by Judith Curry
I used to be concerned about ‘consensus enforcement’ on the topic of climate change. Now I am concerned about ‘alarmism enforcement.’
Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, any hurricane causing catastrophic damage has been seized upon by climate alarmists as evidence of the horrors of global warming.
As if the record-holding hurricanes from the 1920’s through the 1950’s never happened.
The catastrophic damage to the Bahamas from Hurricane Dorian is no different. The ‘official’ statement from the alarmist contingent of climate scientists appears to be this article in the Guardian, by Mann and Dessler:
Unfortunately for the alarmists, there are several factors that are getting in the way of the public promotion of the Mann/Dessler narrative:
Alabama-gate: President Trump’s insistence on defending his erroneous statements about the forecasts for Dorian impacting Alabama. A good article summarizing all this was coauthored by one of my former students at Georgia Tech, Brandon Miller [link].
After the Alabama National Weather Service office made a statement that Alabama was not at risk from Dorian, NOAA issued a statement defending President Trump [link]. A WaPo article describes this latest development [link], and the subsequent outrage among scientists and NOAA employees (past and present.
This whole situation is taking the oxygen out of the room in terms of discussions regarding Dorian and global warming. Gotta wonder if this was the strategy?
New statement from GFDL: For about a decade (or even longer), the NOAA GFDL group has annually updated their statement on hurricanes and climate change [link].
Michael Mann is not happy with the GFDL statement, see this twitter thread: (well you can see it if you aren’t blocked)
Well kudos to Mann for actually laying out his arguments for why he doesn’t like the GFDL statement. It’s fine, even good, for a scientist to disagree with the consensus and to have an outlier perspective (I’ve been known to do the same). The problem is when the dissenting scientist attempts to pass off his/her own perspective to the public as ‘truth’, and as if their own perspective represented a ‘consensus’ among other experts.
New assessment from the WMO: The other factor getting in the way of the Dorian alarmism is the recent publication of two papers by a distinguished international group of scientists who serve on the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Task Team on Tropical Cyclones:
- Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I. Detection and Attribution
- Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part II. Projected Response to Anthropogenic Warming
These two papers are discussed in the following section of this post. The punchline is that these papers do not support the narrative of the Mann/Dessler piece with any kind of confidence.
GFDL scientists Tom Knutson is first author on both of the WMO papers, and also involved in preparing the GFDL statement.
The alarmist/activists are not happy:
In the old days, we had to rely on computer hackers (e.g. ClimateGate) and FOIA requests to provide insights into the back-channel thuggery of these activist climate scientists. Now this thuggish behavior has been normalized, and we can see it all on twitter (that is, if you aren’t blocked).
Possible unanticipated fallout from all this: NOAA and GFDL will be discredited by the climate alarmists.
New publications from the WMO
The two new publications by Knutson et al. deserve further discussion. Both papers have the same 11 authors. There are multiple authors from the U.S., but also China, Japan, India, Korea and Australia. From the U.S., names you might recognize are Kerry Emanuel and Jim Kossin. As I understand it, the whole issue of hurricanes and climate change is less politicized outside the U.S.
“The authors of this report include some former members of the expert team for the WMO 2010 assessment (Knutson et al. 2010) along with current membership of a WMO Task Team on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change. The Task Team members were invited to become members by the WMO World Weather Research Program’s Working Group on Tropical Meteorology Research.”
It is difficult to argue that the authors are anything but a very distinguished group of hurricane scientists with expertise on the dynamics of hurricanes and climate change.
My recent post Extremes included a brief discussion of Part I:
<begin quote>
“In this assessment, we have focused on the question: Can an anthropogenic influence on TC activity be detected in past data? We explore this question from two perspectives: avoiding/reducing either Type I or Type II errors, since we presume that different audiences will have different preferences on which type of error should be avoided to a greater extent.
Using the conventional perspective of avoiding Type I error, the strongest case for a detectable change in TC activity is the observed poleward migration of the latitude of maximum intensity in the northwest Pacific basin, with eight of 11 authors rating the observed change as low-to-medium confidence for detection (with one other author having medium and two other authors having medium-to-high confidence). A slight majority of authors (six of 11) had only low confidence that anthropogenic forcing had contributed to the poleward shift. The majority of the author team also had only low confidence that any other observed TC changes represented either detectable changes or attributable anthropogenic changes.
Regarding storm surge, our expectation is that a widespread worsening of total inundation levels during storms is occurring due to the global mean sea level rise associated with anthropogenic warming, assuming all other factors equal, although we note that no TC climate change signal has been convincingly detected in sea level extremes data. To date, there is not convincing evidence of a detectable anthropogenic influence on hurricane precipitation rates, in contrast to the case for extreme precipitation in general, where some anthropogenic influence has been detected.
The relatively low confidence in TC change detection results from several factors, including: observational limitations, the smallness of the expected human-caused change (signal) relative to the expected natural variability (noise), or the lack of confident estimates of the expected signal and noise levels.”
<end quote>
The Knutson et al. paper is distinguished by clearly explaining the evidence and and arguments that the individual scientists are considering, and discussing the nature and reasons for disagreement among the scientists.
Overall, I give this paper an A for accurately portraying the current state of knowledge and level of (dis)agreement among experts on the topic of hurricanes and climate change.
Part I lays out the role of physically-based speculation (in context of avoiding Type II errors of underestimation). I agree that this is an important thing for scientists to do (I laid out my arguments in my recent Worst case blog post). Such speculation can stimulate further research. The problem is when a scientist attempts to pass off their speculations to the public as being ‘fact’ or having support of a ‘consensus.’
Compare the WMO papers with statements made by Mann and Dessler in the Dorian article. No wonder they are upset. By the way, I don’t think any atmospheric or climate scientists would regard either Mann or Dessler as experts on hurricanes.
Apparently ‘consensus’ surrounding hurricanes and climate change has become the enemy of the activist scientist ‘alarmism enforcers.’
The bottom line is that there is much about hurricanes and climate change that we flat out don’t know, with any significant level of confidence.
JC’s Special Report on Hurricanes and Climate Change
I suppose it deserves its own blog post, but around the time of my recent Congressional Testimony, I made available my Special Report on Hurricanes and Climate Change, which followed a series of blog posts on the same topic. I recently updated the Report to include the 2 WMO papers plus a few others.
From the twitter thread (summary) I prepared for this Report:
Every damaging hurricane is now greeted with alarm about manmade global warming. If you are concerned and/or confused, my new Report can help you understand the evidence.
My Report is not inconsistent with any of the recent assessment reports on hurricanes and climate change.
This Report is distinguished from recent assessments of hurricanes and climate change by the following:
- a focus on hurricane aspects that contribute to landfall impacts
- an emphasis on geologic evidence and interpretation of natural variability
- an approach to ‘detection and attribution’ that does not rely on global climate models
- a perspective on future projections that that accounts for uncertainties in climate models and also includes natural climate variability
- a longer format that allows for more in depth explanation suitable for a non-expert audience.
1. There is low confidence in any detection of a change in hurricanes caused by global warming, owing to observational limitations, natural variability, and uncertainty in the size and nature of the expected signal.
2. Any recent signal of increased hurricane activity has not risen above the background variability of natural climate variations.
3. The primary driver for increased economic losses from landfalling hurricanes is the massive population buildup along coastlines.
4. There is low confidence in projections of future changes to hurricane activity. Projected change in hurricane activity is expected to be small relative to the magnitude of natural variability in hurricane activity.
However there are several elements of this Report that present a different and broader perspective from what has been covered in the WMO papers. In any event, I have made every effort to present my views in context of a range of other perspectives, and highlight areas of disagreement and uncertain knowledge.
This Report is in the nature of a Working Paper; I look forward to your feedback and will revise in the future as warranted.
JC message to the ‘alarmism enforcers’
Well there’s probably a better chance of President Trump listening to me than there is of the climate scientists who are alarmism enforcers listening to me, but here goes anyways.
Your behavior is violating the norms of science, and in my opinion is unethical:
- failure to acknowledge uncertainty and low levels of confidence in much of the research surrounding hurricanes and climate change.
- cherry picking research that supports your personal narrative of alarm, without acknowledging disagreement among scientists and other research and assessment reports that do not support your narrative of alarm.
- misleading the public and policy makers as a result of the above two practices
- and last but not least, bullying other respected scientists who have different perspectives on evaluating the evidence.
The above is what happens when scientists become political activists. I hope I am not seeing signs of GFDL’s Tom Knutson becoming the latest bullying victim of these activist scientists.
Scientists are gonna do what scientists are gonna do. Short of plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification, it seems no one cares what they do. What astonishes me is that there is no pushback from their universities and professional societies on this unethical behavior. Instead these activists are actually rewarded by the universities and professional societies.
The damage that these activist scientists are doing to climate science and the public debate on climate change is incalculable.
It does seem to me that there is a simple physics argument that tropical cyclones should become less intense with warming. It is temperature gradients that determine atmospheric dynamics as the Navier-Stokes equations clearly show. If there is a tropical hot spot, the vertical temperature gradient in the tropics will decrease. Similarly the pole to equator gradient will also be decreasing because of polar amplification. This perhaps is already affecting things like tornadoes in the US which seem to be decreasing in number and intensity.
The reduced pole-to-equator temperature gradient argues for fewer and slower moving hurricanes. A counter argument regarding hurricane intensity relates to warmer sub/tropical sea surface temperatures and more atmospheric water vapor. But the atmospheric/ocean circulation system is chaotic and complex, and simple physical reasoning only takes you so far.
In fact it takes you nowhere and should not be asserted, as these systems typically produce counterintuitive behavior.
The reduced pole-to-equator temperature gradient argues for fewer and slower moving hurricanes.
I have heard that many times. I have never seen any real proof that would support repeating it so much.
But the atmospheric/ocean circulation system is chaotic and complex, and simple physical reasoning only takes you so far.
Just say: “I don’t know!”
I’ve collected much material for a blog post on this topic, of relevance for all weather extremes. Not sure when I will actually have time to prepare the blog post on this topic.
Dr Curry, don’t forget to read my short note about Earth System Models. I wouldn’t mind seeing a blog post summarizing how they work I can use in my current hobby line.
Regarding hurricanes, I assume the slower they move the weaker they will get, all other factors being equal, because hurricanes cool down surface waters, so the longer they keep away the sun, rain, and churn water, the cooler will be the water ahead of their path. There may be a way to correlate translation speed to the barometric pressure?
JC:
” This whole situation is taking the oxygen out of the room in terms of discussions regarding Dorian and global warming. Gotta wonder if this was the strategy?
New statement from GFDL: For about a decade (or even longer), the NOAA GFDL group has annually updated their statement on hurricanes and climate change
Michael Mann is not happy with the GFDL statement, see this twitter thread: (well you can see it if you aren’t blocked)”
Be careful what you wish for, Judy– Kerry Emanuel’s thesis advisor was Dick Lindzen:
@MichaelEMann
Using a downscaling approach combined with state-of-the-art climate model simulations, leading researcher Kerry Emanuel finds an increase in both frequency and intensity for tropical cyclones globally, and in the North Atlantic specifically (https://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219 …).
For the record, Kerry Emanuel’s thesis advisor was Jule Charney
Russell : :Using a downscaling approach combined with state-of-the-art climate model simulations, leading researcher Kerry Emanuel finds an increase in both frequency and intensity for tropical cyclones globally, and in the North Atlantic specifically (https://www.pnas.org/content/110/30/12219 …).”
Two obvious issues with the study
a) the “modeling ” starts post 1950 basically truncating the much more active hurricane periods in the early 1900’s
B) The increase in hurricanes is very large going forward which doesnt seem to be supported by the historical record when taking into account the period from 1900 through 2019.
Russell
As regards ‘more and more frequent hurricanes’ perhaps you were unaware of the hurricane drought over the last 12 years, noted in 2016 by the ‘Washington Post’ the U.S. equivalent of the excitable ‘Guardian’. The highly respected American GFDL, contributed 14 scientists on six chapters of the IPCC assessment in 2013 and noted; (edited for brevity)
“Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm or hurricane numbers (from 1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend….
However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic was relatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number of storms would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, Statistical tests indicate that this trend is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes”
The 12 year Hurricane dearth since 2006 is the longest in the 140 year record. The phraseology usefully illustrates that, as with ships, there are far more people and sophisticated equipment to observe significant weather events today than in the past .
So it is remarkable that numerous records still exist to illustrate the often severe nature of historic weather even though, statistically, many more events must have occurred than we are aware of. Floods are undoubtedly a serious problem as so many people insist on living next to water. Should the weather of the past recur, this has obvious implications as the worst occurrences of floods appear not in modern times but historically, as those examining centuries long weather records- rather than modern satellite records –recognise.
tonyb
When I see the words simple physics arguments I reach for my gun.
Robert I Ellison: When I see the words simple physics arguments I reach for my gun.
Don’t be despondent! You like your own simplicities, like “Energy in minus energy out”!
At TOA no one can hear you scream.
Channeling Hanns Johst, the playwright and Nazi Poet Laureate, is a peculiar way to persuade people of anything.
The line “Wenn ich Kultur höre … entsichere ich meinen Browning” (Whenever I hear of ‘culture’ I release the safety catch of my Browning) was a line from his 1933 play Schlageter. It is often erroneously attributed to either Herman Göering, Heinrich Himmler, or Joseph Goebbels.
The global first order differential energy equation can be written as the change in heat in oceans is approximately equal to energy in less energy out at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).
Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Ein – Eout
Simple enough? But beyond that there is a world of dynamical complexity. A world where simple physical reasoning is dismally inadequate. But that’s all they do in motivated argumentation. Apart from Matthew who can’t distinguish fundamental geophysics from the skeptic memes they tell each other.
“The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
You imagine people in the climateball clique are persuadable? How naive. I was just succinctly expressing my disdain for what they fondly imagine is science. How about – simple minded physical reasoning and $5 will get you a cup of
coffee.
I think second comment on “simple physics” is much better than your first.
Thanks – thus far I would give you a single star rating. ⭐
There is a simple logic to it. Periods of weaker indirect solar increase negative AO/NAO states, which drives a warm North Atlantic Ocean (AMO) phase. So intense Atlantic hurricanes are more common during centennial solar minima. Like during the 1880-90’s, which held the records for numbers of intense events until this centennial solar minimum. With rising CO2 forcing modeled to increase positive AO/NAO, it would be potentially inhibiting AMO warming and hurricane intensity.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Thank you for standing firm. You have already sacrificed your tenured position.
As you probably know, truth will not endear you to the chanting “progressive” crowd. Expect more attacks in the style of 100 German Scientists Against Einstein. Some things never change.
We ain’t seen nothing yet. Under the new Paris Accord rules, every country is supposed to start reporting their AGW damages. I expect every damaging hurricane to make the list, at least fractionally, but maybe totally. This then sets the stage for damage claims against he developed countries. The hurricane circus cometh.
So Dr. Mann is concerned about what the scientists at NOAA are saying. And here I thought there was total consensus on this stuff. I read the updated NOAA pages about hurricane frequency and strength very carefully and I thought is was very well done and well balanced. I guess NOAA has just become part of the big oil/Koch Brothers conspiracy of climate science denialism.
i think it’s high time that the Mannsters of the world should be called d’niers. (if they aren’t going to walk in lock step with the party line, then they should accorded the same level of respect as others who don’t)…
Solar wind speed has dropped and there are no hurricanes in the Atlantic again.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=atl&product=wv-mid
Jetstream is as important as sea surface temperature.
There is low confidence that climate change, warming or sea level, is not natural, normal, necessary and unstoppable.
Climate is well inside the bounds of past climate during the past, repeating cycles, of the most recent ten thousand years.
This is what must be studied and understood and taught.
Water, with all of its states and state changes, regulate climate in narrow bounds, in spite of external forcing changes. Warmer oceans thaw sea ice and more evaporation and snowfall and ice cause colder. Colder oceans allow sea ice to form and less evaporation and snowfall allow ice depletion and cause warmer.
This is not considered in climate science.
The surface temperature of the tropical Atlantic is high.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_eatl_1.png
But the Southern ocean and Southern Hemisphere in general is cold as usual
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/
Just as the Kaiser was a stepping-stone for Hit1er, so the NOAA was a stepping stone for the ecofascists. Now it has served its purpose and is no longer ambitious nor dishonest enough to be a partner in the ongoing trajectory of Mann-Hayhoe ecofascists, it is discarded and become an enemy. As Cersei Lannister said in Game of Thrones, “everyone who is not us is the enemy”.
NOAA is still deeply alarmist in many other ways, like their “pause busting” surface temperature statistics. Their hurricane people happen to be more honest.
President Trump’s insistence on defending his erroneous statements about the forecasts for Dorian impacting Alabama.
I guess it must depend on what the meaning of forecast is, and who made the forecast and when the forecast was made and how the forecast was made and etc.etc.etc.
Alabama, … Plus Mississippi and Louisiana and Texas and Arkansas and Georgia and South Carolina and North Carolina and Tennesse and Virginia and West Virginia and Delaware and New Jersey and New York (Long Island) and (maybe) even Pennsylvania.
(Kentucky!)…
Reblogged this on Quaerere Propter Vērum and commented:
Excellent thoughts on Hurricane alarmism, Dr. Curry.
Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, any hurricane causing catastrophic damage has been seized upon by climate alarmists as evidence of the horrors of global warming.
I have been warning about this for several years.
stories that storms are not worse or that CO2 warming will not be bad or that sensitivity is less than the alarmists claim is going to lose every time there is a storm or a hot day.
Climate change is natural normal necessary and unstoppable and not in any way caused by greenhouse warming by CO2. Study, learn and teach natural causes, that is the only way to win.
There is plenty of data to understand natural internal responses and cycle magnitudes and frequency and changes to it.
One way to counter this alarmism is to draw attention to historical storms on their anniversaries. Camille, Hugo, etc
Judith,
Thanks for this post.
Do you think the recent warring by the WMO Secretary General, reported on GWPF, is related to the 2 WMO reports by Knutson et al?
https://www.thegwpf.com/wmo-secretary-general-warns-against-climate-doomsters-and-extremists/
Thread Reader – Mann’s thread
Making far reaching changes in a ‘chaotic and complex’ system – and requiring high confidence in attribution to mitigate and adapt – is the opposite of rational behavior under deep uncertainty. Not that skeptics recognize deep uncertainty.
A bit simplistic I think.
I wouldn’t call spending trillions on Green New Deals and scaring the heck out of the public and their children rational behavior.
Alternatives for what? Throwing money at a nonproblem?
You are in the 9% minority.
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans-are-increasingly-alarmed-about-global-warming/
Global warming is at the bottom of American concerns in most polls.
Besides, if Americans were worried about Muslims, would that be sufficient reason to do something dramatic and expensive? Or do you think we should be bombing still more places in the Middle East?
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 69% of Likely U.S. Voters think global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem, down just four points from the 10-year high of 73% in March 2017. In 2015, the number of voters who considered global warming a serious problem was in the mid-60s.Today, just 30% of voters do not consider global warming a serious problem. The latest finding includes 44% who see it as a Very Serious problem and 12% who say global warming is Not At All Serious.
~august 2018
Climate change is always at the bottom of the list.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/04/state-of-the-union-2019-how-americans-see-major-national-issues/
Mark Silbert: I wouldn’t call spending trillions on Green New Deals and scaring the heck out of the public and their children rational behavior.
David Wojick
Alternatives for what? Throwing money at a nonproblem?
Robert I. Ellison
You are in the 9% minority.
Robert, are you saying that 91% support spending $trillions on the Green New Deal? Expressions of concern and such in public opinion polls do not come close to that level of support. The Californians I meet who support the Renewable Portfolio Standard think that solar and wind power reduce the cost of electricity, and that our high electricity prices are caused by out-of-state factors — they support the GND because they think it will save money, not cost money. Obviously that may be a biased sample, but where is the evidence that majorities support anything like the required expenditures to get away from fossil fuels?
Robert,
I don’t want to get into a shouting contest with you as I find many of your posts to be very informative and you clearly do your research. But frankly I find it a bit disingenuous to position yourself as the lone pragmatist in a world of skeptics and alarmists.
I am a pragmatic skeptic, kind of like I think you really are when you get out of your self claimed role as provocateur.
Why do you imagine that responding with exactly the same pejorative term is a shouting match?
Although alarmists call me skeptic and skeptics call me alarmist – I am neither. They are sides of the same dysfunctional coin – both extreme minorities and more of a noisy distraction than to be taken seriously.
I have studied hydrology and environmental science over decades. But beyond the fundamental classification of climate as a complex dynamical fluid flow problem in which prognostication is impossible – climate science is of negligible policy import.
Rational behavior under deep uncertainty and extreme risk is to adapt and mitigate. The how in the context of the other ‘grand challenges’ for humanity and the planet this century is certainly best pursued pragmatically.
Robert,
You write:
“Rational behavior under deep uncertainty and extreme risk is to adapt and mitigate.”
But the point about deep uncertainty is that it renders reliable assessment of risk levels impossible, so any talk of ‘extreme risk’ would be entirely speculative. You can refer to risk that is posited upon extreme impact, but the uncertainty precludes calculation of probabilities. Without a reliable probability you have no reliable understanding of risk level. Under such circumstances, the ‘rational behaviour’ is to seek to reduce the uncertainty whilst implementing robust decision-making that remains valid for the greatest range of future possibilities. At any given time, the current strategy should be under constant review to take account of the emergent understanding of risks. However, to the extent that the uncertainties may prove irreducible, one may ultimately have to resort to the precautionary principle and base policy purely upon the inability to discount the worst case, plausible scenario.
My two cents. While the uncertainty around mitigation is nowhere as deep as climate projections it is often completely discounted. However, that is a mistake because the 100% renewable replacement of fossil fuel scenario has many uncertainties and likely unintended consequences. For example, if you electrify everything how do you heat homes during extremely cold temperatures on a wintertime calm night? If you add up the renewable and storage capacity needed then calculate the rare materials needed, the extraction requirements necessary, and finally the enormous area needed for the required generation, it is very likely that the consequences are more extensive than any possible cure. As a result, rational behavior under deep uncertainty and extreme risk should be to adapt.
Roger,
You are making a rather different point to the one I have made, albeit no less an important one. A common misconception is that it is the role of the risk manager to minimize risk. This is incorrect. Rather, the purpose is to maximize risk efficiency, i.e. to gain the maximum benefit for a given level of accepted risk. Such a calculation cannot be made without consideration of the costs and risks associated with the actions taken to manage a specified risk, and sometimes the factors involved can be far from obvious.
Judith Curry, thank you for another good essay and for the links.
Seconded.
Hi Rud
Were you affected by Hurricane Dorian or did it miss your place in Florida?
tonyb
Yes indeed. Very well done, Judith.
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.
Okay, so I wanted this to be a light hearted intervention. The link here dates back to the earliest farmers. Most of the stones here have been uncovered from blanket bog. My question is; how much warmer would it have been in order to have supported this farming?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=beaghmore+stone+circles+dark+sky&&view=detail&mid=2F782767679259201A372F782767679259201A37&&FORM=VDRVRV
david
that looks a really interesting site. we also have lots of bronze age cairns and circles on upland Dartmoor. Farming waxed and waned on the high moors up to 1500 feet as the climate warmed and cooled or became drier or wetter. Its generally thought the farmers gave up around the 1300’s as the climate cooled.
There was a flourishing farming community here in the bronze age when temperatures were generally thought to have been about 2 degrees centigrade warmer than today and supported crops at height not feasible today
tonyb
Thank you. I’m told some of the old field lines are still in place and we’re just realising more distant solar alignments. I don’t think we’re close to the pre 1300s for temperatures. Sadly this is going to be marred by an extremely large on shore industrial wind complex. I guess that’s one reaction to the alarmism.
david
Looking at the web sites I hought the wind farm had been seen off. Is there still a current plan?
tonyb
There has been such a concern that the Planning Appeals Commission has been asked to carry out an inquiry. I’ve been attending for 3 days. The developers team is led by a QC. It has been very emotional for local residents. https://www.pacni.gov.uk/news-centre/land-locality-doraville-lodge-north-broughderg-county-tyrone
It is not over yet. We don’t know what will happen. It will be the end of the last pre-historic landscape in the island of Ireland at this scale. There is no way of knowing how it will go for sure. I fear Goliath will win.
David
That is very disturbing.the inspector will go away and consider all the evidence so I don’t know how convincing the evidence from your side was nor if there was any expert evidence from any of the statutory bodies.
Have you thought of contacting David rose who is a features writer at the mail on Sunday and is especially interested in renewable energy schemes and their effect on the landscape. His degree was in history so I think he would have a particular interest.
How susceptible the inspector would be to an article, or if he would see it, I don’t know.
I can refer david to this correspondence if you want but whether he would want to take up the case I don’t know.
Tonyb
Thank you Tony. We’ll take help from where ever we can get it. I’m sure Mr Rose will be fascinated with both the historic cultural issues and the impact on individuals. If he were to visit however, he may be a little shocked at the scale of what is happening. It may be a little late for the inquiry which is expected to wind up on Thursday dealing with noise. The Commissioner will have to spend some time wading through it. Just in case this thread is not considered appropriate for this blog (albeit there is an example of the impact of alarmism), I am happy for the web site administrator to give you my personal email address.
Judith knows David, so I would suggest it is easiest if you send me a short email so I have your contact details on tonyATclimatereasonDOTcom
tonyb
The real consensus is cultural, has developed largely outside of science for decades, and via emotive selection has promoted in increasingly lurid terms across increasing spheres of influence, a narrative of certainty of imminent (decades) global catastrophe (absent a near-term shutdown of fossil fuels). That narrative has pressured mainstream science, with which it is in conflict, for a very long time. Perhaps once scientists thought it ‘useful’, which may have contributed to their silence, their lack of push-back. But the pressure is always growing. And strengthening cultural imperatives need the continued authority of science for legitimisation. Via deep / subconscious co-ordination mechanisms, cultures work to suppress any dissent that may undermine authority; so in this case the small minority of scientists who are also avid cultural adherents, are ideal enforcers. If the process is allowed to continue, even the silence of many mainstream scientists will no longer enough when the expanding culture and mainstream science collide. The explicit support of scientists will be required, and no longer via subtle (or not so subtle) peer pressures behind the curtain, but right out in public. I guess this is already starting to happen here.
97% Settled science. Update:
Cyclone Blanche is latest to cross land in second consecutive quiet season in Australian history –
WHERE have all the cyclones gone?
They have a few theories, Dr Watkins (BoM) said, and are presently crunching the data to get to the bottom of it.
“There are several theories and at the moment the data is pouring in from satellites and everywhere,” he said.
In the Climate Council’s Cranking up the Intensity: Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events report released earlier this year, the independent body predicted that in coming years, due to rising temperatures, cyclones would get less frequent but those that formed would be higher in intensity.
But he said “basic physics” governed that climate change would increase the intensity of cyclones in the future.
It does not, however, explain this season’s anomaly.
“Being perfectly honest, [CO2 global warming] is a factor in most of our climate science these days but in terms of tropical cyclones you couldn’t put this season down to climate change,” he said.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/cyclone-blanche-is-latest-to-cross-land-in-second-consecutive-quiet-season-in-australian-history/news-story/220bd07cbd24d1db32cfd2175d3ec2ac
>> – 3.00, S Schnieder: “ Then, you literally pollute the model.
You of course just go to a type writer, you type in a couple of cards which end up saying, model, here is a different CO2 concentration.
Then, part of the model which computes the greenhouse effect computes a different kind of greenhouse effect.
You run the model so many years forward in simulated time, ‘computer, new climate, and that’s where these predictions of 2 to 3 degrees warming in 100 years come from.
For a longer term perspective. Try the second study down for a different perspective on ‘causality’.
https://research.jcu.edu.au/portfolio/jonathan.nott/
Judith, thank you for this post. I especially like these bits from JC message to the ‘alarmism enforcers’:
“Your behavior is violating the norms of science, and in my opinion is unethical:
– failure to acknowledge uncertainty and low levels of confidence in much of the research surrounding hurricanes and climate change.
– cherry picking research that supports your personal narrative of alarm, without acknowledging disagreement among scientists and other research and assessment reports that do not support your narrative of alarm.
– misleading the public and policy makers as a result of the above two practices
– and last but not least, bullying other respected scientists who have different perspectives on evaluating the evidence.
The above is what happens when scientists become political activists. ”
And
“The damage that these activist scientists are doing to climate science and the public debate on climate change is incalculable.“
Despite political opportunism – there is little room for complacency in the NOAA or WMO reports and none at all for skeptics.
The WMO secretary-general was quite outspoken in his native Finnish 3 days ago: https://www.thegwpf.com/wmo-boss-says-climate-discussion-has-gone-off-the-rails/
I read the GWPF beat-up. You read the reports.
So much of this is now out and out bullying.
Pingback: ‘Alarmism enforcement’ on hurricanes and global warming | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: ‘Alarmism enforcement’ on hurricanes and international warming – All My Daily News
It has the makings for an endless political debate, if the ‘smallness’ of humanity’s contribution to global warming prevents even detecting a poleward shift in TC activity but, the scientific debate certainly should be over at a showing of no statistical significance.
Pingback: Climate activists attack climate science – Ubuntu News
What astonishes me is that there is no pushback from their universities and professional societies on this unethical behavior. Instead these activists are actually rewarded by the universities and professional societies.
Not astonishing at all, surely.
“Not astonishing at all, surely.”
Not if one is a cynic.
They’ve even created an industry to pat them on the back, giving them science and climate communication awards.
“Cynic” being Roger’s cynical word for “realist”.
Thank you for the topical post and insightful summary of WMO Knutson et al. papers, which present balanced arguments and evidence. Your final remark should inspire much reflection by all working in the atmospheric – oceanic – environmental science fields.
“The damage that these activist scientists are doing to climate science and the public debate on climate change is incalculable.”
https://twitter.com/Thongch34759935/status/1170513675423059968?s=20
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
We just went pass the 29th anniversary of a documentary made by Hilary Dawson for BBC’s Channel 4 entitled: “The Greenhouse Conspiracy.”
The August 1990 documentary had the participation of Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer among others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-x4YbXZtIA
What is depressing is that the lack of substantive evidence that the participating scientists pointed has not changed much, yet, despite modest warming and insignificant sea level rise for the past three decades, global warming has morphed into a “climate emergency” that demands the utmost sacrifices from people: become vegetarian, stop having children, give up flying, destroy the landscape, depend on unreliable more expensive energy.
It is a welcome development if alarmists split into moderate and extreme, like the recent WMO Secretary-General warning against climate doomsters and extremists. However the climate issue is no longer in the hands of science. It has become an emotional issue dominated by apocalyptic narrative and save the world through sacrifice emotions. Greta Thunberg is a clear exponent of the emotional nature of the climate debate. You can’t fight emotions with reason and science, and in this case most scientists are on the side of emotion.
Usually these type of emotional scares coming from science alarmism run for a decade or two, like the acid-rain scare or the ozone hole scare, however the climate scare is already over three decades and growing stronger. The economical and political interests behind it are far more powerful, and the amount of money involved far larger. Who knows how long it will take to overcome the climate scare and its end will not come with any type of recognition of mistake. It will be simply removed from the focus of attention little by little as it happened with the previous scares. The society will move to other worries and from time to time someone will ask whatever happened to the climate crisis and the answer will be that we solved it as we solved the ozone hole problem, through big government and international agreement.
Who knows how long it will take to overcome the climate scare and its end will not come with any type of recognition of mistake. It will be simply removed from the focus of attention little by little as it happened with the previous scares. The society will move to other worries and from time to time someone will ask whatever happened to the climate crisis and the answer will be that we solved it as we solved the ozone hole problem, through big government and international agreement.
i don’t know about that, Javier… If agw goes down, it will have been the greatest false paradigm since the flat earth. So i don’t think that you can liken it with other scares. Take the global cooling scare. That one was not nearly as pronounced nor had the longevity of agw. Nobody, except climate change junkies, remembers that one. Hopefully, if and when it fails, agw will be a constant reminder for society. Perhaps even a great benefit. (as in, o.k., what else are we being led to believe?) No false paradigm in history has ever been in a position of doing so much good for humanity as agw will be should it fail.
Momentum for AGW action is still building so it is very premature to speculate on how it might end. The big question at this point is what it will happen? Both the acid rain scare and the ozone hole scare led to major new laws at their scale. The AGW scale is orders of magnitude bigger. Bad things are going to happen before this scare peaks.
I agree. There has to be strong negative consequences to change course, or something else must be so negative as to make the climate crisis look irrelevant to believers.
Germany created a Ministry of Propaganda under an able leadership of Dr. Josef Goebbels, for essentially the same purpose. How will it end? Can’t say, but I see a new government structure soon.
It’s not difficult to speculate on how AGW scare will end. We already have cost-effective, zero emissions power plant technology (nuclear), we’re just waiting on it’s opponents to care enough about AGW. There never has been a need for massive tax hikes or binding international pollution agreements to build a nuclear power plant.
Electric cars are inevitable, they will be more likely with a stable, low cost electricity grid.
High speed rail use will grow- as long as there is safe, plentiful and low-cost electricity generation.
Air travel will continue. Possibly with biofuels, but if not then the climate concerned will have an excuse as to why their jet-setting isn’t a problem.
Access to electricity will continue to spread globally which, in conjunction with the spread of good agriculture practices, will mean more trees and agriculture that impounds carbon in the soil.
Our grandkids will think about CAGW scare one day the same way you and I think about the Club of Rome and Population Bomb scares of the early ’70s. In other words, they’ll laugh at it.
Momentum for AGW action is still building so it is very premature to speculate on how it might end.
This mirage-like momentum will slow after the UN meeting hype is over; it’ll move closer to the end after people reckon with the low-solar NH winter ahead. The protaganists are really showing desperation, as they are predominately liberal Democrats who aren’t gaining much traction now politically but still want to rush us into action before people experience the plain bitter truth of non-warming CO2.
It will end when skeptics stop spending all their time ruminating over the seemingly infinite number of wrong alternative theories, and rally behind the right one. How is that going to happen with so many wrong ideas out there to weed out that are pulling skeptics in opposite directions?
It will end when everyone realizes the CO2 is almost all ocean-produced. How is that going to happen when 50% of the skeptical scientists claim 50% of the meager warming was man-made because of emissions that some claim are the majority of the CO2 now?
Mixed-messages don’t sell well.
It will end when people see more solar-based predictions come true concurrent with more AGW model failures. How will that happen when the best solar predictive work is overlooked for vague wrong theories?
It will end when Republicans start claiming CO2 sequestration isn’t worth the money, and reducing emissions isn’t a necessary goal, because neither action can perceptibly change the natural CO2 level or climate.
It will end when everyone realizes the US government is so broke it would like to break our country over a fake climate scare using GND confiscatory policies like a carbon tax. The GND is an open grab for everything at once including property rights. It’s a binary choice. Their policies will lead to societal collapse, so doing nothing is the best choice.
There has to be strong negative consequences to change course, or something else must be so negative as to make the climate crisis look irrelevant to believers.
Natural negative consequences coming this winter from widespread cold and ice growth – it’ll be snowflakes vs the snowflakes.
Negative consequences for alarmist scientists and others is reputational for being shown where they are wrong to the point where the public understands the ignorance, arrogance, and impotence of their theory, and the complete non-necessity for the decades-long tirade against humanity of abusing everyone over nothing we can fundamentally change, as climate change is natural. They resist correction, ie negative consequences for their work, so for them, it’s definitely an “us vs. them” mentality.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
However as far as the political ramifications and forcing the public debate into a particular direction you could argue this is exactly as planned. Science be damned.
Reblogged this on ClimateTheTruth.com.
It has always been about “Alarmism enforcement”.
“Consensus enforcement” was just a stalking horse.
Just wondering who exactly will decide what “normal” or “optimum” is (1950’s? Midieval Warm Period? 12,000 years ago – Wisconsin Ice Age?)? And once that determination is made, how do they propose to stop (dare I say “freeze”?) all climate change at that glorious point?
Sorry.
A menacing typhoon is now above Tokyo.
I think it is important to note that “extreme precipitation” is just a statistical bin. The mean for precipitation can go up, and distribution can skew, while the damaging extremes in the tails thins. This actually seems like what might be happening as extreme precipitation increases, but flooding seems to be flat or declining slightly.
Extreme precipitation does not imply harm, the vast majority of extreme precip is still in the safe and beneficial realm.
It might help to know where the power comes from to drive ACE. Hurricanes are the ocean’s way of expelling vast amounts of stored solar energy during/after El Ninos, that overall operates by the same solar-ocean warming/cooling threshold principles and threshold I determined in 2014 for global HadSST3. The worst-case scenario for hurricanes stems from higher total ACE under eventual future higher solar forcing.
Higher SN drives higher ACE, and vice versa, at the warming threshold:
https://i.postimg.cc/G3GMLDK8/Total-ACE-is-driven-by-Sun-via-ENSO.jpg
Worst-case climate scenarios hinge on the duration of solar extremes:
https://i.postimg.cc/9MkD2b33/Sun-powered-Climate-Extremes-2019-09-02.jpg
Since your worst-case post, in addition to the above work, I also replicated Henry’s Law of Solubility Curve for CO2 out of Nino12 & 34 and Mauna Loa CO2 data, all going into a manuscript for peer-review.
Hurricanes are ultimately caused by the sun, not CO2.
Pingback: Climate Forecast Lessons from Dorian – Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York
If I live to be 100 yrs old, I could not detect a perceptible change in climate. If my children live to be 100 yrs. old, they too would not detect a perceptible change in the climate. Such is also true for my grandchildren. You see, climate change is not perceptible because we reference change from what we have experienced and apply the difference between then and now to what might be. What is relevant is our own perceptions regarding our past and the future as well as our ability to cope with whatever comes. If we are pessimistic and in general negative in our life’s outlook, we tend to see dire consequences for our own circumstances. If we are optimistic people in general, we favor a viewpoint that things will work out in the future. If we are religious and believe that some invisible hand will guide the future no matter what we think or do, then, we are resigned to whatever life’s outcomes.
For my own belief system, I am skeptical of the “climate enforcers” to be able to alter the climate no matter what policies or regulations they would put in place if they had the power. Ultimately, it would be obvious: the emperor has no clothes. Society in general will move on with little or no acknowledgement of wrong doing by these alarmists, only, the result is that they would be rightfully neglected. Failure is the easiest thing to do. We shouldn’t trouble our heads about: what might have been.
“Faith” tells me that in November, when sea ice begins to melt in the south, La Nina will develop. This means an extremely cold winter in North America (with a minimum of solar activity).
4-month sequence of vertical temperature anomaly sections at the equator, Pacific for September 2019
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.201909.gif
RiHo08, I have managed to top 70 yrs, during which I have never lost contact with a piece of soil outside the city. The change in climate is far more than perceptible but I would not put that to the present day climate madness.
The water table is deeper than 80 feet, so it is not a matter of over-pumping. What we used to grow 40 years ago without the aid of irrigation, does not even begin to sprout today. If irrigated it still does not produce the quality of yesteryear. The growing period, from too cold to scorching has shortened so much that the old ways of growing certain crops are no longer viable.
But if one is a city-guy they will not notice any of that.
melitamegalithic
you may be interested in these two quotes I unearthed some years ago for an article
—— ——
Saint Cyrian was Bishop of Carthage around 250AD.* (see Note 1) He was talking about the huge increase in Rome’s population which had caused wars against Carthage and the building of 500 towns in North Africa to satisfy the eternal city’s ever increasing needs for timber, cereal, and exotic animals for its gladiatorial contests. Here is an account of lack of sustainability and climate change caused by a variety of factors, with the hints of a decline in the warm climate that had sustained Rome now starting to work against them as it intermittently turned cooler
‘The world has grown old and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the suns warmth are both diminishing. The metals are nearly exhausted the husbandman is failing in his fields. Springs which once gushed forth liberally now barely give a trickle of water.’
Around 1560 the Rev Schaller, pastor of Strendal in the Prussian Alps wrote;
“There is no real constant sunshine neither a steady winter nor summer, the earth’s crops and produce do not ripen, are no longer as healthy as they were in bygone years. The fruitfulness of all creatures and of the world as a whole is receding, fields and grounds have tired from bearing fruits and even become impoverished, thereby giving rise to the increase of prices and famine, as is heard in towns and villages from the whining and lamenting among the farmers.”
The second quote is a bit concerning as we know from good records that the years around 1540 were every bit as hot as recent years
tonyb
melitamegalithic & Tony B
Thank you both for your comments. I like to reflect on people’s personal experiences.
For me, at: 42N & 84E and a cottage at 45N & 81E I have witnessed the ebb & flow of water levels in wetlands as well as the Great Lakes. For Lake Huron, the lowest recorded water level was 1964 and highest recorded 1986 all within 22 years of both records. As Lake Michigan and Huron are connected at the Straits of Mackinac, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron can be considered hydrologically as one body of water. Water level recordings in Chicago on the shores of Lake Michigan go back to 1831 or so. Nearby our home, wetlands had water table and levels much lower than now, such that a path constructed @ 1980 is now underwater regularly.
My farming experiences have been intermittent, beginning as a small child feeding chickens; that farm time spanning to adolescence stacking 55 lb bales of hay in the back of a hay wagon. Now I visit our friend’s 300 dairy herd with the latest robotic milking technology. They farm 1200 acres, purchasing previously worn out rented acreage and restoring fertility in one year by adding drainage and 15,000 gallons of manure per acre to restore and then 7,000 gallons/yr to maintain fertility. Modern corn varieties reach 8 to 10 feet high and are used as silage.
Farming has certainly changed in my lifetime and likely yourself’s.
Great Lakes water levels vary seasonally, yearly, and millennially. The Laurentide Ice Sheet that gouged out the Great Lakes finished melting more than 20,000 years ago. Lake Huron was 300 feet below present level (581 feet above mean sea level) 9,000 years ago.
With a long enough retro-spectoscope, one can see climate changing. Pointing the scope forward, well, I can’t really see that climate is changing any more or less than it has in the past.
Again, thank you for sharing.
tonyb:
Thank you for that info (and is it by any chance available – that is if its readable by a non-expert ?)
There seems to be a link to the Eddy cycle. In both instances, post the RWP and the MWP, there seems to have been felt – for reasons that are not yet clear- the same as said in your quotes.
Eg years of drought about 1467 (Malta) in ancient records accompanied by famine. A second point (on which I do not agree with archaeology) are the hydraulic works dating from very ancient times, that indicate to what extent the inhabitants went to obtain water. Meaning that even for very small population there were periods of extreme dryness.
I note RiHo08 has also posted/answered. Tks. My small plot, coming down to me from a long list of ancestors who were always tied to the same spot, has been worked from time immemorial. It is in the centre of a favorite burial area in phoenician times. Only recently, and due to this ‘climate’ semi-hysteria (?) I note burial places (where the body is laid in a depression cut in the rock inside the chamber) and dating to 300-400CE were made to extremely small physique. Likewise dress for male aristocrat and navy brass circa 1750 were extremely small. To what extent has climate change to do with it is questionable, but curious nevertheless.
melitamegalithic
Here is the article which I see was a frightening 8 years ago!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/01/a-short-anthology-of-changing-climate/
In it reference is made to very hot summers and winters in the 1660’s and I noted this first quote from another commentator which eerily reflects the hysteria of current times, this time by invocation to our new Green gods rather than more traditional ones
—- —–
“Parliament did declare a climate emergency during the reign of Charles 2nd just before the hot summers you describe.
The first time the UK Parliament declared such a thing was in 1661/2. History repeats itself exactly!
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol11/pp362-363#h3-0005
The Fast to be observed in Westm. Abbey, and the Bp. of St. David’s to preach;.
“Whereas His Majesty hath been pleased, by Proclamation, upon the Unseasonableness of the Weather, to command a general and public Fast, to be religiously and solemnly kept, within the Cities of London and Westm. and Places adjacent: It is ORDERED, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, That the Lord Bishop of St. David’s is hereby desired to take the Pains upon him, to preach before the Lords of Parliament, on Wednesday the Fifteenth Day of this Instant January in the Forenoon, in the Abbey Church of Westm. being the accustomed Place where their Lordships have used to meet upon the like Occasion.”
Samuel Pepys Diary
https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1662/01/15/
This morning Mr. Berkenshaw came again, and after he had examined me and taught me something in my work, he and I went to breakfast in my chamber upon a collar of brawn, and after we had eaten, asked me whether we had not committed a fault in eating to-day; telling me that it is a fast day ordered by the Parliament, to pray for more seasonable weather; it having hitherto been summer weather, that it is, both as to warmth and every other thing, just as if it were the middle of May or June, which do threaten a plague (as all men think) to follow, for so it was almost the last winter; and the whole year after hath been a very sickly time to this day. I did not stir out of my house all day, but conned my musique, and at night after supper to bed
—— —–
I do not think this period was as hot and dry as the 1540’s but certainly it was also a time of exceptional warmth in summer AND winter. Very mild winters at times are a key feature of many of the records I have dating back to the domesday book
tonyb
RiH008
you said
‘With a long enough retro-spectoscope, one can see climate changing. Pointing the scope forward, well, I can’t really see that climate is changing any more or less than it has in the past.’
you might be interested in figure 5 of my article on the intermittent little ice age which provides that retro spectoscope. any change happens over a life time and is very gradual
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/19/the-intermittent-little-ice-age/
tonyb
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/09/new-video-my-gift-to-climate-alarmists/
The lo-o-ong record matters.
When yr out to bamboozAl
Restricted context is vitAL.
You have to see how jetstream operates in the Southeast Pacific.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/samer2/mimictpw_samer2_latest.gif
My guess is that La Niña officially starts tomorrow with the release of the latest MEI-V2 result.
But if you are looking for sunspots, ENSO and cyclones in some actual science.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL068012
NASA predicts the occurrence of La Niña conditions in November.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20190903.nino_summary_4.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20190903.ssta_pacific_monthly.png
JC: The link to Brandon Miller’s article is broken.
Dorian was interesting. We got the northwest corner of it in Virginia- more wind than we expected, less rain than we expected.
Speaking of alarmism and action- I’m surprised there is so little chatter about the 7-hour climate doom-a-thon on CNN last Wednesday. The prime-time hours for Biden and Sanders were fascinating. Am I the only one who watched it?
Are we not going to get a post on Mann’s de facto admission to the courts of the worthlessness of his Hokey Stick ?
How about a post on Patrick Franks paper: Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Pingback: ‘Alarmism enforcement’ on hurricanes and global warming — Judith Curry | Climate etc. | Taking Sides
Very strong sudden stratospheric warming in the south.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JAS_SH_2019.png
Just spotted this in the NYTimes, it was White House Chief of Staff that pressured Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to pressure NOAA to support President Trump’s Alabama tweet. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/us/politics/trump-alabama-noaa.html
Trump was not wrong, just used outdated projections.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120
That’s called being wrong.
Trump tweeted at 2:51 pm Sep 1, when the 2 pm NWS map still showed a 5-10% chance of hurricane winds reaching Alabama. The NWS response at 3:11 pm said “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian”.
Trump was technically right . And the NWS was wrong, as are you.
It showed a 5 to 10% chance of sustained winds of 39 mph. That is not hurricane strength.
I thought too big a deal was made of it. Trump was equally at fault as everyone who spent too much time fixated on it. He did troll them, and they bit on it. I think I remarked that the Bahamas are in ruins, and you’re reporting this sharpie deal as the news. The MSM can’t help themselves. They must obsess on him.
“To date, there is not convincing evidence of a detectable anthropogenic influence on hurricane precipitation rates, in contrast to the case for extreme precipitation in general, where some anthropogenic influence has been detected.”
Can you give me a source for the case for anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation? And, where is it occurring?
In a cult, the role of people whose job it is to make sure that all contrary information is suppressed is that of the “mind guard”.
Mind guarding happens when someone confronts a believer with contradicting information, or a statement that tends to undermine a pillar of faith. Seeing this take place and realising there is a possibility the believer may consider the new Information to be true and thus not reconcilable with the official position of the cult, they leap in to present reminders, alternative interpretations or threats in order to “guide” the believer back to the True Path.
Mind guarding is often in evidence. It is the instant rebuttal, the trite retort, the restated orthodoxy flung into the conversation as a sort of antidote to the “wrong information”. Attendant actions include de-platforming, othering and controversialization of the bearer of the offending speech.
Mind guards are frequently in positions of power and claim an especial capacity or knowledge about how to interpret the ” texts” or in the case of climate alarmism as a cult, the “data”. Those claiming Gnostic knowledge (secret understandings that only the inducted can be allowed to possess) of the meaning of climate data are usually mind guards. They often cite their own authority to commit the “mind guarding” actions – a way of bolstering their vain imaginings as truths – in their own eyes.
Mind guarding is not present in real scientific discussion, because such blather is not tolerated. Anyone working isolated from mainstream thoughts and ideas begins to imagine they lead their field of work. Ego can do that. A successful mind guard’s ego becomes inflated with a false sense of importance and invulnerability. All these traits are visible in the field of global warming advocacy.
Very interesting, after reading this I began to ponder in the possibility of further inflation from certain media outlets and personalities involved in the renewables business?
The NOAA /WMO papers reveal that honest climate science dialogue is possible; the memes of the 97% consensus and that the science is settled can now start to be seen as distractions to that dialogue.
Now there will certainly be counter offenses in an effort to keep the memes alive and a strategy is needed to stay on offense.
I have two suggestions:
1. Bring to light that every human is a slave to the subconscious city laying below the cerebral cortex; a city where most decisions are made and where hidden memories give sway. The reason people have different opinions and make different decisions is primarily the result of those cities. When we begin to understand this, we can then can begin to understand the importance of honest dialogue.
2. The NOAA/WMO papers can be a start. Where can we find other authoritative scientists with new bents on the consensus narrative? Thanks to the work of Tony, we know that the MWP did exist, contrary to Mann’s hockey stick. Can Tony gather some renowned scientists to publish an indisputable paper?
Richard
Thanks to Tony you know such thing. Because he does not know that.
JCH
You probably meant to say “Thanks to Tony you know no such thing”.
Tony shows that there are multiple lines of evidence of the MWP existence. His work is therefore worthy of an honest debate, especially given the cautionary advice from the IPCC, that paleoclimate reconstructions that far back in history are unreliable.
If you tend to value Mann’s research on the subject over Tony’s, I suggest you do some soul searching.
Richard