Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Variability in decadal global temperature increases strongly with climate sensitivity [link]

1200 year reconstruction of temperature extremes in the northeastern Mediterannean region [link] Extreme heat years have “substantially” declined over the last 450 years (since CO2 emissions began rising). The warmest and highest extreme years occurred during Medieval times.

Global extent of climate change is ‘unparalleled’ in past 2000 years. [link]

Marine heatwaves in a changing climate [link]

The climate history of the whole of the Holocene not constrained by a 2000-year limit of convenience tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/cha…

Nick Lutso:  Why can’t we predict weather more than two weeks in advance [link]

New method to assess the urban heat island effect [link]

Earth’s radiative imbalance from the Last Glacial Maximum to the present [link]

Compound flood potential from river discharge and storm surge extremes [link]

‘It snuck up on us’: Scientists stunned by ‘city-killer’ asteroid that just missed Earth [link]

Nice article on clouds.  A Cloudspotters’ Guide to Climate Change [link]

Astronomers discover another ‘earth’ [link]

Corrections to ocean-temperature record resolve puzzling regional differences. Great N&V by Zeke Hausfather

Interesting new paper proposing correction to early-century SST records nature.com/articles/s4158…

Geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols: what we dont know after a decade of research [link]

Holocene breakup and reestablishment of the Petermann Ice tongue, Northwest Greenland [link]

Ancient civilizations had sea ports along West India’s coast that are presently far inland, suggesting sea levels were 2-3 m higher than now at ~270 ppm CO2. Notice the “submerged” coasts with the visualized 2 m higher sea levels (graph). [link]

‘The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2) has a Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) of 5.3K [link]

the atmosphere may respond differently to Arctic sea ice loss depending on the phase of the Quasi-biennial Oscillation (QBO). + [Open Summary]+ [Paper]

Social science, technology & policy

New Pigou paper on carbon taxes [link]

How Dutch stormwater management could mitigate damage from hurricanes [link]

Why are Atlantic and Gulf coast property owners building back bigger after hurricanes? [link]

The limits of strategic messaging [link]

Could renewable natural gas be the next big thing in green energy? [link]

Warren Pearce: climate deadlines, politics and our flickering futures [link]

Are bioplastics better for the Environment? It’s complicated. [link]

The environmental issues Republicans can’t ignore [link]

Climate solution: use carbon dioxide to generate electricity [link]

Approaching climate change solutions with baby steps [link]

What you think about landfill and recycling is probably wrong [link]

About science and scientists

Academic mobbing undermines open inquiry and destroys the soul of universities [link]

“Humans are tribal creatures. They were not designed to reason dispassionately about the world; rather, they were designed to reason in ways that promote the interests of their coalition.” [link

Publish AND perish: the death of a Professor at Imperial College London [link]

Climate grief:  fears about the planet’s future weigh on Americans [link] Incite panic with exaggerations and misinformation, then express concern that people are panicking. [link]

Does science advance one funeral at a time? [link]

The desire to attract good publicity causes universities to oversell their achievements, damaging public trust in science [link]

Physician gets fired for questioning trans orthodoxy [link]

Tenured, white, male, well-resourced historians argue they’re engaging in an “accepted practice” of “distilling” scholarship when withholding credit to a junior scholar. [link]

Lawmakers warned of brain drain in climate science [link]

103 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. “The findings help to “confirm” earlier research that suggested that past episodes of warming and cooling were regional rather than global, says Prof Piers Forster, climate scientist and director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, who was not involved in the study. He tells Carbon Brief:

    “Today’s human-induced warming signal is truly global in extent, whereas earlier events such as the Little Ice Age or Medieval Warm Period were only ever regional. The study puts these findings on a firm statistical footing and is yet another nail in the coffin of the theory that today’s warming signal could be a natural fluctuation.”

    Quote from the global extent of climate change is unparalleled in past 2000 years.

    “…..nail in the coffin…..

    That’s what we want to hear from our detached objectivity scientists. Sounds like a line from The Godfather or maybe Goodfellas.

    • This year has seen record snowfall and cold and record heat, that sounds more regional to me.

      • The media only covers the warm events accurately, they blame all the cold events on warmer. They win both ways. But it is still just lies.

      • covers the warm events accurately

        I got that wrong, they don’t cover any event accurately, they cover every event in any way they can promote the alarmism and fear that convinces people to give them money and power over them to protect them from chicken little sky is falling stuff.

    • Actually it’s funnier than you think when you consider it’s generally agreed the warming in the first half of the 20th C couldn’t be anthropogenic.

      As the paper says “Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence ……..”

      The papers’ are a product of changing spatial and temporal resolutions over the last 2000 years, and an artifact of the methods used by PAGES to interpolate the same and the lack of any attention to uncertainty in estimates.

      Hot a hard hypothesis to test properly, but the inconclusive results might not satisfy.

      • “…you consider it’s generally agreed the warming in the first half of the 20th C couldn’t be anthropogenic.”

        This is not generally agreed upon. Never has been.

      • Interested to know the hypothesized mechanisms and some references, particularly going back to the mid 1800s?

    • In addition, the study above showing a civilization in India that had shorelines two meters higher than at present and temperature swings in that area corresponding with the RWP in the MWP, so– that’s North America, China, South America, India and, Hannibal crossed an ice freehouse to attack Rome… not to mention the fact there’s been no global warming in the French countryside in the last hundred years. All the ‘global warming’ there has been found at official thermometers located at airports. Talk about local– looks like global warming alarmism is nothing more than an artifact of western science.

      • That’s, ice-free Alps… when global warming alarmists say it’s hotter today than in the last 2,000 years they’re admitting it was warmer during the Roman Warming Period (e.g., when, as Dr. Christian Schlüchter recently observed, Hannibal crossed an ice-free Alps).

      • John Hoyle led a borrowed elephant named Jumbo to the top of the Cplapier Pass- Hannibals presumed route in 1959- A.D.

  2. This was written about Antarctic temperatures.
    Examining the ice core record showed the ups and downs in temperature since the 1970s are within the bounds of what the region has experienced naturally in the past. At some points, the changes were much bigger, Naish says:

    the changes are within the bounds of past changes but at some points the changes were much bigger. Both cannot be true, which is the lie?

  3. Physician gets fired for questioning trans orthodoxy [link]

    SO? Climate and Weather people sea coral people and others get fired for not supporting the alarmism.

  4. Does science advance one funeral at a time? [link]

    Not Consensus Climate Science, they train new people who will not get their degrees if they do not sign up for the consensus. This is a serious infection, new alarmism is growing order of magnitude with each funeral graduation day, and they call it education. Schools now teach with enforced consensus. Real science must be skeptical, people must educate themselves outside the peer reviewed, consensus.

  5. The “globally coherent” rise in temperatures seen since the start of the industrial revolution is “unparalleled” in at least the past 2,000 years, a new study says.

    It’s highly doubtful that any rigorous cross-spectral determination of spatial coherence of proxy records over various time intervals during the last 2,000 years was performed. Instead the authors rely upon the apparent occurrence of the “hottest 51-year period” in each proxy record as their novel criterion. That the identification of the timing of that arbitrarily-selected period deteriorates rapidly as one transitions from 20-th century measurements to increasingly earlier, mixed-type proxies seems not to have troubled the authors. Such lack of due scientific diligence undermines their tendentiously eager claim of “unprecedented” spatio-temporal coherence.due to AGW.

    • Further to my earlier comment above, yours put me in mind to ask if the warming is antropogenic, and the hemispheric atmospheres not well mixed, then shouldn’t we see disproportionate warming in the northern hemisphere where 90% of the people live and industrialization concentrated?
      Not really serious, but about as serious as this stuff.

  6. David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

    Re: 1200 year reconstruction of temperature extremes in the northeastern Mediterannean region.

    Analysis of temperature extremes reveals the coldest summers occurred in 1035, 1117, 1217, 1884 and 1959 and the coldest decades were 1061–1070 and 1811–1820. The warmest summers occurred in 1240 and 1474, and the warmest decades were 1141–1150 and 1481–1490

    A 1200+ year reconstruction of temperature extremes for the northeastern Mediterranean region 15 page article
    https://www.blogs.uni-mainz.de/fb09climatology/files/2018/12/Klippel_2018_IJC.pdf

    See Kimmel’s 2019 dissertation for full details:
    Millennial-length tree-ring records: A basis for climate reconstruction and assessment of climate extremes and trends at local to global scales
    https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2019/100002846/pdf/100002846.pdf

    The second coldest decade from 1061-1070 also falls into a period of grand solar minima – the Oort minimum (Guiot et al. 2010). The coldest decade 1811-1820 falls into the periods of the Dalton minimum (Usoskin et al. 2002) and Little Ice Age (Grove 1988), which coincides with the unknown eruption in 1809 (Guevara-Murua et al. 2014) and the eruption of Tambora in 1815 (Stothers 1984) causing the ‘year without summer’ 1816 (Oppenheimer 2003).

  7. The Carbon Brief article on warming patterns over the last 2000 years seemed to me to show that the Medieval Warm Period was actually global in extent, contrary to their assertion in the text. Does anyone else have an opinion?

  8. Looking at the Nijsse et al paper on variability in GCM’s vs. ECS, it seems to provide another line of evidence against high ECS. Their Figure 4 shows that for ECS >3.75, the probability of a decade with more than 0.7C increase starts at 5% and increases to 17%. I believe there has so far been no decade with anywhere near 0.7C increase.

    • I checked the Real Climate model vs. observations page and the highest decadal increases I could find was 0.4C since 1955. Those of course were cherry picked.

  9. Nick Lutso: Why can’t we predict weather more than two weeks in advance [link]

    We have a problem with Lorenz? We have a bigger problem with AGW theory if the self-assured hubris of climate scientists has not been shaken by the statistics of Michael Mann.

  10. Bill Fabrizio

    “What you think about landfill and recycling is probably totally wrong.” Item #6, Incinerating waste and generating electricity from it is an alternative form of rubbish disposal that is good for the environment and resolves the problem permanently, but is expensive to operate up front.

    Just a back of the envelope calculation: NYC produces 24000 tons of trash a day. There’s an estimate out there that you can produce 500 KWH/ton of trash (burning it). NYC consumes 11,000 MWH/day. 24000 tons x 500 KWH/ton = 12,000 MWH/day.
    Again, back of the envelope. Probably needs to include recycled items that burn well, i.e. paper, plastics, etc. The money saved, we’re talking free power here, could easily pay the ‘expensive to operate up front’ costs. At $.10/kwh (very low) that would be $110M/day? That’s a lot of cheddar to build clean incinerators, or some sort of carbon capture.
    This author thinks it’s better to bury it. I’m sure my numbers are off. But how far off?

    So what’s better? Bury it? Ship it to Asia or South America, where much of it ends up in the oceans? Or engineer the h*ll out of incinerators, burn it and produce power?

    • Yes, of course. Burying trash is expensive too, which provides this variant with a viable business: https://enerkem.com/.

    • aporiac1960

      The specialist consultancy Waste To Energy International says that the capital cost of large scale incineration plants is around $600 per ton per annum of capacity. For New York then, with 24,000 tons/day, they would require capacity for 24,000*365=8,760,000 tons/year. Multiplied out at $600/ton gets you to $5.25 billion.

      Assuming your $110 million/day figure is correct, the plant capital cost would be paid for in approximately 48 days. That strongly suggests your $110 million/day is highly optimistic or the plant would already exist.

      Waste to Energy International cite a recent project in Moscow that burns 250,000 tons/year and generates 6.4 MW of electricity (some of which is consumed by the plant, but it doesn’t say how much). Scaled up for NYC (assuming all the waste is usable), you should expect 224 MW or 5.4GWh/day. Using your $0.10/KWh, that would create an income of $5.4 million/day.

  11. “Lawmakers warned of brain drain in climate science [link]”

    The appeal to “bright minds” assumes that one has a product worth pursuing. Miring a message into a political debate, tends to attract those whose careers are less scientific, and more towards “changing the world.” The attraction for scientific inquiry usually includes an appreciation for mathematics; it’s use, and in some ways, it’s utility to interrogate a particular aspect of the science subject. Some, interested in science and humanity find medicine a comfortable compromise. Others, completely devoid of mathematical inclination, lapse into lawyering, primarily talking, mostly and its sequelae, politics. The politically successful talk when people are listening; otherwise, those who talk have wandered off their initial career investments including some science endeavor, and talk just to hear themselves…talk. I can think of a few climate scientists who fit such a bill.

    In any ways, to attract a young mind into some field that may bear fruit at some distant time really requires nurturing a soul whose hunger is for some sort of meaning in life outside the harangue of some larger social order. As there are in reality very few insightful minds wandering about in the “ether”, it is probably best to not muck up their chances by forcing them to adhere to some political meme as has been the situation for the last few decades.

    Academic types are the worse offenders in their political glee to “drive home their message”, and, as a result, confuse talented people as to what is really important for their careers.

    • Attracting bright minds is best done by providing colleagues who are brilliant and who make science a constant challenge and learning experience. Another key ingredient is a dependable stream of funding (a rarity these days). I think that leaves out climate science, even though the stream of funding part seems to have been mastered by GISS for example.

  12. Ocean interactions from space.


    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EA000492

    Find here an article on big data for delineating the northern polar vortex.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019EA000590

    But I came across an article on Lorenz by James McWilliams from earlier this year.

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EA000434

  13. But Baby Steps Are the Only Way to Go

    “Over the last half-century, nuclear plants have avoided somewhere between 15 and 20 gigatons of carbon emissions, at a cost of less than $5 per ton.”

    I am glad I am a Green and made nuclear power plants so expensive to build. By now that would cost $50 per ton of carbon emissions. The destructive impacts demonstrated by taking them out of service early (Germany), makes one wonder what kind of con are they running?

    “Democrats use climate change to rally their base, and environmental nongovernmental organizations use it to raise money from their members.”

    It’s good to be a climate scientist. To have my work be nothing but political fodder. Carry on.

    What Congress needs to do is give some farmers money to put their land into restored prairie for about 20 years. Carbon capture. Habitat restoration, water quality improvements, flood reduction and species protection. It’s not difficult.

  14. The Environmental Issue Republicans Can’t Ignore
    Best to ignore that article. There’s nothing in it.

  15. Steven Mosher

    “New method to assess the urban heat island effect [link]”

    too bad they used data explicitly not fit for climate research purposes.

    • “From 1945–1954 to 2005–2014, on average and over China, these models predict that Tmin had to warm 0.19 ± 0.06 °C more than Tmax. However, during the same period, the climatic records show that Tmin warmed 0.83 ± 0.15 °C more than Tmax.”

      13.3 Tmax 1950
      13.7 Tmax 2010
      0.4 Less

      0.4 Tmin 1950
      1.3 Tmin 2010
      0.9 More

      http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/china
      GCMs 0.2
      BEST 0.5
      Scafetta 0.8

      The UHI may show climate models can’t do one more thing. But does it matter? It’s more important they do the temperature over sea ice better, if we had an agreement as to what that is?

      Assume I went to the Berkeleyearth website. Then to the China page as above. Then I entered a start and end date for Tmax and Tmin. Then I got a table of change over that time. Profit. Or have 1000 skeptics doing the same thing.
      Who are your users Steven Mosher? BEST says something and has a point. The past points made don’t matter that much. That round has been fired. What’s next for BEST? If your target is people like yourself and Zeke, that’s not much of a market share. Find the middle of the Bell Curve.

  16. John Ridgway

    “too bad they used data explicitly not fit for climate research purposes.”

    Fair enough, Steven. So what does analysis of the divergence between the minimum and maximum near-surface temperature records tell us when applied to data that is fit for climate research purposes?

    • Steven Mosher

      Ar5
      2.4.1.2 Diurnal Temperature Range

      • John Ridgway

        Steven,

        Thanks for the reference. Your assistance is much appreciated.

        I note that the paragraph you cite stresses the uncertainties that persist in this area. For example,

        “The Technical Summary of AR4 highlighted changes in DTR [diurnal temperature range] and their causes as a key uncertainty. Since AR4, uncertainties in DTR and its physical interpretation have become even more apparent.”

        Also, the following statement intrigued me:

        “Data analysis and long-term side-by-side instrumentation field studies show that real non-climatic data artefacts certainly affect maximum and minimum differently in the raw records for both recent (Fall et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2012) and older (Bohm et al., 2010; Brunet et al., 2011) records. Hence there could be issues over interpretation of apparent DTR trends and variability in many regions (Christy et al., 2006, 2009; Fall et al., 2011; Zhou and Ren, 2011; Williams et al., 2012), particularly when accompanied by regional-scale land-use/ land-cover (LULC) changes (Christy et al., 2006).”

        You have probably gathered by now that I am looking to see whether there is any basis for taking the Scafetta paper’s basic premise seriously (i.e. that urban heat island effects are a potential explanation for some of the observed changes in DTR). I know this is one of your fields of expertise, and so I was wondering what your considered opinion might be. I appreciate you might have better things to do, but I think the readers of this thread would benefit from a fuller response than the one you have hitherto given.

  17. “Why can’t we predict weather more than two weeks in advance”

    For lack of predictable solar effects on the NAO/AO.

    “The climate history of the whole of the Holocene not constrained by a 2000-year limit of convenience”

    Perpetuating one of the greatest myths in climate science. The warm spike in the GISP2 series from 1010 AD was the Oort solar minimum. The larger warm spike in GISP2 between 1350 and 1190 BC was a pair of super solar minima which wiped out many civilisations including the Minoans. The real warm period that began the Minoan period along with other city building cultures worldwide, was from around 2750 BC, when Greenland was particularly cold. The late 8th century AD was the warmest part of the Medieval Warm Period for Northwest Europe (Esper et al 2014), but was the coldest for 3450 years in the GISP2 series.

    • And 3450 years before 2750 BC, was the 8.2kyr event, which no doubt was global as the trade winds were very strong, and which is directly associated with positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions. Archeological evidence for the period includes an early Harappan expansion, expansion of village settlements in Serbia, and wheat growing near the Isle of Wight England.

  18. Recently joined your list Sr. Curry. Thank you for the links. The comments are as interesting as the articles. I am not a scientist. While I have an undergraduate degree in environmental biology, I am but a practicing corporate lawyer. I have a deep respect for your personal integrity. Thank you for protecting the candle of science from the political winds even at your own peril…

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  19. Cement soaks up greenhouse gases
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/cement-soaks-greenhouse-gases

    But the impatient can’t wait for this to happen. They say the recovery is too little and too late. It’s similar to saving for retirement. It requires a long view. Here’s what you have now and what we think you’ll have in the future.

    “Somewhere on earth, on land, one-quarter of all our carbon emissions released through fossil fuel emissions is disappearing,” said Crisp. “We can’t identify the processes responsible for this. Wouldn’t it be nice to know where?”

    Dr. Crisp

    Just fossil fuel emissions? One of my favorite quotes. Hire more accountants.

  20. “1200 year reconstruction of temperature extremes in the northeastern Mediterannean region [link] Extreme heat years have “substantially” declined over the last 450 years (since CO2 emissions began rising). The warmest and highest extreme years occurred during Medieval times.”

    This looks like a sound paper, in my amateur opinion. Clearly method and data, tree ring data go to 2014, proxy data calibrated vs. instrument data.

    But they buried the lede! It shows no warming signal, so far as I can tell.

    This seems important. What am I missing?

    Here is the paper in the IJC: https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.5955

    Here is an open copy (pp 53-79): https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/volltexte/2019/100002846/pdf/100002846.pdf

    The graphs of temperature extremes over time are on pp 63-64.

  21. “Lawmakers warned of brain drain in climate science”

    Got to wonder about the quality of climate research if the statements in this article are typical. Deep in the article, we get the first relevant text.

    “To monitor these changes, however, research facilities need adequate staffing. Robin Bell, a research professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, noted that interest in climate research as a profession is waning.”

    The article gives zero evidence for this. The only evidence is this, which isn’t.

    “There are just 1,492 members, Bell noted, at the American Geophysical Union’s Cryosphere section, which studies the earth’s solid water. For comparison, 140,000 people enrolled in law school in the country in 2010 alone. Bell said people could become more interested in climate science research if the politicization of the science ends.”

    That they would like more people (i.e., more money for their field) does not show that interest is “waning.”

    Here is a working link to the article:

    https://www.courthousenews.com/lawmakers-warned-of-brain-drain-in-climate-science/

  22. David Wojick

    The Guardian has published an article on a study that found something I pointed out two years ago, that YouTube is full of videos skeptical of climate alarmism.
    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/25/most-youtube-climate-change-videos-oppose-the-consensus-view

    There are at least a thousand skeptical videos. I have begun collecting them at my Climate Change Debate Education website: (http://ccdedu.blogspot.com) and have about 300 listed at this point. That is a lot of skeptical science. Including a bunch from Judith Curry. The Guardian says we skeptics are “hijacking” the science. Utter nonsense. The scientific debate is very real and this blog is the best place to see it.

    • You are collecting links, not videos. The difference will be painfully clear when youtube starts erasing them. We are in a climate crisis now, and tolerance for deniers is about to end. After all deniers are the enemy of humankind and the planet and the Grauniad is doing a public service for finding where they spread their hideous propaganda. Soon deniers will be labeled as climaterrorists and their legal prosecution will start.

    • David
      For the reason Javier mentioned, I suggest you start downloading your own copies of all those videos. There are lots of free web pages where you can download mp4s from youtube videos.

  23. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The tropical cyclone develops in the central Pacific.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=cpac&product=wv-mid

  24. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Niño 3.4 index is neutral from the beginning of July.

    Index SOI is slowly growing.

    • Yep. El Niño appears to be dying a slow death

      (go to the linked figure if it is not properly updated by WordPress. Latest weekly value +0.47°C which is below Niño threshold).

      And the Pacific warm water volume moves into discharge (negative anomaly) territory, making a La Niña more probable by next year.

      If the Niña is strong the global average temperature could return to Pause levels and this could cause a new ruckus in climate science. Just an interesting possibility.

  25. Astronomers discover another ‘earth’ [link]

    Kepler-186f is around 500 light-years from Earth in the Cygnus constellation.

    When the nearest earth like planet (with a potential for life) is that far away it seems pretty clear that Aliens have NOT visited the earth.

  26. Global extent of climate change is ‘unparalleled’ in past 2000 years. [link]

    Claims like this are a bit silly, given the post-1940 change is less than a degree and we know of events like the Tambora eruption 1812 lowered average land temperatures by 3 degrees or more (there was frost damage in August in New England).

  27. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Ice extent in the Central Arctic is similar as in 2015.

    • Steven Mosher

      Masie cannot be used for year to year comparisons.
      read their documentation

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Where is Arctic sea ice NOW?

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel, plotted with daily climate values calculated from the period 1958-2002.

  28. Stefano Perna

    Hi, just a simple question from a newcomer. I am no scientist (I’m an engineer, actually, with a casual interest in climate change) so please forgive me for any mistakes. Also, I’m no native English speaker, so please forgive any mistreatment of the English language.
    As far as I understand the basics of the mainstream AGW theory, human contribution to CO2 concentration in atmosphere became important after the 1950s. Since the “Nature” study above claims an unprecedented global warming starting in 1800s, shouldn’t at least one of the following be true:
    a) human contribution had more impact than previously thought, starting in the 1800s (probably lower climate sensitivity?)
    b) humans had no effect for at least a century (1850-1950); this would imply unspecified natural causes.
    It seems to me that both statements would imply a revision of current AGW theory.

  29. The first two listed articles directly contradict eachother:

    1200 year reconstruction of temperature extremes in the northeastern Mediterannean region [link] Extreme heat years have “substantially” declined over the last 450 years (since CO2 emissions began rising). The warmest and highest extreme years occurred during Medieval times.

    Global extent of climate change is ‘unparalleled’ in past 2000 years. [link]

    Can’t both be right.

  30. Glacial inception started last time (after the Eemian) in the Fennoscandian mountains i.e. in mountains of Scandinavia:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618202000319

    There’s been a 60 year trend of increasing snow in January in Helsinki:

    https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/statistics-from-1961-onwards

    This winter – 2019 – snow depth attained record magnitude in Sweden:

    https://www.thelocal.se/20180122/swedens-snow-depth-sets-new-seasonal-record

    And this summer in early July all Scandinavia was anolamously cold with record cold in parts of Finland:

    https://www.iceagenow.info/anomalous-cold-continues-across-europes-nordic-nations/

    Worth keeping an eye on snow depths in the Fennoscandian mountains.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The speed of the solar wind is increasing. Change of circulation in the Atlantic. In the middle of the Atlantic can create a hurricane.

    • “It is simply that the problem and its proposed solutions align more comfortably with the dogma of one side than the other.”

      Politics is pragmatic. Perhaps it’s time for new solutions.

      • Stefano Perna

        There is obviously a political bias in climate change debate, especially because it is an issue which may require strong political action in the future, perhaps on a global scale. Therefore, different political opinions can actually be related to specific different views on climate change.
        On the other hand, I believe there is a difference between what politicians say in public and what they actually think/do. Anyone of them knows that there are many other factors, which cannot be overlooked, related to climate change policies: subsidies, taxes, energy cost, economic growth, unemployment, foreign policy etc. The practical reality is that there is no way to:
        – abandon fossil fuels in the short/medium term
        – achieve an important reduction of CO2 emissions in the short/medium term
        – persuade developing countries to do the same.
        In fact, CO2 keeps being released in the atmosphere notwithstanding a list of promises dating back to the Kyoto protocol.
        Even if we knew for certain that CO2 is the global temperature control knob, we wouldn’t be able to rotate it that much.
        I believe that any serious and practical climate policy should promote technological advancement in order to become less dependent on fossil fuels in the long run, while, at the same time, promoting adaptation to any consequence of climate change, even carbon sequestration if economically feasible.

      • He could’ve written more about solutions. With the best solution being a product of the right, fracking and obtaining natural gas. Which aligns with the right. And the solutions of wind turbines and solar panels should be aligned with the left as it doesn’t work. But I like the guy. See his co-authors. I am for solutions. Giving farmers money to put their farmland into prairie grass for 20 years. Huge benefits.

      • Not having solutions is accept political irrelevance.

      • Patrick T. Brown:
        ““Literally the survival of humanity on this planet is in the hands of the next president” -Inslee in his closing statement. This claim is as far away from consensus science as the rightfully-mocked denier claims that you will hear from the other side.”
        Climate scientists are supposed to speak up when nonsense is said. He did. I wonder is anyone else did? Dave Rubin talked about owning the vacuum. If they are all afraid to speak up, it’s an opportunity. Once you get past their mobbing, it gets easier. He is appreciated as he’s no longer afraid of his party. And he’s welcomed by the tolerant other side.

  32. Rob Johnson-taylor

    Sealevel rise – the real problem – The Dome. This has gone out of peoples consciousness, if it was ever in it

    • Is it really a problem? Are there warheads in there? “They excavated soils from Enewetak and elsewhere and turned the soil into a concrete slurry, which they poured into an unlined crater on Runit Island, left behind by the Cactus bomb. They sealed it with a clean concrete top 18 inches thick, creating what is now called the Tomb.”
      It’s soil. What about what was orginally underwater? I think that’s still there too. Whatever is bad, wasn’t only on land. Where’d that go?

  33. I finally finished reading them!

    Thank you again Dr Curry.

  34. According to this article on glacial inception by William McClenney, there is evidence that at the very end of previous interglacials there is an anomalous warming peak, rising above the normal “noise” fluctuation of interglacial climate change. Could we be in such a terminal up-fluctuation right now?

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/29/glacial-inception/

  35. “The goal is not to pick scientific winners and losers in every fight, but to dilute science until it becomes another voice shouting in the crowd — a voice you can choose to disregard even in the face of environmental calamity.”

    https://onezero.medium.com/science-society-and-so-called-socialist-plants-f9ed3f672b4b

    Good job Dana. Climate hysteria made you as influential as myself.

    See, they did this to themselves. The article of cours frames it as Trump’s fault. Politicians for decades did what they did with nuclear power and ethanol. And wind turbines and solar panels. And watersheds, river systems and New Orleans. Politics is about your last choice if you want to fix some problem. Big oil fixed coal with government trying to prevent that. Big nuclear power could help solve the problem. But the green allies will not let that happen. And they’re afraid to speak up as they might get kicked out of their tribe. They let nuclear power die with all their science. They are may to let the grid die or push prices up and push some people’s well being down.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The Peruvian Current is very cold.

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski
  38. Global sea level rise began to accelerate in the 1960s, 30 years earlier than suggested by previous assessments

    https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-sea-level-rise-began-accelerating-30-years-earlier-than-previously-thought?utm_content=buffere7446&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    When we look at the their 2nd figure with the wonky markings we see that annual acceleration has flat-lined since about 1970.

    Acceleration can mean going from 60 mph to 70 mph over 60 minutes, right? Is the car accelerating? Yes. Where is the system break since 1970? There is none indicated. If there is a system break, something worrisome, where does this broad data show it? Where is it hiding if not in the oceans? Glacial masses going bonkers. Watersheds going bananas. Rainfall doing back flips. Where is it?

    • Everyone keeps getting distracted by sea level rises while it’s what is in the water that bears watching, or even more interesting is what’s shrinking like fish and krill habitat and populations.
      https://thenarwhal.ca/aquacalypse-now-end-fish/
      “In the past 50 years, we have reduced the populations of large commercial fish, such as bluefin tuna, Atlantic cod and other favourites, by a staggering 90 per cent.”.

      “Beginning in the 1950s, as their operations became increasingly industrialized, with onboard refrigeration, acoustic fish-finders, and, later geographic positioning systems, or GPS, the fishing fleets first depleted populations of cod, hake, flounder, sole,and halibut in the Northern Hemisphere. As the abundance of those fish declined, the fleets moved southward, to the coasts of developing countries, and, ultimately, all the way to the shores of Antarctica, searching for icefishes and rock cods, and finally for the small, shrimp-like krill.”

      Aquaculture and fish farming will save us?
      “Outside of China — where most farmed fish, such as carp, are freshwater vegetarians — aquaculture produces predominately carnivorous marine fish, like salmon, which are fed not only vegetal ingredients but also fishmeal and fish oil, which are obtained by grinding up perfectly edible herring, mackerel and sardines caught by what is coyly called “reduction fisheries.” Carnivore farming, which requires three to four pounds of smaller fish to produce one pound of a larger one”

      • Do you think more carbon in the oceans would be good or bad for them? Sardines seem to like it.

      • How do you know they like carbon? Did you speak to the Sardines to get their opinion?

      • jacksmith4tx:
        I am going with, upwelling on the West coast of South America is carbon rich and that’s where the sardines are. And that most of the oceans are deserts. Really. There’s no food. Off topic, what are good sources of omega-3?

      • Bacteria is good because there is more of it in the water and rhodopsins comprise about 80% of the marine bacteria!
        “The study finds bacteria containing rhodopsins, a sunshine-grabbing pigment, are more abundant than once thought. Unlike algae, they don’t pull carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the air. And they will likely become more abundant in warming oceans, signaling a shuffling of microbial communities at the base of the food chain where the nitty-gritty work of energy conversion occurs.”

        Turns out the oceans are not deserts devoid of life because these critters are hybrids as they can feast on the flesh of algae and organic matter or switch to solar power when they run out of dead stuff to eat.
        “rhodopsin photosystems were much more abundant than previously realized and concentrated in nutrient-poor waters. In such oligotrophic zones, they outperform algae at capturing light.”
        https://phys.org/news/2019-08-marine-microbe-increasingly-important-role.html
        If these guys start crowding out the oxygen generators it will take a lot of geoengineering to fix that problem.

      • Distribution of Life in the Ocean

        https://geo.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Oceanography/Book%3A_Oceanography_(Hill)/10%3A_An_Ocean_Full_of_Life/Distribution_of_Life_in_the_Ocean

        I heard it somewhere, maybe Blue Planet that there are vasts stretches that are deserts in the oceans. But it’s not easy to find support for that claim of mine. It seems to me that adding carbon to the oceans, which is where the element C is now more, near the surface, is going to make more life. They’re starving all over the place.

        “…east side of ocean basins as well as polar regions where upwelling occur…” If the oceans ever die, it will be from a lack of carbon in the proper zones to fuel life.

  39. What a con:

    “The research found that technologies with energy storage capacity costs below $20/kWh could enable cost-competitive baseload power that is available all of the time over a twenty-year period, though this target varies with the target output profile and location.”

    https://techxplore.com/news/2019-08-energy-storage-fall-renewable-full.html?fbclid=IwAR3Noy-G1EIkUefUFT8VAC97Qyll4PoIcJQ4I9Q57EJgiFRp4WrU3evK3X0

    Unless I am mid-reading or failing to understand, currently $250/kWh is doable. Storage can’t drop this much price.

    “”One of the core sources of uncertainty in the debate about how much renewable energy can contribute to the deep decarbonization of electricity is the question of how much energy storage can be improved” says senior author Jessika Trancik, an associate professor of energy studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

    The study is fine. The con is the contention storage is going to solve this. People are adding it now and patting themselves on the back. When you’re 10 times too expensive with in an intractable problem, it’s time to give up.

    One of my theories is lithium batteries should catch on fire. You can only pack so much into a certain mass of stuff. The fact that they do catch one fire, means your near a threshold or limit.

  40. Probably not many people are aware of the extreme and rapid variations in glaciation during the last ~100,000 year glacial interval, as shown in Tambon Thongchai’s excellent thesis:

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/06/11/chaoticholocene/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    Rather than being a more or less constant glaciation, the full Laurentide glaciation in North America was only occasionally attained within the in whole glacial interval during which glaciation was almost absent for significant periods. The ice sheets advanced and retreated in a chaotic flicker. Climate science tried to avert the gaze of the public from this hyper variability of climate – an order of magnitude greater and more extreme than anything in the last two centuries – for obvious reasons. It took place during a period in which anthropogenic causation is not really credible even by their standards. It would lead to the inconvenient question “then what’s so unusual about recent climate change?”

    • Phil

      The answer to your question is nothing at all as amply demonstrated throughout the Holocene when it has been warmer, wetter, drier, colder,windier than today and with climate changes more rapid than currently, as seen in the swamping of Doggerland 7000 years ago at a rate of 6 feet per century

      tonyb

      • richswarthout

        Tony,

        I was thinking of your research on historical records related to weather and had a burning question to ask, and then, there you were, posting a comment on climate, etc.

        So here’s the question:
        Mosh criticizes the use of historical, non-science records, in estimating approximate historical temperatures. However, given his background in English literature, have you ever explored the possibility of citing medieval authors with significantly high credentials; too high for Mosh to ignore?

        Rich

      • Tonyb
        Thanks for keeping track of historical changes.

        I loved the article on Doggerland and use it in many discussions of sea level rise.
        Scott

      • rich

        Mosh sees everybody writing in the past as ‘some monk.’

        I have quoted kings, queens, Chaucer, Bishops, Newton, Ancient books, scrolls, Hanseatic league, diaries, farmers observations, the domesday book, manorial rolls complied at the time faithfully recording the seasons, (and even had one translated from the original Latin and french) , notes from generals fighting wars in specified climatic conditions, church manuscripts, royal manuscripts, those handed down from universities, renowned climate scientists who spent their lives researching past weather events, the work of current academics who use noted medieval scholars in their current work. I have been to cathedrals, ancient archives, the met office, the scott polar institute etc in order to gather records

        the current book I am reading ‘The third horseman’ about the 14th century catastrophic rainfall and subsequent famine, has an index of around 400 perfectly respectable authors, chroniclers, farmers, academics, etc etc but mosh will not take a blind bit of notice as for some reason none of them wrote in computer code, therefore their observations can be discarded.as ‘anecdotal.’

        tonyb

      • Scott

        Ancient meets modern as one of the causes of the big power failure in the UK yesterday was the sudden and unexpected shutting down of one of a number of wind farms located on the Digger bank.

        tonyb

      • Scott

        That should of course be ‘the Dogger bank.’

        tonyb