Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye over the past several weeks.

Meet the team shaking up climate models [link]

Uncertainty and the remaining 1.5C carbon budget [link] journal pub [link]

Effects of global irrigation on climate during the 20th century [link]

The future of sensitivity analysis [link]

Review on the role of the Southern Ocean in driving Glacial/Interglacial atmospheric CO2 changes authors.elsevier.com/c/1cJ6M-4PRxni2

ECS in the CESM2 climate model is too high, leading to a very chilly simulation of the last Ice Age [link]

An ensemble approach to quantify global mean sea-level rise over the 20th century from tide gauge reconstructions [link]

An assessment of the performance of scenarios against historical global emissions for IPCC reports [link]

The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades [link]

Million-year-scale CO2 uptake by silicate weathering may have been overestimated by 28%. [link]

The story line approach to severe weather attribution [link]

Proxy evidence indicates peak SSTs reached 20-23°C ~8000 to ~6000 yrs ago. SSTs twice warmed 4-5°C in a century or two during the Early Holocene. lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewconten

Decadal Antarctic snowfall changes dominated by individual storms, not by large-scale circulation change. [link]

the lead emissions of coin production, and written in the Greenland ice sheet pnas.org/content/115/22

The debate over the UN’s energy emissions projections [link]

The extreme positive Indian Ocean Dipole of 2019 [link]

CLIVAR Variations:  US East Coast Sea Level Changes and Impacts highlights work by scientists, practitioners, and decision makers addressing challenges of coastal adaptation and resilience planning, drivers of sea level variability and change, and more indd.adobe.com/view/c17e9d4f-

21st century sea level rise could exceed IPCC projections for strong-warming futures [link]

Higher than present global mean sea level recorded by an early Pliocene intertidal unit in Patagonia [link]

Substantial decline in atmospheric aridity due to irrigation in India [link]

Discrepancies in the global energy balance as represented in CMIP6 climate models [link]

700 yr tree-ring reconstruction of Brahmaputra River streamflow and found that flood risk may potentially be much higher than our current estimates [link]

Antarctic surface mass balance: natural variability, noise and detecting trends [link]

Tree ring reconstruction of  winter precipitation in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains back to 1400 AD  doi.org/10.1029/2020WR

Policy and technology

Not in my backyard:  wind turbines [link]

Can climate adaptation lead to increasing vulnerability? [link]

Beyond wickedness:  managing complex systems and climate change [link]

Technology & Public Purpose Project: Key programs to advance social and economic progress of Tough Tech and allow the U.S. to maintain leadership as an economic powerhouse and voice in the fight for global solutions. [link]

Assessing the hazard from aging dams in the US [link]

Is burning wood for power carbon neutral? Not a chance [link]

The perversion of precaution [link]

A movement grows to help farmers reduce pollution and turn a profit [link]

“The fear of natural disasters has caused more than 1.3 million people living in the #Mekong Delta to migrate to HCMC and elsewhere.” [link]

All politics is local, including climate politics [link]

India plans dam on Brahmaputra river against Chinese projects [link]

Could solar geoengineering be more effective than emissions cuts at offsetting Greenland surface mass balance loss? tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2

Technology distruption: “Green” steel in Sweden [link]

Carbon unicorns and fossil futures.  Whose emissions reduction pathways is the IPCC performing? [link]

About science and scientists

Mark Steyn has filed a Motion for Summary Judgement in the Michael Mann libel suit. steynonline.com/documents/1097 with memorandum steynonline.com/documents/1097

Conservatives are more anti-scientist than anti-science: Cons generally agree that science benefits society & these attitudes have been stable over the past decade. But increasingly, they do not trust the people running the scientific community: academic.oup.com/sf/article/99/

New paper finds risks of natural disasters going down (1970-2019) for both people and property (even as financial risks increase with more wealth) sciencedirect.com/science/articl

The lab leak hypothesis [link]

Fight cancel culture on campus [link]

Alike minds think great [link]

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is probably not real [link]

Richard Dawkins: The insidious attacks on scientific truth [link]

New FIRE survey of campus speech policies: 88 percent of the 478 U.S. colleges surveyed have policies that restrict free speech. thefire.org/report-88-of-u

A cautionary tale of the destructiveness of PR in science. Press conferences and media proclamations are poisonous bcs the scientists themselves start to believe their spur-of-the-moment ego-soothing extravagance. [link]

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

Joan Didion: Learning not to mistake self-righteousness for morality [link]

A path less taken to the peak of the math world [link]

Ideological bias in academia is so bad that @glenngeher couldn’t even publish a study about ideological bias in academia. [link]

Roger Pielke Jr:  The unstoppable momentum of outdated science [link]

284 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Dr. Judith, just a note to thank you for this and your other contributions to science. I’ve just gone through your list and no less than eight of them have impelled me to read the linked articles. There’s nowhere else on the web with this broad reach of fascinating scientific ideas.

    My greatest appreciation to you, please keep up the good work,


  2. Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  3. Curious George

    “1.1. The whats and whys of sensitivity analysis
    Sensitivity analysis (SA), in the most general sense, is the study of how the ‘outputs’ of a ‘system’ are related to, and are influenced by, its ‘inputs’.”

    After this I did not bother anymore.

  4. One of the great lines of all time.

    “Ideological bias in academia is so bad that @glenngeher couldn’t even publish a study about ideological bias in academia.”

    If that doesn’t encapsulates the sorry state of affairs today I don’t know what does.

  5. These steel plants can replace polluting blast furnaces with a process that emits water vapor instead of CO2

    Some FUN is required!

    The American Chemical Society’s ACS Climate Science Toolkit cuts right to the chase in an excellent analysis on its website,

    …water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect…However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature…If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

    So now we’ll reduce CO2 emissions and start pumping H2O vapor! It seems clear that we want Anthropocentric “Climate Change” no matter what.

    No need to proceed any further…

  6. Not in my backyard: wind turbines [link]

    About that one… a simple math tells us that if we started to build Wind Fields (all construction with zero emissions or else much more are needed) back in Oct 1st 2019, by now Jan 24th 2021 we are already behind with 144,300 square miles of fields filled with lovely wind turbines!

    Clearly we won’t get far…

  7. “The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.”

    It would be unseemly to see climate scientists cheer for any minor detail or factoid that would suggest the opposite but, totally understandable considering the human-caused global warming alarmism hypothesis isn’t natural science, it’s specious science, colored by ideological motivations.

  8. Completion of the first NuScale SMR nuclear project now slated for eastern Idaho has been delayed three years until 2030. But for good reasons. See this article from Neutron Bytes:

    NuScale / UAMAPS Set Course for NRC COLA by 2023

    “NuScale Power has gotten the go ahead to prepare a Combined License Application (COLA) to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The UAMPS COLA is expected to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the second quarter of 2023.”

    One reason for the delay is to modify the NuScale design so as to greatly reduce the volume of cooling water the Idaho facility will be consuming during its operational life, thus making it possible to locate a NuScale SMR plant in drier regions which don’t have access to the large volumes of water typically associated with a conventional nuclear plant.

    Another of the key points of the article is that NuScale, Fluor, and UAMPS are taking all those proactive steps necessary to significantly reduce capital costs and to de-risk the project from cost and schedule overruns.

    The way to do this is to work closely with the NRC and with the component suppliers to get as many hardware pieces of NuScale’s technology, plus its associated NRC regulatory approval paperwork, into place as possible before onsite construction begins.

  9. Meet the team shaking up climate models [link]

    “Their consensus was that “the development of climate models was struggling; something was not working,” Dr. Ferrari says. “They were looking for new ideas.” Gradually, they concluded they should build a new model.”

    The issue for me: will they short circuit the model if they believe the output is not “plausible”, at least, to the modelers? Smart guys still have egos and heaven forbid their new fancy model predicts atmospheric CO2 follows rises in temperature rather than leads. Then they end up behaving just like another Gavin Schmidt, fossilized himself. After all, they are trying to address the impact of clouds, particularly stratocumulus, a will-of-the-wisp parameter.

    I look out my window, seeing clouds and then look at radar images to predict when I can go outside for my walk and be assured of some sunshine to boost my body’s Vitamin D. The task is daunting. I end up going out for an hour without one photon of uninterrupted sunlight.

    Predicting the future and other Yogisms.

    • “After all, they are trying to address the impact of clouds, particularly stratocumulus, a will-of-the-wisp parameter.” – RiHo08

      I disagree. The new physics tidal forcing hypothesis predicts increasing cloud cover at mid-high latitudes, also increasing precipitation. From everyday experience, nighttime cloud cover is a major parameter in surface air temperatures. It’s a very noticeable effect.

    • If it’s truly a multi-disciplinary team that might help to keep them honest. The problem is that coming to the ‘wrong’ conclusions (i.e. in Michael Mann-speak, ‘giving ammunition to the enemy’) is likely to be ruinous to any scientist’s career. However, on the plus side, the threat of having one’s academic prospects destroyed is less of a concern to the average person working in AI – they can simply take a well paid job at Google/Facebook/Amazon/etc or follow Judith’s example and commercialise their work.

      Using AI to look for patterns in very large complex datasets is an obvious tool crying out to be used. The word of caution is that the strength of AI is also its weakness: it is entirely dependent on the data, and however you might wish to describe it, there is always a curation task involved.

      There is also the issue that AI is, probably rightly, not yet considered to be scientifically-rigorous tool. In any event, it’s going to be an interesting development to follow, and the nervousness of conventional modellers can only be seen as encouraging.

    • It just sounds like $25M to incorporate the AI buzzword into the parameterization scam.

  10. The bible is quoted as saying:

    “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

    It didn’t say we could control the climate. Where did that idea come from?

    • “Where did that idea come from?”

      Probably from the earlier section starting, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

      The role ascribed to mankind is seen by many as unsatisfying and lacking in ambition. Not so the God part, so they go for that instead.

  11. “Uncertainty and the remaining 1.5C carbon budget”
    If any of the folks on this site can give any credence to the premises of this article, we’re doomed.
    But hey, that was my starting assumption.
    Please disabuse me, y’all.

  12. Oops. I neglected to give kudos to Dr Judith for her splendid work in culling the field of pertinent articles.

  13. Lab leak hypothesis:

    “What happened was fairly simple, I’ve come to believe. It was an accident…SARS-2 was not designed as a biological weapon. But it was, I think, designed.”

    The author misses the point which Churchill made regarding the inevitable consequence of the dichotomy between communist China and democratic America.

    It makes more sense to me to assume it was a carefully thought out plan which was meant to look as though it was a lab leak accident.

    China has a huge over population problem, in case anyone has forgotten. That’s why it was forced to implement it’s one child only policy.

    The country which is deemed to benefit the most is China. Coincidence??

    • China has just changed the law permitting the coastguard to fire upon foreign vessels. This is the precursor to a tactic they are renowned for. They will start a small controversial conflict, so they can escalate the overall response in order to initiate the Taiwanese assault.

      On it’s opposite border, a Chinese intrusion over the line of control was thwarted by the Indian army only days ago.

      It’s all classic CCP strategy which is being waged under the cover of the Covid-19 pandemic. You just wait and you’ll see what I mean.

      • joe - the realist

        “China has just changed the law permitting the coastguard to fire upon foreign vessels. This is the precursor to a tactic they are renowned for. They will start a small controversial conflict, so they can escalate the overall response in order to initiate the Taiwanese assault.”

        “On it’s opposite border, a Chinese intrusion over the line of control was thwarted by the Indian army only days ago.”

        Its a good thing we now have Biden to protect american interests . He stopped arm sales to UAE and Saudia Arabia who made peace with our arch enemy Israel. Certainly cant have a democracy thriving in the ME. Biden also wants to get back in the Iran nuclear deal in order to enhance Irans ability to develop it rightly deserved nuclear arsenal.

  14. Geoff Sherrington

    Climate Etc started about 10 years ago, so it is interesting to see what changes have happened to the matters most discussed.
    The hypothesis I pose here is that ten years ago there was much discussion about collection, interpretation and uncertainty of data. Now, there is rather more discussion about the application of social management methods to help people come aboard with groupthink.
    Here is an example of the 2010 typical theme:
    “In August 2005, Kerry Emanuel published a paper in Nature associating the increase in sea surface temperature (SST) since 1950 with an increase in maximum hurricane potential intensity and the destructive capacity of hurricanes, focusing on hurricanes in the North Atlantic and North Pacific. Webster et al. in an article published in Science (published 5 yrs ago this week) showed that while the total number of hurricanes has not increased globally since 1970, the proportion of category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled, implying that the distribution of hurricane intensity has shifted towards more intense hurricanes.”
    Here is a 2010 example, from the abovementioned precautionary principle paper:
    “This fifth episode examines how the precautionary principle was the only policy tool applied in managing the COVID-19 crisis and what the consequences were. For the last two decades, most Western authorities had relied on this uncertainty management tool, leaving governments woefully unprepared to manage the risks a pandemic would bring. It is astonishing to think, ten months into the coronavirus crisis, that our officials continue to apply the poison that is killing the patient, continue to run in the wrong direction and continue to miss the need to apply basic risk management tools. What a farce! “
    Obviously, I cannot make an overarching case with only two quotes. However, I wonder if other bloggers with 10 or more years of blogging experience share some of the same sentiments.
    Personally, I am very tired of those who disregard bad science, make short but shallow slogans of the scientific topic and then push market it to readers seeking to know more. I am not implying that Judith does this, I am simply reporting what I see as a distressing challenge to good, hard scientists.
    Geoff S

    • Geoff, you are correct. In 2010, I started with science and philosophy of science. Now, when I post threads on these topics, they get few comments. When I post on politics or policy, there is much more discussion. This whole issue probably warrants a blog post, I’ll think about it.

      • Perhaps there should be technical posts with comments limited to actual scientists and perhaps laymen like Nic Lewis, Steve McIntyre, and Willis E. I would be interested in reading informed opinion, and I use the word opinion due to the still massive uncertainties in climate science.

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        I would agree with Jim2 – There is too much political opinion spewed in the comments (including myself who lack much of the detailed scientific knowledge to comment ). Though I did point out an obvious error below regarding the claim that climate change is causing the migration out of the mekong delta.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        To add my two bob’s worth.
        The mass media and now the social media are the bridge between what scientists do and what the public knows of it.
        In my experience, science before year 1990 or so attracted little media attention, certainly not daily updates.
        Since that 1990 date, advertising agencies and mass media manipulators have become quite active in exploiting this bridge to scientific knowledge. With drift to social media, we now have the situation where attitudes to science are controlled by what media manipulators decide, coupled with an approval rating by teenage tweeters.
        It follows that a decision to push an unresolved scientific issue, by taking sides, can lead to a misrepresentation of proper science. That is what we see today. Simply put, the mass media are not educated in science to the extent that they can be allowed to manipulate. They should not be able to gain income from sources seeking to push a profitable line.
        The best science must eventually be determined by scientists, not by publicists, politicians, publishers or the public.

      • The best science must eventually be determined by scientists Mother Nature, not by publicists, politicians, publishers or the public.

        There, fixed that for ya.

      • “Perhaps there should be technical posts with comments limited to actual scientists and perhaps laymen like Nic Lewis, Steve McIntyre, and Willis ETC.”

        The old Climate Dialogue site had an attractive two-level structure, with the peanut gallery “below the salt” and allowed to make comments in a sort of caboose that those in First Class could take notice of if they desired.

      • I provide politics – type threads for wide discussion, these get most of the comments. Nic’s technical threads get relatively few comments

      • Pretty much all of us are affected by politics and have opinions on it.

        Almost none of us are climate/other credentialed scientists or someone with talent who studies it. It is tremendously complex and I believe most people are drawn to it either because they believe they need to save the world with, frequently draconian, measures or who believe the science isn’t solid and whatever the cause of warming we can simply adjust to it as it happens and feel the draconian measures will put us in an authoritarian dystopia. But these ideas for most of us are beliefs or opinions somewhat grounded in fact.

        I’m not sure if anyone in existence knows the value of the (real) climate sensitivity, scientist or otherwise. And that’s a problem. For a well understood system like Earth’s gravity, we know the acceleration due to gravity with high precision. There doesn’t seem to be many such animals in climate science.

      • I sense you may be disappointed that there is more activity on the political-oriented posts than the science ones. If that is the case, I understand that. But one thing I do appreciate here is free speech is still allowed. More and more, we are losing that right.

      • Totally agree, (mostly) free speech is a hallmark of CE. Any ‘censoring’ done here is for unsubstantiated insults of other commenters; pretty much the full range of scientific and political perspectives is allowed here.

    • Curious George

      What I see as a distressing challenge to good, hard scientists is a lack of a good journal where to publish results if they don’t support the official line. Sometimes a naïve young editor publishes such an article and gets fired.

      • And that makes politics front and center WRT climate science. It’s no longer about “the science.” It’s about coercing everyone into line.

    • Richard Greene

      My view of the past 10 years of the climate change “movement”, presented as simply as possible:

      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!
      Ten years left to prevent a climate change crisis!

      The (always) coming crisis is politics, not science.

      Fiction, not reality.

      A fictional boogeyman to scare people, which makes them easier to control.

      Earth has had over 300 years of intermittent global warming — since the 1690s — good news all the way … unless you consider warmer winter nights in Siberia and Alaska to be bad news.

      Our planet’s climate has improved to the best it has been, for humans, animals and plants, in hundreds of years.

      Yet some people ALWAYS see bad news in the future.

      Allegedly, the only way to prevent that (always) coming (but never arrives) climate crisis, is to elect leftists to all political offices, and give them a lot more power to manage our lives.

      Of course leftists have wanted that political power for over a century.

      Their false claim of saving the planet from a climate crisis, “for our children”, is a strategy to support their lust for political power.

      “Climate change” is MAINLY politics (wild guesses of the FUTURE climate, which allegedly can only get worse, never better), with a little science on the side (studies of PAST climate change.).

  15. joe - the non climate scientist

    “The fear of natural disasters has caused more than 1.3 million people living in the #Mekong Delta to migrate to HCMC and elsewhere.” [link]”

    This is the kinda crap you expect to see at Skeptical Science.

    All societies have migrated from rural farming into the urban manufacturing centers as those societies become industrialized. Viet nam and the rest of the mekong delta is no different. Vietnam has developed a fairly robust manufacturing sector primarily in the low tech area of clothing. People naturally migrate from the farms to the higher paying industrial areas as jobs become available.

    The migration has absolutely nothing to do with climate or climate warming.

    • I’m not one to give kudos for anything in the IPCC reports but this is a quote from the draft IPCC6, on Sea Level Rise. Maybe they aren’t reading the NYT for their science any longer.

      “There is limited evidence of migration occurring directly as a consequence of impacts associated with environmental change generally and SLR specifically.”

      “There is robust evidence of disasters displacing people worldwide, but limited evidence that climate change or SLR is the direct cause.”

      Watch the articles and press releases following release of IPCC6 conveniently omit words like “directly” and ‘direct”.

      OT. I’m on a mission to find a single reference in the draft IPCC6 to geothermal activity in Greenland and Antarctica in conjunction with SLR. A once through didn’t turn it up.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        My comment dealt with the frequent claims that global warming is causing or caused such and such. Skeptical science has posted a couple of studies over the years stating that there as a migration out of the rice fields of the mekong delta due climate change. They failed to note that A) rice yields had increased slowly but surely over the last few decades, and B) that there was a massive increase in manufacturing jobs over the same period of time. The article linked above was just one of many false claims, that was exceedingly easy to poke holes into.

      • But the paper passed peer review?

      • But the paper passed peer review?

      • Dave Fair | January 26, 2021 at 11:51 am |
        But the paper passed peer review?

  16. Re renewables and coal:
    The battery game:
    Stabilization is not storage.
    The coal game:
    China generates more electricity with cheap coal than the US does from all sources. Killing us economically with coal.
    The renewables game:
    On an actual capacity basis we are building more gas fired generation than wind and solar combined. The transition is to gas not renewables.

  17. Pingback: Kumulatiivisia päästöjä käytetty lämpenemisennusteeseen | Roskasaitti

  18. Matthew R Marler

    The future of sensitivity analysis [link]

    Is that new? It reads to me like the old familiar aphorisms that everyone wants to ignore, like say the warnings of Cassandra..

    • It is certainly incomplete. Sensitivity analysis review without citing Dan Cacuci is strange. Very, very strange.

      The discipline is highly developed in engineering and has become a part of Standard Operating Procedures.

  19. The statement of undisputed material facts regarding the Mann lawsuits brought back many memories. I enjoyed every page.

    BTW, Dr. Curry is mentioned and quoted numerous times.


    • Steyn’s lawyers have done an exceptional job. Their motion for summary judgment is well worth reading for anyone who has followed this case.

      It is very difficult to win a motion for summary judgment so I am not holding my breath for a favorable ruling. However, it is like a preview of coming attraction if this case is ever set for trial.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        A) that motion ( or something similar) is would should have been filed at the motion to dismiss under the SLAPP law. Unfortunately, The two judges (Greene & ?) seemed to lack any competence in the field of libel law and SLAPP along with having sypmpathy for Mann’s position.
        B) Steve McIntyre did a series of posts on the “exonerations’s of Mann ( 5 of the 7 as best I recall). The two main thrusts of those critiques by S McIntyre was 1) that those exonerations were seriously defective and 2) the Mann’s pleadings seriously misrepresented those exonerations, Along with the misrepresentations through out the climate science cartel.

        In my professional career, when someone is caught lying, it undermines that persons credibility on their lifetime of work. The extent of lying in those exonerations are enough for me to taint much of the body of work of the climate science community.

  20. “Our department is leading the development of Australia’s Long-term Emissions Reduction Strategy. Australia will take this strategy to the 26th United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) climate summit in Glasgow in 2021.” https://www.industry.gov.au/policies-and-initiatives/australias-climate-change-strategies

    Technology drives successful shifts to more affordable energy and lower emissions. There is a momentum for change in agriculture, forestry, transportation and energy that is now both irresistible. Innovation is and in the modern age always has been the basis of wealth and wealth the source of health, education and environmental progress.

    “Remember, then, that scientific thought is the guide to action; that the truth at which it arrives is not that which we can ideally contemplate without error, but that which we can act upon without fear; and you cannot fail to see that scientific thought is not an accompaniment or condition of human progress, but human progress itself.”
    William Kingdon Clifford, The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (1885)

    My question is are these collections of scientific, social and academic odds and ends here fueling a delusion that there is a scientific ‘debate’ on the fundamentals of climate change worth having?

    • “… that is now both irresistible” and that has great promise for a bright future.

    • It is risible that people consider the UN IPCC’s collectivist approach for planning technological advancement as at all practicable; socialist “five-year-plans” never worked and only capitalism will move humanity forward. Its ironic that only capitalist countries can afford social “science” college degree programs.

    • Government has a role in energy innovation as well as in other relevant areas. Funding for first of a kind advanced nuclear designs for instance. There are political and social realities.

  21. Geoff Sherrington

    Your comment resembles a gloat that certain forces are winning. Sadly, if you support them, you are using wrong information when you write “Technology drives successful shifts to more affordable energy and lower emissions”.
    Electrical energy has become less affordable with the technology of windmills and solar panels.
    Geoff S

    • Yes you have lost Sherrington. Although these mysterious forces of yours seem a bit paranoid. It is all merely pointless noise and bluster. And there are hundreds of scientists I can name who do splendid work. The real world does not resemble your ideologically motivated nonsense.

      In Australia it is natural gas and coal – with a smattering of wind, solar, hydro and biomass. There is a push to open up more gas fields. Rising gas costs along with cost plus grid contracts were the major causes of energy price increases.

      • Curious George

        Unfortunately, affordable energy has lost.

      • That’s why so much gas generation is being built? Don’t be absurd.

      • Curious George

        In California, my electrical bill has doubled thanks to “affordable” wind and solar. Where do you think that money goes? Think.

      • Breaking News! California Electricity Prices are High

        Stop thinking – you are not very good at it – and look at the data in depth.


        My bill increased by some 10% with subsidies for renewables – other more significant costs increases occurred. Electricity consumption fell some 10% – efficiency improved and the economy kept growing until the middle quarter of last year. Big picture George. And why does technical innovation across sectors boil down to wind and solar in the minds of obsessives? Oh right…. answered my own question.

      • Cali price: 0.17$/kWh. Pretty danged high!

        US Total: 00.1054.


      • That’s pretty much what the EIA sourced graph above says.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE writes “Rising gas costs along with cost plus grid contracts were the major causes of energy price increases.”
        You know as well as I do that the basic cause of rises in electricity costs was closure of some low-cost, efficient coal-powered generation, among the cheapest and most reliable in the world. Only after coal was demonised did emphasis fall on gas, whose domestic prices were influenced by high prices asked for export gas.
        Geoff S

      • Hazelwood was more than 50 years old when it closed. Other aging plants have closed in the past 10 years – more are closing in the next 20.


        Building innovative systems for the future based on current conditions and not implausible recollections would be an idea. At a practical level – increasing the supply of natural gas to the east coast network.


        I don’t need to defend wind and solar. Levelised costs for new generation wind and solar are now considerably cheaper than alternatives – there is adequate load shifting capability at current penetration in existing hydro, biomass and gas peaking capacity – and it is politically pragmatic. The latter is very unlike stick in the mud contrarian curmudgeons.

        You have a choice – become increasingly marginalized and irrelevant – or look to accept changes that some grumpy old men find difficult. You have lost the climate war. Get used to it.

      • “You have lost the climate war.” – Robert

        No. Gravity theory isn’t settled therefore climate science isn’t settled.

        You advocate the attempt to refreeze the Arctic based on incomplete science. It’s outrageous.

        President Biden is being urged to call climate change an emergency so that he can make laws that don’t require the normal protocol. It’s a recipe for disaster imo.

      • You asked a question about the Arctic and I ignored you. Why misrepresent now?

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Here is some of the reality of incompetent engineering for a national electricity supply by reliance on thought process that you praise by writing “I don’t need to defend wind and solar. Levelised costs for new generation wind and solar are now considerably cheaper than alternatives – there is adequate load shifting capability at current penetration in existing hydro, biomass and gas peaking capacity – and it is politically pragmatic. ”
        You also know, but choose to ignore, that the closure of coal stations in Australia was affected by requiring them to operate to fill in for intermittent renewables instead of operating flat pout as before. It was a political change, not an economic one. Like in Germany, where Energiewende is now a failure.
        Show me a cost analysis based on first principles using no regulation for social effects, coal going alone full steam, gas ditto, renewables going alone, no backup. Cannot find one you can trust? Niether can I, such is the deep perversion of engineering the post-modern way.
        Geoff S

      • After redefining “cost” and reinterpreting “functional,” Ellison gives us the reminder of the new political climate (based on “unity” of course).

        “You have lost the climate war. Get used to it.”

        Let me fix that: “We have won the political war, get used to blackouts and high prices, do not expect to be allowed to complain about them.”

        Good luck with that, Bob. No autocracy that purposely harms its subjects has lasted very long. Mao, Lenin, Castro- but they had armies and two of the three are essentially defunct and clinging to a few shreds of Marxism only because it causes Western academics to ignore their massive fossil fuel use.

      • I don’t know anything specific about Australian electric grid operations or economics, although I have over thirty years experience in U.S. grid issues. All I can say is that, in the U.S., gas generation has reduced overall costs, while unreliables have increased costs and exacerbated operational problems.

      • Natural gas has provided cheaper power for America while reducing emissions. The technological challenge is to produce yet cheaper and far more abundant power for a world in which energy demand is several times what it is now.

        I linked the December 2020 cost analysis from International Energy Agency and the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency.

        “Low-carbon electricity systems are characterised by increasingly complex interactions of different technologies with different functions in order to ensure reliable supply at all times. The 2020 edition of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity thus puts into context the plain metric for plant-level cost, the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). System effects and system costs are identified with the help of the broader value-adjusted LCOE, or VALCOE metric.”

        I have not redefined cost and function. Despite the misrepresentations of moribund ideologues who are resolutely outside the tent p!ss!ng in.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        I asked about references to electricity costs by various generation types free of the costs of social policies that can distort markets. You replied with
        The first page contains “At the assumed carbon price of USD 30 per tonne of CO2 and pending a breakthrough in carbon capture and storage, coal-fired power generation is slipping out of the competitive range.”
        Do you have any references free of social costs like carbon taxes?
        Places like Germany and Australia are at electricity crisis because they have chosen renewables. Do you realise that when electricity supples fail, the most logical way out of the problem is to go back to low-cost, proven technology, like reliable coal? (And nuclear, if allowed). The cost of generation is no longer the prime criterion at system failure, because you have to adopt whatever is known to work and to reject what has failed.
        Geoff S

      • The graph of Australian costs I supplied was taken from the associated energy cost calculator. I set the carbon price to zero.

        There is a bottom line. If there are sources of power available at a low LCOE – and that are technically viable – why not incorporate those into the supply system? There is as well a political reality – embraced by both sides of politics in Australia. Yet you continue in a battle of ideas that you have lost and that I see no point in continuing.

      • “I have not redefined cost and function.”

        The report you’ve linked rather does, though. However, it does contain some useful information.

        It starts off with the stated assumption that electricity generation must balance the three requirements of cost, reliability, and low carbon emissions. The third is certainly questionable in the sense that it is only a requirement is someone decides that it is, and that decision has nothing to do with the consideration of the technology in its own terms, but is merely a political consideration. The report makes this explicit by adding a ‘modest’ cost of $30/tonne to any carbon emitting plant.

        It also rightly points out that geography can influence LCOE more than technology even in the limited cases it examined. That in itself makes your Australian anecdotes of limited usefulness. It also notes that LCOE for a given technology can vary widely depending on penetration. Given that all of the data is based on case studies, one can probably conclude that some sub-optimal decisions have been made. You are probably right that anyone looking to correct this should probably accept that they’ve already largely lost the argument. That’s certainly likely to be the case in wealthier countries where setting fire to money passes for grandiosity within certain cultural cliques.

        The report is unusually pro-nuclear, but a quick check of the authorship explains that. However, that argument has probably already been lost as well. It is a little unfair to chastise people for reducing renewables to wind and solar and for not recognising that they’ve lost the argument when that’s all that left once the lost arguments are taken into account.

        Anyway, thanks for the link. The report certainly looks worthy of very close examination.

      • A close consideration that you have not given it. There is a calculator I linked as well – under the graph of Australian costs. You might note on a closer look that I have set the carbon price to zero. You may do the same for different countries.

        There are many factors that affect costs – as well as the VALLCOE metric. You will find that the value of wind and solar energy declines with penetration. It depends on what the mix of energy sources are and how flexible the market is.


        With a mix like this – Australia’s immediate future is more natural gas electricity and some more wind, solar, pumped hydro and biomass. All reasonably cheap and complementary sources. I am technology agnostic. We have the ‘nation building’ Snowy Mountains hydro scheme with a 12% capacity factor that was constructed starting in 1949.


        And low carbon energy is fairly self explanatory I would venture. You might also note that new nuclear energy doesn’t become – with advanced designs – cost competitive for 2 decades.

      • The Note for Figure 4.3 indicates that grid congestion is not considered. Given the relative remote locations of unreliables, congestion is a large factor in determining their grid value. I don’t see any discussion of the value of ancillary services. Ultimately, since the cost of operating conventional generation rises with unreliables penetration, you see large increases in electric rates with large percentages of unreliables. I don’t care how many numbers one plays with to show how inexpensive unreliables have become, the actual numbers show that increasing percentages of unreliables drives up ratepayer and taxpayer costs.

      • There is always some narrative isn’t there.

      • But it is a narrative based on over 30 years experience in planning, financing, constructing and operating electric power generation, transmission and distribution systems. Of course, all that experience means nothing because it doesn’t automatically accept what you believe is the future. It is a narrative that reflects a belief that mental masturbation is no substitute for doing.

      • No David – it is not the future – it is the reality of the present day. A momentum that is not going to be changed by any of your fringe assertions.

      • No, Robert, it is not “the reality of the present day.” It is a political meme. We are, collectively, fools to allow politicians and special interest groups to dictate our energy and economic future.

        Technological advancement and economics are what they are, not what you want them to be. Your non-professional opinion about the economics of future energy systems is just that; an opinion. My professional opinion is that one widely applies novel technologies only after they have been successfully demonstrated in real-world, long-term applications.

        Given enough money, one could accomplish pretty much any uneconomic outcome, a task which our various governments perform every day. Germany and California are the most prominent examples of developing uneconomic and unreliable energy systems based on ideology.

      • I have had 40 years experience of implementing advanced technologies. Here I started with International Energy Agency/World Nuclear Agency report. Your ideology is just that.

      • Please try to understand what went into developing the numbers you are citing, Robert. They don’t mean what you think they mean. Had you spent those 40 years in electric power planning and development, you might just understand the games being played with numbers. I can’t educate you, Robert; you are just going to have to learn on your own.

      • They are the most up to date numbers available from reputable sources. Your handwaving doesn’t change that.

        Given the expected global supply and demand – there will be an energy transition sooner rather later. What I do know is that it is economic madness to put all your energy eggs in one basket.

      • Christ, Robert! Spend some time looking into what the numbers actually represent. It is not “handwaving” to point out that they do not justify overcommitment to nascent technologies, in that the numbers don’t reflect the true systemwide costs of their adoption. They are incomplete ‘numbers’ that don’t justify what you think they justify.

        Of course there will continue to be an ongoing energy transition, but there will not be your specific “energy transition sooner rather [than] later.” Nobody can tell us the path of that energy transition or which specific technologies will reveal themselves as being economic at any particular time. Ideology and politics simply distort the process. I tell you that as someone intimately familiar with electric system generation and transmission technologies and economics.

        Nothing has to be done quickly. Bypassing normal planning processes and imposing ideological solutions is not needed. Even the UN IPCC’s ‘projections’ show that any possible negative climatic impacts would not occur for many decades. In fact, using documented reasonable estimates of future CO2 emissions, IPCC climate models never pass the threshold of “climate harm,” even with their high ECS guesstimates.

      • These technologies have been tested over decades. They technically work. They are LCOE from actual installation has now declined sufficiently to be cost competitive. According to the numbers from reputable organisations that you claim without evidence are incomplete.

      • Describe how capacity factors of between 15% and 35% are “reasonably cheap and complementary” in actual economic dispatch. Is there some point of penetration, in your estimation, that unreliables cease to be “reasonably cheap and complementary?”

      • It is about load shifting.

      • “It is about load shifting.” is a big ‘tell,’ Robert. Substitute that with “We will provide you power when we want, not when you want.” for a more accurate description of the socialist economy. Having been in the business for a number of years, I always pointed out that Integrated Resource Plans that relied on significant Demand Side Management catered to politicians, rather than meeting the actual needs and wants of the customer.

        Capitalism succeeds because of its customer focus. Socialism fails because of its ideological focus. CliSci is ideologically focused. Focusing on unknown futures rather than the present (and known probabilities) will always fail. It is also a political fault to rely on unproven technologies.

      • Load shifting refers technically to shifting intermittent supply to times of increased demand. I used the term in the sense of conserving hydro and biomass resources to help meet peak demand – along with adequate gas peaking capacity.

        Ultimately technological innovation will lead to such things as more efficient hydrogen production catalysed into liquid fuels or more direct load shifting using such things as liquid metal batteries. A capitalist economy cannot afford to neglect innovation.

      • I optimistically look forward to the future, Robert. I just don’t plan on that future today.

      • Innovation is driven by creative people in free economies. But even then there is room for government support for such things as advanced nuclear to overcome technology lock-in. This is determined by politicians who in democracies are elected by the people. People by and large = believe it or not – are risk averse.

        Most here don’t accept greenhouse gas warming. That’s a battle you have lost. And I can’t see the global warming thought bubbles here changing that. Just not the caliber needed.

      • OK, let’s unpack Robert’s comment:

        “Innovation is driven by creative people in free economies.” Stop there and you won’t trip over your tongue. It’s appropriate for governments to fund research and development, but governments’ picking winners in the marketplace is a recipe for financial disasters. Governments make political decisions, not rational technological and economic decisions.

        “Most here don’t accept greenhouse gas warming.” Wrong-O, Buffalo Bob! Most here don’t accept the UN IPCC’s climate models with high ECSs. Unless temperatures begin rising rapidly in the next few years, the battle will be won by opponents of higher taxes and excessive energy costs. Like you said, people “are risk averse.”

      • Governments choose where they put our money and that’s motivated in democracies by what people want in theory. Here is Australia’s first technology roadmap.


        And climate changes abruptly on all scales – but many peoples attitudes to climate change reflect the last natural disaster. People are risk averse. LOL

        But I anticipate more gas, high efficiency low emission coal and advanced nuclear in the next decade.

      • joe the non climate scientist

        David Fair points out one of the fallacies in the claim that renewables are now less expensive the fossil fuel generation for power.

        If renewables are less expensive, then way are electric rates higher in direct proportion to the % of renewables in the grid?

      • The claim is that LCOE of solar and wind is now relatively and can function without at relatively low penetration in many places without significant system costs.


      • ‘Price’ is not ‘cost,’ Robert. In actual operation, the cost of unreliables drives the price of electricity much higher where they have significant penetration.

        “Lies, damned lies and statistics.” I can and have dicked around with numbers with the best of them; having directly proved Mark Twain’s observation. When we get out of the contrived world of numbers, unreliables have proven to be an economic disaster for common people.

      • The cost here is real world installation costs. Low LCOE provide the opportunity for a niche application. – with substantial declines over the past 10 years – provide the opportunity for a niche application.

      • Christ, Robert. Those numbers are not presented for use in deciding on niche applications. They are presented to convince people that unreliables are completive in general applications; a lie. Don’t be a weasel.

      • No one in the middle ground believes that renewables – wind, solar, biomass, tidal, etc are ready for 100% deployment. Your strawman has no legs. Don’t be a turd.

      • No, Robert. Those numbers are being widely used by ideologues and politicians to convince your “middle ground” that unreliables are fit for general purpose and application.

        This exchange has degenerated to name-calling. Since I’ve exhausted my ability to argue facts, I’m done. Goodbye, Robert.

      • So we have demagogues misleading a gullible majority? Give me a break. You exhausted your ability argue facts as you didn’t provide any. And you called me a weasel so I returned the favor.

      • … relatively low…

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Do you, or do you not, accept the proposition that Australia would still have among the World’s most reliable, low-cost electricity of all Nations, if we had continued to use fossil fuels and not detoured into ‘renewables’?
        Do you accept that our detour into renewables was for the dominant reason of projections of harm of many types from rising atmospheric CO2, including fossil fuel sources?
        Do you accept that most harm projected from increased atmospheric CO2, has not been demonstrated?
        Do you accept that a reversion to pre-renewables plans for Australian electricity generation could return Australia to its low-cost, reliable status?
        Do you not see this as a worthwhile aim?
        Geoff S

      • Do you not see that you have lost and that there is no going back? Whatever party wins government.

      • Contrarians are not the right people to decide innovative energy winners and losers. Some of it is a fait accompli. They will simply whine about it interminably.

      • RIE “This is determined by politicians who in democracies are elected by the people.”

        This statement is true on the face of it, but the implication that public policy arises from, and is directed by, what the public thinks or wants is more than a little naive, hence the abject horror of ‘populism’ to the class of people who are used to steering the ship in pretty-much the enlightened direction they’ve quietly decided upon between them. Probably most decisions at the level of the state are locked in to a large extent, with nearly all of the real political work being done to contrive this precise circumstance. I don’t know about Australia, but it’s certainly the case in Europe, in the EU almost entirely and completely, and also in the US. It is rare that this ‘realpolitik’ is laid bare, as it was, for example, recently in the UK over the Brexit vote.

        One can blame the population for sleeping while their country is being led to where they don’t want to go, but there is more to it than that, as is shown when people do actually wake up. To make what advertises itself as democracy keep it promises requires the mother of all battles, the cunning of a fox, the courage of a lion, the skin of a rhino and the endurance of an Arctic Tern. The state does not easily surrender itself to the will of the people. It is only when you try to bring this about do you discover who runs things and how, and that the expertise of the political classes consists mostly in how to subvert it. One of their favourite expressions, like yours, is “You’ve lost already.” This is just psyops.

      • The practical partial response is to develop cheaper sources of energy. People want to avoid risk and build a better life for their children.

    • Curious George wrote:
      Unfortunately, affordable energy has lost.

      Of course, it was never affordable to begin with.

      • “Of course, it was never affordable to begin with.”

        Sure it was. Electricity costs 26% less in France than the EU average and is almost emissions free.
        That will change quickly as “climate” activists are forcing the country to switch from nuclear to Russian natural gas. All based on the fairy tale that “solar” can power modern industrial nations in the dark in winter. Which is true, as long as that Russian gas is making the lights go on.

      • Richard Greene

        Mr Appleman
        After that long debate, that one line the best you can come up with? No references to any peer reviewed studies? Very disappointing. Are you feeling OK?

  22. President Biden has a soft spot for Ireland I hear:


  23. “Could solar geoengineering be more effective than emissions cuts at offsetting Greenland surface mass balance loss?”

    Stratospheric aerosols could promote the required positive North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, but stronger solar wind states would do that more effectively.

  24. Re; Meet the team shaking up climate models:

    “If scientists can create a new way to predict climate change – making it as accurate as, say, forecasting the weather – it would help people make everyday decisions: how high to build a sea wall or what crops to plant.”
    “They are a step toward providing climate information that will be useful at a local or regional level, helping predict the frequency of droughts, extreme rainfalls, heat waves, and major storms. Dr. Schneider even envisions a cellphone app that could give information to anyone contemplating, say, the purchase of a house or planning future crops for a farm.”

    I would be predicting the discrete solar forcing of the NAO/AO anomalies driving the heatwaves and rainfall variability so people know what to plant, coupled with the inverse response of the ocean phases driving the regional variability, and end up with a better global climate prediction.
    As if climate change could influence the discrete solar forcing of heatwaves, they cause climate change. Like with the early August and early September 2020 heat in the southwest US and west Europe, positive NAO/AO driven by the fastest solar coronal hole streams for a year. Which I had predicted more than a year previously.


    • Having had a 30-plus year career in various aspects of planning, I’m confused as to any ultimate utility there might be in using climate models to guide planning efforts in any given field. It is my understanding that climatic parameters evolve over multi-decadal to millennial timeframes. Actual planning horizons for most endeavors are limited to a few years, especially in agriculture.

      Any particular long-range, big-ticket or society-changing project (Green New Deal?) would seem to logically require solid planning justifications. As acknowledged in the paper, current unvalidated UN IPCC climate models are not fit for purpose. I assume it would take decades to validate any new models.

      The current state of CliSci doesn’t provide enough justification for fundamentally changing our society, economy and energy systems. The literature being used to support GND-like projects is simply SJW claptrap. Marxist principles have destroyed everything it touched.

      • Mumbo jumbo about climate change altering the frequency of heatwaves, without the means to generate them. It’s because they have been taught that weather variability is internal and unforced, it leads to the notion that changing the climate then changes the weather. When really they need to explain weather variability to explain climate change.

      • Bravo, Fair. Models do not succeed, so far in being right, only in not being wrong due to expanding the error bars.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Dave Fair,
        Comments by people like you, experienced in the topic are welcomed.
        My experience with electricity supply, corporately or individually, ranges from installing it in remote exploration camps, to approval of electrical generation for new town sites that we built, to running the power station supplying the large Pilbara region with its huge iron mines, to global studies of nuclear power after we found the Ranger Uranium mines in 1970 or so. There was also a lab where I bought and operated a Kaman fast neutron generator with a light-dimming 10 kV power supply.
        Therefore, not as direct as your experience, but hopefully relevant.

  25. Albert N. Hopfer III

    The Climate debate is the symptom, dictator politics in the US today is the issue.

  26. Planet’s surface has not a constant intensity solar irradiation effect. Planet’s surface rotates under the solar flux.
    This phenomenon is decisive for the planet’s surface infrared emittance distribution.
    The real planet’s surface infrared radiation emittance distribution intensity is a planet’s rotational spin dependent physical phenomenon.
    By realizing that we proceed with the PLANET ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.


  27. Strengthen infrastructure for whatever nature throws at us, restore and conserve soils and ecosystems, innovate on energy and reduce pollution. There are enough rational responses to be getting on with despite uncertainties at the periphery of climate science.


    Here you are stuck on rotating planets, solar plasma or a new gravity thought bubble. Is this the sorry state of the contrarian climate ‘debate’?

  28. Matthew R Marler

    700 yr tree-ring reconstruction of Brahmaputra River streamflow and found that flood risk may potentially be much higher than our current estimates

    Another opportunity to compute Hurst coefficients or VAR models. Authors focus on distribution of inter-flood intervals.

  29. https://wmbriggs.com/post/34364/

    Found this audit of a highly touted but flawed paper on hurricane intensity growing. A little disturbing that peer review seems so weak.

    • You are really optimistic about the state of peer review in climate science if you believe it to be merely weak.

      • jim2 – who are you to say so?

      • Someone who has been reading Dr. Curry for years.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        David Appell’s comment to Jim2 regarding peer review – David Appell | January 27, 2021 at 4:38 am |
        jim2 – who are you to say so?

        david – Exhibit 1 the linked article below is the poster child for crap that represents “peer reviewed” in climate science.
        Article linked above “The fear of natural disasters has caused more than 1.3 million people living in the #Mekong Delta to migrate to HCMC and elsewhere.” [link]

        Let me know if it took you more 5 seconds to find the obvious error.

      • Per Willis’s comment below, Dave only plays the man not the ball. Having to actually read the subject matter and think about the issue is too taxing on the brain. It’s easier to just pile on skeptics.

    • Thanks for posting the article. Just another example of the net environmental benefit of burning trash for electric power.

  30. jim2 | January 26, 2021 at 9:37 pm

    You are really optimistic about the state of peer review in climate science if you believe it to be merely weak.

    David Appell | January 27, 2021 at 4:38 am |

    jim2 – who are you to say so?

    David, can I say how bone-tired I am of this crappy ad hominem argument, the ridiculous claim that the idea isn’t important at all, but the person putting forward the idea is the real issue?

    It has been used endlessly in climate science, and I’m sick of it. Gerald Kutner is a master of this bogus line of argument. I put forward an idea, with links and logic and math and citations and all the rest, and the chorus begins—”Willis, who are you to say so, what are your credentials, where did you study, you have a massage license so what could you possibly know, what is your degree, where are your peer-reviewed papers”, the list of complaints is endless … SO WHAT? None of that is of the least importance.

    Science is about, or at least is supposed to be about, IDEAS. The question should never be WHO put forward the idea. Never.

    The real scientific question is always, is the claim correct and defensible and supported by logic and evidence and math, or is it falsifiable and capable of being shown to be wrong?


    It is a measure of the weakness of mainstream climate science that far too many of its practitioners’ first response, as in this case and with Gerald Kutner and lots of others, is on the order of “Just who the hell are you to be questioning the sacred peer-review process”?

    Ummm … not the issue here, bro’ …

    In any case, David, regarding the weakness of the peer-review system, you could start with Ioannides’ seminal PLOS paper on the subject … and it is a measure of your disconnect from and your mindless faith in the peer review system that it appears you haven’t read it and you seem to be unaware of the manifold other papers pointing out problems with peer-review.

    The main problem with peer-review from my perspective is that it forms an almost impenetrable bulwark against new ideas. If you present a novel paradigm-upending concept to three scientists, a claim that totally contradicts the “consensus”, the odds of it being rejected out of hand are very good regardless of the validity of the idea.

    And if the idea threatens the life-work of said scientists, the chance of all three of them saying “Yes, publish it and destroy my career and my livelihood” are approximately zero.

    Which is one of the many reasons I prefer to have my peer-review done on the web, at sites like this one and WUWT. It is far harsher, more brutal, and faster than traditional peer-review, and it is also more honest and less self-serving.



    • Right on, Willis. They haven’t attended to Feynman’s “Scientific Method” video, and have no interest in it. It’s all very medieval, with heretics and inquisitors and burnings at the stake. But Ellison at least dazzles us with footwork.

    • Curious George

      An excellent formulation, as always, thank you Willis.

    • Richard Greene

      Mr Appleman used to cite peer (pal) reviewed “studies” that agreed with his climate alarmist beliefs in his comments.

      His current comment style is one phrase character attacks, not worthy a response … but this one inspired you to write a comment that could be expanded and published at WUWT, or here, as an article.

  31. Pingback: Ilmaston CO2-lämmitys ei toimi Etelämantereella | Roskasaitti

  32. “ 21st century sea level rise could exceed IPCC projections for strong-warming futures”

    Neither this study nor the draft IPCC6 cited any of the following papers which found insignificant acceleration, an underestimation of natural variability or reasons to question projections of runaway SLR.

    P. Watson 2016, 2018 and 2020; Parker 2015 and 2017; Palanisamy 2015; Iz 2018; Dangendorf 2014; Hunter 2017; Gehrels 2020; Visser 2015; Hunicke 2016; Wenzel 2014; Santamaria-Gomez 2017.

  33. John Kerry new Climate Envoy

    “ That is why [Biden] rejoined the Paris Agreement so quickly. ‘Cause he knows that it is urgent. He also knows that Paris alone is not enough, not when almost 90% of all the planet’s omissions, global omissions, come outside of U.S. borders. We could go to zero tomorrow, and the problem isn’t solved.”

    Job killer solutions for zero climate problems.

    • John Kerry is a good choice for climate envoy, he has his own private jet that he can use to fly all over the globe to get out the message that people shouldn’t fly.
      And he supports nuclear*

      *nuclear weapons that is. Kerry’s last task on the international stage was to ensure Iran’s mullahs have a pathway to getting nuclear weapons and he delivered pallets of cash for the Iranians to use to launch terror attacks on American troops and American allies.

      • Joe - the realist

        What is surprising and scary is how many people voted in favor of biden somehow believe the IRAN nuclear deal was designed to slow down or stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

      • I know what you mean joe but having lived my entire life under the eternal bliss of Mutually Assured Destruction I’m not sure the nukes issue has the same punch.

      • Why don’t you just let Iran start a nuclear arms race? Then speculate as what your MAD will get you. MAD only worked when the powerful countries kept the ideological-driven and insane countries from developing nukes. Wiping out the Jews in a few moments time is a tempting prize; Allah would smile upon you.

      • Cool your jets Dave. I have it on good authority every nuclear armed nation on earth has promised to never fire the first nuke. Every weapon is just for defense. Go ahead and ask them. 😉

      • Dave, since Israel didn’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they have several hundred nukes I think your problem is solved…if you’re ok with a few million dead Iranians.
        January 25, 2021; “TEL AVIV: Israel has said openly that it will attack Iran”

      • I urge everybody to read Jack’s attachment for themselves. No direct Israeli quote in that article said they would attack Iran just because the U.S. would reenter the Agreement. Israel said it would attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if Iran continues on the path of developing nuclear weapons, as has been Israeli policy all along.

        None of the Israeli statements could be construed such that they would attack with nuclear weapons, as Jack’s comment seemingly implied. Its up to Jack to clarify that, if he wishes.

        Like any sane person I’m not OK with a few million dead people, no matter their nationality, Jack. This is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion.

      • Joe makes an excellent point. If only we could have kept the administration that got NoKo to denuclearize. If the election hadn’t been stolen.

    • joe - the realist

      Looks like Jack “neville chamberlin” Smith 4 TX has provided us with clear and convincing evidence that allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear arsenal makes the world safer. Which will lead to world peace.

      • Joe, MAD (love the acronym) has been working pretty well since the 1950’s. What will happen whether we like it or not is more countries are going to have their own weapons. Saudi Arabia seems to be actively working on their own nuclear weapon.
        ‘Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country’s de facto ruler, said in 2018 that “if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible.”’
        World wide there are several countries pursuing the same strategy. I wish it wasn’t so but I don’t see unilateral disarmament happening soon. Perhaps one day there will be a horrible accident and everyone will come to their senses.

      • Since other nations’ plans for nuclear weapons are contingent on Iran’s developing them, wouldn’t it be logical to stop Iran?

      • joe - the realist

        The progressive have sold us on the idea that the Iran nuclear deal was to thwart / delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

        On the contrary, the Iran nuclear deal was designed to facilitate and enhance Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
        In chamberlin’s defense, he was sold out by France, and he did recognize the weakness of britians position after being sold out by france. he did go back to britian and try to build up the countries military power.

        In Obama’s case, and the Biden empire of advisors who never got a single foreign policy right, are championing the development of an evil regime as a regional and world power.

        That should tell you everything about most everything about progressives basic knowledge of history and basic critical thinking skills.

      • The Biden model for Iranian nukes is the Clinton North Korean Model- sign a piece of paper and travel the globe issuing press releases and patting yourself on the back until the country that has been “prevented from getting a bomb” detonates one as a test. Then blame others, insist “the process” is good.

        JackSmith- the safest approach is a global agreement that state-sponsored terrorist organizations are intolerable. Most people in Iran would love to be out from under the thumb of anti-semitic mass murderers. The rest of the region even more so. Unfortunately, western progressives find the idea of a peaceful middle east to be appalling as long as Israel exists. They’d rather see Iran and Saudi Arabia go nuclear than have any sort of acceptance of Israel.

      • Jeff makes a great point –

        > The Biden model for Iranian nukes is the Clinton North Korean Model- sign a piece of paper and travel the globe issuing press releases and patting yourself on the back until the country that has been “prevented from getting a bomb” detonates one as a test. Then blame others, insist “the process” is good.

        If only we could have kept with the Trump model – which eschewed dog and pony shows and instead just focused on the nitty-gritty of getting NoKo to denuclearize. Why just look at the substantive results! If only the election hadn’t been stolen!

  34. Regarding the new team shaking up climate models; the article stated, “But climate modelers acknowledge accuracy must improve in order to plot a way through the climate crisis.”

    There are two disparate points in that statement:
    1. climate models must improve
    2. there is an assumption that there is a “climate crisis”.

    It is the “de facto” assumption of the second point that gives rise to all sorts of rash policies that are being implemented through Executive Orders in the first week of this administration.

  35. Mars’ MINIMUM TEMPERATURE is 130 K, which is much higher than for the closer to the Sun Mercury’s and Moon’s minimum temperature 100 K.

    The planet’s effective temperature old Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ equation gives very CONFUSING RESULTS.

    And the FASTER ROTATING Earth and Mars appear to be relatively WARMER PLANETS.


  36. Matthew R Marler

    Meet the team shaking up climate models

    That looks to me like normal science, not shaking anything up. Using a new and improved computer language is good, but they have not yet demonstrated an improved modeling accuracy over extant models.

  37. “Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.short

    Climate science – peer reviewed or not – in both models and the Earth system itself is the study of coupled, nonlinear systems. There are some obvious fundamentals. We are making what may be small changes in a system with emergent, chaotic properties. Thus at the periphery is uncertainty. It is strictly non-computable. “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable.” op. cit.

    New models are being forced with observed sea surface temperature. Data reveals variability in the Earth energy dynamic largely the result of cloud feedback to SST in the eastern Pacific. On which anthropogenic forcing is superimposed of course.

    e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705

    This introduces a different problem. Predicting SST where this changes with shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. These shifts do not have a cause as such. The system has thresholds followed by internal, emergent properties of the system itself.


    Nonetheless – initialized, probabilistic, decadal scale modelling is feasible. Given the opportunity to marry ever more sophisticated observations, new generations of computers and an ever deeper understanding of the Earth system – there is much to be accomplished.


    In the meantime – strengthen infrastructure for whatever nature throws at us, restore and conserve soils and ecosystems, innovate on energy and reduce pollution. There are enough rational responses to be getting on with despite uncertainties at the periphery of climate science.

    • Curious George

      I’ll take your word for it.

    • I’ll second the motion.

    • Science progresses one funeral at a time according to Max Planck. Around here – that shouldn’t be too long at all.

      • Mr Ellison I see your Planck and question the relevance.

        Confucius said around 500 B.C., “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.”

      • “What most often seems to be the common feature of frontier research is its potential to transform and put our understanding on a new footing. It has the ability to yield results which represent a significant step forward in our knowledge, generating new paradigms that open the door to new approaches and ways of thinking, new questions and issues…” http://www.fgcsic.es/lychnos/en_EN/forum/frontier_research_bringing_the_future_closer

        It is the difference between ideological dinosaurs with flippant brush offs and uppity newcomers at the frontiers of science. Max Planck’s meaning was that only death can end some people’s cognitive fossilisation. Do I need to point out that frontier science requires knowing where the limits to knowledge are?

      • How many Trillions should we invest on unverified “frontier research?” Should we jettison free market Capitalism?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: Science progresses one funeral at a time according to Max Planck.

        It was a transient state of exasperation. Clearly science progresses with the births and works of the scientists.

      • Copied up the line. It was a reference to the resistance to new ideas by the cognitively fossilised. Speaking of which – discussion of developments in modelling apparently implies the overthrow of capitalism.

    • Robert:
      “Science progresses one funeral at a time according to Max Planck.”

      I am sure it was not said about us. Max Planck didn’t say that mentioning us.

      If we, for some unfortunate reason, will premature die, it would be a GREAT LOSS…


      • It was more about the preponderance of old white guys on CE. Like with your rotisserie planet warming repeated interminably – you take yourself far too seriously.

      • Well, by “for some unfortunate reason” I didn’t meant the Planet ROTATIONAL WARMING Phenomenon.

        It is scientifically proven Earth has a very stable ROTATIONAL SPIN.
        Also Earth orbits sun in a very safe, and in an almost cyclical trajectory.

        What worries me a little bit is the climate shifts you say “…this changes with shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. These shifts do not have a cause as such.”


      • “We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example.” https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

        It’s a consequence of turbulent global fluid flow in atmosphere and oceans.

      • It is my understanding that all of the energy delivered by the Sun to the Earth system is reradiated to space over time; balancing energy input with energy output to avoid boiling away the oceans or converting Earth to a permanent ice ball. While within the Earth’s complex energy systems, ocean currents and weather (primarily) balance heating with cooling to get an average net zero energy transfer at TOA.

        These vast ocean current and weather-related transfers of energy obliterate any possible measurement of the tiny theoretical increases in CO2 forcings; H2O doesn’t get enough energy from CO2 to measurably amplify any possible feedback. All recent studies by real physicists say that, just in more ‘sciency’ language.

      • In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’

        Earth is formally a thermodynamically nonequilibrium system. Energy in and energy out and the difference at any instant – by the first law of thermodynamics – is the change in planetary energy content. The Planck feedback is negative – a warmer planet emits exponentially more energy to space and vice versa.

        Small changes trigger transitions in the state of interacting subsystems.

        “Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.” National Academies of Science 2002

        A difficult idea but the dominant scientific paradigm nonetheless. If you are going to claim scientific support for some alternate thesis – it is customary to cite it.

      • When they can predict abrupt climate changes, let me know. Otherwise, humans just got ‘a keep on truckin’.

      • Sure – let’s behave rationally. Strengthen infrastructure for whatever nature throws at us, restore and conserve soils and ecosystems, innovate on energy and reduce pollution.

      • Robert, what the hell do you think humans have been doing if not “Strengthen infrastructure for whatever nature throws at us, restore and conserve soils and ecosystems, innovate on energy and reduce pollution.?” Rational planners and financiers ease their way into new situations and unvalidated technologies.

      • In my long experience planning engineer is another term for technical incompetence. Much of what I suggest is not complex science but requires a lot of social momentum. Some is technically complex and relies on solid foundations in 21st century materials and process science. And entrepreneurs to put it together in the marketplace despite the risk. The rewards are great and no society can afford to neglect innovation that bring productivity windfalls and wealth.

        You got some other irrelevant quibble?

      • Once again, Robert, you demonstrate your arrogance and disdain for people that have to go out and actually develop money-making technological advancements. I tell you I have been involved at the highest levels in developing cutting edge technological projects and convincing people and organizations to risk their money, successfully, I might add.

        You can take your “irrelevant quibble” and shove it up your ass, you loudmouth twit.

      • I have worked on cutting edge technology in multi-billion dollars projects. :)

      • Who was risking the money? Taxpayers?

      • Honestly David if I recall correctly you worked as a grid planner for a regulated regional electricity supply corporation. Correct me why don’t you? I was in private enterprise.

      • Read more, assume less, Robert. Electric systems planning for the Bonneville Power Administration was only one of my varied career endeavors, and a minor one at that. Did you sign multi-million dollar contracts? Did you sign peoples’ paychecks?

        I, too, worked in private enterprise, but that doesn’t make me an expert in everything. I owned and operated a private engineering and management consulting company.

        Reading about technological advancements is only a small part of getting anything done within real world constraints. You are a dilettante taking pot shots at people who have had to actually get things done and do know the ins and outs of their complexities and tradeoffs. You bomb Dr. Curry’s Threads with ‘studies’ that have nothing to do with any practicalities that people are wrestling with.

        There are no extant technologies that would allow economically replacing fossil fuels with unreliables. Telling people that there are is a lie. The technology and economics will evolve, but fossil fuels are a fact of life for the foreseeable future. Net zero within 10 to 30 years is a joke.

      • I have degrees in civil engineering and environmental science. But economics was a close choice and I fitted in as many credits as I could. I am a specialist in hydrology and biogeochemical cycling. I have decades of hydrodynamic modelling under my belt. I have on occasion built marinas, coastal defenses, carparks, small airports, hospitals and natural gas export hubs. So I have a working knowledge of contracts and contract law. Along with risk assessment – including financial – and environmental planning and management. I am an award winning designer of large scale integrated urban water systems. So I have been studying widely in relevant disciplines – building on my solid foundation – for decades. But I know all that I want to about David Fair.

        As I said originally – the future for Australian energy is opening up more natural gas fields and – inevitably – continued modest development of wind, solar, biomass, hydro – and ultimately advanced nuclear.

        You have such a narrow focus it’s absurd and then insist on ridiculous straw men.

  38. Bjorn Lomberg’s latest email. The solution is smart technology and not just in energy.

    “Fortunately, Biden is also suggesting another, much more effective solution, namely investment in green energy R&D. More than 20 other countries made a promise to increase research funding at the sidelines of the Paris Summit, but they largely failed to deliver. This part of Biden’s climate policy could help refocus the world on smarter climate spending.” https://mailchi.mp/lomborg/jbpl570n9d-623832?e=b51ec965d8

    • Curious George

      Is a research funding really the best solution? Your quote suggests some doubts.

  39. The Gaseous Planets’ ROTATIONAL SPIN values, and their Te vs Tsat TEMPERATURES comparison.

    Planet……….rot /day……Te……..Tsat (at 1 bar level)
    JUPITER…….2,417……102 K….165 K
    SATURN…….2,273……..81 K….134 K
    Uranus……….1,389……58,1 K…..76 K
    NEPTUNE….1,493……46,4 K…..72 K

    The Gaseous Giants JUPITER’S and SATURN’S and the Ice Giant NEPTUNE’S very FAST ROTATION clearly makes them WARMER PLANETS.

    ACCIDENTALY, it was not appeared to be the case for the Ice Giant URANUS at the time of Voyager 2’s flyby in 1986.


    • URANUS appeared, in relation to the solar irradiance, as a “NOT ROTATING” planet.

      Uranus’s south pole was pointed almost directly at the Sun at the time of Voyager 2’s flyby in 1986.
      Despite of the Ice Giant URANUS’S very FAST ROTATION, URANUS didn’t appear as a WARMER PLANET at the time of Voyager 2’s flyby in 1986.

      It happened so, because in 1986 the Ice Giant URANUS hadn’t any DIURNAL period at all. When its temperature was measured, URANUS was sunlit only on its Southern Hemisphere.

      Uranus’s southern hemisphere in approximate natural color (left) and in shorter wavelengths (right), showing its faint cloud bands and atmospheric “hood” as seen by Voyager 2

      Therefore at that time URANUS appeared, in relation to the solar irradiance, as a “NOT ROTATING” planet.


      • I couldn’t help but notice Uranus is the odd planet out in the solar system with an axial tilt of 98°.

        Perhaps there’s a connection with internal heating due to strong gravitational interaction on plane of rotation.

        From memory, all the other planets radiate more heat than they receive from the Sun. Uranus is the odd one out.

      • Here’s the article:

        “Voyager’s measurements show Neptune emits more than twice as much heat as it absorbs from the sun, while Uranus does not,” Anthony Del Genio of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) told All About Space. And this is where things become rather intriguing.

        That’s because Neptune is not unusual in this case. “Jupiter and Saturn also emit almost twice as much heat as they absorb, but Uranus does not,” Del Genio said. “Uranus is the oddball.” 


      • Alan,

        The Gaseous Giants JUPITER’S and SATURN’S and the Ice Giant NEPTUNE’S very FAST ROTATION clearly makes them WARMER PLANETS.

        ACCIDENTALY, it was not appeared to be the case for the Ice Giant URANUS at the time of Voyager 2’s flyby in 1986.


      • Axial tilt also comes relevant to C R Sant’s work on the ancient calendars of Malta. He gave a link which hinted at solar calendars worldwide having an anomalous tilt associated with the millennial climate cycle.

      • Alan,

        The Gaseous Planets’ ROTATIONAL SPIN values, and their Te vs Tsat TEMPERATURES comparison.

        Planet……….rot /day……Te……..Tsat (at 1 bar level)
        JUPITER…….2,417……102 K….165 K
        SATURN…….2,273……..81 K….134 K
        Uranus……….1,389……58,1 K…..76 K
        NEPTUNE….1,493……46,4 K…..72 K

        In this Table of data the PROTAGONIST is the Ice Giant Uranus.

        The measured at 1 bar level Tsat.uranus = 76 K.
        It is very close to the far more distant from the sun Neptune’s at 1 bar level temperature:
        Tsat.neptune = 72 K.

        But as we observe, in 1986 the Ice Giant URANUS hadn’t any DIURNAL period at all.
        At that time URANUS appeared, in relation to the solar irradiance, as a “NOT ROTATING” planet.
        This is a confirmation that PLANET ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON makes Gaseous Planets WARMER PLANETS.

        The measurements WERE being done NOT at the planet’s solid surface, but at 1 bar level.


  40. The Siegert et al 2020 about SLR made no reference to geothermal activity in Antarctica and Greenland. Nor apparently does IPCC6. Geothermal activity is a physical process well recognized in many studies. This is a list of some.

    Rogozhina 16, 18; Rysgaard 18; Moon 14; Petrunin 13; Van der Veen 07; Martos 18; Nienow 17; Oswald 18; Stevens 16; Smith Johnson 19; Lang 16; Mentjewerf 20; Pritchard 12, Fisher 15; Iverson 17; Lloyd 15; Begeman 17; Ash 14; Jordan 18; De Vries 17; Ballarota 16; Vaughn 13; Loose 18; Schroeder 14; Parker 15; Rezvanbehbahani 17 19.

    It could be said the effect is minor. That misses the point. If there is a well known physical process that could have an impact on SLR, why at a minimum isn’t the analysis provided so that the science is fully disclosed?

  41. John Kerry ups the ante on self parody……unintentionally.

    “Three years ago, we were told we have 12 years to avoid those consequences,” Kerry said. “Three of those years were lost because we had Donald Trump, who didn’t believe in any of it. And now we have nine years left to try to do what science is telling us we need to do.”

    As I recall, the doomsday scenario was made by a 15 year old. Nice to know public policy is driven by 15 year olds. They can’t drive a car but they can drive global hysteria.

    • Three years ago we were already 10 years past the end of the planet, according to the doomsayers.
      I had a good reminder of this recently. I watched the 1995 movie The American President on Netflix. One of the two main characters is the chief lobbyist for an environmental group focused on “global warming,” back when they called it that.
      There are several throwaway scenes where she is harassing this or that member or congress with some statistic or claim that is embarrassing now in hindsight. The funniest is the scene where she laughs at a Senator who worries about the auto industry- reminding them in that condescending tone liberals love that “within 10 years” any internal combustion vehicle will be an archaic museum piece. “I mean, it’s just science!” she says with a exasperated chuckle at this rube. You know, because all the smart people knew about peak oil and that the world was going to end fossil fuels. In 1995.

      I filled up my four-year-old American-made SUV with gasoline for $2.09/gallon the other day, in 2021. I’m not sure what date all the “smart people” now think that will be impossible. Maybe it’s still “10 years from now,” just like it was 25 years ago.

  42. Australian Professor Ian Plimer talks the reality of renewable energy and how the climate has always changed:


    • “By the 20th century, scientists had rejected old tales of world catastrophe, and were convinced that global climate could change only gradually over many tens of thousands of years. But in the 1950s, a few scientists found evidence that some changes in the past had taken only a few thousand years. During the 1960s and 1970s other data, supported by new theories and new attitudes about human influences, reduced the time a change might require to hundreds of years. Many doubted that such a rapid shift could have befallen the planet as a whole. The 1980s and 1990s brought proof (chiefly from studies of ancient ice) that the global climate could indeed shift radically within a century — perhaps even within a decade. And there seemed to be feedbacks that could make warming self-sustaining. Scientists could not rule out possible “tipping points” for an irreversible and catastrophic climate change if greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise.” American Institute of Physics – https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

      “A small forcing can cause a small [climate] change or a huge one.”
      — National Academy of Sciences, 2002.

      It is the nature of Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics of the Earth system that is the critical risk from anthropogenic climate forcing. Fixable in this decade of ecological restoration, the 4 per 1000 soil carbon sequestration imitative and such things as many different versions of advanced nuclear reactors being developed globally.

      But as the Sky News anchor says – you don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand that it is all BS.

  43. “Shaking up Climate Models”

    Sounds to me just like a grifter operation. Using AI for yet more attention to parameterizations-basically just adding new buzzwords to an old morass.
    Parameterizations have no theory of convergence. The finer the grid, the more irrelevant to reality.

    But what is a rub about this article is the fact that many of us were in the trenches in this business twenty years ago, with all the skills and experience to help bring climate models up to the 1990s technology (finite element, adaptive grids, C++, semi-implicit solvers, error analysis).
    But management treated us like lepers and everyone left.
    So now they turn to fantasy instead.
    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    • Curious George

      “The finer the grid, the more irrelevant to reality.”
      You’ve lost me.

      • There is no theory of convergence for parameterizations. Each parameterization is an ad hoc model designed for a specific grid size.

  44. Geoff Sherrington

    You cannot make the mental leap from the thought “A small forcing can cause a small change or a huge one” to implicating CO2 management and soil carbon enhancement. This is because nobody has been able to pin down climate sensitivity. Nobody has eliminated a zero value, not all are agreed on the direction of a causative link between CO2 in air and temperature changes, not a single climate model can boast firm understanding of clouds, etc.
    Many of your pro-CO2 forcing advertisements here are fundamentally flawed because the cornerstone of your preferred hypothesis is also fundamentally flawed because it has not been shown to be relevant.
    Maybe, to save face, you can give us reasons why climate sensitivity has failed quantification despite decades if expensive research. Maybe, if you choose to argue by analogy, you can list some other important hypotheses that exist in the absence of proof of the cornerstone science. Geoff S

    • “Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.

      Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

      The ‘leap’ to characterising the Earth system as a complex dynamical, coupled, spatio-temporal chaotic system was made long ago. Data as reported in the AIP and NAS links provided way above show it without much doubt.

      “Kolmogorov was one of the broadest of this century’s mathematicians. He laid the mathematical foundations of probability theory and the algorithmic theory of randomness and made crucial contributions to the foundations of statistical mechanics, stochastic processes, information theory, fluid mechanics, and nonlinear dynamics. All of these areas, and their interrelationships, underlie complex systems, as they are studied today.
      Kolmogorov graduated from Moscow State University in 1925 and then became a professor there in 1931. In 1939 he was elected to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, receiving the Lenin Prize in 1965 and the Order of Lenin on seven separate occasions.

      His work on reformulating probability started with a 1933 paper in which he built up probability theory in a rigorous way from fundamental axioms, similar to Euclid’s treatment of geometry. Kolmogorov went on to study the motion of the planets and turbulent fluid flows, later publishing two papers in 1941 on turbulence that even today are of fundamental importance.
      In 1954 he developed his work on dynamical systems in relation to planetary motion, thus demonstrating the vital role of probability theory in physics and re-opening the study of apparent randomness in deterministic systems, much along the lines originally conceived by Henri Poincare.” https://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/kolmogorov.html

      Andrey Kolmogorov’s work on turbulence shoed the same dynamic pattern of shifts on a small scale as Edward Hurst’s monumental analysis of nearly a 1000 years of Nile River water level records.

      “By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded. As a replacement, ‘self‐similar’ models appear very promising. They account particularly well for the remarkable empirical observations of Harold Edwin Hurst. The present paper introduces and summarizes a series of investigations on self‐similar operational hydrology.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/WR004i005p00909

      It is known as Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics and is so beyond your ideologically hidebound notions that you will never understand. Here’s a little ditty by polymath Lewis Richardson to help you remember.

      “Big whirls have little whirls,
      That feed on their velocity;
      And little whirls have lesser whirls,
      And so on to viscosity.”

  45. Matthew R Marler

    Geoff Sherrington: RIE,
    You cannot make the mental leap from the thought “A small forcing can cause a small change or a huge one” to implicating CO2 management and soil carbon enhancement.

    why not? He does it all the time. It’s up to the rest of us to “connect the dots”. (That’s what he told me.)

  46. The Gaseous Planets’ ROTATIONAL SPIN values, and their Te vs Tsat TEMPERATURES comparison.

    Planet……….rot /day……Te……..Tsat (at 1 bar level)
    JUPITER…….2,417……102 K….165 K
    SATURN…….2,273……..81 K….134 K
    Uranus……….1,389……58,1 K…..76 K
    NEPTUNE….1,493……46,4 K…..72 K

    Here is the article which ALAN LOWEY has provided, and I THANK YOU ALAN for this response.
    “I couldn’t help but notice Uranus is the odd planet out in the solar system with an axial tilt of 98°.

    Perhaps there’s a connection with internal heating due to strong gravitational interaction on plane of rotation.

    From memory, all the other planets radiate more heat than they receive from the Sun. Uranus is the odd one out.”

    Here’s the article:

    “Voyager’s measurements show Neptune emits more than twice as much heat as it absorbs from the sun, while Uranus does not,” Anthony Del Genio of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) told All About Space. And this is where things become rather intriguing.

    That’s because Neptune is not unusual in this case. “Jupiter and Saturn also emit almost twice as much heat as they absorb, but Uranus does not,” Del Genio said. “Uranus is the oddball.”


    It is the use of the old black body emission equation wrongly applied to the gaseous layer.

    SCIENTISTS made a major MISTAKE here. They assumed GASEOUS PLANET’S atmosphere at 1 bar level can be considered as a BLACK BODY SURFACE.

    When we put side by side a SOLID SURFACE and (at 1bar level) a GASEOUS LAYER at the same exactly TEMPERATURE, what EMISSION INTENSITIES (W /m²) should we have for every one of them?

    Of course, the emission from the SOLID SURFACE is very much STRONGER !

    Now it is obvious that GASEOUS planets DO NOT have a significant INTERNAL HEATING SOURCE phenomenon.


  47. Matthew R Marler

    scenarios vs historical CO2 emissions, from the abstract: Historical non-OECD trends were best captured by “rapid-growth” and “regional-competition” scenarios, while OECD trends were close to regional-sustainability and global-sustainability scenarios.

  48. Matthew R Marler

    irrigation and atmospheric aridity in India: The Indo-Gangetic Plain, which is one of the most intensively irrigated regions in the world, experienced significant (P-value = 0.03) cooling (~0.8 °C) and an increase in solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence during the crop growing season (November–February).

    • Increased surface water availability increases latent and decreases sensible heat flux – without an overall change in tropospheric heat content. With slow convection transport – it slows down losses of energy to space. Given the relative areas and that most water vapour comes from the vastly larger ocean surface… it seems only locally significant.

  49. The story line approach to severe weather attribution

    I love this!
    “Climate change causing more extreme weather” is such a good story that it doesn’t matter if it’s true or not.

  50. Every time Richard Dawkins ventures into politics or religion it makes it clearer that he should stick to genetics. Dawkins employs the exaggerated rhetoric flails of a teenager to paint himself as an angel of light in a black and white world:

    Donald Trump is in a class of his own. For him, lying is not a last resort. It never occurs to him to do anything else.

    Dawkins also likes to exploit the anachronistic oddity of 6-day creationists to make himself look like the Moses of logical objectivity leading the irrational children of Israel against their will to the promised land of scientific truth. But there are deep contradictions with the use of creationism for his self-justification. Ironically climate alarmists employ the arguments of very creationists that he loves to ridicule. They dismiss evidence of climates in the deep past that contradict the dogma of CO2 domination of climate by – like creationists – exploiting the practical difficulties of investigating the deep past to discard its evidence altogether, or else torture it to confess the required orthodoxy.

    Sorry Richard – outraged self righteousness and use of extreme examples to make your opponents look bad is not strategy to help resolve polarisation. You could start by recognising that professional science has become deeply politicised to the detriment of its fitness for purpose.

  51. Interesting new study

    “Icebergs broke loose from Antarctica and travelled north.
    As it got colder, they journeyed farther and farther north and carried large quantities of fresh water out to sea. This triggered global changes in ocean circulation, a new study published in the journal Nature reports.”


  52. A heads up on an unusual action at BOM Australia
    Climate Driver Update
    Climate drivers in the Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans and the Tropics
    2 February 2021
    The 2020–21 La Niña has likely passed its peak, with all of the international climate models surveyed by the Bureau anticipating NINO3.4
    will return to borderline or neutral values by mid-autumn.
    The graph shows 7, count them, Climate models.
    A change from the 19/1/2021 Climate Driver Update which featured 8 international climate models.
    Only NASA.
    Why? Surely not because NASA correctly predicted the moderate La Nina and had the temerity to predict
    that it would keep going for at least 4 months
    The opposite to BOM.
    The sea surface temperature anomaly was predicted to go to -2.4 C for February, 2.6 C for March and 2.4 for April.
    I am at a loss to fathom why they would drop the most highly respected data set, NASA after relying on it for years.
    Perhaps someone could use the wayback machine on it.
    I certainly feel they need to offer an explanation even if it is only a technical error.
    It does seem a rather crude attempt to not publish data that disagrees with theirs.

  53. Remarkable how the evidence of MWP in the Southern Hemisphere just keeps growing and growing and growing. Not that many years ago there was a paucity of evidence. My bookmarks are overflowing with studies referencing MWP and LIA.

    Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence as the old saying goes.


    • But no mechanism to explain the abrupt climate change?

      • This involves the double W process. The first W, was, appears to have been solved. The second W, why, is more intractable. Since we are always simultaneously going down a down escalator and going up a down escalator and going up an up escalator and going down an up escalator, I don’t expect the why to be solved any time soon.

      • As in many religions, the ‘Why’ is always a mystery, because the dogma either requires the mystery or impedes the solution of the mystery. Either way the dogma needs to be dumped before the reality of the matter might be perceived.

  54. ECS in the CESM2 climate model is too high, leading to a very chilly simulation of the last Ice Age

    Are they only now realising that applying the dogma of CO2 supremacy to palaeo climate data from deep time gives nonsensical results?

    So either you drop the dogma. Or like creationists, write off palaeo data.

  55. Is burning wood for power carbon neutral? Not a chance

    Is any renewable energy source carbon neutral? Not a chance.

    Nuclear comes closest. But it’s nuclear.

    • Well. over the last 2,000 years, we’ve gone from wood to charcoal to oil to natural gas. That’s actually quite a bit of decarbonization.

  56. It’s hard to justify the IPCC6 being silent on geothermal activity under the Ice Sheets when so many climate scientists recognize its importance to greater understanding of the dynamics and interrelationships within those systems.

    “Geothermal heat flow, often termed ‘heat flux’ in ice sheet modeling studies, is a necessary boundary condition in many ice sheet models.”
    Stal 2020

    “ Climate models of ice-sheet responses to global change remain incomplete without a parameterization of subglacial hydrodynamics and ice dynamics.”
    Bell 2008

    “ Finally, basal tempera- ture derived by modelling is limited by the poor knowl- edge of several parameters; the large uncertainty of the geothermal flux is the greatest limitation”
    Llubes 2005

    “ Model and observational studies have concluded that geothermal heating significantly alters the global overturning circulation and the properties of the widely distributed Antarctic Bottom Water.”
    Downes 2016

    “ Geothermal heat flux (GHF) is a crucial boundary condition for making accurate predictions of ice sheet mass loss, yet it is poorly known in Greenland due to inaccessibility of the bedrock.”
    Rezvanbehbahani 2017

    “ The geothermal heat flux is a critical thermal boundary condition that influences the melting, flow, and mass balance of ice sheets, but measurements of this parameter are difficult to make in ice-covered regions.”
    Fisher 2015

    “ The thermal state of polar continental crust plays a crucial role for understanding the stability and thickness of large ice sheets, the visco-elastic response of the solid Earth due to unloading when large ice caps melt and, in turn, the accuracy of future sea-level rise prediction.”
    Dziadek 2015

    “ The geology beneath an ice sheet exerts a direct control on the flow of the overlying ice (Anandakrishnan et al., 1998, Bell et al., 1998). This subglacial geology is of particular concern for Thwaites Glacier, because this basin is part of a broader rift basin with several subglacial volcanoes and associated geothermal anomalies that influence the regional thinning pattern”
    Scambos 2017

    “Model projections of ice flow in a changing climate are dependent on model inputs such as surface elevation, bedrock position or surface temperatures, among others.
    Of all these inputs, geothermal heat flux is the one for which uncertainty is greatest.”
    Larour 2012

    • There are still uncertainties and questions about the physical processes in Antarctica, including the Pine Island Glacier.

      “ A researcher from the University of Rhode Island’s Graduate School of Oceanography and five other scientists have discovered an active volcanic heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica.”
      “The volcanic heat sources were found beneath the fastest moving and the fastest melting glacier in Antarctica, the Pine Island Glacier,” Brice Loose, lead author, said. “It is losing mass the fastest.
      However, Loose cautions, this does not imply that volcanism is the major source of mass loss from Pine Island. On the contrary, “there are several decades of research documenting the heat from ocean currents is destabilizing Pine Island Glacier, which in turn appears to be related to a change in the climatological winds around Antarctica,” Loose said. Instead, this evidence of volcanism is a new factor to consider when monitoring the stability of the ice sheet.“
      “ Climate change is causing the bulk of glacial melt that we observe, and this newly discovered source of heat is having an as-yet undetermined effect, because we do not know how this heat is distributed beneath the ice sheet.”

      He said other studies have shown that melting caused by climate change is reducing the size and weight of the glacier, which reduces the pressure on the mantle, allowing greater heat from the volcanic source to escape and then warm the ocean water.”

      Warm the ocean water. The same ocean water that is affecting the glaciers and ice shelves of Antarctica.

    • More questions about Antarctica
      “Large parts of the Antarctic ice sheet lying on bedrock below sea level may be vulnerable to marine-ice-sheet instability (MISI)1, a self-sustaining retreat of the grounding line triggered by oceanic or atmospheric changes. There is growing evidence that MISI may be underway throughout the Amundsen Sea embayment (ASE), which contains ice equivalent to more than a metre of global sea-level rise.”
      “ The dependence of sliding on basal friction is a key unknown: nonlinear relationships favour higher contributions. Results are conditional on assessments of MISI risk on the basis of projected triggers under the climate scenario A1B, although sensitivity to these is limited by theoretical and topographical constraints on the rate and extent of ice loss. We find that contributions are restricted by a combination of these constraints, calibration with success in simulating observed ASE losses, and low assessed risk in some basins. Our assessment suggests that upper-bound estimates from low-resolution models and physical arguments (up to a metre by 2100 and around one and a half by 2200) are implausible under current understanding of physical mechanisms and potential triggers.”

      Implausible. A word seldom used by the media.


    • “Understanding the mechanisms governing temporal variability of ice stream flow remains one of the major barriers to developing accurate models of ice sheet dynamics and ice‒climate interactions. Here we analyze a simple model of ice stream hydrology coupled to ice flow dynamics and including drainage and basal cooling processes. Analytic and numerical results from this model indicate that there are two major modes of ice stream behavior: steady‒streaming and binge‒purge variability. The steady‒streaming mode arises from friction‒stabilized subglacial meltwater production, which may also activate and interact with subglacial drainage. The binge‒purge mode arises from a sufficiently cold environment sustaining successive cycles of thinning‒induced basal cooling and stagnation. Low prescribed temperature at the ice surface and weak geothermal heating typically lead to binge‒purge behavior, while warm ice surface temperature and strong geothermal heating will tend to produce steady‒streaming behavior.”

      “The variability of ice stream flow on time scales of tens to thousands of years plays an important role in determining ice sheet mass balance. Observations indicate that the stagnation of Kamb Ice Stream 150 years ago may be the primary cause for the currently positive mass balance in West Antarctica. Further geological evidence has suggested that other Siple Coast ice streams have exhibited considerable variability in the last 1000 years“

      Considerable variability in the last 1000 years. Is there any reason to believe this is unique to this ice stream in Antarctica?


    • More on long term variability in Antarctica
      “Our new reconstructions confirm a significant cooling trend from 0 to 1900 CE across all Antarctic regions where records extend back into the 1st millennium
      with the exception of the Wilkes Land coast and Weddell Sea coast regions. Within this long-term cooling trend from 0-1900 CE we find that the warmest period occurs between 300 and 1000 CE, and the coldest interval from 1200 to 1900 CE. Since 1900 CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions, and these trends are robust across the distribution of records that contribute to the unweighted
      5 isotopic composites and also significant in the weighted temperature reconstructions. Only for the Antarctic Peninsula is this most recent century-scale trend unusual in the context of natural variability over the last 2000-years.”


    • Debate about Larsen C Ice Shelf

      “Some have contended there’s little proof that the break, which will reduce the size of the Larsen C more than scientists have observed previously, reflects the advance of climate change. Ice shelves do, after all, break off sometimes.
      “We do not need to press the panic button for Larsen C. Large calving events such as this are normal processes of a healthy ice sheet, ones that have occurred for decades, centuries, millennia — on cycles that are much longer than a human or satellite lifetime,” Helen Amana Fricker, an Antarctic scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, wrote recently.
      But others disagree.
      “Of course this is due to climate warming in the peninsula,” Eric Rignot, a NASA and University of California Irvine expert on Antarctica, said in an email.”

      “Normal processes …..that have occurred for….millennia…..”

      It’s refreshing that the science is not settled everywhere and that someone recognizes that not everything is unprecedented.


    • More long term natural variability affecting Antarctica.

      “The Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is the primary pattern of climate variability in the Southern Hemisphere1,2, influencing latitudinal rainfall distribution and temperatures from the subtropics to Antarctica. The positive summer trend in the SAM over recent decades is widely attributed to stratospheric ozone depletion2; however, the brevity of observational records from Antarctica1—one of the core zones that defines SAM variability—limits our understanding of long-term SAM behaviour. Here we reconstruct annual mean changes in the SAM since AD 1000 using, for the first time, proxy records that encompass the full mid-latitude to polar domain across the Drake Passage sector. We find that the SAM has undergone a progressive shift towards its positive phase since the fifteenth century, causing cooling of the main Antarctic continent at the same time that the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed. The positive trend in the SAM since ∼AD 1940 is reproduced by multimodel climate simulations forced with rising greenhouse gas levels and later ozone depletion, and the long-term average SAM index is now at its highest level for at least the past 1,000 years”

      Positive phase since 15th Century

      Long term average SAM at its highest level for at least past 1,000 years.

      So much for breathless, hysterical articles about any Decadal trends.


    • “ Study shows Thwaites Glacier’s ice loss may not progress as quickly as thought”

      “The melt rate of West Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier is an important concern, because this glacier alone is currently responsible for about 1 percent of global sea level rise. A new NASA study finds that Thwaites’ ice loss will continue, but not quite as rapidly as previous studies have estimated.“

      “The new study is led by Helene Seroussi, a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. It is the first to combine two computer models, one of the Antarctic ice sheet and one of the Southern Ocean, in such a way that the models interact and evolve together throughout an experiment—creating what scientists call a coupled model.“

      “Seroussi noted that critical factors affecting Thwaites, such as how nearby ocean temperatures will change, are still unknown and represented by different scenarios in different studies. However, “Our results shift the estimates for sea level rise to smaller numbers regardless of the scenario,” she said.“

      Something you won’t read in your garden variety propaganda MSM article.


    • “Antarctic sea ice has been increasing in recent decades, but with strong regional differences in the expression of sea ice change. Declining sea ice in the Bellingshausen Sea since 1979 (the satellite era) has been linked to the observed warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, while the Ross Sea sector has seen a marked increase in sea ice during this period. Here we present a 308 year record of methansulphonic acid from coastal West Antarctica, representing sea ice conditions in the Amundsen‐Ross Sea. We demonstrate that the recent increase in sea ice in this region is part of a longer trend, with an estimated ~1° northward expansion in winter sea ice extent (SIE) during the twentieth century and a total expansion of ~1.3° since 1702. The greatest reconstructed SIE occurred during the mid‐1990s, with five of the past 30 years considered exceptional in the context of the past three centuries.“

      Total expansion of ~1.3 degrees since 1720.


    • RSS and UAH satellite data show no warming of Antarctica for 37 years


  57. https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters.png

    Mark Carney, the Canadian climate activist who was formerly governor of the Bank of England and an anti-Brexit campaigner, has claimed that climate deaths ‘will be worse than Covid.’

  58. Low pressure bringing Heavy rainfall seems to get stuck over these very small areas and keep on circulating and renewing themselves over the high ground. Flooding is worse if trees block the watercourse or bridges restrict flow or if the tide blocks one end as was the problem with Boscastle