Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks

At the global scale, a decrease in flood probabilities [link]

How much Arctic fresh water participates in the overturning circulation? [link]

Simulated stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation during the Last Glacial Maximum [link]

Moist heat stress on a hotter earth [link]

Insatiable demand for cannabis has created a giant carbon footprint [link]

Old growth forests as global carbon sinks [link]

Historic Yangtze River flooding in 2020 to extreme Indian Ocean conditions [link]

No support for the link between conflict and climate change [link]

Diverging future surface mass balance between the Antarctic ice shelves and grounded ice sheets [link]

The RAPID observations do not currently exhibit a statistically significant trend in AMOC. [link]

In the Atlantic Ocean, subtle shifts hint at dramatic dangers [link]

CMIP6: Summary of 38 climate model projections of five main scenarios  from ScenarioMIP [link]

‘Comparing tree-ring based reconstructions of snowpack variability at different scales for the Navajo Nation’ [link]

Are long-term changes in mixed layer depth influencing North Pacific marine heatwaves? [link]

Japan typhoon landfalls back to 1884 [link]

Improving access to paleoclimate data [link]

Special Issue: Extreme rainfalls and flash flood risk [link]

1/4 to 1/3 of observed warming trends in China from 1980 to 2015 are attributed to land use changes [link]

Sensitivity of UK weather to tides [link]

NASA’s global vegetation Index is up 10% in the past 20 years [link]

new 500-year reconstruction of Flash Drought in the Central Plains of the US: doi.org/10.1029/2020GL.

A 30 yr reconstruction of the AMOC shows no decline [link]

Stefan Rahmstorf on unprecedented decline in AMOC [link]

The threat of high probability ocean tipping points [link]

How can we use all the evidence we have of past extremes to understand ongoing vulnerabilities & prepare for coming climate futures? How inventories of climate change impacts could look like & be used sciencedirect.com/science/articl

Climate Sensitivity Increases Under Higher CO2 Levels Due to Feedback Temperature Dependence [link]

Intense prolonged convection for 59 days in the Indian Ocean resulted in the extreme 2020 East Asian summer monsoon rainfall [link]

A global environmental crisis 42,000 years ago [link]

Projecting global mean sea level change using CMIP6 models [link]

Changes is in sea level around Britain for the last 200 years [link]

500 years of European floods [link]

Increasing soil organic carbon reduces crop sensitivity to climate variability in the US.  sciencedirect.com/science/articl

Urbanization Effects on Estimates of Global Trends in Mean and Extreme Air Temperature [link]

U.S. Pacific Coastal Droughts Are Predominantly Driven by Internal Atmospheric Variability [link]

Is Turning Down the Sun a Good Proxy for Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering? The answer is… No, it isn’t. [link]

8.7 million premature deaths from fossil-fuel PM2.5 pollution, per year, 350,000 in the US alone [link]

Why is the Arctic heating up much faster than anywhere else? independent.co.uk/independentpre New research suggests the role of aerosols on cloud formation could be a major force resulting in polar amplification

A simple emulation of the model projections to other scenarios suggests that from Getz to Thwaites, ice-shelf collapse is unlikely to be triggered by hydrofracturing before the 22nd century under RCP8.5. Such collapse is unlikely for all ice shelves before 2100 under RCP2.6 [link]

Should #climatemodels guide climate risk analysis in business & finance? Spoiler alert – in many cases they are being used beyond their means nature.com/articles/s4155

Global warming may have started before the industrial revolution [link]

Ice dynamics will remain the primary driver of Greenland ice loss over the next century [link]

Deep heat: proxies, Miocene ice, and an end in sight for paleoclimate paradoxes? [link]

The Arctic Ocean might have been filled with freshwater during ice ages nature.com/articles/d4158

Our climate models could be missing something big [link]

A Remarkable Decline in Landfalling Hurricanes [link]

The earthquake that will devastate the Pacific Northwest. How should a society respond to a looming crisis of uncertain timing but of catastrophic proportions? [link]

Quantifying uncertainties in the remaining carbon budget [link]

Uncertainty in projections of Arctic sea ice using an unprecedented suite of large ensembles. [link]

Building confidence in climate model projections: [link]

Hydroclimate variability of the Mississippi River Basin during the Common Era.  Shows pronounced warming and drought during Medieval period [link]

Technology and policy

Richard Tol:  The economic impact of weather and climate [link]

Farming our way out of the climate crisis [link]

ERCOT, PUC can’t just shrug off $16 billion in overcharges during the Texas blackout [link]

Rep. Dan Crenshaw:  A nuclear frontier [link]

Pandemic chaos strikes global shipping [link]

US climate targets ‘unreachable’ without high-voltage transmission lines [link]

Why ‘rebound effects’ may cut energy savings in half [link]

Michael Liebrich: Climate and finance – lessons from a time machine [link]

The evidence shows that a higher-emissions Africa will be more resilient to the impacts of climate change. [link]

Lomborg:  Welfare in the 21st century: increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies [link]

A geomagnetic storm: the insurance industry dependence on electricity [link]

Food loss *in supply chains* (not consumer waste) is responsible for 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions –double the emissions from aviation.  fao.org/3/ca6030en/ca6

Beef Rules: Beef is confusing. Is it always bad for the environment? Can it sometimes be good? What’s the most environmentally responsible choice as a consumer? [link]

Environmental upside of modern farming [link]

Many internationally funded #ClimateAdaptation projects “reinforce, redistribute or create new vulnerability” in developing countries, [link]

Every year, 4.5 million U.S. homeowners are at risk of $18.8 billion in flood damage bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-

Building urbanization into climate policy [link]

California and clean energy [link]

Lifting EU restrictions on GE crops could cut total emissions from ag sector by 7.5%. [link]

On anti-nuclear bullshit [link]

Climate change as a financial risk [link]

The grand plan to save forests has failed [link]

Southeast Florida’s flood protection system is close to collapse [link]

“Simplicity lacks robustness when projecting heat-health outcomes in a changing climate” [link]

We use targeted large ensemble climate model experiments to evaluate the effect of internal variability (robustness) on the atmospheric response (especially the jet stream) to #Arctic sea ice decline at 2°C. [link]

Agricultural impacts to climate, with a new take on the relative role of agriculture policy vs fossil fuel CO2 emissions in climate policy. [link]

2020 disasters in review [link]

Major new report by Dutch/Czech governments finds: – Solar/wind require 148x – 536x more land than nuclear – Solar/wind cost 4x more than nuclear – 100% electricity from solar/wind would require area 1.8x larger than all of Netherlands roadtoclimateneutrality.eu
Fossil CO₂ emissions are likely to remain flat through 2100 leading to ~2.8°C warming if countries continue historical CO₂/GDP trends. If countries meet emission pledges & continue reductions, then ~2.3°C. Not RCP8.5, nor RCP1.9 or RCP2.6… nature.com/articles/s4324

About science and scientists

Ted Nordhaus:  The folly of Mann. Subtitle: You can’t defend truth with lies  [link]

The evolutionary advantages of playing victim [link]

AAAS publishes warning to scientists not to make apocalyptic prediction as 61% of them have already been proven wrong. “Crying ‘wolf’ in a crowded theatre” is eventually rejected as extremist if no wolf shows up. [link]

Oreskes: Scientists need to be kinder to one another [link]

Objectivity as trained judgment [link]

The cop out of ‘follow the science’ [link]

The Role of Experts in the Covid-19 Pandemic and the Limits of Their Epistemic Authority in Democracy [link]

Is academic freedom in crisis?  Yes. [link]

There is no such thing as ‘white’ math [link]

Unbalanced: “We took another look at this topic and found little evidence of an overwhelming tendency toward false balance in climate change news coverage and that what little existed has virtually vanished. ”  thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-13-

How norms, needs and power in science obstruct transformations towards sustainability [link]

Thinking critically about critical thinking [link]

Here’s an article from Scientific American,  saying “quantum supremacy” has “inescapable racist overtones,” because our institutions are now platforms for deeply unserious woke hall monitors. [link]

Why ‘trusting science’ is complicated [link]

Alongside all the successes of science in the Covid era, the pandemic has also sparked an outbreak of viral misinformation and sloppy research, revealing the glaring flaws in our scientific system. [link]

Radical empiricism and machine learning [link]

An academic’s guide to surviving a witch hunt [link]

DOJ’s China Initiative & prosecution of ethnically-Chinese scientists: It’s about technology, national allegiance, & capitalism; what narratives of great power competition obscure & who owns knowledge in a fractured world. [link]


164 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Wind Turbines On Washington’s Horse Heaven Hills – How Not To Pursue A Green New Deal

    “A company out of Boulder, Colorado named Scout Clean Energy has applied for a permit to build a massive turbine wind farm in Washington State on the Horse Heaven Hills, extending from the town of Benton City, through the Tri-Cities, to the town of Finley (see figure above). The wind farm will have upwards of 250 turbines that are 500 feet tall and cover about 6,500 acres (over 10 square miles).

    But the Pacific Northwest is a lousy place to build wind turbines for two very good reasons. The power will not displace any fossil fuels but will only displace hydro, another renewable. And wind in this region just doesn’t produce much energy, only 30% of its total capacity.”

  2. Great news: no one has died or suffered as a result of the radiation releases from the Fukushima nuclear accident.

    Tenth anniversary of Fukushima accident
    The strongest earthquake ever recorded in Japan ten years ago caused a tsunami which resulted in the meltdown of three operating reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant and the release of much airborne radioactive material. While the reactors shut down automatically from the earthquake, the tsunami about an hour later disabled their cooling which was required to remove decay heat from the fuel. Following hydrogen explosions, failure of containment resulted in radioactive material – mainly iodine and caesium – being released and carried downwind. The iodine rapidly decayed to innocuous levels, while some contamination from caesium remains.

    Some 20,000 people were killed by the tsunami, but there were no deaths or serious ill effects from the radioactivity. However, the precautionary evacuation of many people up to 20 km downwind was prolonged indefinitely by the government (instead of for a couple of weeks) and resulted in over two thousand deaths, according to official figures. The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has published an updated report of the accident, confirming its 2013 view that “future health effects directly related to radiation exposure are unlikely to be discernible.”

    The March edition of the IAEA Bulletin covers safety issues focused on Fukushima lessons.
    WNN 9/31/20. Fukushima accident, Effects of nuclear accidents”

    An advance copy of the full UNSCEAR report is here: https://www.unscear.org/docs/publications/2020/UNSCEAR_2020_AnnexB_AdvanceCopy.pdf
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. >i>Sources, effects and risks of ionizing radiation: UNSCEAR 2020 report Appendix B; Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: implications of information published since the UNSCEAR 2013 Report; UNSCEAR: 2020; p 248.

  3. Curious George

    Carl Bergstrom: Understanding science [link] – the link is missing. I assume that it is to a ctbergrstrom.com.

    “If bees did science, I suspect it would look altogether different.”
    Would that apply to mathematics as well?

  4. A terrific list of articles.

  5. New Yorker …

    The Activists Who Embrace Nuclear Power
    To be fervently pro-nuclear, in the manner of Hoff and Zaitz, is to see in the peaceful splitting of the atom something almost miraculous. It is to see an energy source that has been steadily providing low-carbon electricity for decades—doing vastly more good than harm, saving vastly more lives than it has taken—but which has received little credit and instead been maligned. It is to believe that the most significant problem with nuclear power, by far, is public perception.

  6. So PM 2.5 is killing 350000 folks in the US each year. That’s 4 times as many as diabetes and would be third cause of death after heart disease and cancer if it was reported in the death statistics but it didn’t make the list. In fact it is not on any of the lists for causes of death. I doubt that one death has been contributed to PM2.5 by a physician signing a death certificate. Where do these people get their numbers?

    • Too high by a factor of 10 to 20, or more. It’s actually, 15,000 to 35,000.

    • Over here in the UK the figures are normally cited as x number of people died prematurely from pm2.5 etc.

      I do’nt want to downgrade pollution but the vast majority of people have their lives shortened by a few minutes or hours or days which is negligible compared to the benefits they receive as a result of fossil fuel transport.

      There are a significant number of people however whose lives are significantly impacted by pollution which us not only exhaust fumes but also the residue from brakes and tyres.
      I guess those latter two will continue even if the vehicle is eletric.

    • joe - the non climate scientist

      Respiratory related deaths in the US were 160,201 in 2017 per the CDC.

      Reducing 2.5pm is going to raise 190,0000+ a year from the dead?

    • thecliffclavenoffinance

      Wild guesses with computer models likely to be hugely overstated.

  7. Thank you Dr. Judith. I did a quick scan and a few sentences of the comprehensive list stood out for me:

    Climate change: global warming may have started before industrial revolution, Chinese study says.

    Investigation of coral reefs in the Paracel Islands suggest the South China Sea began warming up in 1825, researchers say.
    Uranium dating shows samples have a continuous climate record going back to 1520.

    On a broader issue, I imagine that it will be Chinese scientists that break the manmade global warming dogma. It has serious implications for which system is the best – is it east or west?

    The more historically authoritarian system appears to be winning.

    • This song is apparently a good way to start to learn Mandarin. / I’m Sweet On You /

    • Alan

      Looking at CET we can see the low point in the record (starting 1650) around 1720 and the continual rise to the present day with the notable hump around 1730-the warmest decade in the CET record until the 1990’s.

      There is an uninterrupted rise from around 1810 to the modern day. Temperatures since 2000 have been static


      • tonyb – why do you suggest longterm *air* temperature measurements of a single location are more reliable than sea temperature proxies?

        From simple experience in the UK over the last number of weeks, the air temperature can quickly change by values exceeding 10°C.

        Air can be blown from the stratospheric polar vortex or from the hot African continent. Ocean currents on the other hand are much more stable and give a much better indication of climate change on the centennial scale.

        The data from the CET is essentially worthless in refuting the Chinese study claim that the mid-low latitude warming started before the Industrial Revolution.

      • Alan

        Amongst the many luminaries who cite CET as being representative of a much wider area are the UK Met Office and the Dutch met office and the University of East Anglia.

        .CET is taken from 3 locations in the centre of the country and our temperatures show a clear parallel with temperatures from at least the Northern Hemisphere, presumably because as an island we pick up prevailing winds and weather systems.

        If you would like to look at the dates I cited with an uninterrupted rise from 1810 which is extremely close to the Chinese study, especially as presumably air temperatures would need to warm up before oceanic temperatures followed. I am not sure what your point of disagreement is. The rises happened BEFORE the Industrial revolution.

        BTW as far as proxies go i prefer real world temperature readings or reports, than reconstructed novel proxies whether tree rings or coral etc.


      • “I am not sure what your point of disagreement is.“

        I wasn’t sure either. Seems like there was agreement.

      • > CET is taken from 3 locations in the centre of the country

        More precisely, CET is a small triangle between Lancashire, London and Bristol. According to online calculators, the distance between Bristol and London is 172 km, and the respective distance between these two points and Lancashire is roughly 300 km.

        Not sure how a 24K surface is meant to represent a 500 million km^2 planet, or even half of it. Perhaps Denizens don’t know either. That may explain the mealy mouthed “representative of a much wider area.”

      • tonyb – okay, my apologies. I thought you were skeptical of the coral reef interpretation from the Paracel Islands.

      • Tony’s characterisation of CET is entirely inaccurate too.

        There’s no trend whatever in CET until about 1900, then it does a hockey stick.

        During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a cool period which coincided with cool winters and generally cool summers, the temperatures fluctuated widely but with little trend. From 1910, temperatures increased until about 1950, when they flattened before a sharp rising trend began in about 1975.


      • “Tony’s characterisation of CET is entirely inaccurate too.” – vtg

        No, you could just as easily say Wikipedia’s interpretation is inaccurate. The data is too inconclusive to put a start date on a persistent warming trend, especially whether it was *before* or *after* the beginning of the ‘industrial revolution’.

        That’s why the date of 1825 for ocean warming given by modern dating techniques is the most relevant.

      • “Wikipedia’s interpretation is inaccurate.”

        The data.

        Try all you like to convince anyone that there’s from 1720 a “continual rise to the present day” as Tony claims.

        And as for “uninterrupted rise from around 1810 to the modern day.” – the record net *falls* for the *century* following 1810!

        It’s an interpretation entirely at odds with the data. Tony repeats it ad nauseum, but that doesn’t make it so.

      • Willard

        Please check out section 4, 5 and 6 which details chapter and verse how CET is constructed.


        If you disagree that it is representative of a much wider area please address yourself to either Mike Hulme at the University of Cambridge, The University of East Anglia, Tim Legge at the Met Office in Exeter or the Dutch Met Office and various other sources I cite.

        I visited the met office several years ago and met with David Parker who compiled the 1772 version. Hubert Lamb explained the parameters well in a variety of his books.

        It is not representative year on year, but decade on decade it is, as would be a variety of other expanded areas in roughly the right location . I think Hansen said years ago that one single thermometer could be usefully used for this purpose. I am not claiming pin point accuracy but the general long term trends are a reasonable indication.


      • Tony,

        You are still trying to weasel your way out of your preposterous interpretation with your “much wider,” and none of your sources go beyond similarity or correlation claims.

        I’ll let the Auditor himself characterize Hubert’s recon:

        OF course, it’s a “cartoon” – no one said otherwise.


      • Huberts recon?. I was talking about the area covered. I cite Lambs work covering the MWP/LIA period and agree it is a generalisation.

        However that the CET is pretty good (but not perfect) for indicating trends in the 1659 and 1772 record, over a wider area is surely the issue at hand? Are you disputing the sources I quote who believe it to be a useful indicator?


      • “There’s no trend whatever in CET until about 1900, then it does a hockey stick.” – vtg

        You take first place for BS and hand-waving in one go.

        “From 1910, temperatures increased until about 1950..” – wikipedia

        The author is writing to fit an agenda, not an accurate interpretation of the data.

      • Alan

        You say

        “tonyb – okay, my apologies. I thought you were skeptical of the coral reef interpretation from the Paracel Islands”

        the report was headed

        “Climate change: global warming may have started before industrial revolution, Chinese study says”

        So are coral reef proxies from a tiny part of the world thought to be a good indicator for the start of global warming but CET isn’t?.

        Perhaps Willard and VTG would tell us whether they agree or disagree with the Chinese study that Global warming started before the Industrial Revolution, as they seem to be focusing on CET and ignoring the paper Judith cites.

        Mind you we do have 2 nice hockey sticks from 1700 and 1900 both predating the supposed relationship to enhanced co2 from 1950..


      • “So are coral reef proxies from a tiny part of the world thought to be a good indicator for the start of global warming but CET isn’t?” – tonyb

        As I said previously, I have a lot more faith in accurate sea temperature changes than air temperature changes. It’s common sense.

        Yes, further studies from around the globe would be needed to validate the start date of circa 1825 for northern hemisphere ocean warming over the last 200 years.

        The conclusion would be that natural variability is the cause and not manmade CO2 emissions.

      • Very Tall,

        Perhaps Tony could tell us if he read the Chinese study, or even the newsie that Judy reported.

        After all, both are behind paywalls.

      • > I cite Lambs work covering the MWP/LIA period and agree it is a generalisation.

        According to the Auditor, Ed Wegman who parroted him, and just about anyone else, the Lamb graph is not a “generalisation” but a cartoon.

        Representativeness has a statistical meaning. There’s a reason why your authorities don’t mention it. There may be also a reason why you don’t mention who’s the author of the figure 7 in your Long Thaw post.

      • Willard

        Yes I have read the Chinese study. Here it is.


        It has been around on sceptical blogs for a month and that link leads to other articles.

        I don’t know the truth of it myself other than it is interesting and matches reports we have of warming from the first few decades of the 1800’s.

        Mind you perhaps there are politics involved as China will not want to be reined back in at the forthcoming climate conference


      • Tony,

        Perhaps your “you perhaps there are politics involved as China will not want to be reined back in” is a whiff speculative.

        Perhaps you should not use Alan if you want to speak to me.

      • Willard said

        “Perhaps Tony could tell us if he read the Chinese study, or even the newsie that Judy reported.

        After all, both are behind paywalls.”

        I said yes and kindly gave you a link

        You then inexplicably said

        “Perhaps your “you perhaps there are politics involved as China will not want to be reined back in” is a whiff speculative.

        Perhaps you should not use Alan if you want to speak to me.”

        What? I WAS clearly talking to you by now because you asked me if I had read the study.

        Now you have had a Chance to read it perhaps you would care to comment on it? China is building numerous coal power stations and my speculation would be that their free pass until 2030 might be something the West might query as China now produces such a huge percentage of mans emissions. They might like an excuse that the science is still unclear as global warming appears to predate the upsurge in CO2.

        Or perhaps of course it is just a straightforward scientific study with no political overtones.


      • > I WAS clearly talking to you by now because you asked me if I had read the study.

        Here’s what you said to a comment that starts with “Alan You say

        Perhaps Willard and VTG would tell us whether they agree or disagree with the Chinese study

        That is why I mimicked that sentence.

        So it’s clear that (a) you’re not addressing me, and (b) you’re burdening me with commitments I don’t have.

        Please own your tricks.

        And I’m not here to provide you or any other Denizen room service. Unless y’all start to pay me.


        The LIA presumably ended ca 1850. If the Chinese study is true and representative of a global warming that started ca 1825, then so much the worse for the LIA ending ca 1850. More importantly for your own contention, so much the worse with your steady increase since a few centuries before 1825.

        The main problem with the GWPF’s claim is that the Industrial Revolution started ca 1760. There are of course undertainties regarding when it started exactly, but being off by a century looks quite off-putting.

        Funny how everyone insists in calling it “Chinese,” but so be it.

      • Richard Greene

        For the purpose of estimating the global average temperature, I believe the CET provides some evidence of a cold climate in the last 30 years of the 1600s during the Maunder Minimum. There has been an intermittent warming trend since then.

        I don’t think we can’t have confidence that CET correlates well with the global average temperature, especially the sea surface temperature.

        The biggest problem with climate science is no one wants to say “we don’t know” … from the many wild guesses of the future climate … to assuming we have good global temperature data for the 1800s … to assuming CET represents the whole planet.

        — I know the planet is warmer than 20,000 years ago, when Canada was covered with a glacier.

        — I know most people enjoyed the global warming since the 1970s, so I have no logical reason to fear another 40 or 50 years of global warming.

        — I know C3 plants grow better with more CO2
        in the atmosphere.

        Which brings me to the one criticism I had about the list of articles with links here:
        Too many of the science articles are about computer models, and predictions of the future. … I have been listening to wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis for 50 years, including climate model predictions of a coming crisis for about 30 years … as the actual climate gets better and better.

        So it’s hard for me, and hopefully everyone else here, to take climate computer games seriously. The computers predict whatever their owners want to be predicted — they do not produce data — they convert personal opinions into complex math. Are consistently wrong predictions real science?

      • > I know most people enjoyed the global warming since the 1970s, so I have no logical reason to fear another 40 or 50 years of global warming.

        More so that you’ll probably be dead in 40 or 50 years, Richard, unless you’re a lot younger than the average Denizen.

        There are many reasons to take heed of future warming besides fear and logic, if only because fear and logic don’t mix well. For starters, risk and evidence.

    • Very Tall guy


      Here s the Met office version which is calculated roughly as a 10 year running mean .


      this is before the adjustments are made for enhanced UHI which according to the Met office-after a 2 year project- should be incorporated into the figures this year.

      We are clearly in a long term warming trend. What your wikipedia chart doesn’t show very well is that temperatures have gone almost nowhere this century.

      Personally I think we are in a long term warming phase and expect temperatures to continue to rise gently-current extrapolation since 2000 is 0.56C per century. Autumn temperatures are however falling sharply.

      Hockey stick from 1900? Before CO2 was supposed to have any effect? Mind you it is similar to the 1700 Hockey stick


      • Tony.

        The figures speak for themselves.

        You claim a steady rise from 1720; the trend was down for *two centuries* from 1720. Your claim is obviously false.

        I’m not making any point about the cause, but the data itself.

        I’ve no idea why you continue to hold these ideas, but they are false.

      • > Here s the Met office version which is calculated roughly as a 10 year running mean

        Show the graph, Tony:

        Where’s the trend?

      • I am delighted that we seem to be in agreement that there are 2 hockey sticks-one from around 1700 and the other from around 1895. Both predate enhanced C02. Why? Natural Variability? After all, after studying CET for the period 1730 to 1740 Phil Jones admitted natural variability was much greater than he had hitherto realised.

        We can argue ad infinitum about the nuances of the changes in between those 2 dates but we do seem to have made progress on the hockey sticks.

        Whether they are applicable to a wider area is something that others more learned than me appear to believe


      • Tony.

        You claimed, and I quote:

        From 1720 a “continual rise to the present day”

        There is a two century long downward trend from 1720.

        Your claim is false.

        Secondly “There is an uninterrupted rise from around 1810 to the modern day.”

        There is a century long downward trend from 1810.

        Your claim is false.

      • > I am delighted that we seem to be in agreement that there are 2 hockey sticks-one from around 1700 and the other from around 1895

        Tony, meet Tony:


  8. Warming is at least is likely to prevent tipping points as cause them.

  9. Climate Sensitivity Increases Under Higher CO2 Levels Due to Feedback Temperature Dependence
    Wow. I have seen many ill-founded claims that AGW is in contravention of the 2nd LOT, but these authors seem to have unwittingly proved that climate models, at least, do indeed contravene basic thermodynamics.

    They write (my bold)…
    “Equilibrium climate sensitivity‐the equilibrium warming per CO2 doubling‐increases with CO2 concentration for 13 of 14 coupled general circulation models for 0.5–8 times the preindustrial concentration. In particular, the abrupt 4 × CO2 equilibrium warming is more than twice the 2 × CO2 warming. We identify three potential causes: nonlogarithmic forcing, feedback CO2 dependence, and feedback temperature dependence. Feedback temperature dependence explains at least half of the sensitivity increase, while feedback CO2 dependence explains a smaller share, and nonlogarithmic forcing decreases sensitivity in as many models as it increases it. Feedback temperature dependence is positive for 10 out of 14 models, primarily due to the longwave clear‐sky feedback, while cloud feedbacks drive particularly large sensitivity increases…
    In most models, the warmer the climate becomes, the more it has to warm in order to balance a further CO2 doubling because warming becomes less effective at rebalancing the flow of energy.

    Yes, they really are suggesting that a hot body emits a lower heat flux than a cooler version of the same body, but don’t seem to understand the implications of what they found.

    • Corrigendum: Last sentence should read: “Yes, they really are suggesting that a hot body emits a lower incremental heat flux per unit temperature gain than a cooler version of the same body, but don’t seem to understand the implications of what they found.

  10. My latest research. This time on economic impact analysis.

    States sue to block “social cost” of carbon
    By David Wojick

    The beginning;
    Twelve states have asked a Federal Court to keep federal agencies from using the so-called Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases to calculate the benefits of emission reduction regulations. The new cost estimates, ordered by President Biden on day one, claim enormous distant future damages from today’s emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Preventing these supposed damages could justify massive new regulations, but the States say this is illegal because Congress never authorized it.

    The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) has been around for some time. Obama introduced it as a policy measure, which Trump then canceled. Now Biden has brought it back and made it worse. In a way SCC personifies the craziness of the climate scare. The whole scare is based on outlandish doomsday computer models and SCC is arguably the most absurd of all.

    The fundamental absurdity of the Social Cost of Carbon is that it goes out 300 years to get the supposed economic damages due to today’s minor emissions of carbon dioxide. That’s right, these computer models claim to know what the world’s economy will be for the next 300 years. The claim is absurd because technological and economic progress make the future world unknowable.

    There is a lot more in the article.

    • Joe - the non climate scientist

      “Social cost of Carbon” and “externalities of carbon” have been used by the activists to show the additional factors that increase the total “subsidies” given to the fossil fuel companies. The subsidies the fossil fuel companies dont incur for the costs of cleaning up the damages caused by carbon. Similar to the “subsidies” the food industries receive because they dont incur for the costs of cleaning up the byproduct of food eaten by the consumer (sewage costs). The concept is absurd.

    • It is all a huge mistake scientists of the past had made.

      John Tyndall had proven that CO2 is a strong absorber of IR radiation.
      But he never said the 0,04 % CO2 content in the Earth’s atmosphere is capable to block the outgoing IR radiation…

      Also, Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, when compared with Venus’.
      Yes, Venus has a very strong greenhouse effect. But Earth has not.


      • Actually, it is my understanding that the surface temperature on Venus is completely explained by the adiabatic lapse phenomenon, although about 80ppm of CO2 (not the 95%) is required to allow the temperature profile.
        And the GHG effect of CO2 declines exponentially while the plant benefits increase linearly.

  11. Joe - the non climate scientist

    “8.7 million premature deaths from fossil-fuel PM2.5 pollution, per year, 350,000 in the US alone [link]”

    Ozone and Short-term Mortality in 95 US Urban Communities, 1987-2000
    Michelle L. Bell, PhD, Aidan McDermott, PhD, Scott L. Zeger, PhD, Jonathan M. Samet, MD, and Francesca Dominici, PhD

    This study of premature deaths associated with 2.5pm particulate matter is similar to the Bell/McDermott study of premature deaths associated with ground level ozone. The Bell/McDermott study is considered the gold standard for pre maturity death. As an endurance athlete, it was easy to spot many of the glaring errors, such as lack of control cities, negative correlation to other factors, levels of ozone that cant possibly affect the resipatory system, etc.

    Same with the 2.5pm study, premature deaths exceeding actual deaths by a factor of 2x

  12. RE: “Alongside all the successes of science in the Covid era, the pandemic has also sparked an outbreak of viral misinformation and sloppy research, revealing the glaring flaws in our scientific system.” https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-great-reinforcer/

    Maybe this writer should have been a bit more careful himself before claiming that the RECOVERY trial settled the hydroxychloroquine issue. https://ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/index.html#EfficacyHCQ

  13. Joe - the non epidemiologist

    The same article made the following comment – “When the pandemic struck, scientists first looked to the past. Did our existing scientific literature hold the clues we needed to hold back the waves of infection? In some cases, it absolutely did. Immunologists, with truly astounding speed, were able to turn the prior literature on messenger RNA into novel vaccines that have spearheaded our fightback against the virus. ”

    The various vaccines were developed quickly in part because efforts to develop an RNA virus has been going on 20+ years and quickly adapted to developing an Covid vaccine.

    However, in other areas, scientists completely ignored the past, for example
    1) decades of research showed masks to have very limited effectiveness in slowing the spread of respiratory virus, yet masks were elevated to the primary defense against the spread.
    2) permanent damage from covid – contrary to well known knowledge of the restorative/healing powers of the human body
    3) Transmission of covid from asymptomatic individuals being one of the primary drivers of transmission, contrary to knowledge of prior respiratory virus.
    4) fully vaccinated and previously infected individuals need to continue to wear masks since they remain potential carriers of covid contrary to knowledge of other respiratory viruses.
    5) Ignoring the well documented history of the Hopes-simpson curve, Does any one recall seeing mention of hope-simpson from the experts? no – it was completely ignored.
    6) the two most important lessons from the 1918 spanish flu which is A) the infection and death rates for those over age 55 were extremely low due to the immunity developed from the 1873-1875 flu epidemic, and B) the reason covid was so infectious and deadly is simply that the virus is of such a new strain that very few individuals had any form of immunity, It wasnt more infectious or deadly because it was inherently more infectious or deadly. It was because the strain was so new that no one had immunity.

  14. New Prediction: OB/GYN is going to be the place to be next year. This summer is going to be off the hook. Trying to win at birth control is going to be the new national team sport. There will probably be a baby boom.

  15. What people call rebound effect, others call induced demand.

    I call it all economic growth and reduced inequality.

  16. I do not see the Earth’s Albedo a = 0,306 in the graph?


    Figure 6: Graph showing the spectrum of the Sun’s energy. The light shading shows the energy from the Sun that reaches the outside of Earth’s atmosphere, while the brighter colors show the energy that reaches the surface. The difference is the energy absorbed by the atmosphere. Specific wavelength ranges are absorbed by carbon dioxide and water vapor. Oxygen and ozone absorb light in the UV spectrum on the left side of the graph, shielding plants from harmful radiation. Meanwhile, the atmosphere is relatively transparent to visible light from the Sun.

    “The difference is the energy absorbed by the atmosphere.”
    ” Meanwhile, the atmosphere is relatively transparent to visible light from the Sun.”
    Are these measurements been done from Earth’s surface with the cloudless sky?
    But they use them in the Global Energy Budget along with the reflection from clouds and atmosphere…
    Clouds also are capable to reflect incoming IR radiation too.
    Another observation:
    is it possible for the 0,04% CO2 content in the actually very thin atmosphere planet Earth possesses, to absorb the entire energy from certain wavelength bands?
    Is it possible for H2O to absorb the entire energy from certain wavelength bands?
    And where is the Earth’s Albedo a = 0,306 then?


  17. Roberto Kersevan

    Bravo Judith!… incredible list of articles/papers, many thanks.

  18. This picks up on the study “Old growth forests as global carbon sinks.”

    The link has nice graphics.

    “How much forest has the world lost? When in history did we lose it?

    In the chart we see how the cover of the earth’s surface has changed over the past 10,000 years. This is shortly after the end of the last great ice age, through to the present day.2

    Let’s start at the top. You see that of the 14.9 billion hectares of land on the planet, only 71% of it is habitable – the other 29% is either covered by ice and glaciers, or is barren land such as deserts, salt flats, or dunes. I have therefore excluded these categories so we can focus on how habitable land is used.

    The bar chart just below shows the earth’s surface cover just after the end of the last ice age.3 10,000 years ago 57% of the world’s habitable land was covered by forest. That’s 6 billion hectares. Today, only 4 billion hectares are left. The world has lost one-third of its forest – an area twice the size of the United States.

    Only 10% of this was lost in the first half of this period, until 5,000 years ago. The global population at this time was small and growing very slowly – there were fewer than 50 million people in the world. The amount of land per person that was needed to produce enough food was not small – in fact, it was much larger than today. But a small global population overall meant there was little pressure on forests to make space for land to grow food, and as wood for energy.

    If we fast-forward to 1700 when the global population had increased more than ten-fold, to 603 million. The amount of land used for agriculture – land to grow crops as well as grazing land for livestock – was expanding. You will notice in the chart that this was not only expanding into previously forested land, but also other land uses such as wild grasslands and shrubbery. Still, more than half of the world’s habitable land was forested.

    The turn of the 20th century is when global forest loss reached the halfway point: half of total forest loss occurred from 8,000BC to 1900; the other half occurred in the last century alone. This emphasises two important points…..”

    Half of total forest loss occurred in last century alone.


  19. “Why is the Arctic heating up much faster than anywhere else?”

    Increased poleward heat transport during periods of weaker indirect solar forcing. Via negative AO/NAO conditions with a meridional atmospheric circulation pattern, and via the warmer phases of the AMO and ENSO. How else did British naval ships observe a great loss of Arctic sea ice through 1815-1817?

    On Saturn the temperature difference between the polar regions and the mid latitudes is about 10°C because of powerful poleward heat transport mechanisms, while on Venus with much higher levels of climate forcing, the polar atmosphere is relatively much colder due to very strong polar vortices trapping in the cold.

  20. These are 2 other studies indicating no weakening of the AMOC.

    The NYT article speaks of the weakness of the AMOC being a poster child for a climate tipping point. Venice is also occasionally referenced as a poster child, except for Sea Level Rise. However, they never get around to explaining that the Republic of Venice was engaging in fluvial diversions and other geomorphological changes since 1143, thereby altering the natural processes in the area. So it is with the AMOC articles, virtually ignoring other forces and factors that could be at play.


    Click to access os-2019-134.pdf

  21. Miocene paleoclimate data of a warm deep ocean at the same time as Antarctic ice sheets even greater than today is direct evidence supporting the gravitational forcing hypothesis. It’s what’s happening today imo. Equatorial bottom oceans are cooling as earth-tides push warm water to higher latitudes.

    The mid Miocene represents an important target for paleoclimatic study because the atmospheric CO2 concentration ranged from near modern values to ∼800 ppm, while a large, dynamic Antarctic ice sheet was likely to have been present throughout much of this interval. In this special issue, Modestou et al reconstruct deep ocean warmth based on the clumped isotopic composition of benthic foraminifera, a technique that allows the ice volume and thermal components of the benthic oxygen isotope stack to be separated. These data reveal a very warm deep ocean while simultaneously suggesting that continental ice volume may, at times, have been greater than today.
    Deep heat: proxies, Miocene ice, and an end in sight for paleoclimate paradoxes?https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020PA004174#.YB2pEbUOQSE.twitter

  22. The personal account of the Japanese earthquake whilst at a seismology seminar followed by realtime footage of the tsunami rolling in was surreal. I was instantly taken back to the time I was on a kibbutz and experienced the world vibrate in front of my eyes & confused my brain.

    The imagery following was too uncomfortable to read or contemplate. It’s unimaginable. The US has the equivalent of China dam break, waiting to happen. Then, of course, it could happen anywhere.

    It’s something humanity can’t prepare for. It will just be.


    • Several months ago, I got confirmation from someone who was a member of a nuclear safety evaluation team looking at the Fukushima reactors in late 2008 and 2009 that TEPCO had received specific warnings that a high wave tsunami could breach the Fukushima sea wall. TEPCO did absolutely nothing to prepare for what was known well before the disaster to be a high probability event.

  23. Pingback: Ilmastonmuutos epävarma konfliktivaikuttaja | Roskasaitti

  24. I was researching Freeport McMoRan – and found the worlds biggest copper play. Here is an interview with the long term CEO.


  25. The Nature article by Peiran R. Liu & Adrian E. Raftery “Country-based rate of emissions reductions should increase by 80% beyond nationally determined mined contributions to meet the 2 °C target” seems rather unscientific.

    My comment: The premise requires that CO2 be in control of climate change at this time, at these levels.
    That is not the case, both by historical analysis and by theory. There has never in the past 550 million years been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change. In the last million years there have been 8 glaciations and interglacials including this one, none of them preceded by CO2 change.
    The GHG effect of CO2 declines exponentially. We are in the fifth half-life of that decline, so the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%. Of the 8 prominent forcings, CO2 is now one of the less effective.
    Climate change is a given, not a problem.
    CO2 mitigation is a problem, not a solution.

    • > There has never in the past 550 million years been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change.

      I heard that somewhere, but where?

      Ah, yes, here:

      Indeed, in the past 550 million years there has never been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change.


      And there:

      There has never been a temperature reversal in the last 550 million years preceded by a CO2 change.


      • Thank you for probing my mind, Jim.

        You must be new here, so here’s a reminder of how social animals work with one another. If you want otters to answer points refuted a thousand times, start by not just saying stuff. Not abusing them might also help.

        You know, if the atmosphere was all carbon dioxide, you might have a point. Were your “550 million years” talking point true, that is. So far you have not supported it. Here’s for instance something I read recently that undermines it:

        The Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas resulted in a human-driven global impact on the Earth System in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.


      • “Some three to five million years ago, the icy environs of Antarctica were replaced by verdant swaths of green.” – Smithsonian

        That article is deliberately misleading. Olivers Bluff is on the coast. It’s only the coastal regions that had glacial retreat and a greening of the edges.

        It’s a climate induced by warming sea surface temperatures and not global air temperatures imo. It also may have been on the millennial cycle and not so green all the time.

        It’s comparable to the idea of gravitational forcing circa 1000CE leading to high latitude ocean warming and tidal range increase which allowed the mapping of the coastline by the Portuguese. The controversial evidence is given in the infamous Piri Reis map.

        On the Piri Reis map, the latter is shown bending off sharply to the east starting around present-day Rio de Janeiro. Another interpretation of this territory has been to identify this section with the Queen Maud Land coast of Antarctica. This claim is generally traced to Arlington H. Mallery, a civil engineer and amateur archaeologist who was a supporter of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contacthypotheses. Though his assertions were not well received by scholars, they were revived in Charles Hapgood’s 1966 book Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings. This book proposed a theory of global exploration by a pre-classical undiscovered civilisation based on his analysis of this and other ancient and late-medieval maps.

      • Always a pleasure, Willard. Your habit of dismissing things you don’t like and can’t refute is getting tiresome, though. As you know or should know, it’s difficult to prove things and incredibly easy to refute them.
        In my case, the statements are refutable by one – that’s right, one – exception. You might try the eight glaciations and interglacials in our current Ice Age, the emergence from the LGM, the emergence from the Younger Dryas, the progress to the Holocene Optimum, the decline in global temp since then interrupted by the Minoan Warming, the Roman warming, the the Medieval Warming, and the Modern. I did find a couple of instances of the rise of CO2 and temperature being “virtually simultaneous” but never a precedence of CO2.
        I’ll be delighted to learn something. Give it a try. Take your time.

      • It’s similar to Camp Century in northwest Greenland which is more coastal than mainland. I don’t find it surprising that there’s evidence for vegetation below current ice sheets.

        Warm Atlantic waters are known to have entered the Arctic Basin on the millennial time scale:


        I propose a warm current circled all the way round and flowed down the westside of Greenland, causing the Heinrich iceberg armada Events.


      • > As you know or should know, it’s difficult to prove things and incredibly easy to refute them.

        More so when one pretends to refute an established theory by saying stuff and repeating it over and over again, Jim. But as you know or should know, you’re just trying to shift the burden of proof with the it-should-be-easy-to-refute-me trick.

        In point of fact, it is impossible to refute a mere assertion, for theoretical assertions don’t stand alone. For suppose I present you Vostok:


        You could wiggle your way out by adjusting your claim without even considering the evidence presented to you. Or you could continue to act like some kind of truth machine, leaving all the works to otters.

        The onus is on the one who makes claims to support them. If all you do is to say stuff, do not expect otters to work. Just like Alan is the guy who handwaves at stuff and posts music videos, you’ll be recognized as the truth machine.

        Take care.

      • “Just like Alan is the guy who handwaves at stuff and posts music videos, you’ll be recognized as the truth machine.” – Willard

        Lol. I actually present logical critical thinking and an alternative to mainstream groupthink.

        (P.S. why are you always talking about otters🐾?)

      • Alan,

        I’m not saying that all you do is to provide pointers and music videos. I’m saying that it’s how I can recognize your contributions,

        Here’s a rundown of your contributions on this thread so far: a music video, some misreading, an apology, an empty assertion, an epilogue, a request, a pointer, a music video, a pointer, and another pointer.

        Looks like my impression is well supported.

        I speak of otters because they are cute and because it’s Internet vernacular, e.g.:

        See Discourse on the Otter for more otters or anywhere else:


  26. Many thanks to Sergiu Klainerman. My upper-elementary students were mainly English-learners, from no to moderate fluency. The children of farm workers. They were as bright and eager to learn as children everywhere. I’ve always seen and liked the beauty of mathematics, although it was not particularly valued or well taught in my childhood (the Sputnik era).
    It is indeed a universal language, and a great equalizer. It took me a few years to figure out how to teach it effectively (normal for every teacher), but once I did, my students thrived. Some, who had never met success in school, excelled, and a powerful and wonderful change occurred in their whole demeanor. They were convinced they were smart. Bill Gates is the most evil sociopath in today’s world.

  27. Rare sightings of Arctic walruses on the coast of Ireland indicate ongoing and deepening North Atlantic Ocean cooling.


    Rahmsdorf is right, the AMOC is declining.

    • Err.. a single walrus sighting indicates animals make mistakes just like humans. It isn’t confirmation of anything Rahmstorf is suggesting.

    • Maybe the walrus was confused because of a accelerating reversal of the magnetic poles?
      “Previous studies had not found much of an environmental impact from the flip. But that conclusion was based primarily on ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, which biased it toward higher latitudes. Cooper and his colleagues took more representative samples from all over the world, including from tree rings in New Zealand. They conclude that the magnetic reversal was in fact related to the extinction of a large fraction of large animals at the time, as well as the disappearance of the Neanderthals and even the appearance of cave art.”

  28. This study on precipitation extremes in Europe

    “There was no systematic change of precipitation extremes in the five European regions from the past1000 (850AD to 1849AD) to the historical period (1850 to 2005), while an extraordinary increase in the frequency and magnitude of extreme precipitation events is apparent in the future GCM projections, which indicates nonstationary extremes in Europe.”


  29. In addition to the study on Japan typhoon landfalls and the Pielke article with this

    there is this

    and this

    • From a September 2020 report by NOAA

      “In short, the historical Atlantic hurricane frequency record does not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced long-term increase.”

      And not to leave out Australia

      Ribera, et al 2008 documented 524 Typhoons striking the Philippines prior to 1900.

  30. One of the papers cited in the Thwaites ice shelf collapse paper, Shepherd 2018, has this statement about the period 1992 to 2017.

    “Altogether, Antarctica has contributed 4.6 ± 1.2 mm to global sea level rise.”

    That is .184mm/yr.

    IPCC5 had .27mm/yr, or exactly 1/5 the thickness of a new US dime, which is 1.35mm.

    Based on this estimate, we have gone from 1/5 the thickness of a dime to about 1/7 the thickness of a dime. Who knows, with a few more years where it will end up.

  31. In the below graph we demonstrate the Tsat /Te.correct with Φ, being in Linear relation with the Planet Rotational Warming factor ( β*N*cp)Λ1/16

    The higher is the Warming Factor, the Warmer is the Planet.


  32. Former chief investment officer for Sustainable Investing at the largest asset manager in the world says green investments are “green washing” and a PR effort.

    Financial world greenwashing the public with deadly distraction in sustainable investing practices


  33. Dr. Judith:

    It would be interesting if you conducted a poll to see whether posters/readers agree with the claim made here that Elon Musk’s vision of colonizing Mars is unrealistic.


  34. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The “British” virus is spreading rapidly in Europe. This is another virus whose symptoms are different from Cov-2.

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Arctic air will delay spring in Europe.

  36. Ireneusz Palmowski

    It promises to be a cool autumn in the Southern Hemisphere.

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The meridional jet stream during periods of very low geomagnetic activity (low solar wind activity) does not favor La Niña. This protects the Earth from rapid cooling because global water vapor decreases slowly. In fact, the Pacific Ocean during La Niña stores heat that it gives back during El Niño.

    However, the decline in TSI over several decades inevitably leads to a decline in the heat content of the oceans.
    Observing the strong decrease in UV radiation and weak sunspot activity, I predict a marked decrease in TSI throughout the 25th solar cycle.

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Sunspots show low magnetic activity, and geomagnetic activity is the result of solar wind from coronal holes.

  39. Re– Liebreich: Climate and Finance – Lessons from a Time Machine…

    Politically dictating the interest rate has the same effect as politically increasing or decreasing the cost of a single resource. Such meddling changes everything and leads to the misallocation of all factors of production, creates artificial scarcities and decreases the level of net present wealth.


  40. Opening the doors of perception:

    / Break on through to the otter 🐾side/
    /Break on through to the otter🐾 side/
    /Break on through to the otter🐾 side, yeah/

    • Again, the *assumption* of constant global air temperature change instead of intermittent local sea current change:

      Researchers analyzed plant DNA more than 100,000 years old retrieved from lake sediment in the Arctic (the oldest DNA in lake sediment analyzed in a publication to date) and found evidence of a shrub native to northern Canadian ecosystems 250 miles (400 km) farther north than its current range.

  41. I found Suman Seth’s review of “On The Fringe” to be either complete ignorance of Popper’s views, or a political hit job. Probably the latter. Popper completely eviscerated the left’s claim that Historical Materialism was science. He used his falsification criterion as an attempt to demarcate science from social theory. That much Seth gets right. What Seth doesn’t seem to understand is Popper’s concept of social engineering, where ‘good ideas’ are tried as experiments, not ordained as dogmatic beliefs. If the ideas work, fine, keep the social policy. If the social environment changes, and the policy is no longer relevant, the policy should end. If they work somewhat, attempts to revise are called for. If they fail, off to the dust bin they go. Failed social policy can not be scientifically justified, particularly when the science itself isn’t science.
    Thanks for posting all the articles Dr. Curry!

  42. Nordhaus writes a sensible paragraph about Mann:

    “But the broader point is that Mann hasn’t checked his sources because he simply doesn’t care. What he is really defending is affective environmental identity, not science. In that role, his environmental audience is going to take his word for it. Everybody in that bubble knows who is on which team and anyone criticizing environmental organizations, or for that matter icons like Mann, is clearly not on the right one. Among the tribe, scientists literally speak for the truth, even when they say things that are demonstrably false, and activists speak for the people, even when they make demands that most of the public opposes”

    Reading that, one would applaud some of the sentiments and themes of his piece.

    But Nordhaus rolls in the same mud that he accuses Mann of rolling in. He appeals to emotions. So a climate denier has been in the WH for 4 years?

    Exactly what is a climate denier? This stuff has been used by high school sophomores for decades, long in whining and short in reason, logic and life experiences. How is this any different from accusing someone of being on the take from Big Oil? It’s appealing to those having an affective environmental identity.

    It only takes a little homework involving some deep dives into the issues to conclude there are numerous reasons to question the consensus. Why can’t we elevate the debate to the science and observations and leave out the pedestrian ad hominems.

    • > Exactly what is a climate denier?

      I don’t use the term, but if you read up on Trump’s views and statements on climate change, you’ll get a pretty good picture of what people mean when they use that term.

      Start your search by Googling “Trump climate change China hoax.’

      • Robert Starkey

        Climate deniers are the same as Climate Alarmists. Unscientific democrats and liberal republicans who support emotional policies to implement unsound economic proposals in response to their unscientific beliefs.

        Many if not most of these unscientific alarmists also have TDS. The illogical belief that anything Trump did was wrong.

      • As usual you missed the Mark, J. It was a rhetorical question. It’s the kind of sophomoric mentality that should have been dropped decades ago. You obviously haven’t. The author was complaining about behavior he just indulged in.

      • kid –

        Did you look up “Trump climate change China hoax?”

        I think you’ve missed the point. No matter what word you use to describe it, that’s your hero we’re talking about.

  43. This is to provide further discussion about the paper on the decline of the snowpack in the Chuska Mountains.

  44. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A cold front from the north announces a snowstorm in the northeastern US.

  45. If you believe CO2 emissions cause climate change, can China be trusted?

    • How could we forget the ever-present Yellow Peril??
      Lets beat up some old Chinese ladies in Chinatown San Francisco.
      That’ll keep them in line!

    • I posted this on his pinned comment at the top:
      Mallen, Chinese scientists from the controversial Paracel Islands have concluded from coral that ocean warming began in 1825 ie. before the industrial revolution.
      There’s also a link with the Block Island 2ft wide meteorite found by Curiosity Rover on Mars – because the atmosphere is so thin, it shouldn’t exist after it’s rapid decent. The conclusion is that it fell billions of years ago when Mars had a much thicker atmosphere. But there’s a paradox in that the meteorite has little surface alteration, implying the iron/nickel meteorite hasn’t come into contact with a water-containing atmosphere. This directly contradicts the idea that water once flowed on Mars.
      Taiwen-1 is currently in orbit and will continue to search for a landing site for another 2 months. I propose that they are looking for a giant iron meteorite to land close to so that they can steal the headlines from the US.
      It’s possible that once achieved they could throw the global climate debate on it’s head, by saying that the science is not yet settled. The giant meteorite shouldn’t exist with such little surface alteration ie. non-exposure to water vapour.
      They could claim not only the South China Sea islands as there own but also that CO2 emissions causing climate change is inconclusive due to their new evidence.
      Do you see the possible scenario I’m describing being played out on the world stage in the coming few months? Or am I perhaps a little delusional? Time will tell.

      (Great vid btw)

      Mallen: If it plays out the way you’ve suggested, that will have been a truly awesome feat of prediction!

  46. We know that there is the Planet ROTATIONAL Warming Phenomenon. And it is described by the (N*cp) product. The higher the N*cp, the warmer is the planet.
    Earth’s and Moon’s temperatures comparison.
    The Earth’s higher than Moon’s both N (rotational spin) and cp (average surface specific heat), do not let at the day-time the Earth’s surface get warm enough to emit IR as intensively as Moon’s surface does.
    As a result, on the Earth’s surface, during the solar irradiance hours there is much more solar energy left to be accumulated. And this accumulated energy accounts for the much higher Earth’s than Moon’s night-time temperatures, with the resulting consequence of the much higher than Moon’s the Earth’s mean surface temperature.

    Also we should take in consideration, Earth’s albedo is a.earth = 0,306 and (1 – 0,306) = 0,694
    Moon’s Albedo a.moon = 0,11 and (1 – 0,11) = 0,89

    So, Moon’s /Earth’s = 0,89 /0,694 = 1,28

    or, in other words, Moon, compared to Earth, receives almost 30 % more solar energy, which should then be emitted as IR outgoing radiation to remain energetically balanced.

    Nevertheless, Earth, with much lesser (- 30%) “absorbed” than Moon solar energy, is a warmer than Moon planet. And this happens because during the solar irradiance hours Earth’s IR emission intensity is much weaker than Moon’s, so Earth saves energy (accumulates solar energy) much more efficiently.
    There is no need for any supplementary source of energy for the Earth’s surface in order to become on average warmer than Moon.
    And there is no need for Greenhouse Warming enhancement on the Earth’s surface to make Earth a warmer than Moon planet. It is the Planet Rotational Warming which does the job.


  47. I’ve just read the blog comment by Mark Steyn which attacks Michael Mann. I found it quite shocking and can understand why Mann felt the need to file a lawsuit.

    Personally I’m new to this detail in the climategate saga but felt Michael Mann’s character was gracious enough to allow my comments which go against the ‘cancelling of the AMO’ just recently.

    Here’s the offending piece from 2012:
    In the wake of Louis Freeh’s report on Penn State’s complicity in serial rape, Rand Simberg writes of Unhappy Valley’s other scandal:

    I’m referring to another cover up and whitewash that occurred there two years ago, before we learned how rotten and corrupt the culture at the university was. But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

    Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr Simberg does, but he has a point. Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to “investigate” Professor Mann. Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing.

    If an institution is prepared to cover up systemic statutory rape of minors, what won’t it cover up? Whether or not he’s “the Jerry Sandusky of climate change”, he remains the Michael Mann of climate change, in part because his “investigation” by a deeply corrupt administration was a joke.  

  48. A second recording of a new phenomenon: video footage showing ‘a slow-moving meteor’. I predict that these will be increasingly seen and pondered upon:

    • Is it slow or is it far away?

      • My bet is far away.

      • Both. Due to the curvature of the Earth and the relative thinness of the atmosphere, there’s only so far that one can see. I’ve watched hundreds of meteor footage and this kind of phenomena stands out as bizarre.

        The first one I saw of this type, people assumed was space debris re-entering the atmosphere – but there was no news coverage on where this debris would have landed etc.

        It might take a while before people start to see what I mean. Just keep an open mind for now because there’s bound to be more.

      • It look like a satellite break-up.

      • “It look like a satellite break-up.” – jim2

        Agreed, but why is there a news blackout?? Wouldn’t the incident and footage make mainstream news media?

        I bet there won’t be any other follow-up story/footage on youtube, let alone MSM.

      • Satellite break-ups/re-entry are pretty common now-a-days. Not sure it’s news worthy.

      • Is it a coincidence US Pentagon is to release report into aerial phenomena?

        I found the issue of objects travelling beyond the speed of sound without producing a sonic boom interesting (0:35).

        I have an explanation but I’ll wait until the release of the report.

  49. Senior investigator of Wuhan Institute of Virology gives credence to bioweapon theory for covid-19 origins:

  50. The above Choi paper noted that marine terminating glaciers were contributing to sea level rise from warmer waters melting the glaciers from below. The Rysgaard paper has been discussed since 2018 when this was released.
    “Today, in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers from the Arctic Research Centre, Aarhus University, and the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources present results that, for the first time, show that the deep bottom water of the north-eastern Greenland fjords is being warmed up by heat gradually lost from the Earth’s interior. And the researchers point out that this heat loss triggers the sliding of glaciers from the ice sheet towards the sea.”

    In both cases marine terminating glaciers were the focus of the research. What is yet unknown is the total number of marine terminating glaciers and land terminating glaciers affected by geothermal activity.

    In the Davison 2019 paper, they begin to look at the hydrology and basal motion of the ice sheet itself. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00010/full

    “Coupling between runoff, hydrology, basal motion, and mass loss (“hydrology-dynamics”) is a critical component of the Greenland Ice Sheet system. Despite considerable research effort, the mechanisms by which runoff influences ice dynamics and the net long-term (decadal and longer) dynamical effect of variations in the timing and magnitude of runoff delivery to the bed remain a subject of debate”

    Further “ Observations and modelling suggest that the configuration of the subglacial drainage system varies over sub-daily to millennial timescales in response to variations in runoff supply, ice surface slope and sliding velocity (e.g., Chandler et al., 2013; Livingstone et al., 2013; Lindbäck et al., 2015; Chu et al., 2016b).”

    This begs the question, what are the interrelationships over a millennial timescale of the basal and englacial movement of the ice sheet and geothermal activity that exists in Greenland.

  51. This is why I’m sanguine about the possibility of collapse of the Ice Sheets and runaway sea level rise. The more things change the more they stay the same, even in 1903.

    And then in 1923

    Then 90 years ago concern about palms in the Adirondacks.

  52. 80 years ago they said 1/3 of the ice in the Arctic had disappeared in the last 50 years.

    In 1947 they were concerned about catastrophic rise of sea levels.

    And 5 years later they were saying oceans might rise by 17 feet in a generation.

  53. Just 2 years later they said the Atlantic was the warmest since 1600s.

    In 1969 they thought the Arctic might be open soon

    And now we usher in the modern era of hyped up predictions. Same story, just new people telling the story.

  54. This is beautiful.

    “Skeptics” regularly referred to Sydney Powell’s claims as evidence of election fraud.l in the 2020 election.

    “Skeptics” often claim that they are careful and discerning and unbiased in their evaluation of evidence.

    Washington (CNN)Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn’t have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.

    Lol. Really, that’s beautiful.

  55. The evidence for new physics is inexorably mounting:
    Dr Paula Alvarez Cartelle, of the University of Cambridge, was one of the scientific leaders behind the finding. She commented: “This new result offers tantalising hints of the presence of a new fundamental particle or force that interacts differently with these… particles.
    “The discovery of a new force in nature is the holy grail of particle physics. Our current understanding of the constituents of the Universe fall remarkably short – we do not know what 95% of the Universe is made of or why there is such a large imbalance between matter and anti-matter.”

  56. I imagine these 50kg+ kangaroos adapted to an arboreal life as much as possible to avoid the increase in solar & galactic radiation due to the reduced geomagnetic field 42,000 years ago and changes at the Earth’s core:
    A large, extinct kangaroo that lived 40,000 years ago spent half its time living in trees – a relatively unusual adaptation for a heavy marsupial.

    The level of intensity this implies lends credence to the idea that this is the time when humans used animal furs to block the radiation when venturing out of their caves during the day.

  57. There’s been an official explanation for the third incident of the ‘slow moving meteor’ phenomenon but what about the previous two?

    I predict that there will be many more. How will the mainstream media respond then??

  58. You will watch it. At least anyone with the slightest bit of science curiosity will wish to see this report coming from the Pentagon which utilizes multiple recording sources, in instances; inclusive of military and satellite. Such fodder for conjecture should be entertaining even if one doesn’t believe anything is “out there”; though as Maria stated, the latter if convincing may be more concerning.

  59. Amazing footage along with people’s reactions to the ‘brimstone & fire phenomenon</b':

  60. More evidence of new physics. It’s amazing how scientists are unable to join two dots together:

    Mysterious Glow Caught in Our Galaxy’s Center Really Could Be Due to Dark Matter

    The latest discovery at CERN leads to the possibility that Einstein’s GR is outdated, and that a ‘black hole’ *doesn’t* exist at the Milky Way’s centre, only dark matter.

  61. Enceladus has an ocean which is churning, lending itself to the notion of a dark matter inner core, which is not only creating the water itself but also creating the currents due to strong gravitational tidal forcing:

    The ocean on Enceladus is almost entirely unlike Earth’s. Earth’s ocean is relatively shallow (an average of 3.6 km deep), covers three-quarters of the planet’s surface, is warmer at the top from the sun’s rays and colder in the depths near the seafloor, and has currents that are affected by wind; Enceladus, meanwhile, appears to have a globe-spanning and completely subsurface ocean that is at least 30 km deep and is cooled at the top near the ice shell and warmed at the bottom by heat from the moon’s core.

    Despite their differences, Caltech graduate student Ana Lobo (MS ’17) suggests that oceans on Enceladus have currents akin to those on Earth.

  62. New physics dark matter core gravity theory is destined to pique the interest of women’s fertility and even the child’s personality type:

    Two large longitudinal studies demonstrate a significant correlation between birth rate and lunar phase with a slight increase in birth rate at full moon and a corresponding decrease at new moon. Recent evidence also suggests that births are more likely to occur at night during a full moon and during the day when there is a new moon.

  63. Despite humanity only understanding/accounting for 5% of the universe, these fools think there’s nothing left to know in the field of astronomy:

    “The Pluto thing distracted us for a while, but really we’ve been on a trajectory to finishing our research since the early 2000s,” says Professor April Furst, an astrophysicist at the Facility Of Observational Lens’ and Spectrometry in Space (FOOLSs), University of Eastern Australia. 

    “We think we’ve figured it out at this point. There might be a few more black holes we can discover, but everything else is pretty much mapped. Humanity can now look to the stars, and not wonder about anything.” 

    It’s reminiscent of Michael Mann’s attitude to climate science.

    • / Save me, save me from tomorrow
      I don’t want to sail with this ship of fools, no, no
      Oh, save me, save me from tomorrow
      I don’t want to sail with this ship of fools, no, no /

  64. New physics gravitational forcing and the inclination cycle of Mars can account for the mystery events occurring at the core:

    Scientists at NASA have reported an exciting detection by its Insight lander on Mars – mysterious rumblings coming from the interior of the planet.
    And curiously, the previous seismic events detected by the space agency’s InSight lander – which arrived on the planet’s surface in 2018 – occurred almost a full Martian year ago, or two Earth years, during the Martian northern summer.

  65. Climate change author Ian Plimer talks a lot of common sense about how the climate has always changed, the manmade conclusion is not evidence based and that humanity is losing knowledge:

  66. Climate change author Ian Plimer talks a lot of common sense about how the climate has always changed, the manmade conclusion is not evidence based and that humanity is losing knowledge:


  67. Scientists again unable to join two dots together:
    For years astronomers have puzzled over a strange excess of gamma rays coming from the galactic center. Annihilating dark matter has always been a tantalizing explanation, and new research claims that it’s the best answer.

    What could cause Uranus to emit X-rays? The answer: mainly the Sun. Astronomers have observed that both Jupiter and Saturn scatter X-ray light given off by the Sun, similar to how Earth’s atmosphere scatters the Sun’s light. While the authors of the new Uranus study initially expected that most of the X-rays detected would also be from scattering, there are tantalizing hints that at least one other source of X-rays is present. If further observations confirm this, it could have intriguing implications for understanding Uranus.


    Err.. how about dark matter annihilation existing at the cores of planets as well as the core of the Milky Way which causes X-ray & gamma ray emissions??

    • / The word is about, there’s something evolving /
      / Whatever may come, the world keeps revolving… /
      / They say the next big thing is here /
      / That the revolution’s near /

    • / Wish I knew what you were looking for /
      / Might have known what you would find /

      / And it’s something quite peculiar /
      / Something that’s shimmering and white /
      / It leads you here despite your destination /
      / Under the Milky Way tonight /

  68. More evidence of a dark matter innermost core of the planets, with a possible 1km diameter estimate given for Saturn (imo):

    Saturn’s rings are ringing like a bell, which is making it possible for researchers to explore deep inside the heart of the planet.
    According to a new study, a large part of the planet’s interior is more layered than previously expected.
    The effect is small, with the waves only about a single kilometer from peak to peak, while the rings span nearly 180,000 miles (300,000 km).

  69. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In the northern hemisphere, the winter polar vortex is still in effect after rebounding in late February and early March.

  70. Ireneusz Palmowski

    You can see the Arctic air attack in two days over the Great Lakes.

  71. From Germany

    “ Due to the government mandated coal phase-out, 11 coal-fired power plants with a total capacity of 4.7 GW were shut down on January 1, 2021. But the coal phase-out ended up lasting only 8 days, after which several power plants had to be reconnected to the grid due to a prolonged low-wind period.”

    Be careful of what you ask for.

  72. There’s a third way that Earth could have acquired it’s water, namely: an ongoing process due to (a hypothesised) dark matter core annihilation.

    It’s possible that Earth was actually born wet and water was a part of its very core since the Big Bang, according to a new study published in Astronomy & Astrophysics.

    “It’s fascinating to realise that when you drink a glass of water, most of those molecules were made more than 4.5 billion years ago in the cloud from which our sun and the planets formed,” said Ewine van Dishoeck of Leiden University and lead author of the paper.


  73. Wow, the mainstream science community is close to solving the theory of everything. Only one more step from here for the penny to drop:

    What if dark matter is just black holes

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s