Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolurion in recent coupled model ensembles [link]

Greenland’s largest glacier (Jakobshavn) has rapidly thickened since 2016. Thickening has been so profound the ice elevations are nearly back to 2010-2011 levels. The nearby ocean has cooled ~1.5°C – a return to 1980s temperatures.  the-cryosphere.net/14/211/2020/tc

Could the Atlantic overturning circulation shut down? [link]

Could climate change and deforestation spark Amazon ‘dieback’? [link]

Update: Are CMIP6 models running too hot? [link]

An ice sheet’s footprint on ancient shorelines [link]

Are ocean currents speeding up or slowing down? [link]

Cold water on hot models [link]

Southern California climate change over 100,000 years [link]

Energy budget constraints on historical radiative forcing [link]

Jim Hansen:  climate models versus the real world [link]

CO2 fertilisation effect on plant growth bigger than in previous studies: improved attribution of current terrestrial carbon sink. [link].

The deglaciation of the Americas during the last glacial termination [link]

Impact of sea ice floe size distribution on seasonal fragmentation and melt of Arctic sea ice the-cryosphere.net/14/403/2020/

Competing Topographic Mechanisms for the Summer Indo‐Asian Monsoon [link]

Carbon release through abrupt permafrost thaw [link]

A new (2020) 5680-year tree-ring temperature reconstruction for southern South America – the longest ever for the Southern Hemisphere – shows the warmest era of the last millennium was the 1700s-1800s. The region has had no net warming from 1979-2009. sciencedirect.com/science/articl

Sea level pressure has, historically, worked as a better predictor of continental US #hurricane damage than maximum sustained wind: journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.117

The contrasting response of outlet glaciers to interior and ocean forcing [link]

New research article: Interannual variability of summer surface mass balance and surface melting in the Amundsen sector, West Antarctica doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-

Policy & technologies

Welcome to the era of supercharged lithium-ion batteries [link]

We need to get serious about ‘critical materials’ [link]

The green swan [link]

Cutting ozone-generating gas emissions from the largest human-made sources, including road transportation and energy production, could improve conditions for plants, allowing them to grow faster and capture more carbon, [link]

A climate catastrophe in Scotland 300 years ago contributed to widespread famine, an (unsuccessful) attempt to colonize Panama, and unification with England. [link]

For most things, recycling harms the environment [link]

Pielke Jr.: Why You Can’t Trust The Insurance Industry’s Secret Science On Climate Catastrophes [link]

“Weather, Climate, and Catastrophe Insight: 2019 Annual Report” aon.com/catastropheins

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

About science & scientists

Model explanation versus model-induced explanation [link]

How the clouds got their names and how Goethe popularized them with his poems [link]

Climate scientists are not priests or prophets [link]

Pielke Jr:  Blacklist – the pernicious shenanigans of SkS [link] How academic blacklists impede climate research

The jerks of academe [link]

What happens when badly needed science is ignored? People get hurt. Undone Science: When Research Fails Polluted Communities undark.org/2020/02/03/und

375 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Hausfather: “This does not mean that we should dismiss these new higher sensitivity models; they show that there is a chance of some very-high-end warming outcomes that we should not ignore.”

    Because possibly-wrong simulations showed a result, that result is possible? Sounds like circular reasoning.

  2. When the oceans are cooling, there is no global warming…

  3. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Look at the cold fronts from Canada.

  4. Thanks for the heads up re Bateson, Feltham et al. Judith. My specialist subject!

    Climate model representations of sea ice currently assume that the size of floes that make up the sea ice is constant; however, observations show that floes adopt a distribution of sizes. A power law generally produces a good fit to observations of the floe size distribution (FSD), though the size range and exponent reported for this distribution can vary significantly between different studies. A power-law-derived FSD model including a waves-in-ice module (WIPoFSD) has been incorporated into the Los Alamos sea ice model coupled to a prognostic mixed-layer model, CICE–ML.

    Discuss!

    • “…the size range and exponent reported for this distribution can vary significantly between different studies” seems clear enough.

      As Red Green, the Canadian comic, used to say, these are the three little words men hate to say: “I don’t know.”

    • “This is the time of year when area and extent go up and down so much that I am just sitting back and watching with a coffee.” Wipneus.

      • Mornin’ angech (UTC),

        In actual fact that phrase was composed by gerontocrat:

        https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2975.msg249822.html#msg249822

        And that’s not how Steve/Tony, the GWPF and any number of other “skeptics” are currently portraying things is it? Meanwhile in the Arctic:

      • Jim
        According to DMI Arctic sea ice has the biggest extent in the last 5 years:

        Or it could be the highest in 11 years:

      • Phil – We’ve already been through all this recently:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/01/wheres-the-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-gone/#Feb-16

        According to ESA Arctic sea ice volume is currently second lowest (in the CryoSat-2 record), a mere whisker behind 2012:

      • A foretaste. The AMO is getting ready to rumble.

      • Ceresco – I wouldn’t pin all your hopes on the AMO if I were you. We’ve been through all this recently as well:

      • stevenreincarnated

        Remind me again what the oceanic inflow into the Arctic ocean is. About 90% Atlantic to 10% Pacific seems to keep coming to mind.

      • Steven – We’ve been over all this before too, albeit not quite so recently:

        https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaat6773

        Arctic Ocean measurements reveal a near doubling of ocean heat content relative to the freezing temperature in the Beaufort Gyre halocline over the past three decades (1987–2017). This warming is linked to anomalous solar heating of surface waters in the northern Chukchi Sea, a main entryway for halocline waters to join the interior Beaufort Gyre. Summer solar heat absorption by the surface waters has increased fivefold over the same time period, chiefly because of reduced sea ice coverage. It is shown that the solar heating, considered together with subduction rates of surface water in this region, is sufficient to account for the observed halocline warming.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Being over it before or not still doesn’t explain why anyone would think Mini-me in the Arctic, otherwise known as the Pacific inflow, could somehow overcome the Wilt Chamberlain of Arctic inflow in a game of one on one.

      • Steven – Have you read the linked paper yet? It seems not!

        A quick abstract for you. More and more heat is being stored in the Beaufort Gyre.

        Heat absorption at the basin margins and its subsequent accumulation in the ocean interior, therefore, have consequences for Beaufort Gyre sea ice beyond the summer season.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, I glanced at it but what it is talking about really wouldn’t matter should the Atlantic decide to start contributing less energy to the Arctic even if they are completely right. To maintain the current positive imbalance of energy flow the Pacific waters would have to warm a degree for every tenth a degree the Atlantic cooled. If it doesn’t manage to do that then the ice will thicken and expand and the mechanism they discuss will begin to disappear and then if they are right that will only compound the speed of the reversal.

  5. The UPdate: CMIP6 link took me to an article on trade winds published in 1735.

  6. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Abstract
    A multiproxy record from Baldwin Lake, San Bernardino Mountains, allowed us to examine variation and relationships between erosion, wildfire, vegetation, and climate in subalpine Southern California from 120 to 15 ka. Bulk organics, biogenic silica, and molar C:N data were generally antiphased with magnetic and trace element data and displayed long‐term (105 year) shifts between autochthonous and allocthonous deposition. This was most pronounced during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5, and we hypothesize that local summer insolation was the primary driver for Baldwin Lake’s productive and unproductive lake state alternations. Wildfire history was inferred from charcoal concentrations and vegetation change from pollen. Relationships between these ecological processes, basin deposition, and summer insolation were often nonlinear. Sagebrush expansion, wildfire, and weak basin weathering characterized MIS 4, while during MIS 2, the basin was highly erosive, rarely burned, and the forest was impacted by shifts in Southern Californian hydroclimate. Despite coniferous forest cover throughout MIS 3, submillennial oscillations in charcoal, pollen, and bulk organic content occurred, consistent with pollen records from Eurasia’s Mediterranean biome that span multiple glacial‐interglacial cycles. Highly resolved global CO2 records and sea surface temperatures in key regions of the Pacific show no apparent relationship to these landscape conditions, and we suggest submillennial hydroclimatic variability as a potential driver. Highly resolved long pollen records from Southern California are an urgent research need to better understand the finer‐scale (≤103 year) interactions between past vegetation, wildfire, and erosion, given the current natural disaster risks that 21st century climate change poses to both human and ecological communities.
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019PA003628

  7. re Pielke Jr: Blacklist – How can we protest the removal of Roger Pielke Jr.’s account from twitter? Free speech is necessary to counter the fascist activities at SkS. What motivates these people?

    • Good Evening Jim (UTC),

      I was watching in real time as Roger Jr. melted down on Twitter. First he “doxxed” a load of folks and got his account suspended for violating Twitter’s terms and conditions.

      Once his account was reinstated he announced he was taking a leave of absence, then apparently closed his account voluntarily.

      What do you suppose motivated him to do that?

      • I saw it too but I doubt it was melting down.

      • John – So you reckon Roger Jr. was deliberately “doxxing” folks then?

      • David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

        Roger Pielke Jr explicitly noted those error were an oversights. He corrected those tweets.

      • Good morning David,

        The truth of the matter is that Roger didn’t delete his “doxxing” tweets. Twitter did, and also suspended his account for a while. He admitted the information revealed in those tweets was obtained by “hacking”, and he left the ones that did not include personal information visible for all to see.

        Once his account was enabled again Roger said his goodbyes and then (presumably all by himself) closed it.

      • Probably a reasonable move.

        Twitter seems great for distributing info, but the nature of near instantaneous replies means it reaches into each of our dark and rash amygdalas without more reasoned thought.

        The point RP2 made in the longer, more thoughtful piece in Forbes persists. Sks keeps an enemies list of what they claim to be ‘misinformers’. This is not science but represents the fallacious ad hominem attack ( along with Cook’s fallacious appeal to consensus ).

        Very smart people can be, and very often are wrong about some things in addition to being right about more. Trying to squelch opposing views may be indicative of tribalism and politics more than science.

        If one had purity tests for science, one would put Aristotle, Galileo, and Newton, and probably a whole lot of others on the list and excluded all their contributions. And that wouldn’t be wise.

      • Evening Eddie,

        If that’s the way you see things then it sounds as though you’re the ideal person to answer this long standing question of mine?

      • “Evening Eddie,
        If that’s the way you see things then it sounds as though you’re the ideal person to answer this long standing question of mine?
        Rhetorical?
        DikranMarsupial tweet skeptical science contributor
        Jim Hunt tweet presumed skeptical science reader
        And still nobody, least of all Roger himself, has provided any evidence to support his (now invisible!) claim that “the @skepticscience science team is spreading lies about me on social media”

        Jim, I think you provide evidence yourself in your comment and presumably previous comments that people on the skeptical science team do tweet about Roger.
        As you know he does occasionally try to discuss climate science at ATTP’s where various Skeptical science people contribute regularly.

        A quick look at any of the discussions he has been involved in show a few heated exchanges and and quite deprecatory comments both to and about him, leading to him leaving .

        Not using twitter, I did register, I cannot comment on his allegation and will accept your word that you, presumably, have never seen any or engaged in tweeting that would substantiate Roger’s view.
        DM is a straight shooter.


        The Twitterverse does have a long history and a recorded history which people traverse.
        At least, thanks to you, his claim is no longer invisible.

      • Evenin’ angech,

        “Tweeting about” is a completely different kettle of fish to “spreading lies about”.

        I rest my case.

      • He erased the 20th-century warming, which did happen, leading some people to believe what did happen – 20th century warming – did not happen.

        What is the scientific benefit of that?

        It’s similar to the completely illogical and irrational attacks on “hide the decline”. White knights railing against truth over, what else, chitty proxies, which somebody had the good sense to hide.

      • Jim Hunt | February 19,
        “Tweeting about” is a completely different kettle of fish to “spreading lies about”. I rest my case.”
        I don’t know the man. His dad was famous and he is famous.
        His work on costs of hurricane damage is very good and sensible.
        He has had to suffer for expressing an opinion contrary to establishment views.
        If skeptical science people were involved in causing him suffering then those who did should take a good hard look at themselves.
        Even if they choose to justify said behaviour as just tweeting it can be basically an excuse for bullying and demeaning people.
        Bullies can justify their actions however they like but they do know what hurt they are doing.

      • You seriously think Pielke deleted his account?!

        That’s insane. He simply said he was taking a break from tweeting. There’s a trove a great information that many have linked to which no longer works.

        The most likely thing is that his harassers took advantage of him being on vacation and stepped up their campaign to shut down his account. Likely being on vacation, he didn’t respond to twitter emails, etc.

      • I think it would be interesting to read SS’s latest email/message traffic :)

  8. Given the new hot models in CMIP6, we can now place competing bets on the outcome of AR6. Will the IPCC say, (1) sorry, our models have been wrong about sensitivity for the last 30 years, and half still are, or (2) sorry, these new hot models are wrong? Either way reopens the scientific discussion. Or (3) they will cover it over with waffles.

    The supposed consensus has worked because the modelers spoke with one voice. Now that unity has ended. Science rears its ugly head. Oh my.

  9. stevenreincarnated

    Are ocean currents speeding up or slowing down?

    yes

  10. “New research article: Interannual variability of summer surface mass balance and surface melting in the Amundsen sector, West Antarctica”

    This paper indicates Antarctica contributed .304mm/yr to GMSLR for the period 1992-2017. This is .034mm/yr more than the amount in IPCC5.

    The cataclysmic Corps at WAPO and NYT will probably headline the study as Antarctica’s contribution to GMSLR has increased by more than 10%.

    Those who put it into perspective will say that the increase amounts to 1/40th the thickness of a US dime.

    Or, as they say at French Culinary School, it’s all in the presentation.

  11. Greenland’s largest glacier (Jakobshavn) has rapidly thickened since 2016. Thickening has been so profound the ice elevations are nearly back to 2010-2011 levels. The nearby ocean has cooled ~1.5°C – a return to 1980s temperatures. https://the-cryosphere.net/14/211/2020/tc-14-211-2020.pdf

    Warm Oceans with thawed oceans promote more evaporation and ocean effect snowfall and rebuild sequestered ice on Greenland, Antarctica, and other places where ice is sequestered. More ice volume and spreading of ice due to thicker and heavier ice causes more ice to dump into the oceans and cause cooling of the oceans. Ice Core Data is documentation of this for thousands of years.

  12. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND

    Abstract
    We explore the implications of recent empirical findings about CO2 fertilization and climate sensitivity on the social cost of carbon (SCC) in the FUND model. New compilations of satellite and experimental evidence suggest larger agricultural productivity gains due to CO2 growth are being experienced than are reflected in FUND parameterization. We also discuss recent studies applying empirical constraints to the probability distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity and we argue that previous Monte Carlo analyses in IAMs have not adequately reflected the findings of this literature. Updating the distributions of these parameters under varying discount rates is influential on SCC estimates. The lower bound of the social cost of carbon is likely negative and the upper bound is much lower than previously claimed, at least through the mid-twenty-first century. Also the choice of discount rate becomes much less important under the updated parameter distributions.

    Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020,
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w

    • The whole CAGW scare campaign (extinction rebellion, etc) is based on what empirical data suggests may be a false premise – i.e. that global warming will be net harmful.

      Yet nearly all commenters avoid admitting it or even discussing it.

      What does that say about objective analysis, rational discussion and honest science?

      Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w

      Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575

      • “What does that say about objective analysis, rational discussion and honest science?”
        Here’s what I think about Economists: I invest in a low cost S & P 500 index fund and a total market bond fund. Markets are efficient until the government intervenes. Market intervention is wind and solar and there are arguments to be had about that and nuclear power. Net helpful or net negative? Any markets study about global warming is not the market. There is a market distortion. Hard to quantifiy that though. But for global warming, markets left alone are the most efficient way to take all the knowledge into account. The money knows. My money, your money, our money. Government intervention says, no it doesn’t.

      • Yet nearly all commenters avoid admitting it or even discussing it

        Peter, fwiw (not much, i suppose), here’s my final take on the conclusions of your paper. Very well written piece, btw. (don’t think i took the opportunity to thank you for that)

        Yes, Matthew, i think that i may have bungled things badly here. But, the important thing to realize is that whatever the economic impacts are, they will be further impacted one way or another by the fed. And that should be incorporated into any economic modeling wrt climate change…

        Yes, i would agree that lower energy costs would result in low inflation in which case the fed would respond by keeping interest rates lower (thereby stimulating economic growth). If that’s the case, then Peter’s finding would result in an even greater economic benefit than stated. On the other hand, if Peter’s stated cost of climate change policies are simply a drag on the economy (without being inflationary), then that would result in less of a liability than he has stated. Obviously, these are just my own opinions.

      • Here is some audio of Peter attempting to moderate his own blog post:

      • afonzarelli,

        Thank you for your comment. However, the fed is totally irrelevant to paper or to whether GW is beneficial or not.

      • (that’s your opinion)…

      • Afonzarelli,

        I repeat, the FED is not relevant to the analysis. I think you have not understood the paper. If the findings are correct, there should be no policies aimed at reducing CO2 emissions or global warming. I’d urge you to reread the full paper and consider it carefully.

      • Lang: “The whole CAGW scare campaign…is based on what empirical data suggests may be a false premise.”

        I agree. So what do greenhouse farmers have to say, those dummies who lack the pedigree of scientific credentials; yet who offer their own objective analysis?

        “Increasing the CO2 levels in [commercial greenhouses] is essential for good results. Additionally, there are benefits to raising the CO2 level higher than the global average, up to 1500 ppm. With CO2 maintained at this level, yields can be increased by as much as 30%” https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide

        Sorry to be trite, but go figure.

      • Enough handwaving from you Lang. i read the damn paper and it was found wanting. This from your paper:

        The economic impact of climate policies is likely to be substantial. It is the sum of the economic impact of the policies and the cost of implementing and maintaining the policies.

        This is factually false. If climate policies become a drag on the economy, then the fed will simply compensate by keeping interest rates lower. This, in the exact same way that lower interest rates during the obama years gave us the same economy that we’ve seen under Trump. (don’t tell me that the FED is not relevant to the analysis when it obviously is)…

      • afonzarelli

        You might find the paper is “wanting”, but you haven’t shown why. You haven’t shown anything wrong with the findings or how they should be changed – and justified your beliefs. Nor have the many reviewers and blind peer reviewers.

        You said this statement is false but haven’t explained why you believe it is false.

        “The economic impact of climate policies is likely to be substantial. It is the sum of the economic impact of the policies and the cost of implementing and maintaining the policies.”

        I’d suggest to you that it is your obsession about the Fed that are handwaving. The Fed cannot control, the world economy or even compensate the US economy against the cost of reduced CO2 emissions and reduced global warming (if the paper’s findings are correct).

      • “If climate policies become a drag on the economy, then the fed will simply compensate by keeping interest rates lower.”
        No magic is allowed.
        Any problem can be solved by keeping interest rates lower. Building a tower reaching to low earth orbit? Lower interest rates. A bridge from Russia to Alaska. Lower interest rates.

      • You can’t possibly be this clueless about the federal reserve, can you? (unbelievable)…

        You said this statement is false but haven’t explained why you believe it is false.

        What the hell are you talking about here, Lang? i explained exactly why i believe it’s false. (bizarre)…

        Just in case you missed it, don’t know how — it was most of my comment, here it is again:

        If climate policies become a drag on the economy, then the fed will simply compensate by keeping interest rates lower. This, in the exact same way that lower interest rates during the obama years gave us the same economy that we’ve seen under Trump.

        More handwaving, without anything to back it up, from you here:

        The Fed cannot control, the world economy or even compensate the US economy against the cost of reduced CO2 emissions and reduced global warming

        Yes, it does control the world economy and can compensate the US economy. They only do it all the time(!!!) Only an ignoramus would suggest otherwise. Look, monetary policy is not like climate science where we’re all guessing as to what Gaia is doing. It’s no secret. Fed chairs talk. They tell us exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. There’s no guess work involved.

        At this point, Lang, i’m regarding you as a rank and file troll. But, i don’t think you’ve been classless. i always suspected that you knew next to nothing about the federal reserve. (now, i know) So, i’m going to post a video for you of a lecture by ben bernanke on the role of the fed since WW2. This is the best primer that i’ve seen about the fed and what it does. You would do well to watch it. The relevant part (as to what the fed does) is just the first half hour of the video, so it doesn’t take that long to watch.

        Learn something about it so that we’re not talking past each other. Most folks that i discuss monetary policy with already actually know something about it. (as is, you haven’t got a clue)…

      • Rag, the fed makes the economy underperform by keeping interest rates high. If the economy is underperforming already, the fed will compensate for that by keeping interest rates lower. No magic involved here. If they weren’t already keeping some slack in the economy, then you would be right. But, as is, they do keep some slack. This allows the fed to adjust in the event of any downturn…

        (honestly, guys, this is about the level of discourse that i would expect at wuwt. climate, etc. is way to good for this)

      • The Economist has been waxing lyrical on the topic of The Fed recently. If you’re lucky this leader isn’t paywalled:

        https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/01/11/monetary-policy-will-not-be-enough-to-fight-the-next-recession

        Governments and central banks need to redesign their toolbox to deal with a low-rate world. This means finding ways to bridge the shrinking gap between monetary policy, which is set by technocrats, and fiscal policy, which is set by politicians. It could even require the careful use of a radical new tool like “helicopter money”—a handout to the public funded by the printing presses. In the past Mr Bernanke debated these bolder ideas, earning himself a nickname. Where is “helicopter Ben” when you need him?

      • Soft landings. – GreenSpam

      • afonzerelli: You can’t possibly be this clueless about the federal reserve, can you? (unbelievable)…

        Probably.

        You can’t depend on the Fed to do what one of the board members said it would do.

        You can’t depend on the Fed to do what it thinks best.

        You can’t depend on the Fed to do what you think is best.

        You can’t depend on Fed action to produce the results that either you or they want.

        Economists dispute among themselves what the consequences of Fed actions will be.

  13. Read the paper and see if you agree the Climate Etc. description of what that paper says is a profound and rapidly elevating exaggeration:

    A decade of variability on Jakobshavn Isbræ: ocean temperatures pace speed through influence on mélange rigidity

    • Summary
      ” At least from autumn 2016 through spring 2019, winter thickening outpaced summer thinning, leading to net thickening and elevations approaching those observed in 2010″
      “There were ex-tended periods of rigid mélange in the winters of 2016–2017and 2017–2018, concurrent with terminus advances∼6 km farther than in the several winters prior.”
      see if you agree the Climate Etc. description of what that paper says is a profound and rapidly elevating exaggeration:
      Very little comment on the cause for glacier advance and retreat.
      There were 2 years of quite heavy snowfall.
      Seems funny to concentrate on outflow and not mention inflow.

    • “At least from autumn 2016 through spring 2019, winter thickening
      outpaced summer thinning, leading to net thickening
      and elevations approaching those observed in 2010. These
      data also provide observational evidence to support theoretical
      development describing how necking proceeds as basal
      crevasses form (Bassis and Ma, 2015). The elevation data
      also show that although Jakobshavn Isbræ likely has the
      highest un-buttressed ice cliffs on Earth, at this point they do
      not appear to be subject to sustained catastrophic brittle failure.
      Most importantly, our observations reinforce earlier findings
      on the influence of mélange rigidity on calving (Amundson
      et al., 2010; Joughin et al., 2008b; Krug et al., 2015;
      Todd et al., 2018) and help establish an apparent connection
      to ocean temperature. Ocean temperatures are expected to
      rise over the next century (Stocker et al., 2013), which will
      likely produce further retreat of Jakobshavn Isbræ. Superimposed
      on any trend for the last century, however, there is substantial
      multi-decadal scale variability of ocean temperatures
      in Disko Bay that correlates well with the Atlantic Multidecadal
      Oscillation (AMO) index, which has been linked to
      past changes on Jakobshavn Isbræ (Lloyd et al., 2011). Thus,
      whether Jakobshavn Isbræ can stabilize, at least temporarily,
      likely depends on whether a cycle similar to that of the last
      century produces an extended period (several more years to
      decades) of cooler waters in Disko Bay.”

      We had the hottest mostest ever these past few years. Someone has been saying AMO a number of times. Even whomever wrote this paper. Greenland zeros out. The greater the Summer loss, the harder the Winter rebound. Ice loss up near the North Poles means water heat loss. I think it’s a binary thing. Ice insulates as it has for the past billion years. No ice, no insulation and the water cools warming the atmosphere. And Karl finds it and sends a memo to Mosher. Then someone pulls the fire alarm.

      Yes. I see your point JCH. But good news nevertheless.

    • Meanwhile in the summer of 2019:

    • Maybe I’m wrong, but I do no think this section of the paper is claiming the glacier is gaining elevation rapidly.

      DEM is an elevation model. It gained some elevation.

    • The ice core data does document that the ice accumulation is most in warmest times when the oceans are warmest and thawed. Ocean Effect Snowfall comes from warm thawed oceans.
      Warm times are normal and necessary to rebuild sequestered ice.
      In cold times with frozen oceans, there is no evaporation and no ocean effect snowfall on land where ice is sequestered and the sequestered ice flows, into the oceans and spreads on the land and keeps climate colder until the ice is depleted. It snows more in warm times and the more ice accumulation spreads and causes colder. It snows less in cold times and the ice depletes until it retreats and results in warmer.

      This is recorded in Ice Core Data for all to see.

  14. Judith, all
    Here is a site with a post that is interesting. It has been updated with a post on CO2 about eight weeks ago. I like the simplicity.
    Regards.

    http://dougrobbins.blogspot.com/2019/12/understanding-source-of-rising.html?m=1

    • It’s a gross simplification. Photosynthesis, eg in biological carbon sinks, emit one oxygen molecule for every carbon dioxide molecule absorbed. Also, there are some strong anthropogenic processes that absorb no atmospheric oxygen, eg cement manufacture and setting.

  15. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The weather has contributed to at least 10 deaths, including four who suffered hypothermia, a family of four that died of suffocation in their tent and two who burned to death when their tent caught fire, according to Mohammed Hallaj, a coordinator for the area’s Response Coordination Group.

    Nizar Hamadi, 43, lost his brother and three other family members, including a three-year old. Their family had been displaced multiple times to escape the swift government offensive, ending up in a settlement made up of rudimentary tents stitched together with sticks and cloth.

    “It was God’s destiny that it was really cold. The temperatures was no less then -8 or -9 (degrees Celsius, 15 degrees Fahrenheit) and this is rare in Syria,” he said, speaking to The Associated Press from the Idlib town of Binnish.
    https://apnews.com/52d30188834728eb14db69515916cdd5

  16. In the deglaciation of Americas paper there is reference to a see saw phenomenon, much like other papers re Sea Ice at the poles. During the current warming period the hemispheres are warming at different rates. If there is such heterogeneity, why is there a requirement to have homogeneity in demonstrating global RWP, MWP and the LIA?

    The fingerprint of each warm/cool period is uniquely its own. We’re not dealing with 33 1/3 LP Albums here.

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski

    This year, sea ice in the central Arctic is very stable.

  18. Thanks for the Klotzbach, et all, piece on MSLP being a more accurate barometer (couldn’t resist) of potential hurricane force/damage. I lived through Sandy and a few other storms on Long Island, NY. Goes with my observations.

  19. The link for “CO2 fertilisation effect on plant growth bigger than in previous studies: improved attribution of current terrestrial carbon sink” is an article in The Conversation titled “Yes, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps plants grow, but it’s no excuse to downplay climate change”.

    The article states that “almost half (44%) of our emissions remain in the atmosphere” and cites (links to) the Global Carbon Budget 2019 (GBC19) paper in support of that statement.

    In fact, the statement appears to be wrong. Based on the GBC19 central estimates, only 41% of human emissions over 1750-2018 remained in the atmosphere in 2018. Based on the better estimated post 1850 emissions, and projected to the end of 2019, this ‘airborne fraction’ was only 40%.

    This significant inaccuracy regarding an easily calculated key parameter makes me a little suspicious of statements in the rest of the article, and in The Conversation generally.

    • Nic Lewis,

      “This significant inaccuracy regarding an easily calculated key parameter makes me a little suspicious of statements in the rest of the article, and in The Conversation generally.”

      I agree. The Conversation is extremely green biased. They banned researchers and commenters who disagree with the line they are pushing, including Judith Curry.

    • Nic Lewis,

      Could you comment on these two recent papers and their findings?

      Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, 3575. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575

      Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w

    • “Yes, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps plants grow, but it’s no excuse to downplay climate change”.

      There is no need to downplay climate change, it is normal, natural, necessary and unstoppable.

      There is a need to up-play that climate change has been natural for billions of years and humans did not suddenly start to control climate with a trace gas.

      Increase of man-made CO2 is “ONE MOLECULE ADDED TO TEN THOUSAND MOLECULES”, “THAT IS NOT MAKING ANY DIFFERENCE TO TEMPERATURE AND SEA LEVEL”, “IT IS ONLY CAUSING MEASURABLE CHANGE TO HOW GREEN PLANTS GROW BETTER WHILE MAKING MORE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER”.

      Climate change has always happened, it is happening, but we are not in control. Climate has powerful, robust, self correcting factors that keep temperature in bounds. Temperature is well inside the bounds of the most recent ten thousand years and temperature is colder that most of the most recent ten thousand years. That is what actual data does show us.

  20. Yes, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps plants grow, but it’s no excuse to downplay climate change

    The usual reply is, It’s not good. Nothing about it. But things are going pretty good. Australia is greener so it burns more. That’s climate change. Plants grow and some of them burn. In a glacial, less worries about that. Yes, save the forests. Save habitat. Give money to farmers to do that. The Conversation. Not foaming at the mouth this time. We are winning.

  21. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A wave of arctic air will reach the Great Plains.

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A clean solar disc.

  23. The Munger piece was priceless, on so many levels. :-) Thanks, Judith.

  24. Thanks Judith, for the link to the paper:

    “On the Climate Sensitivity and HistoricalWarming Evolution in Recent Coupled Model Ensembles” Clare by Marie Flynn and Thorsten Mauritsen

    From my recent analysis posted here you might suspect that I will be very interested in reading in detail the authors’ elucidation of the following comment in the abstract:

    “Somewhat surprisingly, CMIP6 models exhibit less historical warming than CMIP5 models; the evolution of the warming suggests, however, that several of the models apply too strong aerosol cooling resulting in too weak mid 20th Century warming compared to the instrumental record.”

    With higher climate sensitivities it would be easier to bury in the future period some if not most of the aerosol negative forcing from the historical period. This would be especially so if, like in the CMIP5 scenarios, the CMIP6 scenarios show a peak aerosol forcing around 2005 and then decreasing through the future period.

    Do you, Judith, or any other posters here know where I can obtain CMIP6 data and preferably somewhere online? I see that KNMI has not yet started posting it.

  25. J Curry, I have a post in moderation that comments on the first article that you posted in this thread that says:

    From my recent analysis posted here you might suspect that I will be very interested in reading in detail the authors’ elucidation of the following comment in the abstract:

    “Somewhat surprisingly, CMIP6 models exhibit less historical warming than CMIP5 models; the evolution of the warming suggests, however, that several of the models apply too strong aerosol cooling resulting in too weak mid 20th Century warming compared to the instrumental record.”

    With higher climate sensitivities it would be easier to bury in the future period some if not most of the aerosol negative forcing from the historical period. This would be especially so if, like in the CMIP5 scenarios, the CMIP6 scenarios show a peak aerosol forcing around 2005 and then decreasing through the future period.

    Do you, Judith, or any other posters here know where I can obtain CMIP6 data and preferably somewhere online? I see that KNMI has not yet started posting it.

  26. In my opinion the below artical is the next significant happening to the Climate change discussion.
    The world’s most closely watched ice shelf is about to …
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-09/formation-of-brunt-ice-shelf-iceberg-in

    • “Sorry, page not found”

      We’re still in suspense – what’s the world’s most closely watched ice shelf about to do?

    • The world’s most closely watched ice shelf is about to …

      It snows more in warm times and sequestered ice piles up in cold places. Ice flows and forms ice shelves and ice bergs and dumps ice into the oceans and on land to cool the climate. The coldest climate is when ice extent is most and is doing the most cooling by thawing and reflecting. When a most watched ice shelf breaks off, it flows into warmer water where it will thaw faster and cause more cooling. That is how ice cycles work. Ice is dumped in the oceans and on land to cause a colder climate, until the ice is depleted and then it retreats and the warm cycle repeats and rebuilds the sequestered ice.

  27. “Paleoclimate data show that the Earth’s climate of the last 2.6 Myr is dominated by cold glaciations; recently (after the Mid-Pleistocene Transition) the durations of these ice ages – with extensive glaciers – have been ∼100 kyr, with warm interglacials with little global ice cover lasting 10–30 kyr (Imbrie et al., 1992). The termination of a glacial period occurs rapidly while the changeover to a glacial period takes tens of thousands of years to be completed, resulting in an interesting asymmetrical shape for which there is yet no consensus on the mechanism(s) (Tziperman and Gildor, 2003). From benthic δ18O (‰) records from the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Site 983 in Raymo et al. (2004), the duration of the last termination was ∼10 kyr while the glaciation process including the inception and intermediate stage had a duration of ∼77 kyr. There is a plethora of previous research which has identified several feedback mechanisms to explain glacial–interglacial asymmetry, for example, varying ice sheet volumes (Le Treut and Ghil, 1983) or the sea ice switch mechanism (Gildor and Tziperman, 2000). While it is mostly agreed that astronomical forcings trigger glacial–interglacial transitions, a similar shape is not observed in insolation changes, suggesting a nonlinear response by the climate system (Lisiecki and Raymo, 2007)…

    Sea ice cover is considered as a control on deep-ocean temperature in the Arctic Ocean, which in turn can control the extent of sea ice cover by vertical turbulence and lead to the development of an intermediary stage as illustrated in the schematic, Fig. 1.” Ramadhin, C. and Yi, C.: ESD Ideas: Why are glaciations slower than deglaciations?, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 13–16, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-13-2020, 2020. https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/11/13/2020/

    A solar grand minimum this century will drive polar vortex indices into more negative territory – driving polar storms into lower latitudes cooling both the southern and northern hemispheres.

    e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0396.1

    This atmospheric see-saw drives cold water north and south along the western margins of continents with more meandering patterns seeing increased deep ocean upwelling and more marine boundary strato-cumlulus could cover. As the latter was the source of most recent warming – cooling seems likely. Given – however – circulation instabilities within the system there is a possibility of getting more than we bargained for.

    • The ice core data explains the glaciations clearly. When polar oceans, in particular, ice ages are primarily NH events, the SH takes part but the NH is driving. When the Arctic Oceans are deep and warm and thawed, that drives evaporation and ocean effect snowfall. The oceans lower as the ice is piled on land around the Arctic and Beyond. After the initial ice buildup, that ice advances and spreads, causing oceans beyond the arctic to dump more ocean effect snowfall beyond the Arctic. The most ice is placed on land in the warm period and the initial part of the cold period. The rest of the cold period is spreading of ice, thawing and snowing again in smaller warm and cold periods in the Greenland data that does not show up in Antarctic data. Ice is thawing but trapped behind ice dams and in depressed land from the weight. The rapid warming occurs, with major spikes, because the ice retreats as the trapped water escapes and the ice age ends as an ice chest warms, after ice is depleted after many thousands of keeping climate cool by reflecting and thawing.
      Ice Core Data shows these internal response cycles. Ice ages last longer when there is more ice to thaw. Ice ages are coldest when the thawing ice has the largest extent. There is nothing that suddenly causes ice to thaw faster, as in an ice maker, adding something to thaw the ice faster causes much colder.

  28. Good to see the “hot model” issue growing. Let it rip. AR6 should be fun, as I expect them to bury the hot model issue in waffles.

    • Cloud feedback – that come with transitions to a hothouse Earth in calculations using physical equations of state – is the obvious response. And based not just on laws of physics but observations over decades. What they fail to do is incorporate perpetual internal variability in our nonlinear world.

      “The accurate representation of this continuum of variability in numerical models is, consequently, a challenging but essential goal. Fundamental barriers to advancing weather and climate prediction on time scales from days to years, as well as long standing systematic errors in weather and
      climate models, are partly attributable to our limited understanding of and capability for simulating the complex, multiscale interactions intrinsic to atmospheric, oceanic, and cryospheric fluid motions.” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1?mobileUi=0

      And the opposition is reduced to ineffectual hand waving dismissals. This is before they resort to weird science.

  29. Greenland’s largest glacier (Jakobshavn) has rapidly thickened since 2016. Thickening has been so profound the ice elevations are nearly back to 2010-2011 levels

    Click to access tc-14-211-2020.pdf

    CO2 fertilisation effect on plant growth bigger than in previous studies

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070710

    2020 study finds climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling to be 0.5 degrees C:

    Click to access acs_2020011611163731.pdf

    While another study finds it to be 0.6 degrees:

    http://www.journalpsij.com/index.php/PSIJ/article/view/30127/56520

    Meanwhile Allnendinger performs meticulous gas irradiation study’s that confirm Einstein’s 1917 conclusion that radiative heating of a gas is primarily by Maxwell-Boltzmann vibrational exchange and not by IR absorption at specific bands:

    Click to access Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf

    Also the news of 20 degree C + temperature at the tip of the west Antarctic peninsula is probably fake:

    https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/17/is-all-time-antarctic-20-75c-record-high-temperature-just-a-sensational-hoax-station-data-show-only-16c/

    But of course none of this matters.

    Eclipsing all this in importance is the news that Roger Pielke doxxed someone on Twitter.

  30. Climate scientists are not priests or prophets [link]

    This was written: and climate scientists are not experts on any of those things. They are experts on climate science.

    THAT IS WRONG!; The thing that climate scientists know the least about is climate science. Look at actual data compared to what they preach.

  31. Comparison of results the planet Te calculated by the Incomplete Formula:

    Te.planet = [ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    the planet Te calculated by the Complete Formula:

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

    and the planet Tsat.mean measured by satellites:

    Planet or…..Te. incomplete……Te.complete…Tsat.mean
    Moon
    Mercury………….437 K……….346,11 K………..340 K
    Earth…………….255 K………..288,36 K………..288 K
    Moon…………….271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……….220 Κ
    Mars…………….211,52 K……..213,59 K……….210 K

    Conclusions:
    The complete formula produces remarkable results. The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

    The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference doesn’t exist in the real world.
    There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.

    The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  32. About Yakob Sound gaining ice. “Scientists can explain that”

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/07/agw-melting-arctic-glaciers/

  33. Are ocean currents speeding up or slowing down?

    Speeding up because surface wind speeds over the oceans have increased. As much as Climate Change™ would like to own it, warmer ocean phases reducing low cloud cover in response to weaker solar wind states since the mid 1990’s is driving it.

  34. Could climate change and deforestation spark Amazon ‘dieback’?

    One requires a PhD to talk about such tipping points without mention of ocean phases and precipitation. El Nino conditions increase during centennial solar minima, that is entirely predictable. During glacial maximum conditions with near permanent El Nino conditions the Amazon forest is tiny.

    • If you read the article – the answer is no. And Prof Cox does mention sensitivity to ENSO.

      More salt in the Law Dome ice core is cooler La Nina like conditions. It shows quite clearly ‘centennial solar lows’ correlated with more La Nina like Pacific states. This cannot be more obvious.


      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

      It is caused by high polar surface pressure with a marginally cooler sun driving more meridional polar vortex patterns and spinning up oceanic gyres.


      https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/gsofacpubs/140/

      • False, nothing is said about the effects of El Nino on Amazonian rainfall. Getting the Solar-ENSO relationship backwards is a pathway to one of your imaginary tipping points. Higher north polar air pressure, i.e. negative AO/NAO, is directly associated with slower trade winds and hence increased El Nino conditions. Look at the El Nino frequency 1807-1821 in the Dalton Minimum:
        https://sites.google.com/site/medievalwarmperiod/Home/historic-el-nino-events

      • I had in mind Phil’s so called ‘contradictory’ Amazon studies. But the answer is still no – global warming is not likely to cause Amazon dieback.

        I give you direct ENSO evidence – you base your misbegotten trade wind memes on a cartoon of impacts – including on Atlantic trade winds – of changes in the Arctic vortex.

        But the Arctic vortex is indeed involved in thermohaline circulation and thus interglacial/glacial transitions. Hardly my tipping point.

      • “But if you take out that long-term trend you find a variation in the CO2 growth-rate that correlates well with the climate variations in the tropics associated with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. This signal, therefore, shows us something about how sensitive tropical land carbon is to climate variations.”

      • Yes when there are El Nino episodes, large plumes of CO2 are released from the drying tropical forests, readily visible on the AIRS CO2 videos. So during centennial solar minima when El Nino episodes increase, the CO2 release is an auxiliary negative feedback to low solar. And obviously the drier forests are more prone to die back. Increased greenhouse gas forcing of the climate is the opposite signal, it should inhibit El Nino and its associated regional rainfall effects. Pouring derision on the illustration of negative NAO/AO with slower trade winds doesn’t win you any favours when that is widely accepted teleconnection dynamic. The historic records that I cited of El Nino episodes during the Dalton Minimum clears the matter up, and if you check the literature there are several papers which note a rough doubling of El Nino episode frequency during centennial solar minima.

      • A warm eastern Pacific delivers more moisture to the Amazon. Basic hydrological principles on which this Holocene ENSO record from Ecuador depends. Note the switch to more frequent and intense El Nino some 5,000 years ago and compare it to the cosmogenic isotope proxy of solar intensity.

        This is a definitive ENSO proxy for the past 1010 years. It shows more La Nina like conditions from the 13th century through to the early 20th. Your list of likely El Nino events compiled from ships logs says – after all – literally nothing about relative frequency and intensity of Pacific states.

        This is the cartoon on which you base your odd ideas of Pacific trade winds – and then call it derision when I state the obvious. The Pacific has its own dynamic of winds, currents and Coriolis force of which you seem to understand nothing.

        There is – btw – no literature on anything but more frequent and intense La Nina in the cooler centuries of the last millennium. You are generally all over the place. Less water loss for instance means a less active biotic pump that both brings water into forested land from oceans and recycles it through the system. So called water efficiency brings both higher temps – from less latent heat – and drier conditions. There is a complex of effects for which you have a biased and inconsistent motivated narrative.

      • “False, nothing is said about the effects of El Nino on Amazonian rainfall. ”

        And I note we go seamlessly from this to El Nino drying the Amazon. Wrong on both counts of course.

      • Excellent, your last comment contradicts your previous comment, of course El Nino episodes dry the Amazon, that’s why they release more CO2. And you need new specs, Moy et all shows the strongest El Nino from the 13th century. Talk about generally all over the place, what a hoot!

        Robert writes:
        “There is – btw – no literature on anything but more frequent and intense La Nina in the cooler centuries of the last millennium.”

        Unsubstantiated drivel and blatant misinformation Robert.

      • Nothing but incorrected assertions and insults.

      • In fact I misread your last comment, but if you study the regional effects of El Nino, you’ll see that it dries the Amazon. Else there would not be more CO2 released. So the Holocene Optimum was warmer and with hardly any El Nino conditions.

        Take 2:
        “There is – btw – no literature on anything but more frequent and intense La Nina in the cooler centuries of the last millennium.”

        The MWP had increased La Nina conditions because of a positive NAO/AO regime, the LIA as we can see from Moy et al 2002 had increased El Nino conditions because of a negative NAO/AO regime. So we have to differentiate between what happens on the continents, and what the ENSO impacts on global temperatures are. The literature does note a rough doubling of El Nino episode frequency during centennial solar minima, and Moy et al suggests that the intensity also increases.

      • I have been studying it for 40 years. As far literature is concerned – you might try citing some. Moy et al – btw – show nothing of what you suggest – and in Vance et al it is even more obvious.

      • Evaporation from a warm eastern Pacific Ocean in El Nino delivers moisture to inland forests.

        “A sediment core about 9 m long, retrieved from the lake Laguna
        Pallcacocha in the southern Ecuadorian Andes, has been used4 to
        investigate Holocene ENSO variability. It was proposed4 that the hundreds of light-coloured, inorganic clastic laminae in the sediment core were probably deposited during ENSO-driven episodes of alluvial deposition in the Laguna Pallcacocha drainage basin.
        This hypothesis was based on the observation that light-coloured
        laminae deposited in the past 200 yr generally correlated with known El Nino events in instrumental and historical records.” https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01194/ – Moy et al 2002

        El Nino is associated with higher basin discharges and thus sediment loads to Laguna Pallcacocha. Red intensity is higher in El Nino states. Just to be sure that this simplest idea is clear to Ulric.

      • Nonsense, from the 13th century is the strongest period of El Nino in the series.

        Vance 2013:
        “It is also unclear how ENSO expression varied through periods of well-known climate variability such as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA; 800–1300 ad) and the Little Ice Age (LIA; 1500–1850 ad) [see, e.g., Khider et al. (2011) and Mann et al. (2009) versus Yan et al. (2011)].”

        Obviously confused, a positive NAO/AO regime means faster trade winds.

      • “Strong ENSO band features (2–7 yr) and intermittently persistent decadal-scale (10–25 yr) features are seen in spectral analyses of the 1010-yr LDSSS record. The main epoch of higher than average (La Niña–like) LDSSS values (1260–1860 ad) is associated with longer ENSO-band periodicities of 6–7 yr. Two periods exhibit below-average LDSSS values (1000–1260 ad and 1920–present) and are associated with shorter ENSO-band periodicities (2–5 yr) attributed to more El Niño–like regimes.” Vance et al 2013

        You really should focus on the conclusion.

      • It’s backwards, El Nino episode frequency and intensity increases during centennial solar minima, which will be for longer periods during the grand solar minimum series from 1215 AD.

      • This is not what science says – quite obviously in te Vance et al quotes. And you still fail to provide anything but your eccentric assertions to the contrary. .

      • The science says that negative NAO/AO is directly associated with slower trade winds. The historic El Nino records which I referenced show a rough doubling of El Nino episode frequency during the Dalton minimum, several papers also note a rough doubling of El Nino during LIA centennial solar minima, which Moy et al agrees with. You ignore all this evidence and assert that only Vance et al is valid just because it favours your eccentric tipping points.

      • You conflate Atlantic and Pacific trade winds on the basis of a cartoon. You have a list of presumed El Nino compiled from ships logs with no mention of La Nina. Moys et al show less show less intense El Nino in the centuries before the 20th. Vance et al shows an increase in La Nina like conditions between 1260 and 1860 ad. The Earth system is nonlinear.

      • “Moys et al show less show less intense El Nino in the centuries before the 20th.”

        It shows a massive series of peaks from around 1200, and lesser peaks through Maunder and Dalton. 1900-1950 is very low.

      • “The last major phase of Holocene valley sediment removal likely occurred sometime between approximately 1200 and 250 years ago and was possibly associated with a phase of heightened tropical cyclone activity and consequent riverine flooding that occurred between AD1400 and 1800.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018215005957?via%3Dihub

        Cyclone frequency in that region of the world is almost doubled in La Nina years. But if you were fair dinkum you would know that. Not just repeat yourself on a palpably incorrect point.

        I introduce a reference that clearly shows reduced riverine flow to a South American lake in the past 700 odd years. But if in doubt I suggest you graph the data for the last 1000 years – not just try to eyeball from the graph.

        https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/paleolimnology/ecuador/pallcacocha_red_intensity.txt

      • Thanks for the second link, that is very useful, it proves my point perfectly, higher red values during the centennial solar minima, and corresponds well with Moy et al.

      • You are ignorant of different hydrological effects in the east and the west. Although it is a fundamental Pacific pattern dynamic – and I did try to make it clear in specifying the western region.

      • Indeed you have changed your original drying narrative. Truly breathtaking ignorance about things you pretend to an infallible knowledge of.

      • Not at all, El Nino drives drought and heatwaves in southeast Australia.

      • Ulric Lyons

        Australian rainfall patterns during El Niño

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninocomp.shtml

    • Summer patterns in eastern and northern Australia – especially the monsoon are more important. But what is shown in the winter pattern is not over south east Australia. But I have lost sight of whatever point you thought you were making long ago.

      • Ulric Lyons

        You can deny the influence of El Nino on southeast Australian drought if you wish to demolish your own credibility. You never had a point.

      • The summer monsoon in northern and eastern Australia Is both where I live and what I have studied for decades as a hydrologist. You link to a winter pattern on the BoM site and seem to imagine that’s all there is to it. The northern flooding paleo study I linked to shows La Nina like states dominant between 1300 and 1850 AD. You have never had any credibility to demolish.

  35. Could the AMOC collapse?

    The AMOC is vulnerable to climate change. As the atmosphere warms due to increasing greenhouse gases, the ability of the ocean to lose heat from the North Atlantic surface is diminished and one of the driving factors of the AMOC is weakened.

    Is that really the accepted science? The O’Gorman review article on temp and rainfall reported an empirical finding of a 6% increase in rainfall per 1C of ocean temp increase. Considering the latent heat of the water phase changes, it would seem that warming would have very little effect on the rate of heat loss from the North Atlantic surface. Is this another instance of the consensus folks ignoring non-radiative energy transfers in the models?

    • Matthew
      The AMOC is an inherently unstable nonlinear oscillation, driven by a positive feedback and self-terminating excursions. The driving positive feedback is the salinity-downwelling loop, and one of the damping negative feedbacks is Greenland ice melt. Thus – spontaneously – it is susceptible to fluctuation.

      It’s amusing that among the legion of studies on the AMOC, some claim to observe or predict strengthening, others weakening of the circuit. In both cases – both strengthening and weakening, they are human caused, lead to warming, and are bad.

      • Phil Salmon: The AMOC is an inherently unstable nonlinear oscillation, driven by a positive feedback and self-terminating excursions.

        That does not answer the questions.

      • Maybe not (which question?)
        But it points to the flaw in the statement “The AMOC is vulnerable to climate change”. Wrong – more accurate to say “The AMOC is vulnerable to itself”.

  36. So bored with weird skeptic science on an endless loop. Here’s some practical science.

    • Robert
      Well here’s some mainstream asceptic science as an antidote. As well as the AMOC predicted to both slow down and speed up due to anthropogenic CO2, here are 30 other things where CAGW causes both an effect and its opposite:

      http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/30/robust-science-more-than-30-contradictory-pairs-of-peer-reviewed-papers/

      Here they are as a text list:

      Amazon dry season greener
      Amazon dry season browner

      Avalanches may increase
      Avalanches may decrease – wet snow more though

      Bird migrations longer
      Bird migrations shorter
      Bird migrations out of fashion

      Boreal forest fires may increase
      Boreal forest fires may continue decreasing

      Chinese locusts swarm when warmer
      Chinese locusts swarm when cooler

      Columbia spotted frogs decline
      Columbia spotted frogs thrive in warming world

      Coral island atolls to sink
      Coral island atolls to rise

      Earth’s rotation to slow down
      Earth’s rotation to speed up

      East Africa to get less rain
      East Africa to get more rain

      Great Lakes less snow
      Great Lakes more snow

      Indian monsoons to be drier
      Indian monsoons to be wetter

      Indian rice yields to decrease
      Indian rice yields to increase

      Latin American forests may decline
      Latin American forests have thrived in warmer world with more co2!

      Leaf area index reduced [1990s]
      Leaf area index increased [1981-2006]

      Malaria may increase
      Malaria may continue decreasing

      Malaria in Burundi to increase
      Malaria in Burundi to decrease

      North Atlantic cod to decline
      North Atlantic cod to thrive

      North Atlantic cyclone frequency to increase
      North Atlantic cyclone frequency to decrease

      North Atlantic Ocean less salty
      North Atlantic Ocean more salty

      Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to decline
      Northern Hemisphere ice sheets to grow

      Plants move uphill
      Plants move downhill

      Sahel to get less rain
      Sahel to get more rain
      Sahel may get more or less rain

      San Francisco less foggy
      San Francisco more foggy

      Sea level rise accelerated
      Sea level rise decelerated

      Soil moisture less
      Soil moisture more

      Squids get smaller
      Squids get larger

      Stone age hunters may have triggered past warming
      Stone age hunters may have triggered past cooling

      Swiss mountain debris flow may increase
      Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease
      Swiss mountain debris flow may decrease then increase in volume

      UK may get more droughts
      UK may get more rain

      Wind speed to go up
      Wind speed slows down
      Wind speed to speed up then slow down

      Winters maybe warmer
      Winters maybe colder

  37. Remember the wobbly polar vortex narrative?

    • Eddie – Yes!

      Your PV point is?

    • TE:
      You have the wrong PV. That is the one in the stratosphere, which is not affected by surface meridional DeltaT.
      It is driven by the fact that the polar night has no UV to break down O3 and create heat as a consequence.
      Result – cooling and a meridional DeltaT at stratospheric levels independent of the surface…… and hence the Polar night jet.
      The tropospheric PJS is also not more “wavy” in winter under AGW because said SPV overlying passes its momentum downwards to it.
      At times when meridional displacement takes place, it it caused by planetary waves aligning to thrust equatorial air polewards causing wave breaking into the SPV, hence disrupting/splitting it, this allowing easterly winds to propagate down into the trop and initiate a -ve AO (high pressure) response in the Arctic. It is this divergence of surface air that causes plunges southwards and hence create “waviness” in the PJS.
      It is thought that more open Arctic waters impact the PJS in early winter and this can produce a more “unstable” PJS before the SPV reaches peak intensity by late Dec.
      Hope that’s clear.

    • TE:
      You have the wrong PV. That is the one in the stratosphere, which is not affected by surface meridional DeltaT.
      It is driven by the fact that the polar night has no UV to break down O3 and create heat as a consequence.
      Result – cooling and a meridional DeltaT at stratospheric levels independent of the surface…… and hence the Polar night jet.
      The tropospheric PJS is also not more “wavy” in winter under AGW because said SPV overlying passes its momentum downwards to it.
      At times when meridional displacement takes place, it it caused by planetary waves aligning to thrust equatorial air polewards causing wave breaking into the SPV, hence disrupting/splitting it (a SSW), this allowing easterly winds to propagate down into the trop and initiate a -ve AO (high pressure) response in the Arctic. It is this divergence of surface air that causes plunges southwards and hence create “waviness” in the PJS.
      It is thought that more open Arctic waters impact the PJS in early winter and this can produce a more “unstable” PJS before the SPV reaches peak intensity by late Dec.
      Hope that’s clear.

  38. TE,
    You mean when it wobbles it causes cold in Montana and when it is stable it cause cold in Montana?
    Scott

  39. Whoops – The 2nd image didn’t work too well! Try this one instead:

  40. Moon rotates around its axis at a slow rate of 29,5 days.

    The day on the Moon is 14,25 earth days long, and the night on the Moon is also 14,25 Earth days long.

    Moon is in our immediate neighborhood. So Moon is at the same distance from the sun, as Earth, R=1 AU (astronomical unit).

    The year average solar irradiation intensity on the top of atmosphere for Moon and Earth is the same So = 1362 W/m2.
    They say on the top of the atmosphere, it means the solar intensity which reaches a celestial body and falls on it.

    It is all right then, that during these 14,25 earth days long lunar day the Moon’s surface gets warmed at much higher temperatures than the Earth.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  41. Amazon dieback? Prof Cox wrote “probably not”. He included this:

    Higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have a “fertilisation” effect on plants and trees, boosting photosynthesis and promoting growth. Under elevated CO2, plants also tend to use water more efficiently, such that they need less water for a given amount of photosynthesis.

    It’s good to see that research result getting a wider press.

    • “Air currents near Earth’s surface flow to where pressure is lowest. According to Makarieva and Gorshkov, these are the areas that possess the highest evaporation rates. In equatorial climates, forests maintain higher evaporation rates than other cover types, including open water. Thus, forests draw in moist air from elsewhere; the larger the forest area, the greater the volumes of moist air drawn in (see figure 1). This additional moisture rises and condenses in turn, generating a positive feedback in which a large proportion of the water condensing as clouds over wet areas is drawn in from elsewhere. The drivers (solar radiation) and basic thermodynamic concepts and relationships are the same as in conventional models, thus most behaviors are identical—the difference lies in how condensation is incorporated.” https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/4/341/346941

      Although perhaps there could be more consideration of nutrient limitations and water recycling. Oh wait – there was.

  42. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Looking at the forecast of the stratospheric polar vortex, a change in circulation in the Northern Hemisphere can be expected. At the end of February, the US will get warm, because the jet stream will be coming from the Pacific, from the west, in Europe from the north.

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Due to the high level of ionizing radiation during low solar activity, the US must prepare for rainfall.

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Current temperature anomalies in North America.

  45. “Pielke Jr: Blacklist – the pernicious shenanigans of SkS: How academic blacklists impede climate research”

    It’s understandable that people mostly focus on what touches them directly; but fascism has been quietly impeding virtually every western institution for a very long time; it has rapidly accelerated the last couple decades.

    George Soro’s wrote in 1998: “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”

    “In 1999, Hillary Clinton congratulates Walter Cronkite, who appeared at a United Nations room to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the openly pro-world government World Federalists Association. Cronkite told those assembled, that he had always believed in world government but could not say so openly because of his position as CBS Anchorman.”

    Published in 2007; here’s what Professor David Shearman, an IPCC assessor for the IPCC Third Assessment Report and Fourth Assessment Report, had to say in his book ‘The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy: “…we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity’. He argues for the formation of an ‘elite warrior leadership’ to ‘battle for the future of the earth” [p.xvi]…Chapter 9 …“we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life. We must accomplish this education with the same dedication used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times.” [p. 134]. These ideas come from the mind of an IPCC assessor. Campus culture warriors often call themselves anti-fascist; please.

    The collectivist model calls for the ideological control of all major institutions, education is ground zero. Unfortunately, individuals like Dr. Pielke Sr, Dr. Curry, and many others get caught in the cross hairs of ideology from two sides; within the industry of climate science, but also institutions of higher learning where fascist ideology is branded into the minds of youth.

    Pielke Jr. writes in his essay: “At times the Skeptical Science team was confused at why Pielke Sr. was engaging with them: ‘Why does a scientist of Dr. Pielke’s stature choose to spend so much of his time and energy posting on SkS? [they asked] Doesn’t he have more important things to do?” A picture ensues: circular salivating, and the collective rubbing together of hands. Their reaction is emblematic of self acknowledged inferiority, yet they consider themselves the arbiters of truth. How very sad it is that enthusiasts, not scientists, created the cudgel for climate science activist branding, thereby making it a mass marketable phenomena.

    SkS is a tiny bit player in activist education, but their marketing platform has had a substantial effect on climate science through its ability to galvanize culture, bending the lens of climate science towards a single point of preference.

    I touched on this subject in the previous week in review, mostly centered around why Brexit was an important outcome in the defeat of global collectivist goals.

    • Curious George

      “begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life.”

      No longer we are enemies of climate; now we are enemies of life, according to IPCC representatives. Fittingly, they are unelected.

      • “No longer we are enemies of climate; now we are enemies of life, according to IPCC representatives. Fittingly, they are unelected”

        In the context of the verbatim quote, such have been already elected: “we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life.”

        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the squad, are the antecedents to the fruition of such policy ideas proposed by Professor David Shearman (still a professor), if like minded individuals are elected in numbers. Cortez stumps with Sanders; they’re ideologically simpatico. Listen to her speeches and see the future of where the hard Left wants to take culture. These are the people who believe humans have 10 years to change climate before we cross a divide of no return, see the Green Deal.

  46. The true danger is the fantasist with lots of money.

    • I just read about one with too much money who is planning to spend ten billion to control climate. He is going to make a large number of climate scam artists very happy. He will never even suspect he was scammed. After they drink the sky is falling kool-aid, they are done for. New York is supposed to be underwater several years before now. He does not even suspect that was already supposed to be history. Much of Florida was supposed to be covered with water already. These rich fantasists have no clue that data does not support the alarmism. Climate has changed, climate will change, climate change is natural, we will not stop natural climate change. We can study actual data and understand what is happening and why and understand why we cannot stop it. Ocean Effect Snowfall rebuilds sequestered ice in cold places only when oceans are warmer and thawed. The increased ice volume and weight does increase ice flow rate and increase ice extent and does cause colder. This is very clear if the data is properly studied.

  47. Geoff Sherrington

    The reference by Phil Salmon (above) needs to be read because it has the potential to alter some fundamental ideas about the mechanisms of heating of gases including greenhouse gases.

    Click to access Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf

    The last part of author Allmendinger’s conclusions is “Surprisingly, and contrary to the expectation of the greenhouse theory, the limiting temperatures of air,
    pure carbon-dioxide and argon were nearly equal, while
    the light gases neon, and particularly helium, exhibited
    significant lower limiting temperatures. Thanks to this
    empirical evidence, the greenhouse theory has to be
    questioned. Instead, the warming-up of the lowest layer
    of the troposphere has to be understood as the result of
    the warming-up of the Earth’s surface, mainly
    depending on its albedo (Barrett, 1995). ”

    Papers like this with a capacity to make or break entrenched ides deserve expert commentary and responsible follow-up. Geoff S

    • George, I had trouble with “limiting temperature”. Is “limiting temperature” the maximum temperature the gas will reach under the “excitation”(my naive term) of the radiation under test? Is this the temperature under which the increase goes horizontally asymptotic? Is it actually reached?

      Yes, I did go through the paper, but ….

      • Unsurprisingly – a tube of gas when exposed to a heat source will increase in temperature to a state of local thermodynamic equilibrium. Regardless of how it gets to the higher temperature – the gas will will equilibriate with its surroundings. In the atmosphere the quantized electron orbit transitions of greenhouse gases have implications for surface temperature. These are properties measured with ever greater precision starting with US Air Force work on radar in the early 1960’s.

        “The simultaneous developments of high-resolution laboratory instrumentation (such as the Fourier transform spectrometer), the digital computer and storage, and sensitive detectors and the means to carry them on board high-altitude balloons and space craft provided the stimulus to create a machine-readable archive of the fundamental properties of molecular transitions. It was then possible to simulate transmission and radiance in the terrestrial atmosphere by applying known radiative-transfer equations. Thus was born the original HITRAN molecular absorption line parameters database.” https://hitran.org/about/

      • Geoff Sherrington

        JF,
        Yes, that is how I understood the limiting temperature.
        RIE,
        Please read more deeply. The author compared thermometry and spectral analysis to probe air mechanisms and found the former orders of magnitude more fruitful. Critics need to explain basics, like why radiative and non-radiative gases both heat to similar levels when their atomic/molecular weights are similar. He more or less asks why, from radiative physics theory, non-radiative gases heat at all in these experiments, to well above adiabatic. I am also surprised by the level of past neglect of basic experiments of this type and the heavy reliance on “Arrhenius &Tyndall done it” when the author describes some of their experimental deficiencies. Geoff S

      • It is as weirdly simple as the kinetic theory of gas. In which gases when exposed to a heat source increase in temperature with increases in average molecular kinetic energy – and there is a T to the fourth power increase in emitted energy. Everything at temperatures above absolute zero emits waves of energy. Until the temperature of the gas again equilibrates with its surroundings. The excitation and relaxation of quantized electron orbits in greenhouse gases is not involved in atmospheric temperature except indirectly in increasing energy flows back to the surface. Warming the surface and thus the atmosphere.

        People like Sherrington should discover the basics of physics before discovering a new one.

      • Curious George

        REI, a black body is not the best model of a gas. T^4 implies a black body.

      • The purely theoretical blackbody isn’t a model of anything. But the Planck feedback is real and I don’t suppose that you have a number in mind that isn’t imaginary?

      • Well stupid me.
        Was “Limiting Temperature” ambient for the experiment?
        What would have to change for the “limiting temperature” to be different? Is ‘limiting temperature” a specific scientific term? How is it “limiting”?

    • he got the theory wrong Geoff.

  48. 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 = 288,36 K

    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.

    Conclusions:
    The complete formula produces remarkable results. The calculated planets’ temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

    Planet or…..Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
    Moon
    Mercury………….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K
    Earth…………….255 K………..288,36 K……..288 K
    Moon…………….271 Κ………..221,74 Κ……..220 Κ
    Mars…………….211,52 K……..213,59 K……..210 K

    The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
    There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
    The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • If this image appears, NH snow extent is currently much less “impressive”:

      • Jim, your point is the extent, not the snow mass ( it’s volume). IMO your comment is a little whataboutism??

      • One word for you Frank,
        “Albedo”

      • One word for you Jim,
        “Insulation”

        More words,
        “The presence of seasonal snow cover during the cold season of the annual air temperature cycle has significant influence on the ground thermal regime in cold regions. Snow has high albedo and emissivity that cool the snow surface, high absorptivity that tends to warm the snow surface, low thermal conductivity so that a snow layer acts as an insulator, and high latent heat due to snowmelt that is a heat sink. The overall impact of snow cover on the ground thermal regime depends on the timing, duration, accumulation, and melting
        processes of seasonal snow cover; density, structure, and thickness of seasonal snow cover; and interactions of snow cover with micrometeorological conditions, local microrelief, vegetation, and the geographical locations. Over different timescales either the cooling or warming impact of seasonal snow cover may dominate. In the continuous permafrost regions, impact of seasonal snow cover can result in an increase of the mean annual ground and permafrost surface temperature by several degrees, whereas in discontinuous and sporadic permafrost regions the absence of seasonal snow cover may be a key factor for permafrost development. In seasonally frozen ground regions, snow cover can substantially reduce the seasonal freezing depth. However, the influence of seasonal snow cover on seasonally frozen ground has received relatively little attention, and further
        study is needed.”

        Even more words,
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2004RG000157

      • 2019-2020 snow cover is on the low side of its range.

        What value to you need?

      • I don’t need any “value” for snow extent David. It seems the local denizens do though.

        Did you see my graph?

      • Jim Hunt: Let’s see the 365 day moving average of NH snow extent. (I’ve already calculated it.)

      • Good morning David (UTC),

        Good for you! Can you show it to us?

        What use do you suppose it will be in making any sort of prediction regarding the 2020 (or future) Arctic sea ice melting season(s)?

        TonyB – Have you battened down your hatches pending the imminent arrival of Storm Jorge?

        https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/warnings

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Current temperature in North America and Greenland.

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski

    An impressive mass of snow this year in North America.

  51. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Anomalies of gepotential altitude indicate a strong stratospheric polar vortex in the northern hemisphere.

  52. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Current temperatures in the north of the US.

  53. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A marked drop in temperature in the north of the Atlantic means cooling down in Europe. It starts with snowfall in Scotland.

  54. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Snowstorm in North Carolina and Virginia.

  55. Ren| February 20, 2020 A marked drop in temperature in the north of the Atlantic means cooling down in Europe. It starts with snowfall in Scotland

    Jim Hunt Meanwhile in Seattle:.

    Perhaps this will cause a review on where and why the ice this year might be of interest for a change, changes still just to small to really comment.

    “Jo Nova. site The coldest ever day recorded in Greenland stood at -63.3 C (minus 81 F). But on January 2nd in 2020, after Greenland suffered a century of global warming, the thermometer at Summit Camp sunk to at least -64.9C. I say, at least, because it may have been even colder. Sharp eyes of Cap Allon at Electroverse saw it hit minus 66C. Ryan Maue also saw it and predicted there would be cold as the Arctic Oscillation broke down”.

    Jim Hunt | February 12, Good Morning angech (UTC),
    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?
    Jim Hunt February 14, 2020
    Keep a close eye on JAXA extent then angech. Here’s their latest update:

    Still waiting to comment, The other marker, 4.9 % for the first time in 3 years, is interesting as well. Sort of a reverse Al Gore effect on the ice perhaps?

    • Mornin’ angech,

      I fear you’ve been spending too long in the wrong echo chambers. I guess the “Etc.” up at the top includes “internal variability” and perhaps even “weather”?

      At the risk of (repeating myself)^n:

      http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/01/wheres-the-thickest-arctic-sea-ice-gone/#comment-313127

      As I have stated numerous times, let’s see how things look in May before jumping to any hasty conclusions about what the 2020 Arctic sea ice melting season might bring?

      What do you reckon Steve/Tony/Toto will make of this?

      • In answer to my own not entirely rhetorical question, this is of course currently invisible:

        Bad timing, as the DMI graph spiked up just after you posted. (Amazxing how often that seems to happen.)

        (ROFL)^2

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        In my opinion, in May (2020) there will be a similar ice extent as in 2019.

      • Let’s make a date to compare notes again in May 2020?

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        A mistake, the ice extent in Arctic in May will be similar to 2010 (or 2012).

      • Another DMI fudge. The pattern shown is lower than in the last several years and typical of most patterns in recent times.

        Jim says “Perhaps it’s time to open a 2020 maximum extent thread ”
        – on average 96.8% of extent gain for the the season done, 19 days on average to maximum.
        Quidditch like quote for you. “An ice maximum is a dish best not spoken about and eaten cold”

        “I fear you’ve been spending too long in the wrong echo chambers”

        I try to look at the most relevant.
        Here, Lucia, ATTP and WUWT.
        When I need some excitement I might try Tamino or Tony.
        Science of Doom or the Auditor for facts.
        Best show is JCH and Robert I. Ellison.
        Most crotchety DM and WE though they write well.

      • My impression up to now was that the content here at Judies is more climate related. IMO it makes no sense at all to comment every up/downtick of some arctic graphs. This issue is the content of the SIF over there. It should stay there and who wants to get informed about it can have a look there. So if Jim wants comment on both sides it’s his own choice. I won’t respond here anymore and others are invited to do so.

      • Hear, hear Frank!

        Any chance we can stick to the “big picture”?

      • Grew up in the Dakota’s. Still can’t believe anybody banks one red cent of their time worrying about ice.

      • I grew up in South West England. Would you like to see my collection of old pennies?

        Once upon a time they were worth one red cent each!

      • One year won’t say anything about global warming.

      • Good morning David (UTC),

        Long time no see!

        Quite so.

      • Seems to be about sea ice:
        “Still can’t believe anybody banks one red cent of their time worrying about ice.”
        With one point of view, it’s about things like GMST. Another is sea ice extent which while in some cases is like a thermometer, it’s more than that.

        Ice is. It denotes a threshold event. Generally its formation or loss is a liquid to solid or solid to liquid event.

        Ice is not where we store or draw joules from. It is potential, the opposite of potential and active.

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Forecast of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere on February 26. The extent of sea ice in the Svalbard region will increase.
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2020/02/26/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-336.28,93.92,390

  57. It means in winter the Greenland’s Ice Core is cooling.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  58. Planet’s Mars Te misfortunate coincidence

    We have collected the results here:.
    Comparison of results Tsat.mean measured by satellites,
    and the planet Te calculated with Complete Formula:

    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
    Planet or Te.satellites .Τe.incomplete..Te.complete
    moon ………measured …formula ………formula
    Mercury ……340 K ……437,30 K ……346,11 K
    Earth …………288 K ….255 K ……….288,36 K
    Moon ………..220 Κ …..271 Κ ………..221,74 Κ
    Mars ………..210 K ……209,91 K …..213,42 K

    Let’s focus our attention on the Planet’s Mars the measured by satellites:
    Te.mars.sat = 210 K

    the calculated by the incomplete:
    Te.mars.incompl = [ (1-a) S /4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 209,91 K

    and the complete effective temperature formula:
    Te.mars.compl = [ Φ (1-a) S (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ]¹∕ ⁴ = 213,42 K

    The difference between the incomplete and the complete Planet Effective Temperature Formula is:
    *[ Φ (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴

    For Planet Mars we have:
    (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = (150*0,98971*0,18)¹∕ ⁴ =
    =(26,722) ¹∕ ⁴ = 2,27362
    Φ = 0,47
    [ Φ (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    =( 0,47* 2,27362 )¹∕ ⁴ =
    =( 1,06860)¹∕ ⁴ = 1,01673

    So the difference between these two formulas
    for Planet Mars is only 1,673 % !

    And this is a coincident.
    It is a coincident, but with very important consequences.

    Te.mars.sat = 210 K measured by satellites
    There is only by 1,673 % difference by coincidence , it is almost equal with
    Te.mars.incomplete = 209,91 K and
    Te.mars.compl = 213,42 K

    When measuring by satellites the
    Tmean.mars = 210 K
    and calculating with the incomplete effective temperature formula
    Te.mars.incomplete = 209,91 K
    the scientist were led to a mistaken conclusions. (They didn’t know about the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula yet).

    First they concluded that the planet effective and mean temperatures should normally be equal, which is right.

    Secondly they concluded that Earth without atmosphere should have effective temperature, according to the incomplete formula calculation,
    Te.earth.incomplete = 255 K.
    The measured by satellites Tmean.earth = 288 K.
    The difference of Δ 33 oC
    was, according to scientists, due to the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.

    Now we have the effective temperature complete formula that gives Te.mars.compl = 213,42 K
    This result is very close to the measured by satellites Te.mars.mean = 210 K.

    And the Complete Formula gives very reasonable results for all the other planets without-atmosphere in the solar system.

    We know now the Δ 33 oC does not exist.
    The Te.earth = 288,36 K = Tsat.earth = 288 K.
    Te.earth = 255 K does not exist.

    And I dare to assume now, that this Complete Formula may be applied to all the planets without atmosphere in the whole Universe.

    And I am convinced there is not any measurable greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have a detectable greenhouse effect.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • This is what Judah Cohen has to say about the anomalously strong and circular PV this winter, at his AER blog:

      I know I am dating myself but what comes to mind as I sit down to write another blog is “Tune in tomorrow—same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!” I could just as easily write tune in next week same positive AO same strong PV. The AO remains positive and the PV remains strong both even flirting with records with no real change in the foreseeable future (Figures 1 & 11). I did check historical winter polar cap geopotential height anomalies (PCHs), and the stretch of universally cold tropospheric and stratospheric PCHs that we observed this winter is extremely rare. The closest that I could find is the winter of 1975/76. When cold PCHs dominated the stratosphere and troposphere right through the end of March. In general, I don’t like using data before 1979 but I could not find anything analogous since 1979 with 1989/90 being the closest. Though in February 1990 there was a sudden stratospheric warming (see Figure i). So there is precedent, though rare, for the positive AO/strong PV to continue right through March.

    • Christos, are you really still at this??

      Go publish your claims somewhere, huh?

      • David,

        Planet or Te.satellites .Τe.incomplete..Te.complete
        moon ………measured …formula ………formula
        Mercury ……340 K ……437,30 K ……346,11 K
        Earth …………288 K ….255 K ……….288,36 K
        Moon ………..220 Κ …..271 Κ ………..221,74 Κ
        Mars ………..210 K ……209,91 K …..213,42 K

        We know now the Δ 33 oC does not exist.
        The Te.earth = 288,36 K = Tsat.earth = 288 K.

        Te.earth = 255 K does not exist.

        David: “Christos, are you really still at this??
        Go publish your claims somewhere, huh?”

        David, I am convinced there is not any measurable greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have a detectable greenhouse effect.
        Do you agree David?

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Since the polar vortex is so strong this year and is forecast to continue on a high note, this raises uncertainties for the upcoming spring, as the final warming could have an unpredictable influence, affecting the weather patterns even into late spring and early summer. The graphics below, show the ensemble forecast for the strength of the polar jet stream and the polar vortex, keeping it abnormally strong well into spring.

    https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/lower-stratosphere-cold-vortex-ozone-spring-fa/?fbclid=IwAR2V7bODtxsyz-YLGsaBnEU8rV-Mj5CBrL8Y9OA2ALjBeUPNkDCf5e2hMBk

  60. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The temperature in the stratosphere in the north is so low that you can already see the ozone hole.

    • This is what Judah Cohen has to say about the anomalously strong and circular PV this winter, at his AER blog:

      https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/

      I know I am dating myself but what comes to mind as I sit down to write another blog is “Tune in tomorrow—same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!” I could just as easily write tune in next week same positive AO same strong PV. The AO remains positive and the PV remains strong both even flirting with records with no real change in the foreseeable future (Figures 1 & 11). I did check historical winter polar cap geopotential height anomalies (PCHs), and the stretch of universally cold tropospheric and stratospheric PCHs that we observed this winter is extremely rare. The closest that I could find is the winter of 1975/76. When cold PCHs dominated the stratosphere and troposphere right through the end of March. In general, I don’t like using data before 1979 but I could not find anything analogous since 1979 with 1989/90 being the closest. Though in February 1990 there was a sudden stratospheric warming (see Figure i). So there is precedent, though rare, for the positive AO/strong PV to continue right through March.

  61. The article by Lara et al https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379119306924 dramatically reports a 5,000+ year reconstructed history of temperature in southern South America (SSA), and concludes that “Recent decades in the reconstruction (1959–2009) show a warming trend that is not exceptional in the context of the last five millennia.” Centennial changes, they report, are consistent with solar forcing, and decadal changes consistent with local forces like ENSO.

    There follows of course the usual waffle about more study indicated to characterize the interaction of local drivers with global forces such as anthropogenic warming. This self-protective survival mechanism doesn’t detract from the accuracy of the report. Bravo.

    • Frank
      “My impression up to now was that the content here at Judies is more climate related. IMO it makes no sense at all to comment every up/downtick of some arctic graphs.”

      Some people may be hoping fo hits on their own sites by doing so.
      You are missing the point that the current up and down ticks are possibly vital to climate understanding.
      Two years in a row we have seen record low starts to recovery, leading to a progression from 2nd or 3 rd lowest to up to 13 th or 14th out of 40 odd years.
      It puts the issues of Arctic SD and rate of change in an entirely different and important space.
      Jim is entitled to obfuscate and self promote.
      He always stops when the ice grows as I do when it shrinks.
      Ergo this is a very temporary annoyance

      • Evenin’ angech,

        Obfuscate? Moi?

        Surely the word you’re looking for is “enlighten”?

      • Enlighten was the very word, Jim,
        darn spellcheck always playing up.
        Thanks for your updates on Mosaic. Will they get their supplies or do they have to go hunting the bears for food?

      • Mornin’ angech,

        The Kapitan Dranitsyn is getting there slowly, though the pesky winds keep blowing Polarstern Framwards.

        In between the passing clouds you can follow the chase in near real time at:

        https://rammb-slider.cira.colostate.edu/?sat=jpss&z=5&im=12&ts=1&st=0&et=0&speed=130&motion=loop&map=1&lat=1&opacity%5B0%5D=1&hidden%5B0%5D=0&pause=0&slider=-1&hide_controls=0&mouse_draw=0&follow_feature=0&follow_hide=0&s=rammb-slider&sec=northern_hemisphere&p%5B0%5D=day_night_band&x=15365.7998046875&y=15479.1005859375

        Hopefully the MOSAiC team will live to tell the tale without being forced to eat each other?

      • angech, the facts when it comes to the SIE of the last 10 years:

        No need to discuss it further IMO.

      • Frank, your graph shows a third of the story.
        5 years ago we had a massive fall in Antarctic ice of possibly 5 SD, combined with a 2-3 drop in Arctic ice.
        We may now be seeing a recovery, too early just yet to get enthused.
        What it did show, in my opinion only, was that the standard deviations used in climate related statistics are woefully under judged.
        This leads to the possibility that natural variation is also under assessed.
        There are multiple mechanisms at play and trying to judge the effect of one component of the GHG, worse claiming surety when the signal is too small to see in non 30 year time frames detracts from the possible merits such an argument might have.
        Jim and I are doing a shadow dance, mock battle, pleasantries because there is a quasi balance at the moment.
        I understand that you do not think it relevant but there is a lot of hidden climate steel argument in these seeming harmless ripostes.
        Thank you for your input.
        Rest assured there will be Australian cricket team grade sledging if the balance tips too far.

      • angech, re input: These are the OLS-trends of the January volume data with the const. start year 1990:

        It seems to be that 2014 was a local minimum. The trend difference between 1990…2014 und 1990…2020 is almost signifcantly with 90% confidence.

      • Afternoon Frank,

        At the risk of repeating myself, how about April? Or September?

      • Jim, as we do not discuss about some daily up/down ticks I do respond of course. Probably you know the much stronger autocorrelation of the SIV over the months. Therefore it seems to be a bit silly to await a different behaviour when it comes to the months April or September or any other:

        Indeed after 2012/13 we don’t see an acceleration in the trends from 1990 on ( “death spiral”) but a decelaration. All the trends are negative of course due to the anthropogenic forcing. However it’s time to say good bye to the imagination of a fast “cliff” because the acceleration between 2004 and 2012 was IMO due to some internal variability. Perhaps you can bring this idea also into the SIF. Some members there lower the bar IMO with yearly estimations of a blue arctic in September.

      • Good evening Frank,

        The explanation has been staring people in the face since the start of the ASIF, in the form of the “Slow Transition” thread. I point folks at it on a regular basis. See for example:

        https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.msg232219.html#msg232219

        However if 2012 was merely “internal variability” then surely there’s no reason why something similarly “apocalyptic” can’t happen again?

        What do you make of this “measured” Arctic sea ice volume graph for example?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Jim, it isn’t that difficult to b able to predict the trend. There is about a 13 year lag between changes in the Gulf Stream and changes in the subpolar region of the Atlantic. Lucky for us we measure that.

        Recent subsurface North Atlantic cooling trend in context of Atlantic decadal-to-multidecadal variability Rulz-Barradas et al 10 JUL 20118

        So now you can tell in advance. You’re welcome.

      • Jim Hunt Two at least sides to everything, the opposite outcome of your well reasoned logic is simply

        “The explanation has been staring people in the face since the start of the ASIF, in the form of” [ internal variability] “”fixed”.
        However if 2012 was merely “internal variability” then surely there’s no reason why something similarly “”wonderful” can’t happen again?

        ie ice regrowth
        I guess that in itself would be considered apocalyptic by some.

      • Morning Jim, the issue with somewhat “apocalyptic” is more complicated. There is a very mighty negative feedback at work: “Thin ice grows faster”. It’s described also here: https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079223 . You can recalculate it very easy with the monthly piomas data:

        On the ordinate is shown the icegrow of the years between october and april of the next year relative to the actual october volume. As more ice is lost in october as more first year ice grows to april during winter. This feedback is at work not linear but with the 3rd potence! One gets an almost prefect “reset” every winter. It’s also shown in my last comment: The trendslope of the april SIV is not effected by the september dip after 2007. IMO one can’t await a “blue arctic” before 2050 from this reason.

      • Mornin’ Frank,

        Can I safely assume that you have yet to read the ASIF “Slow Transition” thread (2013) I referred to recently (and not so recently!)? Would it surprise you to learn that I read the paper you reference shortly after it was first published?

        From the “Plain language summary”:

        As the Arctic warms rapidly, the strong atmosphere and ocean forcing dominates over this feedback and is projected to promote declines in sea ice growth.

        Have you seen this even newer paper?

        https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL081393

        From the “Plain language summary”:

        We found that a natural cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO for short, is particularly important. Arctic sea‐ice loss is faster when the IPO is moving from its cold to warm phase and slower when the IPO is moving from its warm to cold phase. This is because variations in the IPO cause changes in atmospheric wind patterns, which alter the amount of heat that is transported into the Arctic. Observations show that the IPO started to shift from its cold to warm phase in the past few years. If this shift continues, our results suggest that there is an increased chance of accelerated sea‐ice loss over the coming decades.

      • Jim, you have forgoten to mention this part in the conclusion ( not the plain language summary) of the cited paper: “By the middle of the century, increases in atmospheric forcing and/or a warming of the ocean are expected to dominate over this negative feedback.”
        This is the same as I said:
        “one can’t await a “blue arctic” before 2050”.
        Therefore I don’t see any contradiction.
        Cheers!

      • Hi Frank,

        From Screen & Deser (2019):

        Internal variability exerts a strong influence on the timing of the first ice‐free summer. For a given greenhouse gas emissions scenario, this timing can vary by 20 years due to internal variability alone.

        2050 – 20 = ?

        And there’s always a non-zero probability of a “Black Swan” event?

      • Jim black swan possibility zero since you are predicting it.
        Black swans disappear with prediction.
        Good to see Piomas by Wipneus up and running again for the mid month figures, a little gain again. Perhaps they missed last month due to too much Xmas pudding.
        Good to see you agree it could all be natural variation as an option as I said, could be C02, just not provable.
        Still a couple of weeks of very variable freeze possible on average.
        Amazing it put on many K with temperatures 3-5 warmer than normal.
        Not the cold air then.

      • Mornin’ angech,

        You’re putting words in my mouth. Please desist. I refer you to:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/02/the-2020-maximum-arctic-sea-ice-extent/

        Sorry Frank!

      • Jim, there is no use to discuss further on, I’m afraid. IMO you made one claim, I respond to this and you don’t respond anymore but makes new claims.
        You asked me about the April/December SIV trendslopes, I made the figure for you. Thereafter you asked if there could be year after year some kind of “apocalyptic” SIV loss, I responded why this is not very likely with a new figure and a cited paper. You responded: “I read the paper long before you” which is not the truth. You made an incomplete citing, I clarified this. Now you make a new claim which is not falsifiable. I don’t know if you are lucky with this kind of whataboutism, I don’t hope so.

      • Afternoon’ Frank,

        Now you’re putting words in my mouth too. Please desist. At the risk of repeating myself:

        “I read the paper you reference shortly after it was first published”

        I have no idea when you first read that paper. Perhaps you can enlighten me? When did you first read Screen & Deser (2019)?

      • Jim. “Perhaps the 2020 maximum area has already been reached?
        Watch this space!“

        Going once!
        Going twice!
        Are you all done?

        Predictions are very difficult, especially if they are about the …… ?
        Insert word of choice.

  62. The climate catastrophe in Scotland, above https://eos.org/articles/how-the-cold-climate-shaped-scotlands-political-climate, began just at the most rapid rate of warming in the historical record which occurred from 1680-1720 (CET and Armagh). Of course, it started from a low point in the LIA. And it began and continued with no significant contribution from CO2.

    • And . . . so what? This occurred before manmade global warming.

      • Ah. And exactly when did manmade global warming supplant natural global warming and cooling?
        Do you have a virgin mind?

      • Another country heard from:
        “The researchers found that over long timescales—of 10,000 years or more—summer insolation was a more important influence on the state of the lake than sea surface temperatures or carbon dioxide levels. ”
        https://eos.org/research-spotlights/southern-california-climate-change-over-100000-years.
        The implications of course will be obscure…

      • jimmww wrote:
        Ah. And exactly when did manmade global warming supplant natural global warming and cooling?

        Around 1950. No later than the 1970s.

      • “Around 1950. No later than the 1970s”
        Now THAT’S funny!
        The slope of temp rise from 1923-1941 is the same as that from 1950-1996.
        And then you must explain how all that CO2 produced in WWII and postwar reconstruction resulted in a decline in temperature sufficient to provoke alarms about The Coming Ice Age!

      • Ironically , Callandar was in charge of experimental work for the british war office and determined that burning vast amounts of oil should be burnt at airfields in order to disperse fog so allied planes could fly

      • jimmww wrote:
        The slope of temp rise from 1923-1941 is the same as that from 1950-1996.

        First interval is 18 years. Second is 46 years.

        Obviously those trends don’t have the same statistical significance.

      • Tonyb wrote:
        Ironically , Callandar was in charge of experimental work for the british war office and determined that burning vast amounts of oil should be burnt at airfields in order to disperse fog so allied planes could fly

        Callender was smart enough to know that doing so would have negligible impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and was worth doing to defeat the Nazis.

    • “If these clinical trials even are science. I once heard a talk by a science journalist (no names) that what journalists claimed as a “medical science” wasn’t really a science, because it had too many variables and too many unknowns.”
      There are too many variables and too many unknowns in climate science. You can’t dismiss that. You can’t break out long term and short term with much confidence yet the media does that which isn’t science, and the climate scientists sit on their hands when that happens. CO2 warms. First question is where? 1000 meters down in the oceans? Tell me the distribution of ocean warming with a long timeline of say 100 years of data. Can’t do it. You don’t know how the oceans warm full stop. You don’t know how the Antarctica icesheet melts, full stop. You can’t take CO2 warms and then run around and say we understand it all. What a con.

      • The Antarctic Ice Sheet is melting on the bottom because the salt water touching the ice is 35’F, 3.47% salt by weight. The top of the Ice Sheet is growing because we are about 20,000 years into the new Ice Age.

  63. Could the Atlantic overturning circulation shut down? [link]

    This appears to be salinity anomaly argument also found in the NASA website.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/02/11/agw-salinity-anomaly/

  64. Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker than Moon, but Mars rotates 29,1964 times faster.

    And… for the same albedo Mars and Moon have the same satellite measured mean temperatures.

    Let’s take out the calculator and make simple calculations:

    (29,1964)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,3245 it is the rotation difference’s fourth root

    (29,1964)¹∕ ⁴ /2,32 = 2,3245 /2,32 = 1,00195 it is the rotating /irradiating comparison
    It is a tiny 0,195 % difference.
    When rounded the difference is 0,20 %

    It is obvious now, the Mars’ 29,1964 times faster rotation equals the Moon’s 2,32 times higher solar irradiation
    .
    That is why the 29,1964 times faster rotating Mars has almost the same average satellites measured temperature as the 2,32 times stronger solar irradiated Moon.
    Thus we are coming here again to the same conclusion:

    The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Higher is the Planet’s Average Temperature.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  65. The Lara et al. study of Chilean tree-rings is a rare jewel. It takes paleoclimatology a high step above the customary level of tendentious tea-leaf reading.

  66. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Very low temperature over the Baffin Bay.
    https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/canada/clyde-river/ext

  67. CLINTEL plans a grand climate debate
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2020/02/23/clintel-plans-a-grand-climate-debate/

    The fast growing Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) is planning a major debate on climate change. The event will coincide with the COP 26 UN climate summit in Glasgow this November. Unlike previous attempts at decisive debates, this one has an excellent chance of really happening.

    CLINTEL President, Professor Guus Berkhout, explains the plan this way: “We are starting to organize the ‘debate of all debates’ just prior to COP 26 in Glasgow. More specific, CLINTEL will organize a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate. The meeting will give effect to the sound and ancient principle that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars. In CLINTEL we call it ‘The Grand Climate Debate’ and we plan to repeat such a landmark event each year! In this way we start a serious global depolarising initiative that could be the beginning of a new era. We propose to use the factual and well formulated World Climate Declaration as a basis for the agenda.”

    Planning is fluid at this point but the ideas being considered are most intriguing. Here is a quick look at just some of them.

    Rather than have debaters wing it, with lengthy ad hoc opening presentations, they will focus successively on the six principles outlined in CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration. These are central issues in climate science and policy:

    1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause global warming. Nobody knows the ratio between the two.

    2. Warming is far slower than predicted. There is no climate emergency.

    3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models. Models provide poor physical-numerical insight, making updating no more than guessing.

    4. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth. CO2 is not a pollutant and more CO2 is indispensable for a greener Earth

    5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters. Increase of natural disasters only exists in computer models.

    6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. Current medicine (mitigation) is much worse than the disease (warming).

    To avoid speech making there will be strict time limits on statements. The goal is to generate as much back and forth as possible, so that each argument gets fully fleshed out. There will be no lengthy canned presentations.

    Berkhout says “The Secretary-General of the UN, António Guterres, has been invited to organize this grand debate together with CLINTEL. If he refuses to cooperate, the President of the EU will be approached. If the EU also refuses, which would be a huge embarrassment for the mainstream climate community, CLINTEL will even consider the use of trained stand-ins. These will be skeptics who have thoroughly studied the alarmist’s arguments and are prepared to present them.”

    This stand-in concept is aligned with the standard scholastic debating technique, where debaters are assigned a position to defend and their actual beliefs are irrelevant. But again, what a disgrace for the mainstreamers if stand-ins would be required!

    There have been several prior attempts to generate a systematic scientific debate, but each has failed. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt wanted to convene a “Red Team” exercise, but he was blocked by Whitehouse staff on political grounds.

    The National Security Council’s Will Happer argued for a critique of alarmist claims relevant to national security. Reportedly President Trump liked the idea, but it too was killed on the grounds that making big waves is bad in an election year.

    In another case, the Heartland Institute invited several prominent alarmist scientists to a televised debate moderated by John Stossel. None accepted so the skeptics presented their side unopposed. CLINTEL wants to avoid this result at all costs.

    Mind you, the world doesn’t want canned presentations and it doesn’t want stand-inns. What CLINTEL is proposing will be unique and powerful. Looking what they have achieved so far, they can make it happen. Here’s hoping they do! The world needs to see the real debate over the truth in climate science.

    Moreover, Berkhout explains “The point is to have a genuine debate. It will result in a summary, giving an overview of the issues the scientists agree and don’t agree on. This list will be the source of a new global climate research program that is supported by all parties.”

    To conclude, understanding the climate system has the highest priority. That is the responsibility of scientists, not politicians. Politicians should be aware that science always advances via the articulation of critical questions. Climate science needs this, and needs it badly.

    End of article.

    If CLINTEL succeeds, Trump may follow.

    David

    • Another attempt to skirt around the peer reviewed literature, where CFACT can’t compete. (And we know who funds them.)

  68. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause global warming. Nobody knows the ratio between the two.

    Inasmuch as readily-demonstrable anthropogenic factors of warming are confined to UHI and land-use changes, there’s a real question of how truly global the observed secular warming has been. The overwhelmingly urban siting of the globe’s long-recording met stations confounds the resolution of that issue greatly. And the worst part is that virtually no one in “climate science” seems analytically equipped to separate the climate signal from the urban signal in a scientifically sound way.

  69. Tree Rings of Southern South America, abstract: Our record explains 49% of the temperature variation, and documents two major warm periods between 3140 e2800BC and 70BC e 150AD, which coincide with the lack of evidence of glacier advances in SSA. Recent decades in the reconstruction (1959e2009) show a warming trend that is not exceptional in the context of the last five millennia. The long-term relationship between our temperature reconstruction and a reconstructed total solar irradiance record, with coinciding cycles at 293, 372, 432e434, 512 and 746 years, indicate a persistent influence of solar forcing on centennial climate variability in SSA. At interannual to interdecadal scales, reconstructed temperature is mainly related to the internal climate variability of the Pacific Ocean, including El Ni~no Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and longer oscillations.

    • TreeRings of SouthernSouthAmerica, a detail: The increasing trend in Fitzroya tree-ring growth that occurs under rising temperatures during recent decades is contradictory due to the negative temperature response of this conifer. This justifies the need to adjust the Fitzroya chronology by removing the effect of CO2 fertilization on radial growth. Consequently, we developed a reconstruction from the Fitzroya tree-ring chronology adjusted for the effect of CO2 fertilization, and tested its suitability against a reconstruction based on the nonadjusted chronology.

      Many more interesting details.

  70. “Doing so is vital, as the future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008GL037022

    It suggests a complex dynamical system sensitive to small changes. And not that there isn’t a radiative effect from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    “The reason for preferring models over observations is less obvious but no less convincing – the climate is non-linear and the current state of the climate affects future warming. The climate in 1800 and 1900 was different from today.

    Pattern effects”, as they have come to be known, probably matter a lot.

    And that leads me to a question or point or idea that has bothered me ever since I first started studying climate.

    Surely the patterns of warming and cooling, the patterns of rainfall, of storms matter hugely for calculating the future climate with more CO2. Yet climate models vary greatly from each other even on large regional scales.” SoD

    And positive cloud feedback to SST.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337745437_Physical_drivers_of_the_summer_2019_North_Pacific_marine_heatwave-the_Blob_20

    • Yet climate models vary greatly from each other even on large regional scales.

      Different climate models make different assumptions, so there’s no reason they should all agree.

      • Absurd hand waving intended to defend model veracity? 🤣

      • In fact, what I’ve found from my talks with scientists is that they see models are experiments — what happens if factor X changes from A to B. What if it is set to zero? They don’t at all try to copy each other, except when they’re running for inclusion in the latest CMIP X or for the latest IPCC AR.

      • I don’t need to defend the veracity of models. They can do that for themselves:

        “We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”

        “Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
        https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378

        figure:

      • This paper is not very meaningful. Many of the models are energy balance models in any case. If TOA radiation balance is tuned to match reality as it is for most models and ocean heat uptake is reasonable, then global average temperature anomoly will be pretty accurate. That’s a very very weak test. The problem here is that the patterns of change are mostly wrong, often badly so, for example patterns of SST change are wrong and cause the ECS of GCM’s to disagree with those deduced from energy balance methods.

        It’s typical selection bias. You focus on a single output averaged variable to make the case that models are “skillful.”

      • stevenreincarnated

        The same people that claim the models do pretty well for CO2 also claim they are complete garbage when it comes to ocean heat transport. That’s what they are claiming each and every time they state ocean currents only redistribute heat. Those people need to make up their mind if models are useful or complete garbage, don’t you think?

      • David Appell

        Gavin Schmidt: The emergent patterns of climate change, TedX

      • stevenreincarnated

        If Gavin thinks the models have skill then why does he seem to believe that you have to use ocean heat content to warm the surface when all the models I am aware of including the GISS models as used in the model study “Why ocean heat transport warms the global mean climate” state the warming is caused by reducing albedo and sometimes creating a dynamic increase in water vapor above that expected by the temperature increase alone? He obviously thinks they have skill when they say what he expects them to say and thinks they’re garbage when they don’t. Personally I think it defies common sense that you can move warm water around and not affect weather patterns and thus the albedo but even assuming people have no common sense if they think the models are skillful then they should act like they are and stop with the illogical argument that you have to give up ocean heat content in order for ocean current changes to warm the surface.

      • David Appell

        You should take all that up with Gavin.

        Look, nobody thinks models are perfect. But what is the alternative? With a rapidly warming climate at present we badly need some idea of what the future holds.

      • stevenreincarnated

        What, Gavin doesn’t know what happens with his models when you increase poleward ocean heat transport? I need to tell him? No, Gavin needs to decide if his models have skill or are complete garbage. He doesn’t need me to point it out or I at least would hope he doesn’t need me to point it out. Aren’t scientists typically expected to look for alternative explanations?

      • David Appell

        Take it up with Gavin — I’m not here to speak for him.

        Aren’t scientists typically expected to look for alternative explanations?
        Which of those haven’t they looked at?

      • stevenreincarnated

        David, if they looked at what happens when you increase poleward ocean heat transport in their models, and one could only hope they at least made that meager effort, then they either think the models are right and the ocean heat content argument is garbage which is the way I would go OR they think the models are completely wrong when you change ocean currents in that way and I don’t see how you could come to any other conclusion than the models are garbage if they could get that much that wrong.

      • Look, nobody thinks models are perfect. But what is the alternative?

        We could just use our imagination of catastrophe – that seems to have worked so far.

      • David Appell

        Please define “catastrophe.”

  71. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Low from the south will bring snowstorms in the Midwest.

  72. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Heavy snowfall in the British Isles.

  73. Air temperature measuring thermometers in standardized Stevenson’s shelters with natural air circulation are indicating their own temperature.

    The liquid-in-glass thermometers show the temperature the liquid has acquired, and the resistance thermometers show the temperature the resistance has acquired.
    They do not show the air’s temperature, because they are not capable to do so.
    These thermometers were good enough two centuries ago, when they showed it was colder or warmer.
    The data collected by these measurements cannot be used for precise climate changes monitoring.

    First they are not calibrated to measure air’s temperature in standardized Stevenson’s shelters with natural air circulation.
    Second the inside shelters walls infrared radiation is what these thermometers are capable to measure.
    Third the energy transfer to the thermometers from and to the natural circulated air is very slow and weak process compared with the inside shelters walls infrared radiation towards thermometers.

    Remember how the Celsius scale was invented.
    The glass tube with bulb. The bulb was dipped in the melting ice – it was for
    = 0 oC.
    Then the bulb was dipped in the boiling water – it was for
    = 100 oC.
    Now, has it been dipped the thermometers’ bulb in the melting ice when it shows
    = 0 oC air temperature ?
    No, of course not. When thermometer shows
    = 0 oC air temperature, the actual air temperature is some degrees oC below zero already.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Since the Celsius scale refers to water temperature, you may need to measure the infrared radiation of water vapor rather than oxygen.
      The graphic below shows the sense of such measurements.

    • Christos Vournas

      “Air temperature measuring thermometers in standardized Stevenson’s shelters with natural air circulation are indicating their own temperature.”
      and??

      The liquid-in-glass thermometers show the temperature the liquid has acquired, and the resistance thermometers show the temperature the resistance has acquired.
      and??

      They do not show the air’s temperature, because they are not capable to do so.
      and??
      Begs the question of what instruments would you use, and if they exist why they are not being used as a matter of common sense by the scientists 200 years ago and now.

      These thermometers were good enough two centuries ago, when they showed it was colder or warmer.
      What is “it”. What is it that they show was colder or warmer??

      The data collected by these measurements cannot be used for precise climate changes monitoring.
      and??
      How precise do you insist on being?
      What instruments would you use?
      It is only ever an estimate with the best means available then and now

      First they are not calibrated to measure air’s temperature in standardized Stevenson’s shelters with natural air circulation.
      and??
      Second the inside shelters walls infrared radiation is what these thermometers are capable to measure.
      and??
      Third the energy transfer to the thermometers from and to the natural circulated air is very slow and weak process compared with the inside shelters walls infrared radiation towards thermometers.
      and ??

      “Now, has it been dipped the thermometers’ bulb in the melting ice when it shows = 0 oC air temperature ?
      No, of course not. When thermometer shows = 0 oC air temperature, the actual air temperature is some degrees oC below zero already.’

      Logic leads us to strange places. “How can a thermometer dipped in melting ice be recording air temperature” it is recording the temperature of the melting ice [ which has to b at standard pressure and no saline or other contaminants, etc].
      then you want to say the thermometer can read the air temperature after saying three ways above that it cannot do that.
      Magically when a thermometer in air [whatever that means] has a reading of 0C this means the air cannot be at 0C.

      Let us try it this way.
      The shelter and the air in the shelter are both emitting IR.
      [You omitted mentioning the IR from the air affecting the thermometer.].
      They reach an equilibrium where the heat exchange is equal.
      The thermometer measures the heat of both the shelter walls and the air in the shelter which is equal so it is measuring the temperature of the air in the shelter.
      What can change clouds or night both air and shelter get coler and the air in the shelter equilibrates to the temperature of the shelter and vice versa.
      Yes there are temporary anomalies but they all lead to quick resolution and balance.

      A practical suggestion to help your readers would be to link all your posts together to help consolidate your ideas in the one place so the responses are all in the one place as well. Thank you for your interesting take on planets, climate, etc.

  74. The Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula

    Te.complete = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    gives a wonderful result even for the closest to the sun planet Mercury.

    Te.complete.mercury = 346,11 K

    This result is almost identical to the measured by satellites

    Tsat.mean mercury = 340 K

    Planet…..Te. incomplete….Te.complete…Tsat.mean
    Mercury………….437 K……….346,11 K……..340 K

    It is time to abandon the old
    Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ incomplete formula.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  75. “Mark Meier is presently a Professor of Physics at the University of Houston. His career has focused on the development of energy science and technology with a goal for plentiful, more affordable, and widely available energy to sustain the growth, development, and prosperity of modern society.”

    Mark Meier begins by correctly asserting that climate prediction is impossible – and then then goes on to consider an NCA ‘scenario’ before deciding that spending trillions of dollars on this isn’t warranted. But there are of course solutions that not only don’t cost speculative trillions of dollars – but provide ancillary benefits. Cheap and abundant energy is one – which is his core business. Pollution reduction another – along with restoring environments and agricultural soils. Not to mention building resilience to whatever disaster weather and climate brings in its wake.

  76. “The cost of reaching the government’s “Net Zero” target will be astronomical for the UK economy.

    The reports find that decarbonising the electricity system and domestic housing in the next three decades will cost over £2.3 trillion pounds. The final bill will surpass £3 trillion, or £100,000 per household, once the cost of decarbonising major emitting sectors like manufacturing, transport and agriculture are included.”

    https://mailchi.mp/4e34c0882bdf/press-releasecost-of-net-zero-will-be-astronomical-new-reports-warn-176077

  77. Good morning angech (UTC),

    Yesterday was a busy day, driving up and down the motorways of the once Great Britain in Lisa the LEAF whilst complaining to the ToryGraph about their recent (and surprisingly inaccurate!) electric vehicle coverage.

    It appears that you are not familiar with the Great British tradition of bone dry, sardonic humour?

    • Jim

      Perhaps you could clarify something. If lisa had broken down on a smart motorway, firstly how quickly do they stop-an emergency brake type stop, a coasting to a stop in 100 yards stop or something in between? Secondly what mechanism exists to tow an inert electric vehicle quickly from a smart ,motorway lane . Are they difficult to tow and need hauling onto a low loader.

      Also out of curiosity what sort of depth of flooded water on the road would you feel happy driving through? Mind you, watching some drivers in conventional cars driving through quite deep water there must be a high incidence of flooded engines such vehicles.

      tonyb

      • Mornin’ Tony,

        The Telegraph stated Baroness Vere, a transport minister, said she was “astonished” to discover that electric vehicles tend to “stop very suddenly” when they cease to function, rather than coasting like conventional cars.

        Whereas in actual fact Baroness Vere did not say that and EVs do “coast like conventional cars”:

        On our way to Exeter last week for a “Net Zero” workshop Lisa and I passed an ICE van in flames on the A30, fortunately for us on the opposite carriageway. What mechanism exists for towing one of those quickly from a smart motorway lane?

        Have you seen the “swimming Tesla” video? If not:

        Those crazy Kazakhs!

      • jim

        Thanks. I note the AA doesn’t differentiate between conventional and electric with their breakdown policies so pr4sumsably they have had no special problems

        https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/electric-cars

        mind you I think smart motorways are a hazard in themselves, I find them intimidating, with a solid barrier immediately to your left and often a concrete barrier on the right of the lanes. if any vehicle breaks down the consequences could be very serious

        tonyb

      • Tony – I have been in touch with Baroness Randerson. It did not come as a surprise to discover that The Telegraph had not!

        Meanwhile their “Reader Relations” department seem strangely sluggish about putting the EV record straight:

  78. Gerhard Keller

    Two remarks about James Hansen’s article “Climate Models vs. Real World” (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20200203_ModelsVsWorld.pdf), where Hansen writes: “Real world climate forcing turned out to be close to that in our Scenario B, which is the scenario that we expected to be most realistic.”

    1.
    In https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf Hansen et al.wrote about scenario A:
    “The assumed annual growth averages about 1.5% of current emissions, so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially.”
    Comparing the ghg emissions of 1990 and 2015 in https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=booklet2019&dst=GHGemi we get an exponential rise of 1.5% per year within this period.
    So the real emissions would correspond to scenario A, not to scenario B. Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

    2.
    Aerosols (see also the comment of kenfritsch above):
    Works about aerosols and related “dimming and brightening” seem to suggest that the cooling aerosol effect was weakened since about the end of the 1980s, which should have caused higher observed temperatures:
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071009
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252185164_Global_dimming_and_brightening_a_dedicated_special_issue_in_the_Journal_of_Geophysical_Research
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD011470
    The state of the research in this issue would be interesting.

  79. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Arctowski Polish Antarctic Station
    King George Island, where our station is located, is 90% ice-covered. It would seem that life can only exist on the remaining 10% of land that is free of ice. Nothing could be further from the truth, though! During the warmer months the life is doing great on glaciers. This is due to small, water-filled hollows on the surface of the glacier called cryoconites or ice hot spots of microbial activity. There are many kinds of microorganisms inside these holes, e.g. viruses, bacteria (e.g. cyanobacteria), fungi, protists, rotifers (currently no longer belonging to the phylum of flatworms) and the most resistant to adverse environmental conditions animals in the world – tardigrades. Together with the fine rock sediment that is often blown over the glaciers by wind, they form a dark viscous mass that attracts sun rays and causes the ice below to melt. This creates rather small ponds (up to 50 cm in diameter) with a dark bottom where microbes bloom. In winter, cryoconites freeze, trapping all microorganisms under an ice layer. Most of them then fall into a state of latent life, waiting for the return of favorable conditions occurring here during the summer, among other seasons.
    https://scontent-frx5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p640x640/87169587_2644361572450146_8115083256862343168_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=a61e81&_nc_ohc=nkIXGD1OMMcAX8PEmW3&_nc_ht=scontent-frx5-1.xx&_nc_tp=6&oh=456c0558a628f77b62158d207399310d&oe=5EC10A96

  80. We are winning:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-both-reject-the-reality-of-climate-change/2020/02/23/cc657dcc-54de-11ea-9e47-59804be1dcfb_story.html
    Too worried about climate change but closer to reality. I listen to a podcast that has a segment something like capitalism always wins. Reality always wins. The story supports a carbon tax. Which leads to bootleg energy. Rogue nation energy. Energy pirates. Energy police.
    Build a seawall or move. It’s less disruptive and you might have more freedoms. For your grandchildren.

    • Yea!
      Trump put Pence in charge of the pandemic. Cool, I only need 3 more ‘divine interventions’ to fill in my Rapture bingo card.
      https://www.raptureready.com/rapture-ready-index/
      While some religious people are waiting for the apocalypse I’m putting all my chips on a global debt jubilee. It’s already over 250 trillion ($US) dollars (if you include synthetic credit instruments). What you going to do if the money ain’t no good? You get the blues…

      • Since it can print money, the US will never go bankrupt.

      • That’s the perfect answer David. So we can have medicare for all and the Green New Deal after all.
        Go Bernie!

      • We’ve been warned of a Federal debt tipping point. Where is it after 30 years? I would be happier if we halved the debt in 8 years.
        Has the Federal debt made things better or worse? Depends on your point of view. There’s a more than 25% chance it made things better. Show me the harm.
        Has additional CO2 made things better? All things considered, yes. The accompanying improvements in quality of life is worth it.

      • Take it from a economic historian:
        https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/podcasts/02242020/paul-schmelzing-suprasecular-decline-global-real-interest-rates
        “Eight centuries of new data show a persistent 500-year decline in global real interest rates, challenging existing theories and raising new questions.”
        Excellent review of role of debt and interest rate since the beginning of the enlightenment.
        Remember the good old days when we had sumptuary laws?

      • Yes David we can print money. And we did monetize the Debt after WWII. But things are different now than the decades after 1945. Or at least they have been the last 20 years. The Debt Held by the Public grew by 1% from 1945 to 1960 going from $235 Billion to $237 Billion, while the Adjusted Gross Income went from $120 Billion to $315 Billion.
        But here is how things are different. The Real Growth in Adjusted Gross Income from 1945 to 2000 averaged 3.3%. Another way to say that is increase in standard of living. Between 2000 and 2017 (latest IRS data) Real Growth in Adjusted Gross Income averaged 1%. Thus, the notorious stagnation in Real Wages, Real Family and Household Incomes.
        Here is the rub. The Debt Held by the Public has gone from $3.4 Trillion in 2000 to today’s $17.4 Trillion. Note the difference in % growth from the period 1945 to 1960.
        So during the decades after WWII the Real Income was going gang busters up until 2000 then it’s been the pits since.
        If interest rates ever normalize the annual debt service will begin to eat into the budget. It’s already gone up $200 Billion in the last few years. To put that into perspective, Bernie’s plan to increase the top marginal tax rate on those making over $10 Million to 52% would (in lala land at most) increase tax revenue by $60 Billion annually.
        Global Central Banks are running out of bullets. There is $13 Trillion of negative yields Sovereign Debt. With this Corona virus, the economies of the world need a bump. They don’t have much available to give it a boost.
        I have no idea where we are going nor what ought to be done. But we are in uncharted territory with a new global economy that looks nothing like the one we knew in the 20th Century and no guarantee that we will return to Real Growth we experienced after WWII. Government spending depends entirely on what level of economic activity there is in the private sector.

      • cresco: so what if debt grew? We’re still very capable of servicing it:

        https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=mQbU

        This is a time with low interest rates that we should be borrowing to pay for infrastructure improvements. Instead Trump is selfishly borrowing to increase his chances of being reelected.

    • DA

      Pay attention next time. The point of my comment was how real growth in Individual Income has dramatically changed since 2000. In 1945 Debt Held by the Public was 200% of Adjusted Gross Income. We monetized the Debt by growing our way out of the Debt Service burden. In 1990 with the large buildup of Debt, Individual Income was larger than Debt and Real Income was still growing at 3.3%. Since 2000 the Debt Held by the Public has grown 4.6 times while Individual Income is not even 2 times larger. Debt is growing more than twice as fast as Income.
      The economy is not growing at the same pace as it was growing in the second half of the 20th Century. Debt service is supported by income from individuals. If income grows faster, Debt Service doesn’t have to be a problem.

      If there was certainty we could return to growth rates of the post WWII period, I would agree with you. But so far there is no indication we are returning to those growth rates. The whole issue is whether can we grow out of the Debt burden like we did Post WWII. I’m not sure we can.

      Robert Gordon has an excellent book on America’s Standard of Living. He traces growth rates back to 1870. He simply asks the question whether the things accounting for our growth since 1900 are repeatable. You can invent the airplane and auto only once. You can expand electricity to every human once. You can only invent the TV and radio once. You can build the Interstate highway system only once. On and on and on he listed inventions, Innovations and discoveries that were one time events which contributed to our robust growth rate.

      He might be wrong but it should give us pause as to what the future growth prospects are.

  81. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/jeff-bezos-climate-change-philanthropy-has-quite-few-hidden-strings-ncna1143791
    “Anand Giridharadas, author of “Winner Takes All,” has emerged as one of the chief critics of this recent spate of billionaire philanthropy. Giridharadas writes that for all their talk of changing the world through charitable giving, what elites offer is a “fake change” that seeks “to maintain the system that causes many of the problems they try to fix — and their helpfulness is part of how they pull it off. Thus their do-gooding is an accomplice to greater, if more invisible, harm.””
    “That’s why, regardless of what billionaires do, we need a Green New Deal to chart the path forward.”
    The argument is $10s of billions of donations is like you buying solar panels. It’s not enough change. If the problem is accepted, it’s not being solved. And that we have a terrible system. And it’s not fair. Not sure there’s an original thought in the article.

    • I think this was a better analysis:
      “Jeff Bezos’ $10 Billion Donation Isn’t Enough to Undo Amazon’s Environmental Damage”
      https://www.ccn.com/jeff-bezos-10-billion-donation-not-enough-undo-amazon-environmental-damage/

      Fast & cheap? $10 Billion would kick start a pretty big Geoengineering program. I bet he could hire Elon Musk – he’s always good for ‘out of the box’ ideas.

      • I don’t think it’s clear that Amazon creates any net environmental damage. They deliver to homes, instead of those homes traveling to retail stores. They have product delivered to their regional depots, instead of that product going to individual retail stores.

        Am I missing something that clearly shows Amazon is a net increase in retail carbon footprint?

      • It can also be argued the Amazon model is more efficient. Everyone drive a 10 mile round trip to Walmart. Or have a driver drive 1 1/2 miles from their last stop. We are transporting stuff. In a 3000 pound vehicle hauling 20 pounds? Not too efficient. Saves time too. Change. And let’s not get into the costs of parking lots. Road maintenance in Minnesota. But the Amazon model is not just a Green thing assuming it is. It’s efficient, assuming it is. The most efficient wins. Capitalism. Government including Sanders would never have came up with the Amazon model. But they will fight it.

      • Geoengineering to fix hypoxic dead zones is cheaper than cleaning our rivers and lakes.
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200302153608.htm
        “In theory, downwelling would create vertical mixing in the water, distributing oxygen and preventing hypoxic conditions from taking hold,” Koweek explained. “We wanted to test this idea and see if it would really work.”

        The team built models to compare downwelling to the two most-commonly used technological techniques for preventing dead zones — bubbling oxygen from the bottom and spraying fountain water across the surface. Their models indicate that downwelling would be three to 100 times more efficient than bubbling and 10,000 to a million times more efficient than fountains.”

        Operating downwelling pumps year-round in the Chesapeake could cost between $4 and $47 million; In the Gulf, the same could cost between $26 and $263 million.

        But these price tags are relatively small compared to the costs of upgrades to wastewater treatment facilities and fertilizer-reduction programs that limit nutrient inputs to the water bodies.”

        In other words, if we do any almost any kind of geoengineering then we are not reducing pollution just masking it. And if for any reason we later stop these ‘fixes’ the underlying problems will come back even stronger. It’s the Red Queen paradox.

  82. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Cold beginning of March in the US.

  83. Enter the twilight zone: scientists dive into the oceans’ mysterious middle
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00520-8
    “Low iron concentrations in that region of the ocean restrict blooms of photosynthetic phytoplankton, and preliminary results confirm that less carbon moves deep into the ocean there.”
    Clear as mud explanation: More Carbon, more sea life.
    “The upcoming expedition will take place near the British Isles in a nutrient-rich region where major phytoplankton blooms are common.”
    Nutrient – Carbon. Name me a mid Pacific fishery not involving Central or South America? Not enough Carbon.

  84. Unraveling turbulence: New insights into how fluids transform from order to disorder

    https://phys.org/news/2020-02-unraveling-turbulence-insights-fluids-disorder.html

    “”Our ability to predict the weather, understand why a Boeing 747 flies even with turbulent currents in its wake, and determine the global flows in the ocean depends on how well we model turbulence,” said Shmuel Rubinstein, Associate Professor of Applied Physics at SEAS and corresponding author of the paper. “However, our understanding of turbulence still lacks a mechanistic description that explains how energy cascades to smaller and smaller scales until it is eventually dissipated. This research opens the door to just that kind of understanding.””

    “This cascading effect is really exciting because it could point to a universal mechanism for how these interactions work, independent of scale.”

    Independent of scale.

    So if we could sufficiently model turbulence, and it mattered, we could improve our understandings and predictions.

    It seems that you add energy, and get turbulence which consumes and/or redistributes energy until boring is restored. Turbulence is the outcome of energy insertion. All things being equal, more CO2 increased potential turbulence by delaying energy dissipation. Add energy to an icesheet. More difficult to model than a slow low energy icesheet.

  85. Experts investigate how order emerges from chaos

    https://phys.org/news/2017-02-experts-emerges-chaos.html

    “Namely, the research indicates that the vortices possess a universal structure…”

    What is a regime change? A hurricane on a larger scale. A hurricane is both order and chaos. It is a physical thing and not just math or indices. A teleconnection is a physical thing. It is not just a model.

    Given enough iterations, people just give up. It’s too hard to understand. Our computers can’t do it and we can’t measure initial conditions well enough. But understanding the small will scale to the large.

  86. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature calculation

    Te.earth

    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 = 288,36 K

    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.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  87. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Cold fronts from the north will reach northeast US.

  88. Since Judith has comment that The Week in Review is the more appropriate thread for posting non related posts, I thought I would comment on the CMIP6 climate model runs.

    I have been downloading the historical runs for CMIP6 and found to my surprise that the number of runs per model has dramatically increased from CMIP5. Whereas the maximum number of runs for CMIP5 models was 10 (one model) for CMIP6 there are a number of models with runs of 30 or more and some with 50. There are very few models with singlet runs for CMIP6 whereas for CMIP5 there were a large portion with the single run.

    This will make for some interesting statistical analyses with CMIP6 that were not possible with CMIP5.

  89. Piomas website
    “February ice thickness anomalies from PIOMAS agree well with CryoSat 2 data from the Alfred Wegener Institute (Fig 7) with the strongest positive and negative anomalies in the right places. However CryoSat-2 data show total volume for February 2020 substantially lower than PIOMAS with 2020 Febuary near record low levels over the 2011-2020 period. ”

    Why would anyone say in the right places??
    One imagines anomalies are already in the wrong places, being anomalies.
    Do two wrongs make something right?

  90. Anonymous-Academic

    It is very clear from all the climatology energy diagrams showing back radiation that climatologists (and thus all the computer models) assume that the surface is warmer than the direct solar radiation could make it because of the back radiation supposedly causing about twice as much heat into the surface (324W/m^2) as the solar radiation (168W/m^2) supplies.

    You all need to face the FACT that climatologists QUANTIFY the surface temperature by adding together the fluxes from the Sun and the atmosphere, then deducting the cooling flux by evaporation and conduction-cum-convection out of the surface, and then using the net total of about 390W/m^2 in Stefan Boltzmann calculations that then give 288K for a uniform flux day and night all over the globe (LOL). The fact that it is variable would give a mean temperature at least 10 degrees cooler – like about 5C.

    This is totally wrong. Nothing in established physics says you can add fluxes like that and get correct results in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations. Nothing in established physics says the solar radiation can make the surface hotter than the black body temperature for the mean flux. There is no experiment that confirms radiation can be added this way – nothing anywhere! A simple experiment comparing the warming effect of a single artificial source of radiation and the warming by multiple such sources PROVES that this addition of radiative fluxes does NOT give correct results in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations, yet the WHOLE radiative forcing climate change conjecture is BASED on that FALSE assumption.

    And THAT is the reason Roy Spencer’s graphs show no warming since the peak in the 60-year cycle back in 1998 and will not show future warming until after 2028. There may be more then, but the long term cycle of about 1,000 years should turn to cooling perhaps before any more than another half degree of warming after 2028. Cosmic rays vary for several reasons and they are now shown to affect the amount of cloud cover, and thus cause natural climate cycles.

    • David Appell

      It is very clear from all the climatology energy diagrams showing back radiation that climatologists (and thus all the computer models) assume that the surface is warmer than the direct solar radiation could make it because of the back radiation supposedly causing about twice as much heat into the surface (324W/m^2) as the solar radiation (168W/m^2) supplies.

      They don’t assume this, it’s a result of the calculations.

    • David Appell

      Nothing in established physics says you can add fluxes like that and get correct results in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.

      Fluxes are vectors, so can be added vectorarily.

      In the atmosphere, horizontal fluxes cancel (in the big picture; climate models don’t assume that for each gridbox), so the only net flux is vertical. So the fluxes can be added as scalars.

    • “Nothing in established physics says you can add fluxes like that and get correct results in Stefan-Boltzmann calculations.”
      In general, it’s a framework. The Earth is not a black body. But those calculations capture a lot of what’s going on. We have inputs, outputs, and delays. We argue over them. Clouds impact all three. Oceans and ice impact them too. Back radiation arguments are a deadend. There is a delay. Temps are moderated thankfully. This delay led to our being and our discussing this. We would not be here with temp extremes lacking the atmospheric moderation.

    • “The SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) 1/15/2020”.
      The satellites’ measured SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) is the confirmation of Te = 255 K.

      Let’s do the calculation:
      Te.earth = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
      Te.earth = [241 (W/m²) /σ ]¹∕ ⁴
      Albedo is already counted, because the 241 (W/m²) is the absorbed, and 4 also, because it is the global surface average.
      σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
      Te.earth = [ 241 (W/m²) /5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
      Te.earth = ( 4.250.440.917,108 ) ¹∕ ⁴ =
      Te.earth = 255,33 K
      So this 255,33 K is the earth’s emitting temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
      And notice, that the calculation being made by the use of the planet effective temperature incomplete formula:
      Te = [ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
      This planet effective temperature incomplete formula is still in common use right now.

      Let’s do the calculation again this time with the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
      Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Calculation:
      The SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) 1/15/2020
      Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 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.
      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
      Albedo is already counted, because the 241 (W/m²) is the absorbed, and 4 also, because it is the global surface average.
      Τe.earth = [ 0,47*241 (W/m²) (150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
      Τe.earth = [ 0,47*241 (W/m²) (150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
      Τe.earth = [ 0,47*241 (W/m²) (3,4996) /*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
      Te.earth = ( 6.991.176.225,75 ) ¹∕ ⁴ K =
      Te.earth = 289.16 K
      Conclusions:
      “The SW global average absorbed = 241 (W/m²) 1/15/2020” is very well measured.
      Satellites do not “see”, and therefore satellites cannot measure the actual SW solar reflection.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Tony Banton

      hatter:
      Two problems with that paper come to mind in cursory reading.
      1) Earth does not consist solely of a “slab ocean”.
      It is 30% land – the bulk of which lies in the NH and subject to much cooling in winter months.
      Most AGW warming is observed via the raising of night minima over said land – this taking place within a small volume of the atmosphere under a surface inversion.
      This is happening because of the increased opaqueness to outgoing LWIR due to increasing CO2 concentration.
      The paper also does not take account of other global mechanisms, such as the MJO, which imposes an alternating enhanced convective/subsidence cycle over the Indian/Maritime and Pacific oceans.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden–Julian_oscillation

      • TonyBanton – the paper definitely indicates global cooling events over what sounds like fairly short periods of times of up to 10K:

        At CO2 concentrations beyond four times the preindustrial value, the climate sensitivity decreases to nearly zero as a result of episodic global cooling events as large as 10 K. The dynamics of these cooling events are investigated in detail and shown to be associated with an increase in large-scale low-level stratiform cloudiness in the subsiding region, which is a result of penetrative shallow convection being capped by an inversion and thus not ventilating the lower troposphere.

        Their proposed mechanism for why the above happens at very high atmospheric CO2 concentrations is very familiar to anybody has been reading published papers from CFMIP over the last several years.

        In terms of skeptic bait, the paper is loaded up delectable worms on hooks. You could even say Lindzen’s Iris is back yet again. The sky is just going to open up and vent off a meager puny little old 10K over what sounds like a very short period of time. It’s a miracle.

      • “In terms of skeptic bait, the paper is loaded up delectable worms on hooks. You could even say Lindzen’s Iris is back yet again. The sky is just going to open up and vent off a meager puny little old 10K over what sounds like a very short period of time. It’s a miracle.”

        Comment of the Week. But it is the flip side of droughts, plagues and floods. Skeptic salvation versus Alarmist fire and brimstone. We are forgiven, no you aren’t.

  91. John W. Klug

    “I sit on atoms and laugh at you!” A really cocky (creative) saying I put forth years ago… that works here.

    YOU PEOPLE (climate scientist “types” that believe they’re alone in the world – you know, their level of intelligence – yet are not / there are plenty of other strong intelligence types in the world…

    But you here – all of you here – gathering weekly – why don’t you each put forth YOUR ANSWER, YOUR MODEL… AS IMPERFECT AS IT MAY BE! Basically, a few things in the center of your model-target, with a number of other parts-pieces-addendums-assemblages… as secondary focus areas.

    YOU DON’T KNOW HOW RIDICULOUS YOU ALL SOUND – ON A WEEKLY, DAILY BASIS – BICKERING OVER ALL THE POINTS IN QUESTION.

    WHY DON’T YOU ALL BEGIN PUTTING FORTH “THE ULTIMATE MODEL” OUT OF ALL YOUR SINGULAR MODELS… AND START COMPARING FROM THERE / THERE!

    I call you out & you laugh at me… not knowing I’m dealing with something larger than you all – that takes in the starting point of what you are all trying to get at (at your best). I get so f-ing tired of the pride in the scientific community – EVEN HERE – that doesn’t get. doesn’t know that there are easy ways to get at the truth of Climate Change, should anybody REALLY want to get there. You’re all fairly brilliant here. Who cares… if you can’t put ANYTHING together out of all of your giftedness.

    What a joke.

    (especially you RIE – put the big picture together! Start with a circle, a center, and gather the important pieces (to be continually worked on – known, discovered & improved) surrounding it all… all of you must get away from all of this small talk (no matter how big you think it is / you are).

    KLUG

  92. John W. Klug

    DO SOMETHING… THAT GETS INTO OTHER PEOPLE’S HANDS!

  93. John W. Klug
  94. Not too long ago I mentioned marketing and the term value is one of my favorites. Climate scientists have not delivered value. What do we do with their knowledge? Not fix the problem and argue and develop conspiracy theories.

    Marketing is someone’s responsibility.

    Marketing is giving the customer what has value. An iPhone. A PC. It is not selling them something they never use. They’ll look at that product. And every time they do, they’ll feel taken. You have their money and they dislike you.

    No one says, look at all this stuff from climate scientists. I want more of that. It’s so useful.

    A useful rule is: Do not sell what you have. Sell what people need.

    People do not need what you think they need. Unless you invented the iPhone which you didn’t. They probably need economical fusion, but you didn’t invent that either.

    The third world needs coal power plants. Not what you think they need.

    We know what a failed company looks like. I don’t tell Apple or Google what to do. They are successful.

    A lot of the marketing (See SkS) has been the other side sucks. Here are people that don’t agree with us. Who thought that would work? Jesus. These people are really college grads?

    • David Appell

      Scientists’ job is to deliver knowledge, not products or profits or monetary value. How it’s valued is up to the rest of us. Look in the mirror.

      • David—It is obvious that you have never worked as a scientist. A goal can be to achieve a product.

      • It is to deliver value. That people find useful. If not, ivory tower. Nobody cares. Making them care is not value. That’s failed marketing. The key to marketing is deliverying value. Not making them buy something.

        What I mean to illustrate is the failure. It’s a failure. Who argues otherwise? Why did it fail? I bet Apple talks about stuff like this. But drag in the government and good luck. More failure.

        Here’s us 40 years ago: Able to point to value. Here’s us now: Not able to.

      • David Appell

        Ivory tower knowledge is extremely valuable. Quantum mechanics was developed in the ivory tower. Products based on it now account for 1/4th of the US economy. The special theory of relativity and nuclear physics defeated the Japanese in WW2. Einstein’s general theory of relativity is necessary for GPSs to work. How many products use the laws of thermodynamics, developed by theoreticians in the 19th century?

        And, at a Washington DC hearing in 1969 about a proposal to built a multimillion dollar particle accelerator in the plains of Illinois, director Robert Wilson was asked what it would contribute to the national security. He said, “it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.”

      • David Appell

        Rob – science, or applied science?

      • And nuclear power is used in some Scandinavian and European countries. But people are no longer able to point to value and are trying to phase those out. Nuclear power is as failed as Tofu. Why?

        Deployment failed with a terrible model. Down South a clown show of the same limps along. Will the utility go broke before those reactors are online? Probably the flaw was reliance on government. First for nuclear power’s start then continued existence.

        The biggest threats to Apple and Google are governments. Same with renewables. Yank the government money and mandates and they fail.

        Try to cost out a solar system for your home. Sales pitch without value. It’s like dealing with a car salesperson. Always a good time. The sales pitch tips off anti-value.

        Biggest threat to natural gas fracking? Government. Try to build a bleeping pipeline these days. Value when we get it, runs around government.

      • David Appell

        Your problem is with technology, not science. Yes, engineering can often be quite difficult.

        Government is there to regulate industries for safety and protection — for both humans and the environment. That’s a service, not a problem, unless your only goal is to maximize profits from fracking.

    • John W. Klug

      “No one says, look at all this stuff from climate scientists. I want more of that. It’s so useful.” (per Ragnaar)

      BINGO! (w/ reverbeation)

  95. What was the Earth’s mean temperature 3,5 billion years ago ( 3,5 Bya ) ?

    Lets see:
    Sun’s irradiating intensity was weaker. It was only 75 % of the present,
    S = 0,75*So
    And
    Earth rotated twice as fast then,
    1 rotation in 12 hours.

    Lets calculate:

    Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature calculation

    Te.earth.3,5 Bya

    So = 1.362 W/m² ( “So” is the present 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 = 2 rotations per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation period 3,5 Bya

    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.3,5 Bya = [ 0,47(1-0,30)*0,75*1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *2rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τe.earth.3,5 Bya = [ 0,47(1-0,30)*0,75*1.362 W/m²(150*2*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τe.earth.3.5 Bya = ( 6.167.274.722,0 )¹∕ ⁴ = 280,23 K

    Te.earth.3.5 Bya = 280,23 Κ

    We have calculated here the Earth’s mean temperature 3 billion years ago.
    So Tmean.earth.3,5 Bya = 280,23 Κ,

    or Tmean.earth.3,5 Bya = 7 oC.

    Conclusion: 3,5 billion years ago planet Earth had a sustainable for life mean temperature of 7 oC.
    From Wikipedia:
    ” Among the earliest fossil evidence for life is microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone in Western Australia,[63]”

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  96. Current will take any path that is available to it. Which means it can even take the path of leaking out of the wire into the surrounding air, which is seen as sparks when dielectric breakdown of air happens. What you intend to mean perhaps is why current distributes itself in the inverse ratio of resistances, given the same potential difference across different resistive elements.
    Ohm’s law I=VR
    would explain what you are asking. Given a common potential, the amount of current flowing through a resistive element is inversely proportional to the resistance. This would mean, and hopefully answer your question, that a path of lower resistance will have more current flowing through it and vice versa. (Normally the resistance of air is so high that current taking that path and leaking out of the cable is negligibly zero under normal circumstances.)
    For a more thorough explanation, currents (and voltages) are distributed to minimize the total power dissipated as heat. This is a consequence of making the action of a disspative system stationary
    ∫t2t1(L+W)dt
    Here W is the virtual work done by dissipative elements (resistance, capacitance, inductance etc) and L is the dissipation free dynamical system
    For an alternative, this link explains how Ohm’s Law corresponds to Fermat’s Principle of least time.

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5670/electricity-takes-the-path-of-least-resistance

    The subject is least energy path. So the oceans warm. So the SSTs prove the oceans are warming as they cool the atmosphere below what it would be without oceans. The SSTs measure flow more than status. Then they go down 100 meters and say that’s status. Still energy flow. Karl goes North and measures things. Still flow and not status. This isn’t complicated people.