Week in review – science edition

Posted on January 25, 2020 by | 489 Comments

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week

UK Met Office on the Australian fires [link]

Attribution science and the Australian fires [link]

Pielke Jr: The inconvenient facts on Australian bushfires [link]

Another take on Australian bush fires [link]

Michael Mann on the Australian fires [link]

Climate change not driving California fires, say experts [link]

Sun bombing spacecraft uncovers secrets of the solar wind [link]

New study suggest ozone depleting chemicals caused half of late 20th century Arctic  warming nature.com/articles/s4155

Overhyping Hurricane Florence: A pre-hurricane climate change analysis gets major revision after the storm arstechnica.com/?post_type=pos

Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the zero emission commitment from CO2 doi.org/10.5194/bg-201

The Greenland sea level projections from ISMIP6 are now out for discussion  the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2019-319/tc

Importance of wind and meltwater for observd chemical and physical changes for the Southern Ocean [link]

Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models [link]

Seasonal tropospheric cooling in Northeast China associated with cropland expansion [link]

Demonstrating GWP*: a means of reporting warming-equivalent emissions that captures the contrasting impacts of short- and long-lived climate pollutants [link]

North American weather regimes and the stratosphere [link]

Four thoughts on climate change and catastrophe risk [link]

Pielke Jr and Maue: Tropical Cyclone Landfalls Around The World Over The Past 50 Years [link]

Pielke Jr:  Three rules for accepting climate ‘event attribution’ studies [link]

An emergent constraing on TCR from simulated historical warming in CMIP models [link]

Ocean acidification does not impair the behavior of coral reef fishes [link]

The latest generation of climate models is running hotter—here’s why [link] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085782

North Atlantic (NA) sea level rose +3.9 mm/yr between 1993-2004. From 2005-2016, NA sea level plummeted -7.1 mm/yr. nature.com/articles/s4159

New report by the California Air Resources Board finds that ride-hailing services like Uber/Lyft emit 50% more CO2 per passenger mile than regular cars — even though they use more efficient vehicles — because they travel passenger-less much of the time: ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/

Papers on Indian Ocean Dipole and climate change [link]

“What Keeps Europe Warm in the Winter?” nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2020/01/0

Antarctica shock: Scientists’ groundbreaking discovery 400ft below ice revealed.. What this is telling us is that temperatures were three to four, maybe even five degrees above present. [link]

the ocean’s temperature during the Last Interglacial using ice core gases. rdcu.be/bZ3mc

Large regions of the ocean are cooling, but the warming regions slightly offset it. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10

In contrast to general belief, more leads (open water from cracks in Arctic sea ice) during Arctic winter are resulting in less clouds not more. Interesting. nature.com/articles/s4146 phys.org/news/2020-01-a
Coral reconstructions of central tropical Pacific climate suggest a 25% increase in recent #ENSO intensity. Read more: usclivar.org/research-highl

Policy & Technology

Consumption based accounting of CO2 emissions [link]

How much is a climate solution ‘worth’? [link]

Economy-Wide Estimates of the Implications of Climate Change: Sea Level Rise ideas.repec.org/p/fem/femwpa/2

Is climate change inconvenient or existential?  Only supercomputers can do the math [link]

Can a carbon tax be a generational win-win? [link]

Implications of current policies scenarios diverging from RCP8.5: wsj.com/articles/a-cle

Gernot Wagner:  Why oil giants figured out carbon costs firsts [link]

McKitrick and Michaels:  Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in fund [link]

Pielke Jr: The best news on climate you’ve never heard. We may have reached peak CO2 emissions per person [link]

2020: 10 trends driving the US power sector [link]

“We have lost the biological function of soils. We have got to reverse that,” “If we do it, we are turning the land into the big part of the solution for climate change.” [link]

European chemists have found a new use for depleted #uranium normally left as #RadioactiveWaste from nuclear power stations [link]

Methane hydrates could supply thousands of years of global energy demand and transform the future of energy geopolitics [link]

From 2011-2020 (10 years) Germany’s nuclear phase-out has resulted in ~10,000 deaths (1,100 per year) & $33 billion Jarvis et al. 2019. The Private and External Costs of Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out papers.nber.org/tmp/45610-w265

The very difficult choices that need to made around how to expand solar energy development: [link]

About science & scientists

Let’s Go Back to Calling It Global Warming “Climate change” is vague and doesn’t convey enough urgency. [link]

Pielke Jr: How Billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg Corrupted Climate Science [link]

A Brown U. Professor took on big pharma.  His university pulled him from the classroom [link]

Conflicts of interest in nutrition research [link]

It turns out that calling out catastrophists on the media is a much more target-rich environment than calling out sceptics: rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-bbc-a

Oreskes:  Don’t fact-check scientific judgment calls [link]

This entry was posted in Week in review. Bookmark the permalink.

489 responses to “Week in review – science edition”

  1. Pingback: Week in review – science edition — Climate Etc. – Climate- Science.press

  2. David Wojick | January 25, 2020 at 12:48 pm |

    The Thunberg fallacies
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2020/01/25/the-thunberg-fallacies/

    Ever since she splashed into view I have wondered about Greta Thunberg’s reasoning. Her quoted statements, blasting the world for not doing the impossible, have given no clue where she is coming from.

    Now, thanks to some detailed published statements of hers, from the World Economic Forum in Davos, I have my answer. It turns out she is hotly embracing not one, but two, howling fallacies. No wonder she sounds nuts.

    To begin with, she cites the IPCC report on climate change from 2018, which claims we have only a few years left to act if there’s a 67% chance of keeping the global temperature rise from now to below 0.5 degrees C. (She, like everyone else, talks about a rise of 1.5 degrees, but the IPCC says that 1.0 degrees has already happened, which she knows.) If she said a half a degree people might laugh.

    She says this is “not an opinion”, that it is THE science. Which is the first fallacy. What the IPCC writes is of course just an opinion and a highly contested one at that. It is nothing but model-based speculation, which is contradicted by real evidence.

    But hey, lots of alarmists buy the IPCC stuff and they are not yelling that our planetary house is on fire. Getting to that point is Thunberg’s second, and far bigger, fallacy. She has decided that another half degree of global warming is the threshold to catastrophe.

    Mind you she gives no actual reasons here. It appears to be a pure leap of faith. She mentions in passing some apparently dreadful things like tipping points and unknown feedbacks, but nothing specific. The IPCC certainly does not suggest any such hidden cataclysmic triggers.

    She even says, “Either we prevent temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees (Celsius), or we don’t. Either we avoid chain reaction of unravelling ecosystems, or we don’t.” It sounds like one follows from the other but it doesn’t.

    This is the first I have heard of a chain reaction of unraveling ecosystems, especially one triggered by tiny warming (just half of what we supposedly have already seen.) I am sure the IPCC has never mentioned this demon or we would all have heard of it.

    So there it is. She starts with the questionable IPCC and then simply leaps into the abyss but she calls it, “THE science”. There is no science here. In fact, there is no reasoning that I can see. In logic this is called argument by assertion.

    The IPCC report merely addressed the relatively mundane question “What is the difference between 1.5 degrees of total warming (0.5 to come) and 2.0 degrees?” This question arises because the Paris Accord includes both targets. It says we want to hit 2.0 but get below it toward 1.5 if possible. In no case is 1.5 a target.

    Given that 2.0 is the basic target, it is perfectly clear that 1.5 is not the threshold to catastrophe. In fact the report says that while holding to 1.5 is better, the difference is small. This is why the UN has not proposed dropping the 2.0 degree target. All of which contradicts Greta Thunberg’s claims. The report she cites simply does not support her outlandish position. No wonder the CLINTEL people say there is NO emergency.

    To recap, there are two fallacies in her reasoning. Let’s call them the IPCC fallacy and the Thunberg fallacy. The IPCC fallacy is thinking that humans control global temperature. The Thunberg fallacy is thinking that a mere half degree of future warming is the threshold to catastrophe, to the point of threatening human existence. Unfortunately her followers have embraced her delusion.

    The IPCC fallacy is well established and widespread, including among many scientists. It is the basis for the Paris Accord. It is moderate in its way. The Thunberg fallacy is new and nuts. In fact it is tearing the alarmist community apart, which is fine by me. Although like all forms of madness, the Thunberg fallacy bears watching, lest it get out if control.

    Greta Thunberg and her followers are calling for rapidly rebuilding the global energy system, while also completely restructuring the world’s economic, social and political systems. All this turmoil in the name of limiting future global warming to one half a degree. It does not get any crazier than that.

  3. frankclimate | January 25, 2020 at 12:58 pm |

    Judith, IMO you cited this paper double: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085782 . It’s interesting, sensitivity uplift in CMIP6 due to clouds (of course), however not important enough for double counting. :-)

    • kenfritsch | January 26, 2020 at 1:45 pm |

      That was an interesting paper for me since I have an investigation in progress and nearly complete in attempting to determine how many of the CMIP5 models have used aerosol forcing to effect GMST changes in the historical period (1861-2005) from what would be expected from the models sensitivity parameters. That effect can be carried over into the future period (2006-2100) where greater overall forcing can obscure the relatively small forcing differences that are needed in the historical period to affect a percentage change in GMST.

      In that paper that Judith and Frank have referenced I had to wait until the end in order to read this proviso:

      “For example, how well do high ECS models simulate past climates or the historical record? While some high ECS models closely match the observed record (e.g., Gettelman et al., 2019), others do not (e.g., Golaz et al., 2019). Do the former models achieve their results via unreasonably large negative aerosol forcings and/or substantial pattern effects (Kiehl, 2007; Stevens et al., 2016)? It is worth noting that cloud feedbacks are enhanced in CMIP6 primarily over the Southern Ocean, a region of efficient ocean heat uptake (Armour et al., 2016). This implies that the enhanced surface SW heating is less likely to manifest as surface warming during transient climate change than if the heating were focused elsewhere (Frey et al., 2017). This cloud feedback pattern could make it easier for high ECS models to simulate the observed surface temperature record without requiring a large negative aerosol radiative forcing or large historical era pattern effects.”

      I would think that the cloud feedback pattern effect would be seen in the 4XCO2 and 1% CO2 experiments. Anyway I am looking forward to obtaining the CMIP6 data and replicating what I have done with the CMIP5 data with regards to sensitivity and forcing differences between the historical and future periods.

      As an aside I would like to thank J Curry for providing these links periodically and the further effort for monitoring the posts in attempts to keep comments focused on the main thread. In my ideal world I would have a general discussion posting thread which would not require that much monitoring and could be renewed after a given number of posts and another one for specific topics by the host or quests that would be required to strictly stay on topic. I suspect in the real world this approach is not so easily accomplished or bloggers would already have that provision.

      • curryja | January 26, 2020 at 1:58 pm |

        I am more lenient on week in review posts; stricter moderation on guest and technical posts

      • afonzarelli | January 26, 2020 at 4:49 pm |

        In my ideal world I would have a general discussion posting thread…

        This is it, Ken(!) Week in Review is the Climate, Etc equivalent of Limbaugh’s open line friday. Just don’t threaten to kill nobody and Dr C will allow you to post to your heart’s content. (and, of course, when the political season heats up she’ll throw the pack of wild dogs a political discussion bone every now and then)…

    • Ron Clutz | January 26, 2020 at 2:32 pm |

      Thanks for linking to the Zelinka et al. comparative study of CMIP6 models. I was interested to see that INM-CM in its latest version is again bucking the climate modelling consensus. It comes in with a slightly lower not higher ECS and flipped its cloud feedback from positive to negative.
      My synopsis:
      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/01/26/climate-models-good-bad-and-ugly/

      • curryja | January 26, 2020 at 3:07 pm |

        Helpful post. Re the Russian model, the key issue is this:

        “In the INMCM5 cloud area and cloud water are computed prognostically according to Tiedtke (1993). That includes the formation of large-scale cloudiness as well as the formation of clouds in the atmospheric boundary layer and clouds of deep convection. Decrease of cloudiness due to mixing with unsaturated environment and precipitation formation are also taken into account. Evaporation of precipitation is implemented according to Kessler (1969)”

        These are rather outdated cloud parameterizations. That said, some of the newer ones introduce a plethora of positive cloud feedbacks, apparently without the associated negative cloud feedbacks. The climate models might be better off without these new microphysical parameterizations, until they are more complete (e.g. including aerosol depletion mechanisms).

      • kenfritsch | January 26, 2020 at 7:27 pm |

        “I was interested to see that INM-CM in its latest version is again bucking the climate modelling consensus.”
        The CMIP5 version of that model, not unlike a number of other CMIP5 models, does not have a very realistic GMST series structure in the historical period when compared to the observed GMST. It looks more like a trend with mainly white noise and no other periodical components.

      • Ron Clutz | January 26, 2020 at 7:57 pm |

        Ken it is true that all models have difficulty replicating periods of cooling like that between 1945 and 1976, due to the assumed CO2 sensitivity, a requirement to be part of the ensemble. As I have noted, at least INMCM4 does fairly well over 60 year cycles where cooling is underestimated, but warming is not exaggerated. Still, I think this is not so bad:
        https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/volodin-fig5.png?w=877&h=563

  4. Ragnaar | January 25, 2020 at 1:03 pm |

    “”We’re seeing time and again, whether it’s in planning processes that are conducted by utilities, whether it’s in open solicitations in markets … that using combinations of wind, solar and storage is more cost effective for customers than really any other options, including relying on existing aging coal assets or even building new natural gas assets,” Jeff Dennis, managing director and general counsel at Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), told Utility Dive.”

    This is the lead paragraph. AEE is an advocate. They have to be measuring things the wrong way. Dispatchable and baseload need to be valued more and paid more. Storage isn’t there. It’s too expensive. It’s not seasonal. They probably left out grid upgrades and transformations.

    Nuclear power is hardly mentioned by this advocate. They are not solving any problems. They are pretending to.

    Here’s a trend to watch for 2020. To continue down a path similar to that of Germany’s. I guess they can’t see that one.

    The link above to this story could be checked.

    • David Wojick | January 25, 2020 at 3:00 pm |

      Indeed. You need at least 7 days of storage to back up a wind farm. At today’s prices for grid scale battery facilities that costs from 50 to 100 times what the wind farm costs. Solar takes at least 3 days, including 16 hours a day every day. But the advocates never include the tremendous cost of backup.

      • Ragnaar | January 25, 2020 at 4:11 pm |

        My low bar which is not claimed to be right is each homeowner should be required to provide 24 hours of their average use of storage. Using a Powerwall which is around $650 per kilowatt hour of storage would be $15,600 of additional cost every 10 or 15 years. Mass storage is maybe $200 per kilowatt hour. One of my other arguments is that home solar cannot compete with commercial solar. I am not growing soybeans in my front yard though I could.

      • David Wojick | January 25, 2020 at 4:48 pm |

        The standard wind generator requires wind over 30 mph for full power and over 10 mph for any power. Stagnant high pressure systems create many-state low wind conditions for a week or more just about everywhere in the U.S., so that is the backup requirement.

      • David Wojick | January 25, 2020 at 4:50 pm |

        Homes are a small fraction of needed juice.

      • Ragnaar | January 25, 2020 at 9:18 pm |

        “Homes are a small fraction of needed juice.” But one of the largest virtue signals. It’s a buy in. It creates supporters. If commercial was the only solar provider, it would get more criticism.

  5. JCH | January 25, 2020 at 2:04 pm |

    New study suggest ozone depleting chemicals caused half of late 20th century Arctic warming

    https://i.imgur.com/2QRDIFt.png

  6. Curious George | January 25, 2020 at 2:10 pm |

    California Air Resources Board finds that ride-hailing services like Uber/Lyft emit 50% more CO2 per passenger mile than regular cars.
    Surprise, surprise. A “regular car” – they probably mean a privately-owned car, used exclusively by the owner and family and friends – only runs “passenger miles”, 100%. If you run around 10 blocks looking for a parking space in San Francisco, it is still “passenger miles”. Oh, California. Oh, Air Resources Board.

  7. Ireneusz Palmowski | January 25, 2020 at 3:13 pm |

    Nearly 9,000 polar bears were killed by hunters in the Arctic between 2007 and 2016, the most recent figures available.
    More than 50,000 polar bears have been killed since 1960 – twice as many as today’s remaining population.
    The figures, much higher than previous estimates, were only brought to light after the Norwegian’s lawyers forced the Canadian government to release them under Freedom of Information laws.
    Canada’s Arctic region is now the only place in the world where hunting polar bears is still legal.
    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/polar-bears-extinct-trophy-hunting-21355000?fbclid=IwAR1zl4h0gUkFahsIU0a9ZKys8K8d4_eIOmENQDn3CfNUZC1E_ddf6d6wLas

  8. Bob | January 25, 2020 at 3:24 pm |

    Observation. Depleted uranium (as described in the linked article) is a byproduct of uranium enrichment. It is not generated by nuclear power plants.

    Uranium in reprocessed reactor fuel has about the same concentration of U235 as does natural uranium. It’s not depleted of U235.

    Bob

  9. Ragnaar | January 25, 2020 at 4:06 pm |

    Solar surges in the California desert. So why are environmentalists upset?
    In solar’s defense, in Summer it makes more sense to help run all the A/Cs. The timing is off some. But it needs virtual batteries or natural gas peakers to go along with the solar panels. If they are importing hydro electricity, in Summer the hydro reserves may be down, giving a chance they’ll send some electricity North for a change.

    In what comes around goes around, they’re running into the same problems big oil ran into. So all those victories they cheered 15 years are now used against them. If it’s a pipeline that’s terrible. Same with square miles of solar farms.

  10. cerescokid | January 25, 2020 at 4:25 pm |

    In the Goelzer paper updating the Greenland Ice Sheet contribution to SLR, their RCP2.6 scenario indicates 31+-16 mm by 2100. That works out to ~0.39 mm/yr.
    With all the articles discussing the potential contribution in meters, can we expect a footnote that the lower bound of this paper works out to about 1/3 thickness of a dime per year.
    Probably not.

  11. Turbulent Eddie | January 25, 2020 at 4:41 pm |

    Were the Aussie fires less severe than they would have been without climate change?

    The observed precipitation trend for Australia is positive.
    The models indicate little expected change of precipitation.
    Yet, 2019 saw the lowest recorded Aussie precipitation.
    It makes about as much sense to argue that precipitation would have been even lower were it not for climate change, than to argue these fires were even in part due to climate change.

    Now, I’m not making that argument. There’s no counter-factual to the ‘experiment’ either way.

    But the fact that the question doesn’t get asked, and there’s pervasive acceptance of the framing of the debate seems to indicate rampant negativity bias as well as confirmation bias.

  12. Pingback: Ilmastonmuutosko kiihdyttää ääri-ilmiöitä? | Roskasaitti

  13. John R Kirker | January 25, 2020 at 4:53 pm |

    Some questions: I am looking at Roy Spencer’s satellite temp chart. Is this reliable. I was thinking it would be. https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2019_v6.jpg

    This shows that average warming is from 1981 base has always been less than 1 degree celsius and except for anomalies averages less than .6 degrees.

    From that we can assert that any attribution of disaster such as fires to climate warming has to be caused by the .6 degrees of warming. Maybe it is a logical conclusion that there is some influence. Even saying that future choices can only be based on the part of that .6 degrees that is human caused for which we don’t seem to have a consensus and it is not quatified with any certainty.

    All of the articles on the Australian bush fires seem to indicate that same premise. Climate scientists seem to think the fires are influenced by climate warming. There have actually been fires covering larger areas in the past in 2009 and 1974-75. However, it hasn’t been quantified so they are jumping the gun although it might be a reasonable conclusion. Furthermore, even then it is not known how much of that is human caused.

    Nevertheless, some are ready to lynch their Prime Minister for it.

    • Turbulent Eddie | January 25, 2020 at 5:19 pm |

      Fires in Australia and the US share important characteristics.

      1. For both continents, trees and plants have adapted specific mutations to take advantage of the post fire environment, sometimes only reproducing after fires. Clearly, such species would go extinct were fires to not recur relatively frequently, and thus, fires have been a natural part of the ecology for millions of years.

      2. For both continents, perhaps well meaning, perhaps self serving, but always troublesome Europeans caused problems by suppressing fires. Eventually, this leads to increased fuel loads and larger conflagrations once fire conditions recur.

      3. For both continents, the paleo records indicate that desert prevailed much more during the colder Last Glacial Maximum:
      https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/gen/lastgla.gif

      while forest prevailed during this warmer Holocene:
      https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/gen/pres-pot.gif

      This doesn’t actually go directly to fire,
      and factors other than temperature changed from glacial to interglacial.
      But the same precipitation/evaporation regimes that led to forestation would seem to be at work.

      These characteristics would seem to marginalize climate change and raise the question as to whether it’s simply confirmation bias to even consider it in the first place.

      • ianl | January 26, 2020 at 2:55 am |

        Turbulent Eddie
        >” … trees and plants have adapted specific mutations to take advantage of the post fire environment, sometimes only reproducing after fires. Clearly, such species would go extinct were fires to not recur relatively frequently, and thus, fires have been a natural part of the ecology for millions of years.”

        Yes, especially in Oz. Some 70% of the land mass is desert/semi-arid and dry winters park blocking highs over this, bleeding almost humidity-less winds over the coastal fringe forests. The eucalypts have mutated to take advantage of the summer fires that result from shedding dried vegetative waste during these winter winds. Eucalypt oil even has the advantage (for these species) of passing the fire through explosively, so burning the competition but leaving the eucalypts able to re-germinate.

        The twists and turns in the evolutionary process always fascinate me – such an opportunistic logic to it. Such a terrible result for homo sapiens living next to the forests.

      • afonzarelli | January 26, 2020 at 10:38 am |

        TE, what exactly is meant in the second graph by present potential vegetation? (any idea?) Thanx…

      • Turbulent Eddie | January 26, 2020 at 2:02 pm |

        “what exactly is meant in the second graph by present potential vegetation?”

        Sorry, I failed to add the link, which is:
        https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/gen/nerc.html

        wherein the authors describe “present potential” as:

        “Summary map of ‘present potential’ vegetation cover. This map is for purposes of comparison, showing the areas of forest and other desert that would be present in the present-day world if humans had not altered them by agriculture and forestry. Although it represents a ‘potential’ state, it is nevertheless much as the world would actually have looked about 4,000-3,000 14C y.a., before agriculture became important in modifying vegetation cover in many regions.”

      • JCH | January 26, 2020 at 2:13 pm |

        Australia has eucalyptus trees that are hundreds of years old. If you subjected them to fire every summer they would, most likely, eventually adapt to fire by disappearing.

      • Turbulent Eddie | January 26, 2020 at 4:22 pm |

        Australia has eucalyptus trees that are hundreds of years old. If you subjected them to fire every summer they would, most likely, eventually adapt to fire by disappearing.

        Absolutes (every summer) are a flag.

        The evolutionary record speaks for itself.

      • Robert I. Ellison | January 26, 2020 at 8:04 pm |

        Eucalypts will regrow from a stump. We breed them tough.

        https://permaculturenews.org/images/eucalypt_coppice_02.jpg

  14. phil salmon | January 25, 2020 at 5:14 pm |

    Illuminating as always!

    In addition to North Atlantic sea level falling 7mm / yr since 2004

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37603-6

    Ruan et al 2019 report a sharp deceleration in Greenland ice melt since 2013

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334445470_Decelerated_Greenland_Ice_Sheet_Melt_Driven_by_Positive_Summer_North_Atlantic_Oscillation

    And down in the SH, the Southern ocean, 14% of the earth’s surface, has been cooling for 3 decades

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018219303190

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0350-3

    • phil salmon | January 25, 2020 at 5:22 pm |

      Furthermore, Kretschmer et al 2018 discuss a cooling trend in mid latitude Eurasia, linked to stratospheric polar vortex incursions:

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0259.1

      Despite global warming, recent winters in the northeastern United States, Europe, and especially Asia were anomalously cold. Some midlatitude regions like central Asia and eastern Siberia even show a downward temperature trend in winter over past decades (Cohen et al. 2014a; McCusker et al. 2016). In contrast, the Arctic has been warming rapidly, challenging scientists to explain the so-called warm Arctic–cold continents pattern in boreal winter (Shepherd 2016). Though there is general agreement that sea ice loss contributed to the warming of the Arctic via ice–albedo feedbacks (Screen and Simmonds 2010), it remains controversial whether observed midlatitude cooling is related to internal atmospheric variability (Sun et al. 2016; McCusker et al. 2016), to tropical (Palmer 2014) or Arctic (Cohen et al. 2013; Cohen 2016) trends in teleconnection indices, or to a combination of those.

      • angech | January 28, 2020 at 6:59 am |

        Jim Hunt | January 28, 2020 at 6:36 am |
        angech – Thanks for geeing me up re Arctic sea ice volume. Consequently I’m now taking your name in vain over at:
        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/01/wheres-the-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-gone
        –
        Fantastic.
        Still watching the Mosaic updates and very surprised to read about a pack of Arctic foxes chewing some of the cables.
        Apart from providing food for the polar bears [quiet recently] what the heck are they doing out there 100s of kilometers from land and food?
        –
        I guess the answer to your question is that thick sea ice depends on large sea ice extent which fell away rapidly 40 years ago and is now in a holding pattern awaiting a slow rebuild up or a new shrinkage.
        I refuse to comment on the current extent until it gees up a little bit more.
        GRACE mark 2 is a bit of a disappointment at the moment reading what JCH has said and checking their site. Perhaps they are slow getting it going because they cannot reconcile their systems to give bad news data, yet.
        Anyway good to see you getting excited, someone has to be happy at tomes like this.

      • JCH | January 28, 2020 at 7:47 am |

        Perhaps they are slow getting it going because they cannot reconcile their systems to give bad news data, yet.

        Again, simply impossible.

      • Jim Hunt | January 28, 2020 at 3:24 pm |

        JCH – This all gets very tiresome, does it not?

        Here’s the simple truth behind angech’s “PIOMAS mid month update not out, other than not wanting to show a big recovery!” allegation:

        I realise that Axel, even if some others apparently do not!https://t.co/RoFEpZHwku— Snow White (@GreatWhiteCon) January 28, 2020

        https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

      • angech | January 28, 2020 at 5:12 pm |

        A bit of fun
        What I like is our air of constant bravado despite the setbacks of the obvious.
        Like Monty Python’s Black Knight.
        Out of ammo, out of limbs, we fight on regardless.
        Is this the same Ruth Mottram of DMI fame?
        The organisation that copped heaps for showing sea ice volume expanding rapidly 4 years ago?
        Who took a 3 month break to adjust their algorithms?
        Then came out with a much lower result.
        Poor girl.
        And you thought I was referring to climate sceptics defending the indefensible.
        –
        There must be at least 3 products defining sea ice volume.
        They should all agree somewhat surely?
        No.
        The marvels of science, repeating an experiment 3 times and getting 3 different answers.
        I cherry picked my best one.
        Only 2 weeks to see if my prediction on Piomas is correct.
        Mild snark is all us armless, legless crittur’s can manufacture these days.
        (Don Lemon ref*)

      • Jim Hunt | January 28, 2020 at 5:26 pm |

        angech – You appear to have suffered a massive cut’n’paste malfunction, since I’ve made no mention of Ms. Mottram in here?

        However, if I might join in the fun by following in your illustrious footsteps?

        I don’t think you’ve clicked my alter ego’s link angech? If you did you certainly missed my “cherry picking” point!

        FYI Steve/Tony still hasn’t allowed my pertinent comment out of moderation over at the Deplorable Client Science Blog.

      • Jim Hunt | January 28, 2020 at 5:38 pm |

        P.S. angech – I seem to have suffered a cut’n’paste malfunction of my own, since the Twitter embed code above doesn’t seem t have worked properly.

        Obviously you worked out how to click the right link in that instance though!

      • angech | January 28, 2020 at 11:14 pm |

        angech – “You appear to have suffered a massive cut’n’paste malfunction, since I’ve made no mention of Ms. Mottram in here?”
        – Sorry, commenting on this comment at your blog
        “Christian John I made up an NRT(near real time) sea ice volume product for the arctic, 2019 is very low in sea ice volume until now @sea ice_de
        @AWI_Media @AxelSchweiger @ruth_mottram”
        Ruth Mottram is an old “friend” of Tony’s.
        You seem to have upset as many people as I have. Getting jealous.

      • Jim Hunt | January 29, 2020 at 3:11 am |

        I presumed as much angech!

        I am well aware of Ruth’s “history” with Steve/Tony! I am also well aware that Tony/Steve proudly displays DMI Arctic sea ice thickness maps and/or extent graphs when it suits his purposes. See for example:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/07/is-the-polar-ocean-challenge-about-to-end-in-disaster/

        For some strange reason he is showing his faithful followers the NSIDC products at the moment! What’s more for some other strange reason he still hasn’t attended to his moderation queue.

    • Jim Hunt | January 26, 2020 at 10:55 am |

      Judith – Thanks for the heads up re Xia Li et al. 2020

      Phil – An extract from the “Plain Language Summary” to Ruan et al. 2019

      “We use century‐long surface temperature records as index to estimate the
      contribution of this slowdown phenomenon and find that the amplitude of this internal variability is nearly half of the multidecadal warming trend of the GrIS; therefore, this cycle can slow down but cannot stop the loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass at present and in the near future. This finding highlights the role of the internal variability of the GrIS on predictions of future global sea level change and the associated social and economic consequences.”

      See also:

      http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_daily_melt_plot_tmb.png

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 12:14 am |

      So Greenland ice sheet melt has recently been slowed by a natural climate factor.

      How many times does this kind of thing have to happen before you understand that CO2 is not the only thing that changes climate??

  15. Robert I. Ellison | January 25, 2020 at 7:44 pm |

    “Of all the factors which contribute to the intensity of a fire (temperature, wind speed, topography, fuel moisture and fuel load), only fuel load can be subject to modification by human effort.” Greg Mullins

    If ‘cultural burning’ is not stepped up by an order of magnitude that would be a tragic loss of opportunity. On that we broadly agree. But how is it that we can put in place a globally ambitious carbon reduction strategy – with the development of leading edge methods and initiatives – that because our population is growing – with a large refugee and immigration intake – requires a much more ambitious per capita reduction target not recognized by the UNFCCC – and still be called climate deniers?

    https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/styles/width-450/private/resources/c42c11a8-4df7-4d4f-bf92-4f14735c9baa/images/fig1.jpg

    https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/styles/width-450/private/resources/c42c11a8-4df7-4d4f-bf92-4f14735c9baa/images/fig3.jpg

    It requires avoidance of 900 MtCO2-e emissions by 2030 – and we are well on the way with a constantly expanding set of rigorously designed programs and protocols across sectors.

    https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/styles/width-450/private/resources/c42c11a8-4df7-4d4f-bf92-4f14735c9baa/images/fig5.jpg

    https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/emissions-reduction-fund/methods

    We will – as the Prime Minister said – meet our Paris commitment. And then emerge with a stronger community and a richer and more innovative economy – with the groundwork in place for accelerated decarbonization.

    • phil salmon | January 26, 2020 at 8:52 am |

      that because our population is growing – with a large refugee and immigration intake

      In many advanced economies population growth is only by immigration. “Native” populations are static or even declining. Global economic growth with no country left behind is the best hope for the environment. Till the whole world becomes Sweden.

      • jungletrunks | January 28, 2020 at 2:31 pm |

        While I understand it’s a model template; what’s Sweden’s population, and defense budget again? Relative to models, Sweden reminds me of climate.

  16. John Doe | January 25, 2020 at 8:39 pm |

    A little problem with NASA data on the CRE (cloud radiative effect).

    https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/cloudforcing.png

    This is the CRE as we are being told. Mind the red zones with massive negative CRE among which there is the Bering Sea.

    Now here are some real life data from NOAA, based on 10 stations located on the Aleut Islands which report both cloud conditions and temperatures (next to other common parameters) in the METAR format.

    Seasonally resolved:
    https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/aleuten1.png

    Total, seasonally adjusted:
    https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/aleuten2.png

    Note: there is an almost linear, but POSITIVE correlation between cloudiness in temperature. Clouds do obviously warm the Bering Sea, rather than cooling it, as NASA suggests. This is a serious contradiction to the GHE.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 26, 2020 at 3:49 am |

      Clouds in high latitudes in the autumn-spring season, of course, heat the surface. It is different in tropics.

      • John Doe | January 26, 2020 at 7:01 am |

        Which is not the point here

      • Christos Vournas | January 27, 2020 at 8:57 am |

        Ireneusz, a agree with you 100 %.

        Clouds in high latitudes heat the earth’s surface.
        It happens because in high latitudes there is a very poor insolation and there is not much SW solar radiation to reflect.

        On the other hand, in tropics there is very strong insolation and there is much SW solar radiation to reflect.
        Clouds in low latitudes cool the earth’s surface.

        http://www.cristos-vournas

      • John Doe | January 27, 2020 at 12:15 pm |

        @Christos

        Sorry, but the data clearly show low tropical clouds are warming. And high altitude clouds even more..

    • jungletrunks | January 26, 2020 at 12:01 pm |

      John Doe, is it your belief that this data translates globally, that clouds create warming? Or are there other mechanisms in play that bellies what this data may suggest at face value, like perhaps an interplay with ocean circulation, an insulation effect?

      • John Doe | January 26, 2020 at 3:56 pm |

        Well the Aleut islands are just the latest sub-data set I looked into, and so far the results have been the same everywhere. There is always(!) a positive correlation between clouds and temperature, also in the tropics. The thing is just, that all the weather stations reporting are on land, while NASA has these “red zones” on the ocean. So I was curious if things would turn out differently on the Aleuts, which they did not.

        Two things to note:
        a) Possible biases. The more I sorted out all thinkable biases the clearer this trend and correlation became.

        b) Clouds are (ususally) only reported up to 12.000ft. So this positive correlation is true for low clouds. The net warming effect of higher clouds is even stronger.

    • stevenreincarnated | January 29, 2020 at 6:02 pm |

      Your methodology would seem to exclude the differences in the interaction with water between long and short wave radiation. I’m skeptical you can compare without taking into account changes in ocean heat content in the examined area and also skeptical it could be measured accurately during the time periods in question.

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 12:01 am |

      Where does any of your data come from? Not possible to evaluate it otherwise….

      • John Doe | January 30, 2020 at 8:10 pm |

        As said above it is from the NOAA. Data cover the years 2016 & 2017. I downloaded the data from the following link (as QCLCD ASCII Files):

        https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/quick-links

        And yes, shortly after I downloaded them they pulled it from their site, as the site itself suggests (“QCLCD ASCII Files are no longer available”). I have not really checked the alternative data format, but I think it is horrible to work with. Also I guess it is not even the original “raw data”.

        Anyhow, I have no problem sharing what I have.

  18. angech | January 25, 2020 at 11:50 pm |

    Pielke jun “Here is an example of how the information from @ScienceBrief might be translated into plain English: “The effects of climate change have not yet been detected in Australian fires, but changes underway suggest that those effects will be detectable as early as the 2040s. If so we should expect, more and more intense fires, and respond accordingly.”
    gulp.
    Proof, real proof.
    Tangible and fungible

    • Geoff Sherrington | January 26, 2020 at 3:12 am |

      angech,
      Yes, proof needed. Also, there is the implicit, unproven assumption again that climate change will be net bad. Geoff S.

  19. Robert I. Ellison | January 26, 2020 at 1:16 am |

    I came across a comment that claims that the world is better off now than ever before are based on sloppy economic data. We are and it isn’t. The thing I disagree with in this video is that it is not surprising that rich and free and free communities are better environmental stewards. As a relatively young environmental scientist – it was apparent that only rich economies can afford environments.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=aC8nnUy_exI&feature=emb_logo

    https://www.heritage.org/index/about

  20. Geoff Sherrington | January 26, 2020 at 3:09 am |

    The several papers on Australian fires in 2019-20 all lack or fail to stress an important observation. The bad fires in S-E coastal Australia coincide with strong winds from the hot, dry centre of Australia. The history of weather temperatures in the fire zone before the fire does not matter so much. Temperatures when there is a fire are high, because they are not local, but imported from the centre, 1000 km away.
    Daily maximum temperatures just before a bad fire might be 10 degrees C or so above average for the month, but the only way to get that hot is to have these winds. They are dry as well as hot, with the ability to make local vegetation “tinder dry” in a few hours. Departures from the normal climate in the fire area, such as several years of drought, can also dry out the vegetation and make it more flammable, but the sudden impact of those winds is more critical in creating a fire state. (Similarly, California has its Diablo and Santa Ana winds).
    Because the centre of Australia warms and dries enough most years to be a contributor to East coast fires when the winds are right, it is hard to accept the idea that these fires are caused by climate change with its mere degree or so of change over the years.
    A coincidence of factors is needed for the bad fires, including the presence of hot, dry winds from the centre, possibly drought conditions for a couple of previous years in the fire zone, a build-up of fuel in the fire zone and ignition at just the right time. Geoff S

    • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 26, 2020 at 3:54 am |

      Dry winds can also appear in southern Australia when the high is between Australia and Antarctica and the ocean in the south is cool in the spring.

      • jungletrunks | January 26, 2020 at 8:23 pm |

        Geoff: “it is hard to accept the idea that these fires are caused by climate change with its mere degree or so of change over the years.”

        Yes, but not for just fires; it’s hard to rationalize how slightly more than a single degree has led to all the various attributions of “catastrophe” coming from AGW. It’s preposterous actually; it underscores the political nature of the attribution.

    • Joe_Dallas | January 26, 2020 at 12:59 pm |

      A- Geoff – your short explanation is a far better explanation that the linked articles attempting to link to global warming.
      B – Skeptical science is adamant that these fires are absolutely due to climate change – and discounting an similarity to the 1973/74 and the mid 1930’s fires.

      • John R Kirker | January 26, 2020 at 2:01 pm |

        Yes I like this explanation and your comment about a mere degree confirms what I am thinking about any attribution of climate warming to environmental change — you need to be able to explain how a mere degree makes a difference.

      • Geoff Sherrington | January 26, 2020 at 7:47 pm |

        JD,
        Real observations like these demonstrate the scientific absurdity of the attribution studies that a deluded core of Australian academics (well known from past form) tries to insert into the gullible minds of children through their teaching. Geoff S

    • joe_Dallas | February 1, 2020 at 2:54 pm |

      I just read Mann’s article linked above. The one item I noticed was how his reasoning was devoid of any scientific analysis of the cause, other than it is warmer, therefore climate change is the cause.

  21. Robert I. Ellison | January 26, 2020 at 4:09 am |

    There was a hydroclimatic shift in Australian to a higher mean rainfall and increased variance in the 1970’s. A Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamic seen in geophysical time series. But to put the boot on the other foot – can you prove this one wasn’t didn’t have an anthropogenic trigger?

    http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/rranom.aus.0112.54636.png

  23. phil salmon | January 26, 2020 at 6:44 am |

    Coral reconstructions of central tropical Pacific climate suggest a 25% increase in recent #ENSO intensity. Read more:

    https://usclivar.org/research-highlights/coral-reconstructions-central-tropical-pacific-climate-suggest-25-increase…

    There has been a dramatic cooling of the ocean temperature off the coast of Peru in the last few decades – to the lowest temperatures of the whole Holocene:

    https://imgur.com/gallery/iQIk6NU

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080634

    Since cool surface waters off Peru are part of the Bjerknes feedback that drives ENSO, then it is possible that this recent cooling of the equatorial east Pacific, caused by a cooling Humboldt current from Antarctica, is responsible for energised ENSO activity over the same time period.

    That is, that Humboldt current cooling is intensifying ENSO events currently.

  24. jacksmith4tx | January 26, 2020 at 7:25 am |

    Here is one for the ‘Policy and Technology’ category.
    I think one of the most interesting things that happened last week was the announcement that China is banning the use of single-use plastics. What makes this effort different from previous edicts from the government is the sweeping list of items across all industries in addition to a manufacturing ban of the chemical feed stocks.
    China imports 40 percent of its polyethyene, and accounted for 12 percent of exports from the U.S. in 2018, so the ban could have lasting impact on the makers of bags and bottles and straws, but also PE resin makers who rely on China as customer.
    https://www.waste360.com/legislation-regulation/china-unveils-five-year-plan-ban-single-use-plastics

  25. Dan Pangburn | January 26, 2020 at 6:27 pm |

    It seems that many of the folks working the GW issue sometimes get mired in minutia or sidetracked by weather/climate related tragedies. Although most know that water vapor is a ghg, hardly anyone appears to have noticed that water vapor has been increasing 1.5% per decade. A rather simple calculation, using data from Hitran, shows that, at ground level, WV increase has been about 10 times more effective at causing warming than CO2 increase. The added cooling from increased CO2 in the stratosphere counters the small warming from CO2 at ground level with the net result that CO2 has no significant effect on climate. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 11:43 pm |

      Why is water vapor increasing?

      • Dan Pangburn | January 30, 2020 at 1:50 pm |

        Mostly evaporation from increased irrigation. Area being irrigated is now more than 4 times the area of France.

      • Dan Pangburn | January 30, 2020 at 2:12 pm |

        The misleadingly named greenhouse effect of water vapor from the oceans and other natural sources increased the average surface temperature by about 33 C° (above the no-ghg temperature) making the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. Increased WV from irrigation (crops, lawns, golf courses, etc.) and artificial water bodies has added another half degree or so.

  26. Ragnaar | January 26, 2020 at 6:32 pm |

    “Weyant (2017) notes that exclusion of just the top 1% of the damage estimates in the PAGE model causes the standard deviation of its SCC estimates to fall from $266 per ton to $56 per ton, but there is no observational basis for parameterizing either the probabilities of the events or the economic costs.”

    – Kevin D. Dayaratna
    – Ross McKitrick

    A long time ago I tried to make this point somewhere. It’s B.S. To in the upper tail of damage estimates, you get these wild numbers.

    If you’re projecting this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_return
    you throw out all the, Apple company from the beginning, type results. If you didn’t, you’d last about 3 months before you got fired. This idea should apply to damages as well. I don’t know how to solve the problem of what to do with the extreme tails. A reasonable thing is to down weight them. Or just overweight them and see how that goes? The quote above indicates a house of cards for PAGE. What a proud day for its creators this is.

    So here’s the test for hipster advisers to policymakers: Can you identify a house of cards when it’s right in front of you?

    The point is a basic one. I reviewed how to expected returns, and then did the same thing for damages. The distribution should include another one below it showing where the money is coming from. When you see 3/4s of it in the top 1%, stop. You’re doing something wrong. I can’t do calculus. But this is simple stuff.

    Can someone please defend PAGE doing this?

  27. chaamjamal | January 27, 2020 at 5:02 am |

    “New study suggest ozone depleting chemicals caused half of late 20th century Arctic warming https://nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4”

    Translation
    AGW theory can explain only half of late 20th century Arctic warming.

    • Jim Hunt | January 27, 2020 at 5:47 am |

      An English language extract from the abstract:

      “While the dominant role of carbon dioxide is undisputed, another important set of anthropogenic GHGs was also being emitted over the second half of the twentieth century: ozone-depleting substances (ODS). These compounds, in addition to causing the ozone hole over Antarctica, have long been recognized as powerful GHGs.”

      • chaamjamal | January 27, 2020 at 5:53 am |

        That’s fine but if this chemical is part of the ghg forcing it should be part of the ghg forcing since pre industrial times to the present and not just pulled out of the bag for “late 20th century warming”.

      • Jim Hunt | January 27, 2020 at 8:02 am |

        I’m afraid that (perhaps because I’m not a regular here?) you’ll have to explain your point in more detail, since I currently fail to see what you’re getting at.

        Have you by any chance read a certain James Hansen on this topic? If not please see:

        http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20181206_Nutshell.pdf

        “Until the 1980s trace gases (red area in Fig. 7), especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), provided a significant fraction of the increasing GHG climate forcing. However, the Montreal Protocol has been successful in phasing out emission of ozone-depleting gases as well as some other trace gases. Because of the finite lifetime of these gases, with continued vigilance the future contribution of the red area in Fig. 7 may become zero or even slightly negative.”

        http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Hansen-Nutshell-Fig7.png

      • chaamjamal | January 27, 2020 at 8:12 am |

        Thank you sir. I will read this more carefully after dinner and respond at that time the best I can.

      • chaamjamal | January 27, 2020 at 9:26 am |

        If cfc forcing if part of the equation it should be in the equation. When its level is low it will cause less warming and when it is high it will cause a higher level of warming but we should not decide whether it belongs in the equation according to its value.

      • Jim Hunt | January 27, 2020 at 10:38 am |

        Have you read the paper?

        “We accomplish this by contrasting two ten-member ensembles of integrations with the CAM5LE climate model (see Methods) over the period 1955–2005. The first ten-member ensemble—denoted Historical—consists of the first ten members of the historical integrations performed by the Large Ensemble Project: these integrations are forced with all known natural and anthropogenic forcings, and are intended to simulate the complete climate evolution. The second ten-member ensemble—denoted FixODSO—is forced identically, except for ODS (which are kept fixed at 1955 levels) and stratospheric ozone (also kept fixed at 1955 levels, to be physically consistent). All members of each ensemble are forced identically, and differ only in their atmospheric initial condition: averaging over each ensemble reveals the forced response, with little contamination from internal variability.”

        The point of their research is to remove ODS forcing from the existing CEMS models!

      • Jim Hunt | January 27, 2020 at 10:41 am |

        Sorry. Finger trouble.

        r/CEMS/”Community Earth System Model (CESM)”

      • chaamjamal | January 27, 2020 at 7:31 pm |

        Understand. They are just fine tuning their models. Different matter altogether.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 11:41 pm |

        chaamjamal wrote:
        That’s fine but if this chemical is part of the ghg forcing it should be part of the ghg forcing since pre industrial times to the present and not just pulled out of the bag for “late 20th century warming”.

        Obviously not if its concentration was negligible then but not negligible in recent decades.

        What does the data say?

  28. chaamjamal | January 27, 2020 at 5:10 am |

    Ocean acidification does not impair coral reef fish.

    Maybe we have to wait until the year 2100 to see that impact of ocean acidification.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/26/ocean-acidification-the-evil-twin-of-climate-change/

  29. Ireneusz Palmowski | January 27, 2020 at 11:14 am |

    Cycle 24 is still underway in the solar northern hemisphere. Cycle 25 begins in the southern hemisphere.
    https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00996/c4954so0bdom.png

  30. ordvic | January 27, 2020 at 12:38 pm |

    I am curious. It seems no one has taken on skeptical science as to whether or not CO2 is a global coolant. THERE ARE NO POSTS TO DATE! Is it, as they claim really a myth? How does that reconcile with NASA’s findings?

    Climate Myth…

    CO2 cools as well as heats
    Hitherto absorption of solar radiation has completely been disregarded when investigating how a CO2 increase of the atmosphere modifies the earth’s climate. It can be shown that shortwave and longwave influence of a higher CO2 concentration counteract each other. The temperature change at the earth’s surface is ?T=+1.2°C when the present concentration is doubled. (source: Gebhart 1966)
    Comment from Henry Poole espousing CO2 cooling http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-albedo-effect.html#5509

    https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/
    Carbon Dioxide is a Cooling Gas According to NASA

    “Climate change can seem like a distant problem, a speck on the horizon. It’s not. It’s a present and deadly reality.” These words were recently printed by the Huffington Post. “Common sense dictates that the economy undergo a massive restructuring away from fossil fuels to save lives. And a growing body of research shows that the only way to avoid catastrophic levels of climate change is to cease production of vast amounts of “unburnable” carbon.

    The only problem with this is that it is based on the assumption that carbon is a warming gas that is heating the planet. Every Democrat would bet their political lives on this. Unfortunately for them, and all the rest of us, is we are living on a cooling world not a warming one. They get it wrong on all points of the compass when it comes to climate change even with CO2 being a warming gas when the truth is that it helps cool the stratosphere by helping reradiate solar energy back into space.

    NASA says that CO2 is a coolant not a warming gas. One part of NASA is now in conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere. NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) are two substances playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface tending to cool not heat.

    Regardless of what one believes or all the myriad factors, “Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had,” reports Dr. R. Timothy Patterson. World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years while CO2 is rising rapidly,” writes famous weatherman Piers Corybyn, who is an astrophysicist.

    i AM HONESTLY INTERESTED! Is there any information out there that debunks NASA’s findings or is it as Skeptical Science claims ‘A Myth’?

    • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 27, 2020 at 2:24 pm |

      14 CO2, heats the lower stratosphere and affects the escape of water vapor into the stratosphere, which means a loss of energy on the Earth’s surface.
      “The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
      Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field.
      After production in the upper atmosphere, the carbon-14 atoms react rapidly to form mostly (about 93%) 14CO (carbon monoxide), which subsequently oxidizes at a slower rate to form 14CO2, radioactive carbon dioxide.”
      The weaker the solar wind, the greater the 14CO2 production in the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere. Similarly, the amount of ozone in these layers increases due to strong ionization during low solar activity.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
      https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t100_nh_f00.png

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 11:34 pm |

      NASA says that CO2 is a coolant not a warming gas.

      NASA says no such thing. Get real.

      • ordvic | February 13, 2020 at 4:20 pm |

        David, you seemed to have scanned my post and came to some incorrect assumptions. First of all the text you copied from my post were quotes “” they were not my assumptions. the quotes came from here:

        https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/

        My question was:
        Is there any information out there that debunks NASA’s findings or is it as Skeptical Science claims ‘A Myth’?

        James Watts explains:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

        I loathe having to write this story because I truly dislike giving any attention to the people who are known as the “slayers” from the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book. They now operate under the moniker of “Principia Scientific”.

        But, somebody has to do it because some really bad mangling of the intent of a NASA press release by the “slayers” group is getting some traction. They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose, claiming in a story titled “New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere” :

        NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry, (or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

        Source: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/165971/

        The NASA story is about the thermosphere when it gets hit by solar flares. Here’s the Press release:

        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

        However Watts up with that also says NASA did not say that:

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/

        Here’s the relevant part from the press release:

        =============================================================

        “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

        That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.

        “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”

        So to properly frame the question and provide an answer seems to be:

        “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

        these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

        David. I know you just see the comments and post as you see it but it would be nice, if in the future you note the difference between a quote and an opinion.

        Thanks,
        Philip Nord

        Here is the actual article at the heart of the issue:

        ” THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY COOLING,” NASA says due to low sun activity: Record Plunge despite Rising Co2. The 0.8* C increase over 140 years is too small and within the range of natural variability to constitute human-made global warming.
        James G Matkin
        James G Matkin

        Geologic Global Climate Changes
        Author: Nasif Nahle
        Scientific Research Director-Biology Cabinet
        (Additional editing of this English text by TS)
        Show more ▾

        Climate Change
        Global Warming
        Climate history
        Global Cooperation

        5,831 Views

        Download PDF
        Bulk Download
        Saved to Library
        Share

        ”
        “THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY COOLING”
        Global Temps Continue Century-Record Plunge, Despite Rising Co2 Emissions! NO CLIMATE CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.
        Temperature increases over the past 140 years at 0.8*C are too small and within the range of natural variability to constitute human made global warming.
        NASA Goddard Institute finds warming of 0.8* Celsius (1.4* Fahrenheit) since 1880. This means an average of only 0.0175 degree Celsius temperature increase annually. This minute amount is within the statistical error of the data.No weather by itself is evidence of global warming/ climate change as the test is whether the weather adds to a new weather pattern over many years even millennia.

        Monday, 01 October 2018
        NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity
        Written by James Murphy
        Tweet

        #
        The climate alarmists just can’t catch a break. NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind. So, start pumping out that CO2, everyone. We’re going to need all the greenhouse gases we can get. “We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.” The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere. “The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER. Who knew that that big yellow ball of light in the sky had such a big influence on our climate? There’s a bit of good news in all of this. When the thermosphere cools, it literally shrinks, therefore reducing aerodynamic drag on satellites in low Earth orbit. In effect, the shrinking thermosphere

        $
        increases a satellite’s lifetime. But that appears to be where the good news ends, unless you prefer cold weather and increased space junk. “The bad news,” according to Dr. Tony Phillips, editor of spaceweather.com, is: “It also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.” Mlynczak and his colleagues have created the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI), which measures how much NO is dumped from the Thermosphere into outer space. During Solar Maximum the TCI number is very high. At times of Solar Minimum, TCI is low. “Right now, (TCI) is very low indeed,” said Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s ten times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.” SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, but Mlynczak and the scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center have been able to recreate TCI measurements back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us how to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output — things that have been measured for decades,” said Mlynczak. In fact, TCI numbers now, in the closing months of 2018, are very close to setting record lows since measurements began. “We’re not quite there yet,” Mlynczak reports. “but it could happen in a matter of months.” The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today. If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming? All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system.

        That is not the article I was looking for but this is the researcher who wrote it:

        James Grant Matkin | April 18, 2018 at 11:55 pm |

        While a useful article I disagree with the assumptions behind the 4th question and the discussion. Judging public opinion is complex especially over a global policy issue that generates such strong conflict.The fear mongerging ala Al Gore has worn thin. It is like ‘crying wolf’ as the seas show no signs of rising at all. As a result there is a ho hum public response and governments are reducing their interest in climate science. We are going back to the old days when there was no climate science government gravy train. Even the UN public polling finds taking action on climate change is the lowest of priorities everywhere. I submit a better 4th questions is – Why are some people skeptical that climate change is caused by humans?’ Paul Matthews, PhD Mathematics, University of Cambridge (1988) published in the journal Environmental Communication this question. HIs paper is based on comments from 150 skeptics. “Poor science. One of the main reasons given for scepticism is the opinion that some aspects of climate science are of poor quality, or unjustified or insufficiently rigorous. Approximately 60 of the 154 sceptics give this as a factor motivating their scepticism.”
        https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/sceppre.pdf

        If this skeptical view from above average educated respondents prevails and grows we need a discussion about how to repair the damage to the science profession from the bad climate science of past years.

        That is not the article but this was the refernence:

        Martin Mlynczak of NASA Langley Research Center is the is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.

        “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space. For the three-day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space. The majority of it has been sent back into space by the action of CO2 and NO.”

        “NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted. The study in 2011 indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.”

        These findings will dramatically alter the global warming debate exposing yet again that the central premise of alarmist global warming theory that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet quickly is wrong. The “NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a ‘huge discrepancy’ between alarmist climate models and real-world facts.”

        One part of NASA is now in conflict with its climatologists after new NASA measurements prove that carbon dioxide acts as a coolant in Earth’s atmosphere. NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) are two substances playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface tending to cool, not heat.

        James Grant Matkin | April 18, 2018 at 11:55 pm |

        While a useful article I disagree with the assumptions behind the 4th question and the discussion. Judging public opinion is complex especially over a global policy issue that generates such strong conflict.The fear mongerging ala Al Gore has worn thin. It is like ‘crying wolf’ as the seas show no signs of rising at all. As a result there is a ho hum public response and governments are reducing their interest in climate science. We are going back to the old days when there was no climate science government gravy train. Even the UN public polling finds taking action on climate change is the lowest of priorities everywhere. I submit a better 4th questions is – Why are some people skeptical that climate change is caused by humans?’ Paul Matthews, PhD Mathematics, University of Cambridge (1988) published in the journal Environmental Communication this question. HIs paper is based on comments from 150 skeptics. “Poor science. One of the main reasons given for scepticism is the opinion that some aspects of climate science are of poor quality, or unjustified or insufficiently rigorous. Approximately 60 of the 154 sceptics give this as a factor motivating their scepticism.”
        https://ipccreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/sceppre.pdf

        If this skeptical view from above average educated respondents prevails and grows we need a discussion about how to repair the damage to the science profession from the bad climate science of past years.

        David, again these are not MY opinions it is simply reference material

        Philip Nord

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 11:36 pm |

      World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years while CO2 is rising rapidly,” writes famous weatherman Piers Corybyn, who is an astrophysicist.

      Completely untrue.

      Why would you write such a lie?

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 9:06 pm |

      “NASA says that CO2 is a coolant not a warming gas.”

      Ridiculous. CO2 absorbs IR. How does that cool?

  31. Christos Vournas | January 27, 2020 at 2:29 pm |

    Ordvic, maybe the following presentation will help.

    The Fast Rotating Planet Earth

    I would like to present the Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula:

    Te = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

    This Formula is based on the incomplete effective temperature formula:
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    And also it is based on the discovered of the Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
    Jemit = σΤe⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)

    Here the (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ is a dimensionless Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability.
    Φ – is the dimensionless solar irradiation spherical surface accepting factor.
    Accepted by a Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface planets, like Earth, Moon, Mercury and Mars…

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
    N rotations/day, is planet’s sidereal rotation period
    cp cal/gr oC – is the planet’s surface specific heat
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    The Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law is based on a simple thought.
    It is based on the thought, that physical phenomenon which distracts the black body surfaces from the instant emitting the absorbed solar radiative energy back to space, warms the black body surface up.

    In our case those distracting physical phenomena are the planet’s sidereal rotation, N rotations/day, and the planet’s surface specific heat, cp cal/gr oC.
    Thus we have the measured by satellites Earth’s
    Tmean.earth = 288 K
    to be the same as the calculated by the effective temperature complete formula
    Te.earth = 288,36 K.
    Those physical phenomena distracting Earth from the instant emitting back to space are the Earth’s rotation around its axis and the Earth’s surface specific heat.
    Also we should mention here, that a smooth surface spherical body, as the planet Earth is, doesn’t accept and absorb all the solar radiation falling on the hemisphere.
    Only the 0,47*So of the solar energy’s amount is accepted by the hemisphere. The rest 0,53*So is reflected back to space.
    That is why Φ= 0,47 what is left for surface to absorb.

    Now we have to say about the planet’s albedo “a”.
    The planet’s albedo describes the dispersed on the surface secondary reflection to space fraction of the falling on the hemisphere solar light.

    Thus a planet’s surface absorbs only the Φ*(1– a) fraction of the incident on the hemisphere solar energy.
    That is why we have the Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) expression in the complete effective temperature formula.

    Conclusions:
    We had to answer those two questions:

    1. Why Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t affect the Global Warming?
    It is proven now by the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula calculations.
    There aren’t any atmospheric factors in the Complete Formula. Nevertheless the Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula produces very reasonable results:
    Te.earth = 288,36 K, calculated by the Complete Formula, which is the same as the Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
    Te.moon = 221,74 K, calculated by the Complete Formula, which is almost identical with the Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
    Earth has a very thin atmosphere; Earth has a very small greenhouse phenomenon in its atmosphere and it doesn’t warm the planet.

    2. What causes the Global Warming then?
    The Global Warming is happening due to the orbital forcing. It is not happening because of the atmosphere.
    We have the prove – a newly discovered for the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
    Jemit = σΤe⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
    And knowing that
    Jemit = Jabs
    And
    Jabs = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4 ] (W/m²)
    Solving for Te we obtain the Planet without Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
    Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 288,36 K

    The calculations made by the Planet without Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula also correspond to the next conclusion:
    The measured by satellites Earth’s mean temperature T = 288 K is the Earth’s surface radiative equilibrium temperature.

    And… what keeps the Earth warm at Te.earth = 288 K, when the Moon is at Te.moon = 220 K?
    Why Moon is on average 68 oC colder? It is very cold at night there and it is very hot during the day…
    Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
    Does the Earth’s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth’s surface?
    No, it does not.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Curious George | January 27, 2020 at 9:37 pm |

      I don’t fully understand your formula
      Te = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
      For a very high N, will you get a very hot planet?

    • Christos Vournas | January 28, 2020 at 3:03 am |

      Thank you George.

      “Te = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
      For a very high N, will you get a very hot planet?”

      For the final Te result
      N (rotations/day) value is operated twice in forth root
      .
      Example:
      Let’s say N = 100.000.000
      [ ( 100.000.000 )¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 100 )¹∕ ⁴ = 3,1623
      And for N = 1000.000.000 it is 3,6525

      But for N = 10 it is 1,1548
      If Earth were rotating 10 times as much, Earth’s effective temperature would be:
      288 K * 1,1548 = 332,58 K

      Thank you again George.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • ordvic | January 28, 2020 at 1:48 pm |

      Christos Vournas,

      Thanks so much for the information. By your account CO2 plays very little or no role in global warming. That’s very interesting and worth further consideration. I will visit your website with great interest.

    • Christos Vournas | January 28, 2020 at 4:32 pm |

      Ordvic,

      I am very glad that my presentation of the Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula is of a great interest for you.
      This formula can be applied to all planets and moons without-atmosphere in the solar system with remarkable results.
      The most wonderful is that the calculated by this formula planet effective temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
      Also this formula proves that Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have anything to do with the climate change.
      Ordvic, I would be glad to communicate with you again.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • ordvic | January 29, 2020 at 1:27 pm |

        Christos Vournas, My only problem is with the concept of the Planet’s faster rotation causing warming. I’m sure it’s possible but is the Planet rotation actually speeding up in the last 30 or so years. I would think by attrition alone it would actually be slowing down?

      • Christos Vournas | January 29, 2020 at 3:04 pm |

        Ordvic,
        The Planet’s faster rotation causing warming is when we compare the different planets’ surface temperatures. The faster rotating planets appear to be warmer than the slower ones.
        Example is the faster rotating Earth being warmer than a slow rotating Moon, despite the fact that both Earth and Moon are orbiting at the same distance from the sun.

        With the following, in my opinion, I am explaining the orbital forcing warming trend concept.

        Milankovitch Cycle should be read Reversed !

        Of course climate changes.
        And of course the planet’s rotational spin is almost constant.
        Also Earth has a very thin atmosphere; Earth has a very small greenhouse phenomenon in its atmosphere and it doesn’t warm the planet.

        The cause of climate change is not the Earth’s atmosphere. The cause of climate change is orbital.
        Milutin Milankovitch has explained everything 100 years ago.

        The ( Ṃ ↓ ) represents the Original Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.
        And the ( Ẇ ↑ ) represents the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.

        ( Ṃ ↓ ) – supposedly this is the Original Milankovitch Cycle. Please take notice of the dot under ( Ṃ ↓ )
        The dot’s position represents the present time, when Planet Earth is in Original Milankovitch Cycle Minima:
        The Original Milankovitch Cycle shows a cooling trend.

        ( Ẇ ↑ ) – and this is the Reversed Milankovitch cycle. Please take notice of the dot above ( Ẇ ↑ )
        The dot’s position represents the present time, when Planet Earth is in Reversed Milankovitch Cycle Maxima:
        ( Ẇ ↑ ) The Reversed Milankovitch Cycle shows a warming trend.

        Milankovitch had to reverse his cycle to match the instrumental data. But he didn’t have a time.
        It was a critical mistake in Milankovitch’s assumptions.

        Now it is time for us to make the necessary correction. 100 years have passed, Milankovitch agrees, if it is necessary, for us to make a correction.

        Right now Planet Earth is in an orbital forced warming trend. And these are culmination times.

        The very slow warming trend will continue for about a 1,5 millennia on. Then slowly and gradually the Global Temperatures will become cooler.

        The ( Ṃ ↓ ) represents the Original Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.
        And the ( Ẇ ↑ ) represents the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle grapheme.

        Milankovitch Cycle should be read Reversed !
        The dot’s position represents the present time warming trend, when Planet Earth is in Reversed Milankovitch Cycle Maxima: ( Ẇ ↑ )

        At present Perihelion occurs in the middle of the Southern Hemisphere summer.
        At present Perihelion occurs in the middle of the Northern Hemisphere winter.
        Consequently at present Perihelion occurs in the middle of the Southern Hemisphere summer.
        In the summer Earth’s axis tilts toward sun. At Perihelion Earth receives 7% more intense sunlight than at the Aphelion.

        This is because the Earth’s orbit is not circular but elliptical, with the Sun located in one of the foci of the ellipse.

        When we apply Stefan-Boltzmann Law we come to conclusion that at present, when Perihelion occurs in the middle of the Southern Hemisphere summer, Earth absorbs more solar energy and that leads to orbital forced warming trend.

        It happens because North and South Hemispheres have an unequal distribution of land and oceanic surfaces.
        The Southern Hemisphere is mostly covered with oceans (water) and the Northern Hemisphere is crowded with continents (soil).

        As a result there is a major difference in each Hemisphere surface qualities. The surface is what interacts with incoming solar flux.

        cp. ocean = 1 cal /gr oC
        cp. land = 0,19 cal /gr oC

        Let’s apply the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:

        Jemit = σΤe⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)

        We can see now that when insolated, the ocean emits less intensively IR radiation back to space than the land does.
        It is just happening that way at present. When Southern Oceans are tilted towards sun Earth is at Perihelion (at closest to sun position).

        At present more intense insolation (+7%) falls on oceanic waters. That leads to orbital forced global warming trend.

        It all happens according to Reversed Milankovitch Cycle.
        And it happens according to Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

        And of course the average global insolation remains reasonably constant.
        And Jabs = [ Φ (1-a) So /4 ] (W/m²)

        What changes in the time is the Earth’s surface IR radiation intensity.
        That is why I say there is an orbital forced Global Warming Trend.

        This is the 21.170 years Milankovitch Cycle.
        Only the Milankovitch Cycle should be read Reversed !

        Ordvic, please feel free to ask me anything on this theme.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • jungletrunks | January 29, 2020 at 10:42 am |

      Christos: “The Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law is based on a simple thought.”

      I’m aware now why you circumvented the earlier question I had about clouds, in a previous string, and instead chose to answer the question from a completely different perspective. Though I’m sure you quickly learned from my reply that your expended energy was decidedly beyond my grasp; but not my subsequent appreciation stemming from thoughtful contemplation. Despite my shortcomings in science skills, I can see enough here to appreciate your eloquence of thought.

      It’s interesting how the laws governing many things often boil down to an eloquence of simplicity. I wish I had the necessary skills to better evaluate your work, regardless, I hope it at least opens doors to more lateral thinking, and away from the tribal consensus surrounding climate science.

      With his own sense of eloquence, an often repeated quote by Albert Einstein: “Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler” Less is often more.

  33. Dan Pangburn | January 27, 2020 at 7:22 pm |

    WV has been increasing faster than POSSIBLE from feedback. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com

  34. Ireneusz Palmowski | January 28, 2020 at 10:19 am |

    We still forget that the Earth’s troposphere is extremely thin. Therefore, the atmosphere has little effect on surface temperature.
    “The troposphere is characterized by turbulent mixing and overturning. This turbulence results from uneven heating of the surface and the atmosphere. Temperature decreases with height in this layer. This temperature decrease is known as the environmental lapse rate and averages 6.5 ºC/km. This layer extends from the surface up to an average altitude of 11 km (Ahrens 10).”
    https://vortex.plymouth.edu/atmosphere/layers.html

    It is different on Venus.

    “The troposphere on Venus contains 99% of the atmosphere by mass. Ninety percent of the atmosphere of Venus is within 28 km of the surface; by comparison, 90% of the atmosphere of Earth is within 10 km of the surface. At a height of 50 km the atmospheric pressure is approximately equal to that at the surface of Earth.[20] On the night side of Venus clouds can still be found at 80 km above the surface.[21]

    The altitude of the troposphere most similar to Earth is near the tropopause—the boundary between troposphere and mesosphere. It is located slightly above 50 km.[17] According to measurements by the Magellan and Venus Express probes, the altitude from 52.5 to 54 km has a temperature between 293 K (20 °C) and 310 K (37 °C), and the altitude at 49.5 km above the surface is where the pressure becomes the same as Earth at sea level.”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus

      • popesclimatetheory | January 29, 2020 at 2:57 am |

        Nikolov and Zeller establish a base. Inside that base, the temperature ranges above and below that base, due to internal factors. Colder where sun don’t shine, warmer where the sun does shine, colder where sequestered ice is thawing and reflecting, etc. If there is not much ice extent, the temperature runs at the upper bounds of the base and if there is a large ice extent the temperature runs at the lower bounds of the base.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 29, 2020 at 3:13 am |

        In my opinion, it confirms in the case of Venus. However, the Earth’s atmosphere is too thin to have a big impact on the average surface temperature. In addition, it must be assumed, like Christos, that the Earth’s surface is an ocean rather than a rock. So it receives more heat than the surface of the moon.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 29, 2020 at 3:23 am |

        In a word, the gomagnetic field (cosmic radiation), Earth’s rotational speed and oceans affect the constant average surface temperature of the Earth. Of course, the main source of energy on the surface is solar radiation.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 11:18 pm |

        Nikilov and Zeller ignore data points that don’t fit their scheme, like Mercury and (IIRC) Pluto.

        They just completely ignore that they don’t fit their silly curve fitting.

        There are other problems.Their claims are complete crap, but deniers are so desperate they have to believe them.

        “Why Nikolov and Zeller’s Pressure Claim Violates Basic Physics,” Quark Soup, 12/22/17
        http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/12/why-nikolov-and-zellers-pressure-claim.html

      • phil salmon | February 2, 2020 at 9:51 am |

        David
        It’s quite funny how N&Z set out in their paper all 12 curve fits that they tried until they found one that worked.

        However, what N&Z make is an observation. Not a theory and proposed physical mechanism. So much criticism of N&Z that says “it violates this or that” is therefore missing the point. Planet atmosphere temperatures line up on a curve based on insolation and gravity only. +/- one degree C. Gas composition appears to play no role. However in this phase space that they define – and it’s always informative to plot variables in a phase space – Venus is such a massive outlier, with a hundred fold more atmospheric density than all the rest, that all the other planets are in the curve tail and it’s not clear how much significance that fit between such disparate entities actually has.

      • phil salmon | February 2, 2020 at 10:02 am |

        Thanks Ireneusz
        I guess the earth and Mars are the only rocky planets that are not tidally locked and which rotate much faster than they orbit. This confounds comparison of atmospheric thermodynamics. None the less, one could check for N&Z’s curve within Venus’ own atmosphere.

        Your observation seems to confirm N&Z. That at the height in Venus’ atmosphere where the pressure is the same as earth, the temperature is also earth-like, despite Venus’ atmosphere being mostly CO2.

    • Herman A (Alex) Pope | January 29, 2020 at 3:19 am |

      You Wrote:
      We still forget that the Earth’s troposphere is extremely thin. Therefore, the atmosphere has little effect on surface temperature.

      That is BS! Earth is a Water Planet, Water makes all the difference. Water changes state and does more to provide the means to regulate the conditions with oceans that evaporate when you try to make them too warm and form sea ice covers when you try to make them too cold. Water, in all it states, on the surface and in the atmosphere, makes all the difference.

      A water planet is not like a dry planet, it is not!

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 29, 2020 at 1:46 pm |

        The problem is the correct calculation of the average temperature of the Earth’s surface, without the atmosphere. This is the basis for assessing the effect of the atmosphere on the average surface temperature.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 11:12 pm |

        It’s likely no one will do this calculation because it doesn’t matter.

        But see Lacis et al, Science 330, 2010, p 356-359, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html where they removed all the noncondensing GHGs from the atmo and looked 30 years out. But it doesn’t include long-term feedbacks.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 30, 2020 at 3:14 am |

        The amount of carbon dioxide at the surface changes with the growing season (especially in the oceans). Carbon dioxide in the stratosphere is produced by secondary galactic radiation.
        https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 31, 2020 at 2:13 am |

        Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons (1n) participate in the following n-p reaction:
        n + 14/7N→ 14/66C+ p
        The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
        After production in the upper atmosphere, the carbon-14 atoms react rapidly to form mostly (about 93%) 14CO (carbon monoxide), which subsequently oxidizes at a slower rate to form 14CO2, radioactive carbon dioxide. The gas mixes rapidly and becomes evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere (the mixing timescale in the order of weeks).

        Production rates vary because of changes to

        1. the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field),

        2. and due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 31, 2020 at 2:20 am |

        Sorry.
        n + 14/7N→ 14/6C+ p
        Secondary cosmic rays
        When cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere they collide with atoms and molecules, mainly oxygen and nitrogen. The interaction produces a cascade of lighter particles, a so-called air shower secondary radiation that rains down, including x-rays, muons, protons, alpha particles, pions, electrons, and neutrons. All of the produced particles stay within about one degree of the primary particle’s path.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 31, 2020 at 1:14 am |

      Ireneusz Palmowski wrote:
      We still forget that the Earth’s troposphere is extremely thin. Therefore, the atmosphere has little effect on surface temperature.

      Nothing you quoted proves that. Nothing at all. It’s just a wild claim plucked out of thin air.

      Read Fourier 1827:

      “On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space,” Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Sciences, 7 569-604 (1827).
      – English translation by William Connolley.
      http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

  35. Robert I. Ellison | January 28, 2020 at 7:52 pm |

    “The upper oceans are wholly supersaturated with respect to calcite, despite the current acidification. Largely because of the increasing solubility of calcite with pressure, the deeper oceans become undersaturated, whereafter the rate of reaction 1 increases with oceanographic depth. The depth where undersaturation first occurs is the calcite saturation depth (CSD) (2). The preindustrial oceans contained CO2 acquired from the atmosphere, from marine volcanism, and from oxic organic matter decay. At the same time, calcifying organisms precipitated CaCO3 shells that settled to the seafloor upon their death. Combined, these processes and reaction 1 lead to decreasing CaCO3 content in sediments below the CSD. The depth where the deposition rate of CaCO3 is exactly balanced by reaction 1 is called the calcite compensation depth (CCD) (2), although operationally it is commonly defined as the depth where the sediment CaCO3 content falls below 10%. The snowline (2) denotes the depth below which no CaCO3 is found in the sediment; the snowline and CCD coincide at steady state (2).”

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/calcite-dissolution.png
    https://www.pnas.org/content/115/46/11700

    The chemistry is shown in a short Encyclopedia Britannica video.

    https://www.britannica.com/video/185594/calcium-carbonate-sea-water-seashell-construction-materials

    Supersaturation of calcite and aragonite in surface waters is maintained by magnesium and other metallic ions found in abundance in seawater. The supply of dissolved calcium is another factor. In the study linked – it is suggested that dissolution rates of calcium carbonate in benthic sediment – along with a decrease in the CCD – increases with CO2 in the atmosphere. A negative although slow negative feedback to ocean acidification.

    There is however a faster biological negative feedback that is commonly neglected. In the nutrient deserts of open oceans organisms are extremely efficient at recycling resources. Calcifying organisms – foraminifera and coccolithophores – are recycled – as they are predated or scavenged – through the guts of copepods – themselves calcifying organisms that fall prey to larger organisms. Relatively little calcium carbonate falls to the ‘snowline’. In the order of 2 GtC/yr.

    In coastal zones calcium carbonate dissolution is amplified by – inter alia – parrotfish and ‘boring sponges’. If you have ever snorkeled on a coral reef and seen parrot fish poop fine white powder – that’s the biological feedback in action. Acidity in guts accelerates dissolution.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=99&v=8T-gnZevlaY&feature=emb_logo

    “The new study is bound to make a big impact in the marine biology world, the scientists believe. Not only does it contradict earlier studies, it shows that science doesn’t always produce results to buttress things everyone agrees on, like climate change.

    Quite the opposite, in fact.

    “Some people may be surprised by these findings, but that’s how science operates: it’s a normal and healthy process to question published results. Sometimes they hold up, and sometimes they don’t. Ultimately, it’s the accumulation of evidence that matters and brings us closer to the truth,” said Binning, an assistant professor at UdeM.

    “It’s not because some researchers have found one thing that we should take it at face value. As scientists, we should always be critical of what we read and what we see. That’s how science advances.”

    It doesn’t mean – however – that’s it’s OK to a priori change the chemistry of the oceans. When not doing so can be so pragmatic and economically productive.

  37. sifttheashes | January 28, 2020 at 11:50 pm |

    This seems like an extreme claim. The Best number I can find on the change in pH is -0.1 from NOAA, which seems small to account for the claim.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/27/us/pacific-ocean-acidification-crabs-dissolving-shells-scn-trnd/index.html

    • popesclimatetheory | January 29, 2020 at 2:49 am |

      Soft shells are natural events in the lives of crabs.
      We have been eating those much longer than the CO2 scam has lasted.

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 9:02 pm |

      A pH change of -0.1 is a 30% increase in acidity.

    • Robert I. Ellison | January 30, 2020 at 10:28 pm |

      This presumably involves changes in the concentration of hydrogen ions (compared to pure water) from 10^-8.1 to 10^-8. A priori within diurnal to seasonal variability. And in that region – decadal to millennial changes in low pH upwelling of abyssal water.

      http://iloveacid–basechemistry.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/8/0/27808151/2222607_orig.gif

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 31, 2020 at 1:01 am |

        This presumably involves changes in the concentration of hydrogen ions (compared to pure water) from 10^-8.1 to 10^-8. A priori within diurnal to seasonal variability.

        Variable changes are not the same as climatic changes. Humans, for example, can tolerate a few days above, say, 100 F. But if the baseline as increased by 2 F, then the level they must tolerate rises to something like 102 F. More difficult than 100 F. It means more time above their tolerance level of 100 F, when people with old, young or weak systems feel a great deal of stress.

        Going the other way makes it clearer. A human can tolerate a variability in water temperature of, say, 35 F for several minutes. But not for an hour.

      • Robert I. Ellison | January 31, 2020 at 1:52 am |

        The variability is in pH in that region of the world with deep upwelling – and there elsewhere diurnally and seasonally with biological activity. How on Earth do you connect H+ concentrations with temperature?

      • Robert I. Ellison | February 1, 2020 at 11:03 pm |

        You went from acidification – that is not distinguishable against background variability – is not a 30% increase in acidification in any rational calculation – and is any rate not possible where calcite and aragonite are in a supersaturated solution – to some fable about heating. Here’s a suggestion – get a clue before being so rude.

    • David Appell | February 1, 2020 at 11:16 pm |

      A rate not possible?

      These data show a pH decrease of -0.04 in just 16 years:

      “We used carbon dioxide (CO2) system data collected during 1999–2015 to investigate ocean acidification at time series sites in the western subarctic region of the North Pacific Ocean. The annual mean pH at station K2 decreased at a rate of 0.0025 ± 0.0010 year−1 mostly in response to oceanic uptake of anthropogenic CO2.”

      M Wakita et al, “Slow acidification of the winter mixed layer in the subarctic western North Pacific,” JGR (30 Aug 2017), DOI: 10.1002/2017JC013002.

      • Robert I. Ellison | February 2, 2020 at 2:02 am |

        We go from pH in the upwelling region of the Pacific to the western subarctic region? Do they tell what the state of calcite and aragonite supersaturation in the Arctic winter is?

  38. Herman A (Alex) Pope | January 29, 2020 at 2:43 am |

    New study suggest ozone depleting chemicals caused half of late 20th century Arctic warming https://nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4

    Climate has changed in natural cycles with temperature bounds that exceed current bounds with warmer than now for most of the most recent ten thousand years. To claim that man-made CO2 or ozone delpleting chemicals caused any of the warming that happened, well inside the bounds of past warm periods is way beyond reasonable belief.

    The ozone scam held the world scam record to be surpassed by the CO2 scam.

    They are promoting wind mills and solar panels and getting really rich from the scams, but they must scare people to get them to pay more for less reliable energy.

  39. chaamjamal | January 29, 2020 at 6:16 am |

    Sea ice expert Peter Wadhams is concerned about the alarming decline in Arctic sea ice volume that portends an imminent ice free arctic in september and all those feedback horrors implied by albedo loss and methane plumes.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/01/29/the-aaactic/

    • Jim Hunt | January 29, 2020 at 6:36 am |

      Isn’t that “news” stale by 5 or more years?

    • Robert Clark | January 29, 2020 at 9:15 am |

      Once you accept we began the new Ice Age 18,000 years ago ,will understand. Weather is Nature moving heat from the oceans to the poles, dropping the ice and thus keeping the average surface temperature relatively constant. The ice is growing at the poles. Horizontally at the Arctic and vertically at the Antarctic.

      • Jim Hunt | January 29, 2020 at 9:39 am |

        Robert – The [sea] ice isn’t “growing horizontally in the Arctic”!

        If you believe you have some evidence for your rash assertion please let me have sight of it!

      • Robert Clark | January 29, 2020 at 11:02 am |

        Orange Beach, AL The growing area for oranges is moving south.
        The area of the Arctic is now mostly water . The only place rto put the ice is on the northern land area of the continent.. At the end of the Ice Makingstage stage of the last Ice Age, the depth of the ice in northern New York State was over 5,000feet.

      • JCH | January 29, 2020 at 6:33 pm |

        Oranges are not native to that part of Alabama. They were a gift from a Japanese emperor.

        Oranges are grown primarily in Mobile and Baldwin counties. They’re on the Gulf and lie on both sides of Mobile Bay,

        What is your source for their growing season moving south?

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 10:53 pm |

        Robert Clark wrote:
        Once you accept we began the new Ice Age 18,000 years ago ,will understand

        The interglacial began 22-23,000 yrs ago.

      • Robert Clark | January 29, 2020 at 11:32 pm |

        On the Vostock Ice core graph 23,000 years to 18,000 years is the width of about 5 pencil lines. I guess I am not that good with a straight edge, or I need better glasses. The years is not important. THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT IT ISTHE BEGINNING OF THE NEW ICE AGE!!!

      • David Appell | January 30, 2020 at 9:00 pm |

        Whatever. It was 5,000 years. You can translate that into pencil widths if you want. How many pencil widths is the industrial era, about 170 years now?

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski | January 29, 2020 at 9:03 am |

    Tropical downpours from the Pacific have moved to northern Australia.

      • Robert I. Ellison | January 29, 2020 at 5:31 pm |

        In the north is patchy light to moderate rainfall. I’ll let you know if that changes.

        “A tropical low [1002 hPa] north of Jervois in the Northern Territory is moving slowly southwest, away from Queensland. A trough extends from the low across northern tropics towards the coast near Cairns. Moist and unstable air through most of central and northern Queensland will support shower and thunderstorm activity, with locally heavy falls possible with any shower or thunderstorm. A high pressure system in the Tasman Sea extends a ridge along the southern Queensland coast, leading to stable conditions in the south with just the slight chance of a shower or storm about the southeastern interior…

        A trough extends across southern and central districts of the NT, with a low moving through the Simpson District. A warm and humid westerly flow continues over the Top End north of this trough. The tropical low is expected to move southwest and weaken during Thursday with isolated heavy rainfall and cooler temperatures on the eastern and southern sides. A trough approaching from WA will move through the south on the weekend, bringing a brief cool change to southern districts.”

        The Simpson Desert after rain.

        https://maths-people.anu.edu.au/~mike/sd28.jpg

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | January 29, 2020 at 6:08 pm |

        Beautiful!

  41. afonzarelli | January 29, 2020 at 6:52 pm |

    https://www-vox-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2020/1/29/21083250/climate-change-social-tipping-points?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fenergy-and-environment%2F2020%2F1%2F29%2F21083250%2Fclimate-change-social-tipping-points

    Here’s an interesting piece on social tipping points. i personally would title it the clueless leading the clueless. But, rightly so, i guess they’ve got to start somewhere. The rest of us, of course, don’t care to be guinea pigs in someone else’s social science experiment. That’s why there’s this thing called conservatism. (left leaning loons are what drive people to the right) If it were up to me? i’d just make RIE earth tzar! Given that, the problem will either be resolved before the decade is out or it can’t be solved at all. (and short of that it just ain’t gonna happen)…

  42. David Wojick | January 29, 2020 at 7:22 pm |

    CLINTEL Manifesto blasts climate scaremongering
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2020/01/29/clintel-manifesto-blasts-climate-scaremongering/

    There is NO climate emergency. Preaching doom and gloom is a crime against the young generation. These are the key points of a new manifesto from the Climate Intelligence Group or CLINTEL.

    CLINTEL is a rapidly growing international group, led by prominent scientists, that opposes the ill-founded attempts to scare people into hasty climate policy actions. They also oppose the terrorizing of children as part of the false climate alarm. CLINTEL recently issued a World Climate Declaration denouncing scaremongering and this new manifesto provides detailed scientific backup for the WCD for a wide public. The manifesto is authored by Professor Guus Berkhout, the President of CLINTEL.

    The focus of the Berkhout manifesto is on climate related modeling, which it says is “unfit for purpose.” The purpose in this case is predicting future climate change. Modeling dominates climate science. It also provides the scary scenarios that drive hugely expensive and disruptive climate emergency action policies. That the models are faulty is a very important finding.

    The manifesto says there are at least four strong reasons why today’s models are no good.

    First, the model makers have not properly included the many factors that are known to be important, especially natural variability. In fact the major models simply assume that (almost) all climate change is due to human activity, an unproven hypothesis.

    Second, the predictions to date are dramatically too warm compared to actual satellite measurements. There has been relatively little warming in the last 20 years and much of that looks to be natural. In stark contrast the models have predicted dramatic warming that has not occurred. The models are far too hot to be trusted. Not the climate but the model makers are the source of the panic.

    Third, the models lack consideration of historical climate data. There is a growing list of observational studies finding that the global temperature is nowhere near as sensitive to human-generated CO2 as the models assume. Ironically the latest generation of models is even more sensitive than their predecessors, so they are getting even further from observation. The models are getting worse, not better.

    Nor can these models explain past periods of warming and cooling, such as the medieval warm period (MWP) and the recently ended little ice age (LIA). If we cannot even explain past climate change, exclusively caused by natural variability, then we certainly cannot understand the present and predict the future. A great deal more data and research is needed in this area. We simply have insufficient insight in the complex nature of climate change. Climate science is far from settled!

    All of these glaring problems with models are well explained in the Berkhout manifesto. It follows that present model projections of dangerous future warming and subsequent natural disasters are not to be trusted. They are certainly no basis for inflicting damaging climate policies on the world. The manifesto puts it succinctly: “Stop using Misleading Computer Models.”

    CLINTEL is also focused on children being demoralized by climate alarmism. Young people are easy to influence by activists because they have not had enough science to defend themselves. In addition, climate change and environmental pollution are hopelessly confused. To explain why there is NO climate emergency, the manifesto closes with “a message to our grandchildren.” Here is the gist of the message:

    “Don’t behave like a parrot. Be critical against the many false prophets who try to misuse you and try to turn you against your parents. The information they tell you is one-sided and misleading. Please, deepen your climate knowledge. By doing so, you will find out that there is NO empirical evidence that points at any climate crisis.”

    The World Climate Declaration basically says that the climate policies, being called for in the false name of emergency, not only dangerously undermine the global economic system but they also put lives at risk in countries where large-scale access to reliable and affordable electricity is made unfeasible. This CLINTEL manifesto provides the science showing that there is no such emergency.

    CLINTEL recently sent a letter of protest to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The basic message is clearly stated here: “Despite heated political rhetoric, we urge all world leaders to accept the reality that there is no climate emergency. There is ample time to use scientific advances to continue improving our understanding of climate change. Meanwhile, we should go for ADAPTATION; adaptation works whatever the causes are.”

    For more information see https://clintel.org and look at:

    https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/63030622/there-is-no-climate-emergency

    Please share this.

    David

  43. David Appell (@davidappell) | January 29, 2020 at 10:50 pm |

    Publish in peer review and scientists will begin to take it seriously. (And not in some two-bit predatory journal.)

    • Curious George | January 30, 2020 at 10:51 am |

      That’s why The Hockey Team redefined peer review.

    • curryja | January 30, 2020 at 11:58 am |

      Real scientists consider the scientific arguments, wherever it is published. Getting their attention is of course another issue

      • David Wojick | January 30, 2020 at 3:32 pm |

        Indeed. DOE’s Office of Science publishes about 10,000 research reports every year, none peer (or pal) reviewed. Most scientists take them very seriously.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 7:29 pm |

        Judith – time is limited. There is not enough time to evaluate all the junk that’s out there. If it isn’t peer reviewed — the minimum hurdle — it isn’t worth looking at. When I was in graduate school, pre-Internet, scientists got a lot of correspondence “proving” that special relativity was wrong, Newton was wrong, quantum mechanics was wrong, yadda yadda. They opened their mail and immediately left these “manuscripts” on the mailroom table for graduate students to laugh at.

      • curryja | January 30, 2020 at 9:20 pm |

        I’ve developed a sophisticated (and quick) filter for evaluating scientific research. Junk gets virtually no time. But I have discovered many gems not in the elite peer reviewed literature.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 9:53 pm |

        “Gems” such as what?

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 31, 2020 at 1:02 am |

        DOE’s Office of Science publishes about 10,000 research reports every year, none peer (or pal) reviewed. Most scientists take them very seriously.

        How do you know this?

      • Turbulent Eddie | January 31, 2020 at 9:24 am |

        I saw this one last night:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq8HOguXGFI

        The key concept is that we think of evolution as biological,
        but evolution pertains to anything that contains variation, transmission and selection.

        There is probably perverse selection pressure for exciting ideas such as climate catastrophe in the evolution of the literature.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | February 1, 2020 at 10:45 pm |

        T Eddie wrote:
        “The key concept is that we think of evolution as biological,
        but evolution pertains to anything that contains variation, transmission and selection”

        The history of life isn’t based just on “evolution.” It’s based on evolution VIA natural selection. There is a huge difference. Not all evolved genes survive. Not even most of them.

    • Robert I. Ellison | January 30, 2020 at 10:10 pm |

      “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Max Planck

      Paradigms evolve in the informed scientific zeitgeist – papers, conferences, lectures, books, videos, conversations and – in the internet age – reputable web pages. That are emphatically not climate blogs – including Climate etc. with its eclectic mix of implacable skeptic and what was described recently by Tim Palmer as congealed activist ‘science’. Commonly compiled in grey literature – even such as the IPCC reports – as compendiums of consensus thinking.

      Science is commonly defined as the empirical testing of hypotheses with more or less explanatory power – from which process a kernel of truth may emerge. Synthesizing disparate kernels into physical laws is another thing. Time is on the side of scientific truth – but truth in such complex systems is very uncertain. Even if peer reviewed. I doubt that we have arrived at it yet.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 31, 2020 at 1:08 am |

        Blog posts from a scientist like Judith are one thing. The mishmash of comments on her posts are something else entirely.

      • Robert I. Ellison | January 31, 2020 at 1:53 am |

        You mean like yourself David?

      • Jim Hunt | January 31, 2020 at 5:37 am |

        David – Further to my Steve/Tony update just now:

        https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/25/week-in-review-science-edition-117/#comment-908810

        what about the mishmash of comments on the posts at the likes of WUWT and unReal Climate Science?!

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/02/the-great-white-con-2015-new-einstein-award/

      • Jim Hunt | January 31, 2020 at 2:46 pm |

        David – My apologies. It seems the “Steve/Tony update” I was referring to has disappeared into moderation. Quite possibly because I was quoting the foul mouthed Steve Bannon.

        Judith – Can you dig it out, or perhaps I should try again after deleting the four letter word in question?

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 31, 2020 at 1:20 am |

        Peer review establishes a baseline standard. Passing it means a paper has made no obvious errors, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards in that it properly cites prior work and makes it methodology and conclusions clear.

        Few blog posts meet this standard.

      • Robert I. Ellison | January 31, 2020 at 3:02 am |

        “A few years ago I began writing a book about the history of Nature, one of the world’s most prestigious scientific publications. I was incredibly surprised to learn that Nature published some papers without peer review up until 1973. In fact, many of the most influential texts in the history of science were never put through the peer review process, including Isaac Newton’s 1687 Principia Mathematica, Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper on relativity, and James Watson and Francis Crick’s 1953 Nature paper on the structure of DNA.” https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2014/04/29/did-isaac-newton-need-peer-review/ideas/nexus/

        Peer review seems more a bureaucratic requirement of the post WW2 military- industrial complex – and in part a result of a vast proliferation of submissions overwhelming editors.

        The true test for science is replication and its value is discovered only much later through a far broader process of review in the ideas marketplace.

        What is more commonly found in the internecine climate wars is parsing of language rather than consideration of methods and ideas. In the words of Fred Dagg – c’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre – it’s magnificent, but it’s not the railway station.

      • afonzarelli | January 31, 2020 at 11:59 am |

        To anybody’s knowledge here, does there exist any peer reviewed papers about peer review? Or, for that matter, any non-peer reviewed papers about peer review. (and how might both those sets of papers differ on the subject?)

        Special thanks to David for engaging the subject here and to Robert for being his usual (genius) self…

        (fwiw, the fonz don’t like peer review; too afraid of fallin’ in the water)

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | February 1, 2020 at 10:42 pm |

        afonz:
        passing peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right. It means it is not obviously wrong, and that it adheres to basic scholarly standards.

        Peer review does not determine “truth.”

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | February 1, 2020 at 10:51 pm |

        For the Nth time — peer review doesn’t mean a paper is right.

        Got it?

      • cerescokid | February 1, 2020 at 11:50 pm |

        Appell

        Some have acted out in strange ways to express their anger about the Senate’s recent action. I see nothing wrong with your behavior here. As long as it’s therapeutic, that should be acceptable to all of us.

  44. Ragnaar | January 30, 2020 at 2:13 pm |

    When nitrogen is present and available, plants don’t need to order in. Their ability to sense the presence of a nearby slow-release nitrogen source, organic carbon, is the key.

    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-scientists-soil-environment-cheap-steady.html

    Everything will be Okay. As usual, I’ll wing it. Not so much nitrogen fertilizer. More carbon in the soil. Once you pulverize the stuff out of farmland, add nitrogen fertilizer. Discover new problems like run off and increased costs.

  45. David Wojick | January 30, 2020 at 4:13 pm |

    This is fun. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3
    Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading
    Zeke and Co arguing about which catastrophe is most likely. He fails to mention that the AR6 (CMIP6) models are a lot hotter than the AR5 jobs, which tends to negate his argument for 3 degrees.

    How the IPCC handles these too hot models will be interesting. The sensitivity range stays the same for 30 years then suddenly jumps just when alarmism needs it to. Suspicious.

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 7:24 pm |

      How do you know the CMIP6 models are wrong, other than that you don’t like their conclusions?

      • David Wojick | January 30, 2020 at 8:32 pm |

        CO2 sensitivity is zero so all the models are wrong, but the new hotter models have higher sensitivity so they are more wrong. But my interest is how the alarmists will handle this sudden jump in sensitivity. Will the IPCC say “we have been wrong for 30 years”?

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 31, 2020 at 12:54 am |

        Put on moderation again, Judith?
        Just for asking you a direct question?

      • Ragnaar | February 2, 2020 at 11:13 am |

        David Appell:

        “Greening was found to mitigate global warming through enhanced land carbon uptake and evaporative cooling, but might also lead to decreased albedo that could potentially cause local warming.”

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x

        Evaporative cooling: https://www.briangwilliams.us/climage-change-2/evaporative-cooling.html

        In deserts specifically, dry air. My story: It takes heat from a plant and puts it into the air as water vapor. It then goes somewhere. Since we know we live on the surface and most of our plants live there with the exception of trees over 30 feet tall, it cools the surface. But of course other things are going on, some of them with the opposite signs.

        Simple transfer of heat, all things being equal is good. The system speeds up. Just like you car’s radiator cooling system. Water is our go to heat transfer medium. So we have more of it because of climate change.

        Speculation: Some of the missing heat is the result of evaporative cooling. The lower estimates of the TCR from observations capture this. The green equatorial regions don’t care about more water vapor. They had enough to start with. The impact of global evaporative cooling might show up somewhere. Eschenbach might be able to find it. He often shows global plots of stuff. If the global greening happens in drier places, and evaporative cooling increases there, how would that look in the observation data? Mosher might find it in the UHI stuff if that exists.

        I mean where it the global humidity data? Like BEST’s data. We have local humidity data going back at least 50 years. I wonder if the Koch Brother has any money left?

  46. David Wojick | January 30, 2020 at 4:17 pm |

    Re too hot CMIP6 models see this analysis:
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085782?af=R#.XhE6r8kjlR0.twitter

    The clouds none it. Pesky critters, clouds.

  47. phil salmon | January 30, 2020 at 6:26 pm |

    the ocean’s temperature during the Last Interglacial using ice core gases. https://rdcu.be/bZ3mc

    During the last Eemian interglacial about 125,000 years ago, temperatures increased to at least 2 degrees warmer than today. That’s a whole 0.5 degrees more than an already catastrophic 1.5 degrees heating.

    Just how horrifying is the prospect of 2 degrees of warming, that the benevolent IPCC and busybody climate flappers are striving to save us from? Some new research by veteran palaeoclimate researcher John Kutzbach of the University of Wisconsin-Madison shows that during this Eemian temperature spike, the Sahara desert and Arabian peninsula were partly greener over by a North African monsoon (that does not operate now). This was in large part due to the elevated CO2 at the warming spike, caused by (not causing) the higher temperature.

    Of course, they can’t say this. What they can do is invert cause and effect, claiming that the CO2 outgassing from the warming oceans is causing that same warming. An Interstellar-like time paradox.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200127145455.htm

    The 2 degrees warming and increased CO2 that we are told are hellfire and damnation, in fact have nothing but good to offer.

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | January 30, 2020 at 7:22 pm |

      Phil:
      (1) over what time period did this 2 C increase take place?
      (2) what was the effect of this increase on plant and animal species?

      • phil salmon | February 2, 2020 at 9:38 am |

        That’s a good question.
        From memory, there were no exceptional extinctions (apart from those that happen all the time) at the Eemian optimum (warmest time). As mentioned already, the Sahara and Arabian peninsula partly greened over.

        However 80,000 years later, the next temperature extreme was a cold one, the last glacial maximum (LGM). It appears to have stressed the biosphere considerably. Many large megafauna species expired around this time. Mammoths, ground sloths, woolly rhinos, sabre-toothed tigers, some archaic humans etc. Also there was an expansion of aridity at the LGM – the opposite of the greening at the Eemian optimum.

  48. Robert I. Ellison | January 30, 2020 at 10:43 pm |

    Save the planet. Eat cows… mmmmm…

    https://www.crowdcow.com/products/new-york-strip-steak?filter%5Bbid_item%5D=iysacwwno&filter%5Btags%5D%5B%5D=15

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/cows.png

    “Rest, rest, rest! Our land in certain areas has been traditionally overgrazed and not given sufficient rest. So this is a huge focus for us. Once a pasture is “retired” for a season, we do everything we can to not use those pastures until spring. We are also working with nature, meaning when the grass is growing quick, we move the animals quick, and when it is growing slow, we move slower — this will help the grasses become more robust by giving them ample rest time before we come back again. Another way is to take half and leave half. We always want our ground covered, never grazed to the ground. This keeps the soil cool and the grasses growing longer. And the most important part is that we are paying attention to the animals’ health. If the soil is unhealthy, the grass is unhealthy, and the animals are not getting what they need. If we take care of the soil then most of the time everything above ground falls into place.”

  49. Shiva K Rao | January 31, 2020 at 1:13 am |

    Hi,
    Thanks for the blog,
    Somehow I landed on your blog and I enjoyed it.
    Hoping to get more valuable writing in future too.

    Regards,
    Shiva K Rao.
    Engineer at Vashi Electricals

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski | January 31, 2020 at 8:56 am |

    On February 5, the stratospheric polar vortex will invade North America again.
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00997/ne0e9yd3mhvx.png
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00997/ne0e9yd3mhvx.png

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski | January 31, 2020 at 9:06 am |

    The polar vortex will be blocked over the Bering Strait.
    https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/00997/2jiykyv509jm.png

  52. Don Bishop | January 31, 2020 at 11:23 am |

    RE: “Conflicts of interest in nutrition research [link] ”

     Donna Laframboise has discussed this in two posts.

     “The JAMA article tells us that, as the Annals was preparing to publish this material online, the anti-meat tribe began mobilizing. An estimated 2,000 vitriolic e-mails flooded into Laine’s inbox during a half-hour period.

    “Members of an organization called the True Health Initiative contacted her at least twice. They complained about the wording of a press release the journal was circulating about the upcoming research. They also urged her to “preemptively retract publication of these papers” for “the sake of public understanding and public health” (read their letter here).

    https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2020/01/27/cancel-culture-hits-medical-journals/

    “I recently described an organized campaign against a medical journal that published research over the objections of anti-meat activists. After the Annals of Internal Medicine refused to halt publication, the US Federal Trade Commission was urged to intervene. So was the Philadelphia district attorney’s office.

    “Do we really want to live in a world in which medical journals are afraid to publish certain conclusions because activists will sic the authorities on them? Does it really need to be said that, once government officials and the courts start second-guessing medical journals, free speech and honest scholarship are as good as dead?

    “https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2020/01/29/heres-who-pressured-the-medical-journal/ 

    • Don Bishop | January 31, 2020 at 1:40 pm |

      Lubos Motl comments on Donna’s posts:

      “Health researchers under attack by anti-meat holy warriors”

      https://motls.blogspot.com/

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | February 1, 2020 at 10:48 pm |

      “Do we really want to live in a world in which medical journals are afraid to publish certain conclusions because activists will sic the authorities on them?”

      Why would a journal be afraid to publish something because activists complain? If they are that afraid, they are of no use to the scientific community and deserve to go out of business, hopefully because scientists no longer submit there.

      • jungletrunks | February 15, 2020 at 4:15 pm |

        “Why would a journal be afraid to publish something because activists complain? If they are that afraid, they are of no use to the scientific community and deserve to go out of business, hopefully because scientists no longer submit there.”

        John Cook would agree with this as a strategic MO.

  53. jungletrunks | January 31, 2020 at 12:10 pm |

    Brexit is finally official today.

    Margaret Thatcher, in her younger years, was an enthusiastic supporter of the EU. That changed of course.

    You can’t blame Thatcher, the allure in the younger mind for collectivism is strong. The collectivist undertow begins as an appealing philosophic altruistic sensibility, a Kumbaya sort of platitude, a contemplation drug. The idea behind the thinking; to essentially eliminate both real, but also perceived injustices, and to instill collective goodness through power in numbers policies.

    The collectivist ideal attempts to separate innate fallibilities inherent within the individual by using a constellation of “researched good policy“ ideas to effect change based on a subjective idea of what is better. These ideas are created by elites who favor the efficiencies stemming from sameness (but hardly efficient to most things that matter). Policies created are used to filter out the individual (the enemy), at least for those whom are seen as uncooperative to “the ideals“; those undesirables, stand up nails, wherever they’re found; all those whom fail to succumb to what is collectively “defined as good“. No individual poked up nails are allowed, they ruin the finish after all!

    The Iron Lady shook herself out from the naivety of youth driven stupor for collectivist rationalizations, ultimately deciding to poke her iron head up through the sizable board feet underscoring the fanciful “level“ political playing field of the day, to denounce the EU concept. She recognized its reality, that the EU would gradually drive an effective tyranny using all means of coercion levied on societies for the express purpose of creating conformity in the pursuit for fairness. This is the default position for collectivism when all is said and done, but the reality is that collectivism isn’t immune to innate human failings, it in fact channels them. Power always finds the path of least resistance, for collectivism it will filter to the most creative gatekeepers, those who know how to channel power, they alone will decide what is allowed. Sovereignty can be seen as a check on power from a global macro level, but if denied, it can’t. Once boundaries and other checks and balances are broken down then collectivism ultimately can only lead to a global totalitarian regime; after all, someone must control all those reigns that govern all the good things the collective created.

    The difference between individual corruption and collectivist corruption is that malevolent collectivism ultimately can’t be removed beyond a certain critical mass of population, whereas individual bad actors can be removed at any time; therefore collectivism must be guarded against to avoid the perversions that evolve from a critical mass of population adhering to its ideals, this is especially true relative to the Lefts globally pervasive desires for collective governance.

    Unfortunately; innate human fallibilities, but importantly, and especially concerning, “perceived fallibilities“ of individuals, can’t be hammered out of existence through benevolent collectivist governance short of death camps; this is the only path intolerance accepts behind a certain point. Collectivism inevitably leads to a metastization of all the innate failings of the human condition, it amplifies these failings by use of hammer wielded by elites who are determined to squash the creative free mind of any individual going outside bounds of sanctioned collective behavior.

    Come to think of it, collectivist ideology is behind much of consensus climate science; astonishingly the cause of it, an industry defined by a “Cooky“ cartoon artist, of all people, a climate science enthusiast who designed the cudgel for branding thereby making the industry of climate activism marketable. A collectivist tactical device made climate activism effective.

    • Tonyb | January 31, 2020 at 1:40 pm |

      Jungle trunks

      Yes, we finally regain our independence in just over four hours time despite the best effort of our elite to ignore the democratic decision. It was a great shock to Remainers when Boris Johnson won the general election last December so conclusively.

      Europe are still our great friends and allies but the bureaucrats at the EU will no longer decide our laws, nor to judge them or tell us who we can trade with.

      Tonyb

      • jungletrunks | January 31, 2020 at 2:04 pm |

        Tonyb, It was my profound desire to see this outcome. All I can deeply, and sincerely say is congratulations; but not for just your nations claw back of national sovereignty, but for all nations relative to self determination. The outcome represents a decidedly important moment of global importance for the sovereignty of nations, as a representation for separation of powers; where it matters on a global level. It’s an important outcome for keeping the world free of individualistic bad actors who manage to grease the skids, and who manage to obtain the corrupt skills necessary to be recognized as an unimpeachable leader, the ultimate ruler. That’s how important Brexit is in my view.

        I know for many people that Brexit comes with great sadness, I however don’t choose to besmirch these people; though I don’t think they ever thought enough about the potential and likely consequences stemming from globalistic template unfolding, in my view through.

      • Jim Hunt | January 31, 2020 at 2:41 pm |

        Hello again Tony,

        Long time no see! However I’m afraid I cannot share your evident enthusiasm for the commemorative 1/2 once Great British Pound piece.

        Amongst other things my better half is a Dutch citizen born in Poland and neither of us know where on Earth we stand going forward from the day you are currently celebrating.

      • Tonyb | January 31, 2020 at 3:15 pm |

        Jungle trunks.

        Sincere thanks. Yes, I think there is also much greater significance than simply regaining our independence .

        Jim

        I sincerely hope that things work out for the best for you. The EU did not have our mandate to morph from the EEC to the current EU and who knows what in the future. It’s not a journey I was asked if I wanted to travel on nor wished to participate in. I think we have a great future but the next period of time won’t be easy. Once again, my sincere hope things work out for the best for you and yours and indeed the rest of our EU friends currently living and working here

        Tonyb

  54. Christos Vournas | January 31, 2020 at 12:28 pm |

    The temperature
    Tearth.mean = 288 K measured by satellites
    actually is the Earth’s effective temperature
    Te.earth =288 K, which satellites measure.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  55. franktoo | January 31, 2020 at 1:41 pm |

    Thanks for the link to this article, Judith. Kinda shocking after all of the talk about committed warming.

    “Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the zero emission commitment from CO2.

    The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is the change in global mean temperature expected to occur following the cessation of net CO2 emissions, and as such is a critical parameter for calculating the remaining carbon budget. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) was established to gain a better understanding of the potential magnitude and sign of ZEC, in addition to the processes that underlie this metric. Eighteen Earth system models of both full and intermediate complexity participated in ZECMIP. All models conducted an experiment where atmospheric CO2 concentration increases exponentially until 1000 PgC has been emitted. Thereafter emissions are set to zero and models are configured to allow free evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Many models conducted additional second priority simulations with different cumulative emissions totals and an alternative idealized emissions pathway with a gradual transition to zero emissions. The inter-model range of ZEC 50 years after emissions cease for the 1000 PgC experiment is − 0.36 to 0.29 ºC with a model ensemble mean of −0.06 ºC, median of −0.05 ºC and standard deviation of 0.19 ºC. Models exhibit a wide variety of behaviours after emissions cease, with some models continuing to warm for decades to millennia and others cooling substantially. Analysis shows that both ocean carbon uptake and carbon uptake by the terrestrial biosphere are important for counteracting the warming effect from reduction in ocean heat uptake in the decades after emissions cease. Overall, the most likely value of ZEC on multi-decadal timescales is close to zero, consistent with previous model experiments”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

  56. Christos Vournas | January 31, 2020 at 1:47 pm |

    We average first and only then we operate the forth root.
    We have to put two important sentences together.
    So that’s what I conclude is that there is no measurable greenhouse effect on Earth.
    What satellites measure as T = 288 K is the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface.
    And not T = 255 K from the earth’s surface and plus another 33 oC from the earth’s atmosphere.
    Satellites measure well what they see. But they can’t tell where it comes from.
    Scientists calculated Earth’s effective temperature with the old incomplete formula and scientists came to the old wrong result
    Te.earth = 255 K
    .
    To say now something else very basic:
    The temperature T = 288 K is called Earth’s average year around mean temperature.
    At first I was very much confused.
    I had calculated the Earth’s effective temperature with the complete formula and I had found it being
    Te.earth = 288,36 K.
    It is not possible with a Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula to calculate so precisely the average temperature of a planet.
    Te.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

    But what this formula did was to calculate with a high preciseness the entire solar system planets’ effective temperatures giving us temperature values almost identical with these measured by satellites…
    The temperature I calculated is called Earth’s effective temperature.

    But at one point I found out what was going on.
    The temperature Tearth.mean = 288 K measured by satellites actually is the Earth’s effective temperature Te.earth =288 K, which satellites measure.
    So satellites measure, and scientists think.
    And here’s why:
    A Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula derives from the incomplete Te formula which is based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
    Also, it should be taken in consideration, that when we calculate the planet effective temperature we do the area averaging first on the absorbed energy, before we operate the square root.
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    Above is the planet effective temperature incomplete formula which is in common use right now, but actually it is an incomplete Te formula and that is why it gives us very confusing results.
    Below is a Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula which produces very reasonable results:

    Te.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
    Te.earth = 288,36 K, calculated with the Complete Formula, which is identical with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
    Te.moon = 221,74 K, calculated with the Complete Formula, which is almost the same with the Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.

    A Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula gives us a planet effective temperature values very close to the satellite measured planet mean temperatures (the satellite measured planet effective temperatures).
    Also, it should be taken in consideration, that when satellites measure the planet mean temperature they do the averaging first on the measured energy, before they operate the square root.

    Thus we have to conclude here that the satellites measured planet mean temperatures should be considered as the satellite measured Planet Effective Temperatures.
    In other words, satellites first add all the energy they measured during the year, then divide it by the number of the measurements and then operate the fourth root, which is 288 K.
    In order to calculate the average annual temperature of the globe, each satellites’ energy measurement should be converted to temperature first and at the end of the year to add all temperatures and divide them by the number of measurements.
    The result will of course be less than 288 K.
    In their own way they make an addition, a division and a fourth root. That’s only three acts.

    Let’s see what a Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula does.
    Te.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
    The formula uses So average annual value (i.e. addition and energy division) and then operates the fourth root, but the result is called Planet Effective Temperature, rather than planet mean temperature.

    Now it is time to put these two very important sentences together:

    When calculating the planet effective temperature we do the year around area averaging first on the absorbed energy, before we operate the square root.
    And
    When satellites measure the planet mean temperature they do the year around averaging first on the measured emitted energy, before they operate the square root.
    And both these results, the measured by the satellites and the calculated by the Effective Temperature Complete Formula are almost identical for all planets without atmosphere in the entire solar system, Earth with its very thin atmosphere included.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Christos Vournas | January 31, 2020 at 2:21 pm |

      Sorry, correction, instead of the “square” root – fourth root.

      • Christos Vournas | January 31, 2020 at 4:31 pm |

        franktoo,

        1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Calculation:
        So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
        Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,30
        Earth is a rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47 (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
        β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
        N = 1 rotation per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation period
        cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
        σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
        Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.earth is:
        Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
        Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
        Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
        Τe.earth = ( 6.914.170.222,70 )¹∕ ⁴ =
        Te.earth = 288,36 Κ
        And we compare it with the
        Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
        These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

        2. Moon’s Effective Temperature Calculation:
        So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
        Moon’s albedo: amoon = 0,136
        Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,3216 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
        Moon is a rocky planet, Moon’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φmoon = 0,47 (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r²*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
        cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC, moon’s surface is considered as a dry soil
        β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
        N = 1/29,5 rotations per/ day
        σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
        Moon’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.moon:
        Te.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
        Te.moon = { 0,47 (1-0,136) 1.362 W/m² [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
        Te.moon = 221,74 Κ
        The newly calculated Moon’s Effective Temperature differs only by 0,8% from that measured by satellites!
        Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas | February 3, 2020 at 4:09 pm |

        franktoo, I am very glad we are having this conversation.
        I think I understand now what is going on here.

        I visited again the Arthur Smith’s manuscript trying to figure out what is going on with the reflection. I am trying to understand where is the difficulty.

        Here is an abstract from the Arthur Smith’s manuscript:
        “The energy per unit time arriving at the planet is the product of S(t) with the area the planet subtends in the plane perpendicular to the radiant propagation direction. For a spherical planet of radius r, this area is simply πr2. So total arriving energy (energy per unit time, or power) from space is
        Ein(t) = πr2S(t) (1)
        (Christos : It is all right )

        For a given location x on the planetary surface, the normal to the plane of the local surface makes an angle θ(x,t) with the radiation propagation direction of a given stellar source. Only one side of the planet will be lit at any given time from that source; this can be generally indicated by those angles θ from 0 to π/2 radians. Angles from π/2 to π would be unlit. So local incoming irradiance would be:
        s(x,t) = cos(θ(x,t))S(t) (2)

        (Christos : It is all right )

        Integrating this on a spherical planet (including only the lit side) gives the πr2 factor in equation 1.

        (Christos : It is all right. The integration gives πr2 factor in equation. πr2 is the disk’s surface area )

        Define the albedo a of the planet as the fraction of incoming irradiance that is reflected. a is also a local property (for Earth much is reflected by clouds and ice), so the locally reflected energy is a(x,t)s(x,t). Integration across the lit side of the planet gives a well defined reflected energy:
        Ereflected(t) = S(t)Z a(x,t)cos(θ(x,t))dx (3)
        An effective albedo aeff can then be defined by the ratio of reflected to incoming energy across the planet as a whole:
        2
        Ereflected(t) = aeff(t)Ein(t) = πr2aeffS(t) (4)
        The difference between incoming and reflected energy is what the planet absorbs (again, per unit time):
        Eabsorbed(t) = πr2(1−aeff(t))S(t) ”

        (Christos : It is not enough )

        Let’s see now what happens next:
        ” Define the albedo a of the planet as the fraction of incoming irradiance that is reflected”.

        From Wikipedia:
        “The Bond albedo, named after the American astronomer George Phillips Bond (1825–1865), who originally proposed it, is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space.

        Because the Bond albedo accounts for all of the light scattered from a body at all wavelengths and all phase angles, it is a necessary quantity for determining how much energy a body absorbs. This, in turn, is crucial for determining the equilibrium temperature of a body.
        Because bodies in the outer Solar System are always observed at very low phase angles from the Earth, the only reliable data for measuring their Bond albedo comes from spacecraft”.

        Now, Define the albedo a of the planet as the fraction of incoming irradiance that is reflected, it is all right with me.
        Bond: “it is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space”.
        It is all right, it is diffused on the surface and then it is scattered back out into space.
        So it is lost for transforming it in LW radiation.

        Now, there is also the actual reflection from the sphere 0,53 *S.
        Well, let’s imagine a sphere with an albedo a =0. A sphere painted black will still reflect 0,53*S.
        What is left (to absorb) to transform in LW outgoing radiation for the planet then is Φ*(1 – a)S, where Φ=1-0,53=0,47.
        This 0,53*S cannot be seen and measured from spacecraft. It is not diffused on the surface and it is not seen from the perpendicular to the radiant propagation direction. The 0,53*S slides off the sphere as the air flow slides off the aerodynamic car.

        I will continue soon with the surface temperature.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas | February 3, 2020 at 4:29 pm |

        franktoo: “The amount surface temperature rises and falls on a rotating planet depends on the depth below the surface heat from radiation is conducted (solid surface) or convected (liquid surface). This depth is something we don’t know about other bodies”.

        No, it is not like this. It does not happen like this. Conduction and convection are very slow energy transfer processes. The radiation is very fast, it “works” at the very instant.
        When solar irradiated the surface responses at the very instant. It does not absorb first, rise the temperature and then emit.
        The surface responses so fast, we can skip the absorption phase and go straight to the emission.
        Surface emission’s intensity determines surface temperature rise.
        The temperature rise creates a higher temperature gradient with the soil or the water.
        It is then the absorption starts. it is a very small amount energy absorbed and it depends on the surface properties.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas | February 3, 2020 at 5:16 pm |

        franktoo: ” Disk vs Sphere: Lambert’s cosine law says that the power transmitted to a surface varies with the cosine of the zenith angle. Arthur Smith integrates the power delivered over all zenith angles”.

        Lambert’s cosine law says that the power transmitted to a surface, not the power absorbed by the surface.

        Now, there is also the actual reflection from the sphere 0,53 *S.
        Well, let’s imagine a sphere with an albedo a =0. A sphere painted black will still reflect 0,53*S.
        What is left (to absorb) to transform in LW outgoing radiation for the planet then is Φ*(1 – a)S, where Φ=1-0,53=0,47.
        This 0,53*S cannot be seen and measured from a spacecraft. It is not diffused on the surface and it is not seen from the perpendicular to the radiant propagation direction. The 0,53*S slides off the sphere as the air flow slides off the aerodynamic car.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas | February 3, 2020 at 6:30 pm |

        franktoo: “…empirically fitting an arbitrary equation to observations”.

        Observations – the planets’ measured temperatures, the planets’ surface specific heat cp, the planets’ sidereal rotation period, the distance from the sun, the measured by spacecrafts planets’ albedo, the planets’ smooth or heavy cratered surface.
        The discovery of the “The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average temperature: Tmin ↑↑→T↑mean←T↓max, because Tmin grows faster”.
        The understanding that a planet’s surface does not behave as a blackbody surface and it does not emit as a blackbody.
        The discovery of the Φ=0,47
        All these together led to the discovery of the Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
        Jabs=Φ*S*(1-a)/4=
        Jemit=σΤe⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)

        And only then, solving for Te:

        Te.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
        and then
        Te.earth = 288,36 K, calculated with the Complete Formula, which is identical with the
        Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
        Te.moon = 221,74 K, calculated with the Complete Formula, which is almost the same with the Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.

        The calculated planet’s temperatures were confirmed by spacecrafts’ measurements. It is the Rotating Planet Spherical Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law:
        Jabs=Φ*S*(1-a)/4=
        Jemit=σΤe⁴/(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
        confirmation.
        There is a lot of physics here to consider. It is a new Universal Law. That is why it fits in observations. A Universal Law has to fit in observations. A Universal Law has the ability to describe the observations. And to explain the observations.
        A new Universal Law becomes then a powerful instrument for the further scientific research.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • franktoo | January 31, 2020 at 3:47 pm |

      Christos: Every attempt to quantify the GHE in terms of the TEMPERATURE difference between a planet with GHGs (observed temperature) and without GHGs flounders on the need to make assumptions about (or a model for) for the same planet without GHGs. The simplest assumption is to model the planet as a blackbody with a uniform surface temperature and unchanged albedo. One might argue that other assumptions/models might be superior (non-uniform surface temperature, rotating, changing albedo, etc.), but one can’t avoid the need to make [potentially controversial] assumptions. The problem of calculating a mean surface temperature of the moon that agrees with observations, for example, is challenging. Given the difficulty and controversy of obtaining the “right value” for the GHE, using a blackbody [equivalent temperature] model and obtaining 33 K has the merit of simplicity.

      IMO, it makes far more sense to quantify the GHE in terms of W/m2 rather than degK. Using GMST, one can calculate that the average surface emits 390 W/m2 and that the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere reduces that outward flux to 240 W/m2, a 150 W/m2 GHE. There are no assumptions here. A superior calculation would use the observed temperatures (and surface emissivities if you want) summed over all locations rather than an average temperature. I haven’t seen the results of such a calculation.

      Radiative transfer calculations allow us understand how radiative flux changes with changes in atmospheric composition. The most challenging problem in climate science is converting a change in radiative flux into a change in temperature. That is why there is still a large uncertainty in ECS, the warming associated with a modest change in CO2 producing a reduction in OLR of about 3.5 W/m2. Under these circumstances, it is absurd to search for precision in calculating the temperature change associated with a radiative forcing about 40X bigger.

      • franktoo | February 3, 2020 at 12:30 pm |

        Christos: Disk vs Sphere: Lambert’s cosine law says that the power transmitted to a surface varies with the cosine of the zenith angle. Arthur Smith integrates the power delivered over all zenith angles.

        The amount surface temperature rises and falls on a rotating planet depends on the depth below the surface heat from radiation is conducted (solid surface) or convected (liquid surface). This depth is something we don’t know about other bodies.

        A fudge factor is a factor that is varied to fit observations. In the Stefan-Boltzman law, sigma is not a fudge factor because its value has been derived from other fundamental constants. Emissivity is somewhat of a fudge-factor because it is chosen to agree with empirical observations. (However, emissivity is not completely freely chosen because emissivity is always equal to absorptivity.) Given that the conductivity of a planet’s surface (or the mixing in an ocean) could in principle be measured, Smith has derived his solution from fundamental principles of physics, not empirically fitting an arbitrary equation to observations.

    • franktoo | February 2, 2020 at 1:04 pm |

      Christos: At the links below, you can find a reasonably correct explanation for the physics explaining the average surface temperature of a variety of rotating and non-rotating planets without GHGs in their atmospheres.

      https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.4324.pdf (Arthur Smith)
      https://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.2767.pdf

      I read the explanation at your website, but found no clear derivation for your (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ term. Is your β term merely be a fudge factor to fit observations. It is simple to prove this factor is wrong. A rapidly rotating planet with a average irradiation of S will have an surface temperature proportional to the fourth root of S. A non-rotating (or tidally-locked) planet will have a temperature of 0 K on the dark side and the lit side will have an average surface temperature equal to the fourth root of 2*S. The average of (0*S)^(1/4) and (2*S)^(1/4) is 0.59*S.

      I don’t want to get into a highly mathematical debate at a blog – just merely suggest you read and fully understand Arthur Smith’s manuscript before before continuing to push your formula.

      • Christos Vournas | February 2, 2020 at 2:35 pm |

        franktoo: “Is your β term merely be a fudge factor to fit observations”.

        β term fits observations !

        β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant.

        β term is deriving from the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law.

        β term cannot be a fudge factor.

        β term fits in observations for every planet or moon without atmosphere effective temperature calculation in solar system.

        Conclusion: β term is a very good term, it is not a fudge factor.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas | February 3, 2020 at 5:34 am |

        franktoo: “read and fully understand Arthur Smith’s manuscript”.

        I followed your advice, thank you.

        What I learned is that in these two manuscripts Earth is considered accepting solar radiation as a disk.
        And Earth’s surface is considered as a blackbody.

        But Earth accepts solar radiation as a sphere and not as a disk.
        And Earth is a planet and as a planet Earth’s surface properties are very much different of the blackbody’s.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  57. Christos Vournas | January 31, 2020 at 4:38 pm |

    Mars’ Effective temperature calculation
    Te.mars
    (1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32
    Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has
    Mars’ albedo: amars = 0,25
    N = 1 rotations/per day, Planet Mars completes one rotation around its axis in about 24 hours
    Mars is a rocky planet, Mars’ surface solar irradiation accepting factor: Φmars = 0,47
    cp.mars = 0,18 cal/gr oC, on Mars’ surface is prevalent the iron oxide
    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
    So = 1.362 W/m² the Solar constant
    Mar’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula is:
    Te.mars = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    Planet Mars’ Effective Temperature Te.mars is:
    Te.mars = [ 0,47 (1-0,25) 1.362 W/m²*(1/2,32)*(150*1*0,18)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Te.mars = 213,59 K
    The calculated Mars’ effective temperature Te.mars = 213,59 K is only by 1,7% higher than that measured by satellites
    Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K !

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  58. Christos Vournas | January 31, 2020 at 4:45 pm |

    Mercury’s Effective Temperature Calculation
    Te.mercury
    N = 1/58,646 rotations/per day, Planet Mercury completes one rotation around its axis in 58,646 days.
    Mercury’s average distance from the sun is R=0,387AU.
    The solar irradiation on Mercury is (1/R²) = (1AU/0,387AU)²= 2,584²= 6,6769 times stronger than that on Earth.
    Mercury’s albedo is: amercury = 0,088
    Mercury is a rocky planet, Mercury’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor: Φmercury = 0,47
    Cp.mercury = 0,19 cal/gr oC, Mercury’s surface is considered as a dry soil
    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
    So = 1.362 W/m² the Solar constant
    Planet Mercury’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula is:
    Te.mercury = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    Planet Mercury’s Effective Temperature Te.mercury is:
    Te.mercury = { 0,47(1-0,088) 1.362 W/m²*6,6769*[150* (1/58,646)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
    Te.mercury = 346,11 K
    The calculated Mercury’s effective temperature Te.mercury = 346,11 K is only 1,80% higher than the measured by satellites
    Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K !

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  59. Robert I. Ellison | January 31, 2020 at 4:49 pm |

    The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it away on photo opportunities for politicians and celebrities. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.

    Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies.

    One critical freedom is economic freedom. Free markets foster entrepreneurialism and innovation. Markets need fair, transparent and accessible laws – including on open and equal markets, labour laws, environmental conservation, consumer protection and whatever else is arrived at in the political arena. Optimal tax take is some 23% of GDP and government budgets are balanced. Interest rates are best managed through the overnight cash market to restrain inflation to a 2% to 3% target. These nuts and bolts of market management are mainstream market theory and keep economies on a stable – as far as is possible – growth trajectory. The critical project for development is opening up markets for agricultural products. The Copenhagen Consensus found that a deal on the DOHA round of trade talks would make the world richer by $11-trillion by 2030. Put that in the related context of $300 billion recently estimated – https://time.com/5709100/halt-climate-change-300-billion/?xid=tcoshare – as the cost of better and more productive land management to reverse carbon dioxide build up in the atmosphere.

    Economics is a networked system – a map would look something like this only vastly more complex and multi-layered. It is made up of individual players who can interact with each other, with corporations and with government. It is fueled by sweat and tears and is vulnerable to fear and greed. The key to managing fear and greed is to avoid bubbles and the inevitable bust.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/jrnlcovercropped.jpg

    The third great idea in 20th century physics – along with relativity and quantum mechanics – is dynamical complexity. Dynamical complexity has many applications in ecology, population, epidemiology, physiology, weather and climate, planetary orbits, earthquakes and economics to name a few. We tend to accept relativity and quantum mechanics as great ideas without understanding much about them. Dynamical complexity is more widely known as chaos theory – and is as little understood. The broad class of dynamical systems is known by certain behaviours. This is shown in economics by the potential for small initial shocks – a few hundred billions in toxic debt for instance – to cause a global economic meltdown as a result of collective emergent behaviour. Fear and greed ran rampant putting an end to decades of economic stability and growth. Didier Sornette calls these events dragon-kings.

    Stability brings with it economic growth and reduced scope for fear and greed. Economic growth is faster in well managed markets in low income regions. This leads to a broadening of economic activity and strong nodes of regional economic activity. North and South Americas, Oceania, Asia, Africa and Europe all have scope to be influential partners in the global economy. Multiple regions of economic strength provide buffers against instability in one region or other. It is no longer the case that the global economy is dominated by one region or another. A mutual interest in trade and growth provides as well a path to peace as countries recognize that cooperation is more fruitful than conflict.

    There are – on the other hand – assertions that capitalism has intrinsic flaws that make the complete dismantling of markets necessary. There are beliefs older than Marx that markets lead to inevitable booms and busts. It always begs the question of what it is to be replaced with. The modern complaint is that capitalism requires growth – and perpetual growth is impossible in a finite world. This is an idea based on a mathematical abstraction that lacks essential real world parameters. We may recycle, substitute for finite resources or innovate in products and services. We may expand the resource base beyond the planet. We are at any rate at a point where development is sorely needed in the world – and economic growth is still self-evidently possible.

    These contesting value systems – and not science – are at the core of the internecine climate wars. Clearly weighted in the climate industry literature towards top down economic planning and social engineering. It is this that needs to be countered and not fundamentals of science or Greta.

    SSP1 Sustainability – Taking the Green Road (Low challenges to mitigation and adaptation)
    The world shifts gradually, but pervasively, toward a more sustainable path, emphasizing more inclusive development that respects perceived environmental boundaries. Management of the global commons slowly improves, educational and health investments accelerate the demographic transition, and the emphasis on economic growth shifts toward a broader emphasis on human well-being. Driven by an increasing commitment to achieving development goals, inequality is reduced both across and within countries. Consumption is oriented toward low material growth and lower resource and energy intensity…

    Fossil-fueled Development – Taking the Highway (High challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation)
    This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.     https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0959378016300681-gr5.jpg

    Cheap and abundant energy is the foundation for human progress. Even if that means using fossil fuels until something better comes along. Something that is inevitable anyway you look at it. But we have the technology to change even that.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kOeFHNpqV0

    Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – restoring organic carbon in agricultural soils with productivity gains essential for future food security, conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon, replacing cooking fires with better and healthier ways of preparing food, etc. We can sequester vast amounts of carbon in agricultural soils and increase productivity, conserve and restore ecosystems, reduce harmful tropospheric ozone precursor emissions and save money on fertilisers, reduce the strong climate effects of black carbon and save millions of lives a year. Population, development, technical innovation, pollution reduction in multiple gases and aerosols across sectors and the environment is the broader context that can best be addressed by free peoples in free markets with robust democracies.

    As F. A. Hayek said in 1967 – what ‘we lack is a liberal Utopia, a programme which seems neither a mere defence of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty… which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible… Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.’

    Arguing science fundamentals – in weird ways – haranguing teenagers and insisting everything is hunky dory doesn’t appear to be working. Perhaps it is time for a new communications strategy.

    • afonzarelli | January 31, 2020 at 9:36 pm |

      Interest rates are best managed through the overnight cash market to restrain inflation to a 2% to 3% target.

      Robert, as long as i’ve been reading you, this has been the only thing that i have ever had any real quibble about. (and that’s pretty darn good!) Low inflation comes at the expense of higher unemployment & lower wages. Thus, not the path to, as you say, optimal economic growth. (afraid i can’t stick around to discuss, no blogs on the weekend) Jus’ food for thought…

      • Robert I. Ellison | January 31, 2020 at 10:11 pm |

        Strictly Austrian school of economics. Avoiding bubbles. After ‘stagflation’ of the 1970’s when the employment/inflation relationship broke down. 119 quarters of continuous economic growth – and counting.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/inflation-long-run.gif

      • cerescokid | February 1, 2020 at 1:30 am |

        Is the Phillips Curve dead? Maybe it goes on life support every 40 years or so. Fascinating question, though I would rather have this situation than the one under Carter.

      • stevenreincarnated | February 1, 2020 at 6:28 am |

        It isn’t dead but it ignores other important factors like the changes in productivity and the cost of raw materials and so makes a reasonable general rule but is far from a law.

      • JCH | February 1, 2020 at 10:04 am |

        The Republicans claimed JFK’s tax cut would cause inflation. But for his ~3 years in office inflation halved. After JFK, inflation essentially doubled for each subsequent Presidential term. Which is why Ford was passing around his highly effective “WIN” buttons.

        https://i.imgur.com/k7M8ZQU.png

        Carter eventually picked Volcker, whose plan was to dry up the money supply. Lots of pain.

        The first three years of Carter was a tremendous business environment. We made money like crazy; tripled our workforce. Then, Volcker.

      • Robert I. Ellison | February 1, 2020 at 3:45 pm |

        People make money in periods of asset price inflation – and then they don’t. All bubblers burst. An emergent dragon-king event driven by collective fear and greed in markets.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=998&v=C_eFjLZqXt8&feature=emb_logo

        The bottom line remains. Population, development, technical innovation, pollution reduction in multiple gases and aerosols across sectors and the environment is the broader context that can best be addressed by free peoples in free markets with robust democracies.

      • franktoo | February 1, 2020 at 10:31 pm |

        Cerescokid asked: “Is the Phillips Curve dead?”

        Brookings recently held a conference on this question with a lot of respected economists/central bankers. Part 2 of many can be found at the link below and the first speaker addresses some basics. Inflation is the result of many factors: slack in the labor market, productivity, competition from low wage countries, expectations about inflation, external shocks, and the monetary policy of central bankers who are using unemployment as an important factor in their decisions. For this reason, no one should expect to observe a simple relationship between between unemployment and inflation without correcting for these other factors.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTmgokNC0JE

        The Phillips curve appears to be alive, but IMO it makes sense to apply it to inflation in the cost of labor rather than in overall inflation.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | February 1, 2020 at 11:01 pm |

        Haven’t we had free markets so far?

        So why haven’t they solved your list of problems?

      • Robert I. Ellison | February 2, 2020 at 1:29 am |

        “Furthermore, once it is established that formation of bubbles is about the expansion in the money supply it is obviously the central bank and fractional reserve banking that are responsible for the formation of bubbles. As a rule it is the central bank’s monetary pumping that sets in motion an expansion of the monetary balloon.” https://mises.org/wire/high-prices-dont-cause-economic-bubbles

        Controlling inflation is one aspect of managing money supply to restrain asset price bubbles and busts. In the longer term fundamental to stable, sustained growth and real wealth based on productivity and innovation.

        The 2008 financial crisis was predicted. It started in America after the dotcom boom and 911. In a looming recession the government lowered interest rates – and continued to lower them further over the next several years. With low interest rates the housing market boomed. At the same the government funded subsidies for low income earners that further fueled the asset bubble in a self-sustaining cycle possible due to rising house prices. The emerging problem was compounded with hundreds of billions of dollars of high risk and outright fraudulent loans. The banks channeled funds to politicians to keep the subsidies rolling. Neither the banks nor governments insisted on normal prudential practices of making loans to people who had the ability – and an incentive with skin in the game – to repay without continuing price rises. These high risk loans were then packaged and on sold with AAA ratings supplied by companies paid by the banks. When interest rates ultimately were raised again – the house of cards collapsed.

        The international Basel III Convention has since raised minimum capital reserve requirements to cater for bad debt. A fairly safe recommendation – but not nearly sufficient. The is a package of prudential banking regulation and fiscally conservative government – that doesn’t print money.
        And that saw a dragon-king in which a few hundred million in bad debt cascaded into billions in losses.

        Having reviewed Phillips curve theory – btw – it seems that high unemployment results in low wage cost inflation and vice versa. Avoiding extreme swings in employment is probably a good idea

      • cerescokid | February 2, 2020 at 6:34 am |

        frank

        Yes, in fact the original work by Phillips was for cost of labor but the term has become a proxy for overall inflation.

        Over the last 70 years we certainly have had a wild ride on inflation and interest rates as shown here with the Federal Funds Rate.

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Federal_funds_rate_history_and_recessions.png

        With $17 Trillion global sovereign negative yielding debt last year, Danish negative mortgage rates, RePo rates having tantrums, an intermittent inverted yield curve, zombie companies being propped up by low rates, global economic growth rates anemic and the Nikkei well off its 1989 39,000 high, I’m not sure where it all ends. But FDR’s economic advisers were in the dumps in 1937 when unemployment rates popped back up to 19% after having dropped off significantly from the 25% high and industrial production had plummeted 30% and we fell into another contractionary period. They wondered if things would ever look up again. For 45 years after the War, Real Growth in Adjusted Gross Income rose ~3.5% per annum until 2000. Since then it’s averaged 1%. Robert Gordon has an excellent book out, Rise and Fall of American Growth. He questions whether the heady days of growth are behind us.

      • stevenreincarnated | February 2, 2020 at 7:15 am |

        If some people are right and we are on the brink of an automation revolution then you could see periods even of deflation when economies are growing like happened occasionally during the industrial revolution.

      • franktoo | February 2, 2020 at 12:15 pm |

        Cerescokid: Yes, inflation has changed dramatically in the past. I certainly don’t know how much slack in the labor market contributes to inflation (the Phillip’s curve). I just provided some hints as to why overly simplistic “proofs” that the Phillip’s curve is dead are likely misleading and a link to where you can hear a variety of central bankers (including Ben and Janet) and academics discussing how surprisingly low inflation in the past decade has modified their understanding of the issue.

      • Robert I. Ellison | February 2, 2020 at 3:18 pm |

        “By controlling the interbank rate through its open market operations, the Fed indirectly controls the broader money supply, and also attempts to manage the changes in the general price level (consumer prices), as well as output and employment. Open market operations are thus the main
        monetary instrument in the conduct of stabilization policy.” https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/federal_reserve_monetary_policy_hayek_rule.pdf

        Thanks Fonz – you managed to divert attention to a quite tangential discussion of inflation and unemployment. Inflation and unemployment are related via wages and demand in the business cycle. The essential aspect – however – is monetary policy used to constrain money supply and counter the potential for bubbles and thus busts.

        But to answer David’s question about free markets – very few countries have free markets.

        e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/pdf/2019/book/index_2019.pdf

        ‘To build a better world, we must have the courage to make a new start. We must clear away the obstacles with which human folly has recently encumbered our path and release the creative energy of individuals. We must create conditions favourable to progress rather than “planning progress.”… The guiding principle in any attempt to create a world of free men must be this: a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy.
        —Friedrich A. Hayek

        Free markets do better on all indicators.

        https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-2.png

        https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-3.png

        https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-4.png

        Including environmental.

        https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-7.png
        – including environmental.

    • Robert I. Ellison | February 1, 2020 at 10:56 pm |

      Population, development, technical innovation, pollution reduction in multiple gases and aerosols across sectors and the environment conservation and restoration is the broader context that can best be addressed by free peoples in free markets with robust democracies.

      SSP5 is the way to go – with carbon cowboys and nuclear engines. I know you don’t get it David.

    • Robert I. Ellison | February 2, 2020 at 1:47 am |

      “To build a better world, we must have the courage to make a new start. We must clear away the obstacles with which human folly has recently encumbered our path and release the creative energy of individuals. We must create conditions favourable to progress rather than “planning progress.”… The guiding principle in any attempt to create a world of free men must be this: a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy.” Friedrich A. Hayek

      Most economies – to answer David’s question above – do not have free markets.

      https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

      And free economies do better on a range of indicators – including environmental.

      https://www.heritage.org/index/images/book/2019/Chapter4/EF%202019%20CHAPTER%204%20CHARTS-7.png

      Of course – we could always contrast the latter with findings of the IUCN & WWF.

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/income-and-lpi.png

  60. Jim Hunt | February 1, 2020 at 7:11 am |

    It seems that my recent update on the Arctic snake oil currently being peddled by Tony Heller still hasn’t been released from purgatory. In which case let me try a different, Bannonless, tack:

    https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/1223557019359240192

    1000 likes and 100 retweets of an ad hominem attack do not constitute peer reviewed “Real Science”!

  61. Ragnaar | February 1, 2020 at 9:43 am |

    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-dynamics-democratic-elections-physics-theory.html

    Clear as mud explanation:

    The diagram shows something some of us remember from Ellison. Scale doesn’t matter and you make a few simple rules and keep recycling those rules.

    The diagram has 3 plots along the top. Flip them over so the bottoms are now the top. They are then basins of attraction. The state something is in is then influenced by the basin shape.

    We used to have a stable basins so they say. Now some say we have unstable basins. Like the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets. Those melt basins are now shaped to give us a lot of sea level rise. Policy is an attempt to control the basin shape.

    Why would voters follow these same rules? Why do some birds exhibit swarm behavior? Evolution I suppose. My son taught me a new phrase. Least energy path. We were discussing planetary gravity assists.

    • Robert I. Ellison | February 1, 2020 at 5:42 pm |

      “By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded.” Mandelbrot and Wallis, 1968, Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology

      The simplest rule to emerge from Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics observed in geophysical time series is to expect surprises. The straw that broke the camel’s back is slow variation in control variables until the system crosses a threshold to a new attractor basin.

      https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bifurcations.png

      The problem is both to reduce anthropogenic changes to control variables and to build human systems in landscapes that are both resilient. And to do it in ways that are pragmatically effective.

      The scope of anthropogenic change to Earth systems in recent decades – and the potential for a planetary emergency this century – is staggering.

      https://www.stockholmresilience.org/images/18.3110ee8c1495db74432636f/1459560224012/PB_FIG33_media_11jan2015_web2.jpg

      Nutrient runoff and erosion abruptly change crystal clear, biologically productive streams and lakes into murky, light limited systems. With blue-green algae blooms proliferating and the expansion of coastal anoxic zones by a factor of 10 in recent decades. The populations of 1000’s of key species have declined by 50% since the 1970’s – a loss of genetic diversity within populations – with a predictable ‘dragon-king’ event in population dynamics and an ecological cascade possible – even likely – in mere decades.

  62. Ragnaar | February 1, 2020 at 7:22 pm |

    “In a new study, published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, the researchers report that climate-altering carbon emissions and intensive land use have inadvertently greened half of the Earth’s vegetated lands. And while that sounds like it may be a good thing, this phenomenal rate of greening, together with global warming, sea-level rise, and sea-ice decline, represents highly credible evidence that human industry and activity is dramatically impacting the Earth’s climate, say the study’s first authors, Shilong Piao and Xuhui Wang of Peking University.”

    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html

    Greening may be a good thing, but it’s bad because it proves we are causing it. Having more money may be a good thing, but it proves you earned it and didn’t just find money laying around somewhere.

    So if a thing is good and you caused it, it means that the fact that you caused is worse than the good thing is good.

    Hold one there. Things are better. But that just proved we caused them to be better.

    Billionaires have money. Which seems like a good thing. But that just proves they caused themselves to have money, when all along people were denying they earned it.

    We inadvertently caused deserts to retreat enough to measure that. If we had directly tried and failed, would that have been better? Sea level rise is also inadvertent. I feel better about it now. If greening may not be good, sea level rise may not be bad. We have a lot of rules here about what’s good and bad.

    • Ragnaar | February 1, 2020 at 10:24 pm |

      “Plants are actively defending against the dangers of carbon pollution by not only sequestering carbon on land but also by wetting the atmosphere through transpiration of ground water and evaporation of precipitation intercepted by their bodies…”

      So water vapor is the thing that makes it worse than just the warming effect of CO2. At the same time it’s cooling the Earth. So when you frame it it as climate sensitivity, part CO2 and part water vapor, the water vapor in net is warming the Earth, except for this change which is cooling and of course part of the CMIP6s.

      So we have the warming of the water vapor and the cooling of the water vapor above. Dependent on what? Greening. Or reverse greening.

      Now determine the water vapor’s relationship to additional CO2. It depends on plants. And CO2 levels also depends on what’s going on with plants. Good luck.

      Using the term carbon pollution gets them a woke badge. Can these people talk better than some ignorant politician? They should aim higher.

      • David Appell (@davidappell) | February 1, 2020 at 10:30 pm |

        Raagnar wrote:
        So water vapor is the thing that makes it worse than just the warming effect of CO2. At the same time it’s cooling the Earth

        Where did you ever hear that water vapor cools the Earth??????

      • matthewrmarler | February 2, 2020 at 2:08 am |

        David Appell: Where did you ever hear that water vapor cools the Earth??????

        1. Water vapor freezes and forms clouds, which blocks incoming sunlight.

        2. The creation of water vapor at the surface, aka evaporation, cools the surface.

        Admittedly, that isn’t what Ragnaar wrote.

      • Ragnaar | February 2, 2020 at 3:01 pm |

        David Appell:

        I put my reply to your question in the wrong place. It contains this:
        “Greening was found to mitigate global warming through…”

      • JCH | February 2, 2020 at 4:47 pm |

        To me the article hints the “cooling” effect has to do with plants removing a portion of the carbon being emitted to the atmosphere by mankind’s combustion of fossil fuels. So, if the greening slows down ( one study indicates greening is slowing down,) the “cooling” effect vanishes.

      • Ragnaar | February 2, 2020 at 5:10 pm |

        JCH:

        “Greening was found to mitigate global warming through enhanced land carbon uptake and evaporative cooling, but might also lead to decreased albedo that could potentially cause local warming.”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x

        The quote is one of about five bullet points. I think it’s important that the CMIP6s capture this. Which would have to do with future land use. I am guilty of grabbing onto just the evaporative cooling.

        People say, CMIPs suck. Or they say they are pretty good. Someone could say, what they are capable of doing and are not capable of doing. So people like us could argue about that. Some would say, this first part is what management would do. And then some would call that vision.

      • jungletrunks | February 2, 2020 at 5:43 pm |

        JCH: “…the article hints the “cooling” effect has to do with plants removing a portion of the carbon being emitted to the atmosphere by mankind’s combustion of fossil fuels. So, if the greening slows down ( one study indicates greening is slowing down,) the “cooling” effect vanishes.”

        So the conclusion you indicate suggests that when plants draw down enough CO2, the greening slows down. The cooling effect then vanishes.

        I presume you reconcile this to mean that if the cooling effect vanishes (per the study you quote), that CO2 must once again begin to rise as a consequence. Wouldn’t this suggest plants respond to such a scenario in in their own way: hooray, happy hour again, let’s grow out; or what the heck do you mean? Sounds like a bit of reciprocal man to plant quid pro quo, ya think?

      • JCH | February 2, 2020 at 5:45 pm |

        That’s not my conclusion.

      • JCH | February 2, 2020 at 5:49 pm |

        People who grow up farming think in terms of limiting factors; people who do politics think CO2 greening is fantastical.

      • Ragnaar | February 2, 2020 at 8:48 pm |

        JCH:
        “People who grow up farming think in terms of limiting factors…”

        The limiting factor is CO2 warming the atmosphere. We are cooling the atmosphere. In that, it warms from normal processes, and it must cool itself. We’ve limited a pathway. And created more water vapor. Limiting, more or less that same pathway some more.

        When farming, one factor is the limiting control, though that factor can change each year. Rain. Starting soil moisture. Growing season warmth. Nitrogen. We are growing things.

        But we are trying to cool the atmosphere. Any pathway will do. One is as good as the next if it moves joules up until we reach the temperature we want.

        Even if plants are growing only because of increased warmth and increased precipitation, that’s good. Wheat is not growing in Antarctica.

        I suppose we can frame the issue a number ways depending on what we want to prove.

      • JCH | February 2, 2020 at 9:37 pm |

        The cooling effect they are describing, which appears speculative, is the sequestration of emitted CO2, ACO2, by additional greening, which, according to a recent study, has slowed down.

      • Ragnaar | February 2, 2020 at 10:14 pm |

        JCH:

        “Greening impacts the exchange of energy between the land and the atmosphere, which ultimately leads to modifications in surface air temperature. Greening increases ET, which cools the surface through evaporative cooling, but greener canopies have a lower albedo than bare ground and absorb more sunlight, which can result in a larger sensible heat flux. This enhanced sensible heat warms the land surface, an effect called albedo warming. The net effect of greening on surface air temperature in many cases can be viewed as the balance between evaporative cooling and albedo warming, which was estimated globally to be −0.9 W m−2 from evaporative cooling and +0.1 W m−2 from albedo warming19 (Fig. 7c).”

        Now we are getting somewhere. So globally it might be as high -0.1 W m-2. Let’s speculate. Program land retains more water. It evaporates. Cuts down on flooding and runoff. As it evaporates in July, it goes somewhere. To the next field or the field 15 miles away. The hippies will be in favor of funding this. As well as the hunters.

      • JCH | February 2, 2020 at 10:44 pm |

        Except, it could be vanishing the fluxes, and it could be waning. And, we’re not getting anywhere.

      • JCH | February 3, 2020 at 6:58 am |

        Will marine life in the Northeast Pacific Ocean rebound in 2020? You might ask NOAA about that as they’re apparently okay with the contradiction. But I understand why it is so important for people who believe warming is harmless to always have harmful cooling right around the corner.

        According to one recent study, greening – according this study has been increasing since 1981 – has been slowing down as of late. That study indicates that global greening is fading.

      • Ragnaar | February 3, 2020 at 10:02 am |

        JCH:

        When find that evaporative cooling is about 9 times stronger than increased plant albedo warming we are getting somewhere. I’ve heard plant albedo 10 times as often as I’ve heard evaporative cooling. On target. Plant albedo is the wrong target.

        While the net impact may be 0.03 – 0.1 W m−2, they do seem to throw in everything but the kitchen sink when they add in contributions and subtractions up.

        The Amazon. Stable. Plants and water. Resists change. Put that in NoDak and the Gopher state.

    • David Appell (@davidappell) | February 1, 2020 at 10:54 pm |

      “Greening may be a good thing,”

      Why?

      • jungletrunks | February 2, 2020 at 3:33 pm |

        David, let’s just settle on a presumption, based on your question, that greening of the planet is a bad thing. I’m happy to wait out your ultimate argument for why greening represents humanities dystopian future.

      • Ragnaar | February 2, 2020 at 3:45 pm |

        Sequestering CO2 in the ground. Biotic pump: https://judithcurry.com/2014/04/15/forest-climate-and-condensation/ Great diagrams. If you get Eschenbach’s Pacific thunderstorm theory, it’s here too. His involves oceans. This one involves plants. Not that different. Waterworld without the Jet Skis. Climate damnation is deserts. The lack of water.

  64. Christos Vournas | February 2, 2020 at 4:03 am |

    Robert, what about Earth accepting solar radiation as a sphere instead of considering the earth a disk?
    And what about considering Earth as a planet and not a blackbody?

    These two issues are the only obstacles left for understanding the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula:

    Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τe.earth = ( 6.914.170.222,70 )¹∕ ⁴ =

    Te.earth = 288,36 Κ

    Robert, you can not turn a blind eye on this result.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  66. cerescokid | February 2, 2020 at 12:35 pm |

    Trouble under Thwaites

    “Warm ocean water has been discovered underneath a massive glacier in West Antarctica, a troubling finding that could speed its melt in a region with the potential to eventually unleash more than 10 feet of sea-level rise.
    The unprecedented research, part of a multimillion-dollar British and U.S. initiative to study the remote Thwaites Glacier, involved drilling through nearly 2,000 feet of ice to measure water temperatures in a narrow cavity where the glacier first connects with the ocean. This is one of the most difficult-to-reach locations on Earth.”

    “…..unprecedented research….”

    Which means they don’t know if the “warm water “ wasn’t there in 1950, 1850 or 1750. All they know is that it is warm enough to melt the Thwaites glacier….today.

    This research establishes a baseline to evaluate temperatures for decades to come and will help with estimates of glacial instability, but as of now it doesn’t prove anything. Which is quite common, except it gets great headlines in major newspapers and it further adds to affective disorders in the young.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/01/30/unprecedented-data-confirm-that-antarcticas-most-dangerous-glacier-is-melting-below/

    • jungletrunks | February 2, 2020 at 1:46 pm |

      I’m sure it’s a stunning discovery for some, cerescokid; I dunno, perhaps the work comes from woke scientists. The WaPost has a particular knack for finding all things woke.

      The scientists implicit words speak broadly to the unknown: “This is one of the most difficult-to-reach locations on Earth.”

      Maybe there’s no relevance here, but I mostly doubt it:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tectonic_evolution_of_the_Transantarctic_Mountains
      “Convergence of crustal material occurs when the rift zone pushes the West Antarctic plate into the much stronger East Antarctic plate”

      Tectonic actions. Hot spots. I’d be even more surprised if melting from below West Antarctica, among other regions, hasn’t been occurring for millennia. Who knows, maybe melting is at above average rates today, or not.

      • cerescokid | February 2, 2020 at 2:08 pm |

        Funny that geothermal activity never quite gets mentioned in these articles. But I understand why it’s not. That might promote independent thinking by the reader. Thinking is the enemy of the establishment

      • jungletrunks | February 2, 2020 at 3:17 pm |

        “Thinking is the enemy of the establishment”
        Yes indeed; who would have thunk.

  67. Ragnaar | February 2, 2020 at 4:44 pm |

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/land-clearing-responsible-for-most-of-rainfall-decline-in-south-west-western-australia/
    The biotic pump article lead to the above.
    Seems Australia needs more CO2 and smarter land management.

  68. Ireneusz Palmowski | February 2, 2020 at 4:57 pm |

    Nurse Helen Oakley, 63, posted an emotional video from the bulldozed bluegum plantation in Portland, Victoria, after finding dead koalas among the tree branches. She claimed a logging company ‘bulldozed 140 acres now and have just killed all of our koalas.’

    Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2020/02/02/koalas-killed-trees-loggers-bulldoze-plantation-12167981/?ito=cbshare

  69. angech | February 4, 2020 at 12:53 am |

    Jim Hunt
    “angech – Thanks for geeing me up re Arctic sea ice volume. ”
    I have no idea about PIOMAS angech, but I don’t think “a big recovery” has anything to do with it.
    JCH |
    Perhaps they are slow getting it going because they cannot reconcile their systems to give bad news data, yet.
    “Again, simply impossible.”
    –
    Strange it did go up a fair bit the old PIOMAS.
    No publicity at the usual going down sites

    • Jim Hunt | February 4, 2020 at 6:19 am |

      Good morning angech (UTC),

      Snow White is taking your name in vain again!

      http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/01/wheres-the-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-gone/#Feb-04

      Actually it’s not at all strange, because thus far this winter the polar vortex has been remarkably well behaved. By and large cold air air has stayed in the Arctic. There hasn’t been much in the way of cold air intrusions into mid latitudes or warm air intrusions into the Arctic.

      • tonyb | February 4, 2020 at 12:16 pm |

        Hello Jim

        Will the announcement by Boris today regarding early phasing out of diesel, petrol and hybrid vehicles, be good news personally for you?

        tonyb

      • Jim Hunt | February 4, 2020 at 1:13 pm |

        Evenin’ Tony,

        Possibly, but 2035 is still a long way off. Amongst other factors, will BoJo keep his word? He has a very poor track record in that regard! See also:

        https://twitter.com/davidshukmanbbc/status/1224636016415399937

      • frankclimate | February 4, 2020 at 1:25 pm |

        Hi Jim, GE (UTC), probably you know this kind of figures:
        https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd6-1.png?attachauth=ANoY7cpZnu7XYExbf_aE008zr5mQpZZiCtsUVgZpEzt4_mboIrgIY1H5A1l8l2mfSLtPCu4hDq-dOE6tJ4aGv1eLhoGNh24_fF9ETK37DRdasGvjKGuYPVzKK4e5ZJpFlH1OH85to6FO8NlWO5BNBnJ53pfGDYWzqBJYMSdszTVeQWO-Bd0gJmYEppwbG1P5wKw4TiRlmNFBkNCjfuJ_cWC40jcXQSiBFs7JDM8YB8gWQbAJ_f3WuAuz0PCk5CcBo7I7kKWnoD52&attredirects=0

        I tried it with the latest monthly Jan. data from Piomas and this will make you wonder:
        https://i.imgur.com/XoKTZs5.jpg
        The assumed acceleration of volume loss stoped in 2013, perhaps there was some kind of internal variability foremost in the North Atlantic between 2000 and 2012. However, the sea ice declines, but all those graphs with binomial ( exponential) fits were missleading, including Peter Wadhams. It would be a giant leap if you would agree to this.
        best Frank

      • Jim Hunt | February 4, 2020 at 2:23 pm |

        Hi Frank,

        I am very familiar with the work of the wondrous Wipneus!

        However personally I am a subscriber to Chris Reynolds’ “slow transition” theory:

        https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,933.0.html

        Does that help at all?

        P.S. Wip has just released the latest PIOMAS gridded thickness map:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/01/wheres-the-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-gone/#Feb-04-PM

      • tonyb | February 4, 2020 at 2:43 pm |

        jim

        its twitter .and david shukman, both best ignored.

        boris wants to present Britain as a dynamic go ahead place at a critical time.. So politically he may see a benefit in going down this route.

        He has obviously shocked car makers and needs to get at least Nissan on board to develop a range of electric cars and appropriate battery technology.

        The means to supply the electric needed and the charging points are another matter, as is where the materials will come from

        Personally I would like to see a very well funded 7 year Apollo type programme to develop existing renewable technology, find new ones and especially to develop advanced battery technology, a considerable achilees heel at present.

        tonyb

      • Jim Hunt | February 5, 2020 at 3:04 am |

        Good morning Tony (UTC),

        Here’s the Grauniad’s take on BoJo’s “climate crisis” ambitions:

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/04/we-will-crack-it-boris-johnson-sets-out-his-climate-crisis-vision

        “I hope that we can as a planet and as a community of nations get to net zero within decades,” Johnson said at the COP 26 launch on Tuesday. “We’re going to do it by 2050, we’re setting the pace, I hope everybody will come with us. Let’s make this year the moment when we come together with the courage and the technological ambition to solve manmade climate change and to choose a cleaner and greener future for all our children and grandchildren.”

        Apparently Sir David Attenborough approves! Claire O’Neill not so much.

      • jungletrunks | February 4, 2020 at 4:29 pm |

        Tony/Jim; you may find this new IBM battery tech interesting. It’s apparently in advanced stages to determine scalability:
        https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/12/heavy-metal-free-battery/

        Robust battery tech, established near-term, seems to be a requirement in order to have enough time to buildout infrastructure in the timeframes being discussed in Europe, it will be a challenge.

      • Jim Hunt | February 4, 2020 at 5:53 pm |

        JT (& Tony) – The once Great Britain’s Faraday Institution:

        https://faraday.ac.uk

        Scroll down past “Lithium Ion”

      • richswarthout | February 4, 2020 at 4:35 pm |

        Tony,
        Boris is a likable chap but, regretfully, he is also a politician (persuaded too much by public opinion).

        As you may know, I am an engineer with specialties in nuclear and electromagnetic effects (a borderline physicist). However I also have an MBA degree. I say this to explain my interest in business practices and to impart two important lessons that the public and too many politicians do not know about.
        1. Profit outlays should be directed toward growing the business (a business that does not grow will die early).
        2. Don’t gamble on risky investments (be cautious with future expectations).

        Lesson 1 is a basic lesson on why corporate taxes, if not constrained can be harmful to an economy. As the US approaches the 2020 presidential election we hear politicians promising government freebees, paid with higher corporate taxes. IT WON’T WORK.

        Lesson 2 is a tried and proven lesson on why we should start pumping the brakes on solar and windmill construction. And is advanced battery technology so proven at this point in time that it should be considered our only option? I’m skeptical; don’t trust the folks trying to sell it.

        Richard Swarthout

      • Tonyb | February 4, 2020 at 5:31 pm |

        Jungle trunks

        Very interesting link, thanks. There needs to be some sort of quantum leap in battery technology if renewables are to take their place in the energy mix.

        Perhaps the one you point to is the one or perhaps the one jim links to will do the trick. interesting times especially with the UK going further today on phasing out conventional vehicles than any other major economy

        Tonyb

      • Tonyb | February 4, 2020 at 5:37 pm |

        Richard

        Thanks. I am sceptical ( but not against , electric vehicles. There are many aspects of them that need sorting out, not the least the battery technology, where the electric is to come from and how they will be charged, which seems to be jims prime interest.

        As I say I would be interested to see an article here about it as things seem to be moving quickly, but whether there is some solid science behind it or just politicians hot air are as yet up in the air

        Tonyb

      • Jim Hunt | February 6, 2020 at 4:00 am |

        Tony – Only just spotted this.

        In actual fact my primary interest is how and when one might be able to discharge an electric vehicle’s battery pack.

        Vehicle-to-grid technology, or V2G for short.

      • Richard Swarthout | February 8, 2020 at 7:01 pm |

        Tony
        I am generally skeptical of salesmen, and Elon Musk seems, to me, to be a salesman. And I believe he is primarily responsible for creating the electric car frenzy. Also, I am skeptical of any movement that is dependent on subsidies.
        Richard

  70. jimmww | February 4, 2020 at 2:36 am |

    A win -win?
    “Their work draws attention to the inconvenient truth that people who are rational, well-informed, and self-interested—the very people who inhabit the world as seen by economists—may hesitate to get on board the climate action express. Overcoming their resistance will require not just elegant models, but a lot of hard political work to back them up.”

    It’s not their resistance that you have to overcome. It’s their horror, their outrage, and their scorn that:
    1. CO2 is in control of climate change, and
    2. We are in control of CO2.

    In 550 million years, there is NO evidence for 1.
    In 200 years, there is no evidence for 2.

    Go back to video games.

  71. richswarthout | February 4, 2020 at 9:07 am |

    David Appell
    Regarding your comment “When I was in graduate school, pre-Internet, scientists got a lot of correspondence “proving” that special relativity was wrong, Newton was wrong, quantum mechanics was wrong, yadda yadda. I believe Einstein was a skeptic of quantum theory; he couldn’t accept inexplicable theories.

    Richard Swarthout

    • jungletrunks | February 4, 2020 at 11:32 am |

      And I’m sure the list is long for science arguments that end up “going the other way”.

      Stephen Hawking didn’t believe the the Higgs Boson existed; I believe he lost a bet on that one. He suggested its existence would result in a “catastrophic vacuum decay” in the universe. I imagine his correspondence was deep in the context of that argument too.

      Catastrophe seems to get bandied about a lot in science circles.

      • richswarthout | February 4, 2020 at 2:57 pm |

        Jungletrunks,
        The term “science circles” probably is one that would be rejected by Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, etc. – they would know they existed, but find them distasteful. They would find that consensus science is not science.

        Relatedly, has anyone noticed that debates between skeptics and the consensus community usually turn into ad hominem attacks against the skeptics and no discussion of science by consensus side. Debates between Drs. Curry and Mann inevitably go that way.

        Richard Swarthout

      • jungletrunks | February 4, 2020 at 3:29 pm |

        ““science circles” probably is one that would be rejected by Einstein, Hawking, Feynman, etc. – they would know they existed, but find them distasteful. ”

        I wholeheartedly agree. For example; Einstein was dismissive that gravitational waves existed.

        Yet the theory for gravitational waves was Einstein’s. Huh? He probably argued with himself all the time.

        Seems like Einstein had a benchmark for integrity; that his theory required more than what his own model justified, as sound as it was.

  72. Jim Hunt | February 4, 2020 at 3:01 pm |

    Tony,

    I heartily recommend that Dom whisper sweet nothings in BoJo’s ear about vast expenditure on EV charging infrastructure over the next few years. Especially the bi-directional sort. Here’s yours truly explaining the ins and outs to our local Lib-Dem candidate:

    http://www.V2G.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/20190920_164833-768×373.jpg

    Re advanced battery technology, have you by any chance read this article by my old mate David Rose on this intriguing project in our neck of the woods?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7592485/Father-eight-invents-electric-car-battery-drivers-1-500-miles-without-charging-it.html

    • Tonyb | February 4, 2020 at 5:21 pm |

      Hi jim

      I nearly fell off my chair. Are you actually Approving of an article written by david rose who i actually know and like?

      I seem to remember hearing something about this battery technology a couple of Years ago so the update is interesting. If it works, great. I would love to see it in operation.

      As you may have gathered I am not against electric vehicles at all, just sceptical about our ability to make cost effective ones, a concern over where the rare earths etc are coming from, batteries and charging. Also pf course where on earth the electric is coming from.

      There also seems to be a plethora of charging cables, a little like the dozen different ones I have for charging different devices.

      I think an article here covering all those points and more would be interesting and your perspective on this due to your involvement also worthwhile

      As you saw with the replies from Jungle trunks and Richard there seems to be interest in the subject.

      Perhaps Judith might carry something here ?

      Tonyb

      • Jim Hunt | February 4, 2020 at 5:45 pm |

        Tony – As long as it was only “nearly”! I agreed with this one too:

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016115/The-Desecration-Devon-Duchess-Cornwall-s-son-law-just-built-50-acre-solar-farm-green-levies-power-bills-paying-430-000-year.html

        However David used to spout absolute tosh about the Arctic. He seems to have lost that gig under Geordie Greig though?

        Who needs rare earths?

        https://ricardo.com/news-and-media/news-and-press/ricardo-develops-next-generation-electric-vehicle

      • richswarthout | February 4, 2020 at 6:34 pm |

        Tony,
        The US Department of Energy has included Fuel Cell Vehicles in its research program and several companies sell Fuel Cell Cars. I believe they have better range than all electric cars. Hydrogen stations are few and far between, but that might be a problem in England.

        Here is a DOE website:
        https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml

        Richard

      • richswarthout | February 4, 2020 at 6:41 pm |

        Correction: few hydrogen stations might NOT be a problem in England

      • scotts4sf | February 4, 2020 at 8:06 pm |

        Tonyb
        Hi
        Nice to see a flurry of notes from you.

        You seemed to be off the GRID recently .

        Electric cars brought you online.

        I spent many years at the DOE and support fuel cell cars over heavy battery behemoths. hydrogen refueling stations fit the existing pipeline grids and refuel swiftly plus eliminate 35% generation penalty from central power stations and line transmission losses of 9-10%. Without major Gov subsidies electric cars uneconomic.

        But goforit Brits. Always fun to see competitors handicap themselves in pursuit of imaginary solutions to make believe problems.

        Scott

      • tonyb | February 5, 2020 at 3:10 am |

        Scott

        Thanks. I have been around but there is a lot of deja vu in many subjects.

        I bought my first solar powered garden light some 30 years ago. I still buy them and whereas all that time ago they would give good light in the summer when not needed, in the winter they completely died.

        Mine has just sparked into life for a few minutes with the better light as we head into February, but as far as I can see nothing much has changed as regards their performance and making the solar cells/panels larger doesn’t disguise this.

        So although intrigued by electric vehicles I don’t see how they make the leap from highly expensive second vehicle for the woke, to a reliable economic first car for families. We have a particular problem with charging as around half of all British homes don’t have a driveway. Mind you in order to charge them you have to create the electricity in the first place and again I don’t see windmills and solar farms doing that.

        Fuel cells? hydrogen? Perhaps.

        However you raise an interesting point I always bang on about when the EU (hurray no longer our problem!) complains of poor growth, and that is we seem determined to have very expensive energy. When other countries don’t we are at a serious economic disadvantage as everything revolves round the cost of energy.

        tonyb

      • Jim Hunt | February 5, 2020 at 3:29 am |

        Hi Tony,

        My previous BoJo missive seems to be stuck in moderation for some reason. No “four letter word” in there either!

        Allegedly Cornwall already generates 37% of our electricity from renewable sources. Maybe “new nuclear” is the answer for big cities?

        Meanwhile here is a snap from my trip to Truro in Lisa the LEAF yesterday:

        http://www.v2g.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/DSC_1062-1024×576.jpg

  73. angech | February 4, 2020 at 4:48 pm |

    Jim
    “Thanks Wipneus,
    Some of Judy Curry’s denizens have been waiting on tenterhooks for that!”
    True.
    A bit underwhelming but still a rise is a rise for a’ that.
    No point speculating or commenting further at moment as only puts a mozz on activity.
    Might get JCH more interested in ice though.
    And JC.

  74. angech | February 4, 2020 at 4:58 pm |

    On a related note Roy Spencer is a bit slack on getting his figures out for January. May relate to weekend issues.
    Or to a higher temp than expected?
    I note Nick Stokes index shows a hot January but a rapidly cooling February.

  75. Jim Hunt | February 5, 2020 at 5:30 am |

    TonyB,

    It’s intriguing to watch the way in which Steve/Tony is currently manipulating his moderation queue. Your comment of January 30th has only just emerged into the cold light of day. My reply is still invisible of course.

    Can you provide me with a link to the Bob Tisdale comment you refer to over there? Unfortunately my alter ego and I are both persona non grata at WUWT!

  76. phil salmon | February 5, 2020 at 12:56 pm |

    Global greening is big and getting harder to
    – deny
    – hide
    – keep from general public awareness
    – keep portraying as universally bad

    Authors are emboldened to admit that it could be the most significant – and good – element of human caused climate change.

    Piao, S., Wang, X., Park, T. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 14–27 (2020).

    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html

    Widespread vegetation greening since the 1980s is one of the most notable characteristics of biosphere change in the Anthropocene. Greening has significantly enhanced the land carbon sink, intensified the hydrologic cycle and cooled the land surface at the global scale. A mechanistic understanding of the underlying drivers shows how anthropogenic forcing has fundamentally altered today’s Earth system through a set of feedback loops. Improved knowledge of greenness changes, together with recent progress in observing technology and modelling capacity, has resulted in major advances in understanding global vegetation dynamics. Nonetheless, we still face many challenges ahead.

    • JCH | February 5, 2020 at 1:41 pm |

      Exactly who has tried to:

      – deny
      – hide
      – keep from general public awareness
      – keep portraying as universally bad

      ?

      Here’s one I’ve seen ignored:

      DISCUSSION
      Our results support increased VPD being part of the drivers of the widespread drought-related forest mortality over the past decades, which has been observed in multiple biomes and on all vegetated continents (28, 29). Increased VPD may trigger stomatal closure to avoid excess water loss due to the high evaporative demand of the air (12), leading to a negative carbon balance that depletes carbohydrate reserves and results in tissue-level carbohydrate starvation (28). In addition, reduced soil water supply coupled with high evaporative demand causes xylem conduits and the rhizosphere to cavitate (become air-filled), stopping the flow of water, desiccating plant tissues, and leading to plant death (28). Previous studies reported that increased VPD explained 82% of the warm season drought stress in the southwestern United States, which correlated to changes of forest productivity and mortality (14). In addition, enhanced VPD limits tree growth even before soil moisture begins to be limiting (17, 30).

      https://i.imgur.com/cgwpUUk.png

    • phil salmon | February 5, 2020 at 5:35 pm |

      JCH

      You underline and illustrate my point exactly,
      by writing a long paragraph of bad and scary things supposedly happening to plants.

      And yet the planet is greening, not a bit but a lot. How? Are these all bad plants, some kind of zombie plants?

      Reduced stomata opening could just as well be due to high CO2 as from water stress. And if CO2 is causing drought everywhere, why not s the planet greening? Not a bit, but a lot?

      • phil salmon | February 5, 2020 at 5:37 pm |

        And if CO2 is causing drought everywhere, why is the planet greening? Not a bit, but a lot?

      • JCH | February 5, 2020 at 6:01 pm |

        Okay, I think we’ve established that you are the person who is doing some of the things in your list.

        The planet has been greening since around 1980 until now, and the long period of green in is made up of two parts: 1980 to 2000, when it greened a lot; and 2000 to present, when the expansion of greening has essentially stopped.

        The paper’s explanation for why it has stopped expanding makes more sense than yours as ACO2 continued rising 2000 to present.

        It’s a complicated system. Doesn’t think in terms of politics.

      • phil salmon | February 6, 2020 at 3:31 am |

        JCH

        The planet has been greening since around 1980 until now, and the long period of green in is made up of two parts: 1980 to 2000, when it greened a lot; and 2000 to present, when the expansion of greening has essentially stopped.

        That is not the authors’ conclusion. Piao et al. state:
        Vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of greening on the global scale, with other factors being notable at the regional scale.

        CO2 has increased continuously from 1980 (start of study period) till now. If greening stopped in 2000, this is contrary to the authors’ conclusion that CO2 is the main driver of the greening.

        Warming might have stopped but greening has not, as other studies show:

        https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

        during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning).

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8

        Here we report, using high-resolution satellite imagery, that woody vegetation cover over sub-Saharan Africa increased by 8% over the past three decades…
        written in 2018 i.e. 1988-2018

        Finally – according to this paper, greening is linked to warming but CO2 is responsible for increasing light use efficiency in plants 🌱 (not so surprising) causing bigger amplitude seasonal cycle (ASC) of CO2:

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070710

        Modeled increases in greenness are primarily driven by warming, whereas ASC changes are primarily driven by increasing CO2.

        Now tell us why increasing light use efficiency in plants is bad.

      • JCH | February 6, 2020 at 7:59 am |

        Odd and funny.

        Piao is an author on both papers. Nice list; you’re on it.

      • phil salmon | February 6, 2020 at 12:23 pm |

        I listed 3 additional papers, Piao is on only one, the first.
        I am not Piao.

      • JCH | February 6, 2020 at 2:32 pm |

        He is on the author on the paper that you like, and he is an author on the paper you’re mocking.

  77. David Wojick | February 5, 2020 at 12:59 pm |

    Stop using inadequate climate models for policy making
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2020/02/05/stop-using-inadequate-climate-models-for-policy-making/

    The CLINTEL “There is no Climate Emergency” Manifesto puts it this way: “Stop with the Misleading Computer Models” and I agree completely. It is clear by now that these models predict temperatures that appear much too high. No policies should be based on them and the ones that are should be revoked

    The Manifesto, by Professor Guus Berkhout, is here: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/63030622/there-is-no-climate-emergency

    A climate model is nothing more than an attempt to describe the reality using the theoretical knowledge, assumptions and approximations of the involved model makers. As such its validity needs to be continuously tested against observations and if it fails those tests it means that the model makers are wrong. Professor Berkhout’s Manifesto points out that the mainstream climate models have in fact been tested and they all fail the tests, already for 30 years.

    Manifesto’s figure 3a shows John Christy’s telling analysis of the last 100+ major computer simulations versus real world observations. A similar graphic can be found online here: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/climate-models-vs-observations.jpg

    Tests clearly show that the models are running dramatically hotter than reality. This exaggeration has led to the description of a future full of doom and gloom. If climate researchers would have followed genuine validation tests, the models would have now been falsified and updated.

    Instead the projected global warming gets more and more scary. An old saying says: ‘Mankind suffers most because of the suffering he fears’. Hence, the more scary the models the higher the impact on the public. The Manifesto puts it succinctly: “trusting the models means trusting the model makers.”

    To see the huge significance of this graphic we need to take a quick trip through the political geography of climate modeling. On top is the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. The IPCC does not execute any climate modeling itself. The actual computer simulations are carried out by various government modeling centers around the world.

    The actual model runs are dictated by the UN World Climate Research Program and coordinated by the Climate Model Intercomparison Project or CMIP, which runs out of the U.S. Energy Department. The latter does not follow US policy but basically answers to the UN.

    These massively coordinated modeling exercises take years to set up and run, so they are timed to fit into the IPCC’s five year reporting cycle. The last big drill was CMIP5 and it is those results that are shown diverging from reality in the Manifesto figure. Each line represents a specific model.

    It is to be expected that the modelers would be trying to get the modeling resultscloser to reality, thereby showing progress of their research but – looking at the different outcomes over time – that is not happening. In fact early reports tell us that the CMIP6 models are running even hotter than the CMIP5 ones, a lot hotter in fact. This result will let the IPCC announce that the climate emergency is even worse than we thought, which the alarmists can then use to push for tougher climate policies.

    For governments these frightening modeling outcomes are welcome because they call for more authority. Not surprisingly governments are obsessed with modeling and modeling centers are very well funded. They run the biggest supercomputers that a lot of money can buy.

    Bear in mind that hotter modeling results are reached by 1) increased climate sensitivity due to positive cloud feedbacks and 2) increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions in the scenarios. It is interesting to observe there is considerable skepticism over these new hot results within the modeling community itself. We may see the community of modelers divided into moderates and radicals over this issue, just as the policy community has divided. Such a division is not a surprise as a further increase in the exaggeration of global warming brings modeling results even further away from measurements.

    In addition, according to the IPCC theory increased global warming (IPCC working group 1) will increase climate-driven natural disasters (IPCC working group 2). But an increase of natural disasters due to global warming is not observed in reality. It too only exists in the output of computer models and it is the basis for the purported emergency, which simply does not exist. As the Manifesto title says: “There is no Climate Emergency.”

    The difference between the real world and the modeled world has already existed for 30 years. Unfortunately, instead of getting smaller due to a proper validation process, this difference has become bigger. Actually, with respect to natural disasters the last decade was probably the safest decade in the history of mankind, for data see: htttps://www.emdat.be/.

    The embarrassing conclusion is that in the past 30 years the climate models became worse instead of better. It is sad to say but it means that current model makers cannot be trusted. Looking at wasting 30 valuable years, professor Berkhout’s advice is: “Let us start all over again.” Only this time include natural variability based on actual historic data, increase and improve measurement capabilities and replace mitigation by adaptation. Adaptation always works, whatever the causes of change are.

    As the CLINTEL Manifesto says — “Mass application of poorly validated climate models on a global scale may be the biggest mistake of mankind in its recent history.”

    Please share this.

    David

    • phil salmon | February 6, 2020 at 12:33 pm |

      David

      Mark Twain: “I’ve had a lot of worries in my life, most of which never happened.”

      As Andy May and others have commented, there is abundantly enough factual data from the front line climate journals to refute the alarm-catastrophe narrative, without having to refer at all to sources considered as “skeptic” or more derogatory names.

      As just mentioned above, this 2020 Nature paper

      Piao, S., Wang, X., Park, T. et al. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1, 14–27 (2020).
      https://phys.org/news/2020-01-planet-greener-global.html

      says,

      Widespread vegetation greening since the 1980s is one of the most notable characteristics of biosphere change in the Anthropocene.

      In other words global vegetation greening could be the single most tangible effect of human CO2 emissions. And it’s not really bad at all.

  78. angech | February 6, 2020 at 5:10 pm |

    A new “Ship of Fools”?
    We can only hope.
    –
    “not a bad route.
    The temptation is to sneak along the lee polynya north of FJI. However the Kapitan isn’t going to do that as it could easily slam shut, pushing the ship onto the rocks as the wind changes causing the ice to form a lee polynya south or west of FJI.
    I don’t expect the Barents to freeze over: too warm, too shallow, too mixed, too much Atlantic Water. Every year people get fooled into thinking new ice is forming when the satellite mp4 show the wind has merely blown the ice pack through the island gaps”
    This is the resupply mission for the Polarstern Mosaic expedition, Deliberately stuck in ice near the North Pole for 8 months th study the shrinking, drifting ice.
    Only it has been extending. The Kapitan D is a small ice breaker and easily reached it before.
    Now?
    Probably OK.
    –
    For JCH.

  79. angech | February 6, 2020 at 8:37 pm |

    This is NOT natural
    “‘The only problem with this hockey stick representation, however, is that it will not convince anyone of those who really need to be convinced.”
    “The message isn’t “It’s real,” the message is “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”
    –
    A problem with combined maps like these is that you risk conflating two different sets of statistics and time periods and measuring devices.
    So.
    Proxy records are not actual temperatures, rather they are averages of temperatures over usually year [200 years ago] to decadal or longer [2000 years ago] time frames rather than daily or hourly frames as used in producing the spike.
    A spike in temperatures such as in the current short series could occur and hardly be recognised in the past as it would be averaged out of existence as merely a slightly higher part of the graph.
    –
    I doubt this argument will have any weight if the purpose is alarming people but it should have some weight scientifically.
    –
    Corona virus deaths lag behind the twin factors of contact causing incubation and demonstration of actual disease.
    Some alarmists claim a doubling of the disease every 5 days.
    Deaths do not represent the proportion of the actual death rate. One would have to compare the number of infections two or three doublings back to get the real death rate per infection.
    It looks and sounds nasty.
    Blood from survivors might provide ommunoglobulin to save some current victims.

  80. angech | February 7, 2020 at 7:37 am |

    Jim Hunt My latest guess is that the proprietor isn’t too keen on links to the ASIF and/or Snow White’s blog?
    Which proprietor, Jim?
    ASIF has an interesting but sparse coverage of the Polarstern.
    They have expressed concerns.
    Any mistakes on the part of the suppliers due to the increasing Arctic Ice, which is welcome though unexpected, could lead to serious problems.
    I am not commenting on the ice as it makes it disappear, however it would be a good post

    • Jim Hunt | February 7, 2020 at 9:49 am |

      Afternoon angech,

      I was referring to Judith, the proprietor here.

      I was idly wondering if you didn’t link to the ASIF because experience has led you to assume that if you did so your comment would end up in Climate Etc. purgatory like mine did.

      N.B. The comment in question has now emerged into the cold light of day.

      • angech | February 7, 2020 at 5:17 pm |

        Jim
        “My latest guess is that the proprietor isn’t too keen on links to the ASIF and/or Snow White’s blog?
        Afternoon angech, I was referring to Judith, the proprietor here.”
        –
        A few misconceptions or just stirring the pot?
        Your guess is wrong.
        Judith has and has always had a very open site which allows reasonable dialogue.
        She has a liberal moderation policy.
        She also has had the Arctic Sea Ice blog listed in her Blogroll for years and my feeling is that she is quite happy for people to get information from where ever they wish.
        –
        Obviously when practicing mind reading, like other people, we seem to do a bit of self projection.
        –
        Any updates on Mosaic/ difficulties or sucesses would be welcome

      • Jim Hunt | February 7, 2020 at 5:56 pm |

        angech – Several of my comments have gone straight to moderation here recently. In the absence of an “official” explanation one is forced to speculate!

        If links to the ASIF are welcome here then I suggest that you reference your sources in future.

      • jim2 | February 7, 2020 at 6:10 pm |

        Having lurked on climate related blogs for a while, Jim Hunt, I don’t recall anyone saying ice forms and melts, but doesn’t move. That’s some sort of logical fallacy having to do with wheat or something. At any rate, Arctic ice volume is decreasing. So what? No link to marginally increasing CO2 whatsoever. Seems like you all a dither over nothing.

      • Jim Hunt | February 7, 2020 at 6:23 pm |

        Hi Jim,

        Here’s a learned overview of the apparent “linear relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and Arctic sea ice”:

        https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/gmst-arctic-changes/

        “I don’t recall anyone saying ice forms and melts, but doesn’t move.”

        In which case please go and explain all that to Tony Heller.

      • jim2 | February 8, 2020 at 11:17 pm |

        Jim Hunt – check out the Ed H. link, no info on Arctic ice reduction and CO2. Temperature, yes, but no concrete relation of ice to CO2. Attribution – it’s a bitch.

  81. John Kirker | February 7, 2020 at 3:10 pm |

    I am hoping it is ok to leave this question here. Is there a good discussion written in plain English about the different aspects of Net Zero GHG Emissions including what it technically means. I am curious about the trade-off for manufacturing products that are used in Net Zero GHG Emissions.

  82. angech | February 7, 2020 at 5:36 pm |

    14th place at moment.
    But.
    “Looks like much of Canada in the deep freeze for the next 4 weeks.
    https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=mfe1t_s“

    • JCH | February 7, 2020 at 7:03 pm |

      Oh no, despite all that potently fertile ACO2, that wonderfully abundant Northern Canadian agriculture may be stunted by a late start to the 2020 growing season.

  83. angech | February 9, 2020 at 3:10 am |

    February 8th, 2020:
    14,017,548 km2, an increase of 28,306 km2, breaking the 14M km2 milestone.
    One small step, far too small in the fightback if a fightback can occur.
    Not worth a comment yet

    • Jim Hunt | February 9, 2020 at 9:14 am |

      angech – Why comment if, as you say, extent is “Not worth a comment yet”?

      Meanwhile, on the “measured” Arctic sea ice volume front:

      http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/NRT-Vol-2020-02-06.png

      • Jim Hunt | February 9, 2020 at 6:02 pm |

        Phil – That looks like extent to me. How about showing us DMI’s current volume graph instead?

      • angech | February 9, 2020 at 3:58 pm |

        Jim,
        Holding fire til a big enough change ensues.
        Last year there was a massive rebound in Arctic sea ice which caused consternation and comment until it ran out of puff.
        It went from approx 2nd lowest to approx 13th lowest out of approx 41 years, a massive jump.
        When I tried to point this out it stopped performing.
        2020 is a quiet snake creeping up, It has replicated the massive gains, with some quiet periods.
        No one cares.
        Going from second to 14 th lowest is not in the rule book for standard deviations.
        If, repeat if, it keeps going, it will be, as Wipneus says, an event.
        I would go further and say a game changer.
        But I won’t comment on this tear because of last years egg on the face.
        –
        No Piomas , Jim?
        It did increase remember.
        And of course Piomas admits it made some mistakes in calculation 6 years ago but refuses to use the corrected version version 2 showing even more volume.
        Why is this?
        Why make a mistake.
        Then honestly admit you have made a mistake on your front page.
        Then continue to display all graphs with the known and admitted wrong data instead of changing to the correct V2 ?
        How many people see, rely on and use this wrong data.
        Over and our.

      • Jim Hunt | February 9, 2020 at 6:11 pm |

        angech – I’ve explained this winter’s “polar vortex” to you already. At the risk of repeating myself:

        Thus far this winter the polar vortex has been remarkably well behaved. By and large cold air air has stayed in the Arctic. There hasn’t been much in the way of cold air intrusions into mid latitudes or warm air intrusions into the Arctic.

        Hence it’s not at all surprising that the thickness of sea ice in the Arctic has been increasing slightly more quickly this winter than in other recent years.

        All part of Frank’s “natural variability”. Here’s the flip side once again:

        Commenters get very excited about trivial increases in sea ice extent without considering snow extent. One side effect of the lack of cold air outbreaks into mid latitudes so far this winter currently looks like this:

        http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/multisensor_4km_nh_snow_extent_2020-02-03.png

  84. Jim Hunt | February 9, 2020 at 9:08 am |

    Jim – See also Stroeve & Notz (2018)

    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aade56/pdf

    The primary cause of the ongoing changes in all months are anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, with a clear linear relationship between sea ice loss and cumulative anthropogenic CO₂ emissions in all months. The sensitivity ranges from an ice loss per ton of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions of slightly above 1 m² during winter, to more than 3 m² throughout summer.

    • frankclimate | February 9, 2020 at 10:43 am |

      Jim, I would wonder how GHG melt the ACI in a direct way. The only issue which can melt ice is heat ( from top or down). Hence the relationship from cumulative emissions to sea ice loss has a loop way via temperatures which follow on longer timescales the ERF. . And yes: there is an internal variability too included when it comes to the heat content in the Arctic. Therefore it seems a little bit guess work to calculate the SIL only from cumulative emissions on shorter ( decadal) timescales. Deal?

      • Jim Hunt | February 9, 2020 at 12:26 pm |

        Evenin’ Frank (UTC),

        I gave the other Jim temperatures first, but then he insisted on carbon dioxide. What’s a poor “girl” supposed to do in such circumstances?

        Of course a nice straight line correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation? And there’s certainly lots of “internal variability” sloshing around in the Arctic too!

      • frankclimate | February 9, 2020 at 1:18 pm |

        Evening too (MEZ). Okay, so it seems to be have a deal. What about the recent strom and it’s damages in UK? We await it in the next few hours…

      • Jim Hunt | February 9, 2020 at 5:58 pm |

        Hi Frank,

        In my “professional” capacity I have been following Storm Ciara’s passage across the UK in some detail. See:

        https://twitter.com/V2gUK/status/1226451525964304385

        et seq. Have fun as she passes through your neck of the woods! Do you by any chance have battery backup?

    • jim2 | February 9, 2020 at 2:16 pm |

      CO2 is the crux of the entire global warming argument – is the warming due only to CO2, partly to CO2, or not at all related to CO2. I’m guessing it’s the second option. Of course global temperature isn’t the Arctic temperature, it is a region and will exhibit its own variations.

      Per your article, it relies on black magic, or might as well since it’s based on models of a complex and not well understood system.

      • angech | February 9, 2020 at 3:40 pm |

        jim2 |
        “Of course global temperature isn’t the Arctic temperature, it is a region and will exhibit its own variations.”
        All true.
        And yet.
        at the larger picture level the Arctic temperature is totally related to the global temperature. Iris just that due to the local variations caused by the complexity of air and ocean temps and movements it can be hard to correlate exactly.

    • stevenreincarnated | February 9, 2020 at 10:36 pm |

      The primary cause of Arctic ice melt is ocean heat transport primarily that in the Atlantic. The North Atlantic Current has been in a cooling trend. Practice your back pedaling.

  85. Christos Vournas | February 9, 2020 at 1:30 pm |

    Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere.
    Carbon dioxide’s warming effect on the Earth’s surface cannot be measured, the effect is very weak, it is not detectable.
    The Outgoing LW Earth’s surface emission intensity determines the Earth’s Te = 288 K.
    The Te = 255 K is not a measured value, it is calculated with the incomplete effective temperature formula:

    Te = [ (1-a) So / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  86. phil salmon | February 9, 2020 at 2:38 pm |

    Christos
    Could Fermat’s theorem and the principle of least action apply to the atmosphere’s response to increasing CO2? And show that a vast energy expenditure to heat atmosphere and ocean, is contrary to these laws?

    The principle of least action states that the universe will choose the path between two states that minimises the action. This principle is a generalisation of Fermat’s theorem which requires light to take the path between two locations that minimises the travel time.

    The principle of least action can be extended to any system evolving between two states. It is the founding assumption behind Noether’ theorem (Emmy Noether) that is required to explain why Einsteinian relativity does not break conservation of energy. Noether’s theorem is fundamental. It allows calculation of the true conserved quantities for any system that is evolving according to the principle of least action. (As long as we can identify the system’s symmetries.) Noether’s theorem is used in both cosmology and quantum physics.

    Maybe the principle of least action could apply to atmospheric thermodynamics. For instance, the CO2 concentration in air increases. How will the atmosphere’s state evolve as a result? Conventionally we are told that the atmosphere’s response to a small increase in this trace gas is to summon up vast quantities of energy to increase the temperature of both atmosphere and ocean. However, a response by the system rearranging its structure, changing for instance water vapour content or the emission height, or adjustment of convection or even radiative interactions, could lead the system toward a new equilibrium with much less expenditure of energy. And thus fulfil the laws of least action, Noether’s and Fermat’s theorems. Miskolczi’s hypothesis was of this nature – a rearrangement of the emission structure without temperature change.

    On the other hand, response to the tiny adjustment of CO2 amount by heating up the whole atmosphere and ocean, is the exact opposite of what one would expect in fulfilment of the principle of least action. It’s the principle of most action, and most (empty) heat and noise. Any thoughts on this?

  87. Christos Vournas | February 9, 2020 at 3:45 pm |

    phil
    So you agree with me,
    When we talk physics, we say carbon dioxide is a trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere.
    Carbon dioxide’s warming effect on the Earth’s surface cannot be measured, the effect is very weak, it is not detectable.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  88. angech | February 9, 2020 at 4:24 pm |

    Christos.
    Trace gas it may be but importance it has. (Yoda et all).
    You are confusing gases which react with radiation to those which do not.
    Water vapour and CO2 are the main ones. Oxygen and Nitrogen cannot react to to radiation. Consequently the former absorb and reradiate the energy on its way in and out, more so on the way out as there is more longwave.
    The energy absorbed and re radiated by these molecules is not equal initially as some of the absorbed energy is translated to other molecules by collisions so cannot be re radiated.
    The oxygen, nitrogen and the GHG gain more kinetic energy (heat potential) or temperature extremely quickly due to the extremely large number of collisions.
    Only when the energy transferred back to the GHG from the Oxygen and Nitrogen equals the energy being gained from the collisions with the GHG can the GHG emit effectively the same amount of radiation back to space.
    –
    This is one of those time dependent bigger picture problems.
    GHG emit at low temperatures. But they lose/transmit similar energy trillions or more times a second to other air particles. The almost immediate cumulative effect is a rise in the temperature of all the air particles until the GHG particles are effectively able to emit, as they must , all the incoming energy.
    A bit like hits on the internet actually.
    Trace it may be but when it is one of the only two players in town, vitally important.

    • phil salmon | February 10, 2020 at 4:14 am |

      Oxygen and Nitrogen cannot react to to radiation.

      Thus cannot possibly be true. Pure O2 and N2 in a radiation field will heat up. Try it. This is the fallacy at the heart of the hypothesis of magic heat from CO2.

      But don’t take my word for it. Einstein wrote in 1917:

      During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

      kT / 2

      this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.

      • Christos Vournas | February 10, 2020 at 9:05 am |

        phil,
        The atmosphere is very thin to have any measurable influence on the Earth’s surface temperature.
        What spacecrafts do is to measure the ingoing SW solar flux So and to measure the outgoing SW radiation, which is referred to as albedo “a”.
        The (1 – a)So is said to be the absorbed by the surface SW radiation (which is not correct).
        Then, using the

        Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 255 K
        incomplete effective temperature formula we came to the wrong conclusion:
        288 K – 255 K = 33 oC
        This 33 oC difference does not exist

        What else spacecrafts do is to measure the outgoing LW radiation.
        By year averaging the measurements we have the
        Te.sat. earth = 288 K.

        The same as the Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula does:

        Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

        Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
        Τe.earth = ( 6.914.170.222,70 )¹∕ ⁴ = 288,36 K
        Te.earth = 288,36 Κ

        Why to insist on the wrong conclusion the so much confusing old incomplete planet effective temperature formula does.

        Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 255 K

        We have a brand new Planet Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula now.

        Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        Why not to enjoy all the benefits the new formula has to offer.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • phil salmon | February 10, 2020 at 4:10 pm |

        Christos
        I’m struggling to grasp how one would enjoy the benefits of a planet without an atmosphere – target practice for bolides surely? But I always struggled with maths so that’s not so surprising.

      • Christos Vournas | February 10, 2020 at 4:52 pm |

        phil: “I’m struggling to grasp how one would enjoy the benefits of a planet without an atmosphere – target practice for bolides surely? But I always struggled with maths so that’s not so surprising”.

        phil, which formula do you prefer, the one that gives 255 K result, or the one that gives 288,36 K result.
        Notice, satellites’ measurements provide the 288 K.

        So, which formula it is you prefer, the one with the confusing result of
        Te = 255 K
        or the one which complies with the satellites’ measurements of
        Te = 288 K.

        the old incomplete formula
        Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 255 K

        or the new complete formula
        Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 288,36 K

        Tsat.earth = 288 K

        Also there is a need to say that a planet without-atmosphere effective temperature complete formula gives the same result as the satellites measure.
        The first beneficial conclusion is that Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and it is not taken in consideration in calculations, but satellites anyway give as this Tsat.earth = 288 K result in spite of Earth having its thin atmosphere.

        Tell me now, please, which formula is in favor for you to choose, the old one with the confusing result, or the new one which solves all the climate change dilemmas for good.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • bigterguy | February 11, 2020 at 11:47 am |

        Phil,
        O2 and N2 are transparent to INFRARED radiation, not all radiation. Every molecule has energy levels that can theoretically absorb radiation of the appropriate energy (wavelength), but for some molecules – N2 and O2 – none of these are in the infrared range. For others, H2O in particular, the symmerty allows infrared absorption with a high extinction coefficient. With CO2, the symmetry disallows infrared radiation, except when the molecule bends. Hence the absorption is much weaker than H2O and its ‘greenhouse’ impact is much lower.

  89. Christos | February 9, 2020 at 4:56 pm |

    angech,
    It may happens as you describe, but it happens in very small scale.
    It cannot be measured by a spacecraft.
    What spacecraft measures is the Outgoing LW radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. Then the averaging the measurements produces the Te = 288 K.
    There is only one player in town – the Earth’s surface.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  90. Ragnaar | February 9, 2020 at 9:42 pm |

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/#e06c59d63682
    Shine the light. SkS. What a joke. Anyone who keeps such lists has got a problem. We are winning. Still have a ways to go.

    • Jim Hunt | February 10, 2020 at 4:14 am |

      Good morning Ragnaar (UTC),

      Surely you jest? As luck would have it I was present on Twitter to watch in real time as Roger Jr. displayed his “serious lack of judgement” for all the world to see.

      Until Twitter blocked his account and many of his tweets for violating their terms of service.

      • Ragnaar | February 10, 2020 at 1:08 pm |

        Jim Hunt:
        I am not sure I’d call Twitter objective. Whatever happened, it showed a battle not about science but about reputations. Yes I can believe Senior may have made some mistakes. As we all do. SkS can never be pulled up from the low place they decided to go. I take that back. They could. Will they try?

    • phil salmon | February 10, 2020 at 5:31 am |

      The real hypocrisy is with those who visit this site and pretend to respect Prof Judith Curry, while at the same time approving and applauding the ecofascist system of intellectual apartheid so passionately adopted by Skeptical Science and all the social media firms except for Facebook. The millennial generation staffing these software giants exhibit textbook moral licensing – they are so self-enfatuated with their own thrilling eco-climate righteousness that they allow themselves pure fascism in regard to the “enemies of the people” as defined by the likes of Cook and Nuticelli.

  91. larry mack BS/IS MBA (@sixmax) | February 10, 2020 at 12:49 pm |

    a “few” things that caught my eye this week.
    dr. curry, i know how many hours are in my week. the question is how many hours are in your week?
    great post, as usual

  92. Ulric Lyons | February 10, 2020 at 3:41 pm |

    UK Met Office on the Australian fires:
    “The recent conditions in Australia have largely been driven by the pattern of Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) in both the western equatorial Pacific and Indian oceans, and a sudden stratospheric warming. These events are now occurring on top of a background of continued warming, which is contributing to increases in extremes.”

    There is a logic problem with that, rising CO2 forcing is expected to increase positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions which are associated with faster trade winds.

    “One of the main characteristics of ‘protracted’ El Niño episodes are warm SST anomalies in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean, which leads to enhanced atmospheric convection in that region, and the generation of a teleconnection which suppresses rainfall across eastern Australia. This is what has been seen since April-May 2018.”

    What notably happened nearer to when the fires began was a shift from positive to negative Antarctic Oscillation conditions, which also may be problem associating with rising CO2 forcing.

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/monthly.aao.index.b79.current.ascii.table

  93. Ulric Lyons | February 10, 2020 at 3:56 pm |

    Nature articles:
    “On one climate model, the researchers ran thousands of simulations of future conditions, and they compared a world with current greenhouse-gas concentrations against one with pre-industrial levels. Those runs suggest that climate change had made the extreme temperatures — a major driver of fire weather — 4.5 times more likely.”

    El Nino conditions normally increase during centennial solar minima, that’s why the late 1800’s were so hot there.

  94. angech | February 10, 2020 at 5:53 pm |

    Mr Garcia posts “[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
    ADS has not updated the values.
    If someone post the data, as soon as it is published.
    Thanks.https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent”
    –
    Every now and then due to algorithmic failure adjustments have to be done to reduce the amount of ice seen by the Satellites.
    DMI, the infamous DMI.
    [Jim Hunt Phil – That looks like extent to me. How about showing us DMI’s current volume graph instead?]
    have already repaired their algorithms twice when too much ice was showing resulting in reductions to the right amount.
    Are we about to witness the same with JAXA.
    Surely not, Jim?

    • JCH | February 10, 2020 at 6:00 pm |

      Every now and then due to algorithmic failure adjustments have to be done to reduce the amount of ice seen by the Satellites.

      This is utterly ridiculous. Lotsa squeezing, no milk. Yesterday you said millstone had been reached. How could the happen if they’re reducing amounts?

      Nobody gives a flip if ice increases in the arctic winter. There is simply no reason to lie about it. Just more to melt next summer, or the summer after that.

    • Jim Hunt | February 10, 2020 at 6:57 pm |

      Certainly not angech!

      Conspiracy theories? Toi?

  95. angech | February 10, 2020 at 6:37 pm |

    JCH
    “Every now and then due to algorithmic failure adjustments have to be done to reduce the amount of ice seen by the Satellites.
    This is utterly ridiculous. Lotsa squeezing, no milk. Yesterday you said milestone had been reached. How could the happen if they’re reducing amounts?”
    –
    Ask gerontocrat “NSIDC Total Sea Ice Area 12,836,472 km2
    ADDENDUM The table attached compares current sea ice area with previous years’ maxima. Current area is already greater than 2 previous years’ maxima, (2016 by 206K), and likely by at least 2 more years in the next day or two.
    It is even possible that this year’s maximum could be greater than the 2000’s average maximum.”
    I have to give you a non JAXA figure as JAXA is busy readjusting their data.
    –
    “Nobody gives a flip if ice increases in the arctic winter.”
    Then why are there hundreds of pages of blogs about it?
    –
    ” How could that happen if they’re reducing amounts?”
    Besides the obvious?
    I am not going to answer conspiracy theories, you will have to work that one out for yourself.

    • JCH | February 10, 2020 at 7:03 pm |

      You seem to think there are scientists who would change the numbers to hide an actual increase. This is absolutely absurd.

      No conspiracy theory required.

      Most people are honest. A couple of days ago as I loading my groceries I noticed a jar of barbecue sauce hiding behind the soft drinks in the cart. I had not paid for it. So I walked it back into the store and paid for it. I was on the far end of the parking lot. My getaway was virtually 100% assured.

      • angech | February 11, 2020 at 6:53 am |

        JCH “You seem to think there are scientists who would change the numbers to hide an actual increase. This is absolutely absurd.”
        –
        1.depending on which graph you choose, you could “prove” that Arctic sea ice extent is either the highest (in the “30%+” graph) that it’s been in the last eleven years, or the lowest (in the “15%+” graph) that it’s been in the last five years. On 2016-02-18 DMI discontinued the “30%+ concentration” version, which showed high recent ice extents.
        2. PIOMAS Version 2.1 We identified a programming error in a routine that interpolates ice concentration data prior to assimilation. The error only affected data from 2010-2013. Differences in ice volume are up to 11% greater in late spring. These data have been reprocessed and are now available as version 2.1 But we still only publish for use the error ridden old version 2.0 for general use.
        3.”I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
        2048. The Gergis hockeystick was heralded in the media for a week in 2012 before it was cut apart online and months later, quietly withdrawn. etc.
        2049 Corina virus numbers in China altered to hide the increase
        etc
        I agree, absolutely absurd.

    • Jim Hunt | February 11, 2020 at 4:37 am |

      angech – You’re not referencing your sources again. Tsk, tsk:

      https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2975.msg249091.html#msg249091

      Mr. Garcia reports this morning:

      [ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

      February 10th, 2020:
      14,012,340 km2, a drop of -20,972 km2.
      2020 is now 13th lowest on record.

      I’ve explained this to you numerous times. Once again, via Judah Cohen:

      https://twitter.com/judah47/status/1226876734752116746

      • Ireneusz Palmowski | February 11, 2020 at 6:14 am |

        The temperature in the stratosphere is secondary to the waves that occur in winter within the polar vortex.
        https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2020.png

      • angech | February 11, 2020 at 7:06 am |

        Jim
        My bad, commenting I mean, deservedly caused the drip.
        The polar vortex position is not the cause of the increased cold and the rapid refreeze that was occurring. You are the ice man. You know that the warmth of the currents underneath the ice is the most important reason for ice melting or freezing’
        The air temperature by the way is secondary to, not responsible for the ice freeze and melt. As is the presence of the polar vortex persistence.
        Guess that hidden Ocean Heat is missing even more.
        If in quotes you can copy and paste the comments into the search bar which inevitably leads to the source.
        Personally pages of all the sources I use would clog this blog from pillar to post.
        That is why I am quite happy to reference the interesting parts of other peoples comments, they know who they are and anyone can find them, if interested.

        I

      • Jim Hunt | February 11, 2020 at 8:19 am |

        Afternoon angech (UTC),

        “The air temperature by the way is secondary to, not responsible for the ice freeze”

        FYI here’s the NSIDC’s “Sea ice thermodynamics 101” page:

        https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/thermodynamic_growth.html

        When cold air cools the ocean surface to the freezing point, ice begins to form.

      • angech | February 11, 2020 at 6:34 pm |

        Jim Hunt re
        “The air temperature by the way is secondary to, not responsible for the ice freeze”
        Thanks for the opportunity
        1. You missed the second line in your reply Hence zeno’s paradox .
        NSIDC’s “Sea ice thermodynamics 101” page:
        “When cold air cools the ocean surface to the freezing point, ice begins to form.”
        Which was
        – “As the ocean temperature nears the freezing point, the water density increases and the water sinks”
        As you can see cold air merely cause cold water to sink, not firm ice.
        This of course leads to further cooling of the already cold ocean
        –
        2. And this is really counter intuitive but we will go there.
        Why is the air cold? It is losing heat to space. It is also sending the same amount of heat to the water. It contains GHG!
        Shock horror.
        Can a colder body warm a warmer body?
        We both know the answer is yes.
        –
        NSIDC’s “Sea ice thermodynamics 101” page: is therefore a complete load of bollocks. The thermodynamic guys there need to get a life. They have flunked thermodynamics 101 and physics 101.
        –
        So why does ice form on the surface initially and from then on by bottom growth?
        Because the water is also losing heat. Colder currents in winter. Less heat from the sun.
        It warms up the air as it’s energy escapes to space. When the water has lost enough heat to freeze it forms ice wherever the water reaches freezing point. Only at the very start is this at the surface proper. Forever after it is at the undersurface adjacent to whatever ice has formed. Solely on the basis of water temperature.
        Which is dropping due to loss of energy from the water itself.
        Not and never due to the cold air.
        Which to repeat warms the surface.
        Otherwise we have no GHG.
        Or do you wish to state I am wrong and GHG have no effect?
        –
        You tell them.

      • Jim Hunt | February 12, 2020 at 5:46 am |

        Good Morning angech (UTC),

        So you know more about sea ice thermodynamics than the NSIDC? The MOSAiC expedition is a huge waste of money, They should have just asked you instead?

        You’ll no doubt be overjoyed to discover that JAXA extent fell for the second day in row, and is still well below the 2012 maximum?

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/01/wheres-the-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-gone/#comment-314690

        http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/JAXA-2020-02-11.png

      • angech | February 12, 2020 at 7:38 am |

        Nup.
        Ice does what it wants to do.
        But.
        Can a colder body warm a warmer body?
        We both know the answer is yes.
        So if the cold air is transferring heat energy to the water.
        How can NSIDC’s “Sea ice thermodynamics experts say
        “ cold air cools the ocean surface to the freezing point”.
        Sounds nice.
        The reality is the cold sea does not have enough energy to transfer to the air so the air becomes cold. Not vice versa.
        Where are the sceptics to defend the NSIDC?

      • JCH | February 12, 2020 at 9:46 am |

        Land of the midnight sun. Less sun energy in to the top few centimeters. Air above gets colder, energy flows out of the ocean skin hot to cold. Little icicle strands form at the very surface. Water below the first centimeter or two is not much involved. The other factor is low clouds. Where thin ice forms, low clouds reduce, so more energy out than in, and thin ice thickens.

        Moderate that.

      • angech | February 12, 2020 at 4:03 pm |

        “Moderate that.”
        Perfect could not have put it better.
        Heat flows out of the water.
        Heating up the air,
        The air in turn reheats the water (IR) as well as heat flowing out to space.
        There is no such thing as cold flowing into water, air etc.
        The reason the sea develops ice is because it loses too much of the heat it gets from the sun and the air to stay liquid on top
        Cold air does not “cool” anything.*
        Objects lose heat to become cool, not gain cold to become cold
        –
        Cannot believe we have to teach basic GHG science to NSIDC.
        *

      • JCH | February 12, 2020 at 6:25 pm |

        As soon as the soupy ice forms, evaporation starts reducing, sensible heat flux continues. The arctic atmosphere with less low clouds is not going to retain heat at the surface as there is far less downwelling radiation. The low cloud situation is pretty important as to what happens with the amount of ice formation.

      • angech | February 12, 2020 at 10:07 pm |

        JCH
        “As soon as the soupy ice forms, evaporation starts reducing, sensible heat flux continues.”
        As you say, The water keeps losing heat to space.
        –
        “The arctic atmosphere with less low clouds is not going to retain heat at the surface as there is far less downwelling radiation.”
        When it is colder there are less clouds [less humidity]
        When it is current there are less clouds [winter ice pack less due to less clouds]
        When it is hotter here are less clouds
        [Schneider, arguing that global cloud cover may have a tipping point, beyond which clouds would “become unstable and break up,” sending warming into an upward spiral]
        The point being made is, More clouds equal more cooling equals bad for AGW arguments.

        The low cloud situation is pretty important as to what happens with the amount of ice formation.-
        –
        It is winter. There is less sun. The water loses heat. Ice forms. Humidity dries up. More ice less clouds.
        Funny to hear arguments about the importance of clouds when ice builds up. Same argument seems to melt away when ice decreases.
        Dr Spencer will be proud of your views
        .-
        We should change the subject.Your feelings on this year? Started out very warm but Feb dropping. A high year, top 3 or not? I’ll go low of course.

      • JCH | February 12, 2020 at 11:30 pm |

        Nothing is bad for climate science. It’s the biggest winner in global history.

        As for Schneider, he’s one of the 20 smartest men in the world. Of course, the smartest man in the world hangs out here.

        I suspect what he would say is, he’s talking about low clouds in the eastern Pacific that are far far away from the Arctic Ocean, and that the arctic situation is very different for a several reason. So a couple: one, the sun almost disappears; two, there is this white chit up there.

        Just a few more months. New low cloud study out of humungous computer. that will rock the boat. Sorry, he’s going to be right.

      • Jim Hunt | February 13, 2020 at 3:43 am |

        A bit of light bedtime reading for angech, hot off the presses at Nature:

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-14074-5

        Leads are a key feature of the Arctic ice pack during the winter owing to their substantial contribution to the surface energy balance. According to the present understanding, enhanced heat and moisture fluxes from high lead concentrations tend to produce more boundary layer clouds. However, described here in our composite analyses of diverse surface- and satellite-based observations, we find that abundant boundary layer clouds are associated with low lead flux periods, while fewer boundary layer clouds are observed for high lead flux periods.

      • angech | February 15, 2020 at 12:18 am |

        February makes me shiver.
        I don’t want to take one more step.
        ” Jim – Are you calling it the maximum extent already? Yes or No – Or are you “kind of” in case it does happen and you can say you told us so?
        I’m teasing a subset of Judith Curry’s denizens.”

      • Jim Hunt | February 15, 2020 at 7:15 am |

        No link again angech?

        Here’s the latest from JAXA:

        http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/JAXA-2020-02-14-1.png

        Steve/Tony/Toto insists that “Arctic sea ice extent is almost exactly at the 1981-2010 median edge”.

        Is he blind?

      • angech | February 15, 2020 at 3:42 pm |

        Tony Heller is very committed to a view expressed by JCH
        “You seem to think there are scientists who would change the numbers to hide an actual increase.”
        JCH said “This is absolutely absurd.”
        –
        Unfortunately JCH is wrong.
        –
        Data sets are altered, sometimes with professed good intentions.
        Sometimes not.
        –
        Being aware of the many documented instances, yet wilfully and glibly denying them is a scientific and moral crime.
        –
        Tony is no angel when it comes to presenting his data either.
        He justifies it the same way that you do.
        If you believe one side is unfair then you fight them with their own weapons.
        –
        The difference is in the glibness.
        He is not glib because he truly believes.
        Glibness implies an understanding that you actually that the argument you are pushing has wonky foundations.
        –
        True warriors on either side are never glib.
        Well, rarely (*).

  96. Ireneusz Palmowski | February 11, 2020 at 4:22 am |

    The cyclone that is approaching the east coast of Australia generates strong storms.
    http://pl.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php?map=20

  97. Ireneusz Palmowski | February 11, 2020 at 7:36 am |

    Valentine’s Day will be very cold in the east of North America.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00997/c4lve55l88st.png

    • angech | February 11, 2020 at 6:53 pm |

      “But the consensus has now been blown apart. Most leading climate models — including those from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Britain’s Hadley Center — are now calculating the climate’s sensitivity to doubling CO2 levels as a degree or more higher, ranging up to 5.6 degrees C (10 degrees F). Their findings are almost certain to feature strongly in the next IPCC assessment of the physical science of climate change, due to be signed off in April next year.“
      Same article.
      The problem is everyone wants to find a scary mechanism to show that warming is real and dangerous and doubling much faster than it is currently doing.
      The number of different attempts to do this is now well over 70. 70 different additive mechanisms, I mean, JCH.
      So here is number 72.
      Cloud cover will miraculously change from what it does. Warmer temperatures will put more water into the air but form thinner clouds.
      Temperatures will soar the required 5.6C
      Bright boys.
      But here is the other rub.
      Number 71. New Modelled Climate sensitivity increase is independently going to cause temperatures to soar , what was it, 5.6 C.
      Not to mention the other 70 all failed, no that is wrong. Hyperbole.
      The other 70 proven causes of why the earth must warm , strangely always around a dangerous 5.6C, very soon.
      Is it my imagination?
      Is it getting warm in here?
      72[+) x5.6 C causes of warming?

      Oh wait it is only another ……. model.

      • JCH | February 11, 2020 at 7:47 pm |

        The problem is everyone wants to find a scary mechanism to show that warming is real and dangerous and doubling much faster than it is currently doing.

        Pray for cooling.

  99. Ireneusz Palmowski | February 11, 2020 at 5:38 pm |

    On February 14, the temperature in eastern Canada will drop to -40 F (-40 C).
    https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00997/wuv62w2vh1tv.png

  100. Ireneusz Palmowski | February 11, 2020 at 6:07 pm |

    Subzero temperatures combined with a brisk north wind will send AccuWeather RealFeel® Temperatures plummeting to dangerously cold levels Thursday morning.
    https://wordpress.accuweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/RFThursAM.jpeg?w=632

  101. Ireneusz Palmowski | February 12, 2020 at 5:53 am |

    Excess ozone over North America indicates a strong stratospheric intrusion and an unusual drop in temperature.
    https://files.tinypic.pl/i/00997/byhwij4p6b03.png

  102. David Wojick | February 12, 2020 at 7:26 pm |

    Models reconsidered: There is no climate emergency
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2020/02/12/models-reconsidered-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

    If you look carefully it turns out that the apocalyptic Climate Emergency narrative is an empty shell. Just what the looming catastrophe looks like is never explained. As the saying goes, there is no there, there. But there is a good reason for this carefully crafted silence, namely there is no plausible scenario whereby global catastrophe comes from global warming.

    As the CLINTEL Manifesto points out, the emergency narrative is based on runaway computer models. As we know from video games, computer modelers can make their models do anything they want them to. The modelers are like fiction writers in this regard. Look at the past 150 years. The global temperature rose about 1 degree C, but the social and economic progress was spectacular. The global poverty was never as low as today. So, what is the problem?

    The CLINTEL World Climate Declaration explains it this way: “Climate models systematically exaggerate future global warming (output of IPPC’s Working Group 1) and, based on this exaggeration, IPCC’s Working Group 2 forecasts that natural disasters will increase. However, when we look at reality, the true statistics of natural disasters show a very different picture. There is no evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike, or making them more frequent. On the contrary, in the past 100 years there has been a sharp decrease in climate-related deaths.”

    When it comes to damages from this wrongly predicted global warming, the modelers have shown that their entirely speculative models can be pushed to do truly outlandish things. So called “tipping points” are especially prominent here. There is no empirical evidence that these imaginary tipping points actually exist.

    The IPCC’s Working Group 1 is the primary source of the misguided climate emergency uprising, which has come on suddenly. Their October 2018 “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 degrees C” (SR15) is consistently cited by those proclaiming an emergency. However, this report is based entirely on computer modeling which we know shows too much warming from fossil fuel emissions.

    There are two reasons why SR15 exaggerates global warming. First, the models they use are far too sensitive to the slowly increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Second, they use an incredibly unrealistic scenario for future CO2 emissions. As a result SR15 calls for a completely unsustainable reduction in CO2 emissions, which is the essence of the supposed emergency.

    SR15 tells us that if we would go above 1.5 degree C global warming, climate-driven disasters will increase. So the message is: stay below this limit! Next we see that the completely unrealistic scenario RP 8.5 is declared as “business as usual’, meaning that if we do nothing we will go far above the safe limit of 1.5 and reach a global warming of about 5 degree C. So their message is: it is one minute to twelve. There is no time to loose for drastic mitigation measures.

    The CLINTEL Manifesto puts it succinctly: “Looking at today’s panic, the mitigation target – 50% reduction of CO2 in 2030 – is unrealistic and irresponsible. It involves a hasty rebuilding of the entire energy system with unproven technologies. However, prosperity requires plentiful low-cost, reliable energy. Today’s mitigation policy means abandoning our proven low-cost energy system within a very short period. Poorly performing energy systems will inevitably lead to economic decline and increased poverty: “Back to the past”. Is mitigation not an immoral climate policy? Is climate adaptation not the fundament of development-aid?” The latter is an important message to the World Bank leaders.

    Now the climate panic has gotten completely out of hand, going far beyond SR15 with proposals calling for even zero CO2 emissions in just ten years. This sort of drastic action would be unbelievably destructive for mankind if it were actually attempted. Calling for drastic immediate actions that far exceed the IPCC means there is no scientific support. The IPCC is unrealistic but these “action now” proposals like the Green New Deal are truly preposterous. The ‘action now people’ claim that the science is behind them and refer to SR15. The only sense in which the science is behind them is that they have left it far behind, so far it can’t even be seen.

    In conclusion, there simply is no climate emergency. As the CLINTEL Manifesto explains, this is purely a computer driven fiction to scare the public. Even worse, they also try to frighten our children and grandchildren with their apocalyptic message. Model makers are running the climate show, which has now become a full scale panic.

    The sensible policy is to pursue adaptation to climate change, whatever its form or cause. We cannot hastily restructure the physical foundations of our society from the ground up. But, even more important, why do it if is there no reason to do so.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski | February 13, 2020 at 3:10 am |

      If not for the Earth’s strong magnetic field (as of today), temperature changes on Earth would be extremely susceptible to changes in space weather. The decrease in the strength of the geomagnetic field in the Western Hemisphere clearly confirms this.

  103. Robert I. Ellison | February 13, 2020 at 3:59 am |

    It’s like getting chased by a bear. You don’t have to be faster than the bear – just faster than the other guy. The thing about the Tapio Schneider et al (2019) study is that it is modelled at a cloud resolving scale that allows use of explicit equations of state rather than needing estimated process parameters. I have been talking about this study for a year now. It shows both internal variability and tipping points – so both sides hate it. Once the implications become clear. One of these is that clouds in the Arctic are not a factor. 🤣

    “Stratocumulus clouds cover 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics. They cool the Earth by shading large portions of its surface from sunlight. However, as their dynamical scales are too small to be resolvable in global climate models, predictions of their response to greenhouse warming have remained uncertain. Here we report how stratocumulus decks respond to greenhouse warming in large-eddy simulations that explicitly resolve cloud dynamics in a representative subtropical region.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/cloud-physics.png

    I have been discussing observed cloud changes in the eastern Pacific by satellite (Wong et al 2006) and by satellites and from ships (Clements et al 2009) for more than a decade. There have been a wealth of citations along the way. Here are new references posted just yesterday. https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/08/economic-impact-of-energy-consumption-change-caused-by-global-warming/#comment-909191

    It is the major source of global decadal climate, hydrological and biological variability. Cooling in IR dominated by SW warming associated with Pacific states over the CERES era. The major source – by far – of post ‘hiatus’ ocean and atmosphere warming.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

    Shifting Pacific Ocean states caused warming in the 20th century – higher SST and positive cloud feedback – and cooling in preceding centuries with cooler ocean surfaces dominant.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content-e1540939103404.jpg
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

    The thing that is most apparent however – is that compared to JCH I am at least a special Olympics qualifier. Man those people can move. And I am allowed that joke.

  105. Ragnaar | February 13, 2020 at 8:39 am |

    David Roberts

    “I believe that, as conservatives are forced to stop hiding behind lies about the science and make their moral and prudential case directly, on its own merits, they will find themselves in an increasingly untenable position. The reactionary approach to climate change — build higher walls, cut off refugee flows, get the fossil fuels while the getting is good — is selfish, myopic, even nihilistic. There’s no good case to be made for it.”
    “That’s precisely why conservatives have so loved squabbling about science all these years. It allows them to hide from a debate they know they can’t win. “
    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/2/3/21116369/climate-change-scientists-policy-bernie-sanders-joe-biden

    No. He says conservatives are lying about the science. Which is arguing about the science. While suggesting we stop arguing about the science and that climate scientists have no special policy knowledge.

    And he mis-portrays conservatives. Who say build nuclear power and transmission lines. And have cheap and reliable power. And generally agree with people like Tol and Nordhaus. What do we expect from Vox? Failure.

    The failures of wind, solar and EVs. Of Germany’s and California’s grids. They have no effective policy and need to up their game. And actually fix the problem and stop blaming conservatives. How lame.

  106. jacksmith4tx | February 13, 2020 at 9:40 pm |

    Save this link:
    https://worldin.economist.com/edition/2020/article/17521/artificial-intelligence-predicts-future
    Question #9 was my favorite. I expect either IBM’s Project Debater or a variation of this natural language AI will be predicting the climate within a year or two.

  107. Christos Vournas | February 14, 2020 at 10:30 am |

    This new planet effective temperature complete formula:

    Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 288,36 K

    Successfully calculates the planet’s mean temperatures, including Earth.

    The results are confirmed by the satellites’ planet mean temperature measurements

    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com