Week in review – climate science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week — climate science & policy

High climate sensitivity in CMIP6 model not supported by paleoclimate [link]

“Impacts of landscape changes on local and regional climate: a systematic review” Cao et al 2020. link.springer.com/article/10.100

“Nature’s Contributions to Adaptation”: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10

Four theories of the Madden Julian Oscillation [link]

NEW paleoclimate records from Europe, Scandinavia-Russia, China, and USA notrickszone.com/2020/04/27/new

A new 411 BCE to 2016 tree ring temperature record from the northeastern US shows no such hockey stick exists. harvardforest1.fas.harvard.edu/sites/harvardf

A new study affirms Northern Eurasia (Sweden, Yamal) has warmed 3 to 6 times SLOWER in the 20th century than during the 4th, 15th and 19th centuries. 1900s-2000s warming: 0.37°C to 0.85°C/100 yrs Roman, Medieval, 1800s warming: 1.37°C to 3.31°C/100 yrs link.springer.com/article/10.100

Publication of the Temperature 12k database rdcu.be/b3y6w the most comprehensive compilation of quality-controlled, multi-proxy temperature time series from 470 terrestrial and 209 marine sites globally.

.
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project: History, uses, and structural effects on climate research. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100
.
Recent hemispheric asymmetry in global ocean warming [link]
.
Mechanisms, evidence and impacts of climate tipping elements [link]
.
Dynamical and thermodynamical drivers of variability in European summer heat extremes [link]
.
An element of randomness in modeling arctic ice cover [link]
.
The future of the carbon cycle in a changing climate [link]
.
How carbon cycle feedbacks could make global warming worse [link]
.
Reduced cloud cover from 1994-2017 led to shortwave (SW) warming of the Greenland ice sheet by 7.3 W/m². [1994-2017 CO2 forcing: ~0.5 W/m².] Cloud SW warming “dominates” the melt signal. Greenland’s warming/ice melt trend is flat since ~2005. journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.11
.
New study find higher CO2 absorption than IPCC. “cumulative net land sink of 149 GtC by the end of the century, significantly larger than the mean of the CMIP5 carbon-climate model ensemble under the RCP2.6 scenario (65 GtC)” onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gc
.
New paper reinforces 1st order importance of land use on climate rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100 “Biogeophysical impacts of land‐use/land‐cover change on 20th century anthropogenic climate compared to impacts of greenhouse‐gases change”
.
New paper demonstrating climate change was a major contributor to the 2000-2018 drought in the western US. blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/04/16/cli
.
Impact of cloud physics on the Greenland ice sheet surface climate [link]
.
2019 atmospheric methane increase greatest in five years [link]
.

Policy

The Climate Club: how to fix a failing global effort [link]

Systemic Misuse of Scenarios in Climate Research and Assessment papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf

Why coal phaseout is a ‘no-regret’ plan for tackling climate change j.mp/2ykUQK2

Managing deep uncertainty:  exploratory modeling, adaptive plans and joint sense making [link]

IPCC baseline scenarios over-project CO2 emissions and economic growth [link]

documenting changes in meteorological, agricultural, and hydrological drought in the CMIP6 forcing scenarios! agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102

Lomborg:. Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change and the cost of climate policies. sciencedirect.com/science/articl

“…in a closely watched case with extensive implications, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the federal Clean Water Act applies to pollution of underground water that flows into nearby lakes, streams, and bays…” [link]

The Netherlands become an agricultural giant by showing what the future of farming could look like [link]

A global food system is a less vulnerable system [link]

Using more realistic scenarios and assigning probabilities is not a robust basis for a climate risk assessment. Approaches for decision making under @deepuncertainty provide an alternative. go.nature.com/2Vrlp9o

Michael Schellenberger on Michael Moore’s new documentary Planet of the Humans  [link]

Between complacency and panic [link]

Managing California’s wildfire risk [link]

“If this [a 5% drop in global carbon emissions] is all we get from shutting the entire world down, it illustrates the scope and scale of the climate challenge, which is fundamentally changing the way we make and use energy and products” [link]

By bringing already available technologies and techniques into wider use, we could avoid nearly 40% of the methane the world is projected to emit by 2050. ensia.com/notable/methan

Climate change issue of Foreign Affairs, with some very different opinions on successful climate strategies. foreignaffairs.com/issues/2020/99
.
Cow poop to transportation fuel – the California way to a cleaner future [link]
.
Finding natural solutions to manmade problems in river deltas [link]

About science and scientists

The threat to academic freedom . . . from academics [link]

Overlooked no more:  Eunice Foote, climate scientist forgotten to history [link]

Frank Ramsey: The man who thought too fast [link]

Rules of thumb for evaluating statistical models [link]

Rising CO2 will make us stupider [link]

the Superior Court of D.C. granted motions from the National Academy of Sciences & researcher Christopher Clack, each seeking awards of attorneys fees and costs, in a case involving Stanford professor Mark Jacobson that dates back to a 2017 PNAS paper. [link]

The Verdict is in: courtrooms seldom overrule bad science [link]

An ideological asymmetry among academic philosophers: left-leaning philosophers reported greater willingness to discriminate against their right-leaning colleagues (e.g., in hiring, paper reviews) than right-leaning philosophers reported in regards to their left-leaning peers [link]

Natural variability or climate change? Exploring stakeholder and citizen perceptions of extreme event attribution   authors.elsevier.com/a/1asI%7E3Q8oQ

V. interesting retrospective on the D-Day weather forecast of 1944 journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.117

Cognitive biases:  Mistakes or missing stakes?  [link]

103 responses to “Week in review – climate science edition

  1. All these studies showing the Michael E Mann hockey stick is wrong. Those oil funded Koch brother worshippers seem to be really getting around in peer reviewed science these days. Don’t they know about the consensus?

    • Curious George

      “A new 411 BCE to 2016 tree ring temperature record from the northeastern US shows no such hockey stick exists.” They were developing a tree-ring chronology, not a temperature history. This brings tree rings to a new enviroment, but there are bristlecone pine rings going back 4,000 years.

      • Tumbleweedsstumbling: The IPCC consensus on the hockey stick has never been expressed with any more confidence than it is “likely” that the current warm period is warmer the MWP. In AR5, the consensus is expressed more vaguely, even though the planet has warmed about 0.4 K since the Hockey Stick. I’d personally be willing to bet $2 (but not $9) that today warmer to win $1, which is one way of expressing the IPCC consensus. The problem isn’t the IPCC consensus – it is how that consensus has been misrepresented in the media and how consensus scientists have failed to acknowledge Mann’s mistakes and misrepresentations.

      • The problem with bristlecone is the heart wood deteriorates over time. None the less, are you more concerned with an estimated global temperature or climate change?
        I am interested in climate change because it has actual meaning to life on this planet.

    • Russell Seitz

      Curious George is perferctly right- NoThicks Zone is anything but a science journal, and the paper Judith links does not contain any temperature history graphs, and does not discuss their shape or stickness , Big , Cleft, Hockey, Polo, Hickory or otherwise.

      It’s about how improving carbon date concordia can aid future palaeoclimate research:

      ” Our chronology demonstrates the potential to develop multi-millennial Chamaecyparis thyoidestree-ring records to address previously unanswered questions regarding late Holocene hydroclimate, extreme events, and temperature variability in New England.”

      The lead author of the Quaternary Science Reviews paper is at Arizona, not Harvard, and it s numerous dendrochronology references do not cite Mann’s work at all !

      • I guess you are also more interested in an estimated global temperature than actual climate change?

        Thanks for pointing out those two distinct different subjects, one of which doesn’t relate to life on the planet.

  2. OMG! According to Figure 4, the Earth burned up about 7,000 years ago. I hope that angry little girl doesn’t find out about how irresponsible her ancestors were, back in the day.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0445-3.epdf

  3. The most important thing to understand, that all climate scientists miss:

    http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/

    The top-down atmospheric bias is getting blatantly obvious and will create a very serious future embarassment.

    Climate scientists need to start from the ground, up !

    Thank you for listening.

  4. The latest climate research seems to indicate that 20th century hockey sticks can no longer be fabricated using Scandinavian yamal trees…

  5. Chris Morris

    Well – more paleoclimate records from a variety of sources show there was no hockeystick. Gee, never saw that coming. Wonder if it will make AR6 or whatever the acronym is

  6. Chris Morris

    Will the Clack verdict be a possible way forward for the stalled Mann vrs Steyn case. We live I hope.

    • It’s hard to find anyone, other than Brandon Shollonberger, who supported Jacobson’s monumentally dumb lawsuit, but Mann, for some inexplicable reason, still has a lot of support. Jacobson and Mann, appear to be friends and both signed Josh Fox’s ridiculous letter:

  7. Dr Curry, I think you missed a significant story about science and scientists. Michael Mann got elected into the National Academy of Sciences:

    https://cliscep.com/2020/04/30/hows-a-mann-get-into-the-nas/

  8. David Albert

    “Exploring stakeholder and citizen perceptions of extreme event attribution ” —–AGW is an hypothesis supported by unverified GCM but devoid of conclusive observed evidence. Extreme Event Attribution seems to accept as fact the AGW hypothesis as its foundation and then use it to instill acceptance of AGW in people that hear about the attribution study. I can hardly imagine a more flawed and circular argument.

    • David Wojick

      Pretty much all attribution studies do it by comparing forced with unforced models, where all the forcing is human. If the forced model comes closer to the event, or conditions favorable for the event, the difference is attributed to humans this is indeed circular reasoning.
      https://www.cfact.org/2018/03/01/circular-reasoning-with-climate-models/

      • David Albert

        DW
        In addition to the circular reasoning, regional projections in the GCM are far less consistent than global projections with some models showing projected regional changes with opposite signs than others. It seems to me using a GCM for attribution of regional events would give radically different results from model to model. Maybe the point is to find the one that gives the answer that is sought.

      • David Wojick

        Yes I have often wondered which model they use to predict local adverse conditions. We frequently see alarmist references to “what the models say” as though as they were in agreement. Another fallacy! Among many.

  9. David Wojick

    https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2020/04/16/climate-driven-megadrought-emerging-western-u-s/

    The Columbia & GISS team have been pushing this western drought narrative for some time. They use tree rings to roughly estimate paleo soil moisture, find several comparable droughts in the past, yet conclude that today’s is due to climate change. Makes no sense as usual. That 2019 was very wet does not matter. The story is fixed.

    Come to think of it, how can both temperature and soil moisture be estimated from the same tree rings, since the two are not correlated? One number cannot generate two.

  10. Steven Mosher

    “A new 411 BCE to 2016 tree ring temperature record from the northeastern US shows no such hockey stick exists.”

    Click to access Pearl_QuatSciRev_2019.pdf

    Jesus.

    please judith

    THEY DIDNT CREATE A TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION!

    ‘ The climate sensitivity
    of AWC ring-width to regional temperatures (Hopton and
    Pederson, 2005; Pearl et al., 2017) and in some instances, local
    hydroclimate (Pearl et al., 2019), make it a valuable, if spatially
    complex proxy for northeastern coastal climate. Based upon the
    chronologies’ time series characteristics, we interpret the ancient
    AWC forest at Hundred Acre Cove and Meadowlands to be temperature sensitive sites (Fig. 4). However, at Meadowlands the low
    latitude of the site location likely effects the strength of the temperature signal of the trees. We interpret Quamquissett to be
    largely a moisture sensitive site as it is located in an ancient kettle
    hole (Fig. 4). This potential mixed climate signal limits the use of
    our regional chronology for continuous straightforward paleoclimate reconstructions at this time. Robust paleoclimate reconstructions will be dependent on further subfossil AWC
    collection that specifically considers the hydrology and latitude of
    the samples, and targets wood that can be connected to historical
    or modern chronologies. Once secured in time, the chronologies
    can be used for investigations using stable isotopes, wood density,
    multi-elemental chemistry, and wood anatomy to explore beyond
    standard ring widths for climate reconstruction. This study presents a novel tree-ring record spanning from 411 BCE to 2016 CE:
    the longest calendar-dated tree ring chronology in the northeastern
    United States. With improved sample depth, the Northeast AWC
    chronology can make an important contribution to the global
    network of multi-millennial chronologies.”

    the study didn’t CREATE a reconstruction.
    they assembled a chronology
    they did FIND a HS because they HAVE NOT DONE THAT WORK
    YET

    ‘This potential mixed climate signal limits the use of
    our regional chronology for continuous straightforward paleoclimate reconstructions at this time. Robust paleoclimate reconstructions will be dependent on further subfossil AWC
    collection that specifically considers the hydrology and latitude of
    the samples, and targets wood that can be connected to historical
    or modern chronologies. ”

    it took me 15 seconds to check the claim.
    yup read the conclusion

    • Rune Valaker

      Using TheNoTrickZone as a source for climate science is irresponsible and amateurish. Curry has been warned in the past, but does not seem to care.

      • Give me a break. They cited a study. People can do with it as they please. How many CAGW acolytes use NYT, USATODAY, WAPO and National Geographic as their source for climate science? Probably millions. When was the last time the NYT ran an article about Antarctica’s contribution to SLR and referenced the IPCC 5 finding that it was 0.27mm/yr, which is precisely 1/5 thickness of a dime? Why would they? Their job is to scare the hell out of the most naive, gullible and scientific illiterate of the populace.

      • Ah. They do it tooo. What an unusual response.

      • I owe Mosher an apology. Thanks a lot CG. and Mosher.
        I thought he was really out of his tree.

        Nonetheless, “THEY DID CREATE A TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION!”
        Sure they describe doing a chronology.
        Using tree rings as temperature proxies.
        They have assembled tree widths for the years from 411 BCE to 2016.
        They have graphed the tree rings see fig 8. [for George]
        But they chose these tree rings precisely because the tree rings are temperature sensitive.
        They measure growth with respect to temperature.
        The tree width index fig 8 they show is indeed a true temperature record even if not labelled as such.

        That is their prime premise. The tree rings are available in a time sequence.
        They measure temperature in a way that Steven would appreciate, by anomaly rather than actual temperature, What a bonus.

        Steven even quotes and ignores “The climate sensitivity
        of AWC ring-width to regional temperatures (Hopton and
        Pederson, 2005; Pearl et al., 2017) and in some instances, local
        hydroclimate (Pearl et al., 2019), make it a valuable, if spatially
        complex proxy for northeastern coastal climate.” ie temperature

        Deviations in temperature are shown and needed.
        Perhaps Steven should have done more reading than 15 seconds in the study itself.
        “Although climate interpretation of many parts of the record are limited by low sample replication, we explored the tree-ring record for indicators of extreme temperature events in the ring width as indicators of possible climate sensitivity. These indicators usually took the form of unusually narrow ring widths (Fig. 9), which correlate with known marker years in a range of long temperature records for the northern hemisphere (Fig. 9). In this sense the combined chronology could be both verified and developed for further research. For example, the year 1601 CE was used as a marker year in our cross-dating, as it is anomalously small compared to the surrounding decade in the Meadowlands chronology. This could be an indicator of the hemispheric cooling following the eruption of Peru’s Huaynaputina volcano in 1600 CE(Briffa et al.,1998;Salzer and Hughes, 2007;Verosub and Lippman,2008;Anchukaitis et al., 2017). In the Hundred Acre Cove chronology the ring widths from 627 to 629 CE are also extremely suppressed, possibly in response to low temperatures after the 626CE eruption that is also marked by frost rings in western bristle cone pines”

        Just look at graph 8.
        No sign of a hockey stick in the tree rings is there, yet there should be.
        Mann tricked when he cut the Briffa’s later series signal out.
        Lots of signs of past cooling events.

        Judith is quite entitled to say from this study.
        Her opinion.
        “A new 411 BCE to 2016 tree ring temperature record from the northeastern US shows no such hockey stick exists.”

    • Steven Mosher | May 2, 2020
      Re
      “A new 411 BCE to 2016 tree ring temperature record from the northeastern US shows no such hockey stick exists.”

      “the study didn’t CREATE a reconstruction.
      they assembled a chronology
      they did FIND a HS because they HAVE NOT DONE THAT WORK
      YET”
      please judith. THEY DIDNT CREATE A TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTION!

      “it took me 15 seconds to check the claim.
      yup read the conclusion“

      “The climate sensitivity of AWC ring-width to regional temperatures (Hopton and Pederson, 2005; Pearl et al., 2017) and in some instances, local hydroclimate (Pearl et al., 2019), make it a valuable, if spatially complex proxy for northeastern coastal climate. This study pre- sents a novel tree-ring record spanning from 411 BCE to 2016 CE: the longest calendar-dated tree ring chronology in the northeastern United States.”

      Salient points
      – no hockey stick up to 2016
      None. Niente, nothing, nada,
      No hockey stick
      – they created a temperature reconstruction, they did.
      Yes, really from 411 BC to 2016 AD
      – from tree rings.
      Well, that’s legit?
      How did they know which tree rings gave which temperature? You have to put it in some sort of chronology.
      What a sensible idea.
      – it took me 15 seconds to check the claim.
      15 seconds The true scientific and unbiased mind at work
      15 seconds Speed read the conclusion and ignored all the interesting stuff.
      15 seconds, I could not drink a cup of coffee in that time.
      15 seconds where did you go for all that time Steve ( paraphrasing a line from Grosse Pointe Blank)

      Salient point, Thank you to the women and men who put their time and effort into doing a very important temperature reconstruction from proxies as a scientific endeavour. Unfortunately your factually based attempts do not agree with theory and hence must be both castigated and denigrated by experts in theory.

      • Curious George

        “they created a temperature reconstruction, they did.
        Yes, really from 411 BC to 2016 AD”
        I must be thick. Please show me where they did it.

      • Steven Mosher

        Angech

        ‘Robust paleoclimate reconstructions will be dependent on further subfossil AWC
        collection that specifically considers the hydrology and latitude of
        the samples, and targets wood that can be connected to historical
        or modern chronologies. Once secured in time, the chronologies
        can be used for investigations using stable isotopes, wood density,
        multi-elemental chemistry, and wood anatomy to explore beyond
        standard ring widths for climate reconstruction. ”

        FUTURE TENSE, they are collecting fossil wood from a swamp.
        the have “determined” that it may be temperature sensitive.
        they HAVE NOT created a recon, which is WHY the use the words

        ‘will be”

    • Temperature “reconstruction” is an odd word to choose, for Mann et al 1998 when it was new product manufactured out of bent statistics.

      • Steven Mosher

        This issue is not mann’s mistakes.
        The issue is the misrepresentation of this paper.

    • Jesus. Please Mosher, explain to us peons what the relation of the estimated global temperature is to climate change?

      According to the science, there is none.

  11. “Reduced cloud cover from 1994-2017 led to shortwave (SW) warming of the Greenland ice sheet by 7.3 W/m². [1994-2017 CO2 forcing: ~0.5 W/m².] Cloud SW warming “dominates” the melt signal. Greenland’s warming/ice melt trend is flat since ~2005. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0527.1

    Here is a correlation analysis of Greenland ice melt data against UAH lower troposphere temperatures that appears to support the warming to melt causation theory.
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/04/16/globalwarming-greenland-ice-melt/

    But no such correlation is found for sea ice dynamics on the Arctic Ocean

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/11/07/precipitous-decline-in-arctic-sea-ice-volume/
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/09/28/sea-ice-extent-area-1979-2018/

  12. angech. Thank you for your comment in the previous science review.

    “The insistence on alternative ways of scientifically calculating expected temperatures needs to include all acceptable parameters or a reason for excluding them.
    The composition of the atmosphere however is vital to the temperature that will develop on the surface of that planet and that must include GHG.”

    The Planet’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

    calculates the planets’ without atmosphere effective temperatures.

    This formula does not use any atmospheric parameters.
    When, for comparison reason, this formula was applied to calculating Earth’s Without-Atmosphere surface effective temperature the result was a major surprise for me.
    Te.earth = 288,36 K
    The result very closely matches the satellite measurements
    Tmean.earth = 288 K

    First thing was to calculate Mars’ then Moon’s and then Mercury’s without -atmosphere effective temperatures. The results were also very closely matching the satellite measurements for these planets.

    Thus I concluded that Earth’s atmosphere does not play a role in developing Earth’s surface temperature.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • “This formula does not use any atmospheric parameters.”

      This formula is wrong.
      The earth is not a disc with a uniform albedo.
      The average of T^4 is not T^4 averaged.

      That formula is good maybe for undergrads, not certainly to use it in peer-reviewed papers.

  13. Dr Curry, I found this article in the Daily Mail this past week titled: Melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are responsible for a global sea level rise of 0.55 inches since 2003, study shows.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8274475/

    We now know of the geothermal activity under the Thwaites glacier and others in the WAIS that contributes to global SLR. Would it be reasonable to conclude that all the models that didn’t take geothermal activity into account and shows many meters of SLR by 2100 are now useless?

    Thank you

    • James

      I’m sorry, James, I put up my comment below without realizing you had already provided the link to the same study.

      One of my complaints about all the work on Greenland and Antarctica is the inconsistency in addressing the impact or potential impact from well known geothermal activity in West Antarctica. If I counted them up, I would imagine I have bookmarked nearly a dozen such studies about the existence of geothermal but I don’t believe any of them makes an attempt of quantifying it in terms of added SLR. This is another study that is completely silent on the issue. If a study came out and said no impact from geological heat, great, so be it. Or if they said it’s too complicated, that’s fine too. But instead it’s just being treated as a phenomenon of curiosity rather than a potential factor in melting the Ice Sheets/Glaciers.

      Let’s see if IPCC6 is also silent, like IPCC5.

  14. Christos Vournas
    NASA Moon Fact Sheet
    Earth Ratio(Moon/Earth)
    Bond albedo 0.11 0.306 0.360
    Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0 1361.0 1.000
    Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0 1.065

    “this formula was applied to calculating Earth’s Without-Atmosphere surface effective temperature the result was a major surprise for me.
    Te.earth = 288,36 K The result very closely matches the satellite measurements
    T mean.earth = 288 K”

    Christos,
    If the earth and moon were both airless and had the same albedo They would have the same average surface temperature as they are the same distance from the moon on average.
    This is due to the distance from the sun determining how much energy a surface can receive.
    There is no change for the rotation of the earth or moon. The airless earth would be colder because the albedo is higher meaning it absorbs less radiation.
    Obviously on a no atmosphere earth the albedo would more likely be the same as the moon [no water, ice or plants].
    I do not mind if you use either the moon or the earth without atmosphere figures of NASA but it is wrong to claim that the measured surface temperature of a planet with an atmosphere is the same as one without an atmosphere.
    Since you claim to get the earth and Moon ST by your formula the difference between the two temperatures should be purely dependent on the albedo with the moon 16.4 C warmer. If it is not, and it should not be, and the earth is warmer than the moon despite a higher albedo then you have a problem.

  15. Cristos is not one to let a little problem stop him. He’ll think of something.

  16. Mercury / Mars 340 K, 210 K satellite measured mean temperatures comparison

    These ( Tmean, R, N, and albedo ) planets’ parameters are all satellite measured. These planets’ parameters are all observations.
    Planet….Mercury….Moon….Mars
    Tsat.mean.340 K….220 K…210 K
    R………0,387 AU..1 AU..1,525 AU
    1/R²…..6.6769……..1….…0,430
    N…1 /58,646..1 /29,531..0,9747
    a……0,088……0,136……0,250

    Tmean.mercury /Tmean.mars =
    = 340 K /210 K = 1,6190…

    The difference between two temperatures should be dependent on the albedo and on the inverse square distance from the sun:

    Comparison coefficient calculation
    [ (1 – a) (1/R²) ]¹∕ ⁴

    Mercury:
    [ (1 – a) (1/R²) ]¹∕ ⁴ = [ (1 – 0,088) (6,6769) ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    = ( 0,912*6,6769 )¹∕ ⁴ = 6,0893¹∕ ⁴ =
    = 1,57088

    Mars:
    [ (1 – a) (1/R²) ]¹∕ ⁴ = [ (1 – 0,250) *0,430 ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    = ( 0,750*0,430 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,3225¹∕ ⁴ =
    = 0,75359

    Lets compare
    Mercury coeff /Mars coeff = 1,57088 /0,75359 =
    = 2,08454

    Conclusion:

    Mercury and Mars are both airless planets. Mercury’s and Mars’ satellite measured mean temperatures should relate according to their comparison coefficients:
    [ (1 – a) (1/R²) ]¹∕ ⁴

    Tmean.mercury /Tmean.mars =
    = 340 K /210 K = 1,6190
    Mercury coeff /Mars coeff = 1,57088 /0,75359 =
    = 2,08454…

    It is obvious now the Mercury / Mars 340 K, 210 K satellite measured mean temperatures do not relate according to their comparison coefficients:
    [ (1 – a) (1/R²) ]¹∕ ⁴

    If it was not for the planet’s Mars fast rotational spin, and Mars had rotated the slow way Mercury does, the satellite measured mean temperature of the Mars would be then:

    Tmean.mercury /Tmean.mars =
    = 340 K /Tmean.mars K = 2,08454

    Tmean.mars = 340 K /2,08454 = 163 K

    angech:
    “Since you claim to get the earth and Moon ST by your formula the difference between the two temperatures should be purely dependent on the albedo with the moon 16.4 C warmer. If it is not, and it should not be, and the earth is warmer than the moon despite a higher albedo then you have a problem.”

    We observe now two airless planets, one of them, the Mars is warmer, 210 K instead of 163 K, and it is warmer because it rotates faster.

    The same phenomenon takes place when we compare Earth and Moon. Earth is warmer, because it rotates faster and because it is covered with water.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • angech:
      “Since you claim to get the earth and Moon ST by your formula the difference between the two temperatures should be purely dependent on the albedo with the moon 16.4 C warmer. If it is not, and it should not be, and the earth is warmer than the moon despite a higher albedo then you have a problem.”

      “We observe now two airless planets,”

      No.
      Do not change the subject.
      Address the question.
      two bodies at the same distance from the sun, One colder because of a higher albedo. How is it possible for it to become the warmer one?

      • angech said: “Address the question.
        two bodies at the same distance from the sun, One colder because of a higher albedo. How is it possible for it to become the warmer one?”
        ————

        The Earth has a core temperature of about 10,800 F, about the same as the surface of the sun. The Earth is a infrared star. . (see: phzoe.com).

        Also, Christos said that a faster rotating planet is warmer planet, and provides an explanation in equations (the Earth collects solar heat as a rotating sphere, not as a disk as had been assumed.) Can you disprove that? http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • angech:
        “Address the question.
        two bodies at the same distance from the sun, One colder because of a higher albedo. How is it possible for it to become the warmer one?”

        You compare Earth and Moon. The major differences they have are the Earth’s faster rotation spin and the Earth being covered with water. That is why Earth’s surface is at Tmean.earth = 288 K, and Moon’s surface is at Tmean.moon = 220 K.

        Thus Earth appears on average to be a warmer planet than Moon.
        Earth and Moon both are at the same distance from the sun and both have the same solar irradiation intensity upon them.
        Earth has a higher albedo, but in spite of having a higher albedo Earth is on average a warmer planet.

        What shall I do now to support my point of view?

        Mars and Mercury are two airless planets, but they are not at the same distance from the sun.

        Let’s then have put planet Mercury, for comparison reason, at the same distance from the sun as planet Mars is. Let’s have planet Mercury, instead of R = 0,387 AU put at R = 1,525 AU.

        The satellite measured Mercury’s Tmean.mercury = 340 K

        When Mercury is at the Mars’ orbit distance from the sun, at R = 1,525 AU, Mercury’s Tmean.mercury should be purely dependent on the inverse square distance from the sun in the fourth root..

        Let’s see:

        Planet….Mercury….Moon….Mars
        Tsat.mean.340 K….220 K…210 K
        R………0,387 AU..1 AU..1,525 AU
        1/R²…..6.6769……..1….…0,430

        340K /Tmean.mercury-mars.orbit = (6,6769 /0,430)¹∕ ⁴
        340K /Tmean.mercury-mars.orbit = (15,52767)¹∕ ⁴
        340K /Tmean.mercury-mars.orbit = 1,985507

        We are ready now. We have planet Mercury just where we wanted, we have it at the planet Mars’ orbit.
        340 K /Tmean.mercury-mars.orbit = 1,98507

        Let’s calculate what satellite measured mean temperature Mercury would have when at the Mars’ orbit distance from the sun.

        Tmean.mercury-mars.orbit = 340 K /1,98507 = 171,28 K

        Tmean.mercury-mars.orbit = 171,28 K

        Let’s see what we have now:

        Two bodies at the same distance from the sun, One, colder, the Mercury
        Tmean.mercury-mars.orbit = 340 K /1,98507 = 171 K

        and one warmer, in spite of a higher albedo, the Mars
        Tmean.mars = 210 K

        How is it possible for Mars, in spite of having the higher albedo, to be the warmer one?
        Mercury and Mars are both airless planets…

        We observe now two airless planets at the same distance from the sun, one of them, the Mars is warmer, Tmean.mars = 210 K, and it is warmer because it rotates faster.

        The same phenomenon takes place when we compare Earth and Moon. Earth is warmer, because it rotates faster and because it is covered with water.

        I am not saying here Earth being an airless planet. What I am saying is that Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to influence Earth’s average surface temperature Tmean.earth = 288 K.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • sciencereview18 | May 4, 2020 at 3:09 am |
        angech said: “Address the question.
        two bodies at the same distance from the sun, One colder because of a higher albedo. How is it possible for it to become the warmer one?”
        ————
        The Earth has a core temperature of about 10,800 F, about the same as the surface of the sun. The Earth is a infrared star. . (see: phzoe.com).

        Also, Christos said that a faster rotating planet is warmer planet, and provides an explanation in equations (the Earth collects solar heat as a rotating sphere, not as a disk as had been assumed.) Can you disprove that? http://www.cristos-vournas.com

        If you had chosen to argue one point only you might have a starting point for a discussion. Once you add in two totally different reasons for the one phenomenon you lose because the effect you are trying to claim is now too big.
        So do you want to use a Zoe argument? or a Christos argument?
        Cannot use both for various obvious reasons.
        I must point out that Christos has never mentioned the internal heat as a factor just rotation speed and distance from the sun.

      • Christos “You compare Earth and Moon. The major differences they have are the Earth’s faster rotation spin and the Earth being covered with water. ”
        No,
        Remember there is no value for water in your equations. Just distance from sun, albedo and rotation.
        Rotation only smooths the average heat, It does not make the sun put more heat in.

      • angech, good morning. And it is an early evening 7:33 pm here in Athens where I am.

        angech,
        NASA Moon Fact Sheet
        Earth Ratio(Moon/Earth)
        Bond albedo 0.11 0.306 0.360
        Solar irradiance (W/m2) 1361.0 1361.0 1.000
        Black-body temperature (K) 270.4 254.0 1.065

        There is Black-body temperature (K) 270,4 for Moon.

        How can it be explained, when satellite measured
        Tmean.moon = 220 K

        It is a very big difference, isn’t it? The black-body Moon appears to be 50 oC warmer than the actual temperature of Tmean.moon = 220 K .

        What do you think about that?
        Can you explain that?
        There should be some explanation, we cannot let it go without explanation anymore.

        I am explaining it on the basis of the planet’s rotational spin and the planet’s specific heat. The calculation with the complete formula
        Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
        gives
        Te.moon = 221,74 K. It is very close to the satellite measured
        Tmean.moon = 220 K.

        Also I insist that a planet cannot be considered as a black-body.

        What is your explanation? It is a very big difference 220 K and 270,4 K. It cannot be neglected.
        It is a scientific problem that needs to be solved..

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • angech:
        “Rotation only smooths the average heat, It does not make the sun put more heat in”.

        angech, thank you. The above sentence you gave me helps me to explain. Maybe I am not very good at explaining.

        The faster rotation smooths the average heat. The higher planet’s surface specific heat (oceanic waters vs dry regolith), also smooths the average heat.
        Consequently the daytime planet surface temperature lessens, and the nighttime planet surface temperature rises.
        Earth receives the same amount of solar heat (per unit area) from sun as Moon – for the same albedo.
        And Earth emits the same amount of solar heat, as the Moon does.

        Now there is a difference between Earth’s and Moon’s emitting temperatures.
        At the daytime Earth’s surface is warmed at a much lower temperatures and therefore at the daytime Earth’s surface emits IR radiation at a much lower temperatures. So the intensity of Earth’s daytime IR radiation is much lower.
        So there is a great amount of energy – compared to Moon – “saved” on Earth during the daytime emission..
        This “saved” energy should be emitted during the nighttime then.

        At the nighttime Earth’s surface is warmer and therefore Earth’s surface emits IR radiation at a higher temperatures. So the intensity of Earth’s nighttime IR radiation is higher.

        There is a balance
        The energy in = the energy out

        But there is something else very interesting happens.

        In order to achieve that balance Earth’s nighttime IR emitting intensity should be much higher than the nighttime IR emitting intensity of the Moon.
        Now we should take notice of the nonlinearity of the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
        Consequently the nighttime temperatures on Earth rise higher (compared to Moon) than the daytime temperatures on Earth lessens.

        So the average Earth’s surface temperature is warmer (compared to the Moon)..

        Thus Earth’s Tmean.earth = 288 K
        and Moon’s Tmean.moon = 220 K

        The faster rotation and the higher specific heat does not make sun to put more energy in the Earth’s surface.

        What the faster rotation and the higher specific heat do is to modify the way Earth’s surface emits, the same amount as Moon, of energy (per unit area).
        Earth emits IR radiation at lower temperatures during the daytime and at higher temperatures at nighttime.
        Because of the nonlinearity of this process according to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law Earth ends up to have on average warmer surface than Moon.
        The nighttime temperatures on Earth rise higher (compared to Moon) than the daytime temperatures on Earth lessens.

        Earth receives (for the same albedo and per unit area) the same as Moon amount of solar energy.
        This energy is “welcomed” on each planet and processed in a unique for each planet way.

        To illustrate the above conclusions I’ll try to demonstrate on the Earth-Moon temperatures comparison rough example:

        Surface temperatures
        ………….min……mean……max
        Earth……184K….288 K…..330 K
        Moon…..100 K….220 K …390 K
        Δ………..+84 K +68 K….- 60 Κ

        We may observe here that on Earth’s surface the Δmax = 60 K is less than that on Moon and the Δmin = 84 K is higher than that on the Moon.
        To emphasize we should mention that Moon’s max and min temperatures are measured on Moon’s equator, and Earth’s max and min temperatures are not.
        Earth’s max and min temperatures were measured on continents, and not on oceanic waters. Otherwise the Δmin would have been even bigger and the Δmax would be much smaller.

        This rough example nevertheless illustrates that for the faster rotating and covered with water (higher cp) Earth compared with Moon the average temperature should be higher.
        The planet’s faster rotation and the planet’s higher specific heat “cp” not only smooths, but also processes ( Δmin > Δmax ) the same incoming solar heat in a different emission pattern.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • An apology Christos
        [two in the one blog to you and Mosher]
        You might like to check out this article a few years ago at WUWT
        The Moon is a Cold Mistress
        Willis Eschenbach / January 8, 2012

        his comment, if right,
        “Now, here’s an oddity. The low average lunar temperature is a consequence of the size of the temperature swings. The bigger the temperature swings, the lower the average temperature. If the moon rotated faster, the swings would be smaller, and the average temperature would be warmer. If there were no swings in temperature at all and the lunar surface were somehow evenly warmed all over, the moon would be just barely below freezing. In fact, anything that reduces the variations in temperature would raise the average temperature of the moon.”
        agrees with your premise on rotation affecting the average temp.
        A mathematical quirk I had not considered.
        Though he also talks about a different phenomenon, a transparent atmosphere, saying it ” could never raise the moon’s temperature above the S-B blackbody temperature of half a degree Celsius.”
        I feel that this would also be the limit on any rotating body averagie temp increase.
        You need a GHG to get the surface temperature any higher.

      • angech:
        “If the moon rotated faster, the swings would be smaller, and the average temperature would be warmer”.

        I am very glad to read that.
        Thank you.

        Later today, when I am ready I’ll post something I am working on right now.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • 1. 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 smooth 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 spin

        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…Te.incompl..Te.compl…Tsat.mean
        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……209,91 K……..213,42 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

      • Christos,
        So now you have written much of the text for a very interesting article for journal submission. I wish you well in that endeavor.

        To readers who were just skimming —
        Christos’s improved equation leads to his concluding point:

        “The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

        There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. ….
        There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.”
        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

        It would be interesting to determine who had ever done a proper peer review for the conventional conclusion of the 33 oC difference.

  17. Impacts of landscape changes on local and regional climate: a systematic review” Cao et al 2020. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-020-01015-7…

    “…synthesize mesoscale modeling-based studies examining the impact of LUCC (land use and land cover change) on climate,”

    This paper, as I understand it, reviews literature based upon models, determines which landscapes, including urban, forest, dams and irrigation and how these influences alter climate change. From the review of models recommendations for social change is anticipated.

    For instance. Dams and their impounded water as well as irrigation leads to more rainfall. Now this is pure speculation on my part, would sustainability advocates lobby to remove the dams and abolish irrigation agriculture? If dams were already removed in some coastal States to preserve an endangered species, who knows? Hoover Dam may be next.

    Somebody by the name of Box said something like: “All models are wrong only some may be useful.” Are these mesh-scale models useful?

  18. An element of randomness in modeling arctic ice cover [link]

    “The researchers ran the model for the years 1850 to 2160 with and without the stochastic variations under a “worst-case” greenhouse gas emissions scenario known as RCP8.5.”

    If I recall correctly, Dr. Curry recommended against using the worst case scenario because RCP8.5 is unlikely.

    Maybe the authors ran their models for the more likely scenarios and didn’t get the answers they were looking for so they used the unlikely one that provided confirmation bias. Maybe.

  19. “Frank Ramsey: The man who thought too fast.”

    This Frank Ramsey is the economist who mathematically proved how to determine the optimum discount rate that should be applied to problems like the social cost of carbon. In short, the optimal discount rate varies mostly with the expected growth rate of the economy. Those who believe that we have ruined our planet’s environment and depleted its resources and their descendants will live less affluent lives, will apply a zero or negative discount rate to future damage from rising CO2. They will pay almost anything to minimize future damage. Those who live in developing countries like India and expect an economic miracle like China’s logically will apply a large discount rate to future damage and won’t spend much to limit emissions. In the US, political parties and economic classes have very different expectations for future economic growth.

    CO2 emissions are a global problem. The discount rate used to calculate an social cost for carbon emissions varies locally.

    • Frank –

      > The discount rate used to calculate an social cost for carbon emissions varies locally.

      By the same token – the rate to which different people “discount” the impact of COVID 19 on different sub-segments of the larger community is also “local” in a sense. People make choices based on their values.

      Personally, I think that the people who put their lives on the line on a daily basis to take care of other people deserve extra “weight” when people calculate the outcome of the different policy options.

      Likewise, the people who are going to work every day delivering goods, working in grocery stores, working on public transportation, etc., deserve extra weighting because it is they who enable the most vulnerable people to protect themselves against risk.

      Just as there should be no one “discount rate” when assessing the social cost of climate emissions, so their should be no one “discount rate” when assessing the social cost of COVID-19 policy options, IMO.

      • Joshua: The NAS wrote a report on calculating a social cost of carbon. Chapter 6 is about the discount rate. The Ramsey equation is shown at the bottom of p162 of the online copy and footnote 4 references Frank Ramsey. g is the growth rate in per capita consumption, and the major contributor to the optimal discount rate. Ramsey mathematically proved that this equation produced optimal outcomes given assumptions that to calculating the social cost of carbon. In other words, this is a mathematic theorem used in economics, not a political or philosophical position.

        https://www.nap.edu/read/24651/chapter/9

        You can read the debate about the best values for the three parameters, but g – the expected growth rate in per capita consumption – is what distinguishes developing countries from developed countries and the affluent from the less affluent in developed countries. I’ve never read about why local differences in the expected growth rate in per capita consumption predict that the optimum discount rate r is going to differ locally and by economic class.

        There are intuitive ways to rationalize the Ramsey equation, but the Ramsey equation is a mathematical theorem that is independent of rationalization.

        The recent history of economic development in China at horrendous environmental costs make perfect sense in light of the Ramsey equation. To express it intuitively, the Chinese decided to let their much richer descendants take care of these problems. Which is mathematically equivalent to saying that China’s 7% growth in GDP significantly reduce the net present value in 2000 (when China committed to coal) of future environmental damage (we have witnesses since then).

      • Curious George

        Is this the same National Academy of Sciences where Dr. Michael E. Mann is a member? Are their conclusions as reliable as his conclusions?

    • Curious George: Yes, this is the same National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that Michael Mann just got elected to. Richard Lindzen and Will Happer are also members. New members are nominated and elected by existing members. When Congress or the White House wants expert advice on a particular subject, they ask the NAS (or equivalent groups in medicine or engineering) to convene a balanced (in theory) panel of experts that cover a range of views to write a report. Since most technical experts tend to work at elite liberal academic institutions, they are the main panel members. However, Christy and Spenser have contributed to reports on whether the upper tropical troposphere has been warming faster than the surface, for example. A panel recently provided a quick report to the White House on what was known about the likelihood the coronavirus pandemic would end as the weather got warmer. (Among other things, they said regular influenza is seasonal, but the largest flu pandemics have occurred in all four seasons and usually rebound six months later.) They issue dozens of reports on a wide range of topics every year that are available for free online. This is an ideal source of facts about how the Ramsey equation is being used to calculate a discount factor to be used in determining the social cost of carbon.

      In this case, Obama had convened a hand-picked ad hoc group to establish a social price for carbon. After they did so, the NAS was asked to report how this exercise could be done better in the future and what research could make this process more accurate. The report lists a variety of things that needed improvement.

      As best I can tell, this report doesn’t bring up what I see as the obvious problem: Governments in the developing world do not make plans assuming only 2% or 3% economic growth. That is why their voluntary Paris commitments represent emissions growing under a business as usual scenario and are contingent on massive aid.

    • CO2 increase will green the Sahara desert and bring back the African monsoon. It’s starting already. Smart investors will buy real estate for agriculture in Chad, Mali and Niger. Anthropogenic CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere is an unmitigated good for humans and all earth’s biosphere.

  20. Do the climate models use a single CO2 value to populate the global grid (at each vertical level), or do the models use regional CO2 values?

  21. A new study referenced by NASA has found an increase in Ice Sheet loss for Greenland and Antarctica.
    The study authors couldn’t help themselves and had to mention the potential contribution of 2,320 inches to SLR by Antarctica. And on cue, never wanting to waste a crisis to expand readership, the Failing New York Times had blaring headlines ANTARCTICA MELTING LIKE NEVER BEFORE.

    So, what earth shattering findings came out of the study? That the oceans would be deluged by Greenland and Antarctica melting ice with an additional 5/8 of an inch per Century beyond what was found in IPCC5.

    There is good news and bad news with this study. First, since the update to IPCC5 is inconsequential, I can stop having nightmares about my lawn getting soggy from the Atlantic tidal action, especially since I live 600 miles from its shores.

    The bad news is if the annual contribution of Antarctica is a number like 31.3mm/yr or so, I won’t be able to use my shtick that Antarctica raises sea levels by precisely 1/5 the thickness of a dime. A new dime, of course.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/nasa-space-laser-missions-map-16-years-of-ice-sheet-loss

  22. More on the Northern Eurasia study, from the abstract: The trend similarity ranking method classifies and detrends tree-ring measurements according to the ranking similarity between the regional growth curve and their long-term trends through curve fitting. This standardization process mainly affects the secular trend in tree-ring chronologies, and has no effect on their inter-annual to multi-decadal variations. Applications of this technique to the Yamal and Torneträsk tree-ring width datasets and the maximum latewood density dataset from northern Scandinavia reveals that multi-centennial and millennial-scale temperature variations in the three regions provide substantial positive contributions to the linear warming trends in the instrumental period, and that the summer warming rate during the 20th century is not unprecedented over the past two millennia in any of the three regions.

    This is a paper for people who love tree rings and statistics. Their method is contrasted with Emprical Bayes, though the “ranking similarity” to regional growth curve sounds similar.

  23. Deep ocean of the southern hemisphere has been warmer than that of the northern hemisphere for millions of years. This warming thermally expands the southern hydrosphere and drives the thermohaline circulation at surface. However, surface temperature of the sourhern hemisphere is less than that of the northern hemisphere because of climate heat exchange. We have two heat transfer processes that should not be confused with each other as it is typically done

  24. russellseitz

    I hope Judith will take pains to prevent the eclipse of some news that bids fair to reduce the use and dangerous abuse of choloquine and its derivatives in the future: in Malaria is still a disiease to be reckoned with :

    NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
    A microsporidian impairs Plasmodium falciparum transmission in Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes

    Published: 04 May 2020
    Jeremy K. Herren, Lilian Mbaisi, Enock Mararo, Edward E. Makhulu, Victor A. Mobegi, Hellen Butungi, Maria Vittoria Mancini, Joseph W. Oundo, Evan T. Teal, Silvain Pinaud, Mara K. N. Lawniczak, Jordan Jabara, Godfrey Nattoh & Steven P. Sinkins
    Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 2187 (2020)

    Abstract
    A possible malaria control approach involves the dissemination in mosquitoes of inherited symbiotic microbes to block Plasmodium transmission. However, in the Anopheles gambiae complex, the primary African vectors of malaria, there are limited reports of inherited symbionts that impair transmission.

    We show that a vertically transmitted microsporidian symbiont (Microsporidia MB) in the An. gambiae complex can impair Plasmodium transmission. Microsporidia MB is present at moderate prevalence in geographically dispersed populations of An. arabiensis in Kenya, localized to the mosquito midgut and ovaries, and is not associated with significant reductions in adult host fecundity or survival. Field-collected Microsporidia MB infected An. arabiensis tested negative for P. falciparum gametocytes and, on experimental infection with P. falciparum, sporozoites aren’t detected in Microsporidia MB infected mosquitoes.

    As a microbe that impairs Plasmodium transmission that is non-virulent and vertically transmitted, Microsporidia MB could be investigated as a strategy to limit malaria transmission.

    • russellseitz | May 4, 2020
      “I hope Judith will take pains to prevent the eclipse of some news that bids fair to reduce the use and dangerous abuse of choloquine”

      A collection of facts on this marvelous and wonderful drug for the ill informed.
      As I recall Russell likes to review books, badly.

      I would recommend he read The Miraculous Fever Tree by Fiammetta Rocco
      2003 , get some real information.
      ” an engaging history of the bark that beats the mosquito bite.
      Its story begins in 1623, when malaria killed ten cardinals who had come to Rome to elect the new Pope. Nine years later, a young Jesuit apothecarist set sail for Peru, and laid the foundation for an international trade in a fever cure made of exotic bark.”
      “Every year three million people die of malaria: one life every 15 seconds. Worldwide, some 500 million people are infected: “eight times the population of France or Great Britain, or twice as many people as live in the United States”.
      Only a handful of drugs against the disease exist, and all are sold at prices far beyond the means of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

      The Miraculous Fever Tree is a fascinating account of quinine’s key role in the making of the modern world.
      The quinoline antimalarial drug quinine was isolated from the extract in 1820, and chloroquine is an analogue of this. Chloroquine was discovered in 1934,

      • russellseitz | May 4, 2020
        “I hope Judith will take pains to prevent the eclipse of some news that bids fair to reduce the use and dangerous abuse of choloquine”

        Ill informed and a spreader of woe.

        Facts.
        Quinine is another natural product from tree bark [Cinchona].
        It has been in use for close to 400 years making it one of the longest used drugs in medical history.
        It has an extremely well known side effect profile which is much safer than aspirin, ever told people not to take aspirin Russell??
        Common Paracetamol can cause death in a moderate overdose.
        Ever told people not to take paracetamol, Russell?
        Why not?
        You are remiss.

        It has a rare side effect of arrhythmia in overdose.

        This drug has saved countless lives from a disease much deadlier than Covid 19 .
        It has the potential to save millions of loves from a deadly killer in Covid 19.

        All medications are poisons and most have worse side effects than chloroquine. Medicine is a trade off between the good properties of a low dose and the bad properties of to much.
        I have prescribed chloroquine for 40 years to prevent Malaria.
        It was also used to easily prevent muscle cramps until banned.
        It has helpful effects in 2 other serious diseases.

        Chloroquine blocks the synthesis of DNA and RNA which is why it might help prevent an RNA virus replicating
        Pharmacokinetics. Chloroquine and related drugs are highly tissue-bound and are eliminated very slowly from the body. The terminal half-life of chloroquine is 2 months,
        – I have never worked out why people peddle scare stories about medications when it suits them and swallow it wholesale when it does not.

        So.
        Used properly, which doctors should do it is an extremely safe drug with many uses one of which may be to save your life if you were ever unlucky enough to be exposed to Covid 19 or Malaria.
        Or save other people’s loves, if that was important to you.

      • Very interesting. Thank you.

  25. I only came here to point out my shock that George Zimmerman went on to become a scientist, but I am more shocked by the number of people who think climate change doesn’t matter. What REALLY matters to them is an estimated global temperature.

    What are these people going to do with their estimated global temperatures? Grow estimated food? Maybe build some estimated infrastructure?

    How dare you!

  26. Wang and Hausfather review of Climate Tipping Elements, 93 pp

    Abstract. Increasing attention is focusing upon “climate tipping elements” – large-scale earth systems anticipated to respond
    through positive feedbacks to anthropogenic climate change by shifting towards new long-term states. In some but not all
    cases, such changes could produce additional greenhouse gas emissions or radiative forcing that could compound global
    warming. Developing greater understanding of tipping elements is important for predicting future climate risks. Here we
    10 review mechanisms, predictions, impacts, and knowledge gaps associated with ten notable climate tipping elements. We also
    evaluate which tipping elements are more imminent and whether shifts will likely manifest rapidly or over longer timescales.
    Some tipping elements are significant to future global climate and will likely affect major ecosystems, climate patterns, and/or
    carbon cycling within the current century. However, assessments under different emissionsscenariosindicate a strong potential
    to reduce or avoid impacts associated with many tipping elements through climate change mitigation. Most tipping elements
    15 do not possess the potential for abrupt future change within years, and some tipping elements are perhaps more accurately
    termed climate feedbacks.

  27. David Wojick

    Model panic for sure:

    Unsuitable for ‘human life to flourish’: Up to 3B will live in extreme heat by 2070, study warns

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/unsuitable-human-life-flourish-3b-190011473.html

    USA Today is a trusted source, but they here publish pure speculation as accepted fact. Note the “fact stating” headline.

    The question is how to change how they report this stuff? We now have data about children being terrorized by climate change fears. Perhaps suing for an injunction against panic mongering?

  28. russellseitz

    The Climate Etc. commentariat should be thanked for contributing mightily to the verification of a falsifiable hypothesis recently published in The Journal Of Science Communication:

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/05/there-are-two-sides-to-every-echo.html

  29. David Wojick

    CLINTEL says “Don’t fight nature, but adapt to it”
    By David Wojick

    https://www.cfact.org/2020/05/06/clintel-says-dont-fight-nature-but-adapt-to-it/

    Here is the beginning of the article:

    Over at Climate Depot, Marc Morano has been collecting foolish alarmist calls for using the economic crisis to further their goofy green deals. https://www.climatedepot.com/
    CLINTEL has issued a counter call, asking government to quit trying to stop naturally occurring events, like the emergence of a new virus, and climate change, especially so-called green deals.

    The format is a letter that will be sent to parliaments around the world, beginning with the Netherlands where CLINTEL is headquartered. The lead author of the letter is Professor Guus Berkhout, CLINTEL’s president. See https://clintel.org.

    Professor Berkhout puts it this way: “CLINTEL gives members of parliament a shot in the arm and offers them a spot on the horizon to get the economy back on its feet without utopian experiments.“

    The letter is titled “Don’t fight nature, but adapt to it” and the first paragraph is this:

    “After lifting the COVID-19 lockdowns, national parliaments must oppose the impracticable green agendas of supranational organizations to construct a utopian Earth. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on fighting the unpredictable changes caused by natural variability (‘autonomous changes’), parliaments should focus on adapting to those changes. Dear members of parliament, with all due respect, do not fight against climate change and virus outbreaks, but adapt to the consequences. The world must move from top-down mitigation to bottom-up adaptation.“

    Note that this does not mean do not fight the spread of new viruses. On the contrary the idea is to adapt to their existence by being prepared for them. The same is true for climate change, extreme events, sea level rise, etc., no matter how these things are caused.

    According to CLINTEL the primary obstacle to efficient adaptation is the pernicious influence of supranational organizations, wielding computer models and calling for unworkable technological fixes. Here is how the second paragraph describes this unhealthy political engineering:

    “Believing computer models is believing the makers

    Decisions about the comings and goings of society are increasingly taken by poorly informed politicians who have a rock-solid faith in the outcome of computer models and immature technologies. The belief that people can solve all problems with supercomputers – the ideology of constructing a utopian Earth – has grown strongly in recent years. By linking computer-controlled policies to supranational governance, experiments are started to engineer a ‘perfect’ society in which idealists believe all current global problems can be solved.

    But the reality is very different. The climate debate in recent years and the coronavirus chaos of today show that the prophesied blessings of a politically engineered world do not exist. We are collectively being pushed into the wrong direction. National parliaments have become puppets of the megalomaniacal supranational organizations, as created by the UN and the EU.”

    The rest of the CLINTEL open letter to parliaments is included, plus some observations on my part.

    Please share this.

    David

  30. Worth an article
    May 7, 2020 at 3:20 am
    A new pause.
    Interesting.
    “ The time series for CryoSat/SMOS total volume shows April 2020 a lower relative to the 2011-2020 period while PIOMAS shows a bit of an uptick. Neither time series indicates a trend over the past 10 years contrasting the drastic thinning over the last 40-years.”

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Cool water in the equatorial Pacific Ocean is already close to the sea surface.

    It is possible that the hurricane season in the Atlantic will prove to be more active than recently.

  32. This is the latest NOAA SST ANOMALY map. If you have been following this for years you know that the old map was replaced by this on repeat recently.. For a few years the Southern Ocean has been blue with varying shades of dark blue.
    The last day of the old map had large areas of blue.
    Then they went to this product. And just like that the Oceans got warmer.
    When you control the data there is no limit to what can be created.

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Extremely frosty air will now be moving over the northeast US.

  34. From GWPF: https://mailchi.mp/8468ce7f776c/press-releasewe-are-winning-the-war-on-climate-related-diseases-176881

    “London, 8 May: A new report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals that there have been dramatic falls in climate-related mortality over the last 30 years. The study’s author, Indur Goklany, says that these improvements have been seen in almost every category:

    “You see improvement across the board, but most notably there has been a wholesale rolling back of the biggest killers like diarrhea and malaria.”

    Goklany’s report makes strong criticisms of the Lancet Countdown, a review of climate-related mortality published by the prominent medical journal, which he says has cherry-picked information and used misleading figures in order to give a false impression of a worsening situation.

    “They highlight comparatively rare conditions, like dengue, which have worsened, while ignoring the wider picture, which is almost all good news. It’s highly misleading.”

    Note for editors:

    Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the US delegation that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a US delegate to the IPCC, and an IPCC reviewer.

    Full Report: The Lancet Countdown on Climate Change: The need for context (pdf)”

    Click to access LancetCountdown-1.pdf

    If this is correct the Health impact sector may be added to the list of impact sectors that benefit from global warming benefit from global warming. Others are:

    1. Energy – https://judithcurry.com/2020/02/08/economic-impact-of-energy-consumption-change-caused-by-global-warming/

    2. Agriculture -https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10018-020-00263-w

    3. Ecosystems – see my previous comments and discussion on CE on this

  35. “Dynamical and thermodynamical drivers of variability in European summer heat extremes”

    It’s the Sun, they are discretely solar driven, without which they would not occur. The 2003 and 2018 heatwaves were the same type as in 1976 and 1934, and 2006 was the same type as in 1936.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/

  36. “Mechanisms, evidence and impacts of climate tipping elements”

    This is based on a specious frame of reference. The AMO and Arctic are normally warmer during each centennial solar minimum, via increased negative NAO/AO. Such negative feedbacks preclude tipping points.

  37. Kumar et al 2020 report that the Amery Ice Shelf has grown considerably for 2 decades:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479720305806?via%3Dihub#!

    Curiously they use the word “prograding” which means expanding. I learned a new word today :-)

    • Yes, I noticed that too, and learned a new word as well.

      Of course, the cynic in me wondered if they were trying to escape the censors in the establishment. Or maybe they were just terrified of getting hate mail from the establishment acolytes. Or maybe, in their specialty, they use the word frequently.

    • Phil Salmon: Kumar et al 2020 report that the Amery Ice Shelf has grown considerably for 2 decades:

      Thank you for the link.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A tropical storm is approaching the east coast of the US.

  39. Nick Stokes blog has a lovely post on The Moyhu NCEP/NCAR index
    “came in at 0.401°C in April, following 0.356°C in March, on a 1994-2013 anomaly base. It comes after a big drop from February”.
    What is so good is that the graph updates itself daily and currently showing May as the coldest month in the last 16 months.
    Might change quickly and was a lot lower but only 2 weeks to go.
    With cold spells in Southern Australia, Floods in USA and cold in Europe, lots of storm activity, chances are that it will stay low and so will the satellite monthly temperature.
    Meanwhile Arctic Ice volume stubbornly resists Jim’s imprecations.
    Fingers crossed.

  40. and Piomas?
    The semi reliable one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s