Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Indian Ocean warming can strengthen the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation [link]

Indian ocean warming trend reduces Pacific warming response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases: an interbasin thermostat mechanism [link]

Theoretical models advance knowledge of ocean circulations [link]

Blue Carbon, and the role of coastal ecosystems in removing carbon from the atmosphere [link]

How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2019 [link]

Dense Antarctic water returning to the Atlantic [link]

Revealing the ocean’s rare but prolific carbon export events [link]

Field experiment constraints on the enhancement of the terrestrial carbon sinb by CO2 fertilization [link]

Probing the sources of uncertainty in transient warming on different time scales [link]

Emissions and total concentration of air pollutants have dropped significantly in the last 30 years and continue to decrease, even as the U.S. economy has grown and our population and energy use has increased. gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsrepo

Desertification and the role of climate change [link]

Projected slowdown of Antarctic Bottom Water Formation in response to Ampliflied meltwater contributions.  [link]

Cutting air pollution would not cause ‘near-term spike’ in global warming [link]

2019 ozone hole could be smallest in three decades [link]

How a wayward Arctic current could cool the climate of Europe [link]

How volcanic mountains cool the climate [link]

Interruption of two decades of Jakobshavn Isbrae acceleration and thinning as regional ocean cools [link]

Uncertainty and scale interactions in ocean ensembles dx.doi.org/10.1002/qj.3397

Climatological characteristics of Bay of Bengal tropical cyclones: 1972–2017 [link]

A new view of plate tectonics is emerging [link]

relationship of weathering rates and climate during glacial-interglacial cycles of the past ~2.6 Myr pubs.geoscienceworld.org/msa/elements/a

Unlocking pre-1850 instrumental meteorological records [link]

Flash floods in the U.S. [link]

Antarctic seasonal sea ice melts faster than it grows [link]

Improved calculation of warming-equivalent of short-lived climate pollutants [link]

Cold kills more than heat:  Mortality risk attributable to high and low temperatures: a multi-country observational study [link]

When is climate change just weather? [link]

Investigating the applicability of emergent constraints earth-syst-dynam.net/10/501/2019/es

Policy & technologies

Nature: Act now and avert a climate crisis [link]  First i’ve seen of any allegedly reputable scientific organizations use the word ‘crisis’

Climate change requires big solutions.  But baby steps are the only way to get there [link]

The two degree delusion [link]

The degrowth delusion [link]

Pielke Jr:  The yawning gap between climate rhetoric and climate action [link]

Engineered CO2 removal, climate restoration, and humility [link]

Did setting a timeline doom the fight against global warming? [link]

Humanity will find ways to adapt to climate change [link]

Democratic climate policies are ambitious but fail the reality test [link]

Tilting toward windmills – offshore wind in the NE US [link]

Debating the bedrock of climate-change mitigation scenarios [link]

Underestimating internal variability leads to narrow estimates of climate system properties [link]

Interrogating uncertainty in energy forecasts: the case of the shale gas boom [link]

Bag leakeage: the effect of disposable carryout bag regulations on unregulated bags [link]

Seven audacious ideas to reverse global warming [link]

What Democratic Presidential candidates get wrong about  US agriculture and climate change [link]

A recommended paradigm shift in the approach to risks to large water infrastructure in the coming decades [link]

Crops under solar panels can be a win-win [link]

Unfurling the waste problem caused by wind energy [link]

Artificial reefs boost marine life [link]

Wind energy: not in my affluent back yard [link]

Is meatless ‘meat’ really better for your health and the planet? [link]

Why demonising plastics won’t save the environment [link]

Where does all the plastic go? [link]

The massive cost of not adapting to climate change [link]

Bill Gates, Ban-Ki Moon and other leaders propose ways to adapt to a warming planet [link]

New islands could solve Bangladesh land crisis [link]

World’s first jacket made with spider silk sourced from GMO bacteria. Five times stronger than steel, three times tougher than Kevlar, and lighter than carbon fiber! zmescience.com/ecology/jacket

Nuclear

Cory Booker says any serious climate plan has to include nuclear power [link]

Limits to growth: can nuclear power supply the world’s needs? [link]

A beginner’s guide to the debate over nuclear power and climate [link]

How Nuclear Hybrids Could Redefine the Industry’s Future powermag.com/how-nuclear-hy

Scientists rescue historical data taken on floating ice islands in the Arctic [link]

About science & scientists

How two academics are trying to break the outrage cycle [link]

Science is deeply imaginative: why is this treated as a secret? [link]

Climate science needs professional statisticians [link]

Intelligence, complexity and the failed ‘science’ of IQ [link]

Mark Steyn on Tim Ball’s legal victory over Michael Mann:  Michael E. Mann, loser [link]

The problem with sugar daddy science (wealthy donors) [link]

The conversation is now censoring climate change ‘deniers’, including moi [link]

Is the staggering profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? [link]

Alexander von Humboldt: The Scientist who connected it all [link]

Sorry, but male geniuses are replaceable [link]

Will Happer is leaving his position in the Trump administration [link]

Affirmative citation bias in scientific myth debunking [link]

How can we know unknown unknowns? [link]

Ideological discrimination in academia is more complex than you think [link]

Deception and self deception [link]

What statistics can – and can’t- tell us about ourselves [link]

Does science have a bullying problem? [link]

 

400 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Well Judy, you are one of my very favorite scholars. Steve

  2. My latest article:
    “Young climate activists do not speak for their generation”
    https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/21/young-climate-activists-do-not-speak-for-their-generation/#iLightboxgallery33933/0

    Here is the first half:

    The Democrats recently held a House hearing manned by four young climate alarmism activists. The very title of the hearing is multiply false: “Voices Leading the Next Generation on the Global Warming Crisis.”

    These young alarmists are not leading their generation, any more that the old alarmists are leading mine (and there is no crisis). Thankfully a large fraction of both generations, and the ones in between, are skeptical of alarmism.

    However, the hearing did showcase some of the questionable tactics and ideologies being used to promote this bogus crisis. That show is worth the price of admission.

    First up was Greta Thunberg, the teen queen of climate alarmism. We were all waiting to hear what she had to say, so she wisely said almost nothing. She merely tabled the October 2018 IPCC report looking at the small differences between future warming of 0.5 degrees and 1.0 degrees C.

    Thunberg tersely told Congress that they should read this report and that they were not doing enough. She never said what was important in the report, if anything, or what Congress should be doing that it is not already doing. It was really rather insulting, but I am sure she did not want to be cross examined on specific statements.

    The really funny thing is that there is nothing in this IPCC report to support the crisis narrative. By coincidence I had just written an article to this effect, titled “Is the climate crisis a cruel hoax or a tragic blunder?” So in a very real sense she made a tragic blunder.

    Another witness of interest was Vic Barrett from the so-called Alliance for Climate Education (with the zippy acronym ACE). He too was somewhat insulting in that he wore a baseball cap, but I digress.

    I happen to have an education effort going, the Climate Change Debate Education (CCDE) project, so I looked into ACE. It turns out their idea of education is to train more activists! Their motto is “Get Educated, Take Action.” They boast of having trained 4,000. This is indoctrination, not education.

    Their sole education looking resource is a lengthy video with the usual alarmist narrative: science (questionable), then impacts (adverse) followed by solutions (the usual green dreams). In contrast my CCDE project offers about 350 videos on the science, ranging from one minute long to one hour, plus class handouts on specific scientific issues like hurricanes, the little ice age, etc. This is science education.

    ACE is clearly well funded, certainly to the tune of millions, maybe a year. There is no disclosure, but there is a hint. They have a three member Board, which is very small as these things usually go. One of the three members is a wind industry company executive. My bet is the wind industry funds ACE, whose number one goal is to end fossil fuel use.

    • I am happy to add that one of my prized video collections is of those by Dr. Curry, which are definitely science education:
      http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2019/07/videos-by-judith-curry.html

      • Oh, come on Andrew. I don’t think that this is what Dr. Curry’s site is all about.

      • Gordon Robertson

        David…thanks for links to Judith’s videos. Have only had time to view a couple but I am impressed with the composure of Judith and her ability to get to the gist of the problem.

    • David, Thanks for your comments. Although I am not a scientist, I am a science educator, and also had the pleasure of working with teens and their teachers in the USA, Russia (& when it was the USSR), Spain, Czech Republic. Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Canada, Botswana. Students from these countries used the primitive Internet in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s to investigate environmental issues (ground level ozone, solid waste, water pollution, and others) locally, and then share their data globally using a project website.

      I think you underestimate the teens you called out in your comment on Dr. Curry’s blog. I agree that there was a lot of emotion present when they presented to the House Foreign Relations and the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. That’s part of the point, I believe. The demonstrations, strikes, marches, whatever they might be called, are rooted in strongly held beliefs and the urgency to act. The Civil Rights movement and subsequent legislation is a good example.

      I don’t know about you, but when I was 15, I was not a Greta Thunberg. Perhaps you were, but I would say that she is to be admired, not called names such as “Queen.” It was in keeping with her logic to suggest that the Congress pay attention and read the IPCC or any of the various reports that have been published. She has been consistent in asking the adults in the room to do their work.

      I followed up your links to CFACT, and I am not sure if the students in the Climate Strike are acting any differently than the titles I purused. A picture of Donald Trump, with the DVD title Why Global Warming Hype Must Be Trumped Now. Or Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People was not what I would consider a scientific approach to climate issues.

      Best regards,
      Jack

      • Gordon Robertson

        jack…”The demonstrations, strikes, marches, whatever they might be called, are rooted in strongly held beliefs and the urgency to act. The Civil Rights movement and subsequent legislation is a good example”.

        The point is, Jack, beliefs are not scientifically based. That’s the issue, that the politically-correct climate alarmists are operating from a base of religious-like belief and not science.

        When they talk about science they are talking about climate model theory. There is no science to support the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic warming. Modelling is a soft-science like anthropology not a hard science like physics. Modelling is based on incorrect presumptions such as positive feedback and an unrealistic warming effect attributed to CO2.

      • Gordon, I agree with you about beliefs not being rooted science. I’m not an alarmist either. I’m too old for that. I’ve worked with teens most of my adult life, and emotion and beliefs are critical to how they think. It’s critical for all of us. I would hope that we as adults would take the time to listen to them and try to understand them. As a science teacher I learned over time that students will construct their own knowledge based on their experiences. Why are millions of teens marching and striking. It’s not, as the person I initially responded to, to get out of school. It’s to be part of something bigger than they are. As science teachers, and scientists like yourself, we can do a lot to help kids understand the science by involving them in research, as we did for years through the global thinking project. Best regards, Jack

  3. From the “Blue Carbon” paper: By 2005, it was shown that seagrass, mangrove, and tidal marsh sediments represent 50% of all C sequestered in marine sediments8. This mounting evidence for such a major role in C sequestration provided the impetus for the Blue Carbon report1, where the term “Blue Carbon” was first coined, and that led to the development of international and national BC initiatives

    It’s good to read of stuff I never heard of before, like “blue carbon”. An important but overlooked sink of CO2.

    Thanks once again Judith Curry for this collection.

    The AMO review by Johnson et al is 62 pp, so it will take me a while to read. I probably won’t finish all of these by the time you put up your next “week” in review.

  4. Re: “The conversation is now censoring climate change ‘deniers’, including moi.”

    I thought readers here might appreciate the following:

    “[Cf Cicero] He who knows only his own side knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may be able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side: if he does not so much know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side which he feels most inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from people who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of the truth which meets and removes that difficulty. Ninety-nine in a hundred of what are called educated men are in this condition; even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions.Their conclusion may be true, but it might be false for anything they know; they have never thrown themselves in the mental position of those who think differently from them, and considered what such persons have to say; and consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrine which they themselves profess. They do not know the parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to be preferred. All that part of the truth that turns the scale, and decides the judgment of a completely informed mind; they are strangers to; nor is it ever really known, but to those who have attended equally and impartially to both sides, and endeavoured to see the reasons of both in the strongest light. So essential is this discipline to a real understanding of moral and human subjects, that if opponents of all important truths do not do not exist, it is indispensable to imagine them, and supply them with the strongest arguments which the most skilful devils’ advocate can conjure up.”

    John Stuart Mill. On Liberty. New York and Melbourne: The Walter Scott Publishing Company, Ltd. Chapter 2. pp 68-69

  5. How a Wayward Arctic Current Could Cool the Climate in Europe
    “Between 1951 and 2010, as many as eight of 18 exceptionally cold European winters occurred during the period of the Great Salinity Anomaly.”

    Any given exceptionally cold winter period is discretely solar driven, they are not dependent on Atlantic temperatures. The 1970’s actually had fewer cold winters at the peak of the salinity anomaly (1968-82), which would by the sounds of it be repeated during the next cold AMO phase.

  6. https://www.steynonline.com/7123/the-ugly-misogyny-of-big-climate

    Before we start, a quick addendum to my post about “science journalist” David Appell’s false accusation that I doctored a quote in my new book. Mr Appell has now withdrawn the charge:

    Fair enough. I’ll believe him. My bad. My apologies.

    You might think he’d learned his lesson about making specific accusations about a book he hasn’t read. And yet, amazingly enough, he goes and does it all over again two inches down the page:

    I wonder if Steyn has examined any of the other evidence for the hockey stick, some derived with independent mathematical techniques. Like Marcott et al Science 2013, PAGES 2k, or Tingley and Huybers.

    I expect he hasn’t. If not, why not?

    Yes, why not, Steyn? Ha! You’ve got no answer to that, have you?

    In fact, there’s an entire section on other, supposedly “independent” hockey sticks, starting at page 171, and I devote pages 185-190 to Marcott et al.

    Between apologizing for his previous false accusation and making his new false accusation, Mr Appell observes plaintively of himself:

    Me, a poor freelancer scratching the floor for grains of wheat.

    You might want to re-think your business model. Assuming people are as stupid as you wish they were doesn’t usually work out well.

    Alternatively, if you want to continue playing Duck Season/Wabbit Season over every page in my book, then go ahead. Shoot me now! Shoot me now!

    • Geoff Sherrington

      DW,
      It is possible that I was the first scientist to have the lock put on my account with The Conversation. It was soon after Cory Zanoni was appointed main moderator, 2014-5 vintage. Several attempts have failed to have the lock removed. Misha Ketchell just advises that no further correspondence will be entered into. They have failed to quote the allegedly offensive comments on global warming that departed from their self-invented community standards. They have not answered my assertion that, as a body partly funded with taxpayer funds, they do not have the power to censor. All rather sad, a corruption of the questioning part of the scientific method. But who expects the modern or post-modern academic to know about the history of scientific progress and the lessons therein? Geoff S

  7. David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

    Else, H., 2018 Does science have a bullying problem? Nature, 563(7733), pp.616-618.
    Nature News Feature 28 November 2018, Correction 29 November 2018
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07532-5

    “Bullying between colleagues is commonly defined by psychologists, unions and workplace scholars as repeated and malicious mistreatment of someone that results in harm. At its most obvious, this behaviour involves shouting, insulting or intimidating victims. But bullying can include more subtle actions”…
    “It can take the form of someone spreading malicious rumours about another, undermining their work and opinions, or withholding information necessary for them to do their jobs….
    “Around 40% say that they have witnessed or heard about bullying happening to someone else.”
    “Cary Cooper, a workplace psychologist at the University of Manchester, UK, …relatively strict definition of bullying: workers qualified as being bullied if they had experienced persistent demeaning and devaluing treatment.”

    When will denying climate skeptics equal access to publish and speak be recognized as bullying?

  8. Th water infrastructure link is Ch 7 of an American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publication. The top down atmospheric and oceanic simulation (AOS) approach is exhaustively debunked – as should no longer be required in a sane world.


    https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-26432-1

    Water management across landscapes is the key. Holding back and infiltrating water into carbon enriched soils. This reduces flash flooding and enhances both dry weather flows in waterways and aquifer recharge. Reclaiming desert, restoring agricultural soils, wetlands, savanna, woodland and forest.

    Economic development is the foundation – and that requires cheap and abundant energy. The clearest path to the latter are small, modular nuclear reactors. High temperature versions that can provide efficient electrohydrolysis, desalination, industrial heat…

  9. A new Youtube video from Caltech’s Tapio Schneider.

    And in the interest of CE balance – an older one on cloud tipping points.

    • Robert…I watched your 2nd video from Caltech as long as I could bear the pseudo-science, which was not long. I shut it off when the speaker claimed temperatures in California were 10F higher today than in 1915.

      He then began a rant about climate change and the poor, poor children it will effect. In the future, those children will be laughing hysterically at the stupidity of today’s climate alarmists.

      How does a reported 1C rise in the average temperature since 1850 relate to a 10F rise in the average temperature of California today? In order for a 1C average rise to allow for a 10F increase there would have to be about 9F cooling elsewhere.

      Please allow me to enlighten you how this happens.

      It’s called the NOAA-effect. NOAA supplies all temperature data for the likes of NASA GISS and Had-crut. NOAA has taken it upon itself to re-write the temperature record while recently slashing reporting surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. Since 1990, NOAA, as GHCN, has slashed reporting surface stations by 90%. They make up for it by SYNTHESIZING data from the meagre remains of the record.

      NOAA now has only 3 reporting surface stations in California, all near the water. I am sure those politically-incorrect scientists circa 1915 were also including cooler temperatures from the Sierra Nevadas.

      Here’s the entire story of NOAA and GISS corruption of the temperature record. There are many links throughout the site that cover the entire story. It’s an exhaustive examination of the GHCN record and how it has affected, NOAA, GISS and Had-crut.

      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/

      Another example of NOAA/GISS chicanery. In 2014, both declared 2014 the hottest year ever. The UAH record shows 2014 well behind 1998, 2010, and 2016. So, how did NOAA and GISS get it into 1st place?

      No problem, just reduce the confidence level till it is ‘likely’ the hottest year, NOAA reduced the confidence level to 48%. Not to be outdone, GISS reduced it to 38%. Both were saying, it’s 48% and 38% likely that 2014 was the hottest year ever.

      But wait…how can a confidence level be applied to hard data. It can’t!!! CL’s can only be applied to pseudo-data from a climate model, hence all the IPCC likely’s.

      NOAA has been chopping cooler temps from the record and replacing them with synthesized temps interpolated and homogenized from real data stations up to 1200 miles apart. See the link above.

      That’s why the speaker in your film from Caltech can claim a 10F temperature differential between 1915 and the present. The difference is the difference between real data processed scientifically and a smattering of real data used to create a database that is comprised mainly of synthesized temperatures.

      • Positive feedbacks to climate change are as simple as water vapor or ice sheet change – or as complex as low level marine strato-cumulus.

        But no one – certainly not Tapio Schneider -claims anything of the sort about Californian temperature.

  10. Thanks for the interesting climate science updates. I found a few articles related to modeling clouds in GCMs.

    Using Super-Parameterization to improve cloud simulations in global climate models. Description of the application:
    http://hannahlab.org/what-is-super-parameterization/
    Full paper:
    Regional Superparameterization in a Global Circulation Model Using Large Eddy Simulations
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018MS001600

    Comment; By their own admission the simulations do not handle surface typologies well and could improve their 3D grid cell representations.
    Interesting work but it has huge computing requirements using conventional computer architectures. To do just one day limited to the area around the Netherlands they used 14,041 core‐hours. We might see some useful projections when they rewrite the code to run on GPUs.

    • There are ways to improve accuracy – at least theoretically.

      This after 2 million hours of supercomputing. Focusing on a few subtropical areas of oceans for good reason.

      Doing it at a global scale requires billions of times more computing power – not merely graphical processing units.

      Process level computing is a fascinating new area of climate computing – but there are practical limits to expectations.

      e.g. nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

      • GPUs are just a interim step and should increase performance by several orders of magnitude using current off the shelf hardware. If nothing else maybe we can find the errors and bugs faster :).
        Even so I can’t see them doing high-resolution 50-100 year projections using just massive parallel processing.
        But the US and China are in a virtual arms race when it comes to quantum computing which actually could have the necessary processing power.
        Just this week we had Google announce a breakthrough (nothing useful was computed but it did validate the amazing power of quantum computers). The mythical “quantum supremacy”. Using a quantum computer to perform a calculation that couldn’t be achieved even with the world’s most powerful supercomputers.

        “Google created a quantum computer named Sycamore with 54 quantum bits called qubits, 53 of which were functional. The researchers used it to perform a series of operations in 200 seconds that would take a supercomputer about 10,000 years to complete.”
        https://www.sciencenews.org/article/rumors-hint-that-google-has-accomplished-quantum-supremacy

        I wonder if there is a special programming language required to run simulations on quantum computers like they have for GPUs like Google’s TensorFlow?

      • The more common result for GPU acceleration is 5 times.

        View at Medium.com

        And it seems that GPU are being built with support for high level languages.

        https://www.boston.co.uk/info/nvidia-kepler/what-is-gpu-computing.aspx

        I saw the media spin on quantum supremacy on my smartphone. It seems to have originated with the Financial Times claiming to have seen a leaked Google report.

        Here’s a Gizmodo explanation of ‘quantum supremacy’.

        https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2019/06/when-will-quantum-computers-outperform-regular-computers/

        ‘Quantum computers highlight that science and technology have different goals, and provide two very different lenses through which to understand quantum supremacy. Technology can feel like an endless march toward some better product. But science is slower, unpredictable, and often more rigorous—it requires that people cover all the bases in order to understand how these groundbreaking new devices actually work before we can claim that quantum computers are actually superior.’

        In the meantime we have rumors of a milestone that is still very far from a quantum computer. As they say in your link.

        And if you are going to link something I expect you to read and understand – not just copy and paste the breathless bits in your hyper credulous enthusiasms.

      • Slow and steady. This covers several fundamental considerations’

      • A single GPU can offer the performance of hundreds of CPUs for certain workloads. I know this from experience having worked with ray tracing software for the last 20 years (now retired).

        “In the meantime we have rumors of a milestone that is still very far from a quantum computer.”
        BS
        https://www.hpcwire.com/2019/09/19/ibm-opens-quantum-computing-center-announces-53-qubit-machine/
        https://insidehpc.com/2019/09/ibm-brings-worlds-largest-fleet-of-quantum-computing-systems-online/

      • I show you a test result of the specific GPU mentioned.

        The qubit question is about fidelity and quantum coherence. I know nothing about the IBM architecture
        because it is not discussed in ant detail whatsoever. The UNSW team built a 2 gate qubit with exceptional fidelity and long – in the order of nanoseconds – coherence. They are now building a 10 qubit chip in the next 3 or 4 years. This is still not a quantum computer. Nor has IBM claimed ‘quantum supremacy’. Yet what you rabbit on about is that this can do fine scale climate computing requiring billions of times more raw computing power.

      • Gordon Robertson

        Robert…”There are ways to improve accuracy – at least theoretically”.

        There is at least one other method. Modelers could learn some physics and refrain from programming nonsense into climate models.

        GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.

      • What I was referring to was better observations to better constrain initial and boundary conditions – and finer grid computing to restrain nonlinear solution divergence.

        I find it impossible to defend CMIP opportunistic ensembles – but I guarantee that the modelers are better at geophysics than Gordon.

    • Does anybody use the super-parameterization in hurricane models?

  11. Ozone hole… Did we really cause it and then stop it? Probably not…

    “… natural variations better explain the fluctuations in the global ozone layer.” (Heritage)

    • The Ozone hole has opened and closed naturally.
      Freon was out of patent and selling for almost nothing.
      They invented the Ozone hole scam to get R12 banned so they could sell their new patented product, R134, for a lot more, now they are banning it and replacing it with a new patented propane based coolant, this will never stop.

    • Wagathon
      No – CFC’s (we) did not cause it and therefore we did not fix it.
      The “Ozone Hole Theory” holds the gold cup for the poorest atmospheric research undertaken. Blame attributed without evidence, the villain’s chemical offspring were merely seen in the area. It has nothing to do with parts per million and parts per billion in a near static environment playing zap me. CO2 warming theory is currently challenging for the Gold Cup.

      Why does ozone dilute over Antarctica ?
      Very cold air held within the rotating vortex (of varying speeds over short time periods) acts similar to a membrane. That is, if atmosphere from below motivated pole-ward by equatorial convection wants to pass upward or through the atmosphere within the vortex, the area of dilution increases as the volume of atmosphere increases. The vortex itself is the result of pole-ward circulation – Brewer Dobson cycle. In 2019 that circulation has been very weak. Note how the dilution area 1060mb, and that this pressure drops as soon as the maximum area of dilution is reached.

      Antarctic Ozone rapid dilution occurs (see pdf link below) as the result of the second phase of atmospheric actions in the northern hemisphere in mid / late July. This NH atmospheric action also creates the conditions for the rapid increase of Tropical Cyclones frequency and intensity in the NH, by constraining pole-ward atmospheric transport.

      The SH – SSW and small area of ozone dilution above Antarctica in 2019 was the direct result of very low Brewer Dobson circulation caused by low equatorial convection, caused by cooler ocean temperatures. Its as simple as that.
      With regards
      Martin


      https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/meteorology/figures/ozone/to3caps_2019_toms+omi+omps.pdf

      • Image of sea surface temperatures over last six months – from Ireneusz Palmowski in a comment below.
        Correction to my comment above
        “Note how the dilution area 1060mb, and that this pressure drops as soon as the maximum area of dilution is reached” – should be –
        Note that the surface pressure under the area of ozone dilution (up to 1060mb) and at high latitudes reduces when the peak area of ozone dilution reduces.

        Note also that the temperatures above Antarctica 60-90S rise at the same time as increased rate ozone dilution = atmospheric transport, prior to solar influence.
        Regards
        https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim.html

  12. How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2019 [link]

    They Wrote:
    It is important to remember that SMB is always positive at the end of the year – more snow falls on the ice sheet than melts at the surface. But the ice sheet also loses ice by the breaking off, or “calving”, of icebergs and from ocean melting at its edge. Therefore, the extra snowfall is needed in order to compensate for these processes.

    This is important for helping understand climate change.
    I have presented this for years. Climate has warmed because ice extent is retreating. Ice volume and weight on top of old ice is increasing, even though the ice at the edges is still retreating. It takes a hundred years or two hundred years to turn this around. They understand nothing longer than immediate correlations. The calving icebergs and the meltwater released does cool the oceans and earth until the ice depletes. More evaporation and snowfall rebuilds the ice on top of the old ice while the edges are retreating. At the midpoint of the warm period, the ice extent will start increasing again (That Defines the Midpoint). They use decades to understand thousand year cycles.

    • Occam might say that ice volume changes precede temperature changes.

      • The ice volumes on these charts is wrong. They build ice volumes for a hundred thousand years and remove it in ten thousand years. That is not possible. The thawing rate did not suddenly change. Ice volumes build during warm periods. Ice accumulation decreases as the ice advances and gets colder. Ice volume depletes during the long cold. Ice retreats after the ice sheets thin.

      • Occam would say that ice volume changes precede ice extent changes and ice extent changes coincide with temperature changes. Occam would use the ice core data correctly.

      • When the ice volume charts were peer reviewed and became consensus, no one dares question them. Then comes a little boy who says the King has no clothes on.

        Throw out all peer reviewed consensus and look at actual data and build better understanding.

      • Ice extent drives temperature change through albedo change. Summer ice survives in low insolation periods – due to Milankovic cycles – and as a result of change in thermohaline circulation. It becomes a runaway feedback.

        Glacial terminations may be due to dust feedback.


        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

      • From my reading the LGM first came to a close in the Southern Hemisphere, due to Australian dust.

        At the time the sand dunes had reached the Blue Mountains in the east of the continent.

      • I was wrong, on further reading only New Zealand and Patagonia dust ended up in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, but Lake Eyre in Australia might have contributed.

        Even though 80% of Australia had become uninhabitable because of dunes, it now appears that the dust didn’t leave the continent.

  13. The Antarctic is the “grand central station” of the deep ocean circulation (thermohaline circulation or THC).

    https://images.app.goo.gl/A6HfaKry718raDrx6

    Thus it’s noteworthy that flow of Antarctic deep water (dense cold bottom water) into the Atlantic, is increasing, reversing a previous declining trend:

    https://m.phys.org/news/2019-09-dense-antarctic-atlantic.html

    This 2017 post by Wim Rost explains nicely how cold downwelling and deep water formation at the poles, refrigerates the planet.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/20/oceanic-downwelling-and-our-low-surface-temperatures/

  14. These two articles flat out contradict eachother.

    First the modelling study:

    Projected slowdown of Antarctic Bottom Water Formation in response to Ampliflied meltwater contributions.
    (It’s decreasing.)

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0622.1?journalCode=clim&#.XXB_kWmF5YY.twitter

    Then the observational measurement study:

    Dense Antarctic water returning to the Atlantic
    (It’s increasing.)

    https://m.phys.org/news/2019-09-dense-antarctic-atlantic.html

    These are the parallel climate universes.

    If you want warming, live in the computer model.
    If you want cooling, live in the real world.

    Choose the red pill.

  15. Meanwhile in the Arctic,

    Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the single largest source of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the last 20 years. During that time, it has been retreating, accelerating and thinning. Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016 Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

    Also at the north pole, the clockwise spinning Beaufort gyre is building up an anomalously large volume of cold water, like an un-won lottery prize for several weeks building up to a colossal payout, ready to eject an unusually large volume of cold water into the north Atlantic any year now:

    https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-a-wayward-arctic-current-could-cool-the-climate-in-europe

    As the world warms, it gets colder.

    • When it is warmer, polar oceans thaw, there is more evaporation and snowfall until more ice causes colder. When it is colder, polar oceans freeze, there is less evaporation and snowfall until ice depletes and it gets warmer. Self correcting cooling. Both polar regions work that way. South Pole has most of the ice on Antarctica. North Pole has most ice on Greenland, but also much ice scattered around on the continents and other islands.

      Ice core data tells this beautiful story, do not just take my word for it. I have an excel file with ice cores from both, if anyone wants a copy.

      • Your holiness
        Your model / mechanism would predict a monotonic sinusoidal climate oscillation. But instead we get a chaotic fractal climate/temperature wave train. Yes there are negative as well as positive feedbacks. These act on turbulent chaotic dynamics to produce intermittent oscillation and fractal spatiotemporal patterns.

      • You wrote:
        Your model / mechanism would predict a monotonic sinusoidal climate oscillation. But instead we get a chaotic fractal climate/temperature wave train. Yes there are negative as well as positive feedbacks. These act on turbulent chaotic dynamics to produce intermittent oscillation and fractal spatiotemporal patterns.

        You write a bunch of stuff. The ice cycle is periodic and it always has cold period followed by warm periods and it is influenced by every external forcing that happens at different times and with different magnitudes, but it is not chaotic. Climate has internal natural response that always corrects and reverses cold and warm periods. Climate is not sinusoidal, it is more like the temperature in your house, your house warms until the thermostat turns on the AC and then it cools until the thermostat turns the cooling off. Climate is more like that, earth warms until the sea ice thaws, then it snows until sea ice forms, then it warms until sea ice thaws, etc. Over the longer cycles this overpowers but does not remove all the external changing forcing.

        I am not the pope in rome, he is an alarmist.
        Your “Your holiness” is misplaced.

      • Climate oscillations are fractal such that patterns on large scale are repeated at smaller and smaller scales, like a fern leaf pattern. So we get glacials and interglacials over ~100,000 year intervals. And on shorter timescales in the Holocene we get excursions such as the RWP, dark ages cold, MWP, LIA, current warming etc. But take the glacial oscillation – glacials and interglacials are not of equal length but interglacials are much shorter. Within glacial periods are the very short but extreme DO events (micro-interglacials). It’s chaotically fractal with some periodicity superimposed from weak periodic forcing from Milankovitch cycles.

        This is not a bunch of stuff, it’s science and the world we live in, which is chaotic-nonlinear more often than not.

      • Phil Salmon: Your model / mechanism would predict a monotonic sinusoidal climate oscillation.

        What is a “monotonic sinusoid”?

        fwiw, I do not think that popesclimatetheory predicts a simple harmonic oscillator.

      • fwiw, I do not think that popesclimatetheory predicts a simple harmonic oscillator.

        Climate changes due to many factors, the factor that I promote is:
        When oceans warm and exceed the thermostat setting that is the temperature polar oceans freeze and thaw, evaporation and snowfall is turned on and it snows until the the temperature crosses that thermostat setting temperature that oceans freeze and thaw, evaporation and snowfall reduce and it does not snow until the temperature crosses the thermostat setting again in the other direction.

        The temperature profile is much like the temperature profile in a house with a thermostat and powerful air conditioning system that can be turned on and off.

        If you have a party and a crowd of people and lighted candles warm the house, the AC comes on and keeps it cool and runs until the thermostat turns the cooling off.

        Whatever warms oceans across the thermostat setting, it thaws the polar ice, evaporation and snowfall is turned on and it snows until the oceans freeze and turn off the evaporation and snowfall.

      • This is not a bunch of stuff, it’s science and the world we live in, which is chaotic-nonlinear more often than not.

        Yes, your stuff is just a bunch of stuff. Temperature seems chaotic the temperature rises, when the Arctic thaws and the snowfall starts, it snows more every year that warms and snows until cooling happens. It seems chaotic and it is nonlinear, there are day and night cycles and seasonal cycles and sun and cloud cycles, not chaos. Every change has a cause, that is nothing like chaos.

      • popes
        Do you really think that chaos is a matter of perception only?
        Nothing more than that?

    • You wrote:
      Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the single largest source of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the last 20 years. During that time, it has been retreating, accelerating and thinning. Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016 Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening.

      The warmest years are caused because ice has retreated. Low sea ice and warm oceans provide the evaporation and snowfall that rebuilds the sequestered ice. The thickened ice does re-advance. This is how ice cycles work. It snows more when oceans are thawed and it gets colder after. It snows less when oceans are frozen and it gets warmer after.
      Consensus removes ice when it is snowing most and adds ice when it is snowing least. It is better to study actual ice core data than it is to study consensus alarmist model output.

  16. Geoff Sherrington

    The Ted Nordhaus article – The two degree delusion – is eminently arguable, to the extent of about one objection for each paragraph. Even the opening photo is likely to be wrong in its caption. That is probably not smoke from the chimneys, but steam condensate.
    The article is typical of the separate paths that have emerged between alarmists and others more used to the conduct of hard science. At some stage, the paths will need to converge if there is to be sanity of thought and public policy. That much is obvious. How to achieve this convergence is way beyond my imagination, sadly. Anyone here have worthwhile ideas? Geoff S

    • Truth is self evident and stands by itself. At the heart of truth is silence. By contrast, lies require unceasing support from a creatively misleading narrative. Propagandists can never rest.

      “O what a tangled web we weave
      When first we venture to deceive.”

      Eventually the energy and unity needed to sustain the false narrative collapse and the truth becomes impossible to hide. The end of the Soviet Union is hopefully a model of the end of the climate catastrophe global political coup.

      “Because you have rejected this message,
      relied on oppression
      and depended on deceit,
      13 this sin will become for you
      like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
      that collapses suddenly, in an instant.
      14 It will break in pieces like pottery,
      shattered so mercilessly
      that among its pieces not a fragment will be found
      for taking coals from a hearth
      or scooping water out of a cistern.”
      Isaiah 30, 12-14.

      • Phil Salmon: Truth is self evident and stands by itself.

        You have got to be kidding!

      • 1) Some truths are self-evident. E.g. I’m standing outside getting soaked by a downpour. That it’s pouring rain is a self-evident truth. (Okay, some philosophers will pick this claim to the bones. But for practical purposes, my example will do.) 2) Other truths are far from self-evident. E.g. propositions (statements that can be true or false) resting on a complex of scientific measurements and models such as concerning anthropogenic global warming. 3) Well, truth does ‘stand by itself’ in one sense. There is a mind-independent fact of the matter about AGW. Whether the propositions on which the AGW consensus rests are true or false (pick out or fail to pick out something(s) in the world) are true or false no matter what anyone, many, or everyone believes or disbelieves about them. 4) Re: the energy and unity required to sustain a false narrative and its inevitable collapse. Gee, I see no end to the dispute over whether the earth is 15 billion years old or six thousand.

    • Delusion is the right word. President Macron of France uses a picture of Amazon fires from Lula da Silva years to assign blame to President Bolsonaro.

  17. Re: “The conversation is now censoring climate change ‘deniers’, including moi”

    Welcome to the party! Vaccine debate has been censored for quite some time and it’s getting worse. If you don’t think this is true then you’ve never argued for vaccine safety (which is NOT the same as “anti-vaccine,” which the vast majority of “anti-vaxxers” are not.)

    Might I suggest that this trend toward censorship is ominous and dangerous, and we really ought to pay serious attention to it? What will they censor next? It’s a slippery slope.

    Who gets to approve what’s acceptable and what arguments are valid? Are people supposed to be so stupid that they have to be told what to think? Apparently, yes.

    It doesn’t matter what logical arguments you use or if you invoke John Stuart Mill. This has passed from the realm of reason into the realm of the irrational mob; dark forces are being unleashed: destroy the unbelievers!! Pay attention.

  18. This paper indicates the West Greenland Current has influenced the Jakobshavn glacier and its calving over the last nearly 2000 years, with the latest warming beginning in 1700.

    http://www.laurencedyke.com/Publications/Articles/Wangner_et_al_2018.pdf

    • This study ties in nicely with the 1903 article below documenting the retreat of Greenland’s largest marine terminating glacier over the previous 53 years.

    • Melting at Jakobshavn Isbrae does not respond to CO2

      It has been melting at variable speeds but similar overall rate since at least 1850. It is the same picture that can be seen regarding glaciers.

      Whatever a reduction in emissions might achieve, it should not affect Greenland’s melting or the frequency of extreme weather events. If believers get their way and reduce GHGs emissions with great sacrifice, they’ll be sorely disappointed at the results.

      • 270 years ago the planet was warming, the cryosphere was receding, sea level was rising. All that happened at 290 ppm CO2. Increasing CO2 levels to 415 ppm has not significantly accelerated the process. There is no reason to believe that reducing the rate of increase in GHGs or even reverting the increase should have any noticeable effect on climate.

        Deep decarbonization of the economy is very hard. It requires a huge sacrifice and has a great cost. Is there any evidence of it being beneficial?

    • However, the documented retreat of the glacier terminus starting in AD 1850 was not initiated until WGC temperatures were matching temperatures from 1400 years ago combined with rising air temperatures at that time.

      Time and time again, they correlate rising temperatures with retreating ice extent. They do not know why temperatures rose and caused ice extent.

      Facts are facts, if you use ice core data, you should be able to see that warming happens after it has been cold and there was little evaporation and snowfall during the cold period. Ice is flowing, breaking off into the oceans, depleting, warming happens as the ice extent decreases, warming causes by ice extent decrease.

  19. Arctic sea ice extent minimum this year appears to have taken place already at 4.15 million km2. This minimum extent is identical to the one in 2007. The September average extent this year is likely to be very close to 2007 too.

    Despite all the dire predictions regarding Arctic sea ice the reality is that for the past 12 years there hasn’t been any decrease in Arctic summer sea ice extent.

    Experts were wrong (as usual), but the general public is absolutely convinced the Arctic is melting at an accelerating pace because that is what they are being told. Greta Thunberg hasn’t experienced any Arctic sea-ice extent decrease since she was 4 years old yet she is convinced the poles are about to melt.

    Facts are irrelevant. The believers don’t have to show any data. The skeptics are not believed even when they show the data.

    • Arctic sea ice loss is not any kind of disaster.

      Arctic sea ice was lost during all the warmest time periods in the past. The increased evaporation and snowfall on sequestered ice, during past warm periods, did rebuild the sequestered ice and every past warmest time was followed by a colder time that was caused by the advancing ice.

      These warm periods are normal, natural, necessary and unstoppable. Ice core data and history prove this.

      Now, modern data is proving it all over again. This time we have thermometers, pictures and video. We have wonderful records of a first hundred years into the next thousand year cycle.

      There is enough data available now, if we throw away all peer reviewed consensus, if we study actual data, modern and proxies, then the natural causes of climate change can be understood.

    • “This simulated internal variability shows a strong similarity to the observed Arctic atmospheric change in the past 37 years. Through a fingerprint pattern matching method, we estimate that this internal variability contributes to about 40–50% of observed multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice. Our study also suggests that global climate models may not actually underestimate sea ice sensitivities in the Arctic, but have trouble fully replicating an observed linkage between the Arctic and lower latitudes in recent decades.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0256-8

      It is monumentally silly to draw skeptic memes from
      interannual variability.

      • This is what is monumentally silly:

        9. Arctic sea ice predictions

        2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by 2013, and said the prediction was conservative.
        The BBC. December 12, 2007

        2007 NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally predicted that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012.
        National Geographic. December 12, 2007

        2008 University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber predicted an ice-free North Pole for the first time in history in 2008.
        National Geographic. June 20, 2008

        2010 Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2030.
        The Telegraph. September 16, 2010

        2012 Prof. Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge (UK), predicted a collapse of the Arctic ice sheet by 2015-2016.
        September 17, 2012

        Reality check: No decrease in September Arctic sea ice extent has been observed since 2007.

        Time after time alarmism is shown to be wrong.

      • Reality check – interannual – or even decadal variability – doesn’t falsify radiative physics.

      • we estimate that this internal variability contributes to about 40–50% of observed multi-decadal decline in Arctic sea ice.

        That is lame! When oceans are warmer, sea ice declines, when oceans are colder, sea ice increases. That is 100 % due to internal variability! Ocean temperature is an internal parameter!

      • decadal variability – doesn’t falsify radiative physics

        It falsifies expert predictions. All those alarmist predictions for the 21st century… will not happen!.

      • Well no – it doesn’t falsify tipping points. In cloud – as in the Tapio Schneider video above – or in meltwater modulated THC.

      • Ah yes. Mr. Robert “tipping” Ellison, that believes multidecadal oscillations are composed of successive tipping points, like in 1976. It’s all in the definition. I guess the AMO is about to go through a tipping point any day now.

      • Oh – and I am inclined to think that the are past the inflection point for the AMO.


        https://www.ocean-sci.net/10/29/2014/

      • Yes it all depends on how you define bistable shifts in turbulent ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns.

      • Good Morning Javier(UTC),

        Let’s start at the very beginning shall we? A very good place to start when it comes to “monumental silliness”!

        Prof. Waslowski said nothing of the sort in 2007. Here’s the evidence:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/09/david-roses-apocalyptic-vision-of-al-gores-nobel-lecture/

        In brief:

        For the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics that a “projection” is not the same thing as a “prediction”, and that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski’s statement that “if this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by around 2013” is not at all the same thing as David Rose’s (mis)interpretation that “The Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2013”.

      • Hunt

        “…said nothing of the sort….”

        Nitpicking semantics. His statement achieved its desired effect. It got worldwide coverage and rattled the weak minded into neurotic, irrational behavior. Just like when scientists discuss meters of sea level rise, some in our society head for the hills and believe their only salvation is to buy a suburban tri level near Denver.

        We have had decades of failed predictions and my prediction is that we will have decades more of failed predictions.

      • Good afternoon Kid (UTC),

        Have you even bothered to read the evidence?

        By all means have a go at Al Gore (and his (mis)interpreters!) if the mood takes you. However Maslowski himself talked about a “projection”, not a “prediction”.

        Do you understand the difference?

      • JIm

        The only reason I sat through Al Gores speech beyond the 4.30 mark and up to around 8 minutes is that I wanted to understand the context.

        You might find it helpful to actually read the transcript

        https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/26118-al-gore-nobel-lecture-2007/

        Clearly he was making a lot of scientific references and alluding to current weather events, whilst pointing to specific events that had happened and scientists said would be happening. In that context he was clearly endorsing the things he was reading out, which after all was to an influential audience.

        Read the transcript, Understand the context. Al Gore was clearly endorsing an apocalyptic view of the arctic in the near future of 7 to 22 years time.

        His excellent book ‘Earth in the balance’ (1990 ish) set the scene with examples from the past of climate change which he was writing was our fate in the future.

        tonyb

      • Hello again Tony,

        Long time no see! However you seem to have missed my point, as did The Kid before you.

        Javier’s first bullet makes no mention of Al Gore. He mentions only “Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy”. Forget what a million “skeptics” said the BBC said Al Gore said Maslowski said.

        What did Wieslaw himself write/say?

      • Jim

        No, I know the difference. You missed my point. To the general public, due to the complicit media who are notorious for excluding context or using partial quotes, it doesn’t matter what his intent or precise words were, it got play everywhere and reinforced the narrative of AGW.

        This goes on continuously. The establishment knows all that is needed to get an overly dramatic and exaggerated story about the coming apocalypse is to feed it to the sympathetic press. Regardless of the specific words used they want to save the world and will use the words they want to use, to get clicks, ratings or sell papers.

        Climate scientists will get more respect when they return to their core mission of scientific inquiry and stop moonlighting as public relations gurus.

        Surely this dynamic is not over your head.

      • Ceresco,

        Oh no I didn’t! Read my virtual lips once again:

        For the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics that a “projection” is not the same thing as a “prediction”, and that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski’s statement that “if this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by around 2013” is not at all the same thing as David Rose’s (mis)interpretation that “The Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2013”.

      • Jim

        Good to see you as well. You sent us over to watch a video about al gore then seem surprised that someone actually followed your link, but there you go.

        Clearly Al was referring to a number of reports on the arctic and other things and was clearly endorsing them as the transcript shows.. The Wieslaw Maslowski one referenced by Javier turns out to be true

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237634610_Climate_Change_and_Sustainability_Connecting_Atmospheric_Ocean_and_Climate_Science_with_Public_Literacy

        there is a useful end piece on public perceptions and lessons that Greta Thunbergs placard wielding friends could learn from. However the prof did actually write the 2013 reference, but then hung it around with all sorts of oblique references.

        David Rose was quite right to point to Al gore and the Professors references and Javier is essentially right.

        By the way I think Wieslaw Maslowski is a good researcher and writes many interesting papers. His trouble, and this is common amongst the many climate science research papers I plough through, is that his meaning is often not clear, as it is buried in terminology and excessive language. Polyakov is another who did that.

        The same trouble exists with those scientists using statistics who, as NIc Lewis illustrated, do not seem to know how to use them properly.

        No doubt you will want to be off and tweet an apology to David Rose? :)

        tonyb

      • Hi Tony,

        Oh no I didn’t! Please be so kind as to reveal to me where my virtual lips said “go watch this video”.

        Here’s a brief extract from the paper you reference:

        Here we present highlights of recent modeling work that is subsequently being cited in popular press articles as saying that the Arctic may be ice-free by 2013.

        The modeled trend in the ice volume since the late 1990s, when extended
        into the future, projects an ice-free summer in the Arctic Ocean by 2013.

        “Projects” NOT “predicts” – Q.E.D?

        Perhaps Javier, David Rose and the other “million skeptics” will now inundate Prof. Maslowski’s inbox with profuse apologies?

      • JIm

        Your ‘virtual lips’ (do you remember that ‘Big Bang’ episode?) made a link to your blog. Within the link itself it referenced al gore and linked to al gores speech

        so you were obviously intending us to listen to it. I listened to more than you suggested then gave you the transcript. Now you are saying al gore was nothing to do with anything?

        I looked at the work published by the professor and out of some 30 papers I kindly found you the one you referenced. which you had not appeared to read before and linked to it. He clearly made references to the possibility of ice free conditions by 2013.

        You are now splitting hairs into a million strands by saying ‘ah he didn’t actually make a projection, he made a prediction. ‘

        That distinction makes Stoat confused, and many of his readers

        https://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/23/projection-prediction

        As one writes, ‘projection is a conditional prediction about the future’.

        I said the professors paper was hung about with all sorts of caveats but essentially it was clear that one of the scenarios he thought likely, was an ice free arctic in 2013.

        You can huff and puff all you want, but any reasonable person following your OWN link to al gores speech, then to the professors work, would quite logically say Javier and David Rose were essentially correct .

        Do stop digging that hole for you as with all this rain the sides might fall in on you. On the south coast of Devon its cleared up nicely. .

        tonyb

      • Evenin’ Tony (UTC),

        Well this is fun! It’s like Gish galloping around The Deplorable Climate Science Blog but with the expletives deleted.

        The rain in North Cornwall did eventually clear up. Contrast this evening:

        with yesterday afternoon:

        No brollies necessary this evening!

        I don’t watch TV, but I have heard of “The Big Bang Theory”. If that’s what you’re referring to, then no I haven’t seen it. Gotta link?

        I quoted the relevant part of my Rose/Gore/Maslowski article in here. The link I provided was for anybody who wanted to do their due diligence to check where the quote originated. It wasn’t in Al’s Nobel speech! At the risk of repeating myself, but it seems that I must:

        By all means have a go at Al Gore (and his (mis)interpreters!) if the mood takes you. However Maslowski himself talked about a projection, not a prediction.

        Stuff the Stoat! From the Oxford English Dictionary:

        Projection, Noun:
        1) An estimate or forecast of a future situation based on a study of present trends.

        Prediction, Noun:
        1) A thing predicted; a forecast.

        Please don’t flatter yourself Tony, and please don’t patronise me whilst you’re at it. You haven’t dug up anything I haven’t read before. Please also stop misrepresenting the work and the words of the good Prof. Maslowski.

      • Jim

        Please tell me you are grasping my point. You are down in the weeds, dealing with college sophomore stuff.

        The three simplest things in life are why did Jack and Jill go up the hill, monetary policy theory and the difference between projections and predictions.

      • Ceresco,

        Gore was the one “moonlighting as [a] public relations guru”, not Maslowski.

        Got it yet?

      • Ceresco kid

        Its been raining over here and I suspect it must have been a long and boring afternoon in the Hunt household and Jim was looking for something to do.

        Still, on the bright side having followed his links about Gore and Wieslaw Maslowski I now know that David Rose was right and will let him know. Javier will hopefully be along to see for himself

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        Whilst it was nice to get a bit of fresh air this evening, please rest assured that today has been anything but boring in the Hunt household.

        Apart from everything else Kasia’s computer literally went “pop”! It was great fun working out which fuse needed replacing. The replacement PSU is allegedly going to be delivered by DPD tomorrow. I’ll keep you posted on developments.

        Jim

      • It like the distinction between random and deterministic. That are just as much unpredictable and predictable. With random – i.e. non deterministic – models and elementary geophysics principles? Easier to enter the kingdom of heaven.

      • Jim

        Sounds quite wet and windy the next couple of days as well.

        Here is a link to the vision I get when you talk of virtual lips

        If it doesn’t work google ‘Howard’s kissing machine, big bang theory.’

        The two involved are great friends but decidedly heterosexual

        Gore says what he says, which in context is to spread alarm about various events including sea ice.. It is what it is.

        A forecast, a prediction.a projection. A scenario . Semantics only, the clear intention of gores speech is there for all to see which was to forcibly point out that bad events were happening and worse was to come in the near future

        Tonyb

      • Hi Tony,

        You keep going on about “Gore’s speech”. Al is a “politician” not a “climate scientist”.

        Where is “Maslowski’s speech” hiding do you suppose?

        Jim

      • Tony

        I am very concerned about how they will hold it together when the AMO flips and temperatures are flatlining and the Arctic Sea Ice returns to levels of 40 years ago. What do they do then? They could have contests to come up with the most imaginative excuses why all the predictions failed. Won’t be a pretty sight. I hope their mental health insurance premiums are paid.

      • Good night Jim,

        Prof. Waslowski said nothing of the sort in 2007. Here’s the evidence:

        Well, here is my evidence:
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

        Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

        Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

        Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

        Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

        Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

        Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

        “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

        “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

        Oh dear! Ice gone by 2013 is a too conservative projection! You cannot be more wrong than that. But that is what happens when you trust your own models. A more appropriate name would be taxpayers-funded expensive computer games.

      • Good morning Javier (UTC),

        Your alleged “reference” is the work of a journalist for the BBC, Jonathan Amos, not that of a climate scientist.

        Nevertheless it does rather prove my point for me, does it not? The word “projection” appears four times in your quotation. The word “prediction” appears not at all.

        Conversely for some strange reason your first bullet point above uses the word “prediction” twice.

        Q.E.D?

      • Perhaps Javier, David Rose and the other “million skeptics” will now inundate Prof. Maslowski’s inbox with profuse apologies?

        Oh no, my dear Jim,

        You see, you think everybody is as ignorant as you are about the scientific bibliography of climate change. Wieslaw Maslowski continued making his silly predictions/projections until at least 2012, when he published the article:
        Maslowski, W., Clement Kinney, J., Higgins, M. and Roberts, A., 2012. The future of Arctic sea ice. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, pp.625-654.
        where on page 639 he (and colleagues) goes to say:

        “When considering this part of the sea ice–volume time series, one can estimate a negative trend of −1,120 km3 year−1 with a standard deviation of ± 2,353 km3 year−1 from combined model and most recent observational estimates for October–November 1996–2007. Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3 (Kwok et al. 2009), one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer.
        The above overview of model predictions (i.e., produced by GCM scenario simulations) and projections (i.e., resulting from the synthesis of GCM output with observations of sea ice) of a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean…”

        So you see that according to “his” definitions, both predictions and projections result in a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean.

        I guess you are the one owing an apology to me, but somehow I doubt you will offer it.

      • Good morning Javier (UTC),

        At the risk of repeating myself:

        This is… like Gish galloping around The Deplorable Climate Science Blog but with the expletives deleted.

        Your flux capacitor seems to be faulty? Many moons ago you asserted:

        2007 Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski from Dept. Oceanography of the US Navy predicted an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by 2013, and said the prediction was conservative.

        On no he didn’t!

      • Oh yes he did! The BBC news reporter believed he did, everybody reading that report believed he did. Al Gore believed he did. Everybody listening to Al Gore or watching his movie believed he did. What you believe is irrelevant.

      • Good afternoon Javier,

        Thanks very much for making my point for me.

        N.B. A BBC reporter isn’t a “climate scientist”

        Al Gore isn’t a “climate scientist” either.

      • No but Jay Zwally is a scientist, and Wieslaw Maslowski is a scientist, and they are responsible for what they say to the press, because that is what reaches the general public.

        So no point for you. Those predictions by scientists were reported in the press, and as such they count towards failed alarmist predictions by scientists, whether you like it or not.

      • Jim Hunt: The modeled trend in the ice volume since the late 1990s, when extended
        into the future, projects an ice-free summer in the Arctic Ocean by 2013.

        And that’s all he said? No warnings or alerts? He immediately corrected all misquotes?

        You are part way there.

      • Mornin’ Matthew,

        A humble climate scientist take on the “skeptical” porky pie production line? Surely you jest?

        Here’s a recent Arctic example for your edification:

        https://lmgtfy.com/?q=climate+change+warriors+stuck+in+ice

        Prof. Maslowski did write a paper for a learned journal though, op. cit. Tony B:

        Here we present the public’s perception of climate change from press articles using a recent press article stating that the Arctic Ocean could soon be ice-free during summertime. In particular, an article on 27 June, 2008 on abcnews.go.com by Bill Blakemore and Tuan C. Nyugen had the double headline:”Arctic’s First Ice-Free Summer Possible Even This Year; Experts Worry about a Disturbing Trend at the North Pole”. Pictured in the article is a polar bear standing on ice next to open water.

      • Jim Hunt, What sense does it make to say that a “projection” (an extrapolation of a polynomial fit) is “too conservative” as opposed to merely “inaccurate”?


        BBC – 12 December 2007
        “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,”…….”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
        [Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]

        Is it perhaps a misquote?

      • Jim Hunt: A humble climate scientist take on the “skeptical” porky pie production line? Surely you jest?

        What is that about? Did you give up completely on trying to make sense?

        “Projection” is the word chosen by people issuing warnings when they do not want to admit they were wrong when the predicted event fails to occur despite lack of urgent action to change the trend. The dictionary definition does not take into account actual usage. It was not merely skeptics who interpreted the “projections” as calls to action. Do you think it was? Maslowski was quoted by the BBC and other “non-skeptical” publications. National Geographic? They certainly are treating the projections as warnings and calls to action.

      • Matthew,

        What sort of scientific training have you received over the course of your no doubt long and interesting life?

        How about “public relations” training?

    • The general public is absolutely convinced the Arctic is melting at an accelerating pace because that is what they are being told.

      Duh, the Vikings moved to Greenland because this is normal. the Arctic thaws in warm times and Vikings can live well in Greenland and the China did map the Arctic.

      The Public is being told the Arctic is thawing and they should be frightened, that is how they scare people.

      The Arctic is thawing because in warm times, it always does thaw. The public should be told that the climate changes in natural cycles. It is warmer now and that is natural, necessary and unstoppable, adapt and stay where you are, or move to where you like better.

      • “The Arctic is thawing because in warm times, it always does thaw.”

        What did Tarzan say when he saw an elephant in the refrigerator wearing sunglasses? Nothing – he didn’t recognize it.

        There’s that elephant in the refrigerator again.

      • Gordon Robertson

        pope…”The general public is absolutely convinced the Arctic is melting at an accelerating pace because that is what they are being told”.

        What the public is not told is that the melting is during a month of summer when the Arctic temperature rises slightly above freezing. They are not told that during the rest of the year, the Arctic Ocean is covered with up to 10 feet of ice.

        Alarmists who spread propaganda about the Arctic ice melting right away are charlatans. It is not possible for the Arctic Ocean not to freeze when there is little or no solar energy in the Arctic for over half the year.

      • REI may not be so correct about what Tarzan saw, – maybe. Likely it was a mammoth. Or maybe it was Tarzan’s grandad. We know what happened to that mammoth; it is no more. It went where it was once frozen but then grew buttercups, and the next new freeze after the warmup got it unawares.
        This other ‘elephant in the refrigerator’, may be of the very common bi-pedal one. Mother Earth might say good riddance.

      • My namesake is Igor Polyakov –
        a very great Arctic scientist.

        “However, the exceptional magnitude of recent high‐latitude changes (not only oceanic, but also ice and atmospheric) strongly suggests that these recent changes signify a potentially irreversible shift of the Arctic Ocean to a new climate state. These changes have important implications for the Arctic Ocean’s marine ecosystem, especially those components that are dependent on sea ice or that have temperature‐dependent sensitivities or thresholds.” https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/11-0902.1

        Let’s see – what gravitas should we accord Alex and Gordon v. Igor?

        Q: What time is it when a Great Woolly Mammoth sits on your igloo?
        A: Time to build another igloo

    • Javier
      A low Arctic Sea Ice extent value occurred with a slight area increase.
      This year is heavily Northern Hemisphere biased. Witness the SH vortex and SSW during moderate NH atmospheric activity.
      Note that the Arctic SIE reduction movements were pretty much in sync with tropical cyclone activity / intensity. There appears to be a current resurgence in activity, will the SIE value go down again ?
      Regards

    • Jim Hunt: For the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics that a “projection” is not the same thing as a “prediction”, and that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski’s statement that “if this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by around 2013” is not at all the same thing as David Rose’s (mis)interpretation that “The Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2013”.

      It is often difficult to tell in practice whether a prediction or a projection is being expressed. People do not always, especially outside of peer-reviewed papers, make clear what a “projection” is conditioned on. In the foregoing quote, what exactly was meant by “this trend” — the ongoing trend of increasing human fuel use that was purportedly driving the trend of temperature increase? Was the author claiming that a human intervention of some sort was necessary to alter the trend?

      If the speaker was warning that the trend of increasing human fossil fuel use must be reversed, to reverse the temperature trend, then the implication of the warning is that by now the Arctic ought to be ice-free in the summer time. How long after uttering that statement did Maslowski clarify that it was a projection based on the trend of ice loss, and not a call for humans to reduce fossil fuel use?

      • Matthew,

        I fear you have been drinking the skeptical kool aid for far too long. Here’s an extract from the reference kindly provided by Tony upthread:

        The modeled trend in the ice volume since the late 1990s, when extended
        into the future, projects an ice-free summer in the Arctic Ocean by 2013.

        From the conclusions to the paper:

        We pointed out that when press articles such as the one discussed in this paper are presented to the public, there can be a sense of human emotion and perhaps of fear that overwhelms the public‟s desire for being scientifically informed. With such human reactions, the public is likely to be less interested in observational quantitative science such as the statement we made in this paper that the Arctic ocean-ice-atmosphere feedbacks are not yet represented realistically in Arctic climate models because the turbulent physics is not yet fully understood even in direct field observations.

        The observational results showed that the ice near the North Pole in the summertime is still quite thick and not prone to be ice-free by this summer. If the public understood enough about science, these results could help calm fears about the North Pole becoming ice-free this summer.

        Q.E.D?

      • P.S. VTG

        Great minds think alike?

      • Jim

        P.S. VTG

        Great minds think alike?

        It doesn’t take a great mind to see through the attempts here to pretend a pause in sea ice impacts. A ten year old would do it. Why denizens lap it up is a good question.

      • VTG – What do you suppose the odds are on this convincing them?

    • Arctic sea ice extent minimum this year appears to have taken place already at 4.15 million km2. This minimum extent is identical to the one in 2007. The September average extent this year is likely to be very close to 2007 too.

      That’s quite the cherrypick Javier.

      You should pay more attention to Judith’s strictures on scientific ethics.

      Full picture:

      from https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

      • Funny how things get truncated when it fits the purpose of warmists.

      • Mornin’ Ceresco (UTC),

        It seems you’ve been supping the Deplorable Climate Science kool aid?

        Here’s chapter and verse for you:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/04/gross-deception-measuring-arctic-sea-ice-trends/

        In brief:

      • Funny how things get truncated when it fits the purpose of warmists.

        He says, presenting a graph truncated at 1975.

        You couldn’t make this up.

      • The point is there was a dramatic drop off pre CO2 having an effect and there were levels below 1975. You have shown us post 1975 so we have the entire estimated periods. Underline estimated. We have no facts, even today.

      • Ceresco,

        I have to admit that sea ice thickness is a bit tricky to measure, even with the advent of IceSat-2.

        However doesn’t this sort of thing count as “a fact” in your view?

        Just in case you’re unaware of the significance of the image, it show’s Polarstern’s entry into the target area for the real start of the MOSAiC Expedition.

      • There is no such thing as pre-CO2.

      • JCH

        Read the rest. Pre 1950. This is basic. IPCC etc etc

      • The point is there was a dramatic drop off pre CO2 having an effect and there were levels below 1975. You have shown us post 1975 so we have the entire estimated periods. Underline estimated.

        Your post makes no sense.

        I showed you from 1953 to today. You showed a graph to 1975 and accused me of trucating!

        Then I show you data from 800 to today.

        Now, remind me who’s doing the cherrypicking and truncating here?

        Separately, We have no facts, even today is hilarious.

      • Sea Ice has been declining for ~150 years.

        Except for the last 12 years when Javier claims it hasn’t been?

      • That’s quite the cherrypick Javier.

        Bullsh*t VTG,
        It is only fair to compare what has happened since the predictions and projections were made public to assess how accurate they were. Since the first dramatic, hugely alarming predi/proje/ctions were made in December 2007 after the big decrease in Arctic-sea ice extent that took place the previous summer that’s when the comparison should start.

        The problem is that a 12-year unexpected and unrecognized pause in summer Arctic sea-ice extent decrease has put to shame those alarmist scientists/activists showing that they had no idea what they were talking about. We must contemplate the possibility that other climate modelers that go to the press with alarming projections are equally inept.

      • Ah, and on reading your claim “Sea Ice has been declining for ~150 years.” we find that it’s from a twenty year old paper, and only applies to one region of the Arctic.

        More cherrypicking. Not up to date. No surprise.

      • Bullsh*t VTG,

        You picked two datapoints in an attempt to portray a consistent decline as a pause, as the subsequent data shared by myself and others clearly shows.

        A childish attempt at deception.

      • You’re about as far from basic as a basic-averse person can get.

      • You picked two datapoints in an attempt to portray a consistent decline as a pause, as the subsequent data shared by myself and others clearly shows.

        Nature did the picking for me. No decline in Arctic sea-ice extent for 12 years. The decline is not as consistent as you claim.

        Data from NSIDC.

      • Ooh, now more sophisticated cherrypicking.

        Go Javier!

      • Javier,

        Gotta link to your “Data from NSIDC”?

      • Ooh, now more sophisticated cherrypicking.

        Despite your arm waiving there are two facts regarding Arctic sea ice extent that you don’t like:
        – There hasn’t been a decline in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 2007.
        – Predictions and projections by supposed experts made public by the media and widely distributed have been absolutely wrong.

        Instead of looking for why the projections were so fundamentally wrong, you have entered into a state of denial. You keep insisting it still decreasing when that is clearly not the case.

      • Javier,

        “Predictions and projections” now is it? Can I safely assume that you’ve finally accepted that your first bullet is BS?

        Moving on to #2. Jay Zwally in 2007. Where’s your evidence that he said what you say he said?

      • Of course not!
        I’ll quote exact words from Wieslaw Maslowski as I commented in a previous reply that has been held in moderation for many hours:

        “The above overview of model predictions (i.e., produced by GCM scenario simulations) and projections (i.e., resulting from the synthesis of GCM output with observations of sea ice) of a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean…”

        So Maslowski talks about both predictions and projections showing a nearly ice free Arctic Ocean and your point is moot.

      • Javier,

        That quote is from an early 2012 paper. Why don’t you fire up your flux capacitor and head on back to the summer of 2007?

        https://www.flux-capacitor.co.uk

        Has the cat got your tongue re Jay Zwally (2007)?

      • What, do you think he was saying something different in 2007 and somehow the reported got it all backwards yet coinciding with what he said in 2012?

        We have the problem of activist scientists going to the press with wild exaggerations. If the press gets it wrong they have the right to request a correction. Since they didn’t do it we must assume that the press did their job correctly.

        Has the cat got your tongue re Jay Zwally (2007)?

        No. The original link at National Geographic has gone dead since 2017, luckily Tony Heller saved a copy:

        It was widely disseminated at the time, for example here

        “Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions. …
        “The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming,” said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. “Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines.”

        Priceless.

      • Javier,

        Isn’t it fortunate in all the circumstances that I have a copy of that National Geographic article too? Neither of us have to rely on Steve/Tony’s cherry picks! Please see:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral/

        Including the previous paragraph that you somehow failed to mention we are able to read:

        Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.

        This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

        Yet another “projection” then! With #2 done and dusted shall we try #3 next?

      • So you agree that Zwally said “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
        So yes, number 2 is also correctly reported by me. And according to the news reporter he talked about predictions.

        Your attempt to dismiss what scientists told the mainstream media in the 2007-2013 period based on language technicalities is insubstantial. Maslowski considers the product of GCM scenario simulations as predictions in his 2012 paper. You have chosen to ignore that your supposed criterion is not shared by the scientists you are trying to defend.

        People believed what the scientists told the media. Greenpeace started a successful fundraising campaign in 2009 based on those words:

        “Urgent action needed as Arctic ice melts

        A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.”

        https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/news/features/urgent-action-needed-as-arctic/

        They ripped off hard earned money from good-willing people based on what clueless scientists told the press.

      • Thanks Javier,

        That data goes back to 1979. Why did you choose to truncate it?

      • To show that since 2007 there hasn’t been any decline, isn’t it obvious?

      • Predictions and projections by supposed experts made public by the media and widely distributed have been absolutely wrong.

        Nonsense. You just cherry pick parts of the ones you want to straw man.

        The central criticism of arctic sea ice projections is that they have been too conservative.

        Your continued attempt to pretend significance of a “pause” by cherry picking data and ignoring the both the whole time series and other measures reflects badly on you.

      • The central criticism of arctic sea ice projections is that they have been too conservative.

        That just shows how biased the alarmist position is.

        Sea ice projections failed to anticipate the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice that took place 1995-2007 and they have been unable to anticipate the lack of decline that has taken place 2007-2019. This only shows that after expending a fortune, our supposed experts are only capable of extrapolating linear trends, something that any 5-year old can do, and are unable to include multidecadal variability in their expensive toy-models. Their future projections are no better than wild guesses.

        We shouldn’t listen to them. They don’t know what they talk about.

      • Sorry for disturbing your ping pong. Iwould like to introduce another thought: It’s the amount of lost sea ice extent per year, it’s roughly the difference between April extent and September extent With the NSIDC monthly dataset this gives this figure:
        https://i.imgur.com/ZlI1EFU.jpg .
        The thin black line are annual data ( 1996 was an outlier, I adjusted it with interpolation) and the thick line is a (softly) 5 years LOESS smooth.
        IMO one can see that the extent loss was very stable in the years to 1997, it increased with the AMO+swing, the impact of the AMO+ was full developed 2007…2012, thereafter we saw a very stable Extent-loos of 9.05 +-0.15 mio km² (1 sigma), also in the recent saison as one could estimate with daily data. Jim is a member of a forum where the authors write many posts about the weather in the melting saison. Do you really believe, that the weather in the years after 2013 was so constant (over the whole saison) that the outcome could be so similiar? In the end the long run trendline is gouverned by the trend of the winter ( april extent has a downward slope). One also can see clearly the influence of the interenal variablilty as the extent-loss in the last 7 melting saisons decreased in relation to the years 2007…2012. No sign of “death spiral” in the summer due to ice-albedo feedback or something like that. Something is unexpected? For sure!

      • Comment in moderation.

        Here’s a link for the pdf to Maslowski so others can read it.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234145875_The_Future_of_Arctic_Sea_Ice

        To call Javier’s quote selective would be extremely charitable.

      • Great variability over 2,000 years, including showing yet again warming during MWP.

      • Frank,
        Ping-pong is fun to see who is actually on denial of data.

        the amount of lost sea ice extent per year, it’s roughly the difference between April extent and September extent

        Yes, I also graphed that in my 2017 article:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/05/arctic-ice-natural-variability/

        It is the red (Melt) curve, here compared with the 6-month lagged re-freeze (blue, March minus previous September) curve.

        The main conclusion, the larger the melt, the larger the re-freeze. Another main conclusion is that the situation changed in 2007, supporting a fundamental (RIE would say tipping point) change in Arctic trends in the 2006-2007 season. It is not cherries.

      • Hi Javier, the continuation to the years 2018 and 19 with a surprising constant extentloss during the melting saison says a lot. The (positive) Ice albedo feedback ( in simmer) has a mighty negative counterpart in winter: thin ice grows faster, see https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL079223 .
        Therefore all the apocalyptic forecasts deduced mainly from the 2007…2012 trend ( that was in reality a product of the internal variability not the forcing mainly) were wrong. And IMO also maeningful: the weather in the melting saison has only minor (at least) meaning for the total loss over the saison. 2/3 of the posts in the mentioned forum are a waste of time?

      • So your position Javier, seems to be simultaneously that climate science is overestimating sea ice impacts, *and* that it is underestimating them.

        Further, you use the minimum possible data set to reach your conclusions, and misrepresent scientists by egregious partial quotation.

        It’s not impressive.

      • So your position Javier, seems to be simultaneously that climate science is overestimating sea ice impacts, *and* that it is underestimating them.

        You seem to have trouble following an argument. Not simultaneously. The data clearly shows Arctic sea ice loss first proceeded faster than anticipated and later proceeded slower than anticipated. In both cases scientists were caught with their pants down, that is the pattern.

      • Javier,

        With a few minutes to spare before hitting the sack I took the liberty of graphing your recommended Arctic sea ice dataset, including the linear trend:

        From merely eyeballing the graph it looks to me as though there’s a break point in the late 1990s?

        I wonder what changes the September 2019 numbers will bring?

      • I wonder what changes the September 2019 numbers will bring?

        Little wonder, as September is already over at this Longitude. September 2009 should be very, very similar to September 2007.

      • It’s very difficult to respond to Javier’s continued use of deliberately truncated partial quotation and to remain within moderation guidance.

        Let’s try.

        Javier, twice now, has posted this quote as claiming that Maslowski was predicting/projecting an ice free arctic as soon as 2013

        “The above overview of model predictions (i.e., produced by GCM scenario simulations) and projections (i.e., resulting from the synthesis of GCM output with observations of sea ice) of a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean…”

        Note the point at which the quote is truncated.

        Now, read the article. Note that Maslowski uses “prediction” as meaning GCM output, and “projection” as meaning extrapolation from observation.

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234145875_The_Future_of_Arctic_Sea_Ice/link/0c96051fabe025feb4000000/download

        The full quote of that paragraph, truncated part restored and emboldened:

        The above overview of model predictions (i.e., produced by GCM scenario simulations) and projections (i.e., resulting from the synthesis of GCM output with observations of sea ice) of a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean and their limitations leads to an important conclusion. It suggests a great need for improved understanding and model representation of physical processes and interactions specific to polar regions that currently might not be fully accounted for or are missing in GCMs. The remaining sections of this review are primarily focused on addressing those issues.

        Now let’s look at what the article says for the “model predictions” referred to:

        GCMs used in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment studies on average predict more than a 50% reduction of summer sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean by the end of this century (ACIA 2004). GCMs participating in the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) CMIP2 predict a little over 10% decrease of sea ice concentration in response to doubling of CO2 (Hu et al. 2004).Models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) and in CMIP3 suggest the reduction of sea ice cover to an almost ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer by the end of this century ( Johannessen et al. 2004, Zhang & Walsh 2006), and by 2040 in the most extreme predictions

        In other words, the predictions Javier claims are of an ice free arctic in 2013 are actually of an ice free arctic no earlier than 2040, and quite likely beyond the end of the century.

        He points out the difference between observational projections leading to a rapidly ice free arctic and GCMs predicting ice free as late as beyond the end of the century. He points out how poor these predictions and projections are, and therefore “a great need for improved understanding and model representation of physical processes and interactions specific to polar regions that currently might not be fully accounted for or are missing in GCMs”

        Javier’s claim that this is Maslowski supporting an ice free Arctic in 2013 is so far from the mark it’s, well, beyond the ability to be honest about it and remain within moderation.

      • I’m doing my best VTG, but one’s almost infinite Anglo Saxon patience only goes so far!

        Let’s settle for (Gish gallop)^2 for the moment shall we?

      • Maslowski told the BBC that his study predicted an ice-free arctic by 2013 and add the caveat that it was a “conservative” estimate- in that it could be earlier.

        “”Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
        “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

        Once again, a prediction that failed to come true is accurately cited, the warm come out to angrily denounce the accurate citation, falsely accuse the poster of misleading people, and pretend the warm never said what they clearly said. And they wonder why there are skeptics.

      • ” falsely accuse the poster of misleading people”

        Javier twice provided a truncated quotation which reverses its meaning when in full and in context.

        It’s directly above, in black and white.

        It’s impossible to be more misleading than that.

      • Javier twice provided a truncated quotation which reverses its meaning when in full and in context.

        I am under no obligation to extend my quotes to wherever you consider convenient.

        Maslowski et al. 2012 make very clear their predictions and projections in their figure 9:

        Dashed purple “NAME trend ON 1996-2004” is what Maslowski calls prediction, and it hits zero in 2011.
        Dashed red “Combined NAME 1996-2004 ON plus Kwok & Cunningham 2008 ON” is what Maslowski calls projection and it hits zero in 2014.
        Dashed grey “Combined NAME 1996-2004 ON plus Kwok et al. 2009 ON” is also what Maslowski calls projection and it hits zero in 2016.

        It is actually very funny to see you both wiggling to try to say that Maslowski didn’t mean what he meant.

        Your type of blog has it very clear:
        http://www.climatecodered.org/2012/08/big-call-cambridge-prof-predicts-arctic.html

        The Scotsman of 29 August, under the title “Arctic sea ice will vanish within three years, says expert”, reports:

        Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, who was branded “alarmist” after he first detected “substantial thinning” of sea ice in 1990, said: “The entire ice cover is now on the point of collapse.”
        “The extra open water already created by the retreating ice allows bigger waves to be generated by storms, which are sweeping away the surviving ice. It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming.”
        He said that while reducing carbon emissions was the only solution, geo-engineering techniques – including one proposed by a Scottish professor – should be “urgently” explored.”

        This is in sharp contradiction to the projections of many generalised climate models (GCMs) which do not have a great track record in projecting ice-mass loss. As an example, the IPCC 2007 report noted that: “in some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century.”
        But Wadhams is basing his prediction in part on a new range of more specialised regional climate models, and in particular a model (acronym NAME) developed by Dr Wieslaw Maslowski and colleagues. Maslowski is highly regarded, in part because his position at the American Naval Postgraduate School has given him unique access to half a century of Arctic sea-ice thickness scans from sub-polar US military submarines.
        Maslowski told BBC News last year:
        “In the past… we were just extrapolating into the future assuming that trends might persist as we’ve seen in recent times. Now we’re trying to be more systematic, and we’ve developed a regional Arctic climate model that’s very similar to the global climate models participating in IPCC assessments. We can run a fully coupled model for the past and present and see what our model will predict for the future in terms of the sea ice and the Arctic climate.”

        Last November Prof. Wadhams, a world-leading authority on the polar regions who has just returned from a field trip to the Arctic, told the UK Telegraph that Maslowski’s calculations had him “pretty much persuaded.” Prof Wadhams said: “His [model] is the most extreme but he is also the best modeller around… It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that’s when it will happen.”

        The Arctic sea-ice has long passed its tipping point, and so also have the other critical features in the polar north.

        Hmm no. After 12 years of no Arctic summer sea-ice extent decrease it is clear that the Arctic has not passed a tipping point and the canary is very much alive.

      • Javier,

        You deliberately truncated a quote and removed context to entirely reverse its meaning.

        That you behave in such a way shows how weak your case must be.

      • verytallguy: You deliberately truncated a quote and removed context to entirely reverse its meaning.

        Javier did not “reverse” the meanings of the selections he quoted. “Past the tipping point” is unambiguous in this context, and totally contradicts the claim that only a “trend” was being “projected”.

      • Let’s recap:

        Here’s VTG’s version of Maslowski:
        “In other words, the predictions Javier claims are of an ice free arctic in 2013 are actually of an ice free arctic no earlier than 2040, and quite likely beyond the end of the century.”

        Here’s Maslowski’s version of Maslowski:
        “”Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
        “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

        Clearly Javier agreed with what Maslowski personally characterized as the prediction of the paper in an interview with the BBC.

      • You deliberately truncated a quote and removed context to entirely reverse its meaning.

        You are following the book on fallacious argumentation. Since it is a fact that Arctic summer sea-ice extent has not decreased in 12 years, and since it is a fact that Maslowski talked to the press and published an article about an ice-free Arctic in 2012-2016, what you have left is “ad hominem” attacks to question my integrity and credibility.

        Sorry pal, the evidence talks by itself. The articles have been linked and shown for everybody to see what was reported. My character has nothing to do neither with Arctic ice nor with Maslowski, and you are tall but despicable.

      • Jeff, please, don’t descend to Javier’s level.

        You are comparing my pracie of a Maslowski paper misrepresented by Javier with an entirely different text reported several years apart.

        Maslowski may well be inconsistent, but regardless, Javier misrepresented the quote he presented.

      • Matthew

        I think you have got confused somewhere.

        The phrase “tipping point” is not contained anywhere in the quote Javier misrepresented, nor elsewhere in the paper it is taken from.

      • Javier,

        There is nothing fallacious about pointing out that you truncated a quote to reverse its meaning.

        It’s just inconvenient to you. Not false.

      • There is nothing fallacious about pointing out that you truncated a quote to reverse its meaning.

        It is your opinion that the meaning was reversed, so you are using your opinion to attack me and that is fallacious argumentation. Figure 9 in the paper shows very clearly what Maslowski was talking about: those trends ending in 2011-2016.

        As most believers that come to this site, you are great at debating but poor at demonstrating. I have no interest on debates. Evidence speaks by itself. Your arguments are moot.

      • Evenin’ Javier,

        You have yet to comment on this evidence that I presented much earlier in the “debate”

        https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/21/week-in-review-science-edition-109/#comment-900827

        Now is your chance!

      • I don’t watch videos. It is a waste of my time. I am a fast reader. If they have a good argument surely they can put it in writing.

      • No Javier, you need to watch the video. A picture is worth a 1000 words!

        Watch what happens to the red stuff.

      • “Maslowski may well be inconsistent, but regardless, Javier misrepresented the quote he presented.”

        No question he truncated the quote. In a post where he accurately described Maslowski’s opinion of the paper- it was a prediction, it was for 2013 (or earlier).
        I really don’t care if a quote was “truncated” not and, frankly am not interested in defending Javier, I care if it was accurately summarized. An ex-post-facto claim that an prediction that failed wasn’t really a prediction isn’t “inconsistency”.
        This sort of thing matters. Maslowski was wrong, say it and move on or at least pull a Mosher and claim “all predictions are wrong, but some are useful.”

      • And the text you removed explains why they are not to be used as predictions

        That is not correct. He clearly labels the model scenarios as predictions in the paper, he previously talked about the output of his model as a prediction when talking to the BBC news reporter, and he convinced his pal Peter Wadham to use it for his predictions, as I have have showed in the information above. The guy was convinced that his model was conservative and that can only mean he expected reality to reach an ice-free Arctic earlier than his model.

        You are the one that doesn’t want to understand what Maslowski said and instead try to attack me in a clear smearing tactic. You aren’t coming out of this clean. You are argumentative and ignore the facts. No wonder you are such a strong believer. Don’t let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.

      • You truncated a quote to reverse its meaning.

        That’s another of your wrong beliefs. I put what was relevant to the discussion. The predic/projec/tion and the definitions. The rest is irrelevant because he never talked about uncertainty to the journalist. Maslowski made the same selection and gave it the same meaning when talking to the press. The meaning is not reversed. Figure 9 is the evidence.

        You can repeat your mantras to eternity, you will still be wrong.

      • verytallguy: I think you have got confused somewhere.

        Maybe. I missed where you showed that Javier had reversed the meaning of selected quotes. You seem to have shifted to “misrepresented”. To me, Maslowski’s text reads as though he expected the so-called “projection” (the word he used in the review) to come to pass, and he “doubled down” when he later asserted that the projection may have been “too conservative”.

      • VTG

        I wonder if in 1837 any of the natives in the Maldives would have thought that in 182 years people would still be predicting (projecting) the demise of their islands.

      • matthew
        I missed where you showed that Javier had reversed the meaning of selected quotes. You seem to have shifted to “misrepresented”. To me, Maslowski’s text reads as though he expected the so-called “projection” (the word he used in the review) to come to pass, and he “doubled down” when he later asserted that the projection may have been “too conservative”.

        Reversal shown here:

        https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/21/week-in-review-science-edition-109/#comment-900878

        Maslowski “text” – which text? Javier provides the misleading partial quote of one paper, then later uses a BBC report of quotes five years earlier, and he and others conflate the two.

        But there’s not much point debating Maslowski’s views (which I’m personally not particularly interested in) when they are deliberately misquoted to distort their meaning. Which is the only point I’m making here.

      • verytallguy: , then later uses a BBC report of quotes five years earlier,

        I think the BBC quote clarifies Maslowski’s intention, rather than Javier “conflating” the two. It makes no sense to say of a “projection” that it was “too conservative”.

        However, going forward, we shall all be more alert to when scientists are merely describing “projections” and not issuing warnings or predictions. Elsewhere, 3 feet of sea level rise by the end of this century is in the news. We can pick this theme up again when we discuss that particular whatever-it-is (“fantasy”?) on ClimateEtc soon, and not wait to clarify the “projection”/”prediction” after we know how accurate it has been. GCM outputs are “projections” too, are they not, unlike the daily 2-week ahead weather “predictions”.

      • Good morning (UTC) Matthew (and Javier et al.),

        My apologies for the brief hiatus at this end, but Tony in particular will no doubt be interested to learn that I spent most of yesterday over on the wrong side of the River Tamar:

        It seems we’re still stuck on Javier’s bullet #1, and there’s a lot of ground to cover! As far as I can see you still haven’t answered my “education” question above?

        https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/21/week-in-review-science-edition-109/#comment-900891

        Hence I really don’t know how to pitch this question, but here goes once again.

        What do you think the difference (if any) is between a “projection” and a “prediction”?

        Same questions for Javier et al.!

      • matthew,

        the BBC report and the quote misrepresented by Javier are five years apart.

        It’s entirely possible that Maslowski changed his mind in the meantime according to new evidence, or the journalist misunderstood him, or Maslowski was contradictory in his interview, whatever, I’ve no idea.

        What is irrefutable is that Maslowski’s quote was deliberately truncated to change it’s meaning 180 degrees. His article says the precise opposite of what Javier claims.

        Read it.

      • His article says the precise opposite of what Javier claims.

        You keep saying that and no matter how often you repeat it, it is still a lie.

        Let’s show the entire paragraph and figure with what I quoted in black:

        “An attempt to do that is presented in Figure 9, which shows a time series of monthly mean Arctic sea ice volumes from the NAME model and recent satellite estimates. According to model results, sea ice volume has changed little during the 1980s through the mid-1990s (i.e., no noteworthy trend is present during this time period), in contrast to the time period after 1995. This is qualitatively consistent with trend estimates for the ice extent [Figure 2a (Stroeve et al. 2011b)] and thickness (Figures 2b and 8) and demonstrates a strengthening of the trends in all three sea ice parameters on the basis of a statistically significant difference in linear regression slopes computed for the two time periods. The modeled evolution of Arctic sea ice volume appears to be more strongly correlated with changes in ice thickness than with ice extent as it shows a similar negative trend beginning around the mid-1990s. When considering this part of the sea ice–volume time series, one can estimate a negative trend of −1,120 km3 year−1 with a standard deviation of ± 2,353 km3 year−1 from combined model and most recent observational estimates for October–November 1996–2007. Given the estimated trend and the volume estimate for October–November of 2007 at less than 9,000 km3 (Kwok et al. 2009), one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate, it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of seasonal sea ice cover. (We do note that other published estimates also have large or indeterminate uncertainties.) At the same time, observational proxies of ice thickness (Maslanik et al. 2011) and independent model estimates (Polar Science Center 2011) of sea ice volume suggest a further decline of ice volume since 2007.

        The above overview of model predictions (i.e., produced by GCM scenario simulations) and projections (i.e., resulting from the synthesis of GCM output with observations of sea ice) of a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean and their limitations leads to an important conclusion. It suggests a great need for improved understanding and model representation of physical processes and interactions specific to polar regions that currently might not be fully accounted for or are missing in GCMs. The remaining sections of this review are primarily focused on addressing those issues.”

        The parts in black are my quotes. I did not change the evidence presented in the paper. Both figure 9 and the text give 2016 ± 3 years as the date for an Arctic ice free by both predictions and projections. I just quoted the evidence that he presents and how he defines predictions and projections. I don’t care much about his opinion.

        You are free to reach your own conclusions about the article but that doesn’t give you the right to attack me personally. Particularly considering that you are absolutely wrong on this issue. Summer sea-ice extent has not decreased in 12 years and scientists talking to the press were saying the exact opposite.

      • Javier,

        Your flux capacitor is still faulty. Please fix it!

        Your bullet #1 is dated 2007, not 2012. Please stop moving the goal posts!

      • JIm

        I see you are posting incorrect information. You obviously meant to say you were on the RIGHT side of the Tamar when coming to Devon, not the ‘wrong’ side.

        Good to see your work continuing. Have you been involved in this new mine in Cornwall for rare earths? If I had heard of it early enough I might have been interested in investing a little crowd funding money

        tonyb

      • Good Morning Tony (UTC),

        I think you’ll find that in actual fact the correct side of the River Tamar is still unsettled science? However we are both most certainly on the correct side of the River Brit!

        I speculated wildly with words on my “professional” blog about a Cornish Gigafactory not so very long ago:

        http://www.V2G.co.uk/tag/cornish-lithium/

        Wild speculation on novel mining ventures I leave to others!

      • Javier,

        Here is the NSIDC’s monthly extent for September, with the linear trend and now the NRT number for 2019:

        Getting back to Prof. Maslowski, have you seen the error of your ways yet? Whilst waiting for Godot (and Javier) let’s also take a look at your 2010 bullet point shall we?

        When I interviewed Mark Serreze in 2014 he reiterated the 2030 date, but added “most models say more like 2050”:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2014/09/mark-serreze-and-the-arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral-2/

        What’s your beef with that?

      • Jim, the same data, almost the same lay out (I gave my very best ;) starting with 1 mio km² to show the distance to “ice free” ) with one more line. The same outcome?

      • Frank,

        When does the linear and/or Loess “projection” cross the 1 mio axis?!

      • Jim, you must calculate this for yourself, I’m afraid, when you think that science works this way with linear trendextrapolation. The slope for 1979…2019 is -0.0827 Mio km²/year. But look at the nonlinear trend (thick black).

      • Frank – I fear my dry Anglo Saxon sense of humour has failed to register on your laughometer?

  20. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Wave under the surface slowly moves to the west, which will lead to a weak La Niña. This is enough to lower winter temperatures in North America.

  21. If I’m reading the Lancet report right cold weather is responsible for more than 7 times as many deaths as warm. They did not include Africa in their study however. Deaths from hot weather also increase more exponentially as the temp rises, so global warming may not affect heat related deaths as positively as the ratio would suggest.

    It’s more than reasonable to suppose that warming for the next few to several decades will be overall positive in this regard I would think.

    “Our findings show that temperature is responsible for advancing a substantial fraction of deaths, corresponding to 7·71% of mortality in the selected countries within the study period. Most of this mortality burden was caused by days colder than the optimum temperature (7·29%), compared with days warmer than the optimum temperature (0·42%).”

    • It’s virtually impossible that global warming will increase lifespans as lifespans are lower in most hot countries.

      From the paper:

      The effect of days of extreme temperature was substantially less than that attributable to milder but non-optimum weather.

      Very few people die of cold in Canada, North Dakota, or Minnesota. They experience extreme cold on a regular basis. Lifespans are lower in hot countries, so how will additional warmth reverse that? Cold deaths are highest in places that experience mild cold: Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, etc.

      Global warming will expand the number of places that experience “milder but non-optimum weather”. England.

    • “Deaths from hot weather also increase more exponentially as the temp rises.” Link, please.
      Also consider JCH’s opinion above: “Very few people die of cold in Canada, North Dakota, or Minnesota. They experience extreme cold on a regular basis.”

      • @Curious George …If you look at the study Curry links the cold attributed deaths rise linearly with colder temps for quite a while until there’s usually a steep rise at the end of the tail. The heat linked deaths graph lines are short and basically exponential from the start. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

        JCH, it does look like there’s fewer deaths in Canada and similar countries from cold, not sure there’s enough countries in the study to really make that claim. However for every country mild cold is by far the largest factor, including Brazil for instance.

        Since mild cold is by far the main factor in weather linked deaths for every country it’s nearly obvious that warming would reduce the overall number of deaths. The counterpoint to that expectation would be that comparatively steep graph line for heat linked deaths, but then again warming is higher at the poles and temperate regions and less at the tropics so the places warming up the most aren’t as subject to extreme heat to begin with.

        It would take a pretty strong negative outcome bias to presume that warming will cause more mild cold weather and therefore more deaths. To presume it’s almost certain would appear to be catatstrophism bias. It’s no surprise given the media’s thoughtless coverage of the issue but the logic is thin at best.

      • “Under RCP 8.5, exposure to wet bulb temperatures above 35 °C—the theoretical limit for human tolerance—could exceed a million person-days per year by 2080…. Some of the most affected regions, especially Northeast India and coastal West Africa, currently have scarce cooling infrastructure, relatively low adaptive capacity, and rapidly growing populations.” https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa00e

        I expect that there is a wet bulb mortality tipping point.

      • I would definitely expect an 8.5 scenario to have a tipping point, but besides my assessment of how likely it is given it’s a ‘business as usual’ worst case curve over the century I’m still not worried about the possibility.

        If temps get to 2.5 degrees I don’t doubt that geoengineering will come into play. Besides simulated volcanoes apparently something you can do is build a fleet of ships to stir up sea salt in the oceans into the atmosphere. This would create more white clouds that are more reflective of solar energy and cost a mere 10 billion a year to prevent all warming in the 21st.

        So the thing with extreme outcomes based on what ifs, is even if they happen they won’t.

        Sea salt geoengineering source is Bjorn Lomborg on Econtalk: https://www.econtalk.org/bjorn-lomborg-on-the-costs-and-benefits-of-attacking-climate-change/

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The galactic radiation reaches maximum levels in this cycle now.

  23. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A tropical storm is approaching the US east coast.

  24. Ban skepticism from classrooms!

    “Climate change: A hands-on guide for educators”

    https://ei-ie.org/en/detail/16345/climate-change-a-hands-on-guide-for-educators

    “Educators are determined to make their classrooms free of climate change denial, to provide their students with the facts so that they understand and are able to navigate a far-reaching crisis that will inevitably affect their lives. The first step in this direction was taken today, with the publication of a new Education International guide to help teachers equip themselves with the information and tools they need in the classroom and beyond. The publication offers factual information on the climate crisis and suggests possibilities of action, notably in advocacy on the international and national level. It is a practical tool that will help any educator level up their knowledge on this pressing issue and take the lead in their school and communities.”

    “Educators are determined to make their classrooms free of climate change denial…”

    This is indoctrination, not education.

    From Education International which claims to cover 32 million students.

    My project:
    https://www.gofundme.com/f/climate-change-debate-education

  25. “Emissions and total concentration of air pollutants have dropped significantly in the last 30 years and continue to decrease, even as the U.S. economy has grown and our population and energy use has increased.”

    Omission of course, of CO2.

    • In terms of air pollution I think CO2 is more accurately described as plant oxygen. Projected warming costs are different. You could metaphorically call CO2 a pollutant but it’s an awkward fit for something that has caused worldwide greening of about 20%.

      Although, as a result of shale gas US emissions of CO2 are close to coming back down to what they were 30 years ago so it’s not out of the ballpark for the quoted statement I think.

      • “Jeff, the 1C value for a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 (the canonical value for doubled CO2 based on radiative transfer equations and spectroscopic data) is derived by differentiating the Stefan -Boltzmann equation that equates flux (F) to a constant (sigma) x the fourth power of temperature. We get dF/dT = 4 sigma T^3, and by inversion, dT/dF = 1/(4sigmaT^3). Substituting 3.7 for dF and 255 K for Earth’s radiating temperature, and assuming a linear lapse rate, dT becomes almost exactly 1 deg C. In fact, however, the models almost uniformly yield a slightly different value of about 1.2 C, based on variations that occur with latitude and season.”

        Crude math and naive models? I’d accept the radiative forcing – but 255K is a random number plugged in to make the simplistic math work. And I’ll just ignore models this time. But rants about trace gases are not persuasive either.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE writes “Crude math and naive models? I’d accept the radiative forcing –”
        Why?
        Nobody has yet provided me with an answer to this rather fundamental question.
        The Stefan-Boltzmann equations and their building blocks were conceived for single atoms and molecules. They relate to energy coming into those. The factor of 4 times is a result of mathematical integration from a plane surface to a sphere. This places quite a load on the math being correct and complete, but I am not arguing about that here. Rather less was written about what happens after the entry of energy, very little about the behavior of bulk quantities. I worked with atomic spectral analysis for some years, rather less with molecular spectroscopy.
        So, we can presume for argument here that the math applies to a single molecule of CO2. However, a single molecule in the Earth’s atmosphere would have a Herculean task to raise temperatures by 1C. Two molecules would not be enough. Two hundred, two thousand, 2 million? Avogadro’s number multiplied?

        There is, logically, a lower concentration of CO2 in the air required before we can attribute such heating effects to it.

        What is that lower limit?
        How is it derived?

        Geoff S.

      • RIE, Stefan-Boltzmann equation is frequently used very incorrectly – for example applying it to a radiator which is not a black body, or applying it to a single spectral line.

      • The S-B equation I described as crude math. The ‘forcing’ is – as Fred Moolten described -based on line by line radiative transfer equations and validated via spectral sampling. Something that Geoff’s mental masturbation falls short of.

        https://www.aer.com/science-research/atmosphere/radiative-transfer/

      • Curious George: RIE, Stefan-Boltzmann equation is frequently used very incorrectly – for example applying it to a radiator which is not a black body, or applying it to a single spectral line.

      • Let me try this again.

        Curious George: RIE, Stefan-Boltzmann equation is frequently used very incorrectly – for example applying it to a radiator which is not a black body, or applying it to a single spectral line.

        According to Raymond T. Pierrehumbert in “Principles of Planetary Climate”, the S-B equation has an error of about 10% in the range of temperatures and other conditions encountered on Earth. That’s probably good enough for a first approximation in many cases, but not good enough for a precise estimate of the effect of CO2 change on climate. Because the uncertaintly is compounded with the other errors in the estimates of the many physical constants, we should be prepared to learn that even the first “significant figure” is wrong,

        My earlier comment could not be posted for some reason, and by the time I succeeded in posting it, I had dropped the second paragraph. sorry for the repetition.

      • Lowell Brown

        Robert I. Ellison | September 23, 2019 at 2:32 am
        “Jeff, the 1C value for a forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 (the canonical value for doubled CO2 based on radiative transfer equations and spectroscopic data)

        I may well be interpreting this remark incorrectly.

        I have read that “An ensemble-mean prediction of about 3^o C for a doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration”. The interesting point about this assertion is that it has not changed since 1979. How can this be? All the advances in Climate Science over the last 40 years have made no improvement to this result?

    • You wrote:
      Omission of course, of CO2.

      That is proper, CO2 promotes growth of green stuff while using water more efficiently. CO2 promotes good that is proven. CO2 is not any kind of pollutant, there is not data that supports that CO2 is a pollutant.

      Alarmist consensus and consensus model output is not data and is not proof. How do robbers work! They frighten people to hand over everything of value.

      Skeptics do not scare anyone, we say climate is working as it should, it is changing but we cannot cause the change and we cannot stop the change.

    • Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2017

      With cheap gas emissions continue to decline. How long cheap gas lasts is the question. There is an expectation that the US market with less coal, more renewables and more peaking gas.

      https://www.iea.org/gas2019/

      It is a pollutant according to your Supreme Court. And as far as greening is concerned – it is much better returned to soil and ecosystems than in the atmosphere.

      • It is a pollutant according to your Supreme Court.

        This is not the first false science that has be endorsed by high level government.

        This is likely the first scam in History that exceeded the evil caused by Lysenkoism or the DDT ban.

        The CO2 evil is preventing billions from obtaining low cost abundant energy generated by fossil fuels. This is mainly because they do not want those billions to live as well as we do, nothing to do with climate. If it was just about fossil fuel, they would promote nuclear. They do not do that because it is not really about climate.

      • Well no – it is not really stopping anyone.


        https://www.worldcoal.org/file_validate.php?file=ASEAN%27s%20energy%20equation_final_0.pdf

        Try to get your rants at least acquainted with facts.

      • I think it was a mistake by the Supreme Court, and it was controversial within the court. I know Alito really slammed it.

        There is very strong agreement that CO2 doubling should directly raise temps by 1 degree. A review of studies projecting CO2 costs done in 2010 projected warming to be overall beneficial until 2 degrees. Further to that, Nordhaus, who won the Nobel prize for climate economics, more recently working with estimates of substantially higher costs than previously projected found the best balance between costs and benefits is to aim for 3.5 degrees of warming rather than the 4 degree projection he takes as the mainstream sensitivity outcome for taking no action to limit emissions from now to 2100.

        So the point at which CO2 becomes even a metaphorical pollutant is around twice it’s direct effect, which is logarithmic. And the point at which a pure cost benefit analysis would tag it as being more costly than the counteracting benefits plus the cost of reducing emissions is 3 1/2 times the direct effect of doubling.

        I would assume the preferred political decision would be to aim for less than 3 1/2 degrees despite it being more costly overall. (1.5 degrees Nordhaus describes as impossible) And it should be a political decision, rather than a regulatory one. The science on how high (or low, or negative) the feedbacks of increased CO2 are not so certain that it merits a judicial classification as a definite pollutant that the EPA must regulate. Whether to overcompensate for the risks or to under-compensate based on a calculation that the costs of CO2 reduction are certain while the benefits are uncertain and assessments of the range of scientific opinion are political choices that shouldn’t be made by the courts or regulatory agencies.

      • I might agree I might agree if I thought that there was anyway to predict change.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23377-4

      • You wrote:
        There is very strong agreement that CO2 doubling should directly raise temps by 1 degree.

        CO2 is a trace gas. our CO2 raised the atmosphere by one molecule per ten thousand molecules.

        History and actual data shows that it will not make any difference to temperature or sea level rise if CO2 doubles or triples. Climate has robust self correcting factors that correct for any external forcing.

        The strong agreement is from those who are getting rich selling windmills and solar panels that are causing great damage to out power grid.

      • Robbie wrote:
        There is very strong agreement that CO2 doubling should directly raise temps by 1 degree.

        Where I live, there is strong agreement that the climate alarmism is a “King has no clothes on class scam”

      • Right now courts are busy declaring the glyphosate a carcinogen.

      • That I believe originated in a WHO report.

      • Gordon Robertson

        Robbie…”There is very strong agreement that CO2 doubling should directly raise temps by 1 degree”.

        They can agree all they want, the Ideal Gas Law says otherwise. In a mixed gas, Dalton’s law of partial pressures states that the total pressure of a gas is the sum of the pressures of each gas. Since temperature is directly related to pressure, then the contribution of each gas to the total gas temperature should be in line with the partial pressure.

        Pressure is also related to mass percent. The mass percent of CO2 is not much different than its concentration of 0.04%. Nitrogen/oxygen has a mass percent of nearly 99% of air. It becomes apparent that CO2 can contribute no more warming than a few hundredths of a degree C per degree C rise in temperature.

      • Gordon Robertson

        Robert…”Trends in U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2017″

        Since GHGs are 96% water vapour, how does one explain that variation in WV?

      • The IPCC say that Water Vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas and at up to 60,000ppm dwarfs that of co2 at 410ppm or so.

        How many hundred parts per million of WV does it take to equate to the warming power of one part co2.

        In other words how dominant IS WV?

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%

        from https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf

        motivated by blog post http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

        as explained here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/from-blog-to-science/

      • Greenhouse gases absorb and emit IR photons with electron orbit quantum jumps – and gain or lose kinetic energy in atmospheric collisions.

      • VTG

        Many thanks for that. I have saved it and will have a read through when i get back later this afternoon.

        tonyb

      • vtg

        just a very quick one as I need to go out, but as I was saving the links I noticed your heading.

        “water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%”

        Why is there a distinction between water valour and clouds as surely the latter is merely the former? So in effect 75% of the effect is by water vapour in one form r another?

        Presumably the remaining 5% is via methane etc which will be explained in the links

        tonyb

      • Water in cloud is the is a small proportion of water in the atmosphere, Here’s Tim Palmer introducing Tapio Schneider. Giants both.

      • Clouds are made up of liquid water droplets, not water vapour (though they do contain water vapour as well)

        Water droplets and water vapour have very different radiative properties.

      • I’m very interested in low marine stratocumulus. The eastern Pacific is a good place to look.

        Bistable cloud over a bistable ocean. Closed cells persist for longer over cooler oceans before raining out from the center to leave an open cell. A positive feedback influencing planetary energy dynamics.


        https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460

  26. There is – btw – smoke coming out of power plant stacks somewhere in that picture Geoff.


    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jgrd.50171

    Of great interest to me is the mixing of black carbon and co-emitted species. This results in black carbon lensing amplifying an already substantial warming effect by 240%.

    “In a study funded by the California Air Resources Board to compare models and observations of the aerosol absorption optical depth (AAOD) of BC over California, supposedly a region with one of the best-constrained inventories of BC emissions, the regional model underestimated the observed AAOD by a factor of 2–3.”


    https://www.pnas.org/content/113/16/4243

    The solution is optimum economic development – fueled at this time by HELE coal technology. That way they can afford the other western technologies for BC, nitrous oxides, CFC’s. land use changes, blue carbon, etc. And invest in people and technology innovation across many sectors. The light blue is US emissions.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE,
      I agree that there is smoke in the photographic topic of the chimneys at the electricity plant. There is also argon, neon, radon and other gases, but their abundance is so low that they do not and can not contribute to the appearance of the photograph in any material way. Same with smoke – I have not measured its abundance in this case, but I have seen enough photos of chimney outputs under different weather to note the absence of coal dust smoke.
      Of my various hobbies, photography at the level of international contest judge exposed me to many arguments from makers caught out cheating. Lessons were available to be learned about the extent to which people will stretch actuality to make a case in their favour. Other work and hobby experiences had already shown me over and over, the lack of value of false, selective argument driven by a cause. RIE, you wear a cause on your sleeve that you are finding hard to remove. It shows, to the detriment of your arguments, some of which are untainted and worthwhile. Geoff S.

      • Eh – it was simple tongue in cheek intro to a serious topic. One that contained an obvious reality you would have done better to have passed over in silence.

        “When coal is burned it releases a number of airborne toxins and pollutants. They include mercury, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and various other heavy metals. Health impacts can range from asthma and breathing difficulties, to brain damage, heart problems, cancer, neurological disorders, and premature death.”

        You can tell where the exhaust stacks are.

        Your ideologically hidebound antipathy is noted – yet again.

  27. Geoff Sherrington

    Re: Engineered CO2 Removal. … Humility

    Another eminently contestable paper. The author makes vague references to the high costs of Carbon Dioxide Removal CDR, asserting that the case for it is extremely compelling, excellent math and physics, etc.
    A well-constructed paper on this topic should explore as a minimum –

    1. Estimates of the full cost of CDR
    2. Estimates of the full cost of alternatives including doing nothing
    3. A benefit:cost analysis of various CDR plans
    4. Measures of uncertainty, including error estimates for all measurements and estimates on which CDR relies

    That is a minimum. Without these ‘hard’ science and economic inputs, the paper is no more than a simplistic report of other people’s slogans. It has no value in the real world. Geoff S

  28. I made a longer blogpost after reading Zhang et al (2019) , the 3rd link in Judys Post: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fkaltesonne.de%2Fdie-sonne-im-august-2019-und-ein-neu-entdecktes-negatives-feedback-unseres-klimasystems%2F ( see the second part). It’s in German but google translate does a good job.

  29. Pingback: M. Mann vastaan T. Bell | Roskasaitti

  30. Interesting to read the Mark Steyn’s account of the Tim Ball defeat of Mann in a British Columbia court. I live in BC, on the ‘wet’ coast of Canada.

    From the article:

    “Mann had sued Ball for reprising an old joke that the guy belonged in the state pen rather than Penn State”.

    I cannot think of a more despicable scientist than Michael Mann. That, of course, is my opinion. However, I have developed it gradually over the years since McIntyre and McKitrick, two fellow Canadians, destroyed his hockey stick statistical methods.

    Then there was Climategate, where Mann starred as the bad boy who developed ‘the trick’, a methodology aimed at hiding declining temperatures. Phil Jones of Had-crut boasted of using it.

    Perhaps his most gauling act, however, was insulting Judith Curry with sexist remarks simply because she question his Cause. That’s right, in the emails, Mann referred to ‘The Cause’.

    I wish I could say what I really feel about him. Although I studied electrical engineering at university I ended up in the electrical field doing industrial/commercial electronics and computer work. That meant a lot of time on construction sites and in that milieu we learn a good dealing about swearing and put downs.

  31. “The two degree delusion”
    Is it still 2C?
    All I see these days are carbon budgets for 1.5C

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/21/boondoggle/

  32. Perth is the Australian city which has warmed the most, since 1880.

    Perth has warmed by 1.65 degrees Celsius, since 1880.

    That is nearly twice the amount that Darwin has warmed, since 1880.

    In Australia, if any city had a good case for declaring a climate emergency, then surely it would have to be Perth.

    But wait. We have been talking about temperature anomalies, not real absolute temperatures.

    Are you brave enough to look at the real absolute temperatures that Perth has been enduring (timid people should not read this article – you have been warned).

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-in-australian-cities

  33. Geoff Sherrington

    SheldonWalker,

    Over the years I have been analysing the statement, often accepted as conventional wisdom in Australia, that heat waves are becoming hotter. longer and more frequent.
    Because the 6 State capital cities have long temperature records and because about 70% of Australians live in these 6 cities combined, I did the 2014 analysis reported here, using the maximum daily temperature:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/heatwaves-in-australia-not-longer-not-more-common-why-wont-bom-and-abc-say-that/

    The finding is that the wisdom is mostly wrong. As you note, Perth is an exception for which it is correct, by the analysis methods I chose to use.
    I am in the middle of updating the study to mid-2019. The deductions are much the same, even using an extended analysis.

    As a matter of interest, I looked at heat waves up to 10 days long because longer heat waves are sometimes broken up by 1 or 2 cool days in the middle, I thought that it would be interesting to look at a measure of the variability of temperatures from early times, versus recent times. There have been significant changes, like thermometers to electronic devices, housings for them, Results? The standard deviations of blocks of 10 very hot consecutive days are rather larger for the early days than for later days. One has to be cautious in saying heat waves are becoming longer, if the effect is simply one of lower noise in recent times avoiding break-up of heat waves onto smaller pieces.
    I tried to have the BOM moderate their “hotter, longer, more often” dogma, but they refused to look at the simple spread sheet data because it was not peer reviewed and published in a respected journal. I do not consider material that is no more than adding up and taking away to be adequate to write a scientific paper.

    Geoff S

    • Geoff

      I don’t need to tell you about UHI, but with a population in Perth something over 2000 in 1880 and something around 2 million today where were the original thermometers placed, where are they now and is it really possible to draw any sort of conclusion on two utterly different situations between the one in 1880 and the one now?

      tonyb

      • Geoff Sherrington

        tonyb
        I regard the official thermometry by the BOM as unreliable before the introduction of electronic sensor in the mid 1990s.
        This is not an insult to the many professional instrument readers from the early days. It is because so many changes have been made to instruments and their software philosophy that the early data sets are incompatible with the later. So far as I can tell, the BOM has been scientifically negligent is failing to collect adequate metadata and to do overlap observations, to allow continuity to be reconstructed.
        Then there is the reason for the measurements. Assistance at airports to pilots is not the same as data for climate studies.
        Yes, I have written many times about UHI. The studied lack of interest by most climate researchers could be proof that this potentially large problem is being swept under the carpet.
        Geoff S

    • Geoff Sherington…from your article…”I don’t believe that GISTEMP would deliberately adjust Perth’s temperature history to show early warming”.

      They deliberately rated 2014 as the hottest year ever based on a 38% confidence level that they were telling the truth. NOAA did the same with a 48% CL. Why would scientific institutions offer global temperature using a 38%/48% confidence level?

      Because they use climate models to synthesize temperatures. Such a method allows them to ‘adjust’ (fudge) the temperature record to show warming where none exists.

      All data comes from NOAA via GHCN. The GHCN reporting stations have been slashed 90% since 1990 and NOAA recently admitted to slashing the global surface database from 6000 reporting stations to less that 1500. They replace the slashed stations with synthesized data garnered from real surface stations through interpolation and homogenization in a climate model.

      Furthermore, the oceans are barely covered at all. The gridded cells used are mostly synthesized temps.

      You can bet that Perth is represented by synthesized/fudged data. The BOM also use NOAA’s GHCN data and they preach NOAA’s line.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        GR,
        “Geoff Sherington…from your article…”I don’t believe that GISTEMP would deliberately adjust Perth’s temperature history to show early warming”.

        I did not write that.

        Geoff S

  34. It’s so funny that we are still debating nuclear.
    Five decades of activist-driven mind-rot have killed nuclear in the west.
    Even Melisandre chanting Valyrian prayers over it won’t bring it back from the dead.

  35. Let me help out here, I’d suggest using the WMO extremes list and the carefully selected Australian Climate Observations Reference Network. Even so I expect there is large internal variability in there somewhere.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/about/extremes.shtml

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

    In the interest of bringing Judith’s cheer squad into the 21st century. It must be so embarrassing.

    • The ad hominem abuse that often decorate your posts reassure us that there’s an actual human being in there (hi!) communicating. The rest of “Robert Ellison” is copy-pastes by a netbot.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      RIE,
      Those who rely on ACORN-SAT are not hard scientists.
      It will do more harm than good to science. Geoff S.

      • Geoff’s entire oeuvre is generic critiques of methodology and errors. As far as I can determine – as an Australian hydrologist of long standing – the climate reference network was diligently and professionally designed.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        How clever of you!
        Others worked that out a decade ago and started acting for improvement.
        Now, are you going to adopt the improvements to which I point?
        Geoff S

      • So there are the WMO definitions of extremes. Some of these are bound to happen. And 112 diligently and professionally selected weather stations?

        “ACORN-SAT, the Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature data set, is a homogenized daily maximum and minimum temperature data set containing data from 112 locations.”
        https://data.gov.au/dataset/ds-dga-900143f6-6582-49c5-bfd4-0838901d99c8/details

        If you see an improvement suggested by Geoff – let the WMO know that he disagrees with their definitions of heat and rainfall extremes. Alternatively – if you don’t give a rat’s arse what Geoff thinks you have company.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        I can show you the lack of increase of extremes in the temperature history of Australia’s 6 State capitals over a century or more. My original work.
        Can you show me something better than that, apart from curt and paste?
        This matter of an increase of extreme weather is not really supported by observations. Don’t care if WMO made them, if they are wrong, they are wrong.

      • I am about as interested as the BOM were. You have your own definition of extreme. I would first have to agree with that narrow definition to think that it was worth replicating.

        It may be a little warmer and rainfall more intense at times – in the instrumental record. Warmth and rainfall has links to the state of the Pacific.



        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

        The thing about cutting and pasting science is that it first must be read. Science is done on the shoulders of giants and not in a self dug hole. .

      • Geoff

        My understanding is that BOM has eliminated temperatures pre 1910 due to concerns about reliability of instruments. While I agree with the intent, how much error can there be in temperature readings such as those included in the article below about the heat wave of 1896. More broadly, how much is also being lost in the 19th Century record?

        If a 120 degree day was actually 118, excluding those numbers misrepresents reality as well. I feel like an entire century is being lost to history for the sake of achieving a precision, which in the big picture, loses more than is gained in our knowledge about climate history.

      • Ceresco kid

        I had a relative who volunteered to help BOM look at their older records. There were plenty of references to very hot weather, but anything prior to 1900-with few exceptions-were generally discarded. The reason being that they were not like for like with modern readings taken inside a Stevenson screen. These were first installed in Adelaide in 1884, but it was really the beginning of the next century before they were generally in common use.

        Undoubtedly pre 1900 there were some random readings, but many were carried out by experienced people who often wrote that the thermometers were placed in ‘proper shade.’

        As we know, not all Stevenson screen readings in modern times should be taken too literally as they can be compromised by siting, amongst other factors.

        it is interesting how the past is brushed out of the climate story or decried as merely anecdotes. There are some events however that tie in closely with modern observations in the last five years, for example parrots falling out of the sky due to the heat in Australia. These were also recorded however by Watkins Tench in 1788 during the voyage that established the first settlement in Australia.

        I wonder how many ‘anecdotes’ are needed in order to be thought to be equivalent to one computer model run using interpolated data and lots of suppositions? 50? 100? Anecdotes can never be as good as models so should never be considered?

        tonyb.

      • Tony

        I have read many pre 1900 notations about temperatures being taken in the shade. Even though those responsible for taking readings lived in the 1700s and 1800s, they weren’t dummies. They knew what could alter a valid temperature.

        So, thermometers that don’t measure up to today’s standards are scrapped, leaving no record, but paleo reconstruction, which should have massive error bars, are the holy grail. Go figure.

        Slightly different issue. I just finished reading another paper on the Thwaites Glacier. What struck me, as what strikes me about a lot of papers, is how freely the authors admit how much they don’t know about all the processes and dynamics involved with the inherent instability of the glacier and West Antarctica Ice Sheet. The unknowns and uncertainties took pages to innumerate.

        In spite of a very forthcoming listing of the difficulties in forecasting the glacier’s future, that never seems to be in media coverage. That it might not occur for a millennium is also left out.

  36. Breaking News

    Australia had heat waves pre 1900

  37. Even more astounding Australia had hot days even earlier.

    Let’s check with AOC to see if that’s ok to say

    • Going way way back to 1846 the old hands noticed climate change. But more importantly did they note a climate emergency or crisis? No? Clearly they didn’t have public relations consultants then.

  38. Australia was also familiar with drought. Even in 1790. Well before Australian Rules Football

    • Ceresco kid

      you know as well as I do that these are merely anecdotal reports, probably made up by monks.

      For very complex and highly technical reasons far too computer centric for you to understand, such anecdotal reports are in-admissable as climate data.

      Any further attempts to point to history instead of accepting complete reliance on sophisticated climate models operating at a technical level far above your understanding, will result in severe remedial corrective action.

      Please leave your contact details with your nearest IPCC approved office and wait for our friendly investigators to arrive and talk you through your errors.

      Alternatively Mosh will be along to put you right.

      tonyb

      • This has already been addressed, if you use the proper statistical models and adjust for station location the record clearly shows it flooded those years.

      • Hi Tony b

        Always tongue in cheek, or whatever you call teasing across the pond.

        Scott

      • Enough anecdotes to know what we want to know, but not enough to know the SST’s. Odd.

      • Gordon Robertson

        tonyb…”you know as well as I do that these are merely anecdotal reports, probably made up by monks”.

        You are referring to the IPCC, are you?

      • SST’s? Yes, we know what they broadly are from the 1960’s or so, but prior to that?

        Apart From Challenger measuring a tiny fraction of them over a very limited time we have no scientifically valid idea.(please don’t mention canvas buckets or trailing thermometers at vastly different depths)

        However, anecdotally, surely the LIA-the coldest period in the Holocene- would cool down SST’s rather than warm them up and as we all know it takes a long time for the entire ocean volume to respond and return to temperature equilibrium-if there is such a thing.

        tonyb

      • Well, Tony, history’s anecdotes,
        sailors’ log-books, farmers’ almanacs,
        count for nought compared to those trailing
        canvas buckets measuring ocean temps
        at ad-hoc depths … or compared to
        Stevenson Screens (or perhaps not)
        recording temps where the environment
        has changed, is now an air-port tarmac
        or has suffered one of the thousand
        natural shocks a city’s heir to, yikes, …
        while cli-sci modelling of nature’s complex
        inter-active systems of ocean and
        atmosphere is likely worse,
        let us not go there -so many flaws,
        alas!

      • To fight a war, the Navy has to know the SST. So now the smearing of drunk sailors will come out.

      • At what point does common sense trump wonky statistical analytics?

        This graph from NASA shows the % of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station. In the Southern Hemisphere around 1890 it is ~12%. And we are to believe any statements about temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere have any validity? Oh please.

        Why can’t climate science just admit there are massive knowledge gaps, especially over 100 years ago and even more about half the globe. But go ahead play the self delusion game and believe you know what can’t possibly be known.

        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v3/

        The study above in the first link provided by Judith says the tropical Indian Ocean warming closely tracks the global mean surface temperature since the 1880s. And exactly how sophisticated or reliable were those methods and temperature readings in those decades? And yet the so called science that relies more on wishful thinking than rigorous scientific methodology is supposed to be far superior to anecdotal evidence.

        Give me a break.

      • smearing of drunk sailors…..is that related to being plastered?

    • Huh?

      what of it? of course since history is long you find it riddled with exceptional events. so what? In a warming world REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE, you will find more exceptional events. more floods, more droughts, more heat waves.. The distribution shifts.

      well duh.

      PSST dont get your science from the newspaper and dont believe everything you read.

      Of course folks will come along and reject thermometers that measured SST, while they rely on tall tales told by monks. watch

      • “…you will find more exceptional events. more floods, more droughts, more heat waves.. The distribution shifts.”

        Which are then no longer exceptional. Things change. It’s like we moved to desert. We adapt or flail away. It’s a fight against change. How do we do that or do we even do that? Children become adults. It happens.

      • No, they will remain exceptional, and headlines will be crammed full of them, which will persuade a vast majority to vote against your foolishness.

      • Thank you JCH. I guess to vote for the GND. The fact that the distribution shifts, resets normal. The glaciers melted that were on parts of North Dakota. We got past that. Then we said, growing wheat is now normal. We didn’t want to develop some kind of glacier based recreation. We have to let the past go rather than looking backwards. We have to accept the now distribution and go from this place. The new normal. Okay, you won, this is the new normal. Then we have to accept it or chase the past with trillions of dollars. See Germany. Which of course only spent billions. But the past cost trillions.

      • good grief Mosh you are slowing up. Where have you been?

        Many exceptional events have been lost to history or may not have been observed in the first place as no one was around to witness them. That is why I like to concentrate on the very rich records available in Britain, with many more that hopefully will be unearthed.as time goes on.

        Having said that, fairly catastrophic events in the modern era will be likely worse than extremely catastrophic events of the past, as there are more people, infrastructure and assets to be affected.

        It is entirely sensible to make better provision in the future than we felt necessary in the relatively benign age we have both been living through. I have never argued otherwise

        tonyb

      • Steve Mosher: In a warming world REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE, you will find more exceptional events. more floods, more droughts, more heat waves.

        So far it has been hard to show that much of anything has changed concurrently with the ca 1.25K increase in global mean temp over the past 125 or so years; indeed, only rainfall and net primary productivity of natural and managed trees, shrubs, grasslands and food crops.

      • Mosh: That the distribution simply shifts is pure and unwarranted speculation. Given the complexity of the climate system the distribution for any sort of extreme event — globally, regionally or locally — can change in myriad different ways, given any specific pattern of warming, which are also unlimited. Hence your simple slogan is hopelessly false. You should stop asserting it as a known fact.

      • what of it? of course since history is long you find it riddled with exceptional events. so what? In a warming world REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE, you will find more exceptional events. more floods, more droughts, more heat waves.. The distribution shifts.

        I’m sorry Steve, but that doesn’t follow at all. Why should it? Granted a warming world ought to be overall warmer but WHY should their be more floods and droughts? Or even heat waves? I guess it ought to make heat waves a bit hotter…but why should there be more of them?

        We have had about a century of warming, and according to the IPCC AR5, there is low to medium confidence that there is an increase in droughts or floods…maybe there is, but if there is it’s not distinct enough to be certain.

        I’ve seen global precipitation graphs – there is no trend there. The IPCC say there is evidence suggesting rain events have become heavier, but they don’t actually show the data to substantiate that claim (that I could find).

        Storms and storminess has decreased – at least according to the ACE – though I realise it is not considered a great way to measure storminess or change storm behaviour.

        I get that we might expect climate patterns to change, but just because the world has warmed I do not see that that automatically translates to greater extremes.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Hi Steven
        More heat waves?
        I just dropped a reference showing there were not more heat waves in most Australian capital cities.
        You have to explain somewhat major exceptions, like these, to your assumptions. Hint: Heat waves are often a consequence of weather events far distant from the recording station. There is only so much that can be derived from observations at a fixed site. These derivations do not lend themselves to generalisations that become slogans of faith.
        Geoff S

      • SM might have a point. However, when I read “The Rhine was dried up” in the morning, I smell victory.

      • Ceresco Kid

        Mosh seems to fail to understand the depth of previous observed (rather than modelled) climate and weather references. Bearing in mind how many remain, how many must have been lost over time or, with a much smaller population, were never recorded in the first place?.

        His contempt for Monks is as a result of a lack of comprehension of the feudal system. The Church and the Crown-often in conflict with each other- basically owned much of the land. The monks and their tenants had to pay tithes based on outputs (meticulously recorded or you were ‘cheating God” ) and needed crops to sustain their often substantial monastic communities.

        A a result of their scholarship and the amounts of time available, they kept detailed records of the weather and the crops they grew and how they were affected by the climates they experienced. Scholars such as Titow were instrumental in finding these ancient ‘manorial’ records and translating them.

        The Met office have some in their archives in Norman French and Latin which I helped to get translated. . Other records also exist. They can not be dismissed.

        The first known declaration of a climate emergency? How about this one
        declared during the reign of Charles 2nd in 1661.

        https://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol11/pp362-363#h3-0005

        “The Fast to be observed in Westminster. 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.”

        This followed a series of very warm winters and very hot summers which ended abruptly in the 1690’s with bitter cold, chronicled by the diarist Samuel Pepys.

        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.

        Samuel Pepys 21st jan 1661
        It is strange what weather we have had all this winter; no cold at all; but the ways are dusty, and the flyes fly up and down, and the rose-bushes are full of leaves, such a time of the year as was never known in this world before here.”

        Searing heat, extreme cold, catastrophic storms and drought, dwarfed todays weather in severity and frequency. Modern temperatures remain below the 400 year long Medieval Warm Period which ended in famine as the climate cooled in the 14th century, illustrated by our local Torre Abbey where roofed over cloisters and bricked up windows in the 1370’s were a response to the windier, colder and wetter climate that brought severe famine.

        Mosh might like to disregard history and prefer computers to observations but he can’t ignore everything.

        tonyb

        .

      • The king commanded a fast to combat warming. The Church said not to eat meat on Fridays.

        The current would-be kings are commanding us to not eat meat to atone for our climate sins. What’s old is new again.

        All praise Gaia.

      • bigter guy

        we are also back to the practice of medieval indulgences when people could pay for past and future sins.

        In this day and age indulgences are known as ‘carbon offsetting’ normally by planting a sapling somewhere. Curious times

        tonyb

      • And a child shall lead them.

        Greta!!!

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A tropical storm has stopped over Puerto Rico, threatening to cause serious floods on this island.

  40. “Many now see science as a sea of social opinion, the tides of which are often governed by political and ideological forces. And as science becomes not a reflection of the world but a reflection of social process, attention is removed from the ‘world as it is’ and centers instead on representations of the world.”

    https://quillette.com/2019/09/23/postmodernisms-dead-end/

    This is my view of the how the world should be. I need to fight the Koch Brothers because I am woke. And I think we see this on display. When my allies overstep, they are still on my team. And I pick our shared visions of what the world ought to be over what it is. We cannot agree on the science. But we can agree on what ought to be. I will go to my grave thinking capitalism is wrong. No amount of evidence witll convince me otherwise.

  41. And I did say that grizzled old men bullying a teen girl was an appalling idea.

  42. It seems that Resplandy et al. has been retracted, thanks to analysis by Nic Lewis reported on Climate Etc. (e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/23/resplandy-et-al-part-4-further-developments/)

    Retraction reported here: https://retractionwatch.com/2019/09/25/nature-paper-on-ocean-warming-retracted/

  43. Pingback: Resplandy et al. Part 5: Final outcome | Climate Etc.

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Hurricane Lorenzo moves towards the Caribbean at a speed of 24 km / h.

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In the period of low solar activity, the winter pattern of jetstream over North America remains the same.

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Tomorrow the solar wind will violently hit the Earth magnetosphere. There will be a strong push of the jetstream in the north.
    https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/3-day-forecast

  47. Something like this is global. There should be multiple operating prototypes within a couple of years.

  48. Pingback: Resplandy et al. Section five: Ultimate consequence – Daily News

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Hurricane Lorenzo moves west along the parallel 15.

  50. Has anyone seen that Canada has deleted 100 years of temperature measured from 1850-1950. See environment Canada’s Climate data .ca

    • Brian…”See environment Canada’s Climate data .ca”

      Brian…could you be more specific? All I have found based on your hints is:

      https://climatedata.ca/

      If they are indeed cutting back on data I’d like to take it up with the Prime Minister’s office. Won’t do any good since they are cheerleaders for climate alarm but at least the complaint would be on record.

    • ps. Brian… I did read that the models used have data from 1950 – 2000 something, but nothing about real data being cut back. I have read that alarmists like to avoid pre-1950 data because the 1930s and 40s had some seriously hot years in the Northern Hemisphere and record heat waves.

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski

    HURRICANE CATEGORY 4 LORENZO
    LORENZO’S CURRENT STATS
    Last Updated 9/27/2019, 10:00:00 AM GMT+2
    Status
    Hurricane Category 4
    Position
    18.358° N, -42.019° W
    Winds
    232 km/h
    Gusts
    268 km/h
    Movement
    NNW 26 km/h
    Pressure
    939.00 mbar

  52. Pingback: Curry-sikermä | Roskasaitti

  53. Probing the sources of uncertainty in transient warming on different time scales

    More rain means dryer soil – who’d ‘av thunk it?

    Astonishing creativity is being shown in making sure that every conceivable consequence of mild tiny-fraction-of-natural-variation warming is harmful in every conceivable way.

    Sorry scrub that, not harmful, catastrophic.

    Sorry scrub that, not catastrophic, an imminent extinction event.

    This lunatic circus is beyond funny already.

  54. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A snowstorm develops in Montana.

  55. Is climate alarmism tearing itself apart? (My latest article)

    https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/28/is-climate-alarmism-tearing-itself-apart

    Of course the answer is yes. Unlike most I love what Greta Thunberg is doing, namely driving the powerful moderate alarmists crazy.

    As for being abused, she is now a world famous celebrity and a very successful politician. Like most successful politicians she has deep pocket backers and good speech writers. I would love to be similarly abused.

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski

    “The snow that began to ramp up in the higher elevations of the Northwest on Saturday morning will only worsen and spread to lower elevations into Saturday night,” AccuWeather Meteorologist Renee Duff said.

  57. News of the weird:
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/07/16/bill-gates-patents-a-device-aimed-at-halting-hurricanes/
    A couple of people we know show up. Trump had an idea too. He should put some of these in Eastern ENSO region.

    • ragnaar…from your link…”Five patent applications for technology that aims to control the weather bear the signature of a man who knows how to think big: Microsoft founder Bill Gates”.

      I don’t consider the following off-topic because it parallels the behavior of alarmist scientist re global warming/climate change. That is, they have formed a consensus as to the cause of global warming/climate change and they are intolerant to opposing views.

      We need to set the record straight about Bill Gates. He was in the right place at the right time. He is no genius and this hurricane stopping nonsense is evidence of that.

      Gates has a couple of major factors fall in his lap when he and his friend started Microsoft. For one, IBM had developed the PC and needed software. Microsoft was contracted by IBM to convert CP/M to work on the IBM hardware. They converted CP/M and called it MSDOS.

      Digital Research, who owned CP/M could have had the contract had they not been so bone-headed in their negotiations with IBM.

      Gates made it by default, using someone else’s software and due to the fact the owner of the software goofed up the negotiations with IBM.

      More recently, Gates has been pushing toxic antivirals to stem HIV/AIDS in Africa. The form of AIDS prevalent in Africa is wasting syndrome, known for a long time in the pre-AIDS era as Slim’s Disease. The cause is well known: malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections.

      If wasting syndrome is accompanied by a positive HIV test it is called AIDS and blamed on sexual transmission of a virus. Same with tuberculosis and the other 30 or so opportunistic infections called AIDS. TB is known to be caused by a bacteria and if not accompanied by a positive HIV test it is treated as TB, a bacterial infection.

      Rather than feeding Africans, giving them clean water to drink, and stemming parasitic infections, Gates is offering Africans antivirals so toxic the manufacturers admit they cause AIDS-like symptoms (IRS).

      The scientist who discovered HIV, Luc Montagnier, is now claiming that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system. He claims AIDS is oxidative stress and should be treated by stopping high risk behavior and using antioxidants. The anti-viral manufacturers have offered a disclaimer that their antivirals will NOT cure HIV.

      Seems to me Gates is way off base when it comes to understanding science that does not involve using someone else’s software.

      Seems to me further that climate science is not the only science in which a faulty paradigm is operating.

  58. Spot the logical problems with this sentence:

    Desertification has been described as “the greatest environmental challenge of our time” and climate change is making it worse.

    1. Desertification if real would be a part of climate. And also part of climate change. A process cannot cause itself.

    2. The term climate change is meaningless and tautological.
    Climate is a chaotic process, a dissipative open heat engine and it is impossible for it not to be continually changing, on fractal spatiotemporal scales. So “climate change” is an empty tautology and is the same as saying “I don’t know what I am talking about”.

    3. CO2 global greening is causing deserts to transition to grassland, and grassland to forest. There is no logical problem with this mis-statement, however, It is what psycologists call a “risk statement”. The more common term for such a statement is a “lie”.

  59. Theoretical Models Advance Knowledge of Ocean Circulation
    Not always.

    Half a century opceanographers said that the AMOC is driven by downwelling and deep water formation centered on the Norwegian sea.
    Then computer modellers declared that this was wrong, that the main downwelling was actually in the Sea of Labrador.

    But recently they went to sea and did some more field work and found that the oceanographers had been right – it really is the Norwegian Sea where the most important downwelling happens.

  60. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Sudden warming of the stratosphere over the southern polar circle reaches the upper troposphere.

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Hi Jim, remember that there is a minimum of solar activity and maximum galactic radiation.

  62. New sunspot(s) (active region S6264) are emerging at ~10° south. Here the latest HMI magnetogram:

    What is the significance of this little sunspot? Sunspot activity has been very low in the last few months and this new sunspot belongs to the old cycle/butterfly (24) and prolongs the minimum. The old cycle is still much more active than the new cycle. It is very unlikely that the minimum will happen this year.

    • New UAH Global Temperature is at new high too.
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2019-0-61-deg-c/
      “This makes September, 2019 the warmest September in the 41 year satellite record.”

      So what. The arrow of time means there will be a infinity of new ‘record highs/lows”. Wake me up if the jelly fish eat all the algae.

      • Error propagation is likely ergodic than diverging extremes. And the space/time continuum explodes the arrow of time. But then nobody tells the algae nothing.

      • Gordon Robertson

        jack smith…”New UAH Global Temperature is at new high too.”

        I posted a query a while back on Roy Spencer’s blog which is related to UAH activity. The satellite data used by UAH comes from NOAA and NOAA has been fudging the surface record and manipulating confidence levels to make years like 2014 ‘appear’ to be the hottest year ever.

        I wondered if NOAA could possibly be fiddling with the sat data before handing it over to UAH. The original AMSU telemetry came from a NOAA scientist and it would seem possible to run the data produced through an algorithm to change the values before handing the data over to UAH.

        If that was done through malice it would be scientific misconduct. However, NOAA has managed to manipulate the historical record, confidence levels, SST levels, and the GHCN record and I am sure they are capable of changing the sat data while justifying it.

        That suggestion may seem cynical and smack of a conspiracy theory, but after investigating the activity of NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut for some time, I no longer trust them.

        RSS time series used to parallel UAH time series fairly closely but since RSS started cozying up to NOAA, their data suddenly shows more warming.

      • Gordon,
        I am unimpressed by instrument records. If something we humans are doing is affecting the biosphere like algae blooms, ocean dead zones or pandemic diseases then we should worry about that, not record temperatures, precipitation or any extreme weather events. Humans have introduced tens of thousands of novel chemicals and molecules into the environment and that worries me.

    • Indeed. A few month ago I read some claims that the SC24 was over in April 2019 or so. The author refered to smoothed SSN of SILSO. I tried to educate him, without success. Perhaps he is aware of the recent development and makes a comment.

  63. Above is the long question about where this was linked: The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
    Article in Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · May 2012
    DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105345
    Wieslaw Maslowski
    From the above I pulled figure 9:

    https://wordpress.com/post/chaosaccounting.wordpress.com/931

    It’s small because I don’t know. 2013 is about right. I don’t know why figure 9 is there or what it means? On the subject of cherry picks, it’s there. 1996 fits the bill.

    The pause is there. I saw it years ago. It’s subjective. Pause has no final meaning. We might ask the question like a 100 climate scientists asked when the GMST paused as opposed to those who said there was no GMST pause. What’s going on?

    These people have been at least silent when their work is not reported correctly. And when someone raises the question, the fault is not with the climate scientists. It’s with the ones raising the question. Climate scientists should be adults and take responsibilities. And not argue when they’re wrong. But like our politics…

    • On the subject of cherry picks, it’s there. 1996 fits the bill.

      Exactly. It is OK to get alarmed when Arctic sea-ice increases its rate of decrease and then it is all talk about tipping points, spirals of death, and albedo feedback, but when Arctic sea-ice reduces its rate of decrease to zero any comment is responded with personal attacks.

      NSIDC has released its preliminary data for September Arctic sea-ice extent. It is 4.32 million km2, slightly above 2007 extent of 4.27 million km2. Twelve years without decrease.

      The difference between a linear and a polynomial adjustment highlights a multidecadal oscillation within a declining trend that has long been recognized in the scientific literature, among others by our host Judith Curry.

      If correct, this oscillation when projected indicates that the Arctic melting pause could well last for another decade. Maslowski, Zwally, Serreze, and Wadham are going to look even sillier. So much for alarmist projections. We can shut down the alarm.

  64. Javier, try to avoid the usage of a polymonial fit for making predictions! If you do this with the data points to 2012 you get a very different “future”. It’s the same pitfall that made the user in this time to victims. A binomial fit says nothing about the time out of the domain. It can’t highlight something in the future or in the past. Extrapolate it and you’ll see.

    • And, it would no nothing at all to shut down the alarm. Zippo.

    • It is not a curve adjustment that has to be extrapolated, but the oscillation that affects melting rates. I have quoted frequently the scientists that by taking natural oscillations into account were capable of predicting the Arctic conditions shift that took place in 2007:

      “Given the last cold period observed in the Arctic at the end of the 1960s, our results suggest that the Arctic ice pack is now at the periodical apogee of the low-frequency variability. This could explain the strong negative trend in ice extent during the last decades as a possible superposition of natural low frequency variability and greenhouse gas induced warming of the last decades. However, a similar shrinkage of ice cover was observed in the 1920s–1930s, during the previous warm phase of the LFO, when any anthropogenic influence is believed to have still been negligible. We suppose therefore that during decades to come, as the negative phase of the thermohaline circulation evolves, the retreat of ice cover may change to an expansion.”

      This was published in 2006, a year before the pause in Arctic melt was inaugurated.
      Divine, D.V. and Dick, C., 2006. Historical variability of sea ice edge position in the Nordic Seas. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 111(C1).

      It must have taken courage to go so against the consensus. The pause that I am accused of cherry picking has been recognized by John Fyfe and Ed Hawkins among others:


      Now they only have to extend it all the way to the end of that graph.

      • Of course there is much internal variability involved when it comes to the arctic sea ice. The main conclusion is without a doubt: it’s shrinking as one would await it when looking at the arcitc amplification of any warming. IMO the IV is mostly pronounced in the melting saison. This figure says it al:
        https://i.imgur.com/ZlI1EFU.jpg .
        There is no need for a binomial fit of the september extent.
        Ed Hawkins made the comparison with a “bouncing ball”, this is good on target I think. When considering the IV, the trend extrapolations of some “specialists” after 2012 were more or less a house of cards. One should take care to avoid those mistakes when looking at the “stall” of the summer extent. In the end I would like to say: NO FIT!

      • The polynomial fit is a tool with its uses. It is a better fit than the linear trend that warmists like to use so much, highlighting the periods of IV multidecadal oscillation.

        Climate alarmism is based on ignoring internal variability and solar indirect effects. In essence they behave as millennials: they pick a trend and turn it into a social fashion.

      • Time will tell.
        This movie from RCS is interesting about the September Arctic ice extent minimum:

      • Gordon Robertson

        frank…”Of course there is much internal variability involved when it comes to the arctic sea ice. The main conclusion is without a doubt: it’s shrinking ….”

        It does not matter that ice extent is lower during a brief window of the Arctic summer, the focus should be on the fact that the ice will rebound each winter due to little or no solar energy. There is nothing global warming can do about that.

        By January in the Arctic winter there is an average of 10 feet of ice covering most of the Arctic Ocean. That ice moves around of course, due to the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift, plus winds, and there could be 10 feet on the Canadian north shore and none on the Siberian coast. However, most of the AO will be covered to that thickness of ice.

        We need to stop talking about inanities like a temporary low in summer ice extent. It has no bearing on anything important, other than to climate alarmist propaganda.

      • nobodysknowledge

        Thank you for the referenc to an interesting paper, Javier

  65. I wanted to expand my FB circle to a younger demographic – and I have gotten dozens of friend requests just in the past 2 days. Young men and women. Pictures of mothers and children. I have 72 friends suddenly. I laughed out loud at Nazgii. She works at Mommy’s Little Princess, was educated at Enba demonstration primary school in Lae, PNG , and has 3,482 friends. So what do I know. That I have 43 notifications not responded to.

  66. An Allan Savory catastrophe flick from 2014, Just came to my attention.

  67. Had one of those discussions with my niece and her husband where there were 3 distinct and even improbable recollections. And this happens more commonly than generally appreciated.

    Quantum duality of waves in space and time. With a complex math apparently cranking out probabilities of a location of the energy particle in space and at a time. But when photons strike mass it gains energy – kinetic or quantum internal – or is reflected. All the other probabilities a decoherent poof of many worlds? Or just a math glitch?

    Opt for the latter and keep the former in mind. Maybe not infinite upon infinite worlds? Maybe trillions even of string dimensions bubble and froth? You could explain it as vagaries of the human mind. Or that we actually slide into subtly different dimensions randomly. It would explain a lot.

    • Gordon Robertson

      robert…”…when photons strike mass it gains energy….”

      Not according to the theories I have studied. A photon is a theoretical particalization of electromagnetic energy. In mass, the EM is converted to heat (kinetic energy) by electrons in the atoms making up the mass, provided it is absorbed.

      That’s what the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is about, a relationship between the heat in a body and the EM intensity when some of that heat is converted by electrons to EM radiation.

      It’s not possible for EM to gain energy after it strikes a mass simply because the EM no longer exists if it is absorbed. It is converted to heat.

      “Quantum duality of waves in space and time”.

      After Schrodinger put forth his masterpiece on quantum theory, Bohr went a bit crazy and started making uncorroborated claims about quantum duality. Schrodinger’s equations are based on the hypothetical electron orbiting a nucleus, therefore, to me, quantum theory should be about real phenomena and not the pseudo-science begun by Bohr et al, where real particles can be in two places at the same time.

      Quantum theory is about electrons and locating them using probability. The rest is about the vagaries of the human mind you mentioned. That includes conclusions reached via general relativity that time can dilate and space-time can curve.

      Time is an invention of the human mind and it is defined based on the second, which is 1/86,400ths (24 hours x 3600 seconds/hour)of the period of one Earth rotation. In other words, time is defined as a constant therefore it cannot dilate. If it changes, the rotational period of the Earth must change.

      Space, itself, is also a definition as related to space-time. We defined the Cartesian coordinate system and or polar coordinate system on which space is based. Therefore, space-time is a 4-dimensional imaginary entity.

      The scary part for me is that some scientists who fail to understand what time is, are now teaching students that gravity is not a force but a space-time anomaly.

      • Quote: “Time is an invention of the human mind and it is defined based on the second, which is 1/86,400ths (24 hours x 3600 seconds/hour)of the period of one Earth rotation. In other words, time is defined as a constant therefore it cannot dilate. If it changes, the rotational period of the Earth must change.” No.
        The rotational period is constantly changing. A major influence is the increase or decrease of polar ice, changing the moment of Inertia along the earth’s rotational axis (the ballerina spin). Ie it is not a good measure of time. Present changes in LOD (length of day) are attributed to many things, yet small. There is evidence that the changes in the holocene max were much larger, necessitating megalithic calendar changes (at precise equinox time, sunrise occurs at a different place on longitude). But this is not yet corroborated from independent evidence. So doubt remains.

      • Plank’s little constant relates quantum energy and wave frequency. The original quantum orbital leap. The story goes that he thought his quantum leap a fix to a math glitch but it fitted data. Quantum mechanics soon conquered the world with stunning experimental validation. Spooky atoms? Not a problem.

        We are all time travelers in Einstein’s relative inertial frames. We know this because the speed of light is constant for inertial frames. The speed of light for a frame moving away from a light source or toward one – is the same speed of light. Something has to bend and it is space and time according to the math.

        But there are no two ways about it. Photon energy changes properties of mass it strikes or is reflected. What worries me is these slips though ever weirder contemporaneous dimensions – as I call them.

      • Gordon Robertson

        melita…”The rotational period is constantly changing”.

        yes…but not nearly enough to change the value of the second significantly. Unless you are dealing with serious precision you would not notice the difference in length of the second with a normal clock or watch due to variability in the Earth rotational period.

        In GRT, Einstein claimed time can change as a mass approaches the speed of light. He also claimed the length of physical objects can change.

        I think that is all nonsense. There is a famous relativity thought experiment called the Twin Paradox. One of a pair of twins leaves the Earth in a space craft and travels at the speed of light. When he returns some years later he finds his twin has aged.

        The part of the mind dealing with illusion, that creates the internal illusion of time, such as past and future, can accept this nonsense but the least amount of awareness explodes the theory. The human body does no age based on time, it ages due to biological changes in human cells. There is nothing physical (real) in travelling at the speed of light that would cause a human body to age faster or slower.

        I am convinced that a proper analysis of any theory related to time dilation could be answered better by studying changes in the forces and masses involved.

        This discussion is likely off topic but I think it demonstrates how illusions in the human mind can create and sustain theories like anthropogenic warming/climate change.

      • G R I did say the change is small – presently-. Yet it may not have been that small a few millennia ago. Enough to be very noticeable in one earth orbit.

        Then again, our basic concept of space and time is false. That is evident when one has to explain ‘infinity’ (in science; out of any religious context). Einstein’s is one hypothesis. I’ve grown old and still have no answer. However the convictions I had are gone. Only proof counts.

    • Gordon Robertson

      robert…”Plank’s little constant relates quantum energy and wave frequency. The original quantum orbital leap. The story goes that he thought his quantum leap a fix to a math glitch but it fitted data. Quantum mechanics soon conquered the world with stunning experimental validation. Spooky atoms? Not a problem”.

      Not quite so complex, Robert, although those who dabble in the unproved mysteries of quantum theory tend to think so. I am not pointing a finger your way, I enjoy discussing such matters but I remain skeptical about certain claims made about quantum physics.

      The relationship you describe, E = hf, is not quantum energy, In fact, there is no such thing, IMHO. The quantum reference is to the manner in which electron energy changes in quantum steps as it absorbs the E, which is electromagnetic energy.

      Planck faced a conundrum with the EM spectrum. It was known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. If you look at E = hf, it suggests energy must increase without bounds as EM frequency increases. Beyond, UV, E should increase toward infinity.

      Planck needed a means of figuring out why it does not in reality. The EM spectrum looks more like a Bell curve, with the visible portion at the peak of the curve. He reasoned eventually that the ‘probability’ of finding more powerful frequencies of EM diminished as frequency increased. Therefore he built an exponential function into his equation that caused the EM spectrum curve to drop off as frequency increased.

      He admitted that he had fudged the math to make his equation and he fretted over the possibility that it would fit reality. Turns out it did. Claes Johnson, a mathematician, has worked out a parallel solution by treating EM frequencies as tiny oscillators and he has done it using Newtonian physics.

      With regard to the spooky atoms, unfortunately, as admitted by Planck, he was not aware of the development of electron theory till too late. He claimed knowledge of the electron and its quantum orbital relationship, as discovered by Bohr, would have made his life much simpler.

      The relationship between absorbed EM and the energy level it causes the electron to rise to, is E = hf. The f is a reference to the frequency of the electron when the electron emits EM and the E is a reference to the difference in quantum energy levels through which the electron jumps, up or down, as it emits or absorbs EM. The E is measured in eV.

      I claim there is no such thing as quantum energy because the levels around the nucleus which they describe are theoretical. As it stands, quantum theory is based on the equations of Schrodinger and the solutions representing the orbits. are eigen values. The theory won’t work unless the electron can change orbital energy levels instantaneously with no time lapse allowed.

      The skeptic in me thinks there has to be a better solution. As someone who has spent his entire working career in the fields of electronics/electrical, I would dearly love to understand what really goes on in those spooky atoms.

      ****

      “We are all time travelers in Einstein’s relative inertial frames. We know this because the speed of light is constant for inertial frames”.

      Einstein made some mistakes with his GR theory. As a former engineering student, I noted right away that he treated the interaction of forces and masses purely from the POV of acceleration. He used kinematics without explaining or even regarding the forces and masses to which the accelerations applied.

      I thought that was a mistake because when you ignore forces and masses you can employ the human mind to invent things like time dilation through illusion. Acceleration is a real phenomenon but in our definition of acceleration we have used our invention of time, It does not exist in reality.

      Einstein claimed in the GRT that time is the hands on a clock. It blew me away that he would make such a rudimentary claim. Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, claims the GRT is not even a theory and he scolded Einstein for not understanding measurement.

      That’s obvious. Anyone who does not understand that time is a definition based on the rotational rate of the Earth is bound to make a mistake when he applies a thought experiment in which the second, the basis of time, can change.

      There is no such thing as time travel and Einstein was smart enough to deny he made any such claim. There is simply nothing there to travel through.

      I am a ware that I likely sound like a buffoon for criticizing Albert and I’d like to offer a disclaimer that I have no idea what he thought about time. It does appear to me that someone with his genius would not be lame enough to misunderstand the non-existence of time.

      It does cheer me, however, that if what I claim is right, it means Newton was right by claiming time is absolute. Newton is still the man AFAIAC.

  68. https://www.georgiapower.com/company/news-center/2019-articles/final-major-module-georgia-powers-vogtle-3-4-project-arrives-onsite.html?fbclid=IwAR1o3m28a-1nn2VYl8FAjlQzbJQMKj2PEYzcQV01Vtei1R2ujvvvkiW7dGU

    It’s a puff piece. Looks like they are pushing it through. About the same output as 1500 1.5 megawatt wind turbines for 2 units. Of course running full time for both nuclear and wind turbines. So these two units might be about equal to 4000 wind turbines while more reliable being and able to what? Sustain. My math tells me units 3 and 4 cost $10 million per megawatt. And it looks like wind turbines sell for a little of over $1 million per megawatt. And nuclear is better taking these costs into account. However, someone could check my math. I used the wiki page. Transmission lines cost about a million dollars a mile. Pay for the new transmissions line for 4000 wind turbines. And I suppose there are land costs related to wind turbines. My 4000 wind turbines at an average of 1.5 megawatts per, would cost $6 billion versus units 3 and 4 costing $25 billion in total. It’s not even close. Nuclear power wins.

    • All thermal power plants must have water to operate. Also the water has to be cool enough to support the Carnot cycle.
      https://phys.org/news/2019-10-drought-worsening-southern-states.html
      You can’t run a nuclear power plant without lots of cool, clean water.
      Solar and wind don’t need water, fuel stockpiles or a small army of armed security personal. But other than these minor quibbles I am all for SMR nuclear plants.

      • I suppose France is guarding their nuclear power plants as well. Then we have power lines to guard. And dams. Didn’t Russia lose a lot of this plutonium stuff? I think it’s less bother to hack from the safety of someplace else.

  69. “”Part of our goal is to be an antidote to the Drudge Report. But whereas Drudge aggregates and viralizes right-wing content, which includes a lot of disinformation and climate science denial, we will aim to aggregate and viralize accurate news,” Romm, who serves as editor-in-chief and CEO, said in a statement to The Hill. “We are ‘liberal’ only in the sense that climate science has been labeled ‘liberal’ by climate science deniers.””

    “Romm told the Post that he views the organization as a “viralizing engine” for the left. The site will reportedly be populated with audience-tested headlines. Cameron also said in the promo video that stories will include “act now” buttons for people to get involved in campaigns related to particular topics.”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/450079-former-fox-news-reporter-says-he-left-because-of-partisan-misinformation

    “In mid-2019, after the site experienced declining revenue in recent years, CAP put ThinkProgress up for sale. The site received “more than 12 million pageviews and 7.5 million unique visitors in June 2019″. The operation was shut down in early September 2019.” – Wiki

    Romm started/ran their climate section.

    It is the science of viralizing. Since the Conservatives won the Internet, the Cable News game, and the comments sections of Facebook. I didn’t know the Drudge Report still existed but apparently they beat ThinkProgress. I thought Drudge would have gone out of business by now. Didn’t the Russians viralize our election?

    Here’s my favorite part. They are still fighting the science deniers. With everyone on their team except the deplorables both rich and poor. The deplorables are immune to everything they’ve done. They have 97% and every other percentage in their favor. They have every country except us and lower Slobovia. And they still lost. And they don’t quit. They don’t know how to win. Musk, Gates, Hollywood stars, whole states, school children, high school teachers, almost everyone is on their side. And they lost.

    Now the plan is to have an Angel Drudge Report. Where liberal goodness rains down on us. So we can go to the polls and put things right. Now some guy left Fox. Because they are partisan for about three hours a day plus reruns of the same three shows. These three shows don’t spend a lot of time on the climate and their arguments on that subject aren’t that good. It’s more like they’re bored with the subject. They have the problem of doing about 7 minute segments. And put two or more guests on at the same time and it’s just sound bites. They more talk about the to date, roaring economy, and cheap fossil fuels and other things where we are winning with fossil fuels. Which I doubt the Romm Angel Drudge Report will really be unbiased about. They’ll find someone who doesn’t like fossil fuel success and put the same spin on things that’s caused them to lose the debate so far. What’s else? Wind and Solar puff pieces. And Romm seems not in favor of nuclear power. So we will get more of that from him. From a physicist. Whoever this guy is who left Fox, he seems to just be making a lateral move. Which is fine. The Right has a lot of problems too. Being afraid of nuclear power for instance. And having no vision on the subject.

  70. An interesting graph from NSIDC

    • Flattest 13-year trend since the beginning of the record. Where’s the beef?

      • Seeing that the graph with trend lines makes me look at it differently, in segments.

        there is a relatively flat trend from around 1979 to around 1997 then a precipitate decline from around 1999 to around 2012 but another flat trend from 2007 to today. To maintain this 2020 needs to be at or above that green trend line

        tonyb

    • Edim,

      An interesting graph from yours truly’s alter ego. Data from the Polar Science Center:

      What trends would you care to extract from that one?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s