Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my these past few weeks.

Future sea level change from Greenland and Antarctica, from CMIP5 and CMIP6 scenarios [link]

Regional variation in the effectiveness of methane-based and land-based #climate mitigation options https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/513/2021/…

New paper from DeConto, Pollard et al: The Paris Climate Agreement and future sea level rise from Antarctica [link]

New paper from Tamsin Edwards et al: Projected land ice contributions to 21st century sea level rise [link]

Guardian article on the Deconto and Edwards papers [link]

Did the drop in COVID related emissions affect the climate? [link]

Excellent review paper: The sensitivity of Antarctic Ice Sheet to a changing climate: past, present and future [link]

Medieval weather prediction [link]

Global reconstruction of storm surges (GSSR) https://lnkd.in/ens6YjT

Plastic Pollution in the Deep Sea: A Geological Perspective https://geosociety.org/GSA/News/pr/2021/21-28.aspx…

The effect of information about climate risk on property values [link]

Uncertainty of future #SouthernOcean carbon dioxide uptake cut in half [link]

This #supermoon has a twist – expect flooding, but a lunar cycle is masking effects of #SeaLevelRise. https://theconversation.com/this-supermoon-has-a-twist-expect-flooding-but-a-lunar-cycle-is-masking-effects-of-sea-level-rise-158412…

Big review article: The Miocene – the future of the past [link]

The ‘heat bombs’ destroying arctic sea ice [link]

Untangling drivers of ancient hurricane activity [link]

Th most recent CMIP6 modeling studies of tropical cyclones/hurricanes project no detectable changes in storm metrics most associated with damage … under RCP8.5 [link]

Cold and too much rain exacerbated the Spanish Flu [link]

Connecting the ventilation of the Southern Ocean to the leading modes of atmospheric variability, https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/aop/JCLI-D-20-0629.1/JCLI-D-20-0629.1.xml…

Changes in the Gulf Stream preceded rapid warming of the Northwest Atlantic Shelf [link]

Over the first 12 years of argo, circulation variability has dominated patterns of change, but warming has imprinted clearly on the ocean’s underlying water mass structure https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0355.1…

People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years [link]

Intensification of El Nino induced anomalies under greenhouse warming [link]

Anatomy of past abrupt warmings [link]

The storms that destroyed ‘lost town’ [link]

Technology and policy

Must read: Vaclav Smil on the energy transition [link]

Using hydrogen-based fuels for cars & home heating applications risks locking in a dependency on fossil-fuel infrastructure & failing to tackle the climate crisis. https://theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/06/hydrogen-fuel-risks-reliance-on-fossil-fuels…

Nuclear reactors could provide plentiful zero-carbon hydrogen [link]

Big Agriculture is best [link]

“A mismatch between the world’s climate ambitions and the availability of critical minerals could mean a slower and more expensive energy transition, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).” https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Minerals-will-be-critical-to-clean-energy-shift-IE

A pathway to carbon neutral agriculture [link]

The downside of solar energy [link]

China to phase out coal use, but for now it’s essential [link]

Scientific integrity, public policy and water governance in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia [link]

Lessons from the rush to reforest [link]

Biden Promises to ‘Build Back Better.’ Some Climate Experts See Trouble.. https://nytimes.com/2021/05/06/climate/climate-biden-louisiana.html…

Farming our way out of the climate crisis [link]

Bill Gates’ message for world leaders [link]

If #WindEnergy is “green” why are so many rural communities rejecting it? [link]

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables [link]

Rebuilding after a wildfire? Most states don’t require fire-resistant materials [link]

New UN report: methane cuts are a way to quickly reduce warming [link]

“Far from addressing climate change, California’s forest offsets appear to be adding tens of millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere on balance, undermining progress on the state’s long-term emissions goals.” [link]

Pumped storage seems great from the perspective of climate-friendly electricity systems, but comes with local environmental costs. [link]

Can we really limit global warming to well below 2C? Yes, but only in a model [link]

Its time to end subsidies for burning wood from forests [link]

Just in time versus just in case pandemic preparation [link]

Lomborg: What climate and energy policies make the most good per dollar spent? Biggest bang-for-buck policy is investing in green energy research and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157

“The results of this study suggest that nomadic livestock contributes to sustainable management of peri-urban land, stimulating grazing that may prevent fuel accumulation in fringe woodlands.” https://mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/1/21

Investing in geothermal energy [link]

We can’t let nuclear die [link]

Biden’s climate plan is not a new beginning, but the culmination of old approaches [link]

An outdated idea is still shaping U.S. climate policy [link]

Cleaning up the E-waste mess [link]

About science & scientists

Does ocean acidification alter fish behavior? Fraud allegations [link]

When science journalism turns into activism [link]

New enemies of the open society [link]

Why politically guided science is bad [link]

“the extent to which the insurance industry directs, funds & validates the production & use of science for estimating risk is itself a full blown political enterprise that functions to prioritize industry interests” [link]

Is time like an arrow, proceeding along in a single direction? Is it a dimension? Or are these muddled ways of thinking about the reality of time as it is experienced? [link]

Bridging observation, theory and numerical models of the ocean using Machine Learning [link]

When diversity eats diversity: differences between diversity of representation and diversity of thought [link]

MIcroagressions, questionable science and free speech [link]

Climate scientists swap fieldwork for finance – Tons of growth in interest in climate expertise, particularly in the financial sector. https://reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-finance-talent-idCAKBN2C20ET…

The tyranny of scientism and the subversion of science [link]

Oreskes: Climate scientists set the bar of proof too high [link]

Scientists’ lanes and headwinds [link]

Its not cancel culture, its cancel technology [link]

199 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. The Oreskes paper is self-serving and omits crucial facts. The authors claim:

    In the USA, for example, the standard for a civil case in medical malpractice or patent infringement, to cite two quasi-scientific instances, is “more likely than not,” generally interpreted as a probability of more than 50%. We hence argue that the “more likely than not” (greater than 50%) category that was sidelined in IPCC uncertainty language by the 2010 guidance document (Table 1) would be highly appropriate in many legal contexts, where it is essentially identical to the standard used in US courts for medical malpractice, patent infringement, and civil tort claims.

    But that is a gross and misleading oversimplification of the three separate and independent things which must actually be proven in a malpractice case.

    First, the plaintiff in a medical negligence case must prove—through expert medical testimony—that the defendant physician committed malpractice.

    Then, the plaintiff must also prove that it is more likely than not that the malpractice caused him or her to sustain the alleged injuries.

    And finally, the plaintiff must prove the compensatory value of the damages being sought.

    This is a far higher bar than what Oreskes wants to establish. I find this to be sickeningly similar to Kevin Trenberth’s failed attempt to make the null hypothesis in climate science that humans ARE catastrophically changing the climate, with the burden of proof reversed.

    It is also reminiscent of the many misapplications of the “Precautionary Principle“, one of the most misunderstood and misused principles in history.

    The current standards for scientific certainty have served us well for decades, and should not be changed just because some woke alarmist isn’t getting her way … she hasn’t even shown that it is “more probable than not” that her proposed change will help rather than hurt the reputation of science and scientists.


    • Hi Willis,

      Fancy meeting you in here! Perhaps we might continue the “Polariced” conversation so rudely interrupted by the genial host over at WUWT?


      • Jim Hunt | May 8, 2021 at 4:53 pm | Reply

        Hi Willis,

        Fancy meeting you in here! Perhaps we might continue the “Polariced” conversation so rudely interrupted by the genial host over at WUWT?


        Seems that, unknown to me, you’d been banned from WUWT, and then tried to get in again under another name.

        So I’m gonna pass, particularly on using Dr. Judith’s most excellent blog for you to get out from under. My post is not the subject here, so let’s leave it alone.


      • Au contraire Willis,

        I was using my own name, as your helpful link clearly demonstrates.

        I guess I must have “banned” for some other reason?


  2. The article on the “supermoon” is flat-out lying. Their graph claims that the sea level is currently rising at about two feet (23 inches, 584 mm) per century. That’s twice even the most extreme estimates of current sea level rise.

    Anyone who finds that even remotely credible is not following the story. The Ray/Douglas global sea level reconstruction 1900-present says 6.7 inches (170 mm) per century. The Jevrejeva global sea level reconstruction says 7.8 inches (198 mm) per century. The Church and White global sea level reconstruction says 6.3 inches (160 mm) per century.

    And this “scientist” shows us a graph claiming the current rate of sea level rise is 23 freakin’ inches, 584 mm. per century? Wild-eyed alarmist much?

    The author, Brian McNoldy, self-described as “a volunteer science advisor for Coastal Risk Consulting” says that:

    I am an atmospheric scientist at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science who keeps a close eye on sea level rise in Miami. Here’s what you need to know.

    Sorry, but if you take your advice about coastal risks from a man who is willing to flat-out lie about easily checked facts, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get surprised … and if I ran the University of Miami, I know who I’d fire first. His hysterical lies do no one any good, particularly real scientists in the field.


    • joe - the non climate scientist

      Will’s comment – “His hysterical lies do no one any good, particularly real scientists in the field.”

      I will add that the failure of real/honest scientists to call out the activist’s lies taints the whole field of “climate scientists. ” It likewise makes it much more difficult to believe the good climate science.

    • The difference is between 3.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr observed by satellite and 5.84 mm/yr projected into the future. I don’t want to impugn Willis’ prescience – but he is playing to the peanut gallery.


    • David Appell

      Willis, sea level rise is accelerating — that must be considered in any calculation of its rise.

      Using Aviso data through Sept 2020 with the second-order fit, I find sea-level rise in 2100, relative to Sept 2020, to be 66 cm (= 2.2 ft).

      • David, here’s the problem with the satellite data.

        Two satellites show the same trend. The next two succeeding satellites show the same trend, but it’s larger than that of the first two. So they put them all together and spread peanut butter over the splice to hide the truth. That’s not acceleration. That’s bad science.

        And there is no sustained acceleration in the tide gauge data either. Instead, it accelerates and decelerates without regularity.



      • David Appell

        Willis, your first graph is a ridiculous, unscientific way to fit data.

        Aviso’s data starts in 1993. Fitting a second-order polynomial to ALL OF IT, the acceleration is 0.069 +/- 0.006 mm/y2, up to Sept 2020. (2-sigma)(I just haven’t downloaded the latest data. Feel free.) The current sea level rise is 4.4 mm/yr.

        Do the rest of the polynomial. Evaluate it in the year 2100. I get +66 cm relative to Sept 2020.

        I have no idea what your last graph is. Without error bars it’s ridiculous. 30-yr trailing what? Learn how to fit data, Willis.

      • David Appell

        Willis, what’s the problem with the satellite data? You ban me from commenting at that blog, so don’t expect me to read it.

      • David Appell | May 8, 2021 at 11:31 pm |

        Willis, what’s the problem with the satellite data? You ban me from commenting at that blog, so don’t expect me to read it.

        David, I’ve never banned anyone from commenting at WUWT. Not only have I never banned anyone, as a guest author, I don’t even have the power to do so. Nor have I ever recommended that someone be banned, including yourself … so if you got banned, that’s on you, not me.

        And if you refuse to read something because of where it is posted, I fear you don’t understand science. Science is about ideas, not where the ideas are published. Following your logic, you wouldn’t believe that E=MC^2 if you found it written on a bathroom wall …


      • David, the first graph shows the data reported by the four individual satellites—TOPEX, and Jason 1, 2, and 3. I have added a linear fit to each one to show that the first two and the second two are quite similar in trend, as are the third and fourth … but at a higher trend.

        Far from being “ridiculous”, it is an exact representation of what each of the satellites reported. The only acceleration in the entire record occurs at the splice between Jason one and Jason 2.

        Now, I agree that you can splice them all together and fit a quadratic to them, as Aviso and a number of scientists have done … but if you think that’s valid science I’ll have to disagree. I discuss all of this in my post linked above.

        Next, you say:

        “I have no idea what your last graph is. Without error bars it’s ridiculous. 30-yr trailing what?”

        The title of the last graph clearly says “30-year Trailing Acceleration” … and the y axis is labeled “Acceleration (mm/yr^2)”. If that doesn’t give you any “idea what my last graph is”, I fear I can’t help you.

        The data sources are given on each graph. Run the numbers yourself if you don’t believe me. I await your results.


      • David Appell

        Willis, the problem with the first graph isn’t the satellites, it’s the irrational, unjustified, unscientific data fit.

      • David Appell | May 9, 2021 at 12:07 am |

        Willis, the problem with the first graph isn’t the satellites, it’s the irrational, unjustified, unscientific data fit.

        Fitting a trend line to data when we are discussing the sea level trend is now “irrational, unjustified, and unscientific”???

        Pass … I can’t argue with that level of disconnect.


      • David Appell

        The title of the last graph clearly says “30-year Trailing Acceleration” … and the y axis is labeled “Acceleration (mm/yr^2)”. If that doesn’t give you any “idea what my last graph is”, I fear I can’t help you.

        Calculated how?

        Why 30-years? Why not use ALL of the data?????????????????

      • David Appell | May 9, 2021 at 12:12 am |

        The title of the last graph clearly says “30-year Trailing Acceleration” … and the y axis is labeled “Acceleration (mm/yr^2)”. If that doesn’t give you any “idea what my last graph is”, I fear I can’t help you.

        Calculated how?

        In the normal fashion, using time and time^2 as independent variables in a linear regression. How do you calculate acceleration?

        Why 30-years? Why not use ALL of the data?????????????????

        Because I wanted to see if the acceleration varied over time. It does, and quite widely, with periods of both acceleration and deceleration.

        And 30 years because that’s the nominal breakpoint between weather and climate, and people have busted me in the past for using periods shorter than thirty years.

        I also used thirty years because people like the “Sea Level Report Card” folks often use much less than the full record to claim “DANGEROUS ACCELERATION!”. I discuss their claims here. So I wanted to see what shorter periods look like.

        Much of this, however, is just an exercise without meaning. Why? Because the sea-level records are so highly autocorrelated that the effective N for the 1900-present Jevrejeva, Ray & Douglas, and Church & White datasets are all less than 3 … so we simply cannot tell if what we are seeing is just the natural swings of naturally trendy nature.

        Finally, my question for you is … why not use all of the question marks???????????????????????????????

        Best regards,


      • David Appell

        Willis, I’m banned from commenting at WUWT. Moreover, the idea that that site is somehow a substitute for real peer reviewed published science is so F-ing laughable I almost can’t type.

      • David – Welcome to the club!


        Willis – If you don’t fancy further “polaricing” discussion here, then how about over at “Snow White’s” place?

      • David Appell

        Willis, Einstein didn’t publish on bathroom walls.

        You really have no clue how science is done.

      • David Appell | May 9, 2021 at 12:19 am |

        Willis, Einstein didn’t publish on bathroom walls.

        You really have no clue how science is done.

        Dang, bro’, miss the point much?


      • David Appell

        Willis Eschenbach wrote:
        Fitting a trend line to data when we are discussing the sea level trend is now “irrational, unjustified, and unscientific”???

        It is when you fail to calculate the uncertainty of the trends, or justify why a sequence of short linear trends is superior to a longer term quadratic fit.

      • David Appell

        Willis, there’s no justification for using a 30-year window to calculate the acceleration of sea level rise, since there’s no theoretical reason to expect that acceleration will vary on a 30-year time scale.

        Your calculation is nonsense.

      • David Appell

        Willis wrote:
        Because the sea-level records are so highly autocorrelated that the effective N for the 1900-present Jevrejeva, Ray & Douglas, and Church & White datasets are all less than 3 …

        I haven’t done the calculation, but if true it means there’s absolutely no justification for a 30-year window.

      • Curious George

        “I haven’t done the calculation”.
        That’s the main difference between you and Willis. Enjoy your “science”.

  3. This is the 2020 study that does not support sensationalist reporting of alleged scientific malfeasance or the subsequent pecksniffery that science is broken.


    • Robert, that report doesn’t begin to touch the problems with the original study. See here for a more complete list of bizarre, unusual, and improbable aspects of the original authors’ claims.


    • Yet it is the study that failed to replicate earlier results, asked some serious questions and made some suggestions as to why. But if you think I am buying into looney tunes conspiracy ideation on the basis of that utterly unserious document I can’t oblige.

    • Curious George

      “Pecksniffery”. Thanks for adding to my vocabulary.

  4. With a new Sheriff and Posse in town, enhancing the chance of green legislation. I see from the first few papers on sea level rise, that a full court press is being orchestrated. Not by coincidence.

  5. Ulric Lyons

    “The ‘heat bombs’ destroying arctic sea ice”

    That happens from the North Atlantic too, major warm AMO pulses follow El Nino episodes with about an 8 month lag, so they tend to peak in August. Increased El Nino conditions are normal during a centennial solar minimum, which is not what standard climate models are trained to project.

  6. I’m delighted to discover that I beat Judith to the punch on the Arctic “heat bombs” story:


    “Bombs” strikes me as a major misnomer in the publicity video though! A more sober assessment from the learned journal article in question:

    Unprecedented quantities of heat are entering the Pacific sector of the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait, particularly during summer months. Though some heat is lost to the atmosphere during autumn cooling, a significant fraction of the incoming warm, salty water subducts (dives beneath) below a cooler fresher layer of near-surface water, subsequently extending hundreds of kilometers into the Beaufort Gyre. Upward turbulent mixing of these sub-surface pockets of heat is likely accelerating sea ice melt in the region.

  7. Ulric Lyons

    ‘Medieval weather prediction’

    I read a quote from Kepler about heliocentric ‘magnetic angles’, which I can confer with for the gas giants. But the introduction of various other angles are meaningless, and is missing the real action, which is the bisector of pairs of the inner bodies aligning with each gas giant. That’s how I predict weekly NAM anomalies. The actual angle of each inner body is irrelevant.

    This is a comprehensive dissertation:

    A History and Test of Planetary Weather Forecasting

  8. Peter Lang

    Why nothing on the impact of global warming. This is the key issue. If global warming is beneficial, as analyses of empirical data indicate, what is the justification for huge expenditures on reducing global emissions?

    • The ‘future evolution of the global mean temperature may hold surprises on both the warm and cold ends of the spectrum due entirely to internal variability that lie well outside the envelope of a steadily increasing global mean temperature.’ Swanson et al, 2009, Has the climate recently shifted.

      Neither state is germane to pragmatic policy responses.

  9. ProAgni was the 2020 Edison gold award winner for the Health & Wellness, Agricultural Innovation category. I became aware of them only this week while listening to the Kix Country Radio Network broadcasting from the Rockhampton Beef Week. There are two types of music. Country and western.

    “Improving Farm economics today. Ensuring farming’s sustainability tomorrow.”

    Meat is an irreplaceable food source that converts marginal resources – poorer land, low grade grains. food waste – into protein. Even distillery grain from the production of ethanol.

    e.g. https://extension.umn.edu/beef-feedlot/feeding-distillers-grains-beef-cattle

    While increasing agricultural R&D as per the Breakthrough Institute report could pay dividends – it is all as drily academic as dust. And there are two things they always miss. The high productivity of smallholder food gardens.


    And that water conservation is the foundation of a sustainable agriculture that is ready to double food production within a few decades. This can be done in two ways.


    Conserve soils and increase their water water holding capacity with farm practices that create positive soil organic content budgets. Water in the top layers of soils seeps slowly into stores that feed both groundwater aquifers and seeps that maintain dry weather flows in downstream wetlands. The complementary measure is to retard the movement of water across landscapes – giving more time for infiltration. Holding back water in sand dams, ponds. terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture.

    This new article ‘Wetland Conservation: Challenges Related to Water Law and Farm Policy’ – is a timely discussion of opportunities and impediments in the US.


  10. Peter Lang

    Impact of global warming on Ecosystems

    The integrated assessment model, FUND, projects the highest negative impact of global warming is energy consumption, and the third highest is ecosystems. Lang and Gregory (2019) [1] analysed empirical data of energy consumption and found, contrary to the FUND projection, global warming reduces energy consumption; that is, it has a positive, not negative, impact on the global economy.

    Figure 15. FUND3.9 projected global sectoral economic impact of climate change as a function of GMST change from 2000. Total* is of all impact sectors except energy.
    [Read Sections 4.7 and 4.8 for further explanation]

    Quote from Section 4.7: “With energy impacts excluded, FUND projects the global impacts to be +0.2% of GDP at 3 °C GMST increase from year 2000. With the energy impact functions misspecifications corrected, and all other impacts are as projected, the projected total economic impact may be more positive.
    [Read Sections 4.7 and 4.8 for further explanation]

    Regarding the impact of global warming on Ecosystems, many studies report biomass increased since the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and over intermediate periods since the Pre-industrial period and between 1970 and 2016. Gao et al, 2019 [2] (Figures 4a and 4b) finds the Leaf Area Index (LAI) increases over all periods and the rate per year is about three times higher in tropical latitudes than between latitudes 23° and 45° (north and south), which indicates that biomass productivity is higher at higher temperatures. Zhu et al. (2016) [3] analysis of satellite LAI data sets find the global greening trend for the period 1982 to 2009 was 0.068 +/– 0.045 m2m-2yr-1.

    IPCC (2007), Donohue et al. (2013) [4], Zomer et al, (2016) [5], Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. (2019) [6] and Chen et al.(2019) [7] all find that terrestrial biomass carbon mass increased over various periods between LGM, pre-industrial and 2016 (i.e. as GMST increased). Spawn et al. (2020) [8] provide biomass carbon density data per 1 degree latitude x longitude grid cell for year 2010; these demonstrate that the carbon density increases as temperature increases. Sharlemann et al. (2014) [9] provide biomass carbon mass in topsoil, subsoil and phytomass per IPCC climate region. The data shows that the mass is about three times higher in the tropics than in the extra-tropics. Hansel et al (2009) [10] provide the density of dissolved organic matter in the ocean at 30 m and 3000 m depth. These show that the density increases towards the tropics – i.e. as ocean temperatures increase.

    In summary, all these sources indicate that the total mass of biomass increases as GMST increases (and as atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase).

    • Peter Lang


      1. Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575.

      2. Gao, X.; Liang, S.; He, B. Detected global agricultural greening from satellite data. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 2019, 276-277, 107652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107652.

      3. Zhu, Z.; Piao, S.; Myneni, R.B.; Huang, M.; Zeng, Z.; Canadell, J.G.; Ciais, P.; Sitch, S.; Friedlingstein, P.; Arneth, A., et al. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change 2016, 6, 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004.

      4. Donohue, R.J.; Roderick, M.L.; McVicar, T.R.; Farquhar, G.D. Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophysical Research Letters 2013, 40, 3031-3035. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50563.

      5. Zomer, R.J.; Neufeldt, H.; Xu, J.; Ahrends, A.; Bossio, D.; Trabucco, A.; van Noordwijk, M.; Wang, M. Global Tree Cover and Biomass Carbon on Agricultural Land: The contribution of agroforestry to global and national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports 2016, 6, 29987. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep29987.

      • Peter Lang

        References cont. …

        6. Jeltsch-Thömmes, A.; Battaglia, G.; Cartapanis, O.; Jaccard, S.L.; Joos, F. Low terrestrial carbon storage at the Last Glacial Maximum: constraints from multi-proxy data. Climate of the Past 2019, 15, 849-879. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-849-2019.

        7. Chen, J.M.; Ju, W.; Ciais, P.; Viovy, N.; Liu, R.; Liu, Y.; Lu, X. Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink. Nature Communications 2019, 10, 4259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12257-8.

        8. Spawn, S.A.; Sullivan, C.C.; Lark, T.J.; Gibbs, H.K. Harmonized global maps of above and belowground biomass carbon density in the year 2010. Nature, Scientific Data 2020, 7, 112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4.

        9. Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Tanner, E.V.J.; Hiederer, R.; Kapos, V. Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool. Carbon Management 2014, 5, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.77.

        10. Hansell, D.A.; Carlson, C.A.; Repeta, D.J.; Schlitzer, R. Dissolved organic matter in the ocean: A controversy stimulates new insights. Oceanography 2009, 22, 202-211. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24861036.

    • There are circumstances in which best guesses are not all that useful.


      • David Appell

        jacksmith4tx commented
        Something is changing the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere pretty fast

        How fast? Be quantative.

    • Global warming is good. Good for both Flora and Fauna. One can follow the rise of civilisations and their food source back to 2700BCE (with good certainty, and possibly further back still). Those instances have happened with regularity, spaced about 980 years apart.
      It is what happens at that peak that is troubling. The downturns may start slowly but have been definite (CO2 of not). Sometimes the change was abrupt and devastating. It may occur any time from the peak down to mid cycle about 980/2 yrs later. (examples see “1175bce when civilisation collapsed” but starting at 1300bce; and at 600CE starting at 535ce).
      Multiple events, all related, but seen at every cycle. Climate, sea level, volcanic, geologic change; they are all there.
      The problem with ‘blind’ humanity is to see the proverbial ‘Elephant’ holistically.

      • David A: I half expected this. But you should have read it all. And then checked the evidence. It is all there.
        The important issue on the matter is that until the last ‘GW’ at the MWP, humanity had not changed one bit in its ‘way of life’ as regards obtaining its sustenance and caring for its food source (the wooden plough was still the same as Sumerian times). It was not so difficult to pick up again.

        Not so now. The food chain has become so specialised that a slight disturbance can be disastrous. (We have seen that with Covid. The rush for toilet paper, but taking the food source for granted, until the long queues. Oblivious that starving people can do without toilet paper.) The story from the farms was different and tragic. One does not change horses easily in mid-race.

        Global warming is good, but heralds change.
        As climatereason | May 7, 2021 at 3:07 pm | there said, from Le Roy Ladurie in his book ‘Times of feast times of famine”. Look out for studies on ‘Famines’. (the 4k2 event; Aegean collapse ~1250bce; ~300bce; 535ce; and the century around the LIA). We don’t quite see it in a life-time, a single generation, but when three generations remember and compare from what the granddads heard from their granddads (see the posts of cerescokid ) than you begin to see change.

      • David Appell

        Global warming is good, but heralds change.

        You state this with no evidence whatsoever, so it can be dismissed with on evidence whatsoever.

      • Something is changing the ratio of oxygen in the atmosphere pretty fast. It seems out of sync with this greening of the planet meme due to increasing CO2. I don’t see a imminent crises but I don’t like the trend.

      • Curious George

        Jack, oxygen levels have always been negative, and falling fast …

      • Curious George

        “Their reference is based on tanks of air pumped in the mid 1980s which are stored at the Scripps Institute laboratory in La Jolla, California.”
        Maybe the graph tells us more about the reference than about the atmosphere?

      • David Appell

        Curious George wrote:
        Jack, oxygen levels have always been negative, and falling fast

        Oxygen levels are negative. Genius.

        Falling fast? Compared to what? Prove it. Show the data.

      • Curious George

        David A, we know that you are an incomparable genius, who does not have to bother to look at Jack’s link
        That’s where the data is. Enjoy.

      • David A: Sorry could not reply earlier — and also meantime updated something.
        Please see bottom updated pic at here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/

        The added info is from many sources, some quite recent. They can all be readily checked independently (don’t rely on my saying so). But the main subject is my own ‘research’ which I stumbled upon (a spinoff from other interests). It will not be found anywhere else (But it is the only evidence that I myself has put to the test and confirmed; see https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/first-blog-post/ )

      • One can also opt for a much longer perceptive. The charts at this site are very informative; see https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/predictability-past-warm-periods-renee-hannon/
        Even here, for the present glacial cycle, the 8k2 event is indicated. But one can also make out the sharp reversals at the 7k2 (5200bce) and the 5k2 (3200bce). ( A lot of data here for one to dissect and correlate, not least the geological aspect).

      • Something new and interesting has come up.
        Quoting myself (from above) “It is what happens at that peak that is troubling. The downturns may start slowly but have been definite (CO2 of not). Sometimes the change was abrupt and devastating.”
        https://vnexplorer.net/tag/3-7kyrbp-kikkar-event . 3.7kyr is 1750bce, a near precise Eddy peak. Very abrupt change it is said. Best wait for more details and solid evidence. Sure, there likely was a small jump in CO2 afterwards.

  11. Geoff Sherrington

    Re the paper by Noble et al, sensitivity to Antarctic ice melt, the one Judith says is an excellent review paper, has this sentence “The marine-based sectors of Antarctica, meaning the portion of the AIS that lies below global mean sea level (GMSL), contain enough fresh water to raise GMSL by approximately 25 m ”
    What is going on here? It is common knowledge that ice melting in watery surroundings does not raise the level appreciably, Archimedes and all that.
    While the sentence might be correct in measurement terms, is it correct in terms of what happens in nature? Is it thought that the sub-sea ice is solidly connected to land ice and forced underwater, as opposed to being broken and disconnected and floating? I am confused. Geoff S

  12. Future sea level change due to polar ice melt is assumed to be a climate change thing in cmip5 and cmip6 of course, but that overlooks known geological drivers of ice melt in those locations.


    • David Appell

      What geological drivers?

      • The ones documented in the linked post

      • David Appell

        Yeah, I didn’t find it very well written, in terms of intent to convey information to readers who didn’t want to study it for the next week. How about a summary?

      • It was summarized just fine. A person has to be motivated to learn the science. Most of the hype is about WAIS and the inherent instability of the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers complex in the Amundsen Sea Embayment. The interest is about the acceleration of ice movement and the englacial and subglacial dynamics and how much geothermal activity is affecting basal melting and ice discharge, in addition to the the oceanic interface with the glaciers.These papers aren’t that long to grasp the issues. Blankenship 93, Schroeder 14, Loose 18. There are a couple of dozens of other papers that discuss the potential effects of geothermal activity on the 2 above glacier systems.

    • David Appell

      Another nonsummary. Antarctic glaciers are changing on too fast a time scale (~10^(2-3) yr) compared to geologic drivers (~10^5 yrs).

      But the biggest problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to expect geologic drivers to start up coincident with the industrial era.

      • If you would have actually done some research you would know that englacial and topography affect the speed of the ice streams. Extensive research shows the acceleration of PIG started pre CO2.
        Do you ever get the feeling you’re backing the wrong horse.

      • David Appell

        cresco: what i never get is the impression that you are ever relevant.

      • Rob Starkey

        David has some objective measure of individuals relevance.

        Perhaps only views that mirror yours are relevant to you.

        Also good luck with Alan and physics.

      • Dave
        Start some science instead of relying on 5th grade equations.
        It is clear that the distribution of fast‐ice‐flow in Pine Island Glacier basin is strongly controlled by the sub‐glacial topography.
        Vaughan 2006

      • David Appell

        I’ve never cited an equation for an Antarctic glacier.

      • “ 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 (Corr and Vaughan, 2008, Jordan et al., 2010, Bingham et al., 2012, Chaput et al., 2014, Schroeder et al., 2014). Further constraining the nature of the geology beneath Thwaites Glacier will help distinguish the subglacial contribution to ongoing regional changes from atmospheric and oceanic forcings.”
        SCAMBOS 2017

      • The talk around the campfire is that you have fallen behind. Climate science is more complex than equations.

      • Curious George

        David a: Do you maintain that the climate science has no equations?

      • Sorry to have disappointed you yet again.

  13. Didn’t see this in the post, but its very good on climategate and the structural problems in modern science.


    “There appears to be a pattern, not limited to climate science-politics, in which the mass energy galvanised by celebrities (who always speak with certainty) strengthens the hand of activists to organise campaigns in which any research institution that fails to discipline a dissident investigator is said to be serving as a channel of “disinformation”. The institution is placed under a kind of moral receivership, to be lifted when the heads of the institution denounce the offending investigator and distance themselves from his or her findings. They then seek to repair the damage by affirming the ends of the activists in terms that out-do the affirmations of rival institutions.”

    • “The ramped-up moral content of pronouncements that are ostensibly expert-technical needs to be explained. I suggested there are two rival sources of political legitimacy, science and popular opinion, that are imperfectly reconciled through a kind of distributed demagogy, which we may call scientism. This demagogy is distributed in the sense that interlocked centers of power rely on it to mutually prop one another up.

      But as this arrangement has begun to totter, with popular opinion coming untethered from expert authority and newly assertive against it, a third leg has been added to the structure in an effort to stabilise it: the moral splendor of the Victim. To stand with the Victim, as every major institution now appears to do, is to arrest criticism. Such is the hope, at any rate.”

      • David Appell

        This is laughable gobbledygook. Utterly irrelevant to science, by someone who knows none of it but is full of themselves.

      • It’s the best explanation of the problem with modern science and how it has been captured by “wokeness,” a fundamentally unscientific dogma. Institutional science is inherently problematic.

        I doubt if you have actually read it and thought about it.

      • David Appell

        I doubt you know much about modern science. You make things up to feel better about your ideology.

      • The best explanation for the problem of broken science is that it isn’t.

      • I think you know nothing about what I know. I’ve been doing this for 45 years as an author, reviewer, grant seeker, grant reviewer, running a team. Modern science is broken and overrun with false positive results, marketing misrepresentations and as is probably the case with Cook Univ and reef research, skewing of results to keep the grants coming. And then there is the nasty part about cancelling scientists who disagree with the narrative. Fluid dynamics modeling is shot through with false narratives such as; with a powerful enough computer and a model with all the physics, I’ll get the right answer.

        You are a science journalist, a flak who popularizes what you haven’t really done since graduate school.

      • spy
        “ I think you know nothing about what I know.
        That could be said for a few denizens around here.
        Some believe life experience involves counting cement blocks in Mom’s basement. Many in here have been in position of authority which counts for a lot more than working in theory and equations.

    • jungletrunks

      You nailed it, dpy. We’ve seen how tactical hegemony goals have been implemented in history, where the evolution of implementation became quite draconian; progressing to evil. But history too has been “woked” in instances where it needs to uphold a narrative, or be redirected. I’d be worried if the academics who write history books were dominated by a particular political orthodoxy, motivated reasoning being what it is…

  14. Reportedly, England is on course to have the coldest April since 1659. So much for the simplistic ‘global warming’ model of our weather:


    • Oops.. May not April

    • David Appell

      Reportedly, England is on course to have the coldest April since 1659. So much for the simplistic ‘global warming’ model of our weather:

      Reportedly, you don’t understand the science of climate change.

      • Rowan Dean is spot on by comparing this abnormally cool May to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, characterised by a low number of sun spots.

        He’s not yet up to speed with the latest research linking the solar magnetic reversal cycle of ~22-years with climate change on Earth, specifically the changing of La Nina/El Nino conditions of the equatorial ocean.

        The mechanism for the change goes back to the time of Newton, namely gravity, but unfortunately high theism of the era prevented a rational explanation a.k.a. a spinning corkscrew particle.

        How the two big agendas of civilisation will be resolved is unimaginable, yet inevitable.

      • “The mechanism for the change goes back to the time of Newton, namely gravity..”

        I’m proposing that a third body if affecting *both* the Earth and Sun, so the question “how does the Sun cause El Ninos” becomes redundant.

      • David Appell

        Rowan Dean is spot on by comparing this abnormally cool May to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, characterised by a low number of sun spots.

        1) Bull
        2) Sunspots matter little for climate
        3) Sunspots are increasing again
        4) A Maunder Minimum would barely affect greenhouse warming
        5) The Maunder Minimum didn’t cause the Little Ice Age

      • David Appell

        He’s not yet up to speed with the latest research linking the solar magnetic reversal cycle of ~22-years with climate change on Earth, specifically the changing of La Nina/El Nino conditions of the equatorial ocean.

        ENSOs don’t effect long-term climate.

      • David Appell

        I’m proposing that a third body if affecting *both* the Earth and Sun, so the question “how does the Sun cause El Ninos” becomes redundant.

        And the causal mechanism is?

      • David Appell

        Your 1.03

        I wrote this in my article of 2015

        “The effect of sunspots on the climate is contentious. Looking at the data in Figure 8, it appears that the impact of the second half of the Sporer minimum on temperatures is difficult to discern. The Maunder minimum however appears to largely coincide with colder years, whilst the Dalton minimum is more mixed. However, there had been many cold years prior to the onset of these sunspot minimums and cold years returned after they had finished, so the relationship appears unproven and may be coincidental, where there is some correlation.”


        Of course sunspots are now being counted in different ways and our ability to note sunspots is better than 300 or 500 years ago. However I think the correlation between sunspots and a cooling climate is weak and contentious at present.


      • “And the causal mechanism is?” – Appell

        Something different to what you’ve been taught.

        I’m proposing a strong gravitational attraction between exotic compact cores. The third body would exert an extra strong gravitational tidal effect when crossing the solar plane on it’s 980-year orbit.

        Equatorial warm bottom waters are pushed to higher latitudes. Warm air gets pushed up into the stratospheric polar vortex, where it gets trapped but periodically released.

        Last year was a hot summer. This year the extra energy has been released from the polar vortex, hence the cold start to the summer in the Northern hemisphere.

      • David Appell

        Alan Lowey commented
        I’m proposing a strong gravitational attraction between exotic compact cores. The third body would exert an extra strong gravitational tidal effect when crossing the solar plane on it’s 980-year orbit.

        What does “strong” mean?

        What does “exotic” mean?

        What does “compact” mean?

        What’s the evidence for your hypothesis?

      • David

        I never said there was. But it is what many people believe. I cant see the link myself


      • billbedford

        1) Bull
        2) Sunspots matter little for climate
        3) Sunspots are increasing again
        4) A Maunder Minimum would barely affect greenhouse warming
        5) The Maunder Minimum didn’t cause the Little Ice Age

        I was expecting some science not handwaving.

      • jungletrunks

        I don’t want to get into trouble with the local DA; but it’s my understanding that science has slowly been slowly building on the body of knowledge for how sunspots might effect climate. It’s understood that sunspots are created from pent up gravitational entanglement on the suns surface, these in turn increase solar flare activity, which in turn increases the intensity of solar winds. Some in science believe solar winds play a larger role in Earths climate than consensus believes. An excerpt from Scientific America frames it like this: “Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions.” Sounds to me like there hasn’t been an adequate experiment developed to conclusively confirm consensus “beliefs”; but rather that society has to do what consensus wants first; before they’ll maybe concede the science was unsettled after all relative to solar wind. For starters.

      • Ulric Lyons

        The Sporer minimum proper began around 1425 and continued to around 1470, the colder period from 1550 is a separate and unnamed centennial solar minimum.
        The Maunder minimum coldest period ran from the sunspot cycle maximum near to 1672 through to the sunspot cycle maximum in 1705, for three cycles max to max. In the Dalton minimum, the coldest period ran from 1807 to 1817, for just one cycle max to max, and those years are noted for a lack of aurora observations (Secular variation of the aurora for the past 500 years. Silverman 1992).
        The Gleissberg minimum main colder period was 1885-1895, one cycle max to max. And there are sporadic deeper cold events on the lead up to and just past the central colder periods, like the few colder years in the 1660’s.

      • David Appell


        There is no evidence that connects any of these sunspot periods with the cooling periods.

        If you think there is, provide it.

      • “What’s the evidence for your hypothesis?” – Appell

        A recent study, published April 2021:
        A new study shows a correlation between the end of solar cycles and a switch from El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean.

        Due to the change in solar irradiance being too insignificant to affect Earth’s climate, the *only* other logical alternative is gravitational forcing.

        Just because it requires new physics doesn’t diminish the logical conclusion that it must be so. It’s concrete direct up-to-date evidence of my hypothesis.

      • ….
        They found there was only a 1 in 5,000 chance or less
        Now that a sixth terminator event — and the corresponding start of a new solar cycle in 2020 — has also coincided with an La Nina event, the chance of a random occurrence is even more remote, the authors said.
        The paper does not delve into what physical connection between the Sun and Earth could be responsible for the correlation.”

        New physics gravitational forcing has only a 1 in 5000 chance of being incorrect.

      • Ulric Lyons

        David at 1:15pm
        Your belief that there is no evidence doesn’t dictate whether any exists or not. There’s plenty of evidence for days and weeks of slower solar wind states correlating with negative the NAO/AO episodes which drive the regional extreme cold winter periods.

      • David Appell

        Ulric wrote
        Your belief that there is no evidence doesn’t dictate whether any exists or not. There’s plenty of evidence for days and weeks of slower solar wind states correlating with negative the NAO/AO episodes which drive the regional extreme cold winter periods.

        Cite three peer reviewed papers claiming so.

      • Ulric stretches credibility to breaking point – Lowry is a Red Queen – six impossible things before breakfast. David is a serial pest with a drive by shooting aberration and fixed ideas.





      • This is the only blog I visit. Unlike yours – it feeds my curiosity, broadens my reading and maintains habits in thought and communication. I have spent a lifetime in science, engineering and policy. I should start playing golf now because of a pest like you?

      • “What’s the evidence for your hypothesis?” – Appell

        A recent study, published April 2021:
        A new study shows a correlation between the end of solar cycles and a switch from El Nino to La Nina conditions in the Pacific Ocean.

        Due to the change in solar irradiance being too insignificant to affect Earth’s climate, the *only* other logical alternative is gravitational forcing.

        David? You have yet to answer

      • “Recent studies highlighting the presence, and traceability, of the 22 year magnetic cycle of the Sun have revealed the occurrence a new type of event in the solar lexicon—the “Terminator” (Dikpati et al., 2019; Hurd & Cameron, 1984; McIntosh et al., 2019). Stated simply, a terminator is the event that marks the hand‐over from one sunspot cycle to the next. It is an abrupt event occurring at the solar equator resulting from the annihilation/cancelation of the oppositely polarized magnetic activity bands at the heart of the 22 years cycle; that is, there is no more old cycle flux left on the disk. Put another way, a terminator is the end of a Hale magnetic cycle.”

        The Hale cycle is an obvious candidate as a driver of decadal ocean and atmospheric variability – given the correspondence in periodicities. The two halves of the Hale are not quite mirror images with subtle differences in solar winds and the IMF. Solar magnetism modulates the Mansurov Effect – see Lam et al just above – in the polar regions and changing polar surface pressures drive changes in the polar annular modes. That in turn change patterns of winds and currents in all the world’s oceans producing climate variability at all scales. Notably in the prominent 20 to 30 year band.

        Occam doesn’t need Alan Lowry.

      • I was asking for David’s opinion, not yours RIE. Your obfuscation is sooo predictable..

      • Good luck with Alan and physics, oceanography, helioseismology… Any of the natural sciences really.

    • Alan

      Its still very early in May to make that sort of forecast. The weather has many opportunities to flip many times. The problem over the last month or more has been the persistent easterly and a northerly. These are cold directions at this time of year and also brought us very dry weather.

      Yesterday with the rain, the winds changed to a more westerly direction which is warmer and wetter, a southerly flow is now expected which hopefully will mean I can turn my central heating off at last. Its been on for 6 weeks longer than usual but that’s weather


    • Ulric Lyons

      For Central England, the first week of May 1979 was more than 2°C colder than the first week of May 2021.

      • David Appell

        Ulric Lyons commented:
        For Central England, the first week of May 1979 was more than 2°C colder than the first week of May 2021.

        Where there you go — on a tiny patch of land, for a tiny bit of a time, there was a bit of cooling.

        Explain why this was meaningful.

      • Ulric Lyons

        David, obviously the cold start to May 1979 did not portend another Maunder Minimum either.

      • Ulric

        Are you going to make one of your forecasts for the rest of the year?


    • David Appell


      “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
      DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168

      • Davuid

        The very next paragraph of the link to my article on the LIA dealt with volcanism. I seem to remember Dr Mann was keen on the theory as his tre rings did not pick up the cold interval around 1250.

        “Moving on to the volcano data shown in Figure 9 – where impacts are as contentious as that of sunspots – it is said the massive 1258 eruption and a group of others a few decades later (outside the time scale of this article) helped to precipitate the LIA. Whilst there may appear to be some cause and effect with some of the volcanos listed, it is again by no means clear cut, as cold years often occurred prior to eruptions and returned when any effect of the sun screening emissions must have been washed out of the atmosphere. This is Hubert Lamb’s take on the matter, in the context of an appraisal of his work on the subject;

        ‘This painstaking work, using scientific reports from the well-documented eruption of Krakatoa in 1883, and also from Iceland, the Mediterranean, Alaska, Greenland, Kamchatka, and elsewhere, led to his thesis which developed an assessment of the world’s volcanic eruptions since 1500. His paper, ‘Volcanic dust in the atmosphere… A chronology and assessment of its meteorological significance’, was published by the Royal Society in 1970. And with its publication, the Lamb Dust Veil Index entered the scientific literature.

        “My investigations had shown that beyond reasonable doubt that great volcanic eruptions do affect the weather and climate for several years afterwards, while suspended materials – not only the fine dust, but minute droplets and even gases – thrown up into the atmosphere by the blast are still present.”

        The study showed that it was the greatest explosions in the low latitudes between about 30°N and 30°S that most regularly yield products that spread around the world, and that the most regular effect of such eruptions was a weakening of the strength of the global circulation. Whereas an eruption in the middle and high latitudes tended to strengthen the circulation in that hemisphere.”

        This web site [link] describes the Smithsonian institute volcanism programme which provides details of eruptions throughout the world over thousands of years.”

        The Miller paper was looked at in great detail at the time. Volcanism undoubtedly has an effect but time and again it is shown to be short lived.


      • David Appell | May 9, 2021 at 1:17 pm


        “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
        DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168

        Been there … analyzed that. Didn’t hold up.


      • “Been there … analyzed that. Didn’t hold up.” – Willis

        New physics gravitational forcing would encompass an increase in volcanism but the “sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks” is definite BS.

      • Ulric Lyons

        David, that is a dead end. Large tropical volcanic eruptions have a positive influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation, which tends to slightly warm the following 1-2 northern hemisphere winters. Extreme cold winter periods are discretely solar driven, they can happen any time, and the larger volcanic eruptions tend to follow soon after them.

      • David Appell

        climatereason: vulcanism didn’t cause the LIA.

      • David

        It is your Link that claims it did


      • David Appell

        Ulric Lyons commentedLarge tropical volcanic eruptions have a positive influence on the North Atlantic Oscillation, which tends to slightly warm the following 1-2 northern hemisphere winters. Extreme cold winter periods are discretely solar driven, they can happen any time, and the larger volcanic eruptions tend to follow soon after them.

        That’s such comical acausal BS, let’s talk about astrology instead.

      • David Appell

        Tonyb, yes, I think you’re right and I”m wrong. Thanks for getting me back to reality on this.

        “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
        DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168

      • David Appell | May 9, 2021 at 4:48 pm |

        Willis wrote:
        Been there … analyzed that. Didn’t hold up.

        Willis, you’ve shown here you don’t even know how to apply trends to data, so your little blog posts at WUWT, which are blocked from the critique of so many of those with a scientific education, are meaningless to science.

        Tell your boy Anthony to grow a pair.

        What a curious way to tell people that you can’t find a single scientific objection to my work …

        Well, to be fair, laughably you did claim that my using linear regression to determine the trend of individual satellite data was “unscientific” …

        I note that no one agreed with your objection. That’s understandable, since AFAIK that’s how you determine a trend.


      • Ulric Lyons

        Apell, there are plenty more sources to add to this, read and learn:

        “Impact of explosive volcanic eruptions on the main climate variability modes”

  15. Gaseous Planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune T1bar mean temperatures 165 K, 134 K, 72 K comparison
    All data are satellites measurements.
    R – semi-major axis in AU (Astronomical Units)
    a – planet’s average albedo
    N – rotations /day – planet’s spin
    T1bar – planet atmosphere at 1 bar average temperature in Kelvin
    T 1 bar……165 K….134 K……72 K
    Coeff…0,388880… 0,306264…0,170881

    Comparison coefficient:
    [ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
    Let’s compare
    Jupiter coeff. /Saturn coeff. =
    = 0,388880 /0,306264 = 1,2698
    T1bar.jupiter /T1bar.saturn = 165 /134 = 1,2313

    Jupiter coeff. / Neptune coeff. =
    = 0,388880 /0,170881 = 2,2757
    T1bar.jupiter /T1bar.neptune = 165 /72 = 2,2917

    Saturn coeff. /Neptune coeff. =
    = 0,306264 /0,170881 = 1,7923
    T1bar.saturn /T1bar.neptune = 134 /72 = 1,8611
    Gaseous planets Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune average T1bar temperatures relate the same way as the rocky inner planets Mercury, Moon and Mars average surface temperatures, and also as the Earth with Europa average surface temperatures.
    The comparison coefficient is the same:
    [ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
    The planets are being separated in groups (Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune – H2, He), (Mercury, Moon and Mars – regolith), and (Earth with Europa – H2O) only by their similar specific heat.
    The observed Jupiter and Neptune having the closest coefficient vs planet’s temperatures at 1 bar level comparison rates, can be explained by the fact that Jupiter and Neptune have the closest the H2% and He% atmospheric gases content.
    Thus, everything else equals, Gaseous Planets’ average at 1 bar level Temperatures relate to Planets’ Rotational Spins fourth root [ (N¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴.

    • Correction: Instead of fourth root
      It should be:
      “Thus, everything else equals, Gaseous Planets’ average at 1 bar level Temperatures relate to Planets’ Rotational Spins sixteenth root [ (N¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴.

  16. Beta Blocker

    Here are two recent articles by Dr. James Conca concerning nuclear power:

    “China Will Lead The World In Nuclear Energy, Along With All Other Energy Sources, Sooner Than You Think”


    “Do New Nuclear Reactor Designs Change The Nuclear Waste Issue?”


    The latter article points out that burning coal generates more physical volume of waste in just one hour than the entire nuclear industry has generated in the seventy-six years since the end of World War II.

    IMHO, the only rational approach to managing our spent nuclear fuel is to leave it on the surface in dry cask storage. We have plenty of time, a hundred years or more, to decide whether we want to either reprocess it or else to permanently bury it in an underground repository.

    • from the article:

      “During their 13th Five-Year Plan period from 2016 to 2020, China built 20 new nuclear power plants with a total capacity of 23.4 GW, doubling their total capacity to 47 GW. And that is expected to happen again during their next 5-year plan, which has a new target of 70GW of nuclear generation before 2025. And it keeps going.

      According to Luo Qi of China’s Atomic Energy Research Initiative, “By 2035, nuclear plants in operation should reach around 180 GW” which will be more nuclear than the United States and France combined. China is even setting up a nuclear university in Tianjin to train nuclear workers for this expansion.”

      Since Appel and Willard are tied up denying the sun and praising Greta (on another thread), I’ll help them out by addressing this: none of the above is possible because:
      1. “but nuclear” is just Exxon playing Climateball.
      2. Nuclear is “too expensive”, therefore we must build things that are more expensive and less reliable.
      3. Greta says replace transportation with sailboats. Do it for the children!
      4. Climate change may be an existential threat, but it’s not serious enough to do THAT. Plus, how will Putin control the EU economy if he doesn’t control their energy?
      5. “But China” is a ridiculous way to dodge the issue, everyone knows Chinese CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere. Anyway, China is powered by windmills and solar panels, the Guardian said so a decade ago.
      6. Notwithstanding numbers 1-5, you can completely believe any promise made by the Chinese Communist Party* (*with the caveat that they be non-binding and subject to regular, lengthy delays of promised achievement dates. )

    • Beta Blocker

      Here is another article by Dr. Conca published this week:

      ‘Expert Recommendations On Nuclear Waste May Fall On Deaf Ears – Yet Again’


      IMHO, all of America’s spent nuclear fuel will remain perfectly safe being stored right where it is either at currently operating power plants or at those which have been retired, even if it is for a hundred years or longer.

      The advantage here is that responsibility for its safe management is always assured because those who live and work closest to where it is being stored will make absolutely certain that it is always being properly managed.

  17. In the article about pricing climate risks into property values, how do they know the ownership horizon for each buyer? Perhaps, the purchaser is anticipating ownership for 5 years. In a 100 years floodplain that would be 5% risk of flood. And if prospective buyers are not persuaded by the AGW of increased floods then they might not be overpaying. If a sea change has occurred in the tenure of home ownership with shorter duration of ownership then pricing might reflect the appropriate risk.

    • Somewhere there will be a 1% annual exceedance probability event – you might have low chances of winning the lottery – but someone will.

      The 1% AEP – more formally than the 100 year event – means that there is a 1% chance of being flooded in any year. There is a 10% chance of being flooded in a 10 year period, 40% in 50, etc. .


      In the bigger picture – developing floodplains increases downstream flooding.

      • Chief
        Agree with all you said. I was trying to explain why an individual might not price in risk. It could be there planning horizon is so short and if their plan is to live there only 5-10 years as opposed to 30-40 years they might ignore their long term risk since they are going to be out of there.

  18. ENSO+PDO modulate the global energy budget with nonlinear, positive sea surface temperature feedbacks in marine boundary layer stratocumulus. The state of the Pacific Oceans changes over decades to millennia.


    Upwelling in the eastern Pacific is influenced by meridional or zonal wind patterns in the polar annular modes. Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).

    Polar surface pressure is the driver of more meridional or zonal polar winds and this is likely influenced by solar variability of one kind or another.

    e.g. – Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity? – https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/metahttps://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020EA001223

    The globally coupled Pacific state modulates climate on all scales with changes in reflected shortwave.

  19. I have this idea for a cartoon. Small house on wind farm, birds dying. Cat meows at door next to dead bald eagle. Native man on phone.
    Friends asks, “who you talking to?”
    “I’m on hold with the department of the interior.”
    “I’m trying to find out if I can keep the feather from the eagles my cat kills.”
    “What do you want to use them for?”
    “I was hoping Elizabeth Warren could teach me how to make a headdress over a beer.”

  20. … from Article, did the drop in covet activity affect the climate…?

    “The models showed a decrease in aerosol optical depth—a measure of how much sunlight is blocked from reaching Earth’s surface because of aerosol particles—and an increase in the amount of solar radiation reaching the planet’s surface, with the greatest impact seen over India and China.”

    By the logic of Western academia’s fallacious global warming alarmism modeling, we must conclude that China and India will save the globe from catastrophic warming with their sunblocking pollution.

  21. ‘Here we present a multi-species, multi-year and multi-life-stage examination of the sensory and behavioural impairments that have been reported for coral reef fishes under end-of-century levels of CO2, thus answering an international call for comprehensive replication studies on issues of global importance21. Notably, we took great care to enhance transparency by systematically documenting our experiments and providing raw data and analysis code. In contrast to previous studies on the same and closely related species, we found no consistent detrimental effects of end-of-century CO2 levels on the avoidance of predator chemical cues, activity levels or behavioural lateralization. Although CO2 emissions are an environmental threat3,30, the catastrophic projections for fish sustainability based on CO2-induced behavioural impairments12,13 must be reassessed in light of our findings.’

    The fish study I posted earlier – https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/08/week-in-review-science-edition-126/#comment-949203

    Science is not broken – and the claim that it is is a subterfuge to relieve yourself of the obligation to sort the wheat from the chaff – true scientific skepticism – or undertake the synthesis that is at the heart of ‘the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078

    Nonetheless – climate science is settled enough to pursue pragmatic policy options. Let me reprise this as a reminder that what is at stake is the economic security of people and the conservation and restoration of global ecosystems. The big risk here is not greenhouse gases but neo-socialism.

    ‘The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’ http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/


    CO2 concentration in the atmosphere depend on a balance between emissions from volcanoes, temperature related biokinetic feedback and in the modern period anthropogenic emissions – and geological sequestration. Concentrations at the PETM were insufficient to cause all the warming – but sufficient to result in an extinction event. Tapio Schneider suggests a cloud feedback – and mathematically analysed a mechanism. Igor Polyakov says that the Arctic may be in transition to a new state. There is a prospect of triggering an exit from the Holocene this century one way or another under high economic growth scenarios. I would put either as more likely than a gradual increase in mean global surface temperature. The solution to anthropogenic emissions is as always development of cost competitive energy technologies.


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

    In the best sense geo-engineering is underway on a large scale and has great promise. But unless contrarians recognise the potential and strike out in a new direction – you will continue like jiminy to be voices in the wilderness.

    e.g. https://judithcurry.com/2021/05/08/week-in-review-science-edition-126/#comment-949217

  22. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-scientific-method-identity-politics-11620581262

    Another scary sign that science is corrupted and that what I linked above by Matt Crawford is correct. Crawford explains this as a desparate attempt by the science establishment to re-establish their authority by co-opting victims status.

    • Great interview with former Obama official Steven Koonin, which references his book ‘Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t & Why It Matters’.

      I would dispute the opening consensus that the world has warmed by around 1°C since about 1900. I would agree that the mid-high latitudes have increased in average air temperature but not necessarily the equatorial regions. The summary for policy makers of AR5 showed a global map with equatorial ocean temperature change pixelated out in white squares. It’s as if the data was normalised to fit a pre-existing assumption of greenhouse gas global warming. The scientific community is unaware of an alternative explanation in the form of new physics gravitational forcing, which would account for the behaviour.

      • Mornin’ Alan (UTC),

        As luck would have it I have recently been reviewing Steven Koonin’s new book.

        For some strange reason it makes no mention of the “new physics gravitational forcing”. Even more weird is the fact that it makes no mention of one established explanation for “high latitude increased average air temperature”. Namely Arctic ice-albedo feedback:


        I was compelled to acquire my own review copy, and have just purchased the electronic version. I eagerly searched the virtual weighty tome for the term “Arctic sea ice”, and you may well be wondering what I discovered?

        Nothing. Nada. Zilch. ничего такого. Nic.


      • Hello Jim.

        Your explanation for increasing warming at high latitudes relatively to the equator being due to sea-ice loss is a joke. You need to quantify this loss of reflected solar energy back into *outer space* and see that it is minuscule relative to the amount of warming.

        I’ve pointed this out in a discussion before but the poster declined to respond. Just to clarify for you: infra-red isn’t reflected off sea-ice as much as visible light. The visible light gets absorbed by the atmosphere and cloud cover before it reaches outer space. It’s this figure which every paper/article fails to calculate.

        You can’t just say “40% of the sun light gets reflected” and equate this value to temperature change.

        Do you begin to see what I mean?

      • Afternoon Alan,

        I don’t recall providing “my own explanation”. Merely “one explanation” that included an explanatory video for the benefit of apparent cryospheric neophytes such as Steve Koonin?

        For anybody who might wish to dig a little deeper perhaps they could take a look at this recent review paper?


        The Arctic Ocean is a focal point of climate change, with ocean warming, freshening, sea‐ice decline, and circulation that link to the changing atmospheric and terrestrial environment. Major features of the Arctic and the interconnected nature of its wind‐ and buoyancy‐driven circulation are reviewed here by presenting a synthesis of observational data interpreted from the perspective of geophysical fluid dynamics.

  23. Chris Morris

    Contradiction in the Forbes windpower issue. They talk about the assets being amortised over decades but a bit later, talk of repowering every ten years. A preprogrammed answer. And the author praises how the blades can be ground up make concrete filler to be Net Zero!! Advocacy with any sense of reality. No doubt it will be quoted by all the Green New Deal politicians.

  24. Clint,
    > One of the many mistakes in “climate science” is dividing Earth’s incoming solar flux by 4. That division reduces the temperature of the target. In the case of Earth, the average temperature would be only 255K (-18.1C, -0.5F). By claiming Earth should be that cold, they can then claim CO2 must be supplying the extra warming. Clint R says:
    May 9, 2021 at 7:53 PM (in https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-688348 )

    The highlighting is mine…
    Exactly!!! And they do that mistake – dividing the solar flux by 4 – for every planet and moon in the solar system. The solar flux division by 4 is a first-step very primitive theoretical approach for the planet’s average temperature very approximate estimation.

    By basing the entire climate science on the solar flux’s division by 4 the +33oC non existing Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect was established. And the non existing +33oC number haunts the climate science since 1981!


  25. David Wojick

    My latest on the phaseout of HFCs in the name of climate change:

    A true mess.

  26. I’m struck by Dr. Curry’s link to “New enemies of the open society,” https://www.aier.org/article/the-new-enemies-of-the-open-society/

    This references the work of philosopher Karl Popper. His thinking on individual freedom is succinctly summarized:

    “The open society is characterized by recognizing every human being as a person: the person has an inalienable dignity. When we think and act, we are free. This freedom gives rise to fundamental rights. These are rights of defense against external interference in one’s own judgement about how one wants to conduct one’s life.

    “By contrast, according to Popper, the intellectual enemies of the open society are those who claim to possess knowledge of a common good. This knowledge is both factual-scientific and normative-moral: it is moral knowledge about the highest good together with technocratic knowledge about how to steer people’s lives in order to achieve this good. Therefore, this knowledge stands above the freedom of individual people, namely above their own judgement about how they want to shape their lives.”

    The common good? As in, “we’re all in this together” and therefore it’s necessary to enact medical mandates for the population in order to stay safe, and thus necessarily to create a medical police state? Note how easily an expanded police state has been created, of necessity! Don’t wear a mask? The police will come if you don’t get in line. The point I’d like to make here is that it’s well and good for the government to make medical recommendations to stay safe, but medical mandates are the road to hell paved in good intentions: just ask the victims of the various forms of eugenics that emerged, for example. Those programs were first and foremost for the so-called “common good.”


    This common good mentality that supposedly trumps the idea of individual liberty is now being expanded in another “stay safe” scenario, that of staying safe from imminent and catastrophic climate change, as Greta Thunberg warns us in a new PBS special. Of course, this danger will necessitate measures to ensure that everyone is all in this together; otherwise we all burn up. This new normal is encapsulated in the “build back better” motto of the great reset folks, and emergency measures will be necessary to stop the plague of catastrophic, runaway climate change, just as they were to stop the plague of Covid-19. Emergency measures: an expanded police state, as it’ll be necessary to monitor and manage people for the greater good of preventing planetary hell.

    The problem with all these notions of common good and greater good is that someone has to decide what this overarching common good is, if it isn’t that individuals should be free, within the broad limits of the law, to pursue their own lives as they see fit without excessive government interference: a quaint idea established in the American Constitution, which document is now being subverted by a pseudo-history called the “1619 Project” (after all, those bastards were mostly slaveholders, right?) Whoever decides what the common good is, is often looking for tyrannical power instead, since they’re so certain they’re right and the unwashed masses of self-determining individuals, as well as dissenters from the established doctrines, are so wrong that it’s beyond debate.

    The real danger facing us isn’t Covid-19 or catastrophic climate change; it’s the creeping loss of our freedoms under the guise of “necessary” measures.

    • Bill Fabrizio

      Don132 … I thought the article was good, as well. Popper is a rich source. In “The Open Society …” one of his interesting ideas was piecemeal social engineering. If I could be permitted to summarize, it’s social engineering through trial and error, meaning we try things to advance the common good and if they workout fine. If they don’t, we abandon the method and try something else. The beauty of this, for me, is that it attacks the fundamental weakness of bureaucracies, which are social structures whose purpose is social control. And so, as such, they stand in opposition to the individual.

      The author states: “The burden of proof thus is reversed: it is no longer required to provide concrete evidence that someone impairs the freedom of others with certainty of their actions. Rather, everyone must prove from the outset that their actions cannot have unintended consequences that potentially harm others. Accordingly, people can free themselves from this general suspicion only by acquiring a certificate that clears them – like a vaccination certificate, a sustainability passport or a social pass in general. This is a kind of modern sale of indulgences.”

      Bureaucratic coercion can take many interesting forms.

      And, who is usually in control of bureaucracies? The technocratic elites, or their representatives. A distinct minority.

      You also might find Popper’s discussion of norms of interest: “To sum up, it is impossible to derive a sentence stating a norm or a decision or, say a proposal for a policy from a sentence stating a fact; this is only another way of saying that it is impossible to derive norms or decisions or proposals from facts.” Chapter 5, page 62. (Couldn’t put the original italics in.) There’s much to unpack there (And he does a bit in footnote 5.), and no doubt argue with, but my take is that policy needs more than a narrow set of facts to justify its implementation. Which relates to our subjects here of climate change, covid 19 and bureaucracy vs individual freedom.

    • Wow. Thank you Don, for the Skye News Cory Bernardi video.
      My comment: Well done, cobber! Good on ya, mate! Any possibility of getting the text of that presentation, so we can educate our children?
      Not that they’d understand the ironies and the sarcasm…

  27. Charles Darwin on the carpet for his white superiority. How is this relevant to the problems facing societies in the 21st Century? This is further evidence that we are taking the ETR off the ball. Instead of obsessive navel gazing our focus ought to be on external matters. What a a waste of time.


  28. ‘The real danger facing us isn’t Covid-19 or catastrophic climate change; it’s the creeping loss of our freedoms under the guise of “necessary” measures.’

    Quite apart from getting your own house in order?

    e.g. https://www.heritage.org/index/

    You need to have a big picture that has electoral appeal.

    ‘The Paper therefore proposes that the organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be.’ http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/

    Put billions into advanced nuclear reactors, be God’s steward of the natural world. create wealth and opportunity and build resilient infrastructure. It’s not rocket science.

    • Also, everyone should get a Unicorn that poops Gold.

      • There are billions being put into advanced nuclear, conservation and restoration proceeds apace, billions of people have emerged from poverty in the past 50 years and resilient infrastructure should be left to engineers and not smartarse bloggers.

  29. ‘We find that under our estimated demand shifts and supply scenarios (which account for policy reform and technology improvements), edible food from the sea could increase by 21–44 million tonnes by 2050, a 36–74% increase compared to current yields. This represents 12–25% of the estimated increase in all meat needed to feed 9.8 billion people by 2050. ‘ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2616-y

  30. I have a novel idea to reduce emissions. Instead of having the Post Office make mail delivery 6 days a week, how about 3 days a week or even 2 days a week. It’s been several years since I’ve received something in the mail that required immediate action and couldn’t have waited another day. All bills are paid electronically. The only thing I get 99% of the time is junk mail.

    An infinitesimal impact? Yes. Just symbolism? Yes, but with Wokeism and Cancel Culture fashionable these days, isn’t that is what it’s all about? No substance. All show.

    • ckid

      You might like my termite plan. Termites produce more co2 than man so all we need to do is extermnnate them and take their shore of co2. Genius. Then we can move on up through the species.


      • jungletrunks

        I like your idea, Tony. We should immediately summon the Left to start picking termites out of rotten trees, it will keep them busy. Such would be a global win/win.

      • jungle trunks

        we need to keep to unpopular and non photogenic creatures so I am open to the next species we should cancel once we have used up the termites ration of co2.

        Ocean seagrass could be the next candidate species, which in a win win situation we could feed to dairy cattle


      • Tony

        I like your idea also. I have wood siding and I’ve often wondered what has been going inside my walls. I’ve also wondered if those woodpeckers putting holes in my siding have been after termites. But if the termites go then I wouldn’t have the fun of throwing sticks at the woodpeckers. Given how difficult that is, I’ve abandoned up all hope of throwing fastballs again.

  31. Cooling in and around Antarctica is fathering pace


    Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

    The southernmost tip of South America has experienced rapid cooling in the last several centuries. In “the most recent decades” the climate has deteriorated to the coldest sea surface temperatures of the last 10,000 years.


    Not only has the sea ice around Antarctica been advancing in recent decades in tandem with Southern Ocean cooling (Fan et al., 2014), but the entire Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice extent has been creeping northwards since the 1970s (Comiso et al., 2017).

    See also:


  32. David Young might appreciate:

    A team of researchers at the University of Washington Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) has found evidence that suggests the number of people who have died due to COVID-19 is much higher than official reports would indicate. They have undertaken a country-by-country analysis of deaths due to COVID-19 that includes factors associated with the pandemic as a whole and have published their results on the IHME website.


    We should expect JohnI to make the media rounds soon.

  33. How an exotic compact core (exerting a strong gravitational force which interacts weakly with known matter) acting as a ‘seed’ for planetary formation is somehow missed by mainstream science is astounding:

    This poses something of a challenge for planetary formation models. It’s thought that planets form from a bottom-up, pebble accretion model, in which small chunks of rock are electrostatically bound together until the planetary “seed” is large enough to gravitationally attract more and more material – eventually forming a planet.

  34. Who is thinking the cool summer of the Northern hemisphere will continue all the way through and who thinks that it will break due to the ending of La Nina conditions?


  35. FollowTheAnts

    Very interesting readings

    Assessment by JP Morgan highlights strategic flaw in almost all the recommendations by the “climate remediation industry” –
    – most people focus on the environment “above their feet”

    Old story:
    Senior engineer says to junior engineer:

    “Love the fact that your answer goes out to 7 decimal places. But the numbers to the LEFT of the decimal are wrong.”

    So what?

    Check history – what’s the cheapest, most durable, and most widespread source of temperature balance for the human environment?

    Passive geothermal (and similar thermal gradients in water)

    See widespread use of “adobe” over world history and today

    I worked with a number of mining companies. What’s one of their largest problems? Managing extreme heat underground.

    In a conference several years ago senior mining engineer asserts: “If everyone dug a 10 meter hole in the ground next to their house and installed simple air/liquid exchanger in it – then the variable seasonal heating and cooling requirements for the house would drop by (big percent) and be much less volatile.”

    They had experimented with this in many locations including the “tailings” piles they had to manage over decades.

    Supporting evidence: see prevalence for many forms of “adobe” over history. You can visit still-standing centuries-old adobe dwellings around the world and feel this for yourself.

    I could demonstrate this for you in my passive solar house. Basement balances temperature swings on upper floors amazingly well.

    We are planning to waste trillions of dollars on – low mass – Rub Goldberg inventions – like the failing Towers of Power in Californnia….

    …when the ju jitsu energy balance solutions are underfoot everywhere we walk.

    Wealthy lemmings come to mind.

  36. More evidence that mainstream science is missing the basic concept of an exotic core that creates water and other elements:

    But the fact those particles might be seeping out of the core and into the mantle is surprising, and suggests we may need to factor a leaky core in future research and modeling, the researchers said.

  37. Peter Lang

    Rolls-Royce to roll out Small Modular Reactors by 2030

    “the UK Small Modular Reactor (SMR) project has revamped the proposed mini reactors to increase their output. The factory-built reactors will now generate 470 megawatts, enough to provide electricity to a million homes.”

    “The project, launched in 2015, aims to bring ten mini nuclear reactors into use by 2035, with the first due to enter service around 2030.

    Tom Samson, chief executive of the UK SMR Consortium, said negotiations had begun with potential investors to fund the creation of the mini reactors – signalling that the project may move more rapidly than previously thought.

    He said it was looking for customers, which could include energy, industrial or technology companies, to operate the sites. He added: ‘We’re ready to take this technology to market. We’re going to be pursuing orders. We’re hoping to get orders soon.’

    The UK’s nuclear power industry has had a chequered recent past with the future of some huge plants thrown into doubt. Rolls-Royce hopes to create a nimbler solution to complement big power stations.

    Rolls-Royce is the major share holder in the venture, which has been developed through a consortium that includes Atkins, Jacobs and Laing O’Rourke. The Government has so far invested £18million to support its design and £215million has been earmarked for the SMR programme as part of a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’.

    Samson said a further £300million of private capital is now being sought to develop the reactors, which it hopes will be located both in the UK and overseas. […]

    Samson said 220 engineering decisions had been made in the latest designs. He said the switch from an ‘armadillo’-shaped building to one with a ‘faceted’ top allowing the roof to wrap around the inner workings made it more efficient.

    The Prime Minister’s former chief adviser Dominic Cummings was a champion of the UK SMR programme, but Samson said No10 remained behind the project and it chimed with current policy.

    He added: ‘We unashamedly wrap ourselves in the Union Jack. This is a really proud UK innovation that we’ve developed here at low cost. And that’s what consumers need.

    ‘We’re contributing to the Government’s levelling-up agenda. We’re also contributing to its post-Brexit global Britain agenda.’ ”

    Continue here: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9581899/Rolls-Royce-starts-hunt-buyers-nuclear-reactor-boost.html

  38. Yet more evidence indicating a new physics version of gravity is required:

    Now, an international team including a University of Michigan physicist has analyzed a database of more than 1,000 supernovae explosions, supporting the idea that the Hubble constant might not actually be constant.

    Instead, it may change based on the expansion of the universe, growing as the universe expands. This explanation likely requires new physics to explain the increasing rate of expansion, such as a modified version of Einstein’s gravity.

  39. 4:35 – 7:00 .. There’s amazing footage of a mystery dark body that is very close to the sun. It appears above the equator and below the equator (Note sun is 7° to planetary plane). I propose this is nucleic density exotic matter which exerts a strong gravitational pull on the core of other bodies in the solar system. The pull would be even greater when on the same plane, giving rise to gravitationally forced climate change here on Earth:


    • / Set the controls for the heart of the sun
      Over the mountain watching the watcher /


    • The main researcher of this phenomena has concluded over the years that it orbits every 28 days. I’ve just pointed out to him that this implies a 1:1 orbital resonance with the sun’s core, due to the equatorial spin rate being 27 days. All that is required is Einstein’s gravity theory to be proved wrong and replaced with compact exotic cores which attract via a *strong* gravitational force.

    • Whoa!! There’s footage from 2012 of a dark body slowing down as it orbits close to sun’s surface, with an exotic matter cord to the sun’s exotic core, before breaking off and accelerating away!

      This is confirmed footage from SOHO by NASA:


      • If the last occurrence was 9 years ago, then it makes sense to consider this as the source of the quasi 9-13 year solar cycle (sunspot cycle).

    • I’ll make the prediction that a solar observing telescope will be placed in the closest Lagrange Point (L1) of Mars, so Planet X will be seen in transit and it’s quasi-orbit established in detail.

  40. Here’s direct evidence which fits the hypothesis that exotic dark matter exerts a strong gravitational pull on the exotic core of stars but only very weakly with known matter:

    In the summer of 2014, astronomers watched with giddy anticipation as a cloud of gas, known as G2, swung dangerously close to a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Sparks didn’t fly, nor did a feeding frenzy ensue. Instead, G2 zipped by unscathed, surviving what astronomers thought would be a near-death experience.

  41. Recent Dark Matter survey concludes Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong”:


    • There is nothing like a deep dive into cosmology – and Alan Lowry is nothing like a deep dive into cosmology.

      ‘To test cosmologists’ current model of the universe, DES scientists compared their results with measurements from the European Space Agency’s orbiting Planck observatory. Planck used light signals known as the cosmic microwave background to peer back to the early universe, just 400,000 years after the Big Bang. The Planck data give a precise view of the universe 13 billion years ago, and the standard cosmological model predicts how the dark matter should evolve to the present. If DES’s observations don’t match this prediction, there is possibly an undiscovered aspect to the universe. While there have been persistent hints from DES and several previous galaxy surveys that the current universe is a few percent less clumpy than predicted — an intriguing find worthy of further investigation — the recently released results are consistent with the prediction.’ https://news.fnal.gov/2021/05/dark-energy-survey-releases-most-precise-look-at-the-universes-evolution/

      • The DES team are naturally cautious about the implications of Einstein’s gravity theory being fundamentally wrong:

        Although calculations by the DES team suggest that the distribution of this matter is broadly consistent with predictions in the standard model, it is not a perfect fit. “If you look out into the universe, the matter isn’t as clumpy as expected – there are hints that it is smoother,” said Jeffrey.

        “It may seem a relatively small thing, but if these hints are true then it may mean there’s something wrong with Einstein’s theory of general relativity, one of the great pillars of physics.”

      • A beat up from The Guardian? I don’t know why it is a bit clumpier than evolution from the big bang suggests. It is guaranteed not to be Alan’s climate change thought bubble.

    • 2:03
      Building on the work of Einstein, Carlos Frenk was among a group of scientists that developed the current model of cosmology:
      “Hearing now that there may be something not quite right with the theory.. well it’s very disconcerting. It’s very alarming and in a way frightening.. to see that may be my whole life’s work might crumble in front of me .. but at the same time it is immensely exciting.”

      Professor Carlos Frenk has the inner honesty to admit he is frightened that Einstein’s GR might be proved wrong – something RIE fails to acknowledge outwardly.

    • He quotes from the transcript of the 2 minute BBC story that he previously posted. He should check the source. Everyone should check the source. A rule to live by.

  42. Paper about fire activity in the Southern Hemisphere out today.

    “ Here, we present evidence from records of 14 Antarctic ice cores and 1 central Andean ice core, suggesting that historical fire activity in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) exceeded present-day levels. To understand this observation, we use a global fire model to show that overall SH fire emissions could have declined by 30% over the 20th century…”

    “ the global burned area observed by satellite decreased 24% over the past two decades,”
    “ An overly large aerosol cooling implies that models might overestimate TCR and ECS to reproduce historical temperature response (41). A recent study using one of the latest-generation CMIP6 climate models (E3SM) suggested that reducing both the magnitudes of negative aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity yields a better agreement with the observed historical record of the surface temperature (42). Ten in 27 of the CMIP6 climate models have an ECS higher than the upper end of the range (1.5° to

    4.5°C) estimated by previous generation models. These high ECS values,
    however, are not supported by paleoclimate constraints (43).”


  43. Exotic matter cores can account for yet another astrophysical anomaly:

    ..there’s a severe scarcity of exoplanets that measure between 1.5 and two times Earth’s radius. That’s the middle ground between rocky super-Earths and larger, gas-shrouded planets called mini-Neptunes. Since discovering this ‘radius gap’ in 2017, scientists have been sleuthing out why there are so few midsize heavenly bodies.

  44. Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I抣l be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!