Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Global trends in wildfire and its impacts. “For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement” [link]

2018 The First Year With No Violent Tornadoes In U.S. – “We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States.” [link]

Increasingly powerful tornadoes in the U.S. [link]

Washington Times article on my new report Sea Level and Climate Change [link]

An argument for greater inclusion of machine learning in subseasonal to seasonal forecasts. [link]

Domino effect of tipping points [link]

Wind farms could cause surface warming [link]

How air pollution has put a break on global warming [link]

Pliocene and Eocene provide best analogs for near-future climate [link]

Rapid Drying of Northeast India in the Last Three Decades: Climate Change or Natural Variability? [link]

Estimating the Deep Overturning Transport Variability at 26° N Using Bottom Pressure Recorders [link]

Reassessment of pre-industrial emissions strongly affects anthropogenic aerosol forcing.   [link]

Ray Bates: Critique of the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 degrees [link]

Asymmetric dynamical ocean responses in warming icehouse and cooling greenhouse climates  [link]

Lewandowsky et al. ‘disappear’ the ‘pause’ [link]

Changes in the severity of compound drought and hot extremes over global land areas  [link]

Separating physically distinct influence on Pacific sea surface temperature variability [link]

Sampling bias overestimates climate change impacts on forest growth in the southwestern United States [link]

Natural variability has slowed the decline of western US snowpack since the 1980s [link]

Climate change has made western U.S.  mega drought 38% more severe [link]

Air‐Sea CO2 Flux Estimates in Stratified Arctic Coastal Waters: How Wrong Can We Be? [link]

Outer space may have just gotten a lot closer [link]

Ocean carbon inventory under warmer climate conditions – the case of the Last Interglacial  [link]

Social science, policy & technology

Robert Stavins:  assessment of the COP-24 climate talks in Katowice [link]

The Next Climate Frontier: Predicting a Complex Domino Effect – Scientific American [link]

What will we do with used solar panels? [link]

The surprising resurgence of hydrogen fuel [link]

Molten salt reactors: will it ever be commercialized [link]

Roy Spencer:  the five big questions global warming policy must answer [link]

Mike Hulme: Climate change and Brexit: what to do when negotiations lead nowhere [link]

About science & scientists

The doctor’s analogy again: the climate is like a child diagnosed with cancer [link]

Isaiah Berlin: Against dogma [link]

Good analysis: Academics should not be activists [link]

A Nature survey of 3,200 scientists reveals that a lack of training in lab and personnel management is one of the strongest contributors to an unhealthy lab culture. [link]

Quine’s naturalism [link]

Emergence: How complex wholes emerge from simple parts [link]

The causal hype ratchet – science to media [link]

Oreskes, Harvard and the Destruction of Scientific Revolutions [link]

Unintended effects of emphasizing the role of climate change in recent natural disasters [link]

Statistical certainty: less is more [link]

The University of Texas – Austin’s definition of harassment is breathtakingly broad: challenged by First Amendment lawsuit [link]

Brave spaces versus safe spaces [link]

243 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. The Next Climate Frontier: Predicting a Complex Domino Effect – Scientific American

    The Current Climate Frontier: Understanding Why We Left The Little Ice Age

    How about we learn to walk before we start talking about running?

    w.

    • Why?

      They already think they know that:


      Figure ES.2: Global annual average radiative forcing change from 1750 to 2011 due to human activities, changes in total solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions.

      https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

      Only human causes are relevant since 1750 for them. Without human causes we would still be in the Little Ice Age, or worse as Ruddiman defends.

      • The great increase in horse drawn travel that occurred in the 18th Century must have greatly increased the methane emanating from the horse manure. Since methane is a more dangerous greenhouse gas than even the evil CO2, the little ice age was ended. These explanations are always founded in horse manure.

      • These explanations are always founded in horse manure.

        Good point. The substitution of horses by cars means climate scientists have been forced to rely on more abundant bull manure for their explanations.

      • Horse manure does not produce an enormous amount of methane. Horses are not ruminants. Ruminants burp methane.

      • Philippe de Larminat, an expert in statistical identification techniques tried to apply these techniques to the climate identification problem. His results are surprising and worth a look.
        He published them with much details in a book “Climate Change, identification and projections” (de Larminat, P., ISTE/Wiley, 2014), and excerpts in Annual Reviews in Control doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.09.018 (access is free).
        According to Larminat’s work, the solar fingerprint appears much more in climate data than is usually thought.

      • His results are surprising and worth a look.

        That’s a valuable reference, thank you. I had forgotten about de Laminart’s results applying identification techniques from dynamical systems.

        Some of his conclusions:

        “At this stage, the existence of a mechanism of solar activity with a powerful influence over the climate seems irrefutable

        solar activity not only explains the previous large climatic episodes, but also makes a strong contribution to the warming over the last century.

        More precisely, for a warming of around 0.8 degrees since the start of the 20th Century, a visual evaluation gives the following distribution (in 2014).

        According to the IPCC “knowledge-based” models:
        +0.2°C results from solar and volcanic activity;
        +0.8°C from human activity;
        –0.2°C from natural random fluctuations.

        According to observations (identified models):
        +0.4°C results from solar and volcanic activity;
        +0.2°C from human activity;
        +0.2°C from natural random fluctuations.”

      • Javier

        A couple of years ago just out of curiosity I decided to compile a list of papers that focused on the solar issue. I was surprised at the very large number of papers and it wasn’t made up of just the usual suspects. It seems that it was over 200 from just 2 years. And I’m sure I missed many. There is a lot of solar research going on. I hope that is not being questioned.

      • Cerescokid,

        I am also aware of a lot of research on solar effects on climate. If anything, what it is surprising is that all this research has so little visibility and is largely kept outside official reports by IPCC.

        For AR5, from the December 2012 leaked SPM draft to the final version the following was eliminated:

        “Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link.”

        It is always an uphill battle for scientists to do research that contradicts the scientific dogma of the time. It means less money, less prestige, less career development. Most of them are unjustly condemned to irrelevancy despite valuable and difficult contributions.

      • Take for example: Ram, M. et al. 2009. The terrestrial cosmic ray flux: Its importance for climate. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90, 44, 397-398.

        They show that dust in GISP2 inversely correlates to solar activity and it is strongly modulated at solar frequencies, including the 11 and 22-yr cycles.

        Their result is very important because dust arrives to Central Greenland as a result of polar atmospheric circulation, and the relationship between polar atmospheric circulation and solar activity has been highlighted for years by Paul Mayewski, and agrees well with recent research on solar activity effect on the Polar Vortex.

        Ram et al., 2009 has been cited 10 times in a decade, according to Google Scholar.

        If you dedicate to solar-climate research, your research is largely ignored even if your results are new and important. The “publish or perish” requirement turns into “publish and perish.”

      • Publish paradigm-friendly or perish.

      • Javier

        Kept out of IPCC reports

        Because I’ve dug up as much research as I could find on geothermal activity affecting the Antarctica and Greenland Ice Sheets, I am waiting to see if future IPCC reports will continue to ignore this potential factor as they have done in the past. At a minimum, they owe it to the ideals of scientific inquiry to at least go through a transparent analysis of why it doesn’t have an effect on SLR.

        Ignoring solar and geothermal activity detracts from the integrity of their work.

      • IPCC are the gatekeepers of the dogma. Don’t expect anything else from them. It is like asking the inquisition to fairly review Galileo’s evidence.

      • Paul Aubrin, Javier and cerescokid,

        Thank you for the reference and the interesting comments.

  2. “Academics should not be activists”
    I discussed this earlier, but they make exceptions when it is an emergency and give two examples – climate change and economic recession – where experts need to speak out.

    • Emergency: “A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.”

      • Do you disagree that experts should be more involved when there is an emergency?

      • Yes, experts, not activists. But neither economic resession or climate change are emergencies in the normal sense of the word.

      • Climate change presents growing risks. I would say that is an emergency, and clearly the author of that article does.

      • Jim D there is no emergency, climate science has become a science where non-scientists claim more certainty than the experts.

      • The author assumes “the climate scientists who really understand the risk we are taking” see mega warming coming and it’s urgent. Unfortunately that’s not the case, the character of the problem is controversial, and most of the noise is from those who don’t really understand the risks or how best to manage them.

      • HAS, you interpret understanding the risks as predictions of megawarming. This is the problem with the debate in a nutshell. It should be about risk mitigation, trends and timelines, which alone leads to the sense of urgency as exemplified by the SR15 report.

      • Jim D:

        It wasn’t HAS’s interpretation; he pointed to the interpretation of the author. While ‘megadamage’ is more accurate, aka catastrophe, given the rafts of presidents, prime ministers, UN elite, religious leaders, influencers, NGOs, businesses etc that propagate the unsupported catastrophe narrative, along with *some* vocal scientists who disagree with the mainstream position, why would the author interpret in any other way but that megadamage (oft conflated with megatemperature) is the real stake?

        ‘This is the problem with the debate in a nutshell.’

        Yet one that you continue to ignore in its main form regarding public propagation and consequent policy influence from our highest authorities plus rafts of other authorities too. You call out skeptics who reference this manifest public presence (and its influence on folks) as though it’s a) their invention and b) somehow it doesn’t exist in the public / leadership spheres anyhow. Neither is so (it is emergent). Why would the author in this case think any differently? Up until the current US admin, the great majority of all the authority sources he’s likely to encounter, and *some* (vocal) scientists (whom are generally assumed to be mainstream by the public), are erroneously telling him and everyone else that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe. For sure this would be an emergency by any definition, and wouldn’t need any ruminations on whether the word ’emergency’ actually includes the scenario. But the narrative is false, and yet per previous threads you continue to ‘give a free pass to the catastrophic narrative’ from all these authorities, while inconsistently still objecting to any skeptics who merely refer to this narrative elephant within the public domain, and its consequent influence on people’s views and policy.

      • andywest, it is possible for people like the author to recognize the urgency from mainstream reports like SR15 that outlines the differences in risk between 1.5 C and 2 C of warming. Given that the present path puts us more in the 3+ C range, you can easily see why people have concern just from these types of reports. By dismissing urgency language as people listening too much to the likes of Obama, you appear to dismiss the mainstream scientists’ urgency itself, and have to be careful to make that distinction.

      • SR15 calls for the destruction of Western democracies and capitalism.

      • It only calls for reduced emissions. The rest is your own non-sequitur.

      • By what methods does SR15 propose to reduce emissions, Jim D? Control of the global economy by unelected overseers?

      • SR15 only says how much emissions leads to what temperature. The rest would be up to policymakers.

      • Jim D:

        ‘By dismissing urgency language as people listening too much to the likes of Obama’

        So are you recommending that everyone shouldn’t listen to their leader? (he propagated catastrophe narrative before, during, and after holding leadership). And all the other presidents and prime ministers of other nations, along with UN elite, religious leaders, influencers, NGOs, businesses etc? How would the public know not to listen on this topic as opposed to others? Should they not listen on every topic? These authorities say as part of the catastrophe narrative itself, that the narrative is supported by mainstream science. This is false and you agree it is false; yet how are people supposed to know it is false, and hence separate this narrative from anything genuine that the science may be saying? *Some* vocal scientists who disagree with the mainstream position, likewise propagate catastrophe narrative; the public assumes they’re mainstream and this chimes with the catastrophe messaging they hear from very many and many high authorities. How would they know this position is definitely *not* mainstream? How therefore can they possibly tell what the mainstream does say?

        “…you appear to dismiss the mainstream scientists’ urgency itself, and have to be careful to make that distinction.”

        I’m not dismissing anything; I’m pointing out that the above can only mean a huge influence regarding an untrue catastrophe narrative, yet you continue to give all these authorities a free pass regarding same, and do not acknowledge their influence. Whatever message mainstream science may wish to give, it will be outbid by these a-list (and many other) authorities, as backed by some (vocal) non-mainstream scientists. This is not dismissal, and nothing to do with me either, it is a drowning by a far more emotive (and false) authority propagation. Given there was much catastrophe narrative (outside the science) surrounding the SR15 launch, how do you think people outside the tiny numbers that actually have some knowledge of what it means beneath, will have any means to form a balanced opinion? The much more emotive urgency that engages them comes from the catastrophe narrative (naturally, as is it far more scary); assuming the urgency you state is correct, how on Earth do you think they will separate out a much lesser but valid urgency from this horror story of imminent catastrophe, and act appropriately? Emotive urgency doesn’t come with flavour identification. Opposing a false narrative is always the right thing to do regarding science communication – you agree when engaging with a skeptic, yet refuse to confront the vastly larger issue from our highest authorities and many other autthorities, and even refuse to acknowledge a reference by skeptics to this (or its influence), which you insist on attributing to those who merely mention the (manifest) narrative, not those authority sources who actually propagate it.

      • andywest, you are using this commentary as a vehicle to dismiss the urgency that comes from mainstream science. If Obama said something in conflict with mainstream science (I don’t think he did) feel free to call it out and get your favorite non-science personality, reporter, or blogger, to do so. Maybe they won’t because the last thing they want to do is defend what climate scientists have said about urgency. It’s an arena where the influencers are not the mainstream scientists on either side. How do we correct that? Do as the author suggests and listen to the mainstream scientists when there is an emergency. Other countries have no difficulty with science-driven policy because the policymakers know to listen to the experts not the unqualified critics.

      • Usually an emergency is something that is happening at the moment, not something that will start to be a problem in 50 years.

      • Jim D:

        “you are using this commentary as a vehicle to dismiss the urgency that comes from mainstream science”

        As I said above, you attribute the elephant in the room of catastrophe narrative to those who report it, not those authority sources who propagate it. So I’m doing nothing of the sort; I’m merely pointing to an urgency from presidents, prime ministers, UN elite, religious leaders, influencers, NGOs, businesses etc who propagate the unsupported catastrophe narrative, along with *some* vocal scientists who disagree with the mainstream position, which collectively is a huge authority outbid of what mainstream science actually says, *whatever* this message would happen to be.

        “If Obama said something in conflict with mainstream science (I don’t think he did) feel free to call it out and get your favorite non-science personality, reporter, or blogger, to do so.”

        On prior threads you’ve already agreed yourself that the catastrophe narrative is wrong, and indeed all the a-listers and others per previous posts do propagate this narrative. It’s not about individuals calling it out, me or you or any other, it’s about a) acknowledging the huge influence from such collective authority, which you don’t do, yet inconsistently still object to skeptics who may make the same error, and b) mainstream science as a community calling it out, which is very rare, and certainly nowhere near enough to seriously challenge this narrative elephant.

        “How do we correct that?”

        At last, the right question. Mainstream science as a community needs to get much more serious about opposing the catastrophe narrative; then, as indeed is your desire, what science actually is saying would emerge in the leadership and public domains.

        “Other countries have no difficulty with science-driven policy because the policymakers know to listen to the experts not the unqualified critics.”

        The catastrophe narrative is propagated globally, and while there is different fall-out in different countries (the emotive conflict invoked by same doesn’t always align to pre-existing political boundaries like in the US), a completely false and emotive message that is not supported by mainstream science, can and does have consequences in all countries. And in any case, I don’t see how you can ever sanction a supposedly science communication narrative that you know to be false even by the mainstream science position, so discounting anything sceptical. When it comes from skeptics, you don’t sanction, you object; when from the above authorities, it seems above that you suggest it’s okay because it aligns to what you feel is ‘the right’ urgency, even though you know it’s unsupported. If so, this is noble cause corruption.

      • andywest, you say “On prior threads you’ve already agreed yourself that the catastrophe narrative is wrong”
        I did nothing of the sort. I have stated that what science views as a higher risk of droughts, famines, coastal flooding, loss of ecosystems, fresh water, more disease, etc., a person may well attach the term “catastrophic” to. It’s a personal judgment term that they are entitled to depending on what they care about most. Catastrophic implies irreversible damage, and that is what we are looking at in many cases. If you don’t think those things are catastrophic, that is your own judgment of the predicted impacts.
        And it is an emergency because, as the SR15 report shows, what we do in terms of reducing emissions in the next few decades matters a lot for some of these risk thresholds. I actually think it is already too late to prevent 1.5 C, but we can still hold it below 2 C with some urgency in actions, and damage goes in proportion to the rate of change of temperature.

      • SR15: Destroy Western democracies.

      • Jim D as I said most of the noise comes from those who don’t understand the risks or how to manage them. Unfortunately you appear to put yourself in that camp.

        Just what are the risks that we face from a changing climate? As a clue and to ensure you get complete coverage please do include the risk that we starve the less well off while resources get devoted to attempting to address risks that are unlikely, poorly understood/uncertain, exaggerated etc so we are ineffective or misguided in our response.

        Risk management involves a systematic review of all the risks (uncertainty by consequences) including the risks in acting, and then a review of the options to address. In the case of gradually evolving uncertain risks the optimum strategy is very likely to be to do the low cost things and wait to find out more.

      • HAS, yes, it is not a solved problem, but it is a worthwhile direction for many reasons, including that cheap “cleaner” fossil fuels are running out. The science says don’t look to exploit oil in the Arctic Ocean or tarsands because that makes things worse, but look to efficiency, renewables, storage and, yes, nuclear instead. The cost trends will be decisive, and they already show that the mitigation track is tenable, and the only question is how fast.

      • Jim D your most recent comment arrived while I was typing my last one. The error you are making is focusing on the potential consequences without giving enough weight to the likelihoods and uncertainties.

        The only assessment of the impact of climate change for this century for NZ I have seen shows sea level rise is the only change that can be projected with any significance, given the uncertainties, (and they didn’t include the uncertainties from downscaling GCMs to regional levels).

        If you want emergencies (and much greater sea level rises and falls) you need to look to siesmic activity.

      • Jim D comments crossed again.

        The issue isn’t whether the mitigation track is tenable, it’s what it (in its many forms) might cost, and what benefits it might bring (and the uncertainites).

      • HAS, the SR15 says things in terms of how risks change between 1.5 C and 2 C. What else would you need? Then you can add in unpredictable tipping points whose likelihood also increase with temperature, and risk management says slow down.

      • Like I said it is not a solved problem. Some have suggested nuclear as a stop-gap. Renewables with natural gas back-up preserve the limited natural gas resources longer.

      • Jim D “What else would you need?”

        SR15 SPM is silent on most things one needs for a proper risk analysis. See if you can identify a few. It will help you to understand why people regard this as activism, not science.

      • HAS, maybe you’re saying that you are not convinced that 2 C is worse than 1.5 C, or maybe even that 4 C is not worse than 2 C. What would it take?

      • Jim D, the relative pros and cons of temperature increases is one issue that SPR15 is light on, but that is relatively minor. See if you can work out some others.

        I should add that being convinced on some aspect, one way or the other, isn’t what this is about. Since we are managing under uncertainty only activists think like that.

        What we should be looking for is a strategy that gives the best potential outcomes given today’s state of knowledge. We can however be sure that what SPR15 SPM has on offer won’t be that because of its obvious omissions.

      • That should be SR15, not sure where the extra P came from.

      • HAS, if you’re trying to affect the strategy it is too late. The strategy is emissions reductions and for each advanced country to find a way to do that at ten or so percent per decade. So what can we do today? Today we can start to improve the technology to achieve those goals as efficiently as possible.

      • Jim D, I take it you found it a bit hard to think about other ways in which SR15 SPM might be deficient as a risk analysis?

      • They have compared the risks from two scenarios, 1.5 C and 2 C. They have also seen what kind of emission rates lead to these scenarios. That was their scope.

      • Yes, Jim D, SR15’s ToR are limited in scope (although not as limited as you claim, and even within its limited ToR it is deficient as a risk analysis).

        Anyway this is all getting a bit circular, since it you that offerred SR15 as the example of why things were urgent. Of course things can be made to look urgent if you only look narrowly at an issue.

        If youn like commenting in this area spend a bit less time reading on climate science and a bit more on risk management.

      • Doesn’t risk management include risk mitigation?

      • If you only read about risk mitigation you’ll get a pretty screwy view of risk management.

      • Risk mitigation is one of a ways to manage risks. However in climate science the term is generally used more specifically to refer to stabilizing or reducing emissions. It is assumed that that is an (absolute) public good, and the other side of the equation – the cost of mitigation – is ignored. A consequence is that mitigation in climate science defines out of consideration other risk management techniques e.g. risk acceptance, time shifting etc.

        This is part of the problem being faced by the IPCC. The general population of the developed countries are not so accepting of their calculus, so we are seeing through their role in the process the imposition of a more convention approach to risk management. Popular opinion is bringing perceptions of the costs of mitigation into the equation, even if climate science can’t bring itself to address the issue. This is a good thing.

        In the end the irony is if the IPCC did a proper risk analysis they would recoginise the implementation risk they are facing, stop digging a hole, and do some broader based analysis.

      • JimD:

        “I did nothing of the sort…”

        Yes, you did. Catastrophe narrative = a claim of high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, which you agreed is wrong wrt to the actual position of mainstream climate science.

        “It’s a personal judgment term…”

        We’ve been through this many times before. It is most certainly *not* a personal judgement, because the presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and businesses and orgs are speaking for their countries and communities, and most certainly are *not* perceived as merely individuals speaking only about their personal opinions.

        “If you don’t think those things are catastrophic…”

        As noted repeatedly on other threads, it’s nothing to do with what I think, or indeed what you think. It’s what people perceive regarding the powerful catastrophe narrative propagation from their presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and businesses and other authorities / orgs.

        “…it is an emergency because…”

        The nature of the risks as communicated by all those listed above, is by virtue of being an unsupported narrative claiming high certainty of an imminent global catastrophe, in an entirely different category to whatever real threats mainstream science actually supports. You have already agreed that mainstream science does not support a high certainty of an imminent (decades) global catastrophe, yet this is what all the above authorities claim, and they claim it in the name of mainstream science. This message eclipses whatever it is that mainstream science actually says. Or are you suddenly jumping ship, and joining the camp of those who strongly disagree with the IPCC / mainstream, and say that global catastrophe is indeed imminent. Your objections to skeptics who raise the issue of the catastrophic say this isn’t so…

      • andywest, as far as I know people have not said catastrophe within decades, but the need to act within decades to avoid catastrophe. There is a difference. But given that 2 C has some serious consequences and could be reached in less than five decades at the current rate, it depends what you mean by decades and how serious you need it to be to count as catastrophic, which again I emphasize is a personal judgment, and while you say it doesn’t matter what you think, it does matter what they think. They consider floods, coastal loss, famine and ecosystem loss as catastrophic, so who are you to tell them not to think that or to reset their threshold for catastrophic. We don’t do thought police here. There is freedom of expression. If they have a lower bar than you for what they care about, that’s your opinion. There is no objective measure of what is catastrophic, but any irreversible damage would qualify.

      • HAS, the costs of climate change versus mitigation have been done. On the climate change side, we have the estimates of the social cost of carbon, and the IPCC WG3 gives the mitigation costs of stabilizing the climate. It turns out that the mitigation plan is ten times cheaper than the damage/adaptation/retreat plan by 2100.
        I use the bailing out a leaky boat analogy. Adaptation is bailing out ad infinitum, while mitigation is just plugging the hole once and for all.

      • Jim D: I did nothing of the sort. I have stated that what science views as a higher risk of droughts, famines, coastal flooding, loss of ecosystems, fresh water, more disease, etc., a person may well attach the term “catastrophic” to. It’s a personal judgment term that they are entitled to depending on what they care about most. Catastrophic implies irreversible damage, and that is what we are looking at in many cases. If you don’t think those things are catastrophic, that is your own judgment of the predicted impacts.

        Have you joined the side that says “CAGW” is not a straw man? You wrote it out pretty clearly.

      • MM, the people who use CAGW never define what catastrophic means to them. If they did, and it was 4 C of warming or 1.5 meters of sea-level rise, it would be a debating point on solid ground because many would say that is catastrophic and is within AGW limits too. However, it is likely that they define catastrophic as the level below which no action is required, which it works out better for them not to define.

      • Jim D: MM, the people who use CAGW never define what catastrophic means to them.

        You provided a reasonable definition of catastrophic global warming. Hence my question, slightly revised, Do you still claim that “CAGW” is a straw man?

        Never?

      • Jim D:

        “…as far as I know people have not said catastrophe within decades…”

        Say what? In previous posts, which as far as I recall you claim to have read, I provided many examples of presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) propagating the catastrophe narrative, aka a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, which scenario they also claim is supported by mainstream science. And you agree that mainstream science doesn’t provide such support.

        “…what you mean by decades and how serious you need it to be to count as catastrophic…”

        I don’t ‘need it to be’ anything, and I’m not propagating the narrative. The presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) are doing this. So it’s what *they* mean, so maybe you could ask them. Yet as you point out when skeptics sometimes make the same error, it’s vague and not scientifically defined, enabling the worst fears to be emotively raised within people’s minds. (Decades is typically expressed directly or indirectly to be anywhere from about 2+ to 8, i.e. within the 21st century).

        “…which again I emphasize is a personal judgment…”

        And which again I point out is nothing to do with personal judgement, because a) these presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and businesses and orgs are speaking in their official capacities and hence are not merely expressing personal opinions, so their propagation will rightly not be understood as personal opinions (which no national or global leader should be giving upon such an important topic anyhow), and b) they underwrite their propagated catastrophe narrative by saying that it is supported by ‘the’ science, so absolutely not promoted as a personal opinion, but as the judgement of (mainstream) science.

        “We don’t do thought police here.”

        As we went through in detail last time around, this is absolutely nothing to do with restricting freedom of expression. Presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) are propagating a false narrative, namely that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global climate catastrophe. And you agree that the science doesn’t support this, unless you’ve now jumped ship and cast your lot in with the (non-mainstream) position that opposes the IPCC, as Matthew suggests, hence now believing CAGW narrative to be valid? Either way, the narrative is still not one supported by mainstream science, and to point this out is not an issue of free speech. It is never an issue of free speech to point out that which is false; but it is such an issue if voices attempting to point out falsity are suppressed.

        ‘There is no objective measure of what is catastrophic…’

        Absolutely! Which is why presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs (and some non-mainstream scientists) should not be propagating a message of high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, also in the most emotive terms, as this could never lead to proper interpretation. And indeed when various qualifiers such as ‘end of life / humanity / civilisation’ or whatever are sometimes thrown in too, this is even more explicitly wrong.

        ‘If they have a lower bar than you…’

        I don’t have or claim any specific bar, and per above what the exampled a-listers are claiming could not possibly be interpreted properly by the publics of these presidents and prime ministers and UN elite and religious leaders and influencers and NGOs and many businesses and orgs. Your objections to skeptic use of the term (i.e. when deployed to describe mainstream science) is that it is inappropriate for this, plus anyhow has no definition that could allow proper interpretation; this is identically true for the propagation from all those authority sources, yet inconsistently you continue to give them a free pass for this propagation.

      • Jim D: , it is likely that they define catastrophic as the level below which no action is required,

        You have evidence for that? With and without the use of “CAGW”, there are lots of analyses claiming that the opportunity costs of particular projects outweigh their purported/calculated benefits, such as California’s Bullet Train.

      • Jim D:
        “You have agreed however that there is no objective definition of catastrophic, which I interpret as therefore being a personal judgment of a situation.”

        Wrongly. All the listed authorities are deploying this term because they believe that science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, which perceived judgement they pass to their publics. They are not attempting to interpret the science themselves and they are not lying.

        “…people, leaders or not, should not be prevented from saying that as part of their rhetoric that shows how much they care about these things.”

        Mainstream science does not support what they are saying; it is noble cause corruption to give their catastrophe narrative a free pass because you think that for now at least this is useful for the policies you support.

        “You won’t see words like catastrophic in science…”

        Absolutely! Hence it is wrong for all those authorities to present a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe as being a judgement of science.

        “If you find someone who actually said “imminent catastrophe” rather than the need for immediate action…”

        Refresh your memory on the many catastrophe narrative quotes from many authority sources. Many indeed cite a call for action too, but any such call based on the motivator of imminent global catastrophe is inappropriate, though this is often given as the overwhelming reason to act.

        “The use of “imminent catastrophe” would defeat the policy point because it means we can’t do anything to stop it, so it would not be a wise way to promote mitigation policies.”

        Indeed it’s not wise, but the narrative is emergent, and false, so wisdom is not in the frame here. Communicators and others have noticed the hopelessness it sometimes invokes, which is on the increase. The way to prevent this outcome is for the mainstream science community to push back on the false narrative.

      • “You won’t see words like catastrophic in science…” If that is the case, the UN IPCC SR15 is not science.

      • Andy West, perhaps you are not distinguishing the language of rhetoric from that of scientific publications. Yes, politicians can just quote the scientific literature without adding their own feelings to it, but that would not be the way politicians talk to get a point across. Adding personal feelings is a major tool in rhetoric and the hope is that those concerns are conveyed better that way. If we wanted people to just quote scientific reports, we would ask scientists to give the speeches and refrain from using any of their own feelings in it. You are asking politicians to make climate change impersonal and detached. They are not going to do that. That is not how rhetoric works. So if they see something as catastrophic, they can call it that, and if they think we are acting too slow, they can try to get that point across too. As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t sound urgent, they are not saying it right.

      • In other words, lie to the people: It’s OK; it’s just a politician exaggerating to get his way.

      • Jim D:

        “Adding personal feelings is a major tool in rhetoric and the hope is that those concerns are conveyed better that way.”

        Indeed we are not Vulcan and some rhetoric will generally accompany political messaging. But an entirely false message delivered in the most emotive and scary terms is far beyond rhetoric, it is just myth. And it is indeed false to say that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe (and you agree this is false), which message is per the many examples delivered in the most emotive terms.

        “You are asking politicians to make climate change impersonal and detached.”

        No, I’m not. But I do challenge the mainstream scientific community to push back far more strongly on this falsity which the listed authority sources genuinely believe. How will they ever learn their huge error if mainstream science does not push back?

        “As I’ve said before, if it doesn’t sound urgent, they are not saying it right.”

        To give a free pass on a complete falsity propagated as an existential issue in the most emotive fashion, just because it currently aligns to a level of urgency you’re comfortable with regarding your preferred policies, is noble cause corruption. If those policies and the science supporting them are indeed the winning options, they will stand on their own without the huge emotive fire of a false narrative. Nor if it pushed back on falsity, will mainstream science ever have anything to fear when recriminations about the false narrative start.

      • Andy West, clearly you have interpreted something that has been said in a way that appears false to you (not giving an example). Others including scientists may not see it as false. Scientists are not monolithically central mainstream and occupy a spectrum and it is probable that some scientists would support what was said. At that point it becomes an internal science debate. You say scientists should push back. Which scientists? Is there some truly centrist person you would trust more than someone else on either side of the spectrum? Any such pushback may well be met with other scientists who support the statement and think the IPCC were too conservative, and there are many of those who feel the IPCC compromised too much, especially on error bars.

      • Jim D:

        “…interpreted something that has been said in a way that appears false to you (not giving an example).”

        No. I referred you to the many examples of catastrophe narrative from many authority sources (and some scientists) in the prior posts you claimed to have read. Their messaging could hardly be clearer, or indeed more emotive. If you think not please provide detailed commentary on why regarding all these quotes.

        “…Others including scientists may not see it as false.”

        So for anyone, scientist or not, you are now arguing that it is not false if they say that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) catastrophe?? Have you jumped ship from Ipcc support to the non-mainstream camp who support CAGW theory?

        “is probable that some scientists would support what was said.”

        It is not only probable, for sure I provided 50 examples of scientists who propagate catastrophe narrative (about half climate scientists who therefore will have preferred theories to match). But these are a small minority in opposition to the IPCC / mainstream.

        “At that point it becomes an internal science debate.”

        It should be, but isn’t, because the minority camp’s message won due to emotive clout, not content. How do you think all those authority messages would go if they added that this is NOT mainstream stuff, but some minority camp.

        “You say scientists should push back. Which scientists?”

        Obviously the mainstream community should push back on the narrative of high certainty of imminent global catastrophe that is being propagated in their name, but which they do not support.

        “…and think the IPCC were too conservative, and there are many of those who feel the IPCC compromised too much…”

        Absolutely, which you will recall of course I pointed out in my posts. So it’s not a case of trusting 1 group more than another, it is simply about telling the truth on who supports what. Folks, leaders or not, can spout catastrophe narrative to their heart’s content *if* they acknowledge it’s minority status and from whom. But for all those authorities to tell the world that a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe is the judgement of IPCC / mainstream science, and in the most existential and emotive manner, is simply false. So have you now switched to the CAGW camp? Do you oppose the mainstream too?

      • Andy West, let’s get at who should push back. You say the mainstream should. Who decides who “the mainstream” is? Is it someone who agrees with every word and the full range in the latest IPCC report? You won’t find anyone that fits that profile. How do you place this scientist on a pedestal to attack Obama or The Pope for what they said? What are the practicalities of your proposal? Should this same person attack people who low-ball climate change estimates? Should they denounce Hansen for saying several meters of sea-level rise is possible by 2100? Do they need to be a glacier expert (he had many glacier and sea-level co-authors)? Maybe you would like “the mainstream” to get together in an op-ed to correct the politicians? They won’t unless the politician has said something counter to the science, which actually has to be rather extreme so as to be physically impossible. It would need to be along the lines of CO2 has no effect to reach that bar. Stephen Hawking saying it would become like Venus is an example of the other extreme. These are clearly wrong statements scientifically. Your other example had Macron saying it would be the end of the Earth, so you would have some scientist come on TV and say it won’t be the end of the Earth per se. Do you think that would help or spur panic by giving that statement more publicity?

      • Jim D:

        “Who decides who “the mainstream” is?”

        No-one has to, they know themselves.

        “Is it someone who agrees with every word and the full range in the latest IPCC report? You won’t find anyone that fits that profile.”

        Ridiculous straw man. This is not about detail. This is about a fundamental falsity that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe, the narrative of which is propagated by all the listed authority sources in the most existential and emotive terms, and in the name of mainstream science. And no-one needs nomination to speak the truth regarding their misrepresentation.

        “…to attack…”

        Who said anything about attack? To respectfully say that mainstream science does not support the catastrophe narrative is not to attack. The listed authorities are not propagating this narrative for nefarious reasons, but because they believe it. If the mainstream science community doesn’t correct their gross error, how will they ever discover the truth?

        “What are the practicalities of your proposal?”

        Keep it simple. Look at all the exampled catastrophe narrative. It says in different forms that mainstream science supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe. Point out that this is wrong when further propagation occurs. With the main error removed, details about what mainstream science really says will emerge. No science detail actually needed from the mainstream science community for this correction of fundamental falsity; detailed engagement will follow once the obscuring fire of false narrative is removed.

        “Maybe you would like “the mainstream” to get together in an op-ed to correct the politicians?”

        Eminently sensible.

        “They won’t unless the politician has said something counter to the science…”

        Presidents, prime ministers, high ministers, UN elite, religious leaders, NGOs, influencers, businesses and many other authority orgs and individuals are every day (across many years) saying something that is in fundamental disagreement with mainstream science, I.e. that it supports a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe, which it doesn’t.

        “…Macron saying it would be the end of the Earth…”

        Exactly, and many more like it, in the most emotive deliveries. And he, like all the other authority sources, underwrites this scenario as being the judgement of mainstream science. How are their publics supposed to know they are wrong unless the mainstream science community itself corrects the misrepresention?

        “…so you would have some scientist come on TV and say it won’t be the end of the Earth…”

        Great idea, each time countering this emotive false narrative. Then, eventually, the truth of what mainstream science actually says, will emerge.

        I’m sure you recall all the consensus messaging. There is much opinion on its good or ills, but most is irrelevant in the sense that such messaging in the public domain s not generally linked to mainstream science output anyhow, but to catastrophe narrative. So all those authorities are deploying ‘the agreement of all our world’s best scientists’ or whatever other consensus description, 97% or whatever,  not for what mainstream science actually says anyhow, but to underwrite a high certainty of imminent global catastrophe. This is simply false, only a small minority of scientists support that concept. You agree that this is not what mainstream science says, but you insist on giving a free pass to all the authority sources saying it. I presume you are not part of the mainstream science community,  but even your free pass, along with the same from thousands of others, contributes to perpetuating the most fundamental and well represented falsity in the domain.

      • Jim D: yes,yes,yes,etc.

        Responsible scientists should put the political rhetoric in context at every opportunity. More importantly, responsible scientists should be condemning the ‘settled science’ narrative as loudly and as frequently as they can. ‘Settled ‘ science is, by definition, not science. ‘Consensus’ science is nonsense.

        Yet so-called legitimate news sources are banning skeptical scientists from participating in their discussions with the support of many self-proclaimed scientists. The BBC is perhaps the worst propagandist for AGW in the world.

      • What is amazing is that despite a constant barrage of catastrophe narrative press accounts about how every weather event is due to global warming, little has actually been done in terms of mitigation. This shows I think two things. First, mitigation is extremely politically difficult. Second, people have come to distrust the media and scientists based on their track record.

      • FWIW way back when Jim D claimed the IPCC had done a risk analysis. Not really so, in AR5 they have been struggling to move from the Vulnerability analysis used in AR4 to more mainstream risk management techniques. Their fundemental problem however is that in a scenario (eg IPCC) world there is no risk in the emissions pathway because there is no uncertainty. This artificially constrains any subsequent risk analysis. As our hostess observes in her recent piece on sea level rise we need to know the expected pdf. We also need to factor in how that will change in time with increasing information.

      • “First, mitigation is extremely politically difficult. Second, people have come to distrust the media and scientists based on their track record.”

        Exactly, but expand on that. How “urgent” is the issue? Mainstream science and activists are happy with a “deal” to allow the world’s largest emitter – China – continue increasing emissions until 2030.
        Why is it politically difficult? Every ounce of emissions cuts in the west is offset and more by Chinese emissions growth. The entire global “mitigation” strategy at this point is- move all manufacturing to China, hope they care about global warming in a decade or so, if we’re wrong about ECS we will still have.. um… wrecked the west.
        Why “trust” institutions that think this is a good idea.

        2019 needs to be the year somebody cares enough about global warming to have professionals examine alternatives. There is no good reason to spend another year watching people draw squiggly lines on blogs in a vain effort to argue away the consistent failure of observations to point to catastrophe.

    • Thanks, Jim D, for pointing out the two disciplines where “experts” wildly disagree.

    • Medicine is a field where experts are actually trained to “speak out” in emergencies. But not as scientists but as some sort of “activists”. Their actions may be informed by science but aren’t scientific and the opinions are often all over the map.
      E.g. see https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-second-opinion-becomes-a-guilty-verdict-11545955656 or “Statistical certainty: less is more” above.
      And in contrast to climate science in medicine there is a lot of empirical data to inform opinion. Climate science has only one data point, the one and only climate history we have. It’s all opinion.
      So when climate experts speak out as scientists they should add the appropriate disclaimer. The latter can actually be scientific and should contain all the experts don’t know and cannot know which is what a scientist actually can know and should know.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Lewandowsky et al. ‘disappear’ the ‘pause’ [link]
      The paper on the pause (as opposed to model mismatch) contains a killer of a wrong assumption. Lewandowsky noted that “This broad range may indicate a lack of formal or scientific procedures to establish the onset of the ‘pause’. Moreover, each instance of the presumed onset was not randomly chosen but chosen specifically because of the low subsequent warming. We describe this as selection bias.”

      There were many examples of the pause illustrated by working backwards from the present time until a trend statistically different to level was found, thus setting the early end point. This is the opposite of a procedure with selection bias. Lord Monckton used this procedure a few times and found a pause that was convincing. Geoff.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      JimD, ” — where experts need to speak out.”
      If so, then why are experts not speaking out, just non-experts?

      • They do via SR15 and other scientific assessments or panels. These are used by the policymakers and bypass the public shouting match.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Jim D “used by the policymakers and bypass the public shouting match”

        Not my idea of democracy at work. Is it yours? Geoff.

      • Jim D, oh so only the experts are allowed to decide our fate? What complete arrogance on your part.

      • The experts inform the policymakers, and the policymakers decide. They are elected by you and funded by special interests, so it could go off track.

      • Bureaucrats are not elected by anyone, yet they hold immense power. The US EPA provides a perfect example of massive over regulation inflicted upon the population at great cost to all. The European bureaucrats in Brussels display the arrogance of massive government attempting to control everyone.
        The government needs to be significantly smaller and focus on vital issues, not hysterical hype created to line the pockets of the elite.

    • Scientists or not, any emergency would be an economic emergency. I cannot afford to move out of a river flood plan. Which I could argue to be caused by other factors besides climate change. Because I like to buy a new truck every 3 years. How is a climate scientists supposed to advise me about the best solution for me? The best solution might be for me to have more money to be able to adapt. If a government is corrupt in an another land, climate change may be a factor, but one of many making people not have options in the face of change. The real problem is the government, not climate change. Why would a climate scientist have any wisdom in such cases?

  3. The essence of the Bates review is:

    “(1) Lack of rigor and balance with three deficiencies viz (3) Inconsistent with IPCC AR5 in the direction of greater alarm although evidence since AR5 shows lower alarm. (3) Tuning of climate models to achieve desired results acknowledged since AR5 not taken into account.”

    But no mention of the real flaws in the science. For example the TCRE proportionality contains a statistical error. When that error is corrected no proportionality is found – proof that the proportionality used to construct carbon budgets is an artifact of a statistical error in the TCRE. Pls see

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/tcre/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/03/tcruparody/

    There are other serious issues (for example the airborne fraction) but the tcre fallacy in itself should show that the Bates review is grossly inadequate and perhaps a farce.

  4. Ray Bates article taken down a notch by Gavin at Realclimate.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/12/bending-low-with-bated-breath/
    Some of the important points (a) he conveniently ignored half of the IPCC attribution statement when criticizing the SR15 report for assuming it, (b) he used a single-study experimental ocean reanalysis that even the authors have doubts about for a mid-century warm heat contents (sea level didn’t support that).

  5. People like Ray Bates and Roy Spencer who think climate models are their biggest enemy need to take a look at the data lately.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/mean:120/mean:240/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.25/plot/sidc-ssn/scale:0.005/mean:80/offset:-0.6/mean:40/from:1850/plot/best/from:1988/trend
    The highly correlated 30-year-smoothed temperature and CO2 levels (but not the sun) over the last 50-60 years are their biggest problem because these indicate effective TCRs robustly in the 2.3-2.5 C per CO2 doubling range. Together with remaining imbalances in the 0.7-0.8 W/m2 range, these support an effective ECS near 3 C per doubling used in projections.

    • Need 0.3 C per decade JimD. Only getting 0.13. UAH.
      Spencer quite right.
      You might get it some day.

      • Not if you do the numbers. For a 2.3-2.5 C effective TCR you only need 0.15-0.2 C per decade with the last 50-60 years of CO2 increase which is what we have from the in situ thermometer record. RSS supposedly using the same data as UAH has a trend of 0.2 C per decade since 1979.

      • Oh my, what would Feynman say?

        30-year trends:

        GISS – .19 ℃ per decade
        HadCrut4 – .17 ℃ per decade
        UAH6.0 – .14 ℃ per decade
        RSS4.0 – .22 ℃ per decade
        BEST – .20 ℃ per decade

      • Jim, the point is that if you use unsmoothed data, be it daily, or certainly hourly, any suggestion of significant change immediately vanishes in a haze of variation.

    • JCH, Thanks for the 30 year rates. This makes the RSS TLT divergence from climate models in the tropics (by a factor of 2) very hard to explain. Figure 2 in the figure

      http://www.remss.com/research/climate/#Atmospheric-Temperature

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Jim D writes about “The highly correlated 30-year-smoothed temperature and CO2 levels (but not the sun) over the last 50-60 years”

      Enter Wiliam Briggs, statistician, 2007:
      “Now I’m going to tell you the great truth of time series analysis. Ready? Unless the data is measured with error, you never, ever, for no reason, under no threat, SMOOTH the series! And if for some bizarre reason you do smooth it, you absolutely on pain of death do NOT use the smoothed series as input for other analyses! If the data is measured with error, you might attempt to model it (which means smooth it) in an attempt to estimate the measurement error, but even in these rare cases you have to have an outside (the learned word is “exogenous”) estimate of that error, that is, one not based on your current data. ”

      Convince me Briggs is wrong.

      Geoff

      • The climate is commonly defined by the 30-year temperature. What else would be used to see climate change? Would Briggs prefer monthly or daily data to annual? Where does his logic lead? I don’t trust any signal that doesn’t survive a 30-year smoothing, and that includes the “pause” which doesn’t. It’s a way of focusing on what matters in the long term.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        So,
        like Poirot is better than the police, you are better than the statistician?
        Geoff

      • Sorry, misplaced above:
        Jim, the point is that if you use unsmoothed data, be it daily, or certainly hourly, any suggestion of significant change immediately vanishes in a haze of variation.

  6. David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

    Machine Learning for Weather and Climate Predictions
    Increasing machine learning in forecasting appears to be a very powerful breakthrough opportunity. It leverages Moore’s law with NVIDIA already making petaflop workstations and ganging them for 660 Petaflop (AI) 660 node supercomputers much cheaper than conventional methods. (~ 1 Petaflop/node extendable)
    NVIDIA DGX SATURNV Built for AI Moonshots

    NVIDIA DGX SATURNV with NVIDIA Volta is a GPU-powered AI supercomputer developed in-house at NVIDIA, demonstrating how NVIDIA® DGX-1™ can change the landscape of businesses and scientific research.

    Such machine learning offers a superb method of eliminating the severe partisan bias that is causing the huge TypeB errors in current models. e.g. See McKitrick & Christy 2018 “A Test of the Tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models” Earth and Space Science Volume 5, Issue 9

    all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.

    Such TypeB errors appear to be systematically ignored in majority climate science. GUM: Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement

    • “Increasing machine learning in forecasting appears to be a very powerful breakthrough opportunity.” Could it be used without any changes to predict stock market trends? Would it develop into a stock-exchange science?

  7. Our study suggests that climates like those of the Pliocene will prevail as soon as 2030 CE and persist under climate stabilization scenarios. Unmitigated scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions produce climates like those of the Eocene, which suggests that we are effectively rewinding the climate clock by approximately 50 My, reversing a multimillion year cooling trend in less than two centuries.

    https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13288

    So what? I haven’t read the full paper because it is behind a paywall, but the Abstract makes no mention of any evidence that the world would be worse off with Eocene or Pliocene temperatures than present temperatures. They are simply presuming and implying that warmer is worse and we should be scared of it.

    The evidence from those periods is that flora and fauna thrived much better during those warmer times than it does in the present Icehouse conditions. And life thrives during rapid warmings from icehouse conditions. But life struggles during cooler and cooling periods.

    The scare that “effectively rewinding the climate clock by approximately 50 My, reversing a multimillion year cooling trend in less than two centuries” is about as silly and baseless as the masses of other scare stories we’ve been told over the past few decades. It’s like James Hansen’s scare that the oceans will boil off and Earth will have an atmosphere like Venus.

    It’s taken 50 Ma for the temperature of the deep oceans to cool by 15C. They’ll continue to cool for as long as there is ice at the poles and the melt water from the ice sinks into the deep oceans. There is no chance of melting all ice on Antarctica in two centuries. And, while the deep oceans are this cold, the atmosphere cannot warm dangerously.

    This is clearly just more climate alarmist nonsense. This time by NPAS.

    • Surely everyone with a basic biology education understands that warmth is always better for life?
      Reply to P Lang:

      The main “intellectual fallacy” dominating alarmist’s ideas is the notion of a natural equilibria. It assumes our current climate is in equilibrium. That any climate change must be bad and man-made (upsets the equilibrium). That energy systems should be some variation of imaginary perpetual motion machines (they call “renewable”, and say it makes “free” energy). The climate scare rename to: “climate change” is because they’re terrified of “change”. They are afraid to stray from an imaginary stasis of equilibria. It’s an ideal or template they think all things should strive towards. They are not so much environmentalists, more “equilibrists”. We see it in their neo-Malthusian economic suggestions too. It perfectly explains their hostility to none-CO2 emitting nuclear power as well.

      Note 1: Unfortunately, for me, the term “equilibrist” is already in use and it means a circus performer who keeps things in balance during performance.
      Note 2: “intellectual fallacy” = a wrong system of thought which dominates thinking. Examples: Marxism, Freudism, Fascism, neo-Malthusianism. It’s basic precepts are taken for granted. It cannot be seen, by its believers, as a fallacy. It’s understood as “how the world works”.

      • Thanks Mark. Good comment. Most people from all sides of the climate change debate, don’t want to conduct a rational discussion about the false premise that underpins the whole CAGW scare campaign. They simply want to avoid it and hope it will go away.

        Renewables as the ‘fix’ for CAGW:
        Renewable energy: Putting a tourniquet around your neck to stop a nose bleed.

    • David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

      When we take a 1000 year perspective, fossil fuels will not last to provide the transport fuel/energy etc.
      So we need to transition to sustainable dispatchable power and transport energy. Effectively fusion. Solar is existing fusion at a safe distance. Now need to make that cheaper than coal and gas – and to develop terrestrial fusion.
      So the strategic perspective – and make effective use of fossil fuels as our “training wheels” to help us develop the technologies and economies so we can get the solar/fusion going.

  8. It’s nice to see Judith’s Sea Level Report get the recognition it so richly deserves. Let the ad hominem festivities begin.

    • Agreed, though of course let’s hope the ad homs are kept out of it. (One can dream)..Dr. Judith, how about a separate post on same? As I understand things, this is really the major issue when it comes to “climate change.” Even the IPCC concedes it can’t make much of a case for more “extreme weather.” And the notion that a couple of degrees of life enhancing warmth is an existential threat “to the planet” is laughable. So that leaves sea level rise as the thing to worry about. Or so it seems to me..

    • She downplays Greenland’s accelerated melting as natural variation that could reverse, not accounting for the fact that the Arctic has warmed 2 C in 30 years, and that polar amplification is the overriding thing going on there. That is not going to lead to a realistic probability. This is the kind of thinking that labels greater than 1.5 m as “borderline impossible” when its actual probability is significant. When people plan for 2100, they should not think 1.5 m is borderline impossible and therefore not worth considering. That is a Type II error (understating risk) that she labels AR4 with for not adding in ice-sheet loss, and she notes that Type II errors are open to litigation if real risks were ignored.

    • Jim D, you have no clue about Arctic warming. It is mostly a winter phenomenon:


      “Anomaly of the +80N mean temperature index, compared with climate (annual mean minus the corresponding climate value). All year anomaly is illustrated with the black line, summer anomaly (June, July, August) is illustrated with red and winter anomaly (December, January, February) in blue. Reference climate is ECMWF-ERA40 1958-2002.”
      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php

      And as everybody knows, winter Arctic temperatures are way below freezing point, so no increased melting is produced.

      Arctic amplification is for the most part a cooling mechanism for the planet as it takes place during the dark part of the year when most of that heat is radiated directly to space. Ice is a great thermal insulator as anybody that has built or played with an igloo knows. A great deal of the extra energy after the 2016 El Niño has been radiated to space during these past Arctic winters, cooling the planet while alarmists were claiming the Arctic was on fire. Talk about climate ignorance.

      • The primary observed change is Arctic sea-ice loss, a summer to fall feature, but the delayed onset of cold temperatures and accelerated start of the melting season shorten the winter too. Reduced Arctic sea ice is a bad thing for Greenland. That’s the next domino.

      • What Arctic sea-ice loss? No Arctic sea-ice loss since 2007.

        Arctic sea-ice does not respond to winter air temperature changes. This should be pretty obvious to you. Despite the huge El Niño warming and warm Arctic winters, Arctic sea-ice has not decreased. All your crappy hypotheses down the drain of reality.

      • You say that as though you haven’t seen the annual mean Arctic sea ice trend for the last 40 years.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:12

      • I’ve seen it and, unlike you, understood its causes. That’s why I’ve been saying since 2015 that there is a pause in Arctic sea-ice loss. Three years being right, and the long-term trend being a little bit less steep every year.

        I remember Tamino mocking one of my articles. What a looser.

      • The cause is probably the Arctic amplified warming of 2 C in the last 30 years.

      • The cause is probably the Arctic amplified warming of 2 C in the last 30 years.

        Wrong. Try harder. If that was the case the five warmest years ever in the last decade would have had some effect. Don’t you think? They have also been the years with highest Arctic temperature, so there’s no excuse for the lack of effect.

      • Decade on decade Greenland is losing mass and the Arctic is losing sea ice while the Arctic is warming. There is noise, but the decadal signal is clear. Come back when you get a decade on decade trend changing.

      • Come back when you get a decade on decade trend changing.

        Don’t need to. You don’t decide the yardstick. I said pause in Arctic sea-ice melting and pause we are having. The director of NSIDC said Arctic sea-ice was in a “death spiral” and he was wrong. He is the one that should go. Why pay him? He doesn’t know what he talks about. At the very least he should be expected to read and understand the literature in his field where this was clearly explained and predicted.

      • He probably also looks at decadal trends. You don’t like the decadal trends, and that’s fine too, but for climate these are the significant ones.

      • He probably also looks at decadal trends.

        Most likely he is looking at tea leaves. He said summer Arctic sea-ice could be gone as early as 2030, and it looks like there could be more ice then that when he had his vision in 2008.

        It is sooo easy to be a climatologist. You can be wrong about everything but if you stick to the consensus line you are fine.

      • Ha, ha, ha, ha, Jim D. Using about half of a cycle to predict the future; nice try.

      • The skeptics think it is a cycle when it is a trend.

      • Ha, ha, ha, Jim D. Starting a trend at the end of an ice age scare.

      • The sea-ice and sea-level trend and Greenland loss trend go with temperature and forcing from mostly CO2, neither of which are slowing.

      • @JimD
        “Reduced Arctic sea ice is a bad thing for Greenland. That’s the next domino.”

        Sea ICE is not reducing in Greenland. It has been up as of lately. This year it is 6th in the historical record.
        Source: DMI.

        Nice try.

  9. Maybe more denizens will read Quine.

    • “Quine belongs in a tradition that includes Nietzsche, Marx, Hume, Dewey, Sellars, Santayana..” I did not read beyond this impressive list of scientists.

      • Philosophers succeeded in making themselves irrelevant. Apparently climate scientists are following suit. The trick is to pretend to be a deep thinker and expert and then talk about things with a total disconnect with reality. Soon people are ignoring you.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Why? We are not terribly interested in unicorns or their mental abstractions in pseudo-scientific nomenclature. The Times Crossword is adequate for most people seeking word play.
      It is so easy to surmise, for example, that bosons do not exist until we can isolate them and determine their classic properties like mass and momentum, even smell for the pedants. But, in practical terms of making entities useful for society, metaphysics means self-designated intellectual abstract virtuosity of little interest to those not in the particular club. Angels on pins stuff. Geoff.

  10. “Northeast India (NEI), the wettest place on the Earth has experienced a rapid decrease in summer monsoon rainfall (about 355mm) in the last 36 years (1979‐2014), which has serious implications on the ecosystem and the livelihood of the people of this region”
    That was from the link above about rapid drying in Northeast India.
    Then there is this from AR5, 14.2.1

    “Monsoon Systems
    There is growing evidence of improved skill of climate models in reproducing climatological features of the global monsoon. Taken together with identified model agreement on future changes, the global monsoon, aggregated over all monsoon systems, is likely to strengthen in the 21st century with increases in its area and intensity, while the monsoon circulation weakens. Monsoon onset dates are likely to become earlier or not to change much and monsoon retreat dates are very likely to delay, resulting in lengthening of the monsoon season. [14.2.1]”

  11. Only a prolonged fall in temperatures can save us from global warming ideology. An ideology that is based on a truism that CO2 is increasing, man is partly to blame and that it must cause some warming.
    Just how much.
    The good this year.
    SOI has turned positive in a small sign that the early El Niño may dissipate and be replaced by another badly needed cooling phase.
    UAH 6th warmest year only in the 40 year satellite record.
    (Tough luck JCH) one win to good guys.
    If we do get a colder 2019 (First 3 months probably warm due to lag) will help a lot.
    PIOMAS increased to 6th lowest.
    Possible higher Arctic Max, or not.
    We need an Antarctic recovery but El Niño lag still reverberating.
    Cold, cold, cold USA.
    France.
    Coral recovery.
    Judith’s sea level opus.
    The bad, Australia. 3 years of hard labour.
    Coral scientists beating the reef to death and anyone else who gets in their way.

    • The El Nino ended in 2016, almost two years ago. Since its end, the GMST has been so warm the 30-year trend has gone up:

      The bad guys are falling behind. So sorry.

    • If we do get a colder 2019 … will help a lot.

      Don’t count on it. Best next chance for cooling is the 2019-2020 northern hemisphere winter, when the Quasi Biennial Oscillation is expected to be eastward again, and should still have low solar activity. This combination almost invariably produces a disorganized polar vortex with a negative AO, polar warming, meandering jet stream and very cold northern hemisphere winter with lots of winter snow. Unless a strong El Niño or a stratospheric-reaching volcanic eruption take place disrupting the atmospheric pattern. 2010-11 winter is a model. There was a huge snowstorm that blanketed most of Europe.


      December 29, 2010 snowstorm.

  12. Dr. Curry: “Good analysis: Academics should not be activists [link]”

    Article: “Academia becomes seen as nothing more than an extension of politics… . Now when academics make a claim that is even mildly counter-intuitive or controversial, anyone who doesn’t want to believe it will simply refuse to accept its epistemic authority. They will attribute such claims to the politico-moral ideology of the researchers.”

    Clearly, the topic of climate change has become politicized and subsumed by a left versus right political-moral ideology divide. Dr. Curry should consider if the perpetuation of this extraneous divide mainly serves to poison and impede rational science discussion and debate—the raison d’être of her website—and explicitly ban any comments reflecting partisan political ideologies.

  13. Lewandowsky et al. ‘disappear’ the ‘pause’

    Oddly convenient study.

  14. The hydrogen article is interesting. Apparently, new composite high-pressure storage tanks have been developed. It claims there’s been improvements in efficiency for fuel cells, but doesn’t give any round trip figures. It also takes considerable energy to compress hydrogen. It does warn about hype. It quotes Lisa Ruf, a consultant at Element Energy in the UK:

    The problem we have I guess as a sector for supporting hydrogen fuel-cell technology is that we have to be wary of the hype and we have to be able to manage expectations,” she says. “It’s something that takes time and investment. It will not happen overnight, but in the long-term it’s a very good solution.

  15. Re COP 24, by far the biggest thing to be adopted seems to have escaped notice. Developing countries are now to annually report all of the loss and damage they suffer from human caused climate change. Attribution studies should now become a major global industry (unless the governments simply report all the adverse effects from all bad weather). Fun to follow.

    See my http://www.cfact.org/2018/12/20/cop-24-dangerous-rules-added-to-paris-climate-accord/.

  16. That Bradley Keyes guy is a tab bit bonkers. Why would Curry bother linking to Watts in the first place, but to showcase a Keyes article (complete with childishly-doctored image of Oreskes) is absurd.

    Keyes is cracking. “If you don’t believe me, you can’t explain the rise and rise of Oreskes, whose entire modus operandi is to miseducate everyone who’ll listen to her about how science works, and whose sole opponent in the science-education wars is YOURS F-CKING TRULY.”

    Oh my. Does this guy have anything to say that deals with science? The article linked (why Curry?) is little more than a rant.

    • Bradley Keyes is the funniest writer in the climate game. We should all bow down before him.

      • I was bowed down, laughing because he sounded like a child angry that he had to go to his room.

        Does he seriously ever write about science, or does he insult people? Sounds like a nice fit for Watts site, but Curry continues to lower her standard by linking to it.

      • If you want to see “childishness”, read Michael Mann, his deluded defenders, Sou at Hot Whopper, Sarah Myhre, so called genius Peter Gleick, Mark Jacobson suing critics for pointing out that he needs 15 times more storage than exists, just about any Rational Wiki entry on climate, the Climate Crocks guy equating climate denialism with racism, … ad nauseam.

      • I’ve read one of Mann’s books, read some of his papers, and watched him debate Curry. I never found an instance where he wrote or said anything like what Keyes. In fact I’d place Mann well above Curry for professionalism, including the debate where they both appeared.

      • Scott, I can see you’re one of those who’re determined to defend Mann, no matter what. Don’t forget to pick up your copy of To Serve Mann, before boarding the Hockey Stick Express

      • Canman is upset that I read one Mann’s books and have been present for his talks.

        People determined to ignore the science are becoming so boring. Notice how Canman thinks I’m defending Mann, when I simply noted something all of us could note. Am I “defending Mann” because I have read a lot about climate science? Does that mean I am “defending” NASA as well?

        And Canman most certainly never read any of Mann’s books nor has he attended a symposium when he was a speaker.

      • I read and wrote an Amazon review of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars:

        https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R1P95Y1ZG8FEGR?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

        I also had a spirited debate about this book at the now defunct Skepticblog:

        https://www.skepticblog.org/2013/10/16/hockey-brawls/

    • Scott Koontz: Keyes is cracking.

      The essay was at best a disappointment. Keyes tried overly hard to be humorously exaggerating, but was mostly incoherent.

      • but was mostly incoherent

        Yet his bottom line is correct. Oreskes does constitute an attack on the scientific method. In fact all the anti-deniers movement is a complete negationism of the scientific method. Whether they like it or not the only way science prevails is by having every postulate mercilessly attacked all the time. There are no sacred cows in science, or there shouldn’t be. Their work on consensus science is shameful.

        Pretty sad that a history of science professor at Harvard would attack the scientific method and be cheered.

      • History of science won’t be kind to her ;-)

      • What utter tripe. There is no doubt that the proponents of “climate science” and renewable energy are lining their own pockets at the expense of everyone else. Our efforts will not alter the trajectory of the climate but will most assuredly push the poor and middle class deeper into debt while enriching the elite.

      • That’s conspiracy theory 4, variant a.

      • The only way to attack science is to produce better science

        BS. It is enough to point that the current favored hypothesis doesn’t match the observations.

      • “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your data are, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the model, it’s wrong.”
        – IPCC, Jim D, and warmists everywhere

        (with apologies to Richard Feynman)

      • Jim D. Basis financial data. Over $50 billion spent on tax breaks for renewable energy in US over last 10 or so years. $10 billion on research. Zero impact on climate. Money went directly to academics, companies (many in China) and financial investors dodging taxes.
        The conspiracy is the “green religion” of which you are clearly a zealot.true believer unable or unwilling to directly address issues without resorting to emotional drivel.

  17. Nice juxtaposition:

    2018 The First Year With No Violent Tornadoes In U.S.
    &
    Increasingly powerful tornadoes in the U.S.

    It doesn’t take long to read of the increase: “during the period 1994–2016”
    and see the longer term context of decrease:

  18. Sorry, comparing climate change to your child having cancer is not valid. It is more like the child has a 1 deg fever and you are recommending cancer treatment without any way to diagnose the cancer. And the cancer treatment will bankrupt your family and might cause permanent damage to the child.

  19. Unintended effects of emphasizing the role of climate change in recent natural disasters

    The writers assume, as usual, that skeptics are wrong. It provides itself no evidence that skeptics are wrong, only the failure of an (apparently) evidence free polemic relating recent disasters to climate change.

    As an instance of failure to persuade, it might be instructive to those wishing to persuade. People wishing to persuade skeptics that climate change has increased the rate of disastrous natural occurances need to pay more attention to the large scale reviews such as this: Global trends in wildfire and its impacts. “For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement”

  20. Geoff Sherrington

    Lewandowsky et al. ‘disappear’ the ‘pause’ [link]
    The paper on the pause (as opposed to model mismatch) contains a killer of a wrong assumption. Lewandowsky noted that “This broad range may indicate a lack of formal or scientific procedures to establish the onset of the ‘pause’. Moreover, each instance of the presumed onset was not randomly chosen but chosen specifically because of the low subsequent warming. We describe this as selection bias.”

    There were many examples of the pause illustrated by working backwards from the present time until a trend statistically different to level was found, thus setting the early end point. This is the opposite of a procedure with selection bias. Lord Monckton used this procedure a few times and found a pause that was convincing. Geoff.

  21. Re: Domino effect of tipping points. “Until recently, the study of tipping points was controversial, but it is increasingly accepted as an explanation for climate changes that are happening with more speed and ferocity than earlier computer models predicted.” This has nothing to do with tipping points, and everything to do with totally unreliable models. How can Mother Nature dare to do something that the models did not predict?

    I have no idea what study of tipping points was controversial. Tipping points are established in the bifurcation theory. Classification of tipping points is a subject of the catastrophe theory. Ahh, catastrophe – that’s what we needed. /sarc

  22. Jim D,

    Who is accusing who of money grubbing and fraud? Did you not read Paul Krugman’s opinion piece in the NYTimes, “The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial”? Who is accused of selling out to fossil fuel interests by creating “doubt,” as if science should be doubt-free? Krugman’s piece, a depraved pile of writing, comes straight out of Oreskes and her implication that those who oppose the consensus are evil: paid off, corrupt, part of a conspiracy originating with the tobacco strategy and the selling out of Seitz and Singer and continuing on to the present scientists who disagree with the consensus. Yet there’s not a single solid shred of evidence that any scientist has been paid off to alter science in order to support the views of the oil industry: it’s all speculation and assumption, smoke and mirrors. If you’re not dismayed and disgusted by Oreskes’ subversion of objectivity, transparency, honest debate, and opposing paradigms that are part and parcel of scientific back-and-forth, and the elevation of bias to a near-physical truth that crushes any other interpretations, then you don’t understand what science is or have been blinded by the quackery that Oreskes is selling.

    I can disarm my critics too. I’ll go around telling everyone they’re paid off and don’t listen to them. It’s called “poisoning the well,” and it’s about smearing your opponent so badly that you convince people they’re wrong even before any argument begins. That, in a nutshell, is the sum of Oreskes’ sound and fury.

    The seduction is a wonderful trick, disguised as an enlightened pulling back of the curtain on another trick. Oreskes has educated us into non-science.

    And … I just realized how much this is cast in a religious frame (hello? There’s our narrative again!) The deniers are evil and kin with the devil. It isn’t said explicitly anywhere but it’s implied all over the place: Krugman’s depraved beings, perhaps? After all, he does say that denial “is evil on a whole different level.” No one is directly accusing Curry or Christy or Lindzen of being evil, yet … there it is!

    That’s powerful stuff. Sophisticated PR silently backed by banks who stand to make trillions off carbon trading? Or just coincidence?

    • https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/the-depravity-of-climate-change-denial/
      Worth reading. Why the 100% correlation between being an elected Republican politician and denialism? Nothing to do with science of course.

      • Or the 100% correlation between being a radical leftist and believing in man-caused- climate change! You are completely devoid of logic and reason, which explains your penchant for emotional drivel.

      • Ol’ Jim, dumbing down the debate. That’s what happens when Paul the K shows his sorry face. You could also thrill us with some real cognitive whoppers and share the best of the best Ocasio-Cortez tweets. Talk about whack jobs.

        Anyone with a modicum of intellectual inquisitiveness can see the gaping holes in the CAGW narrative. They are too obvious to anyone wanting to understand them. But there in lies the problem. There has to be a motivation to understand the holes. One side goes through life searching for the next target of government conquest to absolve themselves of their inherent guilt. If it wasn’t CO2, it would be some other life confirming mission.

        Ol’ Paul and Ol’ Jim just make it too easy.

      • “Denialism” is a pretty broad brush. By the standards of those who want to paint everyone who disagrees with the scientific/media consensus as evil, Fred Seitz was a denier, yet he noted that CO2 might be a problem https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/seitz.html and reasonably suggested that nuclear energy would be part of the solution– and Oreskes vigorously attacked that sensible solution (but isn’t the planet at stake?) Seitz did not deny effects of CO2; I don’t know of any denier who denies that CO2 absorbs infrared. What they deny is that the hysteria over CO2 is justified and there are excellent, rational, and peer-reviewed scientific reasons supporting alternative theories for why the planet is about 1C warmer than it was in 1900– if we can even depend on the temperature record being accurate enough to say we have a 1C rise.

        But no, we’re supposed to swallow alarmism whole-hog and only then can we enter into the church of believers and turn away from evil. Why do Republicans tend to be more moderate about climate change and not alarmists? Because they’re not Democrats, who are a bit soft-in-the-head with the kumbaya that says that industrialists are evil and to be resisted by the virtuous people who are all-too-keen to live in nice houses with nice cars and go to nice museums built by industrialists and go to hospitals that might have been funded by industrialists, not to mention fly off to vacation lands in jets built by big bad companies run by men who have no children or elderly to care for, don’t go to ball games or operas or concerts, and never go to church or contribute to their community in any way. Or, in the case of Rockerfeller University and Fred Seitz, accept about 45 million given by oil money to fund scientific research, one of which ended up winning a Nobel Prize.

        People who disagree with the radical alarmist consensus have been demonized. Think about that.

        Are all oil executives evil? Do they not have parents, cousins, brothers and sisters, and children that they love and care for? Are the people who work on oil rigs doing evil, or are they hard-working folks helping to supply the country with the energy it demands? No, for those who have swallowed the leftist kumbaya– and I used to be one– the only virtuous ones are the ones who like to use everything the industrialists produce but would also like to bite the industrialists’ hands.

        The left is not completely wrong. But, neither is the right. We’re all people, first. Good, sensible people can have different views– it really is as simple as that. Oreskes and company would make alternative views a crime if they could.

        Dems tend to believe the science? I think Jim D is confusing a biased consensus paradigm with an objective assessment of the evidence. Consensus is not science and never has been, and the notion that consensus = scientific truth is at the core of Oreskes’ deception.

      • The democrats tend to believe in mob rule, hatred and violence, hardly scientific.

      • Good, sensible people can have different views– it really is as simple as that. But the project of Oreskes and company (and Jim D?) is to pretend there’s no legitimate side other than the one they’re on and to demonize those who disagree.

        Shades of 1984 and Brave New World, not to mention Lysenkoism?

      • “. Why the 100% correlation between being an elected Republican politician and denialism? Nothing to do with science of course.”

        I’m sure the politicians on both sides are not judging on scientific merit, but on the concordance with their political views for the most part. Donkeys see an opportunity to play Santa Claus and salve their consciences at taxpayers expense, while Heffalumps see balloning government expense not involving safety or defense.

        What’s your point?

    • The approach in vogue on the left now, and followed with gusto by Krugman, is the one put forward by Herbert Marcuse in his essay Repressive Tolerance. The idea is that tolerance of evil or permitting free speech promoting ideas that bring harm to society are not desirable. He argued instead for “liberating tolerance,” which he said means “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

      In the context of climate change, to treat skeptics as deserving of a respectful hearing would be tolerance of evil. Instead, they are to be treated with disdain and receive ad hominem insults, the hope being that the more vicious such insults become the greater the chance those who wish to avoid similar treatment will refrain from espousing such views. It can’t be denied that this approach is effective in stifling dissent, but it also can’t be denied that such a tactic is a sure indication that the person believes himself to be unable to achieve victory on the merits.

      Krugman talks about the evil tobacco companies who tried to hide the truth of smoking but the argument that smoking causes cancer and other diseases was incontrovertible so people rested on the force of the scientifically demonstrated proof. The facts pointing to catastrophic AGW are just not there, requiring this resort to threats and bullying since their goal is not simply climate change but is also to rein in capitalism and redistribute wealth, but it is more difficult to get people on board with arguments to those ends.

  23. Domino effect of tipping points [link]

    i.e., reinforcing positive feedback leading to a tipping point and runaway, unremitting, irreversible, accelerating, unmitigable, irredeemable catastrophic… climate change?

  24. Separating physically distinct influence on Pacific sea surface temperature variability[link]

    NOAA PDO is shutdown and JIASO PDO no longer updates monthly, but there are hints the December PDO may be going up:

    • JCH, thank you for the link. It links as well to the freely available published paper.

    • “This matches with observed variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) (Wills et al., 2019b), leaving open the possibility that this Pacific multidecadal variability is driven by the AMO. However, another possibility is that the Pacific LFC 2 and the AMO are both part of a global response to variations in climate forcing over the 20th century, such as from anthropogenic aerosol or stratospheric ozone changes. Whatever the physical mechanisms, this mode of variability and/or change is interesting for its possible modulation of the amplitude of ENSO. Large amplitude El Niño events (marked on the x-axis of Fig. 2) did not occur between 1920 and 1970, when LFC 2 was in its positive phase.”

      “…..possibility……driven by the AMO.”

      Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t. Pretty much sums up most of climate science. Trying to apply a logical human construct to wildly chaotic unprecedented undeterministic mechanisms, can still just leave you with your……fairy dust in your hand. What ever floats your boat. We can apply all the statistics to the past and still be wildly wrong. But I do like the idea that the AMO could be a dominatrix….not a novel idea.

      • The AMO is not going to save the foolish positions of skeptics like Tsonis and his followers. There is not going to be a reversal in the 21st century of climbing global temperatures. The PAWS misled. Then it died several times, including getting hit by lightning, eating its own poison, and then getting run over by a truck. But its memory will live on here at Climate Etc. You all should be looking at the divine wind, the Kimikamikaze. Because it was divine, animal sacrifices and prayer could bring it back. Worked for ancient Japan.

      • JCH: are you aware that this blog is dedicated to the climate theme??

      • So, with a few tenths of a degree increase in global temperatures we are to believe that the El Niño, Arctic Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation and Southern Annular Mode, as well as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, among others, are going to go kaput? Those oceanic and atmospheric interrelationships are still there, regardless of the baseline temperatures.

        If the other oscillations are expected to continue, why is the AMO going to bag it, and take a break?

    • Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown below – which is strongly influenced by Pacific state variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 12,000 years. It shows periods of high and low ENSO activity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high ENSO activity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). Red intensity exceeded 200 at times – red intensity in the 1997/98 was 99.


      Laguna Pallcacocha, ENSO proxy – greater red intensity shows El Niño conditions (Source: Tsonis, 2009)

      The deep history of ENSO reveals perpetual change. “Figure 2 indicates that the title of this paper, “Hydrology and change”, harmonizes with a large
      body of literature, books, conferences, scientific papers and news stories, all of which roar about change: changing planet, changing world, changing ocean, changing environment, changing health and, most of all, changing climate. It looks as if, recently, our scientific community has been amazed that things change.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626

  25. “An argument for greater inclusion of machine learning in subseasonal to seasonal forecasts”

    My solar based forecast had the second half of November 2018 as fairly strong negative AO/NAO, followed by positive/neutral AO/NAO states through December 2018. This can be forecast at any range.

  26. On Meet The (De)Press(ed) today, there is a large segment on “climate change.” They talked to Bloomberg, Jerry Brown, now Kate Marvel of NASA is on a panel along with ex-FEMA manager, and other alarmists. I don’t need to mention which way the discussion is going. (More hurricanes, wildfires, and extreme weather). We need a JC on the panel, it’s all alarmism.

  27. Judith Curry

    Washington Times article on my new report Sea Level and Climate Change [link]

    Nice. Readable; and positive. Thank you

  28. domino effects of tipping points, aka “cascading effects of regime shifts”: Using 30 regime shifts described as networks, we show that 45% of regime shift pairwise combinations present at least one plausible structural interdependence.

    “Plausible”. Definitely “plausible”.

  29. Scott Koontz on Bradley Keyes: “Does he seriously ever write about science, or does he insult people? Sounds like a nice fit for Watts site, but Curry continues to lower her standard by linking to it.”

    Mr. Koontz, as someone who claims to be honestly ced about the global impacts of climate change, it is only fair that we should ask you to take a pause from criticizing AGW skeptics such as Bradley Keyes and to offer your own opinions as to what specifically America’s carbon reduction targets ought to be for the long term future.

    For example, was President Obama’s goal of an 80% reduction in America’s GHG emissions by 2050 too little or too much? Was he going too fast or too slow? Was the public policy approach he was relying upon to get the job done actually capable of reaching his 80% GHG reduction target by the year 2050?

    Please put some real substance into your climate activist message and tell us what specifically America’s own GHG reduction targets should be for the long term future. Also tell us how fast we should be moving to get from here to there — wherever it is you think ‘there’ ought to be.

    Just as important, please tell us what specific public policy approach you think has the best prospects for reaching the end state you desire, including the balance to be made between public and private action in pursuing an aggressive anti-carbon program.

  30. “Natural variability has slowed the decline of western US snowpack since the 1980s” But…of course, the snowpack decline will accelerate just as soon as…

    “Just you wait Henry Higgins just you wait…it’ll be too late.” Eliza Doolittle

    It snowed last night, covering all around. I went for my circumnavigation walk this afternoon, the sky was and had been cloudless, a beautiful robin egg’s blue; the air temperature was a balmy 35 F, wind 7 mph, relative humidity 55%. I was paying attention to the walkways, some of which were still covered with snow as was the surrounding ground. Other parts of the walkways were clear and dry even though the adjacent forest floor was snow covered. Where the snow remained on the walkways, there were tall trees that had shaded these areas. Where the walkways were clear and dry, there was no such sun’s shade through most of the day.

    The small lake out back, 12 feet at its deepest, remains ice covered with large portions still bearing the recent snowfall.

    T’was the sun’s rays that melted the snow, not any rise in surface air temperature. But then again…”Just you wait…”

  31. Some people here were talking about ecological tipping points. Of course these exist in the small scale where you can tip a predator-prey system (or fisheries system) into a different equilibrium. HOWEVER, in climate science they are talking about a tipping to run-away warming, ie a point of no return. The feedbacks in the system would seem to mitigate against such a response, which does not even arise from the models.

    • Exactly. Earths climate is a ‘heavily buffered’ system. The oceans provide the buffering. When it gets warm, more water vapor is produced resulting in shielding clouds. When it gets too cold, water vapor condenses allowing more sunlight to reach the surface. This is very fortunate for us, and life in general. We are in the so-called ‘Goldilocks region’ of the solar system that produces conditions where liquid water is relatively stable. Hence, no Venus or Mars results. It would take something truly catastrophic to upset this balance, like a very large asteroid collision. Human produced CO2 is insignificant.

  32. Geoff Sherrington

    Judith,
    This is not my blog, it is yours and you have been very successful with it.
    You will notice, as others have, that a couple of contributors take over the dialog now and then, R I Ellison and Jim D being the culprits of the moment.
    Some say that they create interesting reading and should be allowed free rein. Others, like me, would like to see some moderation, limiting volume to aim for the regaining of a wider spectrum of bloggers.

    It is a management problem, not a science problem.

    Part of the problem is that neither of this pair represents any identifiable or valuable wider view. RIE has a dedication to the increase of carbon in soil, but he has not shown here that he has thought the matter through to the stage of a realistic benefit:cost type of analysis, a procedure that is often full of surprises such as showing that the idea does not work, after all. Jim D is, in my non-medical view, a little deranged in a mostly harmless sort of way. His comments are becoming unhinged, like one above re regulators, “So they just make regulations for fun? They do it to protect people from profit-driven industry. This is part of being civilized.”

    You, Judith, have made the transition from academia to industry (welcome, again) so to me it seems you have the management problem of hosting an alleged nut-case blogger who sees your move as evil and uncivilized. You must have more patience that I would have, to remain silent.

    I do not want this comment to divert this post from its review of science. (Jim D has already commenced that diversion, as is often the case). But I do feel strongly that some harder moderation might easily lead to a quality improvement. I say ‘might’ because the sands of time are forever shifting and the days of former blog glory might be gone, as competing means of communication become stronger. Thank you. Geoff.

    • Well Geoff, I suspect one of the issues here is the time involved in moderating every comment.

      Ellison often provides references that are quite interesting. I’d actually like to see him do a guest post on some of these issues he brings up with regard for example to forcings in CMIP5 vs. CMIP3 models.

    • Geoff, you are correct, JD and RIE together account for HALF of the last 1000 comments. I will put both in moderation to slow them down a bit, but I am more tolerant of individuals dominating older threads that are no longer particularly active.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Your paper on sea levels was excellent and I thought I should do more than simply say that. All the best for 2019 Geoff.

    • I do quite well without Sherrington’s largely formulaic rhetoric largely about about errors in data – whatever it happens to be – invalidating climate science.

      I did try to read the ‘paper’ he belatedly managed to link. The title was something like not including UHI was crass and absurd science. My thought was immediately was that UHI is irrelevant to mean surface temperature and that flogging a horse that has been dead for a decade at least is about how far behind the curve he is.

      I would of thought my tipping cascade interest would be more prominent, or Pacific state influences on planetary energy dynamics, or ecology, or energy technology, or hydrology, or economics, or social and environmental policy.

      But no – Geoff has a particular bugbear about carbon in soils. In the very first instance he insisted on his authority as a soil scientist that carbon levels in soils couldn’t be increased. Above I linked another video by the global expert on soil carbon Rattan Lal – this time focusing on soil carbon and food security. Juxtaposed with a video from Bjorn Lomberg on the economics and greenhouse gas advantages of energy innovation rather than taxes and subsidies.

      But we know precisely what carbon sequestration in soils and ecosystems costs – some A$12/tonne on average over the past few years in diverse ways. Much of it caring for country as it is known locally. Worth every cent – especially when leveraged against voluntary private investment.

      http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/publications/emissions-reduction-fund-update
      http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/methods

      Much of the world is going that way with reclaiming desert, restoring woodland, savanna, forest and wetland. Along with returning some of the 500 GtC lost from agricultural soils in the Holocene – without which global food security is a receding goal.

      With #jiminy – it amuses me to insinuate that he is a spambot – but really it was a question of just how far he could go with aberrant tenacity in the defense of a fanatical if unscientific AGW true believer meme. The point itself is undeniable. The planet emits – neglecting other feedbacks – some 3.2 W/m2 more IR radiation for every degree it warms in accordance with Planck’s radiation law. In this scenario some 1.2 K warming at equilibrium. Highly technical and with a range of references on my part at least – and refraining from much of the empty chatter that is the most some people seem capable of. But I am of course a confused and ignorant skeptic who can’t accept that Judith’s no-feedback response isn’t in fact quite without it’s feedbacks.

      My assessment of most of the AGW fanatics here is that they have little math or science – and substitute a narrative that is wild and woolly and that is far from the uncertainties and complexities of real Earth system science. And as in the Koutsoyiannis quote above on the recent amazement of our scientific community that things change – some science is little better.

      Be that as it may – adding nothing to any serious discussion than pettifogging and vainglorious posturing seems much more of a waste of everyone’s time.

  33. Past trends do not a future make, Jim D. Whatever happened to the 1945/75 trend that led to the global cooling scare?

  34. Of course sea ice shows a declining long term trend. The Earth is warming in case you didn’t noticed. The ice is expected to melt and the sea is expected to rise. But you are getting all the rest wrong because you ignore the natural mechanisms by which the Earth cools and warms. Arctic winter warming is a cooling mechanism, you bonehead, not Arctic amplification. Polar ice albedo feedback is negligible or the ice would not have come back from September 2012 levels. Surface albedo is a very small part of Earth’s albedo, and polar albedo is a very small part because of sun rays incidence angle, because the ice is more extensive when there is no sun, so it is in the wrong season to have an important effect, and because the Arctic is cloudy most of the time during summers. The only significant albedo effect is from the clouds.

  35. .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①
    .

    Just in time for the New Year, an article which will stop you feeling gloomy about the future.

    How far would you need to move towards the nearest Pole, to reverse one degree Celsius of global warming?

    You may have already been thinking about moving towards one of the Poles (the North Pole, or the South Pole), in order to avoid global warming. But how far should you go?

    Don’t worry any longer, this article tells you exactly how far you should move, to get the perfect climate.

    Not only that, this article also shows you how to find your pre-industrial paradise.

    And there is more. Experience global warming, before it actually happens (that way, you can see whether you like it, or not).

    Don’t wait any longer, click the following link.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-far-to-reverse-global-warming

    • I was going to suggest you make a correction in your reference to Atlanta, Nebraska and replace it with Atlanta, Georgia. I wasn’t sure if the Atlantans or the Nebraskans would be more offended. However, in checking if there was in fact an Atlanta, Nebraska, I found there was, albeit with a population of only 131 per 2010 census.
      I’m glad I never bet anyone as to whether there was an Atlanta, Nebraska.
      Just in case someone was going to bet there is no Atlanta, Michigan, don’t do it since there is.

  36. Geoff Sherrington

    Having skimmed through this paper, I can say with confidence that the Australian part of the example is erroneous and misleading. Regional temperature changes are not as large as are illustrated. Rainfall, like temperature, is subject to cherry picking of start and end dates.
    As an example, here is some data for Melbourne. It is indirect to the main theme of the paper, but entirely relevant.

    http://www.geoffstuff.com/are_heatwaves_more_severe_version2.pdf
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/rainfall/

    While colorful graphics, as in the above paper by Zengchao Hao et al., are helpful, they cannot substitute for the lessons in the primary data sources.
    Geoff

  37. Geoff Sherrington

    Apologies, my URL are getting interfered with.
    Maybe this graph summarises –

    These comments in relation to the abovementioned paper –
    Changes in the severity of compound drought and hot extremes over global land areas [link]

  38. “Ultimately, religion is about the human need for meaning. This need is inherent, not learned. It is a fundamental component of the human condition.”

    100% blank slate – No. It is evolutionary and bottom up. It’s science.

    “…the decline of traditional religion has been accompanied by a rise in a diverse range of supernatural, paranormal and related beliefs.”

    At the same time we have all these end of the world conferences.

    “This trend can be observed on the basis of age cohort: Young adults, being less religious, are more inclined to believe in ghosts, astrology, clairvoyance and spiritual energy. But it also can be observed geographically: The parts of the United States where secular liberals are predominant tend to be the same areas where the market for alternative spiritual experiences and products is most lucrative.”

    And of course, the belief in Green Energy. This path to heaven. This tower of Babel. Propped up with fervored B.S. They’d pick up snakes if that worked.

    “Some who reject both traditional and non-traditional supernatural beliefs are attracted to what I refer to as “supernatural-lite.” This label encompasses beliefs that require a leap of faith and have characteristics reminiscent of religion, but do not explicitly rely on the idea of supernatural power. And they often are superficially wrapped up in ‘scientific or technological conceits’, which make them more palatable to those who do not fancy themselves people of faith (especially men). This includes the belief that intellectually superior aliens are monitoring and even influencing, the lives of humans. Some of these believers have even embraced the idea that extraterrestrials are responsible for human civilization, and will one day welcome us into a larger cosmic community once we reach some baseline level of enlightenment.”

    https://quillette.com/2018/12/27/from-astrology-to-cult-politics-the-many-ways-we-try-and-fail-to-replace-religion/?fbclid=IwAR1XWnVvSerL43EH8e2oABkwVxYYVnvp8TmWeB0-nqKUHl2h2e0ZhQMwVUM

    Conceit is the right word. I can think of two famous people. A Green enlightenment. Before global warming, they were cult. Now they are mainstream. Kudos to them for that. Then we have the religious saving the planet. We are in our community of planet savers, except for when Trump got elected. Then various states and cities said, we are not sinners, we are still in the community and will prove it with some wind turbines and proclaim our loyalty. Trump is the devil. Clintons’s 500 million solar panels is a thousand points of light.

    They need meaning. The writer said so. They have their meaning. Their cross to bear. Their sacrifices. Their floods, their plagues. You look in their Bible and it says, CO2 warms the atmosphere, and when it doesn’t, it warms the oceans. They have their prophecies and as my two believer confirmation class teachers had, the prophecies fulfilled. If that’s not science, I don’t know what is? They at this moment, are adding up numbers to know how much that has been so with the 2018 average GMST. With how many times in the last 10 years their prophecies have been fulfilled. They have their original sin.

    It’s meaning. If not global warming, what provides meaning in their lives? JCH, and Atomski? Come on. We all did about 10 consensus studies. What’s one more about meaning in our lives? A worship of the Earth? A worship of the past climate? To claim that one has risen above evolution and reached a higher plane that has no meaning or the mostest bestest meaning. That’s conceit or maybe not, but it might just be honesty. Proclaim ye faith before Gaia and everyone. I want to know. Why would it be a secret with secret handshakes? If I proclaim my faith in fracking I am cast out. But I keep proclaiming it. Deceit is not on the higher plane. That is for sinners.

    • Honestly, I have no idea what you are on about. Income wise, we’re oil and gas, now mostly fracking. Gushers were way better.

    • Ragnaar (didn’t I meet you someplace before? cold, wind-swept, a spec of land somewhere? between here and there?)

      Anyways, I too struggle with religion; not as one struggles like wrestling a bear at an amusement park, rather, I struggle with believers who intrude upon my space. If as you say, or at least many writers have said, religion is a personal experience, derived and evolved during the day-to-day machinations of life, if in that journey one still awakens each day undecided, shouldn’t I be content to explore the new day afresh?

    • Ragnaar, old man. That’s not how all this works…
      When we ‘pray’ to Alexa does she not offer comfort and guidance? (batteries not included).
      Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code) previously warned people may no longer worship God or pray to Jesus – instead putting all their faith in an AI messiah. “Humanity no longer needs God but may with the help of artificial intelligence develop a new form of collective consciousness that fulfills the role of religion. Are we so naive today to believe that the gods of the present will survive and be here in a hundred years?”

  39. Geoff Sherrington

    Re: Changes in the severity of compound drought and hot extremes over global land areas

    Authors Zengchao Hao et al promote a combined index of heat and drought as more severe and more widespread than heat and drought used alone. Their conclusions include that “The changes in the severity of compound dry and hot extremes over global land areas are evaluated, based on a compound dry and hot extreme index using the CRU data for the period 1951–2016. Results show a significant increase in the severity of compound drought and hot extremes in the western US, …. and eastern Australia, indicating an increased risk of compound dry and hot extremes in these regions. A significant temporal trend of the increasing severity is also shown, along with increased area coverages of different severity levels of compound dry and hot extremes.

    Their analysis depends on temperature and rainfall being independent variables. Patently, they are not. Here is part of a paper in prep by colleague Dr Bill Johnston, who from about line 50 onwards shows many graphs from sites where rainfall is plotted against temperature (dropping out the time factor usually plotted with both). It is easily seen that a great deal of the temperature variation is statistically explained by rainfall. Rain cools. Johnston uses the T-rain relation at a site to seek outliers and to help adjust for trend breaks caused by factors unknown from the spare metadata.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/johnston.pdf

    Zengchao Hao et al. also claim “A significant temporal trend of the increasing severity. Simple analysis of the raw T and rain data from the BOM fails to show this to be the case. The claim can be made in some sub-regions, not in others. See the T/time plots from Johnston, both before and after his adjustments based on rainfall.

    Overall, the paper reviewed is an example of data mining. Statistical associations are calculated when mechanical processes need to be. Rain cools. Evaporation removes relatively large heat quantities; and cloud cover is often associated with rainfall, reducing the heat from sunlight.

    Heat waves in Australia’s main capitals are NOT becoming longer, more frequent and hotter, as the Establishment claims.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/capitalheatwaves.pdf

    (Sorry for the length. There is just too much that is contestable in this paper, but as usual, a careful rebuttal can be longer than the original paper, especially one that starts : “Global warming has been shown to affect weather and climate extremes, such as droughts, floods, windstorms, cold waves, and heat waves.”). Geoff.

  40. Judith Curry,

    I appreciate statement of Roy Spencer.

    The Five Big Questions / December 18th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. :
    ”It is no secret that I doubt increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will have enough negative effects on the global environment to warrant the extreme cost to humanity of substantially reducing those effects. Note that this statement has both science and energy policy components. In fact, with “global greening” we should consider the possibility of net positive benefits.
    – – –
    1) Is warming and associated climate change mostly human-caused?
    2) Is the human-caused portion of warming and associated climate change large enough to be damaging?
    3) Do the climate models we use for proposed energy policies accurately predict climate change?
    4) Would the proposed policy changes substantially reduce climate change and resulting damage?
    5) Would the policy changes do more good than harm to humanity?”
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/12/the-five-questions-global-warming-policy-must-answer/

    The recent climate warming, believed to be dominateded by human CO2 emissions, without any evidence in reality, can be questioned. The questionable, blind belief of politicians in man-made, threatening climate warming demands an alternative strategy. The sooner even politicians will understand that the better it is.

    Judith Curry’s statement ”how much warming is caused by humans is THE key issue of debate” is the most urgent one in order of priority to be solved. But she seems not yet to be ready to show, what the real share of warming is caused by human CO2 emissions. In addition, I have understood, that Judith Curry is gradually taking care of the alternative strategy, too, by taking part in activities to make mankind adapt themselves to natural, extreme weather phenomena.

    The climate sensitivity based on results of climate models adopted by IPCC is deeply uncertain and exaggerated, as Judith Curry etc. have stated. As there is no evidence in reality, according to which any human-caused, threatening warming of climate could be possible, my forecast is that she will agree with the scientists who say: ‘climate sensitivity can not be distinguished from zero’ (Cripwell, Wojick, Arrak etc; and even Scafetta and Lindzen have claimed that climate sensitivity is less than 1C or 0.5C).

    My experiences by solving of multiscientific, metallurgical problems have teached me to solve even other practical problems that way, what is needed even to solve multiscientific problems of climate changes. At first you have only to understand, which one – or which ones – of potential problems can be regarded as potentially threatening. That is realized only on the bases by getting to know theoretical and/or earlier, practical experiences well enough. Thereafter, by basing on experiences of you own and even others, you can search for potential alternatives to be investigated more exactly. Anyhow, without any evidence, each ones of these potential alternatives are still only hypotheses. Any potentially working solution needs an evidence in reality, which can be solved by any due observation available in reality, at the latest by being put that to experimental or practical tests in order to check a working solution.

    As far as I am aware, IPCC, intergovernmental panel of climate change, has been established by UN politicians in order to prove scientifically, that the recent climate warming has been caused by human CO2 emissions. In spite of the continuous attempts during the last 3 decades, any cutting of human CO2 emissions according to the Kyoto protocol and the Paris aggreement has not been able to prove any proper basis for the believed, threatening climate warming. Even any cutting of CO2 emissions according to the latest report of IPCC, will not seem to be any working solution. That is why a new strategy must be adopted, in which the cutting of human CO2 emissions must be given up. One necessary way seems to be to replace the cuttings of CO2 emissions by making mankind adapt themselves to natural climate changes and extreme weather phenomena. Why even the latest report of IPCC does give an unreliable view on the cause of the recent climate warming? My view on that is as follows:
    – At first the representatives of IPCC – possibly by circular argumentiton, without any evidence in reality – seem to assume, that the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been totally caused by human CO2 emissions. Whereas, according to natural laws, the share of human CO2 emissions in the recent, total increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is only about 5 % at the most. We have to understand the fact that the quality of all kind of CO2 emissions to atmosphere are similar. Any content of CO2 in atmosphere is determined according to dynamic balance betwween all CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to sinks. The influence of any CO2 emission on CO2 content in atmosphere depends on its its share of total emissions.
    – Secondly even the role of the sun in the climate models adopted by IPCC seems to be based on assumption – may be even on circular argumentation, too – without any evidence in reality, too. The sun is key factor to control climate warming. In addition there are plenty of other factors conrolling changes on climate warming dominated by the sun. From the cretagenous period, since 100 million years, until today activity of sun has little by little been increasing. However, the climate temperature during that time has decreased so much, that nowadays tropical temperature is ahout 2 C-degrees and climate temperature of polar regions 20-40 C-degrees lower than during the 100 million years ago, caused by continent movings, which have changed water streams of oceans so that climate had been getting cool especially upper latitudes. During the latest 800 000 years, being associated with glacials and interglacials, the sun has orbitally controlled changes of climate temperature according to distance of the globe from the sun in the mildly elliptical orbit. During the current interglacial Holocene there can be found, that changes of climate temperature trends can be explained by activity changes of sun, which has especially controlled natural El Niño and La Niña phenomena.
    – The third inconsistence, compared to the truth, is, that, according to observations, trends of CO2 content in atmosphere have been always found to follow trends of climate temperature and not vice versa. For instance that can be found by geological and even latest observations during the last 100 million years, during the last 800 000 concerning the glacials and interglacials, and even during the present interglacial Holocene, as the trends of climate temperature has been dominated by El Niño and La Niña phenomena.
    – Finally one have to learn to understand the truth, that by using the climate models adopted by IPCC, nobody has managed to forcast or to hindcast trends of climate temperatures.

    As a summary one can find that there is no evidence in reality, according to which human CO2 emissions could make any observable, threatening warming of climate be possible. Read more in the links https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/02/nyes-quadrant/#comment-848558 and https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992.

  41. One of two articles on why RCP8.5 is not for planning:
    https://scienceofdoom.com/2018/12/29/opinions-and-perspectives-3-how-much-co2-will-there-be-and-activists-in-disguise/
    It’s more of a four times deal. If a headline says, RCP8.5, it’s nonsense.
    “When you see a story about possible futures, check what scenario is being used. If it’s RCP8.5 (“business as usual” or “a high emissions scenario”) then you can just ignore it – or be concerned and start petitioning your government to encourage more natural gas production.”

  42. “The high-yielding crop varieties that were bred during the first green revolution helped prevent food shortages in the 1960s by increasing the proportion of grain-to-plant biomass. It’s the grain that contains most of the plant’s consumable calories, so having more grain instead of straw means more food.”

    This first green revolution was not a fairy tale or a denial of ecomomics. Like wind and solar power. It worked.

    https://theconversation.com/reclaiming-lost-calories-tweaking-photosynthesis-boosts-crop-yields-109283?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1546549513

    Farmers, deplorables, were part of something that decreased cost and improved our welfare. They’d have a tendency to be skeptical of frauds and posers.

  43. No Access A Robust Constraint on the Temperature and Height of the Extratropical Tropopause

    …The extratropical cloud-top height, wave driving, and lapse-rate tropopause all shift upward but remain at roughly the same temperature when the aquaplanet GCM is forced by uniform surface warming of +4 K and when the AOGCM is forced by RCP8.5 scenario emissions. “Locking” simulations run on the aquaplanet GCM further reveal that 1) holding the water vapor concentrations input into the radiation code fixed while increasing surface temperatures strongly constrains the rise in the extratropical tropopause, whereas 2) increasing the water vapor concentrations input into the radiation code while holding surface temperatures fixed leads to robust rises in the extratropical tropopause. Together, the results suggest that roughly invariant extratropical tropopause temperatures constitutes an additional “robust response” of the climate system to global warming.

  44. https://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
    And Dana Nuccitelli comments on a new story at the Guardian about atomic bombs. Is it 1 or 1.5 or 4 per second? You’re fired. Let me see if I have this right. 90% into the oceans. Might be 1 times X or 4 times X. Our 90% is from 1X to 4X. You’re fired and I am suing you. Odds on the Guardian quoting Dana Nuccitelli on any climate story? Over 50%. Now, our 1X to 4X, thank you Guardian, is close to from 1.5 C to 4.5 with 66% certainty. So our 30 some years of research failing to narrow the ECS, translates as it must, to the ocean heat content. Or to say it like an accountant, the OHC allows us to back into the ECS. If we knew what was going with the OHC, which am not so sure about. Now, is the coral going to die? We don’t know. Antarctica? Coin flip. Please donate to the Guardian, as I need something to entertain myself and I don’t want them to go out of business just yet.

  45. AOC’s New Green Deal. Let’s go. Run the party as far left as possible.

    • I’m starstruck. I’ve never seen a freshman suck out the oxygen from the leaders of their party like she has. Usually they are quiet as a mouse in their first term.

      Her world view is as naive as you would expect from someone her age, but wow, does she command attention. She is a quotation machine on steroids. I have to admit I catch myself smiling when she is in glittering celebrity mode, dancing and all.

      Given the angst she’s creating among the party leaders, some wonder if she’s a Trump double agent, along with the MF woman from Michigan.

Leave a Reply to tedms Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s