Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

“Fingerprints of internal drivers of Arctic sea ice loss in observations and model simulations” [link]

Conflicting Measurements Reduce Uncertainty in Climate Science [link]

California’s new earthquake warnings deliver critical seconds of notice [link]

Why are land-use change emissions so complex? Forests have direct (eg, deforestation), indirect (eg, CO₂ fertilisation), & natural effects (eg, storms). Policy  & science  treat these differently!  [link

A 900-year New England temperature reconstruction from in situ seasonally produced branched glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers  [link

Reassessing the Role of the Indo‐Pacific in the Ocean’s Global Overturning Circulation [link]

The importance of unresolved biases in 20th century sea-surface temperature observations  [link]

Deep floats reveal complex ocean circulation patterns [link]

Review: Snow–atmosphere coupling in the Northern Hemisphere [link]

Simple model for past periods of rapid sea level rise [link

Climate‐Driven Change in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans Can Greatly Reduce the Circulation of the North Sea  [link]

Last century warming over the Canadian Atlantic shelves linked to weak Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [link]

Climate trends have been “peculiarly pleasant” for US maize. Farmers are changing mgmt to take advantage of the longer growing season, while high temps have been suppressed from elevated crop water use [link

Cascading transitions in the climate system [link]

Probabilistic reasoning about measurements of equilibrium climate sensitivity: combining disparate lines of evidence (open access) [link]

Mechanisms for and predictability of a drastic reduction in the Arctic sea ice: [link]

The Medieval Climate Anomaly in South America. MCA warming in South America and the NH appears to have occurred largely synchronous, [link]

Lively debate on ‘Emergent Constraints on Climate Sensitivity’ in today’s issue of Nature. Ostensibly variability-based constraints actually reflect a forced signal: . Author’s reply:

“all the indicators point to real problems with insect and invertebrates in decline across the world.” [link]

“Our findings confirm the importance of the deep Southern Ocean in ice-age CO2 change, and show that deep-ocean CO2 release can occur as a dynamic feedback to rapid climate change on centennial timescales.” [link

I can’t recommend enough the paper by Tapiador et al. (2019) — … — Succinct review of outstanding issues and assumptions in current cloud microphysics parameterizations [link]

Current CaCO3 dissolution at the seafloor caused by anthropogenic CO2  [link]

Models suggest injection of into the stratosphere could have unintended consequences [link]

In some groundbreaking CESM-WACCM geoengineering simulations, stabilizing surface temp interestingly fails to accompany stability in either Earth’s energy imbalance or polar ocean temps. [link]

New review paper on snow-atmosphere coupling [link]

Mapping Sea-Level Change in Time, Space, and Probability [link

“models show that completely deforesting the tropics could result in global warming equivalent to that caused by burning of fossil fuels since 1850” [link]

Comparison of the Fast and Slow Climate Response to Three Radiation Management Geoengineering Schemes [link]

Snow cover is a neglected driver of Arctic biodiversity loss [link]

Predictability of Extreme Precipitation in Western U.S. Watersheds Based on Atmospheric River Occurrence, Intensity, and Duration [link]

Temporal trends in absolute and relative extreme temperature events across North America [link]

Social science and policy

Bjorn Lomborg: UN climate officials admit ‘Paris agreement will leave 99% of the problem unsolved’ at ‘a very, very high cost’ [link]

MIdterm election results: outlook for science [link]

Soil and Seaweed: Farming Our Way to a Climate Solution: We can sequester carbon and improve our nutrition through farming of land and sea [link]

India is cancelling coal plants because they are uneconomical compared with renewables [link]

Jordan Peterson Says Global Warming Hype Is ‘Low-Resolution Thinking’ [link

ames Huffman, professor and dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School, writes about how climate change lawsuits can actually undermine the rule of law. [link]

Our new paper revealing how subglacial rock landforms at ice sheet grounding zones lead to >100km ice shelf channels, adding to ice-sheet vulnerability. Processes operating millions of years ago have an influence now and in future. [link]

Increases in food costs and ozone emissions aren’t the only negative consequences of corn production: prairies and other wild-lands are disappearing, soil is eroding, groundwater is being depleted and ocean dead zones are expanding [link]

About science and scientists

20 things I wish I’d known when I started my PhD [link]

Academia is a cult [link]

The Guru Effect: Intellectual gurus write impenetrable, jargon-ridden prose; readers mistake lack of clarity for profundity. [link]

The importance of stupidity in scientific research!  It contains some excellent advice on how to handle – and even learn to love – the feeling of being constantly immersed in the unknown. [link]

Sarah Lawrence professor Samuel Abrams wrote an op-ed about leftist bias. Critics vandalized his office door. Students want him fired. And he says the administration is pressuring him to shut up. [link]

In peer review we (don’t) trust: How peer review’s filtering poses a systemic risk to science [link]

Flawed consensus gets in the way of innovative Alzheimer’s research [link]


112 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. As always, much to read, much to learn, much to thank you for, dear Dr. J.

    Well done, that woman!


  2. The “Lively debate” link on emergent constraints doesn’t seem to lead to anything useful. One link that seems to work is below, but this is using Kyle Armour’s own link as an author, which is on his page.
    The debate is about Cox et al.’s 2018 emergent constraint paper that got a lower sensitivity range, ECS=2.2-3.4 C. Three separate responses identified problems with it, and Cox responds to these.

  3. Curious George

    “India is cancelling coal plants because they are uneconomical compared with renewables [link].” From the link: “As ever-cheaper renewable energy comes online, increasingly expensive coal generation will fall further from profitability.” It sounds like a usual fairy tale.

    “India will not be able to meet its Paris climate agreement commitments in the coming years if it carries through with plans to build nearly 370 coal-fired power plants.”

    • Yes, the Forbes article does not discuss subsidies, but it does refer to air pollution standards that the coal plants cannot comply with. Maybe the higher costs refer to retrofitting the coal plants to comply with strict standards, perhaps stricter than ours’.

      Also not discussed is the cost of modifying the grid to handle intermittency, or the cost of battery storage.

      Anyone have any insight into this?

    • The Forbes article is not concrete evidence but a wish list, like Scraft noted. I love how Forbes fudge the data “n 2016-2017, India added 15.7 GW renewable energy capacity (2.5 times the 6.5 GW added in 2015-2016), compared to 7.7 GW net coal installations (65% less than average installs over the previous four years). “. Put how much energy each type of generation provide and the numbers reverse.

    • See WUWT post https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/10/al-gore-claims-wind-and-solar-are-now-cheaper-than-coal/.

      Claims similar to Forbes article, applying to U.S.

  4. Dr. Curry

    What do Jordan Peterson, Andrew Marzoni and Samual Abrams have in common? a lectern from which to speak when academic avenues have been withdrawn.

    I watched the entire U of Cambridge U-Tube lecture of Jordan Peterson who describes his travails with his own academic institution. Then Andrew Marzoni uses the NYT as a forum, having opted out of academia, regarding it as a sinister place. Samual Abrams resists being pushed out of his tenured position by a president who can’t decipher her role as referee of politically correct demands vs first amendment rights.

    In my experience, the only people who have protected speech in academia are the externally well-funded professors. Now these academic “billionaires” are not necessarily saints in their own behavior, far from it. Rather, these “money talks” persona can be quite enterprising regarding their own exploits.

    Someone said some time ago: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Academia is the current knowledge power house.

  5. Climate sensitivity estimations in observational data rely on a spurious correlation


  6. ?Meeting the goal of the Paris climate accord to limit global warming to 2°C requires adopting multiple strategies for rapidly reducing and mitigating carbon emissions. These strategies include an array of negative emissions technologies that result in the net removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, including the capture and storage of carbon in vegetation and soil through reforestation, afforestation, and changes in agricultural practices (Hansen et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2016). Restoration of degraded landscapes will also contribute to improving ecological integrity, which will provide many additional benefits to biodiversity and human well‐being (IUCN, 2016). As a result, 56 countries have pledged to restore 168.4 million ha of deforested and degraded land through the Bonn Challenge, which will sequester an estimated 15.7 Gt CO2 and generate $48.4 billion USD in economic activity (IUCN, 2018). The effectiveness of these efforts can be improved by information on how much and how quickly carbon can be stored in forest vegetation and soil.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14475

    Rattan Lal has estimated that 500 GtC has been lost from terrestrial systems in the Holocene due human activities. For comparison – the IPCC estimated that some 350 GtC entered the atmosphere from fossil fuels, cement manufacture and land use activities since 1750.

    I am intrigued by the possibilities of the Resplandy et al 2018 method – after rejecting the unwarranted claims and trivial complaints by around it – for tracing the carbon cycle in the global system.

  7. sheldonjwalker


    Which temperature series are correct?

    Which do you believe, GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, UAH, or RSS?

    This article compares these 4 “major” temperature series, to see how well they agree, or disagree, with each other.

    You may be surprised at the results.


  8. Abrupt cascading transitions of the climate system


    Can do down as well as up.

  9. Reblogged this on Patti Kellar and commented:
    Another week with what caught Judith Curry’s eye…..

  10. Thanks for the reading list. I need a tutorial on how “parameterization” is used in Climate Science models. Are they supported by robust evidence or are they “fudge factors” inserted to influence the model outcome!

  11. While it’s fair to accuse me of not paying attention, as I have too many interests and things to do at this time, I noticed you can share these posts on Facebook. By increasing this blogs reach, it’s possible there will be growth for the point of views expressed here. I would ask you not to assume if you do share some of them, it will not amount to anything. Perhaps a growth potential threshold will be passed. You can make a positive difference.

  12. “Jordan Peterson Says Global Warming Hype Is ‘Low-Resolution Thinking’ ”

    The relevant link is to the Cambridge Union interview+questions with Jordan Peterson, which can be viewed on YouTube here: –


    Jordan Peterson’s contribution to the debate on climate science – probably the most useful, knowledgeable and insightful, bar none – including the billion dollar climate scientific community, the journalists, reporters and commentators, industrialists, etc,. is to be found between time mark 20:14 and 21:02.

    • The global warming part starts after 20 minutes when a person asks innocently whether the world can unite around the climate change problem. He goes apoplectic to say the least.

      • His answer was no – and everyone laughed.

      • Yes, they did and there were murmurs several times during his angry response. He seemed unhinged by his hopelessness on this issue.

      • This is a case where everyone can judge for themselves #jiminy’s dishinged interpretation.

      • Yes, the question was one of hope in humanity coming together and solving this and his initial “no” answer was somewhat angry and lacking any hope at all. A complete diss of the question. This is why “no” drew laughs.

      • I got the impression of bright young things listening attentively and smiling while he described the multiple misconceptions of the urban doofus hipster cohort. They are irredeemable klutzs worth talking past and not to. Then they get offended. I find it perversely amusing.


      • He is full of hopelessness. It was a big contrast from the premise of the question. One of his solutions is to educate the third world so there are more brains to come up with the solution. Also if everyone had a GDP of $5k per person they would live cleaner anyway. Really? Amazing stuff. He is a clinical psychologist, so we can’t expect much when he spouts on these subjects.

      • Lomborg makes it about philanthropy towards poor nations when they aren’t the problem. It is something for advanced nations to do themselves. The top third of the global population sorted by CO2 per capita (about 20-25 countries) emit two thirds of the CO2. That’s where the action is needed. It’s a Lomborg trick to frame this as though it is in opposition to helping poor nations.

      • Jim D:

        You brought up something like his hopelessness. His experience solving problems is pretty good. He is/was a practicing clinical psychologist. There are number of stories, most from him, of his helping people, mostly young males. While he criticizes universities, he’s working on a solution which is something online. He’s studied things that don’t work, like the Russian Gulag, and Nazi Germany. He’s been involved with many studies which is more than some angry guy with a computer. What he doesn’t like is the way he sees things going, and he’s trying to do something about it. I think there are many more important problems for instance the state of politics in the United States. And spending all our time feeling good about our solar panels isn’t addressing that or in my opinion, isn’t even doing a good job.

      • He responded to a question about how the world can unite to help with climate change with the answer “no”. It is like he doesn’t want to have a united effort or perhaps any effort at all and he is angry about any efforts already taking place with particular bitterness towards even trying for renewable energy.

      • Eh – sophist debating tricks do not an informed opinion make. Yes let’s grow global economies, invest in all sorts of technologies and love the little fishies.

      • Lomborg frames it as a false economic choice that no one is making. Foreign welfare does not come from the same budget as national energy and fuel systems, and the UN does not control national economies anyway. Can we provide global immunizations while reforming the energy system? Why not?

    • Re: “Jordan Peterson’s contribution to the debate on climate science”

      … is largely worthless. For example, he repeats nonsense he saw on non-peer-reviewed, faux “skeptic” blogs like NoTricksZone. He’s just another run-of-the-mill political conservative who misrepresents climate science for ideological reasons:


      For the curious: the NoTricksZone blog Peterson cites does a number of nonsensical things, such as trying to pass off a non-peer-reviewed blog article (ex: Reinhart, 2017) as being a scientific paper. Kenneth Richard, the author of the NoTricksZone post, was taken to task for this, to point that he began blocking comments. This becomes all the more ironic since Richard acts like he’s just citing peer-reviewed papers:

      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. Next week we will be releasing the list of 450 scientific papers published in 2016 that support a skeptical position on global warming alarm.”

      More reputable overviews of climate sensitivity estimates are given in peer-reviewed sources such as:

      “Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity”
      “Climate sensitivity in the geologic past”

      In citing NoTricksZone, Peterson did something on par with maligning earth scientists, because he read a flat Earther blog that claimed a bunch of scientific papers showed that Earth was flat. And yes, flat Earthers do make claims like that (ex: search for the Youtube video “Documented Failure: NASA Papers Do NOT Prove a Flat Earth”).

      I’m not surprised that Peterson did this since he’s said another puerile nonsense, such as claiming that intellectually consistent atheism is on par with defending murder. It is beyond me why people still take this man seriously, outside the context of peer review, textbooks, etc. where his nonsense tendencies can be restrained. Hero worship, maybe? Anger about the phantom SJWs?

      • “For the curious: the NoTricksZone blog Peterson cites does a number of nonsensical things, such as trying to pass off a non-peer-reviewed blog article (ex: Reinhart, 2017) as being a scientific paper. Kenneth Richard, the author of the NoTricksZone post, was taken to task for this, to point that he began blocking comments.”

        So Peterson links to a blog where its author once tried to pass something off as something you say it wasn’t and then someone pestered him about to the point of being banned. So what?

        “In citing NoTricksZone, Peterson did something on par with maligning earth scientists, because he read a flat Earther blog that claimed a bunch of scientific papers showed that Earth was flat.”

        Because NoTricks made some mistakes, Peterson might as well be citing flat earther blogs. Peterson cited an article from NoTricks. Now he’s maligning earth scientists because what he ‘knows’ is from that one article in the tweet. That’s it. We can sum it up with that. Forget the 2 years working for the UN on whatever that was.

      • Re: “So Peterson links to a blog where its author once tried to pass something off as something you say it wasn’t and then someone pestered him about to the point of being banned. So what?”

        Try again, Ragnaar, and this time try to accurately represent what was said. Once again:

        Peterson maligned climate scientists based on tripe he saw from a nonsensical non-peer-reviewed blog. He therefore showed that his views on climate science are not based on reputable information, but instead the usual tripe one finds online. More reputable sources rebut the nonsense posted by Peterson’s source. Peterson is credulous enough to rely on NoTricksZone, thus displaying low scientific meta-literacy (to borrow a term from John Nielsen-Gammon). Peterson should know 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.”


        Peterson does this habitually. For example, he jumped of the “Earth is cooling based on a flawed satellite-based analyses I found cherry-picked on a blog, with cherry-picked endpoints” bandwagon:


        Maybe Peterson should now familiarize himself with more reputable sources?

        (Page S17 of: “State of the climate in 2017”)

      • Long winded and wrong headed motivated nonsense as usual.


        There is a large variation in outgoing energy due to variable ocean and atmosphere circulation – in the Pacific largely – demonstrated in science I have cited and on which they have not the slightest clue.

      • Come on.
        “Peterson maligned climate scientists based on tripe he saw from a nonsensical non-peer-reviewed blog.”
        You know it’s not true. There’s more to that tweet than the source. And the source got the story correct enough. Lewis and Curry were so correct in lowering sensitivity, some others started criticizing that method as used by anyone. NoTricks said, Sensitivity has been dropping. If it hadn’t been dropping, the alarmists wouldn’t have had to say, But not that method. Use a different one.
        “He therefore showed that his views on climate science are not based on reputable information, but instead the usual tripe one finds online.”
        He did not. He grabbed one link which does not in any universe sum up the depth of what he thinks about climate change.
        Are you trying for SJW status? Once you say one thing that may be wrong, that’s it. Deplatformed. 15 words or whatever it was in Peterson’s tweet, now defines him. For you. That’s easy. No thinking required.

      • Re: “NoTricks said, Sensitivity has been dropping. If it hadn’t been dropping, the alarmists wouldn’t have had to say”

        I’m not interested in your evidence-free ranting on “alarmists”. And no, NoTricksZone was wrong. I already cited you two review papers on this. I suggest you try actually reading them, instead of credulously falling for the nonsense from that blog:

        “Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity”
        “Climate sensitivity in the geologic past”

        Re: “He grabbed one link which does not in any universe sum up the depth of what he thinks about climate change.”

        It shows how credulous and uninformed it is. It shows he can’t distinguish reliable sources from unreliable ones.

        Re: “Are you trying for SJW status? Once you say one thing that may be wrong, that’s it. Deplatformed.”

        And now you’re offering a straw man on my position, using the “SJW” buzzword that so many of Peterson’s acolytes love. Nowhere did I saying anything about him being “Deplatformed”. That’s something you invented in your own head.

        Re: “15 words or whatever it was in Peterson’s tweet, now defines him. For you. That’s easy. No thinking required.”

        As I told you before, Peterson has a long history of saying and posting silly things on climate science. I’ve already cited you two examples. Here’s a third, with Gavin Cawley aptly correcting the nonsense, like he normally does:


  13. The Daily Caller/Peterson link was pretty hard hitting in so far as the about 6 minute long top video. If you notice, there’s a body guard on the left and right of Peterson and the interviewer. I don’t know that for a fact. They escorted him in at the beginning of the full length video. Peterson develops, and I can’t point to a specific video, the idea of high and low resolutions. We handle, the number of pixels we can. Sometimes we increase them for a small area. This is the actual doing. Our abstract thoughts such as, solve global warming is a low resolution statement. You have to actually do it, broadly, over and over again at the local level. One wind turbine at a time, assuming that will work. This is the high resolution required for quality work. A thing that actually works, down to the level of reduction gears in the wind turbine that require very little maintenance and last for 25 years. Politicians hurl low resolution broadsides at each other in many ways. Policy is implemented and its success in part depends on whether it is simply an abstract idea or will it actually work when the rubber meets the road? Neither approach is better. Ronald Reagan had some low resolution broad ideas. Assume most of them worked.

    • Above, please replace ‘reduction gears’ with gearbox. I was thinking of the 912 Rotax engine.

    • Ragnaar: “Ronald Reagan had some low resolution broad ideas. Assume most of them worked.”

      If they worked they couldn’t have been low resolution. The ‘working’ part is the measure.

      The body guards are also matters of fact, but not something he has ever made reference to and so I suggest you respect him in this and allow them to fade into the background.

  14. I’ll take another shot at low and high resolution. All things being equal, more CO2 warms the planet. Start from here and work down the hierarchy. The low resolution idea is used to describe how high resolutions thing in the climate work, even though we don’t know how many of them work. Many studies are framed as confirming the abstract guiding idea of CO2 warming. We can sub in for the low resolution idea, it’s not good. When CO2 greens the planet, it’s not good. And find all the support we can for that not being good. In both cases, abstract ideas are driving things. One might argue our abstract high level thought is driven by observing high resolution things in detail. That things are driven by the broad base of the hierarchy which flow upwards to result in our abstractions, or high level thought. One could also argue, that’s what happened, and everything is fine an my fears are not warranted and climate science is fine. Once you say what you have say, I believe in global warming and we are causing it, every high resolution detail then must conform to that. Or else we know what happens, perhaps getting flamed on Twitter or something like that. As it turns out, this all a pretty simple idea. I am able to describe it, so it must be. Have people locked themselves into a top down approach, it’s bad, all the while the skeptics keeps looking with various levels of success and finding high resolution things not agreeing with the theme? Once you’ve made up your mind, what the heck does it matter what the high resolution details are? So, which way should it flow? From the high resolution details? The idea that it’s a bounded system, so we don’t need to know the details where it actually happens, we are driving things with that top down approach. Is it supposed to flow that way? The answer is probably some of both. We don’t want a sub-optimal imbalance though. What we can also wonder, what are the Greens doing? Find their high level low resolution abstraction that drives things for them. When they implement it, or if successful, what happens to all the people.

  15. His is one angry stream-of-conscience response to a simple question. Renewable energy, Germany, the UN, all get his ire. He supports Lomborg, but neglects to say that a priority for Lomborg is green energy research.

    • More clinical dissection of progressive sacred cows.

    • Jim D:
      Something that I am stealing from Peterson. I think the question was something like, Will climate change unite us? It hasn’t so far. The Greens have not united us. Nuclear power has not united us. Fracking has not united us. I do agree, he was strident in this case, the first video at the top of the page link. I’ve been hawking him. He does have less than ideal responses at times.

      • It united all the global governments, except one, as something that needs action and fast. This is not a controversial issue globally speaking.

      • Jim D:
        United with many aspects of fraud. Fraud only to the extent of, What great things we say we are going to do, while doing things that in the end don’t amount to very much. You’re aware of Hansen’s criticisms.

      • Ragnaar, that is not Peterson’s argument. He is nothing like Hansen who wanted nuclear power and a carbon tax and a global agreement to effect it which Paris did not deliver. Peterson made it clear he is skeptical of renewables and even of the science that the IPCC uses for projections that lead to the need for mitigation in the first place, which again is not Hansen’s position. Peterson falls more into the category of don’t know, don’t care, skeptics.

      • #jiminy motivated reasoning is completely suspect. He must know by now that we do not for a moment share his odd and simplistic ideas. He may believe that climate science is a monolith – it isn’t. Computer projections from opportunistic ensembles are a complete nonsense. Late 20th century warming was mostly quite natural it seems and not entirely anthropogenic as the IPPC claims – they are wrong – demonstrably so with extensively cited science. Something #jiminy seems incapable of. The very idea seems alien to JCH. #atomski relies on selective google lists of mostly irrelevant papers,.repetitive and disparaging denier talking points and don’t forget the tweets. Pathetic. As for the future we will see soon where the next global climate shift leads.

        These are ideas that they are utterly incapable of grasping because they are not consistent with their collective memes.

        Paris endorsed whatever countries wanted – consistent with retaining and deploying cheap power. Utterly pointless window dressing that they now hypocritically object to. The only halfway decent project to emerge from Paris is the French 4 per 1000 initiative – that # jiminy doesn’t ave a clue about – but which is signed up to by 56 countries and more importantly million of farmers and indigenous landowners well outside UN nonsense. Lomberg is completely correct and a 1000 times more rigorous than the UN. I agree a 1000% with Peterson and really can’t see where #jiminy is dragging his very odd and obviously motivated calumny from. Peterson is so much smarter than #jiminy of course. But it is the nature of these urban doofus hipster pissant progressives to imagine bizarrely that they are smarter and more moral than any outsider they define as such. The posturing is completely predictable and hilarious. And he will still pretend, prevaricate and dissimulate. I think so little of #jiminy’s science and moral philosophy – and find both Lomberg and Peterson a 1000 times more likely to contribute to culture and ideas.

      • Jim D:

        I think the answer is to have Dave Rubin interview Hansen and Peterson at the same time. The problem with that is the risk to Hansen. People already call Peterson a climate denier. And he’s survived the twitter hate storms so he’s pretty immune to further leftist attacks. I don’t know if you’re aware of his science background? It’s part of his gender wars approach. As in the 1st video of the story’s link having goals is not having a plan. I think it’s just a deal where a bunch of people, like those trying make money selling solar, set up their feeding at the government trough. We could be like France whenever it was they committed to nuclear. As good as France was. That’s aiming high. But we’ve been brought so low, that’s out of the question. Say what you want about Hansen as they try to usher him off the stage, nuclear power can be a plan.

        “President Trump sought $120 million in his budget proposal for fiscal 2018 to restart the licensing process for Yucca, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry has become a vocal defender of the project.” – The Hill

        Caring is over rated when it’s primarily a virtue signal.

  16. Politico has a good article on Claire Lehmann just posted. Some of the usual suspects are mentioned.

  17. WUWT links to a video of Pat Michaels on Fox News (Levin’s show). This is a transcript. Various skeptic memes and conspiracy theories are covered. Entertaining.

  18. Nothing about whether global warming is beneficial or detrimental. The premise that global warming would be dangerous underpins the whole climate alarmist meme. Why isn’t most of the research effort aimed at challenging and testing the arguments and evidence that underpins this premise – this belief?

  19. Letter in today’s Australian:

    Evidence is mounting

    [Professor] “Judith Sloan’s call for reasoned debate over climate change and its potential effects (10/11) is opportune. However, the call is likely to go unheeded. Those who insist on political action to combat climate change are masters at talking up perceived dangers whose existence is based on conjecture and, at best, flimsy evidence.

    Constructs and evidence contrary to the human-induced storyline are dismissed because of alleged consensus science. Yet, the uncertainties and assumptions underlying the hypothesis are well known. What is in dispute is the claimed magnitude of global warming and its likely effects.

    The evidence is mounting that the recent warming trend has origins in natural variability. Attempts to regulate our changing climate through decarbonising industry could well be futile at best, destructive at worst.”

    William Kininmonth

    • Model opportunistic ensembles are without a doubt theoretical nonsense. Let me try again.

      “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation” http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

      It goes beyond that of course – but you would need to read the paper.

      And although I rabbit on about warming in CERES and Argo – it is not like anyone here has asked the right question as to why.

  20. I am looking forward for a change to World Toilet Day on the 19th of November.

    It may be time to update this.


  21. So here we are ENSO monthly pause.


    It is a little cooler in the north-east Pacific.


    Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).


    And although the polar annular modes have drifted more positive in recent days – the surface pressure pattern is a canonical if nascent La Nina feedback pattern.

    And I take perverse delight in citing an original giant of the field from 1947 just for #atomski.

  22. Let’s see how far out I can go? This is queued to my point:


    Equilibrated states. Piaget. Somewhere on the interwebs he goes into a lot more detail about Piaget where this possible connection ocurred to me. The climate seeks an equilibrated state. Same as the sane enough of us do. Introduce tyrannical CO2 and the climate loses to the climate that would have been. As it’s working against itself. The reason we seek an equilibrated state is evolution. Equilibrated states of families and societies out compete others. But the climate cannot evolve you say. Tell that to the climate. Coevolution happens. Don’t deny it. An equilibrated state can be argued to be not be too cold. In that case, CO2 as the tyrant is not to certain. An equilibrated state can be argued to be that of 1950 with all the advances up until that time from the relative misery that preceded it. Who is to say what it should be? But this state will be sought by evolution. In some ways it means, the most efficient state (think physics). Suppose sea levels rise by 3 meters? Is that efficient? In some ways it is more efficient than cutting fossil fuel use by 2/3s. For the well being of humanity, some of them who will have to move. All the good, all the lifting out of poverty and new freedoms are worth some of the people having to move. And ending up at a new better equilibrated state. Perhaps not the one that some say they want. The one they know to be the best one.

  23. The dissolution of sedimentary CaCO3 neutralizes excess CO2, thus preventing runaway acidification, and acts as a negative-feedback mechanism in regulating atmospheric CO2 levels over timescales of centuries to millennia.

    The floccinaucinihilipilification of oceanic acidification– the oceans are infinitely buffered… despite pernicious global warming alarmist fictions continually being exposed, time and time again, the real problem still exist: AGW is nothing but a hoax and a scare tactic– Left vs. right politics, not science.

    • Yes – my environmental science specialization is biogeochemical cycling. Which is no specialization at all but after decades I may have some slight inkling.

      There is a stoichiometric equilibrium between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and carbonic acid in oceans. Calcium carbonate is one of the most abundant substances on Earth – from hundreds of millions of years of biological deposition. It’s presence both in sediments and in open ocean organisms – in the presence of magnesium ions and other catalysts – maintains dissolved calcite and aragonite in a supersaturated state in the world’s ocean. It is this source of calcium that is utilized in shell and coral formation – and that complexes with carbonic acid in acid neutralization. The neutralized carbonic acid will then be replaced as more carbon dioxide goes into solution. An ongoing process that it has been suggested will result in undersaturation of aragonite in the Great Southern Ocean. Most unlikely given the efficiency of substance recycling in the photic zones of open ocean. Impossible in shallow coastal zones. What seems likely to change is the deposition rate – the net flux of calcium between pools. Not especially significant.

      But you are right in another way as well. I don’t particularly care what people understand about very complex, coupled and dynamic Earth system processes – I doubt myself most of the time – as long as the fruits of their ruminations are life affirming – ‘the lifting out of poverty and new freedoms’ of Raagnar just above. AGW is the fruit of a poisoned tree.

  24. “Marine stratocumulus cloud decks are regarded as the reflectors of the climate system, returning back to space a significant part of the income solar radiation, thus cooling the atmosphere. Such clouds can exist in two stable modes, open and closed cells, for a wide range of environmental conditions.” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

    The cloud parametization paper seems to lead nowhere useful. I note only that the misplaced faith in the completeness of model physics is undermined by the paper itself. And of course climate fundamentals perpetually change – in regimes that sum to millennial variability

    “Global warming presents a new challenge for parameterization. As the climate is changing —and we can state this with a high level of confidence based only on observation, without having to resort to models— coefficients and empirical values may vary, together with the associated assumptions.”

    The paper doesn’t get to the level of describing physical mechanisms. It makes no mention at all of the variability of low level marine strato-cumulus that seem relatively important for Earth energy dynamics.




  25. Dr Curry, Thank you again for sharing these.

  26. Salvatore del Prete

    Robert what is your climate outlook for the next decade and why? Thanks.


    The climate is now in at the crossroads and we are going to see and find out which way it goes very soon. I feel it is happening but I need more of the items below to make a more definitive turn before my confidence can really increase.
    For my money I think it is the geo/solar magnetic field strengths and if they weaken enough and stay weak I think the result will be a major climatic impact to colder conditions.

    Signs I am watching for are:


    500 MB ATMOSPHERIC CIRCULATION PATTERNS /HEIGHTS-more meridional /lower heights



    Time will tell but the potential is as higher now then any other time since the Dalton Solar Minimum ended which was in 1850.

    • It is quite simple – the chaotic climate system will shift regimes again in the next decade if it is not happening now. History will repeat. Where to and by how much I have not the slightest clue. One might invoke reversion to the mean – but that’s a statistical rule of thumb and not a prediction.

      But I am interested in the mechanisms of change – much of which emerges from the polar regions as more meridional or zonal wind patterns. These push winds and storms more or less into lower latitudes, drive changes in AMOC and bias the Pacific system to one state or another on interannuaql to millennial scales. The source of surface pressure variability is another. An appealing hypothesis is the role of solar UV/ozone chemistry translating through atmospheric pathways to polar surface pressure.

      Just btw – I have been considering #atomski’s piffling narrative about consensus and medicine. I am sitting in a hospital bed with IV antibiotics. I have been a good patient for far too long. What I have to show for it is a multiple drug resistant golden staph, Charcot arthropathy and a $14,000 wheelchair. Science there may be – and thank God for antibiotics – but this does not guarantee the competence of medics.

      • “These decadal climate variations are not just characteristic of recent decades and the indices for these variations can be extended back through the centuries using proxy temperature records (Figure 2). Naturally occurring atmospheric jet stream and oceanic circulation cycles have occurred over at least the past 1500 years as evidenced in temperature proxy measurements that indicate warm to cool temperature cycles that occur on multidecadal time scales, such as tree rings, ocean sediment cores and coral bands [8,9]. ” Oviatt et al 2015

        “Niño–like) epochs, 1000–1260 ad and 1920–2009 ad, and a longer above-average (La Niña–like) epoch from 1260 to 1860 ad. Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. The LDSSS record is also significantly correlated with annual rainfall in eastern mainland Australia. While the correlation displays decadal-scale variability similar to changes in the interdecadal Pacific oscillation (IPO), the LDSSS record suggests rainfall in the modern instrumental era (1910–2009 ad) is below the long-term average.” Tessa Vance et al 2013.

        “This study uses proxy climate records derived from paleoclimate data to investigate the long‐term behaviour of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During the past 400 years, climate shifts associated with changes in the PDO are shown to have occurred with a similar frequency to those documented in the 20th Century. Importantly, phase changes in the PDO have a propensity to coincide with changes in the relative frequency of ENSO events, where the positive phase of the PDO is associated with an enhanced frequency of El Niño events, while the negative phase is shown to be more favourable for the development of La Niña events.” Verdon and Franks 2006

        For the resolutely clueless.

      • good luck with the infection.
        fought this
        for months
        not pretty.

      • Thanks. Sorry to hear of your troubles. The infection on my left big toe is almost inconsequential. But I have burnt through two oral antibiotics this year alone and started on a third. My problem is to convince the antibiotic gatekeepers that a short course of IVAB is better all around than breeding resistance to yet another oral AB. My GP is on board. I am beginning to feel like typhoid Mary. 😊

    • History will repeat which history, and what difference will it make? Most likely, no difference at all.

  27. Robert I Ellison

    ” Science there may be – and thank God for antibiotics – but this does not guarantee the competence of medics”

    I have just attended lectures on Blood Pressure management; the other, the role of aspirin for mitigating cardiovascular complications.

    Let me say from the beginning, high blood pressure has been ill defined so that it’s management has led to therapies that may need to be re-evaluated. The settled science of aspirin use is no longer considered settled.

    Regarding antibiotics: the serendipitous observation by Alexander Fleming in 1928 of a penicillin mold contaminant inhibiting Streptococcus growth in a petri dish moved medicine to now targeted therapy for antimicrobial therapy.

    My recollection is that diabetes is a factor in your ongoing health issues. This has me seeing in my mind’s eyes a bronze statue of a collie dog, a pancratectomized lab animal kept alive by injections of insulin from slaughterhouse obtained extracts of insulin, formally on the south entrance to the campus of University of Toronto (statue no longer there and no one in administration knows anything about where the statue is located) and its role in Banting and Macleod receiving the Nobel Prize for the identification of insulin and its role in diabetes(1923).

    In the interval decades, we know more about both antibiotics and diabetes today and the complications from each.

    What your query includes is the abilities of the medical people using all those innovations to improve patient outcomes. We now have more health care providers who use these tools including medical assistants, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and formally trained physicians. Some of these providers are cost saving intermediates. One has to be aware to whom one is speaking.

    My hope for your recovery is immense. I appreciate and honor your contributions to science. I honor those from whom I learn and can apply my newly acquired knowledge.

    God’s speed.

    • Thank you so much. This seems to be a day when people are saying lovely things about me on the interweb. Diabetes results in infection in the feet – inflammation over a period leads to loss of bone density. Why wasn’t I told? It is a fairly uncommon condition. I am being discharged today after being fitted with a little sphere under pressure that delivers 10 ml/hr of antibiotics over a 27 hour period. It is carried in a little sling. Technology hey?

      The other area of concern is blaming the patient for being overweight and sedentary. Half of late onset diabetes patients have an environmental or genetic pancreatic beta cell dysfunction. No amount of diet or exercise will help. It is being called type 1.5 these days. But still people are being dangerously misled by much of the medical profession. I am thinking of becoming a crusader. I am a very bad patient these days. I had a fairly loud discussion with a doctor this morning until he gave me what I wanted.

      Let me just say that I have always admired your tone, your knowledge and your openness to ideas. The spirit of inquiry is the essence of science. I think we should start a mutual admiration society.


  28. Salvatore del Prete

    Robert I wish you the best . Get well soon!

  29. Robert I Ellison

    “I think we should start a mutual admiration society”

    I apologize. I may have gone too far. I don’t want to appear to be insincere.

    On the other hand, I believe diabetes complications are best viewed as a result of small blood vessel disease. Disease of the heart, intestine, eyes, extremities, kidneys including the vascularity of bones all have in common disorders caused by small blood vessels, the tiniest of the tiniest blood vessels in theses structures. The end organ is not receiving consistent nourishment and oxygen making these organ systems vulnerable to opportunistic infections.

    Enough said.

    The pressurized reservoir with antibiotics, flow is regulated by the diameter of the tubing and is just another instance of the pressure/diameter physics employed, kinda laminar/turbulent fluid flow physics. Simple, elegant, accurate. Blood antibiotic concentrations initiates a concentration gradient which deliver to the distant poor circulation area hopefully a sufficient concentration area under the curve for sustained killing of bacteria. Over time, diffusion is our friend. The watch word is time, usually, a long time.

    Poorly understood, why don’t new small blood vessels regrow into these sites. At times, new blood vessels grow in heart muscle not yet dead. There is a scar formation process which seems to stop new vessel growth. Some cancers grow new blood vessels to further encroach upon normal tissue (angiogenesis). All of these growth/regrow processes possibilities are on the horizon.

    In the mean time, loud confrontations with providers strikes me as being full of energy and reflecting both frustration and a fight within the individual to move forward. Choosing to harness the latter is what is called: the doctor/patient relationship.

    No worries mate.

    • I didn’t think for a moment that you were insincere. 😊 And neither was I.

      And you are right – it is a sticky blood platelet problem from high blood glucose. Utterly unnecessary with the right advice and early insulin intervention. The peripheral vascular system does grow back – but it tends to be a little leaky.

      • Salvatore del Prete

        It sucks but I hope to keep seeing your post and contributions to the climate scenario over this site.

  30. Great roundup, thanks for sharing. Particularly excited about the ice shelf channels, my kids were just asking the other day why the glaciers receded from where we live after the LGM.

  31. Geoff Sherrington

    Roger Cooke’s “Conflicting Measurements Reduce Uncertainty …” is welcomed because it emphasises uncertainty, when emphasis is certainly needed.The paper is hard to comprehend by those who have standard science education because it has some alternative nomenclatures. A bald assertion like Cooke makes “Given two conflicting measurements, the lower is probably deflected downward by its noise and the higher deflected upward; we expect errors to become negatively correlated.” is hard to comprehend and I do not consider it is correct until the noise mechanism is researched and classified into those parts that agree with the assertion and those that do not.
    However, as I have been saying for a decade or more now, many papers now part of the climate scene would not have been published if the true magnitude of the uncertainty had been studied and expressed. See for example the recent work by Nic Lewis on errors in the Resplandy et al work on ocean heat. My expectation based on innumerable lab attempts to measure temperatures in waters accurately would be that Nic has exposed just one of the sources of error here. The bigger error would be anticipated from the bias in instruments measuring ocean temperatures. The accuracy claimed for Argo etc is not what it is easy to achieve in a lab.

  32. The recent remarks from Jordan Peterson are significant, because he has such a large following. In addition to his appearance at the Cambridge Union, he said similar things in his interview with Helen Lewis for GQ magazine in October. That interview has had 3.5 million views in the two weeks that it has been up on youtube.

  33. Is It Sexual Harassment to Discuss this Article?
    “…the National Labor Relations Board released their opinion that his discussion of this theory did in fact constitute sexual harassment:

    Statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.”

    It looks like some are taking a match to the science. Which is troubling when it gets to the STEM fields. I think it degrades the field the science relates to. Call it the science related to gender differences.

    • Ragnaar –

      Quite a come down from your link in that previous thread:

      Foe example:

      None of the questions used to create the segmentation related to current political issues or demographic indicators such as race, gender, age or income, yet the responses that each segment gives to questions on current political issues are remarkably predictable and show a very clear pattern.

      So I’m a bit skeptical as to how they reach the opinion that none of their questions related to political issues – particularly since answers show a pattern of political association.

      I’m inclined to think the associations are not just coincidence. So then let’s look at some of their questions:

      Which statement do you agree with more?
      – – People are largely responsible for their own outcomes in life
      – – People’s outcomes in life are determined largely by forces outside of their control
      Which do you agree with more?
      – – Professional athletes should be required to stand during the national anthem at their games
      – – Professional athletes should be able to kneel in an act of protest during the national anthem at their

      Which do you agree with more? Confederate Civil War monuments are…
      – – symbols of Southern pride
      – – symbols of racism

      Which do you agree with more?
      – –
      Undocumented immigrants who arrived as children and grown up here should be protected from deportation and given the chance to earn citizenship.
      – –
      The government should be able to deport anyone living in America who doesn’t have a legal right to be here.

      So to just take one example, that question about the Civil War monuments has nothing to do with politics or race?

      Okaaaaaaay then. Whatever they say, eh?

      • It’s tough to reconcile the statements. Let’s time travel. Consider each of your above questions over a period of your life starting at age 18 until now. A trick? Good ideas can move forward and backwards in time and found to be just as true or whatever for these time frames. So, while this just takes the study into a more fuzzy region it might tell us something. 10 years ago, ask the same questions. So when Fox plays all these clips about Democrats saying things 10 years ago that Trump is now saying about immigration, we can figure what is political. It’s when I change my mind. A tribe absorbed the Civil War monuments issue. Is it about race. Assume it was about race 20 years ago. Where was this same tribe? As each new frontier is opened as seems to be the case these days, we see a tribe awakening. I hadn’t thought of this before, but I am starting to think there is quality of a tribe to find new things just about everywhere they look.

        The article I linked to uses a line of argument I’ve seen a few times. And I am thinking, well not this science, I meant the climate science. If it’s gender, science not that important.

    • Yes Ragnar, I saw the same article. It’s disturbing in its implications. Are the Humanities dead as advocates of Enlightenment values? The author seems to believe they are. Are Universities becoming propagandistic organizations for group grievances? It looks like University administrators are even more leftist than Professors.

      The problem here is that these students are going to be harmed by being turned into zealots. In stead of trying to succeed by individual initiative, they will just blame others for oppressing them and give up and stay in mommy’s basement playing video games or tweeting.

      Joshua, I don’t how you find such vague intimations beneath the surface when the obvious explanation makes so much sense. Could it be that you have a strong bias and are consumed with motivated reasoning?

  34. Tribes:
    Charles at WUWT was close just the other day about skeptics in something he put up there. I’ll say it, the commentors there are a tribe. And others are driven out. Lame. For about the 100th time, they attacked Mosher for somehow dissing their tribe. How sensitive are they? What does it take to be an extremist? How much effort? Learn a few things and there you go. This linked article has the Exhausted Majority same as the climate debate. We know of those on the right that will not budge. GPWF. I know what I’ll read when I click through to their latest. I am not saying anyone’s wrong. And WUWT is a good source for finding out what the latest thing is. So if we can see what the situation is, now what? This one is as old as the hills. Pick up the middle. It’s a Jedi mind trick to focus on the other extreme. It’s the middle.

  35. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/11/18/npr-science-technology-math-engineering-and-now-congress This is the STEM people getting elected. The article really does not get traction on global warming and passed on the issue of nuclear power, though I do like the one who knows about nuclear who was elected. All but one were Democrats, so it’s not going to make a difference about global warming because the Democrats already have their position for the next decade. As far as this being a good idea, what have we got to lose? I assume they’re good at math. Maybe they know more than most about uncertainty. Since they are Democrats except for one, we could follow them, pointing out any stupid things they say that makes some famous science person from history roll over in their grave. Mann is getting boring. And I feel kind of bad for him being subjected to whatever he’s been subjected to. Some upside is, perhaps these people can push nuclear power, and even reach across the isle. Drive some of the more whacked out Greens away. I am going to order some popcorn.

  36. Bill McKibben has something just out in The New Yorker. It is the most depressing thing I have read.

  37. “What is Additional Capacity?
    The Solar Potential Analysis (SPA) uses the concept of Additional Capacity to describe the capacity needed to cost effectively maximize the dispatchability of solar and wind energy. The “addition” is measured from the amount of capacity needed to meet annual solar production targets (10% by 2025 or 70% solar/wind by 2050). Additional solar and wind is capacity designed to ensure sufficient generation when solar or wind resources are low – such as cloudy days or near sunrise or sunset or calm days.
    Peaks and Valleys. All generating capacity that serves a peaking or balancing function, such as a “peaking plant,” may be operated intermittently, even only a few times over a year. Peaking plants are “additional” generation capacity that serves a specific peaking function. Even though these facilities are idle for long periods of time, we do not consider them as “overbuilt,” nor do we say that we are “curtailing” the output of the power plant when the plants are not running. Peaking plant capacity has a critical grid function that enables the most cost effective deployment of other resources.
    Additional solar or wind capacity similarly serves a critical function on the grid; producing energy at the needed time, as does a peaking plant. But instead of filling the need for more production when demand peaks, Additional Capacity fills the need for more production when solar and wind resources are low, effectively filling a valley.
    Energy storage could be used in place of Additional Capacity, but the Additional Capacity is a cheaper solution than building more energy storage to perform the same peak/valley grid function.
    Curtailment. Additional Capacity means additional energy and most likely curtailment. During periods of high solar and wind production, energy production greater than load will exist. Energy not utilized will be curtailed. However, it will be economical to curtail this excess energy due to the low cost of solar and wind production.”
    This is hard to believe. They are subbing in more wind and solar to make up for the problems of wind and solar. We call this diminishing returns. Solar does nothing at night and low winds might cover over half the state. Even this is going to require more powerlines. They dismiss gas peakers just like that. We don’t have to count that. Do I have a comprehension problem or have they just walked into a fairy tale and hope no one will notice? “…nor do we say…” We can do accounting by saying. I want to say this. So it is that way. Try that with the IRS.

  38. “By putting his lectures online, raising money via Patreon, and hosting independent lectures that anybody can attend, Peterson is unbundling the intellectual experience of the academy and removing the gatekeepers. The resentment sent his way by academics and intellectuals in the guild is much like the resentment and indignation sent the way of independent bloggers and reporters when the Internet started to displace the Mainstream Media as a source of information.”


    Also in the piece, they played the game. The University climate scientists. This is my transferring it to climate science. They lost. Other sources dominate climate science. But they played the game and should have won. But their world doesn’t transfer to the world at large, and they are mad about that. Donald Trump who Mann called a clown, won. Pop climate science won. MSM can’t do it the United States. I think this helps explain their hate for outsiders. Rather than become popular, they keep hammering on why they have won or should have won. You are not us, and we won. That’s their message. I of course don’t think they have won. About everything they’ve tried in the United States is a train wreck of fluff. Winning to me actually involves fixing things. They just walk around telling themselves and everybody, they won. That’s the consensus argument. How many ways can you say you won with those consensus studies? They sat in their place. The world changed. And they did not. This is winning a contest people no longer care about. Then have excuses for winning, but not anyone knowing they won. That’s their conspiracy theories about big oil and deplorables. They write papers about how they won, except it was stolen from them by stupid people who believe in conspiracy theories from red states. Kind of like Clinton’s I lost because of this tour.

    Peterson puts it all out there, honestly I think, on how to win, to really win and not be bitter when you don’t.

  39. Trump tweeted, It’s cold and what happened to global warming?

    “This demonstrates once again that Donald Trump is not an individual to be taken seriously on any topic, let alone matters as serious as climate change,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, told HuffPost in an email. “He is a clown — a dangerous clown.”

    What does Mann know about any topic? The national debt for instance? He’s bitter. He lost. Mann is likely sub-optimal. Maybe it’s all the terrible things people say about Mann that influences him to do the same kind of things. Actually they have some similarities. Mann seems to be trying to save the world. His authority is quite limited though.

  40. It’s interesting that the following involves the Guardian. Who says there is no middle in the climate wars, and Heterodox is supposed to be the middle in another area, which the Guardian takes issue with:


    Three bullet points from a book:

    The Untruth of Fragility: What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker.
    The Untruth of Emotional Reasoning: Always trust your feelings. 
    The Untruth of Us Versus Them: Life is a battle between good people and evil people.

    These things ought to be written down somewhere at the Guardian.

    Moral pollution:
    “Our brains evolved for tribal warfare. Part of tribal thinking involves establishing which people are morally clean and which are not; who belongs to (good) “us” and who is part of (evil) “them.” The social distance we create between “us” and “them” has a certain logic because, like germs, moral pollution is contagious—if we get too close to a morally polluted person we risk contamination. Contact with moral pollution can result in banishment from the tribe—like a leper. But belonging is such a fundamental human need that many people would rather suffer tremendous pain and humiliation than become a social outcast.”

    Who uses this approach? If I say, Al Gore, Bill Nye and the best one Mann. The temperature data is polluted. Or the left is polluted. It’s also college campuses that are polluted. I don’t mean all this. I am just trying to portray some people, until the next time I use the approach myself.

    The tribal war thing. It’s true. Then we need to work to balance that with something better in our minds. It’s not particular to the climate wars. It is unleashed though. I wonder why that’s true? Perhaps things have built up. Republican have been compromising since Reagan. Since before that. Threshold crossing result.

  41. “Interestingly, the research team also found a weak signal during a period called the Little Ice Age (a cold spell observed between about 1600 and 1850 AD). While not as pronounced as the 20th century trend, the signal might confirm that this period was also characterized by a weaker circulation in the North Atlantic, which implies a decrease in the transfer of heat toward Europe, contributing to the cold temperature of this period. However, more work is needed to validate this hypothesis.”


    It is or is not the AMO? So if it drives, how does that work? Greenland icesheet instability. It fell apart right before the LIA. Wasn’t the LIA all over Europe?

  42. “I did not train to be a scientist for over a decade just to sit quietly while science in general, and my field in particular, comes under attack from activists who subvert truth to ideology and narrative. When I reflect on my initial reasons over a decade ago for choosing a career as an academic scientist, it was largely due to the inspiration I felt from outspoken public intellectuals like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen Fry, and the late Christopher Hitchens, who led by example and followed reason wherever it took them. At the time, it seemed to me that a career as an academic scientist would be the most intellectually satisfying profession imaginable. It would allow me to dive deep into questions at the frontier of human knowledge, teach and train students to think critically, and pass on the virtues of boldly engaging with unreason in the search for truth to a new generation.”
    Nature/nurture. CO2/natural.
    Author: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Y6HdvgcAAAAJ&hl=en
    In the above, the same kind of conclusion is reached. It’s all society.