do. Running climate models with and without CO2 forcing tells us nothing about the actual world.

    Given that we still do not know if humans are changing the global climate, or not, we cannot possibly know that they are helping cause specific cases of bad weather.

    • A warmist perspective.
      “Even if we cannot definitively attribute a climate change link to a specific event does not mean that we can’t discuss how climate change is likely to impact such events and whether or not we’re seeing changes that are consistent with what is expected.”
      My reply
      Leads to a degree of confirmation bias.
      If every extreme event is expected to occur with greater frequency then the mere occurrence of any said extreme event becomes automatic proof of your position, making it a definite attribution.
      Seems wrong on some level even if right.
      Nothing wrong with talking about the warmist expectation
      “Climate change is clearly happening and it is mainly driven by our emission of greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) into the atmosphere. Doing so causes atmospheric CO2 to increase, reducing the outgoing energy flux and causing energy to accumulate in the climate system. This will lead to warming of the surface and troposphere, increasing ocean heat content (and increasing sea surface temperatures), an increase in evaporation, an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events, and a change in the latitudinal temperature gradient that has the potential to influence the jet stream and, hence, weather patterns. This means that in regions that are susceptible to extreme weather events, the conditions will increasingly tend to favour these events becoming more extreme.”
      But extreme events have to be rare and rare events are difficult to pin causation on and even a 5% increase is perfectly acceptable within a normal range. As well as fitting an expectation.
      It is an argument that can lead to calls of crying wolf.
      Wolves are out there but no-one appreciates calls that are not definitely attributable.

      • I prefer to think of it in terms of a shifting bell curve. For summer average temperatures the bell curve will shift 3-4 standard deviations by 2100, so a one in 200 year (3-sigma) hot summer now will be colder than average in 2100. It’s a useful perspective.

      • Set against a background of perpetual and more or less extreme climate change – it doesn’t seem so useful.

      • David Wojick

        Jim D: I don’t see what your 82 year future speculation has to do with these proliferating attribution claims (except that they too are pure speculation). We are talking about local weather events.

        Also, given that weather and climate are both chaotic, I doubt that there are stable distributions, bell shaped or otherwise, to change. The distributions are probably highly sensitive to the period chosen, meaning that there is no true distribution. In chaos theory these are called strange statistics (as with strange attractors).

        I do suppose that in extreme cases (no pun intended) all of the distributions could shift in one direction. But even here there is still the pesky problem of ruling our natural variability. Computer models that do not include natural variability obviously cannot do that.

      • The annual summer temperatures (June-July-August average) follow a bell curve, except it is now shifting. Hansen showed this in his perceptions of climate change paper. You can take a base state of 1951-1980 which is one bell curve for NH land, and you can find its standard deviation which is about a degree in the US, and then you can take later decades and see this curve shift. Climate is statistics, and you see climate change through them. With a shifting distribution comes more common extreme events too because the tail probabilities increase the fastest.

      • Mike Hulme’s description of attriibuting x-weather is still the gold standard.

        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/x-weather-is-back-kerala-edition/

      • I’m not sure I’ve fully got my head around the article, but it seems to be arguing for the political necessity for scientists to present their speculations as more merit-worthy than the speculations of other politically motivated people for political reasons. Another fine example of showing oneself to be more corrupt, banal, crass, stupid and compromised than one’s adversaries and swearing in the name of the scientific tradition that this constitutes “science” …. because politics. And who is to say this practice is not science after having passed peer review.

      • If 239 watts/m^2 are coming in from TOA, and 239 watts/m^ are leaving by LWR mostly, then there is no way total heat content can change anywhere in the black box. It can shift positions only. Are you saying that the albedo changes? Admittedly you can have changes in heat content during the short times when the state searching for an equilibrium.

        If you put 100 quanta of 14u infrared in one end of a 100 meter pipe and fill the pipe with air that has .0407%CO2, how many quanta come out? at what total energy? Do the same with 0% CO2 and how many quanta come out at what energy?

    • premature posting: HOW THE HELL DO YOU ATTRIBUTE HUMANS TO CLIMATE CHANGE IF NATURAL VARIABILITY CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR?

      • It’s a massive CO2 forcing. What you have to account for is where all the CO2 energy went. One third into the ocean, two thirds into the surface response. What’s left to explain after that?

      • CO2 energy cannot penetrate the surface of the oceans.

      • It can prevent the escape of energy. It has an insulating effect. Reducing the longwave cooling rate has a net warming effect when you think about it. It’s how blankets work.

      • You are becoming (have been?) tiresome, Jim D. Oceans are cooled significantly by evaporation, especially by prevailing wind regimes. Water vapor isn’t affected by your putative blanket.

      • Winds don’t come into it nor does vapor. You were talking about the change in the radiative balance. The effect of adding GHGs alone warms the ocean by decreasing its net longwave cooling.

  3. Dr. Judith, I echo Willis Eschenbach’s comment!

    I notice that a number of items by model apologists are retreating to cooling oceans as to why their models are junk.

  4. Re: anti-vaccine scientists have taken vaccine science hostage (NYT)
    Unfortunately this article is paywalled and I’ve used up my free articles– seems like it’d be an interesting read. But let me tell you about my NYTimes experience.

    I used to comment on articles in the NYTimes regarding vaccines, being, as I am, opposed to mandatory vaccination according to the current schedule. I noticed that there used to be a lot of people who thought like I did, reflected in many, many comments. However, gradually these rebels disappeared, and I found I was being censored more and more. Indeed, if I backed up what I was saying with peer-reviewed science, I was usually more likely to be censored, not less. Finally I decided it simply wasn’t worth it anymore: a lively debate had gradually morphed into a consensus of (you can all sing along because you’ve heard it before): those opposed to vaccines are anti-science fruitcakes.

    This reminds me of a comment in the WUWT essay on bleaching at the GBR, linked to in this week in review: comments in The Conversation were being deleted if they didn’t subscribe to CAGW.

    So another story: I’ve been censored by our state-wide paper for arguing against the consensus theory on warming. They just don’t want to hear about it. Not even a little. I was also censored by the blog “Naked Capitalism,” where I was told by Yves Smith herself that climate change deniers aren’t welcome. Too bad; I thought the blog was quite good otherwise.

    I submit to you that it isn’t easy to discover the truth and oftentimes what we “know for sure” is simply a manufactured narrative that is carefully monitored and policed by people who are willing to censor opposing voices to protect it.

    Nowadays I try to mind my own business and occupy my time with more productive things than arguing with people who think that sound bites = truth.

    • The point of the NYTimes article is that skepticism about vaccination, scheduling etc is downplayed to the detriment of research and understanding of the topic, because it is ‘necessary’ for a monolithic consensus to promote vaccination ‘action’. As a result, important research doesn’t get done or discussed.

      • Vaccines have been around for 214 years .Since smallpox vaccine introduced. One of the reasons so many people alive today. Tetanus 1917 Diphtheria 2014. Go do a graveyard check and marvel at all the young lives lost to diphtheria. Just because you cannot see the consequences of these diseases today does not mean they are and were terrible afflictions or that you are possibly only alive because othr people took the steps to reduce this illnesses.
        Vaccine side effects, serious ones, are tragic but very rare.
        Your choice.
        For every one you save by not vaccinating, hundreds more die.
        As for aluminum? Could not live without it.
        Nano particles? Atoms of aluminum are even smaller again and can get to parts nano-particles cannot reach. While their are applications it is totally overblown to suggest that the particular size of the particle must cause problems. Have you never had food cooked in aluminium pans when younger. Do you use alfoil to wrap objects for cooking and refrigertion?

    • Don ==> The NY Times isn’t a blog — it is a newspaper online.

      That said, Dr. Curry is right about why such questions get downplayed. Public Health Policy is a different animal than Health Science. I am not so sure that “important research doesn’t get done” but it is absolutely true that it doesn’t get discussed, especially in forums open to the general public.

      Public Health needs people to trust vaccination and to comply with promoted schedules. Doing so brings about the “best” Public Health result. The fact that it may not always bring about the best individual result is what the deep health science is about.

      My father was a pediatrician and when my kids came along, we discussed vaccine safety and out kids got the normal set with one exception — we skipped a vaccine that was still pretty primitive and could cause problems. My father could make this recommendation to us, to his grandkids, but in his general practice, everyone got the whole kit on schedule. Because of his efforts to forward this Public Health policy in the 1950s, measels, polio, and several other dangerous diseases were nearly totally eliminated in the United States.

      • Naked Capitalism is a separate blog from the NYTimes.

        Curry’s summary of the NYTimes article surprises me.

        People who are AGW skeptics shouldn’t be surprised that a medical consensus may not be correct.

        In general vaccines helped public health but the story is much more nuanced than the sound bite of “vaccines saved us.” Short summary: vaccines got all the credit but only deserve maybe 1/3 at best. There are exceptions to this short summary, yes. The history of diseases and vaccines is complicated.

        Many lines of biological evidence outline pathways for harm from aluminum nanoparticles and from immune activation caused by vaccines. This research is being ignored, and if the NYTimes is advocating for reconsidering this research and expanding upon it, then good for them and good for us.

        We should note, too, that when the CDC pronounced vaccines overall very safe in a review of evidence of harm, they deliberately left out biological evidence (considering only epidemiological evidence) despite being urged to consider that evidence and despite promising to do so in an earlier review. My guess is that the CDC is a bit too close to the pharmaceutical industry.

      • Vaccines are very good and effective.
        Free choice is good as well.
        Preventing free choice by hiding discussion is both parental and childish at the same time.
        “Many lines of biological evidence outline pathways for harm from aluminum nanoparticles and from immune activation caused by vaccines.”
        The former is rampant speculation and the latter is true but insignificant in terms of the number of lives saved to the extremely minute number lost from “immune activation””

      • Antivaxxers are like climate alarmists, the benefit overwelms the possible harm. But alarmists always focus on harm.

        FWIW: smoking has no benefits.

      • angech, start here: http://vaccinepapers.org/
        As you’ll see, the idea that aluminum nanoparticles might be causing harm is anything but rampant speculation: it’s been shown many times. The authorities say that babies can get many times above the doses of concern for aluminum in mother’s milk or other sources; what the authorities don’t tell you (why not? ask yourself that) is that ingested aluminum is something like 0.3% absorbed, while injected aluminum is 100% absorbed. And aluminum nanoparticles (in vaccines) act differently from the ingested form.

        Here’s an excellent book for an introduction to the other side of the debate on vaccine safety: https://tinyurl.com/y9odva9b

      • Hans Erren:
        My answer is that vaccine harms have been deliberately swept under the rug by the CDC, which is the primary source of information on vaccine safety (especially for pediatricians) through studies it sponsors. So if climate alarmists are ignoring information that contradicts their theory– such as the missing tropical hotspot, the disjunct between model predictions and tropospheric temps, etc.– then the correct analogy is that the medical consensus on vaccines is ignoring compelling and widespread evidence that the assumed safety of vaccines isn’t nearly as robust as believed.

        The climate consensus bullies to get its theory front and center. So does the medical vaccine consensus.

        The background assumption regarding vaccines is that they saved us from all sorts of diseases. But if we look at the history of diseases, public health and vaccines, we find that deaths from many diseases– measles is one of them– fell precipitously before the appropriate vaccine came on line. For example, with measles the death rate plunged something like 98% before the vaccine was used. You can look this up in the official statistics of the US. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf (page 85; vaccine began in 1963 if I remember correctly.) Yet, the vaccine gets all the credit. Lots of odd things like that crop up when we look more closely.

        In general we give too much credit to vaccines and we demonize those who disagree with the vaccine schedule, just as we demonize those who disagree with the climate consensus.

      • Vaccination helps to prevent breakout of diseases
        The most recent epidemic in the Netherlands was in 2013-2014, in the Dutch bible belt.
        During the epidemic, 182 children were hospitalised and one child deceased from complications of measles.
        https://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/M/Measles

      • At the time vaccination for measles in the United States began, around 500 children per year were dying because of the disease. That was far below historic numbers for the disease. Death is not the only toll for measles. The incidence of side effects of the disease tells the story: negative side effects of the disease versus negative side effects of vaccination. For instance, deafness. The 3rd world has tens of millions of children who are deaf because of getting the measles. There are cases of vaccination-induced deafness, but they are very rare.

      • Let’s weigh the preventative measure of the measles vaccine against the harms. https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/Measles/measles-vaccine-injury-death.aspx

        Measles is a highly-contagious disease: granted. The vaccine helps prevent transmission of measles: granted. The vaccine is responsible for the huge decline in deaths from measles since 1900 in the US: not proved. The statistical evidence tells us the exact opposite: the measles vaccine had very little to do with the huge decline in measles deaths in the US since 1900. I provided the link in an earlier comment.

        We know that measles outbreaks have occurred in fully vaccinated populations, for example here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303 I can cite other examples.

        Point: the story is nuanced. People should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want the medical intervention of vaccination, without penalties for refusal.

      • Absolutely not.

      • Thank you for this collection. It is always a pleasure to read (some of) what you have come across.

      • Don132: Short summary: vaccines got all the credit but only deserve maybe 1/3 at best.

        Something similar is true of smallpox: incidence rates were declining when the vaccine was first invented; and incidence rates were declining worldwide when the international smallpox vaccination campaign was begun. Nevertheless, whatever the “true” credit for the vaccines has been, they saved a lot of lives and prevented a lot of neural damage.

        Aluminum nanoparticles, by contrast, are having an undetectable effect on public health, about like thimerisol. Maybe like thimerisol the aluminum nanoparticles will be replaced. Meanwhile, skipping measles vaccines for your kids remains a very bad idea. Don’t you agree?

      • mathewrmarler:
        I do not doubt that the smallpox vaccine had a large part to play in the elimination of smallpox, but note that William Foege, who led the effort to eradicate smallpox in India and Africa, was opposed to mass vaccination and believed that mass vaccination would lead to failure. Apparently he was correct because they did it his way.

        We are blindly mass vaccinating kids, and the doses keep going up. Because of health or because of profits? Do we have an opioid crisis because we really needed more opioids or because of profits?

        Aluminum isn’t in the MMR vaccine for measles, since this is an attenuated virus vaccine.

        I don’t agree that skipping the measles vaccine is a bad idea; it should be up to parents. Measles in the 1960s was considered a fairly benign childhood disease. If we take care of nutrition and especially of sufficient vitamin A, which measles depletes, then we can likely control bad measles outcomes. Measles complications are always more prevalent in impoverished areas and in impoverished countries: that’s what the science says. Now, many will argue that children went blind and deaf because of measles: fair enough. But where is equal consideration given to stories of febrile seizures after the MMR, acknowledged by physicians, and of severe encephalopathy after MMR, in cases acknowledged by the VICP (the “vaccine court”)?https://tinyurl.com/yb4t9zjh I’d be willing to risk a little discomfort for my kids; I’m not even close to risking encephalopathy. If you are, then go for it, but society should not demand of parents that they accept this real risk in return for the greater good, because sorry, my greater good is in seeing my kids grow up healthy and happy. In my opinion, avoiding the MMR is more likely to lead to that outcome.

        It strikes me as strange that those who are skeptical of CAGW complain of propaganda, yet seem to be blind to the fact that the same sort of propaganda may be operating in the realm of vaccines.

      • don132: Measles in the 1960s was considered a fairly benign childhood disease.

        Who told you that? It was one of the leading causes of death in the US Civil War armies (after dysentery and cholera), and was even mentioned in the book Gone with the Wind (but not the movie, which eliminated Scarlet’s first two husbands.) It was only considered “benign” compared to smallpox, cholera, and typhoid. Measles parties were held to reduce the uncertainty over when and whether it would strike, not because measles was safe.

        I don’t agree that skipping the measles vaccine is a bad idea; it should be up to parents.

        You would not advise parents against skipping the measles vaccine?

      • Sorry, but measles wasn’t considered a serious childhood disease; it was equivalent to the flu. This is not to minimize it since people do die of the flu, but by the 1960s it wasn’t considered serious. No, I can’t find the reference just now but I didn’t make it up.

        I don’t advise parents what to do one way or another regarding vaccines. I state my opinion if asked.

        The civil war: https://www.civilwaracademy.com/civil-war-diseases

        Poor sanitation and hygiene are the underlying conditions that allow for any disease to become deadly. That’s why we tend to have disease outbreaks in war zones, and that’s why 1 in 20 who got measles died from it in the civil war.

      • mathewmarler, what does the Civil War have to do with the 1960s?

      • johnmegent: mathewmarler, what does the Civil War have to do with the 1960s?

        It has long been known that measles is a terrible disease.

        don132: Sorry, but measles wasn’t considered a serious childhood disease; it was equivalent to the flu. This is not to minimize it since people do die of the flu, but by the 1960s it wasn’t considered serious.

        Flu was not a serious childhood disease? Why, all of a sudden introduce the qualifier “childhood”? You must have a bizarre definition of serious if you consider flu not serious. I got measles in the mid-sixties, and I was quarantined. Isn’t that serious? Back to popular culture, quarantine of a measles victim was a theme in an episode of The Honeymooners.

        I state my opinion if asked.

        OK. Is it a bad idea to skip the measles vaccine?

      • The short answer to, do I think it’s OK to skip the measles vaccine? is yes, I do. Now if there were in fact a single measles vaccine I might say that this would be OK, but there is not; you can only get the vaccine for measles in the MMR. BTW, Andrew Wakefield, that supposed villain, never recommended that children avoid the measles vaccine; he recommended that they avoid the combination MMR vaccine because in his experience as a physician, having seen cases recommended to him of a bowel disease in children who, their parents claim, became autistic after the MMR, he could not in good conscience recommend the MMR without further safety testing. The British government, in their infinite wisdom, subsequently pulled the single measles vaccine, forcing parents to take the MMR– or not.

        The entire vaccine issue hinges on: are vaccines as safe as claimed? I would argue that there’s plenty of biological evidence that says “no”– biological evidence, remember, that the CDC pointedly refused to consider in its assessment of safety. Can vaccines cause autism? Yes, I believe they can, although this may be called things like “encephalopathy” which, if you read manufacturers’ warnings, will include this as a possible side effect. “Encephalopathy” is brain damage. So now, since if put up against the wall the vaccine proponents would have to admit that brain damage can occur after vaccination, then the question is, how often, and how strong is the causal connection? The medical community– or more properly, the pharmaceutical industry which largely controls medical education and medical practice– would have us believe that the causal connection is merely “coincidental” and that this is very rare. I do not believe it’s coincidental, nor that this is as rare as we’re led to believe. This is after reading a great deal of the history of diseases and of vaccines, of the epidemiological studies, and of the biological studies. I don’t come by my opinions lightly. I don’t appreciate being forced to vaccinate by a government that abides by a medical opinion that is ultimately a product of the pharmaceutical industry’s desire for profits, and that certainly seems more concerned with protecting the vaccine program (and future vaccine profits) than it is with protecting our children. This last was amply demonstrated in the debate over thimerosal in vaccines, whose harms I would say have obviously and blatantly been covered up. Injecting mercury into infants in amounts far above known safe values was OK? Seriously? What kind of fools did they thing we were? Answer: if the authorities say it’s OK, we tend to believe it. The “authorities” unfortunately are on a par with Michael Mann and company. It happens, folks. Don’t think it doesn’t.

        IF we had a robust system of vaccine safety monitoring– which we decidedly do not since VAERS is voluntary and there’s widespread agreement that only a minority of reactions to vaccines are recorded– THEN I might be able to trust the government– that’s what it boils down to, since they’re doing the coercing– with the safety of my children. We could have a robust system of vaccine safety monitoring but do not. Anyone ever wonder why not?

      • don132: This last was amply demonstrated in the debate over thimerosal in vaccines, whose harms I would say have obviously and blatantly been covered up.

        Mostly your response was reasonable, but you lost me there.

        Since measles and the vaccine can each cause brain damage, the choice depends, as you wrote, on the balance of risks and benefits.

      • Vaccine deniers are like climate deniers; they are anti-science. And, if a doctor or scientist finds or suspects anything bad about vaccines they should keep it to themselves. To do otherwise would endanger long established public policy that all vaccines are safe and effective. This being true is why vaccines are exempt from scrutiny by the US Food and Drug by being classified as “biologics” not drugs. Their makers are also have a unique enacted exemption from product liability suits in the USA.

        Giving a dozen un-fully-tested injections of biological material, (including rat DNA from culture manufacturing in rats), to newborns and toddlers could not possibly be dangerous. The nano-aluminum that seems to drive immune systems wild, (greatly reducing the amount of expensive biological material needed), surely has no long-term effects. Any scientists or doctors that risk scaring the public like Andrew Wakefield, pediatric gastroenterology at London Hospital, and all 11 of his irresponsible study’s colleagues trying to classify a syndrome, should be stripped of their credentials, as they rightfully were. This is the only way that other scientists and doctors get the full message of their public responsibility.

        No more pointing out studies that show that infectious disease of every type was on the decline before the introduction of its vaccine, that modern sanitation, nutrition and medical access has anything to do with fewer epidemics.

        As for the risk that vaccinations are linked to autism that is just unthinkable. Stop it. Although autism was practically unheard of until the late 1970s, and has been growing exponentially, as has the childhood vaccine schedule, there is no possible link. To debunk Wakefield’s irresponsible case study suggesting this link should be studied, international studies were undertaken in the early 2000s. They all proved no link. The CDC 2004 Destefano looked at vaccines with methylmercury injected into young children and autism and found no association. Well, that is what the public is supposed to believe. The statistician on Destefano (2004) had a troubled conscience that finally caught up with him after 10 years when he was approached by a fellow doctor whose son had developed autism. Dr. William Thompson directed the father to do a citizen information request of a specific document that Thompson left in the file to blow the whistle on CDC fraud (until the CDC reeled him back to his senses a year later).

        “Thompson said that his bosses, including the CDC’s Immunization Safety Office Branch Chief Frank Destefano, specifically ordered him and three other CDC scientists to destroy data demonstrating vaccine induced autism in CDC’s seminal 2004 study—Destefano, et al. 2004. The data unexpectedly showed a 250 percent increase in autism among young black males who received the vaccine on time—before their third birthday—compared to those who waited until after their third birthday. The data also showed a significant link between the vaccine and isolated autism (autism in normally developing children with no other medical problems), the kind suffered by Yates Hazlehurst, who is mentioned below. According to Thompson, Destefano called his four co-authors into a room and ordered them to dump the damning datasets into a giant garbage can. The published study omitted those data sets. That study, now cited in 91 subsequent papers on PubMed as proof of vaccine safety, is the principle foundation stone of the theology that vaccines don’t cause autism.” https://www.ecowatch.com/cdc-vaccines-autism-2051536402.html

      • Re: “Although autism was practically unheard of until the late 1970s, and has been growing exponentially, as has the childhood vaccine schedule, there is no possible link.”

        You’re clearly being sarcastic, in your attempt to attack vaccine science in the same way you unfairly attack mainstream climate science. But it’s still worthwhile to point out the errors in your position.

        I previously went over evidence that vaccination doesn’t correlate well with autism. Once again:

        “Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies”
        “Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism””
        “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children” (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3)
        “Vaccines and autism: A tale of shifting hypotheses”
        “Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination”
        “A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism”

        https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/25/week-in-review-science-edition-85/#comment-880497

        So that rebuts your claim of autism rates being correlated with vaccination. Moreover, take the following well-supported associations with increasing reported autism rates in children:

        1) Increasing age of parents at the time the child is conceived or born (though a recent paper disputes this point), combined with genetic (or transcriptomic) factors
        2) No change in the underlying rate of autism; instead reported rates of autism increased due to changes in the diagnostic criteria for autism, along with more attention, resource, medical training, etc., focused on diagnosing autism

        There two associations are supported by abundant evidence. So you simply don’t need to reference vaccination in order to account for increases in reported rates of autism.

        Here are a couple of sources to get you started, for when you decide you actually want to read scientific research on this subject (instead of relying on the garbage, paranoid website you cited in your comment):

        Explanation 1:
        “Advanced parental age and autism risk in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis”
        “Advancing paternal age and risk of autism: new evidence from a population-based study and a meta-analysis of epidemiological studies”
        “Advancing maternal age is associated with increasing risk for autism: a review and meta-analysis”
        “De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism”
        “Autism spectrum disorders and autistic traits: a decade of new twin studies”
        “Heritability of autism spectrum disorders: a meta-analysis of twin studies”
        “Common genetic variants on 5p14.1 associate with autism spectrum disorders”

        Explanation 2:
        “The epidemiology and global burden of autism spectrum disorders”
        “The increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders”
        “Three reasons not to believe in an autism epidemic”
        “Global prevalence of autism and other pervasive developmental disorders”
        “The epidemiology of autistic spectrum disorders: is the prevalence rising?”
        “Diagnostic change and the increased prevalence of autism”

      • Your rebuttal omits mention or explanation of the CDC whistle-blower William Thompson I cited. My link was to eco-watch, a web site I thought you might align with.

        Your explanation #1: Autism is a genetic disease.
        Just because autism has a genetic component, as does every biological question, does not mean that vaccines are not a component.

        Your explanation #2: that parents did not recognize autism before and now they are primed due to alarmism.
        The typical story from parents is that they had a healthy developing infant, in many cases speaking words of sentences. The come home from the pediatrician visit and within hours or days the child stops speaking, stops walking, has GI issues and is profoundly changed for the rest of their lives. You are saying that this used to happen but parents did not notice or bother to report it. That sounds like a desperate denial. And, if it is wrong it discards your explanation #1, that autism is soley of pre-existing genetic origin.

        There needs to be studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. It’s that simple. My hunch is that if those populations are compared that the unvaccinated will be healthier, including less allergies. We never had to ban peanut butter from the school cafeteria when I went.

      • Re: “Your rebuttal omits mention or explanation of the CDC whistle-blower William Thompson I cited. My link was to eco-watch, a web site I thought you might align with.”

        Please don’t pretend you referenced that garbage website because you thought I might align with it; you cited that website in response to someone else, not me. And please learn to get your information on science from credible scientific sources, not garbage, non-peer-reviewed websites.

        Your references to Thompson are irrelevant. Thompson is not the source of all the evidence showing the vaccines don’t cause autism, anymore than Darwin is the source of all the evidence on human evolution. So your references to Thompson don’t undermine the evidence, anymore than silly creationist websites can undermine the evidence on human evolution by pretending that Darwin recanted evolutionary theory on his deathbed.

        Furthermore, the paranoid conspiracy theory you’re advocating is based on claims Brian Hooker made regarding Thompson. Hooker revealed the data that Thompson supposedly hid; this data supposedly showing vaccines caused autism. Hooker did this in a published paper.

        Hooker’s paper was so bad that it was retracted. There was no evidence there that vaccines cause autism. There were so many flaws in that paper, including:
        1) very small sample size (too small for the analysis Hooker was trying to do)
        2) confusing case-control studies with cohort studies
        3) using the wrong statistical test for the data
        4) Hooker didn’t declare his conflicts of interest

        Here’s what the journal editors had to say about Hooker’s paper:

        “The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article [1] as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings. We apologise to all affected parties for the inconvenience caused.”
        http://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-3-22

        So Hooker’s conspiracy nonsense about Thompson (and Thompson’s data) was debunked. I’m getting fed up with you anti-vaxxers wasting people’s time with it.

        Re: “Your explanation #1: Autism is a genetic disease.
        Just because autism has a genetic component, as does every biological question, does not mean that vaccines are not a component.
        Your explanation #2: that parents did not recognize autism before and now they are primed due to alarmism.
        The typical story from parents is that they had a healthy developing infant, in many cases speaking words of sentences. The come home from the pediatrician visit and within hours or days the child stops speaking, stops walking, has GI issues and is profoundly changed for the rest of their lives. You are saying that this used to happen but parents did not notice or bother to report it. That sounds like a desperate denial. And, if it is wrong it discards your explanation #1, that autism is soley of pre-existing genetic origin.”

        You’re attacking straw men, pretending I said things I didn’t actually say.

        I did not say that:
        “Autism is a genetic disease, so vaccines don’t cause autism”.

        That was not my point, so stop pretending that it was. Instead, I noted that:
        “Even if vaccines don’t cause autism, then one could still account for increasing reported rates of autism in terms of increasing parental age resulting the genetic and trascriptional abnormalities that underlie autism.”

        You can also stop pretending that I said autism was solely a disease of genetic origin. I said nothing of the sort.

        Moreover, not only did you straw man my 2nd point, but you showed you don’t understand autism. Autism is a medical diagnosis, and thus diagnostic criteria are what are relevant, not parents’ feelings. You seem to be under the false belief that the diagnostic criteria for autism require that “the child stops speaking, stops walking, has GI issues and is profoundly changed for the rest of their lives”. That is nonsense. As I explained to you, the diagnostic criteria for autism were expanded, and a child can be diagnosed with autism without having any of those symptoms. That accounts for much of the increase in reported autism rates; the criteria expanded such that more children would be diagnoses with autism, even if the real underlying rate of disease had not changed. Please familiarize yourself with the DSM or the papers I cited for you, so you can finally learn more.

        “There needs to be studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. It’s that simple. My hunch is that if those populations are compared that the unvaccinated will be healthier, including less allergies.”

        And your hunch would be wrong.

        I’ll give you the same advice on vaccine science that I’ve given you on climate science: stop wasting your time with biased “hunches” and spend more time reading the peer-reviewed literature. The following sources should get you started, when you finally decide you actually want to get informed:

        “Calls by alternative medicine practitioners for vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies is not supported by evidence
        […]
        However it is worth noting that an observational study between a vaccinated and fully unvaccinated population has been published [3]. Schmitz examined 13,453 children of which 94 were fully unvaccinated (0.7%). They determined that there were no differences in the prevalence of asthma or eczema but there was a significantly higher rate of vaccine preventable diseases in the unvaccinated.”

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303871805_Calls_by_alternative_medicine_practitioners_for_vaccinated_vs_unvaccinated_studies_is_not_supported_by_evidence

        The study being referred to:

        “Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents”

        A couple of other studies rebutting your baseless “hunch”:

        “Lack of broad functional differences in immunity in fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children”
        “Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first five years of life”

      • Re: “There needs to be studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. It’s that simple. My hunch is that if those populations are compared that the unvaccinated will be healthier, including less allergies.”

        And since some people reason better with pretty pictures…

        Here’s an image illustrating how worthless and baseless your “hunch” is:

    • Russian trolls indeed. A nonsense study creating opportunities for propaganda. By all means let’s avoid complexity in public policy for slogans and irrelevant disinformation.

      The policy framework must include the identification and care of individuals sacrificed to herd immunity.

      • That was exactly my thought. What better nonsense works for the desperate pharma shills who are losing ground to people waking up than “The Russians”.

    • Re: “I used to comment on articles in the NYTimes regarding vaccines, being, as I am, opposed to mandatory vaccination according to the current schedule. I noticed that there used to be a lot of people who thought like I did, reflected in many, many comments. However, gradually these rebels disappeared, and I found I was being censored more and more. Indeed, if I backed up what I was saying with peer-reviewed science, I was usually more likely to be censored, not less. Finally I decided it simply wasn’t worth it anymore: a lively debate had gradually morphed into a consensus of (you can all sing along because you’ve heard it before): those opposed to vaccines are anti-science fruitcakes.
      […]
      So another story: I’ve been censored by our state-wide paper for arguing against the consensus theory on warming. They just don’t want to hear about it. Not even a little.”
      “It strikes me as strange that those who are skeptical of CAGW complain of propaganda, yet seem to be blind to the fact that the same sort of propaganda may be operating in the realm of vaccines.”

      The NYT is under no obligation to provide a venue misleading comments on vaccination or climate science.

      Anyway, your comment serves as a confirmation of what I’ve known for years: that contrarians / faux skeptics tend to use the same tactics, regardless of what type of science they’re a contrarian about. That points extends to contrarians on vaccine science, AGW, human evolution, Earth being round, etc. I’m not the first to point that out. For example:

      “Countering evidence denial and the promotion of pseudoscience in autism spectrum disorder”
      “Dealing with climate science denialism: experiences from confrontations with other forms of pseudoscience”
      “Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?”

      But congratulations: you’ve wandered into immunology. Your distortions on that subject will be reminiscent of your distortions on climate science. On both subjects, your objections to the evidence-based scientific consensus lack merit.

      Re: “Can vaccines cause autism? Yes, I believe they can”

      And you’re wrong. Vaccinations don’t even pass the correlation test for causation, as covered in papers such as:

      “Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies”
      “Increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not associated with risk of autism””
      “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children” (DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3)
      “Vaccines and autism: A tale of shifting hypotheses”
      “Neurologic disorders after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination”
      “A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism”

      Re: “Many lines of biological evidence outline pathways for harm from aluminum nanoparticles and from immune activation caused by vaccines. This research is being ignored”

      The dose of aluminum-containing compounds is too low to be a significant risk. That’s covered in papers such as:

      “Addressing parents’ concerns: do vaccines contain harmful preservatives, adjuvants, additives, or residuals?”
      “Vaccine adjuvants: Putting innate immunity to work”
      “Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations”
      “Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination”
      “Towards an understanding of the adjuvant action of aluminium”

      Re: “The vaccine is responsible for the huge decline in deaths from measles since 1900 in the US: not proved. The statistical evidence tells us the exact opposite: the measles vaccine had very little to do with the huge decline in measles deaths in the US since 1900.”

      Science deals in evidence, not proof; so you can drop your reference to “not proved”. And there’s plenty of evidence on the efficacy of the measles vaccine in reducing mortality, both from measles and other conditions. That would be obvious to anyone who understands immunology or medicine, since the measles vaccine attacks the immune system, undermining the ability of the immune system to respond to other infections. So a vaccination against measles not only helps with measles, but also limits mortality from other infections. I suggest you go read papers on this, such as:

      “Long-term measles-induced immunomodulation increases overall childhood infectious disease mortality”
      “Health impact of measles vaccination in the United States”
      “Measles virus-induced suppression of immune responses”

      So I’ll leave you with a couple of points:

      Maybe you disagree with the evidence-based scientific consensus on vaccines (and climate science), because, in part, you’re less informed on the evidence than the experts are?
      Or maybe the disagreement is motivated by opposition to science that might be used to support political policies you dislike (in which case, you’re engaged in a fallacious appeal to consequences)?

  5. Commonsense farming is high tech.

    ‘Precision agriculture is also known as precision ag or precision farming. Perhaps the easiest way to understand precision ag is to think of it as everything that makes the practice of farming more accurate and controlled when it comes to the growing of crops and raising livestock. A key component of this farm management approach is the use of information technology and a wide array of items such as GPS guidance, control systems, sensors, robotics, drones, autonomous vehicles, variable rate technology, GPS-based soil sampling, automated hardware, telematics, and software.’ https://agfundernews.com/what-is-precision-agriculture.html

    But it is also food forests.

    https://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-08-01/20-urban-food-forests-from-around-the-world/

    As is holistic grazing management.

    Combine it with planetary scale ecological restoration – reclaim deserts, restore grasslands and forests – and we may feed the planet this century and begin to restore the 500GtC lost from terrestrial systems since the advent of agriculture (Rattan Lal). Increasing the organic content of soils creates more drought and flood resilient agriculture and increases soil water stores and aquifer recharge.

    Compare that to Jiminy’s pissant little carbon tax.

    • Globe is also do a bit of this on its own. Increased precip, decreased demand by plants leave more water for plants and aquifers. CO2 is enabling plants to put resources into heartier seed which germinate earlier and more successfully, others produce more seeds. Plants also provide more resources to symbiotic fungi and bacteria which make phosphorus and nitrogen bio-availible. Major positive feedback happening. The more the biosphere grows, the faster it can grow.

      Similar in ocean, more nitrogen fixing bacteria feeding plankton…

    • ‘Planetary scale ecological restoration’ seems to me to miss the point that life, in general, has over the last 10,000 years or more evolved to exploit the ecological niches that humans have produced. Withdrawing agriculture and urbanisation from a tract of land won’t ‘restore’ anything. What it will do is to open up new niches for life to evolve into. This may or may not end up with an ecology that people expect. The history of national parks such a Yellowstone and the Maasai Mara suggests that, though evolution can produce ‘natural’ ecologies, they may not be the ecologies that people would wish for.

      Of course, there is one ongoing ecological experiment, that at Chernobyl. If the exclusion zone can be maintained till, say, the end of this century then future generation could be given an idea of how temperate forests could evolve without human interferance.

  6. I received the below in an email from a geologist colleague who has a substantial publications record on Antarcitca, oceans, and climate. He refers to a discussion about an article “The Watery Planet Effect” by Geraint Hughes https://principia-scientific.org/the-watery-planet-effect/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+psintl+%28Principia+Scientific+Intl+-+Latest+News%29.

    “[…] has sent around an article trying to calculate warming in the upper ocean as one of the key effects in global warming. This article omits the key thermo-dynamics of Antarctic Bottom Water. It is hard to produce a full mathematical thermodynamic model for the oceans using extensive observations as the Argo Buoy system of a few thousand buoys is only giving us a profile of the upper 2 kms.

    South America fully broke away from the West Antarctic Peninsula forming the Drake Passage less than 20 m yrs ago. This event caused the circumpolar current to form; a current of around 100 million cubic metres of water moving per second and the largest ocean current on Earth. The boundary separating the Earth’s oceans to the north from the Southern Ocean is called the Antarctic Convergence. At this circular boundary around 45 degrees S to 50 degrees S the temperature drops from 5.6C to less than 2.0C within about 50 kms (quite a spectacular change forming one of the largest ecological barriers on Earth). Below this boundary any pack ice that forms is less salty than the ocean water it comes from so the resultant surface waters are then more salty and heavier and sink to form the largest single body of ocean water on Earth.This “bottom water” that sinks and creeps north is initially around minus 0.5C. Over millions of years it has continued to form the bottom 2kms of deep water in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans as far north as 10 degrees N!!!

    Since the formation of the Antarctic Convergence the Antarctic Bottom Water has been not only cooling the ocean, but probably has been the main factor in cooling the Earth over the last 6 + million years and forming a cooling trend over-riding the shorter temperature changes caused by recent ice ages. As the Earth cooled it first reacted to slight extra cooling effects of the 41,000 yr changes in axial tilt and then, when even cooler, it was sensitive to extra cooling variations caused by the 100,000 odd yr Milankovich cycles due to variations in the shape of the elliptical orbit. Note from the figure below that in the paleo-ocean temperature graph (of O18/O16 isotope variations) the 41,000 tilt cycles appear nearly 2 million years before the 100,000 year cycles in the last 1 million years. (It is not as if these cycles have not been around for millions and millions of years, but rather the Earth has to get to certain lower temperatures before their cooling effects are noticeable in the paleo-temperature record).

    Finally, I see no evidence that the oceans have been a key leading driver in modern global warming but only that variations in upwelling and sinking of ocean water can cause short-term cyclical climatic changes due to interchanges of heat with the atmosphere. The clearest cycle being the Pacific Decadal Oscillation of roughly 60 years with half cycles around 30 years. In Australia we are very aware of the more unpredictable El Nino-La Nina variations. (And there are other similar cycles in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans).”

    • South America fully broke away from the West Antarctic Peninsula forming the Drake Passage less than 20 m yrs ago.

      I did not know this, Thanks!
      Cooling of earth had paused and resumed, this is likely part of the cause. I think the ocean flow between North and South America and the ocean flow between Africa and “Europe and Asia” did close around this time.

  7. Global cooling is a serious threat. Global warming is not. It would be beneficial. Therefore, we should not be trying to reduce GHG emissions.

    Fossil evidence suggests the optimum temperature for life on Earth is about 7 C warmer than present – so no reason to fear catastrophe.

    We need a proper perspective of time and want rates of warming have occurred in the past. The last time the planet was in a deep ice age similar to the one we are in now, which began about 10 Ma ago, was 300 Ma ago. It lasted about 70 Ma. It took 20 Ma to warm to to the optimum temperature, and another 20 Ma to reach the Triassic maximum (which was about 13C warmer than now).

    Given it took 20 Ma to warm to optimum last time, how could it possibly warm to even half that (i.e. warm by 3.5C), in hundreds or even thousands of years? How could the cold water in the deep oceans be warmed in such a period, especially given the issue with the ocean current circulating Antarctica – see the comment here: https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/14/nature-unbound-x-the-next-glaciation/#comment-878947

    • Conveniently ignoring that rapid climate change is what leads to mass extinctions and loss of diversity, and that is without getting into what happens to coasts with high sea-level rise rates. It’s not the climate itself that kills, but its rate of change that threatens the survival of adapted species.
      http://lh3.ggpht.com/-oDlzmvULsgY/UvuLN6DQP3I/AAAAAAAAYT0/z1-pkwqCj0I/image%25255B5%25255D.png?imgmax=800

      • Rubbish to all points.

        1. Rapid warming from cold temperatures as we are in now is beneficial to life (I’ve posted the evidence many times before)
        2. No valid evidence that the current rate of warming is unprecedented or abnormal.
        3. Sea level rise rates are not unusual, and the impacts of substantial sea level rise, even if they did occur, is negligible. I’ve posted that evidence many time before too.

      • The worst extinction of all was the Permian-Triassic with warming being the trend. Others like the Ordovician-Silurian occurred during cooling. It’s the rate of change that matters, and that is because adaptation rates are limited, and evolution is even slower. Rapid climate changes have been the biggest challenges to diversity throughout the Phanerozoic as judged by extinctions. I don’t think that is controversial.

      • Permian Triassic was a 40 Ma change of 15 C temp increase. You dodging the points I made. I am sick of your incessant strawman arguments, dodging and weaving, and avoiding rational discussion. A complete waste of time.

      • No, the point is the worst extinctions occur with rapid climate change. I am telling you, because you seem not to be aware of it or have not taken that into consideration at all given that is what we are headed into. Some even call it the sixth mass extinction.

      • You are not aware. I have a background in geology. You don’t. You keep making sweeping statements that do not deal with the issue. Disprove the three points I made in my first response to you. You cannot!

        Prove

      • Rapid warming or cooling is not beneficial. See what causes extinctions. Potential warming is major in comparison with the Phanerozoic when you look at it in terms of the forcing change for various scenarios. This is on a par with past mass extinction events.

        Sea level rise rates could grow to meters per century based on what has happened before.

      • Your still making wild unsupported assertions and have not yet refuted, with evidence, the three points I made in my reply to your first comment (in which all your assertions were rubbish).

      • I told you that history tells us that rapid climate change causes extinctions which is opposite to at least two of your points, and you have yet to refute that.

      • You have not refuted, with valid the three points I made. I’ve provided the evidence for all of the previously including in replies to you – many times. You have never to refutes them, with valid relevant evidence. Wild assertions are just alarmist nonsense.

      • You are not even talking about extinctions and what causes them and thus missing the whole point of what I am saying. How can you insist on what is good for life while ignoring the causes of extinction events completely?

      • “Large, abrupt climate changes have affected hemispheric to global regions repeatedly, as shown by numerous paleoclimate records (Broecker, 1995, 1997). Changes of up to 16°C and a factor of 2 in precipitation have occurred in some places in periods as short as decades to years (Alley and Clark, 1999; Lang et al., 1999).” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3

        There is nothing especially rapid about 20th century temperature changes.

      • It is 50 times faster than the trend of the last few thousand years and in the opposite direction.

      • In evolutionary terms the past few thousand years is negligible- but at rate Jiminy’s meme is nonsense.

      • And he obviously doesn’t want to know about abrupt climate change science – it challenges the meme.

      • Abrupt globally is different from abrupt locally.

      • It is a globally coupled system and a lot of it emerges from the polar annular modes in more zonal or meridional winds. The top down solar hypothesis says that this is influenced by solar UV/ozone chemistry translating through defined atmospheric to polar surface pressures. The grye hypothesis says that this biases the AMO, PDO, ENSO, etc. to specific states. These shift at decadal to millenial scales – including the 20 to 30 years refimes seen in the20th century.

        Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

        It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said. Evidence from both ground based and satellite observations says that most 20th century warming was natural and related to cloud change over the upwelling regions of the Pacific.

        Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and declining since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold – due perhaps in a decade or two if the recent past is any indication.

        This is compelling geophysics compared to the Jiminy inanity offered as argument just above.

      • The last warming has not stopped yet. Where’s the decline? What’s he talking about?
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/best/from:1987/trend

      • Surface temperature has most certainly declined since 1998. Trends over such short periods are meaningless – a running mean makes much more sense if you actually want to understand rather than sell smoke and mirrors. And a 1987 start is not remotely relevant to the climate regimes that are quite obviously there.

      • Your last resort is Spencer’s UAH. RSS from the same satellites shows the same kind of warming as the surface data. I think they got it right and Spencer got it wrong. Your reference was not looking at Spencer, so I still don’t know what decline he was talking about. The 30-year temperature shows no slowing.

      • Wrong. You are avoiding the relevant points, as usual. You have failed to provide valid evidence that the current rate of warming, is exceptional (over equivalent timescales).

        Regarding extinction events, you failed to mention that, after each, more species emerge than existed before, and that competition between species is persistent. Some species out compete others. Life goes on.

        Also regarding extinction events, you failed to provide any evidence that past warming events over 100 years or so from temperatures equivalent to now, i.e. from GMST of 15C, caused massive extinction events. You’ve failed to provide evidence that the warming over the past century has done more harm than good for life on Earth.

        All in all, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. The classic flat-earther hanging onto a religious belief and unable to rationally debate the relevant facts.

      • Read more about extinctions that you have completely ignored until I pointed them out. It is rapid climate change events that reduce the numbers of species and that has happened in cold and warm climates. It’s the change rate that matters, not the absolute temperature. Life was adapted to a temperature then it changed suddenly faster than evolution could cope with. Not good. It takes millions of years for diversity to recover from these events. You need a broader perspective than just temperature.

      • You have still dodged the issue. Hopeless.

        By the way, FUND, one of the three most cited IAM’s, projects that the impact of 3C GMST change, from current temperatures, on ecosystems would be negligible.

        You’ve lost every round Jimmy. Best to retire and lick your wounds. Or better still, admit you’ve been wrong in hanging onto your alarmist beliefs for way too long.

      • You went from saying warming is good for life to extinction is good for life. A complete reversal, and a sign that you are not seriously looking at this subject and making it up as you go along.

      • Jee’s you are a real expert at dodging and weaving. Warmig from cold temps as we are in now is beneficial for life on earth., You’ve never refuted that with valid evidence. You’ve also not shown that the current rate of warming is unprecedented or abnormal. You also haven’t shown that the impacts of warming from current GMST would have a significant negative impact on the global economy.

      • Warming has caused extinctions and this is all you need to know to refute your argument. I gave you a graph about the change in forcing from different CO2 projections for 2100, and it puts it right up there on the same scale as changes over the past billion years. You can’t say I haven’t shown you when you just chose not to believe it.

      • forcing from different CO2 projections for 2100

        Projections from which flawed models, you have so many to choose from.

    • Fossil evidence suggests the optimum temperature for life on Earth is about 7 C warmer than present – so no reason to fear catastrophe.

      I believe the current Holocene has the optimum cycles. Earth took all of Earth’s history, getting to here. There must be a cycle. When things try to go static, it never works.

      • What would your optimum sea level be? Fact: one billion people live at altitudes close enough to sea level to be displaced by a complete glacier melt. Many of these live in expensive cities like London, New York, Shanghai, Sydney that would be hard to move or protect from 200 feet of extra sea level. Even if it took 1000 years to reach that full melt, that is 20 feet per century which is a major problem creator that we can avoid with some well focused technology advances.

  8. “There is a strong possibility that conservatives are not opposed to, or skeptical of, science per se. Rather, they lack trust in impact scientists whom they see as seeking in influence policy in a liberal direction” [link]”

    Scholar-activism is hardly new nor unexpected, particularly in a society with an undercurrent of unrest by “the student class” of political turbulence. Now, instead of “students”, the professional class, especially the social scientists and journalists slant their research outcomes towards socially meaningful narratives, almost always to pillory current social norms and contemporary value systems. Recently, climate change science has morphed into an assault upon skepticism that has polluted science to the point that no one trusts anyone. John Schneider and his noble cause corruption advocacy leave little to the imagination and more left to the bludgeoning of skeptics as a useful and legitimate form of discourse.

    Current activist science advocates like Mann & Schmidt & Trenberth and a host of others, so distort reality, that an older generation of scientists, engineers, and academics realize that these individuals pollute the dialogue atmosphere as well as close down discussions. Their misdeeds do have an impact, mostly not to their liking, as it should be.

    • “What an odd coincidence that ‘science’ always, without exception, supports the liberal worldview.” comes from that article.
      How about the explanation that the liberals tend to believe the scientific process. Anyway there are many examples where liberals are more skeptical, usually in the safety of things like GMOs, mobile phones, power lines, despite studies showing them to be safe, so this article’s blanket conclusion is not correct. I find that conservatives tend not to believe in the danger of things, while liberals tend not to believe in the safety of things, and science is in the middle. I always go with the science.

      • How are you on the belief that science will make nuclear fusion or safer conventional nuclear commercially viable as to make fossil fuel extraction obsolete in the next 50 years?

      • I think I agree with Emanuel and Hansen on nuclear. It is a way to decrease emissions almost immediately with doable technology until better things come along. As for fusion, great, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

      • Liberals like to regard what they believe as evidence based – I find they poorly understand the evidence. Collective memes seem more in vogue.

      • They tend to listen to the experts more especially where the subject requires expertise to understand. Many conservatives don’t seem to like academic types at all. You can sense that resentment in articles like this where they get bitter about science.

      • No – they live in ideological echo chambers and have to believe that this makes them smarter and more moral than outsiders. It is a collective psychological disorder.

      • Curious George

        “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

      • CG, yet you would listen to Feynman on any physics subject over random bloggers, right?

      • Jim D, you evaded my question. I didn’t ask if you were for or against nuclear. I asked if you believed the direction technology is headed currently whether fossil fuel will still be extracted in 50 years. Do you not believe enough in science that you can see likely significant breakthroughs in alternative energy, making it cheaper than fossil fuel extraction would be then (at the state of poorer reserves)?

        I assumed such a breakthroughs would have to be in nuclear to feed the rising demand but I would expand my question to also include battery technology making low density energy collection feasible (wind and solar.)

      • While there may still be fossil fuels in 50 years, their fraction in energy and fuel use should continue to steadily decline as better alternatives come into play. If you think where we were 50 years ago, you can see how fast technology advances, and given the real incentive of climate stabilization, sensible governments will be supporting the new technologies and subsidizing them as needed (possibly through a carbon tax).
        Regarding batteries, there are ways of distributing batteries to neighborhoods or individual homes that don’t require much more technology than we already can do with electric cars. This allows for charging when the energy is available and using when the energy is needed.
        Also the climate can be stabilized even without zero emissions. This is because the earth can absorb CO2 naturally, and the only problem so far is it cant keep up.

      • ‘Stabilize’ climate?!? At what? Holocene Optimum? Little Ice Age? You need to show that the current climate (over the last 100 or so years) has actually changed, Jim D. Isolated bad weather events are no proof of climate change.

        We have had no ‘Climate Change’ despite the minor 300-year warming. IPCC climate models based on (tuned to) a quarter century uptick are bunk. Their “projections” have proven inaccurate and run 2X hotter in the atmosphere (where the fingerprint of CO2 is supposed to occur) than observations by radiosondes and satellites.

      • Stabilize somewhere well below 500 ppm hopefully. Even those levels cause Greenland to continue melting, so it’s not ideal for sure.

      • Jim D, please provide empirical proof that water vapor increases CO2 warming to 3X. The lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot pretty much shoots down the IPCC model predictions.

      • The hot spot is part of the equilibrium response and we are currently in a transient response. The tropical ocean has not yet warmed enough for the hot spot even as the land has warmed more. When the ocean catches up, the hot spot will too. It is actually a part of the negative lapse rate feedback, so its absence means more feedback until it kicks in.

      • Arm-waving B.S., Jim D. IPCC climate models call for the hot spot NOW.

      • And there are observations that show it now. You have to measure over the tropical oceans to see it and that is limited.

      • Not many radiosondes over the ocean and they needed some bias corrections. Satellites also see the cold stratosphere and tend to blur it into the hot spot. The cold stratosphere is a fingerprint of CO2 by the way, while the hotspot is just a fingerprint of surface tropical ocean warming. You choose to dismiss the latest work on it.
        https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

      • Jim D, your acceptance that fossil fuel is going to be phased out in the next 50 years means that you are a believer in applied science and not just natural science. Kudos to you. But this means those in the natural science community who project RCP 8.5 as a business as usual scenario are not correct. Catastrophic climate change will be averted regardless of carbon tax or international agreements. There will be bad weather events and sea level rise as always in any scenario. Advancement in applied science will address these issues as well with abundant fusion energy barring political catastrophe.

      • There should be targets, and keeping as much below 500 ppm as possible is reasonable. This requires reductions in per capita emissions even as less developed countries develop. The high per-capita countries need to do most of the reduction, and can.

      • Jim D, you really do need to do simple math. Developing countries’ large increases in their CO2 output will far overwhelm anything the developed countries can do at the margin.

      • The top third of the global population accounts for two thirds of the emissions. The ball is in their court (about 20 countries). The others emit much less per capita than the global average already.

      • China, India and the rest of the two-thirds of the world are rapidly catching up with the one-third. Their current and projected increases in CO2 production swamp anything the one-third could possibly cut.

      • China is in that top third ranked by emissions per capita. Important to get them to be more efficient. International agreements.

      • Jim and Dave, fusion energy is not an if but a when. A plentiful alternative source of energy is ultimately the only answer. International agreements will be ineffective games (unless, for example, that game is a prize money pool for set benchmark fusion achievements). Otherwise, the world is waiting for western industry fund the development so they can copy the plans.

      • Actually the renewable energy industry is lucrative for cost-effective breakthroughs. China is investing a lot to take over that market. It’s a competition for the countries that are serious about it, like with electric cars.

      • Jim D, when you say alternative energy is lucrative one assumes you are referring to low density renewable energy which has a subsidized market by mostly western governments. (China mostly wants to export to the west.) Until fusion energy is commercialized fossil fuel will be extracted (at some rate) until it is exhausted. Once fusion is realized mega-engineering will become practical, including carbon atmospheric extraction (if desired,) or mass scale syn fuel production. Someone who believes in science and also believes in robust capitalism can foresee the solution to many wicked problems and true sustainability. BTW, fear of CAGW barely changes this fundamental economic vision.

      • Fossil fuels becoming exhausted is a relative term. They will never be exhausted. There are many unexploited but more expensive sources, so eventually the cheaper sources will deplete or become more expensive and fossil fuels will price themselves out of the market, and that only will happen as long as alternatives have prices that continue to drop which only happens with technological advances. This is why that effort has to continue for the benefit of long-term energy costs.

      • I tried to spare resuscitation of supply and demand. Thank you for acknowledging that obvious component to my overall comment. I hope you agree with the rest too.

      • Hopes can’t rest on fusion, and it is not clear fission is going to be easily expanded. Even France plans to transition from nuclear to renewables over time. They would not be the only ones with that preference, as we have seen with Japan and Germany already. Realistically renewables are a tractable long-term solution.

      • If greens can’t support fusion they are threatening our future. And, claiming engineers are anti-science is just a small part of an Orwellian leftest tendency. I repeat, political folly is more a threat to long-term human survival than energy policy.

      • I think everyone would support fusion because it is quite clean, but it is a big “would” at this point because fusion is nowhere near production. The big fusion reactor in the sky is already running, so why not just tap that?

      • The far left was against the US space program, asking why do we need to spend money on a frivolous project when children are starving. Yes, learning to put an entire circuit on a tiny piece of silicon is cute but it has no payoff, they argued. Look to the past to understand human resistance to change. And I admit it is on all sides.

        To be a true believer in science one must embrace that knowledge leads to unforeseeable new solutions (and new problems). But we keep going. There is no “going back to nature.”
        Here is the current status of the best fusion projects: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/08/nuclear-fusion-updated-project-reviews.html

      • Obviously it was the left (Kennedy) that proposed the space program. They are pro-science and they tend to listen to scientists even where it conflicts with what industry wants. Fusion has always been around the corner. Nearly 40 years ago, I was well aware of plasma physics and it had potential then too.

      • Ronald Reagan was a JFK voting Democrat. Trump likely would have been also. JFK regressed the top tax brackets, built up the military and was pro-space. They believed in applied science, not just campus social science like Obama, Warren or Ocasio Cortez.

    • While I support the general intent of the article, on the issue of GMOs, the left is nuts and against the science. Look at Europe.

  9. Dear Dr. Curry.

    Why am I in moderation? Another failing on my part. Please elucidate and I will confess.

    • no idea, can’t find your comment in moderation or spam?

    • Don’t take it personally. The system sends comments into moderation all the time. It happens to me very often. Sometimes too many links or certain words. Others I find no explanation. It just happens. Eventually it will reappear. Just be patient. Dr. Curry is a very busy person. We are lucky she dedicates so much time to her blog

    • Check for banned words. If you have one, it will look like it posts, and will not show up.

  10. Dr. Curry

    Why am I in moderation? Is there a better place for my comments?

  11. An updated Solar Cycle 25 prediction: The Modern Minimum
    http://arxiver.moonhats.com/2018/08/16/an-updated-solar-cycle-25-prediction-with-aft-the-modern-minimum-ssa/

    I had a good laugh with this one. To start the manuscript is labelled as “Confidential manuscript submitted to Geophysical Research Letters.” That’s a good one, so they posted a confidential manuscript in a public access internet archiving site. It looks silly.

    To continue, Hathaway is notoriously bad at predictions. I wonder if he is making a collection of published papers with failed predictions. This one is no exception:

    “Weak cycles are preceded by long extended minima [Hathaway, 2015] and we expect a similar deep, extended minimum for the Cycle 24/25 minimum in 2020. Based, on the latest prediction, we expect that minimum will be closer to the end of 2020 or beginning of 2021.”

    What kind of method is that? I did a review on solar cycle 24/25 minimum predictions, including my own analysis, and this was the result:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/07/the-approaching-solar-cycle-24-minimum/

    All the methods cluster in the late 2018 to mid-2019 period for the SC24-25 minimum. Hathaway’s prediction of late 2020 to early 2021 is an extreme outlier and very likely to be wrong as all his other earlier predictions.

    His prediction for SC25 is probably off too.

  12. “Biased Estimates of Changes in Climate Extremes From Prescribed SST Simulations” [link]

    Plain Language Summary–e.g.,

    Give me a model that predicts an increased incidence of extreme weather due to an hypothesized 1.5°C rise in global temperatures over the remainder 21st Century and I will show you a method you can use to increase the probability of extreme weather today by 500-1,000% using the very same model.

  13. Lovelock raises an important question on the scientific lock in of non verified facts such as Mitchell’s graph.

    The non verified fact gets to be locked into standard textbooks (qwerty like) without authors validating the argument.

    A good example was provided by Stephen Jay Gould in the Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone ie excepting a fact without verification.

    https://unbound.com/books/why-did-the-policeman-cross-the-road/updates/the-case-of-the-creeping-fox-terrier-clone

  14. RE: War over supercooled water

    Interesting story of scientific debate. Moral of the story:
    – Transparency and sharing of data and codes are essential to scientific research
    – Replication of results by other scientists is needed to establish any finding
    – Big names mean nothing in science. Following proper procedures and the scientific method are more important
    – Computer simulations are just a tool to help understand processes. Experiments and observations are the final arbiter

    • Curious George

      A very cautionary tale about models. “The [probably incorrect] procedure the Berkeley team used to initialize the molecular dynamics simulations was unorthodox—it involved randomly selecting a pair of molecules and then swapping the velocities of their constituent atoms.” That had to be discovered by analyzing their code; it seems that this detail has never been published. So much for “the code is the proof” – yes, but it is a rather obfuscated proof.

  15. “Based on the overall expectations for low Atlantic hurricane activity in 2018, combined with forecasts of a U.S. landfall ranging from 50% to 100%, we can expect 2018 to be a year with smaller economic loss from landfalling hurricanes relative to the average.”
    Hope, not expect.
    It would only take one medium hurricane hitting a vital center like Florida to create massive economic loss.
    30 years seems to be the average time for repeat strikes. Why I am not sure, perhaps bandwidth to number of possible hurricanes. Judith might explain.
    So a 3% chance of severe damage at one site. 5 possible sites. 15% chance per year of an average economic loss. 2 hurricanes in the year put it above average damage, risk is 7 1/2% per year.

  16. RE: Fifth great extinction

    The asteroid impact theory is well-founded. The quotes below show Keller’s theory is ideologically motivated:

    Keller fears that we are filling our environment with the same ingredients—sulfur, carbon dioxide, mercury, and more—that killed the dinosaurs and that, left unchecked, will catalyze another mass extinction, this one of our own devising. “You just replace Deccan volcanism’s effect with today’s fossil-fuel burning,” she told me. “It’s exactly the same.”

    Keller sees a bleak future when she looks at our present. Oceans are acidifying. The climate is warming. Mercury levels are rising. Countless species are endangered and staring down extinction—much like the gradual, then rapid, downfall of the forams.

    “Well, we were stupid and killed ourselves. On a grand scale,” Keller said. “You rule the world, and then you die.”

    Sorry Keller. That is not science. But it’s a good plot for science fiction.

    • “The Living Planet Index reveals that global populations of fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles declined by 58 per cent between 1970 and 2012.”

      The cause is not climate change – but the decline in populations is undeniable. Populations are dynamic and crash out of existence when mortality exceeds recruitment at a number of individuals that is species dependent. Part of the solution is – ironically – wealth.

    • “The asteroid impact theory is well-founded.”

      That the asteroid impacted is well established. That it was responsible for the mass extinction is a hypothesis supported by part of the evidence and contradicted by other evidence. Regardless of her opinions, Keller should not have to face any personal or professional problems for opposing a scientific hypothesis that is far from demonstrated.

      IMHO volcanic traps have a long association to mass extinctions. The hypothesis that the main factor in the extinction was the Deccan traps is a serious contender that should not be dismissed lightly.

      • “Regardless of her opinions, Keller should not have to face any personal or professional problems for opposing a scientific hypothesis that is far from demonstrated.”

        Because of her personal opinions, she faces professional problems. Other scientists don’t care about her opinions. She should present facts not opinions. And why is she opposing a legit scientific hypothesis? It is a false dichotomy. Only her opinion matter so she has to oppose the other side?

      • Why do you say that? The Deccan trap hypothesis defenders present evidence supporting their hypothesis in their articles. The scientific dispute is about the evidence, but it should not create personal or professional problems to the supporters of the less popular hypothesis. It is tremendously unprofessional to attack Dr. Keller, as the article describes, instead of just attacking her arguments and evidence as should be done.

        There is no justification for that.

      • I am not sure of the difference between opinion and hypothesis? She has some scientific support. As to her supposed motivation, I think she also said, Volcanoes take a long time to do you in.

        “The Earth’s four prior mass extinctions are each associated with enormous volcanic eruptions that lasted about 1 million years apiece.”

      • An opinion doesn’t have any requirement. A hypothesis must be based, and therefore explain, most of the available evidence, but not necessarily all.

        I don’t care about anybody’s motivations. If after decades of uphill battle she has associated to the CO2 control knob movement to further her hypothesis, that’s her choice, and has nothing to do with how good is the Deccan trap hypothesis versus the impact hypothesis to explain the available evidence.

        And after decades of research the problem is that the impact hypothesis is not in a stronger position, but a weaker one. It appears the impact predates the KTB by 300 kyr, and that is a major issue. As Geller puts it:

        “After three decades of nearly unchallenged wisdom that a large impact (Chicxulub) on Yucatan caused the end-Cretaceous mass extinction, this theory is facing its most serious challenge from the Chicxulub impact itself, as based on evidence in Texas and Mexico and from Deccan volcanism in India. Data generated from over 150 Cretaceous–Tertiary (KT) boundary sequences to date make it clear that the long-held belief in the Chicxulub impact as the sole or even major contributor to the KT mass extinction is not supported by evidence. The stratigraphic position of the Chicxulub impact ejecta spherules in NE Mexico and Texas and the impact breccia within the crater on Yucatan demonstrate that this impact predates the KTB by about 300,000 years. Planktic foraminiferal and stable isotope analyses across the primary impact ejecta layer reveal that not a single species went extinct as a result of this impact and no significant environmental changes could be determined. The catastrophic effects of this impact have been vastly overestimated. In contrast, recent advances in Deccan volcanic studies indicate three volcanic phases with the smallest at 67.5 Ma, the main phase at the end of the Maastrichtian (C29r), and the third phase in the early Danian C29r/C29n transition (Chenet et al. 2007). The main phase of eruptions occurred rapidly, was marked by the longest lava flows spanning 1500 km across India, and ended coincident with the KT boundary. The KT mass extinction may have been caused by these rapid and massive Deccan lava and gas eruptions that account for ∼80% of the entire 3500 m thick Deccan lava pile.”

        For what I have looked into mass extinctions in the published literature, LIPs are associated with several mass extinctions, and thus are as good a candidate as anything else, and better than most. It remains to be demonstrated that the Chicxulub impact did the dinosaurs in.

        I remember there was an “Elementary” Dead Clade Walking (TV Episode 2014) about this scientific dispute where a scientist was assassinated for having evidence contradicting Alvarez’s hypothesis. I guess the dispute has reached popular culture.

      • “It is tremendously unprofessional to attack Dr. Keller, as the article describes, instead of just attacking her arguments and evidence as should be done.There is no justification for that.”

        She provided justification for that with her own unprofessional attacks. To quote:

        a Dutch geologist named Jan Smit, whom Keller calls a “crazy SOB.”
        Keller, not to be outdone, called one impacter a “crybaby,” another a “bully,” and a third “the Trump of science.”
        she felt, because pro-impact peer reviewers “just come out and regurgitate their hatred.”

        Invoking man-made global warming catastrophes and proclaiming you’re a Trump hater to promote your pet hypothesis are the quickest way to discredit yourself. Only alarmists and alt-left would disagree.

      • “She provided justification for that with her own unprofessional attacks.”

        Obviously she shouldn’t do that either, but we don’t know the history behind those fights that probably has years or decades of confrontations, as to judge it. What we do know is that in scientific disputes supporters of the dominant hypothesis usually have also a stronger position and are thus more responsible. With more power comes more responsibility.

        The history of Keller is by no means unique. Perhaps you read here this article some time ago:

        What Happens When an Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking?
        The story of Jacques Cinq-Mars and the Bluefish Caves shows how toxic atmosphere can poison scientific progress
        https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/jacques-cinq-mars-bluefish-caves-scientific-progress-180962410/

        Jacques Cinq-Mars suffered for years until he finally gave up on publicly defending his findings at Bluefish cave in Alaska that challenged the dominant-hypothesis-du-jour, the Clovis-first theory.

        These are cases of which we know because the challengers were finally shown to be correct. What is clear is that scientists that enjoy a dominant position use it to smash those that threaten it. So I won’t be quick to judge those that suffer the attacks of the dominant scientists, like Keller.

      • “So I won’t be quick to judge those that suffer the attacks of the dominant scientists, like Keller”

        We should not be quick to judge good hypotheses. Scientists can quickly make a fool of themselves regardless of their hypotheses.

  17. Very interesting paper about ACI. It says that both effects are small or negligible in obs. and not well captured in models. This should lead to a remarkable reduction of the (negative) aerosolforcing when looking at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf (fig. 7.19.) by about 50%.
    Bad times for high sensivities…

    • Yes, I thought this was the most significant of the many interesting papers that Judith Curry pointed to in this excellent Week in Review post. The estimates in this paper (Hamilton et al., Nature Comms) of cloud albedo effect aerosol forcing are substantially reduced when reassessed preindustrial fire emissions are used. Although in this case they remain, for the primary dataset used, quite high, all estimates of this forcing should be reduced significantly when reassessed preindustrial fire emissions are used.

  18. There was someone talking about nonentities like us in the climate debate. This is hubris of a science finding a long denied place in the spotlight – just after the trained seals. A hard act to follow – it just is not all that relevant to Capability Brown type policy analysis.

    “In contrast, Brown’s designs framed the stately home at the entrance, but only briefly. After allowing the visitor a glimpse of his destination, the driveway would veer away to pass circuitously and delightfully through woodland vistas, through broad meadows with carefully staged aperçus of waterfalls and temples, across imposing bridges spanning dammed streams and lakes, before delivering the visitor in a relaxed and amused frame of mind, unexpectedly, right in front of the house. The message of the design was subtle: no need to rub the wealth of the house and its owner in a visitor’s face when you can use it to engage and entertain. There are different ways of expressing power, some of which are more likely to gain the compliance of others. Capability Brown might be a useful mentor for climate policy designers. At the moment, there is a tendency for politicians and bureaucrats to do just the opposite. They invoke climate protection in raucous support of particular policies and practices, many of which have only a tenuous connection to effective climate change responses. The public is lectured on many aspects of its life and pleasures in censorious tones, and then told to save the planet.”
    http://www.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/pdf/mackinder_Wrong%20Trousers.pdf

    Geophysics is fascinating but perhaps in this we need more gardeners and far fewer histrionic climate scientists.

  19. sheldonjwalker

    Global Warming: How Long Do We Have Left?

    Using the latest statistical techniques, we can now predict, to the minute, when global warming will kill you (accurate to +/- 17 minutes).

    Recently, Mr Tamino wrote an article, called “Global Warming: How Long Do We Have Left?”.

    As you all know, Mr Tamino is an overly optimistic, sort of person.

    I can assure you, that he took no delight, in telling everybody that they would all be dead by the year 2045. This is when we will exceed the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit.

    He even tried to soften the blow, by saying that you might get a couple of years more.

    The only way to avoid total disaster, apparently, is to do exactly what Mr Tamino tells you to do.

    I don’t want to rain on Mr Tamino’s parade, but I noticed that he made a small mistake, in his calculations for the end of the world.

    He forgot to take into account, the fact that different regions of the world, have different warming rates.

    That is ok for some regions, but we have bad news for Region 1 (from 90N to 48N).

    With Mr Tamino’s help, I have created a colour coded map of the world, which shows the outlook for the different regions of the world.

    Region 1 (90N to 48N) – Red – Already dead

    Region 2 (48N to 30N) – Orange- Not feeling very well

    Region 3 (30N to 14N) – Yellow – Don’t take out a long term contract for Sky TV

    Region 4 (14N to Equator) – Light green – Slightly under the weather

    Region 5 (Equator to 14S) – Dark green – Have been better

    Region 6 (14S to 30S) – Aqua – Not feeling too bad

    Region 7 (30S to 48S) – Blue – Never been better

    Region 8 (48S to 90S) – Purple – Feeling great, but it is very cold, and I can’t feel my feet

    People who don’t want to know when they are going to die, should not read this article. You have been warned.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-how-long-do-we-have-left

  20. Since Judith doesn’t seem to have picked up on the (somewhat flawed IMHO) recent Arctic article in The Guardian here’s my slightly more scientific version of recent events north of Greenland:

    http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2018/08/could-northabout-circumnavigate-greenland-in-2018/

    Note that as well as the “oldest, thickest” sea ice in the Arctic having apparently gone AWOL, the last remnants of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf are disintegrating as we speak.

      • What’s that got to do with it?

        The Kara and Barents Seas are not located “north of Greenland”.

      • Bob,

        The area Jim is talking about is DIRECTLY NORTH of greenland,
        ie, the coast, ie where the land meets the ice.
        EXCEPT, this year the ice there separated from the land.
        the lincoln sea is likewise in a “not seen before” funk.

        watching the ice melt, and shift, and reaarange has been interesting these past 11 years.

      • I find it unlikely that breathless never seen before rhetoric has any scientific significance. But by all means entertain yourself.

      • An animation of Arctic sea ice movement “north of Greenland” this year:

      • Here is one far more relevant to millennial scale ice dynamics.

      • If I can remember how to embed images in here, a recent relevant infographic from “north of Greenland”:

        Frank was of course a genius, but nonetheless irrelevant to a supposedly scientific discussion.

      • That didn’t work very well! Let’s try:

      • It begs the question of whether Jim is capable of a serious discussion. My experience is not a hope in hell. He starts with some sort of snide innuendo on Judith and a Guardian article ffs. But she introduced a new 700 year record of Arctic ice – from which I extract a graph. His response is that it is not north of Greenland. Jim is far from a serious person or a person to be taken seriously.

        The Zappa comment was serious. With ice dynamics one must look far beyond the satellite record – let alone one summer. On that Jim suffers from selective myopia.

      • Greenland second year in a row of above average ice mass increase Jim. That is near Ellesmere island. Won’t that help refreezing quickly?

    • Jim, the ice present is possibly thicker in volume and it does move around. There is no ice going through Fram straight because there is no ice present to go through there at the moment. It has all moved westwards blocking up the North West passage a bit more.
      Now we could melt some more and make you happy or pray for 3-4 years of refreezing starting now.
      Your take on the September minimum and its meaning?

      • Hi angech,

        If you believe summer SMOS the ice “north of Greenland” isn’t “thicker in volume”:

        As regards the 2018 minimum, I’ll reserve judgement until after the currently forecast waves have died down:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2018/08/the-great-arctic-cyclone-of-2018/

      • “There is no ice going through Fram straight because there is no ice present to go through there at the moment. It has all moved westwards blocking up the North West passage a bit more.”

        Statement 2 tends to obviate statement 1.

        I’d be better with: “There is no ice going through Fram straight, because the ice is moving westward, away from the Fram Straight.”

        Hycom evidently updated their model, so the archive only includes 2017 & 2018.

        But compared to last year:

        the ice edge indicates this motion for the Atlantic quadrant:

        Such motion does enable greater sea ice accumulation, though there’s no guarantee it will persist. That doesn’t mean that global warming wouldn’t decrease Arctic sea ice, but any reversal will indicate the influence of ice motion.

      • thanks Jim, T.E.
        Not surprised at your waiting, Jim for the September minimum. No fun when it is going to be higher than you want.

      • TE – Hycom as you call it is still available via:
        https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/arctic.html

        However the new model, known as the Global Ocean Forecast System (GOFS for short) is in indeed rather different. Comparing apples with oranges?
        https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/arctic.html

        You have to skip past the security warnings to see anything. Hence the tiny thumbnails visible in your post at first glance.

      • angech – What will be will be!

        The upcoming storms will be interesting though.

    • The news I impart isn’t in a learned journal article yet Robert.

      The Polarstern was pootling around off Kap Morris Jesup only last week. When was the last time a watercraft of any description did that?

      The assorted scientists aboard haven’t had time to write up their findings as yet. Or have them peer reviewed for that matter.

  21. Salvatore del Prete

    Subject: Predictions- Many do not seem to understand that the models the models do not incorporate the strengths of the solar /geo magnetic fields when making a prediction.

    Earthquakes of magnitide 4.0 or higher have increased over 25% over the last few weeks. This geo magnetic storm(K7) may spur ) even more activity. Waitng for THE ! volcanic eruption.

    I said 2018 (the only one) would be a transitional year. Sure enough global temperatures down and overall oceanic sea surface temperatures down.

    They are going to continue down.

    El Nino happy that is what the models are this year and were last year.

    Forget Hurricanes /Tornados moving forward from here. They will continue to trend down on a global basis..

    Getting back to the models/ analogs, the more extreme either way the solar/geo magnetic fields may be (in this case weakening) the more off those tools will be.

    My simple theory is , very weak solar/geo magnetic fields equate to lower overall global temperatures due to lower overall oceanic sea surface temperatures(less UV/NEAR UV light) and a slight up tick in albedo due to an increase in major geological activity and an increase in global cloud/snow coverage tied into an increase in galactic cosmic rays in response to very weak magnetic fields.

    In addition there are threshold levels of magnetic weakness out there that could result in a major as opposed to a sight climatic shift. If one looks at the historical climatic record/ ice core data major/abrupt climatic changes show up more often then not.

    Something is causing it to happen and it is not the slow gradual change of the oceans heat content. Besides ocean heat content does not matter it is the surface oceanic temperatures that matter when it comes to the climate and they can change fast.

    In closing I say the so called AGW ended in late 2017.

  22. I’ve run across this in some of my readings:

    https://i2.wp.com/d24fkeqntp1r7r.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/03022713/Comte27s_Theory_of_Science-new.jpg?resize=610%2C516&ssl=1

    It’s from a recent Quillete article. I recommend Quillete. The point is the general idea. Sociology is where it gets applied. We are all competent in that area as it’s politics and policy. The top figure is less intuitive. I’ll do my best. Math applies across many things. Math is more complex than its application as policies. The difference between everything that goes into a model, and the sound bite that has broad reach. Physics has huge toys to play with, like colliders. We as the population are given cartoon representations of what they do.

    We can place climate science on the above diagrams. Using the bottom diagram for that, we see climate science covers a lot of it. Taking on the attributes of a living thing. aTTP took a name staking out whatever. I really don’t know and am assuming. It’s more than Physics. Yet many have that touchstone, when an understanding of the system, by this CPA thinks it’s more complex, and many layers and a cabaret for that matter. The left hammers the Physics and the Math. But their Chemistry, Biology and Sociology is weak. Their Sociology is not that weak as they’ve captured many things including MSM, but not Trump voters. Be that as it may, they need Sociology because without it, all they have is their unrealized dreams of Unicorn energy.

    I am reminded of a defense:

    Motte and Bailey. They retreat to where when complexity is brought up? To math and physics.

    As we move from math to sociology above, we are getting closer to understanding climate. As if it is a living thing. That will not give up its secrets to overwhelming amounts of reductionist light. It’s not even climates nature as it’s non-linear.

    For examples of retreat to math and physics, also see Schmidt. In his Motte of math and physics. While the climate is materially and substantially but of course not totally someplace else.

    • You seem to be calling it sociology when it applies to people. So determining what levels of pollutants are safe for air and water would be sociology to you? Maybe the field of medicine too? Is that your way of dismissing it? Check your assumptions. Applying science does not make it sociology.

      • “So determining what levels of pollutants are safe for air and water would be sociology to you?”

        Thank you. Science > Trump voters and the rest. Numbers, models, the products of knowledge are applied to society. The first thing becomes the second thing. It transforms itself like a Monarch emerging from its Chrysalis. It starts as a small thing, even an idea and spreads across society impacting many people. This is often seen. Even CO2 in a non denier way, is said to do the same kind of thing.

        So we dress up our science and parade it around, and it wins the Miss Science beauty contest. Does anyone care? Not unless it impacts large swaths of society. This idea of global warming, especially in the United States is the Monarch that never was. It has yet to emerge. We have Green stuff, but hardly any of it works. And the original idea wallows in unfulfillment lacking solutions. We have idea of 3 orders of magnitude improvements to the CMIP’s capabilities. Not yet. Of narrowing the ECS. Not yet.

        Sociology should capture the transformation.

        More specifically. Take poor countries. Study why their air and water sucks. It’s hardly science. It’s a sociological fail. Even contributed to by the United States with its energy/aid policies. A sociological fail is telling them here’s some solar panels, when the way to improve their society is something else, perhaps cheap reliable coal power plants.

      • Do you have the same bitter attitude to medicine? Maybe you don’t like pollution controls based on science or food and drug safety studies. Science is needed for some decisions and always beats ignorance or just trusting the salesmen.

      • Jim D:

        We can agree to apply the science of GMOs and vaccines. I am pointing it out it isn’t the science. It’s sociology. Science without successful application is interesting, and in the domain of the backyard tinkerer who never sell their inventions. Apparently climate science was rejected by the Trump voters. If it’s that tenuous, a revamp is needed. And it’s not the fault of the Right. Let’s’ have a good product. With the key crucial attribute of transforming us. Like smart phones did. A bunch of smart phone tech punks are kicking climate scientist’s butts.

      • If sociology causes some groups to reject the same science that independent scientists support, I would argue the problem is with who those groups listen to rather than with the science. Don’t blame the science for the contrarians. This comes back to the previous discussions about cults/information bubbles. If you are listening to people that are telling you not to believe the mainstream, you are probably in a cult. People who close themselves off in their bubbles are a problem, but should not be to the rest of us unless that bubble also encloses influential politicians.

      • Jim D:

        The problem isn’t the science. But take the numerous iterations of it in attempts to sell it to people who don’t want it.

        I want to sell you the idea that time doesn’t exist:

        https://qz.com/1279371/this-physicists-ideas-of-time-will-blow-your-mind/

        It’s science. But who cares? I don’t think you’re a member of a, time does exist cult. Back to my first link which is a diagram. Why is climate science more than math and physics? Because the climate is that. We already know that. There’s chemistry and biology too. But that’s wildly expensive and difficult to get right while at the same time as getting the math and physics right. And even if we get all that right, we have to cross the finish line, Sociology, and apply it all. The smart phone crossed the finish line. Now I am saying I do blame the science, for not having an all systems inclusive approach. Pretending certain modules don’t matter. And then blaming somebody. It would be good if they said, this stuff is really, really hard.

      • Most of climate science is just physics. The main principal of adding forcing and getting a warming response is just energy conservation. We can even put numbers to the forcing and warming and it matches the explanation that all this forcing causes all this warming and more to come. This is just physics with supporting measurements at its root.

      • This is a story that Jiminy repeats endlessly – but it is a very partial explanation of Earth dynamics as revealed by geophysical science. And they can’t possibly be wrong about this – too much personal capital committed for too long. It’s a package – truncated science, progressive social justice, top down command and control – an ideological construct around a collective world view. Science that doesn’t fit the construct is marginalized and scientists denigrated. Ultimately more nuanced science must triumph. 😁

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Jim D says Don’t blame the scientists.
        But we do
        Primarily, for their overall poor quality.
        There never were proper estimates of uncertainty.
        That is but one measure of scientific quality.
        Most are junior trenchers on a scale of competence.
        Most incorporate hysterics into science conclusions.
        That is juvenile.
        You should be sceptical until you see a better standard of science.
        Push your earliest friends to make it better.
        Leave sceptics alone. You have no idea what motivates us, that is evident.
        So you invent our motivation. Pathetic. Geoff

      • Independent scientists support the climate science (NAS, RS, various organizations outside of climate science), and you would put them all in one vast conspiracy just because they are scientists. Remember, if the few people you listen to are telling you not to believe the mainstream, you are in a cult. Escape while you can.

      • And the whole ‘science’ is based on the assumption that relative humidity will remain constant and triple the estimated warming of CO2, Jim D. Hasn’t and isn’t. Measurements put a lie to that assumption.

      • It’s thermodynamics. Even if RH drops there’s less clouds and rain, and it also gets warmer and drier that way. This may be happening over the land already because it is warming much faster than the global mean.

      • Prove that clouds and rain have decreased, Jim D.

      • Cloud albedos have decreased. If the humidity doesn’t keep up that would be expected.

      • You didn’t answer the fundamental question, Jim D. More arm waving.

      • Maybe you don’t believe decreasing humidities lead to less clouds. You haven’t said why, but why should I care whether you do?

      • More dry, less clouds.

      • Without data all we have left is silly little tribal memes.

      • Already up to 2 W/m2 from CO2. You don’t believe it. Fine. This is standard stuff here.

  23. this went to the wrong place the first time:

    Thank you Judith Curry for this collection. It is always a pleasure to read (some of) what you have come across.

  24. “The trigger for Friday’s internal coup came over energy policy, which has bedeviled Australian politics for more than a decade. Australia has a wealth of coal, natural gas and uranium, but Australians pay some of the highest electricity prices in the world thanks to federal renewable energy mandates that force retailers to buy expensive wind and solar power.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/25/l-a-times-conceals-facts-regarding-climate-policy-repudiation-which-triggered-australian-pm-turnbulls-ouster/

    The Australians are as competent as the Germans and have some good conditions for solar. They can’t make it work. I have another good example of the markets and capitalistic reality. These failures will continue to pile on top of each other. They did an experiment to test capitalism.

    • Superficial ideologically motivated nonsense as usual from WUWT. While prices have increased – it is mostly the collusion of government and business in excessive network costs and a failure to ensure adequate domestic gas supplies.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Please label your axes not fully, RIE.
        Year, wholesale or retail, energy or electricity, type?
        First take is your data disagrees with others, significantly.
        Geoff.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE,
        Here is a version of prices in mid-2018.
        I do not claim this to have impeccable heritage.
        It is, however, so much different to your picture that one has to ask what is being misrepresented by whom. It is from this source.
        https://www.afr.com/news/australian-households-pay-highest-power-prices-in-world-20170804-gxp58a

        The graph is here. Geoff.

      • PPP adjusted?

        “”As a light-hearted annual test of PPP, The Economist has tracked the price of McDonald’s Corp.’s (MCD) Big Mac burger in many countries since 1986. The highly publicized Big Mac index measures the purchasing power parity (PPP) between nations using the price of a Big Mac as the benchmark. The Big Mac index suggests, in theory, changes in exchange rates between currencies should affect the price consumers pay for a Big Mac in a particular nation, replacing the “basket” with the famous hamburger.

        For example, if the price of a Big Mac is $4.00 in the U.S. and 2.5 pounds sterling in Britain, we would expect the exchange rate to be 1.60 (4/2.5 = 1.60). If the exchange rate of dollars to pounds is any greater, the Big Mac index would state the pound was overvalued, any lower and it would be undervalued.

        That said, the index has its flaws. First, the Big Mac’s price is decided by McDonald’s Corp., which can significantly affect the Big Mac index. Also, the Big Mac differs across the world in size, ingredients and availability. That being said, the index is meant to be light-hearted and is a great example used by many schools and universities to teach students about PPP.

        Read more: Purchasing Power Parity (PPP): What is it and how is it used? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/updates/purchasing-power-parity-ppp/#ixzz5PSVpWsrk

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE
        You used old figures cobbled up by people who can gain from pushing opinion. Sub-standard, especially if you have been conned by it.
        I might present raw data in a day or two. Geoff

      • FFS it is 2014 data from a reputable source. And you have no alternative. Funny that.

      • Curious George

        Sure, four year old prices is what topples governments.

      • This is data that is collated globally, calculated on the basis of international price parities and presumably reviewed. How long do you imagine all this takes? By all means – provide more recent global comparisons. Real data not waffling nonsense. And this superficial, politically motivated and hopelessly uniformed whine from George means nothing at all.

        As for toppling government – it was not toppling a government merely a leader who has been fighting an internecine battle since he displaced the last leader. The government remains intact – the leader is window dressing – but for how long?

        “But it was the Longman by-election in July that really rattled the Liberal-National Coalition, instilling a sense of dread in countless backbench marginal MPs that their jobs were at serious risk.

        The Coalition secured just 30 per cent of the primary vote in Longman, down nine per cent on the 2016 election.

        Queensland in particular is home to a swag of marginal seats.

        Unless called earlier, the next election is less than 12 months out and at this rate, the government has a slim chance of retaining power.” https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/where-did-it-all-go-wrong-for-malcolm-turnbull-inside-the-pms-nightmare/news-story/272fc94167c7ca4673a4fa0269890d60

        The real reason for toppling the PM was politicians fearing for their jobs. Ironically – they have almost guaranteed decimation at the next election. After which we will have another carbon tax.

      • Curious George

        Robert, you injected data 4 years old into a discussion of a last week’s event. I don’t care if it was “collated globally, calculated on the basis of international price parities and presumably reviewed” – it is totally irrelevant.

      • Still no alternative rational price comparison I note. These guys seem to approve of information vacuums into which they can insert propaganda. But electricity prices are what’s irrelevant to kamikaze politics.

        And I can assure George that most price rises occurred prior to 2015, price rises were mostly for the factors I noted above and that price rises are almost completely irrelevant to the leadership spill. It was certainly not the case that either we have the highest electricity prices in the world or that this was a factor as such. Such complete nonsense without a shred of evidence deserves utter contempt.

  25. sheldonjwalker

    Sheldon Walker is familiar with solving difficult problems.

    To develop Global Warming Contour Maps, he had to fit 4 dimensions, onto a 2 dimensional graph.

    Using colour, for one of the dimensions, was part of the solution.

    However, in the end, the problem was too difficult to solve.

    But by “thinking outside the triangle” (a reference to Sheldon’s brightly-coloured triangular contour maps), he was able to produce a workable solution.

    Because he couldn’t find a way to represent that last dimension, he decided to hide it, and not tell anybody about it.

    Even without that extra hidden dimension, Global Warming Contour Maps have managed to confuse people from all over the world.

    Sheldon claims that if people haven’t noticed that there is a dimension missing, then it probably wasn’t required, to solve the problem.

    Sheldon claims to have solved the problem of Global Warming, by “thinking outside the triangle”.

    He believes that the main reason why the problem of Global Warming hasn’t been solved yet, is because people think that it is a very difficult problem. It is, in fact, a very simple problem. Once you see that, the solution is obvious.

    When you are used to thinking in 4 dimensions, a one dimensional problem, like Global Warming, is child’s play.

    Is Sheldon’s claim of a solution to Global Warming, just a load of hot air?

    You can judge for yourself, by reading Sheldon’s solution. To make it “more fun”, Sheldon has presented his solution, as a fictional story. What Sheldon calls, “Global Warming fiction”.

    The solution to the problem of Global Warming, is hidden in the story. At least it was, the last time that Sheldon checked.

    Why not just tell people what the solution to Global Warming is?

    Because it is so simple, that people wouldn’t believe me, says Sheldon. If they read the story, and work it out for themselves, then they will believe it.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/solving-global-warming-is-easy

    • Bobby was foolish enough to read this comment. Bobby found it utterly lacking any rational content. Bobby feels that comments should express interesting ideas based on experimental or observational data simply. Bobby commends the 1905 paper on special relativity to Sheldon as an example of how it is done. Alternatively – Bobby recommends that Sheldon go to clown school.

    • Sheldon said:

      It is, in fact, a very simple problem. Once you see that, the solution is obvious.

      Sheldon is dead right on this. The solution is to do noting to reduce GHG emissions, and just carry on. Focus instead on implementing policies that will maximise economic growth for the world over the long term.

      The reason we should not reduce GHG emisisons is because global warming is beneficial and global cooling is very bad. So, to maximise warming and minimise the probability and consequences of cooling the more GHG emissions the better.

    • sheldonjwalker said

      It is, in fact, a very simple problem. Once you see that, the solution is obvious.

      Sheldon is dead right on this. The solution is simple and obvious. It is to do noting to reduce GHG emissions. Focus instead on implementing policies that will maximise economic growth for the world over the long term.

      The reason we should not reduce GHG emissions is because global warming is beneficial and global cooling is a serious threat. So, to maximise warming and minimise the probability and consequences of cooling the more GHG emissions the better.

  26. The last time the daily global surface average temperature anomaly was this low was in November 2014. The cooling of the planet after the 2015-16 El Niño continues two and a half years after it ended. At this time it looks 2018 is going to be cooler than 2015. We are experiencing a cooling superior to those caused by El Chichón or Pinatubo. A return to pause levels (2001-2013) cannot be ruled out, and that would mean no warming in the 21st century.

    • Salvatore del Prete

      Correct Javier.

    • Scott Koontz

      “A return to pause levels (2001-2013) cannot be ruled out, and that would mean no warming in the 21st century.”

      Yes, because as we all know the temps are much lower since the “pause.”

      Back in reality, we know that recent years’ temps are higher since the pause, and periodic pauses have nothing on the decadal march of warming. You can applaud a hiatus all you want when it is happening, but don’t ignore the overall trend.

      It is silly to assume there will be no warming in the 21st century. As silly as making this statement in the 00s, which was warmer than the 90s decade. In order, 90s, 00s, 10s.

      • “we know that recent years’ temps are higher since the pause”

        Yes, we know there was a strong El Niño event.

        “but don’t ignore the overall trend.”

        I won’t. The surface of the planet is warming, but the important issue is the cause, because if it is not anthropogenic, then all we can do is watch and learn.

        “It is silly to assume there will be no warming in the 21st century.”

        I didn’t assume that. And it is equally silly to pretend that we know how much warming there will be in the 21st century. Plenty of silly scientists pretending that computers are telling them that.

        The pause could have been predicted easily just by extrapolating past behavior, but scientists were blinded because they thought they knew the cause of the warming and believed this time is different.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        This year is the transitional year and thus far so good. I predicted this a while ago, based on my two solar conditions being achieved.

        Which are 10+ years of sub solar activity in general (2005) and a period of time following the 10+ years of sub solar activity in general of low average value solar parameters equal to or greater in degree of magnitude change associated with typical solar minimums(late 2017) but longer in duration then that associated with typical solar minimums.

        To add to this is a weakening geo magnetic field which when in sync with solar will compound given solar effects.

        I am watching geological activity (on the increase) overall oceanic sea surface temperatures ( on the decrease) and global temperatures (on the decrease ) and overall global cloud/snow coverage.

  27. ‘In winter water nearest the sea ice surrounding Antarctica releases significantly more carbon dioxide than previously believed’

    What a wonderful negative feedback, along with the reduced CO2 uptake in the warm North Atlantic and Arctic during solar minima. The suitable term being Arctic negative amplification.

  28. ‘New insights into solar and volcanic forcing of North Atlantic Climate’

    Here’s one, the AMO acts as a negative feedback to solar wind variability via the NAO/AO. Note that the coolest AMO anomalies were during the periods of higher solar wind temperature/pressure, during the early to mid 1970’s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons

    • Salvatore del Prete

      Ulric, is basing all of his theories on normal solar /geo magnetic conditions, not a prolonged solar minimum period of time and weakening geo magnetic field which is a new ball game.

      • The chart in my previous comment shows higher SST by SE Greenland during ‘prolonged’ solar minima. The big warm spike in GISP2 around 1250 BC was during a massive solar minimum.

  29. Salvatore del Prete

    You are being proven wrong Ulric as the data clearly shows the North Atlantic cooling along with overall sea surface temperatures which I have said been saying would happen.

    • It’s just noise, it will warm again, especially with help from coming El Nino.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        I say not only will it not warm up it is going to become colder moving forward.

      • Ulric Lyons: It’s just noise, it will warm again, especially with help from coming El Nino.

        Salvatore del Prete: .I say not only will it not warm up it is going to become colder moving forward.

        It is always a pleasure to read clearly different predictions.

  30. Salvatore del Prete

    Low solar will equate to lower overall oceanic sea surface temperatures all over the globe. This negative feedback theory you have does not exist.

    Then again only time will show you are wrong, just like AGW theory is wrong just like so many are wrong when it comes to the climate and solar/climate relationships..

    • Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum:

      ‘Modeled surface temperature changes show alternating warm oceans and cold continents at NH mid-latitudes’

      https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5cbd/083da522a1164131bf592cd2d4b4a3157d42.pdf

      • Salvatore del Prete

        I have read that before still does not change my mind about the overall oceanic sea surface temperatures which are and will continue to cool as a result of low solar (less UV light). That is a given.

        As far as the AO/NAO I expect them to be more negative especially in winter, however that has not been happening in the N.H. of late.

        Time will tell.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        Also this time the geo magnetic field is weaker which will enhance all given solar effects.

        I am surprised of late that the AO/NAO have not been more negative, but they have been trending that way for several years other then say the past year. That said despite the lower negative trend in the AO/NAO index the response of the North Atlantic in particular has been to colder.
        The North Atlantic has been cooling for quite some time I do not think it is noise.

        I also think the strength /location and type of volcanic eruptions can play havoc with the atmospheric circulation /ocean warming and cooling.

      • Low solar increasing negative NAO/AO is the norm, but dominated by weak solar wind rather than low UV. And negative NAO/AO drives a warm AMO.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        One last thought is will the cooling of the North Atlantic cause the AO/NAO to become more positive despite low solar?

        Do not know the answer. Time will tell , but the North Atlantic cooling has been significant thus far, that can not be denied.

      • “The North Atlantic has been cooling for quite some time I do not think it is noise.”

        Just noise in a warm hiatus:
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1980

      • Salvatore del Prete

        I agree low solar usually corresponds to a neg. AO/NAO but that does not have to translate to warmer oceanic temperatures (N. Atlantic), as we are now seeing. The data will have to be watched.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        I do not think it can be noise given the length of time and degree of magnitude change of the temperature of the North Atlantic.

        I know you want to believe it is noise,but indications thus far do not support that. Will see.

      • “will the cooling of the North Atlantic cause the AO/NAO to become more positive despite low solar?”

        I don’t see how low solar would cool it, but positive NAO/AO would.

      • “I agree low solar usually corresponds to a neg. AO/NAO but that does not have to translate to warmer oceanic temperatures (N. Atlantic), as we are now seeing. The data will have to be watched.”

        Better watch that NAO has been positive then:

      • Salvatore del Prete

        The sun is the source of energy for the oceans. What wavelengths of light penetrate the ocean surface the most and impart the most energy to the oceans? The answer is UV light wavelengths/ Near UV light wave lengths. They penetrate the surface of the oceans up to 50 meters there by imparting energy to the oceans. It is well know that at times of prolonged solar minimums UV light can be off by as much as 10% therefore it stands to reason the amounts of energy coming from the sun to the oceans is less, which means overall oceanic cooling.

        Now getting back to what you are saying which is low solar should result in a negative AO/NAO. I agree with that but that can take place while at the same time the oceans cool.

        To have a negative AO/NAO it does not matter per say if the oceans warm or cool, instead what matters is the difference in the rate of ocean cooling or warming between the high latitudes versus the low latitudes.

        So you can have overall oceanic cooling and have a negative AO/NAO if the Northern latitude oceans cool less then their southern counterparts.

        What is happening of late is not what I am expecting either which is a more negative AO/NAO with greater ocean cooling in the lower latitudes.

        Instead and this has been going on for a while, is it looks like the AO/NAO have ben trending more positive while the North Atlantic has undergone the most cooling in comparison to the Atlantic at lower latitudes.

        You can’t fight the data, so it is wait and see.

        What is going as expected for me is the overall oceanic sea surface temperature cooling which is down .2c from a year ago more or less.

        Have to see if this continues.

      • Well if you’re talking ocean heat content rather than SST’s, then that is overwhelmingly determined by cloud cover. During the last cold AMO phase, global OHC hardly changed. But warm AMO driven reductions in cloud cover have allowed it to rise from the mid 1990’s.

      • We know that the mean El Nino episode frequency roughly doubled during the Maunder and Dalton solar minima. Now have a look at the AMO data, and note the major warm pulses to the AMO, peaking around 8 months following the El Nino episode peaks.
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.data

      • Salvatore del Prete

        All of the things you are saying can happen but they will be against a back drop of overall surface oceanic sea surface temperatures cooling in my opinion.

        I will be very surprised and puzzled if overall oceanic sea surface temperatures rise from here. As I said they are down .2c from a year ago and I think the trend will continue as long as solar remains in the tank.
        .

      • Salvatore del Prete

        Another difference in our thinking is GCR’S which I think influence global cloud cover. The global electrical circuit changes and Forbush events are evidence for this .

        I also think there is a connection between an increase in GCR’S and explosive major volcanic activity which also can influence cloud cover not to mention a different atmospheric configuration pattern during periods of very low solar activity.

        The bottom line is every prolonged solar minimum that I know of has been associated with overall global cooling. This will be no exception.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        Good conversation Ulric. Refreshing.

      • Cheers.
        By putting a trend back into the AMO series, you may see that we could yet see some minor AMO warming during this latter half of a ~40 year warm phase of the AMO envelope. For comparison, 1948 is a reasonable analogue of 2018.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1925/detrend:-0.6

      • Concluding point. The only thing that currently looks outside the norm to me, is solar coronal hole activity remaining strong this far past a sunspot maximum during a centennial solar minimum. The very recent cooling of the North Atlantic is precisely what should be seen with such a positive spike in North Atlantic Oscillation conditions.

  31. To try to elaborate on a prior point:

    Picture by HumanProgress. What of use have we got from climate science? A pocket calculator perhaps? New materials? A new laser maybe? The same goes for the lack of large scale valuable renewables which are a product of climate science. We’ve got an army of loyal climate non-deniers. With that we can call people out and when we see something we can say something like, You’re not in our army.

    Meanwhile the price of TVs are a joke. And they work. And LED monitors are also a price joke. They might as well give them away. People actually provide things that are cheap and reliable. And we fracked. And we grew Corn and Soybeans quite efficiently. And these gasoline using automobiles, actually became pretty good value wise. Lasting 200,000 miles even on the salted roads of Minnesota.

    What good is climate science? I’ll tell you what sea level rise will be. I’ll pick a long time frame, look at the data and draw a liner through with a ruler. Then have some nerd do that least squares thing or something. Next problem? What do you call people who can take an issue, and make a whole career out it?

    Exxon knew. But then they didn’t waste all their money on some pointless pursuit that wasn’t going to deliver anything of value.

  32. So what to make of the snowstorms hitting Wyoming, Montana right now? More global warming?

    • Curious George

      Snow in Alps above 2,000 m elevation.

    • Scott Koontz

      No, but the temps are duly noted. There would have to be extended cold temps in many locations to overcome the G of AGW.

      • Scott Koontz | August 27,
        No, but the temps are duly noted. There would have to be extended cold temps in many locations to overcome the G of AGW
        Javier | August 27, 2018
        The last time the daily global surface average temperature anomaly was this low was in November 2014. The cooling of the planet after the 2015-16 El Niño continues two and a half years after it ended.
        A small start in the only measure to overcome hysteria.

      • 4th warmest Jan-July land & ocean temps. Brrrr. I’m starting to sense what you mean. There were three other years that had a warmer Jan-July in the past 140 years. Are those the years you think will become the end of the warming? Seems a bit too short to be in a climate discussion.

      • Teams that are high on the ladder usually beat the teams that are lower on the ladder . For an obvious reason.

  33. “The Antarctic Ice Sheet response to glacial millennial scale variability”
    Blasco, 2018

    This paper attempts to assess the varying contribution to sea level rise by the AIS on a millenial time scale. It’s focus appears to be solely on the glacier/ocean interface, which is reasonable, but nearly completely ignores findings in recent papers about geothermal activity affecting Ice Sheet dynamics. There was a single sentence referencing geothermal activity in the 2004 paper by Shapiro and Ritzwoller, which in turn had an interesting heat flux map depicting the Pine Island/Thwaites Glaciers region as having the highest concentration of subglacial heat flow measurements on Antarctica.

    The problem is two fold. Over a millennia, geological forces certainly have variability that should be considered along with changing ocean temperatures. And yet the paper appears to treat it as a constant. There is no analysis on how much of the contribution to SLR rise emanates from the subglacial geological processes.

    Secondly, I find it interesting that the area most frequently mentioned as the major source of glacial melting (Pine Island/Thwaites) is also precisely where Shapiro and Ritzwoller identified the highest geothermal heat flux on the continent. But reading the Blasco paper would lead one to conclude that only ocean temperatures are the only variable that should be considered in assessing Ice Sheet contribution to SLR.

  34. One plot:

    Then Kip Hansen has something at WUWT: Why I Don’t Deny: Confessions of a Climate Skeptic — Part 1

    with plots showing the warming starting too early with the big hammer of the PAGES 2k. I think the only thing that can explain the warming by making the models work is CO2. What makes the models work say from 1650 to 1950? I am pretty sure there is a logical explanation to my question.

    Here’s one that I just made up. Low end torque and no top end. All the stuff happens early when sensitivity is extremely high, but then negative feedbacks kick in that are stronger then currently thought. I think this explains a lot.

  35. “Meat, we are told, is bad for the planet. It causes global warming, destroys forests, diverts substantial proportions of the world’s grain for feed, all to produce meat which only wealthy Westerners can afford.”

    “Partly because of these environmental issues, the UK government has a target to increase the amount of permanent pasture in the UK as part of its greening agenda. “The principal aim of the new requirement,” says the Natural England Research Report NERR060, “is to ensure maintenance of grassland as one of the most important carbon sinks for climate change mitigation.””

    http://quillette.com/2018/04/05/case-sustainable-meat/

    What? Eat dairy and beef. Save the planet. This is a solution that the U.K can see.

  36. “During the 1990s, the global climate began to switch to a meridional wind or regionally cool cycle. Evidence of this switch was observed across climate indices, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO, Figure 1), the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the pattern of sea level pressure variation north of 20°N, and the Northern and Southern Annular Modes (NAM and SAM). Each of these indices represent different measures of jet stream behavior in the North Atlantic, northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere, respectively.” http://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833/htm

    This is a much better review – even in terms of readability – placing ENSO as it does in the context of global patterns of winds and currents.

  37. What is the relevance of all this fussing and fractious discussion about climate science, given that global warming would be beneficial overall? Abrupt global cooling is what we should be concerned about – given that we are now past the peak of the current interglacial.

  38. RT @ACSHorg: John Ioannidis, the scientific equivalent of the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse, aims his bazooka at nutrition science. By… 8 hours ago …

    And yet again, John Ioannidis has elected to not to aim his bazooka at climate science, about which he has said god things.

  39. Global sea-level budget 1993–present

    Abstract.

    Global mean sea level is an integral of changes occurring in the climate system in response to un- forced climate variability as well as natural and anthropogenic forcing factors. Its temporal evolution allows changes (e.g., acceleration) to be detected in one or more components. …

    The results presented in this paper are a synthesis of the first assessment performed during 2017– 2018. We present estimates of the altimetry-based global mean sea level (average rate of 3.1 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 and acceleration of 0.1 mm yr−2 over 1993–present), as well as of the different components of the sea-level bud- get (http://doi.org/10.17882/54854, last access: 22 August 2018). We further examine closure of the sea-level budget, comparing the observed global mean sea level with the sum of components. Ocean thermal expansion, glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica contribute 42 %, 21 %, 15 % and 8 % to the global mean sea level over the 1993–present period. We also study the sea-level budget over 2005–present, using GRACE-based ocean mass es- timates instead of the sum of individual mass components. Our results demonstrate that the global mean sea level can be closed to within 0.3 mm yr−1 (1σ ). Substantial uncertainty remains for the land water storage component, as shown when examining individual mass contributions to sea level.

    • Ocean thermal expansion 0.42
      glaciers 0.21
      Greenland 0.15
      Antarctica 0.08
      contributions (of 1.00 total) to the global mean sea level over the 1993-present.

      Where is the remaining 0.14? And glaciers are high torque and no sustain. That problem will solve itself. And think of all the advances in archaeology that brings.

      “and acceleration of 0.1 mm/yr2 over 1993-present…”
      That looked bad. 0.1cm per decade or about 0.25 cm per decade acceleration over 25 years. The stupid “yr2” throws me. Is it 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4….?

      How about in another 25 years our number is 0.50 cm per decade of acceleration? I don’t care. There’s a good chance my math is fail.

      What is closure? There’s nothing left over and you’re not missing anything. What does it mean? It is one check. If I put too much into Greenland of 0.1 and too little into thermal expansion of 0.1 what does that do to closure? Closure doesn’t help.

      If I call something big, Utilities expense instead of Wages, does closure catch that? No. It’s cash spent either way and both are expenses. Closure proves cash but not the categories. So, waving the closure stick around sounds impressive. It is low resolution and not about the higher resolution categories.

      • There’s a good chance my math is fail.

        You might consider adding that to your audit opinions.

      • JCH:

        In order to do audits in Minnesota, you have to prove proficiency every three years I believe. That also applies to reviews and compilations. I don’t do them. I mostly do personal income tax returns. But I can Monday morning quarterback audits with the best of them.

        At your link:
        mm/yr2 I suppose is acceleration. “…acceleration of 0.1 mm/yr2 over 1993-present…” What that means is beyond myself and the Google. Someone may explain it like this: The base of 3.1 mm/yr. 3.1 times 1.03 = Y. Y times 1.03 = Z. Z times 1.03 = A. Continue. We’d get an exponential curve. At your link we could ask, What is their target? Not me. The could have added a chart using their numbers of 0.1 mm/yr2.

    • “”This acceleration, driven mainly by accelerated melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise by 2100 as compared to projections that assume a constant rate, to more than 60 centimeters instead of about 30,” said Nerem, who is also a fellow with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science.”

      https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

      Acceleration is the big stick. The Aha. Don’t forget about acceleration. Color me unimpressed. It’s bad by 2100? We get double the return in 82 years? I’ll bury my money in a coffee can with a return like that. Acceleration is the flip side of the negative monster Godzilla mass of the oceans. If we had tiny oceans, we’d be doomed. With acceleration we need something with impressive optics. A tidal wave would be good. A big one. Fish falling from the sky might work. A dam collapse. If the Mississippi took new route. It’s the hunt for the agile. The more the better.

      We’re looking for the agile climate change that also has sustain. Now and long term. Not a hero, a God mode super hero named I Win. Go back to playing Words with Friends.

      What they said in the quote is good. As long as thermal expansion remains moderate, and it’s water for gosh sake, we’re good. So they go towards the poles and ask, Will this sucker collapse?

    • This paper by Cazenave et al 2018, is an excellent and exhaustive discussion of all the reasons for uncertainty in estimating GMSLR. Those uncertainties begin with the statement that only 0.25% of the 200,000 world glaciers are regularly observed. The challenges in using GIA estimates for the Antarctica Ice Sheet are also discussed in a very forthcoming way. And there is an in depth recitation about the lack of agreement on the land storage component and it only adds to the reasons for questioning how air tight these estimates really are. The above areas and more were analyzed in a very organized and methodical way to present a fair picture of what confronts scientists in making these judgments.

      I commend these authors for discussing in a highly detailed and professional way all the difficulties encountered in arriving at a precise number for SLR.

      For anyone interested in the innumerable uncertainties regarding a specific mm/yr estimate for SLR, I highly recommend reading this paper.

  40. Hi Dr. Curry
    Your new article ‘How to predict Atlantic hurricanes’ shows correspondence of the ACE to warm/cool phases of the AMO

    whereby there is a degree of correlation only during the last cycle.
    In past I have mentioned possible correlation to the Arctic atmospheric pressure with for now an unexplainable lag of 15 years

    I still have no explanation for such delay, but there some examples of ¼ of a cycle (90 degree) delay within periodic oscillations events, as one shown in the above image.

  41. David Wojick

    Regarding the attribution game. here are the folks doing attribution of extreme local events to AGW in near real time (3 days?):
    https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/.
    The press loves this Oxford plus stuff, including NCAR.

    NCAR is also into the attribution prediction game. This just arrived. Note all caps. Shouting the alsrm.
    “IMPACTS OF EL NIÑO AND LA NIÑA TO INTENSIFY AS CLIMATE WARMS
    Changes to precipitation, temperature, and wildfire risk intensify”
    https://news.ucar.edu/132618/impacts-el-nino-and-la-nina-intensify-climate-warms.

    I hate to use the word hoax, but it is getting increasingly harder not to. See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/04/23/the-one-word-hoax-will-versus-might/. Every time a government funded lab tell us what the climate Will Do is arguably a hoax. They have to know that this claim of certainty is certainly false.

  42. “Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age or example—would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.” http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf

    This is the problem for cyclomaniacs the world over. A few eyeballing correspondences between a climate system that evolves nonlineanly with many different internal factors – and an energy input that is almost constant but with limited and imprecise data. There is no possibility of correlation of any statistical power. So you are left with eyeballing and not a clue about dynamic mechanisms that amplify the small solar signal in the Earth system.

    They can get back to me when they have figured that out. Until then I will be an arrogant p…k who is not in a mood to suffer fools.

  43. Salvatore del Prete

    I must say it is striking that each and every time the sun enters a prolonged solar minimum period of activity the global temperatures overall( not in a straight line or not without countertrends) always go down when all is said and done and every time the sun enters a very active phase the global temperatures always go up overall. Again not in a straight line or without some counter trends but overall.

    I can not think of any exceptions.

  44. There is some new cloud data on the CERES data products page since I last checked.

  45. God I am over Jimmy and his 2W/m2 forcing. It is nominally about the difference in forcing between 1750 and now and assumes no response in the system. The increase in forcing is some 0.03W/m2 in a year. Whether that accumulates over time depends on the response times of the system.

    The mathematics of slab ocean responses involves warming to depth have been simplistically calculated on the basis of a largely assumed heat diffusion rate. There are a couple of problems with this idea. Fist the physical dispersion processes are turbulence and convection – fast processes. The second is that current orbital eccentricity results in large annual cycles of ocean warming and cooling that dominates the greenhouse gas signal by orders of magnitude.

    With increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – there is less ocean cooling rather than slow ocean warming. The pipeline is defunct.

    Clouds tell the story with changes emerging from coupled ocean/atmosphere processes predominantly over the tropical and subtropical Pacific. The tropic and subtropics are where all of the warming takes place. Thus we have cloud cover declining in the 21st century from a high point coincident with the 1999/2001 climate shift – as well as more recent cloud decreases associated with the more recent El Nino and an increase since.

    The future Pacific surfaces are likely cooler with more cloud and reduced energy inputs as a result. A reversal of the 1000 year peak in El Nino intensity and frequency that occurred in the 20th century.

    • From the earth’s energy budget (energy in minus energy out equals energy gained).
      CO2 forcing > heat content rise (by a factor of three)
      The remainder is the Planck (surface warming) response (aka global warming).

      • Brainlessly repeating the same misguided narrative endlessly is a waste of everyones’ time. And the Planck response is a large negative feedback.

      • Yes, it is large. Its global warming offsets two thirds of the increased anthropogenic forcing with the ocean heat content taking up the other third of the energy input.

      • The Planck response is -3.2W/m2 per K. It is a negative temperature feedback that tends to shift the planet towards a transient energy balance. And Jim’s simple minded numbers have zilch basis. The assumption that everything is greenhouse gases broke down at first glance a very long time ago now.

        “Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, have offered grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, as well as the short time window of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most
        apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed on the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run. According to this perception, only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow
        records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626

        But I guess a change in Jiminy’s perspective is unlikely.

      • Actually the Planck response ends up being less than that because of positive feedbacks.

      • The number is quoted from the IPCC. Feedbacks are nominally additive and are quoted as a power flux change per degree K change. Feedback values are approximated as linear. Net feedbacks are negative – net is what I imagine you are you are waffling about.

      • The Planck response is the amount of outward radiation increase per degree of surface warming. It is generally less than the black-body value of 3.2 you quoted because the earth doesn’t behave like that due to the positive feedback and intervening atmosphere. This can be obtained from the difference between the forcing and the heat content increase. It is more like 1.6. The only place you would use 3.2 is for a black body.

      • While it is based on the Planck blackbody radiation law (warmer temperatures = higher emission) – the number used for climate is calculated for Earth conditions.

        I am convinced Jiminy makes these things up on the spot.

        http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Climate+forcing+and+feedback

      • The way to see it is that feedbacks mute the Planck Response so the term proportional to temperature is less than 3.2, more like 1.6 in this case.

    • Jiminy doesn’t do science citations or data. He has one almighty number that he misapplies as explained above – and words.

      • “From the earth’s energy budget (energy in minus energy out equals energy gained).
        CO2 forcing > heat content rise (by a factor of three)
        The remainder is the Planck (surface warming) response (aka global warming).”
        You diverted instead of saying which part you disagree with in this.
        dF = dH/dt + lambda*dTs
        Forcing change = heat content change + response term

      • “Feedbacks are measured in units of watts per square meter per degree, denoted W/m2/K. The Planck feedback is called λ0, and the sum of the rest is called λ. The definition of feedback is

        T=−F/(λ0+λ)

        where T is the change in temperature caused by a small radiative forcing F..”

        Elementary geophysics that you get wrong. The shallow end of the pool. Don’t drown Jiminy. There is a big picture.

      • Did you notice that the feedback term in the denominator mutes the Planck term? The earth is less effective than a black body at radiating excess heat. I think you are not quite getting it yet.

      • Feedbacks are additive – as with the AR5 graph supplied. This is just positive and negative feedbacks typical of the complex Earth system. Blackbodies are irrelevant. The number – -3.2 W/m2/K – emerges from the CMIP ensembles. Whatever the theoretical inadequacies of opportunistic ensembles – they are not modelling black bodies.

        Jiminy goes to astonishing lengths to defend and divert from his blatant errors.

      • That number does not emerge because it is an ideal limit that is input as the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The number that emerges is the total λ including feedbacks.

      • The number is given by his IPCC bible – as shown above – among other Earth feedbacks. Jiminy makes blatant errors – made up on the spot – on trivial points – cannot backtrack an iota – and is incapable of even contemplating complexity and uncertainty. Is this atypical or the typical progressive global warming mindset?

      • You seem to not know the part of physics where you can calculate 3.2 W/m2/K with just the S-B constant and the temperature and effective emissivity near 0.6.

      • I seem to not know this fundamental physical equation? That’s the exponentially increasing – to the 4th power – emission bit in the top right hand corner of the IPCC graphic.

      • Do you know how 3.2 W/m2/K is calculated and why it doesn’t need a model run to know its value? You said it emerges from the model. It doesn’t. It uses fundamental values and one formula to calculate it.

      • But then the IPCC gives it as CMIP means. Have you stopped claiming it is 1.6 W/m2/K?

      • They all agree on the Planck response because they use the same physics constants and the surface and effective TOA temperatures are constrained by observations in all the models too.

      • I corrected you when you say 3.2 emerged from the models. You can calculate it just as well without models, of course.

      • “Formally:

        R = F – λdTs + dH

        R= TOA imbalance
        F= Forcing
        λ= feedback parameter
        H= ocean heat content
        Ts = surface temperature”

        The energy imbalance is equal to forcing less the planetary response plus ocean heat change. Elementary geophysics that are baby steps steps to understanding climate. It is the first terms on the right hand side that are of relevance to your misuse of the forcing concept. Mind you – calculating feedbacks – other than the Planck response – is not simple.

        Which bit do you disagree with? And your assumption that this is all that is happening in climate is very silly indeed.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        I say the recent warming was all natural. Remember the climatic shift in the late 1970’s .Think about it the oceans warmed (not in response to CO2) , El NINO’S were more prevalent and both the AMO/PDO were in a warm mode, lack of major volcanic activity ,positive AO/NAO, not to mention the sun was strong enough back then to still be in an active mode which contributed to the warming.

        I say this has now transitioned. It started in year 2005 and the transition I think was completed in late 2017..

        I say now we are in a position for another climatic shift but this time to colder as opposed to the 1970’s warmth.

        AGW has simply hi jacked natural warming events since the Little Ice Age ended. I think this has changed in late 2017.

      • At the paradigm level of the fundamental mode of operation of the climate system there are a couple of options. Climate is unchanging unless acted on by a large enough external forcing or climate evolves dynamically exhibiting deterministic chaotic behavior. The latter is quite obviously the more correct notion.

        Somewhat ironically – I think that solar UV in the Hale cycle triggers the 20 to 30 year quasi periodic shifts in the Earth system. The mechanism involves modulation of surface pressure at the poles through atmospheric pathways (e.g. Ineson et al 2015). This drives ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns and coherent changes in Earth albedo in both hemispheres. These patterns shift abruptly as in the ‘great Pacific climate shift’ of 1976/77. Lower solar activity leads to increased polar surface pressures that bias the system to cooler conditions – dramatically in high northern latitudes.

        A shift is due in the next decade – but where to and how much is not predictable.

      • RIE, the formula you showed has terms with different units, so you need to explain how you have heat content and forcing in the same formula. Check your source.

      • Jimmy is wrong on the simple details and ignorant of the bigger picture.

      • Most people only have three terms in that equation because the imbalance is part of the heat content rate of change by energy conservation laws.

      • What you have is that the change in forcing is equal to ocean heat change plus the change in emissions.

        More simply we have the change in forcing less the change in emissions is equal to ocean heat change. The energy retained is not energy from a 2 W/m2 forcing – as you tediously and erroneously insist. Nothing radically wrong with the idea – but it is conceptual cartoon math.

      • Huh? Emissions don’t come into this formula. What we have integrated over time is the change in forcing, mostly CO2, (3 units) equals the change in heat content, mostly ocean, (1 unit) plus the part offset by the atmospheric and surface warming response (2 units).

      • You have confused energy emissions at toa with GGE. It is obvious in context.

      • By “emissions” you meant “response” then. The forcing minus the response is the change in heat content. Correct. And the forcing is larger than both, which is important to realize.

      • The use of the term emissions for IR – which is what we are talking about with the Planck response on Earth – as opposed to wherever Jiminy hails from – is commonplace. IR emissions increase exponentially – to the fourth power – which is what – inter alia – drives the planet to a transient energy (at toa) equilibrium.

      • Emissions in climate means adding GHGs. Maybe you mean outgoing net radiation. And it is not the change in that because the forcing from CO2 also changes that, and the point is the forced change is larger than the response change.

      • Emissions in physics…. e.g. http://www.elstein.com/en/quick-links/technology-center/emission-and-absorption/

        “Time is an ocean but it ends at the shore” – Bob Dylan. As has my amusement at Jiminy’s climate doggerel.

      • Note singular – emission. Emissions plural has a different common use.

      • Besides, the response includes some shortwave from albedo changes, and the word “emission” does not apply there.

      • The shoty answer – if such is possible with Jiminy – is that as explained the discussion was on the Planck response – that in the Earth system is IR. Just another pointless and trivial quibble.

      • Yes, the lambda response term includes not only the Planck response but feedbacks which includes albedo effects.

      • Wow – that’s news Jiminy.

      • If you have realized that the response is more than the Planck response by now, good for you. You were prattling something about emissions before, and that needed correcting.

      • And again – this is an incorrect interpretation of the most basic of geophysics. The Planck response – emerging from Planks physics of blackbody radiation – changes exponentially to the fourth power with temperature and will overcome a forcing in the time it takes the planet to reach a transient equilibrium. Energy equilibrium at toa. Transient because everything is deterministically, dynamically complex.

        And again – this pattern of the progressive climate pathology. In Jiminy’s case his science is so limited – and much worse IMO communicated in bad faith – and the corollary is always deprecation.

      • No Bobbie, I am saying that the Planck response is only part of the total response, and you are ignoring the rest of it which is key to understanding what is going on.

      • It is Bob or Bobby – but spell it right. I refer you back to the AR5 graphic I showed – and agree with science that there is much else happening in the Earth system.

      • You need to check your assumptions and your misuse of the the forcing concept. And not quibble about a calculus you don’t understand.

        dH is quite evidently unit energy and is consistent with the other terms. These are elementary calculations. And you are missing the most important term term entirely – energy imbalance at toa. Without which there is no warming or cooling.

        But the relevant terms here are –

        (F – λdTs)

        – the forcing minus the planetary response – the residual forcing after after the planet warms or cools.

        This is your error – 2W/m2 is not the additional energy entering the system – the increase is 0.03 W/m2 per year – 1E-9 W/m2 per second from memory – and whether this accumulates at toa to appreciable imbalances depends on the response times of the system. Most of this forcing change is rapidly radiated back into space.

        And of course λ includes the -3.2W/m2/K Planck response.

        But this is simply illustrative. Such simple math cannot be definitive. The more definitive equation is the global first differential energy budget equation.

        Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Energy in – Energy out

        And this can only be systematically evaluated – and the source of changes identified – with TOA radiant flux data.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/06/10/a-maximum-entropy-climate-earth-in-transient-energy-equilibrium-2/

        Your trite little quibbles remain both irrelevant and wrong.

    • Salvatore del Prete

      Robert sound and right reasoning. You have it correct.

    • There is a lot of ice on earth. When ice thaws, it causes cooling, none of you consider that properly. When more ice is reflecting and “thawing”, earth is colder, when less ice is reflecting and “thawing”, earth is warmer. The reflecting (albedo) is considered, but the thawing is not. Thawing is as much as reflecting. Maybe some more or some less, but in the ballpark.

      NONE OF YOU CONSIDER THAT!

    • I do not mean the total cooling from thawing is as much as the total albedo.

      I mean that between cold and warm times, the change in cooling from albedo and thawing is about the same, same order of magnitude.

      Everyone ignores the cooling from thawing. Ice ages are colder due to more reflecting and thawing. Warm times are warmer due to less reflecting and thawing.

  46. More good news.
    Reconstructing 800 years of summer temperatures in Scotland from tree rings

    http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/146204/

    Supports the LIA and not the warmest ever in Scotland. So much winning. I have also been reading Kip Hansen over at WUWT. I think he’s got a wedge. It started warming too early. It seems that further back in time is their weakness. Let’s go back to this:

    I didn’t say explain the system since 1950. I said explain the system. They throw out huge time frames.

    • “Reconstructing 800 years of summer temperatures in Scotland from tree rings”
      So tree-ring data is good then?

      • Except when someone is hiding the decline.

      • I’d rather not get into the hockey stick saga. There is a tendency to use paleo that supports one’s side. I am still trying to figure out how the CMIPs do with 1750 – 1950?

        Say for instance they work from 1950 going forward. It would be interesting to see them catch the breakpoint where it starts warming (1750 – 1850?). And I suppose they’ve already done that. We’ve heard what the CMIPs can do. I don’t want to hear what they can’t do.

        One may say I ask for a lot. I think policymakers should expect a lot.

      • Their published r^2 values are in the 50 to 60 range. I would say not so good.

      • Tree ring data is good for that spot, and temperature is “one” of the parameters that can influence growth.

    • AR5 put some weight on about the year 1950 in 2014. The climate was not 64 years old then. And the Earth is not 6000 years old.

      “Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.…”

      “This ecumenical council was the first effort to attain consensus in the Church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.”

    • There are some archaeologists that try to find proof that the Bible is somewhat true.

      “Ya’akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua (English translation: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”) is cut into one side of the box.”

      There are some paleontologists the try to find proof that CO2 is the keystone.

  47. “Professor Tsonis, I appreciate you taking the time to write this thorough email to me. I hope you appreciate that I still need to take a hard look at it and explore it’s flaws and misdirections. Deep down, besides publicizing your various misdirections – I hope to encourage you to rethink your attitude toward how you discuss climate change.”

    This is of course a self-confessed uneducated activist condescending to instruct Distinguished Professor Emeritus Anastasios Tsonis in the fine points of geophysics. And the reason I raise it is the attitude of Jiminy in condescending to instruct skeptics in elemental geophysics – getting that wrong – and otherwise paddling about at the shallow end of the science pool. Rescuing science from this dynamic is going to take some doing.

  48. To add to my above, started by Scottish paleo. We just keep recycling in the same stories. We used to have just the Old Testament of the Bible. Then it happened. We realized what it was. We now have the New Testament of the Bible, where CO2 which is not Jesus is Satan. Jesus was sacrificed to save us from our sins. CO2 is a fallen Angel or something and we are Jesus. Or CO2 is the Golden Calf. Who knows? Let’s just stick with the Old Testament.

  49. It’s all go in Arctic circles at the moment! Tamino tells us that:

    “The bottom line is that any way you look at it, the Arctic is warming faster than the globe as a whole, and saying it’s “twice as fast” is quite an understatement.”

    Meanwhile The Indy recently published this:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/arctic-sea-ice-melting-warm-water-trapped-polar-canada-yale-university-perfect-a8513176.html

    You’ve guessed it I expect?

    “The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the global average”!

    However the Indy article also mentions that:

    “A warm region of water trapped deep below the surface of the Arctic seas north of Canada has the potential to leave the entire area devoid of ice.

    Scientists have discovered warmer water that originated hundreds of miles away has penetrated deep below the ice pack’s surface.”

    That’s based on “research that was published in the journal Science Advances”:

    http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaat6773.

    • The problem as always is the breathless lack of context. Not something one discuss reasonably with people like Jim Hunt or Ken Rice. The question to be resolved is the globally coupled internal sea ice dynamic and its future evolution. A scientific world away from the Arctic ice meme as a poster child for AGW propaganda.

      A real sea ice page can be found here.

      http://www.climate4you.com/

      Jim is one of those that the science of Earth system geophysics needs saving from.

      • I bring you exciting news of probably several learned journal papers in the making regarding the Lincoln Shelf and thereabouts.

        I add some icing on the cake with a new paper regarding the Chukchi Shelf and thereabouts.

        You post a graph regarding the other side of the Arctic twice and blather on about a “breathless lack of context” twice.

        Why is that Robert?

      • You bob about in the shallow end of the geophysics pool for confirmation that AGW is real and dangerous. I point out that a deep historic context is required to make sense of any of it – that you dismiss out of hand for spurious reasons twice now. Your purpose is not discussion in good faith but point scoring in some silly game you and your fellow travelers indulge in. You are not a person I care to even attempt a reasonable discussion with. You blew it at first contact. I have already told you this – and yet you insinuate that the problem is mine. Why is that Jimmy?
        Like Gavin – I just don’t see any upside in talking to you as opposed to at you.

      • “Robert I. Ellison | August 29, 2018 at 4:10 pm
        The problem as always is the breathless lack of context. Not something one can discuss reasonably with people like Jim Hunt or Ken Rice. “
        A little forbearance and tolerance helps, you can always start out discussions reasonably with them.
        Jim loves to argue from cherry picking and loves to argue.
        Ken is on a long, slow voyage of discovery.
        Both are polite.
        Like most warmists they are scientifically very literate but very fixated in their beliefs due to their strong social consciences . Something that might cause them pain in years to come if they ever realise that there is legitimate room for doubt.
        Not a thought that anyone with a religion, warmist and some skeptics, can afford.

      • Sorry you are talking about the wrong Arctic postcode? Hilarious. And just like Gavin I am out of forbearance.

      • Robert,

        Jim cited an article talking about what is happening in one part of the Arctic ocean and you reply with a graph from the opposite side of the Arctic ocean.

        It wasn’t about the Kara and Barents seas.

      • Sometimes I should refresh the page before I post, so I don’t make nearly the exact comment as another poster.

      • Robert I Ellison: Your purpose is not discussion in good faith but point scoring in some silly game you and your fellow travelers indulge in. You are not a person I care to even attempt a reasonable discussion with.

        When you respond to something you think false (or true, on other occasions) write for the larger audience, not to persuade those whom you respond to.

    • This is one of the predictions of AGW.

      It’s also worth noting, though, that also as predicted by AGW, most of the warming is in winter, even some cooling in summer ( latent heat shift ):

      There is evidence that at least some of the ice decrease was dynamic ( anomalously more ice suicidally wandering equator-ward ).

      What percentage was dynamic? What remainder is AGW? What will be the new normal of dynamic loss?

      Interesting questions to watch.

    • Jim

      What evidence do you have that the same oceanic dynamics were not at play in the Arctic during the 1910-40 period when similar temperatures and sea ice conditions existed?

      • Please show me some learned journal papers that support your assertion that “During the 1910-40 period similar temperatures and sea ice conditions existed”

        Some hitherto unreleased images of Kap Morris Jesup snapped by Henry Larsen from the bridge of RCMPV St. Roch perhaps?

      • I have shown you historic data for the 20th century – as well as the 700 year reconstruction you have such little regard for.

      • https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

        The problem with getting in discussions with you and others who haven’t done their homework is that then we have to go back through the innumerable bookmarks to make you aware of what you should have been aware of already. I have hundreds of bookmarks on the Arctic and I am not going back and read them again because you are unaware of what the rest of us know. The warm Arctic during this period is not even controversial. What is debatable is how warm and how small the sea Ice extent was. I grant that issue.

        But my question was do you have papers or scientific studies to show these dynamics were not present during the 1910-40 period. Do your damn homework.

      • “Please show me some learned journal papers that support your assertion that “During the 1910-40 period similar temperatures and sea ice conditions existed”

        The are trends, not absolute temperatures.
        Effects of AGW and dynamic ice fluctuation are not mutually exclusive.
        But seasonal temperature trends do support the notion of Arctic Sea Ice loss from 1910 through 1945:

      • I’ve done my homework CK.

        Similar temperatures and sea ice conditions did not exist “during the 1910-40 period”. Period.

      • Robert – FYI you have yet to explain what on Earth a reconstruction of Kara & Barents Sea extent from 1289 to 1993 has to do with the Lincoln Sea and thereabouts in 2018.

        P.S. https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/G10010_SIBT1850.pdf

      • Go to the relevant climate4you page – but I won’t be repeating this for you.

      • Wrong arctic postcode FFS?

      • Robert – Even with the assistance of the Great God Google I can find no reference to the Lincoln Sea in Ole’s Arctic compendium, let alone Kap Morris Jesup.

      • “Similar temperatures and sea ice conditions did not exist “during the 1910-40 period”. Period.”

        This sounds a little dogmatic.

        The satellite data from 1910 through 1940 is a little sparse.
        Even the thermometer data from 1910 through 1940 is a little sparse.

        The thermometer data which does exist indicates a significantly greater winter warming during this time which is very consistent with increased latent heat of freezing which in turn is consistent with less ice to begin with.

        That doesn’t mean AGW and dynamic fluctuation are mutually exclusive.

        But enthusiasts may have to give back some of the hysteria over ice loss should Arctic Sea Ice revert to the mean.

        Of course, I’ve been waiting for that for a while now, and the wait continues.

      • TE – Forget about temperatures. Let’s stick with sea ice conditions in 2018 for the moment shall we?

        I eagerly await evidence of anything even remotely similar “from 1910 through 1940”.

      • Jim

        So let me answer my question for you. You don’t have any evidence that the same water conditions have not existed previously. Just like everything else, warmists believe what ever conditions existing now are unprecedented. They have no evidence that conditions are unprecedented, they just want to believe it. It sounds so good.

      • “TE – Forget about temperatures. Let’s stick with sea ice conditions in 2018 for the moment shall we?”

        Your quote: “Similar temperatures and sea ice conditions did not exist “during the 1910-40 period”. Period.”

        There isn’t much sea ice data to compare, certainly nothing like the coverage since satellites. But there is some temperature data and the seasonal signature of temperature trend indicates there was reduced sea ice during the period.

      • Robert – Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

        Can I safely assume that you haven’t read Tamino recently?

        “Some global temperature estimates (e.g. that from HadCRU) simply omit much of the Arctic,”

        If you prefer a slightly more authoritative source try:

        http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/background.html

        “The Met Office temperature record, HadCRUT4, is widely quoted as a measure of global warming. However observations are only available for about 84% (five sixths) of the planet. The omitted region includes the Arctic, which is warming much faster than the rest of the planet.”

        http://greatwhitecon.info/2016/12/post-truth-global-and-arctic-temperatures/
        Now, can we get back to those hitherto unreleased images of Kap Morris Jesup snapped by Henry Larsen?

      • From IPCC AR5 , Chapter 10

        Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s (Ahlmann, 1948; Veryard, 1963; Hegerl et al., 2007a; Hegerl et al., 2007b). The early 20th century warm period, while reflected in the hemispheric average air temperature record (Brohan et al., 2006), did not appear consistently in the mid-latitudes nor on the Pacific side of the Arctic (Johannessen et al., 2004; Wood and Overland, 2010). Polyakov et al. (2003) argued that the Arctic air temperature records reflected a natural cycle of about 50–80 years. However, many authors (Bengtsson et al., 2004; Grant et al., 2009; Wood and Overland, 2010; Brönnimann et al., 2012) instead link the 1930s temperatures to internal variability in the North Atlantic atmospheric and ocean circulation as a single episode that was sustained by ocean and sea ice processes in the Arctic and north Atlantic. The Arctic wide temperature increases in the last decade contrast with the episodic regional increases in the early 20th century, suggesting that it is unlikely that recent increases are due to the same primary climate process as the early 20th century.

        Turning to model based attribution studies, Min et al. (2008b) compared the seasonal evolution of Arctic sea ice extent from observations with those simulated by multiple GCMs for 1953–2006. Comparing changes in both the amplitude and shape of the annual cycle of the sea ice extent reduces the chance of spurious detection due to coincidental agreement between the response to anthropogenic forcing and other factors, such as slow internal variability. They found that human influence on the sea ice extent changes has been robustly detected since the early 1990s. The anthropogenic signal is also detectable for individual months from May to December, suggesting that human influence, strongest in late summer, now also extends into colder seasons. Kay et al. (2011b), Jahn et al. (2012) and Schweiger et al. (2011) used the climate model (CCSM4) to investigate the influence of anthropogenic forcing on late 20th century and early 21st century Arctic sea ice extent and volume trends. On all timescales examined (2–50+ years), the most extreme negative extent trends observed in the late 20th century cannot be explained by modeled internal variability alone. Comparing trends from the CCSM4 ensemble to observed trends suggests that internal variability could account for approximately half of the observed 1979–2005 September Arctic sea ice extent loss.

      • Dear CK,

        I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but we’re in the 2010s now?

        From one of my previous references:

        https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/cowtan_way.jpg?w=500&h=333

        That’s “for the region from latitude 64°N to the pole, which we’ll call the Arctic”

      • That didn’t work well! How about this?

      • August 1958 Submarine surfacing at the North Pole. Could it have surfaced today?

      • Is that the best you can come up with CK? It seems that you’re just as foolish as young Christopher! Would you care to view my pre-buttal too?

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2018/08/uss-skate-at-the-north-pole-truth-and-fiction/

        Here’s a proper picture of the first sub to surface “at” the North Pole:

      • Looks like a submarine would have difficulty surfacing today.

      • There is no proper picture of the submarine at the North Pole. The 1958 picture shows open water.

        And then we have Greenland SMB which for second year in a row has made massive gains. Volume of Arctic Sea Ice higher than 2008. Greenland SMB growing. Bad times for the warmist narrative.

      • So now we’re treated to the good old Gish gallop!

        Whatever the cunningly constructed caption may state that picture of a sub in a spot of open water wasn’t snapped at the North Pole.

        How might one phrase it? Perhaps you should go away and do your homework? All you have to do is click my link!

      • “The 1910-40 warming rate was at least as great as 1980-2008”

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL042793

      • https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3241

        Internal Variability May be responsible for 30-50% of the Semester sea ice decline since 1979.

      • cerescokid, the Greenland SMB uses a model based on snowfall and surface processes and excludes calving and glaciers running into the ocean where the mass loss occurs, and there is a net year-on-year mass loss. It is more informative to look at the total mass trend rather than the SMB budget.

      • Your point is of course pertinent Jim.

        However perhaps you are allowing CK et al. too much leeway to Gish gallop away from the subject of Arctic SEA ice?

      • JimD

        No, it is just as informative to explain that one component of the equation is increasing. If it was falling you would have been fine to show only this part. Of course I could bring out the studies discussing the geothermal activity that is influencing some of the marine terminating glaciers but that is another issue for another day.

      • https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13260

        Substantial portion of warming in NE Canada and Greenland from unforced natural variability.

      • “The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C. Whether this event is an example of an internal climate mode or is externally forced, such as by enhanced solar effects, is presently under debate. This study suggests that natural variability is a likely cause, with reduced sea ice cover being crucial for the warming”

        Bengtsson et al 2004

      • I am always more interested in the total. The other component could be increasing faster and you wouldn’t even know. Plus, the total is based on measurements of the total mass and that is what affects sea level rise rates.

      • Jim Hunt

        I hope I’ve helped with your education of the facts about the 1910-40 warm period in the Arctic. You know the one I’m talking about, the one you said didn’t exist. There are times that warmists get uncomfortable facing up to reality. More studies of course are available for your edification if desired.

        I feel it’s my civic duty to bring light wherever there is darkness l

      • Watt are you babbling on about CK?

        I’ve posted several graphs that show it existed! They also show that the recent warming has reached greater heights.

        Your spreading FUD, not light. All IMHO of course.

      • What insight, Jim! In a gently warming world, today is warmer than yesterday.

    • Tamino is hardly a go to man for sensible comment or information, Jim. He betrays his mild mathematical knowledge with supremely biased cherry picks, then uses derogatory language to anyone with the temerity to dispute him.
      For your information some warmer waters and currents at depths are nothing new all over the world, not just the Arctic and not just recently.
      A little science would tell you that the coldest water must be just under and adjacent to the ice, that is why the ice forms and melts there.
      Further Tamino, less his soul, has no effect or profound insight on arctic warming being twice as fast or more than global. This is another boring rehash of well known facts.
      It is equally true that arctic cooling is twice as fast or more than global by dint of the same poorly explained mechanisms.
      One can only speculate that since arctic volume and extent is currently mildly increasing that the arctic must currently be going through one of its cooling twice as fast or more than global phases over the last 3 months!
      Correct?

      • The gist of it is that the deep water in the Arctic is warming, and that may explain why the sea ice is not in a state of rapid decline.

        Arctic volume and extent are not increasing over the last three months.

        Tamino must have a better grasp of the facts than you do.

      • bobdroege | August 30, 2018 at 11:07 am |
        “The gist of it is that the deep water in the Arctic is warming, and that may explain why the sea ice is not in a state of rapid decline.”

        Due to a little known scientific phenomenon known as conduction warming deep water should lead to warming surface water and hence to ice melting.
        Is that so hard to understand?
        Did you bother to read Jim Hunt’s breathless
        “The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the global average! (Causing melting). A warm region of water trapped deep below the surface of the Arctic seas north of Canada has the potential to leave the entire area devoid of ice.”

        “Arctic volume and extent are not increasing over the last three months.”

        Compared to the recent previous years they are Bob. Everyone except you knows it is Summer.

        Tamino must have a better grasp of the facts than you do.

        In his case this just means he has is able to twist and distort facts better.

      • angech – Timmermans and Krishfield are not noobs, and they’re not Tamino either.

        Aren’t you an AO fan?

  50. “The US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) said a decision to reduce the EPZ would be a “potential regulatory breakthrough” that could accelerate future deployment of SMRs and advanced reactors. Such recognition of the enhanced safety features of small and advanced reactors could “greatly simplify the licensing of these technologies and increase their cost competitiveness”, it said.

    TVA’s application uses information from four SMR designs – BWXT’s mPower, Holtec International’s SMR-160, NuScale Power’s SMR, and Westinghouse’s SMR – to provide the technical basis for a requested exemption to the ten-mile EPZ requirement currently in use. The most detailed information was provided on the NuScale SMR, for which a design certification application was submitted to the NRC in January 2017. According to the application, the enhanced safety characteristics of those designs, such as smaller reactor cores, simpler systems, and built-in passive safety features, mean that off-site emergency planning requirements and plans can be scaled down to be proportionate with those reduced risks.

    NRC staff found TVA’s proposed dose-based, consequence-oriented methodology to be a “reasonable technical basis” for determining EPZ size, consistent with the basis used to determine that for large light water reactors, NEI said.” http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-regulators-agree-smaller-SMR-emergency-zones?feed=feed

    At the paradigm level atmospheric carbon dioxide is a control variable that could initiate abrupt and unpredictable change in the Earth system. The theory that defines the principle mode of operation of the climate system is catastrophe theory rather than AGW.

    But then – carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is far from an intractable problem that requires dismantling of democracy and capitalism. There are dozens of technologies evolving across sectors – and not just power generation. Including land use – where even a 20% restoration of carbon to soils and ecosystems of the 500 GtC lost (Rattan Lal) since the advent of agriculture is an immense transfer between carbon stores. Something that is being done and is vital for many reasons. Whatever the imagined virtues of carbon in the atmosphere are – it is much better returned to soils and ecosystems.

    The alternative is social, economic and environmental disaster. Perhaps we should put those advocating this on trial for crimes against decency, common sense and humanity.

  51. This ought to be good:

    Before and after 1950 increases.

    CO2: +20 ppm +100 ppm

    BEST: +0.75 +1.00

    The too early warming came from only a 20 ppm rise. It appears CO2 has done its best and is now in diminishing returns. To review. CO2 has extreme torque and sensitivity is extremely high at lower levels. Then it just had its party and is hung over and you need to juice the climate with large doses of CO2 to get it to do much.

    The IPCC thinks something with its banner statement on climate sensitivity. This statement doesn’t take into account the above. Now take its banner statement about climate sensitivity and plug it into the CMIPs. And start them up in 1750.

    Now it could be there was a tipping point for the climate in 1950. Perhaps meaning that CO2 didn’t do anything a GHG doesn’t usually do. But the climate tipped in response to the warming to become less sensitive to more CO2. For instance, the oceans said, We’ll see about this. CO2 is a thing. A gas. The climate is some big hulking unpredictable enigma. But not necessarily life hating.

    The response since 1950 has muted compared to before. Do you believe my above numbers?

    • The forcing before 1950 was significant because it goes as a log. Lovejoy plots log CO2 as a forcing proxy against the long-term temperature and it follows a straight enough line that you would expect they are closely related.

      • The statistical correlation is negligible because there is much else happening in climate.

      • 93% correlation. That’s a lot of denial to do.

      • Eh – no. And it adds nothing to the recognition that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. What it does show is other things happening in surface temperature.

      • Like El Ninos, yes, indeed. That’s why it is not 100%.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Jim D,
        By your logic, a change from 2 to 4 ppm has the same effect as 20 to 40 and the same as 200 to 400 ppm.
        Somewhere on this scale it fails because there is simply not enough CO2 to do the job. Think 2 to 4 molecules.
        What is the concentration of CO2 to be enough?
        Should a hard scientist derive this early on, to avoid doubt?
        Rather than working in ratios so that mass can be dropped out of the equations in case it is embarrassing?
        Note that I am not saying that we have a problem, I am asking you to demonstrate by physics that we do not. That is not the same as demonstrating with models or correlations. Demonstrate it with first principles physics, Jim. Geoff

      • 93% correlation. That’s a lot of denial

        The earth warmed into the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods without the CO2, it is not part of the current warming, it is not more now than it was back then, if you use actual real data. The more CO2 helps green things grow, it does not control temperature or sea level control.

        Abundant Water, in all of its phases, takes care of the temperature and sea level control.

      • Adding CO2 has been a major warming factor during volcanic episodes in paleoclimate, but this is still little known among skeptics for some reason. Permian-Triassic for example.

      • Warm periods have been warmer than this over the past ten thousand years. Exceed those and then try to brag about CO2. You have no actual real data to support the alarmism! Model output is not data.

      • We have not had a 1 degree rise in a century before, and that is where we are now and counting. This just at the same time as CO2 has increased by 40% on its way to a doubling.

      • Jim D:
        I looked at it some more and followed your Lovejoy suggestion. While the division date between before and after is something to look at, you’ve made a good point.

    • “To review. CO2 has extreme torque and sensitivity is extremely high at lower levels. Then it just had its party and is hung over and you need to juice the climate with large doses of CO2 to get it to do much.”

      Why do you attribute rises in GMT’s prior to 1950 as being due to CO2?
      There is NV, and it was dominant then.
      It’s just a coincidence that the PDO/ENSO was +ve up to 1950 then switched suddenly -ve. GMT’s following?
      See how latterly cooler SST’s just cause a “pause” in warming.

      -ve forcing where v close to cancelling +ve forcing until after 1950 to boot.

  52. And now time for the next monthly temperature reports, Snowing in Australia and Italy the last few days but fires everywhere the rest of the month. JCH quiet again.
    Arctic Sea Ice blog very quiet.
    Like the Stockmarket. Which way will it break?

  53. A new reconstruction (ice cores & tree rings) shows Arctic sea ice extent in the Barents-Kara Seas region may be the lowest in nearly 1000 years

    “nearly 1000 years”!!!!
    Exactly, we are in another natural normal and necessary warm period. Climate changes in natural cycles and we did not cause the Medieval Warm Period and we are not causing the Modern Warm Period.

    • Warm times with thawed Arctic is necessary to rebuild ice on Greenland.
      It does not snow much there when the Arctic is frozen. Ice on Greenland depletes when the Arctic is frozen. Ice on Greenland is replenished when the Arctic is thawed. Dr Curry, do you disagree with this?

  54. I look forward to reading your reasons I am wrong!
    There are three methods of heat transfer. They are conduction, convection, and radiant heat. Heat transfer to or from the earth can only be done by radiant. All material contains heat and is radiating it to cooler surfaces or absorbing it from warmer surfaces. The difference is the heat gain or loss of the material.
    The earth gains heat radiated from the sun and loses heat it radiates to outer space, called black sky radiation. Outer space is considered absolute zero.
    The amount of radiant heat hitting the earth from the sun daily is relatively constant. The radiant heat lost daily by the earth thru black sky radiation is constant since absolute zero is constant. The amount of heat gained by the earth’s surface depends on the surface area of the earth covered by water relative to that covered by land. Land area absorbs a larger percent of the radiant heat relative to the water area since the surface of the water reflects a percentage of the radiant heat back to outer space. The daily access heat, or loss of heat, is transferred to the oceans thru conduction and convection where it works its way to the poles and it freezes water adding to the polar ice caps or melts the polar ice caps thus keeping the surface temperature of the oceans, thus the earth, relatively constant. As the polar ice caps grow or melt, the surface area of the earth covered by land relative to that covered by water changes. This is the definition of global warming. I call it Global Ice making and Global Ice Melting.
    That radiant heat absorbed by oceans and land masses is transferred to the atmosphere thru conduction and convection. When it is winter in one hemisphere it is summer in the other and the same with spring and fall. I would think the average temperature of the lower 5,000 feet of the atmosphere changes about 10’F to20’F each day. This probably takes more heat than man has added to the earth in the last 50 years. That heat man adds to the atmosphere each day is radiated to the black sky and the infinitesimal amount left helps melt the ice during global warming, should be called Global Ice Melting.
    Absolute Zero is -459.68’F and the average surface temperature of the sun is between 7,300’F and 10,000’F. If we could go back in time 18,000 years, the end of the last ice age, we would probable see that the average daily temperature of the earth was in the mid 60’F as it is today. You must understand the amount of heat gained every 24 hours is almost equal to that lost during the same 24 hours. Angle of the earth’s axis is 23.5’.
    The average surface temperature of the earth is about 63.5’f. The heat loss to black sky radiation every 24 hours is constant. The average radiant heat striking the surface of the earth is relatively constant. Because the sun is an active star the average temperature will change over centuries. As the surface area of the earth covered by water increases, the more radiant heat is reflected back to the black sky increases. When the daily radiant heat gained by the earth from the sun in 24 hours became less than that lost by black sky radiation we began ice making. Looking at the ice core from the Antarctic we can see that the earth began the new Ice Age about 18,000 years ago.
    The Weather Channel just had a piece on a very large section of ice is about to break off a peninsula in the Antarctic. This is be because of the fact that 18,000 years ago the earth switched from Global Ice Melting to Global Ice Making. Since then the Ocean levels may have dropped a foot and the ice has risen around 250 meters in the Antarctic. It seems like that would be a tremendous amount of leverage attempting to break off that ice. The Ocean level was some 400’ lower at the changeover and the 39’ water has been melting the bottom of that ice shelf for the last 73,000 years as the ocean rose. The shoreline has been receding below the glacier for 80+ thousand years. During Global Ice Making, the thickness of the ice, which eventually becomes a glacier is getting thinner from the bottom and replaced with 39’F water. The weight of the new ice is what makes it become a glacier and break off.
    The Arctic ice core chart also shows the top 500’ is the beginning of the man’s discovery of fire, thus the increase of CO2 percentage rise in the atmosphere. The chart also shows that as the ocean level drops the CO2 level in the atmosphere drops. This is because the land surface area grows, thus the green foliage increases, thus the photosynthesis, which is how nature removes the CO2 from the atmosphere, lowers the CO2 level. Oceans were about 400’ lower than they are now at the peak of the ice age and global ice melting began. The last ice age lasted about 120 thousand years. That means it took about 60 thousand years to melt the ice, thus the oceans rose an average of 6.67 feet per thousand years.
    The only thing I haven’t explained is how they get the date of the end of the Ice ages. It has to do with the ice melting from the top down. They say the last Ice Age ended about 18 thousand years ago. I say that point was ice deposited before the peak of the ice making and which was about 80+ thousand years ago.
    As the ice melts the water flashes from solid directly into vapor and is absorbed into the cold, very dry air (SUBLIMATION). This is similar to the evaporation of a puddle in the driveway or the surface of the ocean.
    I assume they date the ice by using carbon dating. This is on the solids they find in the ice core. As the ice is evaporated the solids are left behind. There is no way nature can take 110,000 thousand years to make the ice and melt it all in 10 thousand years.
    About 18000 years ago the new ice age began. Until the land mass grew enough the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere kept growing. About 18000 years ago the green foliage was not enough to stunt the growth of carbon dioxide and as the land mass grew the carbon dioxide level began to drop. About 16000 years ago the land mass, and green foliage, was enough to overcome nature. 8000 years ago, man plus nature began to make more carbon dioxide than the growth of green foliage could overcome and the carbon dioxide began to rise until present.
    ALL YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND FROM THIS IS THAT THE NEW ICE AGE BEGAN ABOUT 18,000 YEARS GO!!!!!

  55. ‘Robert – Even with the assistance of the Great God Google I can find no reference to the Lincoln Sea in Ole’s Arctic compendium, let alone Kap Morris Jesup.’

    Artificially constraining discussion to Jim’s preferred Arctic postcodes is a Jim game that I a am not playing – as I have said.

  56. Much of the commentary revolves around the perennial climate talking points – hot spots, ice, sea level rise, etc – with never a resolution of course. The skeptic side is all over the place with eccentric theories. Team global warming is real and dangerous take it to another level frequently behaving with classic bad faith in a group dynamic. It is not about discourse as such – but of demonstrating the moral and intellectual superiority of a specific world view – claiming as a 97% right the socially significant imprimatur of science. This involves a astonishingly narrow view of Earth system science, systematic rejection of complexity and uncertainty and marshaling of confirmatory narratives. The tools of interactions with outsiders are ridicule, denigration, misrepresentation, dissimulation etc. Then there are people who simply make things up as they go. Identifying this dynamic when it manifests and not playing the game seems the sane thing to do.

    Yes Matthew – that’s why I talk past them rather than to them

  57. This is an extraordinary correlation with an explanatory power about the same as Jiminy is claiming for CO2 and surface temperature.


    Figure 1: Argo ocean heat – 0 to1900m – 65S to 65N – (blue) – degrees C – versus cumulative monthly radiant imbalance – (orange) – W/m2

    It emerges largely from cloud change over the upwelling regions of the Pacific.

    • Jiminy not playing yet? I’m not surprised. A 93% coefficient of determination for CO2 and surface temp is about a stupendously impossible 0.96 correlation.

      • Are you saying that the surface temperature is 93% correlated with the CO2 forcing?

      • “Jim D | August 30, 2018 at 12:36 am |
        93% correlation. That’s a lot of denial to do.”

      • Yes, I was confirming that you agree with the 93%. Hard to tell from this comment. Or maybe you only would believe 96%? What were you talking about? Most people consider 60% significant.

      • Let’s get the number right. A 0.96 correlation – from a 93% coefficient of determination you claimed.

      • If you want to express is as 0.93 fine. I still don’t know where you get 0.96 from. I use the last 60 years to get 0.93, not Lovejoy’s full range for which I don’t have the CO2 numbers.

      • OMG. Jiminy claimed 93% correlation. Now I ignorantly assumed that this was technically not a correlation but the related coefficient of determination. That is the correlation – of 0.96 – with CO2 explains 93% of the surface temperature variation. A squadron of flying pigs comes to mind.

      • When I say correlation, I mean correlation. No accounting for what you think.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE,
      Here is your graph with another variable added. It is CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa, monthly averages over the same time period as on your graph.
      What correlations and causations do you deduce from these relationships?
      Geoff

      • That the annual variability in atmospheric CO2 is heavily outweighed by much larger signals in the system. The CO2 would be a largely biokinetic feedback as the system warms or cools. SW and IR vary by an order of magnitude more than the decadal increase in greenhouse gas forcing. But the only conclusion is that internal variability seems relatively important.

      • But the only conclusion is that internal variability seems relatively important.

        YES!

  58. “Robert – Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

    Can I safely assume that you haven’t read Tamino recently?”

    “Robert – Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

    Can I safely assume that you haven’t read Tamino recently?”

    “Arctic amplification is a robust feature of climate response to global warming, with large impacts on ecosystems and societies. A long-standing mystery is that a pronounced Arctic warming occurred during the early 20th century when the rate of interdecadal change in radiative forcing was much weaker than at present. Here, using observations and model experiments, we show that the combined effect of internally generated Pacific and Atlantic interdecadal variabilities intensified the Arctic land warming in the early 20th century. The synchronized Pacific–Atlantic warming drastically alters planetary-scale atmospheric circulations over the Northern Hemisphere that transport warm air into the Arctic. Our results highlight the importance of regional sea surface temperature changes for Arctic climate and constrain model projections in this important region.” http://www.pnas.org/content/114/24/6227

    As usual there is a science truncated in the service of confirmation bias. And Jim may safely assume that I don’t read motivated echo chambers at all. It is all so shallow and incompetent.

    • I’m so socially progressive I have bells on both legs.

    • Robert – It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for your production of a graph of HadCRUT data for 70N-90N whilst implying that it is in some way representative of “Arctic temperatures from 1900 to 2017”.

      1) Ignorance

      2) Bad faith

      Can you suggest another?

      • Jim Hunt: Robert – It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for your production of a graph of HadCRUT data for 70N-90N whilst implying that it is in some way representative of “Arctic temperatures from 1900 to 2017”.

        What exactly is your criticism? That the date are irrelevant because the area is too large? That’s neither ignorance nor bad faith, but a different judgment of which data are most important?

        I sympathize — Mr Ellison sometimes entangles his scientific points in distractions and ad hominems. But even so, I do not see your point here.

      • Matthew – Because anybody familiar with the relevant literature, or even Tamino’s precis of it, would be aware of the “HadCRUT4 Arctic coverage bias” issue.

        I’m content to settle for item 1 on my list in this case, unless Robert quibbles.

      • Jim Hunt: Can you suggest another?

        Robert I Ellison: Artificially constraining discussion to Jim’s preferred Arctic postcodes is a Jim game that I a am not playing – as I have said.

        Inelegantly and indirectly phrased, it looks like RIE’s critique of your initial post was your focus on one small area of the Arctic. That’s neither ignorance nor bad faith, though he may be wrong. Why your narrow focus?

      • Matthew – Does the following October 2016 article help explain the alleged “narrow focus” on the area north of Greenland?

        http://mallemaroking.org/north-greenland-sea-ice/

        “This is where we expect the thickest and most compacted Arctic sea ice – mainly due to the movement of the sea ice and the transpolar drift. Here the sea ice is above 90% concentration.

        The movie below shows that this is the also the region where the oldest Arctic sea ice resides.”

        It doesn’t any more. Now 0% concentration seems to be the order of the day.

      • “Diagram showing area weighted Arctic (70-90oN) monthly surface air temperature anomalies (HadCRUT4) since January 1920, in relation to the WMO normal period 1961-1990. The thin blue line shows the monthly temperature anomaly, while the thicker red line shows the running 37 month (c.3 yr) average. Because of the relatively small number of Arctic stations before 1930, month-to-month variations in the early part of the temperature record are larger than later. The period from about 1930 saw the establishment of many new Arctic meteorological stations, first in Russia and Siberia, and following the 2nd World War, also in North America. The period since 2000 is warm, about as warm as the period 1930-1940.”

        But this is just one piece of evidence with reputable origins – amidst multiple consilient lines of evidence on ice and temperature dynamics.

        I’d suggest bad faith – because it is impossible to respond seriously to progressive, global warming acolytes – whose narratives justify their ends.

      • I have to admit that I’m pleasantly surprised to find you admitting to bad faith on your part Robert. Perhaps we might continue by travelling down avenue 1 a bit further though?

        May I safely assume that in your book you count on Climate4you.com as a provider of “piece[s] of evidence with reputable origins”?

        Perhaps you could ask Ole to let us all know exactly how the data from those “many new Arctic meteorological stations” are incorporated into your squiggly blue line?

      • The data of course comes from Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Science and Services. Professor Ole Humlum provides reasonably up to date graphs on many climate variables with data sourced from many of the usual sources for these things. Places likes the MODC.

        But in science one looks for independent confirmation. For these decadal scale variations in global and arctic climate – this is not hard to find.

      • Robert – Yet again you have failed to answer the question I was asking. At the risk of repeating myself:

        Please let us all know exactly how the data from those “many new Arctic meteorological stations” are incorporated into your squiggly blue line?

        Thanks in advance.

      • I recall the question originally was about there being no meteorological stations in the Arctic – and that was answered. They were more common – especially in Russia – after the 1930’s.

        But the question put to Jim by me and others goes perpetually unacknowledged. How can an Arctic – or any other climate ‘specialism’ – advance understanding of vigorous decadal variability without a far deeper historic context than satellites can provide?

        Floods, fires, cyclones – and Arctic ice of course – are poster children of global warming. It is all so relentlessly, breathlessly unprecedented. Nothing is of course unprecedented – except in the instrumental record. Something that in hydrology I have pondered for decades. But the pretense or the belief that it is – is blindly defended as a core personality construct. Impossible for them to shake.

      • I just noticed Jim’s risk that has ascended into certainty. 😂

      • Jim Hunt: This is where we expect the thickest and most compacted Arctic sea ice – mainly due to the movement of the sea ice and the transpolar drift. Here the sea ice is above 90% concentration.

        “Thickest” and “most compacted” do not equate to “all Arctic ice”.

      • Good morning Matthew (BST),

        A formatting experiment:

        “Thickest” and “most compacted” do not equate to “all Arctic ice”

        Who said it did? I certainly didn’t!

        However your answer suggests that, much like Robert, you aren’t an Arctic specialist?

        Where’s TonyB when you need him? Or Judith for that matter?

      • Jim Hunt: Who said it did? I certainly didn’t!

        No you didn’t. You also did not say or acknowledge that you were focusing your attention on a small part of the Arctic, where the larger picture of the whole Arctic shows much less dramatic change. Mr Ellison or any one other person may not have the “correct” or “best” whole view, but your focus is too narrow.

      • How can you possibly justify that assertion Matthew?

        I have a whole website devoted to the whole Arctic, and occasionally even beyond:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info

      • To: Robert I. Ellison

        Re: “But this is just one piece of evidence with reputable origins – amidst multiple consilient lines of evidence on ice and temperature dynamics.”

        You’re citing a non-peer-reviewed blog called “Climate4you”. If you want to cite HadCRUT4 data, then try a reputable scientific source, not some garbage blog. I get it; you’re parroting that image, because a lot of contrarians copy+paste it online. But do better:

        “Unlike mainstream climate scientists, who publish primarily in peer reviewed journals, these critics typically employ a range of non-peer-reviewed outlets, ranging from blogs to the books we are examining. […]
        The general lack of peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make inaccurate assertions that misrepresent the current state of climate science. Like the vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community, book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically unfounded.”
        http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/01/0002764213477096.full.pdf

        Maybe try citing a reputable source like this?:

        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/testdap/timeseries.pl
        “Web-Based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tools (WRIT) for analysis and comparison of reanalyses and other datasets”

        That above source makes it clear that you’re trying to cherry-pick HadCRUT4, by avoiding other analyses that show much more warming in the Arctic. For instance:


        It’s been known for years that HadCRUT4 under-estimates Arctic warming. This result has been replicated multiple times by different research groups. Yet here you are, still cherry-picking HadCRUT4 in an attempt to make Arctic warming look small. Seriously, do better, and go do your reading. The following should help get you started on the topic of under-estimated Arctic warming and how this is addressed:

        “Arctic warming in ERA‐Interim and other analyses”
        “Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends”
        “Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. UPDATE COBE-SST2 based land-ocean dataset”
        “Recently amplified arctic warming has contributed to a continual global warming trend”
        “Statistical analysis of coverage error in simple global temperature estimators”
        “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” (figure 1)
        “Response to Gleisner et al (2015): Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data” [A comment on: “Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low‐latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data”]

        Re: “But in science one looks for independent confirmation. For these decadal scale variations in global and arctic climate – this is not hard to find.”

        It’s ironic that you claim this, since you cherry-picked (a blog image claiming to represent) HadCRUT4’s Arctic trend, in order to dodge independently confirmed results that rebut HadCRUT4’s Arctic trend.

      • To: Robert I. Ellison

        “Because of the relatively small number of Arctic stations before 1930, month-to-month variations in the early part of the temperature record are larger than later. […] The period since 2000 is warm, about as warm as the period 1930-1940.”

        Then how about looking at a running mean to account for that, instead on relying on a garbage, non-peer-reviewed blog, like you did? Is it because that would be inconvenient for the claim you quoted about how “[t]he period since 2000 is warm, about as warm as the period 1930-1940”?

        [“Web-based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tool: Monthly/seasonal time series” https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/testdap/timeseries.pl
        “Web-Based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tools (WRIT) for analysis and comparison of reanalyses and other datasets”]

      • “Inelegantly and indirectly phrased…”

        I don’t think I will take style tips from the turgid and pedantic.

      • And if you hear vague traces of skipping reels of rhyme
        To your tambourine in time
        It’s just a ragged clown behind
        I wouldn’t pay it any mind
        It’s just a shadow you’re seeing that he’s chasing
        Bob Dylan

        It’s just data products from the British Met Office – they could graph it themselves if they had any capacity. Yet Atomski pulls out his non peer reviewed form whine and fills in the names.

      • Robert – It’s a data product from the UKMO which they themselves acknowledge is lacking when it comes to the Arctic:

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00250.1

        This means that large areas of the Arctic are unrepresented in these datasets as both land station records and SST records, especially in sea ice regions, are temporally and spatially sparse even with recent updates to the dataset.

        You really can’t claim “ignorance” any more so it looks as though we now have to move on to consider “bad faith”?

      • The bizarre thing is that the alternatives he suggests show pretty much the same patterns of vigorous decadal variability.

      • The evidence of vigorous decadal variability? Do not adjust your TV set…

      • What “patterns of vigorous decadal variability” might those be then Robert?

        And what is their supposed significance?

      • Good morning Robert (BST),

        The proprietor has informed me that:

        Refusing to answer someone’s question is not a violation of blog policy. Insulting other commenters is a violation.

        Just for the record I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that you have still neglected to answer my questions concerning “HadCRUT4 Arctic coverage bias”, which is of course your privilege.

  59. Good article by William Kininmonth in Quadrant:
    Paris Is No Longer Relevant
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2018/08/paris-longer-relevant/

    “William Kininmonth was supervisor of climate services in the Bureau of Meteorology and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization. He is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-Science, 2004) and contributor to Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies About Climate Change (Carter and Spooner, 2013).”

  60. Scott Koontz

    Take a sine curve. There’s your ocean oscillation. Very interesting and much has been and more to be discovered, but no warming or cooling in the long run because all this does is shift heat around. Add other sine curves, some much longer in time like procession and some shorter like seasons.

    Tilt the entire curve, and there’s the result of CO2. Pretending that CO2 is not the primary forcing and looking for other reasons is odd. There’s a good reason the super majority of scientists have been telling us that CO2 is the problem for several decades now.

    Visit some crazy sites like Watts or Heller-Goddard and read about how certain a few are that this year (no really, this time they are serious) will be the year we start cooling. Never mind that some of these same writers said this a decade or two ago.

    • I am torn between meta-geophysics:

      And empiricism showing inter alia:

      1, perpetual change at many scales. :


      see https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

      2. large changes in toa radiant flux with shifts in atmospheric and ocean circulation (Loeb et al 2012).

      I suggest that Scott consider mountain rivers rather than his perennial dogs and fans.

      “You can see spatio-temporal chaos if you look at a fast mountain river. There will be vortexes of different sizes at different places at different times. But if you observe patiently, you will notice that there are places where there almost always are vortexes and they almost always have similar sizes – these are the quasi standing waves of the spatio-temporal chaos governing the river. If you perturb the flow, many quasi standing waves may disappear. Or very few. It depends.

      Weather and climate are manifestations of spatio temporal chaos of staggering complexity because there is not only Navier Stokes equations, but there are many more coupled fields. ENSO is an example of a quasi standing wave of the system.” Tomas Milanovic

      • Climate “IS” periodic. It is not “PURE”. It is influenced by many factors. The natural forces that cause the natural periodic cycles is regulated by the properties of water and the changing of state between water, water vapor and ice. The temperature that water freezes and thaws and the temperatures that water evaporates and condenses does not change. There is no stable equilibrium temperature, there are well regulated cycles. A change in forcing may change some to the timing of the cycles but it will not, cannot change the upper and lower bounds. Chaotic or random or regular events change the timing but not the bounds. This is recorded in the ice core records.

      • The temperature is above or below any stable equilibrium temperature more than 97% percent of the time and it is always cycling above and below any stable equilibrium temperature . We can rule out any stable equilibrium temperature with simple inspection of real actual data.

      • Over the past ten thousand years, solar into the NH decreased and solar into the SH increased much more than the CO2 forcing and it did not change the equilibrium temperature bounds of the cycles in either hemisphere. This is according to real ice core data. Natural bounding and cycles will take care of any change in forcing.

      • If you look at theory and models and all that junk, there is staggering complexity.

        If you look at ice core data, everything is well bounded cycles.

        I go for looking at data.

      • I’m looking for a term. Thread bombing?

        But again to quote Michael Ghil.

        The global climate system is composed of a numberof subsystems — atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere— each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. the interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.”
        “http://research.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/PREPRINTS/Ghil-A_Met_Soc_refs-rev’d_vf-black_only.pdf

        All of these subsystems – and the coupled Earth system – evolve with deterministally dynamic complexity. Shifting states within the ergodic, fundamental physical state space limits of the system.

        https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/people/michael-ghil

      • I’m looking for a term. Thread bombing?

        That’s good! Is that what you and I are doing?

      • I thought we were exchanging our ideas about the climate.

      • The problem is that you have exchanged those ideas before. We know what’s coming. Real science is full of surprises – surprise us.

      • Scott Koontz

        And yet… we continue to warm! Why? Nobody on this site seems to know, so they pretend it’s too complicated. Scientists know, even though it is complicated.

        Have a fever? Maybe it’s that infected wound, but here comes Ellison to tell you that it cannot possibly be the festering wound, because your body temp always fluctuates, and your body is very VERY complicated, so we must look at all the possibilities. Chaos. Cycles, Yadda.

        But wait. Don’t you think we should ask the climate scientists in the same way we ask other professionals?

        Nope. Let’s see what Watts has to say.

      • And the experts tell us it should be warming over 2X faster than actual observations.

        Humors? Blood letting? Leeches? Experts in their times swore by them.

        IPCC climate models are bunk. Subject them to rigorous, independent validation studies or quit relying on them.

      • Perhaps I might invoke the term “coverage bias” once again at this juncture?

        The red line is the Arctic. The black line is Planet ‘A’ as a whole.

      • What I find intriguing is the steady increase – with the annual cycles – in cumulative energy in less energy out. This is an apparent discrepancy between ocean heat and cumulative radiant imbalances early in the record that is a mystery. I’d suggest that there is a problem with the early Argo record – and that the planet has been warming – for multiple reasons – this century. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/ocean-heat-and-power-flux.jpg?w=1024


        Figure 1: Argo ocean heat – 0 to 1900m – 65S to 65N – (blue) – degrees C – versus cumulative monthly radiant imbalance – (orange) – W/m2

        In the modern era it emerges strongly in the 20 to 30 year regimes in the Pacific system.

        “Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.5,7” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

        ENSO and a cooler ocean surface and more closed cell cloud cover in the early cloud record and warmer and more open cell cloud later?

      • RIE, your accumulation is just a sum of monthly values giving 110 W/m2. You have to divide that by 13 (years) and then by 12 (months) to get 0.7 W/m2 which is the actual average imbalance. Then when you apply that to 1900 m of water for 13 years you get a warming of 0,03 C which is what you have. That looks like a balance to me. What’s the mystery?

      • I know of 2 other people who have tried this cumulative CERES calculation. It turns out to be remarkably simple. These are monthly power flux averages and the energy for the month is of course power flux over time. The cumulative imbalance at toa covaries with ocean heat – as it must. It shows that Argo and CERES data is consistent if that was in doubt. .

        But then we may also average monthly imbalances.


        Figure 2: Monthly power flux imbalances – average monthly power flux in less power flux out

        Power flux imbalances change from negative to positive on an annual basis. This is useful as it gives a transient energy balance every year at least. The average is 0.8W/m2 – consistent with rates of ocean warming. The trend over the period of CERES record is negative. Before that satellites show strong warming in SW and weaker – but still strong – cooling in IR. Although warming this century may be slower than at the end of the last – much earlier data was pioneering and latter day satellite data is over far too short a period to be definitive.

        As for where it is going – I feel I may as well just toss a coin. Tails – cooler.

      • Dealing with subdecadal variations is difficult. The ocean gains heat content in La Ninas and loses it in El Ninos, for example, and there could be other factors like PDO and AMO or delayed responses to solar-cycle variations. Over the 13 years the positive sustained imbalance accounts for all the ocean warming.

      • Using satellite data to calculate the rate of global change in energy stores is a another novel – to me at least – game.

      • The satellite by itself is not reliable because of drifts, so they use Argo to constrain the long-term trends. Another reason those budgets match so well.

      • Rates of global change have been calculated exclusively from Argo ocean heat. CERES is an independent but consistent record. CERES also gives us cloud, SW and IR.

  61. The internal natural frequency of a spring mass system is determined by the mass and the spring strength. The internal natural frequency of the earth climate cycles depends on the amount of ocean water and ice on land and water vapor in the air that takes part in the cycles. External forcing can mess with this but it cannot change the internal frequencies. That can only be changed by changing the amount of ice and water and water vapor that takes part in each cycle. Changes in external forcing can make large changes but it does not change the basic frequency or bounds of the cycles very much.

    • Climate, for fifty million years, has followed regular patterns. The patterns and bounds have changed over the years. Continent drift and ocean circulation are most likely responsible for the changes. That is not random. That is not chaos. Understand what caused the cycles and the changes in the patterns and bounds and we will be better off. The external forcing for fifty million years repeated the same patterns and bounds, the internal cycles changed. The changes were internal that are responsible. You are all correlating with external forcing and not looking at the internal mass spring system. Greenhouse influence is mostly from water and water vapor, it is internal and does adjust as oceans and ice changes.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        To the contrary the climate has followed irregular patterns especially if one looks at the past 20,000 year. All cycles made to be broken and were.

      • every change is easy to understand if you look at ice core data and understand it. Warming and cooling are a result of ice extent changes, ice extent changes are a result of ice volume and weight changes. Ice volume changes are a result of snowfall changes. snowfall changes are a result of ocean temperature and ocean freezing and thawing and evaporation and snowfall rates.

  62. Salvatore del Prete

    I see no regularity of the climate going back 20,000 years. None.

  63. “And now time for the next monthly temperature reports, Snowing in Australia and Italy the last few days but fires everywhere the rest of the month. JCH quiet again.
    Arctic Sea Ice blog very quiet.
    Like the Stockmarket. Which way will it break?”
    Ahh, now we know.
    What a great lag effect from the wimpy La Nina.
    How low canit go?
    The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2018 was +0.19 deg. C, down from the July value of +0.32 deg. C:

    • The UAH data is good but still unresolved. Many people wake up each day and wonder, How can I make the GMST trend look steeper? They are not pursuing truth other than their ideas that things are bad and getting worse.

  64. “The NLRB was very explicit that Damore’s discussion of scientific research was the only portion of his document that they were holding to be unprotected…”

    https://quillette.com/2018/09/04/a-facebook-engineers-plea-for-political-diversity/

    For scientific research, sub in Jordan Peterson. You should look at the context of the quote.

    “Yet even if those ruling on the validity of Damore’s hypotheses were to be scientists, it would still be anti-scientific to censor dissenting views.”

    So the guy used science to argue against SJWs. With a lot of howevers, if you offend snowflakes, that can invalidate a scientific opinion. As society goes crashing to where ever it’s going, let’s not worry if science falls. The science versus SJWs illustrates, It’s settled science isn’t about science, It’s about winning.  

  65. I thought my remarks in another context might help here:
    “When all the facts are included, the story changes: wealth is not handed from the top down. It is produced by a bottom-up process involving millions of individuals bringing their skills, habits, and knowledge—attributes which vary from group to group—to bear on valuable tasks.” – Coleman Hughes
    If the system is understood, we have a chance of making things better. Coleman hints at libertarianism. I think I’ve seen more of that lately.

    Describe the climate system as a hierarchy. Top down driven by CO2 or bottom up with a Cabaret of contributions? The richness of day to day things, the very things we most experience and are most relevant. Or the climate under an edict.

    When good Republicans and libertarians push back against the climate narrative, we do so from our view of systems. When I want something. I’ll often go top down with edicts and my power. The consensus approach does that. Accumulating all the nations of the world except the rebel United States and some minor country is a top down approach. There is an edict from on high.

    The King in a top down approach does very little beyond maintaining control through a hierarchy. The things of substance are done by the masses near the bottom of the hierarchy.

    It is Musk. It is all the people who work for him. What is that system? It is all the people that work for him. It is not Musk. Without the people, he’s nothing.

    As a favorite person of mine said, Hierarchies that are too rigid fail. By continually defending CO2’s might, people are setting the hierarchy up to fail. He also said narratives or stories are powerful. I guess it’s the story of the Evil King CO2. Who we all serve. Forever. As we approach agony. The story that we are effed and I hate the people who don’t see that.

    • When I wrote the above, I was unaware of today’s new having to do with Musk and some pot. However, chill on that issue please. He didn’t burn a factory to the ground.

  66. President Obama has ramped up what he says, it is generally thought. Coming off the political sidelines as the Fall elections near.

    “The Paris agreement sought to curb carbon emissions worldwide, but ultimately allowed each country to set its own goals for reducing such emissions. Obama said that Trump had “rejected science” and “rejected facts on things like climate change.””

    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/405615-7-times-obama-hit-trump-in-speech

    The Hill summarized President Obama’s points into seven things of which climate change was one of them.

    ““The only nation on Earth to pull out of the global climate agreement — it’s not North Korea, it’s not Syria, it’s not Russia or Saudi Arabia — it’s us,” Obama said. “The only country. There are a lot of countries in the world. We’re the only ones.””

    We are different. China is different too if we assume some things about their coal fired power plants built and planned. And the explosive growth of their economy. The world is changing fast, and continuing on with some difficult, mostly pointless and expensive pursuit is dangerous. If Trump backed into the correct answer the wrong way, who cares is he thinks it’s a hoax from China? Good Republicans, libertarians and Rednecks should applaud him for doing something right again. We should not be ashamed or offended. As we recall we are independent beings.

    The facts that President Obama has rejected about climate change, if they really are facts, are the ones people like Lomborg and Pielke write about. He runs away from those in a full sprint. He suggests we go don rose colored glasses and pursue renewable unicorn energy sources.

    We have the Chinese Hoax theory, and the Green Power Unicorn Solution theory. The first one is more sound. Because it leads to the better outcomes. President Obama misses the target. Going after the hoaxers but ignoring a middle alliance with the lukewarmers. He’s about winning for the alarmists.

    “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

    • The lukewarmers, as their name suggests, are very wishy-washy. They have no targets, no concerns, no care about threats or risks from a rapidly changing climate, no sense of a path towards future energy. They seem to be against even mild attempts at trying to shift away from carbon like Paris, but not for anything except business as usual.

      • Wishy-washy is underrated. I see A’s point and B’s point. A and B are married and they are not getting divorced and it seems a laudable goal is them not harming each other and maybe having some fun once in awhile. There is theory and then practice. Which means a wishy-washy theory.

        Let’s talk about a married couple, their money, and the Federal government’s share of the same. The IRS shouldn’t exist, but wishy-washy saves the day.

        Whatever the left’s doctrines are, defecting from them and supporting nuclear power is wishy-washy. As is supporting power lines and even oil carrying pipe lines. When the old one is old and the alternatives create more CO2 emissions such as trains on a limited amount of tracks. (We ship grain on those trains and oil cars get in the way seasonally.)

        Wishy-washy is defined by Republicans supporting wind turbines and home solar. I doubt the Democrats passed those laws on their own. President Obama did it right by allowing some fracking and natural gas extraction. President Obama seemed to be divisive, I assume to win some elections. Which brings us right back to the climate debates. We hate each other and need to win. Not that Trump is any better. I think he gets the prize on this one.

      • As I said, lukewarmers express no opinions on the rather mild Paris agreement. Perhaps some say it should even be stronger viz a viz China, but for those their alternative failing that appears to be everybody do nothing. They express no opinions on risks of rapid climate change. They express no preferred policy on energy and fuels, fossil or not. I think lukewarmerism is a cop-out to not talk about future problems and policies with any substance.

      • To what “rapid climate change” are you referring, Jim D?

      • 3 more degrees C by 2100 for a start. There’s diagrams if you want.

      • Since IPCC model speculation has been shown defective in real time, it is poor reasoning to rely on their fantasies.

      • We have had enough warming in the last century or so to have a good idea of the effect. It’s observations.

      • Actual observations over the last century show no actual climate change, outside of some minor warming. Show me the impacts!

      • You would not act until you saw a disaster in your backyard.

      • I certainly recognize approaching disasters, Jim D. Activist hype is not certainty.

      • What you consider activists are actually the majority of scientists, not just climate scientists too.

      • Other than IPCC climate modelers and those that trust them without verification, name them, Jim D.

      • OK, the IPCC has 1000 scientists involved in its reports, which ones do you not trust?

      • The ones that produce IPCC climate models and those that rely on those unverified models’ extreme results, Jim D. Most IPCC discussions are “un-alarmist.”

      • If you trust the non-alarmist ones, what you would think when they also support the Paris Agreement to reduce emissions?

      • [A break to take the big boys to the Dog Park.]

        There have been no detrimental climatic changes in the approximately 300 years of warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age. My point is the IPCC scientific (WG1) discussion is non-alarmist. Its AR5 doesn’t even support your exaggerated 3 degree meme anymore; it simply happens to be the mathematical results of assuming excessively large H2O feedbacks and, coincidentally, about the average of the wildly divergent climate models, nothing more.

      • The call from the scientists is only whether to reduce emissions, and it is up to the policymakers to decide how.

      • Its a call from the alarmists, climate profiteers and know-nothings, Jim D.

      • The call from scientists is whether, based on what we know already, to reduce emissions if we can. They say yes. You say no? Remove the how from the question. This is just whether.

      • Since all the observational evidence indicates CO2 is good for the planet, I’d vote no on “emissions” reductions, Jim D.

        Past speculation about H2O feedbacks have proven incorrect. And, cloud feedbacks are still unknown.

      • That’s a no even if it is easy and possible. You don’t see a significant enough difference between a 350 ppm climate and a 700 ppm one to try to preserve the current state. Interesting. No judgment.

      • Easy? That doesn’t even rate a response, Jim D.

        And we can control climate fluctuations? Try: Nebba happen, numba 10 GI!

      • I am separating the issues into manageable pieces. Argue first about why you think a 700 ppm climate is any good at all or even preferred to a 350 ppm climate. That’s the science part. The rest would be moot if you think that.

      • Jim D:

        1) At best, a doubling of CO2 (350 to 700) would lead to a inconsequential warming of about 1 degree C. It has been shown that H2O feedback doesn’t exist and cloud feedbacks are unknown.

        2) 700 ppm CO2 would provide for further greening of the world.

      • Wow, why does no one else think that you must be asking yourself. You have dismissed all the science including the low-ball estimates there. Tim Ball territory. Amazing stuff.

      • I have dismissed the wildly divergent speculations of the various IPCC climate models, nothing else.

        I’m done on this Thread. Good bye, Jim D.

      • Since we were talking about lukewarmers, I thought I’d review that:

        “The consensus enforcers don’t even want there to be an index (ECS you think is correct) — admitting to an entire axis of perspectives would make the debate far more complicated than the simple matter of right-vs-wrong, good-vs-bad or science-vs-denial that they want it to be. The point of consensus enforcement is to sustain the polarised account of the debate.”

        http://www.climate-resistance.org/2015/05/identifying-lukewarmism.html

        I think I see Ben Pile’s point. One side can’t be bothered to put forth a good argument in the face of complexity. When the very thing they study is more complex than 99% of things, they go lame and look at things in a binary combative way because that’s easier. We don’t know what it is, but we’re certain it’s not that. I seem to recall being on this path before. If we can argue against you, our lack of having anything of policy value will be overlooked.

        What led me to the above is this:
        http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2015/05/14/lukewarmers/

      • OK, I looked at those and still wonder how you define yourselves as a collective. Especially after reading the comments on the last link. ATTP poses a similar set of questions to me. All we get from those is what lukewarmerism is not. It is not that there will be no harmful effects from climate change and it is not that there should be just business as usual but some sentiment against the existence of the IPCC (this whole discussion was prior to Paris). Apart from this they plump for lower sensitivity from the smorgasbord available from the IPCC. This is not very informative.

      • It seems a big responsibility to speak for us. Moderate. Along with stock index funds I own material amounts of bond index funds. I believe in ExxonMobil but hey, Trump’s our President. So I hedge by owning some bonds. Lukewarmers have a better grip on Economics. We are a counter to the Green economic dreams. We may have the better sense of adventure. Something’s happening. Our answer is not to deny it or prevent it. There was that Thrivability post here. I hope you’ve seen that new right wing HumanProgress site. Even with climate change, we’re having a grand time. I inherited a Vespa PX 150. I was thinking of becoming a hipster. I’ve had to learn about carburetors and think I am getting close to a well tuned engine with good throttle response. Maxes out about 45 mph though, so I’ll have to not ride it to Sturgis. In my specific case, my parents had two farms. One is now owned by the watershed district through a voluntary transaction and the other has a permanent easement. Mostly likely to remain as grassland unless the government changes its mind. I haven’t changed any minds when I say that such things are good idea. Both farms now pull CO2 out of the air and improve the local watersheds.

      • Yes, not deny, not prevent, about sums up the lukewarmers. Not even mitigate or stabilize climate change. Boldly go and find new fossil fuels, dig them up and burn those too. Nothing wrong with 600-700 ppm and rising at 2100. Or have they not thought it through to what it looks like in 2100, or maybe they don’t care that far ahead.

      • Plans for conditions beyond about 10 to 20 years are not plans. They are called speculation.

        It is wise to never get ahead of your knowledge base, Jim D.

      • I would call that short-sighted.

      • No, Jim D. It is called using one’s common sense when confronted by the latest end-of-the-world hype.

      • There are people for whom common sense includes paying attention to the scientists.

      • I pay attention to all the scientists, Jim D. Not just the activists.

      • ..and you seem to just dismiss the majority view as being not even possible.

      • I did not say that Jim D. Remote, uncertain possibilities do not justify knee-jerk responses.

      • What you consider remote possibilities is different from the majority view, but now you’re getting into non-specific denouncements of science.

  67. For the next Week in Review: Jocelyn Bell Burnell won the $3-million Breakthrough Prize for discovery of pulsar
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pulsar-discoverer-jocelyn-bell-burnell-wins-3-million-breakthrough-prize1/

  68. Ridley:

    “People who think the science suggests it will not be as bad as all that, or that humanity is likely to mitigate or adapt to it in time, get less airtime and a lot more criticism than people who go beyond the science to exaggerate the potential risks. That lukewarmers have been proved right so far cuts no ice.”

    https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1287

    It’s what we thought. That’s boring. It’s worse than we thought. I suggest Scientific American plays that game. It’s important to know your audience, and also to not exploit their weaknesses and turn them into dysfunctional people.

  69. Sea level rise did not break out. You have to cherry pick start dates to get much acceleration. For steric SLR, 92% isn’t enough? What happens this goes to 95%? We did a test. It warmed some and some went into the oceans. The promised acceleration requires much more than 100% going into the oceans. Which is possible.

  70. The Most Honest Book About Climate Change Yet

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/william-vollmann-carbon-ideologies/568309/

    A different approach. Fatalism if I recall my liberal arts education. The author seems off and brilliant at the same time.

  71. “This fall, we expect less than 300 freshmen to attend Evergreen, a fifty percent drop from two years ago.  It is the only four year institution in the state of Washington that has seen a decrease in applications, and is currently publicly funded for 4200 students, far greater than this year’s anticipated total attending class of 2800.”

    https://heterodoxacademy.org/update-evergreen-state-college/

    He’s speaking up and he still has his job. So much winning.

    “…and collective sense of victimhood…” Line up victims. Hurricane bearing down on us. A hunt for victims. You all are victims of big oil and corporate greed. Evergreen suggests where this ends up.

  72. prophecy or forecast? Everyone gets lucky in 30 years.

    angech | August 26, 2018 at 12:24 am | Reply

    “Based on the overall expectations for low Atlantic hurricane activity in 2018, combined with forecasts of a U.S. landfall ranging from 50% to 100%, we can expect 2018 to be a year with smaller economic loss from landfalling hurricanes relative to the average.”
    Hope, not expect.
    It would only take one medium hurricane hitting a vital center like Florida to create massive economic loss.
    30 years seems to be the average time for repeat strikes. Why I am not sure, perhaps bandwidth to number of possible hurricanes. Judith might explain.
    So a 3% chance of severe damage at one site. 5 possible sites. 15% chance per year of an average economic loss. 2 hurricanes in the year put it above average damage, risk is 7 1/2% per year.

  73. “The matriarchy revolves about natural tides and cycles; whereas the patriarchy is a phallic thrust skyward. The matriarchy represents multiplicity, pantheism, and the earth cult—the patriarchy is the sky or ‘one god’ cult. The revival of paganism is a revival of the earth cult, a necessary counterbalance to extreme monotheism, in my view. Both are necessary.”

    View story at Medium.com

    The above is a defense of Jordan Peterson which is not the point. Masculine Order and Feminine Chaos. In the first line, we know what CO2 is. Viewed a certain way, walking around and talking about how powerful your CO2 is, is foolish. CO2 brings order to the planet. So much so that the warming experienced since 1950 is consistent with, blah, blah, blah. The ‘one god’ cult has the thing that explains it all. Other gods cannot explain things. Other gods are false.

    The CO2 god is a clock. You made a clock. A clock of chaos. Chaos is what you don’t understand. You went from order into the chaos and came back with a clock. This clock represents reductionist science. Where you can build a clock but not understand or predict a chaotic system such as the climate. You have not tamed chaos, you still don’t understand it. You do have a clock.

    • Ragnaar, that article was the most puerile and childish discussion of Peterson I’ve ever read. It didn’t have even one single quote from him, just foolish claims about restatements of what he supposedly said somewhere sometime.

      And you are building on that? You’re taking that as the text for your sermon?

      Sorry, not interested. When you build on sand, your building collapses. You may indeed have a valid point, but you’ll never get us to understand it that way.

      w.

      • I am trying to frame the climate debate. Order versus chaos. Science, the way, the light conquers all. They attack with order. The last line of the quote says, “Both are necessary.” To what extent I am successful in suggesting the climate hierarchy lords over all, or attempts to do so, I don’t know. But it is subject to the same things all hierarchies are. They need to be flexible or else they will fail.

        In the never ending battle between order and chaos, Yin and Yang, that plays out across time, they have proclaimed that Yin has won. And that’s foolish.

    • Jordan Peterson?

      Oh, the sophist who thinks that non-peer-reviewed garbage blogs like NoTricksZone are a reliable source of information on climate science topics, such as climate sensitivity:

      Someone sensible should explain to Peterson why such sources are garbage (though I doubt Peterson would listen to reason, given his track-record):

      “Unlike mainstream climate scientists, who publish primarily in peer reviewed journals, these critics typically employ a range of non-peer-reviewed outlets, ranging from *blogs* to the books we are examining. […]
      The general lack of peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make inaccurate assertions that misrepresent the current state of climate science. Like the vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community, book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically unfounded.”

      http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/05/01/0002764213477096.full.pdf

      It’s be nice if Peterson actually read more competent reviews of the literature on climate sensitivity, such as:

      “Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity”
      “Climate sensitivity in the geologic past”

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) | September 13, 2018 at 7:55 pm |

        Jordan Peterson?

        Oh, the sophist who thinks that non-peer-reviewed garbage blogs like NoTricksZone are a reliable source of information on climate science topics, such as climate sensitivity:

        Atomsk, when someone like yourself stops discussing the scientific ideas and instead starts attacking where the ideas were published, I know for a fact that he’s losing the debate.

        You’re the kind of guy who would claim that because the janitor wrote E=MC^2 on the bathroom wall, it must perforce be wrong because of where you read it.

        Stick to the science, there’s a good fellow. Truth often shows up in unusual places …

        w.

        PS—It appears that the irony of using a blog to diss blogs totally escapes you …

      • Re: “Atomsk, when someone like yourself stops discussing the scientific ideas and instead starts attacking where the ideas were published, I know for a fact that he’s losing the debate”

        Nice try, Willis, but no.

        First, these aren’t scientific ideas”. They’re nonsense. And I already rebutted that by citing more reputable comprehensive analyses of the scientific literature.

        Second, you apparently missed some important context here. NoTricksZone, the garbage blog Peterson relied on, said they would cite peer-reviewed papers, not non-peer-reviewed blogs. So by pointing out that NoTricksZone is a non-peer-reviewed blog and that NoTricksZone actually relied on non-peer-reviewed blog sources, I’m actually applying the NoTricksZone’s own standard:

        “You ostensibly have nothing else to offer but blog essays as source material to support your beliefs. In contrast, we cite peer-reviewed scientific papers here. That’s the difference between us, mikeR.”
        http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/16/current-solar-cycle-weakest-in-2-centuries-and-grant-fosters-far-fetched-model-claims/comment-page-1/#comment-1154329

        Third, please don’t pretend you don’t take sources into account. For example, there’s a reason you get medical advice from medical professionals, instead of random people on the street (hint: medical professionals are a more reputable source on medicine, than are random people on the street).

        Re: “It appears that the irony of using a blog to diss blogs totally escapes you …”

        There’s no irony. I’ve long made it clear that I don’t consider this blog a reputable source of scientific information. I instead rely on the peer-reviewed literature. By the way, posting on a blog is not the same thing as saying that blogs are a reputable source of scientific information. Try not to conflate those two again.

      • It is of course fair game to cite blogs – or twitter – in less scientifically sensitive contexts. I wouldn’t.

      • So not knowing much Jordan Peterson – I gather there was something to do with male/female stereotypes and something Russell Brand on solving climate, crony capitalism and income inequality with more government. But I am in course in favor of ignoring climate for Earth system sciences, crony capitalism and income inequality. Seriously. It is all about mainstream market management for optimal economic growth with optimal governance.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: I instead rely on the peer-reviewed literature. By the way, posting on a blog is not the same thing as saying that blogs are a reputable source of scientific information.

        Trying to have your cake and eat it too? Blogs are not reputable but you should not be ignored? Blogs are reputable when they link to good analyses, including but not limited to peer-reviewed literature, and when they accurately quote primary sources.

      • Re: “Trying to have your cake and eat it too? Blogs are not reputable but you should not be ignored?”

        It’s not that hard to follow along, Matthew. Once again:

        1) Non-peer-reviewed blogs are not a reputable source of information on science.
        2) Peer-reviewed scientific papers are a much more reputable source of scientific information.

        Re: ” Blogs are reputable when they link to good analyses, including but not limited to peer-reviewed literature, and when they accurately quote primary sources.”

        Blogs aren’t reputable, period. They may do competent analyses, just like some random person on the street might get a question right on medicine. But a random person on the street is not a reputable source on medicine, and you’d be a fool if you got your medical advice from such a person.

        The peer-reviewed sources (or reputable, mainstream websites, like NASA website or the NOAA) that a blog relies on are what are reputable. I would never trust what a blog said about a paper unless either I had read the paper for myself, or I had previously checked what the blog said about it’s sources and had found the blog had a long track-record of accurately representing the sources. NoTricksZone, Climate Etc., WattsUpWithThat, etc. fail that latter test, while SkepticalScience, RealClimate, etc. pass that latter test.

      • Atomsk’s Sanakan: NoTricksZone, Climate Etc., WattsUpWithThat, etc. fail that latter test, while SkepticalScience, RealClimate, etc. pass that latter test.

        I regularly check in on RealClimate, but I do not comment as much as I used to, which was not often anyway. I do not think that the head essays at RealClimate are more reliable than the head essays at ClimateScience, and the commenters are not reliably better than the commenters here.

  74. “Potential influence of the Atlantic Multi‐decadal Oscillation in modulating the biennial relationship between Indian and Australian summer monsoons”

    It all has a biennial component, from way back when someone noticed that a tremendous amount of ice one year caused a positive feedback the next year to over-compensate.

  75. Eric Holthaus:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-brought-florence-upon-ourselves/2018/09/12/eaf376ca-b6b2-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?utm_term=.d4d26f1a8e0a
    Mostest, worstest and biggest ever. Time to Channel Winston Churchill. Climate change is a man from Austria.

    This is a good narrative. Like WWII, we did not engage as climate change tore across Europe. Only England stood up to it. But then it attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Actually that was an ally of climate change, but what the heck, the sleeping giant woke. When we defeated climate change, Russia grabbed a bunch of territory. Proving we can win the war on climate change, but someone will ruin it all and take over a bunch of countries in the fallout.

  76. Ron Graf | September 11, 2018 at 9:31 am |

    There needs to be studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. It’s that simple. My hunch is that if those populations are compared that the unvaccinated will be healthier, including less allergies.

    Sorry, but both your assumptions are wrong. There are indeed such studies, and they do NOT show what you claim. See Myth: No Studies Compare the Health of Unvaccinated and Vaccinated People for the details of a number of studies, although I suspect you’ll ignore them.

    Here’s the money quote (emphasis mine):

    I’ve heard this claim several times. Ever since I found out that it is not true, I have been amazed how it just keeps resurfacing. I would like to put this myth to rest. I am aware of at least seven original research papers and one meta-analysis (looking at another 6 randomised clinical trials or RCTs) published since 2009 which look at myriad aspects of general health, comparing large unvaccinated and vaccinated populations. I will lay them out below, but to put it shortly: vaccinated people are as healthy or healthier in all aspects compared to the unvaccinated. The vaccinated populations studied have fewer vaccine preventable diseases (may seem obvious, but nevertheless needs to be mentioned), fewer cases of asthma, fewer heart attacks, better birth outcomes, and higher cognitive scores than their unvaccinated counterparts. To note, the incidence of autism is also unchanged in populations with or without the MMR vaccine.

    OK … now you’ve got the science … you gonna accept it, or blow it off?

    w.

    • Re: “OK … now you’ve got the science … you gonna accept it, or blow it off?”

      I often think the same thing when I cite scientific evidence to politically-motivated contrarians who don’t accept the mainstream consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
      As with anti-vaxxers, they blow off the science.

      By the way, the link you cited won’t give you all you need to respond to Graf’s point. Your non-peer-reviewed source largely covers work on children who are missing a particular vaccine or set of vaccines. So, for instance, if the paper is on MMR, then “unvaccinated” means “didn’t get the MMR vaccination” It does not mean “never received any vaccination”.

      But what many anti-vaxxers typically want is a prospective, randomized controlled trial of people who never received a vaccination. So anti-vaxxers (and likely Graf) will reject your link out of hand, since they’ll your link doesn’t cover prospective trials on completely unvaccinated kids.

      Of course, the anti-vaxxers’ request lacks merit for at least three reasons.

      First, it’s it’s unethical to withhold effective treatment from people, when you know there are effective treatments available. Vaccines have been repeatedly shown to reduce mortality and improve patient responses to infection. You already accept that point, but in case other people don’t, they should read sources such as:

      “Vaccination and all-cause child mortality from 1985 to 2011: global evidence from the Demographic and Health Surveys”
      “Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccination and infant mortality”
      “First pertussis vaccine dose and prevention of infant mortality”
      “The effect of oral polio vaccine at birth on infant mortality: a randomized trial”
      “Rotavirus vaccination is associated with reduced seizure hospitalization risk among commercially insured US children”
      “Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases”
      “Health impact of measles vaccination in the United States”

      Since vaccines have been repeatedly shown to save lives, it would be unethical to run a prospective, randomized trial where one compared vaccinated people to completely unvaccinated people. It would be as silly and unethical as running a prospective trial on smoking causing lung cancer, or on whether parachutes should be used during sky-diving:

      “Yet there is no ‘perfect’ evidence of lung cancer and smoking: there are no randomised controlled trials (RCTs), for obvious reasons.”
      http://jech.bmj.com/content/71/11/1078

      “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials”
      “Efficacy of parachute use questioned”

      In response to this, some anti-vaxxers switch from a demand for prospective trials, to a demand for retrospective studies. That leads into the second and third problems:
      Completely unvaccinated communities tend to have different habits that vaccinated people, including being more likely to avoid mainstream medical treatment. So even if unvaccinated people had worse health in these retrospective studies, it’d be hard to know if this was due to them being unvaccination, or instead due to factors such as their seeking less medical attention. This issue is compounded by another problem: the proportion of completely unvaccinated kids tends to be relatively small, making it harder to control for the aforementioned confounders.

      The following sources provide further discussion of the aforementioned issues, if you’re curious:

      “4865 (1.3%) received no vaccines […]
      […]
      To evaluate the safety of the schedule, the IOM committee recommended comparing adverse health outcomes between fully vaccinated children, completely unvaccinated children, and those on a delayed or alternative schedule [10]. Using observational data to make these comparisons creates significant methodological challenges [10,13,14], in part because health- and health care-related behaviors may differ in systematic ways between parents of fully vaccinated children and those under-vaccinated due to parental choice [15,16]”

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17302712

      “only 0.7% of children were fully unvaccinated in this controlled study […]. In addition to this demographic-based bias the type of primary health practitioner involved in a child’s care introduces a confounder as it may affect the likelihood of an autism spectrum diagnosis.”
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303871805_Calls_by_alternative_medicine_practitioners_for_vaccinated_vs_unvaccinated_studies_is_not_supported_by_evidence

      “The proportion of never-vaccinated children at 2 y of age in CNICS [Childhood National Immunization Coverage Survey] 2013, 2.7%, was much higher than the 0.7% measured the same year in the United States by the National Immunization Survey (NIS). The way this outcome was measured in both surveys was similar; however, methodological differences in other aspects of the survey (sampling frame) or patterns of response may explain in part this difference in results.”
      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2016.1277847

      “A previous VSD study estimated that approximately 1% of children had no vaccine records before age 24 months [“A population-based cohort study of undervaccination in 8 managed care organizations across the United States”]. However, children who appear completely unvaccinated in VSD data are likely a mix of the truly unvaccinated and children whose vaccination status is misclassified. The misclassification can be due to children receiving vaccines outside of the MCO or missing electronic vaccine records. Additional utilization and health plan criteria could be applied to increase the likelihood that completely unvaccinated children were receiving regular care within the managed care organization (MCO).”
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X1501525X

      Despite these limitations, some retrospective studies have been on unvaccinated kids, and I cited these before. These studies provide evidence against the claims made by anti-vaxxers and Graf. For example, the first study below shows a greater occurrence of vaccine-preventable conditions in completely unvaccinated kids vs. vaccinated kids:

      “Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents”
      “Lack of broad functional differences in immunity in fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children”
      “Vaccinated versus unvaccinated children: how they fare in first five years of life”

      https://judithcurry.com/2018/08/25/week-in-review-science-edition-85/#comment-880766